US Politics

Donald Trump’s one-time lawyer Rudy Giuliani hurled profanities at a person attending a parade in New York City, calling him a jackass and saying: ‘You are probably as demented as Biden.’
The video of the former New York mayor’s verbal clash had garnered more than 440,000 views on Monday morning, just two days after he reportedly met for hours with the US House committee investigating the deadly Capitol riots on 6 January 2021

‘You are a jackass’: video of Rudy Giuliani rant at Israel parade goes viral More

America’s billionaire class is funding anti-democratic forcesRobert ReichBillionaire donors are pushing an unsettling agenda for America – backing Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen, calling for restrictions on voting and even questioning the value of democracy itself Decades ago, America’s monied interests bankrolled a Republican establishment that believed in fiscal conservatism, anti-communism and constitutional democracy.Today’s billionaire class is pushing a radically anti-democratic agenda for America – backing Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen, calling for restrictions on voting and even questioning the value of democracy.Peter Thiel, the billionaire tech financier who is among those leading the charge, once wrote, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”Thiel is using his fortune to squelch democracy. He donated $15m to the successful Republican Ohio senatorial primary campaign of JD Vance, who alleges that the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s immigration policy has meant “more Democrat voters pouring into this country.”Thiel has donated at least $10m to the Arizona Republican primary race of Blake Masters, who also claims Trump won the 2020 election and admires Lee Kuan Yew, the authoritarian founder of modern Singapore.The former generation of wealthy conservatives backed candidates like Barry Goldwater, who wanted to conserve American institutions.Thiel and his fellow billionaires in the anti-democracy movement don’t want to conserve much of anything – at least not anything that occurred after the 1920s, which includes Social Security, civil rights, and even women’s right to vote. As Thiel wrote:
The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women – two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians – have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
Rubbish. If “capitalist democracy” is becoming an oxymoron, it’s not because of public assistance or because women got the right to vote. It’s because billionaire capitalists like Thiel are drowning democracy in giant campaign donations to authoritarian candidates who repeat Trump’s big lie.Not incidentally, the 1920s marked the last gasp of the Gilded Age, when America’s rich ripped off so much of the nation’s wealth that the rest had to go deep into debt both to maintain their standard of living and to maintain overall demand for the goods and services the nation produced.When that debt bubble burst in 1929, we got the Great Depression.It was also the decade when Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler emerged to create the worst threats to freedom and democracy the modern world had ever witnessed.If freedom is not compatible with democracy, what is it compatible with?Last Tuesday night, Doug Mastriano, a January 6 insurrectionist and Trump-backed big lie conspiracy theorist, won the Republican nomination for governor of Pennsylvania (the fourth largest state in the country, and the biggest state that flipped from 2016 to 2020). Mastriano was directly involved in a scheme to overturn the 2020 election by sending an “alternate” slate of pro-Trump electors to the electoral college – despite the fact that Trump lost Pennsylvania by more than 80,000 votes.If Mastriano wins in November, he will appoint Pennsylvania’s secretary of state, who will oversee the 2024 election results in one of the most important battleground states in the country.Meanwhile, the major annual event of the Conservative Political Action Conference (Cpac) – the premier convening organization of the American political right – was held this past week in Budapest.That’s no accident. The Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán and his ruling Fidesz party have become a prominent source of inspiration for America’s anti-democracy movement. Steve Bannon, Trump’s former adviser, describes Orbán’s agenda as that of a “Trump before Trump”.Orbán has used his opposition to immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, abortion and religions other than Christianity as cover for his move toward autocracy – rigging Hungary’s election laws so his party stays in power, capturing independent agencies, controlling the judiciary and muzzling the press.He remains on good terms with Vladimir Putin and has refused to agree to Europe’s proposed embargo of Russian oil.Tucker Carlson – Fox News’s progenitor of white replacement theory – broadcast his show from Budapest. Trump spoke remotely. Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows also spoke (although he refuses to speak to the House committee investigating the January 6 assault on American democracy).If America and the world should have learned anything from the first Gilded Age and the fascism that began growing like a cancer in the 1920s, it’s that gross inequalities of income and wealth fuel gross inequalities of political power – which in turn lead to strongmen who destroy both democracy and freedom.Peter Thiel may define freedom as the capacity to amass extraordinary wealth without paying taxes on it, but most of us define it as living under the rule of law with rights against arbitrary authority and a voice in what is decided.If we want to guard what is left of our freedom, we will need to meet today’s anti-democracy movement with a bold pro-democracy movement that protects the institutions of self-government from authoritarian strongmen like Trump and his wannabes, and from big money like Peter Thiel’s.
Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
TopicsUS politicsOpinionRepublicansSilicon ValleyPeter ThielcommentReuse this content More

Don’t believe those who say ending Roe v Wade will leave society largely intactLaurence H TribeIf the high court adopts Alito’s draft opinion, it will be a legal tidal wave that sweeps away a swath of rights unlike anything America has ever seen Now that the dust has begun to settle after the initial explosive news that the US supreme court is poised to overrule the right to abortion and that Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization represents what a majority of the court initially voted to do, among the most revealing ways to understand the devastation the court appears ready to wreak on America’s long march toward “liberty and justice for all” is to examine the kinds of arguments being made in the opinion’s defense.The argument that such a ruling would simply return a divisive issue to the people had long since been widely dismantled. It certainly wouldn’t be returned to the people most profoundly affected once women were told they may have to remain pregnant despite whatever urgent reasons they might have for seeking a safe and legal abortion. It couldn’t be described as returning the abortion issue to the states, now that the possibility of a nationwide ban that the supreme court might uphold is on the horizon. And to the extent the issue is returned to the states, it would be returned to state legislatures so gerrymandered that they often represent the views of a distinct minority of the people anyway.Ending Roe v Wade is just the beginning | Thomas ZimmerRead moreThe argument that “only” abortion is involved because Alito’s draft assures readers that the supreme court’s opinion won’t be treated as precedent for anything that doesn’t involve killing an unborn human is both profoundly insulting and manifestly misleading. It insults every sentient person by minimizing the significance of commandeering the bodies and lives of half the population – and re-inserting government power into every family. And it misleads every reader of Alito’s words by suggesting that a court has the power to shape how future lawmakers and judges will build on its decisions and the reasoning underlying them. Alito’s hollow promise brings to mind similar assurances in notorious cases like Bush v Gore, is inconsistent with how the judicial process works, and wouldn’t offer any solace to anyone who might become pregnant or whose miscarriage might be treated as a crime scene for police to investigate.The foolishness of the argument that there’s nothing to see here other than the future of abortion law is underscored by some of what is said in its support. We’re told not to worry about the future of decisions like Loving v Virginia, ensuring the right to marry someone of a different race than your own because, after all, Justice Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage. We’re told not to worry about the right to same-sex marriage because, after all, Justice Brett Kavanaugh would never vote to overturn Obergefell v Hodges, the most iconic opinion written by his proud mentor, Anthony Kennedy – the man who left the court only after he had hand-picked Kavanaugh as his successor. We’re told not to worry about contraception (despite the way quite a few people view Plan B or IUDs as forms of abortion) because even supreme court nominees like Amy Coney Barrett, who were cagey about just how “settled” a precedent they deemed Roe v Wade, said they couldn’t imagine anybody today challenging Griswold v Connecticut. All that prognostication is cold comfort to the millions of people whose lives are profoundly affected by these shaky predictions.The most substantial argument is one that is equally fallacious but more sophisticated and in some ways more devious and dangerous: it is the argument that supreme court reversals of precedent, like the reversal of Plessy v Ferguson by Brown v Board of Education, are often to be welcomed as needed course corrections, and that this “course correction” wouldn’t be the first time the supreme court has rolled back decades-old constitutional rights. The many commentators who persisted in describing Alito’s draft in those terms – as an unprecedented retreat in the arc of ever-expanding rights – have recently been denounced as either inexcusably ignorant or deliberately duplicitous by distinguished scholars like Yale’s Akhil Amar, who says that every first-year law student learns that the very same thing happened during FDR’s second term as president, when the supreme court in 1937 in West Coast Hotel v Parrish overturned a long line of decisions that had blocked minimum wage and maximum hours and other worker-protection laws in the name of employers’ rights of “private property” and the “liberty of contract”. To be sure, Amar’s argument echoes that of the Alito draft, which cites Parrish and says, in effect, “nothing to see here, we did the same thing before” when we rolled back the liberty of contract line of decisions in 1937.Justice Alito and Professor Amar are simply wrong: profoundly so. That so-called (and quite misleadingly labeled) “switch in time that saved the nine” was nothing like the switch that Dobbs would represent. The 1937 “switch” was no sudden politically driven turnabout but was in fact the culmination of long-simmering movements in legal and economic thought – movements that were reflected both in scholarship and in judicial opinions from the earliest days of the 20th century in places like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dissent in Lochner v New York insisting that “the 14th amendment does not enact Mr Herbert Spencer’s social statics,” movements that represented the growing conviction that the “freedom” to work at low wages and in miserable conditions was an illusion lacking both moral and legal foundations and one that simply helped perpetuate economic inequality and the exploitation of relatively powerless, not-yet-unionized workers by wealthy and powerful corporations.Indeed, it is noteworthy that West Coast Hotel v Parrish – the 29 March 1937 decision that is usually marked as the pivot point in the great constitutional upheaval – was handed down by precisely the same set of nine justices as the nine who had rendered a decision pointing in the opposite direction less than a year earlier, on 1 June 1936, in Morehead v New York ex rel Tipaldo. One justice of the nine, a moderate Republican named Owen J Roberts, who had been rethinking his position on the underlying legal theories, had foreshadowed his shifting views by writing a landmark opinion upholding milk price regulation, Nebbia v New York, by a 5-4 vote in 1934 – less than two months after the court had upheld a state mortgage moratorium law by a 5-4 vote in Home Building & Loan Ass’n v Blaisdell, a decision clearly foreshadowing the 1937 repudiation of Lochner’s legacy by reconceiving the meaning of the constitution’s clause forbidding all state impairments of the obligation of contracts.That history is important to keep in mind if one is to understand the depth of the error made by those who seek to compare the 2022 tsunami that Dobbs would represent with the gradual shift in current represented by the 1937 movement away from liberty of contract to protection of workers and consumers. The head-spinning and altogether untimely switch in the supreme court’s abortion jurisprudence that Dobbs would represent – if the decision the court announces late this June or early July is in substance what the leaked Alito draft indicated it would be – will reflect not the steady maturation of a long-developing jurisprudential movement but the crude payoff to a partisan political program to take over the federal judiciary, one beginning with Ronald Reagan’s presidency and the rise of the Federalist Society, and advancing with supreme court appointments made by Republican presidents all of whom lost the popular vote (George W Bush, appointing Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts; Donald J Trump, appointing Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett), and made in circumstances of dubious legitimacy.Professor Amar treats as laughably naïve the observation by ACLU national legal director and Georgetown law professor David Cole that, although “Parrish took away some rights of business owners … its real effect was to expand rights protections for millions of Americans subject to exploitation by powerful corporations.” Amar’s rebuttal? He says, and I’m serious here, that it’d be equally legitimate to say that “Dobbs’ real effect would be to expand rights protection for millions of innocent, unborn Americans … unborn humans, subject to extermination by society.”It’s hard to know where to begin in unraveling that alleged parallel. Suffice it to note that the status as rights-bearing persons of embryos and fetuses remains a matter of profound sectarian controversy in America and throughout the world while no such controversy attends the status as rights-bearing persons of the array of workers whose rights, at least under laws designed to limit economic exploitation if not directly under the constitution itself, were indisputably expanded by virtue of the Parrish decision and the overturning of the Lochner line of cases.Perhaps no less important is the indisputable fact that, although there remain a few commentators who continue to think that Lochner was rightly decided and Parrish was wrong, there is a nearly universal consensus, certainly covering the ideological spectrum on the current supreme court, that the “rights” protected by Lochner and the other decisions that Parrish tossed into the dustbin of history were not constitutionally sacrosanct, and that inequalities of bargaining power prevented the common-law baseline that Lochner treated as immune to legislative modification from having any special constitutional status. At the same time, the notions of personal autonomy and bodily integrity that provide the constitutional foundation for the substantive “liberty” at stake in cases like Roe and Casey are almost universally accepted as real, although deep disagreements remain about whether, to what degree, and from what point in fetal development the protection of the unborn fetus can properly trump that liberty.The upshot is that the radical change in law and society that Dobbs would represent truly has no parallel in the history of the supreme court or in the history of the United States. As David Cole writes, the “proper analogy is not Brown overruling Plessy, but a decision reviving Plessy, reversing Brown, and relegating Black people to enforced segregation after nearly 70 years of equal protection.” For, as Jamelle Bouie rightly observed, “equal standing is undermined and eroded when the state can effectively seize your person for its own ends – that is, when it can force you to give birth.” Whether or not one compares that compulsion and forced labor to literal enslavement, as I did in my 1973 article on Roe v Wade, attempts to minimize the huge retrogression this would represent must be dismissed as little more than shameful efforts to camouflage the carnage the supreme court of the United States is about to unleash both on its own legitimacy and, even more important, on the people in whose name it wields the power of judicial review.
Laurence H Tribe is the Carl M Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University, the author of numerous books and articles, a distinguished supreme court advocate, and holder of 11 honorary degrees
TopicsAbortionOpinionUS politicsRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

US economy is on a downhill slide. But Republicans can’t fix it, Biden warnsThe president says frustrated Americans ‘have a choice between two paths’ but that the GOP is not focused on fighting inflation On a recent visit to a family farm in rural Illinois, thousands of miles away from the front lines of the grinding war in Ukraine, Joe Biden lashed out at his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, blaming him for destabalizing global food supplies and driving up the cost of groceries at home.Russia’s assault on Ukraine, Biden explained after a tour of the farm’s fields and grain bins, has dramatically reduced food exports from the warring nations that together supply more than a quarter of the world’s wheat, causing food prices to spiral.Biden targets America’s wealthiest with proposed minimum tax on billionairesRead more“Right now, America is fighting on two fronts,” the president said. “At home, it’s inflation and rising prices. Abroad, it’s helping Ukrainians defend their democracy and feeding those who are left hungry around the world because Russian atrocities exist.”With less than six months before the midterm congressional elections, Biden is talking about the economy – a lot. It is thetop issue on voters’ minds and, worryingly for Democrats, one of the biggest political liabilities for the president and his party.Despite a streak of steady job growth and low unemployment, Americans are deeply pessimistic about the state of the economy. Inflation, running at nearly its fastest rate in four decades, has become inescapable. Gas prices have surged to record highs as many families struggle to afford the basic necessities like food and rent. Now economists are warning of possible recession. Compounding matters, a shortage of baby formula has left parents in one of the world’s wealthiest countries scrounging to feed their infants.Amid the national tumult over the economy, Biden’s approval ratings have fallen sharply, dipping to the lowest point of his presidency – 39% – this month, according to the latest AP-NORC poll.The visit to the Illinois farm was part of a wider effort by the White House to reset the narrative around the economy after months of unyielding criticism from Republicans, who have used inflation as a political cudgel against Biden.In recent days, Biden has sought to tell a textured story about the economy, one that concludes with the sharp warning that as bleak as it can seem now, the alternative – Republican control of Congress – would be much worse.In his telling, the administration pulled the nation back from the brink of economic catastrophe with a massive stimulus bill and mass vaccination campaign that saved lives and livelihoods during the depths of the pandemic. Two years on, there is much more to do. Naming inflation as his “top domestic priority”, Biden has touted the administration’s efforts to put the economy on a sturdier path by strengthening the nation’s supply chains, cracking down on price gouging and releasing oil from the strategic reserve.Under mounting pressure in recent weeks, he invoked the Defense Production Act to ramp up baby formula production and launched “Operation Fly Formula” to rush shipments into the US from overseas.Yet those actions, he charged, are being undermined by Putin’s aggression in Ukraine that has sent fuel and food prices soaring; new Covid-19 lockdowns in China that are straining supply chains anew; alleged price-gouging by oil companies; and an “ultra-Maga” Republican party intent on obstructing the president at every turn.Biden says he understands Americans’ frustration with rising costs and the slow pace of progress in Washington – so deeply, in fact, he could “taste” it. But electing Republicans, he argued, would not ease their troubles.“Americans have a choice right now between two paths, reflecting two very different sets of values,” Biden said. He charged that the Republican party, still in the thrall of Donald Trump, had no serious plan to tackle inflation and was instead more focused on fighting issues such as banning textbooks from classrooms.In a press release, the Republican National Committee accused Biden of being “desperate to blame anyone but himself for the worst inflation in 40 years”.“But,” it added, “the American people know he is responsible.”For Democrats who hold narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, asking voters for two more years of unified government in Washington is a risk that Biden himself acknowledged.Voters historically punish the president’s party in the midterm elections. And this cycle, Democrats have struggled to energize their base, deflated over the party’s failure to pass Biden’s sweeping agenda, designed to remedy longstanding economic challenges. At the same time, Democrats are struggling to persuade independent and moderate Republicans voters who recoiled from Donald Trump in 2018 and 2020.Whether Democrats can change voters’ attitudes on the economy weighs heavily on their prospects.Public opinion surveys have consistently found that voters have more trust in Republicans to handle the economy and inflation than Democrats. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that only 28% of Americans approved of the job Biden was doing to tackle inflation, while 68% disapproved. The same poll showed that 50% of Americans believe Republicans were better able to handle the economy. Just 36% said the same about Democrats.The political headwinds against them, Democrats believe they have found an opening that will undercut Republicans’ advantage.A plan written by Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, would require all Americans to pay some income tax, including families that don’t earn enough to owe taxes now and would require Congress to reauthorize all federal legislation every five years.Biden recently used his bully pulpit to elevate Scott’s 11-Point Plan to Rescue America, which he attacked as an “extreme” vision for the country.Many Republicans, including Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell have distanced themselves from the proposal. Downplaying the disagreement, the White House said it was the only comprehensive plan Republicans have put forward for the midterm elections. “This is not the last you’ve heard from us about chairman Scott’s tax plan that will raise taxes,” Jen Psaki, in her last week as White House press secretary, said.In a withering response, Scott called Biden unfit for office and challenged him to a debate.“Joe Biden can blame me all he wants,” the Florida senator said. “Here’s the truth: he’s the president of the United States, Democrats control the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats’ agenda is hurting American families and no amount of spin can change that.”A polling memo by Navigator Research, a Democratic messaging group, underscores why the party is seizing on Scott’s plan. It found that the proposal, when described as a plan that would “raise taxes” on millions of working class families and potentially threaten entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare,” was deeply unpopular, even among Republican voters. And when contrasted with the Democrats economic agenda, voters’ views of Biden and his party on the economy improved.Isaiah Bailey, an advisor to Navigator Research, said it was incumbent on Democrats to make voters aware of these dueling visions for the country.“Unpopular positions are only politically meaningful when they permeate public consciousness,” Bailey said. He added that Democrats demonstrate that they are trying to deliver on their promises, even in the face of Republican opposition and procedural challenges like the filibuster.“Democrats really need to look like fighters,” he said.Maria Cardona, a veteran Democratic strategist who has urged her party’s leaders to talk more about the economy with more urgency and empathy, agreed.“For way too long Republicans have gotten away with blaming Democrats, pointing the finger and talking about Biden’s policies,” she said.With so much at stake this fall, including the push to ban abortion if the supreme court overturns Roe v Wade, as is expected, Cardona said it was imperative that Democrats draw a clear contrast with the opposition party.“There’s no question in my mind that we are not taking advantage of the moment in time, when handing over control of Congress to the Republican party is more dangerous for the future of our democracy and for the well-being of our citizenship than it has been in at least a generation,” she said.Surveys suggest that voters broadly understand – and support – the decision to impose sanctions on Russia, even if there are consequences for their pocketbooks. And many cite the ongoing pandemic as a leading cause of the nation’s economic woes. Yet there are signs dissatisfaction with the president’s economic leadership is hardening.“It does not blunt their desire to have you produce a solution,” said Patrick Gaspard, president and chief executive of the Center for American Progress thinktank in Washington. “They’re clear on what the causation is but also clear that they want this president, this Congress, to solve the problem.”A president’s ability to tackle inflation is limited. That power rests largely with the Federal Reserve.Wendy Edelberg, director of The Hamilton Project and a senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, said there are indications that the president’s efforts to shore up the nation’s supply chains are taking root.One of the best steps the White House can take, she said is to “not create additional hurdles for monetary policymakers”.“Let monetary policy run its course,” she said, adding that on that front she believes “they’re doing the right things there”.Aiming to cool the economy, the central bank recently approved the sharpest rise in interest rates in more than 20 years. But Jerome Powell, fresh from being confirmed by the Senate for a second term as chair of the Federal Reserve, acknowledged the challenge of attempting to control inflation without tipping the US economy into a recession.Ahead of Biden’s visit to Illinois, the White House received a dash of good news in an otherwise discouraging report: inflation slowed for the first time in months, though the annual rate remained high. But speaking at a fundraiser in Chicago later that day, Biden acknowledged the difficulty of the task ahead.“It’s going to be hard because inflation is going to scare the living hell out of everybody,” he said. “We have a problem we have to deal with. In the meantime, we can’t take our eye off all that could happen if we do not prevail.”David Smith contributed to this reportTopicsJoe BidenUS economyBiden administrationRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Capitol attack panel to hold six public hearings as it aims to show how Trump broke law Panel aims to publicly outline the potentially unlawful schemes that tried to keep the former president in office despite his defeatThe House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol is expected to stage six public hearings in June on how Donald Trump and some allies broke the law as they sought to overturn the 2020 election results, according to sources familiar with the inquiry.The hearings are set to be a pivotal political moment for the country as the panel aims to publicly outline the potentially unlawful schemes that tried to keep the former president in office despite his defeat at the hands of Joe Biden.According to a draft schedule reviewed by the Guardian, the select committee intends to hold six hearings, with the first and last in prime time, where its lawyers will run through how Trump’s schemes took shape before the election and culminated with the Capitol attack.Subpoenas of Trump allies by January 6 panel set up high-stakes showdownRead more“We want to paint a picture as clear as possible as to what occurred,” the chairman of the select committee, Congressman Bennie Thompson, recently told reporters. “The public needs to know what to think. We just have to show clearly what happened on January 6.”The select committee has already alleged that Trump violated multiple federal laws to overturn the 2020 election, including obstructing Congress and defrauding the United States. But the hearings are where the panel intends to show how they reached those conclusions.According to the draft schedule, the June public hearings will explore Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, starting and ending with prime time hearings at 8pm on the 9th and the 23rd. In between, the panel will hold 10am hearings on the 13th, 15th, 16th and 21st.The select committee appears to be planning for the hearings to be extensive affairs. The prime time hearings are currently scheduled to last between 1.5 and 2 hours and the morning hearings between 2 and 2.5 hours.A select committee member will lead each of the hearings, the sources said, but top investigative lawyers who are intimately familiar with the material will primarily conduct the questioning of witnesses to keep testimony tightly on track.As the witnesses – most of whom are being subpoenaed to appear at the hearings – give evidence that the panel believes will show how Trump and some allies violated the law, committee attorneys will simultaneously flash texts, photos and videos to illustrate the testimony, the sources said.Rudy Giuliani poised to cooperate with January 6 committeeRead moreWhile the exact content and timings of the hearings are still subject to change, the sources said, the panel intends to lay out how the efforts to reverse Trump’s defeat crystallized over a critical 65-day period from the time he falsely declared he won the 2020 election until 6 January.The select committee is expected, for instance, to run through how the Trump White House appeared to coordinate the illegal plan to send fake electors to Congress, the plot to seize voting machines, and the unlawful plan to delay the certification of Biden’s win.The panel is also expected to chart the reactivation of the Stop the Steal movement by Trump activist Ali Alexander and associates, and how he applied for a permit to protest near the Capitol on January 6 but never held the “Wild Protest” and instead went up the Capitol steps.The select committee additionally intends to address the question of intent, such as why Trump deliberately misled the crowd that he would march with them to the Capitol, and why he resisted entreaties to call off the rioters from obstructing the joint session on January 6.“The president’s rhetoric persuaded thousands of Americans to travel to Washington for January 6, some of whom marched on the Capitol, breached security, and took other illegal actions,” the panel said in a March court filing. “Hearings will address those issues in detail.”Capping off the six hearings under the current schedule, the sources said, will be a close examination of video footage of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys militia groups’ leaders meeting in a parking garage the day before the deadly riots, and their movements at the Capitol.That final hearing is notable, the sources said, because the select committee is attempting to connect Trump’s political plan for January 6 and the militia groups’ violence at the Capitol in what could form evidence that Trump oversaw an unlawful conspiracy.The video footage of the militia group leaders at a rendezvous the day before the Capitol attack that the select committee intends to review has also already been referenced in seditious conspiracy indictments, including against the Oath Keepers’ chief Stewart Rhodes.January 6 ‘was a coup organized by the president’, says Jamie RaskinRead moreThe way that the select committee packages and presents each of the hearings isn’t yet final. For example, the final session about the militia groups planning and executing the Capitol attack could be moved around to become the first of the six hearings, the sources said.But the panel’s attorneys have been told which hearings they will lead. Sean Tonolli, who led the inquiry into the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, will be chief counsel for the militia hearings, supported by “gold” team counsel Alejandra Apecechea, and others.The “purple” team has focused on the militia groups, while the “gold” team has examined Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. The “red” team has looked at Stop the Steal, the “green” team at the financing for January 6, and the “blue” team at the government response.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS elections 2020US politicsDonald TrumpDonald Trump JrJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

Will Texas pick a progressive or anti-abortion Democrat in heated runoff?The race between Henry Cuellar and Jessica Cisneros for Congress will answer a key question: is the ‘Democratic machine’ still strong or can progressives win? Two nearly identical text boxes appear on the respective campaign websites for Henry Cuellar and Jessica Cisneros, the Democrats locked in a heated primary runoff to represent south Texas in Congress.Cuellar’s text box warns voters that Cisneros “would defund the police and border patrol”, which “would make us less safe and wreck our local economy”. Cisneros, in turn, blasts Cuellar for opposing “women’s right to choose” amid a nationwide crackdown on reproductive care.Abortion rights: how a governor’s veto can protect women’s freedomsRead moreThe parallel advisories read like shorthand for the battle that’s brewing among Democrats in Texas, where centrist incumbents like Cuellar are facing a mushrooming cohort of young and progressive voters frustrated by the status quo.“I want people to take away from what we’re doing … people-power – people – can go toe-to-toe with any kind of corporate special interest,” Cisneros told the Guardian. “And that we still have power over what we want our future and our narrative to be here in Texas, despite all odds.”Texas-28 is a heavily gerrymandered, predominantly Latino congressional district that rides the US-Mexico border, including the city of Laredo, before sprawling across south-central Texas to reach into San Antonio. During the primary election in March, voters there were so split that barely a thousand votes divided Cuellar from Cisneros, while neither candidate received the majority they needed to win.Now, the runoff on 24 May has come to represent not only a race for the coveted congressional seat, but also a referendum on the future of Democratic politics in Texas and nationally.The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, House majority whip, James E Clyburn, and House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, have thrown the full-throated support of the Democratic establishment behind Cuellar, while endorsements from progressive icons such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have elevated Cisneros as a rising star on the national stage.“If Cuellar wins, this is a story of how the Democratic machine and the old system is still strong in the district. And if Jessica Cisneros wins, the narrative is this is another successful Latina politician … carrying the community forward,” said Katsuo Nishikawa Chávez, an associate professor of political science at Trinity University.Cuellar did not grant the Guardian’s request for an interview.Cuellar and Cisneros – both Mexican American lawyers from Laredo – represent two radically different visions of what south Texas is and could be.Cuellar has served nine terms in the US House of Representatives, where last summer he teamed up with the Republican senator Lindsey Graham to portray migrants as disease carriers and demand that the Biden administration “end the surge” at the US-Mexico border. By contrast, Cisneros, 28, has spent much of her early career fighting on the frontlines for immigrant families and asylum seekers, and part of her platform is more humane border and immigration policies that include a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized residents.Their strategies also diverge on campaign finance. Cuellar has funded years of congressional bids with contributions from donors that have notably included the National Rifle Association and oil and gas industry Pacs. Cisneros, meanwhile, has publicly sworn off campaign donations from corporate Pacs and lobbyists – and yet still far outpaced Cuellar’s fundraising numbers during the first quarter of 2022.At least part of Cisneros’s fundraising success earlier this year may be linked to the FBI’s raid on Cuellar’s home in January, which immediately embroiled his office in scandal. A Texas Tribune analysis found that in the days after the raid, Cisneros’s campaign contributions soared, although what exactly the FBI was investigating remains unclear and Cuellar maintains he has done nothing wrong.Now, in the days leading up to the runoff, another major controversy has taken center stage: the candidates’ opposing views on reproductive care. After a leaked draft opinion went viral suggesting the supreme court’s intention to overturn Roe v Wade – the landmark decision that established a constitutional right to abortion in the US – Cuellar has faced renewed scrutiny from reproductive rights champions as the lone Democratic representative to vote against codifying the right to an abortion last September.Cisneros, in turn, has vowed to protect that right. In a statement following the draft leak, she called on the Democratic leadership “to withdraw their support of Henry Cuellar who is the last anti-choice Democrat in the House”.The 2022 election is Cisneros’s second bid to unseat Cuellar, whom she also ran against in 2020 as a first-time, 26-year-old challenger. After she lost that race by less than 4% of the vote, she said she felt compelled to try one more time.“What folks were telling us over and over and over again was that, you know, the way things are right now isn’t working, and that they want a different version – an alternative version – of what south Texas can look like, because they felt like they were being taken for granted,” Cisneros said.Residents in Texas-28 have a lot working against them, which may explain why some could feel like they and their votes are undervalued. For one, increased voter restrictions, closed or relocated polling places, and other serious barriers that require more time and energy make it so that by design, many Texans of color don’t vote when they perceive an election to be low stakes.“Everything we see looks to be orchestrated in a way that makes voting for Latinos hard and almost impossible,” said Nishikawa Chávez, who suggested it was hard to look at the Texas government’s actions and not recognize a systemic interest in suppressing the Latino vote.In a self-fulfilling prophecy, candidates from both parties also chronically underinvest their limited resources in Latino communities like Texas-28 because they don’t know how to reach them and assume they probably won’t go to the polls, Nishikawa Chávez said.Jen Ramos, a state Democratic executive committeewoman for the Texas Democratic party, has been getting out the vote for Cisneros in Laredo and San Antonio, where some residents have told her it’s the first time their doors have ever been knocked by a political campaign.“The fact that these folks have never had their door knocked on, have never been contacted before, and we’re talking to people and meeting them where they’re at, that’s a real disappointment for an elected official who’s been in office for as long as he [Cuellar] has,” Ramos said.If there was anything Ramos noticed growing up in Texas-28, it was the defeated feeling that nothing ever changed within her community, no matter who was in power. “Henry Cuellar has been in office almost as long as I’ve been alive, and yet nothing has inspired any change or difference, nor has he ever bothered to talk to anybody in the community,” she said.She’s optimistic that things could finally be different with Cisneros representing the district: “I think that Jessica’s race is the very first time in a long time that the region and the community has seen the sense of hope.”But not everyone in the district agrees with the kind of change Cisneros represents. Texas-28 is a perfect microcosm of how Latino voters are in no way a monolith, and closer to the border’s Rio Grande, constituents trend more conservative, Catholic and pro-gun rights than in San Antonio’s working-class neighborhoods, Nishikawa Chávez explained.“It’s a huge district, and it’s cut in such a way to maximize Republican votes,” he said. “And so you get a kind of a schizophrenic area.”Generational and gendered divides complicate matters further. Older voters speak Cuellar’s language around good jobs, border security and Catholic values, while a growing constituency of highly educated young Latinos hear their values represented in Cisneros. Meanwhile, Latina matriarchs are pushing their communities to vote for issues beyond the economy, such as healthcare access, the environment and quality education.Ultimately, the runoff will come down to who actually turns out, a question that may have a larger impact on how politicians appeal to Latinos in future, Nishikawa Chávez suggested.“How this election goes is going to tell us a little bit about the future, about how to approach or how to campaign and to get the votes of … Latino voters in the US,” he said.For now, Cisneros is hoping to find common ground with her neighbors across the district by listening to what they want addressed. “When we’re talking about increasing the minimum wage and Medicare for All,” she said, “they’re kitchen-table issues that, you know, people are much more concerned about.“Change doesn’t happen overnight,” Cisneros added. “Every little thing that we’re doing every single day, I mean, is helping us build a brighter future. But I do know that when we win on 24 May, I really hope that it is the beginning of change in south Texas.”TopicsTexasUS midterm elections 2022US politicsDemocratsfeaturesReuse this content More

Shapiro: ‘Dangerous’ Republican rival Mastriano could override will of votersDemocratic nominee for Pennsylvania governor says if Mastriano wins he could wield power to choose his own slate of electors and overturn presidential election results Josh Shapiro, who was nominated this week as the Democrats’ candidate for governor in the electorally critical state of Pennsylvania, has accused his Republican rival of intending to override the democratic will of voters and pick his own winners in future elections.Shapiro launched his attack on Doug Mastriano in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday. He called Mastriano, a far-right state senator, “dangerous and divisive” and warned that were he to become Pennsylvania’s governor he could wield power to choose his own slate of presidential electors as a means of overturning the results of the 2024 presidential election.“Senator Mastriano has made it clear that he will appoint electors based on his belief system,” Shapiro said. “He is essentially saying, ‘Sure you can go vote, but I will pick the winner’. That’ is incredibly dangerous.”Republicans just nominated one of the most radical governor candidates in history | Judd LegumRead moreFears about the anti-democratic leanings of Mastriano have rippled across Pennsylvania and through the country since he won the Republican primary last week. Were he to go on to defeat Shapiro, the state’s current attorney general, in November he would have considerable powers at his disposal to support what would in effect be an insurrection.As governor, he would theoretically be able to refuse to certify the results of an election even though it had been conducted freely and fairly. He would also have the power to appoint Pennsylvania’s secretary of state – the position that controls all elections in the state.Donald Trump endorsed Mastriano for the governor nomination shortly before the primary. The move was seen as rewarding the candidate’s loyalty in backing the former president’s attempt to cling to power illegitimately in 2020 – as well as paving the ground for a possible similar attempt at insurrection in 2024.Mastriano was one of the most avid proponents of Trump’s “big lie” that electoral fraudsters stole the 2020 race against Joe Biden from him. He was present at the US Capitol on 6 January when Trump supporters and white supremacist extremists made their violent attempt to throw out the election results and keep Trump in office.“Senator Mastriano wants to take us to a divisive and dark place,” Shapiro told CNN. “He has openly talked about, if he were governor, with a stroke of a pen doing away with voting machines which had votes that he didn’t agree with.”Republican ‘big lie’ supporters triumph in sign of Trump’s enduring powerRead morePennsylvania has been a vital swing state in recent presidential elections. Trump won the commonwealth by 44,000 votes in 2016, but he lost it to Biden four years later by 82,000 votes.Mastriano is seen as being so extreme by Democratic strategists that the Shapiro campaign went to the lengths of running adverts during the primary that appeared to boost the Republican state senator – presumably on the principle that his far-right tendencies would make him easy to beat in November. The ad called Mastriano “one of Donald Trump’s strongest supporters” and said if he won the Republican nomination “it’s a win for what Donald Trump stands for”.Shapiro was asked by CNN whether the move was an irresponsible attempt to help a candidate “because you think you can beat him”. The Democratic nominee denied the claim, saying he ran the ad as a way of getting an early start on the general election campaign.TopicsPennsylvaniaDemocratsRepublicansUS politicsUS midterm elections 2022US elections 2024newsReuse this content More

Arkansas Republican admits abortion trigger law would cause ‘heartbreak’ if Roe is reversedGovernor Asa Hutchinson signed near-total abortion ban bill, even though he disagreed with the lack of exceptions for incest and rape The Republican governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, has admitted that an anti-abortion trigger law that he signed on to the books would lead to “heartbreaking circumstances” if Roe v Wade is overturned, in which girls as young as 11 who became pregnant through rape or incest would be forced to give birth.Hutchinson’s remarks give a revealing insight into the twisted human and political quandaries that are certain to arise should the US supreme court, as expected, destroy the constitutional right to an abortion enshrined in Roe v Wade when it issues its ruling next month. The governor told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that in 2019 he had signed the Arkansas trigger law, Senate Bill 6, which would ban almost all abortions the instant Roe were reversed, even though he disagreed with its lack of exceptions for incest and rape.Asked why he had put his signature on the law, despite the fact that it would prohibit all abortions other than in cases where a pregnant woman’s life were in imminent danger, he said: “I support the exceptions of rape and incest … I believe that should have been added; it did not have the support of the assembly.”Under intense questioning from the CNN host Dana Bash, the governor was asked why an “11- or 12-year-old girl who is impregnated by her father, or uncle or another family member be forced to carry that child to term?”He replied: “I agree with you. I’ve had to deal with that particular circumstance even as governor. While it’s still life in the womb, life of the unborn, the conception was in criminal circumstances – either incest or rape – and so those are two exceptions I think are very appropriate.”He added that if the supreme court does throw out the constitutional right to an abortion, then “these are going to become very real circumstances. The debate and discussion will continue, and that could very well be revisited.”But Bash pressed Hutchinson on what would happen if the absence of rape and incest exceptions can’t be revisited in the law that he had personally approved, pointing out that his term as governor comes to an end in January. “If you can’t change [the trigger law], that means girls who are still children, 11- and 12-year-olds, might be in that situation in a very real way in just a couple of months,” Bash said.“Those are heartbreaking circumstances,” Hutchinson replied. “When we passed these trigger laws we were trying … to reduce abortions, but whenever you see that real-life circumstances like that the debate is going to continue and the will of the people may or may not change.”A report by the Guardian this month found that at least 11 US states have passed laws that ban abortions without any exceptions for rape or incest. Such trigger laws are legally written in such a way that they would come into effect the second that the constitutional right to an abortion embodied in Roe were overturned.Earlier this month, a draft majority opinion of the supreme court written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked to Politico. With the apparent backing of five of the six conservative justices on the nine-member court, it would eradicate federal abortion rights in the most aggressive terms.The court has insisted that the draft is not final and that changes to its wording or outcome are still possible. But the country on both sides of the abortion divide are bracing now for Roe to be undone and power over women’s reproductive choices to be handed to individual states like Arkansas.TopicsArkansasRoe v WadeAbortionUS politicsHealthRepublicansUS supreme courtnewsReuse this content More