More stories

  • in

    Biden interviews three Black women as potential supreme court picks – reports

    Biden interviews three Black women as potential supreme court picks – reportsThe White House is urging liberal groups to support nominees against critics’ attacks, CNN reports Joe Biden has interviewed at least three potential supreme court nominees and is expected to reveal his decision by the end of this month, according to multiple sources close to the president.Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra Kruger and J. Michelle Childs – all Black women – were among the contenders who spoke with the president, those familiar with the matter told CNN and the Washington Post.Jackson, who has widely been considered the frontrunner, currently sits on the US court of appeals for the DC circuit after replacing the attorney general, Merrick Garland, in June 2021.Kruger is an associate justice of the California supreme court and has served as the acting principal deputy solicitor general under the Barack Obama administration.Childs currently sits on the US district court for the district of South Carolina and was previously nominated by Biden for a seat on the DC circuit court of appeals.The impending retirement of supreme court associate justice Stephen Breyer has given Biden has the opportunity to fulfill one of his campaign promises: to appoint a Black woman to the supreme court.On Sunday evening Cedric L Richmond, director of the White House office of public engagement, told members of the organization Win With Black Women that “we’re close”.“We know what some of the attacks are going to be: not qualified, affirmative action pick… Well, it wasn’t ‘affirmative action pick’ when we just picked friends, white friends of the president, for all these decades. You know, it was just patronage or whatever they wanted to call it,” Richmond said, according to a source who has direct knowledge of the private conference call.Biden, who is dealing with a growing crisis between Ukraine and Russia, has set the end of February as his deadline to pick a nominee. According to CNN, White House officials have reached out to liberal groups to inform them that Biden will not be shifting from his timeline and urged them to support “top tier” candidates against critics’ attacks.In a statement on Tuesday, Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, said Biden has not yet made a decision.“The President has not yet chosen a nominee. He continues to evaluate eminently qualified individuals in the mold of Justice [Stephen] Breyer who have the strongest records, intellect, character, and dedication to the rule of law that anyone could ask for – and all of whom would be deserving of bipartisan support. He looks forward to announcing a nominee this month.”TopicsUS supreme courtBiden administrationLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Trump praises ‘genius’ Putin for moving troops to eastern Ukraine

    Trump praises ‘genius’ Putin for moving troops to eastern UkraineFormer president says Russian leader made ‘very savvy’ decision to recognise two territories of eastern Ukraine as independent

    Ukraine crisis: live updates
    Donald Trump has said that Vladimir Putin is “very savvy” and made a “genius” move by declaring two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states and moving Russian armed forces to them.Trump said he saw the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis on TV “and I said: ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”The former US president said that the Russian president had made a “smart move” by sending “the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen” to the area.Republicans criticize Biden but party divided over Russia and Putin – liveRead moreTrump, a long-term admirer of Putin who was impeached over allegations he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it could help damage the reputation of Joe Biden, praised the Russian president’s moves while also claiming that they would not have happened if he was still president.“Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened.“But here’s a guy that says, you know, ‘I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent’ – he used the word ‘independent’ – ‘and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”Trump’s intervention was criticized by the two Republicans serving on the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot, who are among the few Republicans who have been critical of the former president. Liz Cheney tweeted that Trump’s statement “aids our enemies. Trump’s interests don’t seem to align with the interests of the United States of America.”Adam Kinzinger, meanwhile, retweeted a screenshot from the House Republicans that showed Biden walking away – which was captioned with the comment: “This is what weakness on the world stage looks like” – to denounce it in fiery terms. Kinzinger wrote: “As still ‘technically’ a member of house Republicans, let me, with all my might, condemn this damn awful tweet during this crisis. You can criticize policy but this is insane and feeds into Putins narrative. But hey, retweets amirite?”During a lengthy speech on Monday that questioned Ukraine’s right to exist, Putin said he recognized the independence of two breakaway regions in Ukraine’s east – the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) – and that Russian troops will be sent there for “peacekeeping operations”.The move has been roundly condemned by western leaders as a dangerous escalation of the tense situation at the border between the two countries and a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said that Putin’s declaration was “nonsense” and that Russia was “creating a pretext for war”. Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, said that Russia was “plainly in breach of international law” by trying to break off the two territories.Other than Cheney and Kinzinger, most other Republicans and leading conservative figures have vacillated between condemning Biden as being weak in his response to the situation and claiming that Putin is being vilified in a conflict that should not interest the US.“Hating Putin has become the central purpose of America’s foreign policy,” said Tucker Carlson, the rightwing Fox News host on Tuesday. “It’s the main thing that we talk about. Entire cable channels are now devoted to it. Very soon, that hatred of Vladimir Putin could bring the United States into a conflict in eastern Europe.”TopicsDonald TrumpVladimir PutinRussiaUkraineUS politicsEuropeRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Trump claims investigations into him are politically motivated. That is a lie | Heather Cox Richardson

    Trump claims investigations into him are politically motivated. That is a lieHeather Cox RichardsonTrump and his supporters are using the language of authoritarians when they denounce cases against him as ‘illegitimate’ Last week, Judge Arthur F Engoron of the supreme court of the state of New York ruled that former president Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr, and his daughter Ivanka Trump must produce documents and testify under oath in a civil investigation into their valuations of their business assets, complying with a subpoena New York attorney general Letitia James issued for their testimony in December.The Trumps can invoke their rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution not to incriminate themselves. This is what Eric Trump did more than 500 times in October 2020, when he testified before members of the attorney general’s office. In a civil trial, however, invoking the fifth can be interpreted negatively.After the decision, James tweeted: “No one is above the law.”The Trumps intend to appeal.The arguments in last week’s hearing raised a troubling point. Trump sued Attorney General James last December, alleging that “[h]er mission is guided solely by political animus and a desire to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against a private citizen who she views as a political opponent.” In the hearing, Trump’s lawyers continually portrayed James’s investigation not as a valid exercise in protecting the rule of law, but as a political attack on Trump. His lawyers argued that James’s investigation is “selective prosecution” and is “unconstitutional”, and that she is pursuing the case only to hurt the former president before the 2024 election.The judge rejected these claims, pointing out, among other things, that none of the 600 or more documents in the case refer to Trump’s politics; they focus on his financial practices. “In the final analysis,” the judge wrote, “a State Attorney General commences investigating a business entity, uncovers copious evidence of possible financial fraud, and wants to question, under oath, several of the entities’ principals, including its namesake. She has the clear right to do so.”Trump’s attempt to portray as political any legal reckoning for him for potential wrongdoing with regard to his finances dovetails with the attempt of Trump and his loyalists to paint the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol as partisan.Repeatedly, they have called the committee “illegitimate” because Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi did not put on it the members Republican House minority leader Kevin McCarthy nominated. She had the right to review his nominations, and she rejected Republican representative Jim Jordan, who has now been implicated in the events of the day, and Republican representative Jim Banks, who had attacked the committee as a partisan exercise “solely to malign conservatives and to justify the left’s authoritarian agenda”. He announced that he would use his place on the committee to investigate the protests of summer 2020 instead of the events of January 6.After rejecting Jordan and Banks, Pelosi asked McCarthy to nominate others in their place, but instead he withdrew all the Republicans from the committee. At that point, she invited Republican representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to join the committee. Although Trump Republicans are portraying Cheney as a turncoat, she voted with Trump’s agenda 92.9% of the time. Kinzinger voted with Trump 90.2% of the time.Nonetheless, Trump loyalists dismiss the two Republicans on the committee and claim the committee is partisan. Some are talking about turning the committee against the Democrats as soon as the House is back in their hands. Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told the Fox News Channel: “I think when you have a Republican Congress, this is all going to come crashing down, and the wolves are going to find out that they’re now sheep and they’re the ones who are in fact, I think, fac[ing] a real risk of jail for the kinds of laws they’re breaking.”Democratic representative Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor and member of the January 6th committee, noted: “That’s the language of authoritarianism.”Meanwhile, in an unusual move against an incumbent of his own party, House minority leader McCarthy has endorsed the Trump-backed primary opponent of Representative Liz Cheney, who is the vice-chair of the January 6th committee. Trump and his allies are working this same game, pressing Wyoming’s Republican governor, Mark Gordon, to back a bill that would change state law to prevent Democrats from voting in the Republican primary, thus likely giving a primary victory to Cheney’s opponent. Although Cheney has said she will not encourage Democrats to support her in the primary, the Trump loyalists are prepared to change the law to put a Trump ally in her place.Last week, Trump lashed out about the legal developments of the past few days. He insisted that the suggestion by special counsel John Durham that operatives for Hillary Clinton spied on Trump as president – a suggestion Durham backed away from today –and Judge Engoron’s decision today were entirely partisan.Trump claimed that Clinton, “one of the most corrupt politicians ever to run for president, can break into the White House, my apartment, buildings I own, and my campaign – in other words, she can spy on a Presidential candidate and ultimately the president of the United States – and the now totally discredited Fake News Media does everything they can not to talk about it.” (These allegations are false, of course.) On the other hand, he said, attorney general James is selectively prosecuting him and his family.“[T]he Radical Left Democrats don’t want [him] to run again,” he wrote, and their targeting of him “represents an unconstitutional attack on our Country… a continuation of the greatest Witch Hunt in history.” Finally, he said, “I can’t get a fair hearing in New York because of the hatred of me by Judges and the judiciary. It is not possible.”There is a dangerous theme running through these stories, as well as Trump’s attack on Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, who is investigating Trump’s attempt to pressure Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia and award that state’s electoral votes to him, rather than to the actual winner, Joe Biden. Earlier this month, Trump told attendees at a rally in Texas that he hoped they would take to the streets with “the biggest protest we have ever had”, if “these radical, vicious racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal”.Trump and his loyalists are setting up the idea that any attempt to hold Trump and his allies accountable for illegal activities – including the attempt to overturn the 2020 election and thereby destroy our democracy – is a partisan attack. While that argument will undermine the rule of law, there is a twist to it: if Republicans can convince their voters that Democrats have engaged in partisan prosecutions of Trump and his allies, the Republicans can justify partisan prosecutions of Democrats as soon as they get the opportunity, just as Gingrich suggested. If this rhetoric works, Trump can undercut legitimate prosecutions, while Democrats will become fair game for partisan prosecutors.This is indeed, as Representative Raskin said, the language of authoritarianism.
    Heather Cox Richardson is an American historian and professor of history at Boston College. She is the author of Letters from an American, a daily newsletter about American politics and history
    TopicsDonald TrumpOpinionUS politicscommentReuse this content More

  • in

    ‘They do not bend the knee’: US right courts UFC as NFL nods at social justice

    ‘They do not bend the knee’: US right courts UFC as NFL nods at social justiceConservatives see Dana White’s UFC as an ideal market to engage with a valuable demographic: young men Last week, Republican senator Ted Cruz posted a photo of himself alongside UFC legend Chuck Liddell. The photo, which showed the two men posing with raised fists, was the latest example of a politician using an athlete’s star power, in this case to pander to a younger demographic. It also underscored the American right’s ongoing love affair with the UFC.Over the past few years, UFC has become synonymous with rightwing politics due to its well-documented relationship with former president Donald Trump. As previously reported by the Guardian, the organization effectively became the sports arm of the Maga regime and was an ideal platform for Trump to espouse his political agenda.Jake Paul’s war on Dana White has escalated to diss tracks. What’s his endgame? Read moreUFC president Dana White was among Trump’s most boisterous supporters, having campaigned for the former president as far back as 2016. White has since defended Trump’s policies, produced a documentary on him Combatant-in-Chief, and even used his relationship with the former president to defy government mandates at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.During the 2020 presidential election, Trump deployed several UFC fighters as campaign surrogates, placing them in front of crowds at rallies in swing-states such as Florida in order to secure a key demographic that forms the majority of mixed martial arts’ fanbase: young men.And though Trump lost the election, Republicans continued to flirt with the UFC in order to benefit from the organization’s popularity.UFC fighters and executives have become regular guests on conservative shows such as those hosted by Sean Hannity and Candace Owens. Over the past few months, Owens has invited fighters like UFC lightweight Beneil Dariush to discuss the woes of communism while White was brought on to discuss the supposed importance of keeping politics out of sports.“It’s America,” White told Owens in April 2021 when asked about the UFC’s supposed political apathy. “That’s the way it’s supposed to be. And you shouldn’t have to go to work and listen to that shit.”While White’s assertion is tenuous at best due to his own history with Trump, his comments endeared him to conservative audiences dissatisfied with the rise of social justice narratives in leagues such as the NFL and NBA. By taking saying the UFC does not support so-called “woke politics,” White is essentially positioning the organization as a fitting alternative for the American right. This, in turn, has warmed conservative pundits and politicians to the organization, which they now view as a market for their ideology.Among the politicians who embraced the UFC over the past year is Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, who invited the organization to host UFC 261, a capacity-crowd event in Jacksonville, Florida, in April 2021. DeSantis, who is viewed as a contender for the Republican nomination in 2024, has been criticized for using his state’s limited Covid restrictions to increase his political clout. Hosting a capacity-crowd UFC show during a particularly difficult period during the pandemic was a clear show of defiance.“This is going to be the first [indoor] full-throttle sports event since Covid hit anywhere in the United States and I think it’s fitting,” DeSantis said to a cheering crowd at the UFC 261 pre-fight press conference. “Welcome to Florida. You guys aren’t the only ones looking to come to this oasis of freedom.”It is worth noting that UFC 261 was celebrated by the likes of Steve Bannon, as well as user wrote on a QAnon Telegram channel with more than 20,000 subscribers. “Watch UFC.”UFC fighters have also stepped into the political arena in recent months. In December 2021, lightweight contender Michael Chandler spoke at Turning Point USA’s Americafest event alongside conspiracy-monger Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump Jr, and alt-right personality Jack Posobiec.Chandler first made his political leanings clear when he questioned the results of the 2020 presidential election, tweeting at the time “is Joe Biden really just taking the mic to talk about how ‘patient’ we have to be and how ‘long’ we are going to have to wait AKA we are going to contest these results…hard #wakeupsheep.” The fighter deleted the tweet shortly thereafter.Other UFC fighters such as Colby Covington, whom the Guardian described as the athletic embodiment of Trump’s politics, continues to strengthen his ties to prominent conservatives such as Trump Jr and Owens. In fact, Owens revealed that it was Covington who helped her become a fan of the UFC and that she plans to attend his upcoming fight against fellow Trump loyalist Jorge Masvidal at UFC 272 next month.“I will definitely be there [at UFC 272],” Owens said on Full Send podcast. “100% will be there. I love Colby.”Owens previously called for the UFC to replace the NFL as America’s national pastime, a term that was once reserved for baseball. “[The UFC] is exploding right now and it’s because they do not get involved in politics. They are not woke and they do not bend the knee,” Owens said, adding that the UFC is the “only real sport left.”It is perhaps no surprise many on the right identify more with the UFC than the NFL. Although the league is currently being sued for racial discrimination in a high-profile lawsuit, it has at least paid lip service to social justice in recent years, particularly after the police murder of George Floyd. According to a recent survey, approximately one-third of those polled stated that they were less of a fan of the NFL now than they were five years ago. The poll found that those who did not approve of the NFL’s current stance on social justice were disproportionately Republican, and that 45% of those who identified themselves as Republican believed the NFL was doing “too much” to show respect for Black players. Whether this disapproval is actually making a difference to the NFL’s bottom line is debatable. Viewing figures for the 2021 regular season were up 7% on the year before, so some Republicans are clearly still tuning in.Nevertheless, since the NFL’s policies no longer coincide with Republican ideals, the American right has since shifted much of its attention to the UFC, a hyper-masculine sport that is popular among young men.As Republicans forge ahead with shaping the GOP’s post-Trump future, they will continue to rely on the UFC as an ideological incubator and a breeding ground for future supporters.TopicsUFCMMAUS politicsUS sportsNFLReuse this content More

  • in

    Dwight Chapin on his former boss: ‘Richard Nixon was not a crook’

    InterviewDwight Chapin on his former boss: ‘Richard Nixon was not a crook’David Smith in WashingtonThe former secretary to the disgraced president talks about his new memoir and what it was like to go to prison for Nixon He was at the side of the American president on one of the most important diplomatic trips in history, enjoying sumptuous banquets as a guest of Chinese dictator Mao Zedong.Three and a half years later he was in prison after becoming first person to go on trial in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, despite protesting his innocence.Carl Bernstein: ‘Our democracy, before Trump, had ceased to be working well’Read moreBut half a century on, Dwight Chapin is not bitter and does not blame Richard Nixon for his fall from grace. On the contrary, he believes that the jowly-faced 37th president – who resigned in shame in 1974 – was a brilliant man and is still misunderstood.“Richard Nixon was not a crook,” says Chapin via Zoom from his home in Riverside, Connecticut. “Sometimes the term ‘evil’ is used: that’s not what the man was about. In his heart, he was not only a patriot but an incredible public servant. He was in the arena serving the public for half a century.”Challenging baked-in perceptions of Nixon was the main motivation for Chapin, now 81, to write a memoir, The President’s Man, which delves into the thousands of hours they spent together, from small hotels in New Hampshire to the Forbidden City in Beijing.They first met in 1962 when Chapin was a 21-year-old student and Nixon – narrowly defeated for the presidency by John F Kennedy two years earlier – was running for governor of California.Chapin recalls: “Mr Nixon had been a congressman, a senator, vice-president for eight years and then had all that notoriety running against Kennedy, so he was a commanding figure. When he was in a room, you knew it. His presence was very strong.”He worked as a field organiser on the 1962 campaign then as Nixon’s personal aide during his successful run for president in 1968. At the White House he was appointments secretary, with a door that opened into the Oval Office, and deputy assistant to the president, responsible for the planning and logistics of his public appearances.But he does not claim to have been Nixon’s friend. “I knew him so well; but as I have continued to discover through the decades, in many ways I barely knew him at all,” Chapin writes wistfully.Despite his relative youth he served as acting chief of protocol when, 50 years ago this week, Nixon became the first US president to visit China. It was a leap into the cold war unknown: China was closed to the west and the US refused to recognise its communist government.The Washington Post newspaper wrote in an editorial at the time: “If Mr Nixon had revealed he was going to the moon he could not have flabbergasted his world audience more. It is very nearly mind blowing.”Such was the cultural impact that it inspired an opera by John Adams. Chapin reflects: “History should remember the trip as the single most significant and dramatic foreign journey by any American president ever. The world stood still while Nixon went to China.”He writes that Nixon relished the meeting of adversaries as a unique opportunity to demonstrate diplomatic and strategic expertise. “He loved planning this trip. Loved it … Here was Richard Nixon, the leader of the free world, marching off to the darkest, and most mysterious, part of the Communist empire.”Nixon was accompanied by three Americans, including national security adviser Henry Kissinger, during his meetings with Chairman Mao, while Chapin and the rest of the delegation remained at a guest house. “When he got back, the president reported to us that it had gone well,” he recalls. “I would use the word elated.”Not that Chapin had time to be bored. He writes: “The banquets kept coming. At each banquet there were toasts and more toasts and toasts of the toasts. Between banquets there were meetings and tours. Six months earlier I had known nothing about the Forbidden City. At this point, if it had been necessary, I could have conducted a tour myself.”At a banquet in Shanghai, Nixon offered a toast that he had scribbled on one of his yellow legal-sized notepad in his suite, declaring: “This trip was the week that changed the world.”Chapin writes: “In retrospect, yes, it was ‘the week that changed the world’, but as Chairman Mao had proclaimed, ‘A single spark can start a prairie fire’. What a prairie fire of aggressiveness, influence, and trade, reaching around the world, was ignited by that week fifty years ago.“Looking back I have a special appreciation for Nixon’s prophetic prediction that ‘Within fifty years, the United States and China will be adversaries, and we need to be able to talk with one another.’”But today the wisdom of Nixon’s outreach is questioned. China’s rise as a global power has become a defining principle of Joe Biden’s presidency as he warns of a struggle for the 21st century between autocracy and democracy, rival systems competing to show which can better deliver for its people.The communication channel with President Xi Jinping, China’s most powerful leader since Mao, remains open but relations are strained. China is flexing military muscles and threatening Taiwan. The US staged a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics over human rights abuses.Chapin reflects: “Any official American involvement there is missing and you have the the Russians and the Chinese together. I think Nixon would have been handling that differently. Nixon would be thinking of this in a very strategic sense. He would be wanting to do anything besides having a war or conflict and he would be looking for diplomatic answers.”But just four months after the historic China trip, the seeds of Nixon’s – and Chapin’s – downfall were sown.A break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex in Washington, which involved wiretapping phones and stealing documents, was traced to officials at Nixon’s re-election campaign committee. Although the president comfortably won re-election later that year, White House attempts to conceal the scandal began to unravel.A key whistleblower was Mark Felt, a senior FBI official who secretly fed information to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Felt was immortalised as “Deep Throat” by their book All the President’s Men, which became a Hollywood film. But five decades later, he is no hero to Chapin.“It’s disgraceful that the number two man at the FBI is leaking material regarding an investigation,” he says, evidently still rankled. “I met with the FBI and I told them the truth and I told them everything and two days later it’s on the front page of the Washington Post because Mark Felt got the report and leaked it.“I have nothing but disdain for somebody that took an oath to the constitution to follow the rules of the land. This leaking by FBI is so outrageous and goes way back into the J Edgar Hoover days. Part of the culture of the old FBI was leaking stuff and I happen to feel that’s wrong. Mark Felt is a real sleazebag and a disgrace to the FBI.”Chapin acknowledges that Nixon “made mistakes” and the White House did not “come clean” early. But he argues this was because the president had not been told exactly what happened or why. “He was treating it like a public relations problem.”As the walls closed in, Chapin was among several staff who, in December 1972, learned that they would be fired. “My eyes welled with tears,” he writes of a decision he found profoundly unfair. “Everyone was expendable. But me? Processing what I had been told was very painful.”Announcing the shake-up two months later, Nixon declared: “There can be no whitewash at the White House.” But despite further purges, there was no escape. A drip-drip of damaging headlines led to high-profile congressional hearings and bombshell testimonies.The courts forced Nixon to surrender tape recordings that confirmed he had tried to use the CIA to divert the FBI investigation – an abuse of presidential power and an obstruction of justice. The “law and order” president had behaved as if he was above the law.Nixon lost the confidence of fellow Republicans and in August 1974, facing almost certain impeachment, became the first and still only US president to resign.Chapin maintains his own innocence, insisting that he had nothing to do with the break-in or cover-up. But his earlier decision to hire an old university friend, Don Segretti, a political dirty trickster who would eventually serve four months in prison, was his undoing.Chapin was indicted on four counts of making false statements to a grand jury, charges that he still adamantly denies. He was found guilty on two counts and spent nine months in a low security federal prison in California.“I was fortunate that I could go to a minimal security place so there were no cells, no doors that slammed,” he recalls. “There was more of an army barracks type situation. Now, I’m not saying it was pleasant because you’re losing your freedom and I was being punished. I always viewed this as a political thing, not that I was a criminal.”Two or three weeks in, Chapin got hassled by two younger inmates. He went to see an older inmate, “Big Mike”, who happened to be keenly interested in politics and used his influence to ensure that Chapin never got bullied again. “When he put out the word, nothing was going to happen to me.”Chapin believes incarceration changed him and proved one of the most valuable learning experiences of his life. “When I was going off to prison, a friend said, ‘Dwight, it can get the best of you, or you can make the most of it.’ That was a wonderful piece of advice. I kept myself very busy. I read constantly.“I was probably in better physical shape than ever in my life. I started a programme for other prisoners that were getting ready to go back out into society. I had a desk and a little office and I helped them write letters and find jobs they could go to. I tried to make myself productive there and that helped make the time go faster.”But did he not feel abandoned and betrayed by Nixon, who was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, and escaped criminal prosecution?“He couldn’t help me out,” Chapin says. “Richard Nixon was president of the United States. He had to resign so he went through his own hell, different than mine, but equally traumatic, maybe even more traumatic than what I went through, particularly for such a proud man, such a good man.“What he made it possible for me to witness and be a part of so outweighs any of the negatives of Watergate. I’m very proud of what we accomplished and I think he did a great job. There’s no question I was heartbroken, there’s no question I went through hell, but so did he.”Some readers may find Chapin’s praise of Nixon hard to swallow and draw comparisons with the blind loyalty of former aides to another Republican president, Donald Trump. But Bernstein is among those who have observed that while Nixon was a crook, liar and media hater, Trump is infinitely worse: an authoritarian who staged an attempted coup.Chapin, an admirer of Ronald Reagan who seems reluctant to talk about Trump, found his footing when he regained his freedom. He was a magazine publisher, held a senior position at a public relations company and managed his own consulting firm. He has put his prison time behind him and, at 81, written his first book so his children and grandchildren can understand his version of history.“Things happen to people all the time and it’s important that individuals realise that their life is not over,” Chapin reflects. “Time is a great healer, and I try to make the point in my book that I was able to recoup from this.“I was happy it happened to me as a young man and not like with some of the older guys where it was the capstone of their career. For me, it was at the start of my working life and I’ve been able to do many other interesting things with my life since then.”
    The President’s Man is out now
    TopicsBooksRichard NixonWatergateUS politicsinterviewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Rudy Giuliani poised to cooperate with January 6 committee

    Rudy Giuliani poised to cooperate with January 6 committeeTrump’s former lawyer may reveal the roles played by Republicans to prevent certification of Joe Biden’s election victory Donald Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani is expected to cooperate with the House select committee investigating January 6, and potentially reveal his contacts with Republican members of Congress involved in the former president’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The move by Giuliani to appear before the panel – in a cooperation deal that could be agreed within weeks, according to two sources briefed on negotiations – could mark a breakthrough moment for the inquiry as it seeks to interview key members of Trump’s inner circle.That is the case because even though Trump’s allies and Republican members of Congress already known to have been involved in such efforts have refused to help the panel, Giuliani is now in a position to inform House investigators about any possible culpability.Broadly, Giuliani has indicated through his lawyer to the select committee that he will produce documents and answer questions about Trump’s schemes to return himself to office on 6 January that House investigators had outlined in a subpoena issued to him last month.Rudy Giuliani and Michael Flynn to see honorary university degrees revokedRead moreThe former president’s attorney is prepared to reveal his contacts and the roles played by Republican members of Congress in the scheme Giuliani helped orchestrate to have then-vice-president Mike Pence stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.Giuliani is also prepared to divulge details about Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence to adopt the scheme, and the effort coordinated by him and the Trump White House to have legislatures certify slates of electors for Trump in states actually won by Biden.But the former president’s attorney has indicated that he will assist the select committee only if his appearance is not pursuant to his subpoena, and does not have to give records or discuss his contacts with Trump over executive and attorney-client privilege concerns.Giuliani is prepared to make exceptions in instances where the panel can demonstrate that meetings with Trump that would have otherwise been subject to those protections might have been broken, and that the protections should not apply.The demands surrounding the circumstances of his cooperation reflect comments he made on Newsmax last week when he falsely claimed the select committee was “illegal”, and claimed that “it doesn’t have minority membership and really can’t subpoena anybody.”The select committee appears to have ignored his remarks as they move to finalize an agreement with Giuliani. The comments did not come up in recent talks and the panel last week allowed Giuliani to postpone his document production deadline for a second time, one of the sources said.That may be explained in large part because of the panel’s determination to get the cooperation of one of Trump’s closest if problematic advisers who was involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election from the start – and has a penchant for sometimes revealing too much.Giuliani could speak to events such as a 18 December 2020 meeting in the Oval Office where Trump reviewed a draft executive order to seize voting machines and verbally agreed to install conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate election fraud.The Guardian has reported that Giuliani then led the Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington DC when Trump called from the White House and discussed ways to stop Biden’s certification – and could speak to non-privileged elements of the plan.The cooperation deal would also technically involve Giuliani turning over documents in addition to appearing before the select committee, the sources said, but the logistics were unclear given the FBI last year seized his devices that he used on 6 January.Giuliani is committed to appearing before the panel, the source said, but it was not clear whether he would testify under oath in a closed-door deposition, for which the select committee has been pushing, or appear in a more informal interview on Capitol Hill.A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment on negotiations with witnesses. The sources added negotiations could still collapse, but if a deal could be agreed, Giuliani would probably appear before the panel at least before the end of March.The select committee has been quietly making substantial progress in its investigation into the events of 6 January, securing records from the National Archives, as well as documents and testimony from some of Trump’s top aides and advisers.‘Rudy is really hurt’: Giuliani reportedly banned from Fox NewsRead moreLast month, the chairman of the panel, congressman Bennie Thompson, revealed that House investigators had spoken to more than 500 witnesses and obtained more than 50,000 documents, including thousands from Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.The willingness by Giuliani to negotiate what appears to be an expansive cooperation deal has come in stark contrast to the defiance expressed by the initial set of Trump aides and advisers who were subpoenaed by the select committee last year.Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon refused to comply with his subpoena in its entirety, boasting executive privilege protection – only to be referred to the justice department for criminal contempt of Congress and indicted on two counts about four weeks later.That has served as a warning to other witnesses. Even if his cooperation deal ultimately falls through, Giuliani may be engaging with the select committee at least to avoid a similar fate to Bannon and a potentially costly legal battle to fight such charges.The benefits of partial cooperation have also become apparent, after Meadows was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear for a deposition as required by his subpoena, but remains unindicted two months after his initial referral to the justice department.TopicsRudy GiulianiDonald TrumpUS politicsUS Capitol attackUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

  • in

    Supreme court rejects Trump’s request to block access to January 6 records

    Supreme court rejects Trump’s request to block access to January 6 recordsHouse panel investigating the attack is already combing through Trump White House documents related to the insurrection The supreme court has formally rejected Donald Trump’s request to block the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack from accessing White House records related to the events of 6 January 2021.‘The Scheme’: a senator’s plan to highlight rightwing influence on the supreme courtRead moreThe court announced on Tuesday in its latest list of orders that it would not take up Trump’s appeal to a lower-court ruling allowing the select committee access to the documents.The news comes a month after the supreme court rejected Trump’s emergency motion to block the release of the documents as his case regarding executive privilege claims made its way through the courts.That January ruling cleared the way for the select committee to start receiving Trump White House documents. They have already started combing through the records.Seven people died as a result of the attack on the US Capitol by supporters Trump told to “fight like hell” in service of his lie that his defeat by Joe Biden was the result of electoral fraud.The attack did not prevent certification of electoral college results, though 147 Republicans in the House and Senate did lodge objections.More than 100 police officers were injured. More than 700 people have been charged. Eleven people, members of the far-right Oath Keepers militia, face charges of seditious conspiracy.Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, but acquitted when enough Republican senators stayed loyal.Only two Republicans, Trump critics Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, sit on the House select committee investigating January 6 and Trump’s attempts to overturn the election.The committee is working quickly, given Republicans’ expected takeover of the House after midterm elections in November.Public hearings are believed to be on the way and key aides to Trump have been served with subpoenas or asked to co-operate. Few have. Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist and key figure on the pro-Trump far right, has pleaded not guilty to contempt of Congress – a criminal charge carrying jail time.Others including the former chief of staff Mark Meadows have refused to co-operate. Members of the panel have said they expect Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer and a key figure in attempts to overturn the election, to testify.The supreme court’s formal rejection of Trump’s attempt to keep White House records away from the committee was not a surprise.Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, said on Twitter: “Trump’s baseless and brazen attempt to keep the January 6 select committee from obtaining his White House records has now been turned down by the supreme court of the United States. No surprise there, but with this court one never knows until one knows …”The court is currently imbalanced 6-3 in favor of conservatives, after Trump appointed three justices in his single four-year term in office.Who has more influence on supreme court: Clarence Thomas or his activist wife?Read moreClarence Thomas, who was appointed by George HW Bush, was the only justice who said he would have granted Trump’s attempt to stop the January 6 committee gaining access to his records.Thomas and his wife were the subject of an extensive New York Times profile published on Tuesday. Ginni Thomas is a conservative activist with close connections to pro-Trump groups.Dustin Stockton, a conservative organizer with ties to Bannon, told the paper that Ginni Thomas was tasked with coordinating rightwing groups around Trump’s rally near the White House before the Capitol attack, so “there wouldn’t be any division”.“The way it was presented to me was that Ginni was uniting these different factions around a singular mission on 6 January” Stockton told the paper. “That Ginni was involved made sense – she’s pretty neutral and she doesn’t have a lot of enemies in the movement.”Questions about Clarence Thomas’s role on the court given his wife’s work have mounted since the New Yorker published a lengthy piece of its own last month. Neither the justice nor Ginni Thomas has commented.TopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More