More stories

  • in

    Alarm as Texas quietly restarts controversial voting program

    Alarm as Texas quietly restarts controversial voting programProgram asks people on voter rolls to prove citizenship, sparking concern that eligible voters could be wrongfully targeted Get the latest updates on voting rights in the Guardian’s Fight to vote newsletterTexas officials have quietly restarted a controversial program to ask people on the voter rolls to prove their citizenship, sparking alarm that thousands of eligible voters could be wrongfully targeted.The Texas secretary of state’s office has identified just under 12,000 people it suspects of being non-citizens since September, when the program restarted (there are more than 17 million registered voters in Texas). About 2,327 voter registrations have been cancelled so far. The vast majority of cancellations were because voters failed to respond to a notice giving them 30 days to prove their citizenship.Texas Republicans pass voting maps that entrench power of whitesRead moreThe secretary of state flags anyone as a suspected non-citizen if they register to vote and then subsequently visit the Texas department of public safety (DPS), the state’s driver’s license agency, and indicate they are not a citizen.Local election officials in Texas’ 254 counties are then asked to review the names. If those officials cannot verify citizenship, they are required to send them a letter asking them to prove their citizenship within 30 days or else their voter registration gets cancelled.But election officials in Harris county, the most populous in the state, are concerned about the accuracy of the data being used to challenge voters.After the county mailed proof of citizenship requests to 2,796 people, 167 voters – nearly 6% of those contacted – responded with proof of citizenship. The state removed an additional 161 people from the list of people whose citizenship needed to be verified, according to a county official.“We are not confident in the quality of the information we are being mandated to act upon,” Isabel Longoria, the county’s election administrator, said in an email.In Fort Bend county, just outside of Houston, officials mailed notices to 515 people in October. About 20% responded with proof of citizenship and the rest were removed from the rolls, according to John Oldham, the county’s election administrator. Many of the people who responded said they had accidentally checked a box during their DPS transaction indicating they were not citizens, Oldham said.In Cameron county, along the US-Mexico border, election officials have sent out 246 letter since September, almost all to people with Hispanic surnames, according to the Texas Monthly, which first reported the program restarted. About 60 people have been cancelled so far.After the notices went out, a married couple who had heard about the notices came into the elections office to provide their naturalization papers, even though the couple’s citizenship wasn’t challenged, said Remi Garza, the county elections administrator.“It saddened me too,” Garza said. “People who shouldn’t have to be concerned about this type of proving citizenship felt that they had to do that.”Voting rights groups say they are trying to better understand the process the state is using, but are concerned eligible voters are getting targeted.“​​A US citizen voter who gets a challenge letter is understandably intimidated. And especially for naturalized US citizens, who went through an entire bureaucratic process to be able to vote, getting a letter that accuses them of being an ineligible voter is particularly intimidating,” said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “People will naturally assume, based on this official correspondence, that they might have made some kind of mistake, or that they are not proper voters.”The program had been on hold since 2019, when a federal judge ordered Texas to stop a similar, error-filled, effort that he described as “ham-handed”. As part of a settlement in that case, Texas agreed to only flag people if they registered to vote prior to the DPS visit in which they indicated they weren’t a citizen. It also agreed to reinstate and challenge voters who provided proof of citizenship, even if it was outside the 30-day window.The citizenship check comes as Republicans have moved to blunt the rapidly growing political power of Texas’ non-white population. Texas prosecutors have sought criminal punishments for people, including non-citizens, who make voting mistakes and the attorney general, Ken Paxton, has zealously pursued claims of voter fraud, which is exceedingly rare in Texas and elsewhere.Bruce Elfant, whose office oversees voter registration in Travis county, said his office so far has internally been able to confirm that less than 100 of the 300 to 400 people flagged by the secretary of state’s office were citizens. Most in the group had been flagged because of clerical errors, he said. His office has not yet sent out any challenge notices and is waiting for more information before it does so.In El Paso county, state officials referred 4,000 suspected non-citizens for review, and around 300 had already offered proof of citizenship, said Lisa Wise, the county’s election administrator. The county isn’t currently cancelling the registration of any voter who doesn’t respond, she said.Federal law prohibits officials from conducting mass voter cancellations within 90 days of a primary election. Texas’ primary is on 1 March, so the state can’t remove anyone who doesn’t respond to a proof of citizenship letter until later this spring.Thomas Buser-Clancy, a senior staff attorney with the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization was trying to understand why eligible voters were being flagged, but it was clear “something is not going right”.“Even if your system flags one eligible voter and threatens to remove them, that’s a problem,” he said. “If you have hundreds, and if you add it up across counties, you’re probably getting to thousands of eligible voters, being threatened with removal.”Sam Taylor, a spokesman for the Texas secretary of state’s office said he was confident in the data.“We’re following the settlement agreement exactly as we’re supposed to. If the counties have additional information where they’re able to cross people off the list who have in fact become citizens and they’re lawfully registered to vote, that’s great. That’s how the process is supposed to work.”But Buser-Clancy noted that those who were able to affirm their citizenship likely only represented a fraction of the eligible voters who were probably affected.“Those people are the lucky ones that both received the notice, like actually went through their mail, looked it up, and had the documentation on hand to send in,” he added. “What that tells you is that there’s some other percentage of people who are going to be removed from the rolls even though they’re eligible voters.”Download original documentTopicsTexasThe fight to voteUS voting rightsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    America is now in fascism’s legal phase | Jason Stanley

    America is now in fascism’s legal phase The history of racism in the US is fertile ground for fascism. Attacks on the courts, education, the right to vote and women’s rights are further steps on the path to toppling democracy“Let us be reminded that before there is a final solution, there must be a first solution, a second one, even a third. The move toward a final solution is not a jump. It takes one step, then another, then another.”So began Toni Morrison’s 1995 address to Howard University, entitled Racism and Fascism, which delineated 10 step-by-step procedures to carry a society from first to last.Morrison’s interest was not in fascist demagogues or fascist regimes. It was rather in “forces interested in fascist solutions to national problems”. The procedures she described were methods to normalize such solutions, to “construct an internal enemy”, isolate, demonize and criminalize it and sympathizers to its ideology and their allies, and, using the media, provide the illusion of power and influence to one’s supporters.Morrison saw, in the history of US racism, fascist practices – ones that could enable a fascist social and political movement in the United States.Writing in the era of the “super-predator” myth (a Newsweek headline the next year read, “Superpredators: Should we cage the new breed of vicious kids?”), Morrison unflinchingly read fascism into the practices of US racism. Twenty-five years later, those “forces interested in fascist solutions to national problems” are closer than ever to winning a multi-decade national fight.The contemporary American fascist movement is led by oligarchical interests for whom the public good is an impediment, such as those in the hydrocarbon business, as well as a social, political, and religious movement with roots in the Confederacy. As in all fascist movements, these forces have found a popular leader unconstrained by the rules of democracy, this time in the figure of Donald Trump.My father, raised in Berlin under the Nazis, saw in European fascism a course that any country could take. He knew that US democracy was not exceptional in its capacity to resist the forces that shattered his family and devastated his youth. My mother, a court stenographer in US criminal courts for 44 years, saw in the anti-Black racism of the American legal system parallels to the vicious antisemitism she experienced in her youth in Poland, attitudes which enabled eastern European complicity with fascism. And my grandmother, Ilse Stanley, wrote a memoir, published in 1957, of her experiences in 1930s Berlin, later appearing on the US television show This is Your Life to discuss it. It is a memoir of the normalization years of German fascism, well before world war and genocide. In it, she recounts experiences with Nazi officers who assured her that in nazism’s vilification of Jews, they certainly did not mean her.Philosophers have always been at the forefront in the analysis of fascist ideology and movements. In keeping with a tradition that includes the philosophers Hannah Arendt and Theodor Adorno, I have been writing for a decade on the way politicians and movement leaders employ propaganda, centrally including fascist propaganda, to win elections and gain power.Often, those who employ fascist tactics do so cynically – they do not really believe the enemies they target are so malign, or so powerful, as their rhetoric suggests. Nevertheless, there comes a tipping point, where rhetoric becomes policy. Donald Trump and the party that is now in thrall to him have long been exploiting fascist propaganda. They are now inscribing it into fascist policy.Fascist propaganda takes place in the US in already fertile ground – decades of racial strife has led to the United States having by far the highest incarceration rate in the world. A police militarized to address the wounds of racial inequities by violence, and a recent history of unsuccessful imperial wars have made us susceptible to a narrative of national humiliation by enemies both internal and external. As WEB Du Bois showed in his 1935 masterwork Black Reconstruction, there is a long history of business elites backing racism and fascism out of self-interest, to divide the working class and thereby destroy the labor movement.The novel development is that a ruthless would-be autocrat has marshalled these fascist forces and shaped them into a cult, with him as its leader. We are now well into the repercussions of this latter process – where fascist lies, for example, the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen, have begun to restructure institutions, notably electoral infrastructure and law. As this process unfolds, slowly and deliberately, the media’s normalization of these processes evokes Morrison’s tenth and final step: “Maintain, at all costs, silence.”Constructing an enemyTo understand contemporary US fascism, it is useful to consider parallels to 20th century history, both where they succeed and where they fail.Hitler was a genocidal antisemite. Though fascism involves disregard for human life, not all fascists are genocidal. Even Nazi Germany turned to genocide only relatively late in the regime’s rule. And not all fascists are antisemitic. There were Italian Jewish fascists. Referring to the successful assimilation of Jews into all phases of Weimar era German life, my father warned me, “if they had chosen someone else, some of us would have been among the very best Nazis.” We American Jews feel firmly at home. Now, where the fascist movement’s internal enemies are leftists and movements for Black racial equality, there certainly could be fascist American Jews.Germany’s National Socialist party did not take over a mainstream party. It started as a small, radical, far-right anti-democratic party, which faced different pressures as it strove to achieve greater electoral success.Despite its radical start, the Nazi party dramatically increased its popularity over many years in part by strategically masking its explicit antisemitic agenda to attract moderate voters, who could convince themselves that the racism at the core of Nazi ideology was something the party had outgrown. It represented itself as the antidote to communism, using a history of political violence in the Weimar Republic, including street clashes between communists and the far right, to warn of a threat of violent communist revolution. It attracted support from business elites by promising to smash labor unions. The Nazis portrayed socialists, Marxists, liberals, labor unions, the cultural world and the media as representatives of, or sympathizers with, this revolution. Once in power, they bore down on this message.In his 1935 speech, Communism with its Mask Off, Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels described Bolshevism carrying “on a campaign, directed by the Jews, with the international underworld, against culture as such”. By contrast, “National Socialism sees in all these things – in [private] property, in personal values and in nation and race and the principles of idealism – these forces which carry on every human civilization and fundamentally determine its worth.”The Nazis recognized that the language of family, faith, morality and homeland could be used to justify especially brutal violence against an enemy represented as being opposed to all these things. The central message of Nazi politics was to demonize a set of constructed enemies, an unholy alliance of communists and Jews, and ultimately to justify their criminalization.Contrary to popular belief, the Nazi government of the 1930s was not genocidal, nor were its notorious concentration camps packed with Jewish prisoners, at least until the November pogrom of 1938. The main targets of the regime’s concentration camps were, initially, communists and socialists. The Nazi regime urged vigilante violence against its other targets, such as Jews, separating themselves from this violence by obscuring the role of agents of the state. During this time, it was possible for many non-Jewish Germans to deceive themselves about the brutal nature of the regime, to tell themselves that its harsh means were necessary to protect the German nation from the insidious threat of communism.Violent militias occupied an ambiguous role between state and non-state actors. The SS began as violent Nazi supporters, before becoming an independent arm of the government. The message of violent law and order created a culture that influenced all the Nazi state’s institutions. As Yale historian Timothy Snyder writes in On Tyranny, “for violence to transform not just the atmosphere but also the system, the emotions of rallies and the ideology of exclusion have to be incorporated into the training of armed guards.”In the US, the training of police as “warriors”, together with the unofficial replacement of the American flag by the thin blue line flag, auger poorly about the democratic commitments of this institution.For a far-right party to become viable in a democracy, it must present a face it can defend as moderate, and cultivate an ambiguous relationship to the extreme views and statements of its most explicit members. It must maintain a pretense of the rule of law, characteristically by projecting its own violations of it on to its opponents.In the case of the takeover of the mainstream rightwing party by a far-right anti-democratic movement, the pretense must be stronger. The movement must contend with members of that party who are faithful to procedural elements of democracy, such as the principle of one voter one vote, or that the loser of a fair election give up power – in the United States today, figures such as Adam Kinzinger and Elizabeth Cheney. A fascist social and political party faces pressure both to mask its connection to and to cultivate violent racist supporters, as well as its inherently anti-democratic agenda.In the face of the attack on the US capital on 6 January, even the most resolute skeptic must admit that Republican politicians have been at least attempting to cultivate a mass of violent vigilantes to support their causes. Kyle Rittenhouse is becoming a hero to Republicans after showing up in Kenosha, WI as an armed vigilante citizen, and killing two men. Perhaps there are not enough potential Kyle Rittenhouses in the US to justify fear of massive armed vigilante militias enforcing a 2024 election result demanded by Donald Trump. But denying that Trump’s party is trying to create such a movement is, at this point, deliberate deception.Black rebellion, white backlashStreet violence proved invaluable to the National Socialists in their path to power. The Nazis instigated and exacerbated violence in the streets, then demonized their opponents as enemies of the German people who must be dealt with harshly. Trump’s rise followed Black protest, at times violent, of police brutality in Ferguson and Baltimore. More recently, the murder of George Floyd and a historic protest movement in the US in the late spring has given fuel to fascist misrepresentation.All of these recent developments take place as only the latest in a long US history of Black rebellion against white supremacist ideology and structures, and a parallel history of white backlash.White vigilante groups regularly formed in reaction to Black rebellions, to “defend their families and property against Black rebellion”, the historian Elizabeth Hinton writes in her recent history of these rebellions. Hinton shows that police often acted in concert with these groups. For decades, the instigator of these rebellions has typically been an incident or incidents of police violence against members of the community, following a long period of often violent over-policing that exacerbated these communities’ grievances.Street movements in the US have often been accompanied by vigorous campus protests, from the protests against the Vietnam war of the 1960s, to recent campus protests for racial justice that attracted media rebuke (paradoxically, for “chilling free speech”). Politicians in both parties have feasted on these moments, using them to troll for votes. During these episodes of protest and rebellion, US politicians from Barry Goldwater onwards, placing campus protests together with Black rebellion against over-policing, have encouraged harsh law and order policing and crackdowns on leftists. John Ehrlichman, one of Nixon’s top advisers, said that Nixon’s campaign and administration “had two enemies: the anti-war left and Black people”, and invented the drug war to target both:
    You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
    Politicians have shown less interest in addressing the underlying conditions that lead to violence in poor Black urban communities – the widespread availability of guns, the massive and persistent racial wealth gap and the effects of violent policing and mass incarceration. And why should they? As long as these underlying conditions persist, politicians of either party can run for office by milking fear and promising a harsh law and order response. Morrison’s 1995 address is a warning that these conditions are ripe for harnessing by a fascist movement, one targeting democracy itself.In its most recent iteration, in the form of the reaction against Black Lives Matter protesters and the demonization of antifa and student activists, a fascist social and political movement has been avidly stoking the flames for mass rightwing political violence, by justifying it against these supposed internal enemies.Rachel Kleinfield, in an October 2021 article, documents the rise of the legitimation of political violence in the US. According to the article, the “bedrock idea uniting right-wing communities who condone violence is that white Christian men in the United States are under cultural and demographic threat and require defending – and that it is the Republican Party and Donald Trump, in particular, who will safeguard their way of life.”This kind of justification of political violence is classically fascist – a dominant group threatened by the prospect of gender, racial and religious equality turning to a leader who promises a violent response.How to topple a democracyWe are now in fascism’s legal phase. According to the International Center for Not for Profit Law, 45 states have considered 230 bills criminalizing protest, with the threat of violent leftist and Black rebellion being used to justify them. That this is happening at the same time that multiple electoral bills enabling a Republican state legislature majority to overturn their state’s election have been enacted suggests that the true aim of bills criminalizing protest is to have a response in place to expected protests against the stealing of a future election (as a reminder of fascism’s historical connection to big business, some of these laws criminalize protest near gas and oil lines).The Nazis used Judeo-Bolshevism as their constructed enemy. The fascist movement in the Republican party has turned to critical race theory instead. Fascism feeds off a narrative of supposed national humiliation by internal enemies. Defending a fictional glorious and virtuous national past, and presenting its enemies as deviously maligning the nation to its children, is a classic fascist strategy to stoke fury and resentment. Using the bogeyman of critical race theory, 29 states have introduced bills to restrict teaching about racism and sexism in schools, and 13 states have enacted such bans.The key to democracy is an informed electorate. An electorate that knows about persisting racial injustice in the United States along all its dimensions, from the racial wealth gap to the effects of over-policing and over-incarceration, will be unsurprised by mass political rebellion in the face of persistent refusal to face up to these problems. An electorate ignorant of these facts will react not with understanding, but with uncomprehending fear and horror at Black political unrest.Sometimes, you trace a fascist movement to its genesis in Nazi influence on its leaders, as with India’s RSS. In the United States, the causal relations run the other way around. As James Whitman shows in his 2017 book, Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, the Jim Crow era in the United States influenced Nazi law. In 2021, legislators in 19 states passed laws making access to the ballot more difficult, some with specific (and clearly intentional) disparate impact on minority communities (as in Texas). By obscuring in our education system facts about this era, one can mask the reemergence of legislation that borrows from its strategies.Indeed, the very tactic of restricting politically vital information to schoolchildren is itself borrowed from the Jim Crow era. Chapter 9 of Carter G Woodson’s 1933 book, The Mis-Education of the Negro, is called Political Education Neglected. In it, Woodson describes how history was taught “to enslave the Negroes’ mind”, by whitewashing the brutality of slavery and the actual roots and causes of racial disparities. In Fugitive Pedagogy: Carter G Woodson and the Art of Black Teaching, Jarvis Givens documents the strategies Black educators used to convey real history in the constricted environments of Jim Crow schools, strategies that, tragically, will again become necessary for educators to take up again today.Fascist ideology strictly enforces gender roles and restricts the freedom of women. For fascists, it is part of their commitment to a supposed “natural order” where men are on top. It is also integral to the broader fascist strategy of winning over social conservatives who might otherwise be unhappy with the endemic corruption of fascist rule. Far-right authoritarian leaders across the world, such as Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, have targeted “gender ideology”, as nazism targeted feminism. Freedom to choose one’s role in society, when it goes against a supposed “natural order”, is a kind of freedom fascism has always opposed.According to National Socialist ideology, abortion, at any point in pregnancy, was considered to be murder. Just as it was acceptable to murder disabled people and other groups whose identities were considered dangerous to the health of the “Aryan race”, it was acceptable to perform abortions on members of these groups. In the first six years of Nazi rule, from 1933 to 1939, there was a harsh crackdown on the birth control movement. Led by the Gestapo, there was a punitive campaign against doctors who performed abortions on Aryan women. The recent attack on abortion rights, and the coming attack on birth control, led by a hard-right supreme court, is consistent with the hypothesis that we are, in the United States, facing a real possibility of a fascist future.If you want to topple a democracy, you take over the courts. Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016 by almost 3m votes, and yet has appointed one-third of supreme court, three youthful far-right judges who will be spending decades there. The Roberts court has for more than a decade consistently enabled an attack on democracy, by hollowing out the Voting Rights Act over time, unleashing unlimited corporate money into elections, and allowing clearly partisan gerrymanders of elections. There is every reason to believe that the court will allow even the semblance of democracy to crumble, as long as laws are passed by gerrymandered Republican statehouses that make anti-democratic practices, including stealing elections, legal.There has been a growing fascist social and political movement in the United States for decades. Like other fascist movements, it is riddled with internal contradictions, but no less of a threat to democracy. Donald Trump is an aspiring autocrat out solely for his own power and material gain. By giving this movement a classically authoritarian leader, Trump shaped and exacerbated it, and his time in politics has normalized it.Donald Trump has shown others what is possible. But the fascist movement he now leads preceded him, and will outlive him. As Toni Morrison warned, it feeds off ideologies with deep roots in American history. It would be a grave error to think it cannot ultimately win.
    This article was amended on 22 December 2021 to fix a typo.
    TopicsThe far rightUS politicsTrump administrationRaceRace in educationfeaturesReuse this content More

  • in

    Republican congressman refuses to cooperate with Capitol attack panel

    Republican congressman refuses to cooperate with Capitol attack panelScott Perry is first sitting member of Congress to get request for interview as Trump announces 6 January press conference Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican and the first sitting member of Congress to be requested to provide documents and sit for an interview with the committee investigating the Capitol riot, said on Tuesday he would not comply with the panel.Why Trump appears deeply unnerved as Capitol attack investigation closes inRead moreThe news came shortly after Donald Trump provocatively announced that he will hold a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort on 6 January, the first anniversary of the deadly attack on Congress.Perry’s refusal to appear sets up a potentially fraught battle if the panel decides to subpoena him and he – like other Trump allies – decides to ignore that too.The committee has already recommended other no-shows, such as Trump aide Steve Bannon, be prosecuted for their non-compliance.Perry claimed the 6 January committee was “illegitimate, and not duly constituted under the rules of the US House of Representatives”.Successive court rulings have said that the committee was properly formed and does have the investigative powers it is using.The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, rejected an attempt by the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, to put Republicans including Jim Jordan of Ohio – a close Trump ally and a subject of investigation regarding the Capitol attack – on to the 6 January committee. Only two Republicans, Trump critics Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, are now part of its work.Trump announced his press conference in a statement replete with familiar invective and lies about supposed electoral fraud and the House committee.“I will be having a news conference on 6 January [2022] at Mar-a-Lago to discuss all of these points, and more,” he said.“Until then, remember, the insurrection took place on 3 November, it was the completely unarmed protest of the rigged election that took place on 6 January.”Five people, including a Trump supporter shot by law enforcement and a Capitol police officer, died around the events of 6 January 2021, when a pro-Trump mob stormed Congress after he told supporters to “fight like hell” to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden.More than 700 people have been charged with offenses connected to the riot. Most rioters were not armed with guns but attacked police with other weapons. Guns and explosives were found and bombs planted. On Monday, one rioter who attacked police was sentenced to more than five years in jail.Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection but acquitted at his Senate trial when enough Republicans stayed loyal.His continued presence in national politics and apparent intention to run for president again has stoked jagged divides which some observers fear point the US towards serious discord or even civil war.On Monday night the disgraced former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, with whom the former president has staged an arena tour, said Trump was “gonna run again”.“I’m trying to tell President Trump, run on your record,” O’Reilly told NewsNation. “He’s gonna run again. I said, Run on your record, because your record’s pretty darn good.’”Trump seems determined to run, or merely to retain control of the Republican party, through stoking division and anger with false claims about the election and the most serious attack on the US Capitol since the war of 1812.In stark contrast, Pelosi has announced that Congress will mark the first anniversary of 6 January in a spirit of “solemn observance”.“Preparations are under way for a full program of events,” she said, “including a discussion among historians about the narrative of that day; an opportunity for members to share their experiences and reflections from that day; and a prayerful vigil in the evening.”The 6 January committee also expects to stage events in the new year, with public hearings as it closes in on Trump’s role in the riot. On Sunday, Kinzinger said the panel would determine if Trump committed a crime.“Nobody is above the law,” he said. “He’s not a king. Former presidents, they aren’t former kings.”Trump has sued, so far unsuccessfully, to stop the committee accessing White House documents from his time in power. Two of his closest aides are in serious legal jeopardy for taking similar stands.Bannon has pleaded not guilty to contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with the 6 January committee. He faces a fine and jail time if convicted.The House has recommended the same criminal charge for Mark Meadows, Trump’s last chief of staff and a former congressman.US ‘closer to civil war’ than most would like to believe, new book saysRead moreOn Monday, citing sources close to Trump, the Guardian revealed his deepening fear as the 6 January committee continues its work.“The former president’s anger largely mirrors the kind of expletives he once directed at the Russia inquiry and the special counsel investigation [led by Robert Mueller] when he occupied the White House,” the Guardian reported.“But the rapidly accelerating investigation into whether Trump and top aides unlawfully conspired to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory at the 6 January joint session appears to be unnerving him deeply.”On Twitter, Peter Strzok, a former FBI agent and member of the special counsel’s team, wrote: “Almost as if – what did he say about Mueller? – ‘I’m fucked.’”TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS CongressDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Texas governor Greg Abbott stays silent on whether he will pardon George Floyd

    Texas governor Greg Abbott stays silent on whether he will pardon George FloydParole board unanimously recommended pardon for 2004 drug arrest by ex-officer whose work is no longer trusted by prosecutors Doling out pardons is a Christmas tradition for Greg Abbott, who grants them typically for minor offenses committed years or decades ago. This year, one name stands out on the Republican Texas governor’s desk: George Floyd.Abbott has not said if he will posthumously pardon Floyd for a 2004 drug arrest in Houston by a former officer whose work is no longer trusted by prosecutors.Floyd, who was Black, spent much of his life in Houston before moving to Minnesota, where his murder by a white police officer, who knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes, led last year to a global reckoning on race and policing.Texas’ parole board – stacked with Abbott appointees – unanimously recommended a pardon for Floyd in October.Abbott, who is up for reelection in 2022, has given no indication of whether he will grant what would be only the second posthumous pardon in Texas history.“It doesn’t matter who you think George Floyd was, or what you think he stood for or didn’t stand for,” said Allison Mathis, a public defender in Houston who submitted Floyd’s pardon application. “What matters is he didn’t do this. It’s important for the governor to correct the record to show he didn’t do this.”A spokeswoman for Abbott did not respond to requests for comment.Pardons restore the rights of the convicted and forgive them in the eyes of the law. Floyd’s family and supporters said a posthumous pardon in Texas would show a commitment to accountability.In February 2004, Floyd was arrested in Houston for selling $10 worth of crack in a police sting. He pleaded guilty to a drug charge and served 10 months in prison.His case happened to be among dozens that prosecutors revisited in the fallout over a deadly drug raid in 2019 that resulted in murder charges against an officer, Gerald Goines, who is no longer with the Houston force.Prosecutors say Goines lied to obtain a search warrant in the raid that left a husband and wife dead, and the office of the Harris county district attorney, Kim Ogg, has dismissed more than 160 drug convictions tied to Goines.Goines has pleaded not guilty and his attorneys accuse Ogg of launching the review for political gain.Abbott has several primary challengers from the far right. His silence about a pardon for Floyd has raised questions over whether political calculations are at play. His office has not responded to those charges.Abbott attended Floyd’s memorial service last year in Houston, where he met family members and floated the idea of a George Floyd Act that deals with police brutality.But Abbott never publicly supported such a measure when lawmakers returned to the Capitol, where Republicans instead made police funding a priority.State senator Royce West, a Democrat who carried the George Floyd Act in the Senate, said he understands the politics if Abbott was waiting until after the primary in March. But he said the governor should act on the recommendation.“As he’s always said, he is a law and order governor,“ West said. “And this would be following the law.”TopicsGeorge FloydGreg AbbottTexasLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Dire end to Biden’s first year as Manchin says no on signature bill

    Dire end to Biden’s first year as Manchin says no on signature bill Senator’s announcement deals huge blow to president’s agenda and kicks off fiery recriminations among DemocratsJoe Biden had hoped to end his first year in office by signing his signature bill, the Build Back Better Act, a $1.75tn spending package that includes massive investments in healthcare, childcare and climate initiatives.Why Trump appears deeply unnerved as Capitol attack investigation closes inRead moreInstead, the president is ending the year with a member of his own party dealing a devastating blow to his legislative agenda and potentially Democrats’ prospects in next year’s midterm elections.The announcement by centrist West Virginia senator Joe Manchin that he will not support the Build Back Better Act has kicked off a round of fiery recriminations among Democrats, as party leaders rushed to determine whether the bill can still somehow be saved.But Manchin’s comments did not seem to leave much wiggle room for future negotiations. After announcing his opposition on Fox News Sunday, Manchin released a fuller statement saying the cost of the legislation, which had already been slashed in half to appease him, was too high to justify.“I have always said, ‘If I can’t go back home and explain it, I can’t vote for it,’” Manchin said. “Despite my best efforts, I cannot explain the sweeping Build Back Better Act in West Virginia and I cannot vote to move forward on this mammoth piece of legislation.”The White House was clearly blindsided by Manchin’s announcement, accusing the senator of reneging on commitments that he had reiterated to Biden just days earlier.“On Tuesday of this week, Senator Manchin came to the White House and submitted – to the president, in person, directly – a written outline for a Build Back Better bill that was the same size and scope as the president’s framework, and covered many of the same priorities,” press secretary Jen Psaki said on Sunday.“If his comments on Fox and written statement indicate an end to that effort, they represent a sudden and inexplicable reversal in his position, and a breach of his commitments to the president and the senator’s colleagues in the House and Senate.”Despite the significant setback, the White House pledged to keep advocating for the bill’s passage. “The fight for Build Back Better is too important to give up. We will find a way to move forward next year,” Psaki said. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer has already said he will hold a vote on the Build Back Better Act once the chamber reconvenes in January.In a “Dear colleague” letter that singled out Manchin, Schumer said: “Senators should be aware that the Senate will, in fact, consider the Build Back Better Act, very early in the new year so that every member of this body has the opportunity to make their position known on the Senate floor, not just on television.”But the bill will likely have to undergo significant revisions to win the support of Manchin, and Democrats cannot move forward without him because of the 50-50 split in the Senate.For the left of the Democratic party, the dilemma represents a bitter case of “I told you so”. The Congressional Progressive Caucus had insisted that the bipartisan infrastructure bill should not pass until the Build Back Better Act could move forward as well. Instead, the House passed the infrastructure bill last month after Biden convinced progressives that he could also secure 50 Senate votes for the spending package.Despite Biden’s assurances, six progressives still voted against the infrastructure bill to protest the decoupling of the two proposals, and those lawmakers have expressed outrage over Manchin’s announcement, which has proven their predictions correct.“We have been saying this for weeks that this would happen, and we took the hits,” congresswoman Cori Bush told MSNBC on Sunday. “Having those coupled together was the only leverage we had. And what did the caucus do? We tossed it.”However, it is not just the left wing of the Democratic party expressing criticism of Manchin. Congresswoman Suzan DelBene, the chair of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, warned that the party would suffer severe consequences if the Build Back Better Act is not passed.“The challenges our country faces are too big and the cost of inaction is too high to throw in the towel on Build Back Better negotiations now,” DelBene said Sunday. “Failure is not an option.”In an effort to bring Manchin back to the negotiating table, DelBene suggested that the bill should be altered to focus on funding a smaller number of programs for a longer period of time.Manchin’s most recent gripe about the legislation is that it calls for some programs to be phased out after a year or a few years. The senator has complained that those programs will inevitably be renewed and result in even more government spending, although the White House has said any future renewals would be paid for through additional revenue-raising provisions.“At the start of these negotiations many months ago, we called for prioritizing doing a few things well for longer, and we believe that adopting such an approach could open a potential path forward for this legislation,” DelBene said.But the progressives who are outraged at Biden and Democratic leaders for their handling of the negotiations have endorsed a different tactic, calling on the president to use the power of the executive pen to enact immediate change.“Biden needs to lean on his executive authority now. He has been delaying and under-utilizing it so far,” New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in a Monday tweet.“There is an enormous amount he can do on climate, student debt, immigration, cannabis, healthcare, and more. Time is running out. We need to move and use alternative paths.”Biden’s strategy in the coming weeks will likely have significant repercussions on the midterm elections. If Democrats cannot deliver on their promises to address the climate crisis and make childcare and healthcare more affordable, despite having full control of Congress and the White House, they will face many angry voters as they seek reelection next year. After months of drawn-out negotiations and no results to show for them, those voters may decide they are ready for a change in Washington.TopicsJoe BidenUS politicsDemocratsJoe ManchinnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Harris refuses ‘personal’ fight with Manchin over Build Back Better: ‘The stakes are too high’

    Harris refuses ‘personal’ fight with Manchin over Build Back Better: ‘The stakes are too high’Vice-president says focus should be on ‘getting the job done’ despite senator’s attempt to sink Biden’s $1.75tn plan

    Dire end to Biden’s year as Manchin says no on signature bill
    Kamala Harris has refused to be drawn into a war of words with Joe Manchin over the West Virginia senator’s attempt to sink the Build Back Better spending plan, saying: “The stakes are too high for this to be in any way about any specific individual.”By ditching landmark climate legislation, America makes the world unsafe | Kate AronoffRead moreThe vice-president, whose vote in the 50-50 Senate would have passed Build Back Better had Manchin (and the other 49 Democrats and independents) stayed onboard, was speaking to CBS News.But Manchin issued a dramatic “no” in an interview with Fox News Sunday, enraging the progressive wing of the Democratic party as well as the White House, which issued a stinging rebuke.“I don’t have any personal feelings about this,” Harris insisted. “This is about let’s get the job done. Let’s get it done.“I refuse to get caught up in the what might be personal politics. The people who are waking up at three o’clock in the morning worried about how they’re going to get by, they could care less about the politics of DC.”Build Back Better, valued at around $1.75tn, aims to boost social and health care as well as target spending at the climate crisis and other Democratic priorities.Harris said: “Let’s talk with families who say I can’t afford to do the basic things that I need to do as a responsible adult, like care for my children, care for my older parents, or afford to get life saving medication like insulin.”Asked how the Democrats could do that without Manchin – as many in the party have said they will try to do, if they are not able to turn him round – Harris said: “You don’t give up? That’s how we do it.”Manchin does appear to have personal feelings on the issue, having told a West Virginia radio station on Monday he reached “wit’s end” before deciding to drop his bombshell on Fox.“This is not the president, this is staff … they drove some things that are absolutely inexcusable,” he said. “I just got to the wit’s end of what happened.”Manchin also said he had been “far apart, philosophically” with Democratic leaders for months.“We’re in a 50-50 Senate, you all are approaching legislation [as if] there is 55 or 60 Democrats,” he said.Some fear Manchin could switch allegiance from Democratic to independent or even Republican – as every other official in major office in his state has done. Such a move would jeopardise or end Democratic control of the Senate.On Monday, Manchin said he “would like to hope there was still Democrats that feel like I do”, but said that could change.The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, said he would “certainly welcome” Manchin into Republican ranks.“He doesn’t fit well over there,” McConnell said, “but that is a decision ultimately that he has to make. We certainly welcome him to join us if he was so inclined.”McConnell also told the Guy Benson Show podcast he was “shocked at the vitriol” in the White House rebuke of Manchin.“And basically it seemed to me that they were calling Senator Manchin a liar. I think that was not smart. This is a 50-50 Senate. It’s going to be 50-50 for another year, and believe me, this is not how I would handle a disappointing vote like that.”Schumer vows vote on Build Back Better despite ‘no’ from ManchinRead moreJoe Biden’s press secretary, Jen Psaki, told reporters in Washington she would not “relitigate” Manchin’s announcement on Sunday and the White House rebuke, which was issued in her name.West Virginia is a major coalmining state. Also on Monday, a prominent coal union urged Manchin to reconsider his opposition to Build Back Better, not least because it would extend benefits, due to expire at the end of the year, to miners suffering from black lung disease, and encourage investment in jobs for former miners.“For those and other reasons, we are disappointed that the bill will not pass,” said Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America.“We urge Senator Manchin to revisit his opposition to this legislation and work with his colleagues to pass something that will help keep coal miners working, and have a meaningful impact on our members, their families and their communities.”TopicsKamala HarrisJoe ManchinUS CongressUS politicsJoe BidenDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    By ditching landmark climate legislation, America makes the world unsafe | Kate Aronoff

    By ditching landmark climate legislation, America makes the world unsafeKate AronoffThe rest of the world needs to start treating the US as what it is: a dangerous country that needs to be reined in As the now very likely collapse of the Build Back Better Act underlines, what’s exceptional about the United States is its extraordinary ability to dole out harm. Besides its ever-ballooning military budget and foreign wars, America also makes the world unsafe thanks to the prodigious amount of fossil fuel it continues to send around the world.US ‘closer to civil war’ than most would like to believe, new book saysRead moreOil Change International, Earthworks and the Center for International Environmental Law have found that burning the oil and gas expected to be drilled in the US alone over the next decade could gobble up 10% of the entire world’s remaining carbon budget, the amount of carbon dioxide that can be released before the planet warms above 1.5C.The Build Back Better Act wouldn’t have made a dent in that drilling, of course: constraining US fossil fuel production or exports has been a political third rail on both sides of the aisle, despite John Kerry having spent months hectoring other smaller and less wealthy nations about their own fossil fuel use in the lead-up to Cop26.Just last week, energy secretary Jennifer Granholm went out of her way to assure oil executives that the administration wouldn’t reinstate the longstanding crude oil export ban, assuring them: “I don’t want to fight with any of you.”West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin – whose promised no vote on Build Back Better seems to have hammered the nail into Biden’s legislative agenda – made half a million dollars last year off his family’s coal business, and was reportedly speaking weekly with ExxonMobil lobbyists this spring. But he’s hardly the only Democrat furthering the fossil fuel industry’s interests.What the Build Back Better bill represented was a bare minimum, at best: the roughly $55bn a year the bill would spend on incentives for renewables deployment, building upgrades and electric vehicles over the next decade is roughly half of what Americans spent on caring for their pets in 2020, and pales in comparison to the $768bn one-year Pentagon budget that breezed through both chambers last week.Even the White House’s topline goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 is dangerously behind the times: that’s when the entire world should be carbon neutral. With its vast resources and outsized historical responsibility for the climate crisis, the US should get there much, much sooner. But what the United States should do to reduce emissions and what its staid, corporate-captured democratic institutions are capable of at this moment are two different things.That’s not to say the fight is over. Congressional leadership could finally call Manchin’s bluff and force a vote on Build Back Better. Biden has a slew of emissions-cutting executive actions at his disposal should he choose to use them, including the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide. And there are exciting victories at the state and local level to build on.But the road ahead is a rocky one. With a deadly Omicron surge encroaching, the child tax credit about to lapse and student loans payments starting up again in February, Democrats will struggle to point voters to success stories during next year’s midterm elections without Build Back Better in hand.They face a potential blowout in the House, where a Republican majority may well refuse to recognize that any Democrat could win the 2024 presidential election. It’s very likely that the United States, the world’s largest economy and second biggest greenhouse gas emitter, will not pass its first-ever comprehensive climate legislation for at least a decade.Should they take back control in Washington, Republicans will expand drilling as quickly as possible, rest of the world be damned. Countries committed to seeing temperatures not rise above 1.5 or 2C should start treating the US for what it is: an exceptionally dangerous country that needs to be reined in.
    Kate Aronoff is a staff writer at The New Republic and the author of Overheated: How Capitalism Broke the Planet – And How We Fight Back
    TopicsUS politicsOpinionJoe BidenClimate crisisUS domestic policycommentReuse this content More

  • in

    Commander in, Major out: White House pet shakeup after biting incidents

    Commander in, Major out: White House pet shakeup after biting incidentsJoe Biden brings in new German shepherd puppy, to be joined by a cat in January President Joe Biden on Monday introduced the newest member of his family, a purebred German shepherd puppy named Commander, while the first lady’s office said the cat she promised more than a year ago to bring to the White House would finally join them in January.But the news was not so good for another member of the Biden animal family. The family decided it was best for their other German shepherd, Major, to live in a quieter environment with friends after some biting incidents.Biden shared a photo on his official Twitter account of the three-month-old male puppy with a caption that said: “Welcome to the White House, Commander.” He also released a brief video of him tossing a ball to Commander and walking the leashed dog into the White House.Commander was born on 1 September and arrived at the White House on Monday afternoon, a gift from the president’s brother James Biden and sister-in-law Sara Biden, according to Michael LaRosa, a spokesperson for the first lady, Jill Biden.His name appears to be a play on Biden’s status as commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.The first lady said shortly after Biden won the November 2020 presidential election that they would be getting a cat. LaRosa said the feline would join the family in January.The Bidens had two other German shepherds – Champ and Major – with them at the White House before Commander.But Major, a three-year-old rescue dog, ended up in the proverbial dog house following two biting incidents in the months after his arrival last January. He was sent home to Delaware for training before he was returned to the White House. White House officials had explained Major’s aggressive behaviour by saying he was still getting used to his new surroundings.But he was sent away again. Now, his permanent exile from the executive mansion appears official.“After consulting with dog trainers, animal behaviourists, and veterinarians, the first family has decided to follow the experts’ collective recommendation that it would be safest for Major to live in a quieter environment with family friends,” LaRosa said in an emailed statement. “This is not in reaction to any new or specific incident, but rather a decision reached after several months of deliberation as a family and discussions with experts.”Champ died in June at the age of 13.CNN first reported Commander’s arrival after he was seen scampering around the White House south lawn on Monday.TopicsJoe BidenUS politicsDogsPetsAnimalsnewsReuse this content More