US Politics

Chris Cuomo fired by CNN for helping brother Andrew fight sexual misconduct chargesPrimetime anchor was suspended on TuesdayNetwork says ‘additional information’ has come to light CNN has fired the primetime anchor Chris Cuomo for trying to help his brother, the former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, fight accusations of sexual misconduct which resulted in his resignation.How Chris and Andrew Cuomo’s on-air comedy routines compromised CNNRead moreAnnouncing the firing on Saturday, CNN said “additional information” had come to light. “Chris Cuomo was suspended earlier this week,” a statement said, “pending further evaluation of new information that came to light about his involvement with his brother’s defense.“We retained a respected law firm to conduct the review and have terminated him effective immediately. While in the process of that review additional information has come to light. Despite the termination, we will investigate as appropriate.”In a statement reported by the New York Times, Cuomo, 51, said: “This is not how I want my time at CNN to end but I have already told you why and how I helped my brother.“So let me now say as disappointing as this is, I could not be more proud of the team at Cuomo Prime Time and the work we did … I owe them all and will miss that group of special people who did really important work.”The CNN anchor tested a policy of not covering his brother in early 2020 when, during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic and with New York hard-hit, the two regularly spoke and joked on air.The scandal which engulfed Andrew Cuomo spread to his younger brother, who acknowledged offering advice when the governor faced the harassment charges that he denied but that ultimately led to his resignation in August.Chris Cuomo was then suspended on Tuesday, after the release of documentation collected during an investigation of Andrew Cuomo by the New York state attorney general, Letitia James.The information released by James showed how Chris Cuomo pressed sources for information on his brother’s accusers, reported to the governor’s staff and was active in helping shape responses to the charges.That information prompted loud calls for CNN to fire Cuomo.Marissa Hoechstetter, a victims’ rights advocate, tweeted: “As a survivor who has trusted CNN with my story, it is deeply disturbing that Chris Cuomo remains employed. “His unethical behavior – plus that of anyone giving him any info in the first place – should be disqualifying for a journalist. If they keep him on, they can’t be trusted.”Charlotte Bennett, an alleged victim of sexual misconduct by Andrew Cuomo, said: “Just like his older brother, Chris Cuomo used his time, network and resources to help smear victims, dig up opposition research, and belittle our credible allegations.“Anything short of firing Chris Cuomo reflects a network lacking both morals and backbone. Does CNN stand by journalistic integrity, or will it simply excuse his actions because Chris Cuomo drives ratings?”On Saturday, CNN took action.TopicsCNNAndrew CuomoUS politicsNew YorkUS televisionTelevision industrynewsReuse this content More

Florida’s governor celebrated his anti-mandate Covid laws. Now Omicron is hereRon DeSantis struck ‘a blow for freedom’ with his lax measures, but those could allow the new variant to circulate faster Barely one month ago, Florida’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis was on a victory lap. The state’s average rate of new Covid-19 infections was the lowest in the nation, and a lapdog legislature was about to sign into law his sweeping new coronavirus measures, including the outlawing of mask and vaccine mandates in pursuit of “striking a blow for freedom”.There was no mention of the 61,500 Floridians who have lost their lives to the virus.Now, with the highly transmissible Omicron variant gaining a foothold in the US and likely already present in Florida, doctors say, the robustness of the governor’s controversial steps could be about to receive a first real test.Seven doctors contract Covid after attending Florida anti-vaccine summitRead moreAnd while health experts and DeSantis’s political opponents agree it is too soon to know exactly how the state could be affected by any spread of the variant, they are worried. The rigidity of the DeSantis anti-mandate laws, including the removal of local authorities’ power to enact community protection measures based on conditions in their own areas, they say, could allow Omicron to circulate at a faster rate than it otherwise might.Evan Jenne, co-leader of the Democratic minority in the Florida house of representatives, accused DeSantis of fitting Florida with “concrete shoes”.“At the beginning of the pandemic a lot of free rein was given to local governments, because they were the ones with boots on the ground, they were the ones seeing what was happening and a lot of people were saved an untimely death because of actions of local governments,” he said.“By hamstringing them, by putting their hands behind their back and lacing up concrete shoes, it’s just going to make it that much more difficult. When you have a government the size of Florida’s, covering 22 million people, it’s going to be less nimble and less agile than the smaller, local governments and our local health departments.“Having an executive branch take all of that authority and power away from them is just not going to be a good move for public health into the future.”Jenne and his Democratic colleagues were vocal opponents of the measures, but outnumbered by Republicans almost two to one during last month’s special legislative session convened by DeSantis, a Donald Trump protege who is tipped for a presidential run in 2024.Since the summer, a period in which his state recorded its highest coronavirus death rates since the start of the pandemic, DeSantis has also battled with and fined school districts and local authorities over vaccine and mask mandates, offered $5,000 payments to unvaccinated police officers to work in Florida, and appointed the tendentious Dr Joseph Ladapo, a fellow skeptic of vaccine and mask mandates, as Florida’s new surgeon general.“If Donald Trump says I’m not running to be president again, Ron DeSantis will be the Republican nominee for president without question, and a lot of the stuff that you’re seeing him doing is buoying that idea and reaching out to his base and a particular segment of society that loves this stuff,” Jenne said.“Politically, I think it’s a wise move. For public health I think it’s dangerous.”Other elected officials, healthcare professionals and parents have also accused the governor of putting politics ahead of science.The notoriously prickly DeSantis, meanwhile, continues to present himself as a defender of the Florida economy, and citizens’ freedoms against the perceived tyranny of the Biden administration’s efforts to implement national mandates or lockdowns.At a press conference this week defending the new laws, the governor was asked about the Omicron variant, and lashed out at a familiar target: what he sees as “corporate media” controlling the conversation around Covid-19.“We are not, in Florida, going to allow any media-driven hysteria to do anything to infringe people’s individual freedoms when it comes to any type of Covid variants,” DeSantis said, before turning his attention to Biden and the chief White House medical adviser, Dr Anthony Fauci, a familiar sparring partner.“In Florida, we will not let them lock you down,” he said. “We will not let them take your jobs, we will not let them harm your businesses, we will not let them close your schools.”Jay Wolfson, distinguished professor of public health, medicine and pharmacy, and associate vice-president for health law at the University of South Florida, sees little prospect of DeSantis backing down if Omicron takes hold in the state.“I don’t expect the governor nor the Florida legislature are going to change their position, unless, God forbid, the death rate increases,” he said. “People will get sick, the hospitals might get crowded, but unless people are dying, it’s unlikely that the policies are going to change.”Wolfson noted that with DeSantis’s measures now enshrined in law, rather than executive orders that can more easily be challenged, there appears little appetite to defy him. All of the Florida school districts that once implemented strict mask mandates for students and staff have now terminated them, although many said it was because classroom coronavirus cases have fallen.Meanwhile Disney, one of the state’s largest employers, dropped its requirement for cast members to be vaccinated.“There’s no exemption for venues where there’s a higher risk of contact, such as theme parks, or a hospital, so you’re creating an environment where it’s increasingly likely that unvaccinated people will be exposed and get sick, and people whose vaccinations have declined efficacy could be exposed to those people and others and they could get sick,” Wolfson said.“But we just don’t know yet to what degree the Omicron variant is both more contagious and more virulent. We’re rolling the dice.”TopicsFloridaCoronavirusRon DeSantisRepublicansUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

The ‘stench’ of politicization: Sonia Sotomayor’s supreme court warningOral arguments over the Mississippi abortion case this week showed the threat to Roe v Wade from an increasingly politicized court About 11 minutes into this week’s hearing on abortion rights at the US supreme court, the floor was taken by Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three beleaguered liberal-leaning justices left on the court after its sharp rightward shift under Donald Trump.‘It’s earth-shattering’: Democrats and allies vow midterm fight over abortionRead moreSotomayor began by noting that in the past 30 years no fewer than 15 justices of all political backgrounds had supported the right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability. Only four had objected.Now after so many years of relative consensus, the legality of abortion enshrined in the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v Wade and reaffirmed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v Casey was suddenly on the line.Politicians in Mississippi, Sotomayor remarked (while leaving it unsaid that they were rightwing Republicans), had devised new legislation to ban abortions after just 15 weeks of pregnancy. By these politicians’ own admission, their bills were targeted specifically at the three new justices on the supreme court (all appointed by Trump, though she left that unspoken too).Then she went in for the kill.She addressed the danger posed by the court’s sudden and apparently politically motivated change of heart not just to abortion rights but to the rule of law itself.If the nation’s highest court, with its newly constituted Trumpian majority, were to go along with the ploy set for it by Mississippi and throw out half a century of settled law affirming a woman’s right to choose, then what would happen to the court’s legitimacy as a place in American democracy that rises above the cut and thrust of grubby partisanship?“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she said. “I don’t see how it is possible.”Stench. The word ricocheted off the august walls of the courtroom like a bullet.“It was a shocking moment,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. “An unadorned recognition of the legitimacy issues that are clearly preoccupying a number of the justices.”For Stephen Vladeck, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas at Austin, the takeaway of this week’s hearing was not how many justices were preoccupied with the reputational damage facing an increasingly politicised court, but how few. “To me, the single most distressing feature of Justice Sotomayor’s arguments was how little anyone else seemed to care,” he told the Guardian.Vladeck said he was dismayed by the “casualness with which so many of the justices seemed to be taking an issue that is so central to so many women. A ruling that gets rid of Roe would be enormously damaging in the eyes of millions of Americans, yet some of the conservative justices don’t seem to think that’s important.”The perception of nonchalance towards the integrity of the court among the six conservative justices now in the majority is striking. In advance of last week’s supercharged hearing, several of those same justices bent over backwards to try to convince the American people that they are neutral servants of the constitution.The three justices appointed by Trump have been especially keen to portray themselves as having not a partisan bone in their body. Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first of the three appointments, insisted in September 2019 that it was “rubbish” to imply that the justices were “like politicians with robes”.More recently Amy Coney Barrett, another of Trump’s triumvirate of appointees, told an audience in Kentucky that the supreme court was not “comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”. But she was speaking at the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville and was introduced at the event by the politician after whom the venue is named – Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the US Senate. It was his shenanigans, blocking Merrick Garland’s confirmation to the court in 2016 on grounds that it was in an election year then rushing through Barrett’s confirmation much closer to election day in 2020, that gave Trump his three picks.But it is the third of Trump’s supreme court proteges, Brett Kavanaugh, whose position is perhaps most glaring. During his confirmation process in 2018 Kavanaugh went to great lengths to underline his respect for the decisions made by his predecessors on the court, and for the legal doctrine known as stare decisis, which requires justices to honor past rulings in all but exceptional cases.Kavanaugh assured senators worried about his stance on abortion that he saw Roe v Wade as “settled law”.He went even further in his conversations with Susan Collins, the relatively moderate Republican senator from Maine on whose vote Kavanaugh depended. When she announced her decision to back him for the supreme court, she revealed what he had said to her during private conversations.“There has been considerable … concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v Wade,” she said. “Protecting this right is important to me. As Judge Kavanaugh asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked.”But when it came round to Kavanaugh’s turn to speak in this week’s debate he read out a long list of supreme court cases in which prior precedents had been overturned. He left observers with the clear impression that he was preparing to do precisely what he promised Collins and her fellow senators that he would not do – run roughshod over a pillar of constitutional law.The pointed interventions of the Trump justices and their conservative peers in this week’s hearing have led most observers convinced that abortion rights in the US are likely to be grossly restricted or abolished outright when the court rules next June. That would be uncannily as Trump himself had predicted.In a televised debate during the 2016 presidential race, Trump was asked by the Fox News host Chris Wallace whether he wanted the court, including any justices he might appoint as president, to overturn the right to an abortion. He replied: “I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges. I would think that that will go back to the individual states.”Trump did go on to appoint anti-abortion judges, and they are now poised to send control back to individual states, 21 of which currently have laws in place that would effectively ban abortions overnight were Roe v Wade overturned.Vladeck fears that the vast and growing disconnect between what the conservative justices say they are doing – impartially and faithfully upholding the law of the land, and what they are actually doing – playing along with the machinations of politicians in states like Mississippi, bodes very ill for the legitimacy of the court.In the long run it could also harm America’s future as a country of laws.“Public perception matters,” he said. “The more the court appears to be guided by contemporary partisan preferences as opposed to permanent legal principles, the harder it will be for millions of Americans on the wrong side of these cases to understand why they should be bound by them.”TopicsUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)AbortionnewsReuse this content More

The US president, Joe Biden, has said his coughing during a speech addressing the November jobs report on Friday is due to a cold.
‘What I have is a one-and-a-half-year-old grandson who had a cold who likes to kiss his pop,’ Biden said, responding to a question from a reporter after the speech

Covid: Biden says to beat Omicron variant ‘we have to shut it down worldwide’ – live More

Top Trump official to plead the fifth to Capitol attack committeeJohn Eastman, linked to efforts to stop Biden certification, to invoke constitutional protection against self-incrimination Former Trump lawyer John Eastman, who was connected to efforts to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election win on 6 January, will plead the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination before the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack.‘Handful of fanatics’ to blame for Capitol riot, Trump ally Meadows says in bookRead moreThe move by Eastman, communicated in a letter to the select committee by his attorney, is an extraordinary step and appears to suggest a growing fear among some of Trump’s closest advisers that their testimony may implicate them in potential criminality.“Dr Eastman has a more than reasonable fear that any statements he makes pursuant to this subpoena will be used in an attempt to mount a criminal investigation against him,” Eastman’s lawyer, Charles Burnham, told the select committee in a letter on Wednesday.The select committee issued a subpoena to Eastman last month as they sought to uncover the extent of his role in Trump’s scheme to prevent Biden from being certified as president and return himself to office for a second term despite losing the 2020 election.House investigators also took an interest in Eastman after it emerged that he played an integral part in a 4 January Oval Office meeting where he presented a memo advising then vice-president Mike Pence about ways to stop and delay Biden’s certification from taking place.But in responding to the subpoena, Eastman’s attorney told the select committee that the former Trump lawyer would assert the fifth amendment to protect himself from the rapidly expanding investigation that has so far ensnared dozens of top Trump allies.The letter made mostly procedural objections to the select committee’s inquiry, complaining that the panel only has members appointed by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, conducts its depositions behind closed doors, and that the scope of the subpoena was excessively broad.Neither Eastman nor Burnham immediately responded to a request for comment on Friday.The decision by Eastman to protect himself from self-incrimination came a day after the Guardian revealed that Eastman was connected to a phone call that Trump placed hours before the Capitol attack, seeking ways to somehow stop Biden’s certification on 6 January.According to multiple sources familiar with the call, Trump, on at least one call placed from the White House, pressed his lieutenants at the Willard – led by his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Eastman – about ways to prevent Biden from being pronounced president.The move by Eastman also makes him the second ally of the former president to claim the fifth amendment with the select committee, after the former Trump DoJ official Jeffrey Clark announced that he would invoke the protection in a deposition scheduled for Saturday.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

Nine pro-Trump lawyers ordered to pay $175,000 for sham election lawsuitMoney will cover legal costs of defending against the suit, which were over $153,000 for Detroit and nearly $22,000 for Michigan Nine lawyers allied with Donald Trump were ordered on Thursday to pay Detroit and Michigan a total of $175,000 in sanctions for abusing the court system with a sham lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results.The money, which must be paid within 30 days, will cover the legal costs of defending against the suit, which were more than $153,000 for the city and nearly $22,000 for the state.US district judge Linda Parker, who agreed to impose sanctions in August in a scathing opinion, rejected most of the attorneys’ objections to Detroit’s proposed award, but she did reduce it by about $29,000.Those sanctioned include Sidney Powell, L Lin Wood and seven other lawyers who were part of the lawsuit filed on behalf of six Republican voters after Joe Biden’s 154,000-vote victory over Trump in what officials have called the most secure election in US history.Sidney Powell filed false incorporation papers for non-profit, grand jury findsRead more“Plaintiffs’ attorneys, many of whom seek donations from the public to fund lawsuits like this one … have the ability to pay this sanction,” Parker wrote.She previously ordered each of the lawyers to undergo 12 hours of legal education, including six hours in election law.Michigan’s top three elected officials, the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, state attorney general Dana Nessel and Michigan secretary of state Jocelyn Benson, all Democrats, are seeking the disbarment of four of the nine attorneys, including Powell. She is licensed in Texas.The other three are admitted to practice in Michigan.Powell could not be reached for comment. Wood said he will appeal the order.“I undertook no act in Michigan and I had no involvement in the Michigan lawsuit filed by Sidney Powell,” he said in an email.Wood’s name was on the lawsuit, but he has insisted he had no role other than to tell Powell he would be available if needed.Powell is best known for saying she would “release the kraken”, a mythical sea creature, to destroy Biden’s claim on the White House.But baseless lawsuits in Michigan and elsewhere went nowhere.“There are consequences to filing meritless lawsuits to grab media attention and mislead Americans,” Benson, the state’s chief election official, said in a statement.“The sanctions awarded in this case are a testament to that, even if the dollar amounts pale in comparison to the damage that’s already been done to our nation’s democracy.”TopicsUS elections 2020Donald TrumpDetroitMichiganLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

Ending Roe v Wade is part of a long campaign to roll back democracy itselfJill FilipovicThe demise of abortion rights is the outcome of years of Republican work to make it harder for people to vote and stack the bench with rightwing judges American democracy is at the breaking point, and a supreme court ready to gut or overturn Roe v Wade is the latest warning sign. A radical minority is accumulating ever more power, and they’re threatening to undermine equal rights under the law, basic human freedoms, and democracy itself.Republicans are quietly rigging election maps to ensure permanent rule | David PepperRead moreOn Wednesday, the supreme court heard arguments in a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, even for rape and incest survivors. Under the longstanding legal framework of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, two of the supreme court cases that shape abortion rights in the US, states cannot outlaw abortion before the point of fetal viability, when the fetus can survive outside of the woman’s body (states can put restrictions on abortion before that point, so long as those restrictions don’t pose an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions). The Mississippi law violates that longstanding supreme court precedent.Yet the court agreed to hear it anyway, which was the first bad sign – why hear a case that so clearly flies in the face of what the court has already ruled? Wednesday’s oral arguments only contributed to the sense of doom, as a majority of the justices seemed ready and willing to overturn Roe.This didn’t happen by accident. The rightwing stranglehold on the courts has been a long-term project achieved by devious means. Republicans blocked Barack Obama from appointing dozens of judges to the federal bench, leaving those slots open for Donald Trump to fill. He stacked the courts with conservative reactionaries, many of whom were so unqualified that they failed to get the basic endorsement of the American Bar Association (ABA). Instead of appointing qualified candidates over rightwing stooges, the Trump administration simply cut the ABA out of the judicial vetting process.The most egregious of these Republican blockades came when Obama tried to appoint Merrick Garland to the supreme court seat vacated by Antonin Scalia. The right cried foul: it was wrong to change the balance of the court, they said, and it was an election year and therefore unfair to allow Obama a supreme court appointment; voters should decide the next president to pick a supreme court judge.A majority of voters wanted Hillary Clinton to have that role. But our undemocratic and archaic electoral college rules handed the victory to Donald Trump – the second time in less than two decades that the winner of the majority vote lost the White House.Trump, who ran on a promise of appointing anti-abortion judges who would overturn Roe v Wade, set about doing just that. He appointed Neil Gorsuch to the seat that should have been Garland’s. Then he appointed Brett Kavanaugh, despite the judge facing credible accusations of sexual assault. Finally, and most insultingly, Trump and his Republican Senate allies rammed through the appointment of the explicitly anti-abortion Amy Coney Barrett to the seat vacated by the feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg – in his last year of office, and despite the supposed rule about a president letting the voters decide before an election.Trump voters – a minority of Americans in both 2016 and 2020 – are about to get what they want: an America in which women and girls are forced into pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood; an America in which women are second-class citizens, not entitled to control over the very bodies they live in, forced to risk their lives in the name of “pro-life” misogyny.The rest of us are stuck dealing with these minority religious views imposed on us.Strong majorities of Americans support abortion rights and do not want to overturn Roe. And in any case, the supreme court is supposed to be a bulwark against tyranny, an institution that defends and upholds constitutional rights, not one that punts those rights to the states.This court is not that. And that’s because of the shameful rightwing devastation of American democracy. Three members of the conservative supreme court majority, after all, were appointed by a traitorous president who fomented an attempted coup against the United States, and who has continued to undermine the electoral process by claiming that the last election, which he lost fair and square, was stolen. His party has devolved into a cult of personality, so tied to one narcissistic tyrant that it didn’t even bother releasing a political platform in the last presidential election. And because the Republican party knows it will lose if it has to play on an even playing field, its members have been systemically undermining voting rights for years.The demise of abortion rights in the US is the outcome of years of anti-democratic organizing to make it harder for people to vote, gerrymander districts, pull power from various elected offices when Democrats win them, and stack the bench with rightwing judges who will allow it all to happen.It’s terrifying. And of course forcing women into subservience and traditional roles is part of this process – that’s been the strategy in authoritarian nations throughout history, and it’s a pattern we’re seeing play out now, as the same nations that are scaling back democratic norms and processes are also going after women’s rights.That American women are facing a hostile supreme court and are looking at a future without abortion rights – and potentially without the constitutional right to contraception – isn’t a matter of law or “life”. It’s a sign of a democracy in decline.
Jill Filipovic is the author of OK Boomer, Let’s Talk: How My Generation Got Left Behind
TopicsUS politicsOpinionAbortionUS supreme courtRoe v WadeLaw (US)RepublicanscommentReuse this content More