US Politics

Republican senator won’t condemn Trump for defending chants of ‘Hang Mike Pence’
John Barrasso, Senate No 3, dodges Capitol attack questions
Retiring representative Gonzalez predicts new Trump coup
Is Trump planning a 2024 coup?
A senior Senate Republican refused four times on Sunday to condemn Donald Trump for defending supporters who chanted “Hang Mike Pence” during the deadly assault on the US Capitol on 6 January.‘Pence was disloyal at exactly the right time’: author Jonathan Karl on the Capitol attackRead moreTrump made the comments about his vice-president, who did not yield to pressure to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory, in an interview with ABC’s chief Washington correspondent, Jonathan Karl.John Barrasso of Wyoming, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, appeared on ABC’s This Week. He was asked: “Can your party tolerate a leader who defends murderous chants against his own vice-president?”“Well,” said Barrasso. “Let me just say, the Republican party is incredibly united right now and … I think the more that the Democrats and the press becomes obsessed with President Trump, I think the better it is for the Republican party. President Trump brings lots of energy to the party, he’s an enduring force.”He also said the party was focused on elections and policy debate, not the past.His host, George Stephanopoulos, said: “So you have no problem with the president saying, ‘Hang Mike Pence’ is common sense?”“I was with Mike Pence in the Senate chamber during 6 January,” Barrasso said. “And what happened was they quickly got Vice-President Pence out of there, certainly a lot faster than they removed the senators. I believe he was safe the whole time.“I didn’t hear any of those chants. I don’t believe that he did either. And Vice-President Pence came back into the chamber that night and certified the election.”Stephanopoulous said: “We just played the chants. I’m asking you if you can tolerate the president saying ‘Hang Mike Pence’ is common sense.”“It’s not common sense,” Barrasso said, before pivoting to Trump’s lie that the election was subject to widespread voter fraud.“There are issues in every election,” he said. “I voted to certify the election. And what we’ve seen on this election, there are areas that needed to be looked into, like what we saw in Pennsylvania. We all want fair and free elections. That’s where we need to go for the future.”Stephanopoulos said: “But you’re not going to criticise President Trump for those views?”Barrasso said: “I don’t agree with President Trump on everything. I agree with him on the policies that have brought us the best economy in my lifetime. And I’m going to continue to support those policies.”Karl released more snippets of his interview with Trump. Asked if reports he told Pence “you can be a patriot or you can be a pussy” were accurate, Trump said: “I wouldn’t dispute that.”Trump also said he thought Pence could have sent electoral college results back to the House – the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars say he could not – and said: “I don’t know that I can forgive him.”“He did the wrong thing,” Trump said. “Very nice, man. I like him a lot. I like his family so much, but … it was a tragic mistake.”Trump’s flirtation with another White House run has seen critics within the GOP subject to primary challenges, political ostracisation and even death threats.Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio voted for Trump’s impeachment over the Capitol attack. Like Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of only two Republicans on the House select committee investigating 6 January, Gonzalez will retire next year.He told CNN’s State of the Union he feared Trump was formulating plans for a coup.“I think any objective observer would come to this conclusion: that he has evaluated what went wrong on 6 January. Why is it that he wasn’t able to steal the election? Who stood in his way?“Every single American institution is just run by people. And you need the right people to make the right decision in the most difficult times. He’s going systematically through the country and trying to remove those people and install people who are going to do exactly what he wants them to do, who believe the big lie, who will go along with anything he says.“I think it’s all pushing towards one of two outcomes. He either wins legitimately, which he may do, or if he if he loses again, he’ll just try to steal it but he’ll try to steal it with his people in those positions. And that’s then the most difficult challenge for our country. It’s the question, do the institutions hold again? Do they hold with a different set of people in place? I hope so, but you can’t guarantee it.”Gonzalez said he “despised” most Biden policies and would never vote Democratic.Betrayal review: Trump’s final days and a threat not yet extinguishedRead moreBut he said: “The country can’t survive torching the constitution. You have to hold fast to the constitution … and the cold, hard truth is Donald Trump led us into a ditch on 6 January.“… I see fundamentally a person who shouldn’t be able to hold office again because of what he did around 6 January, but I also see somebody who’s an enormous political loser. I don’t know why anybody who wants to win elections would follow that … If he’s the nominee again in ’24 I will do everything I can to make sure he doesn’t win.“… 6 January was the line that can’t be crossed. 6 January was an unconstitutional attempt led by the president of the United States to overturn an American election and reinstall himself in power illegitimately. That’s fallen-nation territory, that’s third-world country territory. My family left Cuba to avoid that fate. I will not let it happen here.”Trump issued a statement on Sunday, repeating lies about election fraud and alluding to the indictment of his former strategist Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress, for ignoring a subpoena from the 6 January committee, and legal jeopardy faced by others including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows.“American patriots are not going to allow this subversion of justice to continue,” Trump said, adding: “Our country is going to hell!”TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpRepublicansUS politicsUS SenateUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

Biden’s approval ratings continue to plunge amid crisis over inflation
41% of voters approve of Biden in new poll despite victory lap
Biden touts infrastructure win as midterms loom
Aides to Joe Biden took to the political talk shows on Sunday in a bid to talk up the US economic recovery despite confidence in the president continuing to plunge amid a crisis over inflation and supply chain problems.Republican senator won’t condemn Trump for defending chants of ‘Hang Mike Pence’Read moreIn alarming news for the White House, only 41% of voters approved of Biden in a Washington Post/ABC survey published on Sunday, continuing a steady downward trend in the president’s ratings.The new numbers, which come despite a victory lap over the passing of a $1.2tn infrastructure package and growing confidence over the prospects for a $1.75tn social spending bill, are a growing worry for Democrats with less than a year to the midterm elections.Only 39% approved of Biden’s handling of the economy, their confidence shaken by inflation surging to 30-year highs and the supply chain crisis threatening the availability of food and other essentials with the holiday season approaching.Janet Yellen, the treasury secretary, and Brian Deese, director of the National Economic Council, tried to reassure voters that Biden’s policies had the US on the right track, amid warnings of inflation remaining high well into next year.“We will still have an economic recovery that will be strong and support ongoing growth,” Yellen told CBS’s Face the Nation when asked about the likely dropping of paid family leave – forced by moderate Democratic senators such as Joe Manchin – from Biden’s Build Back Better domestic spending package.“We’re supportive, President Biden and I, of paid leave, and it’s something that we will try to legislate in the future,” Yellen said. “But there’s money in this package that will make it easier for people to work and care for family members at the same time.”Yellen blamed Covid-19 for the worst of the inflation and supply chain issues, and predicted that prices would likely “return to normal” in the second half of next year “if we’re successful with the pandemic”.“The pandemic has been calling the shots for the economy and for inflation,” she said. “If we want to get inflation down, continuing to make progress against the pandemic is the most important thing we can do.“We passed the American Rescue Plan and unemployment has declined from almost 15% to under 5% now. Americans feel confident about the job market. They’re seeing wage increases. It really reflects the support that we gave to Americans to keep up their spending and make it through the pandemic.”Yellen’s upbeat position was mirrored by Deese. On NBC’s Meet the Press, he attempted to downplay attempts in the summer to paint rising inflation as a “temporary” blip.“Because of the actions the president has taken, we’re now seeing an economic recovery that most people didn’t think was possible,” Deese said.“If you look at the strong wage gains plus the direct support that we’ve provided to families, checks in pockets and the child tax credit, the disposable income for a typical family is up about 2% even after you take into account inflation.“That doesn’t reduce the frustration any more when somebody’s going to the gas station and they see prices go up. But it does mean that we are well positioned to try to address these challenges going forward.”On CNN’s State of the Union, Deese said: “We actually know what we need to do here. We need to make a fully paid-for investment that will unlock more opportunities to get more people working in the economy.”Whether rosy messaging about inflation sways voters remains to be seen. Republicans such as the Florida senator Marco Rubio continue to bash Biden over the issue. Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, wrote in the Guardian this week that a lack of regulation has allowed corporate giants to continue raising prices while recording record profits.“They have so much market power they can raise prices with impunity,” Reich wrote. “The underlying problem isn’t inflation per se, it’s lack of competition. Corporations are using the excuse of inflation to raise prices and make fatter profits.“Price inflation is a symptom: the increasing consolidation of the economy in a relative handful of big corporations. This structural problem is amenable to only one thing: the aggressive use of antitrust law.”Deese, on CNN, said Biden was open to exploring the issue.“There’s a real concern of price gouging or market manipulation that could harm consumers,” he said. “So we’ve asked the Federal Trade Commission to take a very close look at that.”TopicsJoe BidenUS domestic policyUS politicsBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More

Interview‘Pence was disloyal at exactly the right time’: author Jonathan Karl on the Capitol attackDavid Smith in Washington A new book, Betrayal, dissects the final, authoritarian spasm of the Trump presidency, and Karl warns: ‘We came close to losing it all’How did it come to this? For five wretched hours, the vice-president of the United States found himself hiding in a barren underground garage with no windows or furniture. Somewhere above, a baying mob was calling for him to hang.The story of the deadly insurrection on 6 January, when Donald Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to subvert democracy, has been told in newspapers, books and TV documentaries. But journalist Jonathan Karl has seen unpublished photographs from that day that tell a new story about Vice-President Mike Pence.‘A roadmap for a coup’: inside Trump’s plot to steal the presidencyRead moreIn his highly readable new book, Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show, Karl recounts how the rioters broke into the Senate chamber, climbed up into the chair where Pence had just been presiding, posed for pictures and left him a chilling handwritten note: “It’s only a matter of time. Justice is coming.”Congressional leaders Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer had been rushed to a secure location outside the Capitol. But Pence, who was resisting pressure from Trump and the mob to overturn the election result, a power he did not possess in any case, declined to follow.“They wanted to take him out of the complex immediately and he refused to leave,” Karl says in an interview at an outdoor cafe in north-west Washington. “Pence is not a yeller but he yelled at his Secret Service lead agent, saying, ‘No, I’ve got a job to do, I am staying.’“Then, as the crowd is coming in towards the Senate floor, they said we have to at least get out of here because the room he was in didn’t have anything secure.”Surveillance video from the day shows Pence and his entourage being whisked down some stairs at a brisk pace. What happened next had been a mystery. Karl, who has reviewed all the pictures taken by the vice-president’s photographer, learned that the vice-president ended up in a loading dock beneath one of the Senate office buildings.Karl, who is ABC News’s chief White House correspondent, says the images reveal Pence in a garage with concrete walls and concrete floor. The vice-presidential motorcade was there but Pence refused to get inside his vehicle, worried that they would drive away at the first sign of danger.“Their first priority was to keep him safe. His priority was to stay. Those were not necessarily consistent. So for the first couple of hours at least, he refused to go inside the car.”Pence “looks a bit distraught”, Karl recalls from the pictures. During these roughly five hours there was no communication with Trump, who was at the White House, watching the spectacle unfold on TV. But the commander-in-chief was telling the world what he thought of his deputy.Karl continues: “There are a couple of shots where his chief of staff [Marc Short] is showing Vice-President Pence his phone and I was told that, in at least one of those shots, what is being shown is Trump’s tweet where he said, ‘Mike Pence didn’t have the courage.’“Here he is, the one guy in leadership refusing to leave the complex, holed up in a concrete parking garage while people are chanting for his life upstairs. He’s being shown a tweet from the president, who has not bothered to call to see if he is safe, saying he didn’t have courage.”There was another striking photo that day, after the insurrectionists had been chased out of the building so that Joe Biden’s election win could be certified. At around midnight, in statuary hall, Pence came face to face with Liz Cheney, a Republican congresswoman who would later vote for Trump’s impeachment.“Liz Cheney says to him, thank you, you did the right thing, it was really important – something to that effect. And Pence just looks at her, no discernible expression, maybe also because he’s wearing a mask, and doesn’t really say anything. It’s as if he’s worried that he’ll be overheard saying something nice to Liz Cheney. But there’s a photo of that moment which would also be interesting to see.”The pictures were taken by an official photographer whose salary is paid by taxpayers. Karl was denied permission to publish them but is confident they will be subpoenaed by the House of Representatives select committee investigating the events of 6 January.Even when the dust had settled, Trump showed no remorse or compassion for Pence. In March, Karl raised the subject during an interview with the former president at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. The conversation went as follows:Karl: Were you worried about him during the siege? Were you worried about his safety?Trump: No. I thought he was well protected. I had heard he was in good shape. No. Because I had heard he was in very good shape.Karl: Because you heard those chants. That was terrible. I mean, you know, those –Trump: Well, the people were very angry.Karl: They were saying, ‘Hang Mike Pence!’Trump: Because it’s common sense …Karl adds now: “What he was doing was essentially justifying the chants of those that were calling for the murder of his own vice-president, and there wasn’t a second of a beat to say, ‘Now, that was outrageous, they may be angry, but we can’t –’ He didn’t say that. Not at all. It’s not present in his head.“He’s still angry at Pence. He told me flatly that he would still be president if Pence did what he wanted to do and he didn’t know that he could ever forgive Pence.”For four years, Pence had been Trump’s oleaginous lieutenant, defending his every move and keeping conservatives and Christian evangelicals on his side. But at the critical moment, with America teetering between democracy and autocracy, the vice-president and former Indiana governor chose democracy.Karl explains: “I go into excruciating detail about the pressure that Pence was under. It was massive. It was relentless. It was public. It was private. It was from all directions and Pence, to his credit, was disloyal at exactly the right time. He was disloyal when it mattered the most. He had been loyal to Trump through everything else. He had enabled, you could argue, everything else and history will judge him for all of that.“But at that moment, Pence did the right thing and it really mattered because I don’t know what would have happened. I asked a lot of people this and nobody can give me a good answer. I don’t think there is a good answer. He didn’t have the authority to overturn the election.“He didn’t have the authority to throw out these electoral votes. But what if he did? It would have been chaos. What would Pelosi have done? How does it end? How do you get out of that? Eventually it wouldn’t have stood but how? The constitution’s not going to help you at that point. He’s basically stopping the last step in the certification of an election and that step is required for Biden to become president. So what if Pence just stopped it?”The more he learned in researching the book, Karl writes, the more he became convinced that, as horrific as the events of 6 January were, America was far more imperilled than most people realised at the time. It was a miracle, he argues, that nothing more dire happened between Trump’s election defeat and Biden’s inauguration.“The most important thing for people to take away from this book is an awareness that we came close to losing it all. Our democratic system has been around for well over 200 years but it’s actually fragile and more fragile than it has been at any point during our lifetimes.”The system, no matter how ingenious its construction, ultimately relies on key individuals behaving honourably. Karl, whose previous book was Front Row at the Trump Show, continues: “There were many people along the way who, if they had done something else, the situation could have had a much worse and even more catastrophic end.“The Michigan Republican leaders stand out to me because they were brought to the Oval Office, summoned there by Trump. They are leaders of a Republican party in a state where Republican voters are overwhelmingly entirely behind Donald Trump and they said, no, we cannot overturn our state’s election results.”Another example was Chris Liddell, a White House deputy chief of staff who had served all four years. “This guy had a clandestine operation going on in the West Wing to aid the Biden transition because it’s required by law. But what if he didn’t? What if he broke that law? Who’’s going to come in?“None of these people in their background would there be any indication that they would be the ones that would stand up against Donald Trump. But they did. Again, history will judge them for everything else they did but, in that moment, they helped this from becoming an even bigger crisis than it was.”So it was that Trump did not have to be forcibly removed from the Oval Office or have his fingers prised from the Resolute desk one by one. Yet he continues to tower over the Republican party and hold grievance and vengeance-fuelled rallies. He is still pushing false conspiracy theories about a stolen election and attempting to recast the history of 6 January as a heroic stand by brave patriots.Karl says: “It was clear from the interview that Donald Trump views January 6 as a great day and one of the greatest days of his presidency, which is amazing because it’s one of the darkest days in the history of the American republic.“He, in his head, has convinced himself – and I believe he believes it – this was a tremendous day because all of these people came from all over the country to fight for him in a way that his own political allies had never been willing to fight for him. They wanted to ‘stop the steal’.”Karl, 53, first met Trump in 1994 when he was a reporter at the New York Post and the property tycoon gave him a tour of Trump Tower, where newlyweds Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley were staying. Trump hasn’t changed much, he finds, except in one important regard.“The Trump I saw in 1994 was not as obviously angry and vindictive because the Trump in Mar-a-Lago has gained something and lost it, and is eager to deny that it was him who lost it and to blame others, including primarily those closest to him.”Karl describes how, in a fit of pique after his defeat, Trump threatened to quit the Republican party and start his own but backed down after being warned that such a move would cost him millions of dollars. The author does not think Trump will run for the White House again in 2024 because of the risk of another humiliating loss.If that prediction proves accurate and Trump’s name is not on the ballot, should we still be worried about the future of American democracy? “We have to be when you have a large segment of the population that doesn’t trust the results of an election, and the ground is being set to not trust the results of another election.“The efforts that are being taken in the states where Republicans are in control to limit voting have also caused those on the other side of the political spectrum to believe that they can’t trust the results of a presidential election.”Karl adds: “Our entire system is predicated on the idea that you fight it out in a campaign. Voters go and vote and the results are honoured. The winners are congratulated, the losers concede, and the fight goes on to the next election. Once you take that out of it, we’re in real trouble. So I am really worried. Trump is the great accelerant here but he’s not the original cause. It’s not just Trump.”TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpMike PenceUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

Can Harry and Meghan succeed in reintroducing royalty into US politics? The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have spoken out about paid family leave and the Capitol attack – but is that what Americans want from royal celebrities?Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, appear to have embarked on a new course in recent weeks as they seek to define their lives in America by adding political issues and influence into their established interests of being royal humanitarians embracing US celebrity norms of wealth, fame and talkshows.First it was Meghan, cold-calling two Republican US senators – West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito and Susan Collins of Maine – to urge them to support paid family leave provisions in Joe Biden’s languishing Build Back Better legislation.Meghan admits aide gave biography authors information with her knowledgeRead more“She called me on my private line and she introduced herself as the Duchess of Sussex, which is kind of ironic,” Collins told Politico. Collins added – perhaps a little disappointingly for fans of the royals – that she herself was “more interested in what the people of Maine are telling me” than members of British royalty.Meghan then appeared at a New York Times forum to press the issue. “This is one of those issues that is not red or blue,” she said, underscoring an earlier Paid Leave for All letter in which she stressed that she was “not an elected official, and I’m not a politician”. She was, she wrote, “an engaged citizen and a parent”.The targets of her letter? The Democrat bigwigs Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer. She has also reached out to the New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand to offer her help around paid leave campaigning.Her husband, Harry, has also taken his turn, informing a panel at a tech forum last week that he had warned the Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, that “his platform was allowing a coup to be staged” a day before the attack on the Capitol on 6 January by a Trump-supporting mob. By midweek the couple were back on familiar ground, paying tribute to armed forces on Veterans Day and helping to raise awareness of returning veterans’ mental health.For some observers it is a clear effort by the Sussexes to get – at least partially – involved with the politics of the country they are making home. And, given the fractious nature of US politics, that is not an easy path to tread.“They’re trying to rebrand themselves without completely rejecting the royal moniker,” says Arianne Chernock, a professor of history at Boston University and author of The Right to Rule and the Rights of Women: Queen Victoria and the Women’s Movement. “Meghan is adamant that hers is a human rights issue that she as an American can speak to, but the issue that she casts as non-political unfortunately plays out in the US context as a very partisan one.”The process of disentangling from royalty while still benefiting from the insider advantages it confers is also a delicate tightrope. But American fascination with Meghan “is fuelled by her open embrace of her identity and her attempts to connect it to a multiracial, multicultural global population”, says Chernock.After the Oprah sit-down interview in which the pair criticized the royal family and spoke of the racism they had faced, anEconomist/YouGov poll showed that about 40% of American adults overall feel personal sympathy for the couple, and were twice as likely to sympathize with the couple than with the royal family.But such sympathies are not entirely organic. The Sussexes’ quest to define their new lives in the US is plotted out. Last week, a witness statement released by the court of appeal in London that stemmed from a libel case Markle won against the Daily Mail showed that a recent coming-to-America account, Finding Freedom, was not unauthorized, as the couple had claimed, but cooperatively scripted.The revelation led some to wonder where the recent forays into the US political realm are headed.Until now, the US republic’s relationship with foreign royalty, or in this case fringe royalty, has followed relatively clear lines, as framed by the constitution to prevent a society of nobility from being established in the United States.“People use titles all the time in America but they can’t use them for any actual purpose,” says David Hackett Fischer, author Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, a classic study in how four groups – Puritans, Royalist Cavaliers, Quakers and borderland Scots-English – came to shape the culture of the regions they settled.“There aren’t many royalists among my fellow citizens, but they may be intrigued by people with a title,” Fischer says, “and most Americans have absolutely no interest in aristocracy or monarchy and don’t think it should have any standing.”But celebrity is a different matter.“Americans don’t think of celebrity as an order, but celebrate individuals by their interest in them – as film stars, athletes, or whatever they may be, and some because they have a lot of money.”The Sussexes, he says, “are celebrities only in the sense that the tabloids cover them, but that’s about the only thing that flows from their status”.But the relative acceptance within some Democratic circles of Meghan’s political input suggests more than shared causes in a tense political moment. “Rightly or wrongly, she can do things average citizens can’t,” says Bruce Freed at the Center for Political Accountability. “It’s star power. It feeds the ego to get a call from a prominent person.”Certainly Gillibrand appeared impressed. “I could hear how sincere she was about advocacy,” Gillibrand told the 19th website after her chat with the duchess.Still, the couple are fairly far advanced in their royal-to-celebrity transformation.The outgoing New York city mayor, Bill de Blasio, in September gave the couple a tour of the World Trade Center before the Sussexes headed off to another big-stage fundraiser, the Global Citizen Festival, themed to pressure western nations to donate 1bn vaccines to developing nations.As one well-placed Hollywood society power-broker remarks, “why stay in Britain as a walk-on, or a crowd-scene to provide atmosphere, when you can have starring roles in America?”And they certainly have powerful friends easing their way. The couple’s progress in the US has been smoothed by Nicole Avant, President Barack Obama’s ambassador to the Bahamas, a Montecito neighbor and wife of Hollywood’s most powerful executive, the Netflix CEO, Ted Sarandos. They may also count on Mellody Hobson, Meghan’s co-panelist last week, president and co-CEO of Ariel Investments, the chairwoman of Starbucks, and wife of the Star Wars director George Lucas.But some steps are discernibly precarious.Last week, per reports, the couple faced criticism that their lucrative Netflix deal is at odds with the streaming platform’s hit The Crown that will, in its fifth season, depict Harry’s mother during the years of her controversial Panorama interview and subsequent divorce.As yet their Netflix production account reveals little specific direction beyond saying its mission is “making inspirational family programming is also important to us” and “to share impactful content that unlocks action”.All of which points to an effort to fashion a new brand-identity despite the contradictions of complaining about press scrutiny and then going to Hollywood to actively court it. But in many ways, the Sussexes’ attempt to cast their activism within a humanitarian framework is in keeping with all members of the royal family who have made their relevance turn on humanitarian pursuits since the 18th century.“It’s one of the pitches they make for continuing relevance, and one way that they use to justify their power and privilege,” Chernock points out.TopicsPrince HarryMeghan, the Duchess of SussexUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

Conservative judges block Biden’s vaccine requirement for businessesPanel of judges rules stay of requirement for businesses with 100 or more workers is ‘firmly in the public interest’ Judges appointed by Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan declined on Friday to lift a stay on the Biden administration’s Covid-19 vaccine requirement for businesses with 100 or more workers.LA has imposed the strictest vaccine mandate in the US. Will it prevent a Covid surge?Read moreOne law professor said the move showed the court was “radical and anti-science”.Under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) requirement, such workers must be vaccinated by 4 January or use masks and weekly tests.The measure is softer than those implemented by many private businesses and state or local governments, and the Biden administration has expressed confidence in its legality.Nonetheless, the fifth US circuit court of appeals, based in New Orleans and one of the most conservative federal panels, granted an emergency stay last Saturday.Justice and labor department lawyers filed a response on Monday in which they said stopping the requirement would prolong the Covid-19 pandemic and “cost dozens or even hundreds of lives per day”.On Friday, a three-judge panel rejected that argument. In his ruling, Judge Kurt D Engelhardt wrote that the stay was “firmly in the public interest” and referred to the Osha requirement as a “Mandate”, with a capital “m”.More than 762,000 people have died from Covid-19 in the US, from a caseload of nearly 47m. Nonetheless, vaccine mandates, rules and requirements and other public health measures are the focus of concentrated opposition among Republican voters and politicians, including many jockeying for the presidential nomination in 2024.More than 434m doses of vaccines have been administered and more than 194 million Americans, or 58.5% of the population, are fully vaccinated.Resistance to vaccine mandates has produced protests and fears of staff shortages. At the same time, the Biden administration has heralded strong jobs numbers and what it says is an economy rebounding from its Covid battering.Engelhardt said “the mere specter of the Mandate” had stoked “workplace strife” and “contributed to untold economic upheaval in recent months”.“Rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-size fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly ‘grave danger’ the Mandate purports to address.”Experts say Covid remains a grave danger. Writing for the Guardian, Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine and executive vice-president of Scripps Research, said the US was “sitting in the zone of denial”.“We are already seeing signs that the US is destined to succumb to more Covid spread,” Topol said, “with more than three weeks sitting at a plateau of ~75,000 new cases per day, now there’s been a 10% rise in the past week.“We are miles from any semblance of Covid containment, facing winter and the increased reliance of being indoors with inadequate ventilation and air filtration, along with the imminent holiday gatherings.“Now is the time for the US to … pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates that unfortunately became necessary and have been proven effective, and mass distribute medical quality masks and rapid home testing kits at no cost.”Judge Engelhardt said the Biden business requirement potentially violated the commerce clause of the US constitution.“The Mandate imposes a financial burden upon [businesses] by deputising their participation in Osha’s regulatory scheme,” he wrote, “exposes them to severe financial risk if they refuse or fail to comply, and threatens to decimate their workforces (and business prospects) by forcing unwilling employees to take their shots, take their tests, or hit the road.”Federal judges routinely claim to be above politics. But the system for nominating and appointing them runs through the Senate, where Republicans are aggressive in seeking to tilt the bench their way.Engelhardt was nominated by Trump and confirmed in 2018, as was Stephen Kyle Duncan, who joined Engelhardt’s opinion on Friday. So did Edith H Jones, a Reagan appointee in 1985.Amy Coney Barrett claims supreme court ‘not comprised of partisan hacks’Read moreAll three have links to the Federalist Society, a conservative group which has worked with Republicans in Congress to install judges including Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, supreme court justices nominated by Trump.At least 27 states have filed challenges to the Osha vaccine rule in federal appeals courts. The federal government said in court filings the cases should be consolidated and one circuit court should be chosen at random on 16 November to hear it. Administration lawyers also say there is no reason to keep the requirement on hold while the court where the cases ultimately land remains undetermined.In an email, Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said the fifth circuit was “acting politically”.“But it also seems to be attempting to dictate the terms of the debate and to be violating the intent of Congress … to have an orderly system to resolve appeals when there are multiple challenges to an agency’s action and to prevent litigants from ‘forum shopping’ by racing to the courthouse to secure a decision from the court that it believes most favors the litigant’s position.“The appeals court which ‘wins’ the lottery and receives all of the challenges is free to ignore what the fifth circuit did or other courts may do.”On Twitter, Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said: “One factor federal courts must consider in granting or denying emergency motions is the ‘public interest’. [It is] ASTONISHING that the fifth circuit does not even MENTION prevention of death/disease from Covid as a public interest to justify the vaccine mandate”.He also said he did not “even think conservative is the right word” to describe the fifth circuit court.“It’s pretty radical and anti-science,” he said.TopicsUS newsCoronavirusVaccines and immunisationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Boost for Trump as Cohen loses fees case and Zervos drops defamation suitJudge rules against ex-president’s former fixer while Apprentice contestant ‘stands by allegations’

Christie: Trump knows better on election or is just ‘plain nuts’
Donald Trump saw his former campaign chair and White House strategist Steve Bannon indicted on Friday, for contempt of Congress over the Capitol attack. But the former president also received two slices of good news from courts in New York.Betrayal review: Trump’s final days and a threat not yet extinguishedRead moreIn one development, Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Trump’s TV reality show who accused him of sexual assault, dropped her defamation lawsuit against him.In another, a judge said the Trump Organization did not need to pay millions in legal bills to Trump’s former fixer and attorney, Michael Cohen.Cohen sued the Trump Organization for failing to make good on a promise to pay legal costs resulting from his work. But on Friday a judge said Cohen had failed to prove the bills he incurred amid a criminal investigation and other lawsuits were related to conduct as an employee of the Trump Organization.The alleged missed reimbursements included $1.9m for legal fees and costs, plus another $1.9m related to Cohen’s criminal case, according to Cohen’s 2019 complaint.“In a nutshell, Mr Cohen’s legal fees arise out of his (sometimes unlawful) service to Mr Trump personally, to Mr Trump’s campaign, and to the Trump Foundation, but not out of his service to the business of the Trump Organization,” the judge said.Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, said the decision was “unfair”. He also linked to a crowdfunding account in support of Cohen.A longtime employee, Cohen became a critic of Trump while he was president, testifying that Trump directed him to break the law. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison for his role in illegal hush-money payments to women to help Trump’s 2016 campaign and lying to Congress about a project in Russia.Cohen has written a memoir and hosts a politics podcast and is close to completing his sentence under home confinement.On Friday he tweeted: “Despite over 300 hours of cooperation and ‘CONTINUING’”, New York prosecutors, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the US justice department were ⁩“riding me ‘door to door’ on a matter they refused to bring against [Trump]. Another ‘9’ more days and done!”’It felt like tentacles’: the women who accuse Trump of sexual misconductRead moreZervos is a former contestant on The Apprentice, the show Trump fronted for NBC before entering politics. She sued in New York state court in 2017, saying the then president had damaged her reputation when he said she and other women alleging sexual assault and harassment were making things up.Friday’s filing said the case was dismissed and discontinued with prejudice, meaning Zervos cannot file the same claim in state court in the future. The filing also said each party was responsible for its own costs.Zervos accused Trump of kissing and groping her against her will in 2007, an allegation she detailed during the 2016 election. He denied it.On Friday, the attorneys Beth Wilkinson and Moira Penza said: “After five years, Ms Zervos no longer wishes to litigate against the defendant and has secured the right to speak freely about her experience.“Zervos stands by the allegations in her complaint and has accepted no compensation,” they said.Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, called the decision to drop the case “prudent”.“She had no choice but to do so as the facts unearthed in this matter made it abundantly clear that our client did nothing wrong,” Habba said.Trump said: “It is so sad when things like this can happen, but so incredibly important to fight for the truth and justice. Only victory can restore one’s reputation!”At least 26 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, harassment or assault, allegations he denies.The writer E Jean Carroll has accused Trump of raping her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s. She sued for defamation after Trump claimed she had lied about the incident to sell a book and said she was “not my type”.Speaking to the Guardian in 2019, Carroll said she had “a crystal clear memory of most of [the alleged attack]. A lot of it is etched into my brain”.‘I accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. Now I sleep with a loaded gun’Read moreShe also described feeling Trump’s “shoulder against me. That was the weight I felt. He was big, and he had one of his topcoats on, so he had that against me, too. I remember the feeling of being pressed by his shoulder, my head bouncing against the wall. That is clear. It was so surprising.”Carroll also showed the Guardian a loaded gun which, wary of threats, she kept on the bedside table.On Friday, responding to news of Zervos’ decision to drop her suit, Carroll wrote: “Friends, I feel MORE determined to fight and win my defamation suit against Trump. In fact, as soon as the Adult Survivors Bill passes in New York, I will sue Trump for rape. My spirits are high! My attorneys are warriors!”The Adult Survivors Act is a state measure that would grant sexual assault survivors the chance to sue after the statute of limitations has expired. It is modeled on legislation that allows people who were victims of abuse as children to sue without time constraints. The measure has not passed the state assembly.TopicsMichael CohenDonald TrumpNew YorkUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

InterviewHistorian Timothy Snyder: ‘It turns out that people really like democracy’Tim Adams The author of On Tyranny on the lack of historical literacy, how local news has been replaced by Facebook, and why novels matter to himTimothy Snyder is a professor of history at Yale University and the author of books about the 20th-century history of central Europe, including Bloodlands, which examined the devastating consequence of Hitler and Stalin’s simultaneous reign of terror over civilian populations, and won the 2013 Hannah Arendt prize for political thought. In 2016, after the election of Donald Trump, Snyder wrote a short book, On Tyranny, which provided 20 brief lessons – “Defend Institutions”, “Remember Professional Ethics”, “Read Books” – from the 20th century that might help readers protect democracy against dictatorship. It topped the New York Times bestseller list for nonfiction in 2017. A new edition of the book, with illustrations by the German-American Nora Krug, whose graphic memoir Belonging confronted Germany’s Nazi past, has just been published.What prompted you to want to make this graphic version of On Tyranny?It came out originally in this extremely simple, accessible form. I always had the idea that it could take a different form, but that only became concrete once I read Nora Krug’s Belonging. I cold-called her and said: “Could you please do this?” Part of it was also to renew it. I changed the text a little bit, removed some of the stuff that was specific to 2016 and added some lines that recall what happened in 2020.You wrote the original in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s inauguration. Was it intended as a call to arms for yourself as well as to others?Yes, it was like something snapped in me where I thought we should all do the things that we can. In writing the book I was putting myself out there, so it was something I had to live by. I’m glad I did that. As a writer, you have to make yourself vulnerable sometimes.Looking back, it seemed important to say that being outraged on social media about Trump probably wasn’t going to be enough?Exactly. I think the lesson that maybe people reacted to the most is number 12: “make eye contact and talk to people” in the corporeal world. And then number 13, which was to actively get involved in politics, to get our physical bodies into unfamiliar situations. The book is a frontal attack on that idea that it is never enough to accept the world as it is and just comment on it.One of the things that the book is alarmed by is a lack of historical literacy. The fact that terms such as “America first” or, in the UK, “enemies of the people” could be employed with so few alarm bells ringing among people about their history in fascism. Do you still see that kind of illiteracy even in some of your students?History has been seriously devalued in the US, I would say, since 1989 and that very unfortunate idea [“the end of history”] that history was now over. “America first” and “enemies of the people” are words that are consciously applied by people who wish to destroy democracy. If people don’t know how those words have been applied in the past, then that is dangerous. Part of the backwash of the Trump coup attempt is all of these laws in various states are designed to make history uncontroversial – which, let’s be clear, means: uncontroversial for white people.At the time you wrote the book, people were being criticised for making comparisons with what was happening in 2016 and the 1930s. Did you feel any trepidation about doing that?I don’t remember having that feeling. When people refuse to make comparisons with events that have happened before, what they are really saying is: “I don’t want to look at either the past or the present.”You grew up in Dayton, Ohio. How much did that firsthand knowledge of the midwest and those declining industrial heartlands inform your understanding of the forces that produced Trump?It certainly affected it. In 2016, I spent some time going door to door there and talking to people about the forthcoming presidential election. That helped me to see how important social media was. I asked one guy a question and he went back and checked Facebook before answering. Where my parents are from and still live had become entirely Trumpland.The demise of local news is not mentioned often enough in these kind of conversations…I think a lack of local news may be the single greatest source of the problem. Most American counties are now news deserts; they have no reporters covering local politicians at all. People have no way of being active citizens; they go on reading but the stuff they read drives them upwards to national politics, into obsession and conspiracy. They bring the trust they had for local news to Facebook.One of your antidotes to that is “read books”; who have been the writers that you’ve turned to most in the past five years?I always go back to Roger Penrose, the physicist. He is important to me because he has a view about unpredictability in quantum mechanics, which has implications for politics. And then some of the people who confronted these questions in the last century in different ways: Hannah Arendt, Václav Havel, Victor Klemperer. In addition to that, it’s really important to me to read novels, because they prepare you for scenes in the real world you haven’t yet confronted. I’ve just started rereading Les Liaisons Dangerouses. But I also get excited when I hear Julian Barnes has a new novel out.It seems to me that the opposite of tyranny is not freedom, but something more active: creativity, engagement. Do you think artists and writers have lately stepped up to that challenge?I think it’s true that freedom cannot be the opposite of anything. But I’m not going to criticise artists and writers – the main problem is often the way that their work has trouble getting viewed. One of our big problems at the moment is that we find it hard to imagine a viable future. Art and literature enable us to flex those imaginative muscles.Where do you place your optimism?I prefer hope to optimism. One thing is, it turns out that people really like democracy. It has been heartening to see that so many people care enough about democracy to take personal risks to defend it.TopicsHistory booksBooks interviewUS politicsinterviewsReuse this content More

Fox News edits video of Biden to make it seem he was being racially insensitiveFox & Friends host played edited clip before claiming the US president was ‘facing backlash’ for his remarks Fox News edited video of Joe Biden to remove context from remarks some could judge as racially insensitive.In Veterans Day comments at Arlington National Cemetery on Thursday, Biden told an anecdote that referenced the baseball player Satchel Paige, who pitched in the Negro Leagues before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball.Biden’s remarks were featured on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show on Thursday night, when the primetime host said the president had “one of his most disturbing, troubling moments to date”.Then, on the Fox & Friends morning show on Friday, host Rachel Campos Duffy said Biden was “facing backlash”.Biden said he had “adopted the attitude of the great Negro, at the time pitcher in the Negro Leagues, went on to become a great pitcher in the pros in Major League Baseball after Jackie Robinson, his name was Satchel Paige”.But when Duffy played the clip, it was edited so Biden was heard saying he had “adopted the attitude of the great Negro at the time, pitcher, name was Satchel Paige”.Duffy said Biden’s remarks were “landing him in hot water”.While “Negro” was once a common way to refer to Black people and still appears in organization names, the terms “Black” and “African American” are more widely used.Philip Bump, national correspondent for the Washington Post, wrote: “The hashtag #RacistJoeBiden was trending on Twitter by early Friday afternoon.“Some commenters on social media described Biden’s speech as having used the ‘n-word’, suggesting that a term once commonly used to refer to Black Americans – a descriptor that was in use in the Census Bureau’s racial categories as recently as 2010 – was equivalent to a historically racist slur.“By pretending that Biden was calling Paige a ‘Negro’, though, they could pretend that Biden was revealing a secret bias against Black Americans, both for him and his party.”Bump also wrote that it was “useful to consider why [Fox News] and others on the right are investing in this particular narrative. It comes down to one of the central debates in politics at the moment, the interplay of partisanship and race”.“There is a sense among many conservatives that the political left is constantly attacking them as racist. The reasons for this are myriad and complicated, rooted to some extent in the overlap of race and partisanship (most Black Americans are Democrats) and in a sense that reevaluations of America’s history through the lens of race are implicitly (or explicitly) about criticizing White Americans.”Al Tompkins, a faculty member at Poynter Institute, a journalism thinktank, told the Associated Press that when editing video, journalists have an obligation to keep statements in the context they were delivered or explain to viewers why a change was made. In the video presented by Fox & Friends, he said, the edit was not at all clear.A Fox News spokesperson said Biden’s full remark was used when the story was repeated twice on Fox & Friends, and said the one-time edit was made because of time constraints.TopicsFox NewsJoe BidenUS politicsRaceDemocratsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More