US Politics

Climate crimesUS CongressOil executives face ‘turning point’ US congressional hearing on climate crisisThe heads of top US oil companies will answer accusations that their firms have spent years lying about the climate crisis Supported byAbout this contentChris McGrealThu 28 Oct 2021 03.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 28 Oct 2021 03.01 EDTThe heads of major oil companies will make a historic appearance before Congress on Thursday to answer accusations that their firms have spent years lying about the climate crisis.For the first time, the top executives from the US’s largest oil company, ExxonMobil, as well as Shell, Chevron and BP will be questioned under oath about the industry’s long campaign to discredit and deny the evidence that burning fossil fuels drove global heating.The dirty dozen: meet America’s top climate villainsRead moreA leading critic of the petroleum industry behind the hearing by the House oversight committee, Representative Ro Khanna, said the executives’ testimony has the potential to be as significant as the 1994 congressional hearing at which the heads of the big tobacco companies were confronted with the question of whether they knew nicotine was addictive.They denied it and that lie opened the door to years of litigation which resulted in a $206bn settlement against the cigarette makers.Khanna told the Guardian that the oil company chiefs face a similar moment of reckoning.“They’ve got a very tricky balance. They either have to admit certain wrongdoing or they run the risk of lying under oath. If I were them, I would come in with more of a mea culpa approach and acknowledge what they’ve done wrong,” he said.“It’ll be a turning point for them. It could be the big tobacco moment. We’ve never had a situation where the big oil executives have to answer under oath for their company’s behaviour.”Khanna said that he wanted Americans to take away the message from the hearing that the oil companies “knew they lied” about the climate emergency.The CEOs, who have opted to testify by video, are Darren Woods of Exxon, David Lawler of BP American, Michael Wirth of Chevron and the president of Shell, Gretchen Watkins.The leaders of two powerful lobby groups accused of acting as front organisations for big oil, the American Petroleum Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce, will also testify.Khanna said the oil chiefs will be confronted with evidence of a persistent and coordinated cover-up, including documents that have not been made public before.“The documents confirm the misinformation and deception that they’ve engaged in in the past explicitly, and that they continue to engage in through third parties,” he said. “The record is so clear that they will be risking perjuring themselves if they deny the record.”But the hearing will also be a test for whether the oil industry’s critics can back up their claims of a sprawling conspiracy by the fossil fuel companies to block action on the climate emergency – an accusation also made in dozens of lawsuits by US states, municipalities and private organisations.Geoffrey Supran, a research associate at Harvard’s department of history of science and co-author of a groundbreaking study of Exxon’s communications on the climate crisis, said the oil executives are well-practiced at sidestepping responsibility.“This will be a challenging hearing. This is a situation where the historical record is incontrovertible but the climate denial machine has been like a sprawling, well-oiled, well-funded network for decades,” he said. “Given the range of actors and tactics involved, asking the right questions at the right time, having the right documents at your fingertips to pin them into a corner is tricky.”The hearings follow the release of a growing body of evidence that the oil industry knew about and covered up the growing threat from burning fossil fuels for decades. That includes a raft of Exxon documents held at the University of Texas, and uncovered by the Columbia Journalism School and the Los Angeles Times in 2015.In 1979, a study by Exxon’s own scientists concluded that burning fossil fuels “will cause dramatic environmental effects” in the coming decades. It called the issue “great and urgent”.Exxon’s response to that and similar warnings was to shut down research into global heating and to go on a public relations offensive to discredit climate science as no more than a theory, and to shift responsibility on to consumers.In 2019, Martin Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University, told a congressional hearing that his climate modelling for Exxon in the 1980s showed that burning fossil fuels was “increasingly having a perceptible influence on Earth’s climate”.Meanwhile the company was pushing a different narrative.“Exxon was publicly promoting views that its own scientists knew were wrong, and we knew that because we were the major group working on this. This was immoral and has greatly set back efforts to address climate change,” said Hoffert.Other oil firms face similar accusations alongside trade groups and thinktanks they funded to deny climate science.This story is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of news outlets strengthening coverage of the climate storyTopicsUS CongressClimate crimesExxonMobilRoyal Dutch ShellChevronBPOilUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

US SenateDemocrats’ tax plan to pay for Biden agenda would affect 700 of America’s super-richProposed tax on wealthiest people in the US would include Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Charles Koch Lauren Aratani and agenciesWed 27 Oct 2021 15.05 EDTFirst published on Wed 27 Oct 2021 08.13 EDTSenate Democrats on Wednesday unveiled a new billionaires tax proposal, an entirely new entry in the tax code, designed to help pay for Joe Biden’s sweeping domestic policy package and edge his party closer to an overall agreement on a shrunken version of the administration’s $3.5tn flagship legislation.‘If we had a deal we would tell you’: disagreements rage over Biden agenda despite White House assurances – liveRead moreThe proposed tax would affect those with more than $1bn in assets or incomes of more than $100m a year, and it could begin to shore up the ambitious social services and climate plan Biden is racing to finish before departing this week for the global climate summit, Cop26, in Scotland.Democrats behind the proposal say that about 700 of America’s super-rich taxpayers would be affected by the new tax proposal.The wealthiest people in the US include household names such as Tesla’s Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, who is worth almost a quarter of a trillion dollars. Also included are Jeff Bezos, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google, investor Warren Buffett, the Walton family members behind Walmart, and the industrialist and libertarian activist Charles Koch.Reports show that the wealthiest Americans became even richer during the pandemic, with the 400 richest seeing a 40% rise in their wealth as the pandemic shuttered large parts of the US economy.“The Billionaires Income Tax would ensure billionaires pay tax every year, just like working Americans,” said the Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the chairman of the Senate finance committee who authored the new billionaire tax proposal. “No working person in America thinks it’s right that they pay their taxes and billionaires don’t.”However, the proposal drew doubts and criticisms from Republicans and some Democrats, including Joe Manchin, a centrist who has been central to efforts to slim down the reconciliation bill.Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, the West Virginia senator said wealthy Americans should pay a “patriotic tax” of 15% to ensure that all citizens are giving something back to their country.But when it comes to the billionaire tax, Manchin said: “I don’t like it. I don’t like the connotation that we’re targeting different people.”Wyden’s House of Representatives counterpart, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, said the billionaire tax “will be very difficult because of its complexity.”Later, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, was asked whether the administration was confident that Democrats’ plan would withstand legal scrutiny.“We’re not going to support anything we don’t think is legal,” she said. “But I will tell you the president supports the billionaire tax. He looks forward to working with Congress and Chairman Wyden to make sure the highest-income Americans pay their fair share.”At the heart of the proposal is a change in what the federal government considers income for the wealthiest individuals. Rather than just basing tax on the paycheck a billionaire receives from a company, the tax would target the unrealized gains of billionaires, which includes the billions of dollars of shares they hold in their companies.Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, for example, makes a salary of about $80,000 a year, though his Amazon stock holdings increase in value over $10bn a year.“If Mr Bezos does not sell any of his Amazon shares in a given year, the income tax ignores the $10bn gain, and effectively he is taxed like a middle-class person making $80,000 a year,” wrote Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities thinktank, in a Twitter thread explaining the Democrats’ proposal.This happens, Marr said, because the federal government does not treat gains made on stocks as income until the stock is sold. What billionaires do to get money is take out huge personal loans, using their shares as collateral. ProPublica revealed that Tesla’s Elon Musk pledged 92m shares of Tesla stock, currently worth over $1,000 a share, as collateral for personal loans.“Why do wealthy people take out these loans? A big reason is to avoid paying taxes they would have to pay if they sold some of their assets,” Marr wrote. “With this proposal, policymakers, in effect, are acknowledging that this is a glaring loophole in the income tax that needs to be closed.”Musk took a dig at the plan on Twitter, responding to a user who expressed concern that the proposal, if passed, would open the door to future tax hikes that would cover a wider range of middle-class Americans with investments.“Exactly. Eventually, they run out of other people’s money and then they come for you,” tweeted Musk, who could owe as much as $50bn in taxes under the proposal.Coupled with a new 15% corporate minimum tax, the proposal would provide alternative revenue sources that Biden needs to win over one key Democrat, Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who had rejected the party’s earlier idea of reversing the Trump-era tax breaks on corporations and the wealthy to raise revenue.Biden met late on Tuesday evening with Sinema and Manchin at the White House.With the US Senate split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats, Biden needs every Democratic senator on board to pass the budget bill with the allowable simple majority, using the so-called reconciliation process – with Vice-President Kamala Harris the casting vote in the traditional role of president of the Senate.“No senator wants to stand up and say, ‘Gee, I think it’s just fine for billionaires to pay little or no taxes for years on end’,” said Wyden.Biden and his party are homing in on at least $1.75tn in healthcare, childcare and climate change programs, scaling back what had been outlined as a $3.5tn plan, as they try to wrap up negotiations.Taken together, the new tax on billionaires and the 15% corporate minimum tax are designed to fulfill Biden’s promise that no new taxes hit those earning less than $400,000 a year, or $450,000 for couples. Biden insists all the new spending will be fully paid for and not added to the national debt.TopicsUS SenateUS CongressDemocratsJoe BidenUS taxationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

OregonEx-New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof announces Oregon governor bidKristof is running as a Democrat to replace governor Kate Brown, who cannot run for re-election due to term limits Guardian staff and agenciesWed 27 Oct 2021 14.20 EDTLast modified on Wed 27 Oct 2021 14.55 EDTNicholas Kristof, the former New York Times reporter and columnist, announced Wednesday he is running for governor of Oregon, the state where he grew up.Kristof, 62, is running as a Democrat to replace governor Kate Brown, who cannot run for re-election due to term limits.Second In-N-Out burger restaurant in California shut for ignoring Covid rulesRead moreKristof grew up on a sheep and cherry farm in Yamhill, a town in the wine-producing Willamette Valley, and his family still owns land in the area.When he announced his departure from the New York Times earlier this month, he wrote in a statement to staff: “You all know how much I love Oregon, and how much I’ve been seared by the suffering of old friends there. So I’ve reluctantly concluded that I should try not only to expose problems but also see if I can fix them directly.”“It was hard to leave a job I loved, but it’s even harder to watch your home state struggle when you feel you can make a difference on issues like homelessness, education and good jobs,” he said on Facebook on Wednesday.Kristof won a Pulitzer prize in 1990 along with his wife, Sheryl WuDunn, for their reporting on the the protests at Tiananmen Square in China. He won the award again in 2006 for columns about the Darfur conflict in Sudan.Democrats in Oregon have overwhelming majorities in the Legislature and the party has held the governor’s office since 1987.Kristof faces a crowded Democratic field, with Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek and state Treasurer Tobias Read already among the gubernatorial candidates for the 2022 race.About a dozen Republican candidates have also said they will run.TopicsOregonUS politicsDemocratsNew York TimesnewsReuse this content More

President Joe Biden, who will meet Pope Francis at the Vatican on Oct. 29, is Catholic. The country’s’ first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, visited the Vatican too. But meetings between U.S. presidents and popes have been a staple of politics since the Kennedy era, whether the president was Catholic or not.

Woodrow Wilson was the first sitting president to meet a pope, visiting Pope Benedict XV amid peace negotiations after World War I. Dwight Eisenhower met John XXIII as part of an international goodwill tour. Lyndon Johnson first met with Paul VI when the pontiff came to New York for a historic address at the United Nations in 1965. Richard Nixon twice met with Paul VI, despite the Pope’s clear opposition to the war in Vietnam. Gerald Ford met with Paul VI in 1975, and Jimmy Carter greeted the new pope, John Paul II, in 1979.

Those meetings all preceded the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the United States and the Holy See, as the Vatican city-state is known in formal diplomacy. The two states finally exchanged ambassadors in 1984, under Ronald Reagan and John Paul II. Both were committed anti-communists, and their move to establish official ties marked an important geopolitical alliance.

In my research on the relationship between Catholicism and U.S. politics, their partnership stands out as a turning point – and a boon for Reagan. At the time, he needed a Catholic ally, and found one in John Paul II.

And today, Biden faces a somewhat similar situation.

President Joe Biden’s Oct. 2021 audience with Pope Francis will not be the pair’s first meeting. Here, the two shake hands before the pope’s 2015 address to Congress.
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File

Common cause

The Holy See has been an independent city-state since 1929, but in reality, the pope has been a head of state at least since the eighth century.

It is a unique situation: a religious leader functioning fully as a head of state. Yet the Roman Catholic Church occupies a unique place in world history. As the first global power, the church has shaped world politics for centuries. Today the church is not only home to more than a billion believers, but it directly and indirectly supports a tremendous amount of nonprofit work around the world.

When Reagan formalized the long-standing U.S. diplomatic relationship with the Holy See in 1984, the church’s wide influence provided a good reason. But not the only one.

The previous year, shortly ahead of his reelection campaign, Reagan had reason to worry that Catholic voters might not support him. U.S. bishops had published a pastoral letter, “The Challenge of Peace,” which said that “good ends (defending one’s country, protecting freedom, etc.) cannot justify immoral ends (the use of weapons which kill indiscriminately and threaten whole societies).” It was a direct challenge to the Reagan administration’s arms buildup, which had heated up the Cold War.

The administration went to lengths to discredit the bishops, suggesting they were out of step with the pope. American public opinion was turning against the arms race, and Reagan needed a powerful ally who could help him hold on to Catholic voters.

Reagan found that ally in John Paul II, who shared his wariness toward the Soviet Union. While the bishops’ pastoral was being drafted – a process journalist Jim Castelli has traced in depth – John Paul warned that the church must not call for the U.S. to disarm unilaterally. The Polish pope had experienced Soviet domination and hoped to liberate the world from communist influence.

Given the president and the pope’s common cause, Rome likely would be more sympathetic to Reagan’s perspective than the U.S. bishops. The U.S. established diplomatic relations with the Holy See eight months after publication of “The Challenge of Peace” and 10 months before the 1984 election.

Abortion politics heated up in the run-up to the election, as pro-choice Catholic Mario Cuomo, the Democratic governor of New York, considered running for president. The Democrats eventually nominated Walter Mondale, with another pro-choice Catholic, Geraldine Ferraro, as his running mate. Reagan, who positioned himself as pro-life, focused attention on the issue in another effort to win back Catholic voters, one assured to carry approval from the pope.

Reagan won the 1984 election in a historic landslide. He carried 49 states and took the greatest share of the Catholic vote that any Republican had won to that point in history.

Another timely trip?

Today, 37 years later, the Biden presidency faces its own Catholic dilemma – the latest chapter in a long struggle about Catholics in American public life, highlighting a deeper rift between U.S. bishops and the Vatican.

Many U.S. bishops want to bar public figures from receiving the sacrament of Communion – the focus of every Catholic Mass – if they support the right to an abortion, which the church considers a grave sin. In 2019, a South Carolina priest refused to offer Communion to Biden because of the politician’s pro-choice stance.

In November, U.S. bishops will gather to debate a document on “Eucharistic coherence,” which may contain instructions about who is eligible for Communion.

But the Vatican has all but urged the bishops not to go ahead with the document.

“I have never refused the Eucharist to anyone,” Pope Francis told reporters in September 2021, urging priests to think about the issue “as pastors” rather than from a political viewpoint.

As Biden prepares for his papal visit, the administration may have Reagan’s instructive history in mind. The president – like Reagan – may find a more receptive ear in Rome than at home. More

West VirginiaJoe Manchin pushes for climate cuts as West Virginia battered by crisis The conservative Democrat is busy trying to strip out many of the policies to tackle the problems his home state is facingKyle Vass in West VirginiaWed 27 Oct 2021 03.00 EDTLast modified on Wed 27 Oct 2021 03.02 EDTThe rise of Joe Manchin as a key power player for Democratic policymaking in 2021 is the result of a perfect storm for the US senator from West Virginia.Spies next door? The suburban US couple accused of espionageRead moreHis position as the Senate’s most conservative Democrat means he often has final say in what his party is able to push through, especially when it comes to Joe Biden’s ambitious domestic agenda on infrastructure, far-reaching social policies and a powerful attempt to tackle the climate crisis.A drive through West Virginia’s countryside – which is still enthusiastically Donald Trump country – reveals a patchwork of communities battered by the climate crisis and barely held together by deteriorating infrastructure. Yet Manchin – balking at a $3.5tn price tag of Biden’s reconciliation bill – is busy trying to strip out many of the policies that would try to tackle these crises that are so seriously affecting many of his fellow West Virginians.West Virginia, a landlocked state, leads the nation in the number of the infrastructure facilities – hospitals, fire stations, water treatment plants, power stations – located on land prone to severe flooding. It even beats out Louisiana and Florida. Of course, the climate crisis is seeing flood events hit record levels across the US.Beyond the inspiration for John Denver’s hit song, West Virginia’s country roads are actually a source of fear and frustration for residents. Nearly half of the roads in the state are routinely battered by severe flooding.When power outages – some of the longest and most frequent in the nation – hit the state, they are often lethal, a reality made clear when a single flood event in 2016 took out power for over half of the state’s homes and killed 23 people in 12 hours.Earlier this year, tens of thousands of people were left without power for more than two weeks in freezing temperatures when ice storms felled trees on to power lines across the state and closed roads.But, for many West Virginians the reality of flooding and infrastructure failure are more insidious than isolated events.For Jill Hess, it’s trying to make it back to Fairmont, her home town and the birthplace of Joe Manchin, every time there’s talk of a storm. For the past five years, Hess made it a priority to see to it that her mother, Sue Hess, who was surviving on oxygen concentrators, wasn’t stranded powerless and alone.“Every time it would rain or snow she would really go into panic mode.”Jill said that growing up, outages weren’t frequent. But as her mother grew older and weaker, so has the power grid.Despite spending over a billion dollars trying to prevent the grid from failing, the frequency and duration of outages have steadily increased as the temperature of the Earth has risen, causing places like West Virginia to experience increased storm activity.“I can’t tell you how many times she would say, ‘I need you to be ready and available if anything happens because we have a severe thunderstorm warning coming through.’”Jill would hop in her car to drive towards her mother, dependent on oxygen machines, in Fairmont. But with storms in West Virginia come road closures, shutting down the most direct route to any given place. Adding 15 minutes to be rerouted around a mountain felt like 15 hours to Jill knowing her mother was running out of oxygen.For Jill, there’s a cruel irony to how her mother spent her final years. Sue had been a home health nurse, traveling across the county to help people who couldn’t make it to hospital. In 1968, she traveled to nearby Farmington, the 375-person town, to take care of wounded survivors of the Farmington mine disaster. In the floods of 1985 that killed 38 people across the state, Sue had gone from house to house helping provide medical assistance and supplies to families whose livelihoods had been devastated by flooding.Now, despite having retired in a nice home less than a mile away from the same hospital at which she had completed her nursing program, Sue found herself helpless. She relied on a combination of asking her daughter to drive in and calling 911 for ambulance rides to take to her somewhere she could breathe.Before she died, Sue racked up a four-figure ambulance bill nearly every time the power went out.“They would just literally park her in the waiting room of the ER, on oxygen until it was clear that the power came on.” The average power outage in the state lasts for 11.4 hours – the second highest in the nation.The five years of needless suffering her mother was put through before she died in December comes down to infrastructure for Jill. What she finds especially frustrating is that Manchin isn’t detached from this reality – it’s the one he grew up in. Before he was a politician, the Hess family used to get Christmas cards from the Manchins.Jill has no doubt that Manchin knows exactly how hard climate change is making life for the people he grew up around.National news outlets have been quick to connect the financial dots on Manchin. Clean energy initiatives could affect his bottom line in multiple ways because that bottom line is joined at the hip to one of the biggest drivers of climate change in the world: the fossil fuel industry.Put simply, the US senator is blocking legislation that would demand better of the dirty energy companies that make up his investment portfolio and his 2022 election cycle contributors list. And, he’s doing so to the environmental, social and economic detriment of his state.According to a report by the West Virginia Climate Alliance, efforts at addressing climate change such as the Green New Deal, which Manchin has opposed, would create 10m jobs across the nation and introduce regulations that could clean West Virginia’s notoriously polluted waterways – a byproduct of the state’s reliance on coal.Manchin’s own coal company, which he formed before assuming public office, has earned him $5.2m in dividends over the past 10 years. Manchin also has received more money from oil and gas companies than any other senator in next year’s election.As Manchin has gotten richer, his state has gotten warmer. The decrease in cold snaps through the year could, according to the Climate Alliance report, bring about a proliferation of invasive plant species and a significant increase in ticks which transmit Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.But, putting personal profits over his own party and its environmental initiatives is hardly new for Manchin. In fact, it’s a fundamental part of the story behind his rise to power.Before he was the single greatest source of frustration for Democrats in America, he showed West Virginia he would rather work with Republicans against his own party than support anything that resembled environmentalism.In 1996, Charlotte Pritt beat Manchin in the Democratic primary for governor – the only person, to this day, to hand him a defeat in an election. But Pritt ran as an environmentalist, urging West Virginia to develop industries that weren’t centered on polluting the earth and creating deplorable working conditions.Shortly after losing to Pritt, Manchin sent 900 letters to top Democrats around the state saying he wouldn’t support Pritt because she wasn’t “interested in the concerns of moderate and conservative Democrats”. Instead, Manchin’s letter added he would be supporting the Republican candidate, Cecil Underwood. Underwood won.But, two decades later, economists and climate scientists have sided with Pritt, not Manchin, on what’s best for the state.A 2019 report from the West Virginia Center on Budget & Policy emphasized the dangers of the state continuing to depend on its “rich non-renewable depleting natural resources”, because it made terrible financial sense. Failures to diversify the economy, the author wrote, only perpetuates the boom and bust economies that have plagued the state and put it on a “collision course with efforts to combat climate change.”Nicolas Zégre, a hydrologist at West Virginia University, agrees that there is a false dichotomy where economic progress is wrongly pitted against combating climate change. Zégre, who researches flood risk vulnerability in West Virginia, said in fact it’s the opposite: the state and its already struggling economy can’t afford to continue to be battered by climate change.Pelosi ‘very confident’ Democrats will reach deal to salvage Biden agendaRead more“What are our elected representatives doing to protect West Virginians? The answer is very little.”For Zégre, the way forward for Manchin and anyone claiming to represent the interest of West Virginians is to invest in a sustainable and clean version of what this state could be, adding “none of that is going to happen until our decision makers, first of all, acknowledge that climate change is happening”.One example of how Zégre sees the state positioning itself for both economic diversification and a shift towards alleviating climate change is by cleaning up its waterways – 70% of which are too dirty to “support natural biological function”.A shift towards clean water, according to Zégre, would create a pathway for West Virginia to provision even more water than it does for surrounding states, a practice that’s only going to increase in value as climate change causes unprecedented droughts.Zégre urges West Virginia’s politicians, especially Manchin, to realize how vulnerable their state is to the reality of climate change.“We have so much opportunity, yet many of our leaders look backwards for a model of what the future should be.”TopicsWest VirginiaClimate crisisDemocratsUS CongressUS SenateUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

RepublicansThese Trump fans were at the Capitol on 6 January. Now they’re running for officeFrom Wisconsin to New Hampshire participants in a day that became a deadly assault on Congress are seeking election to it Adam Gabbatt@adamgabbattWed 27 Oct 2021 02.00 EDTLast modified on Wed 27 Oct 2021 02.01 EDTOne of the candidates filmed himself on the Capitol steps. Another clambered over scaffolding and waved others forward towards the building. Still more were outside, milling around and protesting against the lawful election of Joe Biden.Of the thousands of diehard Trump supporters who gathered in Washington on 6 January, some are now beginning to emerge as Republican candidates for national and local office.The electoral chances of each person vary, but they add to the extremist political landscape, ahead of midterm elections in 2022 that could potentially see Democrats lose the House of Representatives.Teddy Daniels is running for Congress in Pennsylvania, where he aims to oust Representative Matt Cartwright. On 6 January he was at the US Capitol, where he posted a video as people surged into the building.“I Am Here. God Bless Our Patriots,” Daniels wrote. The video was posted about an hour and a half after Trump supporters breached the Capitol.​Daniels did not respond to a request for comment. Daniels isn’t just a fringe no-hoper. Vice News reported that he has been endorsed by Michael Flynn, and spent time with Donald Trump at the former president’s New Jersey golf course this summer.The congressional hopeful has also been a frequent guest on Fox News. If he wins the Republican primary – he came second, by fewer than 3,000 votes, in 2020 – then Daniels will run against the Democratic incumbent Matt Cartwright, who Daniels has described as a “candyass”, next year.Asked if he entered the Capitol on 6 January, Daniels replied: “January 6 was a coverup of the November 3rd liberal coup to overthrow the government and steal the election from President Trump.”He did not respond to further questions.In New York, the Trump enthusiast and social media person Tina Forte is running an extremely long-shot bid to unseat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the star of the Democratic left. A lengthy Snopes investigation found that Forte attended the Capitol riot, where she livestreamed videos from outside the building.According to Snopes, Forte also “entered a restricted area after the crowd knocked down barriers that law enforcement installed”. In a photo posted on the day of the riot, Forte was wearing what appeared to be black body armor. The picture was captioned “1776”.Forte, whose manifesto includes opposing mask-wearing, strengthening border security, and a vague promise to create jobs, did not respond to a request for comment.Derrick Van Orden, from Wisconsin, has been endorsed by Trump and the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, in his bid to win the state’s third congressional district. Van Orden is running for an open seat, one which Republicans have hope of claiming in 2022. He was also at the Capitol on 6 January, and has been dubbed an “insurrectionist” by the Democratic congressional campaign committee.The Daily Beast, after analysing social media posts, reported that Van Orden entered a restricted area during the riot, contradicting an op-ed Van Orden wrote for the La Crosse Tribune newspaper in mid-January.“When it became clear that a protest had become a mob, I left the area as to remain there could be construed as tacitly approving this unlawful conduct. At no time did I enter the grounds, let alone the building,” Van Orden wrote.Van Orden did not respond to a request for comment.Further down the political foodchain, 6 January attendees are running for state office in areas around the country. Bridge Michigan reported that five people who were at the insurrection are now running for various positions in the state, including Jason Howland, who photos show entered the Capitol.In New Hampshire, Jason Riddle is running for the state’s second congressional district, despite pleading guilty in September to five charges arising from him entering the Capitol during the January riot. Once in the Capitol Riddle took, and drank from, a bottle of wine he found in a lawmaker’s office.Riddle’s campaign announcement was the subject of some mockery in the summer, after he announced he was running against Ann Kuster, a Democratic US congresswoman, in the 2022 midterm elections.In an interview with NBC10 Boston, however, Riddle appeared not to know which office Kuster held.TopicsRepublicansUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Joe BidenBiden condemns ‘acolyte of Trump’ in crucial Virginia governor’s raceAt rally for Democrat Terry McAuliffe, president paints tight election as referendum on his own tenure David Smith in Arlington, Virginia@smithinamericaTue 26 Oct 2021 22.28 EDTLast modified on Tue 26 Oct 2021 23.13 EDTJoe Biden has framed a nail-bitingly close race for governor of Virginia as a referendum on his young presidency and an opportunity to rebuke his predecessor, Donald Trump.Seemingly liberated from the formal trappings of office by a return to the campaign trail, Biden used a rally in Arlington, Virginia, to launch an unusually scathing and sustained attack on the former president.Why Virginia holds the key to the 2022 US midterms: Politics Weekly Extra podcastRead moreBiden had made the short journey from Washington to speak in support of the Democrat Terry McAuliffe, who faces a tight election against the Republican Glenn Youngkin next week.“Just remember this: I ran against Donald Trump,” he told an estimated 2,500 people gathered in a park on a chilly Tuesday night. “And Terry is running against an acolyte of Donald Trump.”The election in Virginia is seen as the most important of the year, offering a window on to public sentiment about Biden’s first nine months in office and a preview of what to expect in next year’s midterm elections for Congress.McAuliffe, a former governor seeking to return to the post, is a career politician and establishment Democrat long associated with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Youngkin, by contrast, is a business executive who has never held elected office.Polls once gave McAuliffe a clear lead in a state where no Republican has won statewide office since 2009, and where Biden beat Trump by 10 percentage points last year. But Youngkin has been closing the gap, hammering away at “culture war” issues in schools as part of a bid to peel off suburban votes.Biden, speaking at a McAuliffe rally for the second time, was greeted by enthusiastic cheers but also heckled by climate activists during his remarks. He said: “It’s not a Trump rally. We let ’em holler.”He went on to confirm that the state-level race has taken on a national significance. Biden ran through McAuliffe’s accomplishments as governor, for example on gun safety, and his own presidential record on issues such as the coronavirus pandemic.He also noted how Youngkin has been walking a fine line between accepting Trump’s endorsement and barely mentioning him in speeches, a sign that the former president is toxic to most Virginians.Youngkin had begun his campaign calling for “election integrity” to ally himself with Trump’s “big lie”, the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen, Biden said. “It was price he had to pay for the nomination and he paid it. But now he doesn’t want to talk about Trump any more. Well, I do.”The president elicited laughter from the crowd by saying: “Talk about an oxymoron: Donald Trump and election integrity?! I can’t believe he put the words Trump and integrity in the same sentence.”Biden lambasted Trump for his “offensive words” following the deaths of Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, and Senator John McCain. “That’s who Donald Trump is,” he said. He also pointed to the examples of Florida and Texas, where Republican leaders have shifted right, and urged Virginians to avoid a similar fate. “The Republican party nationally is for nothing. Not a joke. Nothing.”But Biden’s sinking approval rating in recent weeks makes it unclear how much of a boost he can offer McAuliffe, who also enlisted Barack Obama last weekend to help him fight apathy and election weariness among Democratic voters. A loss by McAuliffe on 2 November would cause deep anxiety among Democrats and spell trouble for Biden’s presidency.In the final days of the campaign, both candidates are focused on turning out their base supporters, with Republicans pressing culture war issues, prompting a debate over banning books in high school classrooms. On Monday the Youngkin campaign released an ad featuring a mother who once sought to have the novel Beloved by Toni Morrison banned from classrooms. The mother’s advocacy led to state legislation, vetoed by Governor McAuliffe in 2016 and 2017, that would have let parents opt out of their children studying classroom materials with sexually explicit content.Democrats attacked Youngkin’s ad and accused him of trying to “silence” Black authors. McAuliffe’s campaign highlighted the controversy during his rally by passing out copies of Beloved to reporters.Biden said: “He’s gone from banning a woman’s right to choose to banning books written by a Pulitzer prize and Nobel prize-winning author, Toni Morrison.”McAuliffe said that Youngkin “is ending his campaign the way he started it: with divisive dog whistles”. He added: “He wants to bring his personal culture wars into our classrooms. Folks, we will not allow Glenn Youngkin to bring his hate, his chaos, into our Virginia schools.”TopicsJoe BidenVirginiaUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More