US Politics
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
New York appeals court denies Trump bid to end gag order in hush-money case
A New York appeals court on Thursday denied Donald Trump’s bid to end a gag order in his hush-money criminal case, rejecting the former US president’s argument that his May conviction “constitutes a change in circumstances” that warrants lifting the restrictions.A five-judge panel in the state’s mid-level appellate court ruled that the trial judge, Juan Merchan, was correct in extending parts of the gag order until Trump is sentenced, writing that “the fair administration of justice necessarily includes sentencing”.Merchan imposed the gag order in March, a few weeks before the trial started, after prosecutors raised concerns about Trump’s habit of attacking people involved in his cases. During the trial, he held Trump in contempt of court and fined him $10,000 for violations, and threatened to jail him if he did it again.The judge lifted some restrictions in June, freeing Trump to comment about witnesses and jurors but keeping trial prosecutors, court staffers and their families – including his own daughter – off limits until he is sentenced.Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, was originally scheduled to be sentenced on 11 July, but Merchan postponed it until 18 September.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump has asked to set aside his 34 felony convictions after the US supreme court ruled presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken as executive. Trump’s legal team has not argued that his acts were official in the case, but that certain evidence should not have been admitted because it related to presidential acts. The court ruling also said that evidence couldn’t be used if it constituted an official act, even if the crimes alleged are not themselves official.Prosecutors have argued the ruling does not affect the convictions in this case. “All of the evidence that he complains of either concerned wholly unofficial conduct, or, at most, official conduct for which any presumption of immunity has been rebutted,” prosecutors wrote.In his legal case pertaining to illegally keeping classified documents, US district judge Aileen Cannon in Florida dismissed the charges because she found the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel was unconstitutional, an idea raised in a concurring opinion by the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas. More
- in US Politics
Who is Mark Kelly, the potential vice-presidential pick from Arizona?
Mark Kelly’s resume stands out in the sea of lawyers that dominate Washington.The Arizona senator was a US navy pilot who served multiple deployments. He was on Celebrity Jeopardy. He is a steadfast partner to his wife, former US representative Gabrielle Giffords, who survived an assassination attempt at a public event in Tucson in 2011 and has worked alongside Kelly to limit guns since.Oh, and he’s been to space multiple times because he was an astronaut, along with his twin brother, Scott. He even wrote a children’s book about it, called Mousetronaut.“An astronaut! Who doesn’t like astronauts, except for Flat Earthers, right? But they’re very small in quantity,” Arizona pollster Mike Noble said. “So, outside of Flat Earthers, I’m trying to think of what’s more American than astronauts. Astronaut takes everybody. I’ve been to space, what have you done?”Kelly is on Kamala Harris’s shortlist for vice-president, and his background certainly helps make his case.He first ran for office in 2020, winning a special election against Republican Martha McSally to take a Senate seat. He won again in 2024 in the regular Senate election against Blake Masters, a well-funded Peter Thiel acolyte.To win the Senate seat in a purple state, Kelly has struck a centrist tone and proven himself a prolific fundraiser. He hasn’t inspired the intra-party ire that Arizona’s other senator , now-independent Kyrsten Sinema, has. He polls at the top of Arizona politicians for favorability.His presence on the presidential ticket could help Harris’s prospects in Arizona, where Trump is polling ahead, though the benefit of a VP pick may be greater in other swing states where she’s closer to Trump in the polls. Kelly could also help her improve how she’s viewed on immigration issues.Harris is expected to choose a running mate in the coming days, then blitz through battleground states with them.Kelly has a couple vulnerabilities, but the biggest drawback is what Democrats stand to lose – his Senate seat, in a swing state, at a time when the balance of the Senate is in contention.Arizonans have endured a series of special elections, expensive and exhausting endeavors, for Senate seats since the late Senator John McCain’s death. Kelly’s vacancy would require another one, “giving the state a Senate election every even year from 2016 through 2030”, the Washington Examiner pointed out. The cycle has made Senate elections, with their longer six-year terms, more akin to congressional races, with their two-year terms. If Kelly becomes the vice-president, Arizona’s Democratic governor would appoint a Democratic successor, then a special election for the seat would be called in 2026.If the state’s Republican party decides to end its lean into hard-right Maga politics, Republicans could win it back. Democrats face a widening gap in voter registration compared to Republicans and independents. But the current Senate race, in which Ruben Gallego, a Democrat, faces Trump favorite Kari Lake, shows Gallego with the lead – a sign that the Republican candidates often remain out of step with the broader electorate there.Still, Democrats in Arizona are excited by the prospect of one of their own on a presidential ticket. The Arizona Democratic party’s executive board issued a letter formally endorsing Kelly as a VP, praising his work in the Senate and saying Kelly and Harris would “build a winning coalition” to beat Trump.“The road to the White House runs through Arizona in this election,” the board’s letter said. “We are united behind Vice-President Kamala Harris and Senator Kelly because our democracy is on the line.”Kelly hasn’t been as ubiquitous on TV or the campaign trail as the other Democratic contenders lately, and he’s not a bombastic debater ready to lob insults at the other side. He isn’t an attack dog like vice-presidents often can be. He isn’t as tested in the trenches – he hasn’t had to address much controversy or endure combative interviews, Noble said, but he has a great relationship with Harris.Kelly has praised Harris on social media in recent days. In one video posted this week, he shows footage driving a Jeep through the Arizona desert juxtaposed with rockets flying into space.“I’ve been on a lot of missions, but never once did I do it alone. I always had a really good team behind me, and that’s what @KamalaHarris, @RubenGallego, and Democrats are going to need to win in November,” he wrote.After Biden stepped aside, Kelly said he “couldn’t be more confident that Vice President @KamalaHarris is the right person to defeat Donald Trump and lead our country into the future”, giving her his full support.Kelly could use his proximity to the US-Mexico border to counter some of the right’s push to brand Harris as a “border czar”. In a TV appearance this week, he attacked Trump and Republicans over the demise of a bipartisan Senate border bill. That bill aligned more with Republicans than with Democrats, he said.“On their side of the field, we realized, we’ve got to get operational control over the border. I realized this, Kamala Harris realizes this, and this legislation was going to do that,” he said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform. But this was stopped dead in its tracks by Donald Trump because he wanted to have this as an election issue. Like a lot of other Republicans, they don’t actually want to solve this problem.”If he’s chosen as running mate, some of his past liabilities could come back to haunt him. Perhaps the biggest line of attack he faced in his Senate races revolved around a space balloon company he co-founded and its ties to China. An odd turn slinging vitamins in China could come up, too.The right is also likely to hit him on his record advocating for gun control alongside his wife and her group, Giffords. After the shooting of elementary school kids in Uvalde, Texas, he said, “it’s fucking nuts not to do anything about this”.His personal story showcasing the toll of gun violence should eclipse this attack, Noble said. “That crosses party lines.”Another liability was foreclosed this week after he said he was in favor of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, a pro-union bill that he previously had not signed on to support.It’s a “huge honor” to have an Arizona Democrat on the list for the presidential ticket, said Stacy Pearson, a Democratic consultant in Arizona. “We’ve tried many, many times at this point, with Barry Goldwater and John McCain. Maybe it’ll take a Democrat to get there.”The last time an Arizona Democratic elected official ended up in a presidential administration – when Janet Napolitano left the governor’s office after she was tapped by Barack Obama to be Homeland security secretary – was more than 20 years ago.After Napolitano’s exit, Republicans held the governor’s office until Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, won it back in 2022 – a sign of the potential difficulty in maintaining power if Kelly heads to DC.“As much as they love to see Mark Kelly promoted to a position that important for our country, there is fear that the seat could be lost,” Pearson said. More
- in US Politics
Harris campaign has enlivened voters, say Black organizers: ‘The energy is palpable’
Black grassroots organizers who played a critical role in mobilizing voters in the last presidential election say they are seeing an uptick in interest in their groups and a jolt of energy after Kamala Harris took Joe Biden’s place at the top of the Democratic ticket.“I hear nothing but enthusiasm,” said Helen Butler, a longtime voting rights organizer who runs the nonpartisan Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda. “More people are calling to volunteer. The young people are saying, ‘What can we do?’ All of our activities are nonpartisan. So we’re training them to just talk about civic engagement and why public policy matters.”The observations from organizers come as the Harris campaign has intensified its momentum in the race. It solidified the support of the Democratic party, earned enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee and has seen colossal fundraising numbers.Harris’s campaign says it has raised more than $100m, including a staggering $81m in the first 24 hours after Joe Biden left the race. That total was accrued from more than 500,000 grassroots donors who gave for the first time in the 2024 cycle, the campaign said.Grassroots groups played a critical role in 2020, mobilizing nonwhite voters – who tend to support Democrats – at record levels. Overall, turnout in the 2020 election was at its highest since 1900.Initial polls show Harris in a neck-and-neck race with Donald Trump, but there are indications of significant shifts in the race. A CNN poll released last week found that 50% of Harris backers said their support of her was more pro-Harris than anti-Trump. In a June CNN poll, just 37% of Biden’s supporters said their support was about backing the president rather than being against Trump.“It does change the energy, and to a certain extent, it changes the messages,” said Cliff Albright, a co-founder of Black Voters Matter Fund, which is supportive of Harris’s candidacy. “The full toolbox is open. We can go anti-Trump, or we can go pro-Kamala, or we can talk about some aspects of her record more, and the administration more, so it just expands the tools that we have at our disposal.”The first week of Harris’s candidacy has been bolstered by a groundswell of support. 44,000 people joined a Zoom call led by Black women on Sunday evening in the first hours after Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee, which raised more than $1.5m. A call the next evening hosted by Black men reported 53,000 participants and raised more than $1.3m. A call hosted by white women Thursday evening had more than 160,000 people on it and reportedly raised $8.5m. A similar south Asian women call for Harris had more than 10,000 people and raised more than $300,000. A “white dudes for Harris” call on Monday raised around $4m.“I think the energy is palpable,” said Angela Lang, an organizer with Black Leaders Organizing Communities (Bloc) in Milwaukee. She said that many on her team had said they would support Harris, while others were waiting to see how she reconciled her record as a prosecutor.“I think folks understand that people are allowed to change and evolve. We’ve seen other presidential candidates change and evolve their stances on gay marriage, for example, so I think folks are curious to see how she reconciles that,” she said. “But I don’t know if [her record will] be that big of a factor in the grand scheme of things, because I think the urgency of a second Trump presidency outweighs it for some folks.”That’s not to say that it will be a cakewalk for Harris. Those who helped organize the “uncommitted” vote in the primary in protest of the Biden administration’s position on the war in Gaza have warned that the vice president needs to earn their vote.Albright predicted that this campaign would be much different for Harris than her presidential primary – when she entered the race as a top tier contender and then flamed out before the Iowa primary.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Some of it was just about the overall positioning that you had during the primary. You had the clearly progressive candidates talking about Medicare for All and other really progressive policies, and then you had those that were viewed as being more moderate, including Kamala Harris and Joe Biden,” he said. “I think what we’ve seen now over the past four years is that some of those concerns that we had about how progressive either one of them would have been were proven to not be valid.”Both Lang and Albright have gotten a chance to speak personally with Harris and see how she approaches issues.Albright has met with her several times to discuss the push for federal voting rights legislation – one of the key issues that was in Harris’s portfolio as vice-president.“We’ve obviously been impressed by her leadership and the sincerity that she [has], the dedication that she takes to some of these issues,” he said.Lang said that she briefly spoke to Harris in 2021 in Milwaukee when she had a chance to take a picture with her. She said she used the brief interaction to speak about the need to fix lead pipes in Milwaukee and emphasize that it was a social justice issue since exposure to lead has been linked to behavioral and emotional issues in children.“It didn’t feel like she was blowing me off or she was just saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, to agree,” Lang said. “She immediately connected the dots and felt just as passionate as I did.” More
- in US Politics
Kamala Harris needs to mobilise people around class not race | Dustin Guastella and Bhaskar Sunkara
How things can change in a matter of weeks. In early July, populism seemed to rule the day in American politics.Donald Trump selected JD Vance, a figure who’s been trying on producerist rhetoric in recent years, as his pick for vice-president and invited the Teamsters president, Sean O’Brien, to speak at the Republican national convention. Joe Biden, facing a flagging campaign and internal pressure to step down, met with Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to lay out a pro-worker agenda for a potential new term.Everyone was trying to claim the mantle of an American working class once maligned as politically expendable or morally corrupt.It was a pivot to politics at its most basic: make promises to people, win, deliver on them and reap the rewards of their loyalty. Democrats, once the party of the working class, seemed in need of a reminder of who their base was. A recent study by the Center for Working-Class Politics found that less than 5% of TV ads by Democrats in competitive 2022 congressional races mentioned billionaires, the rich, Wall Street, big corporations or price gouging.Still, congressional progressives were getting concessions from an unpopular president who had little chance of winning re-election and Donald Trump remained committed to the Republican party’s traditional pro-corporate, pro-tax cut agenda. The populist moment seemed like it would stick around, but more in the realm of rhetoric than policy.Then came Kamala Harris’s rise as the presumptive Democratic nominee. The energy around the Harris for President campaign has put into doubt the inevitably of Trump’s election and given hope to millions. For leftwing populists, however, the problem might be less Harris and her most stalwart supporters.Economy or identityInstead of thinking that all politics is identity politics, many on the left have traditionally argued that the best appeals tap into universal concerns that all workers share. When Gallup regularly asks “what do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”, the responses are remarkably consistent across different ethnic groups. It’s the economy. It’s wages. It’s the rising cost of living. “Speaking to issues that people of color care about” generally means speaking to issues that all working-class people care about.The emerging Harris platform seems to have digested this idea. Her campaign promises aren’t too different than those pushed by Joe Biden. Her early ads highlight the need to bring down insulin prices, take on the power of the big banks, corporate price gouging and other concerns that most ordinary working Americans can relate to. That’s all for the good. It demonstrates that Harris has learned some of the lessons that prior generations of Democrats have long known: that speaking to workers’ economic interests is a path to the White House.But there is a danger that all of that political acumen could be drowned out by the hubris of her more well-to-do supporters. A number of grassroots efforts to rally Harris activists have caught fire. Among the most prominent of these efforts, White Women: Answer the Call demonstrates everything wrong with the political instincts of liberals today and it threatens to lead Harris’s campaign down the same path as Hillary Clinton’s ill-fated 2016 effort.Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with supporters gathering to support their candidate by forming some kind of affinity group to express their shared commitment. In fact, it’s often a mark of a successful campaign (think Veterans for Bernie Sanders). But when these groups are organized around the narrow, misguided, notion that racial affinity is paramount, the results will not be good. The star-studded “White Women for Kamala” call – which garnered more than 200,000 attenders and raised millions for the candidate – featured actors, social-media personalities, liberal philanthropists and activists for various causes. Also prominently featured was a strange, navel-gazing and antiquated version of identity politics.One call organizer counseled attenders: “If you find yourself talking over or speaking for Bipoc individuals or, God forbid, correcting them, just take a beat and instead we can put our listening ears on.” This kind of condescending racialism should raise red flags for Democrats. Is this what Kamala Harris is about? Does the campaign really think it’s good to head down the path of Clinton’s inscrutable summoning of “intersectionality”? It’s not just that these supporters use language that makes ordinary voters cringe, it’s also that they embrace an ideology predicated on the idea that we are each essentially different. Such a political theory can only result in more fractiousness amid our already roiling culture wars.Shortly after the White Women: Answer the Call there was a White Dudes for Harris follow-up featuring Pete Buttigieg, Josh Groban and Lance Bass (it’s good to see the voices of blue-collar America so well represented). While many of the “dudes” chuckled about the “rainbow of beige” represented on that call, few seemed to notice the strange spectacle of the call itself: liberals organizing people into groups on the basis of skin color and gender. After that, a South Asian Zoom was organized, later a Latina Zoom and most recently a call for Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders for Kamala (AANHPI for short), all also divided on the basis of gender.A subset of Harris’s supporters are doubling down on the idea that says we can only unite if we embrace our racial and gender differences.Instead, progressives should insist that working people have a lot at stake in this election regardless of their skin color, nationality or ethnic heritage and that our shared class interest ought to be the basis for our political appeals. The fact that this narrative – one the official Harris campaign seems at least slightly sympathetic to – was so quickly and enthusiastically overshadowed by an emphasis on identity politics says a lot about the Democratic party’s contemporary base.The Democratic party needs working-class voters more than ever, but unfortunately the party increasingly represents well-heeled white-collar professionals primarily concentrated in and around big cities. It’s these voters who crave appeals to identity over appeals to shared class grievances. Ironically, the wild popularity of the white affinity group fundraisers mentioned above demonstrates just who is most motivated by appeals to race and gender. While there were plenty of calls for various other race-based affinity groups, none came close to the attendance and fundraising power as the Zoom event mobilizing white female voters. Identity politics is, after all, a class politics. A political style embraced by the professional class.Then the question becomes, is that a set of political appeals that can win? The answer is: maybe.That should be worrying for those of us who care about working-class politics. On the one hand, Democrats ought to do what it takes to win the election. But, on the other hand, winning with a political ideology and program that largely appeals to six-figure-income deep-blue counties will be a pyrrhic victory. If Democrats win the election but again lose a majority of the working class, they will fail in one important part of their duty and they will have paved the way for the right to make deeper inroads into blue-collar communities. Further, if liberals continue to insist that workers ought to focus more on their race, gender, nationality, ethnic heritage or whatever else than on their shared class interests, they will have given the right wing all the ammo needed in the culture war while making it that much harder to unite workers across those cultural divides.In that sense, there may not be a right way to lose, but there could be a wrong way to win.
Dustin Guastella is a research associate at the Center for Working-Class Politics and the director of operations for Teamsters Local 623
Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of the Nation, founding editor of Jacobin and author of The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequalities More
- in US Politics
JD Vance is the baby of Big Tech and Big Oil. He’s no ‘working-class populist’ | Jan-Werner Müller
Initially hailed as an inspired choice to inherit the Maga movement, James David Vance has fast proved a liability to the Trump campaign: Democrats are successfully branding him as a creepy manosphere specimen; his stances on abortion, IVF and women without children have rightly made him a focal point for criticizing the right’s obsession with controlling women’s bodies. Then there’s the issue of whether he’s really the man to mansplain Appalachia to the rest of us, given that he grew up in a city in Ohio.But one story about the junior senator continues to be accepted at face value: Vance as champion of a new “right-populism” that puts the working class first. There are no policy proposals that would vindicate that image; what’s more, Vance’s career has been financed by a nefarious combination of rightwing tech bros and the fossil fuel industry: those who have no problem polluting the public sphere with misinformation and disinformation and those profiting from polluting the atmosphere. Both are prime promoters of the libertarianism that “right-populists” supposedly disavow.Vance claims to want to break with corporate donors who care only about cheap labor resulting from a continuous influx of migrants. No doubt the Republican party’s promise to reduce immigration is real, as is the cruel plan for mass deportations – whether it will result in higher wages is anyone’s guess. One thing is sure, though: the other supposedly populist policy – raising tariffs on cheap imports – will make the already worst-off even worse off.Meanwhile, there’s no talk of raising taxes on the wealthy, in particular closing the loopholes that infamously allow hedge fund and private equity managers to have lower tax rates than their secretaries. Instead, Trump promises to reduce the corporate tax rate even further.Vance touts Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán as his model; the latter stands for an unembarrassed use of state power to enforce public morality (no same-sex marriages in Hungary!) and industrial policies in the national interest. But Orbán has also introduced a flat-rate personal income tax and the world’s highest value-added tax – which of course disproportionately falls on poorer Hungarians. If this is indeed the model, America’s billionaires will have no problem with Vance’s supposed “working-class conservatism”.Vance talks the talk of extracting the American right from libertarianism; yet, if one follows the money, a different picture is revealed. His career has been financed by reactionary venture capitalists such as Peter Thiel as well as the fossil fuel industry, who share a desire for deregulation wrapped in propaganda about “American freedom”. Vance himself has worked as a venture capitalist and is now part of a Republican ticket committed to abolishing regulations of social media, cryptocurrency, and AI. The party’s platform calls for a repeal of Biden’s executive order on responsible and, not least, worker-friendly development of AI.The irony is that the great champions of freedom and unleashing tech power are at the same time advocates of monopoly power: they really don’t like Biden’s robust anti-trust approach. They also often crucially depend on state contracts. No doubt Palantir, Thiel’s “big data analytics” firm whose central promise is effective surveillance, will want to be helpful with mass deportations.It might not just be a crude desire for taxpayer dollars which animates Silicon Valley’s new Trumpists, though; it can also be a philosophical vision. That doesn’t make things any better. Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, newly converted to Trumpism, authored the Techno-Optimist Manifesto, which proclaims a belief in “accelerationism – the conscious and deliberate propulsion of technological development”. What many portentous pronouncements on human evolution boil down to is a simple demand: no restraints on developing AI, as well as an all-out commitment to nuclear power and a weird celebration of population growth as, according to Andreessen, “our planet is dramatically underpopulated”.Without naming its source, Andreessen quotes the manifesto of the Futurists – the artists who at the beginning of the 20th century worshiped technology as well as a kind of cleansing of the word through war – and who eventually became major promoters of Mussolini’s Fascism. Declaring himself a conqueror, not a victim, Andreesen rails against “a mass demoralization campaign … against technology and against life”, which supposedly has been going on for “six decades” “under varying names like … ‘sustainability’ … and … ‘social responsibility’”.The representatives of nothing less than life itself want to step on the pedal – and ask us to simply to trust a self-appointed elite of accelerationist visionaries.Vance might be the first champion of accelerationism in the White House – but he’s also an old-fashioned fossil fuel lobbyist who has weaponized climate in rightwing culture war. He’s associated renewables and electric vehicles with China – his (unsuccessful) Drive America Act suggested that buying gas and diesel cars is the only way of being a good patriot. Passively receiving wind and sunshine is also obviously not for real men; drilling makes for what scholars have called “petromasculinity”.Vance is all at once a nationalistic natalist (“breed, baby, breed!” for the nation), a promoter of fossil fuel industries (“drill, baby, drill!”), and a conduit of accelerationism (“break things, baby, break things!”). Given how unpopular he’s proven in polls, it does not seem like this is a vision for which Americans care. It’s also not the break with libertarianism that pundits praising the Republicans’ supposed turn to workers think it is. But there’s a hell of a lot of money backing it.
Jan-Werner Müller is a professor of politics at Princeton University and a Guardian US columnist More
- in US Politics
Doctors told Pelosi of concern for Trump’s mental health, ex-speaker says in book
In early 2019, at a memorial service for a prominent psychiatrist, a succession of “doctors and other mental health professionals” told Nancy Pelosi they were “deeply concerned that there was something seriously wrong” with Donald Trump, “and that his mental and psychological health was in decline”.“I’m not a doctor,” the former speaker writes in an eagerly awaited memoir, “but I did find his behaviors difficult to understand.”Pelosi’s book, The Art of Power: My Story as America’s First Woman Speaker of the House, will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.Pelosi was speaker between 2007 and 2011, and between 2019 and 2023, the latter spell coinciding with Trump’s chaotic presidency. Her memoir comes out amid a tumultuous 2024 presidential campaign, in which Trump is the Republican nominee for a third successive election.Questions about Trump’s fitness for office form a thread through the book. At 78, Trump is the oldest candidate ever, his campaign-trail utterances studied for frequent mistakes, his speeches are often rambling and marked by bizarre references.Trump’s volcanic behavior and disregard for societal norms also stoke such questions, not least because he left office having been impeached twice, the second time for inciting the deadly January 6 Capitol attack; has been convicted on 34 criminal charges and faces 54 more; has been ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in civil cases including one concerning a rape claim a judge called “substantially true”; and has promised if re-elected to govern as “a dictator” on “day one”.On the page, Pelosi says she did not solicit statements about Trump’s mental health from attendees at the memorial for Dr David Hamburg, “a distinguished psychiatrist who … served as the president of the Carnegie Corporation, where he had been a great voice for international peace”, and who died in April 2019.Elsewhere in The Art of Power, however, the former speaker is not shy of stating her views about Trump’s mental health, calling him “imbalanced” and “unhinged”.By 6 January 2021, Pelosi writes, “I knew Donald Trump’s mental imbalance. I had seen it up close. His denial and then delays when the Covid pandemic struck, his penchant for repeatedly stomping out of meetings, his foul mouth, his pounding on tables, his temper tantrums, his disrespect for our nation’s patriots, and his total separation from reality and actual events. His repeated, ridiculous insistence that he was the greatest of all time.”She describes how subordinates including Mark Meadows, Trump’s final chief of staff, indulged improper behavior, allowing Trump to “surreptitiously listen” to private meetings with congressional leaders, eventually prompting Pelosi to ban all cellphones from her meeting rooms on Capitol Hill.Pelosi also describes getting calls from Trump, often late at night, including one in which she says Trump insisted missile strikes on Syria he had just ordered were Barack Obama’s fault, eventually prompting Pelosi to tell him: “It’s midnight. I think you should go to sleep.”Pelosi devotes attention to the events of 6 January 2021, when she and other congressional leaders were hurried from a mob who meant them harm, then spent hours trying to get Trump to call them off.Much of Pelosi’s account is familiar, thanks to the work of the House January 6 committee, which she created, and of her own daughter, Alexandra Pelosi, a documentarian who was filming her mother that day.“People still ask me how I remained so calm,” Pelosi writes, of the hours when Congress was under attack, she and other leaders were evacuated to Fort McNair, and Vice-President Mike Pence was in hiding as the mob chanted about hanging him.“My answer is that I was already deeply aware of how dangerous Donald Trump was.“He continues to be dangerous. If his family and staff truly understood his disregard for both the fundamentals of the law and for basic rules, and if they had reckoned with his personal instability over not winning the [2020] election, they should have staged an intervention. Whether because of willful blindness, money, prestige, or greed, they didn’t – and America has paid a steep price.”Saying she had quickly realised she had “more respect for the office of president of the United States than Trump”, Pelosi says “it was clear to me from the start that he was an imposter – and that on some level, he knew it”.Still she is not done. After describing how electoral college votes were eventually counted and Joe Biden’s victory confirmed, she says she “and many others wanted a consequence for the deranged, unhinged man who was still president of the United States”.That led to an impeachment and a second failed Senate trial, after the Republican leader there, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, made a historic miscalculation: that Trump did not require conviction and barring from office, as he was politically finished.Pelosi describes another failed effort to remove Trump from office, on grounds of being unfit.“Following January 6,” she writes, “the Democratic leadership discussed asking the vice-president to invoke the 25th amendment to the constitution, which allows for the vice-president and a majority of cabinet members to certify that a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office.”She and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, “placed a call to Vice-President Pence about this possibility”.Elsewhere, Pelosi writes that she admires Pence for his actions on January 6, when he refused to be spirited from the Capitol despite having to hide from a murderous mob sent by his own president, then ultimately presided over certification of election results.But when it came to the 25th amendment, Pence let Pelosi down.“The vice-president’s office kept us on hold for 20 minutes,” Pelosi writes, adding that “thankfully” she was at home at the time, “so I could also empty the dishwasher and put in a load of laundry.“Ultimately, Vice-President Pence never got on the phone with us or returned our call.” More
