US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares38 Views

      in US Politics

      Liz Cheney wanted to follow her father’s legacy. Instead, Trump ended her career

      by

      Weeks before one of America’s best-known businessmen, Donald Trump, was sworn in as president on an overcast day in Washington DC, a different politician with a similarly familiar name took her oath of office elsewhere in the Capitol.Liz Cheney was then both a freshman congresswoman from Wyoming and a stalwart of the neoconservative philosophy espoused by her father Dick Cheney, the former vice-president under George W Bush who died on Monday. Trump had repudiated Bush’s invasion of Iraq in his campaign for president, but the congresswoman nonetheless went on to become an ally in bending Republican lawmakers to his will.It was only after the January 6 insurrection that Cheney broke with Trump, making what turned out to be a lonely stand against his dominance of Republicans that wound up ending her political career. The then-former president orchestrated her ouster, first from Republican leadership, then from the House of Representatives entirely. Liberals would lionize Cheney for her defiance as an emblem of the “good Republicans” they long hoped would one day expel Trump from the party, even though she never broke with her conservative Republican politics.The Cheneys’ view of American power may now seem farther from relevance than at any time since Bush left office, but signs of it linger in Trump’s new administration. Though he promised to be a peacemaker while campaigning for re-election last year, the president has ordered the first-ever US bombing raid on Iran, blown up boats he claims are carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela and ordered a formidable naval flotilla to the South American country’s coastline, while mulling airstrikes on its territory.“Many of the people who are around him actually were in favor of the Iraq war, and I think with that influence, he’s being influenced towards regime change war in Venezuela,” the Republican senator Rand Paul told reporters last week.Liz Cheney is certainly excluded from that group. Rising to chair the House Republican conference just after winning her second term in office, Cheney’s time in leadership was brief. After a mob of pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol, she became the highest-ranking Republican to break with the president.“The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the president,” Cheney said, as she voted to impeach Trump over the violence.She would go on to serve as vice-chair, and one of two Republicans, on the House committee that investigated the attack. But her political fate was sealed. House Republicans voted to strip her from her leadership post in May 2021, and she lost her primary the following year, in both cases to lawmakers that have hewed closely to the president’s positions.Through it all, Cheney remained a conservative in the tradition of her father. As recently as 2021, she joined him in defending waterboarding, the brutal interrogation technique Bush’s CIA used against terrorism suspects, and restated her opposition to abortion and the Affordable Care Act. When Joe Biden’s priorities came up before the House, she mostly voted against them.None of that was enough to stave off Trump’s wrath. As Republicans moved to depose her from leadership, she took to the House floor to call the former president “a threat America has never seen before”.“He risks inciting further violence. Millions of Americans have been misled by the former president. They have heard only his words, but not the truth as he continues to undermine our democratic process, sowing seeds of doubt about whether democracy really works at all,” she said.Nor did her father hold his tongue.“He is a coward. A real man wouldn’t lie to his supporters. He lost his election, and he lost big. I know it. He knows it, and deep down, I think most Republicans know,” the former vice-president said of Trump in a television ad for his daughter’s failed bid for a fourth term in 2022.Both Cheneys would go on to endorse and, in Liz’s case, campaign with, Kamala Harris last year. Trump in turn blasted Dick Cheney as “an irrelevant RINO” or Republican in name only, and “the King of Endless, Nonsensical Wars”. Biden later awarded Liz Cheney the Presidential Citizens Medal and, in his final hours as president, issued her a pre-emptive pardon after Trump threatened her prosecution.When the president this year ordered seven B-2 bombers to fly more than 14,000 miles from Missouri to attack Iran’s nuclear sites, John Bolton, a neoconservative veteran of both the Bush and Trump administrations who has since become a bitter enemy of the president, praised him for taking a course of action he had advocated for decades.“I can say unequivocally, I think President Trump made the right decision for America in attacking the Iranian nuclear program,” he told Bloomberg Surveillance. “We could have done it in the first term, too.”Cheney, by contrast, remained silent. More

    • 138 Shares38 Views

      in US Politics

      Dick Cheney created the ground for Trump’s excesses, despite their differences

      by

      He was the embodiment of America-first ideals before Donald Trump and his Maga movement hijacked the phrase.The principle of a strong president empowered to push through the agenda was core to his view of how US politics should function.Yet long before his death on Tuesday, Dick Cheney was deeply estranged from the Republican party that had been his life’s work and the person, Trump himself, who had single-handedly reshaped it in his own image.Along with his daughter, Liz Cheney, the former vice-president who was once synonymous with rightwing Republican neo-conservatism – became so disenchanted with the modern GOP and alarmed by the threat he believed Trump posed, that he endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris for president in 2024.He had earlier appeared with Liz (then a member of Congress and now one of Trump’s sworn enemies) on the steps of the US Capitol on the first anniversary of the January 6 riot by Trump supporters trying to overturn the results of the presidential election. The occasion, at which no other Republicans were present, produced the remarkable spectacle of Democrats warmly shaking his hand.The memories will inevitably soften the image Democrats are apt to have of him. Yet they are hard to reconcile with the picture his legions of critics held of Cheney in his prime.For an entire generation, Cheney was viewed unambiguously – and not inaccurately – as the driving force and architect behind the US invasions of Afghanistan following the September 11 terror attacks, and in 2003, of Iraq, on the fallacious grounds that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destructions and had ties to al-Qaida.As vice-president to George W Bush, Cheney was an emphatic propagator of both theories – and unapologetic when they were proved wrong.Both campaigns resulted in long, bloody occupations, that spawned bitter internal resistance, and cost hundreds of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi lives – as well as those of US and allied service personnel. The cost in national resources was immense.That Cheney was able to play such a defining role in America’s early 21st century foreign policy was down to the relative inexperience in international affairs of Bush, who consequently gave his vice-president broad – many said unprecedented – latitude, knowing that he had served as defense secretary under his father, George HW Bush.His influence in the second Bush administration was profound in other ways, being a key driving force to its unfolding “war on terror” that followed the 9/11 attacks and resulted, within weeks, in the USA Patriot Act. The legislation paved the way for a whole panoply of actions designed to counteract terrorism and prevent repeat attacks.The result was an anti-terrorism infrastructure that included the now notorious detention centre at Guantánamo Bay, secret rendition flights of suspects detained overseas, and “enhanced interrogation” techniques that human rights groups and others denounced as torture.Cheney may not have designed all of it – or been the sole instigator. But he was closely identified with it in a way that exceeded any other administration figure, barring perhaps Bush himself.Far from minding, the hawkish vice-president lapped it all up. He relished his publicly assigned role of being the administration’s “Darth Vader”, joking that his wife, Lynn, said it “humanized” him.Against that dark aura, the ironies of Cheney’s parting of ways with Trump and modern day Republicans are numerous.His forceful personality and willingness to push his own agenda in the Bush White House brought about the “forever wars” that Trump later denounced and promised his support base would be avoided under his presidency.Yet so much of what Cheney believed and fought for created the ground for Trump’s excesses.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe USA Patriot Act, for instance, may be now be used to justify the current administration’s actions against Venezuela, whose president, Nicolás Maduro, and leading officials have been designated by Trump as “narco-terrorists” potentially subject to the same lethal actions that befell al-Qaida figures like Osama bin Laden.Cheney was also an advocate of appointing some of the most rightwing figures to the US supreme court, including the current chief justice, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.As chief-of-staff to Gerald Ford in the immediate aftermath of Watergate, Cheney became deeply critical of the limitations placed on the presidency in reactions to the abuses that had occurred under Richard Nixon, believing it rendered the office holder impotent in many ways.He clamored for a more assertive executive, which he helped to implement – and exercise – during Bush’s presidency.Yet under Trump that vision has expanded in ways that Cheney could perhaps not imagine, helped in part by sympathetic rulings from the current supreme court that he played some role in shaping.Cheney lived long enough to see confirmation of the fears he experienced after the January 6 riot.“After the riot … he saw the dangers of an overly powerful president,” said Robert Schmuhl, professor in American studies at the University of Notre Dame.It seemed a strange turnaround for a man who – at least in Bush’s first term, when his impact was at its zenith – accrued more power and influence than any other vice-president in US history.Yet, said Schmuhl, it did not amount to a change of mind or heart. “He really worked to strengthen the presidency, but then recognized that you can only go so far, and that there should be guardrails,” he said.“Dick Cheney was a very consequential figure but was also a deeply controversial figure – and in retrospect, the controversy overshadows the consequence.” More

    • 213 Shares45 Views

      in US Politics

      Dick Cheney dies: giant of the US conservative movement whose legacy was defined by the Iraq war

      by

      Dick Cheney, one of the most important figures in America’s neo-conservative movement, has died at the age of 84. Cheney had a long career in government and was considered by many as one of the most powerful vice-presidents in US history.

      Cheney started his career in politics in 1968 in the office of William Steiger, a Republican representative from Wisconsin, before joining the staff of Donald Rumsfeld, who was at the time the director of the Office of Economic Opportunity. By 1974, Cheney was brought on to the team of Gerald Ford, who had assumed the US presidency that year following the resignation of Richard Nixon. He followed Rumsfeld as Ford’s White House chief of staff in 1975, at the age of 34.

      Cheney then went on to spend over a decade serving as a member of the House of Representatives. He represented a district in Wyoming until 1989 when he was appointed secretary of defense by the then-president, George H.W. Bush.

      This experience would prove critical to Cheney’s subsequent selection as running mate by Bush’s son, George W. Bush, for his 2000 presidential campaign as the Republican candidate. Bush Jr. went on to win that election, and his partnership with Cheney would ultimately prove incredibly significant in reshaping US foreign policy in the Middle East.

      After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the neo-conservative movement gained momentum in Washington and found an ally in Cheney. He was a founding signatory of the so-called Project for the New American Century, which became a major forum for neo-conservative thinking. The goal was to promote US interests – namely spreading democracy abroad – through a bold deployment of military power.

      This interventionist foreign policy culminated in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Considered by some to be a shadow president, Cheney had a huge influence over Bush Jr. He reportedly played a major role in convincing Bush to go to war in Iraq.

      Cheney expressed no regrets about this decision, calling critics of the war “spineless” in 2005. But a majority of Americans considered this decision to be a grave error.

      The war is estimated to have cost the US well over US$1 trillion (£800 billion), and as much as US$3 trillion when taking the wider regional conflict it sparked into account. The war also led to the deaths of as many as 600,000 Iraqi civilians, according to an estimate published by the Lancet medical journal.

      American soldiers on patrol in Taji, Iraq, in 2008.
      Christopher Landis / Shutterstock

      There were also questions about whether Cheney had a conflict of interest. He had previously served as the chief executive of Halliburton, a company that won billions of dollars in US military contracts to restore Iraq’s oil sector – this included some of the biggest military logistics contracts in history. Cheney was even accused of coordinating preferential awarding of contracts to the company, though he and Halliburton denied it.

      He was also accused of circumventing due process, constitutional checks and congressional oversight during his time as vice-president. A prominent example of this was his involvement in a programme to intercept domestic communications without a judicial warrant.

      Cheney was also widely disliked in the intelligence community. Many of these people resented the way he undermined the CIA by, for example, instructing subordinates in the agency to transmit raw intelligence directly to his office.

      Change of heart?

      Given that Cheney believed executive power needed to be expanded, there was a degree of irony in his decision to endorse the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris, in the 2024 presidential election. The winner of that election, Donald Trump, also favours an executive unencumbered by institutions.

      But Cheney clearly had his limits. While Bush Jr. was reticent to publicly attack Trump, Cheney became one of his harshest critics. This was especially so after Liz Cheney, his daughter and a now former congresswoman, voted to impeach Trump after the insurrection of January 6 2021, which made her enemy number one in Trump’s eyes.

      However, some critics claim that it was Cheney’s shadow presidency that paved the way for Trump’s aggressive expansion of the executive power of the presidency. Along the way, he wielded the power of the vice-presidency in a way not been seen before or, arguably, since.

      Cheney was not just powerful but prone to operating clandestinely, even creating an independent operation inside the White House. All of this helped fuel mistrust of the government.

      As Cheney advanced in age, his stances seemed to be softening from the Darth Vader image he had embraced as vice-president. More than half of the multi-million fortune that Cheney gained from selling his Halliburton stock options, for example, was donated to the Cardiac Institute at George Washington University.

      Cheney, who survived five heart attacks and eventually a heart transplant, was seen a political survivor. But the Republican party that he had led in the shadows has been transformed. Once a towering figure in the conservative movement, today his brand of conservatism is a relic of the past. More

    • 200 Shares30 Views

      in US Politics

      The US goes to the polls for a potential check on Trump’s power – in pictures

      by

      Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigationView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenMost viewedMost viewed More

    • 163 Shares40 Views

      in US Politics

      De Niro to JLaw: should celebrities be expected to speak out against Trump?

      by

      If you were hoping Jennifer Lawrence might be able to tell you who to vote for and why, you’re in for some disappointment. “I don’t really know if I should,” the actor told the New York Times recently when asked about speaking up about the second Trump administration – and she’s not the only one. “I’ve always believed that I’m not here to tell people what to think,” Sydney Sweeney recently told GQ, after a year in which she was the subject of controversy over a jeans ad and a possible Republican voter registration. This marks a shift from Donald Trump’s first term, when more celebrities seemed not just comfortable speaking out against the administration, but obligated to do so. Now voters will no longer be able to so easily consult with Notes-app-made posts on Instagram to decide who and what they care about before they head to the polls. The era of movie-star-swung elections has come to an end.Of course, this era didn’t really exist in earnest. Celebrity opinion doesn’t seem to hold much genuine sway over the public, with the possible exception of the segments of each that belong to Taylor Swift. (Call that an extremely vocal plurality, if not necessarily a majority.) If it did, the George Clooney/Jennifer Lawrence/Tom Hanks/Scarlett Johansson party would soundly thump the Dean Cain/Tim Allen/James Woods/Chuck Norris party in every contest. In her recent interview, Lawrence is speaking to precisely that point, albeit without invoking any catty status differences: “As we’ve learned, election after election, celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever on who people vote for,” she continues. “So then what am I doing [when speaking out against Trump]? I’m just sharing my opinion on something that’s going to add fuel to a fire that’s ripping the country apart.”Lawrence still isn’t actually shy about confirming her feelings (“The first Trump administration was so wild and just, ‘how can we let this stand?’” she says earlier in the interview, and she alludes to the dispiriting feeling when some voters actively chose a second term after seeing the results of the first). Sweeney, for her part, is more genuinely evasive. (“I’m just here to kind of open their eyes to different ideas. That’s why I gravitate towards characters and stories that are complicated and are maybe morally questionable, and characters that are – on the page – hard to like, but then you find the humanity underneath them.”) But the effect is similar: putting the work first and doing that shut-up-and-sing thing that has been thrown around, in some form another, for half a century or more but felt particularly amped-up around the George W Bush administration, when applied to the artists formerly known as the Dixie Chicks, among others.View image in fullscreenTo some extent, Lawrence is correct to advocate for her work as more potentially meaningful than issuing a statement that underlines her celebrity status, noting that her political views are pretty easy to read in terms of what her production company puts out into the world (including a documentary about abortion bans), and what she does as a performer: “I don’t want to start turning people off to films and to art that could change consciousness or change the world because they don’t like my political opinions,” she says elsewhere in the interview. “I want to protect my craft so that you can still get lost in what I’m doing, in what I’m showing.” In other words, it’s the artistic principle of “show, don’t tell” bleeding over into politics.More personally, who wouldn’t grow exhausted by the expectation that these opinions should be publicly expressed and available for judgment and nitpicking, and prefer instead to speak through art, if that alternate platform was available to them? Trump doesn’t consume art, but he does perform the old-media equivalent of constant name-searching, which means he is likely to name-check any celebrities with high-profile opposition to him – or even those he senses are somehow aligned with his movement, like Sweeney, whose jeans ad he nonsensically praised. Getting dragged into the Trump sphere is a real lose-lose proposition for anyone who wants a genuinely interesting career in the arts. If that sense of self-preservation spares us some cookie-cutter awards show speeches that don’t move the needle outside of the auditorium applause-o-meter, or Clooney relitigating the specifics of Democrats’ mistakes and pitfalls in the 2024 election, all the better.The other side of that strategy, though, is a form of quivery brand management that doubles as faulty market research, implying a tidy split between Trump supporters and those who oppose the president’s policies. In fact, 77 million voters pulling the metaphorical lever for Trump in 2024 out of approximately 258 million adults in the US equals a less-than-robust 30%, not 50 – a percentage his approval rating has rarely crossed. Currently, that number continues to sit below 40% by most estimates. Maybe that’s splitting hairs; 77 million voters is a hell of a lot of people, and 37% of 258 million is even more than that, even if it’s not a majority. But the gesture toward “lowering the temperature”, as so many including Lawrence allude to, feels less noble and more businesslike capitulation. Personal politics becomes a choice between allowing people to read between the lines (as Lawrence does) or an outright opacity (like Sweeney’s) that is, ironically, very politician-like. It also fits with an executive mindset that treats audiences more like shareholders than human beings.View image in fullscreenAs little as celebrity advocacy tends to move the needle on broad political decisions, and likely more effectively moved toward particular issues rather than tilting at the windmills erected by specific politicians, it’s also cathartic to see which folks aren’t backing down. It is telling, too, that some of the most outspoken figures are those closer to Trump’s advanced age. Harrison Ford, for example, had no compunction about telling the Guardian that he considers Trump one of history’s biggest criminals. Robert De Niro has gone further as an anti-Trump spokesperson, recently noting that he was “very happy” to see so many mobilizing against Trump at recent No Kings protests, and repeatedly bringing up his concern that Trump will not abide by the legal term limits on his presidency: “We cannot let up because he is not going to leave the White House. Anybody who thinks, ‘Oh, he’ll do this, he’ll do that,’ is just deluding themselves.”Does anyone need to hear this alarm sounded by De Niro in particular? Probably not, and surely some former fans will dismiss him as an anti-Trump crank. But at 82, the actor is too late in his career to spend much time calculating what is best for business, which also inures him from charges of empty virtue-signaling. He is clearly saying this stuff because he fully believes it. It’s not that De Niro needs Lawrence, Sweeney or whoever else to stand alongside him, but for all the strangeness of a legendary actor reinventing himself as a cable-news staple, it does seem like De Niro better understands his fellow baby boomer New Yorker. He especially seems to get that Trump is a poisonously ironic figure to inspire this kind of celebrity silence.This president is himself a celebrity first, a corrupt politician second, and an actual political strategist in a distant and possibly accidental third. He may well survey his presidency and secretly conclude that his greatest triumph was asserting that celebrity over others – to get away with literally telling people how to think and how to vote (or maybe in the future, that voting is no longer necessary) while cowing others from expressing their opinions on the matter. If celebrities had no political sway at all, Trump would be doddering and leering his way around a TV studio. Lawrence and Sweeney are right to aspire toward their work saying more than they do – but maybe not for the reasons they think. Celebrity without art is what gets you Donald Trump in the first place. For this administration, it’s not the singing that’s important; it’s the shutting up. More

    • 175 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      How Trump is weaponizing the DoJ to ‘bully, prosecute, punish and silence’ his foes

      by

      Donald Trump’s intense pressure on the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to charge key foes with crimes based on dubious evidence and his ongoing investigations of other political enemies is hurting the rule of law in the US and violating departmental policies, which scholars and ex-prosecutors say may help scuttle some charges.They also voice dismay about charges filed against ex-FBI director James Comey and Letitia James, the New York attorney general, by Lindsey Halligan, the ex-White House lawyer and novice prosecutor, who Trump installed in a key US attorney post after forcing out a veteran prosecutor who deemed the cases weak.Comey, charged with lying to Congress about an FBI leak and obstruction of Congress, and James, charged with bank fraud and false statements to a financial unit, have pleaded not guilty and are garnering hefty support from ex-DoJ officials and legal experts challenging the paltry evidence against them.Over 100 ex-DoJ officials filed an amicus brief on 27 October mirroring part of Comey’s legal defense that his prosecution was a “vindictive” one, and should be dropped given longstanding departmental policies barring such legal tactics. Trump’s animus against Comey stems from the FBI’s inquiry of Russia’s role in helping Trump’s campaign in 2016 when Comey led the FBI.James Pearce, an ex-DoJ lawyer and a senior counsel at the Washington Litigation Group who helped organize the amicus, said: “It explains that the justice department’s policies seek to ensure fair and impartial prosecutions – which the constitution’s due process clause requires. Unfortunately, the public record suggests that the Comey prosecution neither adheres to those policies nor comports with the constitutional obligations underpinning them.”Other amicus briefs supporting Comey were filed in late October by groups including the Protect Democracy Project and Democracy Defenders Fund.View image in fullscreenFurther contesting the Comey and James charges, Democracy Defenders Fund sent a letter to the DoJ inspector general signed by ethics advisors to presidents Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama blasting Trump’s move to make Halligan an interim US attorney and file charges against them, and seeking an investigation of the prosecutions.“After Watergate, no precept was more central to the re-professionalization of the justice department than distancing the White House from decision making about individual prosecutions,” said Peter Shane, who teaches constitutional law at New York University“Trump’s conspicuous public involvement in triggering prosecutions against his enemies along with the seemingly paltry ‘evidence’ against Comey and James, in particular, is likely to mean that at least some of these cases will be dismissed before trial. There is also a serious legal question whether Halligan has been legitimately appointed to the USA position in Virginia.”Other legal experts say the justice department has been “weaponized” to further Trump’s revenge drive against Comey, James and other current and former officials who Trump blames for his legal problems including two impeachments and federal charges that he tried to subvert his 2020 election loss.“The overt and explicit ‘weaponization’ of the justice department, in defiance of the professional judgment of career prosecutors that the criminal prosecutions are unwarranted, is the worst type of corruption of the rule of law,” said Philip Lacovara, who was counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor.View image in fullscreen“The department’s principles of federal prosecution explicitly prohibit federal prosecutors from considering partisan and political factors in deciding whether to pursue criminal charges. But Trump has made these considerations a primary motive for bringing down the weight of the federal law enforcement apparatus on the heads of his political enemies.”Lacovara’s points were underscored by how the DoJ has seemed to move in lockstep with Trump’s suggestions that foes he’s publicly attacked on Truth Social and in other public and private ways should be prosecuted or investigated.Notably, Trump implored Pam Bondi, the attorney general, in late September on Truth Social to bring charges against Comey, James and Adam Schiff, a Democratic senator, not long before the DoJ indicted the first two.Just a day after Trump had forced out the Virginia prosecutor who declined to indict key Trump foes, Trump upped the pressure on Bondi“What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia???” Trump wrote. “They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” stressing that “we can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.”In his missive addressed to “Pam”, Trump hyped the stakes for him: “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!A person familiar with the inquiry of Schiff, and reports suggest that pressures from some DoJ leaders have increased on the US attorney in Maryland who has been exploring charging Schiff with mortgage fraud, but has lacked sufficient evidence to do so. Schiff and his attorney have attacked the investigation as vindictive and politically driven.The weekend before Comey’s indictment, Schiff hit back at Trump’s Truth Social posts targeting him. “There’s no hiding the political retaliation and weaponization. It’s all out in the open.”Trump’s ire at Schiff stems from when Schiff was a member of the House and served as manager during Trump’s first impeachment.Similarly, Trump’s hatred of James, who the DoJ charged soon after Comey, was fueled by a successful civil fraud case that her office brought against Trump’s real estate empire in 2024 that initially had a hefty $500m penalty.The penalty was overturned last month, but Trump and his two eldest sons remain barred for a few years from holding leadership posts with the family real-estate behemoth.Another Trump foe, John Bolton, ex-national security adviser, who has been a vocal Trump critic, was charged last month by Maryland’s US attorney with mishandling classified information. Legal experts note the investigation of Bolton began during the Biden administration and may be stronger than the cases against other Trump enemies.Bolton has pleaded not guilty.View image in fullscreenWithin the DoJ, a key figure in pushing hard for charges against some of Trump’s avowed enemies has been Ed Martin, a combative lawyer with strong Maga credentials including promoting bogus claims of election fraud in 2020 and legal work he did for some of the January 6 rioters.Martin displayed his Maga bona fides the day before the Capitol attack, when he told a rally of fervent Trump backers: “Thank you for standing for our president. But remember, what they’re stealing is not just an election. It’s our future.”Martin was originally tapped by Trump to be US attorney for DC, but after serving in that role on an interim basis, Trump withdrew his nomination for Senate approval after a key Republican senator indicated he wouldn’t support him.Soon after moving to the DoJ in May, Martin was put in charge of a “weaponization working group”, to go after alleged weaponization by DoJ under Democratic presidents.Martin’s radical views about prosecuting or publicly shaming Trump foes were palpable when he told reporters while exiting the US attorney’s post that if people “can’t be charged, we will name them … and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed”.Bondi tapped Martin over the summer to investigate the Schiff allegations, and to that end he met with Bill Pulte, the federal housing finance agency director, who had sent a criminal referral in May for Schiff to the DoJ, according to NBC.Boosting his stature at the DoJ, Martin has also been given the titles special attorney for mortgage fraud, associate deputy attorney general and pardon attorney.Former prosecutors raise strong concerns about Martin’s various DoJ roles including spurring some indictments of Trump’s foes.“His chief value to the administration is to go after people Trump has identified as enemies by any means or tactics he can find, whether legally sound or not,” said Mike Gordon, a senior DoJ prosecutor on January 6 cases and one of about 20 prosecutors ousted by Trump’s DoJ.Other ex-prosecutors see Martin’s modus operandi as dangerous.“Ed Martin’s role as both the pardon attorney and head of the weaponization working group is concerning in light of a long list of public comments he has made,” said Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan who now teaches law at the University of Michigan.“His letter writing campaign while he was serving as interim US attorney, demanding answers to questions from Democratic politicians, members of the media, and university leaders also suggests a political agenda that is antithetical to the independence of the justice department.”More broadly, Lacovara calls DoJ’s compliance with Trump’s demands to charge his enemies “a truly Orwellian shift in generations-long justice department tradition: Trump has managed to condemn investigations into his personal conduct by non-political professional prosecutors, while simultaneously and expressly commanding his political appointees in the justice department to prosecute his perceived political enemies.”Democrats in Congress too are irate over Trump’s use of DoJ for revenge against foes.“When Richard Nixon conducted retaliation against his political enemies, he did it in secret and tried to cover his tracks,” said Jamie Raskin, a Democratic representative of Maryland.“But Trump’s campaign of political persecution to bully, prosecute, punish and silence his political foes is taking place in broad daylight and on TV … I have faith, however, that judges and juries at the district level, unlike Bondi and Halligan, will uphold the rule of law.”Looking ahead, Michael Bromwich, ex-DoJ inspector general, said: “The flimsy cases being brought against people who Trump considers his enemies will fail, but the damage to the system of criminal justice and the Department of Justice will endure. That will be the legacy of the people who currently run the DoJ as a subagency of the White House.” More

    • 250 Shares28 Views

      in US Politics

      US elections 2025 live: Americans go to the polls, with elections in New York City, New Jersey, Virginia and California

      by

      We are restarting our live coverage of US politics.Americans are heading to the polls on Tuesday in a number of elections that will show where support for Donald Trump’s Republicans stands and whether Democrats have cause for hope.Much attention in the US and abroad will be on Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor, who is facing off against former governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary against Mamdani earlier this year, and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa.In California, voters could tear up their congressional maps to turn Republican districts into Democratic ones in an effort to counter gains the GOP is expected to make elsewhere after the party gerrymandered maps in states including Texas and Missouri.Virginia and New Jersey will hold high-stakes gubernatorial and legislative elections that may serve as a proxy for voters’ views on the president.We will bring you the latest news and reactions as election day unfolds.New York City has probably the most high-profile mayor in the country, and in June, Mamdani, a 34-year-old state assemblyman and democratic socialist, won the Democratic primary in an upset over former governor Andrew Cuomo.Though Cuomo remains in the race as an independent, polls show Mamdani with a formidable lead, and if he wins, his brand of left-wing politics will be given a prominent platform.On Monday, the candidates for New York City mayor spent a frantic final day campaigning across the city. Zohran Mamdani, the frontrunner, whose campaign has been centered on affordability, has maintained a commanding lead, with most polls showing him leading by double digits.The 34-year-old Democratic nominee, a state assembly member from Queens, began his Monday walking across the Brooklyn Bridge at sunrise. He was joined by the New York attorney general, Letitia James; the city comptroller, Brad Lander; as well as several city and state lawmakers and throngs of supporters.He finished the walk at city hall, where he told a news conference that “we stand on the verge of ushering in a new day for our city”, and was scheduled to join volunteers before they began a final day of canvassing in Astoria, Queens, later in the day.Andrew Cuomo, the former Democratic governor running as an independent after losing to Mamdani in June’s primary, kicked off the last day of the campaign with an interview on the Spanish-language radio station La Mega before heading to a campaign stop in the Bronx. He reportedly planned to visit all five boroughs on Monday.Running a distant third has been Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate and founder of the Guardian Angels, a non-profit organization dedicated to “unarmed crime prevention”. According to social media, Sliwa spent part of Monday morning at Coney Island and was set to host a tele-rally in the evening.We are restarting our live coverage of US politics.Americans are heading to the polls on Tuesday in a number of elections that will show where support for Donald Trump’s Republicans stands and whether Democrats have cause for hope.Much attention in the US and abroad will be on Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor, who is facing off against former governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary against Mamdani earlier this year, and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa.In California, voters could tear up their congressional maps to turn Republican districts into Democratic ones in an effort to counter gains the GOP is expected to make elsewhere after the party gerrymandered maps in states including Texas and Missouri.Virginia and New Jersey will hold high-stakes gubernatorial and legislative elections that may serve as a proxy for voters’ views on the president.We will bring you the latest news and reactions as election day unfolds. More

    • 125 Shares54 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Republicans strike down Democratic proposal to fully fund Snap

      by

      Senate Republicans shot down a Democratic-led attempt to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) benefits on Monday during the government shutdown – a move that heightens uncertainty for the 42 million Americans participating in the country’s biggest anti-hunger program.Jeff Merkley, a Democratic senator, and Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, attempted to pass a resolution via unanimous consent that would have forced the Department of Agriculture to fund Snap benefits for the month of November.But Republican senators objected, with John Barrasso, Senate majority whip, arguing that a solution toward ensuring those benefits lies in reopening the government.“This isn’t lawmaking. It’s a political stunt by the Democrats. The resolution they’re offering is empty,” Barrasso said. “Democrats knew their actions threatened food assistance. They were fully aware of it.”The move comes after the administration announced it will use money from an agriculture department contingency fund to restart Snap food benefits, but the money would only grant partial assistance. The administration said there’s only $4.65bn available in that fund to pay for Snap benefits, which would only cover about half of the $8bn in food assistance payments people receive every month.“Trump is using food as a weapon against children, families, and seniors to enact his ‘make Americans hungry agenda,’” said Merkley in a statement.“It’s unbelievably cruel, but Trump cares more about playing politics than making sure kids don’t starve. Kids and families are not poker chips or hostages. Trump must release the entirety of the Snap funds immediately.”The diminishing funds come as Senate Republican leaders continue their attempts to pass a bill to reopen the government, with 13 tries so far and a clear resolution nowhere in sight.Food banks and pantries across the country are already struggling amid the cuts to federal programs, scrambling to meet the increased demand driven by federal workers who have gone unpaid during the shutdown.Should the shutdown continue past Tuesday, it will be the longest one in history. The previous record was set in 2019, during Trump’s first term, when he demanded that Congress give him the funds to erect a border wall between the US and Mexico. More