Democrats

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump declines to call for unity after Charlie Kirk killing in stunning move

      by

      Donald Trump has declined to call for the US to come together as a way of fixing the country’s divisions in the wake of the assassination of his close associate, the rightwing activist Charlie Kirk, preferring to cast “vicious and horrible” radicals on the left of US politics as the sole problem.In an interview on Fox & Friends on Friday morning, the US president was asked what he intended to do to heal the wounds of Kirk’s shooting in Utah. “How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?” he was asked by the show’s co-host Ainsley Earhardt, who commented that there were radicals operating on the left and right of US politics.Less than 48 hours after Kirk was shot in broad daylight on the campus of Utah Valley University, Trump replied: “I tell you something that is going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less.”He went on: “The radicals on the right are radical because they don’t want to see crime … The radicals on the left are the problem – and they are vicious and horrible and politically savvy. They want men in women’s sports, they want transgender for everyone, they want open borders. The worst thing that happened to this country.”Trump’s refusal to seek a common bipartisan way forward at a time of profound national anger, fear and mourning was a stunning move for a sitting US president, even by his standards.The US has a long history of presidents using their rhetorical powers to try to overcome political fissures. The pinnacle perhaps was Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address towards the end of the civil war, in which he sought to “bind up the nation’s wounds” and made a point of striving for unity “with malice toward none, with charity for all”.In more recent times, Joe Biden used his inaugural address in 2021, just days after the insurrection by Trump supporters at the US Capitol on January 6, to call for unity, without which, he said, “there is no peace, only bitterness and fury”.Trump’s appearance on Fox News made clear he has no intention of following that rhetorical tradition. Instead, the tenor of his response to the Kirk shooting has been hyper-partisan and grounded in retribution.In Friday’s comments, he threatened the philanthropist George Soros with a Rico investigation of the sort normally reserved for organised crime. He accused Soros of funding “professional agitators” who were engaging in “more than protest, this is real agitation, this is riots on the streets”.In an Oval Office address delivered hours after Kirk was pronounced dead, Trump made menacing remarks indicating he would seek revenge against “organizations that fund and support” political violence. He laid blame for the current plight entirely on what he called the “radical left”.The president has already used his second term in the White House to turn the heat up on those he regards as his political enemies. He has authorised an investigation into the main fundraising channel for the Democratic party, ActBlue, and threatened to rescind the tax-exempt status of progressive groups such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) and environmental groups. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Missouri Republicans approve redistricting that gives GOP additional seat in Congress

      by

      Missouri Republicans approved a new congressional map on Friday that adds an additional GOP-friendly seat in Congress, a boost to Donald Trump as he tries to redraw districts across the US to stave off losses in next year’s midterms.Republicans currently hold six of Missouri’s eight congressional seats. The new map would eliminate a district currently represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver in Kansas City. Cleaver, who was Kansas City’s first Black mayor, has been in Congress for two decades. The new map splits up voters in the district and places them instead into more GOP-friendly ones.The plan now goes to Missouri’s governor, Mike Kehoe, a Republican, who is expected to sign it into law.Opponents of the measure pledged they would use a legal maneuver to force a statewide vote on the maps next year. Activists must gather more than 100,000 signatures in the next 90 days to put it up for a referendum.“This fight is not over. Missouri voters – not politicians – will have the final say,” Elsa Rainey, a spokesperson for the group People Not Politicians Missouri, said in a statement.Missouri is the first state to pass a new congressional plan after Texas adopted a map that gives Republicans between three and five new seats. California voters are set to vote on a ballot referendum later this year that would add five congressional districts in that state.“Missourians will not have fair and effective representation under this new, truly shameful gerrymander. It is not only legally indefensible, it is also morally wrong,” Eric Holder, the former US attorney general and chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in a statement.Each seat is important because Republicans only hold a three-seat majority in the US House and the president’s party typically loses seats in a midterm election. Typically, redistricting is done only once, after the decennial census at the start of the decade, but Trump has pushed an anti-democratic effort to redraw district lines mid-decade, allowing politicians to pick their voters instead of having them face competitive elections.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOhio, where Republicans also control the redistricting process, is also set to redraw its maps in the coming months. Indiana Republicans are also considering redrawing their state’s map as well. More

    • 275 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      The US is on the brink of another era of political violence – and Donald Trump ‘couldn’t care less’ | Jonathan Freedland

      by

      The killing of Charlie Kirk has left the US and those who care about it on edge. The arrest of a suspect, Tyler Robinson, has hardly settled the nerves, not when the revelation of any supposed political allegiances could touch off a fresh round of recriminations. The fear is that the country is about to descend into a new era of political violence, becoming a place where differences are settled not with words and argument but by guns and blood. After all, it has plumbed those depths before.The US was born in violence, fought a civil war less than a century after its founding and in living memory seemed to be on the brink of another one – with a spate of assassinations in the 1960s that took the lives of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers and John and Bobby Kennedy. That should provide some consolation, the knowledge that the country has been through this before and survived.And yet the comfort is scant, because these are different times. For one thing, guns are even more available now than they were then: there are more than 850m firearms in private hands in the world, and nearly half of those are owned by Americans. For every 100 Americans, there are 120 guns.For another, today’s information supply is dominated by social media, amplifying the most extreme voices and rewarding the angriest sentiments. Where once the CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite could break the news of a presidential assassination and provide sombre balm, now grief is inflamed into fury, with footage of Kirk’s horrific shooting entering global circulation mere moments after his death.But the crucial difference is at the top. An act of political violence used to be met by a standard, reassuringly predictable response: the president would condemn it, grieve for the dead and their families, plead that there be no rush to judgment, and call for calm and for unity, insisting that Americans not give the killers what they want, which was division, but rather come together as fellow citizens of a republic they all loved. I heard versions of that speech, delivered at different moments by Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama. On Wednesday night, Donald Trump chose an alternative path – one that proved that, as he later admitted to Fox News when asked about bringing the country together, he “couldn’t care less”.Instead, and at a time when no one was in custody and nothing at all was known of Kirk’s killer, Trump said the blame for his death lay with “the radical left”. It was its “rhetoric” that was “directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today”. The problem was not political violence in general, but “radical left political violence”.Put aside the inaccuracy of such a statement. Put aside the documented fact that not some, but all extremist-related killings in the US in 2024 were connected to rightwing extremism, just as they were in 2023 and in 2022. Put aside that, although Trump listed incidents in which figures associated with the right had been attacked, he pointedly did not mention and wilfully chose to ignore the murder of the Democratic Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband in June; or the arson attack on the home of the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, in April; or an earlier plot to kidnap the Democratic governor of Michigan.Put it all aside, even though it exposes the transparent falsity of Trump’s declaration that US political violence comes from one side only. Consider instead the likely effect of his words. At best, they add fuel to an already incendiary situation. At worst, they encourage retaliation and revenge.Witness Trump’s allies and cheerleaders. “We’re gonna avenge Charlie’s death,” promised Fox News host Jesse Watters. Elon Musk declared that “The Left is the party of murder”. A legion of other rightwing influencers have already taken this talk to its logical conclusion, announcing, as one put it, that “THIS IS WAR”. Could the message being sent to a furious and well-armed support base be any clearer?And notice something else Trump said on Wednesday. He pledged to find those “organisations that fund and support” what he classifies as political violence. Given that one of his closest aides said before Kirk’s murder that the Democratic party should be viewed as a “domestic extremist organisation”, it’s not hard to imagine who he will be coming for. Surely any group that opposes him.How should they – Democrats, liberals, the left – be responding to this moment of peril? So far they have observed the old norms, with almost every Democratic figure of any standing, whether former president or serving politician, offering the decent, human response: horror at such a brutal act, sympathy for Kirk’s wife and now-fatherless young children, fear for where this leaves the country. Watch MSNBC, or listen to the Pod Save crowd, and you’ll see that that’s how most of the leading lights in the anti-Trump universe have, rightly, responded. Any deviation from that norm has been punished.It is one of the asymmetries of the US culture wars that this etiquette, rigorously enforced from left to right, is not observed in the other direction. So when an intruder broke into the home of the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, and nearly clubbed her husband, Paul, then 82, to death, the leading Republican in the country did not offer condemnation or words of consolation. No, Trump responded by making repeated jokes at Paul Pelosi’s expense.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDifferent rules apply. After an act of violence, Democrats must be gracious, empathetic and call for calm on all sides, while Republicans can mock the victims, blame only one side and demand more violence. And there’s a further asymmetry: a single post from a random, anonymous user online will be treated as a statement from “the left”, while the outpourings of the right’s most powerful voices, in politics or the media, and including the president himself, somehow get a free pass.As part of this etiquette, it’s become poor taste to point out Kirk’s actual views. It’s as if the belief that no one should be killed for their opinions requires you to withhold any judgment of those opinions. But Kirk did not hold back. He was happy to tell people that he would be nervous getting on a plane flown by a Black pilot, and to talk of “prowling Blacks”; to tell Taylor Swift to “Reject feminism. Submit to your husband … You’re not in charge”; to deny the truth of the 2020 election; to recommend that children should watch public executions; and to suggest “Jewish dollars” were to blame for the spread of “cultural Marxism”.Many liberal luminaries have swerved past this back catalogue, preferring to express their admiration for Kirk’s willingness to debate and his genuine gift for engaging the young. That has left the field clear for the right to redefine Kirk not as the extremist he was – and was proud to be – but as a paragon of civic participation, one who merits a posthumous presidential medal of freedom and a lowering of the flag. While the liberal left is observing the conventional pieties, the right is swiftly sanitising Kirk’s views and canonising him, hailing him as a martyr for the cause of what they insist is “simple common sense”. As a result, it will have moved the Overton window yet further in its direction.These are dynamics Kirk knew well and that he was adroit at using to his advantage. He understood that a culture war inherently favours those willing to disregard the rules. It is a lesson that liberals and the left are, rightly, reluctant to learn – but that reluctance comes at an increasingly high price.

      Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’

      by

      Charlie Kirk, the far-right commentator and ally of Donald Trump, was killed on Wednesday doing what he was known for throughout his career – making incendiary and often racist and sexist comments to large audiences.If it was current and controversial in US politics, chances are that Kirk was talking about it. On his podcasts, and on the podcasts of friends and adversaries, and especially on college campuses, where he would go to debate students, Kirk spent much of his adult life defending and articulating a worldview aligned with Trump and the Maga movement. Accountable to no one but his audience, he did not shy away in his rhetoric from bigotry, intolerance, exclusion and stereotyping.Here’s Kirk, in his own words. Many of his comments were documented by Media Matters for America, a progressive non-profit that tracks conservative media.On race
      If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

      If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022

      Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023

      If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because affirmative action?
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024
      On debate
      We record all of it so that we put [it] on the internet so people can see these ideas collide. When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.
      – Kirk discussing his work in an undated clip that circulated on X after his killing.

      Prove me wrong.
      – Kirk’s challenge to students to publicly debate him during the tour of colleges he was on when he was assassinated.
      On gender, feminism and reproductive rights
      Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
      – Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025

      The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.
      – Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded, published on 8 September 2024

      We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 April 2024
      On gun violence
      I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.
      – Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023
      On immigration
      America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 22 August 2025

      The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024

      The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024
      On Islam
      America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 30 April 2025

      We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilization.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 24 June 2025
      On religion
      There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 6 July 2022 More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US lawmakers unite to condemn Charlie Kirk shooting: ‘Reject political violence’

      by

      The shooting of the rightwing activist Charlie Kirk at a Utah college prompted outrage among both Democrats and Republicans, with Donald Trump and top officials condemning what appeared to be the latest act of political violence in the United States.“We must all pray for Charlie Kirk, who has been shot. A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!” said Trump on Truth Social. The president survived an assassination attempt while campaigning for re-election in July 2024, and was targeted by a second assassin weeks later.“Say a prayer for Charlie Kirk, a genuinely good guy and a young father,” tweeted the vice-president, JD Vance. He later posted a photo of him alongside Kirk, writing: “Dear God, protect Charlie in his darkest hour.”Kash Patel, the FBI director, said the bureau “stands in full support of the ongoing response and investigation” into the shooting, which occurred during Kirk’s appearance at Utah Valley University in Orem, south of Salt Lake City. “Our thoughts are with Charlie, his loved ones, and everyone affected,” Patel said.Kirk’s condition after the shooting was described as critical.Congress’s top Republicans and Democrats joined in the condemnation, with several ascribing political motives to the attack. “There is no place in our country for political violence. Period, full stop,” said John Thune, the Republican Senate majority leader. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House minority leader, echoed the sentiment, saying: “Political violence is NEVER acceptable.”“Please join us in praying for our good friend, Charlie Kirk,” said Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House.The House oversight committee took a break from considering more than a dozen bills to change laws in Washington DC as part of Trump’s militarized crackdown on crime in the district to hold a moment of silence in Kirk’s honor, after Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican congressperson, informed the panel about the attack.Democrats seen as potential presidential contenders in 2028 also denounced the violence.“The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible. In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form,” said Gavin Newsom, the California governor.Wes Moore, the Maryland governor, wrote on X: “Political violence is never acceptable. Ever. The First Lady and I are praying for him and his family at this time.” More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      House committee releases image of ‘sickening’ Trump birthday note to Epstein – US politics live

      by

      US immigration officers are ramping up immigration sweeps in Los Angeles again after the supreme court reversed a temporary restraining order that banned the Trump administration from stopping people solely based on their race, language or job.In a post on Twitter/X, Greg Bovino, the head of US border patrol in Los Angeles, called the temporary restraining order “very poorly” written and “the worst” he’s ever seen. He also said that border patrol would be starting operations back up again today.“We are going hard in Los Angeles today and are hitting a location as I write this,” Bovino wrote.Immigration officers were forced to pause their sweeping immigration raids after advocacy groups sued the Trump administration for systemically racially profiling brown-skinned people. US district judge in Los Angeles Maame E Frimpong granted the groups a temporary restraining order after finding a “mountain of evidence” that the immigration enforcement tactics were violating the constitution.But the supreme court ruled 6-3 to lift those restrictions on Monday. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who voted to approve the stay on the order, wrote that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows immigration officers to “interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States”. While “ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” it can be used as a “relevant” factor, he wrote.Hello and welcome to the US politics live blog. I’m Tom Ambrose and I will be bringing you all the latest news lines over the next few hours.We start with news that House Democrats on Monday released an image of a sexually suggestive letter and drawing that appears to bear the signature of Donald Trump, the very same note the president had denied writing after reports of its existence were published earlier this year in the Wall Street Journal.The letter, described as “sickening” by one representative, was turned over by lawyers for disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s estate in response to a subpoena from the House oversight committee, and was included in a set of notes sent to the convicted sex offender for his 50th birthday.The image showed a letter that in effect comported with a description in the Journal’s report from July. Inside the sketch of a woman’s torso, the note depicts an imagined conversation between Trump and Epstein, with what appeared to be Trump’s signature below.“The oversight committee has secured the infamous ‘Birthday Book’ that contains a note from President Trump that he has said does not exist,” Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the panel, said in a statement. “It’s time for the president to tell us the truth about what he knew and release all the Epstein files.”The White House did not immediately comment on the letter, but officials sought to discredit the note. Deputy chief of staff for communications, Taylor Budowich, suggested in an X post carrying a different version of Trump’s signature that the letter or the signature had been falsified.“Time for news corp to open that check book, it’s not his signature. DEFAMATION!” Budowich wrote, referencing the defamation suit that Trump filed against News Corp, the parent company of the Journal, over its original story.Maryland representative Jamie Raskin called the letter “sickening” and called for the full Epstein files to be released. Posting on X, he said:
      House Democrats fought to bring this sickening letter into the light while Trump and MAGA mouthpieces assured us it did not exist. Trump even sued the Wall Street Journal for reporting on it!
      We can’t trust a word MAGA says. Release the full Epstein file NOW!
      Read the full story here:In other developments:

      US immigration officers are ramping up immigration sweeps in Los Angeles again after the supreme court reversed a temporary restraining order that banned the Trump administration from stopping people solely based on their race, language or job. In a post on Twitter/X, Greg Bovino, the head of US border patrol in Los Angeles, called the temporary restraining order “very poorly” written and “the worst” he’s ever seen.

      Donald Trump’s second state visit to the UK will see a big policing operation led by drones in the airspace over Windsor, police have said. King Charles is to host the US president and his wife, Melania Trump, at Windsor Castle from 17 to 19 September, where they will be entertained with a ceremonial welcome and state banquet.

      Donald Trump launched a vitriolic attack against Tom Hanks for supposedly being “destructive” and “woke” after one of America’s most beloved actors was snubbed without much explanation by West Point last week. On his social media site on Monday, the US president applauded the alumni association of the US Military Academy (or West Point) for abruptly calling off a ceremony honoring Hanks, twice an Academy award winner who has played numerous military characters and also has a long history of advocating for veterans.

      Donald Trump now cannot claim presidential immunity to get off the hook from paying $83.3m in damages to the writer E Jean Carroll, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday, upholding a jury’s 2024 award against the president for defamation. Trump’s lawyers had pointed to the supreme court’s ruling last year saying the president has immunity for official acts to argue that the damages should be overturned.

      The US supreme court allowed Donald Trump on Monday to keep a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission away from her post for now, temporarily pausing a judicial order that required the reinstatement of the commissioner who the Republican president has sought to oust.

      Intent on vindication after spending four months in prison last year, Donald Trump’s White House trade adviser Peter Navarro asked a federal appeals court on Sunday night to force the justice department to explain why it would not defend his 2022 conviction for defying a January 6 committee subpoena. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Arizona Republicans seek to expel lawmaker who reposted Ice raid information

      by

      A Democratic lawmaker in Arizona who is facing calls for expulsion for resharing an Instagram post warning of immigration enforcement activity near an elementary school said that state senate Republicans “absolutely are trying to make an example out of me”.Analise Ortiz, a Democratic state senator in Arizona, shared an Instagram post from a community organization that warned, in text only, that immigration enforcement agents were near a local elementary school.“Alert/Alerta: ICE activity near Southwest Elementary,” the post in early August said, adding the cross streets of the school. “ICE is present. La migra esta presente.”That post is at the center of an ethics complaint filed this week against Ortiz and a viral rightwing campaign against her.“The ethics complaint very clearly says that they want to stop other people from sharing this type of information,” she said, calling it “a stunning escalation of intimidation”.The controversy began when Libs of TikTok, the X account known for going after liberals online, posted about Ortiz’s reshare, claiming she was “actively impeding and doxxing ICE by posting their live locations on instagram” and that law enforcement officials should “charge her”.No photos of agents were shared, nor were names or other identifying information about agents.“I was not there,” Ortiz said. “There were no pictures of anybody taken. It was simply a post that said Ice presence is possible outside of an elementary school. And I think that the fact that they are outside of sensitive locations where kids should be able to learn in peace is something that people should know about. They should know how the government is acting on their behalf.”The Libs of TikTok post went viral, leaving Ortiz with an inbox full of harassing and threatening messages. The mischaracterization that she “doxed” agents had led to the vast majority of the threats she had received, she said.Jake Hoffman, a Republican state senator, and a handful of other Republican leaders in the chamber filed a formal ethics complaint that seeks to expel Ortiz from the chamber or, failing a vote to expel, remove her from all committees and take away her office and administrative staff. The ethics committee chair also referred the complaint to the US attorney’s office in Arizona for a potential investigation, saying Ortiz’s actions “may implicate federal law”.After the ethics complaint was filed, Libs of TikTok egged on Arizona senate Republicans. “Make an example out of her! Enough is enough,” the account tweeted.“What surprised me about the ethics complaint was the level of punishment they want to inflict upon me for simply exercising my first amendment right,” Ortiz said.As immigration enforcement agents have ramped up activity across the country, activists have shared locations where they see raids or Ice agents as a way to warn people to avoid the area. In Arizona, a southern border state, fear of deportations – and of detaining people who are in the US legally – is a facet of daily life in the second Trump administration. Ortiz said she had heard from constituents who are terrified to drive without a passport on hand because they fear law enforcement won’t believe they are US citizens if they are pulled over.Ortiz said she would not be intimidated by the ethics inquest or attempts to criminalize her sharing of information.“If the United States of America is going to continue as a free and fair democracy, it demands that people speak out against constitutional violations,” she said. “It demands bravery, so I am going to continue to be brave in this moment.”Hoffman claimed Ortiz’s reshare was “reckless” and “dangerous”, saying that “by publicly posting alerts about federal law enforcement activity, she actively tipped off individuals being pursued by Ice, jeopardizing the safety of officers and law-abiding citizens”. He wanted the committee to investigate her for “behavior unbecoming of an elected official and embarrassing to the entire Arizona legislature on a state and national stage”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHoffman was charged for his role as a fake elector after the 2020 election. Earlier this year, he was pulled over for driving 89mph in a 65mph zone in his Tesla Cybertruck emblazoned with the word “Freedom” on the back, though he was not cited because of a legal provision called legislative immunity.The ethics complaint details how Ortiz did not back away from her reshare after Libs of TikTok posted about it. Instead, she wrote that she would alert her community to stay away when Ice is around and that she was “not fucking scared of you nor Trump’s masked goons”. After Hoffman wrote on X that he would bring an ethics complaint and wanted her expelled, she said: “Bring it on, Jake.”Warren Petersen, the Republican state senate president, previously asked for a federal investigation into Ortiz’s reshare, claiming she may have broken a federal law that prevents “assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers or employees”.The US attorney’s office in Arizona did not respond to a request for comment.Ortiz said Republican lawmakers want to deprive her legislative district of its voice in the senate and silence her and others who want to stand against deportations.“The fact they are trying to escalate it and are blatantly lying about my actions proves that this is really about authoritarianism and wanting to have a system where masked men carry out police operations in secret, and that should really concern anyone who cares about the United States constitution,” Ortiz said.Free speech experts and other elected officials, including the state’s Democratic attorney general, have spoken out against the attacks on Ortiz for her post, which they say is well within her first amendment rights.“Senator Ortiz’s post is clearly protected speech under the first amendment,” Arizona’s attorney general, Kris Mayes, said in a statement. “This ethics complaint is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to intimidate and silence a democratically elected legislator. Warren Petersen and Jake Hoffman should be ashamed of themselves for weaponizing the ethics process just because they disagree with Senator Ortiz politically.”The ethics committee has not met yet this year and does not have operating rules in place, but will consider the complaint once those are established, said its chair, Shawnna Bolick, a Republican. An expulsion would require a two-thirds vote of the chamber, an unlikely prospect.Ortiz previously faced an ethics investigation after she and another Democratic lawmaker shouted “shame” and protested on the state house floor against their Republican colleagues over an abortion vote in 2024. She was found to have violated house rules for conduct, but no official action was taken against her. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden to begin fundraising to build presidential library in Delaware

      by

      Former US president Joe Biden has decided to build his presidential library in Delaware and has tapped a group of former aides, friends and political allies to begin the heavy lift of fundraising and finding a site for the museum and archive.The Joe and Jill Biden Foundation this past week approved a 13-person governance board that is charged with steering the project. The board includes former secretary of state Antony Blinken, longtime adviser Steve Ricchetti, prolific Democratic fundraiser Rufus Gifford and others with deep ties to the one-term president and his wife.Biden’s library team has the daunting task of raising money for the 46th president’s legacy project at a moment when his party has become fragmented about the way ahead and many big Democratic donors have stopped writing checks.It also remains to be seen whether corporations and institutional donors that have historically donated to presidential library projects – regardless of the party of the former president – will be more hesitant to contribute, with Donald Trump in the White House for a second term, maligning Biden on a daily basis and savaging groups he deems left-leaning.“There’s certainly folks – folks who may have been not thinking about those kinds of issues who are starting to think about them,” Gifford, who was named chair of the library board, told the Associated Press. “That being said … we’re not going to create a budget, we’re not going to set a goal for ourselves that we don’t believe we can hit.”The George HW Bush library’s construction cost was about $43m when it opened in 1997. Bill Clinton’s cost about $165m. George W Bush’s team met its $500m fundraising goal before the library was dedicated.The Obama Foundation has set a whopping $1.6bn fundraising goal for construction, sustaining global programming and seeding an endowment for the Chicago presidential center that is slated to open next year.Biden’s library team is still in the early stages of planning.Construction and support for programming for the libraries are paid for with private funds donated to the non-profit organizations established by the former presidents. More