Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s VP search reportedly down to four men – as it happened

      by

      Donald Trump appears to have narrowed his search for a vice-presidential candidate down to four men: North Dakota governor Doug Burgum; and Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina and JD Vance of Ohio, NBC News is reporting.The former president and presumptive Republican nominee for this year’s election has sent out “vetting materials” to the quartet, according to sources cited by the outlet.Another source told NBC that Trump was focusing on a three-way contest between Burgum, Rubio and Vance, with Scott out of the picture.The report also cautions: “Trump is working from a fluid shortlist that at times includes more than a half-dozen names. Additions, subtractions and the emergence of dark-horse candidates remain possible”.Burgum has been seen in Trump’s company increasingly frequently in recent weeks, while all three of the others have become prominent and enthusiastic cheerleaders for Trump during TV appearances following his conviction on 34 felony charges in New York last week.Some of those previously considered to be high on his list of VP “possibles” have fallen away, the NBC report suggests, most notably South Dakota governor Kristi Noem, whose star faded after the Guardian exposed in April how she shot and killed a rambunctious puppy in cold blood.Congress members Elise Stefanik of New York and Byron Donalds of Florida, have also been mentioned, along with Ben Carson, who served as Trump’s housing secretary.NBC notes Trump did not name former vice-president Mike Pence as his running mate until days before the 2016 Republican party convention, and said his decision this year is unlikely to be made public ahead of the July convention in Cleveland, Ohio.Here’s a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
      Donald Trump appears to have narrowed his search for a vice-presidential candidate down to four men: North Dakota governor Doug Burgum; and Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina and JD Vance of Ohio, NBC News reported. The former president and presumptive Republican nominee for this year’s election has sent out “vetting materials” to the quartet, according to sources cited by the outlet. Another source told NBC that Trump was focusing on a three-way contest between Burgum, Rubio and Vance, with Scott out of the picture.
      Michigan’s Democratic representative Rashida Tlaib has condemned Joe Biden’s latest executive order that limits asylum seekers from crossing the US-Mexico border. In a post on X, Tlaib tweeted: “This executive order is outrageous. Seeking asylum is a human right. President Biden promised to end cruel Trump-era immigration policies, not resume them. We need to stop the dehumanization of migrants who are escaping violence and seeking a better life for their families.”
      The White House and the Biden campaign are not pleased with the Wall Street Journal’s story raising questions about whether he is fit to serve. On X, his re-election campaign noted that Kevin McCarthy, who in his former job as speaker of the House repeatedly met with the president, has previously said he was able to follow conversations and participate in meetings just fine.
      Alejandro Mayorkas, homeland security secretary, spoke with MSNBC about the agreement between US and Mexico for the Mexican authorities to enforce anti-migration measures before people even reach the border. “We have built a very strong and productive partnership with Mexico, with President Lopez Obrador. We expect that strong and productive partnership to continue under the presidency of Claudia Sheinbaum,” Mayorkas said today.
      Joe Biden has congratulated the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, and his National Democratic Alliance for their election victory to form a new government for a third straight term. He posted on X: “The friendship between our nations is only growing as we unlock a shared future of unlimited potential.”
      The White House office of management and budget just announced that Joe Biden supports the Right to Contraception Act, which the Democratic-led Senate is expected to vote on later today. “The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S 4381, the Right to Contraception Act, which would protect the fundamental right to access contraception and help ensure that women can make decisions about their health, lives and families,” the office wrote.
      That’s it as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.The Congressional Black Caucus criticized Marjorie Taylor Greene’s rant about George Floyd in which she complained that Democrats are “worshipping” the “convicted felon.”In a video posted on X, Greene can be seen speaking to a reporter, saying, “We have Jamie Raskin in there accusing us of worshiping Trump, worshiping a ‘convicted felon’.” The reporter interjected, saying that Trump was indeed convicted.In response, Greene said: “Well yeah, so was George Floyd. And everybody, and you all too, the media worships George Floyd. Democrats worship George Floyd. There were riots, burning down the fucking country over George Floyd and Raskin is in there, saying we worship him [Trump].Following Greene’s comments, the Congressional Black Caucus condemned the Republican representative. “This is unhinged even for @RepMTG,” they wrote in an X post.“Her actions are unacceptable even by the lowest of Republican standards. George Floyd did not deserve to die, and a member of Congress should have the decency to acknowledge his humanity,” the Congressional Black Caucus continued.For the full story, click here:Michigan’s Democratic representative Rashida Tlaib has condemned Joe Biden’s latest executive order that limits asylum seekers from crossing the US-Mexico border.In a post on X, Tlaib tweeted:
      “This executive order is outrageous. Seeking asylum is a human right. President Biden promised to end cruel Trump-era immigration policies, not resume them. We need to stop the dehumanization of migrants who are escaping violence and seeking a better life for their families.”
      Byron Donalds recently came under fire for suggesting that Black families were stronger during the Jim Crow era, when racial segregation was legalized through much of the US, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.During a Trump campaign event in Philadelphia titled “Congress, Cognac and Cigars”, Donalds claimed that Black families were “more together” during Jim Crow and have been on the decline as Black people started to vote increasingly for the Democratic Party.“You see, during Jim Crow, the Black family was together. During Jim Crow, more Black people were not just conservative – Black people have always been conservative-minded – but more Black people voted conservatively,” Donalds said.“And then HEW, Lyndon Johnson – you go down that road, and now we are where we are,” Donalds added, referring to former president Lyndon B Johnson.The event was co-hosted with congressman Wesley Hunt of Texas, another Republican who is Black.Despite the latest report from NBC News, Trump’s search for a VP may be wider than reported. In addition to Rubio, Scott, Vance, and Burgum, other politicians have repeatedly come up as possible running mates for Trump in the 2024 presidential election.Congressman Byron Donalds of Florida is still widely considered a possible choice for vice-presidential candidate.The first-term congressman has been a rising star within Republican the party and recently attended a campaign event for Trump in Philadelphia.Talking of the former president, my colleague Cameron Joseph’s latest Trump on Trial newsletter takes a look at how voters feel about his conviction last week on 34 felony charges, and how it might affect their decision for November’s election.It’s moderately good news for Joe Biden because of a slight uptick in support for the president in head-to-head surveys. In fact, more than half of voters approve of the guilty verdict, a trio of polls revealed, although there were mixed reactions in the crucial swing states of Wisconsin and Georgia, Guardian reporting found.It’s Cameron’s final newsletter before he leaves the Guardian to take up a new role elsewhere. You can read it here, and don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t already:Donald Trump appears to have narrowed his search for a vice-presidential candidate down to four men: North Dakota governor Doug Burgum; and Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina and JD Vance of Ohio, NBC News is reporting.The former president and presumptive Republican nominee for this year’s election has sent out “vetting materials” to the quartet, according to sources cited by the outlet.Another source told NBC that Trump was focusing on a three-way contest between Burgum, Rubio and Vance, with Scott out of the picture.The report also cautions: “Trump is working from a fluid shortlist that at times includes more than a half-dozen names. Additions, subtractions and the emergence of dark-horse candidates remain possible”.Burgum has been seen in Trump’s company increasingly frequently in recent weeks, while all three of the others have become prominent and enthusiastic cheerleaders for Trump during TV appearances following his conviction on 34 felony charges in New York last week.Some of those previously considered to be high on his list of VP “possibles” have fallen away, the NBC report suggests, most notably South Dakota governor Kristi Noem, whose star faded after the Guardian exposed in April how she shot and killed a rambunctious puppy in cold blood.Congress members Elise Stefanik of New York and Byron Donalds of Florida, have also been mentioned, along with Ben Carson, who served as Trump’s housing secretary.NBC notes Trump did not name former vice-president Mike Pence as his running mate until days before the 2016 Republican party convention, and said his decision this year is unlikely to be made public ahead of the July convention in Cleveland, Ohio.Presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr could help Biden gain a bump in key swing states in the 2024 presidential election, according to a new survey, the Hill reported.With Kennedy as an option, Biden gains a slight advantage in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two major swing states ahead of November’s election.Here’s more information from the Hill:
      Polling from Mainstreet Research, PolCom Lab and Florida Atlantic University showed Trump with a slight lead over Biden in a head-to-head race in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. But when Kennedy is added to the mix, Biden takes the lead in the states, according to the poll.
      Kennedy, an independent candidate, is not currently on the ballot in either state, which along with Michigan are seen as crucial to Biden’s hopes for reelection….
      Read the full article here.Ahead of today’s Senate vote to protect access to contraception, reproductive right activists have put up a 20ft- inflatable of an IUD to raise awareness.The gigantic contraception installation is currently on display at Union Station in Washington DC.CNN’s Haley Talbot posted a picture of the installation to X.The installation has caused a stir on social media.“Ahhhh that’s why it was ‘currently unavailable’ on Amazon,” wrote one user on X.Another simply commented: “Wow.”Today’s Senate vote is due at 3.45pm.Senate Democrats are teeing up a vote on legislation to protect access to contraception, which the majority leader, Chuck Schumer, argues is under threat from Republican lawmakers and rightwing supreme court justices. The White House said Joe Biden supports the bill, while Republican senator Katie Britt slammed it as part of a “summer of scare tactics” ahead of the November election. Meanwhile, top Democratic lawmakers are decrying a Wall Street Journal story that reported Biden showed signs of “slipping” in important meetings – a sensitive allegation for the 81-year-old president. His campaign attacked the report as well, and White House communications director Ben LaBolt wondered if it was published with nefarious intent.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, said Biden’s immigration executive order signed yesterday was intended to discourage migrants from attempting to cross the border illegally.
      Advocates for migrants warned the new restrictions on asylum seekers could put lives at risk.
      Biden congratulated the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, on his election to a third term.
      Joe Biden yesterday signed an executive order that will temporarily close the southern US border to new asylum seekers when crossings reach a certain level. As the Guardian’s Maanvi Singh reports, advocates for migrants warn that it will put lives at risk:Joe Biden on Tuesday signed an aggressive new immigration order suspending asylum rights, signalling that “securing the border” was a central tenet of his re-election bid.At the southern US border, the policy is set to cause chaos and hardship for those seeking the protection of the United States.The executive order revealed on Tuesday revokes – at least temporarily – the country’s long-standing promise that anyone who sets foot on US soil can ask for refuge.Starting at 12.01am Wednesday, the government will be able to return people apprehended at the border to Mexico or their home countries within hours or days if a daily number of crossings is exceeded, giving them little chance to apply for asylum.On Tuesday afternoon, lawyers who work with people attempting to cross the border were still scrambling to understand how exactly the order would work – as detailed regulations had yet to be made public. But what was sure, they said, was that it would create panic and chaos at the border in the short term. The rush of people fleeing violence and chaos in their home countries is unlikely to stop overnight, they cautioned.“It can’t be counted on to reduce, or to stop, people from coming,” said Monika Y Langarica, a senior attorney with the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) based at the border in San Diego. “But it certainly will create confusion. It will create disorder, and it will put people’s lives in danger.”The White House and the Biden campaign is also not pleased with the Wall Street Journal’s story raising questions about whether he is fit to serve.On X, his re-election campaign noted that Kevin McCarthy, who in his former job as speaker of the House repeatedly met with the president, has previously said he was able to follow conversations and participate in meetings just fine:White House communications director Ben LaBolt wondered if there was nefarious intent behind the article’s publication: More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Marjorie Taylor Greene’s George Floyd rant condemned by Congressional Black Caucus

      by

      The Congressional Black Caucus has condemned Marjorie Taylor Greene after she accused Democrats of worshiping George Floyd, the 46-year old Black man who was killed by a white Minneapolis police officer in 2020.On Monday, Greene, a Republican representative of Georgia, went on an expletive-filled rant in which she accused Democrats including Jamie Raskin of Maryland of worshiping Floyd, whose death sparked global outrage and protests over police brutality.In a video posted on X, Greene can be seen speaking to a reporter, saying, “We have Jamie Raskin in there accusing us of worshiping Trump, worshiping a ‘convicted felon’.” The reporter interjected, saying that Trump was indeed convicted.In response, Greene said: “Well yeah, so was George Floyd. And everybody, and you all too, the media worships George Floyd. Democrats worship George Floyd. There were riots, burning down the fucking country over George Floyd and Raskin is in there, saying we worship him [Trump].“Excuse me, let me correct you and this is really important. I don’t worship. I worship God. God. And Jesus is my savior. I don’t worship President Trump and I’m really sick and tired of the bullshit antics I have to deal with,” Greene continued.Greene’s comments came after Raskin said that some Republicans “blindly worship” convicted felons in a congressional hearing on Covid-19, NBC reports. The hearing followed Trump’s conviction last week in which he was found guilty on 34 counts of fraud in a historic hush-money trial that involved adult film star Stormy Daniels.Following Greene’s comments, the Congressional Black Caucus condemned the Republican representative. “This is unhinged even for @RepMTG,” they wrote in an X post.“Her actions are unacceptable even by the lowest of Republican standards. George Floyd did not deserve to die, and a member of Congress should have the decency to acknowledge his humanity,” the Congressional Black Caucus continued.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFormer Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin pleaded guilty in 2021 to civil rights charges in his killing of Floyd in May 2020. Chauvin was charged with two counts of depriving Floyd of his rights after he pinned his knee into Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds while Floyd was on the ground and handcuffed, unable to breathe.In addition to pleading guilty to civil rights charges, Chauvin was also convicted of second and third-degree murder and manslaughter. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump lawyers and prosecutors at odds over lifting gag order before sentencing

      by

      As Donald Trump fights for Judge Juan Merchan to lift a gag order barring him from speaking publicly about key figures in his New York trial, prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office are urging the judge to keep the order in place.“The court has an obligation to protect the integrity of these proceedings and the fair administration of justice at least through the sentencing hearing and the resolution of any post-trial motions,” wrote the prosecutors in a letter on Wednesday.During the trial – over Trump’s efforts to bury a sex scandal before the 2016 election – Trump repeatedly inveighed on social media against figures connected to the case, including witnesses and the judge’s daughter, who has worked as a Democratic consultant.In response, Merchan issued a series of orders barring Trump from speaking publicly about jurors, witnesses and the family of the judge.The trial concluded on 30 May, with the jury finding Trump guilty on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to hide hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who says she had an affair with the former president.Prosecutors had said they wanted the gag order to “protect the integrity of this criminal proceeding and avoid prejudice to the jury”. In the order, Merchan noted prosecutors had sought the restrictions “for the duration of the trial”. He did not specify when they would be lifted.Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche told the Associated Press last Friday that it was his understanding the gag order would expire when the trial ended and that he would seek clarity from Merchan, which he did on Tuesday.“It’s a little bit of the theater of the absurd at this point, right? Michael Cohen is no longer a witness in this trial,” Blanche told the AP. “The trial is over. The same thing with all the other witnesses. So, we’ll see. I don’t mean that in any way as being disrespectful of the judge and the process. I just want to be careful and understand when it no longer applies.”In a letter on Tuesday, Blanche and Emil Bove asked Merchan to end the gag order, arguing there was nothing to justify “continued restrictions on the First Amendment rights of President Trump” now that the trial is over.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAmong other reasons, the lawyers said Trump was entitled to “unrestrained campaign advocacy” in light of President Joe Biden’s public comments about the verdict last Friday, and continued public criticism of him by Cohen and Daniels, both key prosecution witnesses.Trump’s lawyers also contend the gag order must go away so he is free to fully address the case and his conviction with the first presidential debate scheduled for 27 June.The Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to comment.Trump has continued to operate under the belief that he is still muzzled, telling reporters on Friday at Trump Tower: “I’m under a gag order, nasty gag order.”Referring to Cohen, Trump said, “I’m not allowed to use his name because of the gag order” before slamming his former lawyer-turned-courtroom foe as “a sleazebag”.During the trial, Merchan held Trump in contempt of court, fined him $10,000 for multiple violations of the gag order and threatened to put him in jail if he did it again.Trump’s use of the term “sleazebag” to describe Cohen just before the trial rankled prosecutors, but was not considered a gag order violation by the judge. Merchan declined to sanction Trump for a 10 April social media post, which referred to Cohen and Daniels by that insult.The judge said at the time that Trump’s contention that he was responding to previous posts by Cohen that were critical of him “is sufficient to give” him pause on whether prosecutors met their burden in demonstrating that the post was out of bounds.Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on 11 July. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden’s exquisite Trump verdict dilemma

      by

      Hello! Welcome back to our new US elections newsletter.I’m David Smith, Washington bureau chief, filling in for Adam Gabbatt this week.The fall from grace of Donald Trump, from commander-in-chief to convicted criminal, is still reverberating in Washington and beyond.Last week’s trial verdict drove yet another wedge between Republicans and Democrats. The former were fast and furious in denouncing it. The latter are less sure about how to proceed. And no one knows what impact it might have on the presidential election.First, some of the happenings in US politics.Here’s what you need to know …1. Biden’s border crackdownJoe Biden signed an executive order that will temporarily shut down the US-Mexico border to asylum seekers attempting to cross outside of lawful ports of entry, when a daily threshold of crossings is exceeded. The move is a dramatic reversal for a president and a party that spent years embracing the ideal of the US as a nation of immigrants.2. Garland stands his groundThe US attorney general, Merrick Garland, defended his stewardship of the justice department in a combative display on Capitol Hill that saw him accusing Republicans of attacking the rule of law while telling them he “will not be intimidated”. Testifying before the House judiciary committee, Garland accused Republican congressmen of engaging in conspiracy theories and peddling false narratives.3. Biden heads to France for D-day anniversaryJoe Biden is due to land in Paris, France, today ahead of the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings. France rescinded its decision to invite Russian representatives because of the Ukraine war. John Kirby, a spokesperson for the White House national security council, said: “Russia led by Vladimir Putin is literally trying to undermine the rules-based order that the Soviet Union actually had a role in world war two in helping create.”Joe Biden’s exquisite dilemmaView image in fullscreenIn the final line of the 1972 film The Candidate, Bill McKay, played by Robert Redford, having just won election to the US Senate, turns to his political consultant and asks: “What do we do now?”That is the question for Joe Biden and Democrats after the euphoria of seeing Donald Trump become the first former US president convicted of a crime.Elections can be won or lost by defining a candidate with a single memorable framing: soft-on-crime Michael Dukakis, wealthy Mitt Romney, elitist Hillary Clinton. Last week’s conviction of Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York is a permanent stain and would, in past times, have made such branding easy.But in the Maga “mirror world”, where January 6 rioters are perceived as “hostages” and Biden as the true threat to democracy, Democrats are proceeding with care. Trump has an unrivalled ability to turn his opponent’s own power against them. Think of it like tennis. The harder you whack the ball at Trump, the harder it tends to come back at you over the net.As the trial unfolded in New York, Biden, a devout institutionalist, took the reasonable view that less was more: the head of state ought to remain above the fray. And pragmatically, he was aware any perceived interventions would feed the baseless rightwing media narrative that he had loaded the legal system against his rival.But for his campaign team in Delaware, it became increasingly difficult to watch Biden’s speeches and their carefully crafted emails disappearing into the ether. Just as in the 2016 campaign, Trump was sucking up all political oxygen.On Tuesday of last week, the frustration came to a boil and they started to fight back, holding a press conference outside the court. The Biden campaign communications director, Michael Tyler, told reporters: “We’re not here today because of what’s going on over there. We’re here today because you all are here.”The campaign deployed Robert De Niro, a Hollywood actor famed for playing gangsters, to castigate Trump as the biggest mob boss of all. He also veered off script by becoming embroiled in a verbal brawl with Trump supporters.The episode prompted characteristic Democratic hand-wringing over whether De Niro, 80, was the right messenger with the right message, and Republican cries of hypocrisy. Jason Miller, Trump’s senior campaign adviser, said: “After months of saying politics had nothing to do with this trial, they showed up and made a campaign event out of a lower Manhattan trial day for President Trump.”A day later Biden and his vice-president, Kamala Harris, launched a Black voters initiative at Philadelphia’s Girard College, a majority Black boarding school. Wednesdays had typically been a safe bet to wrestle back the news cycle because it was the trial’s day off. But on that particular Wednesday the jury was deliberating its verdict.TJ Ducklo, a senior adviser for communications for the Biden-Harris campaign, peevishly posted on X: “The President just spoke to approx 1,000 mostly black voters in Philly about the massive stakes in this election. @MSNBC @CNN & others did not show it. Instead, more coverage about a trial that impacts one person: Trump. Then they’ll ask, why isn’t your message getting out?”Such complaints can themselves be counterproductive. Worthy as the Biden event was, would any news organisation worth its salt really not devote full coverage to the first conviction of a former president – and potential future president – in American history?A day after the verdict, the president had a brief, deliberate riff on the trial. “The American principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed,” he said. “And it’s reckless, it’s dangerous and it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict.”Biden then spoke about a Middle East peace plan. But as he walked away, reporters shouted questions about the Trump verdict. Biden said nothing but turned and beamed.That evening, the Biden-Harris campaign went further with a press release headlined 34 Lowlights from Convicted Felon Donald Trump’s Press Conference Speech, mocking Trump’s chaotic performance at Trump Tower earlier in the day. And at a campaign event on Monday, Biden referred to Trump as a “convicted felon”.But how long and how hard to press this case is a dilemma. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 10% of Republicans and 25% of independents say they are less likely to vote for Trump because of the verdict.Former Alabama senator Doug Jones told the Politico website: “I don’t think Democrats need to be shy about weighing in. I don’t think there’s anything to lose and a lot to gain, because I am convinced there’s a swath of people out there who are going to be very, very troubled by this at this point and haven’t really completely followed it, wondered about it – but now all of a sudden, this is a gamechanger.”Others, however, point to opinion polls suggesting that Trump’s criminal conviction will not shift many voters and could even backfire. The Trump campaign claims it raised $53m online in the 24 hours after the verdict. Republicans are keeping the topic alive at every opportunity, crying “sham” and “show trial” and vowing retribution.The more cautious Democrats also believe time and effort would be better spent promoting Biden’s record and drawing a contrast with Trump on policy: abortion rights, the economy, climate, racial justice, foreign affairs and defending democracy.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionVoters in crucial battleground states, the theory goes, are more exercised by the price of eggs or gas than the findings of a jury in Manhattan.Democrats have long been accused of pulling their punches, lacking the killer instinct that is part of Republicans’ DNA. In this case, Biden has to thread the needle with exquisite precision, offering a message that reminds independent voters why they should reject his opponent – while not firing up the Trump base or giving moderate Republicans a reason to return to the fold.Lock him up? It’s complicated.Lie of the weekView image in fullscreen“I didn’t say ‘Lock her up,’” the man who repeatedly both said and encouraged a frequent chant of “lock her up” claimed after he was convicted of 34 felonies.Former president Donald Trump told Fox News in an interview after his conviction in the New York hush-money trial that it was just his supporters who said “lock her up,” referring to Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.“The people would all say, ‘Lock her up, lock her up,’” Trump claimed. “Then we won. And I say – and I said pretty openly, I said, ‘All right, come on, just relax, let’s go, we’ve got to make our country great.’”He said he “could have done it” – locked her up – but decided it was for the good of the country to move ahead and that locking her up “would have been a terrible thing”.Trump very much said to lock up Clinton, or some version of the idea, at various times on the 2016 campaign trail. His supporters chanted it at rallies for years, with his encouragement. – Rachel Leingang, misinformation reporterWho had the worst week?View image in fullscreenThe Washington Post, the newspaper of Watergate and “Democracy dies in darkness” fame, is in some disarray. Publisher Will Lewis ousted Sally Buzbee, the newspaper’s executive editor, and hastily announced a restructuring plan.At a contentious staff meeting on Monday, Lewis reportedly told staff: “We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around. We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it any more.”Matt Murray, a former Wall Street Journal editor, has been named to temporarily replace Buzbee. After the elections in November, Robert Winnett, a longtime editor at the Telegraph in Britain, will take over the core reporting functions at the Post. Lewis is facing scrutiny over his commitment to gender and racial diversity.Like most media organisations, the Post boomed during Donald Trump’s presidency but has lost readers since. Its website had 101 million unique visitors a month in 2020, and had dropped to 50m at the end of 2023. The Post lost a reported $77m last year. A Politico website headline described the latest shake-up as “the Rupert Murdoch-ization of the Washington Post” – not a great sign five months before an impossibly high stakes election.Elsewhere in US politicsView image in fullscreenThe 2020 election reckoning continuesWisconsin’s attorney general, Josh Kaul, filed felony charges on Tuesday against three men who played a key role in the effort to appoint fake electors in the state as part of Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election. Kenneth Chesebro, Jim Troupis and Michael Roman were each charged with one felony count of forgery, according to court documents.Further strains on Biden-Bibi relationsJoe Biden has said that there is “every reason” to draw the conclusion that Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging the war in Gaza for his own political self-preservation. Biden made the remarks about the Israeli prime minister in an interview with Time magazine published on Tuesday morning, drawing a sharp response from the Israeli government, which accused the US president of straying from diplomatic norms.Hunter on trialView image in fullscreenFederal prosecutors painted Joe Biden’s son Hunter as a drug addict whose dark habits ensnared loved ones and who knew what he was doing when he lied on federal forms to buy a gun in 2018 when he said he was not in the throes of addiction. The judge also reportedly declined requests from the defendant to prohibit jurors from being shown messages, videos and photos that show him with drugs or discussing them around the time that he bought the gun in question, including one image depicting him undressed from the chest up. More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The fake elector defense: what Trump allies are saying to justify the 2020 scheme

      by

      Three allies of Donald Trump were charged in Wisconsin Tuesday for their roles in advancing the fake electors plan, but the 10 fake electors themselves have not yet been criminally charged.That might be because the Wisconsin fake electors, like other fake electors across the US, have said in media interviews they were misled to believe their documents could only be used if court challenges went for the former president. Others have said they were following lawyers’ advice when they signed on.Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul’s office has said it is still investigating and hasn’t ruled out charges against the individual electors, who have faced a civil suit they settled by agreeing not to serve as electors for Trump again.In April, 18 people were charged in Arizona in that state’s inquiry into the fake elector scheme. Defense attorneys representing some of those charged in Arizona have used similar justifications, saying they were following lawyers’ advice when they signed on.One told the Arizona Republic that his client, Jim Lamon, was relying on “lawyers from back east” who said the slates would only be used if the state’s results changed. Another told the paper that there wouldn’t be any evidence of their client’s intent to commit fraud or forgery because they got legal advice from Trump’s lawyers that led them to believe they weren’t doing anything wrong.These claims pop up frequently by fake electors and those involved in the scheme to overthrow the 2020 election results, as do other defenses relying on historical precedent and changing election law. Defenders of the fake electors cite a 1960 election in Hawaii and changes to congressional procedure to count electoral votes among their justifications..Some of the defenses have shown up in legal motions in Georgia, which is further along in its case against some fake electors there. But the justifications are largely happening online as the cases move more slowly than the internet, with rightwing influencers saying the scheme had a historical precedent and wasn’t illegal.Edward Foley, an election law expert at Ohio State University, has started to see the false electors in two tiers: those who were clearly in “cahoots with Trump” and intended to subvert the election’s outcome, and others who were duped. Andy Craig, director of election policy at the Joseph H Rainey Center, has come around to this idea as well, saying it depends heavily on the facts in each fake elector’s case, but some of them did seem misled.“I do think, to my mind, it’s fair to say that some of these fake electors are the victims of Trump’s fraud and [Rudy] Giuliani’s fraud,” Foley said. “They were relatively low-level political operatives who were trying to do something for the team and were doing it because the leader of their team was asking them to. That doesn’t justify what they did, but I’m not sure I would think criminal punishment would be appropriate for them because again, I think they’re the victims of the crime, not the perpetrators.”In Georgia, prosecutors granted many of the fake electors, nearly all of them little-known party loyalists, immunity from prosecution. Only three of the 16 have been charged criminally, all of whom appear to have a more hands-on role in the scheme.And in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, for example, the fake electoral certificates contained a caveat that they would only be considered valid if courts eventually ruled in Trump’s favor and deemed him the legitimate winner. Fake electors in those states have not faced prosecution in large part because of that language.As a reminder, the US doesn’t elect presidents via a popular vote. Instead, voters in each state turn out at the polls, which dictates a slate of electoral votes that get sent to Congress, called the electoral college. Whichever candidate wins the electoral vote wins the presidency, and this is sometimes different from who wins the popular vote. At issue in the fake electors scheme is that Trump supporters signed falsely that Trump had won their states’ votes, when in reality Biden had won.Other defensesLegal experts say the fake electors’ other defenses hold less water – the 2020 scheme is much different than the 1960 Hawaii election, and any changes in the Electoral Count Reform Act don’t affect the illegality of what the false electors did.The 1960 Hawaii election, which involved two slates of electors, is a long-running justification on the right for the fake electors. In 1960, Nixon narrowly led Kennedy initially in Hawaii, though the margin was so small it kicked off a recount. Before the recount could be completed, the state had to send its electoral votes to Congress for counting, so electors for both Kennedy and Nixon signed separate documents saying they were the state’s electors and sent them off.After the recount, the results showed Kennedy actually won the state, and so Kennedy’s electors met again to sign that he won. Nixon, who was presiding over the electoral count in Congress as vice-president, accepted this final submission. No one got in trouble for the previous slates, though it was also possibly illegal for the Democrats to have met and signed as though Kennedy won before the recount concluded. Hawaii’s votes didn’t affect who won the presidency, as Kennedy had already clinched the win.“Hawaii is a very odd situation because it ultimately ended with then vice-president Nixon, who was one of the candidates, being willing to accept the Kennedy slate, which didn’t matter one way or the other, wasn’t going to affect the outcome of the electoral college majority” Foley said. “It was sort of like a politician trying to be magnanimous.”Influencers like Charlie Kirk, the leader of rightwing youth organization Turning Point USA, brought up Hawaii after the Arizona charges. In a post on X, Kirk cited the “precedent created by Democrats” in Hawaii in 1960.“The Arizona Trump electors were doing what they thought was a legally necessary step as part of a wider political and electoral dispute,” Kirk wrote. “They acted in the belief that Donald Trump was the true winner of Arizona in the 2020 election.”The major difference: there was a legitimate, ongoing, good faith debate over who won in Hawaii, and a razor-thin margin of less than 200 votes that led to a full recount. By contrast, the margins in the seven states involved in the 2020 plan were much higher, and legal avenues to overturn results had largely run out.“All of these states were won by bigger margins, far beyond what any kind of recount or litigation was ever realistically going to overturn,” Craig said. “And so there was no good basis to believe that the results would legitimately flip in these states.”Another line of defense, used less frequently, revolves around changes to the electoral count process after the fake electors scheme in 2020.Rightwing commentator Mike Cernovich said after the Arizona changes that “multiple electors were LEGAL until the law was recently amended”, presumably a reference to the changes to the Electoral Count Act.The original Electoral Count Act stemmed from the contentious mess of the 1876 election, where there were multiple competing slates of electors and no consensus over who had won the election. It spelled out the process and deadlines for how states would send electoral votes and how Congress would count them.“What the Electoral Count Act did and still continues to do is to furnish Congress with a procedure to evaluate competing claims by competing slates of electors,” said Jim Gardner, an election law expert at the University at Buffalo School of Law. “And that’s all it does. So it is a piece of congressional self-regulation. It does not in any way regulate the behavior of other parties outside Congress.”The 2022 reform act makes clear that the vice-president, when presiding over the count, can’t use their role to get involved in disputes over electors – stemming from the effort to pressure then vice-president Mike Pence to throw out the Biden electors in key states.It also says that governors must certify the electors and send them to Congress. None of the Trump fake electors were certified by their states’ governments, a required part of the process for Congress to accept a slate.These changes, though, aren’t evidence that fake electors were allowed under the act before it was amended, legal experts say. Additionally, the charges these electors face in some states are violations of state-level laws against forging documents or committing fraud – not violations of a federal law to count electoral votes.“I don’t think it’s correct to say that somehow it’s an acknowledgement that any fake submission before this was not criminal,” Foley said.Sam Levine contributed reporting More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Racial resentment’ a factor in violence of 6 January 2021, study says

      by

      Political observers are quick to blame hyperpartisanship and political polarization for leading more than 2,000 supporters of Donald Trump to riot at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.But according to a recently published study, “racial resentment” – not just partisanship – explains the violence that broke out after the 2020 election.Angered over the claim, promoted by Trump and his closest allies, that heavily Black cities had rigged the 2020 election in favor of Democrats, white voters – some affiliated with white-nationalist groups and militias, and others acting alone – stormed the US capitol in an attempt to halt the certification of the 2020 election.“What Trump and Republicans did was they tried to make the point that something nefarious was going on in areas that were primarily African American,” said David Wilson, dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, who published the study with Darren Davis, a professor of political science at Notre Dame.The paper, Stop the Steal: Racial Resentment, Affective Partisanship, and Investigating the January 6th Insurrection, relied on a national survey of adults in the US conducted in 2021.Respondents were asked a question assessing their approval or disapproval of the House select committee investigating January 6, and responded to numerous statements evaluating racial resentment, such as “I resent any special considerations that African Americans receive because it’s unfair to other Americans” and “special considerations for African Americans place me at an unfair disadvantage because I have done nothing to harm them”.The research revealed a correlation between respondents’ feelings of racialized resentment and opposition to the House committee on January 6.Wilson and Davis also point to the fact that while a slew of polls show the general public split somewhat evenly over the legitimacy of the House select committee, Black Americans overwhelmingly supported the committee’s work, while white poll respondents generally opposed it.“Many of President Trump’s supporters believed they were being victimized by election fraud in the 2020 election, but they also believed that whites were being victimized more generally – the American way of life for them was changing and they were being disadvantaged by African Americans and other minorities,” Wilson and Davis wrote.The study comes as the former president and his allies are stoking unfounded fears of non-citizens voting and tainting political outcomes.The strategy activates “action emotions – primarily anger”, said Wilson. “When you’re angry, you want to see some problem resolved because it’s clearly not making you feel good. Your heart rate increases, you have a festering sense that things are wrong and you’re playing by the rules and other people aren’t and it’s just not right.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOther forms of racial resentment, according to this framework, would include the perception that affirmative action unfairly hurts white applicants – or the idea that DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies unfairly benefit people of color.Distinct from racial hatred or prejudice, racial resentment, Wilson argues, is a particularly powerful motive to action because it stems from a sense of injustice.The psycho-social phenomenon can have consequences for democracy, Wilson said.“If you can get people to believe that democracy is about your freedom, and that the government is taking that away through taxes, through policies, through regulatory efforts, and [even] by fixing and rigging elections, you can stoke their resentment and they can even come to resent democracy.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump is now a convicted criminal. Do voters care?

      by

      The 34 verdicts were all the same: guilty. Last week Donald Trump became the first former or serving US president to have been convicted of a crime. He was found to have falsified business records to hide ‘hush money’ paid to cover up a sex scandal he feared would hinder his run for office in 2016. Not long ago, it would have been a career-ending verdict. Instead, Trump has come out fighting, claiming the case was politically motivated. And, says David Smith, it has left Joe Biden in a quandary: if he focuses on the verdict he risks playing into Trump’s narrative that he was behind the prosecution. Alice Herman, who lives in the swing state of Wisconsin, has spoken to local voters about how the guilty verdict will affect their election decisions. The answers were not as decisive as Biden may have hoped. Many said they did not care about the outcome and that it had only confirmed their voting intentions for or against Trump. With a small number of voters enough to make a big difference, Michael Safi asks what Biden can do to shift the dial. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Merrick Garland hits back at Trump and Republicans: ‘I will not be intimidated’

      by

      US attorney general Merrick Garland has defended his stewardship of the justice department in a combative display on Capitol Hill that saw him accusing Republicans of attacking the rule of law while telling them he “will not be intimidated.”Testifying before the House judiciary committee, Garland accused GOP congressmen of engaging in conspiracy theories and peddling false narratives.“I will not be intimidated,” Garland told lawmakers. “And the justice department will not be intimidated. We will continue to do our jobs free from political influence. And we will not back down from defending our democracy.”Garland’s fiery speech pushed back hard on the claim that the prosecution of Donald Trump – in the hush-money case that last week resulted in the president being convicted of 34 felony charges – was “somehow controlled by the justice department”.He described Republican attacks on the justice department under his watch as “unprecedented and unfounded”, vowing not to allow them to influence his decision-making.Garland also upbraided Trump for claiming the FBI had been “authorized to shoot him” dead when they raided his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida to retrieve classified documents in 2022.“This is dangerous,” Garland told the committee. “It raises the threats of violence against prosecutors and career agents. The allegation is false.”Garland, 71, is currently overseeing special prosecutor Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump, and a prosecution of Joe Biden’s son Hunter. He was summoned to testify amid Republican assertions that the justice department had been “weaponised” against the former president, a claim Trump has stoked.His appearance came as he faces the likelihood of being held in contempt of congress for declining to hand over audio recordings of an interview between another special prosecutor, Robert Hur. Hur was appointed by Garland to investigate Joe Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, an offence similar to some of those for which Trump is being investigated.Hur concluded that Biden had committed no crime but raised questions about Biden’s age and allegedly poor memory.Referring to Republican threats to hold him in contempt, Garland said: “I view contempt as a serious matter. But I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations.”A full transcript of Biden’s interview with Hur was made public. But the White House rejected Republican demands for the audio to be released, arguing that it served no useful purpose other than to enable the president’s opponents to splice the recording to make him appear confused, perhaps by emphasizing his stammer.Garland said releasing the audio could have the effect of deterring future witnesses from cooperating in justice department investigations if they thought their words might be made public.In his opening statement, he said the Republicans were “seeking contempt as a means of obtaining – for no legitimate purpose – sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations”.“This effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the justice department’s work,” he added.The committee chairman, Jim Jordan – a rightwinger Republican from Ohio – set the tone for the hearing, saying: “Justice is no longer blind in America. Today it’s driven by politics. Example number one is President Trump.”Matt Gaetz, another hard-right Republican from Florida, accused Garland of dispatching a former justice department official, Matthew Colangelo, to Manhattan, where he now serves as assistant district attorney and helped prepare the case against Trump.Garland replied: “That is false. I did not dispatch Colangelo.” More