Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Headache for campaign team as Trump gets the band back together

      by

      Donald Trump’s getting the band back together. But this time they come with political baggage, conspiracy theories and, in some instances, criminal convictions.The former US president’s old acolytes are returning to the fold, eager to exert influence on his bid for the White House and have their say in a potential second administration. That poses a headache for his election campaign team, whose efforts to run a disciplined operation can be upended at any moment by the mercurial Trump.“Trump always wants to feel comfortable about the people who surround him and what better way to do that than to get the band back together?” said Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington DC. “We could look forward to the greatest hits ad nauseam.”If a man is judged by the company he keeps, Trump’s speaks volumes. There was uproar in 2022 when when the rapper Kanye West brought the white supremacist Nick Fuentes to dinner at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.Trump’s inner circle includes the far-right representatives Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia; Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat turned rightwing media personality and outspoken critic of aid to Ukraine; and Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur who has pushed the “great replacement” theory and claimed that the 6 January 2021 insurrection was an inside job.Since Trump secured the Republican nomination for president earlier this month, several “Make America great again” (Maga) alumni have sought to regain his patronage or rejoin his team. It is a cast of characters with a chequered history.Paul Manafort, a veteran political consultant, could return as a campaign adviser later this year, according to the Washington Post newspaper. The job discussions have largely centred around the Republican national convention in Milwaukee in July and could include Manafort playing a role in fundraising for Trump’s campaign, the report said.Trump pardoned Manafort in 2020, seven months after he was released to home confinement, sparing the Republican operative from serving the bulk of his seven-and-a-half-year prison term for federal tax evasion and bank fraud.View image in fullscreenMeanwhile the New York Times reported that Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager in 2016, could also play a role at the convention. Lewandowski was ousted from a pro-Trump political action committee in 2021 after a major donor’s wife accused him of inappropriate behaviour.Michael Steele, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the MSNBC network: “Manafort coming back in is to set up control of the convention so that there are no slippages. You’ve got Lewandowski and others who are keen political operatives for Trump that will be out and about enforcing a strategy that will take no prisoners.“I don’t think people appreciate exactly what we’re going to be in for. This campaign is going to be very difficult on the country because these folks are all about one thing and one thing only: Donald Trump’s absolute return to power.”Meanwhile Roger Stone, a self-proclaimed dirty trickster who has been a friend and ally of Trump for 30 years, still speaks to him occasionally and was spotted at the Super Tuesday victory party at Mar-a-Lago. Stone was convicted of obstructing a congressional investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign and sentenced to 40 months in prison before the then president commuted the sentence.The rapper Kurt Jantz, professionally known as Forgiato Blow, was also at the Super Tuesday event. His Maga songs have been criticised for homophobia and glorifying violence and he has suffered social media bans. Blow said: “He’s the American dream. I supported Trump since 2015. I was one of the people early about it. At first it was just about Trump being a boss but he’s a rapper’s dream: beautiful wife, amazing mansion that we’re in right now. At the end of the day, that’s what everybody wants.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionView image in fullscreenThe rush of would-be influencers eager to whisper unsolicited advice into Trump’s ear is making life difficult for his otherwise unexpectedly professional campaign led by the longtime political operatives Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, who find themselves attempting to play gatekeeper.Christina Bobb, a lawyer and former One America News Network (OAN) host who amplified Trump’s false claims of election fraud, faced questions over her competence at the campaign. She has been diverted to the RNC as senior counsel for “election integrity”.Trump reportedly wanted to hire the far-right activist Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist, Islamophobe and former Republican candidate for Congress, but Wiles managed to block the move, according to the Axios website.Charlie Sykes, a conservative columnist and author of How the Right Lost Its Mind, said: “In a normal world, a presidential candidate would not get within a zip code of Laura Loomer. Now she’s showing up at Mar-a-Lago. And, of course, they can be relied upon to attack any other conservative that does not engage in the kind of rhetoric that Trump engages in.”But Trump continues to speak by phone to some without the knowledge of his campaign. Their indulgence is seen by critics as an ominous indicator that, should he return to the White House, Trump would make appointments based only on loyalty and Maga credentials, a break from his first term when figures such as the White House chief of staff, John Kelly, and defence secretary, Jim Mattis, sought to rein him in.Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said: Trump has made it clear that he was disappointed and fed up with the Washington establishment, as he calls it, and so he’s got a group of henchmen and women who will do his bidding, who don’t feel bound by the law or being liked and respected outside their core.“These are the foot soldiers in Trump’s authoritarian army. They will do whatever it takes to win and we’ve seen it; this is not speculation. They put out the playbook in 2020 and we’d be foolish not to expect that playbook to be used in 2024.” More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Eric Trump says $454m fine imposed on his father ‘doesn’t exist in this country’

      by

      Eric Trump has come out railing against the $454m fraudulent property valuations judgment against his father Donald Trump, saying bonds the size of the half-a-billion dollar one the former president is being required to put up “don’t exist in this country”.As a court-imposed deadline ticks down on the former president’s family and their businesses to come up with almost half-a-billion dollars, the 40-year-old executive vice-president of the Trump Organization told Fox News on Sunday that bond issuers laughed when he approached them for that sum.“No one’s ever seen a bond this size,” Eric Trump said. “Every single person, when I came to them saying, ‘Hey, can I get a half-billion-dollar bond?’ They were laughing. Top executives of large insurance companies had never seen anything of this size.”He told host Maria Bartiromo: “A $10m bond is a large bond. A $15m bond is an enormous bond. A half-a-billion dollar bond?”On Friday, Donald Trump said he has nearly $500m in cash and suggested he could afford bond in the New York case, which resulted in the former president, his company and some of its executives all being found liable for fraudulent business practices. But that contradicted Trump’s lawyers who have said a surety that would protect Trump’s assets from seizure while he appeals the judgement was “impossible” to obtain.As soon as Tuesday morning, the New York attorney general, Letitia James, could begin to seize Trump’s assets, including his bank accounts and property. Eric Trump, who was fined close to $4m by Judge Arthur Engoron in the same case, was asked how he thought the court had arrived at the fine.“You know what it was, it was a crooked number,” Eric Trump said. “They’re trying to put my father out of business or trying to take all his resources that you’d otherwise put into his own campaign for presidency.”And he claimed that voters would see through the effort and return him to the White House at Joe Biden’s expense in November.“It’s going to backfire because he’s going to win this,” Eric Trump said to the Republican-friendly network. “And everybody in this country universally knows exactly what these people are doing.”Business executives, including Shark Tank host and investor Kevin O’Leary, have also questioned the massive judgment and the now-expiring, 30-day deadline to meet it.“Property rights are mentioned 37 times in the Constitution. Due process – very important,” O’Leary told Fox last week. “Why steal someone’s assets in 27 days? Why not give them more time to come up with the cash – forget about Donald Trump, who would want this to happen to them?”O’Leary said his criticism at the decision had nothing to do with Trump, but with the dissolution of the “essence of the American brand”.From the other side of the New York political spectrum, progressive Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said there was a risk if James decided not to move on Trump’s assets.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“It’s ultimately up to her determination, but it is my belief that all people should be treated equally under the law,” Ocasio-Cortez told CNN’s State of the Union. “I actually think that there is risk in not seizing these assets and the open window that exists in him trying to secure these funds through other means.“I think that what we are dealing with politically is the much larger and much more grave and serious pressure of having this judgment against Donald Trump, and him being in this degree of debt and the financial pressures that he is under, and what he is subject to do in order to obtain those assets.”She added: “There is a very real risk of political corruption.”Separately, Trump is grappling with more than 80 pending criminal charges across various jurisdictions in connection with efforts to forcibly overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost to Biden, retaining classified materials after his presidency and hush-money payments.He is also facing multimillion-dollar penalties handed to him after losing a lawsuit centering on a rape allegation that was deemed to be substantially true. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Fani Willis: ‘Train is coming’ for Trump despite efforts to derail Georgia case

      by

      The Georgia prosecutor overseeing Donald Trump’s election interference case in that state promised Saturday that “the train is coming” for him despite defense efforts to derail her office’s pursuit of charges against the former president and nearly two dozen co-defendants.Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis’s remarks came after a court challenge centering on a romantic relationship that she had with a special prosecutor whom she appointed to the case, Nathan Wade. After the relationship was exposed, Wade stepped down from the prosecution to defuse any appearances of a potential conflict of interest and so Willis could stay on the case.“I don’t feel like we have been slowed down at all” by Trump’s efforts to use the relationship with Wade to disqualify her from prosecuting him, Willis told CNN on Saturday at a Georgia Easter egg hunt. “I think there are efforts to slow down the train, but the train is coming.”Willis’s case alleges a conspiracy to commit election fraud after Trump came up narrowly short in the state’s vote during the 2020 presidential race that he lost to Joe Biden. But it has been beset with complications.A little more than 10 days ago, Fulton county judge Scott McAfee dismissed six counts against Trump and his co-defendants relating to an infamous phone call in which the former president urged Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to “find” more than 11,000 votes that would put Trump over Biden.Of the 13 counts Trump faces, three of them were thrown out. McAfee essentially agreed with defense lawyers that the charges “fail to allege sufficient detail” regarding what aspect of Raffensperger’s oath of office the defendants were allegedly trying to get him to break.But the attention on Willis, who had hired Wade to draw up the charges, continues to hang over the case. Earlier in March, McAfee held three days of hearings weighing motions to disqualify her.Wade and Willis admitted they had been in a relationship but said it did “not amount to a disqualifying conflict of interest”. They maintained that Willis had not benefitted financially, directly or indirectly, when they took several holidays and trips together.McAfee ruled there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove the defense’s claims but rebuked Willis for what he called a “tremendous lapse in judgment”.Attorneys for Trump argued that Willis – who is Black – committed “appalling and unforgivable” forms of forensic misconduct by “stoking racial and religious prejudice” against the defendants after she claimed that the allegations against her had been motivated by race.The judge later agreed that attorneys for Trump’s co-defendants are free to appeal his ruling that she could stay on the case. That proceeding is almost certain to lead to a new set of legal challenges relating to prosecutorial impropriety, actual or in appearance, around the Willis-Wade affair.Willis told CNN that she did not feel that her professional reputation had been sullied or that she had done anything embarrassing.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I’m not embarrassed by anything I’ve done,” Willis said. “I guess my greatest crime is that I had a relationship with a man, but that’s not something I find embarrassing in any way.”But some questioned her decision to speak to the media after the intense attention around her personal decisions around the case have come close to derailing it entirely.In a series of posts on X, Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, who’s been following the case against Trump, noted that McAfee had previously threatened to impose a gag order on Willis.“If I were Fani Willis, I would simply not talk to the media at all at this point just out of an abundance of caution,” Kreis wrote. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It’ll be bedlam’: how Trump is creating conditions for a post-election eruption

      by

      A bloodbath. The end of democracy. Riots in the streets. Bedlam in the country. Donald Trump has made apocalyptic imagery a defining feature of his presidential election campaign, warning supporters that if he does not win – and avoid criminal prosecution – the US will enter its death throes.The prophecies of doom, repeated ad nauseam at rallies and on social media, have raised fears that the former president is making an electoral tinderbox that could explode in November. While there has been much commentary assessing the implications of a Trump win, some experts warn that a Trump defeat could provide an equally severe stress test of American democracy.“Regardless of whether Donald Trump wins or loses, there’s going to be violence,” said Michael Fanone, a retired police officer who was seriously injured by pro-Trump rioters at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. “If Donald Trump loses, he’s not going to concede and he’s going to inspire people to commit acts of violence, just like he did in the weeks and months leading up to January 6, 2021.“If he wins, I also believe that there’s going to be violence committed by his supporters, targeting people who previously tried to hold him to account, whether it was members of the press, average citizens like myself, Department of Justice officials, state and federal prosecutors. I believe him when he says that he will have his vengeance.”Trump has long sought to sow distrust in the electoral system while using rhetoric outside the boundaries of modern political discourse, dehumanising opponents and immigrants and portraying the US as a nation on the verge of collapse.During his first run for president, in 2016, he encouraged his supporters to “knock the crap out” of protesters and said he would pay their legal bills if they got into trouble. Should he be denied the presidential nomination at the Republican national convention in Cleveland, he warned: “I think you’d have riots.”In the summer of 2020, Trump is said to have called for the military to shoot peaceful protesters in Washington during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations. When he disputed his election defeat that year, he suggested that an adverse ruling by the Pennsylvania supreme court would “induce violence in the streets”.Then, at a rally before his supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6, Trump said: “You’ll never take back our country with weakness … If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”After the FBI’s search of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida in August 2022, he predicted that “terrible things are going to happen”, and then quoted the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham warning of “riots in the streets” if Trump were charged.View image in fullscreenSince declaring his candidacy in November 2022, Trump has intensified inflammatory and racist statements on the campaign trail. He has promised to pardon January 6 insurrectionists, suggested that Gen Mark Milley should be executed and asserted that immigrants who are in the US illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country”.At last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump declared: “This is the final battle, they know it. I know it, you know it, and everybody knows it, this is it. Either they win or we win. And if they win, we no longer have a country.”He threatened “potential death & destruction” if he was charged by the Manhattan district attorney over a hush-money payment and criticised those urging his supporters to remain peaceful, fuming on his Truth Social platform: “OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL!”In November, at a rally in New Hampshire, he promised that he would “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”. In January this year, returning to New Hampshire, Trump told supporters: “I only want to be a dictator for one day.”Addressing efforts to remove him from the ballot under the 14th amendment, Trump warned that “if we don’t [get treated fairly], our country’s in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I’m saying? I think so.” And referring to those 88 criminal charges that could yet scupper his electoral chances, he opined: “I think they feel this is the way they’re going to try and win, and that’s not the way it goes. It’ll be bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing. It’s a very bad precedent. It’s the opening of a Pandora’s box.”Campaigning this month in North Carolina, Trump claimed that Biden’s immigration policies amounted to a “conspiracy to overthrow the United States” because, in his view, they allow millions of people to stream across the border with Mexico.History has shown that Trump’s words are taken both seriously and literally by his base. Hannah Muldavin, a former spokesperson for the congressional committee that investigated the January 6 attack, said: “We know when Donald Trump says something – whether it’s in a tweet or in a speech – his supporters listen.“That’s what we saw on January 6. His tweet – ‘Be there. Will be wild!’ – led to a rise in activity online that led people to organise and come to DC on January 6. When Trump uses this incendiary language, it’s concerning.”Last week, appearing alongside a Republican Senate candidate in Ohio, Trump again referred to immigrants in the country illegally in subhuman terms. “In some cases, they’re not people, in my opinion,” he said. “But I’m not allowed to say that because the radical left says that’s a terrible thing to say. These are animals, OK, and we have to stop it.”At the same rally, Trump warned: “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole – that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” At the time he was discussing the need to protect the car industry from overseas competition, and Trump and allies later said he had been referring to the car industry when he used the term. Biden’s campaign team rejected that defence.Once again, Trump has crossed lines and broken conventions like no other politician in his lifetime. Daniel Ziblatt, a political scientist at Harvard University and co-author of How Democracies Die, said: “Since 1945 I don’t think there has been a politician in a democracy who’s used such authoritarian language, ever. It’s hard to think of anybody. Viktor Orbán, Vladimir Putin when running for office don’t use the kind of language that Donald Trump uses, so that’s pretty notable.”As historical examples around the world have shown, such language can create a permission structure for violence. Ziblatt added: “No matter what happens, there will be some effort to deny the results of the election if he loses. My best-case scenario is a decisive defeat so that his claims of a stolen election are just simply not credible. But if it’s close, as it seems like all indicators suggest, then I would expect violence and threats of violence and at least protests of the sort that we experienced in 2021.”Opinion polls suggest another tight race. Several have shown Trump with a narrow lead and, in the bars and cafes of Washington DC, it is not hard to overhear idle chatter predicting a Trump victory as more likely than not. This, combined with Trump’s own exaggerated projections, raises the prospect that his supporters will take victory for granted – and assume foul play if, in fact, he loses again.View image in fullscreenLarry Jacobs, director of the center for the study of politics and governance at the University of Minnesota, said: “Donald Trump is engaged in a misinformation campaign both to raise the expectation of his supporters that he is going to win, he’s ahead, it’s in the bag, and also to set the conditions for claiming that the election was stolen if he doesn’t win. Obviously, these polls are far out and not predictive but he’s clearly using them now to set the conditions.”In an early preview of how aggressively Trump’s supporters might react to defeat, Charlie Kirk, a far-right political influencer, told an audience at a faith-based event last week: “I want to make sure that we all make a commitment that if this election doesn’t go our way, the next day we fight. It’s a very important thing; a lot of people don’t want to hear that. They say: ‘What do you mean it doesn’t go our way? It has to go our way. We have to win.’ I agree.”Trump’s divisive rhetoric and election denialism in 2020 culminated in the attack on the US Capitol. But members of Congress returned the same night to certify Biden’s election victory, and Trump reluctantly departed the White House two weeks later. This time Biden is the incumbent and Trump has no control over the levers of government, making a replay of the insurrection in Washington less likely.Ezra Levin, co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, a progressive grassroots movement, said: “Trump is already spreading lies that this election is rigged and we know there is no realistic scenario where he concedes after losing.“One big difference between his loss this year and 2020 is this time they’re better prepared and have already gone through a dress rehearsal. But the other big difference is he won’t be a sitting president – he’ll just be a sore loser who the nation rejected in record numbers two elections in a row.”Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington and a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, added: “What I fear is that the repetition of violent rhetoric will lead to the normalisation of violent acts. There’s no sugarcoating it. This is a dangerous period for American constitutional government.“In the end, the institutions are no better or worse than the men and women who are sworn to defend them and, if they do their duty, we’ll be OK. If they’re stormed, or if they’re paralysed by fear, then there’s a chance that they would not hold. It’s more likely than not that it won’t happen, but this election will be the ultimate stress test.” More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Exvangelicals review: fine study of faith under fire in the age of Trump

      by

      Sarah McCammon’s new book about “exvangelicals” like herself is a powerful memoir of her complicated journey away from Christian fundamentalism. Because she experienced it from the inside, she is also able to give the rest of us one of the best explanations I have ever read of how so many Americans became part of the non-reality-based cult that remains so stubbornly addicted to the insanities of Donald Trump.Brought up by rigorous evangelicals equally opposed to abortion and in favor of corporal punishment of their children, McCammon grew up inside a religious bubble supposedly designed to protect everyone within it from the evils of a secular world.Now 43 and national political correspondent for NPR, she was born at the dawn of the Reagan administration, which also marked the beginning of the alliance between religious extremism and the Republican party.The number of Americans who identified as evangelical or born again peaked in 2004, when it reached 30%. McCammon’s parents, though, came of age at the height of the Vietnam war and the sexual revolution. Like millions of others who felt unhinged by the chaos, they cast aside the “love ethos” of their youth, replacing “drug culture and anti-war protests” with “praise choruses” and the teachings of religious reactionaries such as James Dobson.The McCammons took Dobson’s teachings very seriously, especially his book Dare to Discipline, which taught them to spank babies as young as 15 months and to use “a small switch or belt” which should be seen by the child as an “object of love rather than an instrument of punishment”.As the historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez has explained, McCammon’s generation grew up during the creation of “a massive industry of self-reinforcing Christian media and organizations” and a media network that functioned “less as a traditional soul-saving enterprise and more as a means by which evangelicals … maintained their own identity.” Or as DL Mayfield, another writer born into an evangelical family, put it: “Being born into white evangelicalism as marketers were figuring out how to package and sell Christian nationalism … was really bad timing.”The literal interpretation of the Bible McCammon grew up with of course required the rejection of evolution. Everything, including “our understanding of basic scientific facts” had to be “subordinated to this vision of scripture”. By pulling their children out of public schools, parents could guarantee that “they could graduate from high school without ever taking a course on evolution or sex ed” and then move “seamlessly to a four-year Christian college with the same philosophy”.View image in fullscreenEvolution had been invented by scientists so they could reject God’s authority and construct “a world … where they were free to pursue their sinful lusts and selfish desires. What other motive could the there be” for dismissing the story of Adam and Eve?The real-world consequences of this indoctrination include a Republican party blithely unconcerned with the effects of global warming. As Jocelyn Howard, an exvangelical interviewed by McCammon, observes: “When you’re taught that science is basically a fairytale … then why would you care if the world is burning around us … The world around us doesn’t matter, because this is all going to burn like in Revelations anyway.”By distancing so many evangelicals from mainstream thought, their leaders created “a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories that can be nearly impossible to eradicate”. As Ed Stetzer, an evangelical pastor and executive director of the Wheaton College Billy Graham Center told FiveThirtyEight: “People of faith believe there is a divine plan – that there are forces of good and forces of evil … QAnon is a train that runs on the tracks that religion has already put in place.”Part of the time, McCammon manages to remember her youth with humor, particularly in a passage describing a discussion of the meaning of “oral sex” with her mother, inspired by the release of Ken Starr’s report about Bill Clinton’s interactions with Monica Lewinsky, an intern at the White House.“I think,” said the author’s mother, “if you have Jesus, you don’t need oral sex.”McCammon can’t remember how she responded but she has been “telling that story for decades when people ask me to describe my childhood”.The first cracks in her evangelical faith began when she spent a semester as a Senate page and befriended a fellow page who was a Muslim.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Do you believe that because I’m Muslim I’m going to hell?” he asked.“Suddenly,” McCammon writes, “everything that felt wrong about the belief system I had been told to promote crystalized in my mind. All she could muster in response to his question was, ‘I don’t know. I think it’s between you and god.’”By the time she graduated from college, McCammon “was exhausted from trying to get my brain to conform to the contours of the supposed truth I‘d been taught. Why did certain types of knowledge seem forbidden, and why were only our experts to be trusted?”Her solution was to choose a career in journalism: “I craved a space to ask questions about the way the world really was, and the freedom to take in new sources of information. Journalism required that: it honored the process of seeking truth and demanded the consideration of multiple points of view.”This book is an elegant testament to how well McCammon has learned her craft. The hopeful message she leaves us with is that her own journey is being replicated by millions of others in her generation, many finally convinced to abandon their faith because of the racism and xenophobia embraced by evangelicals’ newest and most unlikely savior: Trump.Since 2006, evangelical Protestants have experienced “the most precipitous drop in affiliation” among Americans, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, shrinking from 23% in 2006 to 14% in 2020. In November, we will learn if that is enough to keep democracy alive.
      The Exvangelicals is published in the US by St Martin’s Press More

    • 225 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican House majority goes from bad to worse as another lawmaker announces early leave – as it happened

      by

      Republican congressman Mike Gallagher announced he will resign his seat on 19 April, further winnowing down the GOP’s already slim control of the House.Gallagher had earlier this year announced plans not to seek re-election, but now says he will leave his seat early, dropping the Republicans’ slim majority to 217 seats, with Democrats holding 213 seats. That means Republicans can only lose one member on votes that Democrats oppose unanimously.“After conversations with my family, I have made the decision to resign my position as a member of the House of Representatives for Wisconsin’s Eighth Congressional District, effective April 19, 2024,” Gallagher said in a surprise statement.He noted that he “worked closely with House Republican leadership on this timeline” and “my office will continue to operate and provide constituent services to the Eighth District for the remainder of the term.”The good news for Republican House speaker Mike Johnson is that his chamber managed to pass legislation to prevent a partial government shutdown that is set to begin at midnight. The bad news is that the bill was supported by more Democrats than Republicans, and rightwing congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene subsequently introduced a motion to kick him out of the speaker’s chair. Greene took issue with his approach to government spending, and specifically his collaboration with Democrats, but noted she viewed the motion as “a warning”, and did not say when she would call it up for a vote. House lawmakers are now heading out for a two-week recess, and the saga will likely continue after they return. As for the government shutdown threat, it’s now up to the Democratic-led Senate to pass the House’s bill, which Joe Biden says he will sign. They are expected to do that later today.Here’s what else happened today:
      Republican congressman Mike Gallagher announced he would leave Congress next month, dropping the GOP’s House majority down to just one seat.
      At least two Democrats reportedly said they would not be on board with removing Johnson as speaker.
      Russia and China vetoed an attempt by the United States to win UN security council approval of a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
      Donald Trump has reportedly unveiled a new funding strategy that will see donations channeled to a group that is paying his substantial legal bills.
      Trump’s social media firm is going public after a shareholder voter, meaning the ex-president will soon be $3b richer.
      Georgia Republican congressman Mike Collins won a reputation for tweeting his way through the chaotic weeks following Kevin McCarthy’s ouster as House speaker in October, and has maintained his sense of humor as the GOP majority shrinks to one seat:That is, of course, a reference to the troubles Boeing has had with some of its planes lately.Meanwhile, Politico reports that soon-to-be-former congressman Mike Gallagher was recently sending his fellow lawmakers a certain book and cryptic note, both of which make a lot more sense now:Meanwhile, the government funding saga is far from over. The Senate must now approve the bill that the House passed earlier today. Politico reports that the chamber’s Democratic leader has invoked cloture on the measure, but that would only allow a vote on Sunday, and the government would partially shutdown at midnight tonight:In a speech on the Senate floor earlier today before the House passed the bill Schumer made clear he does not want that to happen:
      Democrats and Republicans have about thirteen hours to work together to make sure the government stays open. That’s not going to be easy. We will have to work together – and avoid unnecessary delays.
      This morning, the House will move first on the funding package, and as soon as they send us a bill, the Senate will spring into action. To my colleagues on both sides: let’s finish the job today. Let’s avoid even a weekend shutdown. Let’s finish the job of funding the government for the remainder of the fiscal year.
      There is no reason to delay. There is no reason to drag out this process. If Senators cooperate on a time agreement, if we prioritize working together – just as we did two weeks ago – I am optimistic we can succeed.
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre offered well wishes to the Princess of Wales following her announcement that she has been diagnosed with cancer:We have a live blog covering that breaking story out of the UK, and you can read it here:Recall that Mike Johnson became House speaker after eight Republicans joined with every House Democrat to vote Kevin McCarthy out of the job.If Marjorie Taylor Greene could assemble a line up like that again, Johnson’s speakership would be at real risk. But CNN reports that at least two Democrats aren’t interested in playing along, perhaps signaling a broader shift in sentiment among the caucus.Virginia Democrat Abigail Spanberger indicates that if Johnson allowed a vote on aid to Israel and Ukraine, she’d be in favor of keeping him around:New York’s Tom Suozzi, who was not around in October, when McCarthy was booted, said he wouldn’t support the effort either:Asked at the ongoing White House press briefing about Marjorie Taylor Greene’s motion to remove Mike Johnson as speaker of the House, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre managed to simultaneously say nothing, and everything.“We’re just not going to speak to what’s going on with the leadership,” she said, at the tail end of a lengthy reply that amounted to a recitation of Joe Biden’s accomplishments.But Jean-Pierre could not resist making light of the latest troubles Republicans are having hanging on to Congress’s lower chamber.“I guess … get your popcorn, sit tight,” she said, as she concluded her answer.The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s prosecution on charges of retaining classified documents disclosed that she had granted some requests by special counsel prosecutors to withhold discovery materials from the former president – but had reserved making a decision on others.In an eight-page order, US district judge Aileen Cannon wrote that she had allowed special counsel Jack Smith to substitute summaries or make redactions to two categories of classified documents that Trump was entitled to have access to through the discovery process.Cannon also disclosed that she had allowed prosecutors to entirely withhold a third category of documents neither “helpful nor relevant” to Trump’s defense theories – the legal standard to withhold discovery in national security cases – and reserved ruling on a fourth category of documents.Trump was indicted last year for retaining national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago club, under the Espionage Act, meaning the case is proceeding to trial under the complicated and sequential steps laid out in the Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.To protect against unnecessary disclosure of national security cases, under section 4 of Cipa, prosecutors can request to withhold certain classified documents from defendants.Cannon granted prosecutors’ requests to give Trump summaries of category 3 documents (classified documents related to a potential trial witness) and to keep away from Trump all documents in category 4 (classified documents which Cannon did not identify but wrote were not helpful or relevant to Trump).Cannon disclosed in her order that she had reserved ruling on some of the documents because they were tied up in a separate motion filed by Trump requesting additional discovery materials about bias within the US intelligence community that would help his defense.The concession was significant because it indicated Cannon had still not decided what to do with Trump’s sweeping request for more discovery, which Trump’s lawyers filed more than two months ago, and appears to increasingly be contributing to major delays in the case.Republican congressman Mike Gallagher announced he will resign his seat on 19 April, further winnowing down the GOP’s already slim control of the House.Gallagher had earlier this year announced plans not to seek re-election, but now says he will leave his seat early, dropping the Republicans’ slim majority to 217 seats, with Democrats holding 213 seats. That means Republicans can only lose one member on votes that Democrats oppose unanimously.“After conversations with my family, I have made the decision to resign my position as a member of the House of Representatives for Wisconsin’s Eighth Congressional District, effective April 19, 2024,” Gallagher said in a surprise statement.He noted that he “worked closely with House Republican leadership on this timeline” and “my office will continue to operate and provide constituent services to the Eighth District for the remainder of the term.”In the latest twist in the power struggle between the right-wing leaders of Texas and the federal government, a group of migrants got into a struggle with Texas National Guard troops under the control of the governor yesterday – while they were waiting to turn themselves in to federal border patrol agents to request asylum.In footage that dominated morning news TV in the US on Friday, ABC reported that border agents said that troops under state control were trying to corral and apprehend a group of migrants stuck behind one of Texas governor Greg Abbott’s razor wire fences in El Paso, which was installed as part of Abbott’s controversial Operation Lone Star program.The people were on US soil and the fence was on public land, ABC reported.Speaking to the El Paso Times, migrants said that Texas national guard soldiers were forcefully pushing them back behind the fencing in US territory. In a caption accompanying a video of the border unrest, Mexican journalist J Omar Ornelas wrote, “Hundreds of migrants were pushed south of the concertina wire in the middle of the night by Texas National Guard. Hours later they again breached the concertina and made a rush for the border wall in El Paso, Texas.”During the unrest, some migrants appeared to raise their hands in surrender while others ran to the federal border wall. Customs and Border Patrol later said the group had been moved elsewhere for processing.Earlier this week, Texas was thrust into a state of confusion after an appeals court blocked a controversial new state law that would allow local police to arrest anyone that they believe entered the US illegally – a jurisdiction typically granted to federal immigration authorities, not local police. The freeze came just hours after the US supreme court allowed the law to go into effect.The good news for Republican House speaker Mike Johnson is that his chamber managed to pass legislation to prevent a partial government shutdown that is set to begin at midnight. The bad news is that the bill was supported by more Democrats than Republicans, and rightwing congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene subsequently introduced a motion to kick him out of the speaker’s chair. Greene took issue with his approach to government spending, and specifically his collaboration with Democrats, but noted she viewed the motion as “a warning”, and did not say when she would call it up for a vote. House lawmakers are now heading out for a two-week recess, and the saga will likely continue after they return. As for the government shutdown threat, it’s now up to the Democratic-led Senate to pass the House’s bill, which Joe Biden says he will sign. They are expected to do that later today.Here’s what else is going on:
      Russia and China vetoed an attempt by the United States to win UN security council approval of a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
      Donald Trump has reportedly unveiled a new funding strategy that will see donations channeled to a group that is paying his substantial legal bills.
      Trump’s social media firm is going public after a shareholder voter, meaning the ex-president will soon be $3b richer.
      Republican House speaker Mike Johnson has issued an upbeat statement on the government funding measure, saying it enacted some conservative policies and was the best-case scenario for the GOP, considering Democrats control the Senate and White House.“House Republicans achieved conservative policy wins, rejected extreme Democrat proposals, and imposed substantial cuts while significantly strengthening national defense. The process was also an important step in breaking the omnibus muscle memory and represents the best achievable outcome in a divided government,” the speaker said.He did not comment on the motion to remove him as the House’s leader, which was filed by rightwing lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene.Marjorie Taylor Greene has tweeted an image of her resolution to remove fellow Republican Mike Johnson as speaker:It does not appear to be privileged, meaning it does not have to be voted on before lawmakers depart for their two-week recess, which they are scheduled to do later today.Asked earlier about her timeline for the removal push, Greene said the motion is “filed but it’s not voted on. It only gets voted on until I call it to the floor for a vote.”She did not say when she will do that.Marjorie Taylor Greene listed a ream of grievances against Mike Johnson, much of which centered on his approach to funding the government.She noted that, since become speaker in late October, he allowed votes on short-term measures to keep the government open, and gave lawmakers less than 72 hours to consider the just-passed legislation to prevent a partial shutdown that would have begun at midnight.Greene did not like any of that:
      This is a betrayal of the American people. This is a betrayal of Republican voters. And the bill that we were forced to vote on forced Republicans to choose between funding to pay our soldiers and, in doing so, funding late-term abortion. This bill was basically a dream and a wish list for Democrats and for the White House. It was completely led by Chuck Schumer, not our Republican speaker of the House, not our conference, and we weren’t even allowed to put amendments to the floor to have a chance to make changes to the bill.
      Speaking to reporters outside the Capitol, rightwing Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene confirmed she has filed a motion to remove Mike Johnson as House speaker, but described it as “a warning” rather than an attempt to boot him.The Georgia lawmaker cited Johnson’s approach to funding the government, and criticized him for working with Democrats.“I filed a motion to vacate today, but it’s more of a warning and a pink slip,” she said. “I do not wish to inflict pain on our conference and to throw the House in chaos, but this is basically a warning and it’s time for us to go through the process, take our time and find a new speaker of the house that will stand with Republicans and our Republican majority instead of standing with the Democrats.”We have yet to hear rightwing Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene explain why she wants to remove Mike Johnson as speaker of the House.But it may have something to do with his cooperation with Democrats to prevent a partial government shutdown. More Democrats than Republicans supported the just-passed $1.2tn funding measure that authorizes spending in federal departments where it has not already been approved:Rightwing lawmakers have made clear that Republican leadership should not work with Democrats. In fact, it was a similar scenario that led to Kevin McCarthy’s removal as House speaker in October. He struck a deal with the Democratic minority to prevent a shutdown, and days later was out of the job:The House has approved a $1.2tn government funding bill that will prevent a partial shutdown, with 286 votes in favor against 134 opposed.The Senate is expected to vote on the bill later today, and Joe Biden has said he will sign it. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump claims to have ‘almost $500m in cash’ despite inability to pay bond

      by

      Donald Trump claimed on Friday to have at his disposal “almost $500m in cash”, despite having complained about a $454m bond his lawyers say he cannot pay as he appeals a New York civil fraud judgment.In an all-capitals, early morning post to his Truth Social platform, the former president said: “Through hard work, talent, and luck, I currently have almost $500m in cash, a substantial amount of which I intended to use in my campaign for president.”The judge in his New York fraud case knew this, Trump claimed, and therefore came up with a penalty which, with interest, amounts to around $454m.Trump’s lawyers have said it is a “practical impossibility” for Trump to meet that bond by its 25 March deadline. In turn, the New York state attorney general, Letitia James, reportedly took steps towards seizing Trump-owned properties.One legal analyst called Trump’s Friday morning rant “the dumbest thing he could possibly have done”.“That is a direct admission by him that he has the money,” Nick Akerman, a former assistant US attorney in the southern district of New York who was a prosecutor during the Watergate scandal that brought down Richard Nixon, told CNN.“Keep in mind, even with this operating money or cash that he supposedly has, if he doesn’t pony up and put up a bond, Letitia James is going to be able to go in and basically put restraining orders on all of his bank accounts. Everything that relates to him and all of that money is going to be tied up and frozen.“So if he’s really got that money, he’s got to put it up.”As Trump runs to return to the White House, he faces unprecedented legal jeopardy: 88 criminal charges (14 over election subversion, 40 over retention of classified information, 34 over hush-money payments), and various civil penalties – both in the fraud case and in a defamation case arising from a rape allegation a judge called “substantially true”.Trump’s legal costs are therefore enormous. He received a potential boost on Friday as shareholders approved the public listing of Trump Media & Technology, the parent company of Truth Social, a move that could net more than $3bn. That money, however, will not be accessible for some time and is subject to the whims of the markets.Also on Friday, multiple outlets reported that Trump’s new fundraising agreement with the Republican National Committee directs donations to his campaign and a political action committee that pays his legal bills before the RNC gets a cut.The unorthodox diversion of funds to the Save America political action committee – disclosed in an invitation to an event in Florida on 6 April obtained by the Associated Press – makes donors more likely to see their money go to Trump’s lawyers, who have received at least $76m over two years.Fine print says donations will first be used to give the maximum amount allowed under federal law to Trump’s campaign, which would total $6,600 for individuals giving in a primary and then a general election. Anything left next goes toward a maximum contribution of $5,000 to Save America. Anything more goes to the RNC and state parties.On the invitation, top donors are asked to contribute $250,000 as “host committee” contributors or $814,600 for a seat at Trump’s table. A separate contribution form allows donors to give contributions of any size but still spells out in fine print that the donation is first to be allocated to the Trump campaign and Save America.According to the fine print, any donor can direct their contribution to be distributed differently. Donors can also give directly to the RNC or any other entity.The Trump campaign said donors who contribute the suggested $814,600 or $250,000 per person will see hundreds of thousands of dollars go to the RNC, adding that Save America “also covers a very active and robust post-presidency office and other various expenses”. But the New York Times reported that for smaller events or donations, a much larger share will go to Save America.It in effect means that when checks are written to the new combined Republican campaign, Trump’s campaign and Save America get paid first.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWith Trump reportedly against declaring bankruptcy, a step that would delay payments in his civil cases but which would likely damage his campaign image, Save America spent more than $50m on legal fees in 2023 and, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), entered 2024 with just $5m in cash on hand.The Trump campaign said Save America spends on expenses other than legal fees. But legal spending made up 85% of operating expenses in the first two months of this year, a total of $8.5m.Trump’s political operation is struggling to catch Joe Biden on fundraising. Trump’s campaign and Save America reported raising $15.9m in February with more than $37m on hand, FEC filings showed. Biden’s campaign raised $53m, with $155m on hand.On Thursday, a Biden campaign email taunted Trump as “Broke Don”.Having taken control of the RNC, however, Trump can take advantage of far higher contribution limits. His handpicked leadership team includes his daughter-in-law Lara Trump and Chris LaCivita, one of two campaign managers and now RNC chief of staff.LaCivita previously suggested the RNC would not pay Trump’s legal bills.In February, Henry Barbour, an RNC member, attempted to formally preclude such spending, saying: “The RNC has one job. That’s winning elections. I believe RNC funds should be spent solely on winning elections, on political expenses, not legal bills.”LaCivita said: “The primary is over and it is the RNC’s sole responsibility to defeat Joe Biden and win back the White House. Efforts to delay that assist Joe Biden in the destruction of our nation.”But with Trump’s RNC takeover complete, Republicans are reportedly concerned it could leave the cash-strapped party shortchanged.
      Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 250 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats who attack the rich do better in elections. The party should take notice | Jared Abbott and Bhaskar Sunkara

      by

      “We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have [its] forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hatred for me – and I welcome their hatred.”President Franklin D Roosevelt – the cousin of a beloved former president and scion of two prominent New York families – was an unlikely tribune of economic populism. But amid the devastation wrought by the Great Depression, he understood that the only way to show millions of working Americans that he really had their back was to put a target on the back of his own class, economic elites.Today, in another turbulent period and facing a strong threat from Donald Trump’s anti-democratic rightwing populism, Democrats have forgotten their history. A recently released study by the Center for Working-Class Politics reveals that Democrats aren’t taking advantage of a powerful weapon in the fight against Trump: economic populism.Political candidates who are drawing more on Roosevelt’s anti-elite playbook are, however, finding success. Our study found that 2022 Democratic congressional candidates who called out economic elites while celebrating working people out-performed other candidates in places where Democrats struggle the most: districts with majority-white, non-college graduate populations and those with disproportionately higher percentages of people holding working-class occupations.Economic populists’ average vote shares were, respectively, 12.3 and 6.4 percentage points higher than other candidates’ in those places. Economic populists also performed better than other candidates in rural and small-town districts, where their average vote share was 4.7 percentage points higher. These findings are in line with previous research from the Center for Working-Class Politics that tested the impact of economic populism and similarly found that working-class voters prefer economic populists.Yet even though we know that economic populism can help Democrats win back the working-class voters – of all races – who recent polls indicate are bolting from the Democrats at a rapid pace, the report also finds that Democrats are generally allergic to running against Roosevelt’s economic royalists.Indeed, less than 10% of Democratic candidates called out Wall Street, billionaires, millionaires or CEOs on their candidate websites, and a related analysis by the Center found that only about 20% of TV ads by Democrats in competitive 2022 house races did so. Less than 5% of ads invoked billionaires, the rich, Wall Street, big corporations or price gouging.Nor, despite the Biden administration’s focus on industrial policy and jobs creation, are Democrats centering bread-and-butter economic issues that resonate with the working-class voters they need to stop Trump in November. Indeed, just 30% of TV ads released by 2022 Democratic candidates in competitive districts focused primarily on bread-and-butter economic issues, from high-quality jobs to reining in drug and consumer costs.The other 70% prioritized abortion, resistance to Trump and Republican extremism or individual candidate qualities. A mere 18% of these ads said anything at all about jobs, less than 2% talked about the need for high-quality, good-paying or unionized jobs, and virtually none talked about specific policy proposals to create better employment – like generating new manufacturing positions or expanding job training programs.As a result, despite Democrats’ progressive economic policy goals, many voters simply don’t associate them with the ideas that will improve their lives. They feel that Trump – with his constant barrage of rhetorical attacks on the rich and powerful – understands their pain better than the elites who write Democrats’ campaign checks.Simply, the Democratic party faces an image crisis among working-class voters as severe as any we’ve seen since the 1960s.This is not to say that there are no Rooseveltian anti-elite populists in the Democratic camp. Indeed, candidates such as Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Tim Ryan embraced this kind of rhetoric and overperformed relative to President Biden’s 2020 margins in difficult races with large working-class electorates. But there are vanishingly few candidates who combined full-throated economic populism with the ambitious economic policies Democrats need to send working-class voters a credible message that they really understand and care about the issues they care about.Why are Democrats so loth to attack economic elites? There are many reasons – both ideological and political – but the party’s anti-populist bias is probably related to the changing class dynamics of its electoral and donor base. Research by Sam Zacher shows that the Democratic party has increasingly relied on affluent, highly educated voters to make up for their declining support among the working class. Zacher emphasizes that the Democrats’ increasingly affluent base has been reflected in the party’s policy priorities – which carefully avoid proposals that might directly challenge the interests of economic elites.Without a major course correction, Democrats’ elite bias means they will continue to resist rhetorical class war against the plutocrats and the bold economic reforms needed to overcome decades of perceived neglect among working-class voters.In the short-term, if Democrats don’t change course, the Republican party will look more and more appealing to working-class voters, and the electoral math for Democrats in working-class-heavy swing states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania will become increasingly dire.In the long term, unless Democrats can make credible appeals to working-class voters through policy and rhetoric, we face the prospect of a long-term class realignment with the affluent and poor on the Democratic side and the working class on the Republican. This would negate any possibility of forging a majoritarian coalition to deliver the economic reforms working people so desperately need, and would guarantee that culture war rather than class war defines American politics for the foreseeable future.To fix this problem and defeat Trumpism, progressives must take a page from President Roosevelt’s playbook and call out economic elites as the main obstacle to rebuilding working-class communities.
      Jared Abbott is the director of the Center for Working-Class Politics
      Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of the Nation, founding editor of Jacobin, and author of The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequalities More