Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      How to Steal a Presidential Election review: Trump and the peril to come

      by

      The Trump veepstakes is under way. Senator JD Vance and Representative Elise Stefanik prostrate themselves. Both signal they would do what Mike Pence refused: upend democracy for the sake of their Caesar. The senator is a Yale Law School alum and former US marine. Stefanik is the fourth-ranking House Republican. He was once critical of the former president. She was skeptical. Not anymore.“Do I think there were problems in 2020? Yes, I do,” Vance recently told ABC. “If I had been vice-president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors … I think the US Congress should have fought over it from there.”Last month, Stefanik said: “We will see if this is a legal and valid election. What we saw in 2020 was unconstitutional circumventing of the constitution, not going through state legislators when it comes to changing election law.”From the supreme court down, the judiciary has repeatedly rejected that contention.As the November election looms, Lawrence Lessig and Matthew Seligman offer How to Steal a Presidential Election, a granular and disturbing examination of the vulnerabilities and pressure points in the way the US selects its president. Short version: plenty can go wrong.Lessig is a chaired professor at Harvard Law School. He views a second Trump term as calamitous. “He is a pathological liar, with clear authoritarian instincts,” Lessig writes. “His re-election would be worse than any political event in the history of America  –  save the decision of South Carolina to launch the civil war.”Seligman is a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford, focused on disputed presidential elections. He too views Trump uncharitably.“Former president Trump and his allies attempted a legal coup in 2020 – a brazen attempt to manipulate the legal system to reverse the results of a free and fair election,” Seligman has said. “Despite all the attention on 6 January 2021 [the attack on Congress], our legal and political systems remain dangerously unprotected against a smarter and more sophisticated attempt in 2024.”The open question is whether forewarned is forearmed. On the page, Lessig and Seligman spell out seven roads to ruin, the “inverting” of an election to force a result that thwarts voters’ expressed intentions. The authors discount the capacity of a vice-president to unilaterally overturn an election result. But they warn of the potential for havoc at state level.As they see it, the danger of pledged but not legally bound electors being coerced to vote for Trump when the electoral college convenes is “significant”. They also hypothesize a state governor “interven[ing] to certify a slate of electors contrary to the apparent popular vote”. Another path to perdition includes making state legislatures the final judges of election results. There is also the “nuclear option”, according to the authors, which is stripping the right to vote from the voters.“A state legislature cancels its election before election day and chooses the state’s electors directly,” as Lessig and Seligman put it, a potential outcome they call a “very significant” possibility under the US constitution.“State legislators are free to deny their people a meaningful role in selecting our president, directly or indirectly,” they write. “Is there any legal argument that might prevent a legislature from formally taking the vote away from its people? We are skeptical.”To say US democracy is at risk is not to indulge in hyperbole. Trump’s infamous January 2021 call to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, is a vivid reminder. “What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than … we have, because we won the state.” Such words continue to haunt.In an episode that casts a similar pall, Trump and Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee (RNC) chair, urged election officials in Michigan’s Wayne county to block the release of final results.“Do not sign it … we will get you attorneys,” McDaniel told the officials, regarding certification.“We’ll take care of that,” Trump said.Now, as he has for so many former enablers, Trump has taken care of McDaniel. She will shortly be gone from the RNC.Among Trump’s supporters, discontent with democracy is no secret. During the 2016 campaign, Paul LePage, then governor of Maine, thought Trump needed to show some “authoritarian power”. In 2019, Mike Johnson, then a Louisiana congressman, declared: “By the way, the United States is not a democracy. Do you know what a democracy is? Two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. You don’t want to be in a democracy. Majority rule: not always a good thing.”Johnson is now House speaker. For good measure, he claims God told him “very clearly” to prepare to become “Moses”.“The Lord said step forward,” Johnson says.On the right, many openly muse about a second civil war.“We’ve already had one, so we know it’s within the realm of possibility,” James Pinkerton, a veteran of the White Houses of Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, recently wrote in the American Conservative.“In fact, by one reckoning, the English speakers have had two other civil wars in the last four centuries, spaced out every hundred or so years. Is there some sort of deep cycle at work here? With, er, implications for our own troubled times?”The election won’t be pleasant. In late December, 31% of Republicans believed Joe Biden’s win in 2020 was legitimate. That was eight points lower than two years before. Trump’s criminal trials loom. Through that prism, Lessig and Seligman’s work serves as dire warning and public service.
      How to Steal a Presidential Election is published in the US by Yale University Press More

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden ‘gets how he’s viewed’, White House spokeswoman says as she downplays president’s misspeaking – live

      by

      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has defended to reporters Joe Biden’s fitness to serve and ability to remember details, after comments from special counsel Robert Hur and instances of the president mixing up the names of world leaders.“This is a president that … has had relationships with world leaders for more than 40 years,” Jean-Pierre said, after Biden yesterday evening mixed up the names of the presidents of Mexico and Egypt. “Has he misspoken, as many of us [have]?”She also said Biden, 81, understands that voters are aware of his advanced age.“He gets it. He gets how he’s viewed. He gets what people see and what’s written about him and what the American people also see. But there are other things to know,” Jean-Pierre said, referring to reports that former Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy considered the president a sharp negotiator.Democrats and Joe Biden’s administration spent the day downplaying and dismissing concerns about the president’s age raised in a report by special counsel Robert Hur, which found that Biden had willfully retained classified documents – but shouldn’t be charged, in part given that a jury could find him too old and doddering to be culpable. Here’s what happened at a glance:
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has defended Joe Biden’s fitness to serve and ability to remember details. She said: “This is a president that … has had relationships with world leaders for more than 40 years,” after Biden yesterday evening mixed up the names of the presidents of Mexico and Egypt. “Has he misspoken, as many of us [have]?” She added: “He gets it. He gets how he’s viewed. He gets what people see and what’s written about him and what the American people also see. But there are other things to know.”
      Ian Sams, the White House spokesman for investigations, blamed Republicans’ attacks on prosecutors for the special counsel’s report. He noted that Hur’s comments came after months of attacks on the justice department and prosecutors elsewhere by the GOP. He said: “For the past few years, Republicans in Congress and elsewhere have been attacking prosecutors who aren’t doing what Republicans want politically. … That reality creates a ton of pressure.”
      Former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer called the report a “partisan hit job.” “I fear – and I hope I am wrong – that unlike most of the marginalia that excites political junkies, the Special Counsel’s descriptions of Biden will break through to the public at large,” wrote Pfeiffer in his newsletter.
      Vice President Kamala Harris weighed in, too, saying the special counsel’s comments were “politically motivated” and blasting Hur’s comments as “gratuitous, inaccurate and inappropriate.”
      The spectacle is playing out in the states, too: Wisconsin Democrats joined in to defend the president, brushing aside concerns about Biden’s memory and instead praising his policy record. “Everyone knows we have two older Americans running for president,” congressman Mark Pocan told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “The difference is one has accomplished much with that life experience and got things done for the American people.”
      On a call with reporters, immigration advocates warned that the rhetoric coming from Donald Trump and Republicans was putting their communities at risk, writes the Guardian’s Lauren Gambino.“The toxicity that has been injected in this debate is fanning the flames of division and doing that has consequences,” said Clarissa Martinez de Castro, Vice President of the Latino Vote Initiative, UnidosUS. “The consequences of this rhetoric are not an intellectual exercise. They actually have a death toll associated with them.” Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of America’s Voice, accused Republicans of “mainstreaming the dangerous talk of ‘invasion’ and ‘Great Replacement theory’”, and noted that just days ago federal agents arrested a Tennessee militia man who allegedly planning an attack on border agents over fears that the border was being “invaded”.“They have a very dangerous and divisive narrative that really is inciting people to violence,” she said, adding: “They clearly have not learned a lesson from El Paso, Buffalo and Pittsburgh.”Cárdenas said it was “problematic” that Biden had adopted some of the right’s language around shutting down the border.“When he sort of uses the same language as the GOP, that is extremely divisive and not helpful,” she said.“I do think it’s important for him to say that we have to have a functional system,” she continued. “But it is very worrisome when he starts saying things like, ‘we have to close the border.’ I think that’s hugely damaging. Our hope is that he really forcefully speaks about the contributions of immigrants.”The New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik said in a CNN interview Thursday evening that she “would not have done what Mike Pence did,” on January 6, 2021, implying she would have declined to certify the presidential electoral votes.Stefanik’s comments come as the congresswoman, who has risen as a star in the MAGA wing of the Republican Party, vies to be Donald Trump’s running mate in 2024. She previously declined to commit to certify the 2024 presidential election votes, saying she would do so “if this is a legal and valid election.”Other rightwing Republicans, including Ohio senator JD Vance and Montana congressman Matt Rosendale, have also doubled down on election denialism in recent days. In a video launching his campaign for a seat in the US senate today, Rosendale bragged that he had “voted in support of President Trump’s agenda every single time.”“On January the 6th 2021, I stood with President Trump and voted against the electors,” Rosendale declared.Wisconsin Democratic lawmakers defended Joe Biden in conversations with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, downplaying concerns about the president’s memory raised in a report by special counsel Robert Hur.Democratic senator Tammy Baldwin instead emphasized Biden’s policy record, saying Biden has “shown time and again that he fights for Wisconsin’s working families and has a strong record of creating good-paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, and lowering prescription drug prices.” Similarly, Democratic congressman Mark Pocan stated that Biden “got things done for the American people,” while Donald Trump “has used hate to try to divide this nation and in a way unseen before.”Hur, who investigated Biden’s handling of classified documents and concluded the president had willfully retained national security information, recommended against bringing charges against the president, saying Biden would come across to a jury as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.A Wednesday poll by Marquette University Law School found Trump and Biden in a dead heat in Wisconsin, with each carrying the support of 49% of registered voters.The White House is fighting back against special counsel Robert Hur’s comments that Joe Biden struggled to remember details of his life and career in an interview for his investigation into his possession of classified documents. Kamala Harris accused Hur, who said Biden should not face charges, of being “politically motivated”, while spokesman Ian Sams blamed Republican attacks on the justice department for putting pressure on the special counsel. He also noted that the White House was considering releasing the transcript of Biden’s interview, but has not decided yet.Here’s what else has happened today:
      The contest for the Senate got spicier, when relatively popular Republican Larry Hogan jumped into the contest for deep-blue Maryland’s open seat, and Matt Rosendale filed to unseat Democrat Jon Tester in red state Montana, despite losing to him in 2018.
      John Cornyn, an influential Republican senator, said he would support legislation to fund Israel and Ukraine’s military, even if it does not include strict immigration provisions.
      ‘I’m an elderly man and I know what the hell I’m doing’, Biden told reporters in a surprise speech yesterday evening, after Hur’s report was released.
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has defended to reporters Joe Biden’s fitness to serve and ability to remember details, after comments from special counsel Robert Hur and instances of the president mixing up the names of world leaders.“This is a president that … has had relationships with world leaders for more than 40 years,” Jean-Pierre said, after Biden yesterday evening mixed up the names of the presidents of Mexico and Egypt. “Has he misspoken, as many of us [have]?”She also said Biden, 81, understands that voters are aware of his advanced age.“He gets it. He gets how he’s viewed. He gets what people see and what’s written about him and what the American people also see. But there are other things to know,” Jean-Pierre said, referring to reports that former Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy considered the president a sharp negotiator.Before he departed the podium, Ian Sams shared an unpublished detail of the report that he indicated supports Joe Biden’s argument that he was distracted when he spoke to the special counsel Robert Hur.“What’s interesting about this, and this is oddly not in the report … at the beginning of his interview, the special counsel told the president: ‘I understand that you’re dealing with a lot of things right now, and I’m going to be asking you questions about stuff from a long time ago. I want you to try to recall to the best of your abilities.’ You know, things of that nature,” Sams said.“That’s often what prosecutors would tell witnesses. So, you know, he understood that but the president was going to commit to being cooperative. He talked about this last night. He wanted to make sure he had everything he needed, and he didn’t want to throw up roadblocks.”The White House spokesman Ian Sams noted his disagreement with the special counsel Robert Hur’s description’s of Joe Biden’s ability to recall details.“I dispute that the characterizations about his memory in the report are accurate, because they’re not. And I think the president spoke very clearly about how his mind was on other things. I mean, he was dealing with a huge international crisis of great global consequence,” Sams said, referencing Biden’s argument that he was preoccupied with the fallout from Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel.Sams also described interviews by prosecutors as uniquely intense experiences:
      I think there’s something important that people should remember about the way that, sort of, interviews like this happen. God forbid, you know, one of you guys ever have to get interviewed by a prosecutor … Witnesses are told, as I mentioned, by special counsel to do the best they can to recall or remember things, and they’re not supposed to speculate. They want facts. They want facts and evidence. And so, you know, I think probably in almost every prosecutorial interview, you can imagine that people have said that they don’t recall things because that’s what they’re instructed to do. So I think that’s just important context.
      Joe Biden plans to appoint a taskforce to review how classified documents are handled during transitions between presidential administrations, White House spokesman Ian Sams said.The subtext here is that Biden was not alone in possessing classified materials that he should not have. Mike Pence, a fellow former vice-president, also left the White House with government secrets, and was cleared of potential charges last year.Donald Trump is, of course, facing criminal charges for not only taking classified documents but also hiding them from investigators.Here’s what Sams had to say about what this new taskforce will do:
      We had the issue with President Biden. Immediately after that, we had the issue with Vice-President Pence. And I think it’s important to understand that this is a common occurrence, and the president thinks that we should fix it. Like, he gave all these documents back, he knew … that the government should be in possession of these documents.
      And so, what we’re going to do is the president’s gonna appoint a taskforce to review how transitions look at classified material to ensure that there are better processes in place so that when, you know, staffs around the building are roughly packing up boxes to try to get out during a transition as quickly as possible, at the same time … they’re still governing and doing matters of state. They’re going to try to make recommendations that that can be fixed, and he’s going to appoint a senior government leader to do that. We’ll have more on that soon.
      White House spokesman Ian Sams also indicated that it’s possible transcripts of Joe Biden’s interviews with special counsel Robert Hur’s team could be released.The transcripts could shine some light on some of the more jarring comments about the president’s memory Hur made in his report, such as that he could not recall the years he was vice-president, or when his son, Beau Biden, died.“I don’t have any announcement on, you know, releasing anything today, but it’s a reasonable question and there are classified stuff and we’ll have to work through,” Sams said, when asked about the possibility of the transcripts’ release.“We’ll take a look at that and make a determination,” he replied, when a reporter pressed him further.Ian Sams, the White House spokesman for investigations, noted that Republican special counsel Robert Hur’s comments about Joe Biden’s memory and age came after months of attacks on the justice department and prosecutors elsewhere by the GOP:
      We also need to talk about the environment that we are in. For the past few years, Republicans in Congress and elsewhere have been attacking prosecutors who aren’t doing what Republicans want politically. They have made up claims of a two-tiered system of justice between Republicans and Democrats. They have denigrated the rule of law for political purposes. That reality creates a ton of pressure and in that pressurized political environment, when the inevitable conclusion is that the facts and the evidence don’t support any charges, you’re left to wonder why this report spends time making gratuitous and inappropriate criticisms of the president.
      The White House press briefing has started, and spokesman Ian Sams is at the podium.He is reiterated that special counsel Robert Hur cleared Joe Biden of wrongdoing, and underscored that the president cooperated with his investigation. Thus far, Sams has refrained from condemning Hur’s conduct, as Kamala Harris and others have done.The Biden administration’s counterattack to special counsel Robert Hur’s comments about the president’s age and memory will continue in a few minutes, when the White House press briefing begins.Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre will be joined by Ian Sams, the White House spokesman who handles investigations of the president.We’ll cover what he has to say, and what reporters have to say to him, live here.Kamala Harris has condemned special counsel Robert Hur’s comments about Joe Biden’s age and memory as “gratuitous, inaccurate and inappropriate”, and noted that the president’s interview was conducted in the “intense” aftermath of the 7 October terrorist attack in Israel.The vice-president’s comments were a strong denunciation of the language used by Hur, a Republican former US attorney appointed by attorney general Merrick Garland to investigate the discovery of classified documents at Biden’s personal residences. Hur determined no charges were warranted, but repeatedly noted that Biden could not remember aspects of his life and career in their interview.Here are Harris’s full remarks:Pennsylvania’s Democratic senator John Fetterman said he believes Joe Biden is still up to the job as president, and criticized comments about his memory made by special counsel Robert Hur.“The president was very clear in that he is absolutely in full control,” Fetterman said, before turning to Hur’s lengthy report into the classified documents found in Biden’s possession that noted he could not remember some details of his life and career.“That’s 350 pages to just say that Joe Biden isn’t going to be indicted here. It was just a smear job and cheap shots and just taking things out of context, or even just inventing any of them too,” Fetterman said.There have been a couple of interesting developments today in the contest to determine whether Democrats can maintain their slim hold on the Senate in November’s election.Popular former Republican governor Larry Hogan jumped into the race for Maryland’s open seat. While his election would be an upset in a state Joe Biden won with 65% of the vote in 2020, Hogan has proven his ability to win statewide elections in Maryland before, and his candidacy will probably force Democrats to spend money there that they otherwise could have used elsewhere. Here are some thoughts on Hogan’s candidacy, from University of Virginia analyst Kyle Kondik:Democrats received slightly better news in Montana, a red state where the party is fighting to get senator Jon Tester elected again. Republican congressman Matt Rosendale today made his much-expected bid for Congress’s upper chamber official – but the GOP isn’t particularly happy about it, since Tester beat Rosendale in 2018.Steve Daines, Montana’s junior senator and the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, had this to say about Rosendale’s entry:
      It’s unfortunate that rather than building seniority for our great state in the House, Matt is choosing to abandon his seat and create a divisive primary. Tim Sheehy has my full support because he is the best candidate to take on Jon Tester. Whichever party wins the Montana Senate seat will control the United States Senate in 2024, and Republicans cannot risk nominating a candidate who gave Jon Tester the biggest victory of his career. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Two men three years apart’: Democrats highlight Trump’s mental lapses after Biden report

      by

      The special counsel Robert Hur’s contention that Joe Biden suffers from memory problems caused by advanced age prompted delight among the president’s Republican opponents – and pushback from Democrats pointing out how often Donald Trump has his own lapses, and how dangerous they are to the country.Speaking on MSNBC amid shockwaves from the release of Hur’s report on Biden’s retention of classified information after his time as a senator and as vice-president, Jen Psaki, Biden’s first White House press secretary, emphasised: “The choice in all likelihood here is going to be between two men who are three years apart.”Already the oldest president ever, Biden is 81 and would be 86 at the end of a second term. Trump, the probable Republican presidential nominee this year, will turn 78 in June.Biden’s gaffes – including calling the president of Egypt the president of Mexico in the same Thursday remarks in which he angrily attacked Hur – are relentlessly scrutinised.To some extent, so are those of Trump – who recently confused Viktor Orbán, prime minister of Hungary, with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, president of Turkey. He also confused Nikki Haley, his last remaining rival for the Republican nomination, with Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House speaker when Trump sent a mob to attack Congress on 6 January 2021.But despite Trump’s frequent mistakes, polling has consistently shown that more Americans think Biden is too old than think the same about Trump.This week, before the release of Hur’s report, the progressive political strategist Rachel Bitecofer said: “Polling data consistently shows that its Biden, not Trump, voters perceive as having mental decline. No, REALLY. The reason is, Republicans have been pounding that false narrative hard since 2020 using [Biden’s] stuttering clips. We need CONSTANT coverage of Trump’s decline across all media outlets to fix that.”On Thursday, Psaki said Biden and Trump “are both older than I would think a lot of people in the public would like … [but] the choice is ultimately going to be between somebody who – in the Biden campaign, this is what they’ll argue – was guilty of trying to overturn the election, overturn the will of voters, and somebody who was not. And they’re three years apart.“People have concern about age, have concern about whether Biden’s up to the job … There is an element of that that has existed for years, and some of it was pushed by the right wing effectively … despite the fact that Trump is only a little bit younger.”The Biden campaign, Psaki added, “need[s] to figure out ways to address that, including having him out in the country, having him out on the trail”.Psaki’s host, Katy Tur, responded: “I covered Donald Trump really closely [in 2016] and when I see him now, he is a lot different than he was eight years ago. He is not the same candidate that he was.”That seems evident to most observers – and the issue has not been absent from the Republican primary.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHaley, who made a call for age limits for public office a central plank of her campaign, has said Trump is “just not at the same level” as he was while president.“Are we really gonna go into a situation where we have wars around the world and we’re trying to prevent war, and we’re gonna have someone who we can or can’t be sure that they’re gonna get confused?” the 51-year-old former South Carolina governor and UN ambassador told CBS last month.At a New Hampshire rally, she added: “Do we really want to go into an election with two fellas that are gonna be president in their 80s? And that’s not ageism that I’m saying here … when you’re dealing with the pressures of a presidency, we can’t have someone else that we question whether they’re mentally fit to do this.”Trump himself has addressed the subject – if by inviting widespread mockery with boasts about acing basic cognitive tests while in the White House.In New Hampshire last month, Trump told supporters: “I think it was 35, 30 questions. They always show you the first one, like a giraffe, a tiger, or this, or that – a whale. ‘Which one is the whale?’ OK. And that goes on for three or four [questions] and then it gets harder and harder and harder.”The Canadian creator of the test in question, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, told the Washington Post it had never included a drawing of a whale.For the Biden campaign, and for Democrats in general, the challenge now is to get more Americans to read such stories. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Steve Bannon hawks disinformation to support Trump as legal troubles mount

      by

      The far-right strategist and Donald Trump loyalist Steve Bannon is again playing an influential role in the propaganda circles around the former US president as he bids to return to the White House, even as Bannon faces a barrage of legal problems.The conspiratorial Bannon, who spearheaded part of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and served as chief White House strategist in the first half of 2017, is waiting to see if a federal appeals court overturns his obstruction of Congress conviction. He also faces other legal problems from New York fraud charges, former lawyers and potentially other fronts.But at the same time he is pushing a tidal wave of election disinformation on his War Room podcast to help Trump win the presidency again and promote a Maga-heavy policy agenda as Trump and his allies plot out authoritarian-style plans for a second presidency.Ex-justice department prosecutors, Democrats and Republicans say Bannon’s odds of winning his obstruction of Congress appeal are long, and foresee more legal headaches ahead for the pugnacious Make America Great Again guru, while analysts warn that by spreading election falsehoods and other misinformation he endangers democracy.At present, the biggest legal threat confronting Bannon is his two-count federal conviction and a four-month jail sentence for defying a House panel subpoena for documents and testimony concerning the January 6 insurrection and Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results.Last fall, Bannon appealed his contempt of Congress conviction for refusing the House subpoena, citing executive privilege and advice from a lawyer, even though he had long left the administration and the matters covered by the subpoena.Separately, Bannon is slated to be tried in May on New York charges of fraud and money laundering involving his key role in a private “We Build the Wall” Mexico venture that bilked thousands of investors out of about $25m, a scheme in which three Bannon associates have been convicted.Bannon last month sought to dismiss the charges, which alleged in part that $1m of the funds were improperly diverted to Bannon and a top associate, but Manhattan prosecutors wrote in a court filing that his argument “bears little resemblance to reality”.The charges by the Manhattan district attorney against Bannon, an alleged architect of the scheme to raise private funds for Trump’s abortive Mexico wall, mirror earlier ones from federal prosecutors against Bannon that Trump pardoned him for the night before leaving office.Experts say more legal scrutiny of Bannon could come on other fronts. The exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, a Bannon ally and benefactor who last year was charged by federal prosecutors in a billion-dollar fraud case, was charged again in January for running a “criminal enterprise” that bilked Chinese American dissidents out of tens of millions of dollars.Guo allegedly promoted a cryptocurrency scam, propaganda and other businesses, plus financing a lavish lifestyle including purchasing a yacht, on which Bannon in 2020 was arrested on the federal Mexico wall project charges.Among the businesses linked to Guo in the superseding indictment was the conservative social media platform Gettr, which he helped finance and launch in 2021 and which Bannon’s War Room has profited from. Guo is slated to be tried in April.Bannon’s War Room podcast has reaped tens of thousands of dollars a month in ads from Gettr, according to a source familiar with its operations and news reports.War Room, which regularly hosts staunch Trump allies such as the congresswoman Elise Stefanik and the My Pillow CEO, Mike Lindell, last year was named the top promoter among political podcasts of misinformation about elections, Covid-19 and other issues, according to a Brookings Institution study.Unfazed, Bannon told the New York Times his top ranking was a “badge of honor … What they call disinformation or misinformation we consider the truth.”A key figure in promoting the January 6 Save America rally, Bannon proved prescient shortly before the insurrection on his War Room podcast when he said “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow”.Former justice department prosecutors and members of both parties say Bannon’s legal woes are mounting.“Like former president Donald Trump, Steve Bannon’s sketchy business and political activities seem to be a magnet for criminal prosecutions and investigations,” said Paul Pelletier, an ex-acting chief of the Department of Justice’s fraud section.“With his criminal ‘Build the Wall’ fraud trial looming and his criminal contempt of Congress long-shot appeal pending, it appears Bannon’s penchant for associating with and profiting from unsavory characters and his own schemes will keep him busy fending off financial fraud investigations for the foreseeable future.“Bannon’s business and financial ties with Guo should certainly attract rigorous scrutiny,” he added.View image in fullscreenOther justice department alumni concur Bannon faces big legal headaches.“Bannon is nothing more than a garden variety fraudster,” said the ex-federal prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig. “He had the benefit of a patron in the White House who rewarded his loyalty and protected him.” But with Trump gone, “he is now going to pay the price.“His appeal will not succeed and his criminal trial in New York will result in conviction. Only a Trump victory in November can save him from the federal [obstruction] case and even that won’t suffice to save him in New York.”Bannon has pleaded not guilty to the various criminal charges he faces, and his attorney Harlan Protass did not respond to calls for comment.Still, the ex-Republican congressman Charlie Dent noted: “It’s absurd and nonsensical for Bannon to think he was protected by executive privilege for events that occurred when he was not a White House employee.”The Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin, a key member of the House panel that investigated the January 6 insurrection and Trump’s role in it, said: “Bannon seems to have been deeply enmeshed in the planning of the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power and the seizing of the presidency for Donald Trump.”Raskin noted: “Bannon is the intellectual ringleader of the Maga circus … In fact, he fancies himself not just the philosopher of white Christian nationalism in our country but the political strategist for allied autocrats and theocrats all over the world.”In that role, Bannon’s War Room podcast has loomed large, making him an influential figure in promoting Trump and Maga world views including falsehoods about the 2020 election and Covid-19.Bannon’s personal account shows he has nearly 7 million followers and on Gettr, where War Room is one of the most popular shows, more than 800,000 followers.Bannon’s close Gettr ties are underscored by his frequent mention of the platform on War Room. Valerie Wirtschafter, a Brookings fellow in emerging technologies and AI who led its podcast research, said that Gettr was referenced, often multiple times, in more than 60% of more than 1,000 episodes reviewed.Trump allies who were on War Room multiple times last year included Stefanik, Lindell and the ex-justice department assistant attorney general Jeff Clark, with whom Trump plotted to promote fake electors in several states that Biden won.Bannon has touted Clark, an unindicted co-conspirator in the special counsel Jack Smith’s four-count indictment of Trump over his attempts to subvert the election results, as attorney general if the former president wins another term. Clark was also indicted along with Trump and 17 others by the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, for trying to overturn Joe Biden’s win in Georgia.“Bannon’s War Room stands out – with claims about votes being switched by Dominion machines to Sharpies being used to disenfranchise voters to the Covid-19 virus being a plot to deny Trump a second term, among many, many others,” Wirtschafter said.While Bannon’s War Room keeps pushing Maga misinformation, the bombastic strategist faces other financial and legal woes.Robert Costello, a former Bannon lawyer who played a key role in Trump’s pardon of the strategist, filed a claim against him last year for $480,000 in monies owed. Costello and his firm won a summary judgment from New York’s supreme court to obtain payment, but Bannon, with Protass’s help, is fighting the ruling.Interestingly, Protass in a court filing last month wrote that an effort by Costello’s firm to access Bannon’s bank account and depose him “poses a significant risk of compromising” his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination with fraud charges against him pending in New York.Regarding Bannon’s upcoming Mexico wall fraud trial, Raskin said: “Given that three associates of Bannon have been convicted of the conduct charged in these events, it has to be a serious threat to Bannon too.”Bannon’s multiple legal problems do not surprise Raskin. “He has adopted the persona of bad boy lawlessness. Like Trump, Bannon considers himself way beyond the reach of the law.” More

    • 288 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is too old and incited a coup. Biden is too old and mixes up names. America, how to choose? | Marina Hyde

      by

      To the US, where one likely candidate for the presidency delivers hour-long rambling speeches in which he explains that he’s going to be a dictator, but all the chat is about whether the other candidate has lost his marbles. And yes, let me pre-emptively apologise, because I can already tell that we will only be on about the third paragraph of this column before I have exhausted the Guardian’s approved list of euphemisms for being a couple of world leaders’ names short of a full set.Anyway, our business today is with the president, Joe Biden, who called an impromptu press conference on Thursday night in which he hotly insisted that his memory was just fine. The occasion was the publication of a justice department report that cleared Biden of criminal charges over his handling of highly classified materials. This year-long investigation was carried out by special counsel Robert Hur, who happens to be a registered Republican, and whose report specifically mentions the president’s “significantly limited” memory. Mr Hur says that part of the reason he didn’t bring charges was that “at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Oh dear. A real muffin-basket of an attack-line gifted to Donald Trump there, and confirmation of my long-held conviction that fake sympathy is far deadlier a tone than open attack.Biden had almost left the stage last night when he returned to the podium to take a question on the Israel-Gaza conflict, in which he unfortunately referred to the Egyptian leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as “the Mexican president”. On the one hand, this was always going to happen just at the moment he was insisting his memory was great, just as it is a truth universally acknowledged that people correcting someone else’s grammar or spelling will normally involuntarily commit some howler of their own in the process. Call it the pedants’ curse – or indeed, the pedant’s curse.On the other hand … oh dear. According to polling, Biden’s age and cognitive glitches are his biggest vulnerability with voters. As for his likely opponent, for my armchair diagnosis, the most terrifying thing about Donald Trump is that he is completely sane (unless you count advanced narcissism, which I suppose we have to these days). But Trump is a mere three years younger than Biden, often walks with a wobble, and himself recently confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi in a rant. So is it fair that the one should face infinitely more scrutiny on the lost-plot front than the other?Alas, fairness isn’t one of the base notes of political life. I’m afraid we could be dealing with Ye Olde Vibes Theory of Politics (est 2022), which holds that the feels-based way in which a politician presents is more important than such trivialities as the facts or their record. Listen – I don’t make the rules. But during the first 2022 Conservative leadership contest in the UK, remainer Liz Truss presented as more Brexity to the party grassroots than leaver Rishi Sunak. Why? Vibes. Just … vibes.The vibes on Biden’s seniority are not great. Yes, he has led his country’s exceptional and internationally envied economic recovery from the pandemic, so the large rational part of me judges that unfair. But another part of me, perhaps the irrational, can no longer watch any Biden speech or address without picturing his aides also watching backstage, mainlining cortisol, every fibre of their brace-positioned beings willing him to get over the line without making any unforced errors – and to then exit the stage without trying to use a flag as a door.I’m sure this is complete fantasy and the only cortisol levels going through the roof are my own. Nevertheless: vibes. Can’t fight ’em. I remember my heart feeling similarly in my mouth during the aforementioned Tory leadership contest when runaway favourite Truss walked the wrong way off stage after her campaign launch. Did I think Liz Truss literally wasn’t even up to finding her way off a stage? Of course not. Rationally, I knew it was just a silly mistake, of the sort that all of us make every day. At the same time, the irrational half of me felt the satisfying click of the right key turning in the lock. I knew that Liz Truss metaphorically wasn’t even up to finding her way off a stage. There was some kind of ineffable psychological truth to it all that was far more powerful than the facts.As someone who believes the likely Republican candidate is hideously, overwhelmingly worse, I fear that Joe Biden is gearing up for a gruelling election at precisely this vibes-based disadvantage. Both he and Trump are at the stage of life when sensible ordinary people find the strength to turn to their families and ask: be honest, should I still be driving? Yet Trump’s great power is defying rationality, like some dark lord of the vibes. He is possessed of a mesmerising ability to make every single thing feel like it is playing into his hands, which is why we now all watch news reports of various criminal charges being brought against him and go, “Oh this’ll play well for him”. Will it? And if so, why should it? Who really knows, but the vibes say so.After the last time I touched on the gerontocracy in these pages, the Guardian printed three letters from older male readers under the headline, What’s age got to do with it, Marina Hyde? Ageism was mentioned, with one of the correspondents advancing details of how he spent his days, as an argument against what we might kindly have termed my own argument about when big hitters should leave the professional stage. Now, no one more than me welcomes a good bollocking on the letters page, and all the three men were very nice about the rest of my output. Thank you!However. At the risk of drawing further correspondence, I feel I still have to hold to the position that being president of the United States is not the same as “writing, teaching, and volunteering in a residential home”, and is a job for a younger man than either Biden and Trump. Not a younger woman, of course – that would be genuinely insane in the strictest clinical sense of the term. But younger than 86 at conclusion of office. So I end this column with a challenge: if any readers of this newspaper are able to get to the end of the lengthy forthcoming US election campaign and think it showcased a vibrant, healthy and sprightly democracy, then I urge them to write in on 6 November, and suggest mandatory retirement for me.
      Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court justices have strange views on whether Trump is disqualified | Moira Donegan

      by

      Elena Kagan once referred to Jonathan Mitchell sarcastically as “some genius”. That was in oral arguments surrounding SB8, the bounty-hunter abortion ban that Texas succeeded in passing before the overturn of Roe v Wade, which Mitchell wrote, pioneering a cockamamie scheme for evading judicial review.Mitchell, a far-right lawyer currently vying for a spot in the second Trump administration, is a fan of this kind of bald, legal bad faith: you can’t quite call him duplicitous, because he never quite pretends that the law really leads him to the conclusions he’d like to reach. He’s more about coming up with novel legal schemes to get to his desired outcome and trusting that the federal judiciary, captured as it is by Federalist Society acolytes and wingnut cranks, will go along with him because they share his political proclivities.That’s what worked for him with SB8: the supreme court allowed Texas’s abortion ban to go into effect long before Dobbs: not because Mitchell made a convincing argument, but because he offered them an opportunity to do what they wanted to do anyway.Something similar happened in Thursday’s oral arguments in Trump v Anderson, a question about whether Donald Trump is disqualified from holding federal office under section three of the 14th amendment.The case reached the supreme court after a Colorado court found that Trump’s actions on January 6 disqualified him. The court wanted to disagree and was desperate to find a way to restore Trump to the Colorado ballot without addressing the underlying question of whether Trump committed an insurrection or not. Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer, gave them very little help: he gave a shoulder-shrugging argument to the justices, after filing a bizarre and strained brief that primarily focused on the absurd claim that the president is not an “officer.” Left to their own devices, the justices went fishing, looking for an argument that could plausibly allow them to exit the case, since Mitchell did not provide them one.The winning entry came from Justice Samuel Alito, who first offered the suggestion that a state like Colorado did not have the authority to enforce section three of the 14th amendment without congressional permission. The rest of the justices seemed to like the sound of that and were soon all asking questions about the scope of state authority over the administration of federal elections.It was a bit of an odd argument: the court recently came close to embracing a much more wide-reaching vision of the authority of state legislatures to govern federal elections in their borders, in its address of a rightwing legal curiosity called the “independent state legislature theory”. And the notion that section three of the 14th amendment requires congressional action to go into effect is on its own peculiar: no other section of the amendment has been found to require such instigating legislation from Congress, and the language of the amendment itself suggests that the disqualification of onetime insurrectionists is something that Congress has to act to turn off, but not to turn on.It is strange, too, that the court, which in past years has made dramatic and ruinous changes to American life out of its professed loyalty to our nation’s “history and traditions”, chose to more or less completely ignore the suggestions of history here. The 14th amendment’s section three has seldom been enforced – in part because of the rarity of insurrections – and so there are few impediments to the court’s self-styled originalists delving headfirst into the history of the amendment’s intention and context.But instead the justices chose to dismiss the considerable evidence that the framers of the 14th amendment intended section three to be used precisely to protect the republic from a figure like Trump. They attend themselves instead not to the lessons of the past, but to the incentives of the present.By the end of the arguments, it was clear: what the justices will write will be a 9-0 or 8-1 decision (only Sonia Sotomayor voiced much dissent) saying that section three is not self-enacting, or at any rate that the states cannot enact it themselves. They will have arrived at this conclusion not because the argument was made persuasively or at all by Trump attorney Mitchell – it wasn’t – and not because it is the place where the text compels them to arrive – it isn’t. They will instead have fabricated this reasoning out of whole cloth, because it gets them out of an inconvenient question: the question of whether the constitution’s substantive protections for democracy can withstand the stress Trump applies to them.One point that several of the justices touched on, and which has been taken up by those skeptical of the Colorado case and similar efforts to disqualify Trump from office on 14th amendment grounds, is the notion that his disqualification would be somehow anti-democratic, disenfranchising the people who would like to vote for him and would not get a chance to.But democracy means more than the simple ability to vote; it requires a commitment to constitutional principles – to the limits of an office, to the rights of the minority, to the separation of private and public interests among those in power and to the willingness to place the dignity of the country before the petty preferences of the man who leads it.Trump has no intention of upholding these principles. We know: he tells us all the time. To disqualify him would not be to undermine democracy but to protect it, by averting the seizure of the republic by the man who has been quite frank about his intention to destroy it.Meanwhile, section three of the 14th amendment now seems set to be orphaned – denied its status as self-effecting, curtailed in its enforcement by the states. If section three is still the law, and if insurrectionists are still barred from taking federal office, then how can this law be enforced? And that’s where the court, in its apparent effort to avoid having to take much of a stand on the issue, seems to have planted a loaded gun. Because if states can’t enforce the ban on insurrectionists in office, then only Congress can. And where would Congress do that? At the certification of the electoral votes – on 6 January 2025.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump wins Nevada Republican caucuses in effective one-horse race

      by

      Donald Trump was anointed the victor of Nevada Republican caucuses, after staunch loyalists in the state helped maneuver the election process to assure his success.Shortly after the caucuses concluded, the AP confirmed Trump, who was the only major candidate participating, as the winner, capping off a perplexing election week in a key battleground state. Ryan Binkley, a little-known pastor and businessman from Texas, was the only other candidate running.With Joe Biden having easily secured victory in the Democratic primary on Tuesday, the current and former president are one step closer to a rematch in the November general election. Trump’s victory Tuesday came on the same day that the US supreme court appeared poised to reject a challenge to his candidacy in Colorado over his attempts to subvert the 2020 election results.Nevada’s “first in the west” presidential choice contest is usually a crucial milestone for both major parties. But this year’s primaries were a strange and subdued affair, and sparsely attended – only 16% of registered voters in Nevada participated in the primary.The odd, bifurcated Republican voting system may be partly to blame.The caucuses, which were organized by the state’s GOP, came just two days after the Republican primary in which Nikki Haley, despite being the only candidate on the ballot, trailed behind a “none of these candidates” option. Registered Republicans in the state were eligible to vote in both the caucuses and the primary, but candidates could only compete in one or the other. All of the state’s 26 Republican delegates will be allocated based on the caucus, whereas the primary results are non-binding.For years, Nevada held caucuses – calling on voters from each major party to gather at local sites to debate and then vote for a preferred candidate. But after the last presidential election, lawmakers in the state passed legislation requiring primaries instead, arguing that the more traditional style of voting, either at polling stations or by mail, would make it easier for more people to participate.But state Republicans rejected the change. Although they still held primaries on Tuesday, as required by law, they also held their own caucuses that reflect their party’s efforts to limit voting.Those participating in the caucuses were required to come in person, at specific locations, and bring a photo ID. As voters sardined into a high school in Henderson, Nevada, attendees packed into the gymnasium.“He needs our support – look at the treatment he’s getting ,” said Takashi Tamara, 83, referring to the legal cases against the Trump. He had initially been confused about why Trump’s name wasn’t on the primary ballot on Tuesday, until a volunteer with the local Republican party explained that it was only the caucuses that would count toward the nomination process.As the line of voters outside the school grew, snaking around the corner, some began to leave early. Several voters had been mistaken about which precinct they were supposed to report to. Others were annoyed at the chaos inside the packed gymnasium. Leaders of the caucus effort, which included Trump allies who were indicted for their roles in trying to overturn the 2020 election results, said the process was more secure than the primaries. The claim has been contested by election experts, and voter fraud is exceedingly rare.Media, who had in past elections been allowed to observe both Democratic and Republican caucuses, were being barred from observing inside the caucus location by party officials.“We’ve had really disappointing relationships with the press, we are very defensive as a result,” said Jesse Law, GOP chair for Clark county, which encompasses Las Vegas. Law was one of six Republican electors who signed fake electoral certificates declaring Trump the winner of Nevada in 2020, despite Biden winning the state by more than 30,000 votes, and was indicted for his role in the scheme by a grand jury.Voting experts are unclear on how disinformation about the voting process, and confusion around the dueling primary election systems, might affect turnout in future elections.At a Las Vegas rally last week, Trump encouraged voters to ignore the primaries in favor of the caucus. “Don’t waste your time on primary,” he said. “Waste all of your time on caucus because the primary doesn’t mean anything.”Trump won the caucuses here and on the US Virgin Islands – a territory where residents cannot vote in the presidential election, but can help choose the candidate. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Excited for Trump’: Nevada Republican party holds caucuses days after primary

      by

      Nevada’s Republican party is hosting caucuses on Thursday, just two days after the state held a non-binding presidential primary.Donald Trump, the only major candidate running in the caucuses, is assured to be anointed victor by the end of the night. Still, supporters turned up to show their support for the former president, joining snaking lines at high schools, country clubs and even a dental practice to vote.Political analysts and the Nevada Republicans themselves were unsure of what sort of turnout to expect tonight, in a race that is essentially decided for Trump. The only other candidate Tuesday night was Ryan Binkley – a little-known pastor and businessman from Texas – will cap off a perplexing primary week in the key, western battleground state.Due to the manoeuvrings of staunch Nevada GOP allies, Trump is essentially guaranteed the state’s 26 delegates at the Republican national convention. After challenging a state law requiring presidential primaries, the party won the right to hold their own caucuses – not run and financed by the state. Candidates could only participate in one or the other, though voters are allowed to participate in both.While voters in the primary were allowed to cast ballots by mail, or early in person, those participating in the caucuses were required to come in person, at specific locations and bring a photo ID. The state’s GOP has said the caucuses are more secure than the primaries, though as voters sardined into a high school in Henderson, Nevada, attendees complained that overwhelmed volunteers were having difficulties managing the mass of voters outside.At the Green Valley high school caucus site in Henderson, Nevada, spirits were high as voters filed over to the registration tables to have their IDs checked. One organizer delivered a PSA: “If you are one of the people who hung up Trump signs all over, I love it – but you have to take them down.” It was against the school’s policy to allow political signs to be posted around campus.Deby Callahan, 71, and her granddaughter Aubrey Bucher, 20, were attending together. Bucher was also trying to gather signatures for a ballot measure to approve a voter ID requirement for future elections. “I’m excited for president Trump,” Callahan said, who like many other voters do not accept Biden won the 2020 election.Ahead of the caucuses that he is guaranteed to win, Trump urged Nevadans who were voting to sign the voter ID petition – which election experts have said could make it more onerous, especially for older people and people of color, to cast ballots. Republicans across the US have been pushing such measures.“If you are showing up today to vote in the GOP Caucus in Nevada, make sure to sign the Petition for VOTER ID that many people will be circulating at Caucus locations,” Trump posted to his Truth Social. “This is a very ‘BIG DEAL.’ Thank you.”As volunteers methodically checked the IDs of caucus attendees, a queue for the sign in table began to grow, wrapping around the school’s entrance.“Look at the turnout,” said Aydin Delara, 65. “Trump is the only reason everyone is here.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNearly 9,300 Republicans submitted their primary ballots early, by mail or in person, and about 10,400 voted on Tuesday. Confusion about how and whether to vote in the primary, as well as heavy rains, probably affected turnout. Trump, who visited the state last week, encouraged voters to avoid the primary altogether. “Don’t waste your time,” he said at a rally in east Las Vegas. “Waste all of your time on caucus because the primary doesn’t mean anything.”Nevada Republicans have said that their caucuses will be more secure than the primaries, a claim that is roundly disputed by election experts – voter fraud is exceedingly rare. The leaders of the caucus effort include election deniers who have been charged for their roles in trying to overturn the 2020 election results.But the bifurcated process has also caused confusion for voters, many of whom appeared at the polls earlier this week and were surprised to find that Trump wasn’t on the ballot. He still managed to humiliate Nikki Haley, the only major candidate running, who trailed behind a “none of these candidates” option. Trump allies had encouraged voters to show their support for the former president by voicing opposition to Haley.Borrowing a favorite phrase of Trump’s, the former UN ambassador has said the state’s divided election process was “rigged” against her. Haley did not campaign in Nevada, choosing instead to focus on the upcoming elections in South Carolina.Although this election process is legal, the GOP’s manoeuvring has been widely criticised, including by Republicans. Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor, said in October that the duelling contests would be “detrimental to the candidates” and “unacceptable for voters”. Nonetheless, Lombardo said he would be caucusing for Trump. More