Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 238 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Don’t underestimate Nikki Haley – for starters, just look at how she gets under Trump’s skin | Emma Brockes

      by

      It is a mark of just how low are the expectations one brings to the Republican primary race that Nikki Haley, the last woman standing against Donald Trump, appears impressive as a candidate solely by virtue of not being a lunatic.It reminds me of the lyrics to I’m Still Here, that Stephen Sondheim standard from Follies listing all the terrible things – the Depression, J Edgar and Herbert Hoover, religion and pills – the singer has come through unscathed, only in this case it’s Chris Christie and Ron DeSantis. That leaves Haley, the 52-year-old former governor of South Carolina and one-time US ambassador to the UN, as the only thing standing between us and a Biden/Trump runoff.The odds of a Haley victory over Trump appear vanishingly small after the former president’s early primary wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. Polling numbers support this, as does the unseemly pivot of Trump’s former rivals, most recently DeSantis, to lining up behind him two seconds after he has mocked and belittled them (“Ron DeSanctimonious”).The striking thing about Haley over the last few weeks is how effective she has been in getting under Trump’s skin. This, as we know, is a notoriously hard thing to do if one is invested in maintaining one’s dignity. Michelle Obama’s old adage – “when they go low, we go high” – doesn’t work with Trump, who keeps going lower and lower until the moral high ground is a point of light in the sky so distant it might as well be an alien life form.Haley, unlike her male rivals, has adopted a very particular tone towards the former president that feels connected to her relative youth and also her gender. Historically, women have had a harder time than men of bearing up under Trump’s mockery, given its leering subtext of “I wouldn’t touch her with yours”. Haley, it strikes me, has studied Margaret Thatcher very closely and in fact, along with Hillary Clinton (and former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and, funnily enough, Joan Jett) cites her as a personal hero. In her public interactions with Trump, she adopts a mode of condescension reminiscent of Thatcher addressing her enemies in the Commons, an arch response, steeped in sarcasm, to the argument that women in politics lack a tone of command. When Trump, recently tweeted: “The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!” she replied, simply, “Bless your heart”.Yes, we’re here, at the “oh, bless” level of political discourse. You can disapprove of it, but weirdly, in this instance, it landed, leaving Trump looking vaguely pathetic. The tone Haley has adopted is one of the very few that breaks through and hits him where he hurts, at the level of personal and physical vanity. Since then, she has maintained towards the Republican frontrunner the vibe of a nurse – “Now, then, Mr Trump; have we taken our pills today?” – pandering to an elderly man. “Are we really going to have two 80-year-olds running for the presidency,” she said, then popped up on TV to talk about Trump’s “decline” since 2016, accused him of being part of the “political elite” and had T-shirts printed bearing the legend “Barred. Permanently.” This is a reference to Trump’s post on Truth Social that, “Anybody that makes a ‘Contribution’ to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the Maga camp.” Where Hillary Clinton couldn’t bring herself to do this kind of dumb shit, Haley understands intuitively that, in the case of Trump, you have to fight dumb with dumb. The T-shirts went viral.I’m getting overexcited, I know. It can be easy to forget how low the bar is. Although Haley was sharply critical of Trump after the 6 January insurrection, prior to that her venality was fully on display when she praised Trump (“he was great to work with”) while promoting her 2019 book, With All Due Respect. As Politico recently noted, Trump rewarded her loyalty with the post, “Make sure you order your copy today!” Not great. And, of course, she agreed to serve in Trump’s cabinet in the first place.Nonetheless, the ferociously ambitious daughter of Indian immigrants, whose tenure at the UN was described in a New York Times editorial as “constructive”, and one of the few Trump appointments that didn’t end in disaster, makes Haley highly unusual. As a creature of the modern Republican party, she is still, of course, packing various eccentricities, including my favourite, the charming anecdote she tells about “renaming” her husband when they first met because, as she told him at the time, “You just don’t look like a Bill.” (She started calling him “Michael”, his middle name, which is how he is now universally known.) Weird, yes. But considering the alternatives, I’ll take it.
      Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson says he does not believe Senate talks would ‘stop the border catastrophe’ – live

      by

      Mike Johnson reiterated his attack on the Senate’s immigration policy deal, saying that, though its exact provisions have not been released yet, he does not think it would cut down on migrant arrivals to the degree he demands.“Last Friday, President Biden came out in support of the Senate’s deal, which we haven’t seen yet. There is no text yet. But from what we’ve heard, this so-called deal … does not include … these transformational policy changes that are needed to actually stop the border catastrophe,” the House speaker said.He specifically took issue with reports that, under the deal’s proposed terms, the border would be closed once crossings exceeded 5,000 people in a given day:
      Apparently, we’re concocting some sort of deal to allow the president to shut down the border after 5,000 people break the law. Why is it 5,000? If you add that up, that’d be a million more illegals into our country every year before we take remedial measures. It’s madness. We shouldn’t be asking what kind of enforcement authority kicks in at 5,000 illegal crossings a day. The number should be zero.
      “Anything higher than zero is surrendering our border, surrendering our sovereignty and our security,” Johnson said.He has now concluded his remarks.In his first speech on the House floor since winning the speaker’s gavel, Mike Johnson recited familiar rightwing talking points regarding undocumented migrants, while again warning that he did not like what he was hearing about measures under discussion in the Senate to tighten immigration policy. That’s a bad sign for a potential deal Republicans have demanded to support Joe Biden’s request for another round of military assistance to Ukraine, and to Israel. In the Senate, Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer made clear he did not think much of the House GOP’s impeachment of homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, indicating the chamber would acquit him if a trial occurs.Here’s what else happened today:
      Congresswoman Cori Bush demanded an apology from rightwing lawmaker Troy Nehls, who referred to her husband as a “thug”, and Bush as “loud”. Yesterday, Bush acknowledged she was under investigation by the justice department over allegedly misusing federal funds.
      James Biden will appear for an interview with a House committee leading the impeachment inquiry into his brother, the president.
      Nikki Haley says America doesn’t need any more “Grumpy Old Men”.
      Rob Menendez, a Democratic House lawmaker from New Jersey, accused Republicans of kowtowing to “the orange Jesus” with their charges against Mayorkas.
      Taylor Swift is the latest subject of a rightwing conspiracy theory.
      Later this evening, the House is expected to vote on a bipartisan bill that would extend tax credits for low-income families, as well as restore some tax breaks for businesses.It’s unclear if it will pass the House, but the below comment, captured by Semafor, from Republican senator Chuck Grassley is raising eyebrows nonetheless. Asked about the bill’s chances in Congress’s upper chamber, Grassley seems to imply that passing the legislation would be a bad idea, because measures to assist poor families could boost Joe Biden’s re-election chances:It’s unclear how many Republican lawmakers feel the same way, but the sentiment could bode ill for Congress getting any major legislation passed prior to November’s presidential election.A high-profile lawsuit filed by entertainment giant Walt Disney alleging retaliation by Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been dismissed by a federal judge, but the company appears set to file an appeal, Reuters reports:
      A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed Walt Disney’s lawsuit against the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, and members of a state board for allegedly retaliating after the company criticized state limits on classroom discussion of sexuality, according to a court filing.
      “This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law and it will not end here,” a Disney spokesperson said.
      “If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined to press forward with our case.”
      DeSantis and other defendants had urged Allen Winsor, the US district judge in Tallahassee, Florida, to dismiss the case because Disney could not sue them over constitutionally enacted state laws.
      The dispute began after Disney criticized the classroom discussion ban, dubbed the “don’t say gay” law by opponents. DeSantis began repeatedly attacking what he termed “woke Disney” in public appearances as he geared up for his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, an effort he abandoned earlier this month.
      State lawmakers stripped Disney of its control over the special development district that since 1967 had given the company virtual autonomy around its theme parks, including the Walt Disney World Resort.
      In the latest clash between pro-Palestine protesters and the Biden-Harris campaign, two women claim they were kept out of an event with Kamala Harris because they were wearing hijabs. The campaign says they had disrupted other events. Here’s what we know about the incident, from the Guardian’s Gloria Oladipo:Two women have accused Biden-Harris campaign staffers of Islamophobia, claiming they were profiled and disinvited from a campaign event because they were wearing hijabs.Staff with the campaign have since countered that the women were barred after disrupting other events held by Democratic leaders.The incident was captured on video and shared to X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday by an account named Nevadans for Palestinian Liberation.The viral video, which has garnered over 2m views, shows an unidentified staffer for the Get the Vote Out event in Las Vegas on Saturday telling the women that they are not allowed to enter the venue.“We are choosing who’s going in and out of the event. I’m sorry,” the staffer said.Off camera, one woman responds: “Why are you choosing us not to go in when we have an invite?”A separate woman, also off camera, says: “You specifically singled us out.”Speaking of Donald Trump, he’s within striking distance of winning the Republican presidential nomination, but his last remaining rival, Nikki Haley, is not giving up.Today, she launched another salvo at one thing the former president and the current president have in common: their advanced age. Joe Biden is 81, Trump is 77, and both are too old for the presidency, Haley argues. She also debuted a meme that will look familiar to those fluent in early 90s cinema:Atlanta-area district attorney Fani Willis, who indicted Donald Trump and 18 others on charges related to trying to overturn Georgia’s election result in 2020, has been subpoenaed to testify regarding her relationship with a prosecutor she hired for the case, ABC News reports.Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for co-defendant Michael Roman, earlier this month accused Willis and Nathan Wade, who she hired to work on the case, of having an improper relationship that resulted in financial gain for both of them. Merchant has asked for Willis to be removed, and the indictment dismissed.Here’s more on what the subpoena means, from ABC News:
      Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, one of her top prosecutors in the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump and 18 others, have been subpoenaed to testify at an upcoming evidentiary hearing set to examine allegations that they were involved in an improper relationship while investigating the former president, according to a new lawsuit filed in Georgia this week.
      The claim that Willis and Wade had been subpoenaed to testify was contained in a copy of the lawsuit, obtained by ABC News, that was filed by the attorney for one of Trump’s co-defendants in the election case, accusing the Fulton county district attorney’s office of “intentionally withholding information”.
      The lawsuit accuses the office of “stonewalling” the attorney, Ashleigh Merchant, in her efforts to obtain records from the office through public information requests.
      In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for the DA’s office said they had not yet been served the lawsuit, and said, “We provided her with all the materials she requested and is entitled to.”
      In a letter sent to Merchant on Friday, provided to ABC News by the DA’s office, the DA’s office pushed back on her allegations that they have failed to meet their obligations, writing they “disagree with your disingenuous implication”.
      The issuing of the subpoenas could set up a high-stakes battle for both Willis and Wade, who have remained virtually silent on the issue but may now have to testify under oath during the televised hearing on 15 February, as Trump and other co-defendants seek to use the allegations to have the two removed from the case and the indictment thrown out.
      Away from domestic politics, the AP is reporting that the US has attributed a drone attack that killed three American troops in Jordan to umbrella group Islamic Resistance in Iraq.James Biden will appear before House Republicans for a private interview next month as lawmakers seek to regain some momentum in their monthslong impeachment inquiry into his brother, Joe Biden, The Associated Press reports.The House Oversight and Accountability Committee announced on Wednesday that the Democratic president’s younger sibling will come to Capitol Hill on February 21. The date was set after months of negotiations between the sides.
      We look forward to his interview,” the committee posted on X, the website formerly known as Twitter.
      James Biden’s interview will take place just days before the president’s son Hunter Biden will be deposed in private by the Republican-run committee, which has been investigating the Biden family’s overseas finances for the past year.Both James and Hunter Biden were subpoenaed by the committee in November. So far, the GOP investigation has failed to uncover evidence directly implicating the president in any wrongdoing.A lawyer for James Biden said at the time that there was no justification for the subpoena because the committee had already reviewed private bank records and transactions between the two brothers. The committee found records of two loans that were made when Joe Biden was not in office or a candidate for president.
      There is nothing more to those transactions, and there is nothing wrong with them. And Jim Biden has never involved his brother in his business dealings,” lawyer Paul Fishman said in a statement in November.
      Joe Biden kicked his re-election campaign into high gear earlier this month. So, too, have protesters upset over his policy towards Israel’s invasion of Gaza, the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington reports:Joe Biden had barely started speaking at a high-profile re-election campaign rally focusing on abortion rights in Virginia last week when the carefully choreographed made-for-TV spectacle exploded into a cacophony of angry yelling.“Genocide Joe!”, a protester holding up a Palestinian flag cried from the back of the hall. “How many kids have you killed in Gaza? How many women have you killed in Gaza?”Biden looked bemused, blinking silently into the cameras. In all, he was to be interrupted at least 13 more times. “This is going to go on for a while,” he said at one point. “They’ve got this planned.”As Biden’s 2024 re-election campaign gets under way, it is becoming increasingly clear that they have indeed got it planned. A decentralized network of pro-Palestinian groups and individuals, including Muslim Americans, Jewish Americans and anti-war organizations, are hounding Biden over his firm support for Israel despite the heavy cost in civilian lives of its war against Hamas.“Our community is going to be active, with actions big or small, until this genocide ends and there’s a permanent ceasefire,” Mohamad Habehh told the Guardian. He was the individual who stood up and shouted: “Genocide Joe!” in Virginia.Habehh said that Biden should expect much more of the same as election year unfolds. “Every event the president does, no matter where it is, not matter what state or city, there will be Americans who stand against his stance on Gaza.”In his first speech on the House floor since winning the speaker’s gavel, Mike Johnson recited familiar rightwing talking points regarding undocumented migrants, while again warning that he did not like what he was hearing about measures under discussion in the Senate to tighten immigration policy. That’s a bad sign for a potential deal Republicans have demanded to support Joe Biden’s request for another round of military assistance to Ukraine, and to Israel. In the Senate, Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer made clear he did not think much of the House GOP’s impeachment of homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, indicating the chamber would acquit him if a trial occurs.Here’s what else is going on:
      Congresswoman Cori Bush demanded an apology from rightwing lawmaker Troy Nehls, who referred to her husband as a “thug”, and Bush as “loud”. Yesterday, Bush acknowledged she was under investigation by the justice department over allegedly misusing federal funds.
      Rob Menendez, a Democratic House lawmaker from New Jersey, accused Republicans of kowtowing to “the orange Jesus” with their charges against Mayorkas.
      Taylor Swift is the latest subject of a rightwing conspiracy theory.
      Mike Johnson reiterated his attack on the Senate’s immigration policy deal, saying that, though its exact provisions have not been released yet, he does not think it would cut down on migrant arrivals to the degree he demands.“Last Friday, President Biden came out in support of the Senate’s deal, which we haven’t seen yet. There is no text yet. But from what we’ve heard, this so-called deal … does not include … these transformational policy changes that are needed to actually stop the border catastrophe,” the House speaker said.He specifically took issue with reports that, under the deal’s proposed terms, the border would be closed once crossings exceeded 5,000 people in a given day:
      Apparently, we’re concocting some sort of deal to allow the president to shut down the border after 5,000 people break the law. Why is it 5,000? If you add that up, that’d be a million more illegals into our country every year before we take remedial measures. It’s madness. We shouldn’t be asking what kind of enforcement authority kicks in at 5,000 illegal crossings a day. The number should be zero.
      “Anything higher than zero is surrendering our border, surrendering our sovereignty and our security,” Johnson said.He has now concluded his remarks.This speech by Mike Johnson has thus far amounted to a lengthy attack on the Biden administration’s immigration policy, and migrants themselves.The Republican speaker said he had received a letter from former FBI officials warning of “a soft invasion along our southern border”, and said the migrants trying to enter the United States from Mexico “are not huddled masses of families seeking refuge and asylum. These are people coming into our country to do only God knows what and we are allowing it – the Biden administration is allowing it. And we’ve noted that they’re coming from adversarial nations, from terrorist regions. We have no idea what they’re planning.”Speaking out the House floor, Republican speaker Mike Johnson has again signaled he is not happy with the Senate’s immigration policy negotiations.He kicked off his speech decrying the impact of undocumented immigrants on communities nationwide, before describing the Senate talks as focused on “a so-called border security deal”. That’s not a good sign for the prospects of the deal, if one emerges, in the House, and, by extension, aid to Ukraine and Israel.Republican Mike Johnson is set to give his first speech on the floor of the House since becoming speaker, where he is expected to discuss immigration policy.Johnson has criticized the Senate’s bipartisan negotiations on the border, the success of which Republicans have linked to supporting another round of aid for Ukraine’s military.We’ll let you know what Johnson has to say. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Prosecutor in Trump racketeering case subpoenaed to testify in disqualification hearing

      by

      The Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, and Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor in her office, have both been subpoenaed to testify at a 15 February hearing seeking their disqualification from the criminal racketeering case against Donald Trump and 14 others for their efforts to overturn the election.It is not guaranteed that either will actually testify. Both could seek to quash the subpoena.Michael Roman, a seasoned Republican operative and a co-defendant in the case, is seeking the disqualification of Willis and Wade and a dismissal of the indictment. He alleges the two had a romantic relationship and that Wade used the money he earned from his employment in her office to pay for vacations. Trump and another defendant, Robert Cheeley, have both joined the request.Experts generally consider disqualification unlikely, but Willis has not directly responded to the allegation. She has said she will respond in a court filing that is due on Friday.Roman filed a new lawsuit on Tuesday accusing Willis’s office of failing to comply with a public records request and failing to turn over records related to the hiring of Wade and other special prosecutors. The lawsuit says Wade and Willis have both been subpoenaed to testify at the 15 February hearing.Wade’s office has told multiple news outlets that it has provided all the information that Roman and his lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant, have requested. The district attorney also reportedly sent a letter to Merchant on Friday saying they “disagree with your disingenuous implication” they had failed to meet their obligations. A spokesperson for the office also told ABC News it had not been formally served with the lawsuit on Wednesday.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWade had been set to testify as part of an divorce case on Wednesday, but settled it on Tuesday evening. Willis had also been subpoenaed in that case. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Prosecutor in Trump elections case will not have to testify on alleged romance

      by

      Nathan Wade, the lead prosecutor in the case against Donald Trump over his alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election has entered into a “temporary agreement” with his estranged wife, according to a filing posted on social media. This agreement means that special prosecutor Wade will avoid having to testify in a court hearing that was scheduled for Wednesday.During the now-canceled hearing, Wade was expected to shed light on his financial dealings and purchase of plane tickets for himself and Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis in 2022 and 2023, according to the Washington Post. The pair have been under increased scrutiny since 8 January when Michael Roman, a veteran Republican operative and one of the former president’s co-defendants filed a motion to Fulton county’s superior court that sought to disqualify Willis and Wade from the case.Roman alleged that the pair were in a romantic relationship and that Wade, who was hired by Willis, used his attorney’s fees paid to him by the district attorney’s office to purchase vacations for the pair. Roman argued that while Wade was allowed to spend his earnings as he pleased, him using the money to Willis’s benefit in the form of flights and hotel stays presented a conflict of interestskip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWade’s credit statements, made public via a motion filed in his divorce proceedings, show that Wade paid for two trips for him and Willis; one to Miami in October 2022 and another to the Napa Valley in April 2023. Neither attorney has publicly confirmed or denied a relationship.Wade filed for divorce from his wife Joycelyn Wade on 2 November 2021, the day after Willis appointed him as special counsel in the Trump case, court records show. The divorce grew ugly after Joycelyn complained that her estranged husband was withholding information about his finances, including income from working on the Trump case.Willis was expected to respond to the allegations in a court filing that was due on 2 February, but the agreement between the Wades will allow her to avoid filing. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Illinois board votes unanimously to keep Trump on primary ballot

      by

      The Illinois board of elections has voted unanimously to keep Donald Trump on its primary ballot, rejecting objections brought by voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility on grounds that he had aided in insurrection on January 6.The decision was made on narrow procedural grounds, and is almost certain to be appealed. It is just the latest in a mixed series of official rulings on whether Trump can appear on the ballot amid a wave of challenges to his candidacy in multiple states.Officials in Colorado and Maine have ruled that Trump cannot appear on their ballots, though those decisions are facing further legal challenges, while Illinois becomes the latest state where officials have rejected attempts to boot Trump from the ballot.The US supreme court has scheduled oral arguments on this question for next week, and will likely have the final say on whether Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for president because of his actions leading up to the January 6 attack at the US Capitol.At issue in this particular case was the question of whether or not the board of elections has the authority and jurisdiction to interpret constitutional questions. Matthew Piers, an attorney representing the objectors, argued the board “not only has the authority to determine an objection based on the United States constitution, but indeed you have the clear mandatory duty to do so”.Adam Merrill, Trump’s counsel, flatly denied Trump had participated in insurrection and argued the elections board could not make a determination on the question anyway.One Republican member of the bipartisan board made it clear that her decision was based on the question of whether the state board had the authority to weigh in on this question, not on whether Trump should be disqualified.“I want it to be clear that this Republican believes there was an insurrection on January 6,” declared GOP board member Catherine McCrory. “There’s no doubt in my mind that he manipulated, instigated, aided and abetted an insurrection on January 6. However, having said that, it is not my place to rule on that today.”The Illinois petitioners calling for Trump to be excluded from the Illinois ballot argued he is disqualified from office given article 3 of the 14th amendment, which states that any public official who has taken an oath of allegiance to the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to its enemies must be disqualified from running for office again.In their 87-page petition, the Illinois voters said the January 6 attack was insurrectionary – and that “the effort to overthrow the results of the 2020 election by unlawful means” amounted to rebellion.On 28 January, Clark Erickson, a hearing officer for the board of elections tasked with evaluating the ballot challenge, said he agreed that Trump had committed insurrection and should be disqualified from appearing on the ballot – but that the matter should be left to a higher court.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe attorney representing the challengers seeking to remove Trump from the ballot indicated immediately after the decision that the petitioners would appeal it in court.Petitioners in more than a dozen states have invoked the 14th amendment to attempt to bar Trump from the ballot in 2024 on grounds that his involvement with the January 6 insurrection disqualifies him from office. Ratified in the wake of the civil war, the 14th amendment also establishes birthright citizenship and guarantees everyone in the US “equal protection” under the law.Trump’s lawyers have asked the US supreme court to put a “swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts”, which, they argued, “threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans”.The Trump campaign has similarly argued the push to disqualify him from ballots across the US amounts to an unfair and anti-democratic campaign by his detractors. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘He’s nothing’: E Jean Carroll says ‘we don’t need to be afraid’ of Donald Trump

      by

      E Jean Carroll says the $83.3m awarded to her in her defamation case against Donald Trump shows “we don’t need to be afraid” of the former president.“It was an astonishing discovery for me – he’s nothing,” Carroll said on Monday night on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show. Comparing Trump to “a walrus snorting” and “a rhino flopping his hands”, the former Elle magazine columnist added: “He can be knocked down.”The jury in Carroll’s case against Trump in federal court in New York decided on Friday that she deserved $65m and $18.3m in punitive and compensatory damages, respectively, after defamatory statements the presumptive 2024 Republican White House nominee made against her over allegations that he sexually abused her.Those damages were in addition to an award of about $10m against Trump in May, when another jury held the ex-president liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a department store changing room in the mid-1990s.Carroll spent Monday making the rounds on the national media circuit, first appearing on ABC’s Good Morning America and pledging to give money from her judgment to something Trump “hates”, such as “a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by him”.She also said on Good Morning America that she was terrified to confront Trump in open court alongside her attorney but ultimately came to realize that he was like “an emperor without clothes”.Carroll revisited that theme in her later conversation on Maddow’s show.“Three, four days before trial, I had an actual breakdown,” Carroll told Maddow. “I lost my ability to speak, I lost my words, I couldn’t talk and I couldn’t go on … That’s how frightened I was.”But Carroll reiterated her imagination was worse than anything she encountered.“Amazingly, I looked out, and he was nothing,” Carroll said to Maddow. “He was nothing. He was a phantom. It was the people around him who were giving him power. He himself was nothing.”Carroll also joked to Maddow that she would take her shopping for a new wardrobe and buy her a penthouse with some of the money Trump had been ordered to pay up.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionElsewhere on Friday, Trump went on Truth Social after the decision came down and fumed about how the US court system was “out of control”.He also said he intended to appeal the verdict awarded to Carroll, which came in the middle of his legal problems seemingly multiplying.Not only has other civil litigation in New York put his business practices under scrutiny, he is also facing more than 90 criminal charges in various jurisdictions. Some of those charges include attempting to forcibly overturn the results of the 2020 election, illegally retaining government secrets after his presidency, and giving hush-money payments to an adult film actor who has alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with him.Carroll and her lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said on Monday on Good Morning America that they were confident they would collect Friday’s judgment against Trump.“I think we planted our flag,” Carroll added on MSNBC. “I think we’ve made a statement that things are going to be different – that there is going to be a new way of doing this in this country.” More

    • 263 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      From Germany to Israel, it’s ‘the will of the people’ v the rule of law. Which will win? | Paul Taylor

      by

      The will of the people expressed in free elections and the rule of law upheld by independent courts are two of the pillars of a liberal democracy, or so we were taught at school. Yet these two core principles keep colliding in increasingly polarised societies from Washington to London, Paris to Berlin and Warsaw to Jerusalem, with populist politicians demanding that “the will of the people” override the constitution, treaties or the separation of powers.It is vital for the long-term health of democracy that the judges prevail. If politicians are able to break or bend fundamental legal principles to suit the mood of the moment, the future of freedom and human rights is in danger.In the United States, the supreme court will soon rule on whether Donald Trump should be allowed to run again for president after having encouraged and condoned the storming of the Capitol by his supporters on 6 January 2021 in a violent attempt to prevent Congress certifying the election of Joe Biden as his successor. Two states, Colorado and Maine, have barred him from the ballot.The 14th amendment of the constitution, adopted right after the civil war, states that no person shall “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath (…) to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.If the court applies the constitution literally, it’s hard to see how it can let Trump stand in November’s election, even though he may not be found guilty by a court over the insurrection. However, to deny the runaway favourite for the Republican nomination a chance to regain the White House would ignite a firestorm of outrage among his supporters, and perhaps a wider sense of a denial of democracy.Even some Trump-haters contend that it would be wiser for him to be defeated in an election than prevented by judges from running for office. The fact that the supreme court is dominated by conservative justices appointed by Trump and his Republican predecessors might not be enough to convince millions of Americans that they were robbed of a free vote.The same kind of issue has arisen repeatedly in the UK, where the high court ruled in 2016 that even after the Brexit referendum, the government still required the assent of parliament to give notice of Britain’s intention to leave the European Union. The Daily Mail infamously branded those judges “enemies of the people”. In 2019, the supreme court overruled Boris Johnson’s proroguing of parliament, and more recently it ruled unanimously that Rwanda was not a safe country to send people seeking asylum in Britain. Each time, populist politicians denounced what they call “rule by judges” and vowed to find ways to limit their powers.Of course, it is politically inconvenient when judges tell a government, or a parliament, that it is acting illegally or unconstitutionally, but it is an essential safeguard of our democracy that those rulings be respected and implemented faithfully.While Britain lacks a written constitution and is governed by a mixture of laws and informal conventions, its courts are bound to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a founding signatory, and the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights that derives from it.View image in fullscreenIn France, the constitutional council last week struck down substantial parts of an immigration law passed by parliament last month. Les sages (the wise persons) annulled more than a third of the measures, including provisions that would have obliged parliament to set annual immigration quotas, discriminated between French nationals and foreigners, and between working and non-working foreigners in entitlement to welfare benefits, and denied automatic citizenship to French-born children of foreign nationals.Emmanuel Macron had referred the law to the council as soon as the conservative opposition forced his minority government to accept a severe toughening of its original bill, drawing charges of hypocrisy since his party voted for the legislation knowing that parts of it were likely to be ruled unconstitutional.As expected, the council’s ruling was denounced as a “legal coup” against the will of parliament and the people by mainstream conservative Republicans and Marine Le Pen’s hard-right National Rally, who demanded that the constitution be changed to permit a referendum on immigration quotas. But amending the constitution is a lengthy process that requires both houses of parliament to adopt identical wording and then a three-fifths majority at a special congress of both houses. Don’t hold your breath.In Germany, the federal constitutional court ruled last year that the government’s attempt to divert money left over in an off-budget special fund for Covid-19 recovery for investment in the country’s green energy transition was unconstitutional. The ruling has left the chancellor, Olaf Scholz, with a massive hole in his budget that the government is struggling to fill.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe court decision has prompted the beginnings of a sensible debate on amending a constitutional debt brake enacted during the global financial crisis in 2009, which severely restricts budget deficits except in times of emergency. At least no one in Germany has branded the justices “enemies of the people” or demanded their heads on pikes.In Israel, an attempt by Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-right government to curb the independent supreme court’s right to interpret quasi-constitutional basic laws to overrule government decisions and appointments and to reject legislation passed by the single-chamber parliament caused months of civil unrest last year.Netanyahu, who is on trial on corruption charges and seeks to exert political control over judicial appointments, argued that the will of the people should prevail over an unelected judiciary. Far-right members of his government contend that Jewish religious law should trump the basic law anyway. The supreme court this month overturned a law that would have prevented it using the principle of “reasonableness” to quash government decisions.In Poland, a democratically elected nationalist government defied the EU to dismantle the independence of the judiciary by packing the constitutional court and prosecutors’ offices with loyalists and creating a politically controlled body to discipline judges for their rulings. Now a pro-European government is trying to reverse the damage wrought by its predecessors, but faces accusations of violating the rule of law itself by ignoring the packed court’s rulings.The common thread in all these different situations is that in a democracy, the will of the people is not and should not be absolute and unconstrained by law. Perdition that way lies.
      Paul Taylor is a senior fellow of the Friends of Europe thinktank

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

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      E Jean Carroll aims to give defamation money ‘to something Trump hates’

      by

      E Jean Carroll intends to spend the $83m awarded to her in her defamation trial against Donald Trump on something the former president “hates”, she revealed just days after the judgment.On Friday, the jury in Carroll’s case decided that she should receive $18.3m in compensatory damages and $65m punitive retribution in the case pitting her against Trump. Of the $18.3m, Trump was told to pay Carroll $11m to fund a reputational repair campaign and $7.3m for the emotional harm caused by statements he made against her in 2019.Carroll and her legal team did not speak to reporters as they left court but broke their public silence on Monday in an interview with Good Morning America.Alongside her lawyer Roberta Kaplan, Carroll told host George Stephanopoulos that Friday’s win had left her overcome with “elation”.“It filled me up … It was almost painful,” she said, adding: “Today, I’m very happy.Stephanopoulos asked her to give the public an idea as to how she planned to spend the millions of dollars she’s won, and Carroll provided a clear outline.“I’d like to give the money to something Donald Trump hates,” Carroll said. “If it’ll cause him pain for me to give money to certain things, that’s my intent.”Carroll also said that she would perhaps explore giving to “a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump”.Trump went on his Truth Social platform to decry Friday’s decision as “absolutely ridiculous” and said he would be filing an appeal.“Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon,” Trump’s Truth Social post said in part. “THIS IS NOT AMERICA!”Pointing to Trump’s combative response, Stephanopoulos asked Carroll’s attorney whether or not their side expected to collect the money awarded to them. Kaplan said that she was “pretty confident”.“We might not get it right away. But one way or the other, he owns a lot of real estate. It can be sold. We will collect the judgment,” Kaplan said.In the weeks leading up to the trial, Carroll revealed that she wasn’t sleeping or eating in anticipation of facing the former president.A judge determined Trump had defamed Carroll after sexually abusing her in a department room dressing store in the mid-1990s and subsequently defamed her.However, once she arrived for the trial that produced Friday’s judgment, Carroll said seeing Trump was like seeing “an emperor without clothes”.“It was like he was like nothing, like an emperor without clothes,” Carroll said. “All my terror leading up to it, and there he is. He’s just something in a suit.”The recent trial was separate from one about a year earlier in which Carroll won $5m for sexual abuse and separate, earlier remarks which had also defamed her. The proceeding was mostly absent of theatrics, though Trump caused a stir when he walked out during Kaplan’s closing statement.Asked about her reaction to that moment, Kaplan quipped that she felt the moment won Carroll about $10m.“The idea in a case where our basic thesis is that he’s a bully who can’t follow the rules, to act like a bully who doesn’t follow the rules? An interesting strategy, let me put it that way,” Kaplan said about how Trump stormed out during her closing statement.Kaplan went on to note that if Trump goes on to defame Carroll again, they would “bring another case”.“It’s just going to be more money,” Kaplan said. More