Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      US supreme court justices skeptical about removing Trump from ballot – video report

      by

      The US supreme court heard arguments on whether former president Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on Thursday after Colorado voters filed a lawsuit last year alleging he was ineligible to run for president under a little-used provision of the constitution’s 14th amendment.

      Most justices, liberal and conservative, seemed skeptical of Colorado’s arguments and seemed to agree that states could not act without action from Congress More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden described as ‘elder man with poor memory’ in damning classified document report – live

      by

      Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that he was concerned jurors would not believe that Joe Biden “willfully” kept classified documents, and that was one of the reasons why he does not think the president should face charges.“We have also considered 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,” Hur writes.“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”Hur wrote that: “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully – that is, with intent to break the law – as the statute requires.”In addition to the statement from Donald Trump himself, Make America Great Again Inc. – a super PAC supporting the former president’s campaign for election in 2024, has released its own comment on Hur’s report.“If you’re too senile to stand trial, then you’re too senile to be president,” said Alex Pfeiffer, communications director for Make America Great Again Inc. “Joe Biden is unfit to lead this nation.”Former president Donald Trump has released a statement via his campaign regarding the findings in the report from Robert Hur, saying “THIS HAS NOW PROVEN TO BE A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!” [sic].Trump referenced his own classified documents case, in which he is charged of willful retention of national defense information, false statements and representations, conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record, corruptly concealing a document, concealing a document in a federal investigation and a scheme to conceal. That case is expected to go to trial in May 2024.
      The Biden Documents Case is 100 times different and more severe than mine. I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more. What Biden did is outrageously criminal – He had 50 years of documents, 50 times more than I had, and “WILLFULLY RETAINED” them. I was covered by the Presidential Records Act, Secret Service was always around, and GSA delivered the documents. Deranged Jack Smith should drop this Case immediately. ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
      Republican chairman James Comer of the House committee on oversight and accountability has issued the following statement on the report from special counsel Robert Hur:
      Americans expect equal justice under the law and are dismayed the Justice Department continues to allow Joe Biden to live above it. Joe Biden willfully retained classified documents for years in unsecure locations and intentionally disclosed them yet faces no consequences for his actions. The House Oversight Committee has been investigating Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents and we have uncovered key facts that unravel the White House’s and President Biden’s personal attorney’s narrative of events. Additionally, important questions remain about the extent of Joe Biden retaining sensitive materials related to specific countries involving his family’s influence peddling schemes that brought in millions for the Bidens. While the Justice Department has closed its investigation, the Oversight Committee’s investigation continues. We will continue to provide the transparency and accountability owed to the American people.
      In addition to the statement, Comer said the White House was not cooperating with interviews the committee has requested with current and former White House staff who were involved with organizing, moving and removing boxes that contained classified materials.He stated that the report confirmed Biden retained documents related to China and Ukraine, “two countries the Bidens have solicited and received millions of dollars from”.You can read special counsel Robert Hur’s report into Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, as well as the rebuttal from the president’s attorneys, below:Attorneys for Joe Biden objected to special counsel Robert Hur repeatedly mentioning the president’s memory problems in his report.Referring to his conversation with Mark Zwonitzer, ghostwriter of his 2017 memoir Promise Me, Dad, Hur writes: “Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.”He later goes on to describe Biden as showing “diminished faculties and faulty memory” in his conversations with Zwonitzer.In a letter written to Hur dated earlier this week and included in the report, the president’s special counsel Richard Sauber and personal attorney Bob Bauer took issue with the special counsel’s language:
      We do not believe that the report’s treatment of President Biden’s memory is accurate or appropriate. The report uses highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events. Such comments have no place in a Department of Justice report, particularly one that in the first paragraph announces that no criminal charges are ‘warranted’ and that ‘the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt.’
      They continue:
      Not only do you treat the President differently from other witnesses when discussing his limited recall of certain years-ago events, but you also do so on occasions in prejudicial and inflammatory terms. You refer to President Biden’s memory on at least nine occasions – a number that is itself gratuitous.
      Sauber and Bauer requested Hur “revisit your descriptions of President Biden’s memory”. He apparently did not do so.Special counsel Robert Hur included in his report photos of where Joe Biden’s classified documents were stored:In a just-released statement, Joe Biden said he “threw up no roadblocks” to Robert Hur’s investigation of his possession of classified documents, and notes he spoke to the special counsel even in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel.The president’s comments came after Hur’s report noted that it would be difficult to convince jurors the “elderly” Biden intentionally kept government secrets, and related his inability to remember important dates during interviews with the special counsel.Here’s what Biden had to say, in full:
      The Special Counsel released today its findings about its look into my handling of classified documents. I was pleased to see they reached the conclusion I believed all along they would reach – that there would be no charges brought in this case and the matter is now closed.This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years, even into the 1970s when I was a young Senator. I cooperated completely, threw up no roadblocks, and sought no delays. In fact, I was so determined to give the Special Counsel what they needed that I went forward with five hours of in-person interviews over two days on October 8th and 9th of last year, even though Israel had just been attacked on October 7th and I was in the middle of handling an international crisis. I just believed that’s what I owed the American people so they could know no charges would be brought and the matter closed.Over my career in public service, I have always worked to protect America’s security. I take these issues seriously and no one has ever questioned that.
      Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that in an interview last year, Joe Biden struggled to recall key chapters in his personal and professional life:
      In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (“if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?”), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (“in 2009, am I still Vice President?”). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he “had a real difference” of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Eiden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama.
      Biden’s lack of ability to remember things would make it hard to prosecute him, Hur said:
      We also expect many jurors to be struck by the place where the Afghanistan documents were ultimately found in Mr. Biden’s Delaware home: in a badly damaged box in the garage, near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed, a Zappos box, an empty bucket, a broken lamp wrapped with duct tape, potting soil, and synthetic firewood.
      A reasonable juror could conclude that this is not where a person intentionally stores what he supposedly considers to be important classified documents, critical to his legacy. Rather, it looks more like a place a person stores classified documents he has forgotten about or is unaware of. We have considered – and investigated – the possibility that the box was intentionally placed in the garage to make it appear to be there by mistake, but the evidence does not support that conclusion.
      Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that he was concerned jurors would not believe that Joe Biden “willfully” kept classified documents, and that was one of the reasons why he does not think the president should face charges.“We have also considered 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,” Hur writes.“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”Hur wrote that: “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully – that is, with intent to break the law – as the statute requires.”In his report, special counsel Robert Hur outlines how Joe Biden “willfully” disclosed classified documents, but says the available evidence does not establish the president’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” Hur wrote in the report’s executive summary. “These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden’s handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware home.”Justice department policy prohibits bringing charges against a president while they are in office, but Hur notes that, even if that were not the case, he would not recommend charging Biden.The special counsel then goes in to why he does not think jurors would convict Biden. The reasons include evidence suggests Biden simply forgot he had classified material, or that jurors believed that when he found it, he would not have realized he was breaking the law, because the former vice-president was so used to seeing such documents.The White House was provided a copy of special counsel Robert Hur’s report into Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, and reviewed it to determine if it revealed privileged information.Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel, said no changes were made: “We notified the justice department at approximately 9.00 this morning that our privilege review has concluded. In keeping with his commitment to cooperation and transparency throughout this investigation, the president declined to assert privilege over any portion of the report.”There will be no criminal charges filed in the classified documents investigation involving Joe Biden, Reuters is reporting, citing MSNBC, which is attributing that to an unnamed law enforcement official.More details soon.Meanwhile, Trump and Biden’s classified documents cases (in which the former president has been criminally charged and the current president has not) have similarities, there are also some notable differences.The White House said Biden’s attorneys found a small number of classified documents and turned them over after discovery.Trump resisted handing over boxes of classified material until a 2022 FBI search turned up about 100 classified documents, leading to obstruction of justice charges against Trump and two employees at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.The White House said Biden and his team have cooperated with special counsel Robert Hur and his investigators. Biden cannot face federal criminal charges as a sitting president under a longstanding justice department policy.The findings could pose political headaches for Biden who has sought to draw a contrast with Trump on issues of personal ethics and national security.Hur’s report, and his decision not to bring criminal charges, are likely to fuel accusations of a double standard from Trump and his Republican allies.[But] Trump was charged after prosecutors said he refused for months to turn over boxes containing presidential records he had taken to Mar-a-Lago and took steps to conceal the documents after the US government demanded their return. Trump has pleaded not guilty and a trial is scheduled for May but is likely to be delayed.The special counsel in the Biden classified documents investigation focused on documents related to Biden’s service as vice-president in the Obama administration from 2009-2017 and from his prior tenure in the US Senate, Reuters reports.Members of Joe Biden’s legal team found classified papers at the office of his Washington thinktank and the US president’s personal residence in Wilmington, Delaware.Biden’s lead rival in the November election, former president Donald Trump, faces a 40-count federal indictment for retaining highly sensitive national security documents at his Florida resort after leaving office in 2021 and obstructing US government efforts to retrieve them.The US Congress has been handed the special counsel report on Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents dating to his years as vice-president to Barack Obama, Reuters is reporting, citing an unnamed source familiar with the matter.The US president was interviewed by special counsel Robert Hur last October and the case relates to actions taken before Biden took the White House.Earlier last year US attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Hur to investigate Biden’s retention of classified documents from his time as vice-president.At the time, lawyers for Biden reported having found classified documents at his home and former thinktank.One day after he strengthened regulations on soot pollution, EPA Administrator Michael Regan spoke about pollution controls’ impact on children at an environmental advocacy event in Washington DC.“This is deeply personal for me,” he said. “Every morning when I leave the house I’m kissing my ten year old son on the forehead and hoping to be the best dad and the best administrator that I can.”Regan described Thursday’s new soot rule as a “gamechanger,” especially for young people, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable to the health effects of pollution – and who face various other hardships.“This is one thing we’re taking off their plates,” he said.Regan spoke at a meeting held by national environmental advocacy group Moms Clean Air Force on Thursday at the National Press Club.Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, spoke earlier in the day about the Biden administration’s attempts to “infuse principles of justice and equity into everything.”She touted one Biden administration program which allots 40% of certain environmental federal investments to communities most affected by the climate crisis and pollution.Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton also spoke about environmental pollution at the event at the National Press Club.“We know that in our warming climate, the dangers are particularly acute for our youngest,” she said.Clinton spoke the children-focused efforts she is helming at the Clinton Foundation, of which she is vice-chair. One project: partnering with advocates working to keep schools open year-round, since they serve as not only educational facilities but also as cooling centers in many communities.The Thursday event convened youth advocates, doctors, environmentalists, and public health advocates who called on Americans to work together to push for better regulations on air pollution.“Your voice does matter,” said Nsedu Obot Witherspoon, who directs the Children’s Environmental Health Network. “A lot can really happen when mothers, parents, teachers, come together”Moms Clean Air Force, an national environmental advocacy group, held a summit at the National Press Club on Thursday, featuring guests including Chelsea Clinton and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Michael Regan.Founded in 2011, the organization works to strengthen protections from planet-heating and toxic pollution. It is made up of 1.5 million members, many of whom are mothers.The event comes amid increasing public concern about the climate crisis and pollution, and before a presidential election that will prove crucial for environmental policy in the US.The Biden administration is currently rushing to finalize key environmental protections, including tightened standards on emissions from power plants and vehicles’ tailpipes.“We have enormous challenges in front of us,” said Dominique Browning, co-founder and director of Moms Clean Air Force.“We have never felt greater urgency to get things done.”Paul Billings, who is national senior vice president of public policy at the American Lung Association and was a panelist at Thursday’s event, said that in recent decades, political polarization has proved a major challenge in passing environmental protections. It should not be, he said, because “everyone has lungs.”Panelists also discussed the ways children are disproportionately harmed by pollution and global warming, because their smaller, developing bodies are more vulnerable to health risks.Another major challenge: the rise of mental health issues tied to concern about the climate crisis.“We’re seeing more and more children who are presenting with climate anxiety,” Dr Lisa Patel, executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health and pediatric hospitalist, said.After about two hours of arguments, the supreme court’s nine justices seemed broadly skeptical of the effort to keep Donald Trump from the presidential ballot over his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. It is unclear when they will issue a ruling. Across the street at the Capitol, the Senate advanced a measure providing assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, following a botched attempt to also include hardline immigration policy changes Republicans demanded, then decided they did not like. The GOP wants to make amendments to the legislation, and it’s unclear what its reception will be in the House, but progress on this long-running negotiation appears to finally be happening.Here’s a recap of the day’s events thus far:
      Trump listened in to the supreme courts arguments, which, to his ears, sounded “beautiful”.
      Jason Murray, an attorney for the people challenging Trump’s eligibility, warned the supreme court that the question could “could come back with a vengeance” if he is allowed to run.
      Law professor Derek Muller of the University of Notre Dame predicted the high court would rule quickly.
      The Senate’s vote to advance a bill that will provide assistance to three countries Washington considers national security priorities is a sign of progress in what has been a tortuous and chaotic process.Democrats have wanted for months to approve aid to the three countries, but the GOP, which controls the House and can block passage of legislation in the Senate using the filibuster, demanded they also agree to hardline immigration policy changes. But when those changes were announced earlier this week after months of bipartisan negotiation, Republicans decided they did not like them either, and Republican House speaker Mike Johnson said a bill pairing the border security changes with foreign aid money would not get a vote in his chamber.Yesterday, the Senate voted down that version of the legislation after Republicans and some Democrats objected. The Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer immediately moved to put up for a vote the legislation that funds only Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, without addressing immigration policy at all. The Senate just a few minutes ago voted to advance that legislation.But the story is far from over. It’s unclear if the House will approve the legislation, and Schumer said Senate Republicans want to make amendments before final passage:
      We hope to reach an agreement with our Republican colleagues on amendments. Democrats have always been clear that we support having a fair and reasonable amendment process. During my time as majority leader, I have presided over more amendment votes than the Senate held in all four years of the previous administration. For the information of senators, we are going to keep working on this bill until the job is done. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Consequences weigh heavily for justices at Trump 14th amendment hearing

      by

      In the end, the supreme court justices displayed little interest in the finer details of constitutional law, which normally pays their salaries and over which the country has been obsessing now for days.Who is an “officer of the United States”? Leave that to one side. Should the 14th amendment’s disqualification of insurrectionists in federal posts apply only to office holders or can it also be deployed against electoral candidates? Let’s come back to that.Even the big question – did Donald Trump engage in insurrection in luring his supporters to the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 – barely got a look in at Thursday’s historic oral arguments. Only one of the nine justices, the liberal-leaning Ketanji Brown Jackson, asked a single question of Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, inviting him to state his position on such a vexed and burning issue.No, Trump did not, Mitchell predictably replied, in part because an insurrection had to be “an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government”. Jackson shot back with the forensic wit that in her 18 months on the mahogany bench has become her trademark.“And so a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection,” she said. It was a rare moment of release in more than two hours of dense legal discussion.What the justices were, almost to an individual, concerned to talk about was what the consequences of their judgment would be, both for American democracy and for their own standing. Should they side with the Colorado supreme court, and remove Trump from the ballot, then what?Elena Kagan, another of the three liberal-leaning justices, wanted to know whether a victory for Colorado would effectively impose that state’s decision to cast Trump into the wilderness on the voters of all other states. “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?” she pondered.Samuel Alito, one of the hard rightwingers on the court, wondered whether the logic of Colorado’s argument – that a federal office holder who committed insurrection should immediately and automatically be disqualified – would allow military officers to cease obeying a president’s orders from the Oval Office.John Roberts, the chief justice, looked inward, asking himself what the consequences of stripping Trump from the Colorado ballot would be for his own court. He painted a picture of a dystopian world in which a ruling that sided with Colorado would unleash a flood of partisan challenges from other states under the insurrection clause, each of them with different standards of proof and evidentiary rules.“In very quick order, a goodly number of states will say, whoever the Democratic candidate is, ‘You’re off the ballot’, and others, for the Republican candidate, ‘You’re off the ballot’, and it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”Not least for Roberts himself. “We will be deciding whether there was an insurrection when one president did something, as opposed to when somebody else did something else. So what do we do?”For Roberts, this was more than merely a question about possible future workload. It was far more existential than that: it was a heartfelt cry that the court should avoid being dragged into the contentious thick of presidential elections, where only grief could lie.As time ticked on, and the arguments continued, it became clear that the Roberts’ view – pragmatic, cautious, allergic to future controversy – was widely shared by almost all the justices. Such uniformity of opinion raises the prospect of a rapid decision in coming days, with an 8-to-1 vote or even 9-to-0 being eminently possible (the only point of uncertainty being the third liberal justice, Sonia Sotomayor, who contributed little).Such an outcome would make Roberts the second biggest winner of the day. He will hope that a unanimous or near-unanimous ruling on such an explosive issue will help redeem the court amid growing public skepticism over its many corruption scandals and blatantly partisan rightwing jurisprudence.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe chief justice is only too well aware of the low esteem in which his court is already held by the American people, and he is desperate to avoid further slippage. A recent NBC News poll found that only 28% had a positive view of the justices, the lowest rating in the poll’s history.The biggest winner, of course, is Trump. Barring a major surprise, the court is all but certain to overturn the Colorado ruling and keep the former president back on the ballot. After the pounding he has taken from the courts in recent days, it will mark a rare – and no doubt heavily-exploited – victory.There is one other aspect to the winners and losers from Thursday’s deliberations, and it’s the most important one of all. How does democracy come out of all this?Brett Kavanaugh, one of three rightwing justices appointed by Trump, was clear that keeping the former president on the ballot was a win from democracy. “What about the idea that we should think about democracy, and the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice? Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters,” he told the lawyer representing the Colorado plaintiffs, Jason Murray.It was one of several critical comments directed at Murray from the bench. But it invoked a parting warning from the lawyer.Should Trump win in November, the question of an insurrectionist returning to the White House will not have gone away. In words that may yet haunt the court, he said: “I think it could come back with a vengeance.” More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Removing Donald Trump from ballot could have ‘daunting consequence’, says chief justice – video

      by

      The chief justice of the US supreme court, John Roberts, argued that removing Donald Trump from states’ primary ballots for the presidential election could mean some states would remove the Democratic candidate, some states would remove the Republican candidate, leaving the presidential election to just a few states.

      A majority of justices, including some from the court’s liberal wing, voiced concern about the chaos that would ensue if they allowed states to decide whether to disqualify candidates when they debated Colorado’s decision to rule Trump ineligible to run for office for inciting insurrection More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Could Taylor Swift really swing the 2024 presidential election?

      by

      A decade ago, Taylor Swift liked to publicly mock a Jonas brother for dumping her over the phone. Today, her words may determine the future of US democracy.Over the last few weeks, Swift’s endorsement has become one of the most coveted – and contested – prizes in the 2024 presidential election. After the New York Times reported that Joe Biden’s re-election campaign was desperate to lock it down, Donald Trump’s allies reportedly declared a “holy war” on Swift. Fox News commentators started urging Swift to stay out of politics, while a sizable contingent of rightwingers spiraled into conspiracy theories: that Swift is a covert asset to bolster Biden, that she and her boyfriend, Travis Kelce, are a set-up to bolster Biden, that the Super Bowl – in which Kelce will play as a tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs football team – is being rigged to bolster Biden.All this fervor may seem totally out of touch. No matter how beloved she is, can a pop star from a Christmas tree farm in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, really decide the 2024 presidential elections?The answer is surprisingly complex, according to interviews with experts, self-described Swift admirers, and people who say they are indifferent to Swift. It is improbable that Swift’s opinion would be the deciding factor for a voter torn between supporting Trump or Biden – if such a person exists – but the pop superstar is far more likely to propel voter turnout. And if the rematch between the two politicians, who still have to win their primaries, turns out to be close, the Swift electorate may make the difference.“We are not used to recognizing people like Taylor Swift with that much political power. That can be unnerving. We’re not used to female fandoms, perhaps, having that much political power,” said Ashley Hinck, an associate professor at Xavier University whose book Politics for the Love of Fandom unpacks the links between fandom, politics and civic engagement. “There’s a way in which pundits, politicians, commentators and regular citizens are coming to terms with a new political culture. If you’re not a part of it, you haven’t seen it before – but it has been around for a long time. It’s been growing for a long time.”As Swift might say, it’s been a long time coming.A lack of persuasionSwift first waded into politics in 2018, when she broke her career-long silence on politics to urge fans to vote for Democrats in a Tennessee election. Although one of Swift’s preferred candidates lost to the Republican Marsha Blackburn, Swift endorsed Biden in 2020. She has also continued to tell fans to vote in subsequent elections, and voter registration has soared by the tens of thousands after each of her get-out-the-vote Instagram posts.Her fanbase is staggeringly large, with 53% of Americans saying they are fans and 16% identifying as “avid fans”, according to a March 2023 Morning Consult poll. (That poll was conducted before the launch of Swift’s world-conquering Eras Tour, which has become the highest-grossing tour of all time and reportedly made Swift a billionaire.)However, Swift’s fanbase is not evenly distributed across the US political spectrum: 55% of her self-avowed avid fans identify as Democrats, while 23% are Republicans and 23% are independents.Although a November 2023 NBC News poll found that 40% of registered voters said they had a positive view of Swift – more than any other figure included in the survey, including Biden, Kamala Harris and Beyoncé – Democrats are still more likely than Republicans to say that they like Swift. Fifty-three per cent of Democrats said that they had a positive view of Swift, while just 28% of Republicans say the same. Compared to Democrats, Republicans are also five times more likely to have a negative opinion of Swift.Experts caution that it is exceedingly difficult to ever pinpoint what makes someone choose one candidate over another. David James Jackson, a Bowling Green State University professor who has studied the effect of celebrity endorsements, was skeptical of the idea that Swift could flip Republicans for Biden.“If the policy position is already popular among the group that I’m surveying, the celebrity endorsement makes it more popular. If it’s unpopular, it makes it less unpopular, but it doesn’t actually make it popular,” Jackson said. But, he added: “Are American elections really about persuasion any more?”View image in fullscreenJackson continued: “If in fact it turns out to be a Biden-Trump rematch, how many people really haven’t formed an opinion about either of those two?”Despite Swift’s relative lack of popularity among Republicans, the rightwing attacks on her may still backfire, according to Jasmine Amussen, a 34-year-old librarian who lives in Georgia.“I really don’t think that they understand that when they’re attacking Taylor Swift, they are actually talking about the millions of millennial women – mostly white – [in her fanbase]. But they’re attacking their own daughters,” Amussen said of Republicans. “I think they’re so confused as to how this 34-year-old woman is a billionaire, is unmarried. They just can’t see past that to the underlying source of her power, which is the people who love her.”Trump pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” about 11,000 votes when he wanted to win the state in the 2020 election, as Amussen pointed out. The margins of the 2024 elections could be equally small, and a Swift endorsement could make the difference in turnout.“She can find 11,000 people to go vote when they didn’t before or vote when they hadn’t in a long time,” Amussen said. “All it takes is a couple hundred women who were not interested before seeing these much older – gross, honestly – men talk about someone they respect and admire in that way.”‘It will affect young people’Nearly 500 people responded to a Guardian survey about their thoughts on Swift’s political influence. Asked whether a Swift endorsement could influence their vote, most respondents said no. They frequently said that they already agreed with Swift’s suspected liberal politics or that they were not swayed by celebrity endorsements.But respondents often said that other voters may be more susceptible. “I’m not influenced by her, but my kids’ generation is,” one person from Massachusetts wrote. “I’m much too well informed,” someone from Colorado added. “But it WILL affect young people.”This kind of attitude is possibly an example of what Desirée Schmuck called “the third person” effect.“People always think that there’s a stronger impact on others than on themselves,” said Schmuck, a professor from the University of Vienna who has studied how parasocial relationships influence youth political behavior.“We see that in interviews, they do agree that influencers have changed their behavior, not necessarily voting behavior, but rather what they buy or what they boycott, for instance, for political reasons,” Schmuck said. “With voting, like with all behavior, there’s not enough introspection to really know what was it in the end that caused you to do something. I don’t think people want to pin it down to one factor, because they don’t want to be that simple.”The responses to the Guardian’s survey, although extensive, by no means constitute a representative or scientific study. The survey design would probably draw in people who already have strong opinions about Swift, whether negative or positive. (A surprising number of people took the time to fill out a totally voluntary survey only to insist they had no thoughts on Swift. “Do not care about her or her opinions,” one 84-year-old from Georgia wrote.)Still, some academic studies have indeed uncovered a connection between celebrity endorsements and voter activity. A study that Schmuck worked on found that a German influencer’s efforts to associate the climate crisis with the European Union elections – “a boring election for young people”, Schmuck said – was linked to a boost in youth voter turnout. Another study, which examined Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama before the 2008 presidential primary, uncovered that Winfrey’s support led to 1m extra votes for Obama.Some people in the Guardian survey did say that Swift’s opinions may influence their behavior, if not their vote.“If she came up and she said, ‘Here’s the guy running against Marsha Blackburn and I think we should really support this person,’ I would cut that person a check,” said Michael Dee, who works in investment banking in Dallas, Texas, and is deeply involved in politics. He knows he’s voting for Biden but, he said, “Taylor can highlight some candidates to help them raise money and I think that would be … a very good thing.”Ultimately, complicating every calculation about Swift and her endorsement’s power is the singularity of her status. Arguably, the last time musicians commanded this much attention, they were the Beatles, they were men, and there were four of them.The Beatles were also only a band for less than a decade, while Swift has been in the public eye for almost two. Many Americans started to form emotional ties to her long before they could vote.“I’ve never seen a potential endorsement be so anticipated as this one,” Jackson said. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      US supreme court hearing focuses on Trump’s eligibility for 2024 election

      by

      The US supreme court will hear oral arguments on Thursday morning in the high-stakes case that will probably determine whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for president this year.The case, Donald J Trump v Norma Anderson et al, came about after six Colorado voters filed a lawsuit last year alleging Trump was ineligible to run for president under a little-used provision of the constitution’s 14th amendment. The provision says that any member of Congress or officer of the United States who takes an oath to defend the constitution and then subsequently engages in insurrection is barred from holding office. The ban can only be overridden by a two-thirds vote by both chambers of Congress.Trump’s conduct during the January 6 Capitol attack disqualifies him from holding federal office, the Colorado voters claimed in their suit, filed last year in state court. After a five-day trial, a judge found Trump had engaged in insurrection, but was not an “officer of the United States” and declined to remove him from the ballot. In a 4-3 decision in December, the Colorado supreme court reversed that ruling and barred him from the ballot. The supreme court agreed to hear the case in January.While there have been several suits seeking to remove Trump from the ballot, only Colorado and Maine have done so thus far. A Maine judge last month ordered the secretary of state there to hold off on excluding Trump until the US supreme court issued a decision.A decision upholding the Colorado supreme court’s ruling would not automatically remove Trump from the ballot across the country. While some states have rebuffed efforts to remove Trump from the primary ballot, a supreme court saying Trump can be disqualified would probably set off a flurry of fast challenges in state courts and other tribunals to disqualify him from the ballot in the general election.It’s generally believed that Trump has the upper hand at the court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority and Trump nominated three of the justices. Still, experts say there is a high degree of uncertainty over what exactly the court will do because it has chosen not to limit the scope of arguments before it and the issues are so unprecedented.In their briefing to the supreme court, Trump’s lawyers have claimed there will be “chaos and bedlam” in the US if a leading presidential candidate is blocked from the ballot. They gave an array of arguments to the justices for why he should not be disqualified, including that the word “officer” does not apply to the president and that he did not engage in insurrection.“In our system of ‘government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people’, the American people – not courts or election officials – should choose the next President of the United States,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “The Colorado voters, backed by the left-leaning non-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), argue that it is absurd to claim the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency and that it would be a danger to democracy to allow him to hold office again.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Section 3 is designed precisely to avoid giving oath-breaking insurrectionists like Trump the power to unleash such mayhem again,” they write. “Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law.”There is no legal precedent for the case – the justices will be wrestling with the key issues in the case, including whether Trump committed insurrection on January 6 for the first time. The 14th amendment was enacted after the civil war to bar former Confederates from holding office and has never been used to bar a presidential candidate. In 2022, the amendment was used to remove a New Mexico county commissioner from office, the first time it had been used that way in a century.The case marks the court’s most direct intervention in a presidential election since its controversial decision in Bush v Gore in 2000. Seeking to preserve its reputation as an apolitical body, the court is usually hesitant to get involved in heated political disputes, but the arrival of the Trump case makes the court’s intervention in the most controversial of political cases unavoidable. It comes as public confidence in the court continues to decline amid a series of ethics scandals and politically charged decisions. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Republicans block bipartisan bill on border and Ukraine-Israel aid – live

      by

      The bipartisan bill combining an overhaul of US immigration policy and security measures at the US-Mexico border with nearly $100bn in foreign aid on Wednesday has failed to garner enough votes to move forward in the US Senate, although voting continued.More details as they happen. There are already 49 No votes. Sixty Yes votes in the 100-strong chamber are needed to pass bills.Frustration as GOP rejects a bipartisan border compromise, only to demand another If you’re just catching up on today’s senate Republican vote to reject a bipartisan border deal, followed by GOP demands that amendments with border provisions be allowed for a standalone foreign military aid bill, here are some perspectives:And from a bit earlier:Still waiting on a senate vote on $95bn foreign aid packageThis is Lois Beckett, picking up our live politics coverage from Los Angeles.We are still waiting on a vote to see whether the senate will proceed with debate over a proposed $95b military assistance bill for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.Some details on the current conversations among Republican senators from Punchbowl News and HuffPost:The focus will shift to the US supreme court tomorrow, where justices will consider a case challenging Donald Trump’s ability to appear on presidential ballots, after advocacy groups argued his involvement in the January 6 insurrection should disqualify him. Here’s the Guardian’s Rachel Leingang with more on those efforts:A US supreme court case that could remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot is the culmination of several years of work by left-leaning watchdog groups to reinvigorate the 14th amendment and its power.A Colorado case that found Trump couldn’t run for re-election there was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), though other groups and individuals have filed lawsuits and petitions in many states trying to remove Trump under the 14th amendment’s third clause. The clause says that people who were in office and participated in an insurrection against the US can’t hold office again.Some of the challenges have gone through the courts, while others have appealed directly to elections officials in charge of placing candidates on the ballot. Colorado was the first ruling to decide against Trump, so it is headed to the supreme court at the former president’s behest. Because of how consequential and rare the issue is, it was expected that the high court would eventually be the arbiter of how the clause applied in the modern era.The Senate is now voting on whether to begin debate on the $95b military assistance bill for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.That vote needs only a simple majority to succeed, but the story doesn’t end there. Fox News reports that Democrats want the measure to pass quickly, but, as with most legislation in the Senate, will need at least nine Republican votes to do that. The GOP is demanding that majority leader Chuck Schumer allow amendments be made to the bill – including some measures dealing with immigration, even after the party just a few minutes ago voted down a bill to make major changes to how the US deals with migrants and asylum seekers:As we wait to find out if Republicans will vote to provide military aid to Ukraine and Israel without hardline border policies, Punchbowl News reports that a key GOP lawmaker is warning that approving the bill could hurt the party’s chances in the November elections.That’s the argument made in a party strategy meeting by senator Steve Daines of Montana, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is tasked with winning the party seats in Congress’s upper chamber:Republicans are tipped to retake control of the Senate in November. For Democrats to maintain their one-seat majority, Joe Biden would have to win re-election, and the party would have to win two of the three seats they are defending representing Ohio, West Virginia and Montana – all red states. That’s assuming their lawmakers in safer seats are re-elected, and the Democrats fail to defeat Republican senators representing Texas, Florida, or any other red state.The bipartisan bill combining an overhaul of US immigration policy and security measures at the US-Mexico border with nearly $100bn in foreign aid on Wednesday has failed to garner enough votes to move forward in the US Senate, although voting continued.More details as they happen. There are already 49 No votes. Sixty Yes votes in the 100-strong chamber are needed to pass bills.The White House is focused on getting a Ukraine aid package through the US Congress, the White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said on Wednesday, adding there was no “plan B”, Reuters reports.
      We believe we still can and will deliver aid for Ukraine,” Sullivan told reporters during a joint press conference with the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg.
      Stoltenberg said it was vital Congress agreed on continued support for Ukraine in the near future.Stoltenberg said there was no imminent threat to any Nato ally, but added:
      We must sustain our support and that is a responsibility for all allies.”
      The US Senate is currently voting on the bipartisan border and foreign aid bill that a group of lawmakers has been working on for months and unveiled on Sunday. But the bill appears doomed, despite Republicans having insisted on immigration reform to tighten security at the US-Mexico border. Legislation needs 60 votes to pass the 100-member Senate, where Democrats hold a wafter-thin majority, so GOP support is needed to pass bills.Arizona independent US senator Kyrsten Sinema just told the chamber that the Republican abandonment of efforts to pass immigration reform legislation was “shameful”.Sinema (who switched from the Democratic party to become an independent not long after the midterm elections in 2022, when Republicans won control of the House), said that many Republican senators may just want to ignore a bill involving tightening border security, but Arizona could not afford that as it is dealing with the increase in migration every day.Republican senator James Lankford of Oklahoma spoke on the floor of the Senate moments ago to say that Americans were telling Congress to “do something” about the increase in migration at the US-Mexico border.“We have to decide if we are going to do that or not, if we are going to do nothing, or do something,” he said.He said the bill that looks doomed is “a bill put together by a bipartisan effort – welcome to the US Senate”.Lankford worked across the aisle with Democrats Patty Murray and Chris Murphy and independent senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona to prepare the complex bill that implements immigration reforms, toughens the US-Mexico border, and funds more aid for Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Indo-Pacific region such as Taiwan. At almost 400 pages, he said it took months of complicated work.But he said he had Republican colleagues who believed lies they read on social media rather than the text of the bill itself. One unnamed fellow GOPer told him: “If you are trying to move a bill that solves the border crisis during the election, I will do everything to destroy you,” Lankford said. And they have done so, he said, by signaling they would not support a bill Republicans had said was sorely needed.Washington state’s Democratic senator Patty Murray is on the floor of the US Senate now, lambasting Republicans who are obstructing the border and war aid spending legislation, and thanking her Republican fellow senator, James Lankford, of Oklahoma, who just spoke passionately.Murray talked of Ukraine’s defense against Russian president Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine and Israel’s offensive against Hamas, and the need for more US funds for those allies, and said: “Today is a critical vote. Today is a critical day to decide.” She asked if senators would keep their word when they negotiate with each other.Both she and Lankford are lamenting the fact that legislation in front of the Senate to implement border reforms and boost funds for Ukraine and Israel is on the brink.“And lets not forget there is the [US-Mexico] border,” she said. “The site of so many Republican photo ops.”“That’s the moment we are in, by voting it down, Republicans will be telling our allies our word cannot be trusted, telling dictators like Putin that our threats are not serious,” she said.“And telling the American people they do not want to solve the crisis at the border, they want to campaign on it – you do not let a fire burn so that Donald Trump can campaign on the ashes,” Murray said.Hours after the House descended into farce yesterday evening when Republicans failed to impeach the homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, and blocked legislation to send military aid to Israel, the Senate is taking a crack at approving a complex bill to tighten immigration policy while assisting both Israel and Ukraine. If that legislation does not pass, and there’s plenty of reason to believe it will not, since Republicans say they no longer like the border security changes, the Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, said they’ll vote on a bill that solely contains funds for Kyiv, and for the counterattack against Hamas. Will that attract the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate, and, if it does, will it make through the House, where Ukraine foes are plenty? We’ll find out soon enough.Here’s what else is going on today:
      Joe Biden says he will support the Israel-Ukraine aid bill, even if it does not include immigration policy changes.
      The Mayorkas impeachment will die in the Senate, predicted Oklahoma’s Republican senator James Lankford, who negotiated the ill-fated immigration policy bill.
      Nikki Haley had a terrible night in Nevada, where she came in second in the primaries to “none of these candidates”. This morning, she blamed the Republican party’s problems on Donald Trump, who appears on course to win its presidential nomination.
      The big question looming over the Senate is: will either version of the Israel-Ukraine aid bill, one of which contains immigration policy changes, the other which does not, receive enough votes to pass?To succeed, either legislation will need to receive 60 votes, meaning at least some Republicans will have to sign on.Punchbowl News reports that John Thune, the number-two Republican in the Senate, was mum about how his lawmakers were feeling:Independent senator Bernie Sanders says he will oppose the legislation to provide military aid to Israel, citing the widespread destruction and civilian casualties caused by its invasion of Gaza.“Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas’s terrorism, but it does not have the right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people. Since this war began over 27,000 Palestinians have been killed and 67,000 wounded – two-thirds of whom are women and children. Over 1.7 million people have been driven from their homes and have no idea as to where they will be in the future. Almost 70% of the housing units in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged,” the Vermont lawmaker said.“This bill provides $10bn dollars more in US military aid for the Netanyahu government to continue its horrific war against the Palestinian people. That is unconscionable. That is why I will be voting NO.”Joe Biden will sign legislation to send new military aid to Ukraine and Israel, even if it does not contain policy changes intended to stop migrants from crossing the southern border, the White House announced.Here’s what spokesman Andrew Bates had to say:
      We support this bill which would protect America’s national security interests by stopping Putin’s onslaught in Ukraine before he turns to other countries, helping Israel defend itself against Hamas terrorists and delivering live-saving humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinian civilians. Even if some congressional Republicans’ commitment to border security hinges on politics, President Biden’s does not. We must still have reforms and more resources to secure the border. These priorities all have strong bipartisan support across the country.
      Whether the Senate manages to pass any legislation today is a different matter.The Senate will this afternoon take two votes on approving aid to Israel and Ukraine, one on a bill that will include hardline immigration policies, and one without, the chamber’s Democratic leader Chuck Schumer announced.“I have scheduled a vote on the supplemental that includes strong bipartisan border reforms that Republicans have demanded for months,” Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor. He went on:
      Now, if Republicans blocked this national security package with border legislation that they demanded later today, I will give them the opportunity to move forward with the package without border reforms. This package will otherwise be largely the same. It will have strong funding for Ukraine, funding for Israel, help for innocent civilians in Gaza and funding to the Indo Pacific. The legislation on the floor today is one of the most important security packages the Senate has considered in a very long time. So the onus is on Senate Republicans to finally take yes for an answer.
      Last year, Republicans blocked Senate passage of a bill to provide aid to Israel and Ukraine, demanding that the Democrats agree to pass a law to stem the flow of migrants across the US border with Mexico. But after Joe Biden and his allies announced their support this week for hardline policies intended to do that, the GOP said they were no longer interested – reportedly because Donald Trump pressured them to do so.It’s unclear how Senate Republicans will vote today. In his speech, Schumer warned the party that they would be doing Trump’s bidding and harming national security if they block both pieces of legislation.“It would be an embarrassment for our country, an absolute nightmare for the Republican party if they reject national security funding twice in one day. Today is the day for Republicans to do the right thing when it comes to our national security,” Schumer said.“Why are the Republicans doing all this? Why have they backed off on border when they know it’s the right thing to do? Two words, Donald Trump.” More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We were a voice in the wilderness’: the groups fighting to keep Trump off the ballot

      by

      A US supreme court case that could remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot is the culmination of several years of work by left-leaning watchdog groups to reinvigorate the 14th amendment and its power.A Colorado case that found Trump couldn’t run for re-election there was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), though other groups and individuals have filed lawsuits and petitions in many states trying to remove Trump under the 14th amendment’s third clause. The clause says that people who were in office and participated in an insurrection against the US can’t hold office again.Some of the challenges have gone through the courts, while others have appealed directly to elections officials in charge of placing candidates on the ballot. Colorado was the first ruling to decide against Trump, so it is headed to the supreme court at the former president’s behest. Because of how consequential and rare the issue is, it was expected that the high court would eventually be the arbiter of how the clause applied in the modern era.Crew, a non-profit that has focused in part on Trump corruption issues since he took office, researched the 14th amendment and found it was “really built for this moment”, said Noah Bookbinder, the organization’s president. The group first brought a test case against a local elected official in New Mexico who participated in the January 6 insurrection. Couy Griffin, then a county commissioner in Otero county, New Mexico, was removed from office for violating the 14th amendment.“We would have ideally liked to bring a number more of those kinds of cases to really establish more of a track record and some more precedent,” Bookbinder said. “Donald Trump sort of forced our hand because this was the person who had really, really landed this attack on a democracy.”Crew challenged Trump just in Colorado, which became the first state to rule Trump ineligible, but it isn’t the only group working on 14th amendment cases. Another non-profit has been working on keeping Trump off the ballot for several years.Free Speech for People, an advocacy non-profit founded in the wake of the Citizens United ruling in 2010, focused on Trump corruption cases soon after the former president took office. It was among the first groups to call for Trump’s impeachment.In 2021, Free Speech for People wrote letters to secretaries of state around the country alerting them to the 14th amendment and how it would affect Trump if he ran again. In 2022, Free Speech for People challenged several members of Congress, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Madison Cawthorn, on 14th amendment grounds, though the cases weren’t successful at preventing them from running. Once Trump was officially a candidate, the group filed lawsuits challenging his eligibility in Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Illinois and Massachusetts.“Back in the middle of 2021, we were kind of a voice in the wilderness,” said Ben Clements, the board chair and senior legal adviser to Free Speech For People. “There wasn’t a lot of support for this view, and that’s obviously changed a lot.”The concept received a boost from two conservative law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, who wrote a law review article in August 2023 arguing that Trump could not hold office again based on their reading of the constitution.Aside from the two major groups bringing cases, one man has filed lawsuits in various states without legal representation. John Anthony Castro, a Texas Republican and frequent candidate for various offices who says he is also running for president, has challenged Trump’s eligibility in the most states, with no success. Castro, a tax-return preparer, was recently indicted himself for filing false tax returns.And individual voters or groups of voters have challenged Trump’s eligibility in their states as well. In Maine, voters brought their challenge to the secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, who decided Trump should not be placed on the ballot there. Maine’s challenge is on hold pending the outcome of the supreme court case.Crew and Free Speech for People hope the supreme court gives a thorough ruling on all facets of the case to provide legitimacy for the court’s decision and indicate what should happen next. If Trump is removed from the ballot, challenges could pop up in many more states against the ex-president and others.“We really think as a legal and factual matter that the courts have to get into the meat of it,” Bookbinder, of Crew, said. “But we also think that that is better for the country for the court to give some clarity on the core issues.” More