Hillary Clinton

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares152 Views

    Trump to talk to Putin on Monday about Ukraine ceasefire proposal and trade

    by

    Donald Trump has said that he will speak to both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an effort to stop what he called the “bloodbath” war in Ukraine, in a barrage of new social media posts that included baseless conspiracy theories and a demand that Walmart not raise prices for customers because of tariffs he has imposed.Trump, posting on his Truth Social account on Saturday, wrote that he will speak to Putin on Monday morning. “THE SUBJECTS OF THE CALL WILL BE, STOPPING THE ‘BLOODBATH’ THAT IS KILLING, ON AVERAGE, MORE THAN 5000 RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS A WEEK, AND TRADE,” Trump wrote, in his customary all-capitalized prose.Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed to a state-run Russian news agency that preparations were under way for a call between the US and Russian presidents.Trump’s call with the Russian president will be followed by a separate conversation with Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s leader, and Nato leaders as part of the US effort to end the war that has raged since the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022. “HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE A PRODUCTIVE DAY, A CEASEFIRE WILL TAKE PLACE, AND THIS VERY VIOLENT WAR, A WAR THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED, WILL END,” Trump wrote.Russia and Ukraine have just concluded mostly fruitless talks, the first of their kind since the start of the war, in Istanbul. Ukraine said it was ready for a ceasefire but was faced by “unacceptable” demands from Russia, which attempted to fully invade its neighbor and has occupied the eastern flank of the country.It’s unclear what kind of progress Trump will be able to spur, if any, in the peace process. The US president has been heavily critical of Ukraine, freezing military aid and having an infamous argument with Zelenskyy at the White House in full view of the media, before appearing to soften after a face-to-face conversation at the funeral of Pope Francis in the Vatican.Trump had offered to travel to Turkey for the talks after his trip to the Middle East last week if Putin would also attend, and urged Zelenskyy to go, but Putin sent a team of low-level negotiators instead.Trump’s ire with Ukraine’s president does not seem to have abated, however, with the president telling Fox News on Friday he is upset with what the country has done with the aid handed to it by the US. “What bothered me, I hated to see the way it was, you know, excuse me, pissed away,” he said.“I think he’s the greatest salesman in the world. Far better than me,” Trump said of the Ukrainian president. “Where is all this money going?”In a social media post of his own, Zelenskyy mourned the death of nine civilians in “a Russian drone strike on an ordinary passenger bus”. He added: “Yesterday, as on any other day of this war, there was an opportunity to cease fire. Ukraine has long been offering this – a full and unconditional ceasefire in order to save lives. Russia retains nothing but the ability to continue killing.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMarco Rubio, the US secretary of state, reported on social media that he had spoken to his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, and told him that “the death and destruction must stop”. Rubio added on X, formerly Twitter, that the US “has presented a strong peace plan and we welcome the Prisoner of War exchange agreement reached in Istanbul. Let’s not miss this huge opportunity. The time for ending this war is now.”In a separate Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump complained about the impact of tariffs he has imposed, after Walmart, among other retailers, warned it will have to raise prices for Americans in response.“Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain,” Trump posted, adding that the company should “‘EAT THE TARIFFS,’ and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!”A further post from Trump featured a video of an evidence-free conspiracy theory that not only implied that Bill and Hillary Clinton were guilty of murder but also that Seth Rich, a Democratic staffer, was the source of Clinton campaign emails released by WikiLeaks in 2016. (Special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian government hackers for hacking the email accounts of people close to Clinton in 2016 and delivering the hacked emails to WikiLeaks.) Rich was murdered in 2016 and his death provoked a slew of lies and wild conspiracy theories, fueled by Trump and other sources. Rich’s family reached a confidential settlement with Fox News in 2020 over the peddling of these lies. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge temporarily blocks Trump order punishing law firm tied to Clinton

      by

      A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a vast portion of Donald Trump’s executive order that threatened to hurt a major law firm from taking effect, ruling the president used national security concerns as a pretext to punish the firm Perkins Coie for once working with Hillary Clinton.The executive order Trump issued last week stripped security clearances from Perkins Coie lawyers, mandated the termination of any contracts and barred federal government employees from engaging with its attorneys or allowing them access to government buildings.Trump said in the executive order he had deemed Perkins Coie a national security risk principally because it hired Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign in 2016, which produced the “dossier” that pushed discredited claims about Trump’s connections to Russia.The US district judge Beryl Howell rejected Trump’s contentions and entered a temporary restraining order on Wednesday that halted most of the executive order. The restraining order did not apply to the revocation of clearances, since Perkins Coie had not sought that in their request.“It sends little chills down my spine,” Howell said of Trump using national security grounds to punish Perkins Coie, comparing the executive order to a “bill of attainder” – a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a trial, and is expressly barred by the US constitution.The justice department had argued that Perkins Coie’s lawsuit was deficient because the executive order had not caused any harm to them – for instance, none of its lawyers had been stopped from entering a federal government building – and that the concerns were speculative.The department also suggested that the claim by Perkins Coie that they had lost clients as a result of the executive order could not be verified because the clients might have changed law firm for any number of reasons.Howell rejected both of those contentions, accepting a 20-page declaration by a partner at Perkins Coie that one justice department lawyer had already declined to meet with him on account of the executive order, and that some clients had expressly cited the order in dropping Perkins Coie.She also sided with Perkins Coie that financial loss counted as irreparable harm in this case – it usually does not – since the continued loss of clients in such a way threatened the very existence of the law firm, given it interacts with the federal government in the majority of its cases.The justice department accurately argued that even if Howell thought the executive order was unwise or otherwise disagreed with its motivations, the power to strip clearances and deem entities a national security threat was part of the president’s powers, and Trump did not need to provide a justification.“It is fundamentally the president’s prerogative, not reviewable by the courts, whether somebody is trustworthy with the nation’s secrets. The president has made that finding here and everything else in the executive order … flow from that determination,” said Chad Mizelle, the justice department’s chief of staff, who, in an unusual move, argued the case before Howell.But Howell took issue with the claim that Perkins Coie was a national security risk purely because Trump viewed the contents of the Fusion GPS dossier, prepared by a former British spy, as entirely false, and noted that the two lawyers involved with the Clinton campaign left the firm years ago.She also said the executive order appeared punitive because Trump had previously failed in suing Perkins Coie in his personal capacity, saying: “This ground is a personal grievance that president Trump has already attempted to pursue in a personal lawsuit that was dismissed in its entirety by a court in the southern district of New York.”“To the extent that this executive order appears to be an instance of president Trump using taxpayer dollars in government resources,” Howell said, “to pursue what is a wholly personal vendetta, advancing such political payback is not something which the government has a cognizable interest.”The roughly three-hour hearing in federal district court in Washington DC came a day after Perkins Coie requested a temporary restraining order on the advice of Williams and Connolly, another elite firm in the nation’s capital known for taking cases against government overreach.Perkins Coie had initially reached out to the firm Quinn Emanuel, which has previously represented people in Trump’s orbit, including Elon Musk, the Trump Organization itself, and New York mayor Eric Adams, whose corruption charges were dropped by the justice department last month.But Quinn Emanuel declined to take Perkins Coie as a client, as its top partners decided not to become involved in a politically-sensitive issue that could make themselves a target by association just as they have been on the rise as a power center in Washington DC.While other law firms have discussed whether to file amicus briefs or declarations supporting Perkins Coie, the firm was ultimately taken on by Williams and Connolly. They advised Perkins Coie to ask for an emergency hearing and temporary restraining order, both of which Howell granted. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      What will it take for a former president to speak out against Trump?

      by

      The stadium announcer called on the crowd to give a warm welcome to “a very special guest”. A cheer went up as basketball fans realised that Barack Obama was in their midst. The former US president rose to his feet, smiled and waved before watching the Los Angeles Clippers take on the Detroit Pistons on Wednesday night.It was a jarringly normal scene at a profoundly abnormal time. The previous evening, Donald Trump had delivered the longest-ever presidential address to Congress, a dark, divisive tirade strewn with lies and insults – he called Joe Biden the “worst president in American history” and the senator Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas”.Yet Biden did not respond and Obama remained silent. Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush were similarly mute. Six weeks into a Trump second term that has shattered democratic norms and ruptured diplomatic alliances, it remains unclear what – if anything – might prompt the former presidents to speak out.Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said: “Let’s look only at Clinton and Obama: it’s almost as though they’ve washed their hands of it.View image in fullscreen“I’ve been calling them Pontius and Pilate,” he said, referring to the Roman governor who allowed Jesus to be crucified. “You can understand why because when you challenge Trump, he goes after you and never lets up. It’s hell every single day, multiple times a day.”Trump’s barnstorming first six weeks in office have left millions of Americans reeling. He has pardoned January 6 insurrectionists, punished journalists, imposed tariffs, sided with Russia over Ukraine, expanded presidential power and unleashed the tech billionaire Elon Musk to slash the federal government. Critics say it is time to break the emergency glass.Struggling to find a coherent strategy, Democrats used delaying tactics to stall Trump’s cabinet nominees and heckled his address to Congress. Grassroots activists have expressed their anger and fear at town halls while demanding more direct action. Notably, former senior government officials have gone public with their concerns.Last month, a group of five former treasury secretaries wrote a joint essay for the New York Times warning that the nation’s payment system was under attack by political actors from Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency”, or Doge.Then, five former defence secretaries signed a joint letter calling on Congress to hold immediate hearings on Trump’s recent firings of the chair of the joint chiefs of staff and several other senior military leaders.The presidents’ club has its own etiquette, however. The five men have gathered twice recently, first at the Washington national cathedral for Jimmy Carter’s state funeral, where Obama and Trump were seen conversing and even sharing a joke. Then, they reunited at Trump’s inauguration, where Biden was forced to listen to his presidency being described as “a horrible betrayal”.Since then, all the ex-presidents have resisted the temptation to stage a significant intervention. Sabato believes that one factor is an awareness that Trump – and his vituperative supporters – would be sure to strike back, including at family members such as Hillary Clinton, a former first lady and secretary of state who ran against Trump in the 2016 election.“Bill Clinton is close to 80 and he’s been attacked a lot in his lifetime,” Sabato said. “I’m not sure he wants any more of it and then there’s Hillary – he has to realise that Trump would go after her, too. With Obama, the more I think about it, the more I believe that little friendly chat at Jimmy Carter’s funeral either was part of Obama’s plan or, once it happened, he decided to capitalise on it and keep his mouth shut so that he wouldn’t be the target again.”He added: “It’s unpleasant. Trump unleashes this army of assholes and we’ve all experienced them on Twitter and in other ways. I get it. But I think they have an obligation to do more.”View image in fullscreenCertainly the former presidents’ feeds on the X social media platform do not convey a sense of a nation in crisis. Bill Clinton has posted tributes to political figures who died in recent weeks, although Hillary Clinton has been more combative – for example, by responding to the suspension of offensive cyber operations against Russia with sarcasm: “Wouldn’t want to hurt Putin’s feelings.”Bush does not have an X account, although his Texas-based presidential centre this week posted an article headlined, “America First should not put Russia second”, condemning Trump and JD Vance for attacking Volodymyr Zelenskyy.Obama’s X account, which has more than 130 million followers, did post a New York Times article by Samantha Power, former administrator of USAid, decrying Trump’s cuts to the international development agency. But it then offered congratulations to the Philadelphia Eagles on their Super Bowl win and a Valentine’s Day message to his wife, Michelle, who did not accompany him to Carter’s funeral, the inauguration or Wednesday’s basketball game in California.Biden has kept a low profile since flying out of Washington on 20 January apart from signing with a Los Angeles talent agency. His X feed includes congratulations to the new Democratic National Committee chair, Ken Martin, reactions to the release of Hamas hostages, a Valentine’s message to wife Jill, reflections on Black History Month, a picture of his beloved Amtrak train service and a tribute to the late representative Sylvester Turner.It is not hard to imagine how Biden must have seethed as Trump bullied and berated Zelenskyy in the Oval Office last week and threatened to tear up the 80-year transatlantic alliance that Biden had striven to renew. Yet he offered no public reaction.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDavid Litt, an author and former Obama speechwriter, said: “There’s the question of, is this protocol or is this patience. Protocol is pretty clearly out the window at this point, including Trump spending a good chunk of his address to Congress bashing Joe Biden. That is just not done and yet it’s done now.“Certainly Trump was not shy about criticising the current administration when he was an ex-president. I suspect that in 2029, if he is still physically able to tweet what he thinks about whoever’s in office, he will do so.”View image in fullscreenThe death of George HW Bush in 2018 left his son, George W Bush, as the only living Republican president apart from Trump himself, raising the question of when Bush could join Clinton, Obama and Biden in a powerfully symbolic show of bipartisanship.Litt added: “You get one moment when that has the greatest impact so you want to pick that moment carefully. Trump going further in selling out our allies and also forging a new alliance with Putin and Russia to me sounds like the kind of thing that might cross a line where a bipartisan group of former presidents would say this isn’t right.”There is traditionally reluctance among presidents to criticise a successor, especially during the opening honeymoon period. However, history is littered with exceptions to the rule.Theodore Roosevelt lambasted William Taft in a series of speeches, even though Roosevelt had promoted Taft as his successor in 1909. Carter eviscerated Ronald Reagan, who beat him in 1980, for sending arms to Iran in hopes that Americans held captive in Lebanon would be released.Clinton had a dig at his successor, George W Bush, for failing to achieve democratic progress in Iraq, saying in a 2007 interview: “The point is, that there is no military victory here.” Bush, in turn, reportedly told a closed-door meeting in 2015 that Obama’s decision to lift sanctions on Iran was a mistake.Obama denounced his successor Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 as an “absolute chaotic disaster” during a conversation with ex-members of his administration. He also warned that the “rule of law is at risk” under the 45th president.But none of it compared with Trump’s constant and vicious attacks on Biden during the Democrat’s four years in the White House. Trump mocked his successor as “Crooked Joe” and “Sleepy Joe” and claimed that he had caused “more damage than the last 10 worst presidents combined”.Whether a return of fire from Biden, who left office with an approval rating in the 30s and could be accused of being a sore loser, would benefit his party at this moment is questionable. Kurt Bardella, a Democratic strategist, said: “The answer for Democrats is not backwards. It’s not in the past. It’s got to be somewhere forward-looking and that’s what they’ve got to figure out here.”Bardella said of the former presidents: “If I were them, I would get behind someone right now and say this is the guy or girl that I believe in. Stop playing the: ‘I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes or prematurely step out of line.’ We don’t have time for that crap. Get in the game or don’t ever talk again. If you don’t have anything to say now, while this is going before our very eyes, I don’t want to hear from you ever again.” More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘What a circus’: eligible US voters on why they didn’t vote in the 2024 presidential election

      by

      The 2024 US presidential election had been widely characterized as one of the most consequential political contests in recent US history. Although turnout was high for a presidential election – almost matching the levels of 2020 – it is estimated that close to 90 million Americans, roughly 36% of the eligible voting age population, did not vote. This number is greater than the number of people who voted for either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.More than a month on from polling day, eligible US voters from across the country as well as other parts of the world got in touch with the Guardian to share why they did not vote.Scores of people said they had not turned out as they felt their vote would not matter because of the electoral college system, since they lived in a safely blue or red state. This included a number of people who nonetheless had voted in the 2020 and 2016 elections.While various previous Democratic voters said they had abstained this time due to the Harris campaign’s stance on Israel or for other policy reasons, a number of people in this camp said they would have voted for the vice-president had they lived in a swing state.“I’m not in a swing state, and because of the electoral college my vote doesn’t count. I could have voted 500,000 times and it would not have changed the outcome,” said one such voter, a 60-year-old software developer with Latino heritage from Boston.Having voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, he voted in 2020 but left the presidential slot blank “as a Quixotic protest against the electoral college and my preference for Bernie Sanders”, he said.He said he felt “heartbroken” over Joe Biden and Harris’s stance on Gaza. “If I were in a swing state I would always vote for Dems, though,” he added, echoing several others.A 40-year-old carpenter from Idaho who voted in the previous two elections because he then lived in the swing state of Arizona – giving his vote to Clinton and Biden – also said he did not vote this time because he felt his vote did not matter due to the electoral college system.“I didn’t find Harris compelling, just more of the same. Politicians from both parties seem unwilling to make the kind of fundamental economic and political changes that would make a meaningful difference for all people, namely a move towards a more democratic socialist system. That being said if we didn’t have the electoral college I probably would have voted for Harris,” he said.A large number of people said they abstained because no candidate represented working- or middle-class interests and people such as themselves, including several people who voted in the previous two elections but did not vote this time.Some people from swing states said they did not vote because both parties were too similar and did not address concerns of the common voter, among them John, a 29-year-old financial professional from Pennsylvania who is a registered independent, but voted for Clinton and Biden in the previous two elections.“What is the point [of voting]?,” he asked. “Aside from a handful of weaponized issues, the parties are nearly identical. They both hate the poor and serve only their donors.”A number of former Trump and Biden voters said they had not voted in this election as they disliked both candidates, among them Jared Wagner, a 34-year-old from Indiana who works in the trucking industry and said he had voted for Trump in 2016 but had abstained in both the 2020 and 2024 election.“I refuse to put my name on either candidate when I know neither of them are truly the best we have to offer. We need a major overhaul to the two-party system,” he said.
      “As a man with young children I worry about what kind of country they will grow up in. It terrifies me; we deserve better.”John, a 58-year-old from West Virginia, said he had voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020, but had decided that not voting this November “felt most authentic and appropriate”.“I wasn’t apathetic about this election, I followed it closely,” he said. “But most of the candidates and issues left me cold and disinterested and seemed to be simply perpetuating the existing system, especially the status quo of authority and law and order, or rampant human development on the land.“On the presidential level, I was shocked and disgusted that the Harris campaign chose to completely ignore discussing climate change. Fundamentally, this election seemed to have very little to do with my interests and concerns.”Anne, a 65-year-old retired white woman from California, was among various people who said they had voted but not for any presidential candidate.She said she had always previously voted for the Democratic candidate, but could not bring herself to do so this time.“I did vote for all other down-ballot candidates and initiatives,” she said. “I would have voted for Harris had my vote made a difference, but I could not vote for a president who will continue the complete destruction of Gaza and annexation of the West Bank.”Various people said they did not vote for a presidential candidate in the 2024 election because they had only wanted to cast a positive vote for a candidate rather than merely an opposition one, and that neither candidate had offered a compelling vision for change.Among them was a 62-year-old professional working in process planning from Texas, who said he had voted for the Republican presidential candidate at every election between 1984 and 2016.“In 2020 I voted Libertarian as a protest vote,” he said. “This year I was so turned off by Trump’s low character, economic ignorance, disregard of our national debt, hostility to Ukraine and so on that I was trying to convince myself to vote for Harris. But her economic policy was just a grab bag of voter payoffs and she doesn’t care about the debt either.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“So I did not vote for president. I voted for Senate, congressman, and many other down ballot races. I split my ticket, too. I just no longer want to vote against anyone. I want to vote FOR someone. And none of the candidates for president wanted my vote enough.”A 35-year-old Black male voter from Portland, Oregon, who works at a gas station, said he disliked Kamala Harris but now regretted not voting for her, as he had thought Trump would lose the election.“I did not vote in 2016 or 2020 either because I did not like any of the candidates in those elections either. I last voted in 2012, for Obama,” he said.“I felt both candidates fell well short of the presidential standard, and didn’t feel I could cast a vote for either,” said a 47-year-old engineering manager and registered Republican from Texas.“VP Harris failed to demonstrate she was ethically or intellectually capable of executing the office, repeatedly failing to detail out her policies and generally running her campaign like a popularity contest – ‘collect enough celebrity endorsements, by paying them, and the masses will elect you,’” he said.Trump, he felt, “cares about the US and believes his own ideas will ‘save’ the country – but he’s a terrible human being. I don’t feel he represents a majority of Americans at all, but is more a reaction to some of the issues we face as a country.”Various people who did not vote in other recent elections either said that again this time no candidate was leftwing enough, among them 37-year-old Elly, a mother of four daughters from the midwest.“Bernie Sanders was the last candidate I was excited to vote for,” she said. “This election came down to two parties who have utterly abandoned everyday people and their problems with affordability and worries about climate change, but one party, the Republicans, were savvy enough to pretend they felt the collective pain of the common folks, whilst the Democrats mostly said ‘all is well.’ I couldn’t in good conscience support either side on the national level.”Several people who usually always voted Democrat in the past said the Harris campaign had been overly focussed on progressive identity politics for them to be able to lend it their support this election, such as Simon, a father from California in his 60s who had voted for Clinton in 2016 and for Biden in 2020 in protest against Trump, but had abstained this year due to Harris’s embracing of “trans ideology”, among other reasons.“I am not a fan of the Democrats, but I would have voted to keep Trump out of office if there was an economically literate, competent, law and order candidate who was willing to challenge the excesses of ‘woke’,” he said. “The Dems are out of touch on social issues, and have tacked too far to the left to appease a minority of progressives.“I support some policies that would be considered rightwing on immigration, but also investing in social housing, so I’m looking for candidates capable of taking difficult decisions based on rational analysis.”Leigh Crawford, a 56-year-old hedge fund manager from California, who had voted for Barack Obama in 2012, for Clinton in 2016 and for Biden in 2020, said he had abstained this time as both candidates were fiscally irresponsible in his view, because he strongly disliked Trump’s anti-immigration and pro-tariffs stance, and because Harris had been “pro-censorship” and “too tolerant of antisemitism”.Several people said they did not vote this time because of a growing disillusionment with the extreme polarization in US politics, including Chris, an architect in his 40s from Tennessee who had voted twice for Obama, and once for Trump in 2016, but had abstained in 2020 and 2024 as he had lost hope in politics.“Skip the debates, what a circus,” he said. “I’m so sick of hearing about politics.“The political system in the US is broken. Things are so polarized, there is no cooperation for the good of the people. There is just so much hate, even in everyday conversation with average people.“There is just so much of this ‘if I don’t win, I’m taking the ball and going home’ mentality. It just causes nothing to get accomplished.” More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner retrying comeback

      by

      Anthony Weiner, the former congressman who suffered one of the most spectacular falls from grace in US politics after he was embroiled in a sexting scandal that some blame for Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2016 presidential election, has formally initiated yet another attempt at a comeback.Weiner, 60, has officially registered as a candidate for a New York City council seat. The filing with the city’s campaign finance board, which was first reported by the New York Post’s Craig McCarthy, marks Weiner’s latest attempt to claw his way back into public office despite his scandal-laced past.The disgraced politician’s longstanding X account reposted news of the candidate filing on Tuesday with the comment: “Mr Moneybags over here.” The remark was an apparent ironic reference to the fact that he has so far recorded zero dollars in supporters’ donations for his campaign coffers.In recent weeks, Weiner has been dangling the possibility of an attempted return to public life in front of media outlets, including his own The Middle radio show on WABC. In a recent broadcast, he told his listeners that he still craved public service, addressing his sexual misdeeds, which culminated in him serving 18 months in prison for sexually messaging an underaged girl.He said on the show that “the things in my past, the things about my addiction, the things about my acting out, the things about my background – it’s a lot, it’s a lot. But we’re at a moment that we Democrats, we seem like we come into knife fights carrying library books all the time.”Weiner has been assailed by scandal since he crashed out of Congress in 2011 after 13 years representing New Yorkers. His downfall came amid a sexting scandal involving explicit messages sent to several women, as well as the underaged girl.He made his first comeback pitch in 2013, running for New York mayor, only to flame out again in a renewed scandal over sexual texts sent under the cover name Carlos Danger.But it was the inadvertent role that Weiner played in Clinton’s agonizing defeat when Donald Trump clinched his first presidency for which Weiner will be most remembered – unflatteringly so – by many Democrats. In 2016, federal prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into Weiner’s exchange of lewd photos with a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina.The inquiry became entangled with Clinton’s White House bid because Weiner’s then wife, Huma Abedin, was vice-chair of the Democratic nominee’s presidential campaign. In the course of the investigation into Weiner’s sexting, FBI agents found emails on his personal laptop that led them to reopen an investigation into a private email server used by Clinton.The investigation, reopened just days before the 2016 election, was rapidly concluded with no incriminating evidence found against Clinton. But the damage had been done as Trump took the decisive electoral college victory despite losing the popular vote.To this day, Weiner’s sexual misconduct is regarded by many in the Democratic party as a factor behind Clinton’s defeat – and hence Trump’s elevation to the White House, which he retook in the 5 November election against Kamala Harris after losing the 2020 race to Joe Biden.“Everyone deserves a second chance,” another candidate vying for the city council seat, Sarah Batchu, told the New Republic recently. “But this guy has had third, fourth and fifth chances.” More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Bill Clinton grapples with his past in memoir – too much, too little, too late

      by

      In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated George HW Bush, a sitting Republican president. In 1996, Clinton won re-election over Bob Dole. A former Democratic governor of Arkansas, Clinton had a flair for policy and retail politics. He felt your pain, garnering support from voters without a four-year degree and graduates alike. He played the saxophone, belting out Heartbreak Hotel on late-night TV. Redefining what it meant to be presidential, he told a studio audience he preferred briefs to boxers.He oozed charisma – and more. But his legacy remains deeply stained by allegations of predatory conduct and questionable judgment. He is one of three presidents to be impeached – in his case, for lying under oath about his extra-marital relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. Before leaving office, to avoid professional discipline, Clinton surrendered his law license.Congress twice impeached Donald Trump. His legal problems range far wider than Clinton’s. Nonetheless, there are echoes. Back in the day, Clinton and Trump golfed together, each a tabloid fixture. Clinton crossed paths with Jeffrey Epstein too.View image in fullscreenClinton’s fame outstrips his popularity. Like an old-time vaudevillian, the 42nd president, now 78, finds it hard to leave the stage. His second memoir, subtitled My Life After the White House, is a stab at image rehabilitation and relevance.Densely written, the 464-page tome is a prolonged stroll down memory lane that never quite reaches a desired destination. It is too much, too little, too late – all at once.Clinton grapples with his past. In January 1998, news broke that the president, then in his 50s, had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, a 22-year-old intern. It gave a nascent internet culture – most of it following and shaped by Matt Drudge – plenty to talk about.Newt Gingrich, the soon-to-be disgraced speaker of the House, and Ken Starr, an independent counsel turned modern-day Torquemada, did their best to bring Clinton down. Lindsey Graham, then an eager young congressman, now the senior senator from South Carolina and a key Trump ally, dutifully fanned the flames.Fast forward 30 years. In 2018, Craig Melvin of NBC asked Clinton if he apologized to Lewinsky. Clinton did not take kindly to the question. He now admits the interview “was not my finest hour”.“I live with it all the time,” he writes, reflecting on the affair. “Monica’s done a lot of good and important work over the last few years in her campaign against bullying, earning her well-deserved recognition in the United States and abroad. I wish her nothing but the best.”Lewinsky is probably unimpressed. In 2021, NBC asked her if Clinton owed her an apology. “I don’t need it,” she said. “He should wanna apologize, in the same way that I wanna apologize any chance I get to people that I’ve hurt, and my actions have hurt.”In his new book, Clinton stays silent about other women who accused him of sexual misconduct – Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick – but gingerly rehashes Trump’s Access Hollywood moment and proliferating allegations of groping. As for Epstein, the financier and sex offender who killed himself in jail in New York in 2019, and whose links to Trump are perennially discussed, Clinton pleads ignorance.“I had always thought Epstein was odd but had no inkling of the crimes he was committing,” he writes. “He hurt a lot of people, but I knew nothing about it and by the time he was first arrested in 2005, I had stopped contact with him.”Clinton adds: “I’ve never visited his island.”Clinton does acknowledge two flights, in 2002 and 2003, on Epstein’s plane, luridly known as the “Lolita Express”: “The bottom line is, even though it allowed me to visit the work of my foundation, traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward. I wish I had never met him.”In 2016, Trump beat Hillary Clinton for the White House. On the page, Bill Clinton burnishes the memory of his wife’s failed campaigns – though he is ever aware of her shortcomings. He recognizes the meaning of her Democratic primary defeat, by Barack Obama in 2008. Blaming the media, in part, Clinton implicitly acknowledges that Obama, then the junior senator from Illinois, was a better candidate than Hillary, then a former first lady and junior senator from New York.“Obama’s best decision was to start his campaign early with a full 50-state strategy, something Hillary’s campaign had to develop after she strengthened her leadership team in February,” Bill laments. “But she never really caught up.”Said differently, 2008 was a change election. Obama stood atop history. Hillary was in over her head. She was also the status quo. As for 2016, Clinton pins his wife’s loss on James Comey, the FBI director who investigated her private email use; WikiLeaks, which released Democratic emails; and Vladimir Putin, who capitalized on such scandals in order to boost Trump.Elsewhere, Clinton revisits his last-minute pardon of Marc Rich – a scandal from the last day of the presidency, 20 January 2001. Denise Rich, the fugitive financier’s ex-wife, donated $450,000 to the Clinton library and wrote to him, seeking a pardon.“I wish Denise hadn’t written to me, for her sake and mine,” Clinton writes. “I knew she had made plenty of money on her own, did not get along with her ex-husband, and didn’t know he would apply for a pardon when she gave money to the library fund.”Again, parallels to Trump are apparent. At the end of his first term, the 45th president gave get-out-of-jail-free cards to cronies and the connected. Charlie Kushner, father of Jared Kushner, was one who benefited. So did Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Steve Bannon. A robust pardon pipeline emerged with an ultimate audience of one. Trump will soon wield the pardon power again.On the whole, Bill Clinton’s latest book will be remembered for its omissions. It usually works out that way.

      Citizen is published in the US by Knopf More

    • 225 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      We can still have progress under Trump. We just need to focus on our mission | Aaron Glantz

      by

      Welcome to Fighting Back, the Guardian’s new pop-up newsletter from our opinion desk. From now until the inauguration, you will hear from big thinkers on what we can all do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. If you aren’t already a subscriber, you can sign up here.***Take a deep breath. Go on a walk. Meditate if it’s your practice. Talk with your family, friends and longtime collaborators. And then, when you are ready, sit down and write a personal mission statement rooted in an issue that’s important to you.Think about all the levers of power – local, state, federal, corporate and in the broader civil society. Sketch how each of them relate to the problem you hope to tackle. Most likely, Donald Trump and his administration will have a lot of say on this issue, but they won’t be the only players. Move forward with the intention to confront that issue, rather than attack the US president-elect, and you may find unexpected allies. By doing so, you will give yourself a chance to make a meaningful difference.
      It struck me, in 2016, that many in the media were overlooking the fact that the US had elected a real estate developer president
      As an investigative reporter, I spent the first Trump term focused on housing and economic equity. It struck me, after Trump’s surprise win over Hillary Clinton in 2016, that many in the media were overlooking the fact that the US had elected a real estate developer president – one who had been forced to settle a federal discrimination suit, at that.Housing is central to the American dream. It is nearly every family’s largest expense and the single most important source of wealth for homeowners. But on Barack Obama’s watch, homeownership slipped to a 50-year low. Black and brown families bore the brunt of the decline. I and my colleagues at Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting set out out not to confront Trump per se, but to attack the following problem:Fifty years after President Lyndon Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act, which banned discrimination in mortgage lending, the homeownership gap between Black and white families is larger than during the Jim Crow era. What can we do to ensure equal access to credit and a fair shake at the American dream?Confronting Trump directly seemed like a fool’s errand. His treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, was a Wall Street executive who personally profited off the foreclosure crisis. The man Trump appointed as the country’s top bank regulator, the comptroller of the currency Joseph Otting, was former chief executive of Mnuchin’s OneWest Bank. From 2010 to 2015, the years Otting was in charge, OneWest made just 1% of its home loans to Black families and 3% to Latinos, despite being headquartered in southern California. But Trump, Mnuchin and Otting were not the only people with power over mortgages. State, local and corporate officials could also be held accountable.In February 2018, my colleague Emmanuel Martinez and I published an investigation, Kept Out, which used an analysis of 31m mortgage records to expose modern-day redlining in 61 US cities. In Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Washington DC and dozens of others, we found people of color were far more likely to be denied a home loan even when they made the same amount of money, sought the same size loan and wanted to buy in the same neighborhood.This was a year into Trump’s first term. Republicans also controlled both houses of Congress. But our approach, simultaneously sweeping and local in scope, gave communities the tools they needed to hold public officials and corporations accountable.Six state attorneys general launched investigations. In Philadelphia, where we conducted our field reporting, the city created a $100m revolving loan fund to help first-time homebuyers. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, the country’s largest bank, visited the city and promised a major expansion in community lending. After Trump left office, three states and the justice department reached a $20m settlement with one of Warren Buffett’s mortgage companies, which had been the largest home purchase lender in Philadelphia.That inquiry, launched by then Pennsylvania attorney general Josh Shapiro, found loan officers and mortgage brokers at Buffett’s companies shared pictures of Black people holding wheelbarrows filled with watermelons. One sent a message that read “PROUD TO BE WHITE!” Another complained: “When I call you N****r, K*ke, Towel head, Sandn***r, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink … You call me a racist.” A top company official posted a picture with the Confederate flag. In addition to settling the case, the company shut down.
      We, the public, would be well-served to step back from this partisan tit-for-tat and focus on whether political leaders get stuff done
      This history is worth revisiting as Trump returns to power and once again stacks his administration with cronies. Some blue-state governors, including California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, and Illinois’s governor, JB Pritzker, have positioned themselves to lead the resistance, with Newsom convening a special legislative session to “Trump-proof” the state.But we, the public, would be well-served to step back from this partisan tit-for-tat and focus on whether political leaders “get stuff done”, as Shapiro said in his post-election statement.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHousing is a major concern for Americans of all political perspectives. A recent Pew Research survey found 69% percent of respondents were “very concerned” about housing costs – with overwhelming majorities of both Republicans and Democrats worried. On this metric, the blue states are failing.California and New York have the lowest homeownership rates and the highest rents, according to the US Census Bureau. In California, a family must make $221,000 a year to qualify for a loan on a “mid-tier” home, according to an October report from the state legislative analyst office. If you’re a working-class person of any race, it’s no wonder Trump’s outrage is attractive. Democratic politicians aren’t solving the problems most important to you.Homelessness is also on the rise – especially in blue states and especially in California. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, California accounted for 49% of all unsheltered people in the United States last year (123,423 people) – nearly eight times the number of unsheltered people in second-place Florida.None of this is Trump’s fault. California is the fourth-largest economy in the world with a state budget approaching $300bn. The Golden state has poured $24bn into solving its homelessness crisis over the last five years, but a state audit found it didn’t adequately track whether all that money was spent effectively. In San Francisco, where residents voted to oust their mayor in favor of the heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, the city spends nearly a billion dollars a year fighting homelessness – and likewise has little to show for it.
      Center an issue you care about, ask who is responsible for solving it, find allies and move forward with intention
      So where does this leave us? Back where we started. It sounds basic, but it’s true. People want a government that works for them. Center an issue you care about, ask who is responsible for solving it, find allies and move forward with intention. Not only will this approach bring results for you and those you care about, it will also provide an opportunity to dull the political polarization that feeds Trump’s power. You may not be able to lessen Trump’s rage or his desire for retribution, but you will be able to get something done – and that’s the most important step to creating the world you want to live in.What gives me hopeI derive hope and strength from the community around me. I know that all of us, pushing together, can weave a tapestry of strength that propels impact. In this time, consider supporting organizations that provide space to mission-driven journalists to find common cause together, including the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting and the Carter Center, home of the Rosalynn Carter Fellowship for Mental Health Journalism.***Aaron Glantz, a two-time Peabody award winner and Pulitzer prize finalist, is a fellow at Stanford University’s Center for the Advanced Study of Behavioral Sciences. His books include Homewreckers: How a Gang of Wall Street Kingpins, Hedge Fund Magnates, Crooked Banks and Vulture Capitalists Suckered Millions Out of Their Homes and Demolished the American Dream (HarperCollins). More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Queen of polling’ J Ann Selzer quits after Iowa survey missed by 16 points

      by

      J Ann Selzer, the celebrated Iowa election pollster, announced on Sunday that she is moving on “to other ventures and opportunities”, two weeks after her survey in the state wrongly predicted a strong shift to Kamala Harris in the days before the election.That poll, which projected a 47% to 44% lead for the vice-president over Donald Trump on the back of older women breaking for Democrats over the issue of reproductive rights, came three days before the national vote, giving Democrats false hope that Harris could win the White House decisively. When the votes were counted, Selzer was off by 16 points as the former president won the state decisively.Selzer, known as the “queen of polling”, shot to fame in 2008 when she predicted that a virtually unknown senator, Barack Obama, would beat frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses.She told MSNBC before the vote that Harris was leading in early voting in Iowa “because of her strength with women generally, even stronger with women aged 65 and older. Her margin is more than 2-to-1 – and this is an age group that shows up to vote, or votes early, in disproportionately large numbers.”Trump disputed the poll in a post on his Truth Social network at the time.“In fact, it’s not even close! All polls, except for one heavily skewed toward the Democrats by a Trump hater who called it totally wrong the last time, have me up, BY A LOT.”According to unofficial results, Trump ultimately won Iowa by 13 points, 56% to 43%.In a column published by the Des Moines Register on Sunday, Selzer wrote that public opinion polling had been her “life’s work” and had made a decision to step back from it a year ago.“Would I have liked to make this announcement after a final poll aligned with Election Day results? Of course,” she wrote. “It’s ironic that it’s just the opposite.”Seltzer ventured that her strong track record had “maybe that history of accuracy made the outlier position too comfortable”.“Polling is a science of estimation, and science has a way of periodically humbling the scientist. So, I’m humbled, yet always willing to learn from unexpected findings,” she added.A review of Selzer’s final 2024 poll hasn’t revealed a clear reason for missing Trump’s runaway victory in the state, the paper said in a column published on Sunday, adding that it is “evaluating the best ways to continue surveys that will provide accurate information and insight about issues that matter to Iowans”.Editor Carol Hunter wrote that the Iowa Poll “has been an important legacy indicator and we recognize the need to evolve and find new ways to accurately take the pulse of Iowans on state and national issues”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut the black eye the polling business has received for failing to predict a strong Trump victory in the electoral college, 312 to 226, and popular vote, taking with him all seven swing states and seeing every state moving Republican, may not be entirely deserved.Most political polls for the 2024 presidential election saw a close race in the electoral college, and a popular-vote victory for Harris. But the election results so far show that Trump added more than 2m votes to his 2020 total, while Harris received millions fewer votes than Joe Biden did four years earlier, in what some are calling the lost “couch vote”.Trump won the electoral college 312 to 226, and currently leads the popular vote by 1.7%. UC Riverside polling expert Andy Crosby wrote that Trump’s margin of victory was within the 2.2% margin of error of most of the final elections polls.After what turned out to be the final Selzer Iowa poll this year, she had offered these words of warning to excited Never Trump podcasters at The Bulwark: “People looked at my methodology … and it’s published in every article in the Des Moines Register, how we do it, but you look at it on paper and you go, It’s too simple, this can’t possibly work. And so far it has, but I’m prepared that one day it will not work and I will blow up into tiny little pieces and be scattered across the city of Des Moines.” More