Joe Biden

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      House Republicans will hold hearing with Robert Hur over Biden report

      by

      House Republicans will hold a public hearing next month with special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents after his vice-presidency, as the White House counsel reportedly wrote to the attorney general attacking Hur’s commentary on the US president’s memory as a violation of federal policy.The House judiciary committee, chaired by rightwing Republican Jim Jordan, will hear testimony from Hur on 12 March, two unnamed people familiar with the plans told the Associated Press on Thursday. The White House declined to comment on the plans.The committee has spearheaded much of the House GOP’s investigations into Biden, including the effort to impeach him. While that effort has floundered, Republicans want to hear from Hur after his report last week offered an unflattering assessment of Biden’s competency and age.Hur’s report concluded that criminal charges would not be warranted against Biden in relation to wrongly retaining classified material.But he elaborated by going on to describe vividly the president’s memory recall as vague and having “significant limitations”, while citing the possibility that Biden would present himself to a jury as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.Biden welcomed the fact that no charges were justified – even if he was out of office – but angrily pushed back on comments about his mental acuity and said his memory is fine, while allies slammed Hur’s focus on that as a “partisan hit job”.Hur was appointed under Donald Trump to be the US attorney in Maryland.Meanwhile, on Thursday, Politico reported that White House counsel Ed Siskel wrote to US attorney general Merrick Garland accusing Hur of “openly, obviously and blatantly” violating the Department of Justice’s policies by including his ad hominem negative conjecture alongside his legal conclusion about the president’s actions.Siskel wrote of Hur’s report, Politico reported, with a link to the letter, that: “We object to the multiple denigrating statements about President Biden’s memory which violate longstanding DOJ practice and policy. The Special Counsel can certainly and properly note that the President lacked memory of a specific fact or series of events. But his report goes further to include allegations that the President has a failing memory in a general sense, an allegation that has no law enforcement purpose.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe letter was one of several Biden’s lawyers sent before the report was published, pushing back and also comparing Hur’s tactic to that of James Comey in 2016. The then FBI director had investigated Hillary Clinton over her use of private email in office as secretary of state. Declining to indict, Comey chose instead to castigate Clinton’s character just before the 2016 election, where Donald Trump beat her and was later deemed by the department watchdog to have violated protocol.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 300 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump prosecutor Fani Willis tells misconduct hearing: ‘I’m not on trial. These people are on trial for stealing an election’ – as it happened

      by

      In one furious outburst, Fani Willis is angrily pushing back at what she says are personal attacks on her and Nathan Wade, and says opposing attorneys should focus their attention elsewhere.Asked if she objected to records of flights she took with Wade being demanded, she said:
      I object to you getting records. You’ve been intrusive into people’s personal lives. You’re confused. You think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.
      Willis is also defending Wade’s character, saying they are “good friends”.The judge has ordered another short break.We’re closing the US politics blog now after what was an extraordinary day, on two fronts, in the various legal cases against Donald Trump.
      In Georgia, the Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis gave testimony in a fiery first day of a misconduct hearing that could see her removed from the election interference case against the former president. “I’m not on trial here,” she insisted in one of many angry exchanges over her affair with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
      Willis tussled with Trump lawyer Steve Sadow over the “tough conversation” she had with Nathan Wade ending their relationship and, crucially, when it occurred. Telling Sadow “you don’t have to yell at me,” Willis said their relationship was over before she indicted Trump last August.
      Willis insisted she paid Wade back for money he spent on two cruises and other trips he took with her in 2022 and early 2023.
      Willis accused Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for another Trump co-defendant, of telling lies about her in another heated exchange.
      Wade also took the stand, confirming their relationship ended last summer.
      Robin Yeartie, a former friend of Willis who worked in her office, testified the relationship began before Wade was hired.
      In New York, a judge set a 25 March start date for Trump’s trial on charges he made illegal hush-money payments to adult movie star Stormy Daniels, and Playboy model Karen McDougal.
      The two stories dominated the day.Also today:Join us again tomorrow, when we’ll have more from the second day of the Fani Willis misconduct hearing.A fiery first day of the misconduct case against Fani Willis, in which a judge will decide if the Fulton county district attorney will be disqualified from prosecuting the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump, has just wrapped up for the day.The final exchange was Harry MacDougald, lawyer for Trump co-defendant Jeffrey Clark, asking Willis about any financial gifts above $100 she received from Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she hired for the case, and with whom she had a romantic relationship.Willis says she never received any, other than him paying for dinner. She says she reimbursed him for everything, and pushed back when McDougald said there was nothing to prove she had withdrawn any cash to do so.“That’s not accurate,” Willis replied.It was a tamer exchange than those that preceded it. In one particularly hostile moment, Willis accused an attorney of repeatedly lying about her, and in another furiously exclaimed: “I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.”Judge McAfee has told all parties to reconvene at 9am ET on Friday. It’s been quite a day.Steve Sadow’s questioning of Fani Willis has now concluded, and the judge overseeing the misconduct hearing, Scott McAfee, says there’s time for a few more questions before he wraps the hearing up for the day.Next up is Allyn Stockton, lawyer for Trump’s co-defendant and former attorney Rudy Giuliani, who opened with questions about travel Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade might have made together, including trips to Washington DC that Willis has already denied took place.Next, he’s wondering about Willis’s hiring practices and contract-issuing procedures as Fulton county district attorney.It’s not yet clear where he’s going with it, but he seems to be suggesting there might be something improper about the status of employment of two of Wade’s colleagues who reportedly did work for her Willis’s office.Steve Sadow and Fani Willis are now tussling over the “tough conversation” she had with Nathan Wade ending their relationship and, crucially, when it occurred.“The physical relationship was over pre-indictment,” Willis aid, referring to the criminal election interference charges she brought, aided by special prosecutor Wade, against Donald Trump in Georgia in August 2023.But she said women and men “think differently” about what might constitute the end of a relationship. She also said there was a good deal of tension in her relationship with Wade towards the end:
      He told me one time only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich. We would have brutal arguments about the fact that I am your equal.
      I don’t need anything from a man. A man is not a plan. A man is a companion. And so there was tension always in our relationship, which is why I always gave him his money back.
      I don’t need anybody to foot my bills. The only man who’s ever footed my bills completely is my daddy.
      Sadow tried again. “The romantic relationship ended before the indictment was returned. Yes or no?” he said.“To a man, yes,” Willis replied.Steve Sadow, an attorney for Donald Trump, is next to question Fani Willis, and their exchanges are even more hostile than those that preceded them.“You don’t have to yell at me. I’m able to understand. So I would ask you to not yell at me,” Willis replied when Sadow asked a question about her living arrangements during the period she was having a relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.Willis is also repeatedly claiming the phrasing of Sadow’s questions is “inaccurate”, as is definition of “romantic” to describe her relationship with Wade.“A romantic relationship doesn’t necessarily have to be just sex. It can be dating, it can be holding hands. It can be any of those things that one might call romantic. I’m asking you whether or not prior to November 1st 2021 there was a romantic relationship with Mr Wade,” Sadow said.Willis replied: “I do not consider our relationship to have become romantic until early 2022 … sometime between February and April.”Almost inevitably, Donald Trump has now weighed in with an emailed attack on Fani Willis, and almost as inevitably it’s a fundraising appeal from his campaign, which is clearly watching today’s courtroom drama closely:
      Fani Willis was responsible for taking my mugshot! First she coordinated with the Biden White House to take me down! Then she hired her lover to go after me and paid him with taxpayer dollars,” an email to supporters says, repeating numerous unverified allegations.
      But now, right now, her corruption is being broadcast live to the whole world. I told you she’s corrupt as hell.”
      The email concludes with the oft-heard claim of a “witch-hunt” and a request to “patriots” to chip in to defeat Willis.Ashleigh Merchant, the attorney questioning Fani Willis, is asking why she chose to run for district attorney, citing a claim that Willis said she didn’t want to be “finally effed-up again”.It appears relevant because Donald Trump has claimed Willis ran for the office because she was out to get him.Willis says she felt that with her experience she was “the appropriate person” for what was a tough job:
      It was a huge sacrifice to be district attorney in Fulton County. I was doing just fine. I had a municipal court judgeship that was paying me 100 something thousand a year, and we got to show up twice a week … [the] easiest thing I’ve ever done in life.
      I also had private clients that were paying me to represent them, so I was able to have a law practice and raise two daughters by myself. They were times in life where things were hard.
      So I was telling people I don’t really want to for DA. I’m in a good position right now, I got this easy job that I enjoy being the chief judge of the city of South Fulton, making money at the law firm, and I’m not sure that I want to make the sacrifice.
      Eventually, I prayed. I think that I was the appropriate person.
      Merchant’s questioning of Willis has now concluded.Judge Scott McAfee says the heated atmosphere in the courtroom needs to cool down, and ordered a short break.When the session resumed, with Fani Willis still on the stand, he admonished all parties to respect the decorum of the court.Here’s my colleague Sam Levine’s latest take on this afternoon’s fiery proceedings:In her time on the stand, Fani Willis has twice sought to remind the audience about the stakes of the case. At issue isn’t her relationship with Wade, but democracy. “Ms Merchant’s interests are contrary to democracy your honor, not to mine,” she said at one point.In a heated exchange later she said “You’re confused… I’m not on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020.”Willis’s testimony so far has sought to explain some of the biggest questions from Wade’s testimony this morning.Explaining why she repaid Wade in cash for travel, Willis explained that she has always kept significant amounts of cash wherever she lays her head. She took from that stash to repay Wade. She has also been blunter about calling out “lies” in motions seeking to disqualify her.By way of explanation, Ashleigh Merchant, mentioned above, is the attorney currently involved in the back-and-forth with Willis on the stand. She represents Michael Roman, one of Donald Trump’s co-defendants in the election interference case that Willis is prosecuting.In one furious outburst, Fani Willis is angrily pushing back at what she says are personal attacks on her and Nathan Wade, and says opposing attorneys should focus their attention elsewhere.Asked if she objected to records of flights she took with Wade being demanded, she said:
      I object to you getting records. You’ve been intrusive into people’s personal lives. You’re confused. You think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.
      Willis is also defending Wade’s character, saying they are “good friends”.The judge has ordered another short break.There were only a handful of trips together with Nathan Wade, Fani Willis is now telling the court:
      We went to Aruba, I consider that one trip. On New Year’s Eve, we went on a cruise to the Bahamas. That’s the second trip.
      We went to Belize. That was my trip, that was, you know, his 50th [birthday] and then Napa Valley. We went around May. I don’t know the dates, but it seems to me like it was close to Mother’s Day.
      And those are the only trips.
      Fani Willis is talking about two cruises out of Miami that she took with Nathan Wade, one in October 2022.She says Wade booked and paid for the first one, but she reimbursed him “whatever it was”:
      He is the one that would book the travel. But we need to be clear when we’re talking about just because he’s booked it doesn’t mean I consider him ever having taken me any place.
      He paid for the cruise and the fights… whatever he told me it was, I gave him the money back.
      She was asked where the cash came from:
      I am sure that the source of the money is always the work sweat and tears of me.
      For many, many years, I have kept money in my house… on my worst day probably only $500 or $1,000. And my best days, I probably had $15,000 in my house, cash.
      There’s always going to be cash in my house or wherever I’m laying my head.
      But Willis said she never paid Wade more than $2,500 in any one payment.The Guardian’s Sam Levine is tweeting from the courtroom about Fani Willis’s testimony.The Fulton county district attorney is angry about “lies” told her earlier in the case, including by her former friend Robin Yeartie, who testified today that a relationship between Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade began before she hired him to work on Donald Trump’s election interference case.She’s being asked about her dealings with Yeartie, and vacations she allegedly took with Wade.Fani Willis said she was “very anxious” to testify today, and ran from her office to get to the courtroom when she heard special prosecutor Nathan Wade’s testimony had concluded.She said she had some “choice words” about the motion to disqualify her from Donald Trump’s election interference case but denies she had any substantive conversation with Wade, or anybody else about it:
      I would not have. I don’t believe I’ve had any conversation with him that is substantive related to this.
      Willis has adopted a defensive, verging on aggressive stance, and says she takes exception to allegations she slept with Wade the first day she met him, at a conference:
      Your motion tried to implicate I slept with him at that conference, which I find to be extremely offensive. Mr Wade was my teacher.
      It’s highly offensive when they replicate that you slept with somebody the first day you met with them, and I take exception to this.
      Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis has just taken the stand in the election interference case in Georgia.Almost as soon as she sat down, the judge called a five-minute break for certain documents to be copied and distributed.She’ll be testifying soon about the nature of her relationship with, and cash payments to special prosecutor Nathan Wade, who wrapped up his lengthy period of testimony just now.Stick with us…Rumours that Russia is planning to deploy nuclear weapons in space have been dampened down by experts who say that while such technology is possible, there is no need to push the panic button.The furore kicked off on Wednesday when the head of the US House of Representatives’ intelligence committee, Mike Turner, called for the Biden administration to declassify information on what he called a “serious national security threat”.While Turner gave no further details, it was later reported by news outlets, citing unnamed sources, to involve Russia’s potential deployment of a nuclear anti-satellite weapon in space. The Kremlin dismissed the claim as a “malicious fabrication”.Dr Bleddyn Bowen, an associate professor at the University of Leicester who specialises in outer space international relations and warfare, said the the lack of detail was no reason to panic. “It’s so vague and cryptic, it could be a number of different things. [But] no matter what they are, none of them are a big deal, to be honest. Everyone needs to calm down about this.”Russia is bound by several legal restrictions regarding the use or presence of nuclear weapons in space. Article 4 of the Outer Space treaty (1967) bans nuclear weapons from being put into orbit, installed on celestial bodies or otherwise stationed in outer space, while the New Start treaty aims to reduce the number of deployable nuclear arms. The Partial Nuclear Test Ban treaty (1963) bans nuclear explosions in space.You can read more here.The White House just announced that the US will engage with Russia and allies on the Outer Space treaty and has no intention of violating it.The White House national security spokesman John Kirby is telling reporters gathered in the west wing a little more detail about the “serious national security threat” that emerged into the public eye yesterday.“It’s not an active capability,” Kirby said, after confirming that the threat was related to “an anti-satellite capability that Russia is developing, while adding that “there is no immediate threat to anyone’s safety.”Kirby did not elaborate on reports that the new capability is about Russian plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space.Kirby said Joe Biden has directed a series of actions by the administration, including briefings to congressional leaders and direct diplomatic engagement with Russia about the program.The administration has not permitted more information to be made public yet, the spokesman said.It was a surprise yesterday when the head of the House intelligence committee, Mike Turner, called for the Biden administration to declassify information on what he called a “serious national security threat”.The emerging Russian system can’t directly cause “physical destruction” on Earth, Kirby just said.The White House media briefing is underway. Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre opens by lamenting the mass shooting in Kansas City, Missouri, yesterday.Gunfire erupted towards the end of the victory parade for the Kansas City Chiefs football team, after they won the Super Bowl last weekend.She repeated the White House’s call for the US Congress to ban assault weapons for the general public.Joe Biden has frequently called for such a ban during his presidency, so far to no avail. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says mixing Haley with Pelosi and Biden with Obama was tactic, not gaffe

      by

      Donald Trump claimed high-profile campaign trail gaffes, in which he seemed to think Barack Obama was still president and mistook Nikki Haley for Nancy Pelosi, were deliberate, the result of his being “sarcastic” in the first instance and choosing to “interpose” names in the second.“When I say ‘Barack Hussein Obama is the president of the United States’, [I am] meaning there’s a lot of control there because the one guy can’t put two sentences together,” the former president told supporters in North Charleston, South Carolina, on Wednesday.“So I say ‘Barack Hussein Obama’.”“The one guy” to whom Trump referred was Joe Biden, once Obama’s vice-president, who soundly beat Trump in the 2020 presidential election but whose fitness for office and a possible second term is now the subject of fierce speculation, given his age, 81, and allegations about his memory and performance.Trump, who is 77, is also the subject of fierce speculation over his mental state and fitness for office.Regardless – and despite his facing 91 criminal charges, attempts to remove him from the ballot for inciting an insurrection and civil suits including one in which he was adjudicated a rapist – the former president dominates the Republican primaries.Having won in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, Trump enjoys huge polling leads over Haley in South Carolina, the former governor and UN ambassador’s home state which will be the next to vote.In North Charleston, Trump repeated his racist and Islamophobic dog whistle about Obama’s middle name, itself an echo of the “birther” conspiracy theory Trump helped spread (and which he recently sought to direct at Haley), which contended that Obama was not qualified to be president because he was supposedly not born in the US.“Remember Rush?” Trump asked, referring to Rush Limbaugh, the divisive rightwing talk radio host the comedian and senator Al Franken famously called a “big fat idiot” but whom Trump honoured with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2020, not long before Limbaugh died of cancer.Impersonating Limbaugh’s habit of stressing Obama’s middle name, Trump said: “He used to go, ‘Barack Hussein Obama’. ‘He’d go ‘Barack Hussein Obama’. But he did that, Rush. Do we miss Rush? Yes.“But when I say that Obama is the president of our country, bah bah bah, they go, ‘He doesn’t know that it’s Biden. He doesn’t know.’ So it’s very hard to be sarcastic.“When I interpose, because I’m not a Nikki fan and I’m not a Pelosi fan, and when I purposely interposed names, they said, ‘He didn’t know Pelosi from Nikki, from Tricky Nikki. Tricky Dicky. He didn’t know.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn remarks in New Hampshire last month, Trump appeared to think Haley had been responsible for security at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.In fact, Pelosi was speaker of the House on the day Trump sent supporters to “fight like hell” to block certification of his defeat by Biden, a riot now linked to nine deaths, more than 1,200 arrests and an attempt to remove Trump from the ballot which reached the US supreme court last week.“I interpose and they make a big deal out of it,” Trump continued. “I said, ‘No, no, I think they both stink, they have something in common. They both stink.’”According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “interpose” means “to place in an intervening position, or to put (oneself) between”.Trump possibly meant to say he “interpolated” Pelosi’s name for Haley’s – in the sense of “to alter or corrupt … by inserting new or foreign matter”. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US House intelligence chair warns of ‘urgent’ national security threat

      by

      The head of the House intelligence committee said on Wednesday he had information about a serious national security threat and urged the administration to declassify the information so the US and its allies can openly discuss how to respond.Mike Turner, an Ohio Republican, gave no details about the nature of the threat in his statement. The White House also declined to provide details.The House speaker, Mike Johnson, said there was no need for alarm. He said he was not at liberty to disclose the classified information. “But we just want to assure everyone steady hands are at the wheel. We’re working on it and there’s no need for alarm,” he told reporters at the Capitol.Turner earlier on Wednesday sent an email to members of Congress saying his committee had “identified an urgent matter with regard to a destabilizing foreign military capability” that should be known to all congressional policymakers. He encouraged them to come to a Scif (sensitive compartmented information facility), a secure area, to review the intelligence. He again provided no details.Turner’s announcement appeared to catch the Biden administration off guard.The national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told reporters at the White House he already had been due to brief Turner and other senior congressional leaders on Thursday. Sullivan did not disclose the topic or provide any other details related to Turner’s statement.“I’m focused on going to see him, sit with him as well as the other House members of the Gang of Eight, tomorrow,” Sullivan said. “And I’m not in a position to say anything further from this podium at this time.”He acknowledged it was not standard practice to offer such a briefing.“I’ll just say that I personally reached out to the Gang of Eight. It is highly unusual, in fact, for the national security adviser to do that,” Sullivan said. He said he had reached out earlier this week.He would not say whether the briefing was related to Turner’s warning. “I leave it to you to draw whatever connections you want,” he told reporters.Johnson said he sent a letter last month to the White House requesting a meeting with the president to discuss “the serious national security issue that is classified”. He said Sullivan’s meeting was in response to his request. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court may turn this election into a constitutional crisis | Sidney Blumenthal

      by

      Imagine it is 6 January 2025. The bell tolls for the day of electoral college certification again. All the events of 2024 converge:The US supreme court’s likely ruling in Trump v Anderson denying Colorado’s disqualification of Trump under the constitution’s 14th amendment, section 3; the exoneration of Joe Biden by special counsel Robert Hur for handling documents while sideswiping him as near senile; the ruling on Trump’s immunity; the trial for his coup attempt; and Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s defiance of federal court rulings in deploying his national guard to the border, supported by other Republican governors who have mobilized their guard units in similar acts of nullification – all these happenings could hurtle to a convulsive confrontation.The supreme court was precisely cautioned against fostering “potentially disastrous turmoil” if it were to rule against Colorado, in an amicus brief submitted by Benjamin Ginsberg, who for decades was the leading Republican party attorney on elections, along with two prominent legal scholars, Richard Hasen, professor at the UCLA law school, and Edward Foley, professor at the Ohio State University law school.The brief by Ginsberg et al was unvarnished: “A decision from this court leaving unresolved the question of Donald Trump’s qualification to hold the office of president of the United States under section 3 of the 14th amendment until after the 2024 election would risk catastrophic political instability, chance disenfranchising millions of voters, and raise the possibility of public violence before, on, and after November 5 2024.”The brief added that “the grounds for avoiding the merits are not credible: Colorado manifestly had the authority to determine Mr Trump’s legal qualification for the office he seeks, and this court has jurisdiction to review that federal-law decision on its merits. To punt on the merits would invite chaos while risking great damage to the court’s reputation and to the Nation as a whole.”But apparently the justices failed to read this brief, just as they apparently failed to read the various amicus briefs filed by distinguished historians.Picture how the scenario might unfold as though reading it as a history from the vantage point of one year from now. The Ginsberg brief predicts the dire consequences that would flow from the supreme court ruling against Colorado. If we layer on to that prophesy the seemingly disparate events of this winter of our discontent we can see, through a mixture of fact and speculation, a disastrous unraveling.Start with the supreme court ruling that a state is not the proper body to determine a disqualification under the 14th amendment, section 3. That would, as the Ginsberg brief states, leave enforcement inevitably, by a process of elimination, to the Congress. The justices’ frantic effort to escape responsibility for upholding the plain language of the 14th amendment in the name of saving the country from a hypothetical political crisis would potentially create a very real constitutional one.In that light, the election result might prove irrelevant. The reason is that now, according to this scenario, the 119th Congress, sworn in on 3 January 2025, could reject the electors from states for Trump by deciding that he is an insurrectionist. The supreme court would have set the stage. If the Democrats were to win the House, they could remove Trump. If the Republicans win control of the Senate, the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, refusing to whip the vote for Trump, could allow a number of Republican senators to vote for Trump’s disqualification, which would void his electoral votes by both chambers.If there is a deadlock, the Ginsberg brief argues, the House still would have an option to remove Trump. Under the Electoral Vote Reform Act, the House would establish rules under the constitution’s 12th amendment in which each state delegation gets one vote in the House. But before that would have taken place, the House could vote that Trump is excluded from a 12th amendment ballot because he was disqualified under the 14th amendment, section 3. No one not on the ballot for president could be substituted. Which means that Joe Biden would be re-elected in any case.All along, throughout the entire campaign year, that would mean that Trump has never been qualified. And it would also mean that only the supreme court decision against Colorado made it seem that he was.In the hearing of the Colorado case earlier this month, Chief Justice John Roberts cast aside the pretense of the conservative doctrines of originalism and textualism on which the supreme court has eviscerated voting rights, gun control and abortion rights. He retreated into a political hypothetical that if the court ruled in Colorado’s favor Biden might be subject to attempts to remove him from the ballot as an insurrectionist.Roberts prattled, “… maybe they’ve got a stack of papers saying here’s why I think this person is guilty of insurrection, it’s not a big insurrection, something that, you know, happened down – down the street, but they say this is still an insurrection … I don’t know what the standard is for when it arises to that.”Led by Roberts, the justices refused to define an insurrection, which was the heart of the Colorado supreme court’s ruling. Roberts’ hypothetical, besides tossing overboard originalism, was more than supercilious punditry. Perhaps his scenario was based on his familiarity with the tactics of the right wing.But Roberts also inadvertently revealed an implicit contempt for the federal system of justice. If a ludicrous suit were ever to be filed against Biden claiming he was an insurrectionist, it would enter into the process of that state’s courts. Roberts apparently had scant confidence in the state courts, up to their supreme courts, to render a sensible decision to throw out transparently mischievous cases. And if a silly case somehow made it to the supreme court, Roberts himself could lead it to deny certiorari. But in his eagerness to find some cause to rule against Colorado, Roberts may have suffered a memory lapse about the fundamental workings of the judicial system.With a supreme court ruling against Colorado, Trump would hail it as a major political victory, brandishing it as proof that all of the charges against him were motivated by partisanship.Now, imagine that in the 2024 election Biden wins the popular vote for the presidency by millions. That is not such a difficulty. Only one Democrat since 1992 has lost the popular vote in a presidential election.But consider that Biden’s overall vote and vote in swing states might be hurt by a lingering ill wind from the special counsel’s report, blowing in suspicion that, despite his command of foreign policy, military affairs and congressional negotiations, he is too damn old, unlike his unsympathetic, malicious, despised and also elderly opponent.If that report imprinted the notion that Biden’s age reflected disability, then wavering voters could fail to grant Biden the credit for his accomplishments, instead giving more weight to the image of him as incapacitated, leaving the record of his presidency unexplained. Trump’s malignant rants, meanwhile, would be, as they are often now, either accepted or dismissed.Cognitive dissonance, rather than cognitive function, in the election could prove to be the critical factor. The president who lifted the country out of Trump’s massive economic and social fiasco in the Covid crisis, and steered it through the resulting inflation to a fabled soft landing, would be perceived as having little to do with his own purpose and therefore weak. On the economy, it’s the stupidity, stupid.The cognitive disconnect in failing to attribute results to Biden’s actions would have enormous political consequences. The more Biden would try to explain the benefits of his policies, the more the Maga base and suggestible voters would disbelieve him because they have already decided he was too old to do anything, a perception reinforced not only by Fox News but also by the drumbeat of mainstream and social media.The election would then disclose the tenacity of the primitive mind. Trump’s bluster would be equated with strength and his threats with energy. The more bellicose he behaves, the more he would be seen as strong; the more incoherently he babbles, the more his supporters believe he knows what he was talking about. While Biden’s irrelevant gaffes have so far been held against him, Trump’s stream of semiconsciousness has been credited as a sign of vigor. The primitive mind that instinctively associates ape-like bellowing with power will not be swayed.Special counsel Robert Hur’s report on the storage of documents at the Penn Biden Center and Biden’s home, published earlier this month, underscored the negative campaign attack. The report’s first line was that “no criminal charges are warranted”. This was followed by contradictory assertions that Biden “willfully retained” documents and that “reasonable jurors” would conclude “that he did not retain them willfully”, and that “he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully – that is, with intent to break the law – as the statute requires”.Having exonerated Biden, the special counsel added this snark: “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.”The press attention to the latter part of the sentence has almost always left out the first part – the conjecture of a trial. Yet, as Hur made clear in the opening of his report, he had already decided that he would not bring charges because he lacked evidence, much less a single witness he could bring before a grand jury. When Hur wrote the line he knew there could be no trial.In Biden, Hur had a president “willfully” dedicated to cooperation. He appeared for a deposition at the White House for more than five crucial hours on 8 and 9 October, immediately after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, in which he was immersed in urgent national security meetings and conversations with world leaders. There was no appearance of obstruction of justice or perjury, as there was in the documents case against Trump. Instead, Biden was willing to elevate the legal process over affairs of state.Biden’s quoted statements that appeared muddled are completely familiar to anyone who has ever had a discussion with him. I have personally had long conversations with Biden since I met him nearly 40 years ago. He has a habit of ruminating, wandering and voicing fragments of thought aloud, but always returns to his subject with considerable knowledge, experience and clear views. (I know of many people who have had conversations with Biden very recently, who report that he is focused, sharp and has a cogent grasp of the many crises he is handling at once.)Hur’s elaborately cute description of a doddering Biden was not gratuitous; it was carefully crafted. Hur knowingly lent the imprimatur of a Department of Justice report to character assassination. Then, Attorney General Merrick Garland naively released it unredacted to the public – red meat for the jackal pack.What was Robert Hur’s state of mind? The most generous interpretation of the special counsel’s innuendo may have been that he was innocent of any experience with a charming Irish American politician. The irony was surely lost on the hardwired conservative that his description of Biden fit Ronald Reagan to a T. But Hur instrumentally deployed his summary of his encounter with Biden as an excuse for his lack of evidence.Hur is a cold-blooded Javert as rightwing careerist. He is a representative man of the first generation bred entirely within the hothouse of the Federalist Society from his start to his smear. Beginning as a summer intern in 2000 at Kirkland & Ellis, where he had the model of partner Brett Kavanaugh, he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the period when he was issuing opinions blocking abortion clinics from using Rico to sue anti-abortion protesters for damages, in Scheidler v National Organization for Women, and striking down affirmative action to increase racial diversity in college admissions, in Grutter v Bollinger and Gratz v Bollinger.Hur was an associate to then deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who defended then attorney general William Barr’s misrepresentation of a redacted version of the Mueller report on Russian interference in the presidential election of 2016 to assist Trump. Trump appointed Hur the US attorney for Maryland, which certainly met with the approval of the Federalist Society chair, Leonard Leo. Hur has been a featured speaker at Federalist Society events since 2007.Hur’s report was not obsessional or fanatical, but professional. It was in effect his job application for the next Republican administration.Now, imagine, if the scenario of the Ginsberg brief is a catastrophe foretold, that all these events tumble unpredictably to 6 January 2025 and beyond. One of the analytic tools of historical understanding is to speculate on what might have happened if events took unexpected twists and turns. The proverb “for want of a nail” suggests that the absence of a minor factor produced a major outcome. In chaos theory, the butterfly effect describes the impact of seemingly random occurrences that set in motion a chain reaction leading to enormous change – the flapping of a butterfly’s wings that results in a distant tornado. A supreme court ruling and a special counsel’s report are more than a nail and a butterfly’s wings.So, consider the possible effects in a not-so-distant future:Disqualified by the Congress, an enraged Trump files a suit before the supreme court. But that is just a gesture. After the 2020 election, he incited a mob to attack the Capitol. Suppose that now he calls on the Texas governor – and other Republican governors – to send national guard units to enforce his “election”. Biden federalizes them, but the Republican governors proclaim that he has usurped power to keep himself in office illegitimately and that Trump is the truly elected president.Self-installed as the president of the de facto Second Confederacy, Trump’s first act is to pardon himself of all federal crimes. He has called Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán and Benjamin Netanyahu to request that they recognize him as the true president. Putin offers him asylum.As armies prepare to clash on a darkling plain, Trump’s last-ditch appeal in the Manhattan election fraud case for paying hush money to a porn star goes against him. The New York appellate court announces it has upheld his prison sentence and fine. Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida responds that while Trump might be the president he will honor the extradition clause of the constitution to deliver him from Mar-a-Lago as a fugitive from justice. Trump flees to Texas, where Governor Abbott refuses the extradition order. Trump proclaims he is president wherever he is.The case for remanding Trump to jail in New York then goes to the supreme court. Having decided that the 14th amendment, section 3, is not self-executing, that a state cannot enforce it, the justices must now decide whether to uphold a district attorney under a state law to seize a convicted criminal under the extradition clause, which has always been pro forma. The court puts the case on its calendar several months in the future in the spring of 2025. Its conservative members are at the moment on an extended Federalist Society retreat at a private luxury lodge in Wyoming paid for by Harlan Crow.Or we click the heels of the ruby slippers. “There’s no place like home.” We awake from a phantasmagorical dream in a bed surrounded by Aunt Em and Uncle Henry.
      Sidney Blumenthal is a Guardian US columnist. He is a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden inches away from Netanyahu as Israeli PM fails to heed US on Gaza

      by

      A long time ago, Joe Biden signed a photo for Benjamin Netanyahu. “Bibi, I love you,” he recalls writing. “I don’t agree with a damn thing you say.”This twisty, best-of-frenemies relationship has been at the heart of the crisis in Gaza for the past five months. Unfortunately for the US president, the message from Jerusalem has been: he’s just not that into you.After the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October that killed 1,200 people, Biden invoked his long commitment to the country by giving full-throated support to its government’s right to defend itself. Biden’s embrace of the Israeli prime minister was supposed to come with an understanding – spoken or unspoken – that Netanyahu would heed US advice, show restraint and alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.But as the months have gone by and the death toll has mounted, it is a case of all give and no take. Biden is fond of saying “This is not your father’s Republican party” when considering the influence of Donald Trump. Slowly but surely, he has been forced to confront that this is not your father’s Israeli government, either.“We’re not dealing with the old Benjamin Netanyahu,” said Aaron David Miller, a former state department analyst, negotiator and adviser on Middle East issues who has worked for several administrations. “The risk-averse Israeli prime minister would take one step backward, one step forward and one step to the side.“We’re dealing with a different incarnation. He’s almost desperate to keep his coalition and prioritises it above all else even at the risk of incurring suspicion, mistrust, the anger of an American president. We’re five months into this and you’ve yet to see the administration impose any cost or consequence.”Biden, 81, and Netanyahu, 74, have known each other for nearly four decades, since the days when the former served in the Senate and the latter worked at the Israeli embassy in Washington. Biden became chair of the Senate foreign relations committee and ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988.Netanyahu served as Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and became prime minister in 1996, holding the position intermittently ever since. Relations with the US have not always been smooth. Miller, now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace thinktank, said: “I remember when Bill Clinton emerged from his first meeting with Netanyahu in June 1996. He exploded. He said: ‘Who’s the fucking superpower here?’ Frustration with Benjamin Netanyahu is not new.”Tensions flared during Obama’s presidency when Biden was vice-president. A 2014 report in the Atlantic magazine characterised US-Israel relations as on the edge of a “full-blown crisis”, but Biden publicly declared that he and Netanyahu were “still buddies”, adding: “He’s been a friend for over 30 years.”However, the Israeli prime minister undercut the Obama administration by speaking before a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill and denouncing a nuclear deal that the US and its allies were negotiating with Iran. Relations with Obama never recovered.When the 7 October attack happened, Biden was unequivocal as ever in declaring himself a Zionist and duly travelled to Israel to meet Netanyahu and his war cabinet in person. It was a classic diplomatic play: bear-hug Netanyahu in public while urging restraint in private. The administration claims that Israel has duly heeded its advice and taken steps to minimise civilian casualties.But the overall Palestinian death toll from the war has surpassed 28,000 people, according to the Gaza health ministry, while Netanyahu has been reluctant to pursue a long-term peace agreement (and rejected calls for Palestinian sovereignty). Anti-war protests have erupted across the US and demonstrators have interrupted Biden’s speeches to brand him “Genocide Joe” – a potential disaster in an election year.Brett Bruen, a former global engagement director for the Barack Obama White House, said: “Biden went out on a limb for him and part of that effort is that Netanyahu, even if it was not explicitly said, needed to do the minimum to keep things from getting untenable for Biden. And yet it seems as though Netanyahu’s back to his old way of operating, and that’s going to prove costly because Biden now has a pretty strong justification for taking a harder line.”Bruen, the president of the public affairs agency Global Situation Room, added: “It’s fair to say that the relationship is on the brink of breaking. With the president, you have an unstated expectation that we’ve known each other for a while and therefore can call on some of those favours from time to time and it clearly isn’t working. So you’ve not only alienated key members of the cabinet but also folks who are critical for Biden’s re-election effort.”NBC News reported this week that Biden has been “venting his frustration” over his failure to persuade Israel to alter its military tactics, complaining that Netanyahu is “giving him hell” and impossible to deal with. The president makes contemptuous references to Netanyahu such as “this guy” and “asshole”, according to unnamed sources who spoke to NBC News, and has said Netanyahu wants the war to drag on so he can remain in power.Larry Haas, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, said: “There’s no question that political matters are weighing on Biden, and the fact that these reports have come out, that Biden is saying this and that about Netanyahu in private, is not accidental. In a political sense, Biden and his people are trying to walk a fine line between supporting Israel and responding to the complaints of the Arab community and progressive Democrats.”Biden did flex some muscles by issuing an executive order targeting Israeli settlers in the West Bank who have been attacking Palestinians. He has also been increasingly critical in public. Last week he described Israel’s military assault in Gaza as “over the top” and said he is seeking a “sustained pause in the fighting” to help ailing Palestinian civilians and negotiate the release of Israeli hostages – though this is still far short of the ceasefire calls that progressives are demanding.The president told Netanyahu in a 45-minute phone call on Sunday that Israel should not go ahead with a military operation in the densely populated Gaza border town of Rafah without a “credible” plan to protect civilians. More than half of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million people have fled to Rafah to escape fighting in other areas.If Netanyahu ignores him again and presses ahead, Biden could signal his displeasure by slowing or restricting weapons sales to Israel, changing course at the UN by throwing America’s weight behind a ceasefire resolution or coming out aggressively for Palestinian statehood.Any of these would make a point, but would they make a difference? Miller doubts they will happen since the US believes the key to de-escalation in Gaza is achieving an Israel-Hamas deal – which requires Netanyahu’s approval. “I do believe that without the Israel-Hamas deal, you can hang a ‘closed for the season’ sign on this administration’s handling of this crisis,” he said. “They need it.” More

    • 188 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden condemns Trump’s Nato comments as ‘dumb, shameful, dangerous and un-American’ – as it happened

      by

      Here’s a fuller account of what Joe Biden just said about Donald Trump’s role in Republicans opposing the national security package approved today by the US Senate but set for an uncertain future in the US House, where the far right enjoys a modicum of control through the speaker, Mike Johnson of Louisiana.“The stakes were already high for American security before this bill was passed in the Senate last night,” Biden said. “But in recent days, those stakes have risen.“That’s because the former president has set a dangerous and shockingly, frankly, un-American signal to the world. Just a few days ago, Trump gave an invitation to Putin to invade some of our allies, Nato allies. He said if an ally didn’t spend enough money on defence, he would encourage Russia to quote, ‘Do whatever the hell they want’.“Can you imagine a former president of the United States saying that? The whole world heard it.“The worst thing is, he means it. No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator. Let me say this as clearly as I can: I never will. “For god’s sake it’s dumb, it’s shameful, it’s dangerous. It’s un-American. When America gives its word it means something, so when we make a commitment, we keep it. And Nato is a sacred commitment.“Donald Trump looks at this as if it’s a burden. When he looks at Nato, he doesn’t see the alliance that protects America and the world. He sees a protection racket. He doesn’t understand that Nato is built on a fundamental principles of freedom, security and national sovereignty. Because for Trump, principles never matter. Everything is transactional.“He doesn’t understand that the sacred commitment we’ve given works for us as well. In fact, I would remind Trump and all those who would walk away from Nato that Article Five” – which assures mutual defence if one alliance member is attacked – “has only been invoked once. Just once in Nato history. And it was done to stand with America after we were attacked on 9/11. We should never forget it.”That’s a wrap for us on the politics liveblog today. Here’s a recap of what happened:
      Joe Biden ripped into Trump for saying over the weekend that he would let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” and attack Nato countries. “No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator,” Biden said during remarks at the White House. “It’s dumb, it’s shameful, it’s dangerous, it’s un-American.” Biden also said: “No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator. Let me say this as clearly as I can: I never will.”
      The US Senate passed a $95bn national security bill early this morning. The bill includes $60bn in aid for Ukraine, $14bn for Israel, and around $5bn for Indo-Pacific allies.
      Biden urged the US House to “move with urgency” to pass the national security bill, but Mike Johnson, the US House speaker, has downplayed the bill’s chances in Congress’s lower chamber.
      Voting is under way in a special election on Long Island to replace George Santos, the disgraced former congressman and prolific fabulist. Democrat Tom Suozzi is trying to beat Republican Mazi Pilip. A Democratic win would be significant because it would narrow the already slim margin Republicans hold in the US House. Polls close at 9pm EST.
      Donald Trump will attend a preliminary court in New York in the criminal case related to hush-money payments he made to Stormy Daniels. Trump is choosing to attend that hearing over a different high-stakes hearing in Atlanta on Thursday over whether Fani Willis should be disqualified from handling the wide-ranging election interference against him there because of her relationship with another prosecutor on the case.
      Nikki Haley said Donald Trump’s efforts to install his daughter-in-law and other allies in leadership at the Republican National Committee was part of Trump’s effort to cement the nomination. “Think about what’s happening right now. Is that how you’re going to try and take an election?,” she said in remarks in Bamberg, South Carolina, her home town.
      That’s all for today. I’ll be back on the liveblog tomorrow morning with a new day of updates. See you then!Steve Scalise, the House majority leader, is back at the capitol after receiving treatment for multiple myeloma, a blood cancer.Scalise’s return to the capitol is significant because House Republicans are planning another impeachment vote of Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, according to the Hill. An impeachment vote last week failed by just one vote. Three Republicans voted against the measure.If Scalise supports impeachment, and no other votes change, it would narrowly pass the US House.Before I hand the controls to the great Sam Levine, a short summary of Joe Biden’s remarks from the White House just now about the $95bn national security package passed by the Senate, its uncertain future in the House and what that says about the hold Donald Trump continues to place on the American right.
      Johnson has said he doesn’t like the bill because it does not include anything to tackle the crisis at the southern border. Biden didn’t mention it, but Republicans will be hoping voters don’t remember what happened last week, when the Senate GOP tanked the border part of the package their own negotiators had worked hard to agree, because Trump (essentially) told them to do it.
      Biden did say that if Johnson allowed the border-free deal a free vote in the House, it would pass. Would it? Maybe. There are plenty of House Republicans who would back the national security package, sure – but there are plenty of House Democrats who, like three senators on their side, for sure do not like the parts of the bill which funds continuing Israeli strikes in the Palestinian territories. Biden emphasised provisions in the spending package for more aid to the besieged Palestinian people.
      Unsurprisingly, Biden therefore focused his remarks on what the Senate package would do for Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion. “We’ve all seen the terrible stories of recent weeks,” Biden said, citing “Ukrainian soldiers out of artillery shells, Ukrainian units rationing rounds of ammunition to defend themselves, Ukrainian families worried that the next Russian strike will permanently plunge them into darkness, or worse.”
      Providing such aid to Ukraine – and to Israel and allies in the Pacific including Taiwan, threatened by China – would Biden said mean work for Americans, in generating new materials to replenish Pentagon stockpiles.
      Biden also focused on what support for Ukraine would say to the world as Trump homes in on the Republican presidential nomination: “This bipartisan bill sends a clear message to the Ukrainians and to our partners, and to our allies around the world: America can be trusted, America can be relied upon, and America stands up for freedom. We stand strong for our allies. We never bow down to anyone and certainly not to Vladimir Putin.”
      Biden aimed squarely at Trump on that front, accusing him of “bowing down to a Russian dictator” and excoriating him for threatening to encourage Russia to attack Nato allies he considers financially delinquent.
      A response from Trump, one suspects, will be along sooner rather than later.In his brief remarks at the White House just now, Joe Biden continued to target Donald Trump over the former president’s marshaling of House Republicans to oppose the $95bn national security package passed by the Senate today, a bill including money for Israel and Taiwan as well as Ukraine, in its fight against the Russian invasion.“Our adversaries have long sought to create cracks” in Nato, Biden said. “The greatest hope of all those who wish Americans harm is for Nato to fall apart. You can be sure that they all cheered when they heard Donald Trump and heard what he said” last week, about encouraging Russia to attack Nato allies who he thinks do not pay enough into the pot.“I will not walk away,” Biden said. “I can’t imagine any other president walking away. As long as I’m president, if [Vladimir] Putin attacks a Nato ally, the United States will defend every inch of Nato territory.”In remarks notably heavy on Russia-Ukraine and light on Israel-Gaza – a divisive issue among Democrats – Biden then pivoted towards his re-election message, regarding the almost certain rematch with Trump this November.“Let me close with this. You heard me say this before. Our nation stands at an inflection point, an inflection point in history, where the decisions we make now are gonna determine the course of our future for decades to come. This is one of those moments.“And I say to House Republicans: you got to decide. Are you going to stand up for freedom? Or are you going to side with tyranny? Are you going to stand with Ukraine? Are you gonna stand with Putin? Are you going to stand with America or Trump?“Republicans and Democrats in the Senate came together to send a message of unity to the world [by passing the national security package]. It’s time for the House Republicans do the same thing. Pass this bill immediately. Stand for decency, stand for democracy, stand up to a so-called leader hell-bent on weakening American security.“And I mean this sincerely: history is watching. History is watching. In moments like this, we have to remember who we are. The United States of America. The world is looking to us. Nothing is beyond our capacity when we act together. In this case, acting together includes acting with our Nato allies.“God bless you all … and I promise I’ll come back and answer questions later.”While reporters shouted questions, Biden left the room.Here’s a fuller account of what Joe Biden just said about Donald Trump’s role in Republicans opposing the national security package approved today by the US Senate but set for an uncertain future in the US House, where the far right enjoys a modicum of control through the speaker, Mike Johnson of Louisiana.“The stakes were already high for American security before this bill was passed in the Senate last night,” Biden said. “But in recent days, those stakes have risen.“That’s because the former president has set a dangerous and shockingly, frankly, un-American signal to the world. Just a few days ago, Trump gave an invitation to Putin to invade some of our allies, Nato allies. He said if an ally didn’t spend enough money on defence, he would encourage Russia to quote, ‘Do whatever the hell they want’.“Can you imagine a former president of the United States saying that? The whole world heard it.“The worst thing is, he means it. No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator. Let me say this as clearly as I can: I never will. “For god’s sake it’s dumb, it’s shameful, it’s dangerous. It’s un-American. When America gives its word it means something, so when we make a commitment, we keep it. And Nato is a sacred commitment.“Donald Trump looks at this as if it’s a burden. When he looks at Nato, he doesn’t see the alliance that protects America and the world. He sees a protection racket. He doesn’t understand that Nato is built on a fundamental principles of freedom, security and national sovereignty. Because for Trump, principles never matter. Everything is transactional.“He doesn’t understand that the sacred commitment we’ve given works for us as well. In fact, I would remind Trump and all those who would walk away from Nato that Article Five” – which assures mutual defence if one alliance member is attacked – “has only been invoked once. Just once in Nato history. And it was done to stand with America after we were attacked on 9/11. We should never forget it.”“Supporting this bill is standing up to Putin,” Biden says. “Opposing it is playing into Putin’s hands.”He’s casting, of course, the House Republicans who oppose the national security package, as allies of the Russian president in his invasion of Ukraine.Biden also stresses, as aides did earlier, that this bill worth $95bn of foreign aid means work for American workers, who will produce the materials to replenish American stockpiles.The argument: in an election year, this is good for the American worker.Biden also hits a note hit by aides earlier, stressing the part of the package passed by the Senate that “provides Israel with what it needs to protect his people against the terrorist group like Hamas and Hezbollah and others, and it will provide life-saving humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people desperately need food, water and shelter. They need help.”That’s a message to his own party: three senators voted no, citing support for Israel’s military strikes in the Palestinian territories.Moving onto Trump, Biden excoriates the former president for his recent remarks about encouraging Russia to attack Nato allies who did not pay what Trump would call their fair share.“No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator,” Biden says, his voice rising.“It’s dumb, it’s shameful, it’s dangerous, it’s un-American.”Biden accuses Trump of seeing Nato as “a protection racket” rather than an alliance and accuses his rival of “bowing down” to the Russian president.No questions taken.Here’s Joe.“I urge Speaker Johnson to bring it to the floor immediately,” Biden says, adding that the package will pass the House if it is put on the floor.“I call on the speaker to let the full House speak its mind and not allow a minority of the most extreme voices in the House to block this bill even from being voted on. Even from being voted on. This is a critical act, for the House to move this bill.”And the wait for Joe Biden to speak goes on.Wondering what’s in the national security package the Senate passed around dawn and everyone has been talking about since, particularly regarding the vanishingly small chances of it getting past the Trump-aligned Republicans who control the House?If yes, read this:While we wait and wait for Joe Biden to speak at the White House, here’s what Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader in the US House, has to say about the national security bill’s prospects therein, in a “Dear Colleague” letter to his caucus.Jeffries, from New York, has strong words directed at those in his party who are unhappy about military aid for Israel in its war with Hamas – three Democratic or Democratic-aligned senators voted no to the bill earlier – as well as for “pro-Putin extremist” Republicans in the House who he says “apparently want Russia to win” its war in Ukraine.“The Senate bill addresses America’s national security interests in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific region and its advancement represents a critically important step forward,” Jeffries writes.“The House must now work on a bipartisan basis to advance legislation that supports our democratic ally Israel as it fights an existential war against Hamas and seeks to free the remaining hostages. A just and lasting peace for Israel and the Palestinian people is only possible if Hamas is decisively defeated.“At the same time, we must surge humanitarian assistance like food, water and shelter to Palestinian civilians in Gaza and in other theaters of war throughout the world who are in harm’s way through no fault of their own. This imperative is met in the bipartisan national security bill passed in the Senate.“It is critical that we continue our support for the Ukrainian people who have courageously fought for democracy, the free world and America’s national security interests. If Vladimir Putin is allowed to win in Ukraine and proceeds to attack any of our Nato allies in Eastern Europe, the logical consequence is a brutal war between the US and Russia. Inaction by House Republicans who remain beholden to Maga extremists threatens the lives of American service women and men. The stakes are high and failure in Ukraine is not an option.“Traditional Republicans must now put America first, and stand up to Pro-Putin extremists in the House who apparently want Russia to win. The American people deserve an up or down vote, and we will use every available legislative tool to get comprehensive national security legislation over the finish line. The US Senate has done its job. It is time for the House of Representatives to do the same.”We’re still waiting on Joe Biden, who is due to speak at the White House on the national security package that passed the Senate today but which seems sure not to pass the Republican-held House.While we wait, here’s Lauren Gambino’s report:We’re still waiting for Joe Biden to speak at the White House, so while we do, here’s Adam Gabbatt on today’s special election in New York, where the successor to George Santos will be selected …The replacement for George Santos, the disgraced, indicted Republican and fabulist who was expelled from Congress last year, is set to be decided today, as New Yorkers head to the polls in a closely watched election.Voters in Long Island, east of New York City, face a choice between Tom Suozzi, a Democrat who previously spent six years in Congress, and Mazi Pilip, a relatively unknown local politician, in an election that will affect Republicans’ narrow majority in the House of Representatives.But more than that, the Suozzi-Pilip race has become a test for what the US can expect in the run-up to November’s elections.Immigration, the economy, abortion and aid to Israel have proved key issues, and politicians around the country will be looking to see whether Suozzi, a moderate Democrat, is able to navigate his attachment to an unpopular president dealing with a much-politicized situation at the US-Mexico border.Pilip, who was relatively unknown before the local Republican party selected her to run, has repeatedly attacked Suozzi over immigration – a tactic likely to be repeated in nationwide elections later this year. Suozzi has sought to tie Pilip to Donald Trump – who remains unpopular – and the anti-abortion movement.The seat is seen as a key indicator of voter sentiment before the expected Biden-Trump election in the fall. The demographic of New York’s third congressional district is seen as a political bellwether: largely suburban, it was one of 18 districts Biden won in 2020 but which voted for a Republican House representative in 2022.Biden won the district in 2020, but the area swung Republican in the 2022 midterm elections, when Santos was elected.Read the full story here:Joe Biden is due to deliver “remarks on the Senate passage of the bipartisan supplemental agreement”, AKA the $95bn national security spending bill that the upper chamber passed earlier today, but which the Trump-aligned Republicans who control the House … do not like.The White House stream for Biden’s remarks, which were announced for 1.15pm ET (but which could well start later than that, given precedent) is here.It’s been a lively day in US politics so far and we’ll continue to bring you the news as it happens. Here’s where things stand:
      The national security bill that passed the US Senate early this morning, by 70 votes to 29, is valued at $95bn. The House speaker, Mike Johnson, has already rejected it. Nonetheless, here’s some of what’s in it: $60bn in aid for Ukraine, in its fight against the Russian invasion; $14bn for Israel, as it prosecutes its war against Hamas; $5bn (or close to) for allies in the Indo-Pacific prominently including Taiwan, which is widely held to be in danger of attack from China.
      Joe Biden urged the House to “move with urgency” on the $95bn foreign aid bill that passed the Senate first thing this morning, with more funding for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and other overseas assistance, after an overnight marathon session in the upper chamber.
      Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, saluted the passage of the national security bill with a “robust majority”, and in remarks to reporters on Capitol Hill said: “Now, it’s up to the House to meet this moment, to do the right thing and save democracy as we know it.”
      Out on the campaign trail, Nikki Haley said Donald Trump’s move to have his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, named co-chair of the Republican National Committee was simply another attempt to have himself confirmed asap as the winner of the presidential primary – in which Haley is still running.
      A new feature: Non-Apology of the Day.Here’s Lauren Hitt, a Biden campaign spokesperson, saying sorry-not-sorry to Margaret Hoover, via Politico, after she said Joe Biden comparing Donald Trump to her great-grandad, Herbert Hoover, was a “cheap shot” at the much-maligned, very reasonably arguably misunderstood 31st president:
      We apologize for any undue pain we caused Herbert Hoover by lumping him in with Donald Trump. While they do share the worst jobs record in American history, Hoover never said he wanted the economy to crash to improve his own political fortune – an important distinction.”
      Hoover was the president who had to deal with the Great Depression. Trump’s presidency had an adverse effect on many Americans’ mental health. And so forth.Here’s more on the subject of Biden, Trump and Herbert Hoover:In South Carolina earlier, Nikki Haley said Donald Trump’s move to have his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, named co-chair of the Republican National Committee was simply another attempt to have himself confirmed as the winner of the presidential primary in which Haley is still running.Speaking in her hometown, Bamberg, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador (under Trump) said: “He tried to get the RNC to name him the presumptive nominee. We don’t do coronations. South Carolinians deserves the right to vote on this. So does Michigan, so do all the states on Super Tuesday [5 March]. And so that backfired and he pulled back from it.“What we saw yesterday was, he took a different approach. Now he has decided he has fired the RNC chair [Ronna McDaniel], he’s named who’s going to be the new RNC chair [Michael Whatley, the North Carolina Republican chair and a Trump loyalist], his daughter-in-law [married to Eric Trump, his second son] will be the co-chair, and he is making his campaign manager [Chris LaCivita] the [chief operations] officer that runs the party.“Think about what’s happening right now. Is that how you’re going to try and take an election?”Unfortunately for Haley, the Republican election of a nominee to face Joe Biden in November has so far proceeded entirely in the direction of Trump.The former president won in Iowa, then won in New Hampshire, then won in Nevada. South Carolina is next up. Haley’s home state it may be, but Trump leads polling there by vast margins.Haley also bemoaned Trump’s many legal problems, saying he “talked about being a victim” and had spent “$50m of campaign contributions on his personal court cases”.Accusing Trump of not caring about issues facing everyday Americans, Haley said they included “wasteful spending, the $34tn in debt”, poor reading among eighth graders, “lawlessness on the border … law and order in our cities [and] the wars around the world that make us less safe” .“All he did was talk about himself,” she said, “and that’s the problem.”White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates continues his memo on the national security bill by breaking down areas of US interest boosted by passage through the Senate but, he says, at risk in a House controlled by Republicans loyal to Donald Trump.Such areas include “Ukraine and Nato”, the latter a subject of special concern in Washington (and in European capitals) this week, after Trump told supporters he would encourage Russia to attack Nato members he did not think paid enough for the privilege of US support.Bates says: “Unhinged, irresponsible voices on the right are even encouraging Russia to attack our closest allies and agitating to unravel Nato – an alliance which is bigger and stronger than ever, thanks in no small part to President Biden’s leadership. Those irresponsible voices are erratic and dangerous.”He also points to a consideration common across the national security package – what it means for Americans who make things like planes and weapons.“Our support for Ukraine is revitalising the American defense industrial base across the country,” Bates says.He also seeks to highlight Iranian support for Vladimir Putin’s Russia in its war in Ukraine and, on the Israel part of the bill, says “a House vote against American national security is a vote against crucial military support for Israel as they defend themselves from the Hamas murderers who committed the worst terrorist massacre in that country’s history and whose leaders have pledged to repeat the attacks of October 7 over and over again until Israel is annihilated”.Bates highlights humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, too.Turning to Taiwan, the Bates memo says Biden is “committed” to the island’s “self-defense capabilities” in the face of “a more assertive Peoples Republic of China”.Bates concludes: “A House vote against American national security would undermine these goals.”Andrew Bates, the deputy White House press secretary, sends the press a memo …“Months ago, President Biden submitted a request for critical national security funding to Congress – every aspect of which has strong bipartisan support. President Biden has called for action ever since, working in good faith with Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, in order to keep the American people safe.“But a subset of congressional Republicans delayed that urgently-needed action, choosing politics over national security.“Today, the Senate just voted to move forward on many of the most pressing needs of the American people. The onus is now on the House to do the same. This is a high stakes moment for American families. It’s also a high stakes moment for House Republicans, because the choice is stark.“Will House Republicans side with President Biden and senators on both sides of the aisle in supporting American national security? Or will House Republicans, in the name of politics, side with Vladimir Putin and the regime in Tehran?“The House GOP cannot lose sight of this binary choice. It would be devastating to undercut American national security by voting against our interests and values.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden calls Trump’s Nato remarks ‘dumb’, ‘shameful’ and ‘dangerous’

      by

      Joe Biden has attacked Donald Trump’s comments on the US pulling out of the Nato military alliance as “dumb”, “shameful” and “dangerous” in a blistering speech attacking Republican opposition to legislation partly aimed at providing support for Ukraine in its stand against a Russian invasion.Trump’s remarks about encouraging Russia to attack Nato allies who did not contribute what Trump called their fair share of Nato funding have set off alarm bells across Europe among leaders who eye the prospect of a second Trump presidency with growing disquiet.In a speech after the foreign aid bill – which also includes aid to Israel and Taiwan – passed the Senate, Biden urged reluctant Republicans to pass the legislation in the Republican-controlled House.“Supporting this bill is standing up to Putin,” Biden said. “Opposing it is playing into Putin’s hands.”Biden then attacked Trump for his encouraging of Republicans in the House to refuse to support the bill and for his comments about Russia and Nato.“Can you imagine a former president of the United States saying that? The whole world heard it,” he said. “The worst thing is, he means it. No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator. Let me say this as clearly as I can: I never will.“For God’s sake it’s dumb, it’s shameful, it’s dangerous. It’s un-American. When America gives its word it means something, so when we make a commitment, we keep it. And Nato is a sacred commitment.”The passage of the bill through the House, however, looks far from assured despite the president’s urging and its hard-won success in the Senate. Mike Johnson, the hard-right Republican House speaker, in effect rejected the aid package because it lacked border enforcement provisions.“The mandate of national security supplemental legislation was to secure America’s own border before sending additional foreign aid around the world,” he said, adding: “In the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters. America deserves better than the Senate’s status quo.”Many see such sentiments as richly ironic given it was Johnson and his House Republicans who – under pressure from Trump and his allies – tanked an earlier version of the aid legislation which included a bipartisan immigration deal intended to tackle the US-Mexico border crisis.Conservatives had insisted recently that the foreign aid package must be tied to border security measures but with immigration poised to play a critical role in the November elections and Trump increasingly certain to be the Republican nominee, the party was suddenly scared of handing Biden a domestic policy victory by trying to solve the issue.But the crises being tackled by the legislation are not just limited to the border, Ukraine and Russia – or just Republicans.Biden also stressed the part of the package passed by the Senate that he said “provides Israel with what it needs to protect his people against the terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and others, and it will provide life-saving humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people desperately need food, water and shelter. They need help.”That was a message to Biden’s own party: three senators (two Democrats and the Democratic-aligned Bernie Sanders) also voted no on the bill, citing Biden’s staunch support for Israel’s military strikes in the Palestinian territories. More