Joe Biden

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Kevin McCarthy says documents are safer in bathrooms than garages. Is he right?

      by

      Let’s say you’re a world leader who has improperly retained juicy national security secrets after leaving office. What would be a safer place to stash them: your bathroom or your garage?According to the House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, who on Monday defended Donald Trump after photos released by federal investigators showed boxes of classified documents piled high next to a shower in the ex-president’s Florida resort home, the answer is the bathroom.“A bathroom door locks,” the California Republican said.That would be more secure, McCarthy argued, than the location where classified documents were found stored in Joe Biden’s residence: in his garage “that opens up all the time”.Biden disclosed in January that his attorneys had discovered a small number of files in his house’s garage, commenting: “My Corvette is in a locked garage, so it’s not like they’re sitting out on the street.” The president said he returned all the materials as soon as they were discovered, which is why he hasn’t been charged like Trump, who federal prosecutors say made repeated false statements and conspired to obstruct them from retrieving the files.At this point there’s no telling how Trump’s unprecedented prosecution will pan out. That said, we can certainly spare a quick moment to settle the question about which part of the house would be best to keep one’s improperly retained state secrets.Multiple construction and home improvement professionals who spoke to the Guardian agreed: a bathroom would be one of the worst possible places in your home to store important files.Zach Barnes-Corby, the head of construction at Block Renovation, said that surfaces in bathrooms are treated with water-resistant materials to endure the high level of humidity. “Anything that is stored in the bathroom that isn’t moisture-resistant is going to deteriorate very quickly,” he says. “You have mold and mildew that can quickly spread through any materials. You also have exposure to cleaning products, which can deteriorate lightweight materials like documents easily.”Joshua Bartlett, who runs the home improvement website I’ll Just Fix it Myself, agrees: “There’s too much risk of destroying any document in a place where there is always water usage, especially in a place like Mar-a-Lago, where I’m pretty sure bathrooms get cleaned daily,” he said.Could a bathroom lock offer some protection? The experts agree: no.“It would be very unusual for a bathroom door to lock from the outside as they are almost always set up to only lock from the inside,” says Bartlett, explaining the obvious flaw in McCarthy’s thinking.Bathroom door locks have another weakness: almost every one has a small hole that allows it to be opened from the outside with a small object like a pin, “in case one of the kids gets locked in”, says Eric Marie, a Chicago-based contractor. “When it comes to safety, a bathroom door will be a two out of 10.”If a bathroom door is a two, then a garage door would be “more like an eight or nine”, says Marie. The panels may be made of steel, aluminum, or solid wood, and some even have additional locking latches on the inside. “It’s much harder to go through a garage door than any door in your house,” the contractor says.Unlike what McCarthy implied, “absolutely every garage door has a locking mechanism,” says Barnes-Corby. Typically garage doors are designed so that “without the specific controller of the door, you can’t open it. There’s no way to pry it open.“I would say a garage door is more secure for sure than a bathroom door,” he adds.While Trump and Biden’s storage choices may be concerning, they wouldn’t be the first officials to leave classified documents in questionable places.In April, sensitive documents about the inner workings of a UK Royal Navy nuclear submarine were reportedly found on the bathroom floor in a packed Wetherspoons pub.In 2018, a New Zealand intelligence agency staffer left a bag of unidentified classified documents in a cafe bathroom.And in 2016, a US navy veteran, Harold T Martin, was arrested after investigators discovered he was hoarding at his home thousands of physical documents and hard drives containing 50 terabytes of national security data, with some materials strewn across his garage and the backseat of his car. Martin’s federal defender said he was a “compulsive hoarder” and “not Edward Snowden”. He was sentenced in 2019 to nine years in prison. Something for McCarthy to think about. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      White House pushes for renewal of electronic surveillance law provision

      by

      The White House is stepping up pressure on lawmakers to renew a section of electronic surveillance law which permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the US.The provision, known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa), is set to expire at the end of the year. But its renewal is facing pushback from privacy advocates and lawmakers, some citing examples in which law enforcement search requests were misused to conduct illegal surveillance on US citizens.On Monday, Joe Biden’s administration circulated examples showing the US had used electronic surveillance under section 702 to catch fentanyl smugglers as well as the ransomware hackers who temporarily shut down the Colonial Pipeline Company in a 2021 cyber-attack that led to gas shortages along the eastern seaboard.The public campaign to build support for the provision comes as a poll released last week showed that the public is growing more skeptical of the need to sacrifice civil liberties for security.The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released last week found that 28% of adults support the government listening to phone calls and emails made outside the US without a warrant while 44% oppose the practice.More broadly, 48% of Americans said they believe it is necessary to sacrifice their rights and freedoms to prevent terrorism, down from 54% in 2021 and nearly two-thirds in 2011, a decade after the 9/11 attacks.The decline in support for foreign surveillance was notably sharp among Republicans, with just 44% saying that it is sometimes necessary compared with 69% in 2011. Among Democrats, support remained relatively constant, dropping to 55% from 59% in 2011.Republican opposition to the renewal of section 702 in some cases has responded to the failure of the FBI to clearly identify the Steele dossier – also known as the Trump–Russia dossier – as a political opposition research report without merit.Ahead of a Senate hearing into the issue on Tuesday, South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham – the top Republican on the judiciary committee – said the FBI’s mistakes had damaged its reputation with Congress and the public. Nonetheless, Graham insisted that section 702 should be reauthorized.“What I’m trying to tell my constituents back home [is] the threats to the country are growing – they’re not lessening,” Graham said. “Bottom line is: let’s reauthorize this program and build in some safeguards.”Illinois’s Democratic US senator Dick Durbin, the panel’s chairman, said he’d need to “see more” of the FBI’s current reforms to support the provision’s renewal.But civil liberties groups have come out strongly against reauthorization, which is required every five years.“Although purportedly targeted at foreigners, section 702 has become a rich source of warrantless government access to Americans’ phone calls, texts, and emails,” the Brennan Center for Justice, one of 21 civil liberties groups, said in a letter on Monday opposing the renewal of section 702.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe groups said they opposed the reauthorization of the surveillance provisions the government “is using to gain warrantless access to Americans’ communications, without significant and wide-ranging surveillance reforms”.In 2022 alone, the groups said, “the FBI conducted more than 200,000 warrantless searches of section 702 communications to find Americans’ information” and that, in turn, had converted section 702 “into something Congress never intended: a domestic spying tool”.On Monday, Biden administration officials said they opposed proposals to require the FBI to get a warrant every time it searches for an American’s information.“We must not forget the lessons of 9/11,” said Matthew Olsen, the assistant attorney general for national security. “Unduly limiting the FBI’s ability to access lawfully collected information and imposing artificial barriers between foreign intelligence and criminal investigations will set us back decades. It will put our nation at grave risk.”In its effort to turn around opinion, the White House offered examples of when the provision had been used effectively, including learning of Beijing’s efforts to track and repatriate Chinese dissidents and to warn an American who was the target of foreign spies seeking information about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.The FBI said it has instituted better training and new rules that have sharply reduced the number of searches for American citizens after agents were found to have wrongly run queries for the names of a congressman on the House intelligence committee, people linked to the January 6 Capitol attack and participants in the 2020 protests after a Minneapolis police officer’s murder of George Floyd.The bureau said it would now immediately suspend any employee’s access to section 702 databases for any incident involving “negligence”. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden press chief violated Hatch Act with ‘mega Maga’ remark – watchdog

      by

      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre violated the Hatch Act by referring to “mega Maga Republicans” before last year’s midterm elections, an official watchdog said.In a letter first reported by NBC News and confirmed by other outlets, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) said: “Because Ms Jean‐Pierre made the statements while acting in her official capacity, she violated the Hatch Act prohibition against using her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”According to the OSC, the Hatch Act, passed in 1939, “​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​limits certain political activities of federal employees”.The act is meant to “ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation”.The Hatch Act was often in the news during the administration of Donald Trump.In November 2021, a year after Trump left power, the OSC said at least 13 Trump officials intentionally violated the act, not least in connection with a 2020 Republican convention held on White House grounds.Officials named included Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state; Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff; Kellyanne Conway, a senior White House counselor; Jared Kushner, a senior adviser to Trump, his father-in-law; Kayleigh McEnany, the press secretary; and Stephen Miller, a senior speechwriter and adviser.The OSC report said: “The cumulative effect of these repeated and public violations was to undermine public confidence in the nonpartisan operation of government.”The Trump White House ignored Hatch Act violations. In June 2019, for example, an OSC recommendation that Conway be fired over repeated Hatch Act violations did not lead to further action.In November 2021, the OSC said “such flagrant and unpunished violations erode the principal foundation of our democratic system – the rule of law”.Regarding that OSC report, the Washington Post noted the existence of “a two-tiered system of consequences” the OSC having “fined and in some cases fired hundreds of career employees for violations during the four years when Trump was in office”.In the case of Jean-Pierre, the OSC said the press secretary violated the Hatch Act at a briefing on 2 November 2022, in referring to “mega Maga Republican officials who don’t believe in the rule of law” and in references to Republican candidates for office.A conservative watchdog group complained.The OSC did not recommend disciplinary action against Jean-Pierre.Its letter said: “Although we have concluded that Ms Jean‐Pierre violated the Hatch Act, we have decided to close this matter without further action.“We note, in particular, that the White House Counsel’s Office did not at the time believe that Ms Jean‐Pierre’s remarks were prohibited by the Hatch Act, and it is unclear whether OSC’s contrary analysis regarding the use of ‘Maga Republicans’ was ever conveyed to Ms Jean‐Pierre.“We have advised Ms Jean‐Pierre that should she again engage in prohibited political activity, OSC would consider it a knowing and willful violation of the law that could result in OSC pursuing disciplinary action.”A White House spokesperson told NBC: “As has been made clear throughout the administration, we take the law seriously and uphold the Hatch Act. We are reviewing this opinion.” More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Observer view on Donald Trump’s indictment: it will also put Joe Biden on trial | Observer editorial

      by

      It is a measure of the topsy-turvy world of US politics that last week’s first-ever federal indictment of a former president, Donald Trump, on criminal charges may help him win the Republican party’s nomination in the 2024 race for the White House.True to form, Trump’s initial reaction to the US justice department’s charges was to play the victim and proclaim his innocence on social media. The multimillionaire’s next move was to appeal for cash donations from his adoring, ever-credulous Make America Great Again fanbase.The subdued and awkward reaction to the charges of Trump’s rivals for the nomination suggests they understand this political reality. Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor, is closest to Trump in the polls – yet he trails by about 30 points. He declined to defend the former president. But he did not criticise him either, merely repeating a familiar complaint about supposed “weaponisation of federal law enforcement” by Joe Biden’s administration. DeSantis evidently believes kicking Trump at this point would alienate many party voters.Other Republican hopefuls, such as Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, and Mike Pence, the ultra-loyal vice-president who turned on Trump after the failed Capitol Hill coup, may be more inclined to confront their old boss. And it’s early days. Perhaps they will benefit from Trump’s travails. But at present, their poll ratings, and those of others such as Senator Tim Scott, are in single figures. Amazingly, Trump remains his party’s clear favourite – although the impact of the case on his popularity among US voters in general could be much more negative.It’s plain the federal indictments, like previous felony charges filed in New York state over alleged hush money payments to a porn star, will be used by Trump to reinforce his claims of political persecution. Judging by his recent CNN “town hall” appearance, the former president lacks new policies or initiatives. Instead, predictably enough, his pitch to voters is all about him and his obsessive belief that Biden and the Democrats are determined by any means, fair or foul, to deny him victory again.All such huffing and puffing aside, it remains entirely possible that Trump’s proliferating legal problems will end his political career – and land him in jail. Justice department special counsel Jack Smith has accused him on 37 counts of criminal wrongdoing, including jeopardising national security by his retention of classified documents, false testimony and obstruction of justice. Boxes of secret papers relating to nuclear programmes, Iran, and allies’ defence plans were found in Trump’s bathroom, Smith revealed. America must now contemplate the extraordinary prospect of a melodramatic, televised court battle starring Trump the defendant overlapping with the 2024 battle for the White House, starring Trump the Republican candidate. Egged on by Fox News and hard-right cheerleaders, he will seek to make maximum capital out of such a spectacle, regardless of the gravity of the charges. He will try to turn serious legal proceedings into a campaign rally.Biden already faces numerous obstacles to his hopes of a second term, including concerns about his advanced age, relatively low approval ratings, and a vulnerable post-pandemic economy. He, too, is under investigation for his handling of classified documents. Now the president will also have to fend off claims he is conducting a politicised legal vendetta and abusing his power to eliminate his chief rival.The criminal indictment of Trump is welcome, fully justified by the facts, and long overdue. But the coming courtroom showdown will also put Biden – and a divided America – on trial. More

    • 213 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump kept boxes with US nuclear program documents and foreign weapons details, indictment says – live

      by

      From 4h agoThe indictment reads that Trump stored in his boxes “information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack, and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack”.It goes on:
      The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.
      A lawyer for the Republican congressman and serial fabulist, George Santos, has said that the co-signers on a $500,000 bail package connected to Santos’ federal indictment are members of his family.In a letter to a New York judge, attorney Joseph Murray appealed an order this week to reveal the identities of three people who guaranteed Santos’ $500,000 bond on fraud charges.Murray wrote:
      Defendant has essentially publicly revealed that the suretors are family members and not lobbyists, donors or others seeking to exert influence over the defendant.
      At his arraignment in Long Island last month, Santos, 34, pleaded not guilty to multiple charges of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and making false statements.The New York Times sought the identification of Santos’s bail guarantors, arguing they should be identified as they had a chance to exert political influence over a congressman. Other news outlets joined the Times in its effort.In news not related to Donald Trump but involving one of his supporters, Markus Maly of Virginia received a six-year prison sentence for his role in the January 6 attack on Congress, federal prosecutors announced Friday.A grand jury had previously found Maly, 49, guilty of interfering with police during a civil disorder, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon as well as entering and remaining in a restricted building while armed, among other charges, prosecutors said.Authorities established that Maly joined a mob of Trump supporters who rioted at the Capitol on the day Congress convened to certify the former president’s defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.He was convicted of spraying a chemical irritant at a line of police officers who were defending the Capitol’s lower west terrace. In addition to serving time in prison, Maly must also spend three years under supervision after his release, prosecutors said.His co-defendants Jeffrey Scott Brown and Peter Schwartz were also found guilty of roles in the case. Schwartz later received a 14-year prison sentence. And Brown was given a prison sentence of four years.Maly raised more than $16,000 in funds for his defense from an online campaign that described him as a January 6 prisoner of war, the Associated Press had reported earlier. Prosecutors sought to take that money back in the form of a fine, arguing that Maly had a public defender and did not owe any legal fees.But neither court records nor prosecutors’ announcement about Maly’s sentence mentioned a fine for him as part of his sentence.Maly is among more than 1,000 people to be charged in connection with the January 6 attack, according to prosecutors. Numerous defendants have been convicted and sentenced to prison.Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, the two top Democrats in the Congress, have released a joint statement calling for the indictment to “play out through the legal process, without any outside political or ideological interference”.The statement reads:
      No one is above the law – including Donald Trump.
      It goes on to say:
      We encourage Mr Trump’s supporters and critics alike to let this case proceed peacefully in court.
      The US secret service is preparing for Donald Trump’s appearance at a federal court in Miami on Tuesday, but the agency “will not seek any special accommodations outside of what would be required to ensure the former Presidents continued safety”, according to spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi.A statement by Guglielmi reads:
      As with any site visited by a protectee, the Secret Service is in constant coordination with the necessary entities to ensure protective requirements are met,
      He added:
      We have the utmost confidence in the professionalism and commitment to security shared by our law enforcement partners in Florida.
      Trump is expected to surrender himself to authorities in Miami on Tuesday at 3pm ET.Donald Trump took classified documents including information on nuclear weapons in the US and secret plans to attack a foreign country, according to a 49-page federal indictment unsealed Friday afternoon.The former US president, alongside a military valet, now faces a sweeping 37-count felony indictment related to the mishandling of classified documents.Here are five of the most shocking revelations in the indictment, according to my colleague Maya Yang.We have a clip of the statement by Jack Smith, the US justice department special counsel who filed charges against Donald Trump.In a short address earlier today, Smith said his team would seek “a speedy trial” after the department unsealed a 37-count indictment against the former president.Donald Trump ally, Republican Arizona representative Andy Biggs responded to Trump’s indictment from the justice department by saying that “we have no reached a war phase.”Biggs, who previously spoke out against Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg over Trump’s indictment in March, went on to add:
      Eye for an eye.
      John Bolton, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has reacted to his former boss’s indictment, calling for his immediate withdrawal as a presidential candidate.With Donald Trump being the first US president to be federally indicted, what will come next? Will he go to prison? What are other Republicans, including his presidential contenders such as Florida governor Ron DeSantis, saying?The Guardian’s David Smith reports:It is often tempting to hype every Trump drama out of proportion and then lose sight of when something genuinely monumental has happened. Thursday night’s action by the justice department was genuinely monumental.First, it raises the question: what was Trump doing with government secrets? It was reported last month that prosecutors obtained an audio recording in which Trump talks about holding on to a classified Pentagon document related to a potential attack on Iran.Second, Trump could soon join a notorious club that includes Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac of France and Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak of South Korea. All have been prosecuted and convicted of corruption in the past 15 years.It’s Trump’s latest stress test for American democracy: can the state hold a former president accountable and apply the rule of law? There was a near miss for Richard Nixon, who could have faced federal charges over Watergate but was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.The White House knows it cannot afford to put a foot wrong. Joe Biden tries to avoid commenting on Trump’s myriad legal troubles. The attorney general, Merrick Garland, has also kept them at arm’s length by appointing Jack Smith as special counsel. It is Smith who investigated the Mar-a-Lago documents case.Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, says: “I don’t think he’s an overreaching prosecutor. He’s very rigorous and vigorous and independent and that’s what you want here and that’s what’s needed. I don’t think Merrick Garland had anything to do with it except appointing him.”For the full story, click here:Here are some of the images coming out Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort where he has been accused of possessing classified documents: More

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump attempts to cut sexual abuse damages for E Jean Carroll to $1m – as it happened

      by

      From 2h agoDonald Trump has asked a federal court in New York to slash the $5m penalty awarded against him in the sexual assault and defamation civil case won by writer E Jean Carroll down to just $1m – or grant him a new trial.The case went in Carroll’s favor last month when a jury decided that Trump had sexually abused and defamed her.Trump’s legal team has argued to the court that the damages awarded against him are excessive and the court should either slash them or allow a new trial.Reuters adds:
      The lawyers noted in a written submission that a Manhattan federal court jury last month rejected a rape claim made by the writer, E. Jean Carroll, concluding instead that she had been sexually abused in spring 1996 in the store’s dressing room.
      “Such abuse could have included groping of Plaintiff’s breasts through clothing, or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape,” the lawyers wrote.
      They said the $2 million granted by the jury on a sexual abuse claim was “grossly excessive” and another $2.7 million issued for compensatory defamation damages was “based upon pure speculation.”
      The award should consist of no more than $400,000 for sex abuse, no more than $100,000 for defamation and $368,000 or less for the cost of a campaign to repair Carroll‘s reputation, the lawyers wrote.
      If a judge does not grant the suggested reduction in the award, then he should permit a new trial on damages, they said.
      Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, said in an emailed statement that the arguments by Trump’s lawyers were frivolous.
      She said the unanimous jury had concluded that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and then defamed her “by lying about her with hatred, ill-will, or spite.”
      “This time, Trump will not be able to escape the consequences of his actions,” Kaplan said.
      Trump may still face a second defamation trial resulting from another lawsuit Carroll filed against him. That case has been delayed with appeals as the U.S. Justice Department sought to substitute the United States as the defendant in place of Trump. Government lawyers say Trump can’t be held liable for the comments he made as president.
      Hello US politics blog readers, it’s been an eventful day in US political news. We’re closing this blog now and will start afresh on Friday. We have stand alone stories on some of the biggest news of the day, links in the bullet points below.Here’s where things stand:
      Donald Trump has asked a federal court in New York to slash the $5m penalty awarded against him in the sexual assault and defamation civil case won by writer E Jean Carroll down to just $1m – or grant him a new trial.
      The White House has had to postpone a party due for this evening, where thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer-plus (LGBTQ+) people were invited to a celebration and, essentially, a political defiance event. Reuters further reports that Biden said violence against LGBTQ+ people in the United States is on the rise and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric is an appeal to fear that is “unjustified” and “ugly.”
      Hardline Republicans have effectively paralyzed the chamber because they’re unhappy at speaker Kevin McCarthy over the deal with Democrats that resolved the problem with the US debt ceiling. The spat appears to have widened to envelop No 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who appears unhappy with the speaker.
      The US supreme court ruled that Alabama discriminated against Black voters when it drew its seven congressional districts last year. The ruling in Allen v Milligan means that Alabama will have to draw its congressional map afresh to include a second majority-Black district.
      Donald Trump has asked a federal court in New York to slash the $5m penalty awarded against him in the sexual assault and defamation civil case won by writer E Jean Carroll down to just $1m – or grant him a new trial.The case went in Carroll’s favor last month when a jury decided that Trump had sexually abused and defamed her.Trump’s legal team has argued to the court that the damages awarded against him are excessive and the court should either slash them or allow a new trial.Reuters adds:
      The lawyers noted in a written submission that a Manhattan federal court jury last month rejected a rape claim made by the writer, E. Jean Carroll, concluding instead that she had been sexually abused in spring 1996 in the store’s dressing room.
      “Such abuse could have included groping of Plaintiff’s breasts through clothing, or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape,” the lawyers wrote.
      They said the $2 million granted by the jury on a sexual abuse claim was “grossly excessive” and another $2.7 million issued for compensatory defamation damages was “based upon pure speculation.”
      The award should consist of no more than $400,000 for sex abuse, no more than $100,000 for defamation and $368,000 or less for the cost of a campaign to repair Carroll‘s reputation, the lawyers wrote.
      If a judge does not grant the suggested reduction in the award, then he should permit a new trial on damages, they said.
      Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, said in an emailed statement that the arguments by Trump’s lawyers were frivolous.
      She said the unanimous jury had concluded that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and then defamed her “by lying about her with hatred, ill-will, or spite.”
      “This time, Trump will not be able to escape the consequences of his actions,” Kaplan said.
      Trump may still face a second defamation trial resulting from another lawsuit Carroll filed against him. That case has been delayed with appeals as the U.S. Justice Department sought to substitute the United States as the defendant in place of Trump. Government lawyers say Trump can’t be held liable for the comments he made as president.
      Here’s New York civil rights campaigner and politician Al Sharpton on the supreme court decision.
      This was an unexpected decision that hopefully means the Supreme Court’s era of disenfranchising voters is coming to an end.
      Alabama’s gerrymandering policies were quintessential, modern-day Jim Crow tactics to suppress Black voters in the state. That you had two conservative-leaning judges rule against the state all but confirms that.
      This is a major step forward in the fight to protect voting rights. Let’s not forget that we’re in this mess because the Supreme Court took a sledgehammer to the Voting Rights Act a decade ago when it ruled on Shelby v. Holder.
      States essentially got the green light to recut lines, purge voter rolls, and take any other steps to keep Black and Brown Americans from showing up at the polls. Today’s ruling only goes to show why Congress has a moral imperative to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act this year.
      We have been promised since we lost John Lewis three years ago, amid historic protests against racial injustice, and we will not wait until next year when lawmakers need our vote again. On August 26th, we will gather for the 60th Anniversary of the March on Washington to send a clear message that this legislation must pass now.”
      US attorney general Merrick Garland has issued a response to the supreme court’s decision on Alabama and also a fresh call to the US Congress to pass some of the voting rights legislation that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris campaigned on in 2020 but is growing mildew on Capitol Hill.Garland said:
      Today’s decision rejects efforts to further erode fundamental voting rights protections, and preserves the principle that in the United States, all eligible voters must be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote free from discrimination based on their race.
      The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, the right from which all other rights ultimately flow.
      Over the past two years, the Justice Department has rededicated its resources to enforcing federal voting rights protections. We will continue to use every authority we have left to defend voting rights. But that is not enough. We urge Congress to act to provide the Department with important authorities it needs to protect the voting rights of every American.”
      Here’s Janai Nelson, president and director- counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), on the Scotus decision.There is praise to go around.On Deuel Ross, racial justice attorney at the Legal Defense Fund:More reaction now to the surprise decision by the US supreme court earlier to defend the Voting Rights Act in a case involving Alabama’s electoral map.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has released a statement thus, which includes some useful background:
      The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in Allen v. Milligan in favor of Black voters who challenged Alabama’s 2021-enacted congressional map for violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for diluting Black political power, affirming the district court’s order that Alabama redraw its congressional map.
      By packing and cracking the historic Black Belt community, the map passed by the state legislature allowed Black voters an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in only one of seven districts even though they make up 27 percent percent of the voting-age population. In its decision, the court also affirmed that under Section 2 of the VRA, race can be used in the redistricting process to provide equal opportunities to communities of color and ensure they are not packed and cracked in a way that impermissibly weakens their voting strength.
      The case was brought in November 2021 on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP who are represented by the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb. It was argued before the court on Oct. 4, 2022.
      “This decision is a crucial win against the continued onslaught of attacks on voting rights,” said LDF senior counsel Deuel Ross, who argued the case before the court in October. “Alabama attempted to rewrite federal law by saying race had no place in redistricting. But because of the state’s sordid and well-documented history of racial discrimination, race must be used to remedy that past and ensure communities of color are not boxed out of the electoral process. While the Voting Rights Act and other key protections against discriminatory voting laws have been weakened in recent years and states continue to pass provisions to disenfranchise Black voters, today’s decision is a recognition of Section 2’s purpose to prevent voting discrimination and the very basic right to a fair shot.”
      Davin Rosborough, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said, “The Supreme Court rejected the Orwellian idea that it’s inappropriate to consider race in determining whether racial discrimination led to the creation of illegal maps. This ruling is a huge victory for Black Alabamians.”
      It’s been a busy morning in US politics and there will be plenty more developments on subjects ranging from Trump and E Jean Carroll to the supreme court’s surprise ruling on Alabama’s biased voting maps.Here’s where things stand:
      Donald Trump has asked for a new trial in the civil case brought by author E Jean Carroll, in which a Manhattan jury last month found the former US president liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer and awarded her $5m in damages.
      The White House has had to postpone a party due for this evening, where thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer-plus (LGBTQ+) people were invited to a celebration and, essentially, a political defiance event.
      Hardline Republicans have effectively paralyzed the chamber because they’re unhappy at speaker Kevin McCarthy over the deal with Democrats that resolved the problem with the US debt ceiling. The spat appears to have widened to envelop No 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who appears unhappy with the speaker.
      The US supreme court ruled that Alabama discriminated against Black voters when it drew its seven congressional districts last year. The ruling in Allen v Milligan means that Alabama will have to draw its congressional map afresh to include a second majority-Black district.
      Another quick reminder that British prime minister Rishi Sunak and US president Joe Biden are about to hold a press conference at the White House.It’s beginning any moment and our London colleagues are glued to it. There’s a live feed and all the developments as they happen, via the UK politics blog, here.No sooner had a New York jury found for E Jean Carroll than Donald Trump verbally attacked her during a live town hall-style interview on CNN (the broadcast which was probably the penultimate nail in the coffin for departing CNN chair Chris Licht before the crushing Atlantic article).Carroll promptly went back to court to to demand “very substantial” additional damages from Trump for the disparaging remarks, filing an amended lawsuit seeking an additional $10m in compensatory damages – and more in punitive damages.During the town hall in New Hampshire the day after the 9 May verdict, Trump further and repeatedly demeaned Carroll and her experiences.Trump said her account of a sexual assault, in the case which he is appealing, was “fake” and a “made-up story” and referred to it as “hanky-panky”. He repeated past claims that he’d never met Carroll and considered her a “whack job”.The filing by Carroll the following week claimed Trump’s statements at the televised town hall “show the depth of his malice toward Carroll, since it is hard to imagine defamatory conduct that could possibly be more motivated by hatred, ill will or spite”.Now Trump wants a new trial.Last month a New York jury found that Donald Trump sexually abused the former advice columnist, E Jean Carroll, in one of New York City’s most upscale stores, in the changing room at Bergdorf Goodman on Fifth Avenue, 27 years ago.The verdict on 9 May, for the first time, essentially legally branded a former US president as a sexual predator. It was the result of a civil not criminal case, and the only legal sanction Trump faced was financial.At the time, my colleagues Chris McGreal and Martin Pengelly noted that: In explaining a finding of sexual abuse to the jury, the judge said it had two elements: that Trump subjected Carroll to sexual contact without consent by use of force, and that it was for the purpose of sexual gratification.The jury deliberated for less than three hours. It did not find Trump raped Carroll, but did find him liable for sexual abuse.It awarded about $5m in compensatory and punitive damages: about $2m on the sexual abuse count and close to $3m for defamation, for branding her a liar.In an interview the following day, Carroll said she was “overwhelmed with joy for the women in this country”.It would be staggering if Donald Trump succeeded in getting a new civil trial in the issues brought against him by E Jean Carroll, after she sued him for defamation and sexual abuse and won hands down after a brisk jury decision.But the former US president is having a go.Donald Trump has asked for a new trial in the civil case brought by author E Jean Carroll, in which a Manhattan jury last month found the former US president liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer and awarded her $5m in damages, Reuters reports.This according to a new court filing. More on this asap.Smoke gets in your eyes. Sadly, the White House has had to postpone a party due for this evening at the White House, where thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer-plus (LGBTQ+) people were invited to a celebration and, essentially, a political defiance event at the White House.The smoky air drifting south from the Canadian wildfires that’s been causing havoc on the eastern seaboard and further inland has put paid to tonight’s party.BUT in better news, it is currently rescheduled for Saturday.NBC reports that the event was/is designed as:
      A high-profile show of support at a time when the community feels under attack like never before and the White House has little recourse to beat back a flood of state-level legislation against them.
      Biden is also announcing new initiatives to protect LGBTQ+ communities from attacks, help youth with mental health resources and homelessness and counter book bans, White House officials said.
      The event is a:
      Picnic featuring food, games, face painting and photos. Queen HD the DJ was handling the music; singer Betty Who was on tap to perform.
      Karine Jean-Pierre, the first openly gay White House press secretary, said Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and their spouses are strong supporters of the LGBTQ+ community and think that having a celebration is an important way to “lift up” their accomplishments and contributions.
      She said LGBTQ+ people need to know that Biden “has their back” and “will continue to fight for them. And that’s the message that we want to make sure that gets out there.”
      FYI Harris is in the Bahamas today on business and is expected back in DC tonight. Biden’s meeting Rishi Sunak at the White House and holding a presser soon.You can follow all the latest developments on the Canadian wildfires and the smoke impact on the US in our dedicated live blog:There’s some context on the relationship between House speaker Kevin McCarthy and his chamber GOP No. 2, Steve Scalise, the House majority leader, from the Punchbowl report, prior to the hardliners’ spat now rippling out on Capitol Hill.The outlet points out that a captain having friction with his supposed wingman “is a tale as old as time in House leadership” and these two have known each other for decades.Punchbowl reports:
      The pair met as young College Republicans and their interactions have always been professional. But there’s no doubt some bad blood between the two men.
      Scalise considered running against McCarthy for Republican leader in 2019, but ultimately decided against it — something we cataloged at length in a book we wrote. And again, McCarthy tapped [Louisiana congressman Garrett] Graves and [North Carolina congressman Patrick] McHenry for the most sensitive negotiations of the last few months, leaving Scalise aside.
      Scalise said in the interview that McCarthy is still viable as speaker of the House. But the House majority leader noted repeatedly that there is “a lot of anger on a lot of sides of our conference.”
      An old article from Politico notes that McCarthy and Scalise’s “parallel rise” dates to the late 1990s. McCarthy was national chairman of the Young Republicans and Scalise was an up and coming Louisiana politician and their friendship developed from that time.British prime minister Rishi Sunak, from the Conservative Party, is in Washington DC, this week and is meeting right now with Joe Biden at the White House.The premier and the US president are due to hold a press conference at 1.30pm US east coast time. Our colleagues in London are focusing on this and will be covering it as it happens via the UK politics blog, with a live stream of the event.You can keep up with that blog here.Selma native and Alabama congresswoman Terri Sewell just hopped on the phone for a live interview with CNN on air to express her relief and delight about the supreme court decision on voting rights and the relevant district maps in her state.“This is so exciting, it’s really amazing … it’s an amazing victory for Alabama Black voters, for the Voting Rights Act, for democracy,” she said.She tweeted about a “historic victory”.Sewell said the ruling reflected the legacy of the long legacy of fighting for civil rights for Black voters in Alabama and elsewhere and she was “reeling” from the good surprise.“And to have the supreme court give us this huge win, it’s historic,” she told CNN.She noted this would have implications more widely and was a closely watched case by legislatures creating voting maps, especially in states such as North Carolina and Ohio. “Everyone is looking at this decision,” she said, adding “it will have a positive ripple effect.”She noted that the late civil rights activist, champion and congressman John Lewis “must be smiling” and that those who challenged Alabama’s discriminatory voting rights did was Lewis always encouraged people do to: “we got into some good trouble.”This is Sewell’s pinned tweet: More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden marks Pride month with high-profile support of LGBTQ+ community

      by

      Joe Biden unveiled new initiatives on Thursday to protect LGBTQ+ communities but hastily postponed a big Pride Month celebration on the White House lawn with thousands of guests from around the country because of poor air quality from the Canadian wildfires.The event, which will now be held on Saturday, was intended to be a high-profile show of support at a time when members of the LGBTQ+ community feel under attack like never before and the White House has little recourse to beat back a flood of state-level legislation against them.The Biden administration announced initiatives designed to protect LGBTQ+ communities from attack, help young people with mental health issues and homelessness, and counter book bans, though the effects may be limited. Biden was to discuss them at the event, which the White House had said would be the largest Pride Month celebration ever held there.Thousands of guests had been invited from around the country for an evening filled with food, games and other activities on the South Lawn. Queen HD the DJ was handling the music, and singer Betty Who was on tap to perform.But the nation’s capital by late morning on Thursday was under a “code purple” air quality alert, the fifth-highest level on the six-level US air quality index, with authorities recommending that everyone limit their exposure to the hazardous smoke wafting south from Canada. District of Columbia schools canceled all outdoor activities for a second day, and the National Zoo also closed.The moves comes as the US’s largest community LGBTQ+ advocacy organization has declared a state of emergency in America when it comes to civil rights. The Human Rights Campaign has issued the statement due to what it said was “an unprecedented and dangerous spike in anti-LGBTQ+ legislative assaults sweeping state houses this year”.The White House was closely monitoring air quality due to hazardous smoke from Canadian wildfires to determine whether to proceed with plans for a Thursday night picnic featuring food, games, face painting and photos.Karine Jean-Pierre, the first openly gay White House press secretary, said Biden, Vice-President Kamala Harris and their spouses were strong supporters of the LGBTQ+ community and think that having a celebration is an important way to “lift up” their accomplishments and contributions.She said LGBTQ+ people needed to know that Biden “has their back” and “will continue to fight for them. And that’s the message that we want to make sure that gets out there.”Biden was announcing that the Department of Homeland Security, working with the justice and health and human services departments, will partner with LGBTQ+ community organizations to provide safety resources and training to help thwart violent attacks.Separately, HHS and the Department of Housing and Urban Development will provide resources to help LGBTQ+ young people with mental health needs, support in foster care and homelessness.Hundreds of bills have been proposed restricting the rights of transgender people, including limiting their access to certain forms of healthcare, and LGBTQ+ advocates say they have seen a record number of such measures in statehouses.After the supreme court last year overturned a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, Biden signed legislation to protect marriage equality. He continues to urge Congress to send him the Equality Act, which would add civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals to federal law.Polls show that public support for the rights of people who are gay and lesbian has expanded dramatically over the last two decades, with about seven in 10 US adults in polling by Gallup saying that marriages between same-sex adults should be legally valid and that gay and lesbian relationships are morally acceptable.But attitudes toward transgender people are complex: in polls conducted in 2022 by KFF and the Washington Post and by the Pew Research Center, majorities said they support laws prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in areas such as housing, jobs and schools. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Rish! talks up his hectic schedule in bilat with Biden | John Crace

      by

      Rishi Sunak: Good morning, Mr President.Joe Biden: Er … good morning … er … I’m sorry, who are you?Sunak: It’s…Biden: No, don’t tell me … It’s on the tip of my tongue. I’m sure I recognise you. I never forget a face. You’re that guy who bought me that coffee in Belfast when I was over in Ireland.Sunak: That’s right, your excellency. We also met in San Diego and HiroshimaBiden: Are you stalking me?Sunak: No. I’m just a bit needy. We have a special relationship, remember?Biden: Do we? News to me … No. It’s no good. You’ll have to jog my memory.Sunak: I’m the prime minister of the United Kingdom …Biden: Of course you are. Good to see you again, Rashi Sanook.Sunak: It’s Rishi. Rishi Sunak.Biden: Whatever. So what brings you over to Washington?Sunak: I’m not sure really. A combination of things. Nothing’s going well at home. My polls are rubbish, I can’t do anything about inflation, hospital waiting lists are up, you know the kind of thing …Biden: Not really.Sunak: Anyway, I just fancied a break. Plus I had loads of free air miles after my brilliant ‘Take Your Helicopter to Work’ scheme. And I wanted to catch a ball game. Go, Nationals! High five!Biden: Glad, you’re having a nice time.Sunak: So, what have you been up to since I last saw you, your highness?Biden: Not a lot … Just a $1tn infrastructure act, fixing a two-year debt ceiling deal, fighting off the Republican crazies and a host of other minor stuff …Sunak: Gosh!Biden: So how about you? What have you been doing?Sunak: I’ve been rushed off my feet … I don’t really know where to start, but here goes. First and foremost, I have been working on my five priorities. To halve inflation, grow the economy-Biden: Sure. But what have you actually been doing?Sunak: As I said, I have been working on my five priorities for the British people which I have promised to deliver on. Let me tell you what my five priorities are. They are the five priorities on which I want the British people to judge me-Biden: So, you haven’t really been doing that much.Sunak: As I said, my five priorities-Biden: But what else?Sunak: Apart from my five priorities? Well, let me see … I’m taking the Covid inquiry my government set up to court because it keeps asking for information that I want to keep secret. And I’m just about to OK Boris Johnson’s honours list.Biden: So a disgraced prime minister still gets to do the honours?Sunak: Sure.Biden: You Brits crack me up. What else shall we talk about?Sunak: How about a US-UK trade deal? Back in 2016 I and the Vote Leave team promised that an improved trade deal would be a Brexit bonus.Biden: No.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSunak: What do you mean, ‘no’?Biden: I mean it’s not happening. There is no trade deal to be had any time soon. The UK is just not that big a deal for us since you left the EU.Sunak: Not even a little deal? We’ll take the chlorinated chicken …Biden: No. Not a chance. Maybe in five or 10 years. If then.Sunak: OK. I get the message. But can we at least say that we agreed not to talk about a trade deal? Or maybe we could just sign something vague and meaningless.Biden: If you like …Sunak: It would look good for my end-of-visit communique to the British media. Make it look like we had in fact talked about a trade deal a bit. Even though we haven’t. By the way, have I told you about my five priorities?Biden: I don’t have a lot of time, is there anything else you want to say?Sunak: There is. I want to talk about artificial intelligence.Biden: What about it?Sunak: That I’m very worried about it. Apart from AI that is obviously beneficial. Did I mention my five priorities?Biden: Sounds like you could do with an AI upgrade yourself. Unless you really are a halfwit. But what are you suggesting?Sunak: Well, seeing as I’m a world leader in AI …Biden: Since when? You had scarcely mentioned it until a few AI experts raised their concerns a few weeks ago.Sunak: But I am the expert! I had read something about it on my MBA at Stanford. Did you know I had an MBA from the States?Biden: You may have mentioned it before …Sunak: So here’s the thing. Because I know more about AI than anyone else and also have a lot of spare time on my hands, I am proposing the UK takes a leading role in regulating the industry.Biden: But you know that since you left the EU, the UK is no longer a member of the US-EU council that regulates AI-related policies …Sunak: Really? Never mind. What I mostly want is a PR exercise. We won’t actually regulate anything. We’ll just have a conference to talk about regulating AI. It will all be pointless as by the time anything happens, AI will have evolved to take over the world. So we’ll all just meet a few times, have a nice jolly and then forget about it. But we need the US to come. We’ll pay your air fares and hotels. It’s just that without you no one else will come. So please say you will.Biden: If we must …Sunak: Just a couple more things: Ukraine. Can we agree that we are both still committed?Biden: You didn’t need to come to Washington for that…Sunak: And, my green card … Is there any chance it can be renewed? I might need it again in a year or so.Biden: Is that the time? Must be getting on. More