Joe Biden

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says he would consider pardoning New York mayor Eric Adams

      by

      President-elect Donald Trump on Monday said in a far-ranging news conference that he would consider pardoning the embattled New York City mayor, Eric Adams. Separately he called on the Biden administration to stop selling off unused portions of border wall that were purchased but not installed during his first administration.“Yeah, I would” consider pardoning Adams, Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, before saying that he was not familiar with the specifics of the charges Adams is facing.Adams is facing federal fraud and corruption charges, accused of accepting flight upgrades and other luxury travel perks valued at $100,000 along with illegal campaign contributions from a Turkish official and other foreign nationals looking to buy his influence. Multiple members of his administration have also come under investigation.Speaking at his first press conference since winning the election, Trump also threatened legal action against the Biden administration over sales of portions of border wall, saying he has spoken to the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, and other Texas officials about a potential restraining order.“We’re going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on building the same wall we already have,” Trump said. “It’s almost a criminal act.”Congress last year required the Biden administration to dispose of the unused border wall pieces. The measure, included in the massive National Defense Authorization Act, allows for the sale or donation of the items to states on the southern border, providing they are used to refurbish existing barriers, not install new ones. Congress also directed the Pentagon to account for storage costs for the border wall material while it has gone unused.“I’m asking today, Joe Biden, to please stop selling the wall,” Trump said.While Trump described the handover between Biden and his incoming team as “a friendly transition”, he also took issue with efforts to allow some members of the federal workforce to continue working from home. Trump said that if government workers did not come back into the office under him, they would be dismissed.Trump was joined at the appearance by the SoftBank Group CEO, Masayoshi Son, who announced that the Japanese company was planning to invest $100bn in US projects over the next four years.It was a win for Trump, who has used the weeks since the election to promote his policies, negotiate with foreign leaders and try to strike deals.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn a post on his Truth Social site last week, Trump had said that anyone making a $1bn investment in the United States “will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals”.“GET READY TO ROCK!!!” he wrote.Deals announced with much fanfare have sometimes failed to deliver on promised investments. But the announcement nonetheless represents a major win for Trump, who has boasted that he has done more in his short transition period than his predecessor did in all four years.“There’s a whole light over the entire world,” he said Monday. “There’s a light shining over the world.” More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump will destroy the government agencies that most help working people | Katrina vanden Heuvel

      by

      The Republican party has shellacked its clean-cut corporatism, in recent years, with a veneer of economic populism. See JD Vance’s pseudo-criticisms of Wall Street, so gestural they could be mistaken for an interpretive dance routine, or Donald Trump’s stint as a McDonald’s “employee”, which seemed more inspired by his contempt for Kamala Harris than his affection for fry cooks.But when it comes to how the second Trump administration actually intends to govern, there have already been plenty of signals that they intend to target and weaken – if not outright destroy – the parts of government most beneficial to working people. And right now, the agency most clearly in their crosshairs is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).While there’s new fervor behind rightwing efforts to undermine the CFPB – or, indeed, “delete” it, as Elon Musk recently tweeted – these attacks have been ongoing since the agency’s inception. In his first term, in fact, Trump slashed the CFPB’s budget, appointed a vocal critic to run it and rolled back regulations protecting consumers from predatory practices.Trump and his nearly-half-trillionaire “first buddy” feel threatened for good reason: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one of the few federal agencies created explicitly to help average Americans, and actually given authority to do so. Its efforts have represented some of the Biden administration’s most impactful advances for working people – and gutting it would be among the most devastating anti-consumer moves the Trump administration could make.The CFPB was born out of the 2008 financial crisis, which saw almost 400 banks fold and American households lose about $17tn in wealth (that’s 42 Elon Musks). The popular narrative rightfully blames predatory lending and securities fraud, but those lapses were only possible because of decades-long bipartisan deregulation. In response, the then Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren proposed a federal agency to centralize regulation of the consumer financial sector, work which had been spread thin across seven different agencies. Rather than being “duplicative”, as Musk has claimed, the CFPB began as a novel effort to make government more responsive, effective and – indeed – efficient.But not until the current directorship of Rohit Chopra did the CFPB begin fulfilling its true potential. Since his appointment in 2021, Chopra has cracked down on exploitative consumer practices with a fervor not seen since Upton Sinclair stepped into a meatpacking plant.In the last year, the agency has banned excessive credit card late fees, saving consumers $10bn annually. It has started regulating “buy now, pay later” lenders, which often leave buyers on the hook for expensive purchases they return. It has created a registry of businesses who have repeatedly engaged in illegal practices, finally bringing a tough-on-crime approach to “corporate recidivism”. And just last week, the CFPB announced a rule capping overdraft fees that will return another $5bn to consumers every year.Chopra has notched these wins while burnishing a dynamic persona that might best be described as swashbuckler meets bureaucrat. He has embraced public engagement in a way most regulators don’t; see his PSAs on medical debt with Rashida Tlaib, the Michigan representative. He has also embraced conflict, prompting some opponents to accuse him of antagonism, as when he sued not just a credit reporting firm but one of its executives for misleading consumers. Still, one populist’s antagonism is most Americans’ vindication, and Chopra has even drawn reluctant praise from Republicans such as the onetime speaker pro tempore Patrick McHenry.Other than consumers, arguably the biggest beneficiary of Chopra’s ferocity has been Joe Biden. The CFPB has accomplished many of his administration’s most unambiguously progressive (and practical) victories. Chopra joins a class of hugely productive Biden appointees – Lina Khan at the FTC, Marty Walsh and Julie Su at the Department of Labor, and a slate of pro-worker appointees at the National Labor Relations Board – who reaffirm the adage that “personnel is policy”.Even in the administration’s waning days, Khan’s FTC has helped unravel a merger between Kroger and Albertsons that would probably have spiked food prices, and raised alarms about “task scams” that have cheated targets out of millions. In this respect at least, Biden has taken a page from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who gleefully stocked his cabinet with unabashed crusaders such as Frances Perkins, the mother of the New Deal.While many Democrats continue post-election recriminations, many will no doubt feel tempted to disavow anything and everything associated with the first one-term Democratic president since Carter. But a prevailing lesson of 2024 has been that voters respond to brash anti-corporate messaging, even when it comes from the mouths of an erstwhile venture capitalist and a real estate tycoon who stiffs workers.So even if the legacies of Chopra, Khan, Walsh and Su aren’t reflected in the next four years of governance, progressives can at least embrace them in their campaign rhetoric – especially in response to Trump’s imminent efforts to deter or even dismantle agencies such as the CFPB in favor of corporate interests.Three years ago, immediately after his swearing-in ceremony, Chopra wrote a memo describing the CFPB’s most important mission as this: “We must anticipate emerging risks so we can act before a crisis, rather than acting after it is too late.”It may be too late to avert the crisis of the last election. But it’s also the best time to act in anticipation of the next one.

      Katrina vanden Heuvel is the editorial director and publisher of the Nation. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has contributed to the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Victims of ‘kids-for-cash’ judge outraged by Biden pardon: ‘What about all of us?’

      by

      Victims of a former Pennsylvania judge convicted in the so-called kids-for-cash scandal are outraged by Joe Biden’s decision to grant him clemency.In 2011, Michael Conahan was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison after he and another judge, Mark Ciavarella, were found guilty of accepting $2.8m in illegal payments in exchange for sending more than 2,300 children – including some as young as eight years old – to private juvenile detention centers.Conahan was released from prison in 2020 due to Covid-19 and placed on house arrest, which had been scheduled to end in 2026.Conahan’s sentence was one of about 1,500 the US president commuted – or shortened – on Thursday while also pardoning 39 Americans who had been convicted of non-violent crimes.In response to Conahan’s pardon, the mother of a boy sent to jail at age 17 before later dying by suicide told the Citizens’ Voice: “I am shocked and I am hurt.”“Conahan’s actions destroyed families, including mine, and my son’s death is a tragic reminder of the consequences of his abuse of power,” Sandy Fonzo said to the outlet. “This pardon feels like an injustice for all of us who still suffer. Right now I am processing and doing the best I can to cope with the pain that this has brought back.”Similarly, Amanda Lorah, who at age 14 was wrongfully imprisoned as part of the scheme, told WBRE: “It’s a big slap in the face for us once again.“We had … time taken away from us. We had no one to talk to, but now we’re talking about the president of the United States to do this. What about all of us?”The Pennsylvania governor, Josh Shapiro, also condemned Biden’s decision, telling reporters that his fellow Democrat “got it absolutely wrong”, the Pennsylvania Capital-Star reported.“I’ll offer these thoughts as an outsider, not privy to all the information he looked at, but I do feel strongly that President Biden got it absolutely wrong and created a lot of pain here in north-eastern Pennsylvania,” Shapiro said.Biden’s actions Thursday marked the largest instance of presidential clemency carried out in a single day.Describing the move, the White House said: “The president is commuting the sentences of close to 1,500 individuals who were placed on home confinement during the Covid-19 pandemic and who have successfully reintegrated into their families and communities.”Attempts to contact Conahan were not immediately successful. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Ex-FBI informant agrees to plead guilty to lying about Bidens’ Ukraine ties

      by

      A former FBI informant accused of falsely claiming that Joe Biden and the president’s son Hunter had accepted bribes has agreed to plead guilty to federal charges, according to court papers.As part of the plea deal with the justice department special counsel, David Weiss, Alexander Smirnov will admit he fabricated the story that became central to a Republican impeachment inquiry in Congress.The plea agreement comes just weeks after prosecutors filed new tax-evasion charges against Smirnov. The two sides will recommend a sentence of at least two years behind bars and no more than six years, according to the agreement.David Chesnoff and Richard Schonfeld, attorneys for Smirnov, said they will make their case for a fair sentence in court and declined to comment further.Smirnov was arrested in February on allegations that he falsely reported to the FBI in June 2020 that executives associated with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter Biden and Joe Biden $5m each in 2015 or 2016. Smirnov told his handler that an executive claimed to have hired Hunter Biden to “protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems”, according to court documents.Prosecutors said Smirnov had had contact with Burisma executives, but it had been routine and actually took place in 2017, after Barack Obama’s presidency and Biden, his vice-president, had left office – when Biden would have had no ability to influence US policy. Prosecutors said Smirnov made the bribery allegations after he “expressed bias” against Biden while the latter was a presidential candidate in 2020.Smirnov repeated some of the false claims when he was interviewed by FBI agents in September 2023, changed his story about others and “promoted a new false narrative after he said he met with Russian officials”, prosecutors said.Smirnov has agreed to plead guilty to charges of tax evasion and causing a false FBI record, according to court papers.Smirnov is being prosecuted by the same special counsel who brought federal gun and tax charges against Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden was supposed to have been sentenced this month on his convictions in those cases, until he was pardoned by his father. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Seth Meyers: ‘Trump’s fake populism was a con and it couldn’t be any clearer’

      by

      Late-night hosts talk Joe Biden’s act of clemency and Donald Trump becoming Time’s Person of the Year.Seth MeyersSeth Meyers could only laugh on Thursday evening at the image of Trump, just named Time magazine’s Person of the Year, ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange.The incoming president looked delighted – or, as the Late Night host put it, “like a Make-A-Wish kid who faked being sick until he got what he wanted”.“Before he was elected he toured the country telling grandpas in folding chairs he was just like them,” he added, “and as soon as he wins he’s on a fucking marble balcony on Wall Street rocking a bell like he just ate a 72-ounce steak in under an hour.”As for the cover, Meyers had concerns. “My only issue is this glamour shot of Trump in a pose I’ve literally never seen him take before,” he said. “I’ve only ever seen him screaming or hunched over, so apologies if I’m not buying Donnie Contemplation over here.”Moreover, “this guy has pretended for over a decade to be a populist champion of the working class and now he’s on literal Wall Street, getting pats on the back from the richest people in the country,” he said. “The only way that Trump’s hypocrisy could be any more on the nose is if he started doing campaign events with actual fat cats.”Case in point: though Trump repeatedly promised on the campaign to lower grocery prices, he told Time that “it’s hard to bring things down once they’re up … You know, it’s very hard.”“Fuck me, I can’t believe we really have to spend the next four years watching this idiot relearn how hard it is to be president,” said Meyers. “Yeah man, we know it’s hard. Everyone knows.”“Trump’s fake populism was a con and it couldn’t be any clearer,” he added. “The second that he won he started rubbing elbows with his rich Wall Street buddies and admitting that his promises were all BS.”Jimmy KimmelIn Los Angeles, Jimmy Kimmel also lamented Trump’s Time magazine cover. “Sadly there’s no one left to roll it up and spank him with it,” he quipped. “Maybe Elon will do it for him? I don’t know.”According to Time, the Person of the Year distinction is bestowed on the person, group or concept that had the biggest impact for good or for ill. “Well, that’s him all right,” said Kimmel. “It was a no-brainer in every sense of the word.”As for Trump’s appearance at the New York Stock Exchange, “he jammed his little finger on that bell like it was the Diet Coke button in the Oval Office,” Kimmel joked.Kimmel also touched on Joe Biden’s last-minute act of clemency, commuting more than 1,500 criminal sentences. “Before this, the biggest act of clemency was on election night on November 5,” said Kimmel.“Joe Biden is handing out pardons like they’re Werther’s Originals,” he added. “He has no more malarkey to give right now.”Stephen ColbertAnd on The Late Show, Stephen Colbert also noted Biden’s clemency, in which he also pardoned 39 people. “Wow, I did not know he had 39 sons,” the host joked.The mass commutation is a tradition for all outgoing presidents, but Biden committed the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history. “I believe that is an empathetic and generous act of forgiveness and hope – that will be knocked out of the headlines as soon as Trump threatens to bomb Manila because he cut himself on one of their envelopes,” said Colbert. “That’s coming. You know that’s coming.”Colbert also laughed at Pornhub’s year in review, which revealed generational trends, such as the fact that 18-to-24-year-olds spend, on average, 76 fewer seconds than any other age group on videos. “I guess young folks today don’t have the attention span,” Colbert quipped. “Back in the 90s, if you wanted to see boobs on your computer, you had to listen to this,” he added before a dial-up tone.The site also provided a map highlighting the most distinct searches in each state, such as Tennessee’s “chubby milf”, Delaware’s “mature” (“I assume in honor of Joe Biden,” Colbert joked), Maryland’s “girlfriend” (“dorks!”) and Pennsylvania’s “naked women”. “That’s clearly Amish teens on rumspringa getting their first crack at a computer,” Colbert noted. More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Six Republicans in Nevada again charged for 2020 fake elector scheme

      by

      Six Republicans in Nevada have again been charged with submitting a bogus certificate to Congress that falsely declared Donald Trump the winner of the presidential battleground’s 2020 election.Aaron Ford, the state’s attorney general, announced on Thursday that the fake electors case had been revived in Carson City, the capital, where he filed a new complaint this week charging the defendants with “uttering a forged instrument”, a felony.A Nevada judge dismissed the original indictment earlier this year, ruling that Clark county, the state’s most populous county and home to Las Vegas, was the wrong venue for the case.Ford, a Democrat, said the new case was filed as a precaution to avoid the statute of limitations expiring while the Nevada supreme court weighs his appeal of the judge’s ruling.“While we disagree with the finding of improper venue and will continue to seek to overturn it, we are preserving our legal rights in order to ensure that these fake electors do not escape justice,” Ford said.“The actions the fake electors undertook in 2020 violated Nevada criminal law and were direct attempts to both sow doubt in our democracy and undermine the results of a free and fair election. Justice requires that these actions not go unpunished.”Officials have said it was part of a larger scheme across seven battleground states to keep the former president in the White House after losing to Joe Biden. Criminal cases have also been brought in Michigan, Georgia and Arizona.Trump lost in 2020 to the president by more than 30,000 votes in Nevada. An investigation by then Nevada secretary of state Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, found no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in the state.The defendants are state the Republican party chair Michael McDonald; the Clark county Republican party chair Jesse Law; the national party committee member Jim DeGraffenreid; the national and Douglas county committee member Shawn Meehan; the Storey county clerk Jim Hindle; and Eileen Rice, a party member from the Lake Tahoe area.In an emailed statement to the Associated Press, McDonald’s attorney, Richard Wright, called the new complaint a political move by a Democratic state attorney general who also announced on Thursday that he plans to run for governor in 2026.“We will withhold further comment and address the issues in court,” said Wright, who has spoken often in court on behalf of all six defendants.Attorneys for the others did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.Their lawyers previously argued that Ford improperly brought the case before a grand jury in Democratic-leaning Las Vegas instead of in a northern Nevada city, where the alleged crimes occurred. More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Inspector general finds no FBI agents were involved in January 6 attack – US politics live

      by

      The justice department inspector general found no evidence that employees of the FBI were involved in the January 6 attack, but did fault the bureau for not better communicating with its offices nationwide ahead of the joint session of Congress that descended into mayhem four years ago when Donald Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol.In a report released today, the inspector general said: “The FBI effectively carried out its tactical support function on January 6.” However, it faulted the federal law enforcement agency for not checking in with its field offices, which could have corroborated reports that extremist groups were planning to travel to Washington DC.“The FBI did not canvass its field offices in advance of January 6, 2021, to identify any intelligence, including CHS reporting, about potential threats to the January 6 Electoral Certification,” the inspector general wrote.“FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate, who was Associate Deputy Director at the time, described the lack of a canvass prior to January 6 as a ‘basic step that was missed,’ and told the OIG that he would have expected a formal canvassing of sources to have occurred, through the issuance of an intelligence collection product, because it would have been the most thorough approach to understanding the threat picture prior to January 6.”Rightwing activists have alleged that FBI agents were involved in, or even instigated, the insurrection at the Capitol that took place after Trump addressed a crowd of his supporters on the White House ellipse.The inspector general found “no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6”.However a total of 26 FBI informants – known as confidential human sources (CHS) – were in the crowd, some of whom entered the Capitol or other restricted areas, the report says:
      We determined that of the 26 CHSs who were in DC on January 6 in connection with the events of January 6, 4 entered the Capitol during the riot; an additional 13 entered the restricted area around the Capitol, which was a security perimeter established in preparation for the January 6 Electoral Certification; and 9 neither entered a restricted area nor entered the Capitol or otherwise engaged in illegal activity. None of the CHSs who entered the Capitol or a restricted area has been prosecuted to date.
      Joe Biden issued a sweeping batch of sentence commutations that affected nearly 1,500 people, as well as 39 pardons. The acts of clemency came after the president drew criticism for pardoning his son Hunter Biden, who was about to be sentenced on tax evasion and gun charges. A recently released public opinion poll found most Americans don’t approve of Biden’s decision to pardon his son, but they also are not on board with Donald Trump’s plan to pardon defendants facing charges or convicted over the January 6 attack. Nonetheless, the president-elect told Time magazine in an interview conducted as he was named its “person of the year” that issuing those pardons would be among the first things he will do once he takes office. Trump also promised to make good on campaign promises to expand oil and gas production and carry out mass deportations, while declining to rule out a return of the family separation policy from his first term that was widely condemned as cruel.Here’s what else happened today:

      Trump campaigned on lowering grocery prices, but no longer sounds so sure that he can pull it off.

      An inspector general report found that no FBI agents took part in the January 6 insurrection, though about two dozen informants were at the Capitol or in the crowd. It also said the bureau should have communicated more with its Washington DC field offices about threats to the joint session of Congress held that day.

      Kari Lake, a failed Republican candidate for governor and senator in Arizona and multi-time election denier, has been named by Trump to lead Voice of America.

      The president-elect stopped by the New York Stock Exchange to ring the opening bell this morning and celebrate being named Time magazine’s “person of the year”.

      Jeff Bezos, the billionaire Amazon and Washington Post honcho, plans to meet with Trump next week, while Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta donated $1m to the president-elect’s inauguration fund.
      Monmouth University pollsters also asked Americans if they thought Donald Trump would unite the country during his presidency, or divide it further.Forty-four per cent of respondents said it would wind up more divided, while 34% said it would become more united.Trump won last month’s election decisively, besting Democratic vice-president Kamala Harris in all seven swing states and the popular vote – the first time a Republican has done so since 2004. Since then, he has not made baseless allegations of fraud, as he did following his election loss in 2020, and the Monmouth poll shows Americans mostly believe the vote was fair.Eighty-three per cent of respondents described the election as “fair and square”, and 12% said he won due to voter fraud.Americans are divided on whether to take Donald Trump seriously on his threats to suspend some laws and parts of the constitution and go after his political enemies, a Monmouth University poll released today found.Among 1,006 adults surveyed in recent days, 48% believe he will make good on the threat, while 47% think it is “more of an exaggeration”.Were he to follow through, 52% said it would bother them “a lot”, 22% “a little” and 22% “not at all”.Here’s more on what Trump has said he would like to do to his enemies:Joe Biden today announced 39 pardons, and nearly 1,500 grants of clemency – two distinct types of relief from criminal convictions that a president is empowered to grant. Here’s more on what the actions mean, from the Guardian’s Sam Levine:Joe Biden pardoned 39 Americans convicted of non-violent crimes on Thursday, also announcing that he had commuted the sentences of almost 1,500 people who have already been released from prison.The White House said on Thursday the commutations all relate to people who were released from prisons and placed in home confinement during the Covid pandemic who will now have their sentences reduced. The 39 people being pardoned will have their guilty verdicts wiped entirely.The announcement, what the White House is calling the single largest act of presidential clemency on a single day in modern US history, comes after Biden’s decision to pardon his son Hunter earlier this month for any federal crimes “he committed or may have committed” between 1 January 2014 and 1 December 2024 has brought renewed focus on the expansive power the US constitution gives the president to grant official clemency.It’s a power that presidents have deployed since George Washington, who pardoned those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion, to Donald Trump, who pardoned his political allies.For years after January 6, rightwing conspiracy theorists claimed that Arizona man Ray Epps was in fact a government agent who tricked Trump supporters into attacking the Capitol. No proof of that ever emerged, and earlier this year, Epps was sentenced to probation for his actions during the riot. Here’s more on that, from the Associated Press:A man targeted by rightwing conspiracy theories about the US Capitol riot was sentenced on Tuesday to a year of probation for joining the January 6 attack by a mob of fellow Donald Trump supporters.Ray Epps, a former Arizona resident who was driven into hiding by death threats, pleaded guilty in September to a misdemeanor charge. He received no jail time, and there were no restrictions placed on his travel during his probation, but he will have to serve 100 hours of community service.He appeared remotely by video conference and was not in the Washington courtroom when chief judge James Boasberg sentenced him. Prosecutors had recommended a six-month term of imprisonment for Epps.Epps’s sentencing took place in the same building where Trump was attending an appeals court hearing as the Republican former president’s lawyers argued he is immune from prosecution on charges he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost.The Fox News Channel and other rightwing media outlets amplified conspiracy theories that Epps, 62, was an undercover government agent who helped incite the Capitol attack to entrap Trump supporters.A major part of Donald Trump’s campaign was lowering prices that had risen at historic rates during Joe Biden’s presidency.But, unlike with gravity, what goes up in economics does not necessarily come down. Year-on-year consumer price inflation has declined from its peak of more than 9% in mid-2022 to under 3%, but economists say that does not necessarily mean every price increase will reverse.Asked about his plan to lower grocery prices in his Time magazine interview, Trump sounded less sure than he did on the campaign trail. “If the prices of groceries don’t come down, will your presidency be a failure?” Time asked. Trump replied:
      I don’t think so. Look, they got them up. I’d like to bring them down. It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard. But I think that they will. I think that energy is going to bring them down. I think a better supply chain is going to bring them down.
      In his interview with Time Magazine, Donald Trump suggested that he would pardon many people who faces charges or was convicted for their involvement in the January 6 attack.“I’m going to do case-by-case, and if they were non-violent, I think they’ve been greatly punished. And the answer is I will be doing that, yeah, I’m going to look if there’s some that really were out of control,” Trump said.Asked what he would do about those convicted of committing “violent acts”, Trump replied:
      Well, we’re going to look at each individual case, and we’re going to do it very quickly, and it’s going to start in the first hour that I get into office. And a vast majority of them should not be in jail.
      Despite the FBI’s Washington field office (WFO) and domestic terrorism operations section, both of which were involved in preparations for January 6, not canvassing their field offices ahead of the joint session of Congress, the inspector general finds they did not miss any specific threats.Instead, they missed information that would have corroborated reports they were already aware of. From the report:
      Although the WFO and Domestic Terrorism Operations Section at FBI Headquarters did not direct field offices to canvass their CHSs in advance of January 6, our review of documented CHS reporting in FBI field offices as of January 6 did not identify any potentially critical intelligence related to a possible attack on the Capitol on January 6 that had not been provided to law enforcement stakeholders prior to January 6.
      Additionally, our review of information in the FBI’s possession as of January 6, in addition to the then-documented CHS reporting, did not identify any potentially critical intelligence that had not been provided to, or was not otherwise known to, law enforcement stakeholders prior to January 6. Nonetheless, as numerous FBI officials told us, CHS information can be used to corroborate other sources of reporting to help the FBI develop as complete an understanding as possible of the threat picture in advance of an event like the January 6 Electoral Certification, and the FBI therefore should have canvassed its field offices for any relevant CHS information in advance of January 6.
      The justice department inspector general found no evidence that employees of the FBI were involved in the January 6 attack, but did fault the bureau for not better communicating with its offices nationwide ahead of the joint session of Congress that descended into mayhem four years ago when Donald Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol.In a report released today, the inspector general said: “The FBI effectively carried out its tactical support function on January 6.” However, it faulted the federal law enforcement agency for not checking in with its field offices, which could have corroborated reports that extremist groups were planning to travel to Washington DC.“The FBI did not canvass its field offices in advance of January 6, 2021, to identify any intelligence, including CHS reporting, about potential threats to the January 6 Electoral Certification,” the inspector general wrote.“FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate, who was Associate Deputy Director at the time, described the lack of a canvass prior to January 6 as a ‘basic step that was missed,’ and told the OIG that he would have expected a formal canvassing of sources to have occurred, through the issuance of an intelligence collection product, because it would have been the most thorough approach to understanding the threat picture prior to January 6.”Rightwing activists have alleged that FBI agents were involved in, or even instigated, the insurrection at the Capitol that took place after Trump addressed a crowd of his supporters on the White House ellipse.The inspector general found “no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6”.However a total of 26 FBI informants – known as confidential human sources (CHS) – were in the crowd, some of whom entered the Capitol or other restricted areas, the report says:
      We determined that of the 26 CHSs who were in DC on January 6 in connection with the events of January 6, 4 entered the Capitol during the riot; an additional 13 entered the restricted area around the Capitol, which was a security perimeter established in preparation for the January 6 Electoral Certification; and 9 neither entered a restricted area nor entered the Capitol or otherwise engaged in illegal activity. None of the CHSs who entered the Capitol or a restricted area has been prosecuted to date.
      Joe Biden issued a sweeping batch of sentence commutations that affected nearly 1,500 people, as well as 39 pardons. The acts of clemency came after the president drew criticism for pardoning his son Hunter Biden who was about to be sentenced on tax evasion and gun charges. A recently released public opinion poll found most Americans don’t approve of Biden’s decision to pardon his son, but they also are not on board with Donald Trump’s plan to pardon defendants facing charges or convicted over the January 6 attack. Nonetheless, the president-elect told Time magazine in an interview conducted as he was named its “person of the year” that those pardons would be among the first things he will do once he takes office. Trump also promised to make good on campaign promises to expand oil and gas production and carry out mass deportations, while declining to rule out a return of the family separation policy from his first term that was widely condemned as cruel.Here’s what else has happened today so far:

      Kari Lake, a failed Republican candidate for governor and senator in Arizona and multi-time election denier, has been named by Trump to lead Voice of America.

      Trump stopped by the New York Stock Exchange to ring the opening bell this morning and celebrate being named Time magazine’s “person of the year”.

      Jeff Bezos, the billionaire Amazon and Washington Post honcho, plans to meet with Trump next week, while Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta donated $1m to the president-elect’s inauguration fund.
      Democrats may have lost the presidency in the November election, but they made inroads at the state level, including in North Carolina. Regarded as one of the most closely divided in the country, the GOP lost its supermajority in the state legislature last month, and so has moved to strip powers from the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general, the Guardian’s Sam Levine reports:On the brink of losing their supermajority in the state legislature, North Carolina Republicans overrode a gubernatorial veto on Wednesday to enact a new law that gives them control over elections in the state and strips the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general of some of their powers.Currently, North Carolina’s governor appoints the five members of the state board of elections, allowing him to select a three-person majority from his party. The new law transfers that appointment power to the state auditor. A Republican won control of the state auditor race this fall for the first time in more than a decade.The bill also changes how local election boards in each of North Carolina’s 100 counties would be appointed. Currently the state board appoints members and the governor appoints the chair. Under the new law, the auditor-appointed state board would still pick the local boards, but the auditor would pick the chair. Taken together, the new law would give Republicans control over both the state and local boards of elections.Lawsuits are expected challenging the changes, which were tucked into a bill that allocates more than $200m in relief money for Hurricane Helene. The money will not be immediately availableand the funds cannot be spent until the legislature acts again, according to the Associated Press.The outgoing governor, Roy Cooper, and the incoming governor, Josh Stein, both Democrats, have criticized the measure as a power grab. Republicans are poised to lose their supermajority in the state legislature next year.Americans don’t know much about Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick to lead the defense department, nor Tulsi Gabbard, who the president-elect has nominated as director of national intelligence.But those who do have opinions of them generally do not see them positively, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found.Both Hegseth and Gabbard have attracted controversy, albeit for different reasons. The defense secretary nominee has been accused of sexual assault, and stories have circulated of him mistreating women and cheating on his wives, mismanaging finances at charities he was involved in, and drinking excessively.Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who recently left the party, is under fire for statements supportive of resigned Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and Russian president Vladimir Putin – both US adversaries.Here’s what the AP/NORC poll discovered about them. Regarding Hegseth:
      Hegseth is still an unknown quantity for many Americans. About 4 in 10 don’t know enough about him to give an opinion, according to the poll. But his selection is viewed more negatively than positively among Americans who do know who he is. About 2 in 10 U.S. adults approve of Hegseth being picked for Trump’s Cabinet, while 36% disapprove and about 1 in 10 don’t know enough to have an opinion.
      He has higher support among Republicans, but it’s not overwhelming. Many Republicans do not have an opinion of Hegseth: About 4 in 10 say they don’t know enough about him. About one-third of Republicans approve of him as a pick, and 16% disapprove. Another 1 in 10 Republicans, roughly, are neutral and say they neither approve nor disapprove.
      Those approval numbers among Republicans are at least slightly lower for Hegseth than any of the other names included in the poll.
      And Gabbard:
      Gabbard is as unknown as Hegseth is, but Americans are a little less likely to disapprove of her nomination. About 2 in 10 Americans approve of Trump’s pick of Gabbard, while about 3 in 10 disapprove. The rest either do not know enough to say – about 4 in 10 said this – or have a neutral view.
      Approval is slightly higher among Republicans than Hegseth’s, though. About 4 in 10 Republicans approve of the choice, while very few disapprove and 16% have a neutral view. Similar to Americans overall, about 4 in 10 Republicans don’t know enough to say.
      Democratic representative Bennie Thompson, the former chair of the House committee invesigating the January 6 attack, says that he would accept a preemptive pardon if one were issued by Joe Biden.“It’s his prerogative. If he offers it to me or other members of the committee … I would accept it, but it’s his choice,” Thompson said on CNN this morning.The comments came after president-elect Donald Trump told NBC in an interview that members of the House committee that investigated the January 6 attack on the Capitol should go to jail.“Everybody on that committee … for what they did, yeah, honestly, they should go to jail,” Trump said.The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) chief, Michael Whitaker, will resign on inauguration day and will not continue as the head of the agency in a second Trump administration, according to reports.Politico reported the news this morning, citing two officials with direct knowledge of Whitaker’s plans. Whitaker reportedly informed his staff of his departure plans during a meeting on Thursday morning.Whitaker was confirmed as the FAA administrator by the Senate on 24 October 2023. FAA administrators generally serve for five years.Meta has donated $1m to Donald Trump’s inaugural fund, the company confirmed on Thursday.The donation appears to be the latest effort by the social media company and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, to improve relations with the incoming president, and comes just weeks after Zuckerberg dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago.Meta confirmed its donation to the Guardian on Thursday but did not provide details regarding the reason for the contribution.Read more about it here:Donald Trump says he plans to meet with Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos next week.In brief remarks before the president-elect rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange this morning, he spoke with CNBC and said:
      Mark Zuckerberg’s been over to see me, and I can tell you, Elon [Musk] is another, and Jeff Bezos is coming up next week. I want to get ideas from them. Look, we want them to do well. We want everybody [to do well], and we want great jobs, fantastic salaries.
      More reactions to the decision by Joe Biden to commute the sentences of almost 1,500 people and pardon 39 Americans convicted of non-violent crimes, are coming in.Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who is the chair of the Senate judiciary committee, said in a statement:
      The President took an important step by commuting the sentences of these men and women. In far too many cases in our justice system, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime” Durbin added. “I have long advocated for criminal justice reform to address these inequities and commend President Biden for this act of mercy and for his leadership.
      These individuals have successfully returned to their communities and reunited with their families. I urge the President to continue using his pardon power during his remaining time in office to address miscarriages of justice, just as the founders of this democracy intended.
      Lauren-Brooke Eisen, the senior director of the Brennan Center’s Justice Program, said that the decision was a “vital recognition of the excessively punitive nature of our criminal justice system”.In a statement Eisen added:
      There are thousands more who deserve the same, and we hope to see additional clemencies granted before the end of his term,” Eisen added.
      In addition to the group of people included in today’s announcement, the Brennan Center and a coalition of allies have been calling on the president to commute the sentences of the more than 40 people on federal death row to life without parole, and to thousands of people who are serving unfairly long, racially disparate drug sentences.” More