More stories

  • in

    The week that changed the US election: Trump’s immunity as Biden falls flat on his face

    Hello there.Well, that was interesting, wasn’t it? The election was trundling along pretty normally, then we get a momentous week that changed the shape of the race and the stakes involved.First, Joe Biden squandered his a chance to prove he has the vitality, vigor and suitability for a second term in the White House, with a debate performance which only underlined concerns that he is too old for the job.Just as people were processing the debate debacle, the supreme court announced that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for almost anything they do in office. It threw Trump’s recent conviction, and his other court cases, into jeopardy – and could embolden Trump to act without restraint should he win a second term.We’ll take a look at all that (gulp), but first here’s what else has been going on in the election.Here’s what you need to know1. Trump sentencing delayedThe former president was set to be sentenced on 11 July, after he was found guilty on 34 charges of falsifying business records to hide hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels. But after that supreme court decision, his sentencing has been pushed back to 18 September, as the judge in the case decides whether Trump has immunity that could abort the conviction.2. Trump rises with younger votersTrump has opened up a lead over Biden among young voters, according to an AtlasIntel poll. The ex-president leads the current president by 15 points among 18-to-29-year-olds, according to the survey conducted by one of the most accurate pollsters in the 2020 election. It was conducted between 26 and 28 June, so some people were polled after the debate. A smattering of other polls paint a mixed picture – some show support for Biden falling since the debate, others show him more or less holding steady.3. The money pours inThe Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee raised $264m in the second quarter of 2024, including $127m in June, which should buoy up the president somewhat. Trump, however, raked in $331m – about 72% of the $454m he owes, and cannot pay, for a civil fraud case earlier this year.Could Biden have just crowned Trump king?View image in fullscreenOn Monday the supreme court dropped a verdict that horrified many Americans: it ruled that US presidents are entitled to broad immunity from prosecution related to acts they commit in office.The 6-3 ruling by the majority conservative court, three of whom were nominated by Trump, means that some of the charges relating to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election likely cannot be prosecuted.The ruling that presidents have “absolute immunity” for actions that fall within the scope of the office’s “core constitutional powers” has some worrying about what Trump, who has said he would persecute political opponents if re-elected, might get up to in a second term.Much of the reaction to the decision has been scathing, with Sonia Sotomayor, one of the liberal supreme court justices who opposed the ruling, saying the decision will make a president a “king above the law”.While Trump, who has been obsessed with the royal family for decades (apparently he attempted to woo Princess Diana, who subsequently told a friend that the then future president gave her “the creeps”) will be pretty pleased with that characterization, the timing wasn’t pretty for any Trump critics.The decision made clear the significance of Biden’s lackluster debate performance, in which the president spent much of his 90 minutes on stage staring into the middle distance, mouth agape, like a drunk reading the menu board in a kebab shop. When Biden did speak, his voice was shaky, and he appeared to lose his train of thought at times.A series of polls in recent days has hinted at how Biden’s performance was perceived, though a really comprehensive gold-standard national poll has yet to be released. A Yahoo News/YouGov survey found that 60% of Americans believe he is not “fit to serve another term as president”, while among Democratic voters, 41% said Biden should be not be the presidential nominee in November, according to a poll by USA Today/Suffolk University.The urgency has only stepped up after that supreme court decision. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that there are 25 Democratic members of the House of Representatives ready to call for Biden to step down if he continues to look shaky, and two Democratic Congress members – both in swing districts – have said they believe Biden will lose to Trump in November. Prominent news organizations, including the New York Times, have called for Biden to be replaced, as have numerous pundits. Biden has said nothing to indicate he will step down, and plans to meet with Democratic governors today to shore up support.Much of this is because of what that supreme court decision could mean for a Trump presidency. Trump has repeatedly told us what he will do in a second term: he has said he will subject Liz Cheney, one of the few Republicans who is critical of him, to a “televised military tribunal” on uncertain charges, and has said he will act as a dictator on “day one” of his presidency.In June, Trump said that if elected he “has every right to go after” Joe Biden and his family – and the supreme court essentially gave him the green light to do that, and more.Justice Sotomayer, writing in a dissent to the court’s decision, said that the ruling means when a president “uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution”.“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?” Sotomayer wrote.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Immune.”It’s serious, in other words. Democrats find themselves in the biggest crisis of this election, just as the stakes have raised immeasurably.Lie of the weekView image in fullscreenIn last week’s debate, Donald Trump falsely claimed Democrats “will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month and even after birth”, specifically calling out the former governor of Virginia for comments on later abortions.Ralph Northam, then the Democratic governor of Virginia, gave an answer in a 2019 interview that Trump and other Republicans have seized on, about what would happen when a baby is born with severe deformities. At no point did Northam say a baby would be killed after birth, and a Virginia news outlet, 13NewsNow, debunked Trump’s debate claims about Northam’s comments.To be clear: after a child is born, if they are killed, that is murder, or infanticide. This is illegal in all US states (and the world over). Democrats are not pushing policies to kill babies after they are born.Later abortions, often referred to as “late-term” abortions by Republicans though the term is unspecific and confusing, are rare. Less than 1% of abortions in the US are performed at or past 21 weeks of pregnancy, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data shows. This is often because of fetal abnormalities that aren’t discovered until later in gestation.– Rachel Leingang, misinformation reporterMilwaukee braces for an influx of RepublicansIn less than two weeks, Milwaukee will temporarily become the center of the American political universe, when Republicans open their national convention at the Fiserv Forum downtown.View image in fullscreenThe GOP did well to choose Wisconsin’s largest city as the venue for its first proper political convention since 2016 – the state has acted as the tipping point in multiple presidential elections, including Joe Biden’s victory in 2020, and Trump’s triumph four years prior.The Fiserv Forum, which is best known as the home of the Milwaukee Bucks NBA team, is now wrapped in a banner welcoming delegates to the convention. Barriers are lined up nearby, waiting to be deployed to close roads. Residents are paying close attention to the contours of the security zone, which threatens to snarl traffic and disrupt life for people in and around it.Milwaukee is a Democratic stronghold in a purple state, and is likely to vote for Biden once again. With Wisconsin’s countryside tilting towards Trump, the real question is how the state’s suburban communities will lean. Democrats have put up good numbers there in recent elections – but all signs point to this being an election like few before it.- Chris Stein is the US politics live blogger for Guardian USWorst weekView image in fullscreenThis guy just can’t catch a break. Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s erstwhile lawyer, hair-dye fan and all-round weird guy, lost his license to practice law in New York on Tuesday. It comes after he was suspended by WABC, a New York radio station, in May, after he used his show to spread conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. It also comes after Giuliani declared bankruptcy in December, after a court ordered him to pay nearly $150m to two election workers he defamed. Phew! More

  • in

    The supreme court’s presidential immunity ruling mocks the rule of law | Corey Brettschneider

    The US supreme court found this week that former presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for “official acts”. This ruling doesn’t just place Donald Trump above the law. The true danger of the opinion is that it could protect precisely the kind of official acts that might destroy the American republic itself.The origin of the idea that the official acts of a president are immune from prosecution is found in a case about a fired whistleblower. In 1970, President Richard Nixon fired A Ernest Fitzgerald, an air force management analyst, in retaliation for his publicizing information about cost overruns. Fitzgerald brought a civil suit against Nixon, seeking damages for his dismissal. The supreme court sided with Nixon, granting the president absolute immunity from “damages liability predicated on his official acts”.The court of that time defined “official acts” as those associated with the president’s duties under article II of the constitution, including the duty to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed”. It asserted immunity even for presidential acts within the “outer perimeter” of this duty. However, in this case the court was focused on insulating a president from worries about his financial liability so that he could more easily make decisions about everyday matters of governance, such as hiring and firing.The supreme court did not then define these official acts to include criminal acts by a president. In fact, its narrow decision precluded only the “particular private remedy” of a civil suit against a former president and even included a pledge to not “place a president above the law”.This week’s ruling grossly misconstrued the Fitzgerald decision, disregarding this pledge. Instead, it extended an opinion about immunity from civil damages suits to encompass criminal immunity for acts antithetical to the president’s duty to “take care”. The danger of immunity for criminal “official” action is that it protects the enormous power of the president when it is used for the most nefarious political ends, threatening the very existence of democracy.Consider Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s warning in her thunderous dissent that the decision could protect a president attempting to use the military to illegally retain power after losing an election, what political scientists call a “self-coup”. No courts should incentivize actions that could threaten the very stability of the republic.Yet that is precisely the kind of act the court has potentially protected – not just during a presidency but after it. While the court left open what counts as an “official act” – and returned the case to a trial court to determine whether the crimes Trump is charged with from January 6 fit this description – the door is now open to impunity for these crimes.Indeed, the events of January 6 are rightly understood as an attempted self-coup – acts from which the court has now largely shielded Trump from criminal liability. Even if the trial court tasked with hearing the case now decides that Trump’s actions were not “official”, the supreme court’s delay means the process would almost certainly extend past the election. If Trump were to retake power, he would then receive immunity while in office, effectively ensuring he never faces criminal responsibility for these events.View image in fullscreenThat risk of a presidential self-coup goes beyond Trump. Indeed, it has long been at the heart of the controversy over immunity. As I describe in my new book, The Presidents and the People, released this week, that risk played an unknown but crucial role in the most pivotal moment of the Nixon crisis.In the midst of Watergate, a grand jury of citizens voted in a straw poll to indict Nixon for associated crimes, but the special prosecutor Leon Jaworski sought to dissuade them from moving forward while Nixon was still in office. As he saw it, presidential immunity was needed to maintain national stability. He argued to the grand jurors that an indictment of Nixon might even prompt a self-coup.According to the deputy jury foreman, Harold Evans, “Mr Jaworski gave us some very strong arguments why he shouldn’t be indicted, and he gave us the trauma of the country and he’s the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and what happens if he surrounds his White House with his armed forces?”Jaworski’s rhetorical questions made clear the reasons why it would be dangerous to indict a sitting president. Yet even Jaworski clarified to the grand jury that they were free to indict Nixon after he left office. Only President Gerald Ford’s pardon prevented this. Jaworski’s logic supporting immunity for sitting presidents reinforces why immunity for former presidents is so dangerous. A president who not only committed crimes in office but attempted to cling to power in a self-coup might never face criminal prosecution.Indeed, this week’s opinion incentivizes behavior like a self-coup by ruling that a president can never be punished for such behavior as long as a court construes it as an official act. Such a president could claim the self-coup was official because it was an attempt to protect the country in an emergency. Trump himself has already falsely claimed his actions on January 6 were an attempt to fight voter fraud, an argument that his lawyers will frame as an official action.The irony of this week’s opinion is that it allows prosecution for former presidents only in the areas where their power is much less dangerous. In 1872, when President Ulysses Grant was allegedly stopped for a traffic violation, he is said to have paid the fine, though there is historical debate around the incident. Under this week’s ruling, Grant would receive no immunity for such an act, assuming he was speeding on his way to a private function.While the court was right to deny immunity to private actions like these, private acts are not why the question of immunity matters. The most dangerous acts of a president are those that are official – and those that now potentially receive immunity. At the country’s founding, Patrick Henry warned of a president who would realize that no legal checks limited the presidency. Realizing this, Henry claimed an ambitious president would not hesitate to crown himself a “monarch”.Before this week, that fear might have appeared hyperbolic. Today, however, Henry’s warning feels prescient. He is describing the kind of self-coup that the court could now potentially protect on the grounds that it was pursuant to the president’s duty to an official duty to defend the nation from instability.Given the danger of this opinion, it is imperative that we respond. Citizens must make this election about rescuing our democracy from authoritarianism. That means, first, defeating Trump and preventing him from shutting down this case. More broadly, it means demanding that our next president restore the basic checks of the rule of law on the presidency. We cannot allow a system that immunizes a criminal president from dangerous official actions.The next president must pledge to support legislation that prevents criminal official acts from presidential immunity or at least narrows the scope of immunized presidential behavior significantly. Given that the supreme court might strike down such a law, it is even more crucial to appoint justices who would uphold such a law and, more importantly, reverse the court’s disastrous decision this week.Our country has recovered before from a president’s authoritarian acts by electing leaders who would repudiate them. It is time we did so again.
    Corey Brettschneider is professor of political science at Brown University and the author of The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It More

  • in

    Who could replace Joe Biden as Democratic nominee? Here are six possibilities

    Joe Biden’s catastrophic showing at the debate with Donald Trump has sparked waves of speculation about whether he could be replaced as the Democratic nominee for president – and, if so, who would run against Trump instead.Biden won the Democratic primaries earlier this year but would not officially become the party’s candidate for president until endorsed at the 2024 Democratic national convention in Chicago, which takes place from 19-22 August.There is no formal mechanism to replace him as the presumptive nominee, and such a move would be the first time a US political party has attempted to do so in modern times.In effect, Biden would have to agree to step aside and allow the delegates he won in the primaries – who vote to nominate a candidate at the Chicago convention – to choose someone else.There is no legal requirement for delegates to vote for the person who won in the primaries, but they are asked to vote in a way that “in all good conscience reflects the sentiments of those who elected them”.Were Biden to step aside, he may try to name someone – most likely his vice-president, Kamala Harris – as his preferred candidate, which would carry some weight with delegates but would not be binding.The most drastic course of action open to Biden – resigning the presidency – would make Harris president. But that would not automatically make her the Democratic nominee for 2024.If a candidate were to be chosen at the Chicago convention that would make what is conventionally a highly choreographed event, where a party presents its nominee to the public over several days, into a much more volatile open, or contested, convention – a rarity in modern US politics. About 700 party insiders, who may not be united, would have the choice of picking a new candidate. They would then have only three months to unite behind and campaign for them before the November election.There is no clear frontrunner, but here are some possible options:Kamala HarrisView image in fullscreenThe most obvious pick would be Biden’s vice-president. She has been widely criticised for not carving out her own role in the Biden administration and has poor polling approval ratings, suggesting she would struggle against Donald Trump in the glare of an election campaign. The 59-year-old was backing Biden after the debate, but may be the easiest for the party to install as a replacement. Moreover, if Biden should choose to resign now, Harris would automatically become president.Gavin NewsomView image in fullscreenThe 56-year-old California governor was in the spin room on Thursday night talking down any alternatives to Biden as nominee, saying it was “nonsensical speculation”. He had a primetime debate last year with the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, which could be a presidential match-up of the future, and has made a point of supporting Democrats in elections away from his home state, which looked, at times, like a shadow White House campaign.J B PritzkerView image in fullscreenThe 59-year-old governor of Illinois would be one of the wealthiest of possible picks. He can flourish his credentials of having codified the right to abortion in Illinois and declaring it a “sanctuary state” for women seeking abortions. He has also been strong on gun control, and legalised recreational marijuana.Gretchen WhitmerView image in fullscreenThe Michigan governor, 52, was on the shortlist for VP pick for Biden in 2020, and a strong showing in the midterms for the Democratic party was in part attributed to her governership. She has been in favour of stricter gun laws, repealing abortion bans and backing universal preschool.Sherrod BrownView image in fullscreenThe 71-year-old would be the oldest of the alternate picks, but is still seven years younger than Trump. It was considered a surprise when he did not have a tilt for the Democratic nomination for 2020, at the time saying remaining as Ohio’s senator was “the best place for me to make that fight” on behalf of working people. A strong voice on labour rights and protections, he has also spoken defending IVF and abortion.Dean PhillipsView image in fullscreenA candidate during the Democratic primaries earlier this year, he picked some backers but failed to appeal to the broader party, winning no contests, and so is unlikely to be a factor if Biden steps down. More

  • in

    Kamala Harris may be our only hope. Biden should step aside and endorse her | Mehdi Hasan

    I have never been a fan of Kamala Harris.I was an outspoken critic of her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, earning the ire both of her then spokesperson and also the notorious “KHive” of terminally online Harris fans.Nor did I shed any tears when her campaign turned out to be a disaster and she ended up withdrawing from the race before a single vote had been cast in the primaries.So it is with some surprise, reluctance and even trepidation that I am now writing these words: Joe Biden should stand aside and endorse Kamala Harris as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee.Yes, it is time for those of us who have been loud critics of Harris to make an even louder case for the vice-president. To lock arms with the dreaded KHive and put aside our longstanding doubts about the vice-president’s political skills.Because the future of our republic may depend upon us doing so.First, some facts about Joe Biden. The president was trailing Donald Trump in the polls before last week’s debate – and he is still trailing Donald Trump after the debate. The president was old before the debate – and he is even older after the debate. He, of course, continues to get older with every passing day.On Sunday, a CBS News poll found a whopping 72% of voters say Biden does not have the “mental and cognitive health” to serve as president. Almost half of Democrats say they want the Democratic presidential nominee to step aside.So I won’t waste time making the case for why Biden shouldn’t be running for re-election. Those of us 51 million people who tuned into the CNN debate last week “can’t unsee what we saw”, to quote a recent Slate headline.Nor will I bother to make the case for a Gretchen Whitmer or a Gavin Newsom. Would they be preferable to Harris? Yes. Do I believe the Democratic party establishment is willing to take a punt on an “open convention” in Chicago next month? Nope. Therefore, the only viable alternative to Biden right now is Harris – especially as she was elected alongside him by 81 million Americans and is also the only potential nominee who can access the $91m in his campaign bank account right now.So, with apologies to my 2020 self, let me make a (reluctant) case for why the vice-president should take over from her boss.First, her numbers. For as long as I can remember, the argument from Team Biden has been that if Joe steps aside, then only Kamala becomes the candidate, and she has even less chance of beating Donald than Joe does. The vice-president polls worse than the president, they constantly whisper to reporters (off the record).Now, that may have once been true. But it simply isn’t the case any more. Even before last week’s debate, a Politico poll showed Harris outperforming Biden in Black and Hispanic communities, where Trump has been making inroads, while a Bloomberg News poll revealed a vice-president “increasingly endearing herself to swing-state voters”.On Friday, the day after the debate, Data for Progress published a poll showing Harris performing “the same as Biden in a head-to-head matchup against Trump”. By Tuesday, a CNN poll was showing Harris, unlike Biden, “within striking distance” of Trump, thanks in part to “broader support from women (50% of female voters back Harris over Trump v 44% for Biden against Trump) and independents (43% Harris v 34% Biden)”.You might not want to believe it, and lazy pundits may say otherwise, but the polling is pretty clear these days: Harris actually has a better chance than Biden of beating Trump. And, unlike the president, the veep’s numbers have – and you’ll be hearing this phrase a great deal in the coming days – room to grow.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSecond, there’s her record. With the exception of Biden himself, Harris has served in elected office – as a district attorney, state attorney general, senator and vice-president – longer than any Democrat elected to the White House in my lifetime. As a former prosecutor, she is ideally positioned to make the case against Trump, a convicted felon.Who do you want standing on stage at the second debate in September, rebutting Trump’s lies, bigotry and nonsense? The woman who went viral when she grilled Bill Barr and Brett Kavanaugh at the Senate judiciary committee, or the man who went viral for saying he’d “beat Medicare”? Who is more likely to highlight Trump’s deeply unpopular stance on abortion? A female candidate who has spent months hammering Trump on abortion and made a historic visit to a Planned Parenthood clinic, or a male candidate who couldn’t answer a simple question on abortion rights without going off on a weird and incoherent tangent about a migrant murderer? Who is going to bring more energy to the Democratic presidential campaign – a vice-president who recently urged an audience of young voters to “kick that fucking door down”, or a president who is only “dependably engaged” between 10am and 4pm?Third, there’s the Gaza-shaped elephant in the room. Prior to last week’s debate, it wasn’t Biden’s age that I considered to be his biggest electoral liability. It was his horrific stance on Gaza, from his non-stop supply of arms to Israel to his nonexistent “red line” on Rafah. Support for Biden among not just Muslim-American and Arab-American voters, but young and Black voters, has been plummeting since 7 October 2023. More than half a million “uncommitted” Democratic voters, who could affect the results in multiple swing states, have urged the president to end his unconditional support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.Given Biden refuses to budge on this issue, a Harris candidacy might offer a fresh start for Democrats on Gaza. Remember the headline in Politico from December? “Kamala Harris pushes White House to be more sympathetic toward Palestinians.” Or the NBC News reporting from March on how Biden’s national security council “toned down parts of her speech” calling for a ceasefire, because the original draft “was harsher on Israel”?“She is definitely better on Gaza than he is,” a well-connected member of the administration told me a few weeks ago.To be clear: I’m not saying Joe Biden can’t win or that Kamala Harris won’t lose. I’m simply saying that there is a younger, more popular, more effective campaigner ready and willing to go, who could turn the page on Gaza while giving Trump the rhetorical drubbing he so deserves.I’m reminding Democrats that they still have time to choose between trying to elect the oldest president in American history, whose age has become a weight around his neck, or trying to elect the first female president, the first Asian American president and the second Black president, which could energize their demoralized base.American democracy, as Democrats themselves repeatedly tell us, is on the line. And if we all have to join the KHive in order to try to save that democracy … then so be it.
    Mehdi Hasan is the CEO and editor-in-chief of Zeteo More

  • in

    At the Arizona-Mexico border, residents are fed up: ‘The politicians are creating the mayhem’

    A few hundred feet from the US-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona, Laura Aldana chuckled at the suggestion – made by both leading presidential candidates – that the region had fallen into chaos.“Where?” she asked rhetorically. She gestured toward the street outside the downtown formalwear boutique where she works. “There’s almost too little to do here.”Elsewhere in town, Oscar Felix Jr, a local radio host, shook his head at the idea that there was a crisis. “Yeah, no we are good.”And a hundred miles east, in the border town of Douglas, Peggy Christiansen, a pastor at the First Presbyterian church, cringed. “I look at those conversations on TV, or on the news – and it just makes me mad,” she said. “The politicians are creating the mayhem.”In Arizona – a key battleground state – residents living near the border are finding their region the centre of attention in a presidential election cycle where immigration has emerged as a top concern for voters.The issue has darkened Joe Biden’s hopes for re-election – and the president, sensing this weakness, has promised to “secure the border and secure it now” with harsh new restrictions on people seeking asylum in the US. During the presidential debate last week, the Donald Trump honed in on the issue – redirecting questions about the economy, abortion and the environment to immigration and painting a cataclysmic scene of millions arriving at the border to “destroy our country”. If he wins in November, the former president has promised the detention and mass deportation of unauthorised immigrants, and an expanded border wall.View image in fullscreenHere along the border, residents interviewed by the Guardian had many different ideas about how the US should respond to one of the largest surges in migration in the country’s history. But even those with wildly different political views and background were united in their scepticism that all that rhetoric would amount to much.Some said they were increasingly feeling like pawns in a political game. Many were worried that the election year would further defer the sorts of broad reforms they’ve been requesting for years.“It is interesting because every time it’s a political campaign, the migrants become a problem,” said Felix Jr, who runs the local Spanish-language radio station Maxima FM. “But they never talk about what is really affecting us.”At the beginning of the year, the border’s Tucson sector – which stretches from Arizona’s border with New Mexico in the east to the edge of Yuma county in the west – became the busiest region for migrant crossings. Across the border, authorities were apprehending a record number of people – including about 2.4 million people in the fiscal year ending in September 2023.Panicked local leaders have been publicly calling for more funding and resources from the federal government to shelter and feed the influx of people. In high-profile news reports, disgruntled ranchers and hardened immigration critics have recoiled at what they perceive as intruders on their land.“I’m afraid of how the media has covered this, and how politicians have exploited that,” said Mark Adams, a coordinator for Frontera De Cristo, a Presbyterian ministry based in Douglas and across the border in Agua Prieta. He and other locals have bristled at characterizations of Douglas and other border towns as chaotic or overrun.In September of last year, amid a rush of arrivals, Customs and Border Protection started releasing asylum seekers who had been granted humanitarian parole into small, rural communities including Douglas, Bisbee, Nogales and Casa Grande, rather than transporting them to bigger cities. Many of the mayors and sheriffs of these towns balked.But in Douglas, a town of about 15,500 people, locals sprang into action, Adams said. The local Catholic and Presbyterian churches, along with Frontera de Cristo, arranged housing for families and individuals. Local restaurants donated catered meals, and home cooks contributed giant pots of pozole.Over a six-month period, the coalition welcomed about 8,500 people. The volunteer-run migrant welcome centre ran so smoothly. “Hardly anybody who wasn’t involved knew that this was even happening,” Adams said.View image in fullscreenIn recent months, as the number of migrant apprehensions dropped, officials once again began busing new arrivals directly to Tucson, where they could more easily seek out legal resources and flights to reunite sponsors or family members in other states. But some in his congregation were almost disappointed they wouldn’t get to welcome more people, Adams said.“I told them ‘No!’ It’s so much better for them to go to Tucson,” he said, laughing. “But this is a small community and there was just such an outpouring of support. So to see this narrative that the migrants are a burden to our towns is really upsetting.”Within the town, and all along its outskirts – where remote cattle ranches and scattered homesteads blend into desert and red rock mountains – other residents said the national rhetoric on immigration and the border often clashed with their realities.Trump’s references, especially, to the border as a “war zone” make her wince, said Christiansen, the pastor.“But I’m really disappointed that Biden and his people are just starting to do the same thing,” she said. “It’s like people are just starting to sprout this rhetoric that isn’t based on reality.”Christiansen, who grew up on a cattle ranch about 30 minutes drive out of town and still lives in the country, often sees migrants crossing through her property, as do family members and neighbours. She can empathise with the complicated feelings some locals have about the surge in migration. Many have to contend with trash on their property, cut cattle fences, drained water tanks and other property damage that can cost ranchers earning slim margins of hundreds or thousands of dollars. Some worry about the threat posed by cartels who smuggle people across the border, she said.But, she added: “In my family, if someone crosses the fence or some smuggler drops them off in the desert, if they need help we give them water and shade and a place to charge their phones. And then we mind our own business.”Recently, she had offered a drink to a young man who was desperate and dehydrated when officers showed up at her door asking after a person of his description. “I don’t lie, so I had to tell them,” she said. “But this was just a young man and he was desperate. I hugged him, and I said I was sorry.” West of Nogales, where the border wall slices across the ancestral land of the Tohono O’odham, Faith Ramon sees a monument to an immigration system that has failed both her community and the migrants it was built to deter.“I keep thinking, why does it have to be like this?” she said.Construction of the wall during the Trump administration destroyed sacred Tohono O’odham sites and desecrated burial grounds, wreaking ecological disaster in its path. In the ensuing years, she said, enhanced border security measures in the region have led to the near-daily harassment of Tohono O’odham nation members.Anyone who doesn’t look white is at risk of getting pulled over or interrogated, said Ramon, a member of the Tohono O’odham nation and a community organiser with the progressive group Lucha, which is challenging an Arizona ballot measure that would empower local law enforcement agents to similarly target and question anyone they suspect to be undocumented.View image in fullscreenLast year, border patrol agents shot and killed 58-year-old Raymond Mattia outside his home on the Tohono O’odham reservation. “If they want to secure the border, then they should be doing that,” she said. “Not hanging around my grandma’s backyard or my community store.”“People are coming just for the quote-unquote American dream. And it’s becoming a nightmare,” she said, for everyone.In a region where people have long felt ignored by both political parties, residents were divided over Biden’s recent executive order – which shuts down the border to nearly all asylum seekers once the average for daily unauthorised crossings hits 2,500.When Biden announced the order earlier this month, Kat Rodriguez, the activist in Tucson, had just completed an annual 75-mile trek from Sasabé, Mexico, through the desert to Tucson, to honour migrants who died making the long journey north. “Every election, historically and consistently, the border becomes this poker chip that politicians throw in there to show that they’re tough,” she said. “And it seems like there’s this race to the bottom with some of these policies of who can be more draconian.”She and other advocates worried that the restrictions would further push desperate people to try to cross covertly rather than wait to apply for asylum. “People are already waiting for unreasonable amounts of time,” she said. “And this just puts even more people in a vulnerable position.”Some immigrant advocates and local leaders have also pointed out the order doesn’t come with additional funding or resources for enforcement, or for cities struggling to provide for the influx of people. And it’s unclear that the order would deter economic migrants crossing unlawfully, many of whom understand they do not qualify for asylum and therefore make treacherous journeys across the desert to evade authorities.Others were more optimistic. “It makes me think Biden is looking out for the country,” said Rob Victor, a retired border patrol agent who has since settled in Douglas. Agents have been overwhelmed in recent years, he said, as have cities not just along the border and across the country who lacked the resources to shelter asylum seekers waiting in the US for their cases to be worked out in immigration courts.That order, along with Biden’s executive action shielding the undocumented spouses of US citizens from deportation, are steps in the right direction to allow the immigration judges and patrol agents to focus on existing applications and border security, he said.But on their own, the actions aren’t enough to address pressure at the border, he continued. “The answers are not at the border enforcement level, or at the border patrol level. We need comprehensive immigration reform,” he said.View image in fullscreenHe’d like to see the US hire hundreds more immigration judges, so that those seeking asylum don’t have to wait for years for a court date without the ability to earn money for themselves. And there should be more opportunities for temporary work visas for people who come to the US primarily looking for work, he said. “That has to be negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats,” he said. “Let’s get the Squad involved in this. And let’s get some conservative Republicans too. And Kyrsten Sinema – she’s a Democrat but moderate,” he said, referring to the Arizona senator, who visited Douglas earlier this year to deliver the bad news that congressional action on immigration was unlikely in 2024 after Trump helped sink the effort in February.But Congress has repeatedly failed to reform the immigration system for decades. And people on both sides of the border have grown weary.“For me it’s been three years,” said Maria Luisa Garcia, 55, who waits on the Mexican side of the border in Nogales, Sonora, each week – to meet with her niece on the US side, in Nogales, Arizona.Garcia cannot cross to the US until her visa application is processed and her niece, who is also applying for residency, cannot cross south while her application is pending.The two link fingers through the gaps in the rust-red steel bollards. “One more year, and return, they told me. One more and one more.” she said, shaking her head.Read more reporting from the US-Mexico border:
    In this Arizona town, business has slowed as a border crackdown ramps up
    At the US’ latest border hotspot, aid workers brace for volatility
    US hospital treated 441 patients with severe injuries from border wall last year More

  • in

    Trump hush-money sentencing delayed until September – as it happened

    Joe Biden has invited Democratic governors to meet with him on Wednesday, as he attempts to shore up support among his party’s leaders after his disastrous debate performance last week.The meeting with governors is likely to be mostly virtual, according to Associated Press, and marks the strongest indication yet that Biden is attempting to reassure those in his own party that he is capable of continuing his reelection campaign.Here’s a recap of the latest developments:
    The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal case in New York postponed his sentencing to 18 September, agreeing to pause proceedings to weigh whether the supreme court’s recent ruling on immunity could imperil the conviction.
    The first congressional Democrat broke ranks and called on Joe Biden to withdraw his presidential candidacy following last week’s calamitous debate performance. Lloyd Doggett, a House member for Texas, became the first Democrat in the House of Representative to urge the president to step aside.
    Biden’s medical team said a cognitive test “is not warranted” and “not necessary”, the White House has said. The comments came after Nancy Pelosi, the former Democratic House speaker, admitted that questions over whether Biden’s debate performance were “an episode” or “a condition” were legitimate.
    Biden has invited Democratic governors to meet with him on Wednesday, as he attempts to shore up support among his party’s leaders.
    Biden will sit down for his first TV interview since his debate performance. The interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos will air on Friday.
    The former New York City mayor and legal adviser to Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, was disbarred in New York after a court found he repeatedly made false statements about Trump’s 2020 election loss.
    People who have spent time with Joe Biden over recent months have said that the 81-year-old president’s lapses appear to have grown “more frequent, more pronounced and more worrisome”, according to a New York Times report.Several current and former officials have noticed that Biden has increasingly appeared “confused or listless”, with recent moments of disorientation generating concern among advisers and allies, the report said. According to the report:
    Last week’s debate prompted some around him to express concern that the decline had accelerated lately. Several advisers and current and former administration officials who see Mr. Biden regularly but not every day or week said they were stunned by his debate performance because it was the worst they had ever seen him.
    The Democratic congressional candidate for Colorado, Adam Frisch, has called on Joe Biden to step aside.Frisch, who is running for Colorado’s 3rd congressional district, said in a statement on Tuesday that neither Biden nor Donald Trump is “fit for office”.“We need a President that can unite America to realize our nation’s unlimited potential,” Frisch said, adding:
    We deserve better. President Biden should do what’s best for the country and withdraw from the race.
    Joe Biden’s medical team said a cognitive test “is not warranted” and “not necessary”, the White House has said, after the president’s disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump last week.The White House’s press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, in a briefing with reporters today, said Biden had a cold and a “hoarse voice” during the debate, as she admitted “it was a bad night”.Asked if there was any consideration given to releasing a more robust set of medical records, Jean-Pierre replied:
    We have been transparent. We have released thorough reports from his medical team every year since he’s been in office.
    Asked about former House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comments earlier today in which she said both Biden and Trump should provide the public with test results regarding physical and mental health, the White House spokesperson said:
    His medical team have said it is not warranted. In this case, we have put forward a thorough, transparent annual report on his health. They have said that is not warranted. It is not necessary.
    Here’s a look at the announcement by judge Juan Merchan in which he postpones Donald Trump’s sentencing in his hush-money case to 18 September, as shared by Law360’s Frank G. Runyeon.Merchan’s announcement comes after Manhattan prosecutors earlier today said they did not oppose a request by Trump’s lawyers to postpone his sentencing, originally set for 11 July.Trump’s lawyers asked to have the case re-evaluated, and the sentencing postponed, in light of the supreme court’s decision on Monday that conferred broad immunity on former presidents for official acts undertaken in office.Judges typically grant motions when they are unopposed. The postponement marks an unexpected setback for prosecutors and for the prospect of criminal accountability for Trump before the 2024 election, given that the other cases are indefinitely delayed.Donald Trump’s sentencing in his hush-money case has been postponed to September after the presiding judge, Juan Merchan, agreed to consider the possible impact of Monday’s supreme court ruling on presidential immunity.Trump became the first US president to be criminally convicted last month when a Manhattan jury found him guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an illicit hush-money scheme to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The sentencing had previously been set for 11 July.The postponement sets the sentencing for 18 September, well after the Republican National Convention, where Trump will formally to accept the party’s presidential nomination.Nancy Pelosi, the former Democratic House speaker, has said that questions over Joe Biden’s ability to serve after his debate performance were “legitimate”.Pelosi, in an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday, backed Biden’s achievements and said the president “has a vision. He has knowledge. He has judgment. He has a strategic thinking and the rest.”But she conceded there was “mixed” feedback from Democratic donors about whether Biden was able to run for another term in office, adding that Donald Trump should be given the same scrutiny. She said:
    I think it’s a legitimate question to say, ‘is this an episode or is this a condition?’ And so when people ask that question, it’s legitimate, of both candidates.
    Julián Castro, the former housing secretary and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, has suggested that Joe Biden should step aside, and that he believes there are stronger options out there for Democrats, including Kamala Harris.Castro, in an interview with MSNBC today, said:
    I believe that another Democrat would have a better shot at beating Trump and because, as Congressman Doggett said in his statement that it’s too risky to let Donald Trump walk into this in November, … I think the Democrats would do well to find a different candidate.
    Castro, who ran against Biden for the 2020 Democratic nomination, criticized Biden shortly after the president’s debate performance last week.“Tonight was completely predictable,” Castro told reporters after the debate. Biden “had a very low bar going into the debate and failed to clear even that”, he said, adding that the president had “seemed unprepared, lost, and not strong enough to parry effectively with Trump”.Joe Biden said in his remarks in Washington DC, moments ago that extreme weather is affecting everyone across the US “and beyond”.He noted the heat records that have been being “shattered” in the west and south-west in the early summer, in places such as Phoenix, Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada, and said that extreme heat is the primary weather-related killer in the US.He also mentioned deadly Hurricane Beryl that’s roaring across the Caribbean right now as the earliest category 5 hurricane on record to brew out of the Atlantic.“Ignoring climate change is deadly, dangerous and irresponsible,” he said.The US president spelled out further action his administration plans to take in five areas: federal safety standards for excessive heat in the workplace; greater resilience to withstand flooding; more funding for communities to take action to protect against extreme weather; an Environmental Protection Agency report to be prepared showing “the continued impacts of climate change on the health of the American people” and a White House summit later this summer on the issue of extreme heat.Joe Biden has just given a straightforward, short speech on weather and climate at an event in Washington, DC.It’s not a press conference or anything where, so far, there has been any scope for journalists to question the US president, he is at the city’s emergency operations center, with the DC mayor, Muriel Bowser.And he did not make any reference in his remarks to the political heat he’s getting after his feeble debate performance last week that only topped off months of concern about his advanced age and ability to campaign for and execute the job of president for a second term.Reading from a teleprompter and sounding assertive, though with the odd verbal stumble, Biden spelled out initiatives his administration is taking to deal with extreme weather in the US, especially heat and flooding, that is exacerbated by the human-driven climate crisis.And he criticized “my predecessor and the MAGA Republicans” for undermining action on climate change and planning to undo Biden’s actions if Donald Trump regains the White House this November.“They still deny climate change even exists – they must be living in a hold somewhere – at the expense of the safety of their constituents,” Biden said, adding: “It’s not only outrageous, it’s also willfully stupid…dumb.” More

  • in

    Texas congressman becomes first House Democrat to call on Biden to withdraw

    The first congressional Democrat has broken ranks and called on Joe Biden to withdraw his presidential candidacy following last week’s calamitous debate performance against Donald Trump.Lloyd Doggett, a House member for Texas, became the first Democrat in the House of Representative to urge the president to stop aside amid continuing signs of underlying alarm in the wider party over his electability triggered by his faltering display in Atlanta.As senior party figures continued to offer Biden public support even amid fevered behind-the-scenes concern, Doggett brought his own misgivings into the open, saying he had hoped last week’s debate “would give some momentum” to the president’s stagnant poll ratings in key battleground states.“It did not,” he said. “Instead of reassuring voters, the President failed to effectively defend his many accomplishments and expose Trump’s many lies.”He urged Biden to follow the path of a previous Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, and announce that he would not accept the party’s nomination as candidate – a potential move commentators have dubbed as an “LBJ moment” (after Johnson’s full initials).“I represent the heart of a congressional district once represented by Lyndon Johnson. Under very different circumstances, he made the painful decision to withdraw,” Doggett said. “President Biden should do the same.”Johnson withdrew from the 1968 election race amid a a popular groundswell of opposition to the war in Vietnam and primary challengers in his own party, including from Robert F Kennedy, whose son is running as an independent candidate in the 2024 election and polling at levels that could further hurt Biden in a close race.Doggett – at 77, just four years younger than the 81-year-old president – praised Biden’s legislative achievements in office but said the time had come to hand over to a younger generation, pointing out that he had pledged during the 2020 election campaign to be a transitional figure.“While much of his work has been transformational, he pledged to be transitional,” he said. “He has the opportunity to encourage a new generation of leaders from whom a nominee can be chosen to unite our country through an open, democratic process.“My decision to make these strong reservations public is not done lightly nor does it in any way diminish my respect for all that President Biden has achieved.“Recognising that, unlike Trump, President Biden’s first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so.”It remains to be seen if Doggett’s public stance will encourage other worried Democrats to put their heads above the parapet amid a steady drip of anecdotal and polling evidence that last Thursday’s CNN debate has had a corrosive effect on the president’s standing.A new poll in New Hampshire – a state Biden won by 10 points in 2020 – showed him now two points behind Trump since the debate.While Biden’s campaign have tried to frame the debate as one-off and pledged a fierce fightback, there have been mutterings of discontent within Democrat ranks.State governors – some of whom have been touted as potential replacements – have reportedly complained that Biden has not personally reached out to them since the debate, while similar gripes have been attributed to Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate respectively.Other ostensibly supportive figures, including the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn, a representative from South Carolina, have issued statements that hinted at ambivalence.“I think it’s a legitimate question to say, is this an episode or is this a condition? When people ask that question, it’s completely legitimate – of both candidates,” Pelosi told MSNBC, adding that she heard “mixed” views on whether Biden was fit for the presidential campaign.In another sign of simmering discontent, Peter Welch, a Democratic senator for Vermont, criticised the Biden campaign for dismissing concerns over the president’s age as “bedwetters”.“But that’s the discussion we have to have,” he told Semafor. “It has to be from the top levels of the Biden campaign to precinct captains in the South Side of Chicago. … The campaign has raised the concerns themselves … So then to be dismissive of others who raise those concerns, I think it’s inappropriate.” More