More stories

  • in

    Judge in classified files case to consider reining in Trump attacks on FBI

    The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s prosecution for retaining classified documents is expected on Monday to consider modifying his conditions of release to include a prohibition on making statements that could endanger the safety of FBI agents involved in the case.The request to the US district judge, Aileen Cannon – the first time prosecutors have sought to limit Trump’ public remarks in this case – raises the stakes for Trump. Unlike in his other cases, where prosecutors sought gag orders, a violation of release conditions carries a risk of jail.The latest dispute over Trump’s inflammatory statements stems from his blatantly false characterization of the FBI’s use-of-deadly force policy when they executed a search warrant at the Mar-a-Lago club in August 2022 and retrieved more than 100 classified documents.The order, which limits FBI agents to use deadly force only if they face extreme danger and became public after the FBI’s operational plan for the search was unsealed, used standard language that is routinely used in hundreds of warrants executed across the country.But Trump and some allies twisted the limiting language to claim the FBI was authorized by the Biden administration to shoot him when they searched Mar-a-Lago, even though Trump was not there during the search and the language is standard US justice department policy.“Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their Illegal and UnConstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE. NOW WE KNOW, FOR SURE, THAT JOE BIDEN IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY. HE IS MENTALLY UNFIT TO HOLD OFFICE — 25TH AMENDMENT!” Trump wrote in a social media post last month.Prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, last month asked Cannon to revise Trump’s conditions of release to bar him from making any public comments “that pose a significant, imminent and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation”.By falsely suggesting that FBI agents were prepared to kill him, prosecutors argued, Trump exposed them to the risk of threats, violence and harassment. “These deceptive and inflammatory assertions irresponsibly put a target on the backs of the FBI agents involved in this case,” the motion said.To back up their point, prosecutors reminded Cannon that a man tried to shoot his way into an FBI office in Ohio just days after the Mar-a-Lago search, saying “patriots” should head to Florida to defend Trump and kill FBI agents.But prosecutors did not include an example of Trump’s remarks directly leading to a threat, a point on which Cannon previously criticised prosecutors when they sought in a separate motion to force Trump to redact the identities of people involved in the investigation to ensure their safety.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe question was adopted by Trump’s lawyers in their 20-page response to prosecutors’ motion, arguing they had failed to point to a single example of an agent working on the documents case who has faced threats because of Trump’s inflammatory statements.“President Trump and the defense are similarly unaware of any hostility, harassment or risk of harm directed at any agent involved in this case based on President Trump’s statements,” the Trump lawyers wrote. More

  • in

    Steve Bannon asks US supreme court to delay his prison sentence

    Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of Donald Trump, asked the supreme court on Friday to delay his prison sentence while he fights his convictions for defying a subpoena from the House committee that investigated the attack on US Capitol.The emergency application came after a federal appeals court panel rejected Bannon’s bid to avoid reporting to prison by 1 July to serve his four-month sentence. It was addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals from courts in Washington DC.The high court asked the justice department to respond to the request by Wednesday, days before the court is set to begin its summer recess. The court denied a similar request from another Trump aide shortly after receiving a response in March.Bannon was convicted nearly two years ago of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the January 6 House committee and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.Bannon has cast the case as politically motivated, and his attorney David Schoen has said the case raises “serious constitutional issues” that need to be examined by the supreme court.Bannon is supposed to report to prison by 1 July to begin serving his four-month sentence for contempt of Congress.Carl Nichols, a US district judge who was nominated to the bench by Trump, earlier this month granted prosecutors’ request to send Bannon to prison after a three-judge panel of the US court of appeals for the DC circuit upheld his conviction.Bannon was convicted nearly two years ago of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the House January 6 committee and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in efforts by Trump, a Republican, to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Joe Biden, a Democrat.Bannon’s lawyer at trial argued that the former Trump adviser didn’t ignore the subpoena but was still engaged in good-faith negotiations with the congressional committee when he was charged. The defense has said Bannon had been relying on the advice of his attorney, who believed that Bannon couldn’t testify or produce documents because Trump had invoked executive privilege.Lawyers for Bannon say the case raises serious legal questions that will likely need to be resolved by the supreme court, but he will have already finished his prison sentence by the time the case gets there.In court papers, Bannon’s lawyers also argued that there is a “strong public interest” in allowing him to remain free in the run-up to the 2024 election because Bannon is a top adviser to Trump’s campaign.Prosecutors said in court papers that Bannon’s “role in political discourse” is irrelevant.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA second Trump aide, trade adviser Peter Navarro, is already serving his four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress.The House January 6 committee’s final report asserted that Trump criminally engaged in a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 election and failed to act to stop his supporters from attacking the US Capitol, concluding an extraordinary 18-month investigation into the former president and the violent insurrection. More

  • in

    Supreme court to release more decisions Friday after upholding Trump-era tax rule on foreign income – as it happened

    The first case is Moore v United States, which deals with whether a one-time tax on Americans who hold shares in foreign corporations is legal.The tax was created under the 2017 tax code overhaul enacted under Donald Trump. In a 7-2 vote, the court held that it is legal.The supreme court put out a batch of new opinions this morning, none of which dealt with hotly anticipated cases on emergency abortions, Donald Trump’s immunity petition, or federal regulations that the conservative-dominated body has pending before it, though the justices did allow a Trump-era tax provision on foreign investments to stand. However, we’re not done hearing from the court this week: the justices will release more opinions on Friday. Meanwhile, the contours of next Thursday’s presidential debate are shaping up, with Trump opting to get the last word, and Biden the podium of his choosing. Robert F Kennedy Jr won’t be on the debate stage, and is not happy about it.Here’s what else happened today:
    Trump has the edge over Biden in several swing states, and is tied with him in Democratic stronghold Minnesota, a new poll found. However, the results are in the margin of error, and the survey also found support slipping for the former president among crucial independents.
    Democrats are seeking to focus the public’s attention on the consequences of Roe v Wade’s downfall, two years after the supreme court’s conservatives overturned the precedent and allowed states to ban abortion.
    Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will make a joint address to Congress on 24 July at 2pm, Republican House speaker Mike Johnson announced.
    Jeff Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana, signed legislation mandating that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms.
    Two colleagues of Aileen Cannon, the Florida judge handling Trump’s classified documents case, privately suggested she step aside, the New York Times reported. Cannon refused.
    The Senate has left town until 8 July, with only pro forma sessions scheduled until then:The Democratic-led body will be back and confirming judges by the second week of July.Lauren Ventrella, a state lawmaker in Louisiana who co-authored the bill mandating the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms, gave a combative interview to CNN, where she defended the legislation.She starts off by squabbling with anchor Boris Sanchez:Then blows off public school students who do not adhere to her religious views:Hot on the heels of another worrying poll for Joe Biden’s re-election aspirations, Axios reports some Democrats in contact with his campaign worry about its strategy.“It is unclear to many of us watching from the outside whether the president and his core team realize how dire the situation is right now, and whether they even have a plan to fix it. That is scary,” a Democratic strategist in touch with the campaign tells the outlet.From a person Axios describes as “in Biden’s orbit”:
    Even for those close to the center, there is a hesitance to raise skepticism or doubt about the current path, for fear of being viewed as disloyal.
    The person added: “There is not a discussion that a change of course is needed.”Make of that what you will.Democratic senator Tina Smith will seek passage of a bill to repeal the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law that Democrats fear could be utilized by a second Trump administration to ban abortions nationwide, the Guardian’s Carter Sherman reports:Democrats will introduce legislation on Thursday to repeal a 19th-century anti-obscenity law that bans mailing abortion-related materials, amid growing worries that anti-abortion activists will use the law to implement a federal abortion ban.The bill to repeal the Comstock Act is set to be introduced by the Minnesota Democratic senator Tina Smith, whose office provided a draft copy of the legislation to the Guardian. The Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto will also back the bill, according to the Washington Post, which first reported the news of Smith’s plans. Companion legislation will be introduced in the House.“We have to see that these anti-choice extremists are intending to misapply the Comstock Act,” Smith said in an interview. “And so our job is to draw attention to that, and to do everything that we can to stop them.”Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act is named after the anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock and, in its original iteration, broadly banned people from using the mail to send anything “obscene, lewd or lascivious”, including “any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring an abortion”. In the 151 years since its enactment, legal rulings and congressional action narrowed the scope of the Comstock Act. For years, legal experts regarded it as a dead letter, especially when Roe v Wade established the constitutional right to an abortion.Melinda Gates, the billionaire co-founder of the Gates Foundation nonprofit, announced she has endorsed Joe Biden’s re-election:Gates was formerly married to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and has in the past been critical of Donald Trump.The judge handling Donald Trump’s classified documents case rejected suggestions from two more experienced colleagues to step aside from the case, according to a report.Florida federal district judge Aileen M Cannon, a Trump appointee, was approached by two federal judges in Florida, including Cecilia M Altonaga, the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, the New York Times reported.Each asked her “to consider whether it would be better if she were to decline the high-profile case, allowing it to go to another judge,” the report said, citing sources. Cannon “wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties”, it said.Since taking on Trump’s classified documents case last year, Cannon has repeatedly issued rulings that have reduced the chance of the case coming to trial before November’s presidential election, in which he is the Republicans’ presumptive nominee.Congresswoman Suzan DelBene of Washington, who chairs House Democrats’ campaign arm, pointed to the party’s strong performance in recent special elections as evidence of how their stance on abortion is resonating with voters.“The public knows only Democrats are standing up for women and standing up to protect access to safe, critical reproductive care,” DelBene said on a press call today.
    This election is fundamentally about our rights, our freedoms, our democracy, and our future. House Republicans have made it clear they’re willing to do anything to take those away.
    Democrats have failed to pass a federal bill protecting abortion access, as Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House, but they have vowed to do so if they regain control of Congress in November.Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Committee, told reporters:
    We can’t risk another four years of Donald Trump in the White House. And that’s why we will campaign on this issue and we will win on this issue. And when Democrats win, we will restore access to safe, legal abortion nationwide.
    On Monday, the US will mark two years since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, and Democrats plan to make their support for abortion access a central focus of their pitch to voters in November.“When Dobbs overturned Roe, millions of women across the country lost their right to have a choice in their healthcare, a say in their safety and a voice in their own destiny,” Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said on a press call ahead of the anniversary.
    And Trump and his extreme MAGA [’Make America Great Again’] Republicans, regardless if they’re in Washington or statehouses, will not stop until they institute a national abortion ban.
    Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, the vice chair of Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, described abortion access as “a defining issue in the 2024 Senate elections”. She said:
    It shows so clearly the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on this fundamental and core issue of whether or not people in this country can have the freedom to control their own bodies and their own lives. That is what is at stake in this election.
    US civil liberties groups have sued Louisiana for what they called its “blatantly unconstitutional” new law requiring all state-funded schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms.The state’s rightwing Republican governor, Jeff Landry, who succeeded the former Democratic governor John Bel Edwards in January, provocatively declared after signing the statute on Wednesday: “I can’t wait to be sued.”The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) joined with its Louisiana affiliate and two other bodies – Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom of Religion Foundation – to immediately take him up on his challenge by announcing they were doing precisely that.In a joint statement, the ACLU and its allies said the law, HB 71, amounted to religious coercion. They also said it violated Louisiana state law, longstanding precedent established by the US supreme court and the first amendment of the US constitution, which guarantees separation of church and state.The White House has hit back again against accusations by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that the US is holding back weapons and ammunition from Israel in its war in Gaza.The Israeli leader made the claims of a supposedly deliberate weapons delay in a video posted on social media in which he implied that Israel’s ability to prevail in the nine-month war with Hamas was being hampered as a result. Netanyahu said:
    I said it’s inconceivable that in the past few months the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunitions to Israel – Israel, America’s closest ally, fighting for its life, fighting against Iran and our other common enemies.
    The White House’s spokesperson John Kirby, speaking to reporters today, said he had “no idea” what Netanyahu’s motivation was in making the statement.
    We didn’t know that video was coming. It was perplexing to say the least.
    Kirby described Netanyahu’s comments as “deeply disappointing and vexing”, adding:
    [There’s] no other country that’s done more or will continue to do more than the United States to help Israel defend itself.
    The supreme court put out a batch of new opinions this morning, none of which dealt with hotly anticipated cases on emergency abortions, Donald Trump’s immunity petition, or federal regulations that the conservative-dominated body has pending before it, though the justices did allow a Trump-era tax provision on foreign investments to stand. However, we’re not done hearing from the court this week: the justices will release more opinions on Friday. Meanwhile, the contours of next Thursday’s presidential debate are shaping up, with Trump opting to get the last word, and Biden the podium of his choosing. Robert F Kennedy Jr won’t be on the debate stage, and is not happy about it.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
    Trump has the edge over Biden in several swing states, and is tied with him in Democratic stronghold Minnesota, a new poll found. However, the results are in the margin of error, and the survey also found support slipping for the former president among crucial independents.
    Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will make a joint address to Congress on 24 July at 2pm, Republican House speaker Mike Johnson announced.
    Jeff Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana, signed legislation mandating that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms.
    Robert F Kennedy Jr has hit out at both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, after the independent presidential candidate failed to qualify for the first presidential debate, to be hosted by CNN next Thursday.The network said only Trump and Biden met their criteria for the debate. But in a statement, Kennedy blamed the two leading presidential contenders for keeping him off the debate stage:
    Presidents Biden and Trump do not want me on the debate stage and CNN illegally agreed to their demand. My exclusion by Presidents Biden and Trump from the debate is undemocratic, un-American, and cowardly. Americans want an independent leader who will break apart the two-party duopoly. They want a President who will heal the divide, restore the middle class, unwind the war machine, and end the chronic disease epidemic.
    Here’s what CNN said about their qualifications to make the debate:
    In order to qualify for participation, candidates had to satisfy the requirements outlined in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution to serve as president, as well as file a formal statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission.
    According to parameters set by CNN in May, all participating debaters had to appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency and receive at least 15% in four separate national polls of registered or likely voters that meet CNN’s standards for reporting.
    Polls that meet those standards are those sponsored by CNN, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, Marquette University Law School, Monmouth University, NBC News, The New York Times/Siena College, NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College, Quinnipiac University, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.
    Biden and Trump were the only candidates to meet those requirements.
    A new poll of swing states shows Donald Trump with the edge over Joe Biden, and tied with the president in Minnesota, which has not supported a Republican presidential candidate in 52 years.The poll was conducted by Emerson College, and lines up with other surveys that have indicated Biden faces uphill battle for re-election in November:Spencer Kimball, the executive director of Emerson College Polling, said the data indicates little movement in overall support for the two candidates since Trump was convicted of felony business fraud last month.However, Kimball noted that “results fall within the poll’s margin of error,” and that there have been signs of Trump’s support declining with independent voters, who may play the deciding role in this election:
    In Arizona, Trump’s support among independents dropped five points, from 48% to 43%. In Michigan, Trump’s support dropped three, from 44% to 41%, and in Pennsylvania, Trump dropped eight points, from 49% to 41%. Biden lost support among independents in Georgia, by six points, 42% to 36% and Nevada, by five, 37% to 32%.
    The Trump and Biden campaigns flipped a coin to sort out some of the lingering issues ahead of next Thursday’s first presidential debate, and CNN has announced the results.Joe Biden won the coin flip, and opted to choose a specific podium. That left Donald Trump to specify if he would have the last word of the debate, or leave that to Biden.Here’s what the two candidates chose, from CNN:
    The coin landed on the Biden campaign’s pick – tails – which meant his campaign got to choose whether it wanted to select the president’s podium position or the order of closing statements.
    Biden’s campaign chose to select the right podium position, which means the Democratic president will be on the right side of television viewers’ screens and his Republican rival will be on viewers’ left.
    Trump’s campaign then chose for the former president to deliver the last closing statement, which means Biden will go first at the conclusion of the debate.
    Republican speaker of the House Mike Johnson has announced that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on 24 July.Netanyahu’s 2pm address will take place in the House chamber, and comes amid tensions with the Biden administration and some Democrats over the Israeli leader’s handling of the invasion of Gaza. Earlier this year, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader, called for Israel to hold new elections, and said Netanyahu “has lost his way”.Here’s more on Netanyahu’s planned speech: More

  • in

    How the US supreme court could be a key election issue: ‘They’ve grown too powerful’

    “Look at me, look at me,” said Martha-Ann Alito. “I’m German, from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me, I’m gonna give it back to you.”It was a bizarre outburst from the wife of a justice on America’s highest court. Secretly recorded by a liberal activist, Martha-Ann Alito complained about a neighbour’s gay pride flag and expressed a desire to fly a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag in protest.This, along with audio clips of Justice Samuel Alito himself and a stream of ethics violations, have deepened public concerns that the supreme court is playing by its own rules. The Democratic representative Jamie Raskin has described a “national clamour over this crisis of legitimacy” at the court.A poll last month for the progressive advocacy organisation Stand Up America suggests that the supreme court will now play a crucial role in voters’ choices in the 2024 election. Nearly three in four voters said the selection and confirmation of justices will be an important consideration for them in voting for both president and senator in November.Reed Galen, a co-founder of the Lincoln Project, a pro-democracy group, said: “The idea that these guys act as if they are kings ruling from above, to me, should absolutely be an issue. It was always Republicans who said we hate unelected judges legislating from the bench and we hate judicial activism. That’s all this stuff is.”View image in fullscreenPublic trust in the court is at an all-time low amid concerns over bias and corruption. Alito has rejected demands that he recuse himself from a case considering presidential immunity after flags similar to those carried by 6 January 2021 rioters flew over his homes in Virginia and New Jersey. Justice Clarence Thomas has ignored calls to step aside because of the role his wife, Ginni, played in supporting efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in 2020.Ethical standards have been under scrutiny following revelations that some justices failed to report luxury trips, including on private jets, and property deals. Last week Thomas, who has come under criticism for failing to disclose gifts from the businessman and Republican donor Harlan Crow, revised his 2019 form to acknowledge he accepted “food and lodging” at a Bali hotel and at a California club.These controversies have been compounded by historic and hugely divisive decisions. The fall of Roe v Wade, ending the nationwide right to abortion after half a century, was seen by many Democrats as a gamechanger in terms of people making a connection between the court and their everyday lives.There are further signs of the debate moving beyond the Washington bubble. Last week, the editorial board of the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper argued that, since the court’s own ethics code proved toothless, Congress should enact legislation that holds supreme court justices to higher ethical standards. The paper called for the local senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who is chair of the Senate judiciary committee, to hold a hearing on the issue.Maggie Jo Buchanan, managing director of the pressure group Demand Justice, said: “It’s important to keep in mind that, even though debate among members of Congress would lead you to believe that court reform is a polarising issue, it really isn’t. For years we have seen broad bipartisan support for basic supreme court reforms such as ethics.“A broad bipartisan consensus exists that they’ve grown too powerful, that they have too much power over laws and regulations. That’s shared among nearly three-fourths of Americans, including 80% of independents, so the demand is there and this isn’t something where it’s Democrats versus Republicans in the sense of real people. The American people want change and want to check the judiciary.”Congressional Democrats have introduced various bills including one to create an independent ethics office and internal investigations counsel within the supreme court. Broader progressive ideas include expanding the number of seats on the court or limiting the justices to 18-year terms rather than lifetime appointments.But such efforts have been repeatedly thwarted by Republicans, who over decades impressed on their base the importance of the court, ultimately leading to a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointees.This week Senate Republicans blocked the ​​Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, legislation that would require the court to adopt a binding code of conduct for all justices, establish procedures to investigate complaints of judicial misconduct and adopt rules to disclose gifts, travel and income received by them that are at least as rigorous as congressional disclosure rules.In response, Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, said its “nearly 2 million members are fired up and ready to continue advocating for supreme court reform – in Congress and at the ballot box”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut Galen of the Lincoln Project worries that Democrats lack the necessary aggression to capitalise on the issue. “[Senate majority leader Chuck] Schumer and Durbin are not change agents. They consider themselves institutionalists and they continue to call themselves that. They’re in a place where they can’t possibly conceive of something like that. Democrats are just afraid of their own shadow.”That principle might apply to the US president himself. The 81-year-old, who served in the Senate for 36 years, is reluctant to call out justices by name or call for sweeping reforms of the court, although he is making its decision to end the constitutional right to abortion a centrepiece of his campaign.Ed Fallone, an associate law professor at Marquette University Law School said: “I don’t know that Joe Biden is the politician to try and benefit from this issue. Biden has always presented himself as an institutionalist and more of a centrist than many segments of the Democratic party.“There’s a real risk here for Biden because, if he does try to get political advantage from the public’s growing concern about the supreme court, it seems to conflict with his message that we should all respect the court system and the judicial system and the Trump prosecutions and the various legal problems of former Trump advisers. It seems difficult to reconcile telling the public to respect the judicial system with also embracing the idea that the very top of the system is flawed and needs reform.”Fallone added: “You will see other Democrats seize on this issue and start to push it, in particular those who are are going to try to energise the left side of the base, maybe not necessarily for this election, but maybe anticipating Biden might lose and starting already to look ahead to the following election.”Other argue that, competing for voter attention with the cost of living, immigration and other issues, the supreme court will ultimately fade into background noise.Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center thinktank in Washington DC, said: “The middle of the country, the independents and the swing voters do not care about the supreme court, and I don’t think any effort by Democrats or the media bringing up these things about Alito or Thomas is going to register or motivate those people. It motivates partisans. It doesn’t motivate swing voters on either side.”Read more: The supreme court’s decisions this week
    US supreme court strikes down federal ban on ‘bump stock’ devices for guns
    US supreme court unanimously upholds access to abortion pill mifepristone
    US supreme court sides with Starbucks in union case over fired employees More

  • in

    Senate Republicans block bill that establishes right to IVF across the US

    Senate Republicans have defeated a bill that would have established a federal right to in vitro fertilization, a piece of legislation that Democrats forced to the floor on Thursday as part of an election-year effort to contrast their approach to reproductive rights with that of the party across the aisle.The bill, the Right to IVF act, would have overwritten any state efforts to restrict the right to IVF as well as seeking to make the treatment more affordable and accessible, including for US military service members and veterans.The legislation was introduced by Senators Patty Murray of Washington state, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, and the bill was not expected to pass, given that most legislation needs at least 60 votes to advance in the Senate.Instead, Democrats hoped to get Republicans on the record opposing an infertility treatment that is widely popular among Americans. They deployed a similar strategy last week, when Democrats held a vote on a bill that would have guaranteed a nationwide right to contraception – which, like IVF, is very popular. That bill, the Right to Contraception act, also failed.“Last week, every senator was put on the record as to whether they will defend the right to contraception. And despite Republicans’ words about supporting birth control, their actions – voting against the Right to Contraception act – spoke louder,” Murray said in a speech from the Senate floor on Thursday. “Today, we are putting Republicans on the record on another issue families across the country are deeply concerned about: the right to IVF.”The Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican, denounced the bill, which he said was motivated by “political purposes”.“This is not serious legislation,” Cassidy said. “It was not brought through the committee process. It is a political process.”Because IVF typically involves creating embryos that may not be implanted in a woman’s uterus or may go unused after genetic testing, some anti-abortion campaigners have long opposed IVF. However, the US abortion wars have rarely focused on IVF.Then, in February, the Alabama state supreme court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF are legally “extrauterine children” – a decision that endorsed the tenets of so-called fetal personhood, promoted by a US movement that seeks to endow embryos and fetuses with full legal rights and protections. The ruling led many IVF providers in Alabama to temporarily pause their operations, which created chaos and triggered backlash across the country.Still, anti-abortion activists have continued to gain ground in their battle on IVF. On Wednesday, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant group in the US, voted at its annual meeting to condemn IVF. With its nearly 13 million members and enormous political influence, the Southern Baptist Convention’s rejection of IVF signaled a turning point in the debate over IVF. Although evangelical Protestants have largely supported IVF, the vote suggests that the anti-abortion movement is successfully making the case that opposition to abortion necessitates opposition to IVF.“This is not the end of our fight for family building for all. We will continue until everyone in this country has access to the family building options they need and the availability of IVF is guaranteed in all 50 states,” Barbara Collura, president and CEO of Resolve: The National Infertility Association, said in a statement Thursday, after the failed Senate vote. “Introducing this bill was already a big win for advocates of increasing access to fertility treatments. Our work led to this comprehensive legislation, and we are not giving up.” More

  • in

    Clarence Thomas took additional trips funded by Harlan Crow, senator reveals

    The US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas took at least three additional trips funded by the billionaire benefactor Harlan Crow that the conservative justice failed to disclose, the chair of the Senate judiciary committee said on Thursday.Crow, a Texas businessman and Republican donor, disclosed details about the justice’s travel between 2017 and 2021 in response to a judiciary committee vote last November to authorize subpoenas to Crow and another influential conservative, according to the committee chair, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat representing Illinois.“The Senate judiciary committee’s investigation into the supreme court’s ethical crisis is producing new information – like what we’ve revealed [on Thursday] – and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Durbin said.A supreme court spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did a lawyer for Crow.Thomas has previously come under criticism for failing to disclose gifts from Crow. Most recently, Thomas last week belatedly revised his 2019 financial disclosure form to acknowledge that Crow had paid for his “food and lodging” at a hotel in Bali, Indonesia, and at a California club.But the recent filing by Thomas failed to disclose that Crow had paid for his travel by private jet related to the Bali and California trips, and an eight-day excursion on a yacht in Indonesia, omissions that were revealed on Thursday in a redacted document that Durbin’s office said contained travel itineraries where Crow had provided the justice with transportation.The document shows private jet travel in May 2017 between St Louis in Missouri, the state of Montana, and Dallas. It also shows private jet travel in March 2019 between Washington DC and Savannah, Georgia, and private jet travel in June 2021 between Washington DC and San Jose, California.Under pressure from criticism over ethics, following a series of rows focusing mainly on Thomas and Samuel Alito, the most conservative justices, the nine justices of the supreme court last November adopted their first code of conduct.However, critics and some congressional Democrats have said the code does not go far enough to promote transparency, continuing to leave decisions to recuse from cases to the justices themselves and providing no mechanism of enforcement.Earlier this week, the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate judiciary committee, said he would block Democrats’ attempts to pass an ethics bill to rein in the US supreme court.And the Democratic congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the court had been “captured and corrupted by money and extremism”, provoking a “crisis of legitimacy” that threatens the stability of US democracy.Reuters contributed reporting More

  • in

    Rightwing media decried Trump’s trial. What about Hunter Biden’s?

    Two weeks, two big trials, two convictions. After Donald Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records at the end of last month, Hunter Biden, son of Joe, was convicted on Tuesday of buying and owning a gun while being a user of crack cocaine.The rightwing media had howled in anguish when a jury ruled that the former US president was guilty of 34 felony charges: commentators claiming that the justice system was rigged, that the conviction was political persecution, and that Joe Biden had wielded undue influence in Trump being prosecuted.Surely then, the Fox Newses and Breitbarts of the world would be similarly outraged by Hunter Biden’s conviction?Nope.“The facts were simple, the law was clear and the evidence of guilt can only be described as overwhelming,” Gregg Jarrett, an analyst and commentator for Fox News, wrote on the channel’s website, in a piece which championed the fairness and rigor of the American legal system.“As it turns out, even a privileged and coddled Biden must abide by the rule of law.”That was a far cry from Jarrett’s take on the judiciary 13 days earlier, when Trump was convicted in Manhattan.“Donald Trump did not lose on Thursday,” Jarrett wrote, incorrectly.“Our once venerated legal system did. And, by extension, all Americans lost something precious. Because the failure of justice is a failure of the people.”In a 1,000-word outpouring of woe, Jarrett repeated Trump’s – now provably false – claims that no crime was committed, adding “the ideals of a fair trial and an impartial jury faded into a figment of our Founders’ imaginations”.“The tragic coda to the Trump trial is that Americans can no longer trust our system of justice,” Jarrett wrote solemnly.Other Fox News personalities similarly revised their opinion of the US legal system.Jeanine Pirro, a Fox News host, had been outraged after Trump was found guilty, decrying “smoke and mirrors” and claiming “we have gone over a cliff in America”.“This is a new era in America, and I think it goes against the ilk of who we are as Americans and our faith in the criminal justice system,” Pirro said of Trump’s conviction on 30 May.She was of a different mind on Tuesday.“In the end this jury of ordinary people from Delaware were not intimidated by [the Biden] family, and they recognize that this was a clearcut case and that clearly no one is above the law,” Pirro said.View image in fullscreenSpeaking to rightwing channel Newsmax, Alan Dershowitz, a prominent lawyer and commentator who was part of Trump’s legal team during the then president’s first impeachment trial, did a similar flip-flop.“Trump was convicted of a made-up charge; there’s nothing to the case,” Dershowitz said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I still can’t figure out what the actual conviction is based on. On the other hand, Hunter Biden was convicted of a real crime.”Away from the doublethink, a new narrative was developing: that the Biden guilty verdict was actually evidence of some sort of cover-up.Many on the right wing claimed that the conviction on gun offenses was an attempt to distract from Republicans’ years-long, unproven conspiracy theory of corruption by both Hunter and Joe Biden.Republicans in the House began an investigation into the Biden family in January 2023, with the idea being that Biden benefited from his son’s business dealings in Ukraine. After nearly 18 months of investigation, Republicans have not found any evidence that the president was involved in any wrongdoing.Republicans have accused Biden of weaponizing the justice system against Trump – an allegation the Hunter Biden guilty verdict would seem to contradict. But that didn’t stop conservative commentators from diving into the issue.“Hunter Biden guilty. Yawn,” Charlie Kirk, the rightwing radio host and founder of Turning Point USA, wrote on X.“The true crimes of the Biden Crime Family remain untouched. This is a fake trial trying to make the Justice system appear ‘balanced.’ Don’t fall for it.”Jack Posobiec, a far-right activist who hosts a video show on X, said in a post: “They went after Hunter on his gun stuff to make you overlook all his Ukraine stuff.”Posobiec did not elaborate on the “Ukraine stuff”. But Breitbart trod a similar line, claiming that Biden’s conviction “allows the left to claim ‘no one is above the law’, while distracting from the much more serious allegations against the first son – and his father”.It has been a whirlwind few days for the rightwing media: from howling at the injustice of the justice system, to celebrating the justice system. Now the claim is that, actually, the justice system might be bad after all: and the Hunter Biden verdict is just a cover-up.Matt Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, perhaps put it best.“The new rightwing line that Joe Biden rigged the trial to put his son in prison,” Gertz wrote, “replaces the old rightwing line that Joe Biden was rigging the trial to keep his son out of prison.” More

  • in

    Lindsey Graham vows to block Democrats’ supreme court ethics bill

    The South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate judiciary committee, said that he will block Democrats’ attempts to pass an ethics bill to rein in the US supreme court.Graham told NBC News that he “will object” to the bill on Wednesday, meaning it will not move forward on its legislative journey.The Senate judiciary committee chairman, Dick Durbin, from Illinois, told reporters that Senate Democrats were working to unanimously move the bill forward, the Hill reported. Durbin co-authored the bill with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.“We’re planning on making a move on the floor this week to move the ethics bill for the supreme court,” Durbin said.It follows a series of scandals focusing on the rightwing justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in relation both to gifts and to their capacity to serve with political neutrality.Durbin added that “new evidence” might emerge concerning ethics on the supreme court, elaborating that the evidence “relates to the ethical considerations from some of the justices for gifts they’ve taken and not reported”, the Hill reported.US representatives have also criticized what they call a “crisis of legitimacy” affecting the court.While speaking at a round table on Capitol Hill in Washington DC on Tuesday, the New York progressive representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the court has been captured and corrupted “by money and extremism”.“A group of anti-democratic billionaires with their own ideological and economic agenda has been working one of the three co-equal branches of government,” she said.The Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who was also at Tuesday’s round table, said: “The highest court in the land today has the lowest ethical standards.”In recent weeks, Alito has faced calls to recuse himself from election-related cases and for a broader investigation after a flag associated in modern times with the far right was reportedly flying above one of his homes.And Alito, along with his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, came under additional scrutiny after Alito said that one side in the US’s partisan left versus right ideology battle “has to win”, in remarks captured in a secret recording.Martha-Ann also criticized the LGBTQ+ Pride flag, as heard in the same recording.Thomas has repeatedly faced criticism for failing to disclose in the official record that he took lavish vacations paid for by the conservative billionaire Harlan Crow, ProPublica first reported. Thomas belatedly disclosed the luxury trips for the court record last week.Public confidence in the court has also swiftly fallen in the last year to near record lows, according to polling from Gallup. More