More stories

  • in

    US House passes bill to expand supreme court security to justices’ families

    US House passes bill to expand supreme court security to justices’ familiesThe bill comes after an armed man was arrested outside Brett Kavanaugh’s house as the court is due to rule on an abortion case The US House of Representatives has given final congressional approval to a bill to bolster supreme court security, ahead of an anticipated ruling curtailing abortion rights and in light of the arrest of a man charged with attempting to murder Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative majority.The legislation, which had already cleared the Senate, passed the House on a 396-27 vote. Joe Biden is prepared to sign it into law. It will expand police protection to families of justices and senior court officials.Man arrested near Brett Kavanaugh’s home charged with attempted murderRead moreThe House Republican leader said the bill would protect justices from “leftwing radicals”.A prominent Democrat said family members of court clerks and officials were also under threat, from “rightwing activists”.The court is due to rule in a major abortion case from Mississippi. A leaked draft opinion showed the conservative majority poised to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that legalized abortion. Protests have ensued outside some justices’ homes.Last week, a California man carrying a handgun, ammunition, a crowbar, pepper spray and zip-tie handcuffs was arrested outside Kavanaugh’s home in Maryland.Republicans have led calls for improved protection but some progressives have contrasted such eagerness to act with many Republicans’ refusal to consider gun reform, even in the wake of a series of mass shootings.On the House floor on Tuesday, Veronica Escobar, a Democrat from El Paso, Texas, said: “It is incredible to stand here and listen to our Republican colleagues talk about the risks and the dangers that exist to the supreme court.“I want to know where they were when the risks and the dangers existed in my community. In El Paso, Texas, where 23 innocent people were slaughtered by a white supremacist with an AK-47 [in 2019]. Where were they then?“How about Uvalde? Where were they then? How about every other mass shooting? Buffalo, you name it.”Ginni Thomas pressed 29 lawmakers in bid to overturn Trump loss, emails showRead moreNineteen children and two teachers were killed in Uvalde last month. Also in May, 10 people died in a racist attack at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.Referring to gun reforms passed by the House but with no chance of passing the Senate, Escobar said: “Last week, we brought to the floor legislation intended to protect millions of Americans, especially including children.“The vast majority of our Republican colleagues voted against those protections for vulnerable people who don’t have access to 24-hour, round-the-clock US marshals protection. Who don’t have access to round-the-clock 24/7 police protection, which supreme court justices have today.“Supreme court justices have far more protection than members of Congress do. But more importantly [they have more protection] than those innocent lives that were taken in innumerable cities across America.”The US justice department is already providing additional support to court police.In the Kavanaugh case, Nicholas John Roske, 26 and from Simi Valley, California, was dressed in black when he arrived by taxi outside Kavanaugh’s home around 1am last Wednesday. According to court documents, he spotted two US marshals guarding the house and walked in the other direction, calling 911 to say he was having suicidal thoughts and planned to kill Kavanaugh.Roske said he had found the address on the internet.On Tuesday the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, greeted passage of the bill by saying: “We are sending a clear message to leftwing radicals: you cannot intimidate supreme court justices.”House Democrats had wanted to add protections for families of clerks and other court employees who, in the words of Ted Lieu, a congressman from California, “are getting threats from rightwing activists”.But Senate Republicans objected.“The security issue is related to supreme court justices, not the nameless staff that no one knows,” the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, said on Monday.Lieu said measures to protect families of clerks and other employees would be considered separately.The federal judiciary is calling for separate legislation to offer more protection for judges. The US marshals service said judges were subject to 4,511 threats and inappropriate communications last year.TopicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)US CongressUS SenateHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Ginni Thomas pressed 29 lawmakers in bid to overturn Trump loss, emails show

    Ginni Thomas pressed 29 lawmakers in bid to overturn Trump loss, emails showWife of supreme court justice Clarence Thomas accused of ‘undermining democracy’ after Washington Post revelation Ginni Thomas, the wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, was accused of “undermining democracy” after it emerged that she emailed 29 Republican lawmakers in Arizona in her effort to overturn Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump.As America watched Capitol attack testimony, Fox News gave an alternate realityRead moreThe Washington Post had previously reported that Ginni Thomas sent emails pressuring two Arizona Republicans to reject Biden’s win and choose their own electors.On Friday, the paper said Ginni Thomas emailed 29 individuals.Thomas’s involvement in Trump’s attempt to overturn his election defeat, including events around the deadly Capitol attack, has been widely reported.That has focused attention on her husband, a stringent conservative who has not recused himself from election-related cases.When Trump tried to deny the House January 6 committee access to White House records, Thomas was the only justice to side with the former president. Texts from Ginni Thomas to Trump’s chief of staff were subsequently revealed.Supreme court justices govern themselves in ethical matters. Activists and some Democratic politicians have therefore called for Thomas to resign or be impeached.Only one supreme court justice has been impeached: Samuel Chase in 1805. He survived. But Chase was accused of “tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partisan” – a charge with strong echoes in the case of Clarence and Ginni Thomas.The Post said that on 9 November, two days after the election was called for Biden, Ginni Thomas used “FreeRoots, an online platform intended to make it easy to send pre-written emails to multiple elected officials”, to send identical messages to 20 members of the Arizona House and seven state senators.The emails urged the Republicans to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure” and “fight back against fraud”.On 13 December, the day before electoral college votes were cast, Thomas emailed 22 members of the Arizona House and one senator.That message said: “Before you choose your state’s electors … consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you don’t stand up and lead.” It also “linked to a video of a man urging lawmakers to ‘put things right’ and ‘not give in to cowardice’.”Proven fraud in the 2020 election is vanishingly rare. Regardless, Arizona Republicans pursued a controversial audit – which increased Biden’s margin of victory.Ginni Thomas did not comment on the new Post report. Nor did the supreme court. Thomas has said her activism does not clash with her husband’s work.Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or Crew, said: “We’ve now learned that Ginni Thomas’s role in pushing officials to overturn the 2020 election was significantly greater than we knew.“Justice Thomas’s failure to recuse on cases about the 2020 election looks worse and worse. This undermines democracy.”Pointing to Ginni Thomas’s position on the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board, to which she was appointed by Trump, Crew said: “Friendly reminder that Ginni Thomas has a government position and absolutely should not.”News of the Arizona emails emerged in the aftermath of a dramatic primetime hearing staged by the House committee investigating January 6. Responding to the hearing, Trump repeated his lie about electoral fraud.Amid growing calls for a criminal indictment against Trump, Wajahat Ali, a columnist and senior fellow at the Western States Center, which works to strengthen democracy, tweeted: “Democrats should aggressively put pressure on Clarence and Ginni Thomas.“You have an extremist conservative duo working the courts and the rightwing activist machine to overturn our free and fair election.”TopicsUS elections 2020RepublicansUS supreme courtLaw (US)Clarence ThomasArizonaDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Rudy Giuliani charged with ethical misconduct over Trump’s big lie

    Rudy Giuliani charged with ethical misconduct over Trump’s big lieThe complaint marks the second time a bar office has taken action against the former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has been hit with ethics charges over baseless claims he made about the 2020 presidential election being stolen while serving as an attorney for Donald Trump.Primetime January 6 hearing shows set-piece TV can still pack a punchRead moreThe charges were filed on Friday by the District of Columbia office that polices attorneys for ethical misconduct.The DC office of disciplinary counsel alleges that Giuliani, who is a member of the DC bar, made baseless claims in federal court filings about the results of the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania. The charges were filed with the District of Columbia court of appeals board on professional responsibility.A lawyer for Giuliani did not have an immediate comment.The charges come a day after the US House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack had its first primetime hearing in which it outlined evidence that Trump and his allies sought to overturn the 2020 election and incite throngs of his supporters to block Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.Giuliani, a former US attorney in Manhattan and New York City mayor, has been among Trump’s most fervent supporters and repeatedly claimed without evidence that the election had been stolen.The complaint says Giuliani sought an emergency order to prohibit the certification of the presidential election, an order to invalidate ballots cast by certain voters in seven counties, and other orders that would have permitted the state’s assembly to choose its electors and declare Trump the winner in Pennsylvania.The charges say his conduct violated two professional conduct rules in Pennsylvania that bar attorneys from bringing frivolous proceedings without a basis in law or fact and prohibit conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.Charges can lead to the suspension of a license to practice law or disbarment.The charges mark the second time that a bar office has taken action against Giuliani.His New York law license was suspended in June 2021 after a state appeals court found that he made “demonstrably false and misleading” statements that widespread voter fraud undermined the election.Apart from having two of his law licenses suspended, Giuliani’s reputation has been stained by his dealings with Ukraine and he is being investigated by Manhattan federal prosecutors over those business ties.He began representing Trump, a fellow Republican and New Yorker, in April 2018 in connection with then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that documented Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.Giuliani has not been charged with criminal wrongdoing. His lawyer has said the federal investigation is politically motivated.Reuters contributed reporting.TopicsRudy GiulianiDonald TrumpUS elections 2020Trump administrationUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

  • in

    ‘To some, guns are more important than children’: families testify at House hearing – as it happened

    The House oversight committee has opened its hearing dubbed “the urgent need to address the gun violence epidemic,” which is likely to be a gut-wrenching look into the recent spate of mass shootings nationwide.Among those testifying is Miah Cerrillo, a fourth-grade student who survived the shooting at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, the parents of Lexi Rubio, who was killed in the massacre, local pediatrician Roy Guerrero and Zeneta Everhart, whose son was shot in the massacre at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. Republican lawmakers, who make up a minority in the chamber, have invited Lucretia Hughes of Women for Gun Rights’s DC Project.You can watch along here.The US politics blog is ending a very busy day in the capital, which saw new developments in one of the many investigations facing former president Donald Trump, difficult-to-stomach testimony in Congress on gun violence and the arrest of a man who was allegedly plotting to kill a supreme court justice.Here’s a recap:
    Trump along with his son Donald Trump Jr and daughter Ivanka Trump will testify under oath on 15 July in New York attorney general Letitia James’s long-running inquiry into the former president’s business practices.
    The top Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell, is calling on Capitol Hill for more security for supreme court justices, after an armed man was arrested near justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home on the outskirts of Washington DC. Joe Biden condemned the actions of the individual, who the court said told police he wanted to kill the judge.
    The House oversight committee held a hearing dubbed “the urgent Need to address the gun violence epidemic”. Lawmakers heard gut-wrenching testimony from a survivor of the massacre in Uvalde, Texas, as well as the relatives of people killed and injured there and in Buffalo, New York. But the partisan divide over gun control appeared as wide as ever.
    The supreme court ruled in favor of a border agent in a case from the US-Canada frontier involving an inn that allegedly is a stopover when some people cross into Canada unlawfully.
    The blog returns tomorrow, when lawmakers will continue to negotiate over gun control legislation and the January 6 committee holds its first hearing. See you then.Donald Trump will testify under oath on 15 July in New York attorney general Letitia James’s investigation into his business practices, according to a court filing released on Wednesday.JUST IN: Donald Trump will testify under oath on July 15 alongside Don Jr. and Ivanka Trump, according to new doc from @NewYorkStateAG pic.twitter.com/BkZGNRcC6D— Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) June 8, 2022
    His daughter Ivanka Trump and son Donald Trump Jr will also testify.The testimony is the latest development in the three-year investigation into the former president’s dealings after he failed in an attempt last month to stop her investigation and ended up paying a $110,000 fine.James has said investigators have found “significant evidence” of wrongdoing in the inquiry, which has homed in on whether the Trump Organization misstated the values of its real estate properties to obtain favorable loans and tax deductions.The attorney general previously said her investigation discovered evidence suggesting that for more than a decade, the company’s financial statements “relied on misleading asset valuations and other misrepresentations to secure economic benefits”.Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and has not been accused of committing a crime. He has called the investigation a “witch-hunt”.Trump loses bid to thwart New York inquiry into his business practicesRead moreThe gun violence hearing in the House is continuing and the California Democrat Jackie Speier, who in 1978 was shot during a visit to the Jonestown settlement in an attack that killed the congressman she was accompanying, got a turn to question witnesses.Speier asked Joseph Gramaglia, the Buffalo police commissioner, to describe what weapons like an AR-15 can do to a body.“I’ve been to numerous shootings throughout my career that were the result of high-powered rifles, assault rifles, and the cavernous holes that they leave in bodies. Decapitation is a pretty good explanation for it,” Gramaglia replied. “Some people couldn’t be buried with an open casket. The damage was absolutely devastating.”Referencing her experience in Jonestown, Speier said, “I’m a victim of gun violence. I know what it does to a body. And I cannot believe my colleagues don’t recognize that prohibiting the sale of an assault weapon until the age of 21 isn’t going to save lives.”She rejected the idea put forth by Republicans that fortifying schools was one way to stop the shootings.“We all know what the solution to this problem is. It’s comprehensive gun reform in this country. We know what it is. We are not supposed to be holding our students and our teachers responsible,” Speier said.Joe Biden has condemned a man who said he planned to kill supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh, amid heightened tensions around the court as it prepares to rule on abortion and gun rights, among other controversial topics.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the president “condemns the actions [of] this individual in the strongest terms,” Reuters reported. “Any threats of violence or attempts to intimidate justices have no place in our society.”A man identified in court documents as Nicholas John Roske was arrested early Wednesday morning near the conservative justice’s Maryland home. According to the complaint charging Roske with attempting to kill a supreme court justice, he first got out of a taxicab near Kavanaugh’s house, then walked away and called 911, saying he was having suicidal thoughts and planned to killed a justice of the high court. Police arrested him and found a Glock 17 pistol, pepper spray, zip ties and other items in a backpack and suitcase.Armed man arrested near Brett Kavanaugh’s home over threats to judgeRead moreThe US regards Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the true interim president of his country, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan said moments ago aboard Air Force One, more than three years after Guaidó declared himself the true victor in a disputed election over Nicolás Maduro and tried to topple the man in control of the troubled South American nation.US president Joe Biden plans to speak with Guaido at some point during this week’s Summit of the Americas meeting that the US is hosting in California for leaders from the hemisphere, Sullivan said.Biden, aides, staff and media are on board Air Force One now, en route Washington, DC, to Los Angeles, and Sullivan and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre are gaggling – with Sullivan on right now, answering accompanying journalists’ questions.Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba were not invited to the summit, prompting a boycott by Mexico, in a debacle for Biden.Brazilian autocratic president Jair Bolsonaro will attend and Biden is expected to discuss “open, transparent and democratic elections” with him, Sullivan said.And the climate and the health of the Amazon rainforest will be on the agenda, Sullivan said.There is much hope in journalism circles that Bolsonaro can be pressed at the summit to address the topics of illegal logging and drug trafficking in vast, supposedly-protected tracts of the Amazon region and the danger to those who strive against such destructive law-making – including freelance journalist and Guardian regular Dom Phillips and his traveling companion, indigenous culture expert Bruno Araújo Pereira, missing in the region since Sunday.‘Every second counts’: wife of British journalist missing in Amazon urges actionRead moreIt’s been an extremely busy day in Washington and there is more to come. The House oversight committee hearing on the “urgent need to address gun violence” in the US, following very recent mass shootings, is now on lunch recess.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is now “gaggling” on Air Force One, as Joe Biden heads to Los Angeles to host the Summit of the Americas. It’s a bumpy ride for those aboard the presidential plane (literally but, presumably, always metaphorically).Here’s where things stand:
    Senate minority leader and Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell is calling on Capitol Hill for more security for supreme court justices, following the reports this morning that an armed man was arrested near supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home on the outskirts of Washington DC. The court said the man told police he wanted to kill the judge.
    The supreme court ruled in favor of a border agent in a case from the US-Canadian border involving an inn that allegedly is a stopover when some people cross into Canada unlawfully.
    The House oversight committee opened its hearing dubbed “the urgent need to address the gun violence epidemic”, which became a gut-wrenching look into the recent spate of mass shootings nationwide.
    Back at the House oversight committee, Democratic and Republican lawmakers are taking turns questioning the witnesses, creating a split-screen view of the two parties’ attitudes on gun control.Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins recalls a childhood in which “we had guns everywhere” and wonders why there weren’t mass shootings back then.“I asked you all what happened to that country,” Higgins said. “A country where guns were everywhere and virtually not regulated at all, where millions of Americans, 14 million Americans came back … after world war II with incredible skills of war and weapons of war as you call them everywhere, but we didn’t have mass shootings.”Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, drew a line between increasing firearm sales and gunmakers’ profits, declaring, “This is about blood money.”“There’s also this discussion about anything but, again, but that these are about violent people, but yet we aren’t doing anything about addressing the actual root causes of misogyny, where two-thirds of mass shootings are connected to domestic violence, or the emergence of white supremacy, radicalization, mass incarceration and poverty and the connections between that and mass shootings in our communities,” Ocasio-Cortez said.Ahead of the start of the January 6 hearings tomorrow, the committee’s chair, Bennie Thompson, told NPR in an interview that democracy came close to ending in the United States that day..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Thompson says he’s calling it as he sees it on the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack that was intended to keep Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election results. And he says he’s gained a new education about the danger the country faced that day, which he aims to share through the hearings.
    For Thompson, preserving democracy today means telling the full story of the attack on the Capitol and ensuring its moment in history is one that Americans never forget. “
    I have learned a lot about how perilously close we came on January 6 to losing this democracy as a lot of us have come to know and love it.”My colleague Hugo Lowell’s story published earlier today outlined how the first hearing will go, which will take place during the prime-time TV hour at 8 pm eastern..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} At the start of the hearing, the panel’s chairman Bennie Thompson and vice-chair Liz Cheney will make a series of opening arguments before outlining a general roadmap of how each of the six Watergate-style hearings are expected to unfold.
    For the second hour, Thompson and Cheney will hand control of the hearing to Tim Heaphy, the chief investigative counsel for the select committee, who will lead the questioning of two witnesses and walk through the key moments of the Capitol attack.
    The select committee is expected to start the questioning with testimony from Nick Quested, a British documentary film-maker who was embedded with the far-right Proud Boys group in the days and weeks leading up to January 6 and caught their activities on camera.Inaugural January 6 hearing to track activities of Proud Boys during Capitol attackRead moreThe justice department has named a nine-person panel to review the police response to the Uvalde shooting, the Associated Press reports..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In a statement, the Justice Department said it was committed to “moving as expeditiously as possible in the development of the report.” Officials said the team would conduct a complete reconstruction of the shooting; review all relevant documents, including policies, photos and videos; conduct a visit to the school; and interview an array of witnesses and families of the victims, along with police, school and government officials.A FBI unit chief will take part in the inquiry, as will the former police chief of Sacramento, the sheriff of Orange county, Florida, and a deputy chief whose tenure included Virginia Tech. Similar investigations followed the 2015 extremist attack in San Bernardino, California and the 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando.The police response to the Uvalde shooting has been criticized after officers waited before confronting the gunman. State officials have acknowledged that hesitating was “the wrong decision,” and scrutiny has focused on Pedro “Pete” Arredondo, the police chief who was recently sworn onto the city council.Senate minority leader and Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell is calling on Capitol Hill for more security for supreme court justices, following the reports this morning that an armed man was arrested near supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home on the outskirts of Washington DC.This morning’s disturbing reports are exactly why the Senate unanimously passed a Supreme Court security bill weeks ago. But House Democrats have inexplicably blocked it. House Democrats need to stop their blockade and pass this uncontroversial bill today. pic.twitter.com/wd8UB5RDvm— Leader McConnell (@LeaderMcConnell) June 8, 2022
    McConnell said on the floor of the Senate: “This is where we are, Mr President, if these reports are correct, an assassination attempt against a sitting justice, or something close to it. This is exactly the kind of event that many feared the terrible breach of the court’s rules and norms would fuel [with the leak last month of the draft opinion that the conservative majority wants to overturn constitutional abortion rights afforded by the 1973 Roe V Wade ruling].“This is exactly that kind of event that many worried the unhinged, reckless, apocalyptic rhetoric from prominent figures towards the court going back many months and especially in recent weeks could make more likely.”He said that was why the Senate passed legislation shortly after the early May leak, to enhance police protection for sitting justices and their families.“This is common sense, non-controversial legislation that passed unanimously in this chamber, but House Democrats have spent weeks blocking. That needs to change right now.”Lawmakers on the House oversight committee are now questioning the witnesses, in a conversation that is overall a little more strident than the Senate’s similar hearing yesterday. Before questioning began, lawmakers heard from Amy Swearer of The Heritage Foundation, who was invited by the Republican minority and provided the conservative rebuttal to the officials and advocates who spoke before her.“An unspeakably horrific event, like Uvalde or Buffalo happens. Reflexively, almost compulsively, come calls for Congress to pass a whole host of gun control measures largely targeting peaceable, law abiding citizens,” Swearer said. “Should anyone dare question the constitutionality, practicality or even the effectiveness of any of these policies, their opposition is immediately framed as callous obstructionism. And their legitimate concerns are brushed aside as and I quote, bullshit.”She downplayed the effectiveness of legislation against expanded capacity magazines, and called for more armed guards at school, improvements to building security, mental health care and to “promote responsible gun ownership without simultaneously imposing financial burdens on gun owners or hindering their ability to immediately respond to violent threats.”Buffalo’s police commissioner, Joseph Gramaglia, took aim at the concept promoted by gun rights advocates that expanding firearms access could stop mass shootings.“It is often said that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun,” Gramaglia told the House. However, retired Buffalo police officer Aaron Salter Jr., who was working as a security guard at the Tops Market and was killed in the shooting, “Was no match for what he went up against a legal AR-15 with multiple high capacity magazines.”Noting that such mass shootings make up a minority of overall gun crime, the commissioner warned of new gun technologies that could make the problem worse.“The grim reality is that shootings have become a daily occurrence in American cities. Emerging trends like ghost guns and guns modified with switches continue to pose a challenge for law enforcement,” Gramaglia said.“Congress must update our laws to account for these new threats and carnage that has accompanied them. It will be nearly impossible to address the gun violence epidemic without first addressing the underlying violent crime problem.”Warning that it is “high noon in America,” New York’s mayor, Eric Adams, told lawmakers in the House: “The clock is ticking, every day, every minute towards another hour of death.”The New York City Police Department is overwhelmed by illegal guns, he said, despite confiscating 3,000 this year alone. Adams called for more federal aid for states and cities, the confirmation of Biden’s nominee to lead the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and for Congress to expand background check and pass other gun control legislation.“I stand with President Joe Biden in calling on Congress to act now to regulate or ban assault weapons in this country. Even if we only raise the age required to buy one of these weapons, lives will be saved,” the mayor said. “We must build a society where our youth are on a path to fulfillment, not a road to ruin.”The US Supreme Court says an armed man has been arrested near associate justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home after making threats against him, the Associated Press writes.The Washington Post was first with the story, reporting that a California man in his mid-twenties, with at least one weapon in his possession and tools used in burglaries, was apprehended near the judge’s home in Maryland and had told law enforcement that he wanted to kill Kavanaugh, and citing people familiar with the investigation. It happened at about 1.50am ET today.The Post further reports that:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Two people familiar with the investigation said the initial evidence indicates the man was angry about the leaked draft of an opinion by the Supreme Court signaling the court is preparing to overturn Roe. v. Wade, the 49-year-old decision that guaranteed a person’s constitutional right to have an abortion. He was also angry over a recent spate of mass shootings, those people said. Following the leak last month of that draft opinion – with the final opinion awaited with enormous tension across the US this month – protesters appeared near the homes of conservative members of the supreme court bench.These included Samuel Alito, who wrote the draft opinion that was leaked and slammed the Roe decision, and two of the justices nominated by Donald Trump that represented a strong swing to the right on the nine-member bench – Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.Those previous protests were entirely peaceful, though technically probably illegal, and there had apparently been no arrests.Here’s what Lauren Burke reported for the Guardian at the time:Protesters rally outside US supreme court justices’ homes ahead of pro-choice marchesRead moreAfter a brief recess, the House hearing has now moved on to testimony from elected officials, representatives from advocacy groups and other, but it wrapped up its first half with more gut-wrenching testimony from parents affected by gun violence.Kimberly Rubio described how she found out that her daughter Lexi was among those killed in Uvalde, and outlined specific policies she thinks could prevent such attacks. “We understand that for some reason, to some people, to people with money, to people who fund political campaigns, the guns are more important than children,” Rubio said. “So at this moment, we ask for progress. We seek to raise the age to purchase these weapons from 18 to 21 years of age, we seek red flag laws, stronger background checks. We also want to repeal gun manufacturers liability, immunity.”Lucretia Hughes of Women for Gun Rights’s DC Project told lawmakers how her 19-year-old son was shot and killed while playing dominoes, but unlike the witnesses before her, she did not call for more restrictions on firearms. Rather, she saw weapons as an important tool for self-defense and linked gun control laws to racism.“Something has to change. Thoughts and prayers and calls for more gun control isn’t enough. How about letting me defend myself from evil? You don’t think that I’m capable and trustworthy to handle a firearm? You don’t think that the second amendment doesn’t apply to people that look like me?” said Hughes, who is Black. “Who and you who would call for more gun controls are the same ones that are calling to defund the police? Who is supposed to protect us? We must prepare to be our own first responders to protect ourselves and our loved ones.” More

  • in

    I’m a Black gun owner. I have mixed feelings about gun control | Akin Olla

    I’m a Black gun owner. I have mixed feelings about gun controlAkin OllaI don’t have much faith that the state will protect me from violence – and I know that gun control laws have historically been used to target Black people, socialists and people who challenge the status quo The mass murder of elementary school students in Uvalde, Texas, and a white supremacist attack on Black residents of Buffalo, New York, have reignited the American gun control debate. Both atrocities have left me feeling more broken than I thought possible. As a Black, leftwing gun owner, however, I’m also struck by a feeling of unease.I believe in many forms of gun control, but the conversation about guns on the left often lacks complexity as we scramble for a simple answer to an extremely complicated problem. I don’t have much faith that the government will protect me or other minority Americans from the kind of violence that the police ostensibly exist to combat, and I know that gun control laws have historically been used to target Black people, particularly Black socialists like myself.I’m also not convinced that most current gun control proposals will even solve the problem. Consider the country’s deadliest school shooting, the Virginia Tech murders of 2007. The perpetrator passed his background check and used weapons that most gun control bans wouldn’t affect. A waiting period might have delayed his attack but his level of premeditation implies it was nearly inevitable. I feel sorrow for what happened. Yet I feel that as a society we tend to fight over specific gun control policies – some effective, some not – while ignoring the violent nature of the country we live in and the culture that drives almost exclusively men to commit mass murder.I never thought I’d be a gun owner. I’m not particularly fond of guns. If anything, they terrify me. I’ve generally hoped my charming personality and acumen at fisticuffs would be enough to deter would-be aggressors; it wasn’t until the terror that I experienced during the George Floyd uprising that I, like many Black Americans, was moved to become a first-time gun owner.I’d participated in protests and witnessed the sheer brutality of the Philadelphia police as they attacked my partner, threatened an elderly woman, and enveloped the entirety of my neighborhood in teargas. I watched Black parents flee their homes, gagging, eyes red, small children in tow. When I and others working as medical volunteers tried to evacuate the injured and elderly, we were met with pepper spray, rubber bullets, and batons. On the other side of the city, police officers let white vigilantes with baseball bats patrol the streets. None of this buttressed my belief that the police existed to protect me from violence.Around this time I, like other socialist organizers, received written threats. After a series of them, as well as a direct, in-person threat to my life made in front of my home, I buckled and decided I needed a weapon, and soon. Even without the specific threats, I was wrestling with a sense that society was on the brink. It may sound paranoid now, but to be Black in the midst of the George Floyd uprising and the tail end of the Trump presidency was a time to be paranoid. Guns and ammunition were sold out across the country. More than 5 million new gun owners purchased weapons in 2020, a more than 100% increase from the previous year. After a background check and a few days for the order to be processed, I picked up a gun from a store located in a man’s home in a dreamlike suburban cul-de-sac.America is steeped in violence. And the roots of that violence go deep | Moustafa BayoumiRead moreDespite owning a gun, I do think gun control is overdue and necessary. But I also can’t ignore the history of American gun control. Much of the modern debate around gun control began in the 1960s, after the state of California – with support, ironically enough, from the NRA – pushed through legislation in response to the Black Panther party and other armed militant groups. We must ensure that any new gun control laws do not disproportionately limit minority communities’ ability to own arms for reasons of legitimate self-defense, which may be impossible given that most laws in a country as steeped in racism as ours will inevitably be exploited to oppress the already oppressed.There are moments in US history when the right to own weapons made the difference between life and death for communities of color, such as the armed resistance against the Ku Klux Klan by the Lumbee Tribe in 1958. And despite the common perception of the civil rights movement, many activists kept guns in their homes or were protected by those who did. There was a time when Dr Martin Luther King Jr was described as having an arsenal in his home.To honestly address mass shootings, we must be willing to have difficult conversations about the complexity of all of this, and also accept that some solutions will involve restructuring our society. We have to accept that gun control may mean some people that reasonably fear for their lives will be left at the whim of fascists and police. We have to accept that mass shootings will absolutely still occur. We have to accept and analyze the reality that one of the most common denominators among shooters is their hate for women – as the Texas shooter, who shot his grandmother before carrying out his school massacre, sadly reminded us.And we have to realize the racist nature of this country and its violent roots. The founder of Uvalde, Texas, was shot and killed in 1867, probably not too far from where the elementary school shooting occurred. His alleged offense was opposing southern secession and supporting the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. His blood stains that town just as the blood of millions of Indigenous people and enslaved Africans stains the entirety of the United States.Gun control may be a good start to saving lives, but this country must be made new, and the lives of women, little children, and Black families made valuable. Until then, I sit uneasy.
    Akin Olla is a contributing opinion writer at the Guardian
    TopicsUS gun controlOpinionUS politicsGun crimeUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)Texas school shootingBuffalo shootingcommentReuse this content More

  • in

    Will anti-abortionists use ‘uterus surveillance’ against women in the US? | Arwa Mahdawi

    Will anti-abortionists use ‘uterus surveillance’ against women in the US?Arwa MahdawiIf, as is expected, Roe v Wade is overturned by the US supreme court, 26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion – and data tracking could mean there’s nowhere for women to hide If you are looking for a cheerful column that will make you giggle and distract you from everything that is wrong with the world, click away now. This week I have nothing but doom, gloom and data trackers for you. If you are hoping to sink into a well of existential despair, maybe let out a few screams into the void, then you’ve come to the right place.Here goes: the US supreme court, as you are no doubt aware, is expected to overturn Roe v Wade and the federal right to an abortion very soon. At least 13 Republican-led states have “trigger laws” in place, which means that the moment Roe is overruled, abortion will be fully or partly banned. Other states will follow suit. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organisation, 26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion when Roe falls.Perhaps you are the glass half-full sort. Perhaps you are thinking: “Well, at least people can travel to a state where abortion is legal.” Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. There are the obvious logistical and financial constraints, for one thing. Then there’s the fact that we live in a world of mass surveillance: pretty much everything we do these days leaves a digital footprint – one that anti-abortion extremists will not hesitate to weaponise. One Democratic senator has described the potential of new technology to track down and punish anyone who might even be thinking of having an abortion as “uterus surveillance”. Expect to see a big rise in this, not least because some anti-abortion states are providing financial incentives to snitch on your fellow citizens. Texas, for example, has passed “bounty hunter” laws promising at least $10,000 to individuals who help enforce the abortion ban by successfully suing an abortion provider.To be fair, there’s nothing new about uterus surveillance. Anti-abortion activists may be stuck in the past when it comes to reproductive rights, but they have always been adept at using modern technology to further their goals. One tactic they’ve used for decades is standing outside clinics and recording the licence plates of anyone who enters. As far back as 1993, extremists were tracing the people connected to those licence plates, obtaining their phone numbers, then calling up to harass them. Years ago tracing someone took a bit of time and effort. Nowadays, you can look up someone’s personal information with the click of a button and a small fee.The wonders of the modern world mean there are a mind-boggling number of ways in which you can now identify anyone who might be thinking about an abortion. To begin with, there’s location data. Vice media recently reported that a data location company is selling information related to Planned Parenthood facilities (many of which provide abortions). The data shows where groups of people visiting the locations came from, how long they stayed and where they went afterwards. That data is aggregated so it doesn’t provide the names of individuals; however, de-anonymising this sort of information is not very difficult. There is plenty of evidence that location data is almost never anonymous.Period-tracking apps, which are used by millions of people, are also a worrying source of potentially incriminating information in a post-Roe world. Experts have warned that rightwing organisations could buy data from these apps and use it to prove that someone was pregnant then had an abortion. Your text messages could also be used against you, as could your browser history. Indeed, authorities in Mississippi have already used a woman’s online search for abortion pills to indict her for second-degree murder after she miscarried. That happened in 2018; imagine what is going to happen in a post-Roe world. Speaking of which, I’ve just realised I Googled the word “abortion” 100 times while researching this. I’m off to scrub my search history.
    Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
    TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionAbortionUS politicsWomenHealthUS supreme courtLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

  • in

    Gun crime victims are holding the firearms industry accountable – by taking them to court

    Gun crime victims are holding the firearms industry accountable – by taking them to courtFollowing the strategy used in legal actions against cigarette and opioid firms, the lawsuits attempt to sidestep a law shielding gun makers With each slaughter of innocents, the gun industry offers its sympathy, argues that even more weapons will make America safer, and gives thanks for a two-decade-old law shielding the firearms makers from legal action by the victims.Mike Fifer, the chief executive of one of the US’s leading handgun manufacturers, Sturm Ruger, once described the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) as having saved the firearms industry because it stopped in its tracks a wave of lawsuits over the reckless marketing and sale of guns.But now victims of gun crime are following an alternative path forged by legal actions against cigarette makers, prescription opioid manufacturers and big oil in an attempt to work around PLCAA – and the lack of political will to act on gun control – to hold the firearms industry accountable for the bloody toll of its products.‘Significant’ consequences if lawmakers fail to act on gun control, Democrat warnsRead moreOn Tuesday, Ilene Steur, who was badly injured when a man fired 33 shots on the New York subway in April wounding 10 people, filed a lawsuit accusing the manufacturer of the semi-automatic pistol used in the attack, Glock, of breaching “public nuisance” laws.Steur’s lawsuit contends that Glock endangered public health and safety in breach of New York state law with an irresponsible marketing campaign to push its gun’s “high capacity and ease of concealment” in an “appeal to prospective purchasers with criminal intent”.It also accuses Glock of giving significant discounts to American police departments on weapons purchases to “give the gun credibility” in the larger and more lucrative civilian market.“Gun manufacturers do not live in a bubble,” said Mark Shirian, Steur’s lawyer. “They are aware that their marketing strategies are empowering purchasers with ill intent and endangering the lives of innocent people. This lawsuit seeks to hold the gun industry accountable.”The public nuisance strategy has been used against the tobacco industry for lying about the link between cigarettes and lung cancer, and with mixed success against pharmaceutical companies for creating the US opioid epidemic by recklessly pushing prescription opioids.Public nuisance claims are also at the heart of a series of lawsuits by states and municipalities accusing oil firms of covering up and lying about the part fossil fuels play in driving the climate crisis.Until recently, the gun industry thought PLCAA provided a shield from similar actions. The National Rifle Association persuaded a Republican-controlled Congress to pass the law after the families of people shot by the sniper who terrorised the Washington DC area for three weeks in 2002, killing 10 people, won a total of $2.5m from the gun manufacturer, Bushmaster, and the store that sold the weapon.But a lawsuit by the families of 20 young children and six staff murdered in the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre sought to exploit an exception in PLCAA if a firearm is sold in violation of “applicable” state or federal law, in this case public nuisance and consumer protection legislation.The Connecticut supreme court upheld the argument that PLCAA did not prevent the gun maker being sued for breach of state laws for irresponsibly militaristic marketing campaigns for its semi-automatic rifles aimed at young men. Remington appealed to the US supreme court which declined to take the case while it was still in litigation. In February, Remington settled for $73m.At about the time the Connecticut supreme court ruled in favour of the Sandy Hook families, New York introduced the law Steur is relying on that expands public nuisance legislation to cover gun crimes. On Wednesday, a federal district judge in New York dismissed an attempt by the gun industry to quash the law on the grounds that it pre-empted PLCAA.Timothy Lytton, a specialist in gun litigation at Georgia State University college of law and author of Suing the Gun Industry, expects the validity of the New York law, and the claim that public nuisance legislation is an exception to the protection given to the gun industry, to be appealed all the way to the US supreme court.“The most important thing that the supreme court needs to decide with regard to firearms litigation is probably the scope of the federal immunity law and whether or not the exception that was relied upon by the Sandy Hook plaintiffs is a viable legal theory. If it’s a viable legal theory, then I think you’re likely to see an upsurge in litigation,” he said.But, Lytton said, legal actions against the gun industry face an additional challenge because of the supreme court’s interpretation of the second amendment and the rights it gives to gun owners, a legal area that has also yet to be more widely tested.“There are limits on the ability to sue a newspaper for libel because of the first amendment. It may be the case that the second amendment has similar restrictions on the ability of individuals to hold the firearms manufacturer liable. But we don’t know what those restrictions might be because we have very little indication from the supreme court about what the second amendment actually protects other than a basic right for an individual to own a firearm that they can use for ordinary purposes,” he said.Still, as litigation against the tobacco, opioid and oil industries demonstrates, the point of lawsuits is not only to win in court. After each massacre, the gun industry usually seeks to blame the individual shooter and the failure of systems, such as mental health services. Lytton said lawsuits put the focus back on the actions of the firearms makers and forces public discussion of how they sell weapons.“The impact of litigation is not just about who wins and who loses. It’s about the framing, information disclosure and agenda-setting effects that the litigation process creates even if the plaintiffs lose. A great example of that is clergy sexual abuse.“Almost none of those suits have been won and almost none of them in front of a jury. But they’ve revolutionised the global church because of these three effects of the litigation,” he said.Two decades of litigation over the US opioid epidemic that has claimed more than 1 million lives has shifted the focus away from the drug industry’s attempt to blame the victims for their addiction to the big pharma’s responsibility for pushing the wide use of prescription narcotics despite the dangers. Highly embarrassing revelations in several court cases about the drug companies’ cynical marketing techniques helped pressure opioid makers and distributors into settling thousands of lawsuits over the opioid epidemic.Similarly, states and cities suing the oil industry for lying about the climate crisis hope that public disclosure of what fossil fuel companies knew and when they knew it will add to pressure on big oil to reach settlements.But Lytton warned that strategy may not have the same impact on the gunmakers.“There’s something very different about firearms. When it comes to tobacco or opioids or pretty much any other area of public policy in the United States, people tend to reconsider their views and start to rethink the problem,” he said.“The only place in American public policy where this is not true is in firearms violence. No matter how terrible the tragedy is, people tend to get even more committed to the views that they already have.”TopicsUS gun controlUS politicsLaw (US)Gun crimenewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Proud Boys leader charged with seditious conspiracy related to Capitol attack – as it happened

    Former leader of the Proud Boys far-right nationalist group Enrique Tarrio and four of his closest associates have been charged with seditious conspiracy related to the January 6 attack, according to a Justice Department filing released Monday.The rare charge against Tarrio as well as Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Charles Donohoe, and Dominic Pezzola builds on conspiracy charges filed by the government earlier this year.In January, the Justice Department leveled seditious conspiracy charges against 11 members of another far-right group, the Oath Keepers militia, over their involvement in the assault on the Capitol as lawmakers were meeting to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.Tarrio, 38, is also facing counts of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of an official proceeding, and two counts each of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and destruction of government property.That’s it from us today. Here’s how another eventful day in Washington unfolded:
    The former leader of the Proud Boys, far-right nationalist group Enrique Tarrio, and four of his closest associates have been charged with seditious conspiracy related to the January 6 attack, according to a Justice Department filing released Monday. The rare charge against Tarrio as well as Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Charles Donohoe and Dominic Pezzola builds on conspiracy charges filed by the government earlier this year.
    The January 6 committee is preparing to hold its first primetime hearing on Thursday. According to Axios, the committee has enlisted James Goldston, a former ABC News president who ran the shows “Nightline” and “Good Morning America,” to advise the committee on how to televise the hearing. The panel is expected to share never-before-seen photos taken inside the White House as the Capitol attack unfolded.
    A Democratic member of the January 6 committee said the panel’s hearings would demonstrate the extensive planning conducted by those who carried out the attack. “The committee has found evidence of concerted planning and premeditated activity,” Jamie Raskin said in a virtual discussion with the Washington Post today. “The idea that all of this was just a rowdy demonstration that spontaneously got a little out of control is absurd. You don’t almost knock over the US government by accident.”
    The Senate is trying to find a bipartisan compromise on gun-control legislation in the wake of the Uvalde massacre. Democratic senators are trying to find 10 Republicans to join them in supporting tougher gun laws, but that will be a heavy lift in the evenly divided chamber. Joe Manchin, the centrist Democrat who could play a key role in negotiations, said he would support raising the minimum age required to purchase semi-automatic weapons from 18 to 21. Manchin also signaled openness to an assault weapons ban, but that proposal is unlikely to win enough Republican support to be included in the final bill.
    The supreme court released more decisions this morning, but the country is still waiting to hear whether justices will move forward with their initial ruling to overturn Roe v Wade. The abortion case is one of dozens of decisions that the court still needs to release in the coming weeks. The court has announced that its next round of rulings will be released on Wednesday.
    Thanks for following along with our coverage today. The blog will be back tomorrow morning, with more updates on the January 6 committee and the Senate negotiations over gun-control. Back in Congress, a group of 10 “frontline” Democratic House lawmakers, who are considered the most vulnerable to getting ousted in the November midterms, have written a letter to the chamber’s leaders asking for votes on bills that would fight inflation.The letter reported by Punchbowl News comes as the country faces an ongoing wave of price increases for essentials like gasoline, as well as a shortage of baby formula that has rattled the Biden administration.Addressed to House speaker Nancy Pelosi and majority leader Steny Hoyer, the letter doesn’t name specific bills, and acknowledges that many proposals the chamber already passed haven’t been brought up in the Senate. The lawmakers nonetheless call for votes:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} With the time that remains in the 117th Congress after the important upcoming votes on gun violence prevention – and particularly in the few months that remain before the late summer district work period – we urge you to prioritize bills that would lower costs for working families, address rising inflation and resolve supply chain challenges. To be clear, we know that many such bills have already received affirmative votes in the House and now await Senate action. However, we believe that more must be done to ensure that this body remains laser focused on addressing the most urgent challenges that continue to impact our constituents.Consumer prices have been rising over the past year at rates not seen since the 1980s, fueling public discontent with the Biden administration. The Federal Reserve is hiking interest rates to tame the price increases, but much of the inflation has been caused by factors beyond their control such as global supply chain snarls and the war in Ukraine. Some economists fear the combination of higher rates and global supply shocks will put the economy into a recession — perhaps next year, just as campaign season for the 2024 presidential election kicks off.Meanwhile in the UK, members of parliament have spent the day voting on whether to boot Prime Minister Boris Johnson from office, and the verdict is in: Johnson survives his no-confidence vote, 211 to 148.That means he stays as prime minister, leader of the Conservatives and Joe Biden’s counterpart in one of America’s closest allies. The Guardian’s Andrew Sparrow has been keeping a meticulous live blog of the historic day.Former leader of the Proud Boys far-right nationalist group Enrique Tarrio and four of his closest associates have been charged with seditious conspiracy related to the January 6 attack, according to a Justice Department filing released Monday.The rare charge against Tarrio as well as Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Charles Donohoe, and Dominic Pezzola builds on conspiracy charges filed by the government earlier this year.In January, the Justice Department leveled seditious conspiracy charges against 11 members of another far-right group, the Oath Keepers militia, over their involvement in the assault on the Capitol as lawmakers were meeting to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.Tarrio, 38, is also facing counts of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of an official proceeding, and two counts each of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and destruction of government property.Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled a deal between Democrat and Republican lawmakers on a new gun control bill could be reached this week.MCCONNELL on whether senate negotiators will strike a gun deal by the end of the week: “oh I hope so”— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) June 6, 2022
    More MCCONNELL on guns. “We’re trying to get a bipartisan outcome here that makes a difference. And hopefully, sometime this week, we’ll come together.”— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) June 6, 2022
    Republican Senator John Cornyn and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy have been leading negotiations in the evenly divided chamber to introduce some kind of legislation that could restrict gun purchases following a recent wave of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, Uvalde, Texas and elsewhere.The January 6 committee will hold its second hearing on Monday, June 13, at 10am ET, the House panel has just announced.The first hearing is happening on Thursday at 8pm ET, and it is expected to attract worldwide news coverage, but the second hearing is not scheduled for the evening.The select committee has reportedly enlisted the help of James Goldston, a former ABC News president, to assist in the planning of the primetime event.Speaking to the Washington Post earlier today, a Democratic member of the committee, Jamie Raskin, said investigators had “found evidence of concerted planning and premeditated activity”.“The idea that all of this was just a rowdy demonstration that spontaneously got a little out of control is absurd,” Raskin said. “You don’t almost knock over the US government by accident.” The supreme court will now issue opinions on Wednesday, June 8, according to its website.The justice have 30 cases to release decisions on, with the workload possible extending into next month. Several of these may be extremely consequential, including an environmental case out of West Virginia, a gun rights case stemming from New York, an immigration case via Texas involving the US-Mexico border and the pivotal Mississippi abortion case that also includes the state authorities asking Scotus to overturn Roe v Wade.Nearly half of Republican voters think the US just has to live with mass shootings, according to a poll released in the aftermath of the Texas elementary school murders last month and as politicians in Washington negotiate for gun reform.The CBS and YouGov poll returned familiar results, including 62% support for a nationwide ban on semi-automatic rifles, the kind of gun used in Uvalde, Texas.Nineteen young children and two adults were killed at Robb elementary school on 24 May by an 18-year-old who bought his weapon legally.But clear national support for a ban on such rifles or changes to purchasing ages and background checks is not mirrored in Congress. Most Republicans, supported financially by the powerful gun lobby, remain implacably opposed to most gun reform.Read the Guardian’s full report:Nearly half of Republicans think US has to live with mass shootings, poll findsRead moreAn end to abortion rights would create yet another crisis for Biden, whose presidency has been increasingly defined by a list problems, annoyances and calamities that seems to only grow longer. From high inflation to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan to nationwide mass shootings, my colleague Lauren Gambino has an excellent piece on how Biden has become a crisis president — whether he wants to or not:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In his third run for president, Joe Biden’s pitch to Americans was simple: after half a century in elected office, including eight years as vice-president, he understood the demands of what is arguably the hardest job in the world. It was a point Biden stressed on the campaign trail, in his own folksy way: “Everything landed on the president’s desk but locusts.”
    Nearly a year and a half into his presidency, Biden now appraises his own fortunes differently. “I used to say in Barack’s administration: ‘Everything landed on his desk but locusts,’” he told Democratic donors in Oregon. “Well, they landed on my desk.”
    Successive mass shootings, including a racist attack at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and a massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 elementary school students and their teachers dead, present just the latest test for a president desperate to act but constrained, once again, by the limits of his own power.Biden entered office facing daunting crises – only to be hit with more crises Read moreThe White House has released a statement condemning legislation introduced in Louisiana that would make abortion a crime of murder.“Louisiana’s extreme bill will criminalize abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest and punish reproductive healthcare professionals with up to ten years in prison,” said Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, in a statement.“The president is committed to protecting the constitutional rights of Americans afforded by Roe for nearly 50 years, and ensuring that women can make their own choices about their lives, bodies, and families. An overwhelming majority of the American people agree and reject these kinds of radical measures.”Louisiana Republicans advance bill to make abortion a crime of murderRead moreSupporters of the bill admit it’s unconstitutional, but only as long as the Roe v Wade decision that enshrines abortion rights in the United States remains law. That decision’s days appear to be numbered, according to a draft of a supreme court opinion that was leaked last month.Located just across the street from the Capitol, the supreme court has found itself sucked into the inquiry over January 6 as investigators eye the actions of Ginni Thomas, wife of conservative justice Clarence Thomas.In March, my colleague Ed Pilkington reported on the calls for conflict-of-interest rules that erupted after revelations that Ginni Thomas pressed then-president Donald Trump’s chief of staff to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election:Ginni Thomas texts spark ethical storm about husband’s supreme court roleRead moreThe Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reported later that month that committee members have weighed asking Thomas to cooperate either voluntarily or with a subpoena, but no decision has yet been made.House January 6 panel members weigh seeking cooperation from Ginni ThomasRead moreMore revelations about Thomas’s actions around the time of the insurrection have trickled out since then, including that she pressed Republicans in Arizona to overturn Biden’s victory there, as first reported in The Washington Post last month.January 6 committee member Jamie Raskin hinted to The Washington Post that lawmakers have discovered Donald Trump more than just incited the attack on the Capitol. Raskin did not elaborate on what the House committee found, but the actions of the former president have been at the center of the inquiry from the start.“The select committee has found evidence about a lot more than incitement here, and we’re gonna be laying out the evidence about all of the actors who were pivotal to what took place on Jan 6,” Raskin said.“Donald Trump and the White House were at the center of these events. That’s the only way really of making sense of them all,” the Democratic House representative added.Trump was impeached by the Democrat-controlled House immediately following the insurrection, but the Republican-led Senate decided not to convict and remove him from office, allowing Trump to remain in the White House for the final weeks of his term..@RepRaskin on Jan. 6: “Donald Trump and the White House were at the center of these events. That’s the only way really of making sense of them all.” #PostLive pic.twitter.com/gIJJxqPWsx— Washington Post Live (@PostLive) June 6, 2022
    A Democratic member of the January 6 committee, Jamie Raskin, said the panel’s hearings would demonstrate the extensive planning conducted by those who carried out the attack on the Capitol.“The committee has found evidence of concerted planning and premeditated activity,” Raskin said in a virtual discussion with the Washington Post today.“The idea that all of this was just a rowdy demonstration that spontaneously got a little out of control is absurd. You don’t almost knock over the US government by accident.” Rep. Liz Cheney talks about the GOP’s “cult of personality” around Trump, and what the hearings will reveal about the threat to democracy. https://t.co/kFhs30uzzC pic.twitter.com/TrqMfQ0Qjs— CBS Sunday Morning 🌞 (@CBSSunday) June 6, 2022
    Raskin said the committee would use the hearings to outline all the evidence it has collected and provide recommendations on how to avoid future coups that could threaten the security of the US government.Raskin’s comments echo those of Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the committee, who said yesterday that she considers the January 6 attack to be a conspiracy.“It is extremely broad,” Cheney told CBS News. “It’s extremely well-organized. It’s really chilling.”Warning of the danger of Trump’s hold on the Republican party, Cheney added, “I mean, it is fundamentally antithetical, it is contrary to everything conservatives believe, to embrace a personality cult. And yet, that is what so many in my party are doing today.”The January 6 committee has enlisted James Goldston, a former ABC News president who ran the shows “Nightline” and “Good Morning America,” to advise the committee on how to televise its hearings beginning Thursday, according to Axios.Axios reports:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} I’m told Goldston is busily producing Thursday’s 8 p.m. ET hearing as if it were a blockbuster investigative special.
    He plans to make it raw enough so that skeptical journalists will find the material fresh, and chew over the disclosures in future coverage.
    And he wants it to draw the eyeballs of Americans who haven’t followed the ins and outs of the Capitol riot probe.Goldston will apparently have a lot of material to work with. The committee reportedly plans to show never-before-seen photos from inside the White House on January 6, and new security-camera footage from the Capitol, taken as the insurrection occurred, will also be shared.The committee has already conducted more than 1,000 depositions and interviews as part of its investigation, and clips from those conversations are expected to be played during the hearing.Meanwhile, Republicans are busy planning a counter-messaging program to challenge the committee’s findings. According to Axios, House Republican leaders and outside conservative groups will paint the panel as hyperpartisan to try to discredit their conclusions.Joe Manchin, the centrist Democrat who could play a key role in reaching a Senate compromise on a gun-control bill, outlined what he would like to see in the legislation.The West Virginia senator told CNN that he would support raising the minimum age required to purchase semi-automatic weapons from 18 to 21. The gunman who carried out the Uvalde shooting was 18.Manchin also indicated he would support some version of a red-flag provision, as long as the policy allowed for due process for those blocked from purchasing guns.Manchin told me that a final deal should include two things: Raising the age to 21 for purchasing semi-automatic weapons and standards for state red flag laws. He’s also open to an assault weapons ban. On people needing AR-15s? “I never felt I needed something of that magnitude.” pic.twitter.com/GYUlx1Nhkp— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 6, 2022
    “We know we can do something that would have prevented this — raising the age,” Manchin said of Uvalde. “And the second thing is that we know that the red-flag laws do work, as long as there’s due process.”On the question of enacting a ban on assault weapons, Manchin said he would be open to the idea, but that proposal faces stiff opposition from Senate Republicans.“I never thought I had a need for that type of high-capacity automatic weapon,” Manchin said. “I like to shoot. I like to go out and hunt. I like to go out sports shooting. I do all that. But I’ve never felt I needed something of that magnitude.”While there were no major decisions made by the supreme court today, the justices did opt not to review legal sanctions against Republican Senate candidate Mark McCloskey and his wife Patricia, who pointed guns at protesters during racial justice protesters in Missouri two years ago.CNN reports that the McCloskeys, both attorneys, pled guilty to misdemeanors over the incident, which were later pardoned by Missouri’s governor. However the state’s supreme court later sanctioned them, calling their actions “moral turpitude.”The McCloskeys contested the penalties, citing the constitution’s second amendment, but CNN reported the argument didn’t have much chance of success.Mark McCloskey is a candidate in the Republican senate primary in Missouri to succeed Roy Blunt, who is retiring, but a SurveyUSA poll released last month did not find him among the race’s frontrunners. As the Senate tries to find compromise on gun control, Joe Biden is using the presidential bully pulpit to urge Congress to take action to prevent more tragedies like Uvalde.“After Columbine, after Sandy Hook, after Charleston, after Orlando, after Las Vegas, after Parkland, nothing has been done,” Biden said on Twitter. “This time, that can’t be true. This time, we must actually do something.”Biden offered the same message to the nation last week, when he delivered a primetime address on the need to enact stricter gun laws.He proposed expanding background checks and banning assault weapons. If Congress cannot approve an assault weapons ban, which seems unlikely given Republicans’ opposition to the idea, then the minimum age required to purchase those guns should be raised from 18 to 21, Biden said.After Columbine,after Sandy Hook,after Charleston,after Orlando,after Las Vegas,after Parkland,nothing has been done.This time, that can’t be true. This time, we must actually do something.— President Biden (@POTUS) June 6, 2022
    The House has already passed several gun-control bills, and Biden called on the Senate to act as well in the wake of the Uvalde massacre. However, that will be difficult when the upper chamber is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, and the filibuster rules requires 60 votes to advance most legislation.“I support the bipartisan efforts that include a small group of Democrats and Republican senators trying to find a way,” Biden said last Thursday. “But my God, the fact that the majority of the Senate Republicans don’t want any of these proposals even to be debated or come up for a vote, I find unconscionable. We can’t fail the American people again.”This week will provide some key clues as to whether any gun-control bill can pass the Senate. More