Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson says he won’t resign as Republican anger grows over foreign aid

      by

      Defiant and determined, the House speaker, Mike Johnson, pushed back on Tuesday against mounting Republican anger over his proposed US aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other allies, and rejected a call to step aside or risk a vote to oust him from office.“I am not resigning,” Johnson said after a testy morning meeting of fellow House Republicans at the Capitol.Johnson referred to himself as a “wartime speaker” of the House and indicated in his strongest self-defense yet he would press forward with a US national security aid package, a situation that would force him to rely on Democrats to help pass it, over objections from his weakened majority.“We are simply here trying to do our jobs,” Johnson said, calling the motion to oust him “absurd … not helpful.”Tuesday brought a definitive shift in tone from both the House Republicans and the speaker himself at a pivotal moment as the embattled leader tries, against the wishes of his majority, to marshal the votes needed to pass the stalled national security aid for Israel, Ukraine and other overseas allies.Johnson appeared emboldened by his meeting late last week with Donald Trump when the Republican former president threw him a political lifeline with a nod of support after their private talk at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. At his own press conference on Tuesday, Johnson spoke of the importance of ensuring Trump, who is now at his criminal trial in New York, is re-elected to the White House.Johnson also spoke over the weekend with Joe Biden as well as other congressional leaders about the emerging US aid package, which the speaker plans to move in separate votes for each section – with bills for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific region. He spoke about it with Biden again late on Monday.It is a complicated approach that breaks apart the Senate’s $95bn aid package for separate votes, and then stitches it back together for the president’s signature.The approach will require the speaker to cobble together bipartisan majorities with different factions of House Republicans and Democrats on each measure. Additionally, Johnson is preparing a fourth measure that would include various Republican-preferred national security priorities, such as a plan to seize some Russian assets in US banks to help fund Ukraine and another to turn the economic aid for Ukraine into loans.The plan is not an automatic deal-breaker for Democrats in the House and Senate, with leaders refraining from comment until they see the actual text of the measure, due out later on Tuesday.House Republicans, however, were livid that Johnson will be leaving their top priority – efforts to impose more security at the US-Mexico border – on the sidelines. Some predicted Johnson will not be able to push ahead with voting on the package this week, as planned.Representative Debbie Lesko, a Republican from Arizona, called the morning meeting an “argument fest”.She said Johnson was “most definitely” losing support for the plan, but he seemed undeterred in trying to move forward despite “what the majority of the conference” of Republicans wanted.When the speaker said the House GOP’s priority border security bill HR 2 would not be considered germane to the package, Chip Roy, a Texas Republican and a chief sponsor, said it was for the House to determine which provisions and amendments are relevant.“Things are very unresolved,” Roy said.Roy said Republicans want “to be united. They just have to be able to figure out how to do it.”The speaker faces a threat of ouster from Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, the top Trump ally who has filed a motion to vacate the speaker’s office in a snap vote – much the way Republicans ousted their former speaker, Kevin McCarthy, last fall.While Greene has not said if or when she will force the issue, and has not found much support for her plan after last year’s turmoil over McCarthy’s exit, she drew at least one key supporter on Tuesday.Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, rose in the meeting and suggested Johnson should step aside, pointing to the example of John Boehner, an even earlier Republican House speaker who announced an early resignation in 2015 rather than risk a vote to oust him, according to Republicans in the room.Johnson did not respond, according to Republicans in the room, but told the lawmakers they had a “binary” choice” before them.The speaker explained they either try to pass the package as he is proposing or risk facing a discharge petition from Democrats that would force a vote on their preferred package – the Senate-approved measure. But that would leave behind the extra Republican priorities. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      What does Liz Truss’s book tell us about her American ambitions?

      by

      In her new book, the former British prime minister Liz Truss directs scathing attacks and mockery at Joe Biden, president of her country’s closest ally. Biden was guilty of “utter hypocrisy and ignorance”, Truss writes, when the US leader said he “disagree[d] with the policy” of “cutting taxes on the super wealthy” in the mini-budget Truss introduced in September 2022, shortly after taking power.“I was shocked and astounded that Biden would breach protocol by commenting on UK domestic policy,” Truss adds. “We had been the United States’ staunchest allies through thick and thin.”Such harsh words between British and American leaders, in or out of office, would normally seem unusual. But Truss has scores to settle. By the time Biden spoke, in an ice-cream parlor in Portland, Oregon, Truss’s mini-budget had already caused panic over British pension funds, threatened to crash the UK economy and been withdrawn – a humiliating reversal for any prime minister, let alone one little more than a month into the job. Six days later, Truss was forced to resign.A year and a half later, offering the public her version of what went so terribly wrong, Truss still manages to thunder: “What the Biden administration, and the [European Union], and their international allies didn’t want was a country demonstrating that things can be done differently, undercutting them in the process.”Perhaps. Either way, Biden is still president while Truss is now a mere backbench MP for a constituency in rural Norfolk. But the release of her book, Ten Years to Save the West, alongside her founding of Popular Conservatism, a new pressure group, says a lot about where she sees her future.Far from taking her allowance and pursuing traditional, relatively sedate pursuits – lobbying, say, or trying to achieve peace in the Middle East – Truss wants to remain relevant on the global populist right, particularly in the US.Truss’s book is published in the US and UK on Tuesday. The American jacket carries praise from two hard-right senators, Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, both vocal enemies of Biden. It also carries a different subtitle from the British edition. In the UK, Truss is said to offer “Lessons from the Only Conservative in the Room”. In the US, she is “Leading the Revolution Against Globalism, Socialism, and the Liberal Establishment”.It’s a lot to pack in between the school run – Truss has two daughters – and her duties as a Norfolk MP. But it all points to a clear ambition to carve out a presence in rightwing US media, long on plain display.In February, Truss attended the CPAC conference in Maryland, giving an address to an audience of what Politico called “bewildered conservatives” before appearing with Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former campaign chair and White House adviser, a leading far-right voice who pitched Truss into controversy with remarks about the jailed far-right figure Tommy Robinson.View image in fullscreenTruss will soon be back, visiting Washington to promote her book at the Heritage Foundation, the thinktank behind Project 2025, a vast and controversial plan for a second Trump administration.Truss’s relationship with Heritage is well established. She spoke there in 2015, as trade secretary and over the objections of the British ambassador, and accepted an award named after Margaret Thatcher there last year. Kevin Roberts, president of Heritage, also blurbs the US edition of Truss’s book.The foundation is a couple of miles from the White House, but Truss is hardly likely to seek contact with Biden or his administration. That may be just as well. Elsewhere in her book, she describes meeting the president at the White House in September 2021, when she was foreign secretary under Boris Johnson.“Our Oval Office meeting lasted around an hour and a half,” Truss writes, adding that this was not a sign of favor.“The truth was it owed more to Biden’s penchant for telling extended anecdotes in response to any issue that came up. ‘Ah, that reminds me …’ he would say, as his officials looked at each other with knowing smiles. Ten minutes later, the story would end and he would move on to something else.”Biden’s age, 81, and mental capacity to be president are the source of constant media speculation and political attack – and strong White House pushback. But Truss has more to say. At the Cop 26 climate conference in Glasgow, later in 2021, she “bumped into Joe Biden again. He remembered our meeting at the White House, telling me he’d never forget ‘those blue eyes’, even though we’d both been wearing Covid masks.”It is not clear if the reader should think Biden or Truss was under the impression mouth coverings also obscure the eyes.Truss is still not done. She includes the president with the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi among US politicians deemed “unhelpful” over Northern Ireland issues, their interventions “generally on one side of the argument, doubtless egged on by the Irish embassy in Washington”.She also describes how in September 2022, as prime minister, she attended the UN general assembly in New York. There, she says, “Biden regaled me with tales of the Democrat campaign trail, including an incident in which he had fallen over. He said, ‘I can see them thinking, ‘You can’t get up, grandpa’, but I got up.’“I formed the view that he was running again in 2024,” Truss writes, before risking a self-own by writing about a faux pas at the same event, when she called out “Hi, Dr Biden!” to “a blonde lady” who turned out to be Brigitte Macron, the wife of the president of France.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I hope she didn’t hear!” Truss writes.The vignette about Biden at the UN is not the only one in Ten Years to Save the West in which Truss uses “Democrat” to refer to the Democratic party. It is a telling choice. Republicans have long used the incorrect term as a term of political abuse. Nor is it the only instance in which Truss – or her US editors – must adapt or explain her language.When writing about UK politics, as in most of the book, Truss must often offer translations or explanations for US readers. For one small but telling example, in referring to her distaste for National Insurance – a payroll tax that supports state pensions and unemployment and incapacity benefits – she calls it “a social security entitlement”. On the US right, “entitlement” is almost as dirty a word as “Democrat”.At least until the eve of publication day, Truss had shied from saying Donald Trump’s name but said she wanted a Republican in the White House in 2025. She says so in her book but abandons any pretense of subtlety when it comes to praising Trump, now the presumptive GOP nominee despite facing 88 criminal charges and multimillion-dollar penalties for tax fraud and defamation, the latter arising from a rape allegation a judge called “substantially true”.Calling herself “an early fan of the TV show The Apprentice” who “enjoyed the Donald’s catchphrases and sassy business advice”, Truss says that when Trump entered politics in 2015, colleagues in parliament and “elderly ladies” in Swaffham, a town in her constituency, were united in “seem[ing] genuinely animated by the disruptive Republican candidate”. She makes a common link between support for Trump and support for Brexit – which she campaigned against before becoming its hardline champion on her way to leading her country.View image in fullscreenWhen Trump was president, Truss writes, she “chased” Boris Johnson “down a fire escape” in New York, to demand inclusion in a meeting between the British and American leaders. According to Truss, who was then trade secretary, that meeting saw Trump urge her and his own trade representative, Bob Lighthizer, to get on with talks for a UK-US trade deal – only for Johnson to try to make Trump focus on restoring the Iran nuclear agreement, a tactic that did not work.Truss never got her trade deal. In part, she blames “many in Number 10” Downing Street who “seemed to want to hold Trump at arm’s length for political reasons”.“The UK media provided universally negative coverage of Trump, and leftists in the Conservative party were keen to insult him at every opportunity,” Truss writes. “My view was that he was the leader of the free world and an important ally.”That view stands in stark comparison to her abuse of Biden, who beat Trump conclusively in an election Trump still refuses to concede. Furthermore, when it comes to the deadly fruits of that refusal – the attack on Congress Trump incited – Truss keeps her observations to a single paragraph.On 6 January 2021, Truss writes, she was “on a phone call with Bob Lighthizer”, “working on” removing a US tariff on Scottish whisky. From the Executive Office building, next to the White House, Lighthizer “remarked … in passing that the street was full of people with huge American flags walking towards Congress. Little did I realise how seismic that event would turn out to be.”Truss eventually saw the whisky tariff removed – in summer 2021, after “talks with the new Democrat administration”.“But with Joe Biden as president,” Truss writes, “it was made quite clear that a trade deal with the United Kingdom was no longer a priority. We had missed the boat.” More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson unveils complex plan for Israel and Ukraine aid as pressure rises

      by

      Mike Johnson, the US House speaker, has unveiled a complicated proposal for passing wartime aid for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, rejecting pressure to approve a package sent over by the Senate and leaving its path to passage deeply uncertain.The Republican speaker huddled with fellow GOP lawmakers on Monday evening to lay out his strategy to gain House approval for the funding package. Facing an outright rebellion from conservatives who fiercely oppose aiding Ukraine, Johnson said he would push to get the package to the House floor under a single debate rule, then hold separate votes on aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan and several foreign policy proposals, according to Republican lawmakers.However, the package would deviate from the $95bn aid package passed by the Senate in February, clouding its prospects for final passage in Congress.Johnson has faced mounting pressure to act on Joe Biden’s long-delayed request for billions of dollars in security assistance. It’s been more than two months since the Senate passed the $95bn aid package, which includes $14bn for Israel and $60bn for Ukraine.The issue gained new urgency after Iran’s weekend missile and drone attack on Israel. Congress, however, remains deeply divided.Johnson has declined to allow the Republican-controlled House to vote on the measure. The senate passed it with 70% bipartisan support and backers insist it would receive similar support in the House, but Johnson has given a variety of reasons not to allow a vote, among them the need to focus taxpayer dollars on domestic issues and reluctance to take up a Senate measure without more information.As the House has struggled to act, conflicts around the globe have escalated. Israel’s military chief said on Monday that his country will respond to Iran’s missile strike. And Ukraine’s military head over the weekend warned that the battlefield situation in the country’s east has “significantly worsened in recent days”, as warming weather has allowed Russian forces to launch a fresh offensive.Meanwhile, Joe Biden, who is hosting Petr Fiala, the Czech prime minister, at the White House, called on the House to take up the Senate funding package immediately. “They have to do it now,” he said.Hakeem Jeffries, the top House Democrat, also put pressure on Johnson and pledged in a letter to lawmakers to do “everything in our legislative power to confront aggression” around the globe, and he cast the situation as similar to the lead-up to the second world war.“The gravely serious events of this past weekend in the Middle East and eastern Europe underscore the need for Congress to act immediately,” Jeffries said. “We must take up the bipartisan and comprehensive national security bill passed by the Senate forthwith. This is a Churchill or Chamberlain moment.”In the Capitol, Johnson’s approach could further incite the populist conservatives who are already angry at his direction as speaker.Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican Congresswoman from Georgia, is threatening to oust him as speaker. As she entered the closed-door Republican meeting on Monday, she said her message to the speaker was: “Don’t fund Ukraine.”The GOP meeting was filled with lawmakers at odds in their approach to Ukraine: Republican defense hawks, including the top lawmakers on national security committees, who want Johnson to finally take up the national security supplemental package as a bundle, are pitted against populist conservatives who are fiercely opposed to continued support for Kyiv’s fight.On the right, the House Freedom Caucus said Monday that it opposed “using the emergency situation in Israel as a bogus justification to ram through Ukraine aid with no offset and no security for our own wide-open borders”.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s hush-money trial: key takeaways from the first day

      by

      Donald Trump struggled through the opening day of his New York criminal trial on Monday as the jury selection process formally got under way in Manhattan in the first criminal trial of a current or former US president.Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in trying to cover up hush-money payments to an adult film star that influenced the 2016 election.Trump himself did little during his time in the courtroom of the New York supreme court judge Juan Merchan. But the eventual proceeding showed the momentous nature of the case and highlighted Trump’s divisiveness.Here are the takeaways of day one of “People v Donald Trump”:Seating jury could take weeksLegal experts widely expected that seating a jury in the Trump case – 12 jurors and six alternates – was going to be a difficult and lengthy process as Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.But moving through the first 100 or so potential jurors showed just how tricky the “voir dire” process could be: more than half of the group told the judge they could not be impartial and were excused immediately.The voir dire process involves each potential juror reading their responses to a 42-point questionnaire and the judge reading out to the jurors the people who might serve as witnesses or otherwise come up at trial.The potential jurors’ reactions toward Trump were varied. One man smiled when he saw Trump. Another woman giggled and put her hand over her mouth, looking at the person seated next to her with raised eyebrows. And one of the potential jurors, who was excused, said leaving the courtroom: “I just couldn’t do it.”Trump’s lawyers are looking for a so-called “holdout juror” who could be partial to Trump and not convict on any of the counts – and thereby hang the jury for a mistrial.The process also appeared to tire out Trump. Before the jury selection began in the afternoon, Trump often appeared to nod off.Trump was stuck with judge despite delay tacticsTrump tried one more time before jury selection began to have the judge recuse himself from presiding in the case, claiming Merchan had conflicts of interest and had shown indications of bias that meant he could not be fair.The judge addressed two of Trump’s main complaints – and dismissed them summarily.In the first instance, the judge rejected Trump’s complaints about an interview he did with the Associated Press because he did not talk about Trump’s case, meaning the judge’s statements did not “reasonably or logically” reflect bias.And in the second instance, the judge said a podcast interview his daughter did in 2019, in which he said he disliked politicians using Twitter, similarly did not reflect bias against any party.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionProsecutors score two additional winsThe Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, had some partial wins on Monday morning, after Merchan allowed them to admit into evidence materials that would bolster their case that Trump’s falsification of records was to influence the 2016 election.The judge had previously ruled that prosecutors could not use as evidence the actual tape of Trump’s infamous Access Hollywood tape, as well as a video of Trump referencing the Access Hollywood tape in a deposition in an unrelated case.But Merchan allowed prosecutors to admit into evidence the full transcript of the Access Hollywood tape, which means the infamous Trump quote that he could assault women and “grab them by the pussy” can be read to the jury at trial.The judge also allowed prosecutors to use an email chain in which the former Trump aide Hope Hicks forwarded the transcript to another former Trump aide, Kellyanne Conway, asking if the tape was Trump’s voice. Conway then asked the ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen who was doing damage control.Trump could yet be held in contemptTrump left the courtroom after the first day of his criminal trial with another cloud hanging over his head: whether he will be found in contempt for violating a gag order that prohibited from assailing potential trial witnesses.The former president was recently hit with an expanded gag order after he went after the judge’s daughter, alleging that her work doing campaign work for Democratic political candidates meant the judge was conflicted.But prosecutors asked Merchan to impose a $3,000 fine on Trump for attacking two potential trial witnesses – Stormy Daniels, the adult film star at the centre of the criminal case, and his ex-lawyer Cohen – and warning him that future violations could result in jail.The matter was scheduled for arguments at a 23 April hearing. Merchan promised to address the alleged gag order violations but said he did not want to get into it on Monday because they had several hundred potential jurors waiting. More

    • 275 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘The speaker has to move quickly’: White House urges Mike Johnson to pass aid for Ukraine and Israel – as it happened

      by

      The White House “will not accept” any bill put forward by Republicans in the US House that only provides additional funding to Israel, in the wake of Iran’s attack on Saturday, and does not include aid for Ukraine, the press secretary just said.The US House speaker, Mike Johnson, said on Sunday that he will aim to advance a bill for wartime aid to Israel this week but did not clarify whether Ukraine funding would be part of the package.The White House wants a bipartisan $95bn national security bill that is languishing in the House to be passed, which includes fresh funding for Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan and other allies.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at the media briefing in the west wing moments ago that “the Speaker has to move quickly” to “get this on the floor” of the chamber for a vote.If Republicans put forward a bill that only offers extra funding for Israel, the White House will not support it (although such a bill would be unlikely to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate anyway).“We would not accept a standalone,” Jean-Pierre said.Hello again, it’s been a lively day in US politics with news coming from the White House, the Supreme Court and Capitol Hill. We’re closing this blog now. We still have live coverage of the first day of the first ever criminal trial of a former US president as Donald Trump attends court in New York, where jury selection is underway in the hush money case involving Stormy Daniels. You can read that blog here.We’ll be back on Tuesday. All in the one blog this time we’ll plan to have action from Day 2 of the Trump trial, oral arguments at the Supreme Court over alleged insurrectionists accused of obstruction of an official proceeding when they tried to stop the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election victory, on January 6, 2021, and now-President Biden’s trip to his hometown of Scranton on the first visit of a three-day campaign swing through the crucial battleground state of Pennsylvania.Here’s what happened today:
      The White House “will not accept” any bill put forward by Republicans in the US House that only provides additional funding to Israel and not also Ukraine, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. “The Speaker has to move quickly” to put the a bipartisan bill already passed by the Senate onto the floor of the House for a vote, she said.
      “We do not want a war with Iran,” national security spokesman John Kirby said at the White House press briefing. He said the US is not involved with any Israeli decision now about how to respond after Iran sent drones and missiles hurtling towards Israel on Saturday, with almost all of them shot down.
      Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas was absent from the court in Washington DC on Monday – with no explanation, as the court issued a ruling and heard oral arguments. This is highly unusual. Thomas, 75, also was not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.
      The US supreme court on Monday allowed a Black Lives Matter activist to be sued by a Louisiana police officer injured during a protest in 2016 in a case that could make it riskier to engage in public demonstrations, a hallmark of American democracy. In declining to hear DeRay Mckesson’s appeal, the justices left in place a lower court’s decision reviving a lawsuit by the Baton Rouge police officer, John Ford, who accused him of negligence after being struck by a rock during a protest sparked by the fatal police shooting of a Black man, Alton Sterling, by white officers.
      Joe Biden is preparing for a three-day election campaign swing through Pennsylvania from Tuesday, after Donald Trump campaigned there on Saturday, two days before his criminal trial was due to begin in New York.
      Czech prime minister Petr Fiala has now arrived in the Oval Office.Before his departure from Prague on Sunday, Fiala told reporters that during his visit to the US he will focus on security cooperation, the Middle East, and aid to Ukraine, the White House pool reports.Fiala said he would address the issue of further support for Ukraine in any talks he has with US officials. The White House today is urging the US House to bring a stalled bill to the floor for a vote that provides fresh aid to Ukraine and Israel.
      I will try to convince our American friends that this help and support is absolutely necessary,” Fiala said of more aid for Ukraine in its desperate fight back against Russia more than two years after the much larger neighbor invaded.
      Other topics will include economic relations and nuclear energy. Although the American firm Westinghouse has dropped out of the bid for the completion of a Czech power plant, the Czech Republic would still like to cooperate with the US on the supply of nuclear fuel for Czech power plants, and development of small modular reactors.Announcing Fiala’s travel to the US, the Czech Government Office pointed to a symbolic significance of his visit, as the Czech Republic commemorates the 25th anniversary of its accession to NATO.The arrival of the prime minister of the Czech Republic, Petr Fiala, at the White House has been delayed, as it was due to be happening by now.The White House pool report notes that Fiala began his visit to Washington today with an unannounced meeting with the director of the CIA, William Burns.“At the beginning of my working visit, I am heading for a meeting with the director of the CIA,” Fiala himself revealed on X. The heads of the Czech intelligence services, including the head of the Czech civilian counterintelligence service, the Security Information Service (BIS) Michal Koudelka and Military Intelligence Service commander Jan Beroun are accompanying Fiala in Washington.Last month Fiala announced that BIS discovered a Kremlin-financed network that spread Russian propaganda and wielded influence across Europe, including in the European Parliament.At the center of the network was a Voice of Europe news site based in Prague, which tried to discourage Europeans from sending more aid to Ukraine. Some European politicians cooperating with the news site were apparently paid by Russians. Fiala and Biden met in Warsaw in February 2023.Top House Democrat and New York Democratic congressman Hakeem Jeffries is also urging Speaker Johnson to bring the bipartisan aid bill that covers Ukraine and Israel to the floor for a vote.It was passed by the Senate in February and since then has been stalled as Johnson battles hard right Republican colleagues who oppose more aid to Ukraine.Jeffries’ wish posted yesterday has not been granted:But earlier on Monday Jeffries sent a letter to his caucus spelling out the need to support Ukraine as well as Israel, Reuters reports.
      The gravely serious events of this past weekend in the Middle East and Eastern Europe underscore the need for Congress to act immediately. We must take up the bipartisan and comprehensive national security bill passed by the Senate forthwith,” Jeffries wrote.
      Ukraine appealed again to allies on Monday for “extraordinary and bold steps” to supply air defenses to help defend against waves of Russian airstrikes that have targeted its energy system in recent weeks.But underscoring the deep party divide in Washington, a letter released on Monday urging an immediate vote on the Senate bill was signed by 90 House Democrats and just one Republican.House Speaker Mike Johnson is expected to decide this week on how he will handle Joe Biden’s long-delayed request for billions of dollars in security assistance for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific, Reuters reports.More than two months after it passed the Senate, the push for the $95bn aid package, which includes $14 billion for Israel as well as $60 billion for Ukraine, gained new urgency after Iran’s weekend missile and drone attack on Israel despite fierce opposition in the deeply divided Congress.Johnson has declined to allow the Republican-controlled House to vote on the measure that the Senate passed with 70% bipartisan support in February.Backers insist it would receive similar support in the House, but Johnson has given a variety of reasons not to allow a vote, among them the need to focus taxpayer dollars on domestic issues and reluctance to take up a Senate measure without more information.Republican House aides said on Monday Johnson had not yet indicated his plans for security assistance, after discussing it with national security committee leaders late on Sunday and planning more talks with members on Monday.The White House “will not accept” any bill put forward by Republicans in the US House that only provides additional funding to Israel, in the wake of Iran’s attack on Saturday, and does not include aid for Ukraine, the press secretary just said.The US House speaker, Mike Johnson, said on Sunday that he will aim to advance a bill for wartime aid to Israel this week but did not clarify whether Ukraine funding would be part of the package.The White House wants a bipartisan $95bn national security bill that is languishing in the House to be passed, which includes fresh funding for Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan and other allies.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at the media briefing in the west wing moments ago that “the Speaker has to move quickly” to “get this on the floor” of the chamber for a vote.If Republicans put forward a bill that only offers extra funding for Israel, the White House will not support it (although such a bill would be unlikely to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate anyway).“We would not accept a standalone,” Jean-Pierre said.Joe Biden said a little earlier on Monday that he wants to prevent the conflict in the Middle East, where Israel is waging war in Gaza and fending off Iranian attacks, from spreading more widely, Agence France-Presse reports.
      Iran launched an unprecedented aerial attack against Israel, and we launched an unprecedented military effort to defend it. Together with our partners, we defended that attack.
      The United States is committed to Israel’s security. We’re committed to a ceasefire that will bring the hostages home and prevent the conflict from spreading beyond what it already has,” Biden said as he met Iraq’s visiting prime minister.
      Biden was referring to those kidnapped by Hamas militants in their deadly October 7 attack on Israel.Biden has promised “ironclad” support for Israel but also urged it to “think carefully and strategically” before launching a response against Iran that could trigger a wider war.The US president said he was “also committed to the security of our personnel and partners in the region, including Iraq.”Iraq’s prime minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani was visiting the White House for talks on the presence of US troops in Iraq as part of an anti-jihadist coalition.National security spokesman John Kirby, at the White House press briefing, is reluctant to expand on Joe Biden’s advice to Israel at the weekend to “be careful” in its approach to any response to Iran’s attack on Saturday night.But there is an air that the US believes Israel’s broadly successful defense against the unprecedented Iranian assault at the weekend, where hundreds of missiles and drones were intercepted by the Jewish state and allies, is a satisfactory outcome in itself.“We do not want a war with Iran,” Kirby said. He said the US is not involved with any Israeli decision now about how to respond.However he talked in graphic terms about the US activities in shooting down incoming Iranian missiles and drones on Saturday as they approached Israel, both with US fighter jets in the air and from US destroyer ships at sea.“We will do what we have to do to defend Israel,” he said, adding that the US “does not want a wider conflict.”Israel has said it will respond, but without any details yet. Western leaders are urging restraint. Iran’s attack was retaliation for an Israeli attack on Iranian targets in Syria earlier this month.A little earlier, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also said Washington did not want any escalation, but would continue to defend key ally Israel.The White House press briefing is underway. Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has just greeted the media in the west wing and now national security spokesman John Kirby is speaking on international affairs.Kirby is speaking now about Iran’s attack on Israel on Saturday night and he’s pushing back on any idea that Iran knew it wouldn’t hit home with any of the drone weapons or cruise missiles that it launched and that it designed the assault to fail.He said the attack “was defeated thanks to our preparations…and Israel’s remarkable defense system.”Kirby said the extent of the US’s intervention in Israel’s defense was unprecedented, and that Iran had fired so many weapons at Israel because it knew many would be repelled but hoped a maximum number would get through.He’s now talking up the wide defensive coalition and said “Iran failed.”Fifteen prominent historians filed an amicus brief with the US supreme court earlier this month, rejecting Donald Trump’s claim in his federal election subversion case that he is immune to criminal prosecution for acts committed as president.Authorities cited in the document include the founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Adams, in addition to the historians’ own work.Trump, the historians said, “asserts that a doctrine of permanent immunity from criminal liability for a president’s official acts, while not expressly provided by the constitution, must be inferred. To justify this radical assertion, he contends that the original meaning of the constitution demands it. But no plausible historical case supports his claim.”Trump faces four federal election subversion charges.The supreme court will hear arguments on Trump’s immunity claim, despite widespread legal and historical opinion that the claim is groundless. Fuller report from my colleague, Martin Pengelly here.Donald Trump’s federal criminal trial for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results had been due to take place in Washington, DC, in March and the government, prosecuting, had asked for it to begin in January of this year.But here we are in April, with the New York criminal trial going ahead (being blogged here) and no dates for any of the other three cases in which Trump is a defendant.This as the US Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments from the former president that he is immune from prosecution.Trump pleaded not guilty last August to charges filed in federal district court in Washington that he conspired to defraud the United States, conspired to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructed an official proceeding and engaged in a conspiracy against rights.My colleague Hugo Lowell writes that the supreme court’s eventual ruling in Fischer v United States, in which it’s hearing oral arguments tomorrow, will indicate whether the obstruction charge under section 1512 of title 18 of the US criminal code can be used against Trump, and could undercut the other general conspiracy charges brought against the former president by the special counsel, Jack Smith.The court could also end up by extension invalidating many convictions against rioters involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. The obstruction statute has been the justice department’s primary weapon to hold accountable those involved in the violence of that day.With Clarence Thomas absent from court today, observers will be watching keenly to see if he joins the bench on Tuesday for Fischer.Clarence Thomas is the oldest of the justices on the bench of the US supreme court, at age 75.The staunch conservative has had previous absences for health reasons, but no reasons have been given for his not being present today during the session in the marbled edifice in Washington DC.Oral arguments were being heard today and a ruling was made. Chief Justice John Roberts announced that Thomas wasn’t present.He has been embroiled in controversies in relation to accusations of unethical conduct and unfair partisan political links.NBC News reports:“Often when a justice is not present for oral arguments, the court will give a reason, including instances when there is a health issue.In February of last year, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch was not present for an argument, and the court said he was feeling “under the weather.”When Thomas himself was hospitalized in 2022, the court disclosed that he had an infection and was being treated with antibiotics.”The US supreme court on April 25 will hear arguments in the unprecedented claim by Donald Trump that he has absolute immunity from prosecution in the federal criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.Progressive advocacy group MoveOn is petitioning for the conservative supreme court associate justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from that case.The group argues that: “It’s clear that the supreme court will play a central role in this year’s presidential election at a time when the public holds the historically lowest opinion of the court’s integrity. For the supreme court to consider these cases with any impartiality, it’s critical that justices with conflicts of interest recuse themselves. That applies first and foremost to Justice Clarence Thomas, whose own wife played a role in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 elections.”The group goes on to argue that: “Thomas has a longstanding history of conflicts of interest. It’s crucial that we raise the pressure now and demand that Justice Thomas recuse himself from this case immediately!”With Trump on trial from today in Manhattan on the New York hush money case (being live blogged here), in the federal case on 2020 election interference we don’t yet have a date for trial. The case is basically on hold until the supreme court rules on the matter of immunity, putting in grave jeopardy the prospect of that trial starting before the next election in November.The US supreme court is due to hear arguments in an important case on Tuesday that involves defendants charged with crimes in relation to the 6 January 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol in Washington – and has implications for Donald Trump.Associate justice Clarence Thomas’s absence from court today now has people wondering what will happen tomorrow.Oral arguments will be presented in the case of Fischer v United States. Former police officer Joseph Fischer has been charged in connection with the January 6 invasion of congress by a mob of Trump supporters, accused of assaulting a serving police officer, disorderly conduct and, crucially, obstruction of a congressional proceeding.This allegedly happened when rioters, who had been egged on by Trump at a rally near the White House just before they breached the US Capitol, aimed to stop the official certification by a joint session of congress of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump. Amid the violence, the certification was delayed but took place in the early hours of the following day after the Capitol had been cleared.Fischer, as the learned Scotusblog explains, has asked the supreme court to throw out the charge that he obstructed an official proceeding, arguing that the law that he was charged with violating was only intended to apply to evidence tampering.More than 300 other January 6 defendants have been charged with violating the law and also features in federal criminal charges brought against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith for the former Republican president’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Biden, who is seeking re-election to a second term as the Democratic nominee this November. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Homicides in major US cities falling at ‘one of fastest rates ever’ – report

      by

      Homicides in major US cities are falling at likely “one of the fastest rates of decline ever recorded”, a crime analysis has found.Jeff Asher of AH Datalytics, a New Orleans-based data-analytics company focused on criminal justice, education and the non-profit sector, discussed that finding with the Wall Street Journal on Monday after combing through quarterly data recently released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).“There’s just a ton of places that you can point to that are showing widespread, very positive trends,” Asher told the Journal.In the company’s sample of almost 200 cities with varying population sizes, murder was down by 20.8% from the period beginning in January through the end of March of this year when compared with the same time period in 2023, as Asher wrote in a recent Substack post on the subject.Furthermore, in some prominent cities like Washington DC, New Orleans, Las Vegas, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit, Columbus, Nashville and Philadelphia, murder is down by more than 30%.Asher’s company’s analysis is based on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program, which collects data from local law enforcement agencies across the country. Because participation in the program is voluntary, not all crime is reported, so experts caution it’s not a complete picture.Additionally, FBI data from 2023 will not be audited nor made official until about October. And 2024 data will not be audited and made official until about October 2025.Nonetheless, the preliminary figures reflect particularly heartening news for the US because they suggest that murder had already “plummeted” in 2023 “at one of the fastest declines ever recorded”, according to what Asher wrote in a Substack post late last year.Updated preliminary information suggests those numbers are again falling this year – but at an even faster clip, setting up a return to levels pre-dating the Covid-19 pandemic, when the US experienced a spike in violent crime.The early available statistics also mirror a decline in homicides seen in the 1990s.“Nationally, you’re seeing a very similar situation to what you saw in the mid-to-late 90s. But it’s potentially even larger in terms of the percentages and numbers of the drops,” Asher said.Asher has made it a point to say that even a substantial decline in homicides still involves a collection of “hundreds or thousands of tragedies” for families across the US. But he has said the data paints a picture that is “as encouraging” as can be given that grim reality.It’s not just murder rates that have fallen.Asher said with the exception of motor vehicle theft, all crimes – such as violent crimes, defined as “murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault” and property crime, defined as “burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson” – were down “a considerable amount” in 2023 compared with 2022.At the end of 2023, Asher wrote: “Americans tend to think that crime is rising, but the evidence we have right now points to sizable declines this year (even if there are always outliers). The quarterly data in particular suggests 2023 featured one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the United States in more than 50 years.”Crime has been a principal theme in Republican campaign messaging in recent years. Earlier this year, Donald Trump said without evidence that undocumented immigrants were producing increases in violent crime.“You know, in New York, what’s happening with crime – is it’s through the roof. And it’s called ‘migrant’,” the former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee said at a rally in Michigan in February.A 2024 Pew research poll reported “a majority of Americans (57%) [believe] the large number of migrants seeking to enter the country leads to more crime”.Yet national data fails to support Trump’s claim or the public’s stubborn preconceptions that crime is eternally on the rise.Asher wrote: “Tell your friends and family because they probably think crime is surging nationally. And in this case, they’re almost certainly wrong.” More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Nikki Haley takes new job at ultra-conservative thinktank

      by

      Nikki Haley, who was Donald Trump’s last remaining challenger for the Republican presidential nomination until she dropped out of the race in March, has a new job.The former South Carolina governor has accepted a role with the Hudson Institute, a Washington DC-based, ultra-conservative thinktank specializing in foreign policy affairs.She will become the institute’s Walter P Stern chairperson, a post named for Hudson’s former chairperson who died in 2022. Haley served as US ambassador to the UN during Trump’s presidency and is the fourth member of his administration to join Hudson.Former attorney general William Barr did so in 2020, and ex-secretary of state Mike Pompeo as well as former transportation secretary Elaine Chao did so the following year.“When our policymakers fail to call out our enemies or acknowledge the importance of our alliances, the world is less safe,” Haley said in a statement from Hudson announcing her appointment. “That is why Hudson’s work is so critical.“They believe the American people should have the facts and policymakers should have the solutions to support a secure, free, and prosperous future. I look forward to partnering with them to defend the principles that make America the greatest country in the world.”The statement did not detail what Haley’s responsibilities will be, whether the position is salaried, or if she will be required to work from Hudson’s Washington DC headquarters.“It is fitting that Nikki has taken on this title. She is a courageous and insightful policymaker and these qualities are vital in making Hudson the powerhouse policy organization it is today,” said Sarah May Stern, the chairperson of the board of trustees that governs Hudson.Previous prominent Hudson figures have included Henry Kissinger, the late veteran diplomat and Nobel peace prize winner; Dan Quayle, who served as vice-president to George HW Bush from 1989 to 1993; and Alexander Haig, White House chief of staff in the administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, then secretary of state for Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1982.Haley, who received Hudson’s global leadership award in 2018 for her work at the UN, would appear a good fit for the institute, which has demonstrated strongly pro-Ukraine and pro-Israel positions in recent months.In contrast to Trump’s America First policies advocating little US involvement in overseas conflicts and affairs, Haley staunchly promoted a robust US foreign policy in her time at the UN.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHer relationship with Trump turned sour after she declared her candidacy for their party’s presidential nomination. And unlike others who dropped out before her, she has declined to endorse the former president’s return to the White House.Analysts say her position makes her an unlikely candidate to be Trump’s vice-presidential pick despite her enduring popular with large numbers of Republican voters.“It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond who did not support him, and I hope he does that,” Haley said during a short concession speech in Charleston, South Carolina, in March.“While I will no longer be a candidate, I will not stop using my voice for the things I believe in.” More

    • 250 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump used to scold felons who wanted to vote. Now he could be in the same spot | Sidney Blumenthal

      by

      The People of the State of New York v Donald J Trump will conclude, according to long-established court procedure. The former US president’s defense attorney will make a closing argument. He will assert that his client is not guilty of the charges of bribery and business fraud to manipulate the 2016 election. Judge Juan Merchan will issue his instructions to the jurors. They will deliberate. When they emerge, the foreperson will read the verdict in open court. If Trump is found guilty, Merchan will adjourn to a later date for sentencing.If Trump is found guilty on all 34 felony counts, he could theoretically face a maximum of 136 years in prison. Post-conviction, the major question would be whether his sentencing involves actual imprisonment, probation, a fine, or some combination, along with various parole arrangements. To be sure, Trump would then almost certainly file an appeal, but this would not forestall his immediately incurring certain civil disabilities. Above all, he would instantly lose his right to vote.The first former president ever to be convicted of a crime would also be the first disenfranchised felon to be nominated by a major party. In this current electoral cycle, Trump has managed to pass himself off as a normal candidate despite separate juries finding him to be a rapist and a fraudster. But those were civil cases. A criminal verdict may crack Trump’s aura of magical legal invincibility intrinsic to his image as a strongman.In the grand ritual of election day 2024, surrounded by the clicking cameras of the press corps, assuming he is still out on appeal, Trump could tag along with his wife Melania, a naturalized citizen, to the polls in Palm Beach, but he could not enter a voting booth. He could not vote for himself, or anyone else, for any office.“There are a wide range of punishments because the statute doesn’t have any mandatory ones,” Joshua Dratel, the past president of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told me.“He could go to jail. Probation is a possibility. He could get fined. The judge could sentence him to a fine, then put him on supervision – probably not likely. He could get one to three years. He could get four months in jail and a fine. If he got four months, then he’d have a work release application ready to go, then supervised for a few months. There’s no minimum time he’d have to serve. Then he might do a couple of days, a week or two, depending on the application. But that would be after appeal. If he would testify and lie on the stand that would generate a jail term. If he appeals, the judge stays the sentence.”Trump’s appeal of a conviction would likely postpone the imposition of a sentence into 2025. “The likelihood is that he’ll stay out pending appeal,” says Dratel. “In the state system it takes months and months even before a brief is filed – probably 2025. The trial should end by the middle of May. His brief wouldn’t be filed until the election. He might file it just for political purposes. But the action still wouldn’t be before the election. Then he has a second level of appeal to the court of appeals.”At no point, of course, would Trump, if re-elected, have the authority to pardon himself over a conviction in state court.If Trump were ever to serve time at New York’s Rikers Island jail, where the former treasurer of the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg, is currently serving a five-month sentence, there would be a further restriction on his liberty. It would be a bad hair day. The New York state department of corrections states: “No skin tanning or coloring or hair coloring products.” Hairspray (non-aerosol) is permitted only for female inmates.In January, Trump declared that New York state did not “have a case” against him in his civil financial fraud case, in which he was found guilty and fined $454bn, plus interest, and has posted a $175m bond. That bond, apparently from a dubious source, may be disqualified, and is under review by New York attorney general Letitia James. She has scheduled a hearing for 22 April, a week after the New York trial is to start.Trump’s bond may be a flimsy cover for a house of cards. If the bond is rejected, and Trump does not file a new acceptable bond, the attorney general will immediately commence judgment enforcement, including the attachment of all identified Trump brokerage accounts and bank accounts, and issue writs of attachment seizing sums owed to Trump by third parties (his pension as president, for instance, rents owed under rental agreements, sums owed in connection with the Saudi LIV golf tournament, etc).Judgment enforcement actions against one or more Trump properties are also possible, though it is unlikely that these steps would go all the way to foreclosure. The attorney general would also likely begin discovery in support of judgment enforcement, deposing Trump and other senior personnel about the whereabouts of his assets and any encumbrances. Assets taken by the attorney general would be escrowed pending final disposition of any Trump appeal.James may also depose the man who posted the suspicious Trump bond. It was ponied up by Don Hankey, a car loan shark who runs the Knight Specialty Insurance Company, the largest shareholder of the Axos Bank, which has lent Trump more than $500m since he has left the presidency. Now, Hankey has told Reuters that he has no idea of the source for the bond’s collateral. “I don’t know if it came from Donald Trump or from Donald Trump and supporters,” he said. Then who?This further unraveling of Trump’s fraud may go on at the same time as the jury hears the evidence and witnesses in his election interference trial.The only precedent for a convicted felon running for president is a figure who was nothing like Trump. Eugene V Debs, leader of the Socialist party, was jailed for delivering an anti-war speech in 1918 against US involvement in the first world war. He received 1m votes in the 1920 election and was pardoned by its winner, the Republicanpresident Warren G Harding, who greeted the released Debs at the White House the day after Christmas in 1921.Harding extended commutations to 23 other anti-war dissidents who had been jailed. But he also issued a statement drawing a line: “The Department of Justice has given no recommendation in behalf of the advocates of sabotage or the destruction of the government by force, and the President let it be known he would not consider such cases.” Harding’s policy stands as a marker against Trump’s pledge if he has a second term to pardon violent January 6 convicts.Trump, like Debs, would be stripped of his right to vote. After conviction in a New York court, his disenfranchisement would instantly apply under law in Florida, where he is registered, having moved his residence there in September 2019. In Florida, Trump would be considered “convicted” regardless of an appeal, according to the Florida court of appeals in the 1988 case of Burkett v State.According to data from the Sentencing Project, Trump would join the approximately 1.15 million Floridians who cannot vote because of a felony conviction. Under draconian Florida law, 935,000 Floridians have completed their sentences but are still denied the vote because they are unable to afford the court fines and other fees the state requires felons to pay before reinstating their voting rights. In 2020, when Michael Bloomberg contributed to the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition to help pay their fines, Trump railed: “It’s a total criminal act. It’s a felony.”In the early days of ramping up his misbegotten presidential primary campaign, Florida governor Ron DeSantis tried in 2023 to manufacture the bogus issue of disenfranchised felons illegally voting. He sent a specially designated task force of “election police” to arrest 20 people, some of whom had been previously informed by the state that their right to vote had already been restored.Fortunately for Trump, unlike the seemingly permanently disenfranchised class of Florida, he would be subject to New York law that would restore his voting rights after he finishes his sentence. He would not have to depend on the kindness of the Florida state board of executive clemency, headed by the man he has mercilessly derided as “Ron DeSanctimonious”.As a felon, Trump could run only for federal office. He would be disqualified to be a candidate for state office in every state but Maine and Vermont. Forty-eight states have laws that prevent a felon from holding elective office until they have been pardoned or receive clemency. Louisiana has a felony disqualification in its state constitution.Criminally convicted, Trump would lose more than his right to vote. In fact, he already has no right to possess a gun. Even before the New York trial, his right to have a firearm had been prohibited for more than a year. No person under felony indictment is permitted to receive a gun transported by interstate or foreign commerce.In September 2023, Trump visited a gun store in South Carolina, where the owner handed him a Glock pistol with his likeness and the words “Trump 45th” embossed on it. Trump admired the gun and said: “I want to buy one.” “President Trump buys a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!” his spokesperson posted. Two hours later, he put out a new post: “President Trump did not purchase or take possession of the firearm. He simply indicated that he wanted one.”Trump promised the convention of the National Rifle Association in February of this year: “No one will lay a finger on your firearms.” He certainly will not touch one without a severe penalty. The average sentence for someone convicted of buying a firearm while under indictment is five years and four months. If Trump’s posturing as a wise-guy requires legal access to weapons, he has been emasculated since his indictment in March 2023.Criminal Trump, like the indicted Trump, would continue to be forbidden from owning or purchasing a firearm in the state of New York. If he is found guilty of only one felony, he could, after completing his sentence, apply for a Certificate of Relief from Civil Disabilities issued by a court or the New York state department of corrections and community supervision. But if he is found guilty of more than one felony, he would have to apply for a Certificate of Good Conduct. But that certificate usually does not cover restoration of gun rights. In the rare cases where it is granted, the waiting period is five years.That restoration would only apply in New York. As a Florida resident, Trump would have to show his New York certificate to Florida authorities, who would have to determine through their own process whether to recognize New York’s judgment.Criminal Trump’s travel would also be under supervision. How tight it would be would depend on the judge. His schedule could be monitored by a probation officer. “In his instance, his travel would likely not be circumscribed very much,” says Dratel. “The judge could put him on probation. He wouldn’t necessarily have more of a certain set of conditions than he has now. His bail would be continued. He would be released on his own recognizance. That would probably be maintained until his appeal is final.”Criminal Trump’s passport, however, could theoretically be revoked under state department regulations. Per 22 CFR § 51.60, if the state department receives a reference from law enforcement – say, a notice of his conviction by the New York court – that would trigger the process. Trump fits several categories that would almost certainly cause the denial of a passport for almost any other individual.As a convicted felon, he would be forbidden to depart the United States under penalty of a federal warrant of arrest, including a warrant issued under the federal Fugitive Felon Act. In two other outstanding cases – the January 6 insurrection case in Washington DC and the Espionage Act charges in Florida – he is the “subject of a subpoena received from the United States pursuant to 28 USC 1783, in a matter involving Federal prosecution for, or grand jury investigation of, a felony”. In the Georgia racketeering case, he is “the subject of an outstanding state or local warrant of arrest for a felony”.There would be yet another potential legal ground for denying Trump a passport: “The Secretary [of State] determines that the applicant’s activities abroad are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States.”Whether Trump’s passport would be revoked or not, his status as a felon who has not completed his sentence would exclude him from entry into most countries. Among them, in a lengthy list, criminal Trump would not be permitted into Britain, Canada, Japan, Israel, China or any European Union nation.If and when Trump eventually were to complete his sentence and have a passport, he could still face difficulty entering many places. As the Canadian government notes: “Even with a valid USA passport, an American with a felony record will often be considered criminally inadmissible to Canada and may be at substantial risk of a border denial.”Beset by indictments, in an April 2023 deposition in his financial fraud case, Trump called his “brand” the “most valuable asset I have”. “I became president because of the brand, OK,” Trump said. “I became president. I think it’s the hottest brand in the world.” Among the branded products he is now selling to meet his astronomical legal expenses are his mug shot from his Georgia case, sneakers, perfume, and his “USA Bible” for $60.Trump’s sycophants in the House Freedom Caucus have sought to distract from the inexorable approach of his New York trial with frantic gestures to burnish the brand. While, under Trump’s thumb, they have bottled up the Senate-passed omnibus bill for aid to Ukraine and Israel and solutions for the border, and stalled funding for the rebuilding of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, they have assiduously advanced a new bill: “To designate the Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia as the ‘Donald J Trump International Airport’”.The Dulles airport is named after John Foster Dulles, President Dwight Eisenhower’s secretary of state, and as such is a monument to Ike as well. Replacing Dulles’ name with Trump’s can be seen as part of the Maga campaign to erase the Rino infamy – to usurp and replace the remnants of that older Republican party while retaining its name. The sponsors of the airport rebranding scheme, however, have failed to notice the unironic implication that Trump might be a flight risk.The House Democrats have responded to the “Donald J Trump International Airport” bill with a proposal of their own, a bill to rename a different and more appropriate institution: “To designate the Miami Federal Correctional Institution in Florida as the Donald J Trump Federal Correctional Institution.” It is a low-security facility located 90 miles from Mar-a-Lago.Being branded a felon is not branding as Trump explains it. It is not about selling memberships to Mar-a-Lago’s golf club or hawking Bibles. In the criminal justice system, Trump is the offender.
      Sidney Blumenthal, former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth More