Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats condemn Lindsey Graham’s nationwide abortion ban proposal – as it happened

      by

      Top Democrats have decried a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks proposed today by Republican senator Lindsey Graham.“Today, Senator Graham introduced a national ban on abortion which would strip away women’s rights in all 50 states. This bill is wildly out of step with what Americans believe,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.“While President Biden and Vice President Harris are focused on the historic passage of the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, health care, and energy – and to take unprecedented action to address climate change – Republicans in Congress are focused on taking rights away from millions of women,” Jean-Pierre continued, adding that the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress “are committed to restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade.”Democratic house speaker Nancy Pelosi joined in, saying, “The nationwide abortion ban proposal put forth today is the latest, clearest signal of extreme MAGA Republicans’ intent to criminalize women’s health freedom in all 50 states and arrest doctors for providing basic care. Make no mistake: if Republicans get the chance, they will work to pass laws even more draconian than this bill – just like the bans they have enacted in states like Texas, Mississippi and Oklahoma.”Republican senator Lindsey Graham caused quite the stir by proposing a nationwide ban on abortions past the 15-week mark, which even many fellow GOP lawmakers don’t support, at least not right now. The legislation could mark the start of a campaign to seek federal restrictions on the procedure after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade in June. Meanwhile, new inflation data showed prices continuing to rise – albeit at a slower rate – across the economy, dampening hopes that the wave of cost increases had faded for good.Here’s what else happened today so far:
      Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was among those downplaying Graham’s proposal, but the Kentucky lawmakers has previously said the chamber could consider a federal ban on abortion if the GOP wins a majority.
      Criminal referrals from the January 6 committee to the justice department are “likely”, a lawmaker on the panel said. More public hearings by the committee are also expected to be announced soon.
      Democrat and Republican lawmakers love trading stocks, according to an analysis from The New York Times that will likely add pressure on party leaders to ban congress members from owning or trading securities.
      A jury in Connecticut is considering how much to order conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre for spreading lies that the killings were a hoax.
      Lindsey Graham’s proposal to outlaw abortion after 15 weeks isn’t just unpopular with many of his fellow Senate Republicans – it would also appear to be unpopular with the Lindsey Graham of just a month ago, who said the question of abortion access should be left up to the states.Here’s a reminder from The Recount of what Graham had to say about the issue just this past August:Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in August: States should regulate abortion.Sen. Lindsey Graham in September: The federal government should regulate abortion. pic.twitter.com/VvMDZd9fsp— The Recount (@therecount) September 13, 2022
      The discomfort over the Republican abortion ban proposal extends beyond the Senate to the campaign trail, where several of the party’s nominees to the chamber are trying to distance themselves from it.Tiffany Smiley, the GOP Senate nominee in Washington state, says she wouldn’t get behind such a bill, Politico reports:A spokesperson for WA GOP nominee Tiffany Smiley also said she doesn’t support the Graham bill and that it should be left up to the states to decide their abortion laws— Marianne LeVine (@marianne_levine) September 13, 2022
      Joe O’Dea, a Republican vying for Colorado’s Senate seat, also opposed it, according to Politico. However Herschel Walker, who’s in a tight race for the senate seat occupied by Georgia Democrat Raphael Warnock, appeared to support it:Herschel Walker: “I believe the issue should be decided at the state level, but I WOULD support this policy.”Joe O’Dea of Colorado: “I don’t support Senator Graham’s bill. A Republican ban is as reckless and tone deaf as is Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer’s hostility to” compromise— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) September 13, 2022
      Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell may have downplayed the idea of a national abortion ban today, but don’t be surprised if he one day changes his mind.Consider his comments to USA Today in May, after a draft opinion leaked showing the supreme court was poised to overturn Roe v Wade, but before they officially did so later the following month.“If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies – not only at the state level, but at the federal level – certainly could legislate in that area,” the Kentucky lawmaker said. “And if this were the final decision, that was the point that it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process. So yeah, it’s possible. It would depend on where the votes were.”That means Graham’s proposal, or one like it, could be put up for a vote if Republicans reclaim control of the Senate – which they’ll have a chance of doing in the November midterms.However, Democrats could use the filibuster to block any such legislation, and even the GOP’s most optimistic forecasts don’t have the party winning the 60 seats needed to overcome that. In the USA Today interview, McConnell also made clear he was not in favor of changing the chamber’s rules to make legislation easier to pass. “No carve out of the filibuster – period. For any subject,” he said.Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to make the most of Graham’s abortion ban proposal as they make their case to maintain control of Congress.Here’s top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer at a press conference today:Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) slams Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) proposed 15-week abortion ban:”What Senator Graham is introducing is a MAGA Republican nationwide abortion ban. If it walks like a nationwide abortion ban and talks like a nationwide abortion ban…” pic.twitter.com/CofXO5SUB4— The Recount (@therecount) September 13, 2022
      So much for that. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell has poured cold water on the party making any concerted effort to get a vote on Lindsey Graham’s proposed 15-week abortion ban.Here’s what CNN reports that McConnell, who would become Senate majority leader if the GOP wins a majority in the upper chamber in the midterm elections, had to say about the idea:McConnell on Graham’s bill: “you’ll have to ask him about it.” Says most Republicans want to leave it to the states— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) September 13, 2022
      A more immediate obstacle for Graham is the Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, which are sure to oppose his bill.Politico has more on the cool reception Lindsey Graham’s abortion ban has received in the Senate, particularly among his fellow Republicans.“That wasn’t a conference decision. It was an individual senator’s decision,” Texas’s Republican senator John Cornyn said in the piece, echoing the sentiment of several lawmakers from Republican-dominated states that are moving to restrict abortion, but wary of pursuing such bans nationwide.“My state, today, is working on this. I’m not sure what he’s thinking here. But I don’t think there will be a rallying around that concept,” Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican senator from West Virginia, said.Elsewhere, Democrats have seized on the proposal to attack Republicans. The Democratic Party of Virginia put out a statement accusing Jen Kiggans, a state senator vying for a US House seat against Democratic incumbent Elaine Luria, of changing her stance on abortion rights.“The reason why Jen Kiggans is trying to walk back her stance on abortion is that she knows her extreme anti-abortion agenda is out of touch with Coastal Virginians and will cost her the election,” the Democrats wrote.The full text of the 15-week abortion ban proposed by Republican senator Lindsey Graham can be read here, and contains an important detail about exactly what would be outlawed.“The term ‘perform’, with respect to an abortion, includes inducing an abortion through a medical or chemical intervention, including writing a prescription for a drug or device intended to result in an abortion,” according to the text of the bill.That likely means it would outlaw abortion pills that are seen as one of the best options for women to receive care in states where the procedure has been outlawed or restricted.Mail-order abortion pills become next US reproductive rights battlegroundRead moreThe Republican proposal to ban abortion after 15 weeks is only hours old, but it’s already become an issue on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania.According to Insider, John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee to represent the state in the Senate, has used the proposal to attack his Republican opponent, Mehmet Oz.Fetterman already using the Graham bill against Oz pic.twitter.com/gBkSslVOI4— bryan metzger (@metzgov) September 13, 2022
      Republican senator Lindsey Graham has proposed legislation to ban abortions nationally after 15 weeks, in what is likely the start of a campaign to seek federal restrictions on the procedure after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade in June. Meanwhile, new inflation data showed prices continuing to rise – albeit at a slower rate – across the economy, dampening hopes that the wave of cost increases had faded for good.Here’s what else happened today so far:
      Criminal referrals from the January 6 committee to the justice department are “likely”, a lawmaker on the panel said. More public hearings by the committee are also expected to be announced soon.
      Democrat and Republican lawmakers love trading stocks, according to an analysis from The New York Times that will likely add pressure on party leaders to ban congress members from owning or trading securities.
      A jury in Connecticut is considering how much to order conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre for spreading lies that the killings were a hoax.
      Further cracks have appeared in Graham’s insistence that his proposed 15-week abortion ban has wide political support.CNN reports that not all Senate Republicans are onboard with the measure:Senate GOP not on same page on Graham’s 15-week abortion. Thune supports it. Rick Scott said he’d “look at it.” Cornyn and Ron Johnson said it should be left to the states. Asked if he backs Graham bill, Johnson said it should be decided by “we the people” in the 50 states.— Manu Raju (@mkraju) September 13, 2022
      “I think there will be a couple of Democrats who will be with us, maybe, hope, pray,” Republican senator Lindsey Graham replied when asked about whether his proposed nationwide abortion ban after 15 weeks will win enough votes to pass the closely divided Congress. “I think the public’s with us,” he added.It’s unclear whether any Democratic votes would materialize for the proposal, but that party controls the House and Senate, and it’s unlikely they’ll even let the measure come up for a vote as long as that’s the case.As for public support for Graham’s proposal, a recent poll doesn’t bear that out. Earlier this month, a poll by The Wall Street Journal found 57% of respondents opposed an abortion ban at 15 weeks with exceptions for the health of a mother – exactly the kind of measure Graham proposed.In fact, the survey found voter support for abortion increasing overall since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade in June. While in March, 55% of voters said the procedure should be legal in all or most cases, that had risen to 60% in the phone survey conducted in mid-August.Top Democrats have decried a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks proposed today by Republican senator Lindsey Graham.“Today, Senator Graham introduced a national ban on abortion which would strip away women’s rights in all 50 states. This bill is wildly out of step with what Americans believe,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.“While President Biden and Vice President Harris are focused on the historic passage of the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, health care, and energy – and to take unprecedented action to address climate change – Republicans in Congress are focused on taking rights away from millions of women,” Jean-Pierre continued, adding that the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress “are committed to restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade.”Democratic house speaker Nancy Pelosi joined in, saying, “The nationwide abortion ban proposal put forth today is the latest, clearest signal of extreme MAGA Republicans’ intent to criminalize women’s health freedom in all 50 states and arrest doctors for providing basic care. Make no mistake: if Republicans get the chance, they will work to pass laws even more draconian than this bill – just like the bans they have enacted in states like Texas, Mississippi and Oklahoma.”Senator Lindsey Graham has unveiled his proposed nationwide abortion ban, which would outlaw the procedure after 15 weeks, with certain exceptions.“I think we should have a law on the books that says after 15 weeks, no abortion on demand except in cases of rape, incest, to save the life of the mother, and that should be where America’s at,” Graham said as he unveiled the legislation in the Capitol.Graham said the proposal, dubbed the “Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act”, would match similar laws in European countries. He said the 15-week threshold is when fetuses will feel pain, however that doesn’t quite match the science. Many scientists say fetuses can’t feel pain before 24 weeks, although the subject is complicated and continuing to be researched.Graham acknowledged the political realities of his proposal. “If the Democrats are in charge, I don’t know if we’ll ever have a vote on our bill.”As The Guardian has reported previously, late-term abortions are very rare in the United States.The truth about late-term abortions in the US: they’re very rareRead moreRepublican senator Lindsey Graham will soon introduce his legislation to ban abortions nationally. While it has no chance in the Senate as long as Democrats are in control, it will likely attract considerable support from Republican lawmakers, and could mark the start of the party’s effort to restrict the procedure nationwide thanks to the supreme court ruling overturning Roe v Wade.The Washington Post reports that Graham has said the ban will apply after 15 weeks of pregnancy – five weeks less than in previous versions of the legislation the South Carolina lawmaker has introduced:Breaking: Graham just told Fox News that his “late-term abortion act” is indeed a 15-week ban.This is pretty extraordinary language to be using for 15 weeks. When antiabortion groups use “late term abortions” (not a medical phrase), it’s usually understood to mean 21-24 weeks +— Caroline Kitchener (@CAKitchener) September 13, 2022
      You can watch the senator’s press conference here.A Connecticut jury began hearing arguments Tuesday in a trial to decide how much money conspiracy theorist and right-winger Alex Jones should pay relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy, for spreading a lie that the massacre was a hoax, The Associated Press reports.A settlement was ordered at trial against Jones last month in a civil case in Texas brought by parents of a child killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting with the current case in Connecticut pending.Critics have said many things of Jones and his platform Infowars, among them the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate and extremist groups in the US, whose spokesman said in August: “He has probably done more to further the cause of hate in this country than almost anyone outside of Donald Trump himself.”The AP writes today of this trial in Waterbury, Connecticut, not far from Sandy Hook:More than a dozen family members, including parents of some victims, filed into the courtroom to listen to the opening statements and first day of evidence.A jury of three men and three women along with several alternates will decide how much the conspiracy theorist should pay relatives of eight victims and an FBI agent who responded to the school.Judge Barbara Bellis found Jones liable without a trial last year after he failed to turn over documents to the families’ lawyers.On Tuesday, she sanctioned Jones for failing to turn over analytic data related to his website and the popularity of his show.She told his lawyers that because of that failure, they will not be allowed to argue he didn’t profit from his Sandy Hook remarks.Jones did not attend the opening of the trial Tuesday.He said on his show Monday that he would be traveling to Connecticut next week.The trial is expected to last about a month and feature testimony from both Jones and the families.More of the Guardian piece that contains that SPLC quote, above, here.‘He has done more to further the cause of hate in the US than almost anyone’: the rise and fall of Alex JonesRead more More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Guess what, women can vote! Is that why even hardline anti-abortion Republicans are backtracking? | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Guess what, women can vote! Is that why even hardline anti-abortion Republicans are backtracking?Arwa MahdawiIn the weeks after Roe v Wade was overturned, there was a huge rush to register to vote. Now rightwing candidates are toning down their rhetoric but history tells us they can’t be trusted Want to know a fun fact about women in the US? They comprise half the population and they’ve got the right to vote. Pissing them off en masse is a risky political move –as Republicans are quickly finding out. A few months ago it looked like Republicans would decimate the Democrats in the midterm elections in November; now they are on much shakier ground. A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that 60% of voters support abortion rights in most or all cases, and that the supreme court overturning Roe v Wade earlier this year is “the single issue most likely to make them vote this November”. In the two weeks after Roe was overturned, the number of people registering to vote increased by 10%, new women voters far outnumbering men.Cue furious back-pedalling from the right on women’s rights. Numerous Republican congressional candidates have removed or amended references to abortion from their online profiles in recent months, the Washington Post reports. Colorado state senator Barbara Kirkmeyer, for example, no longer refers to the “sanctity of life” on her campaign website. Arizona senate candidate Blake Masters has also been hitting the delete button. In an interview this year with a Catholic news outlet, Masters compared abortion to “child sacrifice”, saying: “It needs to stop.” Last month he toned down his language and clarified he simply supports “a ban on very late-term and partial-birth abortion”. He also amended his website so it no longer proclaims he is “100% pro-life” and instead says: “Protect babies, don’t let them be killed,” followed with: “Democrats lie about my views on abortion.”Minnesota Republican gubernatorial nominee Scott Jensen has similarly moved away from publicly espousing hardline views on abortion. In March, Jensen said in a radio interview that he would “try to ban abortion … There is no reason for us to be having abortions going out.” In a video released in July, Jensen said his previous comments were clumsy, and announced he supports abortions in cases of rape or incest or if the life of the woman is in danger. (Thank you, sir, very nice of you to suggest it’s OK for a woman not to be forced to give birth if she will almost certainly die doing so!)‘A wakeup call’: more Republicans are softening staunch anti-abortion stanceRead moreThere’s nothing wrong with politicians changing their minds; on the contrary, politicians should be commended for thoughtfully evolving their positions based on feedback from the people they represent. Sadly, I don’t think that’s what is happening here. What’s happening here is that a lot of Republicans are morally bankrupt idiots who are happy to tone down their rhetoric to win elections and are likely to rapidly revert to their extremist agenda as soon as they get into power. That’s what supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to do, after all. Senator Susan Collins, one of the few Republicans to support abortion rights, said she would nominate Kavanaugh because he had reassured her that he was a big fan of judicial precedent and wouldn’t overturn Roe. Though others have challenged Collins’ account of what Kavanaugh said.We’re often told abortion is a divisive issue. The thing is, it’s not. Poll after poll shows most Americans support abortion being broadly legal. Just look at Kansas. Last month the conservative state decisively voted to reject a ballot measure that would restrict abortion rights. (A “ballot measure” is a form of direct democracy where proposed legislation is approved or rejected by voters rather than legislators.) Instead of reflecting on what happened in Kansas, Republicans across the US are now working overtime to try to make it harder to pass ballot measures.Republicans may be doing their best to suppress democracy but it’s not dead yet. “To those of you who feel that women are inferior, remember you were warned,” Republican South Carolina state senator Sandy Senn recently told colleagues. “I think it’s going to be interesting to see what happens in the November elections. Because this issue is huge. You don’t think that women will vote single-issue on something like this? Because they will.” The problem is, where there’s a will, there’s often a Republican way to subvert it.
      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsAbortionOpinionUS politicsRepublicansHealthWomencommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican senator’s wealth boosted by stake in company with Chinese links

      by

      Republican senator’s wealth boosted by stake in company with Chinese linksFinancial disclosures show how Ron Johnson’s wealth sharply increased thanks to his holding in Oshkosh-based Pacur Wisconsin Republican senator Ron Johnson, a vocal critic of Beijing who has vowed to launch investigations into the Biden family’s alleged relationships with Chinese businesses, declared $57m in income in his first 10 years in office in connection to his ownership stake in a company whose growth has closely been linked to China.Financial disclosures show the senator’s wealth has sharply increased during his years running for and serving in the Senate thanks to his holding in Oshkosh-based Pacur, a plastics maker where Johnson previously served as top executive.Revealed: leaked video shows Amy Coney Barrett’s secretive faith group drove women to tearsRead moreJohnson is seeking re-election for a third term in a tough contest against Democrat Mandela Barnes, who polls show has a slight edge over the Republican incumbent.During his first run for public office before his 2010 election, Johnson portrayed himself as a successful businessman who knew how to create jobs. An advertisement he used in both his successful 2010 and 2016 campaigns showed the 67 year-old standing in front of a white board, touting his own record as a manufacturer, a fact that he said made him stand out in a sea of lawyers who serve in the Senate.A close examination of Johnson’s financial disclosures and other public filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission, legal filings and other public records reveal that Johnson’s wealth was boosted by his company’s ties to another company that was owned and managed by his family, which in turn grew its business in China, acquired businesses in China, and reported having a loan worth tens of millions of dollars from the Bank of China.In one case, the company run by Johnson’s family sued the US government to try to press for softer trade relations with Beijing, a position that Johnson himself adopted in a rare break with Trump administration policies.Johnson sold his stake in Pacur in 2020, although documents show that an LLC owned by Johnson and his wife, Jane, still receives up to $1m annually through rent and royalties as owners of the building where Pacur operates.Pacur was co-founded by Johnson and his brother-in-law in the 1970s. It was in effect closely tied to a larger company called Bemis, which was founded and run by Johnson’s father-in-law, Howard Curler.SEC documents show that, from about 1998 to 2010, Bemis paid tens of millions of dollars to Pacur, which was a supplier to Bemis. Johnson also personally owned Bemis stock, valued at between $1m and $5.2m on financial disclosure forms. The stock was later gifted to the senator’s family foundation, called the Grammie Jean Foundation.A spokesperson for Johnson said the senator had no beneficial interest in the foundation.Bemis, records show, had a steady and growing presence in China under the leadership of Jeffrey Curler, Howard Curler’s son and Ron Johnson’s brother-in-law. The company has plants in China and in 2013, records show, appear to have acquired tens of millions of dollars in Chinese debt in connection to a Chinese acquisition. SEC filings show that Bemis also disclosed in 2016 that it had a $50m Bank of China loan.Bemis was sold to Australia-based Amcor in 2018 in a deal valued at $6.8bn. The Guardian reached out to Amcor for more details about the $50m loan, which appeared in Bemis filings before Amcor acquired the company. A spokesperson for Amcor said Amcor was not involved in the loan and did not have insights into the transaction.Bemis was also active on issues related to trade during Johnson’s Senate tenure.In two cases, the group filed suit against the US government’s policies on trade in China, including one suit in 2018. In the legal action brought by Bemis and Rollprint Packaging Products, the plaintiffs sued the United States to contest a finding by the International Trade Commission in support of tariffs on China. The lawsuit did not appear to proceed beyond the complaint. At the same time, Johnson was a vocal critic of US trade policy against China, marking a rare disagreement with Trump.Johnson has also made speeches in the Senate that criticized financial transactions by Hunter Biden, which he claimed were tied to “Communist China” and meant that US Joe Biden was “probably” compromised on China.The Biden family’s “vast web of foreign financial entanglements”, Johnson alleged, had serious implications, and Johnson said he and fellow Republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa would continue to investigate them.“Our challenge is the deep state does not give up its secrets easily,” Johnson said in a speech on the Senate floor in March.A recent investigation by the Washington Post found that CEFC China Energy, a Chinese energy conglomerate, paid nearly $5m to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle. But it did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefitted or knew about the transactions, which occurred after Biden left the vice-presidency and before he announced his presidential run.Alexa Henning, a spokesperson for Johnson, denied that Johnson had any connections to his own family company’s previous business interactions with Chinese companies.“He never had any managerial involvement in, or knowledge of the management actions taken by Bemis Company” and had “no connection to China or conflict of interest there”.“Until your inquiry, he had no knowledge of Bemis’s business holdings in China or any legal action Bemis was involved in. The Bemis company was one of many customers Senator Johnson’s business sold plastics to,” Henning said.She also defended Johnson’s position on tariffs. “His belief is politicians in both parties have used China’s trade abuses to demagogue against their political opponents without enacting effective solutions.”Henning also denied that Johnson accrued $57m in income in connection to Pacur from 2009 to 2020, because she claimed some of the funds were designated as “gross receipts” even though they are listed in financial disclosure forms as “income”.Gross receipts are the amount of business that an organization reports before stripping out expenses. When asked by the Guardian to explain why Johnson had listed the funds as income in his financial disclosures, and what the Gross Receipts referred to, Henning did not respond.Got a tip? You can contact the reporter at Stephanie.Kirchgaessner@theguardian.comTopicsWisconsinRepublicansUS politicsChinanewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Giuliani review: Andrew Kirtzman’s authoritative life of Trump’s last lackey

      by

      Giuliani review: Andrew Kirtzman’s definitive life of Trump’s last lackey A new account of the rise and fall of the man who was ‘America’s mayor’ after 9/11 is both masterful and engrossingRudy Giuliani went from hero to zero. As mayor, he guided New York City and the nation through the trauma of 9/11. Twenty years later, Sacha Baron Cohen captured him with his hands down his pants and cameras rolled as dye ran down his sweaty face. America laughed.‘Donald kept our secret’: Mar-a-Lago stay saved Giuliani from drink and depression, book saysRead moreBefore he was mayor, Giuliani was US attorney for the southern district of New York and US associate attorney general under Ronald Reagan. He frog-marched wayward bankers across trading floors, to the delight of all except Wall Street and civil libertarians.As mayor, Giuliani ruled the city as only a former prosecutor could. He demanded loyalty and brooked no dissent.Andrew Kirtzman’s first biography was called Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City. In his second, the author describes an “authoritarian” mayor. According to her sister, the mayor’s mother, Helen Giuliani, “liked” Mussolini. Her husband, Harold, was a stick-up man and leg-breaker for the mob and did prison time at Sing Sing. Under Giuliani, New Yorkers felt safer than they would under Bill de Blasio or, now, Eric Adams. But Giuliani broadcast disdain for the city’s minorities and lacked the temperament, capacity for consensus and deep pockets of Michael Bloomberg, his billionaire successor. All too often, Giuliani simply acted like a thug.After 9/11, he ran for president, made money as a lawyer then became a Trump flunky. Now, thanks to his work to advance the former president’s big lie about election fraud, he is being targeted by prosecutors in Fulton county, Georgia and his law license is suspended. Think of a malevolent Inspector Clouseau.Apparently, Giuliani is conscious of his decline. On the other hand, he has said: “I don’t care about my legacy. I’ll be dead.” That quote leads Kirtzman’s introduction.As a reporter on NY1, Time Warner’s 24-hour local cable news channel, Kirtzman covered Giuliani from the campaign trail to city hall. On 11 September 2001, he was there with the mayor in lower Manhattan. He witnessed Giuliani’s strides, his missteps and his spectacular collapse. Kirtzman’s new subtitle, The Rise and Tragic Fall of America’s Mayor, says it all.The book is masterful and engrossing. It is girded by more than 40 pages of endnotes. The author and David Holley, his researcher, have performed yeoman work. They capture what made the man tick and what led to his fall from grace. Kirtzman’s critique is leavened with bittersweet impressions and references to Giuliani’s accomplishments.On election night 2020 and after, the former mayor helped Trump resist the will of the people. The social fabric was theirs to torch and shred. Giuliani’s self-righteousness complimented Trump’s refusal to acknowledge defeat. The soon-to-be ex-president offered Giuliani another opportunity to seize center stage. If Trump wouldn’t name him secretary of state, he could at least cosplay as a presidential lawyer.Kirtzman’s book ranks with other essential biographies such as Rudy! by the late and great investigative reporter Wayne Barrett and the more favorable The Prince of the City by Fred Siegel, an urban historian and Giuliani adviser.Kirtzman gets Judith Nathan, Giuliani’s third ex-wife, to truly dish the dirt. She says Giuliani’s crushing failure in the 2008 presidential primary left him broken and clutching the bottle. She credits Trump for providing shelter.“We moved into Mar-a-Lago and Donald kept our secret,” she says.As Kirtzman puts it, Giuliani “dreamed of becoming president from a young age, [but] blew his big moment when it arrived”. In the torrid aftermath, he spoke to therapists but, to quote Nathan, was “always falling shitfaced somewhere”.The couple are divorced but their antipathy continues to smolder. Characteristically, Giuliani has offered a different explanation for his stumbles and falls. He played baseball as a youngster and developed “catcher’s knee”. Does anyone really believe Giuliani was ever a budding Yogi Berra?Anthony Carbonetti, Giuliani’s chief of staff at city hall, is also a family friend. He also talked to Kirtzman, targeting Nathan while delivering a backhanded defense of his former boss. He told Nathan to “stay the fuck” out of Giuliani’s life. To Kirtzman, he opines: “If you spent an extensive amount of time with that woman, you’d drink a lot.”Carbonetti became a conduit between Trump and Giuliani … and, with other members of Giuliani’s retinue, a lobbyist for Qatar.As Kirtzman makes clear, Giuliani was never short on zeal. For Trump, he sought to become the second Roy Cohn, Trump’s all-time favorite lawyer. From seeking dirt in Ukraine to falsely blaming Dominion Voting Systems for Trump’s loss, Giuliani did it all. His capacity for self-abasement was bottomless.‘Unhinged’ Rudy Giuliani drank and ranted about Islam, new book claimsRead moreIn the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection, Maria Ryan, a Giuliani associate, sought a pardon and the presidential medal of freedom. She also attempted to get him paid. She failed. Giuliani forgot that even as Cohn lay in hospital, dying of Aids, Trump cast him aside.“I can’t believe he’s doing this to me,” Cohn said. “Donald pisses ice water.”Giuliani has testified before a Fulton county grand jury and the House January 6 committee. He is a defendant in defamation suits brought by Dominion and Smartmatic, another election machines company. In Trumpworld, Maga means Make America Great Again. It might also mean “Making attorneys get attorneys”.Kirtzman’s biography sums things up. Despite it all, two years after the 2020 election he refused to concede, Trump remains the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2024.“Giuliani, on the other hand, [is] finished in every conceivable way.”
      Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America’s Mayor is published in the US by Simon & Schuster
      TopicsBooksRudy GiulianiRepublicansDonald TrumpNew YorkUS politicsPolitics booksreviewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A wakeup call’: more Republicans are softening staunch anti-abortion stance

      by

      ‘A wakeup call’: more Republicans are softening staunch anti-abortion stanceMoves comes amid a ferocious backlash to the fall of Roe that has seen Democrat hopes in the midterm elections revived A growing number of Republicans are changing their positions on abortions since the fall of Roe v Wade as midterm elections approach in the US, signaling a softened shift from their previously staunch anti-abortion stances.Since the supreme court overturned the federal right to abortion in June, many Republicans are adopting more compromised positions in attempts to win votes in key states through a slew of changes in messaging on websites, advertisements and public statements.The moves comes amid a ferocious backlash to the decision that has seen Democrat hopes in the midterm elections revived and even see a solidly red state like Kansas vote in a referendum to keep some abortion rights.With midterm elections approaching, abortion has also served as a prime motivator for women voters across the country, especially among Democrats and fueling striking special-election successes for the party seeking to hold both houses of Congress.According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center, 56% of voters say that the issue of abortion will be “very important” to them at the polls this fall, marking a significant increase from 43% in March.Additionally, an increasing number of states including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are seeing growing female and male gaps among new registrants since the supreme court overturned federal abortion rights, according to the Democratic data services firm TargetSmart.As a result, Republicans are increasingly recognizing that the issue of abortion could cost them dearly at the polls as they attempt to gain control of the House and Senate.The difficulty of shifting from gung-ho anti-abortion rhetoric to a more complicated reality for a lot of Republicans was starkly illustrated by Kansas’s referendum. The usually reliably Republican state voted to keep abortion protections in its state constitution, thus providing an unprecedented boost in red state America to the abortion rights movement.“The vote earlier this summer in Kansas is a wakeup call to Republicans that not only are the most extreme abortion restrictions non-starters with voters but the whole issue has flipped as a Democratic motivation to head to the polls,” Republican strategist Barrett Marson told the Guardian.“Over the years, it’s been OK to advocate for the strictest abortion regulations in a Republican primary because abortion generally was protected by Roe v Wade. Now it’s no longer theoretical. So now the most restrictive policies have real life consequences. And suburban women are giving a candidate’s position on abortion greater weight as they consider who to vote for,” he added.Earlier this week, a Republican Senate nominee in Washington state said that she was against abortion – but supported a state law that guarantees the right to abortion until fetal viability.“I respect the voters of Washington state,” said Tiffany Smiley, who previously said she was “100% pro-life”. “They long decided where they stand on the issue,” she added, referring to the state law that was passed in 1991.In an ad released last week, Smiley told viewers she was “pro-life but I opposed a federal abortion ban”. The ad came in response to an ad from Patty Murray, Smiley’s Democratic incumbent opponent, which called Smiley “Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked candidate”, referring to the Senate Republican leader known for his anti-abortion views and push to stack the supreme court with conservative justices opposed to abortion.Murray’s ad claimed that if elected, Smiley would support federal abortion bans.“Murray is trying to scare you, I am trying to serve you.” Smiley said, “I made it clear in my ad that … I am not for a federal abortion ban. You know, the extreme in this race is Patty Murray. She is for federalizing abortion.”Nevertheless, earlier this year, Smiley’s campaign accepted the endorsement of of Tennessee Republican senator Marsha Blackburn, a staunch anti-abortion activist who previously introduced a bill to the Senate that sought to strip all abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, of federal funding.Another Republican whose position shift was more apparent than Smiley’s is Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters.In an interview in March with Catholic news outlet EWTN, Masters said, “Every society has had child sacrifice or has had human sacrifice in some form, and this is our form. And it needs to stop,” referring to abortions.Since then, Masters has appeared to soften his abortion views. In August, the Donald Trump-endorsed candidate released an ad that said, “Look, I support a ban on very late-term and partial birth abortion. And most Americans agree with that. That would just put us on par with other civilized nations.”Moreover, Masters has made changes to his campaign website which once stated that he supported ‘federal personhood law” and that he was “100% pro-life”. His current website says, “Protect babies, don’t let them be killed,” followed with, “Democrats lie about my views on abortion.”According to his current campaign website, Masters would support a third trimester federal abortion ban. Previously, his website said that he supported a constitutional amendment that “recognizes unborn babies are human being[s] that may not be killed”.The pro-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America has come to the defense of Masters’ shifting position. “Blake Masters has rightfully centered his position on what is achievable now at the federal level: a limit on abortions at a point by which the unborn child can feel excruciating pain,” said the organization’s president Marjorie Dannenfelser.Minnesota Republican gubernatorial nominee Scott Jensen has signaled a similar softening in his abortion position. In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio in March, Jensen said, “I would try to ban abortion. I think that we’re basically in a situation where we should be governed by … there is no reason for us to be having abortions going out.”However, Jensen backtracked on his words a few months later. In a video released in July, Jensen said that he supports abortions in cases of rape or incest or if the life of the woman is in danger.Jensen described his previous comments as clumsy, saying, “I never thought it necessary to try and identify what those exceptions might be in regards to legal abortion or not, because I always thought when I uphold the pregnant woman’s life, and if her mental and physical health is in danger or jeopardized, that’s all that needs to be said.”Despite Jensen’s amended comments, not everyone is convinced that he is genuine about his position. Minnesota Democratic party chairman Ken Martin said that if Jensen is elected, he will still try to pass an all-out abortion law that would not make exceptions for rape or incest.“There is no reason to assume that Governor Scott Jensen would not attempt to pass the abortion ban – without exceptions for rape and incest – that he has repeatedly supported,” he said in a statement.In May, Iowa Republican candidate Zach Nunn raised his hand during a primary debate when asked whether if “all abortions, no exceptions” should be illegal.Nunn also previously voted for a measure that required women seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours. The measure included an exception to protect the mother’s life but did not mention cases of rape and incest.Nunn’s Democratic opponent, Representative Cindy Axne, released a political ad against him that used footage of him raising his hand at the primary. “Even in the case of rape, even in the case of incest, even if a woman’s life is in danger – who will take away a woman’s right to make her own decisions, regardless of the circumstances? Zach Nunn,” the video said.In response to the video, Nunn changed his tune in an op-ed he published last month, saying, “I’m pro-life, and I support protecting the life of the mother and the baby.” He accused Axne of taking his comments out of context and went on to say, “This issue is too important: Iowans deserve to have their voices heard.”In the op-ed, Nunn said that he supports abortion in “exceptions for horrific circumstances like rape, incest and fetal abnormalities, and to save the life of the mother”.With many Republicans looking to secure votes from moderate and independent voters, some political strategists worry that all this effort spent on reconfiguring their abortion positions could negatively impact their political momentum, especially as Democrats are making the issue a cornerstone in their own campaigns.“While the economy and inflation should be the most important issue this cycle, Republican candidates are now having to defend their stances on eliminating all or most abortion options,” said Marson.“Anytime they aren’t talking [about the] economy and inflation, they are losing opportunities.”TopicsRepublicansUS midterm elections 2022US politicsAbortionnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Hillary Clinton laments US extremism and calls for unity on 9/11 anniversary

      by

      Hillary Clinton laments US extremism and calls for unity on 9/11 anniversaryFormer US secretary of state makes an impassioned attack on turn towards extremism and divisiveness in American politics Hillary Clinton seized the opportunity presented by Sunday’s 21st anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington to make a thinly-veiled attack on the extremism and divisiveness stoked by Donald Trump, as she called for a return to national unity.The former US secretary of state and first lady invoked the bipartisan mood of the country in the wake of the 9/11 attack in which almost 3,000 people were killed.“We were able to come together as a country at that terrible time, we put aside differences. I wish we could find ways of doing that again,” she told CNN in and interview for the State of the Union politics show on Sunday morning.It was recalled how, as a Democratic US Senator for New York, in 2001 she flew over the burning wreckage of the World Trade Center at the disaster zone known as Ground Zero, in lower Manhattan, and went on air to pledge her unswerving support for Republican president George W Bush’s efforts to lead the US response.Clinton noted that she met with Bush and asked for $20bn in federal funds to rebuild. “And he said ‘You got it’,” she told CNN anchor Dana Bash.Clinton’s lament for the passing of such national togetherness then led her to make an impassioned attack on the turn towards extremism in American politics, albeit without mentioning Trump, the former Republican president who may yet run again in 2024, by name.She said that 9/11 reminded Americans “about how impossible it is to try and deal with extremism of any kind, especially when it uses violence to try to achieve political and ideological goals”.In another implicit reference to Trump’s Make America Great Again (Maga) rightwing movement, she went on to say that a “very vocal, very powerful, very determined minority wants to impose their views on the rest of us. It’s time for everybody, regardless of party, to say no, that’s not who we are as America.”Clinton’s remarks came on the morning that the US marked 21 years of the al-Qaida attacks on the twin towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, as well as Flight 93, the hijacked plane that crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Joe Biden laid a wreath at the Pentagon, where he recalled that “terror struck us on that brilliant blue morning” but did not destroy “the character of this nation that terrorists sought to wound”.Biden, who lost his first wife and their daughter to a car crash that also injured their two sons, then later lost one of those sons, Beau, to cancer, said: “I know for all of you who lost someone that 21 years is a lifetime and no time at all.”The US president was joined in the pouring rain by General Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and defense secretary Lloyd Austin, who spoke about “a day of horror and loss” as 2,977 people were killed by the impact of the four passenger jets hijacked by the terrorists.First lady Jill Biden led commemorations at the memorial site in Shanksville, accompanied by her sister Bonny Roberts, whom Biden initially feared she might have lost that day as she was a flight attendant for United Airlines, which suffered two of the hijackings, but, it turned out, was not flying that morning.Kamala Harris and the second gentleman, her husband Doug Emhoff, joined the observance at the National September 11 Memorial in New York.The vice-president did not speak, as per tradition, allowing the commemoration to be led by the reading of the names of those who died and moments of silence to mark the points when the hijacked planes struck each of the towers.But in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, aired on Sunday, she spoke of America’s reputation as a world role model for democracy being under threat.She cited challenges from the right wing to election integrity, including the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in a bid to overturn Donald Trump’s defeat by Joe Biden, and extremist Republicans’ unwillingness to condemn it, while also fielding many candidates in current elections who still refuse to accept the true result.“I think it is a threat…it is very dangerous and I think it is very harmful. And it makes us weaker,” she said.She added that when meeting foreign leaders, the US “had the honor and privilege historically of holding our head up as a defender and an example of a great democracy. And that then gives us the legitimacy and the standing to talk about the importance of democratic principles, rule of law, human rights….through the process of what we’ve been through, we’re starting to allow people to call into question our commitment to those principles. And that’s a shame.”On Sunday, Kevin McCarthy, the Republican minority leader in the US House of Representatives, slammed the Biden administration.“Twenty one years ago, we had a commander-in-chief [George W Bush] who united the country rather than divided the country,” McCarthy told Fox News. He said were the Republicans to take back control of the House in November’s midterm elections, “we would build a nation that is safe. We have watched Democratic policies make it the deadliest of America (sic) in the last 20 years.”TopicsSeptember 11 2001Hillary ClintonUS politicsDonald TrumpRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      History will judge Republicans who stay silent about the big lie | Robert Reich

      by

      History will judge Republicans who stay silent about the big lieRobert ReichIf the democratic experiment called America continues to unravel because of what Republicans did or failed to do, they will live in infamy I have a serious question for people who have power in America, and who continue to deny the outcome of the 2020 election and enable Trump’s big lie: what are you saying to yourself in private? How are you justifying yourself in your own mind?I don’t mean to be snide or snarky. I’m genuinely curious.If you hold public office and deny the outcome of the 2020 election, are you telling yourself that despite the overwhelming evidence that Biden won and the lack of evidence of fraud, you still genuinely doubt the outcome?But you must know that 60 federal courts have found no basis in Trump’s claim, nor have any so-called state “audits” and even Trump’s own attorney general found the claim baseless.Or are you telling yourself that it will soon be over – that Trump will fade, that the big lie will disappear, that your party and America will soon move on?But you must know you’re wrong. The big lie is growing. It has metastasized into a cancer that’s dividing the nation and devouring our democracy.Or are you telling yourself that you have no real choice but to support the lie if you want to keep or obtain political power?Even if true, is power so intoxicating to you – so important as an end in itself – that you’ll do anything for it?Where will you draw the line? If Trump is reelected and imposes martial law? If he or another Republican president forbids public criticism of his administration? If he calls for violence against those who oppose him?And what do you tell yourself about the measures your party is taking based on the big lie: suppression of votes, takeovers of election machinery, assertions that state legislatures can overturn voter preferences in the certification process, rejection of the January 6 committee’s findings?You have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution. How do you defend yourself in your own mind?I’m asking you, Kevin McCarthy. And you, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio, and Rick Scott and Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson. And others.And I’m asking those of you with significant power in the Republican party who have remained silent in the face of all this – such as you, Mitch McConnell, and you, Mitt Romney: how do you justify your silence?And I ask those of you now running for office who are denying the 2020 election results and pushing other aspects of Republican authoritarianism – such as you, JD Vance, and Blake Masters, Mehmet Oz, Herschel Walker, Doug Mastriano, and Kari Lake: what are you telling yourself in private? How are you excusing yourself? Why are you even running?And I ask the billionaires and CEOs who are bankrolling these people: how do you rationalize spending millions, even tens of millions, helping them get or remain elected?I’m asking you, Peter Thiel, and you, Stephen Schwarzman, and Ken Griffin and Steve Wynn and Mike Lindell and Patrick Byrne and others: is this really the way you want to spend your fortune? Is this your legacy to the nation?And I ask all the people making money off this rot – the TV hosts and producers and media moguls who are raking it in while poisoning the minds of America with bald-faced lies – what are you telling yourself in private?I’m asking you, Rupert Murdoch, and you, Tucker Carlson, and you, Sean Hannity, and you, Laura Ingraham: how are you defending yourself to yourself?I don’t expect you to answer me. This is a question for you to answer to yourself, alone and in private.But before you do, may I have a confidential word?Whether you’re a politician supporting the big lie, a billionaire backer of it, or a broadcaster who’s pushing it, it is not too late for you to get off the road you are on.Yet if you continue to promote or enable this lie, you are undermining our democracy. The crisis you have helped create is worsening. You bear part of the responsibility for what comes next.When the history of this trying time is written, future generations of Americans will judge your actions and your silences harshly.They will recall your cowardice and your self-justifications. They will remember your lust for power and your moral blindness. They will recollect your unwitting ignorance or your witting failure to come to democracy’s defense in this perilous time.Generations to come will sit in judgment about what you have wrought. And if the democratic experiment called America continues to unravel because of what you did or failed to do, you will live in infamy.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com.
      TopicsDonald TrumpOpinionRepublicansUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s increasing tirade against FBI and DoJ endangering lives of officials

      by

      Trump’s increasing tirade against FBI and DoJ endangering lives of officialsThe ex-president’s cries of a witch hunt by law enforcement, echoed by his allies, have imperiled officers’ physical safety Donald Trump’s non-stop drive to paint the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago to recover classified documents as a political witch hunt is drawing rebukes from ex-justice department and FBI officials who warn such attacks can spur violence and pose a real threat to the physical safety of law enforcement.But the concerns have not deterred Republican House minority leader Kevin McCarthy and other Trump allies from making inflammatory remarks echoing the former US president.Mar-a-Lago a magnet for spies, officials warn after nuclear file reportedly foundRead moreThe unrelenting attacks by Trump and loyalists such as McCarthy, senator Lindsey Graham, Steve Bannon and false conspiracy theorist Alex Jones against law enforcement have continued despite strong evidence that Trump kept hundreds of classified documents illegally.Before the 8 August raid, Trump and his attorneys stonewalled FBI and US National Archives requests for the return of all classified documents and did not fully comply with a grand jury subpoena in a criminal probe of Trump’s hoarding of government documents.The FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and club recovered 33 boxes with over 100 classified documents, adding to the 200 classified records Trump had earlier returned in response to multiple federal requests.Trump’s high decibel attacks on law enforcement officials for trying to recover large quantities of classified documents including some that reportedly had foreign nuclear secrets was palpable in Pennsylvania recently when Trump at a political rally branded the FBI and justice department “political monsters” and labelled president Joe Biden “an enemy of the state”.The day before in Pennsylvania, to coincide with a major Biden speech about threats to democracy posed by Trump and some of his allies, McCarthy mimicked Trump’s high decibel attacks on the court-approved FBI raid by calling it an “assault on democracy”.Former law enforcement officials and scholars warn that using such conspiratorial rhetoric impugning the motives and actions of justice department and the FBI runs the risk of inciting threats of violence and actual attacks, fears that have already been proven warranted.Consider Trump supporter Ricky Shiffer, who posted angry messages about the Mar-a-Lago raid on Trump Social, and then on 12 August armed himself with an assault rifle and attacked an FBI office in Cincinnati. After fleeing the scene he was hunted down and killed by police.In another sign of potential violence, federal judge Bruce Reinhart in Florida, who had approved the FBI warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, reportedly received death threats after his name was cited in press accounts.“I have been dealing with law enforcement and the criminal justice system for close to 40 years. I have never seen the type or virulence of attacks being made every day against the FBI, DoJ lawyers, and judges,” former justice department inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian. “It’s a chorus led by Trump but that includes elected officials at every level. It is dangerous and unacceptable.”Bromwich added: “It’s one thing for professional rabble rousers, liars, and nihilists – such as Bannon and Jones – to attack law enforcement and DoJ in the way that they have since the search; it’s quite another for so-called respectable political figures such as McCarthy and Graham to do so. Their recent actions and words reflect that theirs is a politics detached from facts and principle.”Similarly, Chuck Rosenberg, a former US attorney for the sastern district of Virginia and ex-chief of staff to former FBI director James Comey, told the Guardian: “The attacks on federal law enforcement are sickening and reckless.”To historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who has studied authoritarian leaders and wrote the book Strongmen, Trump’s attacks on the FBI and justice department and his retention of classified documents are consistent with his “authoritarian” leadership style“It’s very typical of authoritarians to claim that they’re the victims and that there are witch hunts against them,” Ben-Ghiat told the Guardian.Trump’s furious assaults on law enforcement also targeted the National Archives and Records Administration, causing a notable uptick in threats against the agency, according to sources quoted by the Washington Post.“No NARA official involved in negotiating the return of presidential records from Mar-a-Lago would have acted with any motive other than to ensure the safe return of all of the presidential records back into the custody of the government,” said Jason R Baron, the former director of litigation at the US National Archives. “It is unfortunate that some would impugn the motives of NARA staff in simply doing their job.”The frenzied attacks on law enforcement began almost immediately after the raid and included some especially rabid Trump supporters.Former White House adviser Bannon, who has been convicted on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House January 6 panel, made unsupported claims to conspiracy monger Jones on Infowars that the FBI planted evidence against Trump during the Mar-a-Lago raid, and that the “deep state” is planning to kill Trump.“I do not think it’s beyond this administrative state and their deep state apparatus to actually try to work on the assassination of President Trump,” said Bannon, who on 8 September was charged by New York prosecutors with fraud, money laundering and conspiracy involving his role in a private fundraising scheme to fund constructing the US-Mexico border wall.Right before he left office, Trump pardoned Bannon who had been indicted on similar federal charges involving fraud and the border wall.Graham provoked heavy criticism for making the suggestion in a Fox News interview that the FBI raid and investigation would lead to “riots in the street”, if charges were filed against Trump.After critics noted Graham’s comments could fuel violence, Graham doubled down a week later saying he was just trying to “state the obvious”.In a twist, some veteran justice department prosecutors point out that predictions of violence can potentially be criminal.“The risk is that predictions of violence can easily become threats of violence bordering on extortion,” former justice department prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig told the Guardian. “Explicitly calling for violence against the government can, in context, become criminal. When Trump loyalists like Bannon and Graham seem to cross that line, they are risking criminal prosecution.”On another front, even some former close allies of Trump say that his shifting and hard edged attacks on law enforcement look desperate and don’t pass the smell test.William Barr, Trump’s former attorney general who formerly was a close ally, told Fox News on 2 September he didn’t see any reason why classified documents were at Mar-a-Lago once Trump left office.“People say this was unprecedented,” Barr told Fox News “But it’s also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club, okay?”To historian Ben-Ghiat, the fact that “Trump had those classified documents and they were mixed in with golf balls and family photos is very typical of authoritarian type leaders who don’t recognize any divides between public and private. Everything is theirs to trade, to sell and to use as leverage.”For Bromwich, the attacks on law enforcement by Trump and his ardent allies is unprecedented and very dangerous.“For those of us who have spent time with federal law enforcement personnel, the idea that they are members of the deep state or doing the bidding of the radical left is ridiculous. In my experience, the majority are conservative and Republican. Whatever their politics, they don’t let their political views affect their work.”“The search of Mar-a-Lago was indeed unprecedented. It was preceded by an unprecedented and colossal theft of government property by the former president.”TopicsUS newsDonald TrumpMar-a-LagoFBILaw (US)RepublicansUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More