Trump administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      No Trade Is Free review: Trump’s man plots an unusually civil course

      by

      Robert Lighthizer, a veteran trade negotiator and sometime free-trade skeptic, became Donald Trump’s most senior trade official. Unlike the former president and his director of trade and manufacturing policy, Peter Navarro, Lighthizer is not now fending off prosecution. He did not pique the interest of the January 6 committee.But Trump and Lighthizer are still members of a mutual admiration society. No Free Trade, Lighthizer’s first book, comes with Trump’s endorsement. It is “a masterpiece that describes how my administration stood up to China and fought back against the globalists and communists that have been ripping off American workers for decades”, the former president gushed on Truth Social.Lighthizer, Trump added, was “the greatest United States trade representative in American history”.On the page, Lighthizer returns the favor. “Trump was a great boss,” he writes. In return, he recalls Trump saying: “Bob Lighthizer is great; I’ve heard it for years.”In 2016 and 2020, Lighthizer donated an aggregate of $3,950 to Trump’s campaigns. Talk about a return on investment.No Free Trade is replete with intellectual gymnastics. Lighthizer repeatedly delivers hosannas to the “liberal democratic” order and criticizes Vladimir Putin – but keeps mum about January 6 and Trump’s indictments. Nor does he have anything to say about the 45th president’s relationship with the Russian dictator or his tropism toward despots in general.As is to be expected, not everyone on Trump’s team was enamored with Lighthizer. In his own book, Taking Back Trump’s America, Navarro scolded him for refusing to appear on TV in the run-up to the 2020 election. The “Greta Garbo of the West Wing”, to quote Navarro, Lighthizer possessed savvy and presence – and refused to engage when the election hung in the balance.Back in the day, as a member of the Reagan administration, Lighthizer helped negotiate “voluntary restraints” on imports of Japanese cars and steel. The experience provided valuable knowledge of the trade playbook. After his stint in the executive branch, Lighthizer returned to Bob Dole’s orbit as treasurer to the Kansas Republican’s 1996 presidential campaign. The pair had backed the North America Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), enacted in 1994, when Bill Clinton sat in the White House.Over time, however, Lighthizer became a Nafta critic. He now writes that Ross Perot got it right when he warned of a middle-class job exodus if the agreement became law, of a “great sucking sound”, indeed. Along with the Iraq war and the opioid crisis, the downside of the free trade deal with Canada and Mexico helped drive lunch-bucket voters into Trump’s arms and transform the Democrats into an upstairs-downstairs coalition.Nafta “is no longer an acronym – it’s a noun and a profanity”, Salena Zito and Brad Todd caught an interviewee saying in The Great Revolt, their 2018 book about the forces that helped empower Trump.As a lawyer in private practice, Lighthizer represented the US steel industry. As Trump’s trade representative, he negotiated the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, aka the USMCA, to replace Nafta. He also clashed and negotiated with China.He now castigates the Biden administration for being insufficiently tough with Beijing, but observes that Trump’s tariffs against China have been maintained. Lighthizer calls Katherine Tai, his successor as US trade representative, “estimable”, lauding her efforts to protect American industry. He also has kind words for Nancy Pelosi and Richard Neal, Democrats now former House speaker and former chair of the tax and trade committee. Lighthizer was once chief of staff to the Senate finance committee. He maintains respect for Capitol Hill.He testified there recently, about the danger posed by China.“I believe that China is the most dangerous threat that we face as a nation,” he told a House select committee. “Indeed, it may be the most perilous adversary we’ve ever had.”Whatever the danger posed by China, Lighthizer has indirectly invested there himself. His 2019 and 2020 executive branch personnel public financial disclosures show ownership of between $2m and $10m in the Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund. Tencent, the Chinese technology and entertainment conglomerate, is one of the fund’s largest holdings.Irony abounds. In August 2020, Trump issued an executive order to “address the threat posed by WeChat”, seeking for it to be banned. WeChat is “a messaging, social media and electronic payment application” owned by … Tencent.Predictably, Lighthizer trashes “globalists”, the Koch-funded Cato Institute and other ideological free-traders. He takes aim at Larry Summers, a veteran of the Clinton and Obama administrations and former president of Harvard. Summers called for tariff cuts to reduce the sting of inflation. Lighthizer calls him “China’s favorite former treasury secretary”.Lighthizer neglects to examine how free trade became a Republican orthodoxy – until it wasn’t. In 1962, Milton Friedman, of the University of Chicago, wrote in Capitalism and Freedom, his best-known work, that the US should scrap tariffs.“It would be far better for us to move to free trade unilaterally, as Britain did in the 19th century when it repealed the Corn Laws,” Friedman urged. “We are a great nation, and it ill behooves us to require reciprocal benefits from China, Mexico or Europe before we reduce a tariff on products from those countries.”In August 1980, Friedman repeated that call. A decade later, George HW Bush did the heavy lifting on Nafta. More Republicans than Democrats backed that agreement.In Lighthizer’s eyes, Friedman fairs better than Summers. Lighthizer takes issue with the Nobel-winner’s take on floating exchange rates but ignores his legacy on trade. Likewise, he goes easy on Bush.Beyond all that, No Trade Is Free is an accessible and readable chronicle of US trade history and policy over the past half-century.
      No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America’s Workers is published in the US by HarperCollins More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      The Big Break: Ben Terris on his portrait of Washington after Trump

      by

      If you were a pollster, would you ever bet on elections? How about your clients’ elections? How about betting your clients would lose? For Sean McElwee, the wunderkind behind the liberal polling group Data for Progress, the answer was all the above.McElwee had clients including the 2022 Senate campaign of John Fetterman, in Pennsylvania. McElwee placed multiple bets on the midterms, including that Fetterman would lose. Fetterman’s organization became displeased. Following its victory, it severed ties with McElwee. It was just the beginning of a dramatic downfall heightened by the pollster’s connections to the pandemic-prevention advocate Gabe Bankman-Fried, whose billionaire brother Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto empire collapsed in scandal around election day.The rise and fall of Sean McElwee is one of many storylines in a new book The Big Break: The Gamblers, Party Animals and True Believers Trying to Win in Washington While America Loses its Mind. For the author, the Washington Post reporter Ben Terris, the individuals he profiles tell a collective story about DC processing the fallout from the Trump years.“Nobody knew what the world was going to be like post-Trump,” Terris says, adding: “If there is a post-Trump.”To explore that world, he turned to Democratic and Republican circles: Leah Hunt-Hendrix, an oil heiress turned funder of progressive causes, whose conservative grandfather HL Hunt was reportedly the world’s wealthiest man; Matt and Mercedes Schlapp, a Republican power couple whose fortunes crested after Matt decided to stick with Trump in 2016; Ian Walters, Matt’s protege until political and personal differences ruptured the friendship; Robert Stryk, a cowboy-hatted lobbyist who parlayed Trump connections into a lucrative career representing sometimes questionable clients; and Jamarcus Purley, a Black staffer for the Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein who lamented the impact of George Floyd’s murder and the pandemic on Black Americans including his own father, who died. Disenchanted with his boss, Purley lost his job in disputed circumstances and launched an unconventional protest in Feinstein’s Capitol office, after hours.Terris is a reporter for the Post’s Style section, which he characterizes as strong on features and profiles. He can turn a phrase, likening Fetterman to “a Tolkien character in Carhartt”, and has an ear for the telling quote. Once, while Terris was covering the Democratic senator Jon Tester, from Montana, in, of all places, an organic pea field, nature called. A staffer asked: “Can the senator’s penis please be off the record?” Terris quips that he’s saving this for a title if he ever writes a memoir.His current book is “sort of a travelog, not a memoir”, Terris says. “I tried to keep myself out of the book as much as I could. I wanted the reader to feel like they knew Washington, knew the weirdos, the odd scenes … the backrooms, poker games, parties.”Hunt-Hendrix’s Christmas party is among the opening scenes. Attendees include her aunt Swanee Hunt, a former ambassador to Austria. Hunt-Hendrix aimed to make her own mark, through her organization Way to Win.“She’s very progressive,” Terris says, “trying to unwind a lot of projects, in a way, that her grandfather was all about. To me, it was fascinating, the family dynamics at play.”Just as fascinating was her “figuring out how to push the [Democratic] party in the direction she believed it should go in – a more progressive direction than some Democrats pushed for. It told the story of Democratic party tensions – money and politics, the idea of being idealistic and also super-wealthy … All of these things made for a very heady brew.”On the Republican side, Stryk went from running a vineyard to savoring fine wine in a foreign embassy, thanks to his connection to Trump. Stryk joined the campaign in 2016. When Trump won, Stryk celebrated on a patio of the Four Seasons hotel in DC. A dog sniffed his crotch. When its owner apologized, Stryk found she worked for the New Zealand embassy, which was having difficulty reaching Trump. It was Stryk’s lucky break.“He was in a position to connect New Zealand to Trump,” Terris says. “He got a phone number and was off to the races, a sideshow guy making major deals … $5m with the Saudis, that kind of thing.”When Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine last year, Stryk was in Belarus, exploring a potential relationship with that country’s government. He had to make his way home via the Baltics.“One of the themes of the book is that the Donald Trump era allowed a bunch of sideshow characters to get out on the main stage,” Terris says. “Stryk is a great example of that.”Others distanced themselves – eventually. Terris sees the rupture between Matt Schlapp and Ian Walters as illustrative. As head of the American Conservative Union, Schlapp presided over CPAC, the annual conservative conference, with Walters his communications director. As Schlapp welcomed fringe elements to CPAC – from Trump to Matt Gaetz to Marjorie Taylor Greene – Walters felt increasingly repelled.“It’s an interesting tale of a broken friendship,” Terris says. “It also helps the reader understand how did the Republican party get to where it is now – where are the fault lines, why one way over another.”The 2020 election was the point of no return. Schlapp stayed all-in on Trump, supporting his claim of a stolen election even in a graveside speech at the funeral of Walters’s father, the legendary conservative journalist Ralph Hallow.“We have to take confidence that he would want us, more than anything else, to get beyond this period of mourning and to fight,” Schlapp is quoted as saying. Walters and his wife, Carin, resigned from the ACU. Ian remained a Republican but marveled at the bravery of the whistleblower Cassidy Hutchinson in the January 6 hearings.As for Schlapp, he faced scandal late last year. Assisting with the Senate campaign of the ex-football star Herschel Walker, when Schlapp arrived in Georgia, he allegedly groped a male campaign staffer.“I had to go back into my reporting and ask, were there signs of this?” recalls Terris. “Could I run through all of this [with] the alleged victim over the phone? I did. I ran a bunch of questions by Matt – he never answered.”There was another last-minute controversy. McElwee’s polls proved inaccurate. Another red flag was his ties to Gabe Bankman-Fried, whose brother was arrested in December. Reports of McElwee’s gambling made clients wonder where their money was going. Senior staff threatened to resign. McElwee stepped down.“All of a sudden, it was national news in a way I was not prepared for,” Terris says.Can anyone be prepared for what comes next in Washington?“Donald Trump proved you can win by acting like Donald Trump,” Terris says. “There are a lot of people that learned from him – mostly in the Republican party, but [also] the Democratic party – how to comport yourself in Washington, what you can get away with. People’s confidence is broken, politics is broken, relationships.”Can it all be restored?“Nobody knows yet how to do it. It’s not the same thing as normal. Maybe that’s fine. Maybe normal led to Donald Trump.”
      The Big Break is published in the US by Twelve More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump adviser suggested blowing up migrants’ boats with drones, book says

      by

      The top Trump adviser Stephen Miller advocated blowing up boats of migrants with drones, according to a new book by a former homeland security official previously revealed to be the “anonymous” author behind a famous warning about Trump White House extremes.In his new book, Blowback: A Warning to Save Democracy from the Next Trump, Miles Taylor says in April 2018 Miller advocated an attack on a ship heading for the US, saying people onboard were not protected under the constitution as they were in international waters.The passage was first reported by Rolling Stone, which said it had reviewed documentation that supported the claim.Taylor says Miller made his argument to Paul Zukunft, an admiral then commandant of the US Coast Guard.According to Taylor, Miller said: “Tell me why can’t we use a Predator drone to obliterate that boat?”Taylor writes: “Admiral Zukunft looked nonplussed. ‘Because, Stephen, it would be against international law.’”Taylor says Miller argued with Zukunft, telling “the military chief nearly 30 years his senior, ‘I don’t think you understand the limitations of international law.’”A spokesperson for Miller told Rolling Stone: “This is a complete fiction that exists only in the mind of Miles Taylor desperate to stay relevant by fabricating material for his new book.”Zukunft told Rolling Stone he had “no recollection” of the exchange as described by Taylor, but “vividly recall[ed] having a lengthy conversation with Stephen Miller regarding south-west border security in 2018”.He added: “To use deadly force to thwart maritime migration would be preposterous and the antithesis of our nation’s vanguard for advancing human rights.”Miller was a speechwriter and close adviser to Donald Trump, particularly associated with extreme policies on immigration.As Rolling Stone pointed out, Miller has often been linked to outlandish policy suggestions, including a 2019 proposal to “secure [Isis leader] Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s head, dip it in pig’s blood and parade it around to warn other terrorists”.That revelation came from a book by Mark Esper, Trump’s last permanent secretary of defense, who also described Trump asking if drug labs in Mexico could be hit with US missiles.Taylor was chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security when he became “Anonymous”, the author of a New York Times column which in September 2018 caused a sensation as an insider’s account of dysfunction under Trump.Taylor published a book, A Warning, before revealing his identity and endorsing Joe Biden in the 2020 election.Regarding his account of Miller’s wish to target migrants with drone-fired missiles, Taylor told Rolling Stone: “The conversation happened.” More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Chris Christie says he’s anti-Trump – but did he secure a presidential pardon for a crony?

      by

      A leading US ethics expert said the former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who this week launched a presidential campaign aimed at taking down Donald Trump, owes the American public an explanation of why and how he secured a pardon for a powerful New Jersey Republican, issued on Trump’s last day in the White House.“We just don’t know the answer to that,” Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), said. “And I think we should.”Trump is the clear Republican frontrunner to face Joe Biden next year. But Christie says Trump is not fit to return to the White House, given his scandal-plagued time in office and his incitement of the January 6 Capitol attack.Christie has said he has not spoken to Trump since before 6 January 2021, the day Trump sent supporters to the Capitol in a deadly attempt to stop the certification of his defeat by Biden.But 14 days after the attack, on Trump’s last day in power, a 143-strong list of pardons and commutations included a name supported by Christie.Alongside Trump allies Steve Bannon and Ken Kurson, and the rapper Lil Wayne, was George Gilmore, a lawyer and Republican party chair in Ocean county, New Jersey.Gilmore was indicted on federal tax charges in January 2020. He denied wrongdoing, his attorney claiming his lavish spending on collectibles was evidence of a hoarding disorder. Nonetheless, Gilmore was sentenced to a year and a day in prison and three years of supervised release, a conviction upheld on appeal that December.Gilmore avoided prison time. Announcing his pardon, the White House saluted his “important civic contributions over his career in New Jersey”. It also listed his supporters. The first two named were Christie and Bill Stepien.Stepien managed Trump’s re-election campaign. Before that, he worked in New Jersey for Christie, including when Christie narrowly won in 2009 and during his landslide re-election in 2013.By the time Christie left office, though, he and Stepien were under the shadow of the Bridgegate scandal, concerning political payback against a Democratic mayor.Notably, Christie ran for president in 2016 but failed to make an impact. Swiftly endorsing Trump, he stuck with him even after being fired from Trump’s transition, which Christie says was due to bad blood with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser. Stepien, Politico said, saw his own career threatened by Bridgegate but “kept a lifeline of income from the [Republican] super pac GOPAC, thanks to Gilmore’s help. That connection helped secure Gilmore the Trump pardon.”Stepien also worked in the Trump White House. He is now a founding partner of a consultancy, National Public Affairs, whose website features Trump allies including Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma senator; Harriet Hageman, who defeated Liz Cheney in 2022 for her Wyoming House seat; and Ronny Jackson, a White House doctor turned Texas congressman.In February, Politico described Gilmore’s own political resurrection, including a return as Ocean county Republican chair made possible, the site said, because Gilmore “had … a key connection to Trump world”.Stepien told Politico that Gilmore would once again play a key role in elections in New Jersey: “One out of every seven votes will come out of Ocean county in the next statewide primary. So if you’re not spending time trying to build a relationship with George and his team, I have to question your strategy.”Christie, who became an analyst for ABC and wrote two books, has made his political strategy clear: he is going to take the game to Trump.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBookbinder said: “I think it’s a good thing that Christie is calling out Donald Trump on his role in inciting an insurrection and on his undercutting of democracy. For that to be coming from people who were insiders is powerful.“That said, I think Chris Christie needs to answer for his [having been] someone who was close to Trump when Trump’s abuses were very much apparent, really from the beginning, and from before Donald Trump became president, and in carrying through to the end of the presidency.“We don’t know when Christie made [or supported the pardon] request [for Gilmore]. It certainly may be that all contacts were before January 6, when Christie at least says that he cut off Trump completely. But we just don’t know the answer to that,” he added.“And I think we should, because to the extent that he is saying he was outraged by Trump’s anti-democratic abuses and had nothing to do with them, that would not be consistent with continuing to ask for favours that might seem to go around the normal pardon process. And that’s something that I think it’s appropriate for the public to have answers to.”The pardon power, Bookbinder said, is “meant to be broad, as a check on runaway prosecutorial power”. Pardons and acts of clemency as a president leaves office are common.But Trump’s pardons proved as controversial as his presidency, amid reports of aides including Rudy Giuliani seeking to profit and with those pardoned including the likes of Bannon and Roger Stone, who might otherwise have testified against Trump.Pointing to the need to lessen abuse of the pardon power, Bookbinder said: “You can’t see Donald Trump as an existential threat to democracy, which I believe he is, while also still having dealings with him and his circle. You can’t do both at once.“And so it is reasonable to ask Chris Christie if that’s what he is doing, or if that’s what he has been doing – [if he has] a good answer to that. We should, at least, have a right to know that answer.”A Christie spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      After Ivanka Trump’s strategic exit, is Tiffany the new ‘first daughter’? | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Well, it looks like Melaniawatch is officially over. The former first lady has a habit of periodically disappearing, sparking fanciful theories that she has left her philandering husband and is crashing at the Obamas’ mansion to write a tell-all. Her latest vanishing act came, understandably, after Trump was arrested last week for hush money payments to the adult film star Stormy Daniels. Melania was conspicuously absent from Trump’s arraignment and he failed to mention her in a speech where he thanked his entire family, and – bizarrely – praised his son Barron for being very tall. Like Jesus, however, Melania made a public reappearance on Easter Sunday.As soon as the where-is-Melania speculation was laid to rest, the what’s-Tiffany-up-to conjecture started. Eyebrows were raised when Trump thanked Tiffany, his youngest daughter, in his post-arraignment speech, because Trump famously has a habit of forgetting that Tiffany exists. Her siblings reportedly aren’t much kinder. According to Michael Cohen’s memoir about his time as Trump’s lapdog, Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka (Trump’s children with his first wife, Ivana Trump) referred to Tiffany, who Trump fathered with his second wife, Marla Maples, as the “red-haired stepchild”. Cohen also claims the former president and Ivanka were rude about Tiffany’s looks.While Tiffany has always been on the sidelines in the Trump family, she has recently started to edge closer to the spotlight. Now that Trump’s eldest, Ivanka, is strategically keeping a distance from her disgraced dad, it looks like Tiffany is finally getting a little bit of her father’s attention. Publicly supporting him in his hour of need “could be her way to get closer to her father”, a source speculated to the New York Post in a recent piece titled “Is Tiffany Trump taking Ivanka’s place as Donald’s ‘First Daughter’?” Heartwarming stuff, eh? Sometimes it just takes being charged with 34 felony counts to bring a family together. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Nine Black Robes review: how Trump turned the supreme court right

      by

      Joan Biskupic is senior supreme court analyst at CNN, a Pulitzer finalist and an established biographer. In her latest book, she seeks to make sense of the court during and after the presidency of Donald J Trump, culminating last June when five conservative justices overturned Roe v Wade, the ruling which guaranteed access to abortion. In one swoop, the court gutted the rights revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.It was more important for the favourites of the Federalist Society to be “right” than smart. As we saw this week, Wisconsin Democrats say thank you.On the US supreme court, the majority in Dobbs v Jackson, the abortion ruling, said personal autonomy lacked constitutional safeguards unless explicitly enumerated in the text of the document. Precedents protecting the right to contraception, interracial marriage, same-sex relations and marriage now stand on shaky ground.“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell,” Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, referring to the rulings on contraception, same-sex relations and marriage.Thomas did not mention Loving v Virginia, which guaranteed the right to interracial marriage. He is Black. His wife, the far-right activist Ginni Thomas, is white.Biskupic knows the history of the court. In earlier biographies, she studied the chief justice, John Roberts, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor, the retired Sandra Day O’Connor and the late Antonin Scalia.As expected, Nine Black Robes is well researched. Biskupic plumbs the papers of the late William Brennan, a liberal appointed by Dwight D Eisenhower in 1956. But her book also contains more than its fair share of chambers chatter.Biskupic captures the unease of some court members at being used as props by Trump. They felt “tricked”. Trump assured them a party for Brett Kavanaugh, his second nominee, would not turn overtly political. It did.“Some justices told me later that they were sorry they had gone,” Biskupic writes.Among the “stone faced” justices at the White House, Thomas was “conspicuously enthusiastic, alone applaud[ing] heartily after Kavanaugh spoke”. Later, Thomas’s wife would seek to help Trump overturn an election.Biskupic also recounts tensions between Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first conservative pick for the court. Gorsuch did not attend his first scheduled justices-only meeting. Roberts’s entreaties meant little.According to Biskupic, Gorsuch penned dissents and chivvied other justices. For example, in Torres v Madrid, a police abuse case, he “suggested his colleagues were kowtowing to policing concerns and the Black Lives Matter movement”.In his dissent, Gorsuch asked: “If efficiency cannot explain today’s decision, what’s left? Maybe it is an impulse that individuals like Ms Torres should be able to sue for damages. Sometimes police shootings are justified, but other times they cry out for a remedy.”Gorsuch also accused the majority of a “schizophrenic reading of the word ‘seizure’”. The chief justice was not amused.“The dissent speculates that the real reason for today’s decision is an ‘impulse’ to provide relief to Torres,” Roberts noted. “There is no call for such surmise.”Comity and appearances do not weigh heavily on Gorsuch. As Biskupic notes, his mother, Ann Gorsuch Burford, was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Ronald Reagan but was found in contempt of Congress, a first for an agency head. She resigned, feeling used.After less than a year on the court, Gorsuch spoke at the Trump International hotel in Washington, addressing a “Defending Freedom Luncheon” sponsored by the Fund for American Studies, a conservative group. As Biskupic notes, the hotel then stood “embroiled in litigation about unconstitutional financial benefit for the president who appointed him”.Gorsuch’s appearance may have been an act of contrition, designed to placate Trump’s wrath. Months earlier, Gorsuch reportedly conveyed criticism of the president to Richard Blumenthal, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, during a courtesy call. Trump’s attacks on the judiciary were too much even for Gorsuch.But he is not the only justice with limited bandwidth for playing nice. Biskupic “learned” that Sotomayor circulated “a blistering draft dissent” which caused colleagues to back off from barring racially conscious preferences in college admissions. Now, Sotomayor’s luck may be running out. In challenges to affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the court is expected to strike down race-based admissions.Two years ago, Sotomayor attacked Kavanaugh’s legal reasoning in a case that involved a juvenile life sentence without parole.“The court is fooling no one,” she thundered, in Jones v Mississippi. “The court’s misreading is egregious enough on its own … The court twists precedent even further.”Biskupic also considers Trump’s legal woes, reporting on deliberations surrounding a ruling in favor of Cy Vance Jr, then Manhattan district attorney, in June 2020. The court upheld a subpoena demanding eight years of Trump’s tax returns. Voting 7-2, the court rejected Trump’s contention that he was immune from investigation simply because he was president. A little more than two years later, Trump stands indicted in the same jurisdiction.“We cannot conclude that absolute immunity is necessary or appropriate under article II or the supremacy clause,” Roberts wrote in 2020. “No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.”But the margin of the decision was not preordained.Biskupic writes: “In their private telephonic conference, the Trump v Vance case produced a 5-4 split, I later learned, to affirm the lower-court judgment against Trump.”Roberts’s cajoling made a difference.“Over the course of two months he coaxed and compromised,” Biskupic writes. “Only Thomas and Alito declined to sign on.”Nowadays, Biskupic laments, “the court has no middle, no center to hold.“… Donald Trump, who had demonstrated so little respect for the law, truth and democracy, changed the balance for at least a generation.”
      Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court’s Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences is published in the US by HarperCollins More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court justices felt tricked by Trump at Kavanaugh swearing-in – book

      by

      Sitting justices of the US supreme court felt “tricked” and used by Donald Trump when the then president assured them a White House celebration of the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh would not be overtly political, then used the event to harangue those who questioned Kavanaugh’s fitness to sit on the court.“Most of the justices sat stone faced” as Trump spoke at the ceremonial swearing-in, the CNN correspondent Joan Biskupic writes in a new book, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court’s Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences.“Some justices told me later that they were sorry they had gone.”Biskupic, senior supreme court analyst for CNN, adds: “To varying degrees, the justices felt tricked, made to participate in a political exercise at a time when they were trying to prove themselves impartial guardians of justice, rather than tools of Republican interests.”Nine Black Robes will be published in the US on Tuesday. The Guardian obtained a copy.Published excerpts have covered key issues on the court including the controversial treatment of staff for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal justice who died in September 2020 and was swiftly replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, an arch-conservative; rulings on gay rights; and the 2022 Dobbs vs Jackson decision that removed the federal right to abortion.The appointment of Coney Barrett – jammed through before the election by the same Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, who previously held open a seat for a year and through an election in order to fill it with a conservative – tilted the court 6-3 to the right.Joe Biden has made the historic appointment of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on the court, but he has not altered that 6-3 balance.Kavanaugh was Trump’s second appointment, replacing the retiring Anthony Kennedy, a conservative for a conservative.Accused of drunken behaviour and sexual assault while a high school student, Kavanaugh, a former George W Bush administration aide, was narrowly confirmed in an atmosphere of deeply partisan rancour.On 8 October 2018, Trump staged his celebration.Saying “what happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency and due process”, Trump falsely claimed Kavanaugh had been “proven innocent” of the claims against him.As Biskupic writes: “There had been no trial, not even much of an investigation of [Professor Christine Blasey] Ford’s accusations. But as with so many of Trump’s assertions, the truth did not matter to him or … his supporters.”Biskupic notes that among the “stone faced” justices at the White House, Clarence Thomas, the senior conservative, was “conspicuously enthusiastic, alone applaud[ing] heartily after Kavanaugh spoke”.She adds: “A Department of Justice spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, later described Thomas as ‘the life of the party’ at the event.”Thomas is the subject of controversy centering on the activities of his wife, the far-right activist Ginni Thomas.Ginni Thomas has been shown to have lobbied state lawmakers as part of Trump’s attempt to overturn his 2020 defeat and to have attended an event in Washington on January 6, prior to the deadly attack on Congress by Trump supporters.In January 2022, Clarence Thomas was the only supreme court justice to say Trump should not have to give records to the House January 6 committee. Such records turned out to include texts between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff.In congressional testimony released last December, Ginni Thomas said she was “certain [she] never spoke with” her husband “about any of the challenges to the 2020 election”.She also claimed Clarence Thomas was “uninterested in politics”. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump appointees interfered to weaken EPA assessment of toxic chemical

      by

      Trump administration appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) meddled in agency science to weaken the toxicity assessment of a dangerous chemical, a new report by the US body’s internal watchdog has found.In response to what it labeled “political interference”, the Biden administration in February 2021 pulled the assessment, republished it months later using what it said is sound science, and declared it had resolved the issue.But EPA scientists who spoke to the Guardian say several employees willingly worked with the Trump appointees to weaken the assessment, and they were never reprimanded or fired.The scientists say the controversy is part of a deeper problem afflicting the EPA: industry influence on career staff, and an unwillingness from the EPA to address it.“The issue is part of the larger rot at the agency of career staff working with industry to weaken the EPA,” a current agency scientist familiar with the situation said. The scientist did not use their name for fear of reprisal.The controversy centered around a 2021 toxicity report for PFBS, a type of PFAS compound that is toxic at low levels. Research has linked the chemical to kidney disease, reproductive problems and thyroid damage, and it has been found throughout the environment, including in an estimated 860,000 Americans’ drinking water.PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” due to their longevity in the environment, and are a growing health hazard.In its recent report, the EPA’s office of inspector general described “unprecedented” interference by former Trump-appointed EPA chief Andrew Wheeler and other political appointees, who ordered the alteration of the PFBS toxicity value just as the assessment was about to be published in late 2020. The revised assessment went live just four days before Trump left office in 2021.The assessment would have been used by regulators to establish drinking-water quality standards and other environmental cleanup targets that companies must meet when addressing pollution. Instead of a specific target number, Wheeler ordered a range of toxicity values for PFBS, which meant companies required to clean up pollution could choose to leave higher levels of the chemical in the environment.That could have led to a “less costly, but possibly insufficient” cleanup, the inspector general wrote in its report, and the change’s critics say it put human health at risk. It is unlikely the revised assessment was used in the few weeks that it was publicly available, the inspector general wrote.The changes were “something that industry has always wanted”, former EPA scientist Betsy Southerland previously told the Guardian.The disagreement about the toxicity value centered around the uncertainty factor used in PFBS’s assessment, which was developed by career scientists in the EPA’s office of research and development (ORD). Uncertainty factors are designed to fill in gaps in data on chemicals’ effects on the human body. In PFBS’s case, studies on how the compound affects thyroid hormone levels and neural development were not available. The uncertainty factors would help account for those gaps.The inspector general noted the ORD’s development of the assessment was twice peer-reviewed, followed EPA review protocol, and the office of chemical safety and pollution prevention (OCSPP) had twice reviewed and signed off on the assessment.“There was a lot of rigor, a lot of involvement across the agency,” said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, then an ORD science adviser.Still, at political appointees’ behest, the OCSPP alternative uncertainty factors were inserted just days before the assessment was published. The new numbers were inserted without being fully scientifically vetted, and they lacked “technical and quality assurance review”, the inspector general wrote.The range of toxicity values was framed by political appointees as a “compromise” to resolve the alleged dispute between the OCSPP and the ORD, the inspector general said. The appointees also defended it as a “policy” decision, not an alteration of scientific data.After the Biden EPA pulled the assessment, it issued a statement declaring the process was “compromised by political interference as well as infringement of authorship”.During its review, the administration took no action against career employees who implemented the political appointees’ changes. Those employees “made the changes happily”, according to Kyla Bennett of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer), but remained at the agency.An internal email thread from the Trump EPA’s waning days and comments in the inspector general report illuminate how career employees in the OCSPP either requested the changes or did not object to alterations.Among the career employees were Ana Lowit, Todd Stedeford and Tala Henry. Henry and Stedeford were previously accused by whistleblowers of altering scientific documents at industry’s behest to make other chemicals appear less toxic.Stedeford said he “adamantly opposed” the PFBS changes, and denied wrongdoing in previous allegations made against him by whistleblowers.The thread opened on 7 January 2021 with an email from Henry, then a deputy director in the OCSPP, sent to political appointees and career employees within the ORD and the OCSPP. She told the group the alterations are “something [Wheeler] has requested”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe only career EPA employee to oppose the order to change the assessment was Orme-Zavaleta, who in a response from the same day noted the assessment had already been reviewed twice and was considered “final”. Further changes would delay it for months because it would need to go through the review process, she told the group.In response to Orme-Zavaleta’s emails, a Trump political appointee said the assessment needed to be published in the next week because Wheeler had a media interview on PFAS and wanted to be able to “highlight” the assessment.“They were trying so hard to get it out before Trump left office,” Bennett said.On 8 January, a Trump appointee said Wheeler had allowed the review process to be “expedited”, and the altered assessment would be published before Biden took over the EPA.“Great news!” the appointee wrote.Wheeler’s decision “flew in the face of scientific integrity”, Orme-Zavaleta told the Guardian.The inspector general report suggests OCSPP career employees such as Stedeford, Henry and Lowit did not object to the changes: “We found no evidence that intimidation or coercion took place.”However, the three career staffers were in an “awkward position”, Orme-Zavelta said.“Career staff report to political leadership, and they were directed to make these changes,” she said. “It was a very tough position for them to say no, because that would have been insubordination.”Bennett said the employees should have pushed back: “Having been a whistleblower at the EPA myself, I understand it is not a fun place to be, but it’s better than just shrugging your shoulders and making the changes. They could have, and should have, fought back.”Lowit now works as a science adviser in the OCSPP and did not respond to a request for comment.Stedeford has since left the EPA to work for a law firm that represents chemical manufacturers.Henry retired amid the inspector general investigation late last year.Orme-Zavaleta said the controversy was “demoralizing” for ORD scientists, and some remain “bitter”.The inspector general report failed to address how to protect employees from political leadership pressure, she added. And with the EPA deeming the incident “political interference” instead of a larger problem, employees who spoke with the Guardian fear more of the same.“People know what happened, and they know there were no consequences, so there’s no deterrent,” said an employee familiar with the situation. “It’s only going to make people more brazen about doing this kind of thing in the future.” More