US Congress

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It means the world to us’: Black lawmakers’ euphoria greets Jackson confirmation

      by

      ‘It means the world to us’: Black lawmakers’ euphoria greets Jackson confirmationCongressional Black Caucus hails ‘historic pick’ of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman in the court’s history The confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the US supreme court marked a moment in American history many in public life waited over decades for – and one some thought they would never see happen.When the day arrived, it inspired an outbreak of euphoria for many Black Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill.Republicans’ ugly attacks on Ketanji Brown Jackson show lurch to far rightRead more“I’m glad I’m alive,” said a joyful Yvette Clarke, a New York congresswoman.Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) filed on to Capitol Hill, through corridors lined with portraits, busts and statues of the white men who have dominated Congress since its inception.Clarke’s district was once represented by the first Black woman ever elected to the Congress, the late Shirley Chisholm of Brooklyn, who was first elected in 1969.“I’m glad I’m around to witness this,” Clarke told the Guardian. “I wasn’t around for Thurgood Marshall,” she said, referring to the lawyer and civil rights activist who became the first African American on the supreme court in 1967, and who served until 1991.Clarke entered Congress in 2007. “This is so historic on so many different levels,” she said.After the 53-47 Senate vote that included the support of three Republicans, Jackson will take her place as an associate justice on the nine-member court. She will be the 121st justice to join America’s highest judicial body, established in 1790.In October 1967, Marshall became a supreme court justice. In September 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to serve on the court. In August 2009, Sonia Sotomayor became the court’s first Hispanic member.And in April 2022, Jackson became the first Black woman confirmed to the bench in its 232-year existence.“I’m very proud that my very first vote to confirm a supreme court nominee will be to confirm this historic pick,” Raphael Warnock, who won his own milestone race in January last year to become Georgia’s first Black US senator, told the Guardian as he headed to the Senate chamber to vote for Jackson.“I had the opportunity to meet her, and she brings talent and integrity and as we saw during those scorched-earth hearings, a great deal of grace and civility,” he added, nodding to Jackson’s confirmation sessions before the Senate judiciary committee last month where she endured vicious attacks from several Republicans.The chair of the CBC, Representative Joyce Beatty of Ohio, swept on to Capitol Hill on Thursday and witnessed Jackson’s triumph.“It means the world to us, because when you think about voting rights, when you think about our children, when you think about all of our fundamental issues – it starts at the supreme court,” Beatty said.“For the first time, a Black woman sitting there. It gives us balance. Not only because she’s Black, but because of her judicial temperance, and because of her reverence for the rule of law. But also when you look at her background and culture: she attended public [publicly funded] schools,” Beatty continued.Members of the caucus gathering in an ornate room in the Capitol near the House floor for a group photo after Jackson was confirmed included those holding black T-shirts saying “Black Women are Supreme”.Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia said: “Despite all of the dog-whistling and appealing to racist instincts among the Republican base, there are three Republican senators who have been able to work their way through all of the QAnon-conspiracy nonsense being spewed by Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz, and folks trying to outdo themselves with outrageousness directed toward [Jackson].”Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah broke with their fellows who went along with Republican leadership, and those who attacked Jackson outright, and voted for Joe Biden’s nominee.“I’m glad we had three Republican senators who saw through that, and recognized how eminently qualified Ketanji Brown Jackson is, and the fact that she will bring more experience to the bench than just about every one of the justices on the supreme court – including the chief justice [John Roberts],” Johnson added.Jackson has a connection to Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of Florida, who represents parts of Miami, and has known the judge’s parents for decades.“Her father was the first Black school board attorney when I was serving on the school board. Her mother was a principal when I was a principal … so [for] the Black people in Miami, you can imagine what’s happening now as we watch this,” she told the Guardian.“Young kids know her name, and they’re talking about her in schools. They’re talking about her in barbershops,” she said. “This was a young lady who grew up with people telling her you can be anything you want to be.”On Thursday afternoon, a beaming Kamala Harris also became emotional as, in her other role as president of the Senate, she announced that Jackson was officially confirmed.The first female and first Black US vice-president marked another historic moment that, as Harris said after she won the 2020 election with Biden, may be the first but “won’t be the last”.TopicsUS politicsRaceKetanji Brown JacksonUS CongressUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      House votes to hold Trump duo Navarro and Scavino in contempt of Congress

      by

      House votes to hold Trump duo Navarro and Scavino in contempt of CongressApproval of contempt resolution over months-long defiance of subpoenas sets pair on path towards criminal prosecution by DoJ The House voted on Wednesday to hold two of Donald Trump’s top advisers – Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino – in criminal contempt of Congress for their months-long refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.The approval of the contempt resolution, by a vote of 220 to 203, sets the two Trump aides on the path toward criminal prosecution by the justice department as the panel escalates its inquiry into whether Trump oversaw a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.Congressman Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee who introduced the contempt resolution to the House floor, said the select committee needed the House to advance the measure in order to reaffirm the consequences for defying the January 6 investigation.January 6 panel receives Trump lawyer emails about plan to block Biden victoryRead moreCiting a ruling by a federal judge last week that Trump “likely” committed felonies to return himself to the Oval Office for a second term, Raskin said on the House floor that the panel wanted Navarro and Scavino’s cooperation because they engaged in trying to overthrow an election.But having refused to comply with their subpoenas in any form, Raskin said that “these two witnesses have acted in contempt of Congress and the American people; we must hold them in contempt of Congress and the American people”.The contempt citations approved by the House now head to the justice department and the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, who is required by law to weigh a prosecution and present the matter before a federal grand jury.Should the justice department secure a conviction against the Trump aides, the consequences could mean up to a year in federal prison, $100,000 in fines, or both – though it would not force their compliance, and pursuing the misdemeanor charge could take months.The subpoena defiance by Navarro and Scavino meant the select committee was ultimately unable to extract information directly from them about Trump’s unlawful scheme to have then-vice president Mike Pence stop Joe Biden’s election win certification on 6 January.But the panel has quietly amassed deep knowledge about their roles in the effort to return Trump to office in recent weeks, and senior staff decided that they could move ahead in the inquiry without hearing from the two aides, say sources close to the inquiry.The determination by the select committee that Navarro and Scavino’s cooperation was no longer essential came when it found it could fill in the gaps from others, the sources said, and led to the decision to break off negotiations for their cooperation.The final decision to withdraw from talks reflected the panel’s belief that it was not worth the time – the probe is on a time crunch to complete its work before the November midterms – to pursue their testimony for potentially only marginal gain, the sources said.House investigators had sought cooperation from Navarro, a former Trump senior advisor for trade policy who became enmeshed in the effort to reverse Trump’s election defeat, for around a month until it became apparent they were making no headway.The select committee issued a subpoena to Navarro since he helped devise – by his own admission on MSNBC and elsewhere – the scheme to have Pence stop Biden’s certification from taking place as part of one Trump “war room” based at the Willard hotel in Washington.Navarro also worked with the Trump campaign’s legal team to pressure legislators in battleground states win by Biden to decertify the results and instead send Trump slates of electors for certification by Congress at the joint session in January 6.But when that plan started to go awry, Navarro encouraged then-Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to call political operative Roger Stone to discuss January 6, the panel said in its contempt of Congress report published last week.The former Trump aide, however, told the select committee – without providing any evidence – that the former president had asserted executive privilege over the contents of his subpoena and would therefore not provide documents or testimony.With Scavino, the select committee first issued Trump’s former deputy White House chief of staff for communications in September last year, since he had attended several meetings with Trump where election fraud matters were discussed, the panel said.But after the panel granted to Scavino six extensions that pushed his subpoena deadlines from October 2021 to February 2022, the former Trump aide also told House investigators that he too would not comply with the order because Trump invoked executive privilege.The select committee rejected those arguments of executive privilege, saying neither Navarro nor Scavino had grounds for entirely defying the subpoenas because either Trump did not formally invoke the protections, or because Biden ultimately waived them.At the business meeting last week where the select committee voted unanimously to recommend that the full House find Navarro and Scavino in contempt of Congress, Raskin delivered an emotional rebuke of the supposed executive privilege arguments.“This is America, and there’s no executive privilege here for presidents, much less trained advisors, to plan coups and organize insurrections against the people’s government in the people’s constitution and then to cover up the evidence of their crimes.“These two men,” Raskin said of Navarro and Scavino, “are in contempt of Congress and we must say, both for their brazen disregard for their duties and for our laws and our institutions.”Attending an event featuring Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday night, Navarro made a point of appearing aloof to his impending referral to the justice department. “Oh that vote,” Navarro said dismissively, the Washington Post reported.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Dark money: the quixotic quest to clean up US campaign financing

      by

      Dark money: the quixotic quest to clean up US campaign financing The supreme court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for special interests to pour money into elections. Could a constitutional amendment be the answer?It would, activists testify, restore the public’s waning trust in vital US institutions, curb the corrupting influence of big money in politics and give America’s ailing democracy a much-needed shot in the arm.It is also, they acknowledge, dead on arrival.Corporate sedition is more damaging to America than the Capitol attack | Robert ReichRead moreAn amendment to the US constitution was last week proposed by Congressman Adam Schiff to overturn a 2010 precedent set by the supreme court, known as Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour billions of dollars into election campaigns.Passing the amendment would, Schiff argues, enable Congress or individual states to propose reasonable limits on private campaign contributions and independent expenditures. “Let’s get dark money out of our democracy,” he tweeted. “And return power to the people.”Such a move has broad public support in America but little chance of getting through Congress itself. Amending the constitution requires support from a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate plus ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures.In today’s polarised America, where few Republicans have displayed an appetite for campaign finance reform, that remains a non-starter. Democrats including Schiff himself have made previous attempts at constitutional amendments and got nowhere. Citizens United appears to be here to stay.Its origins lie in a challenge to campaign finance rules by Citizens United, a conservative non-profit group, after the Federal Election Commission refused to allow it to broadcast a film criti­cising candid­ate Hillary Clin­ton too close to the Democratic pres­id­en­tial primar­ies.In one of the most controversial decisions in its history, the supreme court ruled 5-4 in Citizens United’s favor with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing that limit­ing “inde­pend­ent polit­ical spend­ing” from corpor­a­tions and other special interest groups viol­ates the first amend­ment right to free speech.It opened the way for them to spend unlim­ited money on elec­tion campaigns. In the 12 years since, outside groups have spent more than $4.4bn in federal elections – almost $1bn of which was “dark money”, typically through non-profits that do not disclose their donors. The biggest contributors have included banks, the pharmaceutical industry and the National Rifle Association (NRA).“Citizens United has been a disaster for the American political system even beyond what we expected,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) “We knew it was bad when it happened but the amount of money going into the political system has exploded since that decision, including a massive expansion in third-party spending, particularly unaccountable dark money spending.”The supreme court’s majority opinion in 2010 had assumed that outside spending would be inherently transparent and free from corruption. It has been proven wrong, Bookbinder argues, as the money is funneled through non-profits or shell corporations that conceal its origins.“So much of that money comes from sources that are difficult or impossible to identify. The public doesn’t know who’s responsible for this money in American politics. It’s been catastrophic and it does need to be fixed.”This, campaigners say, has had a corrosive effect on democracy and explains why politicians who benefit from the money so often fail to tackle healthcare reform, gun control, the climate crisis and other urgent issues.Bookbinder added: “It certainly does give more power to powerful interests like the fossil fuel companies, the drug companies, the major banks and all the biggest money industries as well as individual billionaires who can put a great deal of money into the political system, often in ways that the public doesn’t know about but that elected officials do know about and feel beholden to.“That’s a real problem. When you see a lack of progress on issues like climate change, how much of that is due to the fact that so many elected officials are beholden to powerful figures connected to industries that don’t want progress?”This, in turn, feeds public frustration with Washington a place where nothing gets done except measures that favour the rich and powerful – a recipe for voters to turn to outsider candidates such as Donald Trump who promise to shake up the system and “drain the swamp”.Bookbinder said: “The other piece that is really dangerous is that the American people understand that there is so much money going into politics from very wealthy people and from industries and they feel like the democracy is not working for them.“It makes people lose their faith in democracy and become more willing potentially to either support leaders who don’t believe necessarily in democracy – we’ve seen that in recent years – or to be less concerned with defending the democracy from threats. That’s another way in which it can be kind of existential in the effect that it has.”Pacs (polit­ical action commit­tees) raise and spend money for campaigns that support or attack polit­ical candid­ates or legis­la­tion. Pacs are allowed to donate directly to a candid­ate’s offi­cial campaign but subject to limits on what contributions they can give or receive.In the wake of Citizens United, however, a federal appeals court ruled that outside groups could accept unlim­ited contri­bu­tions as long as they do not give directly to candid­ates. These Super Pacs are allowed to spend money to endorse or oppose candid­ates with adverts that are produced independently.But Karen Hobert Flynn, president of the democracy reform group Common Cause, said: “The reality since that decision shows that it is not necessarily independent – we see lots of coordination between candidates and Super Pacs – and it causes enormous damage to our imperfect democracy where wealthy mega-donors, corporations, special interest groups not only impact and influence elections but, once elected, lawmakers feel like they need to grant favours for those who funded their campaigns.”Super Pacs are obliged to disclose their donors but these can include non-profits which make the original source of the money hard to track. More than 2,000 Super Pacs operated in each of the last two election cycles.The negative consequences have been felt not only in Washington but at state level, added Flynn, whose long fight for campaign finance reform in Connecticut bore fruit in 2008. “It has created a huge amount of cynicism that Congress and state legislatures are corrupt because they benefit from outside groups spending money on their behalf and that people’s voices do not matter.“The money has also led to further polarisation, driving more extreme kinds of measures, particularly on the right where we’ve seen money supporting those who want to overturn a fair and free election. If you look at the top 10 Super Pacs and their outside spending so far just in 2022, you’ll see nine out of the top 10 Super Pacs are conservative or support Republican candidates. It isn’t like, ‘Hey, both sides do it and it’s equal and it’s not a problem.’”Super Pacs are not all-powerful. Jeb Bush enjoyed their backing to the tune of $100m in 2016 but was defeated for the Republican nomination by Donald Trump’s improvised insurgent campaign. Everyone from Trump to Bernie Sanders to Marjorie Taylor Greene has shown the potency of small donations.And Congress could still take action. Its recently proposed Free­dom to Vote Act would have ensured that Super Pacs are truly inde­pend­ent and illuminated “dark money” by requir­ing any entity that spends more than $10,000 in an elec­tion to disclose all major donors.But the legislation stalled in the evenly divided Senate after Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema rejected efforts to reform a procedural rule known as the filibuster, which would have enabled their party to thwart Republican opposition. A dark money group had run a $1m ad campaign in Manchin’s home state of West Virginia to pressure him to keep the filibuster intact.For critics of Citizens United, it was back to the drawing board once more. Rio Tazewell, director of strategy at People for the American Way, said: “Unfortunately there are very limited options in terms of what can be done. The supreme court could decide to weigh in on another case and reverse itself; given the current makeup of the court for the foreseeable future, that does seem unlikely.”But Tazewell noted that 22 states and more than 830 municipal localities have passed resolutions supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. “There’s a lot of pressure building and coalition building that’s happening so that we can ultimately get the type of bipartisan support that we probably will need to pass an amendment,” he added.“Ultimately, I think the most realistic solution – and possible, perhaps not overnight – is for there to be somewhat of a sea change at the national level and a greater recognition that this is not and should not be a partisan issue.”TopicsUS political financingUS politicsUS CongressDemocratsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Suspect arrested in Sacramento shooting that left six dead

      by

      Suspect arrested in Sacramento shooting that left six deadPolice say they have received more than 100 videos or photos from the scene and have executed three search warrants Police in the California state capital have made an arrest in connection with Sunday’s mass shooting that left six people dead and at least a dozen others injured. In the hours after the bloodshed, police say they have received more than 100 videos or photos from the scene and executed search warrants on three homes.They identified a 26-year-old man as one of the individuals arrested in connection to the shooting, in a press release. He has been charged with assault and illegal firearm possession offenses.01:19On Monday, authorities identified the six people killed in the shooting, after at least two shooters opened fire in a crowd as bar patrons filled the streets at closing time on the outskirts of the city’s entertainment district.The Sacramento county coroner identified three women who were killed as Johntaya Alexander, 21; Melinda Davis, 57; and Yamile Martinez-Andrade, 21.The three male victims were identified as Sergio Harris, 38; Joshua Hoye-Lucchesi, 32; and DeVazia Turner, 29.The sound of rapid-fire gunshots at about 2am sent people running in terror. Twelve people were wounded in the neighborhood anchored by the Golden One Arena, which hosts concerts and the Sacramento Kings.“My child is out there on that ground, you know? This don’t make any sense and there’s other people’s children that’s out there on the ground. And they won’t tell us nothing, and it’s heartbreaking,” Pamela Harris, Sergio’s mother, told Sacramento’s local Fox affiliate on Sunday, shortly before police confirmed that her son had been killed. “It’s heartbreaking to see what’s going on out here and they’re not telling us anything.”Since Harris was identified, dozens of people have posted to his Facebook page to express their shock and disbelief at the sudden loss. He was killed alongside his cousin DeVazia Turner, whose father told the same news outlet that the two were out that night to enjoy themselves. “He was out just having fun with his friends,” Turner said. “There’s just nothing to say. I’m just here. I’m grief, that’s all – grief.”A friend of Melinda Davis said she was a “very sassy lady” who lived on the streets of Sacramento near the shooting site. ‘Slow violence that drives death’: a California port city’s struggle with pollution and shootingsRead moreShawn Peter, a guide with the Downtown Sacramento Partnership told the Sacramento Bee he’d known Davis for 15 years. She had been homeless and lived in the area on and off for a decade. “Melinda was a very eccentric individual, a very sassy lady,” he told the newspaper. “This was her world, 24/7.”Officials had helped her find housing before the pandemic began but she had returned to the downtown business district in recent months, Peter said. A small bouquet of purple roses with a note saying “Melinda Rest In Peace” was left on the street.The gunfire erupted just after a fight broke out on a street lined with an upscale hotel, nightclubs and bars and police said they were investigating whether the altercation was connected to the shooting. Video from witnesses posted on social media showed rapid gunfire for at least 45 seconds as people screamed and ran for cover, the Associated Press reported.Small memorials with candles, balloons and flowers were placed Monday morning near the crime scene. One balloon had a message on it saying in part: “You will forever be in our hearts and thoughts. Nothing will ever be the same.”Police say they had recovered more than 100 shell casings at the scene and had located several cars and buildings with bullet holes in them.This mass shooting comes less than six weeks after a man shot himself after killing his three daughters – ages nine, 10 and 13 – and a man who was supervising a visit between the girls and their father at a Sacramento-area church. He was banned from owning a gun because of a domestic violence restraining order but was able to skirt the prohibition by getting a ghost gun, a firearm that is ordered in parts and can be assembled in a few hours with the help of a YouTube tutorial. They lack serial numbers and can be bought without a background check, making them nearly impossible to trace through traditional means.Several mass shootings have taken place in northern California in recent years and have fueled calls for stricter gun legislation at the federal level.Joe Biden has long been a champion of what many refer to as “commonsense” legislation such as universal background checks and has made ghost gun abatement part of his administration’s public safety approach.“Today, America once again mourns for another community devastated by gun violence,” Biden said on Sunday. “But we must do more than mourn; we must act.”California has more than 100 gun laws on the books that determine who can sell ammunition, where guns can be purchased, and the number of rounds any single firearm can hold. And cities including San Francisco, San Diego and Oakland have banned ghost guns and lodged lawsuits against manufacturers of parts. Still, California lawmakers are continuing to create legislation, including a measure modeled after Texas’s abortion ban, that they hope will keep unregistered or illegally purchased guns out of people’s hands, cars and homes.But the longtime partisan stalemate and lack of a permanent head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) are making it more difficult for Biden to put his campaign promises into practice and leave gun regulation mainly to states.On Monday, Senator Dianne Feinstein joined the chorus of officials calling on Congress to pass new gun legislation. “Of course, this isn’t an isolated event. It’s the latest in an epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our country,” Feinstein said in a statement.“Enough is enough. We can no longer ignore gun violence in our communities. Congress knows what steps must be taken to stop these mass shootings, we just have to act.”TopicsCaliforniaGun crimeUS gun controlJoe BidenUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The Presidency of Donald Trump review: the first draft of history

      by

      The Presidency of Donald Trump review: the first draft of history Julian Zelizer of Princeton has assembled a cast of historians to consider every aspect of four years that shook AmericaAfter thousands of articles and scores of books about Donald Trump’s mostly catastrophic presidency, it’s difficult for anyone to break dramatic new ground. But this new volume, with contributions from 18 American academics, is broader and deeper than all its predecessors, with essays covering everything from Militant Whiteness to the legacy of Trump’s Middle East policies, under the title Arms, Autocrats and Annexations.The result is a great deal of information that is familiar to those who have already plowed through dozens of volumes, enlivened by a few new facts and a number of original insights.One of the best essays, about the Republican party Trump inherited, is written by the book’s editor, Julian Zelizer. The Princeton historian reminds us that the “smashmouth partisanship” perfected by Trump actually began when Newt Gingrich snared the House speakership nearly 30 years ago. In 1992, Pat Buchanan’s speech to the Republic convention featured all of the gay-bashing Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, (and may other Republicans) have revived with so much gusto in 2022.Trump swooped in to profit from White House photographer’s book deal – reportRead moreWith major contributions from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the rightwing media machine, most of the GOP moved so far right it didn’t become Trump’s party because he “seized control” but rather because “he fit so perfectly” with it. Most Republicans were “all in” for Trump, from Mitt Romney, the ex-never Trumper who voted with his former nemesis more than 80% of the time, to “moderate” Chris Christie, who gave Trump an “A” four months after his four years of scorched-earth governance were over.Nicole Hemmer, from Columbia, offers an excellent primer on the irresistible rise of rightwing media, reminding us that in the last year of the first George Bush presidency, Limbaugh was spending the night at the White House. By 2009, the shock jock “topped polls asking who led the Republican party”.By the time Trump started his run for the presidency, in 2015, he had “grown far more powerful than the political media ecosystem that had boosted his rightwing bona fides”. This became clear after his dust-up with Megyn Kelly. Moderating a primary debate, the Fox anchor challenged his long history of sexist statements. Trump declared afterwards: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”The Fox News chief, Roger Ailes, “stayed silent”, Hemmer writes. Another executive, Bill Shine, “told on-air anchors not to come to Kelly’s defense”.By the spring of 2016, Fox was becoming less important than Breitbart, an extreme-right website which researchers at Harvard and MIT declared the new anchor of a “rightwing media network”. It was Steve Bannon of Breitbart who “armed Trump with something like a cohesive political platform … built on anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Muslim, and anti-liberal politics – the same agenda Breitbart.com was promoting”.“Sure enough”, Trump’s Twitter feed “during the campaign linked to Breitbart more than any other news site”.Eventually, just about everyone on the right became a Trump disciple. Glenn Beck compared him to Hitler in 2016. By 2018, Beck was wearing a red Make America Great Again hat, though he blamed the media’s “Trump Derangement Syndrome” for “forcing him to become a Trump supporter”. As a former rightwing radio host, Charlie Sykes, explained: “There’s really not a business model for conservative media to be anti-Trump.”A Brown historian, Bathsheba Demuth, demonstrates that Trump was also a perfect fit for a party that endorsed a propaganda initiative of the American Petroleum Institute that portrayed environmental protection as “a dangerous slide toward communist authoritarianism”. Among loyal constituents were evangelicals, who either saw human dominion over nature as “a doctrinal requirement” or just thought the whole debate was irrelevant because of “Christ’s imminent resurrection”.The most surprising fact in this chapter is that the fossil fuel industry was so sure Trump was a loser in 2016, it gave the bulk of its contributions to Hillary Clinton.Margaret O’Mara, of the University of Washington, describes big tech’s key role in our national meltdown. She reminds us of a key, mostly forgotten moment 10 years ago, when “Google and Facebook successfully petitioned the Federal Election Commission for exemptions from disclaimer requirements” that required political ads to say who paid for them and who was responsible for their messages.The companies argued the requirements would “undermine other, much larger parts of their businesses”. Disastrously, the FEC went along with that pathetic argument. After that, no one ever knew exactly where online attack ads were coming from.O’Mara also recalls that Facebook provided the 2016 Trump campaign with “dedicated staff and resources” to help it purchase more ads on the platform. O’Mara mistakenly reports that the Clinton campaign received the same kind of largesse. Actually, in what may have been the campaign’s single worst decision, it refused Facebook’s offer to install staffers in Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters.Dignity in a Digital Age review: a congressman takes big tech to taskRead moreAnother chapter, by Daniel C Kurtzer of Princeton, analyses what Trump supporters consider their president’s greatest foreign policy achievement: the initiation of diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Morocco.A conservative journal summarized the accomplishment this way: “Washington is strengthening repression in Bahrain, underwriting aggression by UAE, sacrificing the Sahrawi people [of Western Sahara, to Morocco], undermining reform in Sudan and even abandoning justice for Americans harmed by Sudan. The administration calls this an ‘American first’ policy.”The last chapter focuses on the two failed attempts to convict Trump in impeachment trials. Those outcomes may be Trump’s worst legacy of all. Gregory Downs, from the University of California, Davis, writes that the failures to convict “in the face of incontrovertible proof” may convince all Trump’s successors “that they have almost complete impunity as long as they retain the support of their base, no matter what the constitution says”.
      The Presidency of Donald Trump is published in the US by Princeton University Press
      TopicsBooksDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsUS elections 2020RepublicansUS domestic policyreviewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Sarah Palin announces run for US Congress in Alaska

      by

      Sarah Palin announces run for US Congress in AlaskaThe former governor says she will ‘combat the left’s socialist, big-government, America-last agenda’ Sarah Palin has announced her run for Alaska’s only seat in the US House of Representatives, marking her first run for public office in over a decade.“America is at a tipping point,” Palin said in a statement released on her Twitter account announcing her candidacy. “As I’ve watched the far left destroy the country, I knew I had to step up and join the fight.“At this critical time in our nation’s history, we need leaders who will combat the left’s socialist, big-government, America-last agenda,” she said.It will be Palin’s first political campaign since serving as John McCain’s running mate in a campaign that saw Barack Obama elected president in November 2008.Fiery, anti-establishment rhetoric came to define Palin’s vice-presidential campaign, which served as a precursor to the rise of Donald Trump and the modern Republican party.Alaska’s House seat became vacant after the Republican Don Young died suddenly last month at age 88 after serving for more than four decades. Young had held Alaska’s House seat since 1973 and was seeking re-election at the time of his death.Sarah Palin requests new trial after losing New York Times defamation caseRead morePalin is shaking up an already unpredictable race for Alaska’s lone US House seat, where she joins a field of at least 40 candidates. The field includes current and former state legislators and a North Pole city council member named Santa Claus.Palin, a former governor of Alaska, has kept a low profile in Alaska politics since leaving office in 2009, before her term as governor ended.A special primary is set for 11 June. The top four vote-getters will advance to a 16 August special election in which ranked-choice voting will be used, a process in line with a new elections system approved by voters in 2020. The winner will serve the remainder of Young’s term, which expires in January.Others who filed their paperwork by the Friday deadline include the Republican state senator Josh Revak; the Democratic state representative Adam Wool; the independent Al Gross, an orthopedic surgeon who unsuccessfully ran for US Senate in 2020; and Andrew Halcro, a former Republican state lawmaker who is running as an independent. They join a field that includes the Republican Nick Begich, who had positioned himself as a challenger to Young; the Democrat Christopher Constant, an Anchorage assembly member; and John Coghill, a Republican former state lawmaker.Meanwhile, a man who years ago legally changed his name to Santa Claus and serves on the North Pole city council also filed with the state division of elections for the special primary. Claus, who said he had a “strong affinity” for Bernie Sanders, is running as an independent.He said he is not soliciting or raising money. He said the new elections process “gives people like me an opportunity, without having to deal with parties, to throw our hat in the ring”.“I do have name recognition,” he said with a laugh. TopicsSarah PalinUS CongressAlaskaRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More