US Congress

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Brett Kavanaugh knows truth of alleged sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford says in book

      by

      The US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh is not a “consummately honest person” and “must know” what really happened on the night more than 40 years ago when he allegedly sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, his accuser writes in an eagerly awaited memoir.A research psychologist from northern California, Ford was thrust into the spotlight in September 2018 as Kavanaugh, a Bush aide turned federal judge, became Donald Trump’s second conservative court nominee. Her allegations almost derailed Kavanaugh’s appointment and created headlines around the world.Ford’s memoir, One Way Back, will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.“The fact is, he was there in the room with me that night in 1982,” Ford writes. “And I believe he knows what happened. Even if it’s hazy from the alcohol, I believe he must know.“Once he categorically denied my allegations as well as any bad behavior from his past during a Fox News interview, I felt more certainty than ever that after my experience with him, he had not gone on to become the consummately honest person befitting a supreme court justice.”Kavanaugh’s nomination became mired in controversy after a Washington Post interview in which Ford said Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted her at a party in Montgomery county, Maryland, when they were both in high school.“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” Ford, then 51, told the Post. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”Kavanaugh vehemently denied the accusation, helping fuel hearing-room rancor not seen since the 1991 confirmation of Clarence Thomas, a rightwinger accused of sexually harassing a co-worker, Anita Hill.Supported by Republicans and Trump, Kavanaugh rode out the storm to join Thomas on the court. Trump would later add another conservative, Amy Coney Barrett, tipping the court 6-3 to the right. That court has since passed down major rightwing rulings, most prominently removing the federal right to abortion.In her book, Ford says she thought Kavanaugh might “step down to avoid putting his family through an investigation or further scrutiny”, adding that she wanted to tell him he should “save us both the trouble”, because “I don’t want this as much as you don’t want this”.She has been asked, she says, what she would have done if Kavanaugh had “reached out and apologised”.She writes: “Who would he be apologising to – me? The country? What would he be apologising for – that night? The harassment [of Ford by Trump supporters] around the testimony?“All I can guess is that if he’d come to me, really leveled with me, and said, ‘I don’t remember this happening, but it might have, and I’m so sorry,’ it might have been a significant, therapeutic moment for survivors in general … I might’ve wobbled a bit. I might have thought, ‘You know what, he was a jackass in high school but now he’s not.’“But when my story came out and he flat-out denied any possibility of every single thing I said, it did alleviate a little of my guilt. For me, the question of whether he had changed was answered. Any misgivings about him being a good person went away.”Ford says she decided to press through the difficulties of coming forward – meeting Democratic senators opposed to Kavanaugh, being grilled by Republicans supporting him, becoming famous herself – because of the importance of the court.She writes: “Honestly, if it hadn’t been the supreme court – if my attacker had been running for a local office, for example – I probably wouldn’t have said anything.Calling this “a sad, scary thing to admit”, Ford adds: “But this was a job at one of our most revered institutions, which we have historically held in the highest esteem. That’s what I learned at school.”Saying she was “thinking and behaving according to principle”, she adds: “I was under the impression (delusion?) that almost everyone else viewed it from the same perspective.“Wasn’t it inarguable that a supreme court justice should be held to the highest standard? A presidency you could win, but to be a supreme court justice, you needed to live your perfection. These nine people make decisions that affect every person in the country. I figured the application process should be as thorough as possible, and perhaps I could be a letter of (non)reference.”Ford also describes occasions on which she discussed the alleged attack as Kavanaugh rose to prominence. As well as conversations in therapy reported by the Post, she cites others triggered by high-profile events.Among such moments, Ford says, were the 1991 Thomas hearings in which Hill was brutally grilled by senators of both parties; a 2016 criminal case in which a Stanford swimmer was convicted of sexual assault but given a light sentence; and the #MeToo movement of 2017, in which women’s stories of sexual assault led to convictions of prominent men.After Kavanaugh was named as a potential supreme court nominee, Ford contacted Anna Eshoo, her Democratic California congresswoman, and the Post. She may have inadvertently leaked her identity, she writes, by contacting a tip line using her own phone. Either way, she was soon at the centre of a political hurricane.“I never, ever wanted [Kavanaugh’s] family to suffer,” Ford writes, adding: “When my allegations came out publicly, the media started reporting that he was getting threats. It troubled me a lot.“Then I remembered that I’d already had to move to a hotel because of the threats to me and my family. Again and again I thought, ‘Why is he putting us all through this? Why can’t he call those people off? Say something – anything – to condemn the harassment happening on both sides?”Kavanaugh, she writes, was at the mercy of rightwing interests pushing for his confirmation. Ultimately, she says, he should have expected “a thorough review of [his] entire history to be part of” becoming a justice.“If you can’t handle that,” Ford writes, “then maybe you’re not qualified for the job.” More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Robert Hur won’t rule out future Trump admin role and denies exonerating Biden – video

      by

      Special counsel Robert Hur said his report on declassified documents held by President Biden didn’t exonerate him, insisting ‘that is not a part of my task as a prosecutor’. Hur also didn’t rule out a possible future role in the Trump administration when pressed for an answer by Democratic congressman Eric Swalwell. ‘I’m not here to speak about what may or may not happen in the future,’ Hur told lawmakers More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel says he was doing his job when he criticized Biden’s memory

      by

      Robert Hur, the justice department special counsel assigned to report on Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, told Congress he was just doing his job when he shook up the US election campaign by criticizing the president’s apparent inability to recall certain events.In his report released in February, Hur, a Republican former US attorney under Donald Trump, recommended Biden not be charged for possessing classified documents. But he infuriated the president’s Democratic allies by making repeated references to Biden’s age and memory as one reason for not indicting him, saying jurors would see him “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.“My task was to determine whether the president retained or disclosed national defense information willfully,” Hur said in his opening remarks to the House judiciary committee. “I could not make that determination without assessing the president’s state of mind. For that reason, I had to consider the president’s memory and overall mental state, and how a jury likely would perceive his memory and mental state in a criminal trial.”He defended his comments about Biden’s recollections, saying: “I did not sanitize my explanation. Nor did I disparage the president unfairly. I explained to the attorney general my decision and the reasons for it. That’s what I was required to do.”Republicans are also unhappy with Hur’s finding that Biden should not be charged, arguing it was evidence of double standards at the justice department. A different special counsel, Jack Smith, has indicted Donald Trump for allegedly taking government secrets with him after leaving the White House and, unlike Biden, conspiring to keep them out of the hands of investigators. The justice department also decided last year not to bring charges against Trump’s former vice-president, Mike Pence, after classified documents were found at his home.Both men were appointed by Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, but operate independently, while justice department policy also prohibits the indictment of sitting presidents.The judiciary committee’s chair, Trump ally Jim Jordan, sought to focus public attention on Hur’s conclusion that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency”.“Mr Hur produced a 345-page report, but in the end, it boils down to a few key facts. Joe Biden kept classified information. Joe Biden failed to properly secure classified information. And Joe Biden shared classified information with people he wasn’t supposed to,” Jordan said as the hearing began.Jerrold Nadler, the committee’s top Democrat, focused on how the special counsel cleared the president, and noted his cooperation with the investigation.“The Hur report represents the complete and total exoneration of President Biden,” Nadler said.“And how does that record contrast with President Trump, the documents he retained and the criminal charges pending against him in Florida?” Nadler continued, recounting the details of the former president’s alleged hoarding of classified materials at his Mar-a-Lago resort.Trump is facing charges “not because of some vast conspiracy, not because the so-called deep state was out to get him, but because former president Trump was fundamentally incapable of taking advantage of even one of the many, many chances he was given to avoid those charges”, Nadler said.Hur made clear later on that he does not consider his report to be an “exoneration” of the president, saying “that is not a word that I used”.A transcript of Hur’s interview with Biden, which lasted for hours over several days, was released shortly before the hearing began, and shows the president fumbled occasionally with the sequence of events and certain dates, but otherwise was sharp throughout, and also corrected Hur and others when they made errors.The Democratic congressman Adam Schiff seized on Hur’s insistence that he did not “disparage” Biden, saying he did just that by including details of the president’s ability to recalls details in his report.“You chose a general pejorative reference to the president. You understood when you made that decision, didn’t you Mr Hur, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language, didn’t you?” Schiff asked.“Congressman, politics played no part whatsoever in my investigative steps,” Hur replied, saying he followed justice department policy in writing his report. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘New text, same problems’: inside the fight over child online safety laws

      by

      Sharp divisions between advocates for children’s safety online have emerged as a historic bill has gathered enough votes to pass in the US Senate. Amendments to the bill have appeased some former detractors who now support the legislation; its fiercest critics, however, have become even more entrenched in their demands for changes.The Kids Online Safety Act (Kosa), introduced more than two years ago, reached 60 backers in the Senate mid-February. A number of human rights groups still vehemently oppose the legislation, underscoring ongoing divisions among experts, lawmakers and advocates over how to keep young people safe online.“The Kids Online Safety Act is our best chance to address social media’s toxic business model, which has claimed far too many children’s lives and helped spur a mental health crisis,” said Josh Golin, the executive director of the children’s online safety group Fairplay.Opponents say alterations to the bill are not enough and that their concerns remain unchanged.“A one-size-fits-all approach to kids’ safety won’t keep kids safe,” said Aliya Bhatia, a policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “This bill still rests on the premise that there is consensus around the types of content and design features that cause harm. There isn’t, and this belief will limit young people from exercising their agency and accessing the communities they need to online.”What is the Kids Online Safety Act?Sponsored by the Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal and the Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn, Kosa would be the biggest change to American tech legislation in decades. The bill would require platforms like Instagram and TikTok to mitigate online dangers via design changes or opt-outs of algorithm-based recommendations, among other measures. Enforcement would demand much more fundamental modifications to social networks than current regulations require.When it was first introduced in 2022, Kosa prompted an open letter signed by more than 90 human rights organizations united in strong opposition. The groups warned the bill could be “weaponized” by conservative state attorneys general – who were charged with determining what content is harmful – to censor online resources and information for queer and trans youth or people seeking reproductive healthcare.In response to the critiques, Blumenthal amended the bill, notably shifting some enforcement decisions to the Federal Trade Commission rather than state attorneys general. At least seven LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations that previously spoke out against the bill dropped their opposition citing the “considerable changes” to Kosa that “significantly mitigate the risk of it being misused to suppress LGBTQ+ resources or stifle young people’s access to online communities”, including Glaad, the Human Rights Campaign and the Trevor Project.To the critics who now support Kosa, the amendments by Blumenthal solved the legislation’s major issues. However, the majority of those who signed the initial letter still oppose the bill, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, and the ACLU.“New bill text, same problems,” said Adam Kovacevich, chief executive of the tech industry policy coalition the Chamber of Progress, which is supported by corporate partners including Airbnb, Amazon, Apple and Snap. “The changes don’t address a lot of its potential abuses.” Snap and X, formerly Twitter, have publicly supported Kosa.Is Kosa overly broad or a net good?Kovacevich said the latest changes fail to address two primary concerns with the legislation: that vague language will lead social media platforms to over-moderate to restrict their liability, and that allowing state attorneys general to enforce the legislation could enable targeted and politicized content restriction even with the federal government assuming more of the bill’s authority.The vague language targeted by groups that still oppose the bill is the “duty of care” provision, which states that social media firms have “a duty to act in the best interests of a minor that uses the platform’s products or services” – a goal subject to an enforcer’s interpretation. The legislation would also require platforms to mitigate harms by creating “safeguards for minors”, but with little direction as to what content would be deemed harmful, opponents argue the legislation is likely to encourage companies to more aggressively filter content – which could lead to unintended consequences.“Rather than protecting children, this could impact access to protected speech, causing a chilling effect for all users and incentivizing companies to filter content on topics that disproportionately impact marginalized communities,” said Prem M Trivedi, policy director at the Open Technology Institute, which opposes Kosa.Trivedi said he and other opponents fear that important but charged topics like gun violence and racial justice could be interpreted as having a negative impact on young users, and be filtered out by algorithms. Many have expressed concern that LGBTQ+-related topics would be targeted by conservative regulators, leading to fewer available resources for young users who rely on the internet to connect with their communities. Blackburn, the bill’s sponsor, has previously stated her intention to “protect minor children from the transgender [sic] in this culture and that influence”.An overarching concern among opponents of the bill is that it is too broad in scope, and that more targeted legislation would achieve similar goals with fewer unintended impacts, said Bhatia.“There is a belief that there are these magic content silver bullets that a company can apply, and that what stands between a company applying those tools and not applying those tools is legislation,” she said. “But those of us who study the impact of these content filters still have reservations about the bill.”Many with reservations acknowledge that it does feature broadly beneficial provisions, said Mohana Mukherjee, visiting faculty at George Washington University, who has studied technology’s impact on teenagers and young adults. She said the bill’s inclusion of a “Kosa council” – a coalition of stakeholders including parents, academic experts, health professionals and young social media users to provide advice on how best to implement the legislation – is groundbreaking.“It’s absolutely crucial to involve young adults and youth who are facing these problems, and to have their perspective on the legislation,” she said.Kosa’s uncertain futureKosa is likely to be voted on in the Senate this session, but other legislation targeting online harms threatens its momentum. A group of senators is increasingly pushing a related bill that would ban children under the age of 13 from social media. Its author, Brian Schatz, has requested a panel that would potentially couple the bill with Kosa. Blumenthal, the author of Kosa, has cautioned that such a move could slow the passage of both bills and spoke out against the markup.“We should move forward with the proposals that have the broadest support, but at the same time, have open minds about what may add value,” he said, according to the Washington Post. “This process is the art of addition not subtraction often … but we should make sure that we’re not undermining the base of support.”The bill’s future in the House is likewise unclear. Other bills with similar purported goals are floating around Congress, including the Invest in Child Safety Act – a bill introduced by the Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and the representatives Anna G Eshoo and Brian Fitzpatrick – which would invest more than $5bn into investigating online sexual abusers.With so much legislation swirling around the floors of Congress, it’s unclear when – or if – a vote will be taken on any of them. But experts agree that Congress has at least begun trying to bolster children’s online safety.“This is an emotionally fraught topic – there are urgent online safety issues and awful things that happen to our children at the intersection of the online world and the offline world,” said Trivedi. “In an election year, there are heightened pressures on everyone to demonstrate forward movement on issues like this.” More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican senator renews push to make daylight savings permanent

      by

      As Americans pushed their clocks forward an hour Sunday to implement daylight savings, US senator James Lankford doubled down on his commitment to eliminating seasonal time changes, saying he wanted to abandon what he described as an antiquated first world war convention.The Republican lawmaker from Oklahoma said he was devoted to proverbially locking the clock through his Sunshine Act, which unanimously passed in the Senate but was not taken up by the House. Speaking with CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper on Sunday, Lankford said he wanted to “start the dialogue” back up partly because of an encounter with a military veteran who seemed to view ending daylight savings time as a dying wish.“As funny as this sounds, several years ago, I was walking in a Veterans Day parade, and a veteran … that was watching the parade, an older gentleman, gets up from his lawn chair – he actually walks into the parade route, shook my hand and said: ‘Before I die, would you end daylight savings time?’” Lankford recounted.“Of all the things I thought you would say to me today, that is not what I thought you would say,” Lankford recalled telling the veteran. “He said: ‘I hate it. I’m in my 80s. I want you to get rid of daylight savings time before I die.’”The politician said he assured the veteran he had a bill with fellow Republican US senator Marco Rubio to eliminate a time change that he said was “a relic” of the first world war, when the government wanted to add daylight hours to conserve energy.“We want to be able to lock this clock,” Lankford said to Tapper. “A lot of people are annoyed by it … Let’s actually flick our lights on, and we can do this.”Lankford alluded to how Arizona had chosen to stop moving its clocks up an hour in the spring and then back an hour in the fall. “They have done this for years, and, somehow, their kids are still getting to school on time, commerce is still happening,” Lankford said. “And today, in Arizona, they’re not – they’re not waking up with a clock that’s messed up.”Lankford’s comments come amid renewed discussion of daylight savings time and health. The American Heart Association recently said that there’s a “marked increase” in strokes and heart attacks in the days after clocks are set one hour ahead of standard time.The American Academy of Sleep Medicine has also called for abolishing seasonal time-changes due to its impact on circadian rhythms. “Mounting evidence shows the dangers of seasonal time changes, which have been linked to increased medical errors, motor vehicle accidents, increased hospital admissions and other problems,” the academy’s president, license clinical pscyhologist Jennifer Martin, said in a statement.Lankford’s criticism of the time-change came as he faced scrutiny from his own party over his efforts to secure passage of a failed bipartisan border security agreement. The Oklahoma county’s Republican party censured him Saturday, the Oklahoman reported.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe proposed measure would have meant the hiring of 1,500 more border security officers and agents, along with 100 more immigration judges as well as 4,300 more asylum officers to address a backlog of about 2m cases, the newspaper explained.When Joe Biden mentioned the proposed legislation during the State of the Union address on Thursday, Republicans booed. But Lankford appeared to mouth “that’s true” as the US president recounted what the bill would have accomplished. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US government avoids shutdown after Senate approves $460bn in spending

      by

      The US government has narrowly avoided a partial shutdown after senators approved a $460bn package of spending bills before a midnight deadline that would have shuttered many key federal agencies.The Senate approved the six funding bills, which passed the House on Wednesday in a bipartisan vote of 339-85, on Friday evening, a vote that gets lawmakers about halfway home in wrapping up their appropriations work for the 2024 budget year.The package now goes to Joe Biden to be signed into law. Meanwhile, lawmakers are negotiating a second package of six bills, including defense, in an effort to have all federal agencies fully funded by a 22 March deadline.The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 75-22, as the chamber labored to get to a final vote just hours before the midnight deadline.“To folks who worry that divided government means nothing ever gets done, this bipartisan package says otherwise,” said the senate majority leader Chuck Schumer.He said the bill’s passage would allow for the hiring of more air traffic controllers and rail safety inspectors, give federal firefighters a raise and boost support for unhoused veterans, among other things.Had the shutdown taken effect, funding would have been paused at midnight for the departments of agriculture, commerce, energy, housing and urban development, the interior, justice, transportation and veterans affairs.A similar short-term shutdown occurred in 2018, and it had little impact on government agencies because it concluded after under six hours.Senator Susan Collins, the top Republican on the Senate appropriations committee, took to the Senate floor on Friday to urge her colleagues to support the bills and prevent a shutdown.“Do we really want a veteran who has bravely and loyally served his country, and is now trying to file a claim for benefits, to find that the Veterans Benefits Administration’s doors are closed to him or her? Is that what we want to have happen?” Collins said. “Why in the world would we want to shut down government and stop serving the American people?”Collins noted that each of the six bills had been carefully considered by the appropriations committee, so she dismissed some of her colleagues’ complaints that they had not undergone an amendment process.“I would urge my colleagues to stop playing with fire here. The House, controlled by Republicans, passed these bills as a package – the six bills – with a very strong, bipartisan vote, with the majority of the majority voting for them,” Collins said.“It would be irresponsible for us not to clear these bills and do the fundamental job that we have of funding government. What is more important?” More

    • 250 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      State of the Union address 2024: Donald Trump labels Joe Biden’s speech ‘angry, polarizing and hate-filled’ – US politics live

      by

      Former President Donald Trump, during Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, sent a steady stream of messages blasting Biden on Truth Social.“He looks so angry when hes talking, which is a trait of people who know they are ‘losing it,’” Trump wrote. “The anger and shouting is not helpful to bringing our Country back together!”He added: “This was an angry, polarizing, and hate-filled Speech. He barely mentioned Immigration, or the Worst Border in the History of the World.“He will never fix Immigration, nor does he want to. He wants our Country to be flooded with Migrants. Crime will raise to levels never seen before, and it is happening very quickly!”Would it be a withered old man or a human dynamo? Would it be a rambling, gaffe-prone politician or an inspiring leader touched with fire? Would it be Geriatric Joe or Dark Brandon?Within the first few minutes of Thursday’s State of the Union address in Washington, millions of Americans had their answer. Joe Biden, 81, had brought the fight. But will it be enough?Read our US Politics Sketch here:U.S. Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, who delivered Republicans’ formal response to Biden, attacked him over immigration and the economy.The true, unvarnished State of our Union begins and ends with this: Our families are hurting. Our country can do better, she said.At 42, Britt is the youngest Republican woman ever to serve in the Senate and she attacked Biden over his age, telling viewers: “What we saw was the performance of a permanent politician who has actually been in office for longer than I’ve been alive.”The first-term Alabama senator was speaking on the heels of her state’s supreme court ruling that frozen embryos are ‘children’.Former President Donald Trump, during Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, sent a steady stream of messages blasting Biden on Truth Social.“He looks so angry when hes talking, which is a trait of people who know they are ‘losing it,’” Trump wrote. “The anger and shouting is not helpful to bringing our Country back together!”He added: “This was an angry, polarizing, and hate-filled Speech. He barely mentioned Immigration, or the Worst Border in the History of the World.“He will never fix Immigration, nor does he want to. He wants our Country to be flooded with Migrants. Crime will raise to levels never seen before, and it is happening very quickly!”As he spoke, the president was heckled by far-right Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. She demanded he say the name of Laken Riley, who is suspected to have been killed by an undocumented migrant.Biden, who usually wants nothing to do with Greene, took her up on the offer. Biden acknowledged Riley – and then, in a reference to efforts to reduce gun violence, referred to greater numbers of people killed in incidents unrelated to migrants in the country.President Joe Biden accused Donald Trump of trying to “bury the truth about January 6” in a fiery State of the Union speech.The Democrat leader accused Trump and Republicans of trying to rewrite history about the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot by the former president’s supporters seeking to overturn Biden’s 2020 victory.“My predecessor and some of you here seek to bury the truth about January 6. I will not do that,” Biden said, a signal that he will emphasize the issue during his re-election campaign. “You can’t love your country only when you win.”Here are other key moments from Biden’s speech:
      He opened by declaring democracy under threat at home and abroad and criticizing Trump, who he did not mention by name, for inviting Putin to invade NATO nations if they did not spend more on defense.
      The president said efforts to restrict abortion were an “assault on freedom”, and he derided the supreme court ruling that overturned Roe v Wade, with members of that court seated just feet away.
      Biden knocked Republicans for seeking to roll back healthcare provisions under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and driving up deficits, and jibed them for taking money from legislation they had opposed.
      He proposed new measures to lower housing costs, including a $10,000 (£7,807) tax credit for first-time homebuyers while boasting of U.S economic progress under his tenure.
      In a nod to Republican attacks over his age, Biden mentioned he was born during the second world war, but defended his vision for the country as fresh. “You can’t lead America with ancient ideas that only take us back.”
      Good morning, I will be bringing you all the most important US politics news as it happens today. More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden came out swinging at his State of the Union address – will it be enough?

      by

      Would it be a withered old man or a human dynamo? Would it be a rambling, gaffe-prone politician or an inspiring leader touched with fire? Would it be Geriatric Joe or Dark Brandon?Within the first few minutes of Thursday’s State of the Union address in Washington, millions of Americans had their answer. Joe Biden, 81, had brought the fight.The US president was feisty, fired up and possibly highly caffeinated. For over 68 minutes he shouted for America, let rip at Donald Trump and found artful ways to address concerns over his age. The more that Republicans heckled him and screamed “Liar!”, the more he fed off their energy and turned it against them.Indeed, for the second year running, Biden’s State of the Union address became more akin to Britain’s House of Commons – combative, electric, rowdy. Past American presidents could get away with reading from a teleprompter. Biden, supposedly old and sleepy, has made the event interactive and turns out to be looser with ad libs and quicker on his feet than any of them.Rarely has the State of the Union address doubled as a medical exam before a global audience, more about stamina than statistics, more about pep-in-your-step than policy.Biden hit the ground running with the topics likely to be his central pitch for November’s election. He accused Trump and Republicans of trying to rewrite history about the January 6 insurrection. “My predecessor and some of you here seek to bury the truth about January 6. I will not do that. You can’t love your country only when you win.”You had us at hello. The House speaker, Mike Johnson, shook his head and rolled his eyes.Biden also went after Trump for his comments inviting the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to invade Nato nations if they did not spend more on defence. “My predecessor, a former Republican president, tells Putin, quote, ‘Do whatever the hell you want.’ That’s a quote. A former president actually said that – bowing down to a Russian leader. I think it’s outrageous, it’s dangerous and it’s unacceptable.”Biden tackled reproductive rights, pledging to “restore Roe v Wade as the law of the land again” if Democrats regain control of Congress. There were rousing cheers from Democrats. Biden added that anyone “bragging about overturning Roe v Wade had no clue about the power of women, but they found out reproductive freedom was on the ballot. We won in 2020 and 2022 and we’ll win again in 2024.”Later some Republicans jeered as Biden said the bipartisan border bill would have included the “toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen”. He relished the challenge, shooting back: “Oh, you don’t like that bill, huh? That conservatives got together and said was a good bill? I’ll be darned … You’re saying no. Look at the facts. I know you know how to read.”Drawing another contrast with Trump, Biden also commented: “I will not demonise immigrants saying they are poison in the blood of our country.” (He did, however, make a reference to “an illegal”, attracting the ire of progressives in Congress.)Still, amid all the bantering and euphoria, there was Gaza. Biden’s motorcade took a different route from the White House to the US Capitol after protesters blocked part of Pennsylvania Avenue. Inside the House of Representatives chamber, some members wore keffiyehs, the black-and-white checkered scarves that have symbolised solidarity with Palestinians. Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush held up signs calling for a ceasefire.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBiden announced that the US military will build a port on Gaza’s Mediterranean coast to receive humanitarian assistance by sea. But he called on the Israelis to do more to alleviate the suffering even as they try to eliminate Hamas. “To Israel, I say this humanitarian assistance cannot be a secondary consideration or a bargaining chip.”He spoke with compassion about the plight of Palestinians but did not urge a “permanent ceasefire” policy shift that demonstrators crave – that threat to his re-election remains.Thursday’s audience included George Santos, expelled from Congress, and a man wearing Trump’s mug shot emblazoned on his shirt. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene sported a red “Make America great again” cap and a “Say her name” shirt referring to Laken Riley, a student murdered last month, allegedly by an undocumented immigrant.Biden stumbled over a few words but on big occasions like this tends to benefit from the soft bigotry of low expectations on the age question. First elected to the Senate in 1972, he took aim at Trump again: “Now some other people my age see a different story: an American story of resentment, revenge and retribution. That’s not me.”It was a far cry from Trump’s bleak, subdued victory speech at Mar-a-Lago on Super Tuesday. When it was over, glum Republicans bolted for the door while Democrats mobbed Biden as if he had just won the Super Bowl. “No one’s gonna call you cognitively impaired now,” Congressman Jerry Nadler told him. Biden quipped: “I kinda wish sometimes I was cognitively impaired.” Another congressman said: “You had the Irish fire tonight!” But will we love you tomorrow? More