US Congress

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Searching for the perfect republic: Eric Foner on the 14th amendment – and if it might stop Trump

      by

      The 14th amendment was passed in 1868, to settle important matters arising from the civil war, including how we define equality before the law. Ever since, it has served as the foundation for one landmark supreme court decision after another, from Brown v Board of Education (1954), which banned segregation in public schools, to Obergefell v Hodges (2015), which legalized gay marriage.In recent times, a little-known feature has come into sharp focus. Six days after the January 6 Capitol attack, Eric Foner, a historian of the US civil war and the Reconstruction era, argued that section 3 of the amendment forbids an “officer of the United States” from holding office if he or she has sworn an oath to the constitution, then participated in an “insurrection or rebellion”.That could mean Donald Trump is ineligible to hold public office.The matter is now before the states. In September, New Hampshire’s secretary of state refused to intervene. On 8 November, Minnesota’s supreme court rejected an attempt to prevent Trump from running. On 14 November, a judge in Michigan dismissed a lawsuit that tried to exclude Trump. But other states will be reckoning with the issue in the weeks ahead, including Colorado.To better understand the origin of the 14th amendment, and its ongoing relevance to 2024, Foner sat down with Ted Widmer, another civil war historian. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.Ted Widmer: The 14th amendment has been in the news a lot lately. Can you remind us why this particular amendment holds so much sway?Eric Foner: The 14th amendment is the most important amendment added to the constitution since the Bill of Rights in 1791. It’s an attempt by the victorious north, the Republican party in the aftermath of the civil war, to put its understanding of that war into the constitution.It is also the longest amendment. They tried to deal with everything that was on the political agenda in 1865, 1866. It deals with many specific issues, such as ensuring that southern enslavers are not going to get monetary compensation. Or that – and this is in the news today – that if you take an oath of allegiance to the constitution, and then you engage in insurrection, you are barred from holding political office in the United States.On the other hand, the 14th amendment also contains the first section, which is a series of principles arising from the end of slavery, beginning with birthright citizenship, that all persons born in the US are automatically citizens of the US. Although there’s an exclusion of Native Americans, who are still at that point considered citizens of their tribal nation, not the US. Also in the first section, “equal protection of the law”, that no state can deny to any person, not just citizens, the equal protections of the law – this was a fundamental change in American politics and society.Can you elaborate?No state gave Black people full equality before the law before the Reconstruction era and the 14th amendment. What equal protection actually means in practice is certainly open to debate. And it has been debated ever since 1868, when the amendment was ratified. There are key supreme court decisions over the last century – whether it’s outlawing racial segregation, establishing the right to terminate a pregnancy, “one man, one vote”, and many others – [that] have rested on the 14th amendment. My basic point is this: to borrow a modern phrase, I think the 14th amendment should be seen as a form of “regime change”. It’s an attempt to change the regime in the United States. It’s not a minor little change in the political system. It’s to change a pro-slavery regime, which is what we had before the civil war, to one based on equality, regardless of race. A fundamental change.This is what the civil war has accomplished. It has destroyed slavery, and it has created a new political system, which views all persons in the US as entitled to some modicum of equality.What is the immediate context of the passage of the 14th amendment? What were they trying to address?Well, the immediate context was what we call the Reconstruction era, the period immediately after the civil war, when the country was trying to come to terms with the consequences of the war, the most important of which were the destruction of slavery and the unity of the nation. As I mentioned, there were specific issues, which really have very little bearing on our political life today, although they keep popping up. For example, part of the 14th amendment says the government has to pay its debt: if it borrows money, selling bonds, it has to pay them off when they become due. This lay there pretty much unremarked for a long time. But lately with the debates over the debt ceiling, it’s back in the news again.But the fundamental issue was: what was going to be the status of the 4 million former slaves, who were now free citizens? Were they going to enjoy equality, were they going to have the right to vote, which was critical in a democracy? Were they going to be able to hold public office? What about economic equality, would they enjoy anything like that? The 14th amendment tries to deal with that in various ways. There are five sections, all of them relate back and forth to each other.Even though Abraham Lincoln was no longer alive, does it reflect his thinking?A constitutional amendment is the only legislative measure in which the president has no role whatsoever. The president cannot veto a constitutional amendment the way he can veto a piece of normal legislation. In fact, when the 13th amendment was passed, irrevocably abolishing slavery in the US, Lincoln worked to get it ratified, and he signed a copy of it as a symbol of his support. He got a handwritten copy of the 13th amendment, approved by Congress, and he signed it, whereupon Congress said, “You can’t sign this, President Lincoln, because the president has no role in the passage of the amendment. You’re trampling on our powers.”Didn’t know that.Yeah, they got annoyed when he signed it. Signing it didn’t make it legal or illegal. It becomes part of the constitution when it’s ratified by Congress and by a sufficient number of states.But the point is, Lincoln was a mainstream Republican. He was a great man, a brilliant writer and speaker, but he was also a party man. And the 14th amendment was approved by almost every Republican in Congress. There is no question Lincoln would have approved it. Also, Lincoln did not get into big fights with Congress the way some presidents have. So I think the basic principle, equality before the law, Lincoln had come to approve that during the civil war. He didn’t really hold that view before the civil war. But there’s no question in my mind that if Lincoln had not been assassinated, and was still president, he would have happily urged Congress to support the 14th amendment.Is birthright citizenship a uniquely American concept?Well, that is another complex and important issue and something that is back on the political agenda today. Is it uniquely American? No, it’s not. There are other countries that also automatically make you a citizen.But the point of birthright citizenship is it’s very important in the constitution to have this. It’s basically a statement that anybody can be a citizen. We are not a country based on a single religion, we are not a country based on a single political outlook, we are not a country with an official sort of set of doctrines that you have to adhere to. We’re not a country with an ethnic identity. A person of German ancestry born in Russia could automatically be a citizen of Germany, just by that ethnic identity. But the child of a guest worker, born in Germany, is not automatically a citizen of Germany.So birthright citizenship is an important consequence of the civil war. And of course, it had been deeply debated before then. Just before the civil war, in 1857, the supreme court in the Dred Scott decision ruled that no Black person could be a citizen. There were half a million free Black people. They were born in the US, most of them, and they could never be a citizen.The first section of the 14th amendment abrogates the Dred Scott decision, and creates a national standard for who is a citizen. The original constitution mentioned citizens, but it didn’t say who exactly they are, or what are the qualifications for being a citizen. So this clears up an ambiguity of the constitution and establishes a basic principle, equality, as fundamental to American life.Does that mean between Dred Scott in 1857 and the 14th amendment in 1868 that African Americans, even if they had liberated themselves and fought in the union army, were not citizens?Well, the Republican party and Lincoln had repudiated the Dred Scott decision on paper. Even as early as 1862, the attorney general, Edward Bates, issued a ruling saying Dred Scott was wrong.But what you said is true, it’s the 14th amendment that creates Black citizenship as a constitutional principle. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 established it in national law. By then 200,000 Black men had fought in the civil war. They were almost universally considered to be citizens. If you would fight and die for the nation, they’re not going to say after the war, “You can’t be a citizen.”Dred Scott destroyed the reputation of the supreme court in the north. During the secession crisis, nobody said, “Let’s let the supreme court decide this.”Unlike the Declaration of Independence, or the constitution, whose signers are well known, the 14th amendment is more anonymous. Who were the principal authors?It was written by the joint committee on Reconstruction, a 15-member body set up by Congress to figure out what laws and constitutional amendments were necessary to enforce the verdict of the civil war.My book The Second Founding begins by saying exactly what your question says. People have heard of James Madison, “father of the constitution”. They have heard of Alexander Hamilton, for reasons we know nowadays. These are people who were critical in writing the constitution.But who remembers John Bingham, the congressman from Ohio, who was more responsible than anyone else for the first section of the 14th amendment, about the federal government having the power to prevent states from denying Americans equality? We don’t remember Thaddeus Stevens, the great radical Republican from Pennsylvania who was the floor leader in the House, who did more than anyone else to get the 14th amendment ratified. We don’t remember James Howard, from Michigan, who got it through the Senate. In other words, the 14th amendment is not seen as fundamental to our constitutional system, whereas, of course, the original constitution is.So what I say in my book is, we’ve got to think of these people as like the founding fathers. This was a refounding of the nation, and the people who were critical in that deserve to be remembered.Were there parts that could have been written more clearly?The writing was in two modes. One was very clear. If you loaned money to the Confederacy, it’s never going to be repaid. That’s a highly specific point. But the language of the first section of the 14th amendment is much more ambiguous or general. Equal protection of the law. All citizens are entitled to due process of law. People cannot be denied life, liberty and property without due process of law.The language might have been clearer. But John Bingham wanted it to be ambiguous. What issues relating to the political equality of race relations would get on to the national agenda in the next 10, 50 or 100 years? He wanted to have a general set of principles which could be applied when necessary, and in fact, the fifth section, the final section of the 14th amendment, specifically states, “Congress shall have the power to enforce” this amendment. What does it mean to enforce the equal protection of the law? Well, that’s for the courts and the Congress and others to decide. So the language could have been clearer, but I’m not sure it would have been better if it were clearer. They wanted it to be ambiguous to leave room for future action.In other words, they thought this was not the end of Reconstruction. This was just one step toward creating what Thaddeus Stevens called “the perfect republic”, which they wanted to build on the ashes of slavery.Love that phrase.That’s Stevens’ speech, before the House. You know, the 14th amendment was a compromise. There were radical Republicans, conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans. And they hammered out a series of compromises. But Stevens, who was a real radical, also knew when you had to compromise. In his final speech before Congress, before the 14th amendment was ratified, he said, “Yeah, I had always hoped that when we could get out from under the power of slavery, we could create this perfect republic that the founders tried to, but failed to, because they allowed slavery.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut that dream has vanished, he said. The perfect republic is never really achieved, in any human endeavor. So, yeah, that’s what they were trying to do. Erase the mistakes of the founders, when it came to slavery, and remake the republic.Could the 14th amendment have passed if Congress had not taken a strong stand against seating southerners?The passage of the 14th amendment is interesting. Immediately after the civil war, Congress said, “We’re not letting the southern states back in quite yet.” They cannot vote on whether to ratify the three Reconstruction amendments. So the vote in Congress was only among northerners. If the south had had all the congressmen it normally did, the 14th amendment would never have been ratified. You need a two-thirds vote in Congress, and three-quarters of the states. It’s a very high bar to amend the constitution.But another aspect of this is, could it have passed the states? When the 14th amendment is first passed by Congress, President Andrew Johnson’s plan of Reconstruction is still in effect. Johnson had set up all-white racist governments in the south. They were still in power. And they all voted not to ratify the 14th amendment, every one of the southern states except Tennessee. They did not want Congress establishing this principle of equality for Black Americans.Congress got so infuriated that in 1867, they abolished those governments. They said, “We are going to give Black men the right to vote.” They hadn’t done that at the beginning of Reconstruction. They’re going to set up new state governments in the south, and those governments are going to ratify the 14th amendment. They ordered them to ratify it. And the way they guaranteed it was to allow Black men to vote. New governments were set up, biracial governments. For the first time in American history, Black and white men were sitting in legislatures, voting on laws, holding public office. This was a radical change in American democracy. And with those new governments, in which Black people for the first time had a voice, the southern states ratified the 14th amendment. So how the 14th amendment was ratified is irregular compared to most other amendments.Why was section 3 added?Section 3 is one part of the amendment that has been almost completely ignored until the last couple of years. It doesn’t apply to all southern whites, or even most of them, but to anyone who held an office before the civil war, who took an oath of allegiance to the constitution. That would mean people who served in the military or held some kind of public office. Even a postmaster has to take an oath to the constitution. The purpose was to eliminate the old ruling class of the south from public office. It was to create a space where new governments could come into being which would approve of the principles of the 14th amendment. They did not deny the right to vote to ex-Confederate leaders. But they did deny the right to hold office.It was almost never enforced. There are only a few examples of this amendment being enforced during Reconstruction. A couple of local officials were disqualified from office because they had held an office before the civil war then served in the Confederate army. In other words, they gave aid to insurrection after having pledged allegiance to the constitution. I think there were a couple in Tennessee. But basically, Congress gave an amnesty after a few years to just about everybody that this covered.And in the first world war, a socialist member of Congress, Victor Berger, was convicted under the Espionage Act. If you criticized the American participation, you could be put in jail. Congress expelled him under the third clause of the 14th amendment. In other words, he pledged allegiance to the constitution and was now convicted of what they called espionage. It wasn’t actually spying, it was really just opposing the war. But then the supreme court overturned the conviction and Congress let him back in.In the last year or two, this has become a major issue in relation to Donald Trump. Depending on how you analyze it, Trump took an oath to support the constitution – obviously, when he was sworn in as president – but gave aid to insurrection. If you consider the events of 6 January 2021 an insurrection. He tried to overturn a governmental process, tried to prevent the legitimate election of a president.There have been lawsuits in a number of states to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024. Thus far, none has succeeded. Some are pending. A couple of cases have come up about lesser officials who took part in the events of January 6. And in fact, a guy in New Mexico, a county commissioner, was ordered out of office by a court on the grounds that he was barred by the third section of the 14th amendment.A congressman in North Carolina, Madison Cawthorn, faced claims that he could not serve. It became moot because he lost his primary. But there was a court that did say that it was a legitimate question whether he could serve if elected, because he had been there taking part in the events of January 6.So it’s on the agenda now. But there is no jurisprudence really related to section 3. Nobody knows what the supreme court would say. Some people say you would need a judicial ruling. How do you know that a guy participated? It’s like you’re convicting him without a trial. But on the other hand, others say, no, this is just a qualification for office. This is not a criminal trial.Being barred from office is not a criminal punishment. It’s one of the qualifications for office. For example, let’s say somebody was elected president who was under the age of 35. The constitution says you have to be 35. Let’s say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected president. Not likely, but she’s a well-known figure in politics. Well, she couldn’t serve because she’s under 35. And a court or somebody would just have to say, “I’m sorry, you don’t meet the qualifications here.” I am not a law professor. Neither I nor anyone else knows what the courts would decide. But in actuality the 14th amendment says it’s Congress that enforces the 14th amendment, not the supreme court. They didn’t want the court involved because of Dred Scott.The final section of the amendment says, “Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.” Would Congress have to declare somebody having participated in insurrection? I don’t know. But this was brought up including by me about two years ago, in the op-ed, in the Washington Post, after the insurrection of January 6.There was an effort to impeach President Trump, but it didn’t succeed. But I pointed out you don’t need impeachment, which requires a two-thirds vote to convict in the Senate. If you really want to keep Trump out of office because of his actions on January 6, you could do it through the third section of the 14th amendment.Certainly, regarding a president, there is no precedent. But the third section has never been repealed. So there it is.Did the 1872 Amnesty Act supersede section 3?That’s been brought up. The 14th amendment also says Congress can eliminate this punishment or disability by a two-thirds vote. In 1872, in the run-up to the presidential election of that year, Congress did pass a general Amnesty Act, which saved almost all prominent Confederates.Now, some people say that eliminated section 3, and therefore it can’t be enforced. But that’s not the case. You can let people off from one punishment, but it didn’t say this section is no longer applicable. It said that a whole lot of people would no longer be punished as part of an effort to bring about sectional reconciliation. The Amnesty Act doesn’t necessarily repeal a previous measure unless it says the previous measure is automatically repealed.How has section 3 been interpreted since Reconstruction?It has barely been interpreted. There have been only a handful of cases. There’s almost no jurisprudence related to it, which is one of the reasons Congress has been reluctant to enforce it. Joe Biden has said he doesn’t really want to get into this. It would guarantee a prolonged legal battle if you tried to enforce section 3 against Trump. Enforcing it against the county commissioner in New Mexico probably didn’t raise a lot of animosity. But it has happened. So there is a bit of jurisprudence, but not enough that a court could easily say, “Here’s the precedent, this is what we’ve done in the past.”Is the president “an officer of the United States”?Again, because there’s no jurisprudence, it hasn’t been decided. A couple of prominent conservative law professors wrote an article saying section 3 is on the books and can be enforced. Then they changed their mind. And they said the president is not an officer of the United States. So it does apply to all sorts of other offices. But not the president.This has never been exactly determined, but it certainly seems the normal understanding of the term “officer” is someone holding office. The president certainly holds office. When the constitution was ratified, there was no president. The previous constitution, the Articles of Confederation, didn’t have a president. There was no executive officer. It was only the Congress. So it’s unclear. They added the president as someone who could execute the laws. But I don’t see how you can eliminate the president or exclude the president from this language. If you take the whole of section 3, I think it’s pretty clear that they are trying to keep out of office anybody who committed the acts that section 3 describes. But again, it’s complicated.Did the events of January 6 constitute “an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution”?They certainly tried to a halt a constitutional procedure, the counting of the electoral votes. One of the more bizarre parts of our constitution, actually, but nonetheless, it’s there.What is your definition of insurrection or rebellion? You know, this gets into a question we actually haven’t talked about, which is very important in relation to the 14th amendment, which is the notion that you can clearly ascertain the original meaning, or the original intention of a law or a constitutional provision or something like that, and that the constitution should be interpreted according to the original meaning of the people who wrote the provision, or the original intention.This notion that you can ascertain, clearly, the original intention is absolutely absurd. No important document in history has one intention, or one meaning. Particularly the 14th amendment, it was written with compromises, with 8-7 votes in the joint committee. It was ratified by hundreds of members of state legislatures. Who can tell us exactly what the intention is? It is a legitimate historical question to ask, what were they trying to accomplish? But that’s a little different than saying what was their intention, at least in the legal realm.Yes, historians are always trying to figure out, why did they write and ratify the 14th amendment? In a way, that’s an intention question.But to answer that question, unfortunately, justices have a way of going purely to debates in Congress. They do not look at the general historical context. The meaning of the 14th amendment was debated and argued and fought out at all levels of society.One of my favorite quotations from this period comes from Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the great advocate of women’s rights. She said, during Reconstruction, I’m paraphrasing, “The basic principles of our government were debated at every level of society, in Congress, in the pulpits, in schools, at every fireside.” I love that. In other words, even in their homes, people are debating the issues around the 14th amendment. There is no one single intent that you can locate in that gigantic discussion about constitutional issues, which accompanied the ratification of the 14th amendment. So I think, as most historians would say, it’s a pointless test to try to identify one single intention.Wouldn’t the legal challenges take longer than the election itself?Yes, the legal challenges would take a long time, and it would be weird if Trump is elected next fall, then a year into his term of office he’s evicted because he doesn’t meet the qualifications. We saw how Trump reacted to actually losing an election. But now, if he won and then was kicked out of office, that would certainly be a red flag in front of a bull.
      Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton professor emeritus of history at Columbia University, is a Pulitzer prize-winning author whose most recent book is The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution
      Ted Widmer is a distinguished lecturer at the Macaulay Honors College, City University of New York, and a former special assistant to President Bill Clinton. His most recent book is Lincoln on the Verge: Thirteen Days to Washington More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      House Democratic leadership will support Johnson stopgap bill to avert shutdown – US politics live

      by

      House Democratic leadership have released a joint statement to support the resolution to avert the government shutdown:
      House Democrats have repeatedly articulated that any continuing resolution must be set at the fiscal year 2023 spending level, be devoid of harmful cuts and free of extreme right-wing policy riders. The continuing resolution before the House today meets that criteria and we will support it.”
      Earlier, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said he and the White House support the resolution.The full statement from House Democratic leaders here:A Michigan judge rejected an effort to remove Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot, a blow to advocates who were arguing that his role in the January 6 insurrection made him ineligible for the presidency.The AP reports that James Redford, a court of claims judge in the key swing state, has ruled that the former president will remain on the ballot:
      Redford wrote that, because Trump followed state law in qualifying for the primary ballot, he cannot remove the former president. Additionally, he said, it should be up to Congress to decide whether Trump is disqualified under a section of the US constitution’s 14th amendment that bars from office a person who ‘engaged in insurrection’.
      Redford’s further wrote, “The judicial action of removing a candidate from the presidential ballot and prohibiting them from running essentially strips Congress of its ability to ‘by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such a disability.’”The effort to disqualify Trump was citing a civil war-era constitutional clause.Earlier analysis from our voting rights reporter Sam Levine here:The House of Representatives is expected to vote within the next hour on new speaker Mike Johnson’s unconventional two-tier funding bill that will keep the government operating beyond the current shutdown deadline of Friday.Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has expressed confidence the bill will pass, despite a declaration by the 50-strong House Freedom Caucus that it does not support it. The speaker told reporters earlier that there appears to be enough of a groundswell of members on either side of the aisle who want to get a deal done and “get home” for next week’s Thanksgiving holiday.The bill was filed under an expedited process that removes certain procedural obstacles but requires a two-thirds majority of House members – 290 votes – to pass.I’m handing over the blog to my colleague Sam Levin on the west coast to guide you through the rest of the day. Thanks for joining me.While we wait for the vote, here’s Lauren Gambino’s report of what to expect, and why Johnson says he’s confident of passing his first real test as speaker.A person connected to the fabulist New York congressman George Santos pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a charge of wire fraud relating to the politician’s campaign finances.Samuel Miele, 27, pleaded guilty in federal court in Islip to impersonating a House staffer while soliciting funds for Santos, the New York Times reported.Last month Nancy Marks, a former aide to Santos, pleaded guilty to embellishing campaign finance reports with fake loans and donors.Santos is facing a House ethics committee investigation, and survived a House vote to expel him earlier this month.He has pleaded not guilty to 23 federal charges accusing him of multiple frauds, including making tens of thousands of dollars in unauthorized charges on credit cards belonging to some of his campaign donors.Miele’s lawyer, Kevin Marino, said that his client accepted responsibility but declined to say whether the plea included an agreement with federal prosecutors to testify against Santos, the Times reported.The “elbowgate” episode involving former speaker Kevin McCarthy wasn’t the only hint of violence on Capitol Hill on Tuesday: a heated discussion in a Senate committee almost turned into a physical fight after a verbal argument escalated between Oklahoma Republican Markwayne Mullin and Teamsters president Sean O’Brien.During a hearing for the Senate’s Help (health, education, labor and pensions) panel, Mullin began reading a social media post in which O’Brien had criticized him.“Quit[e] the tough guy act in these senate hearings. You know where to find me. Anyplace, Anytime cowboy,” O’Brien had written, according to Politico.“This is a time, this is a place to run your mouth. We can be two consenting adults, we can finish it here,” Mullin said before standing up from his chair to confront O’Brien.“You want to do it now?” Mullin demanded, to which O’Brien said he did. Both then taunted each other to “stand your butt up”.“You’re a United States senator. Sit down please,” committee chair Bernie Sanders chided Mullin, and urged the pair to focus on the economic issues at hand. The argument lasted several minutes.Politico has video of the confrontation here.Matt Gaetz, the architect of Kevin McCarthy’s downfall as speaker, has now filed an ethics complaint against him over this morning’s alleged assault on Tennessee congressman Tim Burchett.The firebrand Florida congressman, leader of the group of eight Republicans who sided with Democrats to oust McCarthy last month, says there’s “substantial evidence” that the California lawmaker breached an obligation to act with decorum.“This incident deserves immediate and swift investigation by the ethics committee,” Gaetz wrote, reported on X, formerly Twitter, by Politico reporter Olivia Beavers.“While Rep Burchett is within his rights to decline to press charges against Rep McCarthy, [the House ethics] committee does have a duty to investigate breaches of the binding code of official conduct, whose first rule is that ‘a member … shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House’.“There is substantial evidence Rep McCarthy breached this duty.”Gaetz, one of the brashest and loudest members of the Republican House caucus, claims that he himself has “been a victim of outrageous conduct on the House floor as well, but nothing like an open and public assault on a member committed by another member”.Joe Biden won’t be afraid to take on Chinese president Xi Jinping “where confrontation is needed” during their meeting on Wednesday, the White House says, but is confident of a productive bilateral summit addressing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.The two leaders will talk during the Asia-Pacific economic cooperation (Apec) summit in San Francisco and have a “full agenda”, John Kirby, strategic communications coordinator for the national security council just told reporters aboard Air Force One:
      These are two leaders that know each other well, [have] known each other a long, long time. They can be frank and forthright with one another. I fully expect that that’ll be the case.
      The table has been set over the course of many weeks for what, what we hope will be a very productive, candid and constructive conversation here. The president wants to make sure that we’re handling this most consequential of bilateral relationships in the most responsible way forward.
      Kirby wouldn’t be drawn on exactly what the discussions will look like, but expanded on “confronting” Xi where Biden thought fit:
      He means to compete with China. He’s coming into this discussion with the wind at his back from an economic perspective. We think the US well poised in that competition with China.
      He’s not going to be afraid to confront where confrontation is needed on certain issues where we don’t see eye to eye with President Xi and the PRC, but we’re also not going to be afraid, nor should we be afraid, as a competent nation to engage in diplomacy on ways which we can cooperate with China on climate change, for instance, and clean energy technology. There’s going to be an awful lot on the agenda.
      Other areas of possible cooperation, Kirby said, were Ukraine and Israel:
      The president will make clear that we’re going to continue to support Ukraine against Russia’s aggression, and that China could play a role here in helping us support Ukraine but also to helping advance [Ukraine president Volodymyr] Zelenskiy’s vision of a just peace here for when the conflict is over.
      I won’t speak for the Chinese but I have every expectation that the fighting in Ukraine will come up.
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has begun her “gaggle” with reporters aboard Air Force One.Jean-Pierre began by sharing achievements made by the Biden administration on climate change, including Biden signing legislation on climate action as well as protecting lands and waters.Jean-Pierre’s announcements comes after a new federal report shows that climate change is impacting every area of the US and will worsen in the next 10 years.The report also details that extreme weather events are happening every three weeks, costing the US $1bn.Read more on the federal report here.House Democrats seem prepared to help the GOP spending bill pass amid faltering support from far-right Republicans, Politico reports.In a private meeting on Tuesday, the House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries outlined why the spending bill was a win for Democratic party, highlighting that the bill did not come with spending cuts or any “poison pill” additions, Politico reported.Other ranking House members have similarly colored the bill as a win for Democrats given the lack of cuts or attempts to insert Republican legislative priorities.“I think those are very significant wins for us,” Washington representative Pramila Jayapal said to Politico, noting that the bill did not contain cuts or other insertions.Jeffries did not instruct members on how to vote for the bill, which is scheduled for a floor vote on Tuesday afternoon.But many Democrats have privately noted that support for the GOP spending bill could be high, as members of the Republican House Freedom Caucus have opposed the measure.Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer has said that he and the White House support the stopgap funding bill, as the deadline to avoid a shutdown approaches.Schumer told reporters on Tuesday that the bill achieves the main aim of avoiding a government shutdown, Politico reported.“We all want to avoid a shutdown. I talked to the White House and both of us agree, the White House and myself, that if this can avoid a shutdown it’ll be a good thing,” Schumer said to reporters.Schumer added that the latest bill also does not cut spending, a demand coming from far-right representatives.It’s lunchtime, so time to take stock of where we are on a busy Tuesday in US politics:
      Mike Johnson, the House speaker, says he’s “confident” his bill that would keep the government funded and open beyond 17 November will pass a vote scheduled for about 4.20pm ET. The Louisiana Republican made a case to colleagues that the “clean” bill he’s proposing will allow the party to “stay in the fight” for spending battles ahead.
      But the House Freedom Caucus, an alliance of about 50 hard-line Republicans, said it cannot support the bill, leaving Johnson dependent on support from Democrats to get it over the finish line.
      Former speaker Kevin McCarthy, ousted last month by rebel Republicans for working with Democrats to pass the previous stopgap funding bill, elbowed one of them in a hallway assault, one of them claims. Tim Burchett of Tennessee says McCarthy gave him a sharp dig in the kidney then ran off with his security detail. McCarthy denies the allegation.
      Joe Biden is on his way to San Francisco and a meeting with China’s premier Xi Jinping at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.
      At the White House earlier, Biden unveiled a $6bn package of spending to bolster climate resilience, coinciding with the release of the government’s fifth annual national climate assessment.
      Still to come: White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and strategic communications coordinator to the National Security Council John Kirby will “gaggle” with reporters aboard Air Force One en route to the west coast.Former speaker Kevin McCarthy, accused of a devious elbow in the back of Tennessee congressman Tim Burchett earlier Tuesday, has form, it seems.The ousted Republican delivered more than one “shoulder charge” on another rebel who displeased him, the former Illinois congressman Adam Kinzinger, according to a book Kinzinger released last month.In it, he calls the California lawmaker “notably juvenile” for his treatment of Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman who like Kinzinger served on the 6 January House committee investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.And he detailed two times he says McCarthy physically “checked” him, “as soon as I started speaking the truth about the president who would be king,” Kinzinger wrote.“Once, I was standing in the aisle that runs from the floor to the back of the [House] chamber. As he passed, with his security man and some of his boys, he veered towards me, hit me with his shoulder and then kept going.“Another time, I was standing at the rail that curves around the back of the last row of seats in the chamber. As he shoulder-checked me again, I thought to myself, ‘What a child.’”McCarthy has denied he elbowed Burchett, one of eight Republicans who voted to oust him from the speaker’s chair last month. But the circumstances of that alleged assault and the ones Kinzinger describes in his book are almost identical: a sharp dig then scurrying off with his security detail.McCarthy, Kinzinger said, is “an attention-seeking high school senior who readily picked on anyone who didn’t fall in line”.Joe Biden has just boarded Air Force One at Maryland’s Join Base Andrews, on his way to the Asia-Pacific economic cooperation (Apec) summit in San Francisco.While he’s in California, the president will meet Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to try to allay growing tensions between the two nations as global conflicts flare in Ukraine and Gaza.The Guardian’s Amy Hawkins says their meeting, which could last several hours, is the culmination of months of lower level dialogues which took place over the summer, with Washington sending more delegates to China than Beijing did to the US.Read more: More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Sanders intervenes after Republican senator challenges union boss to fight

      by

      An Oklahoma senator and a union boss squared off in a congressional hearing on Tuesday, each daring the other to “stand your butt up” and fight in an exchange the chair of the Senate labor committee, Bernie Sanders, struggled to contain.“Sit down!” Sanders shouted at Markwayne Mullin, the Republican on the dais beside him. “You’re a United States senator!”Mullin, 46, called Sean O’Brien, president of the Teamsters union, a “thug”.O’Brien, 51, said Mullin was acting like “a schoolyard bully”.Sanders, 82, banged his gavel in vain.The face-off began when Mullin read out a tweet O’Brien sent earlier this year, after another committee-room confrontation.In the tweet, O’Brien called Mullin a “greedy [chief executive] who pretends like he’s self-made. In reality, just a clown and fraud. Always has been, always will be. Quit the tough guy act in these Senate hearings. You know where to find me. Anyplace, Anytime cowboy. #LittleManSyndrome.”Before entering Congress, Mullin made his money in plumbing. He is also a former cage fighter who in 2021 had to reassure voters he did not think he was Rambo, after trying to enter Afghanistan during the US withdrawal.In his initial response to O’Brien’s tweet, Mullin offered to fight him for charity. In Tuesday’s hearing, Mullin finished reading the tweet, then told O’Brien: “You want to run your mouth? We can be two consenting adults, we can finish it here.”O’Brien said: “OK, that’s fine, perfect. I’d love to do it right now.”Mullin said: “Then stand your butt up then.”O’Brien said: “You stand your butt up.”Mullin stood his butt up – and began to advance.Sanders took action, shouting: “No, no, sit down! Sit down! You’re a United States senator!”Mullin sat down.The two men continued to squabble, Sanders banging his gavel.O’Brien said: “Can I respond?”Sanders said: “No, you can’t. This is a hearing. And God knows the American people have enough contempt for Congress, let’s not make it worse.”Elsewhere on Capitol Hill on Tuesday a Republican congressman from Tennessee, Tim Burchett, took “a clean shot to the kidneys” from the speaker he helped eject last month, Kevin McCarthy of California, as a reporter watched.The Senate labor committee hearing continued to descend into disorder, Mullin saying: “I don’t like thugs and bullies.”O’Brien said: “I don’t like you, because you just described yourself.”Sanders banged his gavel again, cueing Mullin to speak.“All right,” Mullin said. “Let’s do this because I did challenge you and I accepted your challenge. And you went quiet.”O’Brien said: “I didn’t go quiet. You challenged me to a cage match, acting like a 12-year-old schoolyard bully.”Sanders intervened again.“If you have questions on any economic issues, anything, go for it,” he said. “We’re not here to talk about physical abuse.”Mullin said he wanted “to expose this thug for who he is”.O’Brien said: “Do not point at me, that’s disrespectful.”Mullin said: “I don’t care about respecting you at all.”O’Brien said: “I don’t respect you at all.”Shouting, “Hold it, no,” Sanders banged his hammer again.Outside, public approval ratings for Congress and its members continued their downward march. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republican praises January 6 attacker’s ‘good faith and core principles’

      by

      Seeking leniency for a January 6 rioter charged with assaulting police, the Louisiana Republican congressman Clay Higgins – a former law enforcement officer himself – saluted the man’s “good character, faith and core principles”.In video taken during the attack on Congress on 6 January 2021, the rioter was seen to say: “It’s going to be violent and yes, if you are asking, ‘Is Ryan Nichols going to bring violence? Yes, Ryan Nichols is going to bring violence.’”Nichols, in an affidavit, admitted posting the video, attacking officers with pepper spray and urging rioters on with shouts including, “This is not a peaceful protest”.In court in Washington last week, Nichols, of Longview, Texas, pleaded guilty to two charges: obstruction and assaulting, resisting or impeding police and obstruction of an official proceeding.More than 1,000 arrests have been made over the attack and hundreds of convictions secured, some for seditious conspiracy. Donald Trump, who incited the riot as he attempted to overturn his 2020 presidential election defeat by Joe Biden, faces 17 charges related to his election subversion, four federal and 13 at state level in Georgia.Nine deaths have been linked to the attack staged by the former president’s supporters, including law enforcement suicides.Higgins’ own website describes him as having “spent much of his career dedicated to uniformed service [as] an army veteran and law enforcement officer”. It also says he is “widely regarded as one of the most conservative members of Congress”.Nonetheless, in a letter dated 7 November, he asked the US district judge in Nichols’s case, Royce C Lamberth, to show leniency when passing down sentence.“Sir,” Higgins wrote. “I submit to you this letter in support of Ryan Taylor Nichols. He is a man of good character, faith, and core principles.“I humbly ask that he receive fair consideration of the whole of circumstances regarding his case, condition, and background. He has already served nearly two years in the District of Columbia jail in pretrial confinement, which has been destructive to his physical (liver issues) and mental health (PTSD).”Nichols had been under house arrest since 22 November 2022 and had “not sought to flee nor shown any indication of dangerous activity”, Higgins said.He added: “Prior to his arrest, Mr Nichols had no criminal background and served honorably in the United States Marine Corps. He continued to serve domestically in a search and rescue capacity, even being publicly recognised for his heroic actions on national television.”That referred to Nichols’s commendation by the Louisiana-raised TV host Ellen DeGeneres – in 2018 – and in relation to his work to rescue people and animals stranded by Hurricane Florence.Nichols, Higgins said, “has already paid a tremendous price in time and treasure” for his actions on January 6.“His case must be considered fairly and thoroughly in line with his fundamental constitutional rights.”No date has been set for sentencing. More

    • 213 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court announces ethics code for justices amid public pressure over undisclosed gifts – as it happened

      by

      The highest court in the nation has announced today its justices must abide by an ethics code.The code begins: “A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary.”The news comes on the heels of revelations about undisclosed financial ties involving conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito that many have argued is a conflict of interest for people in their positions.That’s it for this US politics liveblog. Here are the key points from today:
      The US supreme court has issued a new code of ethics following controversies involving conservative justices who failed to disclose financial ties to republican mega-donors.
      Biden is getting ready to meet Xi Jinping on Wednesday in San Francisco – a demonstration of goodwill on the part of China, whose leader hasn’t visited the US in six years.
      2024 Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley reacted to the news of Tim Scott suspending his presidential bid. “Tim Scott is a good man of faith and an inspiration to so many. The Republican primary was made better by his participation in it,” Haley said on Twitter/X. “South Carolina is blessed to continue to have him as our senator. Scott announced conceded on Sunday, just six months after launching his campaign.”
      New House speaker and Louisiana Republican Mike Johnson has until Friday to garner support for his spending plan, or risk a government shutdown and a fate similar to his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, who was ousted from the role in October.
      Trump, Trump, and more Trump: The former president received swift condemnation from the Biden-Harris campaign for comparing his political enemies on the left to vermin – language criticized as mirroring that of fascist dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. And ongoing is Trump’s civil fraud trial, after which he could be fined $250m.
      Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries is considering Mike Johnson’s proposal to stave off a shutdown and discussing it with members.Jeffries says he has concerns with the proposal, specifically what he calls “the bifurcation of the continuing resolution in January and February 2024” as well as Republicans’ failure to address national security and domestic funding priorities of Americans. He also said Democrats wouldn’t accept “any extreme right-wing policy provisions in connection with funding the government”.But he doesn’t reject it outright, writing:
      House Democrats will continue to put people over politics, work with our colleagues to keep the government open and push back against right-wing extremism.
      He added:

      We will proceed this week through the lens of making progress for everyday Americans by continuing to put people over politics.
      What’s not clear is who will enforce the code, or how.The code was released just days before the Senate judiciary committee was expected to vote to authorize subpoenas for Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo – two mega-wealthy donors to conservative causes and political figures, and who paid for luxury trips for justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.The committee had advocated for an ethics code in the wake of the controversies, and in recent months, justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh expressed support for one. In May, chief justice John Roberts said there was more the court could do to “adhere to the highest ethical standards”, without providing any specifics.The full 14-page ethics code can be read here:Although judges have long been beholden to certain rules surrounding conduct, this marks the first time the supreme court has published and adopted a formal code of ethics, similar to those of lower federal courts.A statement of the court that precedes the new code says:“For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice.“The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”The new supreme court ethics code has arrived in the wake of public pressure due to ProPublica’s revelations about undisclosed gifts received by justices.In April, ProPublica revealed supreme court justice Clarence Thomas had taken undisclosed trips paid for by Dallas billionaire and major Republican donor Harlan Crow.In June, it was revealed another conservative justice Samuel Alito, took a trip to Alaska with a Republican billionaire in 2008, which he also did not disclose.The highest court in the nation has announced today its justices must abide by an ethics code.The code begins: “A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary.”The news comes on the heels of revelations about undisclosed financial ties involving conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito that many have argued is a conflict of interest for people in their positions.If found guilty, Donald Trump faces a fine of at least $250m. The former president also might soon lose his business license due to fraud, New York judge Arthur Engoron ruled.Readers can follow along in our standalone liveblog on the trial here.In other Trump-related news, Donald Trump Jr is testifying today as a defense witness in the New York civil fraud trial against him, his father and their company.The Trumps and the Trump Organization are accused of massively inflating the value of their properties in order to secure loans. They have denied any wrongdoing.Upon taking the stand, Trump Jr said: “I’d say it’s nice to be here, but I have a feeling the attorney general would sue me for perjury,” a dig at New York attorney general Letitia James.The Biden-Harris 2024 campaign criticism of Donald Trump’s remarks at the weekend that the campaign, along with others, compared directly to fascistic dictatorial speech, included a list of articles in various US publications.They include prominent voices slamming Trump and the list is below. Meanwhile, the statement from the Biden-Harris campaign, via spokesperson Ammar Moussa, concludes with this remark: “Donald Trump thinks he can win by dividing our country. He’s wrong, and he’ll find out just how wrong next November.”Then it adds: read what they’re saying about Trump’s statement.
      Washington Post: “Trump calls political enemies ‘vermin,’ echoing dictators Hitler, Mussolini”Forbes: “Trump Compares Political Foes To ‘Vermin’ On Veterans Day—Echoing Nazi Propaganda”The New Republic: “It’s Official: With “Vermin,” Trump Is Now Using Straight-up Nazi Talk”HuffPost: “Fascism Expert Offers Truly Chilling Take On Donald Trump’s ‘Vermin’ Rant”
      The Post piece includes this:
      Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian at New York University, said in an email to The Washington Post that “calling people ‘vermin’ was used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence.”
      One year after their last in-person talks, Xi Jinping and Joe Biden will come face-to-face once again on Wednesday in San Francisco.The encounter will dominate events at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit as the Chinese and US presidents seek to stabilise relations in an increasingly fraught geopolitical climate.The meeting, which could last several hours, is the culmination of months of lower level dialogues which took place over the summer, with Washington sending more delegates to China than Beijing did to the US.The fact of China’s leader visiting the US for the first time in six years demonstrates some goodwill from the Chinese side.A speech from Xi to the US-China business community would underline his keenness to attract foreign businesses back to China, many of whom have been spooked by the three years of zero-Covid and the recent raids foreign consulting firms, as well as an increasing number of US restrictions on doing business with China, especially in hi-tech sectors.Sweeping restrictions on the export of advanced technology to China will come into effect on 16 November, the day after Xi’s meeting with Biden. The new rules are a tightening of controls introduced last year, aimed at cutting off China’s access to the most sophisticated semiconductors, which are required to develop advanced artificial intelligence. Read more here.The US political news landscape is tense, with a government shutdown looming, Joe Biden getting ready to meet Xi Jinping and Donald Trump being slammed for parroting fascist dictators, even as he dominates the opinion polls a year out from the presidential election.Stay tuned for more news. The day so far:
      The Biden-Harris 2024 election campaign has issued a strong statement condemning remarks Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump made in a speech on Saturday, Veterans Day, in which he compared his political enemies on the left to vermin.
      GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley praised fellow South Carolinian Tim Scott after he suspended his White House bid.
      A fourth government shutdown in a decade would have far-reaching consequences for the nation in numerous different fields, including national security.
      New House speaker and Louisiana Republican Mike Johnson is up against the clock to see if he can win support for his suggested spending plan, before the looming government shutdown this Friday.
      The Democrat Abigail Spanberger will quit Congress next year to run for governor of Virginia.Announcing her move a week after voters delivered a rebuke to the current Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, she cited rightwing threats to reproductive rights and attempts to clamp down on public schooling.“Today, we find ourselves at a crossroads,” Spanberger, 44, said in a video on Monday. “Our country and our commonwealth are facing fundamental threats to our rights, our freedoms and to our democracy.”Last week, voters gave Democrats control of both houses of the Virginia legislature, seemingly ending talk of a late entry into the Republican presidential primary by Youngkin, a governor deemed relatively centrist who has nonetheless chosen to focus on culture war issues in office.Spanberger is seen as a centrist. A former CIA officer and gun control group organiser, she was elected to the US House in 2018 from a state which has trended Democratic but remains keenly fought. In 2022, she won a redrawn seat by her widest margin to date. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      House speaker unveils Republican plan to avert government shutdown

      by

      US House speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a Republican stopgap spending measure late Saturday aimed at averting a government shutdown in a week, but the measure quickly ran into opposition from lawmakers from both parties in Congress.Unlike ordinary continuing resolutions that fund federal agencies for a specific period, the measure announced by Johnson would fund some parts of the government until 19 January and others until 2 February. House Republicans hope to pass the measure Tuesday.“This two-step continuing resolution is a necessary bill to place House Republicans in the best position to fight for conservative victories,” Johnson said in a statement after announcing the plan to House Republicans in a conference call.The House Republican stopgap contained no supplemental funding such as aid for Israel or Ukraine.The House and Democratic-led Senate must agree on a spending vehicle that President Joe Biden can sign into law by Friday. Otherwise, they risk a fourth partial government shutdown in a decade that would close national parks, disrupt pay for as many as 4 million federal workers and disrupt a swath of activities from financial oversight to scientific research.The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said in a release that the proposal was “just a recipe for more Republican chaos and more shutdowns”. She said: “House Republicans are wasting precious time with an unserious proposal that has been panned by members of both parties.“Johnson, the top Republican in Congress, unveiled his stopgap a day after Moody’s, the last major credit rating agency to maintain a top “AAA” rating on the US government, lowered its outlook on the nation’s credit to “negative” from “stable”. Moody’s cited political polarization in Congress on spending as a danger to the nation’s fiscal health.The Louisiana Republican appeared to be appealing to two warring House Republican factions: hardliners who wanted legislation with multiple end-dates; and centrists who had called for a “clean” stopgap measure free of spending cuts and conservative policy riders that Democrats reject.The legislation would extend funding for military construction, veterans benefits, transportation, housing, urban development, agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and energy and water programs through 19 January. Funding for all other federal operations would expire on 2 February.But members of both parties aimed political fire at the plan quickly.“My opposition to the clean [continuing resolution] just announced by the speaker … cannot be overstated,” Chip Roy, a member of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, said on the social media platform X.The Republican Roy had called for the new measure to include spending cuts.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDemocratic senator Brian Schatz called Johnson’s measure “super convoluted”, adding that “all of this nonsense costs taxpayer money”.“We are going to pass a clean short term [resolution]. The only question is whether we do it stupidly and catastrophically or we do it like adults,” Schatz wrote on X.A stopgap measure would give lawmakers more time to implement full-scale appropriations bills to fund the government through 30 September.Johnson’s predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, was ousted from the House speakership by eight hardline fellow Republicans after he moved a bipartisan measure to avert a shutdown on 1 October. McCarthy opted for the bipartisan route after hardliners blocked a Republican stopgap measure with features intended to appease them. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I will not be silenced’: Rashida Tlaib won’t stop fighting for Palestinian rights

      by

      As Israeli ground troops battled in Gaza City amid a spiralling civilian death toll on Tuesday, the congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, the sole Palestinian American member of the US Congress, rose to answer a censure motion rebuking her for comments she made about the war.Gripping a photograph of her sity, her grandmother who lives in the occupied West Bank, she defended her stance and declared that she “will not be silenced” and “will not let you distort my words”.“I can’t believe I have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable,” Tlaib said, her voice breaking. The congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota reached to comfort Tlaib, a show of solidarity between the only Muslim women in the chamber. Tlaib continued: “The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me.”Late that night, 22 Democrats joined nearly all Republicans in censuring Tlaib, a punishment one step below expulsion. As the gavel came down, her closest allies in the Democratic party’s progressive wing, all people of colour, encircled Tlaib as if to form a protective shield.The extraordinary scene crystallised the fierce devotion and respect that Tlaib – one of 14 children of Palestinian immigrants to the US – commands among her political allies, friends, staff members and, according to supporters, many of her constituents in her Michigan congressional district.But in its intensity, it also underlined the fierce passions aroused among critics of the Michigan Democrat, 47, who has become – at least since Hamas’s attack on Israel last month – one of the most polarising figures on Capitol Hill.The censure against Tlaib, proposed by the Republican congressman Rich McCormick of Georgia, accused her of “promoting false narratives regarding the October 7 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel”. Its passage made Tlaib only the 26th member of the House of Representatives to be censured since its formation in 1789.Tuesday’s vote, which came days after she avoided an earlier censure motion, was triggered by the presence of a highly charged slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, in a video Tlaib posted on social media last week that also accused Joe Biden of supporting “genocide” and called for an immediate ceasefire to Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.However hurtful personally for Tlaib – a legislator known for her diligence and conscientiousness on behalf of her constituents – she signalled that she has no intention of backing down, reflecting the stubbornness Biden himself praised two years ago, when, following a famous eight-minute heated conversation on Palestinian rights on the runway of Detroit’s airport, he complimented her as “a fighter”.“She will not be deterred by a censure motion passed by the House of Representatives. Not a bone in my body believes that,” said Abbas Alawieh, a senior Democratic strategist who previously worked as Tlaib’s legislative director.“Rashida is a person on a mission. She is fiercely protective of the people she loves. She will stop at nothing. For her, to support or not to support a cause isn’t a theoretical political question. It’s a question of whether or not her family members deserve to stay alive. It’s the life or death of people she’s directly connected to.”This commitment has fortified her against a shocking degree of personal abuse that would have felled other politicians, said Alawieh, who recalled spikes in phone calls to her office and verbal attacks in public, often after Fox News or other rightwing news channels had criticised her views.“When I went to work for her, I couldn’t believe how often the phone rang,” he said. “You couldn’t even imagine how many vile, unacceptable bad words could be strung together in sentences. It will be a sentence jam-packed with sexism, racism, Islamophobia – just all of it.”Tlaib, whose father was born in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Beit Hanina, has long been a lightning rod for criticism from Israel’s staunchest supporters, who have alleged that her views and rhetoric are antisemitic.In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack, she faced backlash from Republicans and some Democrats over her initial statement, in which she expressed grief for the loss of “Palestinian and Israeli lives” but did not mention Hamas, though she did call for “ending the occupation, and dismantling the apartheid system”.She drew additional fire from her critics after being one of nine Democrats to vote against a House resolution – subsequently adopted by a vote of 412-10 – declaring solidarity with Israel after the Hamas attacks.Explaining her opposition in a floor debate on 25 October, she said the resolution was “not a serious examination of the root causes of the violence we are witnessing and doubles down on decades of failed policy”.Unconditional US military support for Israel had failed to bring “peace and justice” to the region, she said.She added: “Achieving a just and lasting peace where Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights and freedoms, and where no person lives in fear for their safety, requires ending the blockade, occupation and dehumanizing system of apartheid.”Her opponents have also pointed to her use of the “river to the sea” slogan. While Tlaib and others justify the phrase as an “aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful co-existence”, critics say it is a pro-Hamas chant calling for the eradication of the Jewish state.The Democratic congressman Brad Schneider of Illinois cited her embrace of the slogan and her refusal to remove a tweet blaming Israel for a devastating explosion at al-Ahli Baptist hospital in Gaza City that killed hundreds, despite Israeli denials and US intelligence claims that a misfired Palestinian rocket had caused the damage.“Congresswoman Tlaib has repeatedly insisted on using inflammatory language that dangerously amplifies Hamas propaganda and disinformation,” Schneider said in a statement. “Representative Tlaib most certainly understands the import and impact of her words and yet still chooses to use them anyway. We are at an exceedingly perilous moment, when emotions and intentions are on a razor’s edge.”Even Bernie Sanders, the leftwing senator from Vermont, who has spoken out forcefully against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza while stopping short of a ceasefire call, voiced muted criticism of Tlaib’s use of the slogan.Calling her a “friend” who had been “shaken” by the bloodshed in Gaza, Sanders told CNN: “We need a serious discussion on how the hell we get out of this difficult situation, maintain democracy, bring peace to the world. And it ain’t easy, but slogans are not going to do it on any side.”The congressman Jamaal Bowman of New York, a fellow member of the progressive “Squad” who has also called for a ceasefire, dismissed the focus on the slogan as “a distraction”, calling Tlaib “one of the strongest, most compassionate people I know”.“Congresswoman Tlaib has always been an advocate of peace, justice and human rights,” he said. “It is false and misleading to imply that she intended to call for destruction or violence. She is not in support of Hamas. We should all be doing everything in our power to end violence against innocent civilians.”Conservatives have demanded Tlaib take down the Palestinian flag displayed outside her congressional office, saying it was disrespectful in the wake of the Hamas attack. One Republican member advocated a ban on foreign flags in the Capitol, while another, the congressman Brian Mast of Florida, wore a uniform from his time serving in the Israel Defence Forces. On X, he wrote: “Tlaib’s Got Her Flag, I’ve Got My Uniform.”Mast later said there are “very few innocent Palestinian civilians … I don’t think we would so lightly throw around the term innocent Nazi civilians”, remarks that some House Democrats believe warrant a censure.Tlaib’s previous outspokenness has landed her in hot water with pro-Israel advocates. The liberal Israel advocacy group J Street withdrew its endorsement of her campaign in 2018 after she publicly voiced support for a one-state solution to the Middle East conflict, in open contradiction of the organisation’s policy favouring two states, Israel beside an independent Palestine. As part of her support for a one-state solution – entailing a single democratic state encompassing Israel and the occupied territories – Tlaib has said she is uncomfortable with the idea of uprooting Jewish settlers from their homes in the occupied West Bank.In a floor speech in 2021, Tlaib, arguing against a bill to send $1bn in additional funding to support Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense program, accused Israel’s far-right government of operating a “violent apartheid system”, a characterization that drew a furious response from longstanding Democratic supporters of Israel. Tlaib, who has long sought to condition aid to Israel on Palestinian rights, was one of just nine lawmakers to vote against the measure.Tlaib has Jewish supporters, particularly among leftwing groups that echo her ceasefire calls and have staged demonstrations in Washington accusing Israel of unleashing a “genocidal” war in Gaza.“Congresswoman Tlaib is truly an incredible person and one of the few members of Congress who genuinely cares about people,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a leftist group that openly describes itself as anti-Zionist.“She has so much warmth and love, and makes everyone feel welcome and safe around her. This is really important because we see this horrible smear campaign that turns her into the opposite of what she is – which is someone who cares deeply for Israelis who have been killed, as well as Palestinians who have been killed. We are proud to be her ally in this.”Eva Borgwardt, the national spokesperson for If Not Now, another Jewish group that has staged ceasefire rallies in concert with JVP, said Tlaib was a victim of anti-Palestinian racism being espoused by Republican politicians who see her as a “threat to their vision of a white Christian supremacist future of America”.“As a Jewish American, I’m absolutely terrified of the implications of the ongoing targeting of Rashida, because Jewish and Palestinian safety is tied together,” she said. “I cannot imagine what it’s like to face what she has dealt with. I can only hope to have a tiny amount of the integrity and strength that it must take to stand up and lead in Congress every day despite threats from other congressmen down the hall.”As the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress, Tlaib carries “a greater burden” when she challenges US policy toward Israel, said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.But he said Tlaib is not acting alone. For many constituents in her district, which includes the city of Dearborn, home to one of the largest Arab American communities in the country, Palestinian rights are deeply personal, he said.“For people in her district, this isn’t some sort of foreign policy issue,” Walid said. “These are people who have family members who are directly impacted by occupation and bombs being dropped on civilians.”Despite her support in the district, Tlaib’s detractors hope that her denunciations of the US response to the Israel-Hamas war will draw a primary challenge from the party’s center, like the ones facing other Israel skeptics within the party.In Detroit, she is now the target of an attack ad by a Democratic pro-Israel group. The ad sharply criticises Tlaib for her vote last month against a House resolution declaring solidarity with Israel following the Hamas assault, as well as her past vote against funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. It also argues that her ceasefire bill “would allow the terrorists to rearm themselves”.“We thought it was important for her constituents and neighbors to know that she is not only wrong on the substance, but radically out of step with the Democratic party,” said Mark Mellman, whose group, the Democratic Majority for Israel, is behind the ad.He continued: “We’re trying to see if she might moderate her positions as a result of her constituents. And if not, perhaps someone will be interested in taking her on.”Tlaib’s supporters have denounced the ad’s rhetoric as “dangerous” and demanded its removal in light of a sharp rise in Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment.The irony of all this, say longtime associates, is that Tlaib has never set out to be a pro-Palestinian organiser – preferring to focus on local issues such as poverty, pollution and water rights, particularly in African American communities.She campaigned vigorously to win a $600m lead pipe replacement and challenged socially conservative parts of her district with her advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights.“When people in her district think about Rashida in general, they think ‘water is a human right’,” said Alawieh. “She was obsessed with the idea.”That may once have been true. But nationally, her reputation is set to be defined by more global – and more bitterly contested – concerns.For Cori Bush, a progressive Democrat from Missouri who sponsored ceasefire legislation with Tlaib, it is destined to eclipse the present turmoil and land the Michigan congresswoman a place squarely on the right side of history.“Even though the censure happened, people must understand that that is not her legacy,” Bush said. “Rashida Tlaib’s legacy will be about saving lives. It will be about making sure the Palestinians know that they belong and that they should exist in this world.“She will be known for being the freedom fighter and the justice warrior. She will be known for being the peacekeeper.” More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Credit agency Moody’s cuts outlook on US government to negative

      by

      The credit ratings agency Moody’s reduced its outlook on the US government from stable to negative, citing division in Washington DC and risks to the nation’s fiscal strength.While Moody’s maintained the US’s current top-grade AAA rating, it raised the prospect that this may be cut.Moody’s warned that the US’s deficits are likely to remain “very large” in the face of higher interest rates. It also cautioned that “continued political polarization” in Congress rasies the risk that governments “will not be able to reach consensus on a fiscal plan to slow the decline in debt affordability”.The federal government is on the brink of another shutdown, with just a week left for the Republican-led House, Democratic-led Senate and Biden White House to reach a breakthrough on funding.The Biden administration said it disagreed with the decision, which comes just three months after another major agency, Fitch, downgraded its top rating for the US. Standard & Poor’s, the other leading ratings agency, had already done so.“In the context of higher interest rates, without effective fiscal policy measures to reduce government spending or increase revenues, Moody’s expects that the US’s fiscal deficits will remain very large, significantly weakening debt affordability,” the agency said in a statement.Wally Adeyemo, the US deputy treasury secretary, said: “While the statement by Moody’s maintains the United States’ AAA rating, we disagree with the shift to a negative outlook. The American economy remains strong, and treasury securities are the world’s pre-eminent safe and liquid asset.”Karine Jean-Pierre, White House press secretary, suggested the move was “yet another consequence of congressional Republican extremism and dysfunction”. More