US elections 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      A physician, a lawyer, a CEO: the 84 fake electors who allegedly tried to steal the 2020 election

      by

      With the indictment announced in Arizona this week, 36 out of 84 people who signed certificates falsely alleging they were electors for Donald Trump have now been criminally charged.Kris Mayes is the third state attorney general to indict part of the slate of people who signed the false documents with plans to turn them over to Mike Pence, the US vice-president, to steal the election from Joe Biden. Attorneys general in Michigan and Nevada have also brought charges, and in Wisconsin, fake electors face a civil lawsuit.
      36 have been criminally indicted (one has had charges dropped)
      10 face a civil lawsuit
      14 have been subpoenaed by Congress as part of the January 6 investigation
      This year, as the country prepares for a rematch between Trump and Biden, the majority of the 84 people have not been prosecuted criminally. Some of the fake electors, including those in Pennsylvania, are unlikely to be charged because of how the document they signed there was worded; their documents said their electoral votes would only be counted if they were determined to be the “duly elected and qualified electors” for Pennsylvania.A small number of the 84 people – who in 2020 mostly were local Republican party leaders and activists – have been elected to public office or appointed to positions of power since the scheme.
      Seven have been elected to office
      Seven have lost elections
      Four have been appointed or nominated to positions of power
      One is currently running for federal office
      It’s unclear whether Trump and his allies would use a similar playbook to try to steal the next election if he loses in November. He and others in his orbit are already laying the groundwork to claim voter fraud.As of now, a number of the people who signed false elector certificates have positions of authority and could help Trump if he were to attempt something similar again.View image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenArizona (11)On Wednesday, Kris Mayes, the state attorney general, announced that Arizona’s 11 fake electors and seven other Trump allies had been indicted for their role in the scheme.Tyler Bowyer: Bowyer is the chief operating officer of Turning Point USA, a Phoenix-based non-profit organization, and an Arizona committee member for the Republican National Committee. He has called on the RNC to “immediately indemnify” those who participated in what he calls the “contingent elector plan”. Recently he has also led trainings for Turning Point to encourage Republicans to cast early ballots.Nancy Cottle: Cottle was one of two Arizona fake electors who were subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack. She was the chair of Arizona’s fake elector delegation.Jake Hoffman: Hoffman is an Arizona state senator, elected in 2022, and was previously a state representative. He founded the legislature’s far-right freedom caucus and announced in March that he’s running to represent the state as a member of the Republican National Committee. He also runs a conservative digital-marketing company, Rally Forge, that was banned from Facebook and suspended from Twitter for engaging in “coordinated inauthentic behavior” on behalf of Turning Point Action, an affiliate of Turning Point USA.Anthony T Kern: Kern is an Arizona state senator, elected in 2022, and is currently running for a seat in the US Congress to represent Arizona’s eighth district. He was an Arizona state representative from 2015 until he lost his seat in the 2020 election. He has introduced a senate proposal calling for the state legislature to decide on presidential electors instead of adhering to a popular vote. Kern participated in the January 6 riots in Washington, which he has called a peaceful demonstration.James Lamon: Lamon ran for the US Senate to represent Arizona in 2022, losing in the Republican primary.Robert Montgomery: Montgomery was appointed to a seat on the Palominas fire district board in 2022 and is the former head of the Cochise county Republican committee.Samuel I Moorhead: Moorhead serves as the second vice-chair of the Gila county Arizona Republican party.Loraine B Pellegrino: Pellegrino, the secretary of Arizona’s fake elector delegation, was also subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack. Pellegrino has served as president of Ahwatukee Republican Women and was previously president of the Arizona Federation of Republican Women.Greg Safsten: Safsten was the executive director of the Republican party of Arizona during the 2020 election. Records show that he had been in communication with Kenneth Chesebro, a Trump ally and the architect of the fake elector plan, with instructions on how to carry out the plan.Kelli Ward: Ward is an osteopathic physician who served as the chair of the Arizona Republican party from 2019 to 2023. Following the 2020 election, Ward filed a number of lawsuits to nullify Arizona’s results, in support of Trump’s effort to prove the election had been stolen. She previously served in the Arizona state senate. Records show that Ward had also been in communication with Kenneth Chesebro, a Trump ally and the architect of the fake elector plan, with instructions on how to carry out the plan. Two days before the Arizona delegation gathered, Ward emailed various people connected to Trump’s campaign about the effort, according to records. She was subponead in 2022 as part of the January 6 select committee’s investigation, and filed an unsuccessful lawsuit to block the subpoena.Michael Ward: Kelli Ward’s husband is an emergency medicine physician. He was also subpoenaed in 2022 as part of the January 6 select committee’s investigation and, with Kelli Ward, filed an unsuccessful lawsuit to block it.Georgia (16)Three of Georgia’s fake electors were named in the Fulton county indictment of Trump and 18 of his allies for efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state. Several other fake electors struck immunity deals or plea agreements with the office of Fani Willis, Fulton county’s district attorney.Mark Amick: Amick is a member of the election feasibility committee in Milton, Georgia, and the Georgia Republican Foundation. In 2020, he served as a poll watcher in Milton county and testified in a hearing after the election that he saw more than 9,000 votes wrongly go to Joe Biden during the first Georgia recount.Joseph Brannan: Brannan is the former treasurer of the Georgia Republican party. He is reportedly “unindicted co-conspirator individual 9” in Fani Willis’s indictment of Trump and his allies in Fulton county. He received an email from Kenneth Chesebro before the scheme with logistics on how the Trump campaign hoped alternate electors would cast their votes.James “Ken” Carroll: Carroll, formerly the assistant secretary for the Georgia Republican party, recently ran unsuccessfully to be the state GOP’s second vice-chair. He told the Washington Post that, knowing what he does now, he would not have agreed to cast an electoral college vote for Trump. Carroll is a witness for the state in the prosecution of Trump and others in Fulton county, according to a court filing.Brad Carver: Carver, a lawyer and member of the Republican National Lawyers Association, was also investigated by the Georgia state bar in 2022 for his role in the scheme following a complaint by a legal watchdog.Vikki Townsend Consiglio: Consiglio is a former assistant treasurer for the Georgia Republican party. In 2022, Brian Kemp, the Georgia governor, reappointed her to the state soil and water conservation commission. Townsend is a witness for the state in the prosecution of Trump and others in Fulton county, according to a court filing.John Downey: Downey was involved with the Cobb county Republican party in 2020.Carolyn Hall Fisher: Fisher is a former first vice-chair for the Georgia Republican party. She is a witness for the state in the prosecution of Trump and others in Fulton county, according to a court filing.Gloria Kay Godwin: Godwin is a local Republican party leader in Blackshear. She is a witness for the state in the prosecution of Trump and others in Fulton county, according to a court filing.David G Hanna: Hanna was the CEO and co-founder of a financial technology company.Mark W Hennessy: In 2023, Brian Kemp, the Georgia governor, named Hennessy, the owner of several Georgia car dealerships, to the board of natural resources.Burt Jones: Jones is currently the lieutenant governor of Georgia, a position he’s held since being elected in 2022. Previously he was a member of the Georgia state senate for 10 years. Before January 6, Jones planned to deliver a letter to Mike Pence calling on him to delay the tally of electoral college votes, but he never delivered it, according to reporting from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In 2022, a judge ruled that Fani Willis cannot target Jones in Fulton county alongside Trump and others because of a conflict of interest (Willis held a fundraiser for his eventual Democratic opponent in the lieutenant governor’s race), but state prosecutor Pete Skandalakis said recently that he will lead the investigation into Jones’ alleged role in trying to overturn the election. Jones is reportedly “unindicted co-conspirator individual 8” in Fani Willis’s indictment of Trump in Fulton county.Cathy Latham: Latham, who was the Coffee county Republican party chair during the 2020 election, was indicted along with Trump and 17 others in Fulton county for her efforts to help Trump overturn the election. Latham allegedly helped breach and tamper with election equipment in Coffee county.Daryl Moody: Moody, an attorney, is chair of the board of governors for the Georgia Republican Foundation. In 2022 the Georgia state bar investigated him for his role in the scheme following a complaint by a legal watchdog.David Shafer: Shafer, who was the chair of the state GOP during the 2020 election, was indicted along with Trump and 17 others in Fulton county for his efforts to help Trump overturn the election. According to prosecutors, Shafer played a key role in organizing the slate of fake electors, convening them in the state capitol and telling them that “thousands of people” voted illegally in the state. He was also a Georgia state senator from 2003 to 2019. In 2018, he ran for lieutenant governor and lost in the primary. He was subpoenaed by the January 6 committee in Congress.View image in fullscreenShawn Still: Still is a state senator in Georgia, elected in 2022. He was finance chair of the Georgia GOP during the 2020 election, and was indicted along with Trump and 17 others in Fulton county for his efforts to help Trump overturn the election. He was the secretary of the fake elector meeting in the state capitol. He was also subpoenaed by the January 6 committee in Congress. In September 2023, a three-person panel appointed by the governor didn’t recommend that he be removed from the state senate while the Fulton county case is pending.CB Yadav: A small-business owner in Camden county, Yadav is a member of the Georgians First commission under the governor’s office.Michigan (16)In July 2023, Dana Nessel, the Michigan attorney general, charged all 16 of the state’s fake electors with eight felonies each. They all pleaded not guilty. One has since had his charges dropped. A judge is currently considering whether to send the rest to trial.Kathy Berden: Berden is a national committee member of the Republican party of Michigan. She was one of two Michigan fake electors who were subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack.Hank Choate: Choate, a dairy farmer, served as chair of the Jackson county Republican party.Amy Facchinello: Facchinello was elected in 2020 to serve on the school board in Grand Blanc and has been the subject of protests over her QAnon social media posts. Facchinello refused to resign, though there have been efforts to recall her.Clifford Frost: A real estate agent, Frost ran unsuccessfully for the Macomb county board of commissioners in 2022. He has also run unsuccessfully to represent the 28th district in the Michigan house. He is one of two of the state’s fake electors to try to get the felony charges against them dismissed because of comments made by the attorney general Dana Nessel, that the electors had been “brainwashed”.Stanley Grot: Grot is the Shelby township clerk, appointed in 2012, and ran unsuccessfully for the Michigan house in 2022. After the Michigan attorney general charged Grot, the state stripped him of his ability to administer elections, but he remains in office.John Haggard: Haggard was one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Michigan officials in which he sought to overturn the 2020 election results.Mari-Ann Henry: Henry is treasurer of the seventh congressional district Republican committee. She is one of two of the state’s fake electors to try to get the felony charges against them dismissed because of comments made by the attorney general Dana Nessel, that the electors had been “brainwashed”.Timothy King: King was one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Michigan officials in which he sought to overturn the 2020 election results.Michele Lundgren: Lundgren was the Republican nominee in 2022 for a Detroit-based seat in the Michigan house, but lost in the general election.Meshawn Maddock: Maddock is the former Michigan Republican party co-chair and is the co-owner of A-1 Bail Bonds, along with her spouse, the state representative Matt Maddock. CNN reported that she bragged about the Trump campaign’s involvement in the fake elector scheme. She and her husband spoke at a pro-Trump event in DC the day before the January 6 insurrection.James Renner: Renner has served as a precinct delegate and volunteer with the Michigan Republican party. He is the only Michigan fake elector to get his felony charges dropped after he agreed to “cooperate fully” with the attorney general’s investigation. He then testified in February that he did not know how the electoral process worked and “never would have challenged it” had he known it was illegal.Mayra Rodriguez: Rodriguez served as the chair and secretary of Michigan’s Republican electors. She was one of two Michigan fake electors who were subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack.Rose Rook: Rook is the former Van Buren county GOP chair.Marian Sheridan: Sheridan is grassroots vice-chair for the Michigan Republican party. She was one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Michigan officials in which she sought to overturn the 2020 election results.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionKen Thompson: Thompson was brought in to replace a GOP elector who was “uncomfortable with the whole thing” and refused to participate, a state GOP official testified to the House January 6 commission.Kent Vanderwood: Vanderwood is the mayor of Wyoming, Michigan, winning election in 2022. He was previously a longtime member of the city council in Wyoming, a small city near Grand Rapids.New Mexico (5)New Mexico prosecutors investigated the state’s fake elector scheme and determined that nothing in state election law applies to the participants’ conduct, according to the department’s final report issued in January.Anissa Ford-Tinnin: Ford-Tinnin is the former executive director of the state Republican party.Lupe Garcia: Garcia is a business owner.Deborah W Maestas: Maestas is former chair of the Republican party of New Mexico. She was one of two New Mexico fake electors who were subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack.Jewll Powdrell: Powdrell chaired the state fake elector meeting and was one of two New Mexico fake electors who were subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack.Rosie Tripp: Tripp was a national committee member for the Republican party of New Mexico, a former Socorro county commissioner and a former city council member in Socorro.Nevada (6)A Nevada grand jury in December indicted the six state fake electors and charged them with two felonies each. They have all pleaded not guilty. Under the current schedule, they will not stand trial until next year.James DeGraffenreid: DeGraffenreid has served as vice-chair of the Nevada Republican party. He was one of two New Mexico fake electors who were subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack. He was summoned to testify by Fulton county prosecutors about his communications with Kenneth Chesebro about the scheme and was also called to testify in special counsel Jack Smith’s federal investigation of Trump.Jim Hindle: Hindle runs elections in Storey county, Nevada, where he was elected clerk in 2022. He was previously vice-chair of the Nevada Republican committee.Jesse Law: Law is chair of the Clark county Republican party and was a staffer on the Trump campaign. He announced in December that he’s running for state assembly.Michael J McDonald: The chair of the Nevada Republican party, McDonald is a former member of the Las Vegas city council. He was one of two Nevada fake electors who were subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack. He was also called to testify in special counsel Jack Smith’s federal investigation of Trump.Shawn Meehan: Meehan is a retired air force veteran who serves on the Nevada Republican central committee and the Douglas county Republican party. He recently said he launched an effort to “guard” the constitution.Eileen Rice: Rice serves on the board of the Douglas county Republican party.Pennsylvania (20)Pennsylvania’s 20 fake electors are unlikely to face criminal charges because of the stipulation written on their electoral vote documents.Bill Bachenberg: Bachenberg, who chaired the state’s slate of fake electors, is the millionaire owner of Lehigh Valley Sporting Clays. He allegedly funded efforts to uncover voter fraud in Pennsylvania and other states. He was involved in Arizona’s sham “audit” and was subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack.Lou Barletta: Barletta served as a member of the US House from 2011 to 2019, and as mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, from 2000 to 2010. In 2022, he unsuccessfully ran in the Republican gubernatorial primary.Tom Carroll: Carroll ran unsuccessfully in 2019 for district attorney in Northampton county and refused to concede the race because of “overwhelming irregularities” in how the election was administered. He brought a lawsuit against state and local officials alleging election law violations in the 2020 election.Ted Christian: Christian was the Pennsylvania state director for Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.Chuck Coccodrilli: Coccodrilli was a board member with the Pennsylvania Great Frontier Pac. He died in October 2021 after an illness.Bernadette Comfort: Comfort is the vice-chair for the Pennsylvania Republican party.View image in fullscreenSam DeMarco III: DeMarco has been an at-large representative on the Allegheny county council since 2016. He is also the chair of the Republican committee of Allegheny county. In 2022, he was interviewed by the FBI about his role in the scheme. He recently filed a lawsuit challenging the use of ballot drop off locations in the county, and the county agreed to a settlement.Marcela Diaz-Myers: Diaz-Myers is the chair of the Pennsylvania GOP Hispanic Advisory Council.Christie DiEsposti: DiEsposti is an account representative at Pure Water Technology. She has reportedly moved to Florida.Josephine Ferro: Ferro was Monroe county register from 2015 until losing reelection in 2023. She is the former president of the Pennsylvania Federation of Republican Women. In 2020 and 2022, she was a plaintiff in lawsuits seeking to block voters from being able to correct defective ballots and to stop pre-canvassing of ballots.Charlie Gerow: Gerow is a Republican strategist who ran unsuccessfully in the Republican primary for governor in 2022. He is also former vice-chair of the American Conservative Union, and the CEO of Quantum Communications, a Harrisburg-based public relations firm, where the fake electors met in Pennsylvania in December 2020.Kevin Harley: Harley works with Gerow as managing director of Quantum Communications and has served as a spokesperson for Gerow. He has also worked as press secretary for Tom Corbett, the former Pennsylvania governor.Leah Hoopes: Hoopes served as a poll watcher in 2020 and co-wrote a book about election fraud. She filed a lawsuit against Delaware county, accusing it of mishandling ballots in the 2020 election. She was named as a defendant in a Delaware county voting machine supervisor’s lawsuit alleging that Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that election officials tampered with the election made the supervisor the subject of physical threats.Ash Khare: An immigrant from India and retired engineer, Khare is a member of the Warren county GOP committee.Andre McCoy: McCoy was present at the Maricopa county ballot recount and was involved in the Arizona sham “audit”.Lisa Patton: Patton was the secretary of Pennsylvania’s slate of fake electors and was a member of the Pennsylvania Women for Trump leadership team. She was subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack.View image in fullscreenPat Poprik: Poprik is the chair of the Bucks county Republican committee.Andy Reilly: Reilly is a national committee member for the Republican party of Pennsylvania and former secretary for the party. Reilly was previously elected twice to serve as a member of the Delaware county council.Suk Smith: Smith was on the advisory board of Gun Owners/Sportsmen for Trump in 2020.Calvin Tucker: Tucker was deputy chair and director of engagement and advancement for the Pennsylvania Republican party. In 2016, he served as a media surrogate and African-American adviser to Trump’s campaign.Wisconsin (10)A civil lawsuit over the fake electors scheme settled in December. The 10 Republicans acknowledged Biden’s victory and agreed not to serve in the electoral college this year.Mary Buestrin: A former national committee member of the Republican party of Wisconsin.Carol Brunner: Brunner is the former vice-chair of Wisconsin’s first congressional district Republican party.Darryl Carlson: Carlson is the former chair of the sixth congressional district GOP. He ran an unsuccessful campaign in 2014 for the Wisconsin state assembly.Bill Feehan: Feehan is the chair of the third congressional district GOP. In 2022, he sat on an advisory board for the gubernatorial campaign of Rebecca Kleefisch, an election denier who has sued the Wisconsin election commission (WEC) over its administration of the 2020 election, according to American Oversight.Scott Grabins: Grabins is former chair of the Dane county Republican party.Andrew Hitt: The chair of the Republican party of Wisconsin from 2019 until 2021, Hitt was one of two Wisconsin fake electors who were subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack. He was interviewed on 60 Minutes in February and said he feared for his family’s safety if he didn’t sign the fake elector papers.Kathy Kiernan: Kiernan is the second vice-chair of the state Republican party.Kelly Ruh: Ruh is chair of the eighth congressional district Republican party, former alderperson for De Pere, and was one of two Wisconsin fake electors who were subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack.Bob Spindell: Spindell has been a Republican commissioner on the Wisconsin election commission since 2019 and is the chair of the Republican fourth congressional district. He was previously the Milwaukee election commissioner for more than 18 years. In 2021, he refused to recuse himself from a vote on whether the WEC should investigate Wisconsin’s false electors.Pam Travis: Travis was the vice-chair of the seventh congressional district GOP and is a former staffer for the US senator Ron Johnson’s 2022 re-election campaign. More

    • 238 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Election officials in the US are under threat. A key county just faced a major test ahead of November

      by

      Everyone seemed determined not to jinx it.Jim Rose, the director of administrative services in Luzerne county in north-eastern Pennsylvania, had been listening to the radio all morning and had not heard “a single peep” about problems at the polls during Pennsylvania’s primary on Tuesday. When he ran into Emily Cook, the county’s acting director of elections, she wasn’t ready to celebrate. It was, after all, only mid-afternoon, and the polls would be open until 8pm.“If you say that, you have to go outside, spin around on your left foot – it has to be your left foot – and throw some salt,” she said.She may have only been half-joking. Cook had reason to be superstitious. While the political significance of Pennsylvania’s primary on Tuesday was somewhat low, the stakes were extremely high. Luzerne county has had a number of high-profile errors in running its elections in recent years, including when multiple precincts ran out of paper in 2022 and ballots were found discarded in the trash in 2020.It has also had extremely high turnover. Cook, 26, is the seventh person to lead the election office since the fall of 2019. Previously the deputy director, she took over the position about two months ago.“I am very conscious of how important it is that I get this right, not just for the department or the county on the whole, but for my own job,” she said in her office. “It feels like a test and preparation for what comes in November.”Election day is a thankless task for Cook and the thousands of other officials charged with the nuts and bolts of administering voting across the US. In a best-case scenario, they are invisible – everything goes smoothly and no one notices the incredibly delicate ballet of details that need to take place to pull off a successful election.But human errors take place all the time, and have increasingly sparked a cascade of wider conspiracy theories. Since the 2020 election, when Donald Trump spread baseless lies about the election, a flood of officials have left the profession, prompting concerns about the widespread loss of institutional knowledge.On Tuesday, Cook had been up since 4am and was responsible for everything from making sure there was enough pizza for employees in the office to fielding reports of issues at the polls. In the span of about an hour and a half, she spoke to a woman who wanted to report what she believed was voter intimidation, talked to an election judge at the polls about some electioneering that may have been getting too rowdy, conducted two television interviews with local reporters, huddled with county lawyers, and made sure dinner was ordered for that evening.There were a few minor issues. There were some aggressive people electioneering for candidates. A small number of voters were told to come back to a polling location when there was an issue with a ballot marking device (they should have been offered an emergency ballot). Someone had placed small flyers of Donald Trump inside a polling machine at one precinct and Cook and another employee were working to get them taken down.View image in fullscreenEn route to one of her interviews, Cook ran into Denise Williams, the chair of the county board of elections, who asked her if she had heard reports that there wasn’t space for a write-in candidate in one of the races. Cook said she would look into it.But these hiccups are somewhat typical in elections and were far from the major issues Luzerne county has faced in the past. By the afternoon, Cook was especially pleased that the county hadn’t had to go to court to petition to extend voting hours – something that happens when there are major issues at the polls.“Never calm, but I’ve definitely seen it more chaotic,” she said. “I think that’s the best we can hope for.”Cook was appointed the acting director on 12 February, giving her a relatively short runway until the primary. She had worked in the election office since 2019 – experience that she drew on as she quickly took over for election day.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionStill, there have been leadership and management lessons she’s learned.“I don’t like to tell people no. I like to find a solution,” she said. “I think that’s part of what burns people out here, trying to keep everyone happy. Because everyone wants something completely different.”One floor above Cook’s office, Romilda Crocamo, the county manager, was also knocking on wood all afternoon. “I’m trying not to jinx it,” she said. “No earthquakes, no sinkholes.”For election day, she wore shoes with the American flag on them and a blue sweatshirt with the word Vote written across it in red. She had arranged for employees in the election office to get the same sweater (Cook and at least one other staffer was wearing the same one). Crocamo, who was also wearing an Avengers-themed lanyard, loves election day, and she confessed that sometimes she wonders if she’s too over the top.Every year around election times, the county needs to recruit employees from other departments to go and help staff the election office.“Historically, people are like ‘I don’t like elections’ – it’s like you’re condemning them to hell,” she said. But this time around she noticed that something had changed. “This time we had so many people who were like … ‘I wanna help.’”Cook agreed there had been a change in the election office after the negative attention the office has received.“There has been a culture change [of] ‘OK, we’re all gonna make this work together.’” More

    • 225 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A lot would have to go wrong for Biden to lose’: can Allan Lichtman predict the 2024 election?

      by

      He has been called the Nostradamus of US presidential elections. Allan Lichtman has correctly predicted the result of nine of the past 10 (and even the one that got away, in 2000, he insists was stolen from Al Gore). But now he is gearing up for perhaps his greatest challenge: Joe Biden v Donald Trump II.Lichtman is a man of parts. The history professor has been teaching at American University in Washington for half a century. He is a former North American 3,000m steeplechase champion and, at 77 – the same age as Trump – aiming to compete in the next Senior Olympics. In 1981 he appeared on the TV quizshow Tic-Tac-Dough and won $110,000 in cash and prizes.That same year he developed his now famous 13 keys to the White House, a method for predicting presidential election results that every four years tantalises the media, intrigues political operatives and provokes sniping from pollsters. Long before talk of the Steele dossier or Mueller investigation, it all began with a Russian reaching out across the cold war divide.“I’d love to tell you I developed my system by ruining my eyes in the archives, by deep contemplation, but if I were to say that, to quote the late great Richard Nixon, that would be wrong,” Lichtman recalls from a book-crowded office on the AU campus. “Like so many discoveries, it was kind of serendipitous.”View image in fullscreenLichtman was a visiting scholar at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena when he met the world’s leading authority in earthquake prediction, Vladimir Keilis-Borok, who had been part of a Soviet delegation that negotiated the limited nuclear test ban treaty with President John F Kennedy in Washington in 1963.Keilis-Borok had fallen in love with American politics and began a collaboration with Lichtman to reconceptualise elections in earthquake terms. That is, as a question of stability (the party holding the White House keeps it) versus earthquake (the party holding the White House gets thrown out).They looked at every presidential election since Abraham Lincoln’s victory in 1860, combining Keilis-Borok’s method recognising patterns associated with stability and earthquakes with Lichtman’s theory that elections are basically votes up or down on the strength and performance of the party that holds the White House.They came up with 13 true/false questions and a decision rule: if six or more keys went against the White House party, it would lose. If fewer than six went against it, it would win. These are the 13 keys, as summarised by AU’s website:1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.Lichtman and Keilis-Borok published a paper in an academic journal, which was spotted by an Associated Press science reporter, leading to a Washington Post article headlined: “Odd couple discovers keys to the White House.” Then, in the Washingtonian magazine in April 1982, Lichtman used the keys to accurately predict that, despite economic recession, low approval ratings and relative old age, Ronald Reagan would win re-election two years later.That led to an invitation to the White House from the presidential aide Lee Atwater, where Lichtman met numerous officials including then vice-president George HW Bush. Atwater asked him what would happen if Reagan did not run for re-election. Lichtman reckoned that a few important keys would be lost, including incumbent charisma.“Without the Gipper, forget it,” Lichtman says. “George Bush is about as charismatic as a New Jersey shopping centre on a Sunday morning. Atwater looks me in the eye, breathes a huge sigh of relief, and says, thank you, Professor Lichtman. And the rest is history.”For the next election, Bush was trailing his Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis by 18 percentage points in the opinion polls in May 1988, yet Lichtman correctly predicted a Bush victory because he was running on the Reagan inheritance of peace, prosperity, domestic tranquillity and breakthroughs with the Soviet Union.View image in fullscreenThat year Lichtman published a book, The Thirteen Keys to the Presidency. But he was still derided by the punditry establishment. “When I first developed my system and made my predictions, the professional forecasters blasted me because I had committed the ultimate sin of prediction, the sin of subjectivity.“Some of my keys were not just cut and dried and I kept telling them, it’s not subjectivity, it’s judgment. We’re dealing with human systems and historians make judgments all the time, and they’re not random judgments. I define each key very carefully in my book and I have a record.”He adds: “It took 15 to 20 years and the professional forecasting community totally turned around. They realised their big mathematical models didn’t work and the best models combined judgment with more cut-and-dried indicators. And suddenly the keys were the hottest thing in forecasting.”Lichtman was a man in demand. He spoke at forecasting conferences, wrote for academic journals and even gave a talk to the CIA about how to apply the 13 keys to foreign elections. And his crystal ball kept working.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe predicted that George HW Bush would be a one-term president, even though he was riding high in polls after the Gulf war, causing many leading Democrats to pass on mounting a challenge. Then a call from Little Rock, Arkansas. It was Kay Goss, special assistant to Governor Bill Clinton.“Are you really saying that George Bush can be beaten in 1992?” she asked. Lichtman confirmed that he was saying that. Clinton went on to win the Democratic primary election and beat Bush for the White House. “The Clintons have been big fans of the keys ever since,” Lichtman notes.The one apparent blot on Lichtman’s copybook is the 2000 election, where he predicted victory for the Democratic vice-president Al Gore over George W Bush, the Republican governor of Texas. Gore did win the national popular vote but lost the electoral college by a gossamer-thin margin. Lichtman, however, believes he was right.View image in fullscreen“It was a stolen election. Based on the actual votes, Al Gore should have won going away, except for the discarding of ballots cast by Black voters who were 95% for Gore. I proved this in my report to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. One out of every nine to 10 ballots cast by a Black voter was thrown out, as opposed to one out of 50 cast by a white voter.“Most of those were not so-called hanging chads. They were over-votes because Black people were told punch in Gore and then write in Gore, just to be sure, and those ballots were all discarded. Political scientists have since looked at the election and proved I was right. Al Gore, based on the intent of the voters, should have won by tens of thousands of votes.”He adds: “I contend I was right about 2000 or at a minimum there was no right prediction. You could argue either way. I contend – and a lot of people agree with me – that I’m 10 out of 10. But even if you say I’m nine out of 10, that’s not bad.”Perhaps Lichtman’s most striking prophecy, defying polls, commentators and groupthink, was that Trump – a former reality TV star with no prior political or military experience – would pull off a wildly improbable win over the former secretary of state and first lady Hillary Clinton in 2016. How did he know?View image in fullscreen“The critical sixth key was the contest key: Bernie Sanders’s contest against Clinton. It was an open seat so you lost the incumbency key. The Democrats had done poorly in 2014 so you lost that key. There was no big domestic accomplishment following the Affordable Care Act in the previous term, and no big foreign policy splashy success following the killing of Bin Laden in the first term, so there were just enough keys. It was not an easy call.”After the election, Lichtman received a copy of the Washington Post interview in which he made the prediction. On it was written in a Sharpie pen: “Congrats, professor. Good call. Donald J Trump.” But in the same call, Lichtman had also prophesied – again accurately – that Trump would one day be impeached.He was right about 2020, too, as Trump struggled to handle the coronavirus pandemic. “The pandemic is what did him in. He congratulated me for predicting him but he didn’t understand the keys. The message of the keys is it’s governance not campaigning that counts and instead of dealing substantively with the pandemic, as we know, he thought he could talk his way out of it and that sank him.”In 2020 Lichtman gave a presentation to the American Political Science Association about the keys as one of three classic models of prediction. In recent months he has delivered keynote addresses at Asian and Brazilian financial conferences, the Oxford Union and JP Morgan. As another election looms, he is not impressed by polls that show Trump leading Biden, prompting a fatalistic mood to take hold in Washington DC and foreign capitals.“They’re mesmerised by the wrong things, which is the polls. First of all, polls six, seven months before an election have zero predictive value. They would have predicted President Michael Dukakis. They would have predicted President Jimmy Carter would have defeated Ronald Reagan, who won in a landslide; Carter was way ahead in some of the early polls.“Not only are polls a snapshot but they are not predictors. They don’t predict anything and there’s no such thing as, ‘if the election were held today’. That’s a meaningless statement.”He is likely to make his pronouncement on the 2024 presidential election in early August. He notes that Biden already has the incumbency key in his favour and, having crushed token challengers in the Democratic primary, has the contest key too. “That’s two keys off the top. That means six more keys would have to fall to predict his defeat. A lot would have to go wrong for Biden to lose.”View image in fullscreenLichtman gives no weight to running mate picks and has never changed his forecast in the wake of a so-called “October surprise” But no predictive model is entirely immune to a black swan event.Speaking in the week that saw a jury seated for Trump’s criminal trial in New York involving a hush-money payment to a pornographic film performer, Lichtman acknowledges: “Keys are based on history. They’re very robust because they go all the way back retrospectively to 1860 and prospectively to 1984, so they cover enormous changes in our economy, our society, our demography, our politics.“But it’s always possible there could be a cataclysmic enough event outside the scope of the keys that could affect the election and here we do have, for the first time, not just a former president but a major party candidate sitting in a trial and who knows if he’s convicted – and there’s a good chance he will be – how that might scramble things.”Millions of people will be on edge on the night of 5 November. After 40 years of doing this, Lichtman will have one more reason to be anxious. “It’s nerve-racking because there are a lot of people who’d love to see me fail.” And if he does? “I’m human,” he admits. “It doesn’t mean my system’s wrong. Nothing is perfect in the human world.”Biden v Trump: What’s in store for the US and the world?On Thursday 2 May, 3-4.15pm ET, join Tania Branigan, David Smith, Mehdi Hasan and Tara Setmayer for the inside track on the people, the ideas and the events that might shape the US election campaign. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump VP contender Kristi Noem writes of killing dog – and goat – in new book

      by

      In 1952, as a Republican candidate for vice-president, Richard Nixon famously stirred criticism by admitting receiving a dog, Checkers, as a political gift.In 2012, as the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney was pilloried for tying a dog, Seamus, to the roof of the family car for a cross-country trip.But in 2024 Kristi Noem, a strong contender to be named running mate to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has managed to go one further – by admitting killing a dog of her own.“Cricket was a wirehair pointer, about 14 months old,” the South Dakota governor writes in a new book, adding that the dog, a female, had an “aggressive personality” and needed to be trained to be used for hunting pheasant.What unfolds over the next few pages shows how that effort went very wrong indeed – and, remarkably, how Cricket was not the only domestic animal Noem chose to kill one day in hunting season.Noem’s book – No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward – will be published in the US next month. The Guardian obtained a copy.Like other aspirants to be Trump’s second vice-president who have ventured into print, Noem offers readers a mixture of autobiography, policy prescriptions and political invective aimed at Democrats and other enemies, all of it raw material for speeches on the campaign stump.She includes her story about the ill-fated Cricket, she says, to illustrate her willingness, in politics as well as in South Dakota life, to do anything “difficult, messy and ugly” if it simply needs to be done.By taking Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs, Noem says, she hoped to calm the young dog down and begin to teach her how to behave. Unfortunately, Cricket ruined the hunt, going “out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life”.Noem describes calling Cricket, then using an electronic collar to attempt to bring her under control. Nothing worked. Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, “grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another”.Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like “a trained assassin”.When Noem finally grabbed Cricket, she says, the dog “whipped around to bite me”. Then, as the chickens’ owner wept, Noem repeatedly apologised, wrote the shocked family a check “for the price they asked, and helped them dispose of the carcasses littering the scene of the crime”.Through it all, Noem says, Cricket was “the picture of pure joy”.“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself “untrainable”, “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog”.“At that moment,” Noem says, “I realised I had to put her down.”Noem, who also represented her state in Congress for eight years, got her gun, then led Cricket to a gravel pit.“It was not a pleasant job,” she writes, “but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realised another unpleasant job needed to be done.”Incredibly, Noem’s tale of slaughter is not finished.Her family, she writes, also owned a male goat that was “nasty and mean”, because it had not been castrated. Furthermore, the goat smelled “disgusting, musky, rancid” and “loved to chase” Noem’s children, knocking them down and ruining their clothes.Noem decided to kill the unnamed goat the same way she had just killed Cricket the dog. But though she “dragged him to a gravel pit”, the goat jumped as she shot and therefore survived the wound. Noem says she went back to her truck, retrieved another shell, then “hurried back to the gravel pit and put him down”.At that point, Noem writes, she realised a construction crew had watched her kill both animals. The startled workers swiftly got back to work, she writes, only for a school bus to arrive and drop off Noem’s children.“Kennedy looked around confused,” Noem writes of her daughter, who asked: “Hey, where’s Cricket?”In what may prove a contender for the greatest understatement of election year, Noem adds: “I guess if I were a better politician I wouldn’t tell the story here.” More

    • 238 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Barrett signals at least part of Trump’s trial could continue even if court approves immunity defense – live

      by

      In an exchange with attorney John Sauer, conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett signaled she thought Donald Trump could still face trial on some election interference charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, even if the supreme court agrees with his claims of immunity.“So, you concede that private acts don’t get immunity?” Barrett asked.“We do,” Sauer replied. Barrett then referred to Smith’s brief in the immunity case:
      He urges us even if we … assume that there was some sort of immunity for official acts, that there were sufficient private acts in the indictment … for the case to go back and the trial to begin immediately. And I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts.
      She then posed a series of scenarios to Sauer, and asked him whether the acts were official or private. Sauer said most would be considered private, not official, acts.“So those acts, you would not dispute those were private, and you wouldn’t raise a claim that they were official as characterized?” Barrett asked. It’s a telling statement from the Trump-appointed justice, because the court could find that Trump is immune for official acts – but must face trial for acts done in his capacity as a private citizen.Before the special counsel’s office began presenting its case, Neil Gorsuch, a conservative justice, pondered whether rejecting Donald Trump’s claim of immunity would cause presidents to preemptively pardon themselves, in fear that a successor could decide to prosecute them.“What would happen if presidents were under fear, fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office,” asked Gorsuch, who Trump appointed, in an exchange with his attorney John Sauer.“It seems to me like one of the incentives that might be created as for presidents to try to pardon themselves,” Gorsuch continued, adding, “We’ve never answered whether a president can do that. Happily, it’s never been presented to us.”“And if the doctrine of immunity remains in place that’s likely to remain the case,” Sauer replied.Trump’s lawyer went on to argue that a finding against his immunity claim would weaken all future presidents:
      The real concern here is, is there going to be bold and fearless action? Is the president going to have to make a controversial decision where his political opponents are going to come after him the minute he leaves office? Is that going to unduly deter, or is that going to dampen the ardor of that president to do what our constitutional structure demands of him or her, which is bold and fearless action in the face of controversy?
      “And perhaps, if he feels he has to, he’ll pardon himself every four years from now on,” Gorsuch pondered.“But that, as the court pointed out, wouldn’t provide the security because the legality of that is something that’s never been addressed,” Sauer replied.Arguing before the court now is Michael Dreeben, an attorney representing special counsel Jack Smith, who indicted Donald Trump on federal charges relating to conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.He told the court that agreeing with Trump’s immunity claim means president could not be found liable for all sorts of criminal acts:
      His novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here for conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power.
      Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. Here the executive branch is enforcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for petitioners’ alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy.
      Conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett continues to sound somewhat flummoxed by John Sauer arguments in favor of Donald Trump’s immunity.“So how can you say that he would be subject to prosecution after impeachment, while at the same time saying that he’s exempt from these criminal statutes?” Barrett asked.Apparently unsatisfied with his answer, Barrett posed another hypothetical to Sauer: In the “example of a president who orders a coup, let’s imagine that he is impeached and convicted for ordering that coup and let’s just accept for the sake of argument, your position that that was official conduct. You’re saying that he couldn’t be prosecuted for that even after conviction and an impeachment proceeding?”Sauer responded by arguing the law must specify that a president who has been impeached and convicted by Congress can still face criminal prosecution for a coup:
      If there was not a statute that expressly referenced the president and made it criminal for the president. There would have to be a statute that made a clear statement that Congress purported to regulate the president’s conduct.
      In an exchange with attorney John Sauer, conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett signaled she thought Donald Trump could still face trial on some election interference charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, even if the supreme court agrees with his claims of immunity.“So, you concede that private acts don’t get immunity?” Barrett asked.“We do,” Sauer replied. Barrett then referred to Smith’s brief in the immunity case:
      He urges us even if we … assume that there was some sort of immunity for official acts, that there were sufficient private acts in the indictment … for the case to go back and the trial to begin immediately. And I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts.
      She then posed a series of scenarios to Sauer, and asked him whether the acts were official or private. Sauer said most would be considered private, not official, acts.“So those acts, you would not dispute those were private, and you wouldn’t raise a claim that they were official as characterized?” Barrett asked. It’s a telling statement from the Trump-appointed justice, because the court could find that Trump is immune for official acts – but must face trial for acts done in his capacity as a private citizen.Another liberal justice, Elena Kagan, debated the specifics with Donald Trump’s attorney John Sauer of his alleged misconduct, and whether he would be immune from prosecution.Kagan asked for Sauer’s views on Trump’s attempt to get Republican lawmakers in Arizona to help him disrupt Joe Biden’s election victory there: “The defendant asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud.”“Absolutely an official act for the president to communicate with state officials on a matter of enormous federal interest and concern, attempting to defend the integrity of a federal election to communicate with state officials,” Sauer replied.In an exchange with liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor, Donald Trump’s attorney John Sauer defended the legality of sending slates of fake electors – as Trump is alleged to have done to stop Joe Biden from winning the White House.The allegation is at the heart of the charges against Trump, both in special counsel Jack Smith’s federal case, and in the case brought in Georgia by Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis.“What is plausible about the president insisting and creating a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates, assuming you accept the facts of the complaint on their face? Is that plausible that that would be within his right to do?” Sotomayor asked.“Absolutely, your honor,” Sauer replied. “We have the historical precedent we cite in the lower courts of president Grant sending federal troops to Louisiana and Mississippi in 1876 to make sure that the Republican electors got certified.”Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded sharply skeptical of John Sauer’s arguments as she harkened back to the country’s early days in exploring the situations where a president could be prosecuted.Referring to amicus, or “friend of the court”, briefs filed in the case by outside groups, Sotomayor said:
      There are amica here who tell us that the founders actually talked about whether to grant immunity to the president. And in fact, they had state constitutions that granted some criminal immunity to governors. And yet, they didn’t take it up. Instead, they fought to pass an impeachment clause that basically says you can’t remove the president from office, except by a trial in the Senate, but you can impeach him after so … you can impose criminal liability.
      We would be creating a situation in which … a president is entitled not to make a mistake, but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain, to use the trappings of his office. That’s what you’re trying to get us to hold? Without facing criminal liability?
      Up first before the court is attorney John Sauer, who is representing Donald Trump.He’s currently in a back-and-forth with chief justice John Roberts, a conservative who has occasionally acted as a swing vote on the rightward-leaning court, as to whether a president accepting a bribe would be legal.The nine supreme court justices are seated and have begun hearing arguments over whether or not Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election because he was acting in his official capacity as president.Follow along here for live updates.Should the supreme court throw out Donald Trump’s immunity claim, when might his trial on federal election subversion charges begin?Or, if it is delayed further, which is the next criminal case to go before jurors? And what of the many civil suits against him?For a rundown of the former-perhaps-next president’s multitudinous legal troubles, check out our regularly updated case tracker:Protesters often turn up by the dozens outside the supreme court in Washington DC when it hears high-profiles cases, and Donald Trump’s occasional appearances in the Capitol also typically attract demonstrations.But for whatever reason, the exterior of the high court appears relatively quiet this morning, at least based on the photos on the wire, with few protesters present:The supreme court has not yet even heard arguments in Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from charges related to attempting to overturn the 2020 election because his alleged actions were taken while serving as president. But legal scholar Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said the conservative-dominated body has already done the ex-president’s bidding by agreeing to hear the case – and therefore delaying the start of a trial that could prove pivotal to his chances of returning to the White House.“The justices have already done great damage,” Waldman wrote recently. “They engineered one of history’s most egregious political interventions – not with an ugly ruling, at least not yet, but by getting ‘the slows’. At the very least they should issue this ruling in three weeks. That would give trial judge Tanya Chutkan enough time to start the trial [before the election], if barely.”Here’s more on why Waldman thinks the high court erred, and what we can expect in today’s arguments, from the Guardian’s Martin Pengelly:Good morning, US politics blog readers.It’s another big day at the supreme court – perhaps the biggest of its term so far. Beginning at 10am ET, the nine justices will hear arguments over whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for acts done while he was in office. The former president has made the claim as part of a bid to blunt special counsel Jack Smith’s case against him for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election, and while there’s no telling how the court will rule, it has already had one concrete effect: delaying his trial in Washington DC, potentially until after the November election, and therefore preventing a potential guilty verdict that could have damaged his campaign.The supreme court is composed of a six-justice conservative supermajority – three of whom Trump appointed – and a three-justice liberal minority, and the fact that they took this case up at all has raised eyebrows among some legal scholars. A ruling in his favor could lead to at least some of the charges Smith has brought to be dropped. If the court rejects arguments from Trump’s attorneys, his trial may be cleared to proceed – but there is still no telling when it will actually kick off.The former president will not be in Washington DC for today’s oral arguments. He’s in New York City, where his trial is underway on charges of falsifying business documents related to hush money payments made before his 2016 election victory, the first of his four criminal cases to go before jurors. We have a separate live blog covering all that.Here’s what else is going on today:
      Joe Biden is heading to Syracuse, New York to tell the tale of how the 2022 Chips act and other policies are helping turn around the local economy, then heading to New York’s ritzy suburbs for a campaign event.
      Arizona has indicted 18 former top Trump officials, including Mark Meadows, his ex-chief of staff, and attorney Rudy Giuliani for their attempts to overturn Biden’s victory in the state four years ago, the AP reports.
      And in Michigan, a state investigator said he considered Trump and Meadows as unindicted co-conspirators in a plot to interfere with Biden’s victory there in 2020, according to the AP. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden and Trump clinch Pennsylvania primaries shortly after polls close

      by

      Joe Biden and Donald Trump both won their primaries in Pennsylvania shortly after polls closed.Pennsylvanians had gone to the polls on Tuesday to cast ballots in the state’s primary races – the results provide a window into where voters in the crucial battleground stand roughly six months out from the general election.Biden and Trump had already locked up their parties’ nominations, but Pennsylvania voters still had other options in the presidential primaries.With nearly 50% of the votes counted, Biden got 491,892 votes, or 94.4%, according to state election data. Dean Phillips, a Democratic congressman who dropped out of the race, got 29,333 votes, or 5.6%.Trump got 268,670 votes, or 79.4%, with 33% of the votes counted, while Nikki Haley, who dropped out the race, got 70,648 votes, or 20.6%, data shows.Haley, a former South Carolina governor and UN ambassador, remained on the Pennsylvania ballot after dropping out of the race in March. Primary voting in the state is confined to registered Republicans, locking out the independent voters who favored her.Her results show that a number of Republicans continue to be unhappy with Trump, who is on trial on 34 criminal counts in New York.Biden faced challenges of his own in Pennsylvania, which he won in 2020 by about 80,000 votes, or 1.2 points. A group of progressive activists had run a campaign to encourage Democrats to write in “uncommitted” on Tuesday to protest against Biden’s handling of the war in Gaza. The effort, based on the similar Listen to Michigan campaign, hopes to get at least 40,000 Democrats to write in “uncommitted”, but it may take weeks to get those ballots counted.On Tuesday, voters had the economy and foreign policy on their minds as they cast their ballots.Karen Lau, a 70-year-old retired educator in Kingston, said she would be voting for Trump. She said Biden’s handling of the conflict in Gaza was a top issue. “Biden’s destroying our country,” she said. “The hypocrisy with Israel of saying one thing and meaning another with Biden.”Even though Trump has been quiet on what exactly he would do in Israel, Lau said she was convinced he would handle it better. “He’s always been a supporter of Israel,” she said, citing the Abraham accords and Trump’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. “I just have a lot more trust in what he will do.”Lau, who is Jewish, added that she was “very concerned” with pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. “The rise of antisemitism is something I never thought I would see in my lifetime,” she said.Richard K, a 69-year-old retired security guard in Kingston who declined to give his last name, also said he was unbothered that Trump was not that much younger than Biden.“Trump plays golf when he can, he has a lot more energy,” he said. “Biden walks like an old man.” He also dismissed the criminal cases against Trump, calling them “election interference”.“If he wasn’t ahead, they wouldn’t be going after him,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBiden and Trump recently held events in Pennsylvania before the primary, underscoring the state’s pivotal role in the election. At a campaign stop last week in Scranton, where Biden was born, the president used the setting to contrast his vision for the country’s future with Trump’s.“When I look at the economy, I don’t see it through the eyes of Mar-a-Lago, I see it through the eyes of Scranton,” Biden said, referring to Trump’s Florida resort home. “Scranton values or Mar-a-Lago values: these are the competing visions for our economy that raise fundamental questions of fairness at the heart of this campaign.”Farther down the ballot, Pennsylvanians will cast votes in congressional primaries that will help determine control of the Senate and the House in November. In the Senate race, incumbent Bob Casey ran unopposed in the Democratic primary, while Dave McCormick was the sole candidate in the Republican primary.McCormick ran for Pennsylvania’s other Senate seat in 2022, but he lost the primary to the celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz, who was later defeated by the Democrat John Fetterman in the general election. The Pennsylvania Senate race will probably be one of the most expensive in the country, as Casey reported having nearly $12m in cash on hand earlier this month while McCormick’s campaign has more than $6m in the bank. The Cook Political Report rates the race as “lean Democrat”.Several House races will provide additional clues about Pennsylvania voters’ leanings ahead of the general election. In the Pittsburgh-based 12th district, the progressive congresswoman and “Squad” member Summer Lee faces a challenge from local council member Bhavini Patel, who has attacked the incumbent over her support for a ceasefire in Gaza. The Moderate Pac, a group that supports centrist Democrats and is largely funded by the Republican mega-donor Jeffrey Yass, has spent more than $600,000 supporting Patel, and the race will be closely scrutinized as an early test for progressives facing primary challenges this year.In south-eastern Pennsylvania, the Republican representative Brian Fitzpatrick won his primary after attracting a threat from an anti-abortion activist, Mark Houck, who criticized the incumbent for being too centrist. In 2022, Fitzpatrick won re-election by 10 points in a district that Biden carried by 4.6 points two years earlier, according to the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. Cook rates the first district as “likely Republican” in the general election. Fitzpatrick will face Democrat Ashley Ehasz, who ran uncontested in the Democratic primary, in November.Elsewhere in the state, Ryan Mackenzie, a Republican state representative, won the seventh-district GOP primary, vying for the chance to face off against the Democratic incumbent Susan Wild. The Lehigh Valley district is considered a “toss-up” in the general election, per Cook’s ratings.In the 10th district, based around the city of Harrisburg, Democrat Janelle Stelson won the crowded Democratic primary. The former news anchor will face the Republican incumbent and former House freedom caucus chair Scott Perry. Cook rates Perry’s race as “lean Republican” in the general election.Reuters contributed to this report More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Tulsi Gabbard repeats false Hillary Clinton ‘grooming’ claim in new book

      by

      Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman, has repeated a discredited claim about Hillary Clinton that previously saw Gabbard lodge then drop a $50m defamation suit in a new book published as she seeks to be named Donald Trump’s running mate for US president.Accusing Democrats of making up “a conspiracy theory that [Trump] was ‘colluding’ with the Russians to win the election” in 2016, Gabbard claims: “Hillary Clinton used a similar tactic against me when I ran for president in 2020, accusing me of being ‘groomed by the Russians’.”Gabbard ran for the Democratic nomination. Clinton did not accuse her of being “groomed by the Russians”.What Clinton said, in October 2019 and on a podcast hosted by the former Barack Obama adviser David Plouffe, was that she thought Republicans would encourage a third-party bid in 2020, aiming to syphon votes from the Democratic candidate in key states as Jill Stein, the Green candidate, and the Libertarian, Gary Johnson, did four years before.“They are also going to do third-party again,” Clinton said, “and I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.”Gabbard was then in the Democratic primary, though she never made any impact.Clinton continued: “She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And, that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset. Totally. And so they know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee they’ll have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it.”Amid uproar, a spokesperson for Clinton said she had been referring to Gabbard and the Russians – saying “If the nesting doll fits”, thereby stoking media coverage in which Clinton’s remarks about “grooming” and “assets” were conflated.Clinton’s meaning was soon cleared up, but Gabbard seized on the “grooming” remark. She penned an op ed in the Wall Street Journal under a headline, I Can Defeat Trump and the Clinton Doctrine, that might now prove an awkward fit with her political ambitions.Later, after dropping out of the Democratic primary and endorsing Joe Biden, who she said had “a good heart” and would “help heal” a badly divided country, Gabbard sued Clinton for $50m over the “Russian asset” comment, rather than the remark about “grooming”. That lawsuit was dropped in May 2020.Four years on, Gabbard has completed a remarkable journey across the political aisle, from being seen as a rising Democratic star in the US House to hosting on Fox News and speaking at events including CPAC, a hard-right annual conference. Her book – For Love of Country: Why I Left the Democratic Party – will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.On the page, Gabbard presents a mix of memoir – from growing up in Hawaii to service in Iraq, from entering Congress to her failed presidential run – and pro-Trump screed. Light on detail and heavy on invective, the book includes excoriations of US support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. It will hit shops, however, in the aftermath of the passage in Congress of billions of dollars in new Ukraine aid.Gabbard is widely reported to be a contender for Trump’s running mate in his rematch with Biden. In her book, she defends the 88-times criminally charged former president on many legal fronts.Her complaint about Clinton’s remarks about Russia seems designed to stir up familiar Trump campaign furies over Clinton and the investigation of Russian election interference in 2016, which US intelligence agreed was carried out in his support but which prompts Gabbard to write: “None of it was true.”She also accuses Democrats of planting evidence and stories with a compliant press, aided by a “deep state” consisting of “active and retired officials from within the justice department and other national security agencies”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe deep state conspiracy theory, which holds that a permanent government of operatives and bureaucrats exists to thwart populist leaders, is popular with Trump and followers notably including Liz Truss, a former UK prime minister. However, one of its chief creators and propagators, the Trump aide and ally Steve Bannon, has said it is “for nut cases”.Gabbard does not only repeat conspiracy theories in her book, but also makes elementary mistakes. In rehashing her inaccurate complaint about Clinton saying she was being “groomed” by Russia, she writes that Clinton was speaking to David Axelrod, also a former Obama advisor but the host of a separate podcast to Plouffe’s.Gabbard also claims that “the propaganda media repeated Clinton’s lies over and over, without ever asking for evidence or fact-checking her themselves”.In fact, Gabbard’s claims against Clinton were widely fact-checked or made the subject of article corrections.In October 2019 – months before Gabbard filed suit – the Washington Post, a leading exponent of the fact-checking form, said: “The initial news reports got it wrong, perhaps fueled by the ‘nesting doll’ comment, with many saying Clinton said the Russians were grooming Gabbard for a third-party bid.”Clinton, the paper added, “certainly said Gabbard was backed by Russian bots and even suggested she was a Russian asset”. But “within a 24-hour news cycle, Clinton’s staff made it clear she was talking about the GOP, not the Russians, eyeing Gabbard as a possible third-party candidate. A simple listen to the podcast confirmed that.“In other words, this was all cleared up 12 days before Gabbard published her [Wall Street Journal] article, making the inaccurate version of [the] ‘grooming’ statement the very first sentence. So there’s little excuse for getting this wrong.”The paper therefore awarded Gabbard three Pinocchios – denoting “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions” – out of a possible four. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney urges US supreme court to rule quickly on Trump’s immunity claim

      by

      The former congresswoman and co-chair of the House January 6 committee Liz Cheney is urging the US supreme court to rule quickly on Donald Trump’s claim that he has immunity from prosecution for acts he committed while president – so that his 2020 election interference trial can begin before the 2024 election this November.“If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for January 6 to account,” Cheney wrote in an opinion article for the New York Times, published on Monday.Trump faces four federal election subversion charges, arising from his attempt to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden in 2020, fueled by his lie about electoral fraud and culminating in the deadly attack on Congress by extremist supporters, urged on by the then president, on 6 January 2021.Cheney warned: “I know how Mr Trump’s delay tactics work,” adding: “Mr Trump believes he can threaten and intimidate judges and their families, assert baseless legal defenses and thereby avoid accountability altogether.”The special counsel Jack Smith, prosecuting the case against Trump, has urged the court to reject Trump’s immunity claim as “an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government”.Cheney, a Republican and the daughter of the former vice-president Dick Cheney, was ousted from her congressional seat, representing Wyoming, after she became one of the strongest voices from the GOP demanding Trump be held accountable for inciting and failing to stop the January 6 insurrection.She has since said she would prefer Democrats to win in the 2024 elections over members of her own party as it has become more extreme, because she feared the US was “sleepwalking into dictatorship” and that another Trump White House presented a tangible “threat” to American democracy.Cheney said in her New York Times article: “The special counsel’s indictment lays out Mr Trump’s detailed plan to overturn the 2020 election … [and that] senior advisers in the White House, Justice Department and elsewhere repeatedly warned that Mr Trump’s claims of election fraud were false and that his plans for January 6 were illegal.”She added: “If Mr Trump’s tactics prevent his January 6 trial from proceeding in the ordinary course, he will also have succeeded in concealing critical evidence from the American people – evidence demonstrating his disregard for the rule of law, his cruelty on January 6 and the deep flaws in character that make him unfit to serve as president. The Supreme Court should understand this reality and conclude without delay that no immunity applies here.”The court’s nine-member bench leans very conservative, especially after Trump nominated three rightwing justices while he was president. The court hears oral arguments in the immunity case on Thursday.Trump and his team urged the court to find that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts they take in office and therefore dismiss the federal criminal case. More