US elections 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 288 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is too old and incited a coup. Biden is too old and mixes up names. America, how to choose? | Marina Hyde

      by

      To the US, where one likely candidate for the presidency delivers hour-long rambling speeches in which he explains that he’s going to be a dictator, but all the chat is about whether the other candidate has lost his marbles. And yes, let me pre-emptively apologise, because I can already tell that we will only be on about the third paragraph of this column before I have exhausted the Guardian’s approved list of euphemisms for being a couple of world leaders’ names short of a full set.Anyway, our business today is with the president, Joe Biden, who called an impromptu press conference on Thursday night in which he hotly insisted that his memory was just fine. The occasion was the publication of a justice department report that cleared Biden of criminal charges over his handling of highly classified materials. This year-long investigation was carried out by special counsel Robert Hur, who happens to be a registered Republican, and whose report specifically mentions the president’s “significantly limited” memory. Mr Hur says that part of the reason he didn’t bring charges was that “at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Oh dear. A real muffin-basket of an attack-line gifted to Donald Trump there, and confirmation of my long-held conviction that fake sympathy is far deadlier a tone than open attack.Biden had almost left the stage last night when he returned to the podium to take a question on the Israel-Gaza conflict, in which he unfortunately referred to the Egyptian leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as “the Mexican president”. On the one hand, this was always going to happen just at the moment he was insisting his memory was great, just as it is a truth universally acknowledged that people correcting someone else’s grammar or spelling will normally involuntarily commit some howler of their own in the process. Call it the pedants’ curse – or indeed, the pedant’s curse.On the other hand … oh dear. According to polling, Biden’s age and cognitive glitches are his biggest vulnerability with voters. As for his likely opponent, for my armchair diagnosis, the most terrifying thing about Donald Trump is that he is completely sane (unless you count advanced narcissism, which I suppose we have to these days). But Trump is a mere three years younger than Biden, often walks with a wobble, and himself recently confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi in a rant. So is it fair that the one should face infinitely more scrutiny on the lost-plot front than the other?Alas, fairness isn’t one of the base notes of political life. I’m afraid we could be dealing with Ye Olde Vibes Theory of Politics (est 2022), which holds that the feels-based way in which a politician presents is more important than such trivialities as the facts or their record. Listen – I don’t make the rules. But during the first 2022 Conservative leadership contest in the UK, remainer Liz Truss presented as more Brexity to the party grassroots than leaver Rishi Sunak. Why? Vibes. Just … vibes.The vibes on Biden’s seniority are not great. Yes, he has led his country’s exceptional and internationally envied economic recovery from the pandemic, so the large rational part of me judges that unfair. But another part of me, perhaps the irrational, can no longer watch any Biden speech or address without picturing his aides also watching backstage, mainlining cortisol, every fibre of their brace-positioned beings willing him to get over the line without making any unforced errors – and to then exit the stage without trying to use a flag as a door.I’m sure this is complete fantasy and the only cortisol levels going through the roof are my own. Nevertheless: vibes. Can’t fight ’em. I remember my heart feeling similarly in my mouth during the aforementioned Tory leadership contest when runaway favourite Truss walked the wrong way off stage after her campaign launch. Did I think Liz Truss literally wasn’t even up to finding her way off a stage? Of course not. Rationally, I knew it was just a silly mistake, of the sort that all of us make every day. At the same time, the irrational half of me felt the satisfying click of the right key turning in the lock. I knew that Liz Truss metaphorically wasn’t even up to finding her way off a stage. There was some kind of ineffable psychological truth to it all that was far more powerful than the facts.As someone who believes the likely Republican candidate is hideously, overwhelmingly worse, I fear that Joe Biden is gearing up for a gruelling election at precisely this vibes-based disadvantage. Both he and Trump are at the stage of life when sensible ordinary people find the strength to turn to their families and ask: be honest, should I still be driving? Yet Trump’s great power is defying rationality, like some dark lord of the vibes. He is possessed of a mesmerising ability to make every single thing feel like it is playing into his hands, which is why we now all watch news reports of various criminal charges being brought against him and go, “Oh this’ll play well for him”. Will it? And if so, why should it? Who really knows, but the vibes say so.After the last time I touched on the gerontocracy in these pages, the Guardian printed three letters from older male readers under the headline, What’s age got to do with it, Marina Hyde? Ageism was mentioned, with one of the correspondents advancing details of how he spent his days, as an argument against what we might kindly have termed my own argument about when big hitters should leave the professional stage. Now, no one more than me welcomes a good bollocking on the letters page, and all the three men were very nice about the rest of my output. Thank you!However. At the risk of drawing further correspondence, I feel I still have to hold to the position that being president of the United States is not the same as “writing, teaching, and volunteering in a residential home”, and is a job for a younger man than either Biden and Trump. Not a younger woman, of course – that would be genuinely insane in the strictest clinical sense of the term. But younger than 86 at conclusion of office. So I end this column with a challenge: if any readers of this newspaper are able to get to the end of the lengthy forthcoming US election campaign and think it showcased a vibrant, healthy and sprightly democracy, then I urge them to write in on 6 November, and suggest mandatory retirement for me.
      Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court justices have strange views on whether Trump is disqualified | Moira Donegan

      by

      Elena Kagan once referred to Jonathan Mitchell sarcastically as “some genius”. That was in oral arguments surrounding SB8, the bounty-hunter abortion ban that Texas succeeded in passing before the overturn of Roe v Wade, which Mitchell wrote, pioneering a cockamamie scheme for evading judicial review.Mitchell, a far-right lawyer currently vying for a spot in the second Trump administration, is a fan of this kind of bald, legal bad faith: you can’t quite call him duplicitous, because he never quite pretends that the law really leads him to the conclusions he’d like to reach. He’s more about coming up with novel legal schemes to get to his desired outcome and trusting that the federal judiciary, captured as it is by Federalist Society acolytes and wingnut cranks, will go along with him because they share his political proclivities.That’s what worked for him with SB8: the supreme court allowed Texas’s abortion ban to go into effect long before Dobbs: not because Mitchell made a convincing argument, but because he offered them an opportunity to do what they wanted to do anyway.Something similar happened in Thursday’s oral arguments in Trump v Anderson, a question about whether Donald Trump is disqualified from holding federal office under section three of the 14th amendment.The case reached the supreme court after a Colorado court found that Trump’s actions on January 6 disqualified him. The court wanted to disagree and was desperate to find a way to restore Trump to the Colorado ballot without addressing the underlying question of whether Trump committed an insurrection or not. Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer, gave them very little help: he gave a shoulder-shrugging argument to the justices, after filing a bizarre and strained brief that primarily focused on the absurd claim that the president is not an “officer.” Left to their own devices, the justices went fishing, looking for an argument that could plausibly allow them to exit the case, since Mitchell did not provide them one.The winning entry came from Justice Samuel Alito, who first offered the suggestion that a state like Colorado did not have the authority to enforce section three of the 14th amendment without congressional permission. The rest of the justices seemed to like the sound of that and were soon all asking questions about the scope of state authority over the administration of federal elections.It was a bit of an odd argument: the court recently came close to embracing a much more wide-reaching vision of the authority of state legislatures to govern federal elections in their borders, in its address of a rightwing legal curiosity called the “independent state legislature theory”. And the notion that section three of the 14th amendment requires congressional action to go into effect is on its own peculiar: no other section of the amendment has been found to require such instigating legislation from Congress, and the language of the amendment itself suggests that the disqualification of onetime insurrectionists is something that Congress has to act to turn off, but not to turn on.It is strange, too, that the court, which in past years has made dramatic and ruinous changes to American life out of its professed loyalty to our nation’s “history and traditions”, chose to more or less completely ignore the suggestions of history here. The 14th amendment’s section three has seldom been enforced – in part because of the rarity of insurrections – and so there are few impediments to the court’s self-styled originalists delving headfirst into the history of the amendment’s intention and context.But instead the justices chose to dismiss the considerable evidence that the framers of the 14th amendment intended section three to be used precisely to protect the republic from a figure like Trump. They attend themselves instead not to the lessons of the past, but to the incentives of the present.By the end of the arguments, it was clear: what the justices will write will be a 9-0 or 8-1 decision (only Sonia Sotomayor voiced much dissent) saying that section three is not self-enacting, or at any rate that the states cannot enact it themselves. They will have arrived at this conclusion not because the argument was made persuasively or at all by Trump attorney Mitchell – it wasn’t – and not because it is the place where the text compels them to arrive – it isn’t. They will instead have fabricated this reasoning out of whole cloth, because it gets them out of an inconvenient question: the question of whether the constitution’s substantive protections for democracy can withstand the stress Trump applies to them.One point that several of the justices touched on, and which has been taken up by those skeptical of the Colorado case and similar efforts to disqualify Trump from office on 14th amendment grounds, is the notion that his disqualification would be somehow anti-democratic, disenfranchising the people who would like to vote for him and would not get a chance to.But democracy means more than the simple ability to vote; it requires a commitment to constitutional principles – to the limits of an office, to the rights of the minority, to the separation of private and public interests among those in power and to the willingness to place the dignity of the country before the petty preferences of the man who leads it.Trump has no intention of upholding these principles. We know: he tells us all the time. To disqualify him would not be to undermine democracy but to protect it, by averting the seizure of the republic by the man who has been quite frank about his intention to destroy it.Meanwhile, section three of the 14th amendment now seems set to be orphaned – denied its status as self-effecting, curtailed in its enforcement by the states. If section three is still the law, and if insurrectionists are still barred from taking federal office, then how can this law be enforced? And that’s where the court, in its apparent effort to avoid having to take much of a stand on the issue, seems to have planted a loaded gun. Because if states can’t enforce the ban on insurrectionists in office, then only Congress can. And where would Congress do that? At the certification of the electoral votes – on 6 January 2025.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump wins Nevada Republican caucuses in effective one-horse race

      by

      Donald Trump was anointed the victor of Nevada Republican caucuses, after staunch loyalists in the state helped maneuver the election process to assure his success.Shortly after the caucuses concluded, the AP confirmed Trump, who was the only major candidate participating, as the winner, capping off a perplexing election week in a key battleground state. Ryan Binkley, a little-known pastor and businessman from Texas, was the only other candidate running.With Joe Biden having easily secured victory in the Democratic primary on Tuesday, the current and former president are one step closer to a rematch in the November general election. Trump’s victory Tuesday came on the same day that the US supreme court appeared poised to reject a challenge to his candidacy in Colorado over his attempts to subvert the 2020 election results.Nevada’s “first in the west” presidential choice contest is usually a crucial milestone for both major parties. But this year’s primaries were a strange and subdued affair, and sparsely attended – only 16% of registered voters in Nevada participated in the primary.The odd, bifurcated Republican voting system may be partly to blame.The caucuses, which were organized by the state’s GOP, came just two days after the Republican primary in which Nikki Haley, despite being the only candidate on the ballot, trailed behind a “none of these candidates” option. Registered Republicans in the state were eligible to vote in both the caucuses and the primary, but candidates could only compete in one or the other. All of the state’s 26 Republican delegates will be allocated based on the caucus, whereas the primary results are non-binding.For years, Nevada held caucuses – calling on voters from each major party to gather at local sites to debate and then vote for a preferred candidate. But after the last presidential election, lawmakers in the state passed legislation requiring primaries instead, arguing that the more traditional style of voting, either at polling stations or by mail, would make it easier for more people to participate.But state Republicans rejected the change. Although they still held primaries on Tuesday, as required by law, they also held their own caucuses that reflect their party’s efforts to limit voting.Those participating in the caucuses were required to come in person, at specific locations, and bring a photo ID. As voters sardined into a high school in Henderson, Nevada, attendees packed into the gymnasium.“He needs our support – look at the treatment he’s getting ,” said Takashi Tamara, 83, referring to the legal cases against the Trump. He had initially been confused about why Trump’s name wasn’t on the primary ballot on Tuesday, until a volunteer with the local Republican party explained that it was only the caucuses that would count toward the nomination process.As the line of voters outside the school grew, snaking around the corner, some began to leave early. Several voters had been mistaken about which precinct they were supposed to report to. Others were annoyed at the chaos inside the packed gymnasium. Leaders of the caucus effort, which included Trump allies who were indicted for their roles in trying to overturn the 2020 election results, said the process was more secure than the primaries. The claim has been contested by election experts, and voter fraud is exceedingly rare.Media, who had in past elections been allowed to observe both Democratic and Republican caucuses, were being barred from observing inside the caucus location by party officials.“We’ve had really disappointing relationships with the press, we are very defensive as a result,” said Jesse Law, GOP chair for Clark county, which encompasses Las Vegas. Law was one of six Republican electors who signed fake electoral certificates declaring Trump the winner of Nevada in 2020, despite Biden winning the state by more than 30,000 votes, and was indicted for his role in the scheme by a grand jury.Voting experts are unclear on how disinformation about the voting process, and confusion around the dueling primary election systems, might affect turnout in future elections.At a Las Vegas rally last week, Trump encouraged voters to ignore the primaries in favor of the caucus. “Don’t waste your time on primary,” he said. “Waste all of your time on caucus because the primary doesn’t mean anything.”Trump won the caucuses here and on the US Virgin Islands – a territory where residents cannot vote in the presidential election, but can help choose the candidate. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Excited for Trump’: Nevada Republican party holds caucuses days after primary

      by

      Nevada’s Republican party is hosting caucuses on Thursday, just two days after the state held a non-binding presidential primary.Donald Trump, the only major candidate running in the caucuses, is assured to be anointed victor by the end of the night. Still, supporters turned up to show their support for the former president, joining snaking lines at high schools, country clubs and even a dental practice to vote.Political analysts and the Nevada Republicans themselves were unsure of what sort of turnout to expect tonight, in a race that is essentially decided for Trump. The only other candidate Tuesday night was Ryan Binkley – a little-known pastor and businessman from Texas – will cap off a perplexing primary week in the key, western battleground state.Due to the manoeuvrings of staunch Nevada GOP allies, Trump is essentially guaranteed the state’s 26 delegates at the Republican national convention. After challenging a state law requiring presidential primaries, the party won the right to hold their own caucuses – not run and financed by the state. Candidates could only participate in one or the other, though voters are allowed to participate in both.While voters in the primary were allowed to cast ballots by mail, or early in person, those participating in the caucuses were required to come in person, at specific locations and bring a photo ID. The state’s GOP has said the caucuses are more secure than the primaries, though as voters sardined into a high school in Henderson, Nevada, attendees complained that overwhelmed volunteers were having difficulties managing the mass of voters outside.At the Green Valley high school caucus site in Henderson, Nevada, spirits were high as voters filed over to the registration tables to have their IDs checked. One organizer delivered a PSA: “If you are one of the people who hung up Trump signs all over, I love it – but you have to take them down.” It was against the school’s policy to allow political signs to be posted around campus.Deby Callahan, 71, and her granddaughter Aubrey Bucher, 20, were attending together. Bucher was also trying to gather signatures for a ballot measure to approve a voter ID requirement for future elections. “I’m excited for president Trump,” Callahan said, who like many other voters do not accept Biden won the 2020 election.Ahead of the caucuses that he is guaranteed to win, Trump urged Nevadans who were voting to sign the voter ID petition – which election experts have said could make it more onerous, especially for older people and people of color, to cast ballots. Republicans across the US have been pushing such measures.“If you are showing up today to vote in the GOP Caucus in Nevada, make sure to sign the Petition for VOTER ID that many people will be circulating at Caucus locations,” Trump posted to his Truth Social. “This is a very ‘BIG DEAL.’ Thank you.”As volunteers methodically checked the IDs of caucus attendees, a queue for the sign in table began to grow, wrapping around the school’s entrance.“Look at the turnout,” said Aydin Delara, 65. “Trump is the only reason everyone is here.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNearly 9,300 Republicans submitted their primary ballots early, by mail or in person, and about 10,400 voted on Tuesday. Confusion about how and whether to vote in the primary, as well as heavy rains, probably affected turnout. Trump, who visited the state last week, encouraged voters to avoid the primary altogether. “Don’t waste your time,” he said at a rally in east Las Vegas. “Waste all of your time on caucus because the primary doesn’t mean anything.”Nevada Republicans have said that their caucuses will be more secure than the primaries, a claim that is roundly disputed by election experts – voter fraud is exceedingly rare. The leaders of the caucus effort include election deniers who have been charged for their roles in trying to overturn the 2020 election results.But the bifurcated process has also caused confusion for voters, many of whom appeared at the polls earlier this week and were surprised to find that Trump wasn’t on the ballot. He still managed to humiliate Nikki Haley, the only major candidate running, who trailed behind a “none of these candidates” option. Trump allies had encouraged voters to show their support for the former president by voicing opposition to Haley.Borrowing a favorite phrase of Trump’s, the former UN ambassador has said the state’s divided election process was “rigged” against her. Haley did not campaign in Nevada, choosing instead to focus on the upcoming elections in South Carolina.Although this election process is legal, the GOP’s manoeuvring has been widely criticised, including by Republicans. Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor, said in October that the duelling contests would be “detrimental to the candidates” and “unacceptable for voters”. Nonetheless, Lombardo said he would be caucusing for Trump. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel delivers Trump a Biden attack line on a silver platter

      by

      The president is not a crook. But there may be something more unforgivable in the court of public opinion. The president is old.That is what will linger from Joe Biden’s pyrrhic victory at the hands of the justice department on Thursday. True, he will not face criminal charges over his handling of highly classified documents when a private citizen, despite an awkward photo revealing papers stashed in a broken cardboard box in his garage, according to special counsel Robert Hur.But most striking among the reasons that Hur gave for his decision was that 81-year-old Biden “would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.The special counsel had delivered an attack line to Donald Trump’s election campaign on a silver platter. Only in America could Trump gain a political lift from 91 criminal charges even as his opponent suffers a political setback from not being charged at all.And Trump, who is 77, is at least as likely to speak gobbledygook as Biden, recently confusing his Republican opponent Nikki Haley with former House speaker Nancy Pelosi. Yet as in so many other areas, he is somehow given a free ride, in part because he is a white hot ball of anger who just seems younger, in part because his age seems trivial compared to his alleged crimes and misdemeanours, including a far more serious classified documents case.But Hur still wrote that Biden’s memory was “significantly limited” when he was interviewed by members of his prosecution team. It “appeared hazy” regarding the debate about US forces in Afghanistan and could not recall the years when he was vice-president. Most startlingly, Biden “did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died”.It is all fodder for Republicans, who have been working around the clock to pin Biden to the wall as a babbling Methuselah who doesn’t know what day of the week it is. Alex Pfeiffer, communications director for Make America Great Again Inc, a pro-Trump Super Pac, said: “If you’re too senile to stand trial, then you’re too senile to be president. Joe Biden is unfit to lead this nation.”Nikki Haley, a Republican candidate for president, posted on social media: “Joe Biden can’t remember major events in his life, like when he was vice-president or when his son died. That is sad, but it will be even sadder if we have a person in the White House who is not mentally up to the most important job in the world.”Biden’s lawyers were quick to dismiss the report as a hatchet job by a partisan hack swerving outside his lane. They accused of Hur, a Republican who served in senior roles at the justice department during the Trump administration, of overreach and “investigative excess”.Unfortunately that defence had already been undercut by Biden himself. Speaking in Nevada on Sunday, he apparently confused François Mitterrand, the former French president who died in 1996, with France’s current president, Emmanuel Macron, while recalling European worries over US democracy and the January 6 insurrection.Then, in New York on Wednesday, Biden referred to former German chancellor Helmut Kohl – who died in 2017 – as talking to him about the same issue when he apparently meant Angela Merkel.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA day later the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, tried to neutralise the gaffes by pointing to recent examples of other public figures – including the House speaker, Mike Johnson, and Fox News host Sean Hannity – mixing up names. She told reporters: “And, look – you know, look, as it relates to the names and – and what he was trying to – you know, what he was trying to – to say, look, many people – elected officials, many people – you know, they tend – they can – they can mis- – misspeak sometimes. Right?”Biden, meanwhile, is not helping his own case. He turned down the chance to do a TV interview before Sunday’s American football Super Bowl, a platform that reaches millions of viewers who might not be following politics closely. He has sat for a quarter as many interviews as Trump at this point in his presidency, and one-fifth as many as Obama, according to the White House Transition Project’s Martha Kumar.Such elusiveness gives the impression of a man whose “handlers” believe that he must be coddled and shielded for his own health and gaffe avoidance.There are eerie echoes of 2016 when then FBI director James Comey declined to recommend charges against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal email system when she was secretary of state but rebuked her as “extremely careless”. Comey reopened his investigation 11 days before the election; Clinton has blamed him for her shocking loss to Trump.What those Comey interventions did was feed a pre-existing narrative that Clinton, wife of former president Bill Clinton, came with a whiff of corruption, an elitist assumption that the rules governing everyone else did not apply to her. Now special counsel Hur has fed a pre-existing narrative that Biden is too old for the job. Should that solidify in the public mind as his defining characteristic, it will be a disaster for the president’s re-election – and the battle to preserve democracy. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden described as ‘elder man with poor memory’ in damning classified document report – live

      by

      Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that he was concerned jurors would not believe that Joe Biden “willfully” kept classified documents, and that was one of the reasons why he does not think the president should face charges.“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur writes.“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”Hur wrote that: “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully – that is, with intent to break the law – as the statute requires.”In addition to the statement from Donald Trump himself, Make America Great Again Inc. – a super PAC supporting the former president’s campaign for election in 2024, has released its own comment on Hur’s report.“If you’re too senile to stand trial, then you’re too senile to be president,” said Alex Pfeiffer, communications director for Make America Great Again Inc. “Joe Biden is unfit to lead this nation.”Former president Donald Trump has released a statement via his campaign regarding the findings in the report from Robert Hur, saying “THIS HAS NOW PROVEN TO BE A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!” [sic].Trump referenced his own classified documents case, in which he is charged of willful retention of national defense information, false statements and representations, conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record, corruptly concealing a document, concealing a document in a federal investigation and a scheme to conceal. That case is expected to go to trial in May 2024.
      The Biden Documents Case is 100 times different and more severe than mine. I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more. What Biden did is outrageously criminal – He had 50 years of documents, 50 times more than I had, and “WILLFULLY RETAINED” them. I was covered by the Presidential Records Act, Secret Service was always around, and GSA delivered the documents. Deranged Jack Smith should drop this Case immediately. ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
      Republican chairman James Comer of the House committee on oversight and accountability has issued the following statement on the report from special counsel Robert Hur:
      Americans expect equal justice under the law and are dismayed the Justice Department continues to allow Joe Biden to live above it. Joe Biden willfully retained classified documents for years in unsecure locations and intentionally disclosed them yet faces no consequences for his actions. The House Oversight Committee has been investigating Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents and we have uncovered key facts that unravel the White House’s and President Biden’s personal attorney’s narrative of events. Additionally, important questions remain about the extent of Joe Biden retaining sensitive materials related to specific countries involving his family’s influence peddling schemes that brought in millions for the Bidens. While the Justice Department has closed its investigation, the Oversight Committee’s investigation continues. We will continue to provide the transparency and accountability owed to the American people.
      In addition to the statement, Comer said the White House was not cooperating with interviews the committee has requested with current and former White House staff who were involved with organizing, moving and removing boxes that contained classified materials.He stated that the report confirmed Biden retained documents related to China and Ukraine, “two countries the Bidens have solicited and received millions of dollars from”.You can read special counsel Robert Hur’s report into Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, as well as the rebuttal from the president’s attorneys, below:Attorneys for Joe Biden objected to special counsel Robert Hur repeatedly mentioning the president’s memory problems in his report.Referring to his conversation with Mark Zwonitzer, ghostwriter of his 2017 memoir Promise Me, Dad, Hur writes: “Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.”He later goes on to describe Biden as showing “diminished faculties and faulty memory” in his conversations with Zwonitzer.In a letter written to Hur dated earlier this week and included in the report, the president’s special counsel Richard Sauber and personal attorney Bob Bauer took issue with the special counsel’s language:
      We do not believe that the report’s treatment of President Biden’s memory is accurate or appropriate. The report uses highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events. Such comments have no place in a Department of Justice report, particularly one that in the first paragraph announces that no criminal charges are ‘warranted’ and that ‘the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt.’
      They continue:
      Not only do you treat the President differently from other witnesses when discussing his limited recall of certain years-ago events, but you also do so on occasions in prejudicial and inflammatory terms. You refer to President Biden’s memory on at least nine occasions – a number that is itself gratuitous.
      Sauber and Bauer requested Hur “revisit your descriptions of President Biden’s memory”. He apparently did not do so.Special counsel Robert Hur included in his report photos of where Joe Biden’s classified documents were stored:In a just-released statement, Joe Biden said he “threw up no roadblocks” to Robert Hur’s investigation of his possession of classified documents, and notes he spoke to the special counsel even in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel.The president’s comments came after Hur’s report noted that it would be difficult to convince jurors the “elderly” Biden intentionally kept government secrets, and related his inability to remember important dates during interviews with the special counsel.Here’s what Biden had to say, in full:
      The Special Counsel released today its findings about its look into my handling of classified documents. I was pleased to see they reached the conclusion I believed all along they would reach – that there would be no charges brought in this case and the matter is now closed.This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years, even into the 1970s when I was a young Senator. I cooperated completely, threw up no roadblocks, and sought no delays. In fact, I was so determined to give the Special Counsel what they needed that I went forward with five hours of in-person interviews over two days on October 8th and 9th of last year, even though Israel had just been attacked on October 7th and I was in the middle of handling an international crisis. I just believed that’s what I owed the American people so they could know no charges would be brought and the matter closed.Over my career in public service, I have always worked to protect America’s security. I take these issues seriously and no one has ever questioned that.
      Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that in an interview last year, Joe Biden struggled to recall key chapters in his personal and professional life:
      In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (“if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?”), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (“in 2009, am I still Vice President?”). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he “had a real difference” of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Eiden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama.
      Biden’s lack of ability to remember things would make it hard to prosecute him, Hur said:
      We also expect many jurors to be struck by the place where the Afghanistan documents were ultimately found in Mr. Biden’s Delaware home: in a badly damaged box in the garage, near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed, a Zappos box, an empty bucket, a broken lamp wrapped with duct tape, potting soil, and synthetic firewood.
      A reasonable juror could conclude that this is not where a person intentionally stores what he supposedly considers to be important classified documents, critical to his legacy. Rather, it looks more like a place a person stores classified documents he has forgotten about or is unaware of. We have considered – and investigated – the possibility that the box was intentionally placed in the garage to make it appear to be there by mistake, but the evidence does not support that conclusion.
      Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that he was concerned jurors would not believe that Joe Biden “willfully” kept classified documents, and that was one of the reasons why he does not think the president should face charges.“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur writes.“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”Hur wrote that: “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully – that is, with intent to break the law – as the statute requires.”In his report, special counsel Robert Hur outlines how Joe Biden “willfully” disclosed classified documents, but says the available evidence does not establish the president’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” Hur wrote in the report’s executive summary. “These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden’s handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware home.”Justice department policy prohibits bringing charges against a president while they are in office, but Hur notes that, even if that were not the case, he would not recommend charging Biden.The special counsel then goes in to why he does not think jurors would convict Biden. The reasons include evidence suggests Biden simply forgot he had classified material, or that jurors believed that when he found it, he would not have realized he was breaking the law, because the former vice-president was so used to seeing such documents.The White House was provided a copy of special counsel Robert Hur’s report into Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, and reviewed it to determine if it revealed privileged information.Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel, said no changes were made: “We notified the justice department at approximately 9.00 this morning that our privilege review has concluded. In keeping with his commitment to cooperation and transparency throughout this investigation, the president declined to assert privilege over any portion of the report.”There will be no criminal charges filed in the classified documents investigation involving Joe Biden, Reuters is reporting, citing MSNBC, which is attributing that to an unnamed law enforcement official.More details soon.Meanwhile, Trump and Biden’s classified documents cases (in which the former president has been criminally charged and the current president has not) have similarities, there are also some notable differences.The White House said Biden’s attorneys found a small number of classified documents and turned them over after discovery.Trump resisted handing over boxes of classified material until a 2022 FBI search turned up about 100 classified documents, leading to obstruction of justice charges against Trump and two employees at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.The White House said Biden and his team have cooperated with special counsel Robert Hur and his investigators. Biden cannot face federal criminal charges as a sitting president under a longstanding justice department policy.The findings could pose political headaches for Biden who has sought to draw a contrast with Trump on issues of personal ethics and national security.Hur’s report, and his decision not to bring criminal charges, are likely to fuel accusations of a double standard from Trump and his Republican allies.[But] Trump was charged after prosecutors said he refused for months to turn over boxes containing presidential records he had taken to Mar-a-Lago and took steps to conceal the documents after the US government demanded their return. Trump has pleaded not guilty and a trial is scheduled for May but is likely to be delayed.The special counsel in the Biden classified documents investigation focused on documents related to Biden’s service as vice-president in the Obama administration from 2009-2017 and from his prior tenure in the US Senate, Reuters reports.Members of Joe Biden’s legal team found classified papers at the office of his Washington thinktank and the US president’s personal residence in Wilmington, Delaware.Biden’s lead rival in the November election, former president Donald Trump, faces a 40-count federal indictment for retaining highly sensitive national security documents at his Florida resort after leaving office in 2021 and obstructing US government efforts to retrieve them.The US Congress has been handed the special counsel report on Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents dating to his years as vice-president to Barack Obama, Reuters is reporting, citing an unnamed source familiar with the matter.The US president was interviewed by special counsel Robert Hur last October and the case relates to actions taken before Biden took the White House.Earlier last year US attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Hur to investigate Biden’s retention of classified documents from his time as vice-president.At the time, lawyers for Biden reported having found classified documents at his home and former thinktank.One day after he strengthened regulations on soot pollution, EPA Administrator Michael Regan spoke about pollution controls’ impact on children at an environmental advocacy event in Washington DC.“This is deeply personal for me,” he said. “Every morning when I leave the house I’m kissing my ten year old son on the forehead and hoping to be the best dad and the best administrator that I can.”Regan described Thursday’s new soot rule as a “gamechanger,” especially for young people, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable to the health effects of pollution – and who face various other hardships.“This is one thing we’re taking off their plates,” he said.Regan spoke at a meeting held by national environmental advocacy group Moms Clean Air Force on Thursday at the National Press Club.Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, spoke earlier in the day about the Biden administration’s attempts to “infuse principles of justice and equity into everything.”She touted one Biden administration program which allots 40% of certain environmental federal investments to communities most affected by the climate crisis and pollution.Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton also spoke about environmental pollution at the event at the National Press Club.“We know that in our warming climate, the dangers are particularly acute for our youngest,” she said.Clinton spoke the children-focused efforts she is helming at the Clinton Foundation, of which she is vice-chair. One project: partnering with advocates working to keep schools open year-round, since they serve as not only educational facilities but also as cooling centers in many communities.The Thursday event convened youth advocates, doctors, environmentalists, and public health advocates who called on Americans to work together to push for better regulations on air pollution.“Your voice does matter,” said Nsedu Obot Witherspoon, who directs the Children’s Environmental Health Network. “A lot can really happen when mothers, parents, teachers, come together”Moms Clean Air Force, an national environmental advocacy group, held a summit at the National Press Club on Thursday, featuring guests including Chelsea Clinton and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Michael Regan.Founded in 2011, the organization works to strengthen protections from planet-heating and toxic pollution. It is made up of 1.5 million members, many of whom are mothers.The event comes amid increasing public concern about the climate crisis and pollution, and before a presidential election that will prove crucial for environmental policy in the US.The Biden administration is currently rushing to finalize key environmental protections, including tightened standards on emissions from power plants and vehicles’ tailpipes.“We have enormous challenges in front of us,” said Dominique Browning, co-founder and director of Moms Clean Air Force.“We have never felt greater urgency to get things done.”Paul Billings, who is national senior vice president of public policy at the American Lung Association and was a panelist at Thursday’s event, said that in recent decades, political polarization has proved a major challenge in passing environmental protections. It should not be, he said, because “everyone has lungs.”Panelists also discussed the ways children are disproportionately harmed by pollution and global warming, because their smaller, developing bodies are more vulnerable to health risks.Another major challenge: the rise of mental health issues tied to concern about the climate crisis.“We’re seeing more and more children who are presenting with climate anxiety,” Dr Lisa Patel, executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health and pediatric hospitalist, said.After about two hours of arguments, the supreme court’s nine justices seemed broadly skeptical of the effort to keep Donald Trump from the presidential ballot over his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. It is unclear when they will issue a ruling. Across the street at the Capitol, the Senate advanced a measure providing assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, following a botched attempt to also include hardline immigration policy changes Republicans demanded, then decided they did not like. The GOP wants to make amendments to the legislation, and it’s unclear what its reception will be in the House, but progress on this long-running negotiation appears to finally be happening.Here’s a recap of the day’s events thus far:
      Trump listened in to the supreme courts arguments, which, to his ears, sounded “beautiful”.
      Jason Murray, an attorney for the people challenging Trump’s eligibility, warned the supreme court that the question could “could come back with a vengeance” if he is allowed to run.
      Law professor Derek Muller of the University of Notre Dame predicted the high court would rule quickly.
      The Senate’s vote to advance a bill that will provide assistance to three countries Washington considers national security priorities is a sign of progress in what has been a tortuous and chaotic process.Democrats have wanted for months to approve aid to the three countries, but the GOP, which controls the House and can block passage of legislation in the Senate using the filibuster, demanded they also agree to hardline immigration policy changes. But when those changes were announced earlier this week after months of bipartisan negotiation, Republicans decided they did not like them either, and Republican House speaker Mike Johnson said a bill pairing the border security changes with foreign aid money would not get a vote in his chamber.Yesterday, the Senate voted down that version of the legislation after Republicans and some Democrats objected. The Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer immediately moved to put up for a vote the legislation that funds only Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, without addressing immigration policy at all. The Senate just a few minutes ago voted to advance that legislation.But the story is far from over. It’s unclear if the House will approve the legislation, and Schumer said Senate Republicans want to make amendments before final passage:
      We hope to reach an agreement with our Republican colleagues on amendments. Democrats have always been clear that we support having a fair and reasonable amendment process. During my time as majority leader, I have presided over more amendment votes than the Senate held in all four years of the previous administration. For the information of senators, we are going to keep working on this bill until the job is done. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Could Taylor Swift really swing the 2024 presidential election?

      by

      A decade ago, Taylor Swift liked to publicly mock a Jonas brother for dumping her over the phone. Today, her words may determine the future of US democracy.Over the last few weeks, Swift’s endorsement has become one of the most coveted – and contested – prizes in the 2024 presidential election. After the New York Times reported that Joe Biden’s re-election campaign was desperate to lock it down, Donald Trump’s allies reportedly declared a “holy war” on Swift. Fox News commentators started urging Swift to stay out of politics, while a sizable contingent of rightwingers spiraled into conspiracy theories: that Swift is a covert asset to bolster Biden, that she and her boyfriend, Travis Kelce, are a set-up to bolster Biden, that the Super Bowl – in which Kelce will play as a tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs football team – is being rigged to bolster Biden.All this fervor may seem totally out of touch. No matter how beloved she is, can a pop star from a Christmas tree farm in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, really decide the 2024 presidential elections?The answer is surprisingly complex, according to interviews with experts, self-described Swift admirers, and people who say they are indifferent to Swift. It is improbable that Swift’s opinion would be the deciding factor for a voter torn between supporting Trump or Biden – if such a person exists – but the pop superstar is far more likely to propel voter turnout. And if the rematch between the two politicians, who still have to win their primaries, turns out to be close, the Swift electorate may make the difference.“We are not used to recognizing people like Taylor Swift with that much political power. That can be unnerving. We’re not used to female fandoms, perhaps, having that much political power,” said Ashley Hinck, an associate professor at Xavier University whose book Politics for the Love of Fandom unpacks the links between fandom, politics and civic engagement. “There’s a way in which pundits, politicians, commentators and regular citizens are coming to terms with a new political culture. If you’re not a part of it, you haven’t seen it before – but it has been around for a long time. It’s been growing for a long time.”As Swift might say, it’s been a long time coming.A lack of persuasionSwift first waded into politics in 2018, when she broke her career-long silence on politics to urge fans to vote for Democrats in a Tennessee election. Although one of Swift’s preferred candidates lost to the Republican Marsha Blackburn, Swift endorsed Biden in 2020. She has also continued to tell fans to vote in subsequent elections, and voter registration has soared by the tens of thousands after each of her get-out-the-vote Instagram posts.Her fanbase is staggeringly large, with 53% of Americans saying they are fans and 16% identifying as “avid fans”, according to a March 2023 Morning Consult poll. (That poll was conducted before the launch of Swift’s world-conquering Eras Tour, which has become the highest-grossing tour of all time and reportedly made Swift a billionaire.)However, Swift’s fanbase is not evenly distributed across the US political spectrum: 55% of her self-avowed avid fans identify as Democrats, while 23% are Republicans and 23% are independents.Although a November 2023 NBC News poll found that 40% of registered voters said they had a positive view of Swift – more than any other figure included in the survey, including Biden, Kamala Harris and Beyoncé – Democrats are still more likely than Republicans to say that they like Swift. Fifty-three per cent of Democrats said that they had a positive view of Swift, while just 28% of Republicans say the same. Compared to Democrats, Republicans are also five times more likely to have a negative opinion of Swift.Experts caution that it is exceedingly difficult to ever pinpoint what makes someone choose one candidate over another. David James Jackson, a Bowling Green State University professor who has studied the effect of celebrity endorsements, was skeptical of the idea that Swift could flip Republicans for Biden.“If the policy position is already popular among the group that I’m surveying, the celebrity endorsement makes it more popular. If it’s unpopular, it makes it less unpopular, but it doesn’t actually make it popular,” Jackson said. But, he added: “Are American elections really about persuasion any more?”View image in fullscreenJackson continued: “If in fact it turns out to be a Biden-Trump rematch, how many people really haven’t formed an opinion about either of those two?”Despite Swift’s relative lack of popularity among Republicans, the rightwing attacks on her may still backfire, according to Jasmine Amussen, a 34-year-old librarian who lives in Georgia.“I really don’t think that they understand that when they’re attacking Taylor Swift, they are actually talking about the millions of millennial women – mostly white – [in her fanbase]. But they’re attacking their own daughters,” Amussen said of Republicans. “I think they’re so confused as to how this 34-year-old woman is a billionaire, is unmarried. They just can’t see past that to the underlying source of her power, which is the people who love her.”Trump pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” about 11,000 votes when he wanted to win the state in the 2020 election, as Amussen pointed out. The margins of the 2024 elections could be equally small, and a Swift endorsement could make the difference in turnout.“She can find 11,000 people to go vote when they didn’t before or vote when they hadn’t in a long time,” Amussen said. “All it takes is a couple hundred women who were not interested before seeing these much older – gross, honestly – men talk about someone they respect and admire in that way.”‘It will affect young people’Nearly 500 people responded to a Guardian survey about their thoughts on Swift’s political influence. Asked whether a Swift endorsement could influence their vote, most respondents said no. They frequently said that they already agreed with Swift’s suspected liberal politics or that they were not swayed by celebrity endorsements.But respondents often said that other voters may be more susceptible. “I’m not influenced by her, but my kids’ generation is,” one person from Massachusetts wrote. “I’m much too well informed,” someone from Colorado added. “But it WILL affect young people.”This kind of attitude is possibly an example of what Desirée Schmuck called “the third person” effect.“People always think that there’s a stronger impact on others than on themselves,” said Schmuck, a professor from the University of Vienna who has studied how parasocial relationships influence youth political behavior.“We see that in interviews, they do agree that influencers have changed their behavior, not necessarily voting behavior, but rather what they buy or what they boycott, for instance, for political reasons,” Schmuck said. “With voting, like with all behavior, there’s not enough introspection to really know what was it in the end that caused you to do something. I don’t think people want to pin it down to one factor, because they don’t want to be that simple.”The responses to the Guardian’s survey, although extensive, by no means constitute a representative or scientific study. The survey design would probably draw in people who already have strong opinions about Swift, whether negative or positive. (A surprising number of people took the time to fill out a totally voluntary survey only to insist they had no thoughts on Swift. “Do not care about her or her opinions,” one 84-year-old from Georgia wrote.)Still, some academic studies have indeed uncovered a connection between celebrity endorsements and voter activity. A study that Schmuck worked on found that a German influencer’s efforts to associate the climate crisis with the European Union elections – “a boring election for young people”, Schmuck said – was linked to a boost in youth voter turnout. Another study, which examined Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama before the 2008 presidential primary, uncovered that Winfrey’s support led to 1m extra votes for Obama.Some people in the Guardian survey did say that Swift’s opinions may influence their behavior, if not their vote.“If she came up and she said, ‘Here’s the guy running against Marsha Blackburn and I think we should really support this person,’ I would cut that person a check,” said Michael Dee, who works in investment banking in Dallas, Texas, and is deeply involved in politics. He knows he’s voting for Biden but, he said, “Taylor can highlight some candidates to help them raise money and I think that would be … a very good thing.”Ultimately, complicating every calculation about Swift and her endorsement’s power is the singularity of her status. Arguably, the last time musicians commanded this much attention, they were the Beatles, they were men, and there were four of them.The Beatles were also only a band for less than a decade, while Swift has been in the public eye for almost two. Many Americans started to form emotional ties to her long before they could vote.“I’ve never seen a potential endorsement be so anticipated as this one,” Jackson said. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      US supreme court hearing focuses on Trump’s eligibility for 2024 election

      by

      The US supreme court will hear oral arguments on Thursday morning in the high-stakes case that will probably determine whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for president this year.The case, Donald J Trump v Norma Anderson et al, came about after six Colorado voters filed a lawsuit last year alleging Trump was ineligible to run for president under a little-used provision of the constitution’s 14th amendment. The provision says that any member of Congress or officer of the United States who takes an oath to defend the constitution and then subsequently engages in insurrection is barred from holding office. The ban can only be overridden by a two-thirds vote by both chambers of Congress.Trump’s conduct during the January 6 Capitol attack disqualifies him from holding federal office, the Colorado voters claimed in their suit, filed last year in state court. After a five-day trial, a judge found Trump had engaged in insurrection, but was not an “officer of the United States” and declined to remove him from the ballot. In a 4-3 decision in December, the Colorado supreme court reversed that ruling and barred him from the ballot. The supreme court agreed to hear the case in January.While there have been several suits seeking to remove Trump from the ballot, only Colorado and Maine have done so thus far. A Maine judge last month ordered the secretary of state there to hold off on excluding Trump until the US supreme court issued a decision.A decision upholding the Colorado supreme court’s ruling would not automatically remove Trump from the ballot across the country. While some states have rebuffed efforts to remove Trump from the primary ballot, a supreme court saying Trump can be disqualified would probably set off a flurry of fast challenges in state courts and other tribunals to disqualify him from the ballot in the general election.It’s generally believed that Trump has the upper hand at the court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority and Trump nominated three of the justices. Still, experts say there is a high degree of uncertainty over what exactly the court will do because it has chosen not to limit the scope of arguments before it and the issues are so unprecedented.In their briefing to the supreme court, Trump’s lawyers have claimed there will be “chaos and bedlam” in the US if a leading presidential candidate is blocked from the ballot. They gave an array of arguments to the justices for why he should not be disqualified, including that the word “officer” does not apply to the president and that he did not engage in insurrection.“In our system of ‘government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people’, the American people – not courts or election officials – should choose the next President of the United States,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “The Colorado voters, backed by the left-leaning non-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), argue that it is absurd to claim the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency and that it would be a danger to democracy to allow him to hold office again.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Section 3 is designed precisely to avoid giving oath-breaking insurrectionists like Trump the power to unleash such mayhem again,” they write. “Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law.”There is no legal precedent for the case – the justices will be wrestling with the key issues in the case, including whether Trump committed insurrection on January 6 for the first time. The 14th amendment was enacted after the civil war to bar former Confederates from holding office and has never been used to bar a presidential candidate. In 2022, the amendment was used to remove a New Mexico county commissioner from office, the first time it had been used that way in a century.The case marks the court’s most direct intervention in a presidential election since its controversial decision in Bush v Gore in 2000. Seeking to preserve its reputation as an apolitical body, the court is usually hesitant to get involved in heated political disputes, but the arrival of the Trump case makes the court’s intervention in the most controversial of political cases unavoidable. It comes as public confidence in the court continues to decline amid a series of ethics scandals and politically charged decisions. More