More stories

  • in

    Democrats work on damage control after Biden’s fiery surprise speech

    Democrats and their allies were shaping a damage control response on Friday to a hastily organized White House press call the night before that appeared to fall short in its mission to reassure voters about Joe Biden’s mental acuity after it was harshly questioned in a prosecutor’s report about his having kept classified documents at the end of his vice-presidency.Biden already said that his interview with the special counsel Robert Hur last October – in which he was reported to have forgotten the year his son Beau died and precisely when he had been vice-president – came in the days straight after Hamas attacked southern Israel, when Biden was preoccupied with the US response.Hur’s report concluded on Thursday that Biden would not face criminal charges in the case, despite “willfully” retaining and disclosing classified material, which he would not be open to as a sitting president anyway but also would not be warranted even if he was no longer president.But Hur then went on to describe at length how he found the US president’s memory to be failing, prompting anger from Biden and, in the following hours and into Friday, Democrats and aides to come to his defense.“The way that the president’s demeanor in that report was characterized could not be more wrong on the facts and clearly politically motivated,” Kamala Harris told MSNBC on Friday.The vice-president slammed claims of Biden’s failing mental acuity made in the 388-pages report as “gratuitous, inaccurate and inappropriate”.Earlier, Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin from the crucial swing state of Wisconsin addressed the conclusions by special counsel Robert Hur that the 81-year-old president’s recall was “significantly limited”, and that Hur would not bring charges over classified documents in part because jurors would see the US president not as a willful criminal but as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.“I judge a president on what they’ve done and whose side they’re on,” Baldwin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. She pointed to Biden’s “strong record of creating good-paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, and lowering prescription drug prices”.Tommy Vietor, a former Obama administration staffer, wrote on X that the prosecutor’s comments were “just a rightwing hit job from within Biden’s own DOJ. Wild.”On MSNBC, which often previews the Democratic party line, the host Joe Scarborough addressed the conclusions by the special counsel that the president’s recall was “significantly limited” and he would not bring charges over classified documents in part because jurors would see Biden as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”, not a criminal.“So bizarre,” Scarborough said. “Why in the world would [Hur] put his neurological assessment of Joe Biden in his report, and why would [US attorney general] Merrick Garland release garbage like that in a justice department report?”Dan Goldman, the Democratic congressman from New York, told the station that he did not have “any concerns” about Biden’s age or ability. “Remember, the job of the president is to guide our country. It is not to be a cheerleader for the United States. It is to govern our country,” he said.Referring to missing Hillary Clinton emails that became an issue on the eve of the 2016 election, Scarborough added: “It sure sounds like James Comey in 2016 when he couldn’t indict Hillary Clinton legally so he indicted her politically.”Vietor echoed that line, claiming Hur had “clearly decided to go down the Jim Comey path of filling his report absolving Biden of criminal activity with ad hominem attacks”.The long-shot Democratic primary challenger Dean Phillips, who is campaigning against Biden, said Hur’s report had “all but handed the 2024 election to Donald Trump”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The report simply affirms what most Americans already know, that the President cannot continue to serve as our Commander-in-Chief beyond his term ending January 20, 2025,” Phillips said in a statement.Behind closed doors, some Democrats expressed mounting concerns about a re-election narrative that focuses on Biden’s age. “It’s a nightmare,” a Democratic House member reportedly told NBC News. “It weakens President Biden electorally, and Donald Trump would be a disaster and an authoritarian.”“For Democrats, we’re in a grim situation,” the anonymous source reportedly added.Biden hit back at Hur’s characterization of his mental condition during a surprise press conference at the White House on Thursday evening. The president maintained that his memory was “just fine” and in a tense exchange said “I know what the hell I’m doing” and that remarks about his memory had “no place in this report”.“My memory is fine,” Biden said. “Take a look at what I’ve done since I’ve become president.”“For any extraneous commentary, they don’t know what they’re talking about,” he added. “It has no place in this report.”At the end of the interview, he referred to Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, as the “president of Mexico” in a response to a reporter’s query about the current situation in the Middle East. The error came after two other public gaffes this week in which Biden claimed to have spoken recently with two long-dead European leaders, Germany’s Helmut Kohl and France’s François Mitterrand.Polling has consistently shown that concerns about Biden’s age are seen as his greatest political liability in a rematch with Donald Trump.A poll by NBC News last month found that 76% of voters had major or moderate concerns when asked whether Biden has “the necessary mental and physical health to be president for a second term”. Asked the same question about the 77-year-old Trump, 48% said they had major or moderate concerns. More

  • in

    ‘Openly authoritarian campaign’: Trump’s threats of revenge fuel alarm

    Donald Trump’s talk of punishing his critics and seeking to “weaponize” the US justice department against his political opponents has experts and former DoJ officials warning he poses a direct threat to the rule of law and democracy in the US.Trump’s talk of seeking “retribution” against foes, including some he has branded “vermin”, has coincided with plans that Maga loyalists at rightwing thinktanks are assembling to expand the president’s power and curb the DoJ, the FBI and other federal agencies. All of it has fueled critics’ fears that in a second term Trump would govern as an unprecedentedly authoritarian American leader.Trump is currently the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican nomination for 2024 and has long maintained hefty polling leads over his party rivals. At the same time a slew of recent polls has also shown him ahead of President Joe Biden, including in key battleground states.But scholars and ex-justice officials see increasing evidence that if they achieved power again Trump and his Maga allies plan to tighten his control at key agencies and install trusted loyalists in top posts at the DoJ and the FBI, permitting Trump more leeway to exact revenge on foes, and shrinking agencies Trump sees as harboring “deep state” critics.Ominously, Trump has threatened to tap a special prosecutor to “go after” Biden and his family.Trump’s angry mindset was revealed on Veterans Day when he denigrated foes as “vermin” who needed to be “rooted out”, echoing fascist rhetoric from Italy and Germany in the 1930s.“I’m hard-pressed to find any candidates anywhere who are so open that they would use the power of the state to go after critics and enemies,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard government professor and co-author of How Democracies Die.“This is one of the most openly authoritarian campaigns I’ve ever seen. You have to go back to the far-right authoritarians in the 1930s in Europe or in 1970s Latin America to find the kind of dehumanizing and violent language that Trump is starting to consistently use.”Donald Ayer, the former deputy attorney general who served in the George HW Bush administration, said: “It is appalling that a presidential candidate could suggest using the Department of Justice to go after his political adversaries, to go after Biden and his family, and to effectively make the Department of Justice an arm of the White House to be used for its political purposes.”Facing 91 criminal charges in four cases including 17 for his efforts to overturn his loss in 2020, Trump has kept up a barrage of incendiary attacks on prosecutors, judges and critics, claiming he is innocent of all charges and the victim of politically driven “witch-hunts”.Trump’s revenge gameplan has been palpable for months. At a kickoff campaign rally in Texas in March, Trump warned: “Either the deep state destroys America or we destroy the deep state,” and vowed that “for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”Similarly, Trump pledged to a CPAC gathering in March that: “I am your warrior. I am your justice,” and called 2024 “the final battle”.On Veterans Day, Trump also warned: “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within.”Trump has also told some associates he wants to launch investigations into a few top former allies turned critics, including the ex-attorney general William Barr, the former chief of staff John Kelly and the ex-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Mark Milley, according to the Washington Post.“US, democratic institutions are hard to kill,” noted Levitsky. “But Trump and people around him are better prepared this time. Trump learned he needs to purge and pack an administration with his loyalists.“Autocrats have to take state institutions and pack them. Trump has learned from experience which makes him more dangerous.”Other scholars voice mounting concerns about a second Trump presidency.“Trump is doubling down on the most brutish aspects of his messaging, including by calling his foes and critics ‘vermin’. It’s a dark message of vengeance and retribution,” Timothy Naftali, a senior research scholar at Columbia’s school of international and public affairs, said. “They’re telegraphing a future authoritarian presidential regime.“Trump is using Proud Boys rhetoric and glorifying the January 6 insurrectionists. And he’s promising them pardons for the insurrection. This is about giving power to an autocrat and letting his id take over.”Naftali added: “Trump’s loyalists are looking for gray areas and weaknesses in the US constitutional system to accumulate power for Trump and for themselves in another term.”“Trump is counting on having a more robust and experienced inner circle of loyalists, which will lead to more illegal actions and abuses in areas such as his loose talk of ‘weaponizing’ the justice and the FBI to go after his enemies on the left and the right.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTo craft a more powerful presidency, Maga loyalists at a number of well-financed conservative thinktanks led by the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Renewing America have produced an almost 1,000-page handbook, dubbed “Project 2025”, to help guide a second Trump term – or potentially another GOP administration should Trump not get the nomination.Key components of Project 2025 include slashing funding for the Department of Justice, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and killing the education and commerce departments, moves that Maga allies champion to shrink the “administrative state” and the “deep state” they see as bloated and politicized.One ominous plan Project 2025 has been weighing would allow Trump to invoke the 1871 Insurrection Act on his first day in office, greenlighting using military forces against political foes and demonstrators protesting a new term for Trump, according to the Washington Post.Jeffrey Clark, the former DoJ official who schemed with Trump about ways to overturn his loss in Georgia and other states and who the Fulton county district attorney has indicted along with Trump and 17 others, has been “leading the work on the Insurrection Act under Project 2025”, the Post has reported.A Heritage spokesperson told the Post that there were “no plans within Project 2025 related to the Insurrection Act of targeting political enemies”.Still, ex-Trump adviser and media pugilist Steve Bannon, who was convicted of obstructing Congress for flouting a subpoena from the House panel that investigated the January 6 insurrection which he is appealing, has been a Project 2025 cheerleader on his War Room podcast and hosted Clark who works at the Center for Renewing America a few times, and others working on Project 2025.Project 2025 also envisions schemes for changing federal service rules that would allow Trump to cut tens of thousands of civil service workers and replace them with ones deemed loyal to Trump’s agenda.Former DoJ officials are appalled at some of the proposals issued by Project 2025.“Project 2025 seems to be full of a whole array of ideas that are designed to let Donald Trump function as a dictator, by completely eviscerating many of the restraints built into our system. He really wants to destroy any notion of a rule of law in this country,” said Ayer.“The reports about Donald Trump’s Project 2025 suggest that he is now preparing to do a bunch of things totally contrary to the basic values we have always lived by. If Trump were to be elected and implement some of the ideas he is apparently considering, no one in this country would be safe.”Other DoJ veterans say Trump and his loyalists pose unprecedented dangers.“The plans being developed by members of Trump’s cult to turn the DoJ and FBI into instruments of his revenge should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares about the rule of law,” said Michael Bromwich, a former inspector general at the justice department.“Trump and rightwing media have planted in fertile soil the seed that the current Department of Justice has been politicized, and the myth has flourished. Their attempts to undermine DoJ and the FBI are among the most destructive campaigns they have conducted.”Bromwich’s point was underscored when days after Special Counsel Jack Smith unveiled a four-count criminal indictment of Trump involving his multi-pronged efforts to subvert Biden’s 2020 election victory, Trump posted: “If you go after me, I’m coming after you.”Former federal prosecutor and Columbia Law professor Dan Richman also sees big trouble ahead for the rule of law if Trump is elected again. “Trump’s past efforts and future plans to use federal criminal prosecutions as a tool of personal retribution are flatly inconsistent with any notion of the rule of law and of prosecutorial independence,” he said. More

  • in

    Donald Trump pushes for live broadcast of his trial over election subversion

    Donald Trump’s attorneys have requested authorization for live, in-courtroom television coverage of his trial on charges that he conspired to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss so that the former commander-in-chief can publicly argue that the proceedings are unfair.The legal filing late on Friday, citing unsubstantiated allegations that Trump is the victim of persecution by the Biden White House, supports efforts by news organizations to provide live television coverage from inside the trial, which is scheduled to begin in March 2024.A rule that has been in place for decades prohibits televised broadcasting of criminal and civil proceedings in federal court, which can generally be attended in person by the public. The five-page submission filed by Trump’s attorneys does not mention that rule.“The prosecution wishes to continue this travesty in darkness. President Trump calls for sunlight,” the filing asserts, as first reported by Politico. “Every person in America, and beyond, should have the opportunity to study this case firsthand and watch as, if there is a trial, president Trump exonerates himself of these baseless and politically motivated charges.”The filing concludes with reaffirming Trump’s claim that he believes the election was “rigged and stolen”.Prosecutors in the case invoked the federal court rule against broadcasting in their response to efforts by numerous media outlets for permission to cover the trial live on television. The government also argued that a television broadcast of the trial could present risks to the proceeding, including facilitating the potential intimidation of witnesses and jurors.News outlets cited in their arguments the unusual degree of public interest in the case and the foreseen issues in accommodating trial spectators in the courthouse.Trump is grappling with four criminal prosecutions and several civil lawsuits, attempting to recast the legal peril as a platform to voters ahead of the 2024 contest for the Republican party’s White House nomination.Trump, widely viewed as the favorite to emerge as the Republican presidential nominee for next year, has been placed under a gag order that prohibits him from using social media platforms to denounce prosecutors, potential witnesses and court staff. The ex-president has complained that gag order infringes on his presidential campaign as well as his free speech rights under the US constitution’s first amendment.Live television coverage could serve as a means to circumvent that gag order.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBefore the gag order’s implementation, Trump had called the special counsel in the case in question – Jack Smith – “deranged”. The former president had also commented on testimony to a grand jury from his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.Prosecutors in the case said Trump had clearly been seeking to “send an unmistakable and threatening message to a foreseeable witness in this case”.In late October, US district judge Tanya Chutkan ruled in favor of implementing the gag order after previously opting to place a temporary hold on the measure. The judge also denied Trump’s request to suspend the order while his attorneys appealed to a higher court. More

  • in

    Georgia takes on Trump and his allies | podcast

    Until five months ago, no former US president had ever faced criminal charges. As of Monday evening, Donald Trump is facing 91 felony counts. The 97-page indictment handed down by a Fulton county grand jury in Georgia includes 41 criminal counts, 13 of them against Trump. This case may represent the biggest legal peril for Trump to date and it could see him behind bars, no matter who wins the presidential election next year.
    Joan E Greve and Sam Levine discuss every possible outcome

    How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

  • in

    A Black prosecutor was elected in Georgia – so white Republicans made their own district

    Since 1870, the Augusta judicial circuit has been home to the criminal justice system of a three-county area on Georgia’s border with South Carolina. In that time, no African American has been elected district attorney of the circuit – until 2020, when a Black lawyer named Jared Williams upset a conservative, pro-police candidate with just more than 50% of the vote.But that historic win was short-lived. The day after his election, a lawyer and state lawmaker in the area proposed something unusual: that the circuit’s whitest county separate itself from the Augusta circuit, creating a new judicial circuit in Georgia for the first time in nearly 40 years.“Does the board of commissioners want to be there [sic] own judicial circuit,” Barry Fleming, a Republican state legislator from nearby Harlem, asked the Columbia county commission chair, Doug Duncan, in a text message.Duncan supported the plan, and in December 2020 issued a resolution asking the area’s lawmakers, including Fleming, to introduce legislation that would separate Columbia county from the judicial circuit it had been a part of for 150 years. Fleming’s bill passed with bipartisan support.The split caused the disenfranchisement of the old circuit’s Black voters, voting advocacy organization Black Voters Matter Fund contended in a lawsuit that was eventually dismissed by the state supreme court. Those voters had chosen Williams, who ran on a pledge to uphold criminal justice reforms such as not prosecuting low-level marijuana possession, a crime which disproportionately affects Black and minority communities.Instead of Williams, Black voters in Columbia county got as their prosecutor Bobby Christine, a Trump-appointed US attorney who was appointed by the Republican governor, Brian Kemp. Christine then chose Williams’s opponent as his chief deputy.Voting advocates say the circuit split is an example of the type of minority rule that Republicans are accused of engaging in across the US.“There was a time when as we started to win these elections, white people would leave,” said Cliff Albright, executive director of Black Voters Matter Fund. “But now they’ve figured out, we don’t actually have to leave, we can just change the jurisdiction. It is a way, even when the political minority is losing, to hold on to the mechanism of coercion through the courts and law enforcement.”Despite voting advocates’ opposition, the circuit split had bipartisan support and was welcomed by some Black Democrats in the legislature, who argued that a backlog of felony cases in Richmond county could be reduced if the circuit were smaller and didn’t include Columbia county.Fleming and Duncan did not respond to requests for comment. In response to a public records request, Duncan’s office said it had no communications with Fleming related to the Augusta split.The splitting of the Augusta judicial circuit and the resulting creation of the new Columbia judicial circuit is not the only split to have been proposed in recent years. Nor is it the only split to have involved Fleming, a hardline conservative lawyer who was the architect of Georgia’s 2021 sweeping voter suppression law.Following the Augusta split, two Republican lawmakers in Georgia proposed a circuit split in Oconee county after the election of a progressive prosecutor who ran on a platform of addressing systemic racism. Since then, Republican legislators statewide created a prosecutor oversight commission that holds the power to remove prosecutors for misconduct. The commission has been heavily criticized by Democratic prosecutors such as Fani Willis, who is investigating the Trump campaign’s meddling in the 2020 election in Georgia. Willis and others told lawmakers the commission was created so white Republicans could target minority prosecutors.The splits come at a time when criticism of prosecutors like Williams – who refuse to toe the line of tough-on-crime conservative policies – abounds on the right. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis has made punishment of so-called progressive prosecutors part of his presidential campaign, firing a prosecutor who signed a pledge criticizing the criminalization of transgender people. In Mississippi, white Republican leaders have created a judicial district with hand-picked judges and law enforcement to oversee a majority-Black city.The Florida prosecutor who was removed by DeSantis has sued the governor, saying that by “challenging this illegal abuse of power, we make sure that no governor can toss out the results of an election because he doesn’t like the outcome”.Tossing out the outcome of an election is exactly what happened in Georgia when Republicans pushed for the creation of the new Columbia judicial circuit, Williams and others said.Before Fleming spearheaded the Augusta split, others had proposed breaking up the circuit. In 2018, state senator Harold Jones, who is Black, requested that the judicial council of Georgia conduct a workload study for courts in the three counties that comprise the old circuit – Columbia, Richmond and Burke. The study found that workloads were high for local judges, especially in the majority-Black county of Richmond, Jones said, so he argued that the 200,000 people there should have their own circuit. But he couldn’t make any headway.“As a Democrat, to do something that monumental, it’s next to impossible,” Jones said.It wasn’t until December 2020 that the study was used as rationale for a circuit split. Then, the Columbia county board of commissioners issued a resolution requesting that its local legislative delegation – which includes Fleming – introduce a law that would formalize the split. The resolution cited Jones’s 2018 study, but that was only part of the story.Behind the scenes, Columbia county leaders were coordinating to separate the county in response to Williams’s historic election win. Among those working to institute the split was Fleming himself.Fleming, an attorney who works on behalf of nearly 40 state and county governments throughout Georgia, is a full-throated Trump supporter. He has been heavily involved in election matters through his former role as chair of the special committee on election integrity. Fleming and Duncan were vocal opponents of Williams and supported his opponent, Natalie Paine.Held in the midst of widespread protests against police brutality following the murder of George Floyd, the 2020 race between Williams and Paine, who was appointed by Kemp in 2017 and ran unopposed in 2018, reflected national themes of conflict between so-called law-and-order conservatives and progressive reformers. Williams prevailed despite attacks calling him “soft on crime”.His win set in motion the series of events to split Columbia county. After Fleming’s House bill, state senator Lee Anderson, who has ties to Fleming through their failed effort to annex land in Fleming’s home town away from Columbia county, introduced a senate bill officially calling for the creation of the Columbia judicial circuit.Co-sponsoring the bill were a handful of conservative and well-connected legislators including Jeff Mullis, a Confederate monument defender; Butch Miller, a far-right election denier; and state senator Bill Cowsert, who is Kemp’s brother-in-law. The bill eventually passed the senate unanimously, with many Democrats including Jones voting in favor due to their desire for a smaller circuit that could better serve Richmond’s high Black population, Jones said.Seven of the eight judges in the old Augusta circuit objected to the split, saying it would not address workload issues.The Augusta split provided a roadmap for Republicans throughout Georgia to fight back against progressive prosecutors. In 2020, Deborah Gonzalez became the state’s first Latina district attorney for the Western judicial circuit, winning on a platform of ending prosecution of low-level marijuana possession. Two Republican state lawmakers quickly asked the judicial council of Georgia to perform a study that would justify the separation of Oconee County from the Western circuit. Oconee is 87% white while the other county in the circuit, Athens-Clark, has a much higher Black population of 27%.One of the lawmakers, state representative Houston Gaines, was clear about the rationale behind the proposed split.“Our district attorney is choosing which laws to prosecute and which laws not to, and that is not the role of the district attorney,” Gaines told the local press.Then on 12 April, Meriwether county commissioners issued a resolution asking for itself and two other counties – Troup and Coweta – to have their own circuit, citing increasing populations and felony caseloads.The public reason for the proposed split, according to the Coweta circuit district attorney, Herb Cranford, is the circuit’s per-judge caseload. But recommendations for splits traditionally come from the judicial council of Georgia, and Cranford has said that a council study isn’t necessary.The Carroll county sheriff, Terry Langley – whose law enforcement agency oversees one of the five counties in Coweta’s judicial circuit – spoke in support of the split, saying the growing population of the area made it necessary.Much of that population growth has come in the form of people moving from the Atlanta metro area, Langley noted in a recent interview. The Atlanta area is far more Black than Carroll county.“I’m not big into growth … I like some of our small-town stuff that we have, much of it’s gone,” Langley said. “It’s managed growth. We’re gonna grow, but you gotta manage it to a way that you don’t lose the quality of life that we have.”Officials in Coweta, Heard, Meriwether and Troup counties did not respond to requests for comment.Fleming is also co-sponsor of a bill proposing to split Banks county from the Piedmont judicial circuit. All of the circuit’s judges, its public defender and its district attorney have spoken in opposition to the split.The Piedmont circuit does not have an abnormally high caseload for judges, according to the two most recent judicial council of Georgia workload assessments, although the circuit has seen a steady increase in population in recent years.The real reason for the desired split probably comes down to a disagreement over prosecutorial ideology. During testimony before lawmakers, Judge Joseph Booth said that the bill was a result of disagreements between Sheriff Carlton Speed, whose office has been accused of racially discriminating against a defendant in a prominent case involving a Black former Atlanta Hawks basketball player, and the district attorney, Brad Smith.Another judge in the circuit, Currie Mingeldorff, also noted that the split was proposed after he engaged in a failed effort to institute a drug court in Banks county. Drug or specialty courts have been around for decades to prevent mass incarceration of non-violent drug offenders. But Speed opposed the program.“I never considered it to be tough on crime or not tough on crime, I considered it to be a way to keep the community safe, rehabilitate a person and reduce recidivism,” Mingeldorff said.The bill stalled in Georgia’s house of representatives but was replaced by a Senate bill that remains pending. Erwin, Speed, Smith and Booth did not respond to requests for comment.James Woodall, a public policy associate with the Southern Center for Human Rights, which advocates on behalf of indigent defense, said circuit splitting allows lawmakers to hand-pick conservative prosecutors in a swing state.“They’re trying to find ways to maintain power,” Woodall said. “And who’s going to choose those people? Not the voters.” More

  • in

    Progressives denounce FBI attacks by right wing but push for agency reforms

    Christopher Wray appeared stupefied. As the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified on Wednesday before the House judiciary committee, Republicans on the panel painted him as a liberal stooge abusing his power to punish Joe Biden’s political enemies.The accusations stunned Wray, a registered Republican who was appointed by Donald Trump and previously served in George W Bush’s administration.“The idea that I’m biased against conservatives seems somewhat insane to me, given my own personal background,” Wray told the committee.Some progressives share Wray’s disbelief. The two indictments of Donald Trump, as well as Hunter Biden’s plea deal with federal prosecutors and conspiracy theories about the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, have fueled Republicans’ accusations that the FBI and the justice department are unjustly targeting rightwing groups.Those allegations have somewhat complicated progressives’ longstanding criticism of the FBI over the bureau’s documented surveillance of liberal activists. Even as progressives denounce rightwing conspiracy theories about the FBI, they continue to push for an overhaul of the bureau’s surveillance and data collection methods.“If Republicans really care about FBI overreach of civil liberties, then they will get serious about the real reforms,” Representative Cori Bush, a Democrat from Missouri, said. “But that’s not really what they’re pushing right now. Instead, they’re still amplifying those conspiracy theories and trying to distract the public, to gaslight the country and distract us from Trump’s criminality.”Progressives’ skepticism of the FBI long predates Trump’s presidency. In 1956, the FBI launched its domestic counterintelligence program (Cointelpro) to infiltrate and discredit political organizations that the bureau considered suspicious. The program, which shuttered in 1971, resulted in the surveillance of many leaders in the anti-Vietnam war and civil rights movements, including Dr Martin Luther King Jr.Progressive activists’ concerns about FBI surveillance stretch into the present day. According to a 2022 memo declassified by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in May, the FBI violated its own guidelines in running so-called “batch queries” related to 133 people “arrested in connection with civil unrest and protests” after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. The memo found that the FBI conducted similarly inappropriate inquiries of more than a dozen people suspected of participating in the January 6 Capitol attack.“The FBI for many decades – almost a century – has been sort of the chief secret police entity against the left and progressives,” said Vince Warren, executive director of the progressive Center for Constitutional Rights. “During that time, the right wing and Republicans have been the biggest cheerleaders of this illegal activity when aimed at communists, civil rights advocates, anti-war advocates, all the way up to [Black Lives Matter] protesters. That seemed to change in 2016, when they backed a lawless president who didn’t like that his illegal activities were being investigated.”Republicans’ sentiments toward the FBI have indeed shifted as Trump has come under increasing legal scrutiny, marking a notable sea change for a party that long claimed the mantle of law and order. When Trump was indicted on 37 federal charges last month for his alleged mishandling of classified documents, the former president’s congressional allies jumped to his defense, accusing the FBI and the justice department of exploiting its powers to target Republicans.Opening the hearing with Wray on Wednesday, Representative Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the judiciary committee, bemoaned the “weaponization of the government against the American people” and “this double standard that exists now in our justice system”.Jordan repeatedly suggested that Republicans and Democrats could work together on reforming the FBI’s data collection methods, specifically in the form of overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa). That law, which is currently set to expire at the end of the year, has long been a source of outrage on the left. One particularly controversial provision of Fisa, section 702, allows the FBI to carry out warrantless surveillance of targeted foreigners overseas, and the personal data of many Americans – including Black Lives Matter protesters – have been swept up in the expansive searches made possible by the law.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhen Representative Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, questioned Wray on Wednesday, she focused her queries on the FBI’s data collection methods and warned that Fisa would face “a very difficult reauthorization process”.During a press call on Wednesday, Jayapal expressed dissatisfaction with “the vagueness of the director’s answers” and suggested Democrats and Republicans could indeed work together to ensure a significant overhaul of Fisa.“I think that this is actually a bipartisan area of concern,” Jayapal said. “We have an opportunity here to ensure that any [Fisa] reauthorization that we pass contains some significant reforms that protect the privacy and the personal information of people across the country.”On the possibility of bipartisan Fisa reform efforts, Bush said she was “open to working with anyone who cares about real people and bringing about real change”, although she remained skeptical of Republicans’ commitment to the cause.“If that’s what they actually want to see, then yes, I’m open to working with them,” she said.Warren was even more dubious about bipartisan efforts to overhaul the FBI’s surveillance methods. Given Republicans’ decades-long history of endorsing the FBI despite its controversial tactics, he considered it unlikely that the party’s leaders would now embrace reform.“While the right and left may both see a problem with the FBI, I don’t see them agreeing on a reform solution,” Warren said. “The foundational challenge with federal law enforcement is that it broadly criminalizes communities of color and activists, and I think that, so long as those activists are environmental or [Black Lives Matter] ones, the right wing will be perfectly happy with the way things are going.” More

  • in

    Can Biden solve his supreme court problem? – podcast

    In recent weeks the US supreme court ended affirmative action, ruled in favour of a web designer who does not want to serve gay clients and blocked Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan.
    Michael Safi speaks with Sam Levine, a voting rights reporter with Guardian US, to learn the stories behind these decisions, and what president Biden can do about them

    How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

  • in

    The right believes the FBI is obsessed with jailing Trump. The opposite is true | Andrew Gawthorpe

    Donald Trump’s indictment earlier this month on 37 counts related to mishandling classified information set off a firestorm on the political right. Conservatives accused Joe Biden of using the justice system to prosecute his main political rival and attempting to “steal” the 2024 election. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, promised to “hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable”. In short, the right wants us to believe that Biden and his administration will stop at nothing to put Trump in jail as quickly as possible.In fact, the exact opposite is true. Worried about just this type of accusation, the justice department under Merrick Garland and the FBI have approached their investigations of Trump much too cautiously. Far from being persecuted because of who he is, Trump’s status as a former president and as the unofficial leader of the Republican party have led to him being handled with vastly more deference than anyone else would be. The result has been a series of delays and missteps which may allow Trump to escape accountability once again.It is now nearly 18 months since the government first recovered classified material from Mar-a-Lago in early 2022. Although the justice department concluded shortly afterwards that Trump likely possessed further sensitive material, it took seven months for Mar-a-Lago to be searched, in part because the FBI feared that the move would open the agency to accusations of partisanship. Trump was then only indicted nearly a year later. After his initial arraignment he remains a free man, released without having to post bail – despite credible concerns he may still have additional classified material in his possession.Compare that timeline to the events surrounding the arrest of intelligence contractor Reality Winner, who in 2017 received a five-year prison sentence for leaking one document to the news website the Intercept. The document Winner leaked was written on 5 May 2017 and she was arrested on 3 June, days before the Intercept even had a chance to publish its article about her leak. She was indicted on 8 June and jailed pending her trial. Winner later pleaded guilty to violating the Espionage Act – precisely the law that it seemed clear Trump had flouted for over a year before he was indicted.Trump has likewise been slow to face consequences in the federal investigation into his actions leading up to the insurrection at the US Capitol. According to a new report by the Washington Post, the justice department and FBI delayed launching a probe into Trump’s push to overturn the 2020 election for 15 months, again because of fears that they would be criticized for partisanship. The agencies instead pursued cases against rank-and-file insurrectionists, ignoring the existence of evidence implicating Trump and his inner circle until media and political pressure forced them to begin taking it seriously.These delays matter because they make it possible – even likely – that Trump will never truly face accountability for his actions. Trump’s trial in the documents case is unlikely to be held before the 2024 presidential election and the same is true for any possible charges in the January 6 case. If Trump wins the election and becomes president again – as current polls suggest he will – then he will have multiple tools at his disposal to derail the trials or even pardon himself. Justice delayed will be justice denied.Efforts by the justice department and other agencies to appear non-partisan have been well-intended but outdated. The modern conservative movement will give the Biden administration and the law enforcement agencies little credit for proceeding so slowly and deliberately. Instead, the justice system’s extreme deference to conservative complaints will only encourage the Maga movement to double down. If federal law enforcement can be so easily scared away from enforcing the law without fear or favor, we can expect more hysteria and finger-pointing – even threats of violence – to follow in the future.These events also set a catastrophic precedent. The sitting president’s immunity from prosecution and the political barriers to impeachment leave criminal proceedings after a president leaves office as the last available means of imposing accountability. If law enforcement agencies are too scared to investigate prominent politicians promptly and effectively, even that opportunity will vanish and presidents will be left with virtually no checks on their behavior.But worst of all is the fact that if Trump gets off the hook and re-enters office, the independence and integrity of the justice department and FBI are likely to be destroyed anyway. He has made it clear that he would seek to weaponize law enforcement agencies against his political opponents, including by forcing the justice department to follow his personal and political vendettas.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump himself represents a unique threat to the rule of law and the independence of American law enforcement, one which must be confronted with appropriate but aggressive tools. Sadly, thanks to years of misplaced appeasement, it might already be too late.
    Andrew Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States at Leiden University. He hosts a podcast called America Explained and writes a newsletter of the same name More