US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      This is the beginning of Eric Adams’ fall from power as New York mayor | Ross Barkan

      by

      For the first time in the modern history of New York City, a sitting mayor has been indicted.Eric Adams will now know the fate of Donald Trump – to be indicted and possibly convicted in a Manhattan courtroom. Damian Williams, the US attorney for the southern district, has unsealed a 57-page indictment that accused Adams of performing favors for Turkish foreign nationals after accepting more than $100,000 in international plane tickets and accommodations, as well as soliciting illegal donations from them. These donations generated public matching funds for his mayoral campaign in 2021.This indictment, it should be noted, was related to one of at least four possible federal probes into the Adams administration. His police commissioner and top counsel have already resigned, and his schools chancellor – FBI agents seized his phone recently – announced that he is stepping down at the end of the year.City hall is in chaos. All of this, given Adams’ history, was arguably foreseeable.Before Adams was a mayor, he was a Brooklyn borough president and state senator who courted controversy. Corruption clouds followed him. Until now, he was never indicted. Until now, he always found a way to survive.If he and Trump have much that separates them – Adams, a Democrat, is a child of the Black working class – there are also striking commonalities. Both grew up in Queens, an outer borough of New York City. Both talk tough, revel in political combat and enjoy, even more, playing the martyr. In their political and personal conduct, they are remarkably brazen.They do not give in. They do not apologize.Neither care terribly about governing, either. To this day, Trump cannot explain any federal policy adequately. He was not able to sketch the outlines of a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act during his debate with Kamala Harris. He only wants to gut federal bureaucracies, not manage or bolster them.As mayor, Adams has preferred the prestige and the glitz of the office to the actual work of formulating policy initiatives. The municipal government has bled top talent and agencies are stuffed with patronage hires. His achievements, at best, are small bore.His recent predecessors – Bill de Blasio and Michael Bloomberg – could boast of great changes they brought to New York City, like a new universal prekindergarten program or popular waterfront parks. They left behind tangible legacies. They had, above all, governing visions.Unlike Trump, Adams cannot survive an indictment. Either he will resign or he will lose in the Democratic primary next year. His poll numbers, long before the indictment came, were cratering, and they are only bound to fall more. His base has shrunk and Democrats want him gone.Kathy Hochul, the New York governor, has the power to remove him from office but probably won’t. She remains something of an Adams ally and will probably fret the optics of a white governor dragging a Black mayor from office – especially when he hasn’t yet been convicted of a crime.What will happen, instead, is that Adams will drag this out as long as possible. He might eventually cave to pressure from the US attorney’s office and cut a deal with Williams to dodge prison time. Or he’ll battle on to a trial, and force New Yorkers to endure the spectacle of their mayor in a courtroom. Trump had the presidency to protect him from many criminal charges. Adams enjoys no constitutional privileges or loopholes.If Adam does resign soon enough before the Democratic primary next year, there will be a non-partisan special election to replace him. There has never been a mayoral special election before. It will not be restricted to registered Democrats; ranked-choice voting, where voters can pick up to five candidates, will be employed.The disgraced former governor, Andrew Cuomo, is a rumored candidate, hoping to seek redemption from the sexual harassment scandal that forced him from power. Other prominent Democrats in New York City include Brad Lander, the city comptroller, and Jumaane Williams, who as public advocate would become acting mayor if Adams resigns. A Republican or two may try for city hall as well.They will all hope to forget the Eric Adams years ever happened.

      Ross Barkan is a writer based in New York More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Drop boxes and delays: under-fire election office ends up pleasing no one

      by

      A battleground Pennsylvania county with a history of election errors is facing heavy criticism from activists on both sides of the political spectrum over the way it is running its presidential vote in 2024.Conservative activists, who have dominated recent election board meetings, say the county isn’t processing voter registrations fast enough – something county officials say is simply untrue. Voting rights groups, meanwhile, are furious over a recent decision by the county manager in Luzerne county in the north-eastern part of the state to get rid of ballot drop boxes.A series of high-profile errors in Luzerne county have put its elections under a microscope. In 2020, a temporary employee accidentally threw out overseas mail-in ballots, an episode that Donald Trump used to claim voter fraud. In 2022, the county ran out of paper at some voting locations, an episode that Republicans used to question the results of the election (an investigation attributed the incident to human error). There has also been an extraordinary amount of turnover in the office. The current election director, Emily Cook, is the seventh person to hold the job since the fall of 2019.County officials have spent the last year working to get the county back on track to run a smooth election and regain the trust of voters. But the memory of the errors lingers and any error or delay can become fodder for those seeking to undermine the credibility of the vote – something that could create a volatile scenario if Trump contests the election results this fall.Voter registration is nearly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats in Luzerne county. Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, narrowly won the county in 2022. Donald Trump carried the county by more than 14 percentage points in 2020, a drop from his 20-point margin in 2016 .Scott Presler, a well-known Republican activist who organized events protesting against Trump’s loss in the 2020 election and is now leading an effort to register voters, appeared at a meeting of the county election board on 18 September and accused officials of intentionally delaying the processing of voter registrations. He cited a “reliable source”, but did not provide any more information.“If people are living in Florida and you are backlogged to the point that October 29 comes and mail-in ballots are sent by November 2, those mail-in ballots may not get here by November 5 at 8pm eastern time zone,” he said. Republicans have generally opposed allowing election offices to accept mail-in ballots that arrive after election day, even if the voter put them in the mail beforehand.Romilda Crocamo, the county manager, said the accusation that the county was delaying the processing of voter registrations was false.On Monday, the county said it had 4,101 pending voter registrations. Cook told the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader that the county had made progress on the backlog, but that it shot up before the weekend. The county has brought on 10 additional staff members to help with the backlog, the outlet reported.“I don’t know where those rumors are coming from. They’re not true. We’re on schedule,” Crocamo said in an interview. “We are on task. We will have all the registrations completed by the [21 October] deadline. And to me, it’s just another example that there’s a certain element of people that want us to fail and want us to redirect our resources or our attention to something that really isn’t a problem.”When someone turns in a voter registration application, she said, the county election office reviews the information before it gets verified by different state agencies. That process takes time, Crocamo said.Presler, who did not respond to interview requests, and other activists have been blanketing the county as part of an effort to get Republican voter registrations to outnumber Democratic ones. They succeeded in that goal earlier this week.Some of the registrations that activists are turning in are duplicates, Crocamo said. Others are applications for mail-in ballots – all of which take staff time to sort through and verify.The elections bureau has also been getting hounded with phone calls, inundating the half-dozen or so staff members who answer the phones. Crocamo has approved overtime and sent additional county staff to help.Cook told the Times-Leader that many of the calls appear to be scripted, asking about the backlog in voter registrations, illegal immigrants, voter purging and whether the county ordered enough paper.View image in fullscreenCrocamo is also under fire for a decision last week to eliminate mail-in ballot drop boxes for this fall’s election. The county previously used four drop boxes, but the county doesn’t have the staff to monitor them this fall, she said, and video surveillance “doesn’t prevent something from happening”.“We can’t afford to do it,” she said. “I cannot secure the drop boxes. And, you know, sometimes I have to make difficult decisions. And I know that there are people who feel that they rely on the drop boxes.”Rightwing activists quickly seized on the announcement to support the false claim that drop boxes facilitate voter fraud. The claim was quickly boosted by Elon Musk, who has spread several false claims about elections.Alisha Hoffman-Mirilovich, the executive director of Action Together NEPA, a progressive group, decried the decision to get rid of drop boxes. “We’ve even had members and folks reach out to us to actually say that they feel more, they feel safer going to a drop box than they do their polling location because of threats,” she said.She added that she didn’t think Crocamo had the authority to unilaterally get rid of drop boxes. Elections in the county are jointly overseen by a board of elections, which sets election policy, and the county manager, who reports to the elected county council. The board has supported drop boxes.“Your last-minute unilateral move and unsubstantiated public statements that the drop boxes are not secure elevates a false narrative about mail voting and sows distrust in election administration. It serves only to create chaos in the community,” Marian Schneider, a lawyer with the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in a letter to Crocamo, urging her to reverse her decision.On Tuesday evening, In This Together NEPA held a press conference outside the county courthouse urging the restoration of drop boxes. A group of anti-drop box activists stood nearby and shouted over the speakers, making it difficult to hear them at times.One of the speakers was Carole Shearer, 69, who is retired and lives in Butler Township in Luzerne county. Just before the primary election, her grandson had a health emergency that caused her and her husband to have to leave the county.“We dropped everything and drove through the night to provide care for his three-year-old brother. If not for drop box voting in advance of election day, our right to vote would have been forfeited if an instance like this fell on election day. That’s unacceptable,” she said.Hannah Butterwick, another Luzerne county voter, said she relied on drop boxes because she and her one-year-old son were immunocompromised. She was skeptical that safety was a legitimate excuse for getting rid of the drop boxes.“These vague excuses of safety do not make sense. You’ve secured 130 polling locations, but you can’t manage to find a way to secure four drop boxes?” she said. “If security is truly the concern, then a solution should have been found well before now, instead of the total removal of one of our voting options.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘The US lost its shame muscle’: why sex no longer scandalizes in politics

      by

      Earlier this year, at Donald Trump’s hush-money trial, adult film star Stormy Daniels told jurors how at age 27, she met a 60-year-old Trump, whose wife had only recently given birth to their son, for what she thought was dinner. She arrived to find him in satin pyjamas and, during an encounter that included very “brief” sex, the business magnate told Daniels that she reminded him of his daughter, Ivanka.I’m not dragging all this up again to put you off your dinner. I’m bringing it up to remind you that, while all these sordid details made headlines and generated jokes on late-night talkshows, they didn’t move the needle with Trump’s voters at all. His base, which includes evangelical Christians, simply didn’t care. Nor were they bothered about Trump’s association with Mark Robinson, the disgraced Republican candidate running to be North Carolina’s next governor who was allegedly once active on a porn forum called Nude Africa where he boasted about being a “perv”.The 2024 US elections may have provided a constant stream of revelations ranging from the mildly salacious to the downright disturbing. It’s not just Trump: there’s the recent reports of New York magazine star reporter Olivia Nuzzi having a personal relationship with Robert F Kennedy Jr during his presidential run and sitting representative Matt Gaetz being investigated for human trafficking and paying for sex with minors. Yet despite the many lurid and often unpleasant details, political sex scandals just don’t seem to have much bite anymore.“We have lost our shame muscle in the United States,” says Dr Alison Dagnes, professor of the political science department at Shippensburg University. She argues that because politicians aren’t shamed into retiring from public life, details of these scandals remain mostly rumors and fade from the public memory. “Certain politicians are realizing that if you don’t apologize for something, then nobody can use it against you again. For those who are shameless, that is a very effective way to get through life.”It hasn’t always been like this. Being embroiled in a sex scandal used to swing an election or destroy a candidate. In 1987, Gary Hart was the presumed Democratic presidential candidate – until reports of “womanizing” and being caught in an affair derailed his campaign. In 2008, North Carolina senator John Edwards, a star in the Democratic party, was on a path to the presidency until he was caught covering up an extramarital affair that resulted in a child. His career imploded and he vanished from public life.In 2014, the Washington Post analysed 38 sex scandals going back to 1974 and found that “just 39 percent of officeholders won reelection after coming under scrutiny for sexual harassment, affairs or prostitution, while the rest chose not to run, resigned or lost”. While Bill Clinton may have survived his affair (if you can call the most powerful man in the world preying on an intern an “affair”) with Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s, he seems to have made the US a little less tolerant of impropriety. “The survival rate [for sex scandals] has plummeted since Bill Clinton’s presidency. In 15 scandals since 2000, just three officeholders (or 20 percent) facing personal scandals have won reelection,” the Post noted. It added: “It’s unclear why personal scandals that were once shrugged off … are more consequential today.”Clearly, things have changed again since then. Partly this is due to the fact that America’s trust in media has fallen to historic lows in recent years – a phenomenon that is linked to growing polarization. Jay Van Bavel, a professor of neural science at New York University and an expert in “the partisan brain”, notes that “people don’t trust institutions and media sources that aren’t aligned with them ideologically”. Many of Trump’s supporters simply don’t believe his accusers, and don’t believe the media sources reporting on his actions.Even if people do believe allegations about a politician, says Van Bavel, “they’re willing to excuse bad behaviour and continue voting for a person or party member because they don’t want the other party to take power”. A 2020 study that he worked on, alongside 14 other prominent researchers, looked at survey data since the 1970s and found that, for the first time, contempt for the other political party is greater than affection for one’s own. Voting behaviour is now essentially driven by who you hate the most.Trump, of course, is well aware of this. In 2016, the former president joked that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and he still wouldn’t lose any voters.But Trump is a unique case. There may have been a loosening of America’s moral compass but there are still lines that most politicians can’t cross.Some of these lines are dictated by a cultural moment. See, for example, Democratic senator Al Franken, who resigned in 2017 because of sexual misconduct allegations. Were it not for the fact that it was the start of #MeToo and Franken was a Democrat, he could probably have weathered the accusations, suggests Jodi Dean, a professor in the political science department at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. But “it seems like a Democratic base want purity”. And “Franken had a sense of shame”, so he stepped down.Mixing sex and taxpayer money also makes a scandal more difficult to weather. “If it is an issue that’s a private matter, the American public is more likely to let it go,” Dagnes notes. “But if there’s some sort of official corruption involved, then they’re less likely to.” Dagnes references the recent case of Republican Anthony D’Esposito who, according to a New York Times investigation, put his fiancee’s daughter and a woman with whom he was having an affair on his payroll.“I would expect D’Esposito to really take a big polling hit,” says Dagnes. “This isn’t just: ‘My fiancee and I were going through a really difficult time’ – it’s a case of: ‘I feel so emboldened that I’m going to put my mistress and my fiancee’s daughter on my payroll,’ which is paid by the American taxpayer. That makes voters feel duped.”Gender also plays a part in how sex scandals are received, with women routinely being held to far higher standards than men. Dagnes notes, for example, that the right has been trying very hard to manufacture a scandal out of the fact that Kamala Harris, who was single at the time, had a relationship with San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, who was also single at the time, in the 1990s. Somehow they think this makes her “a slut”. There is, for example, a lot of merchandise for sale with the phrase “Joe and the Hoe Gotta Go”.This isn’t to say that women, particularly attractive young white women, are always held to higher standards than men. While Nuzzi has been put on leave by New York magazine following news of her previously undisclosed relationship with RFK Jr, she has also been cut a surprising amount of slack for what is clearly professional misconduct. “Reporters have all sorts of compromising relationships with sources,” shrugged Ben Smith from Semafor. “The most compromising of all, and the most common, is a reporter’s fealty to someone who gives them information. That’s the real coin of this realm. Sex barely rates.”That said, Nuzzi is certainly getting dragged through the mud for the affair more than RFK Jr, who is well-known for what he has called “wild impulses” and “lust demons”. Previous reports about Kennedy’s private life suggest he detailed extramarital encounters with 37 women in a 2001 diary. That didn’t stop him from trying to run for president, of course. But neither did allegations he once assaulted a babysitter – to which he responded by stating: “I am not a church boy.” Kennedy also hasn’t let brain worms or dead bears get in the way of his political ambitions.The fact that sex scandals no longer seem to register with voters seems to be linked to a wider acceptance of outrageous political behaviour. “Politicians can now go out and say that they’re in favor of nuking Gaza [as Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Greg Murphy have hinted towards],” Dean observes. “Politicians are openly bloodthirsty and genocidal. That’s permissible speech right now. Ours is now a time where genocide is not a major scandal, where climate change is not a major scandal. We really might be over the age of where an individual’s act is going to gather the same amount of tension as it once did. We’re seeing a sense of right and wrong totally breaking down.” More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The real victims of Olivia Nuzzi’s affair with RFK Jr are other female journalists | Moira Donegan

      by

      Anyone who is not a moralist or kidding themselves will admit that a good piece of gossip is one of life’s greatest pleasures. Gossip exposes the false sanctimony of the powerful: it reveals the smug and self-righteous to be grubby, selfish and embarrassing – just like the rest of us. If the pronouncements of politicians make history, and the reporting of the media shapes that history’s official narrative, gossip runs along behind them, like a bratty younger sibling, filling in their omissions to tell a truer story. “You left out this part.” “That’s not what you told me.”Maybe this is why media gossip about journalists and politicians carries such a frisson of transgressive delight: it breaks their monopoly on narrative authority. The people who have been appointed to tell us stories about our world, and about ourselves, finally get themselves subjected to the same treatment. It helps, too, to bust the bubble of a media industry that has long demanded more moral gravitas than it has really earned. These are the people, after all, who claim to be holding power to account. But how do they actually behave towards those in power?And so it was maybe predictable that so many people would feel a gleeful jolt of schadenfreude last week, when New York Magazine revealed that it had suspended Olivia Nuzzi, a young star reporter known for her biting wit and deep bench of Republican sources. The cause? Nuzzi had allegedly admitted to sexting with one of her reporting subjects: the anti-vax crusader, animal corpse desecrator, former presidential candidate and brain worm host Robert F Kennedy Jr.Love is blind, and it could be that Nuzzi simply has unconventional taste. But the incident has taken on heavy symbolic proportions, becoming a litmus test within media circles for various opinions on journalistic ethics, how to earn and keep readers’ trust, and the journalists’ vexed obligations to the truth in an industry where models of “access journalism” routinely incentivize them to have close – even cozy – relationships with those they cover.Nuzzi, in particular, has a talent for getting incendiary and controversial figures on the right to say things that they probably shouldn’t, and media watchers have long speculated that this might be because of her own conservative leanings: that she is able to ingratiate herself to rightwing subjects because she is able to convince them that she offers a sympathetic ear. In that much, at least, any honest journalist will have to admit that Nuzzi is not alone. But she seems to have taken her sympathy for her subjects far beyond the industry baseline.Not everyone finds Nuzzi’s conduct objectionable on journalistic grounds. Ben Smith, the former New York Times media columnist who now runs the outlet Semafor, used his newsletter to ask what all the fuss was about. He claimed that British journalists had texted him to the effect of: “If you’re not sleeping with someone in a position of power, how are you even a journalist?”The NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik characterizes this statement from Smith as “bananas”. We might also add that it is insulting to Smith’s colleagues, be they American, British or anything else – and in particular, to the women. It implies that there are large numbers of female journalists trading sex for access. There are not. It is rare, and more than frowned upon, for journalists to sleep with their sources or subjects: doing so compromises the integrity of the work. And most female journalists, like most female professionals in any field, are not interested in trading on their sexuality for professional advancement.And yet Smith’s defense of Nuzzi was not the only comment that seemed to take a kind of prurient delight in the story. Almost immediately, RFK Jr sympathizers started leaking stories to the media that seemed aimed at minimizing his own role in the relationship and portraying Nuzzi as a sex-starved obsessive, who “bombarded” the Kennedy scion against his will with “increasingly pornographic photos and videos that he found difficult to resist”, in the words of Jessica Reed Kraus. Sure.Other outlets, eager to credulously repeat these claims, took a similar track. The New York Post ran a story to this effect that featured an image of Nuzzi in a bikini. Another journalist, Keith Olbermann, chimed in with the irrelevant and unhelpful information that he also dated Nuzzi once, back when he was in his mid-50s and she was in her early 20s. The Daily Beast went to far as to publish a gross fictionalization of Nuzzi and RFK Jr’s correspondence.The schadenfreude has changed its tenor: from delight in the revealed hypocrisies of the powerful to delight in the sexual humiliation of a woman. It is assumed that it is Nuzzi’s sexuality itself – rather than her decision to direct it toward a subject of her reporting – that disqualifies her from public dignity.Let’s be clear: Nuzzi is not a victim. There is no indication that her relationship with RFK Jr was anything but consensual, however distasteful we may find it. Nor does she appear to be a woman of robust feminist commitments. Not only has Nuzzi routinely cozied up to powerful Republican political players, but until recently she was engaged to the Politico writer Ryan Lizza, who was fired from the New Yorker in 2017 for alleged sexual misconduct. The misogyny directed against her, then, raises an uncomfortable question for feminists: how do we criticize the actions of patriarchal women without falling into the trap of perpetuating misogyny against them?The most ungenerous interpretation of Nuzzi’s career – which is not necessarily the most likely one – is that she used her youth and good looks to her advantage, flattering the egos of men who could get her jobs or serve as sources. In this scenario, she would have made a trade-off – sexual attention for professional opportunity. There is a tendency to demonize this kind of use of sexuality by women (and a less pronounced, usually tardy tendency to criticize such trades when they are demanded or accepted by men). It is this tendency, feeding off the unspoken and unproven assumptions about just what Nuzzi and RFK Jr were offering each other, that has led to all the slut-shaming of Nuzzi in the media.Women who make such trades are not necessarily unequipped for the jobs they get by them: talent and corruption often coexist in one person. (And whatever the controversies and uncertainties about Nuzzi herself, there is no dispute that she is very talented.) But the problem with such transactions, where they do happen, is not that the women who make them are sluts. It is that they are scabs. Such trade-offs can be consensual, but they can never really be ethical: they make it harder for other women in their industries who are not willing or able to use their sexuality to advance to do so; they set the precedent that sex for opportunity is an acceptable trade to make to female workers; they encourage men to leverage their professional power to extract sexual favors. They cast all female professionals under the suspicion of corruptibility and unseriousness.Whatever Nuzzi was doing, she doesn’t seem to have been thinking much about her female colleagues; she appears to have mostly been thinking about herself. But she’s not the only one in this scenario who deserves our attention. Spare a thought for the other women working in journalism – including many of Nuzzi’s colleagues at New York Magazine – who will now be embarrassed by unfair comparisons to her. If there’s a victim in this story, it’s them.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The swing states in the south that could sway the election – podcast

      by

      Polling out this week suggests Kamala Harris could be outperforming Donald Trump in the crucial sun-belt states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina. So what happens if these polls are right? Can Donald Trump win the presidency without them?
      This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to George Chidi, politics and democracy reporter for Guardian US, about how these states could be be make or break for either candidate

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

    • 238 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden and Harris joined by Parkland school shooting survivor at event on addressing gun violence – US politics live

      by

      Donald Trump said he would meet with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday morning at Trump Tower.Yesterday, the former president attacked Zlenskyy directly and accused him of “refusing” to negotiate a peace deal with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. “The president of Ukraine is in our country. He is making little nasty aspersions toward your favourite president, me,” Trump said. “We continue to give billions of dollars to a man who refuses to make a deal: Zelenskyy.”A fued between Trump and Zelenskyy has escalated in recent days, as my colleague Andrew Roth reports:US and European officials have noted with varying levels of alarm the potential for a Trump administration to sharply reduce US aid to Ukraine in order to force Zelenskyy to accept terms for a ceasefire.Asked if the Democrats wanted to “Trump-proof” aid to Ukraine before a potential Trump presidency, a senior state department official said, “I don’t ever talk in those terms” but that the primary goal was to make sure Ukraine “has all the equipment it needs to keep fighting and manpower and other things”.“At the end of the year, regardless of who wins our election in December, as at the end of this fighting season, Zelenskyy and Putin need to look at the battlefield and say, here’s what we think next year will look like,” the official said.“And the primary factor there is, do I think the other side has all the equipment it needs to keep fighting and manpower and other things?”On Wednesday, the House speaker, Mike Johnson, a Republican, accused Zelenskyy of election interference and demanded he fire his ambassador to Washington over a visit to an ammunitions factory in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. Johnson claimed the Ukrainian ambassador had failed to invite any Republicans to the event and called it a “partisan campaign event designed to help Democrats”.Zelenskyy sought to reduce tensions on Thursday as he thanked the US for the new arms package and praised political leaders’ “strong bipartisan support” in “Ukraine’s just cause of defeating Russian aggression”.“I am grateful to Joe Biden, [the] US Congress and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, as well as the entire American people for today’s announcement of major US defence assistance for Ukraine, totalling $7.9bn and sanctions against Russia,” Zelenskyy wrote.Donald Trump said he would meet with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday morning at Trump Tower.Yesterday, the former president attacked Zlenskyy directly and accused him of “refusing” to negotiate a peace deal with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. “The president of Ukraine is in our country. He is making little nasty aspersions toward your favourite president, me,” Trump said. “We continue to give billions of dollars to a man who refuses to make a deal: Zelenskyy.”A fued between Trump and Zelenskyy has escalated in recent days, as my colleague Andrew Roth reports:The joint appearance of Biden and Harris today highlights Harris’s role overseeing the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.“Over the years, I’ve held the hands of far too many mothers and fathers to try and comfort them after their child was killed by gun violence. And let us all agree, it does not have to be this way,” Harris said. “We know how to stop these tragedies, and it is a false choice to suggest you are either in favor of the second amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.”The president today is marking the roll-out of an executive order that includes several gun-related measures, including the creation of a task force to assess the threat of machine gun conversion devices.Joe Biden took the podium to chants of “Thank you Joe.”The audience at the White House is full of survivors and the families of those killed by gun violence. Biden was also introduced by Birmingham mayor Randall Woodfin, whose city was rocked by gun violence on Saturday in the Five Points entertainment district. Four people were killed and 17 injured.“I know the scream of a mother when her child is killed. I know that because I heard it from the voice of my own mother when my brother was killed by gun violence,” Woodfin said. “I heard that scream again this past Saturday.”The president and vice president are speaking from the White House, and were introduced by a student who was 15 when a gunman on students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.We’ll follow their remarks.In a characteristically rambling news conference, Donald Trump ripped into Kamala Harris for visiting the border – and unleashed a slew of fiction and fear-mongering about the border and immigrants.Among his claims was that the CBP One app, which people arriving at the US southern border must use to schedule appointment for an asylum screening, was being used by “virtually unlimited numbers of illegals to press a button schedule their illegal immigration appointment at our ports of entry”.Using the app to schedule an asylum screening, is, of course one way to legally immigrate to the US. Seeking asylum is legal.Trump also repeated his fictitious claim about migrants contributing to increased crime, and that crime overall was “up” – dividing ABC’s presidential debate moderators for fact-checking his claims.Here’s my colleague Edward Helmore with more on the actual stats:
      Murder dropped by more than 11% from 2022 to 2023, the largest single-year decline in two decades, according to FBI data released on Monday.
      Meanwhile, the broader category of violent crime nationwide decreased about 3%, said the data, which is audited and confirms earlier reporting from unaudited statistics.
      Monday’s release of audited data contradicts a talking point that Donald Trump has made on the campaign trail as the Republican presidential nominee seeks a return to the White House during the 5 November election: that crime has been rampant and out of control without him in power.
      In its annual Crime in the Nation summary, the FBI said rape decreased by an estimated 9.4%, property crime dropped 2.4% and burglary fell by an estimated 7.6%.
      Some more background:After the 2020 election, Newsmax aired several false claims about the company, whose voting machines were only used in Los Angeles county in 2020. The network repeatedly aired false claims from Trump allies that the software was widely used across the country and that it had been hacked to change votes.Smartmatic sued Newsmax, Fox, One America News Network (OANN) and others for broadcasting their false claims. It settled the case with OANN earlier this year and the Fox case is still pending in New York.Smartmatic said in a statement: “We are very pleased to have secured the completion of the case against Newsmax. We are now looking forward to our court day against Fox Corp and Fox News for their disinformation campaign. Lying to the American people has consequences. Smartmatic will not stop until the perpetrators are held accountable.”First amendment scholars were closely watching the case and several others like it to see whether libel law can be used as an effective tool to police misinformation.The case was set to be a kind of sequel to the defamation litigation between Dominion, another voting machine company, and Fox over 2020 election lies. That case settled just before the trial was set to begin, with Fox agreeing to pay Dominion $747.5m. Eric Davis, the judge who oversaw the Fox case, also was overseeing the Newsmax case.Read the full story here:The voting machine company Smartmatic and the conservative outlet Newsmax have settled a closely watched defamation lawsuit days before it was scheduled to go to trial in Delaware.A spokesperson for the Delaware courts said the case had settled on Thursday. He did not offer additional details.Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Kamala Harris made an appearance together after meeting.Harris emphasized: “Nothing about the end of this war can be decided without Ukraine.”She also referenced, without explicitly mentioning, Donald Trump, who has said that Ukraine should have made concessions to Russian president Vladimir Putin before Russia’s attack:“There are some in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory,” she said. “These proposals are the same as those of Putin. Let us be be clear. They are not proposals for peace. Instead, they are proposals for surrender.”Here’s a look at where things stand:

      New York City mayor Eric Adams was charged in a 57-page federal indictment with crimes relating to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, federal program bribery and receiving campaign contributions by foreign nationals, wire fraud, solicitation of a contribution by a foreign national and bribery. He has maintained his innocence.

      Federal prosecutors called Adams’s alleged misconduct a grave breach of public trust. The US attorney for the southern district of New York Damian Williams strongly criticized the mayor at a press conference a little earlier.

      Williams vowed to continue to investigate the mayor’s case and to “hold more people accountable”. Charges against Adams include bribery, wire fraud and acceptance of illegal foreign campaign contributions including from Turkish government officials. Williams said the mayor “kept the public in the dark”.

      The indictment against Adams includes many luxury trips that were not put in annual disclosure forms, prosecutors say. Trips cost many thousands of dollars and included visiting Turkey and flying via Turkey while visiting countries such as China, India, France, Hungary and Ghana.

      Federal agents raided Adams’s official residence, Gracie Mansion, on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in the early hours today, as reports emerged of the mayor being hit with a federal indictment. The raid reportedly included a group of nearly a dozen people in suits entering the property, with several carrying briefcases, backpacks or duffel bags.

      Joe Biden and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are meeting at the White House as the Ukrainian president attempts to shore up support for his country’s war aims in its fight against Russia. Before the meeting, Zelenskyy thanked the US president for his support, saying: “Your determination is incredibly important for us to prevail … We must restore normal life, and we greatly value your leadership.”

      Before their meeting, Biden released a statement, saying: “I am proud to welcome President Zelenskyy back to the White House today.” As part of the US’s “surge” in security assistance to Ukraine, Biden has directed the defense department to allocate all of its remaining security assistance funding that has been appropriated for Ukraine by the end of his term. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden signs three-month funding bill to avert US government shutdown

      by

      Joe Biden signed a three-month government funding bill on Thursday, averting an imminent shutdown and delaying a fuller conversation about government spending until after the November elections.The stopgap spending bill, known as a continuing resolution or CR, will extend government funding until 20 December. It will also provide an additional $231m for the Secret Service “for operations necessary to carry out protective operations including the 2024 presidential campaign and national special security events”, following the two recent assassination attempts against Donald Trump.Biden’s signing of the bill came one day after the House and Senate passed the legislation with sweeping bipartisan majorities in both chambers.“The passage of this bill gives Congress more time to pass full-year funding bills by the end of this year,” Biden said Wednesday. “My administration will work with Congress to ensure these bills deliver for America’s national defense, veterans, seniors, children and working families, and address urgent needs for the American people, including communities recovering from disasters.”The Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, had initially tried to pass a more rightwing proposal that combined a six-month stopgap funding measure with the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) Act, a controversial proposal that would require people to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote.That effort failed last week, when 14 Republicans and all but two Democrats opposed Johnson’s bill. The failure forced Johnson to take up a three-month spending bill that was narrow enough to win Democrats’ support. The House passed that bill on Wednesday in a vote of 341 to 82, with all of the opposition to the legislation stemming from Republicans.“Our legislative work before November has now been officially done, and today the House did the necessary thing,” Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. “We took the initiative and passed a clean, narrow, three-month CR to prevent the Senate from jamming us with another bloated bill while continuing resolutions.”Johnson nodded at the widespread opposition to the bill within his conference, as 82 Republicans voted against it amid complaints of wasteful government spending.“While a continuing resolution is never ideal – none of us like them; that’s not a way to run a railroad – it allows Congress to continue serving the American people through the election,” Johnson said.Once the House passed the continuing resolution on Wednesday afternoon, the Senate moved immediately to take up the bill. The upper chamber passed the bill just two hours after the House did in a bipartisan vote of 78 to 18.The Democratic Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, thanked Johnson for his work to avoid a shutdown, but he lamented that it took Congress until the last minute to pass a funding package when it seemed evident for weeks that a narrow stopgap would be necessary.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Tonight the American people can sleep easier knowing we have avoided an unnecessary government shutdown at the end of the month,” Schumer said before the vote. “It is a relief for the country that, once again, bipartisanship prevailed to stop another shutdown threat. It took much longer than it should have, but because House Republicans finally, finally chose to work with us in the end, Congress is getting the job done tonight.”Schumer had previously blamed Donald Trump for the delay, as the former president had implored Republican lawmakers to reject any funding bill unless it was tied to “election security” measures. The newly signed bill did not meet that demand, but Johnson insisted that Trump backed Republicans’ efforts to keep the government funded.“President Trump understands the current dilemma and the situation that we’re in,” Johnson told reporters on Tuesday. “So we’ll continue working closely together. I’m not defying President Trump. We’re getting our job done, and I think he understands that.”Both chambers of Congress now stand adjourned for six weeks, meaning members will not return to Capitol Hill until after election day. Johnson’s decision to rely on Democratic support to pass the funding package has raised questions about his future as speaker, but he voiced confidence on Wednesday about his leadership and his party’s prospects for expanding its narrow House majority.“I would be a fool to project a certain number of seats, but let me just say I’m very optimistic,” Johnson told reporters. “I believe we’re going to hold the House. And I intend to be the speaker in the new Congress.” More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Newsmax and Smartmatic settle 2020 US election defamation lawsuit

      by

      The voting machine company Smartmatic and the conservative outlet Newsmax have settled a closely watched defamation lawsuit days before it was set to go to trial in Delaware.A spokesman for the Delaware courts said the case had been settled on Thursday. He did not offer additional details. The trial was set to begin in Wilmington on Monday.The terms of the settlement are not public.“Newsmax is pleased to announce it has resolved the litigation brought by Smartmatic through a confidential settlement,” Bill Daddi, a spokesman for the network, said in a statement.After the 2020 election, Newsmax aired several false claims about the company, whose voting machines were only used in Los Angeles county in 2020. The network repeatedly aired false claims from Trump allies that the software was widely used across the country and that it had been hacked to change votes.Smartmatic sued Newsmax, Fox, One America News Network (OANN) and others for broadcasting their false claims. It settled the case with OANN earlier this year and the Fox case is still pending in New York.Smartmatic said in a statement: “We are very pleased to have secured the completion of the case against Newsmax. We are now looking forward to our court day against Fox Corp and Fox News for their disinformation campaign. Lying to the American people has consequences. Smartmatic will not stop until the perpetrators are held accountable.”First amendment scholars were closely watching the case and several others like it to see whether libel law can be used as an effective tool to police misinformation.The case was set to be a kind of sequel to the defamation litigation between Dominion, another voting machine company, and Fox over 2020 election lies. That case was settled just before the trial was set to begin, with Fox agreeing to pay Dominion $787.5m. Eric Davis, the judge who oversaw the Fox case, was also overseeing the Newsmax case.A settlement was not surprising in the case as trial neared. Davis ruled that Smartmatic could not seek punitive damages, a decision that significantly limited any possible financial payout for Smartmatic.Davis had also ruled that Newsmax could use the “neutral report privilege” as a defense in the case – a legal shield that allows media outlets to broadcast allegations if they are reporting on a newsworthy event and do so in a disinterested and neutral way. Davis had not let Fox used that defense in its litigation.Smartmatic executives were indicted by the justice department earlier this year on bribery charges in the Philippines. Even though the charges were completely unrelated to the 2020 election, it offered an opportunity for Newsmax lawyers to argue that the company’s poor reputation could not be attributed to what was said on its air.But Newsmax also had reasons to settle. In a pre-trial conference, a lawyer for the company had called it a “bet-your-company” case for the outlet. Newsmax, which is projecting $180.5m in revenue this year, saw a surge in audience under the Trump administration and a bump that caught Fox’s attention after the 2020 election as it broadcast false claims about voting.“The Newsmax surge is a bit troubling – truly is an alternative universe when you watch, but it can’t be ignored,” Jay Wallace, a Fox executive, wrote in an email to a colleague after the 2020 election.Unlike in the Fox and Dominion litigation, only a few details emerged in the case revealing internal discussions at Newsmax as they broadcast false claims about the election. One of the messages was an internal letter from Christopher Ruddy, the network’s CEO from November 2020, conceding the network did not have evidence of voter fraud.“Newsmax does not have evidence of widespread voter fraud. We have no evidence of a voter fraud conspiracy nor do we make such claims on Newsmax,” he wrote on 12 November 2020. “We have reported on significant evidence of widespread election irregularities and vote fraud. We will continue to report on that. We believe we should not censor allegations made by the President or his lawyers or surrogates. Our job is not to filter the news but report information and allow Americans to decide.”Another exchange included Bob Sellers, a Newsmax host, and a producer, wondering how long they would have to air false claims about the election. “How long are we going to have to play along with election fraud?” Sellers wrote on 9 November 2020. “Trump’s MO is always to play victim [] And answer this question. Is there anything at all that could result in another election? The answer is no. and are there enough votes that could be switched or thrown out from fraud or irregularities? No.”The lack of a trial may rob the public of the chance to hear about the state of mind of people who were behind broadcasting election lies, said RonNell Andersen Jones, a first amendment scholar at the University of Utah who has closely followed the defamation cases filed by those harmed by 2020 election lies.Still, she noted that Davis had already ruled that the statements at issue in the case were false, and cautioned against expecting defamation cases to be a cure for misinformation.“Defamation law can declare something a lie, but the question of whether a lie was told is only one of many questions that have to be asked and answered,” she said in an interview earlier this week. “It is a notoriously complex area of law, which means cases can be won or lost on a lot of grounds that have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the statement. And I am not sure that translates well to public discussion.”Lyrissa Lidsky, a media law professor at the University of Florida, also cautioned against expecting libel law to be a cure-all for disinformation.“Defamation law is not a panacea for election misinformation. There’s just no two ways about it,” she said. “It’s just a small piece.” More