US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares54 Views

      in US Politics

      Pro-Israel Pac pours millions into surprise candidate in Maryland primary

      by

      A pro-Israel lobby group has dropped millions into a Maryland congressional race as tensions remain high over the war in Gaza.The primary race in the third congressional district, which will be held on Tuesday, has attracted national interest thanks to the candidacy of one Democrat in particular: Harry Dunn. A former US Capitol police officer, Dunn and his colleagues won praise for their actions defending lawmakers against a violent mob of Donald Trump’s supporters on January 6. In his New York Times bestselling memoir, Standing My Ground, Dunn recounted how the insurrectionists repeatedly used the N-word as they attacked him and other Black officers.Dunn announced his bid to replace retiring Democratic congressman John Sarbanes on the third anniversary of January 6, marking his first formal foray into electoral politics. Despite Dunn’s high name recognition, the group United Democracy Project, a Super Pac affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), has thrown its support behind another primary candidate.According to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, UDP has spent over $4.2m supporting state senator Sarah Elfreth.UDP’s investment comes after the group spent $4.6m on its failed effort to block the Democratic congressional candidate Dave Min from advancing to the general election in California’s 47th district. But the group notched one of its biggest wins of the election cycle so far on Tuesday, when the former Republican representative John Hostettler lost his primary race in Indiana’s eighth district. UDP had devoted $1.6m to defeating Hostettler because of his voting record on Israel and some of his past comments that were criticized as antisemitic.View image in fullscreenUDP’s decision to wade into the crowded Maryland primary came as somewhat of a surprise, given that neither Dunn nor Elfreth has made a point to highlight their position on Israel in their campaign messaging. A UDP ad for Elfreth does not mention Israel at all and instead focuses on her legislative record, applauding her work in the state senate.“Sarah Elfreth gets things done,” the ad’s narrator says. “With so much at stake – abortion rights, the environment, our democracy – we need a congresswoman who will deliver.”UDP did not respond to a request for comment, but in a statement to HuffPost last month, the group’s spokesperson acknowledged Dunn’s “support for a strong US-Israel relationship” but suggested concern about other candidates in the primary.“There are some serious anti-Israel candidates in this race, who are not Harry Dunn, and we need to make sure that they don’t make it to Congress,” spokesperson Patrick Dorton said.That comment appeared to reference progressive candidate John Morse, a labor lawyer who has received the endorsement of Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and has centered his campaign on his vocal support for a ceasefire in Gaza. In a recent interview with Fox45 Baltimore, Morse said: “I am the most outspoken on a permanent humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza because I think that’s the critical issue that’s going on right now.”Meanwhile, UDP’s investment has helped Elfreth compete against Dunn’s massive fundraising haul, as the first-time candidate has brought in nearly $4.6m since he entered the race. In comparison, Elfreth’s campaign has raised roughly a third as much money, $1.5m, and all 20 other candidates lag even further behind.UDP’s support for Elfreth is not part of this total; federal regulations prohibit Super Pacs from contributing directly to political candidates, but the groups can spend unlimited amounts of money to promote or criticize specific campaigns.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe financial contest could help decide what is widely expected to be a close race. A poll commissioned by Dunn’s campaign showed him leading Elfreth by four points, 22% to 18%, with state senator Clarence Lam trailing in third at 8%. The winner of the primary will almost certainly go on to win a seat in the House of Representatives, given the district’s liberal leanings. In 2022, Sarbanes won re-election by 20 points in the third district, which includes Annapolis and suburbs of Washington and Baltimore.Elfreth has said that she, like her opponents, was surprised by UDP’s support, although she has not rejected the group’s help.“I’m uncomfortable with dark money as well,” Elfreth told Maryland Matters last month. “I don’t like it. But I’m not in a position to say no to people who want to amplify my message.”Despite remaining mostly silent about the war in Gaza, Dunn has now found himself indirectly affected by UDP’s electoral strategy, and he has turned the group’s involvement in the race into a campaign issue. When news of UDP’s investment broke last month, Dunn responded by calling on all candidates to “condemn this dark-money spending bankrolled by Maga [Make America Great Again] Republicans”. In a statement to the Guardian, Dunn framed the Super Pac’s involvement as an insult to the legacy of Sarbanes, who made campaign finance reform one of his top priorities over his nine terms in Congress.“Our grassroots movement won’t be scared off by this dark money spending. I’ve made protecting and strengthening our democracy the center of our campaign,” Dunn said. “We’re going to win this race, and when I get to Congress, I know who I will work for and I will be accountable to – and it won’t be the dark money donors or the special interest groups.”That message seems to be resonating with voters, as Dunn’s team boasts that more than 100,000 people have donated to his campaign. FEC filings show that, of the $4.6m raised by Dunn, nearly $3.7m came in the form of unitemized contributions, meaning they derived from donors who gave less than $200 to the candidate across the election cycle. According to Dunn’s team, the average contribution to the campaign has been $21.64.In comparison, of Elfreth’s $1.5m raised, only $85,000 came from unitemized contributions, indicating that most of her donations came from supporters who gave more than $200. Her FEC filings show that some of her larger contributions came from some well-known Republican donors – including Robert Sarver, former owner of the Phoenix Suns, and Larry Mizel, one of Trump’s campaign finance chairs in 2016. Mizel has also served as a member of the board of directors of Aipac. More

    • 288 Shares75 Views

      in US Politics

      Netanyahu says Israel will ‘stand alone’ as White House says major Rafah invasion wouldn’t help efforts to defeat Hamas – as it happened

      by

      Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said that Israel will “stand alone” if needed in its attempt to defeat Hamas, Reuters reported.Netanyahu’s latest comments come after Biden threatened to stop providing military aid to Israel if Israel launches a major military operation in Rafah.In a statement, Netanyahu said: “If we have to stand alone, we will stand alone. If we need to, we will fight with our fingernails. But we have much more than fingernails.”Netanyahu’s recent remarks signal towards an increased tension between Israel and US as Israel continues its attacks in Gaza.
      Biden last night said the US will stop supplying specific weapons to Israel if it launches a major ground operation in Rafah in Gaza – a move commended by progressive lawmakers like Senator Bernie Sanders and democratic US house representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
      In response, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials said Israel will “stand alone” if needed in order to defeat Hamas – a show of blatant disregard for the US, with whom Israel has a historically ironclad relationship.
      Republican house speaker Mike Johnson expressed surprise at Biden’s threat to Israel, saying it was a “complete turn” from his previous positions. Johnson accused Biden of having a “senior moment.”
      Senior Biden administration officials like Mag Gen Patrick Rider of the Pentagon underscored the US’s opposition to Israel’s looming invasion of Rafah. State department spokesperson Matthew Miller said an invasion would not bring security to Israel and could further imperil the lives of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
      That’s it for this blog. Thank you for following along.Rider also added the US would continue to try and ensure humanitarian aid will reach Palestinians by land, sea, and air. Up until now, Israel has placed severe restrictions on humanitarian aid.Earlier this week, the head of the United Nations World Food Program said parts of Gaza have entered a “full-blown famine”.In the Pentagon’s daily press briefing, Mag Gen Patrick Rider was asked why restrictions weren’t placed on these bombs earlier in the conflict, considering the mass civilian loss they are known to inflict.In response, Rider said: “We absolutely do not want to see innocent lives lost in this tragic conflict. We’re going to continue to consult with Israel … and continue to ensure civilian safety is taken into account.”When asked if the Biden administration knew of how many civilian deaths were caused by these 2,000lb US bombs used by Israel, Rider declined to answer.The vast majority of the more than 34,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza so far have been women, children, and other civilians, according to the Gaza health ministry.Israel’s minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has made his position on Biden’s announcement to potentially suspend weapons clear:Democracy for the Arab World Now (Dawn), the organization founded by the late journalist Jamal Khashoggi, issued a statement on Biden’s suspension of massive bombs to Israel, urging the president to do more.Dawn’s advocacy director Raed Jarrar said: “Israel has time and again made clear that it will not heed the gentlest of admonishments from the Biden administration to stop its carnage in Gaza. The Biden administration should abandon wishful notions that it can positively impact Israel’s conduct and focus on ending American complicity in Israel’s war crimes and genocidal policies.”State department spokesperson Matthew Miller addresses Biden’s threats to withhold weapons from Israel in a press briefing.Miller underscores the Biden administration’s opposition to a major Rafah invasion and the belief it will weaken Israeli security, but still supports Israel’s right to defend itself against other threats. He does not clarify if withholding weapons from Israel applies to other threats.He says the amount of civilian lives lost in Gaza is “unacceptable,” but adds Israel has “achieved a great deal of its military objectives” in degrading Hamas.Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said that Israel will “stand alone” if needed in its attempt to defeat Hamas, Reuters reported.Netanyahu’s latest comments come after Biden threatened to stop providing military aid to Israel if Israel launches a major military operation in Rafah.In a statement, Netanyahu said: “If we have to stand alone, we will stand alone. If we need to, we will fight with our fingernails. But we have much more than fingernails.”Netanyahu’s recent remarks signal towards an increased tension between Israel and US as Israel continues its attacks in Gaza.White House spokesperson John Kirby emphasized during his Thursday briefing that weapons are still being shipped to Israel.The clarification comes after Biden threatened to pause military aid to Israel if Israel launched a massive military assault in Rafah.Kirby said: “Weapons shipments are still going to Israel. And they’re still getting the vast, vast majority of everything that they need to defend themselves.”From Washington Post reporter John Hudson:Here is more context on the significance and nuances of Biden’s latest decision, from Politico.
      Biden’s “statement was the clearest conditioning of aid that the administration has made since the start of Israel’s war in Gaza”, [Politico’s] Jonathan Lemire and Jennifer Haberkorn write. “And it sent immediate ripples through national politics, with conservatives accusing the president of abandoning a long-held ally and some liberals hailing the pronouncement.”
      It’s hard to overemphasize what a big deal this is. For decades, American presidents from both major parties have supported Israel with few to no questions asked. But Biden and the administration have been increasingly irritated by Netanyahu for months, specifically on the threats to invade Rafah and the number of civilians Israel has killed over the last seven months.
      But there’s more nuance than appears at first blush:
      First: The Israeli military is already in Rafah. They’ve been bombing the area for weeks, but haven’t yet mounted a massive ground invasion. Which is why, as [Politico’s] Erin Banco reports, to “aid groups working in Rafah, the debate over Israel’s military operation in southern Gaza looks like only one thing: semantics.”
      Second: Though Biden made clear that while he would no longer send the IDF weapons they could use in Rafah, the U.S. will continue to send defensive weapons.
      “We’re going to continue to make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks,” Biden told CNN. “But … it’s just wrong. We’re not going to – we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells.”
      At the heart of it, Biden’s warning to Netanyahu is that there are other ways to go after Hamas in Rafah – and those alternatives are the only approaches the White House finds acceptable, a Biden administration official told Playbook last night.
      The White House said that a major invasion of Rafah by Israel would not advance attempts by Israel to defeat Hamas, a spokesperson said on Thursday, Reuters reported.“Smashing into Rafah, in [Biden’s] view, will not advance that objective,” spokesperson John Kirby said in a media briefing.Kirby added that conversations about Rafah between the US and Israel are still ongoing.The latest remarks from Kirby come as Biden and other US officials have repeatedly denounced a military operation in Rafah, noting that such a move would lead to a humanitarian crisis.More Democratic congressmen have supported Biden’s threat to block US weapons to Israel if Israel launches a major military assault in Rafah.US representative Seth Moulton said that he was “more skeptical” of Israel’s plans to invade Rafah after meeting with the Israeli ambassador on Wednesday and supports Biden’s decision, in a post to X.
      I’ve always said that Israel must defeat Hamas. The question is whether invading Rafah ultimately helps or hurts that cause. After meeting with the Israeli Ambassador today for an hour, I’m even more skeptical of their plan. I support President Biden’s decision.
      House speaker Mike Johnson said that he hoped Biden was having a “senior moment” after hearing about his threat to withhold US military aid to Israel.In an interview with Politico Wednesday, Johnson spoke about his reaction to Biden’s latest warning:
      My reaction, honestly, was, ‘Wow, that is a complete turn from what I have been told, even in, you know, recent hours … I mean, 24 hours ago, it was confirmed to me by top administration officials that the policy’s very different than what he stated there. So I hope that’s a senior moment.
      Johnson said that he had had “classified discussions” with “top administration officials” on Wednesday and was told there would be no delays with supplying weapons to Israel.He added that after Biden’s announcement, he approach White House officials who told him that the Biden’s threat does not impact the aid package passed by Congress.Johnson said:
      So this statement by the president tonight, I just want to – I hope, I believe he’s off-script. I don’t think that’s something that staff told him to say.
      US representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who previously called Israel’s attacks on Gaza an “unfolding genocide”, said that “[Biden]’s historic shift to include Israel in US standards makes the world safer and our values clear.”“President Biden enforcing conditions on US military aid and holding the Israeli gov to the same bar we hold all our allies to is the responsible, secure, and just thing to do,” she added.Other progressive representatives have applauded Biden’s threat to withhold US military aid to Israel if Israel launches a major military operation in Rafah.Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley said Biden’s threat of withholding US military air is the “right and just thing … to do”, in a post to X.“The United States has a clear obligation to stop the massacre of innocent civilians,” she added.Defence minister Yoav Gallant told Israel’s “enemies and friends” on Wednesday that it would do whatever necessary to achieve its war aims in Gaza and the north, in an apparent response to US pressure to halt its operation in Rafah, reports Reuters.The comments, at a ceremony to commemorate Israel’s war dead, followed US president Joe Biden’s warning that the US would halt weapons supplies if Israel moved into Rafah, the southern Gaza city where more than a million displaced Palestinians are sheltering.“I turn to Israel’s enemies as well as to our best of friends and say – the State of Israel cannot be subdued,” he said, according to remarks released by his office. “We will stand strong, we will achieve our goals – we will hit Hamas, we will hit Hezbollah, and we will achieve security.”The comments, from one of the war cabinet ministers considered to be most sensitive to the risk of alienating the US, underlined the scale of the standoff between the Biden administration and the Israeli government, said Reuters.“We have no choice, we have no other country. We will do whatever is necessary, and I repeat – whatever is necessary, in order to defend the citizens of Israel, to remove the evil threats against us, and to stand up to those who attempt to destroy us,” he said.Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has defied mounting international pressure to agree to a ceasefire but has not so far ordered troops to enter Rafah, where Israel says four battalions of Hamas fighters are based.In the north, Israeli forces have been engaged in exchanges of fire across the Lebanon border with forces of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia ever since the start of the war in Gaza last October.Other Israeli officials have vowed to pursue Israel’s military goals in Gaza despite Biden’s threat to cut off US weapons if Israel launches a major military assault on Rafah.Israel’s far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich said his government would pursue its goals in Gaza despite the US warning, reports Agence France-Presse (AFP).“We will achieve complete victory in this war despite President Biden’s push back and arms embargo,” Smotrich said in a statement.“We must continue the war until Hamas is totally eliminated and our hostages are back home. This involves conquering Rafah completely and the sooner the better.”Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, also criticized Biden’s remarks, noting that Biden’s latest warning could give Israel’s adversaries “hope to succeed”.“If Israel is restricted from entering an area as important and central as Rafah where there are thousands of terrorists, hostages and leaders of Hamas, how exactly are we supposed to achieve our goals?” he said on public radio.“This is not a defensive weapon. This is about certain offensive bombs. In the end the State of Israel will have to do what it thinks needs to be done for the security of its citizens.”Progressive representative Ilhan Omar acknowledged the work of student protesters after Biden said that US bombs supplied to Israel have been used to kill civilians in Gaza.In a post to X, Omar said that “young people across the country protesting” helped move Biden’s rhetoric. Omar specifically highlighted Biden saying that “civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs”, referring to US bombs supplied to Israel.Omar said:
      This is what young people across the country were protesting for and finally the needle has moved in a significant way. I hope we see more progress, but don’t ever let people tell you that your voices are meaningless and your actions are worthless. The arc of what is possible is always within us to bend.
      Omar’s remarks are one of many reactions from progressive lawmakers at Biden’s threat to stop arm shipments to Israel if there is a major military assault in Rafah.Progressive lawmakers welcomed Joe Biden’s decision that the US will stop supplying bombs and other munitions to Israel if it launches a major military assault on the southern city of Rafah in Gaza.US representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin celebrated the announcement in a post to X.“No offensive weapons in Rafah. Good! Thank you [Biden]! Millions of innocent Palestinians have been forced into a corner. Now it’s time for a ceasefire and to release all the hostages. It’s time to end the bloodshed once and for all.”Former Bernie Sanders adviser Matt Duss told Politico: “He’s shifting on a really important point here because the moment requires it, and I applaud that. It’s a recognition of how dire this moment is.” He added: “I understand folks who are having a tough time with the fact that this took so long, but I think it’s really important, you know, to acknowledge the steps the president is taking now.”Republicans, including the House speaker, Mike Johnson, have criticized Biden’s latest action. Johnson called the decision a “betrayal” as the question of military aid had already been voted on in Congress.Two top Israeli officials criticized US president Joe Biden on Thursday for threatening to stop certain arms supplies to Israel if it invades Rafah, reports Agence France-Presse (AFP).“This is a difficult and very disappointing statement to hear from a president to whom we have been grateful since the beginning of the war,” Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, said on public radio in Israel’s first reaction to Biden’s warning.Biden’s announcement comes as the US, UN and humanitarian agencies have warned that an invasion of Rafah – where millions of Palestinian people have been displaced amid Israeli attacks – would trigger a humanitarian crisis.“I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden said during an interview with CNN.“We’re not going to supply the weapons and the artillery shells used,” Biden added. More

    • 175 Shares78 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump promised to scrap climate laws if US oil bosses donated $1bn – report

      by

      Donald Trump dangled a brazen “deal” in front of some of the top US oil bosses last month, proposing that they give him $1bn for his White House re-election campaign and vowing that once back in office he would instantly tear up Joe Biden’s environmental regulations and prevent any new ones, according to a bombshell new report.According to the Washington Post, the former US president made his jaw-dropping pitch, which the paper described as “remarkably blunt and transactional”, at a dinner at his Mar-a-Lago home and club.In front of more than 20 executives, including from Chevron, Exxon and Occidental Petroleum, he promised to increase oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, remove hurdles to drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, and reverse new rules designed to cut car pollution. He would also overturn the Biden administration’s decision in January to pause new natural gas export permits which have been denounced as “climate bombs”.“You’ll get it on the first day,” Trump said, according to the Post, citing an unnamed dinner attendee.Trump’s exhortation to the oil executives that they were wealthy enough to pour $1bn into his campaign war-chest, at the same time pledging a U-turn on Biden’s efforts to combat the climate crisis, was immediately denounced on Wednesday by environmental groups.“$1bn for Trump, a devastating climate future for the rest of us,” said Pete Maysmith of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV).Christina Polizzi of Climate Power told the Guardian that Trump was “putting the future of the planet up for sale”.“He is in the pocket of big oil – he gave them $25bn in tax breaks in his first term – and now it’s clear he is willing to do whatever big oil wants in a potential second term.”The former president’s exchange with fossil fuel giants also engaged the concern of groups monitoring the influence of money in politics. Jordan Libowitz of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (Crew), a non-partisan government watchdog, said the conversation, as reported by the Post, “certainly looks a lot like quid pro quo”.Libowitz said the encounter was “about as blatant as I’ve ever seen. Politicians often give a nudge and a wink, they don’t say raise a billion dollars for me and I’ll get rid of the regulations that you want.”He added that Crew’s legal team were looking into whether this rises to the high legal standard of bribery.Trump’s close relations to the oil industry, and his hostility to federal regulations designed to reduce emissions that exacerbate the climate crisis, are well-known and longstanding. With six months to go until the presidential election, however, he is stepping up his efforts to attract campaign donations from the sector.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump is also performing strongly in the polls. Having all but certainly secured the Republican nomination, Trump is often narrowly ahead of Joe Biden in surveys of the presidential race, including performing strongly in the key swing states that are vital to any candidate’s chances of victory. Trump’s solid performance comes despite a swath of legal woes, including currently being on trial in New York over an alleged hush-money payment to the adult film star Stormy Daniels.For their part, executives in big oil companies have been preparing for a possible Trump second term by drafting executive orders designed to be ready to sign as soon as he returns to office. Politico reported this week that the executives have clubbed together to produce off-the-shelf policies on increasing natural gas exports, supercharging drilling and extending offshore oil leases.The interplay between Trump and the oil giants as the election approaches underlines the vast gulf between the former president and the current occupant of the White House. According to an analysis by a group of environmental groups including the Sierra Club and LCV, the Biden administration has taken more than 300 actions towards greater public health and clean energy, more than any other administration in US history.Those measures included the first major climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, which has propelled record investment in clean energy including solar and wind and increased sales of electric vehicles. US energy emissions are slowly declining, by some 3% this year.Even so, the US is extracting more oil and gas than ever, reaching almost 13m barrels of crude oil a day – more than double the production levels a decade ago. More

    • 188 Shares74 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr says he’ll eat brain worms and ‘still beat’ Biden and Trump in debate

      by

      In a US presidential campaign season growing more bizarre by the day, the independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr offered “to eat five more brain worms and still beat” Donald Trump and Joe Biden in a staged debate.Kennedy was speaking after the New York Times published a startling story about a 2012 deposition in which he said a previous neurological problem “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died”.“I offer to eat five more brain worms and still beat President Trump and President Biden in a debate,” Kennedy posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.“I feel confident of the result even with a six-worm handicap.”In answer to an account parodying the billionaire Elon Musk, who said Kennedy should debate Trump and Biden “on X spaces with Tucker Carlson monitoring”, Kennedy said: “I’m in!”Kennedy and Trump are both due to speak at the Libertarian party convention in Washington later this month. Kennedy has challenged Trump to debate him there.Kennedy’s health problems were the subject of a lengthy Times report, which quoted from a deposition Kennedy gave during divorce proceedings in 2012.Some doctors thought Kennedy had a brain tumour but another said a dark spot on scans could be the result of a parasite. Experts said Kennedy could have suffered a pork tapeworm infection. The Times said Kennedy also reported suffering mercury poisoning, from eating too much infected fish.“I have cognitive problems, clearly,” Kennedy said in the deposition. “I have short-term memory loss, and I have longer-term memory loss that affects me.”Kennedy, 70, told the Times he had recovered. His campaign said: “The issue was resolved more than 10 years ago and he is in robust physical and mental health. Questioning Mr Kennedy’s health is a hilarious suggestion, given his competition.”Biden is 81, Trump 77. Public polling shows dissatisfaction with both. Observers from both sides of the divide fear Kennedy acting as a spoiler in the general election, as he continues to seek ballot access in all 50 states.Kennedy’s family has long sat in the mainstream of US politics. His father was the US attorney general and New York senator Robert F Kennedy, while uncles included John F Kennedy, the 35th president, and Ted Kennedy, the longtime Massachusetts senator.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut Kennedy’s vaccine conspiracy theories and other non-mainstream views have flourished online – where news of his views on brain worms caused predictable hilarity.“Robert F Kennedy Jr says health issue caused by dead worm in his brain,” wrote Craig Rozniecki, a satirist. “Well, that explains a lot …”The actor and comedian Patton Oswalt wrote: “‘The worm that ate part of my brain will not affect my ability to serve as president’ is the kind of dynamic campaign slogan that’s gonna seal the deal for ol’ Brainworm Bobby.”
      This article was amended on 9 May 2024 to clarify that Robert F Kennedy Jr was responding to an account parodying Elon Musk. A previous version incorrectly stated he was responding to Musk. More

    • 225 Shares64 Views

      in Elections

      Former US town clerk and her lawyer charged for allegedly accessing 2020 voter data in hunt for fraud

      by

      Dana Nessel, Michigan’s attorney general, announced felony charges Tuesday against Stefanie Lambert, an election-denying attorney, and Stephanie Scott, a former small-town election clerk , over an alleged 2020 voter data breach.Nessel’s office alleges Lambert and Scott allowed an “unauthorized computer examiner” to access private voter data from the 2020 general US election and that Scott illegally withheld voting equipment amid an order from the Michigan secretary of state to submit it for regular maintenance. According to a statement from Nessel’s office, Lambert transmitted voter data at Scott’s direction.“When elected officials and their proxies use their positions to promote baseless conspiracies, show blatant disregard for voter privacy, and break the law in the process, it undermines the very essence of the democratic process,” Nessel said in a statement. “Those who engage in such reckless conduct must be held accountable for their actions.”Lambert did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Lambert faces separate felony charges in Oakland county, Michigan for her role in allegedly tampering with election equipment. In March, Lambert was arrested for failing to comply with court orders in that case, including refusing to submit fingerprints.In the wake of the 2020 election, Lambert took on numerous cases challenging the election results and worked with the attorney Sidney Powell on a lawsuit seeking to overturn the election in Michigan. Since then, Lambert has used her platform to promote baseless conspiracy theories about elections, fundraising hundreds of thousands of dollars to support her work. She is currently representing former Overstock CEO and prominent election denier Patrick Byrne in his defense against a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems.Last month, Lambert faced a hearing for possible sanctions after she handed over Dominion documents apparently obtained in discovery to the rightwing sheriff Dar Leaf of Barry county, Michigan.Meanwhile Scott, who faces five felony charges in connection with the alleged voter data breach, was recalled in May 2023 from her position overseeing elections in the rural Michigan community of Adams Township. But she has stayed active in local politics since then – even filing paperwork last month to run for the office of Hillsdale county clerk.“When I saw [the charges] I think my jaw dropped,” said Abe Dane, who is the current elections director for Hillsdale county and is running against Scott. “I’m pleased that they’re looking into it further, because I’ve wanted them to for a very long time.”Lambert’s attorney, Daniel Hartman, said in a statement that his client did not violate the law and that she “remains steadfast in her efforts to bring transparency to the people’s election data, processes and procedures”Joe Biden won Michigan by nearly 155,000 votes over Donald Trump, a result confirmed by a Republican-led state Senate investigation in 2021. More

    • 150 Shares50 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Madman in a circular room screaming’: ex-aide’s verdict on Trump in book

      by

      Donald Trump’s defense secretary called him “a madman in a circular room screaming” and stayed away from the White House, a new book quotes a senior Trump aide as saying regarding the man now facing 88 criminal charges but set to be the Republican presidential nominee for a third successive election.“Anybody with sense – somebody like Mattis or Tillerson – they immediately shunned and stayed away from Trump,” Tom Bossert, formerly homeland security adviser to Trump, tells George Stephanopoulos in the ABC News anchor’s new book, The Situation Room: The Inside Story of Presidents in Crisis.“I mean, you couldn’t get Mattis into the White House,” Bossert says. “His view was, ‘That’s a madman in a circular room screaming. And the less time I spend in there, the more time I can just go about my business.’”Stephanopoulos’s book is a survey of how presidents have used the White House Situation Room, “the epicentre of crisis management for presidents for more than six decades”. Co-written with Lisa Dickey, a prolific ghostwriter who has also worked with the first lady, Jill Biden, and the governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, the book will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.James Mattis, a retired US Marine Corps general, was Trump’s first defense secretary. Rex Tillerson, an oil industry executive, was Trump’s first secretary of state. Both were among so-called “adults in the room” who famously sought to contain Trump.Mattis’s frustrations and ultimate opposition to Trump’s re-election are widely known. Tillerson was reported to have called Trump a “fucking moron”. Trump fired him by tweet.Bossert worked in the Trump White House for 15 months, from the inauguration in 2017 to his resignation in April 2018. He is now an analyst for ABC News. He and other former aides tell Stephanopoulos Trump avoided Situation Room briefings – which his predecessor, Barack Obama, consumed – because, in Bossert’s words, “He didn’t like the idea that he had to go into it. He wanted everybody to come to him.”Bossert also says Trump had Situation Room aides produce “books of chyron prints” – a way to boil down cable news to the messages displayed at the bottom of screens. Stephanopoulos and Hickey call this “surely one of the most prosaic tasks ever required of the highly trained intelligence officers serving in the White House”.Though Bossert’s White House tasks including advising the president on cyber security, in August 2017 it was revealed that he gave his personal email address to a British prankster pretending to be Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and chief adviser.Still, Bossert was a strong advocate of cracking down on leaks and leakers. In March 2017, he made headlines by calling people who leaked government secrets “enemies to our state”, adding: “They need to be caught, punished, and treated as such.”Throughout his presidency, Trump fumed about leaks, both of sensitive information and regarding his chaotic White House.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn summer 2020, as protesters for racial justice came close to White House grounds and Trump was reported to have been hurried to a protective bunker, Trump reportedly called those who leaked the story treasonous and said they should be executed.Trump was said to have become “obsessed” with finding leakers. But Trump has long been known to be a prolific leaker himself.Bossert tells Stephanopoulos: “I caught him doing it. I was walking out of the room, and he picks up the phone before I’m out of earshot and starts talking to a reporter about what just happened. And I turned around and pointed right at him. ‘Who in the hell are you talking to?’”Trump, the authors say, “essentially shrugged, seemingly unbothered”.“He does it, so he assumed everybody was that way,” Bossert says. “His paranoia was in part because he assumes everyone else acts like he acts.” More

    • 213 Shares64 Views

      in US Politics

      Stormy Daniels’s testimony paints a dark picture of Trump’s view of sex and power | Moira Donegan

      by

      He seems to have understood it as a business deal. That’s what Stormy Daniels – the former porn star whose account of a sexual encounter with Donald Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in 2006 is at the center of his criminal hush-money trial – told Anderson Cooper in 2018. When Trump summoned Daniels to his hotel room in Lake Tahoe, he suggested that she might come on his television show, Celebrity Apprentice. Then he demanded sex.In the law this is called quid pro quo – this for that – an arrangement in which work is offered in exchange for sex. It’s illegal: sex cannot be a condition of employment, or a prerequisite for being considered for a job, under laws that are designed to punish sexual harassment and make workplaces accessible and tolerable for women. But Trump has long had a casual relationship to the law.Daniels has described the sex that followed as a grim affair, performed out of a begrudging sense of obligation. “I realized exactly what I’d gotten myself into,” she told Cooper of coming out of the bathroom to find Trump lying on his bed, in his underwear. “And I was like, ‘Ugh, here we go.’ And I just felt like maybe – it was sort of – I had it coming for making a bad decision for going to someone’s room alone. And I just heard the voice in my head, ‘Well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this.’”On the stand at Trump’s criminal hush-money trial in New York on Tuesday, she described the same moment, saying, “The room spun in slow motion. I thought, ‘Oh, my God, what did I misread to get here?’” Trump told her that she reminded him of his daughter. He did not use a condom.For a while after that, Trump kept calling Daniels, asking to see her again. When he called, he would again mention the prospect of her appearing on The Apprentice. They met one more time, a year later, in a hotel room where Trump was watching Shark Week. He tried to initiate sex again, and Daniels refused. Later, she got a call informing her that she would not be cast on his show.The hush-money trial that has been proceeding chaotically in New York over the past four weeks is broadly considered to be the weakest of the four criminal cases proceeding against Trump – and, perhaps not incidentally, it is also the only one that will be tried before he again stands for election this November. Before Tuesday, the testimonies were dense with proceduralism, talking about attorney accounting practices and editorial meetings at tabloids. This was all meant to explain to the jury – and to the voters following along at home – the nature of Trump’s “catch-and-kill” scheme with the National Enquirer, an arrangement in which the tabloid purchased the rights to unflattering stories about Trump – like Daniels’s – and then hid them from public view, silencing the relevant parties with NDAs.But the focus on technicalities can obscure the gendered nature of the arrangement: at the center of the allegations is an elaborate, multi-party scheme to prevent women from speaking in public about their experiences with Trump – to stop what they know from becoming what the voters know, and to keep their stories of Trump’s conduct toward them hidden.An anxiety about women’s speech – about what they might say about men, and how their words might affront or embarrass – animates much of our popular discourses around sexual misconduct, due process and the boundaries of acceptable sexual behavior. But it is rare that the mechanisms used to silence women are made so visible, or rendered so explicit in their relation to electoral politics. Trump’s fixers, after all, had reason to be especially worried about the stories of women like Stormy Daniels. At the time that the deal at issue in the case was finalized, in October of 2016, the Access Hollywood tape had been released, in which Trump bragged about grabbing women by their genitals. More than two dozen women have since accused him of sexual misconduct; there are likely others that we don’t know about.Daniels has said repeatedly that she did not refuse the sex with Trump, and that she does not consider herself a victim. She has also said that the encounter was marked by what on Tuesday she called a “power imbalance”, and that she did not feel she had full freedom to decline it. She has always described the encounter as distasteful and unwanted; she has spoken of being afraid of Trump in the aftermath.Conversations over sexual misconduct frequently become conversations over semantics, in which debates about what counts as rape or assault or harassment stand in for the unasked question about what is a decent, respectful and humane way to treat women. But we need not litigate a definition of Daniels’s encounter, or place it into a different category than she does, to say that what Trump did to her in that encounter was marked by a profound sense of sexual entitlement, and by false promises and gestures toward bribery that make it clear he knew that Daniels did not desire him. That such encounters are usually not called rape does not mean that they do not index a gendered form of exploitation, the leveraging of a man’s money and position for access to an unwilling woman’s body.What followed, too, was a gendered form of exploitation: a conspiracy to secure her silence. Trump’s attorneys will argue that paying a woman in order to get her to sign an NDA is not illegal; even the prosecution is arguing that the criminality is not in seeking Daniels’s silence, but in trying to cover up the arrangement afterward.But legality is not the only standard of morality, and it should disturb us all, as believers in free expression, open inquiry and an informed public, that a group of powerful people went to such extensive and allegedly felonious lengths to prevent women from telling the truth about what men did to them. Daniels is the first woman to take the stand in the hush-money trial. That’s partly because the people who arranged the catch and kill scheme were all men.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 125 Shares69 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s strategy to delay cases before the election is working

      by

      Despite some dismal days spent in the courtroom, Donald Trump earned two significant legal victories this week with separate decisions that make it all but certain two of the pending criminal trials against him will take place after the 2024 election.As had been expected for months, Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday scrapped a 20 May trial date that had been set in south Florida over the former president’s handling of classified documents. The delay was almost entirely the doing of Cannon, a Trump appointee, who allowed far-fetched legal arguments into the case and let preliminary legal matters pile up on her docket to the point where a May trial was not a possibility.On Thursday, the Georgia court of appeals announced it would hear a request from Trump to consider whether Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney, should be removed from the election interference case against him because of a relationship with another prosecutor. The decision means both that Trump will continue to undermine Willis’s credibility and draw out the case. “There will be no trial until 2025,” tweeted Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University who has been closely following the case.The third pending case against Trump, a federal election interference case in Washington, also appears unlikely to go to trial before the election. The US supreme court heard oral arguments on whether Trump has immunity from prosecution last month and seemed unlikely to resolve it quickly enough to allow the case to move forward ahead of the election.The decisions mean that voters will not get a chance to see Trump held accountable for possible criminal conduct during his last term in office before they decide whether to give him another term in office. (Trump is currently in the middle of a criminal trial in Manhattan that centers around allegations he falsified business records to cover up hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels, but it happened before his presidency, during the 2016 campaign.)The developments vindicate a pillar of Trump’s legal strategy. Facing four separate criminal cases, his lawyers have sought to use every opportunity they can to delay the cases, hoping that he wins the election in November. Were he to return to the White House, he would make the two federal cases against him go away (he has said he would appoint an attorney general who would fire Jack Smith, the justice department’s special prosecutor). It’s unclear if Fani Willis, the Fulton county DA, could proceed with a criminal case against a sitting president.“In all likelihood, Trump’s election would pause the proceedings against him in Georgia. There is a large consensus among legal academics that a sitting president cannot be tried for crimes. That, however, is an untested constitutional theory, which Fani Willis will probably challenge,” Kreis said. “If I had to hedge a bet, should Trump win in November, his Fulton county co-defendants will be tried mid-2025 and Trump would stand trial alone after his second term ends.”While Trump may have successfully secured delays in three of the cases against him, prosecutors in Manhattan continued to move ahead this week in laying out evidence for why he should be found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Testimony from key accounting employees at the Trump Organization helped connect Trump to the monies that were paid out to Michael Cohen. Stormy Daniels, the adult film star who alleges she had an affair with Trump in 2006, also testified in detail about the incident, irritating Trump, and bringing one of the most embarrassing episodes back to the center of the public discourse.Trump’s lawyers objected to the testimony and requested a mistrial, saying the lurid details Daniels disclosed had prejudiced jurors against defendants. Judge Juan Merchan rejected that request, but still conceded jurors had heard information they should not have.While Trump is likely to use the episode in any potential appeal, experts doubted whether he would succeed.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Skirmishes like this happen all the time, and defense attorneys call for mistrials in many, if not most, criminal trials. I don’t think this was even close to cause for a mistrial and don’t think it would end up being a major issue on appeal,” said Rebecca Roiphe, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office who now teaches at New York Law School.“The details of the sexual encounter are relevant because they go to why Trump would want to suppress her story. The judge tried to limit any prejudicial effect by asking the witness to be less colorful in her description. She didn’t abide by this until warned a few times, but this hardly seems like a cause for concern on appeal.” More