World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate to vote next week on bipartisan border bill, Schumer says

      by

      The US Senate will vote next week on a bipartisan bill that would strengthen security at the US-Mexico border and also provide more aid to Ukraine and Israel, the chamber’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, said on Thursday.“We cannot simply shirk from our responsibilities just because the task is difficult,” Schumer said on the Senate floor, adding that the text of the package will be released by Sunday, with the initial vote taking place no later than Wednesday.Senate negotiators have been in talks over the package for months. Donald Trump, who is seeking re-election to the White House and is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, has urged lawmakers to reject the deal.The Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, has also voiced skepticism about the talks, saying that if it emerged from the Senate the bipartisan legislation would be “dead on arrival” in the GOP-controlled House.A bipartisan group of senators have for weeks been looking for an agreement to implement stricter immigration policies and stop undocumented migrants at the southern border with Mexico. Numbers have fluctuated during Joe Biden’s presidency but are currently at record levels.Republicans have named passing the legislation as their price for approving aid to Ukraine, whose cause rightwing lawmakers have soured on as the war has dragged on and as Donald Trump, who has been ambivalent about sending arms to Kyiv, draws closer to winning the Republican presidential nomination.Congresses and presidents since the days of George W Bush have tried and failed to reform the US’s system for admitting workers and immigrants, including screening undocumented migrants and asylum seekers.The long odds of the latest negotiations succeeding were underscored last week when the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, told his lawmakers that because Trump wanted to campaign on immigration reform, he doubted that the party would support any agreement that emerges from the talks. Biden is suffering at the polls on economic factors but also on conservative voters calling for greater security at the border.Senators from both parties expressed outrage over Trump’s apparent and sudden influence after almost daily talks. Chris Murphy, the main Democratic negotiator in the talks, said: “I hope we don’t live in a world today in which one person inside the Republican party holds so much power that they could stop a bipartisan bill to try to give the president additional power at the border to make more sense of our immigration policy.”The following day, Politico reported that McConnell had changed his tone, telling Republicans in a meeting that he still supported the talks.Now Schumer has signaled that the bill may be ready in the Senate. Details of what is in the legislation have not been disclosed.Meanwhile, the homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, who has been involved in the talks, is facing a rare impeachment of a cabinet member by the House, over his handling of the southern border.Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump’s ‘sex and bribes’ data protection case rejected by UK court

      by

      Donald Trump’s data protection claim for damages over allegations in the “Steele dossier” that he took part in “perverted” sex acts and gave bribes to Russian officials has been dismissed by a high court judge in London.Mrs Justice Steyn agreed with Orbis Business Intelligence, the company founded by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who compiled the contentious material, that the case should not go to trial.The ruling issued on Thursday said the court did not “consider or determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of the memoranda” but found that Trump’s claim for damages had been made outside the six-year period of “limitations”.The court ruled that Trump “has no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim for compensation or damages, and no real prospect of successfully obtaining such a remedy”.It added that the “only other remedy claimed was for a compliance order erasing or restricting processing of the memoranda” but that this would be “pointless, and unnecessary, in circumstances where the dossier was freely available on the internet, and the defendant had in any event undertaken to delete the copies it held”.The former US president, who is the frontrunner in the race to be the Republican candidate in this year’s election, had indicated he was willing to give evidence at the high court in the case alleging breach of data protection rights by Orbis Business Intelligence over the 2016 “Steele dossier”.The report, investigating Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential campaign, was compiled by Steele, who previously ran MI6’s Russia desk, and then published by BuzzFeed in 2017.The document included allegations that Trump had hired sex workers to urinate on each other in the presidential suite of a hotel in Moscow, and took part in sex parties in St Petersburg. He denies the claims.Trump’s lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson KC, had told the court his client knew he had the legal responsibility to prove the allegations were false and that he intended “to discharge his burden by giving evidence in this court”.Orbis was successful in arguing that the claim had been brought too late.Trump’s campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, said: “The high court in London has found that there was not even an attempt by Christopher Steele, or his group, to justify or try to prove, which they absolutely cannot, their false and defamatory allegations in the fake ‘dossier’.“The high court also found that there was processing, utilisation, of those false statements. President Trump will continue to fight for the truth and against falsehoods such as ones promulgated by Steele and his cohorts.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump political action committees spent over $50m last year on legal bills

      by

      Donald Trump’s political action committees spent more than $50m on legal fees over the course of 2023, as the former president’s legal troubles intensified in the face of 91 felony counts across four criminal cases.According to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Wednesday night, Save America, Trump’s leadership Pac that has shouldered most of the financial burden of his legal battles, entered 2024 with just $5m in cash on hand after spending more than $25m on legal expenses over the last six months of 2023.Another Trump-affiliated group, Make America Great Again, spent another $4m on legal bills over the second half of the year. Earlier filings showed that Save America also spent more than $21m on legal fees during the first six months of last year, bringing Trump’s total 2023 legal bill to more than $50m.As Trump’s legal woes have escalated, his political action committees have been forced to redistribute their financial resources. Filings show that Maga Inc refunded $30m to Save America in the second half of 2023, after already transferring more than $12m to the group earlier in the year. Save America had distributed $60m to Maga Inc back in 2022 to bolster Trump’s campaign efforts, but the group has now reclaimed most of those funds in the face of the former president’s mounting legal fees. After those transactions, Maga Inc reported roughly $23m in cash on hand heading into 2024.The FEC filings show that Trump-affiliated groups distributed payments to lawyers such as John Lauro, Steven Sadow and Chris Kise, all of whom have assisted in the former president’s legal defense. The new reports underscore how much of Trump’s impressive fundraising haul has been diverted away from his presidential campaign and redirected toward his legal battles – a fact that has caught the attention of his opponent in the Republican presidential primary, Nikki Haley.Haley said on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday: “Another reason Donald Trump won’t debate me … His PAC spent 50 MILLION in campaign dollars on his legal fees. He can’t beat Joe Biden if he’s spending all his time and money on court cases and chaos.”Despite the former president’s mounting legal troubles, the Trump campaign still began 2024 with $33m in cash on hand, but that total fell short of Joe Biden’s re-election campaign. The Biden campaign began 2024 with roughly $46m in the bank, while the Biden victory fund, a joint fundraising committee, reported $37.5m in cash on hand. The Democratic National Committee also reported more than twice as much cash on hand compared with its Republican counterpart, which started 2024 with just $8m in the bank.The figures prompted celebration among Biden campaign officials, who boasted about the president’s superior fundraising on social media.TJ Ducklo, a Biden campaign spokesperson, said in a statement: “While Donald Trump lights money on fire paying the tab on his various expenses, Team Biden-Harris, powered by grassroots donors, is hard at work talking to the voters who will decide this election and building the campaign infrastructure to win in November.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBeyond his legal fees, Trump is dealing with other financial strain, after a New York jury recently awarded $83.3m to E Jean Carroll in her defamation lawsuit. Last year, another jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, awarding her $5m.And Trump’s civil lawsuits will soon be the least of his concerns. Two of his criminal cases are scheduled to go to trial in March, although at least one of those trials is expected to be delayed. Trump’s legal troubles – and their associated fees – will probably only worsen in the months ahead. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Pentagon chief says he should have handled cancer diagnosis better

      by

      Lloyd Austin, the US defense secretary, said on Thursday that his recent cancer diagnosis shook him but he should have notified Joe Biden and the public about it.Austin came under fire earlier this year after it was revealed that the 70-year-old was admitted on New Year’s Day to Walter Reed national military medical center for what the Pentagon has said were “complications following a recent elective medical procedure”, a fact the defense department kept under wraps for five days.It was later clarified that he had undergone surgery related to prostate cancer.“I did not handle this right,” Austin said in his first press conference since his secret hospitalization.Austin said he had never directed anyone in his staff to keep his January hospitalization from the White House or the public. He also said he never considered resigning, though some Republicans called on him to do so.Nevertheless, he confirmed he had apologized to Biden, and realized he should have notified a wider circle about the issue. His hospitalization also came at a critical time for the defense department, as the US became increasingly engaged in Middle East conflict. More

    • 238 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Don’t underestimate Nikki Haley – for starters, just look at how she gets under Trump’s skin | Emma Brockes

      by

      It is a mark of just how low are the expectations one brings to the Republican primary race that Nikki Haley, the last woman standing against Donald Trump, appears impressive as a candidate solely by virtue of not being a lunatic.It reminds me of the lyrics to I’m Still Here, that Stephen Sondheim standard from Follies listing all the terrible things – the Depression, J Edgar and Herbert Hoover, religion and pills – the singer has come through unscathed, only in this case it’s Chris Christie and Ron DeSantis. That leaves Haley, the 52-year-old former governor of South Carolina and one-time US ambassador to the UN, as the only thing standing between us and a Biden/Trump runoff.The odds of a Haley victory over Trump appear vanishingly small after the former president’s early primary wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. Polling numbers support this, as does the unseemly pivot of Trump’s former rivals, most recently DeSantis, to lining up behind him two seconds after he has mocked and belittled them (“Ron DeSanctimonious”).The striking thing about Haley over the last few weeks is how effective she has been in getting under Trump’s skin. This, as we know, is a notoriously hard thing to do if one is invested in maintaining one’s dignity. Michelle Obama’s old adage – “when they go low, we go high” – doesn’t work with Trump, who keeps going lower and lower until the moral high ground is a point of light in the sky so distant it might as well be an alien life form.Haley, unlike her male rivals, has adopted a very particular tone towards the former president that feels connected to her relative youth and also her gender. Historically, women have had a harder time than men of bearing up under Trump’s mockery, given its leering subtext of “I wouldn’t touch her with yours”. Haley, it strikes me, has studied Margaret Thatcher very closely and in fact, along with Hillary Clinton (and former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and, funnily enough, Joan Jett) cites her as a personal hero. In her public interactions with Trump, she adopts a mode of condescension reminiscent of Thatcher addressing her enemies in the Commons, an arch response, steeped in sarcasm, to the argument that women in politics lack a tone of command. When Trump, recently tweeted: “The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!” she replied, simply, “Bless your heart”.Yes, we’re here, at the “oh, bless” level of political discourse. You can disapprove of it, but weirdly, in this instance, it landed, leaving Trump looking vaguely pathetic. The tone Haley has adopted is one of the very few that breaks through and hits him where he hurts, at the level of personal and physical vanity. Since then, she has maintained towards the Republican frontrunner the vibe of a nurse – “Now, then, Mr Trump; have we taken our pills today?” – pandering to an elderly man. “Are we really going to have two 80-year-olds running for the presidency,” she said, then popped up on TV to talk about Trump’s “decline” since 2016, accused him of being part of the “political elite” and had T-shirts printed bearing the legend “Barred. Permanently.” This is a reference to Trump’s post on Truth Social that, “Anybody that makes a ‘Contribution’ to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the Maga camp.” Where Hillary Clinton couldn’t bring herself to do this kind of dumb shit, Haley understands intuitively that, in the case of Trump, you have to fight dumb with dumb. The T-shirts went viral.I’m getting overexcited, I know. It can be easy to forget how low the bar is. Although Haley was sharply critical of Trump after the 6 January insurrection, prior to that her venality was fully on display when she praised Trump (“he was great to work with”) while promoting her 2019 book, With All Due Respect. As Politico recently noted, Trump rewarded her loyalty with the post, “Make sure you order your copy today!” Not great. And, of course, she agreed to serve in Trump’s cabinet in the first place.Nonetheless, the ferociously ambitious daughter of Indian immigrants, whose tenure at the UN was described in a New York Times editorial as “constructive”, and one of the few Trump appointments that didn’t end in disaster, makes Haley highly unusual. As a creature of the modern Republican party, she is still, of course, packing various eccentricities, including my favourite, the charming anecdote she tells about “renaming” her husband when they first met because, as she told him at the time, “You just don’t look like a Bill.” (She started calling him “Michael”, his middle name, which is how he is now universally known.) Weird, yes. But considering the alternatives, I’ll take it.
      Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Cori Bush confirms investigation as she rejects ‘false’ campaign spending claims

      by

      The congresswoman Cori Bush has confirmed that the US Department of Justice is investigating whether the Missouri Democrat misused campaign funds for security services, an accusation she denied as “simply false”.In a statement, Bush said her campaign was “fully cooperating” with the investigation and said she had always “complied with all applicable laws and House rules”.“I hold myself, my campaign, and my position to the highest levels of integrity. I also believe in transparency, which is why I can confirm that the Department of Justice is reviewing my campaign’s spending on security services,” said Bush, part of a progressive group of Democratic women known as “the Squad”.She added that the allegations were rooted in “baseless complaints” raised by rightwing organizations who have long made her a target.In a lengthy statement, Bush, a nurse and Black Lives Matter activist turned lawmaker who represents the St Louis area, said she has endured threats to her “physical safety and life” since before she took office in 2021.Bush said that as a rank-and-file member of Congress she is not entitled to receive security protection by the House and has instead used campaign funds to pay for security services.“I have not used any federal tax dollars for personal security services,” she said. “Any reporting that I have used federal funds for personal security is simply false.”At issue, the congresswoman continued, was her decision to hire her husband, Cortney Merritts, to provide her with security services. She paid a total of $62,359 to Merritts for security services in 2022 before the pair were married, according to the St Louis Post-Dispatch.“In particular, the nature of these allegations have been around my husband’s role on the campaign,” she said.“In accordance with all applicable rules, I retained my husband as part of my security team to provide security services because he has had extensive experience in this area, and is able to provide the necessary services at or below a fair market rate.”She said that the Office of Congressional Ethics had investigated the matter last year and voted to dismiss the allegations.“In September of last year, after conducting a months-long investigation, the Office of Congressional Ethics found no wrongdoing and voted unanimously to dismiss the case,” she wrote.“I look forward to this same outcome from all pending investigations.”The department has subpoenaed the House sergeant at arms, the chamber’s top law enforcement official, for records relating to the alleged misspending, according to six sources with knowledge about the investigation, Punchbowl reported.Bush became the first Black woman to represent Missouri in Congress, after her 2020 victory against the 10-term representative Lacy Clay. She held an event on Saturday to kick off her latest re-election campaign.Bush said: “I am under no illusion that these rightwing organizations will stop politicizing and pursuing efforts to attack me and the work that the people of St Louis sent me to Congress to do: to lead boldly, to legislate change my constituents can feel, and to save lives.” More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘He’s nothing’: E Jean Carroll says ‘we don’t need to be afraid’ of Donald Trump

      by

      E Jean Carroll says the $83.3m awarded to her in her defamation case against Donald Trump shows “we don’t need to be afraid” of the former president.“It was an astonishing discovery for me – he’s nothing,” Carroll said on Monday night on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show. Comparing Trump to “a walrus snorting” and “a rhino flopping his hands”, the former Elle magazine columnist added: “He can be knocked down.”The jury in Carroll’s case against Trump in federal court in New York decided on Friday that she deserved $65m and $18.3m in punitive and compensatory damages, respectively, after defamatory statements the presumptive 2024 Republican White House nominee made against her over allegations that he sexually abused her.Those damages were in addition to an award of about $10m against Trump in May, when another jury held the ex-president liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a department store changing room in the mid-1990s.Carroll spent Monday making the rounds on the national media circuit, first appearing on ABC’s Good Morning America and pledging to give money from her judgment to something Trump “hates”, such as “a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by him”.She also said on Good Morning America that she was terrified to confront Trump in open court alongside her attorney but ultimately came to realize that he was like “an emperor without clothes”.Carroll revisited that theme in her later conversation on Maddow’s show.“Three, four days before trial, I had an actual breakdown,” Carroll told Maddow. “I lost my ability to speak, I lost my words, I couldn’t talk and I couldn’t go on … That’s how frightened I was.”But Carroll reiterated her imagination was worse than anything she encountered.“Amazingly, I looked out, and he was nothing,” Carroll said to Maddow. “He was nothing. He was a phantom. It was the people around him who were giving him power. He himself was nothing.”Carroll also joked to Maddow that she would take her shopping for a new wardrobe and buy her a penthouse with some of the money Trump had been ordered to pay up.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionElsewhere on Friday, Trump went on Truth Social after the decision came down and fumed about how the US court system was “out of control”.He also said he intended to appeal the verdict awarded to Carroll, which came in the middle of his legal problems seemingly multiplying.Not only has other civil litigation in New York put his business practices under scrutiny, he is also facing more than 90 criminal charges in various jurisdictions. Some of those charges include attempting to forcibly overturn the results of the 2020 election, illegally retaining government secrets after his presidency, and giving hush-money payments to an adult film actor who has alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with him.Carroll and her lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said on Monday on Good Morning America that they were confident they would collect Friday’s judgment against Trump.“I think we planted our flag,” Carroll added on MSNBC. “I think we’ve made a statement that things are going to be different – that there is going to be a new way of doing this in this country.” More

    • 263 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      From Germany to Israel, it’s ‘the will of the people’ v the rule of law. Which will win? | Paul Taylor

      by

      The will of the people expressed in free elections and the rule of law upheld by independent courts are two of the pillars of a liberal democracy, or so we were taught at school. Yet these two core principles keep colliding in increasingly polarised societies from Washington to London, Paris to Berlin and Warsaw to Jerusalem, with populist politicians demanding that “the will of the people” override the constitution, treaties or the separation of powers.It is vital for the long-term health of democracy that the judges prevail. If politicians are able to break or bend fundamental legal principles to suit the mood of the moment, the future of freedom and human rights is in danger.In the United States, the supreme court will soon rule on whether Donald Trump should be allowed to run again for president after having encouraged and condoned the storming of the Capitol by his supporters on 6 January 2021 in a violent attempt to prevent Congress certifying the election of Joe Biden as his successor. Two states, Colorado and Maine, have barred him from the ballot.The 14th amendment of the constitution, adopted right after the civil war, states that no person shall “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath (…) to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.If the court applies the constitution literally, it’s hard to see how it can let Trump stand in November’s election, even though he may not be found guilty by a court over the insurrection. However, to deny the runaway favourite for the Republican nomination a chance to regain the White House would ignite a firestorm of outrage among his supporters, and perhaps a wider sense of a denial of democracy.Even some Trump-haters contend that it would be wiser for him to be defeated in an election than prevented by judges from running for office. The fact that the supreme court is dominated by conservative justices appointed by Trump and his Republican predecessors might not be enough to convince millions of Americans that they were robbed of a free vote.The same kind of issue has arisen repeatedly in the UK, where the high court ruled in 2016 that even after the Brexit referendum, the government still required the assent of parliament to give notice of Britain’s intention to leave the European Union. The Daily Mail infamously branded those judges “enemies of the people”. In 2019, the supreme court overruled Boris Johnson’s proroguing of parliament, and more recently it ruled unanimously that Rwanda was not a safe country to send people seeking asylum in Britain. Each time, populist politicians denounced what they call “rule by judges” and vowed to find ways to limit their powers.Of course, it is politically inconvenient when judges tell a government, or a parliament, that it is acting illegally or unconstitutionally, but it is an essential safeguard of our democracy that those rulings be respected and implemented faithfully.While Britain lacks a written constitution and is governed by a mixture of laws and informal conventions, its courts are bound to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a founding signatory, and the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights that derives from it.View image in fullscreenIn France, the constitutional council last week struck down substantial parts of an immigration law passed by parliament last month. Les sages (the wise persons) annulled more than a third of the measures, including provisions that would have obliged parliament to set annual immigration quotas, discriminated between French nationals and foreigners, and between working and non-working foreigners in entitlement to welfare benefits, and denied automatic citizenship to French-born children of foreign nationals.Emmanuel Macron had referred the law to the council as soon as the conservative opposition forced his minority government to accept a severe toughening of its original bill, drawing charges of hypocrisy since his party voted for the legislation knowing that parts of it were likely to be ruled unconstitutional.As expected, the council’s ruling was denounced as a “legal coup” against the will of parliament and the people by mainstream conservative Republicans and Marine Le Pen’s hard-right National Rally, who demanded that the constitution be changed to permit a referendum on immigration quotas. But amending the constitution is a lengthy process that requires both houses of parliament to adopt identical wording and then a three-fifths majority at a special congress of both houses. Don’t hold your breath.In Germany, the federal constitutional court ruled last year that the government’s attempt to divert money left over in an off-budget special fund for Covid-19 recovery for investment in the country’s green energy transition was unconstitutional. The ruling has left the chancellor, Olaf Scholz, with a massive hole in his budget that the government is struggling to fill.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe court decision has prompted the beginnings of a sensible debate on amending a constitutional debt brake enacted during the global financial crisis in 2009, which severely restricts budget deficits except in times of emergency. At least no one in Germany has branded the justices “enemies of the people” or demanded their heads on pikes.In Israel, an attempt by Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-right government to curb the independent supreme court’s right to interpret quasi-constitutional basic laws to overrule government decisions and appointments and to reject legislation passed by the single-chamber parliament caused months of civil unrest last year.Netanyahu, who is on trial on corruption charges and seeks to exert political control over judicial appointments, argued that the will of the people should prevail over an unelected judiciary. Far-right members of his government contend that Jewish religious law should trump the basic law anyway. The supreme court this month overturned a law that would have prevented it using the principle of “reasonableness” to quash government decisions.In Poland, a democratically elected nationalist government defied the EU to dismantle the independence of the judiciary by packing the constitutional court and prosecutors’ offices with loyalists and creating a politically controlled body to discipline judges for their rulings. Now a pro-European government is trying to reverse the damage wrought by its predecessors, but faces accusations of violating the rule of law itself by ignoring the packed court’s rulings.The common thread in all these different situations is that in a democracy, the will of the people is not and should not be absolute and unconstrained by law. Perdition that way lies.
      Paul Taylor is a senior fellow of the Friends of Europe thinktank

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More