More stories

  • in

    Rightwingers’ push to recall Wisconsin Republican speaker fails again

    A protracted push by rightwing activists to recall Wisconsin’s Republican assembly speaker failed for a second time after the bipartisan commission overseeing elections in the state voted to toss their petition, finding they failed to submit a sufficient number of signatures.The effort to trigger a recall election for Robin Vos illustrates a growing chasm between the Wisconsin Republican party establishment, which has been led by the powerful assembly speaker for more than a decade, and the party’s Maga base.It is an especially delicate matter for the bipartisan elections commission, which has been the focus of conspiracy theories floated by allies of Donald Trump including the group attempting to recall Vos.After reviewing the signatures gathered for the recall petition – and challenges to the signatures – commission staff found earlier this week that the recall campaign had garnered, by the narrow margin of 16 signatures, sufficient support to bring about a recall.But during the meeting on Thursday, which at times became heated, Vos’s legal team asserted that more than 100 additional signatures should be struck, given that they had been gathered outside the allotted time frame, after the petitioners’ filing date was extended due to a federal holiday.Democratic commissioner Mark Thomsen pushed back fiercely against Vos’s argument, arguing that if the commission were to throw out the recall petition on what he called a “technicality”, they would deny the petitioners their right to recall.“The effect is it would be giving the most powerful person in the assembly a free pass from the constitutional right of the 6,000-plus people that have asked to recall,” said Thomsen.Thomsen repeatedly emphasized the importance of impartiality and the perception of impartiality on the commission.“Let us have the courage to say that this [effort] is valid,” said Thomsen.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRepublican commissioner Don Millis, who motioned to dismiss the petition, acknowledged that while “it certainly is a close call”, the 188 signatures gathered over Memorial Day weekend should be tossed.Carrie Riepl, a Democratic commissioner, joined Republicans in a 4-2 vote to reject the recall petition.The first time activists filed for a recall election, the effort fell dramatically short of the required number of signatures – some of which were not gathered from Vos’s assembly district at all. More

  • in

    The surprising psychology behind extremism, and how politics is driving it – podcast

    Psychologists usually expect ambivalence to be a driver of political apathy. But a new study appears to show a link between ambivalence in our views and the likelihood that we’ll support extremist actions. Madeleine Finlay speaks to the study’s co-author Richard Petty, professor of psychology at Ohio State University, to find out what pushes people to take extreme actions, how politics could be driving this behaviour and how it could be combated

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

  • in

    Progressive Jamaal Bowman loses New York House Democratic primary

    Jamaal Bowman, the progressive Democratic congressman whose criticism of Israel’s war on Gaza made him a target for pro-Israel lobbying groups, lost his primary race on Tuesday night.The Democratic primary in New York’s 16th district became the most expensive House primary in history after Bowman was challenged by George Latimer, a pro-Israel centrist.The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) and an affiliated group spent almost $15m to defeat Bowman, a former middle school principal, who has been one of the few Democrats to consistently criticize Israel since it began a military campaign on Gaza that has killed a reported 37,000 Palestinians.Latimer, a vocal advocate of Israel who has been involved in local politics for more than three decades, is likely to win the congressional election in November, given the heavily Democratic make-up of the district.Our Revolution said the primary outcome “puts the glaring hypocrisy of Democratic party elites on full display”. Joseph Geevarghese, the executive director of the organization founded by Bernie Sanders, said: “Hillary Clinton and other establishment Democrats who supported Bowman’s challenger like to parade around as champions of democracy … [but] lack the backbone to call out the broken system that allows Democratic primaries to be sold to the highest bidder.”Bowman had appeared with Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at a rally on Sunday, as progressive Democrats launched a last-ditch attempt to drive people to the polls.“Are you ready to fight? Are you ready to take this borough back? Are you ready to win this country back? Are you ready to fight for peace on earth and ceasefire in Gaza?” Ocasio-Cortez said as she introduced Bowman, hinting at what has become the key issue in the race between him and Latimer.Bowman has accused Israel of committing genocide and has called for the Biden White House to “stop all funding” to Israel.That prompted Aipac to wade into the race: since the start of the primary, the United Democracy Project, a Super Pac connected with Aipac, has spent almost $15m to defeat Bowman, who is facing a primary challenge from Latimer, a pro-Israel Democrat. DMFI Pac, another pro-Israel group, has spent more than $1m to support Latimer and unseat Bowman, helping to turn the race into an unprecedentedly expensive contest.While the Israel issue has been a driver for Aipac, Bowman was also seen as vulnerable due to issues within his control. In September, he was criticized after pulling a fire alarm before a crucial House vote; Bowman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour and agreed to pay a $1,000 fine, the maximum applicable under Washington DC law. Early this year, the Daily Beast reported that Bowman had touted 9/11 conspiracy theories on a since-deleted blogpost.In New York City, TV ads attacking Bowman have been ever-present in recent weeks, although Bowman raised plenty of cash of his own. Since the start of his campaign, Bowman raised $4.3m and had support on the ground from progressive groups, including Justice Democrats, a progressive organization that backed his campaign in 2020 and spent $1.3m to support Bowman this election cycle.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe race became contentious in recent weeks. Bowman suggested Latimer’s campaign darkened his skin in campaign literature and accused Latimer of pushing the “angry Black man” stereotype.In the final debate between the pair on Tuesday, Bowman accused Latimer of dragging his feet on desegregation as Westchester county executive. Latimer, who has claimed Bowman has an “ethnic benefit”, said Bowman has “cornered the market on lies”.With Bowman being a high-profile progressive who is popular with young people and the left, the race took on wider implications.“We believe that the squad [a group of progressive politicians who include Ocasio-Cortez] is just the start of our voice being truly represented in the halls of Congress,” said Ella Weber, an activist with Protect Our Power, an organization that seeks to keep progressive Democrats in Congress and that spent time campaigning in Bowman’s district.“The threat of them not winning is gen Z as a whole continues to lose faith in our political process. That’s definitely not what we want, and I don’t think that’s what the Democratic party wants.” More

  • in

    Hunter Biden law licence suspended after conviction in gun case

    Hunter Biden’s right to practice law in Washington DC has been suspended following his recent conviction on federal gun charges, with the possibility that he could be permanently disbarred.The District of Columbia court of appeals issued an order on Tuesday suspending Biden’s licence, citing the guilty verdict on three felony charges following this month’s trial in Wilmington, Delaware, which it said were defined as “serious crimes” under the district’s bar rule.The court order also hinted at more severe repercussions by instituting formal proceedings to determine the nature of the offences and whether they amount to “moral turpitude”. DC law requires that lawyers be disbarred if they are found guilty of such crimes.Biden, the son of Joe Biden, the US president, was found guilty by a jury of lying on a gun application form when buying a Colt Cobra 38 Special revolver in 2018 by not disclosing his drug addiction, and then illegally owning the gun for 11 days, before his then girlfriend, the widow of his late brother Beau, threw it in a garbage bin.The trial, which featured testimony from several family members, was dominated by descriptions of Hunter Biden’s addiction to crack cocaine, and was attended by the president’s wife, Jill Biden. Joe Biden did not attend.Hunter Biden, who described his struggles with addiction in a personal memoir and says he is now clean, has not yet been sentenced. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and fines of $750,000, although such punishments are rare for first time offenders.Biden denied the charges against him and his lawyer, Abbe Lowell has requested a new trial, citing procedural matters.He face another trial in Los Angeles in September on charges of tax evasion. Republicans have sought to tie his legal travails to his father, setting in train a stalled impeachment process in the House of Representatives based on unproven allegations that the president profited from his son’s business deals. More

  • in

    The Guardian view on the WikiLeaks plea deal: good for Julian Assange, not journalism | Editorial

    Julian Assange should never have been charged with espionage by the US. The release of the WikiLeaks founder from custody in the UK is good news, and it is especially welcome to his family and supporters. He is due to plead guilty to a single charge of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified US national defence documents at a hearing early on Wednesday, but is not expected to face further jail time. The court in Saipan, a remote Pacific island which is a US territory, is expected to approve the deal, crediting him for the five years he has already spent on remand in prison.His opportunity to live with his young family comes thanks to Australian diplomacy under the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, who had made clear his desire for a resolution, and the Biden administration’s keenness to get a controversial case off its plate, particularly in an election year. Seventeen of the charges have been dropped. The one that remains, however, is cause for serious alarm. It was the Trump administration that brought this case. But while the Biden administration has dropped 17 of the 18 charges, it insisted on a charge under the 1917 Espionage Act, rather than the one first brought against him of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.This is no triumph for press freedom. Mr Assange’s plea has prevented the setting of a frightening judicial precedent for journalists, avoiding a decision that might bind future courts. Nonetheless, this is the first conviction for basic journalistic efforts under the 1917 act.Using espionage charges was always a bad and cynical move. The case relates to hundreds of thousands of leaked documents about the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, as well as diplomatic cables, which were made public by WikiLeaks working with the Guardian and other media organisations. They revealed appalling abuses by the US and other governments, which would not otherwise have been exposed – and for which no one has been held liable, despite the pursuit of Mr Assange.National security laws are necessary. But it is also necessary to acknowledge that governments keep secrets for bad reasons as well as good. Alarmingly, the Espionage Act allows no public interest defence, preventing defendants from discussing the material leaked, why they shared it, and why they believe the public should know about it. The Obama administration correctly identified the chilling effect that spying charges could have on investigative journalism, and chose not to bring them on that basis. The Biden administration – which proclaims itself a champion of press freedom globally – should not have pursued them. The UK government should never have agreed to Mr Assange’s extradition.The bad news is that the prosecutorial policy is now clear. Federal prosecutors can chalk this one up as a win. It is possible that future administrations could take this case as encouragement to pursue the press under the Espionage Act. It is likely that an emboldened second Trump administration would do so. The Republican candidate has repeatedly cast the media as his “real opponent” and the enemy of the people.The political solution to this lengthy saga is welcome, particularly given the reported impact on Mr Assange’s health after years holed up in London’s Ecuadorian embassy and then in Belmarsh prison. But the threat to press freedom has not ended. Its defence cannot rest either. More

  • in

    At last, Julian Assange is free. But it may have come at a high price for press freedom | Trevor Timm

    Julian Assange is on the verge of being set free after the WikiLeaks founder and US authorities have agreed to a surprising plea deal. While it should be a relief to anyone who cares about press freedom that Assange will not be coming to the US to face trial, the Biden administration should be ashamed at how this case has played out.Assange is flying from the UK to a US territory in the Pacific Ocean to make a brief court appearance today, and soon after, he may officially be a free man in his native Australia.The deal is undoubtedly good for Assange, who has been holed up in Belmarsh prison suffering from serious medical problems for the past five years, and stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for seven years prior to that. It’s good for the Biden administration, which avoids the embarrassment of potentially losing its extradition case in the UK high court, but more importantly avoids the Assange case becoming a polarising issue in the election.But is the deal good for press freedom? Not so much. Don’t get me wrong: there’s no doubt the worst fate was avoided and every journalist breathed a sigh of relief that this result did not occur via a court decision. A plea deal does not create an official precedent that a conviction and appeals court ruling would – something that could have potentially binded other courts to rule against journalists in future cases.But it’s hard not to be shaken by the charge the US justice department forced Assange to plea to in order to get his freedom: a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act, which according to the law, amounts to “receiving and obtaining” secret documents, and “willfully communicating” them “to persons not entitled to receive them”. (In Assange’s case, that means the public). That is a “crime” that journalists at mainstream outlets all over the US commit virtually every day.A court won’t readily be able to cite DoJ v Assange in future rulings, but that doesn’t mean this guilty plea won’t embolden future federal prosecutors with an axe to grind against the press. They will see this case as a success. And it doesn’t mean the legal arms of news outlets won’t now be worried a case can be brought against their own journalists for ordinary journalistic conduct that was once assuredly protected by the first amendment.Just imagine what an attorney general in a second Trump administration will think, knowing they’ve already got one guilty plea from a publisher under the Espionage Act. Trump, after all, has been out on the campaign trail repeatedly opining about how he would like to see journalists – who he sees as “enemies of the people” – in jail. Why the Biden administration would hand him any ammo is beyond belief.So if the Biden administration is looking for plaudits for ending this case, they should get exactly none. They could have dropped this case three years ago when they took control of the DoJ. Every major civil liberties and human rights group in the country repeatedly implored them to. They could have just dropped the case today, with Assange spending the same amount of time in prison, but they felt the need to again emphasise in court documents that they believe obtaining and publishing secret government documents is a crime.Of course, some will say, “oh, Assange got what he deserved,” or “he’s no journalist, why should I care,” as people do whenever you bring up the inconvenient fact that prosecuting Assange will affect countless other journalists. Assange made himself the permanent enemy of millions of Democratic voters after publishing leaked emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign in the run-up to the 2016 election, and many people can’t see past that. But it’s worth repeating that this case had nothing at all to do with 2016. And whether you think Assange is a “journalist” or not, the DoJ wanted him convicted under the Espionage Act for acts of journalism, which would leave many reporters, including at the Guardian, exposed to the same.Now we can only hope this case is an aberration and not a harbinger of things to come.
    Trevor Timm is executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation More

  • in

    Hunter Biden requests new trial after conviction in gun case

    Lawyers for Hunter Biden have filed a motion requesting a new trial, arguing that a Delaware court did not have jurisdiction over the case when it proceeded to trial.Biden, the eldest living son of the US president, was found guilty earlier this month on three felony counts related to a handgun purchase while he was a user of crack cocaine.Biden’s lawyer Abbe Lowell, in a court filing on Monday, argued that his client’s “convictions should be vacated” because the judge overseeing the case lacked jurisdiction to hold a trial because of pending rulings in his appeals case.A federal appeals court had rejected two attempts by Biden’s lawyers to dismiss the gun charges, but Lowell said that the court had not yet issued a formal mandate denying one of those appeals.“Naturally, any district court action taken after it has been divested of jurisdiction by an appeal must be vacated,” he wrote in the Monday filing. “Mr Biden’s convictions should be vacated because the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial.”In a separate filing, Biden’s lawyers argued that a recent supreme court ruling, which upheld a federal ban on a firearms for people under domestic violence restraining orders, supported their motion for an acquittal in the case, or “at a minimum” a new trial.Biden faces a maximum of 25 years in prison, though first-time offenders are rarely given the maximum penalty. No sentencing date has been set.The president has said he will not use his power to pardon or commute his son’s sentence. More

  • in

    Making US public schools display the Ten Commandments isn’t harmless or neutral | Judith Levine

    I was 10 in 1962, when the supreme court ruled, in Engel v Vitale, that the officially sanctioned recitation of prayer in public schools violated the constitution’s first amendment, which prohibits the establishment of a state religion.Before that, my school day started with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by an appeal to God. We rose and pushed our chairs under our desks. Then we stood erect, gazed at the flag sticking out at an angle above the blackboard, and placed our right hands over our hearts. After the pledge, we bowed our heads and said a prayer composed by the New York state board of regents, which held authority over the schools: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.”As far as I could tell, none of this presented a problem for my classmates, almost every one of them Italian, Greek, or Irish Catholic. Many kids clasped their hands during the prayer.But as the only Jew in the class and the daughter of militantly atheist socialists to boot, saying these words every day was no simple exercise.To my parents, both the pledge and the prayer constituted authoritarian brainwashing. They had reason to suspect oaths of allegiance. Under the anticommunist regime of Senator Joe McCarthy, my father, a high school teacher, was required to sign a loyalty oath disavowing membership in the Communist party. He refused, and, like other government employees on the left, resigned rather than be fired.Although the Pledge of Allegiance contained no such explicit ideology, in 1954 Congress added the words “under God” to the pledge, a rebuke to godless communism. My parents weren’t thrilled by this conflation of patriotism and theism. But even if the US deserved fealty – and my mom and dad were not convinced it did – they objected to children being trained to give it by rote.It was the prayer that really riled them, though. Its authors called it “non-denominational”, but that did not distract the supreme court, or my parents, from the law’s intent: “to further religious beliefs”, said the justices – a clear breach of the separation of church and state. “In this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government,” they wrote.I’d been attending civil rights and Ban the Bomb demonstrations since infancy. I was an unswerving non-believer as far back as I could remember. I was proud to be different, because nonconformity meant rejecting lies and standing up for what was right.Still, a kid wants to fit in. It was hard enough being Jewish. Hurtful to endure casual antisemitism (“I hate Jews,” an erstwhile friend announced one day, out of the blue). Uncomfortable to be left alone with the teacher and the one Protestant girl on Wednesday afternoons, when the Catholic kids were excused for “catechism”.It was dicey being an atheist. In third grade, I was consumed by terror after my three best friends convinced me that if I didn’t start believing in God I would end up in hell, which they described in ghastly detail. Anti-communism also threatened my family’s security – I kept that part of me a secret.Mom and Dad assured me that the law allowed me to remain silent or leave the room during the prayer, and they’d support my doing so even if it were illegal. I wanted to. But didn’t they understand that either act would only call attention to my apostasy?I was destined to betray something or someone – America, God, the truth, my family. Or myself. But what elementary school child knows who that is? What child should be compelled to figure it out?Jeff Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana, recently signed a law requiring that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom. “If you want to respect the rule of law,” he said, “you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses.”It was a nod to the “Judeo” in the “Judeo-Christian values” the Christian right is forever invoking – never mind that some people are neither Jews nor Christians, but Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or none of the above. The Republican state representative Dodie Horton insisted that the law “doesn’t preach a certain religion”, but merely “shows what a moral code we all should live by is”.These statements recall New York’s statement on moral and spiritual training in the schools, in which the “non-denominational” prayer was published three-quarters of a century ago. “We believe that this statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will,” the officials wrote, “and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program.”Civil libertarians are challenging the Louisiana law. Its supporters are keen for the challenge, betting that the justices who have begun removing bricks from the constitutional wall of church-state separation will demolish the whole thing this time. Republican politicians in Texas have already indicated they plan to follow Louisiana’s lead.Government-mandated religion is patently unconstitutional. It reproduces the religious coercion that Europeans came to this continent to escape. It is no boon to children’s spiritual or civic education. Rather, it is harmful to children – or some children, as it was to me. And legally and morally, even one is too many.
    Judith Levine is a Brooklyn journalist and essayist, a contributing writer to the Intercept and the author of five books More