World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Swan on a lake: Ivanka Trump’s poise at trial differs from family but playbook is the same

      by

      When Ivanka Trump took the stand at her father’s New York fraud trial on Wednesday, it appeared she was following the advice she gave to readers in her 2009 book The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life. “Perception is more important than reality,” Trump wrote. “It is more important than if it is in fact true.”In stark contrast to her father’s often angry performance on the stand just two days earlier, Ivanka Trump was calm and amiable. Her brothers, Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, also visibly lost patience on the stand, speaking quickly and sternly when answering some questions and making sarcastic comments at others. The eldest Trump daughter maintained her poise throughout. She delivered her testimony like a swan gliding across a lake. But beneath the surface, she was furiously paddling.Despite the control shown during her testimony, Ivanka Trump was ultimately utilizing the same Trump playbook her family has used throughout this trial: deny any memory of working with the financial statements at the center of the case and emphasize the time that has passed since the deals were made.“I generally understand that there was a personal guarantee condition of the loan,” Ivanka Trump said when asked about whether she knew the financial statements at the center of the case were used to guarantee a loan used to purchase the Old Post Office building in Washington DC. “And a series of requirements that were fulfilled by the team in accordance to the terms.”Her siblings and father had given similar answers, though phrased differently.“I rely on the accounting office,” Eric Trump said about the statements. “I relied on a great legal department.”Trump himself kept on referring to his “highly paid accounting firm” that handled the statements.Like her siblings, Ivanka Trump often said she did not recall multiple emails and statements that were used as evidence, many of which attested strongly to the attorney general’s case.When obtaining financing for the Trump Doral golf course in Miami, Ivanka Trump had responded to a loan agreement with Deutsche Bank with: “It doesn’t get better than this let’s discuss asap.” Four minutes later, a lawyer for the Trump Organization responded with concerns over the agreements, specifically a covenant that Trump must maintain a net worth of $3bn, which “would be a problem”. Ivanka Trump then suggested that they negotiate the covenant to $2bn.“I don’t recall,” Ivanka Trump answered when prosecutor Louis Solomon asked her about the exchange.General Services Agency, an agency in the federal government, had documented concerns with Trump’s statement of financial conditions for not following accounting principles when the Trump Organization was trying to purchase the Old Post Office Building in Washington DC. Documentation showed Ivanka Trump attended a meeting where the purchase, including the “deficiencies” the agency saw in the Trump Organization’s proposal, would be discussed.Again, memories of these meetings had been lost to her.“We spent many years working on the response to the request for a proposal, many, many emails, many conversations. I don’t have a recollection sitting here over a decade later,” Ivanka Trump said.What she never lost were her manners. Sitting in the same seat where her red-faced father called the case a “witch-hunt”, Ivanka Trump thanked the court officers as they handed her documented evidence. She answered slowly, quietly. “I’m sorry,” Trump said when the judge asked her to sit closer to the microphone. “It’s OK,” the judge responded.Trump appeared wistful when prosecutors first brought up the 2012 Trump Organization deal to purchase the Doral golf course in Miami.“I was in the ninth month of pregnancy,” Trump recalled with a smile, saying that it was 12 years ago when her daughter was born.The moment provided an insight into how Ivanka Trump is positioning herself in her post-White House days. The high-powered daughter of a real estate tycoon who became a dutiful adviser to the president, she has distanced herself from her father recently.When she announced she would not be a part of her father’s 2024 presidential campaign, she said: ​​“I love my father very much. This time around, I am choosing to prioritize my young children and the private life we are creating as a family. I do not plan to be involved in politics.”Once a mainstay of New York’s elite socialite scene, which leans Democratic, Ivanka Trump has been shunned by her peers in recent years for her involvement in her father’s political career. But the tides could be changing. Last month, Kim Kardashian posted a picture of herself with Ivanka Trump at her birthday party in Beverly Hills, the first time in years an A-list celebrity had acknowledged friendship with Trump.But as much as her father’s political brand has been a hit to her personal brand, Ivanka Trump appeared very much to be her father’s daughter on the witness stand, especially as the day went on. In cross-examination, when Trump’s team was trying to emphasize that Deutsche Bank actively sought out a relationship with the Trump family, Ivanka Trump proudly talked about her family’s properties, using words like “iconic” and “beautiful” – all words straight out of her father’s lexicon.“It was a historically significant building, a beautiful building,” Ivanka Trump said of the Old Post Office building. The former president himself, two days earlier, similarly called his properties “beautiful”.“Witch-hunt”, “political hack”, “election interference”, “a disgrace” – she left those phrases to her father.Unlike the members of her family, who gave lengthy statements to the press once they left the courtroom, Ivanka Trump quietly left the courthouse at the end of the day, looking past the crowd of reporters who shouted her name.Ivanka Trump is the last witness for the attorney general’s office. The trial continues with the defense’s witnesses. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Minnesota supreme court rejects effort to keep Trump from 2024 primary ballot

      by

      Minnesota’s high court dismissed a lawsuit that attempted to keep Donald Trump from being on the 2024 primary ballot, saying he had participated in an insurrection that bars him from holding the office.The Minnesota supreme court said the issue itself is ripe for review, but not in the primary election, where political parties select their nominees for the general election.“Although the secretary of State and other election officials administer the mechanics of the election, this is an internal party election to serve internal party purposes, and winning the presidential nomination primary does not place the person on the general election ballot as a candidate for president of the United States,” the court’s opinion reads.The Minnesota court heard arguments on 2 November and swiftly issued a brief order Wednesday to allow election officials to move forward with preparations.Nothing in Minnesota law prohibits a political party from putting a candidate in their presidential primary who is ineligible to hold the office, so there is no error about to occur by allowing Trump’s name to appear on the ballot here.But the court left open the possibility for the plaintiffs to file similar claims as they relate to the general election, where such rules do exist.The lawsuit, brought by voters and a left-leaning group called Free Speech for People, claimed a clause in the 14th amendment makes it illegal for Trump to hold office because he was an “officer of the United States” who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the country.It’s one of several similar suits moving in the states to try to bar Trump from the ballot. One of the cases, though it’s not clear which one, is expected to end up before the US supreme court.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe plaintiffs will need to show how the rarely-used piece of law, stemming from the reconstruction era, applies to Trump and his actions, and that he participated in insurrection or rebellion. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I don’t recall’: Ivanka Trump testifies in father’s New York fraud trial

      by

      “I don’t recall,” Ivanka Trump repeatedly told a New York court on Wednesday as she took the witness stand at her father’s $250m fraud trial and was quizzed about deals prosecutors claim prove the Trump Organization knowingly misled lenders.Trump’s eldest daughter gave an orderly, calm performance after the often chaotic testimony of her father and brothers. She pointed out that she had not worked for the family firm since 2017 and said she did not recall many specific conversations but added: “I have no reason to doubt it.”But like her father and brothers, she consistently said she did not recall details about specific transactions or conversations. “There were many emails, many conversations,” she said.The trial is just one of a series that the Republican presidential frontrunner faces. Trump has been charged with 91 felony counts across criminal cases in New York, Florida, Washington and Georgia.New York’s attorney general is trying to prove that the Trump family and other executives knowingly inflated Trump’s wealth in order to secure favorable loans.In one exchange Ivanka Trump was shown a series of emails and other documents relating to a loan from Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management division. The loan was contingent on Trump maintaining a value in excess of $3bn. Ivanka Trump negotiated to get the net worth covenant reduced to $2.5bn after a Trump lawyer expressed some concerns.“It doesn’t get better than this,” Ivanka Trump said of the terms in 2011. “Let’s discuss asap.” That year Donald Trump would go on to claim he was worth $4.2bn. The prosecution alleges that Trump was not worth $2bn at the time.“I don’t recall,” she said, when asked about multiple documents and emails that showed she played a key role in deals to obtain financing for the Trump Organization.Asked about whether she understood that the financial statements at the center of the case were used to guarantee a loan to purchase the Old Post Office building in Washington DC, which became the now defunct Trump International hotel, Trump said: “I generally understand that there was a personal guarantee condition of the loan and a series of requirements that were fulfilled by the team in accordance to the terms.”Trump’s lawyers made the case that Deutsche Bank was delighted to do business with the family and favorable loans were part of their attempts to woo them. Ivanka Trump said one of its top bankers had “expressed tremendous excitement to have our account”. Deutsche Bank severed ties with Trump in 2021 after the deadly January 6 US Capitol attack.Last month, Ivanka Trump asked the court to remove her from the prosecution’s witness list, but the request was denied. Ivanka Trump tried to argue that appearing in court would cause her “undue hardship” if she was to testify during the school week. The attorney general’s office had wanted Trump’s eldest daughter to testify in court before the former president himself took the stand, but ultimately rescheduled her appearance because of her appeal.Ivanka Trump was once listed as a co-defendant on the case, along with her father and two adult brothers, but an appeals court tossed out the claims against her last summer, saying that her involvement with the Trump Organization had passed the statute of limitations.Before the trial started, Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump guilty of inflating the value of his assets on state financial statements that were used to broker deals and obtain loans. Though Trump’s team is appealing the decision, he stands to lose his state business licenses if the appellate court sides with Engoron. The actual trial is over the fine Trump will have to pay. Prosecutors are asking for at least $250m.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIvanka Trump had served as a top executive at the Trump Organization, alongside brothers Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, until 2017, when she stepped down to assist her father at the White House. Like her siblings, she helped her father broker deals with lenders to develop properties for the company.Brothers Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump testified last week, distancing themselves from the financial statements at the center of the case despite multiple documents showing they affirmed the statements’ financial representations and were, at times, consulted for the statements.Trump has not been present in the court for any of his children’s testimony. Ahead of his daughter’s appearance he once again lambasted the judge and the New York attorney general, Letitia James, who brought the case against him, calling James, who is Black, “Corrupt and Racist,” on Truth Social, his social media site.Ivanka Trump has moved to distance herself from the family business since Trump’s election defeat. In April, she engaged her own lawyers in the New York case.Trump’s eldest daughter has also broken from the family’s line in previous testimony. In 2022 she told investigators looking into the January 6 Capitol insurrection that she did not believe the election was stolen, contrary to her father’s furious insistence. More

    • 188 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson, the new speaker of the House, is a gender extremist | Moira Donegan

      by

      Late last month, when House Republicans ended their chaotic, weeks-long search for a new speaker by elevating Louisiana’s Mike Johnson, a curious trend of stories began appearing in national media. Democratic operatives (and perhaps a few of Johnson’s Republican adversaries, too) had begun leaking what’s known in Washington as “oppo”, or opposition research – unflattering truths about political rivals – about the new speaker.For many politicians, the embarrassing secrets revealed in an oppo dump are somewhat oblique; usually, they’re about money. Maybe the candidate, as a young lawyer, represented a bank in a case where he aimed to repossess the home of a poor widow; maybe the candidate’s husband or daughter was appointed to a job they did not seem quite qualified for, raising questions about nepotism or access trading. The aim of such stories is to make a politician appear corrupt, or unscrupulous – like someone beholden to greed and not to principle.But the picture that has emerged instead of the once-obscure Louisiana congressmen has not been that of the typically cynical climber, maneuvering corporate heights in pursuit of their own ambition without regard to ethics. Instead, the revelations that have emerged about Mike Johnson since his ascent to the speakership paint a picture of a fevered zealot: in thrall of baroque and morbid religious fantasies; beholden to a regressive, bigoted and morbid worldview; and above all, obsessed – with a lurid and creepy enthusiasm – with sex, and how he thinks it should be done.The enforcement of a Christian sexual morality and a strict gender hierarchy of men over women have not been incidental or minor themes of Johnson’s career: they have been its primary goal, one he pursued doggedly through his pre-congressional life. As a lawyer, he worked against gay marriage, and to uphold Louisiana’s criminal ban on gay sex, writing briefs that described homosexuality as “inherently unnatural” and “a dangerous lifestyle” which he compared to pedophilia and bestiality. He still opposes marriage equality, and led efforts to squash the speakership candidacy of Tom Emmer last month in part because of Emmer’s support for gay marriage rights. Along the way, Johnson has authored a national version of Florida’s so-called “don’t say gay” bill, which would outlaw mentions of homosexuality at schools, hospitals and other federally funded facilities. He opposes access to transition-related healthcare for adolescents and adults alike, and both he and his wife have worked to advance so-called “conversion therapy”, an abusive, homophobic practice that has been outlawed in several states.It probably goes without saying that Johnson, like many Republicans and nearly all of the party’s luminaries, favors a national ban on abortion, which he calls a “holocaust.” While more savvy Republicans like Glenn Youngkin have attempted to frame themselves as “moderates” by placing their preferred abortion bans at supposedly more amenable points in pregnancy, like 15 weeks, Johnson has made no such effort: he has sponsored legislation that would ban abortion nationwide at all stages of pregnancy, establishing a “right to life” for fertilized eggs that supersedes women’s rights to dignity and self-determination.His sweeping antagonism to abortion rights has extended to several kinds of birth control, such as IUDs, implants and many birth control pills. In his career as a lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom – a rightwing legal shop spearheading efforts to advance Christian gender conservatism through litigation – he argued that the most popular kinds of hormonal birth control, and those that are controlled by women, are equivalent to abortion and should therefore be banned. When the House advanced a bill to codify the right to contraception after the US supreme court’s Dobbs ruling in 2022, Johnson voted against it. He has since played dumb on the issue, claiming he does not remember his opposition to birth control in an interview with Shannon Bream of Fox News.In light of his aggressively misogynist and anti-gay views on public policy, it is likely not surprising that Johnson also advances a disturbing and sexist view of the private sphere. He has condemned no-fault divorce, the liberalized regime of divorce law that was won by feminists in the 20th century, and which allowed women to initiate divorce and to exit marriages without having to prove either infidelity or abuse to a court. Johnson says that women’s freedom to leave marriages, along with their freedom to elect out of motherhood when they choose, is responsible for mass shootings.He and his own wife have a so-called “covenant marriage”, a religious arrangement that formalizes men’s superiority and constricts women’s freedom to leave, designed for conservative straight couples who feel that no-fault divorce and gay marriage rights somehow degrade their own unions. He has also spoken of being in a bizarre arrangement of mutual masturbation monitoring with his son, with whom Johnson installed family surveillance technology that reports users’ pornography consumption habits to one another.It would be easy to see Johnson’s wildly regressive gender politics as a personal quirk – his beliefs that gay people are sinful and inferior; that women should not be able to live freely from men or use their bodies in ways that are counter to wishes of the men close to them; that marriage should act, for men, as an entitlement to absolute control, and for women, as a prison. But these ideas are not quirks; they are part of a powerful constituency in the Republican party, one that has now found its way into the speakership, second in line for the presidency.Gender conservatism does not tend to attract as much notice as the other pillars of the far-right ideology: it is less distinct than the far right’s avowed white supremacy, less flashy than its hostility to democracy. But the convictions shared by Johnson – about women’s inferiority and men’s right to control them, about gay people’s moral transgression, and about the ways that the sexed body at birth can, and must, be used to determine the outcomes of a person’s life – have become the foundation upon which the Republican party’s warring factions are set to unite.The notion that the Christian right tradition that Johnson represents would be uncomfortable with Trumpism was always overstated; in America, Christian conservatives have always had more moral vanity than moral conviction. But now, Johnson’s ascent to the head of the thoroughly Trumpist House Republican caucus marks the groundbreaking for a new party order. The Republican party is rebuilding itself: it’s building on misogyny.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 263 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Progressive Rashida Tlaib says ‘we cannot lose our humanity’ as House moves toward censure for Israel comments – US politics live

      by

      In remarks on the House floor minutes after Democrats failed to block an effort to censure her for remarks her detractors say disparaged Israel, progressive Rashida Tlaib defended her criticism of the country and urged lawmakers to join in calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.“I will not be silenced and I will not let you distort my words,” Tlaib said. “No government is beyond criticism. The idea that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic sets a very dangerous precedent, and it’s been used to silence diverse voices speaking up for human rights across our nation.”Tlaib, who was first elected in 2018 and is a prominent member of “The Squad” of progressive female lawmakers, grew emotional as she said, “I can’t believe I have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable.”She continued by saying she was against attacks on both Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike:
      The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinians sound different to you all. We cannot lose our shared humanity, Mr. Chair. I hear the voices of advocates in Israel and Palestine across America and around the world for peace.
      I’m inspired by … the courageous survivors in Israel who have lost loved ones, yet are calling for a ceasefire and the end to violence. I am grateful to the people in the streets for the peace movement with countless Jewish Americans across the country standing up and lovingly saying ‘not in our name’.
      We will continue to call for a ceasefire, Mr. Chair, for the immediate delivery of critical humanitarian aid to Gaza, for the release of all hostages and those arbitrarily detained and for every American to come home. We will continue to work for real, lasting peace that uphold human rights and dignity of all people and centers … peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians and censures no one – no one – and ensures that no person, no child has to suffer or live in fear of violence.
      The House’s Democratic minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, has released a statement marking a month since Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel that also weighs in on the upcoming vote to censure Rashida Tlaib.Tlaib is the sole Palestinian American in the House, and has been outspoken against Israel’s retaliatory invasion of the Gaza Strip. Republicans have moved to censure Tlaib for comments they say promote the destruction of Israel, and which have also attracted criticism from some Democrats.Jeffries does not mention Tlaib specifically in the statement, but instead recommends that Democrats agree to disagree when it comes to Israel:
      As public officials serving in Congress, the words we choose matter. It is my strong belief that we must all take care to respect each other personally, even when strongly disagreeing on matters of policy or legislation. We should be able to agree to disagree on domestic or foreign policy issues, without being disagreeable with each other or the President of the United States. If the end goal following the defeat of Hamas and safe return of all hostages is a just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian people, as I believe it should be, ad hominem attacks against colleagues will never accomplish that objective. The searing moment of turbulence in our society and throughout the world calls for us to tackle the challenges we confront in a serious, sober and substantive manner. Let us all recommit to doing just that for the good of everyone.
      Voters in many states across the country are casting ballots in off-year elections that could serve as important bellwethers ahead of the 2024 presidential vote. There is no shortage of races to cover, but we’ll be paying particularly close attention to Virginia, where Republican governor Glenn Youngkin is hoping his allies take control of the legislature so he can enact an abortion ban, and Ohio, a Republican-leaning state where voters are deciding where to protect abortion rights in the state constitution. In red state Kentucky, Democratic governor Andy Beshear is fighting for a second term, while in Mississippi, voters are deciding whether to send Republican Tate Reeves to the governor’s mansion again, or replace him with Democrat Brandon Presley – a cousin of Elvis Presley.But that’s not all the news that has happened today:
      The House is moving forward with a resolution to censure progressive Democrat Rashida Tlaib over comments criticizing Israel and supporting the Palestinian cause. In a speech, Tlaib said she would continue calling for a ceasefire in the ongoing invasion of Gaza.
      David Weiss, the special counsel investigating Hunter Biden, defended his independence in an unusual behind-closed-doors appearance before the House judiciary committee.
      Iowa’s Republican governor Kim Reynolds endorsed her Florida counterpart Ron DeSantis for president, saying she does not think Donald Trump can win next year.
      Maryland’s Jamie Raskin led the Democratic defense in the just-concluded floor debate over censuring Rashida Tlaib.He argued that punishing Tlaib for her criticism of Israel would undercut speech freedom:The House just suspended its consideration of the resolution to censure Tlaib, and is expected to vote on it tomorrow.Here’s video of the first half of Rashida Tlaib’s speech on the House floor defending her comments on Israel’s invasion of Gaza:In remarks on the House floor minutes after Democrats failed to block an effort to censure her for remarks her detractors say disparaged Israel, progressive Rashida Tlaib defended her criticism of the country and urged lawmakers to join in calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.“I will not be silenced and I will not let you distort my words,” Tlaib said. “No government is beyond criticism. The idea that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic sets a very dangerous precedent, and it’s been used to silence diverse voices speaking up for human rights across our nation.”Tlaib, who was first elected in 2018 and is a prominent member of “The Squad” of progressive female lawmakers, grew emotional as she said, “I can’t believe I have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable.”She continued by saying she was against attacks on both Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike:
      The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinians sound different to you all. We cannot lose our shared humanity, Mr. Chair. I hear the voices of advocates in Israel and Palestine across America and around the world for peace.
      I’m inspired by … the courageous survivors in Israel who have lost loved ones, yet are calling for a ceasefire and the end to violence. I am grateful to the people in the streets for the peace movement with countless Jewish Americans across the country standing up and lovingly saying ‘not in our name’.
      We will continue to call for a ceasefire, Mr. Chair, for the immediate delivery of critical humanitarian aid to Gaza, for the release of all hostages and those arbitrarily detained and for every American to come home. We will continue to work for real, lasting peace that uphold human rights and dignity of all people and centers … peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians and censures no one – no one – and ensures that no person, no child has to suffer or live in fear of violence.
      Progressive Democrat Rashida Tlaib has long been outspoken against Israel’s policies towards Palestinians, but provoked a firestorm of criticism last week by defending the controversial slogan “from the river to the sea”:What makes that slogan so controversial? Here’s the Guardian’s Daniel Boffey with the answer:
      “We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty,” said Andy McDonald, a Labour MP, at a protest in London organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign at the weekend.
      Three days later, McDonald was suspended from the party pending an investigation, leaving the former shadow cabinet minister sitting as an independent for now.
      Some feel the decision was heavy handed while others see it as a sign of strong leadership from Keir Starmer as the Labour leader tries to draw a clear line between himself and his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn.
      The key to understanding why the party reacted so strongly is six words from McDonald’s speech – and the context in with they were spoken.
      “Between the river and the sea” is a fragment from a slogan used since the 1960s by a variety of people with a host of purposes. And it is open to an array of interpretations, from the genocidal to the democratic.
      The full saying goes: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – a reference to the land between the Jordan River, which borders eastern Israel, and the Mediterranean Sea to the west.
      The question then is what that means for Israel and the Jewish people.
      The House of Representatives just rejected an attempt to block a resolution censuring progressive Democrat Rashida Tlaib over her criticism of Israel.The vote was 213 opposed to tabling the resolution, 208 in favor and one voting present.The resolution accuses Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, of “promoting false narratives” regarding Hamas’s 7 October terrorist attack against Israel, and “calling for destruction for the State of Israel.”The House is expected to vote later today on the passing the resolution. Lawmakers are currently on the floor debating Tlaib’s comments.Voters across Virginia are in the middle of casting ballots for state senate and assembly seats – all of which are up for grabs. Beyond just determining control of the legislature, today’s election could decide whether Republican governor Glenn Youngkin is able to pass a ban on abortion in one of the few southern states where accessing the procedure is still possible. Here’s more on today’s election, from the Guardian’s Joan E Greve:As he approached another door in Fredericksburg, walking past Halloween decorations and trees starting to lose their autumn leaves, Muhammad Khan prepared his pitch to voters. Over the past several weeks, Khan has spoken to many of his Virginia neighbors, stressing to them that the upcoming legislative elections will determine the future of their state.Addressing fellow union organizers on Friday morning, Khan said: “We really need to fight, and we need Virginia blue.”Members of Unite Here, a hospitality workers’ union, have knocked on 230,000 doors on behalf of Democratic candidates in Virginia ahead of Tuesday, when all 140 legislative seats in the battleground state will be up for grabs.Republicans are looking to maintain their narrow majority in the house of delegates and flip control of the state senate, which would clear the way for the governor, Glenn Youngkin, to enact his policy agenda. But Democrats warn that Republicans would use their legislative trifecta in Richmond to enact a 15-week abortion ban and roll back access to the ballot box.The results in Virginia carry national implications.In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today, David Weiss, the justice department special counsel handling the prosecution of Hunter Biden, assured lawmakers he has full control over the case, Politico reports.Republicans have alleged political interference in the investigation of the president’s son, which centers around allegations Biden failed to pay taxes on income from his overseas business dealings, and lied about using drugs on a background check to buy a firearm. Special prosecutors usually testify to Congress only after finishing their investigation, but the justice department and Weiss agreed to a behind-closed-doors session with the GOP-controlled committee.Politico obtained part of Weiss’s testimony, and here’s what it had to say:Among the many cities and states voting today is New York City, where voters are poised to send to the city council a man who was caught up in one of its most high-profile instances of wrongful convictions, the Associated Press reports:The exonerated “Central Park Five” member Yusef Salaam is poised to win a seat Tuesday on the New York City council, marking a stunning reversal of fortune for a political newcomer who was wrongly imprisoned as a teenager in the infamous rape case.Salaam, a Democrat, will represent a central Harlem district on the city council, having run unopposed for the seat in one of many local elections playing out across New York state on Tuesday. He won his primary election in a landslide.The victory will come more than two decades after DNA evidence was used to overturn the convictions of Salaam and four other Black and Latino men in the 1989 rape and beating of a white jogger in Central Park. Salaam was imprisoned for almost seven years.“For me, this means that we can really become our ancestors’ wildest dreams,” Salaam said in an interview before the election.Less than two weeks after 18 people were killed by a gunman in their small New England city, residents headed gingerly to polling places there today.The mood was somber. Several shooting survivors remained hospitalized, flags flew at half-staff, and funerals were being held this week for those who died in the attack, the Associated Press reports.“This is a necessity. We have to do this [vote]. So we can’t neglect it even though we’ve been through a terrible tragedy,” said James Scribner, 79, a retired teacher and Marine veteran, who was joined by his wife at local school that was transformed into a polling place.The shootings on October 25 at a bar and a bowling alley in Lewiston, Maine, forced tens of thousands of residents to shelter in place for several days. Grocery stores, gas stations and restaurants were closed. The gunman was later found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a nearby town.Local candidates paused their campaigns for a week after the shootings, and campaigning was different when it resumed, said Jon Connor, a candidate for mayor.“When we restarted campaigning, I was knocking on doors to see how people are doing,” said Connor, who was greeting voters earlier today. “We’re meeting people where they are. We want to be respectful.”Lewiston voters were choosing a mayor and filling seven city council and eight school board seats. Some election workers stayed home, either out of safety concerns or to focus on mourning, city clerk Kathy Montejo said.Voter turnout appeared slow but steady.
      It seems a little quieter, a little more subdued, a little more somber,” Montejo said.
      Some voters overcame feelings of vulnerability to get to the polls.
      It still stays in the back of my mind. But I also can’t let one person make me stay in my house all by myself. I’m still sad. But I had to do my civic duty,” voter Lori Hallett said.
      The Iowa governor, Kim Reynolds, broke her neutrality in the Republican primary and endorsed Ron DeSantis for president on Monday, saying she does not believe Donald Trump can win the general election.“I believe he can’t win,” Reynolds said in an interview with NBC. “And I believe that Ron can.”The endorsement gives DeSantis the support of a deeply popular governor (she has an 81% approval rating among likely caucus-goers, according to a Des Moines Register/NBC poll). It also gives him fuel as he tries to close a significant gap with the former president in polling, both in Iowa and across the US. Trump is currently polling at 45.6% in Iowa, according to the FiveThirtyEight average of polls, while DeSantis is at 17.1%. The Florida governor is also trying to break away from Nikki Haley, with whom he is battling for second place in the race.DeSantis is betting his presidential campaign on a strong showing in Iowa, which will hold its caucuses for the GOP nomination on 15 January.Iowa has long held the first caucuses in the presidential nominating contests and its governors do not typically endorse candidates. Reynolds had previously told others, including Trump, she would stay neutral in the contest, the New York Times reported in July. She reversed that on Monday.“As a mother and as a grandmother and as an American, I just felt like I couldn’t stand on the sidelines any longer,” she said on Monday, according to the Des Moines Register. “We have too much at stake. Our country is in a world of hurt. The world is a powder keg. And I think it’s just really important that we put the right person in office.”Full report here.Voters in Houston are heading to the polls today to elect the next mayor of the nation’s fourth largest city, choosing from a crowded field that includes US congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and state senator John Whitmire, two longtime Democratic lawmakers, the Associated Press writes.Jackson Lee and Whitmire have dominated an open mayoral race that drew 17 candidates to the ballot in the Texan metropolis and one write-in candidate, and that has been focused on issues of crime, crumbling infrastructure and potential budget shortfalls.If elected, Jackson Lee would be Houston’s first Black female mayor. Since 1995, she has represented Houston in Congress. Whitmire has spent five decades in the Texas legislature, where he has helped drive policies that were tough on crime while casting himself as a reformer.If no candidate manages to get more than half of the vote today, the top two will head to a runoff, which would be held December 9.Jackson Lee, 73, and Whitmire, 74, have touted their experience in a race to lead one of the youngest major cities in the US.About two weeks before the election, Jackson Lee’s campaign had to contend with the release of an unverified audio recording, which is purported to capture her berating staff members with a barrage of expletives.Booming growth over the last decade in Houston has caused municipal headaches but has also turned the area into an expanding stronghold for Texas Democrats. Although the mayoral race is nonpartisan, most of the candidates are Democrats.Whitmire and Jackson Lee are seeking to replace Mayor Sylvester Turner, who has served eight years and can’t run again because of term limits. More

    • 38 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Kevin Phillips obituary

      by

      ‘The whole secret of politics is knowing who hates who,” Kevin Phillips told the journalist Garry Wills during the 1968 US presidential campaign.Phillips, who has died aged 82, was the political analyst behind Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy”, aimed at exploiting racial tensions to draw to the Republican side the more conservative voters in the south, where the Democrats had dominated since the American civil war primarily because Abraham Lincoln had been a Republican.Although both he and Nixon later played down his direct influence, Phillips’ keen perception of the changing antipathies of the American electorate, detailed in his 1969 book The Emerging Republican Majority, lay at the heart of Nixon’s victory.Phillips’s analysis was not limited to the south. He realised that traditional working-class Democrats were becoming alienated not just by the party’s embrace of civil rights, but were also sympathetic to conservative positions against the Vietnam war, protest, federal spending and the 1960s “cultural revolution”.Though he predicted their drift rightward to the Republicans, he could not foresee the long-term effect of this political tsunami, stoked by culture wars, and he eventually disavowed the division his work had sowed, becoming, by the George W Bush presidency, a leading voice of apostate Republicanism.Phillips’ analysis echoed a century of US political history. After John F Kennedy’s assassination, Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) through Congress. Johnson was a master of political compromise, but when he signed the latter bill, he supposedly told an aide, “there goes the south”.The so-called “solid south” always voted Democrat, but these naturally conservative “Dixiecrats” were at odds with the rest of their party, which primarily represented working people in the north.Similarly, the Republicans were traditionally a party of big business, led by industrial magnates whose sense of noblesse oblige rendered them relatively liberal on social issues. But they also harboured a fierce right wing committed to undoing Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and opposed to any hint of government regulation.These factional divisions facilitated legislative compromise, but Johnson’s prediction soon proved true, as Dixiecrats deserted to the Republicans. Starting with Nixon’s re-election in 1972, Republicans swept the south five times in nine presidential elections, stymied only by the southerners Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.Phillips was born in New York City, where his father, William, was chairman of the New York State Liquor Authority, and his mother, Dorothy (nee Price), was a homemaker. He graduated from Bronx high school of science at 16, by which time he had already begun studying the political makeup of his city, discerning an antagonism towards the black and Hispanic community by the white working-class children of an older generation of immigrants.Already a loyal Republican, after graduation he headed the Bronx’s youth committee supporting the re-election of Dwight D Eisenhower. He earned his BA in political science from Colgate University in 1961, having spent a year at Edinburgh University studying economic history, and took a law degree from Harvard in 1964.His political career began as an aide to the Republican congressman Paul Fino, from the Bronx, where he realised that despite Fino’s relatively liberal domestic positions Republicans could not depend on minority voters.Phillips lent his prodigious research into the breakdown of the nation’s congressional districts to the Nixon campaign, and after the election he became a special assistant to the attorney general John Mitchell, Nixon’s campaign manager, who would be jailed in the fallout from the Watergate scandal.He left Mitchell in 1970, becoming a commentator, with a syndicated newspaper column, his own newsletter and regular appearances as a broadcasting pundit. Phillips later traced Republican failures back to Watergate, although ironically it was his tip to the Nixon aide Jeb Magruder about the damaging information that might be in the Democratic party chairman Larry O’Brien’s Watergate office that precipitated the fatal burglary.Phillips coined the terms “sun belt” for the fast-growing areas of the southern and south-western states, and “new right” to distinguish the populist politics of Ronald Reagan from those of “elitists” such as Nelson Rockefeller. But as the white working-class shrank, along with its jobs, the politics of resentment grew more divisive. Dog-whistles to racists, from Reagan’s “welfare queens” to George HW Bush’s Willie Horton ads portraying a black murderer, culminated in the 1994 “Republican revolution” which captured Congress and proceeded to shut down the government.What Phillips had not foreseen was the impossibility of political compromise now that all the different reactionaries were in the same Republican boat. Watching the growing economic inequality which sprang from the Reagan years, he began to have second thoughts. His belief in his party as a stable, serious preserver of the status quo began to fall apart.Starting with Wealth and Democracy (2002), Phillips produced a series of books excoriating what he saw as George W Bush’s plutocratic revolution, recalling the robber barons of the 19th-century Gilded Age. He warned of an instinct toward authoritarianism under the guise of fighting so-called liberal permissiveness.Phillips castigated the Bushes further in American Dynasty (2004) for aiding already rich investors, especially in the sun belt’s energy and defence industries, at the whim of the Pentagon and CIA. American Theocracy (2006) recognised the growing influence of fundamentalist Christians in the Republican party, a dystopian vision of ideological extremism mixed with greed-driven fiscal irresponsibility.His 2008 book Bad Money focused on what he called “bad capitalism”, relying on financial services instead of industrial production. After the 2008 financial crash, he wrote a sequel, After The Fall (2009). By now he was a regular in such centrist outlets as National Public Radio or the Atlantic, where he found himself explaining how his analysis of the changing American electorate led, with some inevitability, to the polarised society that elected the authoritarian Donald Trump.Among his 15 books, Phillips also produced a biography of the US president William McKinley (2003) and 1775: A Good Year for Revolution (2012), about the circumstances which precipitated that war.He is survived by his wife, Martha (nee Henderson), whom he married in 1968, and their three children, Betsy, Andrew and Alec. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Why are Republicans still supporting Donald Trump? – video

      by

      Despite facing multiple criminal charges, Donald Trump remains the frontrunner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. But in South Carolina, a traditionally conservative southern state, a split is opening up between Trump loyalists and more moderate Republicans who are fearful of what their party has become. The Guardian’s Oliver Laughland and Tom Silverstone investigate More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Bernie Sanders calls for end to Israeli strikes and killing of thousands

      by

      Bernie Sanders has stepped up his calls for a humanitarian pause in Gaza, demanding an immediate stop to Israeli bombing and an end to the killing of thousands of “innocent men, women and children” in the enclave.In some of his strongest words in the 30-day war, the independent US senator from Vermont decried the 7 October Hamas attack inside Israel. He labelled Hamas as an “awful terrorist organization” that had “slaughtered 1,400 people in cold blood”, reiterating his belief that Israel had the right to defend itself.But speaking on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Sanders said the death of civilians had to stop. “What Israel does not, in my view, have a right to do is to kill thousands of thousands of innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with that attack,” he said.The senator added: “There’s not enough food, there’s not enough water, medicine, fuel. You’ve got a humanitarian disaster, it has to be dealt with right now.”Sanders continues to be influential on the progressive flank of US politics at a time of deepening rifts on the left over the response to the war. He walks a fine line, condemning the civilian death toll caused by Israeli air strikes while resisting calls for a full-on ceasefire.“I don’t know how you could have a permanent ceasefire with an organization like Hamas which is dedicated to destroying the state of Israel … and has got to go,” he told CNN.Several members of the progressive wing of the Democratic party have gone further, demanding an immediate ceasefire and challenging the Biden administration’s plans to send emergency military aid package to Israel. In a newly-released video, the only Palestinian American member of Congress, Rashida Tlaib, accused Joe Biden of supporting “genocide” and demanded he back a “ceasefire now”.Sanders declined CNN’s invitation to condemn Tlaib, saying: “We don’t have to quibble about words … Rashida is a friend of mine, her family comes from Palestine, I think she’s been shaken, as all of us are, about what is going on right now.”Republicans in the US House last week passed a $14.3bn military aid package for Israel. Democrats have indicated they are likely to oppose any similar bill that reaches the upper chamber given its inclusion of spending cuts for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).Sanders said that he would judge any aid package when it reaches the Senate, but said it should be made contingent on ending civilian deaths. “It’s terribly important that, as we debate that, to say to Israel, ‘You want this money, you got to change your military strategy’.”Sanders’ call for an end to the bombing to allow humanitarian aid to reach desperate Palestinians came as the US secretary of state Antony Blinken made a surprise visit to the West Bank on Sunday. Blinken met the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and, according to read-outs of the conversation, expressed Washington’s desire that the Palestinian Authority, which Abbas heads, should be central in the running of any post-Hamas Gaza.The Biden administration continues to press for a humanitarian pause in the bombardment, both to allow humanitarian aid in and to assist with the release of the more than 240 hostages captured by Hamas on 7 October. Speaking on CBS News’s Face the Nation, the deputy national security adviser Jonathan Finer said that while the Biden administration supported Israel’s mission “to go after Hamas” it was also urging more care by the Israeli military to spare the lives of civilians.The current death toll, as released by the Hamas-run ministry of health, is more than 9,770 Palestinians.Finer said that the US had had “many direct conversations” with the Israeli government emphasising “their obligation to distinguish between civilians and fighters … Some of the images and events that we’ve seen transpire in Gaza have been heartbreaking for all of us.”So far the US call for a reduction in the civilian death toll has failed to sway Israeli military thinking. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has dismissed the idea of a temporary ceasefire until all of the hostages are released.Gilad Erdan, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, ruled out any humanitarian pause on Sunday. Speaking to CNN’s State of the Union, he said such a break in the air strikes and ground incursion would allow Hamas to “rearm and regroup and prevent us from achieving our goal to destroy Hamas’s terrorist capabilities”.Erdan claimed “there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza”. He also insisted that Israel “never intentionally targets civilians. We do everything that is possible to minimize and mitigate civilian casualties.”Fears that the Gaza fighting will spill over into a wider regional war are also roiling political debate in the US. On Monday, a bi-partisan resolution will be presented in the US senate warning Iran not to unleash further fighting on Israel’s northern border through the powerful Iranian-backed militia, Hezbollah.The Republican senator who has co-authored the resolution, Lindsey Graham, told CNN that the resolution threatens Iran with a US military response should it open up a second front against Israel. “The resolution puts Iran on notice that all this military force in the region will be coming after you if you expand this way by activating Hezbollah or killing Americans through your proxies in Syria and Iraq,” he said.Richard Blumenthal, Graham’s Democratic partner behind the resolution, called the non-binding motion “aggressive but absolutely necessary”. “The key word here is deterrence – the purpose of the resolution is to deter Iran by showing we’re going to be behind the president as he seeks to stop the war from widening or escalating.” More