World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Blow to Trump as court upholds most of gag order in election interference case

      by

      Donald Trump may now assail the special counsel who brought the federal criminal case against him over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, in addition to being free to criticize the judge, the justice department, the Biden administration and the case as politically motivated.The former president remains barred, however, from attacking potential trial witnesses, court staff or the special counsel’s staff, as well as the family members of any court staff or the special counsel’s staff.That was the ruling handed down on Friday by the US court of appeals for the DC circuit, which found that Trump’s inflammatory statements posed a threat to the fair administration of justice and only partly narrowed the gag order imposed by the federal judge overseeing the case in Washington.“Mr Trump is a former president and current candidate for the presidency,” the appeals court wrote in a 68-page opinion. “But Mr Trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that govern all other criminal defendants.”The decision by the three-judge panel marks the latest defeat for Trump over the gag order, which was entered by the US district judge Tanya Chutkan in October after prosecutors complained that Trump’s statements and social media posts could intimidate potential trial witnesses.Trump is expected to appeal the ruling to the US supreme court, people close to his legal team said on Friday. A Trump spokesperson added: “President Trump will continue to fight for the First Amendment rights of tens of millions of Americans to hear from the leading presidential candidate at the height of his campaign.”The ruling from the three circuit judges – all Democratic appointees – struck a cautious balance between allowing Trump to criticize the case as a political vendetta while he runs for re-election, and protecting the people involved in the case who Trump has targeted in his statements.In particular, the judges concluded that the original gag order was too broad in preventing Trump from personally attacking the special counsel Jack Smith. They also narrowed the order to say Trump can attack people involved in the post-2020 election matters as long as he does not target their trial testimony.But the judges were adamant that Trump’s relentless attacks clearly threatened the integrity of proceedings because his statements about potential witnesses could chill their testimony at trial while his statements about court staff could impede them from fulfilling their jobs.“Mr Trump’s documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated, real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in this case,” the opinion said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe judges also rejected all three of Trump’s arguments for lifting the gag order in its entirety, finding that his lawyers appeared to take the extreme position that only Trump’s first amendment rights – and no other consideration – mattered when it came to restricting his speech.They wrote that they found untenable Trump’s position that there could only be a gag order after a Trump statement caused harm or chilled a witness, not least because the point of a protective order was to ensure no such harm would occur in the first place.They also rejected Trump’s complaint that a gag order amounted to being bound by a “heckler’s veto” – gagging a defendant merely because of fears about how a third party might act – because the court had an obligation to ensure third parties did not threaten proceedings.The judges were also unimpressed with Trump’s argument that his political speech mattered more than criminal trial proceedings. “The existence of a political campaign,” the court wrote, “does not alter the court’s historical commitment or obligation to ensure the fair administration of justice.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump seeks access to secret court filings in Mar-a-Lago documents case

      by

      Lawyers for Donald Trump, defending him against charges that he retained national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago club, have asked a federal judge to grant them unprecedented access to the classified information that prosecutors want to redact before it gets introduced at trial.“Cleared counsel for President Trump seek attorneys’-eyes-only access to these filings so that we can challenge the [special counsel’s] assertions in adversarial proceedings,” the Trump legal team said in the 18-page filing.The request – asking for access to the US government’s sealed court filings that are off limits to defense counsel by default under statute – is significant because even a partial ruling in Trump’s favor by the US district judge Aileen Cannon could trigger the first appeal in the case.Such an appeal to the 11th circuit would be interlocutory, meaning it would have to be adjudicated before trial, almost certainly delaying other pre-trial deadlines and therefore the May 2024 trial date, which is already estimated to be running about four months behind schedule.The Trump motion was also widely regarded by legal experts as extraordinary because it turned on its face the point of the complex procedures governing how classified documents can be made public in criminal cases without risking national security.Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury in June with violating the Espionage Act by retaining documents about the likes of US nuclear secrets, which means his case will be tried under the rules laid out in the seven-section Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.At issue in the Trump case is the Cipa section 4 filing submitted by special counsel prosecutors. Under section 4, the government can file a motion to redact classified information that would qualify as discovery but would not be “relevant or helpful” to defense counsel.The goal of section 4 is to eliminate what was previously known as the “graymail” problem in national security cases, where defense counsel threatened to reveal classified information at trial, betting that the government would prefer to drop the charges rather than risk disclosure.It remains unclear what prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith want to redact, other than the fact that it encompasses “four categories of especially sensitive classified information”, according to recently unsealed filings.The judge technically has discretion under the statute to decide how to proceed with section 4 filings, but legal experts said the Trump motion, asking to see everything, amounted to a request to defeat the entire purpose of Cipa section 4 to protect against the threat of graymail.Trump’s lawyers essentially argued that special counsel prosecutors should be forced to share what classified information they want to redact because the criminal justice system broadly disfavors filings that are not shown to defense counsel, and because they have the necessary clearances.The Trump team also made a novel argument about how the development of laws granting greater access to national security matters – like having motions to suppress evidence in the secret foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) courts – should prompt Cannon to consider creating new precedent.The Trump legal team’s motion also asked for the judge to order special counsel prosecutors to file redacted versions of their Cipa section 4 filing on the public docket, which could shed light on the government’s legal arguments about the relevance of some of the classified information. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Why are third party candidates a threat to Biden in 2024? – podcast

      by

      This week, Joe Biden admitted that he probably would not be running for re-election if Donald Trump was not likely to be the Republican candidate. The thoughts of a rehashed presidential race in 2024 has many Americans dreading next year, and some are looking to third-party or independent candidates as potential alternatives.
      So why hasn’t an outsider been more successful in the past? Is running independently of the Democrat and Republican parties a legitimate offer to voters, or nothing more than an election spoiler? And if the answer is the latter, why should the president be the one to worry?
      This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Nitish Pahwa of Slate about why Democrats are worried that Biden could suffer the same fate as Hilary Clinton in 2016

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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden infuriated by Ukraine impasse but Republicans refuse to bend over border

      by

      It is an astonishing bit of horse-trading over Ukraine that has left Democrats infuriated, even baffled. After Senate Republicans blocked a supplemental funding package on Wednesday to aid the country in its fight against the Russian invasion, demanding tough new southern border controls in exchange, the chamber’s leading Democrat took to the floor.Calling it “a sad night in the history of the Senate”, Chuck Schumer bemoaned the vote as a disappointing reflection on the country, a step away from letting Vladimir Putin “walk right through Ukraine and right through Europe”.“Republicans just blocked a very much needed proposal to send funding for Ukraine, funding for Israel, humanitarian aid for innocent civilians in Gaza, and funding for the Indo-Pacific,” Schumer said.“If there is a word for what we most need now, it is to be serious.”The 49-51 vote reflected a growing trend in Congress that has become a source of distress for the White House. When Russia first invaded Ukraine in February 2022, aiding Kyiv was a bipartisan project. In May of that year, a $40bn Ukraine aid package sailed through the House with a vote of 368-57, and the Senate with a vote of 86 -11.But as the war has stretched on, more Republican lawmakers have turned against aid to Ukraine, embracing Donald Trump’s “America first” approach to foreign policy. When the House voted in September on a bill to provide $300m to train and equip Ukrainian fighters, a majority of Republicans – 117 members – opposed it.Republicans also now have more power in Congress than they did when the war in Ukraine began. Although Democrats previously controlled both chambers, Republicans now hold a narrow majority in the House. That new strength has emboldened them to insist that any supplemental funding for Ukraine also include robust border security measures, many of which are unpalatable to Democrats.The standoff comes at a dangerous point in Ukraine’s fight against Russia. The White House has warned that the US is “out of money and nearly out of time” to assist Ukraine, suggesting the Russian military will soon gain ground in the war without another infusion of funding for Kyiv.Democrats and Republicans have been negotiating over a potential compromise on border measures to get the aid package across the finish line, but those talks stalled out over the weekend. On Wednesday Joe Biden accused Republicans of negotiating in bad faith.“Republicans think they can get everything they want without any bipartisan compromise. That’s not the answer,” Biden said. “And now they’re willing to literally kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield and damage our national security in the process.”Despite the stark rhetoric, Republicans have presented a united front in their demands for more severe changes to immigration policy. Even Republican lawmakers who remain strongly supportive of additional Ukraine aid, such as the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, have embraced this stance. On Wednesday, McConnell joined his 48 Republican colleagues in opposing the motion to advance the aid package, and he rejected Schumer’s exhortation to “get serious” about threats to democracy.“It is profoundly unserious to pretend that national security priorities don’t include securing our nation’s borders, to warn about borders in jeopardy and not start with the one that’s being overrun here at home,” McConnell said on Thursday. “I’m not in need of any lectures about on the gravity of the challenges facing national security today.”The gridlock has angered and at times perplexed Democrats. In their minds, sending financial aid to US allies such as Ukraine benefits the entire country and thus should be an area of common ground between the two parties. But the recent negotiations appear to have reframed Ukraine aid as a Democratic priority that can only be achieved through concessions to Republicans, specifically on the issue of immigration. That shifting dynamic has not escaped the notice of some frustrated Democrats on Capitol Hill.“I think I’m going to demand that we pass an assault weapons ban or I won’t fund Ukraine,” Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut, told HuffPost. “I guess that’s how things get done around here.”Despite that frustration, Biden appeared open to continuing negotiations on Wednesday, saying he was willing to make “significant compromises on the border” to advance the aid package. McConnell similarly described Wednesday’s failed vote as “a new opportunity to make real progress on legislation that addresses urgent national security priorities”.Schumer also appeared prepared to reopen negotiations on Wednesday, even as he implored Republicans to “come up with something serious instead of the extreme policies they’ve presented thus far”.“This is a serious moment that will have lasting consequences for the 21st century. If Ukraine falls, Putin will not stop there. He will be emboldened,” Schumer said.“Western democracy will begin to enter an age of decline if we aren’t willing to defend it. This Senate – this Republican party – must get serious.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      David Cameron urges US Republicans to send Ukraine more long-range weapons

      by

      David Cameron has used his first trip to the US since his appointment as the UK’s foreign secretary to urge the Republican party to back Ukraine with more long-range weapons, saying the aid represented tremendous value for money.He said for 10% of the US defence budget nearly half of Russia’s prewar military assets had been destroyed. Urging the west be patient about the pace of Ukraine military advances, he argued no red line should be set on western aid save Nato troops directly fighting Russia.“There is nothing that will drive Russia further back and put Putin more on the back foot than actually seeing that Crimea, which is legally part of Ukraine, is properly under attack from Ukrainian forces,” Lord Cameron said. He said that would require the further supply of long-range weaponry.In a change of UK tone if not policy, he also called for the west to seize and not just freeze Russian central bank assets in the west, saying he had looked at all the arguments against making the move, including the potential chilling effect on investments in western economies or breaching past legal undertakings. “So far I have not seen anything that suggests it would be a bad idea,” he said.The seized assets should be used as a down payment for the reparations Russian will eventually have to pay for the illegal invasion of Ukraine, he said. Cameron was planning to raise the issue in talks with the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken.Speaking to an Aspen Security Forum in Washington, Cameron adopted a tone of optimism about Ukraine that has been absent in the British government since the departure of the former prime minister Boris Johnson.He urged Republicans not to be despondent about victory, saying Ukraine had taken back half the territory that Russia stole and sunk a fifth of the Russian Black Sea fleet.He said: “There are many aspects to this war that do look quite like the first world war, the deep trenches, the frozen lines, the big defensive elements and all of that but I think what you’ve seen is where we have gone further on weapons and helped, they can make an enormous difference.”US hesitancy led to Ukraine being supplied ACTMS long-range weapons for use only in October.“There has been a hesitancy over escalatory threats that has not been borne out,” Cameron said. “As long as you don’t cross the red line of Nato soldiers fighting Russia soldiers, we should do everything we can to continue to support Ukraine.”Cameron, who spent time in Congress meeting senior Republicans, said: “Putin’s invasion is the worst example of one state invading and wrecking the sovereignty of another state since the second world war.”On Wednesday the US Senate blocked a supplemental funding bill that included financial aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as well as provisions aimed at bolstering border security. Every Senate Republican opposed advancing the legislation. The 49 to 51 vote increases the likelihood that Congress will fail to approve more funding for Ukraine before the end of the year. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Man convicted in January 6 riots running for Santos seat in Congress

      by

      Of the 15-odd Republican candidates vying to replace George Santos in Congress, one stands out so far – not just because he has now been convicted for trying to obstruct the very body he wants to join, but because he claimed to have “no idea” Congress met at the Capitol building he stormed on January 6.Philip Grillo, a candidate in the special election for Santos’s vacant Long Island seat, was convicted this week of charges relating to the January 6 attack, when he entered and exited the building multiple times, at least once through a broken window.At one point during the protest Grillo, 49, was interviewed on camera about why he was there.“I’m here to stop the steal,” he said, according to the justice department. “It’s our fucking House!”He then made his way further into the Capitol. He also recorded videos of himself in the Capitol. “We fucking did it, you understand? We stormed the Capitol,” Grillo said in one. “We shut it down! We did it! We shut the mother..!”On his third entrance to the building, the justice department said, he could be seen in multiple instances pushing up against police officers and, in another recording, from his cell phone, smoking marijuana inside the building and high-fiving other rioters.Recently, during his trial, he testified that he had “no idea” Congress convened inside the Capitol.Grillo was found guilty this week of the felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding, along with a series of misdemeanors, including entering restricted grounds and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.At trial, his attorney’s argued that their client had “was acting under actual or believed public authority at the time of the alleged offenses” and said “he was and believed he was authorized to engage in the conduct set forth in the indictment”.Grillo is one of the more than 1,230 people who have been charged with crimes related to the effort on January 6 to block certification of the 2020 election.In May, 10 days before Santos was indicted in New York on multiple charges of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and making false statements, Grillo registered as a candidate for New York’s third congressional district seat – the seat Santos, a Republican, held until his expulsion last week.A special election to replace Santos will be held on 13 February, the New York governor Kathy Hochul announced this week. Under electoral rules there is no primary, so Democrats and Republicans will each pick a candidate to go head-to-head.The candidates have not been announced, but Republicans are reported to be edging toward Jack Martins, a former state senator, and Democrats toward Tom Suozzi, who represented the third congressional district before it was redrawn.However, the Republican selection committee has said it is conducting a formal interview process. Committee chairman Joseph Cairo Jr has said the committee has “15 bona fide candidates” to review, including Grillo.The party will be hoping that mud from the Santos affair does not stick to their candidate, and Republicans in the state of New York have in recent years been more successful in leveraging wider turnout margins and courting independent voters than Democrats.For Democrats, the election will be a test of the party’s ability to flip districts in New York City’s suburbs and exurbs that turned red last year in a blow to the party’s majority in Congress.Veteran strategist Hank Sheinkopf told City & State that Santos’s expulsion would likely benefit Republicans because it made them “look like the defenders of the institution, of ethics, and of the courage to oust one of their own”.“Democrats might just for a moment pause and stop gloating. A gone Santos does not a Democrat replacement necessarily create,” Sheinkopf said.Since his disgrace and ouster, Santos has reportedly been making the equivalent of $174,000 a year by charging $400 for brief personalized video messages on the Cameo service.His profile on Cameo describes him as a “former congressional ‘Icon’!” along with a painted fingernail emoji and as “the expelled member of Congress from New York City”.The Cameo founder and chief executive, Steven Galanis, told CBS MoneyWatch this week that Santos has already booked enough Cameo videos to earn more than his congressional salary.“Assuming he can get through the videos, he will exceed what he made in Congress last year,” Galanis told the outlet. More

    • 238 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Here’s what Trump 2.0 will bring: ignorance and vengeance in the US, chaos for world order | Gordon Brown

      by

      This year has been dominated by the Russia-Ukraine war, recession, the China-US standoff, and the Hamas terrorist attack and Gaza war. Yet as earth-shattering as these conflicts and tragedies are, the next two years could aggravate them and surpass them all if the threat of a second Trump presidency comes to pass. At a moment that urgently needs a firefighter to stamp out the embers of conflict, Americans and the rest of the world may find an arsonist in the White House. It is not just the survival of American democracy that will be on the ballot in 2024 but stability and progress everywhere.A second Trump administration, in which he has brazenly vowed to be a dictator on day one, would be a disaster. Domestically, Trump’s “new independence” is no longer just an economic agenda. Gone is the 2016 talk of massive deregulation, privatisation of public services and big tax cuts. Instead, his policies are based on his personal prejudices and his desire for vengeance: deporting homeless people from urban areas, imposing death sentences on drug traffickers, legitimising “shoot and kill” even for shoplifters, repatriating the children of illegal immigrants whom he accuses of “poisoning the blood of our country”, purging free-thinking academics in educational institutions, and – what he says he will make his first act – clearing out what he calls the “vermin” and “traitors”, namely those government officials who would refuse to be yes men for his grotesque policies.When Trump engages in the conspiracy-theory politics of destroying “the deep state”, what he really means is that he will rule by presidential decree and where possible undermine independent federal institutions, thus destroying the checks and balances that have for two and a half centuries been at the heart of the American constitution. No longer would we be able to say that the rule of law and democracy prevails in America, that voting is free of interference or intimidation, or that power is properly accountable. He would kill for good any ideal of the “city on the hill”, and the liberal rules-based order with the US as the model for the world to emulate.Trump has already given us a preview of what awaits in this term, or what he calls his “final battle” for an “independent America”. What is even more frightening is that while in 2016 he was wholly unprepared for the presidency, this time around, extreme-right thinktanks such as the Heritage Foundation are giving him detailed policy playbooks, like one titled Project 2025, which recommends radically reshaping government departments and consolidating power in the executive branch, that he could implement from day one.His international agenda would dramatically exacerbate the instability of an already unstable world. Trump has also boasted that he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, no doubt by conceding to Vladimir Putin, and so even in the run-up to the presidential election, there is no incentive for Russia to come to the negotiating table.Trump’s vision of “America First and Only” is a dark summons to an insular and isolationist America, and an “us versus them” world of zero-sum politics. He conceives of a world where nations compete – like he did as a property developer – to destroy competitors, and thus the US can only win when others lose.And because he has threatened to renege on the US commitment to Nato to treat an attack on one country as an attack on all – he wants Europe to pay the US for American weapons supplied to Ukraine – the European Council is already discussing, with its document Strategic Compass, what President Macron calls “strategic autonomy” from the US.And four more years of the man who thinks climate change is a hoax and wishes to drill and burn oil and gas anywhere would threaten the point of no return for the climate crisis.Trump’s neo-mercantilist economic agenda would have even wider ramifications for America’s allies and adversaries alike. Within days of his coming to power, he would impose a 10% tariff to place “a ring around the collar” of the US economy. While trade was once seen as the route to higher living standards, Trump favours the opposite: trade restrictions as the key to protecting living standards. The automatic overnight tripling of import duties would be a tax on US consumers, but it would at the same time destroy trading relations with every single American ally while creating a global economic downturn in the process. Indeed, the IMF estimates that a full fracturing of the global economy would wipe out 7% of global GDP. This return to mercantilism would benefit no one.Overall, he would accelerate the shift to a more protectionist and multipolar world, and with his plan to withdraw from the World Bank, the IMF and the World Health Organization, attempts at international cooperation would be blown apart. The US, which tended to act multilaterally in a unipolar era, would act unilaterally in a multipolar era.Trump has been upping the rhetoric of vengeance for some time. As he declared at a recent rally: “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” But his policies are based not just on vengeance, but on ignorance.It is crucial to understand that Trump cannot be defeated by narrowing the difference between him and his Democratic opponents. It would be a mistake for them to dilute or abandon progressive policies and indulge in protectionism, mercantilism and xenophobia. Recent elections in Europe, where the far right has made considerable gains, show that if moderates allow the election agenda to be captured by the far right’s anti-immigrant, anti-environmental and anti-internationalist rhetoric, the far right wins.The evidence is that those Americans most likely to switch to Trump are those who now see the US not as a land of opportunity but as an “us versus them” society – in which you can only succeed at others’ expense. There is a pessimism about the country’s future because, for many years, a low-growth America has not been delivering for working people. They want a fairer society, and meeting Trump halfway on his anti-globalisation agenda won’t defeat him, but an open dialogue with the American people that elevates the case for fairness, justice, and equality will.
      Gordon Brown was UK prime minister from 2007 to 2010 More

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Kevin McCarthy, ousted House speaker, says he will leave Congress at end of the year – US politics live

      by

      In an address today, Joe Biden urged Congress to pass his national security supplemental request, including funding to support Ukraine.Speaking from the White House’s Roosevelt Room, the president said:
      Congress has to uphold the national security needs of the United States and, quite frankly, of our partners as well. This cannot wait. Congress needs to pass supplemental funding for Ukraine before they break for the holiday recess. It’s as simple as that.
      Biden also touched on border policies, saying:
      Extreme Republicans are playing chicken with our national security, holding Ukraine’s funding hostage to their extreme partisan border policies.
      Let me be clear: we need real solutions. I support real solutions at the border. I put forward a comprehensive plan the first day I came into office. I’ve made it clear that we need Congress to make changes to fix what is a broken immigration system, because we all know it’s broken. And I’m willing to do significantly more. But in terms of changes to policy and to provide resources that we need at the border, I’m willing to change policy as well.
      The Senate has begun a procedural vote on Joe Biden’s national security supplemental funding request. Sixty votes are required surrounding the $106bn Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan funding.So far, there are 30 yes’s and 29 no’s. The voting remains underway.In an address today, Joe Biden urged Congress to pass his national security supplemental request, including funding to support Ukraine.Speaking from the White House’s Roosevelt Room, the president said:
      Congress has to uphold the national security needs of the United States and, quite frankly, of our partners as well. This cannot wait. Congress needs to pass supplemental funding for Ukraine before they break for the holiday recess. It’s as simple as that.
      Biden also touched on border policies, saying:
      Extreme Republicans are playing chicken with our national security, holding Ukraine’s funding hostage to their extreme partisan border policies.
      Let me be clear: we need real solutions. I support real solutions at the border. I put forward a comprehensive plan the first day I came into office. I’ve made it clear that we need Congress to make changes to fix what is a broken immigration system, because we all know it’s broken. And I’m willing to do significantly more. But in terms of changes to policy and to provide resources that we need at the border, I’m willing to change policy as well.
      A new school board president in Pennsylvania was sworn in on Monday on a stack of frequently banned books.In a video posted by the Recount, Karen Smith, the new Central Bucks school board president can be seen saying her vows on a stack of six banned books.According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the books include Night by Elie Wiesel, The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison, Lily and Dunkin by Donna Gephart, All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M Johnson, Flamer by Mike Curato, and Beyond Magenta by Susan Kukin.According to the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF), between 1 January and 31 August, OIF reported 698 to censor library materials and services and documented challenges to 1,915 unique titles.The ban marks a 20% increase from the same reporting period in 2022, OIF said.Four Republican presidential candidates are set to meet onstage in Alabama tonight for the fourth Republican presidential debate.The Guardian’s Lauren Gambino reports:Four White House hopefuls will meet onstage in Alabama for the fourth Republican presidential primary debate, the smallest lineup yet as the window for denting Donald Trump’s lead narrows.Wednesday night’s debate, hosted by the cable network NewsNation at the Moody Music Hall at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, offers one of the last major opportunities for the candidates to make their case to Republican voters before the party’s nominating contest begins next month.The two-hour event will feature Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, and Nikki Haley, a former governor of South Carolina and former United Nations ambassador, who are locked in an increasingly combative scrap to be the second-place alternative to Trump. They will be joined by Chris Christie, a former governor of New Jersey and Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur, who both trail far behind.Read the full story here:Joe Biden has announced that his administration is approving another $4.8bn in student debt cancellation for 80,300 people.In a statement released on Wednesday, the president said that this brings the total debt cancellation that his administration has approved to $132bn for over 3.6 million Americans.Biden said:
      Today’s announcement comes on top of all we’ve been able to achieve for students and student loan borrowers in the past few years.
      This includes: achieving the largest increases in Pell Grants in over a decade to help families who earn less than roughly $60,000 a year; fixing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program so that borrowers who go into public service get the debt relief they’re entitled to under the law; and creating the most generous Income-Driven Repayment plan in history – the Save plan.
      The Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison has released the following statement on Kevin McCarthy’s resignation announcement in which he said the US will be “better off without Kevin in office”:
      In his short time as speaker, Kevin McCarthy managed to plunge the People’s House into chaos in the name of serving one person and one person alone: Donald Trump. At every turn, Kevin sought to give his puppet master a lifeline, even after the horrific events of January 6, and spent his embarrassing speakership bending the knee to the most extreme factions of the MAGA base. This anticlimactic end to Kevin’s political career is in line with the rest of his time on Capitol Hill – plagued by cowardice, incompetence, and fecklessness. Our country will be better off without Kevin in office, but his failed tenure in the House should serve as a stark warning to the country about the future of the GOP – no matter how much he kowtowed to the extreme right, no matter how much he kissed the ring, none of it was MAGA enough for the de facto leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump.
      Wisconsin’s Democratic governor Tony Evers has vetoed a Republican bill that would have banned gender-affirming care including surgeries and hormone treatments for minors in the state.In a statement released on Wednesday, Evers said:
      I promised I would veto any bill that makes Wisconsin a less safe, less inclusive, and less welcoming place for LGBTQ folks and kids—and I keep my promises.
      George Santos, the expelled Republican representative from New York, is reportedly making six figures by selling Cameo videos.The Guardian’s Gloria Oladipo reports:The disgraced lawmaker George Santos is reportedly making six figures by selling videos on the platform Cameo, generating more income than his previous salary as a US congressman, Semafor first reported.Santos, a former Republican representative from New York state, was expelled from Congress last Friday following a blistering ethics report that detailed his misuse of campaign funds.Since his removal, Santos has been publishing videos on Cameo, a website that allows users to purchase personalized videos from celebrities. The disgraced congressman has drastically increased the price of his videos, now selling them for $400 a pop from his initial $75-per-video price point.Read the full story here:Here is a video Kevin McCarthy released surrounding his resignation announcement:In the video, McCarthy said:
      Traveling the country and serving with all of you, I have encountered far more people that want to build something than those who want to tear it down. I have faith in this country because America is more than a country, America is an idea.
      Today, I am driven by the same purpose that I felt when I arrived in Congress but now it is time to pursue my passion in a different arena.
      Joe Biden has responded to a question on whether he thinks there are any Democrats who could beat Donald Trump other than himself.”Probably 50 of them,” replied Biden.He then went on to say, “I’m not the only one who can beat him, but I will beat him.”In response to Kevin McCarthy’s resignation announcement, California’s Democratic representative Adam Schiff said:
      “My dad asked me recently what I thought of Kevin McCarthy. In light of his retirement, I figured I’d share …”
      He went on to post a video in which he spoke about McCarthy, saying, “I think he’s a bad egg.”South Carolina’s Republican senator Lindsey Graham has released the following statement on Kevin McCarthy’s resignation announcement:
      I wish Kevin McCarthy well in his future endeavors to help the conservative cause. Kevin has much to be proud of, rising through the ranks to Minority Leader and Speaker of the House. He navigated the Republican Party through some of the most turbulent periods in recent history, getting results in difficult circumstances.
      “He will be missed, but I am sure his contributions to the future of the Republican Party will be enormous.”
      California’s Democratic representative Eric Swalwell, who predicted earlier this week that McCarthy would leave Congress, has responded to McCarthy’s resignation with a check mark emoji.Earlier this week, Swalwell tweeted:
      “With Santos gone, you’re hearing it here first: the next GOP member to leave Congress will be@SpeakerMcCarthy. No way he stays. A guy who kidney punches his colleagues from behind is too afraid to serve out a full term with them. I bet he’s gone by end of year. What say you?”
      In an odd and fairly threatening post, Georgia’s Republican representative Majorie Taylor Greene responded to the news of Kevin McCarthy resigning, saying:
      “Well..
      Now in 2024, we will have a 1 seat majority in the House of Representatives.
      Congratulations Freedom Caucus for one and 105 Rep who expel our own for the other.
      I can assure you Republican voters didn’t give us the majority to crash the ship.
      Hopefully no one dies.”
      Kevin McCarthy’s resignation will come before the special elections which are expected to take place either next February or March to fill the vacancy left by George Santos who was expelled from the House last Friday.With McCarthy gone, there will be two Republican vacancies in the House. More