World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on consequences for Trump: this beginning took bravery | Editorial

      by

      A 79-year-old advice columnist – along with a handful of other brave women who testified in her case – has done what legal and political institutions have not yet managed: held the former president Donald Trump accountable in law for his actions, and for his lies.In finding that he sexually abused E Jean Carroll in the 1990s, and subsequently defamed her, albeit not finding him liable for rape, the jury in her civil suit laid down an important marker.Though it awarded $5m (£4m) to Ms Carroll, money cannot erase the initial attack, the intrusive memories she has endured or her continued avoidance of romantic or sexual relationships. Mr Trump compounded the damage when he attacked her as a “wack job” pursuing a “hoax” after she described what had happened.It required courage to take on a man who was one of the most powerful people in the world, who may be so again, and who attracts and encourages irrational and aggressive support. She has received death threats, and the judge advised jurors to remain anonymous “for a long time”. Asked if she regretted bringing the case, Ms Carroll replied: “About five times a day.”It is too easy to write off this hard-earned victory by focusing solely on the fact that its impact on voters is likely to be limited. No one imagines it will sink Mr Trump’s political fortunes. His ability to float past or even capitalise upon his worst acts, transmuting them into fundraising and campaigning capital, is both remarkable and depressing. His support has proved resilient through impeachment, indictment and general disgrace. But this verdict stands on its own merits, in curtailing the impunity he has enjoyed for too long.It would be wrong to imagine that any case could fix a broken political system, or, indeed, root out entrenched misogyny. It is a sign of just how bad things are that it is entirely likely that the Republicans will go into the 2024 presidential election with a candidate found by a court to be a sexual abuser – and that, if they do, he may well win.Mr Trump was elected in 2016 even after the emergence of the Access Hollywood tape in which he boasted that “When you’re a star, they let you do it … Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” At that point, Republicans attacked him over his words. On Tuesday, most were silent about his deeds. Though the tally of women accusing him of assault has risen to at least 26, his share of the female vote actually rose in 2020, with an outright majority of white women backing him. Nonetheless, he did not want this trial, still less this outcome, and has said he will appeal, claiming the case to be part of “the greatest witch-hunt of all time”.This was a victory for Ms Carroll and, as she has said, for other women. It reflects the legacy of the #MeToo movement, sometimes written off as a blip due to the backlash against it. The journalist herself credited the flood of allegations about powerful, predatory men with persuading her to speak out. It also led to the New York law that temporarily lifted the statute of limitations on such allegations, making her case possible.Change does not always come in immediate, dramatic and decisive fashion. It may be slow, halting, partial and unsatisfactory, yet nonetheless real and significant. Mr Trump now faces mounting jeopardy on multiple legal fronts. Whatever the outcome of other cases, this one still counts.
      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      E Jean Carroll v Donald Trump: how the civil court case unfolded

      by

      When E Jean Carroll, a magazine writer, came forward to describe how she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in a Manhattan department store in 1996, Trump called her claim “a complete con job” and accused her of making it up to sell books. But on Tuesday, a New York jury – in a civil, rather than criminal, case – disagreed. They found that he was liable for sexual abuse and defamation – and ordered him to pay her $5m (£4m) in damages.The jury did not find that Trump had raped Carroll, as she alleged. But it said he was shown by a preponderance of the evidence to have sexually abused her, and then told a malicious falsehood about her that did serious damage to her reputation. After years of credible allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump, Tuesday’s verdict is the first time that a court has said that such a claim has been proven to be true.Here’s a summary of the case.How E Jean Carroll came forwardCarroll, a writer and advice columnist, first went public with her accusations against Trump in 2019, in the aftermath of the revelations about Harvey Weinstein that sparked the #MeToo movement. In a book excerpt published in New York magazine, Carroll wrote that after a chance encounter at the Bergdorf Goodman department store, Trump forced her against a wall and pulled down her tights before pressing his fingers into her vagina and raping her.She had never come forward before, she said, having seen the treatment handed out to other victims and concluding that it “never sounded like much fun”. And, she said, “I run the risk of making him more popular by revealing what he did.”Because the statute of limitations had expired, there was no prospect of Trump facing criminal charges over her allegations. But last year, New York state passed the Adult Survivors Act, allowing victims a one-year window to file a sexual assault lawsuit over older cases. That is how the case wound up in a Manhattan courtroom for the last two weeks.The case against Trump – and what the jury saidBecause the trial in New York was a civil rather than criminal case, Trump faces only a financial sanction and has not been convicted of anything. Carroll’s lawsuit sought damages for battery – a technical term for her claims that he “forcibly raped and groped” her – as well as for defamation after he responded to her 2019 allegations by calling her a liar. A summary of the key evidence heard by the jury is here.Carroll told the jury: “I’m here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation. I’m here to try and get my life back.”The jury was asked to reach a decision on the basis of the “preponderance of evidence” standard that applies in civil cases – that is, that the claims were more likely to be true than false. (You can see how her lawyer defined that here.) The judge told them to put “beyond reasonable doubt” out of their minds.The jury of six men and three women found that Carroll had not proved rape by that standard. But they said that she had shown that Trump had sexually abused her, and that she was injured by his conduct.They also found that Trump defamed her by claiming that her allegations were a hoax. They ordered him to pay her just over $2m in damages over sexual abuse, and almost $3m over the defamation.Carroll’s evidenceIn her testimony, Carroll gave a detailed account of the incident, and how it has affected her life. Ever since, she said, she has found it impossible even to smile at a man she was attracted to, adding: “It left me unable to ever have a romantic life again.”Carroll’s case was bolstered by evidence from two friends of hers confirming her account that she had immediately told them about the incident. Another significant plank of Carroll’s case was the evidence from two other women – Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds – who say that they were sexually assaulted by Trump,, and described incidents of forcible groping and kissing 36 years apart.The jury were also played the infamous Access Hollywood tape, made public during the 2016 election campaign, in which Trump said: “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything … Grab ‘em by the pussy.” Carroll’s lawyer argued that the evidence revealed that Trump was a “predator” with a “playbook” for sexual assault.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump’s evidenceDespite claiming that Carroll was the perpetrator of a malicious hoax against him, and saying on a visit to Scotland that he was “going to go back and I’m going to confront this woman”, Trump did not testify in the case. Nor did his lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, call any witnesses. Tacopina claimed that this was because “Donald Trump doesn’t have a story to tell here, other than to say it’s a lie”.While Trump didn’t appear in person, the jury did see footage from a deposition he gave in the case. (You can watch it here.) He denied Carroll’s accusations by saying that she was “not his type” – but also mistook her in a photograph for his ex-wife, Marla Maples. Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan – who Trump volunteered was also “not his type” – suggested that his confusion undermined his claim that he was not attracted to Carroll.On his remarks in the Access Hollywood tape that famous men can grab women’s genitals, Trump said that “historically, that’s true with stars … unfortunately or fortunately”, and said that he considers himself a star. Kaplan said he had in effect been “a witness against himself”.When cross-examining Carroll, Tacopina took an approach that Chris McGreal wrote had “​​raised more than a few eyebrows in the legal community and left some spectators in court aghast”, casting doubt on the plausibility of her evidence not to have screamed or have called the police. Carroll replied: “One of the reasons women don’t come forward is because they’re always asked: ‘Why didn’t you scream?’ Some women scream. Some women don’t. It keeps women silent.”The consequences for Trump’s political careerIn 2016, Trump famously boasted: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Now a version of that question appears central to his prospects of another shot at the White House.In the aftermath of the verdict, Trump’s supporters variously focused on the fact that he had not been found liable for rape, ridiculed the standard of proof applied in the case (as is quite typical in civil suits), and made dark claims of political conspiracy. Trump himself claimed that he got “treated very badly by the Clinton-appointed judge”, called the case “a continuation of the greatest witchhunt of all time”, and said he had “no idea who this woman is”.Trump is likely to appeal, though most legal analysts see few plausible grounds to do so. The first live forum in which he is likely to face questions over the case comes on Wednesday, in a town hall event for CNN.Given Trump already has a variety of other legal cases hanging over him, and has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct in the past, it seems unlikely that his avowed supporters will see much in the verdicts to persuade them to change their minds. Even his rivals for the nomination will probably perform verbal gymnastics to avoid directly criticising him over the outcome, lest they alienate the Republican base.There was “no chorus of Democrats and Republicans calling for Trump, 76, to drop out of the primary”, David Smith writes in his analysis. Trump is seven points ahead of Joe Biden in the most recent poll. But there is already plenty of electoral evidence that swing voters have been put off by the allegations that have long been attached to him – and the jury’s finding in this case is arguably the most concrete proof of bad character that he has ever had to face. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Dear CNN, giving Trump a town-hall platform is the height of irresponsibility | Siva Vaidhyanathan

      by

      With 18 months to go before the next US presidential election, it’s already clear that – barring a physical collapse or two – Joe Biden will represent the Democrats and Donald Trump will carry the hopes of Republicans.This will be the first presidential election after one of the candidates, the president at the time, tried to foment a violent insurrection to overturn the last election. It will be the first election since 1912 in which a former president (in that case Theodore Roosevelt) challenges a sitting president (in that case William Howard Taft). It will be the first election in American history in which one candidate has already been impeached – twice, in fact. It will be the first election since 1800 in which one of the major candidates can reasonably be called a threat to or disloyal to the United States of America (Aaron Burr in 1800 was the first). And Burr had not yet revealed his propensity for treachery in 1800. It will be the first election in which one of the candidates has been indicted on state criminal charges (and possibly federal charges by the time of the election).In other words, it will be a weird election in every way. Yet, despite staring at a growing, violent, nativist, fascist-like movement that doggedly supports Trump, the mainstream American news media seems poised to treat both candidates as if they are viable, reasonable representatives of the traditions their political parties have grown to symbolize.It’s as if they have learned nothing.CNN, the leading 24-hour news network, will host Trump for a “town hall” forum in New Hampshire on Wednesday, as if he were a regular candidate leading the race for the nomination of a regular party. Of course, CNN will probably do the same for the three or four others who are likely to challenge him for the Republican nomination (so far, the former UN ambassador Nikki Haley and former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson are the only viable non-crank candidates).A few more might jump in, but the more challenges Trump faces, the more likely he will lock up the nomination on the first primary day, rather than a month later.Putting a microphone and three cameras on Trump as if he were just another candidate and not an instigator of the violent disruption of American democracy and leader of a conspiracy to overthrow the results of a national election is the height of journalistic irresponsibility.The conservative columnist Alyssa Farah Griffin defended CNN by saying that the host, Kaitlan Collins, is “tough” and won’t let Trump “get away with lying without being called out”. That’s exactly the problem. CNN is in the business of performing toughness and balance, not primarily producing journalism that serves to enlighten citizens and enhance democracy. CNN seems to exist to create tweetable moments of anchor “toughness”, through which the celebrities who appear on air make events and interviews all about them. The CNN faces are tough enough to stand in the wind and rain of a hurricane, and tough enough to call out a politician – even a bully like Trump – for lying. But that’s easy and shallow. Ultimately, it hurts democracy.The issue is not whether Trump gets caught in a lie or “gets away” with something. Trump doesn’t care when that happens and neither do Republican supporters. We have 40 years of Trump shamelessness to demonstrate that – seven years of Trump as a political figure. He has been “called out” time and time again. It makes no difference to his support or to his habits. Exposing Trump as a liar changes no minds about anything.But he will receive the imprimatur of respectability for warranting this platform in the first place. CNN and all journalists must concede that they perform that work, despite wishing and pretending they did not. They have just been too lazy to question doing things the way they had always done things. Every major news organization has done the same. No one has wanted to admit it is a dangerous moment or new environment.So how should mainstream journalistic organizations like CNN cover Trump – or any candidate – through the election? All plans and policies should be based on the realization that democracy is under direct threat from many small factions in the United States, supported by at least one foreign power (Russia), and that they all support the return of Donald Trump to power. Trump himself is immune to shaming and exposure. So that 20th-century assumption about shining a light or exposing or embarrassing a wrongdoer is not appropriate now. The situation is more dire and the political climate in the United States is beyond such tepid, genteel moves.News organizations should do everything differently. No more “town halls” for any candidate, not just Trump. No more interviews in comfortable chairs and good lighting intended to demonstrate both access to power and a certain toughness in approach. No more unfiltered coverage of rallies and speeches as if they constitute “news” before they are ever broadcast or rendered in text.Coverage should be driven by clear editorial choices. Journalists should decide what the candidates will respond to. They should approach each story based on an issue at hand, in the country, in the world, rather than whatever the candidate chooses to say that day. Every report should be couched in deep context, with every quote encased in statements and reminders of the candidate’s record, the facts about the issue, and what the choice is for voters.Reports should be delivered as multimedia packages, accompanied by deep research just a click away from the video, audio or text that invites the citizen into the story. Organizations should begin planning such coverage now so that nothing they do gets hijacked by shenanigans or games by any candidate – with full knowledge that hijacking the normal practices of 20th-century political journalism was precisely Trump’s strategy from 2015 through today. Steve Bannon told us so. Editors and reporters chose not to take it seriously.If a potential story does not serve to inform voters about what is at stake, it should never make it to publication or broadcast. That’s a simple test: does this story enlighten and enable the electorate? Or does this story merely serve to enrage and entertain the electorate? The moment when news organizations began gathering deep and sophisticated data about audience engagement, they began competing for attention against games and pornography and sitcoms and YouTube clips. That’s a fact of the business and a fact of life. But pandering to that fact instead of resisting it is rendering journalism incapable of functioning because journalism can never win the entertainment game.News organizations must accept that they make news by virtue of their choices. They don’t cover things that already exist as “news”. They are political actors. They must choose democracy or risk being used for free by the forces that oppose democracy. The stakes are too high to continue doing business as usual. The stakes are high in a business sense, of course. But they are higher in the sense of our survival as a democratic republic in a world in which democracy is in danger. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Wednesday briefing: How a jury concluded Donald Trump is a sexual predator

      by

      Good morning. When E Jean Carroll, a magazine writer, came forward to describe how she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in a Manhattan department store in 1996, Trump called her claim “a complete con job” and accused her of making it up to sell books. But yesterday, a New York jury – in a civil, rather than criminal, case – disagreed. They found that he was liable for sexual abuse and defamation – and ordered him to pay her $5 million in damages.The jury did not find that Trump had raped Carroll, as she alleged. But it said that he was shown by a preponderance of the evidence to have sexually abused her, and then told a malicious falsehood about her that did serious damage to her reputation. After years of credible allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump, yesterday’s verdict is the first time that a court has said that such a claim has been proven to be true.Step back from the circus that invariably surrounds Trump and his behaviour, and the fact that the leading Republican candidate for president has been found by a jury to have been liable for sexual abuse – defined as subjecting a victim to sexual contact by physical force – appears extraordinary. Today’s newsletter explains the complex legal process that led to this point, and what it might mean for Trump’s prospects of returning to the White House. Here are the headlines.Five big stories
      Science | The first UK baby created with DNA from three people has been born after a groundbreaking IVF procedure that aims to prevent children from inheriting incurable diseases. The technique, known as mitochondrial donation treatment (MDT), uses tissue from the eggs of healthy female donors to create embryos free from harmful mutations carried by their mothers.
      Pakistan | Internet services have been suspended across Pakistan after violence erupted when the former prime minister, Imran Khan, was arrested at a court appearance in Islamabad and dragged into an armoured vehicle by security forces in riot gear. Khan’s arrest came after he repeated allegations that Pakistan’s powerful military establishment had tried to assassinate him twice.
      UK news | One of the UK’s most prominent business leaders, the Tesco chair John Allan, faces claims of inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour from four women, the Guardian can reveal. John Allan denies allegations of inappropriate touching and remarks in three cases but apologised for comments about a woman’s appearance at a CBI conference in 2019.
      Protest | Conservative MPs have condemned the use of new laws to hold anti-monarchy protesters for up to 16 hours during the coronation after the Metropolitan police admitted “regrets” over some of the arrests. Meanwhile, Labour leader Keir Starmer declined to say whether he would tear up the public order bill under which six members of the protest group Republic were arrested.
      Brazil | Brazilian politicians, celebrities and social activists have paid tribute to the vivacious, loving and combative former congressman and campaigner David Miranda, who has died in Rio de Janeiro aged 37. The death of Miranda, also a columnist for Guardian US, was announced by his husband, the American journalist and lawyer Glenn Greenwald.
      In depth: ‘He lied and shattered my reputation. I’m here to try and get my life back’E Jean Carroll (above), a writer and advice columnist, first went public with her accusations against Donald Trump in 2019, in the aftermath of the revelations about Harvey Weinstein that sparked the #MeToo movement. In a book excerpt published in New York magazine, Carroll wrote that after a chance encounter at the Bergdorf Goodman department store, Trump forced her against a wall and pulled down her tights before pressing his fingers into her vagina and raping her.She had never come forward before, she said, having seen the treatment handed out to other victims and concluding that it “never sounded like much fun”. And, she said, “I run the risk of making him more popular by revealing what he did.”Because the statute of limitations had expired, there was no prospect of Trump facing criminal charges over her allegations. But last year, New York state passed the Adult Survivors Act, allowing victims a one-year window to file a sexual assault lawsuit over older cases. That is how the case wound up in a Manhattan courtroom for the last two weeks.The case against Trump – and what the jury saidAgain, the trial in New York was a civil rather than criminal case – which means that Trump faces only a financial sanction and has not been convicted of anything. Carroll’s lawsuit sought damages for battery – a technical term for her claims that he “forcibly raped and groped” her – as well as for defamation after he responded to her 2019 allegations by calling her a liar. A summary of the key evidence heard by the jury is here.Carroll told the jury: “I’m here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation. I’m here to try and get my life back.”The jury was asked to reach a decision on the basis of the “preponderance of evidence” standard that applies in civil cases – that is, that the claims were more likely to be true than false. (You can see how her lawyer defined that here.) The judge told them to put “beyond reasonable doubt” out of their minds.The jury of six men and three women found that Carroll had not proved rape by that standard. But they said that she had shown that Trump had sexually abused her, and that she was injured by his conduct.They also found that Trump defamed her by claiming that her allegations were a hoax. And they ordered him to pay her just over $2 million in damages over sexual abuse, and almost $3 million over the defamation.In a piece from inside the courtroom, Chris McGreal wrote that after the verdict, Carroll “stopped, on the edge of tears, to hug friends and supporters at the front of the public gallery. Then she walked into a small conference room with her legal team where, finally, they could let out cries of delight.”E Jean Carroll’s evidenceIn her testimony, Carroll gave a detailed account of the incident, and how it has affected her life. Ever since, she said, she has found it impossible even to smile at a man she was attracted to, adding: “It left me unable to ever have a romantic life again.”Carroll’s case was bolstered by evidence from two friends of hers confirming her account that she had immediately told them about the incident. Another significant plank of Carroll’s case was the evidence from two other women who say that they were sexually assaulted by Trump, Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds, who described incidents of forcible groping and kissing 36 years apart.The jury were also played the infamous Access Hollywood tape, made public during the 2016 election campaign, in which Trump said: “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything … Grab ‘em by the pussy.” Carroll’s lawyer argued that the evidence revealed that Trump was a “predator” with a “playbook” for sexual assault.Trump’s evidenceDespite claiming that Carroll was the perpetrator of a malicious hoax against him, and saying on a visit to Scotland that he was “going to go back and I’m going to confront this woman”, Trump did not testify in the case. Nor did his lawyer, Joseph Tacopina (above), call any witnesses. Tacopina claimed that this was because “Donald Trump doesn’t have a story to tell here, other than to say it’s a lie.”While Trump didn’t appear in person, the jury did see footage from a deposition he gave in the case. (You can watch it here.) He denied Carroll’s accusations by saying that she was “not his type” – but also mistook her in a photograph for his ex-wife, Marla Maples. Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan – who Trump volunteered was also “not his type” – suggested that his confusion undermined his claim that he was not attracted to Carroll. On his remarks in the Access Hollywood tape that famous men can grab women’s genitals, Trump said that “historically, that’s true with stars … unfortunately or fortunately”, and said that he considers himself a star. Roberta Kaplan said he had effectively been “a witness against himself”.When cross-examining Carroll, Tacopina took an approach which Chris McGreal wrote had “​​raised more than a few eyebrows in the legal community and left some spectators in court aghast”, casting doubt on the plausibility of her evidence not to have screamed or have called the police. Carroll replied: “One of the reasons women don’t come forward is because they’re always asked: ‘Why didn’t you scream?’ Some women scream. Some women don’t. It keeps women silent.”The consequences for Trump’s political careerIn 2016, Trump famously boasted: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Now a version of that question appears central to his prospects of another shot at the White House.In the aftermath of the verdict yesterday, Trump’s supporters variously focused on the fact that he had not been found liable for rape, ridiculed the standard of proof applied in the case (as is quite typical in civil suits), and made dark claims of political conspiracy. Trump himself claimed that he got “treated very badly by the Clinton-appointed judge”, called the case “a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time”, and said he has “no idea who this woman is”.Trump is now likely to appeal, though most legal analysts see few plausible grounds to do so. The first live forum in which he is likely to face questions over the case comes tonight, in a town hall event for CNN.Given Trump already has a variety of other legal cases hanging over him, and has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct in the past, it seems unlikely that his avowed supporters will see much in the verdicts to persuade them to change their minds. Even his rivals for the nomination will likely perform verbal gymnastics to avoid directly criticising him over the outcome, lest they alienate the Republican base.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThere was “no chorus of Democrats and Republicans calling for Trump, 76, to drop out of the primary”, David Smith writes in his analysis. Trump is seven points ahead of Joe Biden in the most recent poll. But there is already plenty of electoral evidence that swing voters have been put off by the allegations that have long been attached to him – and the jury’s finding in this case is arguably the most concrete proof of bad character that he has ever had to face.What else we’ve been reading
      Barbara Speed’s piece on our collective obsession with having the right kind of sleep is incisive. She points out that getting a good night’s sleep is usually not a result of personal will but rather because of physical conditions or economic inequality: “Our sleep reflects not the bedtime tea we drink or what type of light our phone screen emits, but what is demanded of us in our waking lives.” Nimo
      After the leader of anti-monarchist group Republic Graham Smith was arrested at the coronation, he’s bullish in this interview with Daniel Boffey: “If they were trying to diminish our publicity in order to enhance theirs, it massively backfired, in a spectacular way.” Archie
      Andrew Gumbel’s dispatch from Los Angeles makes for bewildering reading as he unpacks the blunders that led to the LAPD publicly releasing the names and photos of 9,000 cops, including undercover officers working on dangerous assignments. Nimo
      Jon Henley has a very useful explainer on this weekend’s election in Turkey – where Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is facing a serious challenge to his decades-long tenure as president. And Ruth Michaelson and Deniz Barış Narlı report on the mood in Antalya: “Even if the price of onions reaches 1bn lira, our choice won’t change,” one voter says. “Always Erdoğan.” Archie
      ICYMI: The Atlantic’s Caitlin Dickerson won a Pulitzer prize this week for her meticulously detailed 2022 investigation into how the US government’s family separation policy at the southern border materialised, tracing its inception all the way back to 9/11. Nimo
      SportFootball | A stunning second-half goal from Kevin De Bruyne cancelled out Vinícius Júnior’s opener to leave the semi-final poised at 1-1 before the second leg in Manchester next week. Barney Ronay wrote that despite Erling Haaland’s impact, De Bruyne “is still City’s best, most forceful, most alluring creative player”.Rugby | The Rugby Football Union has banned Alex Murphy, a distinguished former council member, from Twickenham for making racist comments including using the N-word during a Six Nations match last year. The news comes just after an investigation by the Rugby Football Union that concluded that racism exists at every level of the game in England.Cricket | Jofra Archer has been ruled out of the remainder of the Indian Premier League season and is returning to England to improve his chances of participating in the Ashes. Ali Martin writes that “there are few more alluring fast bowlers” than Archer – but now “concerns over his involvement in the Ashes are inevitable”.The front pagesWednesday’s front pages are dominated by the news of advice columnist E Jean Carroll’s court victory over former US president Donald Trump. The Guardian leads with “Trump sexually abused writer in 1990s, New York jury finds,” and the Telegraph has an almost identical headline: “Trump sexually assaulted writer, US jury finds”. The Daily Mail has a slightly different angle with “Is this the end of Trump’s new bid to be president?” while the Daily Mirror baldly states “Trump the sex attacker”.The Times splashes on “Britain set to blacklist Russia’s Wagner group”. The top story in the Financial Times is “Blood-scandal compensation scheme expected to cost taxpayer up to £10bn”. The Metro looks back on Russia’s Victory parade, labelling it “Stark raving Vlad,” while the i says it has an exclusive with “Archbishop clashes with No 10 on migration”.Today in FocusDid distress calls go unanswered in the run-up to a fatal Channel disaster?In November 2021 a dinghy crossing from France to the UK overturned, and at least 27 people drowned. Questions are being asked over whether distress calls were effectively ignored in run-up to worst Channel disaster in 30 yearsCartoon of the day | Ella BaronThe UpsideA bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all badThe 90s are enjoying another resurgence and this time one of the most beloved toys of the era is getting a refresh: the Tamagotchi. The keychain-sized gaming devices instantly exploded in popularity 30 years ago, but disappeared from the playground just as quickly. Now they are back in the form of Peridot, from Pokémon Go creator Niantic.Players are invited to hatch and care for their own unique digital pet, just like a Tamagotchi, but this time it works via an augmented reality app, meaning that your new friend appears in your real-world surroundings – so you can take it for walks in the park or play with it in your home.Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every SundayBored at work?And finally, the Guardian’s puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day – with plenty more on the Guardian’s Puzzles app for iOS and Android. Until tomorrow.
      Quick crossword
      Cryptic crossword
      Wordiply More

    • 250 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump rages at sexual abuse verdict after being told to pay E Jean Carroll $5m in damages – live

      by

      From 2h agoIn a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump reacted to a federal jury finding him liable for sexually abusing and defaming advice columnist E Jean Carroll, and ordering him to pay a total of $5m in damages:
      I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE – A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!
      New York Republican representative George Santos has been criminally charged by federal prosecutors, CNN is exclusively reporting. The disgraced lawmaker, who has admitted to a number of falsehoods and fabrications and been accused of many more, is expected to appear in federal court as early as Wednesday, CNN reported.The nature of the charges are not yet clear, but Santos had been under investigation over alleged false statements regarding campaign finance filings and other issues.In addition to the criminal charges, Santos has faced inquiries related to complaints alleging sexual harassment and campaign finance violations. He is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee.His alarming behavior has ranged from political misconduct to more bizarre incidents, including stealing cash raised for a veteran’s dying dog, lying about being a producer on a Broadway musical about Spider-Man, and falsely claiming his mother survived the 9/11 terrorist attacks.Santos has admitted to smaller infractions including fabricating his resume but denies many of the other allegations, and has meanwhile announced a bid for reelection.Our video team has put together this explainer looking at how Donald Trump’s legal troubles might affect his bid for the presidency in 2024. Trump still faces criminal charges around his alleged role in the January 6 Capitol attack and whether he took steps to remove classified documents from a storage room at his Mar-a-Lago resort. This two cases could lead to jail time.Our reporter Hugo Lowell, says Trump doesn’t see his “legal difficulties as an impediment” to his bid because he believes he might be treated differently by the justice department if he is a presidential candidate.Former Fox News star Tucker Carlson will be reviving his show on Twitter, after being abruptly dismissed from the network last month.With a tweet simply captioned “We’re back”, Carlson shared a video discussing his next moves. The media pundit had become the most successful host on Fox News, garnering a dedicated following while spouting xenophobic and racist rhetoric on his show.In his return video, Carlson echoed many of the same points he has often asserted: that the so-called mainstream media is full of propaganda and lies.Carlson said he would be taking his show to Twitter, which he described as “the last remaining platform in the world” to allow free speech.“Twitter is not a partisan site, everybody’s allowed here, and we think that’s a good thing,” he said. “And yet, for the most part, the news that you see analyzed on Twitter comes from media organizations that are themselves thinly disguised propaganda outlets.”Carlson’s pivot to Twitter comes after the site has become more welcoming to mostly conservative accounts previously banned for spreading hate speech and disinformation under Elon Musk’s new direction. The billionaire took over the site in October 2022 and promptly allowed previously banished accounts to return, including that of former president Donald Trump.Carlson did not make any mention of Musk in his video. He promised a “new version of the show we’ve been doing for the last six and a half years” to his followers.Following his departure from Fox News, his former employers have replaced his popular show with an interim program called Fox News Tonight, which features rotating pundits from the network until a replacement can be found.California’s senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, is poised to return to the Senate after a three-month health absence during which she missed upwards of 90 floor votes.The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, released a statement on Tuesday welcoming her return.“I’m glad that my friend Dianne is back in the Senate and ready to roll up her sleeves and get to work,” it said. “After talking with her multiple times over the past few weeks, it’s clear she is back where she wants to be and ready to deliver for California.”The 89-year-old lawmaker has been facing growing calls to resign amid concerns about her physical and cognitive health. Her inability to attend votes has also impeded the Democrats’ ability to confirm nominees from President Joe Biden, as Democrats hold just a slim majority in the Senate. Feinstein’s absence led to several stalemates and stalled votes, they argue – a characterization Feinstein has disputed.Hello readers, this is Kari Paul from the Guardian’s west coast bureau taking over for the next couple hours. Stay tuned for updates.Before the verdict was read, Law & Crime reports that federal judge Lewis Kaplan advised jurors on whether or not to make public their involvement in the case against Donald Trump:Expect to hear lots of reactions in the hours to come from Washington and elsewhere to this verdict, and the Guardian’s Kari Paul is now taking over the blog to keep you posted on the latest developments.A spokesman for the former president elaborated on his objections to the verdict reached against him by a federal jury in New York City.“Make no mistake, this entire bogus case is a political endeavor targeting President Trump because he is now an overwhelming frontrunner to be once again elected president of the United States,” the spokesman said in a statement, which added that the verdict was part of the “Democratic party’s never-ending witch-hunt”.“Sadly, for the enemies of American freedom and democracy, President Trump will never stop fighting for the American people, no matter what the radical Democrats dream up next,” the spokesman continued.“This case will be appealed, and we will ultimately win.”Reuters reports that Donald Trump plans to appeal the sexual abuse and defamation verdict against him.Meanwhile, here’s a clip of E Jean Carroll as she departed the courthouse:The hardworking reporters at Law & Crime caught E Jean Carroll as she was exiting the courthouse in New York City, where she sounded positive about the outcome of the lawsuit she brought against Donald Trump:In a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump reacted to a federal jury finding him liable for sexually abusing and defaming advice columnist E Jean Carroll, and ordering him to pay a total of $5m in damages:
      I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE – A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!
      While jurors did not find Donald Trump liable for the most damning allegation E Jean Carroll brought against him – rape – their verdict is nonetheless going to cost the former president, both financially and perhaps in terms of his reputation.The New York City jury found him liable for defamation and sexual abuse, and have ordered him to pay a total of $5m in damages: for the battery claim, $2m in compensation and $20,000 in punitive damages, and for defamation, $2.7m in compensation and $280,000 in punitive damages.Trump has not yet commented about the verdict on Truth Social, which he usually uses to make his opinions on matters known. But he’s set to tomorrow evening participate in a town hall organized by CNN in New Hampshire – and surely be asked about the verdicts then.A federal jury in New York City found that Donald Trump defamed advice columnist E Jean Carroll with an October 2022 social media post in which he called her allegations a “con job”, Reuters reports.The jury awarded Carroll a total of $3m in damages, $2.7m of which are compensatory and $280,000 of which are punitive. They also awarded $20,000 in punitive damages against Trump over a claim of battery made by Carroll.A federal jury in New York City has found that Donald Trump sexually abused advice columnist E Jean Carroll and awarded more than $2m in damages, Reuters reports. However, the jurors did not agree with Carroll’s allegation that the former president raped her, according to Reuters.Some color from the courtroom where the verdict in the Trump civil rape lawsuit will be read imminently, courtesy of Law & Crime: More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas: police name suspect after eight killed by truck plowing into crowd

      by

      Authorities have publicly identified the driver accused of killing several people after plowing his truck into a crowd that was waiting at a bus stop near a shelter serving migrants in a south Texas city.During a Monday morning news conference, police accused George Alvarez of killing eight people and injuring 10 others about 8.30am on Sunday in Brownsville.Police added that Alvarez was a Brownsville resident and had an “extensive” prior criminal record, including allegations of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and driving while intoxicated.Police also said that Alvarez attempted to leave the scene, but he was held down by several people until police arrived and arrested him.A local judge set bond for Alvarez at $3.6m. He was initially booked with reckless driving but faces additional charges, including manslaughter.Police have maintained that they have not determined whether Alvarez acted intentionally and have been unable to verify reports from witnesses that the driver was shouting anti-immigrant obscenities at the time of the crash.A Venezuelan migrant who escaped the crash said the driver, who killed eight people and injured 10, was shouting that immigrants were invading the US, along with other offensive remarks, Monitor News reported. The Guardian reported a similar witness statement.The majority of those injured and killed were Venezuelan, and police have confirmed that they were all men.The crash occurred outside an overnight shelter in Brownsville, Texas, which is near the state’s border with Mexico. The city’s only overnight shelter hosts unhoused people and migrants and has been at capacity for two months.Several people died at the scene, said authorities, with the eighth victim dying on Sunday night.According to surveillance video of the crash, the driver of the SUV ran a light and plowed into the waiting crowd at the bus stop.“What we see in the video is that this SUV, a Range Rover, just ran the light that was about a hundred feet away and just went through the people who were sitting there in the bus stop,” the shelter’s director, Victor Maldonado, told the media.As of Monday morning, the driver’s identity has not been released by authorities. Officials obtained a blood sample of the driver to check for possible intoxicants, but the results of those tests have also not been released, police said on Monday.Alvarez was reportedly being uncooperative and provided different names to authorities, delaying the public release of his identity, police said.The truck killings came four days before Title 42 was set to expire. Title 42 was a Covid-era policy that allowed for the expulsion of migrants.Days before the crash, the US homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, said that immigration authorities faced “extremely challenging” circumstances along the border with Mexico days as Title 42 is set to end. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Saudi family urges US to intervene in teens’ possible death sentence

      by

      Two Saudis who were arrested and allegedly tortured for crimes they were accused of committing as minors are facing an imminent threat of execution, in what human rights experts say is a sign of the kingdom’s violation of its own promise to end death penalty cases against child defendants.In a letter to US secretary of state Antony Blinken, a family member of one defendant, Abdullah al-Derazi, describes how Abdullah was swept off the street and disappeared for three months in August 2014 for protest crimes he is alleged to have committed when he was 17 years old.“Saudi Arabia’s government is deaf to our cries but it will listen to you,” the letter said. “You can help bring our sweet and sensitive boy home and prevent him being taken from us forever.”In their appeal, the family urged Blinken to intervene on Abdullah’s behalf, saying the young man from the Qatif region of Saudi Arabia had been rounded up by authorities and imprisoned in order to “scare people to stop them from protesting”.The other case concerns Youssef al-Manasif, who according to a new report by Reprieve – which is representing both men – was accused of crimes including attending funerals between the ages of 15 and 17 that were deemed to be “protests” by Saudi authorities. Reprieve claims Youssef was tortured and coerced into signing a false confession, was denied legal representation.Both cases are currently being reviewed by Saudi’s supreme court. If their sentences are upheld, both would be at risk of execution, which could happen imminently and without notice, Reprieve said.Saudi Arabia issued a royal decree to abolish the death penalty for children in 2020, stating unequivocally that individuals would not be sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were minors. But the kingdom has since then upheld the death penalty in a number of cases involving minor defendants.The cases have reinforced criticism not only of the Saudi government, but of US president Joe Biden, who has fallen short of imposing any restrictions or consequences on the Saudi government.In Washington, two US senators – including a key Democratic ally of the administration – have introduced a resolution that would force the White House to release a report on Saudi’s human rights violations, along with a detailed explanation of what steps the US government is taking to address the violations. The report would have to include specific information about Saudi’s conduct in the war in Yemen. If passed, the resolution would also force the administration to provide the Congress with an assessment of the necessity of continued US security assistance to the kingdom.Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut – who introduced the measure along with Republican Mike Lee – said he was disappointed that the administration had “not made good” on its promise to significantly reform the nature of its partnership with Saudi Arabia.“I think the world notices when we talk a big game on human rights but we don’t often follow through. I think that the Gulf is getting a message that it can continue with its campaign of unprecedented political repression, business as usual, with very few changes with the relationship with the United States,” Murphy told the Guardian.He added that his critique of US police towards Saudi, the UAE, and Egypt, among others, was that the government’s “asks” are too small.“I don’t think we should be satisfied by just releasing one or two Americans [prisoners] or the Egyptians releasing three or four Americans. I don’t think it suits us to be so deeply wedded to countries that are engaged in these broad dizzying campaigns of political repression.”If passed, the resolution allows Congress to recommend changes to US-Saudi cooperation, with only a 50 vote requirement to pass such changes. Asked for an example on what kind of changes could be imposed, Murphy cited the possibility of new statutory limits on military aid tied to human rights conditions.The US-Saudi relationship appeared to have reached a crossroads in October 2022, when Biden said the Saudis would face “consequences” for having sided with Russia and cut oil production over the objections of the White House just weeks before US midterm elections.But despite the threat, the administration took no action.Asked about why more had not been done to address Saudi abuses, Murphy, who is a senior member of the foreign relations committee, said: “This town is bathed in Gulf money. The sacredness of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia is baked into the DNA of Washington. You are seen as heretical if you suggest the US can get along okay in the world without a deep enduring partnership with the Saudis. I think we have to wake up that it’s not 1979 anymore.”It is not clear when the resolution will be brought for a vote but is backed by human rights experts and dissidents.Maya Foa, Reprieve’s US director, said: “Biden had not only promised to make Saudi Arabia a ‘pariah’ state, but also to hold it accountable. His fist-bump with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman symbolised the craven abandonment of those goals. Perhaps Senate action will help him to honour his promise.”The state department said in a statement to the Guardian: “We reaffirm our longstanding opposition to the use of the death penalty when imposed following trials that do not guarantee fair treatment, as punishment for actions taken as a minor, or for crimes that do not meet the ‘most serious crimes’ threshold for capital punishment, as recognized under international law.”The department also said it continued to regularly raise concerns with Saudi officials about specific cases and the need for broader legal and policy reforms. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Last Honest Man: Frank Church and the fight to restrain US power

      by

      Frank Forrester Church sat in the US Senate for 24 years. His tenure was consequential. A Democrat, he battled for civil rights and came to oppose the Vietnam war. He believed Americans were citizens, not subjects. Chairing the intelligence select committee was his most enduring accomplishment. James Risen, a Pulitzer-winning reporter now with the Intercept, sees him as a hero. The Last Honest Man is both paean and lament.“For decades … the CIA’s operations faced only glancing scrutiny from the White House, and virtually none from Congress,” Risen writes. “True oversight would have to wait until 1975, and the arrival on the national stage of a senator from Idaho, Frank Church.”For 16 months, Church and his committee scrutinized the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and their many abuses. Amid the cold war, in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, Congress grappled with the balance between civil liberties and national security, executive prerogative and congressional authority.Political assassinations, covert operations and domestic surveillance finally received scrutiny and oversight. A plot to kill Fidel Castro, with an assist from organized crime, made headlines. So did the personal ties that bound John F Kennedy, mob boss Sam Giancana and their shared mistress, Judith Campbell Exner.Giancana was murdered before he testified. Before John Rosselli, another mobster, could make a third appearance, his decomposed body turned up in a steel fuel drum near Miami.One subheading in the Church committee’s interim report bears the title: “The Question of Whether the Assassination Operation Involving Underworld Figures Was Known About by Attorney General Kennedy or President Kennedy as Revealed by Investigations of Giancana and Rosselli”.Against this grizzly but intriguing backdrop, Risen’s book is aptly subtitled: The CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, and the Kennedys – And One Senator’s Fight to Save Democracy. The Last Honest Man is a gem, marbled with scoop, laden with interviews.In 2006, Risen won the Pulitzer prize for his coverage of George W Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. Risen was also part of the New York Times team that snagged a Pulitzer in the aftermath of September 11. He endured a seven-year legal battle with the Bush and Obama justice departments, for refusing to name a source. Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s attorney general, backed off. But he earned Risen’s lasting ire.In 2015, Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation”. Holder, he said, “has done the bidding of the intelligence community and the White House to damage press freedom in the United States”.And then came Donald Trump.Risen now describes Dick Cheney’s efforts to block Church’s committee, as chief of staff to Gerald Ford. To Cheney’s consternation, the president “refused to engage in an all-out war”. So Cheney nursed a grudge and bided his time.In 1987, Cheney and congressional Republicans issued a dissent on Iran-Contra, blaming the Church committee for the concept of “all but unlimited congressional power”. Later, as vice-president to George W Bush, Cheney zestily embraced the theory of the unitary executive, the global “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq.The Last Honest Man also doubles as a guide to high-stakes politics. Risen captures Gary Hart and the late Walter Mondale on the record. Both Democratic presidential hopefuls – Mondale the candidate in 1984, Hart the frontrunner, briefly, in the 1988 race – after sitting on Church’s committee. The three senators were competitors and colleagues. Paths and ambitions intersected.Church entered the 1976 Democratic presidential primary late – and lost to Jimmy Carter. Carter weighed picking Church as his running mate but opted for Mondale instead.“I think he had seen me on a Sunday news talk show, talking about the Church committee, and he liked how I looked and sounded,” Mondale told Risen.It was for the best. Church never cottoned to Carter, failing hide his disdain. Carter and his aides returned the favor. They “hated Church right back”. David Aaron, a Church aide and later deputy to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, recalls: “I know that whenever Church’s name came up, Brzezinski would grimace.”In 1980, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush beat Carter and Mondale in a landslide. The election also cost Church his seat and the Democrats control of the Senate. Four years later, Mondale bested Hart for the Democratic nomination, only to be shellacked by Reagan-Bush again.Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower, leaves his mark on Risen’s pages too. He played a “previously undisclosed role in the Church committee’s investigation of the assassinations of foreign leaders”, Risen reports in a lengthy footnote.In an interview, Ellsberg says he “met privately” with Church in 1975, as the committee investigated assassination plots. In Risen’s telling, Ellsberg cops to handing Church “a manilla envelope containing copies of a series of top-secret cables” between the US embassy in South Vietnam and “the Kennedy White House”.The messages purportedly pertained to the “US role in the planning of the 1963 coup against South Vietnamese president [Ngô Đình] Diệm that resulted in his assassination”. The Church committee interim report referred to cable traffic between the embassy in Saigon and the White House but contained no mention of Ellsberg.In other words, assassinations and coups carry a bipartisan legacy. It wasn’t just Eisenhower and Nixon, Iran and Chile.Risen hails Church as “an American Cicero” who “offered the United States a brief glimpse of what it would be like to turn away from its imperialistic ambitions … and return to its roots as a republic”.He overstates, but not by much. Iraq and its aftermath still reverberate. But for that debacle, it is unlikely Trumpism would have attained the purchase it still possesses. Our national divide would not be as deep – or intractable. Church died in April 1984, aged just 59.
      The Last Honest Man: The CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, and the Kennedys – And One Senator’s Fight to Save Democracy is published in the US by Hachette More