World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats urge McCarthy to deny George Santos access to classified data

      by

      Democrats urge McCarthy to deny George Santos access to classified dataCongressman, under intense scrutiny for largely fabricated résumé, a ‘significant risk’ to national security, letter says Two House Democrats have written to Republican speaker Kevin McCarthy demanding he deny New York congressman George Santos any opportunity to access classified information because he might be a “significant risk” to US national security.“We urge you to act swiftly to prevent George Santos from abusing his position and endangering our nation,” the two New York congressmen said.‘We don’t know his real name’: George Santos’s unravelling web of liesRead moreJoe Morelle and Gregory Meeks, published their letter to McCarthy on Wednesday.They wrote: “It is clear that Congressman George Santos has violated the public’s trust on various occasions and his unfettered access to our nation’s secrets presents a significant risk to the national security of this country.”Morelle and Meeks said “numerous concerning allegations” about Santos’s “behaviour over decades put his character into question and suggest he cannot be trusted with confidential and classified information that could threaten the United States’ national security”.McCarthy, they said, should therefore “limit to the greatest degree possible Congressman George Santos’s ability to access classified materials, including preventing him from attending any confidential or classified briefings for the foreseeable future”.McCarthy, however, said he would not take immediate action against Santos.The speaker has already named Santos to two committees, small business and science, space and technology. They are not prestigious panels but access to classified information is a hot topic in Washington, amid revelations that records were improperly retained by Donald Trump, Mike Pence and Joe Biden.Santos, 34, won election in Queens and Long Island in November but has come under enormous scrutiny over his largely made-up résumé, bizarre past conduct and suspect campaign finance filings.Amid a stream of reports and revelations, Santos has been revealed to be under investigation at local, state and federal levels and even in Brazil – where is alleged to have competed as a drag queen – over the use of a stolen chequebook.The scandal has grown so bizarre and labyrinthine that when asked to discuss precedents, the Princeton historian Sean Wilentz told Vox it would be better to look to literature, whether The Confidence-Man by Herman Melville or to the “kind of nothing man that drips all through the novels” of John Le Carré.On Wednesday a former roommate, Yasser Rabello, told Curbed about his experiences living in a small apartment with Santos, his mother, his sister, his boyfriend and a friend in 2013 and 2014. Santos was then known as Anthony Devolder, an identity now the subject of extensive reporting.Rabello said Santos/Devolder “said he was a reporter at Globo in Brazil” but “was home all day on his computer, just browsing the web, probably chatting with people”.He also said Santos claimed to be a model who “worked at New York Fashion Week and that he met all the Victoria’s Secret models and would be in Vogue magazine”.Amid ceaseless reporting and delighted mockery on national late-night TV, Republicans in Santos’s district and from other New York seats have joined Democrats in calling for Santos to resign.But though he has admitted “embellishing” his résumé, the congressman has denied wrongdoing and said he will not quit.Republican leaders continue to stand by their man.Santos backed McCarthy through 15 votes for speaker, a role McCarthy must now perform with a slim majority and under constant threat from rightwing rebels.On Wednesday, McCarthy said that was not why he had refused to tell Santos to go.“No,” he told reporters at the Capitol. “You know why I’m standing by him? Because his constituents voted for him. I do not have the power simply because if I disagree with somebody or what they have said that I remove them from elected office.”McCarthy and other House Republican leaders have repeatedly said allegations against Santos are a matter for the House ethics committee, even as they continue to attempt to gut the ethics process.McCarthy said on Wednesday: “If for some way when we go through ethics [it is found] that he has broken the law, then we will remove him, but it’s not my role. I believe in the rule of law. A person’s innocent until proven guilty.”Daniel Goldman and Ritchie Torres, two New York Democrats, have led calls for an investigation of Santos’s campaign finance filings, calls echoed by outside watchdog groups amid questions over the sources of Santos’s wealth and reports of links to a Russian oligarch and a company found to be a Ponzi scheme.TopicsRepublicansUS politicsKevin McCarthyGeorge SantosnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Facebook and Instagram ban to be lifted, Meta announces

      by

      Trump’s Facebook and Instagram ban to be lifted, Meta announcesEx-president to be allowed back ‘in coming weeks … with new guardrails in place’ after ban that followed January 6 attack In a highly anticipated decision, Meta has said it will allow Donald Trump back on Facebook and Instagram following a two-year ban from the platforms over his online behavior during the 6 January insurrection.Meta will allow Trump to return “in coming weeks” but “with new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses”, Meta’s president of global affairs Nick Clegg wrote in a blogpost explaining the decision.Two more papers found in Trump’s storage last year were marked secretRead more“Like any other Facebook or Instagram user, Mr Trump is subject to our community standards,” Clegg wrote.“In the event that Mr Trump posts further violating content, the content will be removed and he will be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation.”Trump was removed from Meta platforms following the Capitol riots on 6 January 2021, during which he posted unsubstantiated claims that the election had been stolen, praised increasingly violent protestors and condemned former vice-president Mike Pence even as the mob threatened his life.Clegg said the suspension was “an extraordinary decision taken in extraordinary circumstances” and that Meta has weighed “whether there remain such extraordinary circumstances that extending the suspension beyond the original two-year period is justified”.Ultimately, the company has decided that its platforms should be available for “open, public and democratic debate” and that users “should be able to hear from a former President of the United States, and a declared candidate for that office again”, he wrote.“The public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying – the good, the bad and the ugly – so that they can make informed choices at the ballot box,” he said.As a general rule, we don’t want to get in the way of open debate on our platforms, esp in context of democratic elections. People should be able to hear what politicians are saying – good, bad & ugly – to make informed choices at the ballot box. 1/4— Nick Clegg (@nickclegg) January 25, 2023
      While it is unclear if the former president will begin posting again on the platform, his campaign indicated he had a desire to return in a letter sent to Meta in January.“We believe that the ban on President Trump’s account on Facebook has dramatically distorted and inhibited the public discourse,” the letter said.Safety concerns and a politicized debateThe move is likely to influence how other social media companies will handle the thorny balance of free speech and content moderation when it comes to world leaders and other newsworthy individuals, a debate made all the more urgent by Trump’s run for the US presidency once again.Online safety advocates have warned that Trump’s return will result in an increase of misinformation and real-life violence. Since being removed from Meta-owned platforms, the former president has continued to promote baseless conspiracy theories elsewhere, predominantly on his own network, Truth Social.While widely expected, it still drew sharp rebukes from civil rights advocates. “Facebook has policies but they under-enforce them,” said Laura Murphy, an attorney who led a two-year long audit of Facebook concluding in 2020. “I worry about Facebook’s capacity to understand the real world harm that Trump poses: Facebook has been too slow to act.”The Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, Free Press and other groups also expressed concern on Wednesday over Facebook’s ability to prevent any future attacks on the democratic process, with Trump still repeating his false claim that he won the 2020 presidential election.“With the mass murders in Colorado or in Buffalo, you can see there is already a cauldron of extremism that is only intensified if Trump weighs in,” said Angelo Carusone, president and CEO of media watchdog Media Matters for America. “When Trump is given a platform, it ratchets up the temperature on a landscape that is already simmering – one that will put us on a path to increased violence.”After the 6 January riots, the former president was also banned from Twitter, Snapchat and YouTube. Some of those platforms have already allowed Trump to return. Twitter’s ban, while initially permanent, was later overruled by its new chief executive Elon Musk. YouTube has not shared a timeline on a decision to allow Trump to return. Trump remains banned from Snapchat. Meta, however, dragged out its ultimate decision. In 2021, CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained in a post Trump had been barred from the platforms for encouraging violence and that he would remain suspended until a peaceful transition of power could take place.While Zuckerberg did not initially offer a timeline on the ban, the company punted its decision about whether to remove him permanently to its oversight board: a group of appointed academics and former politicians meant to operate independently of Facebook’s corporate leadership. That group ruled in May 2021 that the penalties should not be “indeterminate”, but kicked the final ruling on Trump’s accounts back to Meta, suggesting it decide in six months – two years after the riots.The deadline was initially slated for 7 January, and reports from inside Meta suggested the company was intensely debating the decision. Clegg wrote in a 2021 blog post that Trump’s accounts would need to be strictly monitored in the event of his return.How the ‘guardrails’ could workAnnouncing the decision on Wednesday, Clegg said Meta’s “guardrails” would include taking action against content that does not directly violate their community standards but “contributes to the sort of risk that materialized on January 6th, such as content that delegitimizes an upcoming election or is related to QAnon”.Meta “may limit the distribution of such posts, and for repeated instances, may temporarily restrict access to our advertising tools”, Clegg said, or “remove the re-share button” from posts.Trump pleads with Meta to restore Facebook accountRead moreTrump responded to the news with a short statement on Truth Social, reposted by others on Twitter, saying that “such a thing should never happen again to a sitting president” but did not indicate if or when he would return to the platform.It remains to be seen if he will actually begin posting again on the platforms where his accounts have been reinstated. While he initially suggested he would be “staying on Truth [Social]”, his own social media platform, recent reports said he was eager to return to Facebook, formally appealing Meta to reinstate his accounts. But weeks after returning to Twitter, Trump had yet to tweet again. Some have suggested the silence has been due to an exclusivity agreement he has with Truth Social.A report from Rolling Stone said Trump planned to begin tweeting again when the agreement, which requires him to post all news to the app six hours in advance of any other platform, expires in June. Trump has a far broader reach on mainstream social platforms compared to Truth Social, where he has just 5 million followers.Many online safety advocates have warned Trump’s return would be toxic, and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged Meta in a December letter to uphold the ban.Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat who previously chaired the House intelligence committee, criticized the decision to reinstate him.“Trump incited an insurrection,” Schiff wrote on Twitter. “Giving him back access to a social media platform to spread his lies and demagoguery is dangerous.”Trump’s account has remained online even after his ban, but he had been unable to publish new posts. Civil rights groups say that regardless of the former president’s future actions the Meta decision marks a dangerous precedent. “Whether he uses the platforms or not, a reinstatement by Meta sends a message that there are no real consequences even for inciting insurrection and a coup on their channels,” said a group of scholars, advocates and activists calling itself the Real Facebook Oversight Board in a statement. “Someone who has violated their terms of service repeatedly, spread disinformation on their platforms and fomented violence would be welcomed back.”Reuters contributed reportingTopicsDonald TrumpMetaFacebookInstagramUS politicsSocial networkingUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Pence discovery raises fresh questions over US handling of classified papers

      by

      Pence discovery raises fresh questions over US handling of classified papersBiden, Trump and Pence cases prompt calls to tighten government procedures as Republican congressman says ‘process is broken’ The discovery of classified documents at the home of former US vice-president Mike Pence, following similar incidents involving Joe Biden and Donald Trump, is bringing new scrutiny to government procedures for handling and securing its most delicate secrets.George Santos admits ‘personal’ loans to campaign were not from personal fundsRead moreThe justice department and FBI are looking into how about a dozen classified-marked papers came to be found last week in an unsecure location at Pence’s Indiana residence, two years after he and Trump left office.The attorney general, Merrick Garland, has meanwhile appointed independent special counsels to investigate what is thought to be around a dozen documents found at Biden’s Delaware home and Pennsylvania office, and many thousands of papers seized by the FBI at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last year.The latest revelations have led to calls from politicians and analysts for a tightening of how classified documents are handled at the conclusion of a presidency, and a demand for more oversight of the federal agency responsible for securing and transporting them during the handover.There are also questions whether the US has a problem with over-classification of materials given the number of documents so far uncovered in the possession of senior current and former elected officials.“Clearly the process is broken,” the Florida Republican congressman Mike Waltz, a member of the House armed services committee, told Fox News.“We’ve got to take a hard look at GSA (General Services Administration) and how they and the intelligence community pack these documents [and] get them to wherever the president or vice-president is going.”Republicans seeking to gain political capital from the discovery of papers at Democrat Biden’s home and office, from his two terms as Obama’s vice-president, were quelled by the revelation that Pence, their own party’s most recent vice-president, also apparently took sensitive papers with him.In both cases, the politicians insisted they were unaware of the existence of the documents and, immediately upon their discovery, their lawyers contacted the National Archives, which in turn alerted the justice department.That contrasts sharply with Trump’s handling of more than 11,000 papers, including hundreds of classified and top secret documents, which he took from the White House in January 2021 and stored in boxes at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.The former president resisted requests that he return the documents, which reportedly included a foreign power’s nuclear and military secrets, to the National Archives, prompting last summer’s FBI raid and, in November, the appointment by Garland of special prosecutor Jack Smith to look into the affair.“Quantitatively and qualitatively there are big differences between Trump’s situation on the one hand, and Biden and Pence on the other,” said Carl Tobias, Williams professor of law at the University of Richmond.“The FBI says Trump had 11,000 documents mostly at Mar-a-Lago, and several hundred classified documents. So far with Biden it’s a tiny number compared to that, maybe 25, and only some were classified, and it seems even smaller with Pence.“Also the behaviour, if you look at Pence and Biden, it may be negligent, or just not careful. There isn’t any notion of intent to do something, which is apparently the case with Trump. Those differences are pretty important.”The episode, nevertheless, is embarrassing for Pence, who insisted: “I did not” when asked by ABC News in November if he had taken classified material from the White House.Political allies have rushed to defend him. New York congresswoman and Trump loyalist Elise Stefanik, the House Republican conference chair, told reporters Pence did nothing wrong, while claiming without evidence that a “weaponized” FBI was engaged in a cover-up to protect Biden.Tobias said the episodes also suggested an issue with how the government decides what should be classified.“Hundreds of thousands of classified documents are generated every year, it’s difficult to keep track of all that and we may have an over-classification problem. Maybe Congress would pass some legislation to try to address that,” he said.“There’s just so many documents that you can’t expect all of them to be tracked. People should be more careful with the documents, but also not classify everything so much that you can’t handle it.”Representatives of three living former presidents, Barack Obama, George W Bush and Bill Clinton, told CNN they handed over all classified documents to the National Archives before leaving the White House, as did the office of the late George HW Bush.Legal analyst Chris Swecker, a former FBI assistant director, told Fox he was concerned that three current and recent occupants of the White House appeared not to have done so.“These politicians need to understand where this information comes from. They can’t just take it home,” he said.TopicsUS politicsMike PenceJoe BidenDonald TrumpRepublicansDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      George Santos admits ‘personal’ loans to campaign were not from personal funds

      by

      George Santos admits ‘personal’ loans to campaign were not from personal fundsNew campaign finance filings reported by Daily Beast do not shed light on real source of $600,000 in funding In a new twist to one of the most bizarre American political scandals in decades, the New York Republican congressman George Santos appeared to admit on Tuesday that more than $600,000 in loans to his campaign did not come from personal funds, as was originally claimed.‘We don’t know his real name’: George Santos’s unravelling web of liesRead moreBut new campaign finance filings first reported by the Daily Beast did not shed light on where the funds actually came from.One expert said he had “never been this confused” by a campaign finance form.Santos, 34, won election to Congress last year in New York’s third district, which covers parts of Long Island and Queens.But he swiftly came under pressure over a résumé which has been shown to be largely made-up; local, state, federal and international investigations; and increasingly picaresque allegations and revelations including an alleged past as a drag queen in Brazil.Republican House leaders have stood by him, however, not least because he supported Kevin McCarthy through 15 rounds of voting for speaker earlier this month, a process which installed the Californian atop a slim GOP majority prey to hard-right rebels. Last week, Santos was installed on two House committees.As well as joining New York Republicans in calling for Santos to quit, Democrats have demanded investigation of Santos’s campaign finance filings.This week, the saga continued at a familiar pitch as Santos complained about impersonations on late-night TV – a sure sign of fame, or infamy, in the American public square.“I have now been enshrined in late-night TV history with all these impersonations,” the congressman tweeted on Monday, “but they are all TERRIBLE so far.“Jon Lovitz is supposed to be one of the greatest comedians of all time and that was embarrassing – for him not me! These comedians need to step their game up.”Lovitz, who impersonated Santos on NBC’s The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, responded: “Thanks the review and advice! You’re right! I do need to step my game up! My pathological liar character can’t hold a candle to you!”It was also reported on Monday that Santos once claimed to be the target of an assassination attempt, and that in a 2020 interview he claimed to have met Jeffrey Epstein, while suggesting the financier and sex offender did not kill himself in jail but was murdered or even alive.On Tuesday morning, Santos promised a surprise to reporters staking out his office in Congress – then served them coffee and donuts.Later, the Beast reported on weightier matters, spotting that on new campaign finance filings, a $500,000 loan was no longer listed as “personal funds of the candidate”, as was another for $125,000.The Beast said no indication was given as to where the loans actually came from.Amid questions about his apparent wealth, Santos has been linked to a Russian oligarch. It has also been reported that he was once hired by a Florida-based investment firm that was accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of being a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme.Santos previously told a New York radio host the loans were “the money I paid myself” through his company, the Devolder Organization.Santos’s activities under the name Anthony Devolder are also the subject of intense scrutiny.He has admitted “embellishing” his résumé but denied wrongdoing. He has said he will not resign.Speaking to the New York Times, a lawyer for Santos, Joe Murray, said it “would be inappropriate” to comment on the new filings, because of pending investigations.Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington or Crew, a watchdog group, told the Times: “I have never been this confused looking at an [Federal Election Commission] filing.”Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director of Documented, another watchdog, told the Beast: “I don’t know what they think they are doing.“Santos’ campaign might have unchecked the ‘personal funds of candidate’ box, but it is still reporting that the $500,000 came from Santos himself.“If the ‘loan from candidate’ didn’t actually come from the candidate, then Santos should come clean and disclose where the money really came from. Santos can’t uncheck a box and make his legal problems go away.”TopicsGeorge SantosUS politicsUS political financingRepublicansUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesNew YorknewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Georgia judge reserves decision on Trump grand jury report

      by

      Georgia judge reserves decision on Trump grand jury reportFulton county district attorney Fani Willis said making public a grand jury’s investigation could prejudice a fair trial A highly anticipated hearing in Atlanta on Tuesday was largely inconclusive after a judge decided not to immediately rule on whether or not to make public an investigative report on Donald Trump’s attempt to to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.Fani Willis, Fulton county district attorney, strongly hinted she could prosecute a former president for the first time in US history at the hearing. But she said making public a grand jury’s investigation of Donald Trump’s attempt to could prejudice a fair trial for ‘multiple’ accused.Arizona’s new attorney general to use election fraud unit to boost voting rightsRead moreThe judge overseeing the hearing, Robert McBurney, reserved his decision on whether to release the special purpose grand jury’s report before any announcement about prosecutions in what he described as an “extraordinary” case, leaving Tuesday’s hearing without a final conclusion.Willis’s office is holding the only copy of the results of the grand jury’s investigation into a series of alleged crimes, including criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, intentional interference with the performance of election duties, conspiracy and racketeering. The Fulton county district attorney said she wanted to keep the grand jury’s recommendations on who to prosecute, and on what charges, under wraps until she has decided whether to pursue charges for crimes that potentially carry significant prison sentences.“We have to be mindful of protecting future defendants’ rights,” she said. “We want to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and we say for future defendants to be treated fairly it’s not appropriate at this time to have this report released.”Willis then added: “Decisions are imminent”.If Willis decides to press charges, she will be required to make her case to another grand jury which has the authority to issue indictments.The district attorney spoke about the prospect of “individuals, multiple” being prosecuted. At least 18 other people have been told they also potentially face charges including Trump’s close ally and lawyer, the former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani.Before the special purpose grand jury was dissolved two weeks ago after months of hearings, its members recommended releasing its findings.Lawyers for media organisations told Tuesday’s hearing that the grand jury’s wish should be respected because of overwhelming public interest and challenged the claim that the report’s release would prejudice any trial.At the conclusion of the hearing, McBurney reserved his decision on whether to make public the report.“This is not simple. I think the fact that we had to discuss this for 90 minutes shows that it is somewhat extraordinary,” he said. “Partly what’s extraordinary is what’s at issue here, the alleged interference with a presidential election.”McBurney said that if he does order that the report is made public, he will give prosecutors notice before it is released.“No one’s going to wake up with the court having disclosed the report on the front page of the newspaper,” he said.Legal scholars have said they believe Trump is “at substantial risk of prosecution” in Georgia over his attempts to strong-arm officials into fixing the election in his favour when it looked as if the state might decide the outcome of the presidential election. Trump’s lawyers did not participate in the hearing because, they said, Willis had not sought to interview the former president for the investigation.“Therefore, we can assume that the grand jury did their job and looked at the facts and the law, as we have, and concluded there were no violations of the law by President Trump,” the lawyers said in a statement.Willis launched her investigation into “a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump campaign to influence the results” just weeks after the former president left office. The probe initially focussed on a tape recording of Trump pressuring Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to conjure nearly 12,000 votes out of thin air in order to overturn Joe Biden’s win.Willis expanded the investigation as more evidence emerged of Trump and his allies attempting to manipulate the results, including the appointment of a sham slate of 16 electors to replace the state’s legitimate members of the electoral college. The fake electors included the chair of the Georgia Republican Party, David Shafer, and Republican members of the state legislature who have been warned that they are at risk of prosecution.TopicsDonald TrumpThe fight for democracyGeorgiaRudy GiulianiRepublicansUS elections 2020US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Washington Post condemns Pompeo for ‘vile’ Khashoggi ‘falsehoods’

      by

      Washington Post condemns Pompeo for ‘vile’ Khashoggi ‘falsehoods’Fred Ryan says former secretary of state ‘outrageously misrepresents’ Post journalist murdered by Saudi Arabian regime The publisher of the Washington Post, Fred Ryan, has blasted the former secretary of state Mike Pompeo for “outrageously misrepresenting” and “spreading vile falsehoods” about Jamal Khashoggi, the Post columnist murdered by the Saudi Arabian regime in 2018.Nikki Haley plotted with Kushner and Ivanka to be Trump vice-president, Pompeo book saysRead more“It is shameful that Pompeo would spread vile falsehoods to dishonor a courageous man’s life and service and his commitment to principles Americans hold dear as a ploy to sell books,” Ryan said.Pompeo’s memoir of his time in Donald Trump’s presidential administration, Never Give an Inch, was published on Tuesday.One of a slew of books from likely contenders for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination – if in this case one who barely registers in polling – the book recounts Pompeo’s time as CIA director and secretary of state under Trump.The Guardian obtained and reported a copy last week. In its own review, published on Tuesday, the Post called Pompeo’s book “vicious … a master class in the performative anger poisoning American politics”.The reviewer, the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Tim Weiner, added: “Hatred animates this book. It’s got more venom than a quiver of cobras.”The murder of Khashoggi caused outrage around the world and stoked criticism of the Trump White House over its reluctance to criticise the Saudi regime, particularly the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who grew close to Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser.US intelligence believes the prince approved the killing of Khashoggi, whose remains have not been found.On the page, Pompeo deplores Khashoggi’s murder. But he also writes that Khashoggi was not a journalist but “an activist who had supported the losing team” and criticises what he calls “faux outrage” over a killing that “made the media madder than a vegan in a slaughterhouse”.On Monday, Khashoggi’s widow, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi, told NBC News: “Whatever [Pompeo] mentions about my husband, he doesn’t know my husband. He should be silent and shut up the lies about my husband. It is such bad information and the wrong information … This is not acceptable.”Elatr Khashoggi also said she wanted “to silence all of these people who publish books, disparage my husband and collect money from it”.On Tuesday, Ryan said it was “shocking and disappointing to see Mike Pompeo’s book so outrageously misrepresent the life and work of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.“As the CIA – which Pompeo once directed – concluded, Jamal was brutally murdered on the orders of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. His only offense was exposing corruption and oppression among those in power – work that good journalists around the world do every day.”Pompeo responded on Twitter, writing: “Americans are safer because we didn’t label Saudi Arabia a pariah state. I never let the media bully me. Just because someone is a part-time stringer for the Washington Post doesn’t make their life more important than our military serving in dangerous places protecting us all. I never forgot that.”Ryan said Khashoggi, who wrote for the Post while resident in the US, “dedicated himself to the values of free speech and a free press and held himself to the highest professional standards. For this devotion, he paid the ultimate price.”TopicsBooksMike PompeoJamal KhashoggiPolitics booksUS politicsTrump administrationUS foreign policynewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Classified documents discovered at Mike Pence’s home in Indiana

      by

      Classified documents discovered at Mike Pence’s home in IndianaTop adviser to former vice-president says in letter that papers were inadvertently stored and Pence was unaware they were there Close aides to Mike Pence discovered about a dozen classified-marked documents stored in boxes at his home in Indiana last week and turned over the materials to the US justice department, according to a top adviser to the former vice-president.The documents were inadvertently taken to Pence’s home at the end of the Donald Trump administration and Pence was unaware of their presence, his representative to the National Archives and former counsel Greg Jacob said in a letter.The presence of sensitive papers in Pence’s home, weeks after similar discoveries at Biden’s properties and after the FBI seized hundreds of classified-marked documents from Donald Trump, also raises more questions about the management of sensitive government records.Special counsels have been appointed to investigate Biden and Trump over the retention of such documents.Jacob said in the letter, dated 18 January and first reported by CNN, that Pence hired an outside lawyer to search his home out of an abundance of caution after the discovery of classified-marked documents at Biden’s residence and a private office in Washington.The letter added that the lawyer could not specify anything more about the documents – including the content, dates and classification level, which remain unclear – because he stopped looking as soon he saw the classified markings.“On Monday, 16 January, Vice-President Pence engaged outside counsel, with experience in handling classified documents, to review records stored in his personal home,” Jacob wrote. “Counsel identified a small number of documents that could potentially contain sensitive or classified information.”Jacob notified the National Archives and the agency immediately alerted the justice department’s national security division, which took possession of the documents and is understood to have launched a review into the matter.The discovery of classified-marked documents is an embarrassing development for Pence after he confidently told ABC News last year that he had not improperly removed any materials from the White House. “I did not,” Pence said in November last year.Trump – Pence’s former boss – has been under federal investigation for more than a year over whether he wilfully retained national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort after the end of his presidency, and whether he obstructed efforts by the justice department to secure their return starting in May last year.Compared to Biden and now Pence, who moved quickly to return documents to the government, Trump’s resistance to handing over materials at his Florida property led to the justice department turning his case into a criminal investigation.The department has typically pursued cases of mishandled classified documents criminally when they involve aggravating factors: wilful mishandling of classified information, vast quantities of materials to suggest misconduct, disloyalty to the United States and obstruction.The investigation into Trump touches on at least two of those elements – obstruction, where a person conceals documents with an intent to impede a government agency, and the volume of classified materials at Mar-a-Lago.The obstruction applies particularly to Trump because of his repeated refusal to fully surrender classified documents, including when he only partially complied with a grand jury subpoena issued in May demanding any classified materials.For months, Trump also resisted conducting a search for any classified documents that the justice department suspected were still in his possession even after the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, only for an eventual search in December to turn up two additional documents.TopicsMike PenceUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We may have lost the south’: what LBJ really said about Democrats in 1964

      by

      ‘We may have lost the south’: what LBJ really said about Democrats in 1964Bill Moyers was there when Lyndon Johnson made his memorable assessment of the Civil Rights Act’s effects The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in American history, giving protections and rights long denied to Black Americans. Like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Medicare for senior citizens, it was a pillar of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.LBJ OK? Historian Mark Lawrence on a president resurgentRead moreThe Civil Rights Act also had a profound effect on the American political landscape, triggering a reshaping that still influences the fortunes of Democrats and Republicans, particularly in the south.A brilliant political analyst, Johnson foresaw the consequences of his civil rights legislation on the day he signed it into law. He is said to have remarked: “We’ve lost the south for a generation.”Indeed, the south has become steadily more Republican since then, the victories of Joe Biden and two Democratic senators in Georgia in 2020 and 2022 rare blue successes in a Republican stronghold.But did Johnson really say it? He didn’t mention it in his memoir – and he died 50 years ago on Sunday, aged just 64. In his absence, historians debate and write.So the Guardian went to the source: the legendary journalist Bill Moyers. Now 88, he was Johnson’s special assistant when the Civil Rights Act passed.Moyers responded with a detailed e-mail.On 2 July 1964, “the president signed the Civil Rights Act around 6.45pm. Before he went into a meeting in his office with some civil rights leaders and [the deputy attorney general] Nick Katzenbach, he pulled me aside and said, sotto voce, ‘Bird [Johnson’s wife] and I are going down to the Ranch. I’d like you to come with us … I practically ran to my office to pack.’”Moyers made it to the airport in time.“When I boarded the Jet Star, the president was reading the latest edition of the Washington Post. We took off around around 11pm … I sat down across from him. Lady Bird was in the other seat by him … the papers were celebrating what they described as a great event.“I said, ‘Quite a day, Mr President.’ As he reached a sheaf of the wire copy he tilted his head slightly back and held the copy up close to him so that he could read it, and said: ‘Well, I think we may have lost the south for your lifetime – and mine.’“It was lightly said. Not sarcastic. Not even dramatically. It was like a throwaway sidebar.”To Moyers, “all these years later”, Johnson’s remark seems “maybe … merely a jest, lightly uttered and soon forgotten”. But after Moyers “repeated it publicly just once, it took on a life of its own.“Unfortunately, various versions appeared: ‘for a generation’, ‘once and for all’. I couldn’t keep up. I finally stopped commenting.”And so a legend grew.As Moyers pointed out, in summer 1964, Johnson’s “immediate concern was to carry the south in his own election for president”, against the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater, a hard-right senator from Arizona.“He briefly threatened not to go to the Democratic national convention in Atlantic City, because he was very tense and uneasy about the fight over seating the Mississippi delegation, and especially the role of Fannie Lou Hamer.”Hamer was a legendary civil rights activist, beaten and shot at for registering Black voters in Mississippi. At the convention, she mesmerized a national audience when she testified in an unsuccessful effort to get the new Freedom Democratic Party seated as the official delegation from Mississippi.“As we all know,” Moyers wrote, “Johnson went on to the convention and lapped his nomination … Now he seemed fully in the game and determined to carry the south.“He called meetings with his campaign team, over and again. He talked often to our people on the ground, from Louisiana to North Carolina. He made the campaign south of the Mason-Dixon Line his personal battlefield. He wanted to win there. And he did – in five states.”Johnson won in a landslide. In the south, he took Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.Moyers remembered that “on election night, as the results rolled in, [Johnson] was elated. His dreaded private vision of losing the south … would have cost [him] the election.“I think he had doubled down on not handing Republicans the south. That would come with [Richard] Nixon’s southern strategy, four years later. For now, [Johnson] was spared what would have humiliated him.”TopicsBooksCivil rights movementUS politicsUS domestic policyRaceDemocratsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More