More stories

  • in

    Lawyers who enabled Trump in election plot face heightened risk of charges

    Lawyers who enabled Trump in election plot face heightened risk of charges House panel refers John Eastman, Jeff Clark, Rudy Giuliani and Kenneth Chesebro to DoJ for offering Trump bogus legal coverFour lawyers who gave Donald Trump erroneous legal advice that aided his drive to overturn the 2020 US election now face heightened prospects of criminal charges after a House panel released an exhaustive report on the January 6 insurrection, and referred the lawyers for possible prosecution to the justice department, say ex-federal prosecutors.Brazil’s failed coup is the poison flower of the Trump-Bolsonaro symbiosisRead moreJohn Eastman, Jeff Clark, Rudy Giuliani and Kenneth Chesebro played overlapping roles, offering Trump bogus legal cover that included promoting a fake electors ploy to replace electors Joe Biden won with ones for Trump, in an effort to block Congress from certifying Biden on 6 January.The lawyers’ actions and schemes were cited in an 845-page report last month by the House select committee investing the events of 6 January, and in the referrals to the justice department, for giving various types of legal support to Trump that enabled parts of his attempted coup.The report accused Trump of criminally engaging in “a multi-part conspiracy”, and cited four criminal offenses: making false statements, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and aiding or comforting insurrection, all of which were referred to the DoJ for prosecution.The specific referrals to the DoJ differ somewhat for the four lawyers. All of them were referred for conspiring to defraud the United States. Except for Giuliani, the other three were referred for conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, a reference to Congress certifying Biden’s win on 6 January.Several legal schemes devised by the lawyers to further Trump’s botched coup were detailed in the referrals and in the panel’s exhaustive report. For instance, Eastman, a law professor in California, authored a “coup memo” that suggested avenues the former vice-president Mike Pence could take to help Trump reverse his election loss, including unilaterally throwing out certain state electoral college votes.Along with Giuliani, Eastman also addressed the “Stop the Steal” rally immediately before the Capitol attack, where he floated a baseless conspiracy theory about “secret folders” in voting machines that helped cast votes for Democrats.The panel’s report and referrals noted, too, that Clark, who was acting head of the DoJ’s civil division, “stands out as a participant in the conspiracy” to defraud the United States. The report cited evidence that Clark drafted a letter with false information urging some state officials to name new slates of electors, as part of a plan that involved Trump installing Clark as acting attorney general at the DoJ.Last summer, Clark and Eastman had their cellphones seized by federal agents, in an early indication of the serious scrutiny prosecutors were affording them.Giuliani, who served as Trump’s personal attorney and pushed his false claims about widespread election fraud, was subpoenaed by the US attorney in DC in November to testify and provide documents about his payments from Trump and his campaign, according to a Reuters report this week.Although the House panel’s referrals to the DoJ are only recommendations and do not require filing charges against the lawyers, former prosecutors said the extensive evidence that they conspired with Trump to stop Biden from taking office could help spur DoJ legal action against them.“The corrupt involvement of lawyers in various aspects of the January 6 insurrection is surely one of the low points in the history of the legal profession in America,” said former DoJ inspector general Michael Bromwich.“From filing bogus lawsuits, to trying to hijack the justice department, to devising the fake electors scheme – lawyers were at the center of the illegitimate attempts to keep Donald Trump in power. Any lawyer who cares about the reputation of the profession should be disgusted at their behavior, and hope they will be held accountable by the very legal system they abused.”Other former prosecutors offered scathing views about Trump’s legal loyalists.“While professional status often shields lawyers from criminal liability, I would expect prosecutors to use it as a sword here: this crew knew congressional procedures and concocted an attack on the weak spots, drawing in many others who knew far less,” said Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Columbia law school.“While there may be prudential reasons not to make Trump a criminal defendant, those don’t argue against charging this group with a conspiracy to defraud the United States. The broad title of that offense doesn’t often capture the conduct of defendants charged with it, but it certainly does here, And a full factual presentation of this conspiracy might also reveal Trump’s own role.”Similarly, Michael Zeldin, an ex-DoJ prosecutor, said: “The Jan 6 committee’s referrals to the DoJ regarding the role Trump-aligned attorneys played in the run-up to the assault on the Capitol laid out a compelling case.”“[The] DoJ now has to test that evidence against a standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to determine whether indictments are warranted,” he added.Eastman and the other lawyers accused in the House panel’s referrals to DoJ have all denied improper conduct. But well before the panel’s referrals and report, evidence was mounting about the sizable roles Eastman and the other lawyers played in promoting Trump’s conspiracy to block Biden from taking office.Federal judge David Carter last March in a key ruling involving Eastman, stated that Trump “more likely than not” broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.“Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Carter wrote in a civil case that led to an order for Eastman to release over 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.The panel last year also heard stunning testimony from Greg Jacob, Mike Pence’s counsel. Jacob testified that Eastman acknowledged to him that he was aware that his efforts to get Pence to reject Biden’s winning electoral college count would violate the Electoral Count Act, and that Trump, too, was informed it would be unlawful for Pence to block Biden’s certification.Clark’s role in trying to help Trump promote false claims of election fraud also prompted strong condemnation at a House panel hearing last year. Former acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue was scathing in recounting Trump’s efforts to replace the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, with Clark in late December 2020, to increase pressure on state legislators to reject Biden electors by pushing baseless charges of widespread fraud.Donoghue testified that he warned Trump at a bizarre 3 January White House meeting that drew Rosen, Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone and other top lawyers. Elevating Clark to be acting AG would spark mass resignations, and Clark would be “left leading a graveyard”, at the DoJ, Donoghue saidCipollone, who testified before a federal grand jury last fall, also threatened to resign if Trump replaced Rosen with Clark.Former Georgia US attorney Michael Moore said he believes the panel assembled a “substantial” case against some of Trump’s leading lawyer loyalists, who “were actually involved in an unprecedented and unlawful effort to overturn the election, providing fallacious legal arguments as part of the conspiracy”.“A lawyer who tells his client how to crack open the vault is just as guilty as the robber who enters the bank,” Moore added.Still, Richman cautioned that DoJ prosecutors face challenges before charging any of the lawyers.“I suspect prosecutors would want to more clearly nail down the degree to which these lawyers were truly aware that their theories lacked the slightest factual support or legal basis. It helps, but may not be enough, that many around them were saying that.”Regardless of whether or not the DoJ charges some of the lawyers, they all should suffer professionally for scheming with Trump, Bromwich stressed.“Although it’s not yet clear which of the lawyers can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal prosecutions, they all should become outcasts in their chosen profession, and at a minimum never practice law again.”TopicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsUS politicsRudy GiulianiDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Headlocked: inside the 13 January Guardian Weekly

    Headlocked: inside the 13 January Guardian WeeklyWhat’s the matter with the US Republican party? Plus: Britain’s battle royal
    Get the magazine delivered to your home address Two years after the Capitol riot, the toxic legacy of Donald Trump’s big election lie has been fully evident this week, not just in the US but also in Brazil.In Washington, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives took 15 attempts just to fulfil its primary duty of appointing a speaker. Kevin McCarthy eventually squeaked through by four votes, after quelling a days-long revolt from a bloc of far-right conservatives. But, with a wafer-thin majority, and few powers, Nancy Pelosi’s successor looks set to be one of the weakest speakers in history.For our big story, Washington bureau chief David Smith examines the chaos within Republican ranks and what it means for the party. It’s a theme picked up for this week’s cover by illustrator Justin Metz, who took the traditionally harmless-looking motif of the Republican elephant and turned it into something altogether more confrontational.In Brazil, meanwhile, supporters of the former president Jair Bolsonaro stormed congress buildings in scenes eerily reminiscent of Washington on 6 January 2021. Latin America correspondent Tom Phillips reports on a dark day for Brazilian democracy, while Richard Lapper considers the potential fallout for the new president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and a deeply fractured nation.There’s a feast of great writing elsewhere in this week’s magazine. British food writer Jack Monroe, who taught us how to eat well on a shoestring, opens up to Simon Hattenstone about her struggles with addiction.And Chris Stringer, who has received a CBE for his work on human evolution, tells how his remarkable quest as a young researcher transformed understanding of our species.Get the magazine delivered to your home addressTopicsRepublicansInside Guardian WeeklyUS CongressUS politicsKevin McCarthyDonald TrumpBrazilReuse this content More

  • in

    Far-right influencer known as ‘Baked Alaska’ sentenced over Capitol attack

    Far-right influencer known as ‘Baked Alaska’ sentenced over Capitol attackAnthime Gionet, 35, given two months in prison after live-streaming his participation in deadly January 6 riot Anthime Gionet, a far-right social media personality known to followers as Baked Alaska, was sentenced on Tuesday to two months in prison for his participation in the US Capitol attack – participation he live-streamed.In court in Washington DC, the US district judge Trevor McFadden told Gionet, 35: “You did everything you could to publicise your misconduct. You were there encouraging and participating fully in what was going on.”Gionet did not address the court.On 6 January 2021, rioters breached the Capitol in service of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election via the lie that Joe Biden’s win was the result of electoral fraud.Gionet broadcast to around 16,000 followers from locations including the office of Jeff Merkley, a Democratic senator from Oregon. Pretending to report a “fraudulent election”, Gionet said: “We need to get our boy, Donald J Trump, into office.”According to court documents, Gionet also told rioters: “Come in, let’s go, come on in, make yourself at home” and chanted: “Patriots are in control!” and “Whose house? Our house!”His attorney, Zachary Thornley, argued that Gionet “never crossed the line from being a protestor to a rioter” and was instead “sort of a guerrilla journalist” who was “there to document. That’s what he does.”Before becoming a star of far-right social media, Gionet worked for media website BuzzFeed.Last July, however, he pleaded guilty to parading, demonstrating or picketing inside a Capitol building.Gionet has had other brushes with the law. After clashes in Arizona in late 2020, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail for misdemeanor convictions and fined for damaging a Hannukah display at the state capitol.For his participation in the Capitol riot, prosecutors recommended 75 days incarceration and three years probation. Judge McFadden, a Trump appointee who took over the case before sentencing, handed down 60 days and two years probation.Also imposing a $2,000 fine and $500 in restitution, McFadden said that for Gionet, the January 6 riot was the “culmination of a petty crime spree”.Gionet spoke to reporters outside court, saying his sentence was a “win” and adding that he planned to use his time in jail to write a book.“I have grown immense amounts,” he said. “But I still hold firm that I was there because I believe the election was fraudulent, and I believe people should have a right to speak freely as long as they are being peaceful.”More than 900 people have been charged with federal crimes related to January 6. Nearly 500 have pleaded guilty. More than 350 have been sentenced.The House select committee which investigated the riot recommended Trump face criminal charges. An investigation by the Department of Justice continues.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Progressive Katie Porter launches bid for Dianne Feinstein’s US Senate seat

    Progressive Katie Porter launches bid for Dianne Feinstein’s US Senate seatDemocratic congresswoman announces candidacy for seat held by Feinstein, 89, who has not yet said if she will retire Democratic representative Katie Porter, the progressive former law professor known for her sharp questioning of witnesses and her use of a whiteboard during hearings, said she will seek the California Senate seat currently held by Dianne Feinstein.Feinstein, a fellow Democrat, is the oldest member of the chamber, and has not yet said if she will retire.“Especially in times like these, California needs a warrior in Washington,” Porter said in a video posted on Twitter. “That’s exactly why I’m announcing my candidacy for the United States Senate in 2024.”Porter was first elected to Congress in 2018 and won a tight race for re-election to her newly redrawn southern California district in November. She said in the video that she had “challenged the status quo” in Washington, taking on “big banks,” Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry. She wants to ban members of Congress from stock trading.“To win these fights, it’s time for new leadership in the US Senate,” she said.California needs a warrior in the Senate—to stand up to special interests, fight the dangerous imbalance in our economy, and hold so-called leaders like Mitch McConnell accountable for rigging our democracy.Today, I’m proud to announce my candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2024. pic.twitter.com/X1CSE8T12B— Katie Porter (@katieporteroc) January 10, 2023
    Feinstein, 89, has faced questions about her age and memory and whether she will seek another term. She has not announced whether she will seek re-election in 2024, though she is widely expected to retire.“Everyone is, of course, welcome to throw their hat in the ring, and I will make an announcement concerning my plans for 2024 at the appropriate time,” Feinstein said in a statement on Tuesday. She added that she is currently “focused on ensuring California has all the resources it needs” to deal with deadly storms hitting the state.Feinstein won her sixth election in 2018 and has been a force for Democrats, serving for a time as chair of the intelligence and judiciary committees. But she also has seen pushback from Democrats who view her as too bipartisan at a time when politics is more polarized and her state is increasingly liberal.In 2020, Feinstein announced she would step down as the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee. The move followed criticism that she was too friendly with Republicans during supreme court confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett. That included an embrace of the Republican chairman, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, at the conclusion of the hearings and kind words for what she called a job well done.Feinstein has defended her performance and said in 2021 that she planned to serve her full term, even as there was open speculation and discussion about the future of the seat. Governor Gavin Newson said in 2021 that he would appoint a Black woman to replace Feinstein, who is white, if she were to retire early.Porter, 49, was a consumer protection attorney before her election to the House, and she has earned a reputation for her tough questioning of chief executives and other witnesses at congressional hearings – often using a whiteboard to break down information.Porter’s media savvy was again on display during the recent meltdown in the US House over the election of a new speaker. As Republicans argued, Porter was seen sitting in the chamber, disinterestedly, reading a book on “the subtle art” of not caring about what’s happening.TopicsDemocratsCaliforniaHouse of RepresentativesUS CongressUS SenateUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Ex-secretary of state George Shultz was besotted by Theranos fraudster Holmes, book says

    Ex-secretary of state George Shultz was besotted by Theranos fraudster Holmes, book saysHe was either ‘corrupt’, ‘in love’ or had ‘completely lost’ his mental edge, says grandson who blew whistle on Holmes’s scheme Former US secretary of state George Shultz’s support for Elizabeth Holmes and her fraudulent blood testing company, Theranos, which devastated his family and caused a bitter feud with his grandson, receives fresh scrutiny in a biography published on Tuesday.Year of the tech grifter: will Silicon Valley ever learn from its mistakes? Read moreShultz was Ronald Reagan’s top diplomat at the end of the cold war. Before that, he was secretary of the treasury and secretary of labor under Richard Nixon. He is now the subject of In the Nation’s Service, written by Philip Taubman, a former New York Times reporter.Shultz joined the Theranos board of directors in 2011.Taubman recounts how Shultz – then in his 90s and with no biomedical expertise – was impressed by Holmes’s startup and its promise to revolutionise blood testing. He helped the young entrepreneur form a board of directors and raise money from heavyweight investors including Rupert Murdoch.“Shultz repeatedly told friends that Holmes was brilliant,” Taubman writes. “Over time, his associates grew alarmed, fearing that his enthusiasm was colored by personal affection for Holmes. He talked by phone with her almost every day and invited her to join Shultz family Christmas dinners. She encouraged his attention by leaning in close to him when they were seated together on sofas.”Dismissing scepticism regarding Holmes’s claim to have come up with a quick and easy blood test that would dramatically simplify healthcare, Shultz encouraged his grandson, Tyler Shultz, to work a summer internship at Theranos and become a full-time employee.But Tyler Shultz came to suspect that Holmes was overselling her technology and took his concerns to the Wall Street Journal. Suspecting the younger Shultz was the whistleblower, Holmes set her lawyers on him and put him under surveillance. Alarmed, Tyler Shultz went to his grandfather for help.Taubman writes: “Instead of hugging his grandson and disowning Holmes, Shultz equivocated. He tried unsuccessfully to mediate between Tyler and Holmes.”When that effort failed, Shultz refused to cut ties with the businesswoman. He told Tyler: “I’m over 90 years old. I’ve seen a lot in my time, I’ve been right almost every time and I know I’m right about this.”Tyler felt betrayed. In a 2020 podcast, Thicker Than Water, he imagined three reasons why his grandfather sided with Holmes.“One is that you were corrupt and have invested so much money in Theranos that you were willing to make ethical compromises in order to see return on your investment. The second is that you are in love with Elizabeth.“So no matter how many times she lies to you, no matter how many patients she injures and no matter how badly she harms your family, you will put her above everything else. The last possibility is that you have completely lost your mental edge and despite an abundance of data showing that she was a criminal, you somehow are incapable of connecting these very, very big dots.”Taubman also suggests motives: financial gain, as Shultz’s holdings in Theranos stock soared before Holmes fell to disgrace, peaking at $50m; or personal loyalty to Holmes, just as Shultz showed to Richard Nixon during the Watergate crisis and Reagan during the Iran-contra affair.The author writes: “Shultz’s performance left his family broken. Saddened friends and associates attributed the conduct to his advanced age.”In 2018, Holmes was indicted on charges involving defrauding investors and deceiving patients and doctors. Last year, she was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison, made a symbol of Silicon Valley ambition that veered into deceit.Shultz sought to heal the rift with his grandson, stating that he had “made me proud” and shown “great moral character”. Tyler Shultz said his grandfather never apologised but their relationship “started to heal”. Taubman notes that the Holmes issue “remained unfinished business” when Shultz died in 2021, at the age of 100.The biography was written over 10 years and draws on exclusive access to Shultz’s papers. It explores his involvement in the summits between Reagan and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that ended the cold war, the Iran-contra affair and Internal Revenue Service investigations into Nixon’s “enemies”.TopicsBooksTheranosUS politicsRepublicansUS crimenewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Brazil capital attack complicates US relationship with Bolsonaro

    Brazil capital attack complicates US relationship with BolsonaroThe former Brazilian president has taken up residence in Florida, and some Democrats are calling for his visa to be revoked The future of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, who flew to Florida in his last days in office, is emerging as a potential diplomatic issue between Brazil and the US amid calls for his expulsion for inciting insurrection.Bolsonaro has distanced himself from the mob which stormed government buildings in the capital, Brasília, on Sunday, denying accusations from his successor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, that he had encouraged the rioters from the US.‘They were in ecstasy’: how Bolsonaro mob’s orgy of violence rocked BrasíliaRead moreLeading Democrats have called for Bolsonaro’s visa to be revoked, so that he would not be allowed to use Florida as a base for destabilising Lula’s government.“Bolsonaro should not be in Florida,” Joaquín Castro, a Democratic congressman, told CNN. “The United States should not be a refuge for this authoritarian who has inspired domestic terrorism in Brazil. He should be sent back to Brazil.”Joe Biden issued a joint statement on Monday with the Mexican president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, condemning “the January 8 attacks on Brazil’s democracy and on the peaceful transfer of power”.“We stand with Brazil as it safeguards its democratic institutions. Our governments support the free will of the people of Brazil,” the statement said, adding that the three leaders looked forward to working with President Lula.The US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told journalists on Monday that there had been no contact between the administration and Bolsonaro, and the US had yet to receive any requests from the Brazilian government related to the former president.“Of course, if we did receive such requests, we treat them the way we always do. We treat them seriously,” Sullivan said.Democrats are concerned that Florida, run by a hardline Republican governor and presidential contender, Ron DeSantis, is increasingly becoming a hotbed for far-right putschists. Recent attempted coups in Haiti and Venezuela have been plotted from there and the state has become the permanent home of Donald Trump, a close Bolsonaro ally who continues his refusal to acknowledge his own election defeat in 2020, at his Mar-a-Lago resort.The Washington insurrection by Trump supporters on 6 January 2021 is widely seen as a model for the Brasília attacks, and a top Trump aide, Steve Bannon, has been linked to the Bolsonaro family, spreading false claims on social media alleging that last year’s Brazilian presidential election was rigged and referring to the Brazilian rioters as “freedom fighters”.“There’s a kind of hotbed of far-right communities there, that are clearly building on each other,” said a US congressional aide familiar with discussions on the unfolding situation in Brazil. “Governor DeSantis and former president Trump’s presence at Mar-a-Lago have both made Florida a place where these things seem to happen, so I wouldn’t be surprised if any of the planning for this had happened in Florida.”Republicans, including Trumpists, have largely stayed silent on the Brasília riot, with the exception of a Pennsylvania congressman, Brian Fitzpatrick, a member of the House foreign affairs committee, who condemned the violent attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Fitzpatrick said on Twitter he looked forward to working with Lula.Bolsonaro is reported to be staying in Kissimmee, near Orlando’s Disney World, in the vacation home of a retired Brazilian martial arts star, José Aldo, part of a resort condominium near a busy highway. On Monday he was reported to have been admitted to hospital, complaining of “severe abdominal pains”.Bolsonaro arrived in Florida on 30 December when he was still president, in which case he could have entered on an A-1 visa reserved for foreign leaders. The state department said on Monday it could not comment on individual cases, but said in general if a foreign official entered the US on an A-1 visa and then ceased to be engaged on official business, it would be the responsibility of that official to leave within 30 days, or be subject to removal by the Department of Homeland Security.The Brazilian government inquiry into the Brasília insurrection is also likely to focus on the role of Anderson Torres, Bolsonaro’s justice minister who was in charge of security in Brasília, who was also in Orlando over the weekend. Torres, who was fired on Sunday, claimed to be there on a family holiday and to have had no contact with Bolsonaro.If Brazil’s supreme court issued an arrest warrant for Bolsonaro and he then refuses to return to Brazil to give himself up, Brazil could issue an Interpol red notice prompting his arrest by US federal agents. Bolsonaro could then try to fight extradition and seek asylum in US courts, potentially triggering a prolonged legal battle.TopicsJair BolsonaroFloridaBrazilUS politicsAmericasLuiz Inácio Lula da SilvaInterpolnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Biden finally heads to border as critics condemn his migrant crackdown

    Biden finally heads to border as critics condemn his migrant crackdown Advocates attack president’s failure to uphold campaign pledges ahead of first visit to southern border since he took officeUnder pressure to address a surge of migrants at the US-Mexico border, Joe Biden announced a far-reaching crackdown on migrants seeking asylum last week, expanding the use of a controversial public health measure known as Title 42 to restrict people from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela from illegally entering the US, while offering those legally seeking relief a new pathway to America.Before the president’s first trip to the US-Mexico border since he took office in 2020, immigration advocates condemned the Biden administration’s decision to expand Title 42 as disheartening and a failure to uphold his campaign promises. They took some solace in the creation of a legal pathway to asylum for those in four countries, but still, for them, Biden’s actions were not enough – they leave out other migrants, and the parole program is beset by requirements that impose significant barriers to migrants without access to resources, perpetuating inequities within the US immigration system.In other words, immigration advocates say, the cost of expanded expulsion of migrants under the guise of public health without a clear path to asylum outweighs the promise of expanded refugee access and a legal outlet for asylum. “For a lot of us working in immigration justice, at the start of the administration, there was incredible hope that Title 42 would end and push forward to re-establish access to asylum,” the director of the American Immigration Council’s Immigration Justice Campaign, Alex Miller, said. “We’ve been disappointed.”The Biden administration’s so-called “carrot and stick” approach aims to deter the historic-high millions of migrants fleeing persecution from their home countries and seeking US asylum from entering the country illegally. Federal figures from the 2022 fiscal year show that US border agents stopped migrants more than 2m times along the southern border, setting an all-time record. They turned migrants away under the Title 42 provision more than 1m times.“The problem is the carrot is not universally accessible,” Miller added. “Legal access to asylum will be limited to those who are the right nationalities, have the right means and support, to apply for parole … The sticks they are offering are restricting access, and that’s not a fair trade.”Under the Biden administration’s new policy, if migrants from those countries pass background checks, buy a plane ticket, obtain financial sponsorship, and meet other requirements, they would be allowed to legally enter under the “parole program”. They would be authorized to live and work in the US for two years.But immigration advocates worry about the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed rule – which they say is similar to the Donald Trump White House’s “transit ban” – because it would make migrants seeking asylum ineligible if they failed to seek protection in a third country before reaching the US and if they “circumvent available, established pathways to lawful migration,” as homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said last week.They also worried that the parole program’s requirements – modeled after the administration’s approach to refugees fleeing Afghanistan, Venezuela, and Ukraine – impose barriers to migrants who lack the resources to buy flights and find a financial sponsor.On Twitter, United We Dream, an immigrant youth-led rights group, slammed Biden’s new policy “a racist and classist attack” on migrants. United We Dream’s deputy director of federal advocacy, Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, said in a statement that the Biden administration’s expansion of Title 42 would hurt “the same people seeking asylum that they purport to protect”.The American Civil Liberties Union’s director of border strategies, Jonathan Blazer, said in a statement that the Biden administration’s “knee-jerk expansion of Title 42 will put more lives in grave danger”, adding that his plan “ties his administration to the poisonous anti-immigrant policies of the Trump era instead of restoring fair access to asylum protections”.“His commitments to people seeking safety will ring utterly hollow if he moves forward in substituting one illegal anti-asylum Trump policy for another,” Blazer said.Miller told the Guardian that the administration’s new proposals include allowing asylum seekers to use an app in English and Spanish to schedule appointments. That, the administration argues, will reduce “wait times and crowds at the US port of entry and allow for safe, orderly, and humane processing”. Miller said that effort makes the legal asylum seeking process harder for migrants who lack technological access and speak indigenous dialects beyond Spanish as well as for those who cannot obtain legal representation to help them navigate the process.Biden has said that Congress needs to enact a more comprehensive immigration reform. In the interim, the administration’s new parole process, which he described as “safe, orderly” and humane, would “make things better but will not fix the border problem completely”.The National Immigration Law Center’s vice-president of law and policy, Lisa Graybill, told the Guardian that while the administration’s creation of the asylum that gives 30,000 people access is better than nothing, its overall approach reflects seeing immigration enforcement and creating outlets for asylum as a “zero-sum game”. It’s a mistake presidents and politicians have made before, she said.She added that Biden had been “following an old playbook that does not work” by allocating resources toward enforcement rather than creating a “humane and orderly processing system that is built around recognizing the right to asylum instead of violating it”. Instead, the parole program as designed, she said, will hurt impoverished migrants and those who fled their countries in haste without meeting all requirements, acting as barriers to even those who have legitimate asylum claims while helping middle and higher income migrants with access to resources.The chief adviser for policy and partnerships at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Angela Kelley, said that Biden’s creation of the parole program was “smart” and reflected an attempt to use the “tools in his toolbox and use them in more creative ways”. She pointed out that the Biden administration aimed to triple the number of refugees resettled seeking asylum from Latin American and Caribbean countries. Yet, she added, the outdated US immigration laws have not kept up with who qualifies for asylum, such as those fleeing the damaging effects of climate change.“That’s the difference maker: under Trump, it was all about kicking out people – they were systematic in dismantling the refugee program, legal immigration channels of people coming for employment for families, for students. That’s not the approach of the Biden administration,” Kelley said, noting that it will take time to see the effects Biden’s actions will take on the migration system. “They’re restoring all of that. The unfortunate continued reliance on Title 42 is a monkey on their back that they have to figure out how to shake and use the resources you have … to try [to] manage the migration of people the best you can.”Title 42’s future is uncertain as the US supreme court in December stopped Biden’s administration from ending the program to give the justices more time to weigh in on whether states have the legal grounds to intervene in an ongoing case over the program.Kelley, who had previously done immigration work for Biden and the Barack Obama White House, saw the expansion of its Title 42 program as “worrisome” for vulnerable migrants who would be sent back to dangerous conditions in Mexico. She noted that by creating legal pathways to asylum, the administration is trying to “to ease the pressures” at the US border in the hope that they wouldn’t need the pandemic program any longer.“What is heartbreaking is that in an effort to limit the number of people who are coming, you are turning away asylum seekers, who are the migrants you want to protect,” Kelley said.Immigration advocates and Biden agree that long-term changes needed to come from Congress – a questionable prospect given that the Republican-controlled House struggled to elect its speaker, and past bipartisan efforts at immigration reform had also failed.Even so, some advocates say now it’s a question of where resources are sent: They called for more resources to be directed toward assisting nonprofits and NGO groups working with asylum seekers at the border, hiring more asylum officers and more immigration judges, and investing in more legal assistance for migrants unable to afford private attorneys.“For three years under Title 42, access to asylum has been undermined,” Miller said. “All of the documented evidence of kidnapping, rape, and extortion of migrants in Mexico, in particular at the border – it’s incredibly troubling that we’re expanding the expulsions of migrants to Mexico.“These are not just numbers, these are people with individual stories with their own lives they’re trying to defend. It’s really easy to get lost in the big picture. We’re talking about people here.”TopicsUS immigrationUS politicsUS-Mexico borderVenezuelaHaitiCubaNicaraguanewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Harvard Kennedy School condemned for denying fellowship to Israel critic

    Harvard Kennedy School condemned for denying fellowship to Israel criticACLU and Pen America back former Human Rights Watch chief Kenneth Roth and say decision ‘raises serious questions’ Leading civil rights organisations have condemned Harvard Kennedy School’s denial of a position to the former head of Human Rights Watch over the organisation’s criticism of Israel.Harvard blocks role for former Human Rights Watch head over Israel criticismRead moreThe American Civil Liberties Union called the refusal of a fellowship to Kenneth Roth “profoundly troubling”. PEN America, which advocates for freedom of expression, said the move “raises serous questions” about one of the US’s leading schools of government. Roth also received backing from other human rights activists.But the Kennedy School found support from organisations that have been highly critical of Roth and HRW, particularly over the group’s report two years ago that accused Israel of practising a form of race-based apartheid in the Palestinian occupied territories.The Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy offered Roth a position as a senior fellow shortly after he retired as director of HRW in April after 29 years. But the school’s dean, Douglas Elmendorf, allegedly vetoed the move.A professor of human rights policy at the Kennedy School, Kathryn Sikkink, told the Nation that Elmendorf said to her that Roth would not be permitted to take up the position because HRW has an “anti-Israel bias” and its former director had written tweets critical of Israel.Roth told the Guardian that Harvard’s move was a reflection of “how utterly afraid the Kennedy School has become of any criticism of Israel” under pressure from donors and influential supporters within the school of Israel’s rightwing government.The director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, urged the Kennedy School “to reverse its decision”.“If Harvard’s decision was based on HRW’s advocacy under Ken’s leadership, this is profoundly troubling – from both a human rights and an academic freedom standpoint, he said. “Scholars and fellows have to be judged on their merits, not whether they please powerful political interests.”PEN America also backed Roth.“It is the role of a human rights defender to call out governments harshly, to take positions that are unpopular in certain quarters and to antagonize those who hold power and authority,” the group said. “There is no suggestion that Roth’s criticisms of Israel are in any way based on racial or religious animus.“Withholding Roth’s participation in a human rights program due to his own staunch critiques of human rights abuses by governments worldwide raises serious questions about the credibility of the Harvard program itself.”The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which promotes free speech on college campuses, wrote to Elmendorf saying that the Kennedy School “undermines its laudable commitment to intellectual diversity and free inquiry when it rescinds a fellowship offer based on the candidate’s viewpoint or speech”.But Harvard found support from organisations that have been highly critical of Roth and HRW over the group’s reports on Israel.NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based organisation that campaigns against humanitarian groups critical of Israeli government policies, accused HRW under Ross’s leadership of seeking to “delegitimize Israel”.“The dean at Harvard was not fooled by the moral facade granted to Roth and HRW. He recognized Roth’s central contributions to legitimizing antisemitism,” NGO Monitor’s president, Gerald Steinberg, said.UN Watch, a pro-Israel lobby group, described the Kennedy School’s move as “good news”.“Ken Roth had a pathological obsession with singling out Israel for differential and discriminatory treatment, disproportionately to shocking degrees, with the apparent aim to portray the Jewish state in a manner that would evoke repulsion and disgust,” it said.Roth has long been the target of a personalised campaign of abuse, including charges of antisemitism, even though his father was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. He said HRW faced similar attacks on its motives when it released its report titled A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution, even though leading Israeli politicians have also “warned that the occupation has become a form apartheid”.“The irony is that when we issued the report, the Israeli government was at a loss to find anything wrong with it. They fell back on the usual arguments of, ‘you must be antisemitic’. I take that as a … victory because if all they can do is name call, they have nothing substantive to say,” he said.The Kennedy School did not respond to requests for comment.TopicsUS newsUS politicsHarvard UniversityHigher educationUS universitiesIsraelPalestinian territoriesnewsReuse this content More