World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Primetime January 6 hearing shows set-piece TV can still pack a punch

      by

      Primetime January 6 hearing shows set-piece TV can still pack a punchFirst of public Capitol attack hearings delivered precision and panache – and a narrative arc designed for maximum effect It was one of the more unexpected takeaways of the night: in the age of six-second videos and frenetic social media posts around the clock, primetime set-piece television can still land a punch.The first of the public hearings from the US congressional committee investigating the insurrection at the US Capitol in Washington by extremist supporters of Donald Trump on 6 January last year was delivered with all the choreographed panache of an old-school TV spectacular or the Super Bowl. The broadcast was precision-timed (ending one minute short of two hours), tightly scripted and with a narrative arc designed for maximum emotional and political effect. According to the Nielsen ratings firm, it drew 20m viewers – roughly equivalent to a presidential primary debate, and more than the 5.2m that the 2015 primetime Benghazi hearing featuring testimony from 2016 Trump rival Hillary Clinton.Vivid retelling brings horror of January 6 back to scene of the crimeRead moreIt mixed never-before-seen footage, evocative witnesses and succinct delivery of pertinent, headline-grabbing quotes in a setting where politicians are often better known for rambling and repetitive speeches.Fifty years ago, the Senate Watergate committee made TV history with its raw, spontaneously chaotic but revelatory hearings into Richard Nixon’s election subversion.On Thursday night, by contrast, the treatment of Trump’s election subversion was polished and pre-conceived, with the committee chair, Mississippi Democratic congressman Bennie Thompson, and vice-chair, Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney, the daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney, reading off an autocue.So carefully were the proceedings orchestrated that they could have come across as bland and overproduced.But by the time the two leading panel members had laid out their case against Trump’s meticulously planned coup attempt, and after the nation had been assailed by harrowing footage of the January 6 violence and testimony by a female police officer describing being caught up in a “war scene”, it was anything but.Peter Baker of the New York Times concluded that in the entire 246-year history of the US since the declaration of independence, “there was surely never a more damning indictment presented against an American president”.The committee has five more hearings to go this month, after more than a year of investigation behind closed doors, as it tries to build a case alleging that Trump orchestrated a criminal conspiracy to overturn his election defeat and, on that January 6, incited a far-right mob to try to stop the official congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.The next four are in the mornings with the last one, on 23 June, again scheduled for primetime, 8pm in Washington.Thursday evening’s made-for-TV conception was the work of James Goldston, an experienced TV executive and former president of ABC News. His brief from the committee was to keep the event contained and focused, targeted at drawing and holding the attention of millions of Americans.Under his direction, even the most visceral of the material unveiled at the hearing was finely produced. Previously unseen video from the British documentary-maker Nick Quested left nobody in doubt about the violence of that day.Police officers were shown falling to the ground and stabbed with staves as the insurrectionists, egged on by Trump and led by the extremist Proud Boys, pummeled their way into a tunnel within the Capitol compound. Caroline Edwards, the Capitol police officer, described slipping in people’s blood – not the first time in the evening that Shakespearean imagery was invoked.The hearing was primetime TV at its most impactful. Not that social media was neglected.Before the hearing began Zoe Lofgren, one of the Democrats on the nine-member committee, told the Guardian that the panel was determined to bring social media on board “and make sure we are finding people where they are”.Devastating snippets drawn from the depositions of Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband Jared Kushner, were clearly devised two ways – potent on television, viral online.The clip of Ivanka in which she said she accepted the assessment of the former attorney general Bill Barr that there had been no evidence of fraud sufficient to overturn the election lasted 11 seconds – perfect for CNN, Twitter and TikTok alike.Kushner’s haughty comment to the committee that he interpreted as “whining” threats from White House lawyers to resign in the face of Trump’s potentially illegal actions could be boiled down to an even more shareable three seconds.Such painstaking formulation is not a guarantee of success. The committee’s main goal is to show the American people how Trump attempted to subvert democracy and to persuade voters that action must now be taken to prevent a repeat performance in 2024.Tell that to Fox News. While the hearing was going on, it turned its airspace over to Tucker Carlson, who duly used his primetime show to denounce the proceedings as propaganda.Carlson had his own pithy social media pitch. “They are lying, and we’re not going to help them do it,” he said.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Feel the benefit: union workers receive far better pay and rights, Congress finds

      by

      Feel the benefit: union workers receive far better pay and rights, Congress findsStudy shows unionized workers earn 10.2% more than non-union peers, amid wave of organizing at some of largest US employers Workers represented by labor unions earn 10.2% higher wages than their non-union peers, have better benefits and collectively raise wages industry-wide, according to a report released by the House and Senate committees on Friday and first shared with the Guardian.Joe Biden has pledged to be the most pro-union president in generations, and the report outlining the economic benefits of union membership was released as his administration pushes for legislative and executive-action efforts to support workers’ rights to organize.According to the report, by the joint economic committee of Congress and the House education and labor committee, unionized workers are also 18.3% more likely to receive employer-sponsored health insurance, and employers pay 77.4% more per hour worked toward the cost of health insurance for unionized workers compared with non-unionized workers.Labor unions have also contributed to narrowing racial and gender pay disparities; unionization correlates to pay premiums of 17.3% for Black workers, 23.1% for Latino workers and 14.7% for Asian workers, compared with 10.1% for white workers. Overall, female union workers receive 4.7% higher hourly wages than their non-union peers and in female dominated service industries, union workers are paid 52.1% more than non-union workers.“Unions are the foundation of America’s middle class,” said congressman Don Beyer, chair of the Joint Economic Committee. “For too long, the wealthy have captured an increasing share of the economic pie. As this report makes clear, unions help address economic inequality and ensure workers actually see the benefits when the economy grows.”The Biden administration’s drive to increase union membership comes amid a wave of organizing among workers at some of America’s largest employers, including Amazon and Starbucks.But despite the recent uptick in organizing, union membership has declined markedly in recent decades, from 34.8% of all US wage and salary workers in 1954 to 10.3% in 2021. According to several studies the decline has contributed significantly to increasing wage inequality and stagnation.Corporate practices and legal changes have also eroded workers’ bargaining power, particularly from the 1970s, as employers increasingly attempted to break union organizing efforts and were issued only weak penalties for violating labor laws.The report cites the recent resurgence of the US labor movement, and strong public support for labor unions, as a call to action to improve wages and working conditions and support worker organizing.“As chair of the education and labor committee, I am committed to addressing the decades of anti-worker attacks that have eroded workers’ collective bargaining rights,” said education and labor committee chair congressman Bobby Scott.“With the release of this report, I once again call on the Senate to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which would take historic steps to strengthen workers’ right to organize, rebuild our middle class, and improve the lives of workers and their families.”TopicsUS unionsBiden administrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Panel to connect Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in Capitol attack conspiracy

      by

      Panel to connect Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in Capitol attack conspiracySources say investigators intend to show far-right militias coordinated in effort to storm US Capitol on January 6 last year The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack is expected at its first hearing on Thursday evening to connect the far-right Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia groups in the same seditious conspiracy, according to two sources familiar with the matter.The move by the panel and chief investigative counsel Tim Heaphy could be one of the major revelations that comes from the hearing, which is expected to focus on the militia groups and how they made plans to storm the Capitol, the sources said.US braces for House committee’s primetime January 6 hearings – liveRead moreTop members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have been charged separately by the justice department with seditious conspiracy, but the select committee’s intention to show that their efforts were connected would escalate the gravity of the plans to attack the Capitol.The panel is understood to be able to connect the two groups in part as it got access to the Oath Keepers’ encrypted Signal messaging chats, while the first witness at the hearing, documentarian Nick Quested, who filmed the Proud Boys, overheard their planning.Text messages released by the justice department have also shown that the two groups were in touch before January 6. Meanwhile at least one person, Joshua James, appears to have simultaneously been both a member of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.It could not be confirmed ahead of the hearing whether the select committee had the evidence to tie Donald Trump into the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers’ conspiracy. But the panel is not expected to tie Roger Stone to the conspiracy, having been unable to find any such evidence.The role of the militia groups in the story of January 6 is important because they specifically planned to storm the Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win – what Trump wanted and needed after his other efforts to overturn the election failed.The panel is expected to make its case that there was coordination between the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers – something the panel has long believed – over the course of a hearing that will specifically zero in on the role of the Proud Boys in the Capitol attack.A member of the Proud Boys was the first person to breach the Capitol by using a police riot shield to break through a window on the Senate side of the Capitol, and another member of the Proud Boys appeared to precipitate the first breach of police lines on January 6.The inaugural hearing is expected to focus on Quested’s video footage of the moment that Joseph Biggs, a member of the Proud Boys indicted for seditious conspiracy on Monday, had a brief exchange with another man near the Peace Monument at the foot of Capitol Hill.Biggs’ exchange with that man, Ryan Samsel, is widely seen as the tipping point that precipitated the riot. Samsel, who has been charged with attacking police, then walks up alone to the barricade and confronts US Capitol police officers before pushing it over.The inaugural hearing is also expected to focus on Quested’s video of the Proud Boys charging up Capitol Hill towards the lower west plaza of the Capitol and the inaugural ceremony platform, where Proud Boys member Dominic Pezzola smashes the window with the shield.Also during the inaugural hearing, the select committee is expected to play previously unreleased video of Trump’s top aides and family members testifying before the panel. The panel intends to show Trump was at the center of a multi-step effort to overturn the election.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsThe far rightnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Washington Commanders coach sorry after calling Capitol attack a ‘dust-up’

      by

      Washington Commanders coach sorry after calling Capitol attack a ‘dust-up’Jack Del Rio referred to Capitol riots as ‘dust-up’ in tweetWashington defensive coordinator joined staff in 2020 An assistant coach for the NFL’s Washington Commanders issued an apology for his word choice after doubling down on a comparison he made on social media between the violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the protests in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd.Washington coach defends comparing Floyd protests to January 6 riotsRead moreJack Del Rio, a former linebacker who now runs Washington’s defense, downplayed the deadly insurrection and questioned why the summer of 2020 protests were not receiving the same scrutiny. His comments Wednesday after an offseason practice came a day before a House committee investigating the pro-Donald Trump disruption of Congress 17 months ago begins public hearings on the matter.“People’s livelihoods are being destroyed, businesses are being burned down, no problem,” Del Rio said. “And then we have a dust-up at the Capitol, nothing burned down, and we’re going to make that a major deal. I just think it’s kind of two standards.”Amid backlash for his comments, Del Rio released a statement on Twitter Wednesday afternoon apologizing his word choice. Del Rio said it was “irresponsible and negligent” to call the riot a “dust-up.” But he said he stood by comments “condemning violence in communities across the country.”His comments followed a Twitter post Monday night in which he said, “Would love to understand ‘the whole story’ about why the summer of riots, looting, burning and the destruction of personal property is never discussed but this is ???” He was responding to a tweet about the Congressional hearings into Jan. 6.Del Rio and coach Ron Rivera say they aren’t concerned if the opinion will upset Black players who make up the majority of their team, some of whom spoke out about police brutality and racism in the wake of Floyd’s killing two years ago.“If they are (concerned) and they want to talk about it, I’d talk about it with anybody,” Del Rio said. “No problem. At any time. But they’re not. I’m just expressing myself and I think we all as Americans have a right to express ourselves, especially if you’re being respectful. I’m being respectful.”Washington defensive back Kendall Fuller, a Black player, said he was not aware of Del Rio’s tweet. After a reporter read it to him, Fuller said: “I don’t have a reaction right now. If I have a reaction, a feeling, towards something, I’ll express that with him.”Del Rio, 59, has posted conservative opinions to his verified Twitter account numerous times since joining Rivera’s staff in Washington in 2020.“Anything that I ever say or write, I’d be comfortable saying or writing in front of everybody that I work with, players and coaches,” Del Rio said. “I express myself as an American. We have that ability. I love this country and I believe what I believe and I’ve said what I want to say. Every now and then, there’s some people that get offended by it.”The remarks generated a prompt backlash from some Virginia lawmakers, who for months have been considering whether to pass legislation intended to incentivize the team to build a new stadium in the commonwealth by offering generous tax incentives. Two northern Virginia Democratic senators who had previously been enthusiastic supporters of the measure expressed concerns about Del Rio’s comments.Jeremy McPike tweeted a clip of Del Rio speaking with the message: “Yup. Just sealed the deal to cast my vote as a NO. I think what’s burning down today is the stadium bill.” Scott Surovell predicted there would be no more “votes on stadium bills this year.”Senate majority leader Dick Saslaw, a sponsor of the bill, said the comments were “not helpful” but talks over the legislation would continue. The measure initially cleared the state with broad Senate support, but other defectors had raised concerns even before Del Rio’s remarks.With five years left until their current lease at FedEx Field is set to expire, the Commanders have no stadium deal in place with Virginia, Maryland or the District of Columbia.Rivera, who hired Del Rio to run Washington’s defense without any prior relationship, said he would not discuss anything he talks about with his staff.“Everybody’s entitled to their opinion, though,” Rivera said. “If it ever becomes an issue or a situation, we’ll have that discussion. Right now, it’s something that I will deal with when it comes up.”Del Rio played 11 NFL seasons from 1985-95. He has coached in the league since 1997, including stints as the head coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars from 2003-11 and Oakland Raiders from 2015-17.Washington’s defense ranked 22nd out of 32 teams last season after being the league’s second-best in 2020. Del Rio said he likes his players and welcomes any dialogue with them.“Let’s have a discussion. We’re Americans,” he said. “Let’s talk it through. I’m for us having a great opportunity having a fulfilled life every which way I can. When I’m here it’s about love and respect. I love my guys, I respect my guys but I also love the fact that I’m an American and that means I’m free to express myself. I’m not afraid to do that.”TopicsWashington CommandersNFLUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS sportsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans keep passing extreme anti-abortion bans without popular support. Here’s why

      by

      Republicans keep passing extreme anti-abortion bans without popular support. Here’s whyMost Americans don’t want abortion bans but gerrymandering allows politicians to face little accountability Hello, and happy Thursday,As states have passed a wave of increasingly extreme abortion restrictions in recent years, a sort of puzzling contradiction has emerged. The American public broadly supports the right to an abortion, public polling has shown, yet politicians who pass these controversial restrictions are consistently re-elected. Why is that?US braces for House committee’s primetime January 6 hearings – liveRead moreYesterday, we published a story that seeks to answer that question. A big part of why politicians face little accountability is gerrymandering. State lawmakers, who have the power to draw the boundaries of their own districts in most places, can pick which voters they represent and virtually guarantee their re-election.It’s more important than ever to understand this dynamic. In his draft opinion overturning Roe v Wade, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that abortion is an issue that should be resolved by the political process, not the courts. By insulating politicians from accountability, extreme gerrymandering prevents the political process from doing that. In 2019, Alito joined four of the court’s conservative justices in saying there was nothing federal courts could do to police even the most extreme gerrymandering.Few places better capture the link between partisan gerrymandering and extreme anti-abortion measures than Ohio.In 2010, Republicans won control of the Ohio legislature and drew new maps that allowed them to hold a veto-proof majority for the next decade. In 2011, the legislature began to pass a series of restrictions on abortion. Republicans enacted a new law that banned abortion after a fetus was viable and required viability testing after 20 weeks. They passed another measure that prohibited taxpayer-funded hospitals from entering into patient transfer agreements with clinics, making it harder for the clinics to operate. In 2019, the state had banned abortion after six weeks, one of the most restrictive laws in the country. (The Ohio Policy Evaluation Network, which tracks abortion access in Ohio has a good timeline of these bills).When Ohio lawmakers were passing these measures, there wasn’t overwhelming public support for them. Ohio voters are closely divided on abortion and a majority did not support the six week ban (one poll after it passed in 2019 showed that a majority of people opposed it). Even so, Ohio Republicans have maintained their majorities in the state legislature.“That mismatch between what we see in public opinion and what we see at the statehouse, really suggests that what citizens are thinking about abortion access really is not reflected in their statehouse,” Danielle Bessett, a sociology professor at the University of Cincinnati, who closely studies abortion care in Ohio, told me. “That suggests that there isn’t a concern about this being sort of something that they’re going to get held accountable for at the polls.”It’s an imbalance that exists across the country. Nationally, 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but states are enacting a blitz of increasingly extreme restrictions, including several that are considering outright bans. Republicans continue to control more state legislative chambers than Democrats do, and very few are expected to flip partisan control (fewer than 1 in 5 state legislative districts are estimated to be competitive this year).In Ohio, Republicans have once again engineered maps that preserve their advantage. After the state supreme court struck down five proposals for a new legislative map because they were too gerrymandered, lawmakers ran out the clock. They convinced a federal court to impose a map for the 2022 elections that will allow them to maintain, at minimum, 54% of the seats in the state legislature.“It’s frustrating. In some ways it’s hopeful that people do think that abortion should be a right and should exist for people in Ohio,” Sri Thakkilapati, the interim executive director of PreTerm, an abortion clinic in Cleveland told me. “It’s helpful to know that there are more of us. But in some ways it’s very disheartening…It feels like it’s not gonna make a difference.”Also worth watching…
      Jim Marchant, a QAnon linked candidate running to be Nevada’s chief election official, is seeking his party’s nomination in the GOP primary on Tuesday.
      Voters with disabilities are suing Alabama for offering inadequate access to absentee ballots for people who are blind
      TopicsUS newsFight to voteUS politicsAbortionOhioRoe v WadefeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in World Politics

      Making Sense of the US Designating Qatar as a Major Non-NATO Ally

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US House passes gun control bill but it faces defeat in Senate

      by

      US House passes gun control bill but it faces defeat in SenateSweeping legislation would raise age limit for buying a semiautomatic rifle and put curbs on ammunition sales The US House of Representatives has passed a wide-ranging gun control bill in response to recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, but the proposals have almost no chance of being approved by the Senate and becoming law.The bill would raise the age limit for buying a semi-automatic rifle and prohibit the sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds. The legislation passed by a mostly party-line vote of 223-204. It has almost no chance of becoming law as the Senate pursues negotiations focused on improving mental health programmes, bolstering school security and enhancing background checks. But the House bill does give Democratic lawmakers a chance to frame for voters in November where they stand on policies that polls show are widely supported. “We can’t save every life, but my God, shouldn’t we try? America we hear you and today in the House we are taking the action you are demanding,” said Veronica Escobar, a Texas Democrat. “Take note of who is with you and who is not.”The vote came after a House committee heard wrenching testimony from recent shooting victims and family members, including from an 11-year-old girl, Miah Cerrillo, who covered herself with a dead classmate’s blood to avoid being shot at Uvalde elementary school. 01:59The seemingly never-ending cycle of mass shootings in the US has rarely stirred Congress to act. But the shooting of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde has revived efforts in a way that has lawmakers from both parties talking about the need to respond. “It’s sickening, it’s sickening that our children are forced to live in this constant fear,” said the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi.Pelosi said the House vote would “make history by making progress”. But i is unclear where the House measure will go after Wednesday’s vote, given that Republicans were adamant in their opposition. “The answer is not to destroy the second amendment, but that is exactly where the Democrats want to go,“ said the Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio. The work to find common ground is mostly taking place in the Senate, where support from 10 Republicans will be needed to get a bill signed into law. Nearly a dozen Democratic and Republican senators met privately for an hour on Wednesday in hope of reaching a framework for compromise legislation by the end of the week. Participants said more conversations were needed about a plan that is expected to propose modest steps. In a measure of the political peril that efforts to curb guns pose for Republicans, five of the six lead Senate GOP negotiators do not face re-election until 2026. They are senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, John Cornyn of Texas, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The sixth, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, is retiring in January. It is also notable that none of the six is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.While Cornyn has said the talks are serious, he has not joined the chorus of Democrats saying the outlines of a deal could be reached by the end of this week. He told reporters on Wednesday that he considered having an agreement before Congress begins a recess in late June to be “an aspirational goal”. The House bill stitches together a variety of proposals Democrats had introduced before the recent shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde. The suspects in the shootings at Uvalde elementary school and the Buffalo supermarket were both 18, authorities say, when they bought the semiautomatic weapons used in the attacks. The bill would increase the minimum age to buy such weapons to 21. “A person under 21 cannot buy a Budweiser. We should not let a person under 21 buy an AR-15 weapon of war,“ said Ted Lieu, a California Democrat. Republicans have noted that a US appeals court ruling last month found California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic weapons to adults under 21 was unconstitutional. “This is unconstitutional and it’s immoral. Why is it immoral? Because we’re telling 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to register for the draft. You can go die for your country. We expect you to defend us, but we’re not going to give you the tools to defend yourself and your family,” said Thomas Massie of Kentucky. The House bill also includes incentives designed to increase the use of safe gun storage devices and creates penalties for violating safe storage requirements, providing for a fine and imprisonment of up to five years if a gun is not properly stored and is subsequently used by a minor to injure or kill themselves or another individual. It also builds on executive actions banning fast-action “bump stock” devices and “ghost guns” that are assembled without serial numbers. The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, hailed the House bill, tweeting: “We continue to work hard with both parties to save lives and stand up for families.” Five Republicans voted for the bill: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, Chris Jacobs of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Fred Upton of Michigan. Only Fitzpatrick is seeking re-election. On the Democratic side, Jared Golden of Maine and Kurt Schrader of Oregon were the only no votes. Schrader lost his re-election attempt in the Democratic primary. Golden faces a competitive election in November. The House is also expected to approve a bill on Thursday that would allow families, police and others to ask federal courts to order the removal of firearms from people who are believed to be at extreme risk of harming themselves or others. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia currently have such “red flag laws”. Under the House bill, a judge could issue an order to temporarily remove and store the firearms until a hearing can be held no longer than two weeks later to determine whether the firearms should be returned or kept for a specific period.TopicsUS gun controlHouse of RepresentativesUS school shootingsTexas school shootingUS politicsBuffalo shootingUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      No easy ride for Biden as Kimmel tells him to ‘start yelling at people’

      by

      No easy ride for Biden as Kimmel tells him to ‘start yelling at people’Serious questions on gun violence mean there are few laughs as US president meets late-night TV host “Our very special guest tonight is to aviator sunglasses what Tom Cruise is to aviator sunglasses,” quipped the late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel. “I’m proud to say I voted for him dozens of times. He is the reason we all got a cavity search tonight.”This was how Kimmel introduced Joe Biden for his first in-person interview with a late-night host since taking office as US president.But any hopes that Biden, whose poll ratings are plunging, might have had that the comedian would invite him to show a lighter side to his personality were soon dashed. It was a night when there were not many laughs.Once the president had sat down, Kimmel asked: “Do you mind if I ask you some serious questions?” He then dived straight in to demand why, after a flurry of mass shootings across America, nothing had been done since Biden entered the White House.“Well, I think a lot of it’s intimidation by the NRA [National Rifle Association],” the president replied. “Look, this is not your father’s Republican party. This is a Maga party,” – a reference to the former president Donald Trump’s “Make America great again” slogan, which Biden is increasingly using an insult.“It’s a very different Republican party and so you find people who are worried, I believe, that if they vote for a rational gun policy they’re going to be primaried and they’re going to lose in a hard-right Republican primary.”Biden said he had always had a “straight relationship” with Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate. “You know, he’s a guy that when he says something, he means it. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he means it.”But Kimmel, seemingly determined to blunt rightwing criticism that he would give the president an easy ride, showed greater willingness to interrupt Biden than many political interviewers. He objected that McConnell had contradicted himself on confirming supreme court justices in a president’s final year.Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BSTBiden added: “Look, he’s the leader of a party that’s moved very hard right and so, in order to get anything done, he has a different problem than he did early on before Trump became president.”Kimmel observed that although the Republican party had moved to the hard right, the American people had not because an overwhelming majority supported expanded background checks on gun buyers. His voice quivering with emotion, the host suggested that every senator should sit with the grieving families of 19 schoolchildren killed last month in Uvalde, Texas.He interrupted Biden again to ask impatiently: “Can’t you issue an executive order? Trump passed those out like Halloween candy.”The president noted he had issued some executive orders but said to applause: “I don’t want to emulate Trump’s abuse of the constitution and constitutional authority.”He said he knew some people felt like “Republicans don’t play it square, why do you play it square? Well, guess what? If we do the same thing they do, our democracy will literally be in jeopardy. Not a joke.”Kimmel replied: “It’s like you’re playing Monopoly with somebody who won’t pass go or won’t follow any of the rules, and how do you ever make any progress if they’re not following the rules?”Biden smiled and joked, “You’ve got to send them to jail”, a reference to a punishment in the board game.Biden is facing concerns about high fuel prices, baby formula shortages, and a lack of progress on several legislative fronts such as gun safety and voting rights. A Morning Consult poll published on Wednesday found that 58% of those surveyed disapproved of Biden’s performance as president, while 39% of respondents approved.Biden has also been criticised for giving fewer media interviews than his predecessors: Wednesday’s was his first since 10 February. While Trump gave late-night TV a wide berth as president, Barack Obama was a regular presence on the shows during his time in office. Biden did a virtual interview with Jimmy Fallon last December.Kimmel’s show on the ABC network was recorded in Los Angeles, where Biden is visiting for this week’s Summit of the Americas, bringing together countries from across the hemisphere. The first lady, Jill Biden, was in the audience along with Biden’s granddaughter Naomi and her fiance.At one point Kimmel, who in past years has spoken out passionately about healthcare and gun violence, pondered political gridlock and the spread of false information and advised: “I think you need to start yelling at people.”Biden demurred, saying the US was still suffering from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, but insisted he had “never been more optimistic in my life”.Kimmel again cut in: “Why are you so optimistic? It makes no sense.”Biden said he was pinning his hopes on young people, the “best educated, least prejudiced, most giving generation in American history. This generation is going to change everything. We just have to make sure we don’t give up.”Later Kimmel sympathised with Biden’s endlessly multiplying crises, including an imminent supreme court decision on abortion rights. “What a terrible job you have,” he said. “I’m glad you’re doing it. But, boy oh boy, does this seem like a bad gig.”TopicsJoe BidenThe US politics sketchBiden administrationUS gun controlJimmy KimmelUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More