World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats look to prove economic credentials in battle for midterms

      by

      Democrats look to prove economic credentials in battle for midtermsParty aims to reframe narrative that Republicans are natural custodians of economy and alleviate voters’ inflation concerns Republicans have long presented themselves as the best guardians of the US economy. Demanding lower taxes and lauding themselves as champions of small businesses, Republicans have for decades generally enjoyed an advantage with American voters when it comes to economic issues.Leon Panetta on the Afghanistan withdrawal, a year on: Politics Weekly America podcastRead moreThat advantage could prove hugely consequential this year, as Democrats attempt to hold on to their narrow House and Senate majorities in the midterm elections.With Americans fretting over record-high inflation and the possibility of a recession, Democratic lawmakers and progressive groups are trying to reframe the narrative and convince US voters that Republicans should no longer be seen as a party of good economic governance. Democrats’ success or failure on that front could determine who controls Congress after November’s crucial midterm elections.Democrats will have their work cut out for them as they try to alleviate voters’ economic concerns, as Republicans are starting off with an edge on the issue. According to an ABC News/Ipsos poll taken last month, 34% of Americans trust Republicans to do a better job of handling the economy, compared with 25% who say the same of Democrats. That advantage could help lift Republicans to victory in some important races, considering roughly three-quarters of US voters say the economy will be very important to their vote in this year’s congressional elections.“The pandemic and the economic disruptions have put pocketbook issues at the forefront of voters’ minds,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive group Our Revolution. “At the end of the day, voters are looking to vote for politicians who will raise their standard of living.”Republicans know that economic concerns could drag down Democrats’ midterm prospects, and they have taken every opportunity to hammer Joe Biden and his party over rising prices and their impact on families’ budgets.“Hardworking Americans are living paycheck to paycheck thanks to Joe Biden and Democrats’ higher prices,” Ronna McDaniel, chair of the Republican National Committee, said Friday. “As long as Democrats continue to rubber-stamp Biden’s agenda and waste taxpayer dollars on their radical policies, families will continue to struggle to afford everything from gas to school supplies to groceries.”Republicans’ attack strategy builds on the political work of Donald Trump, who promised to transform his party into a “worker’s party” when he first ran for president in 2016. As he rose to the presidency, Trump bemoaned the outsourcing of US manufacturing jobs and pledged to deliver a raise for American workers.“Republicans have been incredibly masterful in positioning themselves as economic populists,” Geevarghese said. “They have succeeded in at least creating the perception that the Republican party is the party of working-class voters, and that is the central challenge for Democrats to overcome in the midterms.”Democrats’ recent success on Capitol Hill could significantly aid their efforts to challenge Republicans’ populist reputation. Last month, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, a spending package that includes massive investments in climate initiatives and numerous provisions aimed at lowering Americans’ healthcare costs.Not a single congressional Republican supported the law, and Democrats have gone to great lengths to highlight their opposition to the spending package.“Every single Republican voted against lowering prescription drug prices, against lower healthcare costs, against tackling the climate crisis, against lower energy costs, against creating good-paying jobs, against fairer taxes,” Biden said at a rally hosted by the Democratic National Committee late last month. “Every single American needs to return the favor when we vote.”In addition to their legislative accomplishments, Democrats are quick to point out that the US economy is performing very well in a number of respects right now.The August jobs report showed that the country added 315,000 jobs last month, bringing the unemployment rate to 3.7%, which is close to a 50-year low. Gas prices have also fallen from their record highs in June, providing some relief to Americans who have been struggling to refill their cars.But that progress will not help Democrats at the polls in November unless voters actually feel the difference in their own lives, said Sarah Baron, campaign director for Unrig the Economy.“Even if GDP is good and the unemployment rate is good, if you’re struggling to buy your groceries or you’re still struggling to put gas in your car or take your kids to school, you’re not feeling so optimistic about the party in power,” Baron said. “I think it’s incumbent on progressives, on Democrats to make people feel who’s fighting for them.”Baron’s group, which launched in March, is dedicated to highlighting Republicans’ voting records and rethinking the conversation around policy solutions to everyday financial struggles. The group recently completed its Constituents Over Corporations Week of Action, holding events to cast a spotlight on House Republicans who voted against the Inflation Reduction Act. Those Republicans are running for reelection in battleground districts across the country that could determine control of the House.David Valadao, who is facing a difficult reelection race in California’s 22nd congressional district, was one of the House members invited to participate in a town hall hosted by Unrig the Economy. Valado refused to attend, but the group went ahead with the event anyway to draw more attention to his vote against the Inflation Reduction Act.“We genuinely believe that elected representatives should have to answer to their constituents,” said Alice Walton, an organizer with Unrig the Economy based in California. “If someone is going to vote against a bill, I think voters deserve to know why.”Walton argued that such events can help reshape voters’ conceptions of Republicans as champions of working-class Americans.“Republicans have talked about the economy from a business perspective,” she said. “We’re trying to talk about it from a personal perspective and helping constituents to see the economic pain that they feel can potentially be alleviated by some of these policies coming out of DC.”Groups like Unrig the Economy are instead trying to recast Republicans as allies of large corporations, the pharmaceutical industry and oil and gas companies. Republicans’ opposition to the Inflation Reduction Act has given progressives a new opening to press their case.“For way, way, way too long, corporations have driven the agenda, certainly for a lot of folks in Congress, including Representative Ashley Hinson here in Iowa,” said Matt Sinovic, another Unrig the Economy organizer. “We want to make sure that the economy works for working people and working families.”If those outreach and messaging efforts are successful, Democrats could avoid the widespread losses usually seen by the president’s party in midterm elections. With so much on the line, it is imperative for Democrats to change the narrative about which party is better for the economy, Baron argued.“This trend has been happening for decades, where increasingly Republicans are voting against increasing wages, against unions, increasingly for corporations, and yet somehow seem to be pulling one over on so much of the American people,” Baron said.“At a certain point, it’s got to be on progressives and the Democratic party to make clear where they stand and go on offense on the economy.”TopicsDemocratsJoe BidenUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Pressure on Trump loyalist Jeffrey Clark as ex-DoJ colleague works with prosecutors

      by

      Pressure on Trump loyalist Jeffrey Clark as ex-DoJ colleague works with prosecutors Cooperation from Ken Klukowski could spur charges against Clark, who schemed with Trump to overturn election results in GeorgiaLegal pressure on Jeffrey Clark, the former justice department lawyer who schemed with Donald Trump and others to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia and other states, is expected to rise with the cooperation of another ex-DoJ lawyer who worked with him, say former prosecutors.FBI materials seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home included 90 empty foldersRead moreThe cooperation from the ex-lawyer, in tandem with other evidence obtained by prosecutors, could help spur charges against Clark – a close ally of then president Trump – and benefit prosecutors as they go after bigger targets.Clark, then an assistant attorney general, played a key role at the DoJ towards the end of the Trump administration, which overlapped with plotting by Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman and Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows to persuade Georgia and other states to use “fake electors” for Trump, instead of ones that Joe Biden won.In Trump’s desperate efforts to block Biden’s win, he turned to Clark for help at the suggestion of congressman Scott Perry, who had also touted him to Meadows, according to emails revealed by the House January 6 committee investigating the Capitol riot by Trump supporters.Trump met Clark alone in mid-December, and for a few weeks talked about replacing acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen with Clark, until Trump was told bluntly at a raucous White House meeting by Rosen and his deputy, plus White House counsel Pat Cipollone, that doing so would spur mass resignations at the department and in the counsel’s office.Clark, whose cellphone and other electronic equipment was seized by federal agents in a June search on his home, worked with former DoJ lawyer Ken Klukowski, who is now cooperating with prosecutors, on a draft letter to top Georgia state legislators and the governor which falsely claimed that department had “significant concerns” about election fraud there and in other states.The letter, which was never sent despite Clark’s efforts, also suggested that legitimate Biden electors be replaced with ones for Trump.Other potential evidence against Clark could surface in cellphones that the FBI seized over the summer that belonged to Eastman and Perry, both of whom have filed lawsuits to block investigators from accessing their phones.Moreover, Cipollone, who witnessed and was appalled by Trump’s idea of installing Clark to replace Rosen, according to testimony by a top DoJ official to the January 6 panel, testified on 2 September to a grand jury in Washington looking at Trump’s efforts to overturn the election and the Capitol attack.While the substance of Cipollone’s testimony is unknown, other evidence about his views of Clark and Trump’s flirtation with promoting Clark to lead the DoJ could add to legal pressure on Clark.Former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said Klukowski’s cooperation with prosecutors may help make cases against other top Trump loyalists, as well as Clark.“When pursuing conspiracy cases, prosecutors look for ‘weak links’ among the co-conspirators, to wit, people willing to cooperate. The closer to the hub of the conspiracy, the better,” Zeldin told the Guardian.“In the case of the Georgia false electors scheme, the two people who jump out as logical witnesses are Ken Klukowski and Jeffrey Clark. Both appear to have been intimately involved in the scheme, and both have a great deal to lose if convicted of a crime.”Zeldin said Klukowski’s cooperation with federal prosecutors could be “very bad news” for Clark, Giuliani, and Eastman, who were involved in the “fake electors” schemes in several states, including Georgia.Zeldin added: “Beyond these immediate probable targets, Klukowski may have insight into the role Mark Meadows is said to have played in orchestrating Trump’s efforts to set aside the Georgia election results.”Similarly, Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for Eastern Michigan, told the Guardian that “Clark may find himself in serious legal jeopardy with the seizure of phones as well as the reported cooperation of Ken Klukowski … Clark would be the most significant wrongdoer here, and so it seems likely that efforts to flip other witnesses would focus on him.”If Clark is charged with a crime, McQuade added, “he might find it appealing to cooperate. Reports indicate that he met alone with Trump to discuss efforts to undermine election results. He could potentially be a valuable witness. This up-the-chain approach is the kind of strategy prosecutors use in organized crime cases.”McQuade noted in particular that “Clark may be helpful to investigating the fake electors scheme in light of his draft letter to state legislatures suggesting they convene to appoint alternate slates of electors. “The letter that Clark wanted to send to top Georgia legislators and the governor, which Klukowski helped draft, was cited at a hearing of the House January 6 panel in late June, by vice-chairman Liz Cheney.The letter stated falsely that “the Department of Justice is investigating various irregularities in the 2020 election for President of the United States” and that the DoJ had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states including the state of Georgia”.Former attorney general William Barr, and Rosen, who succeeded Barr in December 2020 as acting attorney general, had rejected claims by Trump and his allies of significant voting fraud in 2020.However, former acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue told the House January 6 panel that Clark pursued his own investigations and that, despite failing to find evidence of widespread fraud, Clark pressed ahead with drafting a baseless letter which both Donoghue and Rosen had flatly rejected signing and sending.Donoghue testified he repeatedly told Clark that his actions boiled down to using the DoJ to meddle in the presidential election. Donoghue recalled that Clark responded, “I think a lot of people meddled in this election.”Donoghue also told the House panel in a deposition that Cipollone had warned Trump that the draft letter falsely stating that DoJ had significant concerns about fraud was like a “murder- suicide pact” which would “damage everyone who touches it” if it were sent to Georgia officialsClark’s draft letter was rife with false statements about the election and his actions at DoJ to help Trump prompted the DC bar to file ethics charges against him alleging that his draft letter to Georgia officials represented dishonest conduct and breached legal ethics.Rachel Semmel, a spokesman for Center for Renewing America, where Jeff Clark is the Director of Litigation, blasted the DoJ inquiries involving Clark and others. .”Biden’s DoJ has made its focus attacking Americans, including attacking the legal qualifications of one of the only top lawyers at the DOJ who had the interests of the American people at heart.”Former DoJ prosecutors say Klukowski’s cooperation in conjunction with evidence that prosecutors seem to have obtained about Clark’s role pushing Trump’s false election claims at DoJ, could be quite useful.“ If Klukowski can help deliver the goods on Clark, you may be on your way to Perry and Meadows who promoted Clark to Trump, possibly to Giuliani and Eastman, and ultimately Trump,” said former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut.Likewise, McQuade sees potential bonuses for prosecutors as they probe Clark and the fake electors schemes.“Working up the chain, prosecutors could potentially flip Clark and Perry to get to Meadows, and Meadows to get to Trump,” McQuade said “Each link in the chain would seem to have information that could be useful to prosecuting the next link up.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump considered hiring heavyweight Jones Day law firm during Russia inquiry, book says

      by

      Trump considered hiring heavyweight Jones Day law firm during Russia inquiry, book saysEx-president said to have wanted ‘someone a bit more bombastic’, writes New York Times reporter David Enrich Donald Trump considered but rejected hiring the law firm Jones Day to represent him during the Russia investigation, a new book says.Donald Trump once tried to pay a lawyer with a horse, new book saysRead moreThe news that Trump could have hired a heavyweight firm for his personal defence but chose not to – preferring “someone a bit more bombastic”, according to senior partners – comes after the former president appointed a new lawyer in his battle with the Department of Justice over the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida for classified White House documents.In his many brushes with the law as president and after, Trump is widely seen to have struggled for quality representation.Jones Day, a huge international firm, advised Trump’s campaign in 2016 and played a major role in his administration from 2017 to 2021, most publicly through the work of Donald McGahn, a partner, as Trump’s first White House counsel.The firm’s talks about doing more personal work for Trump are described in Servants of the Damned: Giant Law Firms, Donald Trump and the Corruption of Justice, a book by the New York Times reporter David Enrich that will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.According to Enrich, at the outset of the Trump administration, McGahn “wanted to be spending his time in the White House filling the judiciary with [conservative] Federalist Society judges and, to a lesser extent, dismantling the ‘administrative state’”.The White House counsel enjoyed great success on the judges issue, piloting a process that installed hundreds of judges and saw three conservatives put on the supreme court.But, Enrich writes: “What McGahn increasingly found himself and his team spending time on was Trump’s personal legal problems.”McGahn, Enrich writes, thought Trump should have “his own, competent counsel” to deal with investigations of Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow, and Trump’s firing of the FBI director James Comey.That, Enrich says, led to Trump having at least two Oval Office meetings with Stephen Brogan, managing partner of Jones Day.Enrich reports that some at Jones Day thought such a deal would tie the firm too closely to Trump as his presidency pitched into controversy and chaos. Brogan was advised to pull back but pushed to land the client.“In the end, Brogan didn’t get the job,” Enrich writes, adding that it “went instead to John Dowd. The feeling among some senior Jones Day partners was that Trump wanted someone a bit more bombastic than Brogan as his defender-in-chief.”Trump’s pick had ramifications for the rest of his presidency and beyond. Dowd, a former US Marine, resigned in March 2018, his conduct of Trump’s response to the Russia investigation widely seen as a failure. McGahn, who cooperated with the special counsel Robert Mueller quit five months later.The Russia investigation bruised Trump but he escaped impeachment. He did not escape it over approaches to Ukraine involving withholding military aid while seeking dirt on rivals including Joe Biden.Because enough Republican senators stayed loyal, Trump was acquitted in his first Senate trial and in his second, for inciting the deadly Capitol attack of 6 January 2021, in his attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat.But throughout such travails, Trump was represented by lawyers widely seen as not up to the task, including Bruce Castor, a former district attorney from Pennsylvania who gave a rambling presentation in the second impeachment trial.Two Trump lawyers could be witnesses or targets in FBI investigationRead moreThroughout his wild post-presidency, Trump has continued to struggle to hire top talent. Regarding the Mar-a-Lago search last month, critics suggest Trump’s lawyers have made life easier for the DoJ with moves including demanding details of the related affidavit and warrant be made public.Writing for The Intercept last week, the reporter James Risen said: “Even [Trump’s] cultishly loyal lawyers have become radioactive with prosecutors, angering the justice department with their efforts to politicise the case. In a court filing … the justice department said that Trump’s lawyers have leveled ‘wide-ranging meritless accusations’ against the government.”Two Trump attorneys, Christina Bobb and Evan Corcoran, may be in danger of becoming targets of an obstruction investigation, given their roles liaising with the DoJ over records stored at Mar-a-Lago.Last week, in a move widely seen as a play for better representation, Trump hired Chris Kise, a former Florida solicitor general who has won cases before the US supreme court.TopicsBooksDonald TrumpLaw (US)US politicsRepublicansPolitics booksnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      The Destructionists review: brilliant study of Republican rage pre-Trump

      by

      The Destructionists review: brilliant study of Republican rage pre-Trump Dana Milbank of the Washington Post does not fall victim to false equivalency. He knows the GOP is a threat to democracyAfter Joe Biden’s fiery speech in defense of democracy last week, most of the Washington press corps responded with another stream of fatuous false equivalencies.Donald Trump once tried to pay a lawyer with a horse, new book saysRead more“The Two Parties Finally Agree on Something: American Democracy Is in Danger”, was the headline in the New York Times. A Washington Post editorial declared the president was “wrong to conflate upholding the rule of law with his own partisan agenda, which he called ‘the work of democracy’”.In his brilliant new book, Dana Milbank, a Post columnist, does not offer any of the squishy-soft judgements to which most of his Washington colleagues have become sadly addicted.He comes straight to the point that eluded the authors of that Times story and that Post editorial: “Republicans have become an authoritarian faction fighting democracy. There’s a perfectly logical, if deeply cynical reason for this. Democracy is working against Republicans” who have only carried the popular vote once in eight presidential elections since 1988.As America “approaches majority-minority status”, Milbank writes, “… white grievance and white fear” have driven “Republican identity more than any other factor – and drive the tribalism and dysfunction in the US political system”.Working as a political columnist for the last 16 years, Milbank has had “a front-row seat for the worst show on earth: the crack-up of the Republican party, and the resulting crack-up of American democracy”.The book has four roughly equal sections: about the Clinton presidency (“defined by the slashing style of [Newt] Gingrich”), the George W Bush presidency (“defined by the dishonesty of Karl Rove”), the Obama presidency and the era of Trump.This is meticulous history, showing how the Republicans have spent a quarter of a century “hacking away at the foundations of democracy and civil society”, conducting “their war on truth, their growing exploitation of racism and white supremacy, their sabotage of the institutions … of government, and their dehumanizing of opponents and stoking of violence”.Milbank traces the Republican love affair with racism back to Richard Nixon’s southern strategy in his 1968 presidential campaign, and dates the beginning of government dysfunction to the four disastrous years from 1995 to 1999 when Gingrich did as much as he could to blow up the federal government when he was speaker of the House.By showing with minute detail “how extensively Republicans and their allied donors, media outlets and interest groups have been pulling at the threads of democracy,” Milbank makes it clear that the Trump presidency was far from an aberration. It represented the real Republican party, without any of the camouflage of compassionate conservatism.There was nothing new about Donald Trump’s 30,573 documented lies as president. Gingrich’s Republicans were “saturated with wild, often unsubstantiated allegations. Whitewater. Troopergate. Travelgate. Filegate. Furnituregate. Fallen Clinton aide Webb Hubbell fathered Chelsea Clinton … commerce secretary Ron Brown’s death in a plane crash … was a Clinton-arranged hit”. And so on.It was Gingrich, the Clinton special prosecutor Ken Starr, his aide Brett Kavanaugh, Rudy Giuliani and Rush Limbaugh who showed Trump “the political power of an endlessly repeated lie”.The crassness also started with Gingrich.“I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” Gingrich told college Republicans way back in 1978. “You’re fighting a war. It is a war for power.”Eleven years later, Gingrich told the reporter John Harwood (who last week left CNN after calling Trump a “demagogue”) Democrats were “grotesque”, “loony” and “stupid”.Milbank is especially strong about Ralph Reed, “a crucial figure in the perversion of the religious right into an entity more ‘right’ than ‘religious’.” There is also a long recounting of the gigantic lobbying scandal centered on Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, a former top aide to House majority leader Tom DeLay. Scanlon and Abramoff “defrauded Indian tribes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars” by telling them they were promoting their casinos. They also got Reed to mobilize evangelical Christians to oppose gambling projects that competed with his own gambling interests.Another long section reminds us that the administration of George W Bush actually did even greater damage than Trump, by promoting the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and leading America into the completely unnecessary and utterly disastrous war in Iraq.Milbank’s book is in the fine tradition of It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, the 2012 book by Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann which was the first to point out the uselessness of the Washington press corps’ attempts to be “fair” to both parties.‘Donald kept our secret’: Mar-a-Lago stay saved Giuliani from drink and depression, book saysRead moreMilbank quotes from it: “The Republican party has become an insurgent outlier – ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”Herein lies the tragedy of Washington journalism. Ten years after Ornstein and Mann made those astute observations, Milbank is one of just a handful of reporters who have incorporated their wisdom into his work. As a result, he is almost alone in treating the pronouncements of the Republican party with the contempt they invariably deserve.As Ornstein tweeted on Saturday: “Tragically our mainstream media have shown that they are either AWOL in this battle or have opted on the side of the authoritarians by normalizing their behavior and minimizing their intentions.”
      The Destructionists: The Twenty-Five Year Crack-Up of the Republican Party, is published in the US by Doubleday
      TopicsBooksRepublicansDonald TrumpNewt GingrichGeorge BushRichard NixonThe far rightreviewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Confederates were traitors’: Ty Seidule on West Point, race and American history

      by

      Interview‘Confederates were traitors’: Ty Seidule on West Point, race and American historyMartin Pengelly in New York The discovery of a plaque showing a member of the Ku Klux Klan at the US military academy made headlines. One member of the commission which recommended its removal is a historian of the US army and the lost cause mythIn a 36-year army career, Ty Seidule served in the US, Germany, Italy, Kenya, Kosovo, Macedonia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. He retired a brigadier general.Lincoln and the fight for peace: John Avlon on a president in the shadow of new warRead moreAn emeritus West Point history professor, he now teaches at Hamilton College. His online video, Was the Civil War About Slavery?, has been viewed millions of times, and in 2021 he published a well-received book, Robert E Lee and Me: A Southerner’s Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause.Outside academia, Seidule is a member of the Naming Commission, a body set up in the aftermath of the police murder of George Floyd and the protests for racial justice it inspired, tasked with recommending changes to military memorials to Confederates who fought in the civil war.Asked how the US military came to name bases, barracks, roads and other assets after soldiers who fought to secede from the union and keep Black people enslaved, Seidule said: “The first thing to know is that in the 19th century, most army officers saw the Confederates as traitors.“That’s not a presentist argument. That’s what they thought. And particularly about Lee, who renounced his oath, fought against this country, killed US army soldiers and as [Union general and 18th president Ulysses S] Grant said, did so for the worst possible reason: to create a slave republic.“So in the 19th century, they would not have done this … the first memorialisation of a Confederate at West Point is in the 1930s. So, why is that? [It’s about] segregation in America. The last West Point black graduate was 1889. The next one was in 1936. West Point reflects America. [The first memorials] were a reaction to integration.”Seidule rejects the notion that memorials to Lee and other Confederates – PGT Beauregard, a West Point superintendent fired for sedition, William Hardee, a commandant who fought in the west – might be claimed as symbols of reconciliation.“The problem with that is it was reconciliation among white people, at the expense of Black people.“There had already been reconciliation. Magnanimously, the United States of America pardoned all former Confederates in 1868 … reconciliation is sort of an agreement among whites that Black people will be treated in a Jim Crow fashion. So no, it’s not a reconciliation based, I would say, on an America we want today.”Last week, the Naming Commission made headlines when it highlighted a bronze at the United States Military Academy which depicts a member of the Ku Klux Klan.Seidule told the New York Times that though the Klan bronze fell outside the remit of the commission – the racist terror group was founded after the defeat of the south – the panel chose to highlight it “because we thought it was wrong”.The commission has issued reports concerning military bases and the military and naval academies. It will present its final report in October. Speaking to the Guardian, Seidule cited such ongoing work as reason not to discuss the Klan plaque further. But West Point did so on its Facebook page.It said: “There is a triptych (three bronze panels) at one of the entrances of Bartlett Hall [the science centre] that depicts the history of the United States. The artwork was dedicated on 3 June 1965 … As part of the middle panel titled ‘One Nation, Under God, Indivisible’, there is a small section that shows a Ku Klux Klan member.“The artist, Laura Gardin Fraser … wanted to create art that depicted ‘historical incidents or persons’ that [documented] both tragedy and triumph in our nation’s history.”Noting that the work was dedicated to graduates who served in the second world war and the Korean war, West Point added: “The academy strives to graduate diverse leaders of character for our nation.”Lee did not lead the Confederacy. Its president was Jefferson Davis, a former secretary of war and senator from Mississippi. But Lee, who died in 1870, became the most-memorialised Confederate.Asked why, Seidule said: “If you think of Confederate monuments, of the burning of books which the United Daughters of the Confederacy did in the early part of the 20th century, to ensure that textbooks said the right thing, really it’s that every religion needs its God. And in a way, that’s what Lee became.”Today, conservatives are banning books in attempts to control teaching of history, race, sexuality and other culture-war issues.Seidule concentrates on his historical work. Lee, he said, was in part idealised for lack of other options. James Longstreet enjoyed battlefield victories but after the war “fought for biracial democracy in New Orleans. So you can’t use him.“While Lee ended up losing hugely, completely defeated, his armies destroyed, he was successful for a time before that. And so he was seen by the white south as their best general, as their ideal. And by the 1930s, he comes to represent something not just in the south, but among white Americans in general.”Beyond West Point, the Confederate battle flag has become a symbol of rebellion, reaction and racism more potent than any statue or building. On 6 January 2021 it even flew in the halls of Congress, when Trump supporters attacked.Again, Seidule rejects any notion that use of the flag might in any way be excused.“We have to remember that it really didn’t mean that much different then than it does now. In 1863 it represented the Army of Northern Virginia, which was fighting to create a slave republic. Now, some people say it reflects rebellion. But remember, this was rebellion to create a slave republic. And so, to me, it is a symbol of all that America is not.“It’s a symbol of insurrection, it’s a symbol of somebody that would not take the results of a democratic election. I grew up with it, my dad had Confederate flags over the mantle. I know how powerful these symbols are.“One thing we often do with the civil war as historians is we let the smell of gunpowder seduce us into thinking about the war as American football, [about the] Xs and Os of military history, without understanding the purpose. That’s the thing I always come back to: why this cruel war?”He today that sheds his blood with me: when West Point rugby went to warRead moreSeidule’s next book will be about events at West Point towards the end of another cruel war: Vietnam. In 1971, Richard Nixon decided he wanted to oversee “a moral rebirth” of an army in disarray.“OK,” Seidule says, “that’s great. But the next thing he does is go to Trophy Point”, the focal point of the West Point campus, high over the Hudson river. “If you’ve seen Battle Monument, you know it says on there, ‘the War of the Rebellion’. Nixon says, ‘Where’s the Confederate monument?’ So he orders the superintendent to put a Confederate monument on Trophy Point.“And the Black cadets find out. And they nearly mutiny and they write a manifesto based on the Attica uprising” – at a New York prison in 1971 – “and [eventually] just so many things change.“They put on a concert to raise money for sickle cell anemia research, featuring Stevie Wonder and the Supremes, up at Michie Stadium”, the home of Army football. “They bring Louis Farrakhan to talk. They institute remarkable change, which I’m arguing comes from one of the most successful protest movements in American military history that nobody knows about, and eventually it kills the Confederate monument.“So that’s the book I’m writing now.”
      Robert E Lee and Me: A Southerner’s Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause is published in the US by St Martin’s Press
      TopicsBooksUS militaryRaceAmerican civil warUS politicsHistory booksPolitics booksinterviewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump once tried to pay a lawyer with a horse, new book says

      by

      Donald Trump once tried to pay a lawyer with a horse, new book saysNew York Times reporter David Enrich also says White House counsel Donald McGahn once called senior Trump aides ‘morons’ Donald Trump once tried to pay a lawyer he owed $2m with a deed to a horse.‘Donald kept our secret’: Mar-a-Lago stay saved Giuliani from drink and depression, book saysRead moreThe bizarre scene is described in Servants of the Damned: Giant Law Firms, Donald Trump and the Corruption of Justice, a book by David Enrich of the New York Times that will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.Enrich reports that “once he regained the capacity for speech”, the lawyer to whom Trump offered a stallion supposedly worth $5m “stammered … ‘This isn’t the 1800s. You can’t pay me with a horse.’”Accounts of Trump refusing to pay legal and other bills are legion. In New York, his business and tax affairs are the subject of civil and criminal investigations.Trump’s reluctance to pay legal fees also featured in his attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, which has landed him in further legal jeopardy.In another forthcoming book, Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America’s Mayor, Andrew Kirtzman reports that in January 2021 Rudy Giuliani’s girlfriend sought $2.5m from Trump, for the former New York mayor’s legal work on the attempt to block Joe Biden’s win and for “defending you during the Russia hoax investigation and then the impeachment”.Maria Ryan, Kirtzman writes, made the request in the same letter in which she requested that Giuliani receive a “general pardon” and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.Ryan was not successful. The New York Times has reported that Trump told advisers Giuliani “would only get ‘paid on the come’, a reference to a bet in the casino game craps that is essentially payment on a successful roll of the dice”.Enrich’s book places particular focus on Trump’s relationship with Jones Day, a giant US law firm, and the role played by Donald McGahn, a partner, in Trump’s 2016 campaign and then in the White House.It was not all plain sailing. Enrich quotes an unnamed Jones Day associate as saying that in the early days of the campaign, after a Trump Tower meeting with Corey Lewandowski and Alan Garten, close Trump aides, McGahn said: “These guys are morons.”McGahn, Enrich writes, “disputed the quotes attributed to him, particularly the word ‘moron’”. He has, however, previously been reported to have called Trump “King Kong” behind his back.McGahn was Trump’s first White House counsel. A member of the rightwing Federalist Society, he worked with the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, on an unprecedented stacking of the federal judiciary with conservative hardliners, which ultimately included three supreme court picks.McGahn resigned in 2018, after it was revealed he cooperated extensively with Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow.Enrich describes Trump’s “reputation for short-changing his lawyers (and banks and contractors and customers)” but says that in the case of Jones Day, “against all odds, Trump paid and paid again”.In contrast to the description of the alleged “morons” remark, Enrich’s story about Trump trying to pay a debt with a horse does not identify the attorney involved.Trump is reading my memoir, Kushner claims of famously book-shy bossRead moreDescribing “a lawyer at a white-shoe firm” who worked for Trump in the 1990s, Enrich writes: “The bill came to about $2m and Trump refused to pay.“After a while, the lawyer lost patience, and he showed up, unannounced, at Trump Tower. Someone sent him up to Trump’s office. Trump was initially pleased to see him – he didn’t betray any sense of sheepishness – but the lawyer was steaming.“‘I’m incredibly disappointed,’ he scolded Trump. ‘There’s no reason you haven’t paid us.’“Trump made some apologetic noises. Then he said: ‘I’m not going to pay your bill. I’m going to give you something more valuable.’ What on earth is he talking about? the lawyer wondered. ‘I have a stallion,’ Trump continued. ‘It’s worth $5m.’ Trump rummaged around in a filing cabinet and pulled out what he said was a deed to a horse. He handed it to the lawyer.”Enrich describes the lawyer’s stunned and angry response, in which he threatened to sue.Trump, Enrich writes, “eventually coughed up at least a portion of what he owed”.TopicsBooksDonald TrumpLaw (US)US politicsRepublicansPolitics booksnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican Senate candidate says she’s anti-abortion but against federal ban

      by

      Republican Senate candidate says she’s anti-abortion but against federal banTiffany Smiley, a trained nurse, wants to win in Washington state, where a 1991 law protects abortion access A Republican Senate nominee in Washington state said on Sunday she was against abortion – but supported a state law that guarantees the right to abortion until fetal viability.Trump calls FBI, DoJ ‘vicious monsters’ in first rally since Mar-a-Lago searchRead moreSpeaking to CNN’s State of the Union, Tiffany Smiley said she supported the law despite the US supreme court decision earlier this summer, in Dobbs v Jackson, which overturned the right to abortion, a right previously guaranteed for almost 50 years.“I respect the voters of Washington state,” Smiley said. “They long decided where they stand on the issue.”The state law was passed in 1991. Across the US, polls consistently show that nearly two-thirds of Americans support the right to abortion in some form.As the midterm elections approach, abortion has served as a prime motivator for women voters across the US, especially among Democrats and fueling striking special-election successes for the party seeking to hold both houses of Congress.Smiley’s remarks reflected a growing recognition among Republicans that the fall of Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which protected the right to abortion until June this year, may have been a longed-for supreme court success but could cost them dearly at the polls as they seek to take the House and Senate.Speaking to CNN, Smiley also backed off her previous statement that she would welcome an endorsement from Donald Trump.“I am laser-focused on the endorsement of the voters of Washington state,” she said, twice, as she sought to deflect the question.Smiley, a trained nurse, is challenging the incumbent Democratic senator, Patty Murray, who has criticized Smiley for her “100% pro-life” views.In an ad released last week, Smiley told viewers she was “pro-life but I opposed a federal abortion ban”. The ad came in response to a Murray ad which called Smiley “Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked candidate”, referring to the Senate Republican leader known for his anti-abortion views and push to stack the supreme court with conservative justices opposed to abortion.Murray’s ad claimed that if elected, Smiley would support federal abortion bans. Smiley said: “Murray is trying to scare you, I am trying to serve you.”On Sunday, Smiley said: “I made it clear in my ad that … I am not for a federal abortion ban. You know, the extreme in this race is Patty Murray. She is for federalizing abortion.”Smiley previously expressed support for a Texas law that implements a near-total abortion ban, the Hill reported last year. On Sunday, Smiley said “there’s a lot of parts of [the Texas ban] that make it very hard for me in Washington state”.‘I want to work with everyone’: Alaska’s history-making new congresswomanRead moreShe added: “But at the end of the day, I’m pro-woman first and then always pro-life.”In response, Murray told CNN: “What I believe is that we have a constitutional right in this country under Roe by the supreme court that allowed women and their families and their faith and their doctor to make a decision for them about whether or not they should carry their pregnancy.“That is what the law and constitutional right of this land was, until this supreme court overturned that.“I do not believe that politicians should be making these decisions for women. That is what I support.”TopicsAbortionUS midterm elections 2022US politicsRepublicansWashington stateUS CongressUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in World Politics

      The Future of Vice President Kamala Harris in American Politics

      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