ReportWire

Tag: president

  • AI Hoiman: No More Two Party System – Ted Holland, Humor Times

    AI Hoiman: No More Two Party System – Ted Holland, Humor Times

    Dispatches From SNN (Slobovian News Network)

    The AI candidate Hoiman says we should get rid of political parties altogether.

    Presidential candidate Artificial Ignorance Entity Hoiman says that the American system has ground to a halt because Congress is a joke. Further, Hoiman says today’s political parties are like two three-year-olds fighting over a lollipop.

    Artificial Ignorance Entity Hoiman
    Still from the movie, “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” (2001).

    “It’s time to get rid of political parties and elections as we now know them,” said Hoiman. “Because of the corrupt parties, nothing gets done on the local, state or federal government levels.”

    He states that the political process in the Democratic Republic of Pepperbutte is an improvement over the current US political system. “The people run the government of DRP. There are no political parties, no elections and no professional politicians,” he said.

    Hoiman explained that most Americans are unfamiliar with Pepperbutte. “It has a population of 7 million people and is the world’s largest exporter of organic digital condoms and ass wax,” he said.

    Since there are no political parties in Pepperbutte, citizens are drafted to fill public offices. Those between the ages of 18 and 30 are selected to serve one year in the Pepperbuttean military corps. Taxpayers and property owners between the ages of 30 and 60 are selected to serve on town counsels, state assemblies and the national congress. Once you serve your four year term you cannot serve another term.

    Pepperbutte has no political campaigns and no elections. Mayors, governors and the vice chancellor are picked from within the group draftees.

    This works for Pepperbutte and could work for America, Hoiman says. “I am looking forward to running against and matching wits with Donald Trump,” he added.

    SNN Words to Live By

    “Everything is beautiful in its own way” — Ray Stevens, “Everything is Beautiful,” 1970 song.

    “Don’t confuse feeling good with being good.” — writer James Fixx.

    Ted HollandTed Holland
    Latest posts by Ted Holland (see all)
    ShareShare

    Ted Holland

    Source link

  • Roseanne Barr Is 'All In' For Trump – 'If We Don't Stop These Horrible Communists…'

    Roseanne Barr Is 'All In' For Trump – 'If We Don't Stop These Horrible Communists…'

    Opinion

    Source: Screenshots YouTube, Roseanne Barr, Forbes Breaking News

    The legendary comedian Roseanne Barr confirmed that she is “all in” for Donald Trump heading into 2024 while speaking at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest event in Phoenix, Arizona over the weekend.

    Barr Is ‘All In’ On Trump

    “‘I’m just all in [with Trump] because I know if I ain’t all in, they’re going to put my a** in a gulag… And I don’t wanna go to a re-education camp and have to give all my money to a bunch of losers that never know how [to] get a job,” Barr, 71, told the crowd, according to Daily Mail.

    “If we don’t stop these horrible communists, Stalinists, with a huge helping of Nazi-fascist thrown in,” she continued. “Plus one caliphate to replace every Christian democracy on Earth now! Occupy! Do you know that?”

    “We don’t care which party is wrong, we know they’re both nothing but crap!” Barr added. “They’re both on the take! They’re both stealing us blind! We just want the truth about everything we fought and died and suffered to protect!”

    Barr later took to social media to explain that she had improvised most of this speech.

    “I cannot believe I accidentally deleted my speech when making my last edit just before walking out,” she wrote. “I had to wing it last night, it was so scary. But I’m glad you guys liked it!”

    Related: Roseanne Barr Eviscerates ‘Corrupt’ Joe Biden – Refuses To Vote For Him

    Barr’s Previous Support Of Trump

    Barr has long been one of the only celebrities in the entertainment world who has unapologetically supported Trump publicly. While talking to Donald Trump Jr. on his “Triggered” podcast back in October, she gushed over the former president while also revealing why she thinks liberals are so against him.

    “What I love about your dad is he is one funny guy!” Barr said of the former president. “He is so hilarious, and I think that is part of why they hate him. They hate humor. They don’t have any sense of humor about themselves — right there that is what a fascist is.”

    “Someone in power who has no ability to laugh at themselves, has no self-reflection; they look in the mirror and there is nothing there,” she continued. “If you can’t laugh at yourself, you don’t have a soul. Your dad laughs at himself and everyone else and he makes everyone laugh. He has the heart of the comedian, which is why we all love him because he’s so funny!”

    Related: Roseanne Barr Reveals Why Trump Is Like A ‘Mother Bear’ – ‘The Only One With Balls’

    Calls For Barr To Be Trump’s VP

    Earlier this year, the former Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake called for Barr to be Trump’s running mate.

    “I know that if President Trump needs a female Vice President, I’m starting to think right now as I’m sitting here: Trump—Barr,” Lake said while interviewing the former “Roseanne” star back in September, according to Newsweek.

    “Well, you know, wherever I could be useful fellow and sister citizens,” Barr replied with a laugh. “I have the time and I think I’m smart and I’m definitely committed to the survival of this representational government of, by and for the people and I think that we can’t let it disappear from the Earth because it won’t ever come back.”

    What do you think about Barr’s latest comments about Trump? Let us know in the comments section.

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    James Conrad

    Source link

  • 2024 candidate Dean Phillips called Pelosi and Feinstein old. Biden is his next target

    2024 candidate Dean Phillips called Pelosi and Feinstein old. Biden is his next target

    Democratic Rep. Dean Phillips swept into office in 2018 after promising not to vote for Rep. Nancy Pelosi for speaker of the House.

    The Gen X Minnesotan reasoned that the San Franciscan had been at the top too long and Democrats needed some fresh blood in House leadership. In the private sector, he argued, people rarely serve for two decades in top posts.

    Phillips ultimately backed Pelosi (D-San Francisco) for speaker as part of a deal that saw her leave leadership last year. But in the spring of this year, as another Californian, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, began missing votes, he spoke out again, writing an op-ed arguing that she needed to resign for the good of the country.

    Feinstein’s refusal to resign — she died in office on Sep. 29 — did the country a disservice, Phillips told The Times during a visit to California last month.

    “Who doesn’t know Congress is dysfunctional, but I did not know how horrifyingly so until I got there,” said Phillips, 54. “I encountered a culture filled with people who had been there for decades, that were so clearly focused more on the preservation of their positions than they were the priorities of the population.”

    Now Phillips is taking on 81-year-old President Biden for the Democratic nomination — and making the same argument he made about Feinstein and Pelosi. His longshot run has included several trips to California to appear on shows like Real Time with Bill Maher and court potential donors in Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

    Nearly 80% of voters in a September Reuters-Ipsos poll said that Biden is too old to run again. More than half said the same about the 77-year-old Donald Trump.

    Dean Phillips steps off his campaign bus at the New Hampshire State House. He filed a declaration of candidacy Oct. 27, 2023, to run in the state’s presidential primary.

    (Glen Stubbe / Star Tribune)

    Elected Democrats who refused to criticize Feinstein’s fitness to serve — or acknowledge publicly that Biden’s age is a challenge — are no better than Republicans who are unwilling to publicly criticize former President Trump, Phillips argued.

    “It is the same disease — the same danger and the same consequence, which is the reduction in faith and government,” he said, noting that Biden is far better than Trump as a leader.

    Phillips, who has voted with Biden 100% of the time in the House, has said repeatedly that he’s not in this race to tear down the president. He praised the Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure bill and Biden’s “extraordinary” support for Israel.

    But in his interview with The Times, Phillips was quick to say that Biden didn’t do enough to respond as vice president to Russia’s invasion of Crimea and that the Israel-Hamas war “could have been prevented with more extraordinary intentional peace efforts over the course of his tenure, both as vice president and now president.” He supports an internationally monitored cease-fire once all the hostages held by Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip have been released and says a multinational peacekeeping force should be deployed to the region.

    He also attacked Biden’s unwillingness to legalize cannabis and the president’s response to “chaos” at the border.

    Phillips sees what he’s doing as a “hopeful run” meant to offer a respectful alternative to someone whom he considers a successful president. He believes that by May or June, after enough campaigning, head-to-head polls will show him beating former President Trump and will continue to show Biden losing.

    But his attacks on Biden over policy issues, and his recent claim that Biden — like Trump — is a threat to democracy have some political observers questioning whether he plans to run a purely positive campaign. They worry he could end up hurting Biden’s chances in a general election.

    Phillips’ effort recalls former Gov. Jerry Brown’s runs for president, where he got in late and never accumulated enough movement support, said Danielle Cendejas, who works for the Strategy Group, a national political consulting firm that advised Phillips’ congressional bids but is not working on his presidential campaign.

    “Phillips’ run feels like it’s more of a, ‘Hey, I’m an option’ campaign rather than, ‘I am trying to do something different because the president is not doing what I think should be done,’” she said. “Anytime you run against the White House, you are running on the fact that the president is just not doing a good enough job.”

    If Phillips was running far to Biden’s left, his challenge might galvanize the White House to respond more aggressively, Cendejas says. But so far, the Biden team doesn’t seem too worried. (A spokesperson for Biden’s campaign declined to comment for this article.)

    Phillips’ campaign counts Andrew Yang’s former campaign manager Zach Graumann as a senior advisor. Strategist Bradley Tusk, who managed Yang’s 2021 New York mayoral campaign and worked for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said he was surprised that no nationally elected officials or activists had challenged Biden from the left.

    The risk for Biden is he “could really underperform in the primaries but not lose them,” Tusk said. “Then Trump picks up a lot more momentum, raises a lot more money and fundraising for Biden gets that much harder.”

    The two most urgent challenges Phillips faces are raising enough money to run a competitive campaign and getting on the ballot in as many states as possible. He already won’t be on the ballot in Nevada. He’s angry that he will likely be left off the ballot in Florida.

    The Minnesotan, who thinks he’ll make the ballot in 90% of states, will appear on California’s ballot for its March 5 primary, according to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

    Phillips and his team believe that a competitive primary is a healthy part of the democratic process. If the polls in May or June show Biden beating Trump “and me losing, I’ll be the first to acknowledge it and wrap it up,” he said.

    Snuffing out dissenting voices only hurts the voters, argued Jeff Weaver, a senior advisor to Phillips who had top roles in Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns.

    Weaver thinks a strong showing for Phillips in New Hampshire, where Biden is not on the ballot but his supporters are marshaling a write-in campaign, will create momentum that will get him noticed by more voters. A poll last month in the state found Phillips with 15% support after two weeks of campaigning. Biden had 27% support.

    “Our primary system is one of the only feedback loops between people on the ground and the national party,” Weaver told The Times.

    “Issues and candidates affect how people vote. There should be a vigorous primary where people get to see their candidates talk about the issues. With there being no debates, the [Democratic] party has worked to stifle that process.”

    President Joe Biden arrives at Santa Monica Airport in Santa Monica, Calif., Friday, Dec. 8, 2023.

    President Joe Biden arrives at Santa Monica Airport in Santa Monica, Calif., Friday, Dec. 8, 2023. Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., third from left, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, left, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, right, look on.

    (Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

    Phillips faces a steep financial challenge. In one weekend this month, Biden brought in about $15 million at two fundraisers in Los Angeles. Phillips said he will have trouble raising that kind of money—even as the Minnesotan who got rich running his family’s liquor business and later the Talenti gelato brand, has poured $2 million of own wealth into the campaign.

    But Phillips has found some pockets of support.

    Uber Chief Executive Dara Khosrowshahi, a college friend of Phillips, has supported his congressional races. Phillips said he has met in recent months with Open AI CEO Sam Altman — a meeting first reported by the news outlet Puck. Phillips told The Times he wasn’t sure if Altman, who gave $200,000 to the Biden reelection bid, had donated to his campaign.

    He declined to detail how Altman, whose representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment, had been advising his launch except to say “I found him to be an extraordinarily brilliant and principled and magnificent ideator and convener and community builder, and without getting too much into the details, yes, he’s been supportive.”

    Cryptocurrency billionaire Mike Novogratz has shifted his support away from Biden and will host a Phillips fundraiser, CNBC reported this week.

    Phillips has held several Southern California fundraisers since launching his campaign at the beginning of November, though his campaign has declined to say how much they’ve raised. Phillips said the events attracted many Biden backers who pined for an alternative.

    One was television executive Adam Goodman, who previously served as president of Paramount Pictures’ Motion Picture Group and DreamWorks SKG, and described how his high-school-age daughter heard Phillips speak and felt a connection to him. He’s been impressed by many of Biden’s successes over the last four years but still hosted a 100-person fundraiser for Phillips in his home early last month.

    “This is the time when we’re supposed to be listening and auditioning the best people for the job and then ultimately we will get to a convention and the best candidate will go forward at that point,” he said.

    Goodman said that politics — like show business — needs fresh perspectives in leadership.

    “Show business is really in jeopardy right now,” he said. “The people who are actually really running the businesses who are at the top top top — these are people that have been in authority for 35-plus years. They are not people who necessarily understand the generational shift.”

    Benjamin Oreskes

    Source link

  • Wealthy L.A. philanthropists loosen grip on donations, shifting money toward social justice

    Wealthy L.A. philanthropists loosen grip on donations, shifting money toward social justice

    Fernando Torres got his first gang tattoo when he was 15, a rite of passage among some members of his family. “I thought it was an honor to die for your gang,” he says.

    Acknowledging that he was quick to throw a punch, he says that he was soon expelled from high school. But two years later, Torres, then 17, was enrolled at FREE L.A. High, a charter school affiliated with decarceration activists at the Los Angeles-based Youth Justice Coalition.

    It wasn’t a smooth transition. It took an arrest for carrying a loaded handgun and the threat of prison time, he says, before he finally started to listen to FREE L.A. teachers and staff — several of whom had been incarcerated — and extracted himself from gang life.

    “They see themselves in us,” says Torres, who is now 22 and works in construction, “and want us to have a better outcome.”

    For 20 years, young people like Torres have had their lives turned around by the Youth Justice Coalition — an organization that relies on support from California philanthropies. The key to that success has been no-strings-attached grants, says Emilio Zapién, the coalition’s director of communications.

    “It has been a heavy lift,” Zapién says.

    Over the last decade, more and more of L.A.’s institutional foundations have gotten behind that idea: trusting nonprofits with increasing amounts of money, with fewer restrictions. The trend accelerated during the pandemic.

    The Youth Justice Coalition is one of dozens of community organizations to benefit from what the leaders of these foundations say is a collective effort to support those closest to the problems the foundations hope to solve.

    According to the foundations involved in this effort, L.A. County nonprofits received at least $476.2 million in grants in 2021, compared with at least $282.1 million in 2017.

    This more generous approach has allowed the Youth Justice Coalition to “strengthen” staff and support services at FREE L.A., where 66 students are now enrolled, Zapién says.

    A man handing a woman a bag of groceries, one of dozens lined up below a colorful mural behind him in a parking lot

    Louis Neal, a volunteer with the New World Academy Foundation, hands out groceries during a food giveaway at Chuco’s Justice Center, run by the Youth Justice Coalition in South Los Angeles.

    (Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

    The coalition reported $2.5 million in contributions for fiscal year 2021, up from $1.9 million a year earlier, and $1.2 million in fiscal year 2019. Contributions came from the Roy + Patricia Disney Family Foundation and Liberty Hill Foundation, among other organizations.

    Zapién and other nonprofit activists are quick to say that local philanthropists need to give more with even fewer restrictions. But they agree that the era of L.A.’s leading philanthropists dictating what is best for all Angelenos is fading.

    The need to move money quickly to disadvantaged communities during the pandemic accelerated this movement, according to the nonprofit community groups, philanthropic foundations and government agencies interviewed for this story.

    “Our landscape is ever-changing,” Zapién says. “Our funding has to be general operating support. Our funders have to trust us.”

    ::

    For decades, Southern California’s wealthy business leaders burnished their reputations by creating charitable foundations, which built glitzy theaters, high-ceilinged concert halls, and museums showcasing their donors’ art collections. Local hospital wings and university buildings bear their names.

    In 1937 James Irvine stashed a chunk of the wealth from his 110,000-acre real estate empire in the James Irvine Foundation. Hotelier Conrad N. Hilton launched his foundation in 1944. Insurance and banking mogul Howard F. Ahmanson and real estate tycoon Ben Weingart each created one in the 1950s. Engineering pioneer Ralph M. Parsons started his in 1961, and Walter H. Annenberg established his in 1989.

    Those campaigns funding brick-and-mortar civic institutions still dominated local philanthropy in 1999 when Fred Ali, who had recently run Hollywood’s Covenant House, which serves homeless youth, was named president of the Weingart Foundation.

    It was passionless, Ali says.

    It’s easier for a leader of an endowed foundation with money in the bank to shift funding priorities if they have the support of their board of directors. With an “aging, all-white” board, Ali says, he started early in his tenure to replace retiring members with people aligned with his progressive vision.

    A man half-sitting, hands clasped and one foot on the floor, at the head of a large meeting table surrounded by empty chairs

    Dr. Robert Ross said the California Endowment has moved from trying to “alleviate misery with charity” to funding community-led advocacy groups that are increasing access to healthcare and mental health services.

    (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

    A year later, Robert Ross, a doctor trained in public health, arrived in L.A. as president and chief executive of the California Endowment, then a young multibillion-dollar statewide health foundation. During his first decade at the foundation, Ross says, he worked hard to “alleviate misery with charity.” One project he championed was the Children’s Health Initiative, a program delivering healthcare to a limited, underserved population.

    Then he changed course.

    “Poor Black and brown folks are at the short end of health disparities,” says Ross, “which tells you what we’re dealing with is structural. It’s systemic. It’s not bad luck.”

    In 2010 he shifted millions of dollars from the health initiative and started funding advocacy efforts by several nonprofits that, by 2021, permanently expanded Medi-Cal eligibility to a broad underserved population across the state.

    Where Ross had initially directed California Endowment funding to individual mental health programs within a cohort of local-level probation departments, he shifted those funds to community-led advocacy groups that secured public funding for similar mental health services.

    The pivot started, Ross says, when he began to collaborate with Liberty Hill Foundation, which introduced him to community activists in L.A. who were working to empower poor people of color.

    “People who are most impacted by problems know best how to fix them,” says Shane Goldsmith, president and CEO of Liberty Hill.

    A woman seen from the waist up, looking into the camera and resting her left hand on a large white object in the foreground

    “People who are most impacted by problems know best how to fix them,” says Shane Goldsmith, head of the Liberty Hill Foundation, which funded community groups in their decade-long battle to stop oil and gas drilling in L.A. County neighborhoods.

    (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

    In 2013, Liberty Hill began funding STAND-L.A., a coalition of seven community groups — led by Communities for a Better Environment and Physicians for Social Responsibility — demanding an end to neighborhood oil and gas drilling. It took 10 years and $4.5 million in philanthropic funding, but in 2022, Goldsmith says, city and county governments agreed to ban new drilling and phase out the operation of existing wells across the county.

    The community groups identified the wells, tracked the health effects and worked with regulators on the solutions, Goldsmith says. She calls these grassroots coalitions “our next generation of community leaders.”

    When Antonia Hernández was named president and CEO of the California Community Foundation in 2004, it was a conservative “don’t rock the boat” organization, she says. And it was struggling to survive.

    But she figured the organization wanted to become a more progressive funder; after all, they’d hired her — an activist attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund — to run the show.

    A woman sitting at an angle, her hands on her lap, looking into the camera

    “I wanted donors interested in serving the vulnerable, giving voice to the poor,” says Antonia Hernández, pictured in 1998. Under her leadership, the California Community Foundation changed from a struggling conservative philanthropy into a progressive powerhouse.

    (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

    Hernández transformed the foundation into a progressive powerhouse by cultivating new donors among the wealthy social activists she’d met through the Mexican American fund. “I wanted donors interested in serving the vulnerable, giving voice to the poor,” she says.

    In less than 20 years, the California Community Foundation went from $540 million to $2.3 billion in assets. It gives money directly to dozens of groups supporting marginalized communities, including the South Asian Network, Filipino Migrant Center and African Communities Public Health Coalition. And through countywide collective philanthropic initiatives supporting education, Black empowerment and the arts, the foundation funds hundreds more groups.

    Ali, Ross, Goldsmith, Hernández and Judy Belk, then president and CEO at the California Wellness Foundation, formed a new progressive core within L.A.’s philanthropic ecosystem. In 2014, Don Howard became president and CEO of the James Irvine Foundation and joined their ranks.

    The Annenberg Foundation is well-known for the institutions that bear its name, and President and CEO Wallis Annenberg has supported progressive initiatives, particularly in food equity, and has expanded her giving to include efforts by these foundation leaders.

    These philanthropists are following national trends. But observers say they stand out for having turned their organizations around quickly, thoroughly and collectively.

    L.A.’s leading philanthropic foundations have “transformed” themselves, says Aaron Dorfman, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. These formerly tradition-bound charitable institutions have become “national leaders in their commitment to equity and justice,” he says.

    Institutional foundations in New York City and the San Francisco Bay Area are far wealthier, according to Dorfman. They can, and do, dedicate more resources to fighting injustice. But L.A.’s leading foundations dedicate a greater share of their resources to that fight, he says, adding that “it has become a consistent theme in L.A., a steady beat,” in recent years.

    Whether this transformation continues depends on the foundation boards — Ross, Belk and Hernández recently announced their retirements. The foundation boards are picking their successors.

    Ali retired in 2021 and was succeeded as president and CEO by Miguel Santana, a longtime L.A. civic servant who continued Ali’s efforts to use all of the foundation’s assets, including its endowment, to redress the racist redlining practices that were once endemic within L.A.’s real estate industry.

    “We think about all of our assets as vehicles to advance racial and social justice,” says Santana, who estimates Weingart is a third of the way toward moving its entire endowment into mission-aligned investments.

    Weingart recently invested $5 million in Primestor, a Latino-owned real estate developer based in Culver City that invests in historically ignored communities of color; $5 million in the Female Founders Fund, which invests in women‘s entrepreneurial ventures; and $500,000 in iimpact capital, a Latina-owned real estate investment firm based in El Segundo that invests in affordable-housing developers owned by women.

    To help guide this “truth and reconciliation” effort, Santana hired Edgar Villanueva, author of “Decolonizing Wealth,” an indictment of old-school American philanthropy. “Coming to terms with that history,” says Villanueva, “grieving that, apologizing for it,” sets the stage for “reparations to repair the harm caused by that history.”

    Apparently this impressed the California Community Foundation’s board. In October, they poached Santana to replace Hernández.

    ::

    Eli Broad, who died in 2021, was one of L.A.’s leading philanthropists for decades — a holdover from a generation of business leaders who believed they knew what was best for the city. In addition to building the Broad, a museum to house his art collection, he helped bring the Museum of Contemporary Art and Walt Disney Concert Hall into existence.

    He was also a driving force in private efforts to enhance public education, leading a coalition of billionaires — Bill Gates, Reed Hastings and others — whose ultra-wealthy foundations pushed charter schools as a singular solution to bring about some much-needed changes to public schools in Los Angeles.

    A woman standing in a white room, next to a large window with a city view of tall buildings below

    Under President Gerun Riley, the Broad Foundation pivoted from traditional education and charter schools to funding programs that “advance social and economic mobility for students from historically marginalized and underrepresented communities.”

    (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

    Broad’s “impatient” style foreclosed any easy avenues to collaboration with the community he believed he was serving, says Gerun Riley, president of the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. Parents and teachers loyal to their existing schools often felt voiceless and powerless in the ensuing political maelstrom.

    At the start of Riley’s tenure as president, three years before Broad’s death, she urged him to change his approach. Her suggestion: Ask local families what they want from their public schools. Broad had never, nor would he ever, do such a thing, Riley says. So she did it for him.

    “I set up a listening tour. I met with over 300 people, drove 600 miles,” she says. Parents expressed “frustration, exasperation.” They told her the battle over charter schools was “an ugly, unnecessary debate.” And they were clear about what they wanted for their children, she says: preparation for jobs in a technology-driven economy.

    With Broad’s blessing, Riley says, the foundation pivoted away from directly funding traditional K-12 education. It stopped using high school graduation rates as a measure of the success of its programs, she says.

    The Broad Foundation’s new approach focuses on out-of-school enrichment programs, support for science, technology, engineering and math education, and workforce training to “advance social and economic mobility for students from historically marginalized and underrepresented communities,” Riley says.

    She points to the foundation’s Expanded Learning Alliance, or ExpandLA, which aspires to bring public schools, after-school program providers and government and philanthropic funders together to create a countywide network of opportunities for students. The foundation established ExpandLA, still in its formative phase, as an independent nonprofit with an initial $5-million grant in 2020.

    Separately, the Broad Foundation is supporting groups that provide services under the ExpandLA umbrella, including DIY Girls, a Latina-focused science, technology, engineering, art and math program in northeast San Fernando Valley ($584,650 over five years), and the Hidden Genius Project, an Inglewood-based computer science and entrepreneurship program for Black male high school students ($310,000 over five years).

    Today, “L.A.’s core progressive foundations consider Broad in league with their efforts to strengthen community-based organizations,” says Christine Essel, president and CEO of Southern California Grantmakers, an association of philanthropists whose progressive leadership tripled membership during this transformative decade.

    The Broad Foundation’s endowment is $1.8 billion — but, Riley says, it’s “not set up to exist in perpetuity.” The plan is to give it all away over the coming decades.

    As it plans to clear out its coffers, it is worth noting that the Broad Foundation sets itself apart from L.A.’s core progressive foundations in one important way: It funds advocacy, but it does not fund activists, according to staff.

    It’s a distinction some other L.A. philanthropists also make. Both activists and advocates seek to influence public policies. But Los Angeles foundations define advocacy as something that typically happens behind the scenes. Activists take it to the streets, foundations say, with overt political agendas.

    (The $1.2-billion Ahmanson Foundation is one leading L.A.-centric foundation that does not participate in philanthropic efforts to influence public policy. President and CEO Bill Ahmanson has distanced his foundation from this progressive movement.)

    Like Broad, the Hilton and Parsons foundations support advocacy to change public systems, but they do not fund activism.

    L.A.’s newest philanthropic force — former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and his wife, Connie — are also in this camp, according to Nina Revoyr, Ballmer Group’s L.A. executive director.

    Steve Ballmer speaking into a microphone at a basketball game as a Clippers player and a crowd of fans look on.

    Steve Ballmer, at a preseason Clippers game last year, and wife Connie have become a philanthropic force in Los Angeles.

    (John Froschauer / Associated Press)

    With a personal fortune that Forbes estimates is in excess of $100 billion, the Ballmers, who reside in the Seattle area, started their Los Angeles County philanthropic work in 2016, two years after buying the L.A. Clippers.

    So far this year, Ballmer Group has committed $115 million to nonprofits in L.A. County, compared with $55 million in grants last year. Much of this year’s increase is associated with a $39.2-million commitment to early childhood education workforce support, including scholarships and training.

    Among their many early childhood education grantees is Crystal Stairs, a nonprofit receiving $1.3 million over three years to provide child-care services, research and advocacy tailored to Black educators.

    Ballmer recently announced a $24-million multiyear commitment to 170 Boys & Girls Club sites in Los Angeles County, an increase from their previous $2 million in multiyear grants to the clubs. South L.A.’s Brotherhood Crusade received a $2.3-million commitment.

    ::

    A young man with a black bandanna on his head, seen from the shoulders up in front of a mural of several large portraits

    The Youth Justice Coalition helped Fernando Torres get through high school and avoid prison. He now works in construction and is having his gang tattoos removed.

    (Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

    Before it was home to FREE L.A. High School, the Youth Justice Coalition’s 35,000 square-foot building on South Central Avenue was a juvenile court. The courtrooms now are classrooms and the dank holding cells are open to the community as places to pay respect to friends and family who have been or remain incarcerated.

    Coalition staff worked with Torres’ court-appointed attorney to create a diversion program: If Torres could graduate from high school and complete 40 hours of community service, he would do no prison time.

    In his spare time now he draws portraits, Torres says, flipping through phone photos of a dozen pencil and crayon drawings of young women of color. His gang tattoos are in the process of being removed.

    “Seeing the cells motivates me,” Torres says. “I don’t want to be in a box. I want to be free.”

    Among the Youth Justice Coalition’s supporters is the California Black Freedom Fund, a collective statewide philanthropic response to the 2020 police murder of George Floyd. Led by the Irvine Foundation — which had embraced a singular focus in 2016 on low-income workers — the fund’s goal is to get $100 million in unrestricted funds into Black-led community groups.

    The fund’s L.A.-based contributors include the Weingart, Annenberg, Liberty Hill and Hilton foundations, the California Community and California Wellness foundations and the California Endowment.

    The Black Freedom Fund’s ambitious goal recently expanded, says Marc Philpart, its executive director. His backers are pushing the state to match their $100-million commitment and turn the fund into an endowed foundation that survives long into the future.

    A man pictured from the waist up, standing, with Los Angeles City Hall and trees in the background

    “We want to establish a long-term, sustained approach to racial equity, racial justice,” says Marc Philpart, executive director of the California Black Freedom Fund, which began as a statewide philanthropic response to the 2020 police murder of George Floyd.

    (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

    “We want to establish a long-term, sustained approach to racial equity, racial justice,” says Philpart.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has agreed to an initial investment of $3.5 million, nudging the project forward, according to Philpart.

    In addition to the Youth Justice Coalition, which has received $200,000, other nonprofit beneficiaries of the Black Freedom Fund include the Afrikan Black Coalition ($100,000), the Los Angeles Black Worker Center ($500,000) and the Los Angeles Community Action Network ($350,000).

    Howard, of the Irvine Foundation, says California has a long history of erecting legal and structural barriers that block Black people and members of other marginalized groups from jobs, healthcare and housing, and each community faces different barriers.

    “We need to understand how to dismantle those barriers,” he says. “If we’re going to transform society, everyone has to have a seat at the table.”

    “There’s a sea shift in who has power in California,” says John Kim, president and CEO of Catalyst California, which advocates for racial justice and whose revenue has doubled in recent years. “Money is power, and the foundations are giving it directly to people of color.”

    Community groups have used that power to make “real gains” in L.A. County and city budget allocations, Kim says.

    But “after 170 years of exclusion and extraction, it’s just one decade of progress,” he adds. “L.A. has a long way to go.”

    Corie Brown

    Source link

  • How some foundations get philanthropic dollars inside L.A. County bureaucracy

    How some foundations get philanthropic dollars inside L.A. County bureaucracy

    Wendy Garen, the recently retired president and chief executive of the Ralph M. Parsons Foundation, likes to say problems that seem to defy solutions — homelessness, injustice, child welfare issues — are too big for philanthropy to solve.

    “We’re pocket dust,” she says, referring not just to the roughly $20 million the Parsons Foundation gives away each year to groups like the Coalition for Responsible Community Development, but to philanthropy dollars across Los Angeles.

    While Garen believes that progressive philanthropies such as the Weingart Foundation and the California Endowment are right about the need to support marginalized communities by fixing broken public systems, directing unrestricted funds to community activists was a nonstarter at Parsons.

    Instead, the foundation shifted to the public side of the equation, getting philanthropic dollars inside government bureaucracy to seed innovation.

    The result was a union of the public and the private: Los Angeles County’s Center for Strategic Partnerships, within the county’s Chief Executive Office.

    Garen — along with Fred Ali, former president of the Weingart Foundation, and Christine Essel, president and CEO of Southern California Grantmakers, which represents hundreds of regional foundations and corporate funders — was instrumental in the creation of the center, which opened in 2016. The Annenberg Foundation provided early support and continues to do so.

    In the seven years that philanthropies have been working directly with county staff, $41.5 million in private funds have supported a wide range of public-private initiatives, according to Kate Anderson, executive director of the partnership center.

    Before the center’s creation, private philanthropies thought the county considered them a cash machine, says Joe Nicchitta, L.A. County’s chief operating officer — and the county believed philanthropies only funded what they wanted, regardless of what the county needed.

    “There is now a true partnership between L.A. County and philanthropy,” he says.

    Kate Anderson of the county Center for Strategic Partnerships says $41.5 million in private funding has gone to a variety of public-private initiatives since philanthropies began working with county staff seven years ago.

    (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

    Once mutual trust was established, Anderson says, private funds could move quickly to wherever the county needed them most — becoming particularly helpful in times of crisis. During the pandemic, the center fast-tracked private funds to pay for county services including child care for emergency workers and Wi-Fi hotspots for students struggling to connect remotely with their teachers.

    It’s a model, Anderson says, that other local governments are considering.

    One of the big-ticket projects is the county Department of Youth Development, created in June 2022 with a $50.6-million budget for programs to keep at-risk youth out of juvenile jails — especially out from under the authority of the county Probation Department.

    The Probation Department has struggled for decades to safely care for young offenders. Juvenile halls have been plagued by staffing issues, drug overdoses, fights and beatings. Some facilities were stripped of their certifications to operate. Earlier this year, the county reopened one juvenile hall, and a few days later, a gun was found inside.

    The strong correlation between the population of youths caught up in the juvenile justice system and those involved in L.A. County’s foster-care system has made improving foster care a top priority for Garen.

    “About 1,200 kids a year emancipate from foster care,” she says. “We know from research that, within two years, half of those kids are homeless. … Two years after that, half of those children are permanently off track, broken.”

    Earlier this year, The Times reported that attorneys from four law firms had filed a complaint saying the state and the county were “shirking their responsibility to ensure foster youths between the ages of 16 and 21 have a safe and stable place to live.”

    When youths age out of foster care, “we throw them in the river only to fish them out half-drowned downstream,” says Garen. “Can’t we just not throw them in the river?”

    Research from the Annie E. Casey Foundation shows that foster youths do better when they are placed with family rather than strangers, Garen says. With support from the partnership center, the county now prioritizes family placements, hiring a dedicated team to track down relatives of children in the system who might foster them.

    In the meantime, local philanthropists have been working on an ambitious project to help support youths who age out of the foster system.

    Last year, Garen brought Anderson together with her counterparts at Weingart, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, Ballmer Group and other philanthropies for a brainstorming session.

    The result: a $750-million proposal to create housing with wrap-around services, jointly funded by L.A. County and philanthropic foundations.

    “The foundations listened to the voices of foster youth,” says David Ambroz, an advocate for those in foster care, who supports the project.

    Corie Brown

    Source link

  • Vulnerable California Republicans vote for Biden impeachment inquiry

    Vulnerable California Republicans vote for Biden impeachment inquiry

    House Republicans on Wednesday voted to formalize an impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, intensifying their investigation into unproven allegations that the president benefited from his son’s overseas business dealings.

    The vote is a formality, but it puts the House GOP — including vulnerable California members who face competitive reelection contests next year — on record in support of moving toward impeaching Biden. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, egged on by former President Trump and the most far-right members of his caucus, launched the inquiry without a vote in September.

    The inquiry has yet to produce evidence that proves the GOP’s long-standing, unproven claim that Biden benefited from his son Hunter’s overseas business dealings.

    The U.S. Constitution does not require the chamber to vote to launch an impeachment inquiry, legal experts told The Times. Still, Republicans have sought to portray formalizing the inquiry as a way to aid investigators.

    “Short of declaring war, impeachment is the most serious act Congress can take,” Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove), said in a floor speech before the vote. “We owe it to the country to get to the bottom of these allegations. And that requires the House to objectively invoke its full investigatory powers, respect the due process rights of all involved and lay all of the facts before the American people.”

    The 221-212 vote fell along party lines.

    Ahead of the floor vote, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which is leading the inquiry, blasted the investigation, calling it a partisan move that will waste taxpayer dollars to appease the far right.

    “After 11 months nobody can tell you what Joe Biden’s alleged crime is, where it happened, what the motive was or who the victims are,” the Maryland Democrat said at a news conference before the vote.

    He added: Republicans have a “mountain of evidence but all the evidence shows that Joe Biden is not guilty of any presidential offenses.”

    House Republicans have been itching to impeach Biden since Trump left office in 2021. One day after the president’s inauguration, then-freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) filed the first impeachment articles against Biden. She and other far-right lawmakers and GOP operatives have tried connecting the president with his son Hunter’s foreign business dealings. Though Hunter Biden is under federal indictment for unrelated crimes, House investigators have not yet produced evidence to charge the president with malfeasance.

    It is unclear when the House inquiry will end or whether it will produce charges the lower chamber will vote on. If the House votes to impeach Biden, the Democratic-controlled Senate will hold a trial, which requires a two-thirds majority to convict. The U.S. Senate has never removed an American president from office.

    Republicans in both chambers have expressed deep skepticism about the inquiry. So has the White House, which has been working in overdrive to bash the GOP for what administration officials have characterized as a baseless inquiry designed to appease Trump, who was twice impeached by House Democrats.

    In 2019, the Democrat-controlled House impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstructing Congress’ impeachment inquiry into his threats to withhold military aid from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky unless Zelensky launched an investigation of Biden, then a candidate for president. The House in 2021 again impeached Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection. (The Senate twice declined to convict.)

    The Wednesday vote will probably aid Republicans in deep red districts in fending off challenges from far-right candidates by helping them prove their loyalty to Trump. The vote is also likely to aid Democratic challengers in competitive districts who are eager to win over moderates by tying incumbent GOP lawmakers to the former president, who is unpopular among swing voters.

    The vote could come back to haunt swing-district Republican candidates. A majority of voters in competitive districts view the investigation as baseless, according to an early December survey commissioned by Congressional Integrity Project, a Democratic-aligned nonprofit, and conducted by Public Policy Polling. The survey found that 52% of voters saw the impeachment inquiry as designed to damage Biden politically. Most Trump voters — 85% — said the investigation was more about finding the truth. Fifty-six percent of people who declined to back either presidential candidate in 2020 characterized the the inquiry as more of a serious effort to investigate important problems.

    The Congressional Integrity Project recently launched a “seven-figure campaign” in California and other competitive districts targeting Republicans who backed formalizing the inquiry, according to Matthew Herdman, a spokesman for the nonprofit. The group purchased digital ads and mobile billboards targeting vulnerable Republicans, including Reps. John Duarte of Modesto, Mike Garcia of Santa Clarita, Young Kim of Anaheim Hills, Michelle Steel of Seal Beach and David Valadao of Hanford. Their races are rated as competitive by the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan outfit that focuses on congressional races.

    On Monday, the Congressional Integrity Project paid for a mobile ad to circle outside Valadao’s Bakersfield field office. It reads: “Call [Valadao]. Tell him enough is enough.”

    Digital ads going after candidates such as Garcia note that House Republicans have struggled to “pass a budget or desperately needed aid in Ukraine” and have instead focused on formalizing a “bogus impeachment inquiry into President Biden without a single shred of evidence that the president did anything wrong.”

    “Mike Garcia promised to focus on real priorities, not political stunts,” one ad said.

    As part of the inquiry into Biden family members’ business dealings, House investigators subpoenaed Hunter Biden last month to testify Wednesday morning in a private deposition. In advance of the deposition, the younger Biden’s lawyers repeatedly sought to hold the questioning in public, arguing that an open proceeding would prevent selective leaks of his remarks.

    Rather than show up for the scheduled questioning, Hunter Biden defied the subpoena and instead held a news conference outside the Capitol in which he reiterated his desire for a public hearing and attacked Republicans for “distortions, manipulated evidence and lies.”

    “Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not financially involved in my business — not as a practicing lawyer, not as a board member of Burisma, not in my partnership with a Chinese private businessman, not in my investments at home nor abroad, and certainly not as an artist,” Biden told reporters as he was flanked by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) and his defense attorney, Abbe Lowell.

    “In the depths of my addiction, I was extremely irresponsible with my finances. But to suggest that is grounds for an impeachment inquiry is beyond the absurd. It’s shameless. There is no evidence to support the allegations that my father was financially involved in my business, because it did not happen.”

    Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty to the charges in Delaware. In the California case, his lawyers have emphasized that their client had long ago paid his tax debts and that his mishandled financial affairs coincided with the depths of his drug and alcohol addiction.

    Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, blasted Republicans for escalating the inquiry. “They can start an impeachment inquiry, doesn’t mean they should because the evidence isn’t there,” Gomez said in a news conference before the floor vote. “Every time they do that it nips away at the foundation of our democracy. And the public and people lose faith.”

    Erin B. Logan, Matt Hamilton

    Source link

  • Claudine Gay To Stay On As Harvard President Despite Disastrous Congressional Testimony On Anti-Semitism

    Claudine Gay To Stay On As Harvard President Despite Disastrous Congressional Testimony On Anti-Semitism

    Opinion

    Source: CBS Boston YouTube

    Harvard has announced that Claudine Gay will be staying on as president of the university despite her disastrous testimony before Congress last week in which she claimed that calling for the genocide of Jews would only violate her school’s bullying and harassment policies “depending on the context.”

    Harvard Board Stands By Gay

    CNN reported that after deliberating on Monday night, the school’s board known as the Harvard Corporation decided to allow Gay, who has been touted as the school’s first black president, to keep her position despite widespread calls for her removal in the wake of her testimony.

    “As members of the Harvard Corporation, we today reaffirm our support for President Gay’s continued leadership of Harvard University,” read a statement signed by all board members, with the exception of Gay. “Our extensive deliberations affirm our confidence that President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing.”

    “So many people have suffered tremendous damage and pain because of Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack, and the University’s initial statement should have been an immediate, direct, and unequivocal condemnation,” the board continued. “Calls for genocide are despicable and contrary to fundamental human values. President Gay has apologized for how she handled her congressional testimony and has committed to redoubling the University’s fight against antisemitism.”

    Related: Dr. Phil Rips U.S. Colleges As ‘Liberal Woke Hotbeds Fostering’ Antisemitism

    Rep. Elise Stefanik Fires Back

    House GOP Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) has already fired back by blasting Harvard’s board for its “complete moral failure” in standing by Gay.

    “There is a reason why the testimony at the Education Workforce Committee garnered 1 billion views worldwide, and it’s because those university presidents made history by putting the most morally bankrupt testimony into the Congressional Record, and the world saw it,” Stefanik said, according to Fox News. “As a Harvard graduate, I’m reminded of Harvard’s motto, Veritas, which goes back – and it’s older than the founding of our country, it goes back to the 1640s. In addition, the motto was Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae – Truth for Christ and the Church.”

    “Larry Summers, who was president of Harvard when I was an undergrad, talked about the meaning of Veritas is divine truth, moral truth. Let me be clear. Veritas does not depend on the context,” Stefanik said. “This is a moral failure of Harvard’s leadership and higher education leadership at the highest levels, and the only change they have made to their code of conduct, where they failed to condemn calls for genocide of the Jewish people, the only update to the code of conduct is to allow a plagiarist as the president of Harvard.”

    New York Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman also blasted Harvard for keeping Gay on as president, arguing that the school is not doing enough to protect its students from the rise of antisemitism on college campuses.

    “If they are unable to enforce their code of conduct, then they either need to get a new code of conduct or they need to get a new president,” Goldman said. “I hope there is a significant change at Harvard if Dr. Gay is going to stay.”

    Related: Virulent Antisemitism And The Rot At Our Universities

    University Of Pennsylvania President Resigns

    Liz Magill, who also testified before Congress last week, resigned as president of the University of Pennsylvania over the weekend after she received similar backlash to Gay.

    “It has been my privilege to serve as President of this remarkable institution. It has been an honor to work with our faculty, students, staff, alumni, and community members to advance Penn’s vital missions,” Magill said in a brief statement, according to NPR.

    “One down. Two to go,” Stefanik wrote on social media afterwards, referring to Gay and MIT President Sally Kornbluth. “In the case of @Harvard, President Gay was asked by me 17x whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s code of conduct. She spoke her truth 17x. And the world heard.”

    Daily Mail reported that in the wake of Gay’s testimony, Harvard has lost a staggering $1 billion in donations. Gay’s school board may be standing by her, but she is facing an uphill battle when it comes to winning back the respect of many members of the Harvard community, given how many calls came in for her firing.

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    James Conrad

    Source link

  • Trump Torches Megyn Kelly As 'Biggest Loser' After She Claims He's Not As 'Mentally Sharp' As He Was

    Trump Torches Megyn Kelly As 'Biggest Loser' After She Claims He's Not As 'Mentally Sharp' As He Was

    Opinion

    Source: Megyn Kelly Show YouTube

    The former President Donald Trump is firing back at the former Fox News host Megyn Kelly after she claimed that he has lost “multiple steps,” and that he is not as “mentally sharp” as he was back in 2016.

    Kelly Attacks Trump

    “There’s no question Trump has lost a step or multiple steps,” Kelly told Glenn Beck on Friday. “He is confusing Joe Biden for [Barack] Obama … I know he’s now saying he intentionally did that — go back and look at the clips, it wasn’t intentional. The reference about how somebody is going to get us into World War II, confusing countries, confusing cities where he is, and it’s happening more and more.”

    “This is what happens when you’re 77-years-old. Trump seems inhuman, but he’s not inhuman. He’s a human. He’s a man,” Kelly continued. “DeSantis’ line about ‘Father Time spares no one,’ was a good one. So, look, if it’s between Trump and Biden, I don’t think there’s any question who’s more fit and more capable. But are we really going to pretend that Donald Trump is just as vibrant and mentally sharp as he was in ’16?”

    Related: Megyn Kelly Rips Gen Z ‘Morons’ Who Praised Bin Laden – ‘We Have So Lost The Youth In This Country’

    Trump Fires Back

    Trump fired back at Kelly on social media, saying, “What the hell happened to her? She has lost whatever she once had, which wasn’t very much.”

    “Some things never change!” he continued, according to The New York Post.

    While Trump has confused Biden and Obama man times as of late, he has claimed that this is actually intentional on his part.

    “Whenever I sarcastically insert the name Obama for Biden as an indication that others may actually be having a very big influence in running our Country, Ron DeSanctimonious and his failing campaign apparatus, together with the Democrat’s Radical Left ‘Disinformation Machine,’ go wild saying that ‘Trump doesn’t know the name of our President, (CROOKED!) Joe Biden. He must be cognitively impaired,” Trump said on social media last month.

    Related: Megyn Kelly And Candace Owens Go At It In Epic Battle Over College Students Protesting Israel

    Trump And Kelly’s History

    There has long been no love lost between Trump and Kelly. After Trump sat down with Kelly for an interview earlier this year, he blasted her as “nasty” during a speech in Iowa in September.

    “I sat down for an hour, and then I did a Megyn Kelly one,” Trump said at the time, according to The Hill. He was seemingly referring to his previous interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    “I, she was, you know, boy, she became nastier all of a sudden,” Trump continued of Kelly. “She was pretty nasty, didn’t you think, anyone that watched it.”

    Trump and Kelly infamously clashed after she moderated a Republican presidential debate back in 2015. At the time,  Trump said of Kelly that “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

    As for Kelly, she’s claimed that she no longer has an issue with Trump.

    “You know, all that nonsense between us is under the bridge, and he could not have been more magnanimous,” she recently said.

    What do you think about this? Let us know in the comments section.

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    James Conrad

    Source link

  • Special counsel Jack Smith asks Supreme Court to quickly decide Trump immunity claim

    Special counsel Jack Smith asks Supreme Court to quickly decide Trump immunity claim

    Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and quickly decide former President Donald Trump’s claim that he enjoys blanket immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was in the White House.

    The aggressive prosecutor says the conservative-led top court should deliver a timely decision to avoid unnecessary delays in Trump’s explosive election interference trial that is now set for Mar. 4.

    “This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected,” Smith’s prosecutors wrote.

    The move amounts to calling the bluff of Trump’s defense, which hopes to use a potentially lengthy appeals process to delay the trial if possible until after the 2024 election, when he hopes to regain power.

    Special counsel Jack Smith (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

    U.S. District Court Tanya Chutkan has ruled the case can proceed, saying Trump is not a “king” and cannot get a “lifetime ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’” for alleged crimes committed while in office.

    But Trump last week appealed the case to a federal appeals court and argues the entire case must be frozen until a final ruling is reached, a process that could delay the trial for months even if the courts eventually give the green light.

    Smith is attempting to bypass the deliberations of the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, even though the panel has repeatedly ruled against Trump in similar cases.

    The Supreme Court could consider Smith’s appeal as soon as Jan. 5, the date of the justices’ next scheduled private conference.

    Prosecutors make no secret of their desire to obtain a decision on the immunity question as soon as possible.

    “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” the filing said.

    Alternately, prosecutors asked the court to instruct the appeals court to quickly act or resolve the key immunity issues so the trial can move ahead, or be scrapped.

    Trump faces four federal charges related to his effort to overturn his loss to President Biden in the 2020 election, a push that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, prosecutors charge. He has denied any wrongdoing.

    Trump claims all the actions in question were carried out as part of his official duties and therefore are be subject to criminal prosecution.

    Defense lawyers also claim that the only way a sitting president can be held accountable for supposed misdeeds is through the impeachment process. Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted by the Senate when a majority of Republicans stood by him.

    Trump’s team claims it amounts to improper double jeopardy for him to face federal criminal charges for some of the same conduct covered in the impeachment drama.

    Many legal analysts scoff at that argument, noting that impeachment is not a criminal process and could not lead to imprisonment. It therefore does not preclude criminal prosecution, particularly after a years-long investigation that unearthed voluminous evidence against him.

    Trump, who faces 91 felony indictments in all, separately faces trial on Georgia state racketeering charges covering the same basic conduct in the Peach State and elsewhere.

    Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has asked a judge to set an Aug. 5 trial date for Trump and more than a dozen cronies including ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

    It’s unclear whether or how a Supreme Court decision in Trump’s favor would impact the state charges.

    Dave Goldiner

    Source link

  • Roseanne Barr Eviscerates 'Corrupt' Joe Biden – Refuses To Vote For Him

    Roseanne Barr Eviscerates 'Corrupt' Joe Biden – Refuses To Vote For Him

    Opinion

    Source: Piers Morgan Uncensored YouTube

    Source: Bloomberg Television

    The legendary comedian Roseanne Barr, who has long been known as one of the only openly conservative stars in Hollywood, is speaking out this week against the “corrupt” President Joe Biden while defiantly refusing to vote for him.

    Barr Rips Biden As ‘Corrupt’

    After Time Magazine named the singer Taylor Swift as its “Person Of The Year,” Barr decided to have some fun by putting her own face on the cover of the magazine in a playfully doctored image, captioning it “there, that’s better.

    Newsweek reported that an internet troll unfortunately responded to this by calling Barr, 71, the “loser of the year.”

    “It’s sad because I used to actually respect you even when you went nuts…But now that you’re supporting a dishonest narcissistic criminal conman, it is just too much,” the social media user continued, seemingly referring to Barr’s longstanding support of the former President Donald Trump.

    Barr fired back in a big way, taking the opportunity to blast Biden.

    “I am not voting for Biden what are you talking about?” she stated. “I’ve been very clear on liking the non war causing, non corrupt one.”

    Haters And Fans Respond

    The troll responded by writing, “I said nothing about you voting for Biden, I know you’re not. That’s why I stated what I did. You’re voting for the most corrupt politician in history. FYI, Trump will go to prison. That’s what happens when you break the law. It’s sad you don’t understand how the law works.”

    Thankfully,” Barr’s fans were quick to rush to her defense.

     “Roseanne, He’s just scared. He knows Trump’s going to break all of their toys when he retakes the Presidency in 2024,” one fan wrote.

    “The funny thing is… Any true Roseanne fan will know that she doesn’t care what other people think,” another added.

    Related: Roseanne Barr Reveals Why Trump Is Like A ‘Mother Bear’ – ‘The Only One With Balls’

    Barr Gushes Over Trump – Attacks Biden

    Barr has always been open about her support of Trump. While talking to Donald Trump Jr. on his “Triggered” podcast back in October, she gushed over the former president while also revealing why she thinks liberals are so against him.

    “What I love about your dad is he is one funny guy!” Barr said of the former president. “He is so hilarious, and I think that is part of why they hate him. They hate humor. They don’t have any sense of humor about themselves — right there that is what a fascist is.”

    “Someone in power who has no ability to laugh at themselves, has no self-reflection; they look in the mirror and there is nothing there,” she continued. “If you can’t laugh at yourself, you don’t have a soul. Your dad laughs at himself and everyone else and he makes everyone laugh. He has the heart of the comedian, which is why we all love him because he’s so funny!”

    Full Story: Roseanne Barr Lays Out Theory For The Real Reason Democrats Hate Trump

    Barr has also frequently bashed Biden. Last month, she commented on a video that showed Biden walking on grass by writing, “Obama’s remote control needs a software update,” according to OK Magazine.

    We applaud Barr for continuing to have the guts to go against the liberal world of Hollywood by calling it exactly how she sees it when it comes to Biden, Trump, and politics. Please don’t ever change, Roseanne Barr!

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    James Conrad

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden charged with tax crimes in Los Angeles

    Hunter Biden charged with tax crimes in Los Angeles

    Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was indicted Thursday in Los Angeles on several federal tax charges, marking the start of a second criminal case that will proceed during his father’s reelection campaign.

    Biden, who resides in Malibu, was accused of failing to pay his taxes on time from 2016 to 2019, filing false and fraudulent tax returns in 2018, and tax evasion, according to the 56-page indictment.

    The charges in the nine-count indictment span a period when Biden was addicted to alcohol and crack cocaine, which he documented in graphic detail in a memoir that dwells on the death of his brother, Beau, along with the grief and depression that consumed him and his family.

    Biden has since become sober, paid his taxes, along with penalties and interest, and his lawyers are expected to point to his well-publicized addiction to explain his chaotic financial affairs.

    But prosecutors contend that he “willfully” failed to file and pay his taxes on time, and that rather than pay the IRS, he plunked down cash for a bacchanalia across L.A. featuring “drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature.”

    Further, prosecutors allege that when preparing tax returns in 2020, in the early months of his sobriety, Biden misclassified a litany of personal expenses from 2018 as business expenses to reduce his tax burden. Those expenses include tuition for his daughter and a Venmo payment to an exotic dancer, according to the indictment.

    If convicted of all charges — six misdemeanors and three felonies — Biden would face a maximum penalty of 17 years in prison, although federal guidelines would call for a far lower sentence.

    The case was unsealed on the eve of President Biden’s arrival in Southern California for his first in-person fundraising trip here since Hollywood strikes put a pause on campaign events.

    The charges come months after Hunter Biden was set to enter a plea deal for tax and firearms violations. The deal would have avoided time behind bars and included immunity from additional federal charges, but it collapsed under questioning by a federal judge in Delaware. Shortly after, Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland appointed David Weiss, the U.S. attorney in Delaware, as special counsel.

    Weiss has since brought a fresh indictment in Delaware against Biden for the firearms violations, accusing him of lying about his drug use in 2018 when purchasing a gun that he briefly owned. Biden has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which are rarely filed as a standalone case.

    The special counsel also brought the tax charges against Biden in California, asserting in a statement that the president’s son “spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills.”

    Biden’s defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, emphasized that his client had long ago paid his tax debts and accused Weiss of bowing to Republican pressure by filing “unprecedented and unconstitutional gun charges.”

    “Based on the facts and the law, if Hunter’s last name was anything other than Biden, the charges in Delaware, and now California, would not have been brought,” Lowell said, an apparent nod to millions of people who annually fail to pay their taxes on time.

    “Now, after five years of investigating with no new evidence — and two years after Hunter paid his taxes in full — the U.S. attorney has piled on nine new charges when he had agreed just months ago to resolve this matter with a pair of misdemeanors.”

    Lowell noted that he had written to the special counsel’s office this week, seeking a “customary meeting” to discuss the tax inquiry. “The response was media leaks today that these charges were being filed,” Lowell said.

    The indictment offers the most detailed window into the Department of Justice’s long-running inquiry into Biden.

    In his memoir and in several interviews, Biden has been open about the depths of his addiction and unsavory lifestyle in L.A., when he lived out of the Chateau Marmont, Hollywood Roosevelt and other luxury hotels in a haze of sex and crack-induced euphoria. “I never slept. There was no clock. Day bled into night and night into day,” Biden wrote in “Beautiful Things,” in which he recounts his journey to sobriety.

    Still, the grand jury indictment outlines how such sordid travails were fiscally carried out — with $7 million in income from 2016 to 2020 from various business dealings — and uses Biden’s own words to claim discrepancies in his tax returns.

    The most serious charges stem from 2018, the height of Biden’s addiction. Prosecutors allege the filing of that year’s tax returns for both Biden and his business, Owasco PC, was fraudulent and evasive.

    Those returns were prepared in early 2020 by an accounting team in L.A. Prosecutors describe a three-hour meeting that Biden had with the accountants that year where he reviewed records to confirm their accuracy and used a yellow highlighter to indicate outlays that should not be deducted as business expenses.

    According to the indictment, Biden failed to identify several personal expenses, including the Venmo payment to an exotic dancer; $2,312.50 to a test prep service for one of his daughters; and a $30,000 law school tuition payment for his daughter.

    The indictment makes no mention of Biden’s father, nor does it specify the amount that Biden allegedly under-reported his taxes or how that would ultimately impact his tax bill.

    Although prosecutors claim that Biden in 2020 “never told” his accountants about his extensive drug and alcohol use, “which might have prompted greater scrutiny of his claims of hundreds of thousands of dollars in business expenses,” he had already begun discussing his alcohol and drug addiction in public.

    Times staff writer Stacy Perman contributed to this report.

    Matt Hamilton

    Source link

  • The Proud Boys Love a Winner

    The Proud Boys Love a Winner

    A second Trump term would validate the violent ideologies of far-right extremists—and allow them to escape legal jeopardy.

    Matt Huynh

    Editor’s Note: This article is part of “If Trump Wins,” a project considering what Donald Trump might do if reelected in 2024.

    Until the very end of his presidency, Donald Trump’s cultivation of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other violent far-right groups was usually implicit. He counted on their political support but stopped short of asking them to do anything.

    Trump had mastered a form of radicalization sometimes known as stochastic terrorism—riling up followers in ways that made bloodshed likely while preserving plausible deniability on his part.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    But in the weeks after November 3, 2020, his language became more direct. He named the place and occasion for a “big protest”—on January 6, 2021, when Congress would be certifying his election loss—and told supporters, “Be there, will be wild!” When that day arrived, Trump told the assembled crowd, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” With that, the president of the United States embraced violence as the natural extension of Americans’ democratic differences, and he has not stopped since.

    Trump continues to lash out at his perceived enemies. Yet Americans have mostly been able to treat Trump’s extremism as background noise. That’s partly because he’s no longer in office, and partly because he’s no longer using Twitter. But it’s also because the legal counteroffensive against pro-Trump extremism, along with a proliferation of court proceedings holding Trump himself to task for his misdeeds, appears to have given his fans reason to think twice before committing crimes on his behalf.

    Extremism ebbs and flows. Violent groups can grow only when they can raise money and recruit members faster than law enforcement can shut down their operations. They thrive when they are perceived to be winning; even the kind of person who might be drawn to violence makes a calculation about whether taking part in a plot to, say, overthrow an election or kidnap the governor of Michigan will be worth the risk. In the past few years, Trump’s election loss and his legal woes have made him less persuasive in this regard.

    Trump now faces both state and federal conspiracy charges for his efforts to stay in power despite losing the election. Leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have received long prison sentences for their role in the violence of January 6. Fox News, which knowingly broadcast false statements about faulty voting machines rather than offend its pro-Trump core audience, agreed to a defamation settlement of nearly $800 million with Dominion Voting Systems. All of these proceedings have demonstrated that Trump and his supporters will be held accountable for what they do and say.

    But if Trump wins another term, both he and his most disreputable supporters will feel vindicated. The Republican Party has already given Trump a pass for exhorting a mob to break into the Capitol. In turn, Trump has promised to pardon many of the January 6 insurrectionists. His forgiveness could extend to extremist leaders convicted on federal charges.

    Federalism, to be sure, would be a check on his power. Trump’s followers, like Trump himself, may still be subject to state prosecution. But a president with firm control of the Justice Department, who wields a corps of supporters willing to use intimidation for political ends and who has maintained a considerable following among police, could overwhelm the ability of state institutions to uphold the law.

    Trump’s bullying of military leaders, journalists, and judges was never merely the ranting of an attention seeker, and that behavior—backed by the credible threat of violence from radicalized supporters—will likely become even more central to his governing style. “The extremism won’t be some side group,” Erica Chenoweth, a Harvard professor who studies political violence, told me. “It won’t be like a terror group against the state. The conditions will be different. It will be embedded into state institutions, and into the orientation of the state against perceived opponents.”

    What’s clear is that a restored Trump would have a winning narrative in which right-wing extremism, after suffering some legal setbacks during the Biden interregnum, thrives again.


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “Extremists Emboldened.”

    Juliette Kayyem

    Source link

  • A Plan to Outlaw Abortion Everywhere

    A Plan to Outlaw Abortion Everywhere

    The year 2022 was a triumphant one for the anti-abortion movement. After half a century, the Supreme Court did what had once seemed impossible when it overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping Americans of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Now movement activists are feeling bolder than ever: Their next goal will be ending legal abortion in America once and for all. A federal ban, which would require 60 votes in the Senate, is unlikely. But some activists believe there’s a simpler way: the enforcement by a Trump Justice Department of a 150-year-old obscenity law.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    The Comstock Act, originally passed in 1873 to combat vice and debauchery, prohibits the mailing of any “article or thing” that is “designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.” In the law’s first 100 years, a series of court cases narrowed its scope, and in 1971, Congress removed most of its restrictions on contraception. But the rest of the Comstock Act has remained on the books. The law has sat dormant, considered virtually unenforceable, since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973.

    Following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, the United States Postal Service asked the Justice Department for clarification: Could its workers legally transport abortion-inducing medications to states with bans? The DOJ replied by issuing a memo stipulating that abortion pills can be legally mailed as long as the sender does not intend for the drugs to be used unlawfully. And whether or not the drugs will be used within the bounds of state law, the memo notes, would be difficult for a sender to know (the pills have medical uses unrelated to abortion).

    If Donald Trump is reelected president, many prominent opponents of abortion rights will demand that his DOJ issue its own memo, reinterpreting the law to mean the exact opposite: that Comstock is a de facto ban on shipping medication that could end a pregnancy, regardless of its intended use (this would apply to the USPS and to private carriers like UPS and FedEx). “The language is black-and-white. It should be enforced,” Steven H. Aden, the general counsel at Americans United for Life, told me. A broader interpretation of the Comstock Act might also mean that a person receiving abortion pills would be committing a federal crime and, if prosecuted, could face prison time. Federal prosecutors could bring charges against abortion-pill manufacturers, providers receiving pills in the mail, or even individuals.

    The hopes of some activists go further. Their ultimate aim in reviving the Comstock Act is to use it to shut down every abortion facility “in all 50 states,” Mark Lee Dickson, a Texas pastor and anti-abortion advocate, told me. Taken literally, Comstock could be applied to prevent the transport of all supplies related to medical and surgical abortions, making it illegal to ship necessary tools and medications to hospitals and clinics, with no exceptions for other medical uses, such as miscarriage care. Conditions that are easily treatable with modern medicine could, without access to these supplies, become life-threatening.

    Legal experts say that the activists’ strategy could, in theory, succeed—at least in bringing the issue to court. “It’s not hypothetical anymore,” Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the UC Davis School of Law, told me. “Because it’s already on the books, and it’s not ridiculous to interpret it this way, [the possibility] is not far-fetched at all.”

    Eventually, the Supreme Court would likely face pressure to weigh in. Even though a majority of the Court’s justices have supported abortion restrictions and ruled to overturn Roe, it’s unclear how they’d rule on this particular case. If they were to uphold the broadest interpretation of the Comstock Act, doctors even in states without bans could struggle to legally obtain the supplies they need to provide abortions and perform other procedures.

    This is what activists want. The question is whether Trump would accede to their demands. After years of championing the anti-abortion cause, the former president seemed to pivot when he blamed anti-abortion Republicans’ extremism for the party’s poor performance in the 2022 midterm elections (only a small fraction of Americans favors a complete abortion ban). Recently, he’s come across as more moderate on the issue than his primary opponents by condemning Florida’s six-week abortion ban and endorsing compromise with Democrats.

    As president, Trump might choose not to enforce Comstock at all. Or he could order his DOJ to enforce it with discretion, promising to go after drug manufacturers and Planned Parenthood instead of individuals. It’s hard to be certain of any outcome: Trump has always been more interested in appeasing his base than reaching Americans in the ideological middle. He might well be in favor of aggressively enforcing the Comstock Act, in order to continue bragging, as he has in the past, that he is “the most pro-life president in American history.”


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “A Plan to Outlaw Abortion Everywhere.”

    Elaine Godfrey

    Source link

  • The Danger Ahead

    The Danger Ahead

    For all its marvelous creativity, the human imagination often fails when turned to the future. It is blunted, perhaps, by a craving for the familiar. We all appreciate that the past includes many moments of severe instability, crisis, even radical revolutionary upheaval. We know that such things happened years or decades or centuries ago. We cannot believe they might happen tomorrow.

    When Donald Trump is the subject, imagination falters further. Trump operates so far outside the normal bounds of human behavior—never mind normal political behavior—that it is difficult to accept what he may actually do, even when he declares his intentions openly. What’s more, we have experienced one Trump presidency already. We can take false comfort from that previous experience: We’ve lived through it once. American democracy survived. Maybe the danger is less than feared?

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    In his first term, Trump’s corruption and brutality were mitigated by his ignorance and laziness. In a second, Trump would arrive with a much better understanding of the system’s vulnerabilities, more willing enablers in tow, and a much more focused agenda of retaliation against his adversaries and impunity for himself. When people wonder what another Trump term might hold, their minds underestimate the chaos that would lie ahead.

    By Election Day 2024, Donald Trump will be in the thick of multiple criminal trials. It’s not impossible that he may already have been convicted in at least one of them. If he wins the election, Trump will commit the first crime of his second term at noon on Inauguration Day: His oath to defend the Constitution of the United States will be a perjury.

    A second Trump term would instantly plunge the country into a constitutional crisis more terrible than anything seen since the Civil War. Even in the turmoil of the 1960s, even during the Great Depression, the country had a functional government with the president as its head. But the government cannot function with an indicted or convicted criminal as its head. The president would be an outlaw, or on his way to becoming an outlaw. For his own survival, he would have to destroy the rule of law.

    From Trump himself and the people around him, we have a fair idea of a second Trump administration’s immediate priorities: (1) Stop all federal and state cases against Trump, criminal and civil. (2) Pardon and protect those who tried to overturn the 2020 election on Trump’s behalf. (3) Send the Department of Justice into action against Trump adversaries and critics. (4) End the independence of the civil service and fire federal officials who refuse to carry out Trump’s commands. (5) If these lawless actions ignite protests in American cities, order the military to crush them.

    A restored Trump would lead the United States into a landscape of unthinkable scenarios. Will the Senate confirm Trump nominees who were chosen because of their willingness to help the president lead a coup against the U.S. government? Will the staff of the Justice Department resign? Will people march in the streets? Will the military obey or refuse orders to suppress demonstrations?

    The existing constitutional system has no room for the subversive legal maneuvers of a criminal in chief. If a president can pardon himself for federal crimes—as Trump would likely try to do—then he could write his pardon in advance and shoot visitors to the White House. (For that matter, the vice president could murder the president in the Oval Office and then immediately pardon herself.) If a president can order the attorney general to stop a federal case against him—as Trump would surely do—then obstruction of justice becomes a normal prerogative of the presidency. If Trump can be president, then the United States owes a huge retrospective apology to Richard Nixon. Under the rules of a second Trump presidency, Nixon would have been well within his rights to order the Department of Justice to stop investigating Watergate and then pardon himself and all the burglars for the break-in and cover-up.

    After Trump was elected in 2016, he was quickly surrounded by prominent and influential people who recognized that he was a lawless menace. They found ways to restrain a man they regarded as, to quote the reported words of Trump’s first secretary of state, “a fucking moron” and, to quote his second chief of staff, “the most flawed person I’ve ever met in my life,” whose “dishonesty is just astounding.” But there would be no Rex Tillerson in a second Trump term; no John Kelly; no Jeff Sessions, who as attorney general recused himself from the investigation into the president’s connections to Russia, leading to the appointment of an independent special counsel.

    Since 2021, Trump-skeptical Republicans have been pushed out of politics. Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger forfeited their seats in the House for defending election integrity. Representative Tom Emmer withdrew his bid for House speaker over the same offense. The Republican Senate caucus is less hospitable to Trump-style authoritarianism—but notice that the younger and newer Republican senators (Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, J. D. Vance) tend to support Trump’s schemes, while his opponents in the Senate belong to the outgoing generation. Trump’s leading rivals for the 2024 nomination seldom dare criticize his abuse of power.

    Most of the people who would staff a second Trump term would be servile tools who have absorbed the brutal realities of contemporary Republicanism: defend democracy; forfeit your career. Already, an array of technically competent opportunists has assembled itself—from within right-wing think tanks and elsewhere—and has begun to plan out exactly how to dismantle the institutional safeguards against Trump’s corrupt and vengeful impulses. Trump’s likely second-term advisers have made clear that they would share his agenda of legal impunity and the use of law enforcement against his perceived opponents—not only the Biden family, but Trump’s own former attorney general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    If Trump wins the presidency again, the whole world will become a theater for his politics of revenge and reward. Ukraine will be abandoned to Vladimir Putin; Saudi Arabia will collect its dividends for its investments in the Trump family.

    First-term Trump told aides that he wanted to withdraw from NATO. Second-term Trump would choose aides who would not talk him out of it. Other partners, too, would have to adjust to the authoritarianism and corruption of a second Trump term. Liberals in Israel and India would find themselves isolated as the U.S. turned toward reaction and authoritarianism at home; East Asian democracies would have to adjust to Trump protectionism and trade wars; Mexico’s antidemocratic Morena party would have scope to snuff out free institutions provided that it suppressed migration flows to the United States.

    Anyway, the United States would be too paralyzed by troubles at home to help friends abroad.

    If Trump is elected, it very likely won’t be with a majority of the popular vote. Imagine the scenario: Trump has won the Electoral College with 46 percent of the vote because third-party candidates funded by Republican donors successfully splintered the anti-Trump coalition. Having failed to win the popular vote in each of the past three elections, Trump has become president for the second time. On that thin basis, his supporters would try to execute his schemes of personal impunity and political vengeance.

    In this scenario, Trump opponents would have to face a harsh reality: The U.S. electoral system has privileged a strategically located minority, led by a lawbreaking president, over the democratic majority. One side outvoted the other. The outvoted nonetheless won the power to govern.

    The outvoted would happily justify the twist of events in their favor. “We are a republic, not a democracy,” many said in 2016. Since that time, the outvoted have become more outspoken against democracy. As Senator Mike Lee tweeted a month before the 2020 election: “Democracy isn’t the objective.”

    So long as minority rule seems an occasional or accidental result, the majority might go along. But once aware that the minority intends to engineer its power to last forever—and to use it to subvert the larger legal and constitutional system—the majority may cease to be so accepting. One outcome of a second Trump term may be an American version of the massive demonstrations that filled Tel Aviv streets in 2023, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to remake Israel’s court system.

    And what might follow that? In 2020, Trump’s advisers speculated about the possibility of using the Army to crush protests against Trump’s plans to overturn that year’s election. Now those in Trump’s circle are apparently thinking further ahead. Some reportedly want to prepare in advance to use the Insurrection Act to convert the military into a tool of Trump’s authoritarian project. It’s an astonishing possibility. But Trump is thinking about it, so everybody else must—including the senior command of the U.S. military.

    If a president can summon an investigation of his opponents, or summon the military to put down protests, then suddenly our society would no longer be free. There would be no more law, only legalized persecution of political opponents. It has always been Trump’s supreme political wish to wield both the law and institutional violence as personal weapons of power—a wish that many in his party now seem determined to help him achieve.

    That grim negative ideal is the core ballot question in 2024. If Trump is defeated, the United States can proceed in its familiar imperfect way to deal with the many big problems of our time: the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, climate change, educational standards and equal opportunity, economic growth and individual living standards, and so on. Stopping Trump would not represent progress on any of those agenda items. But stopping Trump would preserve the possibility of progress, by keeping alive the constitutional-democratic structure of the United States.

    A second Trump presidency, however, is the kind of shock that would overwhelm all other issues. It would mark the turn onto a dark path, one of these rips between “before” and “after” that a society can never reverse. Even if the harm is contained, it can never be fully undone, as the harm of January 6, 2021, can never be undone. The long tradition of peaceful transitions of power was broken that day, and even though the attempt to stop the transition by violence was defeated, the violence itself was not expunged. The schemes and plots of a second Trump term may be defeated too. Yet every future would-be dictator will know: A president can attempt a coup and, if stopped, still return to office to try again.

    As we now understand from memoirs and on-the-record comments, many of Trump’s own Cabinet appointees and senior staff were horrified by the president they served. The leaders of his own party in Congress feared and hated him. The GOP’s deepest-pocketed donors have worked for three years to nominate somebody, anybody, else. Yet even so, Trump’s co-partisans are converging upon him. They are convincing themselves that something can justify forgiving Trump’s first attempted coup and enabling a second: taxes, border control, stupid comments by “woke” college students.

    For democracy to continue, however, the democratic system itself must be the supreme commitment of all major participants. Rules must matter more than outcomes. If not, the system careens toward breakdown—as it is careening now.

    When Benjamin Franklin famously said of the then-new Constitution, “A republic, if you can keep it,” he was not suggesting that the republic might be misplaced absentmindedly. He foresaw that ambitious, ruthless characters would arise to try to break the republic, and that weak, venal characters might assist them. Americans have faced Franklin’s challenge since 2016, in a story that has so far had some villains, many heroes—and just enough good luck to tip the balance. It would be dangerous to continue to count on luck to do the job.


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “The Revenge Presidency.”

    David Frum

    Source link

  • Newsom-DeSantis debate draws 4.75 million viewers on Fox News

    Newsom-DeSantis debate draws 4.75 million viewers on Fox News

    The Thursday debate between California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Fox News — the talk of the political world this past week — delivered a decent bump in the channel’s ratings.

    Billed as the “The Great Red State vs. Blue State Debate,” the event moderated by Fox News host Sean Hannity averaged 4.75 million viewers, according to Nielsen data.

    The number was more than double the November average for “Hannity,” which was 2.3 million viewers, as the debate pulled in people who do not typically watch his nightly diatribes against liberals and the Biden administration. The figure also accounted for 73% of the viewers watching cable news in the 9 p.m time slot.

    The event faced stiff competition, up against a close, high-scoring “Thursday Night Football” contest between the Dallas Cowboys and Seattle Seahawks streaming on Amazon, and the finale of “The Golden Bachelor” on ABC, the most-watched TV program of the night.

    The highly anticipated match-up staged in a suburb outside Atlanta was unusual for TV news, with DeSantis, a contender for the 2024 Republican nomination for president, facing off against a sitting governor who has repeatedly stated he is not running for national office.

    Newsom, a leading surrogate for the Democratic party, was also entering an arena where the moderator, Hannity, was clearly aligned politically with DeSantis.

    Despite the efforts of Hannity to keep order — he pleaded on and off the air with both participants to not talk over each other — the 90-minute event became chaotic at times, making it difficult for viewers to understand either of them.

    The questions offered up by the conservative host were mostly built around unfavorable comparisons of California to Florida on issues such as crime, handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, homelessness and gasoline prices, and put Newsom on the defense for much of the evening.

    But Newsom entered the showdown with nothing to lose, as he is insistent he will not be Democratic candidate for president in 2024, despite chatter in right-wing circles. He largely used his time to defend the performance of President Biden’s administration while getting exposure in front of a national audience that may not have been familiar with him.

    When Hannity served up a question stating emphatically that Biden was in cognitive decline, Newsom shot back that he will “take Joe Biden at 100 versus Ron DeSantis any day of the week at any age.”

    DeSantis needed the event to ignite his flagging presidential campaign, as he badly trails former President Trump in polls and has fallen behind former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley in some primary states.

    DeSantis used props in his presentation, including a very brown map that depicted the volume of human fecal matter on the streets of San Francisco, where Newsom was once mayor.

    Fox News used clips of the debate on its Friday opinion programs, touting it as a win for DeSantis, who up to now has failed to catch fire with the network’s audience.

    “This was a victory of conservatism over liberalism,” said Kaleigh McEnany, the former Trump White House press secretary who is now a co-host of the Fox News daytime show “Outnumbered.”

    But McEnany said Newsom, whom she described as “sharp,” cannot be written off as a political competitor.

    “Watch out for him, because he’s coming if not in ‘24, in ‘28,” she said.

    Stephen Battaglio

    Source link

  • Opinion: How did California's Gov. Newsom fare against his Florida rival, Gov. DeSantis?

    Opinion: How did California's Gov. Newsom fare against his Florida rival, Gov. DeSantis?

    What the hell was that?

    Ostensibly, Thursday’s debate between California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is not running for president, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is, was supposed to be an exploration of the ideological differences between the two chief executives.

    Opinion Columnist

    Robin Abcarian

    After all, one is the embodiment of progressive, blue-state policies and a high-profile surrogate for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. The other represents the younger, less orange face of Planet MAGA, and, as it became clear, can’t pronounce “Kamala” correctly.

    Twenty minutes in, however, I had a headache. There was so much cross-talk and interrupting — by both governors — that it was impossible to hear what they were saying.

    If a third debater had been onstage, they almost certainly would have piped up, “See folks, this is why those two should not be on this debate stage.”

    It was actually pretty funny that Sean Hannity, an unabashed supporter of former President Trump who engineered this overhyped meeting of ideological opposites, positioned himself as the grownup in the room, the guy who wanted to take the temperature down a few notches in order to get his loaded questions answered.

    “Let each other breathe,” pleaded Hannity. “I don’t want to be the hall monitor.” Don’t worry, Sean, you weren’t. He prefaced one of his loaded questions thus: “Joe Biden has experienced significant cognitive decline.”

    DeSantis performed better than I expected against the voluble Newsom, who has two decades of political experience to DeSantis’ one. In three previous Republican debates, DeSantis failed to distinguish himself, appearing almost wimpy next to the verbally muscular former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who has overtaken him in polls. (Which probably explains why he agreed to debate Newsom after refusing to for most of the past year.) He landed well-deserved blows about California’s infamous, and well-acknowledged, problems — homelessness, in particular.

    The problem with this spectacle was that too many incompatible things were simultaneously going on: The flailing DeSantis was trying to reestablish himself as a viable GOP alternative in the event that Trump’s felony indictments make him, finally, unpalatable to Republican voters.

    Newsom was trying to raise his national political profile, defend the Biden-Harris record and argue that California is a better place to live than Florida. (Which, of course, it is.)

    Did Newsom have anything to lose? Not really.

    Yes, we all know that California is expensive, and that for the first time in forever, more people are leaving than coming in. Yes, we had lockdowns during the pandemic. This was the gist of DeSantis’ argument that he’s the better governor.

    And yet, as Newsom pointed out, more Floridians have recently moved to California than Californians to Florida.

    “There is one thing that we have in common,” said Newsom. “Neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024.”

    Oh snap.

    @robinkabcarian

    Robin Abcarian

    Source link

  • Fox News debate with DeSantis puts Newsom on the defensive

    Fox News debate with DeSantis puts Newsom on the defensive

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis turned their feud over blue and red state policies personal Thursday, clashing for more than 90 minutes over crime, taxes, COVID-19 pandemic policies, immigration, book bans and other divisive issues in an unorthodox debate that both men hoped would propel their national political ambitions.

    California has “failed because of his leftist ideology,” DeSantis said of Newsom, whom he called a “slick politician.”

    “There’s one thing … that we have in common,” Newsom said. “Neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024.”

    The forum in Georgia between the liberal Democrat and the conservative Republican, hosted by Sean Hannity on Fox News, culminated months of shadow boxing between the two governors, who have used their states’ opposing partisan approaches to governing to attack each other.

    Newsom was on the defensive for much of the debate as Hannity focused on taxes, crime, late-term abortions, California’s high gas prices and other topics on which conservatives believe they have the upper hand politically. Newsom responded by ignoring or reframing many of the questions.

    DeSantis, who has seen his once-promising presidential campaign sag, recognized an opportunity to take down the leader of the most prominent Democratic-led state, which he attacked as a bastion of unhinged progressive policies that have led to lawlessness and mass departures.

    Newsom, who may run for president in 2028, saw an opportunity to cement his reputation as a warrior for Democratic values, unafraid of Fox News and Republicans, as he savaged DeSantis’ vision of freedom as phony in a state where books are banned and abortion rights are curtailed.

    The risks for both men were clear. Some viewers may see the obvious downgrade in DeSantis’ campaign as he battles a governor who is not running for president, instead of former President Trump, the overwhelming favorite to win the GOP nomination, or President Biden, the man he hopes to ultimately unseat. Newsom could come off as too eager for attention and overconfident in believing he could dispatch DeSantis, who came well prepared, in a debate moderated by Hannity.

    It’s unclear whether Thursday’s debate will change minds on policy. But viewers got a clear contrast in a nation where differences are more often being played out in the states, which are increasingly dominated by a single party.

    Noah Bierman, Taryn Luna

    Source link

  • Donald Trump greeted by loud boos at South Carolina football game

    Donald Trump greeted by loud boos at South Carolina football game

    Former President Donald Trump was met with loud boos as he arrived at Williams-Brice Stadium in South Carolina on Saturday ahead of the Palmetto Bowl.

    Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential primary, was in Columbia to watch the Palmetto Bowl college football game between the University of South Carolina’s Gamecocks and Clemson University’s Tigers.

    The former president remains a popular figure in South Carolina, a state where he beat President Joe Biden by 12 points in 2020. South Carolina is a key early voting state, and Trump has maintained a commanding lead in polls over his GOP rivals, including former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

    Haley, a Clemson alumna and trustee who was twice elected the state’s governor, did not attend the annual rivalry football game, according to local media reports.

    The former president was invited to watch the football game at the request of Governor Henry McMaster, who became Haley’s successor after Trump named her U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2017.

    Trump faced a mix of boos and some cheers while at the bowl game, according to videos posted on social media.

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump waves to the crowd while on the field during halftime in the Palmetto Bowl between Clemson and South Carolina at Williams-Brice Stadium on November 25, 2023, in Columbia, South Carolina. Trump faced boos while at the game, videos on social media show.
    Sean Rayford/Getty

    The MAGA leader was greeted with audible boos as his black SUV was arriving at Williams-Brice Stadium on Saturday, according to video clips shared on X, formerly Twitter. In a minute-long clip, posted by Beth Hoole, a director for local station WHNS, the crowd’s jeers can be heard roughly 10 seconds in.

    Hoole’s video was reshared on X by 11Alive journalist Cody Alcorn, who called it an “explicit welcome.”

    “You can hear the boo’s and explicit welcome Trump received as his SUV arrived at Williams-Brice for the Palmetto Bowl,” Alcorn said in the post.

    Despite a smattering of boos, the crowd wasn’t entirely hostile as chants of “We Want Trump” and “USA” rang out whenever the former president was shown on the jumbotron.

    Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump, told a Newsweek editor in an email to “step away from your computer on a Saturday night and come to an event sometime to experience the electric Trump effect.”

    “South Carolina loves President Trump,” Cheung said. “Just take a look at all the videos circulating social media of giving him a warm and rousing welcome to the Palmetto Bowl.”

    Simon Ateba, Chief White House Correspondent at Today News Africa, shared a video on X showing the crowd inside the stadium cheering and clapping for the former president.

    “EXPLOSIVE: Massive pro-Trump crowd as Trump arrives in Nikki Haley’s state of South Carolina,” Ateba said in the X post. “Multiple indictments and MSM have not changed the minds of the voters. WATCH.”

    Trump’s stop in South Carolina comes amid potential key updates involving his criminal and civil trials that could tarnish his 2024 presidential campaign.

    A reporter for local outlet The Post and Courier, Caitlin Byrd, shared a clip of Trump as he took the field with McMaster at halftime.

    “Additional video from AP’s Meg Kinnard captures the mix of cheers and boos when Trump + McMaster walked onto the field tonight for a quick appearance during halftime of the USC-Clemson football game,” Byrd posted. “The boos are audible, as is someone shouting, ‘We love you!’”