(AP) — With the GOP primary process just about to start, many Republicans aren’t certain that votes will be counted correctly in their presidential primary contest, amid widespread pessimism about the future of both the Democratic and Republican parties, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
About one-third of Republicans say they have a “great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence that votes in the upcoming Republican primary elections and caucuses will be counted correctly. About three in 10 Republicans report a “moderate” amount of confidence, and 32% say they have “only a little” or “none at all.” In contrast, 72% of Democrats have high confidence their party will count votes accurately in its primary contests. Democrats are also slightly more likely than Republicans to have a high level of confidence in the Republican Party’s vote count being accurate.
Republicans continue to be broadly doubtful about votes being counted accurately — in the early contests or beyond them. About one-quarter of Republicans say they have at least “quite a bit” of confidence that the votes in the 2024 presidential election will be counted accurately, significantly lower than Democrats. Slightly fewer than half of U.S. adults overall (46%) believe the same, which is in line with an AP-NORC poll conducted in June.
“Nothing will be fair because the last election was rigged,” said Julie Duggan, 32, of Chicago, a Trump voter, referring to 2020. “I don’t trust any of them at this point.”
The AP-NORC poll found a widespread lack of trust in both major political parties among U.S. adults overall.
About one-quarter of U.S. adults say they have “only a little” confidence or “none at all” that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party have a fair process for selecting a presidential nominee. About half of Independents have that low level of confidence in both party’s processes, compared with one-quarter of Republicans and 19% of Democrats.
Former President Donald Trump is urging a federal appeals court to dismiss the federal election subversion criminal case against him in Washington, DC. In a filing late Saturday, Trump’s legal team reiterated the claim that he is protected under presidential immunity. The appeal, currently under consideration by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, seeks to overturn a lower-court ruling that rejected Trump’s immunity assertions in the election subversion case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The Supreme Court, however, refused to expedite the case as requested by Smith.
In the filing, Trump’s lawyers maintained that the former president, in his official capacity, was working to “ensure election integrity” during the alleged undermining of the 2020 election results. They argue that this official duty grants him immunity and that his indictment is unconstitutional, asserting that presidents cannot face criminal prosecution for “official acts” unless impeached and convicted by the Senate. Trump’s attorneys emphasized the structural checks established by the Constitution to prevent the abuse of criminal prosecution as a tool to disable the president and target political enemies.
“The Constitution establishes a powerful structural check to prevent political factions from abusing the formidable threat of criminal prosecution to disable the President and attack their political enemies,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the filing. “Before any single prosecutor can ask a court to sit in judgment of the President’s conduct, Congress must have approved of it by impeaching and convicting the President. That did not happen here, and so President Trump has absolute immunity.”
The former president has sought to delay his March 4 trial, with the fight over the immunity claim being a focal point of these efforts. The appeals court has expedited its consideration of Trump’s appeal and is scheduled to hear oral arguments on January 9. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, overseeing the criminal case, has temporarily halted all procedural deadlines pending the outcome of the appeal.
The Supreme Court declined Smith’s request for an immediate hearing, allowing the DC Circuit to assess the case first. Both parties will retain the option to appeal the eventual ruling from the appeals court to the Supreme Court.
Trump’s legal team had previously requested the appeals court to review the immunity ruling issued by Judge Chutkan. Chutkan had rejected Trump’s immunity claims, asserting in an opinion that his service as Commander in Chief did not grant him immunity from criminal accountability. The judge dismissed arguments that Trump’s actions were part of his official capacity as president, emphasizing that such actions do not exempt him from criminal charges. Trump’s lawyers reiterated these arguments in the recent filing, contending that Chutkan overlooked the Founders’ recognition that the punishment of the president is inherently political and belongs primarily to the politically accountable branch, Congress, and ultimately, the Senate.
In their filing, Trump’s legal team expressed concern about the potential repercussions of the indictment, warning that it “threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecution that will plague our Nation for many decades to come.” The assertion implies that Trump’s case could set a precedent affecting future presidents and the political landscape of the country. The legal battle continues, with the upcoming oral arguments serving as a critical juncture in determining the trajectory of the federal election subversion case against Donald Trump.
Tyler Raygor knocked on the door of a gray, single-story house in a neighborhood in northern Ames, Iowa. He patiently waited until a man in a hoodie and jeans emerged before launching into his pitch.
In this encounter, the man, Mike Morton, expressed his inclination to vote for either Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida or former President Donald J. Trump in the upcoming caucuses. However, Mr. Morton hadn’t considered Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina. Mr. Raygor, the state director for Americans for Prosperity Action, a super PAC supporting Ms. Haley, seized the opportunity. He referred to a recent poll showing Ms. Haley with a significant lead over President Biden in a general election matchup and emphasized her tenure as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. After handing Mr. Morton a Haley campaign flier, Mr. Morton acknowledged that he would now take a closer look at Haley, noting, “If you didn’t come to my house, I probably would overlook her a little bit more.”
With less than a month remaining before January’s caucuses, Ms. Haley’s campaign, along with Americans for Prosperity Action, is actively working to build on the momentum gained in recent months. The goal is to reach persuadable voters and firmly position her as the primary alternative to Mr. Trump for the Republican nomination.
Ms. Haley received a last-minute boost with the endorsement of Americans for Prosperity Action, a well-funded organization founded by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. This endorsement provided access to donors and injected much-needed funds into her campaign for television spots and mail advertisements. While her campaign initially faced challenges in Iowa against better-funded rivals, the A.F.P. Action apparatus has come to life, deploying a network of volunteers and staff members across the state to engage voters.
The super PAC has mobilized approximately 150 volunteers and part-time staff members to canvass Iowa, with a goal of knocking on 100,000 doors before the caucuses, according to Drew Klein, a senior adviser with A.F.P. Action. Since endorsing Ms. Haley, the super PAC has spent over $5.7 million on pro-Haley advertisements and canvassing efforts nationwide. Financial filings with the Federal Election Commission indicate that the organization had more than $74 million on hand as of July.
Both Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis are vying for a pool of undecided voters, although Mr. Trump continues to maintain a significant lead. Recent polls indicate that Mr. Trump is the top choice for 51 percent of Republicans likely to caucus, up from 43 percent in October. Mr. DeSantis’s support increased slightly to 19 percent, while Ms. Haley’s remained at 16 percent. However, the super PAC’s efforts might be insufficient to overtake Mr. DeSantis, who has invested considerable time and money in Iowa.
Despite recent challenges, including the departure of top strategist Jeff Roe from Never Back Down, an affiliated super PAC supporting Mr. DeSantis, the Florida governor has established a strong presence in Iowa. He has visited all 99 counties, and his well-funded ground operation, managed by Never Back Down, has been active for months, boasting over 801,000 doors knocked.
The A.F.P. Action’s endorsement is considered by some, like Republican strategist Jimmy Centers in Iowa, as the potential “missing link” for Ms. Haley. However, the group faces a time constraint. Mr. Centers poses the open question of whether Ms. Haley peaked too soon in Iowa and if A.F.P. has sufficient time to catch up. A spokesman for Mr. DeSantis, Andrew Romeo, dismisses A.F.P. Action’s efforts as a “rent-a-campaign gambit” by Ambassador Haley, asserting that grassroots success cannot be bought.
A critical component of A.F.P. Action’s strategy is the ground game, aiming to reach voters just as attention to the Republican nomination race intensifies. Mr. Raygor, addressing criticism from the Trump campaign about door-knocking on Christmas, stated, “Maybe not on Christmas, but we’ll be knocking on the 23rd. We’ll be knocking on the 26th. My team’s knocked in negative-30-degree wind chills before. Winter does not scare us.”
However, a recent visit to Ames revealed the challenges of a last-minute push. Among the six Republican voters Mr. Raygor spoke with, one was already a Haley supporter, two were persuadable, and three were firmly supporting either Mr. Trump or Vivek Ramaswamy. One voter, Barbara Novak, emphatically declared, “You’re not going to get me off of Trump, ever.”
In another neighborhood in Cedar Rapids, the efforts of A.F.P. Action staff members Cheryl Jontz and Kyla Higgins to promote Ms. Haley proved less successful. Few residents were interested in answering their doors in freezing morning temperatures, and those who did mostly expressed their support for Mr. Trump. One voter, Lisa Andersen, was somewhat open-minded, indicating a willingness to consider Ms. Haley if former President Trump faced legal troubles.
A spokesperson for the Haley campaign maintains that A.F.P. Action’s support hasn’t altered the campaign’s strategic approach and ground game in Iowa. The campaign has intensified its efforts in the final weeks before the caucuses, including a five-day swing through the state. Additional staff members, such as Pat Garrett, a former adviser to the Iowa governor, have been brought on board to lead the Iowa press team.
David Oman, a Republican strategist and Haley supporter, believes that Ms. Haley is focusing on the metro areas where the majority of Iowa’s voters reside, running a nimble campaign with a small core staff and dedicated volunteers. As Ms. Haley’s team makes a final push in Iowa, the outcome of the caucuses remains uncertain, and the effectiveness of A.F.P. Action’s endorsement and ground game will be closely watched.
Former presidents often choose between a private life and staying in the public eye. Take George Washington’s retreat to privacy versus the continued spotlight for figures like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Enter Donald Trump, who maintained his position as the lead contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2023 amid a cascade of legal challenges, prompting pundits to exhaust the term “unprecedented.” Prior to Trump’s 91 charges spanning four indictments, no former U.S. President had faced even a single indictment.
The legal saga began in March in New York, linking Trump to attempts to conceal an affair with an adult-film actress. Subsequent federal charges in June revolved around classified documents, while charges in August, both federal and in Georgia, related to his endeavors to overturn the 2020 election loss. These cases, unprecedented in scope, will shape the 2024 campaigns and strain the justice and political systems. Meanwhile, they test the system’s ability to hold a former President accountable while fitting into Trump’s narrative of perpetual victimhood due to political retaliation.
The Manhattan district attorney’s initial charges, while grabbing headlines, face challenges in proving their merit. Hinging on an untested legal theory, the case revolves around Trump potentially being charged in New York for falsifying business records to cover up state election-law violations and exceeding federal tax contribution limits. In contrast, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s cases carry weight. He filed the first federal charges against Trump over classified documents taken to his Mar-a-Lago residence after his presidency ended. Subsequent charges allege Trump conspired to subvert American democracy, linking him to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. This second case triggered an extraordinary request to the Supreme Court to determine if Trump had immunity from prosecution for actions during his presidency, aiming to expedite proceedings for a potential trial early next year.
However, the most persistent threat to Trump’s legal standing emerges in Georgia, where Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis contends Trump was central to a broad conspiracy to reverse election results. This case operates independently of federal proceedings, ensuring its continuation even if Trump secures the presidency and attempts to halt federal charges. Evidence in Georgia, including Trump’s recorded request to find votes, seems compelling, with individuals directly in contact with Trump cooperating with prosecutors.
Trump’s legal battles crowd his 2024 calendar, competing with crucial moments in his potential presidential campaign. In January, concurrent with the Iowa caucuses, a civil trial over defaming writer E. Jean Carroll awaits, alongside a class-action lawsuit accusing Trump and his company of a pyramid scheme. March brings the federal trial over Jan. 6, potentially overlapping with Super Tuesday primaries. Later that month, the New York State hush-money case commences, followed by court dates in May for the classified-documents case. Georgia prosecutors might initiate Trump’s trial in early August.
Adding to the mix is the recent move by the Colorado Supreme Court, removing Trump from the Republican primary ballot and asserting his ineligibility for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause. This case is poised for the U.S. Supreme Court, marking one of several instances where the nine justices may weigh in on Trump’s fate in the coming months.
Trump, previewing his likely belligerent stance in criminal trials, testified in November in a civil fraud trial that threatens his Manhattan real estate empire. Under oath, he admitted adjusting property valuations and reviewing annual reports but faced scolding from the judge for evasive behavior, exaggerated claims, and insults hurled at adversaries. Despite Trump’s resilience in the Republican Party, the outcomes of these cases could significantly impact the November election. While polls indicate Trump leading Joe Biden in a general-election matchup, a notable number of Trump-leaning voters express openness to supporting Biden if Trump is convicted.
This situation poses a substantial test for American democracy, pushing the justice and political systems beyond their designed capacities. Trump’s statements about using the Justice Department to punish political enemies if he returns to the White House only add to the complexity, as he suggests the genie has been released by the act of charging him in court.
The Supreme Court has declined to immediately address special counsel Jack Smith’s plea to rule on whether former President Donald Trump can face prosecution for his alleged actions to overturn the 2020 election results. This decision is considered a scheduling victory for Trump and his legal team, as they have consistently sought to postpone the criminal cases against him while he actively campaigns for the 2024 presidential election. The court’s refusal avoids a prompt ruling on Trump’s claims of immunity, casting further uncertainty on the scheduled March 4 landmark trial.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the responsibility to adjudicate this matter now falls on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This court has signaled its intent to expedite the decision-making process. Special counsel Jack Smith had warned that even if the appellate court acts swiftly, the case might not reach the Supreme Court in time for review and a final decision before the traditional summer break.
Smith had urged the Supreme Court to intervene, emphasizing the significant public interest in a swift resolution to the case. His unusual request to bypass the appeals court, which he acknowledged as “extraordinary,” highlighted prosecutors’ concerns that prolonged legal battles could postpone Trump’s trial beyond the upcoming presidential election in the following year.
The Supreme Court rejected Smith’s plea in a concise order issued on Friday, adhering to its customary practice of providing no explanation for the decision. With the justices refraining from involvement in the dispute at this juncture, it is anticipated that further appeals may ensue, potentially causing additional delays in the case. Should the appeals court, scheduled to hear arguments on Jan. 9, dismiss Trump’s immunity claims, he retains the option to petition the Supreme Court for intervention, providing the justices with another opportunity to determine their stance on the matter.
The 2024 presidential election has taken a decisive turn, with the Supreme Court emerging as the pivotal player, navigating various disputes surrounding the GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump. The court, no stranger to election controversies, faces a critical juncture in determining Trump’s eligibility for the ballot and assessing his immunity to prosecution linked to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, culminating in the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021.
According to Justin Levitt, an election law specialist at Loyola Law School, these cases, usually avoidable by the Supreme Court, have become unavoidable national controversies thrust upon the court. The stakes are high, given the impact on both the primary and general elections. The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled Trump constitutionally ineligible for the 2024 run based on the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on insurrectionists holding public office. This decision, anticipating an appeal, awaits resolution at the national level.
Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, emphasized the significance of this decision, asserting that its implications extend beyond Colorado to impact all 50 states. The 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist clause, a focal point of the case, awaits the scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court, underscoring the national gravity of the issue.
Trump’s legal challenges also encompass claims of immunity from January 6 prosecutors. His strategy relies heavily on asserting presidential immunity to dismiss charges related to his alleged subversion of the 2020 election. Special counsel Jack Smith seeks a prompt resolution, urging the Supreme Court to address the immunity question and double jeopardy concerns. The court’s decision on these matters could significantly influence the trajectory of Trump’s trial, scheduled for March 4.
In a parallel case in Atlanta, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an attempt by former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his criminal case to federal court. This decision, critical in determining the nature of post-election conduct, supports Smith’s argument that Trump’s actions were not within his official capacity as president.
Another key issue the Supreme Court will scrutinize revolves around a federal obstruction law and its applicability to individuals involved in the Capitol attack. The outcome may impact Trump’s case and numerous other DOJ prosecutions related to January 6. The ripple effect is already evident, with defendants seeking modifications in ongoing cases, highlighting the broader implications of the court’s decision.
Trump’s legal battles extend to a dispute over a gag order issued against him in the federal election subversion case. While the DC Circuit upheld most of the gag order, it narrowed restrictions on comments about Smith and altered the prohibition on speaking about witnesses. Trump’s legal team, viewing the order as an unconstitutional restriction on political speech, intends to escalate the fight to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Amidst these legal challenges, the Supreme Court’s docket for the term includes impactful policy issues that will resonate with voters. The court will address the availability of the abortion drug mifepristone, a significant case following its reversal of Roe v. Wade last year. Additionally, a major Second Amendment case and two cases challenging decades-old precedent on federal agency power further contribute to the court’s role in shaping the political landscape.
As the Supreme Court takes center stage in these critical matters, public opinion remains at historic lows, and ethical concerns persist. Chief Justice John Roberts’ recent attempt to address ethics criticism was met with skepticism, highlighting the challenges faced by the court in maintaining public trust.
The Supreme Court’s decisions on Trump’s eligibility, immunity, and other pivotal issues will profoundly impact the 2024 presidential election, marking a defining moment for the court and the nation.
President Joe Biden is grappling with a historic low in job approval, as revealed by the latest Monmouth University survey spanning 22 months of his presidency. The data, collected from 803 respondents between November 30 and December 4, indicates a notable decline from 38% in September to a new low of 34% this month, with a margin of error of five points.
One key driver of this downturn is dissatisfaction across five pivotal policy areas: immigration, inflation, climate change, jobs and unemployment, and transportation and energy infrastructure. The concerning figures come at a time when hypothetical general election matchups show Biden trailing former President Donald Trump by 4 points, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. Trump’s consistent lead or tie with Biden in nine of the last ten national polls further adds to the challenges faced by the current administration.
President Biden, however, dismisses these polls, stating, “You’re [reading] the wrong polls.” This isn’t the first time he’s rejected such findings, as in November, he insisted that he was either leading or tied with Trump in eight of the ten recent polls, though the specific surveys he referred to remain unclear.
A significant metric reflecting the public’s discontent is the 61% of respondents who now disapprove of Biden—an increase of six points since September and his worst rating since taking office, according to Monmouth University.
Biden’s approval rating has been on a steady decline since the summer, when it reached a 14-month high at 44% in July. The downturn coincided with economic concerns, particularly regarding inflation, which hit a record high last June. The president also faces disapproval in his handling of the Israel-Hamas war, along with persistent concerns about his age, which is now 81.
Despite Biden’s attempts to emphasize key achievements such as the Inflation Reduction Act, efforts to lower healthcare costs, and his student loan forgiveness program, these messages seem to be falling short in resonating with voters. The decline in approval indicates that the public is not fully convinced by these campaign strategies.
Recent reports suggest that Biden is increasingly frustrated with his poll results, expressing dissatisfaction in private. The Washington Post, citing sources familiar with his thinking, reported that Biden has urged his team to address the negative numbers. He has also acknowledged that his messaging strategy on the economy is not effectively connecting with voters.
President Biden is facing a challenging period marked by a historic low in job approval, trailing in hypothetical matchups against Trump, and growing dissatisfaction among respondents across key policy areas. The president’s attempts to address these concerns through various campaign strategies have not yielded the desired results, leaving him frustrated and seeking ways to reverse the negative trends in public opinion.
Joe Biden’s precipitous decline in the polls is proving to be a significant boon for Donald Trump as the 2024 GOP presidential race gains momentum. Biden’s abysmal polling has not only bolstered Trump but also weakened potential Republican rivals, sending a clear signal that “TRUMP CAN WIN.”
In the run-up to the first contests of the 2024 GOP presidential race, Biden’s dismal performance in polls has become a powerful factor in shaping the political landscape. As a neon sign reading “TRUMP CAN WIN” is illuminated, it underscores the impact of Biden’s fading popularity on the broader political narrative.
Trump’s already strong position in the fight for the Republican nomination has been further solidified by two key external events. Firstly, indictments from the Justice Department and Democratic prosecutors triggered a rally-around-Trump effect, propelling him to a higher trajectory in the race. Secondly, Biden’s consistently poor polling has eliminated any grounds for making an electability argument against Trump.
While selecting opponents through strategic advertisements is a common political tactic, Biden’s own weaknesses have unintentionally made Trump more appealing to his supporters. The primary concern among undecided Republicans has never been Trump’s policy priorities or governance effectiveness but rather his perceived ability to win elections.
Following the 2022 elections, where Republicans underperformed, Trump’s standing within the party was momentarily shaken. The electoral success of Ron DeSantis in Florida created an opportunity for an argument centered around electability—stick with Trump and risk losing, or opt for a fresh face and win. However, this electability argument lost its potency due to Biden’s declining poll numbers.
The electability debate sidesteps many issues about Trump that Republicans may prefer to avoid. Asserting that Trump can’t win is presented as a practical claim rather than a moral critique, providing a tone of sorrow rather than anger. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this argument depends heavily on polling data, which has not cooperated due to Biden’s downward spiral.
In 2016, Trump often relied on less reputable polls to demonstrate his public support. Now, he can reference highly credible polls that depict Biden’s comprehensive collapse. Biden is losing in hypothetical matchups against Trump, with an approval rating scraping the bottom and trailing on major issues.
The latest Wall Street Journal poll indicates Trump leading Biden by 4 points in a two-way race and 6 points in a multi-candidate field. Only 37 percent approve of Biden’s job performance, while 61 percent disapprove. Trump leads significantly on economic issues, inflation, crime, foreign affairs, and public perception of physical and mental fitness for the job.
Despite the possibility of early, showy, and potentially unsustainable Trump support, it’s crucial to note that Trump never led in 2020 polling. Recent polls, including one by CNN, show Trump leading in crucial states like Georgia and Michigan, further fueling the belief among Republican voters that 2024 is a lock.
Trump’s perceived electoral prowess has grown, with polls indicating increasing confidence among Republicans that he would be the strongest general election candidate. Even in the face of criminal charges, belief in Trump’s electability is rising among Republicans, particularly in states like Iowa.
For potential rivals like Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, navigating the political landscape becomes challenging. DeSantis, despite claiming victory, faces a significant gap in national polling against Trump. Nikki Haley, while appearing strong against Biden, must contend with the overarching question for Republicans—can Trump win?
The Democrats’ ideal scenario involves Biden’s weakness being illusory, leading Republicans to nominate Trump based on current polling only to discover his weaker standing against Biden. However, the prevailing possibility is that Biden’s political standing is indeed dire, potentially paving the way for Trump’s resurgence to the White House.
In the realm of political axioms among Republicans, the idea that Trump benefits from having formidable enemies finds its best proof in Biden’s political unraveling.
In one corner stands Pope Francis, championing a merciful and inclusive Catholic Church, often likened to a “field hospital” tending to the wounds of a suffering humanity. In the opposing corner, a vocal minority, led by US Cardinal Raymond Burke, challenges the Pope’s reforms, setting the stage for a significant showdown.
Pope Francis, committed to upholding the doctrine and principles of the church, aims to propel it forward by shedding certain customs he deems hindering to its mission. The clash arises from differing stances on issues such as communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, pastoral acceptance of LGBTQ individuals, and the Pope’s emphasis on migrants and the climate crisis. Critics desire a Pope who delivers doctrine in unequivocal terms, while Francis advocates for a humbler, service-oriented church focused on bringing the Christian message to the world.
Despite enduring criticisms, Pope Francis has demonstrated resilience, often turning the other cheek and appointing leaders with opposing views to Vatican departments. However, as he enters the 11th year of his papacy and faces health challenges, he has decided to take more assertive measures to address opposition, particularly concentrated in the US and certain Roman circles.
In a significant move, Pope Francis has curtailed privileges for Cardinal Burke, a longstanding opponent. This includes withdrawing a subsidy for Burke’s sizable apartment and monthly stipend. This decision follows the Pope’s recent removal of Texan Bishop Joseph Strickland, who accused Francis of undermining key church teachings. The move has sparked debates, with supporters of Burke and Strickland characterizing Francis as a “dictator” pope, suppressing dissent, while others argue that the Pope is merely addressing critics.
Austen Ivereigh, a papal biographer, shed light on the Pope’s rationale, stating, “Francis told me that he was taking away the apartment and salary of Cardinal Burke because he was using these privileges ‘against the church.’” Ivereigh highlighted the significance of Burke’s prolonged questioning of Francis’ authority and teaching, emphasizing the unusual nature of such dissent within the Catholic Church.
The roots of opposition to Pope Francis extend beyond theological disagreements and delve into the realm of secular politics. Cardinal Burke, aligned with conservative views, expressed satisfaction with President Donald Trump’s election and, along with other bishops, called for denying communion to President Joe Biden due to his support for abortion laws. The intersection of church and politics, particularly amid the polarizing landscape of US politics, is a key element in the resistance to Francis.
Dawn Eden Goldstein, a theologian and canon lawyer, noted that there are forces wishing to see Burke’s vision dominate the church for political purposes. Burke’s alignment with a group critical of Catholic teachings on issues such as care for the poor and the environment further underscores the ideological divide within the church.
The Pope’s decision to strip Burke of privileges may carry unintended consequences, potentially turning him into a “martyr” for the cause, as suggested by church historian Massimo Faggioli. Burke’s support base in the US and the reported financial backing could enable him to maintain a prominent role, akin to the “crown cardinals” of the early modern era.
Critics warn that the Pope’s actions could influence future papal elections by alienating cardinal electors who may seek a candidate governing differently from Francis. However, Pope Francis, seemingly aware of the risks, remains committed to his mission of pivoting the church towards what he deems essential to the Christian faith.
As the Pope navigates this turbulent terrain, it is evident that the clash between traditionalist views and Francis’ vision for a more inclusive and service-oriented church will continue to shape the narrative within the Catholic Church. The tension underscores the broader societal and political challenges that intersect with the ecclesiastical landscape, reflecting the complexities of leading a global religious institution in the modern era.
US President Joe Biden will not attend India’s Republic Day parade in January 2024, and the Quad summit, initially scheduled around the same time, is being postponed to the latter part of 2024, according to sources on Tuesday.
“We are looking for revised dates (for Quad) as the dates currently under consideration do not work with all the Quad partners,” the source said.
India had invited President Biden for the Republic Day celebrations, intending to host the Quad leaders’ summit in January next year. The Indian Express reported on September 7 New Delhi’s plans to invite the US President for Republic Day along with other Quad leaders and hold the Quad summit in January.
US Ambassador Eric Garcetti confirmed on September 20 that President Joe Biden had been invited by Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the Republic Day celebrations. The invitation was extended during their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in New Delhi.
A final decision would be made after confirming the availability of leaders—President Biden, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. Albanese’s commitment to Australian national day on January 26 and the Japanese parliament, the Diet, being in session posed scheduling challenges.
Biden’s schedule awaited by the other three sides, the Quad summit could have taken place on January 27, a day after Republic Day celebrations on January 26. An invitation to be the Republic Day Chief Guest is highly symbolic and is usually extended only after informal confirmation of leaders’ availability.
Biden’s unavailability coincides with the US investigating an alleged assassination plot of a Khalistan separatist on US soil. Given an Indian official’s alleged involvement, the Indian government is also investigating information shared by US agencies. Federal prosecutors filed an indictment in November detailing the alleged plot against the separatist with dual US-Canadian nationality.
This marks the second time a US President couldn’t attend Republic Day celebrations. Former President Donald Trump, invited in 2018 for January 2019 celebrations, also couldn’t make it. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was invited as a replacement. The only instance of a US President attending Republic Day was in January 2015 when President Barack Obama visited during the first year of the Modi government.
While officials emphasize that Biden’s unavailability should not cast a shadow on bilateral ties amid the Pannun assassination plot, they stress the deep stakes and vital interests the two sides share. The Quad grouping is expected to convene towards the end of the year, after elections and before the US election cycle takes over.
Despite ongoing US-China engagement, with Biden meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping in California, officials affirm the commitment to the Quad grouping. A summit, even at a later date, will send a strong signal to China, whose aggressive behavior in the Indo-Pacific region has brought the four countries together.
Foreign policy and national security expert, Krystle Kaul, has announced her run for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia’s 10th Congressional District. The Democrat will focus on issues like public safety, women’s rights, healthcare, education, economy and jobs; and energy and the environment, according to her campaign website.
“I’m Krystle Kaul, I’m running for Congress to represent the people of Virginia District 10. I will fight to ensure everyone has the chance to make a good living, raise a family and create an American dream of their own,” her statement reads, alongside, “Kystle is the Klear Choice,” the campaign slogan.
Kaul has served as a director (GS-15) of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency at the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), as director of strategic communications of the U.S. Air Force and NATO for General Dynamics Information Technology, and as an intelligence political-military expert at U.S. Central Command. She resigned from her position at the DOD within a year after former President Donald Trump took office.
Following that, she established a small business that assists firms owned by economically and socially disadvantaged individuals), disabled veteran and women-owned businesses, as well as medium to large companies to apply their solutions to safeguard the U.S.
Kaul is also the head facilitator for Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s executive education programs via 2U, a company that contracts with non-profit colleges and universities to build, deliver, and support online and non-degree programs.
If elected in 2024, Kashmiri-origin Kaul will be the second Indian-origin woman to be elected to the House of Representatives, after Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Kaul is one of the many Indian-origin candidates who have announced their run for Congress, including Vimal Patel, an entrepreneur who declared candidacy for the 2nd Congressional District seat in Alabama, and Ohio Senator Niraj Antani who announced his candidacy for the 2nd Congressional District seat of Ohio. Suhas Subramanyam is another Indian-origin candidate running for Congress from Virginia’s 10th Congressional District.
The high-stakes fourth Republican presidential debate on Wednesday night highlighted why former President Donald Trump has been avoiding the 2024 primary debate circuit. The event featured four contenders: former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. However, the debate was marked by intense infighting among the candidates, diverting attention from the primary focus on the frontrunner.
Despite the smallest debate field to date and the Iowa caucuses approaching in less than six weeks, the candidates utilized the two-hour debate to showcase their policy beliefs and emphasize major differences. However, the evening was dominated by personal attacks, with Ramaswamy referring to Haley as “lipstick on a Dick Cheney,” Christie mocking Ramaswamy’s “smartass mouth,” and DeSantis claiming Haley “caves every time the left comes after her.”
The candidates seemed united in their belief that establishing themselves as the GOP’s sole alternative to Trump was essential before making a concentrated case against him. However, this strategy also underscored why Trump’s absence from the debates hasn’t affected his standing in the polls. Although there were occasional attacks on the former president, such as Christie’s anti-Trump campaign message and Haley’s criticism of his China approach, the majority of the debate was dominated by clashes between the present candidates.
DeSantis and Ramaswamy Target Haley
The debate’s first hour highlighted Haley’s increasing prominence in the race, as both DeSantis and Ramaswamy focused on criticizing her. DeSantis wasted no time taking aim at Haley, drawing her into a dispute over transgender bathroom usage. Ramaswamy continued his critique from the third debate, targeting Haley for her association with Boeing while serving on its board.
DeSantis and Ramaswamy collaborated at various points, criticizing Haley’s recent support from donors like Reid Hoffman and Larry Fink. Ramaswamy even held up a notepad with the message “Nikki = Corrupt.” Haley defended herself, stating she welcomed support but wouldn’t let it dictate her policies, adding that her competitors would accept similar support if offered.
Christie, however, broke the pattern by defending Haley against Ramaswamy’s foreign policy insults, emphasizing her intelligence and accomplishments. Haley expressed gratitude for Christie’s support.
Christie’s Resurgence and Criticisms
Chris Christie, who has struggled to recreate the success of the 2016 presidential primary debates, regained some momentum in Tuscaloosa. He portrayed his opponents as immature and unprepared for the job, making it challenging for DeSantis and Ramaswamy.
Christie criticized DeSantis for avoiding basic questions and challenged him on sending US troops to rescue American hostages in Gaza. Later, when asked about Trump’s fitness for office, Christie insisted on a straightforward answer, accusing DeSantis of being afraid or not listening. He also targeted Ramaswamy’s tendency to backtrack on comments, labeling him the “most obnoxious blowhard in America.”
In a departure from his previous allegiance to Trump, Christie reserved his most severe criticism for all three opponents, accusing them of being afraid to offend the former president and emphasizing the importance of speaking the truth.
Avoidance of Trump Criticism
While the candidates engaged in intense personal clashes, Chris Christie attempted to refocus the debate by highlighting Trump’s significant lead in the polls. He compared his rivals to characters avoiding saying the name of the villain in the Harry Potter series, suggesting they were hesitant to directly confront Trump.
Christie implied that candidates refrained from criticizing Trump directly to safeguard their chances of becoming his vice presidential nominee or securing future presidential prospects. He emphasized the necessity of telling the truth, even if it meant offending, to avoid denial and secure the party’s success.
DeSantis’ Culture War and Criticism of Haley
DeSantis, known for his “war on woke,” shifted the focus to domestic culture war issues like environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) investing and transgender rights. He used these issues to paint Haley as a moderate, criticizing her stance on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
DeSantis accused Haley of opposing a bill in Florida to prevent gender mutilation of minors, linking her support from wealthy donors to the ESG investing movement. He argued that these donors sought to impose a left-wing agenda on the country through economic power.
Haley clarified her position, stating that while she believed the law should stay out of it, parents should take the lead in such matters. She emphasized that she did not endorse youth gender transition.
Ramaswamy’s Conspiracy Theories
Vivek Ramaswamy, potentially in his last appearance on a GOP debate stage, embraced extreme conspiracy theories. He asserted that the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack was an “inside job,” claimed the 2020 election was “stolen by Big Tech,” and accused the government of lying about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Ramaswamy also endorsed the “great replacement” theory, a racist conspiracy suggesting non-White people are being brought in to replace White voters. He labeled it a basic statement of the Democratic Party platform. In his closing statement, he declared the “climate change agenda” a hoax.
The fourth Republican primary debate showcased intense personal clashes, candidates avoiding direct criticism of Trump, and a divergence into culture war issues. Each contender sought to position themselves as the GOP’s primary alternative, but the evening was marked by memorable confrontations and minimal attention on Trump’s absence from the debate stage.
The final GOP presidential debate of the year unfolded on Wednesday, featuring prominent figures such as Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Hosted by NewsNation, a sister news organization of The Hill, the two-hour event in Tuscaloosa, Ala., became a stage where Haley and DeSantis vied to solidify their positions behind former President Trump, who opted to skip the debate once again. Moderators Elizabeth Vargas, Megyn Kelly, and Eliana Johnson pressed the candidates on Trump, casting his shadow over the proceedings. CNN has also announced plans to host two Republican primary debates in January.
Haley, the former United Nations ambassador, found herself under the spotlight as the potential second-tier candidate to beat. Threatening to overshadow DeSantis as the leading Trump alternative, Haley faced challenges from DeSantis and Ramaswamy during the debate. However, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie came to her defense, rebuffing Ramaswamy’s insults with a firm stance, declaring, “stop insulting her.” Despite the scrutiny, Haley maintained her composure, expressing gratitude for the attention and asserting her neck-and-neck position with DeSantis in recent Iowa caucus polls.
DeSantis, the Governor of Florida, emerged as a winner in the debate, delivering a strong performance that injected new momentum into his campaign. Responding to questions about his low poll numbers, DeSantis dismissed the polls, highlighting his landslide reelection in Florida last year and criticizing Haley for allegedly succumbing to pressure. Once considered a shoo-in alternative to Trump, DeSantis now faces a challenge from Haley’s rising popularity, leaving the primary outcome uncertain.
Chris Christie, despite facing calls to exit the race, demonstrated resilience within the GOP field. Taking a bold stance against Trump, Christie labeled him a “dictator” and a “bully,” urging fellow candidates to denounce the former president. In Alabama, Christie unequivocally stated, “His conduct is unacceptable. He’s unfit, and be careful of what you’re gonna get.” Christie’s refusal to back down showcased his determination to maintain relevance in the crowded GOP race.
Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, whose favorability among voters continues to decline, utilized the prime-time platform to launch personal attacks and promote conspiracy theories. His performance, including a scribbled note targeting Haley, drew strong reactions from the audience. Christie, in a memorable moment, called out Ramaswamy, saying, “This is the fourth debate that you would be voted in the first 20 minutes as the most obnoxious blowhard in America, so shut up for a while.”
Even in his absence, former President Trump loomed large as a dominant force. Trump’s decision to skip all debates has not diminished his lead in the primary field. The day before the crucial debate, he made headlines with comments during a Fox News town hall, where he asserted that he would not act as a dictator except on day one. While Haley and DeSantis compete for second place in recent polls, with Haley at 10 percent and DeSantis at 11 percent, Trump maintains a commanding 60-point lead over the field.
Meticulously, it is no small matter that the term “homeless” or “homelessness” is dimming the brightness of the major cities of America, but exudes an aura of nasty politics or indirect support to the-drug-mafia!
When American President Trump passed through some of the beautiful roads of India, Trump did not ask why green tarpaulin was beautifully stretched for kilometers on one side.
But when the dark streets of most American cities, especially Los Angeles and San Francisco, in the state of California, are turning into the ‘mecca of homeless’, it is just hypocritical to laugh at the broad-mindedness of this great country and not hide it by applying “Modi tech ” here.
America is the so-called paradise on earth for developing countries, but its streets are rapidly being invaded by the homeless. In many places, morning scenes of their excrement, piles of stale food, and hardboard carton waste are becoming so common and obscure
.Unsheltered homeless means sleeping somewhere at night, not primarily designed for human habitation, such as a car, park, abandoned building, or train station. Over the past seven years, 40 percent of the nation’s homeless are now unsheltered homeless.
What are the causes of homelessness? The causes vary widely, but are often linked to homelessness and poverty. Poor people generally do not have enough money to cover basic needs like housing, food, child care, health care, and education; with the nominal social security benefits they get every month.
Individuals may have terminal illnesses, an accident, or a lack of permanent employment. But the reasons we hear from those living on the streets are many.
Irresponsible gambling, misappropriation of money through money laundering, drug addiction, etc.
Factors that drive young and old to the streets more strongly than other causes are not particularly evident. Unsheltered homeless means sleeping somewhere at night not primarily designed for human habitation, such as a car, park, abandoned building, or train station. Over the past seven years, 40 percent of the nation’s homeless are now unsheltered homeless.
Lack of affordable housing, unemployment, poverty, low wages, mental illness, substance abuse, and lack of needed services are creating more homeless people.
I recently happened to visit Los Angeles and San Francisco, the major cities in the state of California, and the miserable situation of the homeless in these cities prompted me to write a few lines on the subject. All facts and figures are supported by the internet and only my opinions are non-political. By evening, many of San Francisco’s streets were filled with homeless wretches. Homeless people crowded the alley leading to Eddy Street, where there were several hotels. It is not a group of old beggars, but a permanent group of people of all ages who have become homeless due to bad decisions, unemployment, and victims of drug abuse.
In the middle of the night, singing and shouting were heard, like a moment of pure jubilation and celebration. From the window of the fifth floor of the hotel where we were staying, I was astonished to see a young woman dancing naked but wearing only a hat: she could also be seen collecting dollar bills and shoving them into the hat. She also seems to be the one who distributes the drugs. In between, her show seems to have been a bonus for her intoxicated audience.
As light rain began to fall, many people began to move elsewhere. Seeing the old and unable to walk, huddled in the same shelter with the old hardboard sheets they had to sit and lie on, was saddened by the plight of the homeless. But when it came to know that most of them were “drug addicts”, the irresponsibility of the drug policy of this great country began to be realized. Freedom without restraint will never produce good results.
Los Angeles has a very high rate of homelessness. But most of the tents were finished and seemed a little more cramped. According to the city’s own statistics, about 30% of the homeless have already moved there after losing their housing. Another 17% were said to have lived in the city for less than a year before becoming homeless.
As Mayor London Breed admits, one of the reasons people come is because drugs are readily available here. The San Francisco Standard attempted a one-week cleanup two months ago, taking over the homeless encampment at Van Ness Avenue and Eddy Street. A completely different look was seen that day, the planting boxes of plants and trees were lined up at many places on the pavement.
APEC 2023 is the year-long hosting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings in the United States in 2023 in San Francisco. Although some things were put together for that purpose,
The situation is worse than before.
Minna Street, lined with tents between Seventh and Julia Streets, about a mile from APEC, disappeared two months ago. But neither the political parties nor the rulers are interested in finding a permanent solution.
All of this leads us to several questions: We found many of San Francisco’s homeless population on Willow Street. The busy transit corridor has become the latest scene of controversy over the city’s drug, mental health, and homelessness crises, as residents and visitors alike decry increasingly unsanitary street conditions. They say the situation has had a devastating effect on surrounding businesses. It is becoming difficult to park our car there or eat in a restaurant in peace.
In recent years, court rulings have made it more difficult for cities, especially on the West Coast, to remove homeless encampments. In 2018, the US Ninth Circuit Court found that homeless people cannot be punished for sleeping outside in public places unless adequate alternatives are available.
There is another side to this. In September 2022, the Coalition on Homelessness sued San Francisco for violating its own laws to remove homeless shelters. A federal judge has barred the removal of homeless shelters in San Francisco unless people can find alternative shelter.
Los Angeles will have the largest homeless population in the country in 2022. According to 2022 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data, approximately 582,000 Americans were homeless on the streets. The city of San Francisco was officially named “Little Saigon” for a portion of the western stretch of Tenderloin, Larkin, and Hyde Streets between Turk and O’Farrell. The area has one of the highest levels of homelessness and crime in the city.
Experts say the biggest reason California’s per capita homelessness rate is five times that of Texas is because housing in California is so expensive;
The average one-bedroom unit in California rents for $2,300 per month, compared to $1,200 in Texas. Although both cities suffer from crime, Los Angeles is actually safer. LA’s crime rate was 2870 per 100,000 residents, 22% higher than the national average. The violent crime rate is 722 per 100,000 residents, 86% higher than the national average. Many advocates claim that providing a welcoming environment for camping and drugs does not attract the homeless and that only more subsidized housing can solve homelessness. San Francisco shows the folly of those arguments.
As Mayor London Breed admits, one of the reasons people come is the easy availability of drugs. Claims that adequate subsidized housing will solve the homelessness problem are belied by San Francisco’s efforts. In the last 15 years, the city has created more than 7,000 permanent housing units, reports said.
It is shameful to say that 7000 units have been built in a place with 70000 homeless people.
Homelessness and how to deal with it has become one of the most pressing political issues in recent elections in liberal cities like Portland, San Diego, Seattle, and Austin. Republicans have portrayed Democrats as incompetent and fearless when it comes to addressing the crisis. The public across the political spectrum wants elected officials to take action.
The local administration has to devise a mission to rehabilitate all the unimaginative-size of homeless people on a wartime basis. This requires the first establishment of bonded facilities, such as correctional centres. There should be strict controls to prevent intoxicants and drug dealers from entering these centers.
Because homeless people who have lived on the streets are accustomed to living with abusing their freedom, these centers may have difficulty keeping them. A good percentage of them are able to work. If nothing else, large farms created with these centers would be able to produce the fruits and grains needed by this country at a low cost.
Or small industrial units manufacturing other goods can be established within these centers.Rehabilitation would be more feasible if the funds for the running of these centers were raised and wages commensurate with the work.
Nothing will be solved if political parties continue to blame each other. True, the current administration may not be giving much importance to it. While the number of poor people in this country is increasing and the homeless people on the streets are dimming the brightness of this country, it is our rulers who turn a blind eye to it and dim the country’s prosperity and the tourists inflow to these cities.
Instead of guaranteeing the basic amenities of those at home, the “hidden agenda” of keeping the walls and gates open for anyone to come into this country and provide luxury living facilities and citizenship to those who come in the name of unaccountable refugees, while common people know, is nothing short of a double standard, USA is prosperous, only if no citizen is found wandering the streets of America as typical homeless. Otherwise the world will proclaim that we run on a shameful double standard policy.
House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed confidence on Saturday that Republicans possess adequate votes to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. In an interview with Fox News, Johnson stated, “I believe we will. I suspect no Democrats will assist in this effort, but they should.”
He emphasized the GOP’s obligation to proceed with the inquiry, asserting, “we cannot stop the process.” Johnson, joined by House GOP conference chair Elise Stefanik, contended that the inquiry wouldn’t be wielded as a partisan political tool, drawing a distinction from past instances.
“Elise and I both served on the impeachment defense team of Donald Trump twice, when the Democrats used it for brazen partisan political purposes. We decried that use of it. This is very different,” Johnson remarked.
He pointed out impediments faced by the Republicans, asserting, “Now we’re being stalled by the White House because they’re preventing at least two to three DOJ witnesses from coming forward” and withholding evidence from the National Archives. Johnson proposed that a formal impeachment inquiry vote would propel the process forward, deeming it a necessary step.
In response, a spokesman for the White House counsel’s office, Ian Sams, criticized the move, stating, “This is a baseless, politically-motivated attempt to smear President Biden with lies, and it reflects how this chaotic House GOP is focused on the wrong priorities, when they should be working on real issues Americans actually care about like the President is.”
As of now, House Republicans have been striving to formalize their impeachment inquiry into Biden but have encountered challenges in securing sufficient votes. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had urged his committees in September to launch a formal impeachment inquiry into Biden, facing mounting pressure from the right flank. However, the conference remains divided over the existence of evidence warranting the president’s impeachment.
Addressing the issue of Hunter Biden’s lawyers seeking an open hearing instead of a deposition, Stefanik deemed the request “unacceptable” and emphasized, “the only correct response to a subpoena is a deposition.” She reasoned that an open hearing might devolve into a mere public spectacle, advocating for a legal and factual approach through a deposition.
“It’s the precedent,” Johnson added. “Every investigation of Congress in the modern era, the deposition has come first, and the public testimony follows. Why would we break that precedent now?”
This paraphrased rendition maintains the key elements and quotes from the original article while presenting the information in a slightly rephrased manner. The focus remains on the statements of House Speaker Mike Johnson, the White House’s response, and the broader context of the Republicans’ push for a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.
In a Fox News debate, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) engaged in a heated exchange over their records and policies. The 90-minute debate, titled “The Great Red vs. Blue State Debate” and moderated by Sean Hannity, delved into key issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic, crime, and abortion. Personal attacks, with both governors labeling each other as bullies, added intensity to the discussion. DeSantis, initially a threat to Donald Trump in the presidential race, now lags behind, while Newsom, despite denying interest in challenging President Biden, gains attention as a potential contender.
Five Takeaways from the Debate:
1.Newsom’s Resilience: Despite a challenging media environment, Newsom maintained composure, deflecting DeSantis’s attacks and launching counterarguments. Notably, he defended California’s COVID-19 response, citing differences in approach and challenging DeSantis’s claims about Florida’s measures.
Newsom responded to DeSantis: “Let’s talk about your record on COVID… Donald Trump laid you out on this.”
2.DeSantis’s Performance:As a GOP presidential primary candidate, DeSantis held his ground, showcasing research and using visual aids, including a map of San Francisco’s issues. Despite impactful moments, the debate felt somewhat biased, with Hannity’s questions often portraying California negatively.
DeSantis labeled Newsom a “liberal bully” and mocked his “shadow campaign” for the 2024 Democratic nomination.
3.Raucous Atmosphere: Hannity’s intent to let the debate flow led to a lively exchange, with frequent interruptions and bickering between DeSantis and Newsom. The lack of an in-person audience allowed for a more direct confrontation without the need for applause pauses.
Hannity remarked on the chaos: “I’m not a potted plant,” expressing frustration during the governors’ back-and-forth.
4.Biden as a Focal Point: DeSantis positioned President Biden as a central theme, connecting Newsom to the Biden-Harris administration. Newsom defended the Democratic agenda, emphasizing the contrast between parties. DeSantis portrayed California as the epitome of the “Biden-Harris agenda on steroids,” predicting disaster for the nation.
5. Limited Impact on Both: Despite the fiery exchanges, the debate is unlikely to significantly alter the political landscape for either governor. DeSantis continues to struggle against Trump in the GOP primary, while Newsom’s boosted national profile may not sway conservative opinions in the hyper-partisan environment.
The debate, though intense, is unlikely to alter the trajectory for either candidate significantly.
The Fox News debate between DeSantis and Newsom provided a platform for a fierce exchange, showcasing their contrasting approaches and political ideologies. While both governors received praise from their respective sides, the event’s broader impact on their political trajectories remains limited.
In anticipation of the 2024 elections, the global political landscape is poised for significant shifts. As we approach November 5, millions of Americans will cast their votes, potentially deciding whether incumbent Joe Biden will secure another term at the age of 86. Despite concerns about Biden’s age, a majority of voters view him as the favored candidate, setting the stage for a potential rematch with former President Donald Trump. However, echoes of disinformation from the previous contentious election, marked by the storming of the US Capitol, are likely to linger.
“Disinformation looks set to be a feature of the campaign,” reflecting the challenges of the past, where misinformation played a role in the polarized political climate. Trump, despite facing multiple criminal trials, stands as the standout favorite for the Republican party nomination.
Across the globe, another enduring political figure, Vladimir Putin, has been at Russia’s helm for 23 years, making him one of the longest-serving leaders. The constitutional amendment in 2020 allows him to extend his rule until 2036, potentially surpassing even Joseph Stalin’s reign. With the war in Ukraine quelling dissent and imprisoning opponents, Putin’s path to another six years seems unhindered, particularly with key challengers like Alexei Navalny and Igor Girkin detained.
Moving to India, where nearly a billion voters are gearing up for the April-May elections, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his nationalist BJP party aim for a third term. Modi’s political strategy, criticized for stoking tensions with the Muslim minority, has garnered substantial support from the majority Hindu population. Despite concerns about civil liberties, Modi is the clear favorite, credited with elevating India’s global standing, notably achieving milestones in space exploration.
In June, the European Union will witness its largest transnational election, involving over 400 million eligible voters across 27 countries. This election will be a pivotal moment for right-wing populists, testing the momentum gained from recent successes in Dutch and Italian elections. The outcome will influence decisions on issues ranging from mobile phone roaming charges to online data privacy, reflecting the broad impact of the EU Parliament’s decisions.
Meanwhile, in Mexico, the June elections hold the promise of historic change. Two women, former Mexico City mayor Claudia Sheinbaum and businesswoman Xochitl Galvez, are vying to become the first female president in a country with a history of machismo. Sheinbaum, representing the Morena party, leads early polls, while Galvez, part of an opposition coalition, brings a diverse perspective to the race. Samuel Garcia, a young governor, adds another dimension to the electoral landscape.
As the world watches these elections unfold, the political dynamics are undoubtedly complex, with implications reaching far beyond national borders. The challenges of disinformation, power consolidation, and the push for historic milestones underscore the significance of these electoral events on the global stage.
Americans for Prosperity Action, a prominent advocacy organization supported by billionaire Charles Koch and his coalition of wealthy conservatives, has officially thrown its weight behind Nikki Haley as the preferred Republican alternative to Donald Trump in the upcoming 2024 primary, set to kick off in less than 50 days with the Iowa caucus.
According to a memo circulated by Emily Seidel, the CEO of Americans for Prosperity, Haley, a former U.N. ambassador and ex-governor of South Carolina, is seen as offering “America the opportunity to turn the page on the current political era.” Seidel emphasized Haley’s capability to lead a policy agenda that addresses the nation’s major challenges, expressing confidence that the organization’s grassroots and data capabilities uniquely position them to support Haley effectively.
Michael Palmer, a senior adviser to AFP Action, noted that Haley’s policies closely align with the group’s free market ideology, acknowledging that while disagreements on specific issues exist, Haley represents the best chance to enhance the lives of all Americans.
In response to the endorsement, Haley expressed her gratitude, stating, “AFP Action’s members know that there is too much at stake in this election to sit on the sidelines,” underscoring the importance of saving the country and expressing appreciation for AFP Action’s support.
Notably, the Koch-backed group refrained from involvement in the 2016 and 2020 presidential cycles but is now poised to channel significant resources into boosting Haley’s campaign. Although the exact amount of spending remains undisclosed, AFP Action, having raised over $70 million, including substantial contributions from Charles Koch and his nonprofit groups, aims to make a substantial impact.
The organization initially signaled opposition to Trump in February, citing concerns about his ability to defeat President Joe Biden. However, despite these reservations, Trump has strengthened his position within the Republican base, leading his closest primary rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, by nearly 50 points in national polls. In contrast, Haley trails DeSantis in the national average.
The dynamics shift in early-voting states, where Trump faces a relatively weaker position. DeSantis, Haley, and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are banking on potential upsets in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina to position themselves as viable alternatives, although their campaigns have yet to significantly erode Trump’s standing.
AFP Action, optimistic about its potential impact, revealed internal memos suggesting that a substantial portion of GOP voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are undecided or believe the primary campaign has just begun. Furthermore, the organization believes that a significant majority of Republicans are open to a Trump alternative if they perceive a better chance of victory.
Following the Tuesday endorsement, AFP Action plans to transition from identifying wavering Trump voters to persuading against him. Their strategy involves concentrated efforts on behalf of their chosen candidate, accompanied by a new ad spot released alongside the endorsement. Large-scale events and efforts to drive turnout are also in the works.
In response to the endorsement, DeSantis’ campaign sought to downplay its significance, labeling Haley as a “moderate” without a viable path to defeating the former president. The Trump campaign, in its statement, characterized AFP Action as part of an “America Last movement” but remained resolute that Washington’s “swamp creatures” would not impede Trump’s bid for the Republican nomination.
The endorsement of Haley introduces a potentially pivotal development in the 2024 race. While no candidate with leads as substantial as Trump’s in the primary has failed to secure their party’s nomination, Trump’s campaign faces unprecedented legal challenges, adding a layer of complexity with court appearances and trial dates.
Seidel, CEO of Americans for Prosperity, highlighted that early in the election cycle, 70% of Americans expressed a preference for neither Trump nor Biden to run. The organization’s endorsement aims to prevent squandering this opportunity for a different political trajectory.
House Republican Conference Chair, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik officially launched the Congressional Hindu Caucus (CHC), in the presence of fellow Republican lawmakers and 600 Hindu American Leaders from around the country, on November 15, 2023, at The Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill.
The event hosted by the Republican Hindu Coalition (RHC) and its Chairman and CHC’s Policy Advisor, Shalabh “Shalli” Kumar, also celebrated Diwali along with CHC’s Co-Chairs Elise Stefanik and Pete Sessions, along with lawmakers and community members.
“And for each of you here from the Republican Hindu Caucus, your core values of free enterprise, fiscal discipline, family values, and a firm foreign policy not only guide the Hindu American community, but our central tenets shared and fought by House Republicans and Republicans across America,” noted Stefanik while adding “That is why, today, I am so excited to announce the official launch of the Congressional Hindu Caucus in the United States Congress with my good friend and Co-Chair Pete Sessions.”
Stefanik said, “As we conclude Diwali festivities, we have the joyous reminder of the victory of light over darkness, good over evil, and knowledge over ignorance. This guidance must remain at the core of our mission each and every day as we tackle the very great challenges in front of us,” and reminded everyone of the ongoing battle between Israel and Hamas.
Commending the role of Hindu Americans for their support to Israeli and Jewish friends, she said both India and the United States form a “unified force to counter terrorism.” “Countering communist China’s malign influence, collaborating on technological development and security cooperation, and supporting a free and open Indo-Pacific must remain top priorities,” added Stefanik while talking about US-India jointly tackling China. “To do so, we will continue to pursue policies that encourage and enhance trade between the United States and India, decrease India’s reliance on Russian and Chinese made defense equipment and increase collaboration and joint quad and bilateral military exercises.”
She urged that the “United States and India can continue to pursue a strong foreign policy [stance] to combat aggression, discourage authoritarian regimes and contain territorial expansions,” adding House Republicans and CHC should join forces with millions of Hindu Americans nationwide and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. It is also vital to fortify connections and further amplify the considerable achievements established by Shalli, RHC, President Trump, and Prime Minister Modi, she added.
Stefanik also recalled that President Trump was the first Presidential candidate to acknowledge the noteworthy achievements of Hindu Americans during a 2016 rally in New Jersey. She noted that during the rally Trump said in Hindi “Ab Ki Baar Trump Sarkar” which went viral with 1.2 billion views around the world. She went on to say “Ab Ki Baar Republican Sarkar,” on behalf of the House Republicans.
Commending second-generation Hindu Americans for their “significant impact on American society, business, culture, and American history,” she continued “From all over the world your unique experiences have shaped and influenced our country, continuing the time-honored tradition of American exceptionalism and the American dream.”
CHC’s Co-chair, Congressman Pete Sessions, said, “The things that the Republican Party teaches today are the same things that Ronald Reagan taught also… that we will stand with our allies. And America will stand with its allies like we’re doing not just with India, but also with Israel.
Praising the work of Hindu Americans, Sessions said “Shalli Kumar, Elise Stefanik, and I will be taking our message around the United States. And we intend to take not only our candidates, but we intend to take our members, some 150, who represent people [from] all over this country and include Hindu Americans in that political relationship to reshape our world and our country,” while asking the help of Hindu Americans to share and spread the message.
Kumar emphasized, “This will be one of the largest caucuses in the US Congress that would be actively engaged in enacting legislation and passing resolutions important to the Hindu American community,” while highlighting the “impressive educational and professional achievements of the Hindu American community,” said a press statement from RHC.
Notably, Congressman Shri Thanedar also launched a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain American Congressional Caucus on September 29, 2023. “We should really fight against hatred in the world. We should fight against bigotry, and we need to unite and lift people. We need to foster understanding, promote inclusion, and take affirmative policy actions” Thanedar said after launching the Caucus.
A congressional caucus is a group of members of the United States Congress that meet to pursue common legislative objectives. Shalabh “Shalli” Kumar, an Indian-American is the founder of the Republican Hindu Coalition. Shalabh Kumar said more than 150 members of the US House of Representatives have committed to becoming members of the Congressional Hindu Caucus.
This would make it one of the largest caucuses in the US Congress that would be actively engaged in enacting legislation and passing resolutions important to the Hindu American community, Kumar added.
In a recent NBC national poll gauging sentiments for the 2024 general election, former President Donald Trump has emerged ahead of President Joe Biden for the “first time” in the history of the network’s polling, as revealed by NBC host Kristen Welker. During a segment on the network’s “Meet the Press,” Welker, accompanied by national correspondent Steve Kornacki, delved into the latest polling data, indicating that Trump currently maintains a 2-point lead over Biden, holding at 46 percent.
“This is the first time in the history of our poll that former President Trump beats President Biden – still within the margin of error, but still significant,” acknowledged Welker in response to the noteworthy development. The survey, conducted between November 10 and November 14 among 1,000 registered voters, carries a margin of error ranging from 5.5 to 5.6 percentage points.
Highlighting the shift in dynamics, Kornacki pointed out, “In 2019, 2020 when Trump was president, he [Biden] trailed all of them. This year he’s trailed all of them in our poll. First time in more than a dozen polls we’ve seen a result like this.”
Biden, traditionally buoyed by his perceived likability compared to Trump, is now facing a leveled playing field, according to the poll. NBC News initially reported Biden’s likability at 39 percent and Trump’s at 32 percent in January. However, the current figures show both candidates at 36 percent, accompanied by a notable increase in Biden’s disapproval rating, climbing from 46 percent in January to 53 percent.
The younger demographic, aged 18 to 35, is demonstrating a noteworthy tilt towards the former president. The poll indicates Trump garnering 46 percent support among this age group, with Biden trailing at 42 percent.
Recognizing the electorate’s expressed dissatisfaction with the current candidates, the network conducted a hypothetical test pitting Biden against a “generic Republican candidate.” Surprisingly, the results showed that in this scenario, a “generic” Republican would outperform Biden by nearly 11 points, whereas Trump, in a similar matchup against a “generic” Democrat candidate, would lag behind by approximately 6 points.
Amidst these shifting dynamics, Democrats and liberal figures have begun voicing concerns regarding Biden’s viability as the party’s nominee for the 2024 presidential elections. Democratic Minnesota Representative Dean Phillips, for instance, recently challenged Biden for the nomination, emphasizing that it’s time for the president to “pass the torch.”
The evolving landscape of public opinion, as reflected in the NBC poll, suggests a departure from the conventional narrative that favored Biden’s likability over Trump. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the dynamics of the 2024 presidential race are becoming increasingly uncertain, with the emergence of new contenders and shifting voter preferences challenging the established political order.
Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has been rising in the polls in early voting states, especially after her strong performances in the three GOP sponsored presidential debates – Milwaukee, San Francisco and Florida. Though she still lags far behind Donald Trump, she argues she’s strongest nominee to take on President Joe Biden, US media reports said.
Her latest debate performance prompted more than $1 million in donations — and drew in Ray Hunt, a billionaire backer. She’s still banking on a breakthrough to catch up to the front-runner. Over the course of the two-hour face-off, Ms. Haley displayed her foreign policy credentials, parried attacks on her record and even transformed her shoes into a campaign weapon.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) says she’s what the US “needs to take on Trump and Biden in the 2024 presidential race”. “I don’t think you need to be 80 years old to go be a leader in D.C.,” she told Fox News in January. “It’s time for a new generation of leadership,” she said in the campaign video she released recently.
According to Policitco, “the pioneering former governor of South Carolina and Trump’s first United Nations ambassador, the 51-year-old daughter of Indian immigrants, was a Trump critic who became a Trump appointee who now officially is a Trump rival. Throughout her compelling, nearly two-decade-long political ascent, she has been nimble, or as her critics would say, uncommonly calculating. People who know her call her ambitious because she is.”
Haley was born to Indian Sikh parents who immigrated to the US from Canada. Her father is a biologist and her mother a lawyer turned boutique shop owner, that’s now a million dollar franchise. They came with $8 dollars in their pockets.
At 13, Haley began overseeing the store’s financial books, and after graduating from Clemson in 1994 with a bachelor’s degree in accounting, she became the company’s Chief Financial Officer. Haley met her husband William Michael Haley in the college, and got married in 1996. They have two children.
Haley’s career in politics began in 2004 when she defeated a longstanding incumbent to win a seat in the South Carolina House. Haley then ran for Governor in 2009, making her the first person to be elected the Governor of South Carolina who wasn’t a white. It has been a gradula rise to her prominence to national stage for this talented Indian American presidential candidate.
However, months of campaigning, a series of strong debate performances, healthy campaign accounts and rising numbers in surveys of early voting states haven’t been enough to put Ms. Haley within striking distance of Mr. Trump, who remains the dominant front-runner. While Ms. Haley’s support has increased, particularly in Iowa, voters have yet to flock to her candidacy in overwhelming numbers. One recent poll of Iowa had Ms. Haley tied at 16 percent support with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida — with Mr. Trump 27 points ahead.
There are some signs major donors are turning their attention to her. Harlan Crow, a wealthy real estate developer, hosted a fund-raiser for her in October with well-connected real estate and oil and gas donors in attendance. Former Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois, a top giver to Mr. DeSantis, transferred his allegiance to Ms. Haley after the first debate. Last week, one of former Vice President Mike Pence’s top donors — the Arkansas poultry magnate Ron Cameron — said he would back her, after Mr. Pence dropped out of the race.
Haley, who served in Trump’s Cabinet as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has said frequently on the campaign trail that Trump is unlikely to beat President Joe Biden in a general election, citing his four criminal indictments and mounting legal troubles.
If Trump becomes the nominee, she said, Republicans could see more losses on down-ballot races. Haley argued she could lead the party to “win up and down the ticket, governor’s races, congressional seats, all of those seats.”
“It’s not just the presidential. We’re trying to win across the board. I can do that,” she added
The U.S. Congress passed a stopgap funding bill late on Saturday with overwhelming Democratic support after Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy backed down from an earlier demand by his party’s hardliners for a partisan bill.
The Democratic-majority Senate voted 88-9 to pass the measure to avoid the federal government’s fourth partial shutdown in a decade, sending the bill to President Joe Biden, who signed it into law before the 12:01 a.m. ET (0401 GMT) deadline.
McCarthy abandoned party hardliners’ insistence that any bill pass the House with only Republican votes, a change that could cause one of his far-right members to try to oust him from his leadership role.
The House voted 335-91 to fund the government through Nov. 17, with more Democrats than Republicans supporting it.
Picture: BBC
That move marked a profound shift from earlier in the week, when a shutdown looked all but inevitable. A shutdown would mean that most of the government’s 4 million employees would not get paid – whether they were working or not – and also would shutter a range of federal services, from National Parks to financial regulators.
Federal agencies had already drawn up detailed plans that spell out what services would continue, such as airport screening and border patrols, and what must shut down, including scientific research and nutrition aid to 7 million poor mothers.
“The American people can breathe a sigh of relief: there will be no government shutdown tonight,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said after the vote. “Democrats have said from the start that the only solution for avoiding a shutdown is bipartisanship, and we are glad Speaker McCarthy has finally heeded our message.”
DEMOCRATS CALL IT A WIN
Some 209 Democrats supported the bill, far more than the 126 Republicans who did so, and Democrats described the result as a win.
“Extreme MAGA Republicans have lost, the American people have won,” top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries told reporters ahead of the vote, referring to the “Make America Great Again” slogan used by former President Donald Trump and many hardline Republicans.
Democratic Representative Don Beyer said: “I am relieved that Speaker McCarthy folded and finally allowed a bipartisan vote at the 11th hour on legislation to stop Republicans’ rush to a disastrous shutdown.”
McCarthy’s shift won the support of top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell, who had backed a similar measure that was moving through the Senate with broad bipartisan support, even though the House version dropped aid for Ukraine.
Democratic Senator Michael Bennet held the bill up for several hours trying to negotiate a deal for further Ukraine aid.
“While I would have preferred to pass a bill now with additional assistance for Ukraine, which has bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, it is easier to help Ukraine with the government open than if it were closed,” Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said in a statement.
McCarthy dismissed concerns that hardline Republicans could try to oust him as leader.
“I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try,” McCarthy told reporters. “And you know what? If I have to risk my job for standing up for the American public, I will do that.”
He said that House Republicans would push ahead with plans to pass more funding bills that would cut spending and include other conservative priorities, such as tighter border controls.
CREDIT CONCERNS
The standoff comes just months after Congress brought the federal government to the brink of defaulting on its $31.4 trillion debt. The drama has raised worries on Wall Street, where the Moody’s ratings agency has warned it could damage U.S. creditworthiness.
Congress typically passes stopgap spending bills to buy more time to negotiate the detailed legislation that sets funding for federal programs.
This year, a group of Republicans has blocked action in the House as they have pressed to tighten immigration and cut spending below levels agreed to in the debt-ceiling standoff in the spring.
The McCarthy-Biden deal that avoided default set a limit of $1.59 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2024. House Republicans are demanding a further $120 billion in cuts.
The funding fight focuses on a relatively small slice of the $6.4 trillion U.S. budget for this fiscal year. Lawmakers are not considering cuts to popular benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
“We should never have been in this position in the first place. Just a few months ago, Speaker McCarthy and I reached a budget agreement to avoid precisely this type of manufactured crisis,” Biden said in a statement after the vote. “House Republicans tried to walk away from that deal by demanding drastic cuts that would have been devastating for millions of Americans. They failed.”
Reporting by David Morgan, Makini Brice and Moira Warburton, additional reporting by Kanishka Singh, writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Scott Malone, Andrea Ricci and William Mallard
Indian American presidential primary candidate Nikki Haley attached little importance to her opponent Donald Trump’s lead among voters in the upcoming elections. In an interview with Fox News on November 12, Haley admitted that Trump has “strong support” but he is followed by “drama and negativity” and that Republicans will fail to win if he wins the GOP nomination.
Former President Trump has emerged as the GOP frontrunner, and polls have found him to be ahead of reigning President Joe Biden, but Haley believes the party will not benefit from his victory in the primary. “I think certainly Trump has some strong support. I’ve always said he was the right president at the right time and I agree with a lot of his policies,” she told Fox News. “The problem is, drama and chaos follow him, whether fairly or not, it is constantly following him and Americans feel it,” she added.
Haley further blamed Trump for the losses faced by GOP candidates recently and the party’s negatively impacted performance. Haley said the GOP has to “pay the price” for the former president’s presence in the party, as per a report. Haley said the Republican party should brace itself for more losses on the ballot races if Trump becomes the nominee for the Presidential elections, and endorsed herself as the better candidate.
“We need to make sure we have a new conservative leader. Republicans have lost the last seven out of eight popular votes for president. The way you do that is you send someone in there that doesn’t just beat Biden by two or three points like Trump does, you get somebody that beats Biden between nine and 13 points,” she said. Haley’s campaign had received a significant boost after the initial debates and polls suggested she could defeat President Biden by a wider margin than her primary rivals.
Haley also said she could be the candidate to lead the GOP to “win up and down the ticket, governor’s races, congressional seats, all of those seats.” She added, “It’s not just the presidential. We’re trying to win across the board. I can do that.”
Lack of Support Among South Asian Americans
Despite being prominently known as Indian American candidates in the race to the Oval Office in 2024, Republicans Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley are not as popular among or known to Asian Americans, a new poll conducted by AAPI Data and the Associated Press-National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago revealed.
According to the results, while more AAPI adults have unfavorable views than favorable views of Haley and Ramaswamy, a large proportion of them said they did not know enough about the two candidates to form an opinion.
The study found that only 18 percent and 23 percent of Asian American and Pacific Islander adults had favorable views of Ramaswamy and Haley, respectively, and 36 percent viewed both candidates as unfavorable. 40 percent of the respondents said they were not familiar with Haley, while Ramaswamy is unfamiliar to 46 percent of them.
“This is the first nationally representative survey that includes the views of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders about the major presidential candidates,” said Karthick Ramakrishnan, founder and director of AAPI Data. “Rather than speculate about where AAPIs stand on candidates like Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy, we have timely and reliable data that we will continue to follow through the rest of the presidential primary season.
The survey also dug into the political inclination of AAPI communities, with about half identifying as Democrats, over a quarter identifying as Republican, and about one in five identifying as independent or having no attachment to any party.
The current President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are viewed more favorably among the AAPI communities, while former President and current contender for the Republican nomination for the upcoming presidential elections, Donald Trump, is viewed unfavorably, as is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
In a significant development on Tuesday, a Michigan judge dismissed a lawsuit attempting to utilize the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s 2024 ballot. The judge also affirmed that Michigan’s secretary of state lacks the authority under state law to determine the former president’s eligibility based on the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding office.
The rulings represent a substantial victory for Trump, who currently leads the 2024 Republican presidential primary race, despite facing legal challenges in various states alleging his involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a similar constitutional challenge against Trump, and a comparable case is pending in Colorado, with a ruling expected later this week. Experts anticipate that, regardless of the initial rulings, these cases are likely to reach the US Supreme Court, potentially settling the issue nationwide.
The liberal advocacy group involved in the Michigan case has announced an “immediate appeal” and intends to request the state Supreme Court’s intervention. The 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, bars individuals who took an oath to uphold the Constitution from future office if they engaged in insurrection. However, the Constitution does not specify how to enforce this ban, and it has been applied only twice since 1919, making these challenges widely viewed as a long shot.
While these rulings maintain Trump’s position on key GOP primary ballots, they leave the door open to future challenges regarding his eligibility in the November 2024 general election.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge James Redford emphasized that questions about Trump’s role in the January 6 insurrection should be addressed by elected representatives in Congress, characterizing the matter as a “political question” outside the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. Redford stated, “A court disqualifying Trump would’ve taken that decision away from a body made up of elected representatives of the people of every state in the nation.”
He further argued that he lacked the authority under state law to compel election officials to scrutinize Trump’s eligibility based on the 14th Amendment. Redford’s decision was made in response to two cases seeking to block Trump from the Michigan ballot and a countersuit filed by Trump to preserve his position.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, had already announced the list of names for the 2024 presidential primaries in the state, including Trump. Rejecting arguments from anti-Trump challengers, the judge deemed it premature to disqualify Trump, considering he has not secured the GOP nomination and the 2024 general election has not taken place.
Redford acknowledged that even if Trump were to win the presidency and subsequently face new lawsuits questioning his eligibility, the 20th Amendment provides a process for addressing a president-elect no longer “qualified” to serve, wherein the vice president-elect would ascend to the presidency.
The Trump campaign welcomed the decision, highlighting victories in similar cases in Minnesota and New Hampshire. Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung criticized these legal challenges as “un-Constitutional left-wing fantasies orchestrated by monied allies of the Biden campaign.”
Conversely, Free Speech For People, the advocacy group behind the Michigan and Minnesota cases, condemned the judge’s decision, asserting that he adopted a “discredited theory” about Congress’ role in enforcing the 14th Amendment. The group plans to appeal the decision and continue legal actions in other states to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Donald Trump, as stated by Ron Fein, the group’s legal director.
In the realm of U.S. presidential elections, the dominance of Democrats and Republicans is a steadfast norm. However, current polls are indicating a noteworthy exception: Independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is garnering higher support than any third-party or independent candidate in recent memory, potentially influencing the outcome of the 2024 election.
A Quinnipiac University poll reveals Kennedy’s significant standing, reaching 22% among registered voters. This statistic is remarkable, prompting a comparison with historical data. The last independent candidate to surpass the 20% mark within a year of the election was Ross Perot in 1992, ultimately securing 19% of the popular vote. Typically, independent or third-party candidates witness a decline in popularity as elections draw near. For instance, John Anderson’s 1980 campaign, initially polling above 20%, resulted in a mere 7% of the votes in November. George Wallace, a third-party candidate in 1968, peaked at 21% in pre-election polls but received 14% in the actual vote.
The uniqueness of Kennedy’s position lies in joining this exclusive group of non-major-party candidates who achieved over 20% within a year of the election. While the final outcome for Kennedy remains uncertain, his numbers in swing states are noteworthy. New York Times/Siena College surveys indicate Kennedy’s support ranging from the high teens to over 25% in the six closely contested states that Biden won in 2020 over Trump: Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Michigan.
These polls have added complexity to the electoral landscape. Notably, Trump outpaced Biden in five of these states among registered voters and in four among likely voters, leading to potential victory for Trump if the results mirrored these polls. However, when Kennedy entered the equation among likely voters, Trump only led in Georgia and Nevada. The previously clear Trump advantage became a muddled scenario with no distinct frontrunner in the Electoral College due to Kennedy’s influence.
Kennedy’s impact is evident in reshaping the electoral dynamics. Both Biden and Trump had unfavorable ratings in the high 50s in the Times/Siena poll, reflecting their status as historically disliked front-runners. The emergence of other independent and third-party candidates, such as Cornel West and Jill Stein, further emphasizes the dissatisfaction with major parties. West secured 6% and 4% in recent Quinnipiac and CNN/SSRS surveys, respectively. Jill Stein, announcing her 2024 Green Party nomination bid, gained 1% nationally in 2016 but made notable strides in key states.
Moreover, the decision by West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin not to seek reelection and his earlier contemplation of running as a third-party candidate indicates a growing trend of non-major-party candidates entering the fray. Manchin polled at 10% as a No Labels candidate in a summer PRRI poll.
While these non-major-party candidates may not be frontrunners for victory, their significance lies in their potential to capture a substantial share of the vote from disenchanted Americans. With both major-party candidates facing high unfavorability ratings, the ultimate winner in 2024 might secure victory with less than a majority. Political analysts need to consider the substantial support for candidates like Kennedy, surpassing 20% in polls, as a potential indicator of the direction the 2024 election might take.
The fight between Indian-American Republican candidates got nastier with former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley calling tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy “just a scumm” for bringing up her daughter as a reference at the party’s third presidential primary debate on Wednesday, November 8th, 2023.
At the debate held in Miami, the two leading Republican candidates sparred over the US policy on TikTok and whether it should be banned in the country because of its Chinese ownership.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur referred to Haley and said: “In the last debate, she made fun of me for actually joining TikTok while her own daughter was actually using the app for a long time, so you might want to take care of your family first.”
Picture: The Guardian
Haley then shot back saying, “Leave my daughter out of your voice”, and as Ramaswamy continued to speak, she told him, “You are just a scum.”
The former South Carolina Governor also took to her X handle on Wednesday to further slam the biotech entrepreneur, which was dismissed by a handful of netizens as “cringe.”
“Vivek, I wear heels. They’re not for a fashion statement — they’re for ammunition,” Haley said, inviting a comment from a user, which said: “All of the comebacks in the world, and you chose cringe.”
The two also locked horns in the previous presidential debate with Haley slamming him for his inexperience on foreign policy issues.
Hitting out at Haley, Ramaswamy’s campaign in a statement said that in a desperate attempt to raise funds for her languishing establishment campaign, the former US ambassador to the UN was intentionally lying about the tech entrepreneur.
Haley blasted Ramaswamy for not backing US allies, and said that “Vivek has no foreign policy experience and it shows.” Ramaswamy also used the ‘Namrata Randhawa’ instead of Nikki Haley on his website, which she said was a “childish name game.”
“I’m not going to get involved in these childish name games. It’s pretty pathetic. First of all, I was born with Nikki on my birth certificate. I was raised as Nikki. I married a Haley. And so that is what my name is,” Haley told Fox News in response.
Haley again called for reforming Social Security and other entitlement programs, drawing a contrast with Trump — and bringing up what Democrats say is a significant vulnerability for her candidacy.
“Any candidate that tells you that they’re not going to take on entitlements is not being serious,” she said. “Right now you have Ron and Trump joining Biden and Pelosi saying they’re not going to change, or do any entitlement reform.”
Haley has long called for making significant changes to the program, including raising the retirement age and removing cost of living increases in favor of increases based on the inflation rate.
She also called for limiting the program for the wealthy — namechecking Bernie Marcus, the former CEO of Home Depot and a major Republican donor, saying that he “hates getting that check.”
In a survey released on Monday by the Des Moines Register, Haley climbed 10 points to 16 per cent, putting her even with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as he struggles to break through against former President Donald Trump.
In addition to Haley and Ramaswamy, three other candidates were on stage for the third debate — former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott.
The two-hour debate, hosted by NBC News, took off at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami-Dade County.
Trump, who has so far retained huge leads in polls, again skipped the debate, instead holding a rally not far from the Miami debate site in Hialeah, Florida.
The GOP candidates had one basic message for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Do what you have to do to destroy the Hamas militant group.
“Finish the job,” DeSantis said. “Finish them,” Haley said. “Not only do you have the responsibility and the right to wipe Hamas off of the map, we will support you,” Scott said.
Ramaswamy ended the debate by calling not on his Republican rivals, but on Biden, to drop out. The president should “step aside and end his candidacy now so we can see whether it’s [California Gov. Gavin] Newsom or Michelle Obama or whoever else,” Ramaswamy said at the end of his closing pitch.
The prospect of a 2024 election rematch between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump has left voters in six battleground states dissatisfied and searching for alternatives, as revealed by recent polls conducted by The New York Times and Siena College.
In these key states, both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump are viewed unfavorably by the majority of voters. A significant portion of voters dislike both candidates, and overall enthusiasm for the upcoming election has waned compared to the 2020 contest.
This frustration and disillusionment have led voters to consider other options. When asked about the likely 2024 matchup between Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump, only 2 percent of respondents expressed support for another candidate. However, when Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name was presented as an alternative, nearly a quarter of respondents indicated they would choose him.
It’s important to note that the support for Mr. Kennedy may be somewhat inflated, as two-thirds of those expressing support for him had previously mentioned a preference for one of the two major-party candidates.
The polling encompassed registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and the results suggest that Mr. Kennedy is less a firmly established political figure in the minds of voters and more a symbol of their discontent with the choice between Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump.
Voters who hold unfavorable views of both major-party candidates, often referred to as “double haters,” played a significant role in the outcomes of recent presidential elections. The number of such voters has more than doubled since four years ago. Mr. Trump now enjoys more support from these voters in five of the six battleground states, with Arizona being the exception. Overall, 42 percent of “double haters” planned to vote for Mr. Trump, while 34 percent favored Mr. Biden, and 24 percent remained undecided.
The disapproval of both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump is likely to fuel interest in outsider candidates like Mr. Kennedy, who recently transitioned from the Democratic primary to run as an independent. Cornel West, the liberal professor who switched from the Green Party to mount an independent campaign, is another candidate in the spotlight.
The accessibility of the ballot will present a significant challenge for independent candidates. Qualifying for the general election as a political independent is a costly endeavor, and legal obstacles from major parties may further complicate the process.
The appeal of outsider candidates stems from the widespread unpopularity of both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump among voters in the battleground states. A majority of respondents held unfavorable views of both candidates, except for Black voters who had a favorable view of Mr. Biden.
Voters who dislike both major-party candidates but are open to alternative options are central to the potential impact of outsider candidates like Mr. Kennedy. The outcome in tightly contested states could be influenced by the presence of a candidate like Mr. Kennedy. In some states, he appears to benefit Mr. Trump, while in others, he aids Mr. Biden.
In a political landscape marked by polarization and increasing partisanship, third-party and independent candidates often reflect voter dissatisfaction with the choices offered by the major parties rather than genuine interest in outsider candidates. The impact of Mr. Kennedy as an independent candidate remains uncertain, as his support has fluctuated during his campaign. His potential to influence the 2024 election outcome may become clearer as the election season progresses.
Donald Trump, during his current presidential campaign, has spent a significant amount of time revisiting his 2020 election loss. However, behind the scenes, he and his team are actively crafting a plan for a potential return to power, with the intention of avoiding the pitfalls of his 2016 campaign.
For those wondering about Trump’s intentions if he were to be reelected in 2024, he’s leaving no room for ambiguity. This comprehensive plan is available in digestible portions on his campaign website, resonates through his rally speeches, and is documented by individuals entrusted with preparations for his second term, known as “Agenda47” in reference to his potential status as the 47th president of the United States.
In contrast to his 2016 bid, where he relied on a modest budget and a diverse team of political novices, Trump’s current preparations reflect a more organized and strategic approach. They are determined to avoid past mistakes and have formulated a playbook to navigate the complexities of governing, including potential resistance from a liberal bureaucracy.
Picture: CNN
This playbook has emerged throughout the year and covers a wide range of policy proposals. Some are visionary, such as investing in flying cars and creating “freedom cities” on federal land, while others are controversial, like relocating the homeless to tent camps outside cities. Trump delves into culture wars, advocating for patriotic values in state schools, and he emphasizes protectionist policies, calling for universal baseline tariffs on imports.
On immigration, he seeks to reinstate the policy of keeping undocumented migrants in Mexico during asylum applications and ending automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants born in the U.S. He pledges to cut international aid and potentially reduce U.S. involvement with NATO.
Energy is a top priority for Trump in 2024, with the goal of increasing supply to lower household bills, which he believes are contributing to inflation.
These policies are emblematic of Trump’s efforts to reshape the Republican Party, moving it away from the conservatism of previous Republican nominees and towards a blend of conservatism and populism.
To implement this agenda, Trump has established a network of organizations staffed by former senior Trump officials. These groups, with names like the Center for Renewing America and the America First Policy Institute, are generating position papers and documents to serve as a blueprint for policy implementation. They have recruited and trained conservatives who could be part of a future Republican presidential administration.
While Trump’s critics are concerned about the potential impact of such an administration, his supporters believe a more cohesive team could lead to a more effective presidency. The hope is that Trump will articulate a detailed agenda upon taking office, which would enable him to address critical issues, including energy, border security, and inflation.
However, a detailed agenda could also be used by Democrats as a basis for criticism. They may attempt to portray Trump and his advisers as out of touch with the majority of Americans, potentially criminalizing what many consider to be reasonable freedoms.
The ever-changing nature of Trump’s policies and the possibility of him discarding these proposals cannot be dismissed entirely. Nonetheless, those who know Trump well, including his former administration officials, are confident in their ability to influence his decisions.
In response to Democratic efforts to attack Trump’s agenda, his supporters are dismissive, believing that Trump’s unorthodox approach can ultimately engage the electorate, even when his proposals are controversial. They argue that Trump excels at breaking the mold of conventional political expectations.
The FBI director issued a warning on Tuesday, highlighting how the Israel-Hamas conflict has elevated the threat level for potential attacks against Americans and intensified dangers for Jewish and Muslim communities in the United States.
Christopher A. Wray, Director of the FBI, expressed concerns about foreign terrorist organizations inciting violence against Jews in response to the October 7 terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas in Gaza. The conflict led Israel to impose a siege and bombardment of Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas.
Wray stated, “We assess that the actions of Hamas and its allies will serve as an inspiration the likes of which we haven’t seen since ISIS launched its so-called caliphate several years ago.”
He emphasized that the ongoing Middle East conflict has raised the threat of attacks against Americans within the United States, especially from violent extremists or lone actors influenced by messages promoting hatred and violence.
Before the Israel-Hamas conflict, the United States had already witnessed a surge in antisemitic incidents, partly attributed to white supremacist propaganda and nationalist groups. However, since the October 7 attack by Hamas, the frequency of antisemitic threats and acts has considerably increased. Director Wray described it as “a threat that is reaching in some way sort of historic levels.”
Wray underlined that the Jewish community is a target for various types of terrorists, including homegrown violent extremists, foreign terrorist organizations, and domestic violent extremists.
Foreign terrorist groups, in response to the Hamas attacks, have issued calls to attack Americans, particularly Jews. Notably, the Islamic State (ISIS) has called for attacks on Jewish communities in the United States and Europe, while Al Qaeda issued a specific call to attack the United States, making it the most explicit call to attack the U.S. in the past five years.
Wray emphasized the significance of this unprecedented level of calls for attacks by foreign terrorist organizations, raising the potential terror threats to the United States.
The Israel-Hamas conflict has also sparked division within the United States. Protests against Israel’s response to the attack and its treatment of Palestinians have led to the removal of posters depicting victims kidnapped by Hamas on several college campuses. Private companies, universities, and organizations such as the Writers Guild of America have faced criticism for their statements or lack thereof regarding the violence in the Middle East.
Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, mentioned that federal officials have witnessed an increase in threats against Jewish, Muslim, and Arab American communities and institutions in the United States since October 7.
While Jews make up less than 3% of the U.S. population, they were already the target of approximately 60% of religious-based hate crimes before the Israel-Hamas conflict, according to Wray, citing 2022 statistics.
Between October 7 and October 23, there were 312 antisemitic incidents in the United States, with 190 directly linked to the Israel-Hamas conflict, according to the Anti-Defamation League. These incidents include a case on October 15 at Grand Central Terminal in New York, where a Jewish woman was reportedly punched in the face due to her Jewish identity.
Wray also mentioned a recent arrest in Houston on October 19 of a Palestinian asylum seeker, Sohaib Abuayyash, who had been in the United States since June 2019 on an expired travel visa. Abuayyash was found to have been studying how to build bombs and had expressed support for violence against Jewish people. He was also illegally in possession of a firearm and had engaged with individuals who shared a radical mindset, according to the criminal complaint.
The Biden administration has maintained regular contact with Jewish communities across the country, with the FBI creating an intelligence fusion cell dedicated to addressing hate crimes and domestic terrorism. This proactive approach aims to comprehensively understand and respond to the evolving threat landscape.
In response to the rising number of antisemitic attacks and hate crimes against Palestinians after the Israel-Hamas conflict, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced grants of up to $75 million for local police departments and houses of worship.
The conflict has not only fueled antisemitic incidents but has also led to an increase in hate-fueled attacks against Muslims and Arabs in the United States since October 7. The Council on American Islamic Relations reported over 700 complaints of bias incidents and threats against American Muslims between October 7 and October 25, reaching levels not seen since December 2015 when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed a ban on Muslim travel to the United States.
One prominent incident involved the murder of a 6-year-old Palestinian American in Illinois, with the landlord arrested for stabbing the boy and his mother in what is being treated as a hate crime.
In New York, two men were arrested and charged with hate crimes for their involvement in an October 11 attack on three men, during which they shouted anti-Muslim slurs. The 2022 FBI report indicated that nearly 8% of religious-based hate crimes targeted Muslims, a level similar to 2021.
A recent survey conducted by NBC News and the Des Moines Register, renowned for its reliability in Iowa, reveals that Vivek Ramaswamy’s popularity is on a downward slope as voters become more familiar with him.
The poll, which places former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis at 16% each, positions them as secondary Republican candidates, with Donald Trump leading at 43%. Vivek Ramaswamy is trailing behind, standing at 4%, even falling behind Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) at 7% and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at 5%.
The concerning aspect for Ramaswamy is the significant increase in his unfavorable ratings. Back in late summer, 38% of respondents viewed him favorably, while only 20% held an unfavorable opinion. Now, the unfavorable rating has nearly doubled, reaching 37%, while his favorability has increased by just 5% to 43%.
These changes in perception seem closely linked to Iowans’ growing familiarity with Ramaswamy. In August, 41% of respondents didn’t know enough about him to form an opinion. That figure has now dropped to 20%. This shift is supported by anecdotes reported by Meryl Kornfield of The Washington Post.
The unfavorable trends continue for Ramaswamy as he fails to capture the second-choice preference of most Trump supporters. DeSantis is the preferred choice of 41% of Trump voters, followed by Haley at 16%. Even though Haley’s platform differs significantly from Trump’s, she is favored as the second choice by 15% of Trump voters, outperforming Ramaswamy.
Of note is Haley’s growing popularity, which coincides with Ramaswamy’s campaign’s stagnation, despite Ramaswamy’s attempts to position her as his foil. In a recent conversation with Tucker Carlson, Ramaswamy even insinuated that Haley’s call for the destruction of Hamas after a terror attack in Israel was motivated by a profit incentive.
“I don’t think she’s a child; I think that she is somebody, like many politicians, in a position to profit from war,” Ramaswamy told Carlson earlier this month.
This comment prompted a challenging interview from Fox News’ Sean Hannity, focusing on this accusation and Ramaswamy’s broader foreign policy views, ultimately leading to a challenging interview for Ramaswamy.
As the Iowa caucuses draw nearer, the Republican Party finds itself in a race against time to rally behind a single candidate as an alternative to former President Trump. The recent exit of former Vice President Mike Pence from the race has increased pressure on low-polling candidates to follow suit, particularly as figures like former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley gain ground and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis faces a decline in popularity.
A new Iowa poll further underscores the challenge Republicans face in challenging Trump’s dominance. The NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll revealed that Trump maintains a substantial 27-point lead over his nearest competitor in Iowa, an increase from his 23-point lead in August. Haley and DeSantis are tied for second place at 16 percent, with Haley gaining 10 points since August, while DeSantis has slipped by 3 points.
Non-Trump candidates continue to vie for the position of the primary alternative, but Trump’s substantial lead in key states and nationally poses a considerable hurdle. Republican consultant Nicole Schlinger of Iowa highlights the importance of undercard candidates confronting Trump head-on to improve their prospects.
While some minor candidates have dropped out during October, Pence’s withdrawal marks a significant exit from the race. Pence, a former Vice President and close ally of Trump, emphasized his conservative and religious values and the continuation of Trump’s policies but struggled to gain traction in polls and fundraising, particularly in a race dominated by Trump. His inability to meet fundraising requirements, despite having met polling criteria for the third GOP debate, demonstrates the challenges he faced.
Even in Iowa, where a strong evangelical base might have offered a significant opportunity for Pence, he garnered only 2 percent support in the poll.
Political economist Michael Strain suggests that candidates, except for Haley, should follow Pence’s lead. DeSantis has consistently held the second position in national and key state polls, though recent polls indicate that Haley is closing the gap. Republican strategist Saul Anuzis believes that the current polling data reflects movements in the race rather than determining the ultimate strength of fundraising or political infrastructure. He emphasizes that it is too early to make definitive judgments.
Anuzis does not expect Pence’s withdrawal to result in a major shift in the polls. However, the collective decision of some candidates to withdraw does increase the pressure on remaining contenders to make decisions about their future in the race.
The most likely opportunity to challenge Trump could be at the Republican convention, where delegates are unbound and allowed to vote for any candidate. The convention’s rules, set at the outset, will determine the viability of an alternative.
Rina Shah, a Republican strategist, believes that a larger field is not necessarily problematic at the beginning of the voting process. Voters have multiple options other than Trump. She suggests that it’s uncertain when a clear single alternative should emerge. Shah argues that Nikki Haley has a compelling case to be the primary alternative, given her strong performances in the first two GOP debates. She anticipates that Haley could benefit if former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina drop out and support her.
Shah points out that in 2020, many Republican voters felt compelled to support Trump even if they had reservations. Now, they have more choices. In 2020, Trump faced minimal opposition for the nomination, whereas the current larger primary field adds an element of unpredictability to the race.
Donald Trump and three of his children are set to provide testimony in a business fraud case in New York. A recent ruling by a judge has mandated that Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter, must testify in the case, despite her previous dismissal as a defendant. Her brothers, Eric and Donald Jr., remain involved in the case. The New York Attorney General’s Office has scheduled testimony from all four family members, starting with Donald Trump Jr., with the former president himself expected to testify on November 6th.
The trial, presided over by Judge Arthur Engoron, centers on allegations that Mr. Trump artificially inflated property values to secure favorable loans. Additionally, it encompasses six other claims, including falsification of business records, insurance fraud, and conspiracy. Trump and his co-defendants have consistently denied these allegations.
Donald Trump has expressed his willingness to testify from the outset. Ivanka, on the other hand, had previously sought to avoid providing testimony, citing her move to Florida and her disassociation from the Trump Organization in 2017. However, Judge Engoron determined that she still maintains connections to Trump-related enterprises and real estate in New York. Prosecutors argue that Ivanka Trump possesses crucial information relevant to the case.
In his decision to compel Ivanka’s testimony, Judge Engoron supported the prosecutors, asserting that “Ms. Trump has clearly availed herself of the privilege of doing business in New York.” He cited documentation illustrating her continued ownership or management involvement in some New York-based businesses and her ownership of Manhattan apartments.
This civil fraud case, initiated by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, seeks penalties of $250 million and severe constraints on Mr. Trump’s businesses. The former president, currently the leading contender for the Republican nomination in the 2024 election, has consistently dismissed the case as politically motivated and a “sham.”
The longest House leadership conflict in modern times has finally concluded, but not without leaving scars on both sides. Congressman Mike Johnson assumed the role of the 56th Speaker of the House of Representatives amid cheers and standing ovations from his Republican colleagues. This outcome was unexpected, as tensions within the party had divided them for three weeks.
What made Johnson stand out was not just who he was but, perhaps more importantly, who he wasn’t. Unlike the previous three Speaker-designees, he did not belong to the existing Republican House leadership, which had faced resistance from hardline conservatives. He was also not an ideological firebrand like Jim Jordan, who had the support of Donald Trump and the party’s populist wing but faced resistance from centrists and institutionalists.
Johnson, a former chair of the House’s conservative Republican Study Committee, had the trust of the party’s right-wing without the baggage that created enemies elsewhere. While he had taken controversial stances on issues such as a nationwide abortion ban, supporting Trump’s election result challenges, and opposing gay marriage, he had done so quietly and, for the most part, away from television cameras.
His lack of ambition, evident by entering the Speaker race relatively late, made him a suitable choice for Republicans eager to move past weeks of political turmoil without specific concessions or commitments.
Congressman Ken Buck, who had previously objected to others for not acknowledging Joe Biden’s presidential victory, voted for Johnson without objection. Even those who may not agree with him on every issue praised his honesty and truthfulness.
However, Johnson faces significant challenges ahead. The Biden administration and Senate allies are advocating for a multi-billion dollar military aid bill for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. Additionally, a temporary funding measure is set to expire on November 17, which could lead to a government shutdown unless Congress acts.
In a letter to his Republican colleagues, Johnson acknowledged the potential need for another temporary funding bill to buy more time for annual appropriations. He also stressed the importance of negotiating “from a position of strength” with Democrats in the Senate and the Biden White House.
During these negotiations, Johnson’s leadership will be put to the test. His predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, lost support when he was perceived to have conceded too much to Democrats on issues like raising the national debt cap and avoiding a government shutdown without obtaining significant concessions.
Johnson may have more flexibility with his party’s right-wing due to his established ties to them, but he will inevitably face strategic and ideological divisions within the party. He will need to determine when to compromise with the Democrats, who share control in Washington, and whether he can sell any agreement to the rest of his party.
Furthermore, there’s the question of whether Republicans will consider changing the rules that allowed a small group of them to join with Democrats to derail McCarthy’s leadership. Restoring the norms of House Republicans supporting the party in procedural votes and rallying behind the leadership chosen by a majority of their ranks will be another challenge.
Mike Johnson’s tenure as Speaker will be marked by the need to navigate complex legislative issues, negotiate with Democrats, and reconcile ideological divisions within the Republican Party. The success of his speakership will depend on his ability to unite his party and effectively lead in a highly polarized political environment.
A judge presiding over Donald Trump’s New York fraud trial confronted a dilemma that the political world has struggled to address: how to rein in the former president’s anger, tantrums, and disregard for rules. This extraordinary day in court saw Trump ordered to testify about his conduct, offering a glimpse of what lies ahead as he faces four criminal trials in the coming year, adding complexity to the upcoming election season.
In a surprising reversal of power dynamics, the judge in New York firmly rebuked the former president, declaring him “not credible” and underscoring that no one is above the law. As a defendant, Trump is now constrained from acting and speaking without restraint, a dynamic that will extend beyond the current trial, setting a pattern for his legal battles as he positions himself as the front-runner for the 2024 GOP nomination.
Despite two impeachments and an electoral defeat, Trump’s ability to incite public outrage, manipulate facts, and distort reality has been largely unchecked. However, the courtroom’s commitment to factual accuracy may pose a challenge.
Trump has exhibited simmering frustration during the ongoing fraud trial, which could result in his eponymous company being prohibited from conducting business in New York. The presiding Judge Arthur Engoron had ruled before the trial began that Trump, his organization, and adult sons had engaged in fraudulent activities by inflating the value of his assets, a ruling the former president has appealed.
Trump’s apparent frustration erupted in unusual incidents on Wednesday. He seemingly violated a gag order by making a new attack on the judge’s clerk, labeling Engoron as partisan. In response, the judge called a hearing and fined Trump $10,000 for breaching the gag order, which specifically prohibited him from targeting court personnel. Trump, however, denied the accusation and claimed he was referring to his former associate, Michael Cohen, who had testified against him. Trump was previously fined $5,000 for an earlier violation of the same gag order, involving a social media post targeting the judge’s clerk.
These fines may be relatively insignificant for Trump, considering his wealth, but they serve as a reminder of the legal consequences he may face in multiple trials. These trials cover a range of topics, from his business dealings to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, mishandling classified documents, and a hush money payment to an adult film star. Trump denies any wrongdoing in all these pending cases.
In another dramatic moment, Trump left the courtroom in a huff after the judge refused to dismiss the case due to what appeared to be inconsistent testimony from Cohen regarding Trump’s request to inflate financial statements. The judge firmly rejected the motion, contradicting the Trump team’s argument that Cohen was a crucial witness.
Trump’s tendency to provide ongoing commentary to reporters, despite the trial not being televised, indicates that he might be a challenging client for his legal team. This behavior could persist in his future trials, potentially causing more problems. However, the courtroom customs and legal constraints do not bend to emotional or political arguments, rendering Trump’s outbursts ineffective.
Trump’s behavior aligns with his strategy of leveraging his fame and public profile to shape perceptions. While lawyers argue the case in the courtroom, Trump conducts his own public trial in the corridors. Trump expressed his belief that he’s being treated unfairly, stating, “We are being railroaded here.” Nevertheless, unlike his past as a business tycoon and president, his emotional outbursts won’t secure his desired outcomes, as the court’s rules and the law remain steadfast.
CNN’s senior legal analyst, Elie Honig, noted that aggressive cross-examination by Trump’s legal team is permissible, but inconsistencies in testimony do not automatically end a case. “It doesn’t mean game over, let’s go home,” Honig explained.
Trump’s legal defense strategy has evolved into a political campaign that portrays him as a victim of a legal system manipulated by President Joe Biden to undermine his 2024 White House bid. This strategy has been successful in the GOP primary, helping him amass campaign funds to cover legal expenses and maintain a strong media presence, diverting attention from his campaign rivals.
Several judges are grappling with how to handle Trump’s unconventional behavior. Judge Tanya Chutkan, overseeing the federal election subversion trial in Washington, temporarily suspended a gag order to consider Trump’s request to pause the order during his appeal. She previously warned Trump that as a criminal defendant, he has limitations on what he can say about a case, which Trump’s legal team challenged, claiming it’s an attempt to silence him and hinder his presidential campaign.
The American Civil Liberties Union and its Washington, DC, chapter surprisingly supported Trump in this case, arguing that the broad gag order violated his First Amendment rights. However, prosecutors requested Chutkan to reinstate the order, citing Trump’s recent social media posts about potential witnesses.
Trump’s history of acting with impunity, both in business and politics, is now shaping his defense in legal cases. In the federal election subversion case, his team argues that his efforts to overturn the election were part of his official duties and thus immune from prosecution. Special counsel Jack Smith countered this, asserting that such a stance would allow a sitting president to act unlawfully without fear of prosecution.
During his tenure, Trump often claimed unchecked authority, stating that “the authority is total” when one is the president and falsely asserting that he had the right to do anything as president due to Article II. Trump’s constitutional arguments suggest that a potential second term would be even more lawless, as he has hinted at using the legal system for retribution against his adversaries.
Former Rep. Liz Cheney warned that if Trump regains the presidency, there would be “no guardrails” in his administration. While Trump faces legal constraints for now, his future actions as a potential president remain uncertain.
In the realm of card games, where countless classics like Poker, Bridge, and Blackjack have captured the hearts of players worldwide, a hidden gem stands out among the rest. Meet “56,” a captivating and strategic card game combining luck, skill, and deception. While less widely known than its famous counterparts, 56 has garnered a devoted following due to its engaging gameplay, tactical depth, and historical roots in the Malayali community.
Madhu Kutty and I are roommates from NSS College of Engineering in Palakkad. We met our teammate Rajeev George in November 2019 when our mutual friend Frank from New Haven organized 56 games at his residence. We made a team for the Kerala Boat Club game in December 2019. You can guess what happened. We lost most of the round-robin games. In January 2020, we played a local tournament in Boston; there, too, we lost most of the round-robin games. Then came the regional New Jersey tournament, and the same losing saga continued. The worst part was not the loss. It was the part that we did not understand why we lost.
Then came COVID and shutdowns in March 2020. Now, we started to play a lot online. I knew Tommy personally and since we knew they were two-time champions at 56 International, we decided to learn from them. They graciously taught us techniques and the ability to read the unsaid “calls”.
56 International is the world championship of 56 held among the Malayali community for 25 years. It started as a small tournament 24 years ago organized by Appachen and Mathew Cheruvil in Detroit. We mainly played against Tommy and his teammates online for some time. Regular online play at Cheettukaliclub.com helped us study and analyze the game of 56. There is nothing to replace practice. Only practice can get you closer to perfection. You realize standard hands and patterns that can then be played from muscle memory rather than trying to analyze at that point.
And then came the 56 International in Chicago in 2021. We qualified for the round-robin stage and lost in the round of 16. 56International Chicago was a great experience: the food, the drinks, the singing and all the fun.
We were annoyed we made a crucial mistake and lost the game. I am sure there were more, but we did not even realize those due to inexperience.
The best part of International is that we made new friends with like-minded people across America.Then, we kept learning more and looking forward to the Tampa tournament.
Meanwhile, we started playing live at Simon’s office with Tommy and Shaji once a week.
The hurricane spoiled our plans to test all our learning as the rain date was when Madhu already booked his tickets for India. Our stopgap team could not win more than three matches required to make it to the knockout round. One more disappointing year as we could not implement everything we practiced for a year.
Individually, there are only certain things you can achieve in life or there are limits. A team can achieve much greater things, whether in your career or personal life or when you are planning to change the world. But you need to build trust among members, know how each other thinks, and you need to coordinate. You need to analyze past games and reassess strategies. Teams can create beautiful things that individuals cannot. Take the Beatles as an example; I think they never made a great song individually but made many as a team.
Every week, we practically had Malayali food at fancy restaurant steak prices (Every loss was $ 20 each, and we were losing 4-5 games a night). In Rajeev’s words, we were paying steak prices for Malayali beef “uLarthirachi”.
Long story short, we won the 24th 56 International tournament in New Jersey in October 2023. The triumphant smiles on our faces are a testament to the hard-fought battles we endured at the recent tournament. Our journey from the grueling hours of practice to the exhilarating moments on the field has been filled with relentless efforts. This essay aims to celebrate our victory, reflect on the excitement of the games, express our gratitude to the organizers, and highlight the incredible camaraderie among players that made our triumph possible.
Winning a tournament is no small feat; it culminates countless hours of dedication, determination, and sacrifice. Our journey was marked by late-night strategy sessions. These very struggles strengthened our resolve and made the victory all the sweeter. We each understood the value of hand analysis, patience during tough matches and perseverance.
The tournament was a rollercoaster of emotions as we battled formidable opponents. The excitement of each game was palpable, with the stakes growing higher as we advanced through the rounds. The tension in the air, and the thrill of competition pushed us to perform at our best. Every call, every cut, and every well-executed play sent waves of jubilation through our team. The games were a testament to our skill, teamwork, and determination and will be etched in our memories forever.
Our Pre-Quarter was a tough one with Sreekumar, Thankachan and Santhosh. They had beaten us during round-robin. But this game went into a tie. Then the two tie-breakers games also tied and we barely and luckily survived the sudden death.
Our semi-finals with Alex, Sajan and Kochumon was a fantastic game. We were down considerably but we waited for that one mistake and we caught on it and that also went to a tie. The first game in tie we called a 40 and won. They called a 48 for the next one and in that one “Pidi” we had we could eke out 9 points.
The finals with Benny George and team from Chicago was a hard-fought one. They were outstanding players. They never made a mistake and we lost the first game. Then we won the second game towards the last two shuffles. Then the third game went to a tie again. During the tiebreaker hands, the second hand we got the almost perfect hand to win but involved risks when we called 56 Diamonds because if the trump was concentrated in one hand we would have lost. But fortune favors the brave sometimes.
Behind every successful tournament are dedicated organizers who work tirelessly to ensure its smooth execution. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the organizers for their unwavering commitment to the sport and their meticulous planning.
While the thrill of victory is undoubtedly sweet and loss disappointing, the camaraderie among players truly enriches the sporting experience. Throughout the tournament, we witnessed not only the fierce competition but also the mutual respect and friendship that transcended the boundaries of teams. Shared moments of celebration and commiseration with opponents underscored the sportsmanship that defines our community. We are grateful for the friendships forged on and off the field, as they remind us that sport is not just about winning but also about the bonds we create.
Our triumph is a testament to the power of resilience, teamwork, and dedication.As we bask in the glory of our triumph, we are reminded that the journey is as important as the destination, and the memories we have created will stay with us forever.
We look forward to future tournaments, knowing that they will be filled with challenges, excitement, and the enduring bonds of friendship. We among ourselves formed a family friendship, including our spouses.
The beauty of a card game is you can play it all your life. It will help you maintain a sharp mind. Unlike cricket or basketball, where the body’s physical limits apply, the mind has infinite possibilities. I believe passionately that after a certain age, like maybe thirty five, you should only play cards 🙂 You cannot physically hurt yourself playing cards.
Plus, playing cards is the main thing you learn in a college hostel in Kerala among Malayalees or in a field or regular long train journeys. This game recreates our nostalgic moments, whether in our homes with our relatives or our paddy fields with our local populace. Many of us would have night outs to play 28 or 56 but never to study for an exam; thats how card crazy we are as a community.
We credit our spouses for their support who let us go through all this, which does not bring them any joy, money, or fame but they agreed just for our passion for the game.
As we drove back to Connecticut, we played one of rock’s greatest anthems, written and sung by Freddie Mercury
As we approach the one-year mark before the 2024 presidential election, new polling data sheds light on President Biden’s vulnerability. His consistently low approval ratings, concerns about his age, and neck-and-neck competition with former President Trump in head-to-head polls have raised alarms, particularly in battleground states.
Within the Democratic Party, there’s a division of opinion about the implications of these findings. Some criticize Biden’s team for perceived complacency, while others argue that he needs to energize his base. On a more optimistic note, some Democrats believe that Trump is a risky bet for a general election due in part to the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 events.
A Democratic strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymity, expressed concerns: “What the White House has not come to terms with is, next year’s election is going to be a referendum on the president — and right now he is losing that vote.”
The strategist further highlighted the astonishing aspect of Biden being tied with a former president facing numerous charges. Trump would be a slight favorite in a 2024 rematch if the election were held today, based on national polling and the electoral college dynamics.
National polling averages, such as RealClearPolitics (RCP), have shown Trump leading for the past month, although he trailed Biden during most of the summer. An Emerson College poll even gave Trump a 2-point lead nationally.
Moreover, recent Bloomberg/Morning Consult polls in key states, including Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, revealed Biden trailing, though by relatively narrow margins. It’s worth noting that Biden won all four of these states in the 2020 election.
While not all polls indicate a grim outlook for Biden, the closeness of the numbers underscores ongoing concerns within Democratic circles. Biden’s age, as the oldest president ever, has raised red flags. Several surveys have shown that over 70 percent of the public has doubts about his ability to serve a second term.
His overall approval rating, as per data from FiveThirtyEight, was a mere 41 percent with 54 percent disapproving.
Vice President Harris shares a similar approval rating, which becomes electorally relevant due to concerns about Biden’s age. Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has consistently argued that a vote for Biden in 2024 would effectively usher in a Harris presidency.
For some on the left, given the tight election polls, it is imperative for Biden to energize the Democratic base, including Black and Latino voters, as well as younger voters.
As President Biden faces the lead-up to the 2024 election, energizing key demographics may prove to be a complex task. There have been limited advancements on issues significant to the Black community, such as voting rights. Immigration remains a contentious topic and one where the President’s approval ratings are notably lower. Additionally, young progressives often hold more progressive policy stances than the President, making it crucial to galvanize this base.
Michele Weindling, the political director of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented progressive group, emphasized that simply portraying Biden as the “lesser of two evils” may not suffice. She noted that Biden’s age isn’t inherently a hindrance to rallying younger voters, pointing to the enthusiasm among youthful progressives for Senator Bernie Sanders, who is over 82 years old.
However, Weindling highlighted significant policy disparities between her group and the President, including issues like climate change and the Israel-Palestine conflict. She stressed the urgency of addressing ongoing conflicts, such as the Israel-Gaza situation.
Some Democrats are more optimistic about Biden’s chances in the 2024 election. They draw parallels with past Democratic presidents like Obama and Clinton, who overcame challenging polling periods in their first terms to secure reelection. Proponents also cite Biden’s robust job creation record, declining inflation, and the expectation that the benefits of his legislative achievements will become more apparent over time.
Biden’s experience and measured demeanor are seen as assets that could appeal to many voters. His recent visit to Israel and his efforts to address international crises, including the war in Ukraine, have been highlighted as indications of his leadership.
Nonetheless, the most significant factor buoying Democratic optimism is the current state of the Republican Party. Former President Trump, the presumed GOP nominee, is entangled in various legal matters, including a civil trial and allegations related to January 6, election interference in Georgia, business conduct in New York, and the handling of sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago. Additionally, the Republican House has been without a Speaker for over two weeks, reflecting internal divisions and challenges in governing.
The general perception is that these factors may hinder the Republican Party’s ability to effectively govern, contributing to guarded Democratic optimism about the 2024 election. Despite the closeness of the polls, many Democrats would prefer to be in President Biden’s position than that of former President Trump.
As the 2024 election approaches, the political landscape appears finely balanced, keeping many Democrats on edge.
The Supreme Court has granted a second major case on social media, focusing on whether the Biden administration violated the 1st Amendment by urging platforms to combat “misinformation and disinformation” related to COVID-19.
Three conservative justices dissented, advocating to maintain a judge’s order that prohibited administration officials from contacting social media sites, emphasizing the importance of protecting private speech. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, criticized the court’s decision to take on the issue, considering it “highly disturbing.”
The Supreme Court now faces two opposing perspectives on how the 1st Amendment’s free speech right applies to social media. These perspectives were supported by conservative judges from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The first perspective argues that a state (in this case, Texas) doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment by imposing heavy fines on privately operated social media platforms for alleged discrimination against conservative viewpoints.
The second perspective suggests that federal officials violated the 1st Amendment by “significantly encouraging” social media sites to remove disinformation.
In both cases, Republican officials from Texas, Louisiana, and Missouri, along with 5th Circuit judges, assert that conservative viewpoints are unfairly suppressed on social media.
In the previous month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a free-speech challenge to a Texas law granting the state the authority to regulate prominent social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The law was criticized by NetChoice, a coalition of tech groups, for violating the free-speech rights of social media sites, but the 5th Circuit upheld it on the basis of combating “censorship.” The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the law with a 5-4 vote.
The new case emerged from a lawsuit initiated by Republican state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana, who alleged that federal officials, including the surgeon general and the FBI, had conspired to “censor disfavored speech” by “significantly encouraging social media platforms” to remove certain content.
They brought their complaint to U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee in Monroe, Louisiana, who issued a broad order on the Fourth of July that prohibited numerous federal officials and agencies from “urging or encouraging” the removal of “protected speech” from social media. He described the administration’s actions as “arguably … the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
The Biden administration appealed to the 5th Circuit, and in early September, a different panel of three judges upheld most of the judge’s ruling. They argued that administration officials had engaged in a campaign to pressure social media companies into suppressing content disapproved by the government.
The injunction prohibits the White House and its employees from taking actions that coerce or significantly encourage social media companies to remove protected free speech content. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the government, filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, asking it to block the judge’s order and rule on the constitutional dispute.
She contended that the case involves an unprecedented injunction that empowers the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to oversee the Executive Branch’s communications with and about social media platforms. She argued that the states lacked standing to sue, and White House officials had the right to speak out against the spread of falsehoods about COVID vaccines or the 2020 election.
The complaints from the Republican state attorneys general extended beyond COVID-19, as they claimed that “the FBI orchestrated a deceptive campaign to induce platforms to censor the New York Post’s October 14, 2020 story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, just before the 2020 election.” They also alleged that federal censorship activities intensified when President Biden took office in early 2021.
Jeff Landry, the Louisiana attorney general who initiated the lawsuit, was elected as the state’s governor last week.
GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio failed in his second attempt to become speaker of the House, again falling short of the 217 votes needed to be elected and casting doubt about the way forward in the still-leaderless lower chamber.
Jordan won just 199 votes in the House on Wednesday morning, with 22 Republicans withholding their support and voting for a variety of protest candidates. All 212 Democrats voted for Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the party’s leader in the House.
Jordan’s total was one fewer than the 200 he secured on the first ballot on Tuesday, a sign that he has struggled to make any inroads among the GOP holdouts. Four Republicans who voted for him on Tuesday defected in the latest vote, while he picked up support from two others. One member who was absent for the first ballot also supported Jordan in this round.
Republican Lawmakers rejected Rep. Jim Jordan for House speaker on a first ballot Tuesday, October 17th, as an unexpectedly numerous 20 holdouts denied the hard-charging ally of Donald Trump the GOP majority needed to seize the gavel.
Additional voting was postponed as the House hit a standstill, stuck while Jordan works to shore up support from Republican colleagues to replace the ousted Kevin McCarthy for the job. Reluctant Republicans are refusing to give Jordan their votes, viewing the Ohio congressman as too extreme for the powerful position of House speaker, second in line to the presidency. Next votes were expected Wednesday.
“We’re going to keep working,” Jordan said at the Capitol as evening fell. It’s been two weeks of angry Republican infighting since McCarthy’s sudden removal by hard-liners, who are now within reach of a central seat of U.S. power. The vote for House speaker, once a formality in Congress, has devolved into another bitter showdown for the gavel.
Picture: The Hill
Jordan (R-Ohio) secured 200 of the necessary 217 votes, while Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) got the full backing of Democratic members, with 212 votes. Jordan had gained some major momentum, picking up endorsements from key players who had initially said they would not vote for him. But during Tuesday’s midday vote, 20 Republicans cast votes for other members.
Jordan’s loss of 20 GOP votes – one more than former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in his first of 15 votes to secure the gavel – has left the GOP even more uncertain when it can reach consensus over who should lead the party. A second planned vote was abruptly postponed from Tuesday evening to Wednesday.
Many in the party are rallying behind efforts that would give McHenry more power to act as a temporary Speaker, expanding a role otherwise appears to be largely dedicated to organizing the process of electing a new speaker.
Rep. Carlos Giménez (R-Fla.) – who has pledged to continue to vote for McCarthy for speaker – told reporters Tuesday that moves to further empower McHenry have gained momentum – “as they should.”
The political climb has been steep for Jordan, the combative Judiciary Committee chairman and a founding member of the right-flank Freedom Caucus. He is known more as a chaos agent than a skilled legislator, raising questions about how he would lead. Congress faces daunting challenges, risking a federal shutdown at home if it fails to fund the government and fielding Biden’s requests for aid to help Ukraine and Israel in the wars abroad.
With the House Republican majority narrowly held at 221-212, Jordan can afford to lose only a few votes to reach the 217 majority threshold, if there are no further absences.
Jordan conferred immediately afterward with McCarthy, who fared nearly as badly in January, having lost almost as many votes on the first of what would become a historic 15 ballots for the gavel.
In a recent CNN poll conducted by SSRS, the public’s perception of the Republican Party and its congressional leaders has deteriorated, partly due to a leadership crisis in the House of Representatives. The poll reveals that Republican-aligned Americans are divided on how the GOP should govern, and even though many Americans are dissatisfied with both parties’ handling of the nation’s issues, they still express more confidence in the Republican Party’s leadership in Congress compared to President Joe Biden.
As of the poll, 54% of respondents have more confidence in Republicans in Congress to address major national issues, while 45% have more confidence in President Biden. This balance has remained unchanged since the summer.
Picture: CNN
The removal of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker, which occurred after the poll was conducted, received mixed reactions. Half of Americans approved of McCarthy’s removal, while 49% disapproved. McCarthy himself had a 46% unfavorable view, with 21% having a favorable opinion, and 33% expressing no opinion. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who initiated the motion to remove McCarthy, had an unfavorable rating of 44%, a favorable rating of 14%, and 42% were unsure about him.
Opinions within the Republican camp were divided, with 49% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approving of McCarthy’s removal and 50% disapproving. Furthermore, there was little consensus on whether McCarthy’s removal was a good or bad thing for the party, with 30% considering it a positive development and 34% seeing it as detrimental.
These divisions within the Republican Party are reflected in the party’s presidential nomination contest. Among Republican-aligned voters who support former President Donald Trump, 56% approved of McCarthy’s ouster, compared to only 37% of those who didn’t support Trump in the primary.
This internal division is evident across multiple aspects of the Republican Party’s performance and its future direction. For instance, when asked about Republican leaders in Congress, 51% of Trump supporters approved of their work, compared to just 35% of other Republican-aligned voters. On the question of whether Republicans in Congress should compromise or stand firm on their beliefs, 52% of Trump backers favored standing firm, while 77% of other Republicans preferred working across the aisle.
Even on topics where there is agreement between the two factions, disparities exist. For example, Trump’s supporters are more likely to feel entirely unrepresented by the government, with 57% of Trump primary supporters believing they are not well represented in Washington, compared to 47% of other GOP-aligned voters.
Additionally, they are less likely to consider continued aid to Ukraine as important, with 45% of non-Trump Republican voters deeming it very or somewhat important, compared to 27% of Trump supporters. Trump supporters are also more optimistic about the government reaching an agreement to avoid a shutdown before the November 17 deadline, with 67% of Trump supporters viewing it as likely, as opposed to 57% of other Republicans.
In terms of the 2024 presidential nomination race, Trump has extended his lead, with 58% of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters supporting him. Other candidates, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, former Vice President Mike Pence, and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, garnered less support, each receiving 8% or less in the poll.
Despite these internal party dynamics, the overall public perception of the Republican Party is highly negative. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of respondents disapprove of the way the GOP’s congressional leaders are handling their roles, a notable increase from 67% in January. Furthermore, 52% of respondents have a negative impression of the Republican Party as a whole, an increase from 45% in December. Approval for GOP leadership in Congress has significantly dropped among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, decreasing from 58% in January to 44% at the time of the poll.
The public’s expectations for positive changes resulting from the Republican majority in the House have also diminished. Only 18% of respondents believe there has been a positive effect on the federal budget, 23% on oversight of the Biden administration, 17% on immigration laws, and 16% on the level of cooperation within the federal government. These figures reflect a decrease in optimism since December.
However, the challenges facing the Republican Party have not improved public opinion of Democrats. Just 35% of respondents approve of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling their roles, down from 40% in January. Additionally, 50% of respondents have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party, an increase from 44% in December.
The poll indicates widespread frustration with both political parties, with 58% expressing anger at both parties’ handling of the nation’s problems. Another 15% are only angry at Republicans, and 13% are only angry at Democrats, leaving just 14% who are not angry with either party. Moreover, only 19% feel even somewhat well represented by the federal government in Washington, the lowest percentage in CNN polling since 2015. A substantial 81% now feel they are not represented well by the federal government.
Despite broad preferences for leaders in Congress and the White House to compromise in order to achieve results, 69% of respondents believe it is unlikely that attempts at bipartisanship on upcoming major legislation in Washington will be successful.
Regarding the imminent major legislation to fund the government by November 17, most Americans (57%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that a deal will be reached, with only 10% considering it “very likely.” Additionally, 81% of Americans find it unacceptable for members of Congress to threaten a government shutdown during budget negotiations to achieve their goals, with this sentiment being shared across party lines, including among Democrats (89%), independents (81%), and Republicans (72%).
This CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS from October 4-9 and included a random national sample of 1,255 adults, which also comprised 428 Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters. Surveys were conducted either online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 3.4 points, and it is 5.7 points for results among Republican and Republican-leaning voters.
When Satya Nadella assumed the role of Microsoft CEO in 2014, he displayed a distinct leadership approach. Rather than boasting about IQ points or intellectual achievements, he emphasized the importance of understanding people and building meaningful connections as a leader. His key mantra for effectiveness and setting himself apart from the crowd was encapsulated in just two words: emotional intelligence.
In a widely publicized event nearly a decade ago, Nadella addressed a large audience of students on the topic of their future and possibilities. During his speech, he stressed the significance of developing emotional intelligence (EQ), saying, “In the long run, EQ trumps IQ. Without being a source of energy for others, very little can be accomplished.”
Research indicates that companies that prioritize emotional intelligence in their workforce tend to experience higher levels of productivity and employee engagement compared to those that overlook this vital aspect.
Picture: Harvard
In an era where technological advancements often take center stage, the importance of emotional intelligence can sometimes be overshadowed. However, leaders like Satya Nadella have shown that emotional intelligence is not merely a desirable trait but a crucial element for achieving lasting success in the corporate landscape.
Let’s delve into several ways in which leaders and high achievers can harness emotional intelligence to enhance their own performance and create a more productive workplace environment.
1.Empower Through Active Listening
Two decades ago, I reported to an executive who possessed a high level of emotional intelligence, and I gleaned a valuable lesson that has stayed with me to this day. I was leading a team through a challenging project, and the pressure was palpable, causing tensions to run high. Within the team, there was a quieter member struggling to find their voice amid the chaos.
Instead of steamrolling ahead with his own ideas, our executive, who was also our boss, took a step back. He approached the team member and asked a simple but powerful question: “What do you think?” The impact was astonishing. The team member’s face lit up, and they began to share their valuable insights, including a brilliant solution that hadn’t been considered before. Subsequently, the project achieved resounding success, and we all imbibed a crucial lesson: Leadership is about empowering others and valuing their perspectives.
2.Lead with Authenticity and Empathy
Emotional intelligence is not synonymous with being overly sentimental or softhearted. It is about comprehending the emotions, motivations, and aspirations of the individuals you work with. It involves creating an environment where everyone feels genuinely valued and heard.
The crux of leading with emotional intelligence is to actively listen, empathize, and lead with authenticity. It also entails recognizing and managing one’s own emotions because a high-performing leader who can’t or won’t navigate their own feelings often struggles to guide a team effectively.
3.Embrace the Power of Humility
Admitting that you don’t have all the answers can be uncomfortable, especially when people expect you to provide solutions. Garry Ridge, chairman emeritus of WD-40 Company, had an unconventional perspective during his tenure as CEO. Ridge found that the three most powerful words he ever learned were “I don’t know.” As he became comfortable with not having all the answers, he started to experience personal growth and learning.
Ridge emphasizes that, “As soon as you pretend to know everything, you close yourself off from the opportunity to learn more and gain different perspectives. So, not only have I become comfortable with ‘I don’t know,’ but even more so today, I constantly ask myself, ‘Why do I believe that?’ This is because the world is changing so rapidly.”
As you reflect on your own leadership style, remember that authentic leadership is not about having all the answers but about creating a space where collective brilliance can flourish.
Satya Nadella, in his ongoing role as the leader of Microsoft, continues to demonstrate the power of emotional intelligence. His example underscores that emotional intelligence is not just a buzzword but a potent force that can shape the future of leadership in the tech industry and beyond.
The wisdom shared by Satya Nadella and other experienced leaders emphasizes the importance of emotional intelligence in today’s corporate landscape. This intangible yet powerful attribute, often overshadowed by technological advancements, plays a pivotal role in driving productivity, fostering collaboration, and shaping the future of leadership in the ever-evolving world of business.
Republicans launched an attack on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday as the prominent environmental attorney and anti-vaccine activist officially announced his independent bid for the White House. This move has stirred concerns among conservatives that Kennedy, a former Democrat, could siphon votes away from former President Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
The Republican National Committee and Trump’s campaign wasted no time in critiquing Kennedy’s liberal background. Meanwhile, national Democrats remained silent on the matter as Kennedy made it clear in a speech in Philadelphia that he was distancing himself from both political parties.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung issued a statement cautioning voters not to be misled by those who feign conservative values. Cheung described Kennedy’s campaign as a “vanity project for a liberal Kennedy looking to cash in on his family’s name.”
This strong reaction highlights the uncertainty surrounding Kennedy’s much-anticipated decision to run as an independent. While it is likely to impact the 2024 race, which is shaping up to be a rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden, the exact implications remain unclear.
Kennedy, a member of one of the most renowned families in Democratic politics, initially pursued an improbable primary bid and surprisingly held more favorability among Republicans than Democrats. Even Trump himself had expressed his positive opinion of Kennedy just two weeks prior, stating, “I like him a lot. I’ve known him for a long time.”
Both Biden and Trump’s allies had, at times, questioned whether Kennedy would act as a spoiler against their respective candidates. Kennedy acknowledged both sides’ concerns, stating, “The truth is, they’re both right. My intention is to spoil it for both of them.”
Speaking from Philadelphia’s Independence Mall, where America’s founding documents were adopted, Kennedy emphasized his desire to distance himself from either political party. He spoke of a “rising tide of discontent” in the nation and expressed his aim to make a “new declaration of independence” from corporations, the media, and the two major political parties.
Hundreds of supporters, holding signs with slogans like “Declare your independence,” and chanting “RFK, all the way!” were enthusiastic about his decision. His supporters comprised a diverse mix of disillusioned Democrats, Trump voters seeking change, and political outsiders whose beliefs did not align with any single party. They believed that Kennedy could bring them together.
Peter Pantazis, a 40-year-old business owner from Delaware, expressed his optimism, saying, “He’s going to win. I’ve been praying that he’s going to decentralize the campaign, get away from the party system, and actually be the candidate of the people for the people. And that’s what he announced today.”
Brent Snyder, a disabled veteran from south Philadelphia, stated, “The last couple of years I’ve been noticing the Republican Party’s been going a way I didn’t like. Not that I agree with everything that’s happening to Trump, but I think right now he has more baggage than his country needs. The division right now is just terrible. We need someone to bring both sides together to make us work.”
The atmosphere among the crowd was filled with joy, hope, and occasionally, the faint scent of marijuana. Kennedy invoked historical figures like John Adams and George Washington to make a case for unity and warned against the pitfalls of partisan politics.
However, Kennedy’s independent campaign faces significant challenges in competing with the well-funded, experienced campaigns of Trump and Biden. During his announcement, there was a brief delay when he found that his speech was loaded upside-down in the teleprompter.
Kennedy’s decision to run independently comes shortly after progressive activist Cornel West abandoned his Green Party bid in favor of an independent presidential run. Additionally, the centrist group No Labels is actively working to secure ballot access for an unnamed candidate.
Recognizing the risk that Kennedy might draw votes away from Republicans, Trump’s allies have begun circulating opposition research aimed at undermining his support among conservative voters. The Republican National Committee released a fact sheet titled “Radical DEMOCRAT RFK Jr.” that highlighted instances of Kennedy’s support for liberal politicians and ideas, as well as his endorsement of conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 and past election claims.
On the other hand, Biden’s allies have largely dismissed Kennedy’s primary campaign as unserious. When asked for comment before the announcement, a Democratic National Committee spokesman responded with an eye-roll emoji. The DNC declined to comment on Monday.
Four of Kennedy’s eight surviving siblings issued a joint statement denouncing his candidacy, expressing concern about the potential harm it could cause to the country. They emphasized that while Bobby shares their family name, his values, vision, and judgment differ significantly from theirs.
Tony Lyons, co-founder and co-chairman of American Values 2024, a super PAC supporting Kennedy, dismissed these comments as part of a strategy to discredit him. He pointed out that disagreements within families are a natural part of democracy.
While Kennedy has historically identified as a Democrat and often invoked the legacies of his late father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, on the campaign trail, he has also developed relationships with far-right figures in recent years. He appeared on a channel associated with Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and headlined an event on the ReAwaken America Tour, organized by Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Polls indicate that Kennedy is more favorably viewed by Republicans than Democrats. Some far-right conservatives have supported him for his fringe views, including his vocal distrust of COVID-19 vaccines, despite scientific evidence demonstrating their safety and effectiveness in preventing severe disease and death.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization, Children’s Health Defense, is currently involved in a lawsuit against several news organizations, including The Associated Press, alleging antitrust violations related to their actions in countering misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. Kennedy had temporarily stepped away from the group upon announcing his presidential run, but he is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
In the realm of card games, where countless classics like Poker, Bridge, and Blackjack have captured the hearts of players worldwide, a hidden gem stands out among the rest. Meet “56,” a captivating and strategic card game combining luck, skill, and deception. While less widely known than its famous counterparts, 56 has garnered a devoted following due to its engaging gameplay, tactical depth, and historical roots in the Malayali community.
Madhu Kutty and I are roommates from NSS College of Engineering in Palakkad. We met our teammate Rajeev George in November 2019 when our mutual friend Frank from New Haven organized 56 games at his residence. We made a team for the Kerala Boat Club game in December 2019. You can guess what happened. We lost most of the round-robin games. In January 2020, we played a local tournament in Boston; there, too, we lost most of the round-robin games. Then came the regional New Jersey tournament, and the same losing saga continued. The worst part was not the loss. It was the part that we did not understand why we lost.
Then came COVID and shutdowns in March 2020. Now, we started to play a lot online. I knew Tommy personally and since we knew they were two-time champions at 56 International, we decided to learn from them. They graciously taught us techniques and the ability to read the unsaid “calls”.
56 International is the world championship of 56 held among the Malayali community for 25 years. It started as a small tournament 24 years ago organized by Appachen and Mathew Cheruvil in Detroit. We mainly played against Tommy and his teammates online for some time. Regular online play at Cheettukaliclub.com helped us study and analyze the game of 56. There is nothing to replace practice. Only practice can get you closer to perfection. You realize standard hands and patterns that can then be played from muscle memory rather than trying to analyze at that point.
And then came the 56 International in Chicago in 2021. We qualified for the round-robin stage and lost in the round of 16. 56International Chicago was a great experience: the food, the drinks, the singing and all the fun.
We were annoyed we made a crucial mistake and lost the game. I am sure there were more, but we did not even realize those due to inexperience.
The best part of International is that we made new friends with like-minded people across America.Then, we kept learning more and looking forward to the Tampa tournament.
Meanwhile, we started playing live at Simon’s office with Tommy and Shaji once a week.
The hurricane spoiled our plans to test all our learning as the rain date was when Madhu already booked his tickets for India. Our stopgap team could not win more than three matches required to make it to the knockout round. One more disappointing year as we could not implement everything we practiced for a year.
Individually, there are only certain things you can achieve in life or there are limits. A team can achieve much greater things, whether in your career or personal life or when you are planning to change the world. But you need to build trust among members, know how each other thinks, and you need to coordinate. You need to analyze past games and reassess strategies. Teams can create beautiful things that individuals cannot. Take the Beatles as an example; I think they never made a great song individually but made many as a team.
Every week, we practically had Malayali food at fancy restaurant steak prices (Every loss was $ 20 each, and we were losing 4-5 games a night). In Rajeev’s words, we were paying steak prices for Malayali beef “uLarthirachi”.
Long story short, we won the 24th 56 International tournament in New Jersey in October 2023. The triumphant smiles on our faces are a testament to the hard-fought battles we endured at the recent tournament. Our journey from the grueling hours of practice to the exhilarating moments on the field has been filled with relentless efforts. This essay aims to celebrate our victory, reflect on the excitement of the games, express our gratitude to the organizers, and highlight the incredible camaraderie among players that made our triumph possible.
Winning a tournament is no small feat; it culminates countless hours of dedication, determination, and sacrifice. Our journey was marked by late-night strategy sessions. These very struggles strengthened our resolve and made the victory all the sweeter. We each understood the value of hand analysis, patience during tough matches and perseverance.
The tournament was a rollercoaster of emotions as we battled formidable opponents. The excitement of each game was palpable, with the stakes growing higher as we advanced through the rounds. The tension in the air, and the thrill of competition pushed us to perform at our best. Every call, every cut, and every well-executed play sent waves of jubilation through our team. The games were a testament to our skill, teamwork, and determination and will be etched in our memories forever.
Our Pre-Quarter was a tough one with Sreekumar, Thankachan and Santhosh. They had beaten us during round-robin. But this game went into a tie. Then the two tie-breakers games also tied and we barely and luckily survived the sudden death.
Our semi-finals with Alex, Sajan and Kochumon was a fantastic game. We were down considerably but we waited for that one mistake and we caught on it and that also went to a tie. The first game in tie we called a 40 and won. They called a 48 for the next one and in that one “Pidi” we had we could eke out 9 points.
The finals with Benny George and team from Chicago was a hard-fought one. They were outstanding players. They never made a mistake and we lost the first game. Then we won the second game towards the last two shuffles. Then the third game went to a tie again. During the tiebreaker hands, the second hand we got the almost perfect hand to win but involved risks when we called 56 Diamonds because if the trump was concentrated in one hand we would have lost. But fortune favors the brave sometimes.
Behind every successful tournament are dedicated organizers who work tirelessly to ensure its smooth execution. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the organizers for their unwavering commitment to the sport and their meticulous planning.
While the thrill of victory is undoubtedly sweet and loss disappointing, the camaraderie among players truly enriches the sporting experience. Throughout the tournament, we witnessed not only the fierce competition but also the mutual respect and friendship that transcended the boundaries of teams. Shared moments of celebration and commiseration with opponents underscored the sportsmanship that defines our community. We are grateful for the friendships forged on and off the field, as they remind us that sport is not just about winning but also about the bonds we create.
Our triumph is a testament to the power of resilience, teamwork, and dedication.As we bask in the glory of our triumph, we are reminded that the journey is as important as the destination, and the memories we have created will stay with us forever.
We look forward to future tournaments, knowing that they will be filled with challenges, excitement, and the enduring bonds of friendship. We among ourselves formed a family friendship, including our spouses.
The beauty of a card game is you can play it all your life. It will help you maintain a sharp mind. Unlike cricket or basketball, where the body’s physical limits apply, the mind has infinite possibilities. I believe passionately that after a certain age, like maybe thirty five, you should only play cards 🙂 You cannot physically hurt yourself playing cards.
Plus, playing cards is the main thing you learn in a college hostel in Kerala among Malayalees or in a field or regular long train journeys. This game recreates our nostalgic moments, whether in our homes with our relatives or our paddy fields with our local populace. Many of us would have night outs to play 28 or 56 but never to study for an exam; thats how card crazy we are as a community.
We credit our spouses for their support who let us go through all this, which does not bring them any joy, money, or fame but they agreed just for our passion for the game.
As we drove back to Connecticut, we played one of rock’s greatest anthems, written and sung by Freddie Mercury
Republicans launched an attack on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday as the prominent environmental attorney and anti-vaccine activist officially announced his independent bid for the White House. This move has stirred concerns among conservatives that Kennedy, a former Democrat, could siphon votes away from former President Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
The Republican National Committee and Trump’s campaign wasted no time in critiquing Kennedy’s liberal background. Meanwhile, national Democrats remained silent on the matter as Kennedy made it clear in a speech in Philadelphia that he was distancing himself from both political parties.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung issued a statement cautioning voters not to be misled by those who feign conservative values. Cheung described Kennedy’s campaign as a “vanity project for a liberal Kennedy looking to cash in on his family’s name.”
This strong reaction highlights the uncertainty surrounding Kennedy’s much-anticipated decision to run as an independent. While it is likely to impact the 2024 race, which is shaping up to be a rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden, the exact implications remain unclear.
Kennedy, a member of one of the most renowned families in Democratic politics, initially pursued an improbable primary bid and surprisingly held more favorability among Republicans than Democrats. Even Trump himself had expressed his positive opinion of Kennedy just two weeks prior, stating, “I like him a lot. I’ve known him for a long time.”
Both Biden and Trump’s allies had, at times, questioned whether Kennedy would act as a spoiler against their respective candidates. Kennedy acknowledged both sides’ concerns, stating, “The truth is, they’re both right. My intention is to spoil it for both of them.”
Picture: WPTV
Speaking from Philadelphia’s Independence Mall, where America’s founding documents were adopted, Kennedy emphasized his desire to distance himself from either political party. He spoke of a “rising tide of discontent” in the nation and expressed his aim to make a “new declaration of independence” from corporations, the media, and the two major political parties.
Hundreds of supporters, holding signs with slogans like “Declare your independence,” and chanting “RFK, all the way!” were enthusiastic about his decision. His supporters comprised a diverse mix of disillusioned Democrats, Trump voters seeking change, and political outsiders whose beliefs did not align with any single party. They believed that Kennedy could bring them together.
Peter Pantazis, a 40-year-old business owner from Delaware, expressed his optimism, saying, “He’s going to win. I’ve been praying that he’s going to decentralize the campaign, get away from the party system, and actually be the candidate of the people for the people. And that’s what he announced today.”
Brent Snyder, a disabled veteran from south Philadelphia, stated, “The last couple of years I’ve been noticing the Republican Party’s been going a way I didn’t like. Not that I agree with everything that’s happening to Trump, but I think right now he has more baggage than his country needs. The division right now is just terrible. We need someone to bring both sides together to make us work.”
The atmosphere among the crowd was filled with joy, hope, and occasionally, the faint scent of marijuana. Kennedy invoked historical figures like John Adams and George Washington to make a case for unity and warned against the pitfalls of partisan politics.
However, Kennedy’s independent campaign faces significant challenges in competing with the well-funded, experienced campaigns of Trump and Biden. During his announcement, there was a brief delay when he found that his speech was loaded upside-down in the teleprompter.
Kennedy’s decision to run independently comes shortly after progressive activist Cornel West abandoned his Green Party bid in favor of an independent presidential run. Additionally, the centrist group No Labels is actively working to secure ballot access for an unnamed candidate.
Recognizing the risk that Kennedy might draw votes away from Republicans, Trump’s allies have begun circulating opposition research aimed at undermining his support among conservative voters. The Republican National Committee released a fact sheet titled “Radical DEMOCRAT RFK Jr.” that highlighted instances of Kennedy’s support for liberal politicians and ideas, as well as his endorsement of conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 and past election claims.
On the other hand, Biden’s allies have largely dismissed Kennedy’s primary campaign as unserious. When asked for comment before the announcement, a Democratic National Committee spokesman responded with an eye-roll emoji. The DNC declined to comment on Monday.
Four of Kennedy’s eight surviving siblings issued a joint statement denouncing his candidacy, expressing concern about the potential harm it could cause to the country. They emphasized that while Bobby shares their family name, his values, vision, and judgment differ significantly from theirs.
Tony Lyons, co-founder and co-chairman of American Values 2024, a super PAC supporting Kennedy, dismissed these comments as part of a strategy to discredit him. He pointed out that disagreements within families are a natural part of democracy.
While Kennedy has historically identified as a Democrat and often invoked the legacies of his late father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, on the campaign trail, he has also developed relationships with far-right figures in recent years. He appeared on a channel associated with Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and headlined an event on the ReAwaken America Tour, organized by Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Polls indicate that Kennedy is more favorably viewed by Republicans than Democrats. Some far-right conservatives have supported him for his fringe views, including his vocal distrust of COVID-19 vaccines, despite scientific evidence demonstrating their safety and effectiveness in preventing severe disease and death.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization, Children’s Health Defense, is currently involved in a lawsuit against several news organizations, including The Associated Press, alleging antitrust violations related to their actions in countering misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. Kennedy had temporarily stepped away from the group upon announcing his presidential run, but he is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
John Kelly, the former White House chief of staff under Donald Trump, has delivered a scathing critique of the ex-president in an exclusive statement to CNN. Kelly chose to set the record straight by confirming, on the record, several troubling accounts of remarks made by Trump behind closed doors, targeting U.S. service members and veterans. Kelly recounted a series of objectionable comments that he personally witnessed Trump make.
When asked to weigh in on his former boss, Kelly responded, “What can I add that has not already been said?” He proceeded to highlight Trump’s derogatory attitudes towards those who serve in the military and veterans. Kelly recalled Trump referring to them as “suckers” and insinuating that there was nothing in it for them. Trump’s reluctance to be seen with military amputees was another point of concern for Kelly. Additionally, Kelly emphasized Trump’s open contempt for Gold Star families during the 2016 campaign and his derogatory comments about fallen heroes.
Picture:CoopWB
Kelly continued to outline his grievances, noting Trump’s lack of honesty on various issues, including the protection of unborn life, women’s rights, minority rights, evangelical Christians, Jews, and the working class. Kelly expressed his belief that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of American values and principles. He accused Trump of showing admiration for autocrats and murderous dictators while displaying contempt for democratic institutions, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
In conclusion, Kelly remarked, “There is nothing more that can be said,” before adding, “God help us.”
Kelly’s statement serves as confirmation, on the record, of several details from a 2020 article in The Atlantic by editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg. This includes an incident where Trump, standing at Arlington National Cemetery’s Section 60 on Memorial Day 2017, questioned, “What was in it for them?” regarding the soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Atlantic article also delved into Trump’s inability to comprehend the respect given to former prisoners of war and those shot down in combat. Trump’s public dismissal of Senator John McCain’s war hero status and his private labeling of McCain and former President George H. W. Bush as “losers” are among the details confirmed by Kelly.
CNN reached out to the Trump campaign for comment, revealing that a former administration official had confirmed details from The Atlantic’s 2020 story without naming Kelly. The Trump campaign responded by attacking the character and credibility of retired Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Mark Milley, who was not involved in the story. A Trump campaign spokesperson later dismissed Kelly’s statement as “debunked stories.”
Kelly’s statement also sheds light on a story from the book “The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021,” by Susan Glasser and Peter Baker. In this account, Trump expressed his desire to exclude wounded veterans from a military parade planned in his honor. Trump’s reasoning was that their presence did not “look good for me.” Kelly emphasized that wounded veterans are heroes, and their exclusion contradicted societal values.
This revelation aligns with a recent article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, profiling retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley. The article recounted Trump’s discomfort upon seeing severely wounded Army Captain Luis Avila singing “God Bless America” at an event. Trump’s reaction was, “Why do you bring people like that here? No one wants to see that, the wounded.”
Kelly’s statement also alludes to a comment made by Trump in response to the same article. This article, published in the final days of Trump’s presidency in 2020, detailed how General Milley received intelligence suggesting that the Chinese military was concerned that Trump might order a military strike against them. Acting with authorization from Trump administration officials, Milley reassured his Chinese counterparts that such an attack was not imminent.
In 2021, the revelation of this phone call was first made public in the book “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. However, Trump recently commented on his social media platform, characterizing the call as “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”
When asked about the suggestion that he deserves execution, Milley declined to provide a direct response but emphasized his commitment to upholding the Constitution in an interview with Norah O’Donnell on “60 Minutes.”
Kelly’s statement to CNN follows an interview with former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who was promoting her new book, “Enough.” During the interview, Hutchinson issued a warning to the public, stating that “Donald Trump is the most grave threat we will face to our democracy in our lifetime, and potentially in American history.”
Interestingly, Hutchinson’s book, “Enough,” includes a scene in which she and then-White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin push back against Goldberg’s 2020 story. Griffin had issued a statement to The Atlantic after the story was published, denying its accuracy.
In response to inquiries over the weekend, Griffin remarked, “Despite publicly praising the military and claiming to be the most pro-military president, there’s a demonstrable record of Trump bashing the most decorated service members in our country, from Gen. Mattis to Kelly to Milley, to criticizing the wounded or deceased like John McCain. Donald Trump will fundamentally never understand service the way those who have actually served in uniform will, and it’s one of the countless reasons he’s unfit to be commander in chief.”
It is noteworthy that no other presidential candidate in history has faced such significant criticism from former members of his inner circle. Mark Esper, Trump’s former secretary of defense, conveyed his view to CNN in November 2022, stating, “I think he’s unfit for office. … He puts himself before country. His actions are all about him and not about the country. And then, of course, I believe he has integrity and character issues as well.”
Similarly, Trump’s former attorney general, Bill Barr, shared his perspective with CBS in June, characterizing Trump as “a consummate narcissist” who consistently engages in reckless behavior. Barr emphasized that Trump prioritizes his own interests and ego above all else, including the country’s interests, rendering him unfit for leadership.
The U.S. Congress passed a stopgap funding bill late on Saturday, September 30, 2023 with overwhelming Democratic support after Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy backed down from an earlier demand by his party’s hardliners for a partisan bill.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced the stopgap proposal Saturday morning, a move that came after weeks of infighting among House Republicans and a failed effort to pass a GOP stopgap bill in the chamber. The bill passed the House with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and it then was sent to the Senate. The final vote was 88 to 9. The House voted 335-91 to fund the government through Nov. 17, with more Democrats than Republicans supporting it.
The bill will keep the government open through November 17 and includes natural disaster aid but not additional funding for Ukraine or border security. The Bill will help avoid the federal government’s fourth partial shutdown in a decade, sending the bill to President Joe Biden, who signed it into law before the 12:01 a.m on Octpber 1st, 2023.
McCarthy abandoned party hardliners’ insistence that any bill pass the House with only Republican votes, a change that could cause one of his far-right members to try to oust him from his leadership role.
That move marked a profound shift from earlier in the week, when a shutdown looked all but inevitable. A shutdown would mean that most of the government’s 4 million employees would not get paid – whether they were working or not – and also would shutter a range of federal services, from National Parks to financial regulators.
The decision by McCarthy to put a bill on the floor that would win support from Democrats could put his speakership at risk as hardline conservatives continue to threaten a vote to oust him from the top House leadership post.
McCarthy was defiant after the vote, daring his detractors to try to push him out as he argued he did what was needed to govern effectively.
“If somebody wants to make a motion against me, bring it,” McCarthy told CNN’s Manu Raju at a news conference. “There has to be an adult in the room. I am going to govern with what’s best for this country.”
Federal agencies had already drawn up detailed plans that spell out what services would continue, such as airport screening and border patrols, and what must shut down, including scientific research and nutrition aid to 7 million poor mothers.
“The American people can breathe a sigh of relief: there will be no government shutdown tonight,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said after the vote. “Democrats have said from the start that the only solution for avoiding a shutdown is bipartisanship, and we are glad Speaker McCarthy has finally heeded our message.”
DEMOCRATS CALL IT A WIN
Some 209 Democrats supported the bill, far more than the 126 Republicans who did so, and Democrats described the result as a win.
“Extreme MAGA Republicans have lost, the American people have won,” top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries told reporters ahead of the vote, referring to the “Make America Great Again” slogan used by former President Donald Trump and many hardline Republicans.
Democratic Representative Don Beyer said: “I am relieved that Speaker McCarthy folded and finally allowed a bipartisan vote at the 11th hour on legislation to stop Republicans’ rush to a disastrous shutdown.”
McCarthy’s shift won the support of top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell, who had backed a similar measure that was moving through the Senate with broad bipartisan support, even though the House version dropped aid for Ukraine.
Democratic Senator Michael Bennett held the bill up for several hours trying to negotiate a deal for further Ukraine aid.
“While I would have preferred to pass a bill now with additional assistance for Ukraine, which has bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, it is easier to help Ukraine with the government open than if it were closed,” Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said in a statement.
McCarthy dismissed concerns that hardline Republicans could try to oust him as leader.
“I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try,” McCarthy told reporters. “And you know what? If I have to risk my job for standing up for the American public, I will do that.”
He said that House Republicans would push ahead with plans to pass more funding bills that would cut spending and include other conservative priorities, such as tighter border controls.
CREDIT CONCERNS
The standoff comes just months after Congress brought the federal government to the brink of defaulting on its $31.4 trillion debt. The drama has raised worries on Wall Street, where the Moody’s ratings agency has warned it could damage U.S. creditworthiness.
Congress typically passes stopgap spending bills to buy more time to negotiate the detailed legislation that sets funding for federal programs.
This year, a group of Republicans has blocked action in the House as they have pressed to tighten immigration and cut spending below levels agreed to in the debt-ceiling standoff in the spring.
The McCarthy-Biden deal that avoided default set a limit of $1.59 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2024. House Republicans are demanding a further $120 billion in cuts.
The funding fight focuses on a relatively small slice of the $6.4 trillion U.S. budget for this fiscal year. Lawmakers are not considering cuts to popular benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
“We should never have been in this position in the first place. Just a few months ago, Speaker McCarthy and I reached a budget agreement to avoid precisely this type of manufactured crisis,” Biden said in a statement after the vote. “House Republicans tried to walk away from that deal by demanding drastic cuts that would have been devastating for millions of Americans. They failed.” (Reuters)
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, retired on Friday with a passionate address that indirectly criticized former President Trump, asserting that the U.S. military’s allegiance isn’t pledged to a “wannabe dictator.”
In the previous week, Trump had accused Milley of “treason” for allegedly conducting back-channel reassurances with his Chinese counterpart towards the end of his tenure, even suggesting the Army general should face execution.
Milley delivered his remarks at a ceremony in Virginia, stating, “We are unique among the world’s militaries. We don’t take an oath to a country. We don’t take an oath to a tribe. We don’t take an oath to a religion. We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or a dictator.”
He continued, “And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America — and we’re willing to die to protect it.”
Picture: VOA
Appointed by Trump in 2018, Milley frequently found himself at odds with the former president, notably in the incident involving St. John’s Church in Washington, D.C., during the racial injustice protests ignited by George Floyd’s murder in June 2020.
Milley briefly appeared alongside Trump, wearing combat fatigues, as Trump walked to St. John’s for a photo opportunity. Later, the four-star general publicly apologized for creating the perception that the military was involved in domestic politics, expressing regret for his presence — a move that didn’t sit well with Trump.
During that same summer, Milley supported the initiative to rename Army bases bearing the names of Confederate generals, a position that clashed with Trump’s views.
In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, Milley sought to ensure a peaceful transition of power when he assured his Chinese counterpart that the American government had no intentions of initiating hostilities, as documented in the book “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.
Following the election, with concerns of a potential coup by Trump, Milley instructed his subordinates not to follow orders from anyone unless he was involved, as reported in “Peril.”
While Trump was not directly mentioned during Friday’s ceremony at Joint Base-Myer Henderson Hall, the speakers lavished praise on Milley for his over four decades of service to the country in the military.
President Biden commended Milley’s invaluable partnership, describing him as “unwavering in the face of danger.” Biden recounted an incident where Milley had run across a bridge laden with mines to prevent two battle tanks from crossing with wounded troops.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin referred to Milley as both a scholar and a warrior, emphasizing his dedication to leading the joint military forces.
The ceremony also featured the swearing-in of the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., formerly the Air Force chief of staff.
In the aftermath of the second Republican debate, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida shared his candid assessment of the event while sitting in the spin room with Fox News host Sean Hannity. He remarked, “If I was at home watching that, I would have changed the channel.” The debate unfolded as a meandering and often bewildering spectacle, seemingly validating former President Donald J. Trump’s decision to skip it. Apart from sporadic exceptions, the Republican contenders appeared content to engage in petty disputes among themselves. They largely refrained from delivering significant blows to the dominant front-runner, failing to disrupt the political reality that Mr. Trump continues to overshadow his rivals in national polls.
Here are five key takeaways from the two-hour debate characterized by overlapping conversations, unanswered questions, rehearsed comebacks, and a conspicuous absence of any mention of the legal issues surrounding the favored candidate:
Governor DeSantis of Florida initiated the debate by confronting Mr. Trump on a national stage, asserting, “Donald Trump is missing in action… He should be on this stage tonight. He owes it to you to defend his record where they added $7.8 trillion to the debt. That set the stage for the inflation that we have now.” This direct challenge had been long awaited by some allies and donors. However, as the debate progressed, this statement faded into the background, with candidates mostly choosing to ignore Mr. Trump’s commanding lead.
A pro-Mike Pence super PAC had issued a blunt message to donors before the debate, emphasizing the need to shake up the race. Nevertheless, the debate failed to produce any substantial disruptions, leaving the dynamics of the race largely unaltered. The 91 criminal charges against Mr. Trump went unmentioned, both by the moderators and the candidates ostensibly running against him. While the former president faced more criticism compared to the first debate, the seven candidates onstage spent most of the night engaging in disputes with one another, seemingly vying for the second-place position.
During the debate, Tim Scott directed criticism at Nikki Haley concerning curtains and a gas tax, and Ms. Haley reciprocated by challenging Governor DeSantis on fracking. Vivek Ramaswamy faced scrutiny over his past business dealings with China and was accused by Scott of lacking knowledge about the Constitution. Chris Christie attempted to steer the conversation back towards Mr. Trump, even suggesting at one point that he should be “voted off the island.” However, the overall result was a chaotic and unclear exchange.
Governor DeSantis’s performance aligned with what his supporters had been anticipating. Despite initial criticism from the media about his lack of assertiveness in the first debate, his allies believed it was effective. In this debate, he utilized the sole abortion question of the night to criticize Mr. Trump for his stance on Florida’s restrictive abortion ban. He skillfully sidestepped a question about his previous comments regarding slavery in the state’s curriculum. At the outset, Governor DeSantis appeared confident and in control, mostly avoiding heated arguments. Although he struggled initially to find speaking opportunities, he eventually spoke more than any other candidate. Towards the end, he pushed back against the moderators when they asked candidates to indicate which candidate they would vote “off the island,” deeming the question “disrespectful.”
Despite Governor DeSantis’s assertiveness, his sporadic references to Mr. Trump did little to suggest that he could close the substantial gap between himself and the former president. Shortly after the debate concluded, a senior Trump adviser, Chris LaCivita, called for the cancellation of further debates, indicating that Mr. Trump felt no immediate pressure to enter the debate arena.
Nikki Haley solidified her position at the center stage during the debate. Following her strong performance in the first debate, which had sparked renewed interest from major donors, Ms. Haley appeared comfortable in the spotlight. She took aim at Governor DeSantis and defended herself against attacks from Tim Scott, whom she had appointed to the Senate. She even delivered one of the more memorable lines of the evening, telling Vivek Ramaswamy, “every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber.” Ms. Haley, like Governor DeSantis, took aim at Mr. Trump, suggesting that he had focused on the wrong issues in dealing with China’s growing influence and highlighting areas where he had left America vulnerable. Her rising stature was further confirmed as rivals began to scrutinize elements of her record as governor and United Nations ambassador.
Tim Scott reasserted himself in this debate after fading into the background during the first one. He had experienced a decline in the polls following the initial debate but made a strong comeback. From the beginning of the contest, he actively sought speaking time and integrated his trademark optimism with pointed criticisms directed at both Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley. Notably, he refrained from targeting Mr. Trump. His standout moment came during an exchange with Governor DeSantis on Florida’s curriculum regarding slavery, where he chose to emphasize his life story and emphasize his belief that America is not a racist country.
Vivek Ramaswamy adopted a different approach in this debate compared to the first one. In the prior debate, he gained attention by launching personal attacks on his opponents and accusing them of corruption. However, polling data following the debate did not support the narrative of his victory. Republican voters developed a more negative perception of him, and he struggled in early-state polls compared to his performance in national online polls. Consequently, Ramaswamy adopted a conciliatory tone in this debate, chastising his competitors for attacking each other and repeatedly expressing his respect for them. However, this reinvented persona failed to resonate, as the other candidates at times appeared to bond over their shared disapproval of him. Ms. Haley even elicited laughter from the audience when she remarked that she felt “dumber every time he talked,” while Tim Scott criticized his business ties to China. Overall, aside from the critiques directed at President Biden, the harshest criticisms of the night were aimed at Mr. Ramaswamy.
In a surprising turn of events, Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced on Tuesday last week that he was instructing House Republicans to initiate an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. Speaking from the U.S. Capitol, McCarthy delivered a concise formal statement, stating, “Today, I am directing our House committee to open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.” McCarthy chose not to field questions from the assembled reporters.
McCarthy’s previous stance had suggested that there would be a full House vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry, as had been the practice in previous instances. However, as of Tuesday, it appeared that McCarthy did not have the necessary support to hold such a vote. A spokesperson for McCarthy confirmed that there would not be a vote to kickstart the impeachment inquiry.
This move had been foreshadowed by McCarthy for several weeks. Part of the motivation appeared to be an effort to appease staunch GOP members and gain access to financial records and documents related to President Biden and his son, Hunter. McCarthy elucidated his rationale on Tuesday, saying, “This logical next step will give our committees the full power to gather the full facts and answers for the American public. That’s exactly what we want to know—the answers. I believe the president would want to answer these questions and allegations as well.”
The individuals selected to lead the impeachment inquiry were also disclosed by McCarthy. He designated House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith for this role.
Picture: NPR
House Republicans had been engaged in investigations for several months, attempting to establish links between President Biden and his son’s business dealings. However, no concrete evidence of wrongdoing by the president had been uncovered. McCarthy revealed that House Republicans, during the August recess, had come across what he termed as “serious and credible allegations into President Biden’s conduct.” When viewed collectively, these allegations painted a picture, in McCarthy’s words, of “a culture of corruption.”
Speaker McCarthy emphasized the gravity of his decision, stating, “I do not make this decision lightly. Regardless of your party, or who you voted for, these facts concern all Americans.”
Responding to McCarthy’s call for a formal impeachment inquiry into President Biden, White House spokesperson Ian Sams commented, “House Republicans have been investigating the President for 9 months, and they’ve turned up no evidence of wrongdoing. His own GOP members have said so. He vowed to hold a vote to open impeachment, now he flip-flopped because he doesn’t have support. Extreme politics at its worst.”
Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, expressed his perspective on McCarthy’s actions, saying, “McCarthy has shown he will do anything to hold on to his gavel,” including launching an impeachment inquiry “based on repackaged, inaccurate conspiracies about Hunter Biden and his legitimate business activities.”
After leaving the House floor, McCarthy spoke to reporters once more, reiterating the importance of initiating an impeachment inquiry as a means to access more information. When asked if he believed President Biden had committed an impeachable offense, McCarthy replied, “All I’ve said is an impeachment inquiry allows us to get answers to get questions that are out there. Don’t you think the public wants answers?”
Former President Donald Trump had privately discussed an impeachment inquiry into President Biden with House Republicans, according to sources. Rep. Elise Stefanik, a member of Republican leadership, spoke with Trump and updated him on the impeachment inquiry on Tuesday afternoon, according to two sources.
Senate Republicans are scheduled to be briefed by Reps. Jordan and Comer during their lunch on Wednesday, confirming the seriousness of the matter. This briefing will be the first direct exposure to the evidence that Jordan and Comer claim to have uncovered, which could be pivotal for senators seeking more information about the House’s findings before making decisions on supporting further actions.
In a joint statement, Comer, Jordan, and Smith expressed their support for the impeachment inquiry, asserting, “The House Committees on Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary, and Ways and Means will continue to work to follow the facts to ensure President Biden is held accountable for abusing public office for his family’s financial gain. The American people demand and deserve answers, transparency, and accountability for this blatant abuse of public office.”
Sen. Mitt Romney, one of seven Senate Republicans who voted in 2021 to remove former President Donald Trump from office due to his involvement in the January 6 insurrection, endorsed the use of an impeachment inquiry to gain access to more information regarding President Biden’s business dealings. Romney explained, “The fact that the White House has been singularly silent and has coddled Hunter Biden suggests an inquiry is not inappropriate. That’s very different than an impeachment, an actual impeachment would require the evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor that has not been alleged. But inquiring is something the president and the White House could have avoided.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, who has been investigating Hunter Biden’s business dealings for years, emphasized the distinction between an inquiry and an impeachment, stating, “An inquiry is an inquiry, it’s not an impeachment. And it seems to me it will open up an avenue to get a lot of information that we feel we’ve been stonewalled.”
Regarding the impeachment inquiry’s timing, this development arises as McCarthy aims to prevent a potential revolt from conservative hardliners and avert a government shutdown.
The House resumed its session on Tuesday, facing an impending September 30 deadline to pass a spending measure to keep the government operational. House Republican leaders are currently considering the passage of a continuing resolution, or a short-term funding extension, to provide additional time for negotiations on a comprehensive appropriations package.
However, members of the House Freedom Caucus, the same group that previously opposed McCarthy’s bid for the speakership and his debt limit agreement with President Biden, have indicated that they would not endorse a continuing resolution unless it includes specific provisions related to border security and the “weaponization of the DOJ.” Additionally, the group opposes further aid to Ukraine, potentially setting the House at odds with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
In the midst of this tension, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz publicly threatened to initiate a motion to vacate against McCarthy. Such a motion would compel a vote to determine McCarthy’s continued tenure as speaker. McCarthy downplayed the threat when speaking to reporters on Monday evening, stating that Gaetz “should go ahead and do it… Matt’s, Matt.” Gaetz reiterated this warning during a floor speech shortly after McCarthy’s announcement regarding the impeachment inquiry, describing McCarthy’s move as a “baby step” in response to pressure from House conservatives.
Efforts to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment are gaining momentum, but they are met with resistance from election officials and legal scholars who express concerns about the anti-democratic nature of such actions.
Two conservative members of the Federalist Society recently supported the idea that Trump could be disqualified, leading to two substantial challenges to his eligibility. In Colorado, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) filed a lawsuit on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated voters in state court. Meanwhile, in Minnesota, the organization Free Speech for People initiated a legal challenge on behalf of a group of voters in the state’s Supreme Court. Both lawsuits argue that Trump would be ineligible to hold federal office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that a candidate can be disqualified if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States or provided “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” unless granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress. Trump has vigorously opposed these efforts, labeling them as “election interference” and asserting his innocence.
Despite mounting challenges in various states like Michigan, Virginia, and Connecticut, where secretaries of state are urged to remove Trump from the ballots, New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, emphasized that he lacks the legal authority to do so. He stated, “There is nothing in our state statute that gives the secretary of state discretion in entertaining qualification issues.”
Several Republican officials, including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling, have also spoken out against disqualifying candidates through partisan actions. Raffensperger, who faced pressure from Trump during the 2020 election, warned against using the 14th Amendment as a means to bypass the ballot box. Sterling stressed the importance of trusting the voters and the potential danger of setting a precedent by interpreting the Constitution in a way that removes candidates.
Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson echoed this sentiment, writing in an op-ed for the Washington Post that the decision on Trump’s eligibility ultimately rests with the courts. She emphasized that, unless a court rules otherwise, Trump will be on the Republican presidential primary ballot in Michigan in 2024.
The interpretation of the term ‘insurrection’ is a central issue in these debates. While Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was originally used to disqualify individuals who held roles in the Confederacy after the Civil War, some legal scholars question whether the events of January 6, when a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol, constitute an insurrection within the constitutional definition.
Gerard Magliocca, an expert on the 14th Amendment from Indiana University, raised questions about whether the Capitol attack equates to the scale of the South’s armed rebellion. He also noted that because Trump has never been criminally charged for inciting insurrection or rebellion, some opponents argue that this weakens any case for disqualification under the 14th Amendment.
Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School, emphasized that interpreting the term “engage” in the context of insurrection might require more than mere verbal support. He pointed out that Trump was not physically present at the Capitol when the violence occurred and that his speech alone might not be sufficient evidence of direct involvement.
Gabriel Sterling, the Georgia elections official, anticipates that courts would consider the absence of a criminal conviction as a significant reason against disqualification. He explained that if someone were convicted of insurrection, that would be a different scenario, but it does not apply to Trump’s case.
On the contrary, McConnell argued that Trump’s ineligibility under the 14th Amendment does not necessarily hinge on a criminal conviction for insurrection. He stated that it is not a requirement for Section 3 to apply, citing historical examples where individuals were disqualified after the Civil War without criminal charges or convictions.
Efforts to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment are gaining traction in various states, but they face opposition from election officials and legal scholars who raise concerns about the interpretation of the term ‘insurrection’ and the potential precedent-setting nature of such actions. The debate over Trump’s eligibility is likely to continue in the courts, with the ultimate decision resting on legal interpretations and judgments. Efforts to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment are gaining momentum, but they are met with resistance from election officials and legal scholars who express concerns about the anti-democratic nature of such actions.
Concerns Surrounding Trump’s Ballot Access
Efforts to bar Donald Trump from running in state primaries face substantial practical hurdles, including potential countersuits and unsympathetic courts. Even if these efforts were to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, success is far from guaranteed. Moreover, it’s essential to recognize that the ongoing challenges pertain to Trump’s participation in primary elections, which are distinct from the actual presidential election. Primaries determine the nominees for the Democratic and Republican parties, not the president.
Professor McConnell from Stanford University highlights the complexity of this issue, stating, “Even if a state like Colorado were to prevent Donald Trump from participating in the primary election for the presidency, there is no mechanism to prevent the Republican National Convention from nominating him as their candidate. So, even if these groups were to succeed legally, it remains unclear what tangible impact it would have.”
He also underscores the speculative nature of these actions, emphasizing that the high degree of confidence exhibited by some individuals is unwarranted. This situation presents a unique challenge, with historical precedents dating back over a century, leaving many uncertainties. In essence, we find ourselves navigating uncharted territory in the realm of election law.
\While concerns about Trump’s participation in primary elections persist, it’s crucial to remain cognizant of the practical obstacles that lie ahead. These efforts are met with legal complexities, and their ultimate impact remains uncertain in the broader context of American presidential elections.
Ramaswamy has a better chance of winning the primary against Trump as compared to Haley but the results were reversed if the Indian Americans were to contest Biden
The latest Harvard/CAPS Harris Poll, a monthly collaboration between the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard (CAPS) and the Harris Poll and HarrisX, revealed that if it came down to a one-on-one between Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy against former President Donald Trump, Ramaswamy had a better chance at winning.
Picture : ABC News
If the Republican party primary is down to two choices, Nikki Haley and Donald Trump, 38 per cent of the respondents said they would vote for the former while 62 per cent chose Trump. For the same question but with Ramaswamy and Trump as choices, the results were 40 and 60 per cent respectively.
For the same question, Trump held the maximum amount of votes, i.e. 30 per cent, with DeSantis in position two with 7 per cent of the votes, followed by the two Indian American candidates.
The results of Haley and Ramaswamy’s favorability among voters was flipped if they were to compete against President Joe Biden. In head-to-head presidential matchups, Biden would lose the election to Haley by 4 per cent, and Ramaswamy trails behind Biden by 2 per cent, as per poll results.
In the realm of politics today, there exist two distinct Americas, each harboring its own set of grievances and suspicions. One segment is deeply distressed and appalled by the 91 federal and state criminal charges looming over the former President, Donald Trump. They perceive this as the result of a vast conspiracy masterminded by what they view as a politicized Department of Justice under President Joe Biden’s leadership.
Conversely, the other America firmly believes that this very Department of Justice has spent an unfair five years relentlessly pursuing Hunter Biden, the President’s son, for alleged misconduct related to his tax affairs and his past struggles as a self-proclaimed, repentant drug addict. In essence, both sides of the political spectrum contend that the department responsible for upholding the nation’s laws has fallen under the sway of its ideological opponents and has become irreversibly entangled in politics.
In response to the news of Hunter Biden’s indictment on three federal gun-related charges, his legal counsel fired back by accusing the prosecutor of yielding to “improper and partisan interference” from Republicans who support Donald Trump. On the other side of the aisle, Andy Biggs, a conservative member of Congress, suggested that these charges were merely a smokescreen to create the illusion of impartiality within the justice department. He stated, “Don’t fall for it. They’re trying to protect him from way more serious charges coming his way!” via X, previously known as Twitter.
While Hunter Biden’s legal issues are undoubtedly a personal setback for his father and family, their implications extend far beyond their immediate circle. Republicans have long regarded the President’s son as a potential vulnerability. Exploiting this vulnerability not only has the potential to provoke a strong reaction from Joe Biden but also serves as a means to divert attention from their own challenges regarding legal issues surrounding Donald Trump.
Moreover, it’s worth noting that a substantial portion of Democrats, when asked, do not express enthusiasm about Joe Biden’s candidacy for the 2024 presidential race. For some, Hunter Biden’s troubles provide yet another reason to push for the 80-year-old President to make way for the next generation.
Picture : TIME
All these dynamics collectively signify that the outcome of Hunter Biden’s case will be a pivotal factor in what promises to be a tumultuous election year. However, Republicans find themselves in a somewhat precarious position. While it is true that the three felony charges related to firearms are serious, and further charges might surface in connection to Hunter Biden’s tax matters and foreign dealings, none of it currently appears to approach the scale and quantity of alleged crimes associated with Donald Trump.
Hence, any attempt by Republicans to weaponize Hunter Biden’s legal issues might inadvertently invite comparisons between the two cases. Additionally, Democrats are likely to emphasize that Hunter Biden is not a candidate for any public office, let alone the presidency of the United States.
An intriguing aspect of Hunter Biden’s legal situation is that his lawyers appear to believe that the previously collapsed plea deal from July could potentially be revived. They also suggest that recent expansions of Second Amendment rights by various courts might factor into his defense. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution that bars individuals with a history of drug addiction from bearing arms. This irony isn’t lost, given the general stance of most Democrats on gun control.
The indictment against Hunter Biden was unveiled just days after Kevin McCarthy, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, announced an impeachment inquiry into President Biden—a move that the White House promptly dismissed as a political maneuver. McCarthy cited “serious and credible allegations” related to the Biden family’s business dealings and the President’s conduct. Republicans are hopeful that this new inquiry will implicate the President in allegations of power abuse and corruption.
However, to date, seven months of investigations into Hunter Biden have yielded only fragments of information from former business associates, an FBI informant, and a couple of IRS agents. Nothing substantial has emerged that could be considered a smoking gun. It remains uncertain whether, as subpoenas start flying, the slim Republican majority in the House would secure an impeachment vote if the inquiry reaches that stage.
What is undeniably clear is that the once well-defined boundary between the political and legal systems has become increasingly blurred. According to Randy Zelin, an adjunct professor of law at Cornell Law School, “Somebody woke up one day and said, boy I have a new toy and that is called the federal criminal justice system, where I’m going to use the criminal system to punish people who don’t agree with my politics.” He goes on to express deep concern about how this ongoing battle is tearing the country apart.
Vivek Ramaswamy has a better chance of winning the primary against Trump as compared to Haley but the results were reversed if the Indian Americans were to contest Biden
The latest Harvard/CAPS Harris Poll, a monthly collaboration between the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard (CAPS) and the Harris Poll and HarrisX, revealed that if it came down to a one-on-one between Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy against former President Donald Trump, Ramaswamy had a better chance at winning.
If the Republican party primary is down to two choices, Nikki Haley and Donald Trump, 38 per cent of the respondents said they would vote for the former while 62 per cent chose Trump. For the same question but with Ramaswamy and Trump as choices, the results were 40 and 60 per cent respectively.
Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy.
For the same question, Trump held the maximum number of votes, i.e. 30 per cent, with DeSantis in position two with 7 per cent of the votes, followed by the two Indian American candidates.
The results of Haley and Ramaswamy’s favorability among voters was flipped if they were to compete against President Joe Biden. In head-to-head presidential matchups, Biden would lose the election to Haley by 4 per cent, and Ramaswamy trails behind Biden by 2 per cent, as per poll results.
The United Nations nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has condemned Iran’s move to withdraw accreditation for several of its most experienced inspectors as “disproportionate and unprecedented”.
U.N. nuclear chief Rafael Grossi said in an interview Monday, Sep. 18, 2023 with the media that the Iranian government’s removal of many cameras and electronic monitoring systems installed by the International Atomic Energy Agency make it impossible to give assurances about the country’s nuclear program. Grossi has previously warned that Tehran has enough enriched uranium for “several” nuclear bombs if it chose to build them.
Picture : VOA
Grossi said the experts who lost accreditation had “unique knowledge in enrichment technology” and had previously conducted essential verification work at Iranian enrichment facilities under IAEA safeguards. Grossi said Iran’s move “constitutes an unnecessary blow to an already strained relationship between the IAEA and Iran”.
The IAEA director general also said he asked to meet Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi to try to reverse Tehran’s uncalled for ban on “a very sizable chunk” of the agency’s inspectors.
The deal
In 2015, major world powers reached a deal with Iran under which it was to check its nuclear programme in exchange for relief from crippling economic sanctions. But in 2018, then-US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions.
Iran’s response
The strongly worded statement came amid longstanding tensions between Iran and the IAEA, which is tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear programme that western nations suspected is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists the programme is peaceful.
Iran’s foreign ministry criticised the IAEA’s approach, linking it to an alleged attempt by the US, France, Germany and Britain to misuse the UN’s nuclear agency “for their own political purposes” and in retaliation for “political abuses”.
The Vienna-based IAEA reported earlier this month that Iran had slowed the pace at which it was enriching uranium to nearly weapons-grade levels. That was seen as a sign that Iran was trying to ease tensions after years of strain in its relationship with the US.
A top Pentagon official had reported that Iran could make the nuclear material for a device in about 12 days if it wanted to do so. The International Atomic Energy Agency also stated its monitors had detected that Iran now had the capability of enriching uranium to close to 84%, which is on the verge of making weapons-grade uranium.
Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy official, when asked to describe Iran’s nuclear progress since then-President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.
“Iran’s nuclear progress since we left the JCPOA has been remarkable,” Kahl said. “Back in 2018, when the previous administration decided to leave the JCPOA, it would have taken Iran about 12 months to produce one bomb’s worth of fissile material,” said Kahl about Iran’s so called “breakout time. “Now it would take about 12 days.”
Kahl said he still thinks going back to the deal is better than not having any deal because he said it could “put constraints” on Iran. At the same, he acknowledged that isn’t likely, given that efforts to go back to the deal are “on ice” since Iran turned down a U.S. offer last summer.
“Of course, Iran’s behavior has changed since then, not the least of which there’s support for Russia and Ukraine, which is the subject of the conversation here today,” he told lawmakers. “So, I don’t think we’re on the precipice of reentering the JCPOA.”
Meanwhile, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi said Tuesday that his country will never give up its right “to have peaceful nuclear energy” and urged the United States “to demonstrate in a verifiable fashion” that it wants to return to the 2015 nuclear deal. Addressing the annual high-level meeting of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, September 20, 2023, Raisi said the American withdrawal from the deal trampled on U.S. commitments and was “an inappropriate response” to Iran’s fulfillment of its commitments.
Raisi made no mention of the IAEA inspectors but the European Union issued a statement late Tuesday saying its top diplomat, Josep Borrell, met Iran’s Foreign Minister on Tuesday and raised the nuclear deal and the inspectors as well as Iran’s arbitrary detention of many EU citizens including dual nationals.
A recent CNN poll has brought concerning news for the White House and President Biden, with his approval rating at just 39 percent, a little over a year before the next election. In contrast, 61 percent of respondents expressed disapproval of Biden’s job performance, marking a significant drop from his 45 percent approval rating earlier in the year.
One of the standout findings of the poll is that former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is the only GOP presidential candidate leading in a hypothetical matchup against Biden. The poll, conducted by SSRS, shows Haley ahead of Biden with 49 percent to 43 percent. Notably, all other major Republican candidates are locked in tight races with the incumbent president.
These results are particularly promising for Nikki Haley, who previously served as the United Nations ambassador under President Trump. She aims to capitalize on her strong showing in the recent GOP presidential debate, hoping to challenge her former boss for the Republican nomination. However, it’s important to note that Haley trails significantly behind Trump in polls of Republican primary voters, highlighting the considerable challenge she faces.
Nonetheless, the CNN poll suggests that she could be a more competitive GOP nominee against Biden in the general election compared to her Republican rivals. This potential advantage may become a key talking point as she campaigns in early primary and caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
Other notable GOP candidates also outperformed Biden in the head-to-head polling. Former Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Tim Scott both garnered 46 percent support, while Biden received 44 percent. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie secured 44 percent to Biden’s 42 percent, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis tied with Biden, each at 47 percent. Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy trailed Biden in a head-to-head matchup, with 45 percent to Biden’s 46 percent. Trump held a slim 1-point lead over Biden, with 47 percent to 46 percent.
When respondents were asked about a potential rematch between Trump and Biden, 47 percent indicated they would choose the former president, while 46 percent favored the current president. A small percentage (5 percent) preferred a different candidate, and 2 percent stated they did not plan to vote. These numbers do not bode well for Biden, as he trails five of the seven GOP candidates in the polling.
One significant concern for voters regarding Biden is his age; he is currently 80 years old and will turn 81 in November. The CNN poll reveals that more than half of Democratic voters surveyed are “seriously concerned” about his age. Approximately 60 percent of Democrats expressed apprehension about Biden’s ability to win the 2024 election if he secures the Democratic nomination. Additionally, 62 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of all respondents expressed serious concerns about Biden completing a second term.
While Biden is virtually certain to secure the Democratic nomination, his weaknesses in this poll are likely to heighten anxieties within the Democratic party regarding his strength as a candidate in the upcoming election. According to the poll, 46 percent of voters believe any Republican presidential nominee would be a better choice than Biden in 2024, while 32 percent believe the sitting president is a better option than any of the GOP hopefuls. In contrast, 44 percent of respondents think any Democratic nominee would be better than Trump, and 38 percent consider the former president superior to any Democratic nominee.
Among Democrats, the poll found that 67 percent would prefer the party to nominate someone other than Biden, a significant increase from the 54 percent who expressed the same sentiment in March. Of those who desire a different candidate, 82 percent did not have a specific individual in mind. Only 1 percent stated they would vote for either of Biden’s 2024 Democratic challengers, Marianne Williamson or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from August 25 to August 31 among 1,259 registered voters and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
Despite the challenges Biden faces in this poll, he is currently preparing to attend the G20 summit in India and will return to Washington at the beginning of the following week. While the poll results may boost Republican confidence in defeating Biden, they also raise questions among GOP voters about Trump’s viability as a general election candidate in 2024, considering his ongoing legal issues, including federal indictments and state charges.
The G20, or Group of Twenty, is a coalition of nations that convenes regularly to deliberate on global economic and political matters. Together, these G20 countries contribute to a staggering 85% of the world’s economic output and over 75% of worldwide trade, housing two-thirds of the global population. Comprising the EU and 19 individual nations, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK, and the US, the G20 holds a unique position on the world stage.
Established in 1999, the G20 emerged in response to the Asian financial crisis with the primary goal of providing finance ministers and officials a platform to strategize methods for restoring economic stability. In 2008, the group elevated its stature, hosting its inaugural leaders’ summit as a response to the global financial turmoil that year, with the aim of promoting international cooperation.
In recent years, the G20 has widened its purview, incorporating subjects like climate change and sustainable energy into its discussions. Each year, one of the G20 member states takes on the presidency and sets the agenda for the leaders’ summit.
The 2023 G20 summit, presided over by India, will spotlight critical topics such as sustainable development, the pursuit of just and equitable global growth, and debt forgiveness for developing countries. Additionally, US President Joe Biden is expected to engage with leaders from developing nations to propose reforms for the World Bank, potentially unlocking more funds for infrastructure development and climate change mitigation.
Picture : AlJazeera
Crucially, much of the negotiation and diplomacy will occur behind the scenes, in one-on-one meetings between leaders held on the sidelines of the main summit hall. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi intends to use the summit as a platform to elevate his country’s global standing and establish himself as a significant world leader, particularly in the run-up to the spring 2024 general election. Modi is keen to ensure that the summit doesn’t get bogged down in disputes over the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which marred the 2022 summit in Bali, Indonesia. Discord around this issue even prevented the issuance of a joint statement following the G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in Delhi in March.
Remarkably, both Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping will be absent from the summit. Putin will be represented by his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, while China will send Premier Li Qiang in Xi’s stead.
Aside from the Ukraine conflict, other contentious matters could emerge at the summit. In May 2023, China and Saudi Arabia boycotted a G20 meeting on tourism held in Indian-administered Kashmir, as this region includes territory claimed by both Pakistan and India. Another source of tension has arisen between India and China after Beijing published a map asserting Chinese ownership of Arunachal Pradesh and the Aksai Chin plateau, both disputed territories. The US has urged China to put aside its differences with India and adopt a “constructive role” at the summit.
The G20 has experienced varying degrees of success since its inception. During the 2008 and 2009 leaders’ summits, held in the midst of the financial crisis, leaders reached consensus on numerous measures to salvage the global economic system. However, critics argue that subsequent summits have been less productive, often due to discord between rival global powers. Nevertheless, the one-on-one meetings between leaders have frequently yielded positive outcomes. For instance, at the 2019 summit in Osaka, then-US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping concurred to recommence talks to resolve a major trade dispute.
Security is always a paramount concern at G20 summits, given their propensity to attract anti-globalization protests. The Indian government has taken extensive security measures ahead of the Delhi event, including road closures around the venue and deploying 130,000 security personnel across the city. Unique measures have also been introduced to deter troublesome monkeys from disrupting the summit, as Delhi has a substantial monkey population that authorities wish to keep at bay.
The 2023 G20 summit promises to be a pivotal event, with India at the helm emphasizing sustainable development, equitable global growth, and debt relief for developing nations. While the specter of the Ukraine conflict looms, leaders will engage in discreet discussions to address a range of pressing issues, including World Bank reform and climate change.
The absence of key leaders like Putin and Xi adds an intriguing dimension to the proceedings. However, the G20’s track record, marked by both achievements and challenges, underscores the importance of these high-level diplomatic gatherings in shaping the global agenda. Amidst stringent security measures and innovative tactics to deal with local fauna, the world will be watching closely as the G20 nations convene to chart the course of the global economy and address pressing international concerns.
The number of Indians immigrating to Canada has more than tripled since 2013. The scale of the increase is what one would expect to witness in a refugee situation, not the result of a steady increase in international students and employment-based immigrants. The data show restrictive immigration policies in the United States, particularly during the Trump administration, have played a significant role in Indians choosing to immigrate to Canada.
Canada’s welcoming immigration policies and favorable labor conditions have played a pivotal role in facilitating this significant influx of newcomers, enabling them to forge successful new lives in the country.
Additionally, with approximately 75% of America’s H1-B visa holders being of Indian descent, Canada’s new H1-B program has emerged as an appealing alternative, drawing interest from U.S. H1-B candidates. As a result, Canada’s tech ecosystem is experiencing rapid growth, attracting a diverse pool of global talent, expanding the Indian diaspora in the region, and fostering cultural influences in the process.
The number of Indians who became permanent residents in Canada rose from 32,828 in 2013 to 118,095 in 2022, an increase of 260%, according to a National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) analysis of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada data.
In 2022, at 118,095, Indian immigration to Canada dwarfed the next largest source countries for permanent residents: China (31,815), Afghanistan (23,735), Nigeria (22,085) and the Philippines (22,070). In 2014, Canada had more immigrants from the Philippines than from India.
As per Forbes, the significant increase in the number of Indians immigrating to Canada coincided with the election of Donald Trump and his opposition to immigration, including highly educated professionals—and the Canadian government’s policies to attract and retain foreign-born talent.
In January 2015, Canada adopted the Express Entry program to streamline immigration, particularly for high-skilled workers who had experience in Canada as international students or working in temporary status. In June 2017, the Global Skills Strategy began in Canada. “The Canadian government launched a new program to encourage foreign investment in Canada, incentivize companies to open offices in Canada, and attract top foreign talent,” according to a government website.
Vivek Ramaswamy’s unexpected emergence as a prominent figure within the Republican Party has sent shockwaves through the political landscape. The 38-year-old pharmaceutical executive’s sudden prominence in the GOP presidential primary race has raised eyebrows, especially after his standout performance in a recent debate.
Previously an unexpected contender, Ramaswamy’s surge in popularity has been evident in the polls, where he has begun to surpass the popularity of current Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. While DeSantis was once comfortably polling above 35% among voters, his favorability has dwindled in recent times, with numerous polls showing his numbers dipping below 15%. In contrast, Ramaswamy, who announced his presidential candidacy in late February, had started with a modest polling range between 1% and 5%. However, recent polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports and McLaughlin & Associates indicate that his support has soared, with figures reaching as high as 24%, and in some cases, even surpassing DeSantis.
Amidst the Battle for Second Place
As DeSantis and Ramaswamy vie for second place in the primary race, the prevailing sentiment is that former President Donald Trump maintains a commanding lead, consistently polling at over 50%. Trump’s resurgence and increasing popularity have been attributed, in part, to his recent legal challenges across four states, which appear to have rallied his base. Furthermore, Trump’s strategic return to social media, now under the name “X” after the rebranding of Twitter, is anticipated to further bolster his polling numbers.
Ramaswamy’s Policy Stances and Their Potential Market Effects
Vivek Ramaswamy’s policy platform is marked by a commitment to reducing government expenditure and regulations. While these policies might not directly impact individual stocks, the broader market indices such as the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Stock Exchange tend to respond positively to initiatives aimed at deregulation in specific sectors.
Energy Sectors and Economic Implications
Ramaswamy aligns himself with many GOP candidates in supporting energy solutions rooted in natural resources like oil, coal, nuclear power, and natural gas. This alignment suggests that stocks in these sectors could experience substantial growth under a Ramaswamy presidency. Notable companies poised to benefit include ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, Constellation Energy Corp., and NuScale Power Corp.
Cryptocurrency Standpoint and Financial Markets
While Ramaswamy takes a stance against central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), he has emerged as a proponent of Bitcoin. His campaign’s acceptance of donations in Bitcoin, Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, and other cryptocurrencies reflects his support for the crypto landscape. However, it remains unclear whether he would actively promote policies favoring cryptocurrencies. Ramaswamy’s priority appears to be strengthening the U.S. dollar over Bitcoin, thereby shaping his stance on digital currencies.
Tech Innovation and Startup Ecosystem
Ramaswamy’s focus on innovation, evident in his “America First 2.0” agenda and his background in technology, bodes well for traditional technology stocks. Although companies like Alphabet Inc. and Apple Inc. have exhibited resilience regardless of the party in power, potential tax incentives for companies moving their operations to the U.S. could enhance their profitability in the long term.
Picture : CNBC
Stimulating innovation and small business growth is anticipated to yield positive outcomes. The venture capital market, which encountered declines exceeding 50% in the U.S. during the first half of 2023, is showing signs of a rebound. Platforms facilitating retail startup investments, like StartEngine and Wefunder, are gradually recovering. The projected positive direction of these sectors is attributed to the potential for deregulation and policies promoting innovation, small businesses, and vocational trades.
Vivek Ramaswamy’s unforeseen prominence in the Republican Party’s presidential primary race has captivated attention. As he competes with Governor Ron DeSantis for second place, both candidates trail behind the frontrunner, former President Donald Trump. Ramaswamy’s policy positions, spanning from deregulation to energy preferences and cryptocurrency viewpoints, hold potential implications for various sectors in the economy and financial markets. His commitment to fostering innovation and supporting small businesses has the potential to reshape multiple facets of the American economic landscape.
The world’s seen hundreds of thousands of pictures of Donald Trump. But this one’s different.
In Donald Trump’s mug shot taken at the Fulton County Jail on Thursday, he’s looking straight into the camera. His platinum blonde cotton candy wisp of hair shimmers in the harsh jailhouse lighting. His eyes are locked in a hard stare. His mouth is flattened in a grimace. Instead of smiling like some of his co-defendants, he appears to be scowling.
The mug shot was released by the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office roughly an hour after the former President was booked as inmate P01135809 over charges that he illegally schemed to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.
Trump’s booking in Atlanta is the fourth time he’s faced criminal charges in six months, but the first time his face has been captured for the iconic symbol of a run-in with the law. In previous cases, the courts agreed Trump didn’t need to have a mug shot taken, prompting his campaign to design a fake mug shot, print it on T-shirts and offer them for sale at $36 each in an effort to galvanize his base.
Mug shots have been taken since the 1800s to help authorities identify people accused of a crime if they escape or don’t show up for court, or later, after being convicted and released, to help authorities recapture them if they’re accused of other crimes. Trump’s face is so well known, taking another image of him is hardly necessary, and authorities during his previous appearances agreed to waive the requirement. But not Fulton County, Georgia.
Speaking to reporters at the Atlanta airport after being booked, Trump said that he did “nothing wrong” and called the case a “travesty of justice.” He added: “We have every right to challenge an election we think is dishonest.”
Trump is the first President to ever pose for a mug shot. The closest history has to offer was the 1872 arrest of President Ulysses S. Grant, who was taken to a local police station in Washington, D.C. for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage. No mug shot was taken in the incident.
The initial Republican presidential debate proved to be a lively event, as eight contenders engaged in heated discussions and exchanges. Despite concerns that the absence of the charismatic showman, Donald Trump, might render the debate dull, it was anything but lackluster.
The group of rivals, assembled in Wisconsin, demonstrated their capacity to generate excitement without relying on Trump’s presence. Within this competitive atmosphere, certain candidates emerged as strong contenders, while others seemed to fade into the background. Here’s an overview of the winners and losers from the debate.
FOX
Vivek Ramaswamy: In a surprising turn of events, a political novice with no prior experience in public office, and who had abstained from voting for presidents from 2004 to 2020, took center stage during the Republican debate. Sporting a wide grin and a sharp wit, Ramaswamy appeared to be the sole candidate genuinely enjoying the proceedings. His lack of political baggage allowed him to deflect criticism from fellow contenders, insinuating that Christie was auditioning for a left-leaning news channel, and Haley’s positions on Ukraine were aimed at securing positions on defense contractor boards.
“I’m the only person on the stage who isn’t bought and paid for,” Ramaswamy boldly asserted during a discussion on climate change, which sparked outrage among his opponents. Ramaswamy consistently positioned himself as an outsider amidst a sea of establishment insiders, championing unconventional views such as advocating Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, deploying military force to secure the US-Mexico border, and prohibiting US firms from engaging with China.
While his stances may diverge significantly from the Republican Party’s mainstream, Ramaswamy proved that even audacious and seemingly impractical policy proposals can garner attention, as demonstrated by Trump in 2016. Despite potential limitations in challenging Trump’s nomination, Ramaswamy’s performance guaranteed his influence in the upcoming months.
Mike Pence: A seasoned politician with a history as a congressman, governor, and vice-president, Pence showcased his remaining political vigor during the debate. Although his presidential campaign has encountered challenges, being disliked by both Trump supporters and critics, his experience on the debate stage served him well. Pence immediately went on the offensive, criticizing Ramaswamy’s inexperience and asserting that “now is not the time for on-the-job training.” He fervently advocated for nationwide abortion restrictions, a stance likely to resonate with evangelical Republicans, who wield significant influence in pivotal states like Iowa and South Carolina.
When the topic shifted to Trump, Pence had the final say, highlighting his prioritization of the Constitution on January 6, 2021, by refusing to overturn the election results as per Trump’s wishes. This stance garnered support from some of his rivals. While Pence’s campaign still faces challenges, his debate performance illustrated why he was once considered a promising presidential candidate among conservative Republicans.
Nikki Haley: The former US ambassador to the UN consistently defies expectations. Never defeated in any race for office, even when facing established Republican contenders for the South Carolina governorship, Haley continued her streak during the debate. She stood out by delivering early and pointed criticisms of both Trump and the Republican Party as a whole.
“Republicans did this to you too,” Haley remarked while discussing the substantial US budget deficit. She emphasized the need to curtail spending and borrowing. \
Turning her attention to the former president, Haley labeled Trump as the “most disliked politician in America,” cautioning that the Republican Party’s fortunes would suffer as a consequence. Haley exhibited her readiness for a fight, engaging in debates with Ramaswamy over continuing US aid to Ukraine and challenging Pence’s calls for a national abortion ban as unrealistic and politically damaging.
Even if she fails to surge ahead in the current race, Haley’s debate performance could position her for future presidential bids in election years not dominated by a former president.
Middle of the Pack
Tim Scott and Chris Christie: Christie adhered to expectations by adopting a confrontational tone, taking jabs at Trump and Ramaswamy while displaying a spirited and combative attitude. Yet, his criticisms of Ramaswamy and his comments about the political neophyte resembling “ChatGPT” failed to resonate with the audience.
Tim Scott’s conciliatory demeanor positioned him above the fray during the most heated exchanges. While this approach may not attract a substantial voter base, it could enhance his prospects as a potential vice-presidential candidate for Trump.
Losers
Ron DeSantis: Initially projected to be a strong contender alongside Trump, the Florida governor’s poll numbers have dwindled since the beginning of the year. DeSantis failed to revitalize his campaign during the debate, remaining largely absent during pivotal moments. While his performance wasn’t disastrous, Ramaswamy overshadowed him, and rivals like Pence and Haley dominated discussions on abortion and US aid to Ukraine. His uncertain footing during discussions about Trump and recent indictments further highlighted his struggles. DeSantis’ inability to close the gap with Trump demonstrated that he has become a marginal player despite past expectations of his prominence within the Republican Party.
Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum: Hutchinson barely qualified for the Milwaukee debate, and Burgum secured his position through an unconventional campaign gimmick. Both candidates needed to prove their worth but failed to stand out. Hutchinson’s criticisms of Trump paled in comparison to Christie’s sharper attacks, and Burgum’s modest, small-state conservatism didn’t capture attention. With stricter qualification standards for the next debate, neither candidate demonstrated the necessary support to secure another appearance on the stage.
The Republican presidential debate showcased a dynamic atmosphere with candidates engaging in fervent exchanges. Ramaswamy’s unexpected prominence as a political newcomer, Pence’s revival of vigor, and Haley’s resilience against expectations were notable highlights. Candidates like Christie and Scott occupied the middle ground, while DeSantis, Hutchinson, and Burgum faltered. This debate marked an early juncture in the campaign, offering a glimpse of the evolving landscape of the Republican nomination race.
As the US tries to break the stranglehold of China on its supply chains, especially in hi-tech, India is emerging as a venue for what is now called ‘friendshoring’ – developing manufacturing in friendly countries that can be reliable partners. From being a recipient of food aid from the US seven decades ago, India has emerged as a partner in defence, space, health and technology.
China, intriguingly, has been a constant factor in the trajectory of India-United States relations, putting them at odds in the first years after Independence but now propelling them to the apex.
In the years after Independence, India under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru backed Beijing while the US supported Taiwan laying the foundation for the many differences between them that would continue in many forms. Now it is China with its aggressive postures from the Himalayas to the South China Sea and beyond that helping strengthen bonds between India and US that share worries about it.
Eurasia Review
Yet, even as the two largest democracies draw closer, a shadow of ambiguity persists in their ties.
India still will not back the US unambiguously, is still dangerously reliant on Russia for defence, and is wary of going too far in provoking China while appearing with them on international forums. And it is the China factor that makes Washington so forgiving of India’s neutrality ignoring calls, especially in the US media tinged with hostility to India, especially under the BJP.
Those in the administration with an unblinkered view of geopolitics know that were India to break with Russia, its defences would be degraded making it vulnerable to China and thus reduce its value as a strategic partner.
Leaving geopolitics aside, perhaps the most momentous development is a person of Indian heritage, Kamala Harris, holding the second highest office in the US – something Franklin D Roosevelt, the US president who laid the groundwork for India becoming free of the colonial yoke, might not have dreamt of.
How initial warmth turned to fissures
Modern India’s ties to the US can be traced to Roosevelt forcing British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the archetypical racist colonialist, into signing the 1941 Atlantic Charter promising independence for colonies with a clause about self-determination.
“America won’t help England in this war simply so that she will be able to continue to ride roughshod over colonial peoples”, Roosevelt is said to have warned the imperialist.
Roosevelt, who tried unsuccessfully to have an emissary mediate between the British and India’s Independence movement leaders, could not force Churchill to implement it as long as World War II was raging. But ultimately, Roosevelt’s idea prevailed and India became free under both their successors, US President Harry Truman and British Prime Minister Clement Atlee.
Truman had high expectations of a democratic India and sent Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru his own plane to bring him from London and went out of his way to greet him on arrival and feted him in 1949.
But China intervened. With Cold War both leaders were hung up on China – Truman was backing Taiwan, then officially recognised as China at the UN and was set against a Communist Beijing, and wanted Nehru, who was behind Mao Zedong, to switch sides.
That was the first overt sign of the fissures between the two countries, yet about three-quarters of a century later, it is China that is drawing them closer.
Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared Nehru “one of the most difficult persons”. Shortly after the visit, Nehru declared more firmly the policy of not aligning with blocs, which would later become the concept of non-alignment.
In the Korean War that broke out a year later when the US and Beijing’s forces clashed, India stood neutral, much to the chagrin of Washington.
But the US continued with economic assistance for India and in 1951 Truman pushed through the India Emergency Food Assistance Act when India faced severe food shortage.
The 1962 China war and aftermatch
Engulfed in an ideological fog, Nehru ramped up his rhetoric of nonalignment, which in effect was perceived as critical of the West. The tenuous relationship with Washington continued with a slight warming of ties between Nehru and the wartime general President Dwight Eisenhower, who expressed respect for Nehru in his memoir. In 1959, Eisenhower became the first US president to visit India.
Meanwhile, Pakistan had grown closer to the US, joining the two now-defunct defence collectives, SEATO and CENTO, and benefitted militarily from the US.
India Today
The China war in 1962 shocked Nehru into reality and temporarily abandoning his veneer of nonalignment sought US military aid from President John F Kennedy, which he received.
The Soviet Union, which had broken up with China, began supplying arms to India, notably the MIG21 fighter jets, although the supply began after the war.
The Kennedy administration initially supported Nehru’s request for setting up a massive state-owned steel plant at Bokaro, viewed as a socialist project it faced political opposition. Moscow stepped in to help India set up the steel plant further deepening ties between the two countries.
That was further strengthened at the cost of Washington during the 1965 Pakistan War when Islamabad flung advanced US weaponry at India, which was using mostly British and Soviet arms.
Yet, when the danger of famine loomed over India, President Lyndon Johnson rushed food aid to India in 1966, while also extracting promises to reform agriculture and to tone down criticism of the US internationally. India and the US had already been collaborating in agriculture development and what was probably the greatest achievement in India-US cooperation followed, helping India achieve food self-sufficiency through the Green Revolution in a few short years and making it one of the nations that can extend food aid to others.
The 1971 Bangladesh and dip in ties
The 1971 Bangladesh War of Independence is the nadir in New Delhi-Washington relations. A month before the War, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi visited Washington and met with President Richard Nixon, asking for help to temper the Pakistani military crackdown on what was then East Pakistan and to deal with the crisis of refugees fleeing army terror.
His vulgar personal comments about Indira Gandhi and about Indians emerged from White House tapes that were made public decades later.
Given the deep ties with Pakistan and Islamabad acting as the broker for the US to establish relations with China, Nixon made the infamous “tilt” to Pakistan and tried to intimidate India by sending the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal.
Under Presidents Jimmy Carter, who visited India, Ronald Reagan, who warmly received both Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv who succeeded her, and George Bush, the senior, the two countries plodded on with no breakthroughs in their relations.
India’s nuclear test brought sanctions against it from President Bill Clinton, marking another diplomacy dip between the two nations.
Although relations with India had had a rocky start at the start of his administration due to Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s perceived hostility, Clinton came through when Pakistan sent its forces into Kargil in Kashmir in 1999.
A war seeming likely when India began to root out Islamabad’s forces, Clinton called Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to Washington and read him the riot act, forcing him and then-military chief Pervez Musharraf to withdraw their troops.
The beginning of the embrace
With the emergence of the Indian American community and the onset of India’s economic liberalisation, Clinton started the steps that have led to the embrace of the two countries now.
His visit to India the next year, was the first visit by a US president in 22 years, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee went to Washington the same year.
A bipartisan consensus on cooperation with India was becoming entrenched and President George W Bush in 2001 ended all the sanctions against India, that were already beginning to be relaxed.
The 2001 terrorist attack on the US that was orchestrated by Pakistan’s allies in Afghanistan brought a sense of urgency to New Delhi’s and Washington’s war on terror, even as Islamabad took advantage of its geography in the US invasion of Afghanistan.
India and the US began joint military exercises in 2002 and in 2005 signed an agreement on the framework for defence cooperation.
That year the two countries also signed the landmark Civil Nuclear Agreement that allowed them to resume cooperation in the area, while having an impact beyond their borders facilitating trade in nuclear equipment and materials.
The agreement became the centre-piece of the era of Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Singh visited Washington in 2005 to discuss it, and in 2008 after it was ok’d by Congress, while Bush went to India in 2006 to finalise it, and during that trip the two countries agreed to increase trade and loosen restrictions.
Singh returned to Washington the next year on a state visit at the invitation of President Barack Obama, and made another visit in 2013. The cerebral Indian leader bonded with the intellectual American and the relations in economy and defence took off.
China has again taken the centre in the relations between the US and India, but this time with a convergence – India jolted from the Nehruvian illusion and the US waking up to the looming threats in the economy, trade and, more importantly, security.
The Quad, the group of India, the US, Australia and Japan, that was to play a greater role later on was launched in 2007, but collapsed quickly when Canberra cooled towards Washington.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, without ideological baggage and with a fresh outlook on the world, opened up the avenues for ties that bind closer. Once shunned by the US, his election made Washington realise the new realities of India and Obama quickly invited him to visit in 2014.
He arrived like a rock star feted by tens of thousands of Indian Americans. Besides vowing to boost trade, the two leaders turned their focus to climate change and agree on programmes on green energy.
Obama was the guest at India’s Republic Day celebration the next year.
In 2016, Modi addressed a joint session of Congress for the first time and the US gave India the status of Major Defence Partner, which led to an agreement on an agreement to deepen military cooperation
At President Donald Trump’s invitation, Modi visited Washington in 2017 and in 2019 the two of them went together to Houston and paraded at an event billed as “Howdy Modi” that drew about 50,000 people.
Trump went to India in 2020 for his last foreign trip as president and was greeted by a roaring crowd of about 100,000 in Ahmedabad.
During the Covid pandemic, India sent some medicines at the request of Trump, as well as some medical supplies, while the US sent medical equipment.
While New Delhi was already sending vaccines to many countries, the Quad which was revived in 2017 devised a joint programme to provide developing countries with vaccines made by India.
On the trade front, Modi’s “Make in India” clashed with Trump’s “America First” resulting in a mini-trade-war. Trump ended preferential trade status for some Indian products under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences programme asserting that New Delhi does not give “equitable” access to Indian markets for some US products – among them whisky and motorcycles.
India retaliated by hiking tariffs on 28 products, among them almonds, and the US hit back with more duties on Indian aluminium and steel imports.
But they went ahead on the defence and security front, signing a slew of pacts including the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) that gives New Delhi access to advanced technologies and realtime military data and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) for intelligence-sharing.
What Next for U.S.-India Military Ties?
A new agreement between top U.S. and Indian officials will deepen military cooperation and bolster strategic tie…
The unthinkable happens
When President Joe Biden came into office and the full impact of China on security, trade and the economy hit him, he revved up cooperation with India.
The Quad meetings were raised to summit status and Modi attended it in Washington in 2021.
Ignoring opposition from the vociferous left in the Democratic Party and the ideologically liberal mainstream media, Biden invited Modi for a state visit last month.
Not only was the US selling India advanced military equipment worth several billions of dollars, but it was also authorising the production of military jet engines jointly in India while promoting cooperation in defence production, something unthinkable some years ago.
(The writer is Nonresident Fellow, Society for Policy Studies, New Delhi, Views are personal) Read more at: https://www.southasiamonitor.org/spotlight/how-china-factor-influenced-us-india-ties-last-76-years
In a landscape where some individuals on the right portray the accountability for the January 6 Capitol riot as merely a partisan dispute, two well-known conservative legal scholars have put forth the argument that the Constitution actually bars former President Trump from holding public office.
Recently, William Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas and both members of the conservative Federalist Society, presented their viewpoint through a law review article. They contend that Trump’s eligibility to hold public office is constitutionally prohibited due to Section Three of the 14th Amendment.
Picture: The UNN
Section Three, also referred to as the Disqualification Clause, stipulates that any government official who swears an oath to protect the Constitution and then participates in or assists an insurrection against the United States is ineligible for office. Only a two-thirds majority from both the House of Representatives and the Senate can take action to remove such a disability.
The argument isn’t surprising given Trump’s actions align with this criterion. All three branches of the government have characterized the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection. Multiple federal judges, bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Congress, as well as the Jan. 6 House select committee, which comprises members from both parties, have attributed the central cause of the insurrection to Trump.
Baude and Paulsen highlight that “Section Three does not necessitate a prior conviction under criminal law, whether for treason or any other specific offense, as a precondition for its application.” Trump’s indictment on charges related to election activities by special counsel Jack Smith only serves to further strengthen the argument for his constitutional disqualification.
The federal charges leveled against him encompass conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiring against rights by seeking to “oppress, threaten or intimidate” individuals in their exercise of the right to vote.
Although Trump’s role in inciting the attack on the Capitol is well-documented, Baude and Paulsen assert that the “full legal implications” of Section Three “have not been fully recognized or enforced.” They underline that the Disqualification Clause is a “binding element of the Constitution, not confined to the Civil War era, and not effectively annulled by amnesty legislation from the 19th century.”
Moreover, the clause is “self-executing, without the necessity of supplementary action by Congress.” According to the professors, Section Three “can and should be upheld by every official, whether at the state or federal level, who assesses qualifications.”
In a notable precedent, last September, three residents of New Mexico, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, achieved the first instance in over a century and a half where an elected official was removed from office on the basis of involvement in an insurrection. The court determined that then-New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin had violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment by enlisting individuals for combat in support of Trump’s endeavor to overturn the election on January 6. Griffin’s actions, which included breaching police barricades, contributing to the violent mob’s attack, and facilitating the overwhelming of law enforcement to storm the Capitol, were deemed insurrectionist. This case marked the initial instance at either the federal or state level where the events of January 6 were legally classified as an insurrection.
The court’s decision in Griffin’s case refutes the notion that disqualifying officials under Section Three of the 14th Amendment infringes upon the First Amendment right to protest. Furthermore, the court rejected attempts by Griffin to equate the events of January 6 with the Black Lives Matter protests.
In their article, Baude and Paulsen elucidate that “to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them,” including “the free speech principles of the First Amendment.”
Most critically, the authors conclude that Section Three encompasses a “wide spectrum of actions against the authority of the constitutional order” and “a broad array of previous offices, including the presidency.” They unequivocally state that Section Three “disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their involvement in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”
Irrespective of political affiliation, every president takes an oath to uphold and safeguard the United States Constitution. Applying the Disqualification Clause to an official who violates this oath is an act of devotion to the nation, devoid of partisan motivation. As Baude and Paulsen aptly put it, “Officials must uphold the Constitution because it is the law … Section Three already carries legal weight.”
The Disqualification Clause has already demonstrated its effectiveness in holding individuals accountable for their participation in the insurrection. In the approaching months, it is anticipated that this clause will be employed again to prevent Trump and others from assuming public office.
Vivek Ramaswamy is currently navigating through the bustling streets of New Hampshire in a crowded Ford Explorer. The Republican contender for the presidential race is managing a whirlwind of campaign stops, engaging in discussions with three journalists while simultaneously conferring with a campaign assistant. During this drive, there’s a brief jolt as the SUV veers onto the highway’s rumble strip, causing Ramaswamy to momentarily startle before promptly resuming his conversation.
In the world of presidential campaigns, the ability to multitask is a necessity – be it handling various tasks while on the move, interacting with constituents, or delivering speeches. However, among the Republican candidates, few exhibit the multitasking prowess of the affluent 38-year-old Ramaswamy. His day has been brimming with activity, starting from his visit to the courthouse in Washington where Donald Trump was to be arraigned, all the way to New Hampshire. Here, he engaged in a lunchtime meet-and-greet and later attended a backyard gathering, addressing attendees and distributing pamphlets outlining his 10 core “truths.” These include statements such as “there are two genders,” “human prosperity depends on fossil fuels,” and “the nuclear family represents the supreme form of governance known to humanity.” During these events, Ramaswamy also shared his plans to dismantle the Department of Education, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service. Additionally, he articulated his intent to take the “America First” approach even further than Trump by reducing support for Ukraine and deploying troops to secure the southern border.
Ramaswamy’s strategy of being present everywhere at once, combined with his knack for conveying provocative anti-establishment views in an amiable manner, has propelled him to a prominent position in the GOP primary. Since officially launching his candidacy in February, Ramaswamy’s pace has been relentless. From shaking hands in New Hampshire to rapping Eminem lyrics in Iowa, from featuring on over 70 podcasts to appearing on a plethora of news programs, and generating a consistent stream of online content, he has outperformed many governors and even a former vice president in the early primary states. This dynamism has led Ramaswamy to secure second or third place in various national polls, garnering attention as a major contender.
Sarah Longwell, a Republican pollster who conducts focus groups with GOP-leaning voters, noted a shift in perception. While previously, Ramaswamy was scarcely mentioned in discussions while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was frequently brought up, the tables have now turned. Longwell views Ramaswamy’s campaign approach as one DeSantis could have adopted. “I think that he has been running the kind of campaign that Ron DeSantis should have run,” Longwell commented on Ramaswamy’s strategy.
However, Ramaswamy’s journey ahead won’t be without challenges. The influence of Trump remains dominant in the race, commanding the support of a majority of primary voters as indicated by recent national polls. Furthermore, Ramaswamy hasn’t yet become a target for his fellow contenders, partly due to not being perceived as a significant threat. While Ramaswamy has made strides in winning over the GOP base, Longwell doesn’t consider him a genuine contender for the GOP nomination. She explains, “He’s not really running as a challenger to Trump. He’s running as somebody who’s trying to elevate his brand, elevate his name ID, and simply become a player in politics.”
In contrast, Ramaswamy asserts his intention to secure victory and categorically rejects the idea of joining a potential second Trump administration. The entrepreneur, who asserts billionaire status, has already injected $15 million of his personal funds into his campaign and is willing to contribute an “unlimited” amount. As the debate stage in Milwaukee awaits him on August 23rd, Ramaswamy and his team anticipate capitalizing on the momentum generated through six months of relentless campaigning. Beyond that point, he envisions transitioning to a more traditional campaign approach involving television advertisements and conventional voter engagement methods. By the time the Iowa caucuses arrive in January, Ramaswamy is confident he will have demonstrated to the Republican electorate what a plausible successor to Trump looks like.
Currently, Vivek Ramaswamy finds himself amid the flurry of activities that have become his signature approach. As we share the car ride through New Hampshire, he reserves the final 10 minutes to collect his thoughts and review his phone. While scrolling through his social media feed, he stumbles upon something intriguing – a post on social media that captures his attention. Specifically, it’s a MSNBC clip featuring Al Sharpton’s commentary on Donald Trump’s legal issues. In the clip, Sharpton raises a rhetorical question, “Can you imagine our reading that James Madison or Thomas Jefferson tried to overthrow the government so they can stay in power?”
Ramaswamy responds to this snippet with a chuckle, his eyes twinkling with an understanding that he can leverage this. He starts by recalling an incident from his college days when he posed a question to Sharpton during a news program. Although he doesn’t recall the specifics of that interaction, he capitalizes on the current moment. As our car nears the upcoming campaign stop in Concord, Ramaswamy plays off Sharpton’s comment and tweets a rejoinder: “It was called the American Revolution. We were successful. We won.” This tweet quickly garners over 2 million views.
Earlier in the day, the scene shifts to Milford, where Ramaswamy addresses a gathering of several dozen people in a local grill. Despite the awkwardness of some attendees eating their lunches while standing, there’s palpable interest in this candidate within the crowded field. Amidst the older, casually dressed voters, Ramaswamy stands out in his suit. He dedicates thirteen minutes to delivering his campaign speech and then devotes almost an hour to answering a diverse range of questions, spanning topics from his plans for national unity to his views on modern monetary theory and strategies to address pedophilia. Following this extensive exchange, he engages with those who have lined up for a photo opportunity.
Ramaswamy’s drive and charisma have deep roots. Born in Cincinnati to Indian immigrant parents who pursued the American Dream, his upbringing significantly influenced his worldview. Despite his parents arriving in the U.S. with limited financial resources, his father found work as an engineer and his mother as a psychiatrist. The values he imbibed were more rooted in culture than politics, he tells me during our time in the SUV. He elaborates, “That was sort of what we cared more about—moral foundations.”
During his teenage years, Ramaswamy began absorbing political insights from various sources. One influence was his conservative Christian piano teacher who admired Ronald Reagan. “She probably influenced me with modes of conservative thought that I probably wouldn’t have thought about in the past,” Ramaswamy reflects. He cites the emphasis on family stability and grounding as perspectives he gained from this exposure.
Despite his polished political demeanor, at the time Vivek Ramaswamy was primarily focused on the business realm. His Harvard years saw the co-founding of Campus Venture Network, an initiative supporting student entrepreneurs, and the launch of a college consulting firm. Graduating in 2007, he joined QVT Financial LP, a hedge fund where he achieved partner status by age 28. Concurrently, he pursued legal education at Yale Law School.
Around this juncture, Ramaswamy acknowledges entertaining fleeting thoughts of entering politics. He recalls, “I considered it briefly, the idea of possibly doing it at some point, when I was in law school.” While some in his circle maintain that he wasn’t deeply inclined toward electoral politics at that time, at least one acquaintance from that era shares that Ramaswamy had contemplated dedicating a decade to building a robust business career before embarking on a political journey. This strategy aimed to achieve success that would allow him to uphold his convictions without being influenced by the donor class.
Notably, Ramaswamy claims to have achieved multi-millionaire status by the time he obtained his J.D. in 2013. In the subsequent year, he founded Roivant Sciences, a drug development company aiming to advance stalled medical treatments. Through one of Roivant’s subsidiaries in 2015, he orchestrated the largest initial public offering in the U.S. biotech industry up to that point. While the Alzheimer’s drug central to this IPO faced setbacks, the company achieved success with other treatments, securing FDA approval for therapies addressing prostate cancer and overactive bladder. In 2016, he earned a place on Forbes’ list of richest entrepreneurs under 40, and his wealth soared.
The year 2020 marked a turning point. Ramaswamy’s discomfort grew as he observed corporate advocacy for ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing. He expressed his concerns in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, asserting that business leaders should refrain from influencing America’s societal and cultural values. The pandemic and the racial justice protests of that year further solidified his stance. An associate, Anson Frericks, recalls Ramaswamy’s frustration, noting instances where his board requested him to take positions on contentious issues related to COVID policies and matters stemming from George Floyd’s death.
In 2021, Ramaswamy relinquished his role as CEO of Roivant and published “Woke, Inc.,” a New York Times bestseller. Subsequently, he gained a regular presence on Fox News. He and Frericks established Strive, an asset management firm emphasizing shareholder value over political agendas. Ramaswamy swiftly penned another book, critiquing victimhood mindsets and identity politics. Amidst numerous appearances on cable news, he considered running for Senate in Ohio.
Picture: Vanity Fair
Surprisingly, Ramaswamy announced his candidacy for the presidential race on February 21. His YouTube video launch depicts familiar political-ad visuals, showcasing scenes from a small-town church, workers, families, and children at play. The video transitions into a more critical tone, featuring Dr. Anthony Fauci, climate activist Greta Thunberg, and transgender swimmer Lia Thomas. Ramaswamy’s voiceover voice warns against “COVIDism, climatism, and gender ideology.” The voiceover contends, “We hunger to be part of something bigger than ourselves yet we cannot even answer the question of what it means to be an American.”
The same day the video was released, Ramaswamy outlined his campaign themes on Tucker Carlson’s show. He expounded on core American values like meritocracy, self-governance, and free speech while highlighting how division, spurred by the left, has shifted focus to differences. Carlson commended him, stating, “I hope you’ll come back often, ‘cause you are one of the great talkers we’ve ever had.”
In the ensuing weeks, Ramaswamy embraced an inclusive approach to campaigning, engaging with anyone willing to converse, irrespective of potential detractors. Peter Christopher, a New Hampshire business owner attending Ramaswamy’s lunchtime event, expressed admiration: “He has an understanding of our culture today that he’s not afraid to share. And yet, the way he shares it is not in a way that other people have to be wrong.”
Apoorva Ramaswamy, the candidate’s spouse, emphasizes his enthusiasm for engaging with people, especially those holding opposing views. She notes his passion for being challenged and honing his arguments. Their initial meeting occurred in 2011 when he was attending Yale Law School. Apoorva remarks, “He loves being challenged, being forced to hone his arguments and his thought processes. That’s like his favorite hobby.”
Months of traversing the nation to engage with voters have passed, primarily through town hall meetings in early primary states. Ramaswamy ventures into unusual Republican campaign destinations, such as a Black barbershop in Chicago. These unique interactions generate social media buzz and distinguish him within the crowded Republican field. Paul Davis, a college friend maintaining contact throughout the campaign, reflects, “A lot of these candidates are very afraid of talking to the press… and they’re really worried about, ‘Oh, this outlet is biased, and they’re going to spin it this way, or that way, whatever.”
His educational journey brought him to a predominantly Black middle school in Milford, where he found himself among a diverse student body. He has shared an incident from his eighth-grade year when he was pushed down the stairs by another student, leading to surgery. This event marked a turning point as he transitioned to a Jesuit school, St. Xavier High School, where he became one of the few Indian students in a predominantly white class. In his valedictorian speech, he recollected feeling uncertain during freshman year mass, struggling with the lyrics and when to stand or sit. A sophomore religion class broadened his horizons, helping him explore various viewpoints and shape his own perspective. He expressed, “I’ll definitely remember emerging from St. X with a personal faith that was neither Catholic nor strictly Hindu, but was finally something that I could call my own,” addressing his fellow graduates.
Even during his teenage years, Ramaswamy’s warmth and sociability stood out, allowing him to discuss topics like local sports with ease. However, his unique background set him apart. Only recently did his former business partner, Anson Frericks, a friend from St. Xavier, realize he had been mispronouncing Ramaswamy’s first name for two decades. (The correct pronunciation rhymes with “cake.”) When confronted, Ramaswamy explained that as the only Indian student in an all-male Catholic high school, he grew accustomed to responding to whatever name people used. Frericks shared his perspective, saying, “He’s like, ‘Hey, you know, when you’re the only Indian kid at an all-male Catholic high school, you just take whatever you’re called.”
While pursuing a biology degree at Harvard, Ramaswamy engaged in a plethora of extracurricular activities, from playing club tennis to participating in the South Asian Association. He was deeply involved in leadership roles across various organizations and also explored his artistic side under the alias “Da Vek,” dabbling in rap. He held leadership positions in groups like the Harvard Political Union and the Institute for Politics, and he joined the Harvard Republican Club. He recalls, “I mostly, through college, considered myself a libertarian, a pretty staunch libertarian.”
Ramaswamy was unafraid to voice his opinions against prevailing campus liberalism or engage in debates with his right-leaning peers on issues such as Guantanamo prisoners’ treatment. A notable incident took place in 2007 when then-FBI Director Robert Mueller visited campus. Ramaswamy confronted Mueller with questions about external checks on the FBI with regard to civil liberties. Paul Davis, a friend from the same dorm, remarked, “He just kind of said what he thought about different topics, even if it pissed people off.”
During a trip to Las Vegas, Davis recounted an incident at a blackjack table that highlighted Ramaswamy’s pride in his American identity. When asked about his nationality, Ramaswamy responded, “I’m a citizen of the greatest nation on Earth, the United States of America.” This confident response resonated with the others at the table.
Davis likens his friend’s campaign strategy to that of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg during his 2020 presidential campaign as the relatively unknown mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He notes that Ramaswamy’s approach is about confidently sharing his story across various platforms, despite the potential for unfavorable coverage. Davis acknowledges that while there may be risks involved, they are worth taking.
Starting in April, Ramaswamy has managed to produce over 50 episodes of a podcast called “The Vivek Show.” He engages in in-depth conversations with individuals from diverse political backgrounds, ranging from right-wing commentators like Glenn Beck to Democrat Tom Wolf, the former Governor of Pennsylvania. During these tapings, he turns off his phone—a rare moment of respite in his busy schedule. A second season of the podcast is set to launch in early fall, featuring interviews with figures like Papa John’s founder John Schnatter and Chaya Raichik, the operator of Libs of TikTok.
Ramaswamy’s political stance often leans hard-right: he advocates for cutting federal regulators, ending affirmative action, and argues that transgender children frequently grapple with unrelated mental health issues. However, he also deviates from the typical Republican mold. Although he personally identifies as “pro-life,” he stands out by not supporting a federal abortion ban. His proposals include banning social media for individuals under 16 and eliminating automatic voting rights for those under 25.
The forthcoming GOP presidential debate will offer a platform to present his views to a broader audience. Tricia McLaughlin, a senior advisor to Ramaswamy, notes that the campaign decided to skip traditional debate preparation in favor of maintaining their hectic travel schedule, which has been instrumental in connecting with voters. McLaughlin emphasizes that the campaign’s philosophy revolves around letting Ramaswamy be authentic.
The question of whether Trump participates in the debate introduces an unpredictable element. Ramaswamy has fervently pledged to pardon the former President, who has reciprocated with effusive praise. However, Trump has indicated that his support may shift if Ramaswamy’s poll numbers approach his own.
Ramaswamy remains optimistic about the future. He envisions a more directed campaign path after the first debate, focusing on the early primary states while incorporating more traditional approaches. As the SUV arrives at his next town-hall venue, Ramaswamy reflects on his connection with ordinary people. He reveals that he doesn’t indulge in lavish vacation homes but instead invests in private jets to save time.
After parting ways, the journalist searches for the mentioned interaction between Ramaswamy and Sharpton. A video from 2003 shows an 18-year-old Ramaswamy wearing a light-blue button-down shirt and a shiny watch, asking the first audience question on “Hardball with Chris Matthews.” He inquires why voters should choose the Democratic candidate with the least political experience. Sharpton responds with confidence, noting his extensive political engagement and social policy work over the past three decades.Ramaswamy listens with a grin, nodding in agreement as Sharpton speaks.
In the aftermath of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s third indictment, which includes accusations of spreading “pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud,” the inevitable surge of disinformation looms large. Trump has been fervently fanning the flames as the upcoming election season looms. In May, he disseminated a fabricated video depicting CNN host Anderson Cooper castigating President Joe Biden for ceaselessly perpetuating untruths.
Yet, Trump is not solitary in his imaginative storytelling. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, contending with Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination, has also joined the ranks of creative spinners. DeSantis’ presidential campaign took to Twitter with a video advertisement showcasing AI-generated visuals of Trump engaging in affectionate gestures with Anthony Fauci, the former chief medical advisor and a polarizing figure on the far right. A separate counterfeit video, now viral, features former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing admiration for DeSantis, “He’s just the kind of guy this country needs, and I really mean that.”
Picture : Nature
The rise of disinformation has acquired a fresh impetus from artificial intelligence (AI), enabling the democratization of deceptive content creation. The advent of novel generative AI tools like DALL-E, Reface, and FaceMagic has effectively democratized political content generation. This phenomenon was further amplified by Meta’s recent revelation regarding its forthcoming generative AI technology for public utilization, potentially fueling an exponential surge in such “creative” disinformation.
The democratization of the disinformation process poses a profound menace to the already vulnerable U.S. democracy, a concern shared even by AI industry luminaries. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt cautioned against placing trust in visual or auditory information during elections due to AI manipulation. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, expressed his disquiet about AI’s potential impact on the trajectory of democracy.
Reacting to these concerns, legislators are taking decisive steps. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer proposed an innovative framework for AI regulation aimed at averting a potential democratic erosion. Representative Yvette Clarke introduced legislation mandating politicians to disclose their use of AI in campaign ads, a proposal paralleled by similar bills under consideration in the Senate. Several states, including Michigan and Minnesota, are contemplating legislation that would criminalize the deliberate dissemination of false election-related information, and some lawmakers are even receptive to the notion of establishing an entirely new federal agency tasked with overseeing AI regulation.
However, the conundrum remains: the prospect of regulating AI to safeguard U.S. democracy could inadvertently imperil democracies on a global scale. This paradox becomes conspicuous when considering the potential repercussions of more strident regulatory efforts emanating from influential markets such as the United States and the European Union. The more stringent the regulations on disinformation in these regions, the higher the likelihood of unbridled dissemination elsewhere.
Multiple factors contribute to this complex paradox. The major social media platforms, the chief conduits of disinformation, have been progressively downsizing their disinformation detection teams. This has resulted in limited resources being primarily allocated to address concerns in the U.S. and EU. Consequently, there is a dearth of resources available for monitoring content in other regions, exacerbated by the platforms’ preoccupation with other exigencies. This challenge coincides with the tumultuous year of 2024, marked by a plethora of elections far beyond the confines of the United States.
Contemplating the electoral landscape of 2024 underscores its pivotal role in testing democratic systems worldwide. Nations across Asia, including India, Indonesia, and South Korea, grapple with their own disinformation-driven political campaigns. In Africa, over a dozen countries brace for elections, where disinformation frequently exerts significant influence. Similarly, Latin American nations like Mexico and Peru confront rampant disinformation challenges in the run-up to their forthcoming elections.
Against this backdrop, one might naturally expect social media platforms to establish dedicated election war rooms and robust disinformation identification mechanisms. However, the reality paints a different picture. Companies within the tech sector are grappling with pressing profitability concerns, prompting workforce reductions and streamlining of non-revenue-generating divisions. The focus inevitably shifts towards user attraction and enhancing engagement, relegating disinformation monitoring to a secondary concern.
The ascendancy of AI-propelled disinformation presents a multifaceted dilemma. While the urgency to regulate AI for safeguarding domestic democracy is apparent, the inadvertent consequence of inadvertently facilitating disinformation propagation elsewhere demands equal consideration. The delicate equilibrium between domestic security and global ramifications underscores the intricate challenges confronting lawmakers and regulators in addressing this pressing issue. As the world navigates the turbulent electoral landscape of 2024, achieving this balance becomes an imperative of unprecedented magnitude.
At the point when the US High Court as of late banned governmental policy regarding minorities in society in school affirmations, among those praising the second were areas of the Hindu right in America.
The Hindu Policy Research and Advocacy Collective (HinduPACT), for instance, was quick to tweet: “#RacialQuotas in ed. adversely impacted #IndianAmerican students. We welcome #AffirmativeAction ruling by the #SCOTUS”. HinduPACT is an advocacy group established by the US branch of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHPA) – an organisation known for its role in the rise of Hindu militancy in India.
However, for what reason does a gathering related with the Hindu patriot reasoning of Hindutva care about governmental policy regarding minorities in society in the US?
Picture : ALJAZEERA
To some degree, it is an indication of a consistently developing kinship between US preservationists and diaspora Hindu patriots. However, similarly, it means that a hazardous obscuring of lines between legislative issues at home and abroad – and a work to close down analysis of verifiable and current oppression individuals from strict minorities and lower standings, in India as well as in the US.
For it is that separation that governmental policy regarding minorities in society looked to handle under the watchful eye of the High Court struck it down.
A unified governmental issues
However Indian Americans – like most migrant networks – proceed to generally uphold the Leftist alliance, fragments of the Indian diaspora have been revitalizing help for conservatives. That pattern has gotten forward momentum lately.
The Republican Hindu Coalition (RHC), sent off in 2015 by Chicago-based finance manager Shalabh Kumar to construct a scaffold between Hindu Americans and the Conservative Faction, expectedly advocates for more modest, restricted government and lower charges. It accepts the public authority ought to deter single nurturing and early terminations and that fighting extremist Islam ought to be key to US international strategy.
Kumar by and by supported previous President Donald Trump’s position on prohibitive migration as well as his arrangements to construct a wall along the US-Mexico line.
Moderate arguments are additionally simple to recognize on the sites of gatherings like HinduPACT, Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, Hinduvesha, American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD) and the VHPA. These are generally joined by analysis of American dissidents.
All of this filled in as the setting for Indian Top state leader Narendra Modi’s manly relationship with Trump, broadcast to the world through two uber rallies they kept intact – one in Houston, Texas in 2019, and the other in Ahmedabad, India in 2020.
At the point when numerous US administrators, particularly in the Progressive alliance, were raising worries about the Indian government’s for the time being repudiation of Kashmir’s naturally ensured semi-independent status, Trump and his organization stayed unflinching in their help for Modi.
The legend of ‘merit’
No place does this moderate conjunction appear as obviously as it does in training. The equals between the resistance to governmental policy regarding minorities in society from Hindutva bunches like HinduPACT and the feeling against station based training shares in India among numerous upper-position Hindus are striking.
In the two cases, this is situated as a fight for supposed merit – pandering to casteist and bigoted sayings to recommend that recipients of governmental policy regarding minorities in society or quantities are less meriting school seats. Disregarded, again in the two examples, are the long stretches of foundational treachery and oppression minorities, particularly African Americans, in the US and against individuals from lower positions in India, which makes any thought of a level battleground negligible.
In India, the people who contend against position based governmental policy regarding minorities in society appear to have acquired from the conservative idea of “turn around bigotry”, frequently heard in the US, when they contend that any reservations and portions for lower standings lead to “switch separation” or “converse casteism” against meriting understudies.
However, they seldom notice or recognize the uncontrolled rank based segregation as well as regular badgering and vilification looked by lower-standing understudies in establishments of advanced education, driving some like PhD researcher and Dalit dissident Rohith Chakravarthi Vemula to end their own life. In his splitting letter, he composed: ” My introduction to the world is my deadly mishap.”
In the US, this works out in the utilization by Hindutva gatherings of the Indian-American people group’s “model minority” picture to contend that it doesn’t need or need the help that other ethnic and racial minorities need.
In this, they advantageously conflate Hindu Americans and Indian Americans. The RHC promotes the way that Indian Americans have the “most noteworthy middle family pay” of every single ethnic gathering, are least subject to government support and have among the most elevated levels of training.
In an infographic on the “Direction of Hindus in America”, HinduPACT transfers a comparative message, adding that, “Indians skirted the ‘ghetto stage’ normal to most foreigner stories”.
However, following the High Court controlling, a Seat overview uncovered that most Indian Americans believed governmental policy regarding minorities in society to be something to be thankful for. Hindutva bunches have plainly fizzled, up to this point, to persuade them in any case.
In numerous ways, however, US governmental issues is the genuine objective these gatherings are hoping to impact and the point is to safeguard the interests of Hindu patriots in India.
‘Hinduphobia’
Diaspora Hindu patriots have lately attempted to contend that Hindus are the casualties of broad and foundational separation, strict contempt, disgrace, slander and destructive savagery. The VHPA’s “Hinduvesha” drive blames significant colleges for developing “a biological system of researchers, funders, and diaries to sustain Hinduphobic grant”.
Hindutva bunches venture to such an extreme as to look at the segregation Hindus supposedly face universally with the defamation and abuse looked by Jews in Europe before the Holocaust.
On its site, HinduPACT contends that scrutinizing Hinduism for standing based separation is additionally proof of Hinduphobia. Hindutva bunches have gone against bills to boycott standing separation in California and the Seattle City Chamber, calling them Hinduphobic and claiming that the regulation would build dangers of harassing and viciousness looked by Indian Americans in schools and work environments.
Furthermore, after the St Paul City Chamber passed a goal in 2020 that was reproachful of the Modi government’s citizenship regulation changes which victimize Muslim refuge searchers, the VHPA gave an assertion saying that “the genuine motivation behind this goal is to make scorn for Hindus and individuals of Indian beginning dwelling in Minneapolis – St. Paul region”.
As a result, any analysis of the Modi government’s strategies in India is considered Hinduphobic in the US by these gatherings.
A risky future?
The impacts of this mission by Hindutva gatherings – against legislators, scholastics and ordinary residents went against to them – are apparent.
In 2019, after an article uncovered the developing impact of Hindu majoritarian governmental issues in the US, Ro Khanna, a Popularity based representative from Silicon Valley, tweeted: ” It’s the obligation of each and every American lawmaker of Hindu confidence to represent pluralism, reject Hindutva, and represent equivalent freedoms for Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians”.
Assaults on him were prompt and relentless. After four years, Khanna seems to have mellowed. As a matter of fact, in the number one spot up to Modi’s visit to the US recently, he wrote a “bipartisan letter calling for Modi to address a joint seating of Congress”. He supported his choice to do as such by demanding that “the method for gaining ground on common liberties is to draw in with the Indian PM”.
In the midst of strain from Hindutva activists, the language of the California position segregation bill was likewise altered. Rather than position being a different class under the state’s non-segregation regulation as was initially planned, it was currently characterized as a “safeguarded class under the bigger umbrella of ‘lineage'”.
Hostile to charge activists praised this weakened form as a triumph, however the bill’s defenders demand the substance of the regulation remaining parts unaltered.
These are indications of a hazardous invasion of Hindu patriotism in American legislative issues.
Back in India, this philosophy has savagely separated a country and battered its majority rule government. Presently it’s adjusting itself against civil rights – whether on governmental policy regarding minorities in society or standing based separation – in the US, while attempting to menace pundits of the Indian government into quietness.
This is presently not simply India’s concern. It’s America’s as well.
The 8th Queens India Day Parade, which filled Hillside Avenue in tricolor, celebrated India’s 77th Independence Day with crowds lined up on both sides of the road to cheer on the marchers, who defied the scorching heat, and proclaimed the pride of Indian heritage with that country’s flag. The grand marshal was Kanishka Soni, an actress in Bollywood and a noted singer.
The parade started at 263rd Street on Hillside Avenue and ended at St. Gregory the Great School on 246th Street. The public meeting and cultural programs were held in the school auditorium. A large presence of women dressed in the colors of the flag was noticeable as more than twenty organizations and institutions marched with banners along with several floats.
Picture : TheUNN
The Floral Park – Bellerose Indian Merchants Association (FBIMA), the organizers of the parade hosted different communities and cultures at the parade. Association President Koshy O Thomas, Secretary Mary Philip, Chairman Subash Kapadia, founder leader Hemant Shah, Parade Committee Chair Dincil George, and others lined up in front of the parade. It was followed by a group of youths on bikes.
Members of the Uttar Pradesh Association of New York, Jain Temple of New York, Queens Village Republican Club, and many other organizations were among the participants in the parade. The accompaniment of chenda melam (drum beats) by teams Kerala Cultural Association, Syro Malabar Church, and Drum Beats of Long Island added to the festivities.
Several organizations including the Federation of Malayalee Associations of Americas (FOMAA), Federation of Kerala Associations of North America (FOKANA), World Malayali Council, Indian Nurses Association, Indian Overseas Congress, etc. participated with attractive floats and won praises. The Nurses Association float was the most attractive with women dressed in the tricolor were accompanied by a woman dressed as Bharata Mata.
New York State Senator Kevin Thomas, who is running for US Congress from Congressional District 4, joined the parade and greeted the people. Biju Chacko, who is running as legislator from Nassau County District 13, and James Chow, who is running for New York City Council from Queens’ 23rd District, were also joined the parade. Chow will face Linda Lee, the incumbent in District 23.
Picture : TheUNN
Dr. Jacob Thomas, president, led the float of FOMAA, while Dr. Kala Shahi, general secretary, led the float of FOKANA. Thomas Mottackal, global president of World Malayalee Council, Dr. Anna George of the Indian Nurses Association of New York, Dr. Thomas Mathew of ECHO, Leela Maret of Indian Overseas Congress along with New York Malayalee Sports Club and Pioneer Club of Keralites in North America joined the parade.
The Queens Republican Committee participated in the parade in full force. They carried a pro-Trump flag. Hillside shops supplied water, buttermilk and soft drinks to the marchers who appreciated the gesture during the scorching heat.
Besides, Leela Maret, Indian Overseas Congress Vice-Chair George Abraham, President Mohinder Singh Gilzian, and other leaders gathered at the Indian Overseas Congress float.
Earlier, the meeting and performances were held at the Open Stage at Padawan-Feller Park on 263 Street. Although the new venue reduced travel distance, it was felt the old open-air stadium was more suitable. The old place had spacious tents and stalls, which was lacking in the new venue. Fr. John Thomas from the Orthodox Church recited the opening prayer. He prayed a non-religious for prosperity and peace in both countries.
Many local political and social leaders also participated in the meeting, including Senator John Liu and District Attorney Melinda Katz. New York City Mayor Eric Adams was the chief guest who described his Indian connection with pride to a standing ovation. He recalled visiting Gandhi Memorial during his visit to India. He noted that Gandhi’s last footprints were engraved there. That footprint carries a message. We should continue Gandhiji’s journey from where he left off.
‘When gun violence continues, our brothers live homeless, and people’s rights are denied, Gandhi’s dreams are thwarted. Gandhi taught us to stand for the oppressed and the suffering. We are bound to follow that path.’ He expressed satisfaction that now on New York City schools get a holiday for Diwali.
Jennifer Rajkumar, the first Indian American woman elected to the New York State Assembly, said that Mayor Adams was described as an Indian Mayor. Adams is a vegetarian who loves Indian food and is also a fan of Gujarati dance ‘Garba.’ He is a person who goes to the temple on Sunday and then to the gurudwara. We have been pushing for Diwali school holidays in New York City for decades. Many said it was impossible. But Mayor Adams didn’t just say it was possible; he made it happen. She also noted that she is the first Hindu elected to the state assembly.
Queens Borough President Donovan Richards praised the Indians for their work and service to the community. He also pointed out that the African American people gained many rights in the civil rights movement inspired by Gandhi. Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz highlighted the diversity of Queens. ‘There is no other place where people from so many countries live together.’
Koshy Thomas, thanked the Government, the City, and the Indian Consulate for their support. He also thanked the organizations and people for joining the parade. He pointed out that many people from Pennsylvania and New Jersey came to the parade. He expressed special thanks to Mayor Adams for his leadership and support to the Indian community. Parade Chair Dincil George also spoke.
Indian American entrepreneur turned politician Vivek Ramaswamy is tied with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for second place in the Republican presidential field in a new poll. An Emerson College poll showed DeSantis and Ramaswamy tied at 10 percent each, trailing former President Trump, who leads with 56 percent. DeSantis kept his position in second place from previous polls, but he registered a big drop from the 21 percent he had in June. Ramaswamy rose from just 2 percent then.
According to reports, the poll’s release comes as a leaked memo from the super PAC supporting DeSantis’ candidacy, Never Back Down, urged DeSantis to “take a sledgehammer” to Ramaswamy. Some polling has shown Ramaswamy closing in on DeSantis for second place, and the memo appears to acknowledge a few other candidates also gaining momentum behind the Florida governor.
“Another boring, establishment attack from Super PAC-creation ‘Robot Ron’ who is literally taking lame, pre-programmed attack lines against me for next week’s debate. ‘Hammer Ramaswamy,’” Ramaswamy responded to the memo on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Emerson College Polling Executive Director Spencer Kimball said in a release that Ramaswamy has made improvements in voters with postgraduate degrees, taking 17 percent of that group, and with younger voters, winning 16 percent of those younger than 35.
The release states that DeSantis’s drop is similar to that of Emerson’s New Hampshire poll that showed former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) surpassing DeSantis by 1 point for second place in the state, a statistical tie.
Pollsters also found somewhat more shaky support among DeSantis supporters than among those for Ramaswamy. Almost half of Ramaswamy backers said they will definitely vote for him, while only a third of DeSantis supporters said the same. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of Trump supporters said they will definitely vote for the former president.
DeSantis, Ramaswamy and several other GOP presidential candidates will have their clearest opportunity yet to stand out on a national stage at the first Republican primary debate next week, especially with Trump seemingly planning to skip it.
More than 80 percent of Republican primary voters said they plan to watch the debate. The poll was conducted from Aug. 16 to 17 among 1,000 registered voters, including 465 who said they plan to vote in their state’s Republican primary or caucus. The credibility interval was 3 points.
On the ground, Ramaswamy has styled his politics on the agendas of the two men he hopes to usurp, making his stand against the “woke” ideology of the American left his signature policy issue. “We are in the middle of a national identity crisis,” he says darkly, accusing the country’s elites of metastasizing a “cultural cancer” — particularly when it comes to LGBTQ issues. His message has found an appreciative audience, and his book, “Woke, Inc.,” in which he develops this thesis, is currently near the top of the New York Times list of bestselling nonfiction.
While some candidates are beginning to aim their fire at former president Donald Trump, the 38-year-old Ramaswamy has moved toward the front of the chasing pack by placing himself firmly in the frontrunner’s slipstream. “I think I’m best positioned to advance our America First agenda, take it even further than Trump did, but also unite the country in the process,” the multimillionaire biotech entrepreneur recently told public broadcaster PBS.
Ramaswamy trails Trump by a seemingly unbridgeable gap, but he has spent millions of his own money in his bid to be best placed should the presumptive nominee fall by the wayside amid his growing tangle of legal problems. And the first-time candidate, a father of two young children, has been rewarded with higher poll numbers than most of his more experienced rivals.
A political novice by any measure, Ramaswamy started his campaign with no national profile but has shocked primary watchers by rising to second in the Republican primary field, five months ahead of the first vote in Iowa.
(AP) — A day after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, as the country was still reeling from the violent attempt to halt the transfer of presidential power, a local Republican Party official greeted a group of computer experts outside the election office in a rural county in south Georgia, where they were given access to voting equipment.
Their intent was to copy software and data from the election systems in an attempt to prove claims by President Donald Trump and his allies that voting machines had been rigged to flip the 2020 election to his challenger, Democrat Joe Biden, according to a wide-ranging indictment issued late Monday.
Several of those involved are among the 19 people, including the former president, charged with multiple counts in what Georgia prosecutors describe as a “conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”
The charges related to the breach of election equipment in Coffee County highlight that the pressure campaign by the former president and his allies didn’t stop with state officials and lawmakers, but extended all the way down to local government. Relying on Georgia’s racketeering law, the type of prosecution more typically associated with mobsters, the indictment alleges the events in Coffee County were part of a wider effort by Trump associates to illegally access voting equipment in multiple states.
“The one thing that Coffee County shows, and these other counties as well, is that the effort behind Jan. 6 didn’t stop on Jan. 6,” said Lawrence Norden, an election security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU’s School of Law. “The ongoing effort to undermine and sabotage elections has continued.”
The security breach inside the election office in Coffee County, about 200 miles southeast of Atlanta, is among the first known attempts by Trump allies to access voting systems as they sought evidence to back up their unsubstantiated claims that such equipment had manipulated the presidential vote. It was followed a short time later by breaches in three Michigan counties involving some of the same people and again in a western Colorado county that Trump won handily.
While the county-level equipment breaches have raised alarms about election data falling into the wrong hands and prompted two other prosecutions, they were absent from the recent federal indictment of Trump alleging interference in the 2020 election. The Georgia case is the first to argue that the breaches were part of a conspiracy by Trump and his allies to overturn the results.
Four people face six counts related to the breach in Coffee County, including conspiracy to commit election fraud, conspiracy to commit computer theft and conspiracy to defraud the state. They are lawyer and Trump ally Sidney Powell, former Coffee County elections director Misty Hampton, former Coffee County GOP Chair Cathy Latham, who also served as a false elector for Trump, and Scott Graham Hall, an Atlanta-area bail bondsman who prosecutors say is associated with longtime Trump adviser David Bossie.
A lawyer for Powell declined comment, while messages seeking responses from the others were not immediately returned.
After the 2020 election, Trump and Powell pushed various conspiracy theories about voting machines, specifically related to the Dominion Voting Systems equipment used in Georgia. Dominion earlier this year reached a $787 million settlement with Fox News over false claims aired on the network, including by Powell.
Court documents in Georgia show Powell hired a forensic data firm on Dec. 6, 2020, to collect and analyze Dominion equipment in Michigan and elsewhere, and prosecutors allege the breach of election equipment in Coffee County was “subsequently performed under this agreement.”
On Jan. 7, 2021, Hall and employees of the data firm traveled to the election office to copy software and data from voting equipment and were greeted outside by GOP official Latham and then taken on a tour of the office by elections director Hampton, according to the indictment and video surveillance obtained in an unrelated case about Georgia’s electronic voting machines.
Picture: WWNY
Later videos showed Hampton opening the office on Jan. 18, when it was otherwise closed for the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. She allowed in Douglas Logan and Jeff Lenberg, both of whom have been active nationally in efforts to challenge the 2020 election and were part of the effort to examine voting machines in Michigan.
Neither Logan or Lenberg were charged in Monday’s indictment.
Logan’s company, Cyber Ninjas, a Florida-based firm with little election experience, was later hired by GOP lawmakers in Arizona to conduct a review of the 2020 election in Maricopa County. It ultimately confirmed Biden’s win but claimed to find various irregularities — claims that election experts said were inaccurate, misleading or based on a flawed understanding of the data.
In Coffee County, the men worked late into the evening, returning the following day. Lenberg also was seen at the office on at least three more days later that month, according to information collected in the separate voting machine lawsuit. Hampton resigned soon after their visits amid allegations of fraudulent timesheets.
This week’s indictment also mentions a Dec. 18, 2020, session in the Oval Office, where Trump allies including Powell and Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, proposed ordering the military to seize voting machines and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of voter fraud in Georgia and other battleground states Trump lost.
In Michigan, authorities have charged three people in connection with breaches in three counties, including former Republican state attorney general candidate Matthew DePerno, who along with the others has pleaded not guilty.
So far, the special counsel assigned to the case has not charged any of the employees who handed over the voting equipment nor has he charged those who were asked to analyze them. In a statement, the special counsel said they had been deceived.
With Monday’s indictment, Hampton becomes the second top county election official to be charged in connection with a security breach in their office. The first was Tina Peters, the former clerk in Mesa County, Colorado, who has emerged as a prominent figure among those who say voting machines are rigged. Both are no longer working in elections.
Prosecutors allege Peters and her deputy were part of a “deceptive scheme” to provide unauthorized access to the county’s voting systems during a May 2021 breach that eventually resulted in a copy of the voting system hard drive being posted online.
Weeks afterward, Peters appeared at an event hosted by Trump ally Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO who has been seeking to prove the 2020 election was stolen and has called for a ban on voting machines.
Peters has denied wrongdoing and faces trial later this year, Her deputy pleaded guilty to lesser charges as part of an agreement with prosecutors.
Experts have described the unauthorized Colorado release as serious, saying it could provide a “practice environment” that would allow anyone to probe for vulnerabilities that could be exploited during a future election. Experts also worry it could be used to spread misinformation about voting equipment.
Colorado’s chief election official, Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold, said accountability is crucial to deterring any future attempts to illegally access voting systems. “We cannot allow election officials to destroy elections from within,” she said.
Former US President Donald Trump appeared in federal court on August 3, facing charges related to his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Former US President Donald Trump appeared in the US District Court in Washington in connection with charges of his alleged attempts to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The charges were filed as part of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the matter.
Trump is facing a total of four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The former President appeared before Indian American Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya, who presided over his third arraignment.
Picture : TheUNN
Judge Upadhyaya served as a law clerk to Eric T. Washington, former Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals. She also practised complex commercial and administrative litigation at Venable LLP’s Washington, D.C. office. Upadhyay dedicated her pro bono efforts to representing indigent clients in post-conviction proceedings.
Throughout her career, Upadhyaya has been actively involved in the legal community. She served as the co-chair of the D.C. Bar Litigation Section Steering Committee and contributed to organizations such as the D.C. Access to Justice Foundation and Council for Court Excellence. Her commitment to upholding the law and ensuring access to justice has made her a respected figure in the legal sphere.
Judge Upadhyaya, who traces her roots to the Gujarat state of India received a Bachelor of Journalism from the Missouri School of Journalism and a Bachelor of Arts with honors in Latin from the University of Missouri. She went on to earn her J.D. from the American University, Washington College of Law, where she earned accolades for her trial work and was a valued member of the Administrative Law Review.
Former President Trump was indicted Tuesday by a Washington grand jury on charges stemming from his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.
The 45-page indictment from special counsel Jack Smith puts Trump at the center of a lawless campaign to block the transfer of power, charging him with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and other crimes.
At its core, the Justice Department contends Trump embarked on a campaign of “dishonesty, fraud and conceit” to obstruct a “bedrock function” of a democracy — the counting of votes — generating charges for conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
Picture : PBS
“Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” the indictment states.
“These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false,” it continues. “But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.”
That lie was the basis for charges on four counts, alleging Trump was the director of a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and was also central to a campaign to block the certification of votes on Jan. 6.
That campaign spurred charges for obstruction of an official proceeding, the same charge brought against many of those who followed Trump’s Jan. 6 rally call for action and later stormed the Capitol in a deadly rampage.
The indictment also says Trump’s violated the rights of millions of Americans to cast a vote for the candidate of their choice, a right enshrined in the Constitution but further protected from “Conspiracy Against Rights.”
The indictment indicates that Trump will be charged alongside six co-conspirators who, though unnamed, point to a series of close advisers to the former president.
The assertion that Trump knew he lost advances the case beyond was what laid out by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — an allegation the panel made but was not fully able to prove.
The indictment breaks down a series of incidents in which allies who either supported Trump or “who personally stood to gain by remaining in office” like Vice President Mike Pence, informed Trump that he had lost the election and there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could unwind the results.
“Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue — often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts — and he deliberately disregarded the Truth,” the indictment states.
Title: From N.P. (Nani Palkhivala) to N.P. (Naipaul, V.S.): Observations through the eyes of an overseas citizen of India
Synopsis: The author, an ophthalmologist who has lived abroad (in England and the USA) longer than in India, has visited India more than 120 times since 1977. Each visit was a working vacation to combat avoidable blindness among Indians, especially children. He founded “Eye Foundation of America” in 1979 who is active in India and 21 other developing countries.
As an avid reader of non-medical subjects, he discovered the extraordinary books by Nani and also the books by Nobel Laureate V.S. Naipaul. Nani brought to his readers the best of India and its roots, while also pointing out many shortcomings of present-day India. Naipaul criticizes India (and even its roots) with remarks that are both explosive and cruel.
In spite of their contrasting perspectives, the writings of both N.P. and N.P. contain elements of truth. The author (V.K.R.), while expressing his gratefulness to Mother India for giving him the best medical education almost for free, will attempt to discuss the voluminous historical and philosophical material in these books and to connect them with present-day India.
Finally, the author’s own account, “The Tragedy of Childhood Blindness in India,” illustrates numerous points—the good, the bad, and the ugly—from both Nani and Naipaul.
Vivek Ramaswamy has emerged as something of a breakout star in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, raising speculation over his future within the party.
Many Republicans have praised the 37-year-old biotech entrepreneur, calling him an effective communicator with an impressive professional resume for a political outsider.
The biotech entrepreneur and author of “Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam” is an audience favorite at multicandidate events and has polled well despite not being nationally known when he entered the race.
“Take it from me as a young person — I’m 37 years old. I was born in 1985. I truly hope and pray and believe that my best days may still be ahead of me,” he said at the Faith and Freedom conference in Washington, D.C. in June.
Ramaswamy’s campaign says he met the donor threshold earlier this year. This summer he rolled out “Vivek’s Kitchen Cabinet” to boost his donor numbers even more, by letting fundraisers keep 10% of what they bring in for his campaign.
While there’s heavy scepticism that Ramaswamy will win any of the early-state primaries, many see him as a rising figure within the party’s ranks.
Picture : MediaLite
“I think that his message is resonating well with the Republican activist crowd, and he is being positive enough with regards to [former President] Trump to basically be an alternative without being an anti-Trump guy,” said GOP strategist and former Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis.
“I think that resonates with many of the Trump supporters and let’s say soft Trump supporters who would like to move on, but yet see somebody who’s not running kind of on a message of attacking Trump and his legacy,” he added.
Initially considered a long-shot candidate when he launched his campaign in February, the “Woke, Inc.” author entered the race known in part for his staunch opposition to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) policies.
But the political outsider and first millennial to run for president on the GOP side has started to catch some momentum in the GOP primary.
He’s garnered attention for some of his stances and proposals, including pushing every candidate in the GOP primary to commit to pardoning Trump over the Justice Department’s indictment alleging the former president mishandled and obstructed attempts to retrieve classified documents. Other Republican contenders like Perry Johnson have also vowed to pardon the former president.
Earlier this month, Ramaswamy gained some praise after a video went viral of him engaging with a protester who interrupted his Iowa event. After the woman turned to leave after interrupting his remarks, Ramaswamy offered for her to come back to ask a question.
“There is a division in our country and I think people are hungry to start talking openly again, and I think Vivek has a unique skill that he’s able to really lead people and rally people around what this country was founded upon, which is free speech, which is an open debate,” said Ramaswamy campaign senior adviser Tricia McLaughlin.
“I think that’s what not only the GOP electorate is hungry for, but I think independents and even disaffected Democrats,” she added.
National polling, too, suggests voters are starting to give Ramaswamy a serious look.
A RealClearPolitics polling average shows Ramaswamy placing third at 5.4 percent, behind Trump in first place with 52.4 percent and DeSantis at 18.4 percent.
Still, most national polls show the biotech entrepreneur in the single digits compared to Trump, who remains the front-runner in surveys. Some early state polls in New Hampshire and South Carolina show Ramaswamy trailing some of the other GOP candidates, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.).
Republicans also acknowledge more GOP voters will start to tune into the primary around next month’s debate in Milwaukee and note there’s still months to go until the first early states’ primaries.
Not all Republicans are buying the Ramaswamy hype. GOP pollster and consultant Whit Ayres said the GOP millennial is “not a serious contender for the presidency” and waved off Ramaswamy’s recent polling.
“It’s a sign just like Herman Cain caught something in 2011 and Ben Carson caught something in 2015 and Andrew Yang caught something in 2020,” Ayres said, referring to presidential candidates who appeared to have momentum at one point in their primary before sputtering out.
New Hampshire-based strategist Matthew Bartlett similarly suggested that Ramaswamy doesn’t have a viable path to the presidency. Putting it bluntly, Bartlett said, “No one is expecting him to win,” and he said he didn’t see Ramaswamy going after the former president in the primary but was “looking to cozy up to Trump.”
“His campaign was not looking to end up in the Oval Office. His campaign was to promote himself and to some degree, his ideas and articulate that,” he added.
But that hasn’t stopped members of the party from suggesting that Ramaswamy could have a bright future ahead, saying he could run for Senate, be picked for a presidential cabinet position or even selected as someone’s running mate.
“There’s so many people even after the Family Leadership Summit [who] said, ‘Boy, what a young, positive, inspirational guy. He has a bright future. He’d be good in somebody’s cabinet. He might be a vice president,’” explained Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of the influential Family Leader in Iowa.
“His biggest hurdle right now is crossing that threshold where people say, ‘No, I think he can be president.’ So he’s gotten a lot of people excited about his candidacy. Now he needs to make that transition: ‘Now they can see me be president,’” he added.
Ramaswamy for his part has previously said he’s not interested in being a vice presidential pick or taking a cabinet position, saying he’d return to the private sector instead if he didn’t win the GOP presidential primary. But his campaign argues he shouldn’t be underestimated.
“I think Vivek has already done what everyone said he couldn’t do. The fact that he is beating … the most former vice president, multiple governors, the former U.N. ambassador, a sitting senator … four or five months ago, no one knew who Vivek Ramaswamy is,” McLaughlin, the senior Ramaswamy campaign adviser, said. “And now he’s third in national polls. That in itself is meteoric.”
Republican strategists, too, say that while Trump is still the front-runner in the primary, a strong showing in Iowa can help galvanize a candidate heading into the next few states.
“I wouldn’t count anyone out that’s coming in the top three in Iowa,” said GOP strategist Alice Stewart, who’s an alum of multiple presidential campaigns. “And the objective of Iowa has never been to choose the party nominee, it’s to winnow the field.”
The criminal indictment of ex-President Donald Trump for his alleged attempts to subvert democracy and incite the Jan. 6, 2021, melee in Washington has been a long time coming. Now that it’s here, two-and-a-half years after a mob listened to Trump, marched about a mile eastward, and ransacked the U.S. Capitol in service of his lies about a stolen 2020 election, it hits a little different than the charges previously brought against Trump.
A federal grand jury on Tuesday charged Trump with an alleged conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and a conspiracy against voting rights. The charges are a remarkable escalation of the legal troubles chasing Trump during what he hopes is a brief return to civilian life. Trump, who is running for President again in 2024 and is the runaway front-runner in the Republican field, could face years in prison if convicted. Now Trump has made history once again, becoming a thrice-indicted ex-Commander in Chief. Well, at least if the normal rules of political gravity still matter. History is being made, but not all history is good.
It was a day a lot of the folks who experienced the attack in Washington on Jan. 6 had been seeking for a long time. The wall-to-wall coverage on cable, the constant refreshes of social-media sites, and even the text chains around Capitol Hill all reflected an anxiety that this may be a false start. It will be similar when Trump is due in court on Thursday in D.C.
Picture : Vanity Fair
Politicos of both parties in D.C. watched in horror more than two years ago as a riot descended on Capitol Hill, the mob raiding offices, menacing lawmakers, and fighting hand-to-hand combat with police. The top leadership of both chambers followed evacuation protocols to make sure their branch of government wouldn’t be decapitated. Vice President Mike Pence was pinned down and forced to hide at a loading dock while White House aides unsuccessfully lobbied Trump to direct his legion of followers to stop terrorizing democracy. Partisanship fades when Hill staffers talk about that day, even if many of their bosses have publicly retreated from prior criticism of Trump and sought to shade the painful facts.
The Trump years numbed the country to the word “unprecedented,” amid the constant reverberations of history being made. From the day Trump took office as the only person ever elected to the presidency with zero government or military experience, around every corner came norm-breaking and precedent-smashing. His tweets broke the fourth wall, he was the only President impeached twice, became the first in 150 years to refuse to attend his successor’s inauguration, and his Administration paid so little heed to laws prohibiting politicking on the government dime that he held the Republican convention on the South Lawn of the White House.
Trump’s team has already started telling allies on the Hill that these latest indictments will not matter at all for his reelection hopes. Republicans cite “indictment fatigue,” hoping to plant the idea that voters don’t much care about it and have already accepted that Trump is a bad dude who doesn’t play by the rules. It’s going to be “Old News!” on the socials and “Witch Hunt!” in the hallways. The messaging leaves responsible conservatives squeamish, but they’ll still carry it for fear of being branded insufficiently MAGA, and thus vulnerable in a primary from someone who wears the red hat proudly.
Trump’s past two indictments suggest this one may, perversely, benefit him as well. The aftermath of those charges—totaling at least 78 felony allegations and counting—brought a fundraising boon and a polling surge . That’s right: the self-described billionaire will collect millions in donations from his fans who see the real estate mogul as a victim of a weaponized Justice Department. His best days of fundraising have been his worst ones legally.
It’s worth taking a beat to appreciate how casually we all blew through the phrase “past two indictments” in the previous paragraph. And the fact that a former President now accused of a “conspiracy to defraud the United States” remains the frontrunner for the Republican Party’s re-nomination next year. A thrice-indicted, convicted sexual abuser, alleged election interferer and wealth fabulist is on course to coast to the general election, past capable governors, investors, ambassadors, and even his own former Vice President. Trump could still return to power facing federal charges and, in turn, dodge accountability for any of his alleged misdeeds. (This is why the state-based cases, where Trump will lack pardon powers, may be the real places to watch.)
But that doesn’t mean the next year-plus will be easy for Trump. His troubles are as epic as they are history-making—and, maybe, incompatible with his campaign schedule. Trump is due in court in October to answer a $250 million civil lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General on allegations the Trumps falsified business records. He is scheduled to begin a New York County criminal trial in March of next year on 34 charges that he falsified Trump Organization business records to pay off a porn star.
A federal judge ruled on July 19 the case in Manhattan should continue there, and not be moved into the federal track. Trump was arraigned last month on charges he had classified documents at his Florida vacation club and defied subpoenas to return them, a case also brought by special counsel Smith. He pleaded not guilty to 37 charges. Another three were added last week. A trial date could start in May in Florida.
On top of all of this, Trump faces potential criminal charges of election tampering in Georgia for a call asking the state’s balloting chief to change the winner; an indictment has been considered imminent in a county-based case since February, and a new grand jury was seated last week. A decision, it seems, is imminent.
Yet, somehow, there remains a better-than-even-odds chance he squirms out of any consequences, which would leave a lot of the witnesses to the chaos of Jan. 6 deeply skeptical about the evenhandedness of the criminal justice system if not dejected and cynical. After all, a high-wattage series of congressional hearings last year into Trump’s conduct surrounding the riot resulted in a collective shrug, and two impeachment trials—one of which was also about Jan. 6—failed to deliver convictions.
Those earlier indictments cut some parts of Trump’s clout down to size. But those haven’t yet been enough to take him down, because Presidents stand like giants. That may be changing, as instead of standing with Sequoia-like titans like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, the Trump sapling is being cut into a stump. With this latest indictment, which is a federal criminal probe that goes beyond fibbing on tax forms and mishandling spycraft files and includes a bodycount, Trump has few chances to rise to his predecessor’s heights, at least beyond a shady corner of his partisan bonfire. It’s why Tuesday’s indictment is not like the earlier ones: it may be the one cited in the first line of future history books. He may well dodge jail time, but even the one-time most-powerful person on the planet cannot escape the accountability of historians.
Indian-American Democrats Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ro Khanna have come out in support of Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy over an attack on his Hindu faith. At a public event, Hank Kunneman, the senior pastor of the non-denominational Lord of Hosts Church in Omaha, Nebraska and a televangelist targeted Ramaswamy’s faith in an attempt to prevent people from voting for him.
According to a video posted on Twitter by Right Wing Watch, Kunneman said that as a country, America is in danger. “Listen to me Generation Z, listen to me millennials, those of you who are watching that like this new young guy (Ramaswamy). If he does not serve the Lord Jesus Christ and stand primarily for Judeo-Christian principles, you will have a fight with God.
“You’re gonna have some dude put his hand on something other than the Bible? You’re gonna let him put all of his strange gods up in the White House and we’re just supposed to blink because he understands policies?” Kunneman was heard saying in the video. “Those of you that like this new young guy — if he does not serve the Lord Jesus Christ and stand primarily for Judeo-Christian principles, you will fight with God…”
Reacting to Kunneman’s disparaging comments, Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ro Khanna said they don’t agree much with Ramaswamy but condemned the “bigoted remarks” against the 37-year-old.
“I don’t agree with @VivekGRamaswamy on much, but one thing is certain: all political parties in America should welcome individuals of all faiths, including Hindus. I condemn the bigoted remarks directed toward Ramaswamy, and I hope that Republican electeds and others do the same,” Krishnamoorthi tweeted on Tuesday.
“I have had spirited disagreements with @VivekGRamaswamy. But this is a disgusting and anti-American attack on his faith. We are a nation of many faiths, & the fact that so many Christian American Republicans are willing to support Vivek speaks to that ideal,” Khanna said in his tweet.
Seen as former President Donald Trump’s supporter, Kunneman calls himself a “prophet” and had said earlier that Trump’s 2020 election loss was God’s way of refuting prophets on Earth.
Ramaswamy was raised by Indian immigrants and is a practicing Hindu, which poses a dilemma for some conservative Christian voters who make up a significant share of the Republican primary electorate and are accustomed to evaluating candidates not just on their policy proposals but also on their biographies and personal beliefs, including religious faith.
“I’m not Christian. I was not raised in a Christian household. But we do share the same Christian values that this nation was founded on,” the Republican presidential hopeful had said in one of his campaign events.
In his address to prospective voters, Ramaswamy often rues that faith, patriotism, hard work and family “have disappeared, only to be replaced by new secular religions in this country”.
In response to a query on faith at a gathering in Nashua, New Hampshire on July 11, Ramaswamy said that the US was founded on Judeo-Christian values. He clarified, “I am not running to be a pastor-in-chief. I am running to be our commander-in-chief.”
Filing his candidacy, Hirsh Vardhan Singh, an Aerospace engineer from New Jersey, has become the fourth Indian-American to enter the race for 2024 US Presidential Polls. On Thursday, July 27, 2023, he formally submitted his candidature to the Federal Election Commission.
He is the third Indian American to join numerous Republicans vying for their party’s endorsement to run for President. The other two are former governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.
Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, Singh posted a video and said he is a “lifelong Republican” and “America First” conservative who worked to restore a conservative wing of the New Jersey Republican Party. In the video, he criticized the “corruption” of Big Tech and pharmaceutical firms, saying they had “relentlessly attacked our freedoms.”
“We need strong leadership to reverse the changes that have occurred in the past few years and restore American values. That is why I have decided to seek the Republican Party’s nomination for the 2024 election for the office of president of the United States,” Singh said in his video, according to The Hill.
With a dozen contenders vying for the Republican nomination, including former president Trump, Singh joins a crowded field.
Singh entered the Republican primaries for New Jersey governor in 2017 and 2021, a House seat in 2018, and the Senate in 2020, but he was unable to secure the party’s nod.
Aerospace engineer Hirsh Vardhan Singh has become the third Indian-American vying for the Republican nomination for the 2024 US presidential race after former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.
Singh joins a crowded list of Republican candidates vying for presidency, which includes Trump, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Florida Governer Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, Ramaswamy, Haley, Senator Tim Scott and businessman and pastor Ryan Binkley.
Singh, 38, introduced himself as a lifelong Republican and an “America First constitutional carry and pro-life conservative who helped restore the conservative wing of New Jersey’s Republican Party starting in 2017” in a video message posted on Twitter on Thursday.
He ran unsuccessfully for the US Senate in 2020, and the present bid is the fourth time the defense and aerospace industry executive is eyeing public office.
According to Singh, Americans face grave threats from the corruption of both, big tech and big pharma, and in addition, there is an all out attack on American family values, parental rights and open debate.
“While Big Pharma has made massive profits working with the government to compel everyone to take the experimental vaccines, Big Tech has become the Big Brother, who invades our privacy and indulges in censorship of our political and contrarian viewpoints,” her said in an over three-minute-long video.
“We need strong leadership to restore American values. That is why I have decided to seek the Republican Party’s nomination for the 2024 election,” he added.
While praising fellow Republican candidate Donald Trump as the “greatest president of my lifetime”, Singh said that “America needs more”.
“It is time to move past outdated politicians of a bygone era,” Singh said, calling himself the “only pure blood candidate for the President” as he never gave in to the Covid vaccinations. “Even New Jersey’s Democrat Senate President labelled me as ‘Trump on steroids,” he said in his video message.
According to a recent Morning Consult poll, 59 per cent of voters support Trump, 16 per cent would vote for DeSantis, 8 per cent to Ramaswamy, 6 per cent to Pence, and 2 per cent to Scott.
Born to Indian immigrant parents, Singh has a bachelor’s degree in engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology in 2009. Entering New Jersey politics in 2017 as a candidate for Governor, Singh finished third in the race, securing a meagre 9.8 per cent of the vote share.
He was awarded Aviation Ambassador in 2003 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. (IANS)
This spring, Bristol Smith, a manager at a McDonald’s in Maryville, Tennessee, came across the name Vivek Ramaswamy shortly after the entrepreneur Mr. Ramaswamy announced that he was running for president. Mr. Smith was drawn in. He liked Mr. Ramaswamy’s plan to send the military to the southern border to fight drug cartels and the way he “stands up against the wokeness.” He regarded Mr. Ramaswamy’s insight as a money manager worth countless dollars.
Then, at that point, Mr. Smith, 25, looked for Mr. Ramaswamy’s confidence. Mr. Smith is an evangelical Christian who recently established a modest church at his parents’ house.
He recalled, “I looked up his religion and saw he is Hindu.” I planned to decide in favor of him until that surfaced.” Mr. Smith believes that the nation needs to be “put back under God,” and he doesn’t want to risk it with a non-Christian.
By then, he said, “I got back on President Trump’s train.”
Mr. Ramaswamy, 37, is a practicing Hindu who was brought up in India by immigrants. Some conservative Christian voters, who make up a significant portion of the Republican primary electorate and are accustomed to evaluating candidates not only based on their policy proposals but also on their biographies and personal beliefs, including religious faith, face a dilemma as a result of this.
A candidate’s faith is a sign of a candidate’s values, lifestyle, loyalties, and priorities as a leader for many conservative voters. It’s the classic Sunday morning question about which candidate you’d like to have a beer with most: Who is a good fit for your church?
“It’s another obstacle individuals need to cross to go to him,” Weave Vander Plaats, a powerful fervent forerunner in Iowa, said of Mr. Ramaswamy.
Mr. Vander Plaats as of late had Mr. Ramaswamy’s family over for Sunday dinner at his home, where the feast opened with a request and the perusing of an entry from the Good book. He said that Mr. Ramaswamy’s message aligned with the priorities of many evangelical voters and that he left impressed. He referred to Mr. Ramaswamy’s list of ten fundamental “truths,” the first of which is as follows: God really exists. The subsequent: There are men and women.”)
“I believe he’s truly interfacing with the crowds in Iowa,” said Mr. Vander Plaats, who has not embraced an up-and-comer. ” He is open to more in-depth inquiries. In the most recent national polls, Mr. Ramaswamy receives less than 5% of the vote.
Mr. Ramaswamy has taken the direct approach of addressing the issue and arguing that he shares more similarities with observant Christians than they might think.
“I’m not Christian. In June, he addressed Mr. Vander Plaats in front of a small audience at the Family Leader’s headquarters. “I was not raised in a Christian household.” However, we truly do have the very Christian qualities that this country was established on.”
In a meeting in late June, in the wake of leaving a gathering with a couple dozen ministers in New Hampshire, Mr. Ramaswamy said his confidence instructed him that Jesus was “a child of God, totally.” ( That “a” will be a sharp qualification from the focal Christian conviction that Jesus is the child of God. Many Hindus believe in a plethora of deities, and some even consider Jesus to be a single teacher or god.) Hinduism is a fluid and expansive religion.
Mr. Ramaswamy pointed out that even though he is not a Christian, he openly discusses why belief in God is important, why increasing secularism in the United States is bad for the country, and values like marriage fidelity, duty, religious liberty, and self-sacrifice.
Regarding the theological differences between Hinduism and Christianity, he stated, “I don’t have a quick pitch to say, ‘No, no, that doesn’t matter.'” It’s that I see precisely why that would make a difference to you.”
Mr. Ramaswamy cites Thomas Aquinas and makes references to Bible stories at campaign stops, including the crucifixion of Jesus. He frequently discusses his time spent attending a Cincinnati “Christian school” (Catholic St. Xavier High School). Also, he differentiates “religions like our own,” which have gone the distance, with the contending perspectives of “wokeism, climatism, transgenderism, orientation belief system, Covidism,” as he put it to a group of people in New Hampshire.
The campaign of Mr. Ramaswamy has distributed videos of him responding to a New Hampshire man who asked about his “spiritual beliefs” at a town hall and of a pastor in Iowa comparing him to King David from the Bible. A woman blessed Mr. Ramaswamy in the name of Jesus Christ by placing her hand on his chest in Iowa.
“So be it,” Mr. Ramaswamy said as she closed her request.
Mr. Ramaswamy will be able to win over evangelical primary voters in the crowded Republican field in part because of outside forces. Rather than seeking a “pastor-in-chief,” many conservative voters now say they are looking for someone who shares their political and cultural goals and will fight on their behalf.
“The culture has changed, but theology is important. America has changed,” said David Brody, the boss political expert for the Christian Telecom Organization, who has talked with Mr. Ramaswamy. Mr. Brody stated that the fight against “cultural Marxism” and reversing the course of “a country gone haywire” are currently the most important goals.
He compared evangelical priorities in the Iowa caucuses the following year to those in 2008 and 2012, when conservative Christian candidates Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee won.
Mr. Brody stated, “I don’t buy it at all the lazy narrative that he’s Hindu so he can’t appeal to evangelicals.”
As political divides have widened, theological boundaries have become increasingly muddled. Few temples split nowadays over old discussions like the specific timing of the final days or the job of through and through freedom in salvation. About portion of American Protestants presently say they like to go to a congregation with individuals who share their political perspectives, as per surveying from Lifeway Exploration.
Mr. Ramaswamy’s accentuation on his faith in one God has a long history for Hindus in the US, particularly those addressing white Christian crowds, said Michael Altman, a teacher of strict examinations at the College of Alabama.
Master Vivekananda, who addressed Hinduism at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago in 1893, went to considerable lengths to portray his confidence as monotheistic, rather than the generalizations of its devotees as “pagan” polytheists. Although the religion has a number of deities, they are typically subordinate to a single supreme “reality.” Its theology, according to many scholars and Hindus, is too complicated to be classified as either entirely monotheistic or entirely polytheistic.
“The polytheism obstacle is the principal thing that must be tended to” for the majority American Christian crowds, Mr. Altman said. He believes that Mr. Ramaswamy’s argument against “wokeism” is a way to dispel myths that Hinduism is synonymous with yoga, hippies, and vegetarianism.
According to evangelical observers, former President Donald J. Trump paved the way for Republican candidates who weren’t necessarily the kind of people voters would expect to sit next to on Sunday mornings at church. Numerous fervent citizens embraced the rough, threefold wedded gambling club financier not on the grounds that he was one of them but since they accepted he would battle in the public square for their benefit.
Most Indian Americans, including Hindus, are leftists. However, a segment of the population that places a high value on family, marriage, and education presents a chance for conservatives. Mr. Trump celebrated Diwali at the White House while serving as president, and the Republican National Committee introduced a brand-new Republican Hindu and Indian American Coalition in April. When he appeared with President Trump in Houston in 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi drew a crowd of 50,000 people, making him a well-known figure to a growing group of right-wing Indian Americans. Mr. Ramaswamy talked last year at a celebration coordinated by the conservative U.S. bunch HinduPACT, which is lined up with Mr. Modi’s style of patriotism.
Nikki Haley, one more Indian American competitor in the 2024 essential, has also underlined her experience as the girl of foreigners. However, Ms. Haley converted to Christianity and now attends a large Methodist church in South Carolina, despite the fact that she was raised Sikh. Bobby Jindal, a Republican from Louisiana who ran for president in 2016, was born and raised Hindu, but he has said that he is an “evangelical Catholic.”
Mr. Ramaswamy goes to a similar sanctuary in Dayton, Ohio, that he did as a youngster that his folks actually do.
In 2015, he had his wedding in New York City officiated by one of the priests from the temple. His wife, Dr. Apoorva Ramaswamy, stated that he, his wife, and their two young sons attend the temple on holidays and for special occasions, including the younger son’s first birthday in early July.
Dr. Ramaswamy, who has spoken out about the family’s faith on the campaign trail, stated that serious and nominal adherents to the same faith share more similarities than committed believers from different traditions.
Dr. Ramaswamy stated, “The fact that we are believers, that we have that sense of humility, that we raise our children with true respect, fear, and love of God — that is so much more unifying than the name of the God to whom people pray.”
The inquiry for her significant other’s mission is whether enough Christian citizens will concur.
Ken Bosse, the pastor of New Life Church in Raymond, New Hampshire, said that he is “an extreme follower of Jesus Christ” and that, all things considered, he would rather have a Christian in the White House. But because “we have had some professing Christians in that position who didn’t follow biblical principles,” he would be open to the right candidate who is not a Christian.
Mr. Bosse welcomed Mr. Ramaswamy to convey a concise discourse at his congregation on a Sunday morning in April. He enjoyed the competitor’s accentuation on recovering a positive American personality, he expressed, and on his story as an independent tycoon who is the offspring of workers. Right now, in any case, Mr. Bosse is inclining in the direction of supporting Mr. Trump. (Courtesy: The New York Times)
Vivek Ramaswamy, a business visionary running for the Republican presidential nomination, has released a rundown of expected decisions for the U.S. Supreme Court, with an end goal to feature his moderate certifications to early-state citizens who might have one or two serious misgivings of an up-and-comer without a political foundation.
The move reverberations one made by Donald J. Trump in the 2016 official mission, when he was all the while confronting inquiries from Republican electors about his past as a Democrat from New York who had once upheld fetus removal privileges and had showed up additional moderate on specific issues.
The roster includes two senators — Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah — former Solicitor General Paul Clement and a half-dozen of the nation’s most conservative federal appellate court judges. Some of them have worked to limit abortion and transgender rights.
Ramaswamy also named seven judges, from various federal district courts, the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, as a pool from which he would select U.S. circuit court nominees if he is elected.
“We were looking for diversity of vantage points on the Constitution, but without a diversity of commitment to the originalist understanding of the Constitution,” Ramaswamy said in an interview with NBC News.
Ramaswamy’s rundown, detailed prior by Axios, incorporates legal advisers who have controlled on different parts of the Republican culture wars, including strict issues, free discourse, antibody commands and transsexual privileges. In a proclamation, Mr. Ramaswamy looked to differentiate his way to deal with that of President Biden, who promised during his mission to designate the main Person of color to the most noteworthy court, which he did when he named Ketanji Brown Jackson. Mr. Ramaswamy excused that move as “purely skin-deep diversity.”
Ramaswamy stated, “The unwavering dedication to the principles of originalism and commitment to a constitutionalist judicial philosophy is what each of the individuals I would appoint share.” Our courts are the last line of guard against a managerial express that guidelines by fiat, enacts from the seat, smothering opportunity and truth.”
Ramaswamy said he, his staff and what helpers portray as “outsider associations” went over every one of the compositions and choices of the nine appointed authorities on his rundown, zeroing in on originalism — the legal way of thinking that depends on the expressions of the Constitution when it was composed rather than an understanding in light of current perspectives — and a “guarantee to a constitutionalist legal way of thinking.”
In early-state and national polls, Ramaswamy is polling well behind Mr. Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Be that as it may, Mr. Ramaswamy has committed broad opportunity to Iowa, where his rundown of judges for a potential open Supreme Court seat could matter.
His list includes Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas. Mr. Lee was on Mr. Trump’s initial list in 2016. Mr. Cruz has been mentioned on lists of prospective conservative jurists, but his decision to object to certifying the 2020 election’s Electoral College outcome would raise hackles among Democrats, who may cite other objections as well.
Judge James Ho, who serves on the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, which incorporates Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, is additionally on the rundown. An individual from the moderate Federalist Society and a previous representative for Equity Clarence Thomas, Judge Ho has been a vocal rival of the right to a fetus removal.
Another legal adviser, Judge Lawrence Van Dyke of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, was designated for that situation by Mr. Trump in 2019. At that point, the American Bar Association said in a letter that it had worries that he wouldn’t be reasonable for L.G.B.T.Q. individuals.
Others on the rundown incorporate Appointed authority Lisa Branch, an individual from the Federalist Society who sits on the Court of Allures for the eleventh Circuit; Paul D. Forebearing, a previous specialist general; Judge Thomas M. Hardiman of the Court of Allures for the Third Circuit, who was on Mr. Trump’s underlying short rundown to supplant Equity Antonin Scalia; Judge Justin R. Walker of the Court of Allures for the Locale of Columbia Circuit; and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John K. Bush.
Former President Trump said Tuesday last week that he has been alerted he is a target of the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 investigation focusing on his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. Trump said he received the “target letter” Sunday evening.
“Deranged Jack Smith, the prosecutor with Joe Biden’s DOJ, sent a letter (again it was Sunday night!) stating that I am a TARGET of the January 6th Grand Jury investigation, and giving me a very short 4 days to report to the Grand Jury, which almost always means an arrest and indictment.”
It had been clear that Trump’s actions would be a central focus of the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation, as Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to review the matter last year to determine “whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power.”
But, as Trump states, receiving a target letter is often a sign someone could soon face charges in a matter where prosecutors have gathered substantial evidence.
Trump pursued a multi-pronged plan to remain in office, turning to the DOJ, state officials and even his own supporters, who ransacked the Capitol after then-Vice President Mike Pence refused Trump’s request to overturn the election results.
It’s unclear what specific charges Trump could face if prosecutors decide to move ahead.
A model prosecution memo analyzing publicly available details about the DOJ investigation suggested the former president could face charges on conspiracy to defraud the United States after creating fake electoral certificates that were submitted to Congress.
Creating those fake electoral certificates could also invoke statutes that prohibit obstruction of an official proceeding, a charge also leveled at numerous rioters who entered the building, including members of the Oath Keepers and military and chauvinist group the Proud Boys.
Prosecutors in recent weeks have called a number of Trump allies before the grand jury, including Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and former aide Hope Hicks. Prosecutors reportedly asked questions about whether Trump knew he had lost the election, as demonstrating intent is key for some charges.
An indictment would mark the third time this year Trump has been charged with a crime, and the second time in a matter of months that he would face federal charges. He was charged in Manhattan in April over an alleged hush money scheme to keep quiet an affair, and in June he pleaded not guilty to federal charges over his handling of classified documents upon leaving office. The former president is still under investigation in Georgia over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state. The district attorney leading the investigation has signaled charges could be filed in August.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the myriad investigations into his conduct are part of an attempt to undermine his 2024 White House bid, pointing to his sizable lead in Republican primary polls, as well as some surveys that have shown him narrowly leading President Biden in a hypothetical rematch.
“THIS WITCH HUNT IS ALL ABOUT ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND A COMPLETE AND TOTAL POLITICAL WEAPONIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT!” Trump said Tuesday. “It is a very sad and dark period for our Nation!”
The Biden White House has been adamant that they have had no contact with the DOJ about cases involving Trump.
In the case over his handling of classified materials, a May 19 letter from the DOJ notified Trump he was a target of the investigation, according to court filings. Trump posted on social media June 8 that he had been indicted.
In this case, however, it appears Trump has been given until Thursday to appear before the grand jury in Washington.
Trump’s office did not immediately respond to questions about whether he will appear before the grand jury — a chance to offer his own evidence in the case — and Smith’s office declined to comment on the matter.
In the halls of Congress, Republicans defended Trump, repeating his claims that he is being unfairly targeted.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who in the days after the Jan. 6 attack said that Trump “bears responsibility” for the riot, sounded a different tune Tuesday morning.
“Recently, President Trump went up in the polls and was actually surpassing President Biden for reelection. So, what do they do now? Weaponize government to go after their No. 1 opponent,” he told reporters. “This is not equal justice. They treat people differently and they go after their adversaries.”
On the day of the insurrection, McCarthy called Trump, pleading with him to make a public statement to call off his supporters, at one point reportedly telling the then-president that “they are trying to f ing kill me.” “Yeah, it’s absolute bulls ,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said. “This is the only way that the Democrats have to beat President Trump.”
But Democrats argued Trump’s plan to stay in power was an effort to subvert democracy, one that should carry serious consequences.
“A mob of insurrectionists violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6th in order to halt the peaceful transfer of power,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrote on Twitter.
“The American people deserve to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called a potential case among the most serious Trump would face.
“If he’ll be facing charges with respect to the Jan. 6 insurrection, those are perhaps the most serious charges,” he said. “If he’s convicted of insurrection, he’s ineligible to ever hold any office of profit or trust under the United States.”
Former President Trump predicted Wednesday that he will soon face arrest and indictment for his role in the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump is basing that assessment on the fact that his attorneys have been informed he is a target of the federal grand jury in Washington, D.C.
If Trump is indeed indicted, it would be the third case in which he has been charged this year. Possible charges loom in a fourth case in Georgia.
Here is a roundup of the legal challenges Trump faces.
New York and the hush money payments
Trump’s first criminal indictment is in many ways the least compelling.
In early April, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg laid out 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
The charges relate to three stories about Trump’s personal life. The most famous of these centers on porn actress Stormy Daniels, who alleges she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. A $130,000 deal to buy Daniels’s silence was sealed by Michael Cohen, Trump’s now-estranged attorney, in the closing weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign.
The Bragg indictment also encompasses payments made by Trump allies to another woman — former Playboy model Karen McDougal — who alleges she had a sexual relationship with him, and an additional, smaller deal allegedly aimed at silencing a former Trump Tower doorman.
The charges, in simple terms, are that the Trump Organization concealed these hush-money payments in its official business records.
Theoretically, Trump could face a four-year jail sentence on every count, which would make for a maximum sentence of 136 years. However, most legal experts consider it inconceivable the sentence would be anywhere close to that punitive, even if he is found guilty.
Trump has pleaded not guilty. His allies contend that a criminal case would not even have been brought against a private citizen who engaged in the same conduct.
Mar-a-Lago and the classified documents
Trump’s second indictment — and the first to come from special counsel Jack Smith, who is also investigating Jan. 6 — is significantly stronger.
Trump has been charged with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information, one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, one count of making false statements and four additional offenses pertaining to different forms of concealment.
A Trump aide, Walt Nauta, is the co-defendant on five of the charges and has been individually charged for making false statements.
The indictment lays out its case in some detail, with several accompanying photos.
It includes a transcript of a conversation in which Trump appears to acknowledge that at least one document in his possession is “secret information” and “highly confidential.”
There are also allegations that, if true, look like textbook examples of obstruction. The indictment includes an episode where, under subpoena to produce documents, Trump muses as to whether his legal team could simply not “play ball,” or deny he possesses the relevant documents.
There are also allegations that boxes of documents were moved at Trump’s direction, seemingly to hide them from Trump’s own attorney.
The obstruction charge alone carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all the charges at a June 13 arraignment in Miami. He has furiously attacked Smith in speeches and on social media, and his legal team has sought to delay a trial until after the 2024 election.
The investigation into Jan. 6
In his Truth Social post Wednesday morning, Trump said that the official notification that he was a target “almost always means an arrest and indictment.”
The former president is correct on that point.
Former Vice President Mike Pence, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander are among those reported to have testified to the grand jury.
An indictment is expected any day now, and much speculation concerns what the actual charges will be.
Multiple news outlets reported Wednesday that the warning letter mentions federal statutes relating to deprivation of rights, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and tampering with a witness.
The referrals made to the Department of Justice (DOJ) by the House Select Committee investigating Jan. 6 late last year also provide some possible clues.
Referrals have no real legal force, but the committee prodded the DOJ to look at possible charges of inciting or aiding an insurrection; obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; and conspiracy to make a false statement.
If charges are indeed pressed, Trump is virtually certain to plead not guilty.
In a second Truth Social post Wednesday, he contended he had “the right to protest an Election that I am fully convinced was Rigged and Stolen.”
The ongoing Georgia probe
Fulton County (Ga.) District Attorney Fani Willis first asked for a grand jury to be empaneled in January 2022. Her request was fulfilled four months later.
Willis’s original request contended that there was a “reasonable probability” that the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia were “subject to possible criminal disruptions.”
Even among Trump loyalists, there has long been trepidation about the Georgia probe.
The main reason is that Trump was recorded during a phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) on Jan. 2, 2021.
In that call, Trump — still the president — pressed Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overcome President Biden’s narrow margin of victory in the state. Biden had carried the Peach State by fewer than 12,000 votes.
Trump also warned ominously that Raffensperger could face criminal consequences if he did not comply. Raffensperger later wrote that he construed Trump’s words as “a threat.”
It’s possible, of course, that Willis in the end indicts nobody — or that she indicts Trump allies but not the former president himself.
She has suggested a charging decision will be made by Aug. 18
Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy has achieved the necessary donor threshold to qualify for the first GOP debate, his campaign confirmed on Friday. Tricia McLaughlin, a senior adviser on Ramaswamy’s campaign, verified that he had surpassed the required minimum of 40,000 donors, reaching an impressive 65,000 unique donors.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) had outlined specific criteria in June for candidates to participate in the debate. Apart from the donor threshold, candidates must also meet polling requirements. They should have at least 1 percent support in three national polls or 1 percent support in two national polls and one state poll from early primary or caucus states, such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.
Ramaswamy’s achievement comes at a time when his campaign is gaining some momentum. Recent polling averages from FiveThirtyEight show him in third place among GOP primary contenders with 6.8 percent support, a remarkable increase of over four points in the last month, placing him comfortably above the RNC’s threshold.
Interestingly, Ramaswamy took the opportunity to criticize the current GOP frontrunner, former President Donald Trump, during a town hall event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This approach is quite different from his previous tactics, as he had largely avoided directly targeting Trump. Ramaswamy argued that Trump’s polarizing nature might hinder the party’s progress, suggesting that a significant portion of the population suffers mentally when he is in office. Despite this criticism, Ramaswamy has shown loyalty to the former president, even supporting him amidst legal challenges, including the potential indictment over the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
As the date of the first GOP debate draws near, Ramaswamy’s rise in the polls may indicate a shift in his campaign strategy. The debate is scheduled for August 23 in Milwaukee and will be moderated by Fox News.
It is evident that Ramaswamy’s ability to secure a substantial number of donors showcases his growing support within the party. His surge in popularity, surpassing the required polling and fundraising benchmarks, positions him as a serious contender for the GOP nomination.
In the upcoming debate, Ramaswamy will have the opportunity to present his ideas and policy proposals to a nationwide audience. This platform could be a game-changer for his campaign, allowing him to introduce himself to a broader audience and potentially increase his support base.
With the debate just a few weeks away, all eyes will be on Ramaswamy and the other candidates vying for the GOP nomination. The dynamics of the race may change as candidates seek to distinguish themselves and articulate their visions for the party’s future.
It’s worth noting that Ramaswamy’s decision to critique Trump directly could be a strategic move to set himself apart from other candidates who have been more cautious in their remarks about the former president. By addressing the potential challenges posed by Trump’s polarizing leadership style, Ramaswamy may be attempting to appeal to a broader segment of the Republican electorate.
The debate itself will be a critical event for Ramaswamy and his fellow candidates. It will offer them the chance to showcase their policy expertise, articulate their stances on various issues, and demonstrate their ability to lead the country effectively.
As the debate approaches, the candidates will likely intensify their campaigning efforts, seeking to secure more donors and improve their polling numbers. The primary race is highly competitive, and each candidate will be striving to make a strong impression on potential voters.
Ramaswamy’s rise in the polls and his qualification for the debate indicate that he is gaining traction and support within the Republican Party. However, the road ahead is challenging, with numerous hurdles to overcome before securing the nomination.
The first GOP debate will be a significant moment in Ramaswamy’s campaign journey. How he performs and how voters respond to his ideas and message will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of his candidacy.
As the date of the debate draws closer, the focus will be on the candidates’ preparations, their debate strategies, and their ability to connect with the American public. The nation will be eagerly watching the event, eager to see which candidate emerges as a front-runner in the race for the Republican nomination.
“Here’s a reality about my friend, Donald Trump,” Ramaswamy said. “I respect what he did, but it’s just a fact, it’s not even his fault — 30 percent of this country becomes psychiatrically ill when he’s in the White House.”
Vivek Ramaswamy’s successful qualification for the first GOP debate by meeting the donor threshold is a noteworthy accomplishment, indicating a growing momentum in his campaign. His rise in the polls and willingness to directly address concerns about Donald Trump’s leadership style suggest a change in campaign strategy. With the debate set to take place in August, Ramaswamy and his fellow candidates will have a crucial opportunity to showcase their visions and positions on the national stage. The debate’s outcome could have a significant impact on the Republican primary race, influencing the direction of Ramaswamy’s candidacy and shaping the competition for the party’s nomination.
The contracts between the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) and the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) expired, indicating that no agreement had been reached between the two organizations. The negotiating committee of SAG-AFTRA voted unanimously to suggest a strike to the organization’s national board, which then announced a strike on Thursday afternoon.
On June 5, almost 65,000 of the roughly 160,000 individuals that make up List AFTRA supported a hit approval with a 97.91% “yes” vote. Actors, dancers, DJs, puppeteers, recording artists, singers, stunt performers, voiceover artists, and other professionals in the media are all members of the union.
SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP—Amazon/MGM, Apple, NBCUniversal, Disney/ABC/Fox, Netflix, Paramount/CBS, Sony, and Warner Brothers—engaged in contract negotiations two days later. On June 30, the agreements between the two were expanded, lapsing at 12 PM on Wednesday.
“There has been a sea change in the entertainment industry, from the proliferation of streaming platforms to the recent explosion of generative AI, and at stake is the ability of our members to make a living,” Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, the SAG-AFTRA National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, said in a letter about the strike authorization referendum. “We must ensure that new developments in the entertainment industry are not used to devalue or disrespect the performers who bring productions to life.”
On Tuesday, Droop AFTRA consented to AMPTP’s somewhat late solicitation for government intervention, which would get an impartial outsider to help pursue a split the difference. However, SAG-AFTRA made it clear that the negotiations would not be extended a second time.
“We won’t be occupied from haggling in that frame of mind to get a fair and simply bargain by the termination of our understanding,” the organization said in a public statement. ” We are focused on the arranging system and will investigate and debilitate each conceivable chance to make an arrangement, but we are not certain that the businesses have any goal of bartering toward an understanding.”
Among Droop AFTRA’s requests are expanded least compensation rates, expanded streaming residuals (neither of which have stayed aware of expansion), and worked on working circumstances. Eminence installments, which are dependent upon the quantity of a show’s reruns, are at this point not solid. Streaming, which has moved to more limited seasons over longer timeframes, has made less work accessible to entertainers. Additionally, union members demand assurances from studios and production companies regarding the precise manner in which artificial intelligence will be utilized. They want to safeguard their identities and ensure that they are compensated fairly in the event that any of their labor is utilized to train AI.
On June 27, a larger number of than 300 entertainers — including Meryl Streep, Quinta Brunson, and Jennifer Lawrence — marked a letter to the Hang AFTRA Initiative and Arranging Panel expressing that “Droop AFTRA individuals might be prepared to make forfeits that initiative isn’t.”
“We trust you’ve heard the message from us: This is an uncommon expression point in our industry, and what may be viewed as a reasonable setup in some other years is basically sufficiently not,” the letter peruses. ” We believe that the power of our union, our wages, our craft, and our creative freedom have all been diminished over the past decade. We really want to invert those directions.”
“I am shocked by the way the people that we have been in business with are treating us,” Fran Drescher said in a passionate speech on Thursday afternoon when she announced the strike against AMPTP.
At the union’s press conference on Thursday afternoon to announce the strike, Drescher, president of SAG-AFTRA, discussed the impact that AI and streaming have had on the business model of the industry.
“This is a snapshot of history and is a decision time. On the off potential for success that we don’t have tall the present moment, we will be in a difficult situation,” she said. ” We will be in risk of being supplanted by machines and huge business who care more about Money Road than you and your loved ones.”
The association won’t acknowledge “gradual changes on an agreement that no longer distinctions what’s going on right now with this plan of action that was foisted upon us,” Drescher said, adding: ” On the Titanic, what are we doing, moving furniture around? It’s insane. So the dance is up AMPTP.”
Who belongs to SAG-AFTRA?
Entertainers and media experts become qualified for participation in List AFTRA by finishing an entire day of association work in a head or talking job, finishing three days of association fill in as a foundation entertainer, or being utilized under a subsidiary entertainers’ association.
Individuals from various associated associations — AEA, ACTRA, AGMA or AGVA — are qualified for List AFTRA enrollment following one year (and one chief agreement) under their own association’s purview.
Equity, the United Kingdom’s acting union, and SAG-AFTRA jointly issued a statement on Thursday stating that they “will support SAG-AFTRA and its members by all lawful means” for overseas films.
“Value U.K. remains in unflinching fortitude with List AFTRA and its individuals in their work to accomplish a fair and impartial agreement, and to ultimately benefit entertainers working all over the planet,” the assertion read.
However, U.K. actors working under Equity contracts cannot legally strike in support of the U.S. union because of “existing anti-trade union laws.” According to the statement, “SAG-AFTRA members working under an Equity U.K. collective bargaining agreement should continue to report to work.”
When did Hang AFTRA last take to the streets?
Strikes and boycotts have been common in SAG-AFTRA’s long history. In 2021, the association banned Donald Trump from truly rejoining in light of the fact that he hindered the quiet exchange of capacity to Joe Biden — and due to his assaults on columnists. ( Trump had left the gathering before that month.)
After the global advertising agency stated that it would no longer honor its long-standing contract with the union, SAG-AFTRA announced a strike against Bartle Bogle Hegarty in 2018. After ten months, the promoting office consented to sign Droop AFTRA’s new plugs contract.
When SAG and AFTRA merged in 2012, they went on strike together for the first time in 2016 against eleven American video game publishers. This was the longest strike in SAG history.
In 2000, preceding they consolidated, Hang and AFTRA gave a dubious half year work stoppage over the convention for paying entertainers who show up in television ads. Twenty years earlier, Hang and AFTRA mutually required a fruitful blacklist against 1980s’ Emmy Grants, striking for an expansion in least compensations.
How the continuous journalists’ strike factors in
In 1960, Hang took to the streets against AMPTP over pay, joining the Essayists Society of America (WGA), which had proactively been protesting for over a month with comparable requests, to a great extent over pay rates. That was Hollywood’s first industry-wide strike.
Today, the WGA has been on strike since the beginning of May, and if SAG-AFTRA’s demands are not met this time, it will join the WGA on strike, bringing Hollywood to a near standstill. This is a historical echo. SAG-AFTRA has asked members to volunteer to be strike captains, and WGA captains, who are already on strike at a number of studios, have offered to train from the picket lines.
How this affects motion pictures and Network programs
If Hang AFTRA individuals really do protest, any film or television creation that has not as of now been ended by the WGA strike will basically close down. Abroad creations, specifically, where studios have attempted to keep shooting a few shows without WGA essayist makers, are probably going to feel the effect.
Depending on their political affiliation, Americans had a wide range of opinions regarding the most recent decisions made by the Supreme Court, including those that restricted the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education and prevented student loan forgiveness.
New surveying directed by ABC News/Ipsos shows that Americans’ reactions to the High Court have been uneven, with the level of conservatives and free thinkers who view the court’s choices as driven by governmental issues remaining to a great extent unaltered. Meanwhile, Democrats are becoming more and more vocal about their belief that the justices base their decisions on their political opinions rather than the law. While just 33% of conservatives and a big part of free movers say the court leads basically based on hardliner political perspectives, 3/4 of leftists currently have that perspective – – a spike of 20 rate focuses since eighteen months prior when the inquiry was posed to in a January 2022 ABC News/Ipsos survey.
ABC News sought out poll participants to learn more about their perspectives. According to follow-up interviews with poll respondents, there is a high degree of polarization, and opinions within partisan groups are somewhat varied. Individuals from the two players have differing insights about the level of the court’s politicization, whether it involves concern, and the thing to do about it. All respondents requested to be recognized simply by their most memorable names aside from where generally showed.
Conservatives
A solid greater part of conservatives – – around 66%, as indicated by ABC News/Ipsos surveying – – accept that High Court judges pursue their choices based on regulation, not legislative issues.
Asha Urban, who spoke with ABC News earlier this month at a Trump rally in South Carolina, says that the justices are focused on the law. She advised, “Rule on the law, and push other things back to the states that need to be ruled in the states.”
Urban believes that former President Donald Trump’s tenure was marked by the appointment of three Supreme Court justices. She also believes that the Trump-appointed justices are reversing a legacy of politicized rulings prior to his presidency.
She stated, “He campaigned on bringing in conservative judges who would be constitutionalists rather than politicians.” I believe that is what the vast majority of us need.”
Michael, a South Carolina Republican, has a different perspective. He was surprised to learn that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to believe that Supreme Court justices rule based on their personal political views. He is one of about a third of Republicans who believe this.
He jokingly stated, “It distresses me that I might lean toward the Democrats.” He concurs with the court’s new choices on governmental policy regarding minorities in society and understudy loans. In any case, the 74-year-old is worried by the way that the court’s navigation could turn out to be in an exposed fashion political later on – – a pattern he sees as connected with the country’s polarization overall.
He stated, “I’m worried that they’re not following the law.” They weren’t chosen. We have no recourse when a president serves them up—and it’s for life. They can’t be voted out.
Concerns about the direction of the court were expressed by Dwight Edward Allen, a 47-year-old Kentucky man who describes himself as “more of a conservative than a Republican.” While he accepts that the judges pursue sound legitimate choices more often than not, including their new choice with respect to educational loans, he said that the court is turning out to be more political, and explicitly that it is “going in reverse.”
“That is great assuming you’re white or special, yet in the event that you’re simply attempting to scrape by, then, at that point, it’s not,” he said.
Democrats According to ABC News/Ipsos polling, many Democrats view the Supreme Court as an increasingly politicized institution after a year of controversial rulings.
One such Democrat who is concerned about partisanship on the Supreme Court is Natalie. She stated that her upbringing as a Filipina immigrant gave her a profound appreciation for nonpartisan judicial systems and that she is concerned about what she sees as the weakening of democracy in the United States as a whole.
“I know what it’s like to live under a dictatorship because I spent my childhood in the Philippines under martial law. She stated, “I know what it’s like when the politicians in power influence the Supreme Court.”
Natalie said that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on affirmative action, President Joe Biden’s policy on student loan debt, and abortion show that the court doesn’t always follow the law.
“Experiencing childhood in a nation where we generally admired the majority rule standards of the US, and perceiving how it’s getting disintegrated the present moment, is troubling to me,” she added.
Another Democrat who is concerned about partisanship on the court, Vicki, claims that politics have become more influential on the court in the past year. She shared, “I think that they are more partisan now than they have been in the past.”
Vicki emphasized that justices should adhere to the letter of the law and should not be influenced by political parties or politicians—something that, according to her, has not been the case in recent months.
She stated, “I idealistically believe that they should be ruling based on what is written in the Constitution, rather than what the party supporting the president that appointed them might support.”
According to ABC News/Ipsos polling, independents are roughly evenly divided regarding whether the court rules primarily on the basis of the law.
Greg Freeman, an autonomous, said that albeit the ongoing High Court judges’ decisions convey hardliner inclinations, they are sensible translations of the law.
He stated, “Even though it appears that what they’re doing right now is partisan…” He added, “I think we’re just seeing that the decisions of the court are very reflective of the presidents who nominated them.”
That Freeman still has faith in the Court despite partisanship. The 49-year-old South Carolinian, who asserts that he has major concerns with both political parties, views it as a natural part of a democracy’s power struggles.
“At the point when certain issues were deciphered contrastingly in past High Court decisions, moderates jumped on a ‘liberal’ court. In an email to ABC News, Freeman wrote, “Liberals are railing against a mostly conservative court now that the reverse is arguably true.” Partisanship in the Court is the same old thing, and it has a major impact in how presidents are picked by citizens. Continuously has, consistently will.”
Dan, another California independent, concurred with Freeman’s diagnosis but expressed concern about the trend. He declined to discuss specific cases but stated that he senses that the court has become more political over the past decade. He self-identifies as a swing voter.
“The current court appears to be biased, in my opinion,” he stated. “I’m concerned that the current Supreme Court would change long-term positions.” A decade prior, I could never have said that.”
Dan said that he wouldn’t uphold extending the quantity of judges on the court, an answer that has been proposed by a few Vote based legislators, assuming that the judges were still politically named. However, he expressed broad support for the establishment of term limits for Supreme Court justices and other measures to make the court less partisan.
The high school student government vote in the classic 1999 film “Election” has everything: bare desire, crusade banner destroying, voting form control, unfaithfulness and then some Tracy Flick is played by Reese Witherspoon, who can differentiate between “morals” and “ethics” and always raises her hand first in class. Jim McAllister, who has been named teacher of the year three times, is played by Matthew Broderick. He doesn’t like Tracy and gets a popular jock to run against her for student body president.
In any case, what the skilled author Tom Perotta probably couldn’t envision was a political race wherein two disliked competitors get down to business for president. That doesn’t occur in secondary school, even in an ironical film.
While a great deal can occur before the primaries start one year from now, the two driving competitors right now, President Joe Biden and previous President Donald Trump, are both disagreeable with the American public.
Only 41% of Americans, according to a June CNN poll, approve of Biden’s performance. Trump finished his administration in 2021, days after the January 6 US State house revolt, with a typical endorsement rating that was even lower – 39%. 59% of all Americans believe that Trump should end his campaign following his indictment this year on federal charges of mishandling classified documents.
“This puts a lot of Americans in a position they don’t want to be in,” Harry Enten wrote last month. At this point, a historically high percentage of them dislike either man. “A plurality (36%) viewed neither candidate favorably, while 33% viewed Trump favorably and 32% viewed Biden favorably,” according to a CNN poll.
“Even with his mediocre approval ratings,” Biden has advantages over some of his predecessors, according to historian Julian Zelizer. He has “a formidable legislative record,” as he puts it. He can boast of a robust economy with numerous jobs and price stability now that inflation has subsided. But he argued that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s primary challenge must concern the president. Biden also benefits from the specter of a second Trump presidency, which is enough to rally Democrats and scare voters who might otherwise be tempted by a challenger.
Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush are just a few examples from history who lost out in crucial primaries. Large numbers of Biden’s 2020 allies are disappointed with the president, and any assaults Kennedy will release could additionally harm Biden and give an establishment to conservatives to pursue him in the mission,” composed Zelizer. If Biden’s name is not on the ballot, RFK Jr. could even win the New Hampshire primary. The president is in favor of depriving that state of its right to hold the first-in-the-nation primary in favor of South Carolina, which was the state that gave Biden’s 2020 campaign a lot of energy.
Trump has a sizable lead over his kindred GOP competitors yet faces a remarkable arrangement of legal difficulties originating from his two prosecutions, other forthcoming examinations and common claims. Trump’s opponents, both within and outside the party, have more cause for concern as his MAGA base proclaims its love for the former president.
Consider Sen. Lindsey Graham’s participation in a Trump rally over the weekend. Despite the fact that he was in his home province of South Carolina just miles from his origin, the congressperson was completely booed by Trump’s allies, as Dignitary Obeidallah called attention to.
“While the roasting served as yet another reminder of how some Trump supporters demand absolute loyalty to the former president, I must admit that it was fun to watch Graham bomb with the audience. When Trump said that Graham and everyone else makes a “mistake,” it seemed like the mistake was not being completely loyal to Trump.
Trump has been promoting the idea of “bringing back” retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and was pardoned by the former president. “The United States would be in for quite a scary ride if Flynn were to be brought back into a senior national security role in a possible second Trump administration, based on Flynn’s tight embrace of the Christian nationalist right and wild conspiracy theories,” wrote Peter Bergen and Erik German.
Featuring in a “Enliven America Visit,” “Flynn is named, without incongruity, ‘America’s general,’ and, at the occasion we went to in May, America’s general was the certain superstar. Flynn told the crowd, many of whom had paid hundreds of dollars for tickets to the event and the cost of staying at the Trump resort, that there was a conspiracy to take over the world while standing on stage at a podium flanked by jumbotron TVs draped with red Trump flags.
“As per Flynn, this scheme is driven by … the World Financial Discussion,” Bergen and German composed. In recent years, bizarre conspiracy theories have become a hotbed of discussion at the World Economic Forum, which is best known for its annual Davos conference, which brings together CEOs and world leaders.
The Conservative Public Board of trustees requires up-and-comers who partake in its discussions to make a vow that they will uphold the party’s possible candidate, who could be Trump. It’s a serious mix-up, composed Geoff Duncan, a GOPer who previously filled in as lieutenant legislative head of Georgia. The requirement that “every GOP presidential candidate must state, without equivocation, that the 2020 election was not stolen” would be a better policy. No really moving around the issue with a wink and a gesture about ‘worries’ about Coronavirus time strategies making the way for expected extortion… ”
“It’s well beyond time for the Conservative Alliance to show our freedom from previous President Trump. The GOP’s losing streak through the 2018 midterms is a result of his politics, personality, and policies. We must first change our party’s leadership before we can change the direction of our country.
The climactic finish to the High Court term kept on resonating the week before. It was just a year prior that the court’s moderate larger part upset Roe v. Swim, a disagreeable move that permitted liberals to score a few major political wins and keep away from a lamentable midterm political race.
The current year’s choices, dismissing governmental policy regarding minorities in society in school confirmations and striking down Biden’s understudy loan pardoning plan, are more averse to assemble electors, contended David Imprint.
David Mark wrote, “Democrats plan to put the Supreme Court on trial in the lead up to the elections in 2024.” However, Democrats face the challenge of the court’s views on the issues pertaining to higher education being more in line with voters’ values than their own. However their political fight intend to defame the High Court has as of recently been to a great extent effective, liberals are ready to make a significant error on the off chance that they expect the current year’s choices will push more individuals against the court and in this way further into Popularity based arms… ”
“Consider that in the country’s transcendent blue stronghold of California, Biden cavorted to triumph against Trump. However, on the same ballot, voters rejected a measure repealing California’s affirmative action ban from 1996 by 57%-43%.
Problem with free speech Kara Alaimo wrote that a Supreme Court decision “that makes it harder to hold people responsible for harassment” got lost in the rush of the end of the term. Online harassment is protected by the First Amendment unless the perpetrator disregards a “substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence,” according to the court, which overturned a man’s conviction for stalking and inflicting “emotional distress” on singer Coles Whalen.
“While the court may claim to be defending free speech by ruling that the threats were protected by the First Amendment,” the decision is likely to censor and silence harassment victims.
In court and beyond, “Finding the right balance between free speech and protecting people from abuse is difficult.”
A federal judge in Louisiana has ruled that the Biden administration probably broke the First Amendment by censoring negative views on social media during the coronavirus pandemic, calling the measures “Orwellian.”
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and all employees of the Justice Department and FBI are all prohibited from having any contact with social media firms for the purpose of discouraging or removing speech protected by the First Amendment, according to a broad preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty.
The decision and request from Bold, a deputy of previous President Donald Trump, are the most recent improvements in a long-running claim led by conservative drove states charging that the organization compelled online entertainment organizations to eliminate posts containing implied deception about the Covid, political race security and different issues.
“During the Coronavirus pandemic, a period maybe best described by broad uncertainty and vulnerability, the US Government appears to play expected a part like an Orwellian ‘Service of Truth,'” Courageous wrote as he would see it, which was delivered as most bureaucratic courts were shut for the Freedom Day occasion.
The ruling by Doughty appears to take effect right away, but the Biden administration can appeal it to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans because it is not a final decision on the suit. On Tuesday, the Justice Department declined to provide any commentary. A representative for the White House didn’t quickly answer a solicitation for input.
The judge says in his decision that a wide range of topics, including opposition to Covid vaccines, masking, lockdowns, and the lab-leak theory, were “all suppressed” on social media at the direction of administration officials; opposition to the election’s legitimacy in 2020; opposition to the policies of the president and other officials; and statements asserting that the account of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, Biden’s son, was accurate.
Every theme “smothered” was a moderate view, which “is very telling,” Bold pronounced. “This designated concealment of moderate thoughts is an ideal illustration of perspective segregation of political discourse,” he proceeded. ” The evidence presented thus far portrays a scenario that is almost dystopian; American citizens have the right to freely debate the significant issues affecting the nation.
However, the judge also mentioned previous attempts to delete or suppress content from anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who announced in April that he will challenge Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2024.
In a statement released on Tuesday afternoon, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry praised the decision, describing it as a “historic injunction” against the Biden administration that prevents it “from censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans on social media.”
“The proof for our situation is stunning and hostile,” Landry added. In the case, the Justice Department has argued that federal officials’ speech was protected by the First Amendment because they were simply encouraging social media companies to police their platforms. Although top officials have occasionally harshly criticized the businesses, federal officials have consistently denied using threats or coercion to force the companies to de-platform particular speech or speakers.
“They’re killing individuals,” Biden said in July 2021, subsequent to being gotten some information about the presence of hostile to immunization content on Facebook and different locales. ” The main pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and they’re killing individuals.”
Audacious has been regulating the suit the lawyers general of Missouri and Louisiana documented last year guaranteeing that the organization’s tension on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube was extraordinary to such an extent that it added up to oversight. In a censure to Brave in January, the fifth Circuit impeded endeavors to compel previous White House press secretary Jen Psaki to affirm for the situation.
Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy committed $250,000 to fund a new scholarship program that aims to foster national pride among young Americans, as he believes patriotism is declining in the country. The scholarship program aims to revive national pride among the younger generation.
Highlighting the need for such a scholarship, Ramaswamy cited studies that shed light on the current state of American pride in the younger generation. According to the findings, only 16 per cent of Gen Z say they are proud to be American, while a staggering 60 per cent of teens on TikTok would rather give up their right to vo
“In honor of our son’s 1st birthday today, Apoorva & I are committing $250,000 to fund a new scholarship to foster national pride among young Americans,” he announced on Twitter. “Ten winners will be selected by a panel to receive a $25,000 scholarship for post-secondary education, entrepreneurial endeavors, or their commitment to serve in the military or law enforcement role.”
The tech mogul lamented the relatively poor state of patriotism in American youths, noting “[o]nly 16% of Gen Z says they’re proud to be American. 60% of teens on TikTok would rather give up their right to vote than their social media account. Our military suffered a 25% recruitment deficit last year. This bodes poorly for our nation.”
“As an entrepreneur, I believe in solving problems through private behavior whenever possible,” he continued. “That’s why we are funding a new scholarship to revive patriotism: this year, ten high school students will be eligible to receive a $25,000 scholarship for concisely articulating what it means to be an American in 2023. The scholarship will be administered by @IncubateDebate, a nonprofit organization that leads U.S. students to debate important issues of public importance.”
Applicants must submit a 2-minute video answering the question “what does it mean to be an American?”
Considered something of a longshot candidate, Ramaswamy’s announcement comes as he appears to be enjoying a poll surge. A recent Echelon Insights survey shows him taking 10% of the Republican primary electorate, placing him in third, behind former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
This spring, Bristol Smith, a manager at a McDonald’s in Maryville, Tennessee, came across the name Vivek Ramaswamy shortly after the entrepreneur Mr. Ramaswamy announced that he was running for president. Mr. Smith was drawn in. He liked Mr. Ramaswamy’s plan to send the military to the southern border to fight drug cartels and the way he “stands up against the wokeness.” He regarded Mr. Ramaswamy’s insight as a money manager worth countless dollars.
Then, at that point, Mr. Smith, 25, looked for Mr. Ramaswamy’s confidence. Mr. Smith is an evangelical Christian who recently established a modest church at his parents’ house.
He recalled, “I looked up his religion and saw he is Hindu.” I planned to decide in favor of him until that surfaced.” Mr. Smith believes that the nation needs to be “put back under God,” and he doesn’t want to risk it with a non-Christian.
By then, he said, “I got back on President Trump’s train.”
Mr. Ramaswamy, 37, is a practicing Hindu who was brought up in India by immigrants. Some conservative Christian voters, who make up a significant portion of the Republican primary electorate and are accustomed to evaluating candidates not only based on their policy proposals but also on their biographies and personal beliefs, including religious faith, face a dilemma as a result of this.
A candidate’s faith is a sign of a candidate’s values, lifestyle, loyalties, and priorities as a leader for many conservative voters. It’s the classic Sunday morning question about which candidate you’d like to have a beer with most: Who is a good fit for your church?
“It’s another obstacle individuals need to cross to go to him,” Weave Vander Plaats, a powerful fervent forerunner in Iowa, said of Mr. Ramaswamy.
Mr. Vander Plaats as of late had Mr. Ramaswamy’s family over for Sunday dinner at his home, where the feast opened with a request and the perusing of an entry from the Good book. He said that Mr. Ramaswamy’s message aligned with the priorities of many evangelical voters and that he left impressed. He referred to Mr. Ramaswamy’s list of ten fundamental “truths,” the first of which is as follows: God really exists. The subsequent: There are men and women.”)
“I believe he’s truly interfacing with the crowds in Iowa,” said Mr. Vander Plaats, who has not embraced an up-and-comer. ” He is open to more in-depth inquiries. In the most recent national polls, Mr. Ramaswamy receives less than 5% of the vote.
Mr. Ramaswamy has taken the direct approach of addressing the issue and arguing that he shares more similarities with observant Christians than they might think.
“I’m not Christian. In June, he addressed Mr. Vander Plaats in front of a small audience at the Family Leader’s headquarters. “I was not raised in a Christian household.” However, we truly do have the very Christian qualities that this country was established on.”
In a meeting in late June, in the wake of leaving a gathering with a couple dozen ministers in New Hampshire, Mr. Ramaswamy said his confidence instructed him that Jesus was “a child of God, totally.” ( That “a” will be a sharp qualification from the focal Christian conviction that Jesus is the child of God. Many Hindus believe in a plethora of deities, and some even consider Jesus to be a single teacher or god.) Hinduism is a fluid and expansive religion.
Mr. Ramaswamy pointed out that even though he is not a Christian, he openly discusses why belief in God is important, why increasing secularism in the United States is bad for the country, and values like marriage fidelity, duty, religious liberty, and self-sacrifice.
Regarding the theological differences between Hinduism and Christianity, he stated, “I don’t have a quick pitch to say, ‘No, no, that doesn’t matter.'” It’s that I see precisely why that would make a difference to you.”
Mr. Ramaswamy cites Thomas Aquinas and makes references to Bible stories at campaign stops, including the crucifixion of Jesus. He frequently discusses his time spent attending a Cincinnati “Christian school” (Catholic St. Xavier High School). Also, he differentiates “religions like our own,” which have gone the distance, with the contending perspectives of “wokeism, climatism, transgenderism, orientation belief system, Covidism,” as he put it to a group of people in New Hampshire.
The campaign of Mr. Ramaswamy has distributed videos of him responding to a New Hampshire man who asked about his “spiritual beliefs” at a town hall and of a pastor in Iowa comparing him to King David from the Bible. A woman blessed Mr. Ramaswamy in the name of Jesus Christ by placing her hand on his chest in Iowa.
“So be it,” Mr. Ramaswamy said as she closed her request.
Mr. Ramaswamy will be able to win over evangelical primary voters in the crowded Republican field in part because of outside forces. Rather than seeking a “pastor-in-chief,” many conservative voters now say they are looking for someone who shares their political and cultural goals and will fight on their behalf.
“The culture has changed, but theology is important. America has changed,” said David Brody, the boss political expert for the Christian Telecom Organization, who has talked with Mr. Ramaswamy. Mr. Brody stated that the fight against “cultural Marxism” and reversing the course of “a country gone haywire” are currently the most important goals.
He compared evangelical priorities in the Iowa caucuses the following year to those in 2008 and 2012, when conservative Christian candidates Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee won.
Mr. Brody stated, “I don’t buy it at all the lazy narrative that he’s Hindu so he can’t appeal to evangelicals.”
As political divides have widened, theological boundaries have become increasingly muddled. Few temples split nowadays over old discussions like the specific timing of the final days or the job of through and through freedom in salvation. About portion of American Protestants presently say they like to go to a congregation with individuals who share their political perspectives, as per surveying from Lifeway Exploration.
Mr. Ramaswamy’s accentuation on his faith in one God has a long history for Hindus in the US, particularly those addressing white Christian crowds, said Michael Altman, a teacher of strict examinations at the College of Alabama.
Master Vivekananda, who addressed Hinduism at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago in 1893, went to considerable lengths to portray his confidence as monotheistic, rather than the generalizations of its devotees as “pagan” polytheists. Although the religion has a number of deities, they are typically subordinate to a single supreme “reality.” Its theology, according to many scholars and Hindus, is too complicated to be classified as either entirely monotheistic or entirely polytheistic.
“The polytheism obstacle is the principal thing that must be tended to” for the majority American Christian crowds, Mr. Altman said. He believes that Mr. Ramaswamy’s argument against “wokeism” is a way to dispel myths that Hinduism is synonymous with yoga, hippies, and vegetarianism.
According to evangelical observers, former President Donald J. Trump paved the way for Republican candidates who weren’t necessarily the kind of people voters would expect to sit next to on Sunday mornings at church. Numerous fervent citizens embraced the rough, threefold wedded gambling club financier not on the grounds that he was one of them but since they accepted he would battle in the public square for their benefit.
Most Indian Americans, including Hindus, are leftists. However, a segment of the population that places a high value on family, marriage, and education presents a chance for conservatives. Mr. Trump celebrated Diwali at the White House while serving as president, and the Republican National Committee introduced a brand-new Republican Hindu and Indian American Coalition in April. When he appeared with President Trump in Houston in 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi drew a crowd of 50,000 people, making him a well-known figure to a growing group of right-wing Indian Americans. Mr. Ramaswamy talked last year at a celebration coordinated by the conservative U.S. bunch HinduPACT, which is lined up with Mr. Modi’s style of patriotism.
Nikki Haley, one more Indian American competitor in the 2024 essential, has also underlined her experience as the girl of foreigners. However, Ms. Haley converted to Christianity and now attends a large Methodist church in South Carolina, despite the fact that she was raised Sikh. Bobby Jindal, a Republican from Louisiana who ran for president in 2016, was born and raised Hindu, but he has said that he is an “evangelical Catholic.”
Mr. Ramaswamy goes to a similar sanctuary in Dayton, Ohio, that he did as a youngster that his folks actually do.
In 2015, he had his wedding in New York City officiated by one of the priests from the temple. His wife, Dr. Apoorva Ramaswamy, stated that he, his wife, and their two young sons attend the temple on holidays and for special occasions, including the younger son’s first birthday in early July.
Dr. Ramaswamy, who has spoken out about the family’s faith on the campaign trail, stated that serious and nominal adherents to the same faith share more similarities than committed believers from different traditions.
Dr. Ramaswamy stated, “The fact that we are believers, that we have that sense of humility, that we raise our children with true respect, fear, and love of God — that is so much more unifying than the name of the God to whom people pray.”
The inquiry for her significant other’s mission is whether enough Christian citizens will concur.
Ken Bosse, the pastor of New Life Church in Raymond, New Hampshire, said that he is “an extreme follower of Jesus Christ” and that, all things considered, he would rather have a Christian in the White House. But because “we have had some professing Christians in that position who didn’t follow biblical principles,” he would be open to the right candidate who is not a Christian.
Mr. Bosse welcomed Mr. Ramaswamy to convey a concise discourse at his congregation on a Sunday morning in April. He enjoyed the competitor’s accentuation on recovering a positive American personality, he expressed, and on his story as an independent tycoon who is the offspring of workers. Right now, in any case, Mr. Bosse is inclining in the direction of supporting Mr. Trump. (Courtesy: The New York Times)
When asked about the ideal age of a president, around half of Americans (49%) say they prefer someone in their 50s, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Another 24% say it’s best for a president to be in their 60s, while 17% say they should be in their 40s.
Just 3% of Americans say they prefer a president to be in their 70s or older. An equally tiny share (3%) say it’s best for a president to be in their 30s. (The minimum age for a presidential candidate is 35.)
The survey asked Americans about the best age for presidents generally. It did not refer to President Joe Biden – at 80, the oldest president in U.S. history – or former President Donald Trump, who is 77.
Age differences in views of the ideal age for a president
Younger adults are more favorable than older Americans toward presidents being in their 30s and 40s. About half (48%) of adults under the age of 30 say it is ideal for a president to be in their 30s or 40s; only 6% of adults over the age of 50 share this view.
By contrast, older adults prefer a president who is in their 60s or older. For example, 41% of adults in their 50s or older say they prefer a president in their 60s or older. Only 11% of adults in their 30s or younger say the same.
Partisan views of the ideal age for a president
Democrats and Republicans have similar views about the best age range for a president.
Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are slightly more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners (25% vs. 15%) to prefer presidents in their 30s and 40s, while Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to prefer presidents in their 60s or older (32% vs. 24%). However, these minor differences are largely due to the age composition of the parties.
During her visit to China, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen expressed the hope that the United States and China could rekindle a relationship that had been in decline for a number of years and had recently veered off course due to significant points of tension, such as the conflict in Ukraine, a Chinese spy balloon that flew over U.S. territory and was shot down by the American military, and the escalating exchange of trade restrictions between the two countries.
Ms. Yellen stated at a news conference on Sunday that she believed the United States and China were on a steadier footing despite their “significant disagreements” after meeting for ten hours over two days in Beijing. “We accept that the world is large enough for both of our nations to flourish,” Ms. Yellen said.
Ms. Yellen said that the two sides would try to talk to each other more often at the highest levels. She said that better communication would stop mistrust from growing in a relationship that she called “one of the most consequential of our time.” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken made a similar excursion a few weeks earlier. Also, not long from now, John Kerry, the exceptional official emissary for environmental change, will visit China to restart a worldwide temperature alteration talks.
However, a significant decrease in economic tension may not be possible. On Sunday, when Ms. Yellen returned to Washington, she did not make any announcements about any breakthroughs or agreements to close the ever-widening rifts that exist between the two countries. Additionally, Ms. Yellen made it abundantly clear that the Biden administration has serious concerns regarding a number of China’s commercial practices, including the country’s treatment of foreign businesses and policies that the United States regards as attempts at economic coercion.
On her outing, the first by a U.S. Depository secretary in four years, Ms. Yellen met with four of the most remarkable Chinese pioneers engaged with financial policymaking under President Xi Jinping, who is toward the beginning of his third term in office: China’s No. 1 leader, Premier Li Qiang two official Ms. Yellen’s partner, Bad habit Chief He Lifeng; Liu Kun, the minister of finance; what’s more, the recently introduced party head of Individuals’ Bank of China, Skillet Gongsheng.
Xinhua, China’s official news agency, published a report on Ms. Yellen’s visit a few hours before her news conference. The report praised the talks as productive while also reiterating China’s key points of contention. The report communicated China’s proceeded with issues with the Biden organization’s accentuation on saving American public safety through exchange limitations.
According to Xinhua, “China believes that generalizing national security is not conducive to normal trade and economic exchanges.” The Chinese side communicated worry about U.S. sanctions and prohibitive measures against China.”
The U.S.- China relationship is immensely noteworthy. Together, their economies, the two largest in the world, account for 40% of global output and remain important partners in many ways. They sell and purchase basic items from one another, finance each other’s organizations, and make applications and motion pictures for crowds in the two nations.
Chinese authorities raised their own interests with Ms. Yellen. The secretary of the Treasury claimed that they discussed the still-in-place tariffs that the Trump administration imposed on Chinese imports. While Ms. Yellen has reprimanded duties as ineffectual, she proposed that the organization wouldn’t arrive at any conclusion about the tolls until a continuous inside audit of them was closed, emphasizing the place of the organization since President Biden got down to business.
She additionally recognized Chinese worries about approaching U.S. limitations on interest in China and said that she attempted to make sense of that such measures would be barely focused on at specific areas and wouldn’t be planned to comprehensively affect China’s economy. Experts and officials in China are also concerned that the administration’s efforts to restrict China’s access to certain technologies may impede the growth of high-potential industries like quantum computing and artificial intelligence.
Ms. Yellen stated on Sunday’s episode of CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “I explained that President Biden is examining potential controls on outbound investment in certain very narrow high technology areas.” She added that such restrictions “should not be something that will have a significant impact on the investment climate between our two countries.”
Since 2015, China has imposed additional, more stringent restrictions on foreign investment. The country has been encouraging Chinese households and businesses to invest abroad in strategic value sectors like aircraft production, heavy manufacturing, and cybersecurity rather than in overseas real estate speculation.
Wu Xinbo, the senior member of global examinations at Fudan College in Shanghai, forewarned that Ms. Yellen’s outing wouldn’t bring about a meaningful improvement in relations except if it was joined by changes in the Biden organization’s strategies toward China.
“Up to this point, we haven’t seen any sign that Biden will reexamine his financial approach toward China,” he said. Some analysts saw the desire for more dialogue as a significant development, with both nations finally discussing their disagreements after months of silence.
He Weiwen, a previous authority at China’s Service of Trade who is presently a senior individual at the Middle for China and Globalization in Beijing, invited Ms. Yellen’s remark that both China and the US could flourish. ” Because of the profound differences that exist between China and the United States, regular, open exchanges are not only beneficial but of crucial importance, he stated.
The Treasury Department, which has historically valued China as a significant investor in American bonds and as a potential market for American financial services, has a long history of working more closely with Chinese economic policymakers. The Business Division and the Workplace of the US Exchange Agent, with their more noteworthy accentuation on encouraging business and modern independence, have would in general have more peevish associations with their Chinese partners.
This was especially true during the time that Trump was in charge. Before he took over as vice premier four months ago, Liu He was in charge of international economic policy. He made numerous attempts to compromise with Steven Mnuchin, who was the Treasury Secretary under former President Donald J. Trump. In any case, Mr. Mnuchin couldn’t convince Mr. Trump, who wound up monumental levies on a large number of Chinese commodities as reprisal for what he said were unreasonable strategic policies.
Numerous U.S. organizations with binds to China, alongside Chinese authorities, had expected more amicable relations under Mr. Biden. Instead, since the spy balloon incident in February, tensions between the United States and China have only intensified over the past two years.
While Ms. Yellen’s visit was viewed as a positive step, numerous specialists in both China and the US forewarned against anticipating that a ton should change.
According to Mark Sobel, a former longtime Treasury official, “Yellen’s trip will likely turn down the temperature on the economic relationship for a bit and remind the U.S. and China that they share some commercial interests, even if they are waning, and they need to talk through thick and thin — perhaps business conditions will improve at the margins.”
Yet, given public safety worries in the two nations, a discernment in China that the U.S. looks to contain its financial progression and hawkish political language on the two sides, he said, “Yellen’s outing will scarcely adjust the basic dynamic and direction of the monetary relationship.”
Regardless of the conflicts between the U.S. what’s more, China, Ms. Yellen was welcomed energetically during her most memorable visit to Beijing as Depository secretary.
He mentioned that a rainbow had appeared overhead upon her arrival during a meeting with China’s second-highest official, Premier Li Qiang, and suggested that it was a sign of hope that ties between the two countries could be repaired.
After Ms. Yellen was spotted feasting at an eatery that serves food from the territory of Yunnan, Chinese state media expounded on her noteworthy utilization of chopsticks and revealed that appointments at the café were up after she was seen eating mushroom dishes via virtual entertainment.
Ms. Yellen also had lunch with a group of Chinese women who are economists and business owners and met with Chinese experts on climate finance. She recommended that there are numerous regions where the US and China can track down understanding.
Ms. Yellen stated at the lunch that “our people share many things in common — far more than our differences.”
New York: Christians celebrated the Indian Christian Day with prayers and tears in light of the great calamity faced by the Christian community in Manipur. The celebration, which was supposed to be held on July 3, the day of St. Thomas, was held a day earlier at the Cathedral Hall of the Malankara Catholic Church in Elmont, New York. It was a rare gathering of Indian Christians from across denominations, regions, and languages who lived in greater New York. Church Fathers, priests, and dignitaries arrived with blessings and greetings.
Bryan Nerran, who had to spend seven and a half months in prison in India on trumped up charges, and Rev. Mark Mang, a native of Manipur whose cousin died at the hands of the militants and others, pointed to the rapid changes that are taking place as regards curtailing of religious freedom in India. Several choirs from various churches with their Singing made the ceremony more devotional.
Picture : TheUNN
Bishop of Marthoma Church, Isaac Mar Filoxenos Episcopa, who was the chief guest, mentioned the new trends by those in power to rewrite history. He went on to add that they may have political and social reasons to indulge in those efforts; however, the facts will not be erased from history. We should be proud of our history and heritage. The Bishop said, “Suffering and pain have also affected the people of Israel. They cried out while they were in captivity in Babylon. They lamented how we could sing God’s song in a foreign land. We are safe and content here in America. But we cannot accept the pains of our brothers in India. Let us pray for peace to be restored there. Let human rights be restored there. We may belong to different churches. But the important thing is that we stand together. We must stand together in the miseries facing humanity while accepting our differences. We owe it to ourselves to raise our voices. We must also be ready to die for the kingdom of God. As successors of St. Thomas the Apostle, we should be proud. The light of the gospel reached our country in the first century.”
“Saint Thomas is mentioned three times in the Bible. In the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus decides to go to Bethany to comfort the family of Lazarus. But the disciples, knowing that there were people there who could kill him, asked if it was necessary. Once Jesus decided to go, Thomas said we could go and die with him. In the fourteenth chapter, Jesus speaks of himself and his departure. Then Thomas says: ‘We do not know the way you are going. How do we know that?’ To which Jesus replied: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. Those who know me know the Father.’ The third opportunity is to see Jesus after the ascension. Jesus sees Thomas, who says he will not believe unless he sees Jesus face to face and touches the wound in his hand. We always remember Thomas’s response looking at the hands, ‘My Lord and my God.’ We have the tradition of St. Thomas, who always stood firm in his faith. We should never miss it – Bishop exhorted.
Picture :TheUNN
Bishop Mar Joy Allapat of the Syro-Malabar Church pointed out that even in America, there is no certainty of what will happen in the future. “After Manipur, some people said Kerala would be the next target. Christianity arrived in Kerala much before Europe Embraced it. However, today our brothers are facing difficulties back home in India. Historically we have faced persecution. However, Bible speaks about being strengthened in the face of persecution. As the Bible says, we are like sheep in the middle of wolves. Therefore, let us unite and encourage our brothers in Manipur,” the Bishop added.
Picture :TheUNN
Rt. Rev. Dr. C.V Mathew of the Evangelical Church spoke about the Manipur situation and wondered aloud why the Indianness of Christians is being questioned. He implored the authorities to respect the constitution that guarantees the religious freedom of every citizen. He also encouraged the people to unite and support those in harm’s way. Rt. Rev. Johncy Itty of the Episcopal Church applauded the organizers of the Indian Christian Day, pointing out that we would never give up faith because of persecution.
Rev. Mark Mang explained Manipur’s pain. He said he has been in America for eight years, currently serving as a Chaplain. We don’t know what heaven is like. But we think it’s all coming together so as this gathering. His cousin and four others fell victim to the unlicensed gun of the assailants while defending the village. The riot could have been stopped in one day. It didn’t happen. Three hundred fifty-four churches were destroyed, and it continues. It is not even possible to go and bury the dead bodies in the hospital. More than fifty thousand people are refugees in different states. There will be torture and killings, but in the end, God’s glory will be revealed there. Pray for us and bring help. He said that he is thinking of going to Manipur soon.
Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations President Koshy George (Fiacona) pointed out that it has been decided to celebrate St. Thomas’s Day, July 3, as Indian Christian Day everywhere. The day before, the celebration took place in Boston, and on July 3 rd across India as well. Efforts are being made to bring a new understanding that Christianity is two thousand years old in India, and St.Thomas came in A.D. 52 and was martyred on July 3, A.D. 72. There are thousands of denominations among Christians. But we all worship Jesus while believing in the Trinity. He asked if it would be best to set aside all our differences and meet at least for one day.
Guests were given a history of the seven and a half churches founded by St. Thomas and a report on atrocities in India. State Senator John Lou, Sibu Nair of the Asian Outreach Officer in the N.Y. Governor’s Office, Rev. Jacob George, and others spoke.
Rev. Wilson Jose offered the opening prayer, and Fr. John Thomas offered the closing prayer. Rev.N.K. Matthew offered a special prayer for the people in Manipur.
Picture :TheUNN
George Abraham, who expressed a vote of thanks, pointed out that those who are from Kerala do not know much about civil wars. We don’t know the condition of being chased away from home and worried about the future in the corner of some school or abandoned building. He encouraged everyone to help those who are driven into such a situation in Manipur. FIACONA was formed when there was an attack on Christians in Dangs district of Gujarat. When Graham Staines and his children were burnt to death, we condemned such a heinous crime. Unfortunately, only a few people know about this organization. Many people from all spheres of life are working hard with dedication in defense of religious freedom everywhere. Some people have paid a heavy price for their advocacy. John Prabhudoss, the chairman, is currently barred from entering India. There is a fear that the OCI card is being weaponized to silence the critics abroad. He expressed hope that NRIs will be energized to defend human rights and religious freedom here in the U.S. as well as in India.
CSI Jubilee Choir, New York Men’s Voices, IPC Jamaica Choir Rev. Milton James (solo), and Bethlehem Punjabi Church sang.
Koshi George, Dr. Leno Thomas, Mary Phillips, Dr. Anna George, Koshi Thomas, Paul D. Panakkal, George Abraham, Raju Abraham, Matthew P Thomas, Matthew Eapan, Jerin Joe James, Pastor Jacob George, Shaimi Jacob, Koshi Thomas, Rev. Milton G. James (Sr.), George Chacko, John Joseph, Chuck Pillai, Don Thomas, Dr. Cynthia Prabhakar, Rev. Anadhasekhar Manuel, rev. Christer Solomon, Lona Abraham, and others led the way.
Indian-American Republican presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling to ban affirmative action at universities and colleges, which allowed educational institutes to admit an increased number of Black, Hispanic, and other minority students on campus. According to the Republican affirmative action is “one of the most disastrous and failed policy experiments of last century.”
Calling affirmative action as “one of the most disastrous and failed policy experiments of last century,” in a tweet Ramaswamy said that it was time to restore “colorblind meritocracy” in America. He also vowed to repeal President Lyndon Johnson’s executive order 11246 which mandated affirmative action in the private sector.
Johnson’s order required federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and treated without bias during employment. According to Ramaswamy, the order was unfair to White Americans and Asian Americans as well as Hispanic and Black Americans who were looked down upon by their colleagues despite having achieved their positions based on merit.
“Everyone loses in the end,” Ramaswamy asserted and pledged that his goal after being elected as President of the U.S. will be to end affirmative action across all spheres of American life.
In another development, a US newspaper editor has apologized to Indian Americans for publishing an “offensive” cartoon that played on stereotypes of the community while trying to criticise Vivek Ramaswamy who is seeking the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.
“Racist and hateful ideas, words or images have no place in our publications, much less our society”, Tom Martin, the executive editor of the Quad City Times said in the apology to the community and Ramaswamy published in his paper on Friday.
He said that the cartoonist, Leo Kelly, has been banished from the newspaper.
But Ramaswamy came to the defence of the cartoonist in a letter published in the paper. “Let’s not go further or see people get fired over it; the cartoonist should in no way be ‘cancelled.’ We are all human”, he wrote.
“I’m empathetic to people who make mistakes once in a while”, he wrote while accepting the editor’s apology.
The cartoon sought to show Republicans as bigots with whom Ramaswamy was aligned, but it backfired as it was someone opposed to that party and the candidate who used the anti-Indian epithet.
The Quad-City Times is a regional newspaper based in Davenport, Iowa, which also covers parts of neighbouring Illinois. It is owned by the media company Lee Enterprises which publishes over 70 newspapers across the US, including the Dispatch-Argus, which also published the cartoon.
“We apologise today for letting such an image slip through our editorial process and into our opinion page Wednesday in the form of a political cartoon,” Martin wrote.
He added: “The cartoon, while intended to criticise racist ideas and epithets, uses a phrase that is racist and insensitive to members of our Indian American community.”
The phrase apparently is “Get me a slushee, Apu” that a character in the cartoon is shown shouting at Ramaswamy in an almost empty hall. “Apu Nahasapeemapetilon” runs a store in the popular animated TV cartoon serial, “The Simpsons”, and spoke in an exaggerated Indian accent voiced over by a White American comedian, Hank Azaria.
“Apu” has been turned into a racist taunt used against Indians, especially for bullying school children. The problem was highlighted in a documentary, “The Problem with Apu”, produced by Indian American comedian Hari Kondabolu. Because of protests over the way Apu was presented and how it became a tool for harassment, the character was taken off the show but has returned occasionally with non-speaking background appearances.
Azaria has repeatedly apologized for his role in spreading the stereotype of Indians telling an interviewer, “I did not know any better”.
After the cartoon was published, Ramaswamy tweeted, “It’s sad that this is how the MSM (mainstream media) views Republicans. I’ve met with grassroots conservatives across America & never *once* experienced the kind of bigotry that I regularly see from the Left.”
“Iowa’s @qctimes absolutely has the right to print this, but it’s still shameful”, he added.
Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley, the Indian American candidate for the Republican nomination, along with Tim Scott, an African American senator seeking the nomination have come for intense criticism from Democrats and their supporters who believe that non-Whites should be loyal only to their party. The cartoon sought to convey the idea that Ramaswamy was under bigoted attack by Republicans with the other characters shouting “Muslim” and “Show us your birth certificate” while he greets them saying “Hello, my MAGA friends”. (MAGA standards for Make America Great Again, a rallying cry of former President Donald Trump taken up by the Republican right.)
“It is the dripping disdain from the far left — the elite condescension from the Democrat Party — that we will never escape”, said Emily Compagno, a conservative TV host, referring to the cartoon.
The most significant obstacle President Biden faces in winning re-election next year appears to be voters’ concerns that he is too old to serve another four-year term.
Biden, at 80 years old, is now the most seasoned individual to act as president, and he would be 86 toward the finish of his subsequent term.
The life span would beat whatever other president who served overwhelmingly. Reagan completed his second term at the age of 77, while Trump, who is favored to win the GOP nomination, completed his first term at the age of 74.
In order to persuade voters that he possesses the mental and physical capacity to run for reelection, Biden has some work to do.
An astounding 68 percent of electors in a new NBC News survey said they stress over Biden’s wellbeing with 55% reflecting “major” concerns.
In a USA Today/Suffolk College survey of leftists and Free movers, 37% say the president’s age made them less inclined to decide in favor of him. According to a third survey conducted by The Economist and YouGov, 45% of independents believe that Biden’s health and age “severely limit his ability to do the job.”
“The president’s age is surely going to be a headwind on his re-appointment crusade. The surveying says as much, and the models will surely continue to come as he is in the public eye,” said Stewart Verdery, who served in previous President George W. Bramble’s organization.
However, Monument Advocacy’s CEO, Verdery, suggested that Biden’s age might not be as important in a general election against Trump, who is 77 years old.
“On the off chance that he were possible going against a cutting edge JFK on a boat, it very well may be a greater amount of an issue. However, “the president’s age may cause swing voters to pause before they still pull the lever for him,” he stated, “as long as his main adversary is in Mar-a-Lago.”
Questions about Biden’s health were pushed back this week by the White House.
“The president — shoot, he voyaged yesterday, he’s voyaging again today. During the midterms, you saw how far he traveled. What’s more, particularly his unfamiliar travel, this is somebody who is unquestionably dynamic as president,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday.
In recent speeches, Biden has become increasingly self-deprecating about his age, joking that he is 198, 103, or 110.
He has reportedly sought advice from Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, who is encouraging him to own his longevity like Harrison Ford and Mick Jagger. He has acknowledged that his age is a concern for some voters.
“Incidentally, I’ve been doing this quite a while. I realize I don’t look that old. I know. I’m somewhat under 103,” Biden said in ongoing comments. ” Yet, in all seriousness … I was a really strong congressperson.”
In any case, the 80-year-old president’s age is likewise now something that persists into all that he does, putting a physical or verbal stagger under an alternate sort of magnifying lens.
At the point when he stumbled and fell at an occasion recently, there were stresses over his wellbeing. To his political enemies, it was proof of his delicate state, regardless of whether a more youthful man could likewise have stumbled.
Biden, who has a long history of making false statements, mistook Ukraine for Iraq twice on Monday night and Tuesday.
These errors are used by opponents as evidence that Biden has fallen behind and should not run for a second term.
Conservative official competitor Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, in a meeting with Fox News this week, said he thinks California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is “moving behind the scenes,” and it would be intriguing to perceive how things work out “on the off chance that Biden doesn’t conclusively make it.”
“They would have a genuine comedian show in the event that Biden couldn’t make it,” he added. His remarks reverberation individual conservative official applicant Nikki Haley, who said in April that Biden is probably not going to “make it” to 86.
A few political examiners think the GOP is behaving recklessly in pursuing Biden’s age, regardless of whether it is an issue for certain electors. According to them, it might enrage older voters.
“You can call attention to it, however you would rather not incline in that frame of mind here,” said GOP specialist Doug Heye. ” Tone is significant here. You can discuss botches that he’s made, etc. However, if you go over the top, you run the risk of being attacked, particularly by older voters.
Jim Kessler, chief VP for strategy for the Majority rule think tank Third Way, said the best thing for the White House to do is center around the president’s achievements.
“They can make a counterargument, which is that his experience has had the effect. And what he has accomplished over the past two and a half years is close to a biblical miracle, if you look at it,” he stated. Like, nobody thought the quantity of bipartisan bills passed the last Congress was conceivable. What’s more, it worked out. He outsmarted Vladimir Putin.”
Biden’s use of a CPAP machine to improve his sleep quality was confirmed this week by the White House after reporters noticed lines on his face.
Republicans say that Trump has an advantage over Biden because of his apparent energy, even though he is close to 80.
If they win the debate and nominations for their respective parties, Heye stated, voters will eventually be able to compare the two.
Democrats are ignoring the verbal gaffes, pointing out that they also occurred when Biden was younger.
“President Biden’s age has been an issue since before the 2020 political race, and he’s been famous for making blunders the majority of his political vocation. “There really isn’t much new here,” a supporter of Biden stated.
Biden faces different difficulties, including the economy and child Tracker Biden’s legitimate issues, which have drawn GOP examination. His lower approval ratings, which have remained around 40%, are also due to these factors.
In any case, many see age as an issue where Biden will by and by need to demonstrate something to the electorate.
“The No. Regardless of where I am, one thing I hear about Biden is his age. Furthermore, that is valid for individuals who like them. That is valid individuals who could do without him,” Heye said. ” Therefore, he has a real issue there.”
US President Joe Biden hails the partnership with India as one of the “most consequential in the world” following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s grand state visit to Washington. Exploring the potential of this visit in strengthening ties between the two nations, experts highlight the transformative nature of the relationship. According to Michael Kugelman of The Wilson Center, the India-US summit indicates a broad and deep connection that has developed in a relatively short period. He states, “It underscores just how broad and deep it has become in a relatively short time.”
One significant driving factor behind the deepening relationship is the US’s aim to establish India as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region. While the promise of India-US ties had previously been limited due to India’s liability law and a fading commitment during former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s tenure, the enthusiasm to embrace the US has surged under Prime Minister Modi’s leadership. Seema Sirohi, author of “Friends With Benefits: The India-US Story,” explains, “With Mr Modi, there has been a lot more enthusiasm about embracing the US. Mr Biden has also given an overall broad directive to make it work.”
The US has demonstrated its commitment to the relationship by actively pursuing substantial outcomes during Prime Minister Modi’s visit. Areas of focus include defense-industrial cooperation and technology transfer. Noteworthy collaborations include General Electric and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited partnering to manufacture advanced fighter jet engines in India. This move represents a significant transfer of US jet engine technology, emphasizing Washington’s willingness to not only sell arms but also share military technology.
Additionally, India plans to purchase $3 billion worth of MQ-9B Predator drones from General Atomics, which will establish a facility in India for assembly. This aligns with Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Make in India’ campaign. While Russia remains India’s largest arms supplier, the US aims to become the primary provider in the coming years. The objective, as highlighted by Michael Kugelman, is to “strengthen India’s military capacity to counter China.”
Recognizing the importance of technology and the future, India seeks to establish itself as a semiconductor hub. Micron Technology, a US memory chip giant, plans to invest up to $825 million in building a semiconductor assembly and test facility in India, which will generate numerous job opportunities. Furthermore, Lam Research, a US semiconductor equipment maker, will train 60,000 Indian engineers to accelerate semiconductor education and workforce development. Applied Materials, the largest semiconductor manufacturing equipment supplier, will invest $400 million to establish an engineering center in India.
Seema Sirohi sums up the current focus of the India-US relationship, stating, “It is all about the future now. Both sides are talking about cutting-edge technologies and how to seed and shape the future.” While the relationship between India and the US has experienced fluctuations over the years, the recent visit signifies a more substantial and forward-looking connection.
India’s approach to geopolitics and its position in the global order has shaped its foreign policy, rooted in the strategy of nonalignment established by Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister. India has always sought to maintain its independence and avoid being perceived as subservient to any global superpower. Prime Minister Modi continues to uphold the ideals of “strategic altruism” in Indian foreign policy, despite leading a more economically and geopolitically influential India. He has developed close relationships with former US presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, and now with President Biden, while preserving India’s “strategic autonomy.”
While the Biden administration may have desired a stronger stance from India on Russia and China, Prime Minister Modi’s approach did not compromise India’s strategic autonomy. Although he refrained from mentioning Russia, he reiterated the importance of humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. He also emphasized the significance of a free and prosperous Indo-Pacific without directly mentioning China. This delicate balance allowed Mr. Modi to push the boundaries of strategic autonomy without undermining the success of his visit.
The defense collaboration between India and the US has strengthened, with increased cooperation, joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and the utilization of each other’s facilities for refueling and maintenance purposes. This progress, without formalizing a full-fledged alliance, demonstrates Mr. Modi’s ability to test the limits of strategic autonomy. Michael Kugelman acknowledges his achievement, stating, “In the sense that he is getting about as close as you can to a major power without signing on to a full-fledged alliance.”
While trade disputes and tariffs have been contentious issues between India and the US in recent years, the two nations announced the resolution of six separate trade disputes, including tariff-related disputes, during the visit. The US is currently India’s top trading partner, and analysts see tremendous untapped potential for further growth, given India’s expanding middle class and its aspiration to become a manufacturing hub and an alternative to China in the global supply chain. Resolving trade disputes will undoubtedly provide a significant boost to India-US trade ties and help unlock their full potential.
Despite concerns raised by critics in Washington regarding democratic backsliding under Prime Minister Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), there is a bipartisan agreement to deepen and broaden the relationship between India and the US. While some progressives in the Democratic Party express concerns about the treatment of minorities in India, the broader consensus recognizes the importance of strengthening the relationship, especially considering the growing influence of China. Seema Sirohi asserts that the India-US strategic partnership has indeed reached the next level, characterized by mutual need and mutual benefit.
In conclusion, India’s foreign policy under Prime Minister Modi reflects a delicate balance between preserving strategic autonomy, fostering strong ties with the US, and positioning India as a significant global player. The successful state visit solidified the partnership between India and the US, with a focus on defense collaboration, the resolution of trade disputes, and the recognition of shared interests and benefits.
The student loan pause has been in place since March 2020, initially enacted by former President Trump using emergency authority in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This was later solidified through legislation passed by Congress. The moratorium halted payments and interest on government-held federal student loans and ceased collection efforts against defaulting borrowers.
Initially planned for six months, the pause was extended by the Trump administration as the pandemic persisted. Upon taking office, President Biden continued this trend with several short-term extensions. Biden’s latest extension is connected to the Supreme Court legal battle over his separate student loan forgiveness plan.
In the recent bipartisan bill to raise the debt ceiling, Biden succeeded in maintaining his primary student debt relief initiatives, such as his loan forgiveness plan. However, during negotiations with congressional Republicans, he agreed to set the end of the student loan pause for this summer. Payments are now scheduled to recommence after August. Given the new legislation, it is improbable that Biden will be able to extend the student loan pause beyond that, unless a new national emergency arises.
Significant Changes in Student Loan Servicing
As borrowers prepare to resume repayments, they will encounter one of the most substantial changes in the student loan landscape: student loan servicing. Loan servicers are contractors who manage borrower accounts on behalf of the Department of Education.
Over the past three years, the student loan servicing sector has experienced significant upheaval. Several contracted Department of Education servicers have exited the Federal Student Aid system, and others have stepped in to manage those accounts. A recent report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) reveals that more than 40% of borrowers will have a different loan servicer compared to before the student loan pause was implemented.
Major changes include FedLoan Servicing’s departure, with accounts being transferred to EdFinancial, MOHELA, and other loan servicers. Navient also transferred its Department of Education accounts to Aidvantage, while Great Lakes Higher Education has been moving its department portfolio to Nelnet.
Student loan servicers fulfill crucial roles such as accepting payments, reviewing repayment plan requests, processing forms and paperwork, and addressing borrowers’ questions. Advocates have cautioned that due to the alterations in loan servicing and financial constraints, the Department of Education’s student loan servicing might struggle to handle the pressure of millions of borrowers resuming repayments simultaneously.
Biden’s Emerging Student Loan Repayment Plan
The Biden administration is currently working on a new income-based student loan repayment plan (essentially revamping an existing income-driven repayment plan). The latest proposal suggests that this plan could decrease some borrowers’ monthly payments by 50% or more and expedite student loan forgiveness.
However, the plan is not yet finalized and won’t be fully accessible when payments restart later this summer. The Department of Education is expected to release updated proposed regulations in the coming months and may begin implementing certain aspects of the plan later this year or in 2024. This would offer borrowers a potential new path to more affordable payments after the student loan pause concludes. As the new plan is introduced, some existing income-driven plans might be phased out, potentially causing confusion among borrowers.
Account Adjustment Potentially Leading to Student Loan Forgiveness This Summer
While President Biden’s flagship student loan forgiveness plan (which can eliminate up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt) awaits a Supreme Court decision, another significant debt relief program is advancing.
The IDR Account Adjustment will enable the Department of Education to credit borrowers with previous loan periods towards their 20- or 25-year student loan forgiveness term under income-driven repayment plans. Borrowers with government-held federal student loans can automatically receive these benefits, even if they aren’t currently enrolled in an IDR plan.
Borrowers who accumulate enough credit to meet the threshold for student loan forgiveness under IDR programs will be eligible for loan discharge. The department anticipates beginning loan balance discharges by August, coinciding with the resumption of repayments. As a result, some borrowers who were expecting to make payments might not have to.
Other borrowers who obtain retroactive IDR credit but fall short of the forgiveness threshold will have their accounts updated sometime next year. These borrowers should then consider switching to or continuing with an IDR plan to make ongoing progress.
New Student Loan Forgiveness Regulations
New student loan forgiveness regulations established by the Biden administration will take effect on July 1. These regulations will influence almost every major federal student loan forgiveness program.
The new rules will solidify some recent temporary flexibilities for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, easing the definitions of qualifying payments and qualifying PSLF employment, enabling more borrowers to receive PSLF credit and ultimately, loan forgiveness.
Additionally, new regulations will expand access and relief and simplify the application process for other student loan forgiveness programs, such as the Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge program and Borrower Defense to Repayment. Unlike Biden’s new student loan repayment plan, which is still being finalized, these regulatory changes are essentially complete and should be in effect when borrowers return to repayment.
Despite the comprehensive evidence presented in the 38-count indictment accusing former President Donald J. Trump of retaining hundreds of classified documents and subsequently obstructing the government’s attempts to recover them, one enigma persists: what motivated him to seize these materials and fiercely resist relinquishing them?
The rationale behind Trump’s possession of thousands of presidential records, including over 300 classified documents, at his Mar-a-Lago residence and exclusive club in Palm Beach, Florida, is not explicitly discussed in the 49-page indictment filed last Thursday in Miami. The charges do not imply that Trump had an overarching objective beyond simply owning the items.
Although determining a motive might be advantageous for prosecutors if Trump stands trial, it may not be essential for establishing the legal foundation of the case against him. Nevertheless, the reason behind Trump’s retention of a vast array of highly confidential documents and his alleged efforts to avoid returning them remains unresolved, even after nearly 15 months of investigation by the Justice Department.
The indictment does provide some clues. It details how Trump, who often seeks retributionagainst those he perceives as adversaries, brandished a classified “plan of attack” against Iran during a meeting in July 2021 at his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey. He did this to refute criticism from Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In a recording of the meeting, Trump can be heard shuffling papers and informing those present that the document substantiated his position in the disagreement with General Milley, stating, “This totally wins my case, you know.”
Other instances in the indictment depict an aide referring to the materials Trump transported in boxes as “his papers,” suggesting that he was reluctant to relinquish the privileges associated with the nation’s highest office. Similarly, the indictment portrays Trump as attempting to prevent a lawyer he hired to search Mar-a-Lago for any remaining classified materials from examining the records he stored there. Trump is quoted as saying, “I don’t want anybody looking through my boxes,” indicating a sense of personal ownership over the materials.
This feeling of ownership was so strong that his aides, as shown in text messages included in the indictment, were clearly apprehensive about moving the items too far from him. Numerous former aides and advisors to Trump have long argued that he kept the sensitive records because he regarded them as “mine” and enjoyed collecting trophies to display, regardless of their form.
Trump’s penchant for showcasing various prizes is well-documented. As a businessman and playboy in Manhattan, he sought to be seen with attractive women, purchased the Plaza Hotel as a “toy” for his then-wife Ivana, and accumulated high-end trinkets to flaunt to visitors in his office. During his presidency, he treated the nation’s secrets similarly, sharing classified information with Russian officials in 2017 and posting a classified photo on Twitter in 2019.
Throughout the case investigation, special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors took actions suggesting a search for motive. They subpoenaed information about the Trump Organization’s business dealings with seven foreign countries starting in 2017, seemingly aiming to determine if any documents could have been used to support his international ventures. However, the indictment makes no mention of Trump utilizing the documents for business purposes.
Chris Christie, a former friend and adversary of Trump, proposed a straightforward explanation last year, stating, “I think it’s much more likely they’re a trophy that he walks around and says, look, I’ve got this.” Christie believes Trump is unable to accept that he is no longer president and uses these documents as a way to maintain some of the trappings of his former position. This may also explain why Trump had a replica of the Oval Office Resolute Desk installed in his Mar-a-Lago office. Christie concludes, “All the rest of those things are things that are assuaging, you know, his disappointment and his disbelief that he’s not the president anymore.”
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in New York on Tuesday, 20 June 2023 as part of the first leg of his three-day State visit to the United States. Modi’s visit will include an Oval Office meeting with Biden, an invitation to address a joint session of Congress, and a formal state dinner at the White House.
Prime Minister Modi’s visit to New York includes celebration of International Yoga Day at the UN headquarters and interaction with thought leaders as well the Indian diaspora. Modi will lead the International Yoga Day celebrations at the United Nations headquarter lawns. It will be the first time when the yoga day’s main event will be held abroad, nine years after India had proposed to mark it as an annual commemoration.
“Landed in New York City. Looking forward to the programmes here including interaction with thought leaders and the Yoga Day programme tomorrow, 21st June,” Mr. Modi tweeted.
Mr. Modi was received in New York by India’s Ambassador to the U.S., Taranjit Singh Sandhu and India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ruchira Kamboj.
Modi will meet first with Elon Musk. The meeting between the two since the billionaire took over reins of the social media platform and introduced sweeping changes. Modi will also meet top thought leaders including American astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, senior World Bank official Paul Romer, Lebanese-American essayist Nassim Nicholas Taleb, investor Ray Dalio, and American singer Falu Shah.
After New York, PM Modi will head straight to the capital Washington DC to meet President Biden and First Lady. On Day 2, PM Modi will be accorded a ceremonial welcome by President Biden at the White House. More than a thousand people including members of the diaspora are expected to attend the event. The prime minister will hold a high level dialogue with the US President. Biden is the third president which Modi will meet in the US, the others being Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
According to reports, both India and United States are expected to take forward movement on crucial defence deals. It includes those for manufacturing GE Aviation’s F414 engine and for acquiring 31 MQ-9 weaponised drones.
After the bilateral meet, Modi will address the joint session of the US Congress, the second time since 2016. Former British prime minister Winston Churchill and South African president Nelson Mandela are some of the world leaders to be accorded this honour twice.
In the evening, Biden and the First Lady will host a state dinner in honour of PM Modi that evening. Several guests including members of Congress, diplomats and celebrities are expected to attend the dinner.
Day after meeting Biden, PM Modi will be jointly hosted at a luncheon by US vice-president Kamala Harris and secretary of state Antony Blinken. He is also scheduled to have interactions with CEOs, professionals and other stakeholders.
The prime minister will address an invitation-only gathering of diaspora leaders at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington DC. The event will be for two hours from 7pm to 9pm (local time) on June 23.Award-winning international singer Mary Millben will perform for Modi and other guests.
Previously, Modi has visited the US a total of five times since taking oath as the prime minister in 2014. However, this particular visit has been termed as a milestone in ties between the two countries that would deepen and diversify their partnership as this will be his first with the full diplomatic status of an official State visit.
During this visit, India and the US are expected to expand cooperation in the defence industry and high technology sectors, with India getting access to critical American technologies that Washington rarely shares with non-allies.
Former President Donald Trump appeared somber and quiet in a Miami courtroom, hands clasped and leaning back in his chair at times, speaking aloud only to utter the words “not guilty” to 37 federal counts stemming from his handling of classified documents on Tuesday, June 13th, 2023, marking the first time in US history that a former president will face criminal charges.
This marks the first instance of a former president facing federal charges. Among the charges are a violation of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, destruction or falsification of records, conspiracy, and false statements, as confirmed by Trump’s attorney, Jim Trusty, on CNN.
The investigation focuses on Trump’s management of classified documents brought to his Mar-a-Lago Florida resort after leaving the White House in 2021 and any possible obstruction or government attempts to retrieve the material. Trump announced on Truth Social that he was informed of the indictment by the Justice Department and is “summoned to appear at the Federal Courthouse in Miami on Tuesday, at 3 PM.” He referred to the situation as the “Boxes Hoax.”
This federal indictment marks the second time Trump has faced criminal charges this year, following the Manhattan district attorney’s 34-count charge against him for falsifying business in April. However, the special counsel’s indictment signifies a new and more dangerous legal stage for the former president, who is running for office again in 2024 while dealing with criminal charges in two jurisdictions and two ongoing investigations into his conduct.
The charges come seven months after Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel, in response to Trump announcing his presidential run, to maintain the investigation’s independence from the Biden Justice Department. Trump now faces federal charges from the special counsel while attempting to defeat President Joe Biden in the upcoming election. The White House declined to comment on the situation Thursday evening.
Trump has consistently criticized the special counsel investigation and other inquiries into his conduct as politically motivated. He maintains that any criminal charges will not hinder his 2024 campaign. In a four-minute video released on Thursday, Trump reiterated past claims, stating that the Justice Department is being weaponized and investigations into him are “election interference.” He insisted, “I am an innocent man. I did nothing wrong.”
CNN sources revealed that Trump and his team pre-recorded the video response before the Justice Department officially informed him of the indictment, as initially reported by The New York Times.
Throughout his personal, professional, and political life, Trump has largely evaded legal consequences. He has settled several private civil lawsuits over the years and resolved disputes involving the Trump Organization. As president, he was impeached twice by the Democrat-led House but avoided conviction by the Senate.
However, after leaving office, Justice Department criminal investigations into the retention of classified information at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and his attempts to overturn the 2020 election cast a shadow over him. Smith’s ongoing investigation into the January 6 events and efforts to overturn the election further darkens this cloud.
In addition to the Manhattan district attorney’s April indictment, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is expected to announce in August whether her investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia will result in any charges.
Trump’s congressional allies swiftly rallied to his defense on social media, just as they had done when he was indicted in New York in April. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tweeted that it was “a dark day for the United States of America.” House GOP conference chairwoman Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican, said in a statement, “The radical Far Left will stop at nothing to interfere with the 2024 election in order to prop up the catastrophic presidency and desperate campaign of Joe Biden.” House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, tweeted, “Sad day for America. God Bless President Trump.”
Several Democrats who investigated Trump during his presidency claimed that the indictment demonstrated that no one is above the law. Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who led the House’s first impeachment of Trump in 2019, wrote, “Trump’s apparent indictment on multiple charges arising from his retention of classified materials is another affirmation of the rule of law. For four years, he acted like he was above the law. But he should be treated like any other lawbreaker. And today, he has been.”
The Justice Department’s inquiry into Trump’s handling of documents from his time in office came to light in August when FBI agents executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, seizing thousands of documents, including around 100 marked as classified. The Trump Organization was also subpoenaed for surveillance footage from the resort. Prosecutors were investigating potential criminal mishandling of national security information and obstruction of justice.
The DOJ previously claimed that classified documents were “likely concealed and removed” from a storage room at Mar-a-Lago in an effort to “obstruct” the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s possible mishandling of classified materials. After Trump returned 15 boxes of materials to the National Archives in January, the Justice Department subpoenaed him in May for any remaining classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump was indicted last week on 37 counts related to more than 100 classified documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago in August. The charges include willful retention of national defense information and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Trump surrendered to authorities at the federal courthouse in Miami. He pleaded not guilty and left the courthouse roughly two hours later. At his initial court appearance, Trump was represented by attorney Todd Blanche and former Florida Solicitor General Chris Kise.
Trump signed a bond document that prohibits him from discussing his case with certain witnesses — an unusual anti-witness-tampering provision added by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman that the prosecution had not sought.
U.S. Magistrate Judge John Goodman presided over the arraignment, but the case will be overseen by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who ruled in Trump’s favor in an earlier dispute in the investigation.
Later that night, Trump in a speech to his supporters claimed that according to the Presidential Records Act, “I was supposed to negotiate with NARA, which is exactly what I was doing until Mar-a-Lago was raided by FBI agents.”
The National Archives and Records Administration said in a news release last week that the Presidential Records Act “requires that all records created by Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) at the end of their administrations” and that outgoing presidents are required to separate personal documents from presidential records before they leave office.
US District Judge Aileen Cannon, whom Trump appointed in 2019, is reportedly overseeing the case for now. She previously appointed a special master to examine the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago last year at the Trump team’s request, and was criticized for delivering Trump several perplexing legal wins in the first phase of the documents case proceedings.
In the days since his indictment, Trump has indicated on his social network Truth Social that he intends to fight the charges, calling them the product of a political “witch hunt” and an attempt to interfere with the 2024 election.
An ABC News/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed 61% believe the federal charges “related to Trump’s handling of classified documents are serious.” By contrast, pollsters found that just 52% of those surveyed in April said the same about a New York grand jury indictment against Trump on charges stemming from a hush-money payment to a porn actress in the weeks before the 2016 presidential election.
Special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges, says he’s seeking a “speedy trial,” “consistent with the public interest and the rights of the accused.” But “speedy” in the federal justice system is a relative term. It may be months before Trump’s trial begins.
So, what comes next after Trump’s arraignment, where the former president pleaded “not guilty” to more than three dozen federal charges, including willful retention of classified information and obstruction of justice, over his handling of classified documents post-presidency?
As the technology industry experiences a wave of layoffs, H-1B visa holders are finding themselves in a precarious situation. These skilled foreign workers, who come to the United States to work in specialized fields such as technology and engineering, are now facing uncertainty in their careers and the prospect of having to leave the country.
In a recent report by CNBC, it was highlighted that many H-1B visa holders are being affected by job cuts in the tech sector. The situation is particularly challenging for these individuals, as their visa status is tied to their employment. Losing their job could result in losing their legal status in the United States, forcing them to return to their home countries.
The H-1B visa program has been a significant source of talent for the U.S. tech industry, attracting highly skilled professionals from across the globe. However, the current economic climate and the ongoing pandemic have led to a surge in layoffs, with companies like Uber, Airbnb, and Lyft announcing significant job cuts. This has left thousands of H-1B visa holders scrambling to find new employment within the short period allowed by their visas.
Many H-1B visa holders are also grappling with the uncertainty surrounding the future of the program itself. The Trump administration had introduced various restrictions on the H-1B visa program, making it more difficult for skilled foreign workers to obtain and maintain their visas. While the Biden administration has expressed interest in reversing some of these policies, the future of the program remains uncertain.
This uncertainty has led to an increased sense of urgency among H-1B visa holders to secure new employment. Additionally, the competitive job market has made it more difficult for these individuals to find suitable positions within their fields. Many are left with no choice but to accept lower-paying jobs or positions outside their areas of expertise in order to maintain their legal status.
The challenges faced by H-1B visa holders during these layoffs not only impact the individuals themselves but also the U.S. economy as a whole. The loss of skilled foreign workers could lead to a talent gap in the tech industry, hindering innovation and growth.
As the tech sector continues to navigate through the economic downturn and the ongoing pandemic, the fate of many H-1B visa holders hangs in the balance. For now, these skilled professionals must face the challenges of an uncertain job market and the potential loss of their legal status in the United States.
Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the far-right Oath Keepers, has been sentenced to 18 years in federal prison in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, after being convicted of seditious conspiracy. This sentence is the longest imposed on any Jan. 6 defendant to date. During his sentencing, Rhodes delivered a politically-charged speech claiming that he was a “political prisoner.” However, the judge disagreed, stating that Rhodes’ actions led to his criminal convictions. Judge Amit Mehta further highlighted that Rhodes poses a continuing threat to the country, the republic, and the fabric of democracy. Rhodes was found guilty of seditious conspiracy in November alongside Kelly Meggs, a fellow Oath Keepers member.
Rhodes’ pre-attack message, “They won’t fear us until we come with rifles in hand,” and his statement after the attack, where he expressed regret for not bringing rifles, were produced in court during his trial. He even wrote in a message before Jan. 6, “On the 6th, they are going to put the final nail in the coffin of this Republic, unless we fight our way out. With Trump (preferably) or without him, we have no choice.” At the Olive Garden restaurant in Virginia after the attack, Rhodes met with other Oath Keepers and celebrated their actions, writing, “Patriots, it was a long day but a day when patriots began to stand.”
Wearing an orange prison jumpsuit during his sentencing, Rhodes claimed that the only crime he committed was opposing those who are “destroying our country.” Yet, Judge Mehta emphasized that Rhodes’ criminal convictions were based on his actions before, during, and after Jan. 6 and not his beliefs or political affiliations. Mehta also rejected Rhodes’ argument that he was a “political prisoner,” stating, “You are not a political prisoner, Mr. Rhodes.”
Meggs, another Oath Keepers member who was convicted of seditious conspiracy alongside Rhodes, was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison. Mehta noted that Meggs did not pose the same continuing threat as Rhodes and that a shorter sentence was more appropriate. At the hearing, Meggs expressed regret for his actions and apologized to his family.
Rhodes and Meggs were tried alongside Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson, and Thomas Caldwell, who were convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting, but not seditious conspiracy. Watkins and Harrelson will receive their sentences on Friday. Rhodes took the stand and distanced himself from the other Oath Keepers, stating that he believed that the storming of the Capitol was a foolish act. However, government messages showed that Rhodes viewed Jan. 6 as the last opportunity to prevent a government takeover.
Prior to Rhodes’ and Meggs’ sentencing, Peter Schwartz, who assaulted officers during the Capitol attack, was sentenced to just over 14 years in prison. Schwartz had 38 prior convictions. The Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol sparked outrage across the United States and prompted numerous investigations, arrests, and convictions. According to the Department of Justice, over 600 people have been charged in connection with the attack.
As President Joe Biden gears up for a potential second term, he enjoys a significant lead over his declared Democratic challengers. However, a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS reveals that his declining favorability ratings and the perception that his reelection would be detrimental to the nation could pose difficulties.
Only 33% of Americans believe that a Biden victory in 2024 would signify progress or triumph. The poll also highlights a drop in favorable opinions of Biden, from 42% in December to 35% currently. Furthermore, an earlier release of the same poll showed Biden’s presidential approval rating at a meager 40%, one of the lowest for a first-term president since Dwight Eisenhower at this stage in their tenure.
Within the Democratic party, 60% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters support Biden as the frontrunner for next year’s Democratic nomination, while 20% favor activist and lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and 8% support author Marianne Williamson. Another 8% would back an unspecified “someone else.”
The majority of Biden’s primary supporters are unwavering, with 58% stating they will definitely support him, while 42% admit they could change their minds. In contrast, only 19% of those backing other candidates are firmly committed, with 81% open to changing their minds.
The poll indicates that Biden is likely to gain the support of most Democratic-aligned voters in 2024, with only 14% saying they wouldn’t back him in the primary and 7% stating they definitely wouldn’t support him in November 2024 if he secures the party’s nomination.
However, the results suggest that Biden may struggle to retain Democratic-aligned White non-college voters in the general election next year, as 16% say they definitely won’t support him in November 2024, compared to just 1% of White Democratic-aligned voters with college degrees and 5% of Democratic-aligned voters of color.
Biden’s vulnerabilities in the nomination race primarily lie among Democratic-leaning independents (40% support him for the nomination, compared to 67% among self-identified Democrats) and younger voters (49% under 45 years old support him, as opposed to 68% of those aged 45 or older).
A majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters would consider supporting either Kennedy (64% support or would consider him) or Williamson (53% back her or would consider her), but few seem deeply committed to either candidate.
Among those open to considering Kennedy, 20% cite his connection to the Kennedy family as the main reason, with one respondent stating, “I liked his dad (RFK) and his uncle (JFK) a lot. I would hope he has a similar mindset.” Many are simply curious and want to learn more about him, with 17% saying they don’t know enough to rule him out and 10% claiming they are open-minded and would consider any candidate. Some would back any Democrat (10%) or anyone who is not Trump (5%). Only 12% say they would consider him due to their support for his views or policies, and 4% specifically mention his environmental policy stances.
Of those who would consider Williamson, nearly 3 in 10 (28%) say they don’t know enough about her, 16% would consider her because she’s a Democrat, 8% would consider any candidate or are open-minded, and 9% view her as an alternative to Biden. One respondent said, “She is better than Joe Biden. I haven’t heard of her though.” Another 10% desire a female candidate, and 12% support her views or policies. One person commented, “She may not have a great political resume but she cares about important issues.”
The majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters do believe it’s likely that Biden will become the party’s candidate, with 55% saying it’s extremely or very likely, 28% deeming it somewhat likely, 11% considering it not too likely, and a mere 5% believing it’s not at all likely.
Securing public support for a second term might be an uphill battle for President Joe Biden. A significant 66% of Americans believe that a Biden victory would result in a setback or disaster for the country. In comparison, former President Donald Trump’s prospects appear slightly better, with 43% considering a Trump win as a triumph or step forward and 56% seeing it as a disaster or setback. Both candidates receive similar percentages regarding the perception of their victory as disastrous (44% for Trump and 41% for Biden). Among independents, 45% view a Trump win as disastrous, while 35% hold the same opinion for a Biden win.
The overarching negativity towards Biden can be attributed to a more pessimistic outlook among his party members compared to the optimism Trump enjoys from Republicans. A substantial 82% of Democrats perceive a Trump victory as disastrous, whereas 83% of Republicans feel the same about a Biden win. However, 85% of Republicans consider a Trump win a triumph or step forward, compared to 73% of Democrats expressing the same sentiment for Biden.
One advantage that Biden held over Trump in the 2020 election – a stronger favorability rating – may have dissipated. The poll reveals that 35% of Americans have a favorable view of Biden, while 57% have an unfavorable one, which is strikingly similar to Trump’s figures. Biden’s positive ratings have dropped from 42% in December, and among independents, his favorability has declined from 35% to 26%.
Biden’s ratings are significantly more negative than those of the three living Democratic past presidents. Barack Obama is the most positively viewed of all the living presidents tested in the poll, with 57% holding a favorable view and 35% an unfavorable one. Public opinion on Jimmy Carter is also positive, with 43% favorable and 21% unfavorable, while 36% are unsure or unable to rate him. Bill Clinton’s ratings are evenly split, with 41% expressing a favorable view and 42% an unfavorable one.
The CNN Poll, conducted by SSRS from May 17-20, included a random national sample of 1,227 adults drawn from a probability-based panel, featuring 432 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote. Surveys were administered either online or via telephone with a live interviewer. The full sample results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 points, while the margin of sampling error for Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters is 6.2 points.
In a recently released report, U.S. Special Counsel John Durham stated that the FBI had no “actual evidence” to investigate Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and relied excessively on information provided by Trump’s political adversaries. The 306-page report marks the end of a four-year investigation into possible missteps by the FBI during its early “Crossfire Hurricane” inquiry into potential contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Durham found that prior to initiating Crossfire Hurricane, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies did not have any solid evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
He also claimed that the FBI handled the 2016 Trump investigation differently from other politically sensitive inquiries, such as those involving Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
Durham wrote, “The Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report.”
In response to the report, the FBI stated that it has already implemented numerous corrective actions for some time. Meanwhile, Durham’s findings may serve as political ammunition for Trump, who is planning to run for re-election in 2024 despite facing criminal charges in New York and two federal investigations by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
However, Durham’s investigation has had limited impact, as both defendants he attempted to prosecute in 2022 were acquitted by separate juries.
Durham’s report echoes many concerns raised by the Justice Department’s inspector general regarding the FBI’s process for applying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for wiretap applications.
Durham’s report states: “Senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information from politically affiliated persons and entities.”
Republicans continue to be broadly doubtful about votes being counted accurately — in the early contests or beyond them. About one-quarter of Republicans say they have at least “quite a bit” of confidence that the votes in the 2024 presidential election will be counted accurately, significantly lower than Democrats. Slightly fewer than half of U.S. adults overall (46%) believe the same, which is in line with an AP-NORC poll conducted in June.
But when the dark streets of most American cities, especially Los Angeles and San Francisco, in the state of California, are turning into the ‘mecca of homeless’, it is just hypocritical to laugh at the broad-mindedness of this great country and not hide it by applying “Modi tech ” here.
56 International is the world championship of 56 held among the Malayali community for 25 years. It started as a small tournament 24 years ago organized by Appachen and Mathew Cheruvil in Detroit. We mainly played against Tommy and his teammates online for some time. Regular online play at Cheettukaliclub.com helped us study and analyze the game of 56. There is nothing to replace practice. Only practice can get you closer to perfection. You realize standard hands and patterns that can then be played from muscle memory rather than trying to analyze at that point.
The best part of International is that we made new friends with like-minded people across America.Then, we kept learning more and looking forward to the Tampa tournament.
The finals with Benny George and team from Chicago was a hard-fought one. They were outstanding players. They never made a mistake and we lost the first game. Then we won the second game towards the last two shuffles. Then the third game went to a tie again. During the tiebreaker hands, the second hand we got the almost perfect hand to win but involved risks when we called 56 Diamonds because if the trump was concentrated in one hand we would have lost. But fortune favors the brave sometimes.
The best part of International is that we made new friends with like-minded people across America.Then, we kept learning more and looking forward to the Tampa tournament.
Every week, we practically had Malayali food at fancy restaurant steak prices (Every loss was $ 20 each, and we were losing 4-5 games a night). In Rajeev’s words, we were paying steak prices for Malayali beef “uLarthirachi”.
The finals with Benny George and team from Chicago was a hard-fought one. They were outstanding players. They never made a mistake and we lost the first game. Then we won the second game towards the last two shuffles. Then the third game went to a tie again. During the tiebreaker hands, the second hand we got the almost perfect hand to win but involved risks when we called 56 Diamonds because if the trump was concentrated in one hand we would have lost. But fortune favors the brave sometimes.
That move marked a profound shift from earlier in the week, when a shutdown looked all but inevitable. A shutdown would mean that most of the government’s 4 million employees would not get paid – whether they were working or not – and also would shutter a range of federal services, from National Parks to financial regulators.
Several Republican officials, including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling, have also spoken out against disqualifying candidates through partisan actions. Raffensperger, who faced pressure from Trump during the 2020 election, warned against using the 14th Amendment as a means to bypass the ballot box. Sterling stressed the importance of trusting the voters and the potential danger of setting a precedent by interpreting the Constitution in a way that removes candidates.
