sexta-feira, 31 de maio de 2024

Biden Calls for End to Gaza War, Endorsing Israeli Cease-Fire Proposal

 



Biden Calls for End to Gaza War, Endorsing Israeli Cease-Fire Proposal

 

The president outlined a plan to try to get Hamas and Israel to break out of a monthslong deadlock that has resulted in the killing of thousands of Palestinians.

 

President Biden at the White House on Friday outlining a new three-phase proposal from the Israeli government that ideally would lead to a permanent cease-fire in Gaza.

Israel has offered a comprehensive new proposal. It’s a road map to an enduring cease-fire and the release of all hostages. This proposal has been transmitted by Qatar to Hamas. This is truly a decisive moment. Israel has made their proposal. Hamas says it wants a cease-fire. This deal is an opportunity to prove whether they really mean it. Hamas needs to take the deal. For months, people all over the world have called for cease-fire. Now it’s time to raise your voices and demand that Hamas come to the table, agrees to this deal and ends this war that they began. At this point, Hamas no longer is capable of carrying out another Oct. 7. And the Palestinian people have endured sheer hell in this war. Too many innocent people have been killed, including thousands of children. It’s time to begin this new stage. The hostages come home, for Israel to be secure, for the suffering to stop. It’s time for this war to end, and for the day after to begin. Thank you very much.

 

Zolan Kanno-Youngs David E. Sanger

By Zolan Kanno-Youngs and David E. Sanger

Zolan Kanno-Youngs reported from Rehoboth Beach, Del., where President Biden will be spending the weekend. David E. Sanger reported from Washington.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/us/politics/biden-israel-remarks-speech.html

May 31, 2024

 

Declaring Hamas no longer capable of carrying out a major terrorist attack on Israel, President Biden said on Friday that it was time for a permanent cease-fire in Gaza and endorsed a new plan he said Israel had offered to win the release of hostages and end the fighting.

 

“It’s time for this war to end, for the day after to begin,” Mr. Biden said, speaking from the State Dining Room at the White House. He also gave a stark description of Hamas’s diminished capabilities after more than seven months of Israeli attacks, saying that “at this point, Hamas is no longer capable of carrying out another Oct. 7.”

 

“This is truly a decisive moment,” Mr. Biden said. “Israel has made their proposal. Hamas says it wants a cease-fire. This deal is an opportunity to prove whether they really mean it.”

 

With that statement, Mr. Biden appeared to be revealing his true agenda: making public elements of the proposal in an effort to pressure both Hamas and Israel to break out of a monthslong deadlock that has resulted in the killing of thousands of Palestinians.

 

American officials have described Hamas’s leader, Yahya Sinwar, as interested only in his own survival and that of his family and inner circle, as they presumably operate from tunnels deep under southern Gaza. But officials have also said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has little incentive to move to a real cease-fire, because of the widespread belief in Israel that as soon as the surviving hostages are returned, and a last cease-fire begins, he will most likely lose his fragile hold on power.

 

Mr. Biden’s remarks came at a pivotal moment in his re-election campaign, a day after his rival, former President Donald J. Trump, was convicted of 34 felony charges. At the same time, he has been facing growing pressure at home over the bloodshed in Gaza, which has led to eruptions on college campuses and on the streets of American cities, and alienated many of his own supporters.

 

Mr. Biden described the three-phase Israeli plan as a “comprehensive new proposal” that amounted to a road map to an “enduring cease-fire.” But at several moments in the past few months, Mr. Netanyahu has directly contradicted Mr. Biden. And so far Hamas has never accepted a comprehensive proposal, declaring in its public statements that fighting must end before major hostage releases or any agreement with Israel.

 

Hints of differences came almost as soon as Mr. Biden finished speaking. Following his speech, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office said the Israeli government was “united in the desire to bring home our hostages as soon as possible.”

 

Sign up for the Israel-Hamas War Briefing.  The latest news about the conflict. Get it sent to your inbox.

But it added that Mr. Netanyahu had stipulated to Israeli negotiators that they could not reach a deal that would end the war before all their goals were achieved, including the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capacities in Gaza.

 

“The exact outline that Israel has offered — including the conditional progression from stage to stage — enables Israel to maintain that principle,” Mr. Netanyahu’s office said.

 

Hamas reacted positively to Mr. Biden’s speech in a statement on social media, saying that it was willing to deal “constructively” with any cease-fire proposal based on a permanent truce, the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, the return of displaced Palestinians to their homes and a “serious prisoner exchange.”

 

Many of the hard-liners in Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition did not immediately respond to Mr. Biden’s address because of the Jewish Sabbath, which began before his remarks. Mr. Netanyahu’s nationalist allies, like Itamar Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, have said they could leave the government if an agreement ended the war before Hamas’s complete destruction.

 

“I know there are those in Israel who will not agree with this plan and will call for the war to continue indefinitely,” Mr. Biden said, adding that some in Mr. Netanyahu’s government have made clear they want to “occupy Gaza.”

 

“They want to keep fighting for years, and the hostages are not a priority to them,” Mr. Biden said in what appeared to be a direct message to the far-right members of Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet. “I’ve urged leadership of Israel to stand behind this deal.”

 

Mr. Biden has faced questions over how long he was willing to support Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and particularly its most recent attacks in the southern Gaza city of Rafah. The bloodshed in Gaza has left more than 36,000 people dead.

 

Israel’s national security adviser said this week that he expected the war to continue through at least the end of the year.

 

Global pressure to scale down the military operation increased after the International Court of Justice, an arm of the United Nations, ruled last week that Israel must halt its military offensive in Rafah. The court, however, has no means of enforcing the order.

 

Friday’s remarks were Mr. Biden’s first public comments about the war since an Israeli strike and subsequent fire on Sunday killed at least 45 people, including children, and wounded 249 in an encampment for the displaced, according to Gazan health officials. A visual analysis by The New York Times found that Israel used U.S.-made bombs in the strike, forcing the White House to face difficult questions over American responsibility for rising death toll.

 

Mr. Biden said on Friday that he saw the “terrible images” from the deadly fire.

 

“The Palestinian people have endured sheer hell in this war,” Mr. Biden said after describing the pain of those whose relatives were “slaughtered by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7” and the “anguish” of Israeli families waiting for hostages to be released.

 

Mr. Biden also said too many innocent people had been killed in Gaza, “including thousands of children,” and addressed the many Americans who are infuriated over the way his administration has handled the conflict.

 

“I know this is a subject on which people in this country feel deep passionate convictions,” Mr. Biden added. “So do I. This has been one of the hardest, most complicated problems in the world. There’s nothing easy about this.”

 

In describing the four-and-a-half page Israeli proposal, Mr. Biden said it would be broken into three phases. The first would begin with a roughly six-week cease-fire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas of Gaza and a release of elderly and female hostages held by Hamas, in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian detainees. Mr. Biden said there were still details that still needed to be negotiated to move on to the next phase — apparently including how many Palestinians would be released in return for each freed Israeli hostage.

 

In the second phase, as described by a senior administration official who briefed reporters after Mr. Biden spoke, all the remaining Israeli hostages would be released, including male soldiers. All hostilities would end, and, the official said, all Israeli forces would withdraw from Gaza. In the past, Mr. Netanyahu has publicly rejected a complete withdrawal, maintaining that would result in a resurgent Hamas, once again in control of the territory.

 

It is unclear, from the description given to reporters in the briefing, who would govern the territory, though in the past the United States has said that would most likely be the Palestinian Authority, which has struggled to run the West Bank.

 

In the third phase, the remains of hostages who have died would be exchanged, rubble cleared and a three- to five-year reconstruction period would begin, backed by the United States, Europe and international institutions. But that plan sounded almost aspirational, given the level of destruction and the near-famine conditions.

 

Mr. Biden, however, portrayed this road map as reasonable — if the terrorist group goes along. “As long as Hamas lives up to its commitments, a temporary cease-fire will become, in the words of the Israeli proposal, a cessation of hostilities permanently,” Mr. Biden said.

 

American officials said they believed that following the meeting in Paris last weekend between William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, and David Barnea, the head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, Israel made significant concessions on the hostage talks. Those included reducing the number of live hostages they required to be released in the early phase.

 

Still, a person briefed on the matter said the negotiations were “on pause” while Israel conducts its operation in Rafah.

 

Mr. Biden has also been involved in the hostage talks, even though he has not traveled for any of the negotiating sessions. Mr. Biden’s role, officials said, has been most notable in the pressure he has put on Mr. Netanyahu to continue to negotiate and reduce Israeli demands.

 

But on Friday, Mr. Biden was clearly focusing his pressure on Hamas, arguing that taking this offer was their best shot at ending the war and moving toward a cease-fire.

 

“Everybody who wants peace now must raise their voices,” Mr. Biden said, adding that the public should let Hamas leaders “know they should take this deal. Work to make it real, make it lasting and forge a better future out of the tragic terror attack and war.”

 

Aaron Boxerman contributed reporting from Jerusalem, and Julian E. Barnes from Washington.

 

Zolan Kanno-Youngs is a White House correspondent, covering President Biden and his administration. More about Zolan Kanno-Youngs

 

David E. Sanger covers the Biden administration and national security. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has written several books on challenges to American national security. More about David E. Sanger

President Biden presents new Israel cease-fire offer. ‘It’s time for this war to end.’ |

Biden announces new Middle East cease-fire proposal

Biden on Trump remarks following guilty verdict: 'Irresponsible' to clai...

Why Trump’s conviction could help him win the US election

Trump says he will appeal against his criminal conviction

Trump Conviction Sparks Violent Rants Online; Russia, Italy, Hungry Back...

‘Never’ seen a president who insulted our legal system and rule of law in public: Beschloss

'We're living in a fascist state' Donald Trump rages against conviction ...

The day so far

 



22m ago

19.07 CEST

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/may/31/donald-trump-guilty-verdict-felonies-hush-money-trial?page=with:block-665a00698f08c6c67d9ae0f0#block-665a00698f08c6c67d9ae0f0

 

The day so far

In a rambling speech in New York, Donald Trump blamed Joe Biden and the Democrats for his felony conviction yesterday on business fraud charges, vowed to appeal and said: “I’m willing to do whatever I have to do to save our country and to save our constitution.” But, the fact is, Trump is the first ever former American president convicted of a crime, and the jury’s decision has the potential to upend the 2024 election, and potentially give Biden – who has been unpopular for years and trails his predecessor in swing state polling – an edge. We will not know for sure how much of a difference the conviction will make until new polling is conducted, but one thing that has become clear today is that Republican leaders aren’t changing their minds about Trump. Even the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, whose relationship with the former president collapsed after the January 6 Capitol attack, said he expects his conviction to be overturned on appeal. We’ll see about that.

 

Here’s what else has happened today so far:

 

Biden’s campaign said Trump’s press conference showed he was “confused, desperate and defeated”.

The president has not personally said a word about Trump’s conviction, but announced a surprise afternoon speech about a completely unrelated topic: the Middle East.

The Trump campaign announced a record-setting haul from donors following his conviction.

Germany to allow Kyiv to strike inside Russia, Moscow warns of ‘all-out ...

Putin’s Ally Stands Up For Russia, Xi Jinping Refuses To Attend Ukraine Peace talks Without Moscow

Hear what Mary Trump thinks about her uncle’s potential jail time

Trump ’seething with anger’ over jury’s guilty verdict | David Dunn

US faces riots and civil unrest if Donald Trump is jailed, warns US poll...

Knife attacker stabs MULTIPLE people on LIVE STREAM in German city as armed police rush to scene...

BREAKING: Man shot after several people stabbed in Germany

European elections: Germany's Green Party loses voters after controversial decisions •

Does the economy matter to the far right? | Business Beyond

Immigration : "L'espace Schengen est aujourd'hui obsolète et inadapté" (...

Marion Maréchal revient sur son échange tendu sur France Inter : "Une in...

Défendre la famille, est-ce pétainiste ?

Marion Maréchal vs Pétain : La polémique du jour

Marion Maréchal : "Le RN n'a jamais réussi à changer une virgule de la p...

Elections européennes 2024 : les moments forts du débat entre les huit principales têtes de listes

Marion Maréchal et Manon Aubry s'écharpent sur le conflit au Proche-Orient

ÉLECTIONS EUROPÉENNES - Le grand débat sur Europe 1 et CNEWS du 30 mai 2...

Élections européennes : les jeux sont-ils faits ? • FRANCE 24

"Jordan Bardella est l'ogre des sondages depuis le début" (Louis de Ragu...

U.S. official: Biden secretly gave Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia

Biden gives Ukraine the go-ahead to use US weapons against Russia

Stoltenberg: NATO should drop Ukraine weapons rules | DW News

US President Joe Biden allows Ukraine to use some US weapons to strike inside Russia |

4 days ago: NATO chief calls for the use of allied weapons against Russia • FRANCE 2...

Under Pressure, Biden Allows Ukraine to Use U.S. Weapons to Strike Inside Russia

 



Under Pressure, Biden Allows Ukraine to Use U.S. Weapons to Strike Inside Russia

 

White House officials said the president’s major policy shift extended only to what they characterized as acts of self-defense so that Ukraine could protect Kharkiv, its second-largest city.

 

By David E. Sanger and Edward Wong

David E. Sanger, reporting from Washington, has covered superpower competition for three decades. Edward Wong, reporting from Prague, has long experience as a foreign correspondent and is traveling with Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-weapons.html

Published May 30, 2024

Updated May 31, 2024, 1:36 a.m. ET

 

President Biden, in a major shift pressed by his advisers and key allies, has authorized Ukraine to conduct limited strikes inside Russia with American-made weapons, opening what could well be a new chapter in the war for Ukraine, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

 

Mr. Biden’s decision appears to mark the first time that an American president has allowed limited military responses on artillery, missile bases and command centers inside the borders of a nuclear-armed adversary. White House officials insisted, however, that the authorization extended only to what they characterized as acts of self-defense, so that Ukraine could protect Kharkiv, its second-largest city, and the surrounding areas from missiles, glide bombs and artillery shells from just over the border.

 

“The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S.-supplied weapons for counter-fire purposes in the Kharkiv region so Ukraine can hit back against Russian forces that are attacking them or preparing to attack them,” a U.S. official said in a statement issued by the administration. “Our policy with respect to prohibiting the use of ATACMS or long-range strikes inside of Russia has not changed,” the statement continued, referring to an artillery system, provided to Ukraine, that has the capability to reach deep inside Russian territory.

 

The decision by Mr. Biden was reported earlier on Thursday by Politico.

 

American officials said that the change in policy went into effect on Thursday.

 

Though the White House cast the decision as a narrow one, allowing the Ukrainians to strike pre-emptively if they see evidence of preparations for an attack, or in response to a Russian barrage near Kharkiv, the implications are clearly much broader. Until now, Mr. Biden has flatly refused to let Ukraine use American-made weapons outside of Ukrainian borders, no matter what the provocation, saying that any attack on Russian territory risked violating his mandate to “avoid World War III.”

 

But having reversed his position, even in limited circumstances, Mr. Biden has clearly crossed a red line that he himself drew. And administration officials conceded that if Russia mounted other attacks from inside its territory beyond Kharkiv, the president’s restrictions could be subject to further loosening. “This is a new reality,” one senior official said, declining to speak on the record, “and perhaps a new era” in the Ukraine conflict.

 

Much may depend on how the Russians react to the change in the next days and weeks — or whether they react at all. Russia has warned that it will respond, in unspecified ways, if the United States shifts policy. Last week, as word of an impending change took place, Russia conducted drills for the forces that move and deploy tactical nuclear weapons, in what appeared to be a signal to Washington.

 

Russia has repeatedly played the nuclear card in the 27 months since it invaded Ukraine, mostly notably in October 2022, when it appeared the entire Russian military invasion of Ukraine could collapse. Gen. Mark A. Milley, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, often talked about the “nuclear paradox,” that the closer the Russians came to losing in Ukraine, the higher the nuclear peril.

 

But now Mr. Biden’s reversal raises a new question: How will Russia react to strikes that employ American weapons inside its territory? It is impossible to know exactly where President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia will draw his red line. Mr. Putin has not responded to Britain’s decision to ease the restrictions on its weapons, but in the Russian leader’s mind, the United States is a different kind of rival.

 

Inside the White House, Mr. Biden’s deliberations were very closely held, known only to a very narrow group of aides. But The New York Times revealed last week that Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken had come back from a sobering trip to Kyiv and privately told the president that his 27-month-long ban against shooting American weapons into Russian territory was now placing parts of Ukraine in peril. The Russians, he said, were exploiting the president’s ban and mounting constant attacks from a safe haven just inside the Russian border.

 

But by that time, Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser, and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III had already concluded that the geography of the battle around Kharkiv would require an exception to the hard rule that the United States had set against firing into Russia, senior officials said. Ukraine was suffering from what one official called “an artificial line” in the middle of the battlefield that kept them from responding to devastating attacks. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Austin concluded that it made no sense to restrict the Ukrainians from responding — even while maintaining a ban on using American equipment for long-range strikes deep into Russia.

 

Some American allies had already gone further. Britain weeks ago allowed Ukraine to use its Storm Shadow long-range missile systems for attacks anywhere in Russia, and France and Germany recently took the same position. So did Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO.

 

From the outside, it appeared that each of those countries was mounting a campaign to get Mr. Biden to change his mind. But American officials insisted that only Britain reached its decision before Washington did, and that by the time the major European allies supported the change, they had been told Mr. Biden was headed in the same direction.

 

The decision follows weeks of intense behind-the-scenes conversation with the Ukrainians, made more urgent after Russia began a major assault on Kharkiv around May 10.

 

Three days later, on May 13, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Austin and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., held one of their regularly scheduled secure video conferences with their Ukrainian counterparts. Once again, the Ukrainians pressed for Mr. Biden to lift U.S. restrictions on firing into Russian territory, arguing that the president’s concerns about escalation were overblown. But now, they said, the issue had become more urgent because the Russians were shelling civilian sites around Kharkiv from inside their border — knowing that the Ukrainians could not fully respond.

 

After the meeting, officials said, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Austin and General Brown decided to recommend to the president that he reverse his position. But they kept the decision very close. Two days later, on May 15, Mr. Sullivan conveyed the recommendation to Mr. Biden, who — for the first time — said he was inclined to carve out an exception that would allow the Ukrainians to strike back, even if Russian attacks were coming from just a few miles behind the Russian border. By then, Mr. Blinken was already in Kyiv and had heard the case for a reversal directly from President Volodymyr Zelensky.

 

The same day as the private meeting with Mr. Sullivan, the president saw Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, the four-star commander of the U.S. European Command and the supreme allied commander for Europe. He was in Washington for an annual meeting of all the combatant commanders, and told Mr. Biden that he also agreed that the ban on firing into Russia was posing a danger to Ukraine — though he, too, one official said, was concerned about the possible Russian reactions.

 

Mr. Blinken returned from Kyiv and saw Mr. Biden and Mr. Sullivan on the evening of May 17 in the Oval Office, saying that he emerged convinced that the United States had to alter its stance. It was clear by then that Mr. Biden was in agreement, officials said, but the president insisted that before he issued a formal decision, he wanted a meeting of his national security “principals” to consider the risks. That meeting did not take place until last week, just as news of Mr. Blinken’s change of view leaked out.

 

White House officials were clearly angry about the leak, and some said they were worried it would tip off the Russians or interfere with the final decision-making. The formal orders did not get conveyed to the Pentagon until earlier this week. Mr. Blinken, who knew the change was coming, hinted at the possibility in Moldova, where he left open the possibility that the United States might “adapt and adjust” its stance because the situation on the ground had changed. But he did not say that the president had already reversed course, and White House officials refused to comment.

 

Mr. Biden has never publicly commented on the internal debate that led him to change his approach. So it is unclear whether he now believes that the risk of escalation — including nuclear escalation — has declined, or whether the prospect that Ukraine might lose more territory changed his view.

 

So few members of the National Security Council or the Pentagon knew of the change that a Pentagon spokeswoman, Sabrina Singh, was still defending the old policy on Thursday afternoon in a briefing for reporters. She repeatedly said that there was no change. “The security assistance that we provide Ukraine is to be used within Ukraine, and we don’t encourage attacks or enable attacks inside of Russia,” she said.

 

But she insisted that Ukraine could be effective by focusing on tactical and operational targets that directly influence the conflict within its boundaries, she said. “So our policy hasn’t changed.”

 

In fact, it had, days before. No one had told her, defense officials say, that Mr. Austin had already released orders to allow Ukraine to open fire, with American weapons, on military targets over the Russian border. U.S. officials now say they expect that the first counterattacks with American weapons will begin within hours or days.

 

David E. Sanger covers the Biden administration and national security. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has written several books on challenges to American national security. More about David E. Sanger

 

Edward Wong is a diplomatic correspondent who has reported for The Times for more than 24 years from New York, Baghdad, Beijing and Washington. He was on a team of Pulitzer Prize finalists for Iraq War coverage. More about Edward Wong

Trump’s guilty verdict will have ‘cataclysmic’ impact on election outcom...

Trump needs to win votes from people who despise him. That just got harder.

 



COLUMN | ALTITUDE

Trump needs to win votes from people who despise him. That just got harder.

 

Even for a politician who skates away from scandal, this week complicates Trump’s path to election.

 

By JOHN F. HARRIS

05/31/2024 12:54 AM EDT

John Harris is founding editor and global editor-in-chief of POLITICO. His Altitude column offers a regular perspective on politics in a moment of radical disruption.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/05/31/trump-felony-convictions-political-problem-2024-elections-00160943

 

Yes, it’s obviously true that a 34-count felony conviction would be enough to demolish the career of any normal politician.

 

Yes, it’s obviously true that former president Donald Trump is not a normal politician. His most devoted partisans will only become more so following Thursday’s guilty verdict. Just as they did after the Access Hollywood tape, the impeachments, the Jan. 6 riot and other examples too abundant to recount or, for many people, even to recall.

 

But these two obvious truths tend to obscure another one. Trump simply cannot beat President Joe Biden relying solely on the votes of people who think his legal travails are a politically motivated scam, and who cheer Trump not in spite of his transgressions but because of them. Or, more specifically, because they thrill to the outrage and indignation Trump inspires among his adversaries.

 

 

There are plenty of such people — enough to power this generation’s most important political movement — but still not enough to win the election. Trump’s only path to victory is a coalition that includes many Republicans and independents who find him deplorable but think a second Biden term would be even more so.

 

That is why — even as the full consequences likely will emerge slowly — this week was easily the worst so far this year for Trump and the best for Biden.

 

This doesn’t mean the Manhattan verdict will suddenly transform the race — nothing in Trump’s history of scandal suggests it will. This doesn’t mean huge legions of swing voters will suddenly agree with Biden’s argument that democracy itself is on the ballot this fall. If someone wasn’t buying that up until now, why would a case of document falsification to cover up an alleged sexual indiscretion change their mind?

 

It does mean that many voters who don’t much like Biden received an emphatic, unambiguous reminder of why they don’t like Trump. The movement of even a small percentage of voters in closely contested swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all must-win for Biden — could echo decisively through the balance of the race.

 

Joe Biden has flogged one line mercilessly throughout his career: “Don’t compare me to the Almighty. Compare me to the alternative.”

 

It can be easy to forget that this is an essential pillar of Trump’s strategy as well. Polls show a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with their options. The only way either can win is with the support of nose-holders. His convictions — and the certainty that they will remain in the news through sentencing and likely appeals — means reluctant Trump backers will have to pinch even harder.

 

 

 

A Democratic pollster told my colleague Jonathan Martin after the verdict that Biden’s message should be: “It is always chaos with Trump, chaos and putting himself first. How can he do what is best for the country and do what is best for you when he will spend his entire four years obsessed with his legal issues, trying to settle scores, trying to stay out of prison?”

 

A Republican operative agreed that Trump does better when he is reacting opportunistically to events in the news — but not when he and his own actions are the primary subject of sustained news coverage. The last time that was the case was in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riots.

 

That event, of course, shows the hazards of prediction. It was in the early hours of Jan. 7 that no less a political hand than Mitch McConnell, who had come to loathe the president even while promoting his court nominees and other parts of his agenda, crowed to Martin (in the book “This Will Not Pass,” with co-author Alexander Burns) that Trump was “pretty thoroughly discredited” and his political career likely over: “He put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger. Couldn’t have happened at a better time.”

 

The records-falsification case isn’t as dramatic as the Jan. 6 riot. It’s not even like Trump’s famous boast that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his backers wouldn’t mind.

 

To the contrary, the damage from this case may be that by Trump standards what he was convicted of doing was not especially dramatic. The payoff from former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels, who acted in pornographic movies — and the accounting legerdemain required to cover up the payment — was a window into what prosecutors described as a routine operating procedure in Trump’s retinue.

 

In that sense, the charges aren’t like the felony indictments Trump is facing from prosecutor Jack Smith over trying to overturn the 2020 election. They are more like the allegations Hillary Rodham Clinton was facing in 2016 — and which Trump ceaselessly exploited — of improperly conducting official business on her personal email account. That controversy was damaging not because the underlying crime was so grave but because for many people it painted a picture of someone who thought she operated above the rules.

 

The Manhattan conviction, according to operatives in both parties, allows Biden to put Trump in a similar box.

 

There are two demographic slices he’ll be aiming at with such an appeal. One is highly educated, highly informed traditional Republicans, who can reliably be expected to vote. They don’t like Trump but are open to voting for him because they regard Biden as too old or his administration as too anti-business. The conviction makes it harder for this group to rationalize a Trump vote as the best among bad alternatives.

 

The other is low-information, less reliable voters. They typically aren’t paying close attention to the news, but a big event like the conviction can penetrate their consciousness in lasting ways.

 

Among both groups the argument is less that Trump is a would-be dictator who could end democracy. It is that he is a self-absorbed agent of chaos who is too preoccupied with his own troubles to govern effectively.

 

In both cases, small movements could have large consequences. A new Cook Political Report poll of swing-state voters showed Biden leading 49 percent to 45 among the most reliable voters but trailing Trump by 10 points, 41 percent to 51, among less regular voters.

 

Trump defenders have dismissed the entire trial as a kangaroo court and argue most people dimly understand the details. But in an odd way that underscores the danger. Highly informed voters will know that the behavior illuminated in the case doesn’t fit their definition of presidential propriety, and low-information voters may know little beyond the bright neon top-line: Trump is now a convicted felon.

'A moment of reckoning' for the 'most divisive American president in mod...

'A moment of reckoning' for the 'most divisive American president in mod...

Trump looks old, angry, and surprised as he becomes a felon

Cuomo: 'Let's not get it twisted, Trump lied' | Cuomo

New York District Attorney: 'We have a phenomenal system'

See Michael Cohen's first reaction to Trump's historic guilty verdict | ...

Trump conviction in hush-money case sparks sharply divergent reactions

 



Trump conviction in hush-money case sparks sharply divergent reactions

 

Republican House speaker Mike Johnson bemoans ‘shameful day’ while Democrats praise strength of US justice system

 

Joan E Greve in Washington and Nick Robins-Early

Fri 31 May 2024 02.55 CEST

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/30/trump-guilty-hush-money-republicans-democrats-reaction

 

Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records set off a political firestorm in Washington on Thursday, with Republicans furiously lambasting the verdict as a miscarriage of justice while Democrats commended New York jurors for rendering a fair judgment in one of the most historic trials in US history.

 

Republicans unsurprisingly rallied around Trump, reiterating their baseless allegations that the Biden administration had engaged in political persecution of the former US president.

 

“Today is a shameful day in American history,” said Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker. “This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one. The weaponization of our justice system has been a hallmark of the Biden administration, and the decision today is further evidence that Democrats will stop at nothing to silence dissent and crush their political opponents.”

 

Congressman Jim Jordan, the pugnacious rightwing Republican chair of the House judiciary committee, similarly bemoaned the verdict as “a travesty of justice”, adding: “The Manhattan kangaroo court shows what happens when our justice system is weaponized by partisan prosecutors in front of a biased judge with an unfair process.”

 

Some of Trump’s advisers and family members were even more blunt in their assessment of the verdict. “Such bullshit,” Donald Trump Jr, the former president’s eldest son, wrote on Twitter/X.

 

A number of Trump’s allies predicted the conviction would be reversed on appeal and would only mobilize Republican voters in the election, while at least one lawmaker suggested the verdict would set a dangerous precedent.

 

“This verdict says more about the system than the allegations. It will be seen as politically motivated and unfair, and it will backfire tremendously on the political left,” said Republican senator and close Trump ally Lindsey Graham. “I fear we have opened up Pandora’s box on the presidency itself.”

 

Meanwhile, Democrats were more muted in their response to the verdict, framing the jurors’ decision as a reflection of the strength of the US justice system.

 

“In New York today, we saw that no one is above the law. Donald Trump has always mistakenly believed he would never face consequences for breaking the law for his own personal gain,” said Michael Tyler, the Biden campaign communications director.

 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic chair of the Senate judiciary courts subcommittee, argued the verdict confirmed that Trump was “not fit to lead the greatest nation in the world”.

 

“It’s only in honest courtrooms that the former president has been unable to lie and bully his way out of trouble,” Whitehouse said. “Americans trust juries for good reason.”

 

Senator Chris Coons, a Democratic members of the Senate judiciary committee, added: “I commend the jurors for their service and urge all Americans, no matter their party affiliation, to accept and respect the outcome of this trial.”

 

Hillary Clinton posted an image on Instagram of a mug with her cartoon outline sipping from a mug and the phrase “turns out she was right about everything” on it. The New Yorker also debuted a cartoon for the front cover of their upcoming magazine, showing handcuffs being put on Trump’s exaggeratedly tiny hands.

 

Eric Adams, the New York mayor, tweeted that the NYPD would be ready to “respond to any and all circumstances, including large-scale protests”.

 

After dismissing the verdict as a “disgrace”, Trump immediately turned his conviction into a campaign issue, sending a fundraising email to supporters describing himself as a “political prisoner”.

 

“But with your support at this moment in history, WE WILL WIN BACK THE WHITE HOUSE AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” the email read. “WE MUST MAKE JOE BIDEN REGRET EVER COMING AFTER US!”

 

The National Republican Senatorial Committee also issued a fundraising pitch after the jury issued its verdict, attacking the trial as a “witch-hunt”.

 

Joe Biden himself declined to offer any comment or reaction to the verdict on Thursday; Ian Sams, spokesperson for the White House counsel’s office, said in a statement: “We respect the rule of law, and have no additional comment.”

 

But Biden’s campaign team made it clear that the president would continue to prosecute his own case against Trump as the country looks ahead to November.

 

“Today’s verdict does not change the fact that the American people face a simple reality,” Tyler said. “There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box. Convicted felon or not, Trump will be the Republican nominee for president.”

 

Trump issued a rambling statement on Thursday night calling himself a “very innocent man” and describing the trial as “rigged”. He blamed the Biden administration and what he called a “Soros-backed” district attorney for the verdict, a reference to billionaire George Soros who is a common target of right wing conspiracy theories and outrage.

 

“This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. It’s a rigged trial, a disgrace,” Trump stated. “This was a rigged, disgraceful trial.”

'It's a shame these are the only two people we have running' - voters in...

Trump’s conviction on all 34 counts is a full-blown victory for DA Alvin Bragg

 



Analysis

Trump’s conviction on all 34 counts is a full-blown victory for DA Alvin Bragg

Sam Levine

in New York

Prosecutors took a case that was about boring paper crimes and successfully turned it into one that was about something simple: lying

Fri 31 May 2024 01.41 CEST

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/30/trump-verdict-prosecutor-win

 

Donald Trump’s conviction on all 34 felony counts on Thursday marked a full-blown victory for Alvin Bragg, the first-term Manhattan district attorney who was criticized for using a novel legal strategy to bring a historic criminal case against a former president.

 

The decision to convict Trump on all 34 counts is significant. Jurors could have acquitted him on some and convicted on others. But the fact that they went all-in, and relatively quickly, suggests they believed the wider story prosecutors told at trial. It is a full-throated win for Bragg and the worst possible outcome for Trump.

 

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in New York state. In order to elevate it to a felony, Bragg had to show that Trump did it with the intent to commit another crime. Bragg argued that Trump had falsified the records with the intent to violate a New York state law that says it is illegal for “any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means”.

 

The statute has rarely been used to prosecute. The prosecutors offered a range of what the “unlawful means” were, including violating campaign finance and tax laws. Some legal observers said Bragg was stretching to bring the case. A little over a month ago, one law professor called the case a “historic mistake”.

 

But over the last several weeks, prosecutors transformed a complex legal case into a carefully constructed narrative that was easy for jurors to understand. They took a case that was fundamentally about boring paper crimes and turned it into one that was about something simple: lying.

 

At every step, prosecutors were focused on keeping jurors attention on their bigger picture. Their first witness, former American Media chief executive David Pecker, led them into the jaw-droppingly seedy world of tabloid journalism, laying out how he would pay for stories and then not publish them for the benefit of friends like Trump. It established the world that Trump operated in and showed the lengths he was willing to go to in order to keep bad stories from coming to light.

 

Pecker also delivered one of the most devastating moments in the trial against Trump. After several days of revealing how he bought and killed stories on behalf of Trump, he ended his testimony by saying how much he continued to admire Trump. It was a critical moment that showed how loyal those around Trump are, and severely undercut Trump’s claim that everyone was out to get him.

 

Pecker also established a critical link between Trump and his fixer Michael Cohen, telling jurors, in a memorable line, that “every time we went out for lunch I always paid. He [Cohen] never paid. I didn’t think he had authorization to pay without Trump’s approval.”

 

Prosecutors constructed their case carefully, sprinkling in the duller but necessary information – bank records, checks and invoices – in between scintillating testimony. Even though those documents were the key pieces of evidence of Trump’s crimes, prosecutors made sure the jurors knew how they fit into the larger piece of the puzzle.

 

Stormy Daniels was a key witness who helped the prosecutors do this. Even though the payment to her was not illegal, and even though she never spoke to Michael Cohen ahead of the 2016 election, her sparkling and, at times, lurid testimony helped raise the stakes for the jury. By giving the dramatic details of her affair with Trump – from whether he wore a condom to the sex position they used – she reminded jurors of why Trump would want to go to such lengths to conceal the story.

 

 

Prosecutors also masterfully set up Cohen’s testimony for the jury. Cohen, a former Trump fixer, was a problematic witness for the prosecution because of his prior convictions for perjury and his known penchant for lying. Cohen himself admitted on the stand that he was “obsessed” with Trump.

 

But from the beginning of the trial, prosecutors prepared jurors to brace themselves for Cohen. Pecker and Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, corroborated much of what Cohen would later say on the stand. The fact that Cohen was merely confirming what two witnesses before him had said made him seem more credible.

 

Pecker and Davidson also both testified extensively about what a jerk Cohen was, portraying him as someone who would do anything for Trump – and who was also extremely annoying. And they made no effort to conceal why Cohen would be upset with Trump. After Trump failed to take Cohen to Washington, Davidson testified that he thought Cohen was going to kill himself.

 

So when Trump’s lawyers tried to do everything they could to attack Cohen’s credibility, it fell flat.

 

While prosecutors took pains to tell a precise story, Trump’s team did not make a concerted effort to tell a counter-narrative. They sought to undermine the credibility of witnesses, specifically Daniels and Cohen, but many of the details they testified about were corroborated by others. They barely put on a defense case. Instead, it seemed they were hoping they could generate at least enough doubt for one juror to vote against a conviction, triggering a mistrial.

 

That appears to have been a severe miscalculation. In the end, it took only 12 hours for the jury of 12 Manhattanites to reach their unanimous verdict of guilty on all 34 counts.

Donald Trump becomes first US president tried and convicted of crime

What if This Is Our Last Real Election?

 



OPINION

PAUL KRUGMAN

What if This Is Our Last Real Election?

May 30, 2024

Demonstrators carry signs with written messages opposing President Biden’s policy regarding the Israel-Hamas war.

Paul Krugman

By Paul Krugman

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/opinion/biden-trump-election.html

Opinion Columnist

 

Some of the Americans protesting the war in Gaza have turned on President Biden. They assert that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is killing huge numbers of civilians, which is true, and that Biden can stop it, which is more doubtful. But how do they deal with the reality that in a second term Donald Trump would be far more pro-Netanyahu and anti-Palestinian than our current president?

 

The answer I’ve been hearing is that the goal is to send a message: If Gaza costs Biden the election, Democrats will understand that in the next election they will need to rethink their seemingly reflexive support for Israel’s government and commit as a party to the protection of Palestinian rights.

 

There are many questions one could ask about this argument, but from a certain perspective, the most important one for American voters may well be: What next election?

 

There’s a very real possibility that if Trump wins in November it’ll be the last real national election America holds for a very long time. And while there’s room for disagreement here, if you consider that statement to be outrageous hyperbole, you haven’t been paying attention.

 

Yes, we can and should examine the candidates’ policy platforms and their potential effects, just as if this were a normal presidential election. But this isn’t a normal election; democracy itself is on the ballot. And it would be incredibly unwise not to take that into account.

 

Start here: Trump refused to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, making evidence-free claims of fraud in his effort to overturn it. In the past couple of years, various polls have shown that somewhere around two-thirds of the Republican Party has co-signed his election denialism. And several leading party members have refused to say that they’ll accept the election results this year. Why imagine that they’ll become any more respectful toward future elections?

 

You might say that American institutions would constrain the ability of Trump and whoever follows him to impose permanent one-party rule, which they did — barely — after the 2020 election. But institutions ultimately consist of people, and at this point many Republicans,  up to and including Supreme Court justices, are showing about as much strength in supporting democracy and the rule of law as a wet paper towel.

 

So a Trump victory might well bring down the curtain on politics as we know it — he has already floated the idea of a third term, something that’s barred, of course, by the 22nd Amendment. But in any case, among his followers, at least, he has mainstreamed the idea that any presidential election won by Democrats is illegitimate.

 

I began this column with the leftists who appear willing to help facilitate a Trump victory despite being aware that he would be far worse, even on the issues they claim to care about, than Biden. But don’t forget about those we might call throwback Republicans, those who haven’t completely bought into the MAGA agenda but dislike Biden and believe that Trump would do a better job.  They presumably believe that a second Trump term would be like his first term, when he talked populism but mostly followed a standard G.O.P. agenda of tax cuts and attempts to slash the social safety net.

 

Yet why imagine that a second term would be similar? Trump advisers are talking about radical policies, including mass deportations and stripping the Federal Reserve of independence, that would be highly disruptive even in purely economic terms.

 

But, you may say, the backlash against such policies would be huge, and Republicans would surely tone them down in fear that radicalism would hurt them badly in the next election.

 

To which I say: If Trump isn’t penalized in this election for his antics after the last election, why would he worry about a backlash in a future election? Assuming there is one in any real sense.

 

And then there are the Trump-supporting or Trump-leaning plutocrats, who may be fooling themselves completely.

 

Some of them may understand that they’re supporting a radical, anti-democratic movement, and are all in favor. Elon Musk, most famously, increasingly appears to have gone full Great Replacement MAGA, but he’s far from alone. So in that sense, they may be less deceived than many.

 

But their naïveté runs deeper, because they imagine that their wealth and prominence will allow them to flourish, even in a post-democracy America — that they’ll be immune to the purges and persecutions that are such an obvious possibility in the near future. They should at least ponder the experience of the oligarchs who helped Vladimir Putin gain power and then found themselves at his mercy.

 

To be clear: I’m not saying that people should muzzle themselves and refrain from criticizing Biden on the merits; he’s a grown-up and can handle it. Part of his job as a democratically elected leader is taking it. But ignoring the possibility that this could be our last real election for a while is shortsighted and self-indulgent.

 

Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

Donald Trump can sue niece over NY Times article, court rules



1h ago

19.18 CEST

https://www.theguardian.com/law/live/2024/may/30/supreme-court-trump-immunity-abortion-biden-updates?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-6658b2958f08b090cee99b42#block-6658b2958f08b090cee99b42

 

Donald Trump can sue niece over NY Times article, court rules

Joanna Walters

A New York state appeals court said Donald Trump can sue his niece Mary Trump for giving the New York Times information for its Pulitzer Prize-winning 2018 probe into his finances and his alleged effort to avoid taxes.

 

The appellate division in Manhattan found a “substantial” legal basis for Donald Trump to claim that his niece violated confidentiality provisions of a 2001 settlement over the estate of his father, Fred Trump Sr, Reuters reports.

 

More to come on this. Adding from the Guardian, Trump originally sued his estranged niece and the New York Times in 2021 over a 2018 story about his family’s wealth and tax practices that was partly based on confidential documents she provided to the newspaper’s reporters, and there has been a whole legal odyssey ever since.