segunda-feira, 2 de dezembro de 2024

What will happen if France’s government loses no-confidence vote?

 



Explainer

What will happen if France’s government loses no-confidence vote?

 

Decision to push through budget has led to censure motions from left and far-right that could trigger fresh political crisis

French government faces no-confidence vote on Wednesday

 

Jon Henley Europe correspondent

Mon 2 Dec 2024 11.43 EST

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/02/what-will-happen-if-france-government-loses-no-confidence-vote-michel-barnier

 

France’s centre-right prime minister, Michel Barnier, has told parliament that he will push the government’s proposed social security budget through parliament without a vote, using a constitutional measure known as article 49.3.

 

The decision means France’s government will probably face a vote of confidence from opposition parties, very likely on Wednesday, and could be toppled by the end of the week. Here’s a brief guide to how it happened – and what may come next.

 

What is article 49.3 and why is it being used?

Article 49.3 of France’s constitution allows a government to pass new legislation without parliament’s approval – but in return it gives MPs the chance to challenge that decision by presenting a no-confidence motion within 24 hours. It must be voted on within 48 hours.

 

If the motion is successful the legislation is rejected and the government is deemed to have collapsed. Both the left-leaning New Popular Front (NFP) and the far-right National Rally party (RN) of Marine Le Pen said on Monday they would back a vote of no confidence.

 

The Barnier government’s problems stem from President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to dissolve parliament in June and hold early elections after his centrist forces suffered a humiliating defeat in that month’s European parliament ballot.

 

In the resulting general election, the NFP, a coalition of left-leaning parties ranging from the mainstream Socialist party (PS) to the radical-left Unbowed France (LFI) headed by the political firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon, won the largest number of seats.

 

Macron’s alliance was beaten into second place and the RN, although it finished as the largest single party, placed third. Parliament was therefore divided into three roughly equal blocs – left, centre and right/far right – none of which had a majority.

 

Why is this happening now?

Macron rejected the NFP’s claim that as the largest parliamentary force it should name the new head of government and appointed Barnier, a veteran conservative, as prime minister after weeks of talks, backed by a fragile alliance of centrist and centre-right MPs.

 

Since then, the NFP has consistently voted against the government. The far-right RN, however, which under Le Pen has spent years trying to position itself as a responsible party of future government, has so far refrained from trying to take down the government.

 

By acting tough on some of the RN’s hot-button issues such as crime, security and immigration, and compromising on some of the far-right party’s other red lines, such as measures to ease the cost of living, Barnier had hoped to keep the RN on board for as long as possible.

 

However, the prime minister’s principal objective was to restore France’s disastrous state finances – including a 2023 budget deficit of 5.5% of GDP that was projected to rise yet further to 6.1% of GDP this year, almost twice the maximum allowed in the eurozone.

 

The government’s draft 2025 budget features €20bn (£16.5bn) in tax increases alongside €40bn in public spending cuts. The two bills that make up the budget must be passed by the end of 2024 and, despite some government concessions, the RN has now rejected parts of the first.

 

So what could happen next?

Barnier has said there could be “serious financial turbulence” if his budget fails to pass and the government falls, and markets have already responded with alarm, with the interest rate on French bonds coming close to that of their Greek counterparts last week.

 

There is no fear of a US-style shutdown since France’s constitution allows for a government – even a caretaker government – to pass an emergency law in effect prolonging the previous year’s budget for a few months, so public sector workers, for example, continue to be paid.

 

In terms of France’s governance, if the RN does join forces with the NFP to bring Barnier down, Macron has a range of choices. But he is constitutionally constrained by the fact that, because he dissolved parliament in June, he cannot do so again until June 2025.

 

The president could simply reinstate Barnier as prime minister, which parliament would see as provocative and most observers therefore consider unlikely. He could also ask France’s warring political parties to try to build a new coalition, this time with more support.

 

That could, for example, involve renewed centrist attempts to peel the more moderate elements of the NFP, including the PS, away from the leftist bloc. Although the NFP has frequently appeared fractured, there is no guarantee that would work.

 

Macron could also decide to appoint a technocratic government to oversee France’s administration for another six months. Finally, he could himself resign, triggering new presidential and parliamentary elections, but for the time being that is seen as unlikely.

 

Even though Le Pen is saying her party will back a no-confidence vote, the RN could yet change tack and hold fire this time. The final opportunity this year for it to topple the government would be on the last budget vote on 20 December, and many observers still question what political gain there is for Le Pen in bringing Barnier down now.

Marine Le Pen : « Nous déposons une motion de censure et nous voterons l...

French government faces collapse in no-confidence vote

 



French government faces collapse in no-confidence vote

 

The Barnier government could be toppled by the end of the week after prime minister declines to put budget to lawmakers.

A motion of no confidence will likely happen on Wednesday which means Michel Barnier could be toppled before the end of the week.

 

December 2, 2024 3:04 pm CET

By Victor Goury-Laffont

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-government-set-to-face-no-confidence-vote/

 

PARIS — French Prime Minister Michel Barnier opened the door for opposition parties to attempt to topple his government — probably on Wednesday — by announcing he will not submit his social security budget to a vote.

 

Barnier and Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally have been engaged in an increasingly high-stakes battle over the issue, which could see the prime minister fall as early as the end of this week.

 

France is now braced for a reaction from financial markets, which can often force governments' hands.  As the crisis intensified last week, investors briefly declared France a worse credit risk than Greece, whose debt almost brought the eurozone to its knees just over a decade ago. France is the currency bloc's second largest economy and the chaos is likely to send shock waves well beyond its borders.

 

"The French are asking for and expect stability," Barnier told lawmakers on Monday afternoon. "Everyone must take responsibility, and I take mine."

 

Caretaker government

Under the French constitution, the government can pass legislation without parliamentary approval. Because he has now done this on the budget, lawmakers can call a motion of no confidence. If it's successful it would reject the legislation and force the government’s resignation.

 

A motion of no confidence will likely happen on Wednesday. The government would then serve in a caretaker capacity until a new administration is appointed.

 

After Barnier's announcement, Le Pen announced that the National Rally would both submit its own motion of no-confidence and back the one put forward by the left. The budget, Le Pen told reporters, would "make the French pay the consequences of [French President Emmanuel] Macron's incompetency over the past seven years."

 

Barring an unlikely scenario in which one of Barnier's major opposition group backtracks, the government will fall before the end of the week. However, snap elections can not be called before next summer, which means the next government will have to navigate the same fragmented political landscape.

 

This would be the first successful motion of no-confidence since 1962 and only the second one since the current French republic was formed in 1958.

 

French 10-year sovereign borrowing costs widened over those of Germany on Monday, hitting fresh 12-year highs. The measure is a reflection of how much riskier the market perceives lending to France over Germany is. The wider the measure, the riskier the view.

 

Kingmaker role

Initially Le Pen’s party was willing to play a kingmaker role, allowing Barnier to stay in power in exchange for certain concessions. But the French far-right powerhouse then showed it was willing to turn on the 73-year-old head of government, which it accused of not having taken its concerns seriously.

 

The National Rally president, Jordan Bardella, warned Monday morning that it would take “a last-minute miracle” to change the party's mind on voting against the government.

 

For a few hours on Monday it looked as though such a miracle may have come in the shape of a statement from the prime minister's office. Barnier had given in to a key request from the far-right party, pledging that the government would not stop reimbursing patients for certain types of drugs.

 

Many demands

Barnier had already made significant concessions to the far right — by agreeing to restrict access to public health care for undocumented immigrants — but had not publicly credited the National Rally for these changes, to Le Pen's dismay.

 

This time, however, the prime minister name-dropped the far-right party and its presidential candidate: "Many demands were made on this issue. Mrs. Marine Le Pen, representing the National Rally, reminded the prime minister of this during a phone conversation [Monday morning]. The government pledges not to stop reimbursing drugs in 2025.

 

Still, that doesn't appear to be enough for Le Pen, who is now asking that the government make yet another costly concession by implementing a full inflation-based adjustment of pensions on Jan. 1. “It’s the government’s decision to accept it or not,” Le Pen said after the prime minister's office's statement.

 

Izabella Kaminska contributed to this article from London.

Budget : le RN votera la censure du gouvernement «sauf miracle» annonce ...

Marion Maréchal invitée de Benjamin Duhamel sur BFM TV

Jordan Bardella sur RTL : « Le Rassemblement National censurera ce gouve...

Le gouvernement Barnier vit-il ses dernières heures ?

France : le RN annonce la censure, le gouvernement Barnier tient à un fi...

‘Julius Le Pen’: Will French far right decide fate of PM Barnier’s gover...

Social Democrats appear to be in the lead in Romania's parliamentary ele...

Full-blown tension between Georgia's PM Kobakhidze and President Zurabis...

Breaking: Germany's Scholz visits Ukraine, announces €650 million arms p...

Net migration: Is it really out of control? | The News Agents

‘Shocking’ migration figures are triple pre-Brexit numbers, leaving ‘dil...

Labour on course to lose huge majority due to ‘practically impossible’ t...

John Bolton says Hunter Biden pardon is a 'huge mistake'

With his pardon of son Hunter, Joe Biden delivers a heartfelt hypocrisy

 


Analysis

With his pardon of son Hunter, Joe Biden delivers a heartfelt hypocrisy

David Smith

in Washington

The president and supporters argue Hunter Biden would never have been charged were it not for his name – and any father might have done the same. But this exercise of power also looks like a validation of Donald Trump

 

Sun 1 Dec 2024 23.46 EST

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/hunter-biden-pardon-joe-biden-comment

 

A loving act of mercy by a father who has already known much sorrow? Or a hypocritical political manoeuvre reminiscent of his great foe? Maybe both can be true.

 

Joe Biden’s announcement on Sunday that he had pardoned his son Hunter, who is facing sentencing in two criminal cases, is likely to have been the product of a Shakespearean struggle between head and heart.

 

On the one hand, Biden is one of the last great institutionalists in Washington. “From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making,” he said in an unusually direct and personal statement on Sunday. To undermine the separation of powers goes against every fibre of his political being.

 

On the other hand, Biden is nothing without family. His speeches are peppered with references to his parents. As a senator, he once took a train from Washington to Wilmington, Delaware, so he could blow out the candles on a birthday cake for his eight-year-old daughter, Ashley, at the station, then cross the platform and take the next train back to work.

 

Biden was profoundly shaped by the death of his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden, and 13-month-old daughter Naomi in a car accident and, much later, the death of his son Beau from brain cancer. In that context, Hunter’s status as the first child of a sitting president to face criminal charges will have pained his father in what Ernest Hemingway called “the broken places”.

 

Hunter was convicted this summer of lying about his drug use when he bought a gun. Joe Biden categorically ruled out a pardon or commutation for his son, telling reporters: “I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.” Hunter also pleaded guilty in a separate tax evasion trial and was due to be sentenced in both cases later this month.

 

Biden reportedly spent months agonising over what to do. The scales were almost certainly tilted by Donald Trump’s victory in last month’s presidential election. The prospect of leaving Hunter to the tender mercies of Trump’s sure-to-be politicised, retribution-driven justice department was too much to bear. Biden typically takes advice from close family and is likely to have reached the decision after talking it over during what was an intimate Thanksgiving weekend.

 

“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong,” the president said in a statement, calling it “a miscarriage of justice”.

 

He added: “There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”

 

Joe Biden’s defenders will certainly contend that, if Hunter had been an ordinary citizen, the gun case would not have come this far, and his father was simply righting that wrong. Republicans spent years hyping investigations into Hunter that failed to produce a shred of evidence linking his father to corruption.

 

Eric Holder, a former attorney general, wrote on social media that no US attorney “would have charged this case given the underlying facts. After a five-year investigation the facts as discovered only made that clear. Had his name been Joe Smith the resolution would have been – fundamentally and more fairly – a declination. Pardon warranted.”

 

It was also noted that this is hardly the first time pardons have smacked of nepotism. Bill Clinton as president pardoned his half-brother for old cocaine charges, and Trump pardoned the father of Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, for tax evasion and retaliating against a cooperating witness, though in both cases those men had already served their prison terms. Trump also used the dog days of his first presidency to pardon the rogues’ gallery of Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.

 

And yet for many Americans there will be something jarring about the double standard of a president pardoning a member of his own family ahead of numerous other worthy cases. Republicans in the House of Representatives naturally pounced with more hyperbole about the “Biden crime family”.

 

But there were also more thoughtful objections. Jared Polis, the Democratic governor of Colorado, wrote on social media: “While as a father I certainly understand President Joe Biden’s natural desire to help his son by pardoning him, I am disappointed that he put his family ahead of the country. This is a bad precedent that could be abused by later Presidents and will sadly tarnish his reputation.”

 

Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman turned Trump critic, said on the MSNBC network: “Joe Biden repeatedly said he wouldn’t do this so he repeatedly lied. This just furthers cynicism that people have about politics and that cynicism strengthens Trump because Trump can say, ‘I’m not a unique threat. Everybody does this. If I do something for my kid, my son-in-law, whatever, look, Joe Biden does the same thing.’ I get it but this was a selfish move by Biden, which politically only strengthens Trump. It’s just deflating.”

 

The Trump context is impossible to ignore in this moral maze. Next month he will become the first convicted criminal sworn in as president, though three cases against him have all but perished. He is already moving to appoint loyalists to the FBI and justice department.

 

Michelle Obama once advised, when they go low, we go high. On Sunday Joe Biden, 82 and heading for the exit with little to lose, decided to go low. Perhaps it was what any parent would have done.

The deep historical forces that explain Trump’s win

 


The deep historical forces that explain Trump’s win

 

Our research shows that political breakdown, from the Roman Empire to the Russian revolution, follows a clear pattern: workers’ wages stagnate, while elites multiply

 

Peter Turchin

Sat 30 Nov 2024 12.00 CET

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/30/the-deep-historical-forces-that-explain-trumps-win?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

In the days since the sweeping Republican victory in the US election, which gave the party control of the presidency, the Senate and the House, commentators have analysed and dissected the relative merits of the main protagonists – Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – in minute detail. Much has been said about their personalities and the words they have spoken; little about the impersonal social forces that push complex human societies to the brink of collapse – and sometimes beyond. That’s a mistake: in order to understand the roots of our current crisis, and possible ways out of it, it’s precisely these tectonic forces we need to focus on.

 

The research team I lead studies cycles of political integration and disintegration over the past 5,000 years. We have found that societies, organised as states, can experience significant periods of peace and stability lasting, roughly, a century or so. Inevitably, though, they then enter periods of social unrest and political breakdown. Think of the end of the Roman empire, the English civil war or the Russian Revolution. To date, we have amassed data on hundreds of historical states as they slid into crisis, and then emerged from it.

 

So we’re in a good position to identify just those impersonal social forces that foment unrest and fragmentation, and we’ve found three common factors: popular immiseration, elite overproduction and state breakdown.

 

To get a better understanding of these concepts and how they are influencing American politics in 2024, we need to travel back in time to the 1930s, when an unwritten social contract came into being in the form of Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal. This contract balanced the interests of workers, businesses and the state in a way similar to the more formal agreements we see in Nordic countries. For two generations, this implicit pact delivered an unprecedented growth in wellbeing across a broad swath of the country. At the same time, a “Great Compression” of incomes and wealth dramatically reduced economic inequality. For roughly 50 years the interests of workers and the interests of owners were kept in balance, and overall income inequality remained remarkably low.

 

That social contract began to break down in the late 1970s. The power of unions was undermined, and taxes on the wealthy cut back. Typical workers’ wages, which had previously increased in tandem with overall economic growth, started to lag behind. Inflation-adjusted wages stagnated and at times decreased. The result was a decline in many aspects of quality of life for the majority of Americans. One shocking way this became evident was in changes to the average life expectancy, which stalled and even went into reverse (and this started well before the Covid pandemic). That’s what we term “popular immiseration”.

 

With the incomes of workers effectively stuck, the fruits of economic growth were reaped by the elites instead. A perverse “wealth pump” came into being, siphoning money from the poor and channelling it to the rich. The Great Compression reversed itself. In many ways, the last four decades call to mind what happened in the United States between 1870 and 1900 – the time of railroad fortunes and robber barons. If the postwar period was a golden age of broad-based prosperity, after 1980 we could be said to have entered a Second Gilded Age.

 

The uber-wealthy increased tenfold between 1980 and 2020

 

Welcome as the extra wealth might seem for its recipients, it ends up causing problems for them as a class. The uber-wealthy (those with fortunes greater than $10m) increased tenfold between 1980 and 2020, adjusted for inflation. A certain proportion of these people have political ambitions: some run for political office themselves (like Trump), others fund political candidates (like Peter Thiel). The more members of this elite class there are, the more aspirants for political power a society contains.

 

By the 2010s the social pyramid in the US had grown exceptionally top-heavy: there were too many wannabe leaders and moguls competing for a fixed number of positions in the upper echelons of politics and business. In our model, this state of affairs has a name: elite overproduction.

 

Elite overproduction can be likened to a game of musical chairs – except the number of chairs stays constant, while the number of players is allowed to increase. As the game progresses, it creates more and more angry losers. Some of those turn into “counter-elites”: those willing to challenge the established order; rebels and revolutionaries such as Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads in the English civil war, or Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia. In the contemporary US we might think of media disruptors such as Tucker Carlson, or maverick entrepreneurs seeking political influence such as Elon Musk alongside countless less-prominent examples at lower levels in the system. As battles between the ruling elites and counter-elites heat up, the norms governing public discourse unravel and trust in institutions declines. The result is a loss of civic cohesiveness and sense of national cooperation – without which states quickly rot from within.

 

One result of all this political dysfunction is an inability to agree on how the federal budget should be balanced. Together with the loss of trust and legitimacy, that accelerates the breakdown of state capacity. It’s notable that a collapse in state finances is often the triggering event for a revolution: this is what happened in France before 1789 and in the runup to the English civil war.

 

How does this landscape translate to party politics? The American ruling class, as it has evolved since the end of the civil war in 1865, is basically a coalition of the top wealth holders (the proverbial 1%) and a highly educated or “credentialed” class of professionals and graduates (whom we might call the 10%). A decade ago, the Republicans were the party of the 1%, while the Democrats were the party of the 10%. Since then, they have both changed out of all recognition.

 

The recasting of the Republican party began with the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in 2016. He was typical of political entrepreneurs in history who have channelled popular discontent to propel themselves to power (one example is Tiberius Gracchus, who founded the populist party in late Republican Rome). Not all of his initiatives went against the interests of the ruling class – for example, he succeeded in making the tax code more regressive. But many did, including his policies on immigration (economic elites tend to favour open immigration as it suppresses wages); a rejection of traditional Republican free-market orthodoxy in favour of industrial policy; a scepticism of Nato and a professed unwillingness to start new conflicts abroad.

 

It seemed to some as though the revolution had been squashed when a quintessentially establishment figure, Joe Biden, defeated Trump in 2020. By 2024 the Democrats had essentially become the party of the ruling class – of the 10% and of the 1%, having tamed its own populist wing (led by the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders). This realignment was signalled by Kamala Harris massively outspending Trump this election cycle, as well as mainstream Republicans, such as Liz and Dick Cheney, or neocons such as Bill Kristol, supporting the Harris ticket.

 

The GOP, in the meantime, has transformed itself into a truly revolutionary party: one that represents working people (according to its leaders) or a radical rightwing agenda (according to its detractors). In the process, it has largely purged itself of traditional Republicans.

 

The defeat on 5 November represents one battle in an ongoing revolutionary war

 

Trump was clearly the chief agent of this change. But while the mainstream media and politicians obsess over him, it is important to recognise that he is now merely the tip of the iceberg: a diverse group of counter-elites has coalesced around the Trump ticket. Some of them, such as JD Vance, had meteoric rises through the Republican ranks. Some, such as Robert F Kennedy Jr and Tulsi Gabbard, defected from the Democrats. Others include tycoons such as Musk, or media figures, such as Joe Rogan, perhaps the most influential American podcaster. The latter was once a supporter of the populist wing of the Democratic party (and Bernie Sanders in particular).

 

The main point here is that in 2024, the Democrats, having morphed into the party of the ruling class, had to contend not only with the tide of popular discontent but also a revolt of the counter-elites. As such, it finds itself in a predicament that has recurred thousands of times in human history, and there are two ways things play out from here.

 

One is with the overthrow of established elites, as happened in the French and Russian Revolutions. The other is with the ruling elites backing a rebalancing of the social system – most importantly, shutting down the wealth pump and reversing popular immiseration and elite overproduction. It happened about a century ago with the New Deal. There’s also a parallel in the Chartist period (1838–1857), when Great Britain was the only European great power to avoid the wave of revolutions that swept Europe in 1848, via major reform. But the US has so far failed to learn the historical lessons.

 

What comes next? The electoral defeat on 5 November represents one battle in an ongoing revolutionary war. The triumphant counter-elites want to replace their counterparts – what they sometimes call the “deep state” – entirely. But history shows that success in achieving such goals is far from assured. Their opponents are pretty well entrenched in the bureaucracy and can effectively resist change. Ideological and personal tensions in the winning coalition may result in it breaking apart (as they say, revolutions devour their children). Most importantly, the challenges facing the new Trump administration are of the particularly intractable kind. What is their plan for tackling the exploding federal budget deficit? How are they going to shut down the wealth pump? And what will the Democrats’ response be? Will their platform for 2028 include a new New Deal, a commitment to major social reform?

 

One thing is clear: whatever the choices and actions of the contending parties, they will not lead to an immediate resolution. Popular discontent in the US has been building up for more than four decades. Many years of real prosperity would be needed to persuade the public that the country is back on the right track. So, for now, we can expect a lasting age of discord. Let’s hope that it won’t spill over into a hot civil war.

 

 Peter Turchin is project leader at the Complexity Science Hub, Vienna, and the author of End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites and the Path of Political Disintegration (Allen Lane

11 days ago: Elon Musk's father calls for Keir Starmer to resign | LBC Exclusive

Elon Musk wants to topple Keir Starmer with election petition | Andrew M...

Could Elon Musk give Nigel Farage's Reform party a huge cash injection in a bid to reshape British politics?

 


Could Elon Musk give Nigel Farage's Reform party a huge cash injection in a bid to reshape British politics?

1 December 2024, 08:41

Elon Musk may be planning to give Nigel Farage's Reform Party a large donation

 

By Kit Heren

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/musk-farage-reform-donation/

 

Elon Musk may be planning to give Nigel Farage's Reform UK party a huge cash donation in a bid to reshape British politics.

 

Mr Musk, the world's richest man, has been critical of Keir Starmer's government and has showed support for Reform.

 

His vocal support of Donald Trump, which he disseminates via Twitter, now known as X, which be bought in 2022, has been credited with helping get the Republican re-elected.

 

He also spent $200 million supporting Mr Trump, including a controversial $1 million per day giveaway lottery in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

 

Now he is said to be directing his attention towards the UK, and rumours are said to be circulating among some Conservative insiders of a possible donation to Reform.

 

Read more: Elon Musk's father calls on Keir Starmer to resign as he claims Labour have 'sent England back 400 years'

 

Read more: Former Tory minister and MP Andrea Jenkyns defects to join Nigel Farage's Reform

 

The donation would likely be made through X in a bid to get around political donation laws by foreign individuals.

 

Mr Farage said he was unaware of any plans by Mr Musk to donate to Reform, but said they shared "a good relationship".

 

“All I can say is that I’m in touch with him and he is very supportive of my policy positions,” the Reform leader told The Times.

 

“We both share a friendship with Donald Trump and Trump has said good things about me in front of Musk.

 

"We’ve got a good relationship with him.”

 

 

Errol Musk, father of Elon Musk, speaks on Tonight with Andrew Marr | Watch in full

 

 

Mr Musk recently reposted a message on social media that Reform would "win the next election", saying simply "Yes".

 

He has also sparred with Keir Starmer, branding him 'two-tier Keir', a popular right-wing online insult for the Prime Minister.

 

Reports emerged last month that MPs planned to summon Mr Musk to parliament to answer questions about disinformation on X - prompting an angry response from his father.

 

Appearing on LBC in November, Errol Musk demanded Starmer resign, as he hit out at Labour for sending England back to “Tudor times.”

 

Errol Musk added there is nothing the Labour government could do to repair its relationship with his son, but claimed Elon “doesn’t give the UK government a second thought.”

“Elon Musk’s $100m Donation To Nigel Farage Will Be A Game Changer” | Pe...

Elon Musk gifting $100 million to Nigel Farage would be 'a complete waste

Joe Biden Pardons His "Unfairly Prosecuted" Son Hunter, Trump Asks About...

Joe Biden issues 'unconditional' pardon to son Hunter | LBC analysis

In Pardoning His Son, Biden Echoes Some of Trump’s Complaints

 



News Analysis

In Pardoning His Son, Biden Echoes Some of Trump’s Complaints

 

President Biden complained about selective prosecution and political pressure in a system he has spent his public life defending.

 

Peter Baker

By Peter Baker

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the past five presidents, including President Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/01/us/politics/biden-hunter-pardon-politics.html

Dec. 1, 2024

 

President Biden and President-elect Donald J. Trump now agree on one thing: The Biden Justice Department has been politicized.

 

In pardoning his son Hunter Biden on Sunday night, the incumbent president sounded a lot like his successor by complaining about selective prosecution and political pressure, questioning the fairness of a system that Mr. Biden had until now long defended.

 

“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong,” Mr. Biden said in a statement announcing the pardon. “Here’s the truth,” he added. “I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.”

 

Mr. Biden’s decision to use the extraordinary power of executive clemency to wipe out his son’s convictions on gun and tax charges came despite repeated statements by him and his aides that he would not do so. Just this past summer, after his son was convicted at trial, the president rejected the idea of a pardon and said that “I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process.” The statement he issued on Sunday night made clear he did not accept the outcome or respect the process.

 

The pardon and Mr. Biden’s stated rationale for granting it will inevitably muddy the political waters as Mr. Trump prepares to take office with plans to use the Justice Department and F.B.I. to pursue “retribution” against his political adversaries. Mr. Trump has long argued that the justice system has been “weaponized” against him and that he is the victim of selective prosecution, much the way Mr. Biden has now said his son was.

 

Their arguments are, of course, different in important respects. Mr. Trump contends that the two indictments against him by Mr. Biden’s Justice Department amounted to a partisan witch hunt targeting the sitting president’s main rival. Mr. Biden did not explicitly accuse the Justice Department of being biased against his family, but suggested that it was influenced by Republican politicians who have waged a long public campaign assailing Hunter Biden.

 

As it happens, the Justice Department has rejected both accusations. The prosecutions of Mr. Trump and the younger Mr. Biden were each handled by separate special counsels appointed specifically to insulate the cases from politics, and senior department officials have denied that politics entered the equation against either man. There is no evidence that Mr. Biden had any involvement in Mr. Trump’s cases.

 

But Mr. Biden’s pardon will make it harder for Democrats to defend the integrity of the Justice Department and stand against Mr. Trump’s unapologetic plans to use it for political purposes even as he seeks to install Kash Patel, an adviser who has vowed to “come after” the president-elect’s enemies, as the next director of the F.B.I. It will also be harder for Democrats to criticize Mr. Trump for his prolific use of the pardon power to absolve friends and allies, some of whom could have been witnesses against him in previous investigations.

 

“While as a father I certainly understand President @JoeBiden’s natural desire to help his son by pardoning him, I am disappointed that he put his family ahead of the country,” Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado, a Democrat, wrote on social media. “This is a bad precedent that could be abused by later presidents and will sadly tarnish his reputation.”

 

Representative Greg Stanton, Democrat of Arizona, disputed the president’s argument that politics was behind his son’s prosecution. “I respect President Biden, but I think he got this one wrong,” he said online. “This wasn’t a politically-motivated prosecution. Hunter committed felonies, and was convicted by a jury of his peers.”

 

Other Democrats tried to draw a distinction between the Biden and Trump matters. Former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that no prosecutor would have brought the charges against Hunter Biden and that therefore the pardon was warranted.

 

“Ask yourself a vastly more important question,” he wrote on social media. “Do you really think Kash Patel is qualified to lead the world’s preeminent law enforcement investigative organization? Obvious answer: hell no.”

 

To be sure, the cases against Mr. Trump and the younger Mr. Biden are hardly comparable. Mr. Trump was charged with illegally trying to overturn an election that he lost so that he could hold on to power and, in a separate indictment, with endangering national security and trying to obstruct justice by taking classified documents when he left office and refusing to return them. Those cases are now being dropped because of his election.

 

Hunter Biden was convicted of lying on a firearms application form about his drug addiction and pleaded guilty to failing to pay taxes that he later did pay, with penalties. At least some legal experts have agreed with the president’s contention that such offenses would normally have been resolved without felony charges.

 

But the president broke his own commitment about intervening in the case. In his statement, he noted that he had said he would “not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted.” He did not acknowledge that he did not keep his word about forgoing a pardon.

 

Mr. Trump wasted little time seizing on the pardon to make apples-and-oranges comparisons. “Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” he wrote on social media, referring to the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to stop Congress from certifying Mr. Trump’s defeat. “Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!”

 

Mr. Biden’s pardon will also give ammunition to Republicans who have contended that Hunter Biden was guilty of wrongdoing beyond the charges for which he was actually prosecuted. A House Republican investigation made clear that the president’s son traded on his father’s name in business, but never proved that the elder Mr. Biden took action as vice president or president to benefit Hunter.

 

The pardon Mr. Biden issued to his son specifically covers any offenses “which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024,” not just the tax and gun charges. That will protect Hunter Biden from any further investigation that Mr. Trump could have ordered the Justice Department or Mr. Patel’s F.B.I. to conduct once taking office.

 

But Republicans seized on it to say that the unlimited decade-long sweep of the pardon demonstrated that there must be more there to protect him from.

 

“The charges Hunter faced were just the tip of the iceberg in the blatant corruption that President Biden and the Biden Crime Family have lied about to the American people,” said Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, the Republican committee chairman who led the G.O.P. investigation. “It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability.”

 

Some Republicans even imagined ways the pardon could help any future investigation of the outgoing president. David M. Friedman, a longtime Trump lawyer who served as ambassador to Israel in his first term, suggested online that Hunter Biden could now be compelled to testify about matters for which he no longer faces potential criminal liability.

 

“This means that Hunter cannot plead the Fifth if asked about his business dealings with Ukraine and China, including his Dad’s involvement, because, with his pardon, he has no risk of criminal jeopardy,” Mr. Friedman wrote.

 

Other presidents have used the pardon power on their way out of office to help people close to them. President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and other colleagues on charges stemming from the Iran-contra affair. President Bill Clinton pardoned his brother Roger on old drug charges.

 

And of course, the vast majority of Mr. Trump’s pardons and commutations went to people he knew personally or was connected to through allies, according to studies. Among the people he pardoned in his last weeks in office was Charles Kushner, the father of Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner who spent two years in prison on tax evasion and other charges. Over the weekend, Mr. Trump announced that he would now nominate the pardoned Mr. Kushner to be ambassador to France.

 

In his pardon statement, Mr. Biden sought to appeal to empathy for a father of a son who struggled with drug addiction, framing his decision in personal terms as Hunter faced possibly years in prison. “I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision,” he wrote.

 

If he had left it at that, that might have been one thing. But it was his attack on the prosecution that raised questions of a dual-track justice system. “There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution,” the president said. “In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”

 

Except that it will not stop here. Even some supporters of Mr. Biden said his decision opened the door for Mr. Trump to further warp the system by pointing to his predecessor’s own words and actions. Former Representative Joe Walsh, a leading anti-Trump Republican from Illinois who endorsed Mr. Biden for president, said the pardon was “deflating.”

 

“This just furthers the cynicism that people have about politics,” he said on MSNBC, “and that cynicism strengthens Trump because Trump can just say: ‘I’m not a unique threat. Everybody does this. If I do something for my kid, my son-in-law, look, Joe Biden does the same thing.’ I get it, but this was a selfish move by Biden which politically only strengthens Trump.”

 

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The Times. He has covered the last five presidents and sometimes writes analytical pieces that place presidents and their administrations in a larger context and historical framework. More about Peter Baker

Biden Issues a ‘Full and Unconditional Pardon’ of His Son Hunter Biden

 



Biden Issues a ‘Full and Unconditional Pardon’ of His Son Hunter Biden

 

The pardon comes weeks before President Biden leaves office and transfers power to President-elect Donald J. Trump, who spent years attacking Hunter Biden over his legal and personal issues.

 

Michael D. ShearZolan Kanno-Youngs

By Michael D. Shear and Zolan Kanno-Youngs

Reporting from Washington

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/01/us/politics/biden-pardon-son-hunter.html

Dec. 1, 2024

 

President Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon of his son Hunter on Sunday night after repeatedly insisting he would not do so, using the power of his office to wave aside years of legal troubles, including a federal conviction for illegally buying a gun and for tax evasion.

 

In a statement issued by the White House, Mr. Biden said he had decided to issue the executive grant of clemency for his son “for those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024.”

 

He said he made the decision because the charges against Hunter were politically motivated and designed to hurt him politically.

 

“The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election,” Mr. Biden said in the statement. “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong.”

 

He added: “There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”

 

It was a remarkable turnaround for a man whose presidency and five-decade career was built in part on the idea that he would never interfere with the administration of justice. In 2020, he made the case that former President Donald J. Trump should be ousted from office to restore that kind of independence in America’s democracy, and he argued the same in 2024.

 

But in his statement, Mr. Biden sought to make the case for interfering after all, accusing his political enemies of going after his son in ways that anyone else would not have been. He said that he still believed in the justice system, but added, “I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice — and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further.”

 

In fact, the president’s announcement came at the same time that Mr. Trump made it clearer than ever that his second term would be focused on retribution and revenge against Mr. Biden — with Hunter Biden as a prime target. The president-elect on Saturday said he would name Kash Patel, a loyalist who has vowed to go after Mr. Trump’s enemies, as F.B.I. director.

 

In his statement, Mr. Biden said, “I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision.”

 

After Mr. Biden announced the pardon, Hunter Biden issued a statement of his own.

 

“I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction — mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport,” he said. “I will never take the clemency I have been given today for granted and will devote the life I have rebuilt to helping those who are still sick and suffering.”

 

He expressed relief, but also some bitterness over what he perceived as an unnecessary prosecution, after his father told him he was being pardoned when the family gathered in Nantucket, Mass., for the Thanksgiving holiday, according to two people familiar with the situation.

 

Many of the president’s allies and critics had expected him to pardon his son, even though he and his spokeswoman had denied for months that he had any intention of doing so. NBC News first reported on Sunday evening that Mr. Biden had in fact decided to issue the pardon, which means his son will face no federal charges stemming from crimes he may have committed during that period.

 

But the move quickly drew expressions of scorn from Mr. Biden’s political adversaries.

 

In a post on social media, Mr. Trump called the pardon “Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!” He brought up the rioters from Jan. 6, 2021, some of whom he has suggested could be pardoned when he takes office.

 

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and a chief antagonist of Mr. Biden, said on social media that he was “shocked” that the president had pardoned his son because “he said many many times he wouldn’t & I believed him Shame on me.”

 

Jenna Ellis, a former lawyer for Mr. Trump’s 2020 election team, posted: “Joe Biden pardoned three turkeys this week,” a reference to the annual pardoning of two actual turkeys at the White House just before Thanksgiving.

 

The reversal by Mr. Biden came just 50 days before he is set to leave the White House and transfer power to Mr. Trump, who spent years attacking Hunter Biden over his legal and personal issues as a part of series of broadsides against the Biden family.

 

Mr. Biden for much of his time in office said he would refrain from commenting on high-profile criminal cases, even related to his son, to make good on a commitment to maintain the independence of the Justice Department.

 

After the president’s son was convicted on three federal felony counts for illegally buying a gun, Mr. Biden said he would not pardon or commute the sentence of his son.

 

“I said I’d abide by the jury decision,” Mr. Biden told reporters during the Group of 7 summit in June. “I will do that.”

 

The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, repeatedly said that Mr. Biden would not issue a pardon for his son, often chiding reporters for asking the question.

 

In the summer of 2023, she was asked whether there was “any possibility” that the president would end up pardoning his son. She answered simply, “No.” When the reporter tried to ask the question again, she cut the question short and said: “I just said no. I just answered.”

 

​​Hunter Biden faced as much as 25 years in prison for lying on a federal form about his drug addiction when he bought a handgun in 2018, but he was unlikely to receive a sentence near that length. First-time offenders who did not use weapons for a violent crime typically receive much lighter sentences. Legal analysts had said it was possible that the president’s son could receive a year or less behind bars or even probation.

 

Justice Department officials have long been expecting — and dreading — the pardon of Hunter Biden, according to multiple law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. Several law enforcement officials have for years described the case as a necessary but thankless task, given the political tempest around it and the intense personal dynamic between the president and his son.

 

It is not the first time a president has used his executive power to commute the sentence of a family member. On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned his half brother Roger Clinton for old cocaine charges. A month before leaving office, Mr. Trump pardoned his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, for tax evasion and other crimes.

 

Both Roger Clinton and Charles Kushner had long since completed their prison terms, and the pardons were about forgiveness or vindication rather than avoiding time behind bars. Over the weekend, Mr. Trump said that he would nominate Charles Kushner to be the U.S. ambassador to France.

 

Hunter Biden pleaded guilty in September to nine federal tax charges in Los Angeles after telling his legal team that he refused to subject his family to another round of anguish and humiliation after the gut-wrenching gun trial in Delaware earlier in the year.

 

The dramatic development signaled the final stages of a fraught investigation of more than five years into the period when Mr. Biden bankrolled his drug and alcohol addiction by leveraging his last name into lucrative overseas consulting contracts — and not paying taxes.

 

Mr. Biden had been set to remain free on bond until his sentencing hearing, which was scheduled for mid-December.

 

Reporting w as contributed by Glenn Thrush and Devlin Barrett in Washington.

 

Michael D. Shear is a White House correspondent for The Times, covering President Biden and his administration. He has reported on politics for more than 30 years. More about Michael D. Shear

 

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

President Biden pardons his son Hunter Biden

Elon Musk has cozied into Trump’s White House. How long will this bromance last?

 


Elon Musk has cozied into Trump’s White House. How long will this bromance last?

Katrina vanden Heuvel

The absurd Musk-Trump pact might have a silver lining: their relationship, like Trump’s coalition at large, is fragile

 

Fri 22 Nov 2024 06.00 EST

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/22/elon-musk-donald-trump

 

It’s deja vu all over again, again. In the wake of Donald Trump’s decisive re-election, his transition team has moved to pack his cabinet and adviser positions with figures straight out of the Star Wars cantina – some of the most dangerous and bizarre sideshows from every corner of his chaotic galaxy.

 

In the Trump Cinematic Universe, loyalty usurps qualification. That’s why Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host who wants to eliminate “woke” officials from the military, got tapped to oversee our national defense. And it’s why Matt Gaetz was asked to helm the very Department of Justice that was investigating him for alleged sex trafficking, before his abrupt withdrawal from consideration.

 

But perhaps no figure better captures the cartoonish nature of Trump’s staffing philosophy than Elon Musk, the literal richest man on Earth, who has somehow grabbed the wheel of a presidential transition that’s navigating the road ahead about as well as one of his Teslas.

 

From offering his two cents on presidential appointments, to joining calls with the Ukrainian president, to adjudicating the race for Senate majority leader via an X poll, the man who broke Twitter now has his sights set on breaking the federal government. He’s poised to hack the budget, ramrod in his half-baked policy musings and push through deregulation that will inevitably benefit his fleet of companies.

 

Like any great romcom, Musk and Trump got off to a rocky start. Two years ago, before he donned a “dark gothic Maga” cap himself, Musk was urging Trump to “hang up his hat”, and Trump was calling Musk too chicken to buy Twitter. But then Musk did buy Twitter, and began diligently turning it into a bastion of rightwing misinformation called X.

 

The arc of this entanglement reached its inevitable conclusion when Musk rewired the platform’s algorithm to promote his own conspiracies about immigrants and election interference, while also giving free advertisement to Trump to the tune of 2bn views. Though Trump was already the first major party nominee to own a social media platform in Truth Social, he now essentially leases a second one for free.

 

While Trump received support from Musk gratis, his voters received million-dollar checks. For all Musk’s handwringing about “ballot harvesting”, he engaged in a brazen election interference scheme when he more or less paid citizens to vote for Trump.

 

Musks’s so-called sweepstakes, which a Pennsylvania court waved through, culminates big money’s political playbook. Billionaires no longer need to launder their bribes through Super Pacs with vaguely patriotic names. They can avoid that rigmarole, cut out the middleman and offer direct financial incentives for supporting whichever candidate they deem most favorable to their business interests.

 

And now that Musk’s doubtfully legal efforts have paid off in the election of the country’s first president with a felony conviction, the true singularity can begin – not the merging of humans with AI supposedly portended by Neuralink, but of Musk’s agenda with Trump’s. There’s no shortage of “catastrophic conflicts of interest”, to quote former chief of government ethics Walter Shaub. Sure enough, Musk’s corporate empire has received $15bn in public contracts, while facing 20 federal investigations. But it would be no more than coincidence should that first number skyrocket and the second number plummet over the next four years.

 

The Department of Government Efficiency is not actually a department, nor is it government – so its proposals can be dispensed with efficiently

 

More troubling than his informal heft as Trump’s self-proclaimed “first buddy”, though, is Musk’s appointment to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency – which, as many have pointed out, somehow takes two people to lead. This glorified taskforce has a mandate to slash government costs, regulations and employment. With his typical spunk, Musk has pledged to eliminate a third of the $6.75tn federal budget, not unlike how he cut half of Twitter’s workforce.

 

Fortunately for Musk, that austerity doesn’t extend to his own bank account, which has received a generous Trump bump. Post-election Tesla stock surges have already earned him $70bn, and Musk’s appointment may also qualify him to receive a massive tax break. That seems only appropriate given that this faux department’s name abbreviates to Doge, a cryptocurrency that Musk owns “a bunch of”.

 

Nevertheless, the patent absurdity of the Musk-Trump pact just might offer a silver lining for Democrats. First, analysts and casual observers alike remain skeptical of how long the honeymoon can last between two narcissists whose power is exceeded only by their pettiness. Their relationship, like Trump’s coalition at large, is perilous and fragile.

 

Second, Doge’s recommendations are just that: nonbinding. Trump himself has described Musk and Ramaswamy as offering “advice and guidance from outside of government”. That means the Department of Government Efficiency is not actually a department, nor is it government – so its proposals can be dispensed with efficiently.

 

This cuts both ways. The few worthy, populist ideas that could expand the Trump administration’s appeal – like reining in the Pentagon – will never get past a Republican House of Representatives. And if they dared touch entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, there won’t be a Republican House for much longer.

 

Musk is clearly attempting to emulate Trump’s governing style. But Trump has consistently proven a more effective huckster than head of state. On the campaign trail, he was a Rorschach test: voters projected their grievances and aspirations on to his concepts of a plan. But a record is concrete. Soon enough, reality will sharpen into undeniable focus, one bad bromance at a time.

 

Katrina vanden Heuvel is the editorial director and publisher of the Nation. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has contributed to the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times