“Puts him in a box”: Experts say immunity ruling may have doomed Trump’s Supreme Court appeal

Salon

“Puts him in a box”: Experts say immunity ruling may have doomed Trump’s Supreme Court appeal

Tatyana Tandanpolie – February 6, 2024

Donald Trump Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images
Donald Trump Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

A federal appeals court’s unanimous rejection of former President Donald Trump’s immunity bid has laid the groundwork for it to be upheld if appealed to the Supreme Court, legal experts say. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday issued a 57-page opinion finding that Trump does not have blanket protection from prosecution for all acts he committed while in office. The opinion came four weeks after the circuit court heard the case in early January, and Trump is expected to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

“There was a lot of speculation over whether the four-week delay meant there was some division among the judges,” George Washington University law professor Randall Eliason wrote on X/Twitter. “But this per curiam (joined by all 3, with no judge identified as the author) opinion presents a unified holding that offers the best chance to be quickly upheld.”

The D.C. Circuit’s decision is “not surprising,” according to former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, who noted the “rather silly arguments” made by Trump’s team in the appeal. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court declines to take this case up, letting this ruling stand,” Mariotti added.

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman noted that the appeals court gave Trump until Feb. 12 to seek to extend the pause in his D.C. proceedings. “That’s very quick and puts him in a box having to find a stay before then,” Litman tweeted. “Given thoroughness and unanimity of opinion, we will have lost only about six weeks should the Supreme Court deny the stay application, which we should look to it to do by around February 19. If it takes the case, mandate doesn’t return to Chutkan until early July,” he added.

Steve Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, argued that the appeals court’s decision leaves the high court with two options to further address Trump’s immunity question. The Supreme Court can either deny the former president’s forthcoming request to pause the federal election interference case’s proceedings and “clear the way for the prosecution to proceed quickly; or it can grant the stay—and expedite its review of the merits of today’s ruling, with a decision by June,” Vladeck explained. He said he expects the court to decide on a stay application by late next week or early the week of February 19.

“[W]e should know a *lot* more about the timing of the next steps sometime in the next two weeks,” he postedadding: “And for those asking if Trump can seek en banc review, technically he can, but it won’t help to keep the lower-court proceedings on hold. The only way to do that is to go to #SCOTUS by next Monday.”

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal predicted that the Supreme Court would not take up Trump’s appeal.

“Of course, anything can happen and it takes 4 of the 9 Justices to vote to hear a case,” he wrote. “But Trump’s argument is so weak and the Court of Appeals decision so thorough and well done, I can see SCOTUS voting not to hear it.”

How two sentences in the Constitution rose from obscurity to ensnare Donald Trump

Asociated Press

How two sentences in the Constitution rose from obscurity to ensnare Donald Trump

Nicholas Riccardi – February 4, 2024

FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
FILE - Then-President Donald Trump speaks during a rally protesting the Elector College certification of Joe Biden's win in the 2020 presidential race, in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments for a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
Then-President Donald Trump speaks during a rally protesting the Elector College certification of Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential race, in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments for a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
FILE - Attorney Scott Gessler speaks during a hearing before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot, on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot.(AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
 Attorney Scott Gessler speaks during a hearing before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot, on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot.(AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
FILE - Attorney Eric Olson, far right, argues before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
Attorney Eric Olson, far right, argues before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)
FILE - Attorney Martha Tierney smiles during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in court Oct. 30, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
Attorney Martha Tierney smiles during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in court Oct. 30, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
FILE - Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University's Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
 Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University’s Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
FILE - Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
FILE - Sean Grimsley, attorney for the petitioners, delivers closing arguments during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in district court, Nov. 15, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court's decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
Sean Grimsley, attorney for the petitioners, delivers closing arguments during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in district court, Nov. 15, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
FILE - Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University's Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University’s Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)

DENVER (AP) — In the summer of 2020, Gerard Magliocca, like many during the coronavirus pandemic, found himself stuck inside with time on his hands.

A law professor at Indiana University, Magliocca figured he would research the history of two long-neglected sentences in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Dating to the period just after the Civil War, they prohibit those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.

On Jan. 6, 2021, after then-President Donald Trump‘s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to try to block certification of his loss to Joe Biden, Magliocca watched as Republicans such as Sens. Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney described the attack as an “insurrection.”

That night, Magliocca composed a quick post on a legal blog: “Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote, “might apply to President Trump.”

Just over four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to determine whether it does. On Thursday, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments over whether Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado, where the state’s Supreme Court ruled that he violated Section 3.

It’s the first time the Supreme Court has heard a case on Section 3, which was used to keep former Confederates from holding government offices after the amendment’s 1868 adoption. It fell into disuse after Congress granted an amnesty to most ex-rebels in 1872.

Before the attack on the Capitol, even many constitutional lawyers rarely thought about Section 3. It hadn’t been used in court for more than 100 years. Its revival is due to an unlikely combination of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, all rediscovering 111 words in the nation’s foundational legal document that have now become a threat to the former president’s attempt to return to office.

In the days after Jan. 6, thanks to scholars such as Magliocca, Section 3 started its slow emergence from obscurity.

Free Speech For People, a Massachusetts-based liberal nonprofit, sent letters to top election officials in all 50 states in June 2021, warning them not to place Trump on the ballot should he run again in 2024.

The group didn’t hear back from any of them.

“People were just treating it as something that was not serious,” recalled John Bonifaz, the group’s co-founder.

In January 2022, Free Speech For People filed a complaint in North Carolina to disqualify Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn under Section 3. Cawthorn lost his primary, mooting the case.

That same month, the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, also known as CREW, decided to test Section 3 in court.

“It wasn’t just Trump we were focused on,” chief counsel Donald Sherman said in an interview. “One thing we’ve been very careful about is we don’t think it’s appropriate to pursue outside or longshot cases.”

On Sept. 6, 2022, a New Mexico judge ordered Couy Griffin, a rural New Mexico county commissioner convicted of illegally entering the Capitol on Jan. 6, removed from his position after CREW filed against him. It was the first time in more than 100 years an official had been removed under Section 3. Griffin has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Trump announced his campaign for president two months later.

Both Free Speech For People and CREW began scouring state ballot laws, looking for places that allowed the rapid contesting of a candidacy. CREW settled on Colorado.

Sherman and another CREW attorney, Nikhel Sus, contacted Martha Tierney, a veteran election lawyer who also served as general counsel of the state Democratic Party.

Tierney wasn’t acting as the Democratic Party’s lawyer, but CREW wanted to balance its team. Sherman contacted Mario Nicolais, a former Republican election lawyer who had left the party over Trump.

Nicolais’ first interaction with Sherman was a direct message about the case on X, the social media platform previously known as Twitter. Nicolais thought it could be from a crank.

“Is this for real or is this from somebody just angry at the president?” Nicolais recalled wondering.

On Sept. 6, 2023 — one year from the disqualification of Griffin — their 105-page complaint was filed in district court in Denver.

Trump hired former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler to represent him. The Denver judge who got CREW’s complaint, Sarah Block Wallace, said she was obligated to hold a hearing under state election law.

During the five-day hearing, two officers who defended the Capitol testified, along with a University of California professor who was an expert in right-wing extremism, two Trump aides and several other witnesses. One was Magliocca, who laid out the history of Section 3.

Trump’s attorneys were pessimistic, expecting Wallace, who had a history of donating to Democrats, to rule against them. Trump spokesman Jason Miller addressed reporters outside court, complaining that the plaintiffs had intentionally filed in a liberal jurisdiction in a blue state.

Wallace issued her decision on Nov. 17. She found that Trump had “engaged in insurrection” but ruled that — contrary to Magliocca’s testimony — it wasn’t certain that the authors of the 14th Amendment meant it to apply to the president. Section 3 refers to “elector of President and Vice President,” but not the office itself.

Wallace was hesitant to become the first judge in history to bar a top presidential contender unless the law was crystal clear.

“It was a loss that only a lawyer could love,” Sus recalled.

CREW was just a legal sliver away from victory. It just needed the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold all of Wallace’s ruling besides the technicality of whether the president was covered.

The seven justices of the state’s high court — all appointed by Democrats from a pool chosen by a nonpartisan panel — peppered both sides with pointed questions at oral argument three weeks later.

Neither side left feeling certain of victory.

On Dec. 19, the court announced it would issue its decision that afternoon — ruling 4-3 that Trump was disqualified. The decision was put on hold, pending the outcome of the case that will be argued Thursday.

Veterans group spending $45M on Biden, Democrats

The Hill

Veterans group spending $45M on Biden, Democrats

Elizabeth Crisp – February 5, 2024

A progressive political action committee that typically supports veterans’ issues and Democratic-leaning veterans running for office plans to pump $45 million into the effort to reelect President Biden this fall and bolster other Democrats on the ballot.

A spokesperson for VoteVets confirmed the plans to The Hill after The New York Times first reported the effort.

A $15 million push aimed at courting veterans and active-duty military families in the presidential battleground states will be the centerpiece, according to the group.

VoteVets also identified these races among the group’s priorities: Incumbent Democratic senators in Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Ohio; Democratic Reps. Ruben Gallego (Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), who are running for Senate; and Rep. Andy Kim (N.J.), who is challenging embattled Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.).

Former President Trump, seen as the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, has enjoyed robust support among military members in the past, but his edge slipped from the 2016 election to the 2020 cycle.

VoteVets co-founder and chairman Jon Soltz told The Times in an interview that Trump’s vocal support for people who carried out the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and past remarks against military officials and soldiers will be highlighted in the ads.

“There’s political ramifications to all this,” he said. “There’s no other way to explain the disrespect to Gold Star families and the erratic behavior and the attacks on our law enforcement at the Capitol — these are values things.”

The group unveiled part of its plan with a 60-second spot in Pennsylvania last month that highlights remarks attributed to Trump referring to veterans as “losers” and “suckers” and features Gold Star families responding.

VoteVets has in the past shown that it’s messaging beyond military families with its efforts.

In Georgia’s 2022 Senate race, the group released an ad accusing Republican candidate and former football star Herschel Walker of defrauding the government at the expense of veterans. Walker ultimately lost to Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock.

‘The threat isn’t over’: the expert arguing to the supreme court Trump is an insurrectionist

The Guardian

‘The threat isn’t over’: the expert arguing to the supreme court Trump is an insurrectionist

David Smith in Washington – February 5, 2024

<span>MoveOn members rally outside the supreme court in Washington DC on 1 February.</span><span>Photograph: Paul Morigi/Getty Images for MoveOn</span>
MoveOn members rally outside the supreme court in Washington DC on 1 February.Photograph: Paul Morigi/Getty Images for MoveOn

When Jill Habig had an office down the hall from Kamala Harris in California, Barack Obama was US president, abortion was a constitutional right and January 6 was just another date on the calendar. A lot has happened since then.

On Thursday Habig, now president of the non-profit Public Rights Project (PRP), hopes her arguments will persuade the supreme court that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist who should be disqualified from the 2024 presidential election.

Related: Why Trump made rural Americans turn their backs on Democrats

Habig has filed an amicus brief on behalf of historians contending that section 3 of the 14th amendment to the constitution, which bars people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office, applies to Trump’s role in the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol.

The brief gives the supreme court’s originalists, who believe the constitution should be interpreted as it would have been in the era it was written, a taste of their own medicine. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are self-declared originalists while Samuel Alito has described himself as a “practical originalist”.

“Our goal was to bring an originalist historical perspective to the supreme court as it considered the meaning of section 3 of the 14th amendment,” Habig, a former special counsel to then California attorney general Harris, says by phone from Oakland. “The point we make with our historian colleagues is that the history of section 3 is actually very clear. It demonstrates that section 3 was intended to automatically disqualify insurrectionists.”

The amicus brief, led by historians Jill Lepore of Harvard and David Blight of Yale, cites debates from the time in which senators made clear that their view that the provision that would not only apply for former Confederates but to the leaders of rebellions yet to come.

Habig adds: “It was intended to apply not only to the civil war but also to future insurrections and it bars anyone who has betrayed an oath to uphold the constitution from becoming president of the United States.”

The supreme court will hear arguments on a Colorado case in which Trump was stricken from the ballot; a decision in Maine is on hold. Other states have ruled in favor of keeping Trump on the ballot. The flurry of decisions have prompted debate over whether Trump can be fairly considered to have committed insurrection even though he has not been found guilty in a court of law – at least not yet.

Habig, who founded the PRP in 2017, says yes. “It’s clear historically that there was no requirement of a conviction or even of charges, that the framers intended section 3 to be self-executing. The brief goes through a number of examples of people who had taken part in the secession and been on the Confederate side actually petitioning Congress for exceptions. There’s a lot of evidence that it was self-executing. There was no need for a particular conviction.”

She adds: “The evidence that we have seen and heard and watched with our own eyes over the last few years has made it quite clear that President Trump lost an election in 2020 and has spent the months and years since then trying to overturn the results of that election in a variety of ways, including people marching to the Capitol and invading the Capitol.”

It’s difficult to argue with a straight face that these activities don’t qualify for section 3

Jill Habig

Indeed, Blight has pointed out that the US Capitol was never breached during the civil war but was on January 6. Habig comments: “It’s difficult to argue with a straight face that these activities don’t qualify for section 3.”

Still, there are plenty of Republicans, Democrats and neutrals who warn that the 14th amendment drive is politically counterproductive, fueling a Trumpian narrative that state institutions are out to stop him and that Joe Biden is the true threat to democracy. Let the people decide at the ballot box in November, they say.

Habig counters: “It’s important to note that the American people did decide in 2020. We had a political process and then we had a president of the United States who attempted to overturn that political process. ”

Spectacular as it was, the January 6 riot did not occur in a vacuum. Habig and her work at the PRP place it in a wider context of a growing movement to harass and threaten election officials and to interfere with the administration of elections. She perceives a direct line between Trump’s “big lie” and threats to democracy across the country today.

“Regardless of this particular case, the threat isn’t over. It’s actually intensifying. We’re just seeing an array of efforts to rig the rules of the game against our democracy and it’s part of why we’re investing a lot of resources into protecting election officials this cycle, and to litigating and advancing voting rights and free and fair elections this year.”

How did America get here? A turning point was the supreme court’s 5-4 decision in 2013 to strike down a formula at the heart of the Voting Rights Act, so that voters who are discriminated against now bear the burden of proving they are disenfranchised. Since then states have engaged in a barrage of gerrymandering – manipulating district boundaries so as to favor one party – and voter suppression.

Habig reflects: “The gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the supreme court left states to themselves to rewrite the rules of the game in a variety of ways that disenfranchised voters and continued to rig maps against their systems and fair representation.

“We’ve seen the supreme court take itself out of the game of protecting other fundamental rights like abortion and throw that back into the states. What that’s creating is a lot of volatility at the state and local level as officials try to rewrite the rules or pick up the pieces and protect their constituents’ rights. What we’re trying to do is help state and local officials across the country use the power that they have to fight back and advance civil rights in all the ways that they can.

The PRP is building a rapid response hub to provide legal support for 200 election officials to combat harassment and intimidation and targeting election deniers. It is pursuing litigation against gerrymandering, the disqualification of legitimate ballots and state officials who try to prevent voters weighing in on ballot measures to advance abortion rights.

“This is an all-out effort to make sure that we don’t have death by a thousand cuts for our democracy this year,” Habig says. “We are potentially less likely to see one central threat like we did on January 6 or even in the 2020 election. We’ve seen some of the larger counties like Maricopa county, Arizona, Philadelphia, Detroit et cetera, who have been targets in the past, have more resources to fight back.

“What we’re most concerned about is the soft underbelly of our democracy, which is the smaller, less-resourced jurisdictions that just don’t have all of the capacity they need to push back against this harassment and intimidation. Because of our decentralised system, election deniers who are intent on disrupting our elections and disrupting the outcome of our election don’t have to mount a huge effort in one place.

“They can pick apart jurisdiction by jurisdiction, invalidate 250 ballots here, and a thousand ballots there and 500 there, challenge absentee ballots, disrupt targeted polling places and that in the aggregate can actually change election results, sow disillusionment and distrust in our system and have the same or even worse aggregate outcome in terms of undermining the integrity of our election. That’s what we’re mobilising to prevent.”

There was no greater measure of America’s ailing democracy than the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v Wade, the ruling that in effect made abortion legal nationwide, by supreme court justices appointed by presidents who lost the national popular vote. But since then, in a series of ballot measures in individual states, abortion rights have prevailed.

Habig reflects: “Every single time that has been put to voters, abortion rights have won. As a result, we’re actually starting to see a lot of overlap between the reproductive rights fight and the democracy fight because this battle over abortion is fuelling additional efforts to break the rules and prevent voters from having a meaningful say in their rights. We’re mobilising on both fronts because the future of both is interconnected.”

PRP says it has worked with local elected officials to provide legal guidance and filed dozens of amicus briefs in key reproductive rights cases, secured legal access to abortion for 6.5 million people. Habig explains: “We’re working with state and local officials to overturn criminal abortion bans at the state level.

“We’re working to poke holes in existing criminal bans when there’s not a path to overturn them right away. Then we’re working to hold crisis pregnancy centers accountable for deception of women and patients; these are anti-abortion centers that masquerade as health clinics that provide comprehensive healthcare. We’re looking at this multi-pronged approach state by state and across the country.”

Habig, a political strategist who was deputy campaign manager for Harris’s first Senate election campaign in 2016, has no doubt that democracy and abortion rights will play a big part in the November election.

“I appreciate President Biden’s clarity on democracy and the constitution and his leadership on the issue. I do think it’s important for people to understand what democracy means and for their real lives. It can sound abstract sometimes and like an academic debate but bringing it down to the level of, do you have autonomy over your future and your community, do you have autonomy over your own body, is important for people.”

She adds: “That’s why we’ve seen in cases when we’re talking about the fundamental right to vote, people get that. When we’re talking about their autonomy, they get it. When they’re talking about their dignity in the workplace, people get that and feel that on a visceral level. It’s important that we work to build a democracy that actually delivers so that people can feel the value of it in their daily lives.”

ABC News hosts abruptly shuts down interview with J.D. Vance over right-wing nonsense

Salon

ABC News hosts abruptly shuts down interview with J.D. Vance over right-wing nonsense

Gabriella Ferrigine – February 5, 2024

J.D. Vance; Donald Trump Drew Angerer/Getty Images
J.D. Vance; Donald Trump Drew Angerer/Getty Images

ABC News host George Stephanopolous abruptly ended a discussion with Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, on Sunday after the Republican alleged that a president would have the power to ignore the Supreme Court.

“Fire everyone in the government, then defy the Supreme Court? You think it’s OK to defy the Supreme Court?” the anchor asked after Vance said in 2021 that then-president Donald Trump should oust federal civil servants and disregard any Supreme Court ruling that instructed him to do otherwise. Vance at the time claimed Trump should “stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it,’” per The Daily Beast.

“That’s a fundamental component of our government, George, that whoever is in charge, agree or disagree with him, you have to follow the rules,” Vance said.  “If those people aren’t following the rules, then of course, you’ve got to fire them.”

Stephanopolous in response pressed Vance to explicate whether he felt the president had to adhere to SCOTUS rulings.

“The Constitution also says the president must abide by legitimate Supreme Court rulings, doesn’t it?” Stephanopoulos asked, per ABC.

“The Constitution says that the Supreme Court can make rulings … but if the Supreme Court said the president of the United States can’t fire a general, that would be an illegitimate ruling,” Vance said.

“The Constitution says that the Supreme Court can make rulings but if the Supreme Court —and look, I hoped that they would not do this — but if the Supreme Court said the president of the United States can’t fire a general, that would be an illegitimate ruling,” Vance said. “The president has to have Article II prerogative under the Constitution to actually run the military as he sees fit. This is just basic constitutional legitimacy.”

“You’ve made it very clear — you believe the president can defy the Supreme Court,” Stephanopoulos replied. “Senator, thanks for your time this morning.”

Ahead of the conversation’s termination, Vance separately provided his thoughts on the 2020 election after Stephanopolous asked if Vance would have certified the election results if he had been acting as vice president at the time.

The GOP senator at first called the question “ridiculous” and claimed Stephanopolous was “obsessed with talking about this” before clarifying his thoughts.

“Do I think there were problems in 2020? Yes, I do,” Vance said. “If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020. I think that’s what we should have done.”

“So, he’s saying he would have engaged in the conspiracy to interfere with the lawful outcome of the election? Out loud?” tweeted former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance.

Former Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., referred to Vance’s remarks as “So dangerous. So unconstitutional. So un-American. So cultish. So MAGA.”

“I’m glad JD Vance stated very explicitly that he believes we should shred American democracy and replace it with a system where the will of the voters is disregarded by partisan legislators,” MSNBC analyst Tim Miller quipped in a tweet. “A lot of Trump defenders talk around this and I appreciate his candor.”

Speaking candidly about Trump’s numerous legal woes — including the $83.3 million he was recently ordered to pay writer E. Jean Carroll in damages — Vance said he felt the former president had been partly wronged. Stephanopolous asked him to offer his thoughts on the argument that supporting Trump is, by extension supporting abusers — last spring Trump was found liable of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, who has long said he assaulted her in a New York City department store dressing room in the 1990s.

“I think it’s actually very unfair to the victims of sexual assault to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for president when what he’s trying to do, I think, is restore prosperity,” Vance said. “If you actually look at so many of the court cases against Donald Trump, George, this is not about prosecuting Trump for something that he did. It’s about throwing him off the ballot because Democrats feel that they can’t beat him at the ballot box. And so, they’re trying to defeat him in court,” he added.

“I think most Americans recognize that this is not what we want to fight the 2024 election on. Let’s fight it over issues,” Vance said.

“So juries in New York City are not legitimate when they find someone liable for … defamation and assault?” Stephanopoulos asked after Vance seemed to wave off findings by “extremely left-wing jurisdictions.”

“Well, when the cases are funded by left-wing donors and when the case has absolute left-wing bias all over it, George, absolutely I think that we should call into question that particular conclusion,” Vance said.

Has the planet warmed more than we thought? Ocean sponges might be telling us something

Associated Press – Climate

Has the planet warmed more than we thought? Ocean sponges might be telling us something

By Seth Borenstein – February 5, 2024

This undated image provided by Amos Winter shows a sponge from the Caribbean. This sponge, a simple animal that filters water, and a handful of other centuries-old sponges are causing some scientists to think human-caused climate change began sooner and has heated the world more than they thought. Many sponge species live long, and as they grow they record the conditions of the environment around them in their skeletons. (Courtesy of Amos Winter via AP)

This undated image provided by Amos Winter shows a sponge from the Caribbean. This sponge, a simple animal that filters water, and a handful of other centuries-old sponges are causing some scientists to think human-caused climate change began sooner and has heated the world more than they thought. Many sponge species live long, and as they grow they record the conditions of the environment around them in their skeletons. (Courtesy of Amos Winter via AP)

This undated image provided by Amos Winter shows a sponge from the Caribbean that has been cut. This sponge, a simple animal that filters water, and a handful of other centuries-old sponges are causing some scientists to think human-caused climate change began sooner and has heated the world more than they thought. Many sponge species live long, and as they grow they record the conditions of the environment around them in their skeletons. (Courtesy of Amos Winter via AP)

This undated image provided by Amos Winter shows a sponge from the Caribbean that has been cut. This sponge, a simple animal that filters water, and a handful of other centuries-old sponges are causing some scientists to think human-caused climate change began sooner and has heated the world more than they thought. Many sponge species live long, and as they grow they record the conditions of the environment around them in their skeletons. (Courtesy of Amos Winter via AP)

FILE - A man walks past an abandoned canoe at the Sau reservoir amid a drought in Vilanova de Sau, north of Barcelona, Spain, Jan. 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti File)

A man walks past an abandoned canoe at the Sau reservoir amid a drought in Vilanova de Sau, north of Barcelona, Spain, Jan. 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti File)

FILE - A pedestrian uses an umbrella to shield against the sun while passing through Times Square as temperatures rise, July 27, 2023, in New York. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

A pedestrian uses an umbrella to shield against the sun while passing through Times Square as temperatures rise, July 27, 2023, in New York. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

FILE - A boy rests under a tree while watching the sun set as triple-digit heat indexes continue in the Midwest, Aug. 20, 2023, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)

A boy rests under a tree while watching the sun set as triple-digit heat indexes continue in the Midwest, Aug. 20, 2023, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)

FILE - Beachgoers flock to Ipanema beach to beat the extreme heat in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sept. 24, 2023. (AP Photo/Bruna Prado, File)

Beachgoers flock to Ipanema beach to beat the extreme heat in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sept. 24, 2023. (AP Photo/Bruna Prado, File)

A handful of centuries-old sponges from deep in the Caribbean are causing some scientists to think human-caused climate change began sooner and has heated the world more than they thought.

They calculate that the world has already gone past the internationally approved target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, hitting 1.7 degrees (3.1 degrees Fahrenheit) as of 2020. They analyzed six of the long-lived sponges — simple animals that filter water — for growth records that document changes in water temperature, acidity and carbon dioxide levels in the air, according to a study in Monday’s journal Nature Climate Change.

Other scientists were skeptical of the study’s claim that the world has warmed that much more than thought. But if the sponge calculations are right, there are big repercussions, the study authors said.

“The big picture is that the global warming clock for emissions reductions to minimize the risk of dangerous climate changes is being brought forward by at least a decade,” study lead author Malcolm McCulloch, a marine geochemist at the University of Western Australia. “Basically, time’s running out.”

“We have a decade less than we thought,” McCulloch told The Associated Press. “It’s really a diary of — what’s the word? — impending disaster.”

In the past several years, scientists have noted more extreme and harmful weather — floods, storms, droughts and heat waves — than they had expected for the current level of warming. One explanation for that would be if there was more warming than scientists had initially calculated, said study co-author Amos Winter, a paleo oceanographer at Indiana State University. He said this study also supports the theory that climate change is accelerating, proposed last year by former NASA top scientist James Hansen.

FILE - Residents wade down a street through receding floodwaters, two days after Hurricane Patricia, in the village of Rebalse, Jalisco State, Mexico, Oct. 25, 2015. A handful of powerful tropical storms in the last decade and the prospect of more to come has some experts proposing a new category of hurricanes: Category 6, which would be for storms with wind speeds of 192 miles per hour or more. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell, File)

Dial it up to Category 6? As warming stokes storms, some want a bigger hurricane category

FILE - Residents evacuate on a motorcycle amid wildfires into Vina del Mar, Chile, Feb. 3, 2024. Scientists say climate change creates conditions that make the drought and wildfires now hitting South America more likely. (AP Photo/Esteban Felix, File)

How climate change contributes to wildfires like Chile’s

An SUV sits buried by a mudslide, Monday, Feb. 5, 2024, in the Beverly Crest area of Los Angeles. A storm of historic proportions unleashed record levels of rain over parts of Los Angeles on Monday, endangering the city's large homeless population, sending mud and boulders down hillsides dotted with multimillion-dollar homes and knocking out power for more than a million people in California. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

Historic storm sends debris through LA’s Hollywood Hills and leaves 1.1 million without power

“This is not good news for global climate change as it implies more warming,” said Cornell University climate scientist Natalie Mahowald, who was not part of the study.

Many sponge species live long, and as they grow they record the conditions of the environment around them in their skeletons. Scientists have long used sponges along with other proxies — tree rings, ice cores and coral — that naturally show the record of changes in the environment over centuries. Doing so helps fill in data from before the 20th century.

Sponges — unlike coral, tree rings and ice cores — get water flowing from all over through them so they can record a larger area of ecological change, Winter and McCulloch said.

They used measurements from a rare species of small and hard-shelled sponges to create a temperature record for the 1800s that differs greatly from the scientifically accepted versions used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study finds that the mid-1800s were about half a degree Celsius cooler than previously thought, with warming from heat-trapping gases kicking in about 80 years earlier than the measurements the IPCC uses. IPCC figures show warming kicking in just after 1900.

It makes sense that the warming started earlier than the IPCC says because by the mid-1800s the Industrial Revolution had begun and carbon dioxide was being spewed into the air, said McCulloch and Winter. Carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels are what causes climate change, scientists have established.

Winter and McCulloch said these rusty orange long-lived sponges — one of them was more than 320 years old when it was collected — are special in a way that makes them an ideal measuring tool, better than what scientists used in the mid- to late 1800s.

“They are cathedrals of history, of human history, recording carbon dioxide in the the atmosphere, temperature of the water and pH of the water,” Winter said.

“They’re beautiful,” he said. “They’re not easy to find. You need a special team of divers to find them.”

That’s because they live 100 to 300 feet deep (33 meters to 98 meters) in the dark, Winter said.

The IPCC and most scientists use temperature data for the mid-1800s that came from ships whose crews would take temperature readings by lowering wooden buckets to dip up water. Some of those measurements could be skewed depending on how the collection was done — for example, if the water was collected near a warm steamship engine. But the sponges are more accurate because scientists can track regular tiny deposits of calcium and strontium on the critters’ skeleton. Warmer water would lead to more strontium compared to calcium, and and cooler water would lead to higher proportions of calcium compared to strontium, Winter said.

University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann, who wasn’t part of the study, has long disagreed with the IPCC’s baseline and thinks warming started earlier. But he was still skeptical of the study’s findings.

“In my view it begs credulity to claim that the instrumental record is wrong based on paleo-sponges from one region of the world. It honestly doesn’t make any sense to me,” Mann said.

In a news briefing, Winter and McCulloch repeatedly defended the use of sponges as an accurate proxy for world temperature changes. They said except for the 1800s, their temperature reconstruction based on sponges matches global records from instruments and other proxies like coral, ice cores and tree rings.

And even though these sponges are only in the Caribbean, McCulloch and Winter said they are a good representation for the rest of the world because they’re at a depth that doesn’t get too affected by warm and cold cycles of El Nino and La Nina, and the water matches well with global ocean temperatures, McCulloch and Winter said.

Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who also wasn’t part of the sponge study, said even if the McCulloch team is right about a cooler baseline in the 1800s that shouldn’t really change the danger levels that scientists set in their reports. That’s because the danger levels “were not tied to the absolute value of preindustrial temperatures” but more about how much temperatures changed from that time, he said.

Although the study stopped at 2020 with 1.7 degrees Celsius (3.1 degrees Fahrenheit) in warming since pre-industrial times, a record hot 2023 pushes that up to 1.8 degrees (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit), McCulloch said.

“The rate of change is much faster than we thought,” McCulloch said. “We’re heading into very dangerous high-risk scenarios for the future. And the only way to stop this is to reduce emissions. Urgently. Most urgently.”

Teresa de Miguel contributed to this report from Mexico City.

Read more of AP’s climate coverage at http://www.apnews.com/climate-and-environment

House Speaker Mike Johnson criticizes new bill on US border security

The New Voice of Ukraine

House Speaker Mike Johnson criticizes new bill on US border security

The New Voice of Ukraine – February 5, 2024

Mike Johnson
Mike Johnson

The bill on funding changes in immigration policy, as well as aid to Ukraine and Israel proposed by the Senate, is “even worse than we expected” and “won’t put an end to the border catastrophe,” House speaker Mike Johnson said on X (Twitter) on Feb. 5.

Read also: US Senate to vote on border security and Ukraine aid package early next week

“This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created.” the House Speaker said.

“As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, “the border never closes,” he added, saying if this bill reaches the House of Representatives, it will be dead on arrival.

Blocking aid to Ukraine: What is known

On Dec. 6, the bill funding aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan for approximately $106 billion failed procedural voting in the US Senate due to Republican demands for stricter immigration policies. They sought to strengthen the border with Mexico and only consider it in connection with aid to Ukraine and Israel.

Read also: Biden calls on House Republicans to back Senate compromise on border security & Ukraine aid

On Jan. 19, Johnson revealed that he often discusses border reinforcement with former US President Donald Trump, including conversations on the eve of Biden’s meeting dedicated to the border and aid to Ukraine.

On Jan. 25, the Financial Times reported that Republicans, influenced by Trump, who demands the party reject a compromise on immigration, are succumbing.

On Jan. 31, in his first official address as Speaker, Johnson stated that the Senate agreement under discussion is not sufficient to prevent migrants from Mexico entering the US. He had previously hinted that he would not unblock aid to Ukraine, calling the Senate agreement “absolutely dead.”

On Feb. 5, the US Senate unveiled a $118 billion package, including $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion in aid to Israel, nearly $5 billion to allies in the Asia-Pacific region, $20 billion for strengthening immigration policy, and humanitarian aid to civilians in the Gaza Strip.

Read also: Immigration agreement in U.S. Congress could pave way for resumption of U.S. aid to Ukraine

US President Joe Biden urged the House to promptly pass the bill.

“We have now reached an agreement on a bipartisan national security deal, which includes the toughest and fairest package of border reforms in the last decade. I strongly support it,” said Biden.

Why Are Americans Wary While the Economy Is Healthy? Look at Nevada.

The New York Times

Why Are Americans Wary While the Economy Is Healthy? Look at Nevada.

Peter S. Goodman – February 5, 2024

Nevada is dependent on a single industry — casino resorts and the hospitality trade — for roughly one-fourth of its jobs. (Bridget Bennett/The New York Times)
Nevada is dependent on a single industry — casino resorts and the hospitality trade — for roughly one-fourth of its jobs. (Bridget Bennett/The New York Times)

LAS VEGAS — Toni Irizarry recognizes that the economy has improved. Compared with the first wave of the pandemic, when Las Vegas went dark, and joblessness soared to levels not seen since the Great Depression, these are days of relative normalcy.

Irizarry, 64, oversees a cafe at the Orleans Hotel and Casino, a property just off the Las Vegas Strip that caters mostly to locals. Guests have returned, filling the blackjack and roulette tables amid the cacophony of jingling slot machines — the sound of money.

She started in the hospitality industry busing tables when she was only 16. Her paychecks have allowed her to purchase a home, raise three children and buy each of them their first car. But as she contemplates the future, she cannot shake a sense of foreboding.

The outlook of people like Irizarry could be crucial in determining who occupies the White House. Nevada is one of six battleground states that are likely to decide the outcome of November’s presidential election. Its economic centerpiece, Las Vegas, was constructed on dreams of easy money. That proved a winning proposition for generations of working people, yielding middle-class paychecks for bartenders, restaurant servers, casino dealers and maids. Yet over the last two decades, a series of shocks have eroded confidence.

First, a speculative bonanza in real estate went spectacularly wrong, turning the city into the epicenter of a national foreclosure crisis. The Great Recession inflicted steep layoffs on the hospitality industry, demolishing the notion that gambling was immune to downturns. Then in 2020, the pandemic turned Las Vegas into a ghost town.

“There is that sense of the unknown,” Irizarry said. “People are scared. They think, ‘If this could happen, which we never ever had before, what else could happen?’”

That the fate of the 2024 presidential election could hinge on economic sentiments is widely taken as a given among political operatives.

In the battleground states, 57% of registered voters identified the economy as the most important issue in a poll conducted in October by The New York Times and Siena College. More than half of all respondents described economic conditions as “poor” — a key reason that President Joe Biden was trailing his presumptive Republican challenger, former President Donald Trump, in five of the six states.

Such indications of worry appear to conflict with data points that reflect an unambiguous strengthening of the U.S. economy. Incomes have risen, unemployment remains low and consumer confidence is improving. Fears of recession have yielded to exultation over economic growth that registered 3.3% over the last three months of 2023. And the Super Bowl, coming to Las Vegas for the first time Sunday, will bring a short-term boost of as much as $700 million to the local economy.

Still, a sense of insecurity has seeped into the crevices of everyday experience. This feeling is especially palpable in Nevada, a state dependent on a single industry — casino resorts and the hospitality trade — for roughly one-fourth of its jobs.

In Nevada, 59% of those polled described the economy as “poor,” the highest margin among the six states. Seventeen percent of registered Democrats asserted intentions to vote for Trump.

The state’s unemployment rate is down sharply, registering 5.4% in November — a fraction of the 31% logged in April 2020 — even as it remains higher than any other state. Wages have grown, especially for more than 40,000 leisure and hospitality workers represented by a pair of local unions. The rate of inflation on a range of consumer goods has slowed markedly.

But those figures leave out key sources of distress that are playing out across the country and even globally, and whose origins are not confined to the four-year windows conventionally used to assess presidential administrations.

While prices for many goods have stopped rising, they remain higher than before the pandemic, especially for critical things like gasoline, groceries and rent.

Higher interest rates — the result of the Federal Reserve’s credit tightening to choke off inflation — have increased credit card burdens for those carrying balances. They have multiplied mortgage payments for homeowners whose interest payments float with broader rates.

Of special concern in Nevada is recognition that potentially lucrative pursuits like advanced manufacturing could take years to produce significant numbers of jobs.

For decades, Nevada’s leaders have sought to diminish the state’s dependence on casinos and tourism. Las Vegas is rapidly filling with warehouses as the metro area emerges as a hub for the distribution of products. Ventures centered on the transition to green energy are generating high-paying jobs, especially near Reno.

Nonetheless, Nevada remains heavily reliant on the willingness of people around the world to fly in, pack into resorts and convention centers, and scatter their dollars across casinos, restaurants and entertainment venues. Which makes the enterprise subject to abrupt changes of fortune. Which makes people nervous.

“We’re still very vulnerable to another recession,” said Andrew Woods, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “If the U.S. economy decides to go off the deep end, we are not any more resilient than we were before.”

The Strains of High Prices

Much of the unhappiness in Nevada, as in the rest of the country, centers on high costs for everyday items along with housing.

Antonio Muñoz, a former police officer, owns 911 Taco Bar, a restaurant tucked inside a food court near the Strip. He laments how the price of chicken has increased to $3.50 a pound from $1.20 before the pandemic. A 5-gallon jug of cooking oil has risen to $60 from $25. He has been forced to increase wages to keep his five full-time workers.

Much of his business is dedicated to catering work. Large events have come back robustly, he said. The annual Consumer Electronics Show in early January produced a surge of orders for rib eye and shrimp tacos as technology companies hosted visitors in private suites. He was gearing up for the Super Bowl.

But smaller bookings — birthday parties in particular — diminished last year by one-fifth compared with 2022. He blames Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East and acrimony over the U.S. election for making people nervous and tight with money.

He worries that worry itself could take down the economy.

“I feel like it’s teetering,” Muñoz said. “People seem to be waiting to see what happens.”

More Pay, Greater Security

One group is celebrating potent gains. After threatening to strike, tens of thousands of people represented by the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 and Bartenders Union Local 165 secured a contract settlement that includes raises of 32% over the next five years.

Union workers played a critical role in turning out voters for Biden four years ago, and their greater pay could motivate them to repeat that effort. And given the importance of their wages in fueling local spending, the new contracts are themselves a source of economic vibrancy.

Kimberly Dopler has worked as a cocktail server at Wynn’s Las Vegas for nearly 20 years. The job is physically exhausting and fraught with the pitfalls of tending to customers who are “drinking and gambling, and not in their right state of mind,” she said. Yet she navigates those risks for the resulting security.

“I get to go home with money in my pocket every day, and I can take my shoes off and relax,” she said.

The union contract has enhanced her sense that the economy is strong. “I see a lot of hiring happening at my job, hiring events throughout town,” Dopler said. “I feel like people have a good opportunity in this town to find work.”

Raymond Lujan, 61, a union steward and server at Edge Steakhouse, a restaurant inside the Westgate Las Vegas, was born and raised in the city. His mother worked as a cocktail server at the Stardust. His brother is a bellman at the Bellagio.

Before the pandemic, Lujan had never been out of work. When the restaurant where he worked closed, he drew on savings, but many of his co-workers live check to check.

He remains confident in a future centered on the hospitality industry.

“This is Vegas,” he said. “It’s still the destination capital of the world.”

‘It’s Still Hard’

Yet for working people who lack the protection of a union, Las Vegas remains something else: an economy subject to violent fluctuations.

Before the pandemic, Carlos Arias, 51, was earning more than $2,000 a week as an Uber driver. When the casinos shut down, he found work as a cook — first at Denny’s for $13.75 an hour, then at IHOP for 50 cents more.

Suddenly earning only one-fourth of his previous income, Arias and his partner, a manger at a McDonald’s, struggled to pay the $1,100 monthly rent on their one-bedroom apartment. They tapped credit cards to keep gas in their car. They cut grocery purchases to bare essentials like rice, beans and instant ramen.

They fell behind on the payments for their Cadillac van. One morning, it was gone, seized in repossession.

He found a new job as a cook at a Mexican restaurant for an extra $1 an hour, and then a second one at an eatery inside the Ellis Island casino. For a year, he worked both positions, rising at 4 a.m. for the early shift, and sometimes not getting home until after midnight.

He felt dizzy, his vision blurring. He could not tell if he was ill or merely exhausted, and he had no health insurance. When he nearly collapsed, he went to the hospital and was diagnosed with diabetes. The medicine the doctor prescribed cost more than $50 for a 30-day course — more than he could manage.

Early last year, he took a job at a restaurant in the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, for $19 an hour.

On paper, Arias presents as an example of an improving economy. He is earning more than during the worst of the pandemic. He has health insurance, and is taking medication for his diabetes.

But he is earning less than half what he did before the unraveling began.

“It’s still hard,” he said. “You go to the store and buy $100 worth of groceries and there’s nothing in the car.”

Ex-GOP Lawmaker Has Urgent 2024 Message For Former Trump Loyalists

HuffPost

Ex-GOP Lawmaker Has Urgent 2024 Message For Former Trump Loyalists

Josephine Harvey – February 5, 2024

Former Rep. Denver Riggleman  (R-Va.) says it’s time for more of Donald Trump’s former allies to throw their weight behind President Joe Biden.

On MSNBC Sunday, Riggleman said it’s “absolutely” important for those who no longer support Trump to publicly back Biden. As examples, he pointed to former Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci and former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), both of whom have said they would vote for Biden in his likely rematch with Trump this year.

“This is a person that you don’t want anywhere near … the Oval Office again,” Riggleman told MSNBC’s Alex Witt of the quadruply-indicted former president. “This is an individual that is out of touch with reality, or pretends that he’s out of touch with reality, to actually ignite the base, or to try to make the base violent, or to do things outside of what normal behavior would be.”

Riggleman said that when he considers what Trump has done and what kind of people he has surrounded himself with, “there’s nobody else who I’d vote for but Joe Biden.”

The ex-congressman announced in 2022 that he had left the Republican Party over its devotion to Trump.

Numerous former Trump associates and officials have in recent months spoken out about the former president and warned about the dangers of a potential White House return, but some have stopped short of saying they’d vote for Biden.

Riggleman later shared a RawStory editor’s tweet about his comments, writing: “Yes. I said this.”

“I am done identifying with a party,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “I am an American— and right now that means supporting Democratic institutions and our way of life no matter what.”

New US Senate bill to help Ukraine: Biden calls for it to be passed as soon as possible

Ukrayinska Pravda

New US Senate bill to help Ukraine: Biden calls for it to be passed as soon as possible

Ukrainska Pravda – February 4, 2024

US Flag. Photo: Getty Images
US Flag. Photo: Getty Images

US President Joe Biden has urged senators to vote for a bipartisan national security agreement presented by the Senate, which provides US$60 billion in aid to Ukraine, as soon as possible.

Source: US Senate website; Biden’s statement

Details: The US$118 billion package comprises a policy of protecting US borders and providing assistance to Ukraine and Israel.

In particular, US$60.1 billion is earmarked to help Ukraine and more than US$14 billion to support Israel.

The bill also includes funding for humanitarian aid for operations in the Red Sea and Taiwan.

Biden said he “strongly” supports the bipartisan agreement unveiled on Sunday (4 February).

Quote from Biden: “Now we’ve reached an agreement on a bipartisan national security deal that includes the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades. I strongly support it…

The bipartisan national security agreement would also address two other important priorities. It allows the United States to continue our vital work, together with partners all around the world, to stand up for Ukraine’s freedom and support its ability to defend itself against Russia’s aggression.

As I have said before, if we don’t stop Putin’s appetite for power and control in Ukraine, he won’t limit himself to just Ukraine and the costs for America will rise.

This agreement also provides Israel what they need to protect their people and defend itself against Hamas terrorists. And it will provide life-saving humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people…

I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement. Get it to my desk so I can sign it into law immediately.”

Previously: Mike Johnson, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said on Saturday, 3 February, that the following week, the House will vote on a bill that will ensure Israel obtains US$17.6 billion of aid faster, without, however, making it conditional on also passing aid for Ukraine.

The US President Joe Biden’s administration has stressed that it does not support the bill to help Israel without aid to Ukraine, calling it a “cynical political manoeuvre” by Republicans.

Background:

  • During a press conference on 30 January, Mike Johnson denied that his position on the border security agreement with Mexico, which Republicans have linked to additional funding for Ukraine, was intended to help Donald Trump win the upcoming US presidential election.
  • Johnson previously said in a letter that the Senate bill on the border and aid to Ukraine, as well as other countries, will not be approved in the House of Representatives if reports of its terms are true.
  • Republican Representatives are demanding that the White House take decisive action to curb illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border.
  • Disagreement over what measures should be taken has meant that a supplemental funding package that includes US$61 billion for Ukraine has been stalled in Congress.
  • In early January, the White House said that the US has no money for further military aid for Ukraine until a new package by the US Congress is adopted.