theguardian--2020-06-18--Trump was willing to halt criminal investigations as 'favor' to dictators, Bolton book says

Donald Trump was willing to halt criminal investigations to “ give personal favors to dictators he liked ” , according to a new book written by his former national security adviser John Bolton .
After excerpts from the memoir , which is due to be published later this month , were printed in various news outlets , the Trump administration applied for an emergency temporary restraining order against Bolton on Wednesday night in an attempt to block the book ’ s release .
Trump himself tweeted that the book was “ made up of lies & fake stories ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who only wanted to go to war ” .
Bolton alleges that Trump pleaded with China ’ s President Xi Jinping to help him get re-elected by buying more US agricultural products , according to accounts of his forthcoming memoir .
In his pursuit of a good personal relationship with Xi , Trump is described as brushing aside human rights issues , even providing encouragement to the communist leader to continue to build concentration camps for China ’ s Muslim Uighur population .
Bolton argues the House impeachment inquiry should have ranged much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pressure the Ukrainian government for his own political gain .
According to excerpts published by the Wall Street Journal , New York Times and the Washington Post , Bolton describes a pattern of corruption in which Trump routinely attempts to use the leverage of US power on other countries to his own personal ends .
“ The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life , which we couldn ’ t accept , ” Bolton writes , adding that he took his concerns to the attorney general , William @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly damaging for Trump in the run-up to an election in which he is trying to position himself as tough on China , and his opponent , Joe Biden , as being in Beijing ’ s pocket .
In a statement , Biden said that if Bolton ’ s “ accounts are true , it ’ s not only morally repugnant , it ’ s a violation of Donald Trump ’ s sacred duty to the American people to protect America ’ s interests and defend our values ” .
The former vice-president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the American people to protect his political future ” .
In the memoir , The Room Where It Happened , Bolton describes a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Xi on the sidelines of the June 2019 G20 meeting in Japan .
Xi complained to Trump about US critics of China , and Trump suggested a way Xi could help him defeat his domestic opposition .
“ He [ Trump ] then , stunningly , turned the conversation to the coming US presidential election , alluding to China ’ s economic capability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Xi to ensure he ’ d win , ” Bolton writes .
“ He stressed the importance of farmers , and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome .
I would print Trump ’ s exact words but the government ’ s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.
” Reports in the wake of the G20 meeting suggested that Trump had put pressure on Xi to buy more US farm produce but Xi had been reluctant to make any commitments .
Speaking to the Senate on Wednesday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied Trump asked Xi for election help .
Trump emerges in the pages of the book as entirely unconcerned by China ’ s gross human rights violations , including the incarceration of over a million Uighurs and other Muslims in Xinjiang province .
“ At the opening dinner of the Osaka G20 meeting in June 2019 , with only interpreters present , Xi had explained to Trump why he was basically building concentration camps in Xinjiang , ” Bolton writes , according to an excerpt published in the Wall Street Journal .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Xi should go ahead with building the camps , which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do .
The National Security Council ’ s top Asia staffer , Matthew Pottinger , told me that Trump said something very similar during his November 2017 trip to China.
” Trump also refused to issue a statement commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre .
“ That was 15 years ago , ” he told Bolton ( it was the 30th anniversary ) .
“ Who cares about it ?
I ’ m trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want anything , ” Trump said , according to Bolton ’ s account .
The Trump administration has attempted to stop the publication of Bolton ’ s book , claiming it contains classified information .
A last-ditch effort by the White House and the justice department this week came too late as copies had already been distributed to booksellers and journalists .
Federal prosecutors were reported on Wednesday to be mulling charges against Bolton .
In a statement on Wednesday , responding to the latest attempt , Bolton ’ s publisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s restraining order “ a frivolous , politically motivated exercise in futility .
Hundreds of thousands of copies of John Bolton ’ s ‘ The Room Where It Happened ’ have already been distributed around the country and the world .
The injunction as requested by the government would accomplish nothing.
’ ’ Bolton refused to testify in House impeachment proceedings against Trump , where his account would probably have been the most important piece of evidence put before Congress , and the veteran diplomat was widely accused of holding back his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profit before duty .
Bolton said he would appear if subpoenaed by the Senate , but Republicans voted to block the appearance of witnesses at the trial .
“ Bolton ’ s staff were asked to testify before the House to Trump ’ s abuses , and did .
They had a lot to lose and showed real courage .
When Bolton was asked , he refused , and said he ’ d sue if subpoenaed .
Instead , he saved it for a book , ” Adam Schiff , the Democratic chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
“ Bolton may be an author , but he ’ s no patriot.
” Elizabeth Warren , one of the Democratic senators who voted to remove Trump from office , also voiced criticism of those around Trump , who “ have failed to hold him accountable ” .
Bolton accuses congressional Democrats of committing “ impeachment malpractice ” by limiting the inquiry to the Ukraine affair ( making US military aid conditional on Kyiv handed over compromising information on Biden ) and moving too quickly .
Bolton argues that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s intervention into US investigations into Turkey ’ s Halkbank to curry favour with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey and into the China telecommunications manufacturer ZTE , with the aim of pleasing Xi .
Bolton ’ s book quotes Trump as saying that invading Venezuela would be “ cool ” and that it was “ really part of the United States ” .
He recounts a meeting in New Jersey last summer at which Trump railed against journalists , declaring : “ These people should be executed .
They are scumbags ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirms what Korea experts long suspected – that the summit diplomacy with North Korean dictator , Kim Jong-un , was intended as spectacle .
Trump appeared unconcerned with the whole subject of denuclearisation .
“ Trump told … me he was prepared to sign a substance-free communique , have his press conference to declare victory , and then get out of town , ” Bolton wrote .
The president , however , became obsessed in the following months with getting his secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , to deliver an autographed CD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Kim , to make light of the epithet Trump had formerly used on the North Korean leader .
Bolton ’ s book also goes through a litany of what Trump does not know about the world – that Britain had nuclear weapons of its own , for example , or that Finland was not part of Russia .
In a conversation with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe , the president kept confusing the current and former presidents of Afghanistan .
The book describes the secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mocking the president behind his back at a 2018 summit with North Korean leader , Kim Jong-un , slipping Bolton a note about Trump saying : “ He is so full of shit.
” Pompeo consistently described Trump ’ s summit diplomacy with Kim as a significant diplomatic achievement , in the face of deep scepticism from experts .
According to Bolton , Pompeo described the initiative to charm Kim from early on as having “ zero probability of success ” .

Julian Borger in Washington and Maanvi Singh in Oakland

Donald Trump was willing to halt criminal investigations to “give personal favors to dictators he liked”, according to a new book written by his former national security adviser John Bolton.
After excerpts from the memoir, which is due to be published later this month, were printed in various news outlets, the Trump administration applied for an emergency temporary restraining order against Bolton on Wednesday night in an attempt to block the book’s release.
Trump himself tweeted that the book was “made up of lies & fake stories” and called Bolton a “disgruntled boring fool who only wanted to go to war”.
Bolton alleges that Trump pleaded with China’s President Xi Jinping to help him get re-elected by buying more US agricultural products, according to accounts of his forthcoming memoir.
In his pursuit of a good personal relationship with Xi, Trump is described as brushing aside human rights issues, even providing encouragement to the communist leader to continue to build concentration camps for China’s Muslim Uighur population.
Bolton argues the House impeachment inquiry should have ranged much further than just Trump’s efforts to pressure the Ukrainian government for his own political gain.
According to excerpts published by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the Washington Post, Bolton describes a pattern of corruption in which Trump routinely attempts to use the leverage of US power on other countries to his own personal ends.
“The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn’t accept,” Bolton writes, adding that he took his concerns to the attorney general, William Barr.
The anecdote involving Xi is particularly damaging for Trump in the run-up to an election in which he is trying to position himself as tough on China, and his opponent, Joe Biden, as being in Beijing’s pocket.
In a statement, Biden said that if Bolton’s “accounts are true, it’s not only morally repugnant, it’s a violation of Trump’s sacred duty to the American people to protect America’s interests and defend our values”.
In The Room Where It Happened, Bolton describes a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Xi on the sidelines of the June 2019 G20 meeting in Japan. Xi complained to Trump about US critics of China, and Trump suggested a way Xi could help him defeat his domestic opposition.
“He [Trump] then, stunningly, turned the conversation to the coming US presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability to affect the ongoing campaigns, pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win,” Bolton writes.
“He stressed the importance of farmers, and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome. I would print Trump’s exact words but the government’s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.”
Reports in the wake of the G20 meeting suggested that Trump had put pressure on Xi to buy more US farm produce but Xi had been reluctant to make any commitments. Speaking to the Senate on Wednesday, the US trade representative Robert Lighthizer denied Trump asked Xi for election help.
Trump emerges in the pages of the book as entirely unconcerned by China’s gross human rights violations, including the incarceration of over a million Uighurs and other Muslims in Xinjiang province.
Trump and Xi in Beijing in November 2017. Photograph: Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images
“At the opening dinner of the Osaka G20 meeting in June 2019, with only interpreters present, Xi had explained to Trump why he was basically building concentration camps in Xinjiang,” Bolton writes, according to an excerpt published in the Wall Street Journal.
“According to our interpreter, Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do. The National Security Council’s top Asia staffer, Matthew Pottinger, told me that Trump said something very similar during his November 2017 trip to China.”
Trump also refused to issue a statement commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
“That was 15 years ago,” he told Bolton (it was the 30th anniversary). “Who cares about it? I’m trying to make a deal. I don’t want anything,” Trump said, according to Bolton’s account.
The Trump administration has attempted to stop the publication of Bolton’s book, claiming it contains classified information. A last-ditch effort by the White House and the justice department this week came too late as copies had already been distributed to booksellers and journalists. Federal prosecutors were reported on Wednesday to be mulling charges against Bolton.
In a statement on Wednesday, responding to the latest attempt, Bolton’s publisher Simon & Schuster called the justice department’s restraining order “a frivolous, politically motivated exercise in futility. Hundreds of thousands of copies have already been distributed around the country and the world. The injunction as requested by the government would accomplish nothing.”
Bolton refused to testify in House impeachment proceedings against Trump, where his account would probably have been the most important piece of evidence put before Congress, and the veteran diplomat was widely accused of holding back his evidence for his book, putting personal profit before duty.
Bolton said he would appear if subpoenaed by the Senate, but Republicans voted to block the appearance of witnesses at the trial.
“Bolton’s staff were asked to testify before the House to Trump’s abuses, and did. They had a lot to lose and showed real courage. When Bolton was asked, he refused, and said he’d sue if subpoenaed. Instead, he saved it for a book,” Adam Schiff, the Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee, wrote on Twitter. “Bolton may be an author, but he’s no patriot.”
Bolton accuses congressional Democrats of committing “impeachment malpractice” by limiting the inquiry to the Ukraine affair (making US military aid conditional on Kyiv handed over compromising information on Biden) and moving too quickly.
Bolton argues that the inquiry should have looked into Trump’s intervention into US investigations into Turkey’s Halkbank to curry favour with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and into the China telecommunications manufacturer ZTE, with the aim of pleasing Xi.
Bolton’s book quotes Trump as saying that invading Venezuela would be “cool” and that it was “really part of the United States”. He recounts a meeting in New Jersey last summer at which Trump railed against journalists, declaring: “These people should be executed. They are scumbags.”
The former national security adviser also confirms what Korea experts long suspected – that the summit diplomacy with Kim Jong-un was intended as spectacle. Trump appeared unconcerned with the whole subject of denuclearisation.
“Trump told … me he was prepared to sign a substance-free communique, have his press conference to declare victory, and then get out of town,” Bolton wrote. The president, however, became obsessed in the following months with getting his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to deliver an autographed CD of Elton John’s Rocket Man to Kim, to make light of the epithet Trump had formerly used about the North Korean leader.
Bolton’s book also goes through a litany of what Trump does not know about the world – that Britain had nuclear weapons of its own, for example, or that Finland was not part of Russia.
In a conversation with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, the president kept confusing the current and former presidents of Afghanistan.
The book describes Pompeo, who is unstintingly loyal in public, as mocking the president behind his back at a 2018 summit with Kim, slipping Bolton a note about Trump saying: “He is so full of shit.”


theguardian--2020-06-18--China says it will 'resolutely hit back' at US over sanctions law on Uighur abuses

Beijing has criticised a new US law that would sanction Chinese officials over the mass incarceration of Uighurs and other Muslim minorities , saying it “ maliciously attacks ” China ’ s policy in the Xinjiang region .
China will “ resolutely hit back and the US will bear the burden of all subsequent consequences ” , the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement after US President Donald Trump signed the Uighur Human Rights Act into law on Wednesday .
The statement came after secretary of state Mike Pompeo met with top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi , in Hawaii @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ strong dissatisfaction ” with the new law .
They also discussed the need for transparency in tackling the coronavirus outbreak and “ fully reciprocal dealings ” , as the US put it , in terms of commercial , security , and diplomatic ties .
The legislation , which passed Congress almost unanimously , requires the US administration to determine which Chinese officials are responsible for the “ arbitrary detention , torture and harassment ” of Uighurs and other minorities .
The United States would then freeze any assets the officials hold in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country .
China ’ s foreign ministry said in a statement that the act “ rudely interferes in China ’ s internal affairs ” , and urged the US to “ immediately correct its mistakes ” .
“ This so-called act deliberately slanders the human rights situation in Xinjiang and maliciously attacks China ’ s policy in governing Xinjiang , ” the ministry said .
Activists say China has rounded up at least one million Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims and is trying to forcibly assimilate them by wiping out their culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s explanation is that it is running vocational educational centres that offer an alternative to Islamic extremism .
Trump signed the act just as excerpts emerged from an explosive new book by his former national security advisor John Bolton , who said the president told his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping that he approved of the vast detention camps .
The tensions come amid the US ’ s simultaneously deployed three of its 11 nuclear aircraft carriers in the Pacific , a military posture seen as signal to China of US military resilience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The move also drew swift rebuke from Beijing .
The state-run , hawkish tabloid Global Times newspaper , described the US deployment as a “ mere show of vanity ” , quoting research that argued the US “ seems to worry that the outside world is doubting its military capability ” .
The newspaper warned that “ countermeasures ” may be taken against US ships , noting that China “ possesses aircraft carrier killer weapons ” .
Li Jie , a Beijing-based naval expert , was quoted as saying : “ By massing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempting to demonstrate to the whole region and even the world that it remains the most powerful naval force , as they could enter the South China Sea and threaten Chinese troops on the Xisha and Nansha islands ( Paracel and Spratly Islands ) as well as vessels passing through nearby waters , so the US could carry out its hegemonic politics.
” This is the first time since 2017 , when tensions with North Korea were acutely high , that three US aircraft carriers have been in the Pacific : the USS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being sidelined by an outbreak of Covid-19 on board , was patrolling around Guam in the Philippine Sea ; the USS Nimitz was off the west coast of the US mainland ; and the USS Ronald Reagan was in the Philippine Sea , south of Japan .

Beijing has criticised a new US law that would sanction Chinese officials over the mass incarceration of Uighurs and other Muslim minorities, saying it “maliciously attacks” China’s policy in the Xinjiang region.
China will “resolutely hit back and the US will bear the burden of all subsequent consequences”, the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement after US President Donald Trump signed the Uighur Human Rights Act into law on Wednesday.
The statement came after secretary of state Mike Pompeo met with top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi, in Hawaii on Wednesday, during which Yang expressed “strong dissatisfaction” with the new law. They also discussed the need for transparency in tackling the coronavirus outbreak and “fully reciprocal dealings”, as the US put it, in terms of commercial, security, and diplomatic ties.
The legislation, which passed Congress almost unanimously, requires the US administration to determine which Chinese officials are responsible for the “arbitrary detention, torture and harassment” of Uighurs and other minorities.
The United States would then freeze any assets the officials hold in the US and ban their entry into the country.
China’s foreign ministry said in a statement that the act “rudely interferes in China’s internal affairs”, and urged the US to “immediately correct its mistakes”.
“This so-called act deliberately slanders the human rights situation in Xinjiang and maliciously attacks China’s policy in governing Xinjiang,” the ministry said.
Activists say China has rounded up at least one million Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims and is trying to forcibly assimilate them by wiping out their culture and punishing basic Islamic practices.
Beijing’s explanation is that it is running vocational educational centres that offer an alternative to Islamic extremism.
Trump signed the act just as excerpts emerged from an explosive new book by his former national security advisor John Bolton, who said the president told his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping that he approved of the vast detention camps.
The tensions come amid the US’s simultaneously deployed three of its 11 nuclear aircraft carriers in the Pacific, a military posture seen as signal to China of US military resilience and ongoing commitment to the region.
The move also drew swift rebuke from Beijing. The state-run, hawkish tabloid Global Times newspaper, described the US deployment as a “mere show of vanity”, quoting research that argued the US “seems to worry that the outside world is doubting its military capability”.
The newspaper warned that “countermeasures” may be taken against US ships, noting that China “possesses aircraft carrier killer weapons”.
Li Jie, a Beijing-based naval expert, was quoted as saying: “By massing these aircraft carriers, the US is attempting to demonstrate to the whole region and even the world that it remains the most powerful naval force, as they could enter the South China Sea and threaten Chinese troops on the Xisha and Nansha islands (Paracel and Spratly Islands) as well as vessels passing through nearby waters, so the US could carry out its hegemonic politics.”
This is the first time since 2017, when tensions with North Korea were acutely high, that three US aircraft carriers have been in the Pacific: the USS Theodore Roosevelt, back at sea after being sidelined by an outbreak of Covid-19 on board, was patrolling around Guam in the Philippine Sea; the USS Nimitz was off the west coast of the US mainland; and the USS Ronald Reagan was in the Philippine Sea, south of Japan.


theguardian--2020-06-18--Why antiracist protests are achieving more progress under Trump than Obama | Cas Mudde

The US is now in its fourth week of mass protests against institutional racism and police brutality .
Substantive debates about police reform – including formerly radical proposals to “ defund the police ” – have entered the mainstream political discussion and in some cases already achieved political traction .
While it is still early , and history is a warning against too much optimism , it seems clear that the protests in the wake of the brutal murder of George Floyd are producing more , and more concrete , results than similar recent protests did .
Surprisingly , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House being occupied by the most outspoken supporter of white supremacy it has seen in decades .
Donald Trump has not just emboldened the racist fringes of the US , but reshaped the Republican party in his own image .
The situation presents an interesting question : why and how have protesters achieved so much more under a far-right white president than they were able to achieve , after the Ferguson protests , under a liberal black president ?
A first reason is that the president is not the all-powerful politician that many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the president has become more powerful over time , his powers are still limited by a broad range of powerful institutions , including Congress , the supreme court , and federalism .
On many issues the president has the power to initiate , and veto , but not pass policies .
Another reason is that , despite the popular rightwing caricature of Barack Obama as a radical Muslim socialist , so tirelessly propagated by the Tea Party movement , Obama was in general very reluctant to use his limited political capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the historical importance of being the first black president , and the anxieties and backlash this created among many white Americans , he was cautious in his critiques of institutional racism , let alone in introducing substantial reform , afraid to be dismissed as an “ identity politics ” politician .
But contextual and structural factors also help explain the difference .
The current protests take place in a very different political context from those in the wake of the police killing of Michael Brown in August 2014 .
The country is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 million Americans have been thrown into unemployment ; it is the beginning of the summer ; and both the coronavirus pandemic and the related economic crisis have disproportionately affected the black community .
Not to forget that we ’ re in the run-up to a presidential election .
The current protests also build upon previous protests , including those in the wake of the acquittal of the killer of Trayvon Martin in 2013 , which birthed the Black Lives Matter movement , and those in the wake of the terrorist attack in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates about Confederate flags and statues , albeit primarily in the south .
Each protest pushes the dial a bit further , normalizing arguments and changes – although sometimes they also unleash a backlash .
Most importantly , the current protests are part of three and a half years of progressive protests against the Trump presidency , in which anti-racism has always been a key factor .
This includes the many protests against Trump ’ s nativist policies , including the travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries , as well as the annual Women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first Women ’ s March , in January 2017 , was the largest single-day protest in US history .
Of course the left wing takes more to the streets under a rightwing government , and vice versa – where is the Tea Party protesting against budget deficits and big government under Trump ?
There is nothing specifically American about this .
We have seen it for decades in Europe as well , even though lately the far right also protests against center-right governments .
Obama came to power after eight years of growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused primarily , but certainly not exclusively , on his foreign military operations .
But the anti-war protests came to an almost complete halt when Obama assumed the presidency , even though America ’ s military imperialism barely decreased .
Similarly , more undocumented immigrants were deported under the last years of Obama ’ s presidency than under Trump , but protests were rare and small .
We should not make this mistake again .
If Biden is able to defeat Trump in November – despite hopeful polls , this will require a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets yet again and lose the momentum for fundamental reforms .
I am not so much talking about the Bernie or Bust crowd , which won ’ t feel that it has an ally in the White House anyway , but about progressives who support what could be called the Democratic establishment .
As we saw in the first two years of the Obama presidency , in which the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress but got preciously little done , the new president will face instant and intense pressure from congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is a fair chance that few progressives will have regular access to the new president .
Protests in the streets , or fear thereof , might be a useful reminder to Biden that his support is conditional and that his real work remains to be done .
• None Cas Mudde is the Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia , the author of The Far Right Today ( 2019 ) , and host of the new podcast Radikaal

The US is now in its fourth week of mass protests against institutional racism and police brutality. Substantive debates about police reform – including formerly radical proposals to “defund the police” – have entered the mainstream political discussion and in some cases already achieved political traction. While it is still early, and history is a warning against too much optimism, it seems clear that the protests in the wake of the brutal murder of George Floyd are producing more, and more concrete, results than similar recent protests did.
Surprisingly, these changes are being achieved despite the White House being occupied by the most outspoken supporter of white supremacy it has seen in decades. Donald Trump has not just emboldened the racist fringes of the US, but reshaped the Republican party in his own image. The situation presents an interesting question: why and how have protesters achieved so much more under a far-right white president than they were able to achieve, after the Ferguson protests, under a liberal black president?
A first reason is that the president is not the all-powerful politician that many people inside and outside of America assume. While the president has become more powerful over time, his powers are still limited by a broad range of powerful institutions, including Congress, the supreme court, and federalism. On many issues the president has the power to initiate, and veto, but not pass policies.
Another reason is that, despite the popular rightwing caricature of Barack Obama as a radical Muslim socialist, so tirelessly propagated by the Tea Party movement, Obama was in general very reluctant to use his limited political capital to fight institutional racism. Well aware of the historical importance of being the first black president, and the anxieties and backlash this created among many white Americans, he was cautious in his critiques of institutional racism, let alone in introducing substantial reform, afraid to be dismissed as an “identity politics” politician.
But contextual and structural factors also help explain the difference. The current protests take place in a very different political context from those in the wake of the police killing of Michael Brown in August 2014. The country is coming out of an unprecedented lockdown; 40 million Americans have been thrown into unemployment; it is the beginning of the summer; and both the coronavirus pandemic and the related economic crisis have disproportionately affected the black community. Not to forget that we’re in the run-up to a presidential election.
The current protests also build upon previous protests, including those in the wake of the acquittal of the killer of Trayvon Martin in 2013, which birthed the Black Lives Matter movement, and those in the wake of the terrorist attack in Charleston in 2015, which sparked fundamental debates about Confederate flags and statues, albeit primarily in the south. Each protest pushes the dial a bit further, normalizing arguments and changes – although sometimes they also unleash a backlash.
Most importantly, the current protests are part of three and a half years of progressive protests against the Trump presidency, in which anti-racism has always been a key factor. This includes the many protests against Trump’s nativist policies, including the travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries, as well as the annual Women’s Marches. Recall that the first Women’s March, in January 2017, was the largest single-day protest in US history.
If Biden is able to defeat Trump in November, progressives should not abandon the streets yet again
Of course the left wing takes more to the streets under a rightwing government, and vice versa – where is the Tea Party protesting against budget deficits and big government under Trump? There is nothing specifically American about this. We have seen it for decades in Europe as well, even though lately the far right also protests against center-right governments.
Obama came to power after eight years of growing progressive frustration with George W Bush, focused primarily, but certainly not exclusively, on his foreign military operations. But the anti-war protests came to an almost complete halt when Obama assumed the presidency, even though America’s military imperialism barely decreased. Similarly, more undocumented immigrants were deported under the last years of Obama’s presidency than under Trump, but protests were rare and small.
We should not make this mistake again. If Biden is able to defeat Trump in November – despite hopeful polls, this will require a massive mobilization – progressives should not abandon the streets yet again and lose the momentum for fundamental reforms. I am not so much talking about the Bernie or Bust crowd, which won’t feel that it has an ally in the White House anyway, but about progressives who support what could be called the Democratic establishment.
As we saw in the first two years of the Obama presidency, in which the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress but got preciously little done, the new president will face instant and intense pressure from congressional Republicans as well as Wall Street donors. There is a fair chance that few progressives will have regular access to the new president. Protests in the streets, or fear thereof, might be a useful reminder to Biden that his support is conditional and that his real work remains to be done.


theguardian--2020-06-18--Trump administration will not regulate rocket fuel chemical in drinking water

US environmental regulators have decided they will not put restrictions on perchlorate – a rocket fuel ingredient known to harm fetal brain development – in drinking water .
The Environmental Protection Agency argued that the federal government , states and public water systems have already taken proactive steps to reduce perchlorate levels .
Perchlorate is found in rocket fuel , explosives , fireworks and other products .
It can also be naturally occurring .
The chemical disrupts the thyroid function and can harm the developing brains of fetuses and young children .
The chemical has been found in the water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office study .
Andrew Wheeler , the EPA administrator , said the decision is “ built on science ” , and “ fulfills President Trump ’ s promise to pare back burdensome ‘ one-size-fits-all ’ overregulation for the American people ” .
Health and environment experts quickly decried the move and promised to sue .
Betsy Southerland , the former director of the EPA ’ s water office , called the decision “ shameful ” , and “ unconscionable ” .
She said the EPA in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in evaluating how much perchlorate in drinking water is harmful , using “ uncalibrated models and an insensitive health endpoint ” .
The EPA then determined that almost none of the drinking water in the US had high enough levels of perchlorate to be regulated , she said .
The agency is revoking its 2008 finding that no more than 15 parts per billion ( ppb ) of perchlorate in drinking water was safe .
EPA in its proposed rule suggested 56 ppb of perchlorate in water would be safe .
Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far lower , at 2ppb and 6ppb .
Trump ’ s EPA was forced by a lawsuit to make a decision on perchlorate , following the Obama administration ’ s finding in 2011 that a standard was needed .

US environmental regulators have decided they will not put restrictions on perchlorate – a rocket fuel ingredient known to harm fetal brain development – in drinking water.
The Environmental Protection Agency argued that the federal government, states and public water systems have already taken proactive steps to reduce perchlorate levels.
Perchlorate is found in rocket fuel, explosives, fireworks and other products. It can also be naturally occurring.
The chemical disrupts the thyroid function and can harm the developing brains of fetuses and young children. The chemical has been found in the water, soil or sediment of 45 states, according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office study.
Andrew Wheeler, the EPA administrator, said the decision is “built on science”, and “fulfills President Trump’s promise to pare back burdensome ‘one-size-fits-all’ overregulation for the American people”.
Health and environment experts quickly decried the move and promised to sue.
Betsy Southerland, the former director of the EPA’s water office, called the decision “shameful”, and “unconscionable”. She said the EPA in a proposed standard “cooked the books” in evaluating how much perchlorate in drinking water is harmful, using “uncalibrated models and an insensitive health endpoint”.
The EPA then determined that almost none of the drinking water in the US had high enough levels of perchlorate to be regulated, she said.
The agency is revoking its 2008 finding that no more than 15 parts per billion (ppb) of perchlorate in drinking water was safe. EPA in its proposed rule suggested 56 ppb of perchlorate in water would be safe.
Massachusetts and California have set their own standards far lower, at 2ppb and 6ppb.
Trump’s EPA was forced by a lawsuit to make a decision on perchlorate, following the Obama administration’s finding in 2011 that a standard was needed.


theguardian--2020-06-18--Explainer: what is Daca and who are the Dreamers?

The supreme court has blocked Donald Trump ’ s bid to end the so-called Daca program that allowed more than 650,000 undocumented immigrants , who were brought to the US unlawfully as children , to live and work in the US without fear of deportation .
The Trump administration announced in September 2017 that it planned to scrap the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( Daca ) program created by the Obama administration to give temporary , renewable protections to these young people , nicknamed Dreamers .
Trump ’ s decision immediately threw Dreamers into turmoil and fear , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in the supreme court last year and led to this June 2020 decision .
The program has been in limbo since the 2017 announcement .
Here ’ s what you need to know .
Daca ( pronounced dah-kuh ) is a federal government program created in 2012 under Barack Obama .
It allowed people brought to the US unlawfully as children the temporary right legally to live , study and work in America , instead of living in the legal shadows , fearing deportation .
Those applying were vetted , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for two years , with a chance to renew on a rolling basis.And they would become eligible for basics like a driving license , college enrollment or a work permit .
The program is not designed as a path to permanent residency or citizenship .
Who are the Dreamers ?
Those protected under Daca are known as “ Dreamers ” – by the time Trump announced his decision to rescind the program , many hundreds of thousands had been granted approval .
To apply , they must have been younger than 31 on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began , have arrived before the age of 16 and been “ undocumented ” , ie lacking legal immigration status .
Most Dreamers are from Mexico , El Salvador , Guatemala and Honduras .
Why are they called Dreamers ?
Daca was a compromise devised by the Obama administration after Congress failed to pass the Development , Relief and Education for Alien Minors ( Dream ) Act , which would have offered the chance of permanent legal residency .
The bipartisan legislation was introduced in 2001 and has repeatedly failed to pass into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 ?
During the 2016 election , Trump promised to rip up Daca immediately and also make the deportation of the US ’ s estimated 11 million undocumented persons a top priority , as part of his hardline platform on both legal and illegal immigration .
In September 2017 , the government said it would phase out Daca , but gave Congress six months to come up with a legislative solution , which it failed to do .
Because Obama created the Daca program as an executive policy decision , Trump had the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What ’ s been happening to the Dreamers ?
After the 2017 announcement the program was phased out .
People who did not have the protection were given a few days to apply for it and there was a deadline for people to renew existing protections .
Separately , some states and colleges stepped in with support .
People who didn ’ t apply or renew became vulnerable to deportation , with the added risk that they were now easier for the authorities to identify .
It ’ s not known who may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now ?
The case before the supreme court hinged on whether the Trump administration followed proper procedure – not whether it could legally end Daca .
The court agreed Trump has the power to end the program .
That leaves open the possibility that Trump could have another go at scrapping it , though it would be difficult to do before the November election – and largely unpopular with voters .
So Daca survives , albeit still in limbo for now .
Will it start back up again , allowing new applications ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dreamers faced the immediate threat of deportation to the countries where they were born but many have no familiarity with .
Joe Biden has pledged to make Daca permanent via legislation if he becomes president .

Joanna Walters and Amanda Holpuch in New York

The supreme court has blocked Donald Trump’s bid to end the so-called Daca program that allowed more than 650,000 undocumented immigrants, who were brought to the US unlawfully as children, to live and work in the US without fear of deportation.
The Trump administration announced in September 2017 that it planned to scrap the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) program created by the Obama administration to give temporary, renewable protections to these young people, nicknamed Dreamers.
Trump’s decision immediately threw Dreamers into turmoil and fear, while also triggering a legal battle that wound up in the supreme court last year and led to this June 2020 decision. The program has been in limbo since the 2017 announcement.
Here’s what you need to know.
What is Daca?
Daca (pronounced dah-kuh) is a federal government program created in 2012 under Barack Obama. It allowed people brought to the US unlawfully as children the temporary right legally to live, study and work in America, instead of living in the legal shadows, fearing deportation. Those applying were vetted, and then action to deport them would be deferred for two years, with a chance to renew on a rolling basis. And they would become eligible for basics like a driving license, college enrollment or a work permit. The program is not designed as a path to permanent residency or citizenship.
Who are the Dreamers?
Those protected under Daca are known as “Dreamers” – by the time Trump announced his decision to rescind the program, many hundreds of thousands had been granted approval. To apply, they must have been younger than 31 on 15 June 2012, when the program began, have arrived before the age of 16 and been “undocumented”, ie lacking legal immigration status. Most Dreamers are from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
Immigration advocates gather outside the supreme court following a ruling blocking Donald Trump’s bid to end the Daca program on Thursday. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA
Why are they called Dreamers?
Daca was a compromise devised by the Obama administration after Congress failed to pass the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (Dream) Act, which would have offered the chance of permanent legal residency. The bipartisan legislation was introduced in 2001 and has repeatedly failed to pass into law.
What did Trump announce in 2017?
During the 2016 election, Trump promised to rip up Daca immediately and also make the deportation of the US’s estimated 11 million undocumented persons a top priority, as part of his hardline platform on both legal and illegal immigration.
In September 2017, the government said it would phase out Daca, but gave Congress six months to come up with a legislative solution, which it failed to do. Because Obama created the Daca program as an executive policy decision, Trump had the power to simply reverse the policy.
What’s been happening to the Dreamers?
After the 2017 announcement the program was phased out. People who did not have the protection were given a few days to apply for it and there was a deadline for people to renew existing protections. Separately, some states and colleges stepped in with support. People who didn’t apply or renew became vulnerable to deportation, with the added risk that they were now easier for the authorities to identify. It’s not known who may have suffered this fate.
What happens now?
The case before the supreme court hinged on whether the Trump administration followed proper procedure – not whether it could legally end Daca. The court agreed Trump has the power to end the program.
That leaves open the possibility that Trump could have another go at scrapping it, though it would be difficult to do before the November election – and largely unpopular with voters. So Daca survives, albeit still in limbo for now. Will it start back up again, allowing new applications?
If the program had been killed off, Dreamers faced the immediate threat of deportation to the countries where they were born but many have no familiarity with.
Joe Biden has pledged to make Daca permanent via legislation if he becomes president.


theguardian--2020-06-18--Senior Trump official warns people at 'high risk' for coronavirus not to attend rally

A senior Trump campaign official has advised those at high risk of severe illness from Covid-19 not to attend the president ’ s campaign rally in Tulsa , Oklahoma as coronavirus cases in the state continue to spike and tensions in the city rise before the event on Saturday .
Marc Lotter , the Trump campaign ’ s director of strategic communications , told the Guardian he would encourage those in “ high risk categories ” to watch the rally on television , but defended the president ’ s decision to hold a mass indoor rally during the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reschedule .
“ I personally would encourage anyone who might find themselves to be in one of the high risk categories and encourage them not to come .
Watch it on television , protect yourself , protect your family if someone in your direct family has those kinds of high risk factors , ” Lotter said in an interview outside Tulsa ’ s 19,000 capacity BOK arena , where Trump is due to appear .
The CDC lists high-risk individuals as those over the age of 65 , people living in care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with certain underlying health conditions .
The Trump campaign ’ s public event invitation offers no guidance on those at greater risk , and requires attendees to agree to a waiver acknowledging they will not hold the campaign and other entities liable should they contract the virus .
On Tuesday , about 70 Trump supporters were already camped outside the arena , some arriving as early as six days before the event .
Many , including 81 year-old Larry Applegate , were over the age of 65 .
Applegate argued without evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the US , had been inflated and that he was not worried about entering the arena , even without a face mask .
“ I ’ m not worried today , whatsoever , ” he said .
Lotter said the rally was a “ great example of democracy ” and that attendees , who will be supplied with face masks and have their temperatures checked , would be given the “ information … the resources to be able to protect themselves ” .
“ I trust the American people to be smart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government tell them what to do with every step of their lives , ” Lotter said .
Earlier in the week , Tulsa ’ s top public health official , Bruce Dart , urged the campaign to postpone the event , and cautioned during a news conference : “ Coming together is a definite possibility of seeing increased infections and increased deaths from those infections.
” On Wednesday , Oklahoma saw a record number of Covid-19 cases , 259 declared in a single day , as Tulsa itself also reported a record high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Guardian to respond to Dart ’ s calls for the rally to be rescheduled , Lotter said : “ We ’ ve got this venue booked .
We ’ re looking forward to having the president here , and we ’ re going to thank the people of Tulsa for the great hospitality.
” Trump ’ s rally , rescheduled from Friday to Saturday , has also drawn significant criticism from the city ’ s African American community .
The rally now comes the day after Juneteenth celebrations , a day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America in 1865 , and in the midst of a national reckoning on state violence against black communities following the police killing of unarmed African American man George Floyd in Minneapolis .
A number of counter-protests are planned in Tulsa on the day of Trump ’ s rally , which is being held less than a mile from the historic Greenwood neighborhood , the site of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre .
Many businesses plan to close for the weekend as tension mounts and police warm of road closures .
“ You know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen so many , especially in the national media praise protesters who are out rioting and looting in some cases , and yet they have the completely opposite take on expressing our constitutional right to assemble and have free speech , ” Lotter said .

A senior Trump campaign official has advised those at high risk of severe illness from Covid-19 not to attend the president’s campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma as coronavirus cases in the state continue to spike and tensions in the city rise before the event on Saturday.
Marc Lotter, the Trump campaign’s director of strategic communications, told the Guardian he would encourage those in “high risk categories” to watch the rally on television, but defended the president’s decision to hold a mass indoor rally during the pandemic, despite local health officials urging the campaign to reschedule.
“I personally would encourage anyone who might find themselves to be in one of the high risk categories and encourage them not to come. Watch it on television, protect yourself, protect your family if someone in your direct family has those kinds of high risk factors,” Lotter said in an interview outside Tulsa’s 19,000 capacity BOK arena, where Trump is due to appear.
The CDC lists high-risk individuals as those over the age of 65, people living in care facilities or nursing homes, and those with certain underlying health conditions.
The Trump campaign’s public event invitation offers no guidance on those at greater risk, and requires attendees to agree to a waiver acknowledging they will not hold the campaign and other entities liable should they contract the virus.
On Tuesday, about 70 Trump supporters were already camped outside the arena, some arriving as early as six days before the event. Many, including 81 year-old Larry Applegate, were over the age of 65.
Applegate argued without evidence that coronavirus death statistics, currently at 116,862 in the US, had been inflated and that he was not worried about entering the arena, even without a face mask.
“I’m not worried today, whatsoever,” he said.
Lotter said the rally was a “great example of democracy” and that attendees, who will be supplied with face masks and have their temperatures checked, would be given the “information … the resources to be able to protect themselves”.
“I trust the American people to be smart enough to not have to have the government tell them what to do with every step of their lives,” Lotter said.
Earlier in the week, Tulsa’s top public health official, Bruce Dart, urged the campaign to postpone the event, and cautioned during a news conference: “Coming together is a definite possibility of seeing increased infections and increased deaths from those infections.”
On Wednesday, Oklahoma saw a record number of Covid-19 cases, 259 declared in a single day, as Tulsa itself also reported a record high of 96 new daily cases.
Asked by the Guardian to respond to Dart’s calls for the rally to be rescheduled, Lotter said: “We’ve got this venue booked. We’re looking forward to having the president here, and we’re going to thank the people of Tulsa for the great hospitality.”
Trump’s rally, rescheduled from Friday to Saturday, has also drawn significant criticism from the city’s African American community. The rally now comes the day after Juneteenth celebrations, a day marking the final emancipation of slaves in America in 1865, and in the midst of a national reckoning on state violence against black communities following the police killing of unarmed African American man George Floyd in Minneapolis.
A number of counter-protests are planned in Tulsa on the day of Trump’s rally, which is being held less than a mile from the historic Greenwood neighborhood, the site of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre. Many businesses plan to close for the weekend as tension mounts and police warm of road closures.
“You know, it’s ironic that we’ve seen so many, especially in the national media praise protesters who are out rioting and looting in some cases, and yet they have the completely opposite take on expressing our constitutional right to assemble and have free speech,” Lotter said.


theguardian--2020-06-18--Trump was told meaning of Juneteenth by black Secret Service agent – report

Donald Trump has told an interviewer that he was informed about the Juneteenth holiday that commemorates the ending of slavery in the US by one of his own Secret Service agents , who is black .
Trump recently caused anger and raised fears of major social unrest by scheduling his first public campaign rally since the coronavirus pandemic broke out for 19 June , which is the date when Juneteenth is celebrated and how the day got its nickname .
He also chose to hold it in Tulsa , Oklahoma , the scene of one of America ’ s worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the nation is witnessing massive anti-racism protests .
Under pressure late last week , as protests continued coast to coast over racism and police brutality , triggered by the death of George Floyd , an African American , by a white police officer last month , Trump moved the rally to 20 June .
Juneteenth celebrates the anniversary of the day in 1865 when an army general read out Abraham Lincoln ’ s emancipation proclamation in Texas , freeing slaves in a portion of the last un-emancipated state .
But Trump told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor any of his staff seemed to know the meaning of the holiday before the furor over the Tulsa rally .
“ Trump said a black Secret Service agent told him the meaning of Juneteenth as the president was facing criticism for initially planning to hold his first campaign rally in three months on the day , ” the paper reported in a lengthy interview with the president .
That lack of knowledge did not stop Trump claiming that his Tulsa rally had greatly helped popularize the holiday – which is already commemorated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ District of Columbia .
“ I did something good : I made Juneteenth very famous , ” Trump told the newspaper .
“ It ’ s actually an important event , an important time .
But nobody had ever heard of it .
The Journal reported that Trump said he had asked many people around him about the holiday and none of them had heard of Juneteenth .
He then “ paused the interview to ask an aide if she had heard of Juneteenth , and she pointed out that the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day ” .
Trump responded : “ Oh really ?
We put out a statement ?
The Trump White House put out a statement ?
OK , OK. Good .
”

Donald Trump has told an interviewer that he was informed about the Juneteenth holiday that commemorates the ending of slavery in the US by one of his own Secret Service agents, who is black.
Trump recently caused anger and raised fears of major social unrest by scheduling his first public campaign rally since the coronavirus pandemic broke out for 19 June, which is the date when Juneteenth is celebrated and how the day got its nickname.
05:03 What is Juneteenth – and should it be a federal holiday in the US? – video explainer
He also chose to hold it in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the scene of one of America’s worst massacres of black Americans at a time when the nation is witnessing massive anti-racism protests.
Under pressure late last week, as protests continued coast to coast over racism and police brutality, triggered by the death of George Floyd, an African American, by a white police officer last month, Trump moved the rally to 20 June.
Juneteenth celebrates the anniversary of the day in 1865 when an army general read out Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation in Texas, freeing slaves in a portion of the last un-emancipated state.
But Trump told the Wall Street Journal that neither he nor any of his staff seemed to know the meaning of the holiday before the furor over the Tulsa rally.
“Trump said a black Secret Service agent told him the meaning of Juneteenth as the president was facing criticism for initially planning to hold his first campaign rally in three months on the day,” the paper reported in a lengthy interview with the president.
That lack of knowledge did not stop Trump claiming that his Tulsa rally had greatly helped popularize the holiday – which is already commemorated or observed by 47 states and the District of Columbia.
“I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,” Trump told the newspaper. “It’s actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.”
The Journal reported that Trump said he had asked many people around him about the holiday and none of them had heard of Juneteenth. He then “paused the interview to ask an aide if she had heard of Juneteenth, and she pointed out that the White House had issued a statement last year commemorating the day”.
Trump responded: “Oh really? We put out a statement? The Trump White House put out a statement? OK, OK. Good.”


theguardian--2020-06-18--Trump battles to halt memoir as Bolton calls president 'not fit for office'

The Trump administration will go to court on Friday in an effort to halt publication of John Bolton ’ s memoir of his time as national security adviser , on the grounds it contains classified material .
Justice department lawyers are likely to face an uphill struggle in Washington district court , as hundreds of thousands of copies of The Room Where It Happened , due for publication on Tuesday , have already been sent to booksellers , excerpts have appeared in the press , and Donald Trump had on Twitter denounced it as “ a compilation of lies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ wacko ” .
Trump ’ s description of Bolton ’ s book as a work of fiction will make it hard for the government to prove the assertion in its court filing that the “ disclosure of the manuscript will damage the national security of the United States.
” Bolton , meanwhile , continued to step up pressure on his former employer , describing Trump as not “ fit for office ” , and not having “ the competence to carry out the job ” .
He made the comments in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full version of which will be aired on Sunday .
In an excerpt screened on Thursday , Bolton said Trump was a “ stunningly uninformed ” man whose ignorance could be easily manipulated by foreign adversaries .
“ He was so focused on the re-election that longer-term considerations fell by the wayside , ” Bolton said .
“ There really isn ’ t any guiding principle that I was able to discern other than what ’ s good for Donald Trump ’ s re-election ” .
As Trump ’ s longest serving national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s meetings with Russia ’ s Vladimir Putin , China ’ s Xi Jinping and North Korea ’ s Kim Jong-un before resigning from the White House last September .
According to Bolton , Trump told Xi last year that the mass incarceration of Muslim Uighurs was “ exactly the right thing to do ” and appealed to the Chinese president to buy more US farm produce as it would help get him re-elected .
When asked about Trump ’ s three summits with Kim , Bolton told ABC News : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity and the press reaction to it , and little or no focus on what such meetings did for the bargaining position of the United States.
” “ I was sick at heart over Trump ’ s zeal to meet with Kim Jong-un , ” he wrote , according to an advance copy seen by ABC .
Bolton said he would be “ hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during [ his ] tenure that wasn ’ t driven by re-election calculations ” .
Trump , lashed out at Bolton on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the diplomatic initiative with North Korea when the he appeared on television in 2018 to suggest the US follow the “ Libya model ” for disarming North Korea .
Muammar Gaddafi surrendered his embryonic nuclear programme in 2003 in pursuit of better relations with the west , but it did not save him from being overthrown and killed in the Arab spring revolt of 2011 .
Trump said that after Bolton ’ s interview , “ all hell broke out .
Kim Jong-un , who we were getting along with very well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missiles – and rightfully so.
” Trump continued on Twitter : “ He didn ’ t want Bolton anywhere near him .
Bolton ’ s dumbest-of-all statements set us back very badly with North Korea , even now .
I asked him , ‘ What the hell were you thinking ?
’ “ He had no answer and just apologized .
That was early on , I should have fired him right then and there !
” Many North Korea experts saw Bolton ’ s “ Libya model ” intervention as a deliberate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Kim , but almost all agree that Trump ’ s efforts failed because Kim never had any intention of giving up his nuclear arsenal .
Bolton , an ultra-hawk on most foreign policy issues , says in his book that the “ turning point ” in his decision to leave the Trump administration was the president ’ s last-minute decision to call off air strikes against Iran in June last year .
In one of a string of angry tweets devoted to Bolton , Trump said his book was a compilation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make him look bad .
“ Many of the ridiculous statements he attributes to me were never made , pure fiction .
Just trying to get even for firing him like the sick puppy he is !
” Trump said .
The Room Where It Happened includes multiple anecdotes that portray Trump as ignorant about the world .
According to Bolton , the president was unaware that the UK had its own nuclear weapons .
He recalls a meeting in 2018 with the then prime minister , Theresa May , at which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a “ nuclear power ” .
Trump replied , “ Oh , are you a nuclear power ?
” , in a tone of voice that made Bolton believe it “ was not intended as a joke ” , according to a Washington Post excerpt from the book .
A former US official confirmed the account and described a similar conversation with May when Trump made a state visit to the UK in June 2019 .
“ He told May the No 1 existential threat is still nuclear weapons , and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues that all these other people were raising , ” the former official told the Guardian .
When May asked how that would affect the UK deterrent , the official said Trump appeared taken aback by the question .
“ In his view , this was all about the US and Russia , ” the official said .
“ He didn ’ t really factor in the other countries.
” Democrats have castigated Bolton for his failure to testify at the impeachment hearings , accusing him of withholding evidence of presidential abuses to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are considering a subpoena to force Bolton to repeat his assertions about Trump under oath before Congress .
Joe Biden , Trump ’ s rival for the White House in the November presidential election , called the alleged actions by Trump “ morally repugnant ” .
“ If these accounts are true , it ’ s not only morally repugnant , it ’ s a violation of Donald Trump ’ s sacred duty to the American people to protect America ’ s interests and defend our values , ” Biden said on Wednesday @ @

Julian Borger and Kenya Evelynin Washington

The Trump administration will go to court on Friday in an effort to halt publication of John Bolton’s memoir of his time as national security adviser, on the grounds it contains classified material.
Justice department lawyers are likely to face an uphill struggle in Washington district court, as hundreds of thousands of copies of The Room Where It Happened, due for publication on Tuesday, have already been sent to booksellers, excerpts have appeared in the press, and Donald Trump had on Twitter denounced it as “a compilation of lies and made-up stories”, dismissing Bolton as a “wacko”.
Trump’s description of Bolton’s book as a work of fiction will make it hard for the government to prove the assertion in its court filing that the “disclosure of the manuscript will damage the national security of the United States.”
Bolton, meanwhile, continued to step up pressure on his former employer, describing Trump as not “fit for office”, and not having “the competence to carry out the job”.
He made the comments in an interview with ABC News, the full version of which will be aired on Sunday. In an excerpt screened on Thursday, Bolton said Trump was a “stunningly uninformed” man whose ignorance could be easily manipulated by foreign adversaries.
“He was so focused on the re-election that longer-term considerations fell by the wayside,” Bolton said. “There really isn’t any guiding principle that I was able to discern other than what’s good for Donald Trump’s re-election”.
As Trump’s longest serving national security adviser, Bolton attended the president’s meetings with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un before resigning from the White House last September.
According to Bolton, Trump told Xi last year that the mass incarceration of Muslim Uighurs was “exactly the right thing to do” and appealed to the Chinese president to buy more US farm produce as it would help get him re-elected.
When asked about Trump’s three summits with Kim, Bolton told ABC News: “There was considerable emphasis on the photo opportunity and the press reaction to it, and little or no focus on what such meetings did for the bargaining position of the United States.”
“I was sick at heart over Trump’s zeal to meet with Kim Jong-un,” he wrote, according to an advance copy seen by ABC.
Bolton said he would be “hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during [his] tenure that wasn’t driven by re-election calculations”.
Wacko John Bolton’s “exceedingly tedious”(New York Times) book is made up of lies & fake stories. Said all good about me, in print, until the day I fired him. A disgruntled boring fool who only wanted to go to war. Never had a clue, was ostracized & happily dumped. What a dope! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2020
Trump, lashed out at Bolton on Twitter, implying he had caused the failure of the diplomatic initiative with North Korea when the he appeared on television in 2018 to suggest the US follow the “Libya model” for disarming North Korea.
Muammar Gaddafi surrendered his embryonic nuclear programme in 2003 in pursuit of better relations with the west, but it did not save him from being overthrown and killed in the Arab spring revolt of 2011.
Trump said that after Bolton’s interview, “all hell broke out. Kim Jong-un, who we were getting along with very well, went ballistic, just like his missiles – and rightfully so.”
Trump continued on Twitter: “He didn’t want Bolton anywhere near him. Bolton’s dumbest-of-all statements set us back very badly with North Korea, even now. I asked him, ‘What the hell were you thinking?’
“He had no answer and just apologized. That was early on, I should have fired him right then and there!”
Many North Korea experts saw Bolton’s “Libya model” intervention as a deliberate attempt to sabotage Trump’s summitry with Kim, but almost all agree that Trump’s efforts failed because Kim never had any intention of giving up his nuclear arsenal.
Bolton, an ultra-hawk on most foreign policy issues, says in his book that the “turning point” in his decision to leave the Trump administration was the president’s last-minute decision to call off air strikes against Iran in June last year.
In one of a string of angry tweets devoted to Bolton, Trump said his book was a compilation of lies and made-up stories, all intended to make him look bad.
“Many of the ridiculous statements he attributes to me were never made, pure fiction. Just trying to get even for firing him like the sick puppy he is!” Trump said.
The Room Where It Happened includes multiple anecdotes that portray Trump as ignorant about the world. According to Bolton, the president was unaware that the UK had its own nuclear weapons.
He recalls a meeting in 2018 with the then prime minister, Theresa May, at which a British official referred to the UK as a “nuclear power”.
Trump replied, “Oh, are you a nuclear power?”, in a tone of voice that made Bolton believe it “was not intended as a joke”, according to a Washington Post excerpt from the book.
A former US official confirmed the account and described a similar conversation with May when Trump made a state visit to the UK in June 2019.
“He told May the No 1 existential threat is still nuclear weapons, and not climate change or any of these other issues that all these other people were raising,” the former official told the Guardian.
When May asked how that would affect the UK deterrent, the official said Trump appeared taken aback by the question.
“In his view, this was all about the US and Russia,” the official said. “He didn’t really factor in the other countries.”
Democrats have castigated Bolton for his failure to testify at the impeachment hearings, accusing him of withholding evidence of presidential abuses to boost sales of his book. They are considering a subpoena to force Bolton to repeat his assertions about Trump under oath before Congress.
01:31 Democrats and Republicans react to John Bolton's bombshell book on Trump – video
Joe Biden, Trump’s rival for the White House in the November presidential election, called the alleged actions by Trump “morally repugnant”.
“If these accounts are true, it’s not only morally repugnant, it’s a violation of Donald Trump’s sacred duty to the American people to protect America’s interests and defend our values,” Biden said on Wednesday night.


theguardian--2020-06-18--US supreme court rejects Trump's bid to end Daca program

The US supreme court has rejected Donald Trump ’ s bid to end the program that made it possible for undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children to live and work in the US without fear of deportation .
More than 652,800 people , including doctors fighting the coronavirus , were waiting on the decision about the program , Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals , commonly known by its acronym Daca .
Daca allowed young people , known as Dreamers , who were raised without legal immigration status in the US , to obtain renewable , two-year authorizations to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not provide a path to citizenship .
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 majority opinion , arguing that the Trump administration ’ s decision to end the program was “ arbitrary and capricious ” .
The case hinged primarily on whether the Trump administration followed proper procedure in its decision to end Daca – not whether it could legally end it .
As the majority opinion states , “ all parties agree that it may ” .
Thursday ’ s decision leaves open the possibility that the Trump administration could seek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though it would be difficult to do so before the November election .
Such a decision would also be unpopular – there is broad support for Dreamers .
Even a majority of Trump supporters said the group should be protected , according to a Politico and Morning Consult poll published this month .
In response to the decision , Trump tweeted : “ These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will lose our 2nd .
Amendment & everything else .
Vote Trump 2020 !
” Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the decision was a politically motivated stopgap , in a dissent joined by justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch .
“ It has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this court rather than where they rightfully belong – the political branches , ” Thomas wrote .
Barack Obama enacted Daca in 2012 .
The policy landed in the court system after the Trump administration rescinded it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he supports the people Daca shielded from deportation , but for nearly three years their futures have been uncertain as the policy wound its way through the legal system .
The supreme court considered whether the program could continue , at a November hearing .
The effort to seek protections for this population emerged two decades ago , with the introduction of the Dream Act in 2001 .
For the next 20 years , Congress repeatedly tried and failed to pass different versions of the legislation .
Meanwhile , a fervent group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections for Dreamers .
In states including California , Washington and New York , Dreamer activists pushed for laws that made it possible for them to obtain driver ’ s licenses , and to qualify for college loans and reduced tuition programs .
As of September 2019 , 652,880 people had Daca , including roughly 27,000 healthcare practitioners and nearly 9,000 teachers .
About 80 % of the people who have it are from Mexico , and nearly half live in California and Texas .
Obama celebrated the supreme court ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we protected young people who were raised as part of our American family from deportation , ” Obama wrote on Twitter .
“ Today , I ’ m happy for them , their families , and all of us.
” Daca is a popular policy .
A June 2020 Pew Research survey showed 74 % of Americans favored a law which would give legal status to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children .
One of the most powerful Dreamer supporters appeared to be Trump , who spoke positively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections for them and their families .
His administration said shutting Daca down was necessary because it was implemented illegally by Obama in 2012 .
Trump defended his contradictory position by claiming that eliminating the program would force Congress to reach a deal that supported Dreamers .
Instead , lower courts debated the legality of Daca while the issue received little attention in Congress .
Those courts ’ decisions allowed Daca to continue , but only for people who had already received it .
By the time the issue reached the supreme court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule-making , not whether the program should exist .
The first question the supreme court had to answer was whether the nation ’ s highest court even had jurisdiction to review the case .
The court determined that it did .
Much of the supreme court ’ s discussion at the November oral argument centered on the administrative law that formed the foundation of the case .
But Sonia Sotomayor , the first Latina supreme court justice , urged the court to consider the human aspect of the case , particularly because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe .
Eight of the nine justices ruled the Trump administration ’ s rescission of Daca does not violate equal protection laws , drawing a line between anti-immigrant and racist comments made by the president and the agency which rescinded the policy .
The lone justice to dispute this was Sotomayor , who wrote : “ At the motion-to-dismiss stage , I would not so readily dismiss the allegation that an executive decision disproportionately harms the same racial group that the president branded as less desirable mere months earlier .
”

The US supreme court has rejected Donald Trump’s bid to end the program that made it possible for undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children to live and work in the US without fear of deportation.
More than 652,800 people, including doctors fighting the coronavirus, were waiting on the decision about the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly known by its acronym Daca.
Daca allowed young people, known as Dreamers, who were raised without legal immigration status in the US, to obtain renewable, two-year authorizations to live and work in America. It did not provide a path to citizenship.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 majority opinion, arguing that the Trump administration’s decision to end the program was “arbitrary and capricious”.
The case hinged primarily on whether the Trump administration followed proper procedure in its decision to end Daca – not whether it could legally end it. As the majority opinion states, “all parties agree that it may”.
Thursday’s decision leaves open the possibility that the Trump administration could seek, again, to end the program, though it would be difficult to do so before the November election.
Such a decision would also be unpopular – there is broad support for Dreamers. Even a majority of Trump supporters said the group should be protected, according to a Politico and Morning Consult poll published this month.
In response to the decision, Trump tweeted: “These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!”
Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the decision was a politically motivated stopgap, in a dissent joined by justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. “It has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this court rather than where they rightfully belong – the political branches,” Thomas wrote.
Barack Obama enacted Daca in 2012. The policy landed in the court system after the Trump administration rescinded it in September 2017. Trump has repeatedly said he supports the people Daca shielded from deportation, but for nearly three years their futures have been uncertain as the policy wound its way through the legal system.
The supreme court considered whether the program could continue, at a November hearing.
The effort to seek protections for this population emerged two decades ago, with the introduction of the Dream Act in 2001. For the next 20 years, Congress repeatedly tried and failed to pass different versions of the legislation. Meanwhile, a fervent group of activists created an influential movement to secure protections for Dreamers.
In states including California, Washington and New York, Dreamer activists pushed for laws that made it possible for them to obtain driver’s licenses, and to qualify for college loans and reduced tuition programs.
As of September 2019, 652,880 people had Daca, including roughly 27,000 healthcare practitioners and nearly 9,000 teachers. About 80% of the people who have it are from Mexico, and nearly half live in California and Texas.
Obama celebrated the supreme court’s decision. “Eight years ago this week, we protected young people who were raised as part of our American family from deportation,” Obama wrote on Twitter. “Today, I’m happy for them, their families, and all of us.”
Daca is a popular policy. A June 2020 Pew Research survey showed 74% of Americans favored a law which would give legal status to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children.
One of the most powerful Dreamer supporters appeared to be Trump, who spoke positively about the population even while stripping away protections for them and their families.
His administration said shutting Daca down was necessary because it was implemented illegally by Obama in 2012. Trump defended his contradictory position by claiming that eliminating the program would force Congress to reach a deal that supported Dreamers.
Instead, lower courts debated the legality of Daca while the issue received little attention in Congress. Those courts’ decisions allowed Daca to continue, but only for people who had already received it.
By the time the issue reached the supreme court, the case was focused on government rule-making, not whether the program should exist. The first question the supreme court had to answer was whether the nation’s highest court even had jurisdiction to review the case. The court determined that it did.
Much of the supreme court’s discussion at the November oral argument centered on the administrative law that formed the foundation of the case. But Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina supreme court justice, urged the court to consider the human aspect of the case, particularly because the president had said he would keep Dreamers safe.
Eight of the nine justices ruled the Trump administration’s rescission of Daca does not violate equal protection laws, drawing a line between anti-immigrant and racist comments made by the president and the agency which rescinded the policy.
The lone justice to dispute this was Sotomayor, who wrote: “At the motion-to-dismiss stage, I would not so readily dismiss the allegation that an executive decision disproportionately harms the same racial group that the president branded as less desirable mere months earlier.”


theguardian--2020-06-18--There are no heroes in the John Bolton v Donald Trump story | Andrew Gawthorpe

John Bolton ’ s memoir of his time in the Trump administration tells us many things that we already know .
The president understands very little about how the world works , treats his office as an extension of his personal and family interests , and is obsequious to foreign dictators .
According to Bolton ’ s new book , Donald Trump asked China to increase purchases of American farm products not to help US voters , but to bolster his own re-election chances .
He is so enamored of foreign dictators that he praised Xi Jinping for China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton also claims he publicly defended Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after Jamal Khashoggi ’ s killing , because he wanted to create a distraction from unfavorable news coverage of his daughter Ivanka .
To any objective observer , this subordination of American foreign policy to the immediate political needs of one man has been a disaster , shredding Washington ’ s credibility and goodwill around the world .
Bolton , likewise , seems to have found it intolerable .
But this is a disaster in which his own vision is implicated , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recover .
Only the sheer vacuity of Republican foreign policy enabled Trump to persuade so much of the party ’ s base to embrace his own selfish , incoherent leadership .
There are no heroes in this story .
Bolton is a figure with dangerous views who failed to reveal what he knew about Trump during the impeachment trial earlier this year , when it might have mattered .
But the split between Trump and Bolton – and the two brands of nationalism they represent – also tells us something about the hollowness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a governing force .
Neither the unreconstructed hawkishness of Bolton nor the intellectual vacuum of Trumpism provide a blueprint for American foreign policy , and the party has run out of other ideas .
Bolton ’ s nationalism consists of a fierce skepticism of diplomacy , at least when not combined with threats of force , and a willingness for America to act unilaterally to get its way .
Although he has always been more in favor of what is euphemistically called “ regime change ” than most elected Republicans , his aggressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismissal of constraints on American action overseas is embraced by his party ’ s mainstream – including rising figures such as Senators Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton .
During his capture of the Republican party , Trump synthesized his own version of nationalism .
He combined Bolton ’ s aggressive flag-waving with a conviction that foreign wars were an elite indulgence which harmed lower-income and lesser-educated white voters , the chief audience for Trump ’ s nationalist vision .
But an even stronger component of Trumpian nationalism is the president ’ s belief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those of the US .
To his supporters , he personally embodies American interests , allowing him to perform dizzying policy U-turns according to the needs of the moment .
Trump ultimately has no use for ideologues , whose firm beliefs get in the way of his desire to bend every institution and relationship to his own personal ends .
For a long time , conservative foreign policy has been based not on ideas but on what Lionel Trilling famously called “ irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas ” .
Foremost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition to multilateral cooperation and constructive diplomacy , even as the world has become more globalized and power has diffused away from the United States .
Republicans are keen to rip up the solutions to hard problems offered by others without being able to offer any of their own – just as they did by destroying the Iran nuclear deal without offering any alternative way of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon .
As a result , the party has been left without any credible vision of America ’ s place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was easy prey for a corrupt , immoral demagogue .
The party and the country have been left in the hands of a president who does not try to advance the country ’ s interests , or even to seriously understand what those interests are separate from his own re-election campaign .
But simply getting rid of Trump won ’ t solve the problem , which is rooted in the Republican party ’ s dismissal of both the facts of the modern , globalized world and the responsibilities of governance .
Bolton might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own way he is just as detached from reality as the president .
And in the silence he shared with so many Republican colleagues during the impeachment trial , he has also shown how little he regards the safety , institutions and values of the nation .
Whatever their differences , Bolton and Trump ultimately have a lot more in common than they seem to think .
They represent two faces of a Republican party which has completely lost any right to the public ’ s trust in its handling of American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is hard to see at this point how it could ever win it back .
• None Andrew Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States at Leiden University

John Bolton’s memoir of his time in the Trump administration tells us many things that we already know. The president understands very little about how the world works, treats his office as an extension of his personal and family interests, and is obsequious to foreign dictators.
According to Bolton’s new book, Donald Trump asked China to increase purchases of American farm products not to help US voters, but to bolster his own re-election chances. He is so enamored of foreign dictators that he praised Xi Jinping for China’s mass imprisonment of Muslim Uighurs. Bolton also claims he publicly defended Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after Jamal Khashoggi’s killing, because he wanted to create a distraction from unfavorable news coverage of his daughter Ivanka.
To any objective observer, this subordination of American foreign policy to the immediate political needs of one man has been a disaster, shredding Washington’s credibility and goodwill around the world. Bolton, likewise, seems to have found it intolerable. But this is a disaster in which his own vision is implicated, and from which it is unlikely to recover. Only the sheer vacuity of Republican foreign policy enabled Trump to persuade so much of the party’s base to embrace his own selfish, incoherent leadership.
Republicans are keen to rip up the solutions to hard problems offered by others, without offering any of their own
There are no heroes in this story. Bolton is a figure with dangerous views who failed to reveal what he knew about Trump during the impeachment trial earlier this year, when it might have mattered. But the split between Trump and Bolton – and the two brands of nationalism they represent – also tells us something about the hollowness of today’s Republican party as a governing force. Neither the unreconstructed hawkishness of Bolton nor the intellectual vacuum of Trumpism provide a blueprint for American foreign policy, and the party has run out of other ideas.
Bolton’s nationalism consists of a fierce skepticism of diplomacy, at least when not combined with threats of force, and a willingness for America to act unilaterally to get its way. Although he has always been more in favor of what is euphemistically called “regime change” than most elected Republicans, his aggressive rhetoric, scapegoating of foreigners, and dismissal of constraints on American action overseas is embraced by his party’s mainstream – including rising figures such as Senators Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton.
During his capture of the Republican party, Trump synthesized his own version of nationalism. He combined Bolton’s aggressive flag-waving with a conviction that foreign wars were an elite indulgence which harmed lower-income and lesser-educated white voters, the chief audience for Trump’s nationalist vision.
But an even stronger component of Trumpian nationalism is the president’s belief that his own interests are identical to those of the US. To his supporters, he personally embodies American interests, allowing him to perform dizzying policy U-turns according to the needs of the moment. Trump ultimately has no use for ideologues, whose firm beliefs get in the way of his desire to bend every institution and relationship to his own personal ends.
For a long time, conservative foreign policy has been based not on ideas but on what Lionel Trilling famously called “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas”. Foremost among these gestures has been a knee-jerk opposition to multilateral cooperation and constructive diplomacy, even as the world has become more globalized and power has diffused away from the United States. Republicans are keen to rip up the solutions to hard problems offered by others without being able to offer any of their own – just as they did by destroying the Iran nuclear deal without offering any alternative way of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
As a result, the party has been left without any credible vision of America’s place in the world. Such a hollow shell was easy prey for a corrupt, immoral demagogue. The party and the country have been left in the hands of a president who does not try to advance the country’s interests, or even to seriously understand what those interests are separate from his own re-election campaign.
But simply getting rid of Trump won’t solve the problem, which is rooted in the Republican party’s dismissal of both the facts of the modern, globalized world and the responsibilities of governance. Bolton might know where Finland is, but in his own way he is just as detached from reality as the president. And in the silence he shared with so many Republican colleagues during the impeachment trial, he has also shown how little he regards the safety, institutions and values of the nation.
Whatever their differences, Bolton and Trump ultimately have a lot more in common than they seem to think. They represent two faces of a Republican party which has completely lost any right to the public’s trust in its handling of American government, at home or abroad. It is hard to see at this point how it could ever win it back.


theguardian--2020-06-18--Why antiracism protests are achieving more progress under Trump than Obama | Cas Mudde