Election
Are Presidents Above the Law? Donald Trump thinks presidents...
Are Presidents Above the Law?
Donald Trump thinks presidents should be allowed to commit crimes. Rubbish.
Trump claims that quote, “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY” from prosecution for any crime committed while in office. His lawyers even claim that a president could be immune from prosecution for having a political opponent assassinated.
Trump says anything less than total immunity would quote, "incapacitate every future president.” Baloney. It would incapacitate him! He’s the only president who’s been criminally charged with trying to orchestrate a violent coup on January 6th, 2021.
Trump wants to turn the U.S. president into a supreme ruler — who is not bound to the same laws that everybody else is — the very antithesis of the bedrock values this country was founded on. A president shouldn’t be above the law.
In reality, this is all part of Trump’s plan to avoid accountability. He wants to gum up the legal system to delay his federal trial until after the 2024 election. If he really believed he was innocent, wouldn’t he want to have a trial as soon as possible?
Just as bad, the Supreme Court is abetting his plan by dragging its feet.
Trump’s criminal trial in the January 6 case was supposed to begin in March. But now, it’s on hold until Trump’s immunity claim is resolved by the Supreme Court. Who knows how long that will take?
The high court could have ruled on Trump’s immunity claim immediately — which Special Counsel Jack Smith asked it to do last December. Instead, the Supreme Court accepted Trump’s request not to expedite a ruling. Trump’s immunity claim then went slowly through the lower courts, which, not surprisingly, found that, no, presidents DO NOT have carte blanche to commit crimes.
The Supreme Court then had another chance to expedite a ruling on this, but it took weeks even to set a date for arguments.
The Supreme Court can move quickly when it wants to. When Trump appealed Colorado’s decision to keep him off the state ballot, the Supreme Court rushed to get a ruling out before the Colorado primary. Shouldn’t the court move with the same urgency on Trump’s immunity claim? Otherwise, Trump’s January 6th trial may not be decided before the presidential election.
Voters are entitled to know before casting their ballots whether they are choosing a felon for president.
As disasters go, the Rwanda Bill knows almost no limits.
The Lords gave in to the Commons on the Safety of Rwanda Bill last night, as ultimately they must. Democracy is sovereign and if those who have been elected insist that red is blue then the Lords, having used their best endeavours to request that the Commons change its mind, must give way even though they know that what the Commons is claiming is wrong.
This is what happened last night. The Lords eventually agreed to let a Bill promoted by a corrupt and racist government pass despite all the false claims within it. Rwanda is not safe, whatever the Tories say.
The Lords are also right that the damage to the UK’s reputation as an upholder of international law will be considerable.
The law that will now be enacted is also absurd. Instead of in any way solving the problem of migration it will throw vast sums of money at token gesture deportations that will be devastating for those involved, including most of the public servants who will have to be engaged in this process. It is not even clear, as yet, that any planes will be found to undertake the necessary flights to Rwanda.
And at the end of the day, after all this waste of effort, political capital, international reputation and money, the policy will not work. The chance of being deported to Rwanda will be so small, so extraordinary is the cost of each person deported and so limited is the capacity to actually secure agreement for anyone to leave, that the deterrent effect on those seeking to cross the Channel will be precisely zero. The boats will not be stopped, and that was the aim, racist as it always was.
So, what has been achieved by the Tories? They have proved that they are racist, vindictive, callous and straightforwardly cruel.
They have evidenced that the truth does not matter to them, and nor does the rule of law.
They have delivered overwhelming evidence of their ability to waste public funds when it suits them.
Most of all, they have shown that they are liars. Rwanda is not safe, even if they have passed a law saying it is, contrary to all the evidence.
So, electorally I think this also backfires for them. As disasters go, this one knows almost no limits.
The absurdity was apparent in comments by Tim Loughton MP on Sky last night. His claim was that we must have somewhere to send people who came to the UK who we decide are not refugees but who could not be returned to their country of origin because they would be refused entry there or they would be harmed if they did return. In other words, they are undoubtedly refugees with a right to asylum but we just do not want them, which contravenes international law. He then wanted them sent to Rwanda, with a dubious recent history on this issue.
You could not make such absurd claims up, but he offered then as if he was sincere. If he was then he also proved he will be doing politics a public service at the next election by standing down. In the kindest possible comment I can offer, let me suggest that he clearly is unable to construct coherent thoughts.
And meanwhile, some poor refugees will suffer the most inhumane treatment by this government. It is my hope that lawyers will still be able to find ways to obstruct their evil desires. What else is Common Law for?
TSSA members in Network Rail London South vote no-confidence in Eslamdoust, Heywood
Motion and letter reveal deep dissatisfaction among members as branch says it will support union staff when they strike and accuses management of inflaming the problems and indulging in delusion
TSSA rail union members in south London have passed a motion of no confidence in the union’s general secretary Maryam Eslamdoust and its president Melissa Heywood over their conduct toward union staff and the GMB union that represents them at work.
The TSSA and Eslamdoust and her team have been in crisis since the Kennedy Report exposed widespread bullying and sexual harassment by senior union figures, leading to the sacking of former general secretary Manuel Cortes and Eslamdoust, who was supposedly going to clean up the union after the scandal. was rocked by fresh allegations of abuse and deep resentment against the new general secretary for the treatment of staff, particularly women.
Eslamdoust, who was recommended to members by the union’s executive despite what appears to be a complete lack of relevant experience, wrote a bizarre article for the Guardian in which she accused the GMB union of attempting to bully her so it could take over the TSSA and distract from its own renewed sexual harassment scandal, and tried to blame others for her failure to take meaningful action to implement the Kennedy Report’s recommendations.
“It’s the fault of everyone but me”. TSSA has a General Secretary that seems unable to accept any responsibility for anything! https://t.co/EW2uQrRJc3
— Steve Coe (@stevecoe1057) April 18, 2024
Former TSSA Assistant General Secretary’s take on Eslamdoust’s actions
She then followed up her attack on the GMB by emailing all TSSA member branches with an astonishing assault branding the union’s workers as greedy and lazy, and treating the GMB union as if it, and not the unhappiness of TSSA staff, was the driver of the impending strike action for which more than 93% of staff voted last week.
Such is the anger among members at the situation that earlier this month the TSSA’s branch for members working in Network Rail in South London passed the following resolution:
That this branch has no confidence in the leadership of the General Secretary and President in the management of internal conflicts that exist in our union and have been created since the election of our General Secretary.
Our branch has more confidence in our TSSA staff who are currently in dispute. Should our TSSA staff who are represented by the GMB decide they have no option but take industrial action, our branch will support them in this action.
The branch then sent a letter to the TSSA executive:
Network Rail London South Branch
Notice of vote of no confidence in TSSA Leadership of our General Secretary and President for circulation to TSSA Executive Committee
At our branch meeting on Thursday 11 April, we invited our General Secretary and President to respond to concerns that our branch has regarding the internal conflicts within our union.
Melissa Heywood did attend this meeting despite her partner being in hospital and joined via phone from her car in the hospital car park. Our branch very much appreciated her attendance, and it would have been entirely justifiable to give apologies, and not attend in these circumstances. Our branch meeting later agreed to specifically thank Melissa for attending this challenging meeting and will make that clear with a separate message to her. Maryam had indicated she would be attending but did not attend, although it was noted that there may have been family commitments for this non-attendance.
We presented an outline of our concerns which included the following:
TSSA had been through the massive challenge of removing the previous senior management team, including our General Secretary following an investigation and report by QC Helena Kennedy. There was a remarkable and positive consensus across the union to achieve these goals.
We have gone through the election process for a new General Secretary with Maryam being successful in that election, being endorsed by the Executive Committee. At that point Maryam had the overwhelming support of our union employees and members, with the hope that we had every prospect of a positive leadership that would have learnt from our previous conflicts.
Within weeks internal conflicts started to emerge, including one EC member leaving as he found the environment to be intolerable. The derecognition of Women in Focus was illegitimate and unnecessary.
Disputes between TSSA staff and the senior management team soon emerged, with complaints about non-compliance with agreements, accusations and counter accusations of bullying, with TSSA staff now moving to a ballot for industrial action, referencing “a culture of bullying, harassment and victimisation.”
The communications from our General Secretary to the employees appear to have inflamed rather than attempted to resolve this conflict. The article in the Guardian, in which the dispute is claimed by Maryam to be a takeover attempt by the GMB, can have done nothing but harm to our union and the GMB, and appears to have no basis in reality.
Subsequently there was evidence that our President liked a social media post that called for the derecognition of the GMB, which represents our employees in TSSA. There now appears to an extension of this conflict with the Executive Committee apparently agreeing this week to the suspension of three TSSA members who have been critical of the leadership.
Whilst it is not for our branch to consider the detail of the staff complaints, we should however be able to expect that our leadership acts in the best interest of our union and does not bring our union into disrepute. Currently, there appears to be no path to resolve this.
Our President responded to some of these challenges and to many others made in the meeting. There was however no indication that the leadership recognised that they have a responsibility to resolve the many conflicts which appear to have been caused by the action of the General Secretary and the President.
Our branch therefore proceeded to debate and vote for the following:
That this branch has no confidence in the leadership of the General Secretary and President in the management of internal conflicts that exist in our union and have been created since the election of our General Secretary.
Our branch has more confidence in our TSSA staff who are currently in dispute. Should our TSSA staff who are represented by the GMB decide they have no option but take industrial action, our branch will support them in this action.
Invited to comment, a TSSA spokesperson said:
“The TSSA is committed to working with our staff to ensure that we have a union that is fit for purpose and fully focused on delivering for members. We have arranged talks with Acas on 24th April. However, so far, the GMB is refusing to take part. We hope the GMB leadership will reconsider its approach and join the talks.”
GMB reps among TSSA staff have accused Eslamdoust and her team of not informing them that they had approached ACAS, and of bypassing them to try to negotiate the dispute with GMB general secretary Gary Smith instead of engaging with workers and their representatives.
Other branches are expected to follow suit in the coming weeks. The workers’ first strikes will take place on 30 April and 4 June, including pickets of TSSA offices.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Cartoon: Strategies for victory
As always: if you find value in this work I do, please consider helping me keep it sustainable by joining my weekly newsletter, Sparky’s List! You can get it in your inbox or read it on Patreon, the content is the same. And don’t forget to visit the Tom Tomorrow Merchandise Mall!
Why doesn’t Labour want to be in government forever?
I just posted this short video on YouTube, TikTok and elsewhere:
And, yes, the video does include a mistake. I say first past the post increases constituency size when, of course, it is PR that dues that.
Wes Streeting is a disgrace
Labour's Shadow Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has been writing in The Sun and winning its support for his diagnosis for NHS reform. As they note:
THE Shadow Health Secretary warns the NHS today that there will be no additional funding without the “major surgery” of reform under Labour.
Wes Streeting asks for Sun readers’ backing for a massive overhaul of our troubled healthcare system.
They added:
[This] would include bringing in the private sector to help cut waiting times.
Their conclusion was:
Pitching himself against healthcare unions and Labour supporters, he says “middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’”, but he is “up for the fight”.
Now I know he did not write the Sun's story, but he chose to talk about this in The Sun, and he used the words he is quoted as saying - because that is the way that these things work.
So, we have a Labour shadow minister actively seeking office, declaring war on his own party's natural supporters and the NHS unions. And people wonder why I can see nothing of merit left in Labour.
This labour leadership is a total disgrace, having sold out on any remaining principles the right of the Party ever had.
I am not convinced that we are facing any good electoral outcome this year
As has been my habit for the last few days, and as might well be the case for many days to come, I posted a poll on Twitter yesterday. This one was back on political territory, asking:
All the usual caveats on the statistical validity of Twitter polls apply here, especially as there is almost bound to be a bias towards Labour supporters amongst those who I reach on that platform.
That said, I was surprised by the level of delight at a possible Labour victory expressed by the 10,000 or more people voting in this poll. Seventy per cent of those voting seem to be more pleased than anything else at the prospect of an overwhelming Labour victory in the next general election.
As usual, I did not really try to hide my own concerns even while allowing differing views to be expressed. Nineteen per cent of those who voted share my concern about what Labour might do with the power that they win, and have my sympathy. There will be many who vote Labour at the next general election who will wonder about whether the party that now has that name really represents the opinions that they always associated with it.
The third and fourth options represented alternative ways of expressing concern about our electoral system. I was very surprised at how few people opted for the third option, but maybe the fourth was more obvious as an explanation of the sentiment that many will feel about an outcome that will very clearly not reflect the desires of the country as a whole.
Candidly, I found very little encouraging about the result of this poll. If the anticipation of a Labour win is as strong as it suggests, my sense that the scale of buyer's remorse that will follow the election might be sufficiently dramatic to give rise to a massive collapse in support for that party soon thereafter is very strong.
I am not convinced that we are facing any good electoral outcome this year.
How Trump is Following Hitler’s PlaybookYou’ve heard...
How Trump is Following Hitler’s Playbook
You’ve heard Trump’s promise:
TRUMP: I’m going to be a dictator for one day.
History shows there are no “one-day” dictatorships. When democracies fall, they typically fall completely.
In a previous video, I laid out the defining traits of fascism and how MAGA Republicans embody them. But how could Trump — or someone like him — actually turn America into a fascist state? Here’s how in five steps.
Step 1: Use threats of violence to gain power
Hitler and Mussolini relied on their vigilante militias to intimidate voters and local officials. We watched Trump try to do the same in 2020.
TRUMP: Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.
Republican election officials testified to the threats they faced when they refused Trump’s demands to falsify the election results.
RAFFENSPERGER: My email, my cell phone was doxxed.
RUSTY BOWERS: They have had video panel trucks with videos of me proclaiming me to be a pedophile.
GABRIEL STERLING: A 20-something tech in Gwinnett County today has death threats and a noose put out saying he should be hung for treason.
If the next election is close, threats to voters and election officials could be enough to sabotage it.
Step 2: Consolidate power
After taking office, a would-be fascist must turn every arm of government into a tool of the party. One of Hitler’s first steps was to take over the civil service, purging it of non-Nazis.
In October of 2020, Trump issued his own executive order that would have enabled him to fire tens of thousands of civil servants and replace them with MAGA loyalists. He never got to act on it, but he’s now promising to apply it to the entire civil service.
That’s become the centerpiece of something called Project 2025, a presidential agenda assembled by MAGA Republicans, that would, as the AP put it, “dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump’s vision.”
Step 3: Establish a police state
Hitler used the imaginary threat of “the poison of foreign races” to justify taking control of the military and police, placing both under his top general, and granting law-enforcement powers to his civilian militias.
Now Trump is using the same language to claim he needs similar powers to deal with immigrants.
Trump plans to deploy troops within the U.S. to conduct immigration raids and round up what he estimates to be 18 million people who would be placed in mass-detention camps while their fate is decided.
And even though crime is actually down across the nation, Trump is citing an imaginary crime wave to justify sending troops into blue cities and states against the will of governors and mayors.
Trump insiders say he plans to invoke the Insurrection Act to have the military crush civilian protests. We saw a glimpse of that in 2020, when Trump deployed the National Guard against peaceful protesters outside the White House.
And with promises to pardon January 6 criminals and stop prosecutions of right-wing domestic terrorists, Trump would empower groups like the Proud Boys to act as MAGA enforcers.
Step 4: Jail the opposition
In classic dictatorial fashion, Trump is now openly threatening to prosecute his opponents.
And he’s looking to remake the Justice Department into a tool for his personal vendettas.
In the model of Hitler and Mussolini, Trump describes his opponents as subhuman.
TRUMP: …the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country…
Step 5: Undermine the free press
As Hitler well understood, a fascist needs to control the flow of information. Trump has been attacking the press for years.
And he’s threatening to punish news outlets whose coverage he dislikes.
He has helped to reduce trust in the media to such a historic low that his supporters now view him as their most trusted source of information.
Within a democracy, we may often have leaders we don’t like. But we have the power to change them — at the ballot box and through public pressure. Once fascism takes hold, those freedoms are gone and can’t easily be won back.
We must recognize the threat of fascism when it appears, and do everything in our power to stop it.
Why is Labour wrapping itself up in the Union flag?
I did another Twitter poll yesterday, because the Guardian highlighted concerns that members of the Labour Party have expressed about campaign materials produced by its headquarters for local party use. These feature prominent images of the Union flag whilst removing from view traditional Labour graphics, such as its red rose logo.
There have been reports that these materials are unpopular with its members, some of whom are refusing to deliver materials emblazoned in this way.
My poll was as follows:
I have to make clear, I am not suggesting that this result is statistically valid. There are obvious selection biases in running a Twitter poll that guarantee that this is not the case. However, given that my Twitter following is likely to be biased towards Labour supporters, and I am excluding from my analysis those who say they are not, I am not sure that I need to get overly worried about that risk of bias: this data is likely to reflect the opinion of at least some parts of Labour’s membership or support.
Taking out of consideration those who say they are not interested in Labour, and those who say that they do not have an opinion, and therefore taking into account only those who are directly concerned about Labour Party campaigning, it is very apparent that most of those voting really do not wish to see Labour wrapping up its campaign inside the Union flag. Eighteen per cent think Labour is right to feature the flag. Eighty two per cent do not. That difference of view, which remained very stable after a couple of hundred votes were cast, appears significant to me.
I can also wholeheartedly understand that opinion. That is , no doubt, in part because I am not a unionist. I accept that fact creates bias.
There are, however, broader reasons. Most of us a certain age are all too familiar with the history of the use of this flag as a campaigning tool by the far right. The memory of that is still too strong to want to see it used again.
In addition, many people think of this flag as a symbol of colonial oppression, for very good reason. That association is deeply uncomfortable for them. I also count myself in that number.
Others, not unreasonably, think that this use of the flag represents Labour moving into Tory party space, for absolutely no good reason. I do.
I think all those holding any (or all) of these opinions will feel alienated by Labour doing something that is so deeply insensitive to those who might naturally support it. They will rightly wonder why it wants to cause such offence.
I have not sought to hide my concerns about Labour over the last couple of years. That concern has arisen for many reasons. Its willingness to go down the same jingoistic path that the Tories have trodden is yet another concern to add to my list because it seems to me to lead to another of those characteristics of fascism that are becoming all too well known.
Perhaps, though, most of all I am, baffled as to why Labour is doing this. When someone as dispassionate as Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University thinks that there is a 99% probability that they will now win the next general election why does the Labour leadership still doubt that, as they must do by going down this route? Do they somehow think that they still have to win the far-right vote from the Tories and Reform, when the rump that support those parties are never going to be persuaded? And do they really think that their own supporters will put up with any sort of abuse so that those people might be recruited, whatever the cost?
Or is it, worst of all, that this Labour leadership really does wish hark back to an era when this flag did, without doubt, represent attitudes of colonial superiority? Do they, in other words, actually share the sentiments of those on the far-right of British politics, based on division as they so obviously are?
I am not sure of Labour’s motives, but whatever they might be they appear to be a profound betrayal of all that is ethical, just and inclusive and that is profoundly unattractive in a party set to rule this country.
Can we really claim to be a democracy when the government very clearly does not care if people can vote?
This report was published last Thursday, but I missed it then and it is no less relevant this morning:
As many as eight million people face being disenfranchised at the next election due to an electoral registration system which is neither effective nor efficient, says the cross-party Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in a report published today.
As they noted:
The report finds that the current state of the electoral registration system, which governs local elections in England and UK general elections, needs urgent review.
The report finds that there have been notable issues with the practical implementation of recent electoral registration reforms, including voter ID which left individuals without the right ID being prevented from voting and only a limited number of forms of ID being permitted. The report disagrees with the Government’s view on the adequacy of the list of accepted photo ID and believes it should be widened to include other forms, such as emergency services passes and non-London travel passes.
The report recognises that certain groups, such as young people, renters, ethnic minorities, and those in lower socio-economic groups are significantly less likely to be registered to vote. The Committee were also told that some disabled people do not feel supported to register to vote, particularly struggling with the lack of variety in communication channels.
The report recommends a series of steps to help tackle under-registration. … The report also calls for the Government to move towards an opt in automated voter registration system to help ensure that voters are not disenfranchised.
They add:
The report references the Electoral Commission's 2023 report, "Electoral registers in the UK”, which found that completeness of the registers in the UK is at 86%. ‘Accuracy’ looks at the number of false entries on the electoral registers and is currently at 88%. This means that potentially as many as eight million people were not correctly registered at their current address and people may be registered twice inadvertently. The completeness of the electoral registers in Great Britain is 86%. The Commission explained that " if a UK general election was called now, around 14% of the eligible population would not be able to vote."
That is approximately seven million people who are disenfranchised in the UK as a result of government indifference.and as the committee notes, this is not necessary. In a very similar situation to the UK, Canada had very much higher levels of voter registration.
Can we really claim to be a democracy when the government very clearly does not care if people can vote?