Latest news with #Barack Obama
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Sentence before verdict: Trump's attack on Obama is straight out of Alice in Wonderland
Almost every American knows that in our legal system, people accused of crimes are presumed innocent. The burden is on the government to overcome that presumption and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Those simple but powerful maxims were once a source of national pride. They distinguished the United States from countries where government officials and political leaders branded the opponents guilty before they were charged with a crime or brought to trial. In Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, the Alice-in-Wonderland world of 'sentence first-verdict afterwards' came to life in infamous show trials. Those trials lacked all the requisites of fairness. Evidence was manufactured to demonstrate the guilt of the regime's enemies. Show trials told the story the government wanted told and were designed to signal that anyone, innocent or not, could be convicted of a crime against the state. So far, at least, this country has avoided Stalinesque show trials. But the logic of the show trial was very much on display this week in the Oval Office. In a now-familiar scene, during a meeting with the Philippines president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Donald Trump went off script. He turned a reporter's question about the unfolding Jeffrey Epstein scandal into an occasion to say that former president Barack Obama had committed 'treason' by interfering in the 2016 presidential election. 'He's guilty,' Trump asserted, 'This was treason. This was every word you can think of.' Speaking after the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, the president said: 'Obama was trying to lead a coup. And it was with Hillary Clinton.' Republican congressmen and senators, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who investigated allegations of Obama's involvement five years ago, found nothing to support them. But none of that mattered to the president on Tuesday. As Trump put it: 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.' Not hiding his motives, Trump said: 'It's time to start after what they did to me.' Guilt first. Charges, trials and other legal niceties come later. This is American justice, Donald Trump-style. He wants no part of the long and storied tradition in which presidents kept an arms-length relationship with the justice department and did not interfere with its decisions about whether and whom to prosecute for crimes. What Trump said about Obama is, the New York Times notes, 'a stark example of his campaign of retribution against an ever-growing list of enemies that has little analogue in American history'. Putting one of his predecessors on trial also would take some of the sting out of Trump's own dubious distinction of being the only former president to have been convicted of a felony. Some may be tempted to write off the president's latest Oval Office pronouncements as an unhinged rant or only an effort to distract attention from Trump's Epstein troubles. But that would be a mistake. A recent article by the neuroscientist Tali Sharot and the law professor Cass Sunstein helps explain why. That article is titled: 'Will We Habituate to the Decline of Democracy?' Sharot and Sunstein argue that America is on the cusp of a dangerous moment in its political history. They say that we can understand why by turning to neuroscience, not to political science. Neuroscience teaches us that 'people are less likely to respond to or even notice gradual changes. That is largely due to habituation, which is the brain's tendency to react less and less to things that are constant or that change slowly.' In politics, 'when democratic norms are violated repeatedly, people begin to adjust. The first time a president refuses to concede an election, it's a crisis. The second time, it's a controversy. By the third time, it may be just another headline. Each new breach of democratic principles … politicizing the justice system … feels less outrageous than the last.' Americans must resist that tendency. To do so, Sharot and Sunstein argue, we need 'to see things not in light of the deterioration of recent years but in light of our best historical practices, our highest ideals, and our highest aspirations'. In the realm of respect for the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, we can trace those practices, ideals and aspirations back to 1770, when John Adams, a patriot, practicing lawyer and later the second president of the United States, agreed to defend British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Adams did so because he believed that everyone, no matter how reprehensible their act, was entitled to a defense. That principle meant that people needed to learn to withhold judgment, to respect evidence and to hear both sides of a story before making up their minds. That was a valuable lesson for those who would later want to lead our constitutional republic, as well as for its citizens. The trial of the British soldiers turned out, as the author Christopher Klein writes, to be 'the first time reasonable doubt had ever been used as a standard'. Fast forward to 1940, and the memorable speech of the attorney general, Robert Jackson, to a gathering of United States attorneys. What he said about their role might also be said about the president's assertions about Obama. Jackson observed that US attorneys had 'more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America'. A prosecutor, he explained, 'can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations … The prosecutor can order arrests … and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial.' Sound familiar? The president is not a prosecutor, but since he has returned to power, President Trump has behaved and encouraged those in the justice department to ignore Jackson's warnings that a prosecutor should focus on 'cases that need to be prosecuted' rather than 'people that he thinks he should get'. Targeting people, not crimes, means that the people prosecuted will be those who are 'unpopular with the predominant or governing group' or are 'attached to the wrong political views, or [are] personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself'. Jackson restated a long-cherished American ideal, namely that those with the power to ruin lives and reputations should seek 'truth and not victims' and serve 'the law and not factional purposes'. Since then, presidents of both parties, in even the most controversial cases and those involving allies or opponents, have heeded Jackson's warnings. They have said nothing about pending cases, let alone announcing that it's time 'to go after' people. But no more. The justice department seems ready and willing to do the president's bidding, even though there is no evidence that President Obama did anything wrong in regard to the 2016 election. In addition, he may have immunity from criminal prosecution for anything he did in his official capacity. Trump's attack on the 'traitorous' Obama may be predictable. But it should not be acceptable to any of us. Sharot and Sunstein get it right when they say, 'To avoid habituating ourselves to the torrent of President Trump's assaults on democracy and the rule of law, we need to keep our best practices, ideals, and aspirations firmly in view what we've done.' We need 'to compare what is happening today not to what happened yesterday or the day before, but to what we hope will happen tomorrow'. To get to that world, it is important to recall the words of John Adams and Robert Jackson and work to give them life again. Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty
Daily Mail
23-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Trump announces $550 billion Japan trade deal
President Donald Trump announced he had reached a new trade deal with Japan, terming it 'the largest deal in history' as he celebrated with Republican lawmakers at the White House. The president announced a new 15 percent tariff on Japanese imports – down from a threatened 25 percent. The pep rally came on a day Trump's White House was whipsawed by the Jeffrey Epstein controversy, with the president cheerfully proclaiming a win hours after tearing into predecessor Barack Obama. 'I just signed, and it was really helped a lot by our big, beautiful deal that we just did,' Trump said in the East Room of the White House at a reception with Republican members of Congress. 'But I just signed the largest trade deal in history, I think maybe the largest deal in history, Japan,' Trump said. He repeatedly gushed about its size, saying, 'This is, they say, the biggest deal ever made.' Trump, who had earlier announced deals with Indonesia and the Philippines as an August 1 deadline he declared after pausing his 'reciprocal' tariffs approaches, told lawmakers there were more talks in the works. Failure to reach agreements after his administration promised '90 deals in 90 days' could spark yet another market meltdown, something Trump is eager to avoid as he touts surging markets. 'We have Europe coming in tomorrow,' said Trump, days after reports of the tariffs he could slap on the European Union. Trump announced the deals minutes after posting about it on Truth Social. 'Japan will invest, at my direction, $550 Billion Dollars into the United States, which will receive 90% of the Profits,' Trump said, without spelling out how the investments would be calculated. Japan is already a top U.S. investor. Trump said it would create 'hundreds of thousands of jobs.' 'Perhaps most importantly, Japan will open their Country to Trade including Cars and Trucks, Rice and certain other Agricultural Products, and other things. Japan will pay Reciprocal Tariffs to the United States of 15 percent,' Trump wrote. 'This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Trump concluded. Trump said the country was 'becoming very rich again,' although some of the market's recent gains came after Trump hit 'pause' on his tariff decisions and backed off his repeated threats to fire Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. Trump also dangled further talks. 'We're going to make a deal with Japan on the LNG in Alaska,' Trump said. A deal with Japan that puts off an escalatory trade war would restore some stability to a major trade relationship. Trump cranked up the pressure earlier this month when he threatened to slap a 25 percent tariff on Japan and South Korea – both key political allies – if they didn't reach an agreement by August 1. He also lauded House Republicans who jammed through his 'big, beautiful bill,' and promised to lend them political support. 'We're going to make all those robo calls for you,' Trump said, on a day he once again threatened to go after 'no' vote Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). 'There's been no Congress like this Congress in terms of achievement,' Trump said. He called out birthdays and anniversaries in the crowd, and spoke about House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise after he suffered a shooting. 'He was going to be a goner,' Trump said. 'You look better now than you did then,' he told him. 'We're so grateful for you,' Housing Secretary Scott Turner told the president when Trump invited him to say grace. 'You are a tremendous leader and we thank God for you,' he told Trump before the prayer. 'Thank you for giving us favor to pass this big, beautiful bill,' Turner said during the prayer of the bill that passed the House 218-214 with Trump losing just two Republican votes. Trump took the opportunity to praise Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, on a day he accused Barack Obama of 'treason' and applied pressure for him to be investigated over the origins of the Russia probe in 2016. 'Where's Tulsi? She's like hotter than everybody. She's the hottest one in the room right now,' Trump said. Trump repeated his claim that 'Obama cheated on the election,' after Obama slammed his earlier attacks. 'With your stamina, you know we can never sleep,' Speaker Mike Johnson told Trump when he took the microphone.
Washington Post
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Obama's office rebukes Trump admin's treason claims as ‘distraction'
Former president Barack Obama's office on Tuesday issued a rare admonishment of the Trump administration's claims that Obama administration officials planned a 'treasonous conspiracy' aimed at the current commander in chief, calling the claims 'a weak attempt at distraction.' Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released alleged evidence of what she called a 'treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government.' The evidence pertains to the intelligence community's conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to interfere in the 2016 presidential election on Trump's behalf. The Washington Post Fact-Checker found that the evidence on which Gabbard based her findings is paper-thin and discounts more substantiated intelligence findings. Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesperson for Obama, said in a statement that while the office 'does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,' the administration's new 'bizarre' and 'ridiculous' allegations warranted one. 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio,' Rodenbush wrote, referring to Trump's secretary of state. Earlier Tuesday, Trump said a criminal investigation should move forward as a result of the findings, saying, 'it's time to go after people.' He singled out Obama, who he said had been 'caught directly.' Gabbard, in a Tuesday interview on Fox News with the president's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, said that Obama's office was deflecting. 'There is a long laundry list of facts and intelligence reporting that directly contradict the statement coming from President Obama's office and those who are trying to deflect away from what actually happened,' Gabbard claimed. ' … After Donald Trump was elected, led by President Obama, there was an effort to create a document that would serve as a foundation for what would be a years-long coup against President Trump, therefore trying to subvert the will of the American people who sent him to the White House in 2016.' Cleve R. Wootson Jr. contributed to this report.
News.com.au
22-07-2025
- Politics
- News.com.au
Judge presses Trump admin on Harvard funding cuts
A federal judge on Monday challenged the Trump administration's reasons for slashing billions of dollars in federal funding to Harvard University, triggering a furious response from the president. Judge Allison Burroughs pressed the administration's lawyer to explain how cutting grants to diverse research budgets would help protect students from alleged campus anti-Semitism, US media reported. Trump preemptively fired off a post on his Truth Social platform blasting Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic president Barack Obama, claiming without evidence that she had already decided against his government -- and vowing to appeal. The Ivy League institution sued in April to restore more than $2 billion in frozen funds. The administration insists its move is legally justified over Harvard's failure to protect Jewish and Israeli students, particularly amid campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza. The threat to Harvard's funding stream forced it to implement a hiring freeze while pausing ambitious research programs, particularly in the public health and medical spheres, that experts warned risked American lives. Harvard has argued that the administration is pursuing "unconstitutional retaliation" against it and several other universities targeted by Trump early in his second term. Both sides have sought a summary judgment to avoid trial, but it was unclear if Burroughs would grant one either way. The judge pressed the lone lawyer representing Trump's administration to explain how cutting funding to Harvard's broad spectrum of research related to combatting anti-Semitism, the Harvard Crimson student newspaper reported from court. "The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America," he claimed, pointing to the university's world-leading endowment. Both Harvard and the American Association of University Professors brought cases against the Trump administration's measures which were combined and heard Monday. - 'Control of academic decision making' - Trump has sought to have the case heard in the Court of Federal Claims instead of in the federal court in Boston, just miles away from the heart of the university's Cambridge campus. "This case involves the Government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard," Harvard said in its initial filing. The Ivy League institution has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and "viewpoint diversity." Trump and his allies claim that Harvard and other prestigious universities are unaccountable bastions of liberal, anti-conservative bias and anti-Semitism, particularly surrounding protests against Israel's war in Gaza. The government has also targeted Harvard's ability to host international students, an important source of income who accounted for 27 percent of total enrollment in the 2024-2025 academic year. A proclamation issued in June declared that the entrance of international students to begin a course at Harvard would be "suspended and limited" for six months and that existing overseas enrollees could have their visas terminated. The move has been halted by a judge. The US government earlier this month subpoenaed Harvard University for records linked to students allegedly involved in a wave of pro-Palestinian student protests that the Trump administration labeled anti-Semitic. Washington has also told a university accrediting body that Harvard's certification should be revoked after it allegedly failed to protect Jewish students in violation of federal civil rights law.
Daily Mail
16-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE How Barack and Michelle Obama were 'awkward' and 'anxious' during frank discussion about divorce rumors
Barack Obama and Michelle Obama appeared to put on a united front when the former president appeared on his wife's podcast earlier today - but a body language expert has revealed that there may be more than meets the eye. Barack, 63, was a guest on the IMO podcast, which Michelle co-hosts with her brother Craig Robinson, with the couple addressing the divorce rumors that have engulfed their marriage in recent weeks. The former first lady, 61, joked that it was nice to be in the same room as her husband, sassily telling her brother: 'When we aren't, folks think we're divorced.' Michelle clapped back at the speculation, passionately saying there has not been 'one moment' in their marriage where she thought about separating. However, body language expert Judi James declared the pair's body language has changed drastically since their days in the White House as she described the interaction as 'awkward' in video footage from the podcast. 'As Barack arrives to take his seat, Michelle rubs her hands on her thighs in what looks like a self-calming ritual before placing her hands below the desk, between her legs,' Judi exclusively told the Daily Mail. 'This, along with the way her awkwardly-placed feet tend to edge under her seat, suggests a desire to self-diminish from the normally confident-looking ex FLOTUS,' she added. 'There's no real joy thrown into the room at this point to relax any tension,' the expert continued. 'Michelle's brows shoot upward and her head wobbles in a suggestion that any rumors make her sad and rather angry.' Meanwhile, Judi mused that Barack's response to learning about the rumors around their marriage - to which he said 'I don't even know this stuff's going on' - was 'odd.' According to the expert, the former first lady's body language suggests 'anxiety and inherent awkwardness.' 'When Barack and Michelle were in the White House their signature body language brand was all about mutual romance and a form of intellectual and charismatic equality,' Judi observed. She added in the past, the couple's marriage looked like the 'perfect blueprint,' with Michelle even tending to 'eclipse her husband now and again when it came to public speaking and positive, inspirational confidence.' Judi pointed out that changing the way they interact with each other - or 'lowering the idyllic bar' - would obviously incite gossip about their relationship. 'The couple appear mildly uncomfortable but determined to set the record straight here,' she observed, adding that they are putting on a 'professional display.' The expert added although the seating arrangement is determined by the studio set up which hinders any physical affection, there is no 'gracious, presidential double-act style body language' between them like there was in previous years. 'This means there is no gracious, presidential double-act style body language where they pose as a tactile couple before taking to their seats,' she revealed. 'The only person Barack reaches out to touch here is Michelle's brother.' The expert also noted the lack of 'romantic' moments for the camera. 'Michelle finishes with a formal sign-off of "Thank you Barack Obama" with no playful-looking rituals,' she concluded her observations. Instead, Judi pointed out the mom-of-two anxiously rubbed her bracelets, which could suggest the discussion on the podcast may 'have cost them both in terms of emotion to take this action to prove the doubters wrong.' Michelle made heartfelt admission about her relationship with her husband of almost 33 years during the episode, wasting no time in addressing the rumors they are headed for a divorce. 'What, you guys like each other?' Robinson joked, before Michelle replied: 'Oh yeah, the rumor mill.' 'There hasn't been one moment in our marriage where I thought about quitting my man,' she said passionately. She continued: 'And we've had some really hard times. So we had a lot of fun times, a lot of adventures, and I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.' The Obamas have been married for almost 33 years and share daughters, Malia, 26, and Sasha, 24. Over the past few months they have faced ongoing rumors about their marriage status, but have denied they are separating. Speculation mounted over trouble between the pair after her decision to skip both Jimmy Carter's funeral and President Donald Trump's inauguration - with Michelle insisting they were decisions she made for herself. Those absences sparked divorce rumors, which she addressed during a taping of actress Sophia Bush's podcast in April. 'That's the thing that we as women, I think we struggle with disappointing people. I mean, so much so that this year people were, you know, they couldn't even fathom that I was making a choice for myself that they had to assume that my husband and I are divorcing,' Michelle said. 'That this couldn't be a grown woman just making a set of decisions for herself, right?' she continued. 'That's what society does to us.' 'We start actually, finally going, "What am I doing? Who am I doing this for?"' the former first lady said. 'And if it doesn't fit into the sort of stereotype of what people think we should do, then it gets labeled as something negative and horrible.'
