Connect with us

Published

on

This should be a window of widening opportunity and optimism for the Republicans chasing Donald Trump, the commanding front-runner in the 2024 GOP presidential race.

Instead, this is a time of mounting uncertainty and unease.

Rather than undermine Trumps campaign, his indictment last week for mishandling classified documents has underscored how narrow a path is available for the candidates hoping to deny him the nomination. What should have been a moment of political danger for Trump instead has become another stage for him to demonstrate his dominance within the party. Almost all GOP leaders have reflexively snapped to his defense, and polls show that most Republican voters accept his vitriolic claims to be the victim of a politicized and illegitimate prosecution.

As GOP partisans rally around him amid the proliferating legal threats, recent national surveys have routinely found Trump attracting support from more than 50 percent of primary voters. Very few primary candidates in either party have ever drawn that much support in polls this early in the calendar. In an equally revealing measure of his strength, the choice by most of the candidates running against Trump to echo his attacks on the indictment shows how little appetite even they believe exists within the party coalition for a full-on confrontation with him.

The conundrum for Republicans is that polls measuring public reaction to Trumps legal difficulties have also found that outside the Republican coalition, a significant majority of voters are disturbed by the allegations accumulating against him. Beyond the GOP base, most voters have said in polls that they believe his handling of classified material has created a national-security risk and that he should not serve as president again if hes convicted of a crime. Such negative responses from the broader electorate suggest that Trumps legal challenges are weakening him as a potential general-election candidate even as they strengthen him in the primary. Its as if Republican leaders and voters can see a tornado on the horizonand are flooring the gas pedal to reach it faster.

This far away from the first caucuses and primaries next winterand about two months from the first debate in Augustthe other candidates correctly argue that its too soon to declare Trump unbeatable for the nomination.

Republicans skeptical of Trump hold out hope that GOP voters will grow weary from the cumulative weight of the multiple legal proceedings converging on him. And he still faces potential federal and Fulton County Georgia charges over his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

Republican voters are going to start asking who else is out there, who has a cleaner record, and who is not going to have the constant political volleying going on in the background of their campaign, Dave Wilson, a prominent Republican and social-conservative activist in South Carolina, told me. They are looking for someone they can rally behind, because Republicans really want to defeat Joe Biden.

Scott Reed was the campaign manager in 1996 for Bob Doles presidential campaign and is now a co-chair of Committed to America, a super PAC supporting Mike Pence. Reed told me he also believes that time is Trumps enemy as his legal troubles persist. The belief in GOP circles that the Department of Justice is totally out of control offers Trump an important shield among primary voters, Reed said. But he believes that as the details about Trumps handling of classified documents in the latest indictment sink in his support is going to begin to erode. And as more indictments possibly accumulate, Reed added, I think the repetition of these proceedings will wear him down.

Yet other strategists say that the response so far among both GOP voters and elected officials raises doubts about whether any legal setback can undermine Trumps position. (The partys bottomless willingness throughout his presidency to defend actions that previously had appeared indefensible, of course, points toward the same conclusion.) The veteran GOP pollster Whit Ayres has divided the GOP electorate into three categories: about 10 percent that is never Trump, about 35 percent that is immovably committed to him, and about half that he describes as maybe Trump, who are generally sympathetic to the former president and supportive of his policies but uneasy about some of his personal actions and open to an alternative.

Those maybe Trump voters are the key to any coalition that can beat him in the primary race, Ayres told me, but as the polls demonstrate, they flock to his side when hes under attack. Many of them had conflict with siblings, with parents, sometimes with children, sometimes even with spouses, about their support for Donald Trump, Ayres said. And they are very defensive about it. That makes them instinctively rally to Donald Trumps defense, because if they suggest in any way that he is not fit for office, then that casts aspersions on their own past support for him.

This reflex helps explain the paradoxical dynamic of Trumps position having improved in the GOP race since his first indictment in early April. A national CBS survey conducted after last weeks federal indictment found his support in the primary soaring past 60 percent for the first time, with three-fourths of Republican voters dismissing the charges as politically motivated and four-fifths saying he should serve as president even if convicted in the case.

The Republicans dubious of Trump focus more on the evidence in the same surveys that voters outside the GOP base are, predictably, disturbed by the behavior alleged in the multiplying cases against him. Trump argues that Democrats are concocting these allegations because they fear him more than any other Republican candidate, but Wilson accurately pointed out that many Democrats believe Trump has been so damaged since 2020 that he might be the easiest GOP nominee to beat. I dont think Democrats really want someone other than Trump, Wilson said. Privately, in my conversations with them, plenty of Democratic strategists agree.

Ayres believes that evidence of the resistance to Trump in the wider electorate may eventually cause more GOP voters to think twice about nominating him. Polls have usually found that most Republican voters say agreement on issues is more important for them in choosing a nominee than electability. But Ayres said that in focus groups hes conducted, maybe Trump voters do spontaneously raise concerns about whether Trump can win again given everything thats happened since Election Day, including the January 6 insurrection. Traditionally an electability argument is ineffective in primaries, Ayres said. The way the dynamic usually works is I like Candidate X, therefore Candidate X has the best chance to win. The question is whether the electability argument is more potent in this situation than it was formerly and the only answer to that is: We will find out. One early measure suggests that, for now, the answer remains no. In the new CBS poll, Republicans were more bullish on Trumps chances of winning next year than on any other candidates.

Read: Will Trump get a speedy trial?

Another reason the legal proceedings havent hurt Trump more is that his rivals have been so reluctant to challenge him over his actionsor even to make the argument that multiple criminal trials would weaken him as a general-election candidate. But there are some signs that this may be changing: Pence, Nikki Haley, and Tim Scott this week somewhat criticized his behavior, though they were careful to also endorse the former presidents core message that the most recent indictment is illegitimate and politically motivated. Some strategists working in the race believe that by the first Republican debate in August, the other candidates will have assailed Trumps handling of the classified documents more explicitly than they are now.

Still, Trumps fortifications inside the party remain formidable against even a more direct assault. Jim McLaughlin, a pollster for Trumps campaign, points out tht 85 to 90 percent of Republicans approve of his record as president. In 2016, Trump didnt win an absolute majority of the vote in any contest until his home state of New York, after he had effectively clinched the nomination; now hes routinely drawing majority support in polls.

In those new national polls, Trump is consistently attracting about 35 to 40 percent of Republican voters with a four-year college degree or more, roughly the same limited portion he drew in 2016. But multiple recent surveys have found him winning about 60 percent of Republican voters without a college degree, considerably more than he did in 2016.

McLaughlin maintains that Trumps bond with non-college-educated white voters in a GOP primary is as deep as Bill Clintons connection with Black voters was when he won the Democratic primaries a generation ago. Ayres, though no fan of Trump, agrees that the numbers hes posting among Republicans without a college degree are breathtaking. That strength may benefit Trump even more than in 2016, because polling indicates that those non-college-educated white voters will make up an even bigger share of the total GOP vote next year, as Trump has attracted more of them into the party and driven out more of the suburban white-collar white voters most skeptical of him.

But if Trump looks stronger inside the GOP than he was in 2016, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis may also present a more formidable challenger than Trump faced seven years ago. On paper, DeSantis has more potential than any of the 2016 contenders to attract the moderate and college-educated voters most dubious of Trump and peel away some of the right-leaning maybe Trump voters who like his policies but not his behavior. The optimistic way of looking at Trumps imposing poll numbers, some GOP strategists opposed to him told me, is that hes functionally the incumbent in the race and still about half of primary voters remain reluctant to back him. That gives DeSantis an audience to work with.

In practice, though, DeSantis has struggled to find his footing. DeSantiss choice to run at Trump primarily from his right has so far produced few apparent benefits for him. DeSantiss positioning has caused some donors and strategists to question whether he would be any more viable in a general election, but it has not yet shown signs of siphoning away conservative voters from Trump. Still, the fact that DeSantiss favorability among Republicans has remained quite high amid the barrage of attacks from Trump suggests that if GOP voters ultimately decide that Trump is too damaged, the Florida governor could remain an attractive fallback option for them.

Whether DeSantis or someone else emerges as the principal challenger, the size of Trumps advantage underscores how crucial it will be to trip him early. Like earlier front-runners in both parties, Trumps greatest risk may be that another candidate upsets him in one of the traditional first contests of Iowa and New Hampshire. Throughout the history of both parties nomination contests, such a surprise defeat has tended to reset the race most powerfully when the front-runner looks the most formidable, as Trump does now. If Trump is not stopped in Iowa or New Hampshire, he will roll to the nomination, Reed said.

Even if someone beats Trump in one of those early contests, though, history suggests that they will still have their work cut out for them. In every seriously contested Republican primary since 1980, the front-runner as the voting began has been beaten in either Iowa or New Hampshire. That unexpected defeat has usually exposed the early leader to a more difficult and unpredictable race than he expected. But the daunting precedent for Trumps rivals is that all those front-runnersfrom Ronald Reagan in 1980 to George W. Bush in 2000 to Trump himself in 2016recovered to eventually win the nomination. In his time as a national figure, Trump has shattered a seemingly endless list of political traditions. But to beat him next year, his GOP rivals will need to shatter a precedent of their own.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Jonathan Pie: British satirist’s free speech warning to UK after Jimmy Kimmel show taken off air

Published

on

By

Jonathan Pie: British satirist's free speech warning to UK after Jimmy Kimmel show taken off air

The UK has to be “careful” and protect free speech as debate becomes “more and more toxic” on both sides of the Atlantic, a British satirist has said.

Tom Walker, better known as the ranting fictitious newsreader Jonathan Pie, has issued the warning after US talk show Jimmy Kimmel was taken off air for comments he made following the death of Charlie Kirk.

Speaking to Niall Paterson on the Sky News Daily podcast, Walker said he believes he wouldn’t be able work as a satirist in America today as the Trump administration appears to be cracking down on those who speak out against him.

Tom Walker as his satirical creation. Pic: Jonathan Pie
Image:
Tom Walker as his satirical creation. Pic: Jonathan Pie

He added: “I genuinely don’t think I would be allowed into the country. That might sound dramatic, but they go through your social media posts. I think Trump thinks that not agreeing with him is anti-American, whereas it’s not, it’s anti-Trump, it’s anti-Republican. So a lot of my posts would be seen as anti-American.”

Walker went viral in 2016 after posting a clip of Jonathan Pie passionately blaming “the left” for Mr Trump’s victory in the US election the same year.

The comedian argued that left-leaning people had “lost the art” of engaging with anyone with a different opinion to them and urged them to “stop thinking everyone who disagrees with you is evil, racist or sexist or stupid”.

Asked by Niall if he believes Kimmel, who has a long history of speaking out against Mr Trump, is partly responsible for the rise of the populist president, Walker said: “No, I don’t… Most of these late-night hosts are left-leaning and Trump is an own goal for satire.

More on Jimmy Kimmel

“I don’t think there was much that Jimmy Kimmel said in his monologue the other day that was anywhere near as divisive as the rhetoric coming from Donald Trump or (vice president) JD Vance, so there is an inherent hypocrisy there.”

However, Walker believes “right-wingers” are not the only reason free speech is under a “huge amount of threat in America”.

The satirist, who counts himself as being left-wing, continued: “I think the left have enabled a culture where people don’t feel that they’re able to express their views.

“The left-wing were the flag-bearers of cancel culture. And now it’s sort of coming back to bite us in a terrifying way.”

Kimmel was taken off air months after US talk show host Stephen Colbert had his show cancelled – something his fans have attributed to his criticism of Mr Trump.

Read more:
Ted Cruz blasts ‘mafioso’ threats over Kimmel suspension

What did Jimmy Kimmel say about Charlie Kirk?
US talk show hosts react to Jimmy Kimmel cancellation

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

US talk show titans speak out

Meanwhile, the US president appeared to encourage NBC to cancel the talk shows of Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers in a Truth Social post on Thursday. Both presenters are known to have made jokes about Mr Trump in the past.

Asked whether the UK should be worried about free speech apparently being targeted in the UK in a similar way, Walker said: “I think that there are issues of free speech in this country. I don’t think it is quite as bad as what’s happening in America, but we have to be careful. The debate on both sides of the Atlantic is becoming more and more toxic, I think. And it’s divide and conquer. ‘You’re either with me or you’re against me’. And I think both sides have to take some responsibility for that.”

Walker pointed out that when he posted a satirical video on X called “The Death Of Discourse” in relation to the Kirk assassination, he was attacked by social media users on both the left and right of politics.

He added: “I think that’s the problem… We have forgotten how to talk and listen to people that we fundamentally disagree with.”

Continue Reading

UK

Gender testing rules would have earned me an Olympic medal, says former UK athlete Lynsey Sharp

Published

on

By

Gender testing rules would have earned me an Olympic medal, says former UK athlete Lynsey Sharp

Former British athlete Lynsey Sharp has told Sky News she would have won a bronze medal at the Rio Olympics in 2016 had today’s gender testing rules been in place then.

Sharp came sixth in the women’s 800m final behind three now-barred athletes with differences in sexual development (DSD).

She told sports presenter Jacquie Beltrao the sport has changed considerably from when she was competing.

“Sometimes I look back and think I could have had an Olympic medal, but I gave it my all that day and that was the rules at the time,” she said.

“Obviously, I wish I was competing nowadays, but that was my time in the sport and that’s how it was.”

Gold medallist Caster Semenya, with Lynsey Sharp and Melissa Bishop at the women's 800m final at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Gold medallist Caster Semenya, with Lynsey Sharp and Melissa Bishop at the women’s 800m final at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Pic: Reuters

The Rio women’s 800m final saw South Africa’s Caster Semenya take gold, with Burundi’s Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui winning silver and bronze respectively. All three would have been unable to compete today.

Semenya won a total of two Olympic gold medals before World Athletics introduced rules limiting her participation in the female class.

More on Athletics

Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Nyairera at the women's 800m final at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Nyairera at the women’s 800m final at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Pic: Reuters

The women's 800m final at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Pic: Reuters
Image:
The women’s 800m final at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Pic: Reuters

In a major policy overhaul introduced this year, World Athletics now requires athletes competing in the female category at the elite level of the sport to take a gene test.

The tests identify the SRY gene, which is on the Y chromosome and triggers the development of male characteristics.

The tests replace previous rules whereby athletes with DSD were able to compete as long as they artificially reduced their testosterone levels.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

From March: Mandatory sex testing introduced for female athletes

Sharp says while she was competing, governing bodies “didn’t really deal with the issue head on”, and she was often portrayed as a “sore loser” over the issue.

Despite running a Scottish record in that race, her personal best, she described the experience as a “really difficult time”.

“Sadly, it did kind of taint my experience in the sport and at the Olympics in Rio,” she said.

Sharp added that despite the changes, it remains a “very contentious topic, not just in sport, but in society”.

Read more:
World Athletics to introduce mandatory sex testing

Caster Semenya ruling on sex eligibility case
Olympic gold medallist appeals over genetic sex testing

Boxing has now also adopted a compulsory sex test to establish the presence of a Y chromosome at this month’s world championships.

The controversial Olympic champion Imane Khelif, who won Olympic welterweight gold in Paris 2024 in the female category, did not take it and couldn’t compete.

She has appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport against having to take the test.

Britain's Keely Hodgkinson at the World Athletics Championships in Tokyo. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Britain’s Keely Hodgkinson at the World Athletics Championships in Tokyo. Pic: Reuters

Sharp’s comments come as British athletics star and Olympic champion Keely Hodgkinson is tipped to win her first world title in Sunday’s women’s 800m final at the World Athletics Championships in Tokyo.

She is returning from a year out after suffering two torn hamstrings.

Continue Reading

UK

Speaker makes ‘strong and punchy’ protest to home secretary over dropping of Chinese spy charges

Published

on

By

Speaker makes 'strong and punchy' protest to home secretary over dropping of Chinese spy charges

Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has protested to the home secretary after prosecutors dropped charges against two men accused of spying for China and targeting MPs.

Sir Lindsay told Sky News the decision “leaves the door open” to foreigners spying on the House of Commons, and he has written a “strong and punchy” letter to Shabana Mahmood.

The Speaker says “all avenues” must be pursued to ensure the protection of MPs and Commons staff, and he is understood to be weighing up whether to carry out a private prosecution.

The men – Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher and director of the China Research Group, and Christopher Berry – were charged last April under the Official Secrets Act.

The charges related to “espionage within parliament”, security minister Dan Jarvis told MPs on Monday, in a statement after the case was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service at the Old Bailey.

The pair were accused of targeting the China Research Group of MPs, whose leading members are former Tory security minister Tom Tugendhat, shadow home office minister and former foreign affairs committee chair Alicia Kearns, and shadow minister Neil O’Brien.

Announcing the CPS decision, a spokesperson said: “In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the evidence in this case has been kept under continuous review and it has now been determined that the evidential standard for the offence indicted is no longer met. No further evidence will be offered.”

Mr Cash and Mr Berry, who had both previously taught in China, said after the case against them was dropped that charges should never have been brought.

Speaking outside court, Mr Cash – previously a researcher for Ms Kearns – said: “While I am relieved that justice has been served today, the last two and a half years have been a nightmare for me and my family.”

He said he hoped “lessons are learned from this sorry episode”, while his lawyer said his client was “entirely innocent and should never have been arrested, let alone charged”.

Revealing that he has now written to the home secretary, Sir Lindsay told Sky News: “As Speaker, I take the security of this House incredibly seriously. I believe this leaves the door open to foreign actors trying to spy on the House.

“This door must be closed hard. We must pursue all avenues to ensure the protection of Members and people that work within the House of Commons. It will not be tolerated.”

Ahead of Mr Jarvis’s Commons statement on Monday, Sir Lindsay told MPs: “I found out only this morning that the charges against the two individuals relating to espionage for the Chinese authorities were to be dropped. I do not think that is good.

“I ask officials to consider whether any further steps should be taken-operational, strategic, or legal-to ensure that all those who work in this parliament are able to undertake their activities securely and without interference.”

And he concluded: “I am a very unhappy Speaker with what has happened. The fact that it has taken two years, until today, for somebody to withdraw this case is not good enough.”

Read more from Sky News:
NATO responds after Russian military jets ‘violate’ Estonian airspace
Two ambulance workers arrested in connection with six deaths

Mr Jarvis told MPs: “The government remain gravely concerned about the threat of Chinese espionage. Parliament and our democracy are sacrosanct, and any attempt by any foreign power to infiltrate or interfere with parliamentary proceedings is completely unacceptable.”

He added: “This was an independent decision made by the CPS, and it is not for any government minister to speculate on the reasons behind it.

“The government are extremely disappointed with the outcome in this case, and we remain extremely concerned about the espionage threat posed to the United Kingdom.”

Responding to Mr Jarvis’s statement, Ms Kearns told MPs: “From a securities perspective, today’s events are disastrous. They will embolden our enemies and make us look unwilling to defend our own nation, even when attacked in this place, the mother of all parliaments.”

Continue Reading

Trending