Connect with us

Published

on

The story Donald Trump tells about himselfand to himselfhas always been one of domination. It runs through the canonical texts of his personal mythology. In The Art of the Deal, he filled page after page with examples of his hard-nosed negotiating tactics. On The Apprentice, he lorded over a boardroom full of supplicants competing for his approval. And at his campaign rallies, he routinely regales crowds with tales of strong-arming various world leaders in the Oval Office.

This image of Trump has always been dubious. Those boardroom scenes were, after all, reality-TV contrivances; those stories in his book were, by his own ghostwriters account, exaggerated in many cases to make Trump appear savvier than he was. And theres been ample reporting to suggest that many of the world leaders with whom Trump interacted as president saw him more as an easily manipulated mark than as a domineering statesman to be feared.

The truth is that Trump, for all of his tough-guy posturing, spent most of his career failing to push people around and bend them to his will.

That is, until he started dealing with Republican politicians.

For nearly a decade now, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to make congressional Republicans do what he wants. He threatens them. He bullies them. He extracts from them theatrical displays of devotionand if they cross him, he makes them pay. If there is one arena of American power in which Trump has been able to actually be the merciless alpha he played on TVand there may, indeed, be only oneit is Republican politics. His influence was on full display this week, when he derailed a bipartisan border-security bill reportedly because he wants to campaign on the immigration crisis this year.

David Frum: The GOPs true priority

Sam Nunberg, a former adviser to Trump, has observed this dynamic with some amusement. Its funny, he told me in a recent phone interview. In the business world and in the entertainment world, I dont think Donald was able to intimidate people as much.

He pointed to Trumps salary negotiations with NBC during Trumps Apprentice years. Jeff Zucker, who ran the network at the time, has said that Trump once came to him demanding a raise. At the time, Trump was making $40,000 an episode, but he wanted to make as much as the entire cast of Friends combined: $6 million an episode. Zucker countered with $60,000. When Trump balked, Zucker said hed find someone else to host the show. The next day, according to Zucker, Trumps lawyer called to accept the $60,000. (A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

Contrast that with the power Trump wields on Capitol Hillhow he can kill a bill or tank a speakership bid with a single post on social media; how high-ranking congressmen are so desperate for his approval that theyll task staffers to sort through packs of Starbursts and pick out just the pinks and reds so Trump can be presented with his favorite flavors.

I just remember that thered be a lot of stuff that didnt go his way, Nunberg told me, referring to Trumps business career. But he has all these senators in the fetal position! They do whatever he wants.

Why exactly congressional Republicans have proved so much more pliable than anyone else Trump has contended with is a matter of interpretation. One explanation is that Trump has simply achieved much more success in politics than he ever did, relatively speaking, in New York City real estate or on network TV. For all of his tabloid omnipresence, Trump never had anything like the presidential bully pulpit.

From the January/February 2024 issue: Loyalists, lapdogs, and cronies

It stands to reason that [when] the president and leader of your party is pushing for something thats whats going to happen, a former chief of staff to a Republican senator, who requested anonymity in order to candidly describe former colleagues thinking, told me. Take away the office and put him back in a business setting, where facts and core principles matter, and it doesnt surprise me that it wasnt as easy.

But, of course, Trump is not the president anymoreand there is also something unique about the sway he continues to have over Republicans on Capitol Hill. In his previous life, Trump had viewers, readers, fansbut he never commanded a movement that could end the careers of the people on the other side of the negotiating table.

And Trumpwhose animal instinct for weakness is one of his defining traitsseemed to intuit something early on about the psychology of the Republicans he would one day reign over.

Nunberg told me about a speech he drafted for Trump in 2015 that included this line about the Republican establishment: Theyre good at keeping their jobs, not their promises. When Trump read it, he chuckled. Its so true, he said, according to Nunberg. Thats all they care about. (Nunberg was eventually fired from Trumps 2016 campaign.)

This ethos of job preservation at all costs is not a strictly partisan phenomenon in Washingtonnor is it new. As I reported in my recent biography of Mitt Romney, the Utah senator was surprised, when he arrived in Congress, by the enormous psychic currency his colleagues attached to their positions. One senator told Romney that his first consideration when voting on any bill should be Will this help me win reelection?

From the November 2023 issue: What Mitt Romney saw in the Senate

But the Republican Party of 2015 was uniquely vulnerable to a hostile takeover by someone like Trump. Riven by years of infighting and ideological incoherence, and plagued by a growing misalignment between its base and its political class, the GOP was effectively one big institutional power vacuum. The litmus tests kept changing. The formula for getting reelected was obsolete. Republicans with solidly conservative records, such as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, were getting taken out in primaries by obscure Tea Party upstarts.

To many elected Republicans, it probably felt like an answer to their prayers when a strongman finally parachuted in and started telling them what to do. Maybe his orders were reckless and contradictory. But as long as you did your best to look like you were obeying, you could expect to keep winning your primaries.

As for Trump, its easy to see the ongoing appeal of this arrangement. The Apprentice was canceled long ago, and the Manhattan-real-estate war stories have worn thin. Republicans in Congress might be the only ostensibly powerful people in America who will allow him to boss them around, humiliate them, and assert unbridled dominance over them. Theyve made the myth true. How could he possibly walk away now?

Continue Reading

Business

Trump finally gets his demand for a US rate cut

Published

on

By

Trump finally gets his demand for a US rate cut

The US central bank has cut interest rates for the first time this year, in a move president Donald Trump will likely declare is long overdue.

Mr Trump has demanded cuts to borrowing costs from the Federal Reserve ever since worries emerged in the world’s largest economy that his trade war would stoke US inflation.

The president – currently in the UK on a state visit – has, on several occasions, threatened to fire the Fed chair Jay Powell and moved to place his own supporters on the bank’s voting panel.

Money latest: Did Oasis tour impact UK inflation?

He was yet to comment on the rate decision.

The fallout from the row has resonated globally, sparking worries about central bank independence. Financial markets have also reflected those concerns.

The bank, which has a dual mandate to keep inflation steady and maintain maximum employment, made its move on Wednesday after a major slowdown in the employment market that has seen hiring ease sharply.

More on Donald Trump

The latest economic indicators have shown caution over spending among both companies and consumers alike.

The Fed said the economy had moderated.

Inflation, while somewhat elevated due to the effects of higher import costs from the trade war, has not taken off as badly as some economists, and the Fed, had initially feared.

Mr Trump has sought to fire Fed rate-setter Lisa Cook. File pic: AP
Image:
Mr Trump has sought to fire Fed rate-setter Lisa Cook. File pic: AP

Its 12-member panel backed a quarter point reduction in the Fed funds rate to a new range of between 4% to 4.25%.

The effective interest rate is in the middle of that range.

Crucially for Mr Trump, who is trying to inspire growth in the economy, the Fed signalled more reductions ahead despite continued concern over inflation.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump state visit: key moments so far

Financial markets saw a further two quarter point rate cuts before the year’s end.

The dollar, which has weakened in recent days on the back of expectations of further rate cuts, fell in the wake of the decision and the Fed’s statement.

It was trading down against both the euro and pound. Sterling was almost half a cent up at $1.17.

This Fed meeting was the first with new Trump appointee Stephen Miran on the voting panel.

He was chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers before being handed the role this week.

His was a sole voice in the voting for a half percentage point cut. It is clear, though the identity of participants’ forecasts are not revealed, he was the lone voice in calling for a further five quarter point reductions this year.

Mr Trump has sought to fire a member of the Fed’s board, Lisa Cook, to bolster his position further but that decision is currently subject to a legal challenge.

Continue Reading

Politics

MSPs vote to abolish Scottish legal system’s controversial not proven verdict

Published

on

By

MSPs vote to abolish Scottish legal system's controversial not proven verdict

MSPs have voted to abolish Scotland’s controversial not proven verdict.

The Scottish government’s flagship Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed on Wednesday following a lengthy debate of more than 160 amendments that began the day before.

The new legislation makes a series of changes to the justice system, including scrapping the not proven verdict; establishing a specialist sexual offences court; creating a victims and witnesses commissioner; reforming the jury process to require a two-thirds majority for conviction; and implementing Suzanne’s Law which will require the parole board to take into account if a killer continues to refuse to reveal where they hid their victim’s body.

Following Royal Assent, the legislation will be implemented in phases.

Justice Secretary Angela Constance and First Minister John Swinney. Pic: PA
Image:
Justice Secretary Angela Constance and First Minister John Swinney. Pic: PA

Justice Secretary Angela Constance said: “This historic legislation will put victims and witnesses at the heart of a modern and fair justice system.

“By changing culture, process and practice across the system, it will help to ensure victims are heard, supported, protected and treated with compassion, while the rights of the accused will continue to be safeguarded.

“This legislation, which builds on progress in recent years, has been shaped by the voices of victims, survivors, their families and support organisations, and it is testimony to their tireless efforts to campaign for further improvement.

More on Scotland

“I am grateful to those who bravely shared their experiences to inform the development of this legislation and pave a better, more compassionate path for others.”

Not proven verdict

Currently, juries in Scotland have three verdicts open to them when considering the evidence after a trial, and can find an accused person either guilty or not guilty, or that the case against them is not proven.

Like not guilty, the centuries-old not proven verdict results in an accused person being acquitted.

Critics have argued it can stigmatise a defendant by appearing not to clear them, while failing to provide closure for the alleged victim.

Notable cases which resulted in a not proven verdict include Sir Hugh Campbell and Sir George Campbell, who were tried for high treason in 1684 for being present at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge.

The murder of Amanda Duffy, 19, in South Lanarkshire in 1992 sparked a national conversation around the existence of the not proven verdict and double jeopardy rules.

Suspect Francis Auld stood trial but the case was found not proven by a jury and an attempt to secure a retrial failed in 2016. Auld died the following year.

In 2018, a sexual assault case against former television presenter John Leslie was found not proven.

And in 2020, former first minister Alex Salmond was found not guilty on 12 sexual assault charges, while one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape was found not proven.

Victim Support Scotland (VSS) had earlier urged MSPs to put aside party politics and vote “for the intention of the bill”.

Kate Wallace, chief executive of VSS, believes the act is a “solid foundation” on which to build further improvements.

She added: “The passing of this act represents a momentous occasion for Scotland’s criminal justice system.

“It marks a significant step towards creating a system that considers and prioritises the needs of people impacted by crime.”

VSS worked with the families of Arlene Fraser and Suzanne Pilley to spearhead Suzanne’s Law.

Ms Fraser was murdered by estranged husband Nat Fraser in 1998, while Ms Pilley was killed by David Gilroy in 2010. To date, the women’s bodies have never been recovered.

Before the bill, parole board rules dictated that a killer’s refusal to disclose the information “may” be taken into account.

The new legislation means parole boards “must” take the refusal to cooperate into account.

(L-R) Suzanne's Law campaigners Isabelle Thompson and Carol Gillies, the mum and sister of Arlene Fraser, alongside Gail Fairgrieve and Sylvia Pilley, the sister and mum of Suzanne Pilley. Pic: PA
Image:
(L-R) Suzanne’s Law campaigners Isabelle Thompson and Carol Gillies, the mum and sister of Arlene Fraser, alongside Gail Fairgrieve and Sylvia Pilley, the sister and mum of Suzanne Pilley. Pic: PA

Carol Gillies, sister of Ms Fraser, and Gail Fairgrieve, sister of Ms Pilley said: “We have done everything possible to make this change to parole in memory of Arlene and Suzanne, and for other people who have lost their lives in such a horrific way.

“For our families, the passing of this act and the change to parole are momentous.”

Read more from Sky News:
Why next year’s Scottish elections could get messy

The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour voted against the bill.

Although in support of the abolition of the not proven verdict, the Scottish Tories said they had been left with no alternative but to oppose the bill after the SNP rejected a series of amendments.

The party had called for a Scotland-only grooming gangs inquiry; wanted victims to be told if a decision was taken not to prosecute an accused; and for all victims to be informed if a plea deal was struck between defence and prosecution lawyers.

They also wanted Suzanne’s Law to be strengthened, which would have compelled killers to reveal the location of their victim’s body or risk having their parole rejected – ensuring “no body, no release”.

MSP Liam Kerr, shadow justice secretary, said: “This half-baked bill sells the victims of crime desperately short.

“By ignoring many of the key demands of victims’ groups, the SNP have squandered the chance for a long overdue rebalancing of Scotland’s justice system.

“The Scottish Conservatives’ common sense amendments would have given this legislation real teeth but, by rejecting them, the nationalists have delivered a victims’ bill in name only.

“While we back the abolition of the not proven verdict, the SNP’s intransigence on a number of key issues meant we could not support this bill in its final form.”

Continue Reading

UK

MSPs vote to abolish Scottish legal system’s controversial not proven verdict

Published

on

By

MSPs vote to abolish Scottish legal system's controversial not proven verdict

MSPs have voted to abolish Scotland’s controversial not proven verdict.

The Scottish government’s flagship Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed on Wednesday following a lengthy debate of more than 160 amendments that began the day before.

The new legislation makes a series of changes to the justice system, including scrapping the not proven verdict; establishing a specialist sexual offences court; creating a victims and witnesses commissioner; reforming the jury process to require a two-thirds majority for conviction; and implementing Suzanne’s Law which will require the parole board to take into account if a killer continues to refuse to reveal where they hid their victim’s body.

Following Royal Assent, the legislation will be implemented in phases.

Justice Secretary Angela Constance and First Minister John Swinney. Pic: PA
Image:
Justice Secretary Angela Constance and First Minister John Swinney. Pic: PA

Justice Secretary Angela Constance said: “This historic legislation will put victims and witnesses at the heart of a modern and fair justice system.

“By changing culture, process and practice across the system, it will help to ensure victims are heard, supported, protected and treated with compassion, while the rights of the accused will continue to be safeguarded.

“This legislation, which builds on progress in recent years, has been shaped by the voices of victims, survivors, their families and support organisations, and it is testimony to their tireless efforts to campaign for further improvement.

More on Scotland

“I am grateful to those who bravely shared their experiences to inform the development of this legislation and pave a better, more compassionate path for others.”

Not proven verdict

Currently, juries in Scotland have three verdicts open to them when considering the evidence after a trial, and can find an accused person either guilty or not guilty, or that the case against them is not proven.

Like not guilty, the centuries-old not proven verdict results in an accused person being acquitted.

Critics have argued it can stigmatise a defendant by appearing not to clear them, while failing to provide closure for the alleged victim.

Notable cases which resulted in a not proven verdict include Sir Hugh Campbell and Sir George Campbell, who were tried for high treason in 1684 for being present at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge.

The murder of Amanda Duffy, 19, in South Lanarkshire in 1992 sparked a national conversation around the existence of the not proven verdict and double jeopardy rules.

Suspect Francis Auld stood trial but the case was found not proven by a jury and an attempt to secure a retrial failed in 2016. Auld died the following year.

In 2018, a sexual assault case against former television presenter John Leslie was found not proven.

And in 2020, former first minister Alex Salmond was found not guilty on 12 sexual assault charges, while one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape was found not proven.

Victim Support Scotland (VSS) had earlier urged MSPs to put aside party politics and vote “for the intention of the bill”.

Kate Wallace, chief executive of VSS, believes the act is a “solid foundation” on which to build further improvements.

She added: “The passing of this act represents a momentous occasion for Scotland’s criminal justice system.

“It marks a significant step towards creating a system that considers and prioritises the needs of people impacted by crime.”

VSS worked with the families of Arlene Fraser and Suzanne Pilley to spearhead Suzanne’s Law.

Ms Fraser was murdered by estranged husband Nat Fraser in 1998, while Ms Pilley was killed by David Gilroy in 2010. To date, the women’s bodies have never been recovered.

Before the bill, parole board rules dictated that a killer’s refusal to disclose the information “may” be taken into account.

The new legislation means parole boards “must” take the refusal to cooperate into account.

(L-R) Suzanne's Law campaigners Isabelle Thompson and Carol Gillies, the mum and sister of Arlene Fraser, alongside Gail Fairgrieve and Sylvia Pilley, the sister and mum of Suzanne Pilley. Pic: PA
Image:
(L-R) Suzanne’s Law campaigners Isabelle Thompson and Carol Gillies, the mum and sister of Arlene Fraser, alongside Gail Fairgrieve and Sylvia Pilley, the sister and mum of Suzanne Pilley. Pic: PA

Carol Gillies, sister of Ms Fraser, and Gail Fairgrieve, sister of Ms Pilley said: “We have done everything possible to make this change to parole in memory of Arlene and Suzanne, and for other people who have lost their lives in such a horrific way.

“For our families, the passing of this act and the change to parole are momentous.”

Read more from Sky News:
Why next year’s Scottish elections could get messy

The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour voted against the bill.

Although in support of the abolition of the not proven verdict, the Scottish Tories said they had been left with no alternative but to oppose the bill after the SNP rejected a series of amendments.

The party had called for a Scotland-only grooming gangs inquiry; wanted victims to be told if a decision was taken not to prosecute an accused; and for all victims to be informed if a plea deal was struck between defence and prosecution lawyers.

They also wanted Suzanne’s Law to be strengthened, which would have compelled killers to reveal the location of their victim’s body or risk having their parole rejected – ensuring “no body, no release”.

MSP Liam Kerr, shadow justice secretary, said: “This half-baked bill sells the victims of crime desperately short.

“By ignoring many of the key demands of victims’ groups, the SNP have squandered the chance for a long overdue rebalancing of Scotland’s justice system.

“The Scottish Conservatives’ common sense amendments would have given this legislation real teeth but, by rejecting them, the nationalists have delivered a victims’ bill in name only.

“While we back the abolition of the not proven verdict, the SNP’s intransigence on a number of key issues meant we could not support this bill in its final form.”

Continue Reading

Trending