Joe Biden: Could the Democrats replace him as US election nominee and how might that work?

Published

4 days ago

June 28, 2024

admin

Joe Biden’s stumbling performance in the US presidential debate has sparked alarm among Democrats – but could he be replaced against his will and how might that work?

A national US party has never tried to force an election candidate to step down in the modern era and their rules make it almost impossible to do so.

Latest: Reaction to Biden v Trump debate

The issue came before both parties in 2016, but neither took action and there’s currently no known effort to force Mr Biden to give way.

It would mean Democrat officials overturning the results of the state primaries – the votes that took place earlier this year that confirmed Mr Biden as the overwhelming pick for November’s election.

The 81-year-old won virtually all the delegates – and they are now set to go through the customary process of rubberstamping his nomination at the Democratic National Convention in August.

There are ways to replace a nominee if they die, resign or are incapacitated, but forcing Mr Biden out would mean delegates choosing another candidate.

It appears highly unlikely, as they were chosen in the primaries because of their loyalty to the president and with the trust that they would vote for him at the convention.

However, there is a potential “loophole” in that Democrat rules allow them to “in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them”.

So if concerns about his performance and mental acuity reach critical level this could be a way forward.

Watch a special programme with reaction to the US presidential debate on The World with Yalda Hakim on Sky News from 6pm

What if Biden withdraws himself?

This is the only plausible scenario for the Democrats to choose a new candidate to take on Donald Trump.

Mr Biden has repeatedly dismissed this option during other turbulent times, but if he changed his mind he could simply serve out the remaining months of his presidency.

Such a U-turn would create a frenzy among Democrats as there’s no protocol in place for him or the party to choose a new candidate before August’s convention.

It takes a majority of the party’s 4,000 or so delegates to win the presidential nomination – and Mr Biden secured about 3,900 of them in the primaries.

The president would have some influence over his pledged delegates, but ultimately they can vote as they please – so it could become a ‘free for all’ with candidates campaigning aggressively to win them over.

If the president decides to pull out after the convention takes place, the chair of the party can call a special meeting of around 500 members.

They can – in theory – choose a new nominee via a simple majority vote.

However, such a process would likely be far more turbulent with behind-the-scenes jockeying and public campaigning.

If Mr Biden withdrew even closer to the 5 November election, it could raise constitutional, legal and practical concerns.

For example, voting papers have to be printed well in advance and it might not be possible to change them in time.

Would vice president Kamala Harris replace Biden?

If Mr Biden were to resign immediately as president, Kamala Harris would automatically succeed him – but would not also become Democratic nominee.

She might be politically favoured if he ditched his re-election bid, but Mr Biden’s delegates would not transfer to her as of right, and it would be a level playing field with the other hopefuls.

Who could be favourite if Biden steps back?

Two frontunners – if they chose to put themselves forward – could be California governor Gavin Newsom, 56, or Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.

They didn’t enter this year’s primaries but have both been talked about as potential Democrat nominees in future.

For now at least, Mr Newsom appears to be sticking firmly behind the president.

He told reporters after Thursday’s debate his party “could not be more wholly unified behind Biden” and he shouldn’t step aside.

Mr Newsom has been California governor since 2019 and was also San Francisco’s mayor for seven years. Before that, he founded a winery in the state’s upmarket Napa Valley.

Ms Whitmer, a lawyer and former prosecutor, was the Senate’s first female Democratic leader and became governor in 2018.

The 52-year-old also served as co-chair of Joe Biden’s 2020 election campaign.

She’s previously said she would have no interest in replacing Mr Biden in this year’s election – and backed him again on Friday.

“Joe Biden is running to serve the American people. Donald Trump is running to serve Donald Trump,” she said.

However, if the president pulls out of his own volition, could she change her mind?

Democrats including Minnesota’s Dean Phillips and Jason Palmer, who actually beat Mr Biden in American Samoa, might also try their hand.

They were his main rivals in the primaries but only got a couple of delegates each, so would likely struggle to pull in enough support.

US

Donald Trump’s hush money sentencing postponed

Published

4 hours ago

July 2, 2024

admin

Donald Trump's hush money sentencing postponed

A judge in New York has postponed Donald Trump’s hush money sentencing until September to consider the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity.

The US’s top court decided on Monday immunity exists from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office, in a boost for Trump – who is accused of illegally trying to overturn his 2020 election loss.

The former president asked Justice Juan Merchan to delay the sentencing for his conviction over hush money paid to a porn star to give him a chance to argue he should have been immune from prosecution.

Prosecutors said Trump’s argument was “without merit”, but agreed to the delay to give Trump time to make his case.

He will face an uphill battle getting the hush money conviction overturned, since much of the conduct in the case predates his time in office.

The delay will push the sentencing beyond the Republic National Convention on 15 July, when Trump is due to be named the party nominee for the presidential election on 5 November.

The sentencing, originally set for 11 July, has now been scheduled for 18 September.

Trump lawyers see ruling as a game-changer – this is the first test

It’s the end of the law as they know it.

The specifics of change will be tested first, and fastest, in the New York court where Trump was convicted.

His lawyers clearly see the Supreme Court ruling as a game-changer and an opportunity to have the conviction thrown out.

New York’s prosecutors beg to differ, insisting the Trump argument is “without merit”.

Their agreement to a delay in sentencing is a nod to inevitable Trump appeals and the importance of setting out a judge’s reasoning to help resist challenge.

Trump’s lawyers believe evidence presented to the jury during his trial falls under new immunity protections, including public statements, tweets and paperwork.

The hush money trial spanned periods when Trump was president and there will be questions around what falls within the parameter of “official acts”.

It is an early test of the new immunity law and a measure of a president’s empowerment.

For critics of the Supreme Court ruling, it’s a calibration of risk to democracy and the rule of law.

The delay in Trump’s sentencing will push it beyond the Republic National Convention on 15 July, when he’s due to be anointed as the party nominee.

Trump’s sentencing had loomed large over the political set-piece – no more.

Trump was found guilty on 30 May of falsifying business records to cover up his former lawyer Michael Cohen’s $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

The offer was made to keep her quiet about an alleged 2006 sexual encounter until after the 2016 election, when Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Trump denies ever having sex with Ms Daniels and has said he will appeal against the conviction after his sentencing.

Prosecutors said the payment was part of an illicit scheme to influence the election.

In their letter to Justice Merchan, Trump’s team argued prosecutors had used evidence involving his official acts as president, including conversations while in the White House.

Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, prosecutors cannot use evidence related to official actions to help prove criminal cases involving unofficial actions.

US

Biden says Supreme Court immunity ruling means presidents can ‘ignore the law’ – as Trump celebrates ‘big win’

Published

24 hours ago

July 1, 2024

admin

Biden says Supreme Court immunity ruling means presidents can 'ignore the law' - as Trump celebrates 'big win'

Joe Biden has said the historic ruling that former presidents have immunity violates the principle “that there are no kings in America” – and means they can now “ignore the law”.

He was speaking after the US Supreme Court decided absolute immunity exists from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office, but not for unofficial ones.

“Each, each of us is equal before the law. No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,” Mr Biden said on Monday evening.

The ruling is a victory for Donald Trump, who is accused of illegally trying to overturn his 2020 election loss.

“I know I will respect the limits of presidential power as I have for the three-and-a-half years,” Mr Biden said.

“But any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law.”

The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Trump’s case, but referred it back to a lower court to decide how to apply the ruling.

It must now decide whether Trump was acting officially or privately in relation to the charges.

President Biden said Monday’s ruling also means the ex-president is now “highly unlikely” to go on trial before US voters have their say again in four months’ time.

“It’s a terrible disservice to the people in this nation,” he said.

If Trump becomes president again in November, he may be able to use his powers to dismiss the charges against him.

He earlier celebrated the ruling, posting online: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

The three liberal justices all dissented with the majority opinion – with Sonia Sotomayor warning it was a dangerous step for democracy.

She said it made a “mockery” of the principle that “no man is above the law”.

“In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law,” she wrote.

The chief justice, John Roberts, insisted that wasn’t true but said they have “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution” for official acts.

The decision passed with the help of the three conservative judges Trump appointed when he was president.

Mr Biden’s comments follow his poor showing in the TV debate with Trump last week, a performance that prompted speculation the Democrats might try to replace him as candidate.

The 81-year’s remarks were his first from the White House since then, and he put in a far more assured and coherent performance – even sporting a glowing tan.

However, Mr Biden was reading from an autocue – something he did not have the benefit of during his stumbling face off with Trump.

Mr Biden admitted last week his debating skills were not what they once were but said it was his substance and actions that mattered.

His family have also urged him to carry on.

Democrat insiders spoke of panic after the TV debacle, but any effort to force him to withdraw against his will is extremely unlikely – with the only realistic route being if he stepped down himself.

US

US Supreme Court sends Trump immunity claim back to lower court

Published

1 day ago

July 1, 2024

admin

Trump hails 'big win for democracy' after US Supreme Court decision over his immunity claim

The US Supreme Court has sent Donald Trump’s claim he is immune from prosecution for his actions while president back to a lower court.

Trump faces prosecution over his role in the deadly January 6 riots in 2021 at the Capitol in Washington DC, after he encouraged his supporters to gather at Congress to oppose the approval of Joe Biden’s 2020 election win; and alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election result.

The former president had been charged with conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiring against the right of Americans to vote and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to do so.

In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices said for the first time that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.

But instead of deciding for themselves, the justices ordered lower courts to work out precisely how to apply their decision to Trump’s case.

The lower court must now decide whether he was acting officially or privately.

Trump’s legal team had argued he was immune from prosecution as he was serving as president when he took the actions leading to the charges.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges in August last year, has opposed presidential immunity from prosecution based on the principle no one is above the law.

A trial had been scheduled to start on 4 March, before the delays over the immunity issue.

The Supreme Court’s decision adds further delays. If Trump becomes president again in November, in reality he may be able to use his powers to dismiss the charges against him.

The court’s slow handling of the case has already helped Trump by making it unlikely any trial on these charges could be completed before the election on 5 November.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges. He has said this case and three others are politically motivated attempts to keep him from returning to the White House.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.