Connect with us

Published

on

Representative Jim Jordan may or may not break down the last few Republican holdouts who blocked his election as House speaker yesterday. But the fact that about 90 percent of the House GOP conference voted to place him in the chambers top job marks an ominous milestone in the Republican Partys reconfiguration since Donald Trumps emergence as its central figure.

The preponderant majority of House Republicans backing Jordan is attempting to elevate someone who not only defended former President Trumps efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election but participated in them more extensively than any other member of Congress, according to the bipartisan committee that investigated the January 6 insurrection. As former Republican Representative Liz Cheney, who was the vice chair of that committee, said earlier this month: Jim Jordan knew more about what Donald Trump had planned for January 6 than any other member of the House of Representatives.

Read: Jim Jordan could have a long fight ahead

Jordans rise, like Trumps own commanding lead in the 2024 GOP presidential race, provides more evidence that for the first time since the Civil War, the dominant faction in one of Americas two major parties is no longer committed to the principles of democracy as the U.S. has known them. That means the nation now faces the possibility of sustained threats to the tradition of free and fair elections, with Trumps own antidemocratic tendencies not only tolerated but amplified by his allies across the party.

Ian Bassin, the executive director of the bipartisan group Protect Democracy, told me that the American constitutional system is not built to withstand a demagogue capturing an entire political party and installing his loyalists in key positions in the other branches of government. That dynamic, he told me, would likely mean our 247-year-old republic wont live to celebrate 250. And yet, he continued, those developments are precisely what were witnessing play out before our eyes.

Sarah Longwell, the founder of the anti-Trump Republican Accountability Project, told me that whether or not Jordan steamrolls the last holdouts, his strength in the race reflects the position inside the party of the forces allied with Trump. Even if he doesnt make it, because the majorities are so slim, you cant argue that Jim Jordan doesnt represent the median Republican today, she told me.

Longwell said House Republicans have sent an especially clear signal by predominantly rallying around Jordan, who actively enlisted in Trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 election, so soon after they exiled Cheney, who denounced them and then was soundly defeated in a GOP primary last year. Nominating Jim Jordan to be speaker is not them acquiescing to antidemocratic forces; it is them fully embracing antidemocratic forces, she said. The contrast between Jim Jordan potentially ascending to speaker and Liz Cheney, who is out of the Republican Party and excommunicated, could not be a starker statement of what the party stands for.

In one sense, Jordans advance to the brink of the speakership only extends the pattern that has played out within the GOP since Trump became a national candidate in 2015. Each time the party has had an opportunity to distance itself from Trump, it has roared past the exit ramp and reaffirmed its commitment. At each moment of crisis for him, the handful of Republicans who condemned his behavior were swamped by his fervid supporters until resistance in the party crumbled.

Even against that backdrop, the breadth of Republican support for Jordan as speaker is still a striking statement. As the January 6 committees final report showed, Jordan participated in virtually every element of Trumps campaign to subvert the 2020 result. Jordan spoke at Stop the Steal rallies, spread baseless conspiracy theories through television appearances and social media, urged Trump not to concede, demanded congressional investigations into nonexistent election fraud, and participated in multiple White House strategy sessions on how to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject the results.

Given that record, undermining the election is too soft a language to describe Jordans activities in 2020, Jena Griswold, Colorados Democratic secretary of state, told me. He was involved in every step to try to destroy American democracy and the peaceful transfer of the presidency. If Jordan wins the position, she said, you could no longer count on the speaker of the House to defend the United States Constitution.

Jordan didnt stop his service to Trump once he left office. Since the GOP won control of the House last year, Jordan has used his role as chair of the House Judiciary Committee to launch investigations into each of the prosecutors who have indicted Trump on criminal charges (local district attorneys in Manhattan and Fulton County, Georgia, as well as federal Special Counsel Jack Smith). Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, has described Jordans demand for information as an effort to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding that is flagrantly at odds with the Constitution.

The willingness of most GOP House members to embrace Jordan as speaker, even as he offers such unconditional support to Trump, sends the same message about the partys balance of power as the former presidents own dominant position in the 2024 Republican race. Though some Republican voters clearly remain resistant to nominating Trump again, his support in national surveys usually exceeds the total vote for all of his rivals combined.

Equally telling is that rather than criticizing Trumps attempts to overturn the 2020 election, almost all of his rivals have echoed his claim that the indictments hes facing over his actions are unfair and politically motivated. In the same vein, hardly any of the Republican members resisting Jordan have even remotely suggested that his role in Trumps attempts to subvert the election is a legitimate reason to oppose him. That silence from Jordans critics speaks loudly to the reluctance in all corners of the GOP to cross Trump.

If Jordan becomes speaker, it would really mean the complete and total takeover of the party by Trump, former Republican Representative Charlie Dent, now the executive director of the Aspen Institutes congressional program, told me. Because he is the closest thing Trump has to a wingman in Congress.

All of this crystallizes the growing tendency at every level of the GOP, encompassing voters and activists as well as donors and elected officials, to normalize and whitewash Trumps effort to overturn the 2020 election. In an Economist/YouGov national poll earlier this year, fully three-fifths of Trump 2020 voters said those who stormed the Capitol on January 6 were participating in legitimate political discourse, and only about one-fifth said they were part of a violent insurrection. Only about one-fifth of Trump 2020 voters thought he bore a significant share of responsibility for the January 6 attack; more than seven in 10 thought he carried little or no responsibility.

That sentiment has solidified in the GOP partly because of a self-reinforcing cycle, Longwell believes. Because most Republican voters do not believe that Trump acted inappropriately after 2020, she said, candidates cant win a primary by denouncing him, but because so few elected officials criticize his actions, the more normal elements of the party become convinced its not an issue or its not worth objecting to.

The flip side is that for the minority of House Republicans in highly competitive districts18 in seats that voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 and another 15 or so in districts that only narrowly preferred TrumpJordan could be a heavy burden to carry as speaker. Everyone is worried about their primary opponents, but in this case ameliorating the primary pressures by endorsing Jordan could spell political death in the general election in a competitive district, Dent told me. Even so, 12 of the 18 House Republicans in districts that Biden carried voted for Jordan onhis first ballot as a measure of their reluctance to challenge the partys MAGA forces.

The instinct for self-preservation among a handful of Republican members combined with ongoing resentment at the role of the far right in ousting Kevin McCarthy might be enough to keep Jordan just below the majority he needs for election as speaker; many Republicans expect him to fail again in a second vote scheduled for this morning. Yet even if Jordan falls short, its his ascent that captures the shift in the partys balance of power toward Trumps MAGA movement.

Bassin, of Protect Democracy, points to a disturbing analogy for what is happening in the GOP as Trump surges and Jordan climbs. When you look at the historical case studies to determine which countries survive autocratic challenges and which succumb to them, Bassin told me, a key determinant is whether the countrys mainstream parties unite with their traditional opponents to block the extremists from power.

Philip Wallach: Newt Gingrichs degraded legacy

Over the years, he said, that kind of alliance has mobilized against autocratic movements in countries including the Czech Republic, France, Finland, and, most recently, Poland, where the center-right joined with its opponents on the left to topple the antidemocratic Law and Justice party. The chilling counterexample, Bassin noted, is that during the period between World War I and World War II, center-right parties in Germany and Italy chose a different course. Rather than directly opposing the emerging fascist movements in each country, they opted instead to try to ride the energy of [the] far-right extremists to power, thinking that once there, they could easily sideline [their] leaders.

That was, of course, a historic miscalculation that led to the destruction of democracy in each country. But, Bassin said, right now, terrifyingly, the American Republican Party is following the German and Italian path. The belligerent Jordan may face just enough personal and ideological opposition to stop him, but whether or not he becomes speaker, his rise captures the currents carrying the Trump-era GOP ever further from Americas democratic traditions.

Continue Reading

Politics

Courts system in a ‘calamitous’ state, warns ex-judge who recommended jury cuts

Published

on

By

Courts system in a 'calamitous' state, warns ex-judge who recommended jury cuts

Sir Brian Leveson, who conducted the independent review of the courts system that guided the government’s decision to reduce on jury trials, has suggested there is no alternative.

Speaking to Sky’s Politics Hub programme, the retired judge argued that by restricting jury trials, Justice Secretary David Lammy is “aiming to try to solve the systemic problems” in courts.

He told Sky presenter Ali Fortescue: “I am a great believer in trial by jury, but trials with a jury take very much longer than trials conducted otherwise than with 12 people who are utterly unused to criminal procedure and criminal evidence.

“So my concern is that we need to get through cases quicker.”

He said that it was likely a “20% time saving would result” from the move, although he thinks that “a great deal more” would be saved.

Asked about the criticism today of the decision, Sir Brian said: “I’m gaining no pleasure from it, but what I say to all of them is ‘If not this, then what?’ How do we reduce the backlog so the victims and witnesses get their day in court within a reasonable time?”

He argued that “we should use our resources proportionately to the gravity of the offending”, and “there are some cases which, to my mind, do not merit or require a trial by jury”.

More on David Lammy

Sir Brian said that some jurors he had spoken to said it was “worthwhile”. But he added: “They’ve given up two weeks of their life, sometimes without any pay except the small remuneration that they receive from the state doing jury service, and they’ve been trying cases which shouldn’t merit their attention”.

Asked if he would want a trial by jury if he had been wrongly accused of theft, Sir Brian said: “If I’d been wrongly accused of theft, I’d be perfectly happy for a judge to decide I’d been wrongly accused of theft.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Jury trials to be scrapped

More broadly, he said: “I don’t see how you’re going to bring down the backlog without more money, more sitting days, greater efficiency, and speedier trials…

“There aren’t the judges, there aren’t the court staff, more significantly there aren’t the advocates.”

He said that the justice system had never been in such a “calamitous” state.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

‘The reforms are about fairness’

Courts minister Sarah Sackman also defended the decision on Tuesday’s Politics Hub. She acknowledged that jury trials were “a success story”, and “a cornerstone of British justice and will remain so after today’s plans”.

But she added: “What’s not such a success story is the fact that we inherited record and rising backlogs in our courts.

“Today the number starts at 80,000 cases, and it’s on the rise – due to hit 100,000 by 2028.”

That leaves victims “waiting for their case to be heard”. She argued that the measures announced on Tuesday were “a set of reforms that will restore confidence in our justice system, get those delays down, and indeed preserve jury trials for the most serious cases”.

Ms Sackman added that “right now in our system, 90% of cases [are] being heard without a jury in our magistrates”, which is “fair, robust justice”.

“Part of fairness is about the swiftness we need to deliver swifter justice for victims,” she said.

“What’s not fair is a victim of crime being told today that she needs to wait until 2029, 2030 for her day in court.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Swifter justice for victims’

The minister gave an example of what will change, saying: “Supposing a defendant is accused of stealing a bottle of whisky.

“Is it right that we allow the defendant to insist on a slower, more expensive jury trial in the same queue as the victim of rape, making her wait and in some cases, justice not being served?

“That’s the choice that we’ve made today.”

But the minister refused to say how much this would reduce the backlog by.

Continue Reading

Politics

Government delays Chinese ‘super embassy’ decision

Published

on

By

Government delays Chinese 'super embassy' decision

The UK government has again delayed its decision over whether to approve a Chinese “super embassy” in London until January.

A decision over the controversial plan close to the Tower of London will now take place on 20 January, instead of 10 December, a letter from the planning inspectorate seen by Sky News says.

Despite multiple delays, Sky News understands the government is expected to approve the plans for what would be Europe’s largest embassy, with both MI5 and MI6 said to have given their blessing to the decision.

Politics latest: Jury trials to be scrapped for those facing sentences of three years or less

Housing Secretary Steve Reed has said he needs more time to consider new representations from the Foreign Office and Home Office.

A letter from the home and foreign secretaries to the planning inspectorate, published with the latest delay letter, said their national security concerns have been addressed by the Chinese government committing to ensure all its diplomatic premises in London, excluding the ambassador’s house, are consolidated on to the new embassy site.

The new letter sent to ministers and “interested parties”, including the Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) – which has warned against approving the embassy – said the government aims “to issue the decision as quickly as possible” on or before 20 January.

More on China

Luke de Pulford, executive director of IPAC, told Sky News: “This is the third delay, and entirely of the government’s own making.

“Residents and dissidents have endured months of dithering as the government tries to choose between UK national security and upsetting Beijing.”

The basements in most of the buildings have been greyed out 'for security reasons'. Pic: David Chipperfield Architects
Image:
The basements in most of the buildings have been greyed out ‘for security reasons’. Pic: David Chipperfield Architects

Three delays by Labour government

Mr Reed became housing secretary in September and had already delayed the decision once from October, as he said he had not had enough time to look at the details.

A decision had also been delayed earlier this year by the former housing secretary Angela Rayner, months after the Chinese re-submitted their planning application two weeks after Labour won the general election.

That was after Tower Hamlets Council rejected the application in 2022 and the Conservative government said it would not call it in for ministers to decide.

Read more:
Everything we know about China’s new ‘super embassy’

There have been multiple protests against the embassy's development. Pic: PA
Image:
There have been multiple protests against the embassy’s development. Pic: PA

National security concerns

There have been large-scale protests against the embassy – on the site of the former Royal Mint – over concerns it will be used as a Chinese spy hub for Europe.

Hong Kong dissidents who have fled to the UK have expressed fears that rooms redacted “for security reasons” in submitted plans might be used to detain them.

The latest delay comes less than 24 hours after Sir Keir Starmer warned China poses “real national security threats to the United Kingdom” and said being tough on national security will enable the UK to pursue economic opportunities with Beijing.

He said UK government policy towards China cannot continue to blow “hot and cold” and said his government will focus on the relationship with Beijing.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Starmer on China: ‘It’s time for a serious approach’

Chinese embassy says UK interfering in its affairs

A Chinese embassy spokesman in London said China “firmly opposes the erroneous remarks” and accused Sir Keir of making “groundless accusations against China” and interfering in China’s internal affairs.

“Facts have fully demonstrated that China has always been a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, and a defender of the international order,” he said.

“On issues of peace and security, China has the best track record among major countries. China’s development poses no threat to any country, but instead brings opportunities for common development to all.”

He said the UK should “adjust its mindset, adopt a rational and friendly approach towards China’s development”.

Last month, MI5 warned MPs, peers and parliamentary staff about the risk from Chinese spies after identifying two LinkedIn profiles it said are being used by the Chinese Ministry of State Security to act as “civilian recruitment headhunters”.

Continue Reading

Politics

Inquiry into Crown Estate launched after controversy over Andrew’s Royal Lodge residence

Published

on

By

Inquiry into Crown Estate launched after controversy over Andrew's Royal Lodge residence

An influential parliamentary committee is launching an inquiry into the Crown Estate – the vast range of properties and land owned by the monarchy.

The move by the Public Accounts Committee follows scrutiny of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s living arrangements at Royal Lodge on the Windsor Estate, and the revelation he pays a peppercorn rent.

The Crown Estate and the Treasury were asked to explain and justify his lease agreement to the committee after the series of scandals over Andrew’s controversial links to Jeffrey Epstein which saw him step down from royal duties and lose his royal style and titles.

The former prince has consistently denied allegations of sexual abuse and his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, took her own life this year.

Public Accounts Committee chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown thanked the Treasury and Crown Estate for responding to questions and said the committee’s “overall” mission was to “secure value for money for the taxpayer”.

Read more:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor officially stripped of two more titles

Andrew loses his titles – everything we know

He said: “Having reflected on what we have received, the information provided clearly forms the beginnings of a basis for an inquiry.”

More on Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

The inquiry into the Crown Estate will start in the new year and will consider leases given to members of the royal family, as well as wider work based on the estate’s annual accounts.

Part of the responses given to the committee confirm Andrew won’t receive any compensation for leaving Royal Lodge due to the maintenance and repairs the property needs.

It has also been revealed that the Prince and Princess of Wales have a 20-year lease on their new home, Forest Lodge, also situated within Windsor Great Park.

Continue Reading

Trending