Politics
Poland, in Russia’s shadow, nervous as war in Ukraine intensifies
Justina Dziwicka was not but born when Poland shed the shackles of the Soviet Union and joined NATO, the U.S.-led Western alliance that may defend the Jap European nation. However the child-care employee is getting a swift lesson on what a Moscow-generated battle appears to be like like.
“I really feel that the battle got here to my nation,” she stated. “And I really feel horrible.”
Dziwicka stood on a avenue nook right here in central Warsaw, the Polish capital, ready to cross a busy boulevard. On one aspect of the road was the primary prepare station, the place on her commute to work, Dziwicka sees more and more giant numbers of refugees fill the corridors and spill into out of doors tents.
On the opposite aspect of the road was the resort the place Secret Service brokers had been making ready for Vice President Kamala Harris’ arrival later Wednesday.
Harris is spending Thursday in Poland after which persevering with to Romania on Friday, in search of to reassure the deeply nervous former East Bloc international locations that with their membership in NATO — and backing from Washington — they continue to be secure.
The 2 international locations additionally need assist in shouldering the burden of sheltering most of the greater than 2.1 million refugees who’ve fled the ferocious Russian onslaught in Ukraine. It’s the fastest-growing exodus in Europe since World Conflict II.
At 22, Dziwicka has by no means recognized a time when her nation was aligned with Russia. Poland on Saturday will have fun the twenty third anniversary of the day it joined the North Atlantic Treaty Group.
Nonetheless, there’s a way of vulnerability and worry that’s extra pronounced in Poland and Romania — in addition to the three Baltic states northeast of Poland — than in older NATO member international locations, given each their historical past of Soviet domination and their location. Poland sees itself as soon as once more within the crosshairs of a superpower wrestle with probably catastrophic outcomes.
“We’ve one loopy man … and he sits within the bunkers,” stated Max Mrozowski, a 39-year-old entrepreneur on a smoking break, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “He’s killing folks, slaughtering youngsters in Ukraine.”
“So it might additionally come right here,” he stated. “You by no means know. He would possibly discover any form of cause to start out it.”
Mrozowski sounds stoic however is holding shut tabs. He is aware of Poland’s NATO anniversary is close to. He thinks about Hitler and World Conflict II and attracts worrisome comparisons. Requested concerning the concept of his nation sending fighter jets to Ukraine, he cites Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s requires extra assist from the West however then factors out the potential for giving Putin pretext for extra aggression.
“It’s a matter of us serving to the Ukrainians as a result of now we’re simply preventing for our understanding of freedom and our understanding of human rights and present civilization,” he stated. “So that is the entire thing.”
The Harris mission grew to become difficult on the final minute when Polish officers — stunning their U.S. counterparts — introduced that somewhat than ship Soviet-era fighter jets to Ukraine, as Ukraine has sought, they had been sending the plane to the U.S. Air Power base at Ramstein, Germany.
This was Poland’s means of extricating itself from a transaction that risked inviting Putin’s wrath. But it surely turned what had been cautious U.S. negotiations on their head and left American officers struggling to make sense of it.
Whereas calling the Polish choice to have the U.S. ship the planes to Ukraine “untenable,” Biden administration officers additionally sought to downplay the apparent wrinkle in much-vaunted NATO unity.
The Pentagon then introduced it had positioned two Patriot antimissile batteries in Poland as what an official referred to as a “purely proactive” measure to guard NATO’s japanese flank from Russian air assault — one other signal of deep worries about Moscow’s aggression.
“The Poles are nervous, in fact they’re nervous,” Daniel Fried, a veteran diplomat and former U.S. ambassador to Poland now on the Atlantic Council suppose tank in Washington, stated in an interview. “They’ve the Russian military destroying their neighbor … and making nuclear threats. [Putin] hates the Poles, not fairly as a lot as he hates the Ukrainians.”
This presents Harris with a formidable problem, Fried stated. “She should hearken to the Poles,” he stated, to their concrete issues and fears. And she or he should clarify the longer-term U.S. posture towards Russia and elaborate not what the U.S. can not do for Ukraine — like ship fighter jets — however what it could actually do.
“She is aware of that is messy,” Fried stated. “She’s going to have a helluva time.”
Poland’s tumultuous historical past — simply within the final century — took it from a Nazi occupation within the Nineteen Thirties and ‘40s that bore witness to a few of the deadliest slaughters of Jews, to the ranks of one of many largest financial powers inside the Soviet sphere, to the forefront of the anti-communist motion beneath the auspices of labor chief Lech Walesa — with essential help from then-Pope John Paul II, a Pole. Extra not too long ago, a once-flourishing democracy has taken a regressive flip towards judicial and press freedoms beneath President Andrzej Duda, an admirer of former President Trump, a fellow right-wing populist.
Warsaw’s fashionable glass skyscrapers share a skyline with the Stalinist Palace of Tradition and Science over low-rise Soviet-era condo buildings, a mixture of structure reflecting many years of change. Youthful folks with brightly dyed hair and trendy footwear eat from stylish cafes that serve conventional pierogis together with espresso and truffles.
However one other chapter unfolds now on the prepare station.
Refugees from Ukraine who spilled into the tents outdoors the station carried suitcases or pulled pet canine on leashes, having left behind residences and family members, not figuring out the place they might wind up. Volunteers handed out water and sandwiches and processing paperwork; a truck offered free web entry.
Mamoud Krgbo, who was born in Sierra Leone and met his spouse in Ukraine, stood together with her and their 4-year-old daughter, attempting to hail a cab to the airport. They’d aircraft tickets to Eire — a rustic they selected in a rush — however didn’t know whether or not they can be allowed in.
He had little hope that Harris or every other politician would be capable to give Ukraine the assistance it wants.
“It’s a disappointment,” he stated. “They’re simply speaking.”
Wilkinson reported from Washington.
Politics
A Legacy From Carter That Democrats Would Prefer to Escape
Since his death, Jimmy Carter has been lauded for brokering the Camp David Accords and for his post-White House mission to help the poor and battle disease. But glossed over amid all the tributes is the burdensome legacy that Mr. Carter left for his Democratic Party: a presidency long caricatured as a symbol of ineffectiveness and weakness.
This perception has shadowed the party for nearly 40 years. It was forged in the seizure of American hostages by Iranian militants in 1979 and the failed military attempt to free them, as well as the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. And it lingered in memories of Mr. Carter wearing a cardigan as he asked Americans to conserve energy, or bemoaning what he called a “crisis of confidence” in an address to the nation that became a textbook example of political self-harm.
Over the decades, these events have provided endless fodder for attacks by Republicans, who reveled in invoking Mr. Carter’s name to deride Democrats. And that mockery, in turn, influenced the way Democrats have presented themselves to voters. Without Mr. Carter’s image of weakness on national security and defense, for example, it is hard to imagine the party’s war-hero candidate for president in 2004 introducing himself with a salute at its nominating convention and saying, “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.”
Mr. Carter’s political legacy produced what many analysts argue was a kind of conditioned response: an overreaction among Democrats anxious to avoid comparisons to him on foreign policy issues. This was evident in the roster of prominent congressional Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, who voted for the 2002 resolution that authorized President George W. Bush to take the nation to war in Iraq, a vote many said they came to regret.
It could even be discerned in the taciturn response from President Biden after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 descended into chaos, said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of political history at Princeton.
“Democrats always feel defensive about these messy situations,” Professor Zelizer said. He linked that reflex to the taking of the Iranian hostages and to the raid Mr. Carter ordered to save them, which ended in a helicopter crash that killed eight Americans.
“They don’t act with command in talking about tough foreign policy events,” Mr. Zelizer said, pointing in particular to the struggle by Democrats in Congress over Iraq. “The instinct when things go bad is to either be silent or apologetic.”
Historians and Democrats say the characterization of Mr. Carter as weak is in many ways unfair and exaggerated, ignoring some of the major accomplishments of his four years in office. He ordered an American boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow and a grain embargo against the Soviet Union after its invasion of Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, “He became an exemplar of why you had to look tough and not weak in foreign policy,” said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who worked for Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts when Mr. Kennedy challenged Mr. Carter for the presidential nomination in 1980.
Indeed, more than 30 years after Mr. Carter left office, Republicans reached back to the Carter years to dismiss a momentous decision by President Barack Obama that delivered a forceful rebuttal to the idea of Democrats as weak or ineffective: approving the American raid to assassinate Osama bin Laden in 2011.
“Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order,” said Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president.
(None other than Mr. Biden, as Mr. Obama’s vice president, made that raid a staple of his speeches in their 2012 re-election campaign. “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive,” Mr. Biden said often.)
This aspect of Mr. Carter’s legacy was ultimately set in cement by his defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a former actor and governor who presented himself as a decisive and forceful contrast to the sitting president. “He was the standard by which Democrats and Republicans judged political effectiveness,” Tim Naftali, a presidential historian, said of Mr. Reagan. “So by definition, Carter, whom Reagan had beaten, was the opposite of effective, the model to be avoided.”
“The killer Reagan line, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ was first aimed at Carter,” he said.
So it was that from the moment Mr. Carter left office — on the day Iranian militants released the hostages — Democratic candidates for president have sought, with word and action, to escape his shadow.
Bill Clinton frequently invoked strength in talking about both international and domestic issues when he ran for president. During his 1996 re-election campaign, he boasted of putting 100,000 police on the street and promised to keep America “the world’s strongest force for peace and freedom and prosperity.”
For her part, Mrs. Clinton, who as the Democratic candidate in 2016 also had to allay voters’ doubts about whether a woman had the fortitude to be president, repeatedly cited her experience as secretary of state under Mr. Obama, and made “Stronger together” her campaign slogan. She used the words “strong,” “stronger” and “strength” 13 times in her speech accepting the party’s nomination.
In last year’s presidential campaign, Kamala Harris, the vice president and Democratic candidate against Donald J. Trump, boasted of owning a Glock pistol, and left little doubt about her belief in military might as she accepted her party’s nomination in Chicago.
“As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” she said.
But some efforts to escape the Carter legacy only seemed to reinforce it.
Michael S. Dukakis, the former governor of Massachusetts, was ridiculed when he donned a green tank helmet and “military coveralls over his Filene’s suit,” as a New York Times report said at the time, to ride a 63-ton M1 tank around a field at a manufacturing plant in front of a battery of television cameras. “Rat-a-tat,” Mr. Dukakis said.
“Dukakis was trying to demonstrate strength,” Mr. Shrum said. “Instead, he demonstrated weakness. People are always fighting the last campaigns, and they are often wrong.”
In the case of Mr. Kerry, who, like Mr. Kennedy, was a Shrum client, Republicans sought to turn his decorated military record against him by accusing him of fabricating details of his Navy service, in an advertising campaign — later discredited — that was launched by a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. (One producer of those ads was Chris LaCivita, a co-manager of Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign.)
To be fair, the seeds for this line of attack against Democrats predated Mr. Carter: In 1972, four years before Mr. Carter burst on the national scene, Republicans invoked the “weak on defense” argument against George McGovern, the Democratic senator from South Dakota, when he challenged Richard M. Nixon for the presidency.
“The 1972 presidential campaign and the landslide defeat of McGovern made the weak-on-defense argument a centerpiece for the G.O.P.,” Mr. Zelizer said. “The problems that Carter faced in the final year — Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — cemented this political imbalance, placing Democrats in a position to constantly stress that they would be tough on defense.”
Politics
Trump files emergency petition to Supreme Court to prevent sentencing in NY v. Trump
President-elect Trump on Wednesday morning filed an emergency petition to the United States Supreme Court in an effort to block his sentencing in New York v. Trump.
Judge Juan Merchan set Trump’s sentencing in New York v. Trump for Jan. 10 after a jury found the now-president-elect guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree, stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and has appealed the ruling but was rejected last week by Merchan.
NEW YORK JUDGE SETS TRUMP SENTENCING DAYS BEFORE INAUGURATION
“President Trump’s legal team filed an emergency petition with the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to correct the unjust actions by New York courts and stop the unlawful sentencing in the Manhattan D.A.’s Witch Hunt,” Trump spokesman and incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital.
“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Constitution, and established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately dismissed.”
Cheung said the “American People elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate that demands an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and all of the remaining Witch Hunts.”
He added: “We look forward to uniting our country in the new administration as President Trump makes America great again.”
TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE
Trump’s lawyers, in its petition to the high court, said it should “immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary.”
“The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application,” the filing states.
Trump attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts.
Trump’s legal team is arguing Merchan should not be permitted to move any further, and said their appeal on the ruling “will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit.”
“In the meantime, the New York trial court lacks authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump—or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him—until the resolution of his underlying appeal raising substantial claims of Presidential immunity, including by review in this Court if necessary,” the filing states. “As discussed herein, this Court should order an immediate stay of criminal proceedings against President Trump in the New York trial court, including but not limited to the criminal sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.”
New York has to file a written response by Thursday at 10:00 a.m.
JUDGE DENIES TRUMP MOTION TO STOP NY CRIMINAL CASE SENTENCING
The filing to the United States Supreme Court comes after a judge in New York on Tuesday denied Trump’s motion to stay the Jan. 10 sentencing, which is currently set for Friday, Jan. 10, at 9:30 a.m.
Merchan set the sentencing date last week but said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison.
Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to “impose any sentence of incarceration,” but rather a sentence of an “unconditional discharge,” which means there would be no punishment imposed.
Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Jan. 20.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of “lawfare” promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
Fox News’ Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Politics
Bracing for Trump, Mexico aims to roll out a 'panic app' for Mexican nationals being deported
Mexico City — Hardly a day goes by here that Mexico’s president or one of her aides does not speak of some plan being devised in case President-elect Donald Trump goes through with his threats of mass deportations and punishing tariffs — testament to how vulnerable Mexico is to shifting policies in Washington.
The latest from Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum‘s administration is a “panic button” — an emergency cellphone application that will enable Mexican citizens fearing detention and deportation in the United States to alert diplomats and relatives of their plight.
Sheinbaum also says her government has bolstered staff at Mexico’s more than 50 consulates in the United States, adding advisors to provide legal counsel to those facing potential deportation.
Trump’s pronouncements have generated profound uncertainty among Mexican officials, business leaders on both side of the border and millions of Mexican immigrants in the United States.
Sheinbaum, who calls Mexican migrants “heroes,” opposes Trump’s mass-deportation plan but has been muted in her criticisms of Trump himself.
Mexican nationals who could face deportation “are not alone and will not be alone,” Mexico’s foreign minister, Juan Ramón de la Fuente, vowed last month, speaking to reporters during one of Sheinbaum’s daily morning news conferences.
According to Mexican government estimates, some 4.8 million Mexicans reside in the United States illegally, by far the largest number among any nationality. Some have resided in the north for decades and have U.S.-born children, own homes and run businesses.
Trump and his representatives have offered no comprehensive details on how his deportation plan will take shape. Some aides have spoken of prioritizing roundups of undocumented immigrants with criminal records and pending deportation orders — longtime targets of U.S. immigration enforcement.
The U.S. House on Tuesday passed a bill that would target for deportation immigrants who are in the country illegally and have been charged with nonviolent crimes.
And some Trump proxies have not ruled out expanded raids in workplaces and sweeps in immigrant communities.
It’s unclear if Sheinbaum and her government hold out any hope that Trump’s deportation threats — a central pillar of his campaign — can be averted. Their public posture is to try to convince Trump of the importance of Mexican workers to key U.S. industries, including agriculture, meatpacking and the hospitality sector. But Trump and his allies have shown little sympathy for that argument.
Vulnerable Mexican citizens “need to know that they have rights,” Sheinbaum told reporters. “You can’t just deport a person, detain them, take them to the border. There are a series of legal procedures that need to be followed.”
Formal deportation cases can take months, even years, to resolve before immigration judges.
A legal assistance program for Mexicans residing in the United States now includes more than 300 advisors across Mexico’s 53 U.S. consulates, the government says, and also receives voluntary support from consultants and law firms.
Some critics question whether the Mexican government’s preparations will be effective, or if they’re really meant to be.
“The panic button, the stuff with the consulates — it’s all a smokescreen to give the impression of doing something in response to Trump,” said Irineo Mujica, who heads the Pueblo Sin Fronteras rights group. “Basically, they are going to give in to whatever Trump wants.”
The so-called panic-button app, to be fully rolled out this month, would allow citizens to alert officials at the nearest Mexican Consulate — as well as previously selected family members — of enforcement action targeting them, officials say.
Questions remain about how the app will work, and when it will become widely available. It will be simple to use and designed to be utilized if someone is facing “imminent detention,” De la Fuente said. Some immigration lawyers in Texas have launched a similar initiative, albeit of a smaller scale, and it has proved an effective tool, the foreign minister said.
“If someone is detained, independent of their migratory status, the most important thing is that the consulate is notified,” said De la Fuente. “This guarantees that the consulate is advised and we can make a quick reaction.”
According to the State Department, foreign nationals detained in the United States must be advised of the option of having the closest consulate or embassy notified. Immigrant advocates say arrested migrants are often not told of this option.
People in immigration proceedings may hire attorneys, but they often cannot afford the fees — or may be unaware of how to go about finding counsel. Unlike criminal defendants, those detained for immigration violations have no right to court-appointed lawyers. Various studies have shown that having counsel greatly reduces the chances of someone being deported.
Mexican authorities, De la Fuente said, are also making “extensive efforts” to encourage compatriots in the United States with U.S.-born children to register their names and those of their children with consulates. One of the great fears of mass deportation is that sweeps could separate U.S.-citizen children from undocumented parents — or even result in the removal of U.S. citizen minors.
In Mexico, the migrant panic-button plan has been greeted with considerable skepticism. Some have noted that, in Mexico, authorities are often slow to respond to emergency calls reporting crimes or to the many fixed panic buttons in parks and other sites that are meant to summon police.
“Are Batman and Robin going to come to the rescue?” one person asked on social media after the government unveiled the app plan.
Also, many remain unconvinced that Mexican consulates — which, like other parts of the Mexican government, have seen budget cuts in recent years — will be much help in the face of sweeping deportations. Mujica said the consulates are often viewed with distrust by Mexican migrants. “They treat people like second-class citizens,” Mujica said.
Another element of Sheinbaum’s plan is to bolster aid for deportees removed to Mexican border cities and elsewhere in Mexico. “They will be received with social programs … and all the help they need,” Sheinbaum said, but she has provided few details.
Skeptics note that Mexican authorities have traditionally done little to assist Mexican nationals who are daily deported or otherwise repatriated to Mexico — beyond welcoming them and offering free or discounted bus fare back to their areas of origin.
Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal in Mexico City contributed to this report.
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics6 days ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics5 days ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics4 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health3 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades