Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Tuesday, August 09, 2022

By Train, Bus or Uber, Giuliani Is Told to Come to Georgia

By Train, Bus or Uber, Giuliani Is Told to Come to Georgia

“A judge in Atlanta tentatively ordered Rudolph W. Giuliani to appear before a special grand jury investigating meddling in the 2020 election.

A judge in Fulton County, Ga., tentatively ordered Rudolph W. Giuliani to appear before a special grand jury in Atlanta on Aug. 17.
Jeenah Moon for The New York Times

ATLANTA — Rudolph W. Giuliani, the lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and a central figure in the investigation into election interference in Georgia, has been telling prosecutors that he cannot travel to the state to appear before a special grand jury because he is not healthy enough to fly.

But on Tuesday, a judge in Fulton County, Ga., said that Mr. Giuliani, who had two coronary heart stents implanted in early July, could travel from New York to Atlanta some other way, and tentatively ordered him to show up to deliver in-person testimony on Aug. 17.

“Mr. Giuliani is not cleared for air travel, A-I-R,” Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court said. “John Madden drove all over the country in his big bus, from stadium to stadium. So one thing we need to explore is whether Mr. Giuliani could get here without jeopardizing his recovery and his health. On a train, on a bus or Uber, or whatever it would be,” he said, adding, “New York is not close to Atlanta, but it’s not traveling from Fairbanks.”

In a hearing on Tuesday afternoon, the judge also told prosecutors they should let Mr. Giuliani, 78, know whether he was a target of the criminal investigation. The office of Fani T. Willis, the Atlanta-area district attorney, has already told at least 17 other people, including a pair of state senators and the head of the state Republican Party, that they are targets.

If Mr. Giuliani is considered to be a target, that could prompt him to invoke his Fifth Amendment right and decline to give testimony after potentially making a lengthy road trip. Letting Mr. Giuliani know in advance, the judge said, would give some clarity on “what impact that has on the extent of his time in front of the grand jury.”

Understand Georgia’s Trump Investigation


An immediate legal threat to Trump. Fani T. Willis, the Atlanta area district attorney, has been investigating whether former President Donald J. Trump and his allies interfered with the 2020 election in Georgia. The case could be one of the most perilous legal problems for Mr. Trump. Here’s what to know:

The judge also said he could reconsider the Aug. 17 date if Mr. Giuliani’s doctor produced a sufficiently compelling medical excuse.

William H. Thomas Jr., a lawyer for Mr. Giuliani, said in the hearing that his client would be open to a remote interview via Zoom. Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor working for the district attorney, said the office was not interested and preferred that Mr. Giuliani appear in person.

Mr. Giuliani’s role in the effort to reverse Mr. Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia is of interest to Fulton County prosecutors for a number of reasons. As part of the closed-door grand jury proceedings, they have questioned multiple witnesses about Mr. Giuliani’s appearances before a pair of state legislative panels after the 2020 vote, in which he made a number of false allegations of election fraud. Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, also participated in a scheme to create slates of fake, pro-Trump presidential electors in a number of swing states. The convening of these electors in Georgia is another subject of Ms. Willis’s investigation.

Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers had sought to delay any in-person appearance in Atlanta and produced a doctor’s note this week advising him not to fly anywhere because of the stent procedure. Ms. Willis countered that Mr. Giuliani had recently traveled out of state to New Hampshire and had also purchased plane tickets to Europe.

Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers said that he had traveled out of state by car and that the plane tickets were purchased by the planners of a conference that was ultimately canceled. (“No such travel ever occurred,” Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers said in court documents.)

Judge McBurney said Mr. Giuliani had plenty of time to get from New York to Atlanta, suggesting that he could break up a 13-hour road trip into segments. “Maybe he goes down to Washington, as the first part, and reconnects with people there, and then travels another few hours.”

If Trump illegally removed official records, would he be barred from future office?

If Trump illegally removed official records, would he be barred from future office?

Charlie Savage
Mar-a-Lago a day after F.B.I. agents searched former President Donald J. Trump’s residence there.
Saul Martinez for The New York Times

“WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. search of former President Donald J. Trump’s residence in Florida has raised the question of whether the criminal investigation could lead to legally blocking him from becoming president again, even if he decides to run in the 2024 election.

Any conviction under one particular criminal law that appears to relate to the investigation includes an unusual penalty: disqualification from holding any federal office. But there is reason for caution before concluding that if Mr. Trump were to be charged and convicted under that law, he could not legally return to the White House even if voters wanted him to.

Here is a closer look at the case, starting with the basics.

What motivated the search warrant?

The Justice Department has declined to comment. But by its nature, the warrant means a criminal investigation is underway. Early reports citing sources familiar with the matter have indicated that the criminal investigation behind the search warrant relates to suspicions that Mr. Trump unlawfully took government files with him when he left the White House.

Earlier this year, the National Archives retrieved 15 boxes that Mr. Trump took with him to his Mar-a-Lago home from the White House residence when his term ended, and said some were found to have contained classified information.

But it is not clear whether Mr. Trump handed over everything. In a statement denouncing the F.B.I.’s action on Monday, Mr. Trump said law enforcement officials “even broke into my safe.”

What laws apply to the removal of documents?

There are several laws that could potentially cover such a situation. For example, the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the unauthorized retention of defense-related information that could be used to harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary, carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison per offense.

But the law that has attracted particular attention is Section 2071 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which makes it a crime if someone who has custody of government documents or records “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies or destroys” them. Section 2071 is not limited to classified information.

If convicted under that law, defendants can be fined up to $2,000 and sentenced to prison for up to three years. In addition, the statute says, if they are currently in a federal office, they “shall forfeit” that office, and — perhaps most importantly, given widespread expectations that Mr. Trump will seek re-election again — they shall “be disqualified from holding” any federal office.

Trump supporters on Tuesday in Palm Beach, Fla., not far from Mar-a-Lago.
Saul Martinez for The New York Times

How might a conviction play out in coming elections?

Were Mr. Trump to be charged and convicted under Section 2071, voters or rival candidates in state primary elections for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination could challenge his eligibility for that office, asking that his name be omitted from primary ballots.

Each state administers its own elections, so the exact process would vary. But in general, such a challenge would first go to a state elections board. The board’s decision could be appealed in the state court system, whose outcome could in turn be appealed to the Supreme Court.

How could any ballot disqualification be challenged?

With an argument that the disqualification provision of Section 2071 is unconstitutional as relates to the presidency.

Article II of the United States Constitution establishes three criteria for presidential eligibility: One must be a “natural born citizen,” at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

Since the Constitution prevails when it and a federal statute conflict, the argument would be that Congress lacks the authority to alter that list of criteria — such as by adding a requirement that one has not been convicted of unlawfully taking government documents.

Notably, the Constitution does authorize Congress to render people ineligible to hold federal office as a penalty for convictions in impeachment proceedings. But nothing in the text of the Constitution says lawmakers may use ordinary criminal law to do so.

What have courts said?

The Supreme Court has never ruled on a presidential candidate whose eligibility was challenged based on a conviction under a law whose penalties included disqualification from office. But there have been cases involving Congress that raised analogous disputes.

In a 1969 case, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the House of Representatives, by majority vote, to block Adam Clayton Powell Jr. from taking his seat; voters in his district had re-elected him despite allegations of misconduct. The court ruled that, because he met the Constitution’s eligibility criteria to be a House member, “the House was without power to exclude him from its membership.”

Citing Alexander Hamilton, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in that majority opinion that “a fundamental principle of our representative democracy is that “the people should choose whom they please to govern them.”

And in a 1995 case, the Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the Arkansas constitution that had attempted to impose term limits on federal House members and senators elected from that state. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the state had no power to add qualifications to the list of eligibility criteria established by the federal Constitution.

Citing those and other precedents in an aside in a 2000 case before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Judge Richard Posner, who has been deemed the most cited American legal scholar of all time, asserted that Congress lacked authority to supplement the eligibility requirements for the presidency listed in the Constitution.

What did people say about Hillary Clinton?

Section 2071 briefly received a close look in 2015, after it came to light that Mrs. Clinton, then widely anticipated to be the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, had used a private email server to conduct government business while secretary of state.

Mrs. Clinton was never charged with any crime related to her use of the server. But many Republicans embraced Donald J. Trump’s criticism of her over the issue during his 2016 presidential campaign, and some were briefly entranced with the idea that the law might be used to keep Mrs. Clinton out of the White House. Among that number was Michael Mukasey, a former attorney general in the administration of George W. Bush. So was at least one conservative think tank.

But in considering that situation, Seth Barrett Tillman, an American and a legal scholar who now teaches at Maynooth University in Ireland, and Eugene Volokh of the University of California, Los Angeles, argued that they were wrong, citing the court rulings and the argument that Congress cannot alter the eligibility criteria set out in the Constitution’s text.

Mr. Volokh later reported an update on his blog that Mr. Mukasey — who is also a former federal judge — had written him a gracious email saying that “upon reflection,” Mr. Mukasey had been mistaken and Mr. Tillman’s analysis was “spot on.”

What are people saying about Trump now?

After the Mar-a-Lago search warrant came to light, one of the most prominent voices pointing to Section 2071 was that of Marc Elias, who served as general counsel for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign. He initially cited the law’s disqualification provision in a Twitter post as “the really, really big reason why the raid today is a potential blockbuster in American politics.”

But he followed up with another Twitter post acknowledging that any conviction under Section 2071 might not ultimately bar Mr. Trump from seeking the presidency again — but arguing that a legal fight over it would nevertheless be important because of the prospect of legal fights over whether his name could be kept off state ballots.

“Yes, I recognize the legal challenge that application of this law to a president would garner (since qualifications are set in Constitution),” Mr. Elias wrote. “But the idea that a candidate would have to litigate this is during a campaign is in my view a ‘blockbuster in American politics.’”

Mar-a-Lago search appears focused on whether Trump, aides withheld items

Mar-a-Lago search appears focused on whether Trump, aides withheld items

“A lawyer for Donald Trump said agents seized about a dozen boxes on Monday, months after 15 boxes of items were returned

Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., on Dec. 21, 2016, weeks after he was elected president. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

In the months before the FBI’s dramatic move to execute a search warrant at former president Donald Trump’s Florida home — and open his safe to look for items — federal authorities grew increasingly concerned that Trump or his lawyers and aides had not, in fact, returned all the documents and other material that were government property, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Officials became suspicious that when Trump gave back items to the National Archives about seven months ago, either the former president or people close to him held on to key records — despite a Justice Department investigation into the handling of 15 boxes of material sent to the former president’s private club and residence in the waning days of his administration.

Over months of discussions on the subject, some officials also came to suspect Trump’s representatives were not truthful at times, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

On Tuesday, a lawyer for Trump said the agents who brought the court-approved warrant to Mar-a-Lago a day earlier took about 12 more boxes after conducting their search.

People familiar with the investigation said that Justice Department and FBI officials traveled to Mar-a-Lago this spring, a meeting first reported by CNN. The officials spoke to Trump’s representatives, inspected the storage space where documents were held, and expressed concern that the former president or people close to him still had items that should be in government custody, these people said.

By that point, officials at the National Archives had been aggressively contacting people in Trump’s orbit to demand the return of documents they believed were covered by the Presidential Records Act, said two people familiar with those inquiries. Like the others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of the investigation.

Christina Bobb, a lawyer for Trump, said his lawyers engaged in discussions with the Justice Department this spring over materials held at Mar-a-Lago. At that time, the former president’s legal team searched through two to three dozen boxes of material contained in a storage area, hunting for documents that could be considered presidential records, and turned over several items that might meet the definition, she said.

In June, Bobb said, she and Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran met with Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and export control section at the Justice Department, along with several investigators. Trump stopped by the meeting as it began to greet the investigators but was not interviewed. The lawyers showed the federal officials the boxes, and Bratt and the others spent some time looking through the material.

Bobb said the Justice Department officials commented that they did not believe the storage unit was properly secured, so Trump officials added a lock to the facility. When FBI agents searched the property Monday, Bobb added, they broke through the lock that had been added to the door.

The FBI removed about a dozen boxes that had been stored in the basement storage area, she said. Bobb did not share the search warrant left by agents but said that it indicated agents were investigating possible violations of laws dealing with the handling of classified material and the Presidential Records Act.

Trump announced Monday that the FBI had searched Mar-a-Lago and his safe, decrying the move as the latest unfair action against him by the Justice Department and FBI. Spokespeople at both agencies declined to comment.

Asked for comment Tuesday about whether the former president or his advisers had withheld documents or been untruthful, Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich called the FBI’s action “not only unprecedented, but completely unnecessary.”

“President Trump and his representatives have gone to painstaking lengths in communicating and cooperating with the appropriate agencies,” Budowich said in an emailed statement. “In the Democrats’ desperate attempt to retain power, they have unified and grown the entire conservative movement.”

One adviser who spoke to Trump after the search said the former president sounded buoyed by the development, bragging about how many Republicans were supporting him publicly, and said Trump thought the search would help him politically in the end.

“It furthers his inclination to run and galvanizes the Republican base on his behalf,” said Jason Miller, a longtime adviser and former spokesman.

Some of the Trump’s advisers have urged him to move up his expected announcement that he will run for president in 2024 and make it soon at Mar-a-Lago, with the FBI search as a backdrop. But Trump has made no commitment to doing so, one person with direct knowledge of the conversations said.

Two people familiar with the initial recovery of the materials at Mar-a-Lago said that Archives officials believed that more records were missing and were skeptical that Trump had handed everything over. As the investigation gained steam, some Trump advisers have sought to stay away from the issue, fearing it would become a messy legal and political situation, according to people familiar with the discussions.

After Monday’s search, lawyers close to Trump sought advice or recommendations of criminal defense lawyers who could represent Trump, said a person familiar with the lawyers. According to this person, the lawyers said the warrant was related to allegations that classified information was retained by Trump.

Trump already has a number of lawyers working for him, but it is not uncommon for individuals facing investigative activity to seek local attorneys to navigate a particular court district.

Dozens of die-hard Trump supporters came to West Palm Beach on Tuesday to express their support. Adriane Shochet, 64, of Lake Worth, Fla., bought a $14 broomstick, which she attached to an American flag and waved as she stood on the causeway that overlooks part of Mar-a-Lago.

“I just needed to come out and show the whole free world that this is frightening, and if they can do this, what’s next?” Shochet said. “This is the polar opposite of whatever effect politically they thought they were going to get because all it’s doing is empowering the right politically.”

Passing motorists honked in support. One man stood on the bridge, which crosses the Intracoastal Waterway, holding the American flag upside down — widely recognized as a symbol of his belief that the country is in distress.

Pat Stewart, 85, found the “Trump 2020” flag that used to fly at her house in Jupiter, Fla., which she had expected to keep tucked away until the next presidential election. For the next several hours, she stood in the sun alongside a friend who was visiting from Michigan, who is also 85, waving at passing motorists.

“I was very angry, very angry, and very upset, that our government would do this to an ex-president,” Stewart said. Even though aides said Trump was in New York and at his golf club and residence in Bedminster, N.J., this week, she held out hope that he was at Mar-a-Lago.

“We want him to come out and announce he’s running for president,” Stewart said.

One person familiar with the investigation said agents were conducting a court-authorized search as part of a long-running examination into why documents — some of them top-secret — were taken to the former president’s private club and residence instead of shipped to the National Archives and Records Administration when Trump left office. The Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of memos, letters, notes, emails, faxes and other written communications related to a president’s official duties.

In January, the National Archives retrieved 15 boxes of documents and other items from Mar-a-Lago. David S. Ferriero, then the archivist of the United States, said in a statement in February that Trump representatives were “continuing to search” for additional records.

Trump resisted handing over some of the boxes for months, some people close to the president said, and believed that many of the items were his personally and did not belong to the government. He eventually agreed to hand over some of the documents, “giving them what he believed they were entitled to,” in the words of one adviser.

Tim Craig in West Palm Beach, Fla., contributed to this report.“

Muslim advocate: Biden should devote more aid to solving New Mexico killings

Muslim advocate: Biden should devote more aid to solving New Mexico killings

The four recent murders have raised the concern that a serial killer is targeting members of the Muslim community in Albuquerque

A woman stands in front of a podium with a microphone holding up a flyer with the word 'Wanted' across the top.
Cecily Barker, with the Albuquerque police, holds a flyer showing photos of a car authorities think is connected to the recent killings of four Muslim men. Photograph: Adolphe Pierre-Louis/AP

The White House needs to devote more resources to finding and catching the person or people behind the killings of four Muslim men in New Mexico which local law enforcement officials have linked together, the head of one of America’s leading Muslim civil rights groups has said.

The four victims include Mohammad Ahmadi, 62, Aftab Hussein, 41, and Muhammad Afzaal Hussain, 27, and most recently, Nayeem Hossain, 25, who was shot and killed after attending the funerals of the two victims that preceded him last Friday.

A portrait of a Muslim man in front of flags.
Muhammad Afzaal Hussain, 27, a planning and land use director, is one of four victims in a series of killings of Muslim men in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Photograph: AP

The brutal murders in Albuquerque have prompted national outcry. Government officials from the New Mexico governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, to Joe Biden have offered swift condemnation of the crimes and prayers as law enforcement raised the possibility that a serial killer is at work targeting members of the Muslim community.

But according to the Council on American Islamic Relations’ executive director, Nihad Awad, action so far from the White House has been not nearly enough. Awad said more resources were needed from law enforcement, especially federally.

“Look, we appreciate the president’s prayers, but we need more resources from the president. The president should channel more resources to stop this insanity from continuing and to make sure that the community is safe and that this perpetrator is brought to justice immediately. I believe he can mobilize more federal resources to put an end to this, in addition to his prayers,” Awad said.

Awad said local Islamic leadership and law enforcement began to suspect the murderers were not isolated incidents quickly.

“When it happened last November unfortunately, a community member who was a store owner was gunned down and it was tragic. Then, the second murder just made all of us anxious that now this is the second murder within less than one year. But when the third one happened within a short time, and the fourth one, you know, it doesn’t take a great mind to connect the dots. It’s in your face, it’s right there,” he said.

Biden has condemned the killings by saying “these hateful attacks have no place in America” and a major manhunt has been launched. Grisham has sent more state police to reinforce Albuquerque officers as well as some FBI agents.

But Awad said the Muslim community in Albuquerque was living in fear as the killer or killers remain at large. Police have circulated a picture of a grey or silver Volkswagen and asked for help identifying it. But – publicly at least – that is the only major clue so far to the murderer’s whereabouts.

A man kneels down, crying, in a cemetery surrounded by other mourners.
Altaf Hussain cries over the grave of his brother Aftab Hussein at Fairview Memorial Park on 5 August.Photograph: Chancey Bush/AP

In New Mexico, hate crimes targeting race and religion have the highest number of victims among other kinds of hate crimes reported in the state and Awad said that families that frequented the Islamic Center of New Mexico are now shutting themselves inside their homes for fear they could be the killer’s next victim.

“I have been in touch with the local leadership there, and they wish that more manpower is provided. And hopefully, the federal government and the FBI will afford the state more resources to bring the suspect or suspects to justice immediately,” Awad said.

Awad said refugee and immigrant Muslims in the area are most vulnerable, often wearing cultural clothing like kaftans, burqas or shalwars that visibly identifies them as Muslim.

“This is crazy. It has to stop. People’s lives are in danger. And many, many families and individuals do not go out now, even to buy food, for their safety or the safety of their children. For the entire community, life is really being put on hold because they’re scared for their lives or the lives of their loved ones. And they don’t know who’s going to be targeted next,” he added.

Crimestoppers and Cair are offering a combined reward of $30,000 in hopes to incentivize locals to engage in the search for those behind the murders and expedite their arrest.

“We’re relieved that there are some leads and there is a car of interest, I think that lead should be followed. And we urge those who know that car, or know whom it belongs to, to help save lives and also be rewarded for their heroic act,” Awad said.“

Landmark US climate bill will do more harm than good, groups say

Landmark US climate bill will do more harm than good, groups say

Bill makes concessions to the fossil fuel industry as frontline community groups call on Biden to declare climate emergency

If signed into law, it would be the first major climate legislation to be passed in the US, which is historically responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other country.
If signed into law, it would be the first major climate legislation to be passed in the US, which is historically responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other country. Photograph: Stefani Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images

“The landmark climate legislation passed by the Senate after months of wrangling and weakening by fossil-fuel friendly Democrats will lead to more harm than good, according to frontline community groups who are calling on Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency.

If signed into law, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) would allocate $369bn to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions and invest in renewable energy sources – a historic amount that scientists estimate will lead to net reductions of 40% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels.

It would be the first significant climate legislation to be passed in the US, which is historically responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other country.

But the bill makes a slew of concessions to the fossil fuel industry, including mandating drilling and pipeline deals that will harm communities from Alaska to Appalachia and the Gulf coast and tie the US to planet-heating energy projects for decades to come.

“Once again, the only climate proposal on the table requires that the communities of the Gulf south bear the disproportionate cost of national interests bending a knee to dirty energy – furthering the debt this country owes to the South,” said Colette Pichon Battle from Taproot Earth Vision (formerly Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy).

“Solving the climate crisis requires eliminating fossil fuels, and the Inflation Reduction Act simply does not do this,” said Steven Feit, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel).

Overall, many environmental and community groups agree that while the deal will bring some long-term global benefits by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, it’s not enough and consigns communities already threatened by sea level rise, floods and extreme heat to further misery.

The bill is a watered-down version of Biden’s ambitious Build Back Better bill which was blocked by every single Republican and also conservative Democratic senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who have both received significant campaign support from fossil fuel industries. West Virginia’s Manchin, in particular, is known for his close personal ties to the coal sector.

“This was a backdoor take-it-or-leave-it deal between a coal baron and Democratic leaders in which any opposition from lawmakers or frontline communities was quashed. It was an inherently unjust process, a deal which sacrifices so many communities and doesn’t get us anywhere near where we need to go, yet is being presented as a saviour legislation,” said Jean Su, energy justice program director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

The IRA, which includes new tax provisions to pay for the historic $739bn climate and healthcare spending package, has been touted as a huge victory for the Biden administration as the Democrats gear up for a tough ride in the midterm elections, when they face losing control of both houses of Congress.

The spending package will expedite expansion of the clean energy industry, and while it includes historic funds to tackle air pollution and help consumers go green through electric vehicle and household appliance subsidies, the vast majority of the funds will benefit corporations.

A cost-benefit analysis by the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA), which represents a wide range of urban and rural groups nationwide, concludes that the strengths of the IRA are outweighed by the bill’s weaknesses and threats posed by the expansion of fossil fuels and unproven technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen generation – which the bill will incentivise with billions of dollars of tax credits that will mostly benefit oil and gas.

“Climate investments should not be handcuffed to corporate subsidies for fossil fuel development and unproven technologies that will poison our communities for decades,” said Juan Jhong-Chung from the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, a member of the CJA.

The IRA is a huge step towards creating a green capitalist industry that wrongly assumes the economic benefits will trickle down to low-income communities and households, added Su.

Many advocacy groups agree that the IRA should be the first step – not the final climate policy – for Biden, who promised to be the country’s first climate president.

People vs Fossil Fuels, a national coalition of more than 1,200 organisations from all 50 states, recently delivered a petition with more than 500,000 signatures to the White House calling on Biden to declare a climate emergency, which would unlock new funds for urgently needed climate adaptation in hard-hit communities, and use executive actions to stop the expansion of fossil fuels.

Siqiniq Maupin, executive director of Sovereign IƱupiat for a Living Arctic, said: “This new bill is genocide, there is no other way to put it. This is a life or death situation and the longer we act as though the world isn’t on fire around us, the worse our burns will be. Biden has the power to prevent this, to mitigate the damage.”