Trump notches easy win over Haley in march to Republican nomination

Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump speaks during an election night watch party at the State Fairgrounds on February 24, 2024 in Columbia, South Carolina. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 25 February 2024
Follow

Trump notches easy win over Haley in march to Republican nomination

  • Haley vows ‘not giving up,’ saying while Trump is strong within the party, he cannot win a general election
  • Poll says 32 percent of voters in South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary contest think Trump would not be fit for the presidency if he were convicted of a crime

CHARLESTON, United States: Donald Trump cruised to a decisive victory Saturday in the South Carolina Republican primary, blitzing rival Nikki Haley in her home state and continuing his march to the nomination and a White House rematch with Joe Biden.

Nonetheless, Haley vowed to fight on Trump may have strong support for the Republican nomination, she has better chances of winning in the presidential race than Trump.

“I said earlier this week that no matter what happens in South Carolina, I would continue to run... I’m a woman of my word. I’m not giving up this fight when a majority of Americans disapprove of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden,” she said.

Trump completed a sweep of the first four major nominating contests, converting a year of blockbuster polls into a likely insurmountable lead going into the “Super Tuesday” 15-state voting bonanza in 10 days.

While Haley repeatedly questioned the 77-year-old former president’s mental fitness and warned another Trump presidency would bring “chaos,” her efforts appeared to do little to damage his standing among Republicans.

The margin of victory was not immediately clear but it was expected to be significant, with major US networks calling the race within seconds of the polls closing.

Haley, a popular governor of South Carolina in the 2010s and the only woman to have entered the Republican contest, was looking to outperform expectations in her own backyard and ride into Super Tuesday with wind her sails.

But she was never able to compete in a battleground that preferred Trump’s brand of right-wing “America first” populism and personal grievance over the four indictments and multiple civil lawsuits he faces.

Meanwhile, some 32 percent of voters in South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary contest think Trump would not be fit for the presidency if he were convicted of a crime, according to the preliminary results of an exit poll conducted on Saturday by Edison Research.
The poll gathered responses from 1,508 voters in the Republican contest. Updated results will be available as more responses are gathered.

Trump had already won Iowa by 30 points and New Hampshire by 10, while a dispute in Nevada led to the real estate tycoon running unopposed in the official contest.

The margin of Trump’s victory was always the main question in South Carolina, with analysts arguing that Haley managing to whittle the gap to 15 points or less would have counted as a good night.
Trump aides have been clear however that they want to see off Haley long before the Republican National Convention in July — and are expecting the party to coalesce around the front-runner ahead of the first of his criminal trials on March 25.

Trump made clear Saturday that he is looking beyond Haley to a likely November contest against Biden.
Speaking ahead of voting booths closing to the Conservative Political Action Committee conference — a must-stop for Republican politicians — Trump spent much of his time bashing Biden, not Haley.
Haley — a traditional conservative who espouses limited government and a muscular foreign policy — has argued that a Trump presidency would be mired in scandal from day one.
The 52-year-old former UN ambassador underscored the point Saturday by describing as “disgusting” comments Trump had made to Black conservatives on the campaign trail.

“It’s disgusting. But that’s what happens when he goes off the teleprompter. That’s the chaos that comes with Donald Trump,” Haley said at a polling station in her home state.
“That’s the offensiveness that’s going to happen every day between now and the general election, which is why I continue to say Donald Trump cannot win a general election,” she added.
Trump made the comments Friday evening in a speech to Black conservatives.
Nodding to his multiple indictments, Trump said that “Black people like me because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against, and they actually viewed me as I’m being discriminated against.”
Haley has also blasted Trump’s reaction to the death of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny — he avoided criticizing President Vladimir Putin — and his threat to encourage Moscow to attack NATO nations not meeting their financial obligations.
Her central argument — that polling shows her performing better than Trump in hypothetical matchups with Biden — may have fallen on deaf ears but she has vowed to stay in the race through Super Tuesday.
Analysts say she is building her profile for a potential 2028 run — and is poised to step in should legal or health problems knock Trump out of the race.
“Nikki Haley’s an incredible role model,” said one Republican voter, Julie Taylor. “She’s not giving up, she’s showing strength and grace and courage.”

One third of South Carolina Republicans would spurn Trump if he were convicted-exit poll
Some 32 percent of voters in South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary contest think Donald Trump would not be fit for the presidency if he were convicted of a crime, according to the preliminary results of an exit poll conducted on Saturday by Edison Research.
The poll gathered responses from 1,508 voters in the Republican contest. Updated results will be available as more responses are gathered.

 


Kabul says ready for ‘dialogue’ with US on Afghan refugees

Updated 6 sec ago
Follow

Kabul says ready for ‘dialogue’ with US on Afghan refugees

  • The country has faced a major economic crisis since 2021 and is enduring the second worst humanitarian crisis in the world after Sudan, according to the United Nations

KABUL: The Taliban government said Tuesday it was ready for “dialogue” with the Trump administration on the repatriation of Afghan refugees whose legal protections in the United States will be revoked in July.
Citing an improved security situation in Afghanistan, Washington announced Monday that the temporary protected status (TPS) designation for Afghanistan would expire on May 20 and the termination would take effect on July 12.
Kabul is “ready to engage in constructive dialogue with the US & other countries regarding repatriation of Afghans who no longer meet criteria to remain in host countries,” said Abdul Qahar Balkhi, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on X.
The Taliban government has already offered assurances that those Afghans who fled the country as they stormed back to power in 2021 could safely return.
However, the United Nations has reported cases of executions and disappearances.
Taliban authorities have also squeezed women out of education, jobs and public life since 2021, creating what the UN has called “gender apartheid.”
The move by Washington could affect more than 11,000 Afghans, many of whom supported the United States during two decades of war and fled Taliban persecution, according to Shawn VanDiver, president of AfghanEvac.
“Afghanistan is the shared home of all Afghans, & all have the right to free movement,” Balkhi said in his statement.
The country has faced a major economic crisis since 2021 and is enduring the second worst humanitarian crisis in the world after Sudan, according to the United Nations.
More than 100,000 Afghans have returned home since neighboring Pakistan launched a new mass expulsion campaign in April.
More than 265,000 undocumented Afghans also returned from neighboring Iran between January and April, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM).
US federal law permits the government to grant TPS to foreign citizens who cannot safely return home because of war, natural disasters or other “extraordinary” conditions.
But since taking office President Donald Trump has moved to strip the designation from citizens of countries including Haiti and Venezuela as part of his broader crackdown on immigration.


White House slams Episcopal Church’s refusal to resettle white South Africans

Updated 15 min 52 sec ago
Follow

White House slams Episcopal Church’s refusal to resettle white South Africans

  • The Episcopal Church said it would end its refugee resettlement program with the US government rather than comply with orders to help resettle the white South Africans

WASHINGTON: The White House questioned Tuesday the humanitarian commitment of the influential Episcopal Church after it refused to comply with a federal directive to help resettle white Afrikaners granted refugee status by the Trump administration.
Trump ran on an anti-immigrant platform and essentially halted refugee arrivals in the United States after taking office, but made an exception for white Afrikaners despite South Africa’s insistence that they do not face persecution in their homeland.
On Monday, around 50 white South Africans arrived for resettlement in the United States, after Trump granted them refugee status as victims of what he called a “genocide.”
That claim — oft-repeated by Trump’s Pretoria-born ally, billionaire Elon Musk — has been widely dismissed as absurd, including by the South African government.
On Monday, the Episcopal Church said it would end its refugee resettlement program with the US government rather than comply with orders to help resettle the white South Africans.
In a statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly criticized the decision as raising “serious questions about its  supposed commitment to humanitarian aid.”
She claimed white Afrikaners — who are primarily descendants of European colonizers and whose ethnic group dominated South African politics until apartheid was abolished in 1994 — had “faced unspeakable horrors.”
On Monday, the church had said it would wind up its refugee resettlement grant agreements — amounting to more than $50 million annually — with the US federal government rather than comply with Trump’s orders.
In a statement, the church’s presiding bishop was scathing in his criticism of the administration’s decision to grant the white South Africans refugee status.
“It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years,” said Sean W. Rowe.
Under eligibility guidelines published by the US embassy, applicants for US resettlement must either be of Afrikaner ethnicity or belong to a racial minority in South Africa.
The Episcopal Church said that it could not comply with Trump’s order “in light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation.”
It said its programs with the US federal government would be wound up by the end of the fiscal year, but that its work on refugee resettlement would continue, including supporting recently arrived refugees from around the world.


20 Democratic attorneys general sue Trump administration over conditions placed on federal funds

Updated 17 min 59 sec ago
Follow

20 Democratic attorneys general sue Trump administration over conditions placed on federal funds

  • The lawsuits are the latest legal actions that Democratic-led states have taken against Trump since he took office earlier this year

PROVIDENCE, R.I.: A coalition of 20 state Democratic attorneys general filed two federal lawsuits on Tuesday, claiming that the Trump administration is threatening to withhold billions of dollars in transportation and disaster-relief funds unless states agree to certain immigration enforcement actions.
According to the complaints, both Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy have threatened to cut off funding to states that refuse to comply with President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.
While no federal funding is currently being withheld, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said during a news conference on Tuesday that the threat was “imminent.”
“President Donald Trump can’t use these funds as a bargaining chip as his way of ensuring states abide by his preferred policies,” Bonta added.
Department of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that the lawsuit will not stop the Trump Administration from “restoring the rule of law.”
“Cities and states who break the law and prevent us from arresting criminal illegal aliens should not receive federal funding. The President has been clear on that,” she said.
Duffy said in a statement that the 20 states have filed the lawsuit because “their officials want to continue breaking federal law and putting the needs of illegal aliens above their own citizens.”
Both lawsuits say that the Trump administration is violating the US Constitution by trying to dictate federal spending when Congress has that power — not the executive branch.
On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts and eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs or risk losing funds.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin criticized the timing of Duffy’s letter when Newark’s airport struggles with radar outages and other issues.
“I wish the administration would stop playing politics with people’s lives,” Platkin said. “I wish Secretary Duffy would do his damn job, which is to make sure planes land on time, not to direct immigration enforcement.”
Meanwhile, on Feb. 24, states received letters from the Department of Homeland Security declaring that states that “refuse to cooperate with, refuse to share information with, or even actively obstruct federal immigration enforcement reject these ideals and the history we share in common as Americans.”
“If any government entity chooses to thumb its nose at the Department of Homeland Security’s national security and public safety mission, it should not receive a single dollar of the Department’s money unless Congress has specifically required it,” Noem wrote in her letter.
Attorneys general behind the lawsuits include the following states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont.
The cases are being spearheaded by California but were filed in federal court in Rhode Island, a detail that the attorneys general defended by saying they filed in “any court that is going to be fair and objective and consider our factual presentation and legal analysis.”
The lawsuits are the latest legal actions that Democratic-led states have taken against Trump since he took office earlier this year. Bonta noted that California has filed more than 20 lawsuits against the administration, while Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said his state has launched more than a dozen.
While the lawsuits have challenged policies on tariffs, federal employee firings and health care research, Trump’s focus on immigration enforcement and the mass deportation of immigrants in the United States illegally have received the most attention.
This has included the president’s promise to mass deport people and the start of a registry required for all those who are in the country illegally.
“What we’re seeing is a creeping authoritarianism,” Neronha said.


Federal grand jury indicts Wisconsin judge in immigration case, allowing charges to continue

Updated 49 min 42 sec ago
Follow

Federal grand jury indicts Wisconsin judge in immigration case, allowing charges to continue

  • Prosecutors charged Dugan in April via complaint with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction

MADISON, Wisconsin: A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted a Wisconsin judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities, allowing the case against her to continue.
The arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan escalated a clash between President Donald Trump’s administration and local authorities over the Republican’s sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition to the crackdown.
Prosecutors charged Dugan in April via complaint with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction. In the federal criminal justice system, prosecutors can initiate charges against a defendant directly by filing a complaint or present evidence to a grand jury and let that body decide whether to issue charges.
A grand jury still reviews charges brought by complaint to determine whether enough probable cause exists to continue the case as a check on prosecutors’ power. If the grand jury determines there’s probable cause, it issues a written statement of the charges known as an indictment. That’s what happened in Dugan’s case.
Her case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.
Prosecutors say Dugan escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back jury door on April 18 after learning that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking his arrest.
According to court documents, Flores-Ruiz illegally reentered the US after being deported in 2013. Online state court records show he was charged with three counts of misdemeanor domestic abuse in Milwaukee County in March. He was in Dugan’s courtroom that morning of April 18 for a hearing.
Court documents suggest Dugan was alerted to the agents’ presence by her clerk, who was informed by an attorney that the agents appeared to be in the hallway. An affidavit says Dugan was visibly angry over the agents’ arrival and called the situation “absurd” before leaving the bench and retreating to her chambers. She and another judge later approached members of the arrest team in the courthouse with what witnesses described as a “confrontational, angry demeanor.”
After a back-and-forth with the agents over the warrant for Flores-Ruiz, Dugan demanded they speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom, according to the affidavit.
She then returned to the courtroom and was heard saying words to the effect of “wait, come with me” and ushered Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a back jury door typically used only by deputies, jurors, court staff and in-custody defendants, according to the affidavit. Flores-Ruiz was free on a signature bond in the abuse case at the time, according to online state court records.
Federal agents ultimately captured him outside the courthouse after a foot chase.
The state Supreme Court suspended Dugan from the bench in late April, saying the move was necessary to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. A reserve judge is filling in for her.


Ukraine completes steps for minerals deal with US, deputy prime minister says

Updated 14 May 2025
Follow

Ukraine completes steps for minerals deal with US, deputy prime minister says

Ukraine has concluded procedures for implementation of a deal with the United States on exploiting minerals, including the operation of an investment fund, the country’s first deputy prime minister said on Tuesday.
Yulia Svyrydenko gave few details of the latest step in securing approval of the accord, promoted by US President Donald Trump, but it was known that two additional documents were drawn up as part of its implementation.
“Another milestone on the path to launching the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund: Ukraine has completed all necessary procedures on schedule,” Svyrydenko wrote in English on social media.
She said a note certifying completion of the process had been handed to interim US Charge d’Affaires Julie Davis.
“These are equal agreements — forward-looking, aligned with Ukraine’s national interests, and structured to ensure investment flows exclusively into Ukraine’s recovery and growth,” Svyrydenko wrote.
After weeks of tough negotiations following a shouting match between President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump in the Oval Office, Svyrydenko signed the minerals agreement in Washington and it was ratified last week by the Ukrainian parliament.
After that vote, Svyrydenko described the accord as “not merely a legal construct — it is the foundation of a new model of interaction with a key strategic partner.”
The minerals agreement hands the United States preferential access to new Ukrainian minerals deals and sets up the investment fund, which could be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine for the first 10 years.
Ukraine also sees the deal as a way to unlock supplies of new US weapons, especially additional Patriot air defense systems it sees as vital to protect against Russian air attacks.
Zelensky hailed the reworked draft of the agreement as a marked improvement over earlier versions that some critics in Ukraine had denounced as “colonial.” The accord also acknowledges Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union.