Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 125 Shares33 Views

    in Elections

    Warren Boroson, Who Surveyed Psychiatrists on Goldwater, Dies at 88

    The defeated Republican presidential candidate sued Mr. Boroson and the magazine he worked for, saying it had libeled him for suggesting that he was mentally unfit for the presidency.Warren Boroson, a journalist who conducted a survey of psychiatrists that declared the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, Barry M. Goldwater, mentally unfit to be president — provoking a libel suit from the candidate and prompting a psychiatric association to muzzle its members from ever diagnosing a public figure from afar — died on March 12 at his home in Woodstock, N.Y. He was 88.The cause was complications of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart ailments, his wife, Rebecca Boroson, said.Mr. Goldwater sued for $2 million, and Mr. Boroson, who had been the 29-year-old managing editor of the iconoclastic magazine Fact when he initiated the survey for it, feared a judgment against him would commit him to a lifetime of indentured servitude to that Arizona senator.A federal jury in New York found in favor of Mr. Goldwater, awarding damages of $75,000. But the verdict, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, put most of the blame on editing by others, largely absolving Mr. Boroson, who had to pay only a token 33 cents.Ethical questions raised by the survey, though, have roiled the psychiatric profession to this day.In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association adopted the so-called Goldwater rule, declaring that it was unethical for its members “to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.” Only one board member, Professor Alan A. Stone of Harvard Law School, voted against the rule, calling it “a denial of free speech and of every psychiatrist’s God-given right to make a fool of himself or herself.”Since then, some psychiatrists have defied the rule when asked by journalists and others to comment about the emotional and mental state of public figures, including foreign officials, terrorists and, in particular, Donald J. Trump, both as a candidate and as president. Some have resigned from the association rather than be bound by the rule.In 1964, the Fact survey led to Mr. Boroson’s resignation from the magazine. He had suggested polling psychiatrists to Fact’s publisher, Ralph Ginzburg, but quit before the article appeared, in September 1964, because, he said, his draft had been rewritten and sensationalized.Mr. Boroson had apparently agreed that Mr. Goldwater was “out of his mind” and feared for America’s safety if he were ever entrusted with the nation’s nuclear trigger, according to a book by Dr. John Martin-Joy, “Diagnosing From a Distance: Debates Over Libel Law, Media, and Psychiatric Ethics from Barry Goldwater to Donald Trump” (2020).Dr. Martin-Joy, a Cambridge, Mass., psychiatrist, said that Mr. Boroson had conducted “serious research into the best current thinking on how to prevent a recurrence of fascism,” and that his original draft represented “at least an effort to explain a complex psychological idea to the general public.”“I think he, with Ginzburg, was important in trying to push forward the frontiers of free speech on behalf of public understanding of the mental health of public figures,” Dr. Martin-Joy said. “However, the job they actually did was imperfect.”Senator Barry Goldwater and his wife, Peggy, arriving at the federal courthouse in New York in 1968 to testify in his libel suit against Fact magazine.Associated PressMr. Goldwater, who had lost the election in a landslide to the incumbent, President Lyndon B. Johnson, filed suit in 1965.“It was clearly felt by the court that this met the definition of actual malice, that Ginzburg had creatively edited responses from psychiatrists and that they were departing from what they knew to be facts,” Dr. Martin-Joy said. “I think they undermined their own case.”Dr. Jacob M. Appel, director of ethics education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in Manhattan, said that “Boroson’s work in the 1960s had the unintended consequence of muzzling psychiatrists like me today.” Mr. Boroson recalled in interviews and unpublished notes that his fears about Mr. Goldwater’s fitness were piqued when he read that the candidate had suffered two nervous breakdowns — stressful conditions that were later said to have been overstated.“I said to Ginzburg, ‘Why don’t we ask a few psychiatrists whether a nervous breakdown incapacitates someone for public office?’” Mr. Boroson recalled. “Ginzburg immediately replied: ‘Let’s ask every psychiatrist in the country.’ So we did.”Fact reached out to all 12,356 members on the American Psychiatric Association’s mailing list, asking them, “Do you believe Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as president of the United States?” Of the 2,417 who responded, 657 answered “Yes,” and 1,189 replied “No.” The rest said they didn’t know enough about the senator’s psyche to make a determination.Mr. Boroson wrote that the magazine’s 41 pages of excerpted responses constituted “the most intensive character analysis ever made of a living human being.”The cover article, titled “The Man and the Menace,” was derived from Mr. Boroson’s draft, which was apparently rewritten by Mr. Ginzburg’s friend, David Bar-Illan, an Israeli pianist and editor.“In anger I resigned from Fact,” Mr. Boroson wrote in his notes. “And insisted that my name not be listed as the author of the Bar-Illan article.” The article appeared under Mr. Ginzburg’s byline.An appeals court concluded that Mr. Ginzburg had “deleted most of Boroson’s references to the authoritarian personality and reached the conclusion, which Boroson had not expressed, that Senator Goldwater was suffering from paranoia and was mentally ill.”Time magazine wrote that the published version depicted Mr. Goldwater as “as a paranoiac, a latent homosexual and a latter-day Hitler.”The Supreme Court upheld the jury award: punitive damages of $25,000 against Mr. Ginzburg and $50,000 against the magazine, and $1 in compensatory damages divided among the three defendants, including Mr. Boroson. Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas dissented, citing First Amendment protections.Warren Gilbert Boroson was born on Jan. 22, 1935, in Manhattan. His mother, Cecelia (Wersan) Boroson, was an office manager. His father, Henry, was a teacher.Warren attended Memorial High School in West Nyack, N.Y., and graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in English from Columbia University in 1957.In addition to his wife, Rebecca (Kaplan) Boroson, a retired journalist, he is survived by his sons, Bram and Matthew, and his brother, Dr. Hugh Boroson. In 1968, four years after the Goldwater survey, Mr. Ginzburg sought to conduct a similar survey of psychiatrists regarding President Johnson’s mental health. If he succeeded, the results were apparently never published.  Mr. Boroson later wrote for local newspapers and magazines, including Mr. Ginzburg’s Avant Garde, under pen names. (Fact, a quarterly, was published from January 1964 to August 1967.) He was the author of more than 20 books, including self-help financial guides. He also taught music, finance and journalism at colleges.“What did I learn from the experience?,” he wrote in his reflective notes about the Goldwater case. “Not much. I regret not proposing to write a book about Trump when he first became famous: Trump: In Relentless Pursuit of Selfishness.” More

  • 113 Shares28 Views

    in Elections

    Macron Appears Ready to Tough Out France’s Pension Crisis

    Amid protests in the streets and in Parliament, the French leader shows no sign of scrapping a law that raises the retirement age.PARIS — President Emmanuel Macron’s re-election program last year was short on detail. His mind seemed elsewhere, chiefly on the war in Ukraine. But on one thing he was clear: He would raise the retirement age in France to 65 from 62.“You will have to work progressively more,” he said during a debate in April 2022 with the extreme-right candidate, Marine Le Pen. She attacked the idea as “an absolutely unbearable injustice” that would condemn French people to retirement “when they are no longer able to enjoy it.”France heard both candidates. Soon after, Mr. Macron was re-elected with 58.55 percent of the vote to Ms. Le Pen’s 41.45 percent. It was a clear victory, and it was clear what Mr. Macron would do on the question of pensions.Yet his ramming the overhaul through Parliament last week without a full vote on the bill itself culminated in turmoil, mayhem on the streets and two failed no-confidence votes against his government on Monday, even as polls have consistently shown about 65 percent of French people are opposed to raising the retirement age.Had they not heard him? Had they changed their minds? Had circumstances changed? Perhaps the answer lies, above all, in the nature of Mr. Macron’s victory, as he himself acknowledged on election night last year.Looking somber, speaking in an uncharacteristically flat monotone, Mr. Macron told a crowd of supporters in Paris: “I also know that a number of our compatriots voted for me today not to support the ideas that I uphold, but to block the extreme right. I want to thank them and say that I am aware that I have obligations toward them in the years to come.”“Those ‘obligations’ could only be a promise to negotiate on major reforms,” Nicole Bacharan, a social scientist, said on Tuesday. “He did not negotiate, even with moderate union leaders. What I see now is Macron’s complete disconnection from the country.”Marine Le Pen, center, of the far-right National Rally party, says the pension plan would condemn French people to retirement “when they are no longer able to enjoy it.”Thomas Samson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOpposition parties on both the left and the right have vowed to file challenges against the pension law before the Constitutional Council, which reviews legislation to ensure it complies with the French Constitution.“The goal,” said Thomas Ménagé of Ms. Le Pen’s National Rally party, “is to ensure that this text falls into the dustbin of history.”But the chances of that appear remote.After a long silence, Mr. Macron is set to address the turmoil on Wednesday. He will try to conciliate; he will, according to officials close to him, portray the current standoff as a battle between democratic institutions and the chaos of the street, orchestrated by the extreme left and slyly encouraged by the extreme right. He has decided to stick with his current government, led by Élisabeth Borne, the prime minister, and he will not dissolve Parliament or call new elections, they say.In short, it seems Mr. Macron has decided to tough out the crisis, perhaps offering some blandishments on improving vocational high schools and broader on-the-job training. But certainly no apology appears to be forthcoming for using a legal tool, Article 49.3 of the Constitution, to avoid a full parliamentary vote on a change that has split the country. (Only the Senate, the upper house, voted to pass the bill this month.)This approach appears consistent with Mr. Macron’s chosen tactics on the pension overhaul. Since the debate with Ms. Le Pen 11 months ago, inflation has risen, energy prices have gone up, and the pressures, particularly on the poorer sectors of French society, have grown.French lawmakers held up protest placards after the result of the first no-confidence motion against the French government at the National Assembly on Monday.Gonzalo Fuentes/ReutersYet, while he has made some concessions, including setting the new retirement age at 64 rather than 65, Mr. Macron has remained remote from the rolling anger. Most conspicuously, and to many inexplicably, after the government consulted extensively with unions in the run-up to January, Mr. Macron has refused to negotiate with the powerful moderate union leader Laurent Berger, who had supported Mr. Macron’s earlier attempt at pension changes in 2019 but opposes him now.“Macron knows the economy better than he knows political psychology,” said Alain Duhamel, a political scientist. “And today, what you have is a generalized fury.”A large number of Macron voters, it is now clear, never wanted the retirement age raised. They heard Mr. Macron during the debate with Ms. Le Pen. They just did not loathe his idea enough to vote for a nationalist, anti-immigrant ideologue whose party was financed in part by Russian loans.Mr. Macron is adept at playing on such contradictions and divisions. Because his presidential term is limited, he is freer to do as he pleases. He knows three things: He will not be a candidate for re-election in 2027 because a third consecutive term is not permitted; the opposition in Parliament is strong but irreconcilably divided between the far left and extreme right; and there is a large, silent slice of French society that supports his pension overhaul.All this gives him room to maneuver even in his current difficult situation.When Mr. Macron opted last week for the 49.3 and the avoidance of a parliamentary vote, he explained his decision this way: “I consider that in the current state of affairs the financial and economic risks are too great.”Protesters in Nantes, in western France, on Tuesday.Loic Venance/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOn the face of it, speaking about risks to financial markets while pushing through an overhaul deeply resented by blue-collar and working-class French people seemed politically gauche. It appeared especially so at a moment when Mr. Macron was turning away from the full parliamentary vote his government had unanimously said it wanted.“Saying what he said about finance at that moment, in that context, was just dynamite,” said Ms. Bacharan.It was also an unmistakable wink to the powerful French private sector — with its world-class companies like LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton — and to the many affluent and middle-class French people who do not like the growing piles of uncollected garbage or the protests in the streets, and who view retirement at 62 as an unsustainable anomaly in a Europe where the retirement age has generally risen to 65 or higher.If Mr. Macron has cards to play, and perhaps broader support than is evident as protesters hurl insults at him day after day, his very disconnection may make it hard for him to judge the country’s mood.Last week, Aurore Bergé, the leader of Mr. Macron’s Renaissance party in Parliament, wrote to Gérald Darmanin, the interior minister, to request police protection for lawmakers.“I refuse to see representatives from my group, or any national lawmaker, afraid to express themselves, or to vote freely, because they are afraid of reprisals,” she said.It was a measure of the violent mood in France.“If we have had 15 Constitutions over the past two centuries, that means there have been 14 revolutions of various kinds,” Mr. Duhamel said. “There is an eruptive side to France that one should not ignore.”The National Assembly in Paris. Opposition parties on the left and the right have vowed to file challenges against the pension law. Joel Saget/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAurelien Breeden More

  • 200 Shares39 Views

    in Elections

    Cronología del soborno a una actriz porno que podría culminar en una acusación formal contra Trump

    Los fiscales de Manhattan que investigan un pago realizado a Stormy Daniels podrían estar a punto de convertir a Donald J. Trump en el primer expresidente estadounidense en ser acusado penalmente.En aquel momento, todo era más sórdido que trascendental. Una estrella de la telerrealidad invitó a una actriz porno que tenía la mitad de su edad a una habitación de hotel después de una ronda en un torneo de golf de celebridades. Ella llegó con un vestido de lentejuelas doradas y tacones con tiras. Él le prometió salir en televisión y luego, ella aseguró, se acostaron.Sin embargo, la cadena de acontecimientos derivados del encuentro de 2006 que la estrella del cine para adultos Stormy Daniels ha dicho que tuvo con la personalidad de la televisión Donald Trump está a punto de convertirse en un acontecimiento histórico: la primera acusación penal formal contra un expresidente de Estados Unidos.El fiscal de distrito de Manhattan Alvin Bragg señaló que está preparándose para presentar cargos por delitos graves contra Trump; se espera que Bragg lo acuse de ocultar los 130.000 dólares que Michael D. Cohen, el abogado y solucionador de problemas de Trump, le pagó a Daniels a cambio de su silencio antes de las elecciones presidenciales de 2016.Es probable que la condena dependa de que los fiscales demuestren que Trump reembolsó a Cohen y falsificó registros comerciales cuando lo hizo, posiblemente para ocultar una violación de la ley electoral.No sería un caso sencillo. Se espera que los fiscales utilicen una teoría jurídica que no ha sido evaluada en los tribunales de Nueva York, lo que plantea la posibilidad de que un juez pueda desestimar o limitar los cargos. El episodio ha sido analizado tanto por la Comisión Federal Electoral como por fiscales federales de Nueva York; ninguno tomó medidas contra Trump.Trump ha negado haber tenido relaciones sexuales con Daniels y asegura no haber hecho nada malo. El expresidente, que aspira a la candidatura republicana a la Casa Blanca en 2024, ha dejado claro que tachará la acusación de “cacería de brujas” política y la utilizará para movilizar a sus partidarios. El sábado, predijo que sería detenido el martes y convocó protestas.El principal testigo de los fiscales sería Cohen, quien se declaró culpable de violaciones al financiamiento de campañas federales en agosto de 2018 y admitió que ayudó a concertar el pago a Daniels —además de otro pago a una exmodelo de Playboy— para ayudar a la candidatura presidencial de Trump por órdenes de Trump.Cualquier acusación contra Trump presentada por el fiscal de distrito de Manhattan, Alvin L. Bragg, se sustentaría en una teoría legal que no ha sido probada en los tribunales de Nueva York, lo que hace que su éxito no esté para nada garantizado.Benjamin Norman para The New York TimesUna acusación formal marcaría otro episodio extraordinario en la era de Trump: un expresidente —cuyo mandato concluyó con una revuelta en el Capitolio, que trató de revocar unas elecciones justas y quien está bajo investigación por no devolver documentos clasificados— podría enfrentar su primera acusación penal por pagar por el silencio de una estrella porno.Un encuentro en el lago TahoeDaniels, cuyo nombre de pila es Stephanie Gregory y vivió la mayor parte de su infancia en un rancho destartalado en Baton Rouge, Luisiana, tenía 27 años en julio de 2006, cuando conoció a Trump, que entonces tenía 60, en el torneo de golf para famosos celebrado en Nevada.En su autobiografía de 2018, Full Disclosure, Daniels recuerda haberse sentido avergonzada y motivada a tomar el rumbo que tomó tras escuchar, siendo niña, al padre de un amigo referirse a ella como “escoria blanca”. Atraída por el dinero que podía ganar, Daniels comenzó a trabajar como bailarina exótica en un antro local llamado Cinnamon’s, incluso antes de terminar el bachillerato. A los 23 años, comenzó a actuar en películas pornográficas y poco después se casó con el primero de sus cuatro esposos: Bartholomew Clifford, quien dirigió películas para adultos bajo el nombre “Pat Myne”.Cuando conoció a Daniels, Trump ya se había transformado de magnate inmobiliario a estrella de telerrealidad; había viajado al torneo sin su tercera esposa, Melania, que se quedó en casa con su hijo recién nacido. Trump y Daniels se cruzaron en el campo de golf y más tarde en la sala de regalos, donde fueron fotografiados juntos en un estand de su productora de contenido pornográfico, Wicked Pictures. Trump la invitó a cenar.Mientras charlaban esa noche en el penthouse de Trump en Harrah’s Lake Tahoe —Daniels ha dicho que Trump llevaba un pijama de seda negro y pantuflas— él le dijo que debería participar en El aprendiz, un programa de telerrealidad de la NBC. Daniels dudo que él pudiera lograr que ella participara en el programa. Él le aseguró que sí, contó Daniels.De allí en adelante, Trump comenzó a llamarla de vez en cuando desde un número bloqueado, y le decía “honeybunch” (cariñito, en español). Se vieron al menos dos veces más en 2007, en una fiesta de presentación del efímero vodka Trump y en el hotel Beverly Hills, donde vieron la programación de la Semana del tiburón. Pero no volvieron a tener relaciones. Trump nunca la llevó a El aprendiz. Aun así, siguió llamándola, según ella. Al final, ella dejó de contestar.Vendiendo historiasStormy Daniels, una estrella de cine para adultos, recibió 130.000 dólares del mediador de Trump a cambio de su silencio.Shannon Stapleton/ReutersDesde el año 2000, Trump protagonizó campañas presidenciales improbables que parecían más trucos publicitarios que candidaturas serias. En 2011 inició otra, en la que promovió teorías conspirativas según las cuales el entonces presidente Barack Obama había nacido fuera del territorio estadounidense. Mientras lo hacía, Daniels, aún molesta, empezó a trabajar con una agente para ver si podía vender la historia de sus encuentros.Negociaron un trato por 15.000 dólares con Life & Style, una revista de farándula. Daniels le dijo al reportero que la entrevistó que creía que la oferta de Trump de convertirla en concursante había sido una mentira, según una transcripción que apareció después en internet.“¿Crees que solo fue para impresionarte, para intentar acostarse contigo?”, preguntó el reportero. “Sí”, respondió Daniels. “Y supongo que funcionó”, agregó.Cuando la revista contactó a la Organización Trump en busca de comentarios, Cohen devolvió la llamada. El abogado se había incorporado a la empresa cuatro años antes y se había convertido en el solucionador de Trump, haciendo todo lo necesario para resolver los problemas difíciles de su jefe y la familia Trump. Cohen amenazó con demandar, la revista eliminó el reportaje y Daniels no recibió ni un centavo.Por su parte, Trump abandonó la contienda presidencial y siguió siendo el presentador de El aprendiz.En octubre de ese año, la historia de Daniels sobre Trump salió a la luz de manera fugaz después de que su agente la filtrara a un blog de chismes llamado The Dirty, con la finalidad de despertar el interés de alguna publicación que quisiera pagar por la historia. Un par de medios de comunicación le dieron seguimiento, pero ninguno ofreció una remuneración. Daniels negó la historia, y su agente hizo que un abogado de Beverly Hills, California, Keith Davidson, retirara la publicación.Cuando Obama se preparaba para dejar el cargo en 2015, Trump decidió presentarse de nuevo a las elecciones presidenciales. Ese agosto, se sentó en su oficina de la Torre Trump con Cohen y David Pecker, el editor de American Media Inc. y su periódico sensacionalista más importante, The National Enquirer.Pecker, amigo de toda la vida de Trump, había recurrido a The Enquirer para impulsar las anteriores campañas presidenciales de Trump. Según tres personas familiarizadas con la reunión, Pecker prometió publicar historias positivas sobre Trump y negativas sobre sus rivales. También acordó trabajar con Cohen para encontrar y suprimir historias que pudieran perjudicar los nuevos esfuerzos de Trump, una práctica conocida como “atrapar y matar”.El National Enquirer, un tabloide dirigido por David Pecker, desempeñó un papel central en los esfuerzos por “atrapar y matar” historias negativas sobre Trump.Marion Curtis vía Associated PressEn la primavera de 2016, Daniels, con ayuda de su agente, intentó vender su historia de nuevo, esta vez por más de 200.000 dólares. Pero las publicaciones a las que contactó la rechazaron, incluido The Enquirer.Más o menos por esas fechas, Karen McDougal, exmodelo de Playboy, comenzó a explorar cómo monetizar su propia historia de su encuentro con Trump. McDougal, quien fue la conejita del año de Playboy en 1998, ha declarado haber tenido un amorío con Trump desde 2006, cuando ella tenía 35 años. Habían pasado tiempo juntos en su apartamento de la Torre Trump y en el mismo torneo de golf donde se dio el encuentro con Daniels. Pero según McDougal, ella puso fin a la relación en 2007. Trump ha negado el romance.En 2016, con su carrera como modelo en declive, McDougal contrató a Davidson, el mismo abogado que había ayudado a Daniels a eliminar la publicación del blog de 2011.Karen McDougal, exmodelo de Playboy, aseguró que también tuvo un amorío con Trump y que National Enquirer le pagó por su historia, la cual nunca fue publicada.Bennett Raglin/Getty Images for BacardiEl abogado se puso en contacto con el editor de The Enquirer, Dylan Howard, para venderle la historia de McDougal, y, según declaraciones de tres personas con conocimiento de las conversaciones, tanto Howard como Pecker informaron a Cohen. A finales de junio, Trump pidió personalmente ayuda a Pecker para mantener a McDougal en silencio, según un testimonio de Pecker ante los fiscales federales.Sni embargo, el tabloide no hizo nada sino hasta que McDougal estaba a punto de conceder una entrevista a ABC News. A principios de agosto, American Media acordó pagarle a McDougal 150.000 dólares por los derechos exclusivos de su historia sobre Trump, camuflando el verdadero propósito del acuerdo al garantizarle que aparecería en dos portadas de revistas, entre otras cosas, según han declarado cinco personas familiarizadas con los hechos.American Media admitiría después, en un acuerdo para evitar un proceso federal, que el principal propósito del acuerdo fue suprimir la historia de McDougal, la cual la empresa no tenía intención alguna de publicar.Mientras tanto, Daniels seguía sin encontrar a alguien que quisiera comprar su historia. Su suerte cambiaría a principios de octubre.‘Podría hacernos ver muy mal’El solucionador de problemas de Trump, Michael D. Cohen, a la derecha, fue a prisión en parte por violaciones de financiamiento de campañas relacionadas con pagos de sobornos. Le ha dado la espalda al expresidente y podría testificar en su contra.Jefferson Siegel para The New York TimesLa noticia cayó como una bomba en la contienda presidencial. El 7 de octubre de 2016, el diario The Washington Post publicó lo que se conocería como la cinta Access Hollywood, en la que Trump, sin darse cuenta de que el micrófono estaba encendido, fue grabado mientras describía en términos lascivos cómo manoseaba a las mujeres.La gente que rodeaba a Daniels se dio cuenta enseguida de que la nueva vulnerabilidad de Trump la convertía en una amenaza mayor, y por lo tanto su historia había ganado valor. Davidson, el abogado de Los Ángeles, también era amigo de la agente de Daniels, Gina Rodríguez, y del editor de The Enquirer, Howard. El día después de la aparición de la cinta Access Hollywood, Davidson y Howard se enviaron mensajes de texto sobre el daño que la cinta había causado a la campaña de Trump. Entonces, Howard le pidió a la agente de Daniels que le enviara otro mensaje a su jefe, Pecker.Los ejecutivos del Enquirer alertaron a Cohen, quien le pidió ayuda a Pecker para contener la historia.Howard regateó con la agente de Daniels, pero cuando le presentó a Pecker una oferta para comprar la historia por 120.000 dólares, el editor se negó.“Tal vez llame a Michael para avisarle y que él se encargue desde allí”, escribió Howard.Dylan Howard, editor del National Enquirer, conectó a Cohen con un abogado de Daniels para discutir un pago por la historia de su encuentro con Trump.Ilya S. Savenok/Getty Images para American MediaEsa noche, Cohen habló por teléfono con Trump, Pecker y Howard, según los registros obtenidos por las autoridades federales. Howard lo puso en contacto con el abogado, Davidson, quien negociaría el acuerdo en nombre de Daniels.Tres días después de la difusión de la cinta de Access Hollywood, Cohen aceptó pagar 130.000 dólares en un acuerdo que amenazaba con graves sanciones económicas para Daniels si alguna vez hablaba de su aventura con Trump. El contrato utilizó seudónimos: Peggy Peterson, o “PP”, para Daniels, y David Dennison, o “DD”, para Trump. Sus identidades solo se revelaban en una carta adjunta.Daniels firmó su copia sobre la cajuela de un auto cerca de un plató de filmación de una película pornográfica en Calabasas, California. Cohen firmó en nombre de Trump.Pero Cohen pospuso el pago. Ha dicho que estaba intentando averiguar de dónde sacar el dinero mientras Trump hacía campaña. Según Cohen, Trump había aprobado el pago y delegado en él y en el director financiero de la Organización Trump la tarea de organizarlo. Consideraron opciones para canalizar el dinero a través de la empresa, dijo Cohen, pero no se decidieron por una solución.Daniels comenzó a sentir que Trump intentaba darle largas al asunto hasta después de las elecciones del 8 de noviembre; si perdía, su historia perdería valor. A mediados de octubre, después de que Cohen incumpliera dos plazos del pago, el abogado de Daniels canceló el acuerdo, y la actriz porno empezó de nuevo a vender la historia. A la semana siguiente, Howard envió un mensaje de texto a Cohen diciéndole que si Daniels lo hacía público, su trabajo para encubrir el encuentro sexual también podría darse a conocer.“Podría hacernos ver muy mal a todos”, escribió Howard.Cohen aceptó hacer el pago de su propio bolsillo. Habló brevemente con Trump en dos ocasiones. Luego, transfirió 130.000 dólares de su línea personal de crédito a la cuenta de una empresa ficticia de Delaware y se los transfirió al abogado de Daniels.Davidson hizo circular un nuevo acuerdo de dinero por silencio. Daniels lo firmó y notarizó en una tienda UPS cerca de un Walmart Supercenter en Forney, Texas, cerca de su casa.“Espero que todo esté bien entre nosotros”, le escribió Cohen a Davidson en un mensaje de texto después.“Le aseguro que todo está muy bien”, respondió el abogado.Daniels guardó silencio. Una semana y media después, Trump ganó las elecciones.Una vez en la Casa Blanca, Trump se ocupó de otro asunto relacionado con Daniels. Firmó cheques para reembolsarle a Cohen el soborno.Jonah E. Bromwich More

  • 113 Shares51 Views

    in Elections

    The Iran Hostages, and a Plot to Thwart Carter

    More from our inbox:Why the U.S. Invaded Iraq: Theories AboundWhite Supremacy PropagandaCare at the End of Life“History needs to know that this happened,” Ben Barnes now says of his trip to the Middle East in 1980.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “43-Year Secret of Sabotage: Mission to Subvert Carter Is Revealed” (front page, March 19), about an effort to delay release of the American hostages in Iran to weaken Jimmy Carter’s re-election campaign:By way of apology to Mr. Carter, Ben Barnes details the mission to ensure that the 52 Americans held hostage by Iran were not released on Mr. Carter’s watch. Mr. Barnes’s candor, though overdue, is welcome, but his apology is somewhat misdirected.While Jimmy Carter might rightly claim that he suffered defeat in 1980 because Ronald Reagan’s campaign engaged in a contemptible plot, he was nevertheless a “second tier” victim.More than 50 Americans were held in terror for 444 days, not knowing whether they would live or die. If, as Mr. Barnes implies, his mission resulted in extending the hostages’ captivity, they stand at the front of the line of those to whom he should apologize.Mark SteinbergLos AngelesTo the Editor:How would President Jimmy Carter have responded to this news that, according to Ben Barnes, the G.O.P. was involved in an effort to thwart Mr. Carter’s efforts to win the American hostages’ release?I was on Air Force One accompanying Mr. Carter in the days leading up to the 1980 election. All efforts were focused on getting those Americans home.Our last hope came when news reached Mr. Carter at 2 a.m., Chicago time, on the Sunday before the election. Learning that the Iranian mullahs had modified their demands, the president put off campaigning and raced back to Washington. Unfortunately, Mr. Carter realized that obstacles remained.Imagine if he’d just learned that a Republican ally of President Reagan had been spreading the word in Arab capitals that Iran should keep the 52 hostages until after he had taken office? Imagine if Mr. Carter had gotten this story just before his final debate with Ronald Reagan? It would have put the G.O.P. challenger on the defensive.Imagine if …Chris MatthewsChevy Chase, Md.The writer, the former longtime host of the MSNBC show “Hardball,” was a speechwriter for President Carter.To the Editor:Ben Barnes’s revelations that political operatives met with overseas governments before the 1980 presidential election didn’t surprise me. The release of American hostages from Iranian captivity a few minutes after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981 was too much of a coincidence.This unwarranted interference in American foreign affairs by private citizens reminded me of Richard Nixon’s intrigues to entice the South Vietnamese government to stall the Paris peace talks in an effort to derail a Democratic victory in the 1968 presidential election.Shame on all those involved for risking American lives to benefit their political ambitions.Paul L. NewmanMerion Station, Pa.To the Editor:Thanks for an important and credible addition to the narrative of the Iran hostage crisis.An addendum: John Connally and Ben Barnes would almost certainly have received a chilly response to their scheme from President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt, who was close to President Carter and loyal to him.Moreover, at the time of the trip, Sadat had welcomed his friend, the recently deposed shah of Iran, to Egypt, and the shah died there in July. Thus there is little chance Sadat conveyed the Connally-Barnes message to Tehran, though other Middle Eastern heads of state might have done so.Jonathan AlterMontclair, N.J.The writer is the author of “His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life.”Why the U.S. Invaded Iraq: Theories AboundOnly a statue of Saddam Hussein remained standing at an Iraqi communications center that was the target of a bombing attack by American forces in 2003.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesTo the Editor:“Two Decades Later, a Question Remains: Why Did the U.S. Invade?,” by Max Fisher (The Interpreter, March 19), suggests that the triggering motive for the 2003 invasion of Iraq will remain unknown.The article says “a critical mass of senior officials all came to the table wanting to topple” Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, “for their own reasons, and then talked one another into believing the most readily available justification”: weapons of mass destruction.The clear goal was to topple Mr. Hussein. Recall that President George W. Bush desired revenge on Mr. Hussein for an attempt on his father’s life and that he was reportedly advised that only wartime presidents become great.The missing piece of the puzzle is that neoconservative advisers, with an array of reasons for toppling Mr. Hussein, were able to play on President Bush’s personal aspirations to get the go-ahead for the invasion.Richard ReillyOlean, N.Y.To the Editor:“Two Decades Later, a Question Remains: Why Did the U.S. Invade?” gives plausible answers. Another possible explanation was foretold by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell address.He warned of “the unwarranted influence” of the “military-industrial complex,” telling us, in effect, that those who make money from war and those whose careers benefit from these actions have both influence and a shared interest in military interventions.His words are still worth heeding.Barbara H. ChasinIthaca, N.Y.The writer is emerita professor of sociology at Montclair State University and the author of “Inequality and Violence in the United States: Casualties of Capitalism.”White Supremacy Propaganda Michael Dwyer/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “White Supremacist Propaganda Soared Last Year, Report Finds” (news article, March 10):The alarming rise of white nationalist vandalism and propaganda, the majority of which is being spread by Patriot Front, is more than offensive — it is often a criminal offense. Legislators, prosecutors and law enforcement should recognize the dangers these attempts to intimidate, recruit and inspire violence pose to American communities.White nationalist activities are occurring nationwide, are coordinated and are often evading accountability in local jurisdictions. The arrest of 31 Patriot Front members preparing to disrupt an L.G.B.T.Q.+ Pride celebration in Idaho last summer should have been the notice federal authorities needed. After the mass arrest, 17 organizations called on the Department of Justice to open an investigation into Patriot Front.We hope that The Times’s coverage of this disturbing trend adds urgency to the appeal for federal action against these dangerous campaigns of hate. Our local communities — and our democracy — can’t afford to be left to manage this threat alone any longer.Lindsay SchubinerBerkeley, Calif.The writer is the program director for the Western States Center, a nationwide group that works to strengthen inclusive democracy.Care at the End of Life Nadia HafidTo the Editor:Re “Aggressive Care Still Common at Life’s End” (The New Old Age, March 14):As a nurse practitioner in a large hospital, I see this kind of aggressive care all too often.In addition to the physical and emotional stress it places on patients and families, there’s a financial cost, since such care isn’t free.I will never forget an older man who spent his last months in one of our I.C.U.s. His wife not only lost him when he died but also their house, as the cost of medical care made her unable to pay the mortgage.These kinds of nonmedical consequences need to be considered, acknowledged and regularly assessed for. Something else our health care system doesn’t do.Marian GrantReisterstown, Md. More

  • 175 Shares48 Views

    in Elections

    Trump Could Stand in the Middle of Fifth Avenue and Not Lose Mike Pence

    Mike Pence wants to have it both ways.He wants to be the conservative hero of Jan. 6: the steadfast Republican patriot who resisted the MAGA mob and defended the institutions of American democracy. “Make no mistake about it,” Pence said at the Gridiron Club Dinner in Washington, D.C., this month. “What happened that day was a disgrace, and it mocks decency to portray it in any other way. President Donald Trump was wrong. I had no right to overturn the election and his reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day.”But Mike Pence also wants to be president. And he can’t fully repudiate the previous Republican president if he hopes to win the Republican presidential nomination, especially when that president is still on the stage, with a commanding role in Republican politics.The result is that Mike Pence has to talk out of both sides of his mouth. With one breath, he takes a righteous stand against the worst dysfunction of the Trump years. “We have to resist the politics of personality, the lure of populism unmoored by timeless conservative values,” Pence said last week while speaking to an audience of Republican donors in Keene, N.H.With his next breath, however, Pence rejects any effort to hold Trump accountable, especially when it asks him to do something more than give the occasional sound bite. Asked to testify about the events surrounding Jan. 6, Pence says no. Faced with a grand jury subpoena forcing him to testify, Pence says he’ll challenge it, under the highly dubious theory that as president of the Senate he was a legislative officer who, like other lawmakers, was covered by the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution and thus free of any obligation to testify.When asked this past weekend about potential criminal charges against the former president — possibly for falsifying records of a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, a porn star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford — Pence deflected, telling ABC News, “At the time when there’s a crime wave in New York City, the fact that the Manhattan D.A. thinks that indicting President Trump is his top priority I think just tells you everything you need to know about the radical left.”Who will hold Trump accountable, according to Pence? No one living. “History will hold Donald Trump accountable,” he said, as if “history” has agency separate from the people who make or write it.In fairness to Pence, he’s not the only Republican hedging his bets. None of Trump’s rivals — or anyone else who hopes to have a future in Republican politics — views either the investigation into his behavior or the potential charges against him as legitimate.“Here we go again — an outrageous abuse of power by a radical D.A. who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump,” tweeted House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.“I’m directing relevant committees to immediately investigate if federal funds are being used to subvert our democracy by interfering in elections with politically motivated prosecutions,” he added, without irony.“The Manhattan district attorney is a Soros-funded prosecutor. And so he, like other Soros-funded prosecutors, they weaponize their office to impose a political agenda on society at the expense of the rule of law and public safety,” said the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, the pot calling the kettle black.Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and current presidential aspirant, has been silent on the matter, and the long-shot candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, a venture capitalist, condemned the potential Trump indictment as a “disastrously politicized prosecution.”Whether or not you think it is a good idea to indict Trump in this particular case, it is striking to see how Republicans commit to the former president when asked to speak to his alleged crimes.But it speaks to a larger point, beyond the double-talk of Pence or the deflection and avoidance of other Republican politicians. Trump may not be as strong as he was as president. He may have been wounded by the long investigations into Jan. 6 and diminished by the failure of many of his handpicked MAGA candidates in the midterm elections. And yet, Trump is still the dominant figure in Republican politics. He still occupies the commanding heights of the Republican Party. And there’s no one — not DeSantis or Haley or any other potential contender — ready to challenge Trump for control of the party.There was hope, after the 2020 presidential election, that after his defeat Trump would somehow fade away. He didn’t. There was hope, after his failed putsch, that his time in the spotlight was over. It wasn’t. And there was hope, after the 2022 elections, that MAGA had run its course and Trump along with it. Wrong again.The only way to remove Trump from the board — to neutralize his influence in the Republican Party and to keep him out of power — is for Republicans to move against him with as much force as they can muster. It was true in 2015, when Republican elites could have coordinated themselves against him when he was still a curiosity and not the leading candidate for the nomination; it was true in 2019 and 2021 when he was impeached by the House, and it’s true now.Republicans can’t avoid conflict if they want to be free of Trump. They have no choice but to condemn him, reject his influence and refuse to defend his criminality.We can see, of course, in this instance and so many others that they won’t. Among Republicans with an ambition to lead, there’s no one who will take that step. Which tells us all we need to know about the state of the Republican Party. It was Trump’s when he was president, it is Trump’s while he’s still a private citizen, and it will be Trump’s next year, when the presidential race starts in earnest.Put differently, if there’s no voter Trump could lose if he stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot somebody, as Trump famously said, there are probably no leading Republican politicians who would leave his camp, either. Hell, they might even say the victim deserved it.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • 88 Shares36 Views

    in Elections

    The Head Spinning Reality of Venezuela’s Economy

    CARACAS, Venezuela — In the capital, a store sells Prada purses and a 110-inch television for $115,000. Not far away, a Ferrari dealership has opened, while a new restaurant allows well-off diners to enjoy a meal seated atop a giant crane overlooking the city.“When was the last time you did something for the first time?” the restaurant’s host boomed over a microphone to excited customers as they sang along to a Coldplay song.This is not Dubai or Tokyo, but Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, where a socialist revolution once promised equality and an end to the bourgeoisie.Venezuela’s economy imploded nearly a decade ago, prompting a huge outflow of migrants in one of worst crises in modern Latin American history. Now there are signs the country is settling into a new, disorienting normality, with everyday products easily available, poverty starting to lessen — and surprising pockets of wealth arising.That has left the socialist government of the authoritarian President Nicolás Maduro presiding over an improving economy as the opposition is struggling to unite and as the United States has scaled back oil sanctions that helped decimate the country’s finances.A television on sale for over $100,000 at a store in Caracas.A recently opened high-end restaurant in Caracas.Conditions remain dire for a huge portion of the population, and while the hyperinflation that crippled the economy has moderated, prices still triple annually, among the worst rates in the world.But with the government’s ease of restrictions on the use of U.S. dollars to address Venezuela’s economic collapse, business activity is returning to what was once the region’s wealthiest nation.As a result, Venezuela is increasingly a country of haves and have-nots, and one of the world’s most unequal societies, according to Encovi, a respected national poll by the Institute of Economic and Social Research of the Andrés Bello Catholic University in Caracas.Mr. Maduro has boasted that the economy grew by 15 percent last year over the previous year and that tax collections and exports also rose — though some economists stress that the economy’s growth is misleading because it followed years of huge declines.For the first time in seven years, poverty is decreasing: Half of the nation lives in poverty, down from 65 percent in 2021, according to the Encovi poll.A street vendor selling produce at $1 for each bagged vegetable in a busy downtown market in Caracas.After years of a roller-coaster economy, Venezuela has settled into a new, disorienting normality fueled by U.S. dollars.But the survey also found that the wealthiest Venezuelans were 70 times richer than the poorest, putting the country on par with some countries in Africa that have the highest rates of inequality in the world. And access to U.S. dollars is often limited to people with ties to the government or those involved in illicit businesses. A study last year by Transparency International, an anti-corruption watchdog, found that illegal businesses such as food, diesel, human and gas smuggling represented more than 20 percent of the Venezuelan economy.Though parts of Caracas bustle with residents who can afford a growing array of imported goods, one in three children across Venezuela was suffering from malnutrition as of May 2022, according to the National Academy of Medicine.Up to seven million Venezuelans have simply given up and abandoned their homeland since 2015, according to the United Nations.And despite the Maduro administration’s new slogan — “Venezuela is fixed” — many scrape by on the equivalent of only a few dollars a day, while public-sector employees have taken to the streets to protest low salaries.“I have to do back flips,” said María Rodríguez, 34, a medical lab analyst in Cumaná, a small city 250 miles east of the capital, explaining that, to pay for food and her daughter’s school tuition, she relied on two jobs, a side business selling beauty products and money from her relatives.Yrelys Jiménez, a preschool teacher in San Diego de los Altos, a half-hour drive south of Caracas, joked that her $10 monthly salary meant “food for today and hunger for tomorrow.” (The restaurant that allows diners to eat 150 feet above the ground charges $140 a meal.)Yrelys Jiménez with her son and daughter in their shared bedroom.Ms. Jiménez during the long walk home with her children from her job as a teacher.Despite such hardship, Mr. Maduro, whose administration did not respond to requests for comment, has focused on promoting the country’s rising economic indicators.“It seems that the sick person recovers, stops, walks and runs,” he said in a recent speech, comparing Venezuela with a suddenly cured hospital patient.The United States’ shifting strategy toward Venezuela has in part benefited his administration.In November, after the Maduro administration agreed to restart talks with the opposition, the Biden administration issued Chevron an extendable six-month license to pump oil in Venezuela. The deal stipulates that the profits be used to pay off debts owed to Chevron by the Venezuelan government.And while the United States still bans purchases from the state oil company, the country has increased black-market oil sales to China through Iran, energy experts said.A ceiling of floating sculptures in a luxury department store in Caracas.The Venezuelan government’s easing of restrictions on dollars has made it easier for some people to use money sent from abroad.Mr. Maduro is also emerging from isolation in Latin America as a regional shift to the left has led to a thaw in relations. Colombia and Brazil, both led by recently elected leftist leaders, have restored diplomatic relations. Colombia’s new president, Gustavo Petro, has been particularly warm to Mr. Maduro, meeting with him repeatedly and agreeing to a deal to import Venezuelan gas.With presidential elections planned next year and the opposition’s parallel government having recently disbanded, Mr. Maduro seems increasingly confident about his political future.Last year’s inflation rate of 234 percent ranks Venezuela second in the world, behind Sudan, but it pales in comparison to the hyperinflation seen in 2019, when the rate ballooned to 300,000 percent, according to the World Bank.With production and prices up, Venezuela has also started to see an increase in revenues from oil, its key export. The country’s production of nearly 700,000 barrels a day is higher than last year’s, though it was twice as high in 2018 and four times as high in 2013, said Francisco J. Monaldi, a Latin America energy policy fellow at Rice University.The Venezuelan government’s loosening of restrictions on dollars has made it easier for some people to use money sent from abroad. In many cases, no cash is actually exchanged. Venezuelans with means increasingly use digital apps like Zelle to use dollars in accounts outside the country to pay for goods and services.Friends celebrating a birthday at a trendy restaurant in Caracas.A survey found that the wealthiest Venezuelans were 70 times richer than the poorest residents.Still, U.S. officials call Venezuela’s economic picture somewhat illusory.“They were able to adjust to a lot of their problems after sanctions were implemented through dollarization,” according to Mark A. Wells, a deputy assistant secretary of state, “and so it starts to look over time that they are able to reach a status that basically helps the elites there, but the poor are still very, very poor.’’“So, it’s not that everything is more stable and better there,” Mr. Wells added.Mr. Maduro took office nearly 10 years ago and was last elected in 2018 in a vote that was widely considered a sham and was disavowed by much of the international community.The widespread belief that Mr. Maduro won fraudulently led the National Assembly to deem the presidency vacant and use a provision in the Constitution to name a new leader, Juan Guaidó, a former student leader. He was recognized by dozens of countries, including the United States, as Venezuela’s legitimate ruler.But as the figurehead of a parallel government that had oversight over frozen international financial accounts, he had no power within the country.Juan Guaidó led a parallel government that was recognized by the United States but held no power.Scavenging a large garbage bin at a street market in Caracas. Half of the nation lives in poverty, down from 65 percent in 2021.In December, the National Assembly ousted Mr. Guaidó and scrapped the interim government, a move some observers considered a boost to Mr. Maduro. A number of opposition figures have announced that they will run in a primary scheduled for October, even though many political analysts are skeptical that Mr. Maduro will allow a credible vote.“What Maduro does have today is an opposition that is disjointed and dispersed,” Mr. Guaidó said in an interview. “He also has a majority of the people against him. He continues being a dictator without popular support, a destroyed economy, which was his own fault, with professors, nurses, older people and workers protesting right now as we speak.”Even people like Eugenia Monsalves, who owns a medical supply company in Caracas and sends her two daughters to private schools, is frustrated with the country’s direction.Though she is upper middle class, she said she still had to watch how she spends her money.She goes out to eat occasionally and has visited some of the city’s new luxury stores, but without buying anything.“The vast majority of Venezuelans live in a complicated situation, very complicated,” she said.Ms. Monsalves believes the Maduro administration needs to go, but she worries that the best candidates were forced into exile or disqualified. The opposition, she said, has not coalesced around what it most needs: a leader who can energize the electorate.“That’s what I most want, like many other Venezuelans,” she said. “But the truth is that without a clear vision from the opposition, a clear platform from a single candidate, I think it’s going to be hard.”An upscale restaurant built inside a recently renovated hotel in Caracas.Nayrobis Rodríguez contributed reporting from Sucre, Venezuela, and More

  • 75 Shares48 Views

    in Elections

    Ferrari, Prada y hambre en Venezuela

    CARACAS, Venezuela — En la capital, una tienda vende bolsos de Prada y un televisor de 110 pulgadas por 115.000 dólares. No muy lejos, un concesionario de Ferrari ha abierto, y un nuevo restaurante permite que los comensales acomodados disfruten de una comida sentados encima de una grúa gigantesca con vistas a la ciudad.“¿Cuándo fue la última vez que hicieron algo por primera vez?”, gritaba por el micrófono el anfitrión del restaurante a los clientes emocionados, mientras cantaban una canción de Coldplay.Esto no es Dubái ni Tokio, sino Caracas, la capital de Venezuela, donde una revolución socialista prometió igualdad y el fin de la burguesía.La economía de Venezuela colapsó hace casi una década, lo que provocó un enorme flujo de emigrantes en una de las peores crisis de la historia moderna de América Latina. Ahora hay indicios de que el país se está asentando en una nueva y rara normalidad, con productos cotidianos fácilmente disponibles, una pobreza que empieza a disminuir y asombrosas áreas de opulencia.Esto ha dejado al gobierno socialista del presidente autoritario de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, liderando un país en el que la economía está mejorando, la oposición batalla por unirse y Estados Unidos ha comenzado a reducir las sanciones petroleras que habían contribuído a obstaculizar las finanzas.Un televisor en venta a un precio superior a 100.000 dólares en una tienda de CaracasUn restaurante costoso que abrió recientemente en Caracas.Las condiciones siguen siendo terribles para una gran parte de la población, y aunque la hiperinflación que paralizó la economía se ha moderado, los precios siguen triplicándose anualmente, una de las peores tasas del mundo.Pero con la relajación por parte del gobierno de las restricciones al uso de dólares estadounidenses para hacer frente al colapso económico de Venezuela, la actividad empresarial está volviendo al que fue el país más rico de la región.Como resultado, Venezuela es cada vez más un país de ricos y pobres, y una de las sociedades más desiguales del mundo, según Encovi, una respetada encuesta nacional realizada por el Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales de la Universidad Católica Andrés Bello.Maduro se ha jactado de que la economía creció un 15 por ciento el año pasado, con respecto al anterior, y de que la recaudación de impuestos y las exportaciones también aumentaron, aunque algunos economistas subrayan que el crecimiento de la economía es engañoso porque se produjo tras años de enormes caídas.Por primera vez en siete años, la pobreza está disminuyendo: la mitad del país vive en la pobreza, frente al 65 por ciento en 2021, según la encuesta de Encovi.Un puesto vende verduras a un dólar por pieza en bolsa en un mercado ajetreado en el centro de Caracas.Luego de años de un subibaja económico, Venezuela se ha instalado en una nueva y desconcertante normalidad impulsada por los dólares estadounidenses.Pero la encuesta también reveló que los venezolanos más ricos eran 70 veces más ricos que los más pobres, lo que pone al país a la par con algunos países de África que tienen las tasas más altas de desigualdad en el mundo.Y el acceso a los dólares estadounidenses está limitado a personas con vínculos al gobierno o a quienes están involucrados en negocios ilícitos. Un estudio del año pasado de Transparencia Internacional, una organización anticorrupción, halló que negocios ilegales como el contrabando de comida, gasolina, personas y gas representaban más del 20 por ciento de la economía venezolana.Aunque algunas zonas de Caracas están llenas de residentes que pueden adquirir una creciente variedad de productos importados, uno de cada tres niños en toda Venezuela sufría desnutrición en mayo de 2022, según la Academia Nacional de Medicina.Alrededor de siete millones de personas se han dado por vencidas y han huido de su patria desde 2015, según las Naciones Unidas.A pesar del nuevo mensaje del gobierno de Maduro —“Venezuela se arregló”—, muchos sobreviven con el equivalente a solo unos pocos dólares al día, y los empleados del sector público han salido a la calle para protestar por los bajos salarios.“Tengo que hacer maromas”, dijo María Rodríguez, de 34 años, analista de laboratorio médico en Cumaná, una pequeña ciudad ubicada a 400 kilómetros al este de la capital. Rodríguez dice que, para pagar la comida y la matrícula escolar de su hija, dependía de dos trabajos, un negocio paralelo de venta de productos de belleza y el dinero de sus familiares.Yrelys Jiménez, profesora de preescolar con estudios universitarios en San Diego de los Altos, una localidad ubicada a media hora en coche al sur de Caracas, bromeaba diciendo que su salario mensual de 10 dólares significaba “pan para hoy y hambre para mañana”. (El restaurante que permite que los comensales coman a 45 metros sobre el suelo cobra 140 dólares por comida).Yrelys Jiménez con sus hijos en la habitación que comparten.Jiménez en su larga caminata a casa con sus hijos, al volver de su trabajo como maestra.A pesar de estas penurias, Maduro, cuyo gobierno no respondió a las solicitudes de comentarios, se ha centrado en promover los crecientes indicadores económicos del país.“Parece que el enfermo se recupera, se para, camina y corre”, dijo Maduro en un discurso reciente, comparando a Venezuela con un paciente de hospital que se cura repentinamente.El cambio de estrategia de Estados Unidos hacia Venezuela ha beneficiado en parte a su gobierno.En noviembre, después de que el gobierno de Maduro accediera a reanudar las conversaciones con la oposición, el gobierno de Biden concedió a Chevron una licencia de seis meses, prorrogable, para extraer petróleo en Venezuela. El acuerdo estipula que los beneficios se utilicen para pagar las deudas que el gobierno venezolano tiene con Chevron.Y, mientras Estados Unidos sigue prohibiendo las compras a la petrolera estatal, el país ha aumentado las ventas de petróleo en el mercado negro a China a través de Irán, según los expertos en energía.Esculturas flotantes en una tienda departamental de lujo en CaracasLa flexibilización de las restricciones sobre los dólares por parte del gobierno venezolano ha facilitado que algunas personas gasten el dinero enviado desde el extranjero.Maduro también está saliendo del aislamiento de sus vecinos latinoamericanos porque un giro regional hacia la izquierda ha provocado el deshielo de las relaciones. Colombia y Brasil, ambos dirigidos por líderes de izquierda recientemente elegidos, han restablecido las relaciones diplomáticas. El nuevo presidente de Colombia, Gustavo Petro, ha sido particularmente cálido con Maduro, reuniéndose con él en repetidas ocasiones y acordando un acuerdo para importar gas venezolano.Con las elecciones presidenciales previstas para el próximo año y la reciente disolución del gobierno paralelo de la oposición, Maduro parece cada vez más confiado en su futuro político.La tasa de inflación del año pasado, del 234 por ciento, sitúa a Venezuela en el segundo lugar del mundo, por detrás de Sudán, pero palidece en comparación con la hiperinflación registrada en 2019, cuando la tasa se disparó hasta el 300.000 por ciento, según el Banco Mundial.Con la producción y los precios del crudo al alza, Venezuela también ha empezado a experimentar un aumento de los ingresos procedentes del petróleo, su exportación clave. La producción del país, de casi 700.000 barriles al día, es superior a la del año pasado, aunque fue dos veces mayor en 2018 y cuatro veces mayor en 2013, dijo Francisco J. Monaldi, investigador de política energética de América Latina en la Universidad Rice.La flexibilización por parte del gobierno venezolano de las restricciones sobre los dólares ha facilitado que algunas personas puedan usar el dinero enviado desde el extranjero. En muchos casos, no se intercambia dinero en efectivo. Los venezolanos con medios utilizan cada vez más aplicaciones digitales como Zelle para usar dólares en cuentas del extranjero para pagar bienes y servicios.Amigas celebran un cumpleaños en un restaurante de moda en Caracas.Una encuesta halló que los venezolanos más adinerados eran 70 veces más ricos que los más pobres.Aun así, los funcionarios estadounidenses califican el panorama económico de Venezuela de ilusorio de alguna manera.“Fueron capaces de ajustarse a muchos de sus problemas tras la aplicación de las sanciones a través de la dolarización”, según Mark A. Wells, subsecretario de Estado adjunto, “por lo que con el tiempo empieza a parecer que son capaces de alcanzar un estatus que básicamente ayuda a las élites de allí, pero los pobres siguen siendo muy, muy pobres”.“Por lo tanto, no es que todo sea más estable y mejor ahí”, agregó Wells.Maduro asumió el cargo hace casi 10 años y fue reelegido en 2018 en unos comicios ampliamente considerados como una farsa y que fueron repudiados por gran parte de la comunidad internacional.La creencia generalizada de que Maduro ganó fraudulentamente llevó a la Asamblea Nacional elegida democráticamente a declarar vacante la presidencia en 2019 y utilizar una disposición de la Constitución para nombrar a un nuevo líder, Juan Guaidó, un exdirigente estudiantil. Fue reconocido por decenas de países, incluido Estados Unidos, como gobernante legítimo de Venezuela.Pero como figura principal de un gobierno paralelo que supervisaba las cuentas financieras internacionales congeladas, carecía de poder dentro del país.Juan Guaidó lideró un gobierno reconocido por Estados Unidos pero que no tenía poder dentro del país.Rebuscando en un gran contenedor de basura en un mercado callejero de Caracas. La mitad del país vive en la pobreza, menos que el 65 por ciento que vivía en esa situación en 2021.En diciembre, la Asamblea Nacional destituyó a Guaidó y eliminó el gobierno interino, una medida que algunos observadores consideraron como un impulso a Maduro. Varias figuras de la oposición han anunciado que se presentarán a las primarias previstas para finales de octubre, a pesar de que muchos analistas políticos son escépticos de que Maduro permita una votación creíble.“Lo que Maduro tiene hoy es una oposición desarticulada y dispersa”, dijo Guaidó en una entrevista telefónica. “También tiene a la mayoría del pueblo en su contra. Sigue siendo un dictador sin apoyo popular, una economía destruida por su propia culpa, con profesores, enfermeras, ancianos y trabajadores protestando ahora mismo mientras hablamos”.Incluso gente como Eugenia Monsalves, propietaria de una empresa de suministros médicos en Caracas y que envía a sus dos hijas a colegios privados, está frustrada con el rumbo del país.Aunque es de clase media alta, dice que tiene que cuidar cómo gasta su dinero.Sale a comer de vez en cuando y ha visitado algunas de las nuevas tiendas de lujo de la ciudad, pero sin comprar nada.“La gran mayoría de los venezolanos viven una situación complicada, muy complicada”, dijo.Monsalves cree que el gobierno de Maduro debe irse, pero le preocupa que los mejores candidatos hayan sido forzados al exilio o descalificados. La oposición, dijo, no se ha unido en torno a lo que más necesita: un líder que pueda energizar al electorado.“Eso es lo que yo más quisiera, así como muchísimos otros venezolanos”, dijo. “Pero la verdad es que de esta manera, y sin un panorama claro de la oposición, una propuesta clara de un candidato, lo veo muy difícil”.Un restaurante de lujo en un hotel recién remodelado en Caracas.Nayrobis Rodríguez colaboró con reporteo desde Sucre, Venezuela, y More

  • 125 Shares33 Views

    in Elections

    Trump’s Potential Indictment Could Alienate Some G.O.P. Voters in 2024

    The former president strengthened his political position in recent weeks, but an impetuous response to his potential indictment could alienate voters he will need to win back the White House.Donald J. Trump, the former prime-time reality TV star known for his love of big stages and vast crowds, has embraced a more humbling and traditional style on the campaign trail in recent months.He held intimate events in New Hampshire and South Carolina. He fielded questions from voters in Iowa. And in multiple cities, he surprised diners with unannounced visits to restaurants where, with his more familiar Trumpian flair, he made a dramatic show of sliding a wad of cash from his pocket to buy everyone a bite to eat.This strategy has highlighted the billionaire’s counterintuitive political strength at connecting with voters on a personal level — while also underscoring the chief weakness of his main potential Republican rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who can often come across as snappish or uncomfortable.But now Mr. Trump faces a likely indictment in New York in the coming days, and how he responds to this moment could determine whether he continues to stabilize his standing as the Republican presidential front-runner or whether he further alienates the voters he will need to return to the White House.The result will help answer a pressing question about his candidacy for many Republican primary voters: Can Mr. Trump show enough restraint to persuade moderate Republicans and independent swing voters to choose him over President Biden in 2024?So far, he has returned to old habits.Since Saturday, Mr. Trump has unleashed a series of personal, unproven and provocative attacks against investigators, Democrats and fellow Republicans. He accused Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney bringing the case against Mr. Trump, of being a “woke tyrant” who was “destroying Manhattan.” He called his Democratic opponents “animals and thugs.” He insinuated baselessly that Mr. DeSantis might be gay.It was the kind of behavior that swing voters and moderate Republicans tend to dislike most about Mr. Trump: the long tail of chaos that often drags behind him; an inclination to focus on personal attacks instead of policy solutions; and his inability, particularly in 2020, to settle on a forward-looking message to explain his candidacy.For three consecutive elections, these voters have largely abandoned Mr. Trump, as well as the candidates and causes he has endorsed. In 2020, he bled twice as much support among Republican voters as Mr. Biden did among Democratic ones, an outcome the former president will have to address in order to win in 2024.“The circus continues,” former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican and a former federal prosecutor, said on Sunday on ABC. “He only profits and does well in chaos and turmoil, and so he wants to create the chaos and turmoil on his terms — he doesn’t want it on anybody else’s terms.”“But, look, at the end, being indicted never helps anybody,” Mr. Christie continued. “It’s not a help.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Taylor Budowich, a Trump adviser who now runs the main super PAC supporting the former president’s White House bid, defended Mr. Trump’s approach, saying he was “campaigning harder than every other candidate combined, while staying focused on the issues voters care about.”“This is allowing the contrast to be made,” said Mr. Budowich, whose group filed a complaint last week accusing Mr. DeSantis of breaking state ethics law. “Donald Trump is the true fighter for the people, while every other candidate is different versions of the same.”Some Trump allies believe that becoming the first former president to face criminal charges would carry a political upside for Mr. Trump, at least in a Republican primary. The former president has skillfully persuaded many supporters to metabolize critiques from opponents, investigations by law enforcement and impeachments by Congress as deeply personal attacks on them.Mr. Trump has started to amplify the anger and the energy of his most ardent followers as he tries to fight his legal battle on a political playing field.His muscular online fund-raising machine has started leveraging the potential indictment in appeals for campaign contributions, returning to a well-worn page in his campaign playbook. Mr. Trump and his team turned his first impeachment into tens of millions of dollars, and collected similar amounts as he made false claims of a stolen 2020 election. Last year, his two single biggest fund-raising days came after the F.B.I. searched his South Florida home for missing government documents.But whether Mr. Trump’s attempt to galvanize his base is worth the political cost that he may pay in a general election is far from certain.The first signs of regression appeared early Saturday, when Mr. Trump surprised his campaign aides with a social media post that declared he would be arrested on Tuesday. (A spokesman later clarified that Mr. Trump did not have direct knowledge of the timing of any arrest.)On Sunday, he resurfaced his lies about the 2020 election, which had recently started to fade from his public speeches. But as a reminder that Mr. Trump still hasn’t turned the page, he injected false claims of election fraud into a social media post complaining about the Manhattan district attorney’s office.On Monday, he hurled a crude joke at Mr. DeSantis after the Florida governor broke his silence about the potential indictment, criticizing it as politically motivated but drawing attention to Mr. Trump’s sordid behavior at the center of the case, which revolves around hush-money payments to a porn star who said she had an affair with the former president.Whether three consecutive days of escalation was a temporary or lasting step away from the relative discipline that defined his last few months of campaigning remained to be seen.But at the very least, it signaled a long week ahead. On Saturday in Waco, Texas, Mr. Trump is set to host the first large event of his 2024 campaign, returning to his cherished rally stage — where he is often at his most reckless. More