Elections

There were plenty of midterm elections where Republicans didn’t seem to pay a price over new abortion restrictions.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. Will the abortion issue define him?Eze Amos for The New York TimesAfter the liberal triumph in this month’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race, you probably don’t need much convincing that abortion rights can be a big political winner for Democrats.But after Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a law last week banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, it is worth considering another set of races: the elections where Republicans didn’t seem to pay a stiff political price for new abortion restrictions.Surprisingly, Republicans tended to fare just as well in the midterms in the states where abortion was recently banned as they did in the states where abortion remained legal.This is a little perplexing. There isn’t a definitive explanation, but I’ll offer two basic theories. Depending on your preferred answer, Mr. DeSantis’s anti-abortion stance may be an electoral death wish — or abortion simply may not be quite as helpful to Democrats as it seems based on the highest-profile elections, like the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court race.Oddly enough, Wisconsin offers a stark example of how abortion may not always help Democrats. Abortion was banned there after the Dobbs decision, but in the midterms Republican candidates for U.S. House still won more votes than Democrats in a state Joe Biden carried in 2020. The Republican senator Ron Johnson won re-election as well. The Democratic governor, Tony Evers, won re-election by three percentage points — a fine performance, but not a Democratic romp.It’s worth noting the unusual circumstances of Wisconsin’s abortion ban. The law banning abortion was originally enacted in 1849 — not by today’s Republicans — and went info effect after Roe v. Wade was overturned, giving the G.O.P. some maneuvering room. The Republican state Legislature argued for adding exceptions; Mr. Johnson pushed for an abortion referendum. Perhaps Republicans in the state just weren’t seen as responsible for the ban.But Wisconsin isn’t alone. A similar story played out in Texas, Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri and Georgia. In some of these states, Republican governors enacted bans or other major restrictions that went into effect after the Dobbs decision. In others, Republican bans were blocked by the courts. But in all of them, Republicans nonetheless posted average to above-average midterm results.In fact, there was only one state — West Virginia — where abortion was banned and where Democrats posted well above-average results in House races. Overall, Republican House candidates outran Donald J. Trump by a typical or above average amount (six points or more) in 10 of the 13 states where abortion was banned after Roe.What makes sense of this pattern? Of the two basic possibilities, one would augur well for Democrats; the other would bode better for Mr. DeSantis.Theory No. 1: It’s about demographics.Abortion is relatively unpopular in states where today’s Republicans successfully banned abortion, like Texas or Georgia. These states tend to be relatively religious states in the South. There aren’t many of the secular, white, college-educated liberal Democrats who could bring about a “Roevember” backlash.There seems to be a lot to this theory. Not only does it explain many of the cases in question, but it also fits a broader pattern from last November: Democratic strength in the House vote was somewhat correlated with support for abortion (though big Democratic failures in New York and California stand out as obvious exceptions).But this theory doesn’t quite explain everything. In particular, it doesn’t work outside the South, including in places like Ohio or Wisconsin, where we know the right to abortion is popular. That’s where it’s important to notice my qualifier: where today’s Republicans successfully banned abortion. If demographics are the predominant explanation, then the Republican resilience in the North must be because voters simply didn’t hold them responsible for banning abortion. Democrats could hope Republicans will pay a greater political cost when they unequivocally restrict abortion, like what Mr. DeSantis is doing now in Florida.Theory No. 2: When abortion is the most important issue.This is what I’ll call the salience theory: It takes a special set of circumstances for Democrats to make abortion the most important issue to voters, like a Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate who promises to represent the decisive vote to legalize abortion when an abortion case is pending before the court, or a Michigan referendum that explicitly decides the future of abortion in a state.As with the demographics theory, the salience theory is also consistent with polling and the general story of the 2022 midterms. Only a sliver of voters said abortion was the most important issue, not because abortion rights wasn’t important to them but because there were lots of other genuinely important issues at stake — the economy and inflation, crime, guns, democracy, immigration, and so on. With so many other issues, it makes sense that abortion plays only a marginal role in vote choice unless a distinct set of circumstances focuses the electorate on abortion alone.The salience theory also fits one of the patterns of the election: the highly localized results. There were states where Democrats excelled, like Michigan or Pennsylvania, even as they struggled in California or New York. Where Democrats did well, they had the fodder to focus voters on one of their best issues, like attacking stop-the-steal candidates. Where they struggled, Republicans managed to focus the electorate on an issue like crime (democracy or abortion seemed less important).It’s worth emphasizing that the salience theory doesn’t mean that abortion as an issue didn’t help Democrats in 2022. If Roe hadn’t been overturned, abortion would have been less salient everywhere and perhaps Democrats would have fared a bit worse across the board. But it would mean that Republican support for an abortion ban is not, on its own, sufficient to make abortion the predominant issue and bring stiff political costs to conservatives.While this theory offers better news for Mr. DeSantis, it would nonetheless contain a lesson for Democrats: It seems they would be wise to find creative ways to keep the electorate focused on abortion. State referendums might be one option, much as Republicans put same-sex marriage on the ballot in 2004. A campaign to pass federal abortion legislation might be another path as well. More

A push and pull between progressive and moderate Democrats is shaping the party’s policies and politics.Progressive victories in Wisconsin and Chicago have injected new momentum into the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party. But those recent electoral successes are masking deeper internal tensions over the role and influence of progressives in a party President Biden has been remaking in his moderate image.Interviews with more than 25 progressive and moderate Democratic leaders and strategists — including current and former members of Congress and directors of national and statewide groups — revealed a behind-the-scenes tug of war over the party’s policy agenda, messaging and tactics. As the party looks toward next year’s elections, its key constituencies have undergone a transformation. Once mostly white, working-class voters, Democrats now tend to be affluent, white liberals, Black moderates and a more diverse middle class.On some fronts, progressives — a relatively young, highly educated and mostly white bloc that makes up about 12 percent of the Democratic coalition and is the most politically active — have made inroads. Their grass-roots networks, including several headed by Black and Latino leaders, have grown sharply since the heights of the widespread resistance to the Trump administration. Beyond the high-profile victories in Chicago and Wisconsin, they have won under-the-radar local and state races across the country. And many of their views have moved into the mainstream and pushed the government to expand the fight against child poverty, climate change and other social ills.“We as a movement helped articulate these things, to do these things,” said Representative Pramila Jayapal, the Washington State Democrat who heads the Congressional Progressive Caucus.Yet at the same time, the activist left wing remains very much on the defensive.The negotiations with the White House on some of the most sweeping legislation fell short of the bold, structural change many of their members sought. And progressives remain locked in an old debate with their moderate counterparts — as well as themselves — over how to communicate progressive ideas and values to voters at a time when slogans like “defund the police” have come under attack by Republicans and moderate Democrats.“In 2018, our party seemed to react to Donald Trump winning in 2016, and the reaction was to go further and further left,” said Cheri Bustos, a former Illinois congresswoman who is a moderate and was a leader of the House Democrats’ campaign arm. “When politics swings far to the left or far to the right, there always seems to be a reckoning.”As Mr. Biden has signaled that he plans to run for re-election in 2024, he has been emphasizing the moderate roots he has embodied throughout much of his roughly 50 years in politics. He has replaced a key ally of the left in the White House — Ron Klain, Mr. Biden’s former chief of staff — with Jeffrey D. Zients, who some progressive groups see as too friendly to corporate interests. And he has been clashing with activists who have accused him of backsliding on his liberal approaches to crime, statehood for the District of Columbia, climate issues and immigration policy.Progressive is a label that encompasses various factions within the American left and can mean different things to different people. Broadly, progressives tend to believe the government should push for sweeping change to solve problems and address racial and social inequities. Like moderate and establishment Democrats, they support strong economic and social safety net programs and believe the economic system largely favors powerful interests.But points of tension emerge between moderates and progressives over tactics: Progressives tend to call for ambitious structural overhauls of U.S. laws and institutions that they see as fundamentally racist over incremental change and more measured policy approaches.In an interview with the socialist political magazine Jacobin, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, one of the most prominent progressive Democrats in the House, highlighted the tension by criticizing the president for making a “lurch to the right.”“I think it is extremely risky and very perilous should the Biden administration forget who it was that put him over the top,” she told the magazine, referring to the high turnout in the 2020 presidential election of young people and communities of color.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is the rare Democratic member of Congress to publicly criticize the president. Several other progressives said they had accepted their role as having a seat at the table, though not necessarily at the head of it. Some said they believed Mr. Biden would serve as a bridge to new generation of progressive leaders, even if for now they are caught in a waiting game.Progressive Democrats helped give Brandon Johnson a narrow victory in the mayor’s race in Chicago.Evan Cobb for The New York Times“Right now, the progressives are sort of building power — it is like a silent build that is just going to explode in a post-Biden world,” said Representative Ro Khanna of California, a co-chairman of Senator Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign. “I just can’t conceive of a situation where progressives aren’t dominating presidential elections over the next 15 years after Biden.”The victories in Wisconsin and Chicago followed a similar playbook: Thousands of volunteers knocked on doors, made calls, wrote postcards, fired off mass texts and canvassed college campuses. They shied away from slogans and divisions among Democrats and emphasized the threat of an anti-democratic, Trumpian movement on the right. They turned out diverse coalitions of voters.In Chicago that allowed progressives to propel Brandon Johnson, a once little-known county commissioner and union organizer, to clinch a narrow victory in the mayor’s race over his more conservative Democratic opponent, Paul Vallas, who ran on a tough-on-crime platform and was endorsed by a police union. In Wisconsin, where Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee County judge, won a high-stakes race for a seat on the state’s Supreme Court, it allowed Democrats to lean into issues that the establishment wing of the party once tended to avoid in Republican and heavily contested areas: increased access to abortion and collective bargaining rights.“I couldn’t feel more proud or feel more vindicated that the type of politics we argued for are where more Americans are at,” said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, a grass-roots organization that often works with progressive Democrats and mobilized voters in Chicago and Wisconsin.Progressives have also been increasing their ranks in other places. Members of their wing now hold the mayor’s office in Los Angeles and a majority on the board of aldermen in St. Louis. They have swept into statehouses in Colorado, Connecticut and Wisconsin, where two Democratic Socialists this year revived a socialist caucus inactive since the 1930s. At the federal level, the House’s Congressional Progressive Caucus added 16 new members, bringing the total number of the organization to 102 — one of the largest ideological caucuses in Congress.But as they build their organizing power, progressives are contending with a financial framework at the mercy of boom-and-bust cycles. Major gifts from donors or progressive attention to a cause du jour can draw sudden revenue windfalls and then dry out. In the Trump years, some grass-roots groups had explosive growth as progressives rushed to combat Trump policies, elevate a younger and more diverse crop of candidates and help fuel a national reckoning with racism. By the 2022 midterms, some progressive candidates and groups were having to rewrite budgets, considering laying off staff members and triaging outreach programs and advertising as donations slowed.In Georgia, the Asian American Advocacy Fund, which focuses on mobilizing Asian American voters, went from having six full-time employees and a budget of roughly $95,000 in 2018 to a staff of 14 and a budget of $3 million in 2022. Its executive director, Aisha Yaqoob Mahmood, said the boom allowed the group to run better programs but also made those projects harder to sustain when donations ran low. The group was among several in swing states that struggled in 2022 to get political canvassing efforts off the ground as major Democratic donors cut back on their political giving.“We lost momentum, and we lost the vast majority of people who tuned into politics and tuned into elections, many maybe for the first time in their lives, because there was this villain who needed to be defeated,” Mrs. Yaqoob Mahmood said.Political analysts also warned against reading too much into progressive gains in areas that already lean liberal. During the midterms, the candidates who won tough midterm contests in purple places like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada largely adopted more moderate positions. And more progressive nominees who beat moderates in a number of House primaries lost in the general election.“The whole name of the game is creating a majority, and the majority makers are the moderates,” said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a centrist organization. Referring to progressives, he said: “They can win occasionally. But for the most part, they lose because what they’re selling isn’t what Dems want to be buying.”Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee County judge, defeated a conservative opponent for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesAs Mr. Trump vies for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, with multiple investigations hanging over his campaign, both moderate and progressive Democrats said they were forming a united front against a common foil and on issues where there is less division within their party, like abortion and protecting democracy. But for progressives, that has still meant a delicate dance about who they are.In Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, successfully campaigning for Senate last year, argued that he was not a progressive but “just a Democrat.” In Virginia, Jennifer McClellan, who became the first Black woman to represent the state in Congress, has called herself a “pragmatic progressive,” emphasizing her decades of working across the aisle.The stakes are especially high for progressives in Arizona, where a fierce race is expected over Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s seat, after she left the Democratic Party in December to become an independent. Ms. Sinema flipped a Republican-held seat by hewing to the center and relying on progressive groups that turned out a large coalition of Democratic and independent voters.Now, Representative Ruben Gallego of Phoenix, a member of the progressive congressional caucus, is running for the seat.In some ways, Mr. Gallego is a bona fide progressive. He has been promoting policies like expanding affordable health care, enacting a permanent child tax credit and increasing wages. In other ways, he is reluctant to openly embrace the progressive brand, preferring instead to talk about his vision for Arizona or his experience as a Marine combat veteran and former construction worker as a way to help bring those working-class Latinos who now vote Republican back into the Democratic fold.Asked if he sees himself as a progressive, Mr. Gallego said, “I see myself as someone who has been a worker and a fighter for working-class families.” He added, “We are not going to be focusing on D.C. labels.”Susan Campbell Beachy More

The former New Jersey governor mocked the Florida governor’s tussles with Disney and also criticized Donald Trump during a talk hosted by Semafor.Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, slammed Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida as a fake conservative during an event in Washington on Tuesday, one of a string of meetings and stops as he considers a second Republican presidential campaign.The comments, made at an event hosted by the media outlet Semafor, were among a wide range of topics that Mr. Christie touched on, including abortion rights and his feelings about former President Donald J. Trump’s lies about the 2020 election.Mr. Christie took a shot at Mr. DeSantis over his efforts to target Disney, a top business in Florida, over a fight that began when Mr. DeSantis signed legislation that banned classroom teaching and discussion about gender identity and sexual orientation in certain grade schools.Mr. Christie suggested that Mr. DeSantis’s efforts to restrict Disney were against traditional conservative principles about small government.“I don’t think Ron DeSantis is conservative, based on actions towards Disney,” he said. “Where are we headed here now that, if you express disagreement in this country, the government is now going to punish you? To me, that’s what I always thought liberals did, and now all of a sudden here we are participating in this with a Republican governor.”At another point, he mocked Disney’s escape from Mr. DeSantis’s efforts to appoint a board to oversee it, using references to Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.“That’s not the guy I want sitting across from President Xi and negotiating our next agreement with China, or sitting across from Putin and trying to resolve what’s happening in Ukraine, if you can’t see around a corner that Bob Iger created for you,” Mr. Christie said. (Mr. Iger, a longtime Disney leader, returned as Disney’s chief executive late last year.)Mr. Christie has been meeting with his staff and some donors and soliciting input from people, as he aims to decide in the coming weeks whether to run for president. If he does run, he would start at a disadvantage in a party redefined by Mr. Trump. But as Mr. DeSantis has stumbled at times before formally entering the race, some anti-Trump voices in the Republican Party have grown more interested in a Christie candidacy. Mr. Trump has taunted Mr. DeSantis relentlessly, while Mr. DeSantis has largely declined to push back on Mr. Trump. A television ad from the super PAC supporting Mr. DeSantis took issue with Mr. Trump for attacking Mr. DeSantis, a fellow Republican; Mr. Trump has never been bothered by such raised eyebrows.But Mr. Christie has been willing to take on both Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis, who was meeting with lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday.A senior member of Mr. DeSantis’s political team, who was not authorized to speak publicly, replied by insulting Mr. Christie and said he was resorting to attacking a “winner.”Mr. Christie and Mr. Trump have gone from friends to opponents to allies after Mr. Trump became the nominee in 2016, beating Mr. Christie and all other rivals in the New Hampshire primary. He was the chairman of Mr. Trump’s transition team before top Trump aides and Mr. Trump’s son-in-law fired him from the role after Election Day; still, Mr. Christie remained aligned with Mr. Trump. The president considered him for chief of staff at one point in late 2018, but Mr. Christie took himself out of the running.Mr. Christie told the crowd that Mr. Trump hit a point of no return with his lies that the election was stolen from him.“There’s a difference between spinning politically to try to put yourself in a better position before the vote happens and after the vote happens to say it was ‘rigged,’” Mr. Christie said.He also faulted Mr. Trump for declaring in a recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference that “I am your retribution” to people who believe they’ve been wronged.“I think a president should be our inspiration, not our retribution,” Mr. Christie said. More

Fox News’s late-stage agreement with Dominion Voting Systems came with a rare acknowledgment of broadcasting false claims by the conservative media powerhouse.In settling with Dominion Voting Systems, Fox News has avoided an excruciating, drawn-out trial in which its founding chief, Rupert Murdoch, its top managers and its biggest stars would have had to face hostile grilling on an embarrassing question: Why did they allow a virulent and defamatory conspiracy theory about the 2020 election to spread across the network when so many of them knew it to be false?But the $787.5 million settlement agreement — among the largest defamation settlements in history — and Fox’s courthouse statement recognizing that the court had found “certain claims about Dominion” aired on its programming “to be false” — at the very least amount to a rare, high-profile acknowledgment of informational wrongdoing by a powerhouse in conservative media and America’s most popular cable network.“Money is accountability,” Stephen Shackelford, a Dominion lawyer, said outside the courthouse, “and we got that today from Fox.”During a news conference, a lawyer for Dominion Voting Systems said, “lies have consequences.”Pete Marovich for The New York TimesThe terms of the agreement, which was abruptly announced just before lawyers were expected to make opening statements, did not require Fox to apologize for any wrongdoing in its own programming — a point that Dominion was said to have been pressing for.Shortly after the agreement was reached, Fox said it was “hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.”The settlement carries an implicit plea of “no contest” to several pretrial findings from the presiding judge in the case, Eric M. Davis, that cast Fox’s programming in exceptionally harsh light. In one of those findings, the judge sided with Dominion in its assertion that Fox could not claim that its airing of the conspiracy theory — generally relating to the false claim that its machines “switched” Trump votes into Biden votes — fell under a legally protected status of “news gathering” that can shield news organizations when facts are disputed. The judge wrote, “the evidence does not support that FNN conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.”In another finding, the judge wrote that the “evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.”Through those findings, the judge seriously limited Fox’s ability to argue that it was acting as a news network pursuing the claims of a newsmaker, in this case, the president of the United States, who was the lead clarion for the false Dominion narrative.In those heady days before the first day of trial, Fox had been indicating that if it were to lose at trial, it would work up an appeal that would, at least partly, argue with those judicial rulings. Now they stand undisputed. By the end of the day on Tuesday, it was clear that Fox’s lawyers were engaged in an urgent calculus to take the financial hit rather than risk losing at trial. As so many legal experts before the trial had argued, Dominion had managed to collect an unusual amount of internal documentation from Fox showing that many inside the company knew the Dominion election conspiracy theory was pure fantasy. That extended to the network’s highest ranks — right up to Mr. Murdoch himself.Rupert Murdoch and his lieutenants could have faced a drawn-out trial that would have forced them to acknowledge why they broadcast conspiratorial claims that knew to be false.Mary Altaffer/Associated PressThat evidence appeared to bring Dominion close to the legal threshold in defamation cases known as “actual malice” — established when defamatory statements are “made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not.” (That bar, however, is not always easy to meet, and there are no guarantees in front of a jury.)“Dominion Voting had elicited much critical evidence that Fox had acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth, which it could have proved to a jury, so the only question remaining would have been damages,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. “Trial of the case also might have undermined the reputation of Fox when the evidence was presented in open court.”It was less surprising that Fox settled than that it did so at such a late stage on Tuesday. A trial would have seen Fox News personnel and Mr. Murdoch parrying with lawyers over the knowledge of falsity they held and why they did not take any action to stop it. The answers would have further unmasked the internal modus operandi of an organization that has long guarded its internal operations.The one question that only time will answer is whether the settlement was enough to cause Fox News to change the way it handles such incendiary and defamatory conspiracy content. The amount is huge — $787.5 million. Fox News certainly doesn’t want to see a similar settlement anytime soon as other legal cases loom, notably a $2.7 billion suit from another election technology company, Smartmatic.But Fox did manage to escape Dominion’s goal of an on-air admission or apology, meaning it did not have to force either on its audience, which did not hear much about the case on Fox’s shows to begin with.“It’s hard to say how damaging a decision against Fox would have been for the company beyond the financial cost of the verdict because their audience is very loyal and bought into the polarized perspective their opinion hosts present,” Michelle Simpson Tuegel, a trial lawyer, said in a statement. “But the reputational harm of having executives, including Chairman Rupert Murdoch, and hosts take the stand seems to have moved the parties towards a resolution.” More

Speaking after Dominion Voting Systems reached a US$787.5m settlement in its defamation lawsuit against Fox, the company’s attorney Justin Nelson says the outcome “represents vindication and accountability”. Dominion CEO John Poulos says Fox ‘has admitted to telling lies’ about the voting equipment company that caused ‘enormous damage’. The settlement ends a dispute over whether Fox and its parent company knowingly broadcast false and outlandish allegations that Dominion was involved in a plot to steal the 2020 election. Neither party disclosed the terms of the settlement other than the dollar amount, and attorneys for Dominion declined to answer questions about whether it requires Fox to issue a retraction or a formal apology More

Ron DeSantis has not managed much momentum from his party in Congress, where he served before becoming Florida’s governor.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida on Tuesday made a rare return trip to Washington, where he served in the House before his run for governor, to mingle with about a dozen Republican lawmakers.But his journey to Capitol Hill failed to spark much momentum in his expected presidential bid among Republicans in Congress, an important group for White House aspirants.Representative Dan Meuser, who attended the gathering of about 100 people and who remains undecided in the race, left with the impression that Mr. DeSantis was close to announcing. “It’s a big decision,” he said. “It’s up to him.” And another attendee, Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas, said, “I’m staying out of it.”Representative Lance Gooden of Texas, meanwhile, sent out a statement endorsing Donald J. Trump — during Mr. DeSantis’s event.“Due diligence was my motivating factor,” Mr. Gooden said in an interview after meeting with Mr. DeSantis at the gathering. “I love Donald Trump. But I didn’t want to just jump out and endorse him out of loyalty. I made a commitment to myself that I would meet and visit with every serious contender before I made a decision. I chose today and wanted to jump back on the Trump Train.”Mr. DeSantis made time to have long conversations with every member who wanted to talk, according to attendees.Mr. DeSantis is set to return to the nation’s capital on Friday to address a conference for the conservative Heritage Foundation before traveling to Austin, Texas, for an event.From there, he will travel abroad on a trade mission that the governor’s office has not publicly announced. The itinerary includes Tokyo, where he’s scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, before heading to Seoul, Tel Aviv and London, according to people with knowledge of the planning.Mr. Crenshaw said Mr. DeSantis talked on Tuesday mostly about Florida policy. The Texas congressman has been critical of Mr. Trump’s lies about the 2020 election but said he wasn’t planning to get involved.Mr. DeSantis served in the House for six years before running for governor in 2018, but he has done little to maintain his congressional relationships. He has mostly eschewed gatherings in Washington in recent years for groups like the National Governors Association or the Republican Governors Association. While his event on Tuesday was billed as a meet-and-greet, several of the invited Republicans were former colleagues.One of those lawmakers, Representative Darin LaHood of Illinois, said earlier in the day that he wasn’t ready to endorse Mr. DeSantis.“Well, Governor DeSantis hasn’t announced that he’s going to run for president — that time will come,” Mr. LaHood said during an interview on Fox News. “Today is just an opportunity again to hear the great success story that Governor DeSantis has had in Florida and for my colleagues to get reacquainted with him.”The event was held at an event space a short walk from the Capitol — and about three miles from the White House. The room was rented by a group called And To The Republic, which was formed by Tori Sachs, a Republican strategist from Michigan, and which has hosted other recent events for the Florida governor, as he has laid his presidential groundwork.About two dozen protesters gathered outside, with bullhorns and loudspeakers to berate attendees with chants of “shame.” But Mr. DeSantis used a side door away from the protesters to enter.The event was organized in part by Representatives Chip Roy of Texas and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, the two House Republicans who have endorsed Mr. DeSantis for president. A third House member, Representative Laurel Lee of Florida, endorsed Mr. DeSantis on Tuesday before the meet-and-greet.Mr. Trump, the front-runner in the race, who opened his campaign five months ago, has collected 45 endorsements from House Republicans, including seven from Florida. Mr. Trump’s team announced three of those Florida Republican endorsements — Brian Mast, John Rutherford and Greg Stuebe — in the 24 hours before Mr. DeSantis landed in Washington.Representative Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican, attended the Tuesday event but said his presence shouldn’t be viewed as an endorsement but as an opportunity to discuss policy issues in different parts of the country.Mr. Buck said he sat next to Mr. DeSantis when both were members of the House Judiciary Committee and was “happy to be supportive in a general way.”“Most of us who are attending are not publicly supporting him — I have gone to events for others and will continue to do that,” Mr. Buck said. “It’s just an opportunity for Ron to be in town and maybe raise his profile a little bit.”Maggie Haberman More

The lawyer represents 10 Georgia Republicans who were part of a plan to reverse the results of the 2020 presidential election and keep Donald J. Trump in power.The lead prosecutor investigating election interference by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies in Georgia filed a motion on Tuesday accusing two defense lawyers ​​in the case of misconduct. The prosecutor, Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga., sought to have one of the lawyers, Kimberly B. Debrow, thrown off the proceedings.Ms. Debrow represents 10 Georgia Republicans who were part of a bogus slate of electors for Mr. Trump under a broader plan to reverse the results of the 2020 presidential election and keep him in power. According to the motion, some of the electors recently told prosecutors that Ms. Debrow and another attorney, Holly Pierson, had not informed them of offers of immunity in exchange for cooperation that were made last year.The filing noted that Ms. Pierson had previously told the court that she and Ms. Debrow had spoken to their clients about potential immunity offers, but that “none of their clients were interested.”Ms. Pierson represents David Shafer, the head of the Georgia Republican Party, who served as one of the fake electors. She and Ms. Debrow, who are being paid by the state party, had originally represented 11 electors until a judge forced them to separate Mr. Shafer from the other 10. In a statement, Ms. Pierson said that Ms. Willis’s allegations of misconduct were “entirely false,” adding that the court “already has documents in its possession” that prove it.“Sadly, the D.A.’s office continues to seem more interested in media attention, trampling on the constitutional rights of innocent citizens and recklessly defaming its perceived opponents, than in the facts, the law or the truth,” Ms. Pierson’s statement said.Ms. Willis’s office has spent more than two years investigating whether the former president and his allies illegally interfered with Georgia’s 2020 election, and is expected to seek indictments next month. It was not immediately clear if the latest development could delay the timetable.A special grand jury that heard evidence in the case for roughly seven months recommended more than a dozen people for indictments, and its forewoman strongly hinted in an interview with The New York Times this year that Mr. Trump was among them.Central to the investigation are the steps that Trump allies and state party officials took to assemble a group of 16 pro-Trump electors in December 2020, who then submitted bogus slates of Electoral College votes for Mr. Trump in hopes of reversing the election’s outcome in the state. Mr. Trump was directly involved in such efforts, which also took place in a number of other swing states, and called the head of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, to seek her assistance, according to Ms. McDaniel’s testimony to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.At least one of the electors not represented by Ms. Debrow or Ms. Pierson has an immunity deal in place and has cooperated with the prosecution, people with knowledge of the case have said.Ms. Willis’s new motion comes as other electors are seeking immunity deals, with indictment decisions looming. According to a legal analysis by the Brookings Institution, the fake electors could potentially face criminal liability for interfering with elections, among other charges.Ms. Willis has indicated that she may bring broader state racketeering or conspiracy charges, which could apply to some of the bogus electors and a number of other people, including Mr. Trump, who were involved in several schemes to overturn the Georgia results.The filing on Tuesday indicates that Ms. Willis’s office is still actively investigating, even though the special grand jury completed its work in January. During recent discussions with prosecutors, some of the fake electors represented by Ms. Debrow claimed that another elector, whom she also represents, broke the law, but that they themselves “were not party to these additional acts,” according to the new filing.The fact that Ms. Debrow is representing people who are making accusations against another of her clients amounts to an untenable conflict, the district attorney’s office said.“Ms. Debrow’s continued participation in this matter is fraught with conflicts of interest that rise to the level of her being disqualified from this case in its entirety,” the filing said.During their recent discussions with some of the fake electors, investigators in Ms. Willis’s office were told “that no potential offer of immunity was ever brought” to those electors last year, despite assurances to the court by Ms. Pierson.Clark D. Cunningham, a law professor and ethics specialist at Georgia State University who has been following the case closely, said that if the conduct described in the filing did take place, “that’s the kind of conduct that can get a lawyer disbarred.”Ms. Debrow, in a statement late Tuesday, called the motion “baseless, false and offensive.”“None of my clients have committed any crimes, and they necessarily have not implicated themselves or each other in any crimes,” she said.Last year, Ms. Debrow and Ms. Pierson together represented the 10 electors and Mr. Shafer until Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court, who is handling the case, decided that Mr. Shafer needed separate counsel. Mr. Shafer has been informed that he is among the targets of the investigation who could face criminal charges, according to people with knowledge of the case.Mr. Trump’s legal team, in a filing in March, assailed the special grand jury proceedings as “confusing, flawed and, at times, blatantly unconstitutional.”The Atlanta case is not the only legal issue Mr. Trump faces. Earlier this month, the former president pleaded not guilty in Manhattan to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, in a case tied to his role in a hush-money payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels. He is also under investigation by Jack Smith, a special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, for his role in the events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and retaining sensitive government documents at his home in Florida. More

WILMINGTON, Del. — It is deeply disappointing that Fox News settled the defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems before Rupert Murdoch and his roster of celebrity propagandists had to testify. But it is not surprising. Fox News, after all, had no viable defense.On Tuesday, I arrived at Superior Court here at 7 a.m. to secure a seat for what I, like many others, hoped would be an epic trial about the falsehoods Fox aired after the 2020 election, when it accused Dominion and the voting technology company Smartmatic of perpetrating heinous voter fraud. Jury selection took all morning, and opening statements were scheduled for the afternoon.More than anything, I was curious about what Fox’s lawyers would say, because there seemed so little that they could say. Part of Fox’s sinister on-air brilliance is the way it encases its audience in a comprehensive alternative reality. But now, for once, the network would be forced to account for itself outside the right-wing bubble. How it would possibly do so was a matter of great suspense.Already, Eric Davis, the judge in the case, had ruled in Dominion’s favor on key issues. “The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” he wrote in a March 31 pretrial decision, a rare judicial use of all-caps bold italics. Fox’s statements, he ruled, constituted “defamation per se.”Davis prohibited Fox from arguing that the network was merely reporting on allegations made by Donald Trump and his lawyers, which Fox contended were newsworthy whether or not they were true. So the case would turn not on whether Fox had aired defamatory falsehoods, which Davis determined it had, but on whether, in airing defamatory falsehoods, Fox had displayed “actual malice” — essentially, reckless disregard for the truth.The evidence for such reckless disregard brought to light by Dominion’s lawyers during the discovery phase of the case was already overwhelming, and the trial promised more to come. A filing that Fox’s lawyers made last week demonstrated their predicament. In it, the attorneys laid out some of the points they planned to make in their opening argument, asking for “guidance from the court to ensure that it can make its opening statement without undue interruption and delay.” Those points looked a lot like an attempt by Fox to use a legal backdoor to smuggle in arguments that the judge had already forbidden.“To defend this case, Fox witnesses must be able to testify about the reasons why Fox covered the allegations on the air,” said the filing. “Fox witnesses will all testify that they covered the Dominion-related allegations because the allegations were part of the most newsworthy story of the day.” This, even though Davis had specifically ruled that this argument was invalid because, among other things, “the evidence does not support” the contention that Fox “conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.”In order to defend Fox from a finding of actual malice, its lawyers seemed set on bringing Fox’s alternative reality into the courtroom, acting as if taking Trump and his attorneys at their word was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Testimony and documentary evidence, Fox’s lawyers said in the filing, “will show that the president and the lawyers bringing the election fraud lawsuits continuously told Fox that they had evidence to support their claims and that they would be presenting that evidence to courts.” That, in turn, explains why the Fox hosts “did not know that the president’s allegations were false or harbor serious doubts about the truth of the allegations.”In other words, they can’t be blamed for treating the president of the United States as a reliable source.Responding to the filing, Davis refused to give Fox the green light it sought. If the network’s lawyers wanted to make the arguments that they were telegraphing, they would have to take their chances in front of the jury, and risk getting shut down. On Tuesday morning, Davis reminded the parties that they would not be able to make arguments “about things that I’ve ruled inadmissible.” I was waiting to hear what Fox’s lawyers were going to argue instead.But after lunch, the jury didn’t return, and Davis came back to the courtroom only briefly before beckoning some of the lawyers out. The hours ticked by while the journalist-filled audience grew increasingly restless. Courtroom protocol against texting or using the internet gradually collapsed. News broke that the judge had ordered a special master to investigate whether Fox had “complied with their discovery obligations.” (The network had previously been sanctioned for withholding evidence.) Rumors about a settlement buzzed through the room.At 4 p.m., the jury filed back in, and the judge confirmed that the trial was over before it began.Fox is paying Dominion $787.5 million, which appears to be one of the largest defamation settlements in history and is one that constitutes a humiliating admission of fault by the network, even though, as The New York Times’s Jim Rutenberg reported, the deal doesn’t require Fox to apologize. But the public will be deprived of seeing Murdoch, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and several of their colleagues grilled on the stand, forced to reckon with the real world, unable to fall back on the dense lattice of misinformation that typically sustains Fox’s narratives.At least, the public will be deprived for now. Smartmatic is still suing Fox for $2.7 billion, though no trial date has been announced yet. “Dominion’s litigation exposed some of the misconduct and damage caused by Fox’s disinformation campaign,” Smartmatic lawyer J. Erik Connolly said in a statement on Tuesday. “Smartmatic will expose the rest.”I’m not sure I believe it — Fox has just shown the world what it’s willing to pay to avoid the unmasking. But reality isn’t done with Murdoch and the rest of them yet.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: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More