Elections

J.D. Vance, the freshman senator from Ohio, is in the spotlight for the first time in his tenure as he responds to the train derailment and its aftermath.EAST PALESTINE, Ohio — As Donald J. Trump criticized the federal response to the train derailment that has shaken this Ohio town, there was one leader in Washington he praised repeatedly — the man he helped propel to Congress, Senator J.D. Vance.“J.D. Vance has been incredible,” Mr. Trump told reporters and local officials on Wednesday at an East Palestine firehouse, as Mr. Vance stood behind him.While a fight brews between Democrats and Republicans over the role of the federal government in the derailment’s aftermath, Mr. Vance, 38, has been at the center of it all. Some of his actions have been the conventional response of any seasoned politician. He has drafted letters calling on federal officials for more oversight and met with some of the residents most affected by the derailment and chemical spill. But he also has joined far-right Republican figures in depicting the deep-red village in northeastern Ohio as a forgotten place, taking a page from Mr. Trump’s grievance-politics playbook.“I grew up in a town that was neglected by the national media and was affected by a lot of dumb policies,” Mr. Vance said in a brief interview, as he briskly left the firehouse on Wednesday. “I worry that unless we keep the pressure on the federal policymakers and the corporations that caused this problem, a lot of people are going to be forgotten and left behind.”The White House has pushed back on such criticism from Republicans, accusing both the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers of dismantling the Obama-era rail safety measures meant to prevent episodes like the East Palestine derailment. And at least one media critic has accused Mr. Vance of fanning the flames of white grievance by attacking the Biden administration as deserting white Americans.For Mr. Vance, the response to the derailment could serve as a pivot point. It is the first major crisis in his tenure as a newly elected senator and it has provided him with the chance to show the voters who viewed him with skepticism during his campaign that he has not strayed far from his humble Ohio roots.Officials are cleaning up in East Palestine, including Sulphur Run, a creek that flows through the town.Brian Kaiser for The New York TimesThe derailment has also given him an opening to tap into a theme that first brought national attention to his Senate ambitions: speaking up for working-class Ohioans, many of them white, who he has suggested have been victimized by the politics of the left.In one of his first campaign ads, he bluntly played to white grievance, looking at the camera and asking voters a question: “Are you a racist?” He argued in the ad that Democratic voters were “pouring into this country” through unchecked borders, echoing the “great replacement theory,” the far-right notion that undocumented immigrants are coming to America to usurp the political power of native-born white voters.In a red state that Mr. Trump won in both 2016 and 2020, many residents in East Palestine and its surrounding towns were not following the national back-and-forth over the government response as they worried about the potential effects of the spill. But they had followed Mr. Vance’s attempts to bring attention to their plight on local media outlets and approved of his handling of the crisis, even as some said there was more work to be done.The Train Derailment in East Palestine, OhioWhen a freight train derailed in Ohio on Feb. 3, it set off evacuation orders, a toxic chemical scare and a federal investigation.A Heated Town Hall: Hundreds of Ohio residents gathered to demand answers about the fallout from the derailed train. Officials for the railroad company pulled out hours earlier, infuriating locals.Cleanup Costs: The Environmental Protection Agency ordered Norfolk Southern, the operator of the derailed train, to clean up any resulting contamination and pay all the costs.Farmers Fear a ‘Forever Scar’: The train derailment has upended a region of Ohio where generations of families could afford to buy acres of land, raise livestock and plant gardens.Trump’s Visit: In East Palestine, the former president attacked the Biden administration’s handling of the train derailment, even as his own environmental policies while in office have been criticized.“I think a lot of people are watching him right now to see how he is handling it,” said Kayla Miller, 31, who owns a farm in nearby Negley. “I think he genuinely cares about our situation and cares about our town.”Mr. Vance, a venture capitalist turned first-time politician, became a sought-after voice on the white working-class after the release of his memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” which explored his family ties to Appalachia and traced his path from humble origins in southwestern Ohio to the military and later to Yale Law School.When he returned to Ohio, he was initially viewed as an outsider. He was funded by Peter Thiel, the tech billionaire, and had spent much of his time in San Francisco after leaving his home state. Ahead of the state’s Republican primary in May 2022, more than three dozen Republican county and state committee leaders urged Mr. Trump in a letter to not endorse Mr. Vance. They questioned his Republican credentials and noted he had often denounced Mr. Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.Mr. Vance has been a sharp critic of the Biden administration on inflation and border policies, largely falling in line with Republicans pushing for isolationism as the answer to loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs. As residents coped with the derailment, Mr. Vance sent letters to the company that operated the freight train, Norfolk Southern, asking it to broaden its criteria for reimbursements to residents beyond a one-mile radius of the derailment zone..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.He has worked with Republicans and Democrats — including two of the region’s top Democrats, Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania — to call on federal public health officials to provide resources to help the state monitor people’s health. They have also pressed federal environmental agencies to monitor the hazardous chemical compounds, or dioxins, that the derailment released into the region’s air and soil.He has met with business owners and affected residents. He also visited a creek near the derailment site, releasing a video in which he used a stick to stir a filmy substance in the water that he described as evidence of possible contamination.“I’ve just been doing a lot of talking to people on the ground here,” he said, speaking to reporters in downtown East Palestine last week. “Obviously, I am more concerned about the public safety component of this here. Is the air breathable? Is the water drinkable?”“I think a lot of people are watching him right now to see how he is handling it,” Kayla Miller said of Mr. Vance. “I think he genuinely cares about our situation and cares about our town.” Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesOn Wednesday, Mr. Vance reinforced his loyalty to the former president even as some of Mr. Trump’s staunchest supporters now privately worry about his grip on the party and his chances of winning the presidency again. Mr. Vance and Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Trump’s son, followed the former president as he made stops at local businesses to shake hands with customers and pass out Make America Great Again hats. In short remarks at the fire station, Mr. Vance thanked Mr. Trump for visiting and bringing national attention with him.“The most important thing that we can take from this visit is that we can’t forget about the people of East Palestine,” Mr. Vance told reporters.He said later that he believed Mr. Trump’s presence would help keep the pressure on federal officials to take action. Asked about criticism from the White House on the Republican opposition to rail safety measures, Mr. Vance said attempts to politicize the issue would not help East Palestine residents. According to the website PolitiFact, a rail safety rule repealed as part of a broad regulatory rollback under the Trump administration would have had no impact on the East Palestine derailment.Mr. Vance and other Republicans have subtly evoked white disaffection by portraying a largely white, rural and conservative area as neglected by federal officials. On a Fox News interview this month, he accused Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary, of focusing on “how we have too many white male construction workers” instead of talking about the frequency of train derailments and railroad safety.On Wednesday, he rejected the notion that he was playing to racial grievance. “I don’t know how I am doing that or anybody else is doing that,” Mr. Vance said outside the firehouse. “This is a community that has been affected by the problem, and they deserve help.”At the same time, far from East Palestine, Mr. Vance has used his brief time in the Senate to go on the offensive on race, accusing Democrats of injecting it into politics.This month, he criticized Gigi B. Sohn, Mr. Biden’s nominee to the Federal Communications Commission, for playing into “this weird racialization of American political rhetoric in the last few years.” And in his campaign ad on the border, he criticized Democrats for calling people racists because they wanted to talk about Mr. Biden’s border policies and the impact those policies were having on the opioid crisis, which has ravaged largely white, rural parts of the industrial Midwest and across the nation.East Palestine residents said that before the freight train derailed on Feb. 3, many Ohioans seemed to know little about their hometown, which sits just below the manufacturing hub of Youngstown, near the Pennsylvania border. Now, the village of 4,761 in a red county Mr. Vance handily won has been under the national glare.Residents have been concerned about the air quality, and especially worried if the local water is safe to drink.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesThe crisis has spurred complicated feelings among residents about the necessity of government oversight, but many said federal agencies should take on a greater role holding Norfolk Southern accountable.In interviews this week, several residents said they had developed coughs or odd rashes, and some had farm animals die. Ms. Miller and her husband, Chase Miller, said that they had lost two chickens and three rabbits and that more farm animals had fallen ill. One of the main side effects of a gas released, vinyl chloride, they read, is cancer.“So, in five years, am I going to have liver cancer? Am I going to be able to see my kids graduate?” she said.Her husband added, “My biggest worry is that they are going to forget about Negley, they are going to forget about the local towns where the water runs to.”State and federal officials have said that they have yet to detect dangerous levels of chemicals in the air or municipal water, and tests are continuing.Leaving a grocery store with stacks of water bottles on Monday, Butch Foster, 76, a farmer and former school custodian, said he refused to leave his home after the spill until federal officials declared the air safe to breathe. But after spending some time outside, he noticed black mucus coming out of his nose, so he did not want to drink the municipal water.Mr. Foster had watched the video of Mr. Vance stirring the waters in the creek. He said the senator he had done a good job of calling attention to his and other residents’ concerns.“I just know they need to do more,” he said. More

Former Vice President Mike Pence recently announced he would challenge Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoena for him to appear before a grand jury in Washington as part of the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the related Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Pence claimed that “the Biden D.O.J. subpoena” was “unconstitutional” and “unprecedented.” He added, “For me, this is a moment where you have to decide where you stand, and I stand on the Constitution of the United States.” Mr. Pence vowed to take his fight all the way to the Supreme Court.A politician should be careful what he wishes for — no more so than when he’s a possible presidential candidate who would have the Supreme Court decide a constitutional case that could undermine his viability in an upcoming campaign.The former vice president should not want the embarrassing spectacle of the Supreme Court compelling him to appear before a grand jury in Washington just when he’s starting his campaign for the presidency; recall the unanimous Supreme Court ruling that ordered Richard Nixon to turn over the fatally damning Oval Office tapes. That has to be an uncomfortable prospect for Mr. Pence, not to mention a potentially damaging one for a man who — at least as of today — is considered by many of us across the political spectrum to be a profile in courage for his refusal to join in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election in the face of Donald Trump’s demands. And to be clear, Mr. Pence’s decision to brand the Department of Justice’s perfectly legitimate subpoena as unconstitutional is a far cry from the constitutionally hallowed ground he stood on Jan. 6.Injecting campaign-style politics into the criminal investigatory process with his rhetorical characterization of Mr. Smith’s subpoena as a “Biden D.O.J. subpoena,” Mr. Pence is trying to score points with voters who want to see President Biden unseated in 2024. Well enough. That’s what politicians do. But Jack Smith’s subpoena was neither politically motivated nor designed to strengthen President Biden’s political hand in 2024. Thus the jarring dissonance between the subpoena and Mr. Pence’s characterization of it. It is Mr. Pence who has chosen to politicize the subpoena, not the D.O.J.As to the merits of his claim, The New York Times and other news media have reported that Mr. Pence plans to argue that when he presided over the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 as president of the Senate, he was effectively a legislator and therefore entitled to the privileges and protections of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause. That clause is intended to protect members of Congress from questioning and testifying about official legislative acts. Should the courts support his claim, Mr. Pence would not be required to comply with Mr. Smith’s subpoena. Mr. Pence may also be under the impression that the legal fight over his claim will confound the courts, consuming months, if not longer, before he receives the verdict — but it’s unclear what he hopes to gain from the delay. One would have thought Mr. Pence would have seized the propitious opportunity afforded him by Mr. Smith, most likely weeks or months before he even decides whether he will run for the presidency.If Mr. Pence’s lawyers or advisers have told him that it will take the federal courts months and months or longer to decide his claim and that he will never have to testify before the grand jury, they are mistaken. We can expect the federal courts to make short shrift of this “Hail Mary” claim, and Mr. Pence doesn’t have a chance in the world of winning his case in any federal court and avoiding testifying before the grand jury.Inasmuch as Mr. Pence’s claim is novel and an unsettled question in constitutional law, it is only novel and unsettled because there has never been a time in our country’s history where it was thought imperative for someone in a vice president’s position, or his lawyer, to conjure the argument. In other words, Mr. Pence’s claim is the proverbial invention of the mother of necessity if ever there was one.Any protections the former vice president is entitled to under the “speech and debate” clause will be few in number and limited in scope. There are relatively few circumstances in which a former vice president would be entitled to constitutional protection for his conversations related to his ceremonial and ministerial roles of presiding over the electoral vote count. What Mr. Smith wants to know about are Mr. Pence’s communications and interactions with Mr. Trump before, and perhaps during, the vote count, which are entirely fair game for a grand jury investigating possible crimes against the United States.Whatever the courts may or may not find the scope of any protection to be, they will unquestionably hold that Mr. Pence is nonetheless required to testify in response to Mr. Smith’s subpoena. Even if a vice president has “speech or debate” clause protections, they will yield to a federal subpoena to appear before the grand jury. This is especially true where, as here, a vice president seeks to protect his conversations with a president who himself is under federal criminal investigation for obstructing the very official proceedings in which the special counsel is interested.Mr. Pence and his inner circle should be under no illusion that the lower federal courts will take their time dispensing with this claim. The courts quickly disposed of Senator Lindsey Graham’s “speech or debate” clause claim, requiring him to testify before the grand jury empaneled in Fulton County, Ga. — and his claim was far stronger than Mr. Pence’s. In the unlikely event that Mr. Pence’s claim were to make it to the Supreme Court, it, too, could be expected to take swift action.Mr. Pence undoubtedly has some of the finest lawyers in the country helping him navigate this treacherous path forward, and they will certainly earn their hefty fees. But in cases like this, the best lawyers earn their pay less when they advise and argue their clients’ cases in public than when they elegantly choreograph the perfect exit in private — before their clients get the day in court they wished for.Mr. Pence’s lawyers would be well advised to have Jack Smith’s phone number on speed dial and call him before he calls them. The special counsel will be waiting, though not nearly as long as Mr. Pence’s lawyers may be thinking. No prosecutor, least of all Mr. Smith, will abide this political gambit for long. And Mr. Pence shouldn’t let this dangerous gambit play out for long. If he does, it will be more than he wished for.It is a time-tested axiom in the law never to ask questions you don’t know the answer to. This should apply to politicians in spades. But the die has been cast by the former vice president. The only question now is not whether he will have to testify before the grand jury, but how soon. The special counsel is in the driver’s seat, and the timing of Mr. Pence’s appearance before the grand jury is largely in his hands. Mr. Smith will bide his time for only so long.J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, provided advice to then-Vice President Mike Pence on the run-up to the Electoral College count on Jan. 6, 2021.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

Nigerian voters say that insecurity is the most important issue in this week’s presidential election. One man who was kidnapped said, “You can only survive on your own in Nigeria.”A 61-year-old civil engineer was supervising a digging project on a farm in southern Nigeria when five young men carrying AK-47s stormed the place and dragged him into the bush.For five days, the kidnappers held the engineer, Olusola Olaniyi, and beat him severely. Only after his family and employer agreed to pay a ransom was he released, in the middle of the night, on a road a few miles away from where he had been kidnapped.Nigeria has faced an outbreak of kidnappings in recent years, affecting people of all ages and classes: groups of schoolchildren, commuters traveling on trains and in cars through Nigeria’s largest cities, and villagers in the northern countryside. With youth gangs and armed bandits finding that kidnapping for ransom produces big payoffs, such crimes have only multiplied.As Nigerians go to the polls on Saturday to choose a new president, insecurity is the top issue facing the country, according to a survey by SBM Intelligence, a Nigerian risk consultancy. Between July 2021 and June 2022, more than 3,400 people were abducted across the country, and 564 others were killed in kidnapping-related violence.“Insecurity has become a function of Nigeria’s economy,” said Mr. Olaniyi, whose family paid about $3,500 in ransom after he was kidnapped in 2021. “Many young men see kidnappings as a job.”This epidemic of kidnappings is just one of multiple security crises that are creating levels of violence unseen for decades in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, with nearly 220 million people.Relatives of the Kaduna train kidnapping victims holding a protest in Abuja, Nigeria, last July, following a threat from bandits to kill the victims if the ransom was not paid.Afolabi Sotunde/ReutersIn the northeast, militants with the extremist groups Boko Haram and local affiliates of the Islamic State have killed at least 10,000 people in the past five years, and displaced 2.5 million people.In the northwest and northern center of the country, armed gangs known as bandits have stolen cattle, kidnapped thousands of people and forced schools to close for months to keep students safe.In the southeast, separatist movements have attacked dozens of police stations, prisons and courthouses.And in July, in the country’s capital, Abuja, militants from the Islamic State West Africa Province broke into one of the country’s most secure prisons and freed hundreds of detainees.“In the past, Boko Haram was Nigeria’s main security problem,” said Nnamdi Obasi, a researcher with the International Crisis Group, based in Abuja. “Now we have three or four of those major crises.”Muhammadu Buhari, the departing president and a former general, was elected in 2015 in part on promises that he could get the violence under control. He has now served the maximum of two terms, and claims to have scored some successes in the northeast against Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province.But violence has grown more widespread. In the last year alone, armed groups killed more than 10,000 people, according to a tally by the International Crisis Group.Now election officials must secure more than 176,000 polling stations for the vote on Saturday. Threats to polling stations could discourage voters from showing up. Fifty electoral commission offices were attacked between 2019 and 2022. A senate candidate was killed on Wednesday in the south of the country, according to news reports.In Kaduna, in northwestern Nigeria on Thursday. Kidnappings have been especially frequent there.Yagazie Emezi for The New York TimesThe three leading candidates have all pledged to tackle insecurity, whether by recruiting more security personnel or upgrading the military. But many analysts argue that these promises remain vague and fail to address the root causes of the insecurity, such as poverty and unemployment.The kidnappings have stymied Nigeria’s development — displacing families and disrupting farming (leading to hunger), slowing infrastructure projects, and limiting trade and employment, since travel has become risky throughout the country.Last year, Nigerian lawmakers made kidnapping punishable by death if the victims die, and made paying ransom illegal. Yet in practice, little has changed. Between July 2021 and June 2022, more than $1.1 million was paid in ransom, according to SBM Intelligence. The ransoms, even small ones, are painful in a country where more than 60 percent of the population lives in poverty.“It’s taking people’s entire savings,” Idayat Hassan, the director of the Abuja-based Center for Democracy and Development, said about the ransoms.The kidnappings have been especially frequent in the northern state of Kaduna, where last March, gunmen attacked a train connecting Abuja to the city of Kaduna. Officials had boasted that the train route was safe.Regina Ngorngor, a 47-year-old librarian, was in a first-class coach and hid under a seat when the gunmen ordered passengers to get out. She was later rescued by the Nigerian military, but at least eight people were killed and 26 injured in the attack. Dozens of kidnapped passengers were released months later.Ms. Ngorngor took the risk of hiding under the seat because she said she knew what would have awaited her. Eight months earlier, her 17-year-old son Emmanuel was studying for a chemistry exam at his boarding school, when gunmen stormed the building and kidnapped him, along with dozens of classmates.Regina Ngorngor and her 17-year-old son, Emmanuel. Both were victims of kidnapping attempts. Emmanuel was held for three months after he and his schoolmates were abducted.Yagazie Emezi for The New York TimesFor three months, Ms. Ngorngor said, she waited for news while Emmanuel was detained in a camp run by bandits who would only negotiate with the school’s principal.Only after paying 1.5 million naira, about $3,280, was she able to free him.Emmanuel, now back home in Kaduna, said he hopes to study medicine in college. He said he struggles to fall asleep at night and often wakes up from nightmares.Ms. Ngorngor said that after the train attack, she stayed at home for a month, too afraid to go out. She has since traveled back to Abuja, but by road — even though, because of kidnappings, the roads are more dangerous than the train.Abductions in Ms. Ngorngor’s state of Kaduna and in neighboring Zamfara are still happening daily, so many that “you lose track,” said Malik Samuel, an Abuja-based analyst with the Institute for Security Studies. In the last quarter of 2022, there were 1,640 abductions nationwide, according to Beacon Consulting, a security firm.Mr. Olaniyi, the civil engineer in Ibadan, said he would vote on Saturday, but he wasn’t sure yet for whom or whether it was worth it. No candidate cared about people’s security, he said, turning his wrists up to show the scars left on his arms by his kidnappers’ beatings.“You can only survive on your own in Nigeria,” he said.Shoes left behind by kidnapped students from Government Science Secondary School in Kankara, Nigeria, in December, 2020.Sunday Alamba/Associated PressOladeinde Olawoyin contributed reporting. More

I suppose all contemporary young politicians dream of meeting their moment. At the enthusiastic dawn of their politico careers, they entertain a fantasy that some day, as a great historical challenge looms into view, their future selves will rise to the occasion — and masterfully dodge it!They envision themselves bobbing and weaving, triangulating and feinting — filling the air with meaningless clichés so that no one knows where they stand and no one can hold them accountable. Their political career sails on, soaring upward, their electoral viability unbruised and glorious!Ron DeSantis is now trying to live out that dream.There are two dominant views on Ukraine within the Republican Party. The first one, embraced by, say, Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, holds that Russia’s assault on Ukraine threatens the liberal world order. Helping the Ukrainians push back is in America’s vital national interest.The second view, embraced by the populist wing, is that the United States has no vital national interests in Ukraine. Tucker Carlson has said he doesn’t really care what Vladimir Putin does in Ukraine. Donald Trump has suggested that the war will last longer if the United States continues to send aid.DeSantis has magically cast himself in between these two positions. In the past, DeSantis was tougher on Russia than Trump. In 2017, he noted that Putin “wants to reconstitute the Russian Empire,” and chided Trump for being too soft on Putin, saying that “you’re better off dealing with Putin by being strong.” If Putin thinks he can gain an inch, DeSantis argued, “he’s apt to take a mile.”But this week DeSantis went on “Fox & Friends,” where great statesmen have always gone to unfurl their foreign policy doctrines, and he feinted in a Trump-like direction.He said the war wouldn’t have happened if Joe Biden weren’t so weak. He said he didn’t want to give the Ukrainians a “blank check” (as if anyone does). He said Biden should be more concerned with securing the border at home and less concerned with borders far away. He minimized the threat Putin poses to the West, adding, “I don’t think it’s in our interests to be getting into a proxy war with China, getting involved over things like the borderlands or over Crimea.”It was like that Richard Gere character in the musical “Chicago” — giving them the old razzle-dazzle, even if his dance steps are more plodding. It’s not clear if DeSantis is for more Ukraine aid or not. No one can quite pin him down. Tippity tap. Tappity tip.This has been DeSantis’s general approach to Trump. He doesn’t want to take on Trump directly, so he shimmies. This month, Trump insinuated that DeSantis behaved inappropriately with high school girls while he was a teacher. Instead of slamming Trump, DeSantis shimmied. Trump calls DeSantis “Ron DeSanctimonious” and “Meatball Ron.” DeSantis glides blithely by.The problem with running a campaign in which you are trying to be Trumpy-but-not-Trump is that you’re never your own man. You have to compete with the king without crossing him. You’re always trying to find that magic sweet spot between just-MAGA and plain-crazy.If he were more of a strategic thinker and less a tactician, I think DeSantis would realize that he’s either going to have to fight Trump directly on some issue or copy him right down the line. And I think he’d realize that he’s already locked himself into a position in which he’s going to have to copy him.On Ukraine policy, for example, I suspect that DeSantis will soon be enthusiastically parroting the Trump position. I say that for two interrelated reasons.First, DeSantis, for better or worse, has hitched his wagon to the populist movement. This movement is now broad and deep in the Republican Party and has deep roots running back through American history. This movement has long been opposed to the cosmopolitan East Coast elites, has long adopted the posture that we need to pull inward and take care of our own, and is now allergic to talk about America being actively involved in preserving a liberal world order. This is where populist voters are, and this is where DeSantis, running as a populist, needs to be.Then there is Tucker Carlson. The DeSantis campaign won’t be able to survive if Carlson and the rest of the right-wing media sphere start blasting him for being a “globalist,” the way Trump already is.“Globalist” is to foreign policy what “C.R.T.” is to education. No one knows precisely what it means but everybody in MAGA-world knows it’s really bad. DeSantis has to take whatever position will get that label off his back.This week’s dancing makes me realize DeSantis is in a weaker position than I thought. The G.O.P. is evenly split on foreign policy and significantly split on whether the party should be fiery populist or more conventionally conservative. According to a Pew survey, 40 percent of Republicans think the United States is giving too much aid to Ukraine, while 41 percent believe America is giving Ukraine the right amount of aid or not enough. This data illustrates something also evident in the 2022 election results — that while there are a lot of populists in the party, there are still a lot of normie Republicans who are not.As the campaign wears on, and the debate on Ukraine continues, DeSantis will be condemned to playing Mini-Me to Trump in trying to win that populist 40 percent. Meanwhile, he’ll be cutting ties to many in the nonpopulist 41 percent. That will leave room for some normie Republican in the Brian Kemp/Tim Scott mold to rise.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

El hombre no era como piensas. Era duro. Era muy intimidante. Jimmy Carter fue probablemente el hombre más inteligente, trabajador y decente que haya ocupado el Despacho Oval en el siglo XX.Cuando lo entrevisté con regularidad hace unos años, rondaba los 90 años y, sin embargo, seguía levantándose al amanecer para ponerse a trabajar temprano. Una vez lo vi dirigir un acto a las 7 a. m. en el Centro Carter, donde estuvo 40 minutos caminando de un lado al otro del estrado, explicando los detalles de su programa para erradicar la enfermedad de la lombriz de Guinea. Era incansable. Ese mismo día me concedió a mí, su biógrafo, 50 minutos exactos para hablar sobre sus años en la Casa Blanca. Aquellos brillantes ojos azules se clavaron en mí con una intensidad alarmante. Pero era evidente que a él le interesaba más la lombriz de Guinea.Carter sigue siendo el presidente más incomprendido del último siglo. Era un liberal sureño que sabía que el racismo era el pecado original de Estados Unidos. Fue progresista en la cuestión racial; en su primer discurso como gobernador de Georgia, en 1971, declaró que “los tiempos de la discriminación han terminado”, para gran incomodidad de muchos estadounidenses, incluidos muchos de sus paisanos del sur. Y, sin embargo, creció descalzo en la tierra roja de Archery, una pequeña aldea del sur de Georgia, por lo que estaba impregnado de una cultura que había experimentado la derrota y la ocupación. Eso lo convirtió en un pragmático.El periodista gonzo Hunter S. Thompson dijo una vez que Carter era el “hombre más maquiavélico” que había conocido jamás. Thompson se refería a que era implacable y ambicioso, a su empeño en ganar para llegar al poder: primero, a la gobernación de Georgia; después, a la presidencia. Aquella época, tras Watergate y la guerra de Vietnam, marcada por la desilusión con el excepcionalismo estadounidense, fue la oportunidad perfecta para un hombre que en gran medida basó su campaña en la religiosidad del cristiano renacido y la integridad personal. “Nunca les mentiré”, dijo en varias ocasiones durante la campaña, a lo que su abogado de toda la vida, Charlie Kirbo, respondió bromeando que iba a “perder el voto de los mentirosos”. Inopinadamente, Carter ganó y llegó a la Casa Blanca en 1976.Decidió utilizar el poder con rectitud, ignorar la política y hacer lo correcto. Fue, de hecho, un admirador del teólogo protestante favorito de la clase dirigente, Reinhold Niebuhr, que escribió: “Es el triste deber de la política establecer la justicia en un mundo pecaminoso”. Carter, bautista del sur niebuhriano, era una iglesia unipersonal, una auténtica rara avis. Él “pensaba que la política era pecaminosa”, dijo su vicepresidente, Walter Mondale. “Lo peor que podías decirle a Carter, si querías que hiciera alguna cosa, era que políticamente era lo mejor”. Carter rechazó constantemente los astutos consejos de su esposa, Rosalynn, y de otros, de posponer para su segundo mandato las iniciativas que tuvieran un costo político, como los tratados del canal de Panamá.Su presidencia se recuerda, de forma un tanto simplista, como un fracaso, pero fue más trascendental de lo que recuerda la mayoría. Llevó adelante los acuerdos de paz entre Egipto e Israel en Camp David, el acuerdo SALT II sobre control de armas, la normalización de las relaciones diplomáticas y comerciales con China y la reforma migratoria. Hizo del principio de los derechos humanos la piedra angular de la política exterior de Estados Unidos, y sembró las semillas para el desenlace de la Guerra Fría en Europa del este y Rusia.Liberalizó el sector de las aerolíneas, lo que allanó el camino a que un gran número de estadounidenses de clase media volaran por primera vez; y desreguló el gas natural, lo que sentó las bases de nuestra actual independencia energética. Trabajó para imponer en los autos los cinturones de seguridad o las bolsas de aire, que salvarían la vida de 9000 estadounidenses cada año. Inauguró la inversión nacional en investigación sobre energía solar y fue uno de los primeros presidentes estadounidenses que nos advirtió sobre los peligros del cambio climático. Impulsó la Ley de Conservación de Tierras de Alaska, mediante la cual se protegió el triple de los espacios naturales de Estados Unidos. Su liberalización de la industria de la cerveza casera abrió la puerta a la pujante industria de la cerveza artesanal estadounidense. Nombró a más afroestadounidenses, hispanos y mujeres para la magistratura federal, y aumentó considerablemente su número.Sin embargo, algunas de sus decisiones polémicas, dentro y fuera del país, fueron igual de trascendentes. Sacó a Egipto del campo de batalla en beneficio de Israel, pero siempre insistió en que Israel también estaba obligado a suspender la construcción de nuevos asentamientos en Cisjordania y a permitir a los palestinos cierto grado de autogobierno. A lo largo de las décadas, sostuvo que los asentamientos se habían convertido en un obstáculo para la solución de dos Estados y la resolución pacífica del conflicto. No se arredró al advertirle a todo el mundo que Israel estaba tomando un rumbo equivocado hacia el apartheid. Lamentablemente, algunos críticos llegaron a la imprudente conclusión de que era antiisraelí, o algo peor.Tras la revolución iraní, Carter hizo bien al resistirse durante muchos meses a las presiones de Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller y su propio consejero de Seguridad Nacional, Zbigniew Brzezinski, para que le concediera asilo político al sah depuesto. Carter temía que eso pudiera encender las pasiones iraníes y poner en peligro nuestra embajada en Teherán. Tenía razón. Solo unos días después de que accediera a regañadientes, y el sah ingresara en un hospital de Nueva York, la embajada estadounidense fue tomada. La crisis de los rehenes, que duró 444 días, hirió gravemente su presidencia.Pero Carter se negó a ordenar represalias militares contra el régimen rebelde de Teherán. Eso habría sido lo más fácil desde el punto de vista político, pero también era consciente de que pondría en peligro la vida de los rehenes. Insistió en que la diplomacia funcionaría. Sin embargo, ahora tenemos pruebas fehacientes de que Bill Casey, director de campaña de Ronald Reagan, hizo un viaje secreto en el verano de 1980 a Madrid, donde pudo haberse reunido con el representante del ayatolá Ruhollah Jomeini, y prolongar así la crisis de los rehenes. Si esto es cierto, con esa injerencia en las negociaciones sobre los rehenes se pretendió negarle al gobierno de Carter una buena noticia de cara a las elecciones —la liberación de los rehenes en la recta final de la campaña—, y fue una maniobra política sucia y una injusticia para los rehenes estadounidenses.La presidencia de Carter estuvo prácticamente impoluta en lo que a escándalos se refiere. Carter se pasaba 12 horas o más en el Despacho Oval leyendo 200 páginas de memorandos al día. Estaba empeñado en hacer lo correcto, y cuanto antes.Pero esa rectitud tendría consecuencias políticas. En 1976, aunque ganó los votos electorales del sur, y el voto popular de electores negros, judíos y sindicalistas, en 1980, el único gran margen que conservaba Carter era el de los votantes negros. Incluso los evangélicos lo abandonaron, porque insistía en retirar la exención fiscal a las academias religiosas exclusivamente blancas.La mayoría lo rechazó por ser un presidente demasiado adelantado a su época: demasiado yanqui georgiano para el nuevo sur, y demasiado populista y atípico para el norte. Si las elecciones de 1976 ofrecían la esperanza de sanar la división racial, su derrota marcó la vuelta de Estados Unidos a una etapa conservadora de partidismo áspero. Era una trágica historia que le resultaba familiar a cualquier sureño.Perder la reelección lo sumió durante un tiempo en una depresión. Pero, después, una noche de enero de 1982, su esposa se sobresaltó al verlo sentado en la cama, despierto. Le preguntó si se estaba sintiendo mal. “Ya sé lo que podemos hacer”, respondió. “Podemos desarrollar un lugar para ayudar a las personas que quieran dirimir sus disputas”. Ese fue el comienzo del Centro Carter, una institución dedicada a la resolución de conflictos, a las iniciativas en materia de salud pública y la supervisión de las elecciones en todo el mundo.Si bien antes pensaba que Carter era el único presidente que había utilizado la Casa Blanca como trampolín para lograr cosas más grandes, ahora entiendo que, en realidad, los últimos 43 años han sido una extensión de lo que él consideraba su presidencia inacabada. Dentro o fuera de la Casa Blanca, Carter dedicó su vida a resolver problemas como un ingeniero, prestando atención a las minucias de un mundo complicado. Una vez me dijo que esperaba vivir más que la última lombriz de Guinea. El año pasado solo hubo 13 casos de enfermedad de la lombriz de Guinea en humanos. Puede que lo haya conseguido.Kai Bird es biógrafo, ganador del Pulitzer, director del Leon Levy Center for Biography y autor de The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter. More

The debate is set for August, in the same city that will host the party’s 2024 convention.The Republican National Committee will hold its first presidential primary debate in Milwaukee in August, its debates committee decided in a vote on Thursday.The committee is seeking to have all candidates sign a loyalty pledge vowing to support the eventual nominee in order to be part of the debates.Milwaukee will also be the site of the Republican National Convention in 2024. Another location that had been under consideration for the first debate was the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, according to people briefed on the matter.“At this time, no other debates have been sanctioned, nor has the final criteria for the first debate been decided,” Ronna McDaniel, the R.N.C. chairwoman, said in an email to members on Thursday. “The committee will continue its work and will release updates as they become available.”Only two major candidates — former President Donald J. Trump and the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley — have entered the race for the Republican nomination. (Lesser-known candidates include Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur and author, and Steve Laffey, a former mayor of Cranston, R.I.)But several more are expected to announce campaigns in the coming months. The field could eventually include Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.Among the other issues the debate committee has been discussing is having candidates sign a pledge vowing to support the eventual nominee.Such a pledge came about during the 2016 campaign, after then-candidate Donald J. Trump, who had previously considered a third-party candidacy in 2000, declined during an early debate to join the other contenders in saying that they would back the nominee. Mr. Trump, already the front-runner in polls in the crowded field, claimed to be concerned about being treated “fairly” by the party.It is unclear whether he would sign such a pledge this time — or whether he would abide by it even if he lost the nomination.The R.N.C. is also interested in a donations requirement, meaning each candidate would need a specific number of individual donors in order to qualify for the debate stage. More

Prosecutors have asked a federal judge to set aside any claims of executive privilege that former Vice President Mike Pence might raise to avoid answering questions.The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to force former Vice President Mike Pence to testify fully in front of a grand jury investigating former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, seeking to cut short any attempt by Mr. Trump to use executive privilege to shield Mr. Pence from answering questions, two people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.The request — amounting to a pre-emptive motion to compel Mr. Pence’s testimony — came before the former vice president had even appeared in front of the grand jury, and before any privilege claims had actually been raised in court.The sealed motion, filed in recent days in Federal District Court in Washington, is the latest step in a long-running behind-the-scenes struggle, first by the Justice Department and now by the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, to cut through the various assertions of privilege that witnesses close to Mr. Trump have repeatedly raised in an effort to avoid answering questions.The privilege disputes have been handled by Judge Beryl A. Howell, the chief federal judge in Washington, who oversees all of the district’s grand jury matters, which as a rule are conducted in secret. Judge Howell is expected to step down from her position next month and be replaced by another chief judge.Also on Thursday, Judge Howell rejected a request by reporters at The New York Times and Politico to unseal her rulings and associated filings about legal fights ancillary to the material presented to the Jan. 6 grand jury itself, such as hidden wrangling over whether Mr. Trump’s former aides could lawfully decline to answer questions based on executive privilege.Understand the Events on Jan. 6Timeline: On Jan. 6, 2021, 64 days after Election Day 2020, a mob of supporters of President Donald J. Trump raided the Capitol. Here is a close look at how the attack unfolded.A Day of Rage: Using thousands of videos and police radio communications, a Times investigation reconstructed in detail what happened — and why.Lost Lives: A bipartisan Senate report found that at least seven people died in connection with the attack.Jan. 6 Attendees: To many of those who attended the Trump rally but never breached the Capitol, that date wasn’t a dark day for the nation. It was a new start.Last week, people close to Mr. Pence previewed his attempt to fight the grand jury subpoena by saying that the former vice president planned to argue that his role as the president of the Senate meant he was protected from legal scrutiny by the executive branch — including the Justice Department — under the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause. That provision is intended to protect the separation of powers.Such an approach would be a departure from the more traditional argument that a vice president’s interactions with a president would be subject to executive privilege, a power asserted by presidents to shield certain internal executive branch deliberations, especially confidential communications involving the president or among his top aides..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.But the special counsel’s motion to compel Mr. Pence’s testimony — reported earlier by CBS News — did not address his expected arguments about the “speech or debate” clause, the two people familiar with the matter said. Rather, it focused on the issue of executive privilege and advanced the proactive argument that Mr. Pence should not be permitted to avoid answering questions by invoking it on Mr. Trump’s behalf, the people said.A spokesman for Mr. Pence declined to comment. Joshua Stueve, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, also declined to comment.In the fall, two former aides to Mr. Pence, Marc Short and Greg Jacob, asserted claims of both executive and attorney-client privilege in a bid to limit their own testimony in front of the grand jury investigating Mr. Trump’s role in overturning the election. The Justice Department filed a sealed motion at the time seeking to compel their testimony, and both men ultimately answered questions.Not long after, Pat A. Cipollone and Patrick F. Philbin, the two top lawyers in Mr. Trump’s White House, tried a similar gambit. Again, the Justice Department prevailed, at least in part, and both men were made to answer questions in front of the grand jury.Witnesses close to Mr. Trump have also raised claims of privilege in an effort to avoid answering questions in a separate grand jury investigation: one that is examining Mr. Trump’s handling of sensitive government documents that he took with him after leaving office to Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Palm Beach, Fla.This month, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers in that case, M. Evan Corcoran, invoked attorney-client privilege after being subpoenaed to answer questions in front of the grand jury. The special counsel’s office responded by filing a motion to Judge Howell, asking her to set aside the privilege claims under what is known as the crime-fraud exception.The crime-fraud exception allows prosecutors to work around attorney-client privilege if they can convince a judge that there is reason to believe that legal advice or legal services have been used in furthering a crime.This week, lawyers for Mr. Trump filed a response saying the crime-fraud exception did not apply to Mr. Corcoran.Charlie Savage More

Under Mark Brnovich, a Republican who left office in January, a 10,000-hour review did not see the light of day. His Democratic successor, Kris Mayes, released investigators’ findings.Mark Brnovich, a Republican who served as Arizona’s attorney general until January, buried the findings of a 10,000-hour review by his office that found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, newly released documents reveal.The documents were released on Wednesday by Mr. Brnovich’s successor, Kris Mayes, a Democrat who took office last month as the top law enforcement official in the battleground state, which remains at the forefront of the election denial movement.The sweeping review was completed last year after politicians and other conspiracy theorists aligned with former President Donald J. Trump inundated Mr. Brnovich’s office with election falsehoods. They claimed baselessly that large numbers of people had voted twice; that ballots had been sent to dead people; and that ballots with traces of bamboo had been flown in from Korea and filled out in advance for Joseph R. Biden Jr., who won Arizona by a little over 10,000 votes.But investigators discredited these claims, according to a report on their findings that was withheld by Mr. Brnovich. (The Washington Post reported earlier on the findings.)“These allegations were not supported by any factual evidence when researched by our office,” Reginald Grigsby, chief special agent in the office’s special investigation’s section, wrote in a summary of the findings on Sept. 19 of last year.The summary was part of documents and internal communications that were made public on Wednesday by Ms. Mayes, who narrowly won an open-seat race in November to become attorney general.“The results of this exhaustive and extensive investigation show what we have suspected for over two years — the 2020 election in Arizona was conducted fairly and accurately by elections officials,” Ms. Mayes said in a statement. “The 10,000-plus hours spent diligently investigating every conspiracy theory under the sun distracted this office from its core mission of protecting the people of Arizona from real crime and fraud.”Efforts to reach Mr. Brnovich, who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate last year, were not immediately successful.His former chief of staff, Joseph Kanefield, who was also Mr. Brnovich’s chief deputy, did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.In the eight-page summary of investigators’ findings, Mr. Grigsby wrote that the attorney general’s office had interviewed and tried to collect evidence from Cyber Ninjas, a Florida firm that conducted a heavily criticized review of the 2020 election results in Arizona’s most populous county, Maricopa, at the direction of the Republican-controlled State Senate.Investigators also made several attempts to gather information from True the Vote, a nonprofit group founded by Catherine Engelbrecht, a prominent election denier, the summary stated..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.“In each instance and in each matter, the aforementioned parties did not provide any evidence to support their allegations,” Mr. Grigsby wrote. “The information that was provided was speculative in many instances and when investigated by our agents and support staff, was found to be inaccurate.”When investigators tried to speak to Wendy Rogers, an election-denying Republican state lawmaker, they said in the summary that she refused to cooperate and told them she was waiting to see the “perp walk” of those who had committed election fraud.Ms. Rogers, who was censured by the State Senate in March 2022 after giving a speech at a white nationalist gathering, declined to comment on Thursday.In a series of emails exchanged by Mr. Brnovich’s staff members last April, Mr. Grigsby appeared to object several times to the language in a letter drafted on behalf of Mr. Brnovich that explained investigators’ findings. Its intended recipient was Karen Fann, a Republican who was the State Senate’s president and was a catalyst for the Cyber Ninjas review in Arizona.One of the statements that Mr. Grigsby highlighted as problematic centered on election integrity in Maricopa County.“Our overall assessment is that the current election system in Maricopa County involving the verification and handling of early ballots is broke,” Mr. Brnovich’s draft letter stated.But Mr. Grigsby appeared to reach an opposite interpretation, writing that investigators had concluded that the county followed its procedures for verifying signatures on early ballots.“We did not uncover any criminality or fraud having been committed in this area during the 2020 general election,” a suggested edit was written beneath the proposed language.Ms. Fann did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.In his role in Arizona, Mr. Brnovich was something of an enigma. He defended the state’s vote count after the 2020 presidential election, drawing the ire of Mr. Trump. The former president sharply criticized Mr. Brnovich in June and endorsed his Republican opponent, Blake Masters, who won the Senate primary but lost in the general election.But Mr. Brnovich has also suggested that the 2020 election revealed “serious vulnerabilities” in the electoral system and said cryptically on the former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon’s podcast last spring, “I think we all know what happened in 2020.”In January, as one of Ms. Mayes’s first acts in office, she redirected an election integrity unit that Mr. Brnovich had created, focusing its work instead on addressing voter suppression.The unit’s former leader, Jennifer Wright, meanwhile, joined a legal effort to invalidate Ms. Mayes’s narrow victory in November.Ms. Mayes has said that she did not share the priorities of Mr. Brnovich, whom she previously described as being preoccupied with voter fraud despite isolated cases. The office has five pending voter fraud investigations. More