Elections

US court skeptical of bid to access congressman’s phone in January 6 inquiryAt issue is whether a protection afforded by the constitution applies to ‘informal’ fact-finding by members of CongressA federal appeals court appeared skeptical on Thursday of the justice department’s interpretation of US Congress members’ immunity from criminal investigations and whether it allowed federal prosecutors to access House Republican Scott Perry’s phone contents in the January 6 investigation.The department seized Perry’s phone in the criminal investigation last year and was granted access to its contents by a lower court, until Perry appealed the decision on the grounds that the speech or debate clause protections barred prosecutors from seeing his messages.January 6 insurrection has proved an obsession for Fox News’s Tucker CarlsonRead moreTwo of the three DC circuit judges appeared unconvinced about the justice department’s reading of the clause – the constitutional provision that shields congressional officials from legal proceedings – though it was unclear whether that would lead to them ruling against prosecutors.The court did not issue a ruling from the bench during the partly unsealed hearing, but the judge’s decision could have far-reaching implications for witnesses like Perry and even Mike Pence in the January 6 investigation, as well as the constitutional power and scope of the protection itself.The two Trump-appointed judges, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, indicated they could rule in two ways: that messages with people outside Congress are not confidential at all, or that Perry could not be prosecuted or questioned about the messages, but that prosecutors could gain access to them.The supreme court has ruled in several instances on the speech or debate clause. While the exact nature of the protection remains vague, it has generally found the protection to be “absolute” as long as the conduct came in furtherance of legislative activity.At issue is whether Perry’s communications with third parties as he sought to assist Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results – and in particular, “informal” fact-finding – could be classified as legislative activity that would fall under the speech or debate clause.Perry’s main lawyer, John Rowley, argued that the congressman was protected from being forced to give up roughly 2,200 messages on his phone to prosecutors because they amounted to legislative work as he prepared for the 6 January certification and possible election reform legislation.But the justice department’s lawyer John Pellettieri disputed Rowley’s broad reading of the clause and argued that such “informal” fact-finding that had not been authorized by Congress as an institution meant Perry was acting unilaterally and therefore beyond the scope of the protection.Katsas and Rao sharply quizzed the justice department on its position that only committee-authorized investigations were protected under the speech or debate clause, and how any other fact-finding could not be a legislative activity.Katsas ran the department through various scenarios, including whether a recording of a call made by a member of Congress to a third party that they would use to inform how they voted on specific legislation would be protected – to which the department replied that it would not.“So a member who is not on a committee has no fact-finding ability?” Rao asked.Katsas added that he found it “odd” that “a member working to educate himself or herself” on how to vote would not be covered by the protection.The justice department argued in response that the conduct had to be “integral” to actual “legislative procedures” to be protected, and warned that the speech or debate clause would otherwise include anything members of Congress did so long as they claimed it was legislative work.The department also suggested that the conduct had to be “bona fide” legislative work – which prompted a response from Katsas that judges were not supposed to consider the motive and the behind-the-scenes decision-making of members of Congress.At the end of the hearing, Perry’s lawyer Rowley added that the department’s narrow interpretation of the speech or debate clause – that it had to be authorized and integral to actual legislative procedure – would mean the minority in Congress would have no protection in researching legislation.The hearing also revealed the previously sealed ruling by the chief US judge for the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, in December that Perry was appealing: Howell had decided that Perry’s fact-finding messages were not protected because they were not part of a formal congressional investigation.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS constitution and civil libertiesUS politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

Also, Nigeria’s upcoming election and healthcare protests in China.Workers reinforced a checkpoint in Kyiv with sandbags.Emile Ducke for The New York TimesOne year of warUkraine is bracing for potential Russian attacks timed to the anniversary of the war today. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has warned of a symbolic “revenge” assault from Russia around the one-year mark of Moscow’s invasion. Schools across Ukraine are holding classes remotely, people have been advised to avoid large gatherings and additional security measures are being put in place. We have updates here.One year on, virtually no one in Ukraine has avoided the violence, destruction and bloodshed of the war, which has killed tens of thousands, left millions homeless and turned entire cities into ruins. But the foreboding that gripped Ukraine in the days before the invasion has long faded.Now, many people in Ukraine said that they had found strength in the shared sacrifice and the collective struggle for survival. Some have become accustomed to the air-raid sirens and warnings. One 30-year-old Ukrainian said those things had become a part of everyday life, “like brushing my teeth.”A global look: The U.S. tried to isolate Russia by imposing sweeping sanctions along with its Western partners. But the rest of the world has taken a more neutral approach to the war, including India and China, as our graphic shows.The latest on weapons: Poland said that it was close to finalizing a deal worth $10 billion to buy additional U.S.-made HIMARS rocket launchers and related equipment, as part of a rapid military buildup. As the West scrambles to find munitions for Ukraine’s Soviet-era weapons, it is turning to arms factories across Eastern Europe.China: Janet Yellen, the U.S. treasury secretary, warned Beijing against helping Russia evade sanctions, at a meeting of G20 finance ministers in India. She also said that the U.S. planned to unveil additional sanctions on Russia.Officials sorted voter cards in Lagos last month, ahead of the election.Pius Utomi Ekpei/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNigeria votesNigerians head to the polls tomorrow to choose a new president in the most wide-open race in years. The presidential candidates for the two major parties, which have alternated power for over two decades, are facing a surprise, third-party challenger.In the lead-up to voting day, a decision by Nigeria’s government to replace its currency caused chaos. Voters are furious at the governing party over a shortage of new bank notes, and protests could disrupt voting in parts of the country.Lynsey Chutel, our Briefing writer based in Johannesburg, spoke with our West Africa bureau chief, Ruth Maclean, who is in Abuja to cover the election. Here’s what Ruth said about what’s at stake.“When I interviewed Peter Obi, one of the three main candidates, the other day, he described this as an ‘existential election.’ I think that’s how many Nigerians feel, particularly young Nigerians who were involved in the EndSARS movement a couple of years ago, protesting against police violence, but also against everything they saw going wrong in Nigeria. Many of them have left or are trying to leave the country. If their chosen candidate wins, maybe some will stay, or come back,” Ruth said.As populations in wealthy countries grow older, Africa’s median age is getting younger. In Nigeria, half of the population of more than 200 million is 18 and under.“If Nigeria is safe and prosperous, it brightens life for a whole generation of Africans,” Ruth said.A protest against health care cuts in Wuhan last week.Keith Bradsher/The New York TimesHealth care protests in ChinaThousands of seniors in China are protesting abrupt cuts to their health insurance. The changes were enacted by local governments, and highlight their struggle to recover from the costs of implementing the central government’s expensive “zero Covid” policies for nearly three years.One of the most immediate problems is that municipal insurance funds are running out of money. To free up cash, municipalities have started contributing much less to personal health accounts, the insurance that middle-class people use to pay for medicine and outpatient care. Seniors are most vulnerable to the changes, which include higher costs and reduced benefits.Protests have taken place in the northeastern city of Dalian, in Guangzhou, and in Wuhan in central China, where the Covid pandemic began at the end of 2019. Wuhan’s hospitals responded with an effective but expensive effort to contain the outbreak, and are now implementing some of the sharpest cuts to personal health accounts.Context: The cuts are a symptom of China’s overlapping economic struggles. The country is aging rapidly, and more retirees mean more health care needs. Yet the main source of municipal revenue has shriveled as real estate developers buy less public land because of a housing shakeout.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificRescuers at the site of the mine collapse in northern China’s Inner Mongolia.CCTV, via Associated PressRescuers are working to save 53 coal miners who are missing after a mine collapsed in northern China.The European Commission banned TikTok from most of its employees’ phones, citing security concerns.The temporary suspension of Peter Bol, an Australian Olympic runner, over doping allegations has opened a national debate over testing procedures.Around the WorldLawmakers in Mexico gutted the country’s election watchdog, a change that comes ahead of next year’s presidential contest.Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump were subpoenaed by the special counsel investigating Donald Trump.The U.S. nominated Ajay Banga, the former chief executive of Mastercard, to lead the World Bank.Other Big StoriesMaternal mortality rates have fallen in many countries across Asia, but have increased in the U.S. and Europe, the W.H.O. reported.Turkey is scrutinizing Turkish builders after the recent earthquake that killed more than 43,000 people in the country.A British pilot program of a four-day workweek won converts: 92 percent of participating companies plan to continue with the approach.The Week in CultureHarvey Weinstein was sentenced to 16 years in prison for sex crimes in Los Angeles.Alec Baldwin pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on a film set.The singer R. Kelly was sentenced to 20 years in prison for child sex crimes.A Morning ReadThe new drinks are branded Oleato, which can mean oiled or greaseproof in Italian.Valentina Za/ReutersStarbucks is testing out a new ingredient that it believes will draw the Italian masses to its coffee: olive oil. A golden foam espresso martini is one of five oily options.ARTS AND IDEASChatGPT’s scary banalityWhen the movies imagined A.I., they pictured the wrong disaster, our critic A.O. Scott writes. Instead of the chilling rationality of HAL in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” we got the drearier, very human awfulness of Microsoft’s Sydney. Because when real chatbots finally came about, they learned from what humans have expressed online, which can often be deceitful, irrational and plain old mean.“We’re more or less reconciled to the reality that machines are, in some ways, smarter than we are,” Scott writes. “We also enjoy the fantasy that they might turn out to be more sensitive. We’re therefore not prepared for the possibility that they might be chaotic, unstable and resentful — as messy as we are, or maybe more so.”In China: Tech companies making chatbots are facing hurdles from the government.And in the arts: Science fiction magazines are being flooded with stories written by chatbots. They’re “bad in spectacular ways,” one editor said.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookColin Clark for The New York TimesFor a weekend project, make Swedish cardamom buns.What to Read“Win Every Argument” and “Say the Right Thing” offer different approaches to talking to others.What to WatchIn “Yanagawa,” by the Chinese filmmaker Zhang Lu, two brothers reconnect over a lost love.HealthLearn about the wild world inside your gut.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Bashful (three letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. Have a lovely weekend! — Amelia and LynseyP.S. Will Shortz, our puzzle editor, talked to The New Yorker about his life in crosswords.“The Daily” is on a U.S. Supreme Court case about social media.If you ever want to reach me, I’m available at [email protected]. Thanks!  More

On July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter emerged from days of isolation to deliver the most important and memorable address of his life. Carter had canceled vacation plans and spent more than a week cloistered at Camp David, where he met with a “steady stream of visitors” who shared their hopes and fears about a nation in distress, most immediately thanks to another in a series of energy crises.Carter, however, discerned a deeper problem. America had a wounded heart. The president believed it suffered from a “crisis of the spirit.” The speech was among the most unusual in presidential history. The word that has clung to it, “malaise,” was a word that didn’t even appear in the text. It was offered by his critics and has since become something close to official history. Everyone above a certain age knows immediately and precisely the meaning of the phrase “the malaise speech.”I believe, by contrast, the best word to describe the speech would have been “pastoral.” A faithful Christian president applied the lessons he’d so plainly learned from years of Bible study and countless hours in church. Don’t look at the surface of a problem. Don’t be afraid to tell hard truths. Be humble, but also call the people to a higher purpose.The resulting address was heartfelt. It was eloquent. Yet it helped sink his presidency.Read the speech now, and you’ll see its truth and its depth. But, ironically, it’s an address better suited to our time than to its own. Jimmy Carter’s greatest speech was delivered four decades too soon.The ostensible purpose of the speech was to address the energy crisis. Anyone who remembers the 1970s remembers gas lines and the helpless feeling that our nation’s prosperity was dependent on foreign oil. Yet that was but one of a seemingly endless parade of American problems.By 1979, this country had experienced a recent string of traumatic political assassinations, urban riots that dwarfed the summer riots of 2020 in scale and intensity, campus unrest that makes the current controversies over “wokeness” look civil and quaint, the defeat in Vietnam, and the deep political corruption of Richard Nixon. At the same time, inflation rates dwarfed what we experience today.When he addressed the nation, Carter took a step back. With his trademark understated warmth, he described his own period of reflection. He’d taken the time to listen to others, he shared what he heard, and then he spoke words that resonate today. “The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us,” he said, and he described symptoms that mirror our current reality.“For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years,” Carter said. (Meanwhile, last year a record 58 percent of Americans told NBC News pollsters that our nation’s best years are behind it.)There was more. “As you know,” he told viewers, “there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions.” He was right, but compared to now, Americans were far more respectful of virtually every major institution, from the government, to the news media, to the private sector. Only the military fares better now in the eyes of the public.Then there was this gut-punch paragraph:We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. We were taught that our armies were always invincible and our causes were always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam. We respected the presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate.When we read these words after the contemporary onslaught of mass shootings, the anguish of the Afghanistan withdrawal, and the turmoil of two Trump impeachments, you can again see the parallels today.We’re familiar with political speeches that recite the litany of American challenges, but we’re not familiar with speeches that ask the American people to reflect on their own role in a national crisis. Carter called for his audience to look in the mirror:In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns.There is a tremendous amount of truth packed into those words. But there was a problem: Carter correctly described a country of mutual, interlocking responsibilities between the government and the people. Yet he was ultimately unable to deliver the results that matched his pastoral message.For all the scorn heaped on Carter later, the speech was successful, at first. His approval rating shot up a remarkable 11 points. Then came chaos — some of it Carter’s fault, some of it not. Days after the speech, he demanded the resignation of his entire cabinet. (He ultimately fired five.) It was a move that communicated confusion more than conviction.Then the world erupted. In November, Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy and took dozens of Americans hostage. In December, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and at least appeared to secure the country quickly and easily. Contrary to popular remembrance, Carter did not respond with weakness. The defense buildup for which Ronald Reagan is remembered actually began under Carter. And in April 1980, he greenlit a daring attempt to fly into the heart of Iran and rescue American hostages by force.It was not to be. Mechanical problems scrubbed the mission far from Tehran, and in the confusion of the withdrawal, two aircraft collided, and eight American servicemembers died. American gloom deepened. The nation seemed to be moving from defeat to defeat.The failed rescue was a hinge moment in history. It’s hard to imagine the morale boost had it succeeded, and we know the crushing disappointment when it failed. Had the Army’s Delta Force paraded down New York’s “Canyon of Heroes” with the liberated hostages, it would have probably transformed the public’s perception of the president. But just as presidents own military victories, they also own defeats. Carter’s fate was sealed. Reagan carried 44 states, and on Inauguration Day — in a final insult by Tehran — the hostages came home.The story of the next 10 years, moreover, cast Carter’s address in a different light. The nation went from defeat to victory: Inflation broke, the economy roared, and in 1991 the same military that was humiliated in the sands of Iran triumphed, with assistance from its allies, over an immense Iraqi Army in a 100-hour land war that astonished the world.The history was written. Carter was wrong. There wasn’t a crisis of confidence. There was no malaise. There was instead a failure of leadership. Better, or at least luckier, leaders revived a broken nation.Yet with every passing year, the deeper truths of Carter’s speech become more apparent. His insights become more salient. A speech that couldn’t precisely diagnose the maladies of 1979 more accurately describes the challenges of 2023. The trends he saw emerging two generations ago now bear their poisonous fruit in our body politic.Carter’s central insight was that even if the country’s political branches could deliver peace and prosperity, they could not deliver community and belonging. Our nation depends on pre-political commitments to each other, and in the absence of those pre-political commitments, the American experiment is ultimately in jeopardy.In 1979, Carter spoke of our civil liberties as secure. They’re more secure now. A generation of Supreme Court case law has expanded our rights to free speech and religious liberty beyond the bounds of precedent. In 1979, Carter said that the United States possessed “unmatched economic power and military might.” That assertion may have rung hollow to a nation facing a Soviet Union that seemed to be at the peak of its power. But it’s unquestionably true today.We’re free, prosperous and strong to a degree we couldn’t imagine then. Yet we’re tearing each other apart now. The words that didn’t quite capture the moment in 1979 land quite differently today:We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility.With these words, Carter raised the question, what is our freedom for, exactly? While we want to better ourselves and our families, we cannot become self-regarding. We have obligations to each other. We have obligations to our community. The best exercise of freedom is in service to others.Yet one of the stories of our time is the abuse of liberty, including the use of our freedoms — whether it’s to boycott, condemn or shame — to try to narrow the marketplace of ideas, to deprive dissenters of their reputations and their livelihoods. A porn-saturated culture luxuriates in its own decadence and exploitation, and then wonders why hearts break and families fail. And as Carter noted, our huge wealth cannot heal the holes in our hearts, because “consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.”At the start of this piece, I used the word “pastoral” to describe Carter’s speech. But there’s another word: prophetic. His words were not the clarion call necessary for his time, but they are words for this time. As Jimmy Carter spends his last days on this earth, we should remember his call for community, and thank a very good man for living his values, serving his neighbors, and reminding us of the true source of strength for the nation he loved. More

More from our inbox:Tucker Carlson’s Spin on the Jan. 6 TapesA Descent Into DementiaAgeism and CovidRisk Management Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Run by Haley Is a Tightrope in the G.O.P.” (front page, Feb. 19):Nikki Haley has no choice but to to use her gender to promote her candidacy. It is the only thing that distinguishes her from the pack of hypocritical, unprincipled Republican politicians likely to run for president.She long ago joined the ranks of Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, etc., who discarded their justifiable contempt for Donald Trump in favor of attaining or retaining elective office. In her singular pursuit of the presidency she’s discarded any integrity she might have once had.Ms. Haley is unqualified to be president not because she is a woman, but because she became “one of the boys” — the boys who sold their souls for power and position.Jay AdolfNew YorkTo the Editor:Re “Could Haley Be Our Next President?” (Opinion, Feb. 19):It’s independents who often swing elections, and not one of the Times Opinion writers discussing Nikki Haley’s chances considered her appeal to these voters. By thinking only of how she does or doesn’t fit within the current Republican Party, they miss her considerable appeal as a non-Trumpian traditional Republican, which will attract swing independents.Thomas B. RobertsSycamore, Ill.To the Editor:As an immigrant from India, a woman and an independent voter who sometimes voted Republican pre-Trump, I was excited when Nikki Haley became governor of South Carolina. But I do not support Ms. Haley’s presidential candidacy.David Brooks nailed it, saying “there was an awful lot of complicity and silence when she served under Trump.” She subverted her independence and her fighting spirit by becoming part of Donald Trump’s establishment.No self-respecting Democrat would ever cross party lines to vote for Ms. Haley even if she miraculously manages to secure the nomination. She would not beat Joe Biden!Mona JhaMontclair, N.J.To the Editor:Nikki Haley kicked off her campaign by suggesting that politicians over 75 should be required to take mental competency tests, implying that Donald Trump and President Biden were too old to be president.She would do well to remember Ronald Reagan’s quip during the 1984 presidential debates with Walter Mondale: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”Robert BatyOakland, Calif.To the Editor:Re “The Fox Newsification of Nikki Haley,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, Feb. 22):Mr. Friedman isn’t taking into account what Nikki Haley must do to win the Republican nomination.Questions about the pandemicCard 1 of 4When will the pandemic end? More

The lawyers said public comments by the forewoman of the special grand jury that investigated election interference had “poisoned” the process. But they have yet to challenge anything in court.ATLANTA — Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump said late Wednesday that details divulged this week by the forewoman of a special grand jury investigating election interference by Mr. Trump and his allies had “poisoned” the Georgia inquiry. As of Thursday morning, however, the two lawyers had not filed any motions in court challenging the inquiry. Nor would they discuss what form such a challenge might take, saying only that they were weighing their options. “We’re just considering everything,” one of the lawyers, Drew Findling, said.Earlier this week, the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, spoke in interviews with a number of news outlets after The Associated Press identified her through a public records request. She said that the 23-person special grand jury, which can only make recommendations on whether prosecutors should indict, had made such recommendations for more than a dozen people in the case. Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, who is handling the case, will ultimately make charging decisions and bring them to a regular grand jury.Ms. Kohrs declined to name names or say which laws the jurors believed had been broken. But asked if Mr. Trump was among those recommended for indictment, she told The New York Times: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science.” Some outside legal experts have said that Ms. Kohrs’s public comments present a headache, if nothing else, for prosecutors because the forewoman’s discussion of some elements of the case could be seen as diminishing the gravity of the proceedings. Others expressed doubt that they would have much impact, if any, on the case, in part because special grand juries cannot bring criminal charges.Jeff DiSantis, a spokesman for the Fulton County district attorney’s office, declined to comment on the Trump lawyers’ criticism of the case. He noted that the office had nothing to do with Ms. Kohrs’s media appearances.Mr. Trump is seen as having two main areas of particular legal jeopardy in the Georgia inquiry: the calls he made to pressure state officials to overturn the 2020 election, and his direct involvement in efforts to assemble an alternate slate of electors even after three vote counts affirmed President Biden’s victory in the state. Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5A legal threat to Trump. More

Trump responds to interviews with grand jury foreperson: ‘This Georgia case is ridiculous’Former president, under investigation for his election subversion attempts, criticizes jury foreperson for ‘doing a media tour’Donald Trump responded to interviews given by the foreperson of the Georgia grand jury which investigated his election subversion attempts by ridiculing the woman and claiming to be the victim of his political enemies.‘A big freaking deal’: the grand jury that investigated Trump election pressureRead more“This Georgia case is ridiculous,” the former president wrote on his Truth Social platform, claiming “a strictly political continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time”.It has been widely reported that lawyers for possible Republican targets in the investigation are preparing to seek dismissal of the case based on the foreperson’s comments.Running for the Republican presidential nomination, Trump remains in wide-ranging legal jeopardy over election subversion including inciting the January 6 attack on Congress, his financial affairs including a hush money payment to a porn star, the retention of classified documents and an accusation of rape, which he denies.The district attorney of Fulton county, Fani Willis, requested the grand jury to investigate Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 defeat in Georgia by Joe Biden, the first Republican loss there in a presidential election since 1992.Portions of the grand jury report have been released but indictments have not yet followed.The jury foreperson, Emily Kohrs, was authorized to speak to the media but not to discuss deliberations.Many observers said she went too far, dropping broad hints about indictments and discussing interactions with witnesses.Speaking to CNN, she said it would be a “good assumption” that more than a dozen people would be indicted.Kohrs, 30, told the New York Times it was “not rocket science” to work out if Trump indictments were among those recommended.Speaking to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and told Trump had claimed “total exoneration” through the jury’s report, Kohrs “rolled her eyes” and “burst out laughing”.Trump wrote: “Now you have an extremely energetic young woman, the (get this!) ‘foreperson’ of the racist DA’s special grand jury, going around and doing a media tour revealing, incredibly, the grand jury’s inner workings and thoughts.”Willis, a Democrat, is African American. Claiming she was presiding over “an illegal kangaroo court”, Trump also claimed to have done nothing in Georgia but make “two perfect phone calls”.The grand jury investigated election subversion efforts including a call to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in which Trump asked the Republican elections official to “find” enough votes for him to beat Biden. Alternate elector schemes and state-house machinations were also scutinised.On Wednesday, amid reports that lawyers were preparing to seek dismissal of the case because of Kohrs’ comments in the media, observers including the New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman pointed out that Kohrs led a fact-finding grand jury, meaning a separate panel would deal with any indictments.But Haberman also told CNN: “I’ve covered courts on and off for the last 20 years, more than that. I’ve never heard of a grand jury foreperson speaking this way … I’ve never seen anything like it.“If I’m the prosecutor, I’m not sure that I want this media tour taking place, because I’m confident that Donald Trump’s lawyers are going to use this, just based on what I [am] hearing … to try to argue that this is prejudicial in terms of what she is saying.”TopicsDonald TrumpGeorgiaUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

We offer a field guide to the 2024 Republican presidential campaign.Officially, the 2024 Republican presidential campaign has barely begun, with only two major candidates — Donald Trump and Nikki Haley — having entered the race.In reality, the campaign is well underway. Looking at the historical evidence, Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, argues that a typical nomination campaign is already about halfway done by this stage. “The notion that the campaign is already at halftime is a little mind-bending,” Nate writes, “but if you reimagine a presidential campaign as everything a candidate will do to amass the support needed to win, it starts to make a little more sense.”Consider that Joe Biden won the 2020 Democratic nomination largely on the strength of work that he did — especially as Barack Obama’s vice president — years earlier. Or that Trump probably could not have won in 2016 without his reality television fame. Most modern nominees have had the support of at least 20 percent of their party’s voters at this stage in the campaign, Nate notes. Rising from obscurity is rare, partly because campaign donors and staff members have begun to pick their candidates by now.For these reasons, there are two distinct categories of 2024 Republican candidates. The first includes only Trump and Ron DeSantis — by far the early polling leaders — and the second category includes everybody else.When we asked our colleague Maggie Haberman to imagine a scenario in which the nominee is not DeSantis or Trump, she told us, “It’s possible, but it’s just very hard to see.” One way it could happen, she added, would be if DeSantis took a commanding lead and Trump then tried to destroy him. “If it looks like DeSantis is going to be the nominee, Trump is likely to do whatever he can to tear him down before that happens,” Maggie said.Today, we spin out the possibilities in our inaugural field guide to the 2024 Republican race.The former presidentTrump leads in most early primary polls, typically with more than 40 percent of Republicans’ support nationwide. He could win the nomination simply by retaining that support while remaining voters splinter, as happened in 2016.In polls from Jan. 19 to Feb. 16. | Source: RealClearPoliticsBut Trump’s weaknesses are real. His support tends to be lower in higher-quality polls. Criminal investigations hang over him (as this new Times story explains). He has already lost once to Biden. And his preferred candidates underperformed other Republicans last year by about five percentage points on average.Republican politics often have little to do with policy proposals these days. Still, there are potential policy debates between Trump and DeSantis. Trump has started making a populist critique of DeSantis for his past support of proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare. DeSantis could criticize Trump for supporting Dr. Anthony Fauci and for enacting federal spending that caused inflation.The Florida governorDeSantis has ascended to national prominence for two main reasons.First, Florida is thriving during his governorship by some metrics. Many more people are moving there than leaving, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board pointed out. Florida’s unemployment rate is among the nation’s lowest, at 2.5 percent. During the pandemic, DeSantis lifted restrictions relatively early, and many experts predicted disaster. But Florida’s overall Covid death rate is only modestly higher than the national average, and its age-adjusted death rate is lower. Last year, DeSantis won re-election by 19 percentage points.Second, DeSantis delights in confronting liberals, and not just about Covid. He has flown migrants to Massachusetts to protest President Biden’s immigration policy. “Florida is where woke goes to die,” DeSantis has said, summarizing the fights he has picked on medical care for transgender youth and on racial issues. “DeSantis’s appeal right now is that he is perceived as both a fighter for conservative causes and a winner,” says our colleague Michael Bender, who’s covering the Republican field.How might Trump attack him? “Trumpworld sees DeSantis less through the lens of specific policies than how they can paint him generally either as a phony or as someone partial to old-school establishment thinking,” Maggie said. “Mostly, they anticipate that Trump will try to smear him repeatedly and they think or hope that DeSantis will ultimately have to respond, which so far he’s mostly avoided.”It remains unclear how well DeSantis, who is not a particularly charismatic politician, will fare in the rigors of a national campaign.Nikki Haley in Iowa this week.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesThe potential fieldHaley, a former South Carolina governor, is running as a Reaganesque optimist who believes in small government and foreign policy hawkishness. She served in Trump’s cabinet and describes him as a friend — while she offers a sunnier vision of America than he does.Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, a former private-equity executive, also takes a Reaganesque approach. He is comfortable with business executives and evangelicals, two big Republican constituencies.“I don’t like losers,” Chris Sununu, New Hampshire’s governor, recently said. “I’m not anti-Trump, I’m not pro-Trump. We’re just moving on.” Sununu also calls himself a conservative who’s not an extremist. Larry Hogan, Maryland’s former governor, would also like to find space in this lane.Mike Pence is a longtime favorite of evangelicals. But Trump supporters distrust him for not trying to overturn the 2020 election result, while many Trump critics would rather not select his former vice president.Mike Pompeo has a sterling résumé: He graduated first in his class at West Point, was elected to Congress and served as Trump’s secretary of state. He has remained mostly loyal to Trump. “How does he differentiate himself?” Michael Bender asks.Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota also seem to be considering a run, as are a few others.Here’s how one of these candidates might defy the odds: Maybe Trump is as wounded as some people think, or DeSantis will struggle on the national stage. Space might then open for an alternative, and one of the second-tier candidates could shine during the early debates and campaign appearances.In past campaigns, early poll leaders have sometimes faded (like Rudy Giuliani in 2008) and long shots have won nominations (like Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992). Upsets do happen, but they’re called upsets for a reason.To make sense of the campaign, Times subscribers can sign up for Nate Cohn’s newsletter.More on politicsThe special counsel investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election subpoenaed Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.Trump visited East Palestine, Ohio, where a train derailment spewed toxic chemicals this month, and criticized the Biden administration’s handling of the disaster.By giving Tucker Carlson exclusive access to Jan. 6 security footage, Speaker Kevin McCarthy essentially outsourced re-litigation of the attack to a purveyor of conspiracy theories.Since Jimmy Carter entered hospice care, residents in his hometown in Georgia have been keeping vigil.THE LATEST NEWSSevere WeatherA snowstorm in Minneapolis yesterday.Craig Lassig/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesHundreds of thousands of people are without power in the Midwest because of a winter storm.A blizzard could hit Southern California. See the snow forecast for where you live.War in UkraineUkraine managed to hit Russian-held territory with explosions deep behind enemy lines.Biden wrapped up a trip to Europe yesterday, promising American commitment to its allies. In Moscow, Vladimir Putin welcomed China’s top diplomat.Other Big StoriesLawmakers in Mexico gutted the country’s election watchdog, the body that helped end one-party rule, ahead of next year’s presidential contest.An Israeli operation to arrest Palestinian fighters in the West Bank led to a gunfight that killed at least 10 Palestinians.A gunman in Florida killed three people, including a child and a reporter.The man who killed the rapper Nipsey Hussle in 2019 was sentenced to 60 years to life in prison.OpinionsPolitical leaders blunder into wars because they downplay the costs of war and the benefits of peace, Farah Stockman writes.Covid mask mandates didn’t work, Bret Stephens argues.MORNING READSNew menu item: Starbucks in Italy is offering olive oil-infused coffee.“Enablers of our boredom”: The banality of ChatGPT is more eerie than any A.I. movie, the critic A.O. Scott writes.Unwanted connection: Who really controls your smart home?The coldest case in Laramie: Listen to the story of a long unsolved murder.Well: Learn about the wild world inside your gut.Advice from Wirecutter: Get your weekends back with a laundry sorter.Lives Lived: During her more than five decades as a television journalist in Brazil, Glória Maria toppled barriers for Black women at a time when the country’s anchor chairs were mostly filled by white men. She died at 73.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICA return to N.B.A. action: Kevin Durant could play his first game as a Phoenix Sun next week.En route to the World Cup: The U.S. women’s national soccer team beat Brazil, 2-1, winning the SheBelieves Cup title. ARTS AND IDEAS Blundstone’s Chelsea boots.Courtesy of BlundstoneThese boots are everywhereEvery so often, a boot becomes characteristic of a moment in time. In the early 1990s, there were Timberlands; in the early 2000s, Uggs. For our current era, Max Berlinger writes, fashion historians may point to Blundstone’s Chelsea boots.The boots have elastic side bands instead of laces or buckles. Their ease and comfort is a key part of the appeal. “I can stand in them for hours,” Woldy Reyes, a chef in New York, said. “I know so many other chefs who wear them in the kitchen.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookDavid Malosh for The New York TimesFind comfort in this bacon, egg and cheese fried rice.What to Read“Win Every Argument,” by Mehdi Hasan, and “Say the Right Thing,” by Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow, offer approaches to talking to others. TravelThe celebrated violinist Joshua Bell recommends these five places in London.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was pityingly. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Bashful (three letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. After more than 2,200 movie reviews, the Times film critic A.O. Scott is moving to the Book Review.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about a Supreme Court ruling about social media.Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses and Tom Wright-Piersanti contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at [email protected] up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

In February 2020, just before the world shut down, I was waiting for Joe Biden to speak on a Friday night in Henderson, Nev. The next morning I watched Bernie Sanders rally a fairly young, largely Latino crowd in a packed Las Vegas high school cafeteria. The Biden event, held when it looked as if he would not win the nomination, was smaller and more subdued. On the other side of a rope separating media from attendees, a group of Biden supporters were talking about how stressful it would be to be president at their and Mr. Biden’s age. As I remember it, one of them said, “But he feels he has to do it.”Not much has changed about the substance of their conversation since then, other than three long years: Mr. Biden, at 80, is the oldest U.S. president ever. If and when he announces a re-election campaign, he will put into play the idea of an even older president, eventually 86 years old. “Is age a positive thing for him? No,” Nancy Pelosi recently told Maureen Dowd, before adding that age is “a relative thing.” For reasons ultimately only Mr. Biden can know, it seems he feels he has to do it.There’s a straightforward dimension to the problem: The effects of age can get beyond your control, and it’d be a safer bet to leave office before the risk probability elevates to a danger zone. Barney Frank decided well in advance that he would retire from Congress at 75, then did so in his early 70s. You could feel that would be the right choice for Mr. Biden or any other leader over a certain age threshold, and be done with this topic. But age and health knot together different contradictions in America. Everything’s so weird now. Tech types, athletes and people of means are spending millions to keep their bodies youthful, and to defeat decline, if not death. We live in this society where people frequently talk about their resentment of older leadership — and elect and re-elect older leaders.Donald Trump would also, were he to win and serve out a second term, turn 82, and you could view the final days of the first Trump White House through this prism. Nearly a quarter of the Congress was over 70 last year, Insider found, up from 8 percent in 2002. Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican and Iowa’s senior senator, won re-election at age 89 last fall. Two of the most powerful and defining congressional leaders of most of our lives — Mitch McConnell and Ms. Pelosi — are in their 80s, and until the recent hockey line change in House leadership, much of the Democratic congressional leadership was over 70. The Treasury secretary is 76. Two Supreme Court justices are in their 70s; in the last decade, death changed the ideological balance of the court.If he runs for this second term, squarely in this space of all these contradictions, Mr. Biden is making the same ask as he did during the 2020 election — to trust him, to trust that he will be proven right about himself. Qualitatively, Mr. Biden represents familiarity and stability, which both derive from his age and sit in uneasy tension with it.Mr. Biden premised his 2020 campaign on his singular ability to win the presidency, when a good number of people in politics and media didn’t think he could win even the nomination. He predicted a level of congressional function that many people found nostalgic to the point of exotic. This skepticism was, on a deep level, about his age and whether his time had passed and whether he was too distant from the political realities of the 2020s. The thing is: Mr. Biden was right before. He did win the nomination. He did win against Donald Trump. The first two years of the Biden presidency did involve a productive and occasionally bipartisan U.S. Congress. On some level, people like me were wrong. This whole presidency originated with Mr. Biden being right about himself, and therefore his age.And maybe he will be right again! That’s a real possibility, under-discussed in these conversations. Age is relative, as Ms. Pelosi said. Medical science keeps improving, and people keep living longer, healthier lives. Presidents can focus on the big picture and delegate the rest. Mr. Biden’s own parents lived to 86 and 92. Having purpose, professional or otherwise, can rejuvenate all our lives. He looked pretty lively during that State of the Union earlier this month, and certainly in Ukraine and Poland.A generation of old men, from Clement Attlee to Konrad Adenauer, rebuilt Europe after the catastrophic 1930s and 1940s, back when people lived much shorter lives. Mr. Adenauer, the first leader of West Germany, actually served until age 87. We haven’t lived through anything like World War II, but as we convulse through two decades of staggering technological change, that might explain the resurgence of some older and familiar leaders over the last decade. Maybe rather than resenting this generational hold on power that Mr. Biden represents, some segment of people is relieved by the continuity that he offers, and by his distance from our daily lives.It’s complicated to leave office when you have real power. If you were Mr. Sanders (81) or Mitt Romney (75), why would you walk away? Mr. Sanders and Mr. Romney retain their essential selves as public figures — they don’t seem especially changed by age. Neither has said whether he’s going to run again. But if they still feel vital and able, and they are in a position of actual agency and responsibility, then it’s hard to see why they should leave public life.The risk, though, registers at a different pitch with the presidency. Even if we’re not expecting the president to catch a bullet in his teeth or something, we have 100 senators and one president. Hundreds of federal judges, and nine Supreme Court justices. Some stuff matters more than others.This was a problem even at the very beginning of the country’s history. During the Constitutional Convention, a proposal arose about how to proceed if the president were unable to serve. According to James Madison’s notes, the delegate John Dickinson asked “What is the extent of the term ‘disability’ & who is to be the judge of it?” Nobody’s ever precisely resolved this dilemma, even with the 25th Amendment.Mr. Biden could be wrong. He could lose the election because of the way voters perceive his age, or he could make it to a second term only to suffer a serious illness in office. Would the country default to a discomfort with visible age and slant one way on Mr. Biden, or take a more nuanced view?In the fall, while thinking over some of these concerns, I saw Senator John Fetterman speak to a large Saturday afternoon crowd in an indoor sports complex in Scranton, Pa. Mr. Fetterman isn’t old — he’s 53 — but he did suffer a stroke and begin recovery while campaigning for office.That day in Scranton, though he moved fluidly and alertly, he struggled some with the cadence of his speech, which was mostly one-liners about Dr. Mehmet Oz. But the event opened up into a gentler moment when he asked, “How many one [sic] of you in your own life have had a serious health challenge? Hands. Personally. Any of you?” Tons of hands went silently up from the synthetic grass. “How many of your parents?” Nearly all the remaining hands went up and stayed up while he ticked off a few other close relations. Though this eventually segued into another joke about Mr. Oz, the silent, serious quality of this call-response was not how the campaign often played online and in the media, where Mr. Fetterman’s condition became a weapon to be bashed over him. The politics of health and age can be brutal.Last week, Mr. Fetterman entered Walter Reed medical center to treat depression. Annie Karni reported that Mr. Fetterman’s recovery has continued to be challenging as he adjusts to new accommodations and limitations. Though he initially faced criticism for not disclosing enough about his condition, over the last several months he has been public about the changes he has gone through and the accommodations he requires, and about depression, something millions of people face but politicians have rarely disclosed.Aging is different than depression or stroke recovery; but like those experiences, there is no shame in aging, and there’s also no suggesting that everything’s easy about it. The choice for Mr. Biden is only an elevated version of the one many people deal with: When will you know it’s time to retire or step back, and when to keep going? All of us are aging, gaining and losing capacities in ways we may not even be aware of.There’s no automatic test that will prove someone is “too old,” and even if there were, nobody would want to take it.You can drive yourself crazy with war games about the ways an election could go. What if Mr. Biden were to run and face a much younger candidate, instead of Mr. Trump? What if he stepped aside in favor of a younger potential successor who then lost to Mr. Trump, invalidating the entire premise of Mr. Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign?All that there is, in the end, is Mr. Biden’s request — to trust that he is right about himself. He’s been right before, and may well be right again. But the reason this question lingers is the unstable ground of the answer: The source of what makes people worry about the president is also the source of his power and appeal.Ms. Miller is a staff writer and editor in Opinion.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