Elections

Cassidy Hutchinson recounted to the House select committee how a lawyer with ties to former President Donald J. Trump said to her that she should “focus on protecting the president.”WASHINGTON — Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide who was a standout witness of the House Jan. 6 committee investigation, told the panel in an interview in September that a lawyer aligned with former President Donald J. Trump had tried to influence her testimony, the latest example of what the committee says was an effort to stonewall its inquiry.“We just want to focus on protecting the president,” Ms. Hutchinson recalled Stefan Passantino, a former Trump White House lawyer who represented her during her early interactions with the committee, telling her.“We all know you’re loyal,” she said Mr. Passantino told her. “Let’s just get you in and out, and this day will be easy, I promise.”The revelation was included in transcripts of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony the panel released on Thursday as it prepared to publish its lengthy final report into the Capitol riot and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The transcripts were of closed-door interviews Ms. Hutchinson conducted with the committee after she had parted ways with Mr. Passantino, whose legal fees were being covered by allies of Mr. Trump, and hired a different lawyer.Ms. Hutchinson would go on to provide the Jan. 6 committee with some of its most explosive testimony at a widely watched televised hearing during which she detailed — relying at times on secondhand accounts — how Mr. Trump raged against Secret Service agents, demanded to join a crowd of his supporters at the Capitol, showed approval for his supporters carrying weapons and endorsed chants of hanging his own vice president.Ms. Hutchinson told the committee that she had been told by several allies of Mr. Trump that he knew he had lost the election two weeks after Election Day but continued to push for any way he could try to overturn the results, first through lawsuits but then through increasingly extreme plans.Ms. Hutchinson testified that Mark Meadows, her boss and the White House chief of staff, spoke with her on Jan. 2, 2021, after Mr. Trump had sought to persuade Georgia election officials to swing the election in his favor.“He said something to the effect of: ‘He knows it’s over. He knows he lost. But we are going to keep trying,’” Ms. Hutchinson recalled Mr. Meadows saying, referring to Mr. Trump.Another time, Mr. Meadows described Mr. Trump as in a constant state of fury over his election loss.“Mark said something to the effect of: ‘He’s just so angry at me all the time. I can’t talk to him about anything post-White House without him getting mad that we didn’t win,’” she said Mr. Meadows told her.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.A lawyer for Mr. Meadows did not respond to a call seeking comment.Ms. Hutchinson also recalled John Ratcliffe, the former director of national intelligence, telling her Mr. Trump knew he lost but did not want to concede.The statements were among a batch of transcripts the committee released on Thursday that also included notable testimony from Sarah Matthews, a former White House deputy press secretary. Ms. Matthews told the committee that on Jan. 5, 2021, Mr. Trump asked his staff to provide ideas on persuading lawmakers he called RINOs, for “Republicans in name only,” to “do the right thing” and join him in overturning the election.Ms. Matthews recalled that, as crowds began to amass in Washington, eager to attend Mr. Trump’s rally the next day, he grew excited and opened the door of the Oval Office on a frigid night to hear them.“You could tell how excited he was that the crowd was already assembled and ready for the following day,” she said.But it was Ms. Hutchinson’s transcript release that captured the most attention on Capitol Hill. The document shows Mr. Passantino was not the only person who Ms. Hutchinson claimed wanted her to protect Mr. Trump.She told the committee that on the night before her initial interview, another aide to Mr. Meadows, Ben Williamson, called her with a message.“Mark wants you to know that he knows you’re loyal and he knows you’ll do the right thing tomorrow and that you’re going to protect him and the boss,” she quoted Mr. Williamson as saying, in an apparent reference to Mr. Trump. “You know, he knows that we’re all on the same team and we’re all a family.”Mr. Williamson did not respond to a message seeking comment.Ms. Hutchinson said that Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, described Donald J. Trump as in a constant state of fury over his election loss. Doug Mills/The New York TimesMs. Hutchinson also said Mr. Passantino was working to “protect” Eric Herschmann, another lawyer for Mr. Trump, who also emerged as a standout of the Jan. 6 committee hearings for his colorful and profane put-downs of the attempts to overturn the 2020 election.In a statement through a spokesman, Mr. Herschmann disputed parts of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony.“She told Mr. Herschmann that she was desperate, had no money and needed to find a lawyer,” the statement said. “Mr. Herschmann never put her in contact with any lawyer. No one discussed her testimony with Mr. Herschmann, nor did anyone ever try to confirm with him whether her testimony was accurate. The only thing he ever said to her about her testimony was to be truthful.”In her two most recent interviews with the committee, Ms. Hutchinson repeatedly suggested that Mr. Passantino sought to shape her testimony and encouraged her to avoid mentioning events that might embarrass Mr. Trump. She said she was concerned in particular about being asked about an episode in which Mr. Trump was said to have lunged at a Secret Service agent who refused to take him to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.According to Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, Mr. Passantino advised her to say that she did not recall the event if she was asked about it. “The less you remember, the better,” she quoted him as saying.Mr. Passantino left the White House Counsel’s Office midway through Mr. Trump’s term. But he maintained ties to Mr. Trump’s world, including appearing in court as a lawyer for the Trump Organization regarding some of Mr. Trump’s legal matters.His representation of Ms. Hutchinson was unorthodox from the start.According to her testimony, she hired him without a formal engagement letter — a move he told her that she did not have to worry about. “We have you taken care of,” she quoted him as saying.Mr. Passantino also told Ms. Hutchinson that she would not have to pay his bills. “We’re not telling people where funding is coming from right now,” he said by her account. “Don’t worry. We’re taking care of you.”Mr. Passantino took a leave of absence from his law firm this week and defended himself against what he said were false insinuations by the panel that he had interfered with his client’s testimony.In a statement, Mr. Passantino said he “believed Ms. Hutchinson was being truthful and cooperative with the committee throughout the several interview sessions in which I represented her.”He added: “External communications made on Ms. Hutchinson’s behalf while I was her counsel were made with her express authorization. Unfortunately, the committee never reached out to me to get the facts.”In early March, on the day of her first closed-door appearance before the committee, Ms. Hutchinson said she was nervous, feeling as if “I had Trump looking over my shoulder.”She said her anxiety grew worse when the panel asked about the episode with Mr. Trump and the Secret Service agent and, following Mr. Passantino’s advice, she said on several occasions that she did not recall it.Seemingly in a panic, she took a break from the interview and told Mr. Passantino in a hallway that she felt as though she had lied to the committee by avoiding talking about the incident. Mr. Passantino tried to assuage her, she testified, arguing that saying she did not recall was not the same as lying.“They don’t know what you know, Cassidy,” she quoted him as saying. “They don’t know that you can recall some of these things.”After the interview, Ms. Hutchinson said, Mr. Passantino told her that he would help her get her “a really good job in Trump world.”“We’re going to get you taken care of,” she quoted him as saying. “We want to keep you in the family.”Still feeling as though she had lied to the committee, Ms. Hutchinson arranged for a friend from the White House, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Mr. Trump’s former director of strategic communications, to quietly reach out to the panel and have her return for another interview to explore the incident involving Mr. Trump and the Secret Service.After that interview, Ms. Hutchinson said, Mr. Passantino, who still represented her at that point, was stunned that investigators knew about the episode. He later related what had happened during the interview to Mr. Meadows’s lawyers even though Ms. Hutchinson had asked him not to.The committee has so far released transcripts of more than 40 of its hundreds of witness interviews. The transcripts are also going to the Justice Department, which has been pursuing a criminal investigation into the efforts to keep Mr. Trump in power despite his election loss. More

Democrats and Republicans managed to come together to update the archaic Electoral Count Act after they recognized it could again be abused to subvert the presidential vote.WASHINGTON — Like most members of Congress, Senator Susan Collins was rocked by the events of Jan. 6, 2021, as a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and violently disrupted the ceremonial tally of presidential electoral votes.Almost exactly a year later, Ms. Collins, Republican of Maine, happened upon an article by a prominent Republican election law expert proposing changes in the way Congress counted electoral votes, in the hopes of preventing a recurrence. She headed into the regular private weekly party luncheon last Jan. 4 and spontaneously raised the idea of overhauling the antiquated 135-year-old law, the Electoral Count Act.She found a ready audience among some fellow Republicans who recognized the threat.“Our system was clearly at risk,” Ms. Collins said of the prospect that ambiguities in the archaic law could again be exploited to try to overturn a presidential election and halt the peaceful transfer of power.There was one significant problem. Senate Democrats had election-related goals of their own aimed at countering attempts at voter suppression in some Republican-led states. They saw the new proposal as a subterfuge intended to sabotage their much broader legislation.As word got out that Ms. Collins, with early encouragement from Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and always a figure of suspicion among Democrats, was pursuing changes in the electoral count law, the Senate’s top Democrat objected sharply.“The McConnell plan, that’s what it is, is unacceptable, unacceptably insufficient and even offensive,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said as he blistered the “cynical” idea on the Senate floor on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 assault. “Score keeping matters little if the game is rigged.”Now, another year later, Congress is poised to approve changes to the law in an effort to better secure the presidential election system that was severely tested when President Donald J. Trump and his supporters sought to exploit uncertainty in the law to hold on to power.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.It took the efforts of a bipartisan group of 15 senators, months of intense negotiations, the endorsement of outside experts aligned with both parties and a stark realization that the outdated law could again be misused if changes weren’t made. And the results the next time could be worse.“It has been lying there like unexploded ordnance since 1887,” said Bob Bauer, an election law specialist who had served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama, referring to the existing law. “It just cried out for attention.”It also required an acceptance by Democrats that the law needed to be strengthened even if they could not obtain much broader voter protections they were pursuing. Democrats failed in that push because of Republican resistance and a refusal by two Democrats to eliminate the filibuster to impose the voting changes.Congress is poised to approve changes to the law in an effort to assure that it cannot be used to subvert the counting of electoral votes.Kenny Holston/The New York Times“It finally got down to what can we do truly to address this horrific insurrection,” said Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Ms. Collins’s initial bipartisan partner in the effort. “How do we prevent this from ever happening again? And that’s really how we got down to the basics.”Under the legislation, which was deemed urgent enough to be added to the huge year-end spending bill now heading toward final approval, the role of the vice president in overseeing the quadrennial counting is spelled out as strictly ceremonial. That provision was a response to Mr. Trump’s unsuccessful effort to convince Vice President Mike Pence that the law gave him the power to reject electoral votes from some states and block or delay certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 election.The new legislation also raises the threshold for objecting to a state’s electoral votes to one-fifth of both the House and Senate. Until now, just one House member and one senator could force the House and the Senate to consider objections, and members of both parties have raised objections over the years with little to no evidence to back them up. The legislation also seeks to prevent competing slates of electors from being presented to Congress.The article that spurred Ms. Collins was written by Ben Ginsberg, a well-known Republican election lawyer who served as counsel to the 2000 presidential campaign of George W. Bush and was deeply involved in the Florida recount.He argued in National Review that Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself should want the law rewritten because the Jan. 6 assault had essentially provided a “blueprint” for future efforts to undermine an election, noting that in 2024 a Democratic vice president would be presiding over the counting of the ballots.After opening the door to a potential rewrite, Ms. Collins immediately began meeting with a core group of senators who are typically part of bipartisan Senate efforts, including Mr. Manchin, the Democrats Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona (now an independent), and the Republicans Mitt Romney of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.The group quickly expanded to include the Republicans Todd Young of Indiana, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, along with two more Democrats, Chris Coons of Delaware and Mark Warner of Virginia.As their work was proceeding behind the scenes, Democrats were pushing ahead with an ambitious plan to counter what they saw as a pervasive effort in Republican-led states to make it more difficult to vote after an expansion of vote-by-mail efforts and other pandemic-releated changes led to Democratic victories in 2020. Democrats said the state voting law changes were aimed mainly at minorities, and President Biden infuriated Republicans when he referred to the new laws as “Jim Crow 2.0.”The Democratic legislation encountered united Republican opposition in the Senate and died after Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema refused to support a change in Senate rules to gut the filibuster. Mr. Manchin said he sought to incorporate some of the more general electoral provisions in the rewrite of the electoral count law but was rebuffed by Republicans.Ms. Collins said the bipartisan group needed to remain focused on the electoral count or risk a shattering of the coalition.“If we got sidetracked and started re-litigating the Voting Rights Act, we would lose the Republican support, and the effort would go nowhere,” she said in an interview. “And an opportunity to really make a difference in future presidential elections would be lost.”With Democrats unhappy about the fate of their broader bill, Ms. Shaheen encouraged Ms. Collins to add more Democrats to the group to increase chances that Democrats could ultimately be persuaded to back it. Senators Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut and Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, both Democrats, came aboard as Ms. Collins said she realized she needed to broaden the ideological base “beyond the usual suspects.”Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said he unsuccessfully sought to incorporate some of the more general voting rights provisions favored by his party in the rewrite of the electoral count law.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesMs. Shaheen said she suggested “that having them involved from the beginning in the discussion would be very helpful in persuading the rest of the Democratic caucus that this was a serious effort and we needed to do this even though we couldn’t get some of the changes people wanted.”Members of the bipartisan group also kept in regular contact with the leaders of the Rules Committee, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the Democrat who leads the panel, and Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, its top Republican, to ease the way for the panel’s review of the legislation and avoid criticism they were operating outside of normal channels.Ms. Collins also briefed top White House officials on the legislation to assure them it was both in good faith and a necessary effort. And the group enlisted respected legal experts like Mr. Bauer and Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and a senior lawyer in the administration of George W. Bush, to advise the lawmakers and publicly back the legislation.The Rules Committee ultimately voted 14 to 1 on Sept. 27 to send the legislation to the floor with just Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, objecting and Mr. McConnell voting in favor. Even Mr. Schumer got on board despite his early skepticism.“I worked to get this legislation included in the omnibus because we must prevent the electoral count process from being used as a trigger point for insurrection again,” said Ms. Klobuchar, adding that Senate approval means “we are one step closer to protecting our country from the chaos we saw on Jan. 6.” More

Benjamin Netanyahu needed the support of far-right factions to return to the prime minister’s office. Now they want to curb the powers of the judiciary, giving rise to fears about an erosion of democracy.JERUSALEM — As Israel’s prime minister designate, Benjamin Netanyahu, prepares to swear in his new hard-line government and return to office, his deals to cement the support of far-right coalition partners are raising widespread concerns about the country’s future as a liberal democracy.The emerging coalition will be the most hard-right and religious administration in Israel’s history, made up of Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party and another five far-right and ultra-Orthodox factions. Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving prime minister, who was ousted 18 months ago, is on trial for corruption and has grown ever more dependent on these hard-line allies because the more liberal parties refuse to sit in a government led by a premier under criminal indictment.That dependency, critics say, has weakened him in the coalition negotiations, forcing him to go along with at least some of the demands for far-reaching changes that would limit the powers of the judiciary and curb the independence of the police.Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line allies need him just as much as he needs them; they, too, have no alternative path to power. But their fundamental lack of trust in Mr. Netanyahu, who has a record of breaking promises to coalition partners, led them to insist on a rush of legislation to anchor their new roles and authorities in law, with potentially damaging consequences for the democratic system.Israelis demonstrating against the new government of Benjamin Netanyahu last week in Jerusalem.Atef Safadi/EPA, via Shutterstock“What we see in the legislation preceding the formation of the government is a change in the rules of the game of Israeli democracy,” said Gayil Talshir, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.The outgoing prime minister, Yair Lapid, a centrist, described the incoming government on Thursday as “dangerous, extremist, irresponsible.”“It will end badly,” he said, calling it “a clearance sale of Israel’s future.”The legislative rush and drafts of coalition agreements include proposals that would allow Parliament to override Supreme Court decisions and would give more weight to politicians in the selection of judges.Legal amendments would greatly expand the powers of the incoming minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who oversees the police. Mr. Ben-Gvir is the leader of the ultranationalist Jewish Power party and the main advocate of the bill, which would give him the authority to set policy for the police, something critics say will allow him to politicize the force’s operations.He was convicted in the past on charges of inciting racism and of support for a terrorist group, and ran in the election on a bullish ticket of fighting organized crime and increasing governance, particularly in areas heavily populated by members of Israel’s Arab minority.What to Know About Israel’s New GovernmentNetanyahu’s Return: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, is set to return to power at the helm of the most right-wing administration in Israeli history.The Far Right’s Rise: To win election, Mr. Netanyahu and his far-right allies harnessed perceived threats to Israel’s Jewish identity after ethnic unrest and the subsequent inclusion of Arab lawmakers in the government.Arab Allies: Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies have a history of making anti-Arab statements. Three Arab countries that normalized relations with Israel in 2020 appear unconcerned.Worries Among Palestinians: To some Palestinians, the rise of Israel’s far right can scarcely make things worse. But many fear a surge of violence.Another amendment will allow Bezalel Smotrich, the leader of the Religious Zionism party, to serve as a second minister in the hallowed Ministry of Defense. Mr. Smotrich, whose party ultimately seeks to annex the occupied West Bank, has been promised authority over the agencies dealing with Jewish settlements and Palestinian and Israeli civilian life in the occupied West Bank, in consultation with the prime minister.A third change will allow Aryeh Deri, the leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, to serve as a minister despite a recent conviction and a suspended prison sentence for tax fraud. That amendment, analysts say, could end up applying to Mr. Netanyahu should he ultimately be convicted or reach a plea deal including a suspended sentence.Mr. Netanyahu denies all wrongdoing and says the cases against him will collapse in court.The incoming minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who oversees the police. Mr. Ben-Gvir is the leader of the ultranationalist Jewish Power party and the main advocate behind a bill greatly expanding his powers.Gil Cohen-Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesStill, experts say, the proposed changes outlined in the coalition agreements are still in flux.“Constitutional political changes are being carried out in record speed, even before the government has been established,” said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, a nonpartisan research center. “This demonstrates the fragility of our democracy.”But Mr. Plesner emphasized that such practices were not unprecedented in Israel and that there were still many possible outcomes.“There is a discrepancy,” he said, “between the ideas and initiatives and declarations of politicians before elections, and what is actually happening in the negotiating room and being manifested in coalition agreements and government policy.”Mr. Netanyahu, who has already pushed Israel further to the right during his 15 years in power, will now be the main force of moderation in his government compared with his more hard-line partners. Though he is known for his aggressive campaign tactics, Mr. Netanyahu has generally protected the democratic system during his long tenure.He has rejected the warnings about damage to Israeli democracy as fear-mongering by those who lost the election and has pledged to act in the interest of all Israel’s citizens.“We were elected to lead in our way, the way of the national right and the way of the liberal right,” he said in a recent speech to Parliament, “and that’s what we will do.”The most immediate concerns revolve around the law expanding the powers of Mr. Ben-Gvir, the national security minister. It has passed its first reading in Parliament but is still pending final approval.In the past, the minister overseeing the police would set policy priorities in consultation with the commissioner of police, but would not interfere in operational matters or have any influence over investigations.The proposed legislation subordinates the police to the minister’s authority, leading legal officials and experts to fear a politicization of the force. And it grants the minister the right to set priorities and time frames for investigations in a departure from past practices.“The Israel Police will be run under a threatening and belligerent man who lacks responsibility and experience, who wishes to turn it into a political agency,” and to turn the police commissioner into a “puppet,” the outgoing minister of public security, Omer Bar-Lev, told Parliament this week.Mr. Ben-Gvir argues that the police should be subordinate to a minister’s policy in the same way that the military carries out the government’s policy. But critics say that unlike the military, which fights Israel’s enemies, the mission of the police is to deal with Israeli citizens — including corrupt politicians.Aida Touma-Sliman, a Palestinian-Israeli lawmaker, told the committee discussing the bill that the incoming minister’s goals were “ideological” and “racist” and would end up creating a “political police.”Human rights activists say they are worried that the legislation giving Mr. Ben-Gvir broader control over the police could be used to suppress protests.Noa Sattath, the executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, said her organization petitioned the parliamentary committee discussing the bill to exclude protests from Mr. Ben-Gvir’s areas of authority, as did the committee’s own legal adviser. But Mr. Ben-Gvir rejected that recommendation.“Clearly the minister wants to have authority over the way the police deal with protests,” said Ms. Sattath, who described the bill as endangering one of the foundations of the Israeli democratic system.Clash between Palestinians and the Israeli army in Nablus, in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday.Zain Jaafar/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn the face of mounting criticism, Mr. Ben-Gvir told the parliamentary committee on Thursday that he would postpone the discussions and voting on the most contentious parts of the bill until after the inauguration of the government.Also of concern are the proposals to change the way the judiciary operates.If implemented, they will dramatically curb the powers of the Supreme Court, which has long been seen by liberal Israelis and analysts as one of the country’s most important institutions safeguarding against the erosion of liberal democratic values. Because Israel has only one house of Parliament and no formal constitution, the judiciary plays a critical role in protecting minority rights and offsetting rule by the parliamentary majority.The coalition partners are keen to see these judicial changes, not least to ensure that the Supreme Court cannot overturn the hasty legislation now making its way through Parliament.“In the coming weeks we will have to face the most significant threats Israeli democracy has seen in recent decades,” Mr. Plesner said at a recent conference at his institute on the implications of the judicial changes proposed by members of the incoming coalition.“The issues on the agenda concern the nature of the state and the basic rights of each and every one of us.”Myra Noveck More

Imagine what it’s like to live in a state of perpetual uncertainty — at any moment you could lose your job because you no longer have the right to work legally. Picture families ripped apart — a mother sent back to a country she barely remembers, forced to leave her child behind. What would you do if the teachers, doctors and nurses in your community were suddenly barred from entering your children’s classrooms or treating your loved ones?As someone who is protected by DACA, I think a lot about this.During this lame duck session of Congress, while Democrats still control both chambers, there was an opportunity to keep this scenario from becoming a reality. A bipartisan proposal, led by Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Thom Tillis, would have provided a path to citizenship for about two million immigrant youths, including recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. But negotiations to include it in the 2023 omnibus appropriations bill failed.This might’ve been the last chance to save DACA. The program remains under attack and could be undone by the Supreme Court as early as next year, ripping away work permits and protections from deportation for hundreds of thousands of young people. Republicans, readying to seize control of the House in less than two weeks, have already made it clear that they won’t advance legislation that protects undocumented immigrants.I first came to Washington in 2010 to fight for the Dream Act, which would have provided a path to citizenship to undocumented people who came to the United States as children. I was a college student at Texas A&M University, and I persuaded United We Dream, a nonprofit immigrant advocacy organization, to cover the cost of a bus to transport me and other young undocumented students from Texas to Washington so we could join rallies and meet with elected officials to lobby for the bill.When the Dream Act failed to pass, many of us came out more publicly about our immigration status in an effort to pressure President Barack Obama to act. Two years later, he signed an executive order to create DACA, a temporary fix that allowed young undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children, as I did from Mexico at age 7, to obtain work permits and protection from deportation if they met certain criteria.Today, as executive director of United We Dream, I help to lead our network of undocumented youths all the while knowing I have to live with the same uncertainty, the same inability to plan, without a path to citizenship.Last week, I watched as hundreds of United We Dream members, alongside other immigrant youths and allies, descended on Washington from states including Alaska, Arizona, Michigan and North Carolina to urge Congress to act. Those young people, who reminded me so much of myself in 2010, filled my spirit with their hope, determination and resilience.We have shared our stories, we have held rallies, we have knocked on doors in the middle of a pandemic. It breaks my heart that once again Congress has failed us.Our loss of work permits and deportation protections would have far-reaching implications for our country. As DACA recipients, we have to renew our status every two years. If the program were to end, we would most likely fall out of status on a rolling basis, which means an estimated 1,000 people would lose their jobs each day for two years.If we lose our right to live and work here legally, we will lose our ability to pay our mortgages, our access to employer-sponsored health insurance and the ability to pay our employees. According to the New American Economy Research Fund, DACA-eligible immigrants collectively earn more than $20 billion per year, most of which is either paid out in federal taxes or spent in the economy.We represent some 200,000 essential workers, including nearly 30,000 health care workers who have helped communities across the country get through this pandemic. The education profession is among the top careers DACA recipients pursue. If the program ends, the field stands to lose 800 DACA-protected professionals per month for two years. The end of the program will also bring uncertainty to the over 2.5 million people who live with a DACA recipient.Providing citizenship for immigrant youths has broad support from voters. And Democrats in Congress owe their legislative power to Black and brown organizers on the ground in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania and Nevada who have been organizing for years, leading to significant grass-roots support. And in Arizona, where they have been fighting back against racist anti-immigrant policies for over a decade. Those organizers knocked on doors in 2018, 2020 and 2022 to help Democrats in Arizona win and retain two Senate seats and delivered the state’s Electoral College votes to a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in over 20 years.When I think about the millions of young immigrants, including DACA recipients, who have had to live their lives in a perpetual state of limbo, I am filled with righteous anger, which I channel into action and a discipline of hope that we are working to create the conditions for us to win and to build the futures we deserve.We need President Biden and members of Congress to come together and meet this moment with the urgency it requires.Greisa Martínez Rosas is a DACA recipient and executive director of United We Dream, the nation’s largest youth-led immigrant network.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

Mr. Santos, the congressman-elect from New York, has yet to address numerous inconsistencies raised by The New York Times about his background.Representative-elect George Santos broke his silence on Thursday, vowing that he would come forward next week to address questions surrounding his background.Mr. Santos has been the subject of intense scrutiny following the publication of a New York Times report that raised questions about whether he misrepresented key parts of his background and finances, and filed incomplete or inaccurate congressional disclosures.“I have my story to tell and it will be told next week,” Mr. Santos, a Republican, said on Twitter.Mr. Santos, 34, has refused to answer any questions from The Times about his past and finances, and has only pointed to a statement released by his lawyer that accused the Times of attempting to smear him. In the report published on Monday, The Times found that key pillars of Mr. Santos’s résumé — including his education, ties to Wall Street firms and charitable endeavors that formed the basis of his pitch to voters — could not be substantiated. Instead, The Times found a string of debts and legal trouble, including an unresolved criminal matter in Brazil, that raise questions about the congressman’s rise to power and wealth.Mr. Santos has faced numerous calls to address The Times’s reporting. In his statement on Twitter, he said, “I want to assure everyone that I will address your questions and that I remain committed to deliver the results I campaigned on; Public safety, Inflation, Education & more. Happy Holidays to all!”Mr. Santos’s brief statement on Twitter came a day after the incoming House minority leader, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, suggested that Mr. Santos appeared “to be in the witness protection program” after he spent the week avoiding the press.“No one can find him,” Mr. Jeffries, a Democrat, said at a news conference. “He’s hiding out from legitimate questions that his constituents are asking about his education, about his so-called charity, about his work experience, about his criminal entanglement in Brazil, about every aspect, it appears, of his life.”On Wednesday, The Forward, a Jewish publication, reported that Mr. Santos may have misled voters about his account of his Jewish ancestry, including that his maternal grandparents fled persecution around World War II.The House Republican leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, did not answer questions about Mr. Santos on Thursday afternoon before walking onto the House floor, according to several accounts on Twitter from Washington reporters.Mr. Santos’s lawyer, Joe Murray, told The Times earlier on Thursday that he did “not anticipate any response” to further inquiries, though he acknowledged that would be subject to change.On Thursday, a spokeswoman for the New York attorney general, Letitia James, said that her office was “looking into some of the things that were raised” by The Times’s report.Jonah E. Bromwich More

January 6 panel releases transcripts of testimony ahead of 800-page reportMost of 34 witnesses whose transcripts have been released invoked fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination An 800-page report set to be released on Thursday by House investigators will conclude that Donald Trump criminally plotted to overturn his 2020 election defeat and “provoked his supporters to violence” at the Capitol with false voter fraud claims.From Liz Cheney to Donald Trump: winners and losers from the January 6 hearingsRead moreBefore the release, on Wednesday night, the January 6 committee released 34 transcripts from 1,000 interviews conducted over 18 months. Most of the interviewees were witnesses who invoked their fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination.More transcripts and some video were also expected to be released.“I guarantee there’ll be some very interesting new information in the report and even more so in the transcripts,” Adam Schiff of California, a Democratic member of the committee, told CBS.Subjects of the interview transcripts released on Wednesday included Jeffrey Clark, a senior official in the Trump justice department who worked to advance Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, and John Eastman, a conservative lawyer and an architect of Trump’s last-ditch efforts to stay in office.Each invoked his fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination.Also included in the release was testimony from witnesses associated with extremist groups involved in planning the attack. The Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes, convicted last month of seditious conspiracy, and the former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio both spoke to the committee. Tarrio and four other members of the extremist group will appear in court on similar charges this month.Committee members hope for criminal charges against Trump and key allies. Only the justice department has the power to prosecute, so the panel sent referrals recommending investigation of Trump for four crimes, including aiding an insurrection.At the meeting on Monday to adopt the report and recommend charges, the Democratic chair, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said: “This committee is nearing the end of its work but as a country we remain in strange and uncharted waters.“We’ve never had a president of the United States stir up a violent attempt to block the transfer of power. I believe nearly two years later, this is still a time of reflection and reckoning.”On Wednesday, Thompson was asked by MSNBC if he had confidence the Department of Justice would pursue charges.He said: “I am more comfortable with the fact that the special counsel” – the prosecutor Jack Smith, appointed last month – “has been actively engaged in pursuing any and all the information available. They have been in contact with our committee, asking us to provide various transcripts and what have you.”Thompson was asked if the committee was cooperating with the justice department.He said: “Yes … we made the decision [with] consultation with other members that we will cooperate. But early on … we felt we had to get the report done. We had to get it filed, which we’ll file on Thursday morning, so the whole public will have access to it.“There were people that we deposed that justice had not deposed. There were electors in various states that justice couldn’t find. We found them.“We deposed them. And so we had a lot of information, but now we make all that information available to [the justice department]. And if they come back and want to interview staff or any members, ask any additional information, we’ll be more than happy to do it.”According to the report’s executive summary, which was released on Monday, “the central cause of January 6 was one man, former president Donald Trump, who many others followed. None of the events of January 6 would have happened without him.”The report’s eight chapters of findings will largely mirror nine hearings that presented evidence from interviews and millions of pages of documents. The 154-page summary detailed how Trump amplified false claims on social media and in public, encouraging supporters to travel to Washington and protest Joe Biden’s win, and how he told them to “fight like hell” at a rally in front of the White House then did little to stop them as they beat police, broke into the Capitol and sent lawmakers running.It was a “multi-part conspiracy”, the summary concluded.Trump is running again for the presidency but faces multiple investigations, including into his role in the insurrection and the presence of classified documents at his Florida estate. A House committee is expected to release his tax returns, documents he has fought to keep private. He has been blamed by Republicans for a poor showing in the midterm elections, leaving him politically vulnerable.Most Republicans have stayed loyal but the January 6 hearings were watched by tens of millions.Trump slammed the committee as “thugs and scoundrels”. In response to the criminal referrals, he said: “These folks don’t get it that when they come after me, people who love freedom rally around me. It strengthens me.”Republicans take over the House on 3 January. The committee will be dissolved.TopicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

The hearings of the House select committee on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol presented a careful, convincing and disturbing account of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. They provided an abundance of detail about what we’ve long known: that Mr. Trump and his allies engaged not only in an assault on Congress, but on democracy itself.The work done by the committee over the past 18 months may be even more important than its report, which is expected to be released Thursday. The long months of scouring investigation and the carefully staged hearings, in which the evidence of Mr. Trump’s malfeasance was presented to the public, were critical elements in the nation’s full understanding of the attack on the Capitol. Through the work of these hearings, Congress showed that the best possible answer to political violence lay in the tools that were right at hand: the rule of law, checks and balances, testimony given under oath and the careful process of bureaucracy.Like a slow-motion replay, the committee’s work also gave Americans a second chance to comprehend the enormity of what transpired on Jan. 6. It seems plausible, as some members of the panel have asserted, that the hearings made protecting democracy a significant issue in the midterm elections and helped to persuade voters to reject some election deniers who ran for state offices. The sustained attention on Mr. Trump’s conduct in his final days in office is also valuable as he mounts a renewed campaign for the presidency. And the hearings focused the attention of the public and policymakers on the extremist groups that participated in the attack on the Capitol and that pose a threat of renewed violence.Congressional hearings are often filled with the distraction of partisan squabbling, grandstanding and detours into tangential subjects. The Jan. 6 committee was different, and the American people were better off for it. Mr. Trump and others refused to answer subpoenas from the committee, which would have given them an opportunity to answer questions and make their case. Their refusal is unfortunate; they deserve the chance to defend themselves and present their account of the facts, and Americans deserve the chance to hear from them. They’re still due that chance, and Mr. Trump may still have his say in a court of law.The seven Democrats and two Republicans who served on the committee captured the attention of Americans who may not have been sufficiently informed or alarmed about Mr. Trump’s role in the events of Jan. 6 to take notice. The two Republicans on the committee, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, deserve particular credit for defying their own party to participate. Their presence, and the damning testimony delivered by Mr. Trump’s own aides and allies, conveyed the message that some things are necessarily more important than loyalty to a political party.Americans have also learned, thanks to these hearings, exactly how close this country came to even greater tragedies. Rioters came within 40 feet of Vice President Mike Pence. A Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, in late December 2020 sought to send a letter — based on lies — to officials in Georgia and potentially several other key states that warned of election irregularities and called for a special legislative session to select alternate slates of presidential electors.The lesson, in part, is that our democracy is inescapably fragile. It requires Americans, and those who serve them as elected officials and in law enforcement, to act in good faith. The committee rightly spent many hours of its work documenting the actions of all those local, state and federal officials who defied Mr. Trump’s demands and acted in many different ways to protect democracy.The dangers remain clear and present, so this work is not complete. House Republicans will be in the majority come January, including many who sought to overturn President Biden’s victory, and some who encouraged the rioters.Political violence is on the rise, especially among right-wing extremists.And Mr. Trump is running for president again on a platform of his grievances, still insistent that he did not lose the last election, still refusing to accept the rule of law. He is, in fact, escalating his rhetoric.The nation needs to respond to these threats. Congress needs to pass the reforms to the electoral process that are included in the year-end omnibus spending bill. Law enforcement can do more to crack down on extremist violence. Voters should reject Mr. Trump at the polls.As the select committee’s chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, emphasized at its final hearing on Monday, the government should continue to pursue those responsible for the Jan. 6 attack and to hold them accountable.More than 900 people already have been charged with crimes related to the attack on the Capitol, and several hundred of those have either been convicted or pleaded guilty. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the extremist Oath Keepers group, was convicted of seditious conspiracy in November. Jury selection has begun in the federal trial of Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, another extremist group, who faces similar charges.The committee called upon the Justice Department to also bring criminal charges against Mr. Trump and the lawyer John Eastman, for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including Mr. Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack. The Justice Department is still engaged in its own investigation. As we wrote in August, if there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then he should be charged and tried; the same goes for all of the others whom the committee referred to the Justice Department.Mr. Thompson, urging action on all these fronts, said that as a nation, “We remain in strange and uncharted waters.” Yet the hearings also underscored that the country is better off with clarity and truth.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

Ms. McClellan, who is favored to win in the Democratic-leaning district in February, could become the first Black woman to represent Virginia in Congress.Jennifer McClellan, a Virginia state senator, won a Democratic primary in a special House election in the state’s Fourth Congressional District, according to the local Democratic Party. The victory early Wednesday puts her on a path to become the first Black woman to represent Virginia in Congress.The special election, to fill the seat held by Representative A. Donald McEachin until his death late last month, is scheduled for Feb. 21. Mr. McEachin, a Democrat, overwhelmingly won re-election in the midterms, but died weeks later at the age of 61 after a yearslong battle with colorectal cancer.Because the district leans Democratic — it is a predominantly Black and Latino region that stretches from Richmond into rural counties along the North Carolina border — Ms. McClellan is highly favored to win in February. She will face Leon Benjamin, a Republican and local pastor. Ms. McClellan, whose State Senate district largely overlaps with that of the House seat she is seeking, ran unsuccessfully for governor last year in a crowded primary field, but the effort elevated her statewide profile. She won the special primary with nearly 85 percent of the 27,900 votes cast, according to the state’s Democratic Party.In the final days of the one-week primary campaign, an overwhelming majority of Virginia Democrats coalesced around Ms. McClellan’s candidacy. All eight members of Virginia’s Democratic congressional delegation threw their support behind her, as did scores of state lawmakers and several national groups supporting women and candidates of color. Ms. McClellan centered her message on her Virginia roots and legislative accomplishments. In an interview on Friday, she said being a Black woman had helped shape her policies, particularly on workers’ rights and maternal health.Her top Democratic rival was State Senator Joe Morrissey, a self-described rebel within the party. Mr. Morrissey, a former defense lawyer, was disbarred twice and spent time in jail for aiding the delinquency of a minor in 2014. The minor involved later became his wife. In January 2022, then-Gov. Ralph Northam pardoned Mr. Morrissey for his conviction in the case.Mr. Morrissey has voted against Democratic policies and has signaled his opposition to proposed state policies protecting abortion access. More