Elections

Justice department asks Pence to testify in Trump investigationEx-vice-president considering the request, according to sources, but said last week he would not testify to the January 6 panel The US Department of Justice has asked Mike Pence to testify in its investigation of Donald Trump’s election subversion and the former vice-president was considering the request, sources with knowledge of the situation have told the Guardian.So Help Me God review: Mike Pence’s tortured bid for Republican relevanceRead moreLast week, Pence said he would not testify to the House January 6 committee, telling CBS: “Congress has no right to my testimony on separation of powers under the constitution of the United States. And I believe it will establish a terrible precedent for the Congress to summon a vice-president of the United States to speak about deliberations that took place at the White House.”Pence also said the committee, made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans, was too partisan. The chair and vice-chair of the panel, Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney, rejected that charge.The New York Times first reported the news of the approach to Pence and said he recognised that the Department of Justice investigation could not be dismissed.The newspaper said the request to Pence was made before the attorney general, Merrick Garland, announced last Friday the appointment of a special counsel to oversee the justice department investigation.Garland said the appointment of the career prosecutor Jack Smith would not slow the investigation of Trump’s attempt to stay in power despite losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden, culminating in the deadly Capitol attack on 6 January 2021.Smith will also oversee the investigation of Trump’s retention of White House records.Trump has tried to stop other senior aides testifying to the Department of Justice, claiming executive privilege. Many aides have been served with subpoenas.Pence and the Department of Justice did not immediately comment on the Times report.On Sunday, Pence was asked if he thought Trump committed a crime in connection with the events of January 6, when some Trump supporters who attacked the Capitol chanted “Hang Mike Pence”.Pence told NBC: “I don’t know if it is criminal to listen to bad advice from lawyers.”Eyeing his own presidential run in 2024, Pence must pursue a balancing act as he seeks to distance himself from Trump while appealing to Republican voters.In that spirit he has published a memoir, So Help Me God, which deals in detail with his version of events during his time at Trump’s side. The book includes an extensive account of Pence’s role in and views of Trump’s attempts to stay in office.Pence ultimately refused to block certification of electoral college results, a process over which he presided. Trump, he writes, said he was “too honest” to take part in a plot based on claims of widespread electoral fraud. But Pence also says Republicans were right to lodge objections to results in key states, as it “meant we would have a substantive debate”.Either way, it seems Trump would have reason to fear testimony to the Department of Justice by his former vice-president. In his book and in interviews to promote it, Pence has made clear he blames Trump for the Capitol riot.Earlier this month, Pence told ABC Trump’s words and actions “angered me”.“But I turned to my daughter who was standing nearby. And I said, ‘It doesn’t take courage to break the law. It takes courage to uphold the law.’ The president’s words were reckless. It’s clear he decided to be part of the problem.”TopicsMike PenceDonald TrumpLaw (US)US Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

Prosecutors want to speak with the former vice president as a witness to former President Donald Trump’s efforts to remain in power, and he is said to be considering how to respond.The Justice Department is seeking to question former Vice President Mike Pence as a witness in connection with its criminal investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to stay in power after he lost the 2020 election, according to two people familiar with the matter.Mr. Pence, according to people familiar with his thinking, is open to considering the request, recognizing that the Justice Department’s criminal investigation is different from the inquiry by the House Jan. 6 committee, whose overtures he has flatly rejected.Complicating the situation is whether Mr. Trump would try to invoke executive privilege to stop him or limit his testimony, a step that he has taken with limited success so far with other former officials.Mr. Pence was present for some of the critical moments in which Mr. Trump and his allies schemed to keep him in office and block the congressional certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. An agreement for him to cooperate would be the latest remarkable twist in an investigation that is already fraught with legal and political consequences, involving a former president who is now a declared candidate to return to the White House — and whose potential rivals for the 2024 Republican nomination include Mr. Pence.Thomas Windom, one of the lead investigators examining the efforts to overturn the election, reached out to Mr. Pence’s team in the weeks before Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed a special counsel on Friday to oversee the Jan. 6 investigation and a separate inquiry into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents, according to one of the people familiar with the matter. Mr. Garland has said that the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith, will not slow the investigation.Officials at the Justice Department declined to comment. A spokesman for Mr. Pence also declined to comment.The discussions about questioning Mr. Pence are said to be in their early stages. Mr. Pence has not been subpoenaed, and the process could take months, because Mr. Trump can seek to block, or slow, his testimony by trying to invoke executive privilege.Mr. Trump has cited executive privilege to try to stop other former top officials from talking with investigators. While those efforts have generally been unsuccessful in stopping testimony by the officials to a federal grand jury, they have significantly slowed the process.Mr. Trump’s efforts to slow or block testimony included asserting executive privilege over testimony from two of Mr. Pence’s top aides: his former chief of staff, Marc Short, and his general counsel, Greg Jacob. But both men returned for grand jury interviews after the Justice Department, in a closed-door court proceeding, fought the effort to apply executive privilege.Mr. Pence, who rebuffed Mr. Trump’s efforts to enlist him in the plan to block certification of the Electoral College results, has been publicly critical of Mr. Trump’s conduct in the run-up to the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol and on the day of the attack, when members of a pro-Trump mob were chanting “Hang Mike Pence.”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.During an appearance in New Hampshire in August, Mr. Pence indicated he was open to appearing before the House Jan. 6 committee, which had been pushing to have him tell his story, but he offered a caveat.“If there was an invitation to participate, I’d consider it,” Mr. Pence said at the time. But he added that he was concerned that speaking to a congressional committee would violate the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. “But as I said, I don’t want to prejudge. If ever any formal invitation” came, he said, “we’d give it due consideration.”However, in interviews for the release of his new book, “So Help Me God,” Mr. Pence has been more emphatic in his opposition to providing testimony to the House committee, asserting that “Congress has no right to my testimony” about what he witnessed.“There’s profound separation-of-powers issues,” Mr. Pence told The New York Times in an interview. “And it would be a terrible precedent.”But Mr. Pence, according to people familiar with his thinking, sees the Justice Department inquiry differently given that it is a criminal investigation. His testimony could be compelled by subpoena, though none has been issued.The former vice president is being represented by Emmet Flood, a veteran Washington-based lawyer who served as the lead Trump White House lawyer dealing with the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, into possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.Mr. Flood is representing several other top White House officials who find themselves as witnesses in the range of congressional and Justice Department investigations into Mr. Trump, including Mr. Short.An increasing number of high-ranking officials in Mr. Trump’s administration have received grand jury subpoenas as part of the Justice Department’s inquiry into a wide array of efforts to overturn the election, including a plan to create fake slates of pro-Trump electors in key swing states that were won by Mr. Biden.The wide-ranging subpoenas sought information on a host of subjects that included the fake elector plan, attempts to paint the election as having been marred by fraud and the inner workings of Mr. Trump’s main postelection fund-raising vehicle, the Save America PAC.The effort to seek an interview with Mr. Pence puts both the department and the former vice president in uncharted territory.Mr. Pence is considering a campaign for president in 2024, in a race that Mr. Trump has already announced his candidacy for. And Mr. Biden’s Justice Department is seeking to use Mr. Pence as a potential witness against Mr. Trump; either could end up as rivals to Mr. Biden should he run again, which he has indicated is likely.Mr. Pence has written in detail in his book about Mr. Trump’s efforts to stay in power and the pressure campaign he imposed on his vice president beginning in December 2020.Among other interactions he describes, Mr. Pence details how Mr. Trump summoned him to the Oval Office on Jan. 4 to meet with a conservative lawyer named John Eastman, who repeatedly argued that Mr. Pence could exceed the ceremonial duties of overseeing the Electoral College certification by Congress. Mr. Eastman was promoting the notion that Mr. Pence had the power to set aside the results from states where Mr. Trump was still trying to challenge the outcome.Mr. Pence writes about telling Mr. Trump that he did not have such authority. In an interview with The Times in connection with the book, Mr. Pence was forceful, saying that he was blunt with Mr. Trump that he could not do what he wanted.“In the weeks before Jan. 6, I repeatedly told the president that I did not have the authority to reject or return electoral votes,” Mr. Pence said in the interview. “It was clear he was getting different legal advice from an outside group of lawyers that, frankly, should have never been let in the building.”In that period of time, Mr. Trump began to publicly pressure Mr. Pence, as well as officials in Georgia, to go along with his efforts to remain in office. At the same time, Mr. Trump began using his Twitter account to try to draw a crowd to Washington for a “protest” at the Ellipse near the White House on Jan. 6, the day of the congressional certification.The Times has previously reported that Mr. Pence’s chief of staff, Mr. Short, called Mr. Pence’s lead Secret Service agent, Tim Giebels, to his West Wing office on Jan. 5, 2021. When Mr. Giebels arrived at Mr. Short’s office, the chief of staff said that the president was going to turn on the vice president, and that they would have a security risk because of it, a conversation that Mr. Short described to the House select committee. The committee released a video snippet of Mr. Short discussing it at one of its public hearings this year.Mr. Trump addressed the crowd at the Ellipse at midday on Jan. 6 and again pressured Mr. Pence, whom he had called a few hours earlier in a further effort to persuade him to go along with the last-ditch plan to block the certification.In his address at the Ellipse, Mr. Trump said: “You’re never going to take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”He went on: “So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.”A short time later, Mr. Trump’s supporters marched to the Capitol, where Mr. Pence was. Hundreds of them stormed the building, smashing windows and barreling through doors, forcing Mr. Pence, his wife and his daughter to flee his office in the Capitol and take refuge on a loading dock underground. He stayed there, working to get the situation under control as Mr. Trump watched the coverage of the riot on television at the White House.Mr. Pence wrote about the experience in his book, and has since described his anger that Mr. Trump was “reckless” and “endangered” Mr. Pence and his family.Despite Mr. Pence being a witness to a range of Mr. Trump’s actions in office, an interview of the former vice president would be the first time that he has been questioned in a federal investigation of Mr. Trump.Mr. Pence was in the room for many of the key events examined by Mr. Mueller in the obstruction investigation, but Mr. Pence’s lawyer at the time managed to get him out of having to testify.The lawyer, Richard Cullen, met with Mr. Mueller and his team, telling them that Mr. Pence believed Mr. Trump had not obstructed justice and what he would say if questioned.Mr. Mueller’s team never followed up to question Mr. Pence, and he was never cited as a witness against Mr. Trump in Mr. Mueller’s final report.Glenn Thrush More

Plus: Blackouts in Ukraine, Japan’s soccer triumph and an A.I. Thanksgiving menu.Aryeh Schupak, a 15-year-old yeshiva student, was killed in the bombings.Mahmoud Illean/Associated PressBombs explode in JerusalemTwo blasts in Jerusalem yesterday killed a 15-year-old and wounded at least 18 other people. They were the first bomb attacks on Israeli civilians since 2016.The bombs, which detonated at bus stops during the morning rush hour, prompted calls by far-right leaders for the swift formation of a new government that would be tougher on terrorism. Benjamin Netanyahu, who is likely to become the prime minister again, is trying to form Israel’s most right-wing government ever.The blasts were just the latest episode in the deadliest wave of violence to sweep Israel and the occupied West Bank since 2015.Overnight, a Palestinian teenager died during a West Bank firefight between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants. This week, the body of an abducted Israeli teenager was being held. He was taken by Palestinian gunmen from a West Bank intensive care unit; his family insisted that he was alive at the time of the kidnapping and later died. And last week, a Palestinian killed three Israelis at a settlement.Comparison: The bombs were smaller and less sophisticated than those used in attacks that killed hundreds of Israelis during a Palestinian uprising two decades ago. But experts said they departed from recent “lone wolf” episodes.Context: This wave of violence began when Arab assailants killed 19 people in five attacks this spring. The Israeli Army then intensified its raids on West Bank militants, which have left more than 100 Palestinians dead and prompted another surge of Palestinian militancy.West Bank: Rising violence by settlers against Palestinians, coupled with Israeli efforts to evict more than 1,000 Palestinians from their homes, has also compounded Palestinian anger.Ukraine said that Russia launched about 70 cruise missiles. Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesPower outages blanket UkraineMuch of Ukraine is without electricity after a new wave of Russian strikes targeted critical infrastructure. At least 10 people were killed, including a newborn who died after a Russian rocket hit a maternity ward in the south.The barrage of Russian missiles appeared to be one of the most damaging attacks in weeks, and left Kyiv and other cities without power. Power was also cut in Moldova, whose Soviet-era electricity system is entwined with Ukraine’s system. Three Ukrainian nuclear power plants were forced to shut down, the authorities said.The State of the WarDnipro River: A volunteer Ukrainian special forces team has been conducting secret raids under the cover of darkness traveling across the strategic waterway, which has become the dividing line of the southern front.Evacuation Plans: The Ukrainian government is preparing to help evacuate residents from the southern cities of Kherson and Mykolaiv, where shattered infrastructure has raised fears of a humanitarian crisis when winter sets in.A Race to Rebuild: Ukrainian attempts to stabilize some of the country’s battered electricity supply and make a dent in the seemingly endless task of demining swaths of the country offered a glimpse into the Herculean effort that lies ahead off the battlefield.Visual Investigation: Videos circulating on social media have ignited a debate over whether Ukrainian forces committed war crimes or acted in self-defense as they tried to capture a group of Russian soldiers who were then killed. Here’s what we know.What’s next: Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, said the grid was suffering “colossal” damage. He announced a national drive to prepare thousands of makeshift centers to provide basic services in the event of prolonged blackouts, called “Points of Invincibility.”A hazy day in Delhi this month.Money Sharma/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesDelhi’s stubbornly toxic airA decade ago, the capitals of Asia’s two largest countries had some of the dirtiest skies in the world.Beijing pressed ahead with a $100 billion effort to clean its air after China’s government declared war against pollution. Now, the city has 100 more days of clear skies each year.But New Delhi still faces acrid, toxic air, as pollution from millions of vehicles and open fires used for heating and cooking fill the skies. This fall, the haze prompted officials to halt truck traffic, close schools and push for remote work.Context: India — a huge, messy democracy — has lacked both political resolve and public pressure, and is less wealthy than China. Indian politicians use the crisis to attack each other instead of trying to find solutions.Voters: Air pollution has been known to kill more Indians than any other risk factor. But voters ranked air quality as their 17th most urgent concern in a 2019 survey, well behind jobs, health care and infrastructure.THE LATEST NEWSU.S. NewsThere was another mass shooting: A Walmart manager killed six people at a store in Virginia yesterday. The gunman was also found dead.In updates from the mass shooting in Colorado, lawyers for the person accused of killing five people at an L.G.B.T.Q. club said their client identifies as nonbinary.Officials said they anticipated a reduced Covid threat in the coming winter months, but urged people to get updated booster shots.The World CupJapan’s goalkeeper, Shuichi Gonda, makes a save.Petr Josek/Associated PressJapan beat Germany, 2-1, in another defeat of a top team. Before the game, Germany’s players protested FIFA’s decision to stop players from wearing rainbow-colored armbands.Spain defeated Costa Rica, 7-0. Croatia tied with Morocco, 0-0.As we send out this newsletter, Belgium is leading Canada in the second half: 1-0. Here are updates.It’s $200 a night to stay in what is essentially a shipping container.“We got here six beers ago.” After Qatar banned the sale of beer in stadiums, British fans found a solution.Around the WorldAn ambulance drives into a police station in Iran.Iran is using ambulances to infiltrate demonstrations and detain protesters.Rescue workers in Indonesia are still searching for survivors of the earthquake on Monday. The death toll rose to 271.Thieves stole nearly 500 ancient gold coins, which could be worth $1.7 million, from a German museum.Science TimesA farm sanctuary is investigating the inner lives of cows, pigs and chickens — but only if the animals volunteer to be studied.Diagnoses of anxiety disorders are rising among children. Some young patients are trying exposure therapy, which makes them face the situations that cause them distress.Comets, which normally fly in from the far reaches of space, appear to be misplaced in the asteroid belt. Why?A Morning ReadLaundrymen take photos for the poster.Rishi ChandnaOur colleagues on the Opinion desk publish short documentaries. I loved this 20-minute video on the way laundrymen in Mumbai, India, use posters, more commonly deployed by political candidates, to advertise their businesses.The film, by Rishi Chandna, is a wry exploration of the ways religion, politics and science intersect in a ubiquitous poster culture. “No matter how much of a big shot you are, or how much clout you wield, without a poster, you don’t exist,” one man said.Lives lived: Hebe de Bonafini became a human rights campaigner when her two sons were arrested and disappeared under Argentina’s military dictatorship. She died at 93.HOLIDAY SPOTLIGHT“Show me a Thanksgiving menu made for me,” Priya Krishna told the A.I.Timothy O’Connell for The New York TimesHappy Thanksgiving from … A.I.?Artificial intelligence can create art, play “Jeopardy!” and make scientific breakthroughs. But how good is it in the kitchen? Priya Krishna, a Times food reporter, gave an A.I. system the ultimate challenge: a Thanksgiving menu.Priya used a neural network called GPT-3. She fed it information about her family background, her favorite ingredients and flavors that she likes.It was … interesting. GPT-3 produced recipes both plausible and intriguing: pumpkin spice chaat, naan stuffing and roasted turkey with a soy-ginger glaze. But the turkey was dry and flavorless (the recipe called for one garlic clove, no butter or oil). And the naan stuffing, Priya writes, “tasted like a chana masala and a fruitcake that had gotten into a bar fight.”“This technology is not a replacement for people, at least so far,” Priya writes. “It can nudge cooks in one direction or another. But it is still humanity — with its intuition, storytelling and warmth — that drives a good recipe.”For more: In a video, Priya cooks the recipes and asks Times cooking columnists to judge.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookMelina Hammer for The New York TimesCelebrating Thanksgiving? Here are recipes for turkey, gravy, stuffing, green beans and a pumpkin pie, all of which you can make the day you plan to eat them.What to ReadBrowse our annual list of 100 notable books.What to WatchIn “Leonor Will Never Die,” a comatose genre director in the Philippines becomes trapped in one of her own screenplays.HealthIs it safe to whiten your teeth? And which methods work?EmojisAs tech workers get laid off, they’re saluting in solidarity.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: In good spirits (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you tomorrow. — AmeliaP.S. The Athletic plans to double its coverage of women’s sports through a partnership with Google.“The Daily” is about cooking the perfect turkey. And “Still Processing” discusses Beyoncé’s latest album.Email us at [email protected]. I read every note. More

Now we’ll look forward to the new year, and inspiration from people like Republican Kevin McCarthy, the very-probably-soon-to-be House speaker.You may remember that after the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol by Trump supporters, McCarthy told his colleagues, “We cannot just sweep this under the rug.” Then when a special House committee was convened to investigate it, McCarthy … More

The candidate, Abe Hamadeh, alleged that local and state officials had mismanaged the Nov. 8 election.Abe Hamadeh, the Arizona Republican locked in a tight race to become the state’s next attorney general, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday contesting the preliminary results of an election that had already been headed to an automatic recount.The state’s final tally from the Nov. 8 election, which was set to be certified by counties by next week, has Mr. Hamadeh just 510 votes behind the Democratic candidate, Kris Mayes — 1,254,102 for Mr. Hamadeh and 1,254,612 for Ms. Mayes. That difference was within the margin needed to force an automatic recount under state law.Mr. Hamadeh’s lawsuit, filed in State Superior Court in Maricopa County, names as defendants Arizona’s secretary of state — Katie Hobbs, a Democrat who won the governor’s race — as well as the county recorders and boards of supervisors in the state’s 15 counties. The Republican National Committee joined Mr. Hamadeh in the suit as a plaintiff.Mr. Hamadeh and the R.N.C., in their complaint, ask the court to issue an injunction prohibiting the secretary of state from certifying Ms. Mayes as the winner and an order declaring Mr. Hamadeh the winner. The suit argues that equipment failures and errors in the management of polling places and in ballot tabulation led to an incorrect final vote count. It says there was no “fraud, manipulation or other intentional wrongdoing,” but it claims there were mistakes that affected the final tally, given the contest’s narrow margin.The suit asks the court to allow additional votes to be counted, including 146 provisional ballots and 273 mail-in ballots that were segregated because the election system showed they came from voters who had already cast in-person ballots. It does not seek a rerun of the election, though it does claim that Mr. Hamadeh should be declared the winner. By state law, Arizona’s secretary of state is required to certify the results of the election by Dec. 5.The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6A moment of reflection. More

The 2022 midterm election revealed dangerous cracks in the Democratic coalition, despite the fact that the party held the Senate and kept House losses to a minimum.Turnout fell in a number of key Democratic cities. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the city’s “vote count dropped 33 percent from 2020, more than any other county and the statewide average of 22 percent. It’s not just a 2020 comparison: This year saw a stark divergence between Philly turnout and the rest of the state compared to every federal election since at least 2000.”The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners reported that turnout of registered voters in 2022 was 46.1 percent, down from 60.67 percent in the previous 2018 midterm.According to the Board of Elections in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, turnout fell from 54.5 percent in 2018 to 46.1 percent in 2022.The Gotham Gazette reported that from 2018 to 2022, turnout fell from 41 to 33 percent in New York City.The drop in turnout was disturbing to Democratic strategists, but so too was the change in sentiment of many of the voters who did show up, as support for the party’s nominees continued to erode among Black, Hispanic and Asian American voters. As The Washington Post reported:While more than 8 in 10 Black voters supported Democrats for Congress, their level of support fell between four and seven percentage points during the 2022 midterms compared with 2018, according to network exit polling and the AP VoteCast poll, respectively. Among Latinos, support for Democrats declined between nine and 10 percentage points, with between 56 percent and 60 percent backing Democrats.In the 2018 midterms, 77 percent of Asians voted for House Democratic candidates, according to network exit polls, compared with 58 percent this year — although data from AP VoteCast showed a smaller decline in Asian American support for Democrats from 2018 to 2022: 71 percent to 64 percent.Perhaps most important, the 2022 results revealed that voters did not fully turn against the Republican Party; in fact, Republican House candidates got 3.5 million more votes nationwide than Democrats did, 53.9 million, or 51.7 percent of the two-party vote to the Democrats’ 50.4 million, or 48.3 percent. This represents just over a six-point swing in favor of Republicans this year compared with the 2020 House results.Instead, voters, in the main, turned against the specific candidates endorsed by Donald Trump — candidates who in competitive races backed Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen.“Candidate quality and the toxicity of former President Trump and the MAGA movement hurt certain Republicans where it mattered most,” wrote Charlie Cook, founder of the Cook Political Report, in “GOP Won the Votes, but Not the Seats,” a Nov. 17 analysis. “Some of these ‘nontraditional’ candidates managed to win over the support of G.O.P. primary voters but were unable to appeal to that narrow slice of voters in the middle of the broader November electorate.”Two days after the election, Karl Rove, who was the chief political strategist during the administration of George W. Bush, wrote in The Wall Street Journal:The losers Tuesday were often the candidates who closely followed the former president’s rally-speech scripts — campaigning on the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Mr. Trump by fraud on a massive scale. Of the Republican candidates for secretary of state or attorney general who based their campaign on this falsehood, only one has pulled through, and he was in deep red territory.What then are the odds that Republican voters will still nominate Trump?If they do, Democrats’ chances of keeping the presidency, retaking the House and holding losses in the Senate to a minimum all improve. If the Republicans nominate Ron DeSantis, Glenn Youngkin, Nikki Haley or a dark horse, chances are Democrats will face a tough fight on all fronts in 2024.While there is general agreement that midterm returns are not reliable predictors of the next presidential election, the 2022 results do not uniformly suggest a weakened national Republican Party.“Overall, it’s a strange election,” wrote Sean Trende, senior elections analyst at RealClearPolitics, in “What Happened.” “Had you showed any major analyst these results, along with exit poll findings that Biden would be at 44 percent job approval, no one would have expected this outcome.”Matt Grossmann, a political scientist at Michigan State, noted in an email:The negative Trump effect seems even more clear now. Trump-endorsed candidates fared worse, often on the same ballot with Republicans who separated themselves from Trump and performed better. So I see it as more of the same warning to Republicans: tying themselves to Trump is not a winning general election strategy.Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist, made a similar case by email. “Swing voters in swing states and districts didn’t marry the Democrats; they just dumped the Republicans,” he wrote. “In the post-Dobbs environment, extremism is not a theoretical concern anymore. The two most valuable players of this cycle for the Democrats are Sam Alito and Donald Trump. Democrats should send them each a fruit basket.”“I cannot think of a worse way for the House G.O.P. to introduce themselves as a governing party than braying about investigations into Hunter Biden and Anthony Fauci,” Begala argued. “Their candidates won by promising action on inflation, crime and borders.”To counter the House Republican agenda, Begala wrote,Biden needs to say, “They’re obsessed with my family’s past; I’m obsessed with your family’s future.” At every hearing in which the Republicans are tormenting Hunter Biden or Dr. Fauci, I would have Democratic members ask, “How will this hearing lower the price of gas at the pump? How will it reduce crime? How will it secure the border?”Data pointing to the vulnerability of the Trump-endorsed Republicans running for federal and state offices raises an interesting question: Should Democrats repeat a tactic used successfully this year to lift the chances that Republicans nominate their weakest general election candidate?Last September, Annie Linskey reported in The Washington Post that Democratic candidates and committees “have spent nearly $19 million across eight states in primaries this year amplifying far-right Republican candidates.” A postelection analysis by Ellen Ioanes of Vox concluded that the strategy “appears to have paid off in the midterm. Six Democratic challengers in races where Democratic organizations donated to extremist Republican candidates have so far won their contests.”A number of Democratic strategists and scholars, however, firmly rejected continuing the strategy of purposely investing during the Republican primaries in advertising promoting Trump to Republican voters premised on the calculation that Trump would be the easiest to beat of the most likely Republican nominees in the general election.Both Begala and Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, stood firmly opposed. “We should leave this to Republicans to nominate their own Trump,” Lake said by email.Begala gave three reasons for his opposition. First, “it undermines President Biden’s powerful message that Trump leads a mega-MAGA fanatical fringe that is a clear and present danger to our democracy.” Second, “Trump is still a massive, major force in American politics — especially in the Republican Party. I don’t want Trump anywhere near the White House.” Third, “while I respect the political success of governors like DeSantis, Youngkin, Hogan and Christie, if the Democrats can’t beat them, we don’t deserve the White House.”Daniel Hopkins, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, was adamant in his opposition to the tactic:If Democrats truly worry about the fragility of American democracy, they should not take any steps that would facilitate Trump’s return to office, even if that means a higher chance that they lose the presidency. The slightly higher probability of holding the presidency with Trump as the G.O.P. nominee is surely outweighed by concerns about the threats to democracy should he win election.In an email, Hopkins suggested that Democrats should not view the outcome of the 2022 election as a clear victory:Republicans are likely to have won significantly more votes for their U.S. House candidates than Democrats, but the Democrats benefited from the geographic distribution of their support and the strength of several of their House incumbents in hard-fought races. Turnout in cities like Philadelphia was down relative to elsewhere, and the Democrats have not returned their strong showings with Latino voters from 2012 and 2016. The Republicans’ strength in Florida as well as New York was remarkable — and those are two of the largest states in the country. So absolutely, both parties have outcomes to celebrate and liabilities to watch.One of Hopkins’s political science colleagues, Matthew Levendusky, noted in an email:There is not one narrative to come out of this election. While we usually think about nationalization, in this election, we saw quite significant differences across states. Pennsylvania and Michigan — and even Wisconsin and Arizona — ended up somewhat better than the pre-election polls suggested (in some cases, quite a bit better). From this perspective, Democrats should be happy. But they did much worse than expected in Florida and New York. So which lesson is the right one?Levendusky pointed out that there “seem to be two trends that might be working against Republicans’ recent advantage in translating votes into seats”:If Republicans are doing better (at least in some areas) with Black and Latino voters, that erodes Democrats’ edge in urban districts, but not nearly enough to put those seats into jeopardy. But if they’re also strengthening their support with rural white voters, then that means they’re “wasting” more votes in those districts (shifting heavily rural parts of the country from R+20 to R+30 does not help them win more seats). So shifting demographic and geographic patterns might now make Republicans (just like Democrats) somewhat less well distributed.Sean Trende makes essentially the same point, writing that “Republicans made gains among African Americans, and significant gains among Hispanics” but, with a few exceptions, “these extra votes did not translate to seats. Because the Voting Rights Act requires that these voters be placed into heavily Hispanic/Black districts, which become overwhelmingly Democratic districts, it takes huge shifts in vote performance among these voters to win a district outright, and Republicans aren’t there right now.”Conversely, “Republicans may be suffering a representational penalty in rural areas similar to the penalty Democrats have suffered in urban districts,” Trende wrote, noting thatthe G.O.P. puts up stunning vote percentages in rural America, margins that would not have been deemed possible a decade ago, to say nothing of three decades ago. But this means that a large number of those votes are effectively wasted. As the suburbs become more competitive for Democrats and the cities become somewhat less competitive (but not enough to lose seats) as the minority vote percentage moves, Democrats lose the penalty they’ve suffered for running up overwhelming vote shares in urban districts in the past.Julie Wronski, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi, wrote by email that the election in many respectsmoved in ways predicted by the fundamentals — a Republican shift with a Democratic president who has low approval ratings and governs during poor economic indicators. However, in a few keys states and races Democratic candidates outperformed those indicators. The story seems like Republicans defeated themselves relative to the fundamentals by running low-quality candidates in some key races.For Republicans, Wronski wrote, “appealing to Trump voters without Trump on the ballot may not be a winning strategy. The types of voters who are enthusiastic for Trump do not seem equally enthusiastic for his endorsees.”In other words, it isn’t just that moderates and independents were scared off by extremist candidates; MAGA voters themselves were not fully animated by their own candidates. The candidate they want is Trump, not a Don Bolduc or a Kari Lake or a Mehmet Oz.In addition, Wronski argued:Not all Republicans want or positively respond to Trump’s preferences or persona. Trump endorsees trying to follow this playbook were not as successful as more mainstream Republican candidates. A prime example of this is the difference between the Georgia Senate and governor races.Neither party, in Wronski’s view,should take comfort in their prospects or feel in good shape nationally. The national electorate is polarized with close elections. Ultimately, I believe turnout is going to matter more than persuasion.Chris Tausanovitch, a political scientist at U.C.L.A., downplayed the success of the Democrats:This was in many ways an expected result. The polls and models performed well. The Democrats overperformed expectations slightly, but as others have pointed out, their performance is better in seats than in votes.The parties, Tausanovitch continued, “are very evenly matched and this doesn’t look like it is on a path to change quickly. This election was close. I expect the next presidential election to be close as well.” Trump-endorsed candidates, he acknowledged,did poorly, but this does not mean that a Trump-centric Republican Party cannot win or that Trump himself cannot win. He almost did in 2020. If he is the nominee, I still expect the election to be close in 2024.Republican Party elites are, in turn, increasingly voicing their concerns over the prospect of a 2024 Trump bid. I asked Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster, what would happen if Trump is the nominee, and he replied by email: “Assuming that the economy is out of the ditch by the end of ’23, I would have to believe a Trump nomination would be devastating.”In a clear slap at Trump, Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire — the Republican who handily won re-election while Maggie Hassan, the Democratic senator, beat the Trump protégé Don Bolduc, her Republican challenger — told a Nov. 18 meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition: “I have a great policy for the Republican Party. Let’s stop supporting crazy, unelectable candidates in our primaries and start getting behind winners that can close the deal in November.”At the same gathering, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie declared: “It is time to stop whispering. It is time to stop being afraid of any one person. It is time to stand up for the principles and the beliefs that we have founded this party on and this country on.”For two successive presidential elections, Trump has stymied the most ambitious members of his party, and now this group is becoming increasingly assertive. DeSantis, Youngkin, Haley, Mike Pompeo, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Mike Pence are engaged in the process of challenging the current occupant of the throne — making national appearances, courting donors, wooing party loyalists and generating media coverage, all with an eye on drawing blood. The question is, how vulnerable is Trump?Earlier this month, Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey and Michael Scherer reported in The Washington Post, “In private conversations among donors, operatives and other 2024 presidential hopefuls, a growing number of Republicans are trying to seize what they believe may be their best opportunity to sideline Trump and usher in a new generation of party leaders.”Republicans might be playing with fire.Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, told The Washington Post that there are now three key constituencies in the Republican electorate:A small group, roughly 10 percent, are “Never Trumpers,” Republicans who have long and vocally opposed Trump. A far larger group, about 40 percent, are “Always Trumpers,” his hard-core base that will be reluctant to abandon him. The remaining 50 percent or so are “Maybe Trumpers” — Republicans who voted for him twice, who generally like his policies but who are now eager to escape the chaos that accompanies him.If Trump faces two or more serious challengers in the primaries, his 40 percent core support plus whatever he can pick up from the “Maybe Trumpers” would prove to be a major asset, especially in the early contests, which often provide crucial momentum to the front-runner, setting up the scenario sought by Democrats: a Republican presidential nominee whom they believe may have some chance of prevailing in the primaries, but who has little chance of winning in November.“One of the reasons Trump’s base adores him is that he overcame overwhelming odds — including both party establishments — to win,” Nate Hochman, a staff writer for National Review, tweeted on Nov. 19. “The more Republican elites consolidate against him, the more otherwise persuadable Trump voters are going to remember why they loved him in the first place.”Democrats could not hope for more.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

En 2018, escribí una columna en la que describía al futuro presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, o AMLO, como una versión de izquierda de Donald Trump. Los lectores no estaban convencidos. La comparación entre los dos hombres, escribió una persona en los comentarios, “es absurda”. Otro dijo que la columna era “asombrosamente ignorante”.Permítanme retractarme. AMLO no es solo otra versión de Trump. Es peor, porque es un demagogo y un operador burocrático más eficaz.Eso volvió a quedar claro cuando los mexicanos salieron a las calles el 13 de noviembre en marchas contra los esfuerzos de AMLO para desmantelar el Instituto Nacional Electoral (INE). Durante tres décadas, el organismo independiente, pero financiado por el Estado (que antes se llamaba Instituto Federal Electoral) ha sido crucial para la transición de México de un gobierno de partido único a una democracia competitiva en la que los partidos en el poder pierden elecciones y aceptan los resultados.Entonces, ¿por qué el presidente, que ganó la elección de manera abrumadora y mantiene un alto índice de aprobación —en parte por un estilo político que se sustenta en el culto a la personalidad y por programas de transferencias de efectivo a los pobres, su principal base electoral—, iría tras la joya de la corona de los organismos civiles del país? ¿No se supone que López Obrador debe representar a las fuerzas de la democracia popular?La respuesta de AMLO es que solo busca democratizar al INE al hacer que sus integrantes sean elegidos por voto popular después de que instancias bajo su dominio nominen a los candidatos. También reduciría el financiamiento del instituto, le quitaría el poder de elaborar padrones de votantes y eliminaría las autoridades electorales estatales. De manera trumpiana, AMLO llamó a sus críticos “racistas”, “clasistas” y “muy hipócritas”.La realidad es distinta. AMLO es producto del viejo partido gobernante, el Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), que dominó casi todos los aspectos de la vida política mexicana desde finales de la década de 1920 hasta finales de la década de 1990. Ideológicamente, el partido estaba dividido en dos alas: los tecnócratas modernizadores contra los nacionalistas estatistas. Sin embargo, el partido estaba unido en su preferencia por la represión, la corrupción y, sobre todo, el control presidencial como medio para perpetuar su permanencia en el poder.AMLO puede haber pertenecido al ala estatista, pero sus ideas sobre la gobernabilidad salen directamente del manual del viejo PRI, solo que esta vez a favor de su propio partido, Morena. “Constantemente, su impulso ha sido recrear la década de 1970: una presidencia poderosa y sin contrapesos”, me escribió el lunes Luis Rubio, uno de los analistas más importantes de México. “Por lo tanto, ha intentado debilitar, eliminar o neutralizar toda una red de entidades que se crearon para ser controles del poder presidencial”. Eso incluye la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, las agencias reguladoras del país y la comisión de derechos humanos de México. El INE y el banco central se encuentran entre las pocas entidades que se han mantenido relativamente libres de su control.¿Qué significaría que AMLO se saliera con la suya? Su mandato presidencial de seis años termina en 2024 y es poco probable que permanezca formalmente en el cargo. Pero hay una antigua tradición mexicana de gobernar tras bambalinas. Llenar el INE con personas cercanas es el primer paso para regresar a los días de votos manipulados que caracterizaron al México en el que crecí, en las décadas de 1970 y 1980.Pero también implica un deterioro más profundo, de tres maneras importantes.La primera es el papel cada vez mayor de las fuerzas armadas durante el sexenio de AMLO. “El ejército ahora está operando fuera del control civil, en abierto desafío a la Constitución mexicana, que establece que el ejército no puede estar a cargo de la seguridad pública”, escribió la analista política mexicana Denise Dresser en la edición vigente de Foreign Affairs. “A partir de órdenes presidenciales, los militares se han vuelto omnipresentes: construyen aeropuertos, administran los puertos del país, controlan las aduanas, distribuyen dinero a los pobres, implementan programas sociales y detienen a inmigrantes”.La segunda es que el gobierno mexicano a todas luces se ha rendido ante los cárteles de la droga que, según una estimación, controlan hasta un tercio del país. Eso se hizo evidente hace dos años, después de que el gobierno de Trump regresara a México a un exsecretario de Defensa, el general Salvador Cienfuegos, quien había sido arrestado en California y acusado de trabajar para los cárteles. AMLO liberó al general con rapidez. Ocho de las ciudades más peligrosas del mundo ahora están en México, según un análisis de Bloomberg Opinion, y 45.000 mexicanos huyeron de sus hogares por temor a la violencia en 2021.Y, por último, el nuevo estatismo de AMLO funciona incluso peor que el anterior. Un intento de reforma del sistema de salud de México ha provocado una escasez catastrófica de medicamentos. Ha invertido bastante en la empresa petrolera del Estado, PEMEX, que se las ha arreglado para perder dinero a pesar de los precios históricamente altos de la materia prima. El gasto en bienestar aumentó un 20 por ciento respecto al gobierno de su antecesor, pero su gobierno eliminó uno de los programas de combate a la pobreza más exitosos de México, que vinculaba la asistencia a mantener a los niños en la escuela.Los defensores de AMLO pueden argumentar que el presidente sigue siendo popular entre la mayoría de los mexicanos debido a su preocupación por los más pobres. A menudo, ese ha sido el caso de los populistas, desde Recep Tayyip Erdogan en Turquía hasta los gobiernos de Kirchner en Argentina. Pero la realidad tiene una forma de pasar factura. Lo que los mexicanos enfrentan cada vez más con AMLO es un ataque a su bienestar económico, seguridad personal y libertad política y al Estado de derecho. Si los mexicanos no tienen cuidado, este será su camino a Venezuela.Bret Stephens ha sido columnista de Opinión en el Times desde abril de 2017. Ganó un Premio Pulitzer por sus comentarios en The Wall Street Journal en 2013 y previamente fue editor jefe de The Jerusalem Post. Facebook More

Americans support marijuana legalization, but many of their political leaders do not.A decade ago, no American lived in a state where marijuana was legal to smoke, vape or eat recreationally. Today, nearly half of Americans do or will soon: Voters approved legalization ballot measures this month in Maryland and Missouri, bringing the number of states allowing any adult use to 21.Legalization may not make major news often anymore, but it’s a big deal. It amounts to America’s largest change to its drug policy in decades. By aligning marijuana with alcohol and tobacco, rather than harder drugs, the policy change is giving birth to a new industry. And, over time, it could reduce the hundreds of thousands of marijuana arrests made in the U.S. every year, freeing up police resources.The change came about largely because of the support of voters, not politicians or lawmakers. While the public backs legalization, some prominent political leaders do not: President Biden has said he’s opposed. Donald Trump has characterized legalization as an issue for states to decide, but his 2020 presidential campaign said marijuana should remain illegal.Voter supportA key reason for marijuana legalization’s success: It’s popular. About 68 percent of adults in the U.S. support legalization, a Gallup survey found last week. Even a majority of Republicans, who are typically more conservative on the issue, have told Gallup that they support legalization.Around two decades ago, public opinion was essentially the reverse: About 64 percent of U.S. adults said marijuana should not be legal.The shift toward support empowered legalization campaigns around the U.S. The 21 states that have legalized it have done so only since 2012, starting with Colorado and Washington. Three of those states reliably vote Republican: Alaska, Montana and Missouri.Why have voters come around to legalization? Advocates credit several issues. Much of the public now sees the broader war on drugs as a costly failure — and marijuana, widely viewed as less dangerous than alcohol, is an accessible target for policy changes. States’ experiments with medical marijuana, starting in the 1990s, helped make Americans more comfortable with loosening access. And the internet has made it easier for a grass-roots legalization movement to spread.Political oppositionSome leading lawmakers have not followed the shift in public opinion. Biden has said he opposes jailing marijuana users and pardoned thousands of people convicted of marijuana possession under federal law. But he also opposes legalization, putting him at odds with more than 80 percent of self-identified Democrats.Lawmakers’ opposition has led activists to rely largely on voter support to enact legalization. Of the 21 states where recreational marijuana is or will soon be legal, 14 approved the change through ballot measures.But there are limits to the ballot process. Not every state allows such initiatives. And the drug remains illegal at the federal level, stopping most big banks from working with marijuana businesses and raising the businesses’ tax bills.Even in states where voters approve legalization, marijuana may remain illegal. South Dakotans voted to legalize marijuana in 2020, but Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, took the measure to court and won. This month, South Dakotan voters rejected another legalization initiative.Some of the political resistance is easing. Congress passed its first stand-alone marijuana reform bill last week, which will allow for more research into medical uses if Biden signs it into law, as expected. Several state legislatures, including Vermont’s and Virginia’s, have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes. Some prominent Democrats, like Senator Bernie Sanders and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, have voiced support for legalization.The shift is coming slowly, but perhaps typically: Whether they are considering action on prescription drugs or same-sex marriage, lawmakers often move well after voter support for an issue has solidified.For moreUnlicensed weed shops have exploded in popularity in New York City since the state legalized recreational marijuana last year.The state approved its first licenses for recreational marijuana retailers this week.THE LATEST NEWSMass ShootingsAn attacker opened fire at a Walmart in Chesapeake, Va., leaving at least six people dead. The shooter was also found dead at the store, the police said.Colorado Springs is questioning its progress on gay rights after the deadly shooting at an L.G.B.T.Q. nightclub there last weekend.PoliticsThe Supreme Court cleared the way for House Democrats to obtain Donald Trump’s tax returns.The Biden administration extended its pause on federal student loan payments.Senator Lindsey Graham testified in a Georgia investigation into 2020 election interference by Trump, after fighting to avoid answering questions.Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader campaigning to become House speaker, visited the southwestern border and demanded the Homeland Security secretary resign.The VirusDr. Anthony Fauci at what was likely his last White House briefing.Michael A. McCoy for The New York TimesU.S. officials say they see a reduced Covid threat this winter, but urged people to get updated booster shots.Chinese officials have ordered businesses and schools in Beijing to close and locked down much of a major northern city as cases rise.Other Big StoriesTwo blasts during rush hour in Jerusalem killed one person and wounded at least 18 others. They were believed to be the first bomb attacks on Israeli civilians in years.After retaking the city of Kherson, Ukraine’s forces are trying to push Russian troops out of a strategic strip of land in the Black Sea. Follow updates.“Bregret”: Facing a grave economic slump, some British people are rethinking Brexit.OpinionsElon Musk might long for a bygone era of bro-boss workplaces, but most workers have moved on, Jessica Bennett writes.From Al Gore’s 2000 concession speech to Liz Cheney at the first Jan. 6 hearing, Thomas Friedman offers Thanksgiving readings to celebrate American democracy.The “momfluencer” industry has heightened already unrealistic expectations for American mothers, Jessica Grose says.MORNING READSDijon at the decks at Moogfest 2018.Jeremy M. Lange for The New York TimesUp from underground: The dance D.J. Honey Dijon is now everywhere.Mind farm: Researchers are investigating the inner lives of cows, pigs and chickens.Family treasures: A colander. A wooden Snoopy. Times readers shared their heirlooms.Advice from Wirecutter: Save money on heat and hot water.Lives Lived: Hebe de Bonafini helped build the protest movement the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo after her sons disappeared under Argentina’s military dictatorship. She died at 93.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICRankings: L.S.U. moved up to No. 5 in this week’s College Football Playoff rankings, surprisingly one spot ahead of U.S.C. Preview: Here’s what to watch for in the N.F.L.’s Thanksgiving tripleheader.WORLD CUPPlayers for Saudi Arabia celebrate after a goal.Julian Finney/Getty ImagesShock victory: Saudi Arabia beat the heavily favored Argentina, 2-1, one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history. (These were some of the others.)A closer look: The loss invited scrutiny of a deal that the Argentine great Lionel Messi has signed to promote Saudi Arabia.“We got here six beers ago”: After Qatar banned the sale of beer in and around stadiums, British fans found a solution.Elsewhere in soccer: Cristiano Ronaldo will immediately leave his English Premier League team, Manchester United.Today’s matchups: Germany plays Japan this morning, and Canada faces Belgium this afternoon. Follow all of today’s matches.ARTS AND IDEAS Rozalina Burkova for The New York TimesThe year in booksLooking for a good holiday read? The Times Book Review has published its annual 100 Notable Books, a survey of the best books of the year in fiction, nonfiction and poetry.“I’m still pretty new to the Book Review,” Gilbert Cruz, who took over as editor this year, told us. “But I’ve been reading it forever, and this is possibly the most vibrant and wide-ranging Notables list that we’ve ever had — historical fiction, mysteries, thrillers, horror, translated literature, an exceptional crop of short-story collections, a fantastic graphic memoir. It really feels like there’s something for almost anyone.”Browse the full list.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Testani for The New York Times. Food Stylist:Simon Andrews. Prop Stylist: Christina Lane.This cheesecake can customize however you want.One Day to ThanksgivingForgetting the salad is a common Thanksgiving faux pas. Here are three recipes that will balance out the richer dishes.Where to GoThe remote Andaman Islands offers Indian culture and spectacular beaches.Late NightThe hosts joked about Trump’s tax returns.Now Time to PlayThe pangrams from yesterday’s Spelling Bee were blanked and kneadable. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Colorado ski resort (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — GermanP.S. Diplomats from China accused “one or two superpowers” of “aggression” at a U.N. Security Council meeting 51 years ago today.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about cooking the perfect turkey.Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at [email protected] up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More