Elections

Steve Bannon’s criminal contempt of Congress trial set to beginFormer Trump adviser refused to comply with Capitol attack subpoena for documents and testimony related to January 6 A federal criminal trial is set to begin on Monday to determine whether Steve Bannon, the influential former adviser to Donald Trump, broke the law by refusing to comply with a subpoena for documents and testimony by the panel investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol.Last fall, the congressional committee investigating the deadly Capitol riots subpoenaed Bannon to sit for a deposition and to provide a wide range of documents related to the events of January 6. Bannon refused to comply. The committee cited him for contempt and referred him to the US justice department for prosecution in October of last year. Too old to run again? Biden faces questions about his age as crises mountRead moreThe justice department pursued the referral, and a federal grand jury indicted Bannon on two counts of contempt of Congress, both misdemeanors, in November. It is extremely rare for the justice department to pursue such charges – before Bannon, the last contempt prosecution was in 1983. Bannon faces between 30 days and a year in prison if convicted on each charge.Bannon, whom Trump fired from the White House in August of 2017, has emerged as a powerful conservative voice since leaving the White House, and his podcast, War Room, has become a must-stop for those on the political right. He has used it to stoke baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and began outlining how Trump could try to overturn the elections starting in September 2020.Days in advance, Bannon predicted that Trump would declare himself the winner on election night and take advantage of confusion that would result as Democrats picked up votes because of mail-in ballots that were counted after in person votes. Trump wound up doing exactly that.The committee said in its contempt report that Bannon appeared to have “some foreknowledge” of what would happen on 6 January. It has also said that Bannon and Trump spoke twice on 5 January. “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” Bannon said on a podcast after the first call. “It’s all converging and now we’re on the point of attack tomorrow.”In the leadup to the attack, Bannon was also was present at the Willard hotel, the nucleus of Trump’s legal efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Bannon is the first former Trump administration official to face a criminal trial for refusing to participate in the January 6 probe. From the moment he was indicted, he has pledged to fight the charges, saying on his podcast recently he was going “medieval” and would “savage his enemies”. But Bannon has suffered a number of defeats in the leadup to the trial as US district court Judge Carl J Nichols, a Trump appointee, has blocked many of Bannon’s main defenses.“What’s the point of going to trial if we don’t have any defences?” David Schoen, one of Bannon’s lawyers, said at a recent hearing. Nichols replied by simply by saying “agreed”.Nichols’s ruling stripped Bannon of some of his key defenses, including that he had been relying on the advice of his lawyer when he defied the subpoena. Bannon’s lawyers have also claimed that Trump invoked executive privilege to shield Bannon from compliance, but it’s not clear that Trump did so and whether or not a former president has the power to grant such protection to someone not serving in government. The Trump lawyer Justin Clark told Bannon’s attorney in a letter that he didn’t believe Bannon was immune from testimony.After the rulings, the only defenses that appear to remain for Bannon is that he might have somehow misunderstood the deadline to respond to the subpoena, and that he did not think he had defied the subpoena because the select committee told him in a letter after the deadline that they hoped he might still cooperate with the investigation.Bannon has maneuvered to try to delay the trial, citing the publicity of the committee’s public hearings and by recently offering to testify before the panel. Prosecutors argued the move was an attempt to put off the trial. Bannon had also attempted to call prominent Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, as witnesses in his case, but Nichols’s rulings appear to make it more difficult for him to do so.Government prosecutors have said it will take them just a day to put on their case. Bannon’s lawyers have said their defense could take weeks.Federal prosecutors are also pursuing contempt charges against Peter Navarro, another ex-Trump administration official. Like Bannon, Navarro has pleaded not guilty.Hugo Lowell contributed to this reportTopicsUS politicsSteve BannonJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor of the Exchequer, is the current front-runner, but Penny Mordaunt, a junior trade minister, is making a surprisingly strong run for the leadership position.LONDON — The last time Britain’s Conservative Party elected a new leader, Boris Johnson dominated the contest from wire to wire, a political celebrity so famous that many voters just called him Boris.Three years later, the oddsmakers’ favorite is Penny Mordaunt, a junior trade minister so obscure that some voters have told pollsters that they confuse her with another single-name English star: the singer Adele.Ms. Mordaunt’s sudden surge in popularity reflects the wide-open, topsy-turvy nature of the race. And it reveals the shadow that Mr. Johnson still casts over British politics. Ms. Mordaunt’s lack of association with the recently deposed prime minister is one of her calling cards: She promotes herself as a fresh start after the ceaseless drama of the past three years. Weary Tory lawmakers are responding.Strictly speaking, Ms. Mordaunt, 49, is not the current front-runner: That status belongs to Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor of the Exchequer, who won the backing of 101 lawmakers in the second round of voting on Thursday. Ms. Mordaunt was second, with 83 votes. Conservative legislators will hold additional ballots early this week, before advancing two candidates to a vote of the party’s rank-and-file membership, the results of which will be announced in early September.Provided she makes the shortlist of two, however, Ms. Mordaunt looms as a formidable contender. In a poll of members last week, she finished far ahead of Mr. Sunak in a head-to-head matchup. She also easily outpolled the No. 3 candidate, Liz Truss, who is Mr. Johnson’s foreign secretary and has refused to disavow him. Ms. Mordaunt, by contrast, is neither a Johnson loyalist nor an insurgent figure.“She has the best of both worlds,” said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London. “She can’t be accused of disloyalty on the one hand, and on the other, she has sufficient distance from Johnson because she played such a minor role in government that she’s not tainted by association.”Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor of the Exechequer, has faced attacks from allies of Boris Johnson for resigning his position two weeks ago.Alberto Pezzali/Associated PressVernon Bogdanor, a professor of government at King’s College London, said Ms. Mordaunt’s low profile makes her an attractive blank slate. “No one knows what her views are, and so one can attribute one’s own views to her,” he said. “The same happens in spades, in regard to the queen.”But Ms. Mordaunt’s swift rise has alarmed some critics, who say she is untested and thinly qualified for prime minister. A paratrooper’s daughter who serves in the Royal Naval Reserve, Ms. Mordaunt was defense secretary for two and a half months in 2019 and held a lesser cabinet post in charge of international development.People who have worked with her describe her as charming and sincere, but not interested in the complexities of policy. She also has very little economic experience, at a time when Britain faces a once-in-a-generation cost-of-living crisis.“She was honest and straightforward, and I thought she did care about international development,” said Alistair Burt, who was a minister in the international development department when she was there. “But it is a surprise — I wouldn’t have thought that she would be where she is.”Whether she was equipped to be prime minister, Mr. Burt said he “genuinely wouldn’t know because she hasn’t been significantly tested.”As Ms. Mordaunt’s profile has risen, the attacks on her have sharpened. David Frost, who resigned as Mr. Johnson’s Brexit negotiator last year, gave a scathing account of Ms. Mordaunt, who served as his deputy. He accused her of a poor grasp of detail and absence from her government department, and of being such a problem that he had asked the prime minister to move her to another job.Like other hard-line Brexiteers, Mr. Frost has thrown his support behind Ms. Truss, who campaigned against leaving the European Union in the 2016 referendum, but who has since converted to the cause with zeal. Ms. Mordaunt voted to leave, as did Mr. Sunak.Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, remained loyal to Mr. Johnson, which could hurt her in the leadership race.Peter Nicholls/ReutersIt is one of the paradoxes of this race that Brexiteers are opposing the two candidates who backed Brexit and are supporting the one who opposed it.Not only did Ms. Mordaunt urge Britons to vote for Brexit, but she also played a minor, though memorable, part in the campaign by warning that Turkish migrants would flock to Britain when their own country joined the European Union, something she claimed Britain would be unable to block. The statement was erroneous: Britain, like other members, had a right to veto Turkey’s membership.Brexit supporters regard her with suspicion for another reason: She voted for an ill-fated withdrawal agreement with the European Union negotiated by Prime Minister Theresa May.Ms. Mordaunt combines an interest in security and a military background with views on social issues that are mildly progressive by Tory party standards. She has spoken up in favor of the rights of transgender people, for example, a position that has gotten her into trouble with the culture warriors on the party’s right.Seeking to defuse the issue, Ms. Mordaunt said last week that transgender women “are not biological women like me, but the law recognizes them in their new gender and that’s very simple and straightforward.”In the cut-and-thrust of Tory politics, of course, it is neither.During a televised debate on Friday evening, Mr. Mordaunt came under renewed pressure on the issue, with one of her opponents, Kemi Badenoch, questioning whether she had backtracked on her earlier position. Critics said Ms. Mordaunt’s performance was wobbly and unfocused.Analysts said the unsettled nature of the contest had made it especially vicious. Mr. Sunak, the early front-runner, has come under attack by Mr. Johnson’s allies, who view his resignation less than two weeks ago, which set the stage for the prime minister’s downfall, as a betrayal. Mr. Sunak’s tax policy as chancellor was criticized by Jacob Rees-Mogg, with whom he sat in cabinet just days ago. Mr. Rees-Mogg refused to deny reports that he had described the policy, which included tax increases, as “socialist.”The Conservative Party Conference last year in Manchester, England.Neil Hall/EPA, via Shutterstock“Rishi Sunak was always going to get it in the neck,” Professor Bale said.Ms. Truss, who did not resign from Mr. Johnson’s cabinet, faces the danger of being the most closely associated with him. Critics said her campaign had gotten off to a less-than-stirring start. She is not viewed as a charismatic campaigner, despite her solid credentials. One Liberal Democratic lawmaker likened her to Hillary Clinton, while Ms. Mordaunt, the lawmaker said, more resembled Bill Clinton.Unlike Ms. Mordaunt, Ms. Truss has significant economic experience. Yet Ms. Mordaunt’s weakness in that area has yet to hurt her campaign, despite the soaring inflation and specter of a recession that haunts Britain. A lack of focus on the future, analysts said, was another legacy of Mr. Johnson’s distracting tenure.“He’s left the Conservative Party deeply confused because he was trying to hold together an electoral coalition that isn’t a particularly natural one,” Professor Bale said, referring to traditional Conservative voters in the south and working-class supporters in the north of England that Mr. Johnson won over from the Labour Party in 2019.“It was always going to be a case of ‘après moi, le deluge,’” he added. “When Boris Johnson eventually was forced out, there was almost inevitably going to be chaos and bad feeling because of who he was and how he acted.” More

January 6 committee to receive deleted Secret Service texts, Democrat saysAgency’s account of how texts sent on day of Capitol attack and day before were lost has shifted several times, panel told Deleted Secret Service texts sent on January 6, the day of the insurrection at the US Capitol, and the day before will be released by Tuesday to the House committee investigating the failed attempt by supporters of Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 presidential election result, a panel member said.“You can imagine how shocked we were to get the letter from the [Department of Homeland Security] inspector general saying that he had been trying to get this information and that they had, in fact, been deleted after he’d asked for them,” committee member and California Democratic congresswoman Zoe Lofgren told ABC’s This Week.“We need all the texts to get the full picture,” Lofgren added.The Secret Service’s account about how text messages from the day before and the day of the Capitol attack were erased has shifted several times, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security told the House January 6 select committee at a briefing on Friday.At one point, the explanation from the Secret Service for the lost texts was because of software upgrades, the inspector general told the panel, while at another point, the explanation was because of device replacements.Secret Service agents’ January 6 texts were erased after oversight requestRead moreThe inspector general also said that though the Secret Service opted to have his office do a review of the agency’s response to the Capitol attack in lieu of conducting after-action reports, it then stonewalled the review by slow-walking production of materials.After the inspector general raised his complaints, he then discussed the feasibility of reconstructing the texts. But the issues so alarmed the select committee that the panel moved hours later to subpoena the Secret Service, according to participants at the briefing.The string of fast-paced developments on Capitol Hill reflected how the erasure of the text messages – first disclosed in a letter to Congress by the inspector general, Joseph Cuffari – has become a top priority for the congressional inquiry into January 6.The circumstances surrounding the erasure of the Secret Service texts from the day before and the day of the Capitol attack have become central for the select committee as it investigates how it planned to move Donald Trump and Mike Pence as the violence unfolded.The texts are potentially significant for investigators as the Secret Service played a crucial role in preventing Donald Trump from going to the Capitol that day and wanted to remove then-vice-president Mike Pence from the complex, according to the panel.In the letter, the inspector general said that certain Secret Service texts from 5 January and 6 January 2021 were erased amid a “device replacement program” even after he had requested the messages for his internal inquiry.The Secret Service has disputed that, saying in a statement that data on some phones were lost as part of a pre-planned “system migration” in January 2021, and that Cuffari’s initial request for communications came weeks later in late February 2021.But the select committee questioned the Secret Service’s emphasis on that date, the participants said, and noted in the subpoena letter that the request for electronic communications in fact first came from Congress, ten days after the Capitol attack.The congressional request from 16 January 2021 addressed to multiple executive branch agencies – including the Homeland Security Department, which oversees the Secret Service – was for all materials referring or relating to the riot.Members on the select committee were privately skeptical of the notion that the Secret Service managed to inadvertently erase key messages during a 10-day period that was among perhaps the most tumultuous for the agency, the participants said.If some of the texts were deliberately erased after the 16 January 2021 request, that could amount to obstruction of a congressional investigation, one of the select committee’s members added on Friday.A spokesperson for the Secret Service could not immediately be reached for comment.The select committee has spent recent days trying to establish whether it was all texts from 5 January and 6 January 2021 that were lost or just some, exactly how the texts came to be erased, and whether additional days’ worth of texts from that month were missing.The participants at the briefing said Cuffari was not able to provide clear answers on those questions, beyond the fact that he understood a proportion of texts from both the day before, and the day of, the Capitol attack remain unaccounted for.The unanswered questions were because of a lack of transparency from the Secret Service, the participants said Cuffari indicated. At the briefing, Cuffari said the explanation for the lost texts shifted from software upgrades to device upgrades to still other issues.Cuffari also expressed optimism to the select committee that the erased texts could be reconstructed through previous back-ups of messages or tools available to federal law enforcement, the participants said.The justice department inspector general has previously been able to retrieve lost texts, using “forensic tools” in 2018 to recover messages from two senior FBI officials who investigated former presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Trump and exchanged notes criticizing the latter.The controversy over the erased Secret Service texts erupted on Wednesday after Cuffari’s letter became public, and the select committee went into overdrive to assess the impact on its investigation.That prompted the select committee chairman Bennie Thompson to discuss the matter with the panel’s staff director, David Buckley, and his deputy, Kristin Amerling, and later with the full select committee, which asked Cuffari to provide a closed-door briefing.TopicsSecret ServiceUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Will a deep-blue state elect another Republican governor to succeed Larry Hogan? Tuesday’s competitive primaries will signal where the race is headed.SILVER SPRING, Md. — Tuesday’s primary elections for Maryland governor come at a moment when Democrats are jittery, unsure of the future and perhaps willing to bet on a flashy, unproven commodity.That could be a real problem for Tom Perez.As he did in early 2017, when he won a contest among party insiders at the dawn of the Trump era to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Perez is pitching himself as the safe establishment choice.But polling in the Democratic race for governor shows a dead heat between Mr. Perez and Wes Moore, a best-selling author, television show host and nonprofit executive who has been endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. Peter Franchot, the state comptroller and a fixture of Maryland politics since the 1980s, is close behind.The race, like Maryland’s Republican primary for governor, will test voters’ appetites for competence and experience at a time when the bases of both parties are angry at their political establishments.Republicans will choose between Kelly Schulz, a former cabinet secretary for the departing Gov. Larry Hogan, who is term-limited, and Dan Cox, a first-term state delegate who has been endorsed by former President Donald J. Trump and who wrote on Twitter during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol that Vice President Mike Pence was a traitor.Mr. Cox is also one in a string of Republicans who have received help this year from Democrats pursuing the hazardous strategy of trying to elevate far-right G.O.P. primary candidates in the hope that they are too extreme to win a general election. The Democratic Governors Association has spent $1.16 million on advertising trying to lift his candidacy — more than all the Republicans combined have spent on TV and radio ads, according to AdImpact, a media tracking firm.While the Republican primary is a battle between Mr. Hogan’s center-right political operation and Mr. Trump’s far-right supporters, the Democratic primary has developed as a stylistic contest with few ideological differences: Mr. Perez’s awkward-dad competence, Mr. Moore’s charismatic dynamism and Mr. Franchot’s decades of experience in state politics.Wes Moore, a best-selling author, television show host and nonprofit executive, has faced questions about elements of his personal story.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesDemocrats are eager to win back the governorship of a deep-blue state that has been led by a Republican, Mr. Hogan, since 2015. At the same time, Democrats hold veto-proof majorities in both chambers of Maryland’s General Assembly that are likely to withstand even a strong Republican showing in November thanks to the state’s gerrymandered districts.Neither party’s primary has garnered the nine-figure sums spent on television and radio advertising in other states’ races. Mr. Perez and a super PAC supporting him have combined to spend $3.5 million — more than any other candidate in the governor’s race.Mr. Perez has highlighted his years working in the Justice Department and as labor secretary under former President Barack Obama. In his TV ads — one of which uses Mr. Obama’s voice promoting Mr. Perez — he describes himself as the candidate from the “get stuff done” wing of the party, though he uses a more pungent noun than “stuff.”In an interview on Thursday at an early-voting site in Silver Spring, an inside-the-Beltway suburb, Mr. Perez said Democrats would be taking a big risk in the general election if they nominated Mr. Moore.“I’ve been Senate-confirmed twice,” Mr. Perez said. “I’ve run for office twice. I’ve been vetted for vice president in 2016. I won’t spend the general-election campaign explaining something that I did in the past or that I didn’t do in the past.”Mr. Perez was referring to the fact that elements of Mr. Moore’s inspiring personal story have been challenged.A Rhodes scholar and a veteran of the Afghanistan war, Mr. Moore has placed his biography at the center of his campaign. He wrote a best-selling book that was promoted by Ms. Winfrey, who later gave him a show on her cable channel.Mr. Moore has repeatedly described himself as a Baltimore native, but he was born in the Washington suburbs and raised in the Bronx; he did not live in Baltimore until he enrolled at Johns Hopkins University.And he has sometimes not corrected interviewers who made flattering mistakes about his résumé, including one who said he had been inducted into a Maryland hall of fame for football (an institution that does not exist) and at least two others who described him as a Bronze Star recipient (he is not).Brian Jones, an aide to Mr. Moore, said the candidate had never given any false impressions about his record. He declined requests to make Mr. Moore available for an interview.“Wes Moore has absolutely nothing to exaggerate, he has absolutely nothing to regret, and anyone suggesting otherwise should be ashamed of themselves,” Mr. Jones said.Mr. Moore at the Robin Hood Foundation’s 2018 benefit in New York. He earned nearly $1 million a year at the organization.Krista Schlueter for The New York TimesMr. Moore’s most recent job was chief executive of the Robin Hood Foundation, an anti-poverty organization in New York where he was paid nearly $1 million a year.There, in 2018, questions were raised about the amount of overtime Mr. Moore’s executive assistant was accumulating. The assistant, Maria Flynn, wrote a memo, reviewed by The New York Times, stating that Mr. Moore had “required” her to perform a litany of personal tasks for him, including booking Amtrak tickets for Mr. Moore’s nanny and scheduling, negotiating and drafting contracts for his many paid speaking engagements.Ms. Flynn was fired a week after submitting her memo.Robin Hood investigated Ms. Flynn’s allegations. According to an internal report reviewed by The Times, Mr. Moore told Robin Hood that he had asked Ms. Flynn not to submit for overtime pay for personal work she did for him outside the hours she worked for the organization and had instead “personally compensated” her with an unspecified quarterly bonus.The investigation ultimately concluded that Ms. Flynn’s termination was justified because she had filed excessive overtime hours with Robin Hood and had improperly “migrated files to her personal email account.”A separation contract she signed stipulated that Robin Hood would pay her $23,925 — three months’ pay and benefits — if she agreed not to sue the group or speak ill of her experience working there for Mr. Moore.Ms. Flynn said she could not discuss her tenure working for Mr. Moore because she signed a nondisclosure agreement upon her dismissal.“I didn’t have the money to hire a lawyer,” she said. “I wasn’t able to fight.”A Robin Hood spokesman, Kevin F. Thompson, declined to discuss Ms. Flynn’s specific claims or the internal documents.“We take all employee misconduct allegations seriously, and we never had cause to take any disciplinary actions against Wes Moore,” he said.Mr. Jones, the aide to Mr. Moore, said the claims in Ms. Flynn’s memo were false and said they had surfaced through “flimsy opposition research” by Mr. Moore’s political opponents.The third major candidate in the Democratic primary, Mr. Franchot, said in an interview on Friday that his long career in Maryland politics would be valuable in addressing voters’ concerns about inflation and high gas prices.“People are looking for a steady hand at the helm, somebody that has had experience, obviously knowledgeable about the state’s economy,” said Mr. Franchot, who was first elected comptroller in 2006 and served in the General Assembly for two decades before that. “I’m the person that’s been on the stage for the last 16 years.”Republican voters face a different type of decision — whether fealty to Mr. Trump and lies about the 2020 election carry more political weight than Mr. Hogan, a two-term governor who cast himself as a check against excesses of Democratic supermajorities.Ms. Schulz, a former state delegate who spent nearly seven years in Mr. Hogan’s cabinet, has adopted the governor’s mantra and is betting on their political alliance. She would most likely be a formidable candidate in the general election. Mr. Hogan remains one of the nation’s most popular governors, and while the state has more than twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, it has elected only one Democrat, Martin O’Malley, as governor since the turn of the millennium.Kelly Schulz held a baby in front of cutouts of Democratic politicians at an event this month in Annapolis. She has pitched herself as a moderate Republican successor to Gov. Larry Hogan.Matt Roth for The New York Times“She understands the nuance of what you have to do to win as a Republican in Maryland,” said Mileah Kromer, a pollster at Goucher College in Towson, Md.Ms. Schulz predicted that Mr. Cox would lose the general election by 30 percentage points to any of the Democrats running.“I don’t think there’s a single person out there in the state of Maryland that actually believes that Dan Cox can beat a Democrat in November,” she said in an interview, calling Mr. Cox an “out-of-control conspiracy-theorist-type person.”Mr. Cox’s campaign manager, his daughter Patience Faith Cox, did not respond to requests for comment.The Democratic Governors Association agrees with Ms. Schulz’s assessment. It has essentially fueled Mr. Cox’s entire ad campaign. Mr. Cox has spent just $21,000 on television and radio ads, yet polls show him tied with or leading Ms. Schulz.Mr. Cox has been a prolific amplifier of pro-Trump conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. In December 2020, he wrote on Facebook that Mr. Trump should use the federal government to “seize federal vote machines in states where fraud is exceedingly rampant.”He chartered three buses from his home base in Frederick County to the Jan. 6, 2021, rally to protest the election results. That day, after the mob had breached the Capitol amid chants of “Hang Mike Pence,” Mr. Cox tweeted, “Pence is a traitor.”Dan Cox, a Republican state delegate in Maryland, has been a prolific amplifier of pro-Trump conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. Brian Witte/Associated PressAhead of Tuesday’s primary, Mr. Cox has threatened lawsuits seeking to invalidate mail-in ballots and warned without evidence that “there have been mules in Maryland” illegally stuffing ballot drop boxes, a reference to a Trump-promoted film that makes false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election.The counting of absentee ballots is expected to last for days after Tuesday’s vote. Maryland law forbids the processing and counting of ballots returned in drop boxes or by mail until Thursday, and aides for several candidates have warned that the winners in each primary may not be known until late in the week.Delegate Ric Metzgar, a Republican who is backing Mr. Cox, said that Mr. Hogan had alienated the party’s base by breaking with Mr. Trump and that Ms. Schulz had failed to present herself as anything beyond an extension of Mr. Hogan’s administration.“There’s not many Republicans supporting him at this moment, he’s distanced himself so far away from Trump,” Mr. Metzgar said. “You can’t ride coattails if there’s no coattails to hang on to.” More

Mayor Eric Adams has traveled across the country to court donors, receiving contributions from casino and sports betting executives.When Mayor Eric Adams was confronted last month with troubling poll numbers, he gave an optimistic interpretation: He said he had earned a C grade from many New Yorkers.In terms of combating the city’s crime problem, the mayor was less certain, giving himself a grade of incomplete.But when it comes to fund-raising, Mr. Adams would more than likely give himself an A, for effort and for results.The mayor raised more than $850,000 for his 2025 re-election campaign barely six months after taking office, according to filings with the city’s Campaign Finance Board released on Friday night.The campaign haul is a result of Mr. Adams’s traveling across the country to raise money for a second term, even as he is confronting major issues at home, from crime to soaring rents. He has held fund-raisers in Chicago and Beverly Hills and has courted wealthy donors in the Hamptons during the honeymoon stage of his first term when his popularity is still relatively high.Here’s a look at some quick takeaways from the campaign filings:The mayor’s national reachNearly half of Mr. Adams’s campaign donations — more than $400,000 — came from outside New York City, from donors in places including Palm Beach, Fla., and Santa Barbara, Calif.His trips to other cities have helped establish a national profile for Mr. Adams, who has called himself the “future of the Democratic Party” and is rumored to be interested in running for president someday, like a handful of New York City mayors before him.In March, Mr. Adams, the city’s second Black mayor, held an event in Chicago at the home of Desirée Rogers, the former White House social secretary for President Barack Obama. Ms. Rogers donated $2,500 to Mr. Adams’s campaign.The mayor had 28 total donations from Chicago, from donors including Brett Hart, the president of United Airlines; La Shawn Ford, an Illinois lawmaker; and Toi Salter, a wealth manager. Mr. Adams’s West Coast donors included Breck Eisner, the director of the 2005 film “Sahara.”“This filing shows strong support for Mayor Adams and his plans for the city,” his campaign lawyer, Vito Pitta, a prominent lobbyist, said in a statement.Attention from real estate and casino executivesNew Yorkers did not exactly open their wallets for Mr. Adams: Only $83,000 of the donations is believed to qualify for the city’s generous matching-funds program, which is designed to reward candidates who receive small-dollar donations from local residents.But given that his re-election is still more than three years away, the slow pace of small local donations is understandable.Still, some donors — specifically, leaders from real estate, casino and sports betting businesses — seemed to have more immediate reason to give to the mayor’s campaign.They included Stephen Green, a founder of SL Green Realty, one of the city’s biggest landlords, and Darcy Stacom, the head of New York City capital markets for CRBE, a major commercial real estate firm.As New York City prepares to welcome three new casinos, executives from a Hard Rock hotel and casino in Florida donated to the mayor. Sean Caffery, a casino development executive at Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Hollywood, and Jeff Hook, another executive there, each gave $2,000. Two other Hard Rock executives, Jon Lucas and Edward Tracy, also donated.And with sports betting having recently been legalized in New York, Jason Robins, the chief executive of DraftKings, the sports betting company, and Stanton Dodge, the company’s chief legal officer, gave $2,000 to the campaign. Matt King, chief executive at Fanatics Betting and Gaming, was another donor.Fund-raisers at Osteria La Baia and Casa CiprianiMr. Adams’s campaign has spent about $100,000 so far, leaving him with $746,000 on hand.The campaign’s largest single payment was $30,000 to Suggs Solutions, a company run by his fund-raiser, Brianna Suggs. Ms. Suggs has also raised money for the Democratic Party in Brooklyn and worked for Mr. Adams when he was Brooklyn borough president.The campaign has been paying $7,500 a month to Pitta L.P., the law firm where Mr. Pitta, the campaign lawyer, is a managing partner, since February.Other payments went to fund-raisers at some of the mayor’s favorite restaurants, including $1,000 in March to Osteria La Baia, an Italian restaurant in Midtown Manhattan, and $1,600 in March to Casa Cipriani, a members’ club in Lower Manhattan.The campaign also paid for flights on JetBlue and United Airlines and for hotels, including $1,280 to the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills.The City Council is also getting an early startMr. Adams may have more than a passing interest in the future of the City Council, knowing that next year’s election, in which every Council seat will be on the ballot, could affect Mr. Adams’s agenda. A majority of the Council — 41 of its 51 members — sent Mr. Adams a letter this week calling on him to restore funding for schools that have faced vexing budget cuts.Adrienne Adams, the City Council speaker, led the Council in recent fund-raising, reporting about $127,000 in contributions from powerful donors that included the New York State Laborers and the Building and Construction Trades Council. Ms. Adams, a Democrat, also received $250 from John Catsimatidis, the Republican billionaire, and $1,600 from his wife, Margo.Other Council members have raised significant amounts, including Linda Lee, a member from eastern Queens, who raised $51,000; Sandra Ung, a member who represents Flushing, Queens, and raised $33,000; and Crystal Hudson and Justin Brannan, two members from Brooklyn who each raised $25,000.A PAC tied to the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group, donated to at least three Council members: Ms. Adams, Ms. Hudson and Mr. Brannan. More

The role of William J. Olson in advising the president in late 2020, which has not previously been disclosed, shows how fringe figures were influencing him at a critical time.Around 5 in the afternoon on Christmas Day in 2020, as many Americans were celebrating with family, President Donald J. Trump was at his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Fla., on the phone with a little-known conservative lawyer who was encouraging his attempts to overturn the election, according to a memo the lawyer later wrote documenting the call.The lawyer, William J. Olson, was promoting several extreme ideas to the president that Mr. Olson later conceded could be regarded as tantamount to declaring “martial law” and could even invite comparisons with Watergate. They included tampering with the Justice Department and firing the acting attorney general, according to the Dec. 28 memo by Mr. Olson, titled “Preserving Constitutional Order,” describing their discussions.“Our little band of lawyers is working on a memorandum that explains exactly what you can do,” Mr. Olson wrote in his memo, obtained by The New York Times, which he marked “privileged and confidential” and sent to the president. “The media will call this martial law,” he wrote, adding that “that is ‘fake news.’”The document highlights the previously unreported role of Mr. Olson in advising Mr. Trump as the president was increasingly turning to extreme, far-right figures outside the White House to pursue options that many of his official advisers had told him were impossible or unlawful, in an effort to cling to power.The involvement of a person like Mr. Olson, who now represents the conspiracy theorist and MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell, underscores how the system that would normally insulate a president from rogue actors operating outside of official channels had broken down within weeks after the 2020 election.Read William J. Olson’s Memo to TrumpA memorandum sent in December 2020 to President Donald J. Trump by the right-wing lawyer William J. Olson on how to seek to overturn the election.Read DocumentThat left Mr. Trump in direct contact with people who promoted conspiracy theories or questionable legal ideas, telling him not only what he wanted to hear, but also that they — not the public servants advising him — were the only ones he could trust.“In our long conversation earlier this week, I could hear the shameful and dismissive attitude of the lawyer from White House Counsel’s Office toward you personally — but more importantly toward the Office of the President of the United States itself,” Mr. Olson wrote to Mr. Trump. “This is unacceptable.”The memo was written 10 days after one of the most dramatic meetings ever held in the Trump White House, during which three of the president’s White House advisers vied — at one point almost physically — with outside actors to influence Mr. Trump. In that meeting, the lawyer Sidney Powell and Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, pushed for Mr. Trump to seize voting machines and appoint Ms. Powell special counsel to investigate wild and groundless claims of voter fraud, even as White House lawyers fought back.But the memo suggests that, even after his aides had won that skirmish in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump continued to seek extreme legal advice that ran counter to the recommendations of the Justice Department and the counsel’s office.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 8Making a case against Trump. More

4

against, and two abstentions, the oath was extended to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Art. 2, §1, cl. 8, Document 1, Records of the Federal Convention reprinted in 3 The Founders Constitution, Item # 1 at 574 ) (emphasis added).

Had the presidential oath or affirmation been adopted without modification, then the President’s fealty to the Constitution would have been no different from that of any other government official, federal or state, a “guaranty … that he will be conscientious in the discharge of his duty.” Story’s Commentaries § 1838 reprinted in 4 Founders, Item # 17 at 645. But more was to be required of the President.

By extending his oath or affirmation to include the duty to “preserve, protect and defend,” the President not only is constrained to act in accord with his specific constitutional obligations, but also, as Joseph Story so eloquently wrote in his Commentaries:

It is a suitable pledge of his fidelity and responsibility to his country; and creates upon his conscience a deep sense of duty, by an appeal, at once in the presence of God and man, to the most sacred and solemn sanctions which can operate upon the human mind. [2 J. Story Commentaries at § 1488 at 325-26 (Little, Brown, 5th ed., 1891.) (emphasis added).]

The meaning of the Constitutional text could not be more clear:

In order for the President to discharge his duty to “defend” the Constitution, he must be vigilant, for example, to “drive back,” to “repel” and to “secure against” attacks on the liberties of American citizens from all

sources.

In order to discharge his duty to “preserve” the Constitution, the president must, for example, “keep or save from injury,” “keep or defend from corruption,” and “save from decay” the federal system establishing the means by which the States select electors.

Finally, to be true to his oath to “protect” the Constitution, the President must, for example, “cover or shield from danger,” “preserve in safety” the separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government.

In contrast, the Constitution requires all other officers of the judicial and legislative branches of the federal government, and the President’s subordinates in the executive branch, simply to swear or affirm their “support” of the Constitution.

As President Andrew Jackson wrote in his message defending his veto of the Second Bank of the United States: More

A summary of the findings includes deep dissatisfaction among voters and potential fertile ground for new candidates in 2024.Which side has the most energy heading into November? More polls will come as the midterm elections near, but for now we’ve wrapped up our first New York Times/Siena survey, and here are some notable takeaways:Voters are not happy. Just 13 percent of registered voters said America was heading in the right direction. Only 10 percent said the economy was excellent or good. And a majority of voters said the nation was too politically divided to solve its challenges. As a point of comparison, each of these figures shows a more pessimistic electorate than in October 2020, when the pandemic was still raging and Donald J. Trump was president.Joe Biden is in trouble. His approval rating in our poll was in the low 30s. That’s lower than we ever found for Mr. Trump.Democrats would rather see someone else get the party’s nomination in 2024. Mr. Biden’s age was as much of an issue among voters as his overall job performance. Of course, he probably would have trailed “someone else” ahead of the last presidential primary as well, but he still won the nomination because his opposition was weak or fractured. Still, it’s a sign that Mr. Biden is much weaker than the typical president seeking re-election. It could augur a contested primary.Democrats’ Reasons for a Different CandidateWhat’s the most important reason you would prefer someone other than Joe Biden to be the Democratic Party’s 2024 presidential nominee?

Asked of 191 respondents who said they planned to vote in the 2024 Democratic primary and who preferred a candidate other than Joe Biden in a New York Times/Siena College poll from July 5-7, 2022.By The New York TimesTrump isn’t doing great, either. Like Mr. Biden, Mr. Trump has become less popular over the last two years. The number of Republicans who hold an unfavorable view of him has doubled since our final polling in 2020. He’s now under 50 percent in a hypothetical 2024 Republican primary matchup.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is already at 25 percent in an early test of the Republican primary. Mr. Trump may still be the front-runner, but the polls increasingly look more like the early surveys from the Democratic primary in 2008 — when Hillary Clinton found herself in an extremely close race and ultimately lost to Barack Obama — than the polls ahead of the Democratic primary in 2016, when she won a protracted battle against Bernie Sanders.Many voters do not want to see a 2020 rematch. Mr. Biden still led Mr. Trump in a hypothetical 2024 matchup, 44 percent to 41 percent. What was surprising: Ten percent of respondents volunteered that they would not vote at all or would vote for someone else if those were the two candidates, even though the interviewer didn’t offer those choices as an option.The midterm race starts out close, with voters nearly evenly divided on the generic congressional ballot (voters are asked whether they prefer Democrats or Republicans to be in control of Congress). That’s a little surprising, given expectations of a Republican landslide this year. More