Elections

Again and again, during the years that Donald Trump was in the White House, liberals would ask themselves a single question: “Can you imagine if Barack Obama had done this?”“This,” of course, was any one of the antics or misdeeds that marked Trump’s time in office: the lies, the insults, the cruelty and the criminality. Imagine if Obama had gone out of his way to excuse the equivalent of a white supremacist mob; imagine if Obama had gone to the site of a natural disaster and tossed out paper towels like so many footballs; imagine if he had railed against “shithole countries” or tried to pressure a foreign leader into turning over information to undermine his political opponents.Imagine what would have happened if Barack Obama had plotted to subvert and overturn a presidential election that he had lost.Republicans would have lost their minds. Having whipped themselves into a lather over fake scandals and manufactured controversies during the actual Obama administration, they would have exploded into paroxysms of partisan rage over any one of these misdeeds. The Benghazi hearings would have looked like a sober-minded investigation compared with what Republicans would have unleashed if the shoe had been on the other foot.The point of this mental exercise, for liberals, was to highlight the hypocrisy of the Republican Party under Trump. Tucked into this attempt to condemn Republican behavior, however, is an important observation about the value of political theater. All this conservative hysteria did not defeat Barack Obama at the ballot box, but it may have helped to put his party at a disadvantage.The main effect of these years of Republican scandal mongering was to produce a cloud of suspicion and mistrust that helped to undermine Obama’s preferred successor as president, as well as to shield Trump, as the 2016 Republican nominee, from the kind of scrutiny that might have made him more vulnerable.Democrats do not need to mimic Republican behavior in all of its deranged glory, but they would do well to heed the lesson that for many voters, where there is smoke, there must be fire.It is with this knowledge in mind that Democrats in Washington should do something about Ginni Thomas, who has just been asked to testify before the House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol. The reason is straightforward. Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, worked with allies of Donald Trump to try to overturn the 2020 presidential election. (Thomas quickly let it be known that she was looking “forward to talking to” the committee and couldn’t wait “to clear up misconceptions.”)Earlier this year, we learned that Thomas exchanged text messages with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, in the weeks and days before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. We also learned, last month, that she urged Arizona Republicans to discard the results of the election and choose a “clean slate of Electors” for Trump.And we’ve learned this week from the Jan. 6 committee that Thomas also sent messages directly to John Eastman, the conservative lawyer (and former law clerk for Justice Thomas) who essentially devised the plan to try to overturn the 2020 presidential results.Eastman spoke at the “stop the steal” rally before the attack and even requested a pardon by way of Rudy Giuliani for his activities leading up to the insurrection: “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.”“Thomas’s efforts to overturn the election were more extensive than previously known,” The Washington Post reported on Wednesday. Eastman, for his part, claimed to have known of a “heated” dispute among the Supreme Court justices over whether to hear arguments about the 2020 election. “So the odds are not based on the legal merits but an assessment of the justices’ spines, and I understand that there is a heated fight underway,” he is said to have written in an email to another lawyer. (On Thursday, Eastman posted a rebuttal on Substack asserting that he’d heard about the “heated fight” from news reports and that he could “categorically confirm that at no time did I discuss with Mrs. Thomas or Justice Thomas any matters pending or likely to come before the Court.”)But if the first revelation, of Thomas’s correspondence with Meadows, was shocking, then these revelations of Thomas’s contact with Eastman are explosive. And it raises key questions, not just about what Ginni Thomas knew, but about what Clarence Thomas knew as well. How, exactly, did Eastman know of tensions on the court? And why did he predict to Greg Jacobs, chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence, that the Supreme Court would rule 7-2 in support of his legal theory about the Electoral College certification process before conceding that in fact that might not be the case?So while the committee is rightly seeking testimony from Ginni Thomas, Democrats should say something too. They shouldn’t just say something, they should scream something.Not only did Ginni Thomas try to make herself a part of the effort to overthrow the government, but Justice Thomas was the only member of the court to vote in favor of Donald Trump’s attempt to shield his communications from congressional investigators, communications that would have included the messages between Mark Meadows and Ginni Thomas.There is something suspect happening with the Supreme Court, and other constitutional officers have every right to criticize it. Democratic leaders in Congress should begin an investigation into Ginni Thomas’s activities and announce that they intend to speak to her husband as well. President Biden should tell the press that he supports that investigation and hopes to see answers. Rank-and-file Democrats should make a stink about potential corruption on the court whenever they have the opportunity. Impeachment should be on the table.This probably won’t win votes. It could, however, capture the attention of the media and even put Republicans on the defensive. It is true that politics are unpredictable and that there’s no way to say exactly how a given choice will play out in the real world. But if the much maligned (and politically successful) investigations into Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s emails are any indication, real pressure might turn additional revelations into genuine liabilities for the Republican Party.The easiest thing for Democrats to do, of course, is nothing — to steer away from open conflict and leave the controversy (and the questions) to the select committee. But if Democrats choose instead to act like a political party should, they would do well to remember that if the tables were turned, their opponents would not hesitate to use every argument, and every tool, at their disposal.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

An angry mob chanting “hang Mike Pence” came within 40 feet of the vice president. He spent nearly five hours in an underground loading dock. And the president called him a “wimp” and worse.Former Vice President Mike Pence spent almost five hours on Jan. 6 in a loading dock beneath the Capitol. At one point, an angry mob chanting “hang Mike Pence” came within 40 feet of him.Doug Mills/The New York TimesWASHINGTON — He started the day with a prayer.Vice President Mike Pence, preparing to withstand the final stage of a relentless campaign by President Donald J. Trump to force him to illegally try to overturn the results of the 2020 election, began Jan. 6, 2021, surrounded by aides at his official residence at the Naval Observatory, asking God for guidance.The group was expecting a difficult day. But what followed over the next 12 hours was more harrowing than they imagined.An angry mob with baseball bats and pepper spray chanting “hang Mike Pence” came within 40 feet of the vice president. Mr. Pence’s Secret Service detail had to hustle him to safety and hold him for nearly five hours in the bowels of the Capitol. Mr. Trump called Mr. Pence a “wimp” and worse in a coarse and abusive call that morning from the Oval Office, Mr. Trump’s daughter and former White House aides testified.And a confidential witness who traveled to Washington with the Proud Boys, the most prominent of the far-right groups that helped lead the assault on the Capitol, later told investigators the group would have killed Mr. Pence — and Speaker Nancy Pelosi — if they got the chance.Those were among the extraordinary new details that emerged during the third public hearing held Thursday by the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the United States Capitol.Mr. Pence’s day dawned as it often did. The vice president, whose evangelical faith was a selling point for adding him to the presidential ticket in 2016 but often a source of skepticism for Mr. Trump, was joined by three people in prayer: his chief counsel, Greg Jacob; his chief of staff, Marc Short; and his director of legislative affairs, Chris Hodgson.Mr. Pence and the team had been subjected to a barrage of demands from Mr. Trump that the vice president refuse to certify Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s Electoral College victory in a joint session of Congress — an unconstitutional action never before taken in the two and a half centuries since the nation’s founding.“We just asked for guidance and wisdom, knowing the day was going to be a challenging one,” Mr. Short said in videotaped testimony played by the committee.While Mr. Pence was at the Naval Observatory, Mr. Trump was in the Oval Office with aides and family members trickling in and out, including Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle and Ivanka Trump. He had already sent two Twitter posts further pressuring Mr. Pence, the first at 1 a.m. The second, at 8 a.m., concluded, “Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!”At 11:20 a.m., Mr. Trump called Mr. Pence, who stepped away from his aides to take the call.The group in the Oval Office could hear Mr. Trump’s side of the call but paid little attention to what seemed to start as a routine conversation. But as Mr. Trump became increasingly heated that Mr. Pence was holding firm in his refusal to give in, the call became hard to ignore.The Themes of the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsMaking a Case Against Trump: The committee appears to be laying out a road map for prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump. But the path to any trial is uncertain.Day One: During the first hearing, the panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Day Two: In its second hearing, the committee showed how Mr. Trump ignored aides and advisers in declaring victory prematurely and relentlessly pressing claims of fraud he was told were wrong.Day Three: Mr. Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal, according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing.“I remember hearing the word ‘wimp,’” Nick Luna, an aide to Mr. Trump, said in videotaped testimony. “‘Wimp’ is the word I remember.”Ivanka Trump, the president’s older daughter and a former top White House adviser, said in her videotaped testimony that “it was a different tone than I heard him take with the vice president before.”Ms. Trump’s chief of staff, Julie Radford, appeared in videotaped testimony to say that Ms. Trump told her shortly after the call that Mr. Trump had an “upsetting” conversation with Mr. Pence. The president, Ms. Radford said, used “the P word.” (The New York Times reported previously that Mr. Trump had told Mr. Pence, “You can either go down in history as a patriot or you can go down in history as a pussy,” according to two people briefed on the conversation.)Over at the Naval Observatory, Mr. Pence returned to the room after taking the call looking “steely,” “determined” and “grim,” Mr. Jacob told the committee.Mr. Trump in the meantime revised a speech that he delivered later that day to throngs of supporters on the Ellipse. An early draft of the speech, the committee said, included no mention of Mr. Pence. But after the call, the president included language that video footage showed riled up the mob.“I hope Mike is going to do the right thing,” Mr. Trump said in his speech. “I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win.”“All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people,” Mr. Trump continued, referring to one of his demands that Mr. Pence send the election results back to the states, a delaying tactic that he hoped would ultimately keep him in office. If Mr. Pence failed to comply, Mr. Trump told the crowd, “that will be a sad day for our country.’’He added, “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,” using the term for “Republicans in name only.”Mr. Trump directed his supporters to march to the Capitol and make themselves heard.By the time Mr. Pence arrived at the Capitol with his wife, Karen Pence, and their daughter Charlotte, an angry mob was already massing outside.Inside, as the joint session began, Mr. Pence’s aides released a memo to the public laying out the vice president’s view that he did not have the power over the certification that Mr. Trump and his lawyer, John Eastman, insisted he did.Shortly after 2:10 p.m., the proceedings were interrupted by loud noises. The mob was swarming into the building. At 2:24 p.m. — when Democrats on the committee said Mr. Trump was aware that the Capitol had been breached — the president posted to Twitter that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what was necessary.”At that point, the Secret Service had moved Mr. Pence from the Senate chamber to his office across the hall. His advisers said the noise from the rioters had become audible, leading them to assume they had entered the building. Yet there was not yet a pervasive sense of alarm.Mr. Pence in his office in the Capitol on Jan. 6 shortly after leaving the Senate chamber.White HouseOnce in his office, Mr. Pence sat with his family, including his brother, Representative Greg Pence and top aides as Mr. Short ducked downstairs to grab some food. Mrs. Pence drew the curtains to keep the rioters from looking in.Mr. Short made his way back to the office. By then, Tim Giebels, the lead Secret Service agent for Mr. Pence, had made a few attempts to nudge Mr. Pence and his family to move to a different location. But soon he was no longer making a suggestion. Mr. Pence, he said, had to get to safety.The entourage began to make its way down a stairway toward an underground loading dock — the point at which they came within 40 feet of the rioters. Mr. Pence and his aides did not know at the time just how close they were to the mob, some of whom were threatening to kill him.“I could hear the din of the rioters in the building,” Mr. Jacob said Thursday at the hearing. “I don’t think I was aware they were as close as that.”From the loading dock, Mr. Pence handled calls to congressional leaders who had been evacuated from the Capitol complex and ordered the Pentagon to send in the National Guard. The Secret Service directed him to get into a car and evacuate, but he refused to leave the building.“The vice president did not want to take any chance that the world would see the vice president of the United States fleeing the United States Capitol,” Mr. Jacob said Thursday, noting that Mr. Pence did not want to give the rioters the satisfaction of disrupting the proceedings more than they had already done. “He was determined that we would complete the work that we had set out to do that day.”One person he never spoke with again that day was Mr. Trump, who did not call to check on Mr. Pence’s safety. Neither did the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.Just after 8 p.m., the Senate chamber opened again, after the rioters had been cleared from the complex.“Today was a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol,” Mr. Pence said as the proceedings began again. He was greeted with applause when he said, “Let’s get back to work.”Back at the White House, egged on by some of his advisers, Mr. Trump told aides he wanted to bar Mr. Short from entering the West Wing from then on.At 3:42 in the morning, it was all over. Mr. Biden’s victory had been certified.At 3:50 a.m., as Mr. Pence and Mr. Short went their separate ways, Mr. Short texted his boss a passage from the Bible.“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith,” the message read. More

BOGOTÁ — El mes pasado, una organización criminal armada paralizó casi un tercio del norte de Colombia, en buena medida sin resistencia. “A partir de esta fecha se decreta cuatro días de paro armado”, decía un panfleto del 5 de mayo que ordenaba a la gente a que permaneciera en sus casas, cerrara los negocios y vaciara las calles.El Clan del Golfo, un grupo del narcotráfico de corte paramilitar, inició el paro contra el gobierno colombiano en represalia por la captura y extradición a Estados Unidos de su líder, Dairo Antonio Úsuga, conocido como Otoniel. “No nos hacemos responsables de aquellos que no acaten las órdenes”, advertía ominosamente el grupo.Para enfatizar su mensaje, los miembros del Clan del Golfo marcaron paredes con sus iniciales en los centros urbanos, quemaron vehículos y camiones para bloquear carreteras, instalaron puestos de control ilegales y patrullaron los campos en motocicletas. Con poca policía estatal o presencia militar para proteger las zonas rurales, los colombianos en 11 de los 32 departamentos del país acataron las órdenes del grupo y se impuso una quietud fantasmal.Al final de los cuatro días, al menos ocho personas habían muerto, casi 200 vehículos habían sido incinerados y muchos de los tres millones de personas afectadas se estaban quedando sin comida y otros productos básicos.El Clan del Golfo también parece estar incidiendo en la elección presidencial. El grupo emitió amenazas por escrito a los partidarios del candidato de izquierda, Gustavo Petro, y en las zonas rurales donde el recuerdo del paro seguía presente, los líderes comunitarios dijeron que el miedo limitó la participación de los votantes.Pero tal vez porque hay mucho en juego, un porcentaje alto de votantes acudió el 29 de mayo a las urnas para la primera vuelta electoral. Petro obtuvo poco más del 40 por ciento de los 21 millones de votos totales y se enfrentará en la segunda vuelta del 19 de junio a Rodolfo Hernández, un controversial empresario inmobiliario de derecha que hizo una fuerte campaña en TikTok.Aunque ambos candidatos difieren de manera significativa en todos los temas —desde la movilidad social hasta la política exterior— comparten una debilidad: ninguno ha articulado un plan claro para detener el aumento de la amenaza armada y la violencia que afecta a la Colombia rural, como revelan las acciones del Clan del Golfo. Los números de personas desplazadas, la acumulación de asesinatos de líderes sociales y comunitarios y el reclutamiento forzoso de niños, son indicios de que la seguridad se está deteriorando con rapidez.Ni Petro ni Hernández parecen estar preparados para enfrentar los desafíos de las zonas rurales en conflicto. Además de la violencia organizada del Clan del Golfo, alrededor de una decena de otros grupos armados recorren las áreas más vulnerables del país, buscando controlar territorios para establecer rutas lucrativas de tráfico de drogas y otros mercados ilegales.El próximo presidente de Colombia debe alejarse del enfoque actual del gobierno de priorizar las capturas y extradiciones de líderes de organizaciones ilegales, como la que causó el paro armado. Esta estrategia no ha logrado desmantelar a los grupos criminales pero sí ha generado consecuencias profundas para los civiles.En cambio, el nuevo presidente debería centrarse en una política que reoriente a las fuerzas de seguridad de Colombia para proteger a los civiles de los grupos armados, que hoy ejercen una autoridad de facto en muchas partes del país. Esto, sumado a la implementación de programas sociales y una inversión sustancial en el campo, puede ayudar a cambiar el rumbo y pavimentar el camino hacia la paz.La policía colombiana escoltó a Dairo Antonio Úsuga, líder del Clan del Golfo, cuando fue extraditado a Estados Unidos en mayo.Prensa Presidencial/Agence France-Presse vía Getty ImagesEl acuerdo de paz, firmado en 2016 entre el Estado y las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), ha logrado reducir en buena medida la violencia rural. Pero algunas regiones, como Montes de María, donde los grupos armados están tomando el control de enormes territorios —incluidas grandes áreas que las FARC solían controlar—, son un buen anticipo de la situación que enfrentará el candidato que gane la elección.Cuando visité Montes de María en marzo, me quedó claro que esta región agrícola, rica en recursos, estaba en crisis. El Clan del Golfo ha expandido agresivamente su presencia desde la firma del acuerdo de paz, reclamando rutas de tráfico e imponiendo el cobro de pagos de protección a la población. Este grupo armado —como casi todos los que hoy operan en el país— evita los enfrentamientos con los militares. Su objetivo no es tomar poder en Bogotá, sino sacar ganancias de las tierras y de su gente.Se suponía que esto no debería suceder. El acuerdo de paz con las FARC eliminaría las desigualdades que habían empoderado a las guerrillas y a los narcotraficantes. Prometía ayudar a los agricultores pobres que cultivaban coca, la materia prima de la cocaína, a abandonar un medio de vida que los exponía a la violencia. Cerca de 100.000 familias se apuntaron y arrancaron voluntariamente sus cultivos de coca.No obstante, el gobierno actual, encabezado por el presidente Iván Duque, llegó al poder en 2018 argumentando que el acuerdo de paz era demasiado indulgente con las FARC, y se ha enfocado en las partes del acuerdo afines a sus intereses políticos —como la desmovilización de excombatientes y el gasto en infraestructura— mientras que otras promesas, como abordar la desigualdad en la posesión de tierras y el respaldo a la sustitución de cultivos de coca, quedaron en el olvido.Al mismo tiempo, decenas de grupos armados, como el Clan del Golfo, han mostrado ser más ágiles, tenaces y económicamente habilidosos para aprovechar las oportunidades que ofreció el desmantelamiento de las FARC.Al interior del país, hombres armados reclutan a la fuerza a niños para engrosar sus filas, sacándolos de sus hogares y escuelas. Otros adultos jóvenes se unen por su cuenta porque, sin posibilidades de educación o trabajo, el conflicto es el único empleo disponible. En el sur de Córdoba, el Clan del Golfo se promueve como “la única empresa que tiene las puertas siempre abiertas”.La élite política colombiana considera, erróneamente, que estas amenazas están desvinculadas de la desesperación social y económica que viven muchos colombianos. Es más fácil culpar de los disturbios a otros enemigos, ya sea Venezuela, las guerrillas de izquierda o los rivales políticos. Y, de hecho, en lugar de solucionar esta situación, la respuesta más común del gobierno ha sido desplegar el ejército.Los soldados enviados para acabar con la inestabilidad saben que este enfoque no está funcionando. “Aquí no hay una solución militar”, me dijo un comandante de una brigada militar en una de las zonas de conflicto más ríspidas de Colombia, sugiriendo que lo que se necesitaba era inversión social.Por ahora, muchas de las fuerzas del gobierno están enfocadas en la erradicación forzosa de la coca, eliminando los cultivos que luego se vuelven a sembrar en tasas que, se calcula, llegan al 50 y 67 por ciento. La estrategia de las fuerzas armadas de matar y capturar a miembros de los grupos armados deriva en el reemplazo inmediato de esas bajas con nuevos reclutas.En pocas palabras, la estrategia inadecuada del gobierno colombiano en las zonas remotas es parcialmente culpable del resurgimiento de la violencia. Los candidatos presidenciales tienen la oportunidad de cambiar de rumbo.Es alentador que tanto Petro como Hernández han dicho que implementarán el acuerdo de paz de 2016, que el gobierno de Duque ha descuidado en muchos puntos. Sin embargo, ninguno de los dos ha presentado un plan claro sobre cómo gestionar el deterioro de la situación de seguridad de los ciudadanos de a pie.Petro, quien en el pasado fue parte de una organización guerrillera, se comprometió a iniciar un diálogo con los grupos armados e implementar la desmovilización de grupos del crimen organizado, como el Clan del Golfo. Hernández, por su parte, ha sugerido agregar al Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN) al acuerdo firmado con las FARC.Aunque en estas ideas hay algunos elementos que podrían funcionar, la mejor manera de abordar la crisis es proteger a los colombianos que viven en el epicentro del conflicto, con mejores servicios policiales, oportunidades económicas y razones concretas que les permita confiar en el gobierno.Una presión puntual de Washington puede ayudar. La reciente declaración del gobierno de Biden que destaca al acuerdo de paz es importante pero ha sido socavada por sus acciones. Los dólares estadounidenses se gastan de manera desproporcionada en enfoques de mano dura, como la erradicación forzosa de la coca, que no contribuyen mucho a resolver el problema y exacerban la desconfianza en el gobierno.La zozobra que aún acecha en las calles del norte de Colombia está avanzando demasiado rápido y lejos como para ignorarla. Los candidatos y los votantes urbanos que ignoran estos desafíos lo hacen bajo su propio riesgo. Lo que está en juego en las elecciones se extiende al futuro de un conflicto que se suponía que había terminado pero que, más bien, se está reavivando.Colombia, que ya había empezado a acabar con un conflicto armado, no debería permitir que vuelva a estallar.Elizabeth Dickinson (@dickinsonbeth) es analista sénior del International Crisis Group para Colombia, con sede en Bogotá. Antes de unirse a la organización en 2017, trabajó durante una década como periodista. More

BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Last month a criminal armed group shut down much of the northern third of Colombia — largely uncontested. “We decree four days of Armed Strike from this moment,” read the May 5 pamphlet ordering the population to stay indoors, the shops to close and the roads to be empty. The Gulf Clan, a paramilitary-style drug trafficking group, initiated the strike against the Colombian government in retaliation for the capture and extradition of its leader, Dairo Antonio Úsuga, known as Otoniel, to the United States. “We are not responsible for what happens to those who do not comply,” the group warned ominously.To emphasize their point, Gulf Clan members tagged walls in the urban centers with their initials, burned cars and buses to block roads, set up illegal checkpoints and patrolled rural areas by motorcycle. With little state police or military presence to protect the countryside, Colombians in 11 of the country’s 32 departments (similar to U.S. states) obeyed the illegal group’s orders, and a ghostly calm descended.After four days, at least eight people had been killed, nearly 200 vehicles were burned, and many of the three million people affected were running short on food and other basic supplies. The Gulf Clan also appears to be effecting the presidential election. The group issued direct written threats to supporters of the left-wing candidate Gustavo Petro, and in rural areas where the memory of the strike lingered, community leaders said fear did suppress some voter turnout.But perhaps because the stakes are so high, voters nationwide came to the polls at high levels for the first round of elections on May 29. Mr. Petro secured just over 40 percent of the 21 million total votes and will face off with Rodolfo Hernández, an outspoken, right-leaning real estate magnate who campaigned heavily on TikTok, in the runoff on June 19.Though the winning candidates differ significantly on everything from social mobility to foreign policy, they share one weakness: Neither has articulated a clear plan to contain rising levels of conflict and armed violence in the countryside, like the Gulf Clan actions. As seen in higher levels of displacement, assassinations of social and community leaders, and child recruitment, security is deteriorating rapidly.Neither Mr. Petro nor Mr. Hernández seems prepared to address the challenges of Colombia’s rural war zones. In addition to organized criminal violence from the Gulf Clan, about a dozen other armed groups prowl the country’s most vulnerable areas, seeking to control territories that provide lucrative drug trafficking routes. Colombia’s next president must move away from the state’s current approach of narrowly prioritizing captures and extraditions like the one that sparked the armed strike — that strategy fails to dismantle criminal groups but carries deep consequences for civilians.Instead, the new president should focus on a policy that empowers Colombia’s security forces to protect civilians from the armed groups who wield de facto authority in substantial parts of the country. This, coupled with social programs and investment in the countryside, can start to turn the tide definitively toward peace.Colombian National Police escorted Dairo Antonio Úsuga, a drug lord and head of the Gulf Clan, as he was extradited to the United States in May.Prensa Presidencial/Agence France-Presse, via Getty ImagesThe signing of a 2016 peace agreement between the state and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, has greatly reduced rural violence nationwide. But regions like Montes de María, where armed groups are taking control of parts of the country’s vast hinterland, including large areas that the FARC used to control, offer a foretaste of the reality the winning candidate will face.When I visited Montes de María in March, it was clear that this resource-rich agricultural region was in a crisis. The Gulf Clan has aggressively expanded its presence since the peace accord, claiming lucrative trafficking routes and imposing protection taxes on the population. This armed group — like nearly all of those operating in the country today — avoids clashing with the military. Its goal is not to take over in Bogotá, but rather to suck rents out of the land and its people.This wasn’t supposed to happen. The 2016 peace accord with the FARC chipped away at the inequalities that had empowered guerrillas and drug traffickers alike. It promised to help poor farmers growing coca — the raw material for cocaine — leave behind a livelihood that exposed them to violence. Nearly 100,000 families signed up and voluntarily ripped up their coca crops.Yet the outgoing conservative government, led by President Iván Duque, entered office in 2018 alleging that the peace agreement was too lenient on the FARC and has focused on carrying out parts of the accord that serve its political interests — such as demobilizing the former FARC and infrastructure spending — while leaving others, like addressing land inequality and supporting coca crop substitution, to wither.At the same time, dozens of armed groups like the Gulf Clan have proved nimble, tenacious and economically adept at capturing the opportunities afforded by the FARC’s withdrawal.Across the countryside, armed men are forcibly recruiting children to their ranks, ripping them out of their homes and schools. Other young adults sign up willingly because, in the absence of education or jobs, fighting is the only employment on offer. “The only company whose doors are always open” is how the Gulf Clan describes itself in southern Córdoba.The ruling political elite erroneously views these threats as disconnected from the social and economic desperation experienced by many Colombians. It is easier to pin the blame for unrest on other enemies, whether it be Venezuela, leftist guerrillas or political rivals. And indeed, rather than redressing grievances, the government’s default response has been to deploy the military.The soldiers sent to stamp out instability know the approach isn’t working. “There is no military solution here,” a military brigade commander told me in one of Colombia’s fiercest conflict areas, suggesting that what was needed was social investment. For now, many of the government’s forces are tied down forcibly eradicating coca by ripping up the crops that are then replanted at rates estimated to reach between 50 percent and 67 percent. The military’s policy to kill and capture armed-group members only results in new recruits to immediately fill their shoes.Put simply, the Colombian government’s flawed strategy in the countryside is partly to blame for the resurgent violence. Presidential candidates have an opportunity to shift course.Encouragingly, both Mr. Petro and Mr. Hernández have said they will implement the 2016 peace accord, many parts of which the current government has neglected. However, neither has presented a clear plan for how to manage the deteriorating security situation for civilians. Mr. Petro, himself a former rebel, has pledged to begin a dialogue with armed groups and implement demobilization for organized crime groups like the Gulf Clan. Mr. Hernández has suggested adding the guerrilla group National Liberation Army, or ELN, to the existing accord with the FARC.While there are some elements of a solution here, the best way to avert conflict is to protect Colombians living at the heart of the conflict, with better policing, economic opportunities and concrete reasons to trust the government.The right kind of pressure from Washington can help. The Biden administration’s recent statement emphasizing the peace accord is important but undermined by its actions. U.S. dollars are disproportionately spent on strong-arm approaches, such as forced coca eradication, that do little to tackle the problem and exacerbate distrust of the government.The foreboding that still haunts the streets of the country’s north is spreading too fast and too far across Colombia to ignore. The candidates and urban voters ignore these challenges at their peril. The huge stakes of the elections extend to the future of a conflict that was supposed to be over but is instead reigniting. Having ended war here once, Colombia should not allow it to erupt again.Elizabeth Dickinson (@dickinsonbeth) is a Bogotá-based senior analyst for Colombia at the International Crisis Group. Before joining the organization in 2017, she worked for a decade as a journalist.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

In the second and final debate in the Democratic primary race for governor of New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul and her two opponents tangled over highly volatile issues, including rising crime, dwindling affordable housing, looming environmental catastrophe — and how they take their bagel.But lighthearted moments were relatively few on Thursday, as Jumaane D. Williams, the New York City public advocate, and Representative Thomas R. Suozzi took their last direct swipes at Ms. Hochul ahead of the June 28 primary contest.The hourlong tussle was far from pretty and often outright sour, as Mr. Williams and especially Mr. Suozzi heaped on accusations that the governor was ethically compromised, insufficiently qualified and unwilling or unable to protect New Yorkers.“Governor? Governor? Governor?” Mr. Suozzi, a Long Island centrist, repeated impatiently during one memorable back and forth. He was trying to force Ms. Hochul to look his way after she criticized him for once ostensibly condoning Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill (comments he’s since recanted), but the exchange just as well summed up the entire evening.Ms. Hochul merely smiled and kept her gaze straight ahead. When she exited 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Midtown Manhattan a short time later, there were signs the governor had been bruised but little to suggest that either opponent had succeeded in fundamentally shifting the dynamics of a race now verging on a blowout as it enters its final, frantic stretch.Still, the debate, hosted by NBC New York, Telemundo 47 and The Times Union of Albany, was often more substantive and confrontational than the Democrats’ first debate just over a week ago.The candidates fought over housing policy and evictions. Mr. Suozzi, who is running on a platform of cutting taxes and fighting crime, accused the governor of “irresponsibly” spending federal Covid relief money that has flooded the state, including through direct payments to help cash-strapped New Yorkers make rent.Ms. Hochul scoffed. “I don’t think that spending money on people who are at risk of losing their homes is irresponsible,” she said. “I would do it any day of the week.”Mr. Williams, a progressive who favors a more expansive set of government protections, used the opportunity to argue for so-called good-cause eviction legislation that would cap rent increases and make it harder to oust tenants. The governor does not openly support the bill, which is opposed by New York’s powerful real estate industry.A Guide to New York’s 2022 Primary ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.Governor’s Race: Gov. Kathy Hochul, the incumbent, will face off against Jumaane Williams and Tom Suozzi in a Democratic primary on June 28.Adams’s Endorsement: The New York City mayor gave Ms. Hochul a valuable, if belated, endorsement that could help her shore up support among Black and Latino voters.The Mapmaker: A postdoctoral fellow and former bartender redrew New York’s congressional map, reshaping several House districts and scrambling the future of the state’s political establishment.Maloney vs. Nadler: The new congressional lines have put the two stalwart Manhattan Democrats on a collision course in the Aug. 23 primary.Offensive Remarks: Carl P. Paladino, a Republican running for a House seat in Western New York, recently drew backlash for praising Adolf Hitler in an interview dating back to 2021.A similar pattern played out when the candidates discussed elevated crime rates in New York City and a heightened sense of fear among New Yorkers since the pandemic began, particularly on the subway.Ms. Hochul defended her administration’s efforts — including tweaks to New York’s bail laws — as a work in progress and touted her collaboration with Mayor Eric Adams on “giving people that sense of security” and protecting those suffering from mental health issues.This time, Mr. Suozzi was not persuaded.“We hear the governor’s speech about ‘we’re spending money on this, we’re going to get to that,’” he said. “Under this administration, they are not safer.”Mr. Williams, again, said he would take a more holistic approach than Ms. Hochul or her predecessors had, calling for building “a continuum of care structure for mental health to make sure people have a house to stay in.”The candidates differed over taxes, crime and whether they would accept the backing of ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo.Pool photo by Craig RuttleThere were salient differences that emerged.Asked if she would consider cutting New York’s famously high taxes, Ms. Hochul touted her decision to approve a one-time gas tax and property tax rebate and pledged, “We’re not raising taxes.” Mr. Suozzi said he would cut state income taxes by 10 percent and reduce property taxes. Mr. Williams adamantly disagreed, accusing his opponents of parroting “a Republican line that’s meant to protect rich donors at the expense of people who need the assistance.”The candidates disagreed on whether they would welcome the support of former Gov. Andrew. M. Cuomo, who resigned last year in the face of sexual harassment allegations. Mr. Williams said no, and Ms. Hochul went out of her way to put extra distance between herself and her onetime boss.“While he has a lot of baggage along with what he’s done, he’s accomplished a great deal in the State of New York,” Mr. Suozzi said as he answered yes.When Ms. Hochul and Mr. Suozzi said they were focused on building greater resiliency against the effects of climate change, like floods and extreme heat, Mr. Williams accused the governor of not doing enough to advance a congestion pricing plan for car users in New York City (she later said she supported the plan) and failing to fund New York’s landmark climate law.“Under a Williams administration, you wouldn’t have to ask for that,” he said.Polls consistently put Ms. Hochul ahead by comfortable double digits; she is spending more on advertisements in the contest’s final weeks than her primary opponents have raised this year collectively; and this week, she won the support of The New York Times editorial board and Mayor Adams, two endorsements that Mr. Suozzi and Mr. Williams had badly wanted.On Thursday, Mr. Suozzi, an ally of Mr. Adams who was offered a job in his administration, dismissed the endorsement as “political reality” because the governor has “a lot of power right now.”“They say if you want a friend in politics, get a dog,” he said.But the candidates still have a flurry of campaigning ahead of them, and with turnout expected to be low, political analysts caution that the contest could ultimately be closer than it appears, given Mr. Suozzi’s base of support in the Long Island suburbs and Mr. Williams’s strong ties to vote-rich Brooklyn.Early voting in both party primaries begins on Saturday.The Democratic nominee will face the winner of a four-person Republican race among Representative Lee Zeldin; Rob Astorino, the former Westchester County executive; the businessman Harry Wilson; and Andrew Giuliani, son of the former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. Republicans are set to participate in one final debate next week.On Thursday, the Democrats saw fit to just keep pummeling themselves, however.With the nation — and Buffalo — reeling from a spate of mass shootings, Mr. Williams and Mr. Suozzi repeatedly attacked Ms. Hochul for accepting the support of the National Rifle Association when she was a congressional candidate a decade ago. Ms. Hochul took umbrage at the “attacks” and said her decision to sign a suite of new gun safety measures into state law this month was proof she had evolved.“It’s not an attack, governor, that’s the fact: You were endorsed by the N.R.A.,” Mr. Suozzi said. “I know you want to slough it off.”Ms. Hochul was not pleased: “Excuse me, it’s my turn to answer the question,” she said, and then added, “please stop interrupting me.”Toward the end of the night, after Mr. Suozzi knocked the governor for picking a lieutenant governor later indicted on bribery charges, Ms. Hochul tried to turn the tables and attack Mr. Suozzi for a congressional ethics investigation into his stock trading.“The word hypocrisy does come to mind,” she said. Mr. Suozzi played down the inquiry as nothing more than late-filed paperwork.Mr. Williams also found himself under scrutiny at one point when Melissa Russo, one of the moderators, pressed him on his own political evolution on two matters of Democratic orthodoxy: abortion and gay marriage.Mr. Williams said his position on abortion had not changed, but that now he tried to “center the people who are most affected.”“There’s a difference between saying something wrong and working always, like I did, to make sure the L.G.B.T. community had the rights they need and make sure women and pregnant women had abortion rights and actively working against New Yorkers and actively working with the N.R.A.,” he said.The moderators tried to end the evening on some lighter fare, but even on their favorite circular nosh, Mr. Williams, Mr. Suozzi and Ms. Hochul were left hopelessly at odds.“My mother when I was younger always got me a bagel with lox, cream cheese onions and capers,” Mr. Williams said of his preferred order.Mr. Suozzi kept it simple — poppy seed bagel and tuna — particularly compared with the governor.“I have a sweet tooth, everybody knows that,” she said. “It’s going to be a cinnamon raisin with whatever sweet cream cheese they’ll put on it, usually maple syrup.” More

The stakes in Thursday’s Democratic debate for governor of New York State were relatively low for Gov. Kathy Hochul, the race’s front-runner. She had to withstand an onslaught of attacks from her rival candidates, while making no major errors. She appeared to achieve those modest aims.The stakes for her two rivals, on the other hand, were substantially higher. Early voting for the June 28 primary begins Saturday, and this was one of their last opportunities to change the trajectory of a race that appears all but certain to award her the nomination.Representative Thomas R. Suozzi, who is running to Ms. Hochul’s right as a tough-on-crime, fiscally responsible Democrat, tried his mightiest to land a punch. So did Jumaane D. Williams, the New York City public advocate, who is running to Ms. Hochul’s left.They attacked the governor’s record on crime, aid for undocumented immigrants, the environment, and affordable housing.And they frequently touched on real sore spots for the Hochul campaign.Ms. Hochul did align herself with the National Rifle Association when it was politically advantageous, before turning against it. She did use state funds to finance a new Buffalo Bills stadium in a deal that sports economists describe as flawed, and she did choose a less-than-ideal lieutenant governor in Brian A. Benjamin, who had to step down to fight federal corruption charges.But Ms. Hochul is a formidable fund-raiser wielding the powers of incumbency. She has nearly a year in office and a $220 billion budget under her belt to defend against attacks from her opponents.Here’s a recap of some of the most memorable moments of the debate.A clash over environmental policyMs. Hochul, who backs a multibillion dollar environmental bond act, faced criticism from her rivals on a number of climate-related issues.Pool photo by Craig RuttleMs. Hochul’s first days as governor were punctuated by the remnants of Hurricane Ida, which caused severe flooding that killed at least 13 New York City residents, many in their basements.On Thursday, the debate moderators asked her and her Democratic competitors what they were doing to combat climate change, which is expected to make future hurricanes more devastating.The governor pointed to her support for a $4.2 billion environmental bond act, which will go before voters in November and, if passed, will help finance climate-related infrastructure.A Guide to New York’s 2022 Primary ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.Governor’s Race: Gov. Kathy Hochul, the incumbent, will face off against Jumaane Williams and Tom Suozzi in a Democratic primary on June 28.Adams’s Endorsement: The New York City mayor gave Ms. Hochul a valuable, if belated, endorsement that could help her shore up support among Black and Latino voters.The Mapmaker: A postdoctoral fellow and former bartender redrew New York’s congressional map, reshaping several House districts and scrambling the future of the state’s political establishment.Maloney vs. Nadler: The new congressional lines have put the two stalwart Manhattan Democrats on a collision course in the Aug. 23 primary.Offensive Remarks: Carl P. Paladino, a Republican running for a House seat in Western New York, recently drew backlash for praising Adolf Hitler in an interview dating back to 2021.But Mr. Williams quickly pointed out that on some other climate-related measures, Ms. Hochul has seemed more equivocal.During a debate last week, Ms. Hochul said that the state’s long-delayed congestion pricing plan for New York City was “not going to happen over the next year under any circumstances.”The plan would demand a toll of drivers entering Manhattan’s central business district, and is expected to reduce traffic and the pollution that comes with it. Ms. Hochul blamed the federal government for the delays.Following her remarks last week, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority she controls issued a statement asserting it was moving full-speed ahead on congestion pricing, and Ms. Hochul hewed to that line on Thursday.But Mr. Williams attacked her on another climate-related front, too. Ms. Hochul has yet to sign legislation that would institute a two-year moratorium on a particularly energy-intensive form of cryptocurrency mining.A super PAC backed by a cryptocurrency billionaire is also supporting her running mate’s bid for lieutenant governor.Conflicting views on how to address the housing crisisMr. Williams, whose campaign has focused heavily on the need to increase affordable housing, criticized the real estate industry and said Ms. Hochul’s proposals were insufficient.Pool photo by Craig RuttleEach of the three candidates on the debate stage agreed that the housing crisis was a major problem facing New Yorkers — but the question of how to solve it opened the first three-way spat of the night.Ms. Hochul pointed to the steps already underway — from a recently signed bill that would convert distressed hotels into housing, to a plan to build 100,000 new affordable units, to a new funding stream for New York’s beleaguered public housing stock — as proof that she has the issue under control.Ms. Hochul also mentioned her rental assistance program, which the state contributed $800 million to in its last budget, and which she described as a “short-term solution,” to help with housing and utility costs during the pandemic.Mr. Suozzi agreed that the city’s public housing needed support, and new affordable housing ought to be built. He suggested that there should be a replacement for 421a, a section in the tax law that offered developers tax relief in exchange for creating affordable units. It has just expired; Ms. Hochul tried to replace it in the last legislative session, but lawmakers balked, calling it a giveaway to real estate.But more broadly Mr. Suozzi knocked the governor for what he described as her “irresponsible” use of federal funds. “We already have the highest taxes in the United States of America. When a downturn comes, we’re going to be in a lot of trouble because of the irresponsible spending by this governor,” he said.Mr. Williams, for his part, said that the state needed to build many times the number of affordable units suggested by Ms. Hochul, and to pass “Good Cause” eviction legislation, which would make it more difficult for landlords to remove tenants from their homes. Neither Mr. Suozzi nor Ms. Hochul said that they would support such legislation.“The real estate industry dumps millions of dollars to buy policy that has you facing eviction,” Mr. Williams said directly to the camera.Repeated interruptions from SuozziMr. Suozzi frequently sought to talk over Ms. Hochul. “Please stop interrupting me,” she said in response.NBC 4 New York — WNBCOne of the more contentious moments of the evening involved Mr. Suozzi’s attacks on Ms. Hochul’s record on gun control.After her 2011 election to Congress, where she represented an upstate district, Ms. Hochul got an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, and the organization endorsed her in 2012 against a Republican opponent.She has since become an ardent proponent of gun control. Mr. Suozzi cast her evolution as hypocrisy.When Ms. Hochul tried to respond to Mr. Suozzi’s argument, he interrupted her twice.“Please stop interrupting me,” Ms. Hochul said, with evident irritation. “People want to hear my answer.”It was not the only time Mr. Suozzi spoke over Ms. Hochul. A short while later, Ms. Hochul was trying to respond to a question about elementary school curriculums dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity.Mr. Suozzi interrogated her directly.“Excuse me, I’m giving an answer,” she said.“I’d like to hear the answer,” he said.“I will answer the moderator,” she responded.The fight over ‘Don’t Say Gay’ comes to New YorkAcross the country, parents have moved to scrub public school curriculums of the history of racism, as well as of information on gender and sexuality.Most recently, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida trumpeted a law — known to detractors as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill — that bars teachers from sharing lessons on L.G.B.T.Q. history or gender identity with children before the fourth grade.Mr. Suozzi drew controversy in April when he said that he found the law to be reasonable. Though he later recanted, he said Thursday night that he wouldn’t teach children “about sexual orientation or about genitalia or about sexuality” before the fifth grade. “I think that that’s up to parents to do that,” he said.Ms. Hochul attempted to seize on Mr. Suozzi’s comments, which she said were “discriminatory.” But when asked whether she would support a mandate for a curriculum in elementary school, Ms. Hochul demurred, saying that such a decision should be made in conjunction with teachers, school boards and parents.Mr. Williams, who has in the past drawn criticism for his own stance on L.G.B.T.Q. issues, said that he would support such a curriculum, so long as it was taught so that young people could understand it. He later suggested that such education could also help children seek help for sexual abuse.Agreement on tackling crime, but not on how to do itMr. Suozzi, a centrist who has built his campaign around fears about rising crime, described it as the “No.1 issue” facing New Yorkers.Pool photo by Craig RuttleNew York City has seen an uptick in certain violent crimes and on Thursday, Mr. Suozzi blamed neither the pandemic, nor the economy, nor Mayor Eric Adams. He blamed Ms. Hochul.“This is the No. 1 issue we face in the state and the governor has not treated it like the No. 1 issue that it is,” Mr. Suozzi said.A recent Siena poll found that 70 percent of New York City residents feel less safe today than they did before the pandemic.Mr. Suozzi has made crime central to his campaign for governor. He routinely argues that the state needs to pass laws that keep criminals in jail longer, and casts himself as a proven executive capable of doing so. He says that as governor, he would remove district attorneys who fail to enforce state law.So when the question turned to subway crime, and Ms. Hochul started explaining her joint city-state effort to combat it, Mr. Suozzi attacked.“People are not safer,” he said. “Under this administration, they are not safer. They don’t feel safe. And the governor has not made crime a priority.”Mr. Williams agreed that safety was of critical importance to the city, acknowledging that as a new father he worried about his daughter taking the subway.Instead of seeking to add police officers, however, Mr. Williams said that the state should invest in housing, mental health, and “responsible” policing to create what he has called a “holistic” approach to public safety. More

The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol presented evidence on Thursday that Donald Trump was told his last-gasp attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election was unlawful but forged ahead anyway. ‘Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do something no other vice president has ever done. The former president wanted Pence to reject the votes and either declare Trump the winner or send the votes back to the states to be counted again,’ congressman Bennie Thompson, chairman of the committee said. ‘We were fortunate for Mr. Pence’s courage. On January 6, our democracy came dangerously close to catastrophe’

Trump brought US ‘dangerously close to catastrophe’, January 6 panel says More