Elections

WASHINGTON D. C. — Los monstruos ya no son lo que solían ser.Estoy leyendo Frankenstein de Mary Shelley para una asignación de la escuela y el monstruo es magnífico. Al principio tiene una mente elegante y dulzura de temperamento, lee Las penas del joven Werther de Johann Wolfgang von Goethe y recoge leña para una familia pobre. Pero su creador, Victor Frankenstein, lo abandona y le niega una pareja para calmar su soledad. La criatura no encuentra a nadie que no retroceda con miedo y disgusto ante su apariencia, hecha de muchas piezas dispares, su piel y ojos amarillos y labios negros. Amargado, busca vengarse de su creador y del mundo.“Doquiera que mire, veo felicidad de la cual solo yo estoy irrevocablemente excluido”, se lamenta. “Yo era bueno y cariñoso; el sufrimiento me ha envilecido”.Al final del libro, antes de desaparecer en el Ártico, el monstruo reflexiona que alguna vez tuvo “grandes pensamientos honorables”, hasta que se acumuló su “espantoso catálogo” de hazañas malignas.El monstruo de Shelley, a diferencia del nuestro, tiene conciencia de sí mismo y una razón para causar estragos. Sabe cómo sentirse culpable y cuándo abandonar el escenario. La malignidad de nuestro monstruo se deriva de la psicopatía narcisista pura, y se niega a abandonar el escenario o cesar su vil mendacidad.Ni por un momento pasó por la mente de Donald Trump que un presidente estadounidense que comete sedición sería algo debilitante y corrosivo para el país. Era solo otra manera para que el Emperador del Caos puliera su título.Escuchamos el jueves por la noche el espantoso catálogo de las hazañas de Trump. Están tan fuera de lo común, son tan difíciles de entender que, de alguna manera, todavía estamos procesándolas en nuestras mentes.En un horario estelar, la audiencia del comité de la Cámara de Representantes encargado de investigar los hechos del 6 de enero, no trató de examinar el bufonesco y grandilocuente camino que tomó Trump para llegar a la presidencia. La audiencia trató de revelar a Trump como un monstruo insensible, y muchos saldrán convencidos de que debería ser acusado penalmente y encarcelado. ¡Enciérrenlo!La audiencia puso de manifiesto el hecho de que Trump hablaba muy en serio acerca de derrocar al gobierno. Si su otrora perro faldero, Mike Pence, hubiese sido colgado en la horca frente al Capitolio por negarse a ayudarlo a conservar su cargo de manera ilegítima, que así sea, dijo Trump. “Tal vez nuestros seguidores tengan razón”, comentó ese día, de manera escalofriante, al señalar que su vicepresidente “se lo merece”.Liz Cheney usó con inteligencia las palabras de los exasesores de Trump para mostrar que, a pesar de sus malévolas quejas, Trump sabía que no había fraude a un nivel que hubiera cambiado el resultado de las elecciones.“Dejé en claro que no estaba de acuerdo con la idea de decir que las elecciones fueron robadas, no estaba de acuerdo con decir eso públicamente por lo que le dije al presidente que esas eran tonterías”, declaró William Barr, fiscal general de Trump.En contraposición con su padre, Ivanka Trump, en una declaración grabada, dijo que aceptó la versión de la realidad de Barr: “Respeto al fiscal general Barr. Así que acepté lo que él decía”.(Su esposo, Jared Kushner, ganó el premio mayor al descaro en su declaración: estaba demasiado ocupado organizando indultos para cretinos como para prestar atención a si los asistentes de Trump amenazaban con renunciar por el cretino que estaba en el despacho oval).Los expertos en datos de Trump le dijeron sin rodeos que había perdido. “Así que allí no hay nada que contender”, comentó Mark Meadows.Trump simplemente no podía soportar ser etiquetado como un perdedor, algo que su padre detestaba particularmente. Trump subvirtió las elecciones con manía por puro egoísmo y maldad, al saber que es fácil manipular a las personas en las redes sociales con la Gran Mentira.A Trump le parecía bien que sus seguidores violaran la ley, atacaran a la policía y fueran a la cárcel, mientras él elogiaba su “amor” a la distancia. Es increíble que ningún legislador haya sido asesinado.Mires donde mires, hay algo que te hiela la sangre. El monstruo de Frankenstein no es el único que ha abandonado los “pensamientos de honor”.Rusia, también en las garras de un monstruo, invade y destruye a una democracia vecina sin ningún motivo, excepto los delirios de grandeza de Vladimir Putin.En Uvalde, Texas, se desarrolla la inimaginable historia de cómo la policía retrasó una hora el rescate de escolares porque a un comandante le preocupaba la seguridad de los oficiales.Íconos codiciosos del golf se unieron a una gira financiada por los saudíes, a pesar de que el príncipe heredero saudí ordenó desmembrar a un periodista. (Kushner está bajo investigación sobre si negoció su posición en el gobierno para asegurar una inversión de 2000 millones de dólares de los saudíes para su nueva firma de capital privado).Como lo señaló Bennie Thompson, presidente del comité, cuando el Capitolio fue atacado en 1814, fue por los británicos. Esta vez, fue por un enemigo interno, incitado por el hombre que estaba en el corazón de la democracia que había jurado proteger.“Lo hicieron alentados por el presidente de Estados Unidos”, declaró Thompson sobre la muchedumbre, “para tratar de detener la transferencia del poder, un precedente que se había respetado durante 220 años”.Es alucinante que tanta gente aún acepte a Trump cuando es tan claro que solo se preocupa por sí mismo. Se apresuró a desestimar a su hija Ivanka Trump el viernes, al indicar que su opinión no tenía validez ya que ella “no estaba involucrada en observar ni estudiar los resultados de las elecciones. Hacía tiempo que ella estaba fuera de la jugada”.Dejemos que algunos conservadores descarten las audiencias como “un festival de bostezos”. Dejemos que Fox News se niegue groseramente a transmitirlas.La sesión fue fascinante, al describir una historia de terror protagonizada por los Proud Boys rapaces y un monstruo que incluso Shelley podría haber apreciado. Los niveles de audiencia fueron un éxito, con casi 20 millones de espectadores.Caroline Edwards, la dura oficial de policía del Capitolio que sufrió una conmoción cerebral, y a la que le rociaron los ojos, y se levantó para volver a la pelea, describió el ataque como un paisaje infernal.“Estaba resbalando en sangre de otras personas”, recordó. “Saben, yo… estaba atrapando a la gente mientras caía. Yo, cómo decirlo, yo estaba… fue una carnicería”.En su discurso distópico inaugural, Trump prometió poner fin a la “carnicería estadounidense”. En cambio, ofreció esa misma carnicería. Ahora debe rendir cuentas por su intento de golpe de Estado, y no solo ante el tribunal de la opinión pública.Maureen Dowd, ganadora del Premio Pulitzer de 1999 en la categoría de comentario distinguido y autora de tres bestsellers del New York Times, es columnista de Opinión desde 1995. @MaureenDowd • Facebook More

new video loaded: More

If there was any question that the first debate among Republican contenders for governor of New York would be more combative than last week’s Democratic skirmish, it was put to rest quickly on Monday.In the opening moments, Representative Lee M. Zeldin attacked Harry Wilson, a corporate turnaround specialist, as a “Never Trumper” and Republican-in-name-only. Mr. Wilson soon returned fire, saying Mr. Zeldin’s campaign was “disintegrating” and suggesting that he had been approached about running alongside Mr. Zeldin and had turned him down.Mr. Zeldin, who was chosen as his party’s designee at a party convention this winter, scoffed, even as Mr. Wilson, who also worked in the Obama administration, tried to cut him off.“This guy doesn’t stop,” Mr. Zeldin said, adding, “You’re on the wrong debate stage, man,” suggesting that Mr. Wilson would be more at home with Democrats.The verbal scuffle continued, even as another candidate, Rob Astorino, looked on, and a fourth candidate, Andrew Giuliani, situated in a studio nearby, held a fixed smile.“You’re a child,” Mr. Wilson finally responded.The explosive exchange typified much of the back-and-forth as the candidates sought to prove and polish their conservative bona fides on topics ranging from gun control to abortion to their respect for former President Donald J. Trump.In doing so, they also sharply differentiated themselves from their Democratic counterparts, especially Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is considered a favorite as the June 28 primary for both parties nears.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.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.Questionable 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.The debate also took place against the backdrop of the public hearings by the House committee investigating the Capitol assault on Jan. 6, 2021, and the WCBS-TV moderators — Marcia Kramer and Maurice DuBois — asked early on about the candidates’ feelings about the hearings and about another possible Trump run for president.Mr. Giuliani, the son of the former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, said he believed Mr. Trump was “a great president” who he hoped would run again.“I consider him a good friend,” said Mr. Giuliani, who worked for four years in the Trump White House, adding that he wanted to bring the same “kind of change” to New York that Mr. Trump had brought to America.Mr. Zeldin, once considered a moderate, has been a staunch supporter of Mr. Trump, voting in the House to overturn the results of the 2020 election. That effort was led — interestingly enough — by the older Mr. Giuliani. But Mr. Zeldin was slightly more circumspect in his feelings about Mr. Trump’s political prospects, saying, “If President Trump wants to run, he should run,” and adding that he believed the former president would be the next Republican nominee.Mr. Zeldin, a four-term congressman from Long Island, tried to reel off other issues he felt deserved federal attention, including illegal immigration, foreign policy and the supply chain. “That’s where Congress should be spending their time right now,” he said.Mr. Astorino, the former Westchester County executive who was the party’s unsuccessful nominee for governor in 2014, went the furthest in acknowledging the Capitol riots, calling Jan. 6 “a horrible day in our nation’s history,” and saying that Mr. Trump “bears some responsibility” for the mob attack. But he called the hearings “political theater.”Mr. Astorino generally avoided the verbal sparring going on between Mr. Zeldin and Mr. Wilson in the CBS studio, trying to convey a calmer presence.“This state is a mess,” he said, adding, “I ran in ’14 and everything has just gotten worse.”Social issues percolated throughout the evening, with the possible Supreme Court decision on the fate of Roe v. Wade expected this month. Perhaps cognizant of New York’s strong liberal bent — Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two-to-one in enrollment — none of the four on Monday called directly for Roe to be overturned, though several said there should be restrictions on who can perform abortions and when women can seek them.State Democrats pointed out on Monday night that Mr. Zeldin has previously voiced support for ending Roe and said in April that he would like to appoint “a health commissioner who respects life as opposed to what we’re used to.” On Monday, the candidate also outlined other proposals to limit access, including requiring parental consent, and said that New York’s strong protections for abortion are “going too far.”Mr. Wilson, the only candidate in the race who supports abortion rights, said he was “not running on a social agenda,” adding he would not try to change state law, while Mr. Astorino said that abortion remained a “really difficult choice” for women.“I think we have to get back to a position of we’re here to help,” he said, mentioning prenatal care, and adding that many abortions are sought in “low-income” areas by women who “feel that there was no other option.”Mr. Giuliani said that he was “not afraid” to say he was anti-abortion, before co-opting the women’s rights motto — “My body, my choice” — to discuss his opposition to vaccination mandates. Indeed, Mr. Giuliani was forced to participate remotely because he has refused to get the coronavirus vaccine, something he has used as a talking point on the campaign trail to rail against government mandates concerning the disease.In recent weeks, Mr. Giuliani has insisted that he is the candidate to beat — citing a single online poll — even as he has campaigned with his father, who had been prominently featured, often in unflattering ways, during the House hearings.Still, with early voting beginning on Saturday, Mr. Zeldin has been considered the front-runner because of his party’s backing, his name recognition as a congressman and his robust fund-raising.The debate comes amid rising hopes for Republicans, who have not won a statewide race for 20 years and lost their last foothold of power in Albany — control of the State Senate — in the 2018 elections. Ms. Hochul has suffered from tepid poll numbers, particularly on issues like crime, on which Republicans have successfully attacked Democrats, including in last year’s elections.In the wake of a massacre last month at a supermarket in Buffalo and another looming Supreme Court decision that could strike down a state law that places strict limits on the carrying of handguns, candidates were asked about possible new policies to address gun violence.All four candidates voiced support for the Second Amendment, with Mr. Wilson, for one, suggesting that addressing mental health problems and policing violent extremism would do more than new restrictions on guns.Mr. Astorino said that the debate should not be over gun control but “criminal control,” making reference to new bail laws passed by Democrats in Albany in 2019. “Right now, it’s the criminals who get away with everything,” he said, contending that “law-abiding New Yorkers” are “being targeted all the time.”Mr. Giuliani agreed with Mr. Astorino that stronger policing could be part of the answer, adding that he’d like to return to some of the “broken windows” policing plans that his father embraced during his mayoralty. “We need to end this war on cops and allow proactive policing again,” he said.Mr. Giuliani groused somewhat about being forced to be remote — accusing CBS and other media outlets of “acting more like Pravda than anything else” — but he also noted the tension between Mr. Zeldin and Mr. Wilson.“Sounds like I’m missing some fireworks over there,” Mr. Giuliani said. More

Los congresistas que investigan el asalto al Capitolio afirmaron que Trump no quiso escuchar las recomendaciones de sus colaboradores e insistió en declararse victorioso y decir que le robaron las elecciones, sin tener pruebas.El gran tema durante el segundo día de audiencias del comité que investiga los sucesos del 6 de enero fue que al expresidente Donald Trump se le dijo repetidamente, incluso su propio fiscal general se lo comentó, que su “gran mentira” sobre una elección fraudulenta no tenía fundamento. De todos modos hizo el reclamo falso en la noche de las elecciones y no ha parado desde entonces.Tal como lo hicieron durante la audiencia de apertura, los miembros del comité usaron testimonios en video de algunos de los amigos y asesores más cercanos de Trump, incluidos comentarios contundentes del exfiscal general William P. Barr, para demostrar que el exmandatario sabía que sus afirmaciones no tenían fundamento.Aquí presentamos otras conclusiones del segundo día de las audiencias.Trump fue descrito como alguien ‘distanciado de la realidad’, después de las eleccionesEl testimonio en video de Barr fue uno de los más convincentes de la mañana, y el exfiscal general describió a Trump como alguien que, en los días posteriores a las elecciones, estaba cada vez más “distanciado de la realidad”. En su testimonio, Barr dijo que en repetidas ocasiones le dijo al expresidente que sus afirmaciones de fraude eran infundadas, pero “nunca hubo indicios de que se interesara por los hechos reales”.La cruda descripción de la conducta del exmandatario es una pieza clave del argumento que el comité trata de formular: que Trump sabía que sus afirmaciones sobre una elección fraudulenta no eran ciertas pero, de todos modos, las dijo. Barr dijo que en las semanas posteriores a las elecciones, le dijo repetidamente “cuán locas eran algunas de estas acusaciones”.Read More on 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.The Meaning of the Hearings: While the public sessions aren’t going to unite the country, they could significantly affect public opinion.An Unsettling Narrative: 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.Trump’s Depiction: Mr. Trump was portrayed as a would-be autocrat willing to shred the Constitution to hang onto power. Liz Cheney: The vice chairwoman of the House committee has been unrepentant in continuing to blame Mr. Trump for stoking the attack on Jan. 6, 2021.El comité argumenta que Trump fue un mentiroso consciente. Pero el testimonio de Barr ofrece otra posible explicación: que el expresidente llegó a creerse las mentiras que estaba diciendo.“Pensé que, si realmente creía en esas cosas, ya sabes, había perdido el contacto con, con… se había distanciado de la realidad, si realmente creía en esas cosas”, le dijo Barr al comité.Dos grupos rodeaban a Trump: ‘El equipo normal’ vs. ‘El equipo de Rudy’Uno de los aspectos que quedaron claros el lunes fue que había dos grupos de personas alrededor de Trump durante los días y semanas posteriores a las elecciones.Bill Stepien, el director de campaña de Trump, caracterizó a su grupo como “El equipo normal”, a diferencia del equipo dirigido por Rudy Giuliani, el abogado personal de Trump.Al ser un veterano político republicano, Stepien estuvo entre los asistentes de campaña, abogados, asesores de la Casa Blanca y otras personas que instaron a Trump para que abandonara sus afirmaciones infundadas de fraude. En cambio, el equipo de Giuliani impulsaba la paranoia del expresidente instándolo a respaldar las afirmaciones fantasiosas y sin fundamento sobre la recolección de votos, la supuesta manipulación de las máquinas de votación y otras denuncias. “Los llamábamos: mi equipo y el equipo de Rudy”, dijo Stepien a los investigadores del comité en las entrevistas. “No me importaba estar relacionado con ‘El equipo normal’”.Los miembros del comité esperan que la descripción de los dos grupos que competían por la atención de Trump evidencie que el expresidente tomó una decisión: escuchar al grupo dirigido por Giuliani en vez de atender las recomendaciones de las personas que dirigieron su campaña y trabajaron en su gestión. En palabras del “Equipo normal”, Trump decidió escuchar a los que decían argumentos “locos”.Lo que pasó durante la noche de las elecciones en la Casa BlancaLa audiencia del lunes comenzó con un vívido retrato de la noche de las elecciones en la Casa Blanca, describiendo la reacción del expresidente, y quienes lo rodeaban, cuando Fox News dijo que Joe Biden ganó en Arizona. Usando testimonios en video de los asesores más cercanos del exmandatario y algunos miembros de su familia, el comité mostró cómo Trump rechazó las advertencias que le dieron.Stepien dijo en un video que había instado al expresidente para que no declarara su victoria prematuramente, después de haberle explicado que era muy probable que los votos demócratas se contaran más tarde. Trump lo ignoró, según dijeron Stepien y otras personas. En cambio, escuchó a Rudy Giuliani, quien según sus asistentes estaba borracho esa noche, e instaba al expresidente para que se declarara victorioso y dijera que las elecciones estaban siendo robadas.Chris Stirewalt, el editor político de Fox News que fue despedido después de que su cadena declarara la victoria de Biden en Arizona, le dijo al comité que el cambio en los resultados de esa noche que provocó las afirmaciones del presidente sobre manipulación de votantes no fueron más que los resultados esperados de los votos demócratas que se contaron después de los republicanos. Y se mostró orgulloso de que su equipo haya sido el primero en calificar con precisión los resultados de Arizona y dijo que había “cero” posibilidades de que Trump hubiera ganado ese estado.El comité dice que se enviaron millones de dólares a un ‘Fondo de Defensa Electoral’ inexistenteNo fue solo la “gran mentira”, según el comité del 6 de enero. También fue “la gran estafa”.En una presentación de video que concluyó la segunda audiencia, el comité describió cómo Trump y sus asistentes de campaña utilizaron afirmaciones infundadas de fraude electoral para convencer a los partidarios del expresidente con el fin de que enviaran millones de dólares a algo llamado “Fondo de Defensa Electoral”. Según el comité, los partidarios de Trump donaron 100 millones de dólares en la primera semana después de las elecciones, aparentemente con la esperanza de que ese dinero ayudaría a su líder en la lucha para anular los resultados.Pero un investigador del comité dijo que no había evidencia de que ese fondo existiera. En cambio, millones de dólares fluyeron hacia un comité de acción política que el presidente estableció el 9 de noviembre, solo unos días después de las elecciones. Según el comité, esa instancia envió 1 millón de dólares a una fundación benéfica dirigida por Mark Meadows, el exjefe de gabinete de Trump, y otro millón a un grupo político dirigido por varios de sus exmiembros del personal, incluido Stephen Miller, el arquitecto de la agenda de inmigración de Trump.Zoe Lofgren, representante demócrata por California, resumió los descubrimientos de esta manera: “A lo largo de la investigación del comité, encontramos evidencia de que la campaña de Trump y sus colaboradores engañaron a los donantes sobre el destino de sus fondos y para qué se utilizarían”.Y agregó: “Así que no solo se trató de una gran mentira, también se hizo una gran estafa. Los donantes merecen saber adónde van realmente sus fondos. Se merecen algo mejor que lo que hizo el presidente Trump y su equipo”.Michael D. Shear es un corresponsal veterano de la Casa Blanca y dos veces ganador del Premio Pulitzer que también formó parte del equipo que ganó la Medalla de Servicio Público por la cobertura de la COVID-19 en 2020. Es coautor de Border Wars: Inside Trump’s Assault on Inmigración. @shearm More

Representative Young Kim of California, a Republican who is one of the first Korean American women in Congress, advanced to the general election in November after a hard-fought primary that became one of the most expensive races in the state.Ms. Kim was one of the top vote-getters in the June 7 House primary, according to The Associated Press. California’s primaries are open — all candidates, regardless of party, run on the same ballot and the top two vote-getters advance to the November general election.Ms. Kim will now face Asif Mahmood, a Democrat and a physician who is focusing on abortion access, in November in California’s 40th Congressional District, which encompasses parts of Orange and San Bernardino Counties.Ms. Kim currently represents another district, the 39th, where she captured her seat as a moderate Republican in 2020. The district was redrawn and now includes far more Republicans. Ms. Kim and other Republicans have been vying to reclaim Orange County, a decades-long Republican stronghold that shifted to the left during the Trump administration.In the final weeks of the campaign, Ms. Kim focused on her Republican opponent, Greg Raths, a councilman in Mission Viejo who is also a retired combat fighter pilot. Ms. Kim was backed by the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with the Republican leadership, which had called her race a “must win” for November. The super PAC and Ms. Kim’s campaign spent about $1.2 million on Republican television ads attacking Mr. Raths.One ad from Ms. Kim’s campaign accused Mr. Raths of raising taxes and saying he is “just like Biden and the liberals.” Mr. Raths, for his part, frequently reminded Republican voters that Ms. Kim had voted to censure former President Donald J. Trump and remove Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, from congressional committees.Mr. Mahmood, the Democrat, released an ad portraying Mr. Raths as too conservative on abortion, a move that some thought could raise the Republican’s profile and, in the state’s open-primary system, edge Ms. Kim out of the general election. More

In its second hearing this month, the committee showed how the former president ignored aides and advisers in declaring victory prematurely and relentlessly pressing claims of fraud he was told were wrong.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol made a wide-ranging case on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump created and relentlessly spread the lie that the 2020 election had been stolen from him in the face of mounting evidence from an expanding chorus of advisers that he had been legitimately defeated.The committee, in its second hearing this month, traced the origins and progression of what it has described as Mr. Trump’s “big lie.” It showed through live witness testimony and recorded depositions how the former president, defying many of his advisers, insisted on declaring victory on election night before the votes were fully counted, then sought to challenge his defeat with increasingly outlandish and baseless claims that he was repeatedly informed were wrong.“He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” William P. Barr, the former attorney general, said of Mr. Trump during a videotaped interview the panel played on Monday, in which he at one point could not control his laughter at the absurdity of the claims that the former president was making.“There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were,” Mr. Barr said.The panel also used the testimony of Bill Stepien, Mr. Trump’s campaign chief, who told its investigators that Mr. Trump had ignored his election-night warning to refrain from declaring a victory that he had no basis for claiming. Instead, the president took the advice of Rudolph W. Giuliani — his personal lawyer who was, according to Jason Miller, a top campaign aide, “definitely intoxicated” — and said he had won even as the votes were still being tabulated.It was all part of the committee’s bid to show how Mr. Trump’s dissembling about the election results led directly to the events of Jan. 6, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol in the deadliest attack on the building in centuries, spurred on by the president’s exhortations to “stop the steal.”Investigators went further on Monday, detailing how the Trump campaign and its Republican allies used claims of a rigged election that they knew were false to mislead small donors and raise as much as $250 million for an entity they called the Official Election Defense Fund, which top campaign aides testified never existed.“Not only was there the big lie,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who played a key role in the hearing, “there was the big rip-off.”Money ostensibly raised to “stop the steal” instead went to Mr. Trump and his allies, including, the investigation found, $1 million for a charitable foundation run by Mark Meadows, his chief of staff; $1 million to a political group run by several of his former staff members, including Stephen Miller, the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda; more than $200,000 to Trump hotels; and $5 million to Event Strategies Inc., which ran the Jan. 6 rally that preceded the Capitol riot.Aides said Kimberly Guilfoyle, the girlfriend of Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr., was paid $60,000 to speak at that event, a speech that lasted less than three minutes.“It is clear that he intentionally misled his donors, asked them to donate to a fund that didn’t exist and used the money raised for something other than what he said,” Ms. Lofgren said of Mr. Trump.Read More on 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.The Meaning of the Hearings: While the public sessions aren’t going to unite the country, they could significantly affect public opinion.An Unsettling Narrative: 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.Trump’s Depiction: Mr. Trump was portrayed as a would-be autocrat willing to shred the Constitution to hang onto power. Liz Cheney: The vice chairwoman of the House committee has been unrepentant in continuing to blame Mr. Trump for stoking the attack on Jan. 6, 2021.But the bulk of the session was dedicated to showing how determined Mr. Trump was to cling to the fiction that he had won the election, only digging in more deeply as aide after aide informed him that he had not.Representatives Liz Cheney and Zoe Lofgren at the hearing.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesThe list of aides and advisers who sought to steer Mr. Trump away from his false claims was long and varied, according to the committee’s presentation. They included low-level campaign lawyers who outlined how they told the president that the returns coming in from the field showed that he was going to lose the race. Also among them were top officials in the Justice Department — including his onetime attorney general — who walked through how they had investigated claims that the race had been rigged or stolen and found them not only to be unsubstantiated, but to be nonsensical.“There were suggestions by, I believe it was Mayor Giuliani, to go and declare victory and say that we’d won it outright,” Mr. Miller said in a video interview played by the panel.Mr. Stepien later said he considered himself part of “Team Normal,” while a separate group of outside advisers including Mr. Giuliani were encouraging Mr. Trump’s false claims.The committee played several portions of a deposition by Mr. Barr, Mr. Trump’s last attorney general, who called the president’s claims of a stolen election “bullshit” and “bogus.”“I told them that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time,” Mr. Barr testified. “And it was a great, great disservice for the country.”Mr. Trump was still at it on Monday, issuing a rambling 12-page statement several hours after the committee hearing ended in which he doubled down on his claims of fraud, complaining — yet again without any evidence — that Democrats had inflated voter rolls, illegally harvested ballots, removed Republican poll watchers from vote-counting facilities, bribed election officials and stopped the counting on election night when he was still in the lead.“Democrats created the narrative of Jan. 6 to detract from the much larger and more important truth that the 2020 Election was rigged and stolen,” Mr. Trump wrote.Representative Bennie Thompson, the committee’s chairman, said Mr. Trump waged an attack on democracy.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesIn the hearing room on Monday, the panel showed in striking detail how Mr. Trump’s advisers tried and failed to get him to drop his lies and accept defeat. In his deposition, Mr. Barr recalled several scenes inside the White House, including one in which he said he asked Mr. Meadows and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and top adviser, how long Mr. Trump intended “to go on with this stolen election stuff.”Mr. Barr recalled that Mr. Meadows had assured him that Mr. Trump was “becoming more realistic” and knew “how far he can take this.” As for Mr. Kushner, Mr. Barr recounted that he responded to the question by saying, “We’re working on this.”After informing Mr. Trump that his claims of fraud were false, Mr. Barr had a follow-up meeting with the president and his White House counsel, Pat Cipollone. Mr. Barr described in his deposition how Mr. Trump became enraged that his own attorney general had refused to back his fraud allegations.Chris Stirewalt, the first witness of the day, was on the Fox News team that called Arizona for Joseph R. Biden Jr.Doug Mills/The New York Times“This is killing me,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Trump as saying. “You must have said this because you hate Trump.”Altogether, Mr. Trump and his allies filed more than 60 lawsuits challenging the results of the election. But among the numerous claims of fraud, Mr. Barr told the committee, the worst — and most sensational — concerned a purported plot by Chinese software companies, Venezuelan officials and the liberal financier George Soros to hack into machines manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems and flip votes away from Mr. Trump.These allegations were most prominently pushed by a former federal prosecutor named Sidney Powell, who collected several unvetted affidavits from witnesses who supposedly had information about Dominion. In the weeks after the election, Ms. Powell, working with a group of other lawyers, filed four federal lawsuits laying out her claims in the Democratic strongholds of Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee and Phoenix even though the Trump campaign had already determined that some of her allegations were false.All of the suits — known as the “Krakens,” a reference to a mythical, havoc-wreaking sea beast — were eventually dismissed and deemed to be so frivolous that a federal judge sanctioned Ms. Powell and her colleagues. Dominion has sued her and others for defamation.Mr. Barr, in his deposition, described the claims against Dominion as “crazy stuff” — a sentiment that was echoed by other Trump aides whose testimony was presented by the committee.After Mr. Barr left his position as attorney general, his successor, Jeffrey A. Rosen, also told Mr. Trump his claims of widespread fraud were “debunked.”The committee showed through live witnesses and recorded depositions how Mr. Trump refused to listen to those around him.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesAnother witness who testified on Monday and dismissed Mr. Trump’s claims of fraud was Byung J. Pak, the former U.S. attorney in Atlanta who abruptly resigned on Jan. 4, 2021. After speaking with Mr. Barr, Mr. Pak looked into allegations of election fraud in Atlanta, including a claim pushed by Mr. Giuliani that a suitcase of ballots had been pulled from under a table in a local counting station on election night.Mr. Trump and his allies also claimed that there was rampant fraud in Philadelphia, with the former president recently asserting that more people voted in the city than there were registered voters. In his deposition, Mr. Barr called this allegation “rubbish.” To bolster this argument, the committee called Al Schmidt, a Republican who served as one of three city commissioners on the Philadelphia County Board of Elections.Mr. Schmidt rejected the fraud claims raised by Mr. Trump and his allies, saying there was no evidence that more people voted in Philadelphia than were registered there or that thousands of dead people voted in the city.Mr. Schmidt also testified that after Mr. Trump posted a tweet accusing of him by name of committing election fraud, he received threats online from people who publicized the names of his family members, his address and photographs of his home.Zach Montague More

Donald J. Trump’s advisers urged him not to declare victory on election night in 2020. He listened to the one who told him what he wanted to hear.The Jan. 6 committee used interviews with Donald J. Trump’s own family and his closest advisers to illustrate how he rejected advice and falsely claimed he won the election.Doug Mills/The New York TimesWASHINGTON — Rudolph W. Giuliani seemed drunk, and he was making a beeline for the president.It was election night in 2020, and President Donald J. Trump was seeing his re-election bid slip away, vote by vote. According to video testimony prepared by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and personal lawyer for Mr. Trump, was spouting conspiracy theories.“They’re stealing it from us,” Mr. Giuliani told the president when he found him, according to Jason Miller, one of the president’s top campaign aides, who told the Jan. 6 committee that Mr. Giuliani was “definitely intoxicated” that night. “Where do all the votes come from? We need to go say that we won.”Several times that night, Mr. Trump’s own family members and closest advisers urged him to reject Mr. Giuliani’s advice. Mr. Miller told him not to “go and declare victory” without a better sense of the numbers. “It’s far too early to be making any proclamation like that,” said Bill Stepien, his campaign manager. Even his daughter Ivanka Trump told him that the results were still being counted.But in the end, Mr. Giuliani was the only one that night who told the president what he wanted to hear.Mr. Giuliani’s rantings about stolen ballots fed into the president’s own conspiracy theories about a rigged election, nursed in public and private since long before the votes were counted. They helped spark a monthslong assault on democracy and — in the committee’s view — led inexorably to the mob that breached the Capitol hoping to stop the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr. as president.Mr. Trump told Mr. Miller, Mr. Stepien and the rest that they were being weak and were wrong. During a conversation in the reception area of the White House living quarters, he told them he was going to go in “a different direction.”Not long after, Mr. Trump did just that, appearing for the cameras at 2:21 a.m. in the East Room in front of a wall of American flags.He denounced the election in the speech, calling the vote “a fraud on the American public” and an “embarrassment” to the country. “We were getting ready to win this election,” he told his supporters and the television viewers. “Frankly, we did win this election.”The inside account of the White House that night was assembled by the Jan. 6 committee. During its second public hearing on Monday, the committee played a video that painted a vivid portrait of how Mr. Trump rejected cautions from his closest aides and advisers and went out to declare himself the winner.Testimony from those closest to the former president effectively documented the formal beginning of Mr. Trump’s insistence that the election was stolen.Read More on 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.The Meaning of the Hearings: While the public sessions aren’t going to unite the country, they could significantly affect public opinion.An Unsettling Narrative: 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.Trump’s Depiction: Mr. Trump was portrayed as a would-be autocrat willing to shred the Constitution to hang onto power. Liz Cheney: The vice chairwoman of the House committee has been unrepentant in continuing to blame Mr. Trump for stoking the attack on Jan. 6, 2021.Mr. Trump had not been shy about that expectation; weeks before Election Day, he had predicted a “fraud like you’ve never seen.” And even as the votes were being counted, Mr. Trump began delivering that message. But the testimony offered at Monday’s hearing was the linchpin of the argument that the committee is trying to make: that Mr. Trump knew his claims of a fraudulent election were not true and made them anyway.“That’s the bottom line,” said Representative Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is chairman of the committee. “We had an election Mr. Trump lost, but he refused to accept the results of the democratic process.”In the weeks to follow election night, Mr. Trump was repeatedly told by top aides that his claims of fraud were baseless.The committee underscored that fact with long video clips of former Attorney General William P. Barr, who said that beating back the “avalanche” of fraud allegations from the president was “like playing whack-a-mole because something would come out one day and then the next day it would be another issue.” He called the claims of fraud from Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani “completely bogus and silly and usually based on complete misinformation.”But the committee’s depiction of the White House on election night was the day’s most compelling narrative. And the testimony by Trump aides saying they had doubts about Mr. Trump’s claims of fraud was striking, particularly because some of those same aides had expressed support for the president in public, casting doubt on the outcome of the election.At just after 11:15 p.m., Fox News called Arizona for Mr. Biden, a major blow to Mr. Trump’s campaign. Using interviews with Ivanka Trump, her husband, Jared Kushner, and several of the president’s campaign aides, the committee video captured how the sense of celebration inside the White House residence turned from giddy optimism to grim anxiety.“Both disappointed with Fox and concerned that maybe our data or our numbers weren’t accurate,” Mr. Miller testified, describing the mood among the president’s supporters.After the Arizona call, Mr. Trump’s team was livid, according to earlier reporting about the night. Mr. Trump told aides to get Fox News to reverse course somehow. Mr. Miller made a call to a contact at the network. Mr. Kushner reached out to the network’s owner.“Hey, Rupert,” the president’s son-in-law said into a cellphone as Rupert Murdoch, the head of the network’s corporate parent, took his call.But soon, there would be another concern for the group of aides who later were referred to as “Team Normal,” according to Mr. Stepien. They received an alarming warning: Mr. Giuliani had had too much to drink and had made his way upstairs to the living quarters, where the president was watching returns.Several of Mr. Trump’s aides tries to run interference, but Mr. Giuliani, who had been staring at the screens in the campaign war room and insisted that the president had won Michigan, was undeterred.He demanded to see the president, according to a former aide familiar with the conversation.Mr. Stepien confronted Mr. Giuliani. How are we winning? he asked him. Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, was there as well, and told Mr. Giuliani that he was wrong to say Mr. Trump had won Michigan.“That’s not true, Rudy!” he said loudly, according to the person familiar with the conversation. (Mr. Meadows would almost immediately go on to publicly and privately embrace the president’s fraud accusations, as documented in text messages discovered by the committee.)The president’s aides soon failed in their effort to keep Mr. Giuliani away from him. In the video presentation, Mr. Giuliani dismissed his rivals for their attempts to stop him from giving the president his advice.“I spoke to the president,” he told the committee investigators. “They may have been present. But I talked to the president several times that night.”Few of the president’s aides went public with their doubts about the president’s chances in the days after the election. In fact, it was the opposite. During a conference call with reporters the day after the election, Mr. Stepien said that he believed Mr. Trump would win Arizona by 30,000 votes when the counting was over.Mr. Trump had been saying for months that he would win the election, even as polling showed him behind Mr. Biden, in a political climate soured by Mr. Trump’s bumbling and erratic performance during the coronavirus pandemic. But he still started sowing seeds of doubt about the reliability of mail-in ballots, made available more broadly because of the pandemic, much earlier in the year.Warned weeks before Election Day that those ballots, along with the ones cast through early voting, would be tallied later than the same-day votes cast for Mr. Trump, the president stunned advisers by declaring he would simply go out and say he had won.“We want all voting to stop,” Mr. Trump said in his remarks early the morning of Nov. 4. “We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. OK?”Later that day, Ivanka Trump sent a text to a chain that included Mr. Meadows: “Keep the faith and the fight!” Mr. Trump almost immediately began telling Mr. Giuliani to start gathering what information he could.By Friday, it was clear from the Trump campaign’s data guru that the numbers simply were not there for him to succeed. The following day, Mr. Stepien, Mr. Miller and other aides were sent by Mr. Kushner to tell Mr. Trump that he had extremely low odds of any success coming from ongoing challenges.When the men arrived at the White House residence, Mr. Trump was calm, but he was not interested in heeding the warnings. He continued repeating his election conspiracies after Monday’s hearing, issuing a rambling 12-page response with a simple bottom line:“They cheated!” he wrote. More

Garland says he is watching January 6 hearings amid pressure to investigate TrumpUS attorney general says official guidelines do not prevent him from investigating ex-president The US attorney general said on Monday that he was watching the House January 6 select committee’s hearings, as he faces mounting pressure from congressional Democrats to open a criminal investigation into Donald Trump over his role in the Capitol attack.Merrick Garland also said at a press conference at the justice department’s headquarters in Washington that internal office of legal counsel guidelines did not prevent him from opening an investigation into the former president.“I am watching and I will be watching all the hearings, although I may not be able to watch all of it live,” Garland said shortly after the select committee concluded its second hearing. “I can assure you the January 6 prosecutors are watching all of the hearings, as well.”The attorney general declined to address potential investigations into Trump or other individuals mentioned by the select committee at the hearings, saying that could undermine prosecutors’ work and would be unfair to people under scrutiny who might never be charged.Capitol attack panel members urge DoJ to consider criminal charges for TrumpRead moreBut Garland reiterated earlier promises that the justice department is exploring potential criminal conduct regardless of those people’s level, their positions in the government and proximity to Trump, or whether they were at the Capitol on 6 January 2021.The justice department appears in recent weeks to have expanded its criminal investigation to examine top figures connected to Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including government officials and Republican lawyers and operatives.One grand jury in Washington is investigating the rallies that preceded the Capitol attack and whether any executive or legislative branch officials were involved in trying to obstruct Joe Biden’s election certification, according to a subpoena seen by the Guardian.The justice department also appears to be investigating political operatives close to Trump, according to another grand jury subpoena seen by the Guardian, as well as some Trump lawyers involved in a scheme to send fake Trump electors to Congress.Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general, confirmed in January that prosecutors were looking into any criminality in that plan, under which Trump’s lawyers hoped the former vice-president Mike Pence would refuse to certify those states and return Trump to office.The attorney general added some additional insight into the justice department’s decision-making with respect to opening an investigation into Trump, saying that internal guidelines did not prevent him from taking such action if warranted.“There’s nothing within the office of legal counsel that prevents us from doing an investigation,” Garland said. “There’s nothing that’s coming in the way of our investigation … We’re just going to follow the facts wherever they lead.”Garland’s remarks about the office inside the justice department, which issues opinions for the agency that are broadly seen as binding, did not address whether the guidelines preclude charging, not just investigating, a former president.But his careful response reflected the delicate and complicated legal considerations looming over the justice department should it consider whether to investigate and charge Trump over his efforts to reverse his 2020 election defeat to Biden.In court filings and at its hearings, the select committee has been making the case that it believes Trump committed at least two felonies – obstructing a congressional proceeding and defrauding the United States – given evidence it has collected in its 11-month inquiry.The question of whether to pursue a case against Trump has started to prompt serious discussions among senior justice department officials, according to a source familiar with the matter, though there has been no indication that Trump is currently a target of an investigation.Meanwhile, congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the January 6 committee, said on Monday that he did not expect to make a criminal referral against Donald Trump or anyone else over the Capitol attack to the justice department at the conclusion of its investigation.The chairman appeared to indicate the panel would put the evidence of potential crimes by the former president into a final report – currently expected to come in September – and that Garland’s justice department would then have to decide whether to pursue a case.“No,” Thompson said when asked explicitly on Capitol Hill whether the select committee would make a referral against Trump, “that’s not our job. Our job is to look at the facts and circumstances around January 6, what caused it, and make recommendations after the hearings.”The disclosure from Thompson reflects a sense among some of the members on the panel that a criminal referral would make a resulting investigation by the justice department appear political and could undermine a potential case, according to sources close to the inquiry.If the evidence is sufficient for the justice department to consider investigating or charging Trump, the sources said, then the justice department should be able to move ahead with a case regardless of whether the select committee makes a criminal referral.The internal deliberations also come as the select committee has publicly said Trump repeatedly broke the law as he sought to overturn the 2020 election results, but criminal referrals are not binding and the final decision to prosecute rests with the justice department.TopicsJan 6 hearingsMerrick GarlandBiden administrationUS Capitol attackUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More