Elections

Trump aide Peter Navarro ordered to testify before grand jury over January 6Former White House adviser reveals federal subpoena, which also calls for documents to be handed over, in court filing Peter Navarro, a top White House adviser to Donald Trump, revealed in a court filing on Monday that he had been ordered to testify before a federal grand jury and produce to prosecutors any records concerning January 6, including communications with the former president.The grand jury subpoena to Navarro, which he said was served by two FBI agents last week, compels him to produce documents to the US attorney for the District of Columbia and could indicate widening justice department action ensnaring senior Trump administration officials.Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to beginRead moreNavarro’s disclosure about the subpoena came in an 88-page filing that seeks a federal court to declare the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack unlawful, in a desperate move to stop a potential contempt of Congress indictment for defying the panel’s subpoena.The grand jury subpoena appeared to be part of a case to hold Navarro in contempt rather than pertaining to the justice department’s criminal investigation into the Capitol attack, though the exact nature of the justice department subpoena was not immediately clear.But the new filing, reviewed by the Guardian, that Navarro will submit to the US district court for the District of Columbia, is not expected to succeed beyond causing a nuisance and possibly delaying the justice department from moving on a contempt indictment.The filing is seeking the court to rule that the select committee is not properly constituted and therefore illegal, because the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refused last year to appoint some Republican members put forward by the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy.Since the panel supposedly lacks a Republican minority – despite the presence of Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – its subpoenas are unenforceable, the suit argues, and therefore his non-compliance with his subpoena is immaterial and should mean the justice department cannot act on a referral for contempt of Congress.The filing also asks the court to grant an injunction preventing the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, from enforcing a 28 May 2022 grand jury subpoena compelling him to produce documents requested in the select committee subpoena.“Since the subpoena of the Committee is ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable, the US Attorney’s Grand Jury Subpoena is likewise ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable and the US Attorney must be enjoined from any actions to enforce this subpoena,” Navarro wrote.The argument that the select committee is not properly constituted has been a common charge levelled by some of Trump’s allies against the congressional investigation into January 6, as they seek to find any way to avoid having to cooperate with the sprawling investigation.But even as Navarro repeats the claim echoed by prominent Republican members of Congress challenging their subpoenas from the panel, he may find his suit an uphill battle given that multiple federal courts have repeatedly rejected that argument as meritless.Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee to the DC district court, most recently ruled this month that the panel was not illegitimate when the Republican National Committee mounted a legal challenge to block a subpoena demanding records from its email vendor, Salesforce.Navarro’s additional argument that Biden could not waive the executive privilege asserted by Trump that precluded him from testifying to the panel is also expected to run into difficulty given the supreme court rejected that reading of the presidential protection.In the opinion that declined to grant Trump an injunction to stop the National Archives turning over White House documents to the inquiry, the supreme court ruled that although Trump had some ability to assert executive privilege, it did not overcome Biden’s waiver.The arguments put forward by Navarro are questionable from a legal standpoint, two former US attorneys told the Guardian, broadly characterizing Navarro’s complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief as a frivolous suit designed to buy him time.A spokesman for the select committee declined to comment.Navarro was referred to the justice department for criminal contempt of Congress by the full House of Representatives in April after he entirely ignored a subpoena issued to him in February demanding that he produce documents and appear for a deposition.The top White House trade adviser to Trump was deeply involved in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election from the very start, the Guardian has previously reported, deputizing his aides to help produce reports on largely debunked claims of election fraud.Navarro was also in touch with Trump’s legal team led by Rudy Giuliani and operatives working from a Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington to stop Biden’s election certification from taking place on January 6 – a plan he christened the “Green Bay Sweep”.TopicsUS Capitol attackTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

Ahead of the 2020 elections, Connecticut confronted a bevy of falsehoods about voting that swirled around online. One, widely viewed on Facebook, wrongly said that absentee ballots had been sent to dead people. On Twitter, users spread a false post that a tractor-trailer carrying ballots had crashed on Interstate 95, sending thousands of voter slips into the air and across the highway.Concerned about a similar deluge of unfounded rumors and lies around this year’s midterm elections, the state plans to spend nearly $2 million on marketing to share factual information about voting, and to create its first-ever position for an expert in combating misinformation. With a salary of $150,000, the person is expected to comb fringe sites like 4chan, far-right social networks like Gettr and Rumble and mainstream social media sites to root out early misinformation narratives about voting before they go viral, and then urge the companies to remove or flag the posts that contain false information.“We have to have situational awareness by looking into all the incoming threats to the integrity of elections,” said Scott Bates, Connecticut’s deputy secretary of the state. “Misinformation can erode people’s confidence in elections, and we view that as a critical threat to the democratic process.”’Connecticut joins a handful of states preparing to fight an onslaught of rumors and lies about this year’s elections.Oregon, Idaho and Arizona have education and ad campaigns on the internet, TV, radio and billboards meant to spread accurate information about polling times, voter eligibility and absentee voting. Colorado has hired three cybersecurity experts to monitor sites for misinformation. California’s office of the secretary of state is searching for misinformation and working with the Department of Homeland Security and academics to look for patterns of misinformation across the internet.The moves by these states, most of them under Democratic control, come as voter confidence in election integrity has plummeted. In an ABC/Ipsos poll from January, only 20 percent of respondents said they were “very confident” in the integrity of the election system and 39 percent said they felt “somewhat confident.” Numerous Republican candidates have embraced former President Donald J. Trump’s falsehoods about the 2020 election, campaigning — often successfully — on the untrue claim that it was stolen from him.Some conservatives and civil rights groups are almost certain to complain that the efforts to limit misinformation could restrict free speech. Florida, led by Republicans, has enacted legislation limiting the kind of social media moderation that sites like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter can do, with supporters saying that the sites constrict conservative voices. On the federal level, the Department of Homeland Security recently paused the work of an advisory board on disinformation after a barrage of criticism from conservative lawmakers and free speech advocates that the group could suppress speech.“State and local governments are well-situated to reduce harms from dis- and misinformation by providing timely, accurate and trustworthy information,” said Rachel Goodman, a lawyer at Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “But in order to maintain that trust, they must make clear that they are not engaging in any kind of censorship or surveillance that would raise constitutional concerns.”Connecticut and Colorado officials said the problem of misinformation has only worsened since 2020 and without a more concerted push to counteract it, even more voters could lose faith in the integrity of elections. They also said that they fear for the safety of some election workers.“We are seeing a threat atmosphere unlike anything this country has seen before,” said Jena Griswold, the Democratic secretary of state of Colorado. Ms. Griswold, who is up for re-election this fall, has received threats for upholding 2020 election results and refuting Mr. Trump’s false claims of fraudulent voting in the state.“We have to have situational awareness by looking into all the incoming threats to the integrity of elections,” said Scott Bates, Connecticut’s deputy secretary of the state.Other secretaries of state, who head the office typically charged with overseeing elections, have received similar pushback. In Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who certified President Biden’s win in the state, has faced fierce criticism laced with false claims about the 2020 election.In his primary race this year, Mr. Raffensperger batted down misinformation that there were 66,000 underage voters, 2,400 unregistered voters and more than 10,350 dead people who cast ballots in the presidential election. None of the claims are true. He won his primary last week.Colorado is redeploying a misinformation team that the state created for the 2020 election. The team is composed of three election security experts who monitor the internet for misinformation and then report it to federal law enforcement.Ms. Griswold will oversee the team, called the Rapid Response Election Security Cyber Unit. It looks only for election-related misinformation on issues like absentee voting, polling locations and eligibility, she said.“Facts still exist and lies are being used to chip away at our fundamental freedoms,” Ms. Griswold said. Connecticut officials said the state’s goal was to patrol the internet for election falsehoods. On May 7, the Connecticut legislature approved $2 million for internet, TV, mail and radio education campaigns on the election process, and to hire an election information security officer.Officials said they would prefer candidates fluent in both English and Spanish, to address the spread of misinformation in both languages. The officer would track down viral misinformation posts on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube, and look for emerging narratives and memes, especially on fringe social media platforms and the dark web.“We know we can’t boil the ocean, but we have to figure out where the threat is coming from, and before it metastasizes,” Mr. Bates said. More

The subpoena, the latest indication of an expanding inquiry by federal prosecutors, seeks Mr. Navarro’s testimony and any records he has related to the attack on the Capitol last year.Peter Navarro, who as a White House adviser to President Donald J. Trump worked to keep Mr. Trump in office after his defeat in the 2020 election, disclosed on Monday that he has been summoned to testify on Thursday to a federal grand jury and to provide prosecutors with any records he has related to the attack on the Capitol last year, including “any communications” with Mr. Trump.The subpoena to Mr. Navarro — which he said the F.B.I. served at his house last week — seeks his testimony about materials related to the buildup to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and signals that the Justice Department investigation may be progressing to include activities of people in the White House.Mr. Navarro revealed the existence of the subpoena in a draft of a lawsuit he said he is preparing to file against the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Matthew M. Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.Mr. Navarro, who plans to represent himself in the suit, is hoping to persuade a federal judge to block the subpoena, which he calls the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”The Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment.The grand jury’s subpoena, Mr. Navarro said, builds on a separate subpoena issued to him in February by the committee. That subpoena sought documents and testimony about an effort to overturn the election nicknamed the “Green Bay Sweep,” and a Jan. 2, 2021, call that Mr. Navarro participated in with Mr. Trump and his lawyers in which they attempted to persuade hundreds of state lawmakers to join the effort.Mr. Navarro has refused to cooperate with the committee. He was found in contempt of Congress, and the House referred the contempt case to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. In his draft lawsuit, he called the committee’s subpoena “illegal and unenforceable.”Mr. Navarro said the grand jury subpoena was directly related to the contempt of Congress referral. Asked if he planned to comply and appear on Thursday to testify, Mr. Navarro responded, “T.B.D.”The subpoena is the latest sign the Justice Department’s investigation into the attack has moved beyond the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol. Federal prosectors have charged more than 800 people in connection with the attack.The subpoena sent last week to Mr. Navarro is the first known to have been issued in connection to the department’s Jan. 6 investigations to someone who worked in the Trump White House. But it follows others issued to people connected to various strands of the sprawling investigation of the Capitol attack and its prelude.In April, Ali Alexander, a prominent “Stop the Steal” organizer, revealed that he had been served with his own grand jury subpoena, asking for records about people who organized, spoke at or provided security for pro-Trump rallies in Washington after the election, including Mr. Trump’s incendiary event near the White House on Jan. 6.Mr. Alexander’s subpoena also sought records about members of the executive or legislative branches who may have helped to plan or execute the rallies, or who tried to “obstruct, influence, impede or delay” the certification of the 2020 presidential election.Last week, word emerged that the same grand jury, sitting in Washington, had more recently issued a different set of subpoenas requesting information about the role that a group of lawyers close to Mr. Trump may have had played in a plan create alternate slates of pro-Trump electors in key swing states that were won by Joseph R. Biden Jr.The lawyers named in the subpoena included Mr. Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani; Jenna Ellis, who worked with Mr. Giuliani; John Eastman, one of the former president’s chief legal advisers during the postelection period; and Kenneth Chesebro, who wrote a pair of memos laying out the details of the plan.Those subpoenas also requested information about any members of the Trump campaign who may been involved with the alternate elector scheme and about several Republican officials in Georgia who took part in it, including David Shafer, the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party.Mr. Navarro’s subpoena, by his own account, was issued by a different grand jury.In the draft of the suit he said he intends to file, he argues that only Mr. Trump can authorize him to testify. He asks a judge to instruct Mr. Graves, the U.S. attorney in Washington, to negotiate his appearance with Mr. Trump. Mr. Navarro cites Mr. Trump’s invocation of executive privilege over materials related to the attack on the Capitol.“The executive privilege invoked by President Trump is not mine or Joe Biden’s to waive,” Mr. Navarro writes. “Rather, as with the committee, the U.S. attorney has constitutional and due process obligations to negotiate my appearance.”An effort by Mr. Trump to block release of White House materials related to the Jan. 6 attack on the grounds of executive privilege was rejected by a federal appeals court in January, and the Supreme Court denied Mr. Trump’s request for a stay of the decision.Mr. Navarro, who helped coordinate the Trump administration’s pandemic response through his role overseeing the Defense Production Act, has insisted that the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was not part of the plans he backed, which he said included having Vice President Mike Pence reject electors for Mr. Biden when Congress met in a joint session to formally count them.In a book, Mr. Navarro wrote that the idea for the “Green Bay Sweep” was for Mr. Pence to be the “quarterback” of the plan and “put certification of the election on ice for at least another several weeks while Congress and the various state legislatures involved investigate all of the fraud and election irregularities.”Mr. Navarro also wrote a 36-page report claiming election fraud as part of what he called an “Immaculate Deception.” In an interview with The New York Times, he said he relied on “thousands of affidavits” from Mr. Giuliani, and Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York police commissioner, to help produce the report, which claimed there “may well have been a coordinated strategy to effectively stack the election deck against the Trump-Pence ticket.”There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, and the Jan. 6 committee described the claims in Mr. Navarro’s report as having been “discredited in public reporting, by state officials and courts.”Mr. Navarro said that he made sure Republican members of Congress received a copy of his report and that more than 100 members of Congress had signed on to the plans. (Ultimately, 147 Republican members of Congress objected to certifying at least one state for Mr. Biden.)An aide to Mr. Navarro was also in contact with a group of Trump allies who were pushing for the former president to order the seizure of voting machines. More

Con un discurso populista, y su verbo incendiario, Hernández podría acaparar a los votantes de la derecha que no quieren arriesgarse con Gustavo Petro, el líder de la izquierda colombiana.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — El panorama político de Colombia ha cambiado notablemente en solo 24 horas.Durante meses, los encuestadores predijeron que Gustavo Petro, un exguerrillero convertido en senador que aspira a ser el primer presidente de izquierda del país, iría a una segunda vuelta presidencial en junio contra Federico Gutiérrez, el candidato conservador que había argumentado que votar por Petro equivalía a “un salto al vacío”.En cambio, el domingo, los votantes respaldaron a Petro y a Rodolfo Hernández, un exalcalde y un próspero hombre de negocios con una plataforma populista anticorrupción cuyo estatus antisistema, sus declaraciones incendiarias y su enfoque político limitado a un solo tema han hecho que lo comparen con Donald Trump.La votación, por un izquierdista que ha hecho su carrera atacando a la clase política conservadora y por un candidato relativamente desconocido sin respaldo formal de un partido, representó un repudio al establecimiento conservador que ha gobernado Colombia durante generaciones.Pero también cambió la situación política para Petro. Ahora es Petro quien se presenta como el cambio seguro, y Hernández es el peligroso salto al vacío.“Hay cambios que no son cambios”, dijo Petro en un evento de campaña el domingo por la noche, “son suicidios”.Hernández alguna vez se definió como un seguidor de Adolf Hitler, sugirió combinar los principales ministerios para ahorrar dinero y dice que como presidente planea declarar un estado de emergencia para enfrentar la corrupción, lo que genera temores de que podría cerrar el Congreso o suspender a los alcaldes.Sin embargo, la derecha tradicional de Colombia ha comenzado a respaldarlo, trayendo consigo muchos de sus votos y haciendo que la victoria de Petro se vea cuesta arriba.El domingo, Gutiérrez, exalcalde de Medellín, la segunda ciudad más grande del país, apoyó a Hernández y dijo que el propósito era “cuidar la democracia”.Pero Fernando Posada, un politólogo, dijo que la medida también era el último esfuerzo de la derecha para bloquear a Petro, cuyo plan para rehacer la economía colombiana “pone en riesgo muchos de los intereses de la clase política tradicional”.“La derecha colombiana llegó a un escenario tan extremadamente desastroso que incluso prefieren un gobierno que no les ofrece nada con tal de que no sea Petro”, dijo Posada.Gustavo Petro acompañado por su esposa, Verónica Alcocer, y su candidata a la vicepresidencia, Francia Márquez, al término de la primera vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales en Bogotá.Federico Rios para The New York TimesHernández, quien hasta hace unas pocas semanas no era muy conocido en la mayor parte del país, fue alcalde de la ciudad de Bucaramanga, ubicada en la parte norte del país. Hizo su fortuna en la construcción, edificando viviendas para personas de bajos ingresos en la década de 1990.A los 77 años, Hernández consolidó gran parte de su apoyo en TikTok, una vez abofeteó a un concejal de la ciudad frente a las cámaras y recientemente le dijo a The Washington Post que tenía un efecto “mesiánico” en sus seguidores, a quienes comparó con los secuestradores “con lavado de cerebro” que destruyeron las torres gemelas el 11 de septiembre.Cuando lo presionaron diciéndole que esa comparación era problemática, rechazó la idea. “Lo que estoy comparando es que después de entrar en ese estado, no cambias de posición. No la cambias”.Hasta hace apenas unos días, la narrativa política de Colombia parecía simple: durante generaciones, la política había estado dominada por unas pocas familias adineradas y, más recientemente, por un conservadurismo de línea dura conocido como uribismo, fundado por el poderoso líder político del país, el expresidente Álvaro Uribe.Pero la frustración de los votantes con la pobreza, la desigualdad y la inseguridad, que se vio exacerbada por la pandemia, junto con una creciente aceptación de la izquierda luego del proceso de paz firmado en 2016 con la guerrilla colombiana más grande, las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), pareció cambiar la dinámica.Para 2022, Petro, quien durante mucho tiempo ha sido el rostro combativo de la izquierda colombiana, pensó que era su momento. Y en los meses previos a las elecciones del 29 de mayo, los votantes acudieron en masa a sus propuestas: una amplia expansión de los programas sociales, detener todas las nuevas perforaciones petroleras en un país que depende de las exportaciones de petróleo y un enfoque en la justicia social.El argumento era: izquierda contra derecha, cambio contra continuidad, la élite contra el resto del país.Pero el improbable ascenso de Hernández refleja tanto un rechazo a la élite conservadora como a Petro.También revela que la narrativa nunca fue tan simple.Hernández, quien obtuvo el 28 por ciento de los votos, ha atraído a una amplia franja de votantes ansiosos por un cambio pero que nunca podría estar de acuerdo con Petro.Petro es un exguerrillero que fue miembro de un grupo rebelde llamado el Movimiento 19 de abril (M-19) en un país donde los rebeldes aterrorizaron a la población durante décadas. Y es de izquierda en una nación que comparte frontera con Venezuela, un país sumido en una crisis humanitaria por un gobierno autoritario que reivindica a la izquierda.Hernández, con su cabello anaranjado y desprolijo y su enfoque político de hombre de negocios, también ha atraído a votantes que dicen que quieren a alguien con la ambición de Trump y que no les preocupa si es propenso a la falta de tacto. (Años después de decir que era seguidor de Adolf Hitler, Hernández aclaró que quería decir que era seguidor de Albert Einstein).Federico Gutiérrez, candidato conservador de la derecha, en un mitin celebrado en Parques del Río, este mes.Nathalia Angarita para The New York TimesDos de los mayores problemas del país son la pobreza y la falta de oportunidades, y Hernández apela a las personas diciéndoles que puede ayudarlos a escapar de ambos.“Creo que él mira a Colombia como una posibilidad de crecimiento. Y en eso creo que se diferencia de los demás candidatos”, dijo Salvador Rizo, de 26 años, consultor tecnológico en Medellín. “Creo que los otros candidatos están viendo una casa que está en llamas y quieren apagar el fuego y preservar la casa. Creo que la opinión de Rodolfo es que hay una casa que puede ser un hotel enorme en el futuro”.También ha sido un crítico implacable de la corrupción, un problema crónico que algunos colombianos califican como un cáncer.Al principio, se comprometió a no aceptar dinero de campaña de entidades privadas y dice que él mismo está financiando su candidatura presidencial.“La gente política roba descaradamente”, dijo Álvaro Mejía, de 29 años, quien dirige una empresa de energía solar en Cali.Dice que prefiere a Hernández en vez de Petro, un senador desde hace muchos años, precisamente por su falta de experiencia política.La pregunta es si Hernández podrá mantener este impulso en las semanas previas a la segunda vuelta, mientras figuras políticas clave se alinean con su campaña.Minutos después de que obtuviera el segundo lugar el domingo, dos poderosas senadoras de la derecha, María Fernanda Cabal y Paloma Valencia, le prometieron su apoyo, y Posada predijo que era probable que otras lo respaldaran.Uribe, quien apoyó la candidatura de Hernández a la alcaldía en 2015, es una figura cada vez más polémica que aleja a muchos colombianos. Posada pronosticó que no apoyará a Hernández para no restarle votantes.El expresidente Álvaro Uribe en la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Bogotá, en febreroJuan Barreto/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSi Hernández logra mantener el delicado equilibrio de conseguir los votos de la derecha, sin afectar su imagen, podría ser difícil que Petro logre vencerlo.Muchos analistas políticos creen que los aproximadamente 8,5 millones de votos que obtuvo Petro el domingo son su techo, y que muchos de los cinco millones de votos de Gutiérrez se sumarán a los seis millones que logró Hernández.Cuando los resultados quedaron claros, los partidarios de Hernández corrieron a la sede de su campaña en una de las principales avenidas de Bogotá, la capital.Muchos vestían camisetas, sombreros y ponchos de campaña de color amarillo brillante, que dijeron que habían comprado ellos mismos en vez de que la campaña los repartiera gratis, de acuerdo con los principios de reducción de costos de Hernández.“Nunca había visto a una persona con las características como las del ingeniero Rodolfo”, dijo Liliana Vargas, una abogada de 39 años, usando un apodo común para Hernández, quien es ingeniero civil. “Es un ser político que no es político”, dijo. “Es la primera vez que estoy totalmente emocionada de participar en unas elecciones democráticas en mi país”.Cerca de allí, Juan Sebastián Rodríguez, de 39 años, líder de la campaña de Hernández en Bogotá, dijo que el candidato era “un rockstar”.“Es un fenómeno”, dijo. “Estamos seguros de que vamos a ganar”.Petro y Hernández en las portadas de los diarios locales, el lunesYuri Cortez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesGenevieve Glatsky More

The Colombian establishment is lining up behind Rodolfo Hernández, a populist businessman with an incendiary streak, to defeat the leftist former rebel Gustavo Petro.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Colombia’s political landscape has shifted remarkably in a matter of 24 hours.For months, pollsters predicted that Gustavo Petro, a former rebel-turned-senator making a bid to be the nation’s first leftist president, would head to a June presidential runoff against Federico Gutiérrez, a conservative establishment candidate who had argued that a vote for Mr. Petro amounted to “a leap into the void.’’Instead, on Sunday, voters gave the top two spots to Mr. Petro and Rodolfo Hernández, a former mayor and wealthy businessman with a populist, anti-corruption platform whose outsider status, incendiary statements and single-issue approach to politics have earned him comparisons to Donald Trump.The vote — for a leftist who has made a career assailing the conservative political class and for a relatively unknown candidate with no formal party backing — represented a repudiation of the conservative establishment that has governed Colombia for generations.But it also remade the political calculus for Mr. Petro. Now, it is Mr. Petro who is billing himself as the safe change, and Mr. Hernández as the dangerous leap into the void.“There are changes that are not changes,” Mr. Petro said at a campaign event on Sunday night, “they are suicides.”Mr. Hernández once called himself a follower of Adolf Hitler, has suggested combining major ministries to save money, and says that as president he plans to declare a state of emergency to deal with corruption, leading to fears that he could shut down Congress or suspend mayors.Still, Colombia’s right-wing establishment has begun lining up behind him, bringing many of their votes with them, and making a win for Mr. Petro look like an uphill climb.On Sunday, Mr. Gutiérrez, a former mayor of Medellín, the country’s second-largest city, threw his support behind Mr. Hernández, saying his intention was to “safeguard democracy.”But Fernando Posada, a political scientist, said the move was also the establishment right’s last-ditch effort to block Mr. Petro, whose plan to remake the Colombian economy “puts at risk many of the interests of the traditional political class.”“The Colombian right has reached such an extremely disastrous stage,” said Mr. Posada, “that they prefer a government that offers them nothing as long as it is not Petro.”Gustavo Petro, flanked by his wife Verónica Alcocer and vice-presidential candidate Francia Márquez at the end of the first round of presidential elections in Bogotá.Federico Rios for The New York TimesMr. Hernández, who had gained limited attention in most of the country until just a few weeks ago, is a one-time mayor of the mid-sized city of Bucaramanga in the northern part of the country. He made his fortune in construction, building low-income housing in the 1990s.At 77, Mr. Hernández built much of his support on TikTok, once slapped a city councilman on camera and recently told The Washington Post that he had a “messianic” effect on his supporters, who he compared to the “brainwashed” hijackers who destroyed the twin towers on 9/11.Pressed on whether such a comparison was problematic, he rejected the idea. “What I’m comparing is that after you get into that state, you don’t change your position. You don’t change it.”Until just a few days ago, Colombia’s political narrative seemed simple: For generations, politics had been dominated by a few wealthy families, and more recently, by a hard-line conservatism known as Uribismo, founded by the country’s powerful political kingmaker, former president Álvaro Uribe.But voter frustration with poverty, inequality and insecurity, which was exacerbated by the pandemic, along with a growing acceptance of the left following the country’s 2016 peace process with its largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, seemed to shift the dynamic.By 2022, Mr. Petro, long the combative face of the Colombian left, thought it was his moment. And in the months leading to the May 29 election, voters flocked to his proposals — a broad expansion of social programs, a halt to all new oil drilling in a country dependent on oil exports, and a focus on social justice.The story line was: left versus right, change versus continuity, the elite versus the rest of the country.But Mr. Hernández’s improbable rise reflects both a rejection of the conservative elite and of Mr. Petro.It also reveals that the narrative was never so simple.Mr. Hernández, who won 28 percent of the vote, has attracted a broad swath of voters eager for change who could never get on board with Mr. Petro.Mr. Petro is a former member of a rebel group called the M-19 in a country where rebels terrorized the population for decades. And he is a leftist in a nation that shares a border with Venezuela, a country plunged into a humanitarian crisis by authoritarians who claim the leftist banner.Mr. Hernández, with his fuzzy orange hair and businessman’s approach to politics, has also attracted voters who say they want someone with Trumpian ambition, and are not troubled if he is prone to tactlessness. (Years after saying he was a follower of Adolf Hitler, Mr. Hernández clarified that he meant to say he was a follower of Albert Einstein.)Federico Gutiérrez, a conservative establishment candidate, at a rally in Parques del Rio, this month.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesTwo of the country’s biggest issues are poverty and lack of opportunity, and Mr. Hernández appeals to people who say he can help them escape both.“I think that he looks at Colombia as a possibility of growth. And that’s how I think that he differs from the other candidates,” said Salvador Rizo, 26, a tech consultant in Medellín. “I think that the other candidates are watching a house that is on fire and they want to extinguish that fire and reveal the house. What I think the view of Rodolfo is: That there’s a house that can be a massive hotel in the future.”He has also been a relentless critic of corruption, a chronic issue that some Colombians call a cancer.Early on, he made a pledge not to take campaign money from private entities, and says he is funding his presidential bid himself.“Political people steal shamelessly,” said Álvaro Mejía, 29, who runs a solar energy company in Cali.He says he prefers Mr. Hernández to Mr. Petro, a longtime senator, precisely because of his lack of political experience.The question is whether Mr. Hernández will be able to maintain that outsider status in the weeks leading up to the runoff, as key political figures align themselves to his campaign.Just minutes after he won second place on Sunday, two powerful right-wing senators, María Fernanda Cabal and Paloma Valencia, pledged their support for him, and Mr. Posada predicted that others were likely to follow.Mr. Uribe, who backed Mr. Hernández’s run for mayor in 2015, is an increasingly polemic figure who turns off many Colombians. Mr. Posada predicted that he would not throw his weight behind Mr. Hernández, so as not to cost him voters.Former President Álvaro Uribe at the Supreme Court in Bogotá, in February.Juan Barreto/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIf Mr. Hernández can walk that difficult line — courting the establishment’s votes without tarnishing his image — it could be difficult for Mr. Petro to beat him.Many political analysts believe that the roughly 8.5 million votes Mr. Petro got on Sunday is his ceiling, and that many of Mr. Gutiérrez’s five million votes will be added to the six million Mr. Hernández received.As the results became clear, Mr. Hernández’s supporters rushed to his campaign headquarters on one of the main avenues in Bogotá, the capital.Many wore bright yellow campaign T-shirts, hats and ponchos, which they said they’d bought themselves instead of being handed out free by the campaign, in keeping with Mr. Hernández’s cost-cutting principles.“I have never seen a person with characteristics like those of the engineer Rodolfo,” said Liliana Vargas, a 39-year old lawyer, using a common nickname for Mr. Hernández, who is a civil engineer. “He is a political being who is not a politician,” she said. “It is the first time that I am totally excited to participate in a democratic election in my country.”Nearby, Juan Sebastián Rodríguez, 39, a leader of Mr. Hernández’s Bogotá campaign, called the candidate “a rock star.”“He is a phenomenon,” he said. “We are sure that we are going to win.”Mr. Petro and Mr. Hernández on the front pages of local newspapers on Monday.Yuri Cortez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesGenevieve Glatsky contributed reporting from Bogotá. More

New congressional lines have put two stalwart Manhattan Democrats on a collision course in the Aug. 23 primary. Barney Greengrass is staying neutral.As he sat in the shade of Riverside Park on a sparkling recent weekday morning in Manhattan, Representative Jerrold Nadler tried to make sense of how two powerful allies suddenly found themselves at war.A court-ordered redrawing of New York’s congressional district lines had combined the East and West Sides of Manhattan into a single district for the first time since World War II, putting Mr. Nadler and Representative Carolyn Maloney, a longtime colleague, on a potentially disastrous collision course in the Aug. 23 Democratic primary.Attempts to broker a peace settlement were made, but Mr. Nadler, over a chilled Diet Coke, acknowledged that they were somewhat halfhearted.He recalled telling Ms. Maloney in a private conversation on the House floor in Washington a few days earlier that he would win, suggesting she run for a neighboring seat.“She said basically the opposite, and so it was an impasse,” Mr. Nadler said, “and we left it at that.”On an island known for Democratic infighting, Mr. Nadler, 74, and Ms. Maloney, 76, have managed to coexist more or less peacefully for three decades.They built parallel political machines and accumulated important committee chairmanships. Along the way, they had become powerful stalwarts — if not political mascots — in their districts: Ms. Maloney, a pathbreaking feminist and the widow of an investment banker, represents an East Side district so wealthy it was once christened the silk-stocking district; Mr. Nadler, a proudly opinionated old-school progressive, holds down the West Side.But their long truce came to a shattering end last week, when a state court imposed a significant revision on New York’s congressional map. The new lines have roiled Democrats across the state, but perhaps nowhere has the change been more disruptive than Manhattan.“I’d say it’s sad,” Ms. Maloney said in an interview near her Upper East Side home. “It’s sad for the city.”The primary matchup between Mr. Nadler and Ms. Maloney may be one of the most bruising political spectacles in living memory, a crosstown clash between two respected party elders in the twilight of their careers. And it will play out in one of the most politically influential pockets of the United States — home to financiers, media titans and entertainers, and the source of millions of dollars in campaign donations each election cycle.Not since Bella Abzug challenged fellow West Side representative William Fitts Ryan in a 1972 race pitting two liberal icons against each other has New York City faced a primary contest with the potential to be quite so fraught.“No one ever forgot that,” Harold Holzer, a historian and former aide to Ms. Abzug, said of the primary contest. “Maybe this will be more heartbreaking than it is infuriating. But for those who lived through the first one and remained pained by it for years, it’s history repeating itself.”Representative William Fitts Ryan beat Representative Bella S. Abzug in a 1972 primary. He died two months later.Stanley Wolfson/World Telegram & Sun, via Library of CongressAfter Mr. Ryan’s death, Ms. Abzug defeated his wife to retain a seat in the House.Ron Galella Collection, via Getty ImagesAnd yet neither Mr. Nadler nor Ms. Maloney has wasted any time working the phones to pressure union leaders, old political allies and wealthy donors — many of whom the two have shared for years — to pick sides.What to Know About RedistrictingRedistricting, Explained: Here are some answers to your most pressing questions about the process that is reshaping American politics.Understand Gerrymandering: Can you gerrymander your party to power? Try to draw your own districts in this imaginary state.Killing Competition: The number of competitive districts is dropping, as both parties use redistricting to draw themselves into safe seats.Deepening Divides: As political mapmakers create lopsided new district lines, the already polarized parties are being pulled even farther apart.Allies of Ms. Maloney whispered doubts about Mr. Nadler’s health. (His aides say his health is good.) Mr. Nadler’s associates circulated old news articles about Ms. Maloney’s obsession with pandas, and suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is officially neutral in the race, really preferred him.For all their superficial differences, Mr. Nadler and Ms. Maloney have had broadly similar career arcs.Both came up through local New York City politics in the 1970s. Mr. Nadler was a precocious young lawyer who started a group of self-styled reformers, the West Side Kids, and won a State Assembly seat in 1976. Ms. Maloney, a former teacher, was a top legislative aide in Albany before winning a City Council seat in 1982. She was the first Council member to give birth while in office and the first to introduce legislation giving rights to same-sex couples.They arrived in Congress within two months of each other in the early 1990s. Mr. Nadler inherited his safely Democratic West Side seat when the incumbent died of a heart attack on the eve of the primary. Ms. Maloney had to work harder for hers, upsetting a long-serving liberal Republican, Bill Green, to win the East Side seat once held by Mayors John V. Lindsay and Edward I. Koch.Mr. Nadler and Ms. Maloney are among the House’s most progressive members and both lead prestigious committees. Ms. Maloney is the chair of the Oversight and Reform Committee, which most recently oversaw an overhaul of the Postal Service. Mr. Nadler leads the Judiciary Committee, a role that earned him national attention during President Donald J. Trump’s two impeachments.Neither lawmaker grew up in Manhattan. Ms. Maloney is from Greensboro, N.C. Mr. Nadler, the son of a one-time chicken farmer, was mostly raised in Brooklyn. Both have strongly rebuffed pleas to retire.“I’ve never been more effective,” Ms. Maloney said.Mr. Nadler, the city’s only remaining Jewish congressman, was even more direct: “No. No. No. No. No. No.”Ms. Maloney, center, at a 1992 reception for her and other incoming female House members.Laura Patterson/CQ Roll Call, via Getty ImagesMr. Nadler campaigning in the Bensonhurst section in 1994, when the area was in his district.Donna Dietrich/Newsday, via Getty ImagesMs. Maloney enters the contest with an apparent, if slight, demographic edge: She already represents about 60 percent of the voters in the new district. The spread narrows among Democratic primary voters, according to data complied by the Center for Urban Research at the CUNY Graduate Center.Political analysts are warning that the outcome may depend on who casts ballots in a primary in late August, when many residents of the Upper East and West Sides decamp to the Hamptons or the Hudson Valley.A third Democrat, Suraj Patel, is also running. His premise is that it is time to give a younger generation a chance to lead. He came within four percentage points of beating Ms. Maloney in the primary two years ago. (Mr. Nadler, by contrast, has not had a close election in nearly 50 years.)“If you are satisfied with the state of New York, the country or the Democratic Party, they are your candidates,” Mr. Patel, 38 said.For now, predictions about which candidate will win appear to correlate with proximity to the Hudson and East Rivers.“The West Side votes heavily, that’s to our advantage,” said Gale Brewer, a former Manhattan borough president who now represents the area on the City Council. She added of Mr. Nadler, whom she is backing: “He’s got a brain that is frightening.”Rebecca A. Seawright, an assemblywoman from the Upper East Side supporting Ms. Maloney, said that the congresswoman has “endless energy” and an innate understanding of women’s priorities that her allies believe will resonate with voters in a year when the Supreme Court may strike down Roe v. Wade.How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

A central figure in the scheme to reverse the 2020 election is mobilizing grass-roots activists into an “army of citizens” trained to aggressively monitor elections.In a hotel conference center outside Harrisburg, Pa., Cleta Mitchell, one of the key figures in a failed scheme to overturn Donald J. Trump’s defeat, was leading a seminar on “election integrity.”“We are taking the lessons we learned in 2020 and we are going forward to make sure they never happen again,” Ms. Mitchell told the crowd of about 150 activists-in-training.She would be “putting you to work,” she told them.In the days after the 2020 election, Ms. Mitchell was among a cadre of Republican lawyers who frantically compiled unsubstantiated accusations, debunked claims and an array of confusing and inconclusive eyewitness reports to build the case that the election was marred by fraud. Courts rejected the cases and election officials were unconvinced, thwarting a stunning assault on the transfer of power.Now Ms. Mitchell is prepping for the next election. Working with a well-funded network of organizations on the right, including the Republican National Committee, she is recruiting election conspiracists into an organized cavalry of activists monitoring elections.In seminars around the country, Ms. Mitchell is marshaling volunteers to stake out election offices, file information requests, monitor voting, work at polling places and keep detailed records of their work. She has tapped into a network of grass-root groups that promote misinformation and espouse wild theories about the 2020 election, including the fiction that President Biden’s victory could still be decertified and Mr. Trump reinstated.One concern is the group’s intent to research the backgrounds of local and state officials to determine whether each is a “friend or foe” of the movement. Many officials already feel under attack by those who falsely contend that the 2020 election was stolen.An extensive review of Ms. Mitchell’s effort, including documents and social media posts, interviews and attendance at the Harrisburg seminar, reveals a loose network of influential groups and fringe figures. They include election deniers as well as mainstream organizations such as the Heritage Foundation’s political affiliate, Tea Party Patriots and the R.N.C., which has participated in Ms. Mitchell’s seminars. The effort, called the Election Integrity Network, is a project of the Conservative Partnership Institute, a right-wing think tank with close ties and financial backing from Mr. Trump’s political operation.Ms. Mitchell says she is creating “a volunteer army of citizens” who can counter what she describes as Democratic bias in election offices.“We’re going to be watching. We’re going to take back our elections,” she said in an April interview with John Fredericks, a conservative radio host. “The only way they win is to cheat,” she added.The claim that Mr. Trump lost the election because of improper conduct in election offices or rampant voter fraud is false. Mr. Trump’s defeat was undisputed among election officials and certified by Democrats and Republicans, with many recounts and audits verifying the outcome. Mr. Trump’s Justice Department found no evidence of widespread fraud. Mr. Trump lost more than 50 of his postelection challenges in court.Campaigns, parties and outside groups from both sides of the political spectrum regularly form poll-monitoring operations and recruit poll workers. And Republicans have in the past boasted of plans to build an “army” of observers, raising fears about widespread voter intimidation and conflict at the polls that largely have not materialized.Some former election officials say they are hopeful that when election skeptics observe the process they may finally be convinced that the system is sound. But several who examined Ms. Mitchell’s training materials and statements at the request of The New York Times sounded alarms about her tactics.Ms. Mitchell’s trainings promote particularly aggressive methods — with a focus on surveillance — that appear intended to feed on activists’ distrust and create pressure on local officials, rather than ensure voters’ access to the ballot, they say. A test drive of the strategy in the Virginia governor’s race last year highlighted how quickly the work — when conducted by people convinced of falsehoods about fraud — can disrupt the process and spiral into bogus claims, even in a race Republicans won.“I think it’s going to come down to whether they are truly interested in knowing the truth about elections or they’re interested in propagating propaganda,” said Al Schmidt, a Republican and former city commissioner of Philadelphia who served on the elections board.Asked about her project at the Pennsylvania training, Ms. Mitchell declined an interview request and asked a reporter to leave.In a statement emailed later, she said: “The American election system envisions citizen engagement and we are training people to assume the roles outlined in the statutes.”Ms. Mitchell’s operation sits at a tension point for her party. While the establishment is eager to take advantage of the base’s energy and outrage over 2020, some are wary of being associated with — or held accountable for — some of the more extreme people in the movement. The feeling is mutual among activists, many of whom believe the R.N.C. did not do enough to back Mr. Trump’s challenge.The Republican National Committee’s involvement is part of a return to widespread election-work organizing. For nearly 30 years, the committee was limited in some operations by a consent decree after Democrats accused party officials in New Jersey of hiring off-duty police officers and posting signs intended to scare Black and Latino people away from voting. The committee was freed of restrictions in 2018.This year, its multimillion-dollar investment includes hiring 18 state “election integrity” directors and 19 state “election integrity” lawyers. The party has so far recruited more than 5,000 poll watchers and nearly 12,000 poll workers, according to the committee. These efforts are separate from the Election Integrity Network, said Emma Vaughn, an R.N.C. spokeswoman.But in multiple states, the R.N.C. election integrity directors have been involved in Ms. Mitchell’s events. Ms. Vaughn acknowledged that party officials participate in events hosted by other groups to recruit poll workers and poll watchers. She noted that in many states poll monitors must be authorized by the party. The R.N.C. is training its monitors to comply with laws protecting voting rights, she said.“The R.N.C. works with other groups who have an interest in promoting election integrity, but the party’s efforts are independent from any outside organization,” Ms. Vaughn said.Harnessing the EnergySince 2020, scores of local groups have popped up around the country to promote claims about the election. Many are run by activists with little experience in politics or elections but who have amassed sizable membership lists and social media followers. They are spurred on by national figures touring the circuit and spreading false claims.Ms. Mitchell stepped in to harness that energy.The 71-year-old lawyer has been a steady and influential force in the voting battles. Once a liberal Democrat in Oklahoma, Ms. Mitchell has been a fixture in the conservative movement. She has represented the National Rifle Association and was on the board of the American Conservative Union. She has worked closely with Virginia Thomas, the wife of the Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, on organizing through the Council for National Policy, a national coordinating group for conservative leaders.In August 2020, Mr. Trump tapped her to prepare for postelection litigation. She enlisted John Eastman, the lawyer who crafted specious legal theories claiming Vice President Mike Pence could keep Mr. Trump in power. “A movement is stirring,” Ms. Mitchell wrote to Mr. Eastman just two days after Election Day. “But needs constitutional support.”Ms. Mitchell helped the president argue his case to state officials. She was on the phone with Mr. Trump when he asked Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, to “find 11,780 votes” that could reverse Mr. Trump’s defeat there.Her latest effort is organized through the Conservative Partnership Institute, a nonprofit organization where she serves as a senior legal fellow and where Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s final White House chief of staff, is a senior partner. Mr. Trump’s political action committee, Save America PAC, donated $1 million to the group last year.Ms. Mitchell has described herself as a key conduit between activists and Republican Party leadership.“We are trying to bridge the gap between the grassroots and some of the issues we’ve had with the party,” she told trainees at the event outside Harrisburg.Ms. Mitchell is no doubt connecting with some of the fringe groups and ideas some in the party once avoided.In Virginia, for example, Ms. Mitchell helped a nonprofit organize a coalition that includes Virginians for America First, a group advocating for hand-counting ballots. It’s a position popular among some of those who believe conspiracy theories about foreign hacking in the 2020 election. The group was funded by Patrick Byrne, the former Overstock.com executive who is now a major benefactor of the election denial movement.Mark Finchem, a state representative from Arizona, at a MAGA rally at the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing, Mich., in March.Nic Antaya for The New York TimesIn Michigan, Ms. Mitchell’s group held a training session in May that was sponsored in part by a coalition of grass-roots groups called the Michigan Election Protection Team. The R.N.C.’s state election integrity director brought together the coalition to recruit poll workers. According to its website, the coalition includes LaRouchePAC, a committee dedicated to Lyndon LaRouche, the deceased conspiracy theorist, and Let’s Fix Stuff, an outfit run by a former Republican state senator who has promoted a theory about the 2020 election that Republican Michigan Senate leaders denounced as “indefensible.”The R.N.C. sent both its national and state election integrity directors to Ms. Mitchell’s training near Harrisburg. The state director, Andrea Raffle, had worked alongside Ms. Mitchell for months on the event, one of the speakers told the attendees. Ms. Raffle, as well as an organizer from Heritage Action, would be joining a new coalition of election activists led by Toni Shuppe, a fast-rising state activist, organizers announced.Ms. Shuppe’s group, Audit the Vote PA, has become a leading peddler of misleading data about the election in Pennsylvania. Last year, the group set out to find evidence of fraud by canvassing neighborhoods in search of discrepancies between election results and information collected from residents, a method that election experts dismiss as invalid.Ms. Shuppe has admitted to flaws in her data but stands by the conclusions of her analysis. Earlier this year, she circulated a petition that declared citizens’ right “to throw off such government that intends to keep the truth behind the 2020 election hidden.”Now, Ms. Shuppe is recruiting election activists, using what she learned at Ms. Mitchell’s and other training sessions, she said in an interview. So far, around 200 people have signed up, she said.“Just know that we have a plan,” she wrote the day after the Harrisburg seminar to her 15,000 Telegram subscribers. “We’ll never quit. This must be fixed. There is no going back to sleep. And 2020 still needs decertified.”Election workers in Philadelphia sorting through ballots the day after Election Day in 2020.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York Times‘Is That a Friend or Foe?’Much of Ms. Shuppe’s plan is laid out in “The Citizens Guide to Building an Election Integrity Infrastructure,” a 19-page manual Ms. Mitchell has distributed at trainings and online.The document includes some typical guidelines for poll monitors, but elections experts also noted tactics that aren’t routine. The manual advises activists to “be ever-present” inside elections offices, and to meet with post office officials to observe “every step” of the vote-by-mail process allowed by law. They’re advised to keep careful records, including details on any “encounter that is intended to make you uncomfortable being at the election offices.”They recommend aggressively crowdsourcing the accuracy of the voter rolls by collecting affidavits from residents and mailing letters to try to identify potential “bad addresses.” They advise each group to enlist tech-savvy volunteers who, they suggest, can become expert on the specific software and equipment in each county and “what the vulnerabilities are.”The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 8Numerous inquiries. More

Real estate, unions and crypto interests were among the donors to Ms. Hochul. Here are five takeaways from the money battle in New York’s race for governor.ALBANY, N.Y. — In the final stretch of the primary race for New York governor, the incumbent, Kathy Hochul, has widened her already formidable fund-raising lead over both Democratic and Republican rivals, scooping up millions from lobbyists, wealthy New Yorkers and special interest groups with a stake in policy outcomes in Albany.Ms. Hochul pulled in more than $10 million from mid-January to late May, outpacing her nearest Democratic competitor, Representative Thomas R. Suozzi, by about a 3-to-1 margin, according to new filings released on Friday. A third Democratic candidate, the New York City public advocate, Jumaane Williams, raised just $250,000 during the period and was left with only $130,000 in the bank at the end of the month.On the Republican side, Representative Lee Zeldin, a Long Island conservative, led his rivals with $3.2 million raised. Harry Wilson, a businessman who said he intended to mostly self-fund his campaign, reported just under $2 million in contributions; he also dipped into his personal fortune to blanket the airwaves with TV ads. Thanks to his considerable wealth, Mr. Wilson had more money to spend — $4.2 million — than any challenger to Ms. Hochul. But the governor’s $18.6 million war chest, eye-poppingly fat even after she spent $13 million (mostly on TV and online ads) in the last four months, puts her in the driver’s seat in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2002.Jumaane Williams, the New York City public advocate, badly trails his Democratic rivals in fund-raising efforts.Libby March for The New York TimesThe power of incumbencyAs Ms. Hochul was helping decide how to spend $220 billion of the state’s money, she raked in cash from every corner of the economy just as — or shortly after — the state budget negotiations were taking place.Eleven donors gave the maximum $69,700 in the latest report — from organized labor groups such as the American Dream Fund service workers union and the Transport Workers Union, to major corporate givers like John Hess, chief executive of the Hess Corporation, and Manhattan real estate developers like Jack and Michael Cayre.All told, 84 percent of the haul came in chunks of $5,000 or more, records show. The campaign noted that 70 percent of the donations came from contributors giving $250 or less, signaling Ms. Hochul’s “broad coalition of supporters.”Few were more generous than lobbyists registered with the state to influence lawmakers at the Capitol — on everything from cannabis regulation to education policy and funding.Many of the lobbyists who donated to Ms. Hochul soon after she was sworn in last summer re-upped with contributions once her first legislative session began. The firm Featherstonhaugh, Wiley & Clyne, whose clients include Saratoga Casino Holdings and the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, gave Ms. Hochul $25,000 about a month after she took office and then another $25,000 a few weeks into her first session.The Albany lobbying firm Ostroff Associates and its partners have showered $78,000 on Ms. Hochul since she became governor, and Shenker, Russo & Clark, which represents banking and auto dealer interests, among others, just chipped in another $5,000 after giving Ms. Hochul $20,000 in October.“Follow the money, and none of it leads to addressing the crime and affordability crisis in our state,” said Kim Devlin, a senior adviser to Mr. Suozzi.Representative Thomas R. Suozzi raised far more than one of his Democratic rivals, Jumaane Williams, but far less than Ms. Hochul.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesMining for Hochul’s approvalWith controversy swirling over the expansion of cryptocurrency mining in New York, where aging industrial facilities and cheap electricity have lured major players in the sector, a single five-figure donation to Ms. Hochul stands out: $40,000 from Ashton Soniat, the chief executive of Coinmint, according to the company’s website.The company has a crypto-mining operation on the grounds of a former aluminum plant in Massena, N.Y., a small town northeast of Niagara Falls. Environmentalists have raised alarms about the high electricity consumption of crypto mining and its potential contribution to climate change. Crypto speculators have been drawn to northern and western New York because of its abundant hydroelectric power.Coinmint did not respond to requests for comment sent through its website and to email addresses and phone numbers listed in business directories and state records.Ms. Hochul’s campaign reported that she received the donation from Mr. Soniat, via credit card, on May 23. A day later, Ms. Hochul, during a breakfast with legislators at the governor’s mansion in Albany, spoke optimistically about the potential job creation bonanza in the economically distressed area.“We have to balance the protection of the environment, but also protect the opportunity for jobs that go to areas that don’t see a lot of activity and make sure that the energy that’s consumed by these entities is managed properly,” Ms. Hochul told reporters after the breakfast meeting.Assemblywoman Anna R. Kelles, a Democrat who represents the Ithaca area, said Ms. Hochul told her the state can’t ignore the jobs crypto mining in Massena could bring. Ms. Kelles said Ms. Hochul told her, “I spoke to them and they said they employ about 140 people and they are looking to go up to 400 employees in an area where there are very few industries. So this is really important.”Ms. Kelles is the sponsor of a bill that would put a two-year moratorium on certain crypto-mining operations that rely on fossil fuels, legislation that Ms. Hochul said she would consider once a final version reaches her desk.“Political donations have no influence on government decisions,” said Hazel Crampton-Hays, a Hochul spokeswoman. “Governor Hochul approaches every decision through one lens: What is best for New Yorkers.”Gov. Hochul, right, with Vice President Kamala Harris, before a memorial service for a victim of the racist massacre in Buffalo.Patrick Semansky/Associated PressReal estate stands firm with HochulOn April 18, Governor Hochul joined the real estate developer Scott Rechler and Mayor Eric Adams to hail the opening of a publicly accessible rooftop in an office development on a pier in the city- and state-controlled Hudson River Park. In the ensuing month, Mr. Rechler, the chief executive of RXR, and his wife, Deborah Rechler, gave a combined $85,600 to the campaign this filing period. Both are Nassau County constituents of Mr. Suozzi, a Long Island congressman who is running to the right of Ms. Hochul.Big real estate donors have a habit of sticking with politically moderate incumbents they perceive to be doing a decent job. This year appears no different. Ms. Hochul, the incumbent in question, has continued to haul in donations from landlords and developers.Jerry Speyer, the chairman of Tishman Speyer, which owns Rockefeller Center, donated $50,000 to Ms. Hochul’s campaign in April. Donald Capoccia, the managing principal of Brooklyn-based developer BFC Partners, donated $25,000. James L. Dolan, who controls Madison Square Garden — which sits atop the Penn Station Ms. Hochul is renovating — donated $69,700.“In the real estate business, you’re only as strong as the communities where you’re doing business,” Mr. Rechler, who used to be one of former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s biggest donors, said in a statement. “Governor Hochul recognizes that to build stronger communities you need to invest in infrastructure, focus on quality of life and prioritize public safety.”Suozzi releases his tax returnOn the day that candidates for governor faced a deadline to release fund-raising information, Mr. Suozzi chose to also make his tax return available to reporters. On both counts, Mr. Suozzi trails the governor.Ms. Hochul and her husband, William J. Hochul Jr., reported a joint taxable income of $825,000 this year, more than twice the combined income of Mr. Suozzi and his wife.Mr. Hochul, a high-ranking executive at Delaware North, a hospitality company and state concessionaire, earned the bulk of the couple’s income: $547,434 from his job at Delaware North. The $363,494 in joint taxable income from Mr. Suozzi and his wife, Helene Suozzi, includes $152,645 in wages — a vast majority of it from Mr. Suozzi’s congressional salary — and $136,339 in capital gains.The Suozzis have a smattering of investments, including a rental office property in Glen Cove, N.Y., that garnered $18,360 in rental income in 2021, and an investment in a Southampton day camp, which earned them $12,677 in passive income.The Suozzis donated $38,097 to charity. The Hochuls donated $72,153, and paid $237,916 in federal taxes, or 29 percent of their income. The Suozzis paid $70,018, a federal tax rate of 19 percent.In the latest fund-raising disclosures, Mr. Suozzi reported raising $3.5 million and transferred a little less than $400,000 from his congressional account, leaving him with $2.7 million in the bank.Andrew Giuliani has raised the least money among the Republican candidates for governor.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesGiuliani has name recognition, but few donorsAndrew Giuliani may have his father’s name recognition going for him, but in the race for money, he is badly lagging the New York Republican Party’s anointed candidate for governor.Mr. Giuliani raised just a little over $220,000 from donors this filing period, with no individual donations greater than $25,000, according to state campaign finance records. He has a bit more than $300,000 on hand. Mr. Giuliani performed worse, financially, than all three of his Republican rivals, even if some polling suggests he may be leading among voters.Rob Astorino, the former Westchester County executive, raised about $600,000 this period, leaving him with more than $1.1 million on hand. Mr. Zeldin, the party-backed candidate, raised a little over $3 million, leaving him with roughly that same amount to spend in the final weeks of the primary race. Mr. Wilson, a wealthy Wall Street trader who nearly won the race for state comptroller in 2010, raised more than $10 million this period, most of it from himself.“The unparalleled outpouring of grass-roots support from every corner of our state has only grown stronger,” Mr. Zeldin said in a statement. “In November, New Yorkers are going to restore a balance of power to Albany.”Dana Rubinstein reported from New York, and Luis Ferré-Sadurní contributed reporting from New York. More