Elections

Well, the people have spoken. Sort of.Several major elections this week, and the big story was Georgia. The race Donald Trump certainly seemed to care about most was a Republican primary there involving his enemy Gov. Brian Kemp.Trump, as the world knows, hates hates hates Kemp for insisting on reporting the accurate results of Georgia’s voting in the 2020 presidential race. The rancor runs so deep that Trump’s Save America PAC actually coughed up at least $500,000 toward Kemp’s defeat.Normally, our ex-president sits on his cash like a nesting hen. Must have tugged at his heartstrings to see it being carted away. And to no avail, hehehehehehe. Trump recruited former Senator David Perdue to run against his enemy, and Kemp demolished Perdue by more than three to one.Same story with Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, who Trump told to “find 11,780 votes” after the presidential election and give him the win. Didn’t happen! Yet this week, Raffensperger did so well with Georgia Republican voters that he’s not even going to face a primary runoff.If you’ve got an optimistic nature, here’s a spin you can put on the whole story: Tuesday’s results showed regular Republicans aren’t all still steaming about how the 2020 presidential election was stolen from their man. And they’re not all going to the polls to get revenge.They’re ready to — dare I say it? — move on. No better example than Mike Pence. “I was for Brian Kemp before it was cool,” the former vice president told a crowd near Atlanta.Yes, he really said that. It will be remembered as yet another sign of the wrecked relationship between Trump and his former No. 2. It was also perhaps the only moment in American history when Mike Pence was linked with the word “cool.”OK, that’s enough voter happiness. Back down to Planet Earth. The newly reaffirmed Governor Kemp announced on Tuesday that he and his family were “heartbroken” by the “incomprehensible” school shooting in Texas.Now, Kemp recently signed a bill that will allow Georgians to carry handguns in public pretty much whenever they feel like it — no license or background check required. You’d think — at least wish — that he’d consider a possible link between the wide, wide availability of firearms in this country and the tragic line of mass shooting deaths. Anything can make a difference.Compared with the elementary school shooting in Texas, everything else about this week will be a political footnote. But some of the footnotes are certainly interesting. If we want to pick a theme for Tuesday’s elections, it might be that Donald Trump’s influence isn’t nearly as strong as he thinks it is, and that he may be the only American voter whose chief preoccupation is revisiting the 2020 election on an hourly basis.Getting over it is something Trump can’t abide. Consider the primary in Alabama for a Republican Senate candidate. Perhaps you remember — if you’re very, very, very into elections — that Trump began by backing Representative Mo Brooks, then changed his mind and unendorsed him? Cynics believed Trump had just decided Brooks was a loser, but it’s also possible the congressman had offended our former president by urging voters to “look forward.”That’s the wrong direction to mention when you’re hanging out with the Trump camp.“Mo Brooks of Alabama made a horrible mistake recently when he went ‘woke’ and stated, referring to the 2020 presidential election scam, ‘Put that behind you, put that behind you,’” Trump said as he retracted his endorsement.The outcome of all this drama was that Brooks got less than a third of the vote, behind Katie Britt, the former chief of staff of retiring Senator Richard Shelby. Since Britt failed to get 50 percent, there will be a runoff. Winner will face Democratic nominee Will Boyd this fall.One addendum — which you should really skip over if you’re feeling even modestly depressed: Both Britt and Brooks are in the gun camp as deep as humanly possible. Britt has ads in which she’s aiming a rifle and promising to “shoot straight.” The N.R.A., which endorsed Brooks, praised his efforts to protect “interstate transportation of firearms.” Those of us in states that are desperately trying to keep gun proliferation under control would appreciate it if he focused his energies on something else.Trump’s biggest election night triumph may have been Herschel Walker, the former football player he backed for a Georgia Senate nomination. But Walker’s competition wasn’t exactly top-notch, and now he’ll be running against Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock, who will probably take note of a few items on Walker’s résumé that Trump overlooked. Including allegations of domestic violence, refusal to take part in debates, and the day on the campaign trail when Walker expressed doubt about the theory of evolution. (If it were true, Walker mused, “Why are there still apes? Think about it.”)On the plus side, there was Walker’s eagerness to spend $200,000 entertaining people at Mar-a-Lago. Nothing, it appears, raises the former president’s enthusiasm for a candidate like a willingness to make Donald Trump wealthier.All told, reporters found that seven of the Republicans Trump endorsed this year spent a total of more than $400,000 in campaign money at the resort. So yeah, our ex-president lost a lot politically this election season. But he gained a chunk of cash.Maybe he’ll use some of it for tips when he speaks on Friday at the N.R.A.’s three-day convention in Houston.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

Jim Jordan demands material on him before complying with January 6 subpoenaRepublican congressman sent a six-page letter to the panel asking for materials that put him under scrutiny for his cooperation Republican congressman Jim Jordan told the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack that he would consider complying with the panel’s subpoena only if they shared the material that put him under scrutiny, according to a letter he sent Wednesday.The response by Jordan – the top Republican on the House judiciary committee who spoke to Donald Trump on January 6 – stopped short of a refusal to comply with his subpoena, though it was not clear how he would proceed if the panel refused his request.In the six-page letter sent to the select committee and obtained by the Guardian, Jordan demanded House investigators share with him all materials they intended to rely upon in questioning, materials in which he is referenced, and legal analyses about subpoenaing members of Congress.Capitol attack committee seeks appearance by Trump ally Jim JordanRead more“Because your subpoena is an unprecedented use of a committee’s compulsory authority against another member,” Jordan said in his letter, “I respectfully ask for the following material so that I may adequately further respond to your subpoena.”The response puts the ball in the select committee’s court, forcing House investigators to decide whether they will acquiesce to Jordan’s demands in the hope that it convinces him to give some testimony, or refuse and potentially close off any chance of cooperation.But the letter, which challenged the legality of the select committee and its subpoenas, appeared to be something of a gambit for Jordan, too. For one thing, it was not clear whether Jordan wanted to face the consequences for defying a subpoena if his demands were not met.The response from Jordan – finalized on Tuesday and sent to the panel on Wednesday – also included complaints that House investigators had not acted in good faith by issuing a subpoena around four months after Jordan apparently declined to give voluntary assistance.“Your subpoena was unprompted and, in light of the unaddressed points from my January 9 letter, plainly unreasonable. I write to strongly contest the constitutionality and validity of the subpoena in several respects,” Jordan said.The select committee’s subpoena to Jordan – which came alongside four other subpoenas to House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs and Mo Brooks – demanded testimony about his December 2020 meetings with Trump in the White House and other communications.House investigators took the step to issue the unprecedented subpoenas to five Republican members of Congress after Jordan, McCarthy and Perry did not appear for interviews on tentative dates suggested in initial letters seeking voluntary cooperation.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Lawyers had argued that the reporter, Eric Lichtblau, should testify about his communications with their client, Michael Sussmann, who is accused of lying to the F.B.I.WASHINGTON — The defense team for Michael Sussmann, a lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, has dropped its plans to call a former New York Times reporter to testify in a trial that centers on Mr. Sussmann’s motives in meeting with the F.B.I. in 2016.Testimony in the case has underlined the role the news media played during the bare-knuckle fight between Mrs. Clinton and Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential election, particularly as suspicions about Mr. Trump’s possible ties to Russia grew.Mr. Sussmann’s lawyers had argued that the former Times reporter, Eric Lichtblau, should testify about his communications with Mr. Sussmann over odd internet data that cybersecurity researchers said could be covert communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-affiliated bank.A special counsel, John H. Durham, has accused Mr. Sussmann of lying to the F.B.I. about his reason for meeting with a top bureau official at the time, James Baker, to convey that information, by saying he was not there on behalf of any client. Prosecutors contend he was in fact representing the Clinton campaign and a technology executive who worked with the researchers.Defense lawyers have argued that Mr. Sussmann represented the campaign in efforts to get reporters to write articles about the Alfa Bank suspicions, but not when he approached the F.B.I. about the data and his belief that a news article about it would soon be published.In his testimony last week, Mr. Baker said that the prospect of an imminent article led him to fear that the F.B.I. would not have time to investigate the possibility of a secret channel before the participants read the news and shut it down. But a week later, when he asked Mr. Lichtblau to delay, he said the reporter indicated that an article was not yet ready to publish.The Times published an article that mentioned the Alfa Bank matter about six weeks later, but it said the F.B.I. “ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation.”Prosecutors have insinuated that Mr. Sussmann sought to prompt an F.B.I. investigation so reporters would write articles about it, while defense lawyers have argued that he went to the bureau only when he believed an article was imminent.“The defense’s theory is that the story was going to come out, or was likely to come out, or was close to coming out; and Mr. Sussmann wanted to give a heads-up,” Sean Berkowitz, Mr. Sussmann’s lawyer, told the court on Monday.Mr. Lichtblau’s testimony could have shed light on what he told Mr. Sussmann regarding how soon an article might be published before he sought the F.B.I. meeting.Mr. Lichtblau apparently consented to testify as a defense witness about the narrow topic of his interactions with Mr. Sussmann. But a dispute arose over whether prosecutors could ask him about other sources during cross-examination.Late Tuesday, Mr. Sussman’s defense team withdrew its subpoena for Mr. Lichtblau’s testimony without stating a reason. A lawyer for Mr. Lichtblau declined to comment.The Sussmann trial, which began on May 16, is the first case to be developed by Mr. Durham, a special counsel appointed during the Trump administration by Attorney General William P. Barr to examine the origins of the F.B.I.’s investigation into ties between Mr. Trump and Russia.But the Alfa Bank matter was tangential to the official investigation. Trial testimony has shown that F.B.I. agents swiftly dismissed the suspicions as implausible.Mr. Durham’s prosecutors have accused Mr. Sussmann of trying to persuade the F.B.I. to investigate Mr. Trump over his ties with Russia, to facilitate negative coverage about Mrs. Clinton’s rival and disseminate unsubstantiated claims before the election.At the trial on Wednesday, prosecutors wrapped up their case by introducing a stack of written documents, including records from Mr. Sussmann’s law firm that showed he billed many hours on the Alfa Bank matter to the Clinton campaign.Defense lawyers sought to raise doubts. They emphasized that Mr. Sussmann’s billing of several hours on apparent Alfa Bank matters the day of the F.B.I. meeting did not mention the F.B.I. or a meeting, as was his habit for other such meetings. They also pointed out that he when he expensed taxis for the meeting, he charged them to the firm, not any client. More

The Republican primary for a Senate seat in Pennsylvania will go to a recount, with Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrity physician backed by former President Donald J. Trump, clinging to a narrow advantage over David McCormick, a former hedge fund executive, in one of the nation’s most intensely watched midterm contests.Dr. Oz was leading Mr. McCormick by 902 votes as of Wednesday, according to Leigh M. Chapman, the state’s acting secretary of the commonwealth, who said that all 67 of Pennsylvania’s counties had reported unofficial tallies to the state.The recount could lead to a series of lawsuits and challenges in the marquee primary, one that could ultimately determine control of the closely divided Senate. That legal wrangling has already begun: On Monday, Mr. McCormick filed a lawsuit demanding that undated mail-in ballots should be counted.A victory for Mr. McCormick — a West Point graduate and the former chief executive of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund — would be a significant rebuke to Mr. Trump, who supported Dr. Oz and campaigned for him in Pennsylvania. The seat will be open after Senator Patrick J. Toomey, a Republican, steps down this year.Pennsylvania presents perhaps the best chance for Democrats to add a seat to their fragile 50-50 control of the Senate, in which Vice President Kamala Harris holds the tiebreaking vote. The seat is the only one open in a state that President Biden won in 2020. For Republicans, holding the seat would ease their path to the majority in a year when the political winds are at their back.Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrity physician, leads the Senate race against David McCormick, a former hedge fund executive, by 902 votes. Pennsylvania law calls for an automatic recount if the margin in a statewide race is 0.5 percent or less of the total vote.Alexandra Wimley/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, via Associated PressAt a news conference in Harrisburg, Pa., the state capital, Ms. Chapman said that the recount would be conducted transparently and would allow for observers from the campaigns.Counties can begin the recount on Friday and must start no later than June 1, she said. They must complete the process by June 7 and report their results to the state by June 8. Pennsylvania law calls for an automatic recount if the margin in a statewide race is 0.5 percent or less of the total vote.State elections officials acknowledged that the recount could be a slog, one that they said could cost taxpayers in Pennsylvania more than $1 million.“I know Pennsylvanians and indeed people throughout the country have been following this race attentively and are eagerly awaiting the results,” said Ms. Chapman, who was appointed to her post last December by Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat.The lawsuit from Mr. McCormick asks the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to allow county election officials to accept mail-in ballots from voters who turned them in by the May 17 deadline but did not write the date on the outer return envelopes.That step is required by a state law, which Republicans have fought to preserve.“Because all ballots are time-stamped by the County Boards of Elections on receipt, a voter’s handwritten date is meaningless,” said Chuck Cooper, Mr. McCormick’s chief legal counsel, in a statement on Monday.But G.O.P. leaders objected to the counting of these ballots. The Pennsylvania Republican Party and Republican National Committee were expected to intervene in the case.Ms. Chapman, who was named as a defendant in Mr. McCormick’s lawsuit, along with dozens of county election boards, said that the office’s guidance to counties was to segregate the ballots at issue and tabulate them separately, pending the outcome of litigation.“It’s our position that undated ballots and incorrectly, wrongly dated ballots should count,” Ms. Chapman said, calling the handwritten dates immaterial.Jonathan M. Marks, the deputy secretary of the commonwealth who oversees elections and commissions, said at the news conference that about 10,000 mail-in, absentee and provisional ballots statewide were still being adjudicated. A breakdown of whether those ballots were cast by Republicans or Democrats was not available because they were still being tabulated by the counties.Mr. McCormick said on Twitter on Tuesday night that he looked forward to a swift resolution so that Republicans could unite against Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic primary winner.“We are proud our campaign received nearly 418,000 votes, won 37 of 67 counties, and contributed to a historic turnout with a razor-thin difference between myself and Mehmet Oz,” Mr. McCormick said.Dr. Oz’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.“I thank everyone for their patience as we count every vote,” said Ms. Chapman, a lawyer who previously led a nonprofit that promoted mail-in voting, a flashpoint in recent elections in the state.The Republican primary, which included five major candidates, was dominated by the nearly $40 million in television ads spent by the two front-runners and their allies, much of it on attacks bludgeoning opponents.Both Dr. Oz and Mr. McCormick tried to transform themselves from members of the East Coast elite with middle-of-the-road politics into staunch Trump supporters.Their bitter feud opened a lane, late in the race, for Kathy Barnette, a hard-right conservative who stood out in debates, primarily for her attacks on Dr. Oz over his late-to-the-party opposition to abortion. Ms. Barnette appeared to siphon votes away from Dr. Oz, who did not have a monopoly on Trump supporters.Trip Gabriel More

new video loaded: More

Desde el domingo, hora colombiana, los votantes elegibles alrededor del mundo están acudiendo a las urnas para participar en los comicios presidenciales.Los colombianos que residen fuera del país han empezado este lunes a emitir sus votos en las elecciones presidenciales. Según la autoridad nacional, hay más de 972.000 votantes elegibles para participar en las mesas de votación ubicadas en el extranjero.La elección presidencial se llevará a cabo en el territorio nacional de Colombia el domingo, pero las urnas ya abrieron en embajadas, consulados y otras oficinas en 67 países alrededor del mundo y permanecerán abiertas hasta el cierre de la jornada electoral.Los colombianos en el exterior, una diáspora de alrededor de 5 millones de personas, representan más del 10 por ciento de la población del país y viven principalmente en Estados Unidos, España y Venezuela.Un escaño de la Cámara de Representantes de Colombia está asignado a la diáspora a través de la circunscripción internacional. En las últimas elecciones legislativas, celebradas en marzo, la ganadora a la cámara baja fue Carmen “Karmen” Felisa Ramírez, una mujer de la etnia wayuu que ha vivido en Suiza por más de una década. Ramírez fue la candidata de la coalición de Gustavo Petro y derrotó al candidato del uribismo que buscaba reelegirse.Los votantes colombianos que residen en el extranjero tienen hasta el 29 de mayo para participar en las elecciones presidenciales si se inscribieron para hacerlo antes del 29 de marzo. Pueden ubicar su lugar de votación en el sitio de la registraduría. Solo podrán emitir el voto con la cédula de ciudadanía; no se acepta el pasaporte ni otro tipo de documento de identificación. More

ATLANTA — When Teaniese Davis heard that Stacey Abrams was holding a public event on Tuesday morning, she raced to a church parking lot teeming with two dozen cameras and members of the news media, hoping to catch a glimpse of one of Georgia’s most famous Democrats.“People know who she is,” Ms. Davis, who works in public health research, said of her state’s Democratic nominee for governor. “A lot of people are bought into who she is.”Republicans are bought into Ms. Abrams, too. Even as they fought among themselves in vigorous primary battles, Ms. Abrams has featured prominently in G.O.P. ads and debates as a potent symbol of the threat of Democratic ascendance in the state.Now, as Ms. Abrams hurtles into a general election against Gov. Brian Kemp in what will be among the most closely watched governors’ races in the nation, her candidacy will offer a vivid test of a significant question facing Democratic candidates this year. To what extent can clearly defined, distinctive personal brands withstand the staggering headwinds facing the Democratic Party, as Republicans seek to nationalize the midterm campaigns at every turn?Ms. Abrams and Mr. Kemp are technically in a rematch, but their race is unfolding in a vastly different political climate compared with 2018, when Ms. Abrams electrified Democrats as she vied to become the country’s first Black female governor. Ms. Abrams cemented her status as a national star even in narrow defeat, while her party, buoyed by opposition to former President Donald J. Trump, went on to retake the House of Representatives. Roughly two years later, Georgia helped deliver the presidency and then the Senate majority to the Democrats, an emphatic break with the state’s longtime standing as a Republican bastion, and Ms. Abrams was widely credited with helping to flip the state.Now, President Biden’s approval rating is a drag on Democrats like Ms. Abrams, inflation has soared, Mr. Kemp is an entrenched incumbent and Mr. Trump is not on the ballot. Ms. Abrams isn’t just a galvanizing force for Democrats, she has become a common enemy for Republicans trying to unite their party after divisive primaries.Voters in Dalton, Ga., on Tuesday for the state’s primary elections, where turnout was up compared with 2018.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesThat primary competition helped drive up turnout for Republicans on Tuesday. Roughly 1.2 million people voted in the G.O.P. primary for governor, compared with 708,000 people who voted for Ms. Abrams, who was unopposed. Both of those numbers are up from 2018, the last midterm primary, but Republican participation doubled.“We’re definitely seeing the enthusiasm on the Republican side,” said Jacquelyn Bettadapur, the chairwoman of the Cobb County Democratic Committee. Ms. Bettadapur said she sees a role reversal for the parties. After losing the White House in 2016, Democrats were motivated to stage a comeback.“It was a real sort of kick in the pants to get the Democrats engaged and mobilized, which we did,” she said, adding that Republicans are now “in that same situation.”After the Georgia Primary ElectionThe May 24 races were among the most consequential so far of the 2022 midterm cycle.Takeaways: G.O.P. voters rejected Donald Trump’s 2020 fixation, and Democrats backed a gun-control champion. Here’s what else we learned.Rebuking Trump: The ex-president picked losers up and down the ballot in Georgia, raising questions about the firmness of his grip on the G.O.P.G.O.P. Governor’s Race: Brian Kemp scored a landslide victory over David Perdue, delivering Mr. Trump his biggest setback of the 2022 primaries.2018 Rematch: Stacey Abrams, the Democratic nominee for governor, will again face Mr. Kemp — but in a vastly different political climate.Ms. Bettadapur stressed that Democrats, too, were motivated, singling out the Supreme Court’s possible overturning of Roe v. Wade as a potentially galvanizing force. The state has a law, signed by Mr. Kemp and poised to take effect if Roe is overturned, that prohibits abortions after about six weeks from conception. Ms. Bettadapur also noted, in an interview before the deadly Texas elementary school shooting on Tuesday, that Mr. Kemp’s moves to loosen gun restrictions might be off-putting to many Georgia voters.Ms. Abrams’s campaign on Wednesday hit Mr. Kemp for his record on guns in a statement, calling attention to a 2018 campaign ad in which Mr. Kemp holds a shotgun in his lap and asks a teenager who wants to court his daughter to recite his campaign platform.“Years from now, Kemp will be remembered as a one-term governor who pointed a gun at a boy on television,” said Lauren Groh-Wargo, Ms. Abrams’s campaign manager.Hundreds of Mr. Kemp’s supporters packed into the College Football Hall of Fame on Tuesday night to celebrate his victory. In his speech accepting the party’s nomination, Mr. Kemp encouraged his supporters to organize, asking all of them to make phone calls and knock doors “like we’ve never knocked before” heading into November. His goal, he said, is not only to be re-elected but also to stunt Ms. Abrams’s political future.Gov. Brian Kemp at his primary watch party Tuesday. “I think you’re going to see Republicans up and down the ballot and all over the country united,” he said earlier.Nicole Craine for The New York Times“You can see the choice on the ballot this November is crystal clear,” he told the crowd amid shouts of “four more years!” from some. “Stacey Abrams’s far-left campaign for governor in 2022 is only a warm-up for her presidential run in 2024.”Ms. Abrams’s campaign declined to comment on Mr. Kemp’s remarks, but a spokesman confirmed that she intended to serve a full term as governor if elected.Ms. Abrams, the former minority leader in the Georgia statehouse, has been particularly focused on engaging more Black, Hispanic and Asian American voters in an increasingly diverse state. The party has used Georgia’s ballooning population as a springboard to those efforts — census data shows that more than one million people moved to the state between 2010 and 2020, with most in deep-blue Metro Atlanta counties.“Clearly they have signed up a lot of new folks over the past four years and you have to give it your hand to them for what they’ve done there,” said Saxby Chambliss, a former Georgia senator, even as he stressed that “if Republicans get out and vote, we’re a red state.”Among Ms. Abrams’s new challenges this year is building a case against the governor while his approval rating hovers around 50 percent. An Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll from January found that Georgians were more optimistic about the direction of the state than that of the nation.In a recent speech, Ms. Abrams cited Georgia’s maternal health, gun violence and health-insurance rates. “I am tired of hearing about being the best state in the country to do business when we are the worst state in the country to live,” she said over the weekend, a remark she later defended as an “inelegant delivery of a statement that I will keep making: and that is that Brian Kemp is a failed governor.”Mr. Kemp seized on the comments to cast himself as a Georgia booster and declared “that is why we are in a fight for the soul of our state.”Understand the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6Why are these midterms so important? More

In recent subpoenas, federal prosecutors investigating alternate slates of pro-Trump electors sought information about Rudolph W. Giuliani, John Eastman and others.The Justice Department has stepped up its criminal investigation into the creation of alternate slates of pro-Trump electors seeking to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 election, with a particular focus on a team of lawyers that worked on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.A federal grand jury in Washington has started issuing subpoenas in recent weeks to people linked to the alternate elector plan, requesting information about several lawyers including Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and one of his chief legal advisers, John Eastman, one of the people said.The subpoenas also seek information on other pro-Trump lawyers like Jenna Ellis, who worked with Mr. Giuliani, and Kenneth Chesebro, who wrote memos supporting the elector scheme in the weeks after the election.A top Justice Department official acknowledged in January that prosecutors were trying to determine whether any crimes were committed in the scheme.Under the plan, election officials in seven key swing states put forward formal lists of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College on the grounds that the states would be shown to have swung in favor of Mr. Trump once their claims of widespread election fraud had been accepted. Those claims were baseless, and all seven states were awarded to Mr. Biden.It is a federal crime to knowingly submit false statements to a federal agency or agent for an undue end. The alternate elector slates were filed with a handful of government bodies, including the National Archives.The focus on the alternate electors is only one of the efforts by the Justice Department to broaden its vast investigation of hundreds of rioters who broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.In the past few months, grand jury subpoenas have also been issued seeking information about a wide array of people who organized Mr. Trump’s rally near the White House that day, and about any members of the executive and legislative branches who may have taken part in planning the event or tried to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election.The widening and intensifying Justice Department inquiry also comes as the House select committee investigating the efforts to overturn the election and the Jan. 6 assault prepares for public hearings next month.The subpoenas in the elector investigation are the first public indications that the roles of Mr. Giuliani and other lawyers working on Mr. Trump’s behalf are of interest to federal prosecutors.After Election Day, Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Ellis appeared in front of a handful of legislatures in contested swing states, laying out what they claimed was evidence of fraud and telling lawmakers that they had the power to pick their own electors to the Electoral College.Mr. Eastman was an architect of a related plan to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to use the alternate electors in a bid to block or delay congressional certification of Mr. Biden’s victory.Examining the lawyers who worked with Mr. Trump after the election edges prosecutors close to the former president. But there is no guarantee that an investigation of the lawyers working on the alternate elector plan would lead prosecutors to discover any evidence that Mr. Trump broke the law.The plot to use alternate electors was one of the most expansive and audacious schemes in a dizzying array of efforts by Mr. Trump and his supporters to deny his election loss and keep him in the White House.John Eastman, a lawyer advising Mr. Trump, was an architect of a plan to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to use alternate electors in a bid to block Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesIt began even before some states had finished counting ballots, as officials in places like Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin came under pressure to create slates of electors announcing that Mr. Trump had won.The scheme reached a crescendo in the days leading up to Jan. 6, when Mr. Trump and his allies mounted a relentless campaign to persuade Mr. Pence to accept the alternate electors and use them at a joint session of Congress to deny — or at least delay — Mr. Biden’s victory.At various times, the plan involved state lawmakers and White House aides, though prosecutors seem to believe that a group of Mr. Trump’s lawyers played a crucial role in carrying it out. Investigators have cast a wide net for information about the lawyers, but prosecutors believe that not all of them may have supported the plans that Mr. Trump’s allies created to keep him in office, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.Mr. Giuliani’s lawyer said he was unaware of any investigation into his client. Mr. Eastman’s lawyer and Ms. Ellis did not return emails seeking comment. Mr. Chesebro declined to answer questions about the inquiry.The strategy of pushing the investigation forward by examining the lawyers’ roles could prove to be tricky. Prosecutors are likely to run into arguments that some — or even much — of the information they are seeking is protected by attorney-client privilege. And there is no indication that prosecutors have sought to subpoena the lawyers or search their property.“There are heightened requirements for obtaining a search warrant on a lawyer,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama. “Even when opening a case where a lawyer could be a subject, prosecutors will flag that to make sure that people consider the rights of uninvolved parties.”As a New York real estate mogul, Mr. Trump had a habit of employing lawyers to insulate himself from queries about his questionable business practices and personal behavior. In the White House — especially in times of stress or scandal — he often demanded loyalty from the lawyers around him, once asking in reference to a mentor and famous lawyer known for his ruthlessness, “Where’s my Roy Cohn?”Some of the lawyers who have come under scrutiny in connection with the alternate elector scheme are already facing allegations of professional impropriety or misconduct.In June, for instance, Mr. Giuliani’s law license was suspended after a New York court ruled that he had made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” while fighting the election results on Mr. Trump’s behalf. Boris Epshteyn, another lawyer who worked with Mr. Giuliani, has also come under scrutiny in the Justice Department investigation, the people familiar with the matter said.Two months before Mr. Giuliani’s license was suspended, F.B.I. agents conducted extraordinary searches of his home and office in New York as part of an unrelated inquiry centered on his dealings in Ukraine before the 2020 election, when he sought to damage Mr. Biden’s credibility.In March, a federal judge in California ruled in a civil case that Mr. Eastman had most likely conspired with Mr. Trump to obstruct Congress and defraud the United States by helping to devise and promote the alternate elector scheme, and by presenting plans to Mr. Pence suggesting that he could exercise his discretion over which slates of electors to accept or reject at the Jan. 6 congressional certification of votes.There is no guarantee that an investigation of the lawyers working on the alternate elector plan would lead prosecutors to discover evidence that Mr. Trump broke the law.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesThe scheme, which involved holding meetings and drafting emails and memos, was “a coup in search of a legal theory,” wrote the judge, David O. Carter of the Central District of California.It was revealed this month that Mr. Eastman was involved in a similar — but perhaps even more brazen — effort to overturn to the election results. According to emails released by a public records request, Mr. Eastman pressed a Pennsylvania state lawmaker in December 2020 to carry out a plan to strip Mr. Biden of his win in that state by essentially retabulating the vote count in a way that would favor Mr. Trump.A week before the disclosure of Mr. Eastman’s emails, Ms. Ellis was accused of misconduct in an ethics complaint submitted to court officials in Colorado, her home state.The complaint, by the bipartisan legal watchdog group the States United Democracy Center, said that Ms. Ellis had made “numerous public misrepresentations” while traveling the country with Mr. Giuliani after the election in an effort to persuade local lawmakers that the voting had been marred by fraud.It also noted that Ms. Ellis had assisted Mr. Trump in an “unsuccessful and potentially criminal effort” to stave off defeat by writing two memos arguing that Mr. Pence could ignore the electoral votes in key swing states that had pledged their support to Mr. Biden.As for Mr. Chesebro, he was involved in what may have been the earliest known effort to put on paper proposals for preparing alternate electors.A little more than two weeks after Election Day, Mr. Chesebro sent a memo to James Troupis, a lawyer for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, laying out a plan to name pro-Trump electors in the state. In a follow-up memo three weeks later, Mr. Chesebro expanded on the plan, setting forth an analysis of how to legally authorize alternate electors in six key swing states, including Wisconsin.The two memos, obtained by The New York Times, were used by Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Eastman, among others, as they developed a strategy intended to pressure Mr. Pence and to exploit ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act, according to a person familiar with the matter. More