Elections

Texas attorney general says state bar plans to sue him over 2020 election liesKen Paxton filed a baseless lawsuit to US supreme seeking to overturn result claiming widespread voter fraud in key states Texas’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, said on Friday that the state bar plans to sue him over his efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s defeat in the 2020 presidential election by falsely claiming there had been widespread voter fraud in battleground states.In December 2020, the US supreme court unanimously rejected a baseless lawsuit filed by Paxton on behalf of Texas seeking to scotch Joe Biden’s win in the election the previous month.Texas attorney general says school district’s Pride week ‘breaks state law’Read moreAll nine justices on America’s highest court dismissed the long-shot effort in the Texas lawsuit that was aimed not at the result in that state but sought to throw out the vote counts in four vital states that the president lost: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.The unanimity from the court came despite the bench featuring a six-to-three supermajority of conservative-leaning judges, three nominated by Trump.The bar complaints against Paxton alleged that his petitioning the US supreme court to overturn the 2020 election was frivolous and unethical.Paxton announced the development with the state bar on Friday, raising yet another legal danger as the embattled Republican is locked in a primary runoff.Since last summer, the state bar of Texas has been investigating complaints over Paxton’s petitioning of the supreme court to block Biden’s victory.The professional group has not publicly filed a suit but Paxton, saying it plans to bring one against him and his top deputy, suggests the agency may believe their actions amounted to professional misconduct.The attorney general said he stood behind his challenge to the “unconstitutional 2020 presidential election”, even as he blasted the bar and announced an investigation into a charitable group associated with it.“I am certain that the bar will not only lose but be fully exposed for what they are: a liberal activist group masquerading as a neutral professional association,” Paxton said on Twitter.The bar, which is a branch of the Texas supreme court, said in a statement that “partisan political considerations play no role” in its actions.State law prohibits it from discussing investigations unless a public complaint is filed and a spokesperson declined to comment.In bringing a court action against an attorney, the bar can seek punishment ranging from a written admonition to suspension or disbarment.The discipline process resembles a trial and could include both sides taking testimony and obtaining records through discovery.In addition to the unanimous decision by the US supreme court, at the time the justice department, under Trump’s attorney general, Bill Barr, found no evidence of fraud that could have changed the election’s outcome.Paxton forecast the legal action against him during the final weeks of his Republican primary runoff against the state land commissioner, George P Bush.A two-term incumbent, Paxton drew an unusual number of primary challenges after eight of his top deputies told the FBI in 2020 that the attorney general had been using his office to benefit a wealth donor.They accused him of bribery, abuse of office and other crimes, prompting a federal investigation.Paxton has denied wrongdoing and separately pleaded not guilty in a state securities fraud case that has languished since 2015. His defense lawyer, Philip Hilder, declined to comment.TopicsTexasRepublicansUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

New York judge’s son who stormed US Capitol gets prison sentenceAaron Mostofsky sentenced to eight months in prison and a year under federal supervision with 200 hours of community service A New York state judge’s son who dressed like a caveman and helped a pro-Donald Trump mob storm the US Capitol has received a prison sentence for his role in the 6 January 2021 attack.Aaron Mostofsky, 35, must spend eight months in prison – and after his release, he must spend a year under federal supervision while also performing 200 hours of community service, a US district court judge in Washington DC ruled Friday.Rudy Giuliani backs out of interview with Capitol attack committeeRead moreThe judge, James Boasberg, also ordered Mostofsky to pay $2,000 in restitution to the federal government, court documents show.According to prosecutors, Mostofsky donned a caveman costume and wielded a walking stick while forming part of a deadly insurrection by Trump supporters who broke past a line of police officers trying to protect the Capitol on the day that Congress had convened there to certify Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential election.He broke into the Capitol through a door that was forced open, stole body armor and a riot shield from the police, and even gave an on-camera interview to a media reporter, prosecutors alleged in a summary of the case that Mostofsky endorsed.Mostofsky, in the video interview, repeated Trump supporters’ lies that Biden had won thanks to election fraud. “The election was stolen. … We were cheated. … I don’t think 75 million people voted for Trump. I think it was close to 85 million,” Mostofsky said during the interview, according to court documents.The government argued that Mostofsky’s theft of the police equipment left officers more vulnerable than they otherwise might have been.A bipartisan Senate report connected seven deaths to the attack, which temporarily delayed congressional certification of Biden’s win.Prosecutors have charged about 800 people in the attack. More than 250 have already pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors, and about 160 have been sentenced.Mostofsky in February pleaded guilty to felony civil disorder as well as two misdemeanors: theft of government property and entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds. He technically faced up to seven years in prison when he appeared for his sentencing Friday in front of Boasberg, though defendants who plead guilty without going to trial generally don’t receive the harshest punishments available.Mostofsky’s father, Steven Mostofsky, is a judge in the Brooklyn-based New York supreme court’s second district.Attempts to contact an attorney for Aaron Mostofsky weren’t immediately successful Friday.TopicsUS Capitol attackNew YorknewsReuse this content More

The country is divided. There are those Americans furious that the Supreme Court is soon to take away the right to have an abortion. And there are those Americans furious that someone leaked that the Supreme Court was soon to take away the right to have an abortion.Among those Americans angry with the anonymous leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is the entire Republican Party. “Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the Supreme Court,” said Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, in a statement issued after the leak. “This lawless action should be investigated and punished as fully as possible. The Chief Justice must get to the bottom of it and the Department of Justice must pursue criminal charges if applicable.”Senator Ted Cruz of Texas told Fox News, “The leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion will do lasting damage to the integrity of the court and the independence of the judiciary.” And Senator Mike Lee of Utah wrote that because the Supreme Court relies on “decorum and confidentiality” to do its work, it is therefore “dangerous, despicable, and damaging” to leak its deliberations to the public. The Supreme Court, he declared, “is not a political body.”He might also have added that it has a right to privacy.In any case, McConnell, Cruz, Lee and the rest of their Republican colleagues must be joking.The Supreme Court is, and has always been, a political body. That’s true of the justices, certainly. Over the course of the court’s history, most of them were chosen with political considerations in mind, to the point that many were politicians themselves. It’s true of the institution as well. The Supreme Court deals with political issues — not simply abstract questions of law — and operates within the context of political conflict and political struggle.And the Supreme Court, right now, is an avowedly partisan institution, an unaccountable super-legislature controlled by men and women drawn from a cadre of conservative ideologues and apparatchiks, acting on behalf of the Republican Party and its allies. Whatever legitimacy it had retained was sacrificed in the drive to build the majority that seems poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and open the floodgates to harsh restrictions on the reproductive autonomy of millions of Americans.When McConnell led the Senate Republican caucus in a blockade of President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court in 2016 and then killed what remained of the judicial filibuster the next year to place Neil Gorsuch in the seat instead, they diminished the legitimacy of the court. When those same Republicans looked past a credible accusation of sexual assault to confirm Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, they again diminished the legitimacy of the court. And when, with weeks left before the 2020 presidential election, Republicans ignored their own rule from four years earlier — that an election-year vacancy “should not be filled until we have a new president” — to place Amy Coney Barrett on the bench in a rushed, slapdash process, they once more diminished the legitimacy of the court.What’s more, their occasional protests notwithstanding (in a speech last year at the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, Barrett insisted the court was “not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”), the court’s conservatives have done almost nothing to dispel the view that their majority is little more than the judicial arm of the Republican Party. They use “emergency” orders to issue sweeping rulings in favor of ideologically aligned groups; they invent new doctrines designed to undermine voting rights protections; and as we’ve just witnessed, they’ll let nothing, not even 50 years of precedent, stand in the way of a sweeping ideological victory.No discussion of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, or lack thereof, is complete without mention of the fact that its current composition is the direct result of our counter-majoritarian institutions. Only once in the past 30 years — in the 2004 election — has anything like a majority of the American electorate voted for a president who promised a conservative Supreme Court. The three members who cemented this particular conservative majority — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett — were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and were confirmed by senators representing far fewer than half of all Americans.The typical response to this point is to say we do not elect presidents by popular vote. And we don’t, that’s true. But Americans have always acted as if the popular vote conveys democratic legitimacy. That’s why supporters of Andrew Jackson condemned the “corrupt bargain” that placed John Quincy Adams in the White House in 1825, why many supporters of Samuel Tilden were furious with the compromise that gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency after the 1876 presidential election and why allies of George W. Bush were prepared to argue that he was the rightful winner of the 2000 election in the event he lost the Electoral College but won a majority of voters.It matters whether a president has democratic legitimacy. Donald Trump did not. But rather than act with that in mind, he used his power to pursue the interests of a narrow ideological faction, giving its representatives free rein to shape the Supreme Court as they saw fit. The court, then, is stained by the same democratic illegitimacy that marked Trump and his administration.Republicans seem to know this, and it helps explain why they’re so angry about the leak. They hope to write conservative ideology into the Constitution. For that to work, however, Americans need to believe that the court is an impartial arbiter of law, where each justice uses reason to come to the correct answer on any given issue of constitutional interpretation.The leak throws that out the window. The leak makes it clear that the Supreme Court is a political body, where horse-trading and influence campaigns are as much a part of the process as pure legal reasoning.If the court is a political body — if it is a partisan body — then a roused and unhappy public may decide to reject its judgments and authority. That public may ask itself why it should listen to a court that doesn’t heed its opinion. And it may decide that the time has come to reform the court and dismantle the ill-gotten majority that conservatives worked so hard to create.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

Covid helps explain it.Shortly after taking office, President Biden called on the government to do better. “We have to prove democracy still works,” he told Congress. “That our government still works — and we can deliver for our people.”Most Americans seem to believe Biden has not done so: 42 percent of Americans approve of his job performance, while 53 percent disapprove, according to FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls.In today’s newsletter, I want to use Covid as a case study for how Biden failed to persuade Americans that the government delivered and instead cemented perceptions that it cannot.Polling suggests that Covid — not the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan — jump-started Biden’s political problems. His approval rating began to drop in July, weeks before the withdrawal.Source: FiveThirtyEightThat timing coincides with the rise of the Delta variant and reports that vaccine protection against infection was not holding up. Both came after Biden suggested for months that an “Independence Day” from Covid was near, setting up Americans for disappointment as it became clear that his administration would not fulfill arguably its biggest promise.The Covid exampleAt first, the Biden administration’s pandemic response helped highlight how government can solve a big problem. Millions of Americans were receiving shots a day — a campaign that Biden compared to wartime mobilization.But then things went awry, culminating in the disappointment many Americans now feel toward Biden’s handling of Covid.Biden’s administration gave mixed messages on boosters and masks that at times appeared to contradict data and experts. As we have covered before, U.S. officials often have not trusted the public with the truth about Covid and precautions.Getting a booster in Jackson, Ala., last year.Charity Rachelle for The New York TimesCongress also lagged behind, with pandemic funding caught in intraparty squabbles and partisan fights — the kind of gridlock that has often prevented lawmakers from getting things done in recent years.“American government is fairly slow and very incremental,” said Julia Azari, a political scientist at Marquette University. “That makes it very difficult to be responsive.”Perhaps Biden’s biggest mistake was, as Azari put it, “overpromising.” He spent early last summer suggesting that vaccines would soon make Covid a concern of the past — a view some experts shared at the time, too.Biden could not control what followed, as the virus persisted. But he could have set more realistic expectations for how a notoriously unpredictable pandemic would unfold.Another problem preceded Biden’s presidency: the political polarization of the pandemic. It made vaccines a red-versus-blue issue, with many Republicans refusing to get shots. Yet the vaccines remain the single best weapon against Covid.Given the high polarization, Biden’s options against Covid are now limited. His support for vaccines can even turn Republicans against the shots, one study found.“There is more that could be done, but the impact would probably only be at the margins, rather than transformative,” said Jen Kates of the Kaiser Family Foundation.Even if Biden cannot do much, the public will likely hold him responsible for future Covid surges; voters expect presidents to solve difficult issues. “People blame the administration for problems that are largely outside its control,” said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College.Lost trustBiden framed his call to deliver as a test for American democracy. He drew comparisons to the 1930s — “another era when our democracy was tested,” then by the threat of fascism. He pointed to new threats: Donald Trump challenging the legitimacy of U.S. elections and China’s president, Xi Jinping, betting that “democracy cannot keep up with him.”There is a historical factor, too. Since the Vietnam War and Watergate, Americans’ trust in their government has fallen. If Biden had succeeded, he could have helped reverse this trend.But Covid, and the government’s response to it, did the opposite. Trust in the C.D.C. fell throughout the pandemic: from 69 percent in April 2020 to 44 percent in January, according to NBC News.Distrust in government can turn into a vicious cycle. The government needs the public’s trust to get things done — like, say, a mass vaccination campaign. Without that support, government efforts will be less successful. And as the government is less successful, the public will lose more faith in it.Given the polarization surrounding Covid and the government’s mixed record, skepticism seems a more likely outcome than the renaissance of trust that Biden called for.THE LATEST NEWSWar in UkraineThe Russian ship Moskva off Havana in 2013.Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty ImagesThe U.S. provided intelligence that helped Ukraine sink the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.Russia intensified its attacks in the eastern regions of Ukraine, hoping for a victory by Monday. But it is difficult to evaluate how the actual fighting is going.Ukrainian forces, mounting a highly mobile defense, regained ground elsewhere in the east.An operation to evacuate 200 remaining civilians from a steel factory in Mariupol was underway this morning. Russia bombed the complex overnight.Here’s what the war looks like on Russian TV, where the goal is often to leave viewers confused.The VirusA mass cremation for Covid victims in New Delhi last year.Atul Loke for The New York TimesThe pandemic’s true toll: nearly 15 million excess deaths — including 4.7 million in India, nearly 10 times its official total.The F.D.A. further limited the use of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine, citing concerns over a rare clotting disorder.PoliticsKarine Jean-Pierre will take over from Jen Psaki.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesKarine Jean-Pierre will become the first Black woman and first openly gay person to serve as White House press secretary.As president, Trump proposed launching missiles into Mexico to destroy drug labs and cartels, his defense secretary writes in a memoir.The White House hosted labor organizers who have unionized workplaces at Amazon, Starbucks and elsewhere.Texas plans to challenge a Supreme Court ruling requiring public schools to educate undocumented immigrants.Other Big StoriesTwo assailants, at least one armed with an ax, killed at least three people in an Israeli town.The next front in the fight over abortion rights: pills.Amber Heard accused Johnny Depp, her ex-husband, of sexual assault, seeking to counter Depp’s testimony that she had been the aggressor.The stock market had its best day in over a year on Wednesday. Then it fell sharply yesterday.New York City’s rent panel backed the largest increase since 2013, affecting more than two million people.OpinionsThe end of Roe v. Wade will worsen America’s cultural wars, Michelle Goldberg argues.Biden should cancel student debt — but only for those in precarious situations, says David Brooks.The Supreme Court lost its legitimacy long before the draft abortion ruling leaked, Jamelle Bouie writes.NFTs and cryptocurrencies were meant to liberate the internet. Instead, they’re polluting it with scams, Farhad Manjoo writes.MORNING READSHandle with care: Peek into Bob Dylan’s archive, including notebooks and fan mail.Ancient relic: Goodwill sold a Roman bust for $34.99. Its 2,000-year journey to Texas remains a mystery.Great gowns: They’re the dry cleaners to the stars.Modern Love: For a family scattered by war, a group chat is everything.A Times classic: How gender stereotypes are changing.Advice from Wirecutter: The best anti-mosquito gear.Lives Lived: Marcus Leatherdale captured downtown Manhattan in the AIDS-darkened 1980s, photographing Andy Warhol, Madonna and others. Leatherdale died at 69.ARTS AND IDEAS Products from the show “CoComelon.”Alexander Coggin for The New York TimesParents dread it. Kids love it.With vivid colors, ear-worm songs and simple animation, the cartoon series “CoComelon” has an almost hypnotic effect on toddlers. The show is the second-largest channel on YouTube and holds a firm spot on Netflix’s top 10.This is all by design — “CoComelon” is a production of Moonbug Entertainment, a London company that produces several of the world’s most popular online kids’ shows.Moonbug treats children’s shows like a science, where every aesthetic choice or potential plot point is data-driven and rigorously tested with its target audience. Should the music be louder or more mellow? Should the bus be yellow or red? The answer is yellow — infants are apparently drawn to yellow buses, as well as minor injuries and stuff covered in dirt.“The trifecta for a kid would be a dirty yellow bus that has a boo-boo,” a Moonbug exec said during a company story session. “Broken fender, broken wheel, little grimace on its face.”Read more from inside one of the pitch sessions for a kids’ show juggernaut. — Sanam Yar, a Morning writerPLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookDane Tashima for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Barrett Washburne.This veggie burger uses cabbage and mushrooms for crunch.ProfileHe has sampled Fergie in his music, vacationed with Drake and has been co-signed by Kendrick Lamar. Meet Jack Harlow.Spring CleaningMarie Kondo is here to help you tidy up your pandemic clutter.Late NightTrevor Noah has thoughts on interest rates.Take the News QuizHow well did you follow the headlines this week?Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was offhanded. Here is today’s puzzle — or you can play online.Here’s today’s Wordle. Here’s today’s Mini Crossword and a clue: Bagel variety (five letters).If you’re in the mood to play more, find all our games here.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. The Times’s Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns discussed their reporting about Jan. 6 on NPR’s “Fresh Air.”Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about anti-abortion activists. Still Processing” is about “Fatal Attraction.”Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti, Ashley Wu and Sanam Yar contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at [email protected] up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

Ferdinand Marcos Jr., known as Bongbong, was convicted of tax evasion. He also lied about his academic degree, according to Oxford University. Victims of his father’s brutal regime — which lasted for 20 years until his ouster in 1986 — accuse the younger Mr. Marcos of whitewashing history.Yet Mr. Marcos, the unapologetic heir of the family that plundered billions of dollars from us Filipinos, is — absent a major upset — poised to win the presidential election on May 9.This is possible only because our democracy has long been ailing. Disinformation is rewriting our past and clouding our present. Filipinos are disillusioned with our system of government. And the impunity of family dynasties in politics has gutted its two essential functions: to allow us to fairly choose our leaders and to hold them accountable for how they fail us. The return to power of the Marcoses may deal it the final blow.It’s heartbreaking to remember what could have been. Thirty-six years ago, Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s “constitutional authoritarianism,” as he described his government, came to an end when his family fled the country after millions of Filipinos united to support Corazon Aquino, the widow of an assassinated senator whose popularity had threatened the regime’s control. We flooded the streets and won back our freedom and, in 1987, wrote a new Constitution to guide our country. Democracy seemed to have repudiated autocracy.But over the years, our leaders’ broken promises accumulated and led to our disenchantment. Administration after administration was blighted by dysfunction, corruption and injustice. Year after year, our elected representatives refused to pass laws prohibiting political dynasties, despite the fact that our Constitution had tasked them with doing so.The new millennium eventually brought better governance and much-vaunted economic momentum, yet too many Filipinos remained marginalized. In 2011, for example, a mere 40 individuals reaped more than three-fourths of our country’s wealth increase. And a good part of our country’s economic growth came from the millions of Filipinos who were forced abroad to seek, and remit, their livelihood. All while crime, drugs and inequality persisted across our homeland.Throughout those three decades of our hard-won democracy, its most vital function — letting the people choose who will represent us — was perverted by entrenched politicians. Call it the dictatorship of dynasties. As of 2019, some 234 families, in a country of nearly 110 million people, held 67 percent of the legislature, 80 percent of governorships and 53 percent of mayoralties.Our democracy’s other main function — allowing us to hold our leaders accountable — has also been hijacked. When Rodrigo Duterte won the presidency in 2016 by promising to sacrifice democratic freedoms for bullet-fast results against crime and corruption, that came to include the dismantling of checks and balances that could prevent or punish his abuse of power.Institutions that could hold him to account for the thousands of deaths from his drug war were stacked with lackeys. The coequal branches of the legislature and judiciary were brought under the presidency’s heel. Laws were weaponized to control speech and dissent. The news media was both kicked and muzzled as the public’s watchdog, and orchestrated falsehoods and historical revisionism now inundate the 92 million Filipinos on social media, who get our news mostly online.In other ways, too, Mr. Duterte is responsible for normalizing authoritarianism, which may be yet another thing Mr. Marcos effortlessly inherits. One of Mr. Duterte’s first actions as president in 2016 was to transfer the elder Mr. Marcos’s preserved corpse from the family’s refrigerated mausoleum for burial in our national cemetery of heroes. And Mr. Duterte’s daughter, Sara, is now campaigning with the younger Mr. Marcos and is the leading candidate for vice president, who is elected separately from the president.Despite the incumbent’s apparent disdain for Mr. Marcos — Mr. Duterte has implied that he is a weak leader and a drug user — their shared affinities are undeniable as the younger pair promises to continue Mr. Duterte’s grim legacy.Their popularity indicates that our past fight for democratic freedom has been largely forgotten, with 56 percent of the Filipino voting population now between ages 18 and 41. A 2017 poll found that half of us Filipinos favor authoritarian governance, and an alarming number of us even approve of military rule. Yet the same poll showed that 82 percent of us say we believe in representative democracy. The contradiction seems to overlook what our history teaches about our giving leaders unchecked power.No wonder we elected Mr. Duterte, who has bragged about being a killer. No wonder we’re poised to re-elect a family of thieves. And no wonder Mr. Marcos thrives as a mythmaker — varnishing himself and his family as harmless underdogs, victims of theft by an untouchable elite who stole his vice presidency, his parents’ tenure over our country’s so-called golden age and his family’s right to control their own narrative against what he calls “propaganda” and “fake news.”Yet even as Mr. Marcos casts himself as the heir to his family’s dynasty, he refuses to acknowledge its many proven crimes, much less be held complicit for his role in defending the dictatorship. He has also pledged to protect Mr. Duterte from the International Criminal Court and has formed a political cartel with the Dutertes and two past presidents, who were both jailed for corruption. Worst of all, he has relentlessly shrugged off the facts of our nation’s history, telling everyone to “move on” from its long struggle against the authoritarianism he and his family led.But as the present hurtles forward on May 9, the truths of our past matter more than ever. From that history, a martyred writer and our national hero, José Rizal, reminds us: “There are no tyrants where there are no slaves.” Yet so many of us have been shackled before by so many of those we freely elected to entrust our future to — from Adolf Hitler to Vladimir Putin to another brazen liar also named Ferdinand Marcos.Miguel Syjuco, a former contributing Opinion writer, is the author, most recently, of “I Was the President’s Mistress!!: A Novel.”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

The former personal lawyer to Donald J. Trump withdrew from an interview scheduled for Friday after the panel would not let him record it, his lawyer said.WASHINGTON — Rudolph W. Giuliani, who helped lead President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election as his personal lawyer, on Thursday abruptly pulled out of a scheduled Friday interview with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol after the panel refused to let him record the session.Mr. Giuliani has been negotiating with the panel about testifying for months, and had finally reached an agreement to speak about matters other than his conversations with Mr. Trump or any other topic he believes is covered by attorney-client privilege, said his lawyer, Robert J. Costello.Mr. Giuliani’s sudden withdrawal threatens what could have been a major breakthrough for the investigation. His testimony could have included details about interactions with members of Congress and others involved in the plans who were not Mr. Giuliani’s clients, Mr. Costello said. And with Mr. Giuliani under a subpoena to testify, the standoff raises the specter of yet another protracted legal battle between the committee and a former Trump aide.The impasse began when Mr. Costello told the committee on Thursday that Mr. Giuliani intended to record the interview on video. When the panel’s lawyers refused to allow him to do so, he canceled the meeting, Mr. Costello said.“He’s willing to talk about anything that is not privileged,” Mr. Costello said. “The only sticking point we’ve had is recording the interview. Now, that tells me they’re more interested in keeping things secret than getting to the so-called truth. If you’re interested in the person’s testimony, why would you not agree to this?”Mr. Costello said that Mr. Giuliani’s testimony was not yet off the table, and that he would continue to negotiate with the panel’s lawyers. He said that Mr. Giuliani, a former New York mayor, “simply doesn’t trust” members of the committee, specifically Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, and believes that they will selectively edit his testimony.“If they changed their mind and they said, ‘Listen, we’ll jointly record the interview,’ then we would participate,” Mr. Costello said.Tim Mulvey, a spokesman for the committee, said the panel would consider enforcement actions against Mr. Giuliani if he does not change course and comply with the committee’s subpoena.“Mr. Giuliani had agreed to participate in a transcribed interview with the select committee. Today, he informed committee investigators that he wouldn’t show up unless he was permitted to record the interview, which was never an agreed-upon condition,” Mr. Mulvey said. “Mr. Giuliani is an important witness to the conspiracy to overthrow the government, and he remains under subpoena. If he refuses to comply, the committee will consider all enforcement options.”The committee has interviewed more than 970 witnesses and has recommended criminal contempt of Congress charges against four of Mr. Trump’s closest allies, who have refused to fully cooperate.Mr. Trump’s final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has been referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal charges after refusing an interview with the committee. Another former aide, Stephen K. Bannon, was indicted in November after refusing to provide information to congressional investigators.Last month, the House voted to recommend criminal contempt of Congress charges against Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino Jr., two other close allies of Mr. Trump, after the pair defied subpoenas from the committee.The Justice Department has yet to act on the referrals for Mr. Meadows, Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino.As a key figure in Mr. Trump’s attempts to stave off electoral defeat, Mr. Giuliani would be in a position to tell investigators about a series of extraordinary measures undertaken last fall and winter in a bid to maintain the losing president’s grip on power.Among those efforts was a scheme to disrupt the normal workings of the Electoral College by persuading lawmakers in contested swing states to draw up alternate slates of electors showing Mr. Trump was victorious in states that were actually won by President Biden.Mr. Giuliani was also instrumental in vetting a plan to use the Department of Homeland Security to seize voting machines and examine the data housed inside them for supposed evidence of fraud. At Mr. Trump’s direction, Mr. Giuliani asked a top homeland security official if the department could legally take control of the machines — a notion the official shot down. Mr. Giuliani later opposed an even more explosive proposal to have the military seize the machines.Mr. Giuliani was subpoenaed with other members of a legal team that billed itself as an “elite strike force” and pursued a set of lawsuits on behalf of Mr. Trump in which they promulgated conspiracy theories and made unsubstantiated claims of fraud in the election.The committee’s subpoena sought all documents that Mr. Giuliani had detailing the pressure campaign that he and other Trump allies initiated targeting state officials, the seizure of voting machines, contact with members of Congress, any evidence to support the conspiracy theories he pushed and any arrangements for his fees.On Jan. 6, speaking to a crowd of Trump supporters before a pro-Trump mob attacked the Capitol, Mr. Giuliani called for “trial by combat.” Later, after the building was under siege, both he and Mr. Trump called lawmakers in an attempt to delay the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory. More

J.D. Vance, the Republican nominee, enters the general election as the favorite. For Representative Tim Ryan, the Democrat, Ohio’s sprawling metro areas offer a possible path to victory.LORAIN, Ohio — J.D. Vance’s convincing victory Tuesday in the Republican Senate primary in this red-tinged state may have put an exclamation point on the power of former President Donald J. Trump’s imprimatur among conservative activist voters.But Mr. Vance, the shape-shifting author and venture capitalist — once a Never-Trump antagonist, then an acolyte of the former president — has one possible battlefield left for the general election: the suburbs.That is where Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat hoping to appeal to establishment Republicans and working-class voters, will have to drive up the vote to overcome conservative shifts in more rural parts of the state. The suburbs are also the places here and across the country where demographics are the most racially and ethnically diverse — and where Republicans are slightly more split, centrists often feel without a party, and many voters are only now awakening to the 2022 midterm cycle.In Lorain, a working-class, industrial city west of Cleveland, some of that budding interest was elicited by Mr. Trump’s sway in this week’s primary elections, and by news of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn a woman’s right to abortion. At her desk at Dye’s Appliances, Tara Ortiz, 43, a co-owner and manager, shuddered over the thought that her daughters were on the verge of losing control over their bodies that she had long taken for granted.Tara Ortiz, who manages an appliance shop in Lorain, Ohio, has not yet chosen a Senate candidate.Brian Kaiser for The New York TimesThe abortion news made the November election more intriguing, said Ms. Ortiz, who added that she was planning to vote when the time comes but had not yet chosen a Senate candidate. Her husband is a major Trump supporter, she added, but she leans Democrat.“I’m for whatever is going to make a better life for my children, and my Tom,” she said, referring to her husband.Understand the Ohio and Indiana Primary ElectionsTrump’s Grip: J.D. Vance’s win in Ohio’s G.O.P. Senate primary was a strong affirmation of the former president’s continued dominance of the Republican Party.How Vance Won: The author of “Hillbilly Elegy” got a big endorsement from Donald J. Trump, but a cable news megaphone and a huge infusion of spending helped pave his way to victory.Ohio Takeaways: It was a good night for Mr. Trump, and not just because of Mr. Vance. Here’s why.Winners and Losers: A progressive challenger was defeated (again) in Ohio, and a Trump-endorsed Pence (not that one) won in Indiana. These were some of the key results.A 20-minute drive east toward Cleveland, where wood-paneled homes give way to mansions alongside Lake Erie, Bay Village is among the suburbs and historically Republican communities across Ohio that have seen something of a liberal shift. Heading into a pharmacy with his 9-year-old son, Michael Edelman, 43, said Mr. Vance’s groundswell of support across the state was “a little terrifying.” But he said he believed Mr. Ryan could still have a path to victory if enough people show up at the ballot box in Ohio’s eight large urban centers.Michael Edelman of Bay Village, Ohio, voted for Tim Ryan in the primary.Brian Kaiser for The New York Times“If rural counties carry the state, he doesn’t stand a chance,” said Mr. Edelman, the director of education at Ideastream Public Media, which runs several local public television and radio stations.To be sure, Mr. Vance enters the general election season heavily favored against Mr. Ryan. Mr. Trump carried Ohio twice in far less favorable political climates, and with inflation surging and gas prices over $4 a gallon, the Buckeye State is not sheltered from the political winds.In Ohio’s old battlegrounds, where union families voted Democratic for generations, and Appalachian voters tended to shift their allegiances and parties, the Trump era appears to have locked down Republican support. Blue-collar counties that hug the Pennsylvania border to the east and Appalachian regions along the West Virginia and Kentucky state lines — which starred in Mr. Vance’s best-selling memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy” — were walls of support for him.“Trump changed the game here,” said Tom McCabe, chairman of the Republican Party in Mahoning County, where a decade ago Republicans were scarce and now they dominate.Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, needs to appeal to suburban voters.Jay Laprete/Associated PressRepublican Senate candidate J.D. Vance in Cincinnati after winning the nomination.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesFour years ago, Mr. Vance, working as a venture capitalist, was all smiles as he hitched a ride on a three-day bus trip, scouting investment opportunities in Youngstown and Akron, Ohio; Detroit and Flint, Mich.; and South Bend, Ind. — a tour that was organized by none other than Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan, at the time, was the popular congressman from Mahoning and Trumbull Counties, eager to show off progress, like the electric vehicle batteries being built in what he called Voltage Valley.That same year, 2018, Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat running for re-election, beat his Republican challenger, Jim Renacci, by 21 percentage points in Mahoning County.But in a very short span, the tables have turned. As president, Mr. Trump effectively stole what differentiated Ohio Democrats like Mr. Ryan from their national party — protectionism and heated anti-China rhetoric — while winning over social conservatives, especially conservative Catholics, with his opposition to abortion rights and attacks on immigrants and transgender people.Mr. Trump slipped by Joseph R. Biden Jr. in Mahoning County 50 percent to 48 percent in 2020, and Mr. Vance slid into Mr. Trump’s wake with scalding attacks on the free-trade policies of both parties as well as with anti-China rhetoric every bit as heated as Mr. Ryan’s. Mr. Vance’s biography — the son of a drug-addicted mother, he was raised by his grandmother in hardscrabble Ohio, joined the military and went on to college and Yale Law School — is every bit as compelling as Mr. Ryan’s tales of high school football stardom and a union mother who raised him on her own.“J.D. Vance is the worst possible candidate for the Democrats to go up against,” said Paul Sracic, a political scientist at Youngstown State University who specializes in the voting patterns of blue-collar Ohioans. “Democrats like Ryan because they think he can talk to these working-class voters and get them back. They’re not coming back.”A sign supporting former President Donald J. Trump still stands in Harveysburg, Ohio.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesNot everyone likes Mr. Vance in the Mahoning Valley.“He says whatever he has to say to get done whatever he wants to do,” said Hank Zimmerman, 73, a retired union carpenter sipping a $1.25 glass of Genesee beer at the bar of the 90-year-old Golden Dawn on the weathered outskirts of Youngstown. “That’s J.D. Vance.”Understand the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6Why are these midterms so important? More

Rudy Giuliani backs out of interview with Capitol attack committeeFormer Trump lawyer was expected to appear at the interview on Friday, but canceled when the panel denied his request to record it Donald Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani is not expected to appear at an interview scheduled for Friday with the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack, throwing into jeopardy the prospect of his cooperation, say sources familiar with the matter.US Capitol attack committee subpoenas Rudy Giuliani and other Trump lawyersRead moreThe move by Giuliani to cancel his appearance after the panel declined his request to record the interview means it may not secure documents and testimony from a central figure in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election in time for public hearings in June.Giuliani was expected to have revealed his contacts with Republican members of Congress and other matters not covered by executive privilege or attorney-client privilege as part of a cooperation deal that his lawyer had been negotiating for months, the sources said.The former attorney to the president had also indicated to the select committee that he was prepared to turn over materials about Trump’s schemes to return himself to office on January 6 that House investigators had outlined in a subpoena issued earlier this year.But, as the Guardian first reported in February, Giuliani told the panel he would only appear for an interview if it was not pursuant to that subpoena – in part because he considered the investigation illegal – and does not have to violate any claims of privilege.The select committee has conceded that Giuliani cannot violate privilege, the sources said, making a deal attractive to Giuliani, who can avoid being held in contempt of Congress by providing information the panel could not otherwise get – while also not giving up Trump.But that delicate arrangement appeared to fall apart on Thursday, after Giuliani also asked to record the interview to ensure he might not be caught in a perjury trap in a potential subsequent investigation, according to another source close to Giuliani.The no-show by Giuliani could also presage the breakdown of the entire cooperation deal, the source said, and Giuliani is expected to wait for the panel’s response to decide next steps. Giuliani may reschedule the interview if the impasse is resolved.“Giuliani is an important witness to the conspiracy to overthrow the government and he remains under subpoena,” a spokesperson for the select committee said. “If he refuses to comply, the committee will consider all enforcement options.”House investigators have been particularly determined to get the cooperation from Giuliani, one of Trump’s closest advisers involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election from the very start – and could provide unique insights into the events of January 6.Giuliani could speak to events such as a 18 December 2020 meeting in the Oval Office where Trump reviewed a draft executive order to seize voting machines and verbally agreed to install conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate election fraud.The Guardian has reported that Giuliani then led the Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington DC when Trump called from the White House and discussed ways to stop Biden’s certification – and could speak to non-privileged elements of the plan.The cooperation deal would also technically involve Giuliani turning over documents in addition to appearing before the select committee, the sources said, but the logistics were unclear given the FBI last year seized his devices that he used on January 6.TopicsUS Capitol attackRudy GiulianiDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More