Elections

Grand shows of largess may be back in style. Recently, driving on the North Side of Chicago, I found myself stuck behind a line of cars long enough that I could not, at first, tell what was causing it. It was only minutes later, after I was able to switch lanes and pull ahead, that I saw the cars were waiting at a gas station. Had something in the news set off a flurry of panic buying? I turned on the radio and soon learned that the people I saw were not, in fact, buying fuel. They were hoping to get some free.This was a giveaway orchestrated by Willie Wilson, a Chicago businessman known locally as a rags-to-riches success story and a serial long-shot political candidate, having run to be mayor of the city (in 2015), president of the United States (2016), mayor of Chicago again (2019) and U.S. senator (2020). On March 17, the day I passed that gas line, he gave away $200,000 worth of fuel at 10 stations around the city, capped at $50 per car. A week later he did it again, this time buying about a million dollars’ worth of gas at 48 stations.Wouldn’t it have been just as effective — as charity, not political theater — to hand out prepaid gas cards?On the morning of the second giveaway, I tuned in to a livestreamed news conference Wilson held at a station in Cicero, a suburb that borders Chicago’s West Side. The more I thought about the giveaways, the more absurd they came to seem. Even setting aside my wish that Wilson had used some of his money to support public transit (a much more robust and environmentally healthy response to oil-price instability), the logistics seemed offensively nonsensical. If the point was to give 24,000 drivers $50 of gas each, wouldn’t it have been just as effective — as charity, not political theater — to hand out prepaid gas cards? Drivers lined up hours early, and in some cases overnight, creating carbon-spewing, commute-snarling traffic jams. Police officers were deployed to manage the lines, meaning that what appeared to be an individual act of philanthropy was in fact partly subsidized by taxpayers. When a CBS Chicago journalist asked Wilson if he would help cover those manpower costs, he argued that the taxes he paid over the years were more than enough. Asked about gas cards, he said: “Don’t nobody tell me how to spend my money. You do gas cards, people come up with counterfeit gas cards, and it doesn’t work right.”Wilson was expected to announce another run for mayor shortly, and if this looked a little like a vote-buying stunt, plenty of others lined up to reap its benefits. As the news conference began, Wilson stood off to one side, watching cheerfully as person after person stepped forward to celebrate his efforts. Richard Boykin, Wilson’s candidate of choice for Cook County board president, served as a kind of M.C. There was a prayer led by Cicero’s police and fire department chaplain. The town president spoke, expressing his admiration for Wilson’s generosity, his disgust at gas prices and some quick thoughts on energy policy (“All they got to do is open up the pipeline. Why don’t they open up the pipeline?”). Representative Danny K. Davis talked about Wilson’s long history of philanthropy. Cicero’s police chief spoke. Someone from the town’s board of trustees spoke, then a local reverend, then a gas-station owner, then the town president’s wife, then another gas-station owner, then a representative from the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH coalition.Finally it was Wilson’s turn. The government wasn’t moving fast enough, he said. “If gasoline prices go up again,” he said, “then we’re going to be compelled to do this again.” As for the people who needed the fuel, he said: “I’m enjoying it more than they’re enjoying it. Because the Lord has blessed me to be able to do it.”It wasn’t long ago that gestures like Wilson’s felt like products of a bygone era of American life, when it was common for the wealthy to sprinkle money down on the masses in ways that, in addition to doing real good, might distract from their rapacious business practices and make them look like champions of the common man. The political “machines” that ran many cities and states had their own versions of this game, dispensing money and jobs to buy votes and curry public favor. But at some point these approaches came into disrepute, at least in their most overt manifestations. Respectable charities put some degree of separation, however cosmetic, between wealthy donors and good work. Respectable politicians are expected to back helpful policies, campaign by explaining their benefits and, sure, show up at ribbon-cutting ceremonies to claim credit for every dollar funneled toward constituents. But anything that looks too much like a handout from the powerful risks seeming like the stuff of robber barons and back-alley politics.Maybe that’s changing. As of 2018, a stray tweet at Elon Musk about the water supply in Flint, Mich., could draw a response pledging to “fund fixing the water in any house in Flint that has water contamination above FDA levels.” The billionaire Robert Smith finished a 2019 Morehouse College commencement speech by saying he would cover student debt for the entire graduating class. (A year later, he would pay millions to the federal authorities to settle a tax-evasion case.) Similar exercises extend into politics. During Wilson’s 2019 mayoral campaign, he gave out money at a South Side church and City Hall, saying he wanted to help people with their property-tax bills. (He argued that because this money went through his nonprofit, and not his mayoral campaign, it was not subject to campaign-finance laws; the Chicago Board of Elections agreed.) That same year, Andrew Yang, who was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, promised to give 10 families $1,000 a month each as a proof-of-concept for a universal basic income. After leaving the race, he started a nonprofit that gave 1,000 Bronx residents $1,000 each; less than a year later, he was running for mayor of New York. You can even make a show of distributing public money, as politicians have long done with things like tax rebates and stimulus checks; in 2020, days before the first individual pandemic-relief checks went out, White House officials scrambled to make sure Donald Trump’s name was printed on them.Wilson’s willingness to drop big cash on gas giveaways says little about how he would actually govern, or address such costs overall. It is intended to broadcast that he cares, and that he acts. This explains, in part, why so many public officials participated in his news conference. (When, in the popular consciousness, government means out-of-touch inefficiency, even insiders want to brand themselves as outsiders.) But like so many shows of generosity, there is a gamble here. Some may see you as a populist savior, but others may be convinced that you’re a huckster, more interested in self-aggrandizement than in actually changing anything. Which reaction prevails will depend: How much frustration and desperation are out there?As political battles over pandemic relief, inflation and gas prices continue, I wager that we’ll see even more exercises like Wilson’s. In the week after Wilson’s news conference, Chicago’s current mayor, Lori Lightfoot, held one of her own, announcing an actual city program that will distribute $7.5 million in prepaid gas cards and $5 million in prepaid public-transit rides. The program has received nothing close to the media coverage of Wilson’s gas giveaway. (Wilson, for his part, had the self-confidence to dismiss Lightfoot’s program as a “political stunt.”) One response, for anyone displeased by this disparity, would be to blame sensationalistic media and despair. The other would be to start cooking up good stunts of your own.Source photographs: Screen grabs from YouTubePeter C. Baker is a freelance writer in Evanston, Ill., and the author of the novel “Planes,” to be published by Knopf in May. More

Mark Zuckerberg, who donated nearly half a billion dollars to election offices across the nation in 2020 and drew criticism from conservatives suspicious of his influence on the presidential election, won’t be making additional grants this year, a spokesman for the Facebook founder confirmed on Tuesday.The spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said the donations by Mr. Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, and his wife, Priscilla Chan, were never intended to be a stream of funding for the administration of elections.The couple gave $419 million to two nonprofit organizations that disbursed grants in 2020 to more than 2,500 election departments, which were grappling with a shortfall of government funding as they adopted new procedures during the coronavirus pandemic.The infusion of private donations helped to pay for new ballot-counting equipment, efforts to expand mail-in voting, personal protective equipment and the training of poll workers.It also sowed seeds of mistrust among supporters of former President Donald J. Trump. Critics referred to the grants as “Zuckerbucks” and some frequently claimed, without evidence, that the money was used to help secure Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. Several states controlled by Republicans banned private donations to election offices in response.“As Mark and Priscilla made clear previously, their election infrastructure donation to help ensure that Americans could vote during the height of the pandemic was a one-time donation given the unprecedented nature of the crisis,” Mr. LaBolt said in an email on Tuesday. “They have no plans to repeat that donation.”The Center for Tech and Civic Life, a nonprofit group with liberal ties that became a vessel for $350 million of the contributions from Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan in 2020, announced on Monday that it was shifting to a different model for supporting the work of local election administrators.During an appearance on Monday at the TED2022 conference in Vancouver, Tiana Epps-Johnson, the center’s executive director, said that the organization would begin a five-year, $80 million program to help meet the needs of election departments across the country.Called the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, the program will draw funding through the Audacious Project, a philanthropic collective housed at the TED organization, the center said. Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan are not involved in the new initiative, Mr. LaBolt said.At the event on Monday, Ms. Epps-Johnson said the grants distributed by the center in 2020 helped fill a substantial void of resources for those overseeing elections in the United States. One town in New England, she said without specifying, was able to replace voting equipment from the early 1900s that was held together with duct tape.“The United States election infrastructure is crumbling,” Ms. Epps-Johnson said.In addition to the Center for Technology and Civic Life, Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan gave $69.6 million to the Center for Election Innovation & Research in 2020. At the time, that nonprofit group said that the top election officials in 23 states had applied for grants.Republicans have been unrelenting in their criticism of the social media mogul and his donations.While campaigning for the U.S. Senate on Tuesday in Perrysburg, Ohio, J.D. Vance, the “Hillbilly Elegy” author who has undergone a conversion to Trumpism, continued to accuse Mr. Zuckerberg of tipping the election in 2020 to Mr. Biden.Mr. Vance, a venture capitalist, hasn’t exactly sworn off help from big tech. He counts Peter Thiel, a departing board member of Mr. Zuckerberg’s company, Meta, and a major donor to Mr. Trump, as a top fund-raiser. Mr. Thiel has also supported Blake Masters, a Republican Senate candidate in Arizona.In an opinion piece for The New York Post last October, Mr. Vance and Mr. Masters called for Facebook’s influence to be curbed, writing that Mr. Zuckerberg had spent half a billion dollars to “buy the presidency for Joe Biden.”In Colorado, Tina Peters, the top vote-getter for secretary of state at the state Republican Party’s assembly last weekend, has been a fierce critic of Mr. Zuckerberg, even after her arrest this year on charges stemming from an election security breach. Ms. Peters, the Mesa County clerk, is facing several felonies amid accusations that she allowed an unauthorized person to copy voting machine hard drive information. More

President Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen, the far-right candidate, are in close contention as the April 24 presidential runoff election nears.PARIS — France’s presidential election entered a new, intense phase on Tuesday as President Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen, the far-right candidate trying to unseat him, traded barbs from afar and rubbed shoulders with voters in hopes of widening their appeal, especially on the left.Mr. Macron, who spent the day in eastern France, and Ms. Le Pen, who was campaigning in Normandy, are competing in the second round of voting in the elections, a rematch of their 2017 face-off that will be held on April 24.In the first round of voting on Sunday, both attracted a bigger share of voters than they did five years ago — Mr. Macron with 27.85 percent of the vote, up from 24.01 in 2017, and Ms. Le Pen, of the National Rally party, with 23.15 percent. It was the largest proportion ever gained by a far-right candidate in the first round of voting, and almost 2 percentage points more than in 2017.The latest polls predict a very close runoff, and put Mr. Macron only slightly ahead.With less than two weeks to go before the vote, Mr. Macron has picked up the pace, seeking to dispel criticism that his campaign ahead of the first round was unfocused and that he appeared distracted by his diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine.In Mulhouse, a city in the Alsace region, Mr. Macron navigated crowds to shake the hands of those who supported him and debate those who did not, many of whom sharply questioned him on issues like purchasing power, welfare benefits and hospital funding.“I’m on the field,” Mr. Macron pointedly told a scrum of television reporters, emphasizing that for the past two days he had chosen to meet voters in towns that had not voted for him.He sought to portray Ms. Le Pen as unfit to govern.Ms. Le Pen, for example, says she has no intention of leaving the European Union — but many of her promised policies would flout its rules. Mr. Macron dismissed her assurances as “carabistouilles,” an old-fashioned term that roughly translates to “claptrap” or “nonsense.”“The election is also a referendum on Europe,” Mr. Macron said later at a public meeting in Strasbourg, where supporters waved French and European Union flags in the shadow of the city’s imposing cathedral.President Emmanuel Macron in Paris during the first round of the voting.James Hill for The New York TimesRoland Lescure, a lawmaker in France’s lower house of Parliament for Mr. Macron’s party, La République en Marche, said that the campaign was now focused on getting Mr. Macron as much direct face time with voters as possible.“The method is contact,” Mr. Lescure said, warning that there is a real risk of Ms. Le Pen being elected. “We have to campaign at full speed and until the end.”Mr. Macron’s stature as a leader who was at the helm throughout the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine is not enough to secure him a new term, and neither is admonishing voters about the threat of the far right, Mr. Lescure said.“It’s not the devil against the angel,” he said. “It’s social models that are fundamentally opposed. We need to show what Marine Le Pen’s platform would do to France.”On Tuesday, Mr. Macron was endorsed by Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s right-wing president from 2007 to 2012. Ms. Le Pen’s campaign unveiled an official poster reminiscent of Mr. Macron’s official presidential portrait. Ms. Le Pen’s has a tagline: “For all the French.”After the collapse of France’s traditional left-wing and right-wing parties on Sunday, much of the candidates’ energy is now devoted to wooing voters who either abstained in the first round or picked Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the radical leftist and veteran politician who came in a strong third place, with 21.95 percent of the vote.For Ms. Le Pen, that means highlighting economic proposals like a lower sales tax on essential goods, but also keeping Éric Zemmour, another far-right politician, at arm’s length.Mr. Zemmour, a pundit who shook up French politics with his presidential bid, came in fourth on Sunday, and polls suggest that over 80 percent of those who picked him in the first round intend to vote for Ms. Le Pen in the second. That gives her little incentive to court them openly as she tries to reinvent herself in the eyes of mainstream voters.Marine Le Pen near Paris on Sunday.Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesOn Tuesday, Ms. Le Pen flatly rejected the possibility of making Mr. Zemmour one of her ministers should she win, telling France Inter radio that “he doesn’t wish to and neither do I.”For Mr. Macron, attracting Mr. Mélenchon’s voters means toning down proposals that are particularly taboo on the left, especially his plans to raise the legal age of retirement from 62 to 65, which he says is necessary to keep funding France’s state pension system.On Monday, he insisted that he would gradually push back the retirement age by four months per year starting in 2023, but he said he was open to discussing a softening of the plan in its later stages, although how and to what degree is still unclear. During his first term, Mr. Macron’s pension proposals were derailed by massive strikes and protests.Ms. Le Pen, speaking Tuesday at a news conference in Vernon, a town in Normandy where she also mingled with crowds, dismissed Mr. Macron’s concession as a feeble attempt to attract left-wing voters, and called his platform “social carnage.”She detailed several proposals that she hoped would attract voters who supported Mr. Mélenchon, like creating a mechanism for referendums proposed by popular initiative, or introducing proportional representation in Parliament.“I intend to be a president who gives the people their voice back,” she said.Mr. Mélenchon was particularly popular with urban voters, coming ahead in cities like Lille, Marseille, Montpellier and Nantes, and he scored high with France’s youth. One study by the Ipsos and Sopra Steria polling institutes found that over 30 percent of those 35 and younger had voted for him, more than for any other candidate.Campaign posters in the town of Stiring-Wendel, in the northeast, this month.Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesMarie Montagne, 21, and Ellina Abdellaoui, 22, both English literature students standing in front of the Sorbonne University in Paris, said that Mr. Mélenchon had not necessarily been their first choice — online quizzes suggested to Ms. Abdellaoui that she was most compatible with Philippe Poutou, a fringe anticapitalist candidate.But Mr. Mélenchon’s leftist, ecological platform was still appealing, they said, and he seemed like the left-wing candidate best positioned to reach the runoff. Now, though, the two students said they faced a difficult choice.“I am hesitating between abstaining and Macron,” Ms. Abdellaoui said. “I can’t vote for Le Pen.”Ms. Montagne said she would vote for the incumbent “because I don’t want the smallest chance of the far-right passing.”“But I won’t vote for him because I enjoy it,” she added.Adèle Cordonnier More

Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin’s resignation in the face of a criminal indictment creates a major political test for Gov. Kathy Hochul.One of the first decisions Gov. Kathy Hochul had to make when she suddenly ascended to New York’s highest office last summer was a personnel one: Who would fill her previous role as lieutenant governor, becoming her second-in-command and running mate in the 2022 election?The search was relatively swift, with Ms. Hochul, a white Democrat from Buffalo, homing in on elected officials of color from downstate.She picked Brian Benjamin, a Black state senator from Harlem who was expected to help Ms. Hochul broaden her appeal in New York City, announcing her choice at a campaign-style rally in Upper Manhattan in August.The move came despite a string of ethics questions that had followed Mr. Benjamin and that centered on some dubious campaign finance practices during his time as senator and his unsuccessful run for city comptroller last year.On Tuesday, almost eight months later, that early decision turned into one of Ms. Hochul’s most potentially consequential political liabilities with her announcement that she had accepted Mr. Benjamin’s resignation after his arrest on federal corruption charges.“While the legal process plays out, it is clear to both of us that he cannot continue to serve as Lieutenant Governor,” Ms. Hochul said in a statement hours after Mr. Benjamin’s arrest. “New Yorkers deserve absolute confidence in their government, and I will continue working every day to deliver for them.” The criminal case against Mr. Benjamin could undermine the governor’s efforts to seek her first full term this year, and may be a campaign distraction as the Democratic primary in June nears. Ms. Hochul has led the field comfortably in early public polls, but Mr. Benjamin’s arrest and resignation could throw the race for both her office and his into flux, with Democratic and Republican rivals already sharpening their attacks.Ms. Hochul must now decide who will fill the lieutenant governor vacancy. It was unclear on Tuesday whether she would also seek to remove Mr. Benjamin from the Democratic ballot, an extremely complicated task because of the timing of his resignation and New York’s archaic election laws.But in a statement shortly after Mr. Benjamin’s resignation, Jay Jacobs, the state Democratic Party chairman, said he would “explore every option available to seek a replacement for Brian on the ticket.”The investigation into Mr. Benjamin’s activities had begun to dog Ms. Hochul weeks ago, just as she was negotiating the state budget, where she secured many of her favored policies related to public safety with his help.The governor had indicated just last week that Mr. Benjamin had her unwavering support, even as it became public that he had not told her while being vetted for the lieutenant governor post that his comptroller campaign had received subpoenas.“I have utmost confidence in my lieutenant governor,” Ms. Hochul said at an April 7 news conference at the State Capitol where Mr. Benjamin sat by her side as she announced the budget deal. “This is an independent investigation related to other people and he is fully cooperating. He is my running mate.”On Tuesday, Mr. Benjamin pleaded not guilty to five counts of bribery and fraud in Federal District Court in Manhattan.Most immediately, Mr. Benjamin’s arrest and resignation could upend the race for lieutenant governor. Under state law, neither arrest nor conviction prompt the removal of a candidate from a New York State ballot. Mr. Benjamin’s lawyers said on Tuesday that he had suspended his campaign, but it is too late for Mr. Benjamin to be easily removed from the ballot; the only way it could happen is if he were to leave the state, die or be nominated for a different office.Mr. Benjamin could be nominated for another office, but since petitioning deadlines have now passed for most positions, another elected official would most likely need to resign to create a vacancy for him. It is unclear whether Mr. Benjamin could sidestep that by running as an independent candidate.The primary contests for governor and lieutenant governor are conducted separately, raising the possibility that Mr. Benjamin could remain on the ballot and lose even if Ms. Hochul wins. That could force Ms. Hochul to run in the November general election with a Democratic running mate she had not chosen.Running against Mr. Benjamin are Ana Maria Archila, a progressive activist who has aligned herself with Jumaane Williams, the New York City public advocate, who is challenging Ms. Hochul from the left. Ms. Archila’s campaign sent an email to supporters on Tuesday asking for donations after news of Mr. Benjamin’s arrest broke, saying that “we need cleareyed, transparent and accountable leadership.”“I find it remarkable that the vetting process wasn’t more vigorous,” Ms. Archila said in an interview earlier on Tuesday, questioning Mr. Benjamin’s ability to fulfill his duties but stopping short of calling for his resignation. “It says that she wasn’t careful or thoughtful in prioritizing the public’s trust in the way she said she would.”Representative Thomas R. Suozzi, a moderate Democrat from Long Island who is running against Ms. Hochul in the primary, issued his own statement earlier in the day, along with Diana Reyna, his informal running mate for lieutenant governor, saying that Mr. Benjamin’s arrest was “an indictment on Kathy Hochul’s lack of experience and poor judgment.”Representative Lee Zeldin, a Long Island Republican and the party’s nominee for governor, criticized Ms. Hochul on Tuesday for her “terrible judgment” in choosing Mr. Benjamin, who he described as “a bad pick.”“When this corruption surfaced, Hochul tripled down,” Mr. Zeldin wrote on Twitter. “She owns this … all of it! Terrible judgment!”Mr. Benjamin’s arrest appeared to blindside Ms. Hochul, disrupting her schedule just as she was increasing her time on the campaign trail this week. The arrest coincided with a mass shooting at a Brooklyn subway station, and Ms. Hochul had to call off a union fund-raiser in Manhattan and a news conference on Long Island.Early in the day, as Ms. Hochul weighed Mr. Benjamin’s future, the Republican leaders in the State Legislature, as well as some Democratic state lawmakers, had called on her to demand his resignation.“Kathy Hochul and Senate Democrats might tolerate this corruption, but New Yorkers don’t and neither do I,” said Rob Ortt, the Republican leader in the State Senate.What to Know About Lt. Gov. Brian BenjaminCard 1 of 3Who is Brian Benjamin? More

Days before Jan. 6, a onetime aide to Roger J. Stone Jr. told Trump backers to make lawmakers meeting to finalize the 2020 election results feel that “people are breathing down their necks.”One week before an angry mob stormed the Capitol, a communications expert named Jason Sullivan, a onetime aide to Roger J. Stone Jr., joined a conference call with a group of President Donald J. Trump’s supporters and made an urgent plea.After assuring his listeners that the 2020 election had been stolen, Mr. Sullivan told them that they had to go to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021 — the day that Congress was to meet to finalize the electoral count — and “descend on the Capitol,” according to a recording of the call obtained by The New York Times.While Mr. Sullivan claimed that he was “not inciting violence or any kind of riots,” he urged those on the call to make their presence felt at the Capitol in a way that would intimidate members of Congress, telling the group that they had to ensure that lawmakers inside the building “understand that people are breathing down their necks.”He also pledged that Mr. Trump was going to take action on his own; the president, he said, was going to impose a form of martial law on Jan. 6 and would not be leaving office.“Biden will never be in that White House,” Mr. Sullivan declared. “That’s my promise to each and every one of you.”Before Riot, Operative Urged Trump Supporters to ‘Descend on the Capitol’ on Jan. 6In a conference call days before the Jan. 6 attack, Jason Sullivan, a onetime aide to Roger J. Stone Jr., exhorted supporters of President Donald J. Trump to go to the Capitol that day and pressure lawmakers meeting to finalize the 2020 election results.The recording of the call, which took place on Dec. 30, 2020, emerged as the Justice Department has expanded its criminal investigation of the Capitol attack. It offers a glimpse of the planning that went on in the run-up to the storming of the Capitol and the mind-set of some of those who zeroed in on Jan. 6 as a kind of last stand for keeping Mr. Trump in office.It also reflects the complexities that federal prosecutors are likely to face as they begin the task of figuring out how much — or even whether — people involved in the political rallies that preceded the assault can be held accountable for the violence that erupted.After more than a year of focusing exclusively on rioters who took part in the storming of the Capitol, prosecutors have widened their gaze in recent weeks and have started to question whether those involved in encouraging protests — like the one that Mr. Sullivan was describing — can be held culpable for disrupting the work of Congress.Mr. Sullivan’s remarks during the call appeared to be an effort to motivate a group of people aggrieved by the election to take direct action against members of Congress on Jan. 6, presaging what Mr. Trump himself would say in a speech that day. While it remains unclear whether anyone on Mr. Sullivan’s call went on to join the mob that breached the Capitol, he seemed to be exhorting his listeners to apply unusual pressure on lawmakers just as they were overseeing the final count of Electoral College votes.In a statement provided by his lawyer, Mr. Sullivan played down the nature of the call, saying he had merely “shared some encouragement” with what he described as “people who all felt their votes had been disenfranchised in the 2020 elections.” Mr. Sullivan said he had been asked to participate in the call by a group of anti-vaccine activists — or what he called “health freedom advocate moms” — who were hosting “a small, permitted event” at the Capitol on Jan. 6.“I only promoted peaceful solutions where Americans could raise their voices and be heard as expressed in our First Amendment,” Mr. Sullivan said in the statement. “I in no way condone the violence of any protesters.”Still, in the recording of the call, Mr. Sullivan can be heard telling his listeners that the lawmakers inside the Capitol “need to feel pressure.”“If we make the people inside that building sweat and they understand that they may not be able to walk in the streets any longer if they do the wrong thing, then maybe they’ll do the right thing,” he said. “We have to put that pressure there.”As the Justice Department widens its inquiry, federal prosecutors are using a grand jury in Washington to gather information on political organizers, speakers and so-called V.I.P.s connected to a series of pro-Trump rallies after the 2020 election. One prominent planner of those rallies, Ali Alexander, received a subpoena from the grand jury and said last week that he intended to comply with its requests.In the run-up to Jan. 6, Mr. Alexander publicly discussed a pressure campaign against lawmakers that was meant to stop the final electoral count, saying he was working with Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama and Representatives Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar of Arizona, all Republicans.“We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Mr. Alexander said in a since-deleted video on Periscope. The plan, he said, was to “change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.”It is unclear if the Justice Department is aware of Mr. Sullivan’s conference call; the department declined to comment. The House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 was provided with a copy of the recording some months ago by the woman who made it, Staci Burk, a law student and Republican activist from Arizona.Shortly after the election, Ms. Burk became convinced that phony ballots had been flown in bulk into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. She eventually submitted an anonymous affidavit concerning the ballots in an election fraud case filed in Federal District Court in Phoenix by the pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: New DevelopmentsCard 1 of 5Debating a criminal referral. More

PARIS — The future of democracy in Europe is being decided simultaneously on the battlefields of Ukraine and in the ballot boxes of France.From afar, France’s presidential elections this month might look like merely a repeat of our last elections in 2017, with the centrist leader Emmanuel Macron once again facing Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Rally party. But there are major differences that are revealing about France and about Western pluralism, having to do with the return of war in Europe; the uncertainty created by the two candidates running so closely in Sunday’s first-round election; and the widespread disaffection for both candidates.Indeed, the April 24 runoff election may be France’s most consequential turning point in the past 40 years. It could usher in an entirely new political and social era, in which illiberal democracy, personified in Ms. Le Pen, could gain the upper hand in one of the founding members of the European Union. And regardless of the winner, the country faces a deep paralysis because it’s unclear whether either candidate will gain a majority in legislative elections later this spring. That means neither Ms. Le Pen’s nativist hopes will be met nor will Mr. Macron’s efforts to further liberalize the French economy materialize, a result that could further alienate citizens from politics.Where the 2017 election was about the hope of reforming France and remaining a liberal democracy, 2022 is a tight contest between two emotions: anger against Mr. Macron, who is perceived as a technocrat out of touch with the people, and fear of Ms. Le Pen, who is still seen by many as a dangerous far-right candidate. In both cases most voters will vote against, rather than for, a candidate. The question of the day remains: Do you hate Mr. Macron more than you fear Ms. Le Pen, or vice versa?What is yet to be seen is whether Ms. Le Pen will fully capitalize on voters’ anger toward Mr. Macron for his perceived aloofness and closeness to the richest segment of French society, as well as for the contours of his policy. His emphasis on pushing back the retirement age from 62 to 65, even if he has started to retreat on that promise, speaking of 64 as a reasonable compromise, has rankled voters.In her effort to pick up centrist votes, Ms. Le Pen appeared at times almost moderate, particularly compared with her more radical rival Éric Zemmour. In the run-up to Sunday’s first-round election, Ms. Le Pen benefited from Mr. Zemmour’s penchant for furiously railing about defending French identity and the need to create a ministry charged with expelling foreigners. Meanwhile, she was appearing on social media, speaking of her love for her cats.That worked for Ms. Le Pen in round one. But to gain enough votes to become president of France, she will most likely have to rally the extreme edges of her party, in part by returning to espousing hard-line views. It may not be that difficult. Behind her reassuring rhetoric, her more extreme policies remain intact. She has promised to ban the hijab in all public places, a nod toward her longstanding public antipathy to Islam; she has long spoken of curbing immigration and has said she will prioritize the native-born French for welfare benefits over immigrants.To be sure, by appealing to the extreme right, Ms. Le Pen also runs the risk of failing to win over middle-of-the-road French voters who are more likely to vote for Mr. Macron or abstain rather than vote for her.The dilemma of Mr. Macron is just the reverse. He needs the support of the far left, which now largely means supporters of Jean-Luc Mélenchon — who came in a very close third in round one — to win. It will be difficult for Mr. Macron to do so without diluting his economic program, which might lose him significant votes on the right.Complicating matters further, the coming runoff election may prove to be the closest since the victory of our longest-serving president, the socialist François Mitterrand, over the conservative Valery Giscard d’Estaing in 1981. It would be tempting to see the elections of 2022 as a distorted mirror of that fateful year. But 1981 was the triumph of hope bringing the socialists to power, which was, until then, an unheard-of possibility. Should Ms. Le Pen succeed, it would be a victory of anger.Such an outcome is not impossible. The voices of the extreme-right and extreme-left candidates together now add up to more than 50 percent of the vote. Those strengthening extremes signal that one in two French people no longer believes in classical liberal democracy as this country once knew it or in the future of the European project in which France has played an integral part.After all, Ms. Le Pen has long expressed her disdain for the European Union, once suggested leaving the common currency and still hopes France might all but abandon NATO.Then there’s the backdrop of the war in Ukraine. Initially the prospect of war worked in favor of the incumbent president. Mr. Macron’s early efforts at diplomacy and meeting with Vladimir Putin gave him an early advantage with voters. Then he found himself facing the economic consequences of the conflict, including the steep rise in the cost of living across France, the very subject chosen by Ms. Le Pen as her core campaign topic.Yet it is unclear whether the reality of the war so close to France will discredit Ms. Le Pen (who, despite having denounced the invasion, had close ties with Russia in the past and whose party received loans from a Russian bank). In the end, as they say, all politics is local. The French will not be voting for Ukraine, and a majority of them may not care that much about the future of Europe, either.For Mr. Macron, however, his fortunes are bound up with Europe’s, and his challenge is energizing the electorate to care enough about both him and the continent. In the coming days, he is likely to try to convince more French voters that a victory for Ms. Le Pen is a victory for Mr. Putin and that Ukraine and democracy will only suffer if she takes up residence in the Élysée Palace. Whether he can do so will be a test of France’s deep polarization. The haves — those with more wealth and education — skew disproportionately toward Mr. Macron, while the have-nots lean toward Ms. Le Pen. But even this doesn’t give the full picture: Beyond anger, we are also seeing a profound disillusionment with politics. More than 26 percent of voters abstained in the first round of elections, the lowest turnout for a presidential election since 2002.In 2017, after the triumph of Brexit in Britain and the election of Donald Trump in America, the election of Mr. Macron appeared as an oasis of hope in a desert of Anglo-Saxon despair. Now, in 2022, the West is right to remain concerned about the political future of France.With two weeks left to go, the election of a far-right leader in France remains possible but not probable. But let us be clear. What is at stake on April 24 is nothing less than the future of democracy in France and in Europe.Dominique Moïsi is a senior adviser at the Institut Montaigne, a Paris-based think tank.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

Former Virginia police officer convicted of storming US CapitolThomas Robertson was found guilty of all six counts he faced stemming from his participation in the 6 January 2021 riots A federal jury has convicted a former Virginia police officer of storming the US Capitol with another off-duty officer, to obstruct Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory.Proud Boys member pleads guilty to role in US Capitol attackRead moreJurors on Monday convicted former Rocky Mount police officer Thomas Robertson of all six counts he faced stemming from the 6 January riot, including charges that he interfered with police officers at the Capitol and that he entered a restricted area with a dangerous weapon – a large wooden stick.His sentencing hearing was not immediately scheduled.Robertson’s jury trial was the second among hundreds of Capitol riot cases. The first ended last month with jurors convicting a Texas man, Guy Reffitt, of all five counts in his indictment.Robertson did not testify at his trial, which started 5 April. Jurors deliberated for several hours over two days before reaching their unanimous verdict.One juror, who spoke to the Associated Press only on condition of anonymity, said as she left the courthouse, “I think the government made a really compelling case and the evidence was fairly overwhelming.”Defense attorney Mark Rollins said Robertson will appeal the jury’s verdict. “While Mr Robertson disagrees with the jury’s decision, he respects the rule of law,” Rollins said in a statement.A key witness for prosecutors in his case was Jacob Fracker, who also served on the Rocky Mount police force and viewed Robertson as a mentor and father figure.Fracker was scheduled to be tried alongside Robertson before he pleaded guilty last month to a conspiracy charge and agreed to cooperate with authorities. Fracker testified Thursday that he had hoped the mob that attacked the Capitol could overturn the 2020 presidential election results.Robertson was charged with six counts: obstruction of Congress, interfering with officers during a civil disorder, entering a restricted area while carrying a dangerous weapon, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area while carrying a dangerous weapon, disorderly or disruptive conduct inside the Capitol building, and obstruction. The last charge stems from his alleged post-riot destruction of cellphones belonging to him and Fracker.During the trial’s closing arguments Friday, assistant US attorney Risa Berkower said Robertson went to Washington and joined a “violent vigilante mob” because he believed the election was stolen from then-president Donald Trump. He used the wooden stick to interfere with outnumbered police before he joined the crowd pouring into the Capitol, she said.“The defendant did all this because he wanted to overturn the election,” Berkower said.Rollins conceded that Robertson broke the law when he entered the Capitol during the riot. He encouraged jurors to convict Robertson of misdemeanor offenses but urged them to acquit Robertson of felony charges that he used the stick as a dangerous weapon and that he intended to stop Congress from certifying the electoral college vote.“There were no plans to go down there and say, ‘I’m going to stop Congress from doing this vote,”’ Rollins said.Fracker testified that he initially believed that he was merely trespassing when he entered the Capitol building. However, he ultimately pleaded guilty to conspiring with Robertson to obstruct Congress.The town of Rocky Mount, which is about 25 miles south of Roanoke and has roughly 5,000 residents, fired Robertson and Fracker after the riot.TopicsUS Capitol attackWashington DCUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Trump ‘very intent on bringing my brother down’, Joe Biden’s sister saysValerie Biden Owens, who has worked on all her brother’s campaigns, also says ‘no there there’ on her nephew Hunter Donald Trump is “very intent on bringing my brother down”, Joe Biden’s sister said.The Republican judge blocking her party from rigging electoral districtsRead more“The only race I wasn’t enthusiastic about Joe getting involved in was the 2020 presidency,” Valerie Biden Owens told CBS News.“Because I expected, and was not disappointed, that it would be ugly and mean, and it would be an attack on my brother, Joe, personally and professionally, because the former president is very intent on bringing my brother down.”A year and a half into his presidency, Biden is battling crises at home including inflation and the coronavirus pandemic and abroad, over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.Trump dominates the Republican party, propagating the “big lie” about voter fraud in his defeat by Biden which fueled the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, continuing to attack Biden as incapable of the demands of office, flirting with a third White House run and dispensing endorsements to candidates in the midterm elections.On Sunday, the Republican House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, claimed Republicans would not swiftly impeach Biden “for political purposes”, should as expected the party take the House in November.Biden Owens helped raise her brother’s children after his first wife and daughter were killed in a car crash and has worked on all his campaigns. She has written a book called Growing Up Biden: A Memoir.“I assumed from the beginning that the former president and his entourage would attack my brother by going and attacking my family,” she said.Trump has focused on Hunter Biden, the president’s son, who has written his own book about his struggle with addiction and whose business affairs are the subject of scrutiny.Hunter Biden was one subject of Trump’s attempt to withhold military aid from Ukraine in exchange for political dirt, an attempt that led to Trump’s first impeachment. To Republicans, Hunter Biden remains a tempting target. Federal investigators are known to be looking at his financial affairs.His aunt told CBS: “There hasn’t been a there, there since it was mentioned in 2019 or whenever it was.”‘TV is like a poll’: Trump endorses Dr Oz for Pennsylvania Senate nominationRead moreShe also said: “Hunter has written in exquisite detail about his struggle with addiction, his walk through hell, and I am so grateful he has been able to walk out of hell, but I don’t think there’s a family in this country who hasn’t tasted it.”Trump’s destructive power remains widely feared. Pundits and rivals are watching his endorsements closely, among them a choice to back Mehmet Oz, a TV doctor, for the Senate nomination in Pennsylvania, a pick many Republicans opposed.On Monday, a possible rival to Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination, Ron DeSantis, was offered a warning that might have sounded familiar to Valerie Biden Owens.Nikki Fried, a Democrat running to oppose DeSantis for governor in Florida, told Business Insider that if Trump runs again and gets back on Twitter – from which he has been banned since the Capitol attack – “I say one tweet created [DeSantis] and one tweet can destroy him”.TopicsJoe BidenDonald TrumpHunter BidenUS politicsUS elections 2024US elections 2020DemocratsnewsReuse this content More