Elections

The $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News by the election technology company Smartmatic can move forward, a New York judge ruled on Tuesday. But the judge tossed out Smartmatic’s defamation claims against the Fox News host Jeanine Pirro and a network guest, Sidney Powell.Smartmatic sued Rupert Murdoch’s cable news networks last year, along with several Fox hosts and guests. The lawsuit accused them of damaging the company by promoting a false narrative about the 2020 election: that Smartmatic and other voting systems companies tried to rig the race against President Donald J. Trump. Smartmatic later expanded its legal battle against disinformation to the right-wing media outlets Newsmax and One America News Network.On Tuesday, Justice David B. Cohen of State Supreme Court in Manhattan said in a 61-page ruling that, “at a minimum, Fox News turned a blind eye to a litany of outrageous claims about plaintiffs, unprecedented in the history of American elections, so inherently improbable that it evinced a reckless disregard for the truth.”He added, “At this nascent stage of the litigation, this court finds that plaintiffs have pleaded facts sufficient to allow a jury to infer that Fox News acted with actual malice.”He also declined to dismiss Smartmatic claims against Maria Bartiromo, the Fox Business star, and Lou Dobbs, whose Fox Business show was a frequent clearinghouse for baseless theories of electoral fraud in the weeks after Mr. Trump’s defeat. Fox canceled Mr. Dobbs’s program last year, one day after Smartmatic sued.Citing a legal technicality, Justice Cohen dismissed most of Smartmatic’s defamation claims against Rudolph W. Giuliani, who, appearing on Fox News as a legal representative for Mr. Trump, said the technology company had “tried-and-true methods for fixing elections,” among other false assertions. Even so, Justice Cohen said there was “substantial” evidence that Mr. Giuliani “acted with actual malice insofar as he evinced a reckless disregard for the truth” and ruled that Smartmatic could try again. The judge allowed another part of Smartmatic’s defamation case against Mr. Giuliani to go forward.Fox News vowed a swift appeal.“While we are gratified that Judge Cohen dismissed Smartmatic’s claims against Jeanine Pirro at this early stage, we still plan to appeal the ruling immediately,” the network said in a statement. The network added that it would “continue to litigate these baseless claims by filing a counterclaim for fees and costs” under New York’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, which is meant to quickly set aside lawsuits that may be intended to chill free speech.Fox News said it would do so “to prevent the full-blown assault on the First Amendment which stands in stark contrast to the highest tradition of American journalism.”In dismissing the claim against Ms. Pirro, Justice Cohen said that while she had asserted on her show that Democrats “stole votes,” she had not specifically blamed Smartmatic’s software.A spokesman for Smartmatic did not reply to a request for comment.Fox News is also battling a related $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, which has accused the channel of advancing lies that devastated its reputation and business. A Delaware judge rejected an attempt by Fox News to dismiss Dominion’s lawsuit in December. More

The former Trump aide listed a mobile home in rural North Carolina as his residence at the same time that he was running operations at the White House.Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff who helped former President Donald J. Trump spread false claims of voter fraud in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, is facing questions about his own voting record, following a report that he registered to vote from a North Carolina mobile home where he did not live.There’s no indication that Mr. Meadows, a former congressman from North Carolina, ever resided — or even spent the night — at the rural mountain home, according to The New Yorker, which first reported on the residence that Mr. Meadows listed on his 2020 voter registration.While it’s not unusual for politicians to maintain residency in their home states, even as they spend most of their time in Washington, Mr. Meadows’s arrangement stood out for its timing and details. Mr. Meadows claimed the modest mobile home with a rusted roof as his residence at the same time that he was running day-to-day operations at the White House and was frequently warning of the possibility of voter fraud.Neither Mr. Meadows nor his wife, Debra, responded to calls or messages Tuesday. Mr. Meadows’s spokesman, Ben Williamson, also did not respond to calls or messages.North Carolina voter registration records show that Mr. Meadows and his wife registered to vote at the three-bedroom mobile home in Scaly Mountain, N.C., six weeks before the 2020 election. Records show that he voted absentee by mail from that address and that Ms. Meadows voted early, in person.Mr. Meadows’s exact connection to the home is unclear. He never owned it. On a voter registration application submitted on Sept. 19, 2020, Mr. Meadows stated that he intended to move in the following day.North Carolina law requires that a voter live at their address for 30 days before the election in which they are voting. It is a felony to file a fraudulent voter registration application, though prosecutions are rare and typically do not lead to jail sentences.Only a registered voter from Macon County, which includes Scaly Mountain along the Georgia border, can file a challenge to Mr. Meadows’s voter registration. Patrick Gannon, a spokesman for the North Carolina Board of Elections, said Tuesday that there have been no voter challenges filed against Mr. Meadows.Before and after the 2020 election, Mr. Meadows was among the foremost amplifiers of Mr. Trump’s false claims of election fraud. During an August 2020 interview on CNN, he warned of fraud in voting by mail and said people are able to register to vote in multiple places at once, leading to fraud.“Anytime you move, you’ll change your driver’s license, but you don’t call up and say, ‘Hey, by the way, I’m re-registering,’” Mr. Meadows said.Voters are not required to notify a state’s election officials about a move. Mr. Meadows, in fact, is currently registered in both North Carolina and Virginia.Virginia voter registration forms obtained by The New York Times show that nearly a year after registering at the mountain mobile home, on Sept. 13 and Sept. 15, 2021, Mr. Meadows and Ms. Meadows registered to vote at a condominium in the Old Town neighborhood of suburban Alexandria, Va. Property records show that Mr. and Ms. Meadows purchased the unit in July 2017.Both Mr. Meadows and Ms. Meadows voted early in person in Virginia’s heated election for governor in 2021, Virginia election records show. In that contest, Glenn Youngkin became the first Republican elected governor of Virginia in 12 years.In the weeks after the 2020 election, Mr. Meadows served as a revolving door between Mr. Trump and an array of lawyers, supporters and conspiracy theorists who aimed to overturn the election results to keep Mr. Trump in the White House. He introduced Mr. Trump to Mark Martin, a former North Carolina Supreme Court justice who told the then-president, falsely, that Vice President Mike Pence could stop the congressional certification of the Electoral College results.In January 2021, Mr. Meadows facilitated the call between Mr. Trump and Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, in which Mr. Trump asked Mr. Raffensperger to “to find 11,780 votes” to overturn President Biden’s victory in the state.During Mr. Trump’s presidency, several members of his White House inner circle, including Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, and Steve Bannon, an on-again-off-again adviser, were registered to vote in two states. There was no evidence that any of them voted twice in the same election.At the time he registered to vote in Scaly Mountain, Mr. Meadows was said to be considering running for the Senate seat to be vacated after the 2022 election by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina. Shortly after the 2020 election, Mr. Meadows said he would not run for the Senate.The owner of the home when Mr. Meadows registered there told The New Yorker that Ms. Meadows reserved it for two months sometime in the past few years, but stayed at the home for just one or two nights. Mr. Meadows never visited, the former homeowner, who asked that her name not be used, told the magazine.The former homeowner did not respond to messages. The current owner, who bought the property in 2021, also did not respond to messages.A neighbor, Tammy Talley, told the magazine that she is a friend of the couple’s and that Ms. Meadows and her adult children stayed at the home on at least one occasion. A message left at Ms. Talley’s home was not returned Tuesday.Two weeks after Mr. Meadows registered to vote at the Scaly Mountain address, his wife submitted an absentee ballot request on his behalf. Mr. Meadows’s absentee ballot request was first reported by WRAL-TV in Raleigh, N.C.Before he registered to vote at the Scaly Mountain home, Mr. Meadows had voted in 2018 from a home in Transylvania County, N.C., and in 2016 from Asheville, N.C., according to North Carolina records.Kitty Bennett More

A Texas clinic for transgender adolescents closed last year amid pressure from the governor’s office, hospital officials said in phone recordings.On a tense conference call last November with half a dozen doctors and executives at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dr. John Warner relayed a somber message: The only specialty clinic in the state to treat transgender adolescents was facing unrelenting political pressure to close.State lawmakers had already sent formal inquiries about the clinic, Genecis, which was financed by the public university and housed at Children’s Medical Center in Dallas. Activists calling the clinic’s treatments “chemical castration” had shown up at the office of one of the children’s hospital’s board members.And then there was Gov. Greg Abbott.“We received a reach from the governor also requesting information about the clinic,” said Dr. Warner, an executive vice president at the medical center, according to a recording of the call obtained by The New York Times. “And with that came an expectation that something different would occur.”“Time is not on our side,” he added. “The conversation is intensifying — not the reverse.”The next week, hospital executives closed the clinic, taking down its website before staff members or patients were informed of the change.The demise of the clinic, which saw around 500 patients in 2021, shows how treatments for transgender minors have become a highly contentious issue in Republican-controlled states across the nation, with elected officials challenging widely accepted medical practices in an echo of the debate over abortion.That fight has reached a fever pitch in Texas.Days before he won a contentious Republican primary last week, Mr. Abbott and the Texas attorney general directed the state’s child welfare agency to investigate “‘sex change’ procedures and treatments” as child abuse, arguing that even hormone therapy should be considered an “abusive procedure.” The directive drew sharp criticism from medical groups and a swift lawsuit from civil rights groups, which said the directive violated the rights of transgender adolescents and their parents.But months ago, before these moves were making national headlines, executives at U.T. Southwestern were discussing closing down Genecis because of what they described as direct outreach from the governor’s office, according to recordings of several phone discussions among hospital executives obtained by The Times.What the governor’s office purportedly said to pressure the hospital’s leadership is unclear.When asked about these interactions, U.T. Southwestern said in an emailed statement that the governor was not personally involved. But the hospital did not answer questions about whether Mr. Abbott’s office had contacted hospital executives. “Inquiries regarding actions by the Governor’s Office should be directed to the Governor’s Office,” the statement said.Mr. Abbott’s office did not answer questions about the substance of these conversations or whether they took place, but it denied involvement in U.T.’s decision to close Genecis.“The Governor’s Office was not involved in any decision on this issue,” Nan Tolson, a spokeswoman, said in an email. Genecis, the only pediatric gender clinic in Texas, was housed in the Children’s Medical Center in Dallas.AlamySince its founding in 2014, the Genecis clinic had offered patients aged 5 to 21 counseling, pediatric care and, starting at adolescence, puberty-blocking drugs and hormones. (The clinic did not perform surgeries.) With no other options for such comprehensive care, the clinic was sought out by families across the state. It also published scientific research about its patients.“The Genecis clinic has been a leader in producing data about the youth they see — data that everyone on every side of this issue has argued that we need,” said Kristina Olson, a psychologist at Princeton University who studies gender development in children.Early evidence suggests that these hormone treatments, part of what’s known as “gender affirming” care, improve the mental health of trans teenagers. But few studies have looked at the long-term outcomes of adolescents who take these medications, which may also come with risks, like fertility loss.Gender-affirming care has been endorsed by major medical groups in the United States. Although some doctors have debated which adolescents will benefit most from such treatments, many say that the decision to take them should be made by patients, their parents and their health care providers, not the state.Legal experts have also questioned whether shutting down the clinic could constitute discrimination under federal statutes. Pediatric endocrinologists around the country — including those at U.T. Southwestern — routinely prescribe similar drug regimens to children with hormonal disorders who are not transgender.“The U.S. Supreme Court has held in the ‘Bostock’ case that discriminating because of sex does include gender identity,” said William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law School. “Ultimately they are denying medical care based upon gender identity.”The federal government has taken a similar stance. “Denials of health care based on gender identity are illegal, as is restricting doctors and health care providers from providing care because of a patient’s gender identity,” according to a statement released last week by the Department of Health and Human Services.On the campaign trail in Texas, transgender health care has often come to the forefront. Last summer, after legislation that would have banned such treatments for minors failed in the state legislature, Mr. Abbott’s primary opponent, Don Huffines, attacked the governor for not taking a bolder stance in favor of the bills.Weeks later, Mr. Abbott said on a conservative radio program that although the bills had not passed, he could “game the odds” and had “another way of achieving the same exact thing.”On a call with other hospital leaders around the same time, Dr. Warner said that hospital executives had been responding to “some questions from the governor’s office” as well as from state lawmakers, according to a recording obtained by The Times. The executives discussed how they would try to keep the clinic open in some capacity despite political pressure to close it.“There is the possibility that we as a state agency cannot provide this care,” Dr. Warner told the group on the July call. “So the question we’re going to be asking of ourselves is what should U.T. Southwestern do as a state agency that provides the most benefit to the kids but also protects the institution.”But in another call several months later that was also recorded, any possibility of the clinic staying open seemed gone.“I do not think that in our current circumstances that — without some modification of the clinic — that it would be allowed to continue,” Dr. Warner said on the November call. “People will come after it until it’s gone.”U.T. Southwestern and Children’s Health took down the Genecis website on Nov. 11. A week later, staff members were told that existing patients could still be treated at the hospital, but no new patients could be accepted. The decision was made without consulting the medical center’s ethics boards.Texas’s Push Against Gender-Affirming TreatmentsCard 1 of 6Limiting trans care. More

Proud Boys leader arrested on US Capitol attack conspiracy chargeEnrique Tarrio was not physically in Washington on 6 January but is charged with directing, mobilising and leading crowd Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys far-right nationalist group, has been arrested and charged with conspiracy over the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.Jury begins deliberations in trial of Texas man who stormed CapitolRead moreTarrio, 38, faces counts of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of an official proceeding, and two counts each of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and destruction of government property.The US Department of Justice (DoJ) said Tarrio was scheduled to make an initial appearance in federal court in Miami on Tuesday.Tarrio was not at the Capitol during the insurrection. Two days before, he was arrested in Washington and accused of vandalizing a Black Lives Matter banner at a historic Black church. Also charged with possessing two high-capacity rifle magazines, he was released the following day and ordered to stay out of the capital.According to the DoJ, Tarrio “nonetheless continued to direct and encourage the Proud Boys prior to and during the events of 6 January 2021”.He later “claimed credit for what had happened on social media and in an encrypted chat room during and after the attack,” prosecutors said.Four other individuals have been charged: Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 36, of Philadelphia; Charles Donohoe, 34, of Kernersville, North Carolina; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York.“They earlier pleaded not guilty to charges,” the DoJ said, referring to an indictment in December.Tarrio’s arrest followed charges of seditious conspiracy against 11 members of another far-right group, the Oath Keepers militia, which were announced in January.Tarrio and the Proud Boys rose to prominence in support of Donald Trump and through violent confrontations with leftwing protesters.On 6 January 2021, Trump supporters gathered in Washington DC to protest against Trump’s election defeat by Joe Biden. Trump told them to “fight like hell” in service of his lie about electoral fraud. The Capitol was attacked. Seven people died around the riot and more than 100 police officers were hurt.More than 770 people have been charged. The first jury trial arising from the attack, involving a Texas man who was a member of the Three Percenters rightwing group, reached jury deliberations on Tuesday.The DoJ has faced intensifying pressure to more aggressively pursue those suspected of organizing and planning the Capitol attack. In a speech earlier this year, the attorney general, Merrick Garland, vowed to hold accountable all those responsible for the riot, whether or not they were present at the Capitol.In its announcement on Tuesday, the DoJ said: “From in or around December 2020, Tarrio and his co-defendants, all of whom were leaders or members of the Ministry of Self Defense [a Proud Boys group] conspired to corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, the certification of the electoral college vote.“On 6 January, the defendants directed, mobilised and led members of the crowd on to the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol, leading to dismantling of metal barricades, destruction of property, and assaults on law enforcement.Proud Boys: who are the far-right group that backs Donald Trump?Read more“Although Tarrio is not accused of physically taking part in the breach of the Capitol, the indictment alleges that he led the advance planning and remained in contact with other members of the Proud Boys during their breach of the Capitol.“The indictment alleges that Tarrio nonetheless continued to direct and encourage the Proud Boys prior to and during the events of 6 January 2021, and that he claimed credit for what had happened on social media and in an encrypted chat room during and after the attack.”In August last year, Tarrio was sentenced to five months in prison. He has also been revealed to have previously been an FBI informant.Tarrio has denied organising violence on 6 January. The Times said a lawyer for Tarrio declined comment, as he was waiting to see the indictment.TopicsUS Capitol attackThe far rightUS crimenewsReuse this content More

The Democratic Socialists of America’s view that U.S. “imperialist expansionism” through NATO fueled Russia’s invasion has created challenges for politicians aligned with the group.Not long after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Democratic Socialists of America released a statement that drew instant reproof.The group condemned the invasion, but also urged the United States “to withdraw from NATO and to end the imperialist expansionism that set the stage for this conflict.”The position — a watered-down version of a prior, even more pointed statement from the group’s international committee — drew rebukes from a White House spokesman and from a number of Democratic candidates and elected officials, from Long Island congressional contenders to officials in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But in the New York City area, where the D.S.A.’s largest chapter wields substantial influence, it has also created a challenging dynamic for politicians aligned with the organization.In the state’s 16th Congressional District, a refugee from Kosovo is making foreign policy central to his primary challenge of Representative Jamaal Bowman, a former middle school principal from Yonkers who rose to power with support from the Democratic Socialists of America.In New York City, Democratic congressional candidates are debating America’s role in the world. And even before D.S.A.’s most recent statement, City Council members were clashing over the history of American and NATO intervention.With a majority of Americans backing Ukraine as it struggles to repel a bloody, often live-streamed Russian invasion, the D.S.A.’s desire for a policy discussion about NATO appears to have sown unease in campaign circles: None of the nine New York City candidates the D.S.A. endorsed this year would consent to an interview on the topic, even as more centrist Democrats are now using the subject as a cudgel.“We’re refugees from Kosovo, a country where me and my family had to flee because of ethnic cleansing and were saved, frankly, by U.S. and NATO intervention there,” Vedat Gashi, a Democrat challenging Mr. Bowman, said last week. “Blaming Ukraine and NATO for the escalation of this Russian invasion of Ukraine is to me, at the very best case, naïve and certainly wrong.”The D.S.A. argues that NATO promotes a militarized response to conflict at the expense of diplomacy, and that economic sanctions too often victimize working people. In the case of Ukraine, many D.S.A. members say that the United States, by encouraging the expansion of NATO eastward, provoked Russia.“There is a longstanding tradition with the U.S. left as well as in Europe that NATO has played a role, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, in emphasizing militarized solutions when diplomacy could lead to more long-term stability,” said Ashik Saddique, a member of the D.S.A.’s National Political Committee. “It feels a little bit absurd for people to be acting like it’s a political crime to criticize NATO.”Mr. Gashi called on Mr. Bowman to fully disavow the D.S.A. stance.Rep. Jamaal Bowman, in Washington earlier this year, represents a district that has a sizable population of Ukrainian immigrants.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesMr. Bowman has chosen a subtler tack, signaling distance from the D.S.A.’s position, without the sort of direct condemnation that might alienate a component of his base and play into his opponent’s hands. He declined to comment for this article, but in a prior statement, he said he supports NATO, “and will continue to do so during this crisis.”Mr. Bowman’s district includes a sizable population of Ukrainian immigrants, and last week, he called more than a dozen who have written him letters, his office said. He has also joined the Congressional Ukraine Caucus and has put together a bipartisan letter asking President Biden to let at-risk Ukrainians enter the country without visas.But Ukrainians are not the only constituents D.S.A.-aligned politicians need to consider amid the crisis, said Drisana Hughes, the former campaign manager for India Walton, the D.S.A.-backed candidate for mayor of Buffalo, and a campaign strategist at Stu Loeser and Co.“I don’t think it’s just Ukrainian constituents; I think it’s Polish constituents, Finnish constituents,” Ms. Hughes said. “It’s a lot of countries that are sensitive to Russian aggression and anyone concerned about the future of Europe in particular.”Certainly, whatever the balancing act for some Democrats, tensions are clearly evident for Republicans. Even as many express solidarity with Ukraine, former President Donald J. Trump has lavished praise on Russian President Vladimir V. Putin — just a few years after Mr. Trump’s first impeachment centered on issues including pressuring Ukraine for political favors. The only people to vote against a recent House resolution in support of Ukraine were three Republican members of Congress. And some right-wing media figures, like Fox News host Tucker Carlson, have until very recently sounded protective of Mr. Putin.Still, in New York, the rifts around the Russian invasion have taken on more urgency on the Democratic side, including in the battle for New York’s 11th Congressional District, which was recently redrawn to take in both Staten Island to Park Slope, and where the two most prominent Democratic contenders are military veterans.Brittany Ramos DeBarros, a member of D.S.A., has endorsed working “with international partners to supply and support civil-military defense tactics,” and said “no” when asked directly in an interview if the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. But in 2019, she was listed as a speaker at an anti-NATO event, and acknowledged that she “attended a meeting about that” in her days as an antiwar activist. Her campaign said that she does not support withdrawing from NATO “at this time.”“‘Not at this time’ means that right now is the time to save lives, and to de-escalate the situation,” she said in an interview. “If people would like to have a broader conversation about understanding how we got here and diagnosing what we need to do in order to, you know, shape a different future, then that can come once we have removed ourselves from the brink.”Her campaign has noted that her main Democratic primary opponent, former Representative Max Rose, initially voiced skepticism of the first impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump, citing concerns at the time about a partisan process.Mr. Rose, seen by party strategists as the likely front-runner, did vote to impeach Mr. Trump and said he took the subject “very seriously. But I did not blink in the face of holding Donald Trump accountable for his egregious actions.”He also condemned the D.S.A.’s position regarding NATO and called for building “an even stronger NATO alliance.” Russia-Ukraine War: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 3Russian oil imports. More

Jury begins deliberations in trial of Texas man who stormed CapitolGuy Wesley Reffitt’s trial could set the stage for the trial of over 750 people charged with federal crimes related to the January 6 riot An armed Texas militia member led a “vigilante mob” that overwhelmed police officers and became the first group of rioters to breach the US Capitol last year, a federal prosecutor said on Monday at the close of the first criminal trial over the riot.A 12-member jury was scheduled to begin deliberating on Tuesday for Guy Wesley Reffitt’s trial on charges that he stormed the Capitol with a holstered handgun strapped to his waist and interfered with police officers guarding the Senate doors.Trump’s private schedule reveals no plans for him to join 6 January marchRead moreHe also is charged with threatening his teenage children if they reported him to law enforcement after the attack on 6 January 2021.Assistant US attorney Risa Berkower told jurors that Reffitt drove to Washington intending to stop Congress certifying Joe Biden’s electoral victory, to “overthrow Congress” and to drag lawmakers out of the building.Reffitt proudly “lit the fire” that allowed others in the mob to overwhelm Capitol police officers, the prosecutor said during the trial’s closing arguments.“They were in an impossible situation – outnumbered and, they feared, outgunned,” Berkower said of police.Reffitt, 49, from Wylie, Texas, didn’t testify at his trial, which started last Wednesday. Defense attorney William Welch didn’t call any defense witnesses after prosecutors rested their case.Welch urged jurors to acquit Reffitt of all charges but one. He said they should convict him of a misdemeanor charge that he entered and remained in a restricted area.“That is what proof beyond a reasonable doubt looks like, but it ends there,” Welch said.Reffitt faces five felony counts: obstruction of an official proceeding, being unlawfully present on Capitol grounds while armed with a firearm, transporting firearms during a civil disorder, interfering with law enforcement officers during a civil disorder and obstructing justice. The obstructing justice charge relates to his alleged threats against his children.Welch denied that Reffitt had a gun at the Capitol and said there is no evidence that he engaged in any violence or destructive behavior on January 6.“Guy does brag a lot,” Welch said. “He embellishes and he exaggerates.”“Yes, Guy Reffitt brags,” assistant US attorney Jeffrey Nestler countered. “And you know what he brags about? The truth.”Reffitt was arrested less than a week after the riot at the Capitol. He has been jailed in Washington for months.Reffitt is a member of the “Texas Three Percenters” and bragged about his involvement in the riot to other members of the group, according to prosecutors. The Three Percenters militia movement refers to the myth that only 3% of American colonists fought against the British in the revolutionary war.On Friday, jurors heard testimony from a self-described Texas Three Percenters member who drove from Texas to Washington with Reffitt. Rocky Hardie said he and Reffitt both had holstered handguns strapped to their bodies when they attended Donald Trump’s Stop the Steal rally just before the riot.On Thursday, Reffitt’s 19-year-old son, Jackson, testified that his father told him and his sister, then 16, they would be traitors if they reported him to authorities and said “traitors get shot”.On 6 January 2021, Reffitt had the holstered gun under his jacket, was carrying zip-tie handcuffs and was wearing body armor when he and other rioters advanced on police officers on the west side of the Capitol, according to prosecutors.“Every step he took up the railing, the crowd came with him,” Berkhower said. “The crowd was energized and cheered him on.”Reffitt is not accused of entering the building. He retreated after an officer pepper-sprayed him in the face, prosecutors said.National Archives turns over Trump White House logs to January 6 panelRead moreBerkower played surveillance video of the rioters who poured into the building while the then vice-president, Mike Pence, was presiding over the Senate. She said it was a dark day in American history, but not for Reffitt.“He was ecstatic about what he did, about what the mob did,” she added. “What the defendant did was not just bragging or hype.”Welch accused prosecutors of rushing to judgment.“Be the grown-ups in the courtroom. Separate the facts from the hype,” he told jurors.More than 750 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the riot. A verdict in Reffitt’s case could have an enormous impact on many others. A conviction could give prosecutors more leverage over defendants facing the most serious charges. An acquittal could embolden other defendants to seek more favorable plea deals or gamble on trials of their own.More than 220 defendants have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors and over 110 of them have been sentenced. Approximately 90 others have trial dates.TopicsUS Capitol attackLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

Frustrated over housing prices, a lack of job opportunities and a widening income gap, the once-reliable voting bloc is undecided and will most likely elect the next president.SEOUL — When he was a college freshman in 2019, Jeong Hyun-min sometimes had less than $10 to cover meals for three days. That same year, a scandal erupted in South Korea that still roils him today.While Mr. Jeong was cleaning tables and serving drinks at beer halls just to make ends meet, the country’s justice minister and his wife were accused of pulling strings to help their daughter glide into medical school, even fabricating an award certificate.“I realized what people had been saying all along: Your chances in this country are determined by what kind of parents you have,” said Mr. Jeong, a political science major at Daejeon University. “Fairness is the key if politicians want our trust back.”On Wednesday, South Koreans will elect a new president and all eyes are on young people, whose disillusionment with the government has made this one of the most tightly fought races in recent memory. ​Frustrated over sky-high housing prices, a lack of job opportunities and a widening income gap, young people who were once considered reliably progressive voters are now seen as undecided and will most likely tip the balance in the election.Jeong Hyun-min, a political science major, works part time distributing textbooks in a high school in South Korea.  “Fairness is the key if politicians want our trust back,” he said.Woohae Cho for The New York TimesUnlike previous generations, these voters are not easily swayed by old political dynamics, such as regional allegiance, loyalty to political bosses, fear of North Korea or a desire to ease tension on the Korean Peninsula. Instead, they talk of economic despair​ and general frustration as their primary concerns, themes captured in popular movies and TV dramas like “Parasite” and “Squid Game.”Many have adopted a saying: “isaenggeul,” or “We can’t make it in this life.”“In the past, young South Koreans tended to vote progressive, but now they have become swing voters,” said Prof. Kim Hyung-joon, an election expert at Myongji University in Seoul. “To them, nothing matters as much as fairness and equal opportunity and which candidate ​will ​provide it.”Young people near Konkuk University in Seoul. Unlike previous generations, these voters are not easily swayed by old political dynamics.Woohae Cho for The New York TimesYoon Suk-yeol, the leading candidate from the opposition People Power Party, has won over voters in their 60s and older by pitching their preferred conservative agenda. He has championed a stronger alliance with the United States and even threatened “pre-emptive strikes” against North Korea.Mr. Yoon’s rival, Lee Jae-myung, the candidate representing President Moon Jae-in’s Democratic Party, remains popular among voters in their 40s and 50s. He has called for a diplomatic balance between the United States, South Korea’s security ally, and China, its biggest trading partner.Few of these issues have roused South Koreans in their 20s and 30s, who make up one-third of the eligible voters, as much as they did older voters. Rather, on top of their minds is an uncertain economic future.“We will be the first generation whose standard of living will be lower than our parents’,” said Kim Dong-min, 24, a student at Konkuk University Law School.Kim Dong-min, 24, studying in the library at Konkuk University Law School. “We will be the first generation whose standard of living will be lower than our parents’,” he said.Woohae Cho for The New York TimesIn the decades following the 1950-53 Korean War, most South Koreans were ​equally ​poor. Those who found success were often referred to as “a dragon rising from a humble ditch.”Middle-class dreams were plausible as the postwar economy roared, churning out jobs. Education functioned as a vehicle of upward mobility. Millions of people migrated to the Seoul metropolitan area, where the best schools and most of the country’s wealth was eventually concentrated.Getting a degree from an elite university and owning an apartment in Seoul became symbols of social mobility. But in recent decades, the economy slowed, and that old formula has broken down. In a survey last year, nearly 65 percent of the respondents in South Korea said they were skeptical that their children’s economic future would be better than their own.In Seoul, the average household must save its entire income for 18.5 years to ​afford to buy a home.Woohae Cho for The New York TimesA majority of ​respondents in their 20s and 30s said they no longer saw education as the great equalizer, as admission into top universities depended largely on whether parents could bankroll expensive private tutors.“How would you feel when you are struggling in a marathon and you see others cruising along in sports cars?” said Oh Byeong-ju, 23, a senior at Dongguk University in Seoul.In South Korea, where nearly three-quarters of household wealth is concentrated in real estate, no index illustrates widening inequality quite ​like housing prices. Young couples whose wealthy parents helped them buy apartments — a tradition in South Korea — saw their property value in Seoul nearly double under Mr. Moon.The average household, on the other hand, must save its entire income for 18.5 years in order to ​afford an apartment in the city, according to estimates by KB Kookmin Bank.“It has become impossible to buy an apartment in Seoul, even if you work and save for your entire life,” said Park Eun-hye, 27, who works at Youth Mungan, a civic group that provides affordable meals for poor youths. “Whatever the candidates say sounds unconvincing. Young people instead invest what little money ​we save in stocks and cryptocurrencies.”Oh Byeong-ju, 23, a senior at Dongguk University in Seoul, says, “How would you feel when you are struggling in a marathon and you see others cruising along in sports cars?” Woohae Cho for The New York TimesSouth Korea’s poverty rate and its income inequality are among the worst in wealthy countries, with youths facing some of the steepest challenges. Nearly one in every five South Koreans between the ages of 15 and 29 was effectively jobless as of January, according to government data. That is far higher than the national average, 13.1 percent.Upon his inauguration, Mr. Moon promised “equal opportunities” for everyone. “The process will be fair,” he said. “And the result will be righteous.”Many young people claim fairness and equal opportunity — or their versions of those values — have been eroded instead. They bristled when Mr. Moon’s government formed a joint ice hockey team with North Korea for the 2018 Winter Olympics, arguing that it was unfair to replace elite South Korean athletes with inferior North Korean players.Posters featuring portraits of presidential candidates in Seoul.Woohae Cho for The New York TimesAnd last year, after a scandal revealed officials had used their position to seek personal gain in the housing market, young voters helped deliver Mr. Moon’s government a crushing defeat in the Seoul mayoral election.Rival political parties have since rushed to appease South Korean youth. Lawmakers lowered the minimum voting age to 18 from 19 and the age limit for running for Parliament to 18 from 25. Mr. Lee and Mr. Yoon, the two leading presidential candidates, have both apologized and have applied different tactics to win votes.Mr. Yoon’s popularity soared among men in the 20s after he promised to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Women and sidelined a campaign adviser who identified as a feminist. Anti-feminist sentiments are widespread among the young men.Park Eun-hye, 27, at Youth Mungan, a civic group that provides affordable meals for young people in Seoul.Woohae Cho for The New York TimesMr. Lee is more popular among women in their 20s, and he has promised to introduce harsher punishment for date rape and other sex crimes. He also campaigned to make companies reveal gender-wage gaps to their employees and to the public.But 20 percent to 30 percent of South Koreans in their 20s and 30s have said they may change their mind about their preferred candidate before they vote this week, according to surveys. “Our support shifts from one political party to another, issue by issue,” Mr. Jeong said. More

State courts had ruled that earlier maps for congressional elections had been warped by partisan gerrymandering. Democrats stand to benefit from the justices’ decision.The Supreme Court on Monday allowed congressional maps that had been approved by state courts in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to stand, giving Democrats an advantage in this year’s election in two key states.In issuing the orders, the Supreme Court rejected requests by Republicans to restore maps approved by G.O.P.-controlled state legislatures. Those district lines were thrown out and replaced by courts in both states after challenges by Democrats.Under the new court-imposed maps in both states, Democrats are likely to gain more seats than they would have under the legislature-approved versions.But in the North Carolina case, there were signs that at least four of the court’s more conservative justices could later rule that state courts are powerless to change congressional maps adopted by state legislatures.Such a ruling would fundamentally alter how congressional elections are conducted and amplify partisan gerrymandering, allowing the party that controls the legislature to draw voting districts favoring its candidates.But that will not happen before this fall’s election.Stanton Jones, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs who had challenged the North Carolina map, said the Supreme Court’s order meant that “North Carolina voters will now be able to vote in free and fair congressional elections this year.”He said that for now, the order signaled an end to “a decade of extreme Republican gerrymanders.”Still, the court’s three most conservative members — Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — said they would have blocked the North Carolina map because it was likely that the State Supreme Court had violated the Constitution in overriding the State Legislature.What to Know About RedistrictingRedistricting, Explained: Here are some answers to your most pressing questions about the process that is reshaping American politics.Understand Gerrymandering: Can you gerrymander your party to power? Try to draw your own districts in this imaginary state.Killing Competition: The number of competitive districts is dropping, as both parties use redistricting to draw themselves into safe seats.New York: Democrats’ aggressive reconfiguration of the state’s congressional map is one of the most consequential in the nation.Legal Battles: The U.S. Supreme Court let stand voting maps that had been approved by state courts in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, giving Democrats a temporary win.“There must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections,” Justice Alito wrote.Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh filed a short concurring opinion agreeing that the question posed by the case was a substantial one. But he said the court should address it in the ordinary course rather than in response to an emergency application.Taken together, the two opinions suggested that there are four justices ready to add a case on the question to the court’s docket when it is next presented in a petition seeking the court’s review rather than on what critics call the court’s shadow docket. It takes four votes to grant such review.But it takes five votes to prevail. The swing vote would almost certainly belong to Justice Amy Coney Barrett.In a second order in the Pennsylvania case, the court provisionally turned down a similar application on technical grounds without noted dissent.The North Carolina Supreme Court had rejected a map drawn by Republican lawmakers that effectively gave their party at least 10 of the state’s 14 House seats, notwithstanding that voters statewide are roughly equally divided between the two parties.A three-judge panel of the state Superior Court in Raleigh instead adopted a new map drawn by a nonpartisan panel of redistricting experts that appeared to split North Carolina’s congressional districts roughly equally between Republicans and Democrats. It gave each party six relatively safe House seats and made the other two competitive.After the State Supreme Court refused to block that ruling, Republican state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in.In the Pennsylvania case, the State Supreme Court adopted a map that appears to give Republicans nine fairly safe seats and Democrats eight, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. Each party currently holds nine House seats, but Pennsylvania will lose a seat next year because of reapportionment after the 2020 census.Voters and a Republican candidate for the House sued state officials in federal court to challenge the new map. When they did not receive immediate relief, they asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.Both emergency applications relied on the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which says “the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” That meant, the challengers argued, that the state legislature has sole responsibility for drawing congressional districts and that state courts have no role to play.“The question presented here,” North Carolina Republicans wrote in their application, “goes to the very core of this nation’s democratic republic: what entity has the constitutional authority to set the rules of the road for federal elections.”How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More