Elections

The Oregon Democrat, who has served for nearly 35 years, is the third House committee leader to announce his retirement this year, as the party braces for a grueling midterm election.WASHINGTON — Representative Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, announced on Wednesday that he planned to retire after 35 years in the House rather than seek re-election next year, joining the growing ranks of Democrats who have opted to exit Congress as they eye a grim midterm election cycle.Mr. DeFazio’s announcement brought to 19 the number of House Democrats who have said they will either retire or seek another political office ahead of contests that could cost their party control of the House, where they can spare only three votes. He is the third committee leader to signal his departure, compounding a loss of decades of experience and institutional knowledge Democrats will face in the next Congress.“It’s time for me to pass the baton to the next generation so I can focus on my health and well-being,” Mr. DeFazio said in a statement announcing his plans. “This was a tough decision at a challenging time for our republic with the very pillars of our democracy under threat, but I am bolstered by the passion and principles of my colleagues in Congress and the ingenuity and determination of young Americans who are civically engaged and working for change.”Mr. DeFazio is the longest-serving House lawmaker from Oregon, and has helped shape decades of transportation and infrastructure policy, pushing for a stronger response to climate change and boosting environmental protections in his state and across the country. He also helped lead a congressional investigation into the Boeing 737 MAX plane accidents.His proposal this year for a sprawling infrastructure bill was cast aside in favor of a bipartisan product negotiated by a group of Republican and Democratic senators, which both frustrated and infuriated Mr. DeFazio and his allies. But ultimately, Mr. DeFazio and nearly every other House Democrat voted for the $1 trillion legislation, and in his statement hailing its passage, he singled out the measure as a career-capping accomplishment.“For decades, the people of southwest Oregon have had an outstanding champion for jobs, clean energy and conservation,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said in a statement on Wednesday, calling Mr. DeFazio “an absolute force for progress.”“Our Democratic caucus will miss a trusted voice and valued friend,” she added.Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, said that Mr. DeFazio would leave “an astounding legacy in everything that touches transportation and infrastructure.” (Mr. Blumenauer also noted that “he’s earned the right to have a little more rational lifestyle, with the worst commute of anybody in the Oregon delegation.”)Republicans pointed to Mr. DeFazio’s retirement plans as further evidence of their advantage going into the 2022 elections, given that House committee chairmen often prefer to leave Congress rather than return to the minority in a chamber where the party out of power has little influence.Two other top Democrats — Representatives John Yarmuth of Kentucky, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, the chairwoman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee — have announced their plans to retire.“Committee chairs don’t retire unless they know their majority is gone,” said Courtney Parella, a spokeswoman for the House Republican campaign arm. “Nancy Pelosi’s days as speaker are numbered.”A dozen House Republicans have announced that they will not seek re-election. All but a few of them plan to pursue another office.Almost immediately after Mr. DeFazio made his retirement public, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, the lone nonvoting delegate from the District of Columbia who is second to Mr. DeFazio in seniority on the committee, announced plans to seek the top spot on the panel. More

Mr. Baker, a moderate Republican in a deep-blue state, faced a Trump-backed primary challenge and a potentially difficult general election.Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, a moderate Republican who defied former President Donald J. Trump during his two terms, announced on Wednesday that he would not seek re-election next year.“After several months of discussion with our families, we have decided not to seek re-election in 2022,” Mr. Baker and his lieutenant governor, Karyn Polito, wrote in a letter to supporters. Mr. Baker, 65, who is more popular in polling among Democrats and independent voters than he is among fellow Republicans, confronted a Trump-backed primary challenge and a general election in which he could have faced the state’s popular attorney general, Maura Healey, a Democrat.A former health care executive, Mr. Baker is a popular, even-keeled, nonideological New England Republican who has been a proponent of abortion rights, same-sex marriage and some gun control measures. He would have been the favorite had he decided to run. But he was also a relic of the pre-Trump Republican Party that now exists mostly in television green rooms and Washington think tanks.Mr. Baker, along with Govs. Phil Scott of Vermont and Larry Hogan of Maryland, made up a cadre of northeastern Republicans who ran Democratic states during the Trump era. But while Mr. Hogan has toyed with running for national office as an anti-Trump Republican, Mr. Baker avoided commenting on Mr. Trump and rarely appeared on cable television. He made no reference to Mr. Trump in the letter announcing his decision not to run again. His departure from the race will make this a high-profile contest between different branches of the Democratic Party, most likely pitting Ms. Healey, of the establishment’s center left, against the progressives Sonia Chang-Díaz, a state senator, and Ben Downing, a former state senator.Ms. Healey has yet to announce her candidacy but has said she would consider the race. Ms. Chang-Díaz and Mr. Downing have been campaigning for months.Mr. Baker faced a difficult Republican primary challenge from Geoff Diehl, a former state representative who was chairman of the Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign in Massachusetts. Mr. Trump endorsed Mr. Diehl in October while denouncing Mr. Baker as a “Republican in name only.”Mr. Diehl is far less likely than Mr. Baker to retain the Massachusetts governor’s office for Republicans. Mr. Trump is highly unpopular in the state, which backed Joseph R. Biden Jr. by 33 percentage points in 2020.Ellen Barry More

Mr. Dickens and Felicia Moore had advanced to the runoff election by beating former Mayor Kasim Reed.ATLANTA — Andre Dickens, a veteran City Council member, was elected mayor of Atlanta in an upset on Tuesday night after promising voters that he would help guide the city in a more equitable direction.Mr. Dickens, 47, will step into one of the most high-profile political positions in the South after defeating Felicia Moore, 60, the City Council president, in Tuesday’s runoff election.In a first round of voting, Ms. Moore had bested Mr. Dickens by more than 17 percentage points. But on Tuesday, Mr. Dickens had about 62 percent of the vote when The Associated Press declared him the winner at about 10:30 p.m.Mr. Dickens, a church deacon, delivered an upbeat, roof-raising victory speech to supporters, noting his humble upbringing in the working-class neighborhood of Adamsville, his engineering degree from Georgia Tech and the daunting problems he has promised to tackle.“We are facing some generational problems in our city,” he said. “Atlanta is growing in population and in wealth. Businesses are flocking to the city, yet we still have people living on our streets. We have people working at our airport just to meet last month’s rent. People are still fighting to stay in their homes in the city that they love.”But if there was “any city in the world” that could face these issues, he added, “it’s Atlanta.”Voting at the Church at Ponce & Highland in Atlanta on Tuesday.Ben Gray/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, via Associated PressThe mayor’s race unfolded at a time of promise and peril for Atlanta. The city’s population grew 17 percent in the past decade, to about 499,000 people, and a number of major technology companies are expanding their footprint in the city in hopes of increasing diversity, given that nearly half of city residents are Black.But like many U.S. cities, Atlanta has been struggling with spikes in a number of violent crime categories, including murder. In May, the city’s political future was thrown into doubt when Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms announced she would not run for re-election after a first term in which she was forced to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, a high-profile police shooting of a Black man, Rayshard Brooks, and racial justice protests that occasionally became violent.As other killings rocked the city, public safety emerged as the key issue in the mayor’s race, giving an early boost to former Mayor Kasim Reed, who argued that his experience made him uniquely qualified to solve the crime problem. But Mr. Reed, who left office in 2018, also brought significant political baggage, with numerous members of his administration convicted or indicted on federal corruption-related charges.Mr. Reed’s complicated past was a likely factor in the surprise outcome in the initial balloting, when Mr. Dickens nudged out the better-known Mr. Reed to secure a spot in the runoff against the first-place finisher, Ms. Moore.Since then, Mr. Dickens and Ms. Moore endeavored to distinguish themselves in the nonpartisan race, despite the fact they are both liberal Democrats who share many of the same policy goals.Both supported hiring more police officers, encouraging the reform of police culture and increasing Atlanta’s stock of affordable housing.Felicia Moore campaigning in Atlanta in September.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesBoth candidates also opposed a controversial effort to allow Buckhead, an upscale, majority-white neighborhood, to secede from Atlanta, taking with it a substantial chunk of the city’s tax base. This potential divorce, which has been fueled by crime concerns, would require approval by the Republican-dominated State Legislature and a subsequent vote by the neighborhood’s residents. To derail the plan, the next mayor will need to deploy the bully pulpit and engage in nimble and strategic lobbying of Republicans who control the Statehouse.During the campaign, Ms. Moore, a real estate agent, leaned into her reputation as a thorn in the side of previous mayors, including Mr. Reed. Before he left office, she argued that he should be held accountable for the corruption on his watch. She reminded voters that she backed legislation creating a new inspector general for City Hall as well as an independent compliance office, both in reaction to the scandals that dogged the Reed administration.“I am actually like the outsider that’s on the inside, fighting against corruption, fighting against the status quo, sometimes fighting the established order of things,” Ms. Moore told a recent audience at a mayoral forum.Mr. Dickens is the chief development officer at TechBridge, a nonprofit organization that uses technology to help amplify the work of other nonprofits. During the campaign he emphasized his role in increasing the minimum wage for city employees, as well as spearheading the creation of a city transportation department. Mr. Dickens, who was endorsed by Mayor Bottoms and former Mayor Shirley Franklin, argued in recent weeks that Ms. Moore had spent more time criticizing others than racking up her own achievements over the course of her long career.“She does nothing and I do a lot,” Mr. Dickens said in a recent interview.Both Ms. Moore and Mr. Dickens are Black. Tuesday’s election extends a streak of Black mayors in Atlanta since the election of Maynard Jackson in 1973 despite a recent influx of white residents that caused the share of Black residents to decline from a slight majority to 47 percent of the population, according to an analysis of 2020 Census figures. More

El expresidente brasileño Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ha logrado dejar atrás una serie de acusaciones de corrupción y encabeza la lucha por la presidencia del año entrante.RECIFE, Brasil — El antiguo limpiabotas que llegó a la presidencia dejó el cargo hace poco más de una década con la popularidad de una estrella de rock. Era la encarnación de una nación que parecía estar en la cúspide de la grandeza.La caída de ese presidente, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, y de su país, Brasil, fue igual de dramática. Un escándalo de corrupción lo llevó a la cárcel y puso de manifiesto las irregularidades y los errores de cálculo que contribuyeron a frenar una era de prosperidad, abatiendo a la mayor economía de América Latina y poniendo en marcha un periodo de turbulencias políticas.Ahora Lula, como todos lo conocen, ha vuelto.Una serie de victorias judiciales lo han liberado y le han devuelto su derecho a postularse a la presidencia, lo que le ha permitido a da Silva volver a argumentar que él es el único camino a seguir para una nación que lucha contra el aumento del hambre, la pobreza y una división política cada vez más profunda.“Tenemos total certeza de que es posible reconstruir el país”, afirmó recientemente.Personas sin hogar hacían fila para recibir alimentos de los voluntarios de un grupo religioso en Sao Paulo. La cantidad de personas que vivía en pobreza en Brasil se triplicó de 9,7 millones en 2020 a 27 millones en 2021.Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesUn retorno al poder sería un regreso sorprendente para Da Silva, de 76 años, cuya épica carrera política ha sido paralela al destino de Brasil. Empezó como líder sindical y alcanzó la fama con el movimiento que puso fin a la dictadura brasileña de 1964 a 1985. Después de perder tres veces las elecciones presidenciales, ganó en 2002 y condujo a la nación a un periodo de abundancia económica y prestigio internacional, cuando Brasil fue elegido para dar una fiesta al mundo como anfitrión de la Copa Mundial y los Juegos Olímpicos.Los votantes le dan una amplia ventaja en la contienda presidencial del año entrante, señal de que para millones de personas el recuerdo de un Brasil próspero y en ascenso tiene más peso que su recelo ante la corrupción endémica que empañó el legado de Da Silva.El cálido recibimiento que le dieron los presidentes de España y Francia en un viaje reciente a Europa dejó en claro que otros líderes también podrían sentir nostalgia por el Brasil de antaño.Pero lograr una victoria podría depender de su capacidad para reformular el relato de por qué Brasil se derrumbó de forma tan espectacular tras su presidencia.Aunque millones de brasileños salieron de la pobreza y la desigualdad bajo su mandato, muchos de los proyectos que Da Silva puso en marcha, según los críticos, eran insostenibles, suponían un despilfarro y estaban contaminados por la corrupción.“No hicieron lo que era necesario para el país, sino lo que era necesario para mantenerse en el poder”, comentó Marina Silva, exministra de Medio Ambiente del gobierno de Da Silva, que dimitió por desacuerdos con el enfoque de gobierno del presidente. “El fin justificaba los medios”.Marina Silva, exministra de Medio Ambiente del gabinete de Lula Da Silva, renunció en 2009 tras desacuerdos con el enfoque del presidente.Gabriela Portilho para The New York TimesDa Silva no asumió ninguna responsabilidad por la recesión ni por el enorme escándalo de sobornos que golpeó a Brasil durante años después de que dejara el cargo. Y los brasileños volcaron su ira contra la sucesora elegida personalmente por Da Silva, Dilma Rousseff, que fue destituida en 2016 por el traslado indebido de fondos públicos en un intento por maquillar el estado de la economía antes de su reelección.Dos años después, el país eligió a Jair Bolsonaro, un excapitán del ejército de extrema derecha que se presentó como el polo opuesto a Da Silva, alabando la dictadura y prometiendo mano dura contra la corrupción y el crimen.Ahora, Bolsonaro se enfrenta a un torrente de escándalos, su gobierno está envuelto en investigaciones, su popularidad disminuye, y Da Silva se presenta como la salvación de Brasil.Para entender el potencial de Da Silva, por qué se desintegró y si su regreso podría ofrecer la estabilidad y el crecimiento que los brasileños ansían, ayuda visitar una pequeña comunidad portuaria de pescadores artesanales que Da Silva soñaba con convertir en un próspero centro manufacturero.‘La industria naval brasileña ha llegado para quedarse’Trabajadores del puerto restauran un barco en el astillero Atlântico Sul como parte del proyecto Puerto Suape.Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesCuando Da Silva asumió el cargo en 2003, la economía brasileña había logrado frenar la inflación y disfrutaba de un auge de materias primas, lo que le daba al gobierno un grado de flexibilidad fiscal muy inusual. De inmediato puso en marcha ambiciosos planes para recompensar al noreste, su lugar de nacimiento y un bastión electoral que alberga a poco más de una cuarta parte de la población del país, pero casi la mitad de sus pobres.Hijo de trabajadores agrícolas analfabetos, Da Silva, que creció en una pequeña choza sin electricidad ni cañerías, vio la oportunidad de transformar a las familias como la suya invirtiendo a manos llenas en industrias generadoras de empleo.El Banco Nacional de Desarrollo Económico y Social, gestionado por el gobierno, autorizó un préstamo de 1900 millones de dólares para un ferrocarril de 1754 kilómetros que conectaría el corazón agrícola con dos puertos, uno de ellos justo al sur de Recife, la ciudad más grande del noreste y la capital del estado de Pernambuco.El astillero Atlântico Sul, visto desde la isla abandonada de Tatuoca, que fue privatizada y cuyos residentes fueron retirados de sus hogares por las obras en el proyecto portuario de Suape. Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesJunto a la zona portuaria de Recife —en el extremo oriental del continente, con fácil acceso a los mercados europeos y africanos— se iniciaron dos proyectos de gran envergadura. Una nueva refinería señalaba la ambición de Brasil de convertirse en un gran productor de petróleo. Los planes para un astillero, Estaleiro Atlântico Sul, presumían que sería el mayor y más moderno del hemisferio sur.“La industria naval brasileña ha llegado para quedarse”, proclamó Da Silva en 2005, esbozando planes para una red de astilleros. “Brasil se está preparando para los próximos diez años: crecimiento crecimiento crecimiento”.El frenesí de la construcción fue bien recibido por los residentes de la isla de Tatuoca, una pequeña comunidad de pescadores artesanales de la zona. Las obras, dijeron, les permitieron mejorar sus chozas con lujos que antes habían estado fuera de su alcance.José Rodrigo da Silva, un extrabajador del puerto, pesca cerca de su casa en Suape.Mauricio Lima para The New York Times“Era una buena vida, con buenos muebles, televisores y equipos de música”, recordó José Rodrigo da Silva, un pescador nacido en la isla.El gobierno de Lula Da Silva creó un popurrí de aranceles e incentivos financieros para que los astilleros consiguieran contratos por miles de millones de dólares, asegurando así trabajo durante al menos dos décadas.“El plan era usar la industria naval para generar empleos en el nordeste”, dijo Nicole Terpins, presidenta del astillero cerca de Recife.Pero había muchos motivos para el escepticismo, comentó Ecio Costa, economista en la Universidad Federal de Pernambuco.Un trabajador del puerto en el astillero Atlântico Sul.Mauricio Lima para The New York Times“No había mano de obra capacitada, no había suministros”, dijo. “Para construir barcos hace falta toda una cadena de suministro, un sector tecnológico, y nada de eso sucede de la noche a la mañana”.Las 75 familias que vivían en la isla de Tatuoca empezaron a cuestionar los beneficios de la ampliación del puerto en 2009, cuando una draga empezó a arrancar trozos del lecho marino para dar cabida a grandes barcos.“Comenzó la devastación”, comentó el pescador Da Silva. “Desaparecieron los cangrejos, los peces, todo empezó a morir, y ya no teníamos forma de llegar a fin de mes”.En 2010, a los residentes de la isla les dijeron que serían desalojados para dar paso a la expansión de las operaciones de construcción naval. Todos acabaron por abandonar sus hogares en la isla a cambio de modestas pagas y simples casas adosadas en el territorio continental.“Muchos de los que vivían allí no sabían qué era una calle”, afirmó el pescador de 37 años. “Nos prohibieron volver a Tatuoca”.Un camino en la isla Tatuoca, que fue abandonada para dejar el paso libre al proyecto de Puerto Suape y el astillero Atlântico Sul.Mauricio Lima para The New York Times‘Podemos ser un gran país’El desplazamiento forzoso fue visto por casi todos como parte del precio que hay que pagar por el crecimiento de una nación en ascenso.Los empleos en Pernambuco de pronto eran abundantes, y más brasileños podían acceder a ellos. Las inversiones en educación y los nuevos programas de discriminación positiva permitieron que un número sin precedentes de brasileños negros fueran a la universidad.En 2007, el descubrimiento de vastas reservas de petróleo en alta mar llevó a un extasiado Da Silva a proclamar, en un discurso: “Dios es brasileño”.Ese año, el Banco de Desarrollo Brasileño emitió una las mayores líneas de crédito de su historia: 1200 millones de dólares para construir diez buques petroleros. El banco también financió con 252 millones de dólares la construcción del astillero Atlântico Sul, que el banco proyectaba emplearía a alrededor de 5000 personas y crearía 20.000 empleos indirectos.En el escenario internacional Lula Da Silva hacía olas.Ayudó a lanzar una alianza diplomática de las principales economías emergentes que incluía a China, India, Rusia y Sudáfrica. Argumentó ante Naciones Unidas que Brasil merecía más voz y un asiento permanente en el Consejo de Seguridad.Quizá lo que mejor capturó la sensación de posibilidad y euforia del momento fue cuando miles de brasileños estallaron en celebraciones de júbilo en octubre de 2009, después de que Brasil diera la sorpresa en el concurso para organizar los Juegos Olímpicos de 2016. Fue un logro supremo para Da Silva.“Nunca me he sentido más orgulloso de Brasil”, exclamó Da Silva. “Ahora vamos a demostrar al mundo que podemos ser un gran país”.Un grupo de personas se fotografió junto a los aros olímpicos cerca de la Arena de Voleibol Playa en la playa Copacabana durante las Olimpiadas de 2016.Mauricio Lima para The New York Times‘La corrupción se convirtió en un medio para gobernar’Da Silva dejó el cargo a finales de 2010 con un índice de aprobación del 80 por ciento y con Rousseff en posición para continuar su legado.Sin embargo, la mandataria empezó a flaquear cuando los precios de las materias primas cayeron y las facciones del Congreso, conocidas por operar de forma muy transaccional, empezaron a romper filas con el partido gobernante.Rousseff fue reelegida por un estrecho margen en 2014, cuando la economía entró a un periodo de contracción que pronto se convertiría en una profunda recesión. Ese año, las fuerzas del orden federales llevaron a cabo las primeras detenciones del mayor escándalo de corrupción de la historia del país.La presidenta Dilma Rousseff en 2014. Dos años más tarde fue sometida a juicio político, luego de una caída económica y los brasileños se indignaron por las acusaciones de corrupción contra el gobierno de su predecesor.Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesLa investigación sacó a la luz esquemas de sobornos en los que estaban implicados algunos de los políticos más poderosos del país y grandes empresas a las que se les habían concedido miles de millones en contratos gubernamentales. Entre ellas, el gigante petrolero estatal Petrobras —el principal cliente del astillero de Pernambuco— y el coloso de la construcción Odebrecht.Varias personalidades implicadas, entre ellas estrechos colaboradores de Da Silva, llegaron a acuerdos de colaboración con los fiscales a cambio de clemencia. Su cooperación puso de manifiesto el impresionante alcance de los delitos cometidos durante la presidencia de Da Silva, lo que condujo a acuerdos históricos con los fiscales de Brasil y Estados Unidos. Odebrecht aceptó pagar 3500 millones de dólares, el mayor acuerdo en un caso de corrupción extranjero investigado por el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos, y Petrobras aceptó pagar 853 millones de dólares.Deltan Dallagnol, uno de los fiscales brasileños que dirigió la investigación, dijo en un correo electrónico que los gobiernos de Da Silva y Rousseff permitieron “un patrón de corrupción estructural y sistémica”. Añadió que los miles de millones de dólares que las empresas aceptaron devolver a las arcas del gobierno, así como el testimonio de los acusados que se sinceraron, demostraron “que la corrupción se convirtió en un medio para gobernar el país”.Los investigadores no tardaron en centrarse en Da Silva, que finalmente fue acusado en once causas penales relacionadas con supuestos sobornos y lavado de dinero.Lula Da Silva durante un mitin de campaña en São Paulo en 2017, antes de que fuera a prisión acusado de corrupción.Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesLas crisis política y económica coincidentes allanaron el camino para la destitución de Rousseff y se extendieron por todo el país, destruyendo varios sectores, entre ellos la incipiente industria de construcción naval.El astillero Atlântico Sul se vino abajo. Petrobras canceló de manera abrupta los pedidos de barcos. Su línea de crédito fue suspendida. Y los principales ejecutivos de las dos empresas que lo construyeron se encuentran entre los acusados de corrupción. De la noche a la mañana, miles de constructores navales fueron despedidos.Y no fue un caso aislado para nada, dijo Samuel Pessôa, economista de la Fundación Getulio Vargas en São Paulo.“Todas las iniciativas fracasaron”, dijo de los proyectos emblemáticos de la era Da Silva. “La corrupción no fue el factor principal; eran proyectos mal planeados y la desconexión entre los emprendimientos lanzados y las condiciones de la economía y la sociedad de Brasil”.Jair Bolsonaro en su oficina cuando era legislador federal en 2017. Detrás de él se encuentran los retratos de los líderes de Brasil durante la dictadura militar.Lalo de Almeida para The New York Times‘Prenderle fuego’Cuando los brasileños acudieron a las urnas en 2018, Da Silva estaba en la cárcel, condenado por aceptar renovaciones a un departamento frente al mar como soborno de parte de una empresa constructora.Los proyectos emblemáticos que había emprendido, como el ferrocarril en el noreste y los astilleros, se habían vuelto insolventes y habían quedado paralizados.Un índice de desempleo de dos dígitos y un número récord de homicidios en 2017 hicieron que el electorado se enfadara… y aceptara a un contendiente presidencial disruptivo.Bolsonaro, que había sido un legislador marginal durante décadas, canalizó la rabia de los votantes, presentándose como un político incorruptible. Derrotó fácilmente al candidato del Partido de los Trabajadores, consiguiendo un apoyo impresionante en las regiones pobres, incluida la base de Lula Da Silva en el noreste.El alcalde de Recife, João Campos, que pertenece a un partido de centroizquierda, dijo que tres años después, millones de votantes se han arrepentido de ese voto.Los trabajadores separan materiales para el reciclaje en el barrio Brasília Teimosa, una comunidad de bajos ingresos en Recife.Mauricio Lima para The New York Times“Es como si tuvieras una casa llena de ratas y cucarachas, y la solución que encuentras es prenderle fuego”, explicó Campos. “Eso es lo que hizo Brasil”.Desde que asumió el cargo en enero de 2019, Bolsonaro ha mantenido a Brasil en crisis, buscando peleas con aliados políticos y discutiendo con los jueces del Supremo Tribunal que supervisan las investigaciones sobre su gobierno y miembros de su familia.Bajo su mandato, el desempleo aumentó, millones volvieron a caer en la pobreza, la inflación volvió a ser de dos dígitos y la pandemia mató a más de 600.000 personas.Sondeos de opinión pública muestran que si la elección se realizara ahora, Bolsonaro perdería frente a todos sus posibles rivales.Una pancarta muestra a Bolsonaro como un demonio durante una protesta en julio que pedía enjuiciarlo por su manejo de la pandemia.Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesUn enfrentamiento entre ambos líderes realizado por la encuestadora Datafolha mostró que Da Silva —quien rehusó varios pedidos de entrevista— ganaba por un enorme 56 por ciento frente al 31 por ciento de Bolsonaro.Algunos de los casos penales contra Da Silva se han desbaratado en tanto los protagonistas de la cruzada anticorrupción cayeron en desgracia. Uno de los principales fue Sergio Moro, el juez detrás de la condena que mandó al expresidente a prisión.La imparcialidad de Moro fue cuestionada cuando se unió al gabinete de Bolsonaro como ministro de Justicia y después de que se filtraron mensajes intercambiados con fiscales durante la investigación que mostraban que les había brindado asesoría estratégica de manera ilegal.Al mancharse la reputación otrora intachable del exmagistrado, varias cortes, entre ellas la Suprema Corte de Brasil, emitieron una gran cantidad de fallos a favor de Da Silva. Los fallos, en gran parte procedimentales, no lo exculparon. Pero en la práctica básicamente le otorgaron un expediente legal limpio.Da Silva, a la derecha, de visita en un asentamiento del Movimiento de los Trabajadores Rurales Sin Tierra en el estado de Pernambuco en agosto. Mauricio Lima para The New York Times‘Nos dio prioridad’Ante el torrente de escándalos de la era de Bolsonaro, un electorado que antes estaba ansioso por crucificar a Da Silva y a su partido ha adoptado un enfoque más optimista, dijo John French, un profesor de Historia de la Universidad de Duke que escribió una biografía de Da Silva.“Se les acusó de no haber sido capaces de eliminar el dinero y la corrupción de un sistema político en el que eso siempre ha sido la esencia de la política”, expresó, argumentando que los votantes brasileños, en general, se han resignado al chanchullo político. “Si asumes que todo el mundo es corrupto, la pregunta es: ¿quién se preocupa realmente por ti? ¿Quién siente por ti? ¿Quién es capaz de hacer algo por ti, algo concreto?”.Esas preguntas han hecho que personas como José Rodrigo da Silva, el pescador, se mantengan fieles a Da Silva.El astillero en el que el pescador alguna vez se puso un uniforme con orgullo ahora está invadido de maleza. La oficina de contratación está cerrada y al letrero exterior le faltan varias letras. La empresa ha empezado a reparar barcos para pagar a los acreedores, pero no tiene planes de construirlos.Lleva en el paro desde 2017. Su factura de la luz tiene pagos atrasados de meses. Las aguas residuales sin tratar burbujean a menudo fuera de su casa. Pero sus ojos se iluminaron cuando habló del regreso del expresidente que comparte su apellido.“El periodo en el que más trabajé fue cuando él era presidente”, aseguró. “Todo el mundo roba. Pero él nos dio prioridad”.Lis Moriconi More

Donald J. Trump and his backers say revelations about the Steele dossier show the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” That is not what the facts indicate.WASHINGTON — Former President Donald J. Trump and his allies have stepped up an effort to conflate the so-called Steele dossier with the Russia investigation following the indictment of a researcher for the document on charges that he lied to the F.B.I. about some of its sources.Mr. Trump and his supporters have long sought to use the flaws of the dossier to discredit the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — and the nature of numerous links between Russia and the Trump campaign — as a “hoax.”But the available evidence indicates that the dossier was largely tangential to the Russia investigation. Here is a look at the facts.What was the Steele dossier?It was a series of memos about purported Trump-Russia links written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, during the 2016 campaign.It cited unnamed sources who claimed there was a “well-developed conspiracy of coordination” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and that Russia had a blackmail tape of Mr. Trump with prostitutes. In addition to giving his memos to his client, Mr. Steele gave some to the F.B.I. and reporters. Buzzfeed published 35 pages in January 2017.Many things that were not immediately apparent about the dossier have since become clearer. It grew out of a political opposition research effort to dig up information about Mr. Trump funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party. Their law firm, Perkins Coie, contracted with a research firm called Fusion GPS, which subcontracted research about Trump business dealings in Russia to Mr. Steele. Mr. Steele in turn hired Igor Danchenko, the recently indicted researcher, to canvass for information from people he knew, including in Europe and Russia.What was the Russia investigation?It was a counterintelligence and criminal inquiry into the Russian operation to manipulate the 2016 presidential election by hacking and anonymously dumping Democratic emails and by spreading propaganda using fake accounts on American social media platforms. The scrutiny of Russia’s activities included examining the nature of links between Trump campaign associates and Russians to see if there was any coordination.The F.B.I. launched the investigation in July 2016, and a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, eventually took over. His March 2019 report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” He did not charge any Trump associate with a criminal conspiracy.Was the dossier a reliable source of information?No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy.No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false.When the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Danchenko in 2017, he told the bureau that he thought the tenor of the dossier was more conclusive than was justified; for example, Mr. Danchenko portrayed the blackmail tape story as rumors and speculation that he was not able to confirm. He also said a key source had called him without identifying himself, and that he had guessed at the source’s identity. The indictment accuses Mr. Danchenko of lying about that call and of concealing that a Democratic Party-linked public relations executive was his source for a claim about Trump campaign office politics.Did the F.B.I. open the investigation because of the dossier?No. Mr. Trump and his allies have insinuated that the F.B.I. based the Russia investigation on the dossier. But when counterintelligence agents launched the effort on July 30, 2016, they did not yet know about the dossier. An inspector general report established that Mr. Steele’s reports reached that counterintelligence team on Sept. 19, 2016.The basis for the investigation was instead that WikiLeaks had disrupted the Democratic National Convention by releasing Democratic emails believed to have been stolen by Russian hackers, and that an Australian diplomat said a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser had bragged to him about apparent outreach from Russia involving an offer to help the campaign by anonymously releasing information damaging to Mrs. Clinton.Did the F.B.I. take any investigative step based on the dossier?Yes. The F.B.I. took the dossier seriously based on Mr. Steele’s reputation, and used some of it — without independent verification — for a narrow purpose that led to a dead end and became a political debacle. It included several claims from Mr. Steele’s memos in applications to wiretap Carter A. Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser with ties to Russia. In 2019, the Justice Department’s inspector general sharply criticized the F.B.I. for numerous flaws in those wiretap applications.While the dossier-tainted wiretap of Mr. Page has received significant attention, it was a small part of the overall investigation, which issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communications records, made 13 requests to foreign governments under mutual legal assistance treaties, and interviewed about 500 witnesses. Mr. Page was not charged with a crime, and only a handful of the 448 pages in the Mueller report focus on him.Did investigators rely on the dossier for their findings?No. The Mueller report does not present claims from the dossier as evidence, and many of the issues focused on by investigators did not come up in the dossier.The dossier makes no mention, for example, of a July 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Russians and senior campaign officials including Donald Trump Jr., who eagerly accepted the request for a meeting after being told they were bringing dirt on Mrs. Clinton.Nor does the dossier mention that in August 2016, Konstantin V. Kilimnik — described in the 2019 Mueller report as having “ties to Russian intelligence” and in a partly declassified, bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2020 as a “Russian intelligence officer” with possible ties to Russia’s election interference operations — flew to the United States to meet with Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.Investigators established that the two had discussed whether Mr. Trump, if elected, would bless a peace plan effectively allowing Russia to control eastern Ukraine, and that Mr. Manafort had shared internal polling data and campaign strategy information with Mr. Kilimnik, which the Treasury Department later said he passed on to a Russian spy agency. (The government has not declassified evidence for its escalating accusations about Mr. Kilimnik.)The Senate report said Mr. Manafort’s “willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services” represented a “grave counterintelligence threat.”Did Mueller rely on the dossier for any criminal charges?No. The special counsel investigation led to indictments of 34 people and three companies. Many of those indicted — like Mr. Kilimnik — reside abroad and have not faced trial. Mr. Mueller obtained nine guilty pleas or jury convictions, including half a dozen close Trump associates. None of those indictments cited the dossier as evidence.The fact that Mr. Mueller did not obtain sufficient evidence to charge Trump associates with conspiracy is subject to disputed interpretations that overlap with the debate over the dossier’s significance. Trump supporters frame the lack of conspiracy charges as proof there was no collusion. By combining this with the false premise that there would not have been any Russia investigation without the Steele dossier, they portray Mr. Trump as a victim of a hoax.Beyond pointing out that there is a range of cooperation and coordination that falls short of the legal definition of “conspiracy,” Trump skeptics argue that Mr. Mueller never definitively got to the bottom of what happened in part because of Mr. Trump’s efforts to impede the investigation — like dangling a pardon before Mr. Manafort to keep him from cooperating.What was the main impact of the dossier?Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump.Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates. More

The outcome appeared to be a repudiation of the National Party’s 12-year rule, marked by corruption and the dismantling of democratic institutions.TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Fears that another bitterly disputed presidential election might plunge Honduras back into chaos and violence eased on Tuesday night when the governing party conceded defeat to the opposition candidate.With that, it appeared that Honduras may not only enjoy a peaceful transition, but will also have its first female president, the leftist Xiomara Castro.Nasry Asfura, the presidential candidate of the governing National Party, said in a statement that he had personally congratulated Ms. Castro, meeting with her and her family.“Now I want to say it publicly: that I congratulate her for her victory,” said Mr. Asfura, the conservative mayor of Tegucigalpa. “And as president-elect, I hope that God illuminates and guides her so that her administration does the best for the benefit of all of us Hondurans, to achieve development and the desire for democracy.”Ms. Castro had 53 percent of the vote and Mr. Asfura 34 percent, with 52 percent of the ballots counted, according to the National Electoral Council. The council has 30 days from the election to declare a winner.Even before the concession, Castro supporters had been celebrating.Thousands of Hondurans poured into the streets the day after the vote on Sunday to cheer what they believed was Ms. Castro’s insurmountable lead, shooting fireworks and singing “J.O.H., J.O.H., and away you go,” a reference to the deeply unpopular departing President Juan Orlando Hernández.The outcome appeared to be a stunning repudiation of the National Party’s 12-year rule, which was shaped by pervasive corruption, dismantling of democratic institutions and accusations of links with drug cartels.Many voiced hopes that Ms. Castro, 62, would be able to cure the chronic ills that have mired the country in poverty and desperation for decades — widespread graft, violence, organized crime and mass migration.Ms. Castro in some ways represents a break with Honduras’s traditional politics. Her commanding lead, in what has been a largely peaceful election, also appeared to present a democratic reprieve from a wave of authoritarianism sweeping Central America.Yet Ms. Castro is also deeply tied to Honduras’ political establishment. Her husband is Manuel Zelaya, a leftist former president deposed in a 2009 coup.And Ms. Castro’s ability to meet campaign promises is likely to be severely challenged by opposition from the more conservative sectors in Congress and within her own political coalition. More

2021 Atlanta Mayoral Runoff Election Results – The New York Times

Elections|Atlanta Mayoral Runoff Election Resultshttps://nyti.ms/3o7RrW4 More

Simmering tensions between the far-right flank and more traditional conservatives burst into the open on Tuesday, while Republican leaders stayed silent.WASHINGTON — Hostilities between the Republican far right and its typically muted center burst into the open on Tuesday, highlighting deep divisions that could bedevil the party’s leaders if they capture a narrow majority in the House next year.Initially prompted by the anti-Muslim comments of Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado, the Republican-on-Republican war of words on Tuesday was remarkably bitter and an indication of a brewing power struggle between an ascendant faction that styles itself after President Donald J. Trump and a quieter one that is pushing back.First, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called her freshman colleague Nancy Mace of South Carolina “trash” for condemning Ms. Boebert’s remarks in a television interview.Ms. Mace then used a series of emojis — a bat, a pile of excrement and a crazy clown — to describe Ms. Greene, then kept up a steady stream of social media attacks, calling her a liar, a grifter and a nut.Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois, came to Ms. Mace’s defense, calling Ms. Greene “unserious circus barker McSpacelaser” — a reference to a social media post that she once circulated suggesting that wildfires in the West had been started by lasers owned by the Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family.Mr. Kinzinger added that Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader and would-be speaker who has done nothing to discipline rank-and-file members of his conference for bigoted and violent statements, “continues his silent streak that would make a monk blush.”Then Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, an ally of Ms. Greene’s, took to Twitter to amplify an attack by the right-wing provocateur Jack Posobiec denouncing Ms. Mace as a “scam artist” for promoting coronavirus vaccinations on CNN.The carnival-like behavior would amount to little more than a sideshow if it did not have real implications for midterm campaigns and, possibly, a fractured Republican majority in 2023. Party leaders again chose to remain mum as their backbenchers brawled, and Democrats took full advantage of the spectacle.“The atmosphere is what it has been and what has been created by the Republican Party over the last 50 years, where they have continued to move down the path of divisiveness, of acrimony, of threats and accusations, which have demeaned the politics of America,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, told reporters.He again called on Republican leaders to discipline their members, referring to the episode that touched off the hostilities: public comments by Ms. Boebert in which she suggested that Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota and a Muslim who wears a hijab, could be a suicide bomber and called her a member of the “jihad squad.”The House’s three Muslim lawmakers — Ms. Omar and Representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and André Carson of Indiana, all Democrats — suggested that their party was looking at options to sanction Ms. Boebert.“Muslims in this country are proud Americans, hard-working members of our community,” Mr. Carson said. “And we are not anyone’s scapegoat.”These should be heady days for House Republicans. Off-year elections this month showed real disenchantment with Democratic control of the House, Senate and White House. Redistricting in Republican-controlled state legislatures has given the party a running start to win the four or five seats it needs to control the House, and polling suggests that a narrow plurality of Americans would rather have Republicans in control of Congress. Given the party’s structural advantages on redistricting, access to polls and enthusiasm, that suggests a much broader victory would be at hand if the voting were today.Michael Steel, a former spokesman for Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the former Republican speaker, said the party’s leaders should be working behind the scenes to calm dissent and keep members focused on building a platform and an argument for control.“The top priority right now should be for everyone in the canoe to have their rifles pointing outward, not at each other,” Mr. Steel said. “And the focus should be on addition, not subtraction. That means keeping all the frogs in the wheelbarrow, even if some of those frogs are pretty ugly.”Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, used a series of unflattering emojis in social media attacks on Ms. Greene.Anna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesInstead, Republicans are stepping on their own message. On Tuesday, CNN unearthed another video of Ms. Boebert from September, when she said she turned to Ms. Omar and referred to the “jihad squad,” again insinuating that she could be a suicide bomber.Ms. Omar has said that no such confrontation occurred. During a call initiated by Ms. Boebert on Monday — ostensibly to offer contrition — the situation only devolved further, as Ms. Boebert refused to apologize and instead demanded that Ms. Omar publicly ask forgiveness for “anti-American” comments.Democrats were not the only ones who condemned Ms. Boebert’s behavior. Ms. Mace, a highly regarded newcomer and the first woman to graduate from the Citadel military college, appeared on CNN to say, “I have time after time condemned my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for racist tropes and remarks that I find disgusting, and this is no different than any others.”Ms. Greene, who like Ms. Boebert is a favorite of Mr. Trump’s, criticized Ms. Mace on social media and on Stephen K. Bannon’s broadcast, “War Room,” and condemned Republican leaders.“They’re always all over us whenever we say or do anything, but it’s the Nancy Maces that should be called out,” Ms. Greene told Mr. Bannon. She added that she, not Ms. Mace, represented the Republican base, a comment seconded by others on the far right, including Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona.Representative Peter Meijer, Republican of Michigan, defended Ms. Mace.“Nancy is a serious legislator who rolls up her sleeves and looks for solutions where they can be found, such as federal cannabis decriminalization, but also digs in and fights when progressives put politics above policy,” Mr. Meijer said. “I can’t think of a single credible thing those attacking her have even tried to accomplish.”Republican leaders were left pointing fingers at their Democratic counterparts, who they said had also taken no action against members who had crossed lines, whether through anti-Israel comments or exhortations to protesters that they said encouraged violence.If the Republicans claim a narrow majority in the midterms, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California would need virtually all of his conference’s votes to claim the speakership.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesMr. Hoyer did say that Mr. McCarthy reached out to him to say Ms. Boebert wanted to apologize to Ms. Omar, an overture that Mr. Hoyer said would not end well. He was proved correct.Mr. McCarthy finds himself in a delicate position. He does not know how large a majority his party might win in November, especially since much of the redistricting has focused on shoring up incumbent advantages than creating more competitive races. A sweeping Republican win would allow him to write off the votes of his party’s fringe.But if the Republicans claim a narrow majority, Mr. McCarthy would need virtually all of the conference’s votes to claim the speakership, a prize he has sought for nearly a decade. The far right brought down Mr. Boehner in 2015, and Republican divisions over the prospects of Mr. McCarthy’s speakership sunk his last run for the post weeks later.A handful of members, including Ms. Greene, have been cool to the idea of granting him the gavel should his party claim the majority.Emily Cochrane More