More stories

  • in

    Just Because Trump Is Ridiculous, It Doesn’t Mean He Isn’t Dangerous

    It may well be that “real” authoritarians don’t actually lose elections. But at this point in time, we can safely say that there’s no question that Donald Trump was determined to overturn the 2020 presidential election and end American constitutional government in order to stay in office.According to my colleague Katie Benner, reporting for The Times, Trump repeatedly pressured the Justice Department to “just say the election was corrupt” and “leave the rest to me” so that “he and his allies in Congress could use the assertion to try to overturn the results,” as indicated in notes taken by Richard Donoghue, who was then the acting deputy attorney general.As with the entire effort to overturn the results of the election, Trump’s behavior was as clumsy as it was in earnest. He truly wanted the Justice Department to give him a pretext for some kind of (presumably drastic) action, but the most he could do in pursuit of this goal was to complain to top officials on the phone. “The conversations often included complaints about unfounded voter fraud conspiracy theories,” Benner notes, “and admonishments that department leaders had failed to fight hard enough for Mr. Trump, the officials said.”But a haphazard attempt is still an attempt. That Trump is an absurd figure does not mean we should treat his drives and desires as unthreatening. This was true when he was in office, and it is true now, while he is still trying to “stop the steal.”The plot that began the night of the election when Trump demanded that the states stop counting ballots — “We want all voting to stop” — has not actually come to an end. It is continuing, pushed forward by the former president and his allies in and out of government. And the current narrative behind the plot — that Trump is the rightful president, that Biden stole the election and that the Jan. 6 insurrection was a righteous rebellion against Democratic fraud and subversion — has all but migrated into the Republican Party mainstream.For a clear picture of the former president’s influence on the Republican Party, look no further than the effort to investigate the attack on the Capitol. Republican leaders in the House and Senate opposed and then killed a bipartisan Sept. 11-style commission to study the events of Jan. 6, on the grounds that it would be a “purely political exercise,” as Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, put it.When, in response, House Democrats announced a select committee to investigate the attack (under the direct control of Speaker Nancy Pelosi), House Republican leaders were furious. “This select committee is likely to pursue a partisan agenda to politicize the Jan. 6 attack instead of conducting a good faith investigative effort into the actions leading up to and the security failures of the 6th,” Steve Scalise, the House minority whip, said.Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, was given a chance to appoint Republican representatives to the select committee. He chose members known for their total devotion to Trump, like Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana, who both refused to certify the election results in January and signed a brief to the Supreme Court asking the justices to overturn the presidential results. Pelosi removed Jordan and Banks from the commission, bringing on another round of outrage and partisan blowback.In short, Republican leaders have refused to commit to an actual investigation of the storming of the Capitol. The reason is simple: Trump has made cooperation grounds for expulsion from the party. The virtual pariah status of Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — the two Republican members Pelosi named to the commission — is proof enough.But events in Washington are not the only evidence of how Trump’s obsessions have become the obsessions of much of the Republican Party. Republican voters themselves are all-in on the former president’s message. Fifty-three percent of Republicans view Trump as the true president, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in May, and about half of Republicans believe the Capitol attack was the work of left-wing activists “trying to make Trump look bad,” according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll in March.At the state level, Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are fighting to engineer a pretext for “stop the steal” ahead of the 2022 and 2024 elections. In Arizona, this has taken the form of an “audit” of the 2020 vote organized by the state Republican Party.It would be easy to dismiss the Arizona audit as a joke, a parade of clownish incompetence not unlike the efforts of Trump in the aftermath of the election. According to The Associated Press, the company hired to conduct the audit had no prior experience with elections, broke rules for handling ballots and took nearly twice the allotted time to complete the process.What’s more, its owner has supported the former president’s efforts to spread false conspiracy theories about the election. Trump, for his part, has endorsed the audit, praising its organizers in a speech in Arizona last week. “We’re gathered here in Phoenix to show our support for election integrity and for the brave and unyielding conservative warriors in the Arizona State Senate,” he said.The audit has encouraged other Republicans in other 2020 battleground states to attempt similar shenanigans, part of a national strategy to delegitimize last year’s election results. As Jane Mayer recently described in great detail in The New Yorker, there is a network of conservative groups spending millions to promote “election integrity” and bolster Republican efforts to change state election laws.It is not hard to see the endgame here, especially if Trump makes another bid for the White House after capturing the Republican nomination for a third time. Not an after-the-fact fight to “stop the steal,” but a pre-emptive attempt to make sure the election can’t be “stolen” — that is, won — by his opponent.The American political system is barreling toward another crisis. Of course there’s no guarantee that the crisis will happen. But the current complacency coming from much of the political establishment does not leave one confident that we’ll avoid it.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    Trump Says He Won't Sue to Stop Justice Dept. Officials' Testimony

    Former President Donald J. Trump said this week that he will not move to stop former Justice Department officials from testifying before two committees that are investigating the Trump administration’s efforts to subvert the results of the presidential election, according to letters from his lawyer obtained by The New York Times.Mr. Trump said that he would not sue to keep six former Justice Department officials from testifying, according to letters sent to them on Monday by Douglas A. Collins, who was known as one of Mr. Trump’s staunchest supporters when he served in Congress and who is now one of the former president’s lawyers.Mr. Collins said that Mr. Trump may take some undisclosed legal action if congressional investigators seek “privileged information” from “any other Trump administration officials or advisers,” including “all necessary and appropriate steps, on President Trump’s behalf, to defend the office of the presidency.”The letters were not sent to the congressional committees, but rather to the potential witnesses, who cannot control who Congress contacts for testimony or what information it seeks.By allowing his former Justice Department officials to speak with investigators, Mr. Trump has paved the way for new details to emerge about his efforts to delegitimize the outcome of the election.Even though department officials, including Mr. Rosen and the former Attorney General William P. Barr, told him that President Biden had won the election, Mr. Trump pressed them to take actions that would cast the election results in doubt and to publicly declare it corrupt.Mr. Trump and his allies have continued to falsely assert in public statements that the election was rigged and the results were fraudulent.Jeffrey A. Rosen, a former acting attorney general, Richard P. Donoghue, a former acting deputy attorney general, and others have agreed to sit down for closed-door, transcribed interviews with the House Oversight and Reform and Senate Judiciary committees. The sessions are expected to begin as soon as this week, according to three people familiar with those interviews.Last week, the Justice Department told former officials from the agency that they were allowed to provide “unrestricted testimony” to the committees, so long as it does not reveal grand-jury information, classified information or information about pending criminal cases.The committees asked the Justice Department to allow former officials to testify after they opened investigations this year into the Trump White House’s efforts to undermine Mr. Biden’s victory, a pressure campaign that occurred in the weeks before Mr. Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol as Congress met to certify the electoral results.The Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office generally deny such requests because they believe deliberative conversations between administration officials should be protected from public scrutiny.But they ultimately decided to allow the interviews to proceed, saying in letters to the potential witnesses that the scope of the investigation concerned “extraordinary events” including whether Mr. Trump tried to improperly use the Justice Department to advance his “personal political interests,” and thus constituted “exceptional circumstances.”In his letter, which was first reported by Politico, Mr. Collins also said that Mr. Trump continued to believe that the information sought by the committees “is and should be protected from disclosure by executive privilege.”Mr. Collins said that no president has the power to unilaterally waive that privilege, and that the Biden administration has “not sought or considered” Mr. Trump’s views in deciding not to invoke it.“Such consideration is the minimum that should be required before a president waives the executive privilege protecting the communications of a predecessor,” Mr. Collins wrote.The committees have also received a slew of emails, handwritten notes and other documents from the Justice Department that show how Mr. Trump, Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff, and others pushed the Justice Department to look into voter fraud allegations that were investigated and not supported by evidence, to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the election results and to publicly cast doubt on the outcome.Congress has asked six former officials to testify in addition to Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue. That list includes Patrick Hovakimian, Mr. Rosen’s former chief of staff; Byung J. Pak, the former U.S. attorney in Atlanta; Bobby L. Christine, the former U.S. attorney in Savannah; and Jeffrey B. Clark, the former acting head of the Civil Division. More

  • in

    Voting Rights Groups Press Biden on Response to GOP Laws

    Dozens of voting rights groups and left-leaning get-out-the-vote organizations said on Tuesday that they were sending a letter to the Biden administration demanding more aggressive action to pass federal voting legislation. The letter also criticizes what the groups perceive as a misguided White House strategy that puts too much emphasis on organizing — the grass-roots work of registering, educating and turning out voters — to combat dozens of new voting restrictions passed by Republicans across the country this year.“Some may think we can overcome these unwarranted barriers to the ballot box by just increasing our organizing efforts,” the letter says. “We write to tell you unequivocally that that is simply not true.”The letter is the latest evidence of growing frustration between voting rights groups and the White House. The organizations and their allies have called for more public urgency from Mr. Biden, while administration officials have been preaching patience, noting that Democrats face long odds in the Senate of passing any federal voting legislation without overhauling the filibuster.While the administration remains committed to finding a way to pass a federal voting law, it has simultaneously been pushing voter registration, education and get-out-the-vote programs. It announced a $25 million investment in organizing efforts last month.But these moves have led to tension with voting rights groups, especially after voting rights advocates said that they had been told by some top Biden allies that it was possible to “out-organize voter suppression.”“Given the scale of the attack, I think it’s not for the president to say that he’s looking for bipartisan solutions when clearly there’s one political party that is actively undermining democracy and minimizing insurrection,” said Andrea Mercado, an executive director of Florida Rising, a progressive group. “Measures like ending the filibuster do need to be taken to protect voting rights.”For its part, the Biden administration has been ramping up its pressure on Congress to find a path forward for a federal voting law. The president met last week with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, to try to map out the next steps, and Democratic senators have been drafting a compromise bill they plan to introduce in the coming weeks.The letter on Tuesday was signed by more than 49 state-level organizations, including the New Georgia Project Action Fund, LUCHA Arizona and Detroit Action, as well as some national organizations like Black Voters Matter Fund. The groups said they had knocked on tens of millions of doors during the 2020 campaign in battleground states like Georgia, Arizona and Florida, playing a key part in the grass-roots organizing efforts that helped elect Mr. Biden and allowed Democrats to take back the Senate.But despite their success last year, the organizations said in their letter, “our organizing capacity is not unlimited.”“We are facing a rising tide of voter suppression unlike anything we have seen,” the letter states. “While grass-roots efforts remain critical to ensuring fair and representative elections, so too is federal legislation to protect and preserve the rights of the constituencies we serve.” More

  • in

    Fourth officer who responded to US Capitol attack dies by suicide

    US Capitol attackFourth officer who responded to US Capitol attack dies by suicideKyle DeFreytag, who was deployed to protect Capitol after police cleared building of rioters, died earlier in July Hugo Lowell in WashingtonTue 3 Aug 2021 08.29 EDTLast modified on Tue 3 Aug 2021 10.41 EDTA fourth police officer who defended the US Capitol during the 6 January insurrection by extremist supporters of Donald Trump is now confirmed to have taken his own life.Washington DC’s Metropolitan police department (MPD) confirmed late Monday that another of their officers, Kyle DeFreytag, died by suicide earlier in July, just hours after declaring that MPD officer Gunther Hashida killed himself on 29 July.In January MPD officer Jeffrey Smith, a 12-year veteran of the force, and Capitol police officer Howard Liebengood, a 16-year veteran, both of whom also responded to the 6 January attack, died by suicide.DeFreytag, who was 26, was deployed to protect the Capitol after police cleared the building of rioters, and was involved in enforcing a curfew, the department said.The MPD chief, Robert Contee, had notified personnel of DeFreytag’s death on 10 July in a department-wide message, the department confirmed.He had been an MPD officer for five years, according to his obituary.Hashida had helped secure the Capitol on 6 January as part of the emergency response team within MPD’s special operations division after a mob of thousands of Trump supporters stormed the building.‘This is how I’m going to die’: police tell panel of trauma of Capitol attackRead moreThe announcement of the deaths of DeFreytag and Hashida came a week after several officers testified to a House of Representatives select committee investigating the 6 January insurrection, when extremists stormed the Capitol to try to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s win over Trump in the 2020 presidential election.That attempt failed and Biden’s victory was successfully certified by Congress in the early hours of the following morning.But the attack on the Capitol, which lasted several hours, involved rioters assaulting outnumbered officers to break into the building in a failed effort to hunt down lawmakers, including the then vice president, Mike Pence.Trump was impeached, for an unprecedented second time, on the charge of inciting the insurrection, and acquitted in February by the Senate.Almost 600 people have been criminally charged for their part in the events.
    In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is at 800-273-8255 and online chat is also available. You can also text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis text line counselor. In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123 or email [email protected] or [email protected]. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at www.befrienders.org
    TopicsUS Capitol attackUS policingnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Ohio House Races: What to Watch For

    Two primary contests for special elections, one in a heavily Democratic district and one in a Republican-friendly area, will provide some clues as to where the parties are headed.Ohio voters are set to offer small, early hints about the direction of the Democratic and Republican Parties leading up to the 2022 midterms, as voters in two congressional districts head to the polls on Tuesday to decide primary races for a pair of House special elections.One race, in a deep-blue district in the Cleveland area, is pitting a progressive Democrat against an establishment-backed candidate. The other, in a solidly red district near Columbus, includes a broad field of Republican contenders, including one endorsed by former President Donald J. Trump.Polls close at 7:30 p.m. Eastern; you’ll be able to see the results and our coverage of the winner at nytimes.com. Here’s what we’re watching for.Who will emerge on top on the Democratic side?In the Democratic race near Cleveland, Nina Turner, a former state senator, is facing off against Shontel Brown, the chairwoman of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party. They are vying to replace Marcia Fudge, who held the seat in the 11th Congressional District until her confirmation as President Biden’s secretary of housing and urban development.Ms. Turner, who was a high-profile surrogate for Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns, has been lifted by support from Mr. Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and other progressive leaders.But Ms. Brown has drawn the endorsements of Hillary Clinton, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina and other party leaders.In recent weeks, the race has become increasingly bitter and outside money has flowed in to support both candidates. Essentially, it has become the latest proxy war between the Democratic Party’s activist left flank and its leadership in Washington.Shontel Brown is the chairwoman of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesNina Turner, a former state senator, was a surrogate for Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesWhat could the outcome tell us about Democrats’ mood?First, a caveat: It is always risky to read too much into the result of a single House race, especially a primary for a special election. Voter turnout is typically low, making it difficult to extrapolate broader trends about the electorate.But who wins, and her margin of victory, could tell us a little about what Democratic voters are thinking as the party tries to capitalize on its narrow control of Washington and prepares for a tough 2022 midterms challenge.If Ms. Turner wins, especially if she does so with ease, it would be a sign that the upstart progressive energy that propelled Mr. Sanders’s two presidential campaigns is not fading, as the movement seeks new national leaders to gradually succeed the 79-year-old Mr. Sanders. And it would most likely send to Congress another high-profile advocate for the left’s biggest priorities, like universal health care and far-reaching climate action.If Ms. Brown wins, particularly if she does so by a large margin, it would signal that Democratic voters prefer a candidate more in line with the party’s standard-bearers in Washington, and are wary about electing someone with a history of criticizing those leaders. Or, as Sean McElwee, the executive director of the polling firm Data for Progress, put it, it would suggest that Democratic voters “are interested in voting for the person who’s going to go to work and they’re not going to have to think about ever again.”In the other race, which Republican will win?In the Republican race near Columbus, a crowded field of Republicans is vying to upset Mike Carey, an energy lobbyist who was endorsed by Mr. Trump. He was largely unknown until the former president threw his support behind Mr. Carey in early June and all but ensured that he would be the front-runner.But the race is fluid, with more than 10 candidates running for the Republican nomination. Some of Mr. Carey’s rivals also have more established reputations in the district, the 15th Congressional, as well as the backing of prominent allies of Mr. Trump.These rivals include Bob Peterson, a state senator who also operates a 2,700-acre grain farm and has the support of Ohio Right to Life, the state’s leading anti-abortion group. There is also Ruth Edmonds, who has a following among Christian conservatives and the endorsements of Ken Blackwell, a prominent conservative activist and Trump ally, and Debbie Meadows, an activist and the wife of Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s last White House chief of staff.Mike Carey, an energy lobbyist, was endorsed by former President Donald J. Trump.Barbara J. Perenic/The Columbus Dispatch, via Associated PressWill Trump’s endorsement carry the day?If Mr. Carey does not win, it would be another sign that Mr. Trump’s endorsement doesn’t carry quite the weight that he and his allies insist it does.Mr. Trump and his allied political groups are hoping to avoid another loss after the defeat last week of a House candidate in Texas whom the former president had backed. In that race, State Representative Jake Ellzey beat Susan Wright, the widow of Representative Ron Wright, who held the seat until he died in February after battling lung cancer and being hospitalized for Covid-19.“The question is, ‘What does a Trump endorsement mean?’” said Aaron Baer, the president of the Center for Christian Virtue, a Columbus-based conservative advocacy group. “Typically, people would say it means a lot,” he added, with the caveats that the candidates are largely undistinguishable on the issues and that some of Mr. Carey’s rivals have also won endorsements from Trump allies.“When you have a number of people in the race with solid conservative credentials, and Trump world is spreading out its endorsements, it’s really anyone’s game,” Mr. Baer said. More

  • in

    Conservative Group, Seizing on Crime as an Issue, Seeks Recall of Prosecutors

    A group backed by undisclosed donors is targeting three Democratic prosecutors in Northern Virginia for recall campaigns in a test of what could be a national strategy in 2022.WASHINGTON — A Republican-linked group said on Monday that it was beginning a recall campaign backed by undisclosed donors to brand Democrats and their allies as soft on crime by targeting progressive prosecutors.The initial focus is three prosecutors who were elected in the affluent Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington in 2019 amid a national wave of pledges by Democrats to make law enforcement fairer and more humane.The group, Virginians for Safe Communities, said the targets of the recall effort were Buta Biberaj of Loudoun County, Parisa Dehghani-Tafti of Arlington County and Steve Descano of Fairfax County, all of whom hold the position of commonwealth’s attorney.The campaign faces uncertain prospects, starting with clearing signature-gathering requirements and legal hurdles.But the organizers described it as part of a broader national push to harness voters’ concerns about rising crime rates in cities and a backlash to anti-police sentiment.“All things in politics have their time, and now is the moment that people who are for law enforcement have woken up,” said Sean D. Kennedy, a Republican operative who is the president of Virginians for Safe Communities. He called the recall efforts in Northern Virginia a “test case to launch nationwide.”He said the group had raised more than $250,000, and had received pledges of nearly another $500,000. He would not reveal the identities of donors to the group, which is registered under a section of the tax code that allows nonprofit groups to shield their donors from public disclosure.Mr. Kennedy, who has worked for Republican campaigns and committees, is an official at the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, but he said the new group was independent from that one. Others involved in the new group include the former F.B.I. official Steven L. Pomerantz and Ian D. Prior, who was an appointee at the Justice Department during the Trump administration and before that worked for well-funded Republican political committees.Mr. Kennedy cast Virginians for Safe Communities as something of an antidote to a political committee funded by the billionaire investor George Soros, a leading donor to Democratic causes. His group, Justice and Public Safety PAC, has spent millions of dollars in recent years backing candidates in local district attorney elections who supported decriminalizing marijuana, loosening bail rules and other changes favored by progressives.The spending upended many of the races, which had previously attracted relatively little funding and attention from major national interests.Mr. Soros’s representatives did not respond to a request for comment.His PAC spent hundreds of thousands of dollars each supporting the campaigns of Ms. Dehghani-Tafti, Mr. Descano and Ms. Biberaj in 2019, when they swept into office promising a new approach to criminal justice.Their victories came at a time when politicians from both parties were re-examining tough-on-crime policies that enacted harsh sentences for drug crimes and laid the groundwork for the mass incarceration that disproportionately affected Black communities. In late 2018, President Donald J. Trump signed into law the most consequential reduction of sentencing laws in a generation. The next month, Joseph R. Biden Jr., then preparing to run against Mr. Trump, apologized for portions of the anti-crime legislation he championed as a senator in the 1990s.The skepticism of law enforcement and the criminal justice system was further catalyzed by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020, after which calls to “defund” law enforcement echoed from racial justice marches to the halls of Congress. Many Democrats, including President Biden, have rejected the “defund the police” movement.But, a year and a half after Mr. Floyd’s death, American cities are facing a surge in gun violence and homicides that began during the throes of the pandemic and has continued into this year.Republicans have sought to pin the blame on Democrats and their allies, and have tried to reclaim the law-and-order mantle that politicians of both parties had embraced in the 1980s and 1990s, but later downplayed amid concern about police misconduct and disparities in the criminal justice system.Conservatives “have basically sat on the sidelines of this issue,” Mr. Kennedy said. “It has been dominated by one side, and our side had basically unilaterally disarmed.”He accused the three Northern Virginia prosecutors of enacting “dangerous policies” that are “undermining the public’s faith in our justice system.” He cited an increase in the homicide rate between the end of last month and the same time last year in Fairfax County.Ms. Dehghani-Tafti, the head prosecutor for Arlington County and the City of Falls Church, said in an email that she was “doing exactly what I promised my community I would do — what I was elected to do — and doing it well: making the system more fair, more responsive and more rehabilitative, while keeping us safe.”Some of the more progressive planks in her campaign platform and those of Ms. Biberaj and Mr. Descano — ending prosecutions for marijuana possession and not seeking the death penalty — were at least partially codified statewide this year. Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia signed legislation abolishing the death penalty and legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana.Ms. Dehghani-Tafti accused Mr. Kennedy’s group of using undisclosed “dark money” and “relying on misinformation” to “overturn a valid election through a nondemocratic recall.”Recalls are rare in Virginia, requiring the collection of signatures from a group of voters equal to 10 percent of the number who voted in the last election for the office in question, followed by a court trial in which it must be proved that the official acted in a way that constitutes incompetence, negligence or abuse of office. In the case of the prosecutors, the signature requirement would range from about 5,500 in Arlington to 29,000 in Fairfax.Mr. Kennedy said his group intended to pay people to gather signatures starting as soon as this week, with the goal of reaching the thresholds by Labor Day.Recent efforts to defeat or recall progressive prosecutors have so far not been successful in other jurisdictions, including Philadelphia and Los Angeles, and a pending grass-roots effort to recall the three Virginia prosecutors has not gained much apparent traction. More

  • in

    Amazon Union Vote at Alabama Warehouse Should Be Redone, Official Says

    A hearing officer for the National Labor Relations Board found that Amazon illegally discouraged organizing at an Alabama warehouse. The company can appeal to block a new election.A hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board has recommended that the board throw out a union election at an Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Ala., where results announced in early April showed workers rejecting a union by a more than two-to-one ratio.The union announced the recommendation on Monday, and Amazon quickly said it would take steps to ensure that the original election result prevailed.The hearing officer’s recommendation, which includes holding a new election, will be reviewed by the acting regional director of the agency, who will issue a ruling on the case in the coming weeks. If the regional director rules against Amazon, the company can appeal to the labor board in Washington.The union campaign at the warehouse, which had more than 5,000 eligible workers, was the highest-profile domestic organizing effort so far at Amazon, which has a history of aggressively deterring worker activism.The challenge by the union, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, accused Amazon of engaging in unfair labor practices to keep workers from unionizing.“Throughout the N.L.R.B. hearing, we heard compelling evidence how Amazon tried to illegally interfere with and intimidate workers as they sought to exercise their right to form a union,” said Stuart Appelbaum, the union’s president, in a statement. “We support the hearing officer’s recommendation that the N.L.R.B. set aside the election results and direct a new election.”The union first filed paperwork for the election in November, and the voting took place by mail between early February and late March.The union complained frequently during the campaign that the company was intimidating and threatening workers.Amazon disputed the accusations and continues to do so. “Our employees had a chance to be heard during a noisy time when all types of voices were weighing into the national debate, and at the end of the day, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of a direct connection with their managers,” an Amazon spokeswoman said in a statement on Monday. “Their voice should be heard above all else, and we plan to appeal to ensure that happens.”Wilma B. Liebman, who was chairwoman of the labor board under President Barack Obama, said regional directors typically followed the recommendations of hearing officers in such cases.About one week after the labor board announced the results in April, the union filed a formal objection to the conduct of the election and asked the board to overturn it. An officer for the board held hearings over three weeks in which both sides called and questioned witnesses.The union objection contended that Amazon consultants and employee relations managers had created an atmosphere of fear by identifying and removing workers from mandatory anti-union meetings if they questioned company officials, and by telling employees they risked losing pay, benefits or even their jobs if a union was established.The union also contended that Amazon consultants and managers had illegally asked workers how they intended to vote, and that Amazon fired a union supporter for distributing union cards. It said the company took several measures — such as increasing pay and giving away merchandise — to defuse pressure for a union. It is illegal to begin to take such steps once a union campaign is underway.The union objection focused heavily on an on-site collection box that Amazon had repeatedly pushed the U.S. Postal Service to install shortly before the voting began. The union said the box was not authorized by the labor relations board. Amazon has said that it pushed for the box to make it easier for employees to vote and that it did not have access to ballots that workers placed inside.The union argued that the presence of the collection box gave workers the impression that Amazon was monitoring who voted, and possibly even how they voted. It is not clear whether the union would improve its showing if the election were rerun. Labor law allows companies to hold frequent mandatory anti-union meetings, and Mr. Appelbaum, the retail workers’ president, has said that high turnover at the warehouse was a significant obstacle to the union campaign. More

  • in

    Officer who responded to US Capitol attack is third to die by suicide

    US Capitol attackOfficer who responded to US Capitol attack is third to die by suicideGunther Hashida, 44, was found dead at home on 29 July, the Metropolitan police department said Hugo Lowell in WashingtonMon 2 Aug 2021 16.54 EDTLast modified on Mon 2 Aug 2021 17.23 EDTA third police officer who defended the US Capitol during the 6 January insurrection by extremist supporters of Donald Trump has taken his own life, Washington DC’s Metropolitan police department confirmed on Monday.Officer Gunther Hashida, who was assigned to the emergency response team within the special operations department, was found dead at home on 29 July, the department said.‘I went to hell and back’: officer condemns Republican lawmakers who spurned Capitol attack hearingRead moreHashida, 44, joined the force in May 2003 and was among those who responded to the Capitol attack, spokesperson Brianna Burch confirmed to the Guardian.“We are grieving as a department and our thoughts and prayers are with Officer Hashida’s family and friends,” Burch said.Hashida is survived by his wife, Romelia, and three children, his sister and other members of a “wonderful family”, according to an online fundraising campaign established in his memory.The death of Hashida is the third known instance of a suicide by law enforcement officers related to the 6 January insurrection, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a violent attempt to stop the certification of Biden’s election win.The attempt failed and Biden’s victory over Trump from the 2020 election was certified by Congress in the early hours of the following morning.Trump officials can testify to Congress about his role in Capitol attack, DoJ saysRead moreBut the attack on the Capitol, which lasted several hours, involved rioters attacking outnumbered officers to break into the building in a failed effort to hunt down lawmakers, including then-vice president Mike Pence.Trump was impeached, for an unprecedented second time, on the charge of inciting the insurrection, and acquitted in February by the Senate.Officer Jeffrey Smith, a 12-year veteran of the force, and Officer Howard Liebengood, a 16-year Capitol police veteran, also responded to the 6 January attack and later died by suicide.Hashida’s death comes a week after officers testified to a House select committee about their harrowing experiences defending Congress.Almost 600 people have been criminally charged for their part in the events.
    In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is at 800-273-8255 and online chat is also available. You can also text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis text line counselor. In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123 or email [email protected] or [email protected]. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at www.befrienders.org
    TopicsUS Capitol attackUS policingnewsReuse this content More