More stories

  • in

    Daniel Ortega, el hijo de Somoza

    En solo unos días, han sido detenidos líderes de la oposición en Nicaragua. ¿Acaso la diplomacia puede hacer algo eficaz para detener a un líder que ha decidido convertirse en dictador?El 17 de julio de 1979, el dictador Anastasio Somoza Debayle abandonó definitivamente Nicaragua. Esa fecha —conocida como el Día de la Alegría— parecía cerrar definitivamente una etapa terrible y sangrienta en la historia del país centroamericano. Tras años de lucha, en múltiples frentes, el pueblo había conquistado la libertad y podía comenzar a construir una vida en democracia. Daniel Ortega Saavedra, el comandante del ejército rebelde de 33 años, era uno de los líderes fundamentales de esa revolución. Cuatro décadas después, sin embargo, se convirtió en lo que ayudó a derrotar: es el nuevo Somoza que ahora oprime salvajemente a Nicaragua.Una de las de características del reciente autoritarismo latinoamericano es el descaro, la falta de pudor. Se comporta de manera obscena, con absoluta tranquilidad. Esta semana, en Nicaragua, han sido detenidos cinco líderes de la oposición, cuatro de ellos posibles adversarios a Ortega en las elecciones presidenciales de noviembre. No se trata solo de una estrategia de fuerza, de control interno, también hay un mensaje desafiante hacia el exterior: Ortega actúa con arrogante impunidad, como si la reacción de la comunidad internacional no le preocupara demasiado. Habiendo pasado el tiempo de las invasiones, ¿acaso la diplomacia puede hacer algo eficaz por detenerlo?Conocí a Daniel Ortega en una visita que hizo a Venezuela, buscando fondos para apoyar la lucha contra Somoza. Yo tenía 18 años y formaba parte de una brigada de solidaridad con Nicaragua en la ciudad de Barquisimeto. Ahí, un grupo de jóvenes nos reunimos una noche con el comandante guerrillero. Era un hombre sencillo, sin pretensiones personales, se expresaba siempre de manera directa. Nos habló de la guerra en Nicaragua pero, también, de la necesaria batalla en el exterior, de la imprescindible ayuda de los otros países de la región para lograr la caída de la dictadura de Somoza. Hoy todo es tan distinto y tan igual que la historia parece un relato absurdo.Tras la victoria de la revolución en 1979, Daniel Ortega y el Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional gobernaron el país hasta 1990, cuando perdieron las elecciones frente a Violeta Chamorro.Década y media pasó Daniel Ortega en la oposición hasta que logró ganar las elecciones con un mínimo margen y regresar al poder en 2007. A partir de ese momento, con la ayuda de los petrodólares venezolanos (entre 2008 y 2016, recibió alrededor de 500 millones de dólares anuales de manos del chavismo), comenzó a construir y a desarrollar un proyecto autoritario, destinado a ocupar los espacios de poder y a eliminar la institucionalidad, a someter a la sociedad civil y a garantizar su permanencia indefinida al frente del gobierno.Es un proceso que, con sus diferencias y atendiendo a sus circunstancias particulares, sigue un libreto similar al aplicado por el chavismo en Venezuela. Tiene grandes visos de nepotismo, ha secuestrado y socavado la autonomía de los poderes, limita a la prensa independiente, controla el aparato de justicia, los órganos electorales, el ejército. Es un modelo que permite que Ortega pueda reelegirse de manera ilimitada mientras sus adversarios —de forma ilegal— son inhabilitados, suspendidos o encarcelados.La crisis que comenzó en 2018, que tienen en las protestas estudiantiles un protagonista esencial, han mostrado cuán dispuesto está Ortega a emular a Anastasio Somoza. La represión, las detenciones ilegales, los juicios fraudulentos, las denuncias de tortura, el acoso más feroz a la prensa y la persecución política cada vez más implacable dibujan un cuadro crucial de violación permanente a los derechos humanos. Tampoco los diversos intentos de diálogos han logrado prosperar. El país, sin duda, está ante el peor escenario para que se puedan dar unas elecciones libres. Sergio Ramírez, extraordinario escritor y figura emblemática de la lucha contra Somoza y de la Revolución sandinista, retrata así el panorama: “El Estado de derecho dejó de existir en Nicaragua. Lo demás es ficción y remedo”.Frente la avanzada autoritaria, el Departamento del Tesoro de Estados Unidos ha sancionado a tres funcionarios cercanos a Ortega y a su propia hija. Ya antes, tanto Estados Unidos como la Unión Europea, Canadá y el Reino Unido han puesto en vigencia medidas coercitivas contra el gobernante nicaragüense. También esta semana, António Guterres, secretario general de la ONU, instó a Ortega a liberar a los líderes opositores y a recuperar la credibilidad en la democracia en su país. Todas estas posturas y declaraciones, sin embargo, son cada vez más inocuas frente al desparpajo con el que actúa el poder en Nicaragua. Parecen una representación lejana en el aire, mientras los ciudadanos están cada vez más indefensos y acorralados. “Somos rehenes de la dictadura”, define acertadamente el periodista nicaragüense Carlos Fernando Chamorro.Parece evidente, al menos en la región, que urge reinventar la diplomacia. Las experiencias de Cuba, de Venezuela, ahora de Nicaragua, son más que elocuentes. Ni las sanciones económicas ni las presiones más formales, por separado o en conjunto, parecen haber tenido resultados medianamente palpables. Tampoco los organismos multilaterales o los bloques de varios países han conseguido en la mayoría de los casos alguna consecuencia positiva. El autoritarismo no solo sigue obrando a sus anchas, institucionalizando su violencia, sino que además avanza sin miramientos tratando de legitimar hoy en día las antiguas formas de tiranía militar del siglo XX latinoamericano.Hay que crear un tipo de relaciones internacionales distintas, que no terminen atrapadas entre una imposible invasión militar o la lentitud de la burocracia de las asociaciones o grupos multilaterales. Tiene que haber una manera de inventar nuevos mecanismos, pactos diferentes, que permitan otras alternativas de intervención regional que —al igual que en el siglo XX— apoyen a las ciudadanías y frenen el avance autoritario en la región.Para todo esto, es necesario comenzar a despolarizar los conflictos. No estamos ante un debate entre ideologías sino ante una pugna entre el despotismo y la democracia. En distintos niveles y en coyunturas diferentes, lo que está en riesgo es lo mismo. No importa si el gobernante se llama Nayib Bukele o Daniel Ortega. Si se define como liberal o como socialista. Lo que importa es el poder de los ciudadanos, la independencia de las instituciones, la libertad y la alternancia política. El caso de Nicaragua, en ese sentido, es proverbial: un mismo actor ha elegido jugar papeles opuestos. Quien enarboló las banderas contra la dictadura y se proclamó un orgulloso “hijo de Sandino” es hoy, por el contrario, el más perfecto y genuino hijo de Somoza.Alberto Barrera Tyszka (@Barreratyszka) es escritor venezolano. Su libro más reciente es la novela Mujeres que matan. More

  • in

    How Joe Manchin Can Fix the Filibuster

    It’s easy to sympathize with the liberal desire to bury the Senate filibuster forever. The 60-vote threshold for Senate legislation is a choke point in a political system defined by gridlock, sclerosis and futility. It provides an excuse for policy abdication, encouraging the legislative branch to cede authority to the presidency and the courts, and the Republican Party to decline to have a policy agenda at all. Its history is checkered, its pervasive use is a novelty of polarization, and its eventual disappearance seems inevitable — so why not adapt now? More

  • in

    Has New York Hit a Progressive Plateau? The Mayor’s Race Is a Key Test.

    Concerns about crime are dominating the Democratic primary, and the party’s left wing has just started to coalesce.A year ago, the left wing of New York’s Democratic Party was ascendant. Deeply progressive candidates triumphed in state legislative primaries and won a congressional upset, activists fueled a movement to rein in the power of the police, and Mayor Bill de Blasio agreed to cut the Police Department budget.But for most of the Democratic primary season this spring, nearly every available metric has suggested that the political energy has shifted. The question is, by how much.The June 22 primary contests for mayor and other city offices are critical, if imperfect, tests of the mood of Democratic voters on the cusp of a summer that many experts believe will be marked by high rates of gun violence in cities across the United States.The Democratic race for mayor has in some ways reflected national tensions within the party over how far to the left its leaders should tack, after President Biden won the party’s nomination on the strength of moderate Black voters and older Americans, and Republicans secured surprising down-ballot general election victories.Now, a version of that debate is playing out even in overwhelmingly liberal New York City, where the Democratic primary winner will almost certainly become the next mayor. The primary underscores how the battle for the party’s direction extends far beyond concerns over defeating Republicans.Polls have increasingly shown that combating crime is the top priority among New York Democrats, a sentiment that was evident in interviews with voters across the city in recent months, from Harlem to Kew Gardens Hills, Queens. The debate over what role the police should play in maintaining public safety has become the biggest wedge issue in the mayoral campaign.Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president and former police captain who has recently led in the few available public polls, is a relative moderate on questions of policing and charter schools and in his posture toward business and the real estate industry.In other major contests — most notably, the Manhattan district attorney’s race — there are signs that the contenders who are furthest to the left are struggling to capture the same traction that propelled like-minded candidates in recent years.“The political class, I think, thought that the party, that the voters, had moved very, very far to the left,” Kathryn Garcia, a former sanitation commissioner and another leading mayoral candidate, said in an interview last month. “That they were at a moment where they wanted to do radical, radical change. I just never believed that that was true.”The party’s left wing still holds extraordinary sway and the mayor’s race, which will be decided by ranked-choice voting, is far from the only test of its power. Progressive lawmakers are a force in the State Legislature and have already triumphed by passing a far-reaching budget agreement. The New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, which has stayed out of the mayor’s race, is focusing instead on City Council primaries.Some activists say that if the trajectory of the mayor’s race has sometimes been worrisome, it has more to do with controversies surrounding individual candidates than with New Yorkers’ attitudes.“It’s a little taxing with all the drama that has been happening,” said Liat Olenick, a leader of the progressive group Indivisible Nation Brooklyn. “Coalescing is happening. It is really late, so we’ll have to see.”Indeed, even with the primary just over a week away, there is time for progressive leaders to consolidate their support. Maya Wiley is increasingly seen as the left-leaning candidate with the best chance of winning, and many progressives are moving urgently to support her, which could reshape the race in the final stretch.In the last several election cycles, New York Democrats have undeniably moved to the left, galvanized in part by outrage over former President Donald J. Trump. But with Mr. Trump out of office, voters have become more focused on recovering from the pandemic than on politics.And while many Americans consider New York synonymous with coastal liberalism, the city’s voters also elected Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican, mayor twice, and the moderate Michael R. Bloomberg three times before electing Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is much more progressive.It was always going to be harder for progressive activists to replicate their legislative victories in a vast metropolis that includes some of the most left-wing voters in the country, but also many moderates.On issues including homelessness, education and especially policing, the most progressive prescriptions have not always been popular, even in heavily Democratic neighborhoods.“More police need to be out here,” Linda Acosta, 50, said as she walked into the Bronx Night Market off Fordham Road on a recent Saturday. “Not to harass. To do their job.”Ms. Wiley, Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, and Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, have supported cuts to the police budget. They argue that adding more officers to patrol the subway would not meaningfully reduce violence. Ms. Wiley and others have promoted alternatives, including investments in mental health professionals and in schools.Those positions have been central to a broader competition among the candidates seeking to be the left-wing standard-bearer, even as Mr. Stringer and Ms. Morales have struggled with campaign controversies.Last Saturday, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Ms. Wiley for mayor, a potentially race-altering move. The same day, Representative Jamaal Bowman, a left-wing Democrat who beat the longtime incumbent Eliot Engel last summer, said he was supporting Ms. Wiley as well.On Wednesday, Jumaane D. Williams, the city’s public advocate, also endorsed Ms. Wiley.“This moment is being dominated by a loud discussion of whether New York will return to the bad old days,” Mr. Williams said. “For so many of us, those ‘bad old days’ run through Bloomberg and Giuliani” and “the abuses of stop-and-frisk and surveillance.”Eric Adams, a relative centrist among the leading candidates, has led the field in recent polling.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesStill, Mr. Adams has led the mayor’s race in recent surveys, often followed by Andrew Yang and Ms. Garcia, two other relatively centrist candidates. Many strategists said Mr. Adams’s rise was tied to public safety concerns, even as he has begun to attract more scrutiny.All of the leading contenders stress that public safety is not at odds with racial justice, another vital priority for New York Democrats. The candidates who are considered more centrist support reining in officers’ misconduct and making changes to the Police Department, and Mr. Adams worked on those issues as a police officer..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}But they are also openly skeptical of the “defund the police” movement, and have emphasized a need for more police on the subway. Those views have resonated with some voters.“My No. 1 is safety in the subway,” said Jane Arrendell, 52, after an Adams campaign event in Washington Heights. “I hate working at home but I feel safer.”There was much more violent crime in New York in earlier decades than there is today. But the city has been experiencing a spike in gun violence, along with jarring crimes on the subway and in bias attacks against Asians, Asian-Americans and Jews.The candidates’ talk about crime “has almost driven discussion about any other issues to the back burner,” said Lee M. Miringoff, the director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, which is polling the race. “I find that surprising given where New York is coming off of Covid.”“For the other candidates,” he added, “that really cedes that discussion to Adams.”An NY1-Ipsos poll released on Monday found that 46 percent of likely Democratic voters viewed crime and public safety as the top priority for the next mayor. A staggering 72 percent said they somewhat or strongly agreed that the Police Department should put more officers on the street.A quarter of likely voters polled for the survey identified themselves as more progressive than the Democratic Party. Nearly an equal share, 22 percent, said they were more centrist or conservative. Just over half called themselves “generally in line with the Democratic Party,” which has shifted significantly to the left as a whole in recent years.Whatever the primary results, party strategists warn against drawing sweeping conclusions from a post-pandemic Democratic municipal contest that is likely to be a low-turnout affair.Still, city elections in recent years have been important barometers of grass-roots energy, including the 2019 race for Queens district attorney, where Tiffany L. Cabán, who ran as a Democratic Socialist, nearly defeated Melinda Katz, a veteran of New York politics.In this year’s race for Manhattan district attorney, at least three contenders have sought to emulate Ms. Cabán. But the three — Tahanie Aboushi, Eliza Orlins and Dan Quart — have struggled to win support. A more moderate candidate, Tali Farhadian Weinstein, has led in fund-raising, including $8.2 million in contributions that she recently made to her own campaign, and the few available polls.Tensions on the left burst into public view when Zephyr Teachout, a candidate for governor in 2014, argued on Twitter that Mr. Quart, Ms. Orlins and Ms. Aboushi had no path to victory.That drew a sharp response from Cynthia Nixon, who challenged Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo from the left in the 2018 primary and supports Ms. Aboushi. (Ms. Teachout supports Alvin Bragg, a former prosecutor who has also won the backing of progressive groups.)“Your point of view is myopic, privileged, and just plain wrong,” Ms. Nixon wrote.In an interview, Ms. Nixon argued that Ms. Aboushi, who was endorsed on Wednesday by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was the candidate of the left movement and that others should recognize that.“It’s really nice that the movement has all these people in it and we welcome them and we need them,” she said. “But there’s only going to be one Manhattan D.A.” More

  • in

    Garland Pledges Renewed Efforts to Protect Voting Rights

    The attorney general’s commitment served notice to Republican-led states imposing new voting restrictions, and included a vow to protect the voting rights of people of color.WASHINGTON — Attorney General Merrick B. Garland laid out an expansive plan on Friday for protecting voting rights, announcing that the Justice Department would double enforcement staff on the issue, scrutinize new state laws that seek to curb voter access and take action if it sees a violation of federal law.In his first public speech on an issue that has provoked intense partisan conflict in statehouses and in Washington, Mr. Garland served notice to Republicans pushing a raft of restrictive voting laws that he was determined to ensure the right to vote for all Americans.Mr. Garland did not outline any investigations or specific actions the department might take against states. Nevertheless, his pledge is an about-face from the department’s near abdication of voting rights enforcement under the Trump administration. Over the past four years, the department did not file any new cases under the Voting Rights Act until May of last year, a rare period of silence for one of the most consequential arms for protecting voting rights in the country.“To meet the challenge of the current moment, we must rededicate the resources of the Department of Justice to a critical part of its original mission: enforcing federal law to protect the franchise for all eligible voters,” Mr. Garland said in an address at the department headquarters.Mr. Garland made a specific commitment to protect the voting rights of people of color, reflecting a return to the traditional role the Justice Department has played in preventing discrimination based on race. Voting rights groups and civil rights activists have argued that many of the new voting laws would have a disproportionate impact on voters of color, and President Biden described the restrictions Georgia passed in March as “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.’’Without identifying specific states, Mr. Garland made an apparent allusion to the hourslong lines many Black voters faced last year in Georgia’s June primary elections, citing studies showing that “in some jurisdictions, nonwhite voters must wait in line substantially longer than white voters to cast their ballots.’’He also made a clear reference to Arizona’s Republican-led — and widely derided — recount of two million votes in Maricopa County, saying the department would scrutinize postelection audits “to ensure they abide by federal statutory requirements to protect election records and avoid the intimidation of voters.”In a statement Friday evening, the department said it had sent a letter to the Arizona Senate, expressing concern over, and explaining federal legal constraints on, the conduct of its continuing postelection audit.The drive to enact new voting laws has become a core mission of the Republican Party, as former President Donald J. Trump and his allies continue to peddle false claims about a rigged election and call for more states he lost to audit their results despite no evidence of fraud. Pledges to restrict access to voting under the banner of “election integrity” have become commonplace in fund-raising emails and campaign ads from G.O.P. candidates.Republican-led legislatures in several states including Georgia, Florida and Iowa have passed laws imposing new voting restrictions, and Texas, New Hampshire, Arizona and Michigan, among other states, are considering changes to their electoral systems. At the same time, hopes have dimmed on the left that Congress will pass two major election bills after Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said he would not support abolishing the filibuster to advance such measures.Mr. Garland has said that protecting the right to vote is one of his top priorities as attorney general, and his top lieutenants include high-profile voting rights advocates such as Vanita Gupta, the department’s No. 3 official, and Kristen Clarke, the head of the Civil Rights Division. The division currently has about a dozen employees on its enforcement staff, which is focused on protecting the right to vote, according to a department official familiar with the staff.Despite his pledge, Mr. Garland is still limited in what he can do unless Democrats in Congress somehow manage to pass new voter protection laws. He can sue states that are found to have violated any of the nation’s four major federal voting rights laws. He can notify state and local governments when he believes that their procedures violate federal law. And federal prosecutors can charge people who are found to have intimidated voters, a federal crime.The Justice Department’s most powerful tool, the Voting Rights Act, was significantly weakened by a 2013 Supreme Court decision that struck down pieces of the act forcing states with legacies of racial discrimination to receive Justice Department approval before they could change their voting laws.Now the department can only sue after a law has been passed and found to violate the act, meaning that a restrictive law could stand through multiple election cycles as litigation winds its way through the courts.Any new steps to protect voting rights are unlikely to move quickly, said Joanna Lydgate, a former deputy attorney general of Massachusetts who co-founded the States United Democracy Center. “People will need to be patient,” she said.Still, progressive groups praised the announcement, which is seen as an important bulwark against the new voting laws introduced in all but two states that have Republican-controlled legislatures. There are nearly 400 in total, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive public policy institute that is part of the New York University School of Law.As of May 14, lawmakers had passed 22 new laws in 14 states to make the process of voting more difficult, according to the group.Democrats have filed lawsuits against some new voting laws, but that litigation could take years to wind its way through the courts and may have little power to stop those laws from affecting upcoming elections. And so far, the federal government has not joined the legal fight.“We need to make sure that the federal government is an active participant in protecting the right to vote,” said Tom Perez, a former Democratic National Committee chairman who led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during President Barack Obama’s first term. “We can’t simply rely on private lawsuits.”Conservatives who have crafted and pushed for the new voting laws scoffed at Mr. Garland’s announcement.“Americans have been clear: they support laws making it easy to vote and hard to cheat in states across the country,” said Jessica Anderson, the executive director of Heritage Action, which helped write and then organized support for many of the new laws. “Despite the false narrative coming out of the White House and now the Department of Justice, Americans support secure, fair elections, even if the left does not.”The Justice Department’s curbed abilities to fight voter fraud were amplified under the Trump administration.“It was a really low point for voting rights enforcement,” said Wendy R. Weisser, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center. “There’s a lot of ground to be made up obviously, and now there’s unprecedented challenges to voting rights.”During the 2020 election, the department publicly appeared to be more concerned with hunting for fraud than protecting voting rights. In September, then-Attorney General William P. Barr made numerous false statements about voting by mail in an interview with CNN, and amplified the importance of a minor ballot error in Luzerne County, Pa., making it appear as if it warranted a major fraud investigation.Mr. Garland expressed skepticism about the use of unorthodox postelection audits, saying they could undermine faith in the nation’s ability to host free and fair elections. He said that some jurisdictions had used disinformation to justify such audits.Assertions of material voter fraud in the 2020 election “have been refuted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of both this administration and the previous one, as well as by every court — federal and state — that has considered them,” Mr. Garland said.The Justice Department will publish guidance explaining the civil and criminal statutes that apply to postelection audits, as well as guidance on early voting and voting by mail, and will work with other agencies to combat disinformation, Mr. Garland said.Republicans have taken aim at specific pillars of voting access, particularly ones utilized during the 2020 election as voters sought safer options amid the coronavirus pandemic.In an effort to restrict voting by mail, they have sought to limit the number of drop boxes in multiple states, limit who can request mail ballots and add new identification requirements for absentee ballots.Republican legislatures are also seeking to greatly empower partisan poll watchers across the country. The role, which is meant to simply be an observational check granted to both political parties and all candidates, has grown increasingly controversial as party leaders, including Mr. Trump, have sometimes used militarist language to describe them.Mr. Garland said that the Justice Department had taken note of a sharp rise “in menacing and violent threats” against state and local election workers. Such threats, he said, undermined the electoral process and violated federal laws.Mr. Perez said the timing of the department’s involvement in voting laws was crucial. “The most important year in voting is always the year that ends in a 1,” he said. “That’s the year of redistricting, that’s the year in which there’s often a lot of change in state legislatures and that’s the year when you always have a dramatic increase in shenanigans.” More

  • in

    Lucy Lang Sought Change at the Manhattan D.A.’s Office. Now She Wants to Lead It.

    Lucy Lang has spent most of her career as a criminal-justice reformer. But is she too close to the system to bring about real change?Lucy Lang is a squeaky wheel, a meddler, a self-described noodge.A granddaughter of the philanthropist Eugene Lang, she is bent on the constant improvement of her surroundings. In the dozen years she spent working at the Manhattan district attorney’s office, she developed a reputation for pushing reforms that created new opportunities for those charged by prosecutors — but she was also stymied by a leadership team that did not always want things to change as fast as she did.Now Ms. Lang, 40, wants to be in charge of that change, running against seven other Democrats to replace her old boss, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., as the Manhattan district attorney. In April, she gave her own campaign half a million dollars, according to campaign finance reports, in hopes of staying competitive with two leading candidates, Tali Farhadian Weinstein and Alvin Bragg. While little quality polling has come out in the race, the few available surveys have shown her trailing only Ms. Weinstein in popularity.But as a longtime employee in the district attorney’s office, she is also the candidate who has worked most closely with Mr. Vance, who has been something of a punching bag for the other contenders. They have criticized what they say is his relative slowness in making the criminal justice system less punitive for lower-income New Yorkers, while being too lenient on the wealthy and powerful.All of this sets up an apparent contradiction for Ms. Lang’s campaign: She cites her experience working in the office led by Mr. Vance, even as she insists that she is the right person to reform that office.Veterans of the office characterized Ms. Lang as someone skilled at bringing about meaningful reform from inside the system. Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a former deputy to Mr. Vance, said that while her old boss was more progressive than his critics say, Ms. Lang deserved praise for her sustained commitment to change, especially in seeking ways to reduce the reliance on jails and prisons.“She and a couple of other junior people took it upon themselves — and this is a highly unusual thing to do — they took it upon themselves to come to me and give me their ideas and thoughts and suggestions about how the office could be better,” Ms. Agnifilo said.But Ms. Lang’s opponents remain skeptical.“It’s not like she was an A.D.A. in this bureau or that bureau,” said Dan Quart, another candidate and a longtime state assemblyman who has been critical of Mr. Vance. “She was in the room when they made policy decisions.”Asked about her time at Mr. Vance’s office, Ms. Lang was diplomatic.“I could see that the world was changing and that the office wasn’t quite keeping pace,” she said. “Although there were respects in which there were great advances being made.”Ms. Lang, seen here greeting a voter in an apartment building, started at the district attorney’s office working under Robert Morgenthau.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesAn unusual curiosityThe oldest child of the actor Stephen Lang — perhaps best known for playing the vicious Col. Miles Quaritch in “Avatar” — and Kristina Watson, a painter, Ms. Lang was born in Manhattan and raised in the West Village and in Westchester.Early on she showed an unusual curiosity about other people. At her family’s annual Memorial Day picnic, she would go from blanket to blanket, asking strangers to share their food, then joining them to chat — an openness that friends say helps explain her later success at climbing the ladder at the Manhattan district attorney’s office.Like her grandfather and her father, she went to Swarthmore, where she studied political and legal philosophy and served as captain of the lacrosse team. (“I’m not a good athlete,” she said, “but I just like being on a team.”) Then, inspired in part by her aunt, the lawyer and philanthropist Jane Lang, she enrolled at Columbia Law School.Two experiences during her student years drove Ms. Lang to become a prosecutor: In 2004 she worked for Judge Jed S. Rakoff as he presided over a death penalty case, and the following winter, a childhood friend of Ms. Lang’s was killed by the friend’s own brother. She said that seeing her friend’s family take on dual roles — relatives of both the victim and the defendant — gave her a sense of how both groups can be harmed by prosecutors.“I just saw it as a real opportunity for public servants to do things differently, to support people better,” she said.After graduating in 2006, she went to work for Robert Morgenthau, the venerable Manhattan district attorney, starting in the appeals division. Along the way she built a friendly relationship with Mr. Morgenthau; she later co-wrote one of his final opinion articles.By 2010, when Mr. Vance took over the office, she was working in the trial division. It was there that she first noticed a small problem: Doctors were reluctant to testify in criminal court, concerned that doing so could make them subject to civil liability. It was the sort of specific, concrete issue she loved to tackle. Working with an emergency room doctor at Weill Cornell Medicine, Ms. Lang created a curriculum to teach doctors about criminal trials.Even as her cases became more intense — she started working murder trials in 2013 — Ms. Lang’s ambitions for improving the office became grander. After she won a wiretap case against 35 people for selling angel dust, heroin and cocaine, she successfully pitched the office’s leadership team on a program promoting alternatives to incarceration for young offenders. (It later became a unit that provides some defendants the chance to participate in community-based programs in lieu of prison.)By that time, Ms. Lang said, she was not nervous presenting to the office’s leaders; she knew them all.In January 2017, Ms. Agnifilo promoted Ms. Lang, giving her a special position leading policy at the office. That fall, Ms. Lang piloted the first version of what would become the Inside Criminal Justice initiative, a series of seminars that brought prosecutors and incarcerated people together to talk about the justice system and how to improve it.Jarrell Daniels, a participant in the initiative who had recently been released from prison, was so intrigued by the program that he asked to return to the facility to continue with it. He remembered sitting around a table in a cramped conference room, watching as the participants grilled Ms. Lang.“She’s either brave or she’s crazy, or she might be both,” he remembered thinking.“She sat there kind of poised as they gave it to her about the district attorney’s office and vented about their personal experiences with the justice system,” he said. “Although that wasn’t what she was there for, she kind of allowed them to share their piece.”‘What are we waiting for?’Ideas about the criminal justice system changed rapidly during Mr. Vance’s time in office.In 2010, he was seen as one of the more liberal district attorneys in the country. When he leaves office, at the end of this year, he will do so as a seeming moderate — not because he has necessarily changed, but because a wave of more recently elected prosecutors have moved aggressively to take on what they consider fundamental injustices in the system. (Mr. Vance’s defenders respond that he has cut prosecutions by nearly 60 percent and established one of the nation’s first conviction integrity programs, among other accomplishments.)More than a dozen of those recently elected prosecutors have endorsed Ms. Lang’s candidacy, including Marilyn Mosby, the state’s attorney in Baltimore. She said that Ms. Lang was one of the more prominent people behind the scenes in the progressive prosecutor movement, particularly through her work at the Institute for Innovation in Prosecution, a role she took on in 2018 and left last year.Ms. Mosby said that Ms. Lang’s ideas tended to scramble the power dynamics of the system, bringing together prosecutors — those with the most power — and incarcerated people, who have the least.“Her having an understanding and appreciation for that was something I found rather compelling,” Ms. Mosby said. “Not a lot of prosecutors have that.”Ms. Lang insists that despite her years working within the legal establishment, she is no incrementalist — she argues that she has made “systemic” change. But opponents to her left, like Mr. Quart and another candidate, Tahanie Aboushi, have raised questions about whether she, or any experienced prosecutor, can be relied upon to uproot a system in which they thrived.“While I appreciate that Lucy is leaning into reform as much as a career prosecutor can, an entire career of inside-the-box thinking is going to get us minor refinements to what we already have,” said Ms. Aboushi’s campaign manager, Jamarah Hayner. “And that’s just not good enough.”Even Ms. Lang’s fans acknowledge that she was sometimes hampered by the inertia of the office bureaucracy. She is particularly closemouthed about her relationship with Mr. Vance — she declines to criticize him, but insists that had he decided to run for re-election, she would have run against him.Ms. Agnifilo said that while she knows Ms. Lang “respects” Mr. Vance, she understood why it was tricky for her, as a candidate, to be too associated with him, given some of the criticism he has faced. She added that when she and Ms. Lang would argue at work, it wasn’t about the direction that the office should head in, but the speed at which it should do it.“I appreciated the fact that some of these things were so important that she was like, ‘What are we waiting for? Let’s just do it,’” Ms. Agnifilo said. More

  • in

    How Democrats Should Approach the Midterm Elections

    Since most of us are sleeping better in the quietude of a sane presidency, it’s tempting to ignore the current craziness of the Republican Party. Between the QAnon wackos, the anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists, the voter suppression hard-liners, the coup enthusiasts and the election deniers, the party is showing a mash-up of madness.But here’s the scariest part of all that: They’re still likely to take the House next year during the midterm elections, and possibly the Senate, as they continue to rewrite rules in several states to make it easier to compromise fair elections.That means the Biden presidency, though riding high on a popular economic agenda and public health competence, may turn out to be a brief, single-term calm between two storms of authoritarianism.Democrats can blame themselves, in part. They’ve given just enough ammunition to Republicans that a party waging war on democracy is on the cusp of undermining much of that democracy next year.The Republican tank of ideas is full of the tired and the preposterous. Cut taxes for the wealthy. Climate change is fake. Make voting harder. And the big unifier: The 2020 presidential election was stolen. Try finding a national majority for any of that. So the Republican Party will run on what the Democrats have given them. Or at least what the far left of the party has given them.“G.O.P. candidates in 2022 will happily accuse Democratic opponents of wanting to defund the police and teach contempt for the country in schools,” wrote James A. Baker III, a venerable party operative, sketching a rosy scenario in The Wall Street Journal. It’s a powerful one-two punch: Dems will make us less safe while preaching identity politics to the kids.Republicans already control a majority of statehouses, and with them, the redistricting process. They need a net gain of only five seats to take the House, and a lone pickup to get control of the Senate.The warning signs were there in 2020, and in a recent local election in which Democrats lost in a Latino-heavy part of Texas. Joe Biden won the popular vote by more than seven million, but Democrats suffered a net loss of 11 House seats.In a post-mortem, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, the New York Democrat overseeing his party’s congressional campaigns, told The Washington Post that the “lies and distortions about defund and socialism carried a punch.”The way to hold off the barbarians on the right should be pretty simple. A unified Democratic message — helping people live better lives with a targeted hand from government — is hugely popular. It’s the essence of both the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act and Biden’s proposed infrastructure bill. And it should be the essence of what voters think about when they think about Democrats.Another message, on cultural issues, is much less popular. In a recent congressional race for an open seat in New Mexico, Democrats won in a landslide by emphasizing economic fairness while directly confronting attacks on law and order. The winner, Melanie Stansbury, ran an ad that featured support from a former sheriff’s deputy.The rise in violent crime is now the top concern of many voters across the country, according to a Yahoo News/YouGov survey, and in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor, according to a recent poll by Spectrum News NY1/Ipsos. Polling also shows that a majority of Americans oppose defunding the police, and Maloney says it’s a “pernicious lie” to label Democrats as the party of defund. But lies, fueled by lefty overreach in some cities as well as social media amplification, tend to have a much longer shelf life than boring talk about infrastructure.On race, the great reckoning that began with George Floyd’s death last year should continue to expose the overlooked lowlights of history and work to get rid of the bias built into the system.But in promoting the teaching of critical race theory — a term so misunderstood that it’s best known now as a Republican weapon — some educators have played into the hands of the Trumpers, even those less talented in the dark art of demagoguery. At the annual Lincoln Reagan Dinner in New Hampshire in early June, former Vice President Mike Pence said that children are being taught “to be ashamed of their skin color,” a popular Republican talking point.If the message is that being born white is something akin to the Roman Catholic concept of original sin, then there’s bound to be a backlash among the moderate voters who came around to Democrats in the Trump era.The longtime liberal strategist Ruy Teixeira warned of this very thing in his newsletter in May and said moderates are afraid to push back. “The administration is doing nothing to head off this impending culture war in the schools because to do so would bring the wrath of the stridently woke sector of the Democratic Party down upon Biden’s head,” he wrote.Trump is diminished but still very dangerous. His party is stocked with brick-headed deniers. Nearly three in 10 Republicans said they think he will be reinstated in the White House this year. This month, Trump called his defeat “the crime of the century” and got applause when he denounced critical race theory.Democrats won’t be able to contain the tornado of awfulness around Trump with the “stridently woke,” in Teixeira’s words. Common-sense politics may not be a rallying cry, but it wins elections.Timothy Egan (@nytegan) is a contributing Opinion writer who covers the environment, the American West and politics. He is a winner of the National Book Award and the author of, most recently, “A Pilgrimage to Eternity.”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

    5 takeaways from the latest Democratic debate for New York mayor.

    At least at first, the third major Democratic debate in the race for mayor of New York City focused on the story that has dominated the race this week: Where does Eric Adams live?After the candidates criticized Mr. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, over where exactly he sleeps, the debate moved on to other topics like public safety and bike lanes.With fewer candidates onstage, it was a calmer affair than past debates.But there were real policy differences, and the candidates continued to try to introduce themselves to voters before early voting starts on Saturday.Thursday’s debate was more substantive and civil than previous ones, but it still had its fireworks.WCBS-TVThe candidates tackled a central question: Does Eric Adams even live in New York City?Andrew Yang, a 2020 presidential candidate, attacked Mr. Adams the hardest for spending time at a residence he co-owns in New Jersey, calling him a hypocrite for having criticized Mr. Yang for visiting his second home in New Paltz, N.Y.“I want to reflect on the oddness and the bizarreness of where we are in this race right now, where Eric is literally trying to convince New Yorkers where he lives and that he lives in this basement,” Mr. Yang said. “He spent months attacking me for not being a New Yorker. Meanwhile, he was attacking me from New Jersey.”Mr. Adams tried to put the matter to rest once and for all.“I live in Brooklyn,” he said with a broad smile. “I am happy to be there.”Mr. Yang, asked if he would have his police detail drive him to his country home as mayor, said he would be a hands-on mayor and would not leave the city for his entire first term.“I’m going to be here grinding it out,” he said, adding: “New Yorkers are going to be sick of me.”They sharpened their attacks, and tensions flared.The debate was fast-paced and substance filled, thanks to the skilled moderation of two CBS journalists, Marcia Kramer and Maurice DuBois.The candidates, surely aware that this was one of their last chances to break out of the pack, spoke forcefully and emotionally — in their own defense, and in their attacks on competitors they wanted to wound in pursuit of the crown.After Mr. Yang suggested he would be able to work well with the famously prickly governor of New York, Andrew M. Cuomo — in part because Mr. Yang and Mr. Cuomo’s brother have appeared together on CNN — Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, called Mr. Yang “naive.”“It is not enough to say, ‘We’re all going to be friends, kumbaya,’” Mr. Stringer said. “We need a mayor with experience.”A few minutes later, Ms. Kramer asked Mr. Stringer about sexual misconduct allegations from two women dating back several decades. Mr. Stringer’s discomfort was evidenced by a twitch in his eye, but he disputed the allegations, incorrectly attacked reporting by The New York Times about one of the incidents, and said he was sorry if he made anyone “uncomfortable.”Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio who is competing with Mr. Stringer for progressive votes, did not let that characterization slide.“It is not just about discomfort,” Ms. Wiley said. “It takes two to view any sexual conduct as welcome.”On at least one thing, they agreed: renaming places named for slaveholdersIn one of the few moments of consensus, the candidates all said they would be open to renaming sites named for slaveholders.“Many people are surprised to learn a number of iconic places in our city are named after individuals who held people as slaves,” Mr. DuBois said. “Should New Yorkers have to live on streets or go to schools or buildings named for slave holders or should those names be changed?”Mr. DuBois referred to people like Peter Stuyvesant, a director-general of New Netherland who owned slaves; a large apartment complex on Manhattan’s East Side is named for him. Rikers Island, which houses New York City’s main jail complex, is named for the Riker family, which includes Richard Riker, who sent Black Americans into slavery..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“We should not honor people that have had an abusive past,” Mr. Adams said.Ms. Wiley, who previously worked as a civil rights lawyer, said that symbols mattered and that these places should be renamed. But she added that it was also important to ensure that all of communities of color “finally get the attention, the investments and the change that they deserve.”Maya Wiley cast herself as the top progressive candidate.Ms. Wiley was able to cast herself as the leading progressive candidate in the debate, helped in part by Mr. Stringer’s scandals and Dianne Morales’s absence on the debate stage.Nowhere did she do that more decisively than on the question of the police and their use of guns.“Attorney General Tish James is proposing legislation to limit cops from firing their weapons, use of force as a last resort,” Ms. Kramer said. “Now, some might ask, why not go all the way and take away the guns all together like they do in 19 other countries where the bulk of the police force is unarmed?”Ms. Wiley did not rule out the idea, as every other candidate did. Instead, she equivocated.First, she said that the mayor’s No. 1 job was safety.Ms. Kramer interjected to ask if she would take the officers’ guns away from them.Ms. Wiley responded by talking about the importance of getting illegal guns off the street. Ms. Kramer tried one last time: “But will you take the guns away from the N.Y.P.D.?”“I am not prepared to make that decision in a debate,” Ms. Wiley said.After the debate, Ms. Wiley’s campaign spokeswoman, Julia Savel, called the question “ridiculous” because “no one is even discussing taking guns away from cops.” “Clearly Maya wouldn’t,” she added, though it was not so clear during the debate. Andrew Yang stood alone on congestion pricing.Just a few years ago, New York City was poised to become the first major American city to implement congestion pricing, a plan to toll cars entering the center of Manhattan to raise money for the subway.Then the pandemic happened.Four candidates said the city should move forward now with congestion pricing because the city was grappling with terrible traffic congestion.“We are not suffering from a lack of cars in Midtown today, yesterday, the day before,” said Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner who has won support from top advocates for mass transit. “People are coming in and if they all come in by car, we can’t move. We need people to get back on the subway.”Mr. Yang said he was willing to push back the start date for the tolling plan because he was worried about the city’s recovery and empty offices in Midtown.“I’d be flexible on the timing of adopting congestion pricing in line with the city’s return of commuters,” Mr. Yang said. More

  • in

    Hunting Leaks, Trump Officials Seized Records of Democrats

    The Justice Department seized records from Apple for metadata of House Intelligence Committee members, their aides and family members.WASHINGTON — As the Justice Department investigated who was behind leaks of classified information early in the Trump administration, it took a highly unusual step: Prosecutors subpoenaed Apple for data from the accounts of at least two Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, aides and family members. One was a minor.All told, the records of at least a dozen people tied to the committee were seized in 2017 and early 2018, including those of Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, then the panel’s top Democrat and now its chairman, according to committee officials and two other people briefed on the inquiry. Representative Eric Swalwell of California said in an interview Thursday night that he had also been notified that his data had subpoenaed.Prosecutors, under the beleaguered attorney general, Jeff Sessions, were hunting for the sources behind news media reports about contacts between Trump associates and Russia. Ultimately, the data and other evidence did not tie the committee to the leaks, and investigators debated whether they had hit a dead end and some even discussed closing the inquiry.But William P. Barr revived languishing leak investigations after he became attorney general a year later. He moved a trusted prosecutor from New Jersey with little relevant experience to the main Justice Department to work on the Schiff-related case and about a half-dozen others, according to three people with knowledge of his work who did not want to be identified discussing federal investigations.The zeal in the Trump administration’s efforts to hunt leakers led to the extraordinary step of subpoenaing communications metadata from members of Congress — a nearly unheard-of move outside of corruption investigations. While Justice Department leak investigations are routine, current and former congressional officials familiar with the inquiry said they could not recall an instance in which the records of lawmakers had been seized as part of one.Moreover, just as it did in investigating news organizations, the Justice Department secured a gag order on Apple that expired this year, according to a person familiar with the inquiry, so lawmakers did not know they were being investigated until Apple informed them last month.Prosecutors also eventually secured subpoenas for reporters’ records to try to identify their confidential sources, a move that department policy allows only after all other avenues of inquiry are exhausted.The subpoenas remained secret until the Justice Department disclosed them in recent weeks to the news organizations — The Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN — revelations that set off criticism that the government was intruding on press freedoms.The gag orders and records seizures show how aggressively the Trump administration pursued the inquiries while Mr. Trump declared war on the news media and perceived enemies whom he routinely accused of disclosing damaging information about him, including Mr. Schiff and James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director whom prosecutors focused on in the leak inquiry involving Times records.Former President Donald J. Trump repeatedly attacked Representative Adam B. Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times“Notwithstanding whether there was sufficient predication for the leak investigation itself, including family members and minor children strikes me as extremely aggressive,” said David Laufman, a former Justice Department official who worked on leak investigations. “In combination with former President Trump’s unmistakable vendetta against Congressman Schiff, it raises serious questions about whether the manner in which this investigation was conducted was influenced by political considerations rather than purely legal ones.”A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, as did Mr. Barr and a representative for Apple.As the years wore on, some officials argued in meetings that charges were becoming less realistic, former Justice Department officials said: They lacked strong evidence, and a jury might not care about information reported years earlier.The Trump administration also declassified some of the information, making it harder for prosecutors to argue that publishing it had harmed the United States. And the president’s attacks on Mr. Schiff and Mr. Comey would allow defense lawyers to argue that any charges were attempts to wield the power of law enforcement against Mr. Trump’s enemies.But Mr. Barr directed prosecutors to continue investigating, contending that the Justice Department’s National Security Division had allowed the cases to languish, according to three people briefed on the cases. Some cases had nothing to do with leaks about Mr. Trump and involved sensitive national security information, one of the people said. But Mr. Barr’s overall view of leaks led some people in the department to eventually see the inquiries as politically motivated.Mr. Schiff called the subpoenas for data on committee members and staff another example of Mr. Trump using the Justice Department as a “cudgel against his political opponents and members of the media.”“It is increasingly apparent that those demands did not fall on deaf ears,” Mr. Schiff said in a statement. “The politicization of the department and the attacks on the rule of law are among the most dangerous assaults on our democracy carried out by the former president.”He said the department informed him in May that the investigation into his committee was closed. But he called on its independent inspector general to investigate the leak case and others that “suggest the weaponization of law enforcement,” an appeal joined by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.Early Hunt for LeaksSoon after Mr. Trump took office in 2017, press reports based on sensitive or classified intelligence threw the White House into chaos. They detailed conversations between the Russian ambassador to the United States at the time and Mr. Trump’s top aides, the president’s pressuring of the F.B.I. and other matters related to the Russia investigation.The White House was adamant that the sources be found and prosecuted, and the Justice Department began a broad look at national security officials from the Obama administration, according to five people briefed on the inquiry.While most officials were ruled out, investigators opened cases that focused on Mr. Comey and his deputy, Andrew G. McCabe, the people said. Prosecutors also began to scrutinize the House Intelligence Committee, including Mr. Schiff, as a potential source of the leaks. As the House’s chief intelligence oversight body, the committee has regular access to sensitive government secrets.Mr. Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director in 2017.Al Drago/The New York TimesJustice Department National Security Division officials briefed the deputy attorney general’s office nearly every other week on the investigations, three former department officials said.In 2017 and 2018, a grand jury subpoenaed Apple and another internet service provider for the records of the people associated with the Intelligence Committee. They learned about most of the subpoenas last month, when Apple informed them that their records had been shared but did not detail the extent of the request, committee officials said. A second service provider had notified one member of the committee’s staff about such a request last year.It was not clear why family members or children were involved, but the investigators could have sought the accounts because they were linked or on the theory that parents were using their children’s phones or computers to hide contacts with journalists.There do not appear to have been similar grand jury subpoenas for records of members or staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to another official familiar with the matter. A spokesman for Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee did not respond to a question about whether they were issued subpoenas. The Justice Department has declined to tell Democrats on the committee whether any Republicans were investigated.Apple turned over only metadata and account information, not photos, emails or other content, according to the person familiar with the inquiry.After the records provided no proof of leaks, prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington discussed ending that piece of their investigation. But Mr. Barr’s decision to bring in an outside prosecutor helped keep the case alive.A CNN report in August 2019 about another leak investigation said prosecutors did not recommend to their superiors that they charge Mr. Comey over memos that he wrote and shared about his interactions with Mr. Trump, which were not ultimately found to contain classified information.Mr. Barr was wary of how Mr. Trump would react, according to a person familiar with the situation. Indeed, Mr. Trump berated the attorney general, who defended the department, telling the president that there was no case against Mr. Comey to be made, the person said. But an investigation remained open into whether Mr. Comey had leaked other classified information about Russia.Revived CasesIn February 2020, Mr. Barr placed the prosecutor from New Jersey, Osmar Benvenuto, into the National Security Division. His background was in gang and health care fraud prosecutions.Through a Justice Department spokesman, Mr. Benvenuto declined to comment.Mr. Benvenuto’s appointment was in keeping with Mr. Barr’s desire to keep matters of great interest to the White House in the hands of a small circle of trusted aides and officials.William P. Barr brought a trusted prosecutor in from New Jersey to help investigate leak cases.Al Drago for The New York TimesWith Mr. Benvenuto involved in the leak inquiries, the F.B.I. questioned Michael Bahar, a former House Intelligence Committee staff member who had gone into private practice in May 2017. The interview, conducted in late spring of 2020, did not yield evidence that led to charges.Prosecutors also redoubled efforts to find out who had leaked material related to Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser. Details about conversations he had in late 2016 with the Russian ambassador at the time, Sergey I. Kislyak, appeared in news reports in early 2017 and eventually helped prompt both his ouster and federal charges against him. The discussions had also been considered highly classified because the F.B.I. had used a court-authorized secret wiretap of Mr. Kislyak to monitor them.But John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence and close ally of Mr. Trump’s, seemed to damage the leak inquiry in May 2020, when he declassified transcripts of the calls. The authorized disclosure would have made it more difficult for prosecutors to argue that the news stories had hurt national security.Separately, one of the prosecutors whom Mr. Barr had directed to re-examine the F.B.I.’s criminal case against Mr. Flynn interviewed at least one law enforcement official in the leak investigation after the transcripts were declassified, a move that a person familiar with the matter labeled politically fraught.The biweekly updates on the leak investigations between top officials continued. Julie Edelstein, the deputy chief of counterintelligence and export control, and Matt Blue, the head of the department’s counterterrorism section, briefed John C. Demers, the head of the National Security Division, and Seth DuCharme, an official in the deputy attorney general’s office, on their progress. Mr. Benvenuto was involved in briefings with Mr. Barr.Mr. Demers, Ms. Edelstein, Mr. Blue and Mr. Benvenuto are still at the Justice Department. Their continued presence and leadership roles would seem to ensure that Mr. Biden’s appointees, including Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, would have a full understanding of the investigations. More