Elections

As Donald Trump digested news of a diminished online presence this week—a two-year suspension from Facebook for inciting the Capitol attack, and confirmation that his blog shuttered due to a “staggeringly small audience”—North Carolina’s Republican convention on Saturday night was poised to potentially strengthen an anaemic political operation.In the wake of his loss to Joe Biden, Trump’s political operation shrunk “to a ragtag team of former advisers who are still on his payroll, reminiscent of the bare-bones cast of characters that helped lift a political neophyte to his unlikely victory in 2016,” The New York Times reported. Most of these figures, The Times pointed out, “go days or weeks without interacting with Mr. Trump in person.”Meanwhile, Trump’s brash businessman persona seemed to have waned. While he travels to Manhattan from his New Jersey golf club to work out of Trump Tower “at least once a week,” his commute draws scant attention. In his Trump Tower office, he is “mostly alone, with two assistants and a few body men.” He no longer has the company of longtime cronies and staffers, nor his children, per this Times report. It’s unclear what Trump will say at this conference, which The Times described as being “billed as the resumption of rallies and speeches.” But Trump’s presence could show just how much sway he holds over the Republican party. It could also test the extent to which his day-to-day supporters remain loyal to him. Facebook announced on Friday that the company would suspend Trump for two years. This announcement follows the recommendation of Facebook’s oversight board. Trump was suspended from the social media site in January, for inciting supporters to attack the US Capitol building, in service of his lie that Joe Biden won because of electoral fraud. “Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr Trump’s suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols. We are suspending his accounts for two years, effective from the date of the initial suspension on January 7 this year,” Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice-president of global affairs, remarked in a statement on Friday.Suspension from Facebook would likely pose a devastating sucker-punch to most politicians’ aspirations—it’s a platform where beneficial disinformation can proliferate, not to mention an opportunity for direct access to voters. But Trump’s response to this ban might have teased his political future—namely, dropping a strong hint that he’d run for president again in 2024. “Next time I’m in the White House there will be no more dinners, at his request, with Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. It will be all business!” remarked Trump’s statement responding to this suspension. These comments came amid reports this week that Trump believes he will be reinstated to the White House by August. Trump did not say in his Facebook statement Friday whether he thought he’d resume his role due to reinstatement, or due to a successful presidential run in 2024. Regardless of these will he-or-won’t he vagaries, recent metrics showed that Trump’s hold on the Republican Party was strong. “Even in defeat, Mr. Trump remains the front-runner for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2024 in every public poll so far,” The Times noted.The extent to which Trump might attempt a comeback was further underscored by revelations about how much he tried to influence results in Arizona’s election. Emails were released this week in which the Republican president of the Arizona state senate said Trump called her after his election defeat last year, to thank her “for pushing to prove any fraud”.The emails add to understanding of the evolution of Trump’s “big lie”, that his defeat by Biden was the result of mass electoral fraud, and how it fuelled the deadly Capitol assault. The Arizona emails were obtained by American Oversight, a legal watchdog, via a Freedom of Information request. They showed how Trump and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, pushed officials to act and how a controversial election audit in Arizona’s most populous county came to be set up.Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia are prominent among states which produced Biden victories Trump and his supporters insist won by fraud. They were not.The release of the Arizona emails showed how Trump pursued his claim of fraud after the election was called.Election day was 3 November. Biden was declared the winner four days later. The Democrat won by more than 7m votes and by 306-232 in the electoral college. That was the score by which Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, a result Trump called a landslide.Regardless, Trump went on the offensive with a frantic legal effort to prove fraud, led by Giuliani and almost entirely laughed out of court.In one Arizona email released on Friday, dated 2 December, Karen Fann, the Republican state senate president, told two constituents she had spoken to Giuliani “at least six times over the past two weeks”.Threatened later in the month with being recalled from office by “the new patriot movement of the United States”, Fann wrote that the state senate was “doing everything legally possible to get the forensic audit done”.Republicans in Maricopa county, the most populous county in Arizona, mounted a controversial audit of ballots. Most analysts view the audit as part of a concerted attempt by Republicans in state governments to restrict access to the ballot or produce laws by which results can be overturned.In the emails released by American Oversight, Fann told the constituent threatening action against her she had been “in numerous conversations with Rudy Guiliani [sic] over the past weeks trying to get this done”.She added: “I have the full support of him and a personal call from President Trump thanking us for pushing to prove any fraud.”Fann also told a constituent concerned about the use of taxpayers’ money: “Biden won. 45% of all Arizona voters think there is a problem with the election system. The audit is to disprove those theories or find ways to improve the system.”The emails also show the involvement of Christina Bobb. A reporter for One America News Network, a rightwing TV channel praised by Trump, Bobb has raised funds in support of the Maricopa audit.Another fringe rightwing network, Newsmax, has said it will show Trump’s return to public speaking on Saturday evening. More

Voting on Sunday may hint at how strong the Alternative for Germany party is in the east, and what that means for national elections in September.BERLIN — Five years ago, the nationalist Alternative for Germany sent the country’s traditional parties scrambling when it finished ahead of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives in the regional vote in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt, an ominous portent of the far right’s growing allure.This Sunday, voters in Saxony-Anhalt will be back at the polls, and the result of this state election, coming just three months before a national one, will be scrutinized to see whether a nationally weakened AfD can hold on to voters in one of the regions where it has proved strongest.While much about the Saxony-Anhalt contest is unique to the region and heavily focused on local issues about schools and economic restructuring, a strong showing by the AfD — which rode a wave of anti-immigration sentiment in 2016 — could cause headaches for Armin Laschet, the leader of Ms. Merkel’s Christian Democrats. Mr. Laschet, who is hoping to replace her in the chancellery, has struggled to gain traction in the former East German states.A sign in Magdeburg pointing the way to an “election event” and a “vaccination center.” Ronny Hartmann/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“A strong showing by the Christian Democrats would remove a hurdle for Mr. Laschet and could strengthen his position heading into the national race,” said Manfred Güllner, who heads the Forsa Institute political polling agency.At the same time, he conceded, “If the AfD were to perform as well as the Christian Democrats, it would have repercussions for the federal vote.”Amid an election campaign largely carried out online because of pandemic restrictions, Mr. Laschet visited the state’s mining region last weekend. He stressed the need for time and investment to shift successfully away from coal and pledged to provide support similar to what his home state, North Rhine-Westphalia, got when it quit coal.Armin Laschet leads the Christian Democratic Union and hopes to be the next German chancellor.Jens Schlueter/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe effort may have paid off: A survey released on Thursday showed his party at 30 percent support in Saxony-Anhalt, a comfortable margin of seven percentage points ahead of the AfD, which is known by its German initials and currently holds 88 seats in the German Parliament.If that margin holds, it could bolster Mr. Laschet’s standing as campaigning begins in earnest for the Sept. 26 election, despite a bruising contest for the chancellor candidacy against a rival from Bavaria.In 2016, Germany was adjusting to the arrival of more than one million migrants the previous year, and Saxony-Anhalt was struggling against looming unemployment. While pollsters had predicted that the AfD, which made itself the anti-immigration party after forming in 2013 to protest the euro, would easily earn seats in the statehouse, no one expected it to come in second, winning more than 24 percent support from the region’s two million voters.Since then, Alternative for Germany has swung even further to the right, capturing the attention of the country’s domestic intelligence service, which placed the party’s leadership under observation over concerns about its anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim expressions and links to extremists. The party’s branches in Brandenburg and Thuringia are also under scrutiny, while an attempt to observe the national party has been put on hold pending the outcome of a legal challenge.The AfD in Saxony-Anhalt “has become very strong, despite the various messy and dubious scandals,” said Alexander Hensel, a political scientist at the Institute for Democracy Studies at the University of Göttingen, who has studied the party’s rise in the region. “Instead of breaking apart, they have consolidated, becoming an increasingly radical opposition force.”Candidates at a debate ahead of the election in Saxony-Anhalt.  Ronny Hartmann/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe continued support for Alternative for Germany in places like Saxony-Anhalt has created a split among many mainstream conservatives over whether the Christian Democrats should be willing to enter a coalition with the far-right party if needed.Mr. Laschet has made his opinion clear in recent days. “We don’t want any sort of cooperation with the AfD at any level,” he said in an interview with the public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk.But with the jockeying for the future direction of the Christian Democratic Union underway after 16 years under Ms. Merkel’s largely centrist leadership, some members on the party’s right flank see her exit as a chance to shift harder to the right.In December, the conservative governor of Saxony-Anhalt, Reiner Haseloff, a Christian Democrat who is running for another term, fired his interior minister for seeming to float the possibility of a minority government, supported by the AfD.Mr. Haseloff has based his campaign on promising stability as the country begins to emerge from the pandemic, with a pledge to help improve the standard of living in rural areas, many of which lack enough teachers, medical professionals and police officers.Reiner Haseloff, the governor of Saxony-Anhalt, is a Christian Democrat up for re-election. On Wednesday he discussed reforestation in Oranienbaum-Wörlitz.Christian Mang/ReutersSaxony-Anhalt has the oldest population in all of Germany, a reflection of the number of young people who left the state in the painful years after the reunification of Germany’s former East and West in 1990.While the state has benefited from an attempt under the latest government to create jobs in less populated areas, including by setting up several federal agencies in Saxony-Anhalt, the region’s standard of living still lags those in similar regions in the former West Germany, Mr. Haseloff said.“There continue to be clear differences between east and west, and not only in the distribution of federal offices,” Mr. Haseloff said this week, ahead of an annual meeting focused on increasing regional equality.The Alternative for Germany has campaigned this time around on a rejection of the federal government’s policies to stop the spread of the coronavirus. “Freedom Instead of Corona Insanity” reads one of its posters, showing a blue-eyed woman with a tear rolling down to the rim of her protective mask.Among the other parties, the Social Democrats and the Left are both polling in the 10 to 12 percent rage, largely unchanged from where four years ago.Both the Free Democrats and the Greens are predicted to see their popularity roughly double from where they stood in 2016, which could make it easier for Mr. Haseloff to build a government if he is returned to office. Analysts said regional gains for them were unlikely to have wider repercussions for the national race.“Saxony-Anhalt is a very specific situation, they are coming from a unique history,” Mr. Hensel, the political scientist, said. “But regardless of whether the Greens earn 10 percent or the Free Democrats 8 percent of the vote, a quarter of voters support the AfD. That is worth paying attention to.” More

A push by prosecutors to secretly seize data about four Times reporters’ emails began in the Trump administration and continued under Biden.WASHINGTON — In the last weeks of the Trump administration and continuing under President Biden, the Justice Department fought a secret legal battle to obtain the email logs of four New York Times reporters in a hunt for their sources, a top lawyer for the newspaper said Friday night.While the Trump administration never informed The Times about the effort, the Biden administration continued waging the fight this year, telling a handful of top Times executives about it but imposing a gag order to shield it from public view, said the lawyer, David McCraw, who called the move unprecedented.The gag order prevented the executives from disclosing the government’s efforts to seize the records even to the executive editor, Dean Baquet, and other newsroom leaders.Mr. McCraw said Friday that a federal court had lifted the order, which had been in effect since March 3, freeing him to reveal what had happened. The battle was over an effort by the Justice Department to seize email logs from Google, which operates the Times’s email system, and which had resisted the effort to obtain the information.The disclosure came two days after the Biden Justice Department notified the four reporters that the Trump administration, hunting for their sources, had in 2020 secretly seized months of their phone records from early 2017. That notification followed similar disclosures in recent weeks about seizing communications records of reporters at The Washington Post and CNN.Mr. Baquet condemned both the Trump and Biden administrations for their actions, portraying the effort as an assault on the First Amendment.“Clearly, Google did the right thing, but it should never have come to this,” Mr. Baquet said. “The Justice Department relentlessly pursued the identity of sources for coverage that was clearly in the public interest in the final 15 days of the Trump administration. And the Biden administration continued to pursue it. As I said before, it profoundly undermines press freedom.”There was no precedent, Mr. McCraw said, for the government to impose a gag order on New York Times personnel as part of a leak investigation. He also said there was no precedent for the government to seize the Times’s phone records without advance notification of the effort.A Google spokeswoman said that while it does not comment on specific cases, the company is “firmly committed to protecting our customers’ data and we have a long history of pushing to notify our customers about any legal requests.”Anthony Coley, a Justice Department spokesman, noted that “on multiple occasions in recent months,” the Biden-era department had moved to delay enforcement of the order and it then “voluntarily moved to withdraw the order before any records were produced.”He added: “The department strongly values a free and independent press, and is committed to upholding the First Amendment.”Last month, Mr. Biden said he would not permit the Justice Department during his administration to seize communications logs that could reveal reporters’ sources, calling the practice “simply, simply wrong.” (Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department had gone after such data in several leak investigations.)The letter this week disclosing the seizure of phone records involving the Times reporters — Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau and Michael S. Schmidt — had hinted at the existence of the separate fight over data that would show whom they had been in contact with over email.The letters said the government had also acquired a court order to seize logs of their emails, but “no records were obtained,” providing no further details. But with the lifting of the gag order, Mr. McCraw said he had been freed to explain what had happened.Prosecutors in the office of the United States attorney in Washington had obtained a sealed court order from a magistrate judge on Jan. 5 requiring Google to secretly turn over the information. But Google resisted, apparently demanding that the Times be told, as its contract with the company requires.The Justice Department continued to press the request after the Biden administration took over, but in early March prosecutors relented and asked a judge to permit telling Mr. McCraw. But the disclosure to him came with a nondisclosure order preventing him from talking about it to other people.Mr. McCraw said it was “stunning” to receive an email from Google telling him what was going on. At first, he said, he did not know who the prosecutor was, and because the matter was sealed, there were no court documents he could access about it.The next day, Mr. McCraw said, he was told the name of the prosecutor — a career assistant United States attorney in Washington, Tejpal Chawla — and opened negotiations with him. Eventually, Mr. Chawla agreed to ask the judge to modify the gag order so Mr. McCraw could discuss the matter with the Times’s general counsel and the company’s outside lawyers, and then with two senior Times executives: A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher, and Meredith Kopit Levien, the chief executive.“We made clear that we intended to go to court to challenge the order if it was not withdrawn,” Mr. McCraw said. Then, on June 2, he said, the Justice Department told him it would ask the court to quash the order to Google at the same time that it disclosed the earlier phone records seizure, which he had not known about.He described the position he was in as “untenable,” especially when it came to talking with Times reporters about chatter involving some kind of fight involving Google and a leak investigation related to The Times.The Justice Department has not said what leak it was investigating, but the identity of the four reporters who were targeted and the date range of the communications sought strongly suggested that it centered on classified information in an April 2017 article about how James B. Comey Jr., the former F.B.I. director, handled politically charged investigations during the 2016 presidential campaign.The article included discussion of an email or memo by a Democratic operative that Russian hackers had stolen, but that was not among the tranche that intelligence officials say Russia provided to WikiLeaks for public disclosure as part of its hack-and-dump operation to manipulate the election.The American government found out about the memo, which was said to express confidence that the attorney general at the time, Loretta Lynch, would not let an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server go too far. Mr. Comey was said to worry that if Ms. Lynch made and announced the decision not to charge Ms. Clinton, Russia would put out the memo to make it seem illegitimate, leading to his unorthodox decision to announce that the F.B.I. was recommending against charges in the matter.The Justice Department under then-President Donald Trump, who fired Mr. Comey and considered him an enemy, sought for years to see whether it could find evidence sufficient to charge him with the crime of making unauthorized disclosures of classified information — a push that eventually came to focus on whether he had anything to do with The Times learning about the existence of the document Russian hackers had stolen.The long-running leak investigation into Mr. Comey was seen inside of the Justice Department as one of the most politicized and contentious, even by the standards of a department that had been prevailed upon in several instances to use leak investigations and other policies concerning book publication to attack former officials who criticized Mr. Trump.Throughout last year, prosecutors talked about whether or not to close the leak investigation into Mr. Comey, according to two people familiar with the case, in part because there seemed to be little evidence to show that the former FBI director had shared classified information with the press.Last fall, department officials discussed whether the investigation had run its course and prosecutors should draft a declination memo that would explain why Mr. Comey would not be prosecuted, one of the people said. But the F.B.I. and the career prosecutors working on the case wanted to keep the investigation open, the people said, and in January prosecutors obtained a special court order to require Google to turn over data on the reporters’ emails.With Mr. Trump soon to be out of office, the order was controversial among some inside of the department, according to two people with knowledge of the case. It was seen as unusually aggressive for a case that would likely end in no charges. During the transition from the Trump to the Biden administration, at least one official wrote in a memo that the case should be closed, according to a person familiar with the transition.In the court filings seeking to compel Google to turn over logs of who was communicating with the four reporters who wrote that story, the Justice Department persuaded the judge that the secrecy was justified because, as the judge wrote on Jan. 5, “there is reason to believe that notification of the existence of this order will seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation, including by giving targets an opportunity to destroy or tamper with evidence.”The Jan. 5 document does not acknowledge that the existence of the leak investigation into Mr. Comey and its subject matter was by then already known, because The Times had reported on it almost a year earlier. It is not clear whether the Justice Department told the judge about that article, or instead suggested that the inquiry was still a well-kept secret. More

Still adjusting to the White House, the president sees Delaware as a place where he can be on display but still have his privacy protected.REHOBOTH BEACH, Del. — Everyone here has a Biden story.Joe Mack, who owns the Double Dippers ice cream parlor, says President Biden likes to recite old Irish sayings when he comes in to grab a quart of chocolate chip. Susan Kehoe, the owner of Browseabout Books, says Mr. Biden and his dog Champ draw crowds of onlookers when they relax on one of the benches outside the store.Kathleen McGuiness, the Delaware state auditor, has a photograph on her phone of her standing next to an aviators-wearing Mr. Biden near Rehoboth Avenue, the town’s main drag.“They fit into the fabric,” Ms. McGuiness said of the president and his brood, who summered here for years before Mr. Biden bought a $2.7 million beach home in 2017 in the North Shores, a tony neighborhood one mile north of town.Before the 2020 election, the Bidens were often a fixture downtown, the former vice president often tangling up people in conversations that sometimes had no end in sight.“He wandered freely,” Mr. Mack said.As president, Mr. Biden has made it clear with public comments — he has compared life in the White House to living in a “gilded cage” — and the frequency of his travel that he is still most comfortable in Delaware, a place where he can be on display and protected all at once.The Bidens own a large home in a suburb of Wilmington, but Rehoboth, a laid-back beach town that sells French fries by the bucket and Biden-theme merchandise — including orange Gatorade-scented candles, crafted in homage to the president’s preferred drink — is one of his favorite havens. In the middle of tense negotiations with Republicans over an infrastructure package, mushrooming ransomware attacks against American companies, and plans for a coming trip to the Group of 7 summit in Europe, Mr. Biden departed for the beach to celebrate the 70th birthday of Jill Biden, the first lady.Mr. Biden’s inclination to go home to Delaware is longstanding: During his 36 years in the Senate, Mr. Biden made it a point to travel back to Wilmington to spend most evenings with his sons, a habit that began after his first wife, Neilia Biden, and young daughter, Naomi Biden, were killed in a car accident.At least for now, the Bidens have another reason: They do not yet fully trust the residence staff and security officials they did not directly hire, according to two people familiar with their thinking. (Many of the household employees are holdovers from the previous administration, which is common for new presidents.) The Bidens still have not installed a White House chief usher, who manages the residence. The Trumps’ chief usher, who was a former rooms manager of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, was fired on Inauguration Day.Eric Johnson, a native of Rehoboth, with a cutout likeness of Mr. Biden. The town is one of the president’s favorite havens.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesFor the Bidens, the White House has taken some adjustment. Delaware, on the other hand, takes almost none. Their home in Rehoboth was purchased after the president promised his wife that he would buy her a beach house with proceeds from a multimillion-dollar book deal signed after he left the vice presidency. (A plaque above the front door reads “A Promise Kept.”)“I wanted it to be the kind of place where you can come in in your wet bathing suit and bare feet and I can just take the broom and brush out the sand,” Dr. Biden told Vogue in 2020. “And that’s what this is. Everything’s easy.”On Thursday, a bike ride the couple took at the state park near their home stretched much longer than expected because the president kept stopping to talk to people, according to a person familiar with their activities. The first couple kept a low profile, though the townspeople were comparing notes about where the first couple might turn up.At DiFebo’s, an Italian restaurant that is a favorite of Mr. Biden’s, patrons hoped the president would drop in for his favorite dish, chicken Parmesan with red sauce. (The first lady usually orders the salmon.) At the Ice Cream Store, a parlor near the boardwalk, tubs of Biden’s Summer White House Cherry sat waiting for consumption.Not this visit. On a wooded lane in the neighborhood where Mr. Biden lives, law enforcement officials in black S.U.V.s restricted the flow of traffic. A Coast Guard ship in the ocean and the sight of burly Secret Service agents in summer wear were the only giveaways that the president was even in town.When Mr. Biden and Dr. Biden returned to the capital, it was a rare reversal of a typical week for them. Aside from the trip this week to Rehoboth — his first as president — Mr. Biden has spent nine weekends at his home in Wilmington, and five at Camp David, the Maryland presidential retreat, according to a review of his schedule. Mr. Biden has swapped the train for Air Force One, sometimes leaving Washington on short notice for even shorter trips: Last week, he flew back to Wilmington for the afternoon to attend the funeral of a longtime aide.Mr. Biden arrived in Rehoboth Beach via helicopter this week. He bought a home in Rehoboth after he promised Ms. Biden that he would purchase a beach house with proceeds from a multimillion-dollar book deal signed after he left the vice presidency.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesNaturally, the fact that Mr. Biden enjoys coming back to Delaware — even in the middle of a presidential workweek — did not seem to surprise residents here.“I think he knows his way around Washington and he’s pretty familiar with what he needs to do and where he needs to be,” Ms. McGuiness, who has known the Bidens for years — her sister used to babysit for the family — said in an interview. “Making a quick travel to the Wilmington home or Rehoboth home makes sense for someone who puts family as a priority.”Mr. Biden’s trip this week to Rehoboth was his first as president, and he has spent nine weekends at his home in Wilmington, and five at Camp David, according to a review of his schedule. Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesThe first lady often spends less time in Washington during the week than Mr. Biden does. Before his travel weekends, Dr. Biden sometimes heads separately to one of the family homes in Delaware, or meets up with extended family at Camp David. She has also traveled alone to Rehoboth. Ms. Kehoe, the owner of Browseabout Books, said the Bidens were generally treated as part of the scenery.“We try to treat them as if they were any other customer,” Ms. Kehoe said. “Which is a good thing for us.”Convention suggests that presidents should stay close to Washington and be judicious with taxpayer-funded travel, but that concept was tested to its limit with President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Trump spent over 417 days at one of his properties, a travel habit that blurred the line between his family business and presidential duties. Mr. Trump enjoyed the perks of being president, including the staff, the ceremonies, the planes and the presidential limo. Many of those perks are long familiar to Mr. Biden — he had a similar apparatus around him for eight years as Barack Obama’s vice president — but he has said the trappings that come with the presidency have made him uncomfortable.“I don’t know about you all, but I was raised in the way that you didn’t look for anybody to wait on you,” Mr. Biden said of life in the White House during a town-hall-style interview with CNN in February. “I find myself extremely self-conscious.”A Secret Service agent and a Delaware State Police officer on the beach. During his 36 years in the Senate, Mr. Biden made it a point to travel back to Wilmington to spend most evenings with his sons.Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times More

A transcript of the former White House counsel’s appearance, which ended a two-year dispute between the Justice Department and Congress over a subpoena, will be made public next week.WASHINGTON — Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel, answered detailed questions from Congress behind closed doors on Friday about President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to impede the Russia investigation. But Mr. McGahn provided few new revelations, according to people familiar with his testimony.The fact that Mr. McGahn spoke to Congress at all was significant after a multiyear legal battle by the Trump Justice Department to block an April 2019 subpoena for his testimony. That dispute ended last month, when President Biden’s Justice Department, House Democrats and a lawyer for Mr. McGahn reached a compromise under which he finally showed up.Still, the interview by the House Judiciary Committee, attended by only a half dozen or so lawmakers on a summer Friday when Congress was on recess, was an anticlimactic conclusion to a saga that once dominated Capitol Hill. When Democrats first subpoenaed Mr. McGahn, they believed his testimony under oath and on live television could help build public support for impeaching Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice and other matters.Instead, in the time it took to sort out a tangled legal battle, questions about the events Mr. McGahn witnessed have largely faded into the background or been carefully detailed by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Trump’s presidency turned up newer issues for which the House impeached him twice — and the Senate acquitted him both times.“I believe we have been vindicated in terms of the intimacy of his involvement and the ultimate conclusions of the Mueller report,” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas, told reporters as she exited the session. “The Congress has to be respected with its subpoena and oversight responsibilities.“Today, we asserted that right,” she added.But under the strict limits imposed by the terms of the deal, Mr. McGahn’s appearance broke little new ground, according to those familiar with it, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. The agreement limited questioning to matters that were described in the publicly available portions of Mr. Mueller’s report.Mr. McGahn will have up to a week to review a transcript for accuracy before it is made public. But the people said that he hewed closely to the account he had already given the special counsel, often telling committee lawyers that his recollections of events from four years ago were no longer sharp.Republicans were pleased to declare the interview a waste of time as they left the session after more than five hours of questioning.“Today, we have the House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee relitigating the Mueller report,” said Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “Don McGahn hasn’t been White House counsel for three years.”Mr. McGahn was a witness to many episodes described in the second volume of the Mueller report, which centered on potential obstruction of justice issues; his name appears there more than 500 times.In June 2017, for example, Mr. Trump called Mr. McGahn at home and ordered him to tell Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, to fire Mr. Mueller over a dubious claim that the special counsel had a conflict of interest. Mr. McGahn refused and was prepared to resign before Mr. Trump backed off, according to the Mueller report.After the report became public, Mr. Trump claimed on Twitter that he had never told Mr. McGahn to fire Mr. Mueller. Two people familiar with the hearing on Friday said that the session had spent a lengthy period going over that episode, and that Mr. McGahn had testified under oath that the account in Mr. Mueller’s report was accurate.The report also described a related episode that followed a January 2018 report by The New York Times that first brought to public light Mr. Trump’s failed attempt to have Mr. Mueller fired. Mr. Trump tried to bully Mr. McGahn into creating “a record stating he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed” while also shaming the lawyer for taking notes about their conversations. But Mr. McGahn refused to write the memo.Mr. McGahn was also a major witness to several other episodes recounted in the obstruction volume of Mr. Mueller’s report, including the White House’s handling of the Justice Department’s concerns that Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, was vulnerable to blackmail by Russia over false statements he had made about his conversations with the country’s ambassador. Mr. McGahn was also part of deliberations leading to Mr. Trump’s firing of James B. Comey Jr., the F.B.I. director.Mr. Trump had directed Mr. McGahn to speak with Mr. Mueller’s investigators in 2017. In 2019, as it became clear that Mr. McGahn had become a chief witness to many of Mr. Trump’s actions that raised obstruction of justice concerns, the president’s allies — like his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani — began attacking him.The attacks left Mr. McGahn in a delicate position. He is a hero to the conservative legal movement because he was the chief architect of the Trump administration’s judicial selection process, which filled the federal bench with Federalist Society-style appointees. But Mr. McGahn’s law firm, Jones Day, has many Republican-oriented clients; if Mr. Trump were to order the party faithful to shun the firm as punishment, it could be financially devastating.Democrats were eager to claim Mr. McGahn’s testimony on Friday as a victory despite the lack of new disclosures, saying it upheld the principle that a White House could not prevent a key administration official from testifying before Congress. It added a second precedent to one created in 2009, when the new administration of President Barack Obama struck a deal to end litigation he had inherited over whether President George W. Bush’s former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, would testify about firings of United States attorneys.But because the compromise agreement to permit Mr. McGahn to testify effectively cut short the litigation, a federal appeals court never issued any binding precedent to resolve the long-running ambiguity over whether Congress can sue the executive branch in a subpoena dispute. That means the next time such a clash arises, Mr. Biden or a future president can again stonewall Congress and litigate the same issue all over again.Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Mr. McGahn “shed new light on several troubling events today.” But the congressman also described the belated nature of the testimony as a mixed bag.“In one sense, today is a great victory for congressional oversight. By securing Mr. McGahn’s testimony, we have made clear that the executive branch must respect our subpoenas,” he said. “On the other hand, two years is clearly too long to wait to enforce a valid subpoena, and the Trump era has taught us that Congress can no longer depend on good-faith cooperation with our committees.”Mr. Nadler said he planned to advance legislation that would resolve legal disputes over subpoenas to executive branch officials more quickly. More

The woman, Teresa Logan, accused Mr. Stringer of sexual harassment and making unwanted advances while she was working for him at a bar and restaurant he co-owned in 1992.Five weeks after an allegation of unwanted sexual advances upended Scott M. Stringer’s New York City mayoral campaign, a second woman is accusing him of sexual harassment and making unwanted advances when she said she worked for Mr. Stringer nearly three decades ago.The woman, Teresa Logan, said that she was a waitress and tended bar at Uptown Local, an establishment on the Upper West Side that was co-founded and run in part by Mr. Stringer. In an interview, she accused Mr. Stringer of once groping her as she carried trays, making unwanted sexual advances, including kissing and groping, outside the workplace at least twice and treating her in a manner that often made her uncomfortable.The first interactions, she said, took place in the spring of 1992, when Mr. Stringer was 32 and she was 18.Teresa Logan in 1992. In a statement, Mr. Stringer, 61 and now the city comptroller, said he had “no memory” of Ms. Logan, now 47.“If, in fact, I met Ms. Logan, and ever did anything to make her uncomfortable, I am sorry,” he said. In response to Ms. Logan’s description of an unprofessional work environment, he said: “Uptown Local was a long-ago chapter in my life from the early 1990s and it was all a bit of a mess.”He did not otherwise respond to the details of her account or her description of the workplace.Three people who knew Ms. Logan at the time confirmed in interviews that she had worked at Uptown Local, including her sister, a man her sister dated at the time, and a friend.There are no known witnesses to Ms. Logan’s claims of unwanted sexual advances, but her sister, Yohanna Logan, who was her roommate that summer, recalled that her sister told her of some of the alleged interactions. Yohanna Logan said that her sister came home deeply shaken at least twice and had described the unwanted advances.A friend who has known Ms. Logan for decades and requested anonymity for fear of professional repercussions said she visited Ms. Logan at Uptown Local on one or two occasions that summer. She recalled Ms. Logan saying sometime that year that Mr. Stringer had made at least one unwanted advance.Ms. Logan’s accusations follow similar allegations made by Jean Kim, an unpaid worker on Mr. Stringer’s 2001 campaign for public advocate. Ms. Kim has accused Mr. Stringer of making unwanted sexual advances during that race, charges that he vehemently denied, but that led key left-wing endorsers to withdraw their support for him in the Democratic primary for mayor.Until now, no other women had come forward with similar claims, and a number of women who have worked with or known Mr. Stringer for decades have vouched for his reputation.Ms. Logan was connected with The New York Times through Ms. Kim’s lawyer, Patricia Pastor, who set up the initial interview; several follow-up conversations occurred without Ms. Pastor’s involvement or presence. In a statement, Mr. Stringer and his team cited inaccuracies in Ms. Pastor’s past remarks concerning Ms. Kim’s allegations.“With one week to go before voting starts, Ms. Pastor is back with more allegations, this time from 30 years ago,” he said. The mayoral primary is on June 22 and early voting begins June 12.Rebecca Katz, a spokeswoman for the campaign, added that the allegations “predated decades of service and management by Scott Stringer in the public eye and should be considered in that context.”Ms. Logan, who lives in Manhattan and now works in the fashion industry, said she called Ms. Pastor after seeing her publicly associated with Ms. Kim.“I don’t have a lawyer, I don’t need the lawyer, I don’t want to press charges,” she said. “I just wanted to really just tell my story.” She is a registered Democrat and does not appear to have made donations in the mayor’s race.Ms. Logan said she had been thinking of making her claims public for at least a year, but only decided to move forward after hearing of Ms. Kim’s accusations.“It was like this trigger,” she said. “There’s like a visceral feeling hearing her on the news, and him, and hearing her and knowing she was right. I was like, I know I have to do this.”Jean Kim was the first woman to accuse Mr. Stringer of sexual misconduct. He has denied the allegation.Sarah Blesener for The New York TimesMs. Logan said she began working at Uptown Local in late May or early June 1992, around the time the bar and restaurant had filed for bankruptcy. Patrons recalled it as a dimly lit institution with middling food, started by several New York Democrats, including Mr. Stringer, who hoped it would be a premier political haunt. He was not an elected official at the time of the allegations, though he pursued political office later that year.His co-owners did not respond to interview requests or were not reachable.Ms. Logan said that Mr. Stringer sometimes stood uncomfortably close to her and would remark on her appearance.Within weeks of starting her new job came an unsettling interaction, Ms. Logan said. As she carried trays up a flight of stairs, Mr. Stringer was walking down it.“He just, like, totally pats me on the butt, and like, squeezes it,” she said. “I had no way of reacting. My hands weren’t free to even protect myself.”The situation, she recalled, “freaked me out.” But Ms. Logan, who acknowledges that attitudes around sexual harassment in the workplace were different decades ago, tried to move past it.“I sort of glossed it over for myself saying, ‘But I’m getting paid in cash, free drinks, my friends and I are getting free drinks every night,’” she said. “This dude’s a creep, so are a lot of guys at bars probably.”.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;}She stayed on and continued to socialize with Mr. Stringer, she said, celebrating her 19th birthday at Uptown Local.Ms. Logan said that on another occasion, Mr. Stringer suggested that they go out to another bar. She expected that they would go somewhere within walking distance, but instead, he hailed a cab.“I just have a memory of him in the car, putting his hand on my inner thigh,” she said, adding that he “definitely kissed me, like, made out with me.”She added: “And I was like, ‘No, no, no,’ and then when I was so strong about the ‘no’ in that situation, it stopped and he kind of laughed it off, like, ‘Oh, I’m drunk, I’m sorry.’”Yohanna Logan, who was 17 that summer, says her sister described the incident to her on the night that it happened.“I do remember her coming home and being like, more scared than I’ve ever seen her, and just telling me, like, she was really, really shaken up,” she said. “I remember her saying that she was in a cab with him and that he, like, touched her, tried to, like, kiss her and she was trying to get out of it.”Ms. Logan said she felt uncomfortable around Mr. Stringer after the cab ride, but that she hoped that was the end of any unwanted advances.One night, she said she and Mr. Stringer were drinking after work, when he suggested going to another bar.She recalled that their walk took them, eventually, to the outside of an apartment building. Mr. Stringer invited her up, she said.At first, the overture was playful, she recalled, and she responded in kind, proposing that they share a cigarette and talk but saying that there was “no way” she would join him upstairs.Then Mr. Stringer began to kiss and grope her, she said.“It was almost like this out-of-body experience, where I’m like, ‘What do I do, like this is my boss,’” she said. “Meanwhile he’s like, his hand going up my skirt, and my chest.”Ms. Logan said she knew clearly that she wanted him to stop.“I was like ‘No, no, no, I’m going home,’” she said. “And I like, turned my back, walked away. Got a cab.”She said that she told her sister about what happened that night.“She did tell me that he tried to kiss her,” Yohanna Logan said, adding that she recalled learning that Mr. Stringer had “felt her up.” She described her sister as seeking to appear “tough” — “just being like, ‘I’m OK, but it’s really creepy.’”Ms. Logan’s friend recalled Ms. Logan telling her that Mr. Stringer had sought to get her to go upstairs with him and that Ms. Logan did not go. The friend did not recall exactly when that conversation occurred.Ms. Logan left the bar by late summer for another job, and said that she never saw Mr. Stringer again. She said the experience had changed her approach to dealing with men in the workplace.“It was my first job ever in New York, and it affected the way I felt about working with men really throughout my career,” she said. “There’s like a lot of great men in my industry that I could feel more comfortable with, that I don’t.”Susan C. Beachy contributed research. More

Facebook is suspending Donald Trump’s account for two years, the company has announced in a highly anticipated decision that follows months of debate over the former president’s future on social media.“Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr Trump’s suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols. We are suspending his accounts for two years, effective from the date of the initial suspension on January 7 this year,” Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice-president of global affairs, said in a statement on Friday.At the end of the suspension period, Facebook said, it would work with experts to assess the risk to public safety posed by reinstating Trump’s account. “We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest,” Clegg wrote. “If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded.”He added that once the suspension was lifted, “a strict set of rapidly escalating sanctions” would be triggered if Trump violated Facebook policies.Friday’s decision comes just weeks after input from the Facebook oversight board – an independent advisory committee of academics, media figures and former politicians – who recommended in early May that Trump’s account not be reinstated.However the oversight board punted the ultimate decision on Trump’s fate back to Facebook itself, giving the company six months to make the final call. The board said that Facebook’s “indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension” for Trump was “not appropriate”, criticism that Clegg wrote the company “absolutely accept[s]”.The new policy allows for escalating penalties of suspensions for one month, six months, one year, and two years.The former president has been suspended since January, following the deadly Capitol attack that saw a mob of Trump supporters storm Congress in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The company suspended Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts over posts in which he appeared to praise the actions of the rioters, saying that his actions posed too great a risk to remain on the platform.Following the Capitol riot, Trump was suspended from several major tech platforms, including Twitter, YouTube and Snapchat. Twitter has since made its ban permanent.The former president called Facebook’s decision “an insult to the record-setting 75m people, plus many others, who voted for us in the 2020 Rigged Presidential Election,” in a statement. “They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing, and ultimately, we will win.” Trump received fewer than 75m votes in the 2020 election, which he lost. He also hinted at a 2024 run.Facebook also announced that it would revoke its policy of treating speech by politicians as inherently newsworthy and exempt from enforcement of its content rules that ban, among other things, hate speech. The decision marks a major reversal of a set of policies that Clegg and Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, once championed as crucial to democracy and free speech.The company first created the newsworthiness exemption to its content rules in 2016, following international outcry over its decision to censor posts including the historic “napalm girl” photograph for violating its ban on nude images of children. The new rule tacitly acknowledged the importance of editorial judgment in Facebook’s censorship decisions.In 2019, at a speech at the Atlantic festival in Washington, Clegg revealed that Facebook had decided to treat all speech by politicians as newsworthy, exempting it from content rules. “Would it be acceptable to society at large to have a private company in effect become a self-appointed referee for everything that politicians say? I don’t believe it would be,” Clegg said at the time.Under the new rules, Clegg wrote Friday, “when we assess content for newsworthiness, we will not treat content posted by politicians any differently from content posted by anyone else”.The newsworthiness exemption is by no means the only policy area in which Facebook treats politicians differently from other users. The company also exempts politicians’ speech from its third-party fact-checking and maintains a list of high-profile accounts that are exempted from the AI systems that Facebook relies on for enforcement of many of its rules.Facebook did not immediately respond to questions about whether those policies remain in effect. More

President Donald J. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Friday about whether Mr. Trump obstructed the Russia investigation, bringing to a close a long legal and political battle.The fact that Mr. McGahn is talking to Congress at all is significant after a multiyear legal battle by the Trump Justice Department to block a subpoena for his testimony. That dispute ended last month when the Biden Justice Department, House Democrats and a lawyer for Mr. McGahn reached a compromise.Under that deal, Mr. McGahn’s appearance may yield little in terms of new revelations. He will testify behind closed doors and will have up to a week to review a transcript for accuracy before it is made public. He also may be questioned only about his involvement in matters that are described in the publicly available portions of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.Still, Mr. McGahn is likely to be asked to respond under oath to Mr. Trump’s public denial of events that were described in the report based in part on what Mr. McGahn told Mr. Mueller’s investigators, including that Mr. Trump had ordered him to have Mr. Mueller fired — a step Mr. McGahn said he refused to take.Congress is out of session this week, and members must be physically present to participate, so the full committee is not expected to attend. While those who do will have the right to ask questions, Mr. McGahn is expected to be questioned primarily by committee staffers. He will be accompanied by his lawyer, William A. Burck. More