Elections

In his 30 years in the Senate, the former Navy secretary was a leading Republican voice on military policy. He was once married to Elizabeth Taylor.WASHINGTON — Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the genteel former Navy secretary who shed the image of a dilettante to become a leading Republican voice on military policy during 30 years in the Senate, died on Tuesday night at his home in Alexandria, Va. He was 94. Susan Magill, his former chief of staff, said the cause was heart failure.For a time Mr. Warner may have been best known nationally as the dashing sixth husband of the actress Elizabeth Taylor. Her celebrity was a draw on the campaign trail during his difficult first race for the Senate in 1978, an election he won narrowly to start his political career. The couple divorced in 1982.Mr. Warner in 1981 with Elizabeth Taylor, his wife at the time. They divorced the following year. Richard Drew/Associated PressIn the latter stages of his congressional service, Mr. Warner was recognized as a protector of the Senate’s traditions and credited with trying to forge bipartisan consensus on knotty issues like the Iraq war, judicial nominations and the treatment of terror detainees.Though a popular figure in his state, Mr. Warner was often at odds with Virginia conservatives. He became the Republican nominee in his first campaign only after the man who had defeated him at a state party convention was killed in a plane crash.He angered the National Rifle Association with his backing of an assault weapons ban. He infuriated some state Republicans in 1994 when he refused to support Oliver L. North, the former White House aide at the center of the Iran-contra scandal during the Reagan administration, in Mr. North’s bid for the Senate. And he opposed Reagan’s ultimately unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork.In his retirement years, the rightward shift of the Republican Party further alienated Mr. Warner, prompting him to endorse select Democrats, including both his former Senate colleagues Hillary Clinton and Joseph R. Biden Jr. in their presidential runs against Donald J. Trump.But his support within the party mainstream during his Senate years, coupled with backing from independents who were attracted by his moderate views on social issues like abortion and gay rights, allowed him to fend off challenges from both the right and left. He won election to his fifth and final term in 2002 against only token opposition.Mr. Warner announced in August 2007 that he would not run in 2008, noting that he would be 88 if he finished his term and telling friends that he questioned whether he could continue to have the energy for the job. The peak of his power in the Senate began in 1999, when he became chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Though his chairmanship was interrupted briefly when Democrats took back control, he evolved into a Republican force on military issues, his credibility enhanced by his reputation for solid contacts in the Pentagon, his previous work there and his own service in both the Navy and Marines.Mr. Warner was ahead of others on the terrorism issue and created a subcommittee to focus on the threat. He was among Republicans who expressed reservations about the Iraq war, and he convened hearings on the abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad when many of his fellow Republicans were hoping that the issue would disappear.Mr. Warner also was skeptical about President George W. Bush’s 2007 troop buildup in Iraq. But he never broke with the administration to back a fixed deadline for troop withdrawals. That position frustrated Democrats, who had hoped that Mr. Warner would lend his influence to their opposition to the war, and they accused him of not following through on strong talk against the conflict.Joining with Senator John McCain, who had been a prisoner of war in Vietnam, Mr. Warner thwarted Bush administration efforts to reinterpret the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners in wartime, an approach that the senators said would open captured American military personnel to abuse.Mr. Warner was not averse to stepping into difficult political situations in the Senate. In 2002, he was among the first to come out against Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, after Mr. Lott had made a racially charged comment; Mr. Warner’s stand contributed to Mr. Lott’s decision to step aside as majority leader. He was also a leading member of the so-called Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of senators who struck an independent agreement on judicial nominations in 2005 and averted a fight over the future of the Senate filibuster.A debonair Virginian, Mr. Warner was sometimes called the senator from central casting; his ramrod military posture, distinguished gray hair and occasionally overblown speaking style fit the Hollywood model.John William Warner III was born on Feb. 18, 1927, in Washington to John Jr. and Martha (Budd) Warner and attended schools in Washington and Virginia. He left high school at age 17 to join the Navy and serve in the final months of World War II. He graduated from Washington and Lee University in 1949 and enrolled at the University of Virginia Law School before leaving to join the Marines during the Korean War. He returned to law school to obtain his degree in 1953.Mr. Warner was afterward a law clerk with the United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit and then an assistant U.S. attorney in the district from 1956 to 1960. After working in private law practice for most of the 1960s, he was appointed Navy under secretary by President Richard M. Nixon. He became secretary in 1972, serving for two years. In 1976, he was the federal coordinator of the national bicentennial celebration.Mr. Warner endured a reputation as something of a playboy after his first divorce from a member of the wealthy Mellon family, his marriage to Ms. Taylor and a public relationship with the newscaster Barbara Walters. But his long service in the Senate and a record marked by an independent streak ultimately overshadowed much of that image.He had three children from his first marriage, to Catherine Mellon. His survivors include his wife, Jeanne (Vander Myde) Warner. Complete information on survivors was not immediately available.Both of Virginia’s current Democratic senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, praised Mr. Warner on Wednesday as a friend, ally and informal adviser and described him as a model of what a politician should be. Mark Warner, who is no relation, had once tried to unseat him.“John Warner and I ran against each other back in 1996,” Mr. Warner said in a statement. “I’ve often said since that the right Warner won that race.” More

Wednesday: In California’s rural far northern counties, furor for the recall has taken hold alongside the region’s fascination with secession.Mark Baird displayed a “State of Jefferson” flag at his ranch in Siskiyou County. Flags promoting secession can be seen around far Northern California.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesGood morning.Roughly 1.7 million of California’s 22.1 million registered voters signed the petition to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom. Many of those who signed it technically live in California but symbolically live in another state entirely.California’s rural far north, sometimes styling itself as the “State of Jefferson,” has long viewed itself as a land apart. Its dozen or so counties, mostly north and east of Sacramento, voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020.In Shasta, Lassen, Modoc, Siskiyou and other State of Jefferson-friendly counties, more than one in six voters signed the petition to recall Newsom, according to the Secretary of State’s data. And, as The Sacramento Bee and The Los Angeles Times have reported, members of a Shasta County militia have for months been threatening violence over the governor’s pandemic health restrictions. (Those rules, Newsom has said, will end on June 15.)Last week, in a nonbinding but revealing election, five counties in eastern Oregon endorsed a plan to secede from the liberal-leaning parts of their state and take a chunk of the State of Jefferson with them. The master plan: to become part of Idaho and then add all or parts of Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, Del Norte, Modoc and Lassen Counties on the California side of Oregon’s southern border.“Those of us in rural Oregon are written off,” Mike McCarter, the 74-year-old retiree leading the secession drive, told our colleague Kirk Johnson.McCarter, who bought a gun club in retirement and now helps people get their concealed-carry permits, said eastern Oregon and California’s northern border counties had more in common with conservative Idaho than with the more liberal majorities of their states. “We just want to come alongside them and bolster the conservative support,” he said.Last week’s vote brought to seven the number of Oregon’s 36 counties that would, if they could, join the grass-roots movement to “Move Oregon’s Border For a Greater Idaho.” The group’s website describes the California annexation as a kind of Phase Two.Mount Shasta, a 14,162-foot dormant volcano, towers over Weed, Calif.Max Whittaker for The New York TimesCould it happen?Unlikely, although Northern California has periodically threatened to secede since the state was founded in 1850. Mountainous and woodsy (as opposed to beachy, aggie, foggy, desert-y or glitzy), the region makes up more than a fifth of the state’s land mass but only 3 percent of its population. It is also generally whiter, older and poorer than the rest of the state.This is the California that the rest of the country doesn’t talk about — a California where hunting and fishing, not surfing, are the signature pastimes and the jobs are more likely to be in timber than in tech. The region has felt chronically neglected and dismissed by California’s lawmakers and coastal population centers.In fact, the modern State of Jefferson concept arose in 1941 from an effort to get more state funding. One of Oregon’s rural mayors talked the California border counties into declaring that they would all form a separate state unless Salem and Sacramento stopped taking their tax money and leaving their roads in disrepair.A tongue-in-cheek naming contest was held by a newspaper in Siskiyou County, and “Jefferson” got the most votes (after the founding father), beating out “Discontent” and “Bonanza.” A group of young men, toting rifles, proclaimed a “patriotic rebellion” in which they would “secede every Thursday until further notice.”The movement was cut short when the attack on Pearl Harbor prompted the rebels to rethink their allegiance. But the State of Jefferson still has its own flag — a gold pan with two X’s that stand apart, conveying the region’s sense of having been “double-crossed” by far-flung state capitals.The Jefferson state of mind has lived on, particularly lately.Oregon’s Legislature, which is dominated by Democrats, would have to go along with the proposed defection to Idaho, as would Idaho’s Republican-dominated Legislature — not to mention California’s Legislature and the U.S. Congress. But as polarization persists in and beyond California, it’s not completely unthinkable.Here’s what else to know todayThe Block Island wind farm, the first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States, off the coast of Rhode Island in 2016.Kayana Szymczak for The New York TimesCompiled by Jonathan WolfeThe federal government said it cleared a key hurdle to open the central California coast to offshore wind farms, part of President Biden’s aggressive plan to expand renewable energy and shift the nation away from fossil fuels.The state has already had 900 more wildfires than at this point in 2020, which was a record-breaking year for fires, The Associated Press reports.State lawmakers are considering cutting the share of out-of-state students at University of California campuses to make room for more local residents, The Los Angeles Times reports.President Biden is coming under increasing pressure to abandon a Trump-era immigration rule known as Title 42, which allows border agents to turn away migrants without giving them a chance to apply for protections.OptumServe, a company that was paid $221 million to operate dozens of vaccination sites around the state, has helped administer only about 1 percent of shots given in California, CalMatters reports.The president of California’s largest state employee union was ousted after 13 years in the role, The Associated Press reports.The Los Angeles Times reports that Joe Hedges, the chief operating officer of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, has left his job after an investigation by the agency.An audit found that Caltrans overpaid thousands of workers $1.5 million, and failed to recoup the money, The Sacramento Bee reports.A subway train at Union Station in Los Angeles in January.Philip Cheung for The New York TimesLos Angeles transit officials have pushed subway and rail projects forward during the pandemic, but The Los Angeles Times asks, “Will the riders return?”The central California town of Corcoran is sinking, a situation caused primarily not by nature, but agriculture.A proposed affordable housing project next to a luxury housing complex in Livermore, in the Bay Area, is dividing residents who are accusing one another of racism and elitism, The San Francisco Chronicle reports.A student-led resolution calling on the University of California, Santa Barbara, to divest from companies that supply Israel with military equipment has heightened tensions on the campus, where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been a source of discord, Reuters reports.Paleontologists are excavating a recently discovered trove of fossils from the Miocene era — including mastodons, camels and fossilized trees — in the Sierra Nevada foothills, Gizmodo reports.In response to a wave of pandemic pet adoptions, veterinary offices are offering upscale care to meet demand.A photographer for Yale Climate Connections captured life in California’s underwater kelp forests, which are under siege from a population of voracious purple sea urchins.Subscriber event: Join the comedian Sarah Silverman and The Times’s Kevin Roose, Sheera Frenkel and Davey Alba as they discuss how disinformation spreads, and how we can fight back. [Today at 4 p.m. Pacific.]California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: [email protected]. Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here. More

Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, told The Times that a new, disinformation-driven attempt to inspect 2020 ballots wouldn’t unearth wrongdoing, and would help restore voter confidence.Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, earned widespread praise for his staunch defense of the election results in his state last year in the face of growing threats and pressure from former President Donald J. Trump.As Mr. Trump spread falsehoods about the election, Mr. Raffensperger vocally debunked them, culminating in a 10-page letter addressed to Congress on Jan. 6, the day of the Capitol riot, in which he refuted, point by point, Mr. Trump’s false claims about election fraud in Georgia.But after a Georgia judge ruled late last week that a group of voters must be allowed to view copies of all 147,000 absentee ballots cast in the state’s largest county, in yet another disinformation-driven campaign, Mr. Raffensperger voiced his support for the effort, saying that inspecting the ballots would provide “another layer of transparency and citizen engagement.”As Mr. Trump’s election falsehoods continue to hold sway over many lawmakers and voters, with efforts to review ballots still underway in states across the country, we spoke with Mr. Raffensperger about why he supported the new review ordered by the judge and how he thinks about public trust, or mistrust, in the electoral process. The interview has been lightly edited and condensed.At the risk of asking you to repeat yourself: Was there any widespread fraud in Georgia in the 2020 election?No, there was no widespread fraud. We had, and we still do have, several hundred investigations that we’ve opened up. Many of those are procedural, but none would be significant enough to overturn the election results.So why support this most recent order to inspect ballots?So from Day 1, I’ve encouraged Georgians who have concerns about the elections in their counties to pursue those claims through legal avenues. Frankly, Fulton County has a longstanding history of election mismanagement that has weakened voter faith in the system.And I’m very grateful that S.B. 202 [the state’s new voting law] strengthens the ability of the secretary of state’s office to hold counties accountable. I think that’s a good thing.But in a letter you wrote to Congress in January, you refuted the false allegations regarding absentee ballots in Fulton County, nearly the very same claims that are a part of this lawsuit that led to the judge’s order. So what has changed?Unfortunately, the No. 1 issue that we’re facing right now in elections nationwide is voter confidence. Now, in Georgia, it goes back to the 2018 governor’s race, when Stacey Abrams did not concede, and then in 2016, days after President Trump won, the other camp talks about Russian collusion. And so we had those aspersions cast on Trump’s victory.But what happens each time is that voter confidence takes a hit. So whenever we can restore, or have a process that will help restore, voter confidence, I think that’s a good thing — if you have an open and transparent process in which everyone can objectively agree that this is due process that they’re doing, that they’re making sure they’re following the law.At the end of the day, they’re going to get the same results we got after November. And then we can hopefully put this to bed.So even though you know that the allegations in this most recent lawsuit aren’t going to come to fruition, going through another public process will help build confidence?It’s really the process of civic engagement. Let the citizens have an open, transparent process in which other sets of eyeballs can verify what’s already been verified.We’ve already done a 100 percent hand recount of every single absentee ballot, every single early-vote ballot and every date-of-election ballot. So all three forms of voting have been counted in Georgia. Every single one of those paper ballots has been hand-counted.So I know the results aren’t going to change, but it just helps increase voter confidence and it helps our entire nation to move off this issue and really get back to a more stable society.Democrats and voting rights groups have said that these repeated recounts and relitigations of the 2020 presidential contest actually undermine confidence in the election. So I’m wondering how you weigh that.Well, at the end of the day, a Superior Court judge makes a ruling, and we follow the law in Georgia. Many Republican voters, and especially former President Donald Trump, have continued to reject the multiple audits and recounts already carried out in Georgia and demand new investigations. What makes you think this Fulton County inspection will satisfy those who claim that there was widespread fraud?Well, let’s follow this rabbit trail, and get the answers, and then we’ll get answers that will be very similar to what we had back when this election was carried out and we did the audit process. And we can put this to rest and we can move forward.Georgia’s new voting law gives more power over elections to state lawmakers. Do you have any worries that this new inspection of ballots could prompt the Legislature to exert even more control over election administration?All Georgians should take great comfort at the end of the day that we have a fair election process. We have 159 counties that are running these elections, we have 159 county election directors who have personal integrity. People need to understand that the people who are running these elections at the precinct level — those are your friends, those are your neighbors, those are your friends at church, those are your friends from Pilates, Rotary. Your kids could be on the same youth league baseball or soccer team.The glue that holds the process together is the individual personal integrity of local Georgians, plus our office, and what I will stand for is fair and honest elections.I wanted to ask you a little bit about your re-election bid next year. You’re running against Representative Jody Hice, a Republican congressman whom Mr. Trump has endorsed. Are you worried about Donald Trump attacking you and actively working to ensure your defeat?No. We’re going to run our campaign on issues. At the end of the day, we believe that integrity counts. And we’ve done an awful lot to improve the election process in Georgia.The first thing we did was pass House Bill 316, which allowed us to procure new voting machines that use verifiable paper ballots. For 18 years, people were talking about needing a system with paper ballots; I accomplished that.Also, we made progress toward joining the Electronic Registration Information Center [a nonpartisan, nonprofit multistate voter roll database]. So as we updated our voter rolls, we could do it objectively. We also outlawed ballot harvesting. So we’ve been working on election integrity for a long time.Congressman Hice, though, he’s been up in D.C. for over six years, and he has never introduced a single piece of electoral reform legislation. He’s never done anything on election integrity, ever. And now he thinks it’s somehow an interesting issue for him to run on? That’s the challenge sometimes with congressmen. Some of them don’t do much when they get up there.One of the things Mr. Hice did do was vote in Congress to overturn the election results. Do you have any concern that someone who had previously taken steps to overturn a free and fair election could one day run elections in Georgia?Well, if you’re honest with yourself, he’s a double-minded person. In Georgia, he accepted the results for his race, but he didn’t accept the results for President Trump’s race. How can you hold two opposing views at one time? So he’s going to have to live with his vote on Jan. 6.Echoing Mr. Trump’s election lies has almost become a litmus test in Republican primaries. How do you run in this environment?I’m going to run on integrity, and I’m going to run on the truth.When was the last time you spoke with Mr. Trump? Was it the call in January in which he urged you to “find” him votes that became public soon afterward?Yes.Have any of his allies contacted you or other Republicans in Georgia in the last few months to urge you to conduct a recount or review along the lines of Arizona’s?Not that I’m aware of.OK. Last question. We spent a lot of time earlier talking about how faith in elections is damaged. How do you think we restore bipartisan, national faith in elections?I think perhaps we need to have a national dialogue, or a bipartisan meeting of the minds. Because S. 1 and H.R. 1 [two versions of congressional Democrats’ major voting rights bill] are a top-down, federal takeover of elections, and of course you’re going to see pushback from the Republicans, and rightly so. And I’ve spoken out against those.We really need to look at what can we accomplish that makes sure that we restore the trust of all voters from both sides of the aisle, make sure that we have honest and fair elections, that results are accurate.Candidates need to understand their job is to turn out voters, and if they don’t turn out enough voters, they will lose the election, and they have to accept the will of the people. More

Andrew Yang Believes in New York and Himself. Is That Enough?Mr. Yang has brought political star power and a dose of optimism to the New York City mayor’s race. But his gaps in knowledge about how the city functions have led to the perception among critics that he is out of his depth.Andrew Yang has been endorsed by several notable Asian American leaders, including Representative Grace Meng, left.Sara Naomi Lewkowicz for The New York TimesThe New York City mayoral race is one of the most consequential political contests in a generation, with immense challenges awaiting the winner. This is the fifth in a series of profiles of the major candidates.Dana Rubinstein and May 26, 2021As Andrew Yang approached the corner store in Manhattan, a cameraperson in tow, the setting seemed familiar. It couldn’t be that bodega — the place he visited in the infancy of his mayoral campaign, the place that brought him ridicule because it wasn’t really a bodega in the New York sense, with its bright lights, wide aisles and well-stocked shelves.Oh, but it was. Mr. Yang had returned to the scene of an early campaign crisis, a place that was to be a simple backdrop for a seemingly innocuous tweet in January in support of bodegas. Instead, New Yorkers questioned his knowledge and authenticity — a hint of the criticism that would follow many of his quick takes on matters both substantive and light.Mr. Yang was unfazed, then and now. He entered the 7 Brothers Famous Deli in Hell’s Kitchen, greeted the workers like they were old friends, and repeated his order from his first visit: green tea and a handful of bananas.“Just like the old days,” he said, before affixing a campaign poster to the storefront window.With less than one month to go before a Democratic primary that will almost certainly determine the next mayor of New York City, Mr. Yang’s off-the-cuff, can-do persona has fueled his candidacy in a city just emerging from the pandemic.Mr. Yang said it had been an adjustment to be viewed as a leading candidate in the mayoral race, suggesting that he was more comfortable in the role of “scrappy underdog.”Sara Naomi Lewkowicz for The New York TimesHis failed bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination brought national focus to universal basic income, and gave him instant name recognition, good will and political star power in the New York City contest.But Mr. Yang’s apparent eagerness to please, his willingness to make unorthodox, sometimes spontaneous policy pronouncements, his lack of experience with New York City politics and gaps in knowledge about how the city works have all contributed to the perception among critics that he is out of his depth — underscoring his potential weakness as a mayoral candidate.For Mr. Yang, his front-runner status in the New York City mayoral race has taken some getting used to. In private conversations this year, he has come across as supremely confident about his chances. But he can also seem taken aback by the increasingly sharp criticism he attracts.“I’m frankly a bit more accustomed to being the, like, the scrappy underdog —that was sort of a more natural posture for me,” he said in an interview this spring.He seemed, at the outset of the race, to satisfy some New Yorkers’ psychic needs. But in the final weeks before the June 22 primary, as the city reawakens, the race’s dynamics have changed. Polls have tightened, voters are paying more attention, and well-funded competitors are spending millions on television, threatening a victory that once seemed well within Mr. Yang’s grasp.An affinity for the underdogMr. Yang founded Venture for America, which aimed to create 100,000 jobs by deploying recent graduates to work at start-ups. Far fewer jobs were actually created.Gretchen Ertl for The New York TimesMr. Yang was born 46 years ago to Taiwanese immigrants living in Schenectady, N.Y., then known as Electric City, presumably for the central role that his father’s employer, General Electric, played in its economy. When he was four, his family moved from a home there with a green shag carpet to Westchester County.His parents were both technologically oriented: His father worked at I.B.M.; his mother, who had a master’s degree in statistics, worked for the State University of New York at Purchase as the director of computer services, before becoming an artist.Mr. Yang recalled a relatively homogeneous upbringing: In his middle school class in Somers, N.Y., he remembered one other East Asian student, a girl.“Everyone said we should date, which made neither of us very happy,” said Mr. Yang, who would be New York’s first Asian American mayor.Some of his classmates were cruel, calling him racist slurs and making jokes about his eyes. Having skipped kindergarten, he trailed his classmates in size. His voice changed later than theirs did.The experience, he said, gave him an affinity for the underdog, and left lasting wounds.“I’ve never forgotten what it felt like to be young,” he wrote in his 2018 book, “The War on Normal People.” “To be gnawed at by doubts and fears so deep that they inflict physical pain, a sense of nausea deep in your stomach. To feel like an alien, to be ignored or ridiculed.”Today, Mr. Yang often comes across to voters as exuberant. But he describes himself as “naturally introverted,” and in person, that energy comes across as a switch that can flip on and off. Out of the spotlight he can seem low-key, even occasionally withdrawn.Mr. Yang thrived academically, and halfway through high school he transferred to Phillips Exeter Academy, a selective boarding school in New Hampshire, the first in a succession of elite institutions that would lead him down the path to corporate law: Brown University, Columbia Law School and a junior position at Davis Polk & Wardwell, the elite New York law firm that he quit after five months.The work was grueling — and when his officemate, Jonathan Philips, broached the idea of a start-up, Mr. Yang was intrigued, Mr. Philips recalled.“It’s like he all of a sudden woke up,” Mr. Philips, now a North Carolina-based investor, said, recalling long conversations about “the intersection of economic and social betterment.”They co-founded Stargiving, a company designed to help celebrities fund-raise for charities. There, Mr. Yang pitched and hobnobbed with powerful people and practiced dealing with the news media.Still, Mr. Yang has acknowledged, the initiative “failed spectacularly.”He moved on to other endeavors, including a party-hosting business and a position at a health care company, before landing at a test-prep company, later called Manhattan Prep, that was run by a friend. He eventually became its C.E.O. and acquired an ownership stake.When Kaplan, the test-prep giant, bought the company, Mr. Yang walked away with a seven-figure prize.But he has said he was disenchanted by the career track enabled by the test prep company, which funneled promising students to business school and then Wall Street.Still eager to make his mark on the world, he founded Venture for America, a nonprofit that aimed to deploy recent graduates to work at start-ups and start companies in struggling cities across the country. Venture for America was a seminal chapter in Mr. Yang’s life, introducing him to the national stage and shaping his image as an entrepreneur.The results were mixed. Mr. Yang set out to create 100,000 jobs, but only about 150 people now work at companies founded by alumni in the cities the nonprofit targeted, a New York Times investigation found. The program also faced accusations of bias under his leadership. Mr. Yang has defended his tenure there.Mr. Yang ultimately left the organization to run for president and write the book that became the foundation for his campaign, in which he warned of the dangers posed by automation and laid out his universal basic income proposal.Mr. Yang’s presidential bid stunned many people who had worked with him and knew him as a smart and relatable nonprofit leader, but certainly not as a practiced politician. In a field studded with governors, senators and the former vice president of the United States, Mr. Yang was a political outsider who had never run, let alone won a campaign of his own, and the bid was quixotic from the start.Mr. Yang’s campaign was never especially polished — juvenile hijinks were occasionally caught on camera — and he dropped out on the night of the New Hampshire primary. Yet he proved to be a strong fund-raiser, and his campaign lasted longer than those of several far more seasoned contenders, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, former Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana and now-Vice President Kamala Harris.He campaigned on the notion that the federal government should give every American citizen $1,000 a month in no-strings-attached cash. To some voters, it was a compelling vision delivered by a steadfastly upbeat campaigner, and it earned Mr. Yang a loyal following.Now, instead of a guaranteed monthly income for all New Yorkers, he is calling for a $2,000-a-year payment to 500,000 of the city’s poorest residents, a sum one of his opponents has said amounts to “U.B. Lie.” He has yet to clearly delineate how he will pay for it.Mr. Yang’s presidential bid in 2020 was largely based on the idea that the federal government should give every American citizen $1,000 a month in no-strings-attached cash. Christopher Lee for The New York TimesIf Mr. Yang’s campaigns have been premised on the promise of restoring humanity to government — his first television ad in the mayor’s race was called “Hope” — his call for a basic income reflects a darker understanding of history and human nature.The central argument behind his initial proposal was that technology was rendering much human labor obsolete — the “Great Displacement,” he calls it — and that the United States will descend into Hobbesian lawlessness without some form of guaranteed cash.In his book, he ruminates about how the violence might begin, and how the ruling class might react in ways that further cement the divide between the haves and have-nots.“One can imagine a single well-publicized kidnapping or random heinous act against a child of the privileged class leading to bodyguards, bulletproof cars, embedded safety chips in children, and other measures,” he wrote in 2018.Mr. Yang’s visions of an imminent descent into anarchy do not play much of a role in his mayoral campaign, and the language in his book is a sharp departure in substance and tone from his often-buoyant New York appearances.More than anything, he is running as the big-thinking optimistic candidate from outside the sclerotic political ecosystem, arguing that he alone has the magnetic personality and coalition-building skills to galvanize New York City’s economy, bring back tourists and remake government.As mayor, he says he would turn an old rail line in Queens into a park; build and preserve 250,000 units of affordable housing; and create a 10,000-person corps of recent college graduates to tutor students whose learning has been impacted by the pandemic.As he bounces from one event to the next, celebrating the return of sporting events and reopening of movie theaters, he has cast himself as New York’s cheerleader.“I reject the notion that you have to be a creature of the political establishment to be a real New Yorker or an effective mayor,” said Representative Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat and an early Yang backer, whose district — the poorest in the country — would stand to benefit from Mr. Yang’s guaranteed income proposal. “He’s enlivened the mayor’s race with the sheer force of his personality.”‘Can you imagine?’Mr. Yang has proposed trying to seize New York City’s subway from state control, but has not elaborated on how he would convince Gov. Andrew Cuomo to acquiesce.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesMr. Yang’s entry into the New York political scene was turbulent.He sparked controversy for spending parts of the pandemic with his wife, Evelyn, and their two young sons at their home in New Paltz (“Can you imagine trying to have two kids on virtual school in a two-bedroom apartment?” he asked, in a remark that was widely seen as tone-deaf.). He acknowledged he had never voted for mayor before..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-1jiwgt1{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;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{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-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.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-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 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:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}And he incensed some New Yorkers with a range of atypical views, from suggesting a casino on Governors Island, which is not legal, to his signaling that he would take a hands-off approach toward Hasidic yeshivas, which have faced intense criticism over the failure of some to provide a basic secular education.Yet for months, Mr. Yang has maintained a lead in most of the sparse public polling that is available, and he is among the strongest fund-raisers in the Democratic field, raising $1.4 million in the last two months alone. There is a palpable sense of enthusiasm — or at least a measure of being star-struck — among many voters who meet him.And he has a ready answer when asked about his dearth of government experience. He says he will surround himself with experts in city operations, like Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner and one of his competitors, whom he has said he would like to make a deputy mayor. (Ms. Garcia has dismissed those remarks as sexist and said that she has no interest in serving as his No. 2.)Were New Yorkers to elect Mr. Yang, they would be taking a bet on a leader whose personal magnetism is known, but whose ability to manage a 300,000-person bureaucracy with a nearly $100 billion budget is not.He has never overseen a unionized work force, though he noted that he regularly interacted with members of a health care union when he worked at a health care company years ago.Before running for mayor, he acknowledged, he had “almost certainly” never visited one of the city’s public housing developments, which together are home to half a million people.Mr. Yang has said he would like to make one of his competitors, Kathryn Garcia, center right, a deputy mayor. She has rejected the idea.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesHis own campaign adviser, Bradley Tusk, a prominent lobbyist and venture capitalist with interests in regulated businesses, has referred to him as an “empty vessel.” And his knowledge of New York City can seem spotty.He has lived in the city for 25 years, mostly in Hell’s Kitchen. But in a January interview, he seemed awe-struck by the conditions in some New York neighborhoods.“You saw things that were very, very dark and bleak,” Mr. Yang said, following a tour of Brownsville, a largely Black neighborhood where more than half of households earn less than $25,000 a year. “And people who had given up.”One ally likened Mr. Yang to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who started with a scant résumé and nevertheless achieved.But to many in New York City’s governing class, who prize themselves on their hard-won understanding of New York’s political ecosystem and are aware of just how difficult its bureaucracy is to navigate, Mr. Yang’s campaign smacks of hubris.“Yang has never done a damn thing in New York City,” said Richard Ravitch, the former lieutenant governor and a respected figure in New York politics, who has said he supports Raymond J. McGuire for mayor. “He knows nothing about the government, has no set of relationships with the institutions or the people. I don’t think he’s qualified.”A grab bag of supportersMr. Yang has attracted a significant following from influential ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders, largely because he has signaled he would take a hands-off approach to yeshivas if elected.James Estrin/The New York TimesMr. Yang presents himself as a nonideological champion of good ideas, an approach that has helped him build a sprawling coalition that includes some Asian American voters and lawmakers, Orthodox Jews, the occasional left-wing endorser and, Mr. Yang hopes, young people.But in the context of New York City Democrats, he is in many ways a political centrist who has alienated a number of activists and won the support of Wall Street billionaires who often back Republicans.He supports making some changes to the police force, like appointing a civilian commissioner, but he was an early backer of adding more officers to patrol the subway and he is a critic of the “defund the police” movement.After a far-reaching Albany budget agreement passed, he said that he supported the measure, which imposed higher taxes on wealthy New Yorkers. But he has been reluctant to express support for tax hikes on other occasions and is perceived as one of the most business-friendly candidates in the field.He is running as an anti-poverty candidate, promoting a public bank to assist struggling New Yorkers. But he has also told Kathryn Wylde, leader of the Wall Street-backed Partnership for New York City, that he wants to end what he sees as the “demonization” of business leaders and that he feels the sector’s concerns in his “bones.”His appeal to centrists and conservative voters is not a new phenomenon, though it was sometimes obscured by the seeming liberalism of his universal income platform.During his presidential run, Mr. Yang’s appearances on podcasts hosted by Sam Harris, Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro — who have large followings that include many who lean to the right — broadened his appeal among young, male conservatives.In an interview, he said he could not be held accountable for his interlocutors’ opinions. But aspects of his personal behavior have bothered some New York Democrats, too.He recently courted controversy by laughing when a comedian asked him if he choked women. Mr. Yang called the remark inappropriate and said he tried to leave quickly.And his presidential candidacy was trailed by allegations that Mr. Yang fostered a “bro” culture. He also faced two accusations, which he has denied, that he discriminated against women at Manhattan Prep because of their gender.Mr. Yang has won endorsements from several City Council members, including Vanessa L. Gibson, center right.Sara Naomi Lewkowicz for The New York TimesBut Mr. Yang’s allies and rivals do not doubt his capacity to win.So far, his opponents have struggled to build an effective case against him — though there is little doubt that their efforts to do so will only intensify in the final weeks of the race, as will media scrutiny of his policy positions.At a recent campaign event in Lower Manhattan, Mr. Yang tried to elaborate on his plan to wrest New York City’s subway from state control. It is a long-sought goal of a few transportation experts and also of Mr. Tusk. But it is widely acknowledged to be an uncommonly heavy political and logistical lift, and one to which Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is unlikely to agree.New York City’s transit press corps was having none of it.Mr. Yang was quizzed on the size of the transit system’s bruising debt load. (He failed that test.) He was asked to say precisely what was new in a proposal he had been touting for months. (Not much.)After the barrage of questions, Mr. Yang put on his mask and descended into the dimness of the Bowling Green subway station to wait for the uptown 4/5 train. For a moment, he was able to trade the din of the media for the squeals and groans of the subway system. More

The move put the Biden administration in the position of defending the secrecy of a memo related to the disputed decision to clear President Donald J. Trump.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration has decided to fight a legal battle to keep secret most of a Trump-era Justice Department memo related to Attorney General William P. Barr’s much-disputed declaration in 2019 that cleared President Donald J. Trump of illegally obstructing justice in the Russia investigation.In a late-night filing on Monday, the Justice Department appealed part of a scathing district court ruling that ordered it to make public the entire memo. Two senior department officials wrote the document at the same time that they were helping Mr. Barr draft a letter to Congress claiming that the evidence in the report, which was still secret at the time, was insufficient to charge Mr. Trump with a crime.The still-redacted portion of the document examines nearly a dozen episodes presented as raising obstruction of justice concerns that were detailed in the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and has at least two sections, according to two people briefed on it.One laid out potential legal theories under which Mr. Trump could have been prosecuted, the people said. The other examined whether the evidence for any of the episodes constituted proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The memo is said to conclude that no charge was viable.The decision to keep hiding that analysis from public scrutiny puts the Biden administration in the politically awkward position of trying to cover up a record that would shed new light on an act by Mr. Barr that Democrats consider notorious. But it also enables the department to defend two institutional interests: its ability to keep internal legal analysis secret and the actions of career officials whom a judge accused of misleading the court.The Justice Department did release the first page and a half of the nine-page memo. While Mr. Mueller had declined to render a judgment about whether to prosecute Mr. Trump because the department’s policy was not to charge a sitting president, the memo said that Mr. Barr should offer his opinion of the evidence to shape public understanding of the report.“Although the special counsel recognized the unfairness of levying an accusation against the president without bringing criminal charges, the report’s failure to take a position on the matters described therein might be read to imply such an accusation if the confidential report were released to the public,” wrote Steven A. Engel and Edward C. O’Callaghan, two senior Justice Department officials during the Trump administration.The department also consented to releasing additional portions of the ruling this month by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, in which she had labeled its previous filings to her about the memo as “disingenuous.” Portions of her ruling that discussed the first part of the memo had been redacted.The court on Tuesday unsealed a more fulsome version of the ruling. It revealed that Judge Jackson had also accused the department of having “deliberately obscured” material in the memo that contradicted the notion that Mr. Barr needed to offer a public opinion about the prosecutorial merit of the evidence amassed by Mr. Mueller. The exercise, she said, was instead “purely hypothetical” and fundamentally about “getting a jump on public relations.”Noting that she had discovered the existence of this first part of the memo only after she insisted on reading it for herself rather than relying on the department’s representations about it, Judge Jackson also wrote: “D.O.J. made a strategic decision to pretend as if the first portion of the memorandum was not there and to avoid acknowledging that what the writers were actually discussing was how to neutralize the impact of the report in the court of public opinion.”The new Justice Department filing apologized for — but also defended — its Barr-era assertions to the court about the memo. It said that department officials could have been clearer, but that they were nevertheless accurate on the central legal question: whether the nature of the memo was pre-decisional and deliberative and thus exempt from disclosure. Any missteps, it argued, did not warrant releasing the entire document.Mr. Barr’s claim that the evidence did not show that Mr. Trump had committed any chargeable crime of obstruction has been widely criticized as deeply misleading. Among other fallout, a government watchdog group, CREW, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in the United States District Court in Washington seeking disclosure materials about the matter, leading to the fight over the memo.The Mueller report itself — which Mr. Barr permitted to become public weeks after his letter to Congress created an impression that the fruits of the inquiry had cleared Mr. Trump of obstruction — detailed several actions by Mr. Trump that many legal specialists say were sufficient to ask a grand jury to indict him on charges of obstruction of justice.Those actions included Mr. Trump’s attempt to bully his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, into putting out a statement or writing a memo that would falsely deny that the president had directed him to fire Mr. Mueller — effectively falsifying evidence that would have contradicted Mr. McGahn’s witness testimony about that event.Mr. McGahn, who refused to relay directions to remove Mr. Mueller and to later falsely deny that episode, according to the Mueller report, will privately testify next week before the House Judiciary Committee about such matters.Mr. Trump’s actions also included dangling a potential pardon to his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, to encourage him not to cooperate with investigators.Mr. Trump later pardoned Mr. Manafort, who had refused to cooperate with Mr. Mueller about certain key matters.Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2019, Mr. Barr offered some explanations for why he did not think charges were merited for a few of the 10 episodes that the Mueller report had recounted as raising obstruction concerns. One of the people said that testimony drew upon and dovetailed with the still-hidden portions of the memo.“We took each of the 10 episodes, and we assessed them against the analytical framework that had been set forth by the special counsel,” Mr. Barr said at the time. “And we concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel’s investigation was not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense.”For example, several episodes centered on Mr. Trump’s use, or attempted use, of his power to remove subordinate officials in the executive branch. They included his firing in 2017 of the F.BI. director James B. Comey Jr. — the act that led to Mr. Mueller’s appointment — and his unsuccessful efforts to persuade subordinates to have Mr. Mueller fired.Mr. Barr testified that “as a matter of law,” the obstruction statutes enacted by Congress did not limit the president’s power to remove a special counsel.That view, which is contested, comports with his own sweeping theory of presidential power. Still, in the deliberations, department officials also focused on the lack of historical precedent for prosecuting a current or former president for firing a subordinate, the two people said.In his testimony, Mr. Barr also maintained that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Mr. Trump had deliberately sought to criminally obstruct the investigation, apart from legal theories.For example, Mr. Barr said, a major reason that Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey was his “refusal to tell the public what he was privately telling the president, which was that the president was not under investigation.” Mr. Trump’s rationale for trying to fire Mr. Mueller was a purported conflict of interest, and had Mr. Trump succeeded, Mr. Barr said, a replacement would “presumably” have been appointed.But the Trump Justice Department never made public its comprehensive analysis of all the episodes the Mueller report laid out. That is the analysis the Biden administration is seeking to keep secret.Judge Jackson had given the department until Monday night to respond to her order to disclose the memo — and, by extension, her finding that officials had been “disingenuous to this court” about its nature in court filings by arguing that it could be lawfully kept secret.In addition to officials omitting the existence of the first part of the memo in descriptions of it that were submitted to her, Judge Jackson also blasted the characterization of the document as pre-decisional. Mr. Barr, she wrote, had already decided not to initiate any prosecution of Mr. Trump when the memo was written, and it was instead about strategy and arguments that could be mustered to support that decision.In its filing, the Biden Justice Department said that the previous filings “could have been clearer, and it deeply regrets the confusion that caused.” But it also insisted that the department’s “declarations and briefs were accurate and submitted in good faith.”The department also put forward a narrow view of the problems with its previous statements about the memo, focusing on imprecision about whether Mr. Barr had been considering whether to commence a prosecution of Mr. Trump at that moment — as it had suggested in some places — or whether he was opining on whether Mr. Trump could be charged after he left office.Although Mr. Engel and Mr. O’Callaghan completed the memo after Mr. Barr had decided to say the evidence would not support obstruction charges, the department argued that the legal analysis portion of the memo memorialized advice they had provided before Mr. Barr made that decision.“The government acknowledges that its briefs could have been clearer, and it deeply regrets the confusion that caused,” the Biden Justice Department’s filing said. “But the government’s counsel and declarants did not intend to mislead the court, and the government respectfully submits” that any missteps still did not warrant releasing the entire memo.Katie Benner More

Two long-shots, Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, and Fernando Mateo, a restaurateur, are in a heated fight to be their party’s nominee.The two Republicans running for mayor of New York City used to be friends. They are both first-time candidates, long shots for the job and tabloid fixtures who perk up when they see a news camera.And now they are at war.At an in-person debate this spring, Fernando Mateo, a restaurateur, threatened his old friend Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, for what he said were attacks on his character and warned that he had damaging information about his opponent.“I have enough dirt to cover your body 18 feet over,” Mr. Mateo said.Mr. Sliwa had called Mr. Mateo a “de Blasio Republican” and accused him of breaking the law in his fund-raising efforts for Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat.“Shame on you,” Mr. Mateo responded, calling the allegations “fake news.”They will meet again on Wednesday, this time virtually, at the first official Republican debate, which will be broadcast on NY1.The Democratic primary for mayor has grown increasingly negative, with Andrew Yang, the former presidential hopeful, and Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, calling for investigations into each other’s fund-raising. But they have nothing on the Republicans, who despite their slim chance of winning City Hall seem intent on destroying each other in a scorched-earth primary campaign.It can be easy to forget that not that long ago, New York City elected back-to-back Republican mayors — Rudolph W. Giuliani and Michael R. Bloomberg — and that the Republican Party held its own in large sections of the city outside Manhattan. Today the party’s political power has weakened to the point where the Democratic primary, not the general election, will almost certainly decide who will be the next mayor.But the Republicans are still battling each other to become the face of the party. Mr. Sliwa, whose menacing crime-fighting squads made him a celebrity in the 1980s, is hoping that his public profile and law-and-order message, coming at a time of rising crime, can give him the edge both in the June 22 Republican primary and in the general election in November.Mr. Sliwa rode the subway for 24 hours straight last week, wearing his signature red beret and calling for 5,000 more police officers to stem violence in the system. Instead of defunding the police, he said, he wants to “re-fund the police.”In the 168th Street station in Manhattan, he greeted two officers.“You might be our savior,” one officer told him.Mr. Sliwa, who joined the Republican Party only a year ago, has brought a showman’s zest to the race. He was trailed by cameras as he brought a cake with a giant meatball on top of it to Gracie Mansion to taunt Mr. de Blasio on his 60th birthday — he was protesting the city’s decision to remove Columbus Day from the school calendar — and he hosted a mask-burning ceremony while a disco band sang “Burn Baby Burn.”Mr. Mateo, who was born in the Dominican Republic, is focusing on his story as an immigrant. He wants to become the city’s first Hispanic mayor and has called for overturning bail reform and keeping the jail at Rikers Island open.Republican leaders are split between the candidates. The Manhattan, Queens and Bronx parties endorsed Mr. Mateo. The Staten Island and Brooklyn parties backed Mr. Sliwa.Mr. Mateo is leading in fund-raising: He has raised about $520,000 and says he will qualify for public matching funds soon. (A candidate must raise at least $250,000 in contributions of $250 or less from at least 1,000 city residents to qualify.). Mr. Sliwa has raised about $315,000.There is little polling to know where the candidates stand. Mr. Sliwa was leading among older registered Republican voters with 40 percent, compared to 6 percent for Mr. Mateo, in an AARP-Siena poll in April. But about 44 percent of voters were undecided.Mr. Sliwa rode the subways for 24 hours recently.Andrew Seng for The New York TimesBoth face an uphill battle in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than six to one. Republicans have lost influence in the city since Mr. Giuliani was elected in 1993 and Mr. Bloomberg in 2001. Today the party has only a handful of elected officials in the city, with most from Staten Island, including James S. Oddo, the borough president, and Representative Nicole Malliotakis.Even Joseph J. Lhota, the Republican candidate for mayor who lost to Mr. de Blasio in 2013, left the party. He is supporting Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner and a Democrat, for mayor.Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat who is in his second term, said this week that the Republicans had no chance of succeeding him.“It’s a side show honestly,” he said. “They don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a general election, so God bless them.”But some Republicans see an opportunity. Joseph Borelli, a Republican city councilman from Staten Island, said the atmosphere in the city resembles the early 1990s, when Mr. Giuliani won City Hall amid rising crime and concerns over quality of life.“Just look at how the Democrats made a 180-degree turn on policing the minute there was a horrific shooting in Times Square,” he said. “They went from defund the police to ‘of course the police are part of the solution’ in less time than it takes to drive down Broadway.”Mr. Sliwa, 67, founded the Guardian Angels in 1979 after working as a night manager at a McDonald’s in the Bronx. The Angels’ patrols grabbed headlines, though Mr. Sliwa later confessed that they faked crimes for publicity..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-1jiwgt1{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;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{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-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.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-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 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:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Mr. Sliwa was shot five times in the 1990s, arrested at least 77 times, testified at the federal trial for John A. Gotti, a Mafia boss, and married four times. He had two children with Melinda Katz, now the Queens district attorney, before marrying his current wife, Nancy, who is a member of the Guardian Angels.He was a radio host and led the Reform Party of New York State before officially becoming a Republican last year. He has received criticism for many of his public comments over the years, including saying in 2015 that he wanted to have sex with the speaker of the City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito.His main campaign issue, beyond public safety, is property tax reform — a pressing issue for many homeowners outside Manhattan. Mr. Sliwa said he also wants voters to know that he has a compassionate side, rescuing cats that he keeps in his home on the Upper West Side.“I live in a 320-square-foot studio apartment with one toilet and 15 rescue cats,” he said in an interview. “There’s a lot of litter changing.”Mr. Mateo, 63, moved to New York City as a child, dropped out of school at 14 and started a carpet business. He later got involved in civic issues, creating groups to advocate for livery drivers and bodega owners, and he became a major political donor.Mr. Mateo advocated for livery drivers and bodega owners.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesHe is perhaps best known for his “Toys for Guns” program in the 1990s, when he offered toy store gift certificates in exchange for guns. It got 3,000 guns off New York streets, was replicated in other cities and made him a hero in the national news media.In 2018, he faced negative headlines over his waterfront restaurant La Marina, in the Inwood neighborhood in Manhattan, where there were complaints about drugs and noise, and he was linked to a scandal involving fund-raising by Mr. de Blasio.Mr. Mateo now runs another restaurant, Zona de Cuba in the Bronx, and says he works there in the evenings after long days on the campaign trail — a point of pride.“I’m making a living or I’m campaigning — I’m the only candidate that does that,” he said in an interview. “I know what it’s like to meet payroll.”His main proposal is a teen jobs program, which he calls “Alpha Track,” to keep students out of trouble.But for all of his positive talk about his life story and giving young New Yorkers the same opportunities, he is also taking aim at Mr. Sliwa, who has said he did not vote for President Donald J. Trump in 2020.“I’m the only true Republican in this race,” Mr. Mateo said. “I voted for Trump twice.”He said their feud began when he entered the race, and Mr. Sliwa began to attack him.“I thought that Curtis was my friend,” he said. “I carpeted his first apartment.” More

new video loaded: More

The Biden administration has decided to fight to keep secret most of a Trump-era Justice Department memo related to former Attorney General William P. Barr’s much-disputed declaration in 2019 clearing President Donald J. Trump of illegally obstructing justice in the Russia investigation.In a late-night filing Monday, the Justice Department appealed part of a district-court ruling that ordered it to make public the entire memo. It was written at the same time that Mr. Barr sent a letter to Congress claiming the evidence in the then-still secret report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was insufficient to charge Mr. Trump with a crime.The Justice Department did release the first page and a half of the nine-page memo. While Mr. Mueller had declined to render a judgment about what the evidence added up to because the department’s policy was not to charge a sitting president, the memo said Mr. Barr was justified in making a decision in order to shape public understanding of the report. “Although the special counsel recognized the unfairness of levying an accusation against the president without bringing criminal charges, the report’s failure to take a position on the matters described therein might be read to imply such an accusation if the confidential report were released to the public,” wrote Steven A. Engel and Edward C. O’Callaghan, two senior Trump-era Justice Department officials.The Mueller report itself — which Mr. Barr permitted to become public weeks after his letter to Congress had created an impression that the fruits of Mr. Mueller’s inquiry cleared Mr. Trump of obstruction — detailed multiple actions by Mr. Trump that many legal specialists say were clearly sufficient to ask a grand jury to consider indicting him for obstruction of justice.Those actions included attempting to bully his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, into falsifying a record to cover up an earlier attempt by Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Mueller, and dangling a potential pardon at Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, to encourage him not to cooperate with investigators.The new Justice Department filing also apologized for and defended its Barr-era court filings about the memo, which Judge Amy Berman Jackson had labeled “disingenuous,” saying that they could have been written more clearly but were nevertheless accurate.“The government acknowledges that its briefs could have been clearer, and it deeply regrets the confusion that caused,” the Justice Department said. “But the government’s counsel and declarants did not intend to mislead the court, and the government respectfully submits” that any missteps still did not warrant releasing the entire memo.Mr. Barr’s claim — which he made weeks before releasing the Mueller public — that the evidence gathered showed that Mr. Trump did not commit a chargeable offense of obstruction has been widely criticized as deeply misleading.Among other fallout, a government watchdog group, CREW, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in the United States District Court in Washington seeking disclosure of an internal memo about the matter.Earlier this month, Judge Jackson issued a scathing ruling in that case saying that the Barr-era Justice Department had been “disingenuous to this court” about the nature of the memo in court filings by arguing that it could be lawfully kept secret under an exemption for pre-decisional deliberations. She wrote that she had made the discovery after insisting that she read it herself.While the Barr-era Justice Department told her the memo concerned deliberations about whether Mr. Trump should be charged with obstruction, the memo itself showed that Mr. Barr had already decided not to do so, and the memo was instead about strategy and arguments that could be mustered to quash the idea. She ordered the entire document released.The Biden-era Justice Department had until Monday to respond. In its filing, it acknowledged that its earlier filings “could have been clearer, and it deeply regrets the confusion that caused.” But it also insisted that its “declarations and briefs were accurate and submitted in good faith.”The decision that Mr. Barr was actually making, the department said, was about whether to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to charge Mr. Trump someday — not whether he should be charged at that moment, since longstanding department legal policy is to consider sitting presidents temporarily immune from prosecution while they are in office.And, it said, the legal analysis in the second part of the memo — the portion it is appealing to keep secret — was, in fact, pre-decisional, even though the memo was completed after Mr. Barr made his decision, because it memorialized legal advice that department lawyers had previously provided to the attorney general. More