Elections

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentliveLatest UpdatesKey TakeawaysReporter AnalysisWhere Senators StandHouse ManagersTrump’s LawyersAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storynews analysisThe First Trial Seemed Abstract. This One Is a Visceral Reckoning Over Trump.At issue will be many aspects that defined Donald Trump’s presidency: his relentless assaults on truth, his fomenting of divisions, his shattering of norms and his undermining of an election.House impeachment managers watching the prosecution’s display of video from the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol during the trial on Monday. The video made clear how different this trial will be from the one a year ago.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesFeb. 9, 2021Updated 9:23 p.m. ETThis was no phone call transcript, no dry words on a page open to interpretation. This was a horde of extremists pushing over barricades and beating police officers. This was a mob smashing windows and pounding on doors. This was a mass of marauders setting up a gallows and shouting, “Take the building!” and “Fight for Trump!”As the United States Senate opened an unprecedented second impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday amid the echoes of history, the House managers prosecuting him played powerful video images of last month’s deadly assault on the Capitol that made abundantly clear how different this proceeding will be from the first.Where the case against Mr. Trump a year ago turned on what might have seemed like an abstract or narrow argument about his behind-the-scenes interactions with a far-off country, Ukraine, the case this year turns on an eruption of violence that Americans saw on television with their own eyes — and that the senators serving as jurors experienced personally when they fled for their lives.Rather than a judgment of where foreign policy turns into political excess, this sequel trial amounts to a visceral reckoning over Mr. Trump’s very presidency. At issue in the Senate chamber over the coming days will be many of the fundamental aspects that defined Mr. Trump’s four years in power: his relentless assaults on truth, his deliberate efforts to foment divisions in society, his shattering of norms and his undermining of a democratic election.Still, this trial may end up with the same verdict as the last one. On a test vote on the constitutionality of prosecuting a president after he leaves office, 44 Republicans on Tuesday stood by Mr. Trump, a measure of his enduring sway within his party and a signal that he most likely will win the 34 votes he needs for acquittal given the two-thirds supermajority required for conviction.But if the six Republicans who voted to proceed also vote to convict him for inciting an insurrection, it will be the most senators to break from a president of their own party in any impeachment trial in American history.“I would not have thought it when I was sitting on the Senate floor trying the first impeachment — it turns out that was just the opening act,” said Norman L. Eisen, a lawyer for House Democrats during last year’s trial on Mr. Trump’s pressure on Ukraine for political help. “The second one crystallizes all the anti-democratic elements that characterized Trump’s tenure and his Ukraine high crimes but brings them to an even higher pitch.”The emotional punch of this case was evident on the Senate floor on Tuesday. Sitting in what amounted to the crime scene, the same chamber they evacuated just a month ago moments before Mr. Trump’s supporters stormed in, some of the senators watched raptly as the scenes of violence played out on the screens before them. Others turned away.The lead House manager, Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, choked up as he recounted bringing his daughter and son-in-law to the Capitol that day, just a day after burying his 25-year-old son, only to have them sending farewell texts and making whispered goodbye phone calls because “they thought they were going to die.”Damage from the mob attack remained at the Capitol even as the impeachment trial got underway. Credit…Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times“Make no mistake about it, as you think about that day, things could have been much worse,” said Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island, another of the managers. “As one senator said, they could have killed all of us.”Mr. Trump’s defense team recognized the power of the other side’s presentation, with one of his lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr., admitting that the managers had done a good job in offering their case and even acknowledging that voters rejected Mr. Trump. But they complained that the House team was playing to emotions rather than law or reason, trying to rile up senators with inflammatory images and then twisting his words to unfairly blame the violence on Mr. Trump.David I. Schoen, another of the former president’s lawyers, said the videotape was “designed by experts to chill and horrify you and our fellow Americans” as if an impeachment trial “were some sort of blood sport.”“It is again for pure, raw, misguided partisanship,” Mr. Schoen added. “They do not need to show you movies to show you that the riot happened here. We will stipulate that it happened and you know all about it.”There is, of course, a certain paradox in a lawyer for a reality-show president complaining about the power of visual images. The longtime star of “The Apprentice” appreciates better than most how to tell a story on television.There was no compelling video in the Ukraine case, just recordings of people testifying to events the viewers could not watch themselves. None of the senators who rendered last year’s verdict felt physically threatened by Mr. Trump’s telephone call with Ukraine’s president seeking help smearing his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr.“This impeachment is a more of a made-for-television event, which is something the former president surely understands,” said Michael D’Antonio, a Trump biographer. “Where the previous one involved many narrative strands, a long span of time and very little action, this one offers a compact story with escalating tensions and a violent conclusion.”It also raises a broader indictment of Mr. Trump, one that may not seem quite so removed to everyday Americans who had little interest in Ukraine or saw Mr. Trump’s interventions there as politics as usual.When House Democrats moved to impeach Mr. Trump the first time, they debated whether to advance as many as 10 articles of impeachment charging him with all sorts of crimes, including obstructing the Russia investigation, authorizing hush money for women to cover up sexual affairs, illegally diverting money to his border wall and profiting personally from his office.Instead, they opted for the more circumscribed case involving Ukraine because they thought it was easiest to prove.Even some Republican senators agreed by the end of last year’s trial that Democrats had proved the case — they just did not deem it significant enough to merit conviction and removal from office. As a result, Mr. Trump emerged emboldened by his acquittal.This time, other than his staunchest allies, most Republican lawmakers are not defending Mr. Trump’s actions nor arguing that they were not impeachable. Instead, they have focused on process or politics, maintaining that it is unconstitutional to try a former president or a distraction from serious issues like fighting the coronavirus pandemic.But the case that will play out over the next week will put the most aberrant elements of Mr. Trump’s presidency on display. For four years, he played to the crowd, stirring anger, whipping up us-against-them conflicts and at times encouraging violence. He peddled dishonest versions of reality to suit his political needs and told supporters not to believe anyone but him. He undercut faith in democratic institutions and pushed boundaries other presidents would not have.The House’s impeachment managers heading to the Senate chamber at the start of the trial.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesAll of which played out in the months that led to the election on Nov. 3 and the Capitol siege on Jan. 6 and will now be scrutinized — how he promoted flagrantly bogus fraud complaints to try to cling to power even after voters rejected him, how he pressured state and local officials to subvert election results in his favor, how he revved up supporters to march on the Capitol by telling them their country was at stake.Michael W. McConnell, a conservative former appeals court judge and author of “The President Who Would Not Be King,” said the impeachment articles in the Ukraine case were weak. The abuse of power charge “stated a plausible ground” for removal but was “not so compelling,” while the obstruction of Congress article “was not legally sound” on its face.“This time, although the articles of impeachment were badly drafted, the charges are significantly more serious, unquestionably amounting to high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said. “I suspect that is why Mr. Trump’s defenders are desperately searching for a rationale for voting not to convict that is not based on defending or excusing what he did.”Mr. Trump benefits from the tribal nature of today’s politics. Much as they may not like him, most Republican lawmakers have stuck to their side of the fence — criticizing Mr. Trump’s actions was one thing, but joining hands with Democrats in a politically charged up-or-down verdict on his presidency is another. Similarly, polls show broad condemnation of Mr. Trump’s actions but only somewhat more support for conviction this time than last time.That is why Mr. Trump’s defense team played its own videos on Tuesday showing some Democrats calling for his impeachment almost from the minute he took office, arguing that their current drive is just the latest chapter in a campaign of retribution, a point intended to rally Republicans behind him again.And so while the Trump presidency is over, the struggle over the Trump presidency is not. For the next week, it will play out in gritty, angry, ugly words and images until its destined denouement.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

The 38-minute video below shows how Donald J. Trump’s persistent repetition of lies and calls to action over two months created an alternate reality that he won re-election. Mr. Trump’s words, which were echoed and amplified by the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, are a central focus of his second impeachment trial. […] More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyJohn Fetterman, Senate Candidate, Revisits Gun Incident Involving Black JoggerAs a mayor in 2013, Mr. Fetterman, a Democrat, used a gun to stop Christopher Miyares, a Black man jogging nearby, after saying he heard gunshots. The police found no weapons on Mr. Miyares and released him.John Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania and one of the state’s most prominent Democrats, this week entered the race for an open U.S. Senate seat in 2022.Credit…Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesTrip Gabriel and Feb. 9, 2021Updated 8:37 p.m. ETAt the height of protests last year over police violence against Black people, Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor, John Fetterman, called for police officers to be better trained to defuse incidents where those involved did not threaten public safety.“We must fall on the side of de-escalation every time,” Mr. Fetterman wrote, citing his experiences as mayor of the town of Braddock, outside Pittsburgh.But as Mr. Fetterman — one of Pennsylvania’s most prominent Democrats — enters the race for U.S. Senate this week, an incident from his past highlights his own judgment in the heat of one such moment.In 2013, when he was mayor, Mr. Fetterman used his shotgun to stop an unarmed Black jogger and detain him, telling the police that he had heard shots fired near his home and spotted the man running, according to the police report. “Fetterman continued to yell and state that he knows this male was shooting,” the police report says.An officer who patted down the man, Christopher Miyares, then 28, found no weapons. The officer noted that Mr. Miyares was wearing running clothes and headphones. Mr. Miyares was released.On Tuesday, in response to questions from The Times, Mr. Fetterman’s campaign shared a new two-and-a-half minute video in which the candidate described the incident and defended himself — a sign that his campaign anticipated that the events from eight years ago would resurface with potential political fallout for his Senate bid.In the video, Mr. Fetterman says that he was outside his home with his 4-year-old son when he heard “this crushing burst of gunfire,” and “I immediately made a series of split-second decisions.”He said he saw someone “dressed entirely in black and a face mask” running in the direction of an elementary school. Noting that the date, in January 2013, was not long after the Sandy Hook school shooting, Mr. Fetterman said, “I made the decision to stop him from going any further until the first responders could arrive.”According to accounts Mr. Fetterman gave in 2013 to local media, he chased the man in his pickup truck and used a 20-gauge shotgun he kept in the truck to hold him until the police appeared.“I believe I did the right thing,” Mr. Fetterman told WTAE-TV at the time. “But I may have broken the law in the course of it. I’m certainly not above the law.”Mr. Miyares told the TV station in 2013 that Mr. Fetterman had pointed the gun at his chest; the mayor denied doing so. Mr. Miyares said the incident unnerved him, and he maintained that what Mr. Fetterman took to be gunshots were bottle rockets set off by a group of kids. Mr. Fetterman said no traces of fireworks were found in the area.No charges related to the incident were brought against Mr. Fetterman, who was in his second of four terms as mayor. A search of public court records did not find any complaint or action taken by Mr. Miyares following the incident. A spokesman for the Allegheny County Police Department said on Tuesday that Mr. Miyares never filed a complaint with the department.Mr. Fetterman is the first declared candidate in what is expected to be one of the marquee Senate races nationwide next year, and he is running at a time when law enforcement violence against Black men, racial profiling and other policing abuses are urgent concerns among Democratic voters. Mr. Fetterman has highlighted his work developing a community policing plan for Braddock with buy-in from the town’s predominantly Black population, and firing police officers with a history of complaints.Defined by his progressive politics as well as an imposing appearance — he is 6-foot-8, has a shaved head and favors work clothes over suits — Mr. Fetterman built a national profile during his 14 years as mayor of Braddock, a town of fewer than 3,000 in the shadow of closed steel factories and struggling with high poverty. The dates of nine murders in the town are tattooed on his right forearm, a symbol of his commitment to stopping street violence. His efforts to revive Braddock with arts programs and urban farms earned him widespread media coverage, and he was elected lieutenant governor in 2018.Last month, Mr. Fetterman quickly raised $1.5 million after emailing supporters and telling his 400,000 Twitter followers that he was exploring a Senate race. In his campaign announcement video he pledged to unify voters with left-wing politics and those in left-behind communities who flocked to former President Donald J. Trump. He is expected to face challenges in the Democratic primary by two or more of the state’s centrist members of Congress, including Representatives Conor Lamb and Chrissy Houlahan.Mr. Fetterman’s nascent Senate campaign on Tuesday first emailed The Times a five-page document with contemporary news accounts that sought to emphasize that Mr. Fetterman did not know Mr. Miyares’s race when he pursued him, and to place their encounter in the context of what the document called a spate of gang-related gun violence in Braddock. The campaign then sent the video and a statement by Mr. Fetterman; he declined a request to be interviewed.In 2018, Mr. Miyares was charged with multiple felonies in a separate incident, including kidnapping for ransom, making terroristic threats and reckless endangerment, according to publicly available court records. He is currently incarcerated in state prison in Somerset County, Pa., and could not be reached for comment.Mr. Fetterman’s run-in with Mr. Miyares surfaced briefly in 2016 during an earlier Senate bid by Mr. Fetterman, when he ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary. At the time, he told The Philly Voice that his pursuit and detainment of the runner had nothing to do with race.“The runner could have been my mother for all I knew, thanks to what the jogger was wearing,” he said.In his statement released along with the video, Mr. Fetterman said the incident with the jogger had been spread by political opponents since 2015 “and it’s never gone anywhere because people here know that I did the right thing for my community.”Most recently, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully last year for a House seat from western Pennsylvania, Sean Parnell, tweeted about the incident in July 2020. Donald Trump Jr., the former president’s eldest son, retweeted Mr. Parnell.“I’m not going to just sit here while a bunch of Republicans who have never given a damn about racial justice launch these bad-faith attacks from the safety of their gated communities,” Mr. Fetterman said in his statement. “They’ve never had stray bullets hit their home, or had a bullet whiz by so close that you can feel the air move. When I ran for mayor, I made a commitment to do whatever I could to confront this gun violence — and that’s exactly what I’ve done.”He noted that he was re-elected in 2013 by voters in Braddock, which is 80 percent Black.That year, Mr. Fetterman won 75 percent of the 247 votes cast in the Democratic primary, and he ran unopposed in the general election.Susan Beachy and Sheelagh McNeil contributed research.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

This is the full edited video montage from the Capitol insurrection that Democrats presented during Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial on 9 February 2021, as part of their evidence alleging the former president incited the mob More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFox News Reports Profit Gain, Despite Ratings DropThe media powerhouse remains a profit machine, but it faces challenges, including competition from newer outlets and a defamation suit against its parent company.Lachlan Murdoch, the chief executive of the Fox Corporation, said audience pullback after the election was expected.Credit…Mike Cohen for The New York TimesFeb. 9, 2021Updated 4:02 p.m. ETIf Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News is at all worried about recent ratings declines, the company hid its concern well. Mr. Murdoch’s powerhouse television business continues to see growth in revenue and profit, reporting gains on both areas in its quarterly earnings report announced Tuesday.Fox Corporation, led by Mr. Murdoch’s son Lachlan Murdoch, the chief executive, saw a 17 percent jump in pretax profit, to $305 million. It logged an 8 percent gain in sales, to $4 billion, for the three months ending in December, what the company considers its second fiscal quarter.Despite losing the ratings crown to CNN in recent weeks, Fox News is still a profit machine. The cable division saw a 1 percent gain in revenue, to $1.49 billion, and a 3 percent increase in pretax profit, to $571 million. Advertising increased 31 percent, to $441 million, but the fees paid by cable operators to carry the network fell 3 percent, to $928 million, as more people cut the cord.Lachlan Murdoch trumpeted the cable news network’s performance, downplaying the recent drop in viewership.“The Fox News Channel finished the quarter with its highest average ratings,” he said on an earnings call with analysts. “We are now seeing expected audience pullback since the election,” a phenomenon that he said was “consistent with prior election cycles.” He expects audiences to eventually return to the network.The company also announced a multiyear renewal contract for Suzanne Scott, the head of the network, dispelling any concerns that she may be replaced given its recent ratings performance.“Suzanne’s track record of success, innovative sprit and dedication to excellence make her the ideal person to continue to lead and grow Fox News,” Lachlan Murdoch said in a statement on Tuesday.The network did not disclose the exact length or financial terms of the deal.But hanging over the company’s financial future is a defamation lawsuit recently brought against Fox Corporation by a little-known technology provider. The suit, filed by Smartmatic, whose system was used in the presidential election in Los Angeles County, is seeking at least $2.7 billion in damages against Fox Corporation, Fox News and several of its prime-time stars for participating in “the conspiracy to defame and disparage Smartmatic and its election technology and software,” according to the suit.Mr. Trump and his supporters repeatedly described the election as “rigged,” and Fox News and its sister network Fox Business have given significant airtime to personalities and anchors who have sown doubt about the election results. The suit names the Fox anchors Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeanine Pirro. Mr. Dobbs’s show was abruptly canceled last week, bringing his decade-long run at the company to an end.The financial penalty sought by Smartmatic appears to closely mirror the amount of profit Fox Corporation generates. For calendar year 2020, the company made about $3.1 billion in pretax earnings. Fox recently filed a motion to dismiss the suit.Fox News also faces competition from newer media outlets that tack even further to the right, such as OANN and Newsmax. Fox loyalists seemed to have turned on the network after it called the presidential election for Joseph R. Biden Jr., with some viewers flocking to competitors.When asked about the ratings declines and the impending battle for its core audience, Mr. Murdoch hesitated before answering.“In the journalism trade, you work out what your market is and produce the best product you can possibly produce,” he said. “At Fox News, the success of Fox News throughout its entire history has been to provide the absolute best news and opinion for a market that we believe is firmly center-right.”He seemed unconcerned about the rise in far-right news outlets that have seen record ratings in recent weeks.“We believe where we’re targeted to the center-right is exactly where we should be targeted,” he said. “We believe that’s where, politically, Americans are.”The company’s Fox broadcast stations helped drive much of the quarter’s growth as local networks saw record political advertising during the presidential election season. The broadcast division saw a 10 percent bump in ad dollars, to $1.8 billion.The addition of Tubi, the ad-supported free streaming service Fox acquired last year, also helped increase revenue to the TV unit. Although it is still a money-losing enterprise, Tubi is expected to double its revenue to about $300 million for the fiscal year ending in June, the company said.Michael Grynbaum contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

The election arm of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), has brought out its final report on the 2020 US presidential election, concluding that it was well organised under the circumstances and there was no significant fraud.The report also found that Donald Trump’s rhetoric and refusal to accept defeat undermined public faith in democratic institutions, and warned the US has long-term problems with providing equal voting rights for all.As is routine for OSCE member states, its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) sent a team out to observe the run-up, election day itself and the aftermath. Its report notes that voting infrastructure in the US is chronically underfunded, and the extra $400m disbursed to deal with the challenge of voting in a pandemic was insufficient.A total of 101 million Americans, 64% of all 2020 voters, cast an early ballot, but despite that unprecedented number, the report found that “early voting was generally well organised and implemented professionally”.“The number and scale of substantiated cases of fraud associated to absentee ballots were negligible,” it said.One of the main problems with the election and its aftermath, according to the findings, was the incumbent president.“On many occasions, President Trump created an impression of refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, claiming that the electoral process was systematically rigged,” the report said.“Such statements by an incumbent president weaken public confidence in state institutions and were perceived by many as increasing the potential for politically motivated violence after the elections.”The ODIHR report did not take an explicit view on Trump’s role in inciting the Capitol riot on 6 January and for which he was impeached a second time. But it noted that at his rally immediately beforehand, Trump “persisted in his accusations that the election had been stolen, urging his supporters to pressure representatives to overturn the counting of electoral college votes”.The ODIHR was most scathing about the state of voting rights in the US. It notes that after the supreme court invalidated key parts of the Voting Rights Act, “some states enacted laws which effectively compromised voting rights for some disadvantaged groups”.An estimated 5.2 million citizens are effectively disenfranchised due to a criminal conviction, even though half have served their sentences.The report concluded: “These restrictions on the voting rights of ex-felons and felons contravene principles of universal suffrage and the principle of proportionality in the restriction of rights, as provided for by OSCE commitments and other international standards.”The ODIHR made 38 recommendations on how to improve US democracy. It called on American politicians to stop using “inflammatory or discriminatory rhetoric”, and for all people with criminal convictions to have their voting rights restored on completion of their sentence.It also said US authorities should work on reducing the number of unregistered voters, by reducing “burdensome procedures and obstacles” to registration that have been erected in some states, draw up district boundaries on non-partisan principles, and review the electoral college system so that it confirms with the “principle of equality of the vote”. More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyJustice Dept. to Keep Special Counsel Investigating Russia InquiryJohn H. Durham will remain as special counsel even as the Biden administration requests a mass resignation of U.S. attorneys. The prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden’s taxes will also remain.The Justice Department will begin to ask dozens of remaining Trump-era U.S. attorneys to resign on Tuesday.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesFeb. 9, 2021Updated 8:03 a.m. ETWASHINGTON — The Justice Department will allow John H. Durham to remain in the role of special counsel appointed to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia inquiry, even after he relinquishes his role as the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut, according to a senior Justice Department official.Mr. Durham is expected to step down as the U.S. attorney in Connecticut as early as Tuesday, when the Biden administration will begin to ask dozens of Trump-era U.S. attorneys who have not already quit to submit their resignations, the official said Monday.All of the remaining U.S. attorneys appointed by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by the Senate will be asked to tender their resignations except for David C. Weiss, the U.S. attorney in Delaware who is overseeing the tax fraud investigation into President Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson called Mr. Weiss on Monday evening and asked him to remain in office, according to the official.It is common for new presidents to replace U.S. attorneys en masse, and the request for resignations has long been expected. But Mr. Durham’s and Mr. Weiss’s investigations had created delicate situations for the Biden administration, which is seeking to restore the Justice Department’s image of impartiality.It is not clear exactly when the resignations, 56 in all, will take effect, or when their replacements can be confirmed by the Senate. The resignations were reported earlier by CNN.The confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick B. Garland, Mr. Biden’s nominee for attorney general, is not expected to begin for two weeks, according to a person briefed on the matter. The process has been slowed by the tumultuous transition from the Trump administration and by the second impeachment trial of Mr. Trump, which begins on Tuesday.Since the spring of 2019, Mr. Durham has been investigating whether any Obama administration officials broke the law when they examined the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.The New WashingtonLive UpdatesUpdated Feb. 9, 2021, 9:53 a.m. ETBiden will spend the day focused on the stimulus package and his push to increase the minimum wage to $15.Conservative media, the apparatus that fed Trump’s power, is facing a test, too.Trump’s trial is expected to be brief but may have lasting political repercussions.Both Mr. Trump and the attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, had publicly said they were certain that Mr. Durham would uncover grave offenses, if not outright criminal behavior, that supported the idea that the Russia investigation was a plot created to sabotage Mr. Trump.But Mr. Durham never lived up to their expectations. The only criminal case Mr. Durham has brought was against Kevin E. Clinesmith, a former lower-level F.B.I. lawyer, who falsified information in an email from the C.I.A. that the bureau used to renew a wiretap order that targeted Carter Page, a onetime Trump campaign aide. In the weeks before the 2020 election, Mr. Trump and his supporters expressed outrage that the Durham inquiry had not produced anything useful to Mr. Trump’s campaign efforts.In October, Mr. Barr secretly appointed Mr. Durham to serve as special counsel to continue his work. The move gave Mr. Durham independence from a possible Biden administration and made it very difficult for a new attorney general to end his investigation, all but ensuring the Durham inquiry would live on after Mr. Trump left office.“In advance of the presidential election, I decided to appoint Mr. Durham as a special counsel to provide him and his team with the assurance that they could complete their work, without regard to the outcome of the election,” Mr. Barr wrote in a letter that he submitted to Congress in December.Dozens of Mr. Trump’s U.S. attorneys have already resigned, in the weeks before and after the election, leaving those offices in the hands of acting officials. While Mr. Durham and several more U.S. attorneys are expected to join them this week, that cohort will not include the leaders of the largest, most prominent federal prosecutor’s offices: Audrey Strauss, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, who was appointed to her position by the courts, and Michael R. Sherwin, the U.S. attorney in Washington, who is an acting official and was not confirmed by the Senate.Both Ms. Strauss and Mr. Sherwin were elevated to their roles amid upheaval and controversy that stemmed from Mr. Barr’s handling of politically delicate cases involving Mr. Trump.Ms. Strauss was made the acting U.S. attorney after her boss, Geoffrey S. Berman, angered the White House with his handling of cases against Mr. Trump’s associates and ultimately refused to leave when Mr. Barr tried to replace him. The standoff between the two men ended when Mr. Barr allowed Ms. Strauss, a registered Democrat, to lead the office. Federal judges in her district, exercising a rarely used power, formally appointed her to the position in December.Mr. Sherwin was tapped to lead the Washington office after his predecessor was removed amid a contentious decision by Mr. Barr to force prosecutors to lower a sentencing recommendation for one of Mr. Trump’s allies, Roger J. Stone Jr. Mr. Sherwin has since emerged as the face of the Justice Department’s sprawling investigation into the Jan. 6 siege of the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.Mr. Sherwin could remain at the department to work on the Capitol riots investigation, even after the administration nominates a new U.S. attorney, according to a person with knowledge of the deliberations.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More