Elections

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Campaign to Subvert the 2020 ElectionTrump’s RoleKey TakeawaysExtremist Wing of G.O.P.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFox News Is Sued by Election Technology Company for Over $2.7 BillionSmartmatic accused Rupert Murdoch’s network of promoting a false narrative about the 2020 election that damaged the company.A Smartmatic representative demonstrating the company’s vote-processing system in 2018.Credit…Bob Andres/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, via Associated PressJonah E. Bromwich and Feb. 4, 2021Updated 9:47 p.m. ETLeer en españolIn the latest volley in the battle over disinformation in the presidential election, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corporation has been sued by an obscure tech company that has accused his cable networks of defamation and contributing to the fervor that led to the siege of the Capitol.The suit pits Smartmatic, which provided election technology in one county, against Donald J. Trump’s longtime favorite news outlet and three Fox anchors, Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeanine Pirro, all ardent supporters of the former president. A trial could reveal how Mr. Trump’s media backers sought to cast doubt on an election that delivered a victory to Joseph R. Biden Jr. and a loss to an incumbent who refused to accept reality.Filed in New York State Supreme Court, Smartmatic’s suit seeks at least $2.7 billion in damages. In addition to Mr. Murdoch’s Fox Corporation, Fox News and the three star anchors, it targets Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sidney Powell, lawyers who made the case for election fraud as frequent guests on Fox programs while representing President Trump.In its 276-page complaint, Smartmatic, which has requested a jury trial, argues that Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell “created a story about Smartmatic” and that “Fox joined the conspiracy to defame and disparage Smartmatic and its election technology and software.”“The story turned neighbor against neighbor,” the complaint continues. “The story led a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol.”Smartmatic filed the suit three months after an election repeatedly described as rigged or stolen by Mr. Trump and his supporters. Fox and its upstart competitors Newsmax and OANN gave significant broadcast time to hosts and commentators who argued against the election’s integrity at a time of a rancorous political divide, when conspiratorial notions have moved into the mainstream.Smartmatic’s suit follows two others filed last month by Dominion Voting Systems: one against Mr. Giuliani, the other against Ms. Powell. Dominion, a Smartmatic competitor, is another company that has figured prominently in baseless election-fraud theories.Even after the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, a deadly riot led by Trump loyalists, the talk of fraud has not fully died down. In an appearance on Tuesday on Newsmax, Mike Lindell, the MyPillow founder who has been one of Mr. Trump’s devoted supporters, began an attack on Dominion. In a sign that the threat of defamation lawsuits has deterred media outlets that have broadcast conspiracy theories, the Newsmax anchor Bob Sellers cut off Mr. Lindell and read a statement: “The election results in every state were certified. Newsmax accepts the results as legal and final. The courts have also supported that view.”Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network is one of three Fox anchors named in the lawsuit.Credit…John Lamparski/Getty ImagesIn its complaint, Smartmatic said Fox programs became a venue for a number of falsehoods about the company in the weeks after the election, a time when powerful Republicans in Congress were sowing doubts about the vote’s outcome and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, then the majority leader, had yet to congratulate Joseph R. Biden Jr. on his victory.The suit cites a false claim, made by Ms. Powell on a November episode of Mr. Dobbs’s show on Fox Business, that Hugo Chávez, the deceased president of Venezuela, had a hand in the creation of Smartmatic technology, designing it so that the votes it processed could be changed undetected. (Mr. Chávez, who died in 2013, did not have anything to do with Smartmatic.)The lawsuit also cites exchanges on Fox programs that it says helped spread the claim that it was the owner of Dominion (it is not) and that it had provided its services to districts in contested states. (In fact, Smartmatic was used in the 2020 election only by Los Angeles County.) The lawsuit also says that Fox helped promote the false notion that the company had sent votes to other countries to be manipulated.Smartmatic added in its complaint that Fox’s broadcasting of the false claims “jeopardized” its “multibillion-dollar pipeline of business”; damaged its election technology and software businesses; and made it difficult for the company to get new business in the United States, where it had made inroads after years of servicing elections in other nations.A Fox spokeswoman disputed the claims in Smartmatic’s lawsuit, saying in a statement: “Fox News Media is committed to providing the full context of every story with in-depth reporting and clear opinion. We are proud of our 2020 election coverage and will vigorously defend this meritless lawsuit in court.”Ms. Powell, who said she had not seen or received notice of the suit, said: “Your characterization of the claims shows that this is just another political maneuver motivated by the radical left that has no basis in fact or law.”Ms. Bartiromo, Mr. Dobbs, Ms. Pirro and Mr. Giuliani did not immediately reply to requests for comment.In its frontal attack on Mr. Murdoch’s company, Smartmatic argues that Fox cast it as a villain in a fictitious narrative meant to help win back viewers from Newsmax and OANN. Those two networks saw ratings surges in the weeks after the election, thanks to their embrace of the fiction that Mr. Biden was not the rightful victor. The Smartmatic suit also argues that Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell sought to enrich themselves and improve their standing with Mr. Trump’s supporters by making claims that were damaging to the company.After Smartmatic sent a letter to Fox requesting a retraction for what it called “false and misleading statements” about the company and threatening legal action, each of the shows led by the three Fox anchors aired a segment in which an election expert, Eddie Perez, debunked a number of false claims about Smartmatic. The prerecorded segment, broadcast in December, showed Mr. Perez responding to questions from an off-camera voice. In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Perez said that the finished product “almost looked like a deposition.”Smartmatic’s complaint described not only the reputational and financial damage the company said it had suffered, but also the harm done to the United States by the claims promoted by Mr. Trump’s allies and the Murdoch-controlled networks he had long favored.Fox Corporation, with about 9,000 employees, is run by Mr. Murdoch, 89, and his elder son, Lachlan, its chief executive. A penalty of $2.7 billion would be hefty. Fox Corporation made $3 billion in pretax profit on $12.3 billion in revenue from September 2019 to September of last year. The company is valued at about $17.8 billion.Ms. Bartiromo, the host of shows on Fox Business and Fox News, conducted an interview with Mr. Trump on Nov. 29, his first lengthy TV interview after the election. Ms. Pirro, a onetime prosecutor whose “Justice with Judge Jeanine” is a staple of Fox News’s Saturday night lineup, has been friends with Mr. Trump for decades.Don Herzog, who teaches First Amendment and defamation law at the University of Michigan, said that the suit’s main argument made sense. “You can’t just make false stuff up about people,” he said. He expressed doubt about the suit’s linking the false statements on Fox to the Capitol attack, however, saying the events of Jan. 6 had no bearing on whether the defendants had harmed Smartmatic.The suit’s success would depend on a variety of factors, Mr. Herzog added, including whether Smartmatic can persuade a jury that the company did not have the standing of a public figure before Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell made it better known.If the court determines that Smartmatic was a public figure, the burden of proof for its claims will be higher. The company will have to show that the defendants knew that their statements were false or that they had serious doubts about them. In its complaint, Smartmatic argues that Mr. Giuliani, Ms. Powell and the three Fox anchors acted with “actual malice” and “recklessly disregarded” the veracity of their statements.While it may be difficult to persuade jurors that Fox is responsible for what guests say on its programs, Timothy Zick, a William & Mary Law School professor who specializes in First Amendment law, said the company could be held responsible for the content of its broadcasts.“If they knew that the segment was going to include these false statements, then I don’t think that relieves them of liability,” he said.At times, the language of the Fox hosts echoed that of Mr. Trump’s lawyers. The lawsuit cites Ms. Powell referring to the supposed vote-fraud conspiracy as a “cyber Pearl Harbor,” a phrase repeated by Mr. Dobbs on his show and on Twitter.Antonio Mugica, chief executive of Smartmatic, in London. While there, he said, he received a kidnapping threat.Credit…Henry Nicholls/ReutersWhen Smartmatic started in April 2000, it offered its services to banks. The shift to election security came after Antonio Mugica, a company founder and its chief executive, was in Palm Beach County during the contested 2000 election. “We were in the first row watching that circus,” he said. “And it really caused an impact on all of us.”The company had success providing its electronic voting machines, online voting platforms and software products for elections around the world. It was also used in the 2016 Republican presidential caucus in Utah. In 2018, Los Angeles County chose Smartmatic to develop a new election system, and its technology was used there in the March presidential primary and again in the general election.After Election Day, the company’s name, along with that of Dominion, became integral to the baseless theories promoted by right-wing media outlets. Smartmatic employees and their family members received threats, including death threats, some of which were noted in the complaint.“I had one in which I was told they were going to actually come kidnap me in London, where I was at the time,” Mr. Mugica said. “They were sending three people. ‘Plane is landing tomorrow.’”Edmund Lee contributed reporting. Kitty Bennett contributed research.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump Refuses Surprise Call to Testify in His Impeachment TrialThe former president’s lawyers wasted little time in swatting away the invitation to testify, saying the trial was “unconstitutional” and the request to testify a “public relations stunt.”President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers denied that he incited the attack or meant to disrupt Congress’s counting of electoral votes to formalize President Biden’s victory.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesNicholas Fandos, Michael S. Schmidt and Feb. 4, 2021Updated 9:19 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House impeachment managers issued a surprise request on Thursday for Donald J. Trump to testify in his Senate trial next week, making a long-shot attempt to question the former president under oath about his conduct on the day of the Capitol riot. It was quickly rejected by his lawyers.In a letter to Mr. Trump, Representative Jamie Raskin, the lead House impeachment prosecutor, said the former president’s response this week to the House’s charge that he incited an insurrection on Jan. 6 had disputed crucial facts about his actions, and demanded further explanation.“Two days ago, you filed an answer in which you denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment,” wrote Mr. Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. “You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense.”He proposed interviewing Mr. Trump “at a mutually convenient time and place” between Monday and Thursday. The trial is set to begin on Tuesday.But Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, wasted little time in swatting away the invitation. They said that Mr. Trump wanted no part of a proceeding they insisted was “unconstitutional” because he is no longer in office, and called Mr. Raskin’s request a “public relations stunt.”“Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone: You cannot prove your allegations against the 45th president of the United States, who is now a private citizen,” they wrote in a letter to Mr. Raskin.Mr. Schoen and another adviser to Mr. Trump, Jason Miller, later clarified that the former president did not plan to testify voluntarily before or after the trial begins. Instead, his defense team intends to argue that the case should be dismissed outright on constitutional grounds, and that Mr. Trump is not guilty of the bipartisan “incitement of insurrection” charge in which the House asserts he provoked a mob with baseless voter fraud claims to attack the Capitol in a bid to stop Congress from formalizing his loss.The decision, if it holds, is likely to be helpful for both sides. With Senate Republicans already lining up to acquit Mr. Trump for the second time in just over a year, testimony from a famously impolitic former president who continues to insist falsely that he won the election risks jeopardizing his defense.Democrats might have benefited from Mr. Trump’s testimony, but his silence also allows the House managers to tell senators sitting in judgment that they at least gave Mr. Trump an opportunity to have his say. Perhaps more important, they quickly claimed — despite the defense’s protests — that his refusal established an “adverse inference supporting his guilt,” meaning that they would cite his silence as further proof that their allegations are true.“Despite his lawyers’ rhetoric, any official accused of inciting armed violence against the government of the United States should welcome the chance to testify openly and honestly — that is, if the official had a defense,” Mr. Raskin said in a statement Thursday evening. “We will prove at trial that President Trump’s conduct was indefensible.”Mr. Raskin could still try to subpoena testimony from Mr. Trump during the trial. But doing so would require support from a majority of the Senate and could prompt a messy legal battle over claims of executive privilege that could take weeks or longer to unwind, snarling the agenda of President Biden and Democrats. Members of both parties already pressing for a speedy trial signaled skepticism on Thursday to calling Mr. Trump.“I think it’s a terrible idea,” Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and one of Mr. Biden’s closest allies, said of Mr. Trump taking the witness stand. Asked to clarify his reasoning, he replied, “Have you met President Trump?”“I don’t think that would be in anybody’s interest,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the president’s allies. “It’s just a nightmare for the country to do this.”Read the Letter Calling on Trump to TestifyIn a letter to former President Donald J. Trump, the lead House impeachment prosecutor said Mr. Trump’s response this week to the House’s charge had challenged “overwhelming evidence” about his conduct as the assault unfolded, and demanded further explanation.The managers said their invitation for Mr. Trump to testify was prompted primarily by his lawyers’ official response to the impeachment charge, filed with the Senate on Tuesday. In it, Mr. Trump’s lawyers flatly denied that he incited the attack or meant to disrupt Congress’s counting of electoral votes, despite Mr. Trump’s clear and stated focus on using the process to overturn the results. They also denied that a speech to a throng of his supporters just before the attack in which Mr. Trump urged the crowd to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” against the election results, suggesting that Republican lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence had the power to change the outcome, “had anything to do with the action at the Capitol.”Mr. Trump’s team argued that the former president could not be culpable for those statements, or for the falsehoods he spread about election fraud, because they were protected by First Amendment rights given that he believes that he was the true winner.In his letter and subsequent statement, Mr. Raskin did not indicate whether he intended to try to subpoena testimony from Mr. Trump or any other witnesses when the trial begins.The question has proved a difficult one for the nine House managers. Because they moved quickly to impeach Mr. Trump only a week after the attack, they did no meaningful fact-finding before charging him, leaving holes in their evidentiary record. One of the most notable has to do with how precisely Mr. Trump conducted himself when it became clear the Capitol was under assault on Jan. 6.The president sent several tweets sympathizing with the mob and calling for peace during that time, but as the House managers made clear in their 80-page trial brief filed with the Senate this week, they possess little more direct evidence of how Mr. Trump responded. Instead they rely on news reports and accounts by lawmakers who desperately tried to reach him to send in National Guard reinforcements, which have suggested that he was “delighted” by the invasion.Testimony by Mr. Trump or other White House or military officials could clarify that. But in this case, a greater understanding would almost certainly prolong the trial by weeks or longer. Republicans are averse to an extended airing of Mr. Trump’s conduct, but for Democrats, the cost would be steep to their ambitions to pass coronavirus relief legislation and install the remainder of Mr. Biden’s cabinet — with very little chance of ultimately changing the verdict of the trial.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, with whom the decision will most likely rest, has indicated would be comfortable proceeding without witnesses.“We will move forward with a fair and speedy trial,” he said on Thursday. “The House managers will present their case. The former president’s counsel will mount a defense, and senators will have to look deep into their consciences and determine if Donald Trump is guilty, and if so, ever qualified again to enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”The calculus for Mr. Trump’s legal team is far simpler. In addition to alienating Republican senators reluctant to convict a former president who remains so popular in their party, Mr. Trump could put himself in legal jeopardy if he testified. He has a penchant for stating falsehoods, and it is a federal felony to do so before Congress.Mr. Schoen accused Democrats in the House and Senate of running an unfair proceeding. He said they had yet to share even basic rules, like how long the defense would have to present its case.“I don’t think anyone being impeached would show up at the proceedings we firmly believe are unconstitutional,” Mr. Schoen said in a text message.He and Mr. Castor also rejected Mr. Raskin’s reasoning that Mr. Trump’s failure to testify would bolster their argument that he is guilty.“As you certainly know,” they wrote, “there is no such thing as a negative inference in this unconstitutional proceeding.”But the managers also appeared to be appealing, at least in part, to Mr. Trump’s impulse for self-defense, betting that he might defy his lawyers’ guidance not to speak. Throughout Mr. Trump’s presidency — first during the Russia investigation and then in his first impeachment inquiry — he was eager to tell his side of the story, convinced that he was his own best spokesman.During the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump insisted to his legal team that he wanted to sit and answer prosecutors’ questions. That desire unnerved his lawyers, who believed that Mr. Trump would almost certainly make some sort of false statement and face greater legal consequences. One member of his legal team quit over the issue.Ultimately, Mr. Mueller declined to seek a subpoena for Mr. Trump’s testimony and accepted written responses from him that later prompted the special counsel to question whether Mr. Trump had been truthful.Hailey Fuchs More

A fiercely divided House removed the congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene from both her committees Thursday, an unprecedented punishment that Democrats said she’d earned by spreading hateful and violent conspiracy theories.
During the debate, the House majority, leader Steny Hoyer, exhibited a Facebook post in which Greene is holding a gun next the faces of progressive congresswomen of color
House votes to remove Republican extremist Marjorie Taylor Greene from committee roles
Biden declares ‘diplomacy is back’ as he outlines foreign policy agenda at state department – live More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutTracking the ArrestsVisual TimelineInside the SiegeMurder Charges?The Oath KeepersAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storySenate Intelligence Committee to Examine Antigovernment ExtremistsSenator Mark Warner, the committee’s new chairman, said he hoped to lead a bipartisan investigation of the groups, their overseas ties and amplification of their message by foreign powers.Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said it was vitally important for the Senate Intelligence Committee to do a “significant dive” into antigovernment extremism in the United States.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesJulian E. Barnes and Feb. 4, 2021Updated 7:59 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The Senate Intelligence Committee will examine the influence of Russia and other foreign powers on antigovernment extremist groups like the ones that helped mobilize the deadly attack on the Capitol last month, the panel’s new chairman said in an interview this week.As the executive branch undertakes a nationwide manhunt to hold members of the mob accountable, Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virgina, said it would be vitally important for the influential committee to do a “significant dive” into antigovernment extremism in the United States, the ties those groups have to organizations in Europe and Russia’s amplification of their message.With the power-sharing agreement between Democrats and Republicans in place, Mr. Warner took over this week as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, after four years as its vice chairman. In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Warner outlined his priorities, such as the spread of disinformation, the rise of antigovernment extremist groups, Chinese domination of key technologies, Russia’s widespread hacking of government computer networks and strengthening watchdog protections in the intelligence agencies.The White House has ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to work with the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. on a new analysis of the threat from domestic extremist groups and the support they receive from foreign powers or overseas organizations.Those antigovernment extremists include QAnon, the conspiracy movement, and the Proud Boys, a far-right organization that Canada named as a terrorist group on Wednesday. Supporters of those groups and others were part of the attack on the Capitol building on Jan. 6, which aimed to stop the transfer of power to the Biden administration.The issue is a difficult one for the intelligence community. By law, the most influential agencies, including the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, are not allowed to collect information domestically. But Avril D. Haines, the director of national intelligence, has some oversight of the intelligence arms of the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security, which can collect information domestically. Other intelligence agencies look at foreign attempts to influence American groups.While preliminary work by Ms. Haines’s office is underway, administration officials said that analysis was unlikely to be completed before April. But there appears to be significant interest in moving quickly on the issue in the Senate. At Ms. Haines’s confirmation hearing last month, a number of lawmakers raised the subject of domestic extremist groups. The Senate Intelligence Committee will examine both white supremacist groups on the right, and antifascist, or antifa, groups on the left, though Mr. Warner was quick to say that the danger the groups posed was not the same. “I don’t want to make a false equivalency argument here,” he said, “because the vast preponderance of them are on the right.”Like the intelligence community, Mr. Warner’s panel could face its own jurisdictional challenges as a handful of other House and Senate groups jockey to play a role in studying the aftermath of the Capitol assault and congressional leaders contemplate setting up an independent commission.For the past four years, the committee has done extensive work on disinformation efforts. Mr. Warner said that experience could guide the panel as it looks at how extremists groups spread propaganda and how foreign powers amplify it.Unlike most corners of Capitol Hill, and unlike the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Warner’s panel has managed to operate, for the most part, with bipartisan agreement. All but one senator on the committee backed its five-volume report on Russian interference. Completed last year, the Senate investigation was perhaps the definitive word on Moscow’s interference efforts and found that Russia had disrupted the 2016 election to help Donald J. Trump become president.Mr. Warner said on Wednesday that the bipartisan record of the committee was important for him to preserve, and that he intended to begin work with closed-door meetings to make the case to other committee members about the threat the groups represent and how they could be exploited by outside powers.Democrats and Republicans on the committee have expressed interest in examining antigovernment extremist groups, Mr. Warner said. But he acknowledged the political sensitivities after the Capitol attack and Mr. Trump’s support among far-right factions of those groups. Making the case that antigovernment groups are a problem not only in the United States but also in Europe is one way to build consensus on the issue. The committee, Mr. Warner said, will begin its discussions in private sessions so lawmakers can have a candid and less political conversation.Beyond an investigation of antigovernment extremism and foreign efforts to promote it, Mr. Warner said the committee would work on pushing for new protections for whistle-blowers and making it more difficult to dismiss inspectors general, government officials charged with finding waste, fraud and abuse..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{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;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1amoy78{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-1amoy78{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1amoy78:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.Mr. Trump last year fired Michael K. Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community. It was Mr. Atkinson who investigated the whistle-blower complaint about Mr. Trump’s call with his Ukrainian counterpart in 2019 and ultimately delivered that report to Congress.At Ms. Haines’s confirmation hearing last month, Mr. Warner began his questioning by describing how his own views on the Chinese government had changed, thoughts he repeated in his interview. He said he was wrong to have believed that China would democratize the more it was brought into the world order.“I will astonish you and acknowledge that directionally, Trump was right,” Mr. Warner said on Wednesday.Mr. Warner said he disagreed with John Ratcliffe, Mr. Trump’s final director of national intelligence, who had argued that China was trying to interfere with the election. But Mr. Warner said he believed China had “a very, very sophisticated effort to influence American policy.”The Senate committee will also look at Chinese technological investments, building on the work members of Congress have done on Beijing’s dominance of 5G, the next generation of mobile phone networks, Mr. Warner said. He said the United States needed to carefully assess its technology compared with China’s on artificial intelligence, facial recognition and quantum computing.Having a government role in bringing some manufacturing back to the United States from China was an area of bipartisan agreement, Mr. Warner said, mentioning Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas and a member of the Intelligence Committee.“There is a coalition of the willing to take on the challenge of China,” Mr. Warner said. “China has taken the best lessons of British imperialism and American imperialism, and we find them in a kind of authoritarian capitalism model.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Campaign to Subvert the 2020 ElectionTrump’s RoleKey TakeawaysExtremist Wing of G.O.P.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyDemanda millonaria a Fox News: una empresa de tecnología electoral acusa a la cadena de difamaciónSmartmatic demandó a la corporación de Rupert Murdoch por promover una narrativa falsa sobre las elecciones de Estados Unidos de 2020 que perjudicó a la empresa.Un representante de Smartmatic demuestra el sistema de procesamiento de votos de la compañía en 2018.Credit…Bob Andres/Atlanta Journal-Constitution vía Associated PressJonah E. Bromwich y 4 de febrero de 2021Actualizado 18:06 ETRead in EnglishLa corporación Fox de Rupert Murdoch y tres de sus populares presentadores son el objetivo de una demanda por difamación por 2700 millones de dólares presentada el jueves por una empresa que se convirtió en objeto destacado de las desacreditadas teorías sobre fraude generalizado en las elecciones presidenciales de Estados Unidos de 2020.Smartmatic, una empresa de tecnología electoral, presentó el jueves la demanda en la Corte Suprema del Estado de Nueva York contra la Corporación Fox, Fox News y los presentadores Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo y Jeanine Pirro. Como parte de la misma acción, la compañía demanda a Rudolph W. Giuliani y Sidney Powell, quienes presentaron el caso de fraude electoral como invitados en los programas de Fox mientras representaban al expresidente Donald Trump.En su demanda de 276 páginas, Smartmatic argumenta que Giuliani y Powell “inventaron una historia sobre Smartmatic” y que “Fox se unió a la conspiración para difamar y desprestigiar a Smartmatic y su tecnología y software electoral”.“La historia puso a vecinos contra vecinos”, continúa la denuncia. “La historia llevó a una turba a atacar el Capitolio de Estados Unidos”.Smartmatic, que prestó servicios para las elecciones de 2020 en un solo condado, presentó su demanda en las tensas postrimerías de una votación que Trump y sus partidarios han descrito repetida y falsamente como amañada o robada. Los medios de derecha, incluyendo a Fox y sus competidores emergentes Newsmax y OANN, han dado un tiempo de difusión significativo a aquellos que buscan subvertir el resultado de las elecciones en un momento de rencorosa desavenencia política, cuando las teorías e ideas conspiratorias se han trasladado a la cultura dominante.Smartmatic pide una indemnización por daños y perjuicios de “no menos de 2700 millones de dólares”, según la demanda, y solicita un proceso con jurado. Su acción contra Fox sigue después de dos demandas presentadas el mes pasado por Dominion Voting Systems: una contra Giuliani, la otra contra Powell. Dominion es otra empresa nombrada por los teóricos de la conspiración que alegan que hubo fraude electoral.Incluso después del asalto al Capitolio el 6 de enero, un disturbio mortal que fue dirigido por partidarios de Trump, las conversaciones sobre fraude no se han acabado del todo. En una aparición el martes en Newsmax, Mike Lindell, el fundador de MyPillow y uno de los más fervientes defensores de Trump, lanzó un ataque verbal contra Dominion. En una señal de que las demandas de Dominion han tenido efecto en los medios de comunicación de la derecha, el copresentador de Newsmax, Bob Sellers, cortó a Lindell y leyó una declaración: “Los resultados de las elecciones en todos los estados fueron certificados. Newsmax acepta los resultados como legales y definitivos. Los tribunales también han apoyado esa opinión”.El presentador de Fox Business Network, Lou Dobbs, durante una emisión de 2019Credit…John Lamparski/Getty ImagesGiuliani y Powell argumentaron repetidamente que hubo fraude electoral cuando aparecieron como invitados en los programas de Fox conducidos por Bartiromo, Dobbs y Pirro en las semanas posteriores a las elecciones, un momento en el que los poderosos republicanos del Congreso sembraban dudas sobre el resultado de las elecciones y Mitch McConnell, senador por Kentucky y entonces líder de la mayoría del Senado, aún no había felicitado a Joe Biden por su victoria.Smartmatic dijo en la demanda que la promoción de las afirmaciones falsas en Fox “puso en peligro” su “cartera de negocios multimillonaria”: dañó sus negocios de tecnología y software electoral; y dificultó que la empresa consiguiera nuevos negocios en Estados Unidos, donde había hecho incursiones después de años de prestar servicios electorales en otras naciones.Fox declinó hacer comentarios antes de ver la demanda. Bartiromo, Dobbs, Pirro, Giuliani y Powell no respondieron inmediatamente a la solicitud de comentarios.En su ataque frontal contra el imperio mediático de Murdoch, Smartmatic argumenta que Fox lo presentó como villano en una narrativa ficticia destinada a ayudar a atraer espectadores de Newsmax y OANN. Cada una de ellas experimentó un aumento de la audiencia en las semanas posteriores a las elecciones, gracias a su adopción de la ficción de que Biden no era el vencedor legítimo. La demanda de Smartmatic también argumenta que Giuliani y Powell trataron de enriquecerse y mejorar su posición ante los partidarios de Trump al hacer declaraciones que eran prejudiciales para la empresa.Fox Corporation, con unos 9000 empleados, está dirigida por Murdoch, de 89 años, y su hijo mayor, Lachlan, su director ejecutivo. Para la empresa, 2700 millones de dólares sería una multa considerable. Fox Corporation obtuvo 3000 millones de dólares de utilidades antes de impuestos, con unos ingresos de 12.300 millones de dólares entre septiembre de 2019 y septiembre del año pasado. Está valorada en unos 17.800 millones de dólares.La queja de Smartmatic no solo considera el daño reputacional y económico que la compañía dijo haber sufrido, sino también el daño causado a Estados Unidos por las afirmaciones promovidas por los aliados de Trump y las cadenas controladas por Murdoch que Trump favoreció por mucho tiempo.Dobbs, presentador de Fox Business Network, y Bartiromo, quien presenta programas en Fox Business y Fox News, han sido partidarios incondicionales del expresidente. El 29 de noviembre, Bartiromo realizó la primera entrevista televisiva larga de Trump después de las elecciones. Pirro, quien fue fiscal y cuyo programa Justice with Judge Jeanine es un básico de la programación de los sábados por la noche de Fox News, ha sido amiga de Trump desde hace décadas.Entre las conversaciones al aire que destaca la demanda de Smartmatic está una entre Powell y Dobbs el 16 de noviembre. Powell afirmó en el programa de Dobbs que Hugo Chávez, el fallecido presidente de Venezuela, había participado en la creación de la tecnología de Smartmatic, diseñándola para que los votos que procesaba pudieran cambiarse sin ser detectados. (Chávez, quien murió en 2013, no tuvo nada que ver con Smartmatic).“El software de Smartmatic está en el ADN de todos los programas y sistemas de las empresas de tabulación de votos”, dijo Powell más adelante en el programa.Dobbs añadió: “Ni siquiera sabemos quién demonios es realmente el dueño de estas empresas, al menos de la mayoría de ellas”.Después de que Smartmatic envió una carta en diciembre pidiendo una rectificación y amenazando con acciones legales, los programas dirigidos por los tres presentadores de Fox emitieron un segmento en el que un experto en elecciones, Eddie Pérez, desacreditaba una serie de afirmaciones falsas sobre Smartmatic. El segmento pregrabado mostraba a Pérez respondiendo a preguntas de una voz fuera de cámara. En una entrevista el miércoles, Pérez dijo que el producto final “casi parecía una declaración” legal.La demanda argumenta que las afirmaciones hechas en Fox eran demostrablemente falsas, dado que la tecnología de Smartmatic se utilizó solo en el condado de Los Ángeles y no en ninguno de los estados disputados durante las elecciones de 2020.Don Herzog, un profesor que enseña sobre la Primera Enmienda y las leyes sobre difamación en la Universidad de Michigan, dijo que la esencia de la demanda tenía sentido. “No se pueden inventar cosas falsas sobre la gente”, dijo. Sin embargo, expresó sus dudas sobre la conexión de la demanda de las declaraciones falsas de Fox con el ataque al Capitolio, al decir que los acontecimientos del 6 de enero no tenían relación con que los acusados hubieran perjudicado a Smartmatic.El éxito de la demanda dependerá de varios factores, añadió Herzog, entre ellos si Smartmatic puede convencer a un jurado de que la empresa no tenía la categoría de figura pública antes de que Giuliani y Powell la hicieran más conocida.Si la corte determina que Smartmatic era una figura pública, entonces la carga de la prueba de sus alegatos será mayor. La empresa deberá mostrar que Giuliani, Powell y otros de los acusados sabían que sus aseveraciones eran falsas o que tenían serias dudas sobre su veracidad. (“No creo que la corte determinará que es una figura pública”, dijo Herzog). En su demanda, Smartmatic alega que los presentadores de Fox y los dos invitados actuaron con “verdadero dolo” y “desestimaron temerariamente” la veracidad de sus declaraciones.Aunque puede ser difícil persuadir a un jurado que Fox es responsable por lo que los invitados dicen en sus programas, Timothy Zick, profesor de la Escuela de Derecho William & Mary que está especializado en la Primera Enmienda, dijo que la compañía podía ser responsabilizada por el contenido de sus emisiones.“Si sabían que el segmento iba a incluir estas declaraciones falsas, entonces no creo que eso los exima de responsabilidad” dijo. “Republicar las declaraciones falsas de otros también resulta difamatorio en circunstancias como esta”.En ocasiones, el vocabulario de los presentadores de Fox simulaba al de los abogados de Trump. En la demanda se cita a Powell refiriéndose a la supuesta conspiración como “ciber Pearl Harbor”, una frase que Dobbs repitió en su programa y en Twitter.Roberta A. Kaplan, una abogada que representa a la escritora E. Jean Carroll en su demanda de difamación contra Trump, dijo que era notable la abundancia de casos de difamación relacionados con el expresidente, dado que dichos casos desde hace mucho se consideran difíciles de ganar.“Lo que ha cambiado y la razón por la que estamos viendo muchos más casos de difamación ahora más que antes es porque, francamente, vivimos en un mundo en el que las personas con legitimidad y autoridad parecen no sentir ningún tipo de reparo en decir mentiras categóricas”, dijo.Antonio Mugica, director ejecutivo de Smartmatic, en Londres en diciembreCredit…Henry Nicholls/ReutersCuando Smartmatic iniciaba en abril de 2000, ofreció sus servicios a los bancos. El cambio hacia los servicios de seguridad electoral se dio luego de que Antonio Mugica, uno de los fundadores de la compañía y su director ejecutivo, estuvo en el condado de Palm Beach durante la disputada elección de 2000. “Estábamos en primera fila viendo el circo”, dijo. “Y verdaderamente a todos nosotros nos impactó”.La empresa tuvo éxito en todo el mundo al ofrecer sus máquinas de votación electrónica, plataformas de voto en línea y productos de software relacionados con elecciones. También fue empleada en el caucus presidencial de los republicanos de 2016, celebrado en Utah. En 2018, el condado de Los Ángeles eligió a Smartmatic para implementar un nuevo sistema de elecciones y su tecnología se utilizó ahí en la primaria presidencial de marzo y una vez más en la elección general.Luego del día de las elecciones, el nombre de la empresa, junto con el de Dominion, se convirtió en parte integral de las conspiraciones de fraude que promovieron los medios de la derecha. Los empleados de Smartmatic y sus familiares recibieron amenazas, incluidas amenazas de muerte, que se describen en la denuncia.“Recibí una en la que me dijeron que iban a venir a secuestrarme a Londres, donde me encontraba en ese momento”, dijo Mugica. “Iban a mandar a tres personas. ‘El avión aterriza mañana’”.Otra amenaza, dijo, estaba dirigida al hijo adolescente de otro fundador de la empresa, Roger Piñate. “Lograron encontrar su número celular, lo que ya de por sí asusta”, dijo Mugica. “Y llamaron y lo amenazaron por teléfono”.La denuncia de Smartmatic incluye el argumento de que la promoción de teorías desacreditadas sobre la elección perjudicó a la democracia.“Uno no solo considera el efecto de la conducta en el denunciante, sino el impacto más amplio que puede tener el mensaje, y ese es un efecto más amplio de esto”, dijo J. Erik Connolly, un abogado que representa a Smartmatic. “Si estás adjudicando indemnización punitiva, que en gran parte está diseñada para decir ‘No vuelvas a hacer esto’, es un mensaje más amplio. Que es relevante para el mensaje más amplio que una corte o el jurado deberían enviar aquí”.Edmund Lee More

Joe Biden outlined his vision for America’s foreign policy agenda in a speech at the state department. The president reiterated the need for America to strengthen its global alliances after four years of Donald Trump belittling those relationships.
‘We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again – not to meet yesterday’s challenges but today’s and tomorrow’s,’ Biden said. ‘We can’t do it alone.’
US Politics live More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storylettersClemency for Older Prisoners“It is time for immediate action,” a law professor writes. Also: Angry Democrats; better ways to declutter.Feb. 4, 2021, 2:48 p.m. ETMore from our inbox:Enraged DemocratsNew Homes for Clutter, Not the Trash Can Credit…Seth Wenig/APTo the Editor:“Hard-Hit by Virus, Inmates Struggle to Find Place in Vaccine Line” (front page, Jan. 26) is an insight into the state’s failure to care for this highly vulnerable population. But it does not mention one simple option: clemency for older prisoners.Releasing the many long-serving prisoners over 65 who are not a danger to society would reduce crowding and the need for vaccination in prisons, while safeguarding the lives and health of these most vulnerable inmates. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has the power to do this right now (with appropriate quarantine). In many cases, he has clemency petitions on his desk.Governor Cuomo has promised rolling clemencies. When the new and highly transmissible Covid variants inevitably appear in prisons and their surrounding communities, vulnerable prisoners will face a death sentence, and all New Yorkers will be at risk from these hot spot facilities. It is time for immediate action.Cynthia Grant BowmanIthaca, N.Y.The writer, a law professor at Cornell, helped draft a clemency petition on behalf of one aged prisoner and filed amicus briefs in several New York State cases seeking release for others.Enraged Democrats Credit…Audra Melton for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump’s Base Nurses Anger Over Election” (front page, Jan. 19):Trump supporters are not the only ones enraged by the 2020 election. Many Democrats are enraged by the uphill battle necessary to overcome Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression targeting minorities. Many Democrats are enraged by being falsely accused of fraud and election interference by the Republicans who themselves undermined and attempted to overturn the election.Many moderates and progressives are angry at the far-right groups, including major media, that accuse the left of inciting the violent riot by the Trump mob at the Capitol. And many of us are furious at Donald Trump and his supporters for making public health measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19 and save lives into a political issue.The overwhelming majority that voted against Donald Trump have every reason to be angry at Mr. Trump and his supporters who feel so entitled that they are willing to bring down our democracy after they lost an election.Michael E. MahlerLos AngelesNew Homes for Clutter, Not the Trash Can Credit…Trisha KraussTo the Editor:Re “How to Declutter Quickly” (Here to Help, Jan. 27):I wish Melissa Kirsch had pointed out that the result of impulsively throwing things into the garbage is overflowing landfills that are a big problem for municipalities and the planet. The cake-decorating tips that she left at the curb might have been donated to a thrift store and then, for a dollar, might have provided a child being driven crazy by Zoom school with a fun activity. Clothing that was annoying Ms. Kirsch could have been donated to a local charity.It’s liberating to throw something into the garbage and be done with it, but it’s more considerate to try to find a new home for something we have purchased improvidently or no longer use.Diane S. GreenbergPalo Alto, Calif.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyThe PourFor the Wine World, 2021 Brings Familiar ProblemsThe year has changed. So has the government. But the challenges facing the wine industry — Covid, tariffs and climate change — remain.Credit…Davide BonazziFeb. 4, 2021, 11:37 a.m. ETIt’s a new year, and there’s a new administration in Washington, but the American wine industry remains tangled in the same set of thorny problems: Covid-19, government tariffs and climate change.The most immediately challenging, of course, is the unrelenting pandemic, which has crushed restaurants and other elements of the hospitality industry that are a crucial part of the sales and promotion system for wine. More than a few wineries also rely on their own tasting rooms and restaurants for sales and for building long-term customer bases.Many of those producers were at least able to pivot to direct-to-consumer and e-commerce operations. They developed relationships through Zoom tastings, and converted their public spaces into headquarters for shipping bottles to distant shoppers.A recent analysis of direct-to-consumer shipping by wineries found a 27 percent increase by volume in 2020 over 2019, not surprisingly the largest annual jump by far over the last decade, as locked-down consumers turned to online shopping.Like the rest of the country, the wine industry must await the mass vaccination of the population before it can return to some semblance of normality.What will that new world look like? It’s hard to say with any degree of certainty. The failure of governments at all levels to offer sufficient support to restaurants and their employees, while rightly demanding they operate at a fraction of capacity or close entirely, means that the hospitality industry will require years to recover.Though the pandemic is the greatest obstacle for restaurants and the wine industry, it is far from the only one.When the coronavirus shutdowns began last March, wine importers, distributors, retailers and restaurants were already reeling from the punitive tariffs the Trump administration imposed the previous October on many European foods and beverages. As a parting gesture, the administration ordered additional tariffs, which took effect on Jan. 12, just before Inauguration Day.The tariffs were part of an American retaliation against the European Union over subsidies the union gives to the European aerospace company Airbus. In 2019, the World Trade Organization ruled that the company had violated global trade rules.In response, the United States placed a 25 percent tariff on wines below 14 percent alcohol from France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, along with various European whiskeys, cheeses, olive oils and other foods. The additional tariffs that took effect in January include wines from France and Germany above 14 percent alcohol, and other beverages. Sparkling wines have so far been excluded.The Trump administration has never explained why it targeted wine and food in a dispute over aviation equipment. Indeed, while aircraft parts were also subject to tariffs, they were taxed at a far lower rate, 10 to 15 percent, than the 25 percent on food and drink.Economists may argue over the efficacy of using tariffs as a tool in international trade, but these particular tariffs have caused more harm to small American businesses than they have to the countries they were intended to penalize.According to the U.S. Wine Trade Alliance, an organization representing the wine trade, American imports of wines from the four countries affected by the tariffs over the first five months of 2020 dropped by nearly 54 percent compared with the first five months of 2019.Data compiled by Gomberg, Fredrikson & Associates, a wine industry analyst, demonstrated that for every dollar’s worth of wine not imported because of the tariffs, consumers spent $4.52 less at American distributors, retailers and restaurants.It’s difficult to calculate the precise effect of the pandemic on these figures. Many European wine producers hit by the tariffs simply found other markets for their products, said Ben Aneff, the managing partner of Tribeca Wine Merchants in New York and president of the trade alliance.In an additional move that seems thoughtless at best and spiteful at worst, the Trump administration did not exclude goods in either round of tariffs that had already been purchased by American businesses months and, for some, years in advance and were in transit to the United States. That required those businesses to pay the entire duty when the goods passed through customs, with no effect on the foreign businesses the tariffs were supposedly meant to penalize.“They could have chosen not to punish U.S. businesses for past purchases, and they chose not to,” Mr. Aneff said. “It’s like designing a medicine with all of the side effects and none of the cures.”The Biden administration has not taken a position on the tariffs. It has nominated Katherine Tai as the next United States Trade Representative, who is required to review tariffs every six months, with the next review scheduled for this month. It’s not clear whether Ms. Tai will be confirmed by the Senate in time, or whether a decision will have to wait until the next review in August.Mr. Biden could lift the tariffs with an executive order, as the chefs Kwame Onwuachi and Alice Waters recently urged in an Opinion column in The Washington Post. It would be unusual for a president to step in like that, particularly given the other current priorities, but for restaurants in particular the need is desperate.“The tariffs do significantly more damage to small U.S. businesses at their most vulnerable points, and, particularly for restaurants, this is their most difficult time,” Mr. Aneff said. “That seems really wrongheaded. These are businesses that are struggling as much as any in the U.S. They need to be supported.”The Trump trade policies likewise walloped American agricultural companies, which lost markets in China and Europe. President Trump paid billions of dollars in subsidies, much of it to big agricultural companies, but no such payments were offered to the restaurant and wine industry.Trade disputes unrelated to the European Union also cost the American wine industry much of its market in China, which placed retaliatory tariffs on American wines sold there.“It’s really had a significant effect on our exports in a market that was growing fast,” said Charles Jefferson, a vice president of public policy at Wine Institute, an advocacy group for California wine producers.He said exports to China dropped 33.9 percent in 2019, and another 40.8 percent in 2020.“We’ve opposed all these tariffs,” Mr. Jefferson said. “Wine should not be used as leverage in unrelated disputes.”While the pandemic and tariffs pose short-term challenges, climate change is an existential problem, requiring both long-term planning and immediate action, not just from the wine industry but also from society as a whole. The good news is that the Biden administration has made combating climate change a priority, which may encourage or compel the wine industry to act on its own.Nothing the wine industry does now will immediately curb the trend toward a warmer climate and more volatile weather patterns. No matter what steps the government takes, the planet will be hotter than it was 30 years ago. The episodes of drought and the wildfires that have plagued West Coast wineries will most likely continue.But an effort led by the federal government, using laws, incentives or both to encourage the difficult transformations that must occur in industry, agriculture and everyday life, may help slow the pace of long-term change. This effort may push the wine industry to act more aggressively, even though climate change has often taken a back seat to more immediate chores.While it remains to be seen how Mr. Biden’s climate effort will take shape, the wine industry can do a lot to reduce its carbon footprint.It can start, as some companies already have, by auditing its carbon emissions — that is, analyzing viticulture, winemaking, marketing, sales and other operations, and then setting targets in line with the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Winemakers will still have to figure out how to adapt to a warmer future. But at least they can help to control how that future will take shape rather than be victimized by whatever comes.Follow NYT Food on Twitter and NYT Cooking on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and Pinterest. Get regular updates from NYT Cooking, with recipe suggestions, cooking tips and shopping advice.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More