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 storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe QAnon Delusion Has Not Loosened Its GripMillions of Americans continue to actively participate in multiple conspiracy theories. Why?Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C. on politics, demographics and inequality.Feb. 3, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Jeff Swensen/Getty ImagesA conspiracy theory promulgated by Donald Trump, the loser of the 2020 presidential election, has gripped American politics since Nov. 3. It has been willingly adopted by millions of his followers, as well as by a majority of Republican members of Congress — 145 to 108 — and by thousands of Republican state and local officials, all of whom have found it expedient to capitulate to the fantastical claim that the election was stolen by the Democratic Party, its officeholders, operatives and supporters.Trump’s sprawling conspiracy theory is “being reborn as the new normal of the Republican Party,” Justin Ling wrote in Foreign Policy on Jan. 6.A Dec 30 NPR/Ipsos poll found that “recent misinformation, including false claims related to Covid-19 and QAnon, are gaining a foothold among some Americans.”According to the survey, nearly a fifth of American adults, 17 percent, believe that “a group of Satan-worshiping elites who run a child sex ring are trying to control our politics.” Almost a third “believe that voter fraud helped Joe Biden win the 2020 election.” Even more, 39 percent, agree that “there is a deep state working to undermine President Trump.”The spread of these beliefs has wrought havoc — as demonstrated by the Jan. 6 assault on Congress, as well as by the overwhelming support Republicans continue to offer to the former president.Well before the election, on Aug. 22, 2020, my news-side colleagues Matthew Rosenberg and Maggie Haberman described the rising strength of conspiracists in Republican ranks in “The Republican Embrace of QAnon Goes Far Beyond Trump”:A small but growing number of Republicans — including a heavily favored Republican congressional candidate in Georgia — are donning the QAnon mantle, ushering its adherents in from the troll-infested fringes of the internet and potentially transforming the wild conspiracy theory into an offline political movement, with supporters running for Congress and flexing their political muscle at the state and local levels.Conspiracy theorists are by definition irrational, contradictory and inconsistent. Polarization, the Covid-19 pandemic and the specter of economic collapse have engendered suspicion. Many on the right see “liberal elites” pulling strings behind closed doors, and paranoia flourishes.According to Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent, professors of political science at the University of Miami and Notre Dame, conspiracy theorists do not “hold coherent, constrained policy positions.” In a forthcoming paper, “Who Supports QAnon? A Case Study in Political Extremism,” Uscinski explores what he identifies as some of the characteristics of the QAnon movement: “Support for QAnon is born more of antisocial personality traits and a predisposition toward conspiracy thinking than traditional political identities and motivations,” he writes, before going on to argue thatWhile QAnon supporters are “extreme,” they are not so in the ideological sense. Rather, QAnon support is best explained by conspiratorial worldviews and a predisposition toward other nonnormative behavior.Uscinski found a substantial 0.413 correlation between those who support or sympathize with QAnon and “dark” personality traits, leading him to conclude that “the type of extremity that undergirds such support has less to do with traditional, left/right political concerns and more to do with extreme, antisocial psychological orientations and behavioral patterns.”The illogic of conspiracy theorists is clear in the findings of a 2012 research paper, “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories,” by Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton, members of the psychology department at the University of Kent, and Michael J. Wood, a former Kent colleague. The authors found that a large percentage of people drawn to conspiracy thinking are willing to endorse “mutually incompatible conspiracy theories.”In one study, for example, “the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. Special Forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive.” In another study, “the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered.” For those who hold such beliefs, the authors wrote, “the specifics of a conspiracy theory do not matter as much as the fact that it is a conspiracy theory at all.”Douglas, in an email, wrote that “people are attracted to conspiracy theories when important psychological needs are not being met.” She identified three such needs: “the need for knowledge and certainty”; the “existential need” to “to feel safe and secure” when “powerless and scared”; and, among those high in narcissism, the “need to feel unique compared to others.”Uscinski and two collaborators, in their 2016 paper, “What Drives Conspiratorial Beliefs? The Role of Informational Cues and Predispositions,” describe how they identify likely conspiracy believers by asking respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statements:“Events like wars, the recession, and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of people who are working in secret against the rest of us”; “Much of our lives are being controlled by plots hatched in secret places”; “Even though we live in a democracy, a few people will always run things anyway”; “The people who really ‘run’ the country, are not known to the voters.”Believers in conspiracies will often automatically dismiss factual claims disputing their beliefs. Jovan Byford, a senior lecturer in psychology at the Open University in England, makes the case thatConspiracy theories seduce not so much through the power of argument, but through the intensity of the passions that they stir. Underpinning conspiracy theories are feelings of resentment, indignation and disenchantment about the world. They are stories about good and evil, as much as about what is true.Byford continues:Lack of evidence of a conspiracy, or positive proof against its existence, is taken by believers as evidence of the craftiness of those behind the plot, and their ability to dupe the public.There are five common ingredients to conspiracy theories, according to Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Mark van Vugt, professors of psychology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, in their paper “Conspiracy Theories: Evolved Functions and Psychological Mechanisms.”First, they write,Conspiracy theories make an assumption of how people, objects, or events are causally interconnected. Put differently, a conspiracy theory always involves a hypothesized pattern. Second, conspiracy theories stipulate that the plans of alleged conspirators are deliberate. Conspiracy theories thus ascribe intentionality to the actions of conspirators, implying agency. Third, a conspiracy theory always involves a coalition, or group, of actors working in conjunction. An act of one individual, a lone wolf, does not fit the definition of a conspiracy theory. Fourth, conspiracy theories always contain an element of threat such that the alleged goals of the conspirators are harmful or deceptive. Fifth, and finally, a conspiracy theory always carries an element of secrecy and is therefore often difficult to invalidate.Van Prooijen elaborated on his analysis in an email:Conspiracy theories are a powerful tool to demonize opposing groups, and in extreme cases can make people believe that violence is necessary. In this case (Jan. 6), the crowd clearly believed that the elections were stolen from their leader, and this belief incited them to fight for what they believed was a just cause. Most likely the conspiracy theories make them perceive themselves as a sort of “freedom fighter.”Van Prooijen sees conspiracy thinking as deeply rooted in the evolutionary past.Our theory is that conspiracy theories evolved among ancestral humans to prepare for, and hence protect against, potentially hostile groups. What we saw here, I think was an evolutionary mismatch: some mental faculties evolved to cope effectively with an ancestral environment, yet we now live in a different, modern environment where these same mechanisms can lead to detrimental outcomes. In an ancestral world with regular tribal warfare and coalitional conflict, in many situations it could have been rational and even lifesaving to respond with violence to the threat of a different group conspiring against one’s own group. Now in our modern world these mechanisms may sometimes misfire, and lead people to use violence toward the very democratic institutions that were designed to help and protect them.Why, I asked, are Trump supporters particularly receptive to conspiracies? Van Prooijen replied:For one, the Trump movement can be seen as populist, meaning that this movement espouses a worldview that sees society as a struggle between ‘the corrupt elites’ versus the people. This in and of itself predisposes people to conspiracy thinking. But there are also other factors. For instance, the Trump movement appears heavily fear-based, is highly nationalistic, and endorses relatively simple solutions for complex problems. All of these factors are known to feed into conspiracy thinking.The events of Jan. 6, van Prooijen continued,underscore that conspiracy theories are not some “innocent” form of belief that people may have. They can inspire radical action, and indeed, a movement like QAnon can be a genuine liability for public safety. Voltaire once said: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities” — and he was right.Credit…Damon Winter/The New York TimesIn their 2014 book “American Conspiracy Theories,” Uscinski and Parent argue that “Conspiracy Theories Are For Losers.” They write:Conspiracy theories are essentially alarm systems and coping mechanisms to help deal with foreign threat and domestic power centers. Thus, they tend to resonate when groups are suffering from loss, weakness or disunity.To illustrate how the out-of-power are drawn to conspiracy theories, the authors tracked patterns during periods of Republican and Democratic control of the presidency:During Republican administrations, conspiracy theories targeting the right and capitalists averaged 34 percent of the conspiratorial allegations per year, while conspiracy theories targeting the left and communists averaged only 11 percent. During Democratic administrations, mutatis mutandis, conspiracy theories aimed at the right and capitalists dropped 25 points to 9 percent while conspiracy theories aimed at the left and communists more than doubled to 27 percent.The “loser” thesis received strong backing from an August 2020 working paper, “Are Conspiracy Theories for Losers? The Effect of Losing an Election on Conspiratorial Thinking,” by Joanne Miller, Christina E. Farhart and Kyle Saunders, political scientists at the University of Delaware, Carleton College and Colorado State University.They make the parallel argument thatPeople are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories that make their political rivals look bad when they are on the losing side of politics than when they are on the winning side, regardless of ideology/partisanship.In an email, Miller compared polling from 2004, when John Kerry lost to George W. Bush, to polls after the 2020 election, when Trump lost to Biden:A 2004 a Post-ABC poll that found that 49 percent of Kerry supporters but only 14 percent of Bush supporters thought that the vote wasn’t counted accurately. But this year, a much larger percentage of Trump voters believe election fraud conspiracy theories than voters on the losing side in previous years. A January 2021 Pew poll found that approximately 75 percent of Trump voters believe that Trump definitely or probably won the election.Over the long haul, Miller wrote, “I find very little correlation between conspiratorial thinking and party identification or political ideology.” But, she quickly added. “the past four years are an outlier in this regard.”Throughout his presidency, Miller wrote,former President Trump pretty much governed as a “loser.” He continued to insist that he would’ve won the popular vote in 2016 had it not been for widespread election fraud. So it’s not surprising, given Trump’s rhetoric, that Republicans during the Trump presidency were more likely to endorse conspiracy theories than we’d have expected them to, given that they were on the winning side.The psychological predispositions that contribute to a susceptibility to conspiracy thinking are complex, as Joshua Hart, a professor of psychology at Union College, and his student, Molly Graether, found in their 2018 paper “Something’s Going on Here: Psychological Predictors of Belief in Conspiracy Theories.”Hart and Graether contend that “conspiracy theorists are more likely to believe that the world is a dangerous place full of bad people,” who “find it difficult to trust others” and who “view the world as a dangerous and uncontrollable.”Perhaps more interesting, Hart and Graether argue that conspiracy theorists are more likely “to perceive profundity in nonsensical but superficially meaningful ideas,” a concept they cite as being described by academics in the field as “b.s. receptivity.”To test for this tendency, psychologists ask participants to rank the “meaningfulness” of such incoherent and ludicrous sentences and phrases as “the future elucidates irrational facts for the seeking person,” “your movement transforms universal observations,” “the who silence infinite phenomena” and “the invisible is beyond all new immutability.” The scale is called “Mean perceived meaningfulness of b.s. sentences and genuinely meaningful sentences,” and can be found here.Adam M. Enders, a political scientist at the University of Louisville, argued in an email that:There are several characteristics of QAnon acolytes that distinguish them from everyone else, even people who believe in some other conspiracy theories: they are more likely to share false information online, they’re more accepting of political violence in various circumstances.In addition, Enders writes,QAnon followers are, in a sense, extremists both politically (e.g., wanting to overthrow the U.S. government) and psychologically (e.g., exhibiting many antisocial personality traits).Polarization, in Enders’s view, when joined with conspiracy thinking, produces a toxic mix:As polarization increases, tensions between political parties and other groups rise, and people are more willing to construct and believe in fantastical ideas that either malign out-groups (e.g., “Democrats are Satan-worshipping pedophiles”) or bolster the in-group (e.g., ‘we only lost because you cheated’). Conspiracy theories, in turn, raise the temperature of polarization and make it more difficult for people from different partisan and ideological camps to have fact-based discussions about political matters, even those that are in critical need of immediate attention.Conspiracy thinking has become a major internal, problem for the Republican Party, which is reflected by the current turmoil in party ranks over two newly elected congresswomen, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Lauren Boebert of Colorado, QAnon sympathizers with long records of florid, antagonistic conspiratorial accusations.There is some evidence that the Republican establishment has begun to recognize the dangers posed by the presence in that party of so many who are preoccupied — obsessed is not too strong a word — with denying the incontrovertible truth of Trump’s loss and Biden’s win in the 2020 election.Even Mitch McConnell, perhaps the most cunning and nefarious member of the Republican establishment, has come to see the liability of the sheer number of supposedly reputable members of the United States Senate caving in to patent falsehoods, warning colleagues earlier this week of the threat to their political survival posed by the “loony lies and conspiracy theories” voiced by allies of QAnon in the House of Representatives.“Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.’s airplane is not living in reality,” McConnell declared. “This has nothing to do with the challenges facing American families or the robust debates on substance that can strengthen our party.”McConnell has a history of bending with the wind, accommodating the extremists in his party, including Trump and Trump’s allies, and he voted in support of the claim that Trump’s second impeachment trial is unconstitutional. If the conspiracy wing of the Republican Party becomes strong enough to routinely mount winning primary challenges to mainstream incumbents, McConnell may well abandon his critique and accept a party moving steadily closer to something many Americans (though not all) could never have imagined: the systematic exploitation of voters gullible or pathological enough to sign on to preposterous conspiracy theories in order to engineer the installation in Washington of an ultraright, ethnonationalist crypto-fascist white supremacist political regime.The problem of keeping the extremist fringe at arm’s length has plagued the Republican Party for decades — dating back to Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society — but nothing in recent American history has reached the crazed intensity of Donald Trump’s perseverating, mendacious insistence that he won a second term in November. That he is not alone — that millions continue to believe in his delusions — is terrifying.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the Race5 Takeaways From the DebateAndrew Yang’s CandidacyWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyThey Supported ‘Defund the Police.’ Then the Mayoral Campaign Began.Most of the leading mayoral candidates have been wary of embracing the “defund the police” movement, which has lost some mainstream political momentum.Many in the Democratic field for mayor have backed away from the defund movement, reframing the issue as a broader need for changes to city policing.Credit…Byron Smith for The New York TimesJeffery C. Mays and Feb. 3, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETNearly eight months ago, Scott M. Stringer stood in Brooklyn before an angry, unsettled gathering to memorialize the death of George Floyd. The best way to honor him, Mr. Stringer said, was to send a clear message to City Hall: “It’s time to defund the N.Y.P.D. now.”But with the New York City mayoral primary looming in June, Mr. Stringer has distanced himself from the defund movement.At a recent mayoral forum, Mr. Stringer was asked if he supported defunding the police, and whether he would commit to slashing the Police Department’s $6 billion budget in half. He responded with a less drastic proposal to cut $1 billion, spread over four years, and said he did not want the city to return to a period of high crime like in the 1970s.“I do remember when the A train was a rolling crime scene, and I don’t want my children or any child to go back to that time and place,” he said. “But I also know that overpolicing in communities of color has got to stop.”His remarks immediately drew fire.“This is not what a progressive would say,” said Lauren Ashcraft, a Democratic Socialist and former congressional candidate in Queens. Other progressives questioned whether several leading Democratic candidates had the courage and commitment to win their support.The escalating tensions over the issue highlight the challenges that Democratic candidates face as they try to cultivate the city’s growing progressive flank without embracing stances that may scare off moderate New Yorkers — especially at a time when shootings and murders have sharply risen.The issue cuts across racial and class lines: Two Black moderate Democratic candidates, Eric Adams and Raymond J. McGuire, have voiced concerns — echoed among other Black lawmakers in the city — that defunding the police would worsen crime in neighborhoods that suffer the most from violence.Maya Wiley, a former top counsel for Mr. de Blasio who gained a national following as an analyst for MSNBC, was often critical of the mayor’s handling of policing. Now she appears to be recalibrating her message to avoid using the defund slogan.“The word means different things to different people,” Ms. Wiley said. “We should focus on the clarity of the demands.”Others in the wide-open Democratic field for mayor have sought to distance themselves from the defund movement and instead speak more of the need to bring meaningful change to the Police Department.The debate over the defund movement has roiled the Democratic Party over concerns that the slogan scared away moderate voters during the election in November. Some Democratic leaders blamed candidates’ embrace of the movement for the party’s losses in the House.President Barack Obama discouraged candidates from using the slogan — arguing you have “lost a big audience the minute you say it” — while leaders on the progressive left like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defended it and blamed moderates for running weak campaigns.Even in Minneapolis, where Mr. Floyd was killed by the police, efforts to essentially dismantle the city’s police department collapsed. A far less ambitious move — cutting the police budget by 4.5 percent — was approved in December, disappointing defund supporters.In a survey of the nine leading Democratic mayoral hopefuls, only two said they supported the defund movement: Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, and Carlos Menchaca, a councilman from Brooklyn.Some defund activists are expected to raise their demands and ask that the city cut as much as half of the police budget this summer.Credit…Todd Heisler/The New York TimesThe race for mayor this year may be the city’s most consequential in a generation, with New York facing a resurgence of the coronavirus that may prolong and worsen the city’s economic crisis. The pandemic’s effect on the city has overshadowed other issues on the campaign trail, including defunding the police.Many of the campaigns have commissioned polls to measure which issues voters want the next mayor to prioritize, and they have consulted with policing experts about how to tackle reforms. Keeping New Yorkers safe from the pandemic was the top concern in one poll; defunding the police was not among the Top 10 issues, with voters caring more about keeping crime down.“A lot of people, including in communities impacted by policing, bristle at the term,” Barry Friedman, a professor and director of the Policing Project at New York University School of Law, said of the defund slogan. “There are people who are frustrated at how police respond to situations, but don’t think they’re going to be safer without the police.”Still, many left-leaning leaders in New York are committed to trying to keep defund efforts alive. Two advocacy groups and one union — Make the Road Action, Community Voices Heard Power and 1199 Service Employees International Union — plan to unveil an independent expenditure committee to make the defund movement one of the top issues in the mayor’s race.The New York City Democratic Socialists of America, which helped Ms. Ocasio-Cortez win her primary in 2018, intends to make a concerted push to make defunding the police a key issue, according to the group’s co-chairwoman, Sumathy Kumar.Tiffany Cabán, a progressive-backed City Council candidate who nearly scored an upset win in the 2019 Democratic primary for Queens district attorney, wrote a 40-page public safety platform that is expected to be the philosophical basis that defund supporters running for mayor or City Council organize around.Protesters set up camp outside City Hall last year, hoping to pressure the City Council to cut at least $1 billion from the police budget.Credit…Amr Alfiky/The New York TimesMs. Cabán has spoken with Ms. Morales, Ms. Wiley and Mr. Stringer about what proponents of defunding the police want. She said she often had to tell candidates that their positions did not go far enough and believes that will change.“There will be a domino effect,” she said. “One of the big, more forward-facing mayoral candidates is going to release their comprehensive police plan, and everyone else is going to have an answer to it.”Mr. Stringer, who has won endorsement from several progressive leaders who support the defund movement, said that he was “the first elected official to put forth a detailed proposal to reduce the N.Y.P.D.’s budget by $1 billion,” and that his “position on these issues has not changed.”But when asked directly whether he supports defunding the police, Mr. Stringer gave a more indirect answer, saying that he wanted to “make concrete change when it comes to systemic racism and our criminal justice system.” Mr. Stringer will soon release a report that explains his policy ideas to transform policing that he says is more ambitious than his proposal in June. The report, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times, does not mention the word “defund” or cite a dollar figure for budget cuts, but it outlines how he would move certain responsibilities away from the Police Department and identifies specific areas for reinvestment in communities.Most of the other major candidates seemed even less likely to make major cuts to the police budget.Mr. McGuire, who served on the New York City Police Foundation, has called for “better policing with greater accountability, not fewer police officers,” even as he has said that as a Black man he could “easily be the next George Floyd” — a contrast that he does not view as a contradiction.Mr. Adams, a former police officer, said that he does not “support taking resources away from crime fighting — especially in communities of color where shootings and other predatory crimes are on the rise.”Ms. Wiley said at a recent mayoral forum that the Police Department budget was “bloated,” but declined to say how much she would seek to cut police spending.“I don’t have a number for you, but that’s because it has been such a black box,” Ms. Wiley said. “There really is so little transparency about what and how the budget is spent.”Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner, has called for “police reform through strict accountability and structural change,” including raising the minimum age of recruits to 25 and holding “police officers accountable for depraved acts with a zero-tolerance policy.”Shaun Donovan, the former federal housing secretary and budget director, called for a reduction in “overpolicing” and reinvestment in “wraparound social services.”Andrew Yang, a former presidential candidate, said the Police Department needs resources to address rising crime, but he supported shifting some of its funding to other city agencies that could better handle certain issues.“Not every problem requires an armed police officer,” Mr. Yang said.Last year was New York City’s bloodiest in nearly a decade with more than 460 homicides; the number of shooting victims doubled to more than 1,500. Mr. de Blasio and police leaders have blamed the economic losses and upheaval of the pandemic.Murders surged in Black and Latino neighborhoods including East Harlem, East New York in Brooklyn, Rockaway Peninsula in Queens, and areas near Yankee Stadium in the Bronx. In the 73rd Precinct in Brooklyn, which includes Brownsville and where about 70 percent of residents are Black, there were 25 murders last year, compared with 11 in 2019.The June 22 Democratic primary will take place just days before the City Council’s deadline to approve the budget for the next fiscal year, all but assuring that the push to defund will be in the public and political discourse.Last June, the defund effort led the city to pass a budget that called for the Police Department to suffer “$1 billion in cuts and cost shifts,” according to the mayor. But an analysis by the Independent Budget Office concluded that a smaller portion of the police budget was actually cut, and some of the losses were spread out over a number of years.Mr. Menchaca voted against that budget because it failed to cut $1 billion from the Police Department; he said he plans to raise the issue during upcoming Council budget negotiations.The defund movement, he said, “is going to be on the ballot.”Ms. Morales said she reached out to the Brooklyn Movement Center last summer to get a sense of what defund advocates expected from the next mayor. She now wants to cut $3 billion from the police budget — a position that has won her support among defund advocates.“We need to take that money and invest it in meeting people’s needs,” she said at a recent mayoral forum.Anthonine Pierre, deputy director of the Brooklyn Movement Center and a member of Communities United for Police Reform, one of the architects of the city’s defund movement, said that she was not surprised that more mainstream candidates have not reached out to her group because they think of “defund the police” as a communications strategy.“Scott Stringer has had over a two-decade career in New York City politics, and never has police accountability been a banner issue for him,” said Ms. Pierre, who worked for Mr. Stringer in 2008 when he was the Manhattan borough president.“There is really a lack of courage from these candidates,” she said, adding that she would welcome discussions with the mayoral field — or a direct message on Twitter.“My DMs are open,” she said.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 storyLiz Cheney Chooses Her Own Path, and It’s a Perilous OnePro-Trump forces in Washington and in her home state of Wyoming view her opposition to Donald Trump as a betrayal. Now she faces a reckoning over her leadership role in the Republican Party.People protested Representative Liz Cheney at a rally in Cheyenne, Wyo., last week.Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesFeb. 3, 2021, 3:00 a.m. ETCHEYENNE, Wyo. — Liz Cheney was getting so many questions from constituents and colleagues about whether she would vote to affirm the 2020 election results that she responded in a way befitting her background as a State Department diplomat and lawyer: She issued a 21-page memo detailing the constitutional and legal reasons Congress should not interfere with certification.Doing so, she wrote, would set “an exceptionally dangerous precedent” that no Republican should want to be associated with.Ms. Cheney was right about the danger. But she was wrong about the willingness of her fellow Republicans to go along with it. In the House, two-thirds of them voted against certification. A week later, only nine others voted with her to impeach former President Donald J. Trump for encouraging a mob of his supporters to besiege the Capitol on Jan. 6.Now Ms. Cheney, the lone representative for Wyoming and the No. 3-ranking Republican in the House, is the most visible and imperiled target of the pro-Trump majority in the G.O.P., which wants to make actions like hers a disqualifying offense for any party member seeking office. A campaign backed by members of Mr. Trump’s family and some of his allies in Congress threatens to force her out of her position in House leadership. On Wednesday in Washington, she will attend a private House Republican meeting where lawmakers will have the opportunity to confront her in person.At home in Wyoming, the sense of betrayal among Republicans is burning hot at the moment. It’s especially acute among the conservative grass roots and local party activists whose strong presence in the state helped deliver Mr. Trump his largest margin of victory anywhere — beating Joseph R. Biden Jr. with 70 percent of the vote.At least one conservative state lawmaker — who described the impeachment vote as “an ice pick in the back” by Republicans who supported it — has printed “Impeach Liz Cheney!” yard signs and is vowing to challenge her in 2022. Ten county-level Republican Party organizations have voted to censure Ms. Cheney in recent days, and more are expected to follow suit.People close to Ms. Cheney, who insisted on anonymity so they could discuss her private views, said that her break with the pro-Trump faction reflected her belief that many more Republicans share her disgust with how seriously Mr. Trump undermined confidence in the country’s electoral system.As she watched Mr. Trump and his supporters peddle conspiracy theories and promote what she called “the big lie,” Ms. Cheney became deeply unsettled by how many of her colleagues seemed so cavalier about Mr. Trump’s actions, friends and associates said. She was also bothered by the way Republicans cheered and mimicked the kind of behavior she expected of a foreign authoritarian leader but never from an American president.Ms. Cheney was one of 10 House Republicans to support impeaching Donald J. Trump last month.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesIn conversations with colleagues, Ms. Cheney, 54, has said she hopes her example makes more Republicans in and out of public office comfortable acknowledging that they should have pushed back earlier.Her allies said that attempts to punish her were counterproductive at a time when the party should be united in opposition to Democratic control of Washington.“The beneficiaries of Republican fratricide are Democrats,” said Karl Rove, the former Bush strategist, who is close to the Cheney family. “So the more we have purity tests and everyone has to think and act alike, particularly when it comes to former President Trump, it’s only helping Democrats.”But many of her constituents see no problem with making an example of her.A rally outside the State Capitol last week headlined by Matt Gaetz, the Florida congressman and Trump loyalist, drew several hundred people. They chanted “No more Cheney!” and cheered as Mr. Gaetz ripped into “Never Trump” Republicans, calling them relics from a party that Mr. Trump has transformed from its days under the leadership of the Bushes and Ms. Cheney’s father, former Vice President Dick Cheney.“We control the true spirit and identity of America,” said Mr. Gaetz, who is leading the effort to oust Ms. Cheney from the House leadership.After his speech, Teresa Kunkel, a retired state employee, said that she had attended the rally because, as a Christian, she did not believe Ms. Cheney was being an honest representative for Wyoming. “She didn’t represent what we voted for,” Ms. Kunkel said. “She betrayed us — big time.”The second impeachment of Mr. Trump last month, which Ms. Cheney supported, was an injustice, Ms. Kunkel added. “It’s like: ‘I didn’t like what you did, so you’re out. And we’re in the majority, so we can do that.’ That’s cancel culture,” she said.Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida headlined the anti-Cheney rally in Cheyenne last week.Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesStill, the push for Ms. Cheney’s removal from leadership — a step that lawmakers rarely take against members of their own party — may not foreshadow the end of her political career in Wyoming, where the Cheney family is still widely respected.The fondness with which residents speak of Ms. Cheney’s father, and the esteem he still brings to this state that is home to only 580,000 people, suggest that many voters will grant Ms. Cheney, now entering her third term, a degree of independence from Mr. Trump that other Republicans don’t enjoy.The campaign to censure her has also triggered a very different response from moderate Republicans who feel more at home in the party of the Bushes and the Cheneys than they do in the party of Trump. These Republicans — both elected officials and private citizens — say the ugliness and vitriol that Trump supporters have displayed since the election has led them to have an overdue reckoning.“At first I was really mad at Liz,” said Amy Edmonds, a Republican from Cheyenne who is friendly with Ms. Cheney. “I thought she was rushing it. And I thought the election wasn’t fair.”But after she spoke with Ms. Cheney — and read the 21-page memo at the congresswoman’s insistence — Ms. Edmonds said she came to believe she was dead wrong in believing Mr. Trump’s allegations of election fraud.“I was in some kind of fog,” she said. “I don’t know how else to describe it.”Since her epiphany last month, Ms. Edmonds said, she has apologized to two friends she fought with who had tried to tell her that the election wasn’t rigged. And now she spends time thinking about how to engage other friends who promote false stories and disinformation about election fraud on Facebook.She admits that she hasn’t been very persuasive so far, and finds that when she sends people articles from reliable news sources that debunk Mr. Trump’s false claims, “They’ll write back and say, ‘Well, this is mainstream media.’”That’s a reflection of how durable Mr. Trump’s hold on Republican voters remains — and how difficult it will be for politicians like Ms. Cheney to convince Trump supporters that they have bought into “the big lie” of a stolen election, as she has privately described it to colleagues.Amy Edmonds said that after speaking to Ms. Cheney, she saw how wrong she had been to believe Mr. Trump’s allegations of election fraud. Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesMs. Cheney is, of course, in a much more difficult position than other Republicans who want their party to move past the most divisive aspects of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Her family legacy makes her, to some, an asset as a symbol of the more traditional conservative Republicanism, and the value it places on career public service, embodied by the Bushes and her father.But that also makes her a target for Trump loyalists who reject that tradition as the very culture that Mr. Trump claimed he would root out from Washington.Kim Small, who attended the rally at the capitol in Cheyenne last week, said of Ms. Cheney, “I honestly feel like she’s what we consider ‘the swamp.’” She said she attended the rally because she felt Ms. Cheney’s criticisms of Mr. Trump “put her at odds with the vast majority of her constituents.’’Ms. Cheney’s allies described her as at peace with the stance she has taken on Mr. Trump. Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of the nine other Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump, said that too many of his colleagues were doing the opposite of what Ms. Cheney is.“They’re waiting to see if Trump collapses,” he said. “And then if he does, they’ll be like, ‘I’ve never been with Trump, ever.’” He described the effort to punish Ms. Cheney as “cancel culture on the right.”The more difficult but ultimately meaningful path, Mr. Kinzinger said, is if Republicans signal that they don’t care about the pressure, the hostility and the possibility of political defeat.“I’m willing to not win a re-election over this,” he said. “People need to see examples of others doing this, speaking out. And damn the consequences.”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 storyImpeachment Case Argues Trump Was ‘Singularly Responsible’ for Capitol RiotThe House managers cited the Constitution’s framers in urging that Donald J. Trump be convicted and disqualified from holding office. Mr. Trump’s lawyers said the Senate had no jurisdiction.“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,”  Donald J. Trump told his supporters at a rally in Washington on Jan. 6. Credit…Kenny Holston for The New York TimesNicholas Fandos and Feb. 2, 2021Updated 8:35 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House impeachment managers on Tuesday laid out their case against Donald J. Trump, asserting that he was “singularly responsible” for the deadly assault on the Capitol last month and must be convicted and barred from holding public office.In an 80-page brief filed on Tuesday, the managers outlined the arguments they planned to make when the Senate opens Mr. Trump’s trial next week, contending that the former president whipped his supporters into a “frenzy” as part of a concerted campaign to cling to power. Spinning a vivid narrative of a harrowing day when lawmakers were forced to flee as a violent pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol, the prosecutors also reached back centuries to bolster their case, invoking George Washington and the Constitutional Convention.“The framers of the Constitution feared a president who would corrupt his office by sparing ‘no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected,’” wrote the nine House Democrats, led by Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, quoting directly from the 1787 debate in Philadelphia. “If provoking an insurrectionary riot against a joint session of Congress after losing an election is not an impeachable offense, it is hard to imagine what would be.”In Mr. Trump’s own shorter filing, specked with typos and stripped of the former president’s usual bombast, his lawyers flatly denied that he had incited the attack and repeatedly argued that the Senate “lacks jurisdiction” to try a former president. They repeatedly urged an immediate dismissal of the single charge against him, “incitement of insurrection.”“The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th president because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, rendering the article of impeachment moot and a non-justiciable question,” the lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, wrote in their 14-page response to the charge.Their other broad argument was that Mr. Trump’s remarks on Jan. 6 and in the weeks before were constitutionally protected. While they did not argue explicitly that Mr. Trump had won the 2020 election, as some said he wanted his legal team to do, the lawyers sought to shroud his false claims of widespread voter fraud in free-speech arguments.They effectively argued that Mr. Trump believed he “won it by a landslide,” and therefore was within his First Amendment rights to “express his belief that the election results were suspect.” His claims could not be disproved, they added, because there was “insufficient evidence.”President Biden won the election by about seven million votes, according to results certified by every state. Dozens of cases Mr. Trump brought alleging voting fraud or improprieties were tossed out or decided against him, many times by Republican-appointed judges, for lack of evidence.The impeachment filings provided the clearest preview yet of the legal strategies that are likely to shape a politically fraught impeachment trial of Mr. Trump — his second in just over a year — that is scheduled to begin in earnest in the Senate on Tuesday. They indicated that both sides expected drawn-out debates over the constitutionality of a trial, as much as Mr. Trump’s culpability for what took place.Despite their initial criticisms, a majority of Republican senators now appear to be lining up once again to acquit Mr. Trump. But the arguments could determine the difference between a near-party-line verdict like the one that capped the former president’s first trial in 2020 or a more bipartisan rebuke that could constrain any future political ambition he harbors.Though senators have yet to agree to a final set of rules to govern the proceeding, both parties appear to share an interest in an exceedingly swift trial, without new witnesses or fact-finding, that could conclude as soon as Saturday, Feb. 13. That would be far shorter than any presidential impeachment trial in history. But Republicans are eager to turn a page on a divisive former president, and Democrats are impatient to turn to advancing the agenda of the current one.The House impeachment managers, led by Representative Jamie Raskin, right, submitted an 80-page brief blaming Mr. Trump for the violent attack.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesIf Mr. Trump’s lawyers were trying to reassure Republican senators that they could dismiss the case without confronting its merits, the House managers were aiming instead to force them to confront the terror of the Capitol riot with an unusually visceral prosecution. They have compiled hours of footage from Parler, Twitter and elsewhere that they plan to play from the well of the Senate next week to compel Republicans to face Mr. Trump’s conduct head on, rather than retreating behind arguments around the process.The approach was evident in their legal brief, which was more dramatic in parts than a typical courtroom filing. It follows Mr. Trump from his early-summer warnings about a “rigged” election up to his last, futile attempts to target Congress’s Jan. 6 counting session to snatch victory away from President Biden.All the while, the managers argued, Mr. Trump was issuing a “call to mobilize” to his supporters to “stop the steal.” He invited them to come to Washington in early January. Then used a speech on the Ellipse outside the White House just before the attack to urge them to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol to confront members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence.The calls incited the mob to action, they argued, citing videos posted on social media in which supporters of Mr. Trump can be heard yelling “invade the Capitol building” after he urges them to “show strength.”“He summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue,” the managers wrote.Unlike the first impeachment case against Mr. Trump, which centered on his pressure campaign on Ukraine, this one has bipartisan support and the prosecutors appear poised to make frequent use of Republicans’ own criticisms of Mr. Trump. Their brief quoted Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach, as well as Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, who said publicly that Mr. Trump “provoked” the mob.In making constitutional arguments in favor of Mr. Trump’s conviction, though, they reached hundreds of years further back, arguing that Mr. Trump had not only prompted violence but threatened the tradition of the peaceful transfer of power begun by Washington. They also cited debates by the founders about who would be subject to impeachment and when, as well as a 19th-century impeachment trial of a former war secretary, to assert that the Senate clearly had a right to try Mr. Trump even after he left office.“There is no ‘January exception’ to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution,” the managers wrote. “A president must answer comprehensively for his conduct in office from his first day in office through his last.”They also insisted that the First Amendment right to free speech could not shield Mr. Trump from responsibility for inciting violence that would seek to do harm to the Constitution, undermining all the rights enshrined there, including free speech.The president’s filing was narrower by design, with a lengthier, more detailed brief due from his lawyers early next week. Still, the contours of their defense were becoming clear.The lawyers said Democrats had misinterpreted Mr. Trump’s actions and his intent, denying that he was responsible for the Capitol riot or that he intended to interfere with Congress’s formalizing of Mr. Biden’s win. They said his words to supporters on Jan. 6 — “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore” — were not meant as a call to violent action, but were “about the need to fight for election security in general.”“It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior,” they wrote. In another section, they denied that Mr. Trump had “threatened” Georgia’s Republican secretary of state or “acted improperly” when he demanded during a January phone call that the official “find” the votes needed to overturn his loss in that state and vaguely warned of a “criminal offense.”The lawyers reprised an argument against the constitutionality of the trial popular with Republican senators. They asserted that a plain reading of the Constitution — which does not explicitly discuss what to do with an official impeached but not tried before he leaves office — does not permit the Senate to try a former president.But they also said that Mr. Trump “denies the allegation” that his claims that he won the election were false. If that argument plays a central role in the trial, Republican senators could quickly find themselves painfully wedged between a conspiracy theory they fear could do lasting damage to their party and millions of their own voters who believe it.Mr. Trump’s response appeared to be somewhat hastily assembled after the former president shook up his legal team just 48 hours before the brief was due; the response, for example, was addressed to the “Unites States Senate.”In an interview later, Mr. Schoen pointed to another potential argument that could help Mr. Trump: that at least some of the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol planned their attack in advance, suggesting that the former president was not the inciting force.“I have no reason to believe anyone involved with Trump was in the know,” he said of the violence that unfolded at the Capitol. Still, he conceded the heart of the defense would lie elsewhere.Nicholas Fandos More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the Race5 Takeaways From the DebateAndrew Yang’s CandidacyWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAndrew Yang Says He Has Tested Positive for the CoronavirusMr. Yang, a New York mayoral candidate who had suspended in-person events after a campaign staff member had tested positive, said he was experiencing mild symptoms.“After testing negative as recently as this weekend, today I took a Covid rapid test and received a positive result,” Andrew Yang said in a statement on Tuesday.Credit…Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesFeb. 2, 2021Updated 8:14 p.m. ETAndrew Yang, a leading New York mayoral candidate who has pursued extensive in-person campaigning amid the pandemic, announced on Tuesday that he had tested positive for the coronavirus.“After testing negative as recently as this weekend, today I took a Covid rapid test and received a positive result,” Mr. Yang said in a statement. “I am experiencing mild symptoms, but am otherwise feeling well and in good spirits. I will quarantine in accordance with public health guidelines and follow the advice of my doctor.”Perhaps more than any other candidate in this year’s race, Mr. Yang has sought to forge an in-person campaign trail, holding multiple events outdoors since declaring his candidacy last month.His approach has generated enthusiasm on the ground and attention in the news media, but even before Mr. Yang tested positive, the risks were clear: A staff member tested positive less than a week after he announced for mayor, forcing the candidate to quarantine.But Mr. Yang had since returned to a robust in-person schedule. He said his campaign had begun the contact-tracing process.“During this time, I will continue to attend as many virtual events as possible, in addition to working with our incredible campaign team to continue our mission of getting New York City back on its feet,” Mr. Yang, 46, said in the statement. “When the time is right, I look forward to once again hitting the campaign trail and advancing a positive vision for our city’s future.”In addition to the health considerations, the developments offer a vivid illustration of the campaigning challenges facing the mayoral candidates as they scramble to stand out before June’s Democratic primary. Many worry about their ability to connect over livestreams and wonder about how many voters they are truly reaching with virtual events. But the health risks — to the candidates, their staffs and their supporters — remain real.Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller whose mother died of complications from Covid-19, and Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, have both had to quarantine recently, though they have generally been far more cautious about in-person campaigning.Pursuing a vigorous in-person schedule also may carry some political risk, especially in a Democratic primary.Throughout the presidential campaign, the Democrats drew sharp contrasts with their Republican rivals over the matter of taking the virus seriously. President Biden’s staff members argued that by pursuing a lighter in-person campaign schedule, they were respecting scientific and medical recommendations and offering a glimpse of how Mr. Biden would lead the country through the pandemic — contrasting with President Donald J. Trump’s large in-person rallies.None of the Democratic mayoral hopefuls are holding large rallies, though Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, has faced criticism for fund-raising indoors. But they do face the challenge of breaking out of a crowded field while also signaling that they take seriously a pandemic that has devastated the city.In an interview, Mr. Stringer wished Mr. Yang a quick recovery, but he also cast the development as a “wake-up call” to the mayoral field — a sign that some of the candidates are increasingly willing to draw mild contrasts with one another, and in particular with Mr. Yang.“This is a dangerous business now, as long as this virus is raging, and we do have a special obligation to keep our people safe,” Mr. Stringer said.“Nobody wants to see, you know, a colleague get sick,” he added. “But you don’t want to be the one to expose people. So, you know, whether it’s indoor fund-raising or up-close campaigning, we have to write new rules to keep people safe while we inoculate as many people as possible.”A spokesman for Mr. Adams declined to comment on the reference to indoor fund-raising. In a statement, Mr. Yang’s co-campaign manager, Sasha Ahuja, said that the team’s strategy is informed by public health guidance.“We hope every other campaign does the same and does as much or as little as they are comfortable with,” the statement said.On Twitter, Mr. Yang used the moment to suggest a balm to speed his recovery.“In all seriousness if you want me to feel better donate to my campaign!” he wrote. “Then I can relax.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Climate and EnvironmentExecutive OrdersWild WeatherBlack FarmersReversing Trump’s RollbacksAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAutomakers Drop Efforts to Derail California Climate RulesMomentum is shifting toward a clean-car future as more automakers end their legal efforts to block California’s tough fuel economy standards.New cars on a dock at the Port of Los Angeles in April.Credit…Lucy Nicholson/ReutersFeb. 2, 2021, 4:52 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and several other major automakers said Tuesday they would no longer try to block California from setting its own strict fuel-economy standards, signaling that the auto industry is ready to work with President Biden on his largest effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.The decision by the companies was widely expected, coming after General Motors dropped its support for the Trump-era effort just weeks after the presidential election. But the shift may help the Biden administration move quickly to reinstate national fuel-efficiency standards that would control planet-warming auto pollution, this time with support from industry giants that fought such regulations for years.“After four years of putting us in reverse, it is time to restart and build a sustainable future, grow domestic manufacturing, and deliver clean cars for America,” said Gina McCarthy, the senior White House climate change adviser. “We need to move forward — and fast.”The auto giants’ announcements come on top of a 2020 commitment by five other companies — Ford, Honda, BMW, Volkswagen and Volvo — that they would abide by California’s tough standards. And last week, G.M. pledged to sell only zero-emissions vehicles by 2035, a move that would put the company in line with another recent California policy banning the sales of internal-combustion vehicles by that year.Tuesday’s move also marked a stark reversal for California’s influence on Washington policymaking. After President Donald J. Trump rolled back Obama-era auto pollution rules that had been modeled after California’s state-level rules, he then blocked the state’s authority from setting such rules. Now Mr. Biden is expected to use California as a model for swiftly reinstating national rules.“We’re going to continue to play an important role in pushing the federal government and the auto companies,” vowed Jared Blumenfeld, the California secretary of environmental protection, who added that Mr. Biden had recently spoken with Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, about using the state’s auto emissions polices as a guide to federal policies.California Gov. Gavin Newsom, left, and Jared Blumenfeld, the state’s secretary of environmental protection, in 2019.Credit…Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesIn a statement, the auto companies, represented by the industry group Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation, said the lawsuit started by the Trump administration to block California’s fuel economy rules no longer had their support: “We are aligned with the Biden Administration’s goals to achieve year-over-year improvements in fuel economy standards that provide meaningful climate and national energy security benefits.”They added, “In a gesture of good faith and to find a constructive path forward, the C.S.A.R. has decided to withdraw from this lawsuit in order to unify the auto industry behind a single national program with ambitious, achievable standards.”Mr. Trump had made the rollback of Obama-era fuel economy standards the centerpiece of his deregulatory agenda. The Obama-era standards, which were modeled on California’s, would have required auto companies to make and sell vehicles that reached an average fuel economy of about 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The standards, which would have eliminated about six billion tons of planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution over the lifetime of the vehicles, stood as the single largest federal policy ever enacted to reduce climate change.The Trump administration last year rolled back that standard to about 40 miles per gallon by 2026 — a move which would have effectively allowed most of that carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. California, however, reached a separate deal with the five automakers, in which they agreed to reach a standard of 51 miles per gallon by 2026. The Trump administration, backed by G.M. and other automakers, blocked California’s legal authority to set those standards.Now that G.M., Toyota and Fiat Chrysler have dropped out of that lawsuit, Biden administration officials have one less speed bump ahead of a new federal standard. The White House is also expected to explore ways to adopt the California policy requiring all new vehicles sold after 2035 to release no emissions.Pete Buttigieg, U.S. secretary of transportation nominee, leaving a Senate confirmation hearing last month.Credit…Pool photo by Stefani ReynoldsThe Biden administration is already moving swiftly to craft that new standard, which will be jointly released by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation. On Wednesday, the Senate confirmed the new Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and a 2020 presidential contender, vowed to make tackling climate change a guiding principal of his tenure — a first for a transportation secretary.And he will be aided by a new top official who helped broker the California deal with the five automakers: Steven Cliff, formerly the deputy executive officer with the California Air Resources Board, has been appointed by Mr. Biden to lead the Transportation Department’s National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that will oversee the rewrite of the new auto fuel economy standards.“He’s probably the most knowledgeable person anywhere on the planet about how these auto companies align on this and how we push on this,” Mr. Blumenfeld said.Ms. McCarthy is expected to meet this week with the heads of several major auto companies and representatives from the United Auto Workers and other unions as she begins to sketch out the details of the new rules.Though the California deal sets a standard of 51 miles per gallon for model year 2026, the coming Biden rule will likely take a year or more to complete. So its first targets will be later, 2028 or 2029. California and environmental groups are likely to push for standards that are even more aggressive to help meet the goal of ending sales of gasoline- and diesel-powered cars by 2035.Crafting such rules could be a lengthy and complex process, but several people close to the administration say they expect that the E.P.A. and Transportation Department to publish a “notice of proposed rule making” — essentially, a document that launches the one-to-two-year legal process of drafting and implementing such rules — by March.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutVisual TimelineInside the SiegeTracking the Oath KeepersNotable ArrestsThe Global Far RightAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyTrump’s Legal Team Says Senate Has No Right to Try Him as Prosecution Calls Him ‘Singularly Responsible’ for RiotHouse Impeachment Managers Argue Trump Was ‘Responsible’ for Capitol RiotsFeb. 2, 2021, 8:31 a.m. ETFeb. 2, 2021, 8:31 a.m. ETNicholas Fandos and Former President Donald J. Trump shook up his legal team just 48 hours before the legal brief was due.Credit…Oliver Contreras for The New York TimesFormer President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers denied on Tuesday that he incited the deadly assault on the Capitol and argued that the Senate had no power to try a former president, as House prosecutors made their case that Mr. Trump was “singularly responsible” for the Jan. 6 rampage and must be convicted and barred from holding any future office.The dueling filings provided the clearest preview yet of a politically fraught impeachment trial — the second in just a year — scheduled to begin in earnest next Tuesday. Both sides indicated they were ready for a debate over the constitutionality of trying a former president. They were also lining up diametrically opposed interpretations of a set of events witnessed on live television across the nation.In his first formal answer to the “incitement of insurrection” charge against him, Mr. Trump’s lawyers denied that he was responsible for the Capitol riot or that he intended to interfere with Congress’s formalizing of President Biden’s election win. They said his words to supporters, some who later stormed the building — “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore” — were protected by his First Amendment right of free speech. They said they were not meant as a reference to violent action, but “about the need to fight for election security in general.” Read the Brief from Trump’s Defense Team on Impeachment ChargeFormer President Donald J. Trump’s legal team submitted a brief on Tuesday to the Senate outlining his defense against the impeachment charge of “incitement of insurrection.”“It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior,” the lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, wrote in the 14-page filing.Notably, the document avoided repeating or attempting to defend Mr. Trump’s bogus claims that the November election had been “stolen” from him by widespread fraud, which the former president had wanted to be the central feature of his defense. But his lawyers in effect argued that Mr. Trump believed he won, and therefore was within his rights to “express his belief that the election results were suspect.” His claims could not be disproved, they added, because there was “insufficient evidence.” (Judges rejected more than 60 lawsuits by Mr. Trump and his allies claiming varying degrees of fraud or irregularities.) Above all, the former president’s lawyers said the Constitution did not permit the Senate to try a former president after he had left office — despite the fact that the Senate has tried a former official in the past. The response arrived two hours after the nine House Democrats preparing to prosecute the case argued in their own 80-page pretrial brief that Mr. Trump was directly to blame for the violent attack on Jan. 6 and a broader attack on democracy that showed he would do anything to “reassert his grip on power” if he were allowed to seek election again.Read the Brief From the Impeachment ManagersNine House Democrats submitted a 80-page pretrial brief laying out their case in the impeachment trial against former President Donald J. Trump.“President Trump has demonstrated beyond doubt that he will resort to any method to maintain or reassert his grip on power,” wrote the managers, led by Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland. “A president who violently attacks the democratic process has no right to participate in it.”.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.The House prosecutors also refuted Mr. Trump’s constitutional challenge to the case, asserting that history and even conservative constitutional theory supported the Senate’s right to try a former president.“There is no ‘January exception’ to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution,” the managers wrote. “A president must answer comprehensively for his conduct in office from his first day in office through his last.”They likewise insisted that Mr. Trump’s First Amendment right to free speech did not shield him from responsibility for inciting violence that would seek to do harm to the Constitution, undermining all the rights enshrined there, including free speech.Mr. Trump’s response took an unusual form, addressing the House’s article of impeachment point by point. It also appeared to be somewhat hastily assembled after Mr. Trump shook up his legal team just 48 hours before the brief was due; the response was addressed to the “Unites States Senate.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpiniónSupported byContinue reading the main storyComentarioDiscrimina y vencerás… en las elecciones peruanasPerú celebrará elecciones presidenciales en medio de inestabilidad política y una crisis de salud por la pandemia. En un país confinado y donde solo el 40 por ciento de la población tiene acceso a internet, las campañas virtuales son una posibilidad y un dilema.La bandera del Perú durante una marcha posterior a la toma de posesión del presidente interino Francisco Sagasti.Credit…Sebastian Castaneda/ReutersEs periodista y escritora peruana.2 de febrero de 2021 a las 12:13 ETAl menos un par de candidatos a la presidencia del Perú y otros tantos expertos han sugerido que la campaña electoral del Perú se traslade al mundo virtual y las redes sociales.Keiko Fujimori y Julio Guzmán (él contagiado recientemente con la COVID-19), dos de los aspirantes que tienen mayor intención de voto —junto con George Forsyth, Verónika Mendoza y Yonhy Lescano—, han hablado de hacer una campaña al menos parcialmente digital por el incremento de los contagios de la segunda ola de la pandemia.Parece un argumento sensato. Perú es el país con más muertos por la COVID-19 por millón de habitantes en Sudamérica. En Lima y Callao, por ejemplo, ya no hay disponible una sola cama en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. En ese delicado contexto la propuesta de los presidenciables podría interpretarse como un gesto de responsabilidad social si no fuera porque aproximadamente el 60 por ciento de la población en el país no tiene acceso a internet en casa.El presidente, Francisco Sagasti, anunció de manera reciente la cuarentena total en la mayoría de ciudades del país al menos para los próximos días, en los que los candidatos no podrán movilizarse por el territorio, salvo las pocas zonas que no están bajo alarma extrema. Y no es seguro que puedan volver a recorrerlo con sus propuestas, lo que de facto nos pondría en la perspectiva de una campaña en gran parte virtual. Es algo que podría favorecer a los candidatos con reconocimiento de nombre y recursos pero a costa de que relegará, inevitablemente, a una enorme porción de la sociedad del juego democrático.La pandemia no solo ha dejado en evidencia que en el Perú no existe un sistema de salud capaz de hacer frente a esta crisis, también ha revelado las enormes falencias de su sistema político. A solo tres meses de las elecciones este sistema no puede garantizar que la mayoría de las personas pueda ejercer un voto informado debido a la abismal brecha digital. A la discriminación económica, sanitaria y laboral, se suma la que limita la participación democrática.La nuestra es una sociedad aún escindida y discriminadora en la que la privatización de los servicios públicos expone a miles a la enfermedad. Venden el oxígeno, suben el precio del paracetamol y es posible que hasta quieran vender la vacuna. En el Perú mueren los más pobres pero no por coronavirus, sino por falta de camas. Y es esa la misma población que tiene poco o ningún acceso a internet.Familiares de un hombre que falleció por la COVID-19 llevan su ataúd en un cementero limeño el 27 de enero de este año.Credit…ReutersSiempre hemos sabido que la peruana es una democracia endeble, casi un espejismo, pero al menos se ficcionaban las decisiones colectivas y parecían respetarse los mecanismos de participación. Pero la crisis pandémica quizás le ha dado una excusa a quienes han dominado la política peruana para encontrar maneras de limitar todavía más el voto. Solo una opinión vertida desde el privilegio puede demostrar tanta ignorancia acerca de nuestras realidades.El discurso concienzudo a favor de la virtualidad de las elecciones solo se lo pueden permitir candidatos que, como Keiko Fujimori, cuentan ya con una red de apoyo de medios de comunicación, leales a su proyecto político desde la década en que gobernaba su padre, o que tienen gran influencia y una buena base de seguidores.La propia Keiko, quien ha disputado ya dos veces las elecciones a la presidencia, se encuentra ahora mismo en régimen de arresto domiciliario con varias investigaciones abiertas por corrupción pero ha prometido un gobierno de “mano dura” contra el coronavirus y la crisis política, en la que lleva meses sumido el Perú precisamente por las maniobras en el Congreso de su partido y sus aliados.Una campaña exclusivamente virtual se la pueden permitir también los candidatos como Guzmán y Forsyth, cercanos al poder y a los círculos empresariales que podrían contar con grandes recursos para invertir en las pautas de internet y redes, además de contar con respaldo mediático.En esas condiciones, quizás la única candidata de izquierda que parte con posibilidades, Verónika Mendoza, de Juntos por el Perú, no solo está en desventaja, sino que sus oportunidades de competir se reducen. Sin un nombre tan reconocible como Fujimori (cuya familia ha dominado la política peruana durante buena parte de los últimos treinta años) o sin el respaldo de las élites empresariales (como Forsyth y Guzmán), su campaña necesita de la calle y del arrastre popular. Por ahora Mendoza no ha hecho grandes eventos de campaña pero sí se está moviendo respetando los protocolos de seguridad. Aún así algunas encuestas la colocan ya en segundo lugar.Perú no es Francia o Estados Unidos, donde también se llevaron a cabo elecciones municipales y presidenciales en plena pandemia, y donde ha funcionado el voto en ausencia y otros protocolos pandémicos. En el Perú eso es imposible. Para emitir su voto, que sigue siendo obligatorio, mucha gente suele desplazarse largas horas desde sus comunidades hasta los centros de votación. Si la campaña pasa a ser solo virtual, ese alto porcentaje de personas no podrá ser parte del proceso previo de los comicios, ni tomar contacto y escuchar las alternativas sobre la mesa para forjarse una opinión. Y eso se llama exclusión.Hace unos días algunos hablaban de postergar las elecciones. Pero pese al nuevo confinamiento y toques de queda recién decretados —que poca gente puede acatar, pues el 70 por ciento de los trabajadores peruanos son informales—, la idea de postergar las elecciones por unos meses no solo no resolvería la brecha digital. También daría más margen a la polarización que se vive todos los días en las calles entre bandos políticos, entre negacionistas de la pandemia, activistas por la reactivación económica a toda costa y defensores de la cuarentena y los protocolos sanitarios.Es necesario emprender un proceso electoral limpio y sin más demora para poner en marcha una nueva etapa tras un año políticamente convulso. Ese debe ser el inicio para que el país entre en la senda de la reconstrucción en el año en que se proyecta celebrar el bicentenario de su independencia. En cuanto se reabra progresivamente la circulación en algunas semanas, las autoridades deberían seguir permitiendo a los partidos difundir su mensaje en igualdad de condiciones y estos esforzarse por hacer un trabajo pedagógico y cívico de cuidados mientras se garantiza la democracia participativa.Eso sí, no olvidemos a la hora de votar que esta disyuntiva sobre la campaña digital ha revelado también algo que es tan obvio como estremecedor: lo alejados que pueden estar de la vida de la gente muchos de los que quieren ser presidentes del Perú. Tal parece que siguen su propia máxima: discrimina y vencerás.Gabriela Wiener es escritora, periodista y colaboradora regular de The New York Times. Es autora de los libros Sexografías, Nueve lunas, Llamada perdida y Dicen de mí.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More