Elections

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Campaign to Subvert the 2020 ElectionTrump’s RoleKey TakeawaysExtremist Wing of G.O.P.La manifestación de los partidarios de Trump, antes del asalto al Capitolio del 6 de enero.Credit…Nina Berman/NOOR vía Redux PicturesLa estrategia de Trump para revertir las elecciones: la crónica de los últimos 77 días de su presidenciaUn análisis del Times sobre los días que transcurrieron entre las elecciones y la investidura presidencial muestra cómo las mentiras que el exmandatario preparó durante años abrumaron al Partido Republicano e impulsaron el asalto al Capitolio.La manifestación de los partidarios de Trump, antes del asalto al Capitolio del 6 de enero.Credit…Nina Berman/NOOR vía Redux PicturesSupported byContinue reading the main storyMatthew Rosenberg y 2 de febrero de 2021 a las 06:00 ETRead in EnglishDurante los 77 días que transcurrieron entre las elecciones y la toma de posesión, el expresidente Donald Trump intentó subvertir la democracia estadounidense con la mentira sobre el fraude electoral que estuvo preparando durante años.Un análisis de The New York Times sobre los sucesos que se desarrollaron después de las elecciones muestra cómo el expresidente —impulsado por líderes republicanos, asesorado por abogados conspiradores y financiado por una nueva clase de donantes de la era Trump— emprendió una campaña que convenció a decenas de millones de estadounidenses de que la elección fue robada e hizo que el asalto al Capitolio sucedido el 6 de enero fuera casi inevitable.Una serie de entrevistas con los actores centrales, junto con documentos, videos y correos electrónicos que no habían sido divulgados, cuentan la historia de una campaña que fue más planificada de lo que se creía, aunque cada día se alejaba más de la realidad.Aquí presentamos algunas conclusiones clave:Cuando algunos abogados del equipo de Trump desistían, otros estaban listos para proseguir con demandas que traspasaban los límites de la ética legal y la razónDiez días después de la elección, incluso cuando Trump y sus partidarios promovieron una acusación tras otra de fraude electoral, su equipo de abogados electorales sabía que la realidad era justamente lo contrario a lo que presentaba Trump porque no estaban recabando pruebas sustanciales de fraude o irregularidades suficientes como para anular la elección.Esa realidad se hizo patente el 12 de noviembre, cuando los resultados finales de Arizona mostraron que Joe Biden tenía una ventaja irreversible de más de 10.000 votos lo que hizo que la principal demanda del equipo legal en ese estado —que solo había identificado 191 boletas para impugnar— fuera irrelevante.En una reunión celebrada en el Despacho Oval ese día, los abogados electorales se enfrentaron al abogado personal del presidente, Rudolph W. Giuliani, por su uso de tácticas legales cuestionables y teorías de la conspiración como la de que las máquinas de votación de Dominion habían transformado los votos de Trump en votos de Biden.En última instancia, Trump decidió darle a Giuliani el liderazgo de toda la estrategia legal convirtiendo al 12 de noviembre en el día en que su esfuerzo por revertir la derrota en los tribunales se convirtió en una campaña fuera de la legalidad que buscaba privar de sus derechos a millones de votantes basándose en la falsa noción de un fraude generalizado.Las teorías de la conspiración sobre las máquinas de votación se entrelazaron con la historia de una supercomputadora que fue publicada en medios conservadoresLa teoría de la conspiración sobre las máquinas de votación de la empresa Dominion, que estaba siendo propalada por el presidente y muchos de sus partidarios, duró semanas en gestarse. A fines de octubre, un oscuro sitio web conservador llamado The American Report publicó varias historias sobre una supercomputadora llamada The Hammer que, según afirmaba la página, estaba ejecutando un software llamado Scorecard con el fin de robarle votos a Trump.La teoría tuvo una gran repercusión el día previo a las elecciones en el pódcast de Stephen K. Bannon, exestratega político de Trump, quien invitó a dos defensores de esa idea a su programa: Thomas McInerney, un teniente general retirado de la Fuerza Aérea que fue expulsado de Fox News por mentir sobre el historial del senador John McCain como prisionero de guerra en Vietnam, y Sidney Powell, una abogada que se convertiría en una de las defensoras más controvertidas y desenfrenadas de Trump.Trump fue impulsado por republicanos influyentes que estaban motivados por la ambición, el miedo o la creencia equivocada de que el reclamo no llegaría demasiado lejosTrump recibió un apoyo vital por parte de líderes republicanos importantes como Mitch McConnell, quien era el líder de la mayoría del Senado y tomó la decisión temprana de unirse a sus compañeros de partido para romper con la tradición de reconocer al vencedor después de las principales cadenas de televisión y The Associated Press declararon la victoria de Joe Biden.McConnell temía incomodar al presidente porque necesitaba su ayuda para las dos elecciones al Senado de Georgia que decidirían su control de la cámara. También creyó en las opiniones equivocadas de asesores de la Casa Blanca, como Jared Kushner, quienes decían que Trump eventualmente reconocería la realidad, afirmaron al Times personas cercanas al senador. Su posterior reconocimiento de la victoria de Biden no fue suficiente para evitar que 14 senadores republicanos se unieran a un esfuerzo tardío para anular los votos de millones de estadounidenses justo antes del 6 de enero.La demanda de Texas que intentaba impugnar los resultados de las elecciones en cuatro estados pendulares fue escrita previamenteLa demanda del fiscal general de Texas ante la Corte Suprema que buscaba eliminar 20 millones de votos en cuatro estados pendulares que fueron ganados por Biden fue redactada en secreto por abogados cercanos a la Casa Blanca, según comprobó el Times. Dos tercios de los fiscales generales estatales republicanos del país, 18 en total, respaldaron un escrito amicus, pero solo después de que varios altos funcionarios plantearan sus objeciones.“Es muy probable que el tribunal niegue esto en una sentencia”, escribió el procurador general adjunto de Dakota del Norte, James E. Nicolai, en un correo electrónico a su jefe.El 11 de diciembre, el tribunal hizo precisamente eso, dictaminando que Texas no tenía derecho a impugnar los votos de otros estados. Tres días después, el Colegio Electoral confirmó la victoria de Biden.La mentira fue respaldada por abogados y financistas nuevos y más radicalesEn un encuentro celebrado en la Casa Blanca cuatro días después, Trump se reunió con Powell y dos socios prominentes: el exdirector ejecutivo de Overstock.com Patrick Byrne, quien estaba financiando su propio equipo para ayudar a probar el fraude electoral, y Michael T. Flynn, el exasesor de seguridad nacional caído en desgracia y recientemente indultado que había planteado públicamente la noción de que Trump debería declarar la ley marcial. La sesión se redujo a una pelea a gritos entre los tres y los miembros del equipo de la Casa Blanca de Trump, incluido su abogado en la Casa Blanca, Pat Cipollone.“Estuvo muy cerca de ser una pelea a puñetazos”, recordó Byrne en el programa de YouTube Operation Freedom.En última instancia, Trump accedió a centrarse en un objetivo diferente: bloquear la certificación de los resultados por parte del Congreso el 6 de enero.Women for America First, un grupo poco conocido pero muy organizado, ayudó a construir la coaliciónMientras la atención pública se centraba en las diatribas diarias y las maniobras subversivas del expresidente, un grupo de activistas —poco conocidos pero cada vez más influyentes— iba de pueblo en pueblo en autobuses rojos con el lema de MAGA realizando manifestaciones para presionar a los senadores para que impugnaran la votación. La gira fue organizada por un grupo llamado Women for America First.La agrupación ayudaría a construir una coalición trumpiana que incluyera a miembros veteranos y novatos del Congreso, así como a los votantes de base y los extremistas y teóricos de la conspiración que promovían una versión inicial de la página Trump March —que fue eliminada pero todavía puede consultarte en Internet Archive— incluido el nacionalista blanco Jared Taylor, destacados defensores de QAnon y el líder de Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio.Women for America First tenía varios vínculos con el presidente y sus allegados. Su lideresa, Amy Kremer, fue una de las principales organizadoras del Tea Party y una de las primeras en apoyar a Trump, después de haber iniciado un súper PAC de Mujeres por Trump en 2016. Y dos de los organizadores del grupo eran muy influyentes: Jennifer Lawrence conoce a Trump a través de su padre, que hizo negocios con él; y Dustin Stockton, quien tiene gran credibilidad entre la comunidad que aboga por el derecho a portar armas por ser el coordinador de Gun Owners of America. Ambos habían trabajado con Bannon.Entre los patrocinadores de la gira en autobús estaban Bannon y Mike Lindell, el fundador de MyPillow, quien dice que ha gastado 2 millones de dólares investigando las máquinas de votación y la posible interferencia extranjera. Lindell, junto con Byrne, forma parte de un cambio que se estaba produciendo en el Partido Republicano cuando los donantes tradicionales se retiraron de lo que se convirtió en un ataque abierto al sistema democrático y surgieron nuevos donantes que financiaron la narrativa de las elecciones robadas.El mitin del 6 de enero se convirtió en una producción de la Casa BlancaWomen for America First fue el grupo que originalmente organizó la manifestación del 6 de enero en Washington. Pero a principios de año, Trump decidió unirse al mitin, y el evento se convirtió en una producción de la Casa Blanca en la que participaron varias personas cercanas a la administración y a la campaña de Trump.Katrina Pierson, exasesora de la campaña de Trump, fue el enlace con la Casa Blanca, dijo un exfuncionario de la administración. Y el presidente determinó el orden de los oradores, así como la música que se usó, según sostiene una persona con conocimiento directo de las conversaciones.Stockton, el organizador de la gira en autobús, dijo que le había sorprendido saber que la protesta incluiría una marcha desde el parque de la Elipse hasta el Capitolio. Esa marcha, que fue el preludio de los disturbios, no estaba en los planes antes de que la Casa Blanca se involucrara.Matthew Rosenberg, un corresponsal radicado en Washington, formó parte del equipo que ganó un Premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los nexos de Donald Trump con Rusia. Antes pasó 15 años como corresponsal extranjero en Asia, África y Medio Oriente. @AllMattNYT • FacebookJim Rutenberg escribe para el Times y la revista Sunday. Antes fue columnista de medios, reportero de la Casa Blanca y corresponsal político nacional. Formó parte del equipo que ganó el Premio Pulitzer al Servicio Público en 2018 por exponer el acoso y el abuso sexual. @jimrutenbergAdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks about how her experience of Capitol riot was affected by her experience as a survivor of sexual assault
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she is a sexual assault survivor More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhy Arizona’s Senators May Collide With Democrats Who Elected ThemSenators Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly ran on bipartisan approaches to governing, but some Democrats in Arizona view their openness to Senate Republicans with skepticism.Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, at the 2020 State of the Union address. She and Senator Mark Kelly have assumed unusual stature amid all the talk about bipartisanship.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesFeb. 2, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETDemocrats control the U.S. Senate by a single vote. President Biden has placed bipartisanship near the top of his agenda. Republican senators are pushing for deals, including on Covid-19 during a meeting on Monday with the president. On the economy, on immigration, on health care — the Biden administration will need votes from every senator it can get.Which is where Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly come in.Arizona’s two Democratic senators, both moderates, have assumed unusual stature amid all the talk about bipartisanship. Ms. Sinema made waves and frustrated progressives last month when she aligned with Republicans to maintain the filibuster, which empowers the minority party. Mr. Kelly was part of a bipartisan group of 16 senators who recently met with White House officials to discuss Covid relief. The pair represent a state that Mr. Biden narrowly flipped in November; pleasing Arizona is a new Democratic priority.But if Ms. Sinema and Mr. Kelly are emerging as players in Washington, the politics back home are more complicated. Arizona Democratic Party officials and activists threw themselves into the two senators’ races, despite the fact that many of these Democrats are more progressive than either Ms. Sinema or Mr. Kelly. Now they are eager for their senators not just to embrace the middle, but also to adopt the policies the left is pressing for as well. Many view the senators’ openness to Republicans with skepticism.Mr. Kelly and his wife, former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, after his swearing-in ceremony in December.Credit…Al Drago for The New York Times“So many things went into Kelly and Sinema’s victory that no one effort can take credit, but also everything was necessary, so nothing can be sacrificed,” said Ian Danley, the executive director of Arizona Wins, who helped coordinate voter outreach among dozens of liberal organizations last year. “They’re both in a tough spot. Those different strategies from a policy perspective can be in conflict.”Ms. Sinema, who was elected in 2018, and Mr. Kelly, who won last year, both ran for office on bipartisan approaches to government. And given the narrow Democratic control in the Senate, both senators are likely to prove essential to the Biden agenda as well as any major legislative deal-making on issues central to the state, including immigration, health care and Covid relief.Their importance was on clear display last week when Vice President Kamala Harris included the Phoenix ABC affiliate and The Arizona Republic’s editorial board in a round of interviews as she promoted the administration’s Covid relief package. Though Ms. Harris did not mention Ms. Sinema or Mr. Kelly by name, she left no doubt that their loyalty was paramount.“If we don’t pass this bill, I’m going to be very candid with you: We know more people are going to die in our country,” Ms. Harris said in the interview with The Republic. “More people will lose their jobs and our children are going to miss more school. We’ve got to be here collectively to say that that is not an option in America.”That same day, Ms. Harris offered similar comments to a television station and newspaper in West Virginia. Later, Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat who has represented the state since 2010 and relishes his reputation as an independent, voiced his own frustration, saying her interview was “not a way of working together.”Ms. Sinema and Mr. Kelly made no such comments, and some progressives viewed their silence as worrisome.“We need to be able to depend on these senators that we worked so hard to elect,” said Tomás Robles, an executive director of LUCHA, a civil rights group that knocked on tens of thousands of doors in Arizona for Democrats last year. “If they’re going to act like a moderate Republican, we will remember by the time elections come. We expect them to recognize that Latinos voted overwhelmingly for those two, and we expect them to repay our loyalty.”Nayeli Jaramillo-Montes, a canvasser with the Arizona advocacy group LUCHA, which knocked on tens of thousands of doors for Democrats last year.Credit…Gabriella Angotti-Jones for The New York TimesFor many immigration activists, a sense of pessimism has already begun to sink in. They fear that Democrats will try to strike a deal with Republicans who are unlikely to approve the sweeping changes Mr. Biden has proposed — similar to the strategy that failed during the Obama administration.Erika Andiola, a Phoenix-based immigration activist, became the first known undocumented congressional aide when she worked for Ms. Sinema in 2013, drawn to what she saw as Ms. Sinema’s intense interest and commitment in the issue. Now, Ms. Andiola said she viewed her former boss as moving to a more conservative stance on immigration — more often emphasizing border security than creating a path to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.“There is a window of time now and there is a way for Democrats to get something done on immigration — and they can do it on their own,” Ms. Andiola said. “In the moment of crisis, you have to choose your battles, you have to choose what you can win. Pick the right strategy. Compromising with Republicans is not going to get us anywhere.”Both Ms. Sinema and Mr. Kelly declined to be interviewed for this article, but statements from their offices emphasized bipartisanship and border security, as well as support for Dreamers, who were brought to the United States as children of unauthorized immigrants and have been threatened with deportation at times. Mr. Kelly is already part of the group of 16 senators tasked with finding bipartisan agreement on the relief package. Ms. Sinema has been one of the most outspoken critics of Arizona’s response to the pandemic, and some Arizona Democrats believe she will be supportive of the Biden administration’s package.Raquel Terán, the newly elected chair of the Arizona Democratic Party and a state representative, acknowledged that the two senators “didn’t campaign on the progressive end of spectrum.” But she said that while there might be some disagreements, she expected both to side with Mr. Biden on the relief package, health care and immigration.Raquel Terán, the new chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, said she expected the state’s senators to back President Biden’s agenda.Credit…Bob Christie/Associated Press“They will vote for the Democratic agenda, the agenda that Joe Biden has put forward — they supported him in the election and what they put on the table, so I am hopeful,” Ms. Terán said. “I hope that they will do everything to ensure that his agenda is not blocked.”Arizona has a long history with high-profile, independent-minded senators willing to buck party lines, and others who amassed political power — John McCain and Jon Kyl were long seen as two of the most influential senators during their time in office, and Jeff Flake became one of the first Republicans in the Senate to openly criticize former President Donald J. Trump.“There is no state in America that is going to play a more pivotal role in the direction of congressional legislation in the next two years,” said Glenn Hamer, the president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. “Every major piece of legislation is going to go right through Arizona, and the role many of us want our senators to play is as someone who reaches across the aisle.”Many Democrats point out that the political atmosphere of the state has changed drastically since 2018, with voters flipping both Senate seats and a Democrat presidential candidate winning in Arizona in November for only the second time in five decades. And since the riot in Washington last month, more than 5,000 Republicans have dropped their party affiliation.Still, Mr. Hamer warned that both senators were in a precarious political position, particularly Mr. Kelly, who won a special election and is up for re-election in 2022. (The Chamber of Commerce endorsed his opponent in the election last year, and did not make an endorsement in Ms. Sinema’s race.)Approving major changes like a $15-an-hour minimum wage or an immigration package that does not include more enforcement, Mr. Hamer said, would turn off the moderate voters who also helped propel the pair to Washington.“I don’t believe you can have unity in America without bipartisan legislation, and I really believe both of them have a role to play in that,” he said. “That would be far better and more durable than trying to blow up the filibuster.”Mr. Danley, a longtime liberal activist, similarly warned that the two senators could not take new voters in the state for granted.“If we’re going to turn out voters who support you, we need ammunition, we need to have something that is real and legitimate,” Mr. Danley said. “We can’t keep going out saying they are better than the bad guys — that is too low of a bar. What about actually being good for these folks who showed up and who have expectations?”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

The Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday spoke in an emotional video about the insurrection at the US Capitol, and how what she went through was affected by her experience as a survivor of sexual assault.In an account remarkably candid for an American lawmaker, Ocasio-Cortez recounted going into hiding as rioters scaled the Capitol on 6 January, hiding in a bathroom in her office while hearing banging on the walls and a man yelling: “Where is she? Where is she?” She had feared for her life, she told an Instagram Live audience of more than 150,000 people.“I thought I was going to die,” she said. “And I had a lot of thoughts. I was thinking if this is the plan for me, then people will be able to take it from here.”In the video, Ocasio-Cortez expressed frustration at being asked to “move on” after the attack, likening it to the refrain heard by many survivors of sexual assault. “These folks like to tell us to move on, that it’s not a big deal, that we should forget what happened, even telling us that we should apologize – these are the same tactics of abusers,” Ocasio-Cortez said.“I’m a survivor of sexual assault,” she added. “And I haven’t told many people that in my life. But when we go through trauma, trauma compounds on each other.”Ocasio-Cortez, who won re-election in November in New York’s 14th congressional district, had said in a video last month that she feared for her life during the Capitol attack.On Monday, she said she had been worried about the security situation for days, having been cautioned about possible violence by several people, including other lawmakers.The incident at her office had occurred after she returned from receiving her Covid-19 vaccine, she said. “I immediately realized I shouldn’t have gone into the bathroom. I should have gone in the closet,” she said. “Then I hear whoever was trying to get inside got into my office. I realize it’s too late.”She said she had then heard yelling. “This was the moment I thought everything was over. I thought I was going to die.”The congresswoman wiped away tears as she continued. “I start to look through the door hinge to see if I can see anything. I see this white man in a black beanie and yell again,” she said. “I have never been quieter in my entire life.”AOC recounting her horrifying experience hiding in her office during the insurrection.“I thought I was going to die…I have never been quieter in my entire life.” pic.twitter.com/t2P6FU3mFU— Justice Democrats (@justicedems) February 2, 2021
A staffer had eventually told her it was safe to emerge from the bathroom where she was hiding, and a Capitol police officer had been present in her office. She and her team had left the office, she recalled, and had eventually found shelter in the offices of the California representative Katie Porter.Ocasio-Cortez, who is Latina, had previously said that her fears were heightened because there were white supremacists and other extremists taking part in the mostly white mob.The second-term representative, whose New York district covers part of Queens and the Bronx, is among the most high-profile elected officials on the political left and a lightning rod for the right and extreme right.She has strongly condemned Donald Trump for inciting the riots, as well as members of his administration who did not invoke the 25th amendment to remove him from office, and lawmakers who voted to overturn the election results. 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’s New Lawyers Not Expected to Focus on False Election Claims in His DefenseWhile Mr. Trump has argued for it, his lawyers will instead echo the argument of many Republicans that the impeachment trial of a former president is unconstitutional.Bruce L. Castor Jr., a former district attorney in Pennsylvania, joined former President Donald J. Trump’s legal team this weekend.Credit…Matt Rourke/Associated PressMaggie Haberman and Feb. 1, 2021Updated 10:02 p.m. ETThe new legal team that former President Donald J. Trump has brought in for his impeachment trial next week is unlikely to focus his defense on his baseless claims of widespread election fraud and instead question whether the trial is even constitutional since he is no longer president, people close to the team said on Monday.Several Trump advisers have told the former president that using his election claims as a defense for his role in the mob attack on the Capitol last month is unwise, according to a person close to the new lawyers, David Schoen and Bruce L. Castor Jr. The person said the former president’s advisers did not expect that it would be part of the arguments they make before the Senate.In an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Monday, Mr. Schoen confirmed that he would not make that argument. “I’m not in this case for that,” he said.Mr. Schoen, an Atlanta-based criminal defense lawyer, and Mr. Castor, a former district attorney in Pennsylvania, replaced Butch Bowers and four other lawyers working with him after they parted ways with the former president.A person close to Mr. Trump said there was disagreement about the approach to strategy, as he pushed to have the legal team focus on election fraud. The person also said that the former president had no “chemistry” with Mr. Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer recommended to him by Senator Lindsey Graham, one of his most loyal supporters.A second person close to Mr. Trump said that Mr. Bowers had seemed “overwhelmed” by the case and confirmed a report from Axios that the lawyer had sought about $3 million for fees, researchers and other expenses.The new team has to file a brief with the Senate on Tuesday that will provide a first glimpse of how they plan to defend the former president. Mr. Trump never had an opportunity to offer a defense in the House impeachment proceedings because of the speed with which they were conducted.Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, warned Mr. Trump’s team on Monday to stay away from rehashing his inflated grievances and debunked theories about election fraud. Better, he said, to focus on rebutting the particulars of the House’s “incitement of insurrection” charge.“It’s really not material,” Mr. Cornyn told reporters in the Capitol of Mr. Trump’s repeated claims. “As much as there might be a temptation to bring in other matters, I think it would be a disservice to the president’s own defense to get bogged down in things that really aren’t before the Senate.”Many Republicans on Capitol Hill expect the defense team to at least partly rely on their argument that holding a trial of a former president is unconstitutional. People close to the Trump legal team said that would be a main avenue of defense, and Mr. Schoen told The Journal-Constitution that the constitutional question would be key.Mr. Schoen also said he planned to argue that Mr. Trump’s language did not “constitute incitement” of the violence on Jan. 6, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. But not all of the former president’s advisers share the belief that such an argument should be made; some have said privately that it is unnecessary to debate the key focus of the impeachment articles.The constitutional debate around that issue — many scholars disagree, citing the fact that the Senate has tried a former official in the past — will figure significantly in the trial. In preparation, the Senate has explicitly asked both sides to address in their written briefs “whether Donald John Trump is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of impeachment for acts committed as president of the United States, notwithstanding the expiration of his term in said office.”The House managers are set to file their own, more detailed legal brief on Tuesday. The document should offer the first comprehensive road map of their argument that Mr. Trump sowed baseless claims of election fraud, summoned his supporters to Washington and then directly provoked them to confront Congress as it met in the Capitol to certify his election loss.The brief will also include an argument in favor of holding the trial, with the managers prepared to argue that the framers of the Constitution intended impeachment to apply to officials who had committed offenses while in office.A similar document from Mr. Trump’s team to expand on their initial pleading is due next week before the trial begins on Feb. 9.Some around the former president have suggested arguing against the central accusation in the impeachment article — that he incited an insurrection — and instead focusing more closely on process issues like the constitutionality of the case.While the lawyers were just named, Mr. Schoen has been speaking to Mr. Trump and others around him in an informal capacity for several days, people close to the former president said. Mr. Schoen has represented a range of clients, like mobsters and Mr. Trump’s longtime adviser Roger J. Stone Jr.Mr. Castor is best known for reaching a deal not to prosecute Bill Cosby for sexual assault when he was the district attorney of Montgomery County, Pa. He also briefly served as the state’s acting attorney general.Mr. Castor’s cousin is Stephen R. Castor, the congressional investigator who battled Democrats over Mr. Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joseph R. Biden Jr. when he was preparing to run against him. A person familiar with the discussions said that Stephen Castor had recommended his cousin to the former president.It is unclear how close the Castor cousins are. Stephen Castor is a veteran of some of Capitol Hill’s most fiercely partisan oversight disputes in the past decade. He worked on investigations into the Obama administration’s handling of an attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, and a gun trafficking program known as Operation Fast and Furious.In the meantime, the nine House impeachment managers have all but gone underground in recent days, favoring private trial preparations to the kind of TV interviews and other public appearances often used in Washington to try to shift public opinion.Democratic leaders are trying to carry out both the president’s lengthy legislative agenda and a major impeachment trial of his predecessor more or less simultaneously. The decision to maintain a low profile was apparently driven by the desire to divert as little attention as possible from Mr. Biden’s push for coronavirus relief legislation, the priority issue of his agenda.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump’s Sleight of Hand: Shouting Fraud, Pocketing Donors’ Cash for FutureWith breathless, often misleading appeals, the former president promised small donors that he was using the money to fight the election results, but in fact stored much of it for future use.Protesters outside the Supreme Court in December. Many Republican grass-roots donors were drawn in by former President Donald J. Trump’s false promises and “stop the steal” message after the November election.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesShane Goldmacher and Feb. 1, 2021Updated 10:01 p.m. ETFormer President Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party leveraged false claims of voter fraud and promises to overturn the election to raise more than a quarter-billion dollars in November and December as hundreds of thousands of trusting supporters listened and opened their wallets.But the Trump campaign spent only a tiny fraction of its haul on lawyers and other legal bills related to those claims. Instead, Mr. Trump and the G.O.P. stored away much of the money — $175 million or so — even as they continued to issue breathless, aggressive and often misleading appeals for cash that promised it would help with recounts, the rooting out of election fraud and even the Republican candidates’ chances in the two Senate runoff races in Georgia.What fraction of the money Mr. Trump did spend after the election was plowed mostly into a public-relations campaign and to keep his perpetual fund-raising machine whirring, with nearly $50 million going toward online advertising, text-message outreach and a small television ad campaign.Only about $10 million spent by Mr. Trump’s campaign went to actual legal costs, according to an analysis of new Federal Election Commission filings from Nov. 4 through the end of the year.Far more is now sitting in the coffers of a new political action committee, Save America, that Mr. Trump formed after the election and that provides him a fat war chest he can use to pay advisers, fund travel and maintain a political operation. Mr. Trump’s new PAC had $31 million in the bank at the end of 2020 and an estimated $40 million more sitting in a shared party account waiting to be transferred into it.Mr. Trump’s extraordinary success raising money came mostly from grass-roots and online contributors drawn to his lie that the election result would soon be somehow wiped away. Only about a dozen donors gave $25,000 or more to one of Mr. Trump’s committees after Nov. 24. (The lone six-figure donation came from Elaine J. Wold, a major Republican donor in Florida.)“Sophisticated donors are not dumb,” said Dan Eberhart, a major Republican donor who has supported Mr. Trump in the past. “They could see through what Trump was trying to do.”A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment.One of the few five-figure checks deposited in December came from the National Fraternal Order of Police PAC. But its executive director, James Pasco, said the group had actually issued the $25,000 donation in early November. He said he did not know why it hadn’t been cashed until December.“The optics of this are terrible,” Mr. Pasco lamented. “We in no way questioned the election at any point, or were involved in an effort to forestall the results.”Still, many Republican grass-roots donors were drawn in by Mr. Trump’s false promises and “stop the steal” message. He fomented intense opposition to the inauguration of President Biden, which eventually culminated in the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol as flag-waving Trump supporters violently sought to disrupt the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory.All told, more than two million donations flowed to the former president and his shared committees with the Republican National Committee from Nov. 24 to the end of the year. Mr. Trump’s fund-raising did stall drastically after the Electoral College certified Mr. Biden as the winner on Dec. 14.In the two weeks leading up to that day, Mr. Trump and the R.N.C. had raised an average of $2.9 million every day online; in the two weeks after, the average was $1.2 million, according to records from WinRed, the Republican digital donation platform.Despite that slowdown, Mr. Trump still outpaced the online fund-raising of the two Republican senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who were competing in the Georgia runoff elections that would determine control of the chamber in the last 39 days of the year, which the most recent federal filings cover.Mr. Trump and his shared committees with the R.N.C. raised $80 million online during that period; Ms. Loeffler and Mr. Perdue combined for closer to $75 million. Both Senate candidates lost.“Absolutely that money was misdirected,” Mr. Eberhart said. “I would have loved to see half that money go to the Georgia Senate races.”Mr. Trump’s campaign appears to have contributed nothing to the Georgia races, despite fund-raising appeals that emphasized the importance of the races; the R.N.C. reported $7.9 million in expenditures aiding Ms. Loeffler and Mr. Perdue.A host of corporations and major donors mostly ignored Mr. Trump in the weeks after the election and poured money instead into the Georgia runoffs. Donations included a $5 million check from the American Petroleum Institute and hundreds of thousands more from oil giants like Chevron and Valero, which were fearful of the impact of a Democratic-controlled Senate.Mr. Trump spoke at a campaign rally in Valdosta, Ga., in December. His campaign appears to have contributed nothing to the Georgia Senate runoffs.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesKenneth Griffin, the chief executive of the financial firm Citadel, donated $10 million to the main Senate Republican super PAC in November. Mr. Griffin’s firm now faces scrutiny for some of its investments related to the GameStop stock that soared last month in a Reddit-driven populist revolt.Stephen A. Schwarzman, the chief executive of the private equity giant Blackstone, who has known Mr. Trump for decades and donated to him in the past, said publicly by mid-November that Mr. Biden had most likely won. Around that time, he gave $15 million to the same Senate Republican super PAC focused on Georgia.“The outcome is very certain today, and the country should move on,” Mr. Schwarzman said in late November.Mr. Trump did incur some legal costs, though there were no disclosed payments to some of the best-known figures in his failed legal fight, including Sidney Powell, the lawyer who spread conspiracy theories and held one news conference in the lobby of the R.N.C., and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former president’s personal lawyer.Mr. Giuliani’s firm was reimbursed for $63,423 in travel in mid-December. (Another firm run by an ally of Mr. Giuliani, the former New York police commissioner Bernard B. Kerik, was also paid $20,130 in travel reimbursements; Mr. Trump pardoned Mr. Kerik last year for his 2010 conviction on eight felonies.)All told, the Trump campaign paid more than a dozen law firms, including $1.6 million to Kasowitz Benson Torres, more than $500,000 to Jones Day and about $600,000 to Dechert. The law firm of Kurt Hilbert, who was on Mr. Trump’s phone call pressuring the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” votes to overturn the election outcome, was paid more than $480,000. A $3 million payment went to the Wisconsin Elections Commission to pay for a recount.One major Republican donor, C. Boyden Gray, who contributed more than $2 million to Republicans in the 2020 cycle, also provided legal consulting for Mr. Trump, earning $114,000.The Trump operation continued to spend on fund-raising, pouring millions into a secretive limited liability company, American Made Media Consultants, for online and text-message advertising. Family members of Mr. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence once served on the board of the company, which had more than $700 million in spending flow through it during the 2020 campaign.In the postelection period, more than $63 million in spending flowed through the company from committees linked to Mr. Trump.The Republican National Committee ended the year with more than $80 million in the bank after the fund-raising blitz, and the party is entitled to a share of the $63 million more in two shared accounts with Mr. Trump. Per an agreement, the R.N.C. collected 25 cents for every dollar Mr. Trump raised online through their joint account in December.One of Mr. Trump’s shared committees with the R.N.C. spent nearly $235,000 on books through a company, Reagan Investments, that has also done work for a PAC controlled by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. The Trump campaign offered signed copies of a book by Mr. Cruz last fall to donors who gave $75 or more.And, as they have since the beginning of his candidacy in 2015, Mr. Trump’s campaign accounts patronized his businesses in the postelection period.The Trump Victory committee paid $34,000 to the Trump Hotel Collection in its final 2020 filing. The same committee also paid a Trump-owned limited liability company that operates a private plane, DT Endeavor, $39,200 on Nov. 24.Another Trump campaign committee paid $75,000 in rent to the Trump Tower building in December.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyA Letter to My Liberal FriendsIf you want to know what worries conservatives, look at California.Opinion ColumnistFeb. 1, 2021, 8:08 p.m. ETCredit…Jeff Chiu/Associated PressLast Wednesday, Nick Kristof addressed his column to his conservative hometown friends in Yamhill, Ore., urging them to hold liberals accountable while doing the same for right-wing extremists, kooks and charlatans. In that spirit — and with Nick’s cheerful acquiescence — I offer a rejoinder in the form of a letter to my liberal friends.Dear Friends,No, I can’t relax! And no, I’m not worried that the Biden administration is going to send Trump voters to “re-education camps,” impose Cuban-style socialism or put out the welcome mat for MS-13. I’m just afraid that today’s Democratic leaders might look to the very Democratic state of California as a model for America’s future.You remember California: People used to want to move there, start businesses, raise families, live their American dream.These days, not so much. Between July 2019 and July 2020, more people — 135,400 to be precise — left the state than moved in, one of only a dozen times in over a century when that’s happened. The website exitcalifornia.org helps keep track of where these Golden State exiles go. No. 1 destination: Texas, followed by Arizona, Nevada and Washington. Three of those states have no state income tax, while Arizona’s is capped at 4.5 percent for married couples making over $318,000.In California, by contrast, married couples pay more than twice that rate on income above $116,000. (And rates go even higher for higher earners.) Californians also pay some of the nation’s highest sales tax rates (8.66 percent) and corporate tax rates (8.84 percent), as well as the highest taxes on gasoline (63 cents on a gallon as of January, as compared with 20 cents in Texas).Some of my liberal friends tell me that tax rates basically don’t matter in terms of the way people work and economies perform. Uh-huh. Still, I’d have an easier time accepting the argument if all those taxes went toward high-quality government services: good schools, safe streets, solid infrastructure or fiscal health.How does California fare on these fronts? The state ranks 21st in the country in terms of spending per public school pupil, but 37th in its K-12 educational outcomes. It ties Oregon for third place among states in terms of its per capita homeless rate. Infrastructure? As of 2019, the state had an estimated $70 billion in deferred maintenance backlog. Debt? The state’s unfunded pension liabilities in 2019 ran north of $1.1 trillion, according to an analysis by Stanford professor Joe Nation, or $81,300 per household.And then there’s liberal governance in the cities. In San Francisco, District Attorney Chesa Boudin has championed the calls for decriminalizing prostitution, public urination, public camping, blocking sidewalks and open-air drug use. Click this link and take a brief stroll through a local train station to see how these sorts of policies work out.Predictably, a result of decriminalization has been more actual criminality. Recent trends include an estimated 51 percent jump in San Francisco burglaries and a 41 percent jump in arsons. For the Bay Area as a whole, there has been a 35 percent spike in homicides.Yes, homicides have been rising in cities around the country. But those trends themselves owe much to liberal governance in like-minded jurisdictions like Seattle and New York, with their recent emphasis on depolicing, decarceration, defunding, decriminalization and other deluded attempts at criminal-justice reform.Funny, you don’t hear this about the places Californians are fleeing to. Austin, the preferred destination of San Francisco exiles, remains one of the safest big cities in America (and it’s run by a Democrat). Another thing you don’t hear from Texas: a board of education voting — as San Francisco’s just did — to strip the names of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Paul Revere from their respective schools, on grounds of sinning against the more recent commandments of progressive dogma. Not that it really matters, since all these schools remain closed for in-person learning thanks to the resistance of teachers unions.And then there is California’s political class. Democrats hold both U.S. Senate seats, 42 of its 53 seats in the House, have lopsided majorities in the State Assembly and Senate, run nearly every big city and have controlled the governor’s mansion for a decade. If ever there was a perfect laboratory for liberal governance, this is it. So how do you explain these results?For four years, liberals have had a hard time understanding how any American could even think of voting for Republicans, given the party’s fealty to the former president. I’ve shared some of that bewilderment myself. But — to adapt a line from another notorious Californian — Democrats won’t have Donald Trump to kick around anymore, meaning the consequences of liberal misrule will be harder to disguise or disavow. If California is a vision of the sort of future the Biden administration wants for Americans, expect Americans to demur.My unsolicited advice: Like Republicans, Democrats do best when they govern from the center. Forget California, think Colorado. A purple country needs a purple president — and a political opposition with the credibility to keep him honest.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