Elections

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutliveLatest UpdatesInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsFar-Right SymbolsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyYouTube Suspends Trump’s Channel for at Least Seven DaysYouTube is the latest tech company to bar the president from posting online, following Twitter, Facebook and others.YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, Calif. Credit…Jim Wilson/The New York TimesPublished More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the RaceAndrew Yang’s Candidacy5 TakeawaysWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWall Street Favorite Raises $5 Million in Race for New York MayorNew York’s business community is coalescing behind Raymond J. McGuire, an ex-Wall Street executive, but the support may turn off some left-leaning voters.At least 20 billionaires have donated to the mayoral campaign fund for Raymond J. McGuire, far left.Credit…Simbarashe Cha for The New York TimesJan. 13, 2021Updated 8:37 a.m. ETAs thousands of restaurants, Midtown office towers and Broadway theaters lay empty last summer, leaders of New York’s business community decided enough was enough: They wrote a scathing letter expressing no confidence in Mayor Bill de Blasio, and intensified efforts to find someone of their liking to replace him.They drafted Raymond J. McGuire, one of the longest-serving and highest-ranking Black executives on Wall Street, to run for mayor, and promised their assistance.Now, three months after announcing his candidacy, that support has come: Mr. McGuire’s campaign will report this week that it has already raised just over $5 million. It was an unusually high sum for such a short period, approaching the fund-raising totals of established candidates like Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, and Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president.The amount is likely to jolt the race, pushing Mr. McGuire to the forefront of the free-for-all Democratic primary contest, placing pressure on Mr. Adams and Mr. Stringer to keep pace, and damaging the hopes of the other dozen or so candidates still struggling to meet fund-raising minimums to qualify for public matching funds.Mr. McGuire’s donor list reads like an index from corporate America, Wall Street, the entertainment industry and real estate. There are at least 20 billionaires on the list, including owners of sports teams and oil company chief executives. There’s old money dating back to the Ottoman Empire, and new money earned with the kings and queens of hip-hop culture.While the support illustrates the potency of Mr. McGuire’s candidacy, the ties to big business may be anathema to many left-leaning Democratic voters in New York, a city where political pressure has torpedoed efforts to expand Industry City in Brooklyn, and discouraged Amazon from pursuing a headquarters in Queens.Indeed, prominent Republican donors are among Mr. McGuire’s supporters, including Ken Langone, one of the founders of Home Depot, and his wife, Elaine, who each donated the maximum amount of $5,100. Kara Ross, a jewelry designer and the wife of Stephen Ross, a friend and fund-raiser of President Trump who founded Related Companies, also donated $5,100, according to campaign finance data shared with The New York Times.Mr. McGuire also received large donations from James L. Dolan, a major Republican and Trump donor who owns the Knicks and Madison Square Garden; and Richard S. Fuld Jr., the last chief executive of Lehman Brothers, which declared the largest bankruptcy in United States history during the 2008 financial collapse, and his wife, Kathy.Mr. McGuire, a former vice chairman at Citigroup, did not shy away from his support in the business community.“New Yorkers of all walks of life have shown they believe in our movement to lead the greatest comeback this city has ever seen, and everyone will be a part of it, no matter your race or religion, ZIP code or bank account, ideology or orientation,” Mr. McGuire said in a statement this week.Mr. McGuire raised so much money that it will actually benefit the candidates participating in the city’s matching funds program; when a candidate who is not participating in the program — Mr. McGuire is not — raises or spends more than half of the spending cap for program participants, the $7.3 million spending limit for primary candidates may be increased by 50 percent, according to Campaign Finance Board regulations. The change would push the primary spending limit to $10.9 million.Mr. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, and Mr. Stringer, the comptroller, are the only two candidates who have met the threshold for matching funds so far.Mr. McGuire’s campaign has more than 3,700 donors who gave an average amount of $1,100. About 575 donors contributed the maximum amount. At least 75 percent of donors live in New York City, mostly in Manhattan.Scott Stringer, the city’s comptroller, is one of two mayoral candidates with more campaign funds than Mr. McGuire.Credit…Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesPaul T. Schnell, a partner at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom who oversees mergers and acquisitions, has known Mr. McGuire for 38 years and counts himself among the business leaders who nudged Mr. McGuire to run for mayor. Mr. Schnell and his family donated a total of $11,700 to Mr. McGuire. As the head of “Lawyers for Ray,” Mr. Schnell held a fund-raiser that raised more than $142,000, much of it from those who work at his law firm.“He’s got a combination of leadership, management and business skills but also great people skills and empathy,” Mr. Schnell said. “He will use those skills to restore the city’s economy and he’s going to do that for small businesses as well as large employers.”Mr. de Blasio has mostly avoided any relationships with business leaders, long priding himself on being a champion of the working class. When asked in December about equity in education, the mayor said that his “mission is to redistribute wealth.”As the 2021 mayoral field began to take shape, it became clear that none of the presumed front-runners seemed interested in working with business leaders, and Mr. McGuire was strongly encouraged to enter the race.A tipping point came last year, when the mayor was asked whether he worried that the wealthy were abandoning the city during the pandemic. The mayor responded, “We do not make decisions based on the wealthy few.”The frustration in the business community has now translated into keen support for Mr. McGuire. He received donations from prominent business leaders such as William A. Ackman, chief executive of Pershing Square Capital Management; Danny Meyer of the Union Square Hospitality Group; Steve Stoute, a former record executive turned marketing executive; and Robert Reffkin, a co-founder and chief executive of the real estate brokerage Compass.Hutham S. Olayan, a member of one of the wealthiest families in the Arab world, gave two donations of $2,500; there were 11 donations from members of the Tisch family and five donations from members of the Lauder family, including maximum donations from Leonard A. Lauder, the philanthropist and chairman emeritus of the Estée Lauder Companies, and his wife, Judy Glickman Lauder; his son William P. Lauder, executive chairman of the Estée Lauder Companies; and his niece Jane Lauder, who is also a high-ranking executive at the firm.Voters are not likely to be surprised that Mr. McGuire, a Wall Street executive, would turn to wealthy friends to raise money, though progressives could make an issue of it, said Bruce Gyory, a Democratic strategist.But with so many people vying for the Democratic nomination, including several progressive-minded candidates, it is not clear how much Mr. McGuire’s business ties will damage his chances, especially with ranked-choice voting allowing as many as five candidates to be chosen.Mr. Gyory said that Mr. McGuire’s credibility in the business world could shore up support among Black voters.“The question is can he take his fund-raising prowess and turn it into support in the Black community in Southeast Queens and the North Shore of Staten Island and create a message that resonates,” Mr. Gyory said. “African-American voters may say, we have a candidate who can compete and we should take a second look.”Mr. McGuire also leaned on his personal business connections. Charles Phillips, Mr. McGuire’s campaign co-chairman and the former president of Oracle who sits on several corporate boards, and William M. Lewis Jr., co-chairman of investment banking at Lazard, are both personal friends. They co-hosted the initial fund-raiser for the campaign, which raised more than $400,000. Both also made maximum contributions.Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, leads all mayoral candidates in fund-raising.Credit…Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesSeveral well-known people in the entertainment industry also donated money to Mr. McGuire, including the filmmaker Spike Lee and his wife, the producer Tonya Lee Lewis; Mr. Lee provided the narration for Mr. McGuire’s campaign launch video.Others included Michael Ovitz, co-founder of Creative Artists Agency; the ballerina Misty Copeland; Jessica Seinfeld, the cookbook author, philanthropist and wife of the comedian Jerry Seinfeld; Gwyneth Paltrow; Debra L. Lee, the former head of Black Entertainment Television; Valerie Jarrett, a former adviser to President Barack Obama; and the music executive Lyor Cohen.The campaign has approximately $3.7 million on hand, which means that Mr. McGuire has been spending about $442,000 per month to keep his campaign staff of 25 running. By comparison, Mr. Stringer has $5.7 million on hand and has spent just over $429,000. Mr. Adams has $6.6 million on hand and has spent just over $367,000, according to the most recent campaign finance filings.Carlos Menchaca, a councilman from Brooklyn, is one of the mayoral candidates who is not expected to reach the threshold for public matching funds. Mr. Menchaca, who was instrumental in turning back the proposed expansion and rezoning of Industry City, said that New York City is now committed to rejecting “candidates connected to toxic policy around development and Wall Street.”“I’m incredibly confident that New Yorkers will see through these campaigns that have not distanced themselves,” he said. “Viability is not connected to money.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesA Future With CoronavirusVaccine InformationF.A.Q.TimelineAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyBiden to Restore Homeland Security and Cybersecurity Aides to Senior White House PostsThe two appointments illustrate how the president-elect appears determined to rebuild a White House national security team to focus on threats that critics say were ignored by President Trump.The headquarters of the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Md. President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. is expected to take a harder stand against Russian hacking.Credit…T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesJan. 13, 2021Updated 7:51 a.m. ETPresident-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., facing the rise of domestic terrorism and a crippling cyberattack from Russia, is elevating two White House posts that all but disappeared in the Trump administration: a homeland security adviser to manage matters as varied as extremism, pandemics and natural disasters, and the first deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technology.The White House homeland security adviser will be Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, according to transition officials. She is a longtime aide to Mr. Biden who served under President Barack Obama as senior director for Europe and then deputy secretary of energy, where she oversaw the modernization of the nuclear arsenal.And for the complex task of bolstering cyberoffense and defense, Mr. Biden has carved out a role for Anne Neuberger, a rising official at the National Security Agency. She ran the Russia Small Group, which mounted a pre-emptive strike on the Kremlin’s cyberactors during the 2018 midterm elections, part of an effort to counter Moscow after its interference in the 2016 presidential election.For the past 15 months, she has overseen the agency’s Cybersecurity Directorate, a newly formed organization to prevent digital threats to sensitive government and military industry networks. But it has also been an incubator for emerging technologies, including the development of impenetrable cryptography — the National Security Agency’s original mission nearly 70 years ago — with a new generation of quantum computers.Taken together, the two appointments show how Mr. Biden appears determined to rebuild a national security apparatus that critics of the Trump administration say withered for the past four years. The new White House team will focus on threats that were battering the United States even before the coronavirus pandemic reordered the nation’s challenges.Transition officials say that Ms. Sherwood-Randall and Ms. Neuberger will be given new powers to convene officials from around the government to deal with emerging threats. Both are expected to begin their jobs on Jan. 20, since neither position requires Senate confirmation.Ms. Sherwood-Randall will have to oversee the effort to contain right-wing groups that laid siege to the Capitol last week, and Ms. Neuberger will face the aftermath of the most unnerving cyberbreach to affect the federal government. She will, senior officials say, have to help determine how to make good on Mr. Biden’s vow that the hackers behind the recent intrusion, which has spread across government networks, “will pay a price.”Ms. Sherwood-Randall, a Rhodes Scholar who in recent years has been a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, had been considered a candidate for secretary of energy. The job went to Jennifer Granholm, a former governor of Michigan.She will serve as the White House homeland security adviser, a position created by President George W. Bush that became more powerful under Mr. Obama, and is distinct from the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who sits in the cabinet.“We’re going to be dealing at once again with border security, biosecurity, global public health and strengthening the resilience of our own democracy,” she said in a brief interview. “The last of those have grown more urgent.”The Coronavirus Outbreak More

Deborah Scott has been registering voters for well over a decade in Georgia, but about five years ago she began to notice a problem. Georgia Stand-Up, the civic action group she leads, started getting a spike in calls from people who said they filled out a voter registration form but never received an official voter registration card. “We’re like ‘hey, what’s going on here?,’” she said.Scott’s group adjusted their voter registration strategy. After they got someone to register, they started tracking their voter registration and following up with them to ensure it went through. When there was a problem, they would help the voter follow up with local election officials. Sometimes, after that follow-up inquiry, the election officials would “miraculously” discover the registration was there all along, Scott said.Georgia Stand-Up took their strategy into the general election last year and Senate runoff this year, both of which saw extremely high turnout among Black voters. It’s a surge that many have attributed to years of investment by activists like Scott and Democrat Stacey Abrams, to mobilize voters of color, who traditionally have had lower turnout than their white counterparts, and flip the state for Democrats in stunning upsets in both the presidential race (Joe Biden was the first Democrat to carry the state in a presidential race in nearly 30 years) and two US Senate runoffs.As voter suppression has become more brazen in Georgia, overcoming it has become a core part of the work that Abrams and other organizers have done to mobilize the new electorate in the state. This work is not glamorous, focused on helping new voters navigate a bureaucracy designed to make it more difficult to vote. It’s making calls to voters to ensure they know their polling place, explaining how to fill out a mail-in ballot, and making sure they aren’t wrongly purged from the voter rolls. But the multi-year investment in overcoming voting barriers significantly contributed to organizers’ success in Georgia this year.“What we kept seeing was no matter what turnout we had, if we turned out in larger numbers, they always put other barriers in place,” said Helen Butler, the executive director of the Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, another civil rights group focused on mobilizing voters of color. “We had to go through strategies that would help us to be more proactive.” Georgia Republicans have already signaled they plan to move ahead with new restrictions on vote-by-mail after an election in which a record number of people used the process.Butler said her group had to shift considerable resources to combat voter suppression starting in 2013, when the US supreme court struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required places with a history of voting discrimination to submit voting changes to the federal government for approval before they went into effect. After the decision, her group began sending representatives to local boards of election so they could learn about polling place changes and consolidations and other changes they needed to know about before election day.Those strategies crystallized during the 2018 gubernatorial race, when Abrams lost to Brian Kemp, then the state’s top election official, and Georgia’s voting barriers were thrust to the center of the race. There was harsh scrutiny of state policy that placed 53,000 voter registrations in suspense over small discrepancies, 70% of which were Black voters. Georgia’s practice of aggressively purging hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls became a matter of national attention. For many, the election illuminated how severely restrictive voting rules could affect an election outcome.“There were so many people who had problems with their registration and didn’t discover the problem until they were already at the polls,” said Sara Tindall Ghazal, who worked as the Georgia Democratic party’s voter protection director from 2018 to 2019. “And when more than half of voters would vote on election day, it’s too late to fix anything then.”Beyond highlighting severe barriers in Georgia, the 2018 election also highlighted Democrats’ political strength in Georgia, Ghazal added, opening up money and other resources for grassroots groups that previously hadn’t existed. Abrams’ decision to focus on voting barriers in the state after the election only further galvanized support.In recent years, Butler said, her group has stepped up efforts to prevent voters from being wrongfully purged. Regularly monitoring Georgia’s voter rolls, her group will contact voters who are at risk of being purged to inform them of how they can confirm their eligibility. If someone has been purged, they tell them how they can re-register.“We didn’t always do that. We didn’t have to do that until recently,” Butler said.This year, Fair Fight, the organization Abrams started after the 2018 election, had a network of more than 15,000 volunteers to help people overcome barriers to voting. When it looked like Pooler, a city just outside Savannah, wouldn’t offer any ballot drop boxes, Fair Fight texted voters there to get them to push local officials to install one, said Marisa Pyle, the group’s volunteer and rapid response organizer. Once officials announced there would be a drop box after all, Fair Fight followed up with voters and let them know the location. The group took a similar approach to pressure officials to allow early voting on campus at the University of Georgia.“Our goal was to make sure they got [voting information] in a way that was accessible. And when there were access gaps, trying to fill them with advocacy and our volunteer work,” Pyle said.The effort to contact voters doesn’t stop after election day. Once the polls closed in theSenate runoff, Butler and other groups launched an aggressive effort to contact voters who submitted a provisional ballot at the polls – a special kind of ballot election workers are required to offer if there is uncertainty about their eligibility.Butler said her group will often work with voters to help them understand what kind of documentation they need to provide to election officials in the days after the election in order to ensure their ballot isn’t rejected. If they are on the phone with a voter, organizers will sometimes even set up a three-way call with the board of elections to ensure they understand what they need to do to have their vote counted.The approach was deployed deftly in the general election and runoff. This year, when there were polling place changes in Georgia, organizers sent volunteers to the old locations to make sure voters were redirected to the new one. And as organizers knocked on doors trying to turn out new voters, teaching them about the voting process was at the heart of their conversations.As she knocked on doors ahead of the Senate runoff, Lacreasa Acey, a 38-year-old canvasser, said the emphasis on overcoming voting barriers was a big part of the conversations she had with voters. Sometimes, the information she offered could be as simple as telling people where they could vote or showing them how to fill out an absentee ballot.“It’s amazing how so many people are not aware of simple voting information. They don’t know where to go, they don’t know how to mail in ballots or anything like that, so they get frustrated and they say ‘you know what, I’m just not gonna vote at all,’” said Acey, who knocked on doors on behalf of the New South Super Pac, which backed the Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. “I have everything already. I have the answers.” More

A guillotine outside the state capitol in Arizona. A Democratic governor burned in effigy in Oregon. Lawmakers evacuated as pro-Trump crowds gathered at state capitols in Georgia and New Mexico. Cheers in Idaho as a crowd was told fellow citizens were “taking the capitol” and “taking out” Vice-president Mike Pence.As a mob of thousands invaded the US capitol on 6 January, Trump supporters threatened lawmakers and fellow citizens in cities across the country. Compared with the violent mob in Washington, the pro-Trump crowds elsewhere in the country were much smaller, attracting dozens to hundreds of people. But they used the same extreme rhetoric, labeling both Democratic politicians and Republicans perceived as disloyal to Trump as “traitors”.As the FBI warns of plans for new armed protests in Washington and all 50 state capitols in the days leading up to Biden’s inauguration, and fresh calls for extreme violence circulate on social media forums, the intensity of the nationwide pro-Trump demonstrations and attacks last week offer evidence of what might be coming next. Some of the pro-Trump demonstrations on Wednesday did not turn violent. The dozens of Trump supporters who entered the Kansas state capitol remained peaceful, according to multiple news reports. In Carson City, Nevada, hundreds of Trump supporters drank beer and listened to rock music while denouncing the election results, the Reno Gazette Journal reported.But in Los Angeles, white Trump supporters assaulted and ripped the wig off the head of a young black woman who happened to pass their 6 January protest, the Los Angeles Times reported. A white woman was captured on video holding the wig and shouting, “Fuck BLM!” and, “I did the first scalping of the new civil war.”In Ohio and Oregon, fights broke out between counter-protesters and members of the Proud Boys, the neo-fascist group Trump directed in September to “stand back and stand by”. Proud Boys also reportedly demonstrated in Utah, California, Florida, and South Carolina.And in Washington state, Trump supporters, some armed, pushed through the gate of the governor’s mansion and stormed onto the lawn of Democrat Jay Inslee’s house. In Georgia, where lawmakers were evacuated from the state capitol, members of the III% Security Force militia, a group known for its anti-Muslim activism, had gathered outside.An effigy of Gov. Kate Brown is tarred and feathered by pro-Trump Supporters and anti-lockdown protesters at the Oregon State Capitol. pic.twitter.com/XSmHI82cXD— Brian Hayes (@_Brian_ICT) January 6, 2021
Militia members, neo-Nazis, and other rightwing extremists have discussed multiple potential dates for armed protests in the coming days, researchers who monitor extremist groups say, with proposals ranging from rallies or attacks on state capitols to a “million militia march” in Washington.The FBI’s intelligence bulletin has warned of potential armed protests from 16 January “at least” through inauguration day on 20 January, but researchers say that energy had not yet coalesced around a single event. Public social media forums where Trump supporters have gathered to discuss plans are full of dramatic, contradictory rumors, but experts say that more concrete plans are likely being made in private and in smaller forums that are more difficult to infiltrate.The United States has no shortage of heavily armed extremists who have been openly calling for a new civil war, from members of the Boogaloo Bois – a nascent domestic terrorism group that has been linked to the murders of two law enforcement officers – to militia leaders such as Stewart Rhodes, the Yale-educated founder of an anti-government group that recruits policy and military officers, who was photographed outside the capitol during the mob invasion last week.Accusations at public protests that Democratic politicians are dictators, tyrants and “traitors” and suggestions that white Americans need to seize power back from their elected officials, have been intensifying for more than a year, fueled in part by furious demonstrations against public health measures that forced businesses to close to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, which has disproportionately killed Black and Latino residents.Before they stormed the US Capitol last week, angry crowds of white Americans, some armed with rifles, had staged chaotic demonstrations at state capitols in Michigan, Idaho, California and elsewhere, often calling law enforcement officers “traitors” when they would not let them pass.On 6 January, the news that Trump supporters were forcing their way into the capitol was greeted with cheers at pro-Trump protests in other states. “Patriots have stormed the Capitol,” a protest organizer in Arizona announced, prompting chants of “USA!” according to the Arizona Republic.“Supposedly, they’re taking the Capitol and taking out Pence,” the organizer of an Idaho protest told a crowd of about 300 people, according to the Spokesman-Review. The crowd cheered.In Washington DC, part of the mob at the capitol had been captured on video shouting “Hang Mike Pence!” after the vice-president refused to give in to Trump’s repeated demands to deny the results of the election and name him the winner.Signs and rhetoric linked to the QAnon conspiracy theory, which holds that Trump is fighting a secret war against a powerful network of elite pedophiles, were present at multiple state events last week.In Salem, Oregon, where an effigy of Democratic governor Kate Brown was tarred and feathered before being burned, the protest outside the statehouse turned violent, as Proud Boys clashed with counter-protesters. In Colorado, an estimated 700 people gathered at the state capitol to protest, many of them not wearing masks, and Denver’s mayor announced he was closing municipal buildings early as a precaution.In Arizona, where 1,000 Trump supporters gathered to protest the certification of Biden’s victory, the guillotine outside the state capitol had a Trump flag on it, and the Trump supporters who had brought it gave an Arizona Republic reporter a written statement, which included a list of baseless allegations of election fraud, and demands for new fraud audits and investigations.“Why do we have a guillotine with us? The answer is simple,” the statement read. “For six weeks Americans have written emails, gathered peacefully, made phone calls and begged their elected officials to listen to their concerns. We have been ignored, ridiculed, scorned, dismissed, lied to, laughed at and essentially told, no one cares.“We pray for peace,” the statement concluded, “but we do not fear war.” More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyUganda Blocks Facebook Ahead of Contentious ElectionPresident Yoweri Museveni accused the company of “arrogance” after it removed fake accounts and pages linked to his re-election campaign.President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda has 10 rivals in the election scheduled for Thursday, including the rapper-turned-lawmaker Bobi Wine, whose real name is Robert Kyagulanyi.Credit…Baz Ratner/ReutersJan. 13, 2021Updated 5:33 a.m. ETNAIROBI, Kenya — President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda president has blocked Facebook from operating in his country, just days after the social media company removed fake accounts linked to his government ahead of a hotly contested general election set to take place on Thursday.In a televised address late on Tuesday night, Mr. Museveni accused Facebook of “arrogance” and said he had instructed his government to close the platform, along with other social media outlets, although Facebook was the only one he named.“That social channel you are talking about, if it is going to operate in Uganda, it should be used equitably by everybody who has to use it,” Mr. Museveni said. “We cannot tolerate this arrogance of anybody coming to decide for us who is good and who is bad,” he added.The ban on Facebook comes at the end of an election period that has been dogged by a crackdown on the political opposition, harassment of journalists and nationwide protests that have led to at least 54 deaths and hundreds of arrests, according to officials.Mr. Museveni, 76, who is running for a sixth term in office, is facing 10 rivals, including the rapper-turned-lawmaker Bobi Wine, 38. Mr. Wine, whose real name is Robert Kyagulanyi, has been beaten, sprayed with tear gas and charged in court with allegedly flouting coronavirus rules while on the campaign trail. Last week, Mr. Wine filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court accusing Mr. Museveni and other top current and former security officials of sanctioning a wave of violence and human rights violations against citizens, political figures and human rights lawyers.Facebook announced this week that it had taken down a network of accounts and pages in the East African nation that engaged in what it called “coordinated inauthentic behavior” aimed at manipulating public debate around the election. The company said the network was linked to the Government Citizens Interaction Center, an initiative that is part of Uganda’s Ministry of Information and Communications Technology and National Guidance.In a statement, a Facebook representative said the network “used fake and duplicate accounts to manage pages, comment on other people’s content, impersonate users, re-share posts in groups to make them appear more popular than they were.”Facebook’s investigation into the network began after research from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab showcased a network of social media accounts that had engaged in a campaign to criticize the opposition and promote Mr. Museveni and the governing party, the National Resistance Movement. After the research was published, Twitter also said it had shut down accounts linked to the election.Hours before Mr. Museveni’s speech, social media users across Uganda confirmed restrictions on their online communications, with the digital rights group NetBlocks reporting that platforms including Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Twitter had been affected. On Wednesday, MTN Uganda, the country’s largest telecommunication company, confirmed it had received a directive from the Uganda Communications Commission to “suspend access and use, direct or otherwise of all social media platforms and online messaging applications over the network until further notice.”Felicia Anthonio, a campaigner with the digital rights nonprofit Access Now, said the authorities had blocked more than 100 virtual private networks, or VPNs, which could help users circumvent the censorship and safely browse the internet.Uganda blocked the internet during the 2016 elections, and in 2018, it introduced a social media tax aimed at raising revenue and curbing what the government called online “gossip.” The move, which was criticized as a threat to freedom of expression, had a negative effect on internet use over all, with millions of Ugandans giving up internet services altogether.In anticipation of another shutdown this week, a group of organizations that work to end internet cutoffs worldwide sent a letter to Mr. Museveni and the leaders of telecom companies in Uganda pleading with them to keep the internet and social media platforms accessible during the election.Mr. Museveni did not heed their call. On Tuesday night, he said the decision to block Facebook was “unfortunate” but “unavoidable.”“I am very sorry about the inconvenience,” he said, adding that he himself had been using the platform to interact with young voters. He has almost a million followers on Facebook and two million on Twitter.Striking a defiant note, Mr. Museveni said that if Facebook was going to “take sides,” then it would not be allowed to operate in the country.“Uganda is ours,” he said.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

“BIGLY,” by Matt Sears.Credit…Matt Sears, via thegarage.gallerySkip to contentSkip to site indexOpinionTrump Is the Republican Party’s Past and Its FutureDonald Trump is not an aberration but a blueprint.“BIGLY,” by Matt Sears.Credit…Matt Sears, via thegarage.gallerySupported byContinue reading the main storyDr. McGirr is a historian and the author of “Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right.”Jan. 13, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETThe appalling siege of the U.S. Capitol by pro-Trump insurrectionists, on the heels of their upset defeat in two Georgia Senate races the previous night, will require soul searching among Republicans about the direction of their party. Republicans will certainly seek to pivot from the riot, but the nativism, extreme polarization, truth-bashing, white nationalism and anti-democratic policies that we tend to identify with President Trump are likely to remain a hallmark of the Republican playbook into the future. These qualities will outlive Mr. Trump’s presidency because they predate it: Republicans have been fueling the conditions that enabled Mr. Trump’s rise since the 1980s.A growing Southern and Western evangelical base pushed the party to replace its big-tent, bipartisan and moderate Republicanism of the mid-20th century with a more conservative version. Under President Dwight Eisenhower, the party had made peace with New Deal social provisioning and backed large-scale federal spending on infrastructure and education. Even as late as the 1970s, President Richard Nixon passed legislation expanding federal regulatory agencies. Yet when Ronald Reagan moved into the White house in 1981, the Republicans sharply slashed government regulations. They cut taxes for the wealthy and oversaw a hollowing out of the American welfare state. At the same time, the party shored up its heavily evangelical base with tough-on-crime policies, anti-abortion rhetoric and coded racist attacks on “welfare queens.”But the past 40 years of Republican-led (but bipartisan) neoliberalism left large segments of the party’s social base, like many other Americans, with declining standards of living and worse off economically. Economic crisis and the browning of America opened new avenues for calculating politicians to exploit white cultural resentments for political gain: Isolationism, nativism, racism, even anti-Semitism roared back. Long part of the mix of American conservatism, these ideas had been increasingly sidelined during America’s midcentury golden age of the 1950s and 1960s.But by the 1990s, greater numbers of the Republican Party’s grass-roots activists blamed declining standards of living not on the free market individualism they believed in almost religiously, but on job-taking immigrants and the shadowy machinations of the global elite. Such scapegoating is strikingly reminiscent of the radio priest Charles Coughlin’s attacks on the Rothschilds and “money-changers” during the Great Depression.Mr. Trump championed ideas that had been bubbling up among the Republican grass roots since the late 20th century. His great political talent has been to see the extent of these resentments and rhetorically, and to some extent politically, speak to those concerns. His hold on his supporters is not just a cult of personality but grounded in a set of deeply rooted and increasingly widespread ideas within the Republican Party: ending birthright citizenship for immigrants, militarizing the border, disenfranchising Americans under the guise of protecting the integrity of the ballot, favoring an isolationist nationalism.To put the full power of the nation’s chief executive behind such proposals was uniquely Trumpian, but the animating ideas have precedent in Republican politics. In Orange County, Calif., Republicans had already in 1988 stationed uniformed guards outside polling stations when rumors circulated that Democrats were planning to bus “aliens” to the voting precincts. They carried signs in English and Spanish warning “Non-Citizens Can’t Vote.” Some intimidated immigrant voters by writing down their license plate numbers. Republican nativists warned of the “takeover of America.” Their “greatest fear,” according to one prominent Republican activist, was that “illegal aliens will stuff the ballot boxes.” Mr. Trump’s genius was to recognize the opportunity to mobilize such anti-democratic resentments around himself. By articulating a right-wing America First populism already deeply rooted in many circles of the Republican Party, Mr. Trump turned himself into the messiah for MAGA-land. He was an innovator.Yet party elites struck a Faustian bargain to secure tax cuts for wealthy Americans, business-friendly deregulation and conservative court picks. They understood that in a world of economic anxiety, disempowerment of the middle class and colossal income inequality, such policies would deliver majorities. The successful combination is most likely to encourage many Republicans to continue to embrace it. It lets them mobilize, at least in some places and at least for now, a majority of voters. With the party’s elite disinclined to grapple with extreme wealth inequalities and the increasing immiseration and insecurity of the American middle and working classes, the only way to win votes may be to pander to cultural resentment.Mr. Trump’s style of personalistic authoritarian populism is his alone. It is unfamiliar to most American politicians, and the messianic loyalty he commands among his most martial followers is unlikely to be replicated by those within the party who seek to pick up his mantle. But Mr. Trump’s Republicanism, despite his belief that everything is about him, has always been about more than that. He has forged what is likely to be the Republican blueprint for the future, absent his most unhinged behavior. Without major party reset, the heirs apparent to Trumpism, probably with the party elite’s blessing, will continue to pander to visceral cultural resentments, champion outsider status, war against the very government they are part of and in the process continue to weaken our already fragile democracy.Lisa McGirr (@LisaM_McGirr) is a professor of history at Harvard University and the author, most recently, of “War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State.”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 }Capitol Riot FalloutliveLatest UpdatesInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsIncitement to Riot?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyOn WashingtonCongress United After 9/11, but 1/6 Has Deepened the DivideMany Democrats are in no mood for calls for unity, pushing instead for accountability for Republicans who refused to recognize the election result and fueled divisions that erupted in the Capitol riot.Shattered glass remained on the doors to the House chamber on Tuesday after a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol last week.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 12, 2021Updated 9:55 p.m. ETRead more on Trump and Pence’s blowupWASHINGTON — As the Senate majority leader on Sept. 11, 2001, Tom Daschle was among those hurriedly evacuated in the chaos of an expected attack on the Capitol, only to return later that evening for a bipartisan show of unity and resolve on the marble steps many had used to flee just hours earlier.“We all joined together after 9/11 and professed ourselves to be Americans, not just Republicans and Democrats, as we sang ‘God Bless America’ on those same Capitol steps and returned to business the next morning,” Mr. Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota, recalled this week.But like many Democrats, Mr. Daschle is not in a unifying mood in the wake of the assault on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob last week, and Jan. 6 is not proving to be a Sept. 11 moment.This time, the menace to Congress was not from 19 shadowy hijackers from overseas but from within — fellow Americans and colleagues taking their usual places in the House and Senate chambers to try to overturn President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory and stoke President Trump’s false claims of a stolen election, which inspired the violent rioting that chased lawmakers from the House and the Senate.“On 9/11 we were united as Americans against a common enemy, a foreign enemy, foreign terrorists,” said Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who was on Capitol Hill for both shattering events. “On Jan. 6, America was divided against itself.”Outraged at the conduct of Republicans who perpetuated Mr. Trump’s bogus allegations of widespread voting fraud, Democrats are determined to impeach the president a second time, to try to expel and censure members who sought to overturn the presidential election even after the mob assault on the Capitol, and to ostracize Republicans who do not acknowledge and apologize for their role.The 2001 terrorist attacks on Washington and New York — and the recognition that a horrific assault on the Capitol was prevented only by courageous passengers who brought down Flight 93 in Pennsylvania — led to an extraordinary period of congressional comity and cooperation.Both parties immediately pulled together in a show of strength despite lingering Democratic resentment over the Supreme Court decision that had given the presidency to George W. Bush just months earlier. Democrats and Republicans set aside their very real differences — including concern among some Democrats that the new administration had failed to heed warnings about the attack — to present an impenetrable front to the country and the world.“This Congress is united — Democrats, independents, Republicans,” Representative Richard Gephardt of Missouri, the Democratic leader, declared during somber but angry proceedings on Sept. 12 as Congress passed a resolution condemning the attacks and promising national unity in the face of such threats. “There is no light or air between us. We stand shoulder to shoulder.”Tom Daschle, far left, and a bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers praying  in front of the Capitol on Sept. 11, 2001.Credit…Kenneth Lambert/Associated PressToday, there is outright hostility among members of Congress, emotions that will be hard to contain even as Mr. Biden plans an inauguration with the theme of “America United” — an admirable goal, but one that seems difficult if not impossible to attain at the moment.Democrats say a considerable number of their Republican colleagues, by whipping up Mr. Trump’s supporters and their own with weeks of baseless claims about election fraud, are accomplices to the president in inciting the attack on the Capitol. The assault put at risk the safety of lawmakers, law enforcement, staff workers and members of the news media while undermining the most basic tenets of American democracy. Now, Democratic lawmakers are reporting testing positive for the coronavirus after being isolated in secure rooms with Republicans who refused to wear masks, adding to their fury.They are particularly incensed that the same Republican lawmakers who refused to recognize Mr. Biden’s election and fueled the divisions over the result are now pleading for Democrats to drop their push to impeach Mr. Trump and punish complicit Republicans, in a belated appeal for national unity.“They don’t want unity. They want absolution,” said Representative Ruben Gallego, Democrat of Arizona, still angry at the Republican challenge to his state’s vote count. “They want us to forgive them for their crimes and cowardice that have occurred under Donald Trump. They would rather feed that monster than defend the Constitution of the United States and our democracy.”Mr. Gallego, who said he would lead a natural resources subcommittee, said he and other Democrats were exploring ways to marginalize Republicans who did not recognize the consequences of their actions should Congress not take steps to try to oust those who were most outspoken against counting the electoral ballots for Mr. Biden.“I am contemplating not allowing any Republican bills to go to the floor if you are one of the people who voted to not recognize the votes of Arizona,” said Mr. Gallego, who said he had routinely advanced Republican bills in the past. “I don’t know if I can look at any of these members in the same way unless there is some good level of contrition.”For a brief period last Wednesday, there was a glimmer of hope for Sept. 11-style unity as the House and the Senate reconvened in the same chambers ransacked by the mob just hours before, determined to demonstrate that the rioters would not halt the counting of the electoral votes. Lawmakers struck a defiant tone reminiscent of the singing on the Capitol steps, which this time had been occupied by hundreds of insurrectionists intent on denying Congress the opportunity to tabulate the legitimate presidential votes.Representative Ruben Gallego, Democrat of Arizona, standing on a chair in the House chamber as lawmakers prepared to evacuate during the riot last week.Credit…J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press“The United States Senate will not be intimidated,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader. “We will not be kept out of this chamber by thugs, mobs or threats.”.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-1cs27wo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cs27wo{padding:20px;}}.css-1cs27wo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1cs27wo[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 at the ongoing fallout:This video takes a look inside the siege on the capitol. This timeline shows how a crucial two hour period turned a 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.House Democrats have begun impeachment proceedings. A look at how they might work.At the same time, some Senate Republicans, notably Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, backed off their plans to challenge the electoral vote. But other Republicans, despite the havoc that the election challenge had just wrought on the Capitol and the fact that they were certain to fail, pushed ahead with their objections, one of which was supported by seven Republican senators and 138 House members.“I give both the Senate and House leadership great credit for returning to business hours afterward, but I am shocked by the fact that a majority of House Republicans voted to overturn the election results,” said Mr. Daschle, who recommended ethics inquiries in both chambers. “Truly amazing and deeply troubling. My contempt for them and those in the Senate who led the effort could not be greater.”Republicans protested that Democrats were trying to exploit the riot for political advantage and risking more violence themselves by moving ahead with impeachment.“Why continue this?” Representative Debbie Lesko, Republican of Arizona, pressed Democrats on Tuesday at a tense meeting of the Rules Committee before the House was to take up a measure calling on Vice President Mike Pence to strip Mr. Trump’s powers under the 25th Amendment. “It is just likely to cause more divisiveness. Chalk up your wins and let’s move on.”Democrats scoffed, noting that Republicans still refused to concede that the election was not stolen or that Mr. Biden’s win was not the result of widespread fraud.Without some sincere acknowledgment by relevant Republicans that they were instigators and enablers of the Jan. 6 mayhem, Democrats were nowhere near ready to move on, demanding accountability for the attack on the Capitol that has shaken Washington.For now, the political unity that came to be a defining characteristic of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks will remain far out of reach.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More