Elections

Seventy-five years after the artist’s death, the grotesque masquerades he painted aren’t so far from the manipulated faces of the present day.In our age of cheek fillers, makeup contouring and Snapchat filters, the face we show the world is often not our own. When it is this simple to manipulate how we look through cosmetics and digital media, have our masks become our selves?As unlikely as it may seem, James Ensor, a Belgian painter born in 1860, may have understood our lust for masking long before these face manipulation tools came along. Ensor painted figures whose real faces are grotesquely covered, and their new guises reveal their ugliest traits. His works offer us a society full of clowns, who know little about themselves.The case for Ensor’s prescience is being made this month in Antwerp, Belgium, where several simultaneous exhibitions are exploring the artist’s fascination with masks and masquerade as part of the 75th anniversary commemorations of Ensor’s death. Although he isn’t an international household name like his contemporaries Claude Monet, Edward Munch or Vincent van Gogh, at home in Belgium, Ensor is revered as a national treasure.Antwerp’s Royal Museum of Fine Arts, or K.S.M.K.A., which owns the largest collection of Ensor’s paintings, is presenting the lead exhibition of the commemorations, “In Your Wildest Dreams: Ensor Beyond Impressionism,” which runs through Jan. 19, 2025.Herwig Todts, a modern art curator at K.M.S.K.A., said he wanted to show that Ensor was a “game changer,” who used Impressionist brushwork techniques and colors, but then pushed them into new realms of avant-garde expressionism.One of Ensor’s most famous works, his 1890 picture “The Intrigue,” on display at K.S.M.K.A., hovers somewhere between the realistic and the Expressionist: It might be a group-portrait of carnival merrymakers, or a congregation of ghouls.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

In a court filing unsealed on Wednesday, federal prosecutors argue that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution over the January 6 riots because he acted in a private capacity, and took advice from private advisers.The indictment seeks to make this case – that Trump acted in his private capacity, rather than his official one – because of a US supreme court ruling in July that former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions taken as president.It also reveals further details about Trump’s alleged mood and actions (or lack of action) on the day, building on evidence that was provided in earlier briefs.In response to the new filing, the Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung called the brief “falsehood-ridden” and “unconstitutional”. On Truth Social, Trump, writing in all-caps, called it “complete and total election interference.”Here are some key points made in the filing:‘Fundamentally a private’ schemeThe new court filing, in which Trump is referred to as “the defendant”, alleges that Trump’s plan that day was “fundamentally a private one”, and therefore not related to his duties as president but instead as a candidate for office.It reads: “The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent president during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one.“He extensively used private actors and his campaign infrastructure to attempt to overturn the election results and operated in a private capacity as a candidate for office.”The filing looks back to election day for Trump’s use of private advisers: “As election day turned to November 4, the contest was too close to project a winner, and in discussions about what the defendant should say publicly regarding the election, senior advisors suggested that the defendant should show restraint while counting continued. Two private advisors, however, advocated a different course: [name redacted] and [name redacted] suggested that the defendant just declare victory. And at about 2.20am, the defendant gave televised remarks to a crowd of his campaign supporters in which he falsely claimed, without evidence or specificity, that there had been fraud in the election and that he had won.”On 4 January, the filing says, a White House counsel was excluded from a meeting during which Trump sought to pressure Pence to help overturn the election result. Only a private attorney was present, the filing says: “It is hard to imagine stronger evidence” than this that Trump’s conduct was private.A presidential candidate alone in a dining room with Twitter and Fox NewsTrump’s day on 6 January started at 1am, with a tweet pressuring Pence to obstruct the certification of the results. Seven hours later, at 8.17am, Trump tweeted about it again. Shortly before his speech at the Ellipse, Trump called Pence and again pressured him to “induce him to act unlawfully in the upcoming session”, where Pence would be certifying the election results. Pence refused.At this point, according to the filing, Trump “decided to re-insert into his campaign speech at the Ellipse remarks targeting Pence for his refusal to misuse his role in the certification”.Trump gave his speech, and at 1pm, the certification process began at the Capitol.Trump, meanwhile, “settled in the dining room off of the Oval Office. He spent the afternoon there reviewing Twitter on his phone, while the dining room television played Fox News’ contemporaneous coverage of events at the Capitol.”It was from the dining room that Trump watched a crowd of his supporters march towards the Capitol. He had been there less than an hour when, at “approximately 2.24pm, Fox News reported that a police officer may have been injured and that ‘protestors … have made their way inside the Capitol.’“At 2.24pm, Trump tweeted, writing, ‘Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution, giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!’”The filing reads: “The content of the 2.24pm tweet was not a message sent to address a matter of public concern and ease unrest; it was the message of an angry candidate upon the realization that he would lose power.”A minute later, the Secret Service evacuated Pence to a secure location.Trump, when told Pence had been evacuated, said: ‘So what?’The filing states that Trump said: “So what?” after being told that Pence had subsequently been taken to a secure location.The indictment notes that the government does not intend to use the exchange at trial. It argues, however, that the tweet itself was “unofficial”.The filing states that Pence “tried to encourage” Trump “as a friend” when news networks forecast a Biden win on 7 November. This again goes to the assertion that Trump acted in a private capacity.Pence allegedly told Trump: “You took a dying political party and gave it a new lease on life”.‘Fight like hell’ regardless The filing states Trump was overheard telling family members, amid his efforts to overturn the election results: “It doesn’t matter if you lose … you have to fight like hell.”“At one point long after the defendant had begun spreading false fraud claims, [name redacted] a White House staffer traveling with the defendant, overheard him tell family members: ‘It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.’”Trump knew his claims were falseThe filing states: “The evidence demonstrates that the defendant knew his fraud claims were false because he continued to make those claims even after his close advisors – acting not in an official capacity but in a private or campaign-related capacity – told them they were not true.”Among these advisers was a person referred to as P9, a White House staffer who had been one of several attorneys who represented Trump in his first impeachment trial in the Senate in 2019 and 2020, according to the filing.In one private conversation, “when P9 reiterated to the defendant that [name redacted] would be unable to prove his false fraud allegations in court, the defendant responded, ‘The details don’t matter.’”P9 at one point after the election told Trump “that the campaign was looking into his fraud claims, and had even hired external experts to do so, but could find no support for them.
He told the defendant that if the Campaign took these claims to court, they would get slaughtered, because the claims are all ‘bullshit’.” More

Rudy Giuliani texted the wrong number as he tried to persuade Michigan legislators to help overthrow the 2020 election.According to a document unsealed in federal court on Wednesday, on 7 December 2020, Giuliani tried to send a message urging someone unspecified to help in the plan to appoint a slate of fake electors.“So I need you to pass a joint resolution from the legislature that states the election is in dispute, there’s an ongoing investigation by the legislature, and the Electors sent by Governor Whitmer are not the official electors of the state of Michigan and do not fall within the Safe Harbor deadline under Michigan law,” Giuliani wrote.As Trump sought to overturn the 2020 election, his allies sought to appoint alternate slates of electors in states that he lost to send to Congress. These false slates of electors met in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona and signed certificates in which they represented that they were valid electors in their states. Trump allies then attempted to send those certificates to Congress for counting on 6 January 2021. The plan failed.Some of the electors have since been charged criminally, while others have not. Some have said they were told that they were instructed they were acting as a backup in case Trump won court cases challenging the election results.Prosecutors said Giuliani failed to send the message because “he put the wrong number into his phone,” prosecutors wrote.The detail was included in a legal brief by the special counsel Jack Smith that was unsealed by the US district judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal election interference case against Trump.The brief, which contains several new details about Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 race, argues why Trump should be held accountable – specifically, why he is not entitled to immunity after the US supreme court held that presidents cannot be charged for “official acts” while in office.Giuliani is an unnamed co-conspirator in the case.He also faces criminal charges in Georgia and Arizona over his efforts to overturn the election results.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe has had his law license suspended in New York and has been disbarred in Washington DC over his involvement in the scheme. He is also appealing a judgment that he owes two Georgia election workers nearly $150m for defaming them after the 2020 election.Giuliani has a history of sloppy cellphone use. According to New York magazine, he once accidentally called an NBC reporter and left a message in which he could be heard discussing overseas business and said: “We need a few hundred thousand.”He also once appeared to accidentally text a reporter one of his passwords. More

Rena Cohen makes her New York Times Crossword debut, and that’s the truth.Jump to: Today’s Theme | Tricky CluesTHURSDAY PUZZLE — One of the benefits of writing Wordplay columns is the opportunity to get to know how certain constructors’ and editors’ brains work. Once I have worked a few crosswords by a particular constructor, I can solve fairly quickly, because it’s easy to predict where the puzzle is going: Even though the grids and themes are all different, every constructor has a recognizable voice and style. Being able to race through a puzzle with this familiarity is a great ego booster.Then a new constructor comes along and I feel like a beginner again. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I hope I maintain the ability to look at the world through a beginner’s eyes, because that state of mind is how I learn the most.Rena Cohen is a freshman at Washington University in St. Louis, and she was a member of the third Diverse Crossword Constructor Fellowship. ”She picked things up really quickly,” Christina Iverson, one of the puzzle editors who mentored Ms. Cohen, said. “She has a lot of ideas, and is clearly very passionate about puzzles.”Today’s puzzle is her debut, and I offer her kudos, because she stumped me until I entered my last answer. I thought I understood the theme until I realized that I didn’t.Therefore, I am proud to bestow upon Ms. Cohen’s puzzle the 2024 “Ohh, That’s What She Meant!” Wordplay award.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The country’s defense ministry said the military officers who opened fire might have mistaken the migrants for cartel members.At least six migrants were killed in southern Mexico on Tuesday night after military officers shot at the vehicle they were traveling in. The episode called attention to a growing concern in Mexico — ever more powerful armed forces that operate with little oversight — and a continuing one, the dangers faced by migrants in the country.Mexico’s defense ministry said in a statement on Wednesday that the officers were doing “ground reconnaissance” in the state of Chiapas when they spotted a pickup truck traveling fast, and that the truck’s driver tried to evade the soldiers. Behind the pickup truck were two vehicles that the military said were similar to those organized crime groups in the region use: stakebed trucks, small flatbeds with fencing in the cargo area.The officers may have mistaken the migrants for cartel members, according to the ministry defense ministry.The military said the officers “heard explosions,” so two of them opened fire, bringing one of the trucks to a stop. It was carrying a group of 33 migrants from around the world. Four people died at the scene and two at a hospital, officials said. Ten others were injured. The rest were handed over to Mexican immigration officials.The military did not say whether the migrants were armed.The authorities did not immediately release the identities of the victims. A collective of migrant rights groups said in a statement that among the dead were four men, a woman and a girl. The targeted migrants, the statement added, came from Nepal, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Cuba.“These facts are neither accidental nor isolated,” the collective said. “They are a direct consequence of ordering military deployment to contain migratory flows under a logic of persecution and not of protection.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Scenes of striking workers, hurricane devastation in the Southeast and missiles over Israel represent a rare moment of turbulence for Kamala Harris.Vice President Kamala Harris has cast herself as a candidate of the future, but she has been yanked back by the problems of the present as the Middle East lurches toward a wider war, a longshoremen’s strike threatens to undermine the country’s economy and Americans across the Southeast struggle to recover from a deadly hurricane.The confluence of domestic and global traumas combined to knock Ms. Harris off a message that has been carefully calibrated since she took over for President Biden to showcase her as the avatar of “a new way forward,” as her slogan puts it.The rare moment of turbulence for Ms. Harris interrupts what has been mostly smooth sailing in her two months as the Democratic presidential nominee. It also captures a conundrum of the vice presidency, a prestigious if mostly ceremonial posting. So far, Ms. Harris has been able to take advantage of the trappings of the position — Air Force Two was parked behind her for one rally in Michigan — without being trapped by it.Ms. Harris, long a risk-averse politician, has tried to both claim Mr. Biden’s accomplishments as her own while defining herself as the future and the 81-year-old president as the past. She barely mentions the president’s name in her campaign speeches and makes a middle-class pitch that aims to correct for the inflation and high prices voters blame on Mr. Biden’s economic stewardship. This week’s events thrust Ms. Harris’s balancing act — of being both the No. 2 to Mr. Biden and atop the ticket in her own right — back into the spotlight.The scenes of striking workers, hurricane devastation in the Southeast and missiles over Israel are unwelcome complications to her case to keep Democrats in power. And they were the backdrop of the vice-presidential debate between Gov. Tim Walz, her running mate, and Senator JD Vance, former President Donald J. Trump’s No. 2, on Tuesday night, when the senator argued that Republicans would usher in an era of stability.The overlapping developments just as the calendar turned to October were a reminder that while Ms. Harris has framed her candidacy as a fresh start for the nation, she very much is part of the administration still in charge.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Erlene King sent thousands of dollars to associates and told them to distribute the funds to others who would then donate to the campaign she worked for, federal prosecutors said.The treasurer of an ill-fated 2021 campaign for Brooklyn borough president was charged Wednesday with organizing a fraudulent donation scheme in an attempt to access at least $400,000 in public matching funds.Federal prosecutors said the treasurer, Erlene King, 71, had sent thousands of dollars to associates over roughly two and a half years in an effort to skirt campaign finance rules and boost the campaign of Anthony Jones, who would go on to lose the election after receiving roughly 3 percent of the vote. Mr. Jones has not been accused of wrongdoing.Ms. King pleaded not guilty to wire fraud in federal court on Wednesday after she opted to waive her right to have the charges presented to a grand jury.A lawyer representing Ms. King, John S. Wallenstein, said that he and his client were “discussing potential resolutions” with prosecutors. If found guilty, Ms. King could face up to 20 years in prison.New York City’s public campaign financing program provides funds for campaigns that meet certain fund-raising thresholds. During the 2021 campaign for Brooklyn borough president, the Campaign Finance Board offered to pay campaigns up to $8 for every $1 raised, but only if a campaign first received donations from a minimum number of contributors and raised a total of $50,000 in eligible contributions on its own.In an effort to meet that threshold, Ms. King organized at least $25,000 in fraudulent contributions to Mr. Jones’s campaign, according to prosecutors with the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York. Donations that do not originate with the person whose name appears on fund-raising records are often called “straw” donations.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The chancellor, who previously announced that he would step down at the end of December, will instead leave the job on Oct. 16. Melissa Aviles-Ramos, a top deputy, will succeed him.David C. Banks will step down as the New York City schools chancellor on Oct. 16, months earlier than he had previously said he would, City Hall announced on Wednesday.In recent weeks, Mr. Banks has been swept up in a wide-ranging corruption scandal, which has resulted in the indictment of Mayor Eric Adams and has also involved Mr. Banks’s brothers Philip Banks III and Terence Banks, and his wife, Sheena Wright, the first deputy mayor, as well as other members of the mayor’s inner circle.The Banks brothers and Ms. Wright had their phones seized by federal agents in early September as part of an investigation into a consulting firm run by Terence Banks.The announcement on Wednesday came just hours after federal prosecutors told a judge that they might bring additional charges against the mayor and that charges against other people were likely. The chancellor has not been charged with any crimes and has maintained that he has done nothing wrong.In a statement on Wednesday, he did not address the change in timing of his departure from the role, but he reiterated that he had been told that he was not a target of the federal investigation involving the mayor.“I have conducted myself with integrity for almost 40 years, educating New York City’s young students,” he said. “My record and my reputation speaks for itself.”Tracking Charges and Investigations in Eric Adams’s OrbitFour federal corruption inquiries have reached into the world of Mayor Eric Adams of New York. Here is a closer look at the charges against Mr. Adams and how people with ties to him are related to the inquiries.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More