More stories

  • in

    The House Jan. 6 Panel Has Set a High Bar: Showing Criminality

    The committee investigating the attack on the Capitol has yet to decide on making criminal referrals. But its decision to subpoena Donald Trump is in keeping with its prosecutorial style.In the final moments of what will most likely be the last hearing for the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, its vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney, returned to a theme that has run through the committee’s work: criminality.Without naming names or providing any specifics, Ms. Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, asserted that the committee now has “sufficient information to consider criminal referrals for multiple individuals” to the Justice Department for prosecution.It is not clear whether the committee will follow through and take the largely symbolic step of issuing a criminal referral for former President Donald J. Trump or anyone who worked with him to overturn the election and encourage the mob of his supporters who entered the Capitol seeking to block or delay certification of his defeat.But throughout its investigation and hearings, the committee has operated with a prosecutorial style, using the possibility of criminality like a cudgel in extraordinary ways. It has penetrated Mr. Trump’s inner circle, surfaced considerable new evidence and laid out a detailed narrative that could be useful to the Justice Department in deciding whether to bring charges.The panel is expected to issue a subpoena as soon as Tuesday seeking to compel Mr. Trump to testify before it wraps up its investigation and issues a final report.The committee’s effects on related criminal investigations are clear to see. Federal prosecutors and authorities conducting a local investigation in Georgia have found themselves interviewing some of the same witnesses already interviewed by the committee and issuing subpoenas for some of the same evidence already obtained by Congress.But in suggesting that its goal is to spur criminal charges, the committee is setting a standard for success that is beyond its power to carry out — and one that could risk overshadowing the work it has done in documenting Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in power and marshal his supporters to help him.“People frequently walk up to me in the grocery store and they’re like, ‘Are you going to hold him accountable?’ That’s not Congress,” Representative Elaine Luria, Democrat of Virginia and a member of the committee, said in a recent interview. “However, the Department of Justice can take the facts that we’ve outlined in our investigation and use them.”For all the focus that Ms. Cheney has put on producing criminal referrals, the committee has not been entirely cooperative with the Justice Department, slow-walking requests from the department for transcripts of the interviews it has conducted.The task of determining whether anyone broke the law is never mentioned in the resolution that led to the creation of the committee in June 2021. Its chief mission, according to a House resolution, is coming up with an authoritative account of what occurred, identifying failures by law enforcement and other causes of the violence, and providing recommendations to ensure it never happens again.But the committee has turned itself into an adjunct front loader to the Justice Department, developing new evidence, coming up with theories for laws that Mr. Trump and his aides might have broken and educating the public about them at nationally televised hearings that unfolded like an episodic running drama.Committee staff members — many of whom are former prosecutors — employed a strategy of highlighting a range of potential crimes or lanes for investigators to pursue at each of the panel’s public hearings.One hearing focused on how donors had been defrauded by being targeted for donations to help fight specious election fraud claims..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Other hearings focused on whether Mr. Trump and his aides committed the crimes of defrauding the American people or obstructing an official proceeding of Congress. At another, members raised the question of whether Mr. Trump or his aides committed witness tampering.“The purpose of this committee is to ensure that we tell the full truth, allow government officials to make changes to the system, to improve our guardrails, allow the American people to make better decisions about who they elect, and also to encourage D.O.J. to do their job,” Representative Stephanie Murphy, Democrat of Florida, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.The committee’s work has already yielded two contempt of Congress prosecutions for failure to comply with subpoenas issued by the panel. The Justice Department has prosecuted two former aides to Mr. Trump — Stephen K. Bannon and Peter Navarro — on contempt charges.A jury convicted Mr. Bannon, who was pardoned by Mr. Trump in an unrelated crime and is now scheduled to be sentenced on Friday. The Justice Department recommended on Monday that he serve six months for the two misdemeanor contempt charges and pay a $200,000 fine.Mr. Navarro is scheduled to go on trial on the contempt charges next month.“Congress has always been a stalking horse for the Justice Department’s investigations, but this was done expressly, blatantly and without mincing words and without hiding their motives, in a magnitude greater than what I’ve ever seen,” said Stanley Brand, a Democrat who once served as the top lawyer in the House.Mr. Brand has strongly criticized the committee and now represents Mr. Navarro.In forming its staff, the committee took a different approach than previous congressional investigations, hiring several former federal prosecutors and putting a former United States attorney in charge of overseeing its day-to-day work.Some of the first public signs that the committee would be taking a different approach emerged last December when Ms. Cheney said the question of Mr. Trump’s criminality was one that the panel was investigating. She then began reading directly from the federal criminal code a law she believed he may have broken.“Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?” Ms. Cheney said.In March, in a civil court fight with John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who helped advise Mr. Trump on how to overturn the election, the committee filed what amounted to a de facto indictment against Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman. Although the document held no criminal weight, the committee asserted that both men had engaged in criminal conduct in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 attack.“The select committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the president and members of his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” the filing said.The federal judge overseeing the case largely agreed, saying that it was “more likely than not” that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman had broken the law.Armed with the court’s ruling, Ms. Cheney took the lead in continuing to raise questions publicly about whether Mr. Trump broke the law. But it was the committee’s approach to its string of hearings that began in the late spring that provided a stark contrast to the Justice Department’s slow, methodical approach under Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.Speaking like prosecutors, members of the committee treated the American public at the hearings like it was a jury at a criminal trial as they methodically built a case that showed Mr. Trump knew he had lost the 2020 election, lied repeatedly to the public about it, amassed a crowd of his supporters who then stormed the Capitol and did nothing for hours to stop them.When a former West Wing aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, provided electrifying testimony in late June, she made a series of damaging disclosures that were new to the Justice Department and grabbed senior officials’ attention. The mounting public questions about the potential criminality of Mr. Trump and his allies raised questions about whether Mr. Garland was willing to take them on.As those questions crescendoed in the summer, reports emerged that federal prosecutors were indeed investigating them. Relying on the blueprint laid out by the committee, prosecutors in the months that followed subpoenaed many of the same witnesses who had testified before the committee.But the threshold for charging a former president or his top advisers is higher than for setting out a case at a congressional hearing with no one on hand to argue in Mr. Trump’s defense. Legal experts have a range of opinions about whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a case and whether Mr. Garland, who has the ultimate say, would make such a move, knowing how it could further divide the country, particularly if Mr. Trump is the Republican Party’s nominee for president in 2024. More

  • in

    The Fall of Liz Cheney and the Rise of Marjorie Taylor Greene

    The Jan. 6 committee, which held its ninth and likely final hearing last Thursday, has lionized the figure of the Decent Republican.Liz Cheney, the vice chair of the committee, was its obvious star, imbued with moral authority by the fact that she’d sacrificed her position in Republican leadership, and possibly her political career, to stand up to Donald Trump. But there were many others.Rusty Bowers, the Trump-supporting speaker of the Arizona House who refused to help the former president subvert his state’s election results, was a portrait of rectitude, reading from his journal, “I will not play with laws I swore allegiance to.” Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump’s chief of staff, defied attempts at intimidation to describe a president at once calculating and berserk.“When you look back at what has come out through this committee’s work, the most striking fact is that all this evidence comes almost entirely from Republicans,” the committee’s Democratic chairman, Bennie Thompson, said on Thursday.This attempt to separate Trump from the Republican Party made political sense. The committee was trying to reach beyond committed Democratic voters who were already appalled by Trump, and the Republicans who testified had the credibility that comes with acting against their own political interest. But the emphasis on Republican valor meant that the story the committee told, while compelling, was incomplete. Going forward, the threat to the American experiment comes not just from Trump but from the Republican base, which is making the figure of the Decent Republican a quaint curiosity.The problem for Decent Republicans is that their party’s internal democracy makes a commitment to democracy writ large impossible. For decades, prominent right-wing politicians, pastors and pundits — Cheney very much included — cultivated in their base the belief that Democrats represent totalitarian evil. Not surprisingly, the base came to see Democratic victories as intolerable, and rejected candidates who would respect the results of general elections. As The Washington Post reported, a majority of Republican nominees for House, Senate and important statewide offices either doubt or deny that Joe Biden won in 2020.Liz CheneyMark Peterson for The New York TimesQueen of the election deniers is Marjorie Taylor Greene. In his engrossing new book “Weapons of Mass Delusion,” Robert Draper chronicles Greene’s rise in parallel with Cheney’s fall. (An adapted excerpt was just published by The Times Magazine.)Plenty of Republican officials, and ex-officials, wish it were the reverse. Draper has a detailed re-creation of the Feb. 3, 2021, meeting where House Republicans first voted on removing Cheney from her position as Republican conference chair, a vote she survived. “How is it going to look if we kick out Liz Cheney and keep Marjorie Taylor Greene?” asked Tom Reed, a moderate Republican from upstate New York.Initially, Kevin McCarthy, House minority leader, persuaded the party to close ranks behind both Cheney and Greene. “I’m not letting Dems pick us off one by one,” he said, adding: “You elected me leader. Let. Me. Lead.”But McCarthy is, fundamentally, a follower. By May, Draper writes, House Republicans were telling him that “Cheney was becoming a major distraction and a problem for their voters back home.” Greene, meanwhile, had a deep connection to those voters, who considered Democrats demonic and the elections they win fake. This gave her power that McCarthy deferred to.According to Draper, McCarthy invited Greene “to high-level conferences in his office, making a show of sitting next to her and soliciting her opinions.” Last year Democrats stripped Greene of her committee assignments for promoting conspiracy theories and suggesting that the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, should be executed. If Republicans win the House, McCarthy has promised to put Greene on more powerful committees than she was on before. A source told Draper that McCarthy even offered Greene a leadership position.The truth is, if Republicans win — a recent New York Times/Siena College poll shows them ahead by three points among likely voters — Greene will be a leader no matter what McCarthy does. Chances are she’ll be at the forefront of an expanding MAGA squad, with at least one Republican who was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and maybe more. A Georgia Republican who has promised to be a “great teammate” for Greene, Mike Collins, has a campaign video in which he shoots a gun at what looks like a garbage can full of explosives marked “Voting Machine.”It goes without saying that these Republicans will disband the Jan. 6 committee and impeach Joe Biden. They’ll probably seek vengeance for Greene — and Paul Gosar, who lost his committee assignments for tweeting an anime video altered to show him killing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — by stripping Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives of their committee assignments. Expect them to shut down the government more than once and to launch investigations into the Department of Justice over its investigation of Trump. If the 2024 election is disputed, they’ll do all they can to swing it to Republicans. It’s what their voters are sending them to Congress to do.“Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold, regardless of the political cost,” Cheney said at the most recent Jan. 6 hearing. “We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time.” Indeed, we have a guarantee that many of them won’t be.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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    The Problem of Marjorie Taylor Greene

    “There’s going to be a lot of investigations,” Marjorie Taylor Greene said, describing what she anticipates if the Republicans regain the House majority this November. “I’ve talked with a lot of members about this.”It was early September, two months before the midterm elections, and Greene, the first-term congresswoman from Georgia, was sitting in a restaurant in Alpharetta, an affluent suburb of greater metropolitan Atlanta. Among the fellow Republicans with whom Greene said she had been speaking about these investigations was the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy. Just a couple of weeks later, on Sept. 23, Greene sat directly behind McCarthy in a manufacturing facility in Monongahela, Pa., as he publicly previewed what a House Republican majority’s legislative agenda would look like. Among the topics she and her colleagues have discussed is the prospect of impeaching President Joe Biden, a pursuit Greene has advocated literally since the day after Biden took office, when she filed articles of impeachment accusing Obama’s vice president of having abused his power to benefit his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine. “My style would be a lot more aggressive, of course,” she told me, referring to McCarthy. “For him, I think the evidence needs to be there. But I think people underestimate him, in thinking he wouldn’t do it.”In Greene’s view, a Speaker McCarthy would have little choice but to adopt Greene’s “a lot more aggressive” approach toward punishing Biden and his fellow Democrats for what she sees as their policy derelictions and for conducting a “witch hunt” against former President Trump. “I think that to be the best speaker of the House and to please the base, he’s going to give me a lot of power and a lot of leeway,” she predicted in a flat, unemotional voice. “And if he doesn’t, they’re going to be very unhappy about it. I think that’s the best way to read that. And that’s not in any way a threat at all. I just think that’s reality.”Though the 48-year-old self-described “Christian nationalist” possesses a flair for extreme bombast equal to that of her political role model Trump, Greene’s assessment of her current standing within the Republican Party — owing to the devotion accorded her by the party’s MAGA base — would seem to be entirely accurate.Over the past two years, Greene has gone from the far-right fringe of the G.O.P. ever closer to its establishment center without changing any of her own beliefs; if anything, she has continued to find more extreme ways to express them. When she entered electoral politics in 2019, she had spent much of her adult life as a co-owner, with her husband, of her family’s construction company. (Her husband, Perry Greene, recently filed for divorce.)She threw herself into her first campaign, that May, with almost no strategic planning or political networking, and a social media history replete with hallucinatory conspiracy theories. When she switched to a more conservative district in the middle of the 2020 campaign and won, she was roundly dismissed as an unacceptable officeholder who could be contained, isolated and returned to sender in the next election. And yet in 2021, her first year in Congress, Greene raised $7.4 million in political donations, the fourth-highest among the 212 House Republicans, a feat made even more remarkable by the fact that the three who outraised Greene — McCarthy, the minority leader; Steve Scalise, the minority whip; and Dan Crenshaw of Texas — were beneficiaries of corporate PACs that have shunned Greene. (As Trump did during his candidacy, Greene maintains that it is in fact she who refuses all corporate donations.)In another measure of her influence within the national party, Greene’s endorsement and support have been eagerly sought by 2022 G.O.P. hopefuls like the Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake and the Ohio U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance. Within the House Republican conference, McCarthy has assiduously courted her support, inviting her to high-level policy meetings (such as a discussion about the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets Department of Defense policy for the year) and, according to someone with knowledge of their exchanges, offering to create a new leadership position for her.McCarthy’s spokesman denies that the minority leader has made such an offer. When I asked Greene if the report was inaccurate, she smiled and said, “Not necessarily.” But then she added: “I don’t have to have a leadership position. I think I already have one, without having one.”Greene’s metamorphosis over the past year and a half from pariah to a position of undeniable influence presents a case study in G.O.P. politics in the Trump era. The first time I saw Greene in person was on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021. She was barreling down a crowded corridor of the Longworth House Office Building, conspicuously unmasked at a time when masks were still mandated by U.S. Capitol rules. Her all-male retinue of staff members striding briskly beside her were also maskless. In the late hours after that day’s insurrection — one that the Georgia freshman arguably had egged on with her innumerable claims that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen and her assertion to a Newsmax interviewer that Jan. 6 would be “our 1776 moment” — Greene stood on the House floor and objected to the Michigan election results, a move that was promptly dismissed by the presiding officer, Vice President Mike Pence, because the congresswoman had no U.S. senator to join her in the motion as the rules prescribed.The day after the insurrection, Greene sat in a corner of her office in the Longworth building, being interviewed for a right-wing YouTube show by Katie Hopkins, a British white nationalist who had been banished from most social media outlets for her Islamophobic and racist comments (the channel that carried her show has since been taken down by YouTube). The Georgia freshman reflected somberly on the events of the previous day: “Last night and into the early-morning hours was probably one of the saddest days of my life. Scariest and loneliest days of my life. On the third day on the job as a new member of Congress, um, just having our Capitol attacked, being blamed on the president that I love, and I know it’s not his fault; and then having it blamed on all the people that support him, 75 million people — 75-plus million people that have supported President Trump and have truly appreciated all his hard work and America First policies and everything about Make America Great Again.” (Trump received 74.2 million votes in 2020.) “It was extremely lonely in there, watching, basically, the certification of the Electoral College votes for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, even though we know the election was stolen, and the Democrats were working so hard on it, but Republicans too, there were Republicans also.”Hopkins listened attentively, her face knotted with anguish, and observed, “It’s almost as if you’re one of them — you’re almost like one of those who could’ve been at the rally.”“I am one of those people,” Greene said emphatically. “That’s exactly who I am.”Hastily, as if realizing the implication of what she had said, she added: “I’m not one of those people that attacked the Capitol yesterday. I completely condemn that. I completely condemn attacking law enforcement; I support our police officers. And I thank them for their courage yesterday in keeping us safe. I know there were bad actors involved and investigations are underway — and it’s Antifa.” (In subsequent months, Greene would blame the F.B.I. for possibly instigating the violence on Jan. 6. She also voted against awarding police officers who defended the Capitol that day the congressional gold medal, its highest honor.)Greene also said to Hopkins, “I’m not a politician.” Like much of what she said during their interview, this statement was not altogether accurate. Her precocious gift for offending and demonizing qualified her as a natural for the trade as it had come to be reimagined by Trump and his acolytes.Greene at a rally in Mesa, Ariz., in October.Adam Riding for The New York TimesStill, days after her swearing-in, Greene came off as a somewhat desperate attention-seeker with nowhere to go but down. Some in her own party mocked her for her past allegiance to the QAnon conspiracy theory, made public in Facebook posts and videos that have since been deleted, and for her abiding fealty to a disgraced former president. Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee and a Trump ally, would soon publicly describe some of Greene’s comments as “atrocious.” The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, would refer to her views as a “cancer” on the party. Her victory, in the mostly white and rural 14th congressional district of Georgia, was cast as a kind of epochal fluke, a wrong turn that would surely be corrected with the next election, not a foretelling of where the Republican Party was headed in the wake of Trump’s presidency.A month later, I sat in the House Press Gallery as Greene was stripped by the Democrat-controlled House of her two committee assignments after several of her past outrageous social media posts surfaced. But Greene had learned from Trump the value of never admitting wrongdoing or asking for forgiveness. I attended her news conference the next day, at which she declared: “The party is his. It doesn’t belong to anybody else.” The committeeless freshman proceeded to spend her ample available time on right-wing media outlets, like Newsmax and the former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast. An early sign that she was not an ineffectual outlier came that April, when she reported raising a staggering $3.2 million in her first quarter, a majority of it coming from small donors.In the wake of Trump’s departure from the White House, Greene fulfilled a yearning from the MAGA base for a brawler who shared their view that the left had stolen its way to victory and was bent on destroying America. In May 2021, I attended an “America First” rally in Mesa, Ariz., featuring two of the state’s well-known congressmen — the House Freedom Caucus chairman Andy Biggs and the veteran right-winger Paul Gosar — along with Greene and her fellow MAGA foot soldier Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida. As she paced the stage, Greene’s hold over the Arizona audience that night was confirmation that her constituency extended well beyond northwest Georgia. “Who do you think won Arizona on November 3?” she asked the crowd. When they replied by chanting Trump’s name, Greene said: “That’s how we feel in Georgia, too. As a matter of fact, that’s how Michigan feels. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. I think that’s how at least 74-plus million people feel. As a matter of fact, no one went out for Biden. Did you see rallies like Trump had?”By this time, I had visited her district and had begun getting to know her top aides. In February, they persuaded Greene to meet with me in Rome, Ga., for an off-the-record lunch. Three months later, I watched her campaign in her district just before the Georgia primary as she ran for re-election. She and I spent more than an hour talking one on one on the record that day. Subsequently, we met three times in Washington and once in Alpharetta for on-the-record interviews, and once more in her Washington office, also on the record, so that I could see her interact with her congressional staff and colleagues.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With less than one month until Election Day, Republicans remain favored to take over the House, but momentum in the pitched battle for the Senate has seesawed back and forth.A Surprising Battleground: New York has emerged from a haywire redistricting cycle as perhaps the most consequential congressional battleground in the country. For Democrats, the uncertainty is particularly jarring.Arizona’s Governor’s Race: Democrats are openly expressing their alarm that Katie Hobbs, the party’s nominee for governor in the state, is fumbling a chance to defeat Kari Lake in one of the most closely watched races.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but members of his party have learned to tolerate his behavior.Throughout this 18-month span of reporting, Greene’s messaging machine achieved a kind of wall-of-sound inescapability. Her daily litany of often-vicious taunts, factual contortions and outright falsehoods on social media and behind any available lectern depicted a great nation undone by Biden’s Democrats, with allusions to undocumented immigrants as rapists, transgender individuals as predators, Black Lives Matter protesters as terrorists, abortion providers as murderers and her political opponents as godless pedophilia-coddling Communists. The Trumpian media ecosystem where these phantasms originated saw Greene as their most able exponent, while Trump himself, in a news release earlier this year, proclaimed her “a warrior in Congress,” adding, “She doesn’t back down, she doesn’t give up, and she has ALWAYS been with ‘Trump.’” The latter distinction mattered. By they end of 2021, the House G.O.P.’s most powerful female member, the conference chairwoman Liz Cheney, had been booted out of her leadership position and demonized by the base for condemning Trump. Two months into 2022 — barely over a year into her career as an elected official — Greene told me that she and the former president had already discussed the possibility of her being his running mate in 2024.“I would be honored,” she said of this prospect, though she also acknowledged that G.O.P. advisers would urge Trump to think twice about a candidate as divisive as herself: “I think the last person that the R.N.C. or the national party wants is me as his running mate.” Regardless of her future prospects, Greene’s observation to me in September that she didn’t need an official leadership position to enjoy an unofficial one seems beyond dispute.What has received far less discussion than the outrageousness of her daily utterances is what the sum total of them portends for America under a Republican majority with Greene in the vanguard. In recent months, she has continued to insist that Trump won the 2020 election. She maintains that America should have a Christian government and that open prayer should return to classrooms. She has called for the impeachment of not just Biden but also Attorney General Merrick Garland and the secretary of homeland security, Alejandro Mayorkas; for the defunding of the F.B.I., after the agency searched Mar-a-Lago to retrieve secret government documents that Trump took from the White House; for the expulsion from Congress of those she claimed were Communists (and among those she has referred to as Communists are the progressive icon Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and the Jan. 6 Committee member Jamie Raskin of Maryland); and for a congressional investigation into the business activities of Biden’s son Hunter. She has introduced legislation to suspend all immigration into the United States for the next four years, as well as a bill that would impose up to 10-to-25-year prison sentences on medical specialists who provide hormone treatment or surgery to transgender youth under 18.Greene believes that abortion should be banned and that gun-control laws should be overturned. She favors eliminating any and all regulations that were intended to address climate change because, in her view, “The climate has always changed, and no amount of taxes and no government can do anything to stop climate change.” In late September, and hardly for the first time, she excoriated a number of her Republican colleagues, suggesting they were abettors to a globalist conspiracy in tweeting “21 Republican Senators just voted with the woke climate agenda” by ratifying an international agreement to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbon pollutants in coolant systems.More than once, Greene has insisted to me that her “America First” agenda, divisive at its core, nonetheless commands a vast following, including some Democrats who may not care for her coarse rhetoric but still embrace one or more of her precepts. “I’m speaking for so many people,” she told me in Alpharetta, two months before an election that may give voters a preview of an America under an army of Marjorie Taylor Greenes.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene wearing a “Trump Won” mask during a joint session of Congress to certify the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021.Stefani Reynolds/Getty ImagesHer political career began in the early months of 2019, when then-citizen Greene began showing up on Capitol Hill — in part to boost her social media standing by posting YouTube videos of her harassing Democratic staff members but also to try to lobby G.O.P. senators against gun-safety legislation. Greene was outraged to see the 18-year-old Parkland school-shooting survivor David Hogg — who, in one of her more notorious videos, she taunted while chasing him outside the Capitol — sauntering in and out of several Senate offices. Greene had considerably less success scoring appointments with Republican senators. “I had zero,” she lamented to her social media followers. “Guess what: I’m a gun owner. I’m an American citizen, and I have nothing. But this guy, with his George Soros funding, and his major liberal funding, has got everything. I want you to think about that.”Greene was certainly thinking about it. She was thinking about it as she got turned away from the offices of Republican senators like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and her own Georgia senators, David Perdue and Johnny Isakson. She was thinking about it as she stood in a line in March 2019 to attend a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to consider gun-control legislation — a lone opponent surrounded by gun-safety activists. “I’ve been feeling really outnumbered and really sad standing in this line,” she confided to her Facebook Live audience.A month later, Greene acknowledged to a fellow right-wing YouTuber, Alex Madajian, that not all the progressives she encountered were funded by Soros. Many of them, like her, “were just showing up. And they took off work to be there, too. I think conservatives have got to stop making the excuses.” She went on: “Conservatives are going to have to get over themselves. Conservatives, we’re so selfish in so many ways. We will spend, spend, spend on our very nice handbags and we will spend on our golf clubs.”Less than a month after that April interview, Greene, who had previously identified herself on Federal Election Commission donor forms (as a contributor to the Trump campaign) as, variously, a construction firm owner, a CrossFit gym owner and a homemaker, decided to run for elective office to represent Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District, where she resided. It was a story she would tell friends — how she, a taxpayer and job creator who cared about the Constitution, had been turned away by Republicans whose salary she paid. That was why she decided to run for Congress.On May 30, 2019, Greene announced her candidacy on a conservative talk-radio show, followed by a Facebook Live post. A local Republican activist, Lawton Sack, happened to catch the announcement on Facebook Live. Wondering who Greene was, Sack started searching the internet. He came upon several of her Facebook videos, including one posted two years earlier in which Greene suggested that the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was staged by leftists as a pretext for seizing Americans’ guns. Sack posted on his website GeorgiaPol.com that same afternoon under the headline “Las Vegas Shooting Conspiracist Running in GA-6.”Sack’s post went unnoticed. Despite Greene’s preternatural talent for attracting attention, her obscurity in the political world worked to her benefit in the early months, when her principal competition in the Sixth District’s Republican field was its former congresswoman, Karen Handel. As soon as Greene announced her campaign, she pledged her allegiance as the Trumpiest candidate in the primary: “Everyone knows I support @realDonaldTrump. Always have, right from the start!”The last part was untrue: Greene did not vote in the 2016 primary, nor did she contribute to Trump’s campaign until a few weeks before he was elected president. What was true was that “right from the start” of her own campaign, Greene was telling local Republicans that she intended to run just as Trump had: all heat and hyperbole, reliant on small online donations and her personal wealth rather than the establishment Republicans who wanted nothing to do with her. Like Trump, she described herself as a successful business owner. His campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again”; hers was “Save America Stop Socialism.”Few believed she had any chance of winning — probably not against Handel, and almost certainly not in the general election against the incumbent Democrat, Lucy McBath. Then Greene received a decisive break. That December, Tom Graves, the G.O.P. congressman representing the 14th District in northwest Georgia, announced that he would not run for another term, one in a growing number of establishment Republicans who had made for the exits during the Trump era. An open seat, in a district that Trump carried by 53 points in 2016, was suddenly up for grabs. Though Greene had made a virtue of her residency in the Sixth District — even telling the local podcast host Ben Burnett just a couple of days before Graves’s surprise announcement: “I understand our district. I understand it uniquely, because it’s where I’ve always lived, and it’s where I’ve raised my family and worked for so many years” — she would now cheerfully run as a carpetbagger.Instantly, her political fortunes changed. Running as a Trumpist firebrand in a suddenly vacant seat, Greene received pledges of support from the most prominent conservative in the G.O.P. House, Jim Jordan of Ohio; and Debbie Meadows, the wife of Trump’s eventual chief of staff, Mark Meadows and founder of Right Women PAC. Greene’s campaign staff immediately printed a flyer highlighting Jim Jordan’s seal of approval. Her first campaign ad began with “AOC wants to plunge us into Communism,” referring to Ocasio-Cortez, and ended with “President Trump needs more support in Congress.” After a Black man, George Floyd, was killed by a Minneapolis police officer on Memorial Day and nationwide protests erupted, some leading to violence and significant property damage, Greene posted on June 2 on her campaign website a video of herself holding a custom AR-15 pistol, accompanied by these words: “Here’s my message to ANTIFA terrorists: Stay the HELL out of NW Georgia. You won’t burn our churches, loot our businesses, or destroy our homes.”Already covering two races that could determine control of the Senate, the Georgia media took little notice of the congressional race in the state’s northwestern corner — much less of the wealthy far-right conspiracist who didn’t even live in the district. But in her thousands of doorstep conversations in the 14th District, Greene did not encounter indifference. No one was laughing in her face for describing AOC and Antifa as enemies of America. No one lectured her on the imprudence of wielding a military-style weapon in campaign ads. On the contrary: Walking door to door throughout northwest Georgia, Greene could see very early on, she would tell me more than a year later, that its constituents saw the world through the same lens that she did. Within days, she was certain that a majority of these voters would be hers.On June 9, 2020, Greene came in first in the G.O.P. primary, 19 points ahead of the establishment Republican who had been expected to win, the neurosurgeon John Cowan. Trump tweeted his approval: “A big winner. Congratulations!” In the August runoff, Greene thrashed Cowan (whose endorsers included the House minority whip, Steve Scalise) by 14 points. At her victory party in Rome that evening, the exultant winner said of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “We’re going to kick that bitch out of Congress.”The next day, Greene received a congratulatory phone call from the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, who later told a confidant (according to that person), “Clearly, I’m going to have to sit her down and tell her that you can’t call the speaker a bitch.” Instead, Greene tripled down. The day she received congratulations from McCarthy, she memorialized her “kick that bitch out of Congress” sentiment on Twitter. The day after that, she told a Georgia radio interviewer: “In a fired-up moment, I did call her a dirty name. But I don’t back down. I don’t apologize.”In November 2020, during the weeklong orientation period for newly elected members of Congress, Julie Conway, the director of the prominent conservative women’s political action committee VIEW PAC, hosted a reception at the G.O.P.-affiliated Capitol Hill Club for the 30 or so House Republican women it had endorsed. A single uninvited guest arrived, one who happened to be the only maskless person in the room, according to multiple attendees with knowledge of what took place..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“Julie,” one of the women whispered in Conway’s ear, “she’s coming at you.”Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced herself. Then she added, in a voice both hurt and defiant, “I know that you and VIEW PAC weren’t supportive during the campaign.”Conway replied: “Well, to be fair, no one here was. But look, Marjorie, you’re part of the team, if you want to be. It’s a legislative body. If you don’t want to work together, well, that’s your choice.”Greene had arrived in Washington for freshman orientation on a red tide of grievance. Just the week earlier, she upbraided Crenshaw, her fellow Republican member and a former U.S. Navy SEAL, on Twitter for what she termed his “loser mindset” in not challenging the 2020 election results, prompting Crenshaw to fire back: “You’re a member of Congress now, Marjorie. Start acting like one.” Also on Twitter, she complained that because of the pandemic and what she termed “Democrat tyrannical control,” no local gyms were open. (“There is literally a gym around the corner from the hotel she is staying at,” Ruben Gallego, a Democratic congressman from Arizona, tweeted in response.) But something else occurred during that same orientation week that would alter Greene’s trajectory and ultimately that of the Republican Party as well. At what was intended to be a perfunctory congratulatory meeting in the Oval Office with three new G.O.P. congresswomen — Greene, Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Yvette Herrell of New Mexico — Trump met Greene for the first time. She immediately launched into what she later told me was a preconceived strategy about how and where Trump needed to campaign in Georgia to help swing the two U.S. Senate runoff elections there into the Republican column. According to a person familiar with the meeting (and who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly): “She owned that room with Trump. Boebert and Herrell are not pushovers. But 90 to 95 percent of the conversation was Marjorie and the president.”In June, I asked Greene about reports I had heard that McCarthy had vowed to award her plum committee assignments in exchange for her support for his bid as House speaker. “Robert, I don’t believe anything until I see it,” she told me. “I’m pretty smart. I’ve been around people. People take me for granted a lot. I’ve been around the block one too many times to be handed a load of [expletive], so to speak.”Later, she told me what her committee preferences would be. “I would like to be on Oversight,” she said. “I would also like to be on Judiciary. I think both of those I’d be good on.” When I observed that serving on both committees — high-profile investigative perches that had elevated Republicans like Darrell Issa, Trey Gowdy and Jim Jordan into household names — constituted a pretty big ask, Greene shot back: “I completely deserve it. I’ve been treated like [expletive]. I have been treated like garbage.”In a statement for this story, Representative James Comer, the Oversight Committee’s ranking member and most likely its chairman should the Republicans win back the House, said, “If Americans entrust Republicans with the majority next Congress, we look forward to the Steering Committee adding new G.O.P. members to the committee like Rep. Greene with energy and a strong interest in partnering with us in our efforts to rein in the unaccountable Swamp and to hold the Biden Administration accountable for its many self-inflicted crises that it has unleashed on the American people.”But Greene’s comments about what she deserves and how she feels she has been treated reveal a deeply personal grievance against her fellow Republicans that abides to this day, despite the party’s accommodations to her. It extends back to when she was denied an audience with Republican senators as a visitor to the Capitol in 2019; then to her being shunned by the G.O.P. establishment during her 2020 campaign; and finally to what she views as a less-than-fulsome defense of her a month into her congressional tenure, when House Democrats along with 11 Republicans voted to strip her of her committee assignments. This event, a rarity in the history of Congress, was prompted by the surfacing, late that January, of more of her previous social media posts. They included her outlandish suggestions that the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting in Parkland, Fla., was staged, and that a wildfire in California that same year was ignited by a laser beam shot from space by a prominent Jewish family, the Rothschilds, the subjects of many antisemitic conspiracy theories. Such delusions were commonly embraced in the community of QAnon followers.A week after Greene’s past musings were disclosed, the House G.O.P. conference convened to discuss whether to remove Liz Cheney from her leadership post after she voted to impeach Trump. But midway into the four-hour discussion, the other elephant in the room stepped up to the microphone.“Well,” Greene began, according to a recording of the meeting I obtained, “many of you I’ve enjoyed getting to know in my one month that I’ve been here in Congress. But there’s also many more of you that I haven’t gotten to meet yet, and you haven’t gotten to know me. Some of you attack me every single day, and usually I find that it’s those of you attacking me are the ones that don’t know me, and that’s unfortunate.”Greene then tried to explain how it was that she came to embrace the conspiracy theories of the QAnon community that now scandalized the Republican Party and jeopardized her political career. “I was upset about Russian collusion conspiracy lies that I was seeing on the news every single day,” Greene recalled to her colleagues. “So I looked into the internet — and was like, ‘What is going on?’ I stumbled across something called QAnon. Yep, I did. I read about it, I posted about it, I talked about it, and I asked questions about it.”Here, more precisely, is what she did: By the summer of 2017, Greene had made contact online with a counselor in the New York public school system who shared her affinities for both President Donald Trump and dark conspiracy theories. That July, she began writing for the counselor’s online publication, American Truth Seekers, under her great-grandmother’s name, Elizabeth Camp.Greene’s argument was that the “Russian collusion conspiracy lies” had created a kind of permission structure in her mind. As she would say on the House floor, “I was allowed to believe things that weren’t true.”In this passive-voice explanation, Greene was “allowed to believe” that a Democratic staff member named Seth Rich had been murdered by Hillary Clinton’s top adviser, John Podesta, in order to cover up the fact that it was Rich, not Russia, who had leaked Democratic emails to WikiLeaks. (Later, Greene would modify this conspiracy theory: It was the Latino gang MS-13, “the henchmen of the Obama administration,” who had murdered Seth Rich.) Greene was “allowed to believe” that Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Trump’s ties to Russia, was actually quietly working to bring down the Clintons. And that “many in our government are actively worshiping Satan.” And that Trump was single-handedly battling evil — that, as she reposted from the website MAGAPILL, “thousands of Pedophiles and Child Traffickers have been arrested since Trump was sworn in.” This “Global Evil,” she was allowed to believe, was all being funded by the Saudi royals in concert with Jewish billionaires: George Soros and the Rothschild family.Greene believed all this, she claimed, not only because the media had made up lies about Trump but also because in some dark corner of the internet, an anonymous person claiming to have military intelligence “Q clearance” had said so.She concluded her monologue to her new G.O.P. colleagues with an admonition: “Let’s make sure we keep our eyes on the enemy. Because they’re really wanting to take all of us out.” About a third of her colleagues rose to applaud her as she took her seat among them.Not everyone in the conference was moved. “The headline tonight,” warned the South Carolina freshman Nancy Mace, “is that we tried to kick out Liz Cheney, and we gave a standing ovation to Marjorie Taylor Greene.”Tom Reed, a moderate from New York, spoke before Mace and was even more pointed. “I’m committed to winning the majority,” he told his colleagues. “So how is this going to look if we kick out Liz Cheney and keep Marjorie Greene? How is this going to play across the United States of America? How am I going to stand in front of my kids and go, You know what you did, Tom?” He went on, “‘Dad, you kicked out a person who stood on her conscience and voted for impeachment, but you retained an individual’ — and this is what the perception’s going to be, Marjorie, and I don’t mean to offend you — ‘that stood for white supremacy, that stood for a laser in the sky that supposedly the Jews controlled to start a fire in California.’”The question now confronting McCarthy, the House minority leader, was whether he could dissuade the Democratic majority from stripping Greene of her committee assignments. The day before the Feb. 3 Republican meeting, according to a source with knowledge of the exchange, he contacted the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer — the only Democratic leader with whom he had a relationship, as Pelosi spoke openly of her lack of respect for McCarthy — and asked, “What if we just put Marjorie on the Small Business Committee?” Hoyer advised McCarthy that this would probably not fly with the Democrats.On the morning of Feb. 3, according to the same source, McCarthy called Hoyer once more. Hoyer conveyed his caucus’s view that if McCarthy wasn’t going to take care of his party’s Marjorie Taylor Greene problem, then the Democrats intended to do so.McCarthy was apoplectic. “You mark this down in the history books,” he said heatedly, threatening that once the Republicans took back the majority, they would strip Democrats of committee assignments with impunity.“Kevin,” Hoyer replied, “you mark this day down. This is the day I told you that your pandering for Trump is bad for your party, bad for the country and bad for your career.”Greene emerged from the episode unrepentant and unburdened of lawmaking responsibilities — and enjoying the continued support of Trump, who called to offer solace the day her committee assignments were taken away. Greene did not sense the same allyship from House Republican leaders like McCarthy. “I think they stood back and said, ‘Let it happen,’” she asserted to Steve Bannon on his podcast a few weeks later.There remain some Republicans — albeit fewer who still hold office — who believe that, far from being “treated like garbage,” as she sees it, Greene has been coddled by Republican leadership. A former longtime moderate Republican member, Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania, told me that he recalled saying on CNN in 2020 that the G.O.P. should have explicitly marginalized Greene from the moment she won her election: barring her from the House conference, offering her no committee assignments and immediately endorsing a 2022 primary opponent. “They obviously chose a different course,” Dent said with evident chagrin. “Letting her into the tent to some extent normalized her.”And, Dent went on to say, granting extreme elements like Greene so prominent a role in the party was almost certain to make life harder for Republicans in swing districts, starting with the 2022 midterms, which were shaping up to be less of a certain win for the G.O.P. “If the Republicans underperform in the midterms,” Dent told me, “then maybe they’ll start realizing you can’t just throw away these seats. Maybe losing is what it’ll take to course-correct.”This September, on a Wednesday afternoon in Greene’s office in the Longworth building in Washington, I bumped into Ed Buckham, an unassuming 63-year-old man who seemed out of place amid the walls covered with fan notes written to Greene from all over the nation. Buckham has been the Georgia freshman’s chief of staff for nearly a year. “She’s been so great to work for, an absolute pleasure,” he told me, adding that his last job on the Hill was two decades earlier, when Buckham served as chief of staff for the Republican House majority whip, Tom DeLay, one of the most effective legislative operators in modern times.“I hired him because I want to be a very serious legislator,” Greene told me later that evening, after she had cast a succession of “no” votes to various bipartisan House resolutions. (One of them established a National Center for the Advancement of Aviation.) “I want to be a very serious member of Congress. And it’s because I have true goals in Congress, and then also for the Republican Party. I think our party needs a lot of work.”Greene had previously and notoriously hired as a staff assistant the right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, who had become a leper in conservative circles after remarking approvingly in 2016 of “relationships between younger boys and older men.” (Greene quietly parted ways with Yiannopoulos earlier this year.) By contrast, the fact that Tom DeLay’s former top lieutenant was now her own had received no attention.Among Ed Buckham’s virtues that Greene enumerated for me was that he was “a strong Christian.” Greene has recently identified herself as a “Christian nationalist”; this, she maintained to me, meant nothing more and nothing less than a Christian who loves her country. “I didn’t even know there was a history with that phrase,” she insisted. This past summer, she stood on a stage during a live broadcast of the religious-right program “FlashPoint” and was prayed over by the right-wing Christian author Dutch Sheets, who has stated, “Don’t separate God and government,” and who concluded his prayer over Greene with “You are highly favored, you will not fail, in Jesus’ name, Amen!” Two months ago, at a Turning Point USA event, another far-right pastor, Rob McCoy, concluded an interview with Greene by saying, “Someday, please God, may she be president of the United States.”Greene told me that while she wasn’t advocating that Christianity become America’s national religion, she believed that “right now, Christianity is practically persecuted in America.” She wants to see teachers leading students in prayer and to see American presidents set a Christian example. Invoking Jesus, Greene said: “He fought against what was wrong. He ran the money changers out of the temple. He threw their tables over. So he stood strongly against things that were wrong.”Though she readily volunteers that she is “a sinner,” Greene has frequently used the word “godless” to describe Democrats, including Pelosi, a practicing Catholic. (Greene told me that Pelosi’s support of abortion rights essentially disqualifies the House speaker from being a true Christian. She does, however, ruefully admire how Pelosi wields power, and she recently told the conservative activist Charlie Kirk on his podcast that if she ever managed to hold that same position, “I would reign with an iron fist.”) When I mentioned this to Emanuel Cleaver, a 77-year-old United Methodist pastor from Missouri who has been a Democratic member of Congress since 2005, he replied: “I believe that she actually believes that about us. But as I remind myself all the time, sincerity alone does not make a weak doctrine strong.”Cleaver went on to say: “We are in an era of nationalism, all across the world and here at home. And there’s a symbiotic relationship between nationalism and religion. Human beings often mix their political belief with religious fervor. It allows them to think that they’re God’s agent.” Cleaver told me that he had been unable to forget the video clip from the Jan. 6 insurrection in which a QAnon adherent named Jacob Chansley joined other rioters in storming the vacant chamber of the Senate. Chansley, the so-called Q Shaman, stood at the rostrum and led others in prayer, saying: “Thank you for allowing the United States of America to be reborn. Thank you for allowing us to get rid of the Communists, the globalists and the traitors within our government.”“It doesn’t take much theology to understand that what many of them at the Capitol that day believed was that they were an army of God,” Cleaver told me. “And that’s what scares me about Christian nationalism here in America.”Greene with former President Donald Trump at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., in July.Doug Mills/The New York TimesGreene’s political operation is committed to the goal of reflexively demonizing nearly anyone and anything she opposes, regardless of what it costs her. Twitter has permanently suspended her personal account for repeatedly spreading untruths about Covid vaccines. Her refusal to wear a mask on the House floor during the pandemic resulted in Greene’s being fined more than $100,000. Her appearance onstage in February with the avowed white supremacist Nick Fuentes caused Bannon to cancel a public appearance with her in Georgia. (Bannon has since brought Greene back on his podcast.) Earlier this year, she traveled with a bodyguard (which, as The Times reported, Greene paid for with campaign funds) because of threats that she says have been made against her. In August, according to the local police, her house in Rome, Ga., was repeatedly “swatted” — someone claimed to a 911 operator that a violent crime was taking place in Greene’s household, compelling a SWAT team to enter her home — apparently by someone who objected to her anti-transgender rhetoric, according to a report she obtained from the police and released.But the attention economy manifestly rewards her performative combativeness, both in online donations and in social media ubiquity. That this was not just some happy coincidence, but in fact an assiduously strategized core of Greene’s political machine, became evident more than a year ago, when I met two of her seniormost advisers (who, as a precondition for our conversation, requested anonymity so that they could speak freely about their boss) at a restaurant in the Atlanta suburbs.One of them challenged me: “Who do you think are the top five Republicans in the House, other than the ones in leadership?” The adviser then clarified that this was not a Beltway lobbyist popularity contest. “I’m not talking about who K Street wants. I’m talking about, if you had five House Republicans on a national ballot, who would the public vote for?”It was a revealing question. Tom DeLay had once told me that there were three career paths for any member of Congress: to be in leadership, to be a committee stalwart or to be a tireless advocate for your district. Greene had chosen a fourth path. Her ambition was to be a national figure.She has achieved this distinction in part through an extremist posture that may well be earnestly felt but is also politically calculated. In May, I accompanied Greene on a 13-hour primary-campaign swing through her district. Two years earlier, her campaign slogan was “Save America Stop Socialism.” Now her yard signs read: “Save America Stop Communism.” Her senior adviser Isaiah Wartman said, “We’ve moved the needle.”That Greene honestly believes America has now fallen prey to a Communist regime seems unlikely. (When I asked her about a claim she had made that Jamie Raskin is a Communist, Greene responded: “Yes! Have you read about his father?” Marcus Raskin was a longtime progressive government staff member and never a member of the Communist Party.) It has therefore been tempting for her detractors, and for that matter many Washington journalists, to regard her as pernicious but ultimately unserious — and, like her political godfather, Trump, as someone who appears more attuned to what works as an applause line than what fits her core beliefs. I tended toward this view in my early appraisal of Greene, particularly after she accosted Ocasio-Cortez on the House floor and challenged her to a debate in April 2021, promoting the hashtag #MTGvsAOC and a month later chasing the Democrat down a corridor of the Capitol, yelling in full view of reporters: “Alexandria! Alexandria! Why won’t you debate me?”But enough time spent in her orbit revealed that Greene’s ceaseless quest for attention did not prove or disprove anything about her right-wing fervor. Her commitment to the MAGA agenda equals if not surpasses Trump’s. More significant, she has every intention of enacting what her Republican colleagues failed to ratify of Trump’s agenda.“I’ve said it to them at conference,” Greene told me in May in the back of her black S.U.V., headed to a campaign event in the northwest Georgia town Ringgold. “I’ve said it over and over: ‘The whole reason I ran for Congress was, you basically [expletive] the bed when you had your chance. You didn’t fund and build the wall. You didn’t repeal Obamacare — you didn’t do anything about it. You call yourselves pro-life, and you guys funded Planned Parenthood. You can’t fail any worse than that!’ So, no: I literally ran for Congress because they failed so badly that Nancy Pelosi became speaker again.”Among the questions facing Greene is whether the pugnacity she displays toward her fellow Republicans is politically sustainable. “When you ask yourself how things could end up for her,” Brendan Buck, who served as counselor and chief communications adviser to the former speaker Paul Ryan, said to me, “one likely possibility is that it ends when you start becoming a problem for your colleagues. Steve King became a problem for his colleagues, and so did Madison Cawthorn.” Buck was referring, respectively, to the former Iowa congressman who was marginalized by the House G.O.P. for expressing white-supremacist views, and to the freshman from North Carolina who was defeated by a Republican primary challenger after a series of incidents that included claiming that fellow Republicans had invited him to cocaine-fueled orgies. Buck continued: “It’s very easy to see her becoming a problem as well, whether it’s continually claiming they’re not conservative enough or them continually having to respond to her craziness. That’s the quickest way to see yourself out of the chamber.”Even without alienating her Republican colleagues, Buck said, Greene faced an additional conundrum. “The driving dynamic among members like her has been the battle for relevance,” he told me. “Everything revolves around making your voice matter and making your voice heard in the conservative media ecosystem writ large. Turning the party in the direction you want requires your viewpoint being echoed hundreds of thousands of times.”Greene once told me that when the Georgia G.O.P. establishment first encountered her in 2019, “They looked at me like I was a three-headed monster.” This was hardly the case anymore. Every Republican candidate in her state — and more across the country — seemed to be mimicking her. Georgia’s 10th Congressional District, to take just one example, had been vacated by the Republican incumbent Jody Hice and subsequently had a field of candidates that included three Greene wannabes. One was a demolition-company owner whose kickoff ad featured the candidate bashing various walls and doors with a sledgehammer while promising to “crush the woke mob and their cancel culture.” A second pledged to introduce articles of impeachment against Biden on his first day in office, just as Greene had done. A third, Mike Collins, who ended up as the nominee, vowed during his announcement speech, “I’ll make a great teammate for Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.”When I brought this up to Greene, she replied, “It’s almost cookie-cutter for some of these candidates.”She didn’t look or sound especially happy to be the recipient of such flattery. I thought I understood why. “If everybody starts acting like Marjorie Taylor Greene,” I said, “then Marjorie Taylor Greene is no different from anyone else. And in the view of some people, this is Trump’s problem now.”“Too much Trump?” She asked it rhetorically; it was clear that the question was one she had already been pondering. Neither of them was an inside operator like Kevin McCarthy or Mitch McConnell. Both derived their outsize influence in the G.O.P. from their ability to command the airspace of the right-wing ecosystem. They achieved this not simply by being the most outrageous voices in the room but also by being more outrageous today than they were the day before. They were competing against themselves and against their adoring mimics. Their rhetorical one-upmanship was increasingly dark and violent. At a Trump rally in Michigan on Oct. 1, the former president claimed, “Despite great outside dangers, our biggest threat remains the sick, sinister and evil people from within our country.” Greene, as part of Trump’s warm-up act, was willing to get even more ominously specific: “Democrats want Republicans dead, and they have already started the killings.” The previous month, sharing an image of a darkly lit Biden speech in which the president warned that some on the right were threats to democracy, Greene tweeted, “Joe Biden is Hitler,” with the hashtag #NaziJoe.Such was the dangerous game of relevancy that Greene was pursuing. In victory, her voice might well become drowned out amid the growing chorus of MAGA supplicants. Impeach Biden? When she first proposed it in January 2021, eyes rolled. Now it was all but a given that a G.O.P. House majority would seize upon some rationale to swiftly begin impeachment proceedings. Democrats were not just radical socialists but Communists? Greene had begun making this assertion about Democratic members of Congress back in June 2021. Now even the National Republican Congressional Committee — the House G.O.P.’s official political organization — has solicited donations warning of creeping Communism under Pelosi’s Democrats.Greene’s message was prevailing. What her inflammatory rhetoric might consume or ignite, and whether that would bring her ever closer to the center of power or lead to her being cast out, was yet to be known. “Part of my problem is,” she said quietly as her S.U.V. rolled through northwest Georgia, “I’ve been too early.”This article is adapted from “Weapons of Mass Delusion: When the Republican Party Lost Its Mind,” published this month by Penguin Press.Robert Draper is a contributing writer for the magazine. He is the author of several books, most recently “Weapons of Mass Delusion: When the Republican Party Lost Its Mind,” from which this article about Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is adapted. Stephen Voss is a photographer in Washington known for his portraits of political figures. His photographs are held in the permanent collection of the Library of Congress. More

  • in

    They Legitimized the Myth of a Stolen Election — and Reaped the Rewards

    A majority of House Republicans last year voted to challenge the Electoral College and upend the presidential election. A majority of House Republicans last year voted to challenge the Electoral College and upend the presidential election. That action, signaled ahead of the vote in signed petitions, would change the direction of the party. That action, […] More

  • in

    House Jan. 6 Panel Faces Key Decisions as It Wraps Up Work

    The committee investigating what led to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold its first hearing since July on Wednesday, entering the final stage of its inquiry.WASHINGTON — A day before resuming its televised hearings and with only months remaining before it closes up shop, the House Jan. 6 committee is wrangling over how best to complete its work, with key decisions yet to be made on issues that could help shape its legacy.The panel, whose public hearings this summer exposed substantial new details about former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election, must still decide whether to issue subpoenas to Mr. Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence.It has yet to settle on whether to enforce subpoenas issued to Republican members of Congress who have refused to cooperate with the inquiry, or what legislative recommendations to make. It must still grapple with when to turn its files over to the Justice Department, how to finish what it hopes will be a comprehensive written report and whether to make criminal referrals. It cannot even agree on whether Wednesday’s hearing will be its last.The panel has not disclosed the topics it intends to cover in the 1 p.m. hearing, its first since July. But it is still working to break new ground with its investigation.It recently had a breakthrough when Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, agreed to a voluntary interview about her role in seeking to keep Mr. Trump in office. That interview is expected to take place within weeks.The committee also issued a subpoena to Robin Vos, the Republican House speaker in Wisconsin whom Mr. Trump tried to pressure as recently as July to overturn the 2020 election, suggesting that the panel tracked Mr. Trump’s activities long after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and his departure from office two weeks later. (Mr. Vos has sued to try to block the committee’s subpoena.)“Our hearings have demonstrated the essential culpability of Donald Trump, and we will complete that story,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and a member of the committee.But the committee has debated whether and how to highlight certain information related to the Jan. 6 attack. For instance, some members and staff have wanted to hold a hearing to highlight the panel’s extensive work investigating the law enforcement failures related to the assault, but others have argued that doing so would take attention off Mr. Trump.And it has struggled in recent weeks with staff departures and is facing public criticism from a former aide, Denver Riggleman, who says it has not been aggressive enough in pursuing connections between the White House and the rioters.The final stages of its planned 18 months of work are playing out against a shifting political climate. Polls suggest that Democrats could lose control of the House in November’s midterm elections. Mr. Trump is showing every intention of seeking the presidency again, and the committee’s Republican vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who lost her primary in August, appears to be positioning herself as the party’s anti-Trump White House candidate for 2024, with the panel’s conclusions as part of her platform.Ms. Cheney on Saturday seemed to contradict other committee members by describing this week’s hearing as unlikely to be the last. Other members, including the committee’s chairman, have said it would likely be their final presentation.With that backdrop, Wednesday’s hearing could be seen as the first step in the closing stages of the committee’s work.“What they have to do is strategic,” said Norman L. Eisen, who was special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee from 2019 to 2020, including for the first impeachment and trial of Mr. Trump. “The first part of the end game is to close the deal with the American people.”The panel set high expectations for itself by revolutionizing what a congressional hearing could look like. Preparing for the hearing on Wednesday has consumed the committee’s focus in recent weeks..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“They’ve pretty uniformly met and exceeded expectations,” Mr. Eisen said. “And when you’ve done that eight times, that suggests that you know what you’re doing. I suspect part of the reason that they took a lengthy hiatus — and by all reports worked very hard over the summer — was to be able to come back in September with a bang.”To some degree, the committee is now competing for attention with other investigations into Mr. Trump and his allies. The New York attorney general has filed a sweeping fraud suit against Mr. Trump and his family. Prosecutors in Georgia are conducting grand jury interviews about efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s loss there. And the Justice Department is now conducting criminal inquiries into both the events that led to the Jan. 6 attack and Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents he took with him upon leaving the White House.To help with its end game, the panel has quietly rehired John Wood, a former federal prosecutor who is close to Ms. Cheney. Before he left the panel for a brief, unsuccessful run for U.S. Senate in Missouri, Mr. Wood led the committee’s “Gold Team,” which investigated Mr. Trump and his inner circle.It has also expanded its number of staff members from about 50 up to 57, according to Congress’s latest financial data, and has spent about $5.3 million over its first year in existence.But at the same time, the committee has had five staff members put in resignation notices in recent weeks. Among them is Amanda Wick, a former federal prosecutor who was featured in a committee hearing and led the panel’s “Green Team,” which investigated the money trail connected to Jan. 6, including political donations and the funding of the rallies that preceded the violence.The hearing on Wednesday is expected to feature new video of the Jan. 6 attack and also new clips of some of the committee’s hundreds of interviews with witnesses.Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, said the panel would focus some of its energy on ongoing threats to democracy, such as 2020 election deniers gaining power over election systems.“We have found additional information,” Ms. Lofgren said. “We worked throughout the summer.”The panel’s investigators pursued a number of topics this summer, traveling to Copenhagen, for example, to review footage shot by a documentary film crew of the political operative and Trump confidant Roger J. Stone Jr. Committee members have hinted that some of that material could turn up in Wednesday’s hearing.They held closed-door interviews with senior Trump administration officials in an effort to uncover more about the period between Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Mr. Trump’s supporters attacked Congress, and Jan. 20, when President Biden was sworn in, including talks about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office.The panel at one point considered inviting generals who worked for Mr. Trump to deliver firsthand accounts of his behavior. (The idea has not moved forward.)Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee, said the panel recently received a trove of documents from the Secret Service in response to a subpoena it issued after the news that agents’ text messages from Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, 2021, had been lost.A spokesman for the agency said the Secret Service provided a “significant level of detail from emails, radio transmissions, Microsoft Teams chat messages and exhibits that address aspects of planning, operations and communications surrounding January 6th.” But the spokesman said the documents did not include any additional text messages, such as those sought by the committee that were erased during an upgrade of phones.Members of the committee had originally seen their investigation, and the possibility of a criminal referral, as a way of putting pressure on the Justice Department to pursue a criminal case. But with federal prosecutors now investigating elements of Mr. Trump’s efforts to retain power despite losing at the ballot box, the House committee is considering a new suggestion for the information it uncovered about Mr. Trump and his allies raising money by promoting baseless assertions about election fraud: making a referral to the Federal Election Commission, a largely toothless body that can weigh abuses of campaign finance laws.“F.E.C. would be a good possibility,” Mr. Thompson said. “Obviously we looked seriously at some of the fund-raising that went on around Jan. 6.”Members have also been discussing what legislative recommendations they should make. Last week, to close off the possibility of another president trying to have a vice president block the certification by Congress of the Electoral College results, Ms. Cheney and Ms. Lofgren introduced an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act, which quickly passed the House. (A somewhat different version is awaiting action in the Senate.)Members are also discussing reforms to the Insurrection Act, legislation related to the 14th and 25th amendments and regulation of militia groups. Members also are likely to recommend improvements to Capitol security.Not all the panel’s recommendations have found agreement. Mr. Raskin, for instance, has pushed for recommending the Electoral College be eliminated, but that idea has been met with resistance from Ms. Cheney and others and is unlikely to be included in the final recommendations.Maggie Haberman More

  • in

    What’s With All the Fluff About a New Civil War, Anyway?

    BOZEMAN, Mont. — The idea was to be permanently chastened by the Civil War, that the relief of emancipation and reunification would always be tempered by the shock of 600,000 corpses. And yet “civil war” has lately become one of those zeitgeist phrases that rattle around the internet, like “quiet quitting” or “Pete Davidson.”After the F.B.I. searched Donald Trump’s home for archival documents, a white nationalist proclaimed, “Civil war is imminent.” These whiffs of civil war from people more enthralled with Fort Sumter than Appomattox Court House are, like the re-emergence of the word “secession,” escapist fantasies of reliving the four years this country was two countries, officially estranged.Liz Cheney said in her Wyoming concession speech that she takes courage from Ulysses S. Grant’s resolve to turn his army south toward Richmond in 1864. Mentioning that Abraham Lincoln lost House and Senate races “before he won the most important election of all,” she announced that her new political action committee to resist election denial is called the Great Task, a reference to the last line of the Gettysburg Address. How far will she take her Civil War analogies? If she’s running in the 2024 presidential primary, “Let’s burn down Atlanta” might not be an optimal vote-getter in Fulton County.As for Ms. Cheney’s likening herself to Abraham Lincoln, I have seen, at the National Museum of Health and Medicine, the bullet that killed him and fragments of his skull. I’m no life coach, but I wouldn’t call following in his footsteps a particularly upbeat career goal.Ms. Cheney might pull off being our generation’s Millard Fillmore — every girl’s dream. In choosing majority rule as her life’s work, she has landed on the only either-or issue in the United States (aside from pineapple on pizza).Defending the premise that, after a fair election, the legitimate Electoral College winner becomes the president-elect — an idea so basic I literally learned it in first grade, when the kids who preferred Gerald Ford in our mock election just sucked it up and congratulated Jimmy Carter’s gang of 6-year-olds — is our most important issue and explains the ginned-up rumors of war, especially since Ms. Cheney’s nemesis on the topic is something of an attention-getter. On everything else, the United States in 2022 feels more 1850 to me than 1861.The country circa 1850 was trapped in a trilateral predicament in which President Fillmore, presiding over a Unionist center aiming to prohibit slavery’s extension into the new western territories, was caught between a far left and a far right, some abolitionists being almost as keen on secession as the slaveholders — an outcome that would have benefited the latter.Recent polling on the growing support for secession echoes that 1850s-style tripartite political divide. Last year the University of Virginia Center for Politics issued an unnerving report in which 41 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans “somewhat agree” that red and blue states should secede from the Union and form separate countries. Eighteen percent of Democrats and 25 percent of Republican respondents “strongly agree.” Thus secession is one of those subjects where each party’s extremists are de facto allies, like forsaking the First Amendment or provoking every educator and librarian in America to resign.My nephew used to play a video game in which he gave digital haircuts to bears. That is less absurd than founding two new separate “blue” and “red” countries. The party leanings of states can be fluid. Colorado, for instance — it’s almost as if a secret cabal of tech millionaires shoveled a mountain of cash into turning a Republican state into a Democratic one. The federal government owns almost 50 percent of the land out West, so how to divvy it up without antagonizing thrifty New Englanders? What would happen to swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? Do they form a third Republic of Wishy-Washy?Somewhere around 40 percent of us do not live in the state where we were born. The ability to move from one state to another is not only an essential freedom that Liz Cheney should definitely look into, it is also an economic imperative. How much of Florida’s economy is New Yorkers and Midwesterners waiting around to die? Moreover, interstate migration is a foundation of our arts and culture. Pittsburgh’s Billy Strayhorn wrote “Take the A Train” after following Duke Ellington’s subway directions to Harlem.“This is the story of the United States,” said T Bone Burnett. “A kid walks out of his home with a song and nothing else, and conquers the world.”A poll of more than 8,000 Americans released by the University of California Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and the California Firearm Violence Research Center found that half of the respondents agreed that “in the next several years, there will be a civil war in the United States.” First of all, yikes. Second, how would bringing Shiloh to the suburbs even work?Inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Mike Theiler/ReutersFull-blown wars tend to get bogged down in geography pretty quickly. The arc of George Washington’s command of the Continental Army can be told largely from the banks of rivers. A topographic map of Afghanistan now looks like a prophecy.Yes, the 2020 Electoral College map gives the impression that there are still dependable, contiguous regions of this continent with natural or psychological boundaries akin to the Mason-Dixon Line of yore. But the county election results maps tell a messier story of who we are and where we live. More Californians than Texans voted for Donald Trump. And even Richmond isn’t Richmond anymore — now that the city removed all the Confederate monuments from Monument Avenue, it’s just a bunch of Joe Biden voters driving past a statue of the tennis star Arthur Ashe.Here in Montana, a state as deep red as a Flathead cherry, I’m a Democrat living in a blue county bigger than Delaware. Still, Republicans live among us and they look just like people. (Hi, Larry.) It’s hard to pick them out unless they step in front of the C-SPAN camera to fist-bump Ted Cruz.Mid-pandemic I stood in line for hamburgers between a snarling blonde who chewed me out for wearing a face mask and a high school classmate’s brother keen to talk about the Times linguistics newsletter writer John McWhorter. Both of my neighbors ordered French fries cooked in the same vat of oil. Where is the demarcation line in that scenario — the milkshake machine?The Texas Republican Party, ever aspirational, put secession from the United States into its most recent platform. And yet secession is technically illegal — thanks to Texans. In 1869, in Texas v. White, the Supreme Court ruled secession unconstitutional and declared the Union “perpetual.”Hence the intoxicating appeal of these continuing fantasies of partition and civil war: We are stuck with each other. We are stuck. With each other. Perpetually.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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    The Political Warheads Just Keep Exploding

    Gail Collins: Welcome back from your trip to Greenland, Bret. Dying to hear your impressions. Was it beautiful? Was it … melting?Bret Stephens: Greenland is a bit like a James Joyce novel: formidable and largely impenetrable. And the ice is definitely melting up there — which I’ll get to in the long feature I’m writing about the trip.Gail: Been looking forward to that since you left.Bret: But we’ve missed so much since our last conversation! The Joe Biden comeback. The Mar-a-Lago blowback. The Liz Cheney takedown. Where should we start?Gail: Let’s begin with Biden. I’ll admit that the Inflation Reduction Act was perhaps not the perfect name for his bill, but what a moment for his presidency! First time the country’s ever taken a big, serious step toward combating global warming. And for once, I can imagine future generations looking back on what we’ve done and cheering.Bret: I agree that the bill is misnamed. It probably would have been better called the West Virginia Special Perks Act, after all the goodies Joe Manchin stuffed into it for his home state, or the Elon Musk Additional Enrichment Act, given all the tax rebates for buying electric vehicles. On top of that, I doubt that history will look back on the legislation as some kind of turning point in addressing climate change, given that China emits more than twice the carbon dioxide that the United States does.But Biden — or maybe I should say Chuck Schumer — has certainly rallied his party and given it a sense of accomplishment before the midterms. On the other hand, there’s the raid on Mar-a-Lago, which struck me as really, really ill-advised. Tell me I’m wrong.Gail: Well, I sorta hated that it created so many headlines during a week when Biden should have been getting all the attention for his accomplishments. And I know Donald Trump is getting a lot of sympathy from his fans. But, hey, if he’s been sitting on top of secret documents, possibly including some having to do with, um, nuclear weaponry, I want the country to know about it.Bret: We obviously have to withhold judgment till we know more, but color me skeptical on the claim about nuclear weaponry.Gail: Understood. But while I am not yet quite prepared to envision our former president somehow selling our secrets to foreign governments, in this case it’s not so totally inconceivable that you wouldn’t want the feds to move quickly.Bret: Gail, do you remember the line from “Raising Arizona,” when Nicolas Cage says to Holly Hunter, “There’s what’s right and there’s what’s right, and never the twain shall meet”? That seems like a pretty good description of Merrick Garland’s predicament.Gail: Love it when you do those quotes.Bret: On one hand, Trump continued to prevaricate and resist repeated requests to return the documents, in flagrant disregard for the rule of law. On the other, as a result of the search he’s consolidated support among Republicans who seemed to be drifting away just a few weeks ago. He’s turned the media spotlight away from Biden and back to himself. He’s created a new field of theories and conspiracies about what the government was really after.In short, Garland gave Trump precisely what he wanted. And if the Justice Department can’t show that Trump was hiding something truly sensitive or explosive — like, proof that he was in direct personal contact with the Oath Keepers before Jan. 6 — I fear Garland’s going to emerge the loser from this encounter.Gail: When in doubt, my all-purpose rule in understanding things Trump is to follow the stupendous Maggie Haberman, one of our great White House correspondents. Her analysis covers several possible explanations for the document-piling, all of them based on general stupidity. Maybe he wanted them as extremely high-end mementos. Maybe it’s his habit of hoarding papers. Or just his cosmic view of the world, that “everything he touches belongs to him,” as a lawyer Maggie talked to put it.Bret: With Trump, the line between the shambolic and the sinister is often blurred. His entire being is like Inspector Clouseau doing an impression of Jack Nicholson in “The Shining,” or maybe vice versa.Gail: But whatever the motive, we can’t allow him to set this kind of precedent for handling presidential documents.Bret: I’m all for returning government documents to their rightful place, but if this helps return Trump to the White House I’d say it’s a bad bargain.Gail: We’ll see what happens next. Meanwhile, there’s another big political saga underway. Liz Cheney lost her primary, as everybody expected. What’s next for her? More

  • in

    The Water Crisis in the Southwest

    More from our inbox:Should Liz Cheney Run for President?Jerrold Nadler’s Feminist CredentialsLiving With Diabetes John Locher/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “The Coming Crisis on the Colorado River,” by Daniel Rothberg (Sunday Opinion, Aug. 7):The difference between 33 degrees Fahrenheit and 31 degrees Fahrenheit is the difference between rain and snow. The two-degree increase in ambient temperature in many parts of the Southwest, already recorded, has had a critical effect on the dwindling water levels of the Colorado River.The spigot that turns on water for Lake Mead and Lake Powell reservoirs resides high in the mountains of Colorado where dense snowpack builds up during the winter and melts slowly during the summer.Snowmelt runoff, unlike rainfall that becomes widely dispersed, is channeled into creeks and small streams that eventually combine and funnel into the Colorado River. The snowpack is disappearing.Ten years ago I was at Lake Mead’s now-disappeared Overton Beach Marina and read a sign on a palm tree that said, “Boat Slips Available.” Behind it was a vast landscape of dry and cracked lake bed. The “coming crisis on the Colorado River” has been arriving for some time now.For decades people in the urban Southwest have been living off federal money for subsidized water, with dams, aqueducts and pumping systems watering hundreds of golf courses, a swimming pool for every house and citrus groves in the desert.When the water level of Lake Mead reaches 1,042 feet above sea level, as it did recently, this false idea of a “desert miracle” confronts the true reality of a “dead pool” and the meaning of climate change.Judith NiesCambridge, Mass.The writer is the author of “Unreal City: Las Vegas, Black Mesa and the Fate of the West.”To the Editor:The West is drying and the East is flooding: Lake Mead, the vital sign of the Colorado River, has fallen to historic lows, and Kentucky has the opposite problem, overwhelmed by floodwaters.At a time when the country is already divided in enough ways, I hope that water can be a theme we can all rally around. Whether too much or too little, water touches us all.Certainly, resolving the Colorado River crisis — with its roots now gnarled in agriculture, urban growth, economics, politics and climate change — is a massive undertaking that will not happen in a day or even a decade. It requires individuals as well as institutions.A small action, whether to conserve water at home or to support a policy at the ballot box, shows commitment. To those of us who live in the West, it’s more than just a drop in the bucket. It’s good leadership, and it’s good stewardship.Robert B. SowbyProvo, UtahThe writer is a water resources engineer and a professor at Brigham Young University.Should Liz Cheney Run for President?Representative Liz Cheney spoke to her supporters on Tuesday night in Jackson, Wyo., and on Wednesday announced her new anti-Trump political organization.Kim Raff for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Liz Cheney Says She’s ‘Thinking’ About Running for President in 2024” (news article, nytimes.com, Aug. 17):The heroic stance that soon-to-be-former Representative Liz Cheney has taken will go down in history as a true “profile in courage,” but her trajectory should not include a run for president. More