Classified Information and State Secrets

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley and Tim Scott Show Openness to Criticizing Trump

      by

      Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who is now a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, at a campaign event in Des Moines this month.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesSenator Tim Scott of South Carolina during a hearing of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee in Washington last month.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesWhile most of former President Donald J. Trump’s Republican rivals have closed ranks around him since his indictment in the classified documents case, two of them — Nikki Haley and Tim Scott — have begun to move away from solely denouncing the Justice Department.In a Fox News interview on Monday, Ms. Haley, the former South Carolina governor who was an ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Trump, continued to claim that the Justice Department and F.B.I. had lost credibility with the American people, but she also acknowledged the seriousness of the charges against Mr. Trump.“Two things can be true at the same time,” Ms. Haley said, adding that if the indictment was accurate, “President Trump was incredibly reckless with our national security.”Ms. Haley’s initial statement on Friday, one day after Mr. Trump’s federal indictment, was an unflagging defense of her onetime boss.“This is not how justice should be pursued in our country,” she said at the time on Twitter. “The American people are exhausted by the prosecutorial overreach, double standards and vendetta politics.”Mr. Scott, a senator who is also from South Carolina and, like Ms. Haley, significantly trails Mr. Trump in the Republican polls, similarly shifted his tone.During a campaign appearance on Monday in Spartanburg, S.C., Mr. Scott acknowledged the gravity of the charges against Mr. Trump while accusing the Justice Department and President Biden of targeting Republicans for prosecution.He described it as a “serious case with serious allegations,” according to The Post and Courier newspaper of Charleston, S.C.But in Mr. Scott’s initial reaction on Thursday, on Fox News, he focused solely on claiming that the Justice Department had become weaponized against Republicans.“Today what we see is a justice system where the scales are weighted,” Mr. Scott said then.Their stances are still far removed from that of another 2024 contender, former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who has sought to position himself as the candidate most willing to attack Mr. Trump.Mr. Christie laced into Mr. Trump again during a CNN town-hall event on Monday night, calling him “angry” and “vengeful” and saying that he believed the indictment was “a very tight, very detailed, evidence-laden indictment, and the conduct in there is awful.” More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Have Made Their Choice

      by

      In the wake of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, Republican officeholders had three choices.They could stick with and defend Donald Trump and his riotous allies, and if they were members of the House or Senate, they could vote in support of the effort to overturn the results of the election, in a show of loyalty to the president and, in effect, the rioters.Or they could criticize and condemn the president as conservative dissenters, using their voices in an attempt to put the Republican Party back on a more traditional path.Or they could leave. They could quit the party and thus show the full extent of their anger and revulsion.But we know what actually happened. A few Republicans left and a few complained, but most remained loyal to the party and the president with nary a peep to make about the fact that Trump was willing to bring an end to constitutional government in the United States if it meant he could stay in office.We have been watching this dynamic play out a second time with Trump’s indictment on federal espionage charges for mishandling classified documents as a private citizen. The most prominent Republican officeholders wasted no time with their full-throated denunciations of the indictment, the Department of Justice and the Biden administration.“Let’s be clear about what’s happening: Joe Biden is weaponizing his Department of Justice against his own political rival,” said Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican leader in the House. “This sham indictment is the continuation of the endless political persecution of Donald Trump.”“This indictment certainly looks like an unequal application of justice,” said Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, who serves as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. “You can’t help but ask why this is happening. It feels political, and it’s rotten.”Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida said that the indictment was a “weaponization of federal law enforcement” that “represents a mortal threat to a free society,” and former vice president Mike Pence said he was “deeply troubled to see this indictment move forward” and vowed to “clean house” at the highest levels of the Justice Department if elected president.The only notable congressional Republican to really condemn Trump was Senator Mitt Romney of Utah. “By all appearances, the Justice Department and special counsel have exercised due care, affording Mr. Trump the time and opportunity to avoid charges that would not generally have been afforded to others,” he said in a statement. “Mr. Trump brought these charges upon himself by not only taking classified documents, but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so.”All of this is typical. With vanishingly few exceptions, Republicans are unwilling to discipline Trump or withdraw their support for his political leadership or even just criticize him for his actions. The most we’ve seen, Romney aside, is a nod to the fact that these are serious charges. This is a “serious case with serious allegations,” said Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who nonetheless added that this prosecution represented a “double standard” and that “You can’t protect Democrats while targeting and hunting Republicans.”There are several ways to think about most Republicans’ reluctance to break with Trump in the face of his egregious lawbreaking and contempt for constitutional government, but I want to focus on two in particular.The first concerns something that exists wherever there is a relationship between an individual and an institution: the loyalty of the individual to the institution. Political parties in particular are designed to inculcate a sense of loyalty and shared commitment among their members. This is especially true for officeholders, who exist in a web of relationships and obligations that rest on a set of common interests and beliefs.Loyalty makes it less likely that a dissenter just walks away, especially when there isn’t a plausible alternative. Few Trump-critical Republicans, for instance, are willing to become Democrats. What’s more, as the economist A.O. Hirschman observed in his classic text, “Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States,” strong loyalty to an institution like a political party might lead a dissenting or disapproving individual to hold on to his or her membership even more tightly, for fear that exit might open the door to even worse outcomes.“The ultimate in unhappiness and paradoxical loyalist behavior,” Hirschman wrote, “occurs when the public evil produced by the organization promises to accelerate or to reach some intolerable level as the organization deteriorates; then, in line with the reasoning just presented, the decision to exit will become ever more difficult the longer one fails to exit. The conviction that one has to stay on to prevent the worst grows stronger all the time.”Assuming this is all true, how then do we explain the reluctance to criticize or condemn? For that, we can look to the history of the modern Republican Party, stretching back to Richard Nixon. And what do we see? We see a pattern of presidential criminality and contempt for the Constitution, backed in each instance by most Republican officeholders and politicians.For Nixon, it was Watergate. For Ronald Reagan, it was Iran-contra. For George W. Bush, it was the sordid effort to fight a war in Iraq and the disgraceful use of torture against detainees. For Donald Trump, it was practically his entire presidency.Most things in life, and especially a basic respect for democracy and the rule of law, have to be cultivated. What is striking about the Republican Party is the extent to which it has, for decades now, cultivated the opposite — a highly instrumental view of our political system, in which rules and laws are legitimate only insofar as they allow for the acquisition and concentration of power in Republican hands.Most Republicans won’t condemn Trump. There are his millions of ultra-loyal voters, yes. And there are the challenges associated with breaking from the consensus of your political party, yes. But there is also the reality that Trump is the apotheosis of a propensity for lawlessness within the Republican Party. He is what the party and its most prominent figures have been building toward for nearly half a century. I think he knows it and I think they do too.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

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Christie Attacks Trump in CNN Town Hall, Calling Conduct Detailed in Indictment ‘Awful’

      by

      A former federal prosecutor, Chris Christie said he expected the government had much more evidence in its case against the former president.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey laced into Donald J. Trump on prime-time television on Monday night, casting the former president as an “angry” and “vengeful” man who bears responsibility for thrusting the nation into another extraordinarily divisive moment, after Mr. Trump became the first former president in American history to face federal charges.During a roughly 90-minute CNN town hall in New York, a high-energy and often-polished Mr. Christie leaned on his background as a former federal prosecutor, saying he believed the indictment was “a very tight, very detailed, evidence-laden indictment, and the conduct in there is awful.” Mr. Christie, who is running for president against Mr. Trump in a Republican primary field the former president dominates, said he believed prosecutors had more evidence than had been put forward so far.Mr. Trump faces 37 criminal counts related to issues including withholding national defense information and concealing possession of classified documents.“This is vanity run amok,” Mr. Christie told the moderator, Anderson Cooper. “He is now going to put this country through this, when we didn’t have to go through it.”“He’s saying, ‘I’m more important than the country,’” Mr. Christie said at another point, as he questioned why Mr. Trump had, according to prosecutors, refused to turn over critical government documents. He suggested the former president missed the “trappings of the presidency.”“We’re in a situation where there are people in my own party who are blaming D.O.J.,” he said, referring to the Justice Department. “How about, blame him? He did it. He kept — he took documents he wasn’t supposed to take.”When he was not tearing into the current Republican front-runner, Mr. Christie could sound like a pre-Trump-era politician. He emphasized the importance of finding common ground and played up his credentials as a blue-state executive, even when some in the audience were plainly skeptical of the idea of compromise.“With all due respect to these governors from red states who have Republican legislatures — man, I’m telling you, I would have given my own right arm to have a Republican legislature for a week,” Mr. Christie said at one point, seeming to draw an implicit contrast with Gov. Ron DeSantis, the powerful and pugnacious Florida Republican and another 2024 candidate who enjoys a supportive legislature in Tallahassee. “But what I learned was that, sometimes, getting 60 percent of what you want isn’t bad.”In Washington, he continued, “you’re going to want somebody tough, who’s a fighter, but who fights to get to an end, to accomplish something for you. We can all fight to get headlines.”He also noted that even with a Republican-controlled Congress for part of his tenure, Mr. Trump failed to deliver on a central campaign promise of securing the southern border.“Not one piece of legislation to change our immigration laws,” he said, bashing Mr. Trump as a “bad executive.” “It is an abject failure, and now he blames Joe Biden for it. But what the heck did you do to make it better?”For the most part, Mr. Christie, who announced his campaign last week, has tried to reintroduce himself to the nation as the Republican candidate most willing to forcefully confront Mr. Trump.But Mr. Christie, who ran a short-lived campaign for president in 2016, has gained little traction in available polling this year and has a more unfavorable rating among Republican voters than any other candidate, according to a recent Monmouth University poll. And he occupies a relatively lonely lane. Most of the other 2024 hopefuls have shied away from much direct criticism of Mr. Trump.“It was like he was Voldemort from ‘Harry Potter’ — nobody wanted to mention his name,” he said of a recent Republican campaign event, adopting a mocking voice. “Like, say his name, man, say his name.”Mr. Christie was once a key adviser to Mr. Trump, and was a relatively early endorser of his 2016 campaign after his own bid collapsed. But he has since condemned Mr. Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and for his incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.In the town hall, Mr. Christie compared Mr. Trump’s lies about a stolen election to how a child might try to explain away a bad grade, by offering a litany of dubious or false excuses.“It’s a child’s reaction. And I just — I beg you to think about this,” he told the Republican-leaning audience. “Don’t allow the showmanship to obscure the facts. The facts are, he lost to Joe Biden. And he lost to Joe Biden, in my opinion, because he lost independent voters.”Mr. Trump lashed out last week in response to Mr. Christie’s earlier criticism, mocking Mr. Christie’s weight and writing on his Truth Social platform, “Hard to watch, boring, but that’s what you get from a failed Governor (New Jersey) who left office with a 7% approval rating and then got run out of New Hampshire.”Mr. Christie made few waves when questioned on issues unrelated to Mr. Trump, but offered a striking admission when a man whose son was killed in the 2017 Las Vegas massacre asked how he would reduce the enormous number of mass shootings in the United States.His response was effectively: I don’t know.“I’m mad because I don’t have a great answer,” he said, after saying that law enforcement needed to be more attentive to warning signs from potential attackers, but that he did not believe restrictions on guns would make a difference — in part because Americans already own hundreds of millions of them. He also said that reducing gun violence was in “tension” with the Second Amendment.When reminded that early in his political career he supported an assault weapons ban, he called that “naïveté” and said he no longer believed it was appropriate.On abortion rights, Mr. Christie declined to take a firm position on gestational limits — or whether he would sign a national ban, should he become president and one were to reach his desk — arguing that the matter was better left up to the states for now.And on Social Security, he reiterated his support for means-testing the program, as he proposed during his 2016 campaign.Time and again, Mr. Christie reinforced a central argument of his campaign: that he would be more responsible than Mr. Trump, but also more productive.“Look, I think the single biggest thing I can contribute to unifying this country is to get rid of Joe Biden and get rid of Donald Trump,” he said. “They are past their sell-by dates, OK? It’s done. It’s time.” More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Los votantes del sur de Florida reflexionan sobre el caso de Trump

      by

      Los sentimientos encontrados entre algunos residentes sobre el expresidente y el caso en su contra reflejan la complicada política del estado.Como votante registrada en el condado de Palm Beach, Florida, Bette Anne Starkey sabe que existe la posibilidad de que la elijan para formar parte de un jurado en el caso penal federal contra el expresidente Donald Trump. Pero a pesar de que ha votado dos veces por Trump, en realidad no sabe cómo actuaría si fuese miembro del jurado que podría analizar el caso.Haciéndose eco del propio Trump, Starkey, una contadora de 81 años, usó la frase “cacería de brujas” en una entrevista para describir la acusación federal contra el expresidente, la cual lo acusa de sustraer de forma deliberada documentos clasificados de la Casa Blanca. Pero también le cuesta entender por qué Trump no devolvió los documentos cuando se los pidieron, y eso es parte de su indignación latente con el presidente número 45.“Estoy harta de escuchar sobre todas sus artimañas”, dijo.Sus comentarios reflejan los sentimientos complejos que Trump puede suscitar en estos días incluso entre los republicanos que votaron por él. Pero Starkey también es un reflejo de la política complicada y volátil del sur de Florida, el terreno de Trump, y el grupo de jurados que ofrece.El diverso y densamente poblado sur de Florida será el lugar donde se convocará a un jurado para juzgar la inocencia o culpabilidad de Trump si el caso llega a juicio, aunque no se ha determinado ni el lugar exacto del juicio ni el grupo de jurados.Partidarios del expresidente se reunieron el domingo cerca de Mar-a-Lago en Palm Beach, Florida.Saul Martinez para The New York TimesEl caso se presentó en la división judicial de West Palm Beach del Distrito Sur de Florida, lo que significa que el jurado podría ser seleccionado entre los votantes registrados en el condado de Palm Beach, hogar del resort Mar-a-Lago de Trump, donde ha vivido desde que dejó la Casa Blanca. En 2020, Trump perdió en el condado de Palm Beach ante el presidente Biden por casi 13 puntos porcentuales.Pero un grupo de jurados compuesto por votantes del condado de Miami-Dade, al sur de Palm Beach, también es una posibilidad, en particular si se determina que el juzgado federal en Miami, donde se espera que Trump haga una comparecencia inicial el martes, está mejor equipado para organizar el que probablemente será uno de los juicios penales más importantes en la historia de Estados Unidos.Trump perdió en Miami-Dade por solo siete puntos en las últimas elecciones y obtuvo un fuerte apoyo de los votantes hispanos en particular; más de dos tercios de los residentes del condado se identifican como hispanos, según datos del censo.Sin embargo, ambos condados se han vuelto más republicanos en los últimos años, y los candidatos de ese partido han tenido un éxito notable en las contiendas estatales. Trump ganó en Florida tanto en 2016 como en 2020, y el estado eligió dos veces al gobernador Ron DeSantis, quien es el principal rival de Trump para la candidatura presidencial republicana.Todo esto debería ofrecer cierto consuelo a los miembros del equipo de defensa de Trump, quienes saben que solo se necesita un voto para que el resultado sea un jurado dividido. Además, muchos habitantes del sur de Florida, al igual que estadounidenses en otras partes del país, creen que Trump es víctima de un trato injusto por parte de fuerzas poderosas en la izquierda política.George Cadman, un agente de bienes raíces de 54 años y padre de dos hijos, dijo que no ha seguido de cerca las noticias en los últimos meses. Afirmó que no había oído nada sobre los cargos federales contra Trump, lo que lo convierte, en cierto sentido, en un buen candidato para servir como jurado.El caso se presentó en la división de West Palm Beach del Distrito Sur de Florida, lo que significa que el jurado podría ser seleccionado entre los votantes registrados en el condado de Palm Beach, donde está el resort Mar-a-Lago de Trump. Saul Martinez para The New York TimesPero Cadman, que vive en el condado de Miami-Dade, en el sur, también dijo que apoya a Trump “100 por ciento” y que cree que las investigaciones previas sobre el expresidente tuvieron motivaciones políticas. Tras agregar que cree que la interferencia electoral de Rusia en 2016 y el escándalo sobre Trump y Ucrania fueron engaños, dijo que “sería muy cauteloso al tomar una decisión sobre lo que pienso al respecto”, refiriéndose al nuevo caso contra Trump.(En una llamada telefónica posterior, Cadman dijo que por mucho que le gustaba Trump, planeaba votar por el presidente Biden en 2024, porque el aumento del valor de las propiedades había beneficiado su trabajo como agente de bienes raíces).Muchos de los cubanoestadounidenses del sur de Florida aprendieron por las malas, durante y después de la Revolución Cubana, sobre el impacto de la política incluso en las vidas apolíticas. Y para algunos de los conservadores entre ellos, como Modesto Estrada, un empresario jubilado que llegó a Miami hace 18 años, vale la pena apoyar a Trump como un poderoso freno para los demócratas y las políticas liberales que, según Estrada, están “arruinando el país” pues disuaden a la gente de trabajar.Estrada, de 71 años, señaló que también se había descubierto que Biden y el ex vicepresidente Mike Pence tenían documentos gubernamentales confidenciales en su poder. (Sin embargo, Biden hasta ahora, a todas luces, ya devolvió los documentos a las autoridades tras descubrirlos, al igual que Pence). Al igual que muchas personas entrevistadas, Estrada confesó que le resultaría difícil ser un jurado imparcial en el caso.“Desde mi perspectiva personal, hasta el momento, no tienen nada contra él”, dijo sobre Trump. “Y no le va a pasar nada. No va a ir a la cárcel. El caso se va a desmoronar y eso es lo que espero que suceda”.Así como Estrada afirmó que su experiencia con una dictadura de izquierda había influido en su esperanza de que Trump sea declarado inocente, Viviana Domínguez, de 63 años, se refirió a su propia experiencia en su Argentina natal, la cual estuvo gobernada por una dictadura militar de derecha de 1976 a 1983, cuando expresó su aversión a Trump.Modesto Estrada apoya a Trump. “El caso se va a desmoronar y eso es lo que espero que suceda”, afirmó, sobre los cargos.Saul Martinez para The New York TimesDomínguez, una restauradora de arte que ha vivido en Miami durante 13 años, calificó a Trump como una “vergüenza” y agregó: “Creo que irá a la cárcel, pero no sé si eso sea una ilusión”.Domínguez describió el caso de los documentos y la todavía considerable base de apoyo de Trump, en términos de una inquietante flexibilización de los estándares cívicos. “Vimos todo eso en mi propio país, cuando las mentiras se hicieron cada vez más grandes”, afirmó. “El margen de tolerancia se hizo cada vez más amplio, de modo que nunca veías el límite. Hablaban de moralidad y de la familia, pero eran las personas más corruptas y obscenas del mundo. Es como un estado de locura”.Roderick Clelland, un veterano de la guerra de Vietnam de 78 años, de West Palm Beach, la ciudad más poblada del condado de Palm Beach, dijo que le preocupaban las implicaciones internacionales de lo que sentía que había sido una actitud laxa de Trump hacia los secretos nacionales.“El mundo entero nos está mirando”, afirmó Clelland. “Y algunos de esos documentos sobre otros países… ¿van a confiar en nosotros? La gente ha sido encarcelada por menos que eso. Así que no puedes simplemente violar la ley y salirte con la tuya. Por eso espero que haya un castigo”.Clelland tuvo cuidado de señalar que no odiaba a Trump. “Pero no me gusta su comportamiento y su actitud”, dijo.A pesar de haber votado dos veces por Trump, Starkey, quien es secretaria del Club Republicano de Palm Beaches, dijo que nunca ha sido una gran admiradora. Pero tanto en 2016 como en 2020, no pudo decidirse a apoyar al candidato más liberal. Por estos días está pensando en votar por Nikki Haley, exembajadora de las Naciones Unidas y exgobernadora republicana de Carolina del Sur. Aclaró que solo hablaba a título personal y no en nombre de su club.Sin embargo, Starkey dijo que la acusación formal contra Trump parecía una estrategia partidista en un momento en que la política estadounidense carece de gran parte de la cortesía entre los dos partidos que recuerda con cariño del pasado. Afirmó que esa era una de las razones por las que tendría dificultades si la eligieran para ser un eventual jurado en el caso. “¿Estás segura de que tienes todos los hechos a favor y en contra?”, se preguntó.Starkey dijo que estaba harta del drama que rodeaba la acusación y que sabía que muchas otras personas pensaban igual que ella.“Solo quiero que todo esto desaparezca”, dijo.Richard Fausset es un corresponsal radicado en Atlanta. Escribe sobre política, cultura, raza, pobreza y el sistema penal del sur de Estados Unidos. Antes trabajó para Los Angeles Times, donde fue corresponsal en Ciudad de México. @RichardFausset More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Hillary Clinton’s Emails: A Nation Struggles to Unsubscribe

      by

      As Donald Trump made history by becoming the first former president to face federal charges, many Republicans tried to change the subject by renewing an eight-year-old controversy.It is the topic the nation just can’t delete from its political conversation: Hillary Clinton’s emails.In the days since Donald J. Trump became the first former U.S. president to face federal charges, Republicans across the ideological spectrum — including not only Mr. Trump and his allies, but also his critics and those who see prosecutors’ evidence as damaging — have insistently brought up the eight-year-old controversy.They have peppered speeches, social media posts and television appearances with fiery condemnations of the fact that Mrs. Clinton, a figure who continues to evoke visceral reactions among the Republican base, was never charged.The two episodes are vastly different legal matters, and Mrs. Clinton was never found to have systematically or deliberately mishandled classified information. Still, Republicans have returned to the well with striking speed, mindful that little more than the word “emails” can muddy the waters, broadcast their loyalties and rile up their base.“Lock her up,” chanted a woman at last weekend’s Georgia Republican Party state convention, where Mr. Trump sought to revive the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s email use. “Hillary wasn’t indicted,” he said in a speech at the event. “She should have been. But she wasn’t indicted.”Campaigning in North Carolina, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida bashed Mrs. Clinton’s email practices while being far more circumspect in alluding to Mr. Trump, his top rival for the Republican nomination.Even former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who has made criticizing Mr. Trump a central theme of his presidential campaign, said on CNN recently that the Justice Department “is at fault for not charging Hillary Clinton,” while casting the facts laid out against Mr. Trump as “damning.”“The perception is that she was treated differently,” Asa Hutchinson, a former Arkansas governor, a 2024 presidential candidate and Trump critic, said in an interview on Monday. “Perception can become a reality very quickly.”Mr. Hutchinson, once a chief Clinton antagonist from former President Bill Clinton’s home state — he helped guide impeachment proceedings against Mr. Clinton — said he saw distinctions between Mrs. Clinton’s email episode and the charges Trump faced. But, he added, “If the voters say it’s relevant, it becomes relevant politically.”Taken together, the moment offers a vivid reminder of the ways the ghosts of the 2016 campaign continue to shape and scar American politics.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, campaigning in North Carolina, criticized Mrs. Clinton’s email practices.Kate Medley for The New York Times“There are few politicians on the Democratic side of the aisle that raise the ire of Republicans more than Hillary Clinton,” said Neil Newhouse, a veteran Republican pollster.Mrs. Clinton and her supporters, of course, have not forgotten the email saga. After Mr. Trump’s indictment, the episode to many of them serves as a symbol of a political system and a mainstream news media often focused on the superficial at the expense of the substantive.Clinton backers now make light of what they view as comparatively flimsy and unproven accusations she faced about her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. And some relish the fact that the man who crowed about “Crooked Hillary” finds himself facing a range of serious charges and the prospect of prison if he is convicted.Speaking on Monday with the hosts of the “Pod Save America” podcast at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York, Mrs. Clinton laughed when a host noted the tendency of some Republicans to make parallels to her emails.“When in doubt, right?” she said. “I do think it’s odd, let’s just say, to the point of being absurd, how that is their only response. You know, they refuse to read the indictment, they refuse to engage with the facts.”On Friday, Mrs. Clinton posted an edited photo of herself on Instagram wearing a black baseball hat that reads, in pink letters, “BUT HER EMAILS.” That three-word phrase has become something of a shorthand among Democrats for frustration at the grief she received for how she handled classified correspondence compared with the blowback Mr. Trump confronted for all the legal and ethical norms he busted while in office.She included a link to buy the hat for $32 on the website of her political group. (Asked about that decision, Nick Merrill, who served as a longtime spokesman for Mrs. Clinton and remains an adviser, replied, “We’re seven years past what was widely viewed as, at worst, a stupid mistake. And reminding people that a piece of merchandise exists in order to raise money to preserve our democracy is something I’m very comfortable with.”)Substantively, there are many clear differences between the episodes.A yearslong inquiry by the State Department into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server found that while it increased the risk of compromising classified information, “there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”The indictment against Mr. Trump, by contrast, accuses him of not only mishandling sensitive national security documents found at his Mar-a-Lago club, but also willfully obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them. He has been charged with 37 criminal counts related to issues including withholding national defense information and concealing possession of classified documents.Robert K. Kelner, a Republican lawyer and Trump critic who is a partner in the white-collar defense and investigations practice group at Covington & Burling, said Mr. Trump most likely would not have been indicted had he cooperated with the government’s requests to return classified documents he took from the White House.“There were lots of things to criticize about the way the Hillary Clinton investigation was handled — none of which, however, in any way to my mind, suggests that the case against Donald Trump is unfounded,” Mr. Kelner said.Jack Smith, the special counsel who indicted Mr. Trump, seemed to anticipate efforts to bring up Mrs. Clinton’s emails. The indictment cited five statements Mr. Trump made during his 2016 campaign about the importance of protecting classified information.“Hillary wasn’t indicted,” Donald J. Trump said in a speech in Georgia. “She should have been. But she wasn’t indicted.”Jon Cherry for The New York TimesFor veterans of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, the Republican attempt to resurface their old boss’s email server to defend Mr. Trump’s storage of boxes of classified documents in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom and other places would be comical had their 2016 defeat not been so painful.“The best evidence that Trump’s actions are completely indefensible is the Republican Party’s non-attempt to defend it and instead rehash seven-year-old debunked attacks on somebody who is no longer even in politics,” said Josh Schwerin, a former Clinton campaign spokesman who for years after the 2016 election had a recording of Mr. Trump saying his name as his voice mail greeting.Mr. Merrill said that if there was a single word for “particularly acute hypocrisy,” it would apply to Republicans now.For Republicans, “whether you believe she was cavalier, or you believe that she should be tried for treason for the risky position she put Americans in by sending correspondence about yoga or whatever,” he said, “Donald Trump has done the most severe possible thing. It’s not a close call with him.”Trump acolytes are now delighting at the prospect of reviving one of their favorite boogeywomen.“Republicans believe there’s been an unequal application of justice,” said former Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who as chairman of the House Oversight Committee investigated myriad Clinton episodes leading up to the 2016 election. He added, “What is it that Donald Trump did that was worse than Hillary Clinton? Nothing, nothing, nothing.”Timothy Parlatore, a criminal defense lawyer who quit the Trump legal team last month, said he did not believe that Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump or President Biden — who has cooperated with a special counsel’s investigation into his own handling of classified documents after his tenure as vice president — should have been charged for their handling of classified information.Mr. Trump’s Justice Department had four years to prosecute Mrs. Clinton and did not. Mr. Parlatore said that Mr. Trump no longer saw her as a threat — and instead called for an investigation into Mr. Biden and his son.“Here is a big difference,” Mr. Parlatore said. “The Trump administration wasn’t looking at Hillary as being a presidential candidate. The Biden administration is looking at Trump in a different way.”In Boston, Rebecca Kaiser, a political consultant, has worn her “BUT HER EMAILS” hat regularly since she received it as a gift.Sophie Park for The New York TimesFor now, the most devoted Clinton supporters are following her lead and wearing “BUT HER EMAILS” hats as a badge of honor. They appeared in recent days at dog parks, soccer tournaments and Pride events as a sort of celebration of Mr. Trump’s comeuppance.In Boston, Rebecca Kaiser, a political consultant, has worn her “BUT HER EMAILS” hat regularly since she received it as a gift the day before Mr. Trump was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan in April.Since then, at Little League and soccer games, the supermarket, the beach and during dates with her wife, Ms. Kaiser has sported the black hat with pink letters, which she said served as a conversation starter about an election that many other Democrats would rather forget.“There are definitely people who notice the hat and very quickly avert their eyes,” Ms. Kaiser said. “There are other people who look at the hat and just roll their eyes. And honestly, I think there are a good amount of people who have no idea what it’s referencing.”Anjali Huynh More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Trump Case and the Bathroom Files

      by

      More from our inbox:Affirmative Action in College Admissions: Race or Class?The Slow Runner via Department of JusticeTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Justice System Put on Trial as Trump Denounces the Rule of Law” (news analysis, front page, June 11):Contrary to this analysis of the documents case against former President Donald Trump, what is being tested is not the credibility of the justice system. Mr. Trump’s completely predictable efforts to undermine confidence in the legal process are pure bluster.What is actually at stake is the credibility of the political system. At any other time in United States history, a candidate for president charged with serious federal crimes that led to profound questions about his judgment and commitment to protecting the nation’s secrets would be decisively rejected by the voters.Instead, early indications are that Mr. Trump’s base remains staunchly loyal to him. American democracy is imperiled if a significant segment of the voting public cannot see through dangerous, self-serving posturing.In Abraham Lincoln’s first great speech, the Lyceum Address in 1838, he predicted that an aspiring tyrant would someday seek power, and he warned, “It will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.”Nearly 190 years later, Lincoln’s wisdom is truer than ever.Steven S. BerizziNorwalk, Conn.To the Editor:Re “Trump Put U.S. at Risk, Indictment Says” (front page, June 10):As the mother of a U.S. Marine reservist, I am sickened beyond belief to read that U.S. government top-secret information was stored in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago.Our son and tens of thousands of other servicemen and women put their lives on the line in service and sacrifice to this country. To think that a man who was elected president could be so malevolent as to break the law for his own selfish reasons is incomprehensible.Kathryn KleekampSandwich, Mass.To the Editor:It is at once not surprising and mind-boggling to read the indictment of Donald Trump for his mishandling of classified documents (“The Trump Classified Document Indictment, Annotated,” June 10).It is not surprising because his alleged misconduct is consistent with his arrogant quip years ago that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters. And it is mind-boggling because so many Republicans — no doubt celebrating in private — continue to publicly support Mr. Trump in order to not alienate his base.There are certain moments that are, or should be, above politics. This is one of them. This is a time for somber reflection and a commitment to, and respect for, the rule of law.Larry S. SandbergNew YorkTo the Editor:Re “The Greater Trump’s Opposition, the Greater His Support as a Martyr,” by Damon Linker (Opinion guest essay, June 10):I consider myself a liberal, but I am not feeling “giddy,” as Mr. Linker puts it, over the former president’s indictment. I am not gloating or smacking my lips but feeling sad, because the Republican Party has let it come to this low point.I’m sad because Republicans have let themselves be guided by political polls rather than common sense and a regard for ethics and patriotism. They have followed Donald Trump down this dismal road, which has sullied the office of the presidency, and there seems to be no end in sight.Chase WebbPortland, Ore.To the Editor:Re “Trump Appointee Was Randomly Assigned to Case, Clerk Says” (news article, June 11):The supposedly random assignment of Judge Aileen Cannon to the Trump criminal case will be another test of the frequent pronouncements by members of the federal judiciary, including several Supreme Court justices, that politics never crosses the courtroom threshold.Will Judge Cannon have learned nothing from the surprisingly strident appeals court slap-down of her troubling and seemingly politically based previous rulings, or will she proceed as the fair and impartial judge she swore to be?It is not only the public’s perception of the judiciary but also the future direction of the country that may hang in the balance.Stephen F. GladstoneShaker Heights, OhioThe writer is a lawyer.Affirmative Action in College Admissions: Race or Class? Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “I’m in High School. I Hope Affirmative Action Is Rejected and Replaced With Something Stronger,” by Sophia Lam (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, June 5):The facts are clear: The vast majority of Asian Americans support affirmative action. Amplifying the voices of the Asian American minority that oppose affirmative action without this essential context privileges their position at the expense of the 69 percent of Asian Americans who believe that affirmative action offers communities of color better access to higher education.Regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling, we will continue to stand in solidarity with communities of color and fight for policies that increase equal access to educational opportunities for all, particularly the underrepresented children of our multiracial society.Michelle BoykinsNiyati ShahWashingtonMs. Boykins is the senior director of strategic communications at Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC. Ms. Shah is its director of litigation.To the Editor:Sophia Lam is entirely right. What is most puzzling about college admissions is that no colleges, including the most prestigious, are focused on diversity in such a socioeconomic-based way. “Underprivileged” includes many immigrants, people of color and all Americans from working-class backgrounds.If a socioeconomic standard were applied, clearly African Americans and other students of color would benefit, but it would not be solely for their skin color.Soft or hard quotas make Americans (and the Supreme Court for more than 40 years) uncomfortable. Why doesn’t Harvard, Princeton or Yale take this common-sense step?Howard FishmanHaddon Township, N.J.The Slow Runner Desiree Rios for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “For This Runner, There Is No Shame in Bringing Up the Rear” (front page, June 3):I enjoyed reading about Martinus Evans, the founder of Slow AF Run Club. I am now 71 and have been running since 1980 and used to be near the front in races. But now I’ve slowed to be near the back of the pack.I too have been taunted by people in the crowds during the New York City Marathon about going too slow. His encouragement to all runners is excellent.I too tell every slow runner in my club (New Hyde Park/Mineola Runners) to just get out there. I will stay with any runner, even if they have to walk. I’ve competed in marathons, half-marathons and triathlons and believe that no runner is too slow.Some people in clubs have become elitist and don’t want to be bothered with slower runners. Shame on them. Once they were very slow too. How soon they forget.This article is very important to show that there is support for all types and shapes of runners. Running is life-changing and lifesaving.Jeffrey SalgoQueens More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      n South Florida, Voters Ponder Trump

      by

      The complicated feelings among some residents about Mr. Trump and the case against him reflect the complicated politics of the state. As a registered voter in Palm Beach County, Fla., Bette Anne Starkey knows there is a possibility she could be chosen to serve on a jury in the federal criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump. But even though she is a two-time Trump voter, she cannot really say how she would lean as a juror weighing the case.Echoing Mr. Trump himself, Ms. Starkey, an 81-year-old bookkeeper, used the phrase “witch hunt” in an interview to describe the federal indictment against the former president, which accuses him of knowingly removing classified documents from the White House. But she also struggles to understand why Mr. Trump did not simply return the documents when asked for them, part of her simmering irritation with the 45th president.“I’m sick of hearing about all of his shenanigans,” she said.Her comments reflect the complicated feelings that Mr. Trump can elicit these days even among Republicans who voted for him. But Ms. Starkey is also a reflection of the equally complicated, volatile politics of South Florida, Mr. Trump’s home turf, and the jury pool it offers.It is in diverse, densely populated South Florida that a jury of Mr. Trump’s peers will be called upon to judge his innocence or guilt if the case ever goes to trial, although the exact trial location and jury pool have not been determined.Supporters of the former president gathered near Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., on Sunday.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesThe case was filed in the West Palm Beach court division of the Southern District of Florida, meaning the jury may be selected from registered voters in Palm Beach County, home to Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where he has lived since leaving the White House. Mr. Trump lost Palm Beach County to President Biden by nearly 13 percentage points in 2020.But a jury pool made up of Miami-Dade County voters, to the south of Palm Beach, is also a possibility, particularly if it is determined that the federal courthouse in Miami, where Mr. Trump is expected to make an initial appearance on Tuesday, is best equipped to accommodate what will likely be one of the highest-profile criminal trials in American history.Mr. Trump lost Miami-Dade by only about seven points in the last election, getting strong support from Hispanic voters in particular; more than two-thirds of the county’s residents identify as Hispanic, according to census data.Both counties, however, have grown more Republican in recent years, and Republican candidates have had significant success in statewide races. Mr. Trump won Florida in both 2016 and 2020, and the state has twice elected Gov. Ron DeSantis, currently Mr. Trump’s main rival for the Republican presidential nomination.All of this should offer some comfort to members of Mr. Trump’s defense team, who know it takes only one vote to result in a hung jury. And many South Floridians, like Americans elsewhere in the country, believe that Mr. Trump is a victim of unfair treatment by powerful forces on the political left.George Cadman, 54, is a real estate agent and father of two who said he has not been following the news closely over the last few months. He said he had not heard about the federal charges against Mr. Trump — making him, in some sense, a good candidate for jury service.The case was filed in the West Palm Beach division of the Southern District of Florida, meaning the jury may be selected from registered voters in Palm Beach County, home to Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesBut Mr. Cadman, who lives in southern Miami-Dade County, also said he supports Trump “100 percent” and that he believes previous investigations of Mr. Trump were politically motivated. Adding that he believes Russia’s 2016 election interference and the scandal about Mr. Trump and Ukraine were hoaxes, he said, “I would be very leery on making a decision on what I think about it,” he said, referring to the new case against Mr. Trump.(In a subsequent phone call, Mr. Cadman said that as much as he loved Mr. Trump, he planned to vote for President Biden in 2024, because rising property values had been good for his job as a real estate agent.)Many of South Florida’s Cuban Americans learned the hard way, during and after the Cuban Revolution, about the impact of politics on even apolitical lives. And for some of the conservatives among them, like Modesto Estrada, a retired businessman who arrived in Miami 18 years ago, Mr. Trump is worth supporting as a powerful brake on Democrats and liberal policies that Mr. Estrada said were “ruining the country” by discouraging people from working.Mr. Estrada, 71, noted that Mr. Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence had also been found to have sensitive government documents in their possession. Like many people interviewed, he said he would have a hard time being an impartial juror in the case.“From my personal perspective, up till now, they don’t have anything on him,” he said of Mr. Trump. “And nothing’s going to happen to him. He’s not going to jail. The case is going to fall apart and that’s what I’m hoping.”Just as Mr. Estrada said his experience with a left-wing dictatorship has colored his hope that Mr. Trump is found not guilty, Viviana Dominguez, 63, referred to her own experience in her native Argentina, which was ruled by a right-wing military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983, as she expressed her dislike of Mr. Trump.Modesto Estrada supports Mr. Trump. “The case is going to fall apart and that’s what I’m hoping,” he said about the charges.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesMs. Dominguez, an art conservator who has lived in Miami for 13 years, called Mr. Trump an “embarrassment,” adding, “I think he’s going to go to jail, but I don’t know if that’s wishful thinking.”She described the documents case, and Mr. Trump’s still-considerable base of support, in terms of an unsettling loosening of civic standards. “We saw all that in my own country, when the lies kept getting bigger and bigger,” she said. “The margin of tolerance kept getting wider and wider, so that you never saw the limit. They would talk of morality and of the family, but they would be the most corrupt, the most obscene people anywhere. It’s like a state of madness.”Roderick Clelland, a 78-year-old Vietnam veteran from West Palm Beach, the most populous city in Palm Beach County, said he was worried about the international implications of what he saw as Mr. Trump’s lax attitude toward sensitive national secrets.“The whole world is watching us.” Mr. Clelland said. “And some of those documents about other countries — are they going to trust us? People have been locked up for less than that. So you can’t just violate the law and get away with it. So I hope there is a penalty.”Mr. Clelland was careful to note that he did not hate Mr. Trump. “But I don’t like his behavior and his attitude,” he said.Despite voting for Mr. Trump twice, Ms. Starkey, the bookkeeper, said she has never been a big fan. But in both 2016 and 2020, she could not bring herself to support the more liberal candidate. These days, she is thinking about voting for Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador and Republican governor of South Carolina.Still, Ms. Starkey said the indictment of Mr. Trump seemed like a partisan move at a time when American politics is lacking much of the comity between the two parties that she remembers fondly from the past. It was one reason, she said, that she would have a hard time if she were picked for an eventual jury in the case: “Do you trust that you’re getting all the facts for and against?” she wondered.She said she was exasperated with the drama surrounding the indictment — and knew there were many others like her.“I just want it to go away,” she said.@Verónica Soledad Zaragovia contributed reporting from Palm Beach County, Fla. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Where Presidential Hopes Go to Die

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, before we get to Donald Trump’s big mess — how many times have I said that? Well, before we get to you-know-who, one minute on the smoke that filled the city last week. Were you in town?Bret Stephens: I was. For a few hours there, the Manhattan sky looked like something out of “Apocalypse Now” or “Blade Runner.”Gail: When I was outdoors, with a mask on, I was tempted to stop some of the young people walking past and apologize for having screwed up their future with global warming. Joe Biden’s trying hard to deal with this, but his plans aren’t nearly enough given the scope of the problem.We need, among many, many things, to end tax breaks for fossil fuel production. Is it fair to complain that Republican resistance to the very idea of climate change is a huge culprit here?Bret: You’re asking whether it’s fair to complain that Republicans are causing forest fires in Canada, a country that’s been governed by Justin Trudeau and his left-of-center coalition for the past eight years?Gail: We can certainly bemoan Canada’s ineptitude in timber management, but this is hardly the only place where we’ve seen a mess of forest fires in the last few years.Admit it. Climate change is a stupendous global crisis and everybody has to join together to fight it.Bret: I was being just a tad flip, Gail: You know I had a Damascene — or Greenlandic — conversion last year.That said, we can’t wait for China and India to wean themselves off coal to find an effective solution to the remediable problem of forest fires. The answer is good forest management, particularly by doing more to remove dead trees and use controlled burns — something, as The Times reported last week, Canada doesn’t do nearly enough of. This is why Western states run by Democrats are now looking at states like Florida, Georgia and other areas in the Southeast for tips on how to avoid giant fires.But speaking of forest fires, shall we get to that latest Trump indictment?Gail: We’re obviously in history-making territory — first former president indicted in a criminal case brought by the federal government. And this one, which involves trying to stash away official papers he’d been told were government property, is certainly a classic Trump combination of shocking and stupid.Bret: Or sinister and self-serving. I’m still not sure.Gail: Wow, the pictures of those boxes of classified documents piled up around the toilet …Bret: Really puts a new spin on the term “anal retentive.”Gail: I did sorta hope we’d start the cosmic Trump prosecutions with one of the other big charges — trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election by pressing the Georgia secretary of state to “find” more votes and encouraging the Jan. 6 insurrection do seem more … important.You?Bret: Three thoughts, Gail. The first is that Jack Smith, the special counsel, has produced irrefutable proof that Trump knew that he possessed, as the former president himself put it, “secret information” that he could have declassified when he was in office but didn’t. That may be about as close to a slam dunk, legally speaking, as we’re ever going to get in a case like this.Gail: True, but I want shockingly terrible besides terribly illegal. Go on.Bret: The second thought is that a special counsel appointed by President Biden’s attorney general is bringing a criminal case against the president’s presumptive opponent in next year’s election. To many Republicans, this will smack of a bald attempt to politicize justice and criminalize politics — the very thing Trump was accused of doing in his first impeachment. Trump will surely use this to his political advantage and, as the writer Damon Linker noted in a perceptive guest essay last week, will probably see his primary poll numbers jump yet again.Gail: Yeah, at least temporarily.Bret: The third thought comes from a tweet by the conservative writer Erick Erickson: “Take the crime out of it — do you really want to put a man back in the White House who shows off highly classified military documents to randos?”Gail: Reasonable conclusion. Yet most of Trump’s would-be Republican opponents are dodging this whole, deeply startling, issue. Or pretending it’s a Democratic plot.Bret: Pathetic. As usual.Gail: Your fave Nikki Haley attacked the Justice Department for “prosecutorial overreach, double standards and vendetta politics.” And no candidate apart from Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas, was willing to really say gee, this is the kind of thing we want to avoid in our nominee.Explain, please …Bret: You get the sense that most of these Republican Lilliputians are running to be Trump’s veep pick or his pet rock. Or they’re trying to ingratiate themselves with Trump’s base and to present themselves as a slightly more responsible version of the 45th president, which is like trying to sell a fentanyl addict on the merits of pot gummies.The only Republicans in the race who seem to have gotten it right are Christie and Hutchinson. They understand that the way to beat Trump is to go after him hammer-and-tongs.Gail: Where does that leave you? Holding out hope for Chris Christie? I must confess it’s hard to imagine Hutchinson as any kind of contender.Bret: I respect his willingness to stand up clearly and strongly against Trump’s big lie about the 2020 election.Gail: Sounds good — and the last time I looked, Hutchinson was doing at least as well as, um, Ted Cruz.Does the need for big money worry you? It’s impressive to be a super-successful business person, but I’m not sure it’s as important as, say, running a state the way so many of the Republican candidates have.Bret: I was extremely enthusiastic about the prospect of a Mike Bloomberg presidency. Generally speaking, I prefer politicians who make their money before going into politics, the way Bloomberg did, as opposed to politicians who trade on their celebrity to make money after being in politics, the way the Clintons did.But back to Christie: Don’t be surprised if his campaign catches fire. People will be more than willing to forgive Bridgegate or his lackluster second term as governor if he can make things interesting in the G.O.P. contest. Which, merely by opening his mouth, he definitely can.Gail: Bret, I have to admit I will be surprised. But I would love, love to see Christie qualify for the Republican debate in August. Think there’s a chance?Bret: All Christie needs is 1 percent support in three polls, 40,000 campaign contributors and a pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, along with some other stipulations. I think he’ll manage that. The bigger question is whether Trump will agree to the final requirement — something he refused to do in 2016.Gail: You know, I was wondering that about Christie too, since he’s said he wouldn’t support Trump as the nominee. My cynical view is that anybody will get into the debate who wants to, which means that Christie — if he can meet the other requirements — will be there even if he has to fudge a bit. And that Trump will dodge the whole event no matter what the rules are.Bret: To do another town hall on the Collapsing News Network?Gail: Which would leave me with the hope of spending the dog days of summer watching Christie take on Ron DeSantis ….Bret: Something tells me he’ll be more circumspect about going hard against the Florida governor, just in case DeSantis becomes president and he wants the job of attorney general.Gail: Eww.Bret: Can we get back to CNN for a moment? Big news last week with the departure of its ill-starred president, Chris Licht. Any advice for whoever succeeds him?Gail: Well, there’s the rule that you shouldn’t go into a big interview with the assumption that you’re so charming that any writer who’s hanging out with you will just want to be pals.Bret: Much less give that reporter a sense of your workout routine. Gives a whole new meaning to the truism, “Never let them see you sweat.”Gail: But on a more cosmic level, Bret, I worry and wonder all the time about the future of the media in a wireless world. Very hard to make money doing critical chores like covering state and local government. Or even just pursuing hard news.Crossing fingers that the next CNN head will find a way to attract a big audience in search of serious reporting.You?Bret: I’m rooting for the network to return to its hard-news roots. Licht had the right idea, he just went about it badly. Instead of losing a lot of weight and getting rid of people, he should have taken another piece of timeless advice: “Leave the gun, take the cannolis” — as in, eat more, fire less.Gail: Wow, think that’ll work for the presidential candidates wandering around Iowa summer fairs?Bret: Everyone in Iowa ought to know “The Godfather” by heart. It’s the state where most presidential hopes go to die.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