Crime and Criminals

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Republicans Own These Issues, and They Can Hurt Democrats’

      by

      To advance his relentless political ambition, Donald Trump has ridden a promise, a commitment and a pledge.A promise to end the illegal flow of migrants, drugs, cash and guns “across our border.”A commitment to stop other countries seeking “to suck more blood out of the United States.”A pledge to impose law-and-order solutions on cities “where there is a true breakdown in the rule of law,” describing a majority-Black city like Baltimore as “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” and warning gangs of shoplifters just last week that if he is elected again, “We will immediately stop all of the pillaging and theft. If you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store.”How relevant are those themes going to be heading into the 2024 election? Will they work to attract enough voters for him to win? Do they address the sources of voter anxiety?Here are some sources of voter angst that have Trump relishing his rematch with President Biden. Crime — urban and rural — has become more unsettling and threatening. Carjacking, for example, is on the rise of (growing in Washington, D.C., from 152 in 2019 to 485 in 2022). Murder in major cities is up 33.7 percent from 2019 to 2022; gun assaults are up 43.2 percent. Shoplifting in Trump’s telling creates an image of urban lawlessness reinforced by liberal prosecutors’ adoption of policies like no cash bail and the non-prosecution of misdemeanors. The southern border has become increasingly porous, with the number of migrants crossing into the United States in August breaking all records as the U.S. Border Patrol arrested over 91,000 migrants. Southern Republicans, in turn, have shipped migrants by bus to New York, Washington, Chicago and other municipalities.The incumbent president, Joe Biden — fairly or unfairly — does not convey the image of a leader in control of events.The damage inflicted on students in public schools by the Covid lockdown, by school shootings and by conflicts over race, gender and sexual identity — particularly over what can and cannot be discussed or taught — is broadly undermining confidence in American education.And then there is the problem of inflation, which for many Americans is eating away at their sense of security and their standard of living.The reality is that Trump has plenty to capitalize on, but the question remains: With his venomous and often incoherent rants, with 91 felony charges against him, with his White House record of chaos and mismanagement, has Trump worn out his welcome with all but his hard-core MAGA loyalists?I posed these questions to a cross-section of scholars and political operatives. Their responses suggest that Trump might well be a competitive nominee in 2024, with the potential to win a second term in the White House.Sean Westwood, a political scientist at Dartmouth, captured in an email the conflicting forces at work as the next election approaches: “Americans see the collapse of safety in Portland, Seattle and San Francisco and blame the entire Democratic Party for the policies of a fringe extreme.”Westwood cited data in a Pew Research study showing that “a majority of Republicans and Independents and a near majority of Democrats (49 percent) reported that violent crime was important to their 2022 vote (including 81 percent of Blacks).”While “Trump is successfully branding Democrats as weak on crime and immigration,” Westwood continued, it remains uncertain whether he can persuade voters that he is the better choice: “It is hard for Trump to convince Americans that he is the tough-on-crime candidate while simultaneously demanding the destruction of the Department of Justice and railing against the integrity of the judicial system.”In the case of immigration, Westwood argued, “Democrats don’t seem to have a coherent policy they can sell to Americans.”“As with crime and immigration, the state of the economy should be wind behind a Republican’s sails,” he added.Trump, however, in Westwood’s view, remains an albatross strangling Republican ambitions:By sticking with Trump the party is potentially sacrificing huge advantages to support an elderly man who could spend the rest of his life in prison. This is a Republican election to lose, but Trump might just help the Democrats survive their own policy failures.In an April Brookings essay, “The Geography of Crime in Four U.S. Cities: Perceptions and Reality,” Hanna Love and Tracy Hadden Loh argue:While stoking fears of crime is an age-old election tactic, something feels different about its salience in the pandemic-era landscape. Faced with slow-recovering urban cores and predictions of an “urban doom loop,” many pundits and urban observers are returning to a playbook not fully deployed since the 1990s — pointing to public safety as the primary cause of a host of complex and interconnected issues, from office closures to public transit budget shortfalls to the broader decline of cities.Love and Loh interviewed nearly 100 business leaders, public officials and residents of New York, Seattle, Philadelphia and Chicago. Their primary finding:Respondents overwhelmingly pointed to crime — not the desire for flexible work arrangements — as the top barrier to preventing workers’ return to office. Across all four cities, the vast majority of resident, major employers, property owners, small business owners and other stakeholders reporting rising rates of violent crime and property crime downtown and indicators of “disorder” (such as public drug use) as the top barriers to stopping workers from coming back to the office — and thus impeding downtown recovery.Christopher Wildeman, a sociologist at Duke, wrote by email that both immigration and crime pose difficult political choices for Democrats, especially those with progressive ideals: “First for the migrant question, any large uptick in marginalized populations that is visible to native populations have the potential both to create unease among those populations and to be blamed for any increases in the risk of victimization that folks feel.”How much does this hurt the Democrats?“I would say a whole heck of a lot potentially unless they are willing to adopt the sort of stance to crime and punishment that President Bill Clinton took in his 1992 campaign and presidency.”The result?This rise in visible criminal activity and social unrest leaves Democrats where they essentially either give up their values in terms of crime and punishment and keep voters in the middle or hold the line in terms of crime and punishment (continuing to argue for more progressive policies) and risk losing some votes. It’s not a great spot.Wildeman is not alone in his belief that these issues are quite likely to work to the detriment of Biden and the Democratic Party generally.Robert Y. Shapiro, a political scientist at Columbia, emailed his view thatthe themes that are to the Democrats’ disadvantage are more relevant than they were in 2016. The burden posed by migrants is a greater issue, and the increase in the crime rate and murder rate, along with the inability of law enforcement to control rampant shoplifting in some cities, can even make the Democrats’ base among minority voters and college educated voters uneasy, and also women — varying geographically.“Republicans own these issues,” Shapiro pointed out, “and they can hurt Democrats. These issues along with education, race and gender identity will help Republicans running for Congress and state offices, even if they benefit Trump less due to his other serious baggage.”Roland Neil, a social scientist at the RAND Corporation, also pointed to the dangers facing Biden and his fellow Democrats:Two things we can be certain of: first, violent crime increased dramatically in many cities, especially when the pandemic hit; and second, this coincided with various progressive criminal justice reform efforts, such as bail reform, more lenient prosecution in some jurisdictions and calls to defund the police.While the incidence of violent crime has subsided in recent months, Neil noted:Focusing on that misses the point, since the issues drawing attention are all real problems facing cities and the public has taken notice. They should not be dismissed as trivial, as they genuinely impact safety and quality of life.There is no consistent and reliable data, Neil wrote, “for crimes and disorder that have been drawing much attention, like carjacking, retail theft by flash mobs, open air drug markets and the changing nature of encounters with homeless people.”That said, he added, “there is evidence that carjackings are up in several cities since the pandemic. Also, drug overdose deaths are at historical highs, and motor vehicle theft is up sharply in many cities.”Philadelphia, according to Neil, “presents an interesting case: shootings and murder are down by about a quarter this year (from a very high level), but flash mob retail thefts likely create the sense of a city that is losing control.”Phillip Atiba Solomon, a professor of African American studies and psychology at Yale, stressed the racial implications of Trump’s strategy in his emailed reply to my inquiry, arguing that these have the strong potential to sway white voters:Broadly, I think the themes you outline can be simplified to, “We’re the victims, and the victimizers are getting away with murder.” And, yes, I think they’ll apply this year as well as in any year when the “we” includes a coalition of elites and paycheck-to-paycheck working folks, each of whom reasonably see themselves as losing ground they once felt confident belonged to them (however ill-gotten that ground was in the first place).According to Solomon:This is a country that generally makes life hard for working people and is busily shifting symbols around that are meaningful to people who identify as white. Under those circumstances, it’s easy to manipulate feelings that life is not fair into feelings that “we” are being persecuted by “those people” who are stealing what “rightfully belongs to us” — literally, figuratively and with all appropriate scare quotes.The current political environment entails both conflict between the parties and disputes within each of the parties. Neil Malhotra, a political scientist at Stanford, described this ambiguity in an email:The conventional wisdom is that any Republican candidate for president, not just Trump, should focus on three issues: inflation, immigration and crime. Trump may be uniquely positioned to take advantage of these three issues, particularly since he has a more moderate image than his competitors on issues where Republicans are disadvantaged: abortion and entitlements — Social Security and Medicare.The flip side, Malhotra wrote, “is that the Democratic candidate for president should be focusing the campaign around abortion rights, climate change, health care and economic inequality.”Malhotra cited a Pew Research survey from June, “Inflation, Health Costs, Partisan Cooperation Among the Nation’s Top Problems,” that broke down the issues on which voters agree more with Republicans than Democrats and vice versa.Republicans had the edge on economic policy (42-30), immigration (41-31) and crime (40-30). Democrats led on climate change policy (41-27), abortion (43-31) and health care (39-27). The smallest gaps were on foreign policy, favoring Republicans (37-33), gun policy (statistically even) and education, favoring Democrats (37-33).Crime, in Malhotra’s view,is a particularly interesting topic because it’s always been more about perception than reality. Violent crime statistics have been declining during the Biden administration from the Covid peak, but there is a general image of lawlessness mainly around property crime, which I believe is a real and persistent problem in many areas.In the case of crime, Malhotra wrote, “You don’t actually need to be a victim or even in danger for it to affect your political worldview. I suspect a lot of Americans’ reaction to property crime is a sense of helplessness and a world they are not used to.”Malhotra made the case that Trump loyalists are a more complicated constituency than they are often described as being:There is a lot of talk of MAGA voters as wanting to go back to a 1950s America characterized by racism and sexism. I’m sure people like that exist, but there is another type of MAGA voter that I’ll call “end-of-history MAGA.”Many of these people are members of Gen X (born between 1961 and 1981), which is a generation that slightly leans Republican. “End-of-history-MAGA” people look back to the 1990s as a peak period of American greatness characterized by economic strength, declining crime, etc. I don’t think these people can be easily dismissed as racist or sexist. But they may believe that America has been in decline on many dimensions.The entry of growing numbers of younger voters into the electorate, Malhotra noted, will work to Biden’s advantage, as they “generally see immigration and crime as less important issues than older voters.”But, Malhotra cautioned, “a potential threat for Biden is that younger voters are being crushed by high rent, high interest rates and low housing supply, and they see little optimism for experiencing the American dream of homeownership.”Matthew Levendusky, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, makes the point that in 2024 Trump will have been the nominee, if all goes as expected, three times in a row, and Biden twice. When combined with the increasing immovability of polarized Democrats and Republicans determined to support their own parties, “2024 will likely look much like 2020 and 2016.”“There simply won’t be much movement in the aggregate,” he added. “This means that even small things on the margin could end up mattering a lot.”Levendusky, in contrast to some others I have quoted here, suggests that despite a difficult set of issues, Biden may be stronger than expected:In a normal year, Biden would be in real trouble. But Trump brings his own unique issues as well, especially this year. He’s a uniquely mobilizing factor for Democrats — they view him as an existential threat, and his indictments may well drag down support among key groups he needs to win back in order to secure the White House.In the case of Trump’s indictments, Levendusky argues that “the core of Trump’s base is unlikely to be moved, but more marginal voters are a different story.” If these “wavering Republicans or independent voters are in key states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, etc., that will be extremely damaging to Trump.”Patrick Sharkey, a sociologist at Princeton who has written extensively about crime, argued in an email that Biden can make the case that he has a better record on fighting gun violence and crime than is widely recognized:Candidate Trump will undoubtedly paint a portrait of urban America as lawless, dangerous, and disorderly, just as he did in 2016. That said, President Biden has a strong case to make that he has done more than any recent president to address gun violence.Gun violence, Sharkey wrote,began to skyrocket in the summer of 2020, when former President Trump was in office. Since that point, the level of violence has plateaued, and so far in 2023 the vast majority of U.S. cities have seen sharp declines in homicides and shootings.While the Republican Party, Sharkey continued,has railed against the Department of Justice and largely ignored the Jan. 6 assault on U.S. Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department officers, the Biden administration has invested additional federal funding in law enforcement while also using federal funds to support Community Violence Intervention programs, which, even if the funding was nowhere near sufficient, represents a historic expansion of the federal government’s approach to addressing violent crime. The passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is the first major federal legislation to address guns in decades.A potential problem with Sharkey’s analysis is that in contemporary campaigns, especially those involving Donald Trump, it’s not at all clear that substance matters.Few, if any, have put it better than retired Marine General John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, who on Oct. 2 expressed to CNN his frustration over seeing his ex-boss far ahead in the competition for the nomination:What can I add that has not already been said? A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all “suckers” because “there is nothing in it for them.” A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because “it doesn’t look good for me.’”A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family — for all Gold Star families — on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are “losers” and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.Kelly continued:A person who is not truthful regarding his position on the protection of unborn life, on women, on minorities, on evangelical Christians, on Jews, on working men and women. A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. … A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.“There is nothing more that can be said,” Kelly concluded. “God help us.”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

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Why So Many Americans Are So Down on Biden

      by

      Unemployment is near historic lows, and inflation has come way down. We are inflicting a strategic humiliation on Russia by arming Ukraine without putting American forces at risk. The homicide rate fell by about 10 percent across 30 cities compared with last year. Democrats defied electoral trends by holding the Senate, scoring major legislative victories and easily confirming a Supreme Court nominee.Why, then, do only 20 percent of voters rate the economy as “excellent” or “good,” versus 49 percent who call it “poor,” according to a New York Times/Siena poll? Why are Americans overwhelmingly pessimistic about the country’s future, according to the Pew Research Center? Why does Gallup find a significantly smaller percentage of Americans have confidence in the presidency today than they did in the last, disastrous year of Donald Trump’s tenure? And why is President Biden polling dead even with his predecessor in multiple surveys despite the former president’s 91 felony charges?In short, with everything so great, why are people so down? That’s a question that, as The Times’s Reid Epstein wrote last week, stumps the White House and its political allies, who seem to think the problem is a failure to communicate all the good news.But there’s another explanation: The news isn’t all that good. Americans are unsettled by things that are not always visible in headlines or statistics but are easy enough to see.Easy to see is the average price of a dozen eggs: up 38 percent between January 2022 and May of this year. And white bread: up 25 percent. And a whole chicken: up 18 percent. As for the retail price of gasoline, it’s up 63 percent since January 2021, the month Biden became president.Yet none of these increases make it into what economists call the core rate of inflation, which excludes food and energy. The inflation ordinary people experience in everyday life is not the one the government prefers to highlight.Easy to see is the frequent collapse of public order on American streets. In April hundreds of teenagers wreaked havoc in the Chicago Loop. Two boys were shot. A young couple was beaten by the doorway of a building on North Wabash. Yet only 16 people were arrested. Similar scenes unfolded last month in New York’s Union Square and again in Boston, where police officers were assaulted in two separate riots largely by juveniles.In New York, there were at least 66 arrests. In Boston, just 13.Easy to see is that the kids are not alright. The causes are many; social media companies have a lot to answer for. But so do teachers’ unions, handmaids of the Democratic Party, who pushed to keep school doors closed during the pandemic, helping themselves while doing lasting harm to children. The Biden administration spent much of its early months saying it wanted more than half of schools open at least one day per week by the 100th day of his presidency.“It is a goal so modest and lacking in ambition as to be almost meaningless,” Politico’s Playbook newsletter noted at the time.Easy to see is that the border crisis has become a national one. In May the administration boasted that new policies had contributed to a sharp decline in the “number of encounters” between border patrols and migrants crossing the southwestern border illegally. By August, arrests of migrants who crossed the border with family members had hit a monthly record of 91,000. In New York City alone, more than 57,000 migrants seek food and shelter from the city’s social services on an average night.Nobody can say for certain how many migrants who crossed the border during Biden’s presidency remain in the U.S., but it’s almost certainly in the millions. In 2021 the president dismissed the initial surge of migrants as merely seasonal. “Happens every year,” he said.Easy to see is that the world has gotten more dangerous under Biden’s watch. The president deserves credit for arming Ukraine, as he does for brokering a strategic rapprochement between Japan and South Korea. But he also deserves the blame for a humiliating Afghanistan withdrawal that almost surely played a part in enticing Vladimir Putin into launching his invasion of Ukraine and whetted Beijing’s appetite for Taiwan.How large a part is unquantifiable. Yet it was predictable — and predicted.Easy to see is that the president is not young for his age. The stiff gait and the occasional falls. The apparent dozing off. The times he draws a blank or struggles to complete a thought. Yet the same people yelling #ResignFeinstein or #ResignMcConnell don’t appear to be especially vocal when it comes to the president’s fitness, as if noting the obvious risks repeating a Republican talking point.But people notice, and they vote.Easy to see are tents under overpasses, from the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in New York to the I-5 in Seattle. And the zombified addicts passed out on sidewalks in practically every city and town. And the pharmacies with everyday items under lock and key to prevent shoplifting. And women with infants strapped to their backs, hawking candy or gum at busy intersections. And news reports of brazen car thefts, which have skyrocketed this year.“There is a great deal of ruin in a nation,” Adam Smith said. Not all the ruin mentioned above is Biden’s fault, and none of it is irreversible. But there’s much more ruin than his apologists — blinkered by selective statistics and too confident about the president’s chances next year — care to admit.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

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Fotos policiales de los acusados de conspirar con Trump: ¿por qué sonríen?

      by

      La imagen que se toma al fichar a los acusados de un delito suele reflejar seriedad, incredulidad o sorpresa. Eso no ha sucedido con algunos de los acusados con el expresidente en Georgia.[Última hora: Donald Trump fue fichado en Georgia y las autoridades difundieron su foto policial. Puedes leer más aquí, en inglés].La típica foto policial suele ser un asunto sombrío: con mala iluminación y gesto taciturno. Es un retrato permanente de la vergüenza, la letra escarlata del sistema legal.Y, casi por definición, va sin sonrisa.Pero entre las fotografías que han surgido de la oficina del sheriff del condado de Fulton en Atlanta, donde Donald Trump y otras 18 personas han sido acusadas de conspirar para revertir las elecciones de 2020, hay varias que son peculiarmente alegres.Jenna Ellis, exabogada de Trump, luce una amplia sonrisa, al igual que David Shafer, expresidente del Partido Republicano de Georgia. Scott Hall, operador político de Trump, no logra reprimir una sonrisita burlona. Sidney Powell, acusada de esparcir teorías de la conspiración desacreditadas sobre las elecciones, deja ver un brillo en los ojos.Sidney Powell, acusada de difundir teorías conspirativas desacreditadas sobre las elecciones, es retratada con un gesto que oscila entre una sonrisa y un ceño fruncido.Oficina del sheriff del condado de Fulton vía Associated Press¿Y qué expresan sin lugar a dudas sus expresiones faciales? Desafío.El semblante que han puesto para la cámara del sistema de justicia penal, y para el lente de la historia, recuerda los otros papeles de reparto que desempeñan en lo que parece ser una extraordinaria producción del teatro político: uno que concuerda con la afirmación muy repetida por Trump de que la fiscalía es una farsa y una burla.En la fotografía de Ellis, tomada el miércoles —tan alegre que podría ser una foto de perfil, a no ser por el logotipo de la oficina del sheriff detrás de su hombro— parece a punto de estallar en risas por el lugar donde se encuentra.La política moderna en tiempos de redes sociales, como casi todo, es una batalla por crear, controlar y definir imágenes. Y la foto policial, inventada en Bélgica en la década de 1840 como una forma útil de identificación, es un nuevo frente en ese combate.La mayoría de los otros acusados fichados hasta el momento de delitos de conspiración para revertir los resultados de las elecciones de 2020 dejaban ver su serio dilema. Tal vez ninguno más que Rudolph Giuliani, quien apretó los labios, miró con frialdad al frente y frunció el ceño luego de comparecer ante las autoridades el miércoles en Atlanta.Ellis intentó adueñarse de un proceso que suele verse como humillante o intimidante; ella ha presentado su acusación como una persecución política injusta que debe superarse con fe y optimismo.Publicó su fotografía policial en internet con una cita de los Salmos: “¡Alégrense, ustedes los justos; regocíjense en el Señor!”.Cuando se le pidieron comentarios, Ellis comparó su situación con la de un antiguo cliente, un ministro que desafió una orden de cerrar su iglesia en la pandemia.“Quienes se burlan de mí, de mi excliente y mi Dios, quieren ver que me quiebro y no tendrán esa satisfacción”, dijo. “Sonreí porque estoy decidida a enfrentar este proceso con valentía y actuando según la fe. No pueden robarse mi alegría”.Powell y los abogados que representan a Shafer y Hall no respondieron de inmediato a pedidos de comentario.Haber sido retratado en las instalaciones del condado de Fulton podría ser incluso un símbolo de estatus entre los seguidores de Trump más incondicionales: Amy Kremer, quien ayudo a organizar el mitin previo al motín del 6 de enero de 2021 en el Capitolio, publicó una foto manipulada en la que aparece, sin sonreír, frente al logotipo del sheriff del condado de Fulton. No se le ha acusado en Georgia.Se supone que el retrato policial sea un ecualizador, que tanto los poderosos como los desposeídos sean blanco del mismo lente objetivo. Y muchos enemigos de Trump han criticado al Servicio de Alguaciles de EE. UU. por no tomar la foto de la ficha policial (como harían con otros acusados) cuando el expresidente fue fichado por cargos federales en Miami y Washington.Esta vez será distinto.Por regla general, los políticos suelen asumir su fichaje en la comisaría como eventos políticos que al final tendrán un peso en el resultado legal.Cuando a Tom DeLay, líder de la cámara baja, se le acusó de lavado de dinero y conspiración en 2005, se atavió con traje, ajustó su corbata y sonrió de oreja a oreja. Fue una forma astuta de privar a sus oponentes de una imagen que fácilmente podrían usar en anuncios para atacarlo. (Se retiró del Congreso pero su posterior condena fue anulada en apelación).John Edwards, quien fue senador por Carolina del Norte y candidato demócrata a la vicepresidencia en 2004, sonrió con calidez ante la cámara como si estuviera frente a un simpatizante cuando lo ficharon al imputársele delitos de violación de leyes de financiación de campaña en 2011. Como Ellis, quería transmitir su inocencia y la injusticia de los cargos. (Fue absuelto de uno de los cargos y el gobierno retiró los restantes).Servicio de Alguaciles de EE. UU. vía Getty ImagesServicio de Alguaciles de EE. UU. vía Getty ImagesA los políticos les obsesiona proyectar mensajes, es un rasgo dominante de su especie. Tom DeLay, John Edwards y Rick Perry acudieron a que los ficharan como a un evento político que a final de cuentas podría influenciar el veredicto legal.Oficina del sheriff del condado de Travis vía Getty ImagesY en 2014, Rick Perry, entonces gobernador republicano de Texas, ofreció una sonrisa taimada cuando lo ficharon por delitos relacionados con presionar al fiscal de distrito demócrata del condado de Travis para que renunciara. Calificó los cargos de “farsa”, publicó fotos suyas en una heladería poco después y dos años más tarde fue absuelto de todos los cargos.En la mayoría de los casos, sonreír en la foto policial es una muestra de rebeldía.Eso ha sido particularmente cierto si se habla de los delincuentes famosos que, en general, han sido casi tan cuidadosos de su imagen como las estrellas de cine o los políticos. Al Capone sonrió en varios retratos policiales así como en su foto de identificación en Alcatraz. Y en la única foto que se le tomó al narcotraficante Pablo Escobar para una ficha policial, luego de que lo arrestaron por narcotráfico en Colombia, parecía casi jubiloso.Donaldson Collection — Michael Ochs Archives, via Getty ImagesPor lo general, los criminales famosos, como Al Capone y Pablo Escobar, han estado muy atentos a su imagen, como las estrellas de cine o los políticos.Archivio GBB vía AlamyTenía un buen motivo. Los cargos fueron retirados rápidamente.Glenn Thrush cubre el departamento de Justicia. Se unió al Times desde 2017, luego de haber trabajado para Politico, Newsday, Bloomberg News, The New York Daily News, The Birmingham Post-Herald y City Limits. Más de Glenn ThrushMaggie Haberman es corresponsal política sénior y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte del equipo que ganó un premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más de Maggie Haberman More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Ecuador y Guatemala en 4 conclusiones

      by

      A los “outsiders” les fue mejor de lo esperado, lo que subraya la volatilidad de la política latinoamericana. A los candidatos que llamaron a emular las medidas enérgicas contra el crimen de El Salvador no les fue bien.El domingo, Ecuador y Guatemala celebraron elecciones que dejaron en evidencia algunas tendencias cruciales en América Latina como los esfuerzos anticorrupción, la creciente importancia de los votantes jóvenes y los llamados a emular las medidas enérgicas contra el crimen de El Salvador.En Ecuador, donde el asesinato del candidato presidencial Fernando Villavicencio este mes ensombreció la campaña, una política de la izquierda tradicional, Luisa González, se enfrentará en una segunda vuelta a Daniel Noboa, el heredero de una familia adinerada conocida por su imperio bananero.Y en Guatemala, el activista progresista y anticorrupción Bernardo Arévalo ganó la segunda vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales de manera aplastante contra una ex primera dama, Sandra Torres, asestando así un golpe al establishment político conservador del país.Debido a las preocupaciones latentes sobre la erosión del Estado de derecho y la influencia cada vez mayor de las bandas narcotraficantes en diferentes partes de América Latina, la votación fue observada de cerca en busca de señales de lo que podrían significar los resultados.A continuación, presentamos algunas conclusiones clave.El presidente de El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, ha tomado medidas enérgicas contra la violencia de las pandillas mediante arrestos masivos que perjudicaron a miles de personas inocentes.Brittainy Newman para The New York TimesLa delincuencia no fue el único tema en la mente de los votantesEcuador y Guatemala enfrentan una variedad de retos diferentes, y aunque las dificultades para gobernar de manera efectiva en ambos países son bien conocidas, los nuevos líderes tendrán que lidiar con tener bajo control el crimen organizado y crear oportunidades económicas para mantener a sus ciudadanos en casa y evitar que emigren.La estrella del momento en la escena política de América Latina es el presidente populista conservador de El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, debido a su éxito en el uso de tácticas de línea dura para sofocar la violencia de las pandillas, incluidos arrestos masivos que afectaron a miles de personas inocentes y erosionaron las libertades civiles. Pero las expectativas de que los entusiastas de las tácticas de Bukele sobre el crimen tendrían un camino fácil hacia la victoria se desvanecieron tanto en Ecuador como en Guatemala.“Es notable que en ninguno de los dos casos les haya ido bien a los admiradores descarados de las políticas severas de Nayib Bukele contra las bandas criminales en El Salvador”, dijo Michael Shifter, miembro principal de Diálogo Intermericano, una organización de investigación con sede en Washington.A pesar de la conmoción generada por el asesinato de Villavicencio, los candidatos explícitamente anticrimen en Ecuador dividieron su porción de los votos. A Jan Topic, quien se alineó estrechamente con Bukele, le fue mal a pesar de haber subido en las encuestas tras el asesinato.“Hizo una campaña de un solo tema que, en su mayoría, se enfocó en la seguridad”, dijo Risa Grais-Targow, directora para América Latina de Eurasia Group, sobre Topic. “Pero los votantes tienen otras preocupaciones, como las relacionadas con la economía”.De manera similar, en Guatemala —donde crecían los temores de un descenso hacia el autoritarismo— la promesa de Torres de implementar políticas al estilo de Bukele no logró ganar mucho impulso. En cambio, su rival la puso a la defensiva debido a que había pasado un tiempo bajo arresto domiciliario en relación con cargos de financiamiento ilícito de campañas.También influyeron en el resultado las maniobras de la autoridad electoral de Guatemala para simplemente descalificar a los candidatos que se consideraron amenazas al orden establecido.Uno de los candidatos expulsados de la contienda antes de la primera vuelta en junio fue Carlos Pineda, un outsider que buscaba replicar las medidas enérgicas contra el crimen de Bukele. La descalificación de Pineda y otros le abrió un camino a Arévalo, otro candidato independiente cuyas propuestas para combatir el delito son más matizadas.Los candidatos guatemaltecos intentaron capitalizar el apoyo de los jóvenes.Daniele Volpe para The New York TimesLos votantes jóvenes influyen en las eleccionesEn un grado notable, los resultados electorales en Ecuador y Guatemala dependieron de las decisiones de los votantes jóvenes. En Ecuador, Noboa, un empresario de 35 años, neófito de la política, estaba en los últimos lugares de las encuestas hasta hace apenas unas semanas.Pero aprovechando el apoyo de los jóvenes mientras se presentaba como un candidato independiente, Noboa se abrió camino inesperadamente hacia la segunda vuelta con cerca del 24 por ciento de los votos. (El reconocimiento de su apellido también podría haber ayudado; su padre, Álvaro Noboa, uno de los hombres más ricos de Ecuador, se postuló a la presidencia en cinco oportunidades).En Guatemala, el país más poblado de América Central, Arévalo, de 64 años, también se benefició del apoyo de los jóvenes, especialmente en las ciudades, quienes se sintieron atraídos por sus llamados a poner fin a la persecución política de activistas de derechos humanos, ambientalistas, periodistas, fiscales y jueces.Arévalo también mostró una postura más moderada sobre temas sociales. Aunque dijo que no buscaría legalizar el aborto o el matrimonio igualitario, dejó claro que su gobierno no permitiría la discriminación contra las personas por su orientación sexual.Esa postura, algo novedosa en Guatemala, contrastó en gran manera con la de Torres, quien seleccionó a un pastor evangélico como su compañero de fórmula y empleó un insulto contra personas homosexuales en la campaña electoral para referirse a los simpatizantes de Arévalo.Luisa González enfrentará a Daniel Noboa en la segunda vuelta de las elecciones en Ecuador.Johanna Alarcón para The New York TimesLa izquierda va en diferentes direccionesGuatemala y Ecuador ofrecieron visiones contrastantes de la izquierda en América Latina.Dentro del panorama político tradicionalmente conservador de Guatemala, Arévalo, quien critica gobiernos de izquierda como el de Nicaragua, a menudo es descrito como un progresista. En ese sentido se parece más a Gabriel Boric, el presidente joven y moderado de Chile, que a los agitadores de otras zonas de la región.El partido de Arévalo, Movimiento Semilla, el cual se formó tras las protestas anticorrupción en 2015, también es diferente a cualquier otro movimiento surgido en Guatemala durante las últimas décadas. Semilla llamó la atención por realizar una campaña austera y de principios, dejando claras sus fuentes de financiamiento, a diferencia del financiamiento opaco que prevalece en otros partidos. Otra fuente de inspiración para Semilla es el Frente Amplio de Uruguay, un partido de centro izquierda moderado y democrático.“Arévalo es un demócrata de pies a cabeza”, aseveró Will Freeman, miembro de estudios latinoamericanos del Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores.González, en contraste, proviene de un sector diferente de la izquierda latinoamericana, caracterizado en el caso de Ecuador por poner a prueba los controles y equilibrios democráticos, dijo Freeman. Es partidaria de Rafael Correa, un expresidente ecuatoriano que sigue siendo una fuerza dominante en la política del país a pesar de tener seis años fuera del poder.Correa, quien vive en Bélgica tras huir de una sentencia de prisión de ocho años por violaciones en el financiamiento de campañas, conserva una base sólida que oscila entre el 20 y el 30 por ciento del electorado.En gran medida, ese apoyo es resultado de la “nostalgia de ese momento de bienestar que hubo durante la era de Correa”, dijo Caroline Ávila, analista política en Ecuador.Arévalo obtuvo más votos que cualquier otro candidato en Guatemala desde que se restableció la democracia en el país en 1985.Daniele Volpe para The New York TimesLa imprevisibilidad marcó las contiendasLas elecciones tanto en Ecuador como en Guatemala destacaron una tendencia regional más general: la incertidumbre y volatilidad de la política latinoamericana.En ambos países, las encuestas fallaron en captar desarrollos cruciales. En Ecuador, donde Topic capitalizó las consecuencias del asesinato de Villavicencio, Noboa se abrió camino para pasar a la segunda vuelta.Y en Guatemala, Arévalo, un candidato académico que a veces lee sus discursos y carece de las habilidades oratorias de sus rivales, no fue visto como una amenaza por el establishment hasta que logró pasar a la segunda vuelta.Hoy, con su aplastante victoria, Arévalo obtuvo más votos que cualquier otro candidato desde que se restauró la democracia en Guatemala en 1985.Ese es un escenario que incluso muchos miembros del propio partido de Arévalo no vieron venir.Simon Romero More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Elections in Ecuador and Guatemala: Four Takeaways

      by

      Outsiders overperformed, underscoring the volatility of Latin American politics. Candidates calling to emulate El Salvador’s crackdown on crime did not do well.Ecuador and Guatemala held elections on Sunday that shed light on crucial trends throughout Latin America, including anticorruption drives, the growing importance of young voters and calls to emulate El Salvador’s crackdown on crime.In Ecuador, where the assassination this month of the presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio cast a pall over campaigning, an establishment leftist, Luisa González, will head into a runoff against Daniel Noboa, the scion of a well-heeled family known for its banana empire.And in Guatemala, the progressive anti-graft crusader Bernardo Arévalo won in a landslide over a former first lady, Sandra Torres, dealing a blow to the country’s conservative political establishment.As concerns simmer over the erosion of the rule of law and the expanding sway of drug gangs in different parts of Latin America, the voting was watched closely for signs of what the outcomes could mean.Here are key takeaways.President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador has cracked down on gang violence, using mass arrests that swept up thousands of innocent people. Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesCrime wasn’t the only issue on voters’ minds.Ecuador and Guatemala each face an array of different challenges, and while it is hard to overstate the difficulty of governing effectively in both countries, new leaders will grapple with getting organized crime under control and creating economic opportunities to keep their citizens at home instead of emigrating.The star of the moment in Latin America’s political scene is El Salvador’s conservative populist president, Nayib Bukele, for his success in using hard-line tactics to quell gang violence, including mass arrests that swept up thousands of innocent people and the erosion of civil liberties. But expectations that enthusiasts for the Bukele gospel on crime would sail to victory fizzled in Ecuador and Guatemala.“It is notable that in neither case did unabashed admirers of Nayib Bukele’s hard-line policies against criminal gangs in El Salvador fare well,” said Michael Shifter, a senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research organization.Despite the shock over the assassination of Mr. Villavicencio, explicitly anti-crime candidates in Ecuador split their share of the votes. Jan Topic, who aligned himself closely with Mr. Bukele, fared poorly despite climbing in the polls after the assassination.“He did run a single-issue campaign that was very much focused around security,” Risa Grais-Targow, the Latin America director for Eurasia Group, said of Mr. Topic. “But voters have other concerns, including on the economy.”Similarly, in Guatemala — where fears were growing of a slide toward authoritarian rule — Ms. Torres’s pledge to put in place Bukele-style policies failed to gain much traction. Instead, the former first lady was put on the defensive by her rival because she had spent time under house arrest in connection to charges of illicit campaign financing.Also influencing the outcome: moves by Guatemala’s electoral authority to simply disqualify candidates who were viewed as threatening the established order.One of the candidates pushed out of the race ahead of the first round in June was Carlos Pineda, an outsider seeking to replicate Mr. Bukele’s crackdown on crime. When Mr. Pineda and others were disqualified, that provided an opening for Mr. Arévalo, another outsider, even though his proposals to fight crime are more nuanced.Guatemalan candidates tried to capitalize on the support of young people.Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesYoung voters shape elections.To a notable degree, the electoral outcomes in Ecuador and Guatemala hinged on the choices of young voters. In Ecuador, Mr. Noboa, 35, a businessman and newcomer to politics, was polling in the doldrums just a few weeks ago.But seizing on youth support while casting himself as an outsider, Mr. Noboa unexpectedly surged into the runoff with about 24 percent of the vote. (Name recognition may also have helped; his father, Álvaro Noboa, one of Ecuador’s richest men, ran unsuccessfully for president five times.)In Guatemala, Central America’s most populous country, Mr. Arévalo, 64, also capitalized on the support of young people, especially in cities, who were drawn to his calls to end the political persecution of human rights activists, environmentalists, journalists, prosecutors and judges.Mr. Arévalo also offered a more moderate stance on social issues. While saying he would not seek to legalize abortion or gay marriage, he made it clear that his government would not permit discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation.That position, which is somewhat novel in Guatemala, stood in sharp contrast to that of Ms. Torres, who drafted an evangelical pastor as her running mate and used an anti-gay slur on the campaign trail to refer to Mr. Arévalo’s supporters.Luisa González will head into a runoff against Daniel Noboa in Ecuador.Johanna Alarcón for The New York TimesThe left is going in different directions.Guatemala and Ecuador offered sharply contrasting visions for the left in Latin America.Indeed, within Guatemala’s traditionally conservative political landscape, Mr. Arévalo, who criticizes leftist governments like Nicaragua’s, is often described as a progressive. In that sense, he is more like Gabriel Boric, Chile’s moderate young president, than firebrands elsewhere in the region.Mr. Arévalo’s party, Movimiento Semilla (Seed Movement), which coalesced after anticorruption protests in 2015, is also unlike any other party in Guatemala in recent decades. Semilla gained attention for running a principled and austere campaign, making its funding sources clear, in contrast to the opaque financing prevailing in other parties. Another source of inspiration for Semilla is Uruguay’s Frente Amplio (Broad Front), a moderate, democratic left-of-center party.“Arévalo is a democrat through and through,” said Will Freeman, a fellow in Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.Ms. González, by contrast, hails from a different part of the Latin American left, characterized in Ecuador’s case by testing democratic checks and balances, Mr. Freeman said. She is a supporter of Rafael Correa, a former Ecuadorean president who remains a dominant force in the country’s politics despite being out of power for six years.Mr. Correa, who lives in Belgium after fleeing an eight-year prison sentence for campaign-finance violations, retains a strong base that oscillates between 20 percent and 30 percent of the electorate.That support is largely a result of the “nostalgia for that moment of well-being that existed during the Correa era,” said Caroline Ávila, a political analyst in Ecuador.Mr. Arévalo got more votes than any other candidate in Guatemala since democracy was restored in the country in 1985.Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesUnpredictability underlined the races.The races in both Ecuador and Guatemala highlighted a wider regional trend: the uncertainty and volatility of Latin America’s politics.Polls in both countries failed to capture crucial developments. In Ecuador, where Mr. Topic was seen capitalizing on the aftermath of the Villavicencio assassination, Mr. Noboa swooped in to make it to the runoff.And in Guatemala, Mr. Arévalo, a professorial candidate who sometimes reads his speeches and lacks the oratory skills of his rivals, was viewed as nonthreatening by the establishment — until he squeaked into the runoff.Now, with his landslide win, Mr. Arévalo got more votes than any other candidate since democracy was restored in Guatemala in 1985.That’s a scenario that even many within Mr. Arévalo’s own party did not see coming.Simon Romero More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Analyze This: Donald Trump’s Thoughts and Speech

      by

      More from our inbox:Illegal, Nah. Let’s Call It ‘Aspirational.’Biden’s RatingsDog Parks: Fun or Harmful?Together, With Music Chris W. KimTo the Editor:Re “Donald Trump’s Way of Speaking Defies All Logic,” by Michael Wolff (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 6):Mr. Wolff argues persuasively that much of what Donald Trump says can be chalked up to illogical and thus legally inconsequential blather and bluster. Except that is true only when one evaluates the former president’s pronouncements individually. Taken in their totality, they reveal themselves as the opposite of random scattershot.Virtually everything Mr. Trump has said in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election pushes in the same direction: to try to reverse the election by every legal and — failing that — illegal means conceivable. Thus, the route to defeating Mr. Trump’s “my words are meaningless” defense is to assemble them into their coherent and sinisterly subversive whole meaning.Richard ScloveAmherst, Mass.To the Editor:Michael Wolff’s depiction of Donald Trump’s language and thinking as disordered rings true after years of hearing and reading the former president’s communications. However, Mr. Wolff’s argument that Mr. Trump’s actions regarding the 2020 election were likely unwitting and that this may mitigate his guilt in a trial brings to mind the old punchline, “I may be crazy but I’m not stupid.” That is, chaotic thinking does not preclude intention.Reports of the former president’s caution and calculation abound. He famously doesn’t use email, typically issued questionable orders to subordinates using oblique language, and tore up, even flushed, papers in a White House toilet. His speech on the Ellipse on Jan. 6 contains a number of examples of indirect language.Even if Mr. Trump’s actions in the Jan. 6 case were based on an irrational belief, is that a viable defense? If it were, it might apply to many convicted criminals who truly believed they could commit a crime and get away with it.Madeleine CrummerSanta Fe, N.M.To the Editor:Wait a minute now. Since when does a liar’s sincere belief in his own lies excuse him from committing a crime?There are legal and illegal ways to pursue a grievance. The question is not whether the accused sincerely believes he was wronged but whether he was able to distinguish right actions from wrong ones.Donald Trump chose legitimate challenges to the outcome of the 2020 election through ballot challenges and recounts. But at every turn, despite the expert opinion of many of his own advisers and loss after loss in the courts, Mr. Trump went further and pursued illegal means of reversing the vote.If after November 2020 he was not a reasonable person and unable to tell right from wrong, he should try his luck with an insanity defense.John Mark HansenChicagoThe writer is a political science professor at the University of Chicago.Illegal, Nah. Let’s Call It ‘Aspirational.’Jordan Gale for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Lawyer Describes the Effort to Overturn the 2020 Election as ‘Aspirational’” (news article, Aug. 7):Donald Trump’s attorney John F. Lauro has claimed that Mr. Trump’s requests to Vice President Mike Pence and Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, were not illegal because they were “aspirational,” which is to say they spoke to a hope rather than a plan.In an interview on CNN he stated: “What President Trump didn’t do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything. He asked him in an aspirational way.”By the same token, I presume that if I asked someone to cooperate with me in robbing a bank, that too wouldn’t be part of a criminal conspiracy, because my request was merely “aspirational.”David P. BarashGoleta, Calif.Biden’s RatingsPresident Biden has sought to claim credit for improvements in the economy by branding the disparate elements of his agenda “Bidenomics” and by embarking on a barnstorming tour of the country.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Rising Tide Lifts All Boats, but So Far Not Biden’s” (news analysis, Aug. 5):President Biden’s weak approval ratings despite his administration’s accomplishments result from a combination of his age, his inability to forcefully tout his achievements, the generalized contempt for politicians of all stripes and the successful orchestrated campaign by his opponents to paint him as weak and ineffectual.Should Donald Trump win the White House next year, the country will have given credence to the adage that people get the governments they deserve. We will have brought upon ourselves whatever calamities a second Trump administration would deliver.Daniel R. MartinHartsdale, N.Y.Dog Parks: Fun or Harmful? Joohee YoonTo the Editor:Re “Dog Parks Are Great for People. Too Bad They’re Terrible for Dogs,” by Julie V. Iovine (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Aug. 6):Ms. Iovine makes the unfortunate logical leap that because dog parks may be inappropriate environments for some dogs, all owners should “forgo the dog park.”For breeds like labradors (a breed that Ms. Iovine and I share affection for), dog parks can be the only place to safely or legally engage in instinctive pursuit and fetching behavior in an urban environment.We should no more prescribe an end to dog parks because some dogs do not enjoy them than we should eliminate the symphony because some people do not enjoy Mahler.Brian ErlyDenverTo the Editor:People should know about the risks related to dog parks and then decide accordingly if they feel comfortable about them. Just as with most things, from riding in airplanes to eating street food, some of us are more risk averse than others.Consider a few things: Do you have pet insurance? (Often, the other person cannot or will not pay for any vet bills if their dog injures yours.) Are your dogs more confident or nervous? Do you know the signs of anxiety and aggression in dogs? Are you willing to watch your dogs and stay with them to make sure they are safe? Is your dog a bully (a hard one to admit)?One of our dogs was attacked this year at a park, and the other dog’s guardian didn’t pay the vet bills for the stitches and follow-up visits. We still go back, but now with an air horn and an extra sense of vigilance.Katie ArthVentura, Calif.Together, With Music Illustration by The New York Times; Photographs by Jeff SevierTo the Editor:Re “This Is the Music America Needs,” by Farah Stockman (Opinion, Aug. 9):Ms. Stockman’s wonderful article reminded me of my childhood, when we came to these shores in 1938 as refugees from Nazi Germany. My father, a fine amateur violinist and an avid chamber music player, discovered a small publication that listed amateur musicians and their self-grades as to ability.This brought a diverse assortment of talented musicians, violin and cello cases in tow, to our apartment. They were young and elderly, newly arrived as well as true Yankees, Black and white, with diverse backgrounds and beliefs, all connected by the joy of making music together, playing Mozart and Haydn quartets.The after-music “Kaffee und Kuchen” (“coffee and cake”) provided by my mother encouraged conversation and discovery about each other’s lives, and a good deal of laughter and fellowship. Although small in number, these groups echoed the headline, “This (Too) Is the Music America Needs.”Rudi WolffNew York More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Will Trump Have His Mug Shot Taken?

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump’s second federal arraignment this year is expected to follow a rhythm similar to his first: He will be fingerprinted but not have his mug shot taken.As happened before his arraignment in Miami on charges of mishandling government documents, the U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for security inside federal courthouses, will escort him to a booking area.Like last time, they will not take his picture, according to a law enforcement official involved in the planning. But federal rules dictate that an accused person be reprocessed in each jurisdiction in which he or she faces charges, so Mr. Trump will have to be fingerprinted for a second time using an electronic scanning device. He is also expected to answer a series of intake questions that include personal details, such as his age.Mr. Trump also did not have a mug shot taken when he was arraigned earlier this year in New York on state charges in connection with a hush-money payment to a pornographic actress before the 2016 election. But his campaign did immediately start selling shirts with a pretend booking photo.A genuine booking photo could still be in Mr. Trump’s future. The sheriff in Fulton County, Ga., where another potential indictment connected to Mr. Trump’s efforts to undermine the 2020 election looms, has suggested that if Mr. Trump is charged, he will be processed like anybody else, mug shot and all. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Indicted in His Push to Overturn the 2020 Election

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump was indicted on Tuesday in connection with his widespread efforts to overturn the 2020 election following a sprawling federal investigation into his attempts to cling to power after losing the presidency.The indictment, filed by the special counsel Jack Smith in Federal District Court in Washington, accuses Mr. Trump of three conspiracies: one to defraud the United States; a second to obstruct an official government proceeding, the certification of the Electoral College vote; and a third to deprive people of a civil right, the right to have their votes counted. Mr. Trump was also charged with a fourth count of obstructing or attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.“Each of these conspiracies — which built on the widespread mistrust the defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud — targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election,” the indictment said.The charges signify an extraordinary moment in United States history: a former president, in the midst of a campaign to return to the White House, being charged over attempts to use the levers of government power to subvert democracy and remain in office against the will of voters.In sweeping terms, the indictment described how Mr. Trump and six co-conspirators employed a variety of means to reverse his defeat in the election almost from the moment that voting ended.It depicted how Mr. Trump promoted false claims of fraud, sought to bend the Justice Department toward supporting those claims and oversaw a scheme to create false slates of electors pledged to him in states that were actually won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. And it described how he ultimately pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, to use the fake electors to subvert the certification of the election at a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, that was cut short by the violence at the Capitol.The indictment did not name the alleged co-conspirators, but the descriptions of their behavior match publicly known episodes involving prominent people around Mr. Trump.The behavior of “Co-conspirator 1” appears to align with that of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer whom he put in charge of efforts to deny the transfer of power after his main campaign lawyers made clear it was over. Mr. Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert J. Costello, acknowledged in a statement that it “appears that Mayor Giuliani is alleged to be co-conspirator No. 1.”The description of “Co-conspirator 2” tracks closely with that of John Eastman, a California law professor who served as the architect of the plan to pressure Mr. Pence.The co-conspirators could be charged at any point, and their inclusion in the indictment — even unnamed — places pressure on them to cooperate with investigators.Many of the details in the charges were familiar, having appeared either in news accounts or in the work of the House select committee investigating Jan. 6. There were descriptions of Mr. Trump’s attempt to install a loyalist, Jeffrey Clark, who appears to be a co-conspirator in the case, atop the Justice Department and to strong-arm the secretary of state of Georgia into finding him enough votes to win the election in that state.There were also references to Mr. Trump posting a message on Twitter in mid-December 2020 calling for a “wild” protest in Washington on Jan. 6, and to him pressuring Mr. Pence to try to throw the election his way during the joint session of Congress that day.But the indictment also contained some snippets of new information, such as a description of Mr. Trump telling Mr. Pence, “You’re too honest,” as the vice president pushed back on Mr. Trump’s pressure to interfere in the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory.It also included an account of Mr. Trump telling someone who asked if he wanted additional pressure put on Mr. Pence that “no one” else but him needed to speak with the vice president.Mr. Smith, in drafting his charging document, walked a cautious path in connecting Mr. Trump to the mob attack on the Capitol. The indictment mentioned Mr. Trump’s “exploitation of the violence and chaos” at the building that day, but did not accuse him of inciting the riot.It also laid out how Mr. Trump was repeatedly told by multiple people, including top officials in his campaign and at the Justice Department, that he had lost the election and that his claims that he had been cheated were false. That sort of evidence could help prosecutors prove their accusations by establishing Mr. Trump’s intent.Mr. Trump’s constant claims of widespread election fraud “were false, and the defendant knew they were false,” the indictment said, adding that he was told repeatedly that his assertions were untrue.“Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power,” the indictment said.Mr. Trump has been summoned for his initial court appearance in the case on Thursday afternoon before a magistrate judge in Federal District Court in Washington, the special counsel’s office said. Ultimately, a trial date and a schedule for pretrial motions will be set, proceedings that are likely to extend well into the presidential campaign.Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer on the case, John Lauro, laid out what appeared to be the beginning of his defense, telling Fox News, “I would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations” about voter fraud “were false.”The charges in the case came more than two and a half years after a pro-Trump mob — egged on by incendiary speeches by Mr. Trump and his allies — stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 in the worst attack on the seat of Congress since the War of 1812.They also came a little more than seven months after Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Mr. Smith, a career federal prosecutor, to oversee both the election tampering and classified documents inquiries into Mr. Trump. They followed a series of high-profile hearings last year by the House Jan. 6 committee, which laid out extensive evidence of Mr. Trump’s efforts to reverse the election results.Mr. Garland moved to name Mr. Smith as special counsel in November, just days after Mr. Trump declared that he was running for president again.Jack Smith, the special counsel, said at a news conference on Tuesday that the Capitol riot was “fueled by lies.”Doug Mills/The New York TimesIn a brief appearance before reporters, Mr. Smith set out what he said was the former president’s moral, as well as legal, responsibility for violence at the Capitol, saying the riot was “fueled by lies” — Mr. Trump’s lies.Mr. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, has incorporated attacking the investigations into his campaign messaging and fund-raising. His advisers have been blunt in private conversations that they see his winning the election as crucial to undoing the charges against him.In a statement, Mr. Trump denounced the indictment.“Why did they wait two and a half years to bring these fake charges, right in the middle of President Trump’s winning campaign for 2024?” he said, calling it “election interference” and comparing the Biden administration to Nazi Germany.The judge assigned to Mr. Trump’s case, Tanya S. Chutkan, has been a tough jurist in cases against Jan. 6 rioters — and in a case that involved Mr. Trump directly. Appointed by President Barack Obama, she has routinely issued harsh penalties against people who stormed the Capitol.She also denied Mr. Trump’s attempt to avoid disclosing documents to the Jan. 6 committee, ordering him to turn over the material and writing, “Presidents are not kings.”Mr. Trump now faces two separate federal indictments. In June, Mr. Smith brought charges in Florida accusing Mr. Trump of illegally holding on to a highly sensitive trove of national defense documents and then obstructing the government’s attempts to get them back. The scheme charged by Mr. Smith on Tuesday in the election case played out largely in the two months between Election Day in 2020 and the attack on the Capitol. During that period, Mr. Trump took part in a range of efforts to retain power despite having lost the presidential race.In addition to federal charges in the election and documents cases, Mr. Trump also faces legal troubles in state courts.He has been charged by the Manhattan district attorney’s office in a case that centers on hush money payments made to the porn actress Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the 2016 election.The efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reverse his election loss are also the focus of a separate investigation by the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga. That inquiry appears likely to generate charges this month.It seems likely that Mr. Trump will face the prospect of at least three criminal trials next year, even as he is campaigning for the presidency. The Manhattan trial is scheduled to begin in March, while the federal documents case in Florida is set to go to trial in May.Glenn Thrush More