Decisions and Verdicts

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Will Be Indicted Today. Clinton Will Be Honored.

      by

      Hours after Donald Trump appears in court, his former opponent, Hillary Clinton, will be the honoree at a dinner 10 blocks from Trump Tower.Good morning. It’s Tuesday. We’ll look at one of those coincidences in scheduling that can only happen in New York. We’ll also look at whether a court ruling might prompt prosecutors to abandon difficult cases.Mark Kauzlarich/The New York TimesToday New York will be focused on the arraignment of a former president, the first proceeding of its kind in American history.But other things are on the day’s agenda besides Donald Trump’s scheduled appearance for booking, fingerprinting and entering a plea in court. This evening a private club on East 66th Street will continue a tradition dating to the 1870s with a black-tie dinner.The honoree will be Hillary Clinton, who lost the presidency to Trump in 2016.The timing is a coincidence, said John Sussek III, the president of the Lotos Club. The date was chosen around the beginning of the year, long before the grand jury hearing the case against Trump voted on the indictment that brought Trump to Manhattan from Mar-a-Lago, his resort in Florida.“We have had princes and princesses, senators and congressmen,” Sussek said, noting that one recent honoree was Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leader in the federal response to the pandemic. Another past honoree was Robert Morgenthau, a predecessor of Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, whose office brought the case against Trump.The criteria, Sussek said, “are essentially an individual who has made great contributions in whatever field or fields they’re in. It’s recognition of their accomplishments in society.”The club, which took its name from the lotos-leaf-eaters in a poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson, has held state dinners since the 1870s. Its early members included Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, who took a nap during the 12-course meal lauding him. Also on the club’s membership roll in its early years was John Hay, who held a job that Clinton later took; he was secretary of state under President William McKinley and President Theodore Roosevelt.Democrats and Republicans have been cheered at state dinners, as the club calls gatherings like the one tonight. Former President Harry Truman, a Democrat, and former President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, were each hailed at state dinners after leaving the White House. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court was celebrated at one in 1996, a couple of years after President Bill Clinton nominated her to the court.Over the years, the club has invited people with no political connections, including the Yankees star Joe DiMaggio, the astronaut John Glenn and at least two musical theater teams: Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II (of “Oklahoma!” and “South Pacific,” among others) and John Kander and Fred Ebb (of “Cabaret” and “Chicago”).Lotos gives state dinner honorees lifetime memberships ($4,800 a year for regular resident members). Clinton will also be presented with a small bust of Ginsburg by the sculptor Zenos Frudakis, a Lotos member who did the larger busts of Twain and Ulysses S. Grant at the club.“You may recall what Donald Trump said in 2016, that if we voted for Hillary Clinton we’d have a criminal president under constant investigation and who would soon be indicted,” Sussek said in the speech he planned to deliver tonight. “And you know what? Trump was right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and ended up with a criminal president under constant investigation and has now just been indicted.”WeatherIt’s a partly sunny day near the high 60s. Expect a chance of showers at night, with temps around the low 50s.ALTERNATE-SIDE PARKINGIn effect until Thursday (Passover).The latest New York newsJustin Lane/EPA, via ShutterstockTrump indictmentTrump in New York: Donald Trump arrived in New York on Monday, kicking off a 24-hour visit that will culminate with a polarizing arraignment in the city where he grew up and rose to the fame that catapulted him to the presidency.Jan. 6: Trump’s arraignment differs from the Capitol riot, but law enforcement’s response is informed by lessons learned on Jan. 6, as well as the nationwide protests against police violence.CrimeA cold-case detective’s quest: Jasmine Porter’s 4-year-old son watched as a man killed her in their Bronx apartment in 1996. In 2020, a police investigator began trying to crack the case.Arrests made for murders and robberies: Three men were arrested and charged in connection with a series of killings and robberies at Manhattan gay bars.More local newsConstruction workers dead: Two workers were killed at Kennedy International Airport when they were buried under construction rubble inside a trench, officials said.Yeshiva University scrutiny on funding: A lawmaker asked a state inspector to look at millions given to Yeshiva University, which has argued it is a religious institution, not an educational one, to justify its ban on an L.G.B.T.Q. club.The suburbs and the housing debate: Gov. Kathy Hochul is promoting a housing plan that she says could create 800,000 new homes across the state over the next decade. Officials from Westchester County and Long Island are resisting the effort.Could a recent ruling give prosecutors a reason to abandon difficult cases?Christopher Lee for The New York TimesA recent decision by New York State’s highest court invalidated a rape conviction. Advocates for sexual assault survivors worry that the ruling could give prosecutors a reason not to bring sexual assault charges when the victim and the defendant know each other and there are no other witnesses.My colleague Maria Cramer writes that the 4-to-2 ruling by the New York Court of Appeals could also give defendants a reason to do everything they can to resist investigations and run out the clock.That is because the court threw out the first-degree rape conviction of Andrew Regan, noting that it took 31 months to obtain a warrant for a DNA sample. Judge Rowan Wilson wrote in the majority opinion that prosecutors had violated Regan’s rights to speedy prosecution, as guaranteed by a state law intended to prevent prosecutors from slow-walking cases without good reason.The court acknowledged that vacating his conviction could create “a genuine risk that a guilty person will not be punished, or, as in this case, not finish out his full sentence.” Regan was in the ninth year of a 12-year sentence when the ruling was handed down last month.The case began in 2009, when two couples went drinking after attending a wedding. At the end of the night, one of the four, a 22-year-old woman, invited her boyfriend and the other couple to stay at her home in upstate Norwood, N.Y.The woman went to sleep alone but woke during the night to find the other man, Regan, crushing her beneath him, according to court documents. She woke her boyfriend and told him she had been sexually assaulted, and they called the police. Regan was interviewed and released. At a hospital, a nurse collected evidence with a rape kit.The investigation dragged on for four years, in part because prosecutors in St. Lawrence County said they did not know how to obtain a warrant to get a DNA sample from Regan, something he repeatedly refused to provide. The police had taken a DNA sample from the woman’s boyfriend after she reported the assault and found that it did not match the semen on her underwear. Regan told the police he had not had sex with her.The prosecutors struggled for at least a year over how to obtain his DNA, a straightforward procedure that involves submitting an affidavit to a judge. The woman said that in the years that followed the incident, she had called the district attorney’s office in St. Lawrence County or the police at least once a month to find out what was happening with the case. She said that new investigators were assigned to the case at least three times, but no one provided a clear explanation for the delays.Gary Pasqua, who became the St. Lawrence County district attorney in 2018, said he did not believe that the ruling would set a precedent — even though Judge Madeline Singas wrote in a dissenting opinion that the decision would “be weaponized against victims.”She said the court “fails to appreciate the practice implications of the precedent they are creating: If law enforcement negligently delays rape investigations, women’s voices will continue to be stifled, rapists held unaccountable and jury verdicts discarded.”METROPOLITAN diaryDirtDear Diary:At Prince StreetI suck a smalltart found in apocket nest oftobacco and lintfrom last winter.The train pulls in.A woman isfolding a mapmouthing the routeto herself,girls in dark lipsticksget on, talkingloudly of rats,drowning the chime.The doors shudderthen close, openand shut once more.I’m nodding offby 34thand top out atTimes Square, each spotlighted a show:saxophone playerin shorts blows outworkable riffscasting for earswith a brass pole.A conductresstelling stories.An old sailorconsiders fakeson black velvet.Further up agospel singerin beads and gown,a man rentinga telescope aimedat the moon.— William ClarkIllustrated by Agnes Lee. Send submissions here and read more Metropolitan Diary here.Glad we could get together here. See you tomorrow. — J.B.P.S. Here’s today’s Mini Crossword and Spelling Bee. You can find all our puzzles here.Melissa Guerrero and Ed Shanahan contributed to New York Today. You can reach the team at nytoday@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Fox News Suffers Major Setback in Dominion Case

      by

      A judge said the suit would go to trial, for a jury to weigh whether the network knowingly spread false claims about Dominion Voting Systems, and to determine any damages.Fox News suffered a significant setback on Friday in its defense against a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit that claims it lied about voter fraud in the 2020 election.A judge in Delaware Superior Court said the case, brought by Dominion Voting Systems, was strong enough to conclude that Fox hosts and guests had repeatedly made false claims about Dominion machines and their supposed role in a fictitious plot to steal the election from President Donald J. Trump.“The evidence developed in this civil proceeding,” Judge Eric M. Davis wrote, demonstrates that it “is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.”Judge Davis said the case would proceed to trial, for a jury to weigh whether Fox spread false claims about Dominion while knowing that they were untrue, and to determine any damages. The trial is expected to begin April 17.But he rejected much of the heart of Fox’s defense: that the First Amendment protected the statements made on its air alleging that the election had somehow been stolen. Fox has argued that it was merely reporting on allegations of voter fraud as inherently newsworthy and that any statements its hosts made about supposed fraud were covered under the Constitution as opinion.“It appears oxymoronic to call the statements ‘opinions’ while also asserting the statements are newsworthy allegations and/or substantially accurate reports of official proceedings,” Judge Davis said.For example, in a “Lou Dobbs Tonight” broadcast on Nov. 24, 2020, Mr. Dobbs said: “I think many Americans have given no thought to electoral fraud that would be perpetrated through electronic voting; that is, these machines, these electronic voting companies including Dominion, prominently Dominion, at least in the suspicions of a lot of Americans.”The judge said that statement was asserting a fact, rather than an opinion, about Dominion.Under defamation law, Dominion must prove that Fox either knowingly spread false information or did so with reckless disregard for the truth, meaning that it had reason to believe that the information it broadcast was false.Numerous legal experts have said that Dominion has presented ample evidence that Fox hosts and producers were aware of what they were doing.RonNell Andersen Jones, a law professor and First Amendment scholar at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law, said the judge had signaled that he disagreed with many of Fox’s arguments.“The case will head to the jury with several of the key elements already decided in Dominion’s favor,” Ms. Anderson Jones said.Dominion, in a statement, said: “We are gratified by the court’s thorough ruling soundly rejecting all of Fox’s arguments and defenses, and finding as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false. We look forward to going to trial.”A spokeswoman for Fox said the case “is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news.”“Fox will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings,” she added.Both parties had asked for the judge to grant summary judgment, meaning to rule in their favor on the merits of the evidence that each side had produced so far, including at a pretrial hearing last week. Dominion has argued that texts and emails between Fox executives and hosts proved that many knew the claims were false but put them on the air anyway.Fox has accused Dominion of cherry-picking evidence and argued that the First Amendment protected it because it was reporting on newsworthy allegations.In Friday’s decision, Judge Davis said damages, if they were awarded to Dominion, would be calculated by the jury. Lawyers for Fox pushed back on Dominion’s claim for $1.6 billion in previous hearings, arguing that the company had overstated its valuation and failed to show it suffered any loss of business.Fox has argued that Fox Corp, the parent company of Fox News, was not involved in the broadcasting of the allegedly defamatory statements. In the decision, the judge left that question up to a jury.The case is the highest profile so far to test whether allies of former President Donald J. Trump would be held accountable for spreading falsehoods about the 2020 election. The prosecutions of those who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, have mostly been focused on petty criminals and low-level agitators.Major revelations have been buried in the suit’s filings. Hundreds of pages of internal emails and messages in the weeks around the 2020 election, some of which were redacted, showed that many Fox executives and hosts did not believe the false claims of voter fraud they were broadcasting and made derogatory comments about Mr. Trump and his legal advisers.Tucker Carlson, the popular prime-time host, described Mr. Trump as “a demonic force, a destroyer” in a text with his producer. In a separate message to the host Laura Ingraham, Mr. Carlson said Sidney Powell, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, was lying about the fraud claims, but “our viewers are good people and they believe it.”The trove of messages also revealed the panic inside Fox News in the weeks after the election. Leaders including Suzanne Scott, the network’s chief executive, and Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of its parent company, fretted about angering viewers who felt the network had betrayed Mr. Trump when it correctly called Arizona for Joseph R. Biden Jr.As some of those viewers left for more right-wing channels like Newsmax in the days after the election, Ms. Scott told Mr. Murdoch in an email that she intended to “pivot but keep the audience who loves us and trusts us.” She added: “We need to make sure they know we aren’t abandoning them and still champions for them.”Mr. Murdoch acknowledged in his deposition that some Fox News hosts had “endorsed” the false fraud claims. He added that he “would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it in hindsight.”The suit has also had a recent complicating factor: A former Fox News producer filed her own lawsuits against the company this month, claiming that the network’s lawyers coerced her into giving a misleading testimony in the Dominion case. Fox News fired the producer, Abby Grossberg, who worked for the host Maria Bartiromo and Mr. Carlson, after she filed the complaints.On Monday, Ms. Grossberg’s lawyers filed her errata sheet, which witnesses use to correct mistakes in their depositions. She revised her comments to say she did not trust the producers at Fox with whom she worked because they were “activists, not journalists, and impose their political agendas on the programming.”Judge Davis’s ruling sets the stage for one of the most consequential media trials in recent history, with the possibility that Fox executives and hosts could be called to testify in person.In several recent hearings, the judge indicated that he was losing patience with Fox lawyers and their objections to Dominion’s efforts to introduce evidence into the record. And he said on Friday that he believed Dominion was correct in asserting that Fox had not “conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Response to Trump’s Indictment? 4 Ways to Say No Comment.

      by

      President Biden believes that presidents should not comment on pending legal matters. He also does not want to be baited into a reaction.WASHINGTON — President Biden has nothing to say about the indictment of former President Donald J. Trump. He had so little to say to reporters on Friday, in fact, that he said nothing in four different ways:Would the indictment divide the country? “I have no comment on that.”Was he worried about protests? “No. I’m not going to talk about the Trump indictment.”What did the indictment say about the rule of law? “I have no comment at all.”Are the charges politically motivated? “I have no comment on Trump.”The strategy behind his “no comment” response is twofold: Mr. Biden and his advisers want to avoid a situation in which Mr. Trump tries to bait him into a reaction, according to two people familiar with the thinking inside the White House.But most of all, White House officials say, Mr. Biden believes that presidents should not comment on pending legal matters. (Not commenting on legal investigations, of course, was a common practice for presidents until Mr. Trump took office.)Mr. Biden’s strategy encapsules the argument he is making as he prepares to run for a second term, with Mr. Trump as a potential opponent: that he can project calm and competence while Mr. Trump continues to sow chaos.So, as he fielded questions while leaving the White House to visit a part of Mississippi that has been battered by recent storms, the president almost studiously ignored his predecessor, who has gone on the attack against Democrats and members of the Biden family since the indictment news broke.The strategy, now and always, has been not to respond, even in recent days, when Mr. Trump warned of “potential death and destruction” if he were to face indictment. Early Friday morning, Mr. Trump posted a message to his social media account: “WHERE’S HUNTER?” — a reference to Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who is facing a federal investigation into his business dealings.“Absolutely, they should stay the hell out of it,” David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, said in an interview. “There’s nothing that Trump wants more than for the White House to try to chime in. It would help him make this whole thing look like a big Democratic political conspiracy, which it’s not.”The indictment of Mr. Trump, which stems from his role in paying hush money to a porn star, is a first that will test the country’s legal and political institutions. Still, Mr. Biden has faced questions about Mr. Trump’s legal exposure for years. In October 2020, Mr. Biden was asked by George Stephanopoulos of ABC how a Biden Justice Department would handle the evidence produced in the Mueller investigation, which examined the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia and interference in the 2016 election.People in favor of the indictment posed for pictures in front of the White House. Kenny Holston/The New York Times“What the Biden Justice Department will do is let the Department of Justice be the Department of Justice,” Mr. Biden said. “Let them make the judgments of who should be prosecuted. They are not my lawyers. They are not my personal lawyers.”But he does have opinions. In the past, Mr. Biden privately told his close circle of advisers that Mr. Trump posed a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted for his role in the events of Jan. 6, according to two people familiar with his comments. He also told confidants that he wanted Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action.For now, the president and his advisers are waiting to see what the charges against Mr. Trump will be. The former president faces other legal peril as well: Prosecutors in Georgia are expected to make a decision soon on whether to seek indictments in their investigation of Mr. Trump and some of his allies over their efforts to interfere with the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state.There is little appetite inside the Biden administration to raise the temperature. In Africa on Friday, Vice President Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor, also declined to answer questions on Mr. Trump: “I am not going to comment on an ongoing criminal case as it relates to the former president,” Ms. Harris said during a news conference with the president of Zambia.On Friday, the Bidens walked among destroyed buildings in Rolling Fork, Miss., pausing to speak to families who had lost their homes in storms that have killed at least 21 people. At several points, Mr. Biden leaned down to talk to children, and the first lady chatted with workers who had been trying to clear the debris.Eric Schultz, a former spokesman for Mr. Obama, said that the president’s trip to Mississippi was likely to generate far fewer headlines than the Trump indictment, but that there was little reason for Mr. Biden, who is expected to announce a re-election campaign in the coming weeks, to step in as “the narrator” of Mr. Trump’s legal saga.“He’s so focused on what people are experiencing in their day-to-day lives,” Mr. Schultz said. “That’s where he should stay, no matter how many times his predecessor gets indicted.”Michael D. Shear contributed reporting from Rolling Fork, Miss. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Justices Must Disclose Travel and Gifts Under New Rules

      by

      The change comes as members of Congress have called for the justices to be held to ethics standards similar to those for the executive and legislative branches.WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices will be required to disclose more of their activities, including some free trips, air travel and other types of gifts, according to rules adopted earlier this month.Under the new rules, justices and other federal judges must report travel by private jet, as well as stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, resorts or hunting lodges.The move comes as members of Congress have called for the justices, who have long faced less stringent reporting requirements, to be held to ethics standards similar to those for the executive and legislative branches.“To the extent this becomes a model for further activity for the Judicial Conference to clean up the Supreme Court mess, I think that’s significant,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat of Rhode Island who sits on the Judiciary Committee’s panel that oversees federal courts.Some advocates pushing for greater transparency on the court cautioned that the rules would be hard to enforce and that it would be nearly impossible to know whether a justice had failed to disclose a trip, flight or other perk.“The problem with any sort of transparency rule within the judiciary is the question of enforcement, the question of accountability,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, an organization critical of the court’s transparency. Without additional requirements, including a quicker turnaround for disclosing travel and gifts and penalties for failures to comply, the new measures are likely to have a limited effect, Mr. Roth said.“The bar is so low that you can get credit for doing the bare minimum,” he said. “Small but significant is where I’m at.”The new rules, which went into effect March 14, were adopted by a financial disclosure committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts.At a meeting in January, the committee discussed whether judges and justices would be required to file disclosures when they are hosted at commercial properties, such as resorts, according to a letter to Mr. Whitehouse from Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf, the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, which provides support for the court system.By federal law, justices must file forms each year disclosing financial ties, including gifts. However, the rules for travel that is considered “personal hospitality” were not clearly defined, including for stays at commercial properties or trips in which a third-party pays.It is unclear precisely how oversight and enforcement would work for the justices. A court spokeswoman declined to comment.The most common enforcement mechanism stems from the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which describes “misconduct” as “knowingly violating requirements for financial disclosure.” If an allegation arose, the chief judge of a circuit could review it and determine whether a punishment is warranted, but the act does not apply to the Supreme Court.Questions around travel by the justices have persisted for years, particularly since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. Justice Scalia died while on a hunting trip at a lodge in West Texas owned by a businessman involved in a case that the court declined to hear in 2015.Justice Scalia, who had been staying at the ranch for free, had taken more than 250 subsidized trips from 2004 to 2014.In 2014 alone, he went on at least 23 privately funded trips, including to Ireland, Switzerland and Hawaii. Justice Scalia had been invited to the ranch by John Poindexter, owner of a Texas manufacturing firm. One of Mr. Poindexter’s companies, the Mic Group, had been the defendant in an age discrimination lawsuit by a former employee who had unsuccessfully sought review by the Supreme Court the year before.But Justice Scalia was hardly alone in accepting privately paid trips. From 2004 to 2014, Justice Stephen G. Breyer took 185 such trips, according to a database by the Center for Responsive Politics.The issue of privately paid travel also emerged in 2011, a year after the landmark campaign finance case Citizens United, which allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections. A liberal advocacy group, Common Cause, argued that Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused themselves from hearing the case because they traveled to a political conference in Palm Springs, Calif., sponsored by the businessman Charles G. Koch, one of the biggest donors to Republicans.Legal experts greeted this month’s move with cautious optimism.“In my world of transparency and judicial ethics, what we had until now was little more than a joke,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at the New York University School of Law who specializes in legal ethics. “The rules were very lax and tolerated circumvention, and now we’ve taken a giant step away from that.”However, he said there was still a long way to go toward transparency and accountability, pointing to the lag time between when a gift is received and when it must be reported. Justices have until May 15 of the year after receiving a gift before they must report it.In theory, if a justice “knowingly and willfully” failed to comply with the rules, the attorney general could bring a case. In practice, though, he said, that has never happened. He added that it was also impossible to know how individual justices would respond to the stricter rules.“There’s no enforcement mechanism at the Supreme Court,” he said. “It will be up to each justice.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Former Trump Officials Must Testify in 2020 Election Inquiry, Judge Says

      by

      The ruling paves the way for testimony from Mark Meadows and others. Separately, a Trump lawyer appeared before a grand jury looking into the former president’s handling of classified documents.A federal judge has ruled that a number of former officials from President Donald J. Trump’s administration — including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows — cannot invoke executive privilege to avoid testifying to a grand jury investigating Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The recent ruling by Judge Beryl A. Howell paves the way for the former White House officials to answer questions from federal prosecutors, according to two people briefed on the matter.Judge Howell ruled on the matter in a closed-door proceeding in her role as chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, a job in which she oversaw the grand juries taking testimony in the Justice Department’s investigations into Mr. Trump. Judge Howell’s term as chief judge ended last week.The existence of the sealed ruling was first reported by ABC News.Mr. Trump’s lawyers had tried to rebuff the grand jury subpoenas issued to more than a half-dozen former administration officials in connection with the former president’s efforts to remain in office after his defeat at the polls. The lawyers argued that Mr. Trump’s interactions with the officials would be covered by executive privilege.Prosecutors are likely to be especially eager to hear from Mr. Meadows, who refused to be interviewed by the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Mr. Meadows was a central player in various efforts to help Mr. Trump reverse the election outcome in a number of contested states.Before he stopped cooperating with the committee, Mr. Meadows provided House investigators with thousands of text messages that gave them a road map of events and people to interview. He has also appeared before a fact-finding grand jury in Fulton County, Ga., investigating the efforts to overturn the election, according to the grand jury’s forewoman, who described him as not very forthcoming.Mr. Meadows’s lawyer, George Terwilliger, did not respond to a phone call on Friday seeking comment.Other officials whose grand jury testimony Judge Howell compelled in her order vary in significance to the investigation, and in seniority. They include John McEntee, who served as Mr. Trump’s personnel chief and personal aide; Nick Luna, another personal aide; Robert C. O’Brien, who was national security adviser; Dan Scavino, who was a deputy chief of staff and social media director in the White House; John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence; Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s speechwriter and adviser; and Ken Cuccinelli, who served as acting deputy secretary of homeland security.Word of the ruling came as the Justice Department pressed ahead in its parallel investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving office and whether he obstructed the government’s efforts to reclaim them. The twin federal investigations are being led by Jack Smith, the special counsel who was appointed after Mr. Trump announced his latest candidacy in November.In the documents case, one of the central witnesses, M. Evan Corcoran, a lawyer who represented Mr. Trump in the inquiry, appeared before a grand jury on Friday after both Judge Howell and a federal appeals court in Washington rejected his attempts to avoid answering questions by asserting attorney-client privilege on behalf of Mr. Trump, according to two people familiar with the matter..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.In making her ruling last week to force Mr. Corcoran to testify, Judge Howell upheld the government’s request to invoke the crime-fraud exception, a provision of the law that allows prosecutors to work around attorney-client privilege if they have reason to believe that legal advice or services were used to further a crime. The judge also said that Mr. Corcoran would have to turn over some documents related to his representation of Mr. Trump.Judge Howell’s order exposed the continuing legal peril confronting Mr. Trump, as it noted that Mr. Smith’s team had made “a prima facie showing that the former president committed criminal violations,” according to people familiar with the decision.Her order made clear that prosecutors have questions not just about what Mr. Trump told Mr. Corcoran as he prepared to respond to a grand jury subpoena seeking any remaining classified material in Mr. Trump’s possession, but who else may have influenced what Mr. Corcoran told Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the ruling.In December, another lawyer for Mr. Trump, Timothy Parlatore, also appeared in front of the grand jury, to answer questions about a subpoena prosecutors had issued in May seeking all classified material in the possession of the custodian of records for Mr. Trump’s presidential office.Mr. Parlatore said on Friday that he had gone in front of the grand jury because at that point Mr. Trump’s office no longer had a custodian of records. He also said that he had been involved in several efforts to comply with the subpoena in the weeks and months after the F.B.I., acting on a search warrant in August, hauled away hundreds of classified documents from Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida.Among the things that Mr. Parlatore said he discussed with the grand jury were additional searches he oversaw at the end of last year, of other properties belonging to Mr. Trump, including Trump Tower in New York; Mr. Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, N.J.; and a storage site in West Palm Beach, Fla.During the search of the storage site, investigators found at least two more documents with classified markings.During his grand jury testimony, Mr. Parlatore said he also mentioned an empty folder bearing the words “classified evening summary” that had remained on Mr. Trump’s bedroom night stand even after the F.B.I.’s search of Mar-a-Lago.He said prosecutors immediately drew up a subpoena for the folder, demanding its return.“The D.O.J. is continuously stepping far outside the standard norms in attempting to destroy the long-accepted, long-held, constitutionally based standards of attorney-client privilege and executive privilege,” a Trump spokesman said in a statement, saying the cases are political and that “there is no factual or legal basis or substance to any case against President Trump.”Prosecutors in Mr. Smith’s office have also been pressing forward with seeking grand jury testimony in a separate investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents after he left office. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Warren Boroson, Who Surveyed Psychiatrists on Goldwater, Dies at 88

      by

      The defeated Republican presidential candidate sued Mr. Boroson and the magazine he worked for, saying it had libeled him for suggesting that he was mentally unfit for the presidency.Warren Boroson, a journalist who conducted a survey of psychiatrists that declared the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, Barry M. Goldwater, mentally unfit to be president — provoking a libel suit from the candidate and prompting a psychiatric association to muzzle its members from ever diagnosing a public figure from afar — died on March 12 at his home in Woodstock, N.Y. He was 88.The cause was complications of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart ailments, his wife, Rebecca Boroson, said.Mr. Goldwater sued for $2 million, and Mr. Boroson, who had been the 29-year-old managing editor of the iconoclastic magazine Fact when he initiated the survey for it, feared a judgment against him would commit him to a lifetime of indentured servitude to that Arizona senator.A federal jury in New York found in favor of Mr. Goldwater, awarding damages of $75,000. But the verdict, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, put most of the blame on editing by others, largely absolving Mr. Boroson, who had to pay only a token 33 cents.Ethical questions raised by the survey, though, have roiled the psychiatric profession to this day.In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association adopted the so-called Goldwater rule, declaring that it was unethical for its members “to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.” Only one board member, Professor Alan A. Stone of Harvard Law School, voted against the rule, calling it “a denial of free speech and of every psychiatrist’s God-given right to make a fool of himself or herself.”Since then, some psychiatrists have defied the rule when asked by journalists and others to comment about the emotional and mental state of public figures, including foreign officials, terrorists and, in particular, Donald J. Trump, both as a candidate and as president. Some have resigned from the association rather than be bound by the rule.In 1964, the Fact survey led to Mr. Boroson’s resignation from the magazine. He had suggested polling psychiatrists to Fact’s publisher, Ralph Ginzburg, but quit before the article appeared, in September 1964, because, he said, his draft had been rewritten and sensationalized.Mr. Boroson had apparently agreed that Mr. Goldwater was “out of his mind” and feared for America’s safety if he were ever entrusted with the nation’s nuclear trigger, according to a book by Dr. John Martin-Joy, “Diagnosing From a Distance: Debates Over Libel Law, Media, and Psychiatric Ethics from Barry Goldwater to Donald Trump” (2020).Dr. Martin-Joy, a Cambridge, Mass., psychiatrist, said that Mr. Boroson had conducted “serious research into the best current thinking on how to prevent a recurrence of fascism,” and that his original draft represented “at least an effort to explain a complex psychological idea to the general public.”“I think he, with Ginzburg, was important in trying to push forward the frontiers of free speech on behalf of public understanding of the mental health of public figures,” Dr. Martin-Joy said. “However, the job they actually did was imperfect.”Senator Barry Goldwater and his wife, Peggy, arriving at the federal courthouse in New York in 1968 to testify in his libel suit against Fact magazine.Associated PressMr. Goldwater, who had lost the election in a landslide to the incumbent, President Lyndon B. Johnson, filed suit in 1965.“It was clearly felt by the court that this met the definition of actual malice, that Ginzburg had creatively edited responses from psychiatrists and that they were departing from what they knew to be facts,” Dr. Martin-Joy said. “I think they undermined their own case.”Dr. Jacob M. Appel, director of ethics education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in Manhattan, said that “Boroson’s work in the 1960s had the unintended consequence of muzzling psychiatrists like me today.” Mr. Boroson recalled in interviews and unpublished notes that his fears about Mr. Goldwater’s fitness were piqued when he read that the candidate had suffered two nervous breakdowns — stressful conditions that were later said to have been overstated.“I said to Ginzburg, ‘Why don’t we ask a few psychiatrists whether a nervous breakdown incapacitates someone for public office?’” Mr. Boroson recalled. “Ginzburg immediately replied: ‘Let’s ask every psychiatrist in the country.’ So we did.”Fact reached out to all 12,356 members on the American Psychiatric Association’s mailing list, asking them, “Do you believe Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as president of the United States?” Of the 2,417 who responded, 657 answered “Yes,” and 1,189 replied “No.” The rest said they didn’t know enough about the senator’s psyche to make a determination.Mr. Boroson wrote that the magazine’s 41 pages of excerpted responses constituted “the most intensive character analysis ever made of a living human being.”The cover article, titled “The Man and the Menace,” was derived from Mr. Boroson’s draft, which was apparently rewritten by Mr. Ginzburg’s friend, David Bar-Illan, an Israeli pianist and editor.“In anger I resigned from Fact,” Mr. Boroson wrote in his notes. “And insisted that my name not be listed as the author of the Bar-Illan article.” The article appeared under Mr. Ginzburg’s byline.An appeals court concluded that Mr. Ginzburg had “deleted most of Boroson’s references to the authoritarian personality and reached the conclusion, which Boroson had not expressed, that Senator Goldwater was suffering from paranoia and was mentally ill.”Time magazine wrote that the published version depicted Mr. Goldwater as “as a paranoiac, a latent homosexual and a latter-day Hitler.”The Supreme Court upheld the jury award: punitive damages of $25,000 against Mr. Ginzburg and $50,000 against the magazine, and $1 in compensatory damages divided among the three defendants, including Mr. Boroson. Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas dissented, citing First Amendment protections.Warren Gilbert Boroson was born on Jan. 22, 1935, in Manhattan. His mother, Cecelia (Wersan) Boroson, was an office manager. His father, Henry, was a teacher.Warren attended Memorial High School in West Nyack, N.Y., and graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in English from Columbia University in 1957.In addition to his wife, Rebecca (Kaplan) Boroson, a retired journalist, he is survived by his sons, Bram and Matthew, and his brother, Dr. Hugh Boroson. In 1968, four years after the Goldwater survey, Mr. Ginzburg sought to conduct a similar survey of psychiatrists regarding President Johnson’s mental health. If he succeeded, the results were apparently never published.  Mr. Boroson later wrote for local newspapers and magazines, including Mr. Ginzburg’s Avant Garde, under pen names. (Fact, a quarterly, was published from January 1964 to August 1967.) He was the author of more than 20 books, including self-help financial guides. He also taught music, finance and journalism at colleges.“What did I learn from the experience?,” he wrote in his reflective notes about the Goldwater case. “Not much. I regret not proposing to write a book about Trump when he first became famous: Trump: In Relentless Pursuit of Selfishness.” More

    • 50 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Abortion Pill Fight

      by

      Since Roe v. Wade ended, the battle over legal abortion has largely shifted to access to pills.Since the end of Roe v. Wade last June, access to abortion pills has muted some of the effect of the severe restrictions on abortion that 14 states have imposed. Abortion opponents have responded by trying to reduce access to those pills. The resulting struggle has become the main battle to watch in the post-Roe landscape.Today’s newsletter examines the latest developments — including a court ruling expected soon — and explains what’s likely to happen next.How pill access grewThe most effective and safest method of medication abortion requires two drugs. The first, mifepristone, ends the pregnancy. The second, misoprostol, causes cramping and bleeding to empty the uterus, like a miscarriage. In approving this regimen in 2000, the F.D.A. imposed restrictions on mifepristone because of questions then about its safety. Among other rules, patients had to visit a clinic, doctor’s office or hospital to receive the medication.In 2021, during the pandemic and after President Biden took office, the F.D.A. lifted the in-person requirement. The shift opened a new avenue for telemedicine abortions. In about 30 states, women could legally end their pregnancies at home, with pills prescribed through an online consultation and mailed to them. If they had questions, they could call a private national hotline to talk to medical professionals.After the Supreme Court overturned Roe last year, demand surged for abortion pills by mail. An international organization, Aid Access, provided prescriptions for the pills from European doctors, often filled in India, to patients in states with bans. Overseas pharmacies, advertising online, also ship abortion pills without a prescription to every state.These offshore routes to access, which operate in a legal gray area in states with abortion bans, will probably remain open. But they carry potential legal risks for women and it can take a few weeks for the drugs to arrive from overseas, a delay that can create problems since medication abortion is more effective and less likely to cause complications early in pregnancy.How opponents are fighting backOpponents of abortion have a bold counterstrategy. They want to block the use of mifepristone not only in states with abortion bans but also nationwide.In November, anti-abortion organizations and doctors sued in Texas to challenge the F.D.A.’s approval of medication abortion 23 years ago. They argue that mifepristone is unsafe. In fact, research has clearly established the safety and efficacy of the F.D.A.’s approved regimen. Serious complications are possible but rare. So, on the merits, the suit may seem far-fetched.But the plaintiffs made sure to file suit (a practice some experts call “judge shopping”) in a division of a Federal District Court with one judge, a Trump appointee named Matthew Kacsmaryk who has longstanding views against abortion. If he blocks the F.D.A.’s approval, it would be unprecedented, experts said in an amicus brief.The drugstore battleSeparate from the Texas case, the national divide over abortion is playing out in pharmacies.In January, Walgreens, CVS and other companies said they would apply for a newly available certification from the F.D.A. to dispense both drugs in states where abortion remains legal. But 21 Republican attorneys general — including four in states where abortion is still legal — threatened legal action against the pharmacy chains. Walgreens promised not to provide the pills within those states.The chains see an opportunity for another new market. Their interest signals that medication abortion is becoming mainstream. In large parts of the country, that’s unwelcome.What’s nextOther lawsuits are trying to protect access to abortion pills. One, filed by states where Democrats are in power, asks a judge to affirm the F.D.A.’s approval of mifepristone and remove the remaining restrictions on the medication. Another, by a U.S. manufacturer of the medication, is challenging state bans on the pill.For now, mifepristone and misoprostol remain widely and quickly available in states where abortion is legal. And the medications can be obtained through avenues like Aid Access, with a delay, in states where abortion is not legal.Taken together, the drugs are more than 95 percent effective, research shows. Alternatively, people can take only misoprostol in higher doses, but this method is 88 percent effective, according to a study in the U.S. published last month, and is also more likely to cause side effects like nausea and diarrhea.A ruling from Judge Kacsmaryk could come any day. If he issues a nationwide injunction to block the provision of mifepristone, his ruling could increase health risks and physical discomfort for women.“The Texas lawsuit is based on the false claim that mifepristone is unsafe and leads to a high need for physician intervention,” Abigail Aiken, one author of the new study, said. “And yet, if we move to a miso-alone protocol, the need for physician intervention will, if anything, be increased.”A nationwide injunction would be immediately appealed. It’s also possible that Judge Kacsmaryk can’t actually stop the legal provision of mifepristone, at least in the short term, three law professors argue. Congress set procedures for the F.D.A. to withdraw approval from a drug, and the process takes time to follow. A judge can order a review but shouldn’t have the power to circumvent the rules, the law professors say.The F.D.A. also has a workaround: When the risk is low, the agency can give manufacturers permission to keep distributing products, like some baby formula, which violate the law in some way.It’s a strange idea: a federal agency using its discretion to avoid enforcing a court ruling. But it could also be the only way for women in the U.S. to continue accessing the safest and most effective method of medication abortion — as long as a president who supports abortion access is in office.For moreThe New York Legislature is considering a bill to protect clinicians who mail abortion pills to patients elsewhere.See the states where restrictions on abortion pills could have the most impact.Makena, the only drug aimed at preventing preterm birth, will be pulled from the market after F.D.A. advisers said it largely didn’t help.THE LATEST NEWSInternationalThe Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in Germany.Krisztian Bocsi/BloombergIntelligence suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group sabotaged gas pipelines linking Russia to Western Europe last year. Ukraine’s government denies involvement.Millions of people in France demonstrated against a plan to raise the retirement age. The resistance stems from a commitment to work-life balance.Mexican authorities found four missing Americans: two killed by gunmen, two kidnapped but alive.The Mexican military illegally used surveillance tools against citizens trying to expose its misdeeds.An Israeli raid in the West Bank aimed at arresting a shooting suspect ended in a firefight, killing six Palestinians.PoliticsBiden will propose tax increases for corporations and high earners to reduce deficits over the next decade.“The whole thing seems insane”: More messages from Rupert Murdoch and Fox News hosts reveal their skepticism of Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election.House Republicans promoted Tucker Carlson’s report falsely portraying the Jan. 6 attack as largely peaceful, while Senate Republicans condemned it.Oklahoma voters decided against legalizing recreational marijuana.Other Big StoriesTo slow inflation, the Federal Reserve will probably raise interest rates more than projected.The Justice Department sued to block JetBlue Airways from buying Spirit Airlines, saying a merger would reduce competition.“There’s a lot of value to be won or lost”: Tech giants are competing to use A.I. for their benefit.OpinionsPrime Minister Narendra Modi’s war against Kashmiri journalism portends a larger campaign to limit press freedom in India, Anuradha Bhasin writes.ChatGPT is a statistical engine based on big data. True intelligence is creative, explanatory and moral, Noam Chomsky, Ian Roberts and Jeffrey Watumull write.MORNING READSMartin Schneider is a firefighter who moonlights as a pitcher.Nina Riggio for The New York TimesA scrappy nine: The Czech Republic’s roster for the World Baseball Classic is full of guys with regular jobs.No spots: Parking lots are shrinking across the U.S.Keanu Reeves’s latest role: He’s a fungus-killing bacterial compound (sort of).Ask Well: Is cannabis good or bad for sleep?Advice from Wirecutter: These stain-resistant shirts repel almost everything.Lives Lived: David Lindley’s mastery of stringed instruments made him a sought-after sideman in 1970s Los Angeles, and his long association with Jackson Browne won him a degree of stardom. Lindley died at 78.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICJackson hits the market: The Ravens placed a nonexclusive franchise tag on Lamar Jackson, which means the quarterback can field offers from other teams. It’s a big risk for Baltimore.Heels in danger: A microscope is focused on North Carolina this week, as the Tar Heels try to sneak into the N.C.A.A. Tournament.High stakes: Daniel Jones will remain the Giants’ quarterback after agreeing to a four-year, $160 million deal. ARTS AND IDEAS The restored Procuratie Vecchie in Venice.Richard DaviesArchitecture’s top prizeDavid Chipperfield, a British architect known for merging modern spaces with historic buildings, won the Pritzker Prize.The jury cited Chipperfield’s recent restoration of the 16th-century Procuratie Vecchie in Venice, a beloved landmark on St. Mark’s Square, and noted his renovation of the Neues Museum in Berlin, which saved elements of the World War II-damaged building. “With it, Berlin has one of the finest public buildings in Europe,” the Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman wrote in 2009.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookDavid Malosh for The New York TimesParmesan cabbage soup, thickened with rice, is nourishing.What to Watch“History of the World, Part II” is a screwball tour of civilization.What to ReadThese new psychological thrillers deliver chills.Late NightStephen Colbert called Kari Lake the “governor of the state of denial.”Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was microfilm. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: On edge (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. Iran cut diplomatic ties with Britain after demanding that its government denounce Salman Rushdie and “The Satanic Verses,” The Times reported 34 years ago today.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about the Nord Stream pipelines.Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Cambodian Opposition Leader Is Found Guilty of Treason Ahead of Election

      by

      Kem Sokha, co-founder of the defunct Cambodia National Rescue Party, was accused of conspiring to overthrow the government and sentenced to 27 years’ house arrest.Kem Sokha, Cambodia’s most prominent opposition politician still in the country, was sentenced to 27 years of house arrest Friday on a charge of treason and banned from running or voting in elections.Cambodian courts are not an independent branch of government, and the sentence was the latest step that Prime Minister Hun Sen has taken as he crushes what remains of a political opposition in advance of a July election. Mr. Hun Sen, who has been in power for 38 years, has said he is planning to run in that election and has anointed one of his sons, Lt. Gen. Hun Manet, to succeed him in the future.“It is not right, unfair and can’t be accepted,” said Ang Oudom, one of Mr. Kem Sokha’s lawyers, after the sentence was announced. He said he would appeal but added: “It is a political case, and only politicians can decide.”Outside the courthouse, where several ambassadors had gathered to hear the verdict, W. Patrick Murphy, the U.S. ambassador to Cambodia, said the case was fabricated and a miscarriage of justice.“Denying Kem Sokha and other political figures their freedom of expression, their freedom of association, undermines Cambodia’s Constitution, international commitment and past progress to develop a pluralist and inclusive society,” he said.Mr. Kem Sokha, 69, is a co-founder of the now-dissolved Cambodia National Rescue Party, known as the C.N.R.P., along with Sam Rainsy, who has been in self-imposed exile since 2015 to avoid arrest for defamation, among other charges. Mr. Kem Sokha was arrested in September 2017 in a showy late-night raid on a charge of colluding with the United States government to take power in Cambodia.That charge was based on a statement he made in a video about receiving advice from American pro-democracy groups. He has denied the charges, and Washington has dismissed them as “fabricated conspiracy theories.”From abroad, Mr. Rainsy said the charges against Mr. Kem Sokha were “based on a grotesque reading of a standard speech he had made years earlier in Australia.”Mr. Kem Sokha was moved from prison to house arrest just over a year after he was detained and then freed from house arrest in November 2019 but banned from politics. Soon after his arrest, the Supreme Court dissolved the C.N.R.P. after the government accused it of plotting its overthrow.The party posed the most serious threat to Mr. Hun Sen’s Cambodian People’s Party, known as the C.P.P., and the C.N.R.P.’s dissolution cleared the way for Mr. Hun Sen’s party to sweep all 125 seats in the National Assembly in a 2018 election.Mr. Kem Sokha’s arrest and the termination of the C.N.R.P. were part of a wide-ranging crackdown on opposition politicians, activists and members of the press that has seen hundreds of people jailed or sentenced in absentia after fleeing abroad. In June, a court in Phnom Penh convicted at least 51 opposition figures of “incitement” and “conspiracy” as well as other charges.Among those convicted was Theary Seng, a lawyer and civil rights activist with dual American and Cambodian citizenship, who is now serving a six-year sentence in a remote prison in Preah Vihear Province.Human Rights Watch, which has strongly condemned each step of the crackdown in Cambodia, called on foreign governments Friday to reassess their approach to Mr. Hun Sen’s government.“It was obvious from the start that the charges against Kem Sokha were nothing but a political ploy by Prime Minister Hun Sen to sideline Cambodia’s major opposition leader and eliminate the country’s democratic system,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch.He said the sentence “isn’t just about destroying his political party but about quashing any hope that there can be a genuine election in July.” Ming Yu Hah, Amnesty International’s deputy regional director over Southeast Asia, emphasized the same point, saying, “This verdict is an unmistakable warning to opposition groups months before national elections.”Mr. Hun Sen put the point in graphic terms in a speech in January, in which he warned his political opponents to prepare for assault. He said he could “gather people belonging to the C.P.P. to protest and beat you,” and added, “Be careful. If I can’t control my temper, you will be destroyed.”Sun Narin More