Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Lawyers Are Going Down. Is He?

      by

      On Tuesday morning, Jenna Ellis became the third Donald Trump-allied lawyer to plead guilty in Fulton County, Ga., to state criminal charges related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. She joins Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro in similar pleas, with each of them receiving probation and paying a small fine, and each of them cooperating with the prosecution in its remaining cases against Trump and his numerous co-defendants.The Ellis, Powell and Chesebro guilty pleas represent an advance for both the state election prosecution in Georgia and the federal election prosecution in Washington. While their guilty pleas came in the Georgia case (they’re not charged in the federal prosecution, though Powell and Chesebro have been identified as unindicted co-conspirators in that case), the information they disclose could be highly relevant to Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump.Perhaps as important, or even more important, the three attorneys’ admissions may prove culturally and politically helpful to those of us who are attempting to break the fever of conspiracy theories that surround the 2020 election and continue to empower Trump today. At the same time, however, it’s far too soon to tell whether the prosecution has made real progress on Trump himself. The ultimate importance of the plea deals depends on the nature of the testimony from the lawyers, and we don’t yet know what they have said — or will say.To understand the potential significance of these plea agreements, it’s necessary to understand the importance of Trump’s legal team to Trump’s criminal defense. As I’ve explained in various pieces, and as the former federal prosecutor Ken White explained to me when I guest-hosted Ezra Klein’s podcast, proof of criminal intent is indispensable to the criminal cases against Trump, both in Georgia and in the federal election case. While the specific intent varies depending on the charge, each key claim requires proof of conscious wrongdoing — such as an intent to lie or the “intent to have false votes cast.”One potential element of Trump’s intent defense in the federal case is that he was merely following the advice of lawyers. In other words, how could he possess criminal intent when he simply did what his lawyers told him to do? He’s not the one who is expected to know election laws. They are.According to court precedent that governs the federal case, a defendant can use advice of counsel as a defense against claims of criminal intent if he can show that he “made full disclosure of all material facts to his attorney” before he received the advice, and that “he relied in good faith on the counsel’s advice that his course of conduct was legal.”There is a price, though, for presenting an advice-of-counsel defense. The defendant waives attorney-client privilege, opening up both his oral and written communications with his lawyers to scrutiny by a judge and a jury. There is no question that a swarm of MAGA lawyers surrounded Trump at each step of the process, much like a cloud of dirt surrounds the character Pigpen in the “Peanuts” cartoons, but if the lawyers themselves have admitted to engaging in criminal conduct, then that weakens his legal defense. This was no normal legal team, and their conduct was far outside the bounds of normal legal representation.Apart from the implications of the advice-of-counsel defense, their criminal pleas, combined with their agreements to cooperate, may grant us greater visibility into Trump’s state of mind during the effort to overturn the election. The crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege prevents a criminal defendant from shielding his communications with his lawyers when those communications were in furtherance of a criminal scheme. If Ellis, Powell or Chesebro can testify that the lawyers were operating at Trump’s direction — as opposed to Trump following their advice — then that testimony could help rebut Trump’s intent defense.At the same time, I use words like “potential,” “if,” “may” and “could” intentionally. We do not yet know the full story that any of these attorneys will tell. We only have hints. Ellis said in court on Tuesday, for example, that she “relied on others, including lawyers with many more years of experience than I, to provide me with true and reliable information.” Indeed, Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, has indicted two other attorneys with “many more years of experience” — Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman. If Ellis’s court statement is any indication, it’s an ominous indicator for both men.If you think it’s crystal clear that the guilty pleas are terrible news for Trump — or represent that elusive “we have him now” moment that many Trump opponents have looked for since his moral corruption became clear — then it’s important to know that there’s a contrary view. National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, a respected former federal prosecutor, argued that Powell’s guilty plea, for example, was evidence that Willis’s case was “faltering” and that her RICO indictment “is a dud.”“When prosecutors cut plea deals with cooperators early in the proceedings,” McCarthy writes, “they generally want the pleading defendants to admit guilt to the major charges in the indictment.” Powell pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges. Ellis and Chesebro both pleaded to a single felony charge, but they received punishment similar to Powell’s. McCarthy argues that Willis allowed Powell to plead guilty to a minor infraction “because minor infractions are all she’s got.” And in a piece published Tuesday afternoon, McCarthy argued that the Ellis guilty plea is more of a sign of the “absurdity” of Willis’s RICO charge than a sign that Willis is closing in on Trump, a notion he called “wishful thinking.”There’s also another theory regarding the light sentences for the three lawyers. When Powell and Chesebro sought speedy trials, they put the prosecution under pressure. As Andrew Fleischman, a Georgia defense attorney, wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, it was “extremely smart” to seek a quick trial. “They got the best deal,” Fleischman said, “because their lawyers picked the best strategy.”As a general rule, when evaluating complex litigation, it is best not to think in terms of legal breakthroughs (though breakthroughs can certainly occur) but rather in terms of legal trench warfare. Think of seizing ground from your opponent yard by yard rather than mile by mile, and the question at each stage isn’t so much who won and who lost but rather who advanced and who retreated. Willis has advanced, but it’s too soon to tell how far.The guilty pleas have a potential legal effect, certainly, but they can have a cultural and political effect as well. When MAGA lawyers admit to their misdeeds, it should send a message to the Republican rank and file that the entire effort to steal the election was built on a mountain of lies. In August, a CNN poll found that a majority of Republicans still question Joe Biden’s election victory, and their doubts about 2020 are a cornerstone of Trump’s continued political viability.Again, we can’t expect any single thing to break through to Republican voters, but just as prosecutors advance one yard at a time, opposing candidates and concerned citizens advance their cultural and political cases the same way. It’s a slow, painful process of trying to wean Republicans from conspiracy theories, and these guilty pleas are an important element in service of that indispensable cause. They represent a series of confessions from the inner circle and not a heated external critique.Amid this cloud of uncertainty, there is one thing we do know: With each guilty plea, we receive further legal confirmation of a reality that should have been plainly obvious to each of us, even in the days and weeks immediately following the election. Trump’s effort to overturn the election wasn’t empowered by conventional counsel providing sound legal advice. It was a corrupt scheme empowered by an admitted criminal cabal.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

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Rishi Sunak, Britain’s Prime Minister, Is Probably Doomed

      by

      When Rishi Sunak became prime minister of Britain a year ago, there was little sense of celebration. The markets were in free fall after the disastrous 49-day tenure of his predecessor, Liz Truss, and the government was in disarray. Mr. Sunak, who had been rejected by Conservative Party members earlier in the year, was inserted by lawmakers in the desperate hope he could calm the crisis. Given that the party had just ousted two leaders in quick succession, it was unclear how long he would even stay in the post.One year later, he can take comfort that Britain is in a different place. It’s now possible, for a start, to have a conversation with visitors without being asked what on earth is going on. Projecting decency and stability, Mr. Sunak has calmed the markets, helped to repair relations with the European Union and sated his party’s appetite for regicide. The next election, due by January 2025, is on the horizon. Even party critics concede that Mr. Sunak will lead the Conservatives into it.But that’s where the good news stops for the prime minister. While Mr. Sunak has moved his party out of crisis mode, he is yet to win over voters. Against hopes that a new leader would raise the party’s fortunes, Mr. Sunak’s approval ratings have sunk along with esteem for the Conservatives. The polls repeatedly suggest a 20-point lead for the opposition Labour Party, whose leader, Keir Starmer, businesses and the media view as the prime minister in waiting.Adding to a sense of fatalism, a steady drip-feed of local elections — often set off by the bad behavior of Tory lawmakers — have cost the Conservatives once-safe seats. Two more, including one in Conservative hands since 1931, went over to the opposition last week. Mr. Sunak may be doing his best, in trying circumstances. But at the moment, it’s nowhere near enough.There’s an argument that any leader would struggle with the conditions Mr. Sunak inherited: high inflation, increased borrowing costs and low growth. Across the world, incumbent governments of all stripes are finding their time is up — whether it’s the center-left Labour Party in New Zealand or the right-wing populist Law and Justice party in Poland. When Mr. Sunak has found success, it’s been by making his own weather. His renegotiation of the Northern Ireland protocol, an especially vexed post-Brexit arrangement, showed maturity and won him a brief popularity bounce.Yet economic difficulties have been stubborn. Mr. Sunak, a former chancellor, was picked by lawmakers because of his economic credentials — and he has managed to win back some market confidence. But the government is still boxed in. The right of the party, including the outspoken Ms. Truss, wants tax cuts. Mr. Sunak won’t budge until inflation is down, which is not happening quickly enough. Facing a winter of high bills, Britons will be feeling the pinch for some time to come.But Mr. Sunak’s biggest challenge is the length of time his party has been in power. The Conservatives, plagued by scandal, have overseen a country where discontent is legion: A survey taken this summer found that three-quarters of people in Britain believe it is becoming a worse place to live. After 13 years of Tory rule — the same amount of time New Labour, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, enjoyed in office — the other side can’t be blamed for Britain’s woes.Mr. Sunak’s attempts to overcome this fundamental problem are twofold. First, he has accepted that the country is not working and needs to change. His five priorities — halving inflation, stopping the boats carrying migrants across the Channel, cutting National Health Service waiting lists, growing the economy and reducing debt — are designed to reflect key voter concerns. But many are pessimistic that all the goals can be achieved. Continuing health worker strikes, for example, signal that unhappiness with the state of the N.H.S. is unlikely to subside ahead of the election.His second move is more ambitious. In a bid to shake off the baggage of previous Tory governments, Mr. Sunak is trying to depict himself as the change candidate. He has axed David Cameron’s pet project, a high-speed rail network linking the Midlands and the North, and scaled down the net-zero commitments embraced by Boris Johnson and Theresa May. The goal is to show him as a man of action with his own convictions, someone prepared, as he recently put it, to “be bold.” But running against your party’s own record is tricky, and it is already causing resentment among colleagues who served in previous administrations.Hope, strangely, could come from the opposition. Mr. Starmer is yet to be embraced by the public — his job satisfaction ratings remain stubbornly low — and support for his party largely stems from anti-Tory feeling rather than enthusiasm for Labour itself. By depicting Mr. Starmer as a flip-flopping leader at the helm of an ineffectual party, the Tories aim to claw back support. Yet it’s telling that conversations with Conservative lawmakers — some of whom have already begun planning for life after politics — tend to focus more on what will happen after defeat than on how they might win.In Tory circles, a dinner party game is to debate who the next leader might be. The current favorite is Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary who has made a name for herself with attacks on identity politics. But the scale of defeat is key. A small one would see status quo candidates, like the foreign secretary, James Cleverly, or the defense secretary, Grant Shapps, emerge. A wipeout — winning fewer than 200 seats out of 650 — would give the edge to wild-card candidates from the party’s right. In that scenario Suella Braverman, the hard-line anti-immigrant home secretary, would come to the fore.For the Tories, such a contest — full of bloodletting and bombast — could be a disaster, setting the stage for years in the wilderness. To prevent it and to forestall defeat, Mr. Sunak must change the narrative. Politics is unpredictable, as Britain has amply shown in the past eight years. But right now, one thing’s for certain: The prime minister is running out of time.Katy Balls (@katyballs) is the political editor of The Spectator.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

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      341 días en el limbo migratorio

      by

      341 días en el limbo migratorioDespués del Darién, la espera. Elecciones en Argentina, Venezuela y más para estar al día.Más de dos millones de venezolanos participaron el domingo en las votaciones. El proceso, que no contó con el apoyo del gobierno, tenía como objetivo elegir a un candidato unitario para competir contra el presidente Nicolás Maduro en las presidenciales de 2024.En todo el territorio nacional, y en el exterior (donde viven siete millones de venezolanos), miles de personas hicieron fila para emitir el sufragio.Votación en una mesa improvisada en una cancha deportiva en Catia, otrora bastión del partido oficialista de VenezuelaAdriana Loureiro Fernandez para The New York TimesNuestras colegas Isayen Herrera y Genevieve Glatsky reportaron así desde Caracas y Bogotá sobre las elecciones:Votantes de toda Venezuela desafiaron fuertes lluvias, amenazas y obstáculos logísticos para ejercer el voto, y acudieron en cantidades tan grandes que algunos centros de votación tuvieron que permanecer abiertos después de la hora en que estaban programados para cerrar. La jornada fue percibida como extraordinaria por muchas personas, luego de años de ser testigos de la erosión de su democracia en medio de la escasez, el hambre, y de ver a sus seres queridos fallecer de enfermedades prevenibles.María Corina Machado, exlegisladora de centroderecha, se perfilaba como la virtual ganadora de las votaciones. No se sabe con certeza si podrá seguir adelante como candidata oficial en la contienda, pues el gobierno de Maduro la ha inhabilitado para postularse durante 15 años.Machado dio unas palabras después de conocer los resultados preliminares de la votación.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez para The New York TimesEl proceso se llevó a cabo en un momento en que las penurias de muchos venezolanos forman parte del panorama regional. A pie, en balsas, aviones y autobuses los migrantes de Venezuela atraviesan América Latina rumbo a Estados Unidos en busca de mejores condiciones de vida. Algunos van quedándose en el camino, cambiando el rostro —y el acento— de las comunidades en las que se establecen.Otros logran cruzar la frontera y son trasladados en autobús por el gobernador republicano de Texas, Greg Abbott. Así llegan a grandes ciudades como Nueva York, poniendo en jaque a las autoridades locales.La situación ha cobrado tintes políticos de cara a las elecciones presidenciales de 2024 en Estados Unidos, mientras la Casa Blanca intenta frenar el flujo migratorio. Parte de la estrategia de Joe Biden ha consistido en pedir a las personas con intenciones de migrar que detengan su camino y, desde donde estén, soliciten ingreso legal al país. También contempla centros de procesamiento fuera de EE. UU.Entre quienes escucharon el pedido de Biden están Dayry Alexandra Cuauro y su hija Sarah, de seis años. Julie Turkewitz, jefa de la corresponsalía en los Andes, las conoció hace un año y reportó sobre su difícil travesía en la selva del Darién. (Tal vez recuerdes la imagen de Sarah que captó el fotógrafo Federico Rios en aquel entonces; la niña se perdió durante unos días y un grupo de viajeros la cuidó y ayudó a completar el recorrido hasta Panamá, donde se reunió con su mamá).Ángel García ayudando a Sarah sobre árboles caídos en el Darién, el año pasado.Federico Rios para The New York TimesTranscurrieron 341 días desde que Cuauro decidió abandonar los peligros de la migración irregular e inclinarse por la vía legal. Desde entonces, muchos de sus compañeros de viaje han llegado a Estados Unidos. Desde entonces, madre e hija han conseguido un equipo de personas dispuestas a recibirlas y han empezado a practicar inglés juntas. Desde entonces, cada vez que revisa la página web del sistema de migración solo recibe un mensaje automático: “Caso recibido”.Como Cuauro, dice el reportaje de Julie, hay más de un millón de personas, atrapadas en las contradicciones de esta política migratoria, “en una suerte de purgatorio migratorio, intentando resistir la inestabilidad, la violencia y la penuria que les agobia tanto que escapan”. Te invito a leer la historia completa, que se acaba de publicar.Si alguien te reenvió este correo, puedes hacer clic aquí para recibirlo tres veces por semana.Apuntes de la guerra¿Es posible tender puentes entre israelíes y palestinos? Hay personas que así lo creen y a menudo se les tilda de ingenuas o traidoras. Ellas ven una oportunidad en la crisis actual.Esto se sabe sobre la explosión ocurrida la semana pasada en un hospital en Gaza.Los editores de The New York Times tienen una nota importante sobre nuestra cobertura periodística de lo sucedido en el hospital en Gaza. Te invitamos a leerla. Y, si quieres conocer más de su postura, escucha aquí la entrevista de Lulu Garcia-Navarro con Joe Kahn, editor jefe del periódico [en inglés].Con la camiseta bien puestaPocos días después del anuncio de Lionel Messi de que ficharía por el Inter Miami, tiendas y proveedores habían pedido a Adidas casi medio millón de camisetas.Eric Hartline/USA Today Sports, vía Reuters ConSucedió de manera abrupta: en solo tres meses, una camiseta rosada se volvió casi omnipresente. Es el jersey del Inter Miami, el club de fútbol de la MLS en donde Lionel Messi juega desde este verano.La camiseta ha causado furor y los fans se apresuraron a adquirirla y portarla, ya sea original o de imitación. ¿Tienes una? ¿Fue difícil conseguirla? Mándanos un correo contándonos cómo fue el proceso.— More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Argentina: la primera vuelta en 5 conclusiones

      by

      La votación tuvo sorpresas, entre ellas que Sergio Massa, ministro de Economía, tuvo más votos. El candidato peronista se enfrentará a Javier Milei, un economista libertario, en el balotaje.Tras dos elecciones, la contienda presidencial argentina se dirige ahora a su ronda decisiva, en la que los dos candidatos más votados competirán por liderar un país en el que la gente está desesperada por un cambio de rumbo en la economía.Se trata de Javier Milei, economista libertario de extrema derecha y comentarista de televisión que ha aceptado de buena gana las comparaciones con Donald Trump, y Sergio Massa, ministro de Economía de Argentina, de centroizquierda, y el encargado de gestionar una economía con una inflación anual de casi el 140 por ciento.Milei fue el candidato más votado en las elecciones primarias, que se realizaron en agosto, y durante meses había liderado las encuestas, pero en la votación del domingo Massa fue el claro vencedor. Obtuvo casi el 37 por ciento de los votos, frente al 30 por ciento de Milei, resultados que los llevan a un balotaje el 19 de noviembre.Aquí presentamos cinco conclusiones de la votación del domingo y el camino que le queda a Argentina por recorrer.El domingo, Milei obtuvo el 30 por ciento de los votos.Sarah Pabst para The New York TimesMilei está en una posición más endeble de lo que se esperabaEl domingo, Milei partía como claro favorito, y algunos integrantes de su campaña predijeron que podría ganar las elecciones desde la primera vuelta.Sin embargo, esa noche obtuvo casi exactamente el mismo porcentaje de votos que en las elecciones primarias, y ahora se enfrenta a un contrincante, Massa, que parece mucho más fuerte de lo que se pensaba.Milei ha conseguido mucha atención por sus promesas de transformar de manera radical el gobierno y la economía argentinos con un plan para eliminar el banco central del país y sustituir su moneda por el dólar estadounidense.Pero los analistas afirmaron que su estilo político impetuoso, que le ha ganado comparaciones con Trump y Jair Bolsonaro, el expresidente derechista de Brasil, probablemente alejó a muchos votantes del centro político.“Los partidarios que hicieron memes de él con Bolsonaro y Trump no le hicieron un favor”, dijo Brian Winter, un analista de política latinoamericana quien también ha sido periodista en Argentina. “Los argentinos quieren un cambio con desesperación, pero no hay suficiente demanda para ese estilo de conservadurismo”.Massa obtuvo el mayor porcentaje de votos el domingo, pero carga con el peso inconveniente de ser ministro de Economía de una economía en crisis.Enrique Garcia Medina/EPA, vía ShutterstockMassa obtuvo el mayor porcentaje de votos desde la política tradicionalMassa tiene una experiencia de dos décadas en la política argentina y es el nuevo líder del movimiento peronista, el cual ha dominado la política en Argentina durante décadas y ha ganado nueve de las últimas 12 elecciones presidenciales libres y justas.Luego de que quedara en tercer lugar en las primarias, la poderosa maquinaria política peronista se desplegó con fuerza el domingo. La participación general aumentó desde agosto en ocho puntos porcentuales, a casi el 78 por ciento el domingo, y ese aumento pareció beneficiar en gran medida a los peronistas, ya que el apoyo al movimiento aumentó desde las primarias en más de nueve puntos porcentuales.“El peronismo se asustó y jugó mucho mas unificado”, dijo María Esperanza Casullo, politóloga de la Universidad Nacional de Río Negro, en Argentina. “Todo el mundo hizo lo posible para ganar estas elecciones, y en las provincias donde les había ido muy mal, repuntaron”.Massa también aprovechó su cargo como ministro de Economía e impulsó varias políticas para impulsar su candidatura, entre ellas, programas que devuelven el impuesto sobre las ventas a algunos trabajadores y eliminan el impuesto sobre la renta para otros.Buenos Aires, la capital. La inflación en Argentina roza el 140 por ciento.Sarah Pabst para The New York TimesLa gran perdedora de las elecciones podría ser la ya frágil economía argentinaEstas exenciones fiscales podrían ayudar a Massa a ganar las elecciones, pero son medidas cuestionables en un país que ya está en quiebra y atraviesa una de sus peores crisis económicas en años.La pobreza aumenta, la inflación se acerca al 140 por ciento y el valor del peso argentino se desploma. Este caos económico le ha dado a Milei una posibilidad a la presidencia, a pesar de su inexperiencia, pero algunos economistas temen que sus propuestas de políticas radicales, como la dolarización de la economía, perjudiquen aún más a una economía ya frágil.Sin embargo, Massa lleva más de un año al frente de la economía argentina, justo cuando la situación se ha deteriorado, y su plataforma no incluye planes para cambiar el rumbo de manera significativa. De hecho, ha prometido mantener algunas políticas económicas que los economistas conservadores critican, como las grandes subvenciones al gasto energético de los residentes.Aun así, Massa se ha mostrado en general más favorable al mercado que otros dirigentes peronistas, y como en las elecciones del domingo los peronistas obtuvieron el mayor número de escaños en el Congreso argentino (aunque aún están lejos de ser mayoría), tendrá mucha más capacidad para gobernar que Milei, dijo Martín Rapetti, economista argentino.¿Cómo gobernaría? “Acá entramos en terreno conjetural”, dijo Rapetti. “Massa no ha dicho nada concreto respecto a su programa económico”.La candidata que los mercados favorecían más —Patricia Bullrich, una exministra de Seguridad de derecha— quedó eliminada de la contienda el domingo.Patricia Bullrich quedó fuera de contienda el domingo, y sus partidarios podrían decidir el resultado de la segunda vuelta.Natacha Pisarenko/Associated PressLas próximas cuatro semanas serán una pelea por los votantes de BullrichAunque Bullrich está fuera de la contienda, aún podría decidir la presidencia.A pesar de quedar en tercer lugar, Bullrich obtuvo el 24 por ciento de los votos, y la gran pregunta de la elección es hacia dónde se inclinarán sus 6,2 millones de votantes.Se cree que Milei, como conservador, tiene una ventaja entre esos votantes, y en su discurso del domingo por la noche criticó a los peronistas. Es poco probable que muchos de sus partidarios, tras años de políticas peronistas fracasadas, apoyen a Massa.Sin embargo, muchos otros partidarios de Bullrich son centristas y, para ellos, Milei podría resultar demasiado extremista.La contienda sigue estando abiertaAunque Massa ganó el domingo, su victoria no está para nada garantizada en la segunda vuelta.Existe un sentimiento antiperonista muy extendido en Argentina tras años de escándalos de corrupción y crisis económicas, y Massa tiene además la limitante de haber sido ministro de Economía en una economía en problemas.“Los países no suelen elegir ministros de Economía que están al mando durante una inflación del 140 por ciento”, dijo Winter. “Pero tampoco suelen elegir a personas como Javier Milei”.Milei parece haber llegado a un límite de votantes que realmente quieren que sea presidente. Ahora debe convencer a la mayoría de los electores indecisos para que opten por su visión de un cambio drástico para un país que lleva mucho tiempo resistiéndose al cambio.Ambos candidatos apelaron a la moderación en sus discursos del domingo por la noche e intentarán abrir sus puertas a los partidos políticos que quedaron eliminados de el balotaje. Queda mucha campaña por delante.Lucía Cholakian Herrera More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Germany’s Far-Left Wagenknecht Forms New Populist Party

      by

      Sahra Wagenknecht has announced a new party, which could become another populist force scrambling German politics.Germany’s political landscape has been fracturing for a decade or more as traditional parties lose ground to populist elements, forcing the establishment of a three-way coalition government for the first time in the country’s modern history.A significant new fissure opened on Monday, when one of the country’s most prominent leftist politicians, Sahra Wagenknecht, announced that she would form her own party, throwing up yet another wild card and challenging the political mainstream.Few Germans do not know Ms. Wagenknecht. A gifted orator, she has made something of a brand for herself with her biting criticism of the government and over-the-top political rhetoric. She is a frequent presence on television debate shows and at signings for her new best-selling book; on weekly YouTube clips, which are watched hundreds of thousands of times; and on the floor of the parliament, where she is a member of the Left party, or Die Linke.True to form, the association she founded with four others to build the party is named after herself: the Sahra Wagenknecht Coalition, or BSW in the German acronym, making it the first party in postwar Germany built entirely around one figurehead. Ms. Wagenknecht said the party would be a home for those who feel abandoned by mainstream politics, and stand for “reason and fairness.”“We decided to establish a new party because we are convinced that things cannot go on as they are at present,” Ms. Wagenknecht told Berlin’s press corps on Monday, adding: “Otherwise, in ten years’ time, our country will be unrecognizable.”For decades after World War II, Germany was governed by just two major parties — the conservative Christian Democrats and the progressive Social Democrats. As that consensus breaks down, Ms. Wagenknecht’s new populist party may present another hurdle to finding parliamentary consensus in what has long been a consensus-minded country.The new party threatens not only to break up the far left, who are the political heirs to Communist East Germany, but to further erode the political mainstream. It may also compete for the disaffected voters who have flocked to the country’s leading populist party on the far right, the Alternative for Germany, or AfD, which is now polling at 22 percent support.Ms. Wagenknecht argues that progressives are too focused on diet, personal pronouns and the perception of racism, and are not worried enough about poverty.Steffi Loos/Getty ImagesA poll taken over the weekend by Bild found that 27 percent of voters would consider voting for Ms. Wagenknecht’s party, even if little concrete information about her actual platform is available. In a country where more than one in five say they would vote for the far-right AfD, Ms. Wagenknecht’s new party has the potential to act as a spoiler, effectively loosening the AfD’s grip on protest voters.Marcel Lewandowsky, a political scientist who studies populism at the Federal Armed Forces university in Hamburg, says the new party could attract voters who are on the political right when it comes to migration, but believe in the importance of the welfare state.“The thinking is that there are AfD voters who on things like migration are very far to the right of the spectrum, but at the same time maybe fear for their own social status, and also have economic fears,” he said. “There’s no guarantee, but there is potential that it could work.”As long as Ms. Wagenknecht sticks to her vow not to collaborate with the far-right AfD, her party could help buffer a takeover from the right, especially in the East, where Ms. Wagenknecht has her roots and is especially popular.Ms. Wagenknecht is one of the very few federal politicians still active who started their political career in the former East Germany. Months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, she joined the Communist Party.She made her name after reunification in the party’s successor, which is now called the Left, and was voted into the European Parliament in 2004 and Germany’s national parliament in 2009. Since then she has held almost every post in the Left party, including acting as head of its parliamentary group.Ms. Wagenknecht loves to attack what she calls the “lifestyle left.” She argues that progressives are too focused on diet, pronouns, and the perception of racism, and are not worried enough about poverty and an ever-growing gap between rich and poor.She says immigration by people who do not have a chance for asylum has gotten out of control. “It definitely has to be stopped because it is completely overwhelming our country,” she said on Monday.Though details are still scant, Ms. Wagenknecht and her allies have outlined four major planks for the party platform. Perhaps surprisingly for a left-wing politician, the economy is the first and most important.Ms. Wagenknecht announcing the formation of the new party on Monday.John MacDougall/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“If the economy goes under, you don’t even have to worry about pensions and wages and social benefits,” Ms. Wagenknecht said during an interview in her office last month. “All those things will go under too.”During the interview, Ms. Wagenknecht was especially critical of the environmentalist Green party, part of the governing coalition, for focusing on things like rules governing the heating of public buildings.“People think this government is haphazard, shortsighted, plain, incompetent and ideologically driven,” she said, adding, “And that — in fact — is the case.”She has long criticized Germany’s support for Ukraine, especially the 7.4 billion euros worth of weaponry Germany has sent to help in its defense. On Monday, she proposed buying Russian energy directly from Russia again, and decried the billions spent trying to replace Russian gas.It’s a message that could play well among voters for the AfD, who tend to be less supportive of Ukraine than others.Manfred Güllner, whose polling firm, the Forsa Institute, conducted a poll gauging Ms. Wagenknecht’s viability as a political brand, says the new party has as much a chance of attracting voters from traditional parties as it does of attracting those who vote on the right.Noting that the far right was at a high point after successes in state elections in Bavaria and Hesse earlier this month, he said: “All those who have migrated to the AfD, they see now that the AfD is successful — why should they suddenly vote for the Wagenknecht party?”After hinting at the move for months, Ms. Wagenknecht said on Monday that she would form the party. Nine other parliamentarians joined her in leaving the Left. It could represent a death blow to her old party, which will lose not only its most recognizable member, but also its status as a parliamentary group, which is linked to funding and provides hundreds of jobs.The timing of Ms. Wagenknecht’s announcement will allow her and her team to field candidates for the European Parliament’s election in June, where no minimum hurdle is required to win seats. And if that goes well, they could then field candidates for state elections taking place in three eastern Germany states in the second half of 2024.“Now she will actually have to give concrete answers instead of just criticizing the woke left-wing lifestyle,” said Frank Decker, a political scientist at the University of Bonn, who has studied the AfD.At a recent book signing in her native city of Jena, in the eastern state of Thuringia, Ms. Wagenknecht was treated like a celebrity by the roughly 1,000 people who gathered to watch her read from her best-selling book, “Die Selbstgerechten” or “The Self-Righteous.”Many in the audience were disappointed in mainstream politics, they said afterward. Thomas Hultsch, 52, had brought his two daughters to the reading. Mr. Hultsch said that while he would never vote for the AfD, he does not like the traditional parties either.“I would give her a chance,” he said. More

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      5 Takeaways from Argentina’s Election

      by

      Javier Milei, a libertarian economist often compared to Donald Trump, will face off against Sergio Massa, Argentina’s economy minister, in a runoff next month.After two votes, Argentina’s presidential race now heads into its decisive round with the final two political survivors vying to lead a country where people are desperate for a financial turnaround.They are Javier Milei, a far-right libertarian economist and television pundit who has embraced comparisons to Donald J. Trump, and Sergio Massa, Argentina’s center-left economy minister who oversees an economy that has a nearly 140-percent annual inflation.Mr. Milei won the open primary elections in August and had led the polls for months after, but in the election on Sunday night, Mr. Massa was the clear winner. He captured nearly 37 percent of the vote, compared with 30 percent for Mr. Milei, sending them to a runoff on Nov. 19.Here are five takeaways from Sunday’s vote and the road ahead for Argentina.Mr. Milei captured 30 percent of the vote on Sunday.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesMilei is in a weaker position than expected.Mr. Milei had entered Sunday as the clear favorite, with some in his campaign predicting that he could win the election outright in the first round.However, he ended the night capturing almost exactly the same percentage of the vote as he did in the primary election in August, and now he faces an opponent in Mr. Massa who looks much stronger than previously thought.Mr. Milei has attracted a lot of attention for his promises to radically overhaul the Argentine government and economy with a plan to eliminate the nation’s central bank and replace its currency with the U.S. dollar.But analysts said that his brash political style, which had drawn comparisons to Mr. Trump and Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s former right-wing president, likely turned away many centrist voters.“The supporters who made memes of him with Bolsonaro and Trump didn’t do him any favors,” said Brian Winter, a Latin American analyst and former journalist in Argentina. “Argentines desperately want change, but there’s not enough demand for that brand of conservatism.”Mr. Massa won the largest share of the vote on Sunday, but has the baggage of being the economy minister in a failing economy.Enrique Garcia Medina/EPA, via ShutterstockMassa finished first with old-school politics.Mr. Massa is a two-decade veteran of Argentine politics and the new leader of the Peronist political movement that has held sway in Argentina for decades and has won nine of the last 12 free and fair presidential elections.After finishing third in the primaries, the powerful Peronist political machine came out in force on Sunday. Overall turnout increased from August by eight percentage points to nearly 78 percent on Sunday — and all of that seemed to benefit the Peronists, with the movement’s support increasing from the primary by more than nine percentage points.“Peronism got scared and acted much more unified,” said María Esperanza Casullo, a political scientist at Argentina’s National University of Rio Negro. “Everyone did everything possible to win these elections, and in provinces where things had gone very badly, they rebounded.”Mr. Massa also took advantage of his position as economy minister and pushed through several policies to aid his candidacy, including programs that return sales tax to certain workers and eliminate income tax for others.Buenos Aires, the capital. Inflation in Argentina is nearing 140 percent.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesThe loser of the election might be Argentina’s already ailing economy.Those tax breaks might help Mr. Massa win the election, but they are questionable measures in a country that is already broke and struggling through one of its worst economic crises in years.Poverty is rising, inflation is nearing 140 percent and the value of the Argentine peso is plummeting. That economic turmoil has given Mr. Milei an opening to the presidency, despite his inexperience, but some economists worry that his radical policy proposals, like dollarizing the economy, could do even more harm to an already fragile economy.Yet Mr. Massa has led Argentina’s economy for more than a year, just as things have gotten worse, and his platform does not include plans to significantly change course. In fact, he has promised to maintain some economic policies that conservative economists criticize, such as large subsidies for residents’ energy costs.Still, Mr. Massa has generally been more market friendly than other Peronist leaders, and with Sunday’s elections giving the Peronists the most seats in Argentina’s Congress (though still short of a majority), he will have a much better ability to govern than Mr. Milei, said Martín Rapetti, an Argentine economist.But how would he govern? “Here we enter conjectural territory,” Mr. Rapetti said. “Massa has not said anything concrete regarding his economic program.”The candidate that markets liked the most — Patricia Bullrich, a right-wing former security minister — was knocked out of the contest on Sunday.Patricia Bullrich was knocked out of the race on Sunday, and her supporters may decide the outcome of the runoff.Natacha Pisarenko/Associated PressThe next four weeks will be a fight over Bullrich’s voters.While Ms. Bullrich is out of the race, she still could decide the presidency.Despite coming in third, Ms. Bullrich still earned 24 percent of the vote, and where her 6.2 million voters swing is the major question of the race.Mr. Milei, as a conservative, is thought to have the inside track on those voters, and in her concession speech on Sunday night, she criticized the Peronists. Many of her supporters, after years of failed Peronist policies, are unlikely to switch to Mr. Massa.Yet many other Bullrich supporters are centrists, and for them, Mr. Milei could prove to be too extreme.The race is still a tossup.While Mr. Massa won on Sunday, he is far from a sure bet in the runoff.There is ample anti-Peronist sentiment in Argentina after years of corruption scandals and economic crises, and Mr. Massa also has the baggage of being the economy minister in a failing economy.“Countries don’t usually elect finance ministers overseeing 140 percent inflation,” Mr. Winter said. “But they also don’t usually elect people like Javier Milei.”Mr. Milei appears to have hit a ceiling of voters who truly want him to be president. Now he must convince most of the voters in play to bet on his vision of drastic change for a country that has long been resistant to change.Both candidates took a shot at moderation in their speeches on Sunday night and will try to open their doors to the political parties that were eliminated from the final round. There is a lot of campaigning to go.Lucía Cholakian Herrera More

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Israel’s Moral and Political Dilemmas

      by

      More from our inbox:The Frankfurt Book Fair’s Cancellation of a Palestinian AuthorRegulating AirlinesCount Presidential Ballot Separately Pool photo by Miriam Alster, via ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Israel Is About to Make a Terrible Mistake,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, Oct. 22):Mr. Friedman’s arguments might be valid if dealing with a sane adversary. But nowhere does he mention the deep visceral hatred of Hamas and associated groups toward Israel. He does not acknowledge the euphoria of the Hamas leaders and their supporters after the attack on Israel, and the hysterical vengeance sought by the millions of pro-Palestinians.I am left-wing, and I certainly do not share any ideology with the right-wing settlers. But I do totally empathize with the rage currently felt here in Israel. It is time to “take the gloves off.”We do not intend to be the victims of the destruction of Israel (Hamas’s goal), and the subjects of Mr. Friedman’s future tearful obituary that he would write “the day after.”E. WinerTel AvivTo the Editor:Thomas L. Friedman underestimates the barbarism (his word) of Hamas. He claims that a two-state solution needs to be part of Israel’s retaliation. It was always apparent that not long after the Oct. 7 massacre Israel would lose the public relations war. The horror would be news for only a few days. Social and mainstream media would move to the next series of headlines, the unfortunate and horrific consequences for the average Palestinian in the subsequent war.While Gaza and the West Bank are inextricably linked, contending that the response to the barbarism must be accompanied by a solution to a problem that has been unresolved for ages is impractical and unrealistic.Hamas has no interest in a peaceful solution. Its antisemitic barbarism reaffirmed that it wants no state of Israel in any form.Alan MetzChapel Hill, N.C.To the Editor:Re “Do We Treat Palestinians as Lesser Victims?,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, Oct. 22):Mr. Kristof does not mention that Hamas hides in and underneath crowded civilian settings, including mosques, hospitals and schools. Israel does not deliberately target civilians. Hamas, on the other hand, purposefully targets Israeli civilians (and holds hostage Israeli babies, the elderly and everyone in between), and uses Gazan men, women and children as tactical pawns and human shields.In such a case, civilian casualties are tragically unavoidable. Mr. Kristof, I appreciate your reminder of the sanctity of human life, but how would you suggest Israel proceed when its enemy does not consider this a value? Indeed, it is Hamas who is putting Gazan civilians at risk.Bina WestrichTeaneck, N.J.To the Editor:In urging readers to reject the “hierarchy of human life” purportedly embedded in support for Israeli military action, Nicholas Kristof attacks a straw man. No serious defender of Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 massacres argues that the lives of Israeli children are worth more than those of Gazan children. To the contrary, they argue that a failure to destroy Hamas now — leaving it capable of and eager to repeat similar atrocities — would result in far more death, destruction and human misery (for both Israelis and Gazans) than the admittedly terrible civilian costs of a full-scale Israeli incursion.And if we are calculating human costs, we had best consider the consequences of Mr. Kristof’s proposed policy: If democratic nations adopt a policy that terrorists who butcher innocents render themselves invulnerable by shielding behind a civilian population, it is not just Israeli or Gazan children who will suffer. It is everyone’s children.Yishai SchwartzWashingtonTo the Editor:Re “Hamas Bears the Blame for Every Death in This War,” by Bret Stephens (column, Oct. 17):Imagine if Hamas, since winning control of Gaza, had put its resources into building up the community with schools, hospitals and other institutions that uplifted the Palestinian people! Hamas would be considered “heroes” in the eyes of most of the world and its leadership would have attained political legitimacy.But, no, instead it is intent on depravity and destruction to the bitter end.Marc BloomPrinceton, N.J.The Frankfurt Book Fair’s Cancellation of a Palestinian AuthorAdania ShibliFranziska RothenbühlerTo the Editor:Re “A Chill Has Been Cast Over the Book World,” by Pamela Paul (column, Oct. 19):Reading Ms. Paul’s forceful condemnation of the Frankfurt Book Fair’s decision to cancel a celebration recognizing a Palestinian author, I waited in vain for her to address one indispensable fact: Frankfurt is in Germany, a country that, for obvious reasons, has assumed a special role in defending Israel and protecting Jews around the world.For example, the German penal code prohibits public denial of the Holocaust and its Nationality Act mandates restoration of citizenship for any Jew whose forebears lost their citizenship during the Nazi regime.Contrary to Ms. Paul’s claim that it is a “false notion that there is a wrong time for certain authors or novels and that now is not the time for Palestinian literature,” the days following a Palestinian terrorist attack that resulted in the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust are precisely the wrong time for a German book fair to celebrate a novel excoriating Israel.Adania Shibli’s views are important and should be heard in Germany and elsewhere — just not in Frankfurt right now. Ms. Paul does a grave disservice to German Jews living and dead by not acknowledging the tragic history underlying the Frankfurt Book Fair’s decision.Andrew D. HermanChevy Chase, Md.Regulating Airlines Carter Johnston for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “A Frayed System, and 131 Lives Put in Jeopardy” (front page, Oct. 15):The article states, “The safety net that underpins air travel in America is fraying, exposing passengers to potential tragedies.”The blame seems to be focused on government air traffic controllers. They share some of it, but they are only part of a much larger system including aircraft technology, airport design, aircrew and airspace management.But there is another problem rarely talked about: competition. Since airlines were deregulated in 1978, the industry has seen bankruptcies, deterioration of comfort and service, delays and congestion, complexity in pricing and fares, and stagnation in aviation systems planning and investment.A strong argument could be made that airline competition has not worked as expected, and even worked counterproductively. A new airline regulatory program may be called for — one that combines the public and private sectors in a jointly managed and financed national aviation system with strong oversight in safety standards, infrastructure investment and passenger consumer benefits that are missing under the current deregulation.Matthew G. AnderssonChicagoThe writer was the founder and C.E.O. of Indigo Airlines and is a former aviation consultant.Count Presidential Ballot Separately Lukas VerstraeteTo the Editor:Re “Counting Ballots by Hand Ensures Only Chaos,” by Jessica Huseman (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 20):Ms. Huseman is absolutely right that counting lengthy ballots by hand would be a nightmare. But we could reduce the growing suspicion that computers can’t count our votes properly if our presidential elections were administered separately from all the other races on Election Day.If there were paper ballots just for the presidency, they could be counted in one long night, as is done in many European parliamentary elections, in which voters only cast one vote for a party.Mark WestonSarasota, Fla.The writer is the author of “The Runner-Up Presidency: The Elections That Defied America’s Popular Will.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What Happened When Fake Trump Signs Appeared in Greenwich, Connecticut

      by

      The placards were up in a wealthy town for less than a day. The fight over them lasted years.The sudden sprouting of red-and-white campaign signs upended one autumn morning in the affluent Connecticut town of Greenwich. It was as if the valuable ground had been sprinkled overnight with political pixie dust.The signs seemed at first to blend into the election-time foliage, conveying customary solidarity between a local Republican candidate and his party’s standard-bearer. “Vote Republican — Vote Team,” they said. “Trump/Camillo.”But instead of instilling pride of party unity, the signs caused local Republicans to lose their Connecticut Yankee cool. How dare someone link a Greenwich Republican candidate with the Republican president of the United States!Outraged texts, emails and phone calls heated up that chilly October morning in 2019. “It was a general frenzy and maybe panic,” a party leader later recalled. “Like: ‘What are these?’ ‘Where did they come from?’ ‘What do we do about them?’”The Greenwich tempest that came to be known as “Signgate” was, in some ways, larger than Greenwich itself, touching on national politics, election integrity and free speech. But it was also exquisitely parochial, reflecting the acutely petty vibe of local politics, the clash of big personalities in a small space — and sweet, delicious revenge.Politics in this town of about 63,000, once a bastion for Republican moderates, have gotten complicated in recent years, with Trumpian Republicanism emerging like a wet Saint Bernard galumphing through a staid garden party.Mr. Trump had lost Greenwich by a sizable margin in the 2016 presidential elections; in many ways he was the antithesis to the town’s favored Republican son, George H.W. Bush. Still, your dog is your dog, leashed or unleashed.By 2019, local Republican discomfort in the Age of Trump seemed overripe for Democratic mockery, so a certain Greenwich police captain — an outspoken Democrat when off-duty — took it upon himself to exercise the time-tested political ploy of satire. He chose as his subject the Republican candidate for the mayor-like position of first selectman, Fred Camillo, who was consistently deflecting calls to either embrace or denounce Mr. Trump.Some residents had even threatened to pull their support if the generally well-liked Mr. Camillo did not reject the generally not-liked Mr. Trump and his policies. His response, he later recalled, was: “That’s not my concern. Your concern should be how I vote. Do I respond to you? What my beliefs are.”Seeing opportunity in Mr. Camillo’s sidestepping, the police captain, Mark Kordick, spent about $250 on 50 campaign signs from a website called Signs On the Cheap. The signs, featuring the obligatory Republican elephant mascot, said in full:Local Elections MatterVote Republican — Vote TeamTRUMP/CAMILLOMake Greenwich Great AgainAt the bottom appeared “www.FredCamillo.com,” a domain name purchased months earlier by Mr. Kordick. The address redirected viewers to a militantly pro-Trump website.In the weeks to come, people would debate whether the police captain’s furtive planning was dastardly and underhanded, or merely akin to high schoolers preparing a prank before the big homecoming game. Either way, now he was set.At first, the signs seemed to blend in with other campaign placards.Leslie YagerSigngate began around midnight in late October, as an old, red Ford Escort stopped and started along the darkened streets. With Mr. Kordick behind the wheel, his college-student son, Matthew, hopped out to plant 37 Trump/Camillo signs on public property already adorned with campaign placards, adding red hues and cheeky mischief to autumn in Greenwich.The sun hadn’t yet risen when Mr. Camillo’s campaign chairman, Jack Kriskey, received his first complaint. “Then they just kept coming,” he later told investigators. Describing the reaction among Republicans as a “frenzy,” he said: “I was just getting barraged with: ‘Where did these come from?’”In frantic texts and calls to town and police officials, Republicans sought permission to remove signs they called unauthorized and deceptive. But they faced an obstacle: Campaign signs are protected speech under the First Amendment.As First Selectman Peter Tesei, a fellow Republican, explained to them in a text, “Town cannot touch political signs unless for mowing or sight line issues.”Mr. Camillo showed up at the police station to file a complaint, after which a police captain, Robert Berry, issued an internal memo that said, “We will not be getting involved in managing sign content or the removal of alleged fake signs.”But Republicans continued all day to pressure the Republican-controlled town hall. Finally, around 6 p.m., Captain Berry issued a second memo saying that the town’s law department and the Democratic and Republican town committees had agreed that the signs were “not legitimate and should be removed” — though the local Democratic leader later clarified that his committee had only determined that it had no standing since it had nothing to do with the signs.The Republican Town Committee quickly issued a statement urging supporters to take action: “Please make every effort to remove all of these signs as soon as possible.”The prank now stifled, the Camillo camp set out to expose the anonymous antagonist. A paid campaign worker identified SignsOnTheCheap.com through a Google search, then hired someone in Texas to go to the company’s shop in Austin and get a copy of the invoice by pretending to represent the customer.The impostor was paid $450, plus a $50 bonus, for securing an invoice bearing a familiar Greenwich name.A week after the offending signs were placed, Fred Camillo won the election.Jane Beiles for The New York TimesMr. Camillo already disliked Mr. Kordick, who often criticized him and other Republicans on social media; in a recent text to a town lawyer, he had called the police captain a fat so-and-so who would “get his too.” Now that Mr. Kordick had been outed, the candidate wrote to a supporter: “He is the biggest scum bag of all. He better pray that I do not win because I would be police commissioner and he will be gone.”Mr. Kordick was called into the deputy chief’s office, a few doors down from his own. When asked whether he knew anything about those Trump/Camillo signs, he recalled answering: “I know quite a bit about them.”Mr. Kordick joined the department in 1988, worked his way up the ranks, and received the latest of his glowing performance evaluations just four months earlier. Now he was being placed on administrative leave by a longtime colleague — and would soon be under internal investigation.A week later, Mr. Camillo was elected first selectman and, effectively, police commissioner. Not good for a certain police captain.Five months after that, in April 2020, Mr. Kordick retired with a full pension just as he was about to be fired for violating provisions of the police department’s Unified Policy Manual, including “Using Common Sense and Promoting Positive Values.” The next month, he filed notice of his intent to sue.In his lawsuit against Greenwich, Mr. Camillo and three other Republicans, Mr. Kordick alleged that he had been retaliated against for exercising his free-speech rights, and that the Camillo campaign had jeopardized his employment by using deceit to unmask him.“His speech was totally off-duty and clearly protected speech,” his lawyer, Lewis Chimes, said. “If it interferes with the performance of one’s duties, there’s a balancing test. But there wasn’t any real argument that it interfered with his duties, because he’d gotten outstanding reviews.”But the town attorney, Barbara Schellenberg, rejected the framing of the case as being about Mr. Kordick’s free-speech rights. She said the question came down to: “Can he effectively do this job after putting out what the town maintained was false speech? And hiding that? And not coming forward until he was put on the spot?“It was determined that he could not effectively continue,” Ms. Schellenberg added. “The chief lost trust in him.”Years of legal squabbling followed. All the while, local politics became more and more un-Greenwichlike, smashing the stereotype of fiscal restraint and social moderation being discussed over cucumber sandwiches and wine. Mr. Trump lost the town in the 2020 presidential election by an even wider margin than in 2016, but Trumpism had taken root. In 2022, a hard-right faction took over the Republican Town Committee — and are now planning to seize control of the Representative Town Meeting, the 230-member (!) legislative body whose powers include final say on any municipal expenditure over $5,000.As the Kordick lawsuit unfolded, things got a bit messy. Town officials gave vague, sometimes conflicting depositions. Leslie Yager, a journalist who runs a one-person news site called Greenwich Free Press, was subpoenaed by the town, which “effectively silenced me as a reporter,” she said in an email.And mortifying emails and text messages became public. Mr. Camillo, first selectman and author of the “scum bag” and fat so-and-so epithets, had to acknowledge in a deposition that his colorful words were “not language that I would condone.”A Superior Court judge dropped two defendants from the lawsuit, and Mr. Kordick reached settlements with Mr. Camillo and his campaign manager for undisclosed amounts. But the case continued against the Town of Greenwich, as its legal bills climbed into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.Just two months ago, the town sought to block Mr. Kordick’s actions from being referred to as “parody or satire,” arguing in a motion that the signs were not in the vein of “A Modest Proposal,” in which Jonathan Swift proposed to “solve” the problem of Irish poverty by killing and eating Irish children. Rather, the signs were a “dirty trick,” defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as dishonest activity “carried out to harm the reputation or success of a rival.”In other words, in Greenwich, linking a local Republican candidate to the Republican president would do that candidate harm.Mr. Kordick’s lawyer described the motion as “chutzpah,” and noted that the judge had already written that a reasonable jury might conclude the signs were “acceptable political parody.”Suddenly, last month, more than three years after the sprouting of the offending signs and just a week before the case against Greenwich was to be heard, a settlement was reached with Mr. Kordick for $650,000. The overall cost to Greenwich taxpayers: $1.5 million.Ms. Schellenberg, the town attorney, said that while she was confident Greenwich would have prevailed if the case had gone to trial, it “had no viable option but to comply with the demand of its insurance carrier to end the case.”She said the town continued to maintain that “there is no constitutional protection for speech that is intentionally false or deceptive, or recklessly indifferent to the truth,” or “for speech by an employee that disrupts or threatens to disrupt the operations of the department in which that employee works.”Mr. Kordick countered that Greenwich had infringed on his First Amendment rights and knew it would lose in court. “The reason I wanted to remain anonymous is that I feared retribution,” he said. “Which is what I got.”It’s late October again in Greenwich, with leaves turning and campaigns competing. That hard-right contingent is girding to take over the Representative Town Meeting in next month’s elections. Donald Trump is in the midst of another presidential run, notwithstanding his four criminal indictments. Fred Camillo, who declined to comment other than to say the case was resolved, is running for a third term.And Mark Kordick, forcibly retired police captain, said he is once again thinking of exercising his free-speech rights with a few campaign signs. Signs that might say, in part: “Paid for with proceeds from the settlement of Mark Kordick v. Town of Greenwich et al.” More