Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Never Mind About Ron DeSantis

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I guess we have to talk about Donald Trump’s potential indictment and arrest, right? But before we go there: You know how I told you that I’d vote for Ron DeSantis over Joe Biden?Well, never mind.Gail Collins: Bret! You’re gonna vote for our big-spending president? Student-loan forgiver? Tax-the-richer?Bret: I’m still holding out faint hope that Nikki Haley or Tim Scott or my friend Vivek Ramaswamy or some other sound and sane Republican long shot somehow gets the nomination.Gail: Happy to gear up for that fight.Bret: But for DeSantis to call Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a “territorial dispute” in which the United States does not have a “vital interest” tells me that he’s totally unfit to be president. He’s pandering to the Tucker Carlson crowd.Gail: The Terrible Tuckerites …Bret: He is parroting Kremlin propaganda. He’s undermining NATO. He’s endangering America by emboldening other dictators with “territorial disputes,” starting with China’s Xi Jinping. He’s betraying the heroism and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people. He’s turning himself into a kind of Diet Pepsi to Trump’s Diet Coke. He’s showing he’s just another George Costanza Republican, whose idea of taking a foreign-policy stand is to “do the opposite” of whatever the Democrats do.Gail: Wow, can’t believe I’ve found someone who thinks less of DeSantis than I do.Bret: So, about Donald: to indict and arrest or not to indict and arrest? That’s the question. Where do you come down?Gail: No real doubts on the guilt front, and I’m pretty confident we’ll eventually see an indictment. The question is — what then? I’m hoping for a procedure in which he has to appear in public to answer the charges but doesn’t get treated in any way that’ll cause any not-totally-crazy supporters to gather for a riot.Bret: True, though why do I get the sense that Trump is practically jumping for joy? I mean, the first indictment of a former American president is going to be over what is typically a misdemeanor? I yield to nobody in my disgust with the guy, but so far, this sounds like prosecutorial abuse and political malpractice. Democrats will live to regret it.But to go from the horrifying to the truly horrifying: How goes your banking crisis?Gail: Bret, would definitely appreciate this not being “my” banking crisis.Bret: Give the crisis about six months. Or six weeks. Or maybe six days. It’ll be all of ours. Suggest you buy inflation-proof assets, like a rare instrument or 50-year-old scotch.Gail: Or some great old wine! Although in my house it’d never outlast the bank bust.As to a response, I’m in Bidenesque territory — the government does what it has to do to stabilize the situation, including covering the deposits in delinquent institutions like Silicon Valley Bank. But the only people who get rescued are the depositors.Bret: The big mistake of the administration was to bail out all the depositors, including a lot of very rich people who ought to have known better, instead of sticking to the F.D.I.C. limit of $250,000. Now the Feds have bailed out a bunch of rich, foolish and undeserving Silicon Valley dipsticks while creating an implicit, and systemically dangerous, guarantee for all depositors at all banks.Gail: I don’t love the idea of helping out $250,000-plus depositors, even over the short term, but this is not a good moment to destabilize the whole economy.Over the long term, however, those banks, their managers and big stockholders are going to have to be held accountable. Also Congress, which watered down regulations on midsize banks a few years back.Bret: Hard to tell whether the real issue was inadequate regulation, a badly run bank or — my guess — far deeper problems in the economy. Turns out Silicon Valley Bank didn’t even have a full-time chief risk officer for much of last year.Gail: You will notice I haven’t mentioned the Federal Reserve. Saving that for you …Bret: The Fed now has two bad problems, both of them largely of its own making. The first is inflation, which remains stubbornly high and was brought on in part because interest rates were too low for way too long. The second is an economy, particularly the banking sector, that seems to be seriously ill prepared for an era of higher rates. A classic Scylla and Charybdis situation, through which Jay Powell is somehow supposed to steer us. My advice to Powell — other than to tie himself to the mast — is to continue to raise rates, even if it means recession, and call for fiscal relief in the form of tax breaks for businesses ….Gail: Stopstopstop. Bret, Congress has to get a budget passed somehow, and the Republican plan is so nutty that even some Republicans don’t buy it. You’re suggesting that we cut taxes for businesses that are already making handsome profits.Bret: Businesses may be looking forward to a steep recession and much steeper borrowing costs. It’s a recipe for collapsing revenues and mass layoffs for businesses large and small. Better for the government to lighten the load for employers, even if it means piling on additional federal debt. In fact, it could be a good way to solve the debt-ceiling question.Gail: The people who are demanding this kind of bonanza for the rich are the same ones who are violently opposed to giving the deeply underfunded I.R.S. any new money. What could be worse than efficiently monitoring tax compliance?Bret: We’re both in favor of giving the I.R.S. the funding it needs to answer taxpayer phone calls. But if the economy is about to fall off a cliff, I don’t think the answer is to make sure the taxman is at the bottom of it, picking the pockets of the dead and wounded. Gail, this topic is … getting me down. You wrote a column last week saying that Kamala Harris is definitely staying on Joe Biden’s ticket. That gets me down, too, but please explain further.Gail: Well, we both agreed for quite a while that if Biden ran again, he should pick a different veep.Bret: Like Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, or Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico, or Danielle Allen, the brilliant Harvard political philosopher who has the added virtue of not being a politician.Gail: Yes, but then I gave it a long, hard thought — trying to imagine how that would work out. Tossing Harris off the ticket would be hugely disrespectful. There’s nothing she’s done that deserves that kind of insult.Bret: Did Nelson Rockefeller deserve it? Politics is politics.Gail: There are lots of terrific women in high places — governors and senators — who’d be terrific as vice president. But we aren’t starting from scratch. Harris has made some errors in her current job, but she’s done some good things, too. Just don’t think this rises to the occasion of Throw Her Out.Bret: To me, she’s Dan Quayle-level ridiculous — and George H.W. Bush would have been wise to toss Quayle from the ticket in 1992. You can bet that whoever the Republican nominee is next year will hammer away at Biden’s age and her shortcomings — like saying we have a secure border with Mexico or confusing North and South Korea — to very good political effect.Gail: Let’s go back to the president you … may be willing to vote to re-elect. He’s fighting hard to reduce federal student debt payments for low- and moderate-income people. I remember your not loving this idea in the past. Any change of heart?Bret: Nope. The problem we have with the banks stems from what economists call moral hazard — basically, encouraging risky behavior. Pardoning student debt is another form of moral hazard: It encourages people to take out loans unwisely in the expectation that they might one day be forgiven. If we are forgiving college loans now, why not forgive mortgages next? Also, it’s an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s legislative prerogatives. Democrats objected when Trump steered Defense Department money to building the border wall without congressional authorization; Democrats shouldn’t further establish a bad precedent.Assuming you see it otherwise.Gail: Yeah. A lot of these people have been making loan payments for decades without making much progress in erasing the actual debt. None of them are rich, and a lot are struggling endlessly.I can understand the resentment from folks who made a great effort and did pay off their loans. But we’re talking, in general, about people who were given the impression that borrowing large amounts of money to get a no-frills degree was a great investment that always paid off.Bret: If the government is expected to backstop everybody’s bad or dumb decisions, the country would bankrupt itself in a week. Part of living in a free society is being responsible for your choices, including your mistakes.Gail: I’m looking at this as a one-time shot that’s worth taking. But I have to admit I don’t love the idea of Biden acting without congressional authorization. Even though he wouldn’t have gotten it.Sigh.Bret: Never mind Congress — I can’t see this getting past the Supreme Court, so what we’re really talking about is another phony campaign promise.Gail: Well, I guess it’s a case of what ought to be versus what can be. But I still think there should be loan forgiveness for those who’ve spent half their lives trying to pay off a debt they were generally too young and uninformed to realize they should avoid.Really, Bret, who wants to perpetually punish people who fell for the siren call of “borrow money for your education”?Bret: In the meantime, Gail, we have Wyoming outlawing abortion pills. We’ll need to devote more time to the subject soon, but all I’ll say for now is: When the world goes to hell, it has a way of getting there fast.Gail: I’ve been thinking about Wyoming so much, Bret. Let’s go at it in depth next week. But if you hear that I was caught growling in public, you’ll know why.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

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Out of Power, Trump Still Exerts It

      by

      An early-morning social media post amounted to a starter’s gun for Republican officials: Many raced to the former president’s side, denouncing a Democratic prosecutor investigating him.Since he left office, Democrats and a smaller number of Republicans have vowed to ensure that former President Donald J. Trump never recaptures the White House, where he would regain enormous power over the nation and around the globe.Yet, in his insistence on forging ahead with a campaign while facing multiple criminal investigations, his dismissiveness toward supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression and his continued provocations on social media and in campaign speeches, Mr. Trump has shown that he does not need control over the levers of government to have an effect on the country — and, in the minds of many, to do damage.To those who believed that the secret to banishing Mr. Trump was to deprive him of attention — that ignoring him would make him go away — he has shown that to be wishful thinking.To fully understand that, one need look no further than the events of Saturday. The day began with a 7:26 a.m. post by Mr. Trump on his social media site, Truth Social, declaring that he would be arrested on Tuesday, even though the timing remains uncertain, and calling on people to “protest” and “take our nation back.”The effect was like that of a starter’s gun: It prompted Republican leaders to rush to Mr. Trump’s side and to attack the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, a Democrat, who has indicated he is likely to bring charges against Mr. Trump in connection with 2016 hush money payments to a porn star who said she’d had an affair with him.House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Trump ally, wrote on Twitter that Mr. Bragg’s investigation was an “abuse of power” and that he would direct congressional committees to investigate whether any federal money was involved — a thinly veiled threat at a key moment before Mr. Bragg makes his plans clear.A crush of other Republicans denounced the expected charges as politically motivated. They included one declared presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, and one potential candidate who has not yet formally entered the primary field, former Vice President Mike Pence.Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio, who has endorsed Mr. Trump in the 2024 campaign, tweeted that a “politically motivated prosecution makes the argument for Trump stronger.” And both he and Representative Elise Stefanik, a staunch Trump backer from New York, accused Mr. Bragg and his fellow Democrats of trying to turn America into a “third-world country.”The rallying around Mr. Trump evoked the days after the Nov. 3, 2020, election, when his two eldest sons pressured many leading Republicans — who had been waiting for the president to concede defeat — to instead fight on his behalf.This time, however, as when F.B.I. agents executed a search warrant at Mr. Trump’s club and home, Mar-a-Lago, in August, there was no need for anyone to sound the alarm. Mr. Trump’s social media post did that on its own.House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Friday in Washington. Mr. McCarthy said he would seek an investigation of whether the Manhattan district attorney used any federal money in the Trump inquiry.Al Drago for The New York TimesIt was lost on no one that the investigations Mr. Trump is facing include a Justice Department probe of his efforts to stay in power in the lead-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters, several of whom have told prosecutors that they felt summoned to Washington by a tweet from Mr. Trump the previous month.The authorities in New York City were already preparing for possible unrest in response to an indictment before Mr. Trump’s Saturday morning call to action. And while some Republicans did not echo his call for protests while defending him, relatively few publicly objected to them. Mr. McCarthy on Sunday seemed to split the difference, saying he did not believe people should protest an indictment and did not think Mr. Trump really believed they should, either, according to NBC News.“There is a lot of power in the presidency, which is dangerous in the hands of a self-interested demagogue,” said David Axelrod, a veteran Democratic strategist and former adviser to President Obama. “But as we’ve seen, there are also some institutional constraints. Without those, there are no guardrails around Trump. And the more embattled he feels, the more inclined he’ll be to inflame mob action.”Already, Mr. Trump’s hold on the party has far outlasted his time in office. While the 2022 midterms revealed his weaknesses in picking candidates who could win a general election and his failure to focus on issues appealing to a broader group of voters, he nonetheless has continued to bend the G.O.P. to his will.In the midterm primaries, embracing his lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him became a litmus test for candidates seeking his backing. Many of them echoed, and amplified, his false claims, eating away at voters’ trust in the electoral process.Mr. Trump has also wielded outsize influence on several major issues in the Republican primary.When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Mr. Trump initially described it as a “smart” attempt to gain control over another country’s land. He hasn’t repeated that praise, but he has spoken out against treating Ukraine as a key national priority.His position resonates with much of the Republican voting base. But Mr. Trump, as a former president and as the leader in Republican primary polls, has helped set the tone for the party. And that has worried international officials, who have predicted that Mr. Trump’s winning the 2024 presidential nomination could fracture the bipartisan coalition in Washington behind aiding Ukraine.“I do hope, I would say not only from a European perspective but from a global perspective, that Republicans will nominate a candidate that is much more attached to American global leadership than Trump and Trumpists,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former secretary general of NATO, told Alexander Burns of Politico last week, predicting a “geopolitical catastrophe.”Other questions remain for what a Trump indictment might mean if Mr. Trump, who has said he would not quit the race if charged, indeed remains a candidate in 2024, let alone recaptures the nomination.Not being the incumbent means Mr. Trump lacks the ultimate platform from which to summon his followers, as well as the trappings of power that so appealed to some of those who most vocally support him.But Mr. Trump’s strength as president never derived entirely from the office itself. He had spent decades building a fan base across the country and portraying himself as synonymous with success in business, though that image was as much artifice as fact.Keith Schiller, a long-serving personal aide to Mr. Trump, was a detective in the New York Police Department.Al Drago for The New York TimesFor years, Mr. Trump moved in some of New York’s power circles even as other elites shunned him. He has decades-long ties, for example, to New York law enforcement officials whose agencies would play a role in providing security during an eventual indictment, arrest or arraignment.Dennis Quirk, the head of the court officers association, once advised Mr. Trump on construction of the Wollman Rink, the ice skating rink in Central Park whose renovation was crucial to Mr. Trump’s selling of himself as an innovator.Mr. Trump was endorsed by the nation’s largest police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, in 2020. And his long-serving personal aide, Keith Schiller, was a New York City police detective.Among those assailing the Manhattan district attorney on Saturday was Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, who took part in efforts to keep Mr. Trump in power after the 2020 election and has known him since Mr. Trump was mainly a New York real estate developer.“At some point, local, state, and federal law enforcement officers need to stand up and walk out, if they’re forced to engage in illegal political persecutions!” Mr. Kerik wrote on Twitter. “You cannot break the law to enforce it, and that is exactly what @ManhattanDA is doing.” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trial of 2016 Twitter Troll to Test Limits of Online Speech

      by

      Douglass Mackey tried to trick Black people into thinking they could vote by text in the Clinton-Trump presidential election, prosecutors said.The images appeared on Twitter in late 2016 just as the presidential campaign was entering its final stretch. Some featured the message “vote for Hillary” and the phrases “avoid the line” and “vote from home.”Aimed at Democratic voters, and sometimes singling out Black people, the messages were actually intended to help Donald J. Trump, not Hillary Clinton. The goal, federal prosecutors said, was to suppress votes for Ms. Clinton by persuading her supporters to falsely believe they could cast presidential ballots by text message.The misinformation campaign was carried out by a group of conspirators, prosecutors said, including a man in his 20s who called himself Ricky Vaughn. On Monday he will go on trial in Federal District Court in Brooklyn under his real name, Douglass Mackey, after being charged with conspiring to spread misinformation designed to deprive others of their right to vote.“The defendant exploited a social media platform to infringe one of the most basic and sacred rights guaranteed by the Constitution,” Nicholas L. McQuaid, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, said in 2021 when charges against Mr. Mackey were announced. Prosecutors have said that Mr. Mackey, who went to Middlebury College in Vermont and said he lived on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, used hashtags and memes as part of his deception and outlined his strategies publicly on Twitter and with co-conspirators in private Twitter group chats.“Obviously we can win Pennsylvania,” Mr. Mackey said on Twitter, using one of his pseudonymous accounts less than a week before the election, according to a complaint and affidavit. “The key is to drive up turnout with non-college whites, and limit black turnout.”That tweet, court papers said, came a day after Mr. Mackey tweeted an image showing a Black woman in front of a sign supporting Ms. Clinton. That tweet told viewers they could vote for Ms. Clinton by text message.Prosecutors said nearly 5,000 people texted the number shown in the deceptive images, adding that the images stated they had been paid for by the Clinton campaign and had been viewed by people in the New York City area.Mr. Mackey’s trial is expected to provide a window into a small part of what the authorities have described as broad efforts to sway the 2016 election through lies and disinformation. While some of those attempts were orchestrated by Russian security services, others were said to have emanated from American internet trolls.People whose names may surface during the trial or who are expected to testify include a man who tweeted about Jews and Black people and was then disinvited from the DeploraBall, a far-right event in Washington, D.C., the night before Mr. Trump’s inauguration; a failed congressional candidate from Wisconsin; and an obscure federal cooperator who will be allowed to testify under a code name.As the trial has approached, people sympathetic to Mr. Mackey have cast his case as part of a political and cultural war, a depiction driven in part by precisely the sort of partisan social media-fueled effort that he is accused of engineering.Mr. Mackey’s fans have portrayed him as a harmless prankster who is being treated unfairly by the state for engaging in a form of free expression. That notion, perhaps predictably, has proliferated on Twitter, advanced by people using some of the same tools that prosecutors said Mr. Mackey used to disseminate lies. Mackey supporters have referred to him on social media as a “meme martyr” and spread a meme showing him wearing a red MAGA hat and accompanied by the hashtag “#FreeRicky.”Some tweets about Mr. Mackey from prominent figures have included apocalyptic-sounding language. The Fox personality Tucker Carlson posted a video of himself on Twitter calling the trial “the single greatest assault on free speech and human rights in this country’s modern history.”Joe Lonsdale, a founder of Palantir Technologies, retweeted an assertion that Mr. Mackey was being “persecuted by the Biden DOJ for posting memes” and added: “This sounds concerning.” Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of Twitter, replied with a one word affirmation: “Yeah.”Mr. Mackey is accused of participating in private direct message groups on Twitter called “Fed Free Hatechat,” “War Room” and “Infowars Madman” to discuss how to influence the election.Prosecutors said people in those groups discussed sharing memes suggesting that celebrities were supporting Mr. Trump and that Ms. Clinton would start wars and draft women to fight them.One exchange in the Madman group centered on an image that falsely told opponents of Brexit that they could vote “remain” in that British referendum through Facebook or Twitter, according to investigators. One participant in the group asked whether they could make something similar for Ms. Clinton, investigators wrote, adding that another replied: “Typical that all the dopey minorities fell for it.”Last summer, defense lawyers asked that Mr. Mackey’s case be dismissed, referring to Twitter as a “no-holds-barred-free-for-all” and saying “the allegedly deceptive memes” had been protected by the First Amendment as satirical speech.They wrote to the court that it was “highly unlikely” that the memes had fooled any voters and added that any harm was in any event “far outweighed by the chilling of the marketplace of ideas where consumers can assess the value of political expression as provocation, satire, commentary, or otherwise.”Prosecutors say that Mr. Mackey focused on “intentional spreading of false information calculated to mislead and misinform voters about how, where and when to cast a vote in a federal election.”Karsten Moran for The New York TimesProsecutors countered that illegal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment merely because it is carried out by language and added that the charge against Mr. Mackey was not based on his political viewpoint or advocacy. Rather, they wrote, it was focused on “intentional spreading of false information calculated to mislead and misinform voters about how, where and when to cast a vote in a federal election.”Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis ruled that the case should continue, saying it was “about conspiracy and injury, not speech” and adding that Mr. Mackey’s contention that his speech was protected as satire was “a question of fact reserved for the jury.”The prosecution’s star witness is likely to be a man known as Microchip, a shadowy online figure who spread misinformation about the 2016 election, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity.Microchip was a prominent player in alt-right Twitter around the time of the election, and Judge Garaufis allowed him to testify under his online handle in part because prosecutors say he is helping the F.B.I. with several other covert investigations. Sunday, the case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Ann M. Donnelly.In court papers filed last month, prosecutors said they intended to ask the witness to explain to the jury how Mr. Mackey and his allies used Twitter direct messaging groups to come up with “deceptive images discussing the time, place, and manner of voting.”One of the people whom Microchip might mention from the stand is Anthime Gionet, better known by his Twitter name, Baked Alaska; he attended the violent “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017. He was barred from the DeploraBall after sending a tweet that included stereotypes about Jews and Black people.In January, Mr. Gionet was sentenced to two months in prison for his role in storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Imran Khan Makes Court Appearance and Chaos Breaks Out

      by

      Supporters of the former prime minister of Pakistan have repeatedly clashed this week with the security forces, keeping the country on edge. “Show you can fight,” he told supporters.Former Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan appeared at court on corruption charges on Saturday in Islamabad, the capital, in the latest turn of a standoff between his supporters and the authorities that had led to chaotic scenes of tear gas and clashing security lines outside his home earlier in the week.That showdown continued on Saturday morning, as Mr. Khan arrived at the court surrounded by throngs of his supporters, who clashed with the police outside the judicial complex. The court allowed Mr. Khan, who claimed he could not enter the judicial building because of the chaos outside, to register his appearance from inside his vehicle.Mr. Khan, who was removed from office in a parliamentary no-confidence vote in April, is facing dozens of court cases on charges that include terrorism and corruption. Several arrest warrants have been issued against him after he repeatedly refused to appear in court in Islamabad. The court hearing he attempted to join on Saturday involved accusations of illegally profiting from accepting state gifts, and of concealing his assets.The clashes this week, as the police tried to arrest Mr. Khan at his Lahore residence, were the latest show of political brinkmanship to play out on the streets in Pakistan, as clouds of tear gas mixed with angry crowds of Mr. Khan’s supporters that have camped out outside his home and effectively taken on the role of his personal body guards.The violent scenes offered a grim reminder of the state of politics in Pakistan, which has struggled with instability and military coups since its founding 75 years ago. The political scene has become a game of clashing dynasties that take turns falling in and out of favor with the country’s powerful military establishment, with the victors wielding the country’s justice system against their rivals.Since being ousted from power last year, Mr. Khan has led a powerful political campaign drawing tens of thousands to rallies across the country, demanding fresh elections.At the same time, the state has brought dozens of court cases against Mr. Khan. He and his supporters have characterized the accusations as a misuse of the justice system by the government of Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif and by the military in order to sideline Mr. Khan from politics. Pakistani political and military leaders have repeatedly denied those claims.The political tensions surrounding Mr. Khan came to a head in November, when the former prime minister was wounded during a political rally after an unidentified man opened fire on his convoy, in what aides have called an assassination attempt. Since then, Mr. Khan has been mostly ensconced at his residence in Lahore, Pakistan’s second-largest city, and has refused to appear in court in Islamabad.Fawad Chaudhry, a senior leader of Mr. Khan’s political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf or P.T.I., said that the threat to Mr. Khan’s life makes court appearances much riskier, adding: “It is not humanly possible to make court appearances in such a vast number of cases.”Mr. Khan claims that the state has brought more than 86 court cases against him. Government officials say he is facing around 30 cases.Mr. Khan’s supporters clashing with the police outside his residence in Lahore on Tuesday.Arif Ali/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe drama surrounding Mr. Khan seems to only have buoyed his popularity, analysts say, underscoring his unique ability to outmaneuver Pakistan’s typical playbook for sidelining political leaders who have fallen out of favor with the country’s powerful military.On Tuesday, police officers, wearing white helmets and holding shields, lined up outside Mr. Khan’s residence in Lahore to execute an arrest warrant for the former prime minister for failing to appear in court. The police used baton charges and tear gas canisters to scatter the members and supporters of Khan’s political party during the lengthy fight, which lasted for hours and into the evening.Leaders of Mr. Khan’s political party took to social media to share footage of tear gas canisters landing on the lawn outside his drawing room. The video clips showed party workers throwing a canister back at police from across a nearby wall. In another video, party workers, holding sticks, were seen running for cover as tear gas clouds engulfed the driveway of Mr. Khan’s residence.As battles consumed the outskirts of his home, Mr. Khan made an impassioned plea to his supporters through a recorded video message, urging them to fight for their freedom and rights in the face of impending arrest by the police. Mr. Khan vowed to continue fighting as he exhorted his followers to show that they could stand up for their rights even in his absence.“If they send me to jail, or if I am killed, you have to show you can fight without me as well,” Mr. Khan said in the video.Mr. Khan has been criticized by his opponents for attempting to avoid arrest and refusing to appear in court. But the violent showdown outside his home drew widespread criticism.“I am deeply saddened by today’s events. Unhealthy revenge politics,” Arif Alvi, Pakistan’s president and a member of Mr. Khan’s political party, tweeted on Tuesday, adding that it showed “poor priorities” of a government “that should focus on economic misery of the people.”After those clashes, Mr. Khan agreed to appear in court on Saturday, traveling early that morning from his home in Lahore to Islamabad in a convoy flanked by large crowds.As he made the hourslong trip, the police returned to his Lahore residence and dismantled the barriers and sandbag bunkers erected outside his home. Then another clash broke out: The police say that they were shot at and that petrol bombs were thrown at them. Sixty-one people were arrested, said Amir Mir, the interim information minister of Punjab Province.Some had hoped that Mr. Khan’s appearance in court on Saturday would defuse the tension that had built up over the past week. But the clashes in Lahore and outside the courtroom in Islamabad only added to the sense of chaos that has seized Pakistan in recent months.As the standoff drags on, Mr. Khan’s ability to parlay attempts to sideline him into political popularity has upended the Pakistani political sphere, analysts say, and shaken the wide-held belief that the military establishment — long seen as the invisible hand guiding politics — has a firm grasp on the wheel.“If Pakistan still had a functional establishment like what we have always imagined, Imran Khan would either already be prime minister or firmly in jail and sidelined from politics,” said Adil Najam, a professor at Boston University’s Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies and an expert on Pakistani politics, referring to the military as the establishment, as it is popularly known in Pakistan. “The establishment has imploded — its assumed authority has gone away.” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Claims of Chinese Election Meddling Put Trudeau on Defensive

      by

      Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada is battling critics and leaked intelligence reports that opponents say show he ignored warnings of Chinese interference in past elections.OTTAWA — The leaked intelligence reports have set off a political firestorm. They describe plans by the government of China and its diplomats in Canada to ensure that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party took power in the last two elections, raising troubling questions about the integrity of Canada’s democracy.But as two prominent Canadian news organizations have published a series of leaks over the past month, Mr. Trudeau has refused calls to launch a public inquiry into the matter, angering political opponents and leading to accusations that he is covering up foreign attempts to undermine his country’s elections.The news reports do not present any evidence that the Chinese carried out any of their plans for meddling or changing election outcomes. And an independent review released this month as part of Canada’s routine monitoring of election interference upheld the integrity of the 2019 and 2021 votes.Even so, the leaks pose a risk for Mr. Trudeau of appearing weak in the face of potential Chinese aggression and indecisive as a leader acting to preserve election integrity. His political opponents have accused him of being disloyal to Canada.As the intelligence leaks have flowed, Mr. Trudeau has shifted from trying to dismiss them and refusing to discuss them because of secrecy laws, to announcing a series of closed-door reviews related to election integrity.Still, he continues to rebuff repeated calls for a public inquiry — which would include not just an independent investigation, but public hearings — arguing that other inquiries are more appropriate. He said he would only establish a public inquiry if one of his other reviews concludes it’s necessary.“Canada has some of the best and most robust elections in the world,” Mr. Trudeau told reporters. “All Canadians can have total confidence that the outcomes of the 2019 and 2021 elections were determined by Canadians, and Canadians alone, at the voting booth.”The Liberals have accused Conservatives of undermining the public’s confidence in Canada’s electoral system by falsely claiming that the government ignored warnings of potential Chinese interference. Liberals have also accused Conservatives of using the leaks to fan fear and suspicion of Chinese-Canadian elected officials, in an effort to discredit them and undermine their participation in electoral politics.The political attacks on Mr. Trudeau have been spearheaded by the leader of the Conservative Party, which says it is raising legitimate threats to Canadian democracy. “He’s covered it up, even encouraged it to continue,” said the leader, Pierre Poilievre, who suggested that “the prime minister is acting against Canada’s interest and in favor of a foreign dictatorship’s interests.”Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party, suggested that Mr. Trudeau was “acting against Canada’s interest.”Blair Gable/ReutersCurrent and past inquiries about recent elections are not transparent and, in some cases, they lack independence from the Liberals, Mr. Poilievre said. “He wants closed and controlled and we want an open and independent inquiry to make sure it never happens again,” Mr. Poilievre said in the House of Commons.Heightened scrutiny of China’s efforts to subvert Canada’s political process — and corresponding pressure on Mr. Trudeau — started in mid-February after the publication of an article in the Globe and Mail, a Toronto newspaper.According to the newspaper, its reporters had seen unspecified secret and top secret reports from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, commonly called CSIS, that described the intentions of Chinese officials to manipulate the last two elections. The goal, according to the paper’s description of the leaks, was to prevent a win by the Conservative Party, which the Chinese viewed as excessively hard line toward China.A Chinese consular official boasted to her superiors that she had engineered the defeat of two Conservative candidates in 2021, the Globe and Mail reported, though the newspaper provided no evidence to support her claim.The Globe and Mail’s articles and reports on Global News, a broadcaster based-in Canada, said the leaks described orders given to Chinese diplomats based in Canada and, according to the news reports, involved 11 of Canada’s 338 electoral districts.The leaks to both news organizations described illegal cash payments to Liberals and illegal hiring by Chinese officials or their agents in Canada of international students from China, who were reportedly then presented to Liberal campaigns as volunteers. Mr. Trudeau and other Liberals have characterized the reports as “inaccurate.”Some of the supposed plans would have been difficult to execute within Canada’s electoral system, analysts said, because Canada limits and tightly controls campaign spending and fund-raising.“It does come across as a highly unsophisticated understanding of Canadian politics,” said Lori Turnbull, an associate professor of political science at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.An independent review released this month upheld the integrity of the votes in 2019 and 2021.Cole Burston/BloombergAside from originating with the intelligence service, little has been revealed about the exact nature of most of the documents leaked to the two news outlets and it is unclear if the reporters saw them in their entirety. The sources for the information contained in the intelligence reports haves also not been revealed.“It’s not necessarily evidence that a crime took place,” said Stephanie Carvin, a professor of national security studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, and a former Canadian government intelligence analyst. “We frankly don’t know. The way I feel about this issue is that it’s a puzzle. There’s a thousand pieces that the service has and we’re seeing 10 of them.”Even so, Conservatives have been able to push Mr. Trudeau into a corner, while casting doubt on the allegiance of certain Chinese-Canadian elected officials in the Liberal Party, such as Michael Chan, a former Liberal cabinet minister in Ontario’s provincial government.Global News reported last month that CSIS said that at Beijing’s request, Mr. Chan arranged to replace a Liberal member of Parliament from Toronto with a different candidate.Mr. Chan called that report nonsense because he’s never had the authority to orchestrate such a thing. “I don’t know where the heck CSIS gets this information,” he said. Mr. Chan and other Chinese-Canadian officials have been subject to increased scrutiny and what he says are false, racially motivated accusations that he was under the influence of officials in the Chinese consulate in Toronto.He has asked Mr. Trudeau to open an inquiry into “racial profiling” of the Chinese community by the intelligence service. “The informant who informed them just got it wrong, completely wrong,” he said.Michael Chan, a former Liberal cabinet minister in Ontario’s provincial government, has asked Mr. Trudeau to investigate “racial profiling” by CSIS.Galit Rodan/The Canadian Press via, The Associated PressMr. Trudeau initially responded to allegations of Chinese interference in elections by urging the public to wait for the release of a routine review that Canada uses to monitor foreign interference in elections.That report, made public on March 2, concluded that while China, Russia and Iran tried to interfere in the 2019 and 2021 elections, they had no effect on their results. But that did not quell the calls from opposition parties for a public inquiry.Mr. Trudeau recently announced several moves to examine foreign interference. And he committed to holding a public inquiry if it is recommended by a special reviewer who will make recommendations on preventing election subversion.“We all agree that upholding confidence in our democratic process in our elections in our institutions, is of utmost importance,” Mr. Trudeau said. “This is not and should never be a partisan issue.”On Friday, the Globe and Mail published an essay it said was written by its source, who was only described as “a national security official.” The newspaper’s source said that he or she acted because after years of what he or she saw as serious escalation of the threat from foreign interference in votes, “it had become increasingly clear that no serious action was being considered.”The writer lamented that the political debate sparked by the leaks has been “marked by ugliness and division,” and added that he or she does not believe that any foreign power has “dictated the present composition of our federal government.”David J. Bercuson, the director emeritus of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary in Alberta, said he believes that Mr. Trudeau will eventually have to allow a public inquiry.Mr. Trudeau, Professor Bercuson, has yet to “do anything to resolve the growing mistrust.”Mr. Trudeau has committed to holding a public inquiry if it is recommended by a special reviewer.Carlos Osorio/Reuters More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Macron Faces an Angry France Alone

      by

      President Emmanuel Macron saw his decision to push through a change in the retirement age as necessary, but the price may be high.PARIS — “We have a president who makes use of a permanent coup d’état.” That was the verdict of Olivier Faure, the leader of the French Socialist Party, after President Emmanuel Macron rammed through a bill raising the retirement age in France to 64 from 62 without a full parliamentary vote this past week.In fact, Mr. Macron’s use of the “nuclear option,” as the France 24 TV network described it, was entirely legal under the French Constitution, crafted in 1958 for Charles de Gaulle and reflecting the general’s strong view that power should be centered in the president’s office, not among feuding lawmakers.But legality is one thing and legitimacy another. Mr. Macron may see his decision as necessary to cement his legacy as the leader who left France prepared to face the rest of the 21st century. But to many French people it looked like presidential diktat, a blot on his reputation and a blow to French democracy.Parliament has responded with two motions of no confidence in Mr. Macron’s government. They are unlikely to be upheld when the lawmakers vote on them next week because of political divisions in the opposition, but are the expression of a deep anger.Six years into his presidency, surrounded by brilliant technocrats, Mr. Macron cuts a lonely figure, his lofty silence conspicuous at this moment of turmoil.“He has managed to antagonize everyone by occupying the whole of the center,” said Jacques Rupnik, a political scientist. “Macron’s attitude seems to be: After me, the deluge.”This isolation was evident as two months of protests and strikes that left Paris strewn with garbage culminated on Thursday in the sudden panic of a government that had believed the pension vote was a slam dunk. Suddenly, the emperor’s doubts were exposed.Mr. Macron thought he could count on the center-right Republicans to vote for his plan in the National Assembly, Parliament’s lower house. Two of the most powerful members of his government — Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire and Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin — came from that party. The Republicans had advocated retirement even later, at 65.Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne, bottom left, with lawmakers at the National Assembly on Thursday. If the government falls in a no-confidence vote, she will no longer be prime minister.Alain Jocard/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesYet out of some mixture of political calculation in light of the waves of protest and spite toward the man who had undermined their party by building a new movement of the center, they began to desert Mr. Macron.Having his retirement overhaul fail was one risk that even Macron the risk taker could not take. He opted for a measure, known as the 49.3 after the relevant article of the Constitution, that allows certain bills to be passed without a vote. France’s retirement age will rise to 64, more in line with its European partners, unless the no-confidence motion passes.But what would have looked like a defining victory for Mr. Macron, even if the parliamentary vote in favor had been narrow, now looks like a Pyrrhic victory.Four more years in power stretch ahead of Mr. Macron, with “Mr. 49.3” stamped on his forehead. He made the French dream when he was elected at age 39 in 2017; how he can do so again is unclear.“The idea that we are not in a democracy has grown. It’s out there all the time on social media, part conspiracy theory, part expression of a deep anxiety,” said Nicolas Tenzer, an author who teaches political science at Sciences Po university. “And, of course, what Macron just did feeds that.”The government’s spokesman is Olivier Véran, who is also minister delegate for democratic renewal. There is a reason for that august title: a widespread belief that over the six years of the Macron presidency, French democracy has eroded.After the Yellow Vest protest movement erupted in 2018 over an increase in gas prices but also an elitism that Mr. Macron seemed to personify, the president went on a “listening tour.” It was an attempt to get closer to working people of whom he had seemed dismissive.Now, almost one year into his second term, that outreach seems distant. Mr. Macron scarcely laid the groundwork for his pension measure even though he knew well that it would touch a deep French nerve at a time of economic hardship. His push for later retirement was top-down, expedited at every turn and, in the end, ruthless.Outside the National Assembly, French Parliament’s lower house, on Friday. Mr. Macron thought he could count on center-right Republicans there to vote for his plan, but they began to desert him.Geoffroy Van Der Hasselt/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe case for the overhaul was strong. It was not only to Mr. Macron that retirement at 62 looked untenable as lives grew longer. The math, over the longer term at least, simply does not add up in a system where the ratio of active workers to the retirees they are supporting through their payroll taxes keeps dropping.But in an anxious France, with many people struggling to pay their bills and unsure of their futures, Mr. Macron could not make the argument. In fact, he hardly seemed to try.Of course, the French attitude to a mighty presidency is notoriously ambiguous. On the one hand, the near-monarchical office seems to satisfy some French yearning for an all-powerful state — it was a French king, Louis XIV, who is said to have declared that the state was none other than himself. On the other, the presidency is resented for the extent of its authority.Mr. Macron seemed to capture this when he told his cabinet on Thursday, “Among you, I am not the one who risks his place or his seat.” If the government does fall in a vote of censure, Élisabeth Borne will no longer be prime minister, but Mr. Macron will still be president until 2027.“A permanent coup d’état,” Mr. Faure’s phrase, was also the title of a book that François Mitterrand wrote to describe the presidency of de Gaulle. That was before Mr. Mitterrand became president himself and in time came to enjoy all the pomp and power of his office. Mr. Macron has proved no more impervious to the temptations of the presidency than his predecessors.Protesters at a train station in Bordeaux, France, on Friday. Demonstrations and strikes over the pension bill have gone on for two months and continued after Mr. Macron’s decision to avoid a full vote.Philippe Lopez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesBut times change, social hierarchies fall, and Mr. Macron’s exercise of his authority has stirred a strong resentment in a flatter French society at a moment of war-induced tension in Europe.“There is a rejection of the person,” Mr. Tenzer said. The daily newspaper Le Monde noted in an editorial that Mr. Macron ran the risk of “fostering a persistent bitterness, or even igniting sparks of violence.”In a way, Mr. Macron is the victim of his own remarkable success. Such are his political gifts that he has been elected to two terms in office — no French president had done this in two decades — and effectively destroyed the two political pillars of postwar France: the Socialist Party and the Gaullists.So he is resented by the center left and center right, even as he is loathed by the far left and the far right.Now in his final term, he must walk a lonely road. He has no obvious successor, and his Renaissance party is little more than a vehicle for his talents. This is the “deluge” of which Mr. Rupnik spoke: a vast political void looming in 2027.If Marine Le Pen of the far right is not to fill it, Mr. Macron the reformist must deliver the resilient, vibrant France for which he believes his much-contested reform was an essential foundation.A protester shot a firework at police officers in Paris on Friday.Julien De Rosa/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAurelien Breeden More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis, on Defense, Shows Signs of Slipping in Polls

      by

      For now, the Florida governor isn’t firing back at Trump.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida with Donald J. Trump in 2019. He has not attacked Mr. Trump, who has not hesitated to attack him. Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated PressIt’s been a tough few months for Ron DeSantis.Donald J. Trump and his allies have blasted him as “Meatball Ron,” “Ron DeSanctimonious,” a “groomer,” disloyal and a supporter of cutting entitlement programs. Now, he’s getting criticism from many mainstream conservatives for calling Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a “territorial dispute.”Is all of this making a difference in the polls? There are signs the answer is yes.In surveys taken since the Trump offensive began two months ago, Mr. DeSantis, the Florida governor, has steadily lost ground against Mr. Trump, whose own numbers have increased.It can be hard to track who’s up and who’s down in the Republican race, since different pollsters have had such wildly divergent takes on Mr. Trump’s strength. In just the last few days, a CNN/SSRS poll showed a tight race, with Mr. DeSantis at 39 percent and Mr. Trump at 37 percent among registered voters, while a Morning Consult poll found Mr. Trump with nearly a two-to-one lead, 52 percent to 28 percent.In this situation, the best way to get a clear read on recent trends is to compare surveys by the same pollsters over time.Over the last two months, we’ve gotten about a dozen polls from pollsters who had surveyed the Republican race over the previous two months. These polls aren’t necessarily of high quality or representative, so don’t focus on the average across these polls. It’s the trend that’s important, and the trend is unequivocal: Every single one of these polls has shown Mr. DeSantis faring worse than before, and Mr. Trump faring better.A Widening Gap Between Trump and DeSantisEvery recent poll has shown Mr. DeSantis faring worse than he did two months ago — around the time Mr. Trump began publicly attacking him. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What’s Next for Opponents of Macron’s Retirement Plan?

      by

      Angry protesters lit small fires and clashed with police clad in riot gear at the Place de la Concorde in central Paris on Thursday after President Emmanuel Macron pushed his pension reform bill through Parliament without a vote.Several thousand people had spontaneously gathered there earlier in the day, after the government’s decision was announced, to demonstrate across the Seine River from the National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament.While the gathering was mostly peaceful throughout the afternoon, the situation took a more violent turn as night fell over the French capital and the police moved in to clear out the Place de la Concorde, a major square in Paris with a famed obelisk in the middle, not far from luxury hotels, the Tuileries gardens and the U.S. Embassy.Protesters with covered faces threw cobblestones torn from the pavement at the police, who responded with tear gas and water cannons as they slowly pushed the diminishing crowds into surrounding streets. Some protesters set fire to wood construction fencing and heaps of trash, which has gone uncollected in many parts of Paris over the past week because of an ongoing strike by garbage workers.Protesters with covered faces throwing objects at the police on Place de la Concorde in Paris, on Thursday.Alain Jocard/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFrench police officers responding to clashes that erupted at Place de la Concorde.Yoan Valat/EPA, via ShutterstockThe scene at the Place de la Concorde earlier in the day was much more jovial, but also seemed to embody how fuzzy the next stage of the battle may be for opponents of President Emmanuel Macron’s pension overhaul.Thousands of protesters, along with some leftist legislators, gathered on the plaza, in the center of a giant traffic circle in the heart of the French capital. But the crowd was disorganized: Some people tried to generate momentum for a march on the nearby National Assembly, to no avail, while others chanted slogans or just stood by.Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the prominent leftist politician, arrived and then quickly disappeared.Hours after Mr. Macron’s decision to push through his plan to raise the retirement age without putting it to a vote in the National Assembly, many in the crowd expressed anger and vowed to continue fighting a measure that they say erodes a cherished part of France’s social safety net.“We will do spontaneous protests across France,” said Isabelle Mollaret, 47, a children’s librarian who held a sign that read, “Macron, you aren’t the boss. We will fight him!”Catherine Porter/The New York TimesThe protest on the Place de la Concorde already has all the hallmarks of a French demonstration. Union flags and balloons are up. Loudspeakers are blaring music. And, yes, a union truck is selling jambon-beurre sandwiches.Constant Meheut/The New York TimesUnion leaders said earlier on Thursday that they would soon call for more demonstrations, trying to extend what have already been eight nationwide mobilizations against the pension plan in the last two months.With an absence of clear organization, it was unclear whether the protests would grow into the kind of unbridled social unrest that France has sometimes experienced — such as the Yellow Vest movement in 2018 and 2019 — or would fizzle.But anger among opponents of the pension plan was growing. In the plaza, where union flags and balloons flew and music blared from loudspeakers, many people said they were committed to continue protesting against the plan — and against a government they see as having shown contempt for them.“We will do spontaneous protests across France,” said Isabelle Mollaret, 47, a children’s librarian who held a sign that read, “Macron, you aren’t the boss.” She added, “We will fight him!”Students protesting against the government’s plan to raise the retirement age to 64, in Paris, on Thursday.Lewis Joly/Associated PressA group of students chanted against Mr. Macron, calling him “president of the business bosses.” If students become deeply involved in the protest movement, that could be a bad sign for Mr. Macron’s government. In 2006, widespread student protests against a law introducing a youth jobs contract forced the government to backtrack and repeal the law — exactly what protesters are aiming for now.Still, the feeling on the plaza was one of a festival, not an angry protest. A woman handed out chocolate. Students sang. A group of women from Attac, a French anti-globalization movement, known as the Rosies, changed the lyrics of Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive” to reflect an anti-Macron sentiment and led the crowd in a choreographed dance.“We are relieved because we know the fight will continue,” said Lou Chesne, 36, an energy-efficiency researcher and one of the dancers.He noted that the government hadn’t been able to collect enough votes in the Legislative Assembly to pass their law, and instead had to shoehorn it through with a special constitutional tool.“They are isolated,” Mr. Chesne said. More