Ethics and Official Misconduct

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Says Cuomo 'Should Resign' Amid Sexual Harassment Findings

      by

      Investigators said they corroborated the claims of 11 women who accused Mr. Cuomo of inappropriate behavior, from suggestive comments to instances of groping.Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo sexually harassed 11 women, including current and former government workers, whose accounts of unwanted touching and inappropriate comments were corroborated in a damning report released on Tuesday by the New York State attorney general, Letitia James.The 165-page report prompted multiple calls for Mr. Cuomo to resign, including from President Biden, a longtime ally of the governor, and it cast doubt on Mr. Cuomo’s political future. The Democratic speaker of the State Assembly said on Tuesday that he intended to quicken the pace of a separate impeachment inquiry, adding that Mr. Cuomo “can no longer remain in office.”The report, the culmination of a five-month investigation, included at least three previously unreported allegations of sexual harassment from women who accused Mr. Cuomo of improperly touching them, including a state trooper assigned to the governor’s security detail. It also highlighted far-reaching efforts by the governor, his staff and close associates to disparage and retaliate against one woman who made her allegations public.All told, the investigators said they corroborated the claims of 11 women, nine of whom are current or former state employees, who accused Mr. Cuomo of a range of inappropriate behavior, from suggestive comments to instances of groping, through interviews with 179 witnesses and tens of thousands of documents.The report described in stunning detail how Mr. Cuomo’s behavior and actions by his top officials violated both state and federal law, offering a look at the inner workings of the governor’s office and how it failed to properly handle some of the women’s allegations. It also shed a light on a sprawling network of associates, including former aides and close allies, enlisted by Mr. Cuomo and his staff to aggressively fight the allegations on behalf of the governor.Investigators said that Mr. Cuomo, a third-term Democrat, and his aides fostered a toxic work culture that was rife with fear and intimidation, and helped enable “harassment to occur and created a hostile work environment.”“The independent investigation found that Governor Cuomo harassed multiple women, many of whom were young women, by engaging in unwanted groping, kisses, hugging, and by making inappropriate comments,” Ms. James, a Democrat, said during a news conference in Manhattan, adding, “I believe these women.”Mr. Cuomo responded to the findings in a 14-minute prerecorded statement delivered from Albany. In a sweeping, slightly disjointed soliloquy, the governor denied most of the report’s serious findings, reiterating his contention that he had never touched anyone inappropriately. He suggested the report was politically motivated and declared that “the facts are much different from what has been portrayed.”Mr. Cuomo denied any wrongdoing following the release of a report by the state’s attorney general into allegations of sexual harassment against him. Office of the New York Governor“I never touched anyone inappropriately or made inappropriate sexual advances,” he said. “I am 63 years old. I have lived my entire adult life in public view. That is just not who I am, and that’s not who I have ever been.”In defending his behavior, Mr. Cuomo mentioned that one of his relatives was sexually assaulted in high school and suggested it was sexist to accuse his female supervisors of creating a hostile workplace. His speech was even interlaced with a slide show of photographs of him kissing public officials on the cheek, gestures he said were “meant to convey warmth, nothing more.”The political fallout from the report was swift: It prompted Mr. Biden, a longtime friend of the governor, to call on Mr. Cuomo to resign on Tuesday, months after stopping short of asking the governor to step down because the investigation was ongoing.“What I said was if the investigation by the attorney general concluded that the allegations were correct, back in March, I would recommend he resign,” said Mr. Biden, who had not spoken with Mr. Cuomo. “That is what I’m doing today.”“I think he should resign,” the president said.Representative Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, joined the existing and ever-growing chorus of calls for Mr. Cuomo to resign, as did three House Democrats from New York who originally said they wanted to wait on the report before weighing in on Mr. Cuomo’s fate.Even Mr. Cuomo’s fellow Democratic governors in nearby Northeastern states joined the chorus. In a joint statement, the governors of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and New Jersey said that they were appalled at the investigation’s findings and that Mr. Cuomo should step down.The contents of the report, and the subsequent backlash, would seem to limit Mr. Cuomo’s political future, and serve as a serious obstacle to being re-elected to a fourth term — once regarded as a near certainty for a governor previously hailed a national leader during the coronavirus pandemic.The Democratic-controlled State Assembly, which could impeach Mr. Cuomo with a simple majority vote, has been conducting a broad impeachment investigation into the governor, examining a series of scandals with a common theme:whether or not Mr. Cuomo abused his power while in office.Democrats in the Assembly held a closed-door emergency meeting on Tuesday to discuss whether to draft articles of impeachment based solely on the findings of the attorney general report, a move that appeared to have support among many of the 50 or 60 lawmakers who spoke, according to four people with knowledge of the meeting.After the meeting, Carl E. Heastie, the Assembly speaker, said his chamber would “move expeditiously and look to conclude our impeachment investigation as quickly as possible.” It could take a month to complete the existing inquiry and draw up the articles of impeachment, according to a person familiar with the process.A trial in the State Senate could commence as soon as September or early October, the person said. If Mr. Cuomo were to resign or be removed from office, Kathleen C. Hochul, the state’s lieutenant governor, would succeed him, making her the first woman to become governor in the state’s history.On Tuesday, Ms. Hochul said she believed the governor’s accusers, describing Mr. Cuomo’s documented behavior as “repulsive and unlawful.” She said that it was up to the Assembly to determine the next steps, adding that “it would not be appropriate to comment further on the process at this moment” because she is next in the line of succession.The attorney general’s investigation was spearheaded by two outside lawyers: Joon H. Kim, a former federal prosecutor who once served as acting U.S. attorney of Manhattan, and Anne L. Clark, a well-known employment lawyer.On Tuesday, Mr. Kim said their investigation revealed a pattern of troubling behavior from Mr. Cuomo and found that the culture within the executive chamber “contributed to conditions that allowed the governor’s sexually harassing conduct to occur and to persist.”“It was a culture where you could not say no to the governor, and if you upset him, or his senior staff, you would be written off, cast aside or worse,” Mr. Kim said. “But at the same time, the witnesses described a culture that normalized and overlooked everyday flirtations, physical intimacy and inappropriate comments by the governor.”Ms. Clark said that the governor’s conduct detailed in the report “clearly meets, and far exceeds” the legal standard used to determine gender-based harassment in the workplace.“Women also described to us having the governor seek them out, stare intently at them, look them up and down or gaze at their chest or butt,” she said. “The governor routinely interacted with women in ways that focused on their gender, sometimes in explicitly sexualized manner in ways that women found deeply humiliating and offensive.”Understand the Scandals Challenging Gov. Cuomo’s LeadershipCard 1 of 5Multiple claims of sexual harassment. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s ‘Team Kraken’ Lands in Hot Water

      by

      L. Lin Wood played a starring role in the failed legal effort to alter the results of the 2020 election on behalf of former President Donald Trump. But Mr. Wood, a lawyer, now wants everyone to know that he had no real involvement in the suit to decertify the vote in Michigan, despite his name appearing on it.“I do not specifically recall being asked about the Michigan complaint,” he said on Monday, “but I had generally indicated to Sidney Powell that if she needed a quote-unquote trial lawyer, I would certainly be willing or available to help her.” Ms. Powell, you may recall, is the legal eagle who vowed to “release the Kraken” on supposed 2020 election fraudsters, thus earning the pro-Trump legal crusade its mythic nickname.Mr. Wood was just trying to support his Kraken co-counsel.Mr. Wood’s, um, clarifications were made to a federal judge during a hearing on whether he, Ms. Powell and several other lawyers should be sanctioned over the Michigan case. The city of Detroit, among other entities, has accused the pro-Trump legal team of abusing the court system by pursuing a frivolous, error-riddled case. The city wants the offending lawyers punished financially and referred for possible disbarment.Sidney PowellElijah Nouvelage/ReutersMonday’s virtual proceedings did not bode well for Team Kraken. U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker expressed skepticism bordering on dismay about some of the evidence and experts from the original case. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen an affidavit that has made so many leaps,” she marveled at one point. “How could any of you as officers of the court present this affidavit?”Generally speaking, it’s not a good sign when a judge is characterizing one’s evidence in terms such as “fantastical,” “speculative,” “bad faith,” “obviously questionable” and “layers of hearsay.” Judge Parker brushed back Ms. Powell’s assertion that the complaint’s 960 pages of affidavits proved “due diligence,” countering, “Volume, certainly for this court, doesn’t equate with legitimacy or veracity.”The hearing ground on for six hours, with so much back talk and smack talk that the court reporter had to ask the participants to tone things down so that she could do her job. At day’s end, all parties were given two weeks to submit additional arguments.Mr. Wood was not the only defendant eager to downplay his role. The lawyer for Emily Newman, another member of the Michigan Kraken team, said his client spent a mere five hours on the case and that her role was “de minimis.” More generally, the defendants maintain that the entire hearing is outrageous and baseless and — surprise! — that they are being unjustly persecuted. “I have practiced law for 43 years and have never witnessed a proceeding like this,” Ms. Powell said.But here’s where the political and legal paths diverge for those perpetuating Mr. Trump’s election lies. The legal world has ethical, professional standards by which members are expected to abide. When they violate said standards, they can’t simply whine or bluster their way out of trouble with partisan demagogy. They need to justify their actions to judges and professional groups who have a clear grasp of the issues — and who deal with slick talkers for a living.This is the situation in which Team Kraken and some other Trump legal enablers find themselves. Michigan is just one of several states where suits are underway against the lawyers who pursued baseless election-fraud complaints. Last month, a New York appellate court suspended the law license of Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr. Trump’s most aggressive apparatchiks, for making “demonstrably false and misleading statements” about the 2020 election. The Texas bar is looking into whether the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, committed professional misconduct in challenging the election results. The state bar of Georgia, where Mr. Wood’s practice is based, is investigating his behavior.No doubt, the legal system hosts an abundance of carnival barkers and political hacks. Just this week, Jenna Ellis, a former Trump campaign legal adviser, announced her departure from the Republican Party, accusing its leaders of failing to stand up for Mr. Trump and for “true conservatives.” She is particularly miffed at the Republican National Committee’s chief legal counsel, Justin Riemer, for having reportedly spoken ill of her push to invalidate the 2020 results. “What Rudy and Jenna are doing is a joke and they are getting laughed out of court,” Mr. Riemer wrote in a November email, according to a new book by Michael Wolff. “They are misleading millions of people who have wishful thinking that the president is going to somehow win this thing.”Ms. Ellis has demanded the resignation of top party officials, including Ronna McDaniel, the R.N.C.’s chairwoman, and says she will not return to the fold until the party “comes back home to conservatives.”Such theatrics may thrill MAGA fans — and even more so the former president. But they are unlikely to sway jurists or other arbiters tasked with reviewing the behavior of officers of the court.Mr. Trump’s alternative facts hold less sway over some realms than others.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

      Giuliani Law License Suspension: Read the Document

      by

      all ballots cast in the presidential audit.9 The hand audit, which relied exclusively on the

      printed text on the ballot-marking device, or bubbled-in the choice of the absentee

      ballot, confirmed the results of the election with a zero percent risk limit. Respondent’s

      statement that the vote count was inaccurate, without referencing the hand audits, was

      misleading. By law, this audit was required to take place following the election and be

      completed no later than December 31, 2020 (Ga Ann § 21-2-498). Respondent’s

      statements were made while the hand audit was proceeding and after it concluded. We

      understand that Dominion has sued respondent for defamation in connection with his

      claims about their voting machines (Complaint, US Dominion, Inc. v Giuliani, 1:21-cv-

      00213, US District Court, District of Columbia [Washington], January 25, 2021).

      Consequently, we do not reach the issue of whether respondent’s claims about the

      Dominion voting machines were false, nor do we need to.

      statements about the results of the Georgia election count are false. Respondent

      provides no basis in this record for disputing the hand count audit. Respondent made

      these statements at least on December 3, 2020 when appearing before the Georgia

      Legislature’s Senate Judiciary Committee, during a December 6, 2020 episode of the

      radio show Uncovering the Truth, during a December 22, 2020 episode of his radio

      show Chat with the Mayor, he alluded to it in a December 27, 2020 episode of

      9 In this motion, because the AGC only relies on the audit referred to in the Georgia Secretary of State’s January 6, 2021 letter to Congress, we only consider this one audit. Georgia’s election results were, however, actually audited three times, and no evidence of widespread fraud was discovered (Daniel Funke, Fact check: No evidence of fraud in Georgia election results (June 1, 2021), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/01/fact-check-georgia- audit-hasnt-found-30-000-fake-ballots/5253184001/ [last accessed June 12, 2021]).

      In view of the hand counts conducted in Georgia, we find that respondent’s

      17 More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Block Voting Rights Bill, Dealing Blow to Biden and Democrats

      by

      All 50 G.O.P. senators opposed the sweeping elections overhaul, leaving a long-shot bid to eliminate the filibuster as Democrats’ best remaining hope to enact legal changes.WASHINGTON — Republicans on Tuesday blocked the most ambitious voting rights legislation to come before Congress in a generation, dealing a blow to Democrats’ attempts to counter a wave of state-level ballot restrictions and supercharging a campaign to end the legislative filibuster.President Biden and Democratic leaders said the defeat was only the beginning of their drive to steer federal voting rights legislation into law, and vowed to redouble their efforts in the weeks ahead.“In the fight for voting rights, this vote was the starting gun, not the finish line,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader. “We will not let it go. We will not let it die. This voter suppression cannot stand.”But the Republican blockade in the Senate left Democrats without a clear path forward, and without a means to beat back the restrictive voting laws racing through Republican-led states. For now, it will largely be left to the Justice Department to decide whether to challenge any of the state laws in court — a time-consuming process with limited chances of success — and to a coalition of outside groups to help voters navigate the shifting rules.Democrats’ best remaining hope to enact legal changes rests on a long-shot bid to eliminate the legislative filibuster, which Republicans used on Tuesday to block the measure, called the For the People Act. Seething progressive activists pointed to the Republicans’ refusal to even allow debate on the issue as a glaring example of why Democrats in the Senate must move to eliminate the rule and bypass the G.O.P. on a range of liberal priorities while they still control Congress and the presidency.They argued that with former President Donald J. Trump continuing to press the false claim that the election was stolen from him — a narrative that many Republicans have perpetuated as they have pushed for new voting restrictions — Democrats in Congress could not afford to allow the voting bill to languish.Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, denounced any attempt to gut the filibuster.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times“The people did not give Democrats the House, Senate and White House to compromise with insurrectionists,” Representative Ayanna Pressley, Democrat of Massachusetts, wrote on Twitter. “Abolish the filibuster so we can do the people’s work.”Liberal activists promised a well-funded summertime blitz, replete with home-state rallies and million-dollar ad campaigns, to try to ramp up pressure on a handful of Senate Democrats opposed to changing the rules. Mounting frustration with Republicans could accelerate a growing rift between liberals and more moderate lawmakers over whether to try to pass a bipartisan infrastructure and jobs package or move unilaterally on a far more ambitious plan.But key Democratic moderates who have defended the filibuster rule — led by Senators Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — appeared unmoved and said their leaders should try to find narrower compromises, including on voting and infrastructure bills.Ms. Sinema dug in against eliminating the filibuster on the eve of the vote, writing an op-ed in The Washington Post defending the 60-vote threshold. Without the rule there to force broad consensus, she argued, Congress could swing wildly every two years between enacting and then reversing liberal and conservative agenda items.“The filibuster is needed to protect democracy, I can tell you that,” Mr. Manchin told reporters on Tuesday.In their defeat, top Democrats appeared keen to at least claim Republicans’ unwillingness to take up the bill as a political issue. They planned to use it in the weeks and months ahead to stoke enthusiasm with their progressive base by highlighting congressional Republicans’ refusal to act to preserve voting rights at a time when their colleagues around the country are racing to clamp down on ballot access.Vice President Kamala Harris spent the afternoon on Capitol Hill trying to drum up support for the bill and craft some areas of bipartisan compromise.Erin Schaff/The New York Times“Once again, Senate Republicans have signed their names in the ledger of history alongside Donald Trump, the big lie and voter suppression — to their enduring disgrace,” Mr. Schumer said. “This vote, I’m ashamed to say, is further evidence that voter suppression has become part of the official platform of the Republican Party.”Democrats’ bill, which passed the House in March, would have ushered in the largest federally mandated expansion of voting rights since the 1960s, ended the practice of partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, forced super PACs to disclose their big donors and created a new public campaign financing system.It would have pushed back against more than a dozen Republican-led states that have enacted laws that experts say will make it harder for people of color and young people to vote, or shift power over elections to G.O.P. legislators. Other states appear poised to follow suit, including Texas, whose Republican governor on Tuesday called a special legislative session in July, when lawmakers are expected to complete work on a voting bill Democrats temporarily blocked last month.After months of partisan wrangling over the role of the federal government in elections, the outcome on Tuesday was hardly a surprise to either party. All 50 Senate Democrats voted to advance the federal legislation and open debate on other competing voting bills. All 50 Republicans united to deny it the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster, deriding it as a bloated federal overreach.Republicans never seriously considered the legislation, or a narrower alternative proposed in recent days by Mr. Manchin. They mounted an aggressive campaign in congressional committees, on television and finally on the floor to portray the bill as a self-serving federalization of elections to benefit Democrats. They called Democrats’ warnings about democracy hyperbolic. And they defended their state counterparts, including arguments that the laws were needed to address nonexistent “election integrity” issues Mr. Trump raised about the 2020 election.“The filibuster is needed to protect democracy, I can tell you that,” Senator Joe Manchin III said.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesSenate Republicans particularly savaged provisions restructuring the Federal Election Commission to avoid deadlocks and the proposed creation of a public campaign financing system for congressional campaigns.“These same rotten proposals have sometimes been called a massive overhaul for a broken democracy, sometimes just a modest package of tweaks for a democracy that’s working perfectly and sometimes a response to state actions, which this bill actually predates by many years,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader. “But whatever label Democrats slap on the bill, the substance remains the same.”His top deputy, Senator John Thune of South Dakota, also threw cold water on any suggestion the two parties could come together on a narrower voting bill as long as Democrats wanted Congress to overpower the states.“I don’t think there’s anything I’ve seen yet that doesn’t fundamentally change the way states conduct elections,” he said. “It’s sort of a line in the sand for most of our members.”At more than 800 pages, the For the People Act was remarkably broad. It was first assembled in 2019 as a compendium of long-sought liberal election changes and campaign pledges that had energized Democrats’ anti-corruption campaign platform in the 2018 midterm elections. At the time, Democrats did not control the Senate or the White House, and so the bill served more as a statement of values than a viable piece of legislation..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}When Democrats improbably won control of them, proponents insisted that what had essentially been a messaging bill become a top legislative priority. But the approach was always flawed. Mr. Manchin did not support the legislation, and other Democrats privately expressed concerns over key provisions. State election administrators from both parties said some of its mandates were simply unworkable (Democrats proposed tweaks to alleviate their concerns). Republicans felt little pressure to back a bill of its size and partisan origins.Senator Amy Klobuchar, right, announced that she would use her gavel on the Rules Committee to hold a series of hearings on election issues.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesDemocratic leaders won Mr. Manchin’s vote on Tuesday by agreeing to consider a narrower compromise proposal he drafted in case the debate had proceeded. Mr. Manchin’s alternative would have expanded early and mail-in voting, made Election Day a federal holiday, and imposed new campaign and government ethics rules. But it cut out proposals slammed by Republicans, including one that would have neutered state voter identification laws popular with voters and another to set up a public campaign financing system.Mr. Manchin was not the only Democrat keen on Tuesday to project a sense of optimism and purpose, even as the party’s options dwindled. Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, announced she would use her gavel on the Rules Committee to hold a series of hearings on election issues, including a field hearing in Georgia to highlight the state’s restrictive new voting law.Vice President Kamala Harris, who asked to take the lead on voting issues for Mr. Biden, spent the afternoon on Capitol Hill trying to drum up support for the bill and craft some areas of bipartisan compromise. She later presided over the vote.“The fight is not over,” she told reporters afterward.Facing criticism from party activists who accused him of taking too passive a role on the issue, Mr. Biden said he would have more to say on the issue next week but vowed to fight on against the dawning of a “Jim Crow era in the 21st century.”“I’ve been engaged in this work my whole career, and we are going to be ramping up our efforts to overcome again — for the people, for our very democracy,” he said in a statement.But privately, top Democrats in Congress conceded they had few compelling options and dwindling time to act — particularly if they cannot persuade all 50 of their members to scrap the filibuster rule. The Senate will leave later this week for a two-week break. When senators return, Democratic leaders, including Mr. Biden, are eager to quickly shift to consideration of an infrastructure and jobs package that could easily consume the rest of the summer.They have also been advised by Democratic elections lawyers that unless a voting overhaul is signed into law by Labor Day, it stands little chance of taking effect before the 2022 midterm elections.Both the House and the Senate are still expected to vote this fall on another marquee voting bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The bill would put teeth back into a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that made it harder for jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to enact voting restrictions, which was invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2013. While it does have some modest Republican support, it too appears to be likely doomed by the filibuster.“This place can always make you despondent,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut. “The whole exercise of being a member of this body is convincing yourself to get up another day to convince yourself that the fight is worth engaging in. But yeah, this certainly feels like an existential fight.”Jonathan Weisman More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Candidates Clash Over New York City’s Future in Final Mayoral Debate

      by

      The eight contenders jousted over their policies on public safety, homelessness, education and mental illness with less than a week left in the campaign.Clashing over public safety, education and crises of mental health and street homelessness in New York City, the leading Democratic candidates for mayor on Wednesday promoted radically different post-pandemic visions for the city as they made their closing arguments before the June 22 primary.It was the Democrats’ final major debate of the primary, and, like the first three, the event was a contentious affair that focused heavily on issues of policing and public safety, as well as on questions of the candidates’ personal and professional preparedness to lead the nation’s largest city.Much of the fire at the previous matchups was trained at Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, and to some extent at Andrew Yang, a 2020 presidential candidate.Similar dynamics played out again on Wednesday, though the two-hour debate was one of the most substantive of the primary season, spanning issues from how the city can combat climate change to the best ways to manage affordable housing and homelessness.Indeed, the eight candidates constantly jostled for advantages, trying to position themselves as the most qualified to lead the city as it begins to recover from the ravages of the coronavirus and its effects on the economy, education, crime rates and inequality.Recent polls indicate that Mr. Adams is the front-runner, with Kathryn Garcia, a former city sanitation commissioner, and Maya D. Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, showing late momentum. But Mr. Adams took on the fiercest attacks, as Mr. Yang and Ms. Wiley sought to put him on the defensive over matters of both judgment and policy, in particular around public safety.Mr. Yang, who led the early public polls, has been among Mr. Adams’s sharpest critics and is airing television ads attacking him. He began the race as a celebrity candidate whose sunny optimism and pledges to be New York’s cheerleader appeared to resonate with a city on the cusp of reopening.Eric Adams, left, a front-runner in the race, was the focus of several attacks from his rivals, including Andrew Yang, right.WNBC-TV and NYC Campaign Finance BoardBut as issues of public safety moved to the forefront of voters’ minds, and Mr. Yang faced scrutiny over his grasp of municipal government, he has stumbled in the sparse public polling available.At the debate, co-sponsored by WNBC-TV, he took aim at Mr. Adams’s public safety credentials, where polling suggests the borough president has a strong advantage. Mr. Yang was endorsed by the Captains Endowment Association, the union that represents police captains, as well as a major firefighters’ union, and on Wednesday he sought to undermine Mr. Adams on that subject.“They think I’m a better choice than Eric to keep us and our families safe,” Mr. Yang said. “They want someone honest as a partner who will actually follow through.”Mr. Adams, a former police captain, declared that some of the captains recalled his efforts to change police conduct from within the system while he was serving, and suggested they held it against him. When the candidates were asked to name the worst idea promoted by a rival, Mr. Yang cited Mr. Adams’s past remarks about carrying a gun in church, while Mr. Adams ripped Mr. Yang’s cash relief proposal for the poorest 500,000 New Yorkers, likening it to “Monopoly money” and suggesting it was less serious than his own proposals.Ms. Wiley has also frequently clashed with Mr. Adams on the debate stage, but unlike Mr. Yang, she has often challenged him from the left over issues of policing, and she did so again on Wednesday.“The worst idea I’ve ever heard is bringing back stop and frisk and the anti-crime unit from Eric Adams,” Ms. Wiley said. “Which, one, is racist, two, is unconstitutional, and three, didn’t stop any crime, and four, it will not happen in a Maya Wiley administration.”Maya Wiley sought to contrast her stance on public safety with Mr. Adams, criticizing his idea to bring back an anti-crime unit.WNBC-TV and NYC Campaign Finance BoardMr. Adams vowed that the abuse of stop and frisk would not return in an Adams administration and questioned Ms. Wiley’s authority on the subject, noting reports of private security in her neighborhood.Mr. Adams has come under growing scrutiny in recent weeks over matters from his fund-raising practices to questions about his residency, and his opponents have sought to cast doubt on his commitments to transparency and ethical leadership. On Wednesday, the nonprofit news outlet The City reported on issues of disclosure around Mr. Adams’s real estate holdings.But those issues were not a central focus of the debate on Wednesday, and with early voting already underway, it was not clear how much the barbs aimed at Mr. Adams would affect his standing.As in previous debates, questions of public safety were among the most divisive of the night. Ms. Garcia and Raymond J. McGuire, a former Citi executive, blasted the “defund the police” movement, while Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, challenged Mr. McGuire over how that slogan is received among voters of color.“For Black and brown communities, neither defund the police nor stop and frisk,” Mr. McGuire said.“How dare you assume to speak for Black and Brown communities as a monolith,” Ms. Morales, who identifies as Afro-Latina, said. “You cannot do that.”“I just did,” Mr. McGuire, one of the highest-ranking and longest-serving Black executives on Wall Street, shot back. “I’m going to do it again.”Issues of housing and mental illness also illuminated key contrasts among the candidates.Mr. Yang struck a note of outrage as he declared that “mentally ill homeless men are changing the character of our neighborhoods.”After some of his rivals sketched out affordable housing plans, Mr. Yang said he was “frustrated by the political nature of these responses.”“We’re not talking about housing affordability, we’re talking about the hundreds of mentally ill people we all see around us every day on the streets, in the subways,” he said. “We need to get them off of our streets and our subways, into a better environment.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“That is the greatest non-answer I’ve ever heard,” said Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, who had spoken of the need to build tens of thousands of units of “truly affordable housing,” as he pressed Mr. Yang on the costs of such a proposal. “This is a teaching moment.”Mr. Yang later returned to the subject, arguing vigorously that people with untreated mental illness should not be on the streets. He noted that people of Asian descent have increasingly been the targets of attacks that have often been linked to people struggling with mental illness.“Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else has rights? We do: the people and families of the city,” Mr. Yang said. He proposed doubling the inventory of inpatient psychiatric beds in the city.Others took a starkly different tone, as candidates including Ms. Wiley argued for more outreach by “the right people,” instead of the police, and Ms. Morales warned against treating people with mental illness as criminals.The final debate arrived at a moment of significant uncertainty in the mayoral campaign.Ranked-choice voting, in which voters can rank up to five candidates in order of preference, has injected an extraordinary degree of unpredictability into the race. One recent poll found Mr. Adams garnering the most first-place votes, but ultimately finishing second to Ms. Garcia; others have shown him ahead, but surveys have been sparse.It is also unclear what a post-pandemic electorate in a June primary will look like, and some candidates could still cross-endorse each other in the final stretch, which could further scramble the contest.Throughout the debate, battle lines emerged between candidates who are casting themselves as proud political outsiders — a message Mr. McGuire hit repeatedly — and those, like Ms. Garcia and Mr. Stringer, who emphasize government experience at every turn.Some of the more substantive moments of the evening also unfolded around the best ways to account for educational losses during the pandemic, and many of the candidates argued that school quality and better integration go hand-in-hand.Kathryn Garcia, a former sanitation commissioner, said she would attack climate change as a legacy-making initiative.WNBC-TV and NYC Campaign Finance BoardMs. Garcia described plans for creating new high schools, promised to “stop screening 4-year-olds with a test — that’s insane,” and said she would ensure schools have robust art, music, theater and sports programs.Ms. Wiley promised to hire 2,500 teachers to reduce overcrowding in classrooms, while Mr. Stringer promoted the idea of placing two teachers in every classroom, kindergarten through fifth grade. Others reached for their own experiences — Mr. Yang as a public school parent, for example, or Ms. Morales as a former educator — to take on the issue.“This is a false choice,” Shaun Donovan, a former federal housing secretary, said, when asked whether he would prioritize desegregation or improving school quality. “After a year that’s hurt every one of our students and widened the inequalities that we see in our schools, we need to get our schools open safely and quickly, but we also have to make sure that everyone is recovering, particularly those who are furthest behind.”Kristen Bayrakdarian More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Apple Says It Turned Over Data on Donald McGahn in 2018

      by

      The company notified Donald F. McGahn II last month that it had been subpoenaed for his account information three years ago.WASHINGTON — The Justice Department subpoenaed Apple for information in February 2018 about an account that belonged to Donald F. McGahn II, President Donald J. Trump’s White House counsel at the time, and barred the company from telling him about it, according to two people briefed on the matter.Apple told Mr. McGahn about the subpoena last month, said one of the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. Mr. McGahn’s wife also received a similar notice from Apple, the person said.It is not clear what F.B.I. agents were investigating, whether Mr. McGahn was their specific focus or whether he was swept up in a larger net because he had communicated with someone who was under scrutiny. As the top lawyer for the 2016 Trump campaign and then the White House counsel, Mr. McGahn was in contact with numerous people who may have drawn attention either as part of the Russia investigation or a later leak inquiry.Still, the disclosure that agents had collected data of a sitting White House counsel, which they kept secret for years, is extraordinary.And it comes amid a political backlash after revelations that the Trump administration secretly seized the personal data of reporters and Democrats in Congress from phone and tech companies while investigating leaks.Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill on Sunday ratcheted up pressure on the Justice Department and former officials to provide a fuller accounting of events. They called on the head of the Justice Department’s national security division, John C. Demers, and the former deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to testify before Congress along with the former attorneys general Jeff Sessions and William P. Barr.A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, as did a lawyer for Mr. McGahn. An Apple representative did not respond to a request for comment.Apple told Mr. McGahn that it had complied with the subpoena in a timely fashion but declined to tell him what it had provided the government, according to a person briefed on the matter. Under Justice Department policy, gag orders for subpoenas may be renewed for up to a year at a time, suggesting that prosecutors went to court several times to prevent Apple from notifying the McGahns earlier.In investigations, agents sometimes compile a large list of phone numbers and email addresses that were in contact with a subject, and seek to identify all those people by using subpoenas to communications companies for any account information like names, computer addresses and credit card numbers associated with them.Apple told the McGahns that it had received the subpoena on Feb. 23, 2018, according to a person briefed on the matter.Under federal law, prosecutors generally need to obtain permission from a federal judge in order to compel a company like Apple to delay notifying people that their personal information has been subpoenaed, said Paul M. Rosen, a former federal prosecutor and a partner at Crowell and Moring.“There is a lot here we don’t know, including the facts and circumstances surrounding the request for the delay and what was presented to the judge,” Mr. Rosen said. But, he added, prosecutors typically need to prove that either notifying the person “would endanger someone’s safety, risk the destruction of evidence or intimidation of witnesses, or seriously jeopardize an investigation.”The subpoena was issued by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, the other person familiar with the matter said.It is not clear why prosecutors obtained the subpoena. But several notable developments were unfolding around that time.The federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia was the center of one part of the Russia inquiry led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, that focused on Paul Manafort, a former chairman of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.Because Mr. McGahn had been the top lawyer for the Trump campaign in 2016, it is possible that at some earlier point he had been among those in contact with someone whose account the Mueller team was scrutinizing in early 2018.Notably, Mr. Manafort had been hit with new fraud charges unsealed in the Eastern District of Virginia the day before the subpoena. Subsequent developments revealed that Mr. Mueller’s investigators were closely scrutinizing some of his communications accounts in the following days.On the other hand, the Manafort case was largely handled in the District of Columbia, where he faced separate charges. Still, the Mueller team was also working with federal prosecutors in Virginia during that period on an unregistered foreign agent case related to Turkey and a business partner of Michael T. Flynn’s, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser who had also advised him during the 2016 campaign.It was also around that time that Mr. McGahn was involved in another matter related to the Russia investigation, one that included a leak.In late January 2018, The New York Times reported, based on confidential sourcing, that Mr. Trump had ordered Mr. McGahn the previous June to have the Justice Department remove Mr. Mueller, but Mr. McGahn had refused to do so and threatened to resign. The Washington Post confirmed that account soon after in a follow-up article.The Mueller report — and Mr. McGahn in private testimony before the House Judiciary Committee this month — described Mr. Trump’s anger at Mr. McGahn after the Times article and how he had tried to persuade Mr. McGahn to make a statement falsely denying it. Mr. Trump told aides that Mr. McGahn was a “liar” and a “leaker,” according to former Trump administration officials. In his testimony, Mr. McGahn said that he had been a source for The Post’s follow-up to clarify a nuance — to whom he had conveyed his intentions to resign — but he had not been a source for the original Times article.There are reasons to doubt that Mr. McGahn was the target of any Justice Department leak investigation stemming from that episode, however. Information about Mr. Trump’s orders to dismiss Mr. Mueller, for example, would not appear to be a classified national-security secret of the sort that it can be a crime to disclose.Yet another roughly concurrent event was a Justice Department investigation into unauthorized disclosures of information about the Russia inquiry. As part of that investigation, prosecutors sent Apple a subpoena on Feb. 6, 2018, for data on congressional staff members, their families and at least two members of Congress. Apple only recently informed those targeted because it had been prohibited from disclosing the subpoena at the time.Among those whose data was seized were two Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee: Representatives Eric Swalwell and Adam B. Schiff, both of California. Mr. Schiff, a sharp political adversary of Mr. Trump, is now the panel’s chairman. The Times first reported on that subpoena last week.Many questions remain unanswered about the events leading up to the subpoenas, including how high they were authorized in the Trump Justice Department and whether investigators anticipated or hoped that they were going to sweep in data on the politically prominent lawmakers. The subpoena sought data on 109 email addresses and phone numbers.In that case, the leak investigation appeared to have been primarily focused on Michael Bahar, then a staff member on the House Intelligence Committee. People close to Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein, the top two Justice Department officials at the time, have said that neither knew that prosecutors had sought data about the accounts of lawmakers for that investigation.It remains unclear whether agents were pursuing a theory that Mr. Bahar had leaked on his own or whether they suspected him of talking to reporters with the approval of lawmakers. Either way, it appears they were unable to prove their suspicions that he was the source of any unauthorized disclosures; the case has been closed, and no charges were brought.Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday called for Mr. Barr, Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein to testify before Congress about the subpoenas. She said that what the Justice Department did under Mr. Trump went “even beyond Richard Nixon” but declined to say whether a congressional committee would compel their testimony.“Let’s hope they will want to honor the rule of law,” she said. “The Justice Department has been rogue under President Trump.”Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, called for anyone potentially involved in the subpoenas, including Mr. Demers, to testify before Congress. “The sins of the Trump administration just continue to pile up,” he said at a news conference in New York.“This was nothing less than a gross abuse of power, an assault on the separation of powers,” Mr. Schumer said, warning that if the men would not testify, lawmakers would subpoena them.He also called on Senate Republicans to join Democrats in voting for congressional subpoenas to compel testimony.On CBS, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, called the allegations “serious” but said only that she was backing an investigation into the matter by the Justice Department’s independent inspector general that was announced on Friday.Katie Benner More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Top Mayoral Rivals Attack Adams and Clash on Policing and Ethics

      by

      The debaters’ focus on Mr. Adams, centering on questions of his residency, reflected his front-runner status in the race for New York City mayor.The top Democratic candidates in the New York City mayor’s race clashed sharply over political visions and personal ethics in a debate that began with sustained attacks against one candidate, Eric Adams, over questions of his residency and transparency.Two days before early voting begins and less than two weeks before the June 22 Democratic primary that will almost certainly decide the city’s next mayor, five leading contenders gathered on Thursday for an in-person, penultimate debate that centered on issues of public safety, managing the mayor’s relationship with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and qualifications to lead the nation’s largest city.The one-hour debate arrived at an unsettled moment in an extraordinarily consequential race, as several contenders battled controversies, while sparse public polling shows a tight and unpredictable contest that will be settled by ranked-choice voting.It began on a highly contentious note, as four of the five candidates onstage were asked whether they believed that Mr. Adams, who is considered the leading candidate, indeed lived in New York City, following a Politico New York report that Mr. Adams used conflicting addresses in official records, and that he was spending nights at Brooklyn Borough Hall in the homestretch of the campaign.Mr. Adams, who has said that he moved into Borough Hall for a time after the pandemic hit to focus on the workload, has said his primary residence is an apartment in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn. He also co-owns a co-op with his partner in Fort Lee, N.J.“Eric, unfortunately, has not only been not straightforward, but he’s been hypocritical,” charged Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate and perhaps Mr. Adams’s most persistent critic on the stage on Thursday. “He spent months attacking me for not being a New Yorker. Meanwhile, he was attacking me from New Jersey.”Maya D. Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, alluded to other controversies including investigations of Mr. Adams’s fund-raising practices, and said that “the issue is honesty.”“I served as a police officer in Brooklyn, I became a state senator elected from Brooklyn and now I am the Brooklyn borough president,” Mr. Adams shot back. Taking a swipe at Mr. Yang, who spent part of the pandemic at a weekend home in the Hudson Valley in New York, he continued, “I know what people are concerned about on the ground because I’m on the ground. I don’t live in New Paltz, I live in Brooklyn.”Mr. Adams’s participation in the debate, co-hosted by WCBS-TV, had been in question. He indicated on Tuesday that he would skip the event, saying he would instead attend a vigil for a 10-year-old killed in gun violence in Queens. On Thursday, he reversed course. In between, a firestorm ensued tied to questions surrounding Mr. Adams’s residency.Beyond the substance of the questions, the fusillade of attacks also reflected Mr. Adams’s standing in the race: He has increasingly led available surveys as he presses a message that he says is focused on issues of both public safety and criminal justice. More than any other candidate, Mr. Adams has discussed issues of rising gun violence and other crime, at a time when polls show public safety to be a top priority for New York Democratic voters. At the debate, the contenders focused on issues of gun violence as well as hate crimes.“We have seen an uptick in anti-Asian hate crime, but we’ve also seen an uptick in anti-Semitism,” said Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner, who was a far more forceful presence in Thursday’s debate than she has been in previous contests. She went on to sketch out plans for confronting mental illness and homelessness as part of the solution. And as in previous debates, some of the clearest distinctions in the field emerged over issues of public safety, as Ms. Wiley staked out some of the most left-leaning positions on the stage.Asked about the idea of taking guns away from New York Police Department officers, every candidate except for Ms. Wiley said no. She did not answer directly, instead discussing the importance of “smart policing.”“I am not prepared to make that decision in a debate,” she said, even as she also said that “the mayor’s job is safety. Safety is job one, and I’m going to keep New Yorkers safe when I’m mayor.”The answer stood in contrast to one offered by Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, who, like Ms. Wiley, has sought to appeal to the most progressive voters in New York.“We’re not taking guns away from the police,” Mr. Stringer said flatly. “We’re going to make sure that we create a police force that focuses on rooting out violent crime, and at the same time ensures the civil rights of our young people.”Ms. Wiley also argued passionately that investments in the social safety net, especially a proposal for more trauma-informed care in schools, would go a long way toward preventing violence like the shooting in Queens.“Justin Wallace is not dead because we don’t have enough police officers,” she said, referencing the 10-year-old. “He is dead because we have never in this city done the very thing that communities like in the Far Rockaways, or Washington Heights or Mott Haven, have been asking us for, which is trauma-informed care in our schools, which is in my plan.”Mr. Yang offered an impassioned critique of a law enforcement system that would allow people who have been arrested several times to remain unsupervised, citing a man who was accused of punching an Asian woman, one incident in a long series of arrests..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“New Yorkers deserve to be safe on our own streets,” he said. “We have to get people who need help, the help that they need, regardless of whether they have the capacity to raise their hands and seek it.”On the whole, the debate was more civil and less chaotic than the previous matchup, which at times devolved into a brawl. Certainly, there were key areas of agreement: All five of the candidates onstage said that New York should consider renaming sites that had been named for slaveholders.But clear differences were on display, too, on policy and politics. The candidates clashed over the most effective way to deal with Mr. Cuomo, given that governors and mayors in New York historically have had tense relationships.“I’ve had a number of calls with Governor Cuomo, I worked with his brother at CNN, I can work with Governor Cuomo, but I can work with anyone who’s going to help us deliver for the people of New York,” said Mr. Yang, a former CNN contributor. “Our interests are the same because the state’s recovery relies upon New York City’s recovery.”“Andrew, your approach is naïve,” Mr. Stringer replied. “This is not how Albany works, Albany will go after you. Albany will collapse you if you don’t understand that the forces around the state do not want us to get the funding that we deserve.”Mr. Stringer has cast himself as a seasoned government hand with a slate of progressive policies. His ability to engage younger left-wing voters, though, was hampered after a woman earlier this spring accused him of making unwanted sexual advances during a 2001 campaign, allegations he denied.Last week, a second woman accused Mr. Stringer of making unwanted sexual advances when, she said, she worked at a bar he co-owned decades ago. Mr. Stringer said he did not recall Teresa Logan, the woman making the allegations, but said he apologized if he had met her and made her uncomfortable.“I want to be held accountable to anyone who wishes, the press or otherwise, to investigate what took place 30 years ago and 20 years ago,” he said. “Unfortunately, in the middle of a campaign, it has been a struggle to find a way to communicate that. Now it’s up to the voters to look at my 30-year record of service and personal history and make a decision as to who’s best qualified for mayor.”“It takes two to view any sexual conduct as welcome,” Ms. Wiley interjected. Mr. Stringer said he agreed. Ms. Wiley is seeking to emerge as the standard-bearer for the left wing of the Democratic Party, part of her effort to build a coalition that includes voters of color from across the ideological spectrum as well as white progressives.Over the last week, prominent progressive lawmakers and leaders have made a major push to consolidate around her campaign: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez backed her last weekend; Jumaane D. Williams, the New York City public advocate, did the same on Wednesday.Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, had also been battling for support from the left-wing grass-roots, but amid a campaign uprising and fight over unionizing efforts, she terminated dozens of workers this week, according to the union. She was not invited to participate in Thursday’s debate, nor were two other candidates who have participated in prior debates: Shaun Donovan, the former federal housing secretary, and Raymond J. McGuire, a former Citi executive.Natalie Prieb contributed reporting. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Under Fire Over Residency, Eric Adams Goes on the Offensive

      by

      The leader in the N.Y.C. mayoral race decided to join in the debate he had earlier said he would skip. His supporters said they were standing firm.Eric Adams on Thursday vigorously fought off accusations that he has misled New York City voters about his residency, a daylong defense that included a last-minute decision to join four of his mayoral rivals in a debate that he had intended to skip.The day included his release of a year’s worth of E-ZPass statements, meant to prove that he was not regularly commuting from a home he co-owns in Fort Lee, N.J., and an appearance in South Brooklyn with transit workers who endorsed him, saying they did not care where he lived, slept or visited as long as he worked for their interests.It concluded with his surprise appearance at the debate, which he had said he would skip for a vigil honoring a 10-year-old killed in gun violence. But by Thursday morning, the brouhaha had grown to the point that, Mr. Adams said, his attendance at the vigil for Justin Wallace, the 10-year-old killed in a shooting in Queens over the weekend, would be “a painful distraction.”Mr. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president and a leading mayoral candidate, blamed his opponents for trying to “politicize” the vigil.But even after three days of scrutiny — including the unusual spectacle on Wednesday of reporters peering into the refrigerator and closets of a basement apartment in a building he owns in Brooklyn, where he said he lives — there was still not much clarity on whether voters should be worried about revelations reported in Politico New York of apparent discrepancies in his official residence and his reportable income as a landlord.The E-ZPass toll records revealed a smattering of trips to New Jersey, presumably to the apartment that he co-owns with his partner across the George Washington Bridge from Upper Manhattan. But there was nothing to cement rivals’ accusations that he was living there, or even visiting on a weekly basis.Questions also centered on Mr. Adams’s failure to report rental income on his federal tax returns; Mr. Adams has blamed his accountant, and said he would release amended returns, but did not provide them on Thursday.And even if Mr. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, was not living in New Jersey, it appeared that he was spending overnights in Brooklyn Borough Hall — an oddity given that his position is largely ceremonial and would not seem to require extended overnight hours even with the added pressure of campaigning, as he has suggested.Indeed, if Mr. Adams did live in New Jersey, it would be unlikely to affect his eligibility to be mayor. State law only says that he has to be living in New York City on Election Day in November, according to the state Board of Elections.So the controversy about his residence and work habits, at least for now, comes down to a battle of perceptions. And it was a battle where Mr. Adams appeared so far to be holding his own.By Thursday afternoon, Mr. Adams seemed to be relishing the confrontation, cheerful and surrounded by steadfast supporters from the transit workers’ union.“A question came up, and I answered it,” he said as he trotted to his car after speaking to city bus drivers at a depot in southern Brooklyn. “I did it the New York way. I didn’t run from it. I confronted the problem head on, the same way I confronted bad guys as a police officer.”The divide that was emerging was between rivals and critics who saw the confusion as a sign that Adams was evasive and possibly ethically challenged, and supporters who saw the whole issue as ginned up by rivals to distract from his appeal to working-class New Yorkers.Was he sleeping in Brooklyn’s Borough Hall, or New Jersey, to evade taxes, while running as a lifelong public servant and dyed-in-the-wool New Yorker — at worst violating laws, at best displaying poor time management and disorganization that might not bode well for running the city?Or was his chaotic-seeming lifestyle something more ordinary and relatable, the eccentric habit of a man with a life devoted to work and politics and overflowing, like so many other people’s, with conflicting commitments to professional, personal and family life?The latter take was how Roberto Martinez, a bus driver and a former police officer, saw it. At the bus depot with fellow members of Transport Workers Union Local 100, he called the candidate “a New Yorker true and blue.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“It doesn’t matter,” he said of the residency question. “If you’re in Manhattan, you can see New Jersey. If that’s the best they’ve got, forget it. The president of the U.S. lives in Washington, D.C. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t represent the people in Washington, D.C., and the people in New Hampshire. If he wants to go spend the weekend in Jersey with his girlfriend, it’s not going to matter to me.”Election law experts said that the law was on Mr. Adams’s side.The state law governing residency states that “residence” means a “place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he, wherever temporarily located, always intends to return.”Courts have generally allowed candidates to have two residences, and they can select one as their “political home,” said Martin Connor, an election lawyer who was a state senator for 30 years until 2008.Mr. Connor, who is not working for any of the mayoral candidates, said courts have typically been generous with candidates, at times allowing people to claim a place as their residence even if they stay there only two nights a week. He said that Mr. Adams’ choice to stay with his girlfriend in New Jersey “doesn’t obviate his Brooklyn residence.”“Usually you’re OK if you got an apartment, you got a bed, you got a refrigerator, particularly if you own the building,” he said.Mayor Bill de Blasio also sided with Mr. Adams.“I’ve known Eric Adams for decades,” he said during his daily news briefing on Thursday. “He’s a Brooklynite. He’s a New Yorker. He’s served the city in many different capacities. I just don’t see an issue here.”Carl Murray, 65, of Manhattan, called controversies like this one “what I hate about politics,” adding, “You’ve got somebody doing something good, and you want to tarnish them.”“I mean, doctors live out of town,” Mr. Murray said. “Lawyers live out of town. Judges live out of town.”Mr. Murray said his criteria for a mayor are, “You come here, do your job, be on time.”Michael Rothfeld, Sean Piccoli and Dana Rubinstein contributed reporting. More