Impeachment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Reporter Prepares to Cover His Second Impeachment Trial

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentliveLatest UpdatesWhere Each Senator StandsTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTimes InsiderCovering a Trial for the Ages. Again.Nicholas Fandos, a congressional correspondent who is reporting on his second presidential impeachment, talks about what seems similar and what feels different.Nicholas Fandos, right, with Representative Adam Schiff of California in May 2019 after a meeting of House Democrats about the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesFeb. 8, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETTimes Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.On Tuesday, the nation will begin only its fourth impeachment trial of a president, and Nicholas Fandos, a congressional correspondent for The New York Times, will cover his second. Mr. Fandos, who tracked every beat of the proceedings last year, will be reporting on the second trial of Donald J. Trump, who this time faces the charge of “incitement of insurrection” in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. In an edited interview, Mr. Fandos, who was in the building during that assault, discussed his work last year and the job ahead.Where will you be for the impeachment?Well, it’s probably going to work pretty differently than it did a year ago. I remember dozens of us crowding into the Senate press gallery talking about this virus coming out of China that was going to be a big story and nobody was going to care about the impeachment. And it kind of turned out to be true.This time around, I will probably be watching most of the proceedings from home in Washington because, like other news organizations, we’ve tried to limit our physical presence in the Capitol. Luckily, most of these proceedings are captured on C-SPAN or are livestreamed. Vaccinations are starting to get pretty common among lawmakers, but most reporters still don’t have them.How did covering the last impeachment prepare you to cover this one?It’s so wild. There have been three presidential impeachment trials in American history up to this point. So there’s a certain amount of specialized expertise you have to develop to understand the rules of impeachment and the different terms, not to mention the requirement that you have some mastery over a big, complicated political, legal and constitutional story. So, in some ways this time around, I’m lucky because I don’t need to learn the rules again.The last impeachment also involved a big investigation and learning a lot of esoteric things about Ukraine and actions by the president that happened out of public view. I was in the Capitol on Jan. 6, and I, like everybody else, had been watching as the president was trying to undermine and overturn the election results. In a lot of ways, I can understand the case more readily.What is it like to cover this trial when you were in the Capitol on Jan. 6?I have really visceral memories of that day. But as a journalist, I need to set those aside and cover the debates objectively. My own experience doesn’t have a role in that. Our job is always, at its most basic, to bear witness to events and describe what’s happening.Maybe it helps give me some additional access to the emotion and rawness that everybody that’s involved in this is experiencing. The Senate is the jury, and the members were themselves witnesses and victims, in a sense. Everybody’s in uncharted territory.What will you be doing during the trial?I’ll be following it instantaneously and also trying to step back and take a more considered look. That will include tweets, probably live chats and analysis, and short briefing items that we’ll put up on the website. Then at some point on most days, either I or my reporting partners will sit down and distill everything into a comprehensive article that will end up in the print paper the next day.What have you been doing to prepare?Both the prosecution and the defense have had to file lengthy written briefs that act as a preview of their arguments. I’m spending a lot of time trying to familiarize myself with those.I’ve also spent a lot of time going back and reading my own coverage from a year ago. It’s been really fascinating to see how many of the core issues are really the same but also different.What feels similar?The core charge against Donald Trump is in many ways the same. Essentially, he was accused of taking extraordinary, abusive steps to stay in office and to maintain his power at the expense of the Constitution and the country. And you’ll hear a lot of similar themes in the arguments this time. The defense of the president also seems similar. Basically, his lawyers are arguing that the charges are unconstitutional and unfair. I also think many of the political questions are the same. Are Republicans willing to punish and cross this figure, who may have committed these acts, but who is also the most popular figure in their party and commands a huge amount of loyalty? That political dynamic is amazingly unchanged.What feels different?Last year, this was playing out at the beginning of an election year with that momentous decision lingering. We thought then that if the Senate was a court of impeachment, then the November election was going to be the appeals court that was going to deliver the final verdict on Trump. Now that verdict has been delivered, and in a weird way the Senate is being asked to deliver another one on a slightly different question, which is whether Mr. Trump should be allowed to run for office again. It’s a similar question, but the timing changes the atmosphere and the immediacy of it.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Impeachment Case Against Trump Aims to Marshal Outrage of Capitol Attack

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentWhere Each Senator StandsSchumer’s Balancing ActTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyImpeachment Case Aims to Marshal Outrage of Capitol Attack Against TrumpArmed with lessons from the last impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, prosecutors plan a shorter, video-heavy presentation to confront Republicans with the fury they felt around the Capitol riot.The House impeachment managers, including Representative Jamie Raskin, center, meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi shortly before voting on whether to charge President Donald J. Trump with “incitement of insurrection.”Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesFeb. 7, 2021Updated 8:09 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — When House impeachment managers prosecute former President Donald J. Trump this week for inciting the Capitol attack, they plan to mount a fast-paced, cinematic case aimed at rekindling the outrage lawmakers experienced on Jan. 6.Armed with lessons from Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial, which even Democrats complained was repetitive and sometimes sanctimonious, the prosecutors managing his second are prepared to conclude in as little as a week, forgo distracting witness fights and rely heavily on video, according to six people working on the case.It would take 17 Republicans joining every Democrat to find Mr. Trump guilty, making conviction unlikely. But when the trial opens on Tuesday at the very scene of the invasion, the prosecutors will try to force senators who lived through the deadly rampage as they met to formalize President Biden’s election victory to reckon with the totality of Mr. Trump’s monthslong drive to overturn the election and his failure to call off the assault.“The story of the president’s actions is both riveting and horrifying,” Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the lead prosecutor, said in an interview. “We think that every American should be aware of what happened — that the reason he was impeached by the House and the reason he should be convicted and disqualified from holding future federal office is to make sure that such an attack on our democracy and Constitution never happens again.”Mr. Trump is unlikely to be convicted as 17 Republicans would need to join with every Democrat to reach the two-thirds majority that is needed to find him guilty.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesIn making Mr. Trump the first American president to be impeached twice, Democrats have essentially given themselves an unprecedented do-over. When Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, was preparing to prosecute Mr. Trump the first time for a pressure campaign on Ukraine, he read the 605-page record of President Bill Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial cover to cover, sending aides as many as 20 dispatches a day as he sought to modernize a proceeding that had happened only twice before.This time, a new group of nine Democratic managers need reach back only a year to study the lessons of Mr. Schiff’s prosecution: Don’t antagonize Republicans, use lots and lots of video and, above all, make succinct arguments to avoid lulling the jury of lawmakers into boredom or distraction.Mr. Trump’s lawyers have indicated that they once again intend to mount a largely technical defense, contending that the Senate “lacks jurisdiction” to judge a former president at all after he has left office because the Constitution does not explicitly say it can. Though many legal scholars and a majority of the Senate disagree, Republicans have flocked to the argument in droves as a justification for dismissing the case without weighing in on Mr. Trump’s conduct.But the lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, also plan to deny that Mr. Trump incited the violence at all or intended to interfere with Congress’s formalizing of Mr. Biden’s victory, asserting that his baseless claims that the election was “stolen” are protected by the First Amendment. And Mr. Castor told Fox News that he, too, would rely on video, possibly of unrest in American cities led by Democrats.The managers will try to rebut them as much with constitutional arguments as an overwhelming compendium of evidence. Mr. Raskin’s team has spent dozens of hours culling a deep trove of videos captured by the mob, Mr. Trump’s own unvarnished words and criminal pleas from rioters who said they acted at the former president’s behest.“The story of the president’s actions is both riveting and horrifying,” Mr. Raskin said in an interview. “We think that every American should be aware of what happened.”Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesThe primary source material may replace live testimony. Trying to call new witnesses has been the subject of an extended debate by the managers, whose evidentiary record has several holes that White House or military officials could conceivably fill. At the last trial, Democrats made an unsuccessful push for witnesses a centerpiece of their case, but this time, many in the party say they are unnecessary to prove the charge and would simply cost Mr. Biden precious time to move his agenda without changing the outcome.“It’s not that there should not be witnesses; it’s just the practical realities of where we are with a former president,” said Daniel S. Goldman, a former House lawyer who worked on Mr. Trump’s first impeachment. “This is also something that we learned from the last trial: This is a political animal, and these witnesses are not going to move the needle.”Mr. Raskin and other managers declined to speak about strategy, but current and former officials familiar with the confidential preparations agreed to discuss them anonymously. The prosecutors’ almost complete silence in the run-up to the trial has been another departure from the strategy of Mr. Trump’s first impeachment, when Democrats set up a sizable communications war room in the Capitol and saturated the cable television airwaves in an all-out battle against Mr. Trump in the court of public opinion.They have largely left it to trusted allies like Mr. Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to publicly discuss their case and bat back criticism about why the House is pressing its case even now that Mr. Trump is out of office.“If we were not to follow up with this, we might as well remove any penalty from the Constitution of impeachment — just take it out,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters who questioned why Democrats would consume so much of Congress’s time with a former president.Key questions about the scope and shape of the trial remain unsettled. Senators spent the weekend haggling over the precise structure and rules of the proceeding, the first time in American history a former president will be put on trial.Prosecutors and Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers expected to have at least 12 hours each to make their case. Mr. Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, has been coaching his colleagues in daily meetings to aggressively winnow down their arguments, cling to narrative where possible and integrate them with the visual aids they plan to display on TVs in the Senate chamber and on screens across the country.Behind the scenes, Democrats are relying on many of the same lawyers and aides who helped assemble the 2020 case, including Susanne Sachsman Grooms from the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and Aaron Hiller, Arya Hariharan, Sarah Istel and Amy Rutkin from the Judiciary Committee. The House also temporarily called back Barry H. Berke, a seasoned New York defense lawyer, to serve as chief counsel and Joshua Matz, a constitutional expert.Barry H. Berke, left, who is serving as chief counsel in the House’s impeachment case, conferring with Mr. Raskin.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesMr. Schiff said his team had tried to produce an “HBO mini-series” featuring clips of witness testimony to bring to life the esoteric plot about Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. Mr. Raskin’s may appear more like a blockbuster action film.“The more you document all the tragic events leading up to that day and the president’s misconduct on that day and the president’s reaction while people were being attacked that day, the more and more difficult you make it for any senator to hide behind those false constitutional fig leaves,” said Mr. Schiff, who has informally advised the managers.To assemble the presentation, Mr. Raskin’s team has turned to the same outside firm that helped put together Mr. Schiff’s multimedia display. But Mr. Raskin is working with vastly richer material to tell a monthslong story of how he and his colleagues believe Mr. Trump seeded, gathered and provoked a mob to try to overturn his defeat.There are clips and tweets of Mr. Trump from last summer, warning he would only lose if the election was “rigged” against him; clips and tweets of him claiming victory after his loss; and clips and tweets of state officials coming to the White House as he sought to “stop the steal.” There is audio of a call in which Mr. Trump pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” the votes needed to reverse Mr. Biden’s victory there; as well as presidential tweets and accounts by sympathetic lawmakers who say that once those efforts failed, Mr. Trump decisively turned his attention to the Jan. 6 meeting of Congress for one last stand.At the center is footage of Mr. Trump, speaking outside the White House hours before the mob overtook the police and invaded the Capitol building. The managers’ pretrial brief suggests they are planning to juxtapose footage of Mr. Trump urging his supporters to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol and confront Congress with videos posted from members of the crowd who can be heard processing his words in real time.The managers are working with material to tell a monthslong story of how they believe Mr. Trump seeded, assembled and provoked a mob of loyalists to try to overturn his loss.Credit…Jason Andrew for The New York Times“Even with this trial, where senators themselves were witnesses, it’s very important to tell the whole story,” Mr. Schiff said. “This is not about a single day; it is about a course of conduct by a president to use his office to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power.”But the proximity could also create complications. Several people familiar with the preparations said the managers were wary of saying anything that might implicate Republican lawmakers who echoed or entertained the president’s baseless claims of election fraud. To have any chance of making an effective case, the managers believe, they must make clear it is Mr. Trump who is on trial, not his party.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney Says G.O.P. Must Move Past Trump

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storySpurning Calls to Resign, Liz Cheney Says G.O.P. Must Move Past TrumpMs. Cheney, having fended off a challenge to her House leadership role, was defiant in defending her impeachment vote and called for Republicans to be “the party of truth.”Republican voters had been “lied to” by a president eager to steal an election, Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming said on Sunday.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesFeb. 7, 2021Updated 5:24 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming waded deeper into Republicans’ identity crisis on Sunday, warning her party on the eve of a Senate impeachment trial not to “look past” former President Donald J. Trump’s role in stoking a violent attack on the Capitol and a culture of conspiracy roosting among their ranks.In her first television interview since fending off an attempt by Mr. Trump’s allies to oust her from House leadership over her vote to impeach him, Ms. Cheney said Republican voters had been “lied to” by a president eager to steal an election with baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. She cautioned that the party risked being locked out of power if it did not show a majority of Americans that it could be trusted to lead truthfully.“The notion that the election had been stolen or that the election was rigged was a lie, and people need to understand that,” Ms. Cheney said on “Fox News Sunday.” “We need to make sure that we as Republicans are the party of truth, and that we are being honest about what really did happen in 2020 so we actually have a chance to win in 2022 and win the White House back in 2024.”She added that Mr. Trump “does not have a role as a leader of our party going forward.”The remarks made plain that Ms. Cheney, a leading Republican voice trying to push the party back toward its traditional policy roots, had no intention of backing off her criticism of the former president after two attempts last week to punish her for her impeachment vote. In Washington, her critics forced a vote to try to oust her as the chairwoman of the House Republican conference, but it failed overwhelmingly on a secret ballot. And on Saturday, the Wyoming Republican Party censured her and called for her resignation.Answering that call, Ms. Cheney said on Sunday that she would not resign and suggested that Republicans in her home state continued to be fed misinformation about what had taken place. It came a few days after she privately rebuffed a request by the House Republican leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, to apologize to her conference for how she handled herself around the impeachment vote, according to two people familiar with the exchange, which was first reported on Sunday by Axios.“People in the party are mistaken,” she said on Fox News of the Jan. 6 attack, which, together with nearby protests, killed five people, including a Capitol Police officer. Referring to the Black Lives Matter movement, she added: “They believe that B.L.M. and antifa were behind what happened here at the Capitol. That’s just simply not the case, it’s not true, and we’re going to have a lot of work we have to do.”Firsthand accounts, video, criminal records and swaths of other evidence leave no doubt that supporters of Mr. Trump perpetrated the attack, believing that they could stop Congress from formalizing President Biden’s election victory.Though she declined to say if she would vote to convict Mr. Trump were she a senator, Ms. Cheney urged Republicans to carefully consider the charge and the evidence. She also raised the possibility that a tweet that Mr. Trump had sent as the violence began to unfold criticizing former Vice President Mike Pence for refusing to try to single-handedly overturn the election result was “a premeditated effort to provoke violence.”“What we already know does constitute the gravest violation of his oath of office by any president in the history of the country, and this is not something that we can simply look past or pretend didn’t happen or try to move on,” Ms. Cheney said. She urged her party to “focus on substance and policy and issues” rather than remain loyal to Mr. Trump.That message is not likely to go over well with wide swaths of Republicans. Public opinion surveys suggest that Mr. Trump remains the most popular national figure in his party by far, and Republican senators appear to be lining up overwhelmingly to acquit him of the “incitement of insurrection” charge that Ms. Cheney backed.The New WashingtonLive UpdatesUpdated Feb. 5, 2021, 9:20 p.m. ETState Dept. lifts terrorist designation against Houthi rebels issued in Trump’s final days.Two G.O.P. House members, Louie Gohmert and Andrew Clyde, are fined for bypassing security screening.Biden says he will bar Trump from receiving intelligence briefings, saying his ‘erratic behavior’ cannot be trusted.Ms. Cheney also leveled sharp criticism at Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a freshman Republican from Georgia, whose past embrace of QAnon and a range of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic conspiracy theories roiled the House last week. Ms. Cheney said Ms. Greene’s views “do not have any place in our public discourse.”“We are the party of Lincoln,” Ms. Cheney said. “We are not the party of QAnon or anti-Semitism or Holocaust deniers, or white supremacy or conspiracy theories.”Some prominent Republican senators backed Ms. Cheney on Sunday, saying they would carefully consider the impeachment case and seek to steer the party back toward conservative policy arguments rather than personality.“Our party is right now, if you will, being tried by fire,” said Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana. “We win if we have policies that speak to that families sitting around the table.”Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, said he was “really encouraged” by the House’s vote to keep Ms. Cheney in her leadership role. “They could have voted any way they felt right, and they maintained her role,” he said on “State of the Union” on CNN. “That’s how you begin to keep this party united and together and think about how we move on in the post-Trump era.”But Ms. Cheney, the daughter of a storied Republican family in Wyoming — her father, Dick Cheney, also represented the state in the House before he was vice president — still faces the likelihood of a motivated primary challenge for the 2022 election.And last week, even as they wagged their fingers at Ms. Greene, a vast majority of Ms. Cheney’s own House Republican conference refused to punish her. Ms. Greene emerged a day after the vote declaring she had been “freed” to push her party rightward.“The party is his,” Ms. Greene said, referring to Mr. Trump. “It doesn’t belong to anybody else.”Chris Cameron More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      ‘The Pressure Is On’: Will Schumer Satisfy the Left?

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutTracking the ArrestsVisual TimelineInside the SiegeMurder Charges?The Oath KeepersAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘The Pressure Is On’: Will Schumer Satisfy the Left?As he prepares for an impeachment trial this week, Senator Chuck Schumer is at the height of his political power in Washington. At home in New York, he is taking steps to head off a primary challenge from the left.Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, is presiding over an evenly  divided chamber and faces re-election in 2022.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesFeb. 7, 2021Updated 9:59 a.m. ETOn a recent Sunday evening, about a dozen liberal housing activists from New York gathered for a virtual meeting with Senator Chuck Schumer. Though the newly anointed majority leader had served in Congress for four decades, a number of participants had scarcely interacted with him before, and some regarded him as an uncertain ally.But Mr. Schumer was eager to offer reassurance. At one point, he described himself as a former tenant organizer who was now in a position to deliver on housing issues on a grand scale, several participants recalled.“He had done a bunch of homework and knew everything that we were going to ask about and made a bunch of commitments with us to make it happen,” said Cea Weaver, a strategist for New York’s Housing Justice for All coalition. “He was like: I’m talking to Ilhan Omar, I’m talking to Bernie Sanders, I’m talking to A.O.C.”The January meeting was one in a series of steps Mr. Schumer has taken to win over leaders of the left in New York and Washington ahead of his campaign for re-election in 2022. Armed with a sweeping set of policy promises, he is courting the activists, organizers and next-generation elected officials in New York who would likely make up the backbone of an effort to dethrone him, should one ever arise.He is facing an extraordinary balancing act in the coming days as he seeks simultaneously to forge a massive relief bill to counter the coronavirus pandemic while managing the impeachment of former President Donald J. Trump. Both tasks are seen as urgent, practical and moral imperatives by the Democratic Party’s electoral base.Mr. Schumer, 70, has been attempting to channel his party’s sense of impatient purpose: In recent days, he has publicly urged President Biden to “go big and bold” with his economic policies and executive actions, defying pressure from Republicans and a few centrist Democrats to pare back campaign promises. Over the last week, Mr. Schumer has backed a new push to decriminalize cannabis; signed on to Senator Cory Booker’s Baby Bonds proposal, a plan to address the racial wealth gap; and appeared with Senator Elizabeth Warren and other progressives to call on Mr. Biden to cancel student debt.On impeachment, too, Mr. Schumer has taken an into-the-breach approach, demanding Mr. Trump’s removal from office the morning after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and casting the upcoming trial as a crucial ritual of accountability even if it is highly improbable that two thirds of the Senate will vote for conviction.Maurice Mitchell, the national director of the Working Families Party, said Mr. Schumer was emphatic in private conversations that he intends to “get really big things done” despite the daunting Senate math. Mr. Mitchell said he spoke frequently with Mr. Schumer but had not yet discussed the 2022 campaign with him.“He’s going to have to use all the tools at his disposal to keep his caucus together; he gets that, we all get that, it’s not a surprise,” Mr. Mitchell said. “I think he’s also really clear that the alternative is unacceptable — that he absolutely has to deliver.”Mr. Schumer with new Democratic senators last month.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesThe new Senate leader appears to recognize that his political playbook requires updating. A compulsive retail politician and prodigious fund-raiser, Mr. Schumer climbed to power less as a legislative engineer and an author of big ideas than as a campaign tactician with a financial base on Wall Street and a keen eye for finding the political midpoint between liberal New York City and its historically conservative suburbs. David Carlucci, a former state senator from Rockland County who lost a House primary in 2018 to a more progressive candidate, Representative Mondaire Jones, said a diverse new generation was transforming state politics. Mr. Schumer appears relatively secure, he said, but no Democrat should feel immune.“Any politician that’s part of the old guard has to be very concerned about a potential primary,” said Mr. Carlucci.That’s a lesson that progressives delivered to establishment Democrats in the last two election cycles, when losses by Joseph P. Crowley and Eliot L. Engel, two senior House members, marked back-to-back breakthroughs for left-wing politics in downstate New York.Unlike Mr. Crowley and Mr. Engel, the Senate leader remains a ubiquitous presence around New York. But his ability to match the passions of his own party is another question.Mr. Schumer drew periodic complaints from the left throughout the Trump years for taking a generally cautious approach to messaging and campaign strategy, including in key Senate races last year where Mr. Schumer handpicked moderate recruits who eventually lost in states like Maine and North Carolina. There is limited patience now among Democrats for the kind of incremental maneuvering and horse-trading that is traditionally required to pass laws in the Senate.In a statement, Mr. Schumer said he was trying to “do the best job for my constituents and for my country” and acknowledged a shift in the scope of his governing goals.“The world has changed and the needs of families have changed,” he said, “income and racial inequality has worsened, the climate crisis has become more urgent, Trump has attacked our democracy — all of these things require big, bold action and that is what I am fighting to deliver in the Senate.”At the moment, the most serious potential challengers to Mr. Schumer — Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez chief among them — have not taken steps toward a campaign. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, the 31-year-old Queens lawmaker, has told associates that she has not decided whether to run but that she believes the possibility of a challenge serves as a constructive form of pressure on Mr. Schumer, people who have spoken with her said.Other potential opponents appear more focused on assembling a bid to unseat Gov. Andrew Cuomo.Yet Mr. Schumer seems to want to deter even a quixotic opponent who could become a nettlesome distraction or worse. He has taken to using Twitter and cable-news interviews to demand that Mr. Biden take bold executive actions on matters like student debt and climate change. And as he assumes the expanded powers of the Senate majority, Mr. Schumer is drawing on old and new alliances to help him govern.Starting last spring, Mr. Schumer convened several conference calls to craft pandemic relief plans with some of the big policy minds of the Democratic Party. They included more centrist voices, like the former Treasury Department official Antonio Weiss; progressive economic thinkers like Felicia Wong of the Roosevelt Institute and Stephanie Kelton of Stony Brook University; and liberal think-tank leaders Heather Boushey and Michael Linden, who now serve in the Biden administration.Mr. Schumer’s regular meetings with national liberal advocacy groups have intensified in recent weeks, and he has been spending time with a cohort of New York progressives elected over the last year. In December, he met with State Senator Jabari Brisport, a 33-year-old democratic socialist elected last fall, at a bar in Bedford-Stuyvesant, and stressed his support for addressing climate change.“We joked about me being a socialist in Brooklyn,” Mr. Brisport said, recalling that Mr. Schumer had noted he works well with Mr. Sanders, who is also a socialist from Brooklyn.Mr. Schumer must corral unanimous support for President Biden’s agenda from an eclectic Democratic caucus.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesRepresentative Ritchie Torres, a 32-year-old progressive who captured an open House seat in the Bronx last fall, said Mr. Schumer was the first official to contact him after Mr. Torres won a contentious primary; soon afterward, Mr. Schumer visited his district for a meeting about expanding the federal child tax credit..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{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;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;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;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1amoy78{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-1amoy78{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1amoy78:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.Mr. Torres said he intended to back Mr. Schumer in any contested primary. “Without a doubt, he deserves to be re-elected,” Mr. Torres said.Should Mr. Schumer struggle to turn his splashy endorsements of bold action into law, or come to be seen as balking at certain clashes with Republicans, a serious challenge could well emerge. Mr. Schumer faces a dense ideological minefield on matters ranging from economic recovery legislation to abolishing the filibuster and achieving statehood for Washington, D.C.“The pressure is on now that he is one of the most powerful politicians in the entire country,” said Assemblyman Ron Kim, a progressive legislator. “If he can’t deliver, it’s not just him — it’s the party that will suffer in two years or four years.”State Senator Jessica Ramos, a Queens Democrat who in 2018 beat a conservative incumbent in a primary, said she believed Mr. Schumer had been responsive to liberals but that she was waiting to see hard results before endorsing him. She said she had been “disappointed” that Mr. Schumer did not take a harder line in his power-sharing negotiations with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.“We have to stand up to these people who don’t care to put forward legislation that is humane and that takes care of the people of this country.” Ms. Ramos said. Mr. Schumer is seeking to avoid the fate of two senior House Democrats from New York who were defeated in primaries by progressive candidates in recent election cycles.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesPeople who have spoken with Mr. Schumer about a possible primary challenge say he is confident about his chances against Ms. Ocasio Cortez or anyone else; he points to his support in the suburbs and among Black voters in New York City, arguing it would be difficult for an opponent from the left to overcome those advantages. As the first-ever Jewish Senate majority leader, he would likely have considerable strength among an important population of left-leaning whites.But Mr. Schumer surely also knows that coalitions can be fleeting and flexible. He is said to have kept a close watch on Senator Edward Markey’s primary campaign in Massachusetts last year against Joseph P. Kennedy III. Mr. Markey, a fellow septuagenarian, bested his younger and better-known rival by campaigning as an environmental justice champion and aligning himself closely with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and groups like Sunrise.A few days after Mr. Markey won his primary, Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, a liberal Manhattan Democrat, spoke briefly with Mr. Schumer at a Sept. 11 memorial event in her district. Frustrated by Mr. Cuomo’s opposition to increasing taxes on the wealthy, Ms. Niou said she appealed to Mr. Schumer for help raising direly needed revenue. He was supportive, she said, but at the time Republicans controlled the Senate.Ms. Niou said she was supportive of Mr. Schumer and believed it was “really important that New York has the majority leader as their member.” But she said she intended to push Mr. Schumer to make the most of the job.“Every single thing I asked for, I’m going to ask for five thousand times harder,” she said.John Washington, a Buffalo-based housing organizer who participated in the January meeting with Mr. Schumer, said he had seen a marked shift in the senator. In the past, he said, Mr. Schumer would seek out support for his own priorities and offer “radio silence” on activist goals.“I think it’s clear to everyone that there is kind of a new age of politics,” he said.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Wyoming Republicans Censure Liz Cheney for Impeachment Vote

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWyoming Republicans Censure Liz Cheney for Impeachment VoteThe state party voted to censure the No. 3 Republican in the House and demanded her resignation.The latest rebuke of Representative Liz Cheney follows similar efforts around the country to punish Republicans who have voiced criticism of former President Donald J. Trump.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesFeb. 6, 2021Updated 9:31 p.m. ETThe Wyoming Republican Party voted on Saturday to censure Representative Liz Cheney, the No. 3 Republican in the House, for her vote last month to impeach Donald J. Trump, underlining the sharp party divisions over breaking with the former president.“My vote to impeach was compelled by the oath I swore to the Constitution,” Ms. Cheney said in a statement on Saturday. “Wyoming citizens know that this oath does not bend or yield to politics or partisanship.”The censure, which is largely symbolic, came days after Ms. Cheney easily overcame an effort by Trump loyalists in the House to strip her of her leadership position after she voted to charge Mr. Trump with “incitement of insurrection” for his role in urging on a mob that stormed the Capitol. The vote among the House Republican conference, 145 to 61, was a victory for Ms. Cheney, who also retained the support of Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the top Republican in the chamber.The fierce debate over Ms. Cheney underscored the deep divisions in the Republican Party over Mr. Trump, and state-level Republicans across the country have censured leading political figures who have voiced criticism of Mr. Trump. In Arizona, the party censured Gov. Doug Ducey, former Senator Jeff Flake and Cindy McCain, the widow of former Senator John McCain. In Nebraska, Senator Ben Sasse faces censure by his state’s party, slamming the party in a video on Friday and denouncing what he called the organization’s “worship” of Mr. Trump.The resolution to censure Ms. Cheney also called on her to “immediately resign” and refund donations the party made to her 2020 campaign, according to a copy obtained by Forbes.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Refuses Surprise Call to Testify in His Impeachment Trial

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump Refuses Surprise Call to Testify in His Impeachment TrialThe former president’s lawyers wasted little time in swatting away the invitation to testify, saying the trial was “unconstitutional” and the request to testify a “public relations stunt.”President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers denied that he incited the attack or meant to disrupt Congress’s counting of electoral votes to formalize President Biden’s victory.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesNicholas Fandos, Michael S. Schmidt and Feb. 4, 2021Updated 9:19 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House impeachment managers issued a surprise request on Thursday for Donald J. Trump to testify in his Senate trial next week, making a long-shot attempt to question the former president under oath about his conduct on the day of the Capitol riot. It was quickly rejected by his lawyers.In a letter to Mr. Trump, Representative Jamie Raskin, the lead House impeachment prosecutor, said the former president’s response this week to the House’s charge that he incited an insurrection on Jan. 6 had disputed crucial facts about his actions, and demanded further explanation.“Two days ago, you filed an answer in which you denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment,” wrote Mr. Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. “You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense.”He proposed interviewing Mr. Trump “at a mutually convenient time and place” between Monday and Thursday. The trial is set to begin on Tuesday.But Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, wasted little time in swatting away the invitation. They said that Mr. Trump wanted no part of a proceeding they insisted was “unconstitutional” because he is no longer in office, and called Mr. Raskin’s request a “public relations stunt.”“Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone: You cannot prove your allegations against the 45th president of the United States, who is now a private citizen,” they wrote in a letter to Mr. Raskin.Mr. Schoen and another adviser to Mr. Trump, Jason Miller, later clarified that the former president did not plan to testify voluntarily before or after the trial begins. Instead, his defense team intends to argue that the case should be dismissed outright on constitutional grounds, and that Mr. Trump is not guilty of the bipartisan “incitement of insurrection” charge in which the House asserts he provoked a mob with baseless voter fraud claims to attack the Capitol in a bid to stop Congress from formalizing his loss.The decision, if it holds, is likely to be helpful for both sides. With Senate Republicans already lining up to acquit Mr. Trump for the second time in just over a year, testimony from a famously impolitic former president who continues to insist falsely that he won the election risks jeopardizing his defense.Democrats might have benefited from Mr. Trump’s testimony, but his silence also allows the House managers to tell senators sitting in judgment that they at least gave Mr. Trump an opportunity to have his say. Perhaps more important, they quickly claimed — despite the defense’s protests — that his refusal established an “adverse inference supporting his guilt,” meaning that they would cite his silence as further proof that their allegations are true.“Despite his lawyers’ rhetoric, any official accused of inciting armed violence against the government of the United States should welcome the chance to testify openly and honestly — that is, if the official had a defense,” Mr. Raskin said in a statement Thursday evening. “We will prove at trial that President Trump’s conduct was indefensible.”Mr. Raskin could still try to subpoena testimony from Mr. Trump during the trial. But doing so would require support from a majority of the Senate and could prompt a messy legal battle over claims of executive privilege that could take weeks or longer to unwind, snarling the agenda of President Biden and Democrats. Members of both parties already pressing for a speedy trial signaled skepticism on Thursday to calling Mr. Trump.“I think it’s a terrible idea,” Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and one of Mr. Biden’s closest allies, said of Mr. Trump taking the witness stand. Asked to clarify his reasoning, he replied, “Have you met President Trump?”“I don’t think that would be in anybody’s interest,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the president’s allies. “It’s just a nightmare for the country to do this.”Read the Letter Calling on Trump to TestifyIn a letter to former President Donald J. Trump, the lead House impeachment prosecutor said Mr. Trump’s response this week to the House’s charge had challenged “overwhelming evidence” about his conduct as the assault unfolded, and demanded further explanation.The managers said their invitation for Mr. Trump to testify was prompted primarily by his lawyers’ official response to the impeachment charge, filed with the Senate on Tuesday. In it, Mr. Trump’s lawyers flatly denied that he incited the attack or meant to disrupt Congress’s counting of electoral votes, despite Mr. Trump’s clear and stated focus on using the process to overturn the results. They also denied that a speech to a throng of his supporters just before the attack in which Mr. Trump urged the crowd to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” against the election results, suggesting that Republican lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence had the power to change the outcome, “had anything to do with the action at the Capitol.”Mr. Trump’s team argued that the former president could not be culpable for those statements, or for the falsehoods he spread about election fraud, because they were protected by First Amendment rights given that he believes that he was the true winner.In his letter and subsequent statement, Mr. Raskin did not indicate whether he intended to try to subpoena testimony from Mr. Trump or any other witnesses when the trial begins.The question has proved a difficult one for the nine House managers. Because they moved quickly to impeach Mr. Trump only a week after the attack, they did no meaningful fact-finding before charging him, leaving holes in their evidentiary record. One of the most notable has to do with how precisely Mr. Trump conducted himself when it became clear the Capitol was under assault on Jan. 6.The president sent several tweets sympathizing with the mob and calling for peace during that time, but as the House managers made clear in their 80-page trial brief filed with the Senate this week, they possess little more direct evidence of how Mr. Trump responded. Instead they rely on news reports and accounts by lawmakers who desperately tried to reach him to send in National Guard reinforcements, which have suggested that he was “delighted” by the invasion.Testimony by Mr. Trump or other White House or military officials could clarify that. But in this case, a greater understanding would almost certainly prolong the trial by weeks or longer. Republicans are averse to an extended airing of Mr. Trump’s conduct, but for Democrats, the cost would be steep to their ambitions to pass coronavirus relief legislation and install the remainder of Mr. Biden’s cabinet — with very little chance of ultimately changing the verdict of the trial.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, with whom the decision will most likely rest, has indicated would be comfortable proceeding without witnesses.“We will move forward with a fair and speedy trial,” he said on Thursday. “The House managers will present their case. The former president’s counsel will mount a defense, and senators will have to look deep into their consciences and determine if Donald Trump is guilty, and if so, ever qualified again to enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”The calculus for Mr. Trump’s legal team is far simpler. In addition to alienating Republican senators reluctant to convict a former president who remains so popular in their party, Mr. Trump could put himself in legal jeopardy if he testified. He has a penchant for stating falsehoods, and it is a federal felony to do so before Congress.Mr. Schoen accused Democrats in the House and Senate of running an unfair proceeding. He said they had yet to share even basic rules, like how long the defense would have to present its case.“I don’t think anyone being impeached would show up at the proceedings we firmly believe are unconstitutional,” Mr. Schoen said in a text message.He and Mr. Castor also rejected Mr. Raskin’s reasoning that Mr. Trump’s failure to testify would bolster their argument that he is guilty.“As you certainly know,” they wrote, “there is no such thing as a negative inference in this unconstitutional proceeding.”But the managers also appeared to be appealing, at least in part, to Mr. Trump’s impulse for self-defense, betting that he might defy his lawyers’ guidance not to speak. Throughout Mr. Trump’s presidency — first during the Russia investigation and then in his first impeachment inquiry — he was eager to tell his side of the story, convinced that he was his own best spokesman.During the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump insisted to his legal team that he wanted to sit and answer prosecutors’ questions. That desire unnerved his lawyers, who believed that Mr. Trump would almost certainly make some sort of false statement and face greater legal consequences. One member of his legal team quit over the issue.Ultimately, Mr. Mueller declined to seek a subpoena for Mr. Trump’s testimony and accepted written responses from him that later prompted the special counsel to question whether Mr. Trump had been truthful.Hailey Fuchs More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      ‘The Courage to Put Country Over Party’: Arguments in Trump’s Trial

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyletters‘The Courage to Put Country Over Party’: Arguments in Trump’s TrialReaders call on Republican senators to “do the right thing, not the easy thing” and hold the former president accountable.Feb. 3, 2021, 12:56 p.m. ET“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Donald J. Trump told his supporters at a rally in Washington on Jan. 6.Credit…Kenny Holston for The New York TimesCapitol Police officers and lawmakers paid their respects to Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick at the Capitol Tuesday evening.Credit…Pool photo by Brendan SmialowskiTo the Editor:Re “House Case Calls Trump ‘Singularly Responsible’ for Rampage at Capitol” (front page, Feb. 3):Open Letter to Republican Senators:As I watch the memorial for Officer Brian Sicknick in the Capitol and reflect on his courage and integrity, I cannot help but think about the lack of courage and integrity that has been on display by Senate Republicans. This brave man gave his life because it was his job to save yours. It wasn’t political. You are alive because Officer Sicknick and the rest of the Capitol Police stepped up to the plate on Jan. 6.Your job now is to honor them by holding Donald Trump accountable for inciting the insurrection that led to Officer Sicknick’s death. It shouldn’t be political. It shouldn’t be about re-election. It shouldn’t be about holding onto support from the same people who stormed the Capitol. It should be about doing the right thing, not the easy thing.My hope is that you take your lead from the 10 House Republicans who had the courage to put country over party.Sharon S. OchsFallston, Md.To the Editor:Let me get this straight.The lies about the election being stolen plus his words that incited his followers to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6 have been publicly broadcast and quoted in print, and even many Republican members of Congress initially acknowledged that the former president bears some responsibility for the riot. But since according to decades-old policy a sitting president cannot be indicted, Donald Trump has faced no legal consequences for his role in the riot.And now for the coming impeachment trial, his defense team is arguing that it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president, a position that many Senate Republicans are rushing to support as a way to let Mr. Trump escape any form of responsibility for what many would claim was domestic terrorism.So it’s looking as if Donald Trump may get away scot-free. All this from the party of law and order?James G. GoodaleFort Myers, Fla.To the Editor:I try to imagine what would have happened if the mob had gotten Mike Pence. Donald Trump’s impeachment and conviction would have been a foregone conclusion. Why should Mr. Pence’s narrow escape lead us to a different conclusion?Michael B. HeckmanPine Bush, N.Y.To the Editor:The Senate trial’s constitutionality may be in question. But that can be answered only by the Supreme Court, not individual senators in the minority claiming the trial to be unconstitutional and therefore moot.Republicans wrap themselves in the Constitution. So walk the walk, senators. Don’t dodge your duty. Vote on the evidence of incitement of insurrection. And if Donald Trump is found guilty, he may resolve the question of constitutionality with an appeal to the Supreme Court.Ned GardnerApex, N.C.To the Editor:Although a great deal of attention has, appropriately, been focused on the trial of the impeachment charges against former President Donald Trump and whether his enablers in the Senate will vote to convict him, the principal focus should be on the criminal investigation and prosecution of serious crimes that endangered (and continue to endanger) our democracy and caused several deaths during the Jan. 6 assault on our Capitol.It is clear from incontrovertible recordings, and other sources, that there is substantial evidence to conclude that Mr. Trump engaged in criminal conduct in violation of both federal and state laws. Grand juries should be impaneled immediately to consider the evidence against him (and his co-conspirators) and take appropriate action.Throughout his life Mr. Trump has avoided responsibility for actions he has undertaken — most recently the immunity from prosecution afforded to presidents while in office. That immunity has expired, and Mr. Trump should be held accountable for his serious crimes.Richard SchaefferRye Brook, N.Y.The writer is a lawyer and former assistant district attorney.To the Editor:To all the Republicans who don’t think that inciting a violent insurrection to overthrow a lawful election is a crime meriting conviction, I would like them to complete the following sentence: “It would be an impeachable offense if Donald Trump _______.” It appears they would never fill in that blank.Laurie WoogWestfield, N.J.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney Chooses Her Own Path, and It’s a Perilous One

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyLiz Cheney Chooses Her Own Path, and It’s a Perilous OnePro-Trump forces in Washington and in her home state of Wyoming view her opposition to Donald Trump as a betrayal. Now she faces a reckoning over her leadership role in the Republican Party.People protested Representative Liz Cheney at a rally in Cheyenne, Wyo., last week.Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesFeb. 3, 2021, 3:00 a.m. ETCHEYENNE, Wyo. — Liz Cheney was getting so many questions from constituents and colleagues about whether she would vote to affirm the 2020 election results that she responded in a way befitting her background as a State Department diplomat and lawyer: She issued a 21-page memo detailing the constitutional and legal reasons Congress should not interfere with certification.Doing so, she wrote, would set “an exceptionally dangerous precedent” that no Republican should want to be associated with.Ms. Cheney was right about the danger. But she was wrong about the willingness of her fellow Republicans to go along with it. In the House, two-thirds of them voted against certification. A week later, only nine others voted with her to impeach former President Donald J. Trump for encouraging a mob of his supporters to besiege the Capitol on Jan. 6.Now Ms. Cheney, the lone representative for Wyoming and the No. 3-ranking Republican in the House, is the most visible and imperiled target of the pro-Trump majority in the G.O.P., which wants to make actions like hers a disqualifying offense for any party member seeking office. A campaign backed by members of Mr. Trump’s family and some of his allies in Congress threatens to force her out of her position in House leadership. On Wednesday in Washington, she will attend a private House Republican meeting where lawmakers will have the opportunity to confront her in person.At home in Wyoming, the sense of betrayal among Republicans is burning hot at the moment. It’s especially acute among the conservative grass roots and local party activists whose strong presence in the state helped deliver Mr. Trump his largest margin of victory anywhere — beating Joseph R. Biden Jr. with 70 percent of the vote.At least one conservative state lawmaker — who described the impeachment vote as “an ice pick in the back” by Republicans who supported it — has printed “Impeach Liz Cheney!” yard signs and is vowing to challenge her in 2022. Ten county-level Republican Party organizations have voted to censure Ms. Cheney in recent days, and more are expected to follow suit.People close to Ms. Cheney, who insisted on anonymity so they could discuss her private views, said that her break with the pro-Trump faction reflected her belief that many more Republicans share her disgust with how seriously Mr. Trump undermined confidence in the country’s electoral system.As she watched Mr. Trump and his supporters peddle conspiracy theories and promote what she called “the big lie,” Ms. Cheney became deeply unsettled by how many of her colleagues seemed so cavalier about Mr. Trump’s actions, friends and associates said. She was also bothered by the way Republicans cheered and mimicked the kind of behavior she expected of a foreign authoritarian leader but never from an American president.Ms. Cheney was one of 10 House Republicans to support impeaching Donald J. Trump last month.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesIn conversations with colleagues, Ms. Cheney, 54, has said she hopes her example makes more Republicans in and out of public office comfortable acknowledging that they should have pushed back earlier.Her allies said that attempts to punish her were counterproductive at a time when the party should be united in opposition to Democratic control of Washington.“The beneficiaries of Republican fratricide are Democrats,” said Karl Rove, the former Bush strategist, who is close to the Cheney family. “So the more we have purity tests and everyone has to think and act alike, particularly when it comes to former President Trump, it’s only helping Democrats.”But many of her constituents see no problem with making an example of her.A rally outside the State Capitol last week headlined by Matt Gaetz, the Florida congressman and Trump loyalist, drew several hundred people. They chanted “No more Cheney!” and cheered as Mr. Gaetz ripped into “Never Trump” Republicans, calling them relics from a party that Mr. Trump has transformed from its days under the leadership of the Bushes and Ms. Cheney’s father, former Vice President Dick Cheney.“We control the true spirit and identity of America,” said Mr. Gaetz, who is leading the effort to oust Ms. Cheney from the House leadership.After his speech, Teresa Kunkel, a retired state employee, said that she had attended the rally because, as a Christian, she did not believe Ms. Cheney was being an honest representative for Wyoming. “She didn’t represent what we voted for,” Ms. Kunkel said. “She betrayed us — big time.”The second impeachment of Mr. Trump last month, which Ms. Cheney supported, was an injustice, Ms. Kunkel added. “It’s like: ‘I didn’t like what you did, so you’re out. And we’re in the majority, so we can do that.’ That’s cancel culture,” she said.Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida headlined the anti-Cheney rally in Cheyenne last week.Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesStill, the push for Ms. Cheney’s removal from leadership — a step that lawmakers rarely take against members of their own party — may not foreshadow the end of her political career in Wyoming, where the Cheney family is still widely respected.The fondness with which residents speak of Ms. Cheney’s father, and the esteem he still brings to this state that is home to only 580,000 people, suggest that many voters will grant Ms. Cheney, now entering her third term, a degree of independence from Mr. Trump that other Republicans don’t enjoy.The campaign to censure her has also triggered a very different response from moderate Republicans who feel more at home in the party of the Bushes and the Cheneys than they do in the party of Trump. These Republicans — both elected officials and private citizens — say the ugliness and vitriol that Trump supporters have displayed since the election has led them to have an overdue reckoning.“At first I was really mad at Liz,” said Amy Edmonds, a Republican from Cheyenne who is friendly with Ms. Cheney. “I thought she was rushing it. And I thought the election wasn’t fair.”But after she spoke with Ms. Cheney — and read the 21-page memo at the congresswoman’s insistence — Ms. Edmonds said she came to believe she was dead wrong in believing Mr. Trump’s allegations of election fraud.“I was in some kind of fog,” she said. “I don’t know how else to describe it.”Since her epiphany last month, Ms. Edmonds said, she has apologized to two friends she fought with who had tried to tell her that the election wasn’t rigged. And now she spends time thinking about how to engage other friends who promote false stories and disinformation about election fraud on Facebook.She admits that she hasn’t been very persuasive so far, and finds that when she sends people articles from reliable news sources that debunk Mr. Trump’s false claims, “They’ll write back and say, ‘Well, this is mainstream media.’”That’s a reflection of how durable Mr. Trump’s hold on Republican voters remains — and how difficult it will be for politicians like Ms. Cheney to convince Trump supporters that they have bought into “the big lie” of a stolen election, as she has privately described it to colleagues.Amy Edmonds said that after speaking to Ms. Cheney, she saw how wrong she had been to believe Mr. Trump’s allegations of election fraud. Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesMs. Cheney is, of course, in a much more difficult position than other Republicans who want their party to move past the most divisive aspects of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Her family legacy makes her, to some, an asset as a symbol of the more traditional conservative Republicanism, and the value it places on career public service, embodied by the Bushes and her father.But that also makes her a target for Trump loyalists who reject that tradition as the very culture that Mr. Trump claimed he would root out from Washington.Kim Small, who attended the rally at the capitol in Cheyenne last week, said of Ms. Cheney, “I honestly feel like she’s what we consider ‘the swamp.’” She said she attended the rally because she felt Ms. Cheney’s criticisms of Mr. Trump “put her at odds with the vast majority of her constituents.’’Ms. Cheney’s allies described her as at peace with the stance she has taken on Mr. Trump. Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of the nine other Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump, said that too many of his colleagues were doing the opposite of what Ms. Cheney is.“They’re waiting to see if Trump collapses,” he said. “And then if he does, they’ll be like, ‘I’ve never been with Trump, ever.’” He described the effort to punish Ms. Cheney as “cancel culture on the right.”The more difficult but ultimately meaningful path, Mr. Kinzinger said, is if Republicans signal that they don’t care about the pressure, the hostility and the possibility of political defeat.“I’m willing to not win a re-election over this,” he said. “People need to see examples of others doing this, speaking out. And damn the consequences.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More