Jordan, Jim (1964- )

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Pennsylvania Lawmaker Played Key Role in Trump’s Plot to Oust Acting Attorney General

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyPennsylvania Lawmaker Played Key Role in Trump’s Plot to Oust Acting Attorney GeneralThe congressman’s involvement underlined how far the former president was willing to go to overturn the election, and Democratic lawmakers are beginning to call for investigations into those efforts.Representative Scott Perry first made President Donald J. Trump aware that a relatively obscure Justice Department official was sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s view that the election had been stolen.Credit…Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York TimesKatie Benner and Jan. 23, 2021Updated 10:15 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — When Representative Scott Perry joined his colleagues in a monthslong campaign to undermine the results of the presidential election, promoting “Stop the Steal” events and supporting an attempt to overturn millions of legally cast votes, he often took a back seat to higher-profile loyalists in President Donald J. Trump’s orbit.But Mr. Perry, an outspoken Pennsylvania Republican, played a significant role in the crisis that played out at the top of the Justice Department this month, when Mr. Trump considered firing the acting attorney general and backed down only after top department officials threatened to resign en masse.It was Mr. Perry, a member of the hard-line Freedom Caucus, who first made Mr. Trump aware that a relatively obscure Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, the acting chief of the civil division, was sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s view that the election had been stolen, according to former administration officials who spoke with Mr. Clark and Mr. Trump.Mr. Perry introduced the president to Mr. Clark, whose openness to conspiracy theories about election fraud presented Mr. Trump with a welcome change from the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who stood by the results of the election and had repeatedly resisted the president’s efforts to undo them.Mr. Perry’s previously unreported role, and the quiet discussions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark that followed, underlined how much the former president was willing to use the government to subvert the election, turning to more junior and relatively unknown figures for help as ranking Republicans and cabinet members rebuffed him.Mr. Perry’s involvement is also likely to heighten scrutiny of House Republicans who continue to advance Mr. Trump’s false and thoroughly debunked claims of election fraud, even after President Biden’s inauguration this week and as Congress prepares for an impeachment trial that will examine whether such talk incited the Capitol riot.It is unclear when Mr. Perry, who represents the Harrisburg area, met Mr. Clark, a Philadelphia native, or how well they knew each another before the introduction to Mr. Trump. Former Trump administration officials said that it was only in late December that Mr. Clark told Mr. Rosen about the introduction brokered by Mr. Perry, who was among the scores of people feeding Mr. Trump false hope that he had won the election.But it is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump would have known Mr. Clark otherwise. Department officials were startled to learn that the president had called Mr. Clark directly on multiple occasions and that the two had met in person without alerting Mr. Rosen, those officials said. Justice Department policy stipulates that the president initially communicates with the attorney general or the deputy attorney general on all matters, and then a lower-level official if authorized.As the date for Congress to affirm Mr. Biden’s victory neared, Mr. Perry and Mr. Clark discussed a plan to have the Justice Department send a letter to Georgia state lawmakers informing them of an investigation into voter fraud that could invalidate the state’s Electoral College results. Former officials who were briefed on the plan said that the department’s dozens of voter fraud investigations nationwide had not turned up enough instances of fraud to alter the outcome of the election.Mr. Perry and Mr. Clark also discussed the plan with Mr. Trump, setting off a chain of events that nearly led to the ouster of Mr. Rosen, who had refused to send the letter.After The New York Times disclosed the details of the scheme on Friday, the political fallout was swift. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told the Justice Department in a letter on Saturday that he would investigate efforts by Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark to use the agency “to further Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said that it was “unconscionable that a Trump Justice Department leader would conspire to subvert the people’s will.” He called on the department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, to investigate “this attempted sedition.”Mr. Horowitz has already opened an investigation into whether Trump administration officials improperly pressured Byung J. Pak, who abruptly resigned this month as the U.S. attorney in Atlanta after being pressed to take actions related to the election, according to a person briefed on the inquiry. Mr. Durbin is investigating that matter as well.Mr. Trump also tried to force Justice Department officials, including Mr. Rosen and the acting solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall, to file a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that would challenge Mr. Biden’s victory, according to a person briefed on the request.One of Mr. Trump’s outside lawyers even drafted a brief for the department to file to the court. Department officials and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, told Mr. Trump that the plan would fail for several reasons, including the fact that the department did not have the grounds to challenge the outcome, the person said.The fight between Mr. Trump and Justice Department officials over the Supreme Court filing was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.The episode with Mr. Clark and Mr. Perry is yet another example at impeachment managers’ disposal as they put together their case that Mr. Trump should be disqualified from holding office again.Mr. Clark declined to comment on his relationship with Mr. Perry, and he categorically denied devising any plan to oust Mr. Rosen. He said that there had been “a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president” that had been inaccurately described by The Times, but he declined to provide details. He declined to say anything more about his conversations with Mr. Trump or Justice Department lawyers because of “the strictures of legal privilege.”Asked whether his conversations with the president had violated the department policy governing contact with the president, he said that senior lawyers at the agency provided legal advice to the White House as part of their duties. “All my official communications were consistent with law,” he said.Mr. Clark, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, had been appointed the acting head of the civil division in September. He also oversaw the department’s environmental and natural resources division, where he had worked under President George W. Bush.Neither Mr. Perry nor his top aides responded to repeated requests for comment.Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have grown increasingly worried that if they do not intervene and distance themselves from Mr. Trump, the havoc wreaked by the former president could hurt Republicans’ political fortunes for years to come. The episode amounts to an unwelcome reminder that damaging information around his presidency could continue to emerge even though Mr. Trump is no longer in office.And Mr. Perry’s role in the discussions could further escalate tensions in the House, where Democratic lawmakers were already livid at Republicans for fanning the flames before the Capitol riot, with some rank-and-file members calling for the expulsion of lawmakers who led efforts to overturn the election.The pressure that Mr. Trump placed on the Justice Department, including any plan that he may have considered to remove Mr. Rosen, also raises legal questions for him.The acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, in October. Mr. Perry worked with Jeffrey Clark, the acting chief of the Justice Department’s civil division, to try to remove Mr. Rosen from his post.Credit…Ting Shen for The New York TimesMr. Trump’s duty as president was to ensure that “laws be faithfully executed for the benefit of the country,” and efforts to interfere in the election could be considered a violation of his constitutional duty, said Neil Eggleston, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis and a White House counsel under President Barack Obama.There is little chance that a Justice Department letter sent to Georgia lawmakers would have prompted the state to invalidate its Electoral College votes.But the plan was consistent with the posture Mr. Perry had taken since November, when he began to falsely claim that there had been rampant fraud in the election, and throughout it all, Mr. Perry has remained defiant. Facing calls to resign over his role in the efforts to overturn the election, Mr. Perry issued a one-word response: “No.”Mr. Perry, a retired brigadier general in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard and an Iraq War veteran, has been scrutinized for his openness to the conspiratorial. He baselessly suggested that the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas by a lone gunman could have been influenced by “terrorist infiltration through the southern border” and refused to support a resolution that condemned QAnon, a pro-Trump conspiracy movement. (Mr. Perry said he believed that the resolution infringed on individuals’ right to free speech and that he did not personally subscribe to the movement.)An early supporter of the “Stop the Steal” campaign, Mr. Perry was one of 126 House Republicans who joined a legal brief in December supporting an extraordinary lawsuit seeking to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory. And he joined over two dozen of his colleagues who urged Mr. Trump to direct William P. Barr, the attorney general, to “investigate irregularities in the 2020 election.”He objected on behalf of 79 other House Republicans to certifying Pennsylvania’s electoral results and was among 139 House Republicans who voted to reject Mr. Biden’s electoral victory, even though he later acknowledged Mr. Biden as the president-elect.The plan that Mr. Perry devised with Mr. Clark set off a crisis at the Justice Department. When Mr. Clark approached Mr. Rosen with the Georgia letter at the end of December, Mr. Rosen refused to send it, according to four former administration officials. On Jan. 3, Mr. Clark notified Mr. Rosen that he would be taking his job at Mr. Trump’s behest.As Mr. Rosen prepared to meet Mr. Trump later that day and fight for his job, his top deputies, including the acting deputy attorney general, Richard P. Donoghue, and his outgoing chief of staff, Patrick Hovakimian, convened the department’s senior leaders on a conference call, according to five former officials with knowledge of the call.They told the department leaders that Mr. Rosen’s job was in jeopardy because of Mr. Clark’s machinations and said they would resign if Mr. Rosen was removed. They ended the call by asking their colleagues to privately consider what they would do if that happened. Over the next 15 minutes, all of them emailed or texted Mr. Hovakimian, saying that they would quit.While Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donoghue and other top department and White House lawyers spent nearly three hours with Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark, debating the merits of sending the letter to Georgia lawmakers, Mr. Hovakimian — in anticipation of Mr. Rosen’s removal — drafted an email to the department’s senior leaders, including those who were not aware of what was transpiring at the White House, according to two people briefed on the letter.In it, he explained that Mr. Rosen had resisted Mr. Trump’s repeated calls to use the department’s law enforcement powers for improper ends and that the president had removed him, according to a person who reviewed the email. He wrote that he and Mr. Donoghue were resigning immediately and encouraged his colleagues to think hard about what they would do and to always act in the interests of the United States.When Mr. Hovakimian received word that Mr. Rosen had been allowed to stay, he drafted a new email that he sent to the anxiously awaiting officials: Mr. Rosen and the cause of justice had won.Maggie Haberman More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How Gerrymandering Will Protect Republicans Who Challenged the Election

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storypolitical memoHow Gerrymandering Will Protect Republicans Who Challenged the ElectionTaking a position as inflammatory as refusing to certify a fair election would be riskier for G.O.P. lawmakers if they needed to appeal to an electorate beyond their next set of primary voters.Representative Jim Jordan and other Republican members on the House floor last week during the vote on impeaching President Trump.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesReid J. Epstein and Jan. 19, 2021, 7:17 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio comes from a duck-shaped district that stretches across parts of 14 counties and five media markets and would take nearly three hours to drive end to end.Designed after the 2010 census by Ohio Republicans intent on keeping Mr. Jordan, then a three-term congressman, safely in office, the district has produced the desired result. He has won each of his last five elections by at least 22 percentage points.The outlines of Ohio’s Fourth Congressional District have left Mr. Jordan, like scores of other congressional and state lawmakers, accountable only to his party’s electorate in Republican primaries. That phenomenon encouraged the Republican Party’s fealty to President Trump as he pushed his baseless claims of election fraud.That unwavering loyalty was evident on Jan. 6, when Mr. Jordan and 138 other House Republicans voted against certifying Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the winner of the presidential election. Their decision, just hours after a violent mob had stormed the Capitol, has repelled many of the party’s corporate benefactors, exposed a fissure with the Senate Republican leadership and tarred an element of the party as insurrectionists.But while Mr. Trump faces an impeachment trial and potential criminal charges for his role in inciting the rioting, it is unlikely that Mr. Jordan and his compatriots will face any reckoning at the ballot box.Almost all of them are guaranteed to win re-election.Of the 139 House Republicans who voted to object to Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory, 85 come from states in which Republicans will control all levers of the redistricting process this year. An additional 28 represent districts drawn by Republicans in 2011 without Democratic input in states where the G.O.P. still holds majorities in state legislative chambers.Taking a position as inflammatory as refusing to certify a free and fair election would be much riskier for lawmakers in Congress and in statehouses if they needed to appeal to electorates beyond their next sets of primary voters — a group that itself remains loyal to the outgoing president.“With redistricting coming up this year, many members clearly made the decision that the bigger risks they faced were in the primary, and whatever risk they faced in the general election, the next round of gerrymandering would take care of that,” said Michael Li, a senior counsel for the Democracy Center at the Brennan Center for Justice.Not all of the House members who declined to certify the election results were from Republican-controlled states. Representative Mike Garcia of California, from a competitive district north of Los Angeles, voted against certification, as did Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona, where the redistricting authority is independent.Representative Mike Garcia, a Republican from a competitive California district, voted against certifying Mr. Biden’s victory.Credit…Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesAnd some political scientists maintain that grass-roots movements and the whims of big donors can be more influential than gerrymandering as a cause for incumbents to drift to more extreme positions.Democrats, too, have been guilty of gerrymandering, particularly in states like Maryland and Illinois, and lawmakers in New Jersey drew a rebuke from national Democrats for their efforts to write a form of gerrymandering into their state Constitution in 2018 (they ultimately withdrew it). But Republicans have weaponized gerrymandering far more frequently, and to greater effect, across the country than have Democrats.With Republicans running strong in November’s down-ballot contests, the party is poised to draw favorable district lines for the next decade, cementing control of state governments and congressional districts in the large battleground states of Georgia, Florida, Ohio and Texas.Republicans control state legislative chambers and governor’s mansions in 23 states; in seven others, including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Republicans control the legislatures, but the governors are Democrats who would most likely veto new district maps, setting up court battles later this year.Mr. Jordan’s district, which snakes from the western Cleveland suburbs south to the Columbus exurbs and then west, nearly touching the Indiana state line, has made him invulnerable to Democratic opponents. It has also made the task of a Republican primary challenge virtually impossible, given the logistical hurdles of building an appeal across an array of otherwise disconnected communities.“It takes two and a half hours to drive from where I live in Oberlin to the farthest point in the district,” said Janet Garrett, a retired kindergarten teacher and a Democrat who ran against Mr. Jordan three times. “The district is shaped like a duck, and I live up in the bill of the duck.”The Republican-drawn maps in Ohio haven’t just insulated Trump allies like Mr. Jordan. They have also resulted in an emboldened state Legislature that has aggressively pushed back against efforts by the Republican governor, Mike DeWine, to combat the coronavirus. Republican lawmakers pushed out Mr. DeWine’s public health director, sought to have Mr. DeWine criminally charged over his imposition of statewide public health restrictions and late last year filed articles of impeachment against Mr. DeWine.The political atmosphere in Ohio has left Republicans striving hard to stress their Trump loyalties while leaving Democrats demoralized.“It’s very hard to recruit candidates — they basically know that they can’t win,” said David Pepper, a former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. “Even if they were running in 2020, the outcome of their race was determined in 2011 when the map was finalized.”Though both parties have gerrymandered some congressional districts in states across the country, the current maps favor Republicans; as a result, they have to win a smaller share of votes nationally in order to maintain control of the House, and therefore the speakership.“There’s a substantial bias favoring Republicans in the House,” said Nick Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard Law School. “When Democrats win the popular vote by three or four points, like they did in the last election, they barely, barely win control of the House. If Republicans were to win the national vote by three or four points, they would have a very large majority in the House, as they did in 2014.”He continued, “Absolutely, at the moment, gerrymandering is artificially suppressing the numbers of Democratic votes in the House.”The protections afforded by partisan gerrymandering extend even further in state legislative races, where the lack of national attention has allowed some Republican-controlled legislatures to build significant advantages into the maps, even though a statewide party breakdown might favor Democrats.Take Michigan. It has often been a reliably Democratic state when it comes to statewide federal elections, having elected only Democratic U.S. senators since 2001 and having voted for Democrats for president every election since 1988, except for 2016.But Republicans have controlled the State House since 2008 and the State Senate since 1990. While there can often be a discrepancy between federal and state elections, the advantage Michigan Republicans hold in the State House often extends even beyond the normal variances in state elections.In 2020, for instance, the vote share for State House races in Michigan was essentially a 50-50 split between the two parties, according to data from The Associated Press, with Republicans holding a slim 14,000-vote lead. But Republicans retained a 58-52 advantage in the House, or a split of roughly a 53 percent to 47 percent.A State Senate Republican committee hearing in Gettysburg, Pa., in November on efforts to overturn presidential election results.r Credit…Julio Cortez/Associated PressSimilar advantages were evident in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, in ways that proved favorable to Mr. Trump. Republican-controlled legislatures in both of those states, as well as Michigan, held hearings into the election following pressure from Mr. Trump and his allies, with Democrats and election experts condemning the evidence-free sessions as feckless attempts to please the president.“If you didn’t have the gerrymandering in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, you might well have Democratic control of those legislatures,” said Mr. Stephanopoulos, the Harvard professor, “and with Democratic control of the legislatures, they never would have tried to suppress voting or delayed the processing of the ballots or considered any of Trump’s various schemes to overturn the election.”As for Mr. Jordan, he received a coveted shout-out from Mr. Trump during the Jan. 6 rally that precipitated the Capitol riot.“For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans,” Mr. Trump said. “And that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting.”Five days later, Mr. Trump awarded Mr. Jordan the Presidential Medal of Freedom.Annie Daniel More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Bogusness of Anti-Impeachment Republicans

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Bogusness of Anti-Impeachment RepublicansSuddenly they like “unity” and fear “divisiveness.” Where was that spirit when election results were being counted?Opinion ColumnistJan. 12, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETPolice caution tape blocking a stairwell inside the U.S Capitol Building on Jan. 9.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesThe Republican Party has devised its response to the push to impeach the president over his role in the attack on the Capitol last week, and it is so cynical as to shock the conscience.“Now the Democrats are going to try to remove the president from office just seven days before he is set to leave anyway,” said Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, who voted with 146 other Republicans in Congress not to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election. “I do not see how this unifies the country.”The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, also said that impeaching the president “will only divide our country more.”“As leaders, we must call on our better angels and refocus our efforts on working directly for the American people,” McCarthy said in a statement given two days after he also voted not to accept the results of a free and fair election in which his favored candidate lost.Senator Ted Cruz of Texas helped lead the Senate attempt to object to Joe Biden’s victory. “My view is Congress should fulfill our responsibility under the Constitution to consider serious claims of voter fraud,” he said last Monday. Now, he too wants unity. “The attack at the Capitol was a despicable act of terrorism and a shocking assault on our democratic system,” he said in the aftermath of the violence, as calls to impeach the president grew louder and louder. “We must come together and put this anger and division behind us.”I’m reminded, here, of one particular passage from Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 address at Cooper Union in Manhattan, in which he criticized the political brinkmanship of Southern elites who blamed their Northern opponents for their own threats to break the union over slavery.But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”There are a handful of Senate Republicans, like Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who are open to impeachment. But much of the Republican response is exactly this kind of threat: If you hold President Trump accountable for his actions, then we won’t help you unify the country.Or, as another Republican, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, said on Twitter,Those calling for impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment in response to President Trump’s rhetoric this week are themselves engaging in intemperate and inflammatory language and calling for action that is equally irresponsible and could well incite further violence.These cries of divisiveness aren’t just the crocodile tears of bad-faith actors. They serve a purpose, which is to pre-emptively blame Democrats for the Republican partisan rancor that will follow after Joe Biden is inaugurated next week. It is another way of saying that they, meaning Democrats, shot first, so we, meaning Republicans, are absolved of any responsibility for our actions. If Democrats want some semblance of normalcy — if they want to be able to govern — then the price for Republicans is impunity for Trump.House Democrats have already introduced their resolution to impeach the president, formally charging President Trump with “incitement of insurrection” for his role in the attack on the Capitol. There is still a ways to go in this process, but it is a stronger start than I expected. But there may still be some hesitation about taking the most aggressive stance, as evidenced by Majority Whip James Clyburn’s proposal to hold off on a trial until after the first 100 days of the Biden administration.This would be a mistake.There is no way past this crisis — and yes, we are living through a crisis — except through it. The best way to push forward is as aggressively as possible. Anything less sends the signal that this moment isn’t as urgent as it actually is. And as we move closer to consequences for those responsible, we should continue to ignore the cries that accountability is “divisive.” Not because they’re false, but because they’re true.Accountability is divisive. That’s the point. If there is a faction of the Republican Party that sees democracy itself as a threat to its power and influence, then it has to be cut off from the body politic. It needs to be divided from the rest of us, lest it threaten the integrity of the American republic more than it already has. Marginalizing that faction — casting Trump and Trumpism into the ash heap of history — will be divisive, but it is the only choice we have.This does not mean we must cast out the 74 million Americans who voted for the president, but it does mean we must repudiate the lies, cruelty and cult of personality on which Trump built his movement. It means Republicans have to acknowledge the truth — that Joe Biden won in a free and fair election — and apologize to their voters and to the country for helping to stoke the madness that struck at the Capitol.The alternative is a false unity that leaves the wound of last Wednesday to fester until the infection gets even worse than it already is.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.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More