McCarthy, Kevin (1965- )

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Kevin McCarthy’s Impeachment Gambit: ‘A Dubious Mission in Search of a Crime’

      by

      More from our inbox:How Much Freedom Should We Give Our Children?Passing the National Popular Vote Compact‘Women,’ Not ‘Girls’ Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “McCarthy Opens Inquiry of Biden, Appeasing Right” (front page, Sept. 13):Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s announcement that the House of Representatives — which he leads with subservience to a vengeful far-right minority and a former president to whom he has sold his political soul — has opened an impeachment inquiry into President Biden is clearly a low point in our politics.The scheme by Republicans to punish the president, which comes without evidence, is a desperate gasp. It is motivated by former President Donald Trump’s persistent call for retribution and by congressional Republicans, whose only agenda has been one of obstruction, replacing meaningful efforts toward legislation that could benefit the American people.The heavy weight of evidence supporting Donald Trump’s multiple indictments has not resonated with the vast majority of Republicans, who are determined at all costs to distract from his legal embroilment by elevating Biden family activities to a level of criminality.In Kevin McCarthy, House Republicans have a leader whose actions, beginning with his tortuous unprincipled path to the speakership, have been focused solely on a need to preserve his fragile position.He has embarked on a dubious mission in search of a crime, potentially at great cost to the country.Roger HirschbergSouth Burlington, Vt.To the Editor:Haven’t the Republicans learned from the indictments of Donald Trump that such actions only bolster allegiance from the ranks of the accused?Apparently not.President Biden faces a real hurdle in his re-election bid. Despite a growing economy and low unemployment, his approval stands around a dismal 40 percent. Till now, efforts to gain greater traction have been unsuccessful. It pointedly reflects the fact that a majority of Democrats have ruled that the president’s advancing age and repeated gaffes should disqualify his bid for a second term.So a welcome boost for Mr. Biden may lean on the vigorousness of the G.O.P. efforts to undermine him.Heck, if it works for Donald, why not Joe?Howard QuinnBronxTo the Editor:Kevin McCarthy is holding onto the Republican Party by a thread. The decision to begin an impeachment inquiry into President Biden, without even holding a vote on it, demonstrates the lengths to which the speaker is willing to go in order to maintain control of a party that is increasingly divided.In the midst of a contentious Republican primary, Donald Trump’s legal troubles and culture war fanatics, Mr. McCarthy has become a leader of appeasement. This much was evident when it took 15 rounds of voting for him to even become speaker.From here, that thread is about to snap. Moderate Republicans are pushing back on the inquiry almost as much as far-right members of the House are advocating for it — a wholly unsustainable situation. The political concessions thus far are piling up on one side. The Freedom Caucus has become a vocal minority, and that’s particularly toxic for the Republican Party’s future.While this inquiry is aimed at Mr. Biden, Mr. McCarthy’s future is at stake as well.Kevin LiBasking Ridge, N.J.How Much Freedom Should We Give Our Children? Yann BastardTo the Editor:In support of “To Help Anxious Kids, Give Them More Freedom,” by Camilo Ortiz and Lenore Skenazy (Opinion guest essay, Sept. 6), I note the following:In many traditional societies, as soon as children can toddle, they are expected to contribute to their family’s needs. Family members need fire; a toddler can fetch sticks for it.Expectations increase in difficulty and complexity as the youngster grows and has daily opportunities to watch, learn and practice adult ways. Children are neither shielded from danger (they learn from watching others and their own experience) nor thanked for their contributions (they are sharing family responsibilities, not doing parents a favor).In some societies, children are self-sufficient by age 10 and discharge major responsibilities alone, such as taking the family’s animals — its entire wealth — to a remote pasture for the day. And in many societies, after weaning, a child is routinely cared for by the next oldest sibling, not the parents.At unbelievably young ages, children in many traditional societies are autonomous and willing participants in their family’s economic and social lives. From their examples we know that children, even young ones, are far more capable and responsible than most of us allow them to be.Cornelius GroveBrooklynThe writer is the author of “How Other Children Learn: What Five Traditional Societies Tell Us About Parenting and Children’s Learning.”To the Editor:I read what Camilo Ortiz and Lenore Skenazy had to say about giving kids more freedom and found their ideas thought-provoking but classist. While this advice might be very helpful to parents of children who live in certain ZIP codes, there is a strong middle-class bias here.There are neighborhoods where parents would love to have the opportunity to have their children walk freely, run errands to the grocery store or play in a playground. Unfortunately, in some areas the incidence of gun violence, both targeted and random, renders these options moot. When I read much too often about young children being shot while outside their homes, I understand that the anxiety is quite appropriate.People who are not as privileged as the ones this article was referring to have real reasons to be scared for their lives and the lives of their children. Many children in our country do not have the luxury of being “free range.”Wendy L. FormanPhiladelphiaPassing the National Popular Vote CompactTo the Editor:Re “Trump’s Electoral College Edge Seems to Be Fading,” by Nate Cohn (“The Tilt” newsletter, nytimes.com, Sept. 11):The discussion of the Electoral College being undemocratic becomes moot if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is adopted by states with a total of 270 electoral votes. Under the compact, states would commit to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.Currently, 16 states and the District of Columbia with a total of 205 electoral votes have signed on to the compact. That means only a few more states with electoral votes adding up to 65 must pass the compact to make the Electoral College reflect the national popular vote. For instance, any five out of the following six states — Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Virginia — would be needed to reach 270.Democratic activists need to get their counterparts in those target states on board. Having a president who is elected by the majority of voters can actually be accomplished.James A. SteinbergRhinebeck, N.Y.‘Women,’ Not ‘Girls’ Shira InbarTo the Editor:Re “On the Internet, Everyone Wants to Be a Girl” (Sunday Styles, Sept. 10):In the resurgent feminist movement of more than half a century ago, women insisted on being called “women.” We felt that “girl” — then widely applied to women of all ages, particularly in clerical office jobs — reduced us to the status of perpetual children.It is disheartening, then, to read that some young women now are reverting to being “girls,” particularly at a time when the rights of women are widely under attack in this country. Language matters!Ellen D. MurphyPortland, Maine More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Privately Encouraged Republican Lawmakers to Impeach Biden

      by

      The former president has talked regularly with members of the House Freedom Caucus and other congressional Republicans who pushed for impeachment.On a sweeping patio overlooking the golf course at his private club in Bedminster, N.J., former President Donald J. Trump dined Sunday night with a close political ally, Marjorie Taylor Greene.It was a chance for the former president to catch up with the hard-right Georgia congresswoman. But over halibut and Diet Cokes, Ms. Greene brought up an issue of considerable interest to Mr. Trump — the push by House Republicans to impeach his likely opponent in next year’s election.“I did brief him on the strategy that I want to see laid out with impeachment,” Ms. Greene said in a brief phone interview.Mr. Trump’s dinner with Ms. Greene came just two nights before Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced his decision on Tuesday to order the opening of an impeachment inquiry into President Biden, under intense pressure from his right flank.Over the past several months, Mr. Trump has kept a close watch on House Republicans’ momentum toward impeaching Mr. Biden. Mr. Trump has talked regularly by phone with members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus and other congressional Republicans who pushed for impeachment, according to a person close to Mr. Trump who was not authorized to publicly discuss the conversations. Mr. Trump has encouraged the effort both privately and publicly.Ms. Greene, who has introduced articles of impeachment against Mr. Biden, said she told Mr. Trump that she wanted the impeachment inquiry to be “long and excruciatingly painful for Joe Biden.”She would not say what Mr. Trump said in response, but she said her ultimate goal was to have a “long list of names” — people whom she claimed were co-conspirators involved in Biden family crimes. She said she was confident Mr. Trump would win back the White House in 2024 and that she wanted “to go after every single one of them and use the Department of Justice to prosecute them.”While Mr. Biden’s son Hunter was charged in June with two misdemeanor tax offenses and a felony firearm offense, Republicans have not shown that Mr. Biden committed any crimes. House Republicans are proceeding with the impeachment inquiry without proof that Mr. Biden took official actions as vice president to benefit his son’s financial interests or that he directly profited from his son’s foreign deals.Mr. Trump has also spoken weekly over the past month to Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, the third-ranking House Republican, according to a person familiar with the conversations who was not authorized to discuss them publicly. During those conversations, Ms. Stefanik also briefed Mr. Trump on the impeachment inquiry strategy, this person said.The former president thanked Ms. Stefanik for publicly backing the impeachment inquiry in July, the person added. Ms. Stefanik, who talked to Mr. Trump again on Tuesday after Mr. McCarthy ordered the impeachment inquiry, had been the first member of House Republican leadership to publicly call for taking the first step in the process of impeaching Mr. Biden.A person familiar with Mr. Trump’s thinking said that despite his eagerness to see an inquiry move forward, the former president has not been twisting Mr. McCarthy’s arm. Mr. Trump has been far more aggressive in pushing several members to wipe his own impeachment record clean, the person said, potentially by getting Congress to take the unprecedented step of expunging his two impeachments from the House record.Under intense pressure from his right flank, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy opened an impeachment inquiry into President Biden on Tuesday.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesMr. Trump has not been expressing concern about the possibility that the McCarthy impeachment effort might backfire and benefit Mr. Biden, according to two people with direct knowledge of his private statements over several months. Instead, he wondered to an ally why there had been no movement on impeaching Mr. Biden once he learned that the House was back in session.A spokesman for Mr. McCarthy did not respond to a question about his interactions with the former president regarding impeachment.When asked for comment, Mr. Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, pointed to Mr. Trump’s public statements about impeaching Mr. Biden.The former president’s public commentary on the possibility of a Biden impeachment has escalated from wistful musings about the Justice Department’s supposed inaction to explicit demands.“They persecuted us and yet Joe Biden is a stone-cold criminal, caught dead to right, and nothing happens to him. Forget the family. Nothing happens to him,” the former president said at a rally in March.In a June town hall with the Fox News host Sean Hannity, Mr. Trump lamented what happened after authorities found boxes of classified documents in both Mar-a-Lago and the Bidens’ Delaware residence.“It is a dual system of government,” Mr. Trump said. “You talk about law and order. You can’t have law and order in a country where you have such corruption.”That same month, after Mr. Trump was arraigned on charges that he had improperly retained sensitive national security documents and obstructed investigators, he declared that if re-elected he would appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” Mr. Biden and his family.By July, Mr. Trump had begun suggesting that Republicans should impeach the president, and as the summer wore on, he conveyed his desire with greater urgency.“So, they impeach me over a ‘perfect’ phone call, and they don’t impeach Biden for being the most corrupt president in the history of the United States???” Mr. Trump wrote in all caps on his website, Truth Social.In yet another nearly all-cap Truth Social post in late August, the former president wrote, referring to congressional Republicans: “Either impeach the bum, or fade into oblivion. They did it to us!” More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Team Isn’t Waiting for Impeachment to Go on the Offensive

      by

      The White House has enlisted two dozen attorneys, legislative liaisons and others to craft strategies in the face of Republican threats to charge the president with high crimes and misdemeanors.Just before 8 p.m. on Thursday, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted a video of herself at a town hall in her Georgia district declaring that she “will not vote to fund the government” unless the House holds a vote to open an impeachment inquiry against President Biden.It took just 68 minutes for the White House to fire back with a blistering statement that such a vote would mean that House Republicans had “caved to the hard-core fringe of their party in prioritizing a baseless impeachment stunt over high-stakes needs Americans care about deeply” like drug enforcement and disaster relief.The White House, as it turns out, is not waiting for a formal inquiry to wage war against impeachment. With a team of two dozen attorneys, legislative liaisons, communications specialists and others, the president has begun moving to counter any effort to charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors with a best-defense-is-a-good-offense campaign aimed at dividing Republicans and taking his case to the public.The president’s team has been mapping out messaging, legal and parliamentary strategies for different scenarios. Officials have been reading books about past impeachments, studying law journal articles and pulling up old court decisions. They have even dug out correspondence between previous presidential advisers and congressional investigators to determine what standards and precedents have been established.At the same time, recognizing that any impeachment fight would be a political showdown heading into an election season, outside allies have been going after Republicans like Ms. Greene and Speaker Kevin McCarthy. A group called the Congressional Integrity Project has been collecting polling data, blitzing out statements, fact sheets and memos and producing ads targeting 18 House Republicans representing districts that voted for Mr. Biden in 2020.“As the Republicans ramp up their impeachment efforts, they’re certainly making this a political exercise and we’re responding in kind,” said Kyle Herrig, the executive director of the Congressional Integrity Project. “This is a moment of offense for Democrats. They have no basis for impeachment. They have no evidence. They have nothing.”The White House preparations do not indicate that Mr. Biden’s advisers believe an impeachment inquiry is inevitable. But advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal thinking said that it was important to take on the prospect aggressively and expressed hope that the situation could be turned to their advantage.Republican congressional investigations have turned up evidence that Hunter Biden traded on his family name to generate multimillion-dollar deals and a former partner, Devon Archer, testified that Mr. Biden would put his father on speakerphone with potential business clients to impress them.Republican congressional investigations have turned up evidence that Hunter Biden traded on his family name to generate multimillion-dollar deals.Doug Mills/The New York TimesBut Mr. Archer testified that the elder Biden only engaged in idle chitchat during such calls, not business, and no evidence has emerged that the president directly profited from his son’s deals or used his power inappropriately while vice president to benefit his son’s financial interests.Republicans have not identified any specific impeachable offenses and some have privately made clear they do not see any at the moment. The momentum toward an impeachment inquiry appears driven in large part by opposition to Mr. Biden’s policies and is fueled by former President Donald J. Trump, who is eager to tarnish his potential rival in next year’s election and openly frames the issue as a matter of revenge. “Either IMPEACH the BUM, or fade into OBLIVION,” he demanded of Republicans on his social media site this past week. “THEY DID IT TO US!”That stands in sharp contrast to other modern impeachment efforts. When impeachment inquiries were initiated against Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump, there were clear allegations of specific misconduct, whether or not they necessarily warranted removal from office. In Mr. Biden’s case, it is not clear what actions he has taken that would be defined as a high crime or misdemeanor.Mr. McCarthy, the California Republican, cited “a culture of corruption” within the Biden family in explaining on Fox News last weekend why he might push ahead with an impeachment inquiry. “If you look at all the information we’ve been able to gather so far, it is a natural step forward that you would have to go to an impeachment inquiry,” he said.Even if Republican investigators turned up evidence that Mr. Biden had done something as vice president to help his son’s business, it would be the first time a president was targeted for impeachment for actions taken before he became president, raising novel constitutional issues.For now, though, it is hardly certain that Republicans would authorize an inquiry. Mr. McCarthy told Breitbart News on Friday that if they pursued such an inquiry, “it would occur through a vote on the floor,” not through a decree by him, and veteran strategists in both parties doubt he could muster the 218 votes needed to proceed.The speaker’s flirtation with holding such a vote may be simply a way of catering to Ms. Greene and others on his right flank. He has used the thirst to investigate Mr. Biden as an argument against a government shutdown, suggesting that a budgetary impasse would stall House inquiries.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has vowed to oppose funding the government unless the House holds a vote to open an impeachment inquiry against President Biden.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesBut some Republicans have warned that a formal impeachment drive could be a mistake. Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, has said that “impeachment theater” was a distraction from spending issues and that it was not “responsible for us to talk about impeachment.” Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush, said impeachment could “unleash an internal Republican civil war” and if unsuccessful lead to “the worst, biggest backfire for Republicans.”The White House has been building its team to defend against Republican congressional investigations for more than a year, a team now bracing for a possible impeachment inquiry. Richard Sauber, a former federal prosecutor, was appointed special counsel in the spring of last year, and Ian Sams, a longtime Democratic communications specialist, was brought on as spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office. Russell Anello, the top Democratic staff member for the House Oversight Committee, joined last year as well.After Republicans won control of the House in the November midterm elections, more people were added to handle the multitude of congressional investigations. Stuart Delery, the White House counsel who is stepping down this month, will be replaced by Ed Siskel, who handled Republican investigations into issues like the Benghazi terror attack for President Barack Obama’s White House.A critical adviser for Mr. Biden will be his personal attorney, Bob Bauer, one of the most veteran figures in Washington’s legal-political wars. As a private lawyer, he advised the House Democratic leader during Mr. Clinton’s impeachment and then the Senate Democratic leader during the subsequent trial, helping to shape strategies that kept Democrats largely unified behind their president.Mr. Biden himself has seen four impeachment efforts up close during his long career in Washington. He was a first-term senator when Mr. Nixon resigned rather than face a seemingly certain Senate trial in 1974 and a fifth-term senator when he voted to acquit Mr. Clinton in 1999. It was Mr. Biden that Mr. Trump tried to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating, leading to the former president’s first impeachment in 2019. And it was Mr. Biden’s victory in 2020 that Mr. Trump tried to overturn with the help of a mob that attacked Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, leading to a second impeachment.The Clinton impeachment battle has provided some lessons for the Biden team, although the circumstances are significantly different and the political environment has shifted dramatically in the 25 years since then. Much as the Clinton White House did, the Biden White House has tried to separate its defense against Republican investigators from the day-to-day operations of the building, assigning Mr. Sams to respond mostly off camera to issues arising from the investigations rather than Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, during her televised briefings.As in the late 1990s, the strategy now is to paint Republicans as rabid partisans only interested in attacking the president of the other party out of political or ideological motives in contrast to a commander in chief focused on issues of importance to everyday voters, like health care and the economy.The approach worked for Mr. Clinton, whose approval ratings shot up to their highest levels of his two terms, surpassing 70 percent, when he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Mr. Biden’s approval ratings remain mired in the low 40s, but advisers think a serious impeachment threat would rally disaffected supporters.Mr. Herrig’s Congressional Integrity Project, founded after last year’s midterm elections, hopes to turn the Republican impeachment drive against them. His group’s board chairman, Jeff Peck, is a longtime Biden ally, and it recently hired Kate Berner, the former White House deputy communications director.The group has teams in New York and California and plans to expand to other battleground districts. “This is a political loser for vulnerable Republicans,” Mr. Herrig said. “McCarthy’s doing the bidding of Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene and putting his majority at risk.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Do You Know a Politically Motived Prosecution When You See One?

      by

      As the criminal indictments of Donald Trump continue to pile up like boxes in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom, the former president’s defenders have settled on a response: They don’t claim their man is innocent of the scores of federal and state charges against him — a tough case to make under the circumstances. Instead they accuse the Biden administration and Democratic prosecutors of politicizing law enforcement and cooking up an insurance policy to protect President Biden, who trails Mr. Trump in some polls about a very possible 2024 rematch.“So what do they do now?” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy asked last week, after Mr. Trump announced that he had received a second target letter from the special counsel Jack Smith, this time over his role in the Jan. 6 attack. “Weaponize government to go after their No. 1 opponent.”Gov. Ron DeSantis, one of the few plausible Republican nominees besides Mr. Trump, warned that the government is “criminalizing political differences.”It’s not only about Mr. Trump; griping about politicized law enforcement has become a cottage industry on the right these days. No sooner did Republicans take back the House of Representatives than they formed a Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, which meets regularly to air grievances and grill witnesses about their supposed anti-conservative animus, including Christopher Wray, the (Trump-nominated) F.B.I. director.If you’re feeling bewildered by all the claims and counterclaims of politicization, you’re not alone. Take the F.B.I.’s probe of ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, which is still being hashed out in the halls of Congress seven years later: In February, Democratic lawmakers demanded an investigation of the investigators who investigated the investigators who were previously investigated for their investigation of a transnational plot to interfere in a presidential election. Got that?But even if the charge of politicized justice is levied by a bad-faith buffoon like Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the weaponization subcommittee, it is a profoundly important one. There is no simple way to separate politics completely from law enforcement. The Justice Department will always be led by a political appointee, and most state and local prosecutors are elected. If Americans are going to have faith in the fairness of their justice system, every effort must be taken to assure the public that political motives are not infecting prosecutors’ charging decisions. That means extremely clear rules for investigators and prosecutors and eternal vigilance for the rest of us.At the same time, politically powerful people must be held to the same rules as everyone else, even if they happen to be of a different party from those investigating them. So how to distinguish an investigation or prosecution based solely on the facts from one motivated improperly by politics?Sometimes the investigators make it easy by just coming out and admitting that it’s really political. Mr. McCarthy did that in 2015, when he bragged on Fox News that the House Benghazi hearings had knocked a seemingly “unbeatable” Hillary Clinton down in the polls. More recently, James Comer of Kentucky, who heads the House committee that is relentlessly investigating Hunter Biden, made a similar argument about the effect of the committee’s work on President Biden’s political fortunes. (Mr. Comer tried to walk back his comment a day later.)More often, though, it takes some work to determine whether an investigation or prosecution is on the level.The key thing to remember is that even if the subject is a politically powerful person or the outcome of a trial could have a political impact, that doesn’t necessarily mean the action itself is political. To assume otherwise is to “immunize all high-ranking powerful political people from ever being held accountable for the wrongful things they do,” said Kristy Parker, a lawyer with the advocacy group Protect Democracy. “And if you do that, you subvert the idea that this is a rule-of-law society where everybody is subject to equal justice, and at the same time you remove from the public the ability to impose any accountability for misconduct, which enables it to happen again.”In May, Protect Democracy published a very useful report, co-written by Ms. Parker, laying out several factors that help the public assess whether a prosecution is political.First, what is the case about? Is there straightforward evidence of criminal behavior by a politician? Have people who are not powerful politicians been prosecuted in the past for similar behavior?Second, what are top law-enforcement officials saying? Is the president respecting due process, or is he demanding investigations or prosecutions of specific people? Is he keeping his distance from the case, or is he publicly attacking prosecutors, judges and jurors? Is the attorney general staying quiet, or is he offering public opinions on the guilt of the accused?Third, is the Justice Department following its internal procedures and guidelines for walling off political interference? Most of these guidelines arose in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, during which President Richard Nixon ordered the department to go after his political enemies and later obstructed the investigation into his own behavior. Until recently, the guidelines were observed by presidents and attorneys general of both parties.Finally, how have other institutions responded? Did judges and juries follow proper procedure in the case, and did they agree that the defendant was guilty? Did an agency’s inspector general find any wrongdoing by investigators or prosecutors?None of these factors are decisive by themselves. An investigation might take a novel legal approach; an honest case may still lose in court. But considering them together makes it easier to identify when law enforcement has been weaponized for political ends.To see how it works in practice, let’s take a closer look at two recent examples: first, the federal investigations into Mr. Trump’s withholding of classified documents and his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and, second, the investigation by John Durham into the F.B.I.’s Russia probe.In the first example, the Justice Department and the F.B.I., under Attorney General Merrick Garland, waited more than a year to pursue an investigation of Mr. Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack with any urgency — largely out of the fear that they would be seen as politically motivated.With a punctiliousness that has exasperated many liberals, Mr. Garland has kept his mouth shut about Mr. Smith’s prosecutions, except to say that the department would pursue anyone responsible for the Jan. 6 attack. Mr. Garland almost never mentions Mr. Trump by name. And Mr. Smith has been silent outside of the news conference he held last month to announce the charges in the documents case.In that case, Mr. Smith presented a tower of evidence that Mr. Trump violated multiple federal laws. There are also many examples of nonpowerful people — say, Reality Winner — who were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to years in prison for leaking a single classified document. Mr. Trump kept dozens. Even a federal judge who was earlier accused of being too accommodating to Mr. Trump has effectively signaled the documents case is legitimate, setting a trial date for May and refusing the Trump team’s demand to delay it until after the 2024 election.In the Jan. 6 case, the government has already won convictions against hundreds of people for their roles in the Capitol attack, many involving some of the same laws identified in Mr. Smith’s latest target letter to Mr. Trump.“Prosecutors will hear all sorts of allegations that it’s all political, that it will damage the republic for all of history,” Ms. Parker, who previously worked as a federal prosecutor, told me. “But they have to charge through that if what they’ve got is a case that on the facts and law would be brought against anybody else.”President Biden’s behavior has been more of a mixed bag. He and his advisers are keen to advertise his disciplined silence about Mr. Trump’s legal travails. “I have never once — not one single time — suggested to the Justice Department what they should do or not do,” he said in June. Yet he has commented publicly and inappropriately on both investigations over the years.It’s impossible to justify these remarks, but it is possible to consider them in light of the other factors above and to decide that Mr. Smith’s investigations are not infected with a political motive.Contrast that with the investigation by John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed by Mr. Trump’s attorney general Bill Barr in 2019 to investigate the origins of the F.B.I.’s Trump-Russia probe.Even before it began, the Durham investigation was suffused with clear political bias. Mr. Trump had repeatedly attacked the F.B.I. over its handling of the Russia probe and called for an investigation, breaching the traditional separation between the White House and the Justice Department. Mr. Barr had also spoken publicly in ways that seemed to prejudge the outcome of any investigation and inserted himself into an investigation focused on absolving Mr. Trump of wrongdoing.Not every investigation or prosecution will offer such clear-cut evidence of the presence or absence of political motivations. But as with everything relating to Mr. Trump, one generally doesn’t have to look far to find his pursuit of vengeance; he has taken to describing himself as the “retribution” of his followers. If he wins, he has promised to obliterate the Justice Department’s independence from the presidency and “go after” Mr. Biden and “the entire Biden crime family.”For the moment, at least, Mr. Trump is not the prosecutor but the prosecuted. And there should be no fear of pursuing the cases against him — especially those pertaining to his attempts to overturn his loss in 2020 — wherever they lead.“If we can’t bring those kinds of cases just because the person is politically powerful, how do we say we have a democracy?” asked Ms. Parker. “Because in that case we have people who are above the law, and they are so far above the law that they can destroy the central feature of democracy, which is elections, in which the people choose their leaders.”Source photograph by pepifoto, via Getty Images.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      It’s Getting Really Awkward for Speaker Kevin McCarthy

      by

      Some days, Speaker Kevin McCarthy must look out over his House conference in awe and think: Are you maniacs trying to lose us the majority?Thursday may well have been one of those days, as hard-right crusaders larded up the National Defense Authorization Act with divisive, culture-warring amendments taking aim at abortion access, transgender medical care and diversity training. The annual N.D.A.A. usually garners solid bipartisan support, passing without excessive turbulence for the past 60 years. Last week, the House Freedom Caucus and its allies labored to insert more poison pills into the package than a back-alley fentanyl mill. After much drama, and much futile pleading by Mr. McCarthy with his right flank, the House passed the bill Friday, 219-210, on a mostly party-line vote.Rest assured, the spectacle is far from over.The odds of the bill’s extreme measures passing muster with the Democratic Senate and White House are worse than Mike Pence’s odds of winning the presidency next year. So, less than zero. But House conservatives aren’t aiming to make serious policy gains here — at least, not the ones who understand how a divided government works. They are looking to make trouble, to prove they are loud, uncompromising fighters for the conservative cause. They are also looking to make a point, one directed in no small part at Mr. McCarthy, with whom they remain spitting mad over the debt-ceiling deal he negotiated with Democrats in May. And if they need to imperil their nascent majority to make that point, then so be it. Life is full of difficult trade-offs.Mr. McCarthy’s debt-deal machinations this spring won plaudits from many political watchers: What leadership skill! Maybe we underestimated him! Maybe he really can keep his conference in line! But his hard-liners raged that he had sold them out and promptly committed to making the House as dysfunctional as possible, even if it meant bogging down their own team’s policy goals. Their hostage-taking and acting-out have been a warning to Mr. McCarthy: Fool us once, and we’ll turn this chamber into a do-nothing freak show just to teach you a lesson. Try to fool us twice, and things will get really dark and weird.This purity-over-progress approach isn’t just making life awkward for the speaker. It is making the entire Republican conference look like a pack of obstructionist zealots. This may play well in deep-MAGA districts, but not so much in battleground areas. Those are, admittedly, increasingly rare. But with a majority this scrawny, House conservatives are playing with fire. All Democrats need to do is flip a handful of seats to snatch the gavel from Mr. McCarthy’s hand. They could, say, claw back some of the ground unexpectedly lost to Republicans in New York in the midterms (starting with George Santos’s district). And they could pick up a seat or two thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act that may lead to various Southern states redrawing their congressional districts to address sketchy gerrymandering. (Alabama has already been given its marching orders.)Even if Republicans hold on to the House — where, to be fair, a certain level of crazy has come to be expected — the wingers’ shenanigans are doing nothing to help the party’s brand. Many, many Americans are weary of political chaos and performative jerkiness. And many are particular tired of it on the issue of abortion, which drew key numbers of swing voters to Democrats in last year’s midterms. But time and again, Mr. McCarthy’s troops seem dead set on signaling that the G.O.P. is a pack of bomb-throwing fringe-dwellers actively trying not to govern. Swing voters aren’t generally all that keen on posturing, do-nothing Congresses, either.Some Republican House members are cheesed off over these political games. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, for instance, was overheard Thursday dropping all kinds of colorful language, including an “f” bomb or two, about people being forced to vote on the abortion amendment, according to Politico. Though Ms. Mace did not bother abbreviating her pejorative. Nor, it should be noted, did she risk voting against the offending amendment, much less the overall bill. “It’s not going to pass the Senate anyway; it doesn’t matter,” she told The Hill.It doesn’t matter. Well, except that, going forward, Ms. Mace can expect the situation to get so much worse. However much blood and tears get shed in passing the N.D.A.A., they are nothing compared to the carnage anticipated in the coming cage match over funding the government. Already, the hard-liners have made clear that they are going to cause as much trouble as possible in pursuit of their outside-the-mainstream aims. In protest of the debt deal, a pack of conservatives ground action on the House floor to a halt for several days in June while lobbying (or, if you prefer, blackmailing) the speaker to give them more power — including more leeway to slash spending beyond the levels set in the debt-ceiling agreement. With the conservative knife at his throat, Mr. McCarthy has been allowing the conference to move ahead with appropriations proposals that do just that.Ramping up the drama, a passel of conservative members sent a letter to Mr. McCarthy last week, laying out their conditions, including much lower spending levels, for funding the government. Spoiler alert: None were aimed at making the process easier or more efficient.But, after getting crosswise with his wingers on the debt deal, the speaker now seems to have retreated back into a policy of appeasement. This bodes ill for keeping the government running smoothly in the coming months — and for any future legislative efforts.There is no point in feeling sorry for Mr. McCarthy. He’s a political creature. Coming into this job, he knew the risks of negotiating with, and bowing to, ideological terrorists. And he was apparently cool with that. His party is earning whatever electoral comeuppance it gets. But it is shameful that the rest of America may wind up forced to pay a price as well.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Pro-Trump Crowd, Sensing Disloyalty, Drowns Out Dissent

      by

      A day after former President Donald J. Trump headlined the Turning Point conference in Florida, two of his Republican opponents were booed and heckled at the same event.Not long ago, the names on the marquee would have been right at home on Fox News: Stephen K. Bannon, Tucker Carlson and Roger J. Stone Jr.But Fox News ousted Mr. Carlson three months ago, and Mr. Bannon, Mr. Stone and a boisterous pro-Trump crowd at the Turning Point Action Conference were eager to take shots at the conservative network, arguing that it has not been sufficiently supportive of former President Donald J. Trump as he seeks to regain the office he lost in 2020.At the two-day gathering, with thousands of pro-Trump activists in attendance this weekend in South Florida, jeers flew on Sunday at the mention of Rupert Murdoch, the Fox media mogul, as well as Speaker Kevin McCarthy.Donald J. Trump spoke to roughly 6,000 attendees for more than an hour and a half on Sunday.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesAnd after Mr. Trump spoke to this crowd on Saturday, any of his Republican rivals for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination took the stage at their own peril.In a speech on Sunday, Mr. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s onetime chief strategist who was found guilty of contempt of Congress, suggested that Mr. Murdoch had been using Fox News to hype Republican governors from battleground states to undermine Mr. Trump’s candidacy. He cited Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, Mr. Trump’s main rival in the party, who trails him by roughly 30 percentage points in national polls, as a cautionary tale.“Come on down,” Mr. Bannon said. “Bring it because we’ll destroy you just like we destroyed DeSantis.”Mr. Bannon — the host of a right-wing podcast, which he has used to promote election falsehoods and conspiracy theories — criticized Fox News for its lack of coverage of the pro-Trump conclave and called Mr. Trump’s political battles a “jihad.”“Donald Trump is our instrument for retribution,” he said.While Fox News did not carry the event on its main network, it did show conference speeches by Mr. Trump and the other Republican candidates on Fox Nation, its subscription streaming service. A Fox Corporation spokesman declined to comment on behalf of Mr. Murdoch.Two of Mr. Trump’s long-shot Republican opponents — Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas governor; and Francis X. Suarez, the mayor of Miami — experienced the wrath of Mr. Trump’s supporters firsthand on Sunday when they were heckled and booed.When Mr. Suarez, whom The Miami Herald has reported as being under F.B.I. investigation in a corruption case, stepped up to the microphone, a few people in the crowd yelled “traitor.”He responded by mentioning his Cuban American heritage and saying that dissenting voices were welcome in America, unlike in his ancestors’ home country.A woman yelling at Francis X. Suarez, the Miami mayor and Republican presidential candidate.Saul Martinez for The New York Times“It’s OK to have a little bit of hate,” Mr. Suarez told the crowd.Saul Martinez for The New York Times“It’s OK to have a little bit of hate,” Mr. Suarez said. Later, he asked conservative activists to chip in to his campaign.Mr. Hutchinson paused his remarks as the crowd began chanting Mr. Trump’s name, and one of his biggest applause lines came when he mentioned his successor in the Arkansas governor’s office: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Mr. Trump’s onetime White House press secretary.Contending with cross-talk for much of his speech, Mr. Hutchinson said that Republicans needed to have respect for people with different opinions.At the conference, attendees could attach sticky notes to cutouts of the Republican candidates’ heads.A man placed one with a homophobic slur on the face of Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s former vice president. Later, it appeared to have been removed. But a number of stickers branding Mr. Pence a “traitor” for refusing to overturn the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021, covered his face.On a cutout of Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and Mr. Trump’s United Nation’s ambassador, one sticky note said: “Woman in Politics? Cringe.”At the event’s apex on Saturday, about 6,000 people filled the Palm Beach County Convention Center to hear Mr. Trump speak for nearly 100 minutes. Mr. Carlson ruminated about his dismissal from Fox News in April.Roger J. Stone Jr. speaking to the pro-Trump crowd.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesIn a speech on Sunday, Mr. Stone, who had a felony conviction pardoned by Mr. Trump, claimed that federal prosecutors had offered him a deal to dredge up dirt implicating Mr. Trump in wrongdoing and recalled a predawn F.B.I. raid at his home in South Florida in 2019 during which he was arrested.“I said, ‘You can go to hell,’” he said. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Vulnerable Republicans Take a Political Risk With Abortion Vote

      by

      In uniting his party behind a defense bill loaded with social policy restrictions, Speaker Kevin McCarthy has raised questions over whether his short-term victory could imperil his majority.Representative Jen Kiggans, a minivan-driving mom and Navy veteran, narrowly won election last year in her suburban Virginia swing district after a fiercely competitive race that focused on her opposition to abortion rights.The issue remains a top priority for voters in her district, and appearing too extreme on it could make her vulnerable again when she faces re-election in 2024. But Ms. Kiggans was one of dozens of Republicans from competitive districts who voted this week to support adding a bevy of deeply partisan restrictions to the annual defense policy bill, including one that would reverse a Pentagon policy aimed at preserving access to abortion services for military personnel, no matter where they are stationed.Democrats said the G.O.P. provision was a steppingstone to instituting more abortion bans across the nation, while Republicans argued it merely preserved a longstanding bar against allowing federal funds to be used to pay for abortions.The vote put lawmakers like Ms. Kiggans, a top target of Democrats whose seat is up for grabs in next year’s congressional elections, in a politically perilous position. And it raised the question of whether, in scoring the short-term victory of keeping his party united behind the annual defense bill — which passed on a near-party-line vote on Friday — Speaker Kevin McCarthy may have embraced a strategy that could ultimately cost his party the House majority.Ms. Kiggans and other similarly situated Republicans said they had no problem backing the abortion restriction or the bill itself, which emerged from the House loaded with other conservative policy dictates, including one barring the military health care program from providing transgender health services and another limiting diversity training for military personnel.“Taxpayers should not be paying for elective surgery,” Ms. Kiggans, who ran as a moderate focused on kitchen-table economic issues, said in an interview on Friday, explaining her vote. “This wasn’t a bill about abortion; it was about taxpayers paying for travel for military members for elective procedures.”Still, Democrats’ House campaign arm wasted no time in attacking Ms. Kiggans and other vulnerable Republicans who had backed the bill, and even some G.O.P. lawmakers conceded that embracing it was a bad look for a party trying to broaden its appeal.“The reason we’re in the majority today is because of swing districts and the reason we’re going to lose the majority is because of swing districts,” said Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina. “That’s just lost up here. We’re 10 days out from the August recess, and what have we done for women, post-Roe? Zero.”Ms. Mace, who represents a politically split district, railed against the abortion amendment but ultimately voted for it because she said it was technically consistent with Defense Department policy. But she said she regretted being forced to take the vote at all.“I’m not happy about it,” she said. “I wish we didn’t have to do this right now.”The Republican proposal would overturn a Defense Department policy put in place after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion last year, setting off a rush by some states to enact curbs and bans on the procedure. The policy reimburses travel costs for personnel who must travel out of state to obtain an abortion or related services. The policy does not provide any money for abortions.Democrats pointed to the vote as a prime example of Republicans taking votes that could ultimately cost them their House majority. Strategists in both parties have suggested that the Supreme Court’s abortion decision, and Democrats’ subsequent efforts to spotlight Republican opposition to abortion rights, weakened the G.O.P. during last year’s election, costing them support from independent and suburban voters.“For the swing districts they represent, they should be doing the opposite — but they’re not,” said Courtney Rice, communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Their decision to put party politics over pocketbook issues is going to cost them the House in 2024.”Many vulnerable House Republicans said they consoled themselves with the knowledge that the amendments that focused on stoking battles on social issues were likely to be stripped out of the bill by the Democrat-controlled Senate and would not be in a final version of the defense policy bill.“It wouldn’t be the way I would run the place, but at the end of the day as long as we pass N.D.A.A. like we’ve done and keep the really nasty poison pills out, I think it solves the problem,” said Representative Tony Gonzales, Republican of Texas, referring to the defense bill by the initials of its full name. Mr. Gonzales, who voted for the abortion amendment and others barring transgender health services and limiting diversity training for military personnel, voted against amendments that sought to cut funding for Ukraine.Sarah Chamberlain, the president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, an outside organization allied with the congressional Republican Main Street Caucus, described the vote as a “calculated risk” for many members who gambled that it would not hurt them politically.“They made the decision that it was more important to them to get this bill out of the House than to fall on their sword on this one,” she said. “They would have preferred these amendments didn’t exist, but I think they can defend their vote because they’re supporting the men and women of the military.”Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, railed against the abortion amendment but ultimately voted for it.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesStill, it’s not the first time vulnerable Republicans have caved to the hard right wing of their party, even when it means taking votes that could prove to be political liabilities down the line. Mr. McCarthy, who has worked overtime to appease the right flank whose support he needs to remain in power — most of whom represent safe G.O.P. districts — has done comparatively little to protect more mainstream Republicans whose seats are at risk from having to take tough votes.In April, they voted for Mr. McCarthy’s bill to lift the debt ceiling for one year in exchange for spending cuts and policy changes, even though it gutted programs that helped veterans and older people.Last month, they voted in support of a resolution that would repeal a Biden administration rule that tightened federal regulations on stabilizing braces for firearms that have been used in several mass shootings. House leaders brought the bill to the floor in order to help end a weeklong blockade by far-right Republicans.Still, the level of G.O.P. support for the abortion amendment — only two Republicans, Representatives John Duarte of California and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voted against it — came as a shock to Democrats.“There are those across the aisle who realize that this is bad,” said Representative Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, a former Navy helicopter pilot who is one of two Democratic women in the House who have served in the military. Ms. Sherrill said she had heard from some Republican colleagues who told her privately, “‘This is a really bad idea, this is a mistake.’ Well then, why did everyone but two people vote for this really bad amendment?”Representative Chrissie Houlahan, Democrat of Pennsylvania and a former Air Force officer, said she was “surprised by the paucity of people who voted against the amendment. I was expecting 15 Republicans to do the right thing.”Some more mainstream Republicans sought to justify their votes by arguing that they were not voting against abortion or transgender health care — just against government funding for it.“If you look at the polling, most Americans don’t think the federal government should be paying for abortions,” Representative Stephanie Bice, Republican of Oklahoma and vice chair of the Main Street Caucus, said.Representative Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska, said he backed the provision barring military coverage for gender transition surgeries and hormone therapy because he believed, “If you want to do it, do it on your own dime.”“I don’t think it should be the taxpayers’ responsibility,” Mr. Bacon added. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      McCarthy Questions Strength of Trump’s Candidacy, Then Quickly Backtracks

      by

      The House speaker angered Donald J. Trump’s allies by saying he did not know whether the former president was the strongest candidate to beat President Biden.Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday declared Donald J. Trump the “strongest political opponent” against President Biden, rushing to make clear his loyalty to the former president just hours after suggesting in a televised interview that Mr. Trump might not be the Republican presidential candidate best positioned to prevail in the 2024 election.The hurried attempt at ingratiating himself to Mr. Trump underscores Mr. McCarthy’s fear of alienating the former president as he struggles to keep together his fractious House majority and withstand mounting pressure from right-wing lawmakers loyal to Mr. Trump. And it reflected the precarious position of Mr. McCarthy, who has not endorsed Mr. Trump or any other candidate, as the G.O.P. presidential primary takes shape.His latest difficulties began on Tuesday morning when, during an interview with CNBC, Mr. McCarthy wondered whether it would be good for the party to have Mr. Trump as its presidential nominee given his legal troubles.“Can he win that election? Yeah, he can win that election,” Mr. McCarthy said. “The question is, is he the strongest to win the election; I don’t know that answer.”The comment irked Mr. Trump’s allies, setting off an urgent effort by Mr. McCarthy to walk it back. He contacted Breitbart News, the right-wing news outlet, to offer an exclusive interview in which he said the former president was “stronger today than he was in 2016” and blamed the media for “attempting to drive a wedge between President Trump and House Republicans.”“The only reason Biden is using his weaponized federal government to go after President Trump is because he is Biden’s strongest political opponent, as polling continues to show,” Mr. McCarthy told Breitbart in comments he later provided as a written statement.Mr. McCarthy also called Mr. Trump Tuesday, according to three people familiar with the exchange, two of whom characterized the conversation as an apology.The immediate damage control reflected how dependent Mr. McCarthy remained on Mr. Trump as he faced criticism from his right flank, and how his alliance with the conservative media ecosystem has helped to insulate him. In the past, Breitbart has helped wage public campaigns against mainstream Republican leaders, including Mr. McCarthy’s predecessors John A. Boehner and Paul D. Ryan, who refused to bend to the will of the party’s hard right.But Mr. McCarthy has cultivated a relationship with the website. Its story on Tuesday highlighted Mr. McCarthy’s full-throated defense of Mr. Trump and accused mainstream media of taking his comments out of context.Mr. McCarthy has not officially endorsed Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and has been advised by people like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a frequent outside adviser, not to do so.Still, his speakership at critical inflection points has depended on the support of Mr. Trump, who could easily exacerbate tensions between Mr. McCarthy and hard-right lawmakers by encouraging them to defy his leadership. Mr. McCarthy has been careful to show no daylight between him and the former president.In trying to keep his fragile majority together, Mr. McCarthy has at key moments allowed the House to become Mr. Trump’s instrument of revenge and retaliation.He savaged Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, even before Mr. Trump was officially indicted in New York on charges that he orchestrated the cover-up of a $130,000 hush-money payment made to the porn star Stormy Daniels. He also authorized three of his committee chairmen to insert themselves into the criminal inquiry, demanding that the prosecutor provide communications, documents and testimony.Mr. McCarthy has likewise raged against the Justice Department for indicting Mr. Trump over his handling of classified documents. He said last week that he supported a resolution calling for Mr. Trump’s two impeachments to be expunged.Mr. McCarthy has a cordial, if not close, relationship with Mr. Trump, whom he has credited with helping him win the fraught race for speakership.Tuesday’s dust-up recalled another, far more dramatic instance when Mr. McCarthy rushed to paper over a potential rift between himself and Mr. Trump.After taking to the House floor after the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol to say that Mr. Trump “bears responsibility” for the attack, Mr. McCarthy famously sought to mend his relationship with the man who remained the most popular political force on the right.Just over a week after Mr. Trump left the White House, Mr. McCarthy paid him a visit at Mar-a-Lago, smiling and presenting what has continued to be a united front. More