Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Spreads Covid Vaccine Skepticism With Guidance Contradicting C.D.C.

      by

      The C.D.C. on Tuesday recommended at least one dose of the updated Covid-19 vaccines for most Americans six months and older.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida’s administration issued Covid-19 vaccine recommendations this week that directly contradicted federal officials’ guidance as his presidential campaign tries to use the resurgence of the virus to appeal to Republican voters.With cases ticking up, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended on Tuesday that everyone six months and older who had not received a Covid-19 shot in the last two months receive a booster vaccine. The new shots, approved by the Food and Drug Administration this week, appear to be effective against a vast majority of Covid-19 variants now in circulation, according to data presented at a C.D.C. meeting on Tuesday.Mr. DeSantis’s administration advised that Florida residents under the age of 65 skip the updated boosters.“I will not stand by and let the F.D.A. and C.D.C. use healthy Floridians as guinea pigs for new booster shots,” Mr. DeSantis, who has a history of downplaying the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, said in a statement after he hosted an online panel Wednesday to discuss the new federal guidelines.Appearing alongside Mr. DeSantis was Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, Florida’s surgeon general, and other medical doctors who expressed skepticism about the shots.“What I have directed our department to do is to provide guidance that really recommends and advises against the use of these mRNA Covid-19 vaccines for anyone under 65,” Dr. Ladapo said during the panel on Wednesday.Covid-19 cases have steadily increased since July, and public health officials have warned of a comeback for the virus in the fall and winter months — though some experts say that this year is less alarming than previous years. Conspiracy theorists, right-wing influencers and politicians have seized on the moment to stoke fears that the government would again initiate widespread shutdowns or masking requirements to help prevent the spread of the disease. But federal and state officials have not suggested that those types of measures are under consideration.In the release accompanying Mr. DeSantis’s statement, the governor’s office said that Covid-19 vaccines had “shown little to no benefit to prevent Covid-19 infection” — a claim that is directly contradicted by a host of evidence from doctors, public health officials and infectious disease experts.The C.D.C. specifies that while older adults and “persons with weakened immune systems” are at greater risk for hospitalization and death from the disease, “healthy children and adults can still experience severe disease.” The “benefits of Covid-19 vaccination continue to outweigh any potential risks,” the agency said.Mr. DeSantis — whose presidential campaign has floundered amid money troubles and mass layoffs — has frequently appealed to Covid-19-related concerns among the Republican base, both from the governor’s office and on the campaign trail.Mr. DeSantis has talked up his handling of the virus in the state to contrast himself with former President Donald J. Trump, the Republican front-runner in the 2024 presidential race whom he trails badly in polls, and whose administration headed the development of the coronavirus vaccines that are now very unpopular among Republican voters. Mr. DeSantis often highlights that he was one of the first governors to fully reopen his state after a pandemic lockdown.At a public health event in Jacksonville last week that, in the absence of formal policy announcements, resembled a campaign rally, Mr. DeSantis said: “I can tell you here in Florida, we did not and we will not allow the dystopian visions of paranoid hypochondriacs to control our health policies, let alone our state.”Nicholas Nehamas More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      State House Candidate in Virginia Condemns Leak of Sex Tapes

      by

      Susanna Gibson, a Democrat running in one of seven tossup House seats in the closely divided legislature, denounced the “illegal invasion of my privacy.”A Democratic candidate in a crucial race for the Virginia General Assembly denounced reports on Monday that she and her husband had performed live on a sexually explicit streaming site.Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner running in her first election cycle, said in a statement that the leaks about the online activity were “an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.”The Washington Post and The Associated Press reported on Monday that tapes of live-streamed sexual activity had been recorded from a pornographic site and archived on another site. The New York Times has not independently verified the content of the videos. The Democratic Party of Virginia did not respond to a request for comment.Ms. Gibson, 40, who appears on her campaign website in hospital scrubs as well as at home with her husband and two young children, is running for the House of Delegates in one of only a handful of competitive races that will determine control of the General Assembly. Republicans hold a slim majority in the House, and Democrats narrowly control the State Senate, but both chambers are up for grabs in November.Ms. Gibson’s district, which is outside Richmond and primarily in Henrico County, is one of seven tossup seats in the 100-member House, according to the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project.Releasing damaging information about candidates of the opposing party into the heat of a campaign is an age-old political practice, but the sensational nature of the disclosure of sex tapes — reportedly featuring Ms. Gibson and her husband, a lawyer — is highly unusual. Ms. Gibson called the release of the tapes “the worst gutter politics.” The Post said it learned of the material from a “Republican operative” who denied a connection to Ms. Gibson’s opponent, David Owen, or to other political groups in Virginia.Daniel P. Watkins, a lawyer for Ms. Gibson, said it was unlawful in the state to record someone in a state of undress and distribute it to a third party without that person’s consent.“It’s illegal and it’s disgusting to disseminate this kind of material, and we’re working closely with the F.B.I. and local prosecutors to bring the wrongdoers to justice,” Mr. Watkins said.Ms. Gibson gave no indication she was considering dropping out of the race.“It won’t intimidate me and it won’t silence me,” she said in her statement. “My political opponents and their Republican allies have proven they’re willing to commit a sex crime to attack me and my family because there’s no line they won’t cross to silence women when they speak up.”Virginia’s governor, Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, has raised record sums for his party in an effort to take full control of the Legislature, which, if successful, would cap a remarkable swing from two years ago when Democrats fully controlled state government. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Special Grand Jury in Georgia Recommended Charging Lindsey Graham in Trump Case

      by

      A special grand jury made the recommendation last year after hearing from dozens of witnesses on whether Donald J. Trump and his allies interfered in the 2020 election.A special grand jury that investigated election interference allegations in Georgia recommended indicting a number of Trump allies who were not charged, including Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the former senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, and Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser.In its final report, which a judge unsealed on Friday, the panel also recommended charges against Boris Epshteyn, one of former President Donald J. Trump’s main lawyers, as well as a number of other Trump-aligned lawyers, including Cleta Mitchell and Lin Wood.Mr. Trump and 18 allies were charged in a racketeering indictment that was handed up last month by a regular grand jury in Fulton County, Ga.The special grand jury, which Fulton County prosecutors convened to help with the investigation, met at an Atlanta courthouse from June to December of last year. It spent much of that time hearing testimony from 75 witnesses on the question of whether Mr. Trump or any of his allies had sought to illegally overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.Under Georgia law, the panel could not issue indictments itself. In the Trump case, that task fell to a regular grand jury that was seated over the summer. The regular grand jury heard evidence from prosecutors for one day in early August before voting to indict all 19 defendants whom prosecutors had sought to charge.The special grand jury’s mandate was to write a report with recommendations on whether indictments were warranted in the investigation, which was led by Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney. Ms. Willis asked to convene a special grand jury because such panels have subpoena powers, and she was concerned that some witnesses would not cooperate without being subpoenaed.Portions of the report were publicly released in February, but those excerpts did not indicate who had been recommended for indictment, or on what charges. The release of the full nine-page report this week was ordered by Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court.Read the Report by the Special Grand Jury in Georgia That Investigated President TrumpThe special grand jury investigated whether Mr. Trump interfered in the 2020 election in the state. Their report included recommendations on whether indictments were warranted, and for whom.Read DocumentMr. Epshteyn declined on Friday to comment about the report. Others whom the advisory panel recommended for indictment did not immediately respond to requests for comment.After the special grand jury recommended indictments of about 40 people, the district attorney had to weigh which prosecutions would be the most likely to succeed in court. A potential case against Mr. Graham, for example, would have been hampered by the fact that there were conflicting accounts of telephone calls he made to a top Georgia official. Mr. Graham has repeatedly said that he did nothing wrong.Fulton County prosecutors indicated in court filings last year that they were interested in those calls by Mr. Graham, a onetime critic of Mr. Trump who became a staunch supporter. They were made shortly after the November 2020 election to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state.Mr. Raffensperger has said that in those calls, Mr. Graham suggested the rejection of all mail-in votes from Georgia counties with high rates of questionable signatures, a step that would have excluded many more Democratic votes than Republican ones. But the phone calls are not known to have been recorded, and recollections differ about exactly what was said — factors that probably figured in the decision not to charge Mr. Graham.In a filing seeking Mr. Graham’s testimony, prosecutors said that he “questioned Secretary Raffensperger and his staff about re-examining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump,” and “made reference to allegations of widespread voter fraud” during those calls.A few weeks after the calls, Mr. Trump followed up with a call of his own to Mr. Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021, saying that he wanted to “find” roughly 12,000 votes, enough to reverse his loss in Georgia. Mr. Trump’s call, which was recorded, is the basis for a number of charges in the 98-page indictment.Mr. Graham has characterized as “ridiculous” the idea that he had suggested to Mr. Raffensperger that he throw out legally cast votes, and the senator’s lawyers have argued that he was carrying out a legitimate investigative function as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a bid to avoid testifying before the special grand jury last year, Mr. Graham waged a legal battle that made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ultimately, he was forced to testify.Afterward, he said that he had spent two hours giving testimony behind closed doors, where he said he “answered all questions.”Mr. Graham has been critical of prosecutors in the Georgia case and the three other criminal cases against Mr. Trump, characterizing them as liberals who were “weaponizing the law” to unfairly target the former president.After the Georgia indictment, Mr. Graham told reporters in South Carolina that he was not cooperating with the Fulton County prosecutors, dismissing the idea as “crazy stuff.”“I went, had my time, and I haven’t heard from them since,” he said. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Nothing Without Republican Accomplices

      by

      During the first Republican debate of the 2024 presidential primary campaign last month, Donald Trump’s rivals were asked to raise their hands if they would support his candidacy, even if he were “convicted in a court of law.” Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election wasn’t just a potential criminal offense. It also violated the cardinal rule of democracy: Politicians must accept the results of elections, win or lose.But that seemed to matter little on the debate stage. Vivek Ramaswamy’s hand shot up first, and all the other leading candidates followed suit — some eagerly, some more hesitantly and one after casting furtive glances to his right and his left.Behavior like this might seem relatively harmless — a small act of political cowardice aimed at avoiding the wrath of the base. But such banal acquiescence is very dangerous. Individual autocrats, even popular demagogues, are never enough to wreck a democracy. Democracy’s assassins always have accomplices among mainstream politicians in the halls of power. The greatest threat to our democracy comes not from demagogues like Mr. Trump or even from extremist followers like those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, but rather from the ordinary politicians, many of them inside the Capitol that day, who protect and enable him.The problem facing Republican leaders today — the emergence of a popular authoritarian threat in their own ideological camp — is hardly new. It has confronted political leaders across the world for generations. In Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, mainstream center-left and center-right parties had to navigate a political world in which antidemocratic extremists on the communist left and the fascist right enjoyed mass appeal. And in much of South America in the polarized 1960s and 1970s, mainstream parties found that many of their members sympathized with either leftist guerrillas seeking armed revolution or rightist paramilitary groups pushing for military rule.The Spanish political scientist Juan Linz wrote that when mainstream politicians face this sort of predicament, they can proceed in one of two ways.On the one hand, politicians may act as loyal democrats, prioritizing democracy over their short-term ambitions. Loyal democrats publicly condemn authoritarian behavior and work to hold its perpetrators accountable, even when they are ideological allies. Loyal democrats expel antidemocratic extremists from their ranks, refuse to endorse their candidacies, eschew all collaboration with them, and when necessary, join forces with ideological rivals to isolate and defeat them. And they do this even when extremists are popular among the party base. The result, history tells us, is a political firewall that can help a democracy survive periods of intense polarization and crisis.On the other hand, too often, politicians become what Mr. Linz called semi-loyal democrats. At first glance, semi-loyalists look like loyal democrats. They are respectable political insiders and part of the establishment. They dress in suits rather than military camouflage, profess a commitment to democracy and ostensibly play by its rules. We see them in Congress and in governor’s mansions — and on the debate stage. So when democracies die, semi-loyalists’ fingerprints may not be found on the murder weapon.But when we look closely at the histories of democratic breakdowns, from Europe in the interwar period to Argentina, Brazil and Chile in the 1960s and 1970s to Venezuela in the early 2000s, we see a clear pattern: Semi-loyal politicians play a pivotal role in enabling authoritarians.Rather than severing ties to antidemocratic extremists, semi-loyalists tolerate and accommodate them. Rather than condemn and seek accountability for antidemocratic acts committed by ideological allies, semi-loyalists turn a blind eye, denying, downplaying and even justifying those acts — often via what is today called whataboutism. Or they simply remain silent. And when they are faced with a choice between joining forces with partisan rivals to defend democracy or preserving their relationship with antidemocratic allies, semi-loyalists opt for the latter.It is semi-loyalists’ very respectability that makes them so dangerous. As members of the establishment, semi-loyalists can use their positions of authority to normalize antidemocratic extremists, protect them against efforts to hold them legally accountable and empower them by opening doors to the mainstream media, campaign donors and other resources. It is this subtle enabling of extremist forces that can fatally weaken democracies.Consider the example of France. On Feb. 6, 1934, in the center of Paris, thousands of disaffected and angry men — veterans and members of right-wing militia groups — gathered near the national Parliament as its members were inside preparing to vote for a new government. They threw chairs, metal grates and rocks and used poles with razor blades on one end to try breach the doors of Parliament. Members of Parliament, frightened for their lives, had to sneak out of the building. Seventeen people were killed, and thousands were injured. Although the rioters failed to seize the Parliament building, they achieved one of their objectives: The centrist prime minister resigned the next day and was replaced by a right-leaning prime minister.Although French democracy survived the Feb. 6 attack on Parliament, the response of some prominent politicians weakened its defenses. Many centrist and center-left politicians responded as loyal democrats, publicly and unequivocally condemning the violence. But many conservative politicians did not. Key members of France’s main conservative party, the Republican Federation, many of whom were inside the Parliament building that day, sympathized publicly with the rioters. Some praised the insurrectionists as heroes and patriots. Others dismissed the importance of the attack, denying that there had been an organized plot to overthrow the government.When a parliamentary commission was established to investigate the events of Feb. 6, Republican Federation leaders sabotaged the investigation at each step, blocking even modest efforts to hold the rioters to account. Protected from prosecution, many of the insurrection’s organizers were able to continue their political careers. Some of the rioters went on to form the Victims of Feb. 6, a fraternity-like organization that later served as a recruitment channel for the Nazi-sympathizing Vichy government established in the wake of the 1940 German invasion.The failure to hold the Feb. 6 insurrectionists to account also helped legitimize their ideas. Mainstream French conservatives began to embrace the view — once confined to extremist circles — that their democracy was hopelessly corrupt, dysfunctional and infiltrated by Communists and Jews. Historically, French conservatives had been nationalist and staunchly anti-German. But by 1936, many of them so despised the Socialist prime minister, Léon Blum, that they embraced the slogan “Better Hitler than Blum.” Four years later, they acquiesced to Nazi rule.The semi-loyalty of leading conservative politicians fatally weakened the immune system of French democracy. The Nazis, of course, finished it off.A half-century later, Spanish politicians responded very differently to a violent assault on Parliament. After four decades of dictatorship, Spain’s democracy was finally restored in the late 1970s, but its early years were marked by economic crisis and separatist terrorism. And on Feb. 23, 1981, as the Parliament was electing a new prime minister, 200 civil guardsmen entered the building and seized control at gunpoint, holding the 350 members of Parliament hostage. The coup leaders hoped to install a conservative general — a kind of Spanish Charles de Gaulle — as prime minister.The coup attempt failed, thanks to the quick and decisive intervention of the king, Juan Carlos I. Nearly as important, though, was the reaction of Spanish politicians. Leaders across the ideological spectrum — from communists to conservatives who had long embraced the Franco dictatorship — forcefully denounced the coup. Four days later, more than a million people marched in the streets of Madrid to defend democracy. At the head of the rally, Communist, Socialist, centrist and conservative franquista politicians marched side by side, setting aside their partisan rivalries to jointly defend democracy. The coup leaders were arrested, tried and sentenced to long prison terms. Coups became virtually unthinkable in Spain, and democracy took root.That is how democracy is defended. Loyal democrats join forces to condemn attacks on democracy, isolate those responsible for such attacks and hold them accountable.Unfortunately, today’s Republican Party more closely resembles the French right of the 1930s than the Spanish right of the early 1980s. Since the 2020 election, Republican leaders have enabled authoritarianism at four decisive moments. First, rather than adhering to the cardinal rule of accepting election results after Joe Biden won in November, many Republican leaders either questioned the results or remained silent, refusing to publicly recognize Mr. Biden’s victory. Vice President Mike Pence did not congratulate his successor, Kamala Harris, until the middle of January 2021. The Republican Accountability Project, a Republican pro-democracy watchdog group, evaluated the public statements of 261 Republican members of the 117th Congress after the election. They found that 221 of them had publicly expressed doubt about its legitimacy or did not publicly recognize that Biden won. That’s 85 percent. And in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 riot, nearly two-thirds of House Republicans voted against certification of the results. Had Republican leaders not encouraged election denialism, the “stop the steal” movement might have stalled, and thousands of Trump supporters might not have violently stormed the Capitol in an effort to overturn the election.Second, after Mr. Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives for the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted to acquit him, even though many conceded that, in Senator Mitch McConnell’s words, the president was “practically and morally responsible” for the attack. The acquittal allowed Mr. Trump to continue his political career despite having tried to block the peaceful transfer of power. Had he been convicted in the Senate, he would have been legally barred from running again for president. In other words, Republican senators had a clear opportunity to ensure that an openly antidemocratic figure would never again occupy the White House — and 43 of them, including Mr. McConnell, declined to take it.Third, Republican leaders could have worked with Democrats to create an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 uprising. Had both parties joined forces to seek accountability for the insurrection, the day’s events would have gone down in U.S. history (and would likely have been accepted by a larger majority of Americans) as a criminal assault on our democracy that should never again be allowed to occur, much like Spain’s 1981 coup attempt. Republican leaders’ refusal to support an independent investigation shattered any possible consensus around Jan. 6, making it far less likely that Americans will develop a shared belief that such events are beyond the pale.Finally, with remarkably few exceptions, Republican leaders say they will still support Mr. Trump even if he is convicted of plotting to overturn an election. Alternatives exist. The Republican National Committee could declare that the party will not nominate an individual who poses a threat to democracy or has been indicted on serious criminal charges. Or Republican leaders could jointly declare that, for the sake of democracy, they will endorse Mr. Biden if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee. Such a move would, of course, destroy the party’s chances in 2024. But by keeping Mr. Trump out of the White House, it would help protect our democracy.If Republican leaders continue to endorse Mr. Trump, they will normalize him yet again, telling Americans that he is, at the end of the day, an acceptable choice. The 2024 race will become another ordinary red vs. blue election, much like 2016. And as in 2016, Mr. Trump could win.Republican leaders’ acquiescence to Mr. Trump’s authoritarianism is neither inevitable nor unavoidable. It is a choice.Less than a year ago in Brazil, right-wing politicians chose a different path. President Jair Bolsonaro, who was elected in 2018, was an extreme-right politician who had praised torture, death squads and political assassination. Like Mr. Trump in 2020, Mr. Bolsonaro faced an uphill re-election battle in 2022. And like Mr. Trump, he tried to undermine public trust in the electoral system, attacking it as rigged and seeking to replace the country’s sophisticated electronic voting system with a paper ballot system that was more prone to fraud. And despite some dirty tricks on Election Day (police roadblocks impeded voter access to the polls in opposition strongholds in the northeast), Mr. Bolsonaro, like Mr. Trump, narrowly lost.But the similarities end there. Whereas most Republican leaders refused to recognize Mr. Biden’s victory, most of Mr. Bolsonaro’s major political allies, including the president of Congress and the newly elected governors of powerful states like São Paulo and Minas Gerais, unambiguously accepted his defeat at the hands of Lula da Silva, the winner on election night. Although Mr. Bolsonaro himself remained silent, almost no major Brazilian politician questioned the election results.Likewise, on Jan. 8, 2023, when angry Bolsonaro supporters, seeking to provoke a coup, stormed Congress, the office of the presidency and the Supreme Court building in Brasília, conservative politicians forcefully condemned the violence. In fact, several of them led the push for a congressional investigation into the insurrection. And when the Superior Electoral Court barred Mr. Bolsonaro from seeking public office until 2030 (for abusing his political power, spreading disinformation and making baseless accusations of fraud), the response among right-wing politicians was muted. Although the electoral court’s ruling was controversial, few Brazilian politicians have attacked the legitimacy of the court or defended Mr. Bolsonaro as a victim of political persecution.Not only is Mr. Bolsonaro barred from running for president in the next election, he is politically isolated. For U.S. Republicans, then, Brazil offers a model.Many mainstream politicians who preside over a democracy’s collapse are not authoritarians committed to overthrowing the system; they are careerists who are simply trying to get ahead. They are less opposed to democracy than indifferent to it. Careerism is a normal part of politics. But when democracy is at stake, choosing political ambition over its defense can be lethal.Mr. McConnell, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other top Republican leaders are not trying to kill democracy, but they have subordinated its defense to their own personal and partisan interests. Such reckless indifference could make them indispensable partners in democracy’s demise. They risk joining the long line of semi-loyal politicians littering the histories of interwar Europe and Cold War Latin America who sacrificed democracy on the altar of political expediency. American voters must hold them to account.Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (@dziblatt), professors of government at Harvard, are the authors of “The Tyranny of the Minority” and “How Democracies Die.”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

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Contagious Corruption of Ken Paxton

      by

      Let’s talk about leadership again. Last week, I wrote about Vivek Ramaswamy and the power of unprincipled leaders to exploit civic ignorance. This week, I want to address the power of leadership to shape character and the problem of corruption in the era of Trump. And for this discussion, we’ll turn to Texas.A very good thing is belatedly happening in the Lone Star State. Republicans are on the verge not merely of expelling one of their own from office, but of expelling someone with the most impeccable of MAGA credentials. The suspended Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, is facing an impeachment trial in the Texas Senate, and if the early votes are any indication, it’s not going well for him. He’s already lost a number of motions to dismiss the case by margins approximating the two-thirds majority that will be necessary to convict him — and this is an upper chamber that Republicans control 19 to 12.Paxton faces impeachment in large part because seven of his top deputies blew the whistle on him in 2020, claiming that he had engaged in bribery and abuse of office. The charges against Paxton, to which he pleads not guilty, center primarily on his relationship with an investor named Nate Paul. Paxton is accused of providing favors to Paul, including using the power of his office in an attempt to stop foreclosure sales of Paul’s properties, ordering employees not to assist law enforcement investigating Paul and even providing Paul with “highly sensitive information” about an F.B.I. raid on his home.And what did Paxton get in return? Paul reportedly helped Paxton remodel his home and employed Paxton’s mistress. (Paxton’s wife, Angela Paxton, is a Republican state senator who is attending the hearings but is barred from voting on the charges against her husband.)But that’s hardly the complete list of Paxton’s misdeeds. He’s still facing criminal charges — which I’ve long considered questionable — stemming from a 2015 state indictment for securities fraud, and his treatment of the whistle-blowers is also under public scrutiny. Soon after coming forward, every whistle-blower either resigned, was fired or was placed on leave. When they sued for retaliation and improper firing, Paxton attempted to use $3.3 million in taxpayer funds to settle the lawsuit.In addition, following the 2020 election, Paxton filed one of the most outrageous lawsuits in the entire Republican effort to overturn the presidential result. He sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, seeking an order preventing those states from voting in the Electoral College. The suit was so transparently specious that Texas’ respected then-solicitor general, Kyle Hawkins — who was appointed to the post by Paxton — refused to add his name to the complaint. The Supreme Court dismissed the case without even granting it a hearing.Naturally, none of these scandals truly hurt Paxton with Texas Republican voters. He won his 2022 primary runoff against George P. Bush by 36 points. He defeated Democrat Rochelle Garza in the general election by 10 points. Texas primary voters — like Republican primary voters in many other states — decided once again that character is irrelevant so long as their candidate fights the right enemies.But that’s not the end of the story. What’s happening now is a Texas-size version of the civil war that rages across the right. Is it possible for Republicans to police their own, or does Paxton’s devotion to Donald Trump and his zealous commitment to the culture wars excuse his misconduct, however egregious? Is it possible for Republicans to potentially start the slow and painful process of healing the G.O.P.?I date my interest in the moral power of leadership back to 1998, when I was shocked that a number of my progressive friends could shrug their shoulders not just at Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern (though I could see their argument that his adultery was a personal matter) but also at his dishonesty under oath. The country was at peace and prosperous, they noted. Besides, weren’t Republicans hypocrites? Newt Gingrich was an adulterer. Bob Livingston, the Louisiana Republican and speaker-designate to succeed Gingrich, also confessed to extramarital affairs and stepped down.In the midst of these revelations, the Southern Baptist Convention — the nation’s largest Protestant denomination — gathered at its annual convention in Salt Lake City and tried to make the simple case to the American people that character counts. It passed a resolution on the moral character of public officials containing this memorable line: “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”Putting aside the words about God’s judgment, I suspect that a broad range of Americans, regardless of faith, would agree with the basic premise: Corruption is contagious.But why? Consider the relationship between leadership and our own self-interest. Most of us belong to organizations of some type, and unless we’re leading the organization, our income, our power and even our respect within the community can depend a great deal on the good will of the men and women who lead us. In very tangible ways, their character creates our path through our careers, our churches and our civic organizations.Thus, if a leader exhibits moral courage and values integrity, then the flawed people in his or her orbit will strive to be the best versions of themselves.But if a leader exhibits cruelty and dishonesty, then those same flawed people will be more apt to yield to their worst temptations. They’ll mimic the values of the people who lead them.Let me use an analogy I’ve used before: Think of a leader as setting the course of a river. It’s always easier to swim with the current. Yes, you can swim against the current for a while, but eventually you’ll exhaust yourself, and you’ll either yield to the current or leave the stream altogether.And what is the moral current of Trumpism? For Donald Trump’s supporters, tactics that would normally be utterly unacceptable on moral grounds instead become urgent priorities. In this moral calculus, Paxton’s absurd lawsuit against Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin isn’t a mark of shame, but rather a badge of honor.Paxton’s aggressive loyalty to Trump, in other words, acts as a form of indulgence that grants him license in his personal and professional life. Paxton’s acknowledged sins, including his affair, are cheap and tawdry. Yet a constellation of Republican stars are rallying to his side, led by Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ted Cruz and Steve Bannon. Because he’s a fighter. He goes to war against the left, and if the age of Trump teaches us anything, it’s that the current of his leadership flows eternally toward conflict and self-interest, consequences be damned.It’s hard to overstate how much this ethos contradicts the Christianity that Paxton purports to proclaim. In fact, scriptures teach that the role of the godly man or woman isn’t to yield to power, but to confront power when that power is corrupt. The mission is to swim against the cultural current. That brings me to one of the most grievous abuses of scripture during the Trump presidency — the constant comparison of Trump to King David.Trump is flawed, his supporters acknowledge. But so was David, they argue, and God blessed David. Scripture calls him a man after God’s own heart. But David’s virtues did not excuse his vices. In one of scripture’s most memorable passages, the prophet Nathan not only directly confronted the king but also declared a harsh judgment for David’s sins. And what was David’s response? Repentance. “I have sinned against the Lord,” he said. He then penned a poignant, penitent psalm. “God, create a clean heart for me,” he begs. “Do not banish me from your presence,” he pleads.Does any of that sound like Donald Trump? Does that bear any resemblance to the religious right in the age of Trump? Of course not. The contagious corruption of a broken president and a broken party has turned the hearts of millions of Christians away from scripture’s clear moral commands. They have chosen not to swim against the tide.But the battle is not lost, not entirely. In Ken Paxton’s office there were people who had the courage to confront their leader. They put their careers on the line to confront Texas’ legal king. And even if Paxton himself doesn’t have the integrity to repent and accept the consequences, there are other Republican leaders who can impose consequences themselves. They can start the process of altering the current of the Republican river, away from corruption and deception and back toward integrity and respect for the rule of law.The trial of Ken Paxton may well be the most important political trial of the year. It is in Austin that the G.O.P. directly confronts the enduring legacy of Donald Trump and asks itself, will we completely remake ourselves in his malign image? Or do we possess enough lingering moral fortitude to resist his leadership and at least begin respecting the truth once again?America needs two healthy political parties, and not just because healthy parties create better policies. Healthy parties create better leaders, and better leaders can help repair the fabric of a party, a nation and a culture that has been torn and frayed by a man who told America that the road to power was paved with mendacity, self-indulgence and conflict. Defeating Trump and his imitators is the first step onto a better path. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico’s Next President Will Be a Woman

      by

      Mexico will elect its first woman as president next year after the governing party chose Claudia Sheinbaum to square off against the opposition’s candidate, Xóchitl Gálvez.Mexico’s governing party chose Claudia Sheinbaum, a former mayor of Mexico City, as its candidate in next year’s presidential election on Wednesday, creating a watershed moment in the world’s largest Spanish-speaking country, with voters expected to choose for the first time between two leading candidates who are women.“Today democracy won. Today the people of Mexico decided,” Ms. Sheinbaum said during the announcement, adding that her party, Morena, would win the 2024 election. “Tomorrow begins the electoral process,” she said. “And there is no minute to lose.”Ms. Sheinbaum, 61, a physicist with a doctorate in environmental engineering and a protégé of Mexico’s current president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, will face off against the opposition’s top contender, Xóchitl Gálvez, 60, an outspoken engineer with Indigenous roots who rose from poverty to become a tech entrepreneur.“We can already say today: Mexico, by the end of next year, will be governed by a woman,” said Jesús Silva-Herzog Márquez, a political scientist at Mexico’s Monterrey Institute of Technology, adding that it was an “extraordinary change” for the country.Ms. Sheinbaum has built her political career mostly in the shadow of Mr. López Obrador, and had emerged early on as the party’s favored pick to succeed the current president. That connection is thought to give her a crucial edge heading into next year’s election thanks to the high approval ratings enjoyed by Mr. López Obrador, who is limited by Mexico’s Constitution to one six-year term.In recent months, Mr. López Obrador has insisted that he will hold no influence once he finishes his term. “I am going to retire completely,” he said in March. “I am not a chieftain, much less do I feel irreplaceable. I am not a strongman; I am not a messiah.”President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is constitutionally limited to one six-year term.Alejandro Cegarra for The New York TimesBut some analysts say his influence will endure regardless of which candidate wins in 2024. Should Ms. Sheinbaum win, “there may be changes to certain policies, though the broad strokes of his agenda will remain intact,” according to a recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research institute in WashingtonIf she is defeated, Mr. López Obrador “will not fade quietly into the background,” the report said, citing a large base of loyal supporters allowing him to command substantial influence. Some legacies of his administration — including austerity measures or the immersion of the military into social, security and infrastructure roles — could also be obstacles for Ms. Gálvez if she seeks to roll back his policies.As the two female candidates target weaknesses in each other’s campaigns, they share some similarities. While neither are explicitly feminist, both are socially progressive, have engineering degrees and say they will maintain broadly popular antipoverty programs.Both women also support decriminalizing abortion. In Ms. Gálvez’s case, that position stands in contrast to that of her conservative party. Mexico’s Supreme Court on Wednesday decriminalized abortion nationwide, building on an earlier ruling giving officials the authority to allow the procedure on a state-by-state basis.Ms. Sheinbaum, who was born to Jewish parents in Mexico City, would become Mexico’s first Jewish president if she wins the race. She has faced a misinformation campaign on social media claiming falsely that she was born in Bulgaria, the country from which her mother emigrated; supporters of Ms. Sheinbaum have called this effort antisemitic.Ms. Sheinbaum would become Mexico’s first Jewish president if she wins the race.Meghan Dhaliwal for The New York TimesShe studied physics and energy engineering in Mexico before carrying out her doctoral research at California’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. After entering politics, she became Mr. López Obrador’s top environmental official when he was mayor of Mexico City.When Ms. Sheinbaum herself was elected mayor of the capital in 2018, she took on public transit and environmental issues as top priorities, but was also the target of criticism over fatal mishaps in the city’s transportation systems, including the collapse of a metro overpass in which 26 people were killed.With polls positioning Ms. Sheinbaum as the front-runner, her ties to Mr. López Obrador required discipline to maintain his support even when she may not have agreed with his decisions. For instance, when Mr. López Obrador minimized the coronavirus pandemic and federal government officials tweaked data to avoid a lockdown in Mexico City, she remained silent.“What has stood out is her loyalty, I think a blind loyalty, to the president,” said Mr. Silva-Herzog Márquez, the political scientist.Still, while hewing to Mr. López Obrador’s policies, Ms. Sheinbaum has also signaled some potential changes, notably expressing support for renewable energy sources.Drawing a contrast with her rival, Ms. Gálvez, a senator who often gets around Mexico City on an electric bicycle, has focused on her origins as the daughter of an Indigenous Otomí father and a mestiza mother.Xóchitl Gálvez, the top opposition candidate, has Indigenous roots and rose from poverty to become a tech entrepreneur.Claudio Cruz/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMs. Gálvez grew up in a small town about two hours from Mexico City without running water and speaking her father’s Hñähñu language. After receiving a scholarship to the National Autonomous University of Mexico, she became an engineer and founded a company that designs communications and energy networks for office buildings.After Vicente Fox won the presidency in 2000, she was appointed as head of the presidential office for Indigenous peoples. In 2018, Ms. Gálvez was elected senator representing the conservative National Action Party.Mr. López Obrador has repeatedly made her the focus of verbal attacks, which has had the effect of raising her profile around the country while highlighting the sway that the president and his party exert across Mexico.A combative leader who has embraced austerity measures while doubling down on Mexico’s reliance on fossil fuels, Mr. López Obrador looms over the campaigning. He pledged to do away with a long-held political tradition whereby Mexican presidents handpicked their successors with their “big finger,” replacing the practice with nationwide voter surveys.Historically, political parties in Mexico mostly selected their candidates in ways that were opaque and lacked much inclusion. Handpicking was more common than a “free and fair competition for a candidacy,” said Flavia Freidenberg, a political scientist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.The new selection process has changed that tradition, but concerns persist over a lack of clarity and other irregularities that have been denounced by some analysts and other presidential hopefuls. Both the governing party, Morena, and the broad opposition coalition, called the Broad Front for Mexico, used public opinion polls “that have not been fully transparent,” Ms. Freidenberg added, “and are not necessarily considered democratic procedures.”The new procedures also ignored federal campaign regulations, with those at the helm of the process in both the governing party and the opposition moving the selection forward by a few months and cryptically calling Ms. Sheinbaum and Ms. Gálvez “coordinators” of each coalition instead of “candidates.”“These irregular activities have occurred under the gaze of public opinion, the political class and the electoral authorities,” Ms. Freidenberg said. “This is not a minor issue.”Next year’s general election, in which voters will elect not only a president but members of Congress, might also determine whether Mexico may return to a dominant-party system — similar to what the country experienced under the once-hegemonic Institutional Revolutionary Party, which held uninterrupted power for 71 years until 2000.Despite some setbacks, there are signs this is already happening. In June, Morena’s candidate won the governor’s race in the State of Mexico, the country’s most populous state, defeating the Institutional Revolutionary Party’s candidate.That victory brought the number of states under Morena’s control to 23 out of 32 states, up from just seven at the start of the president’s term in 2018.The question is “whether Morena reconfigures itself into a hegemonic party like the old PRI,” said Ana Laura Magaloni, a law professor who advised Ms. Sheinbaum’s mayoral campaign. “And that depends on how much of a fight the opposition can put up.” More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Dos mujeres competirán por la presidencia en México

      by

      México votará por su primera presidenta el próximo año después de que el partido gobernante eligiera a Claudia Sheinbaum para enfrentarse a la candidata de la coalición opositora, Xóchitl Gálvez.El partido gobernante de México, Morena, eligió el martes a Claudia Sheinbaum, quien fue jefa de gobierno de Ciudad de México, como su candidata presidencial para las elecciones de 2024. Se trata de un momento crucial en el mayor país de habla hispana del mundo, pues se espera que los votantes elijan por primera vez entre dos mujeres como principales candidatas.Sheinbaum, de 61 años, es física, tiene un doctorado en ingeniería ambiental y cuenta con el respaldo del actual presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Se enfrentará con la principal contendiente de la oposición, Xóchitl Gálvez, una ingeniera franca y de ascendencia indígena que creció en un ambiente de pobreza y luego se convirtió en empresaria tecnológica.“Ya podemos decir hoy: México, a finales del año que viene, va a estar gobernado por una mujer”, dijo Jesús Silva-Herzog Márquez, un politólogo en el Tec de Monterrey, y agregó que era un “cambio extraordinario” para el país.Sheinbaum ha hecho su carrera política en buena medida a la sombra de López Obrador y muy pronto surgió como la candidata preferida del partido para suceder al presidente. Se considera que ese vínculo con López Obrador le ha brindado una ventaja clave de cara a las elecciones del próximo año gracias a los altos índices de aprobación con los que cuenta el mandatario, que está limitado constitucionalmente a un solo periodo sexenal.López Obrador ha insistido en los últimos meses que no tendrá influencia cuando concluya su mandato. “Me voy a retirar por completo”, dijo en marzo. “No soy cacique, mucho menos me siento insustituible; no soy caudillo, no soy mesías”.El presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador solo puede gobernar durante un sexenio según la ConstituciónAlejandro Cegarra para The New York TimesPero algunos analistas consideran que su influencia se extenderá sin importar cuál sea el aspirante que gane la presidencia en 2024. Si Sheinbaum fuera electa, “podría haber cambios en ciertas políticas, aunque los esbozos generales de su agenda seguirán intactos”, según un reporte reciente del Centro de Estudios Estratégicos e Internacionales.Si fuera derrotada, López Obrador “no se retirará discretamente a segundo plano”, decía el informe. “Su base de seguidores es suficientemente grande y leal como para permitirle ejercer influencia significativa”. Gálvez podría enfrentar obstáculos con el legado de la actual gestión si buscara revertir sus políticas, como las medidas de austeridad o la participación del ejército en labores sociales, de seguridad e infraestructura.Aunque las dos candidatas identifican mutuamente las debilidades de sus campañas, comparten algunas similitudes. Ambas son progresistas en temas sociales, aunque ninguna de las dos se identifica explícitamente como feminista; ambas tienen grados universitarios en ingeniería y han dicho que van a mantener los programas de combate a la pobreza de esta gestión, que son ampliamente populares.Ambas mujeres apoyan la despenalización del aborto. En el caso de Gálvez, esa postura contrasta con la de su partido conservador. La Suprema Corte de Justicia de México despenalizó el aborto a nivel federal el miércoles, una decisión que se sustenta en un fallo anterior que le da autoridad a los funcionarios para permitir el procedimiento en todos los estados.De ganar la elección, Sheinbaum, hija de padres judíos en Ciudad de México, se convertiría en la primera persona judía en gobernar México. En las redes sociales ha enfrentado una campaña de desinformación que asegura que nació en Bulgaria, el país del que emigró su madre; los seguidores de Sheinbaum han calificado esos señalamientos como antisemitas.En caso de ganar la elección, Sheinbaum se convertiría en la primera persona judía en gobernar México.Meghan Dhaliwal para The New York TimesSheinbaum estudió física e ingeniería energética en México antes de hacer su investigación de doctorado en el Laboratorio Nacional Lawrence Berkeley en California. Luego de incursionar en la política se convirtió en la principal funcionaria de medioambiente de la gestión de López Obrador cuando él fue jefe de gobierno de Ciudad de México.Luego, cuando ella fue electa para ese mismo cargo en 2018, puso entre sus prioridades el transporte público y medioambiente, pero también fue blanco de críticas por los percances mortales sucedidos en los sistemas de transporte público de la ciudad, entre ellos el colapso de una línea del metro en el que 26 personas perdieron la vida.Al posicionarse como la favorita en los sondeos, los vínculos de Sheinbaum con López Obrador le exigieron disciplina para conservar el apoyo presidencial incluso cuando pudo haber estado en desacuerdo con sus decisiones. Por ejemplo, se quedó callada cuando López Obrador minimizó la pandemia de coronavirus y los funcionarios federales manipularon los datos para evitar un confinamiento en Ciudad de México.“Lo que ha resaltado es su lealtad, yo creo que una lealtad ciega al presidente”, dijo Silva-Herzog Márquez, el politólogo.Sin embargo, al apegarse a las políticas de López Obrador, Sheinbaum también ha dado muestras de posibles cambios, expresamente al mostrar apoyo por las fuentes de energía renovable.En cambio su rival, Gálvez, una senadora que suele andar por la capital mexicana en una bicicleta eléctrica, se ha enfocado en resaltar su origen como hija de una madre mestiza y un padre indígena otomí.Xóchitl Gálvez, principal candidata opositora, tiene ascendencia indígena y surgió de un entorno de pobreza para convertirse en empresaria de tecnología.Claudio Cruz/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesGálvez creció en un pueblo pequeño ubicado a unas dos horas de Ciudad de México sin agua corriente y hablando la lengua hñähñu de su padre. Estudió ingeniería con una beca de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México y fundó una empresa que diseña redes de comunicación y energía para edificios de oficinas.Después de que Vicente Fox ganó la presidencia en el año 2000 fue nombrada como encargada de la comisión presidencial de asuntos indígenas. En 2018 fue electa senadora por el conservador Partido Acción Nacional.López Obrador la ha convertido en la figura central de reiterados ataques verbales, lo que ha tenido el efecto de elevar su presencia en el país mientras que llama la atención hacia la influencia del presidente y su partido en todo México.López Obrador, un líder combativo que ha adoptado medidas de austeridad y ha incrementado la dependencia de México de los combustibles fósiles, influye en la campaña. Prometió erradicar una antigua tradición política, el dedazo, con la cual los presidentes mexicanos eligen a sus sucesores, y remplazar esa práctica con encuestas de electores a nivel federal.Históricamente los partidos políticos mexicanos elegían a sus candidatos en primarias opacas y con poca inclusión. La elección por dedazo era más común que una “competencia libre y justa por una candidatura”, dijo Flavia Freidenberg, politóloga de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.El nuevo proceso de selección ha cambiado esa tradición, pero siguen existiendo preocupaciones por la falta de claridad y otras irregularidades señaladas por algunos analistas y aspirantes presidenciales. Tanto el partido gobernante, Morena, como la amplia coalición de la oposición, llamada Frente Amplio, usaron sondeos que “no necesariamente han sido transparentados en toda su magnitud”, dijo Freidenberg, “y que no necesariamente son procedimientos considerados como democráticos”.El nuevo proceso también ignoró las regulaciones federales a las campañas, y los responsables de los procesos, tanto en el partido gobernante como en la oposición, han adelantado la selección unos meses mencionando de manera críptica a Sheinbaum y Gálvez como “coordinadoras” de cada coalición en lugar de “candidatas”.“Estas actividades irregulares, en cualquier caso, se han dado bajo la mirada de la opinión pública, de la clase política y de las autoridades electorales”, dijo Freidenberg. “Esto no es una cuestión menor”.Las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año, en las que los votantes no solo elegirán al presidente, sino también a los miembros del Congreso, también podrían determinar si México se prepara para volver a un sistema de partido dominante similar al que el país experimentó con el Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), una agrupación que alguna vez fue hegemónica y gobernó durante 71 años ininterrumpidos hasta el año 2000.Hay indicios de que esto ya está sucediendo, aunque con algunos retrocesos. En junio, la candidata de Morena ganó la contienda por la gubernatura del Estado de México, el estado más poblado del país, donde derrotó a la candidata del PRI.Esa victoria puso en manos de Morena a 23 de un total de 32 entidades federativas de la república, un aumento de las siete que controlaba el partido gobernante al inicio del sexenio en 2018.La duda es “si Morena se reconfigura en un partido hegemónico como fue el viejo PRI”, dijo Ana Laura Magaloni, una profesora de derecho que asesoró la campaña de Sheinbaum a la jefatura de gobierno. “Y eso depende, para mí, de cuánta batalla pueda dar la oposición”.Simon Romero es corresponsal en Ciudad de México, desde donde cubre México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. Se ha desempeñado como jefe del buró del Times en Brasil, jefe del buró andino y corresponsal internacional de energía. Más sobre Simon RomeroEmiliano Rodríguez Mega es reportero-investigador del Times radicado en Ciudad de México. Cubre México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. Más sobre Emiliano Rodríguez Mega More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Nigerian Court Rejects Challenges to Contested Presidential Election

      by

      The tribunal confirmed the election of President Bola Tinubu, who has faced growing discontent amid unpopular economic policies and lingering allegations of irregularities in the election.A judicial tribunal in Nigeria confirmed on Wednesday the results of a contested February presidential election that kept Africa’s most populous country on edge amid allegations of voting irregularities and tainted the first months in power for the declared winner, President Bola Tinubu.In their petitions, opponents of Mr. Tinubu argued that he should have been disqualified from running in the first place because of irregularities with his candidacy, and that Nigeria’s electoral commission had failed to release the results on time, opening the way for potential fraud.But judges in Abuja, the capital, rejected all three petitions for lack of credible evidence, they said.Nigerian television channels broadcast the court decision live on television amid high tensions in the capital, Abuja, and hints by the opposition that a validation of the results could prompt Nigerians to take to the streets. There were no immediate reports of unrest.The plaintiffs have 60 days to file an appeal to Nigeria’s Supreme Court.Since he was sworn in last May, Mr. Tinubu has rocked Nigeria’s economy with what analysts and foreign investors say was the long overdue scrapping of an oil subsidy. But the soaring transportation, food and electricity prices that ensued have hurt tens of millions of Nigerians and taken a toll on Mr. Tinubu’s popularity.Mr. Tinubu has also faced stiff challenges abroad. In neighboring Niger, mutinous soldiers seized power in a coup just two weeks after Mr. Tinubu took the helm of an economic bloc of West African countries and vowed to put an end to an epidemic of military takeovers in the region — by force, if necessary.Supporters of Atiku Abubakar protesting the election results in Abuja, Nigeria, in March.Gbemiga Olamikan/Associated PressThe generals in Niger haven’t budged. They have refused to release the president they ousted and ignored Mr. Tinubu’s threat of a military intervention. After weeks of stalemate, and a backlash at home about a potential war with a neighboring country, Mr. Tinubu appears to have taken a back seat in the negotiations with Niger’s junta, at least publicly.In March, Nigeria’s electoral commission declared Mr. Tinubu the winner of a single-round presidential election with 37 percent of the vote, ahead of the main opposition candidate, Atiku Abubakar, who won 29 percent, and Peter Obi, who finished a surprising third with 25 percent of the vote.Both Mr. Obi’s and Mr. Abubakar’s parties disputed the results in court. They argued that Mr. Tinubu wasn’t qualified to be president, citing what they said were forged academic records and an indictment for drug trafficking in the United States. He was not indicted, but the U.S. government did file a complaint of forfeiture under which Mr. Tinubu paid $460,000 in settlements in 1993.For months, Nigerians questioned the credibility of the country’s judiciary ahead of Wednesday’s ruling, with the hashtag All Eyes On The Judiciary a trending topic on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.Mr. Tinubu, who was attending the G20 summit in India on Wednesday, had denied all allegations of wrongdoing. Since Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999 after decades of military rule, all but one of its elections have been contested in court, but none have been overruled.Pius Adeleye contributed reporting from Ilorin, Nigeria. More