More stories

  • in

    Trump Signs Orders Punishing Those Who Opposed His 2020 Election Lies

    President Trump on Wednesday signed executive orders punishing two officials from his first administration and an elite law firm, continuing a campaign of retribution that he has gleefully carried out since his inauguration.Two executive orders targeted Christopher Krebs, who as a senior cybersecurity official oversaw the securing of the 2020 presidential election, and Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security during Mr. Trump’s first term and anonymously wrote a high-profile opinion article for The New York Times in 2018. Among other measures, the orders directed Pam Bondi, the attorney general, and Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, to investigate the former officials and report their findings to the White House.A third order targeted the law firm Susman Godfrey with many of the same sanctions that Mr. Trump has applied to other law firms that had taken on cases or causes he did not like. In 2023, Fox News agreed to pay $787.5 million to resolve a defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems over the network’s promotion of misinformation about the 2020 election. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion, a manufacturer of voting machines that lawyers allied with Mr. Trump attacked with outlandish claims about widespread voting fraud.The executive orders reflected Mr. Trump’s desire for political payback. Mr. Trump has fixated on punishing — among others — elected Republicans and officials in his administration who have defied him or later opposed him.Mr. Trump has also sought to rewrite the history of his defeat in 2020, and has continued to repeat his lie that the election was stolen from him. Mr. Krebs, leading the agency tasked with protecting election machinery from foreign interference, shot down many of Mr. Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud, and Mr. Trump fired Mr. Krebs days after his loss. Mr. Trump has continued to harbor deep resentments against the agency.“This guy, Krebs, was saying ‘oh the election was great,’” Mr. Trump said Wednesday as he signed the order. He added, of Mr. Krebs,:“He’s the fraud. He’s a disgrace.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    El discurso de Trump sobre un tercer mandato desafía la Constitución y la democracia

    La 22.ª Enmienda es clara: el presidente de EE. UU. tiene que renunciar a su cargo tras su segundo mandato. Pero la negativa de Trump a aceptarlo sugiere hasta dónde está dispuesto a llegar para mantenerse en el poder.Después de que el presidente Donald Trump dijera el año pasado que quería ser dictador por un día, insistió en que solo estaba bromeando. Ahora dice que podría intentar aferrarse al poder incluso cuando la Constitución estipula que debe renunciar a él, y esta vez, insiste en que no está bromeando.Puede que sí y puede que no. A Trump le gusta alborotar el avispero y sacar de quicio a los críticos. Hablar de un tercer mandato inconstitucional distrae de otras noticias y retrasa el momento en que se le considere como un presidente saliente. Sin duda, algunos en su propio bando lo consideran una broma, mientras los líderes republicanos se ríen de ello y los ayudantes de la Casa Blanca se burlan de los periodistas por tomárselo demasiado en serio.Pero el hecho de que Trump haya introducido la idea en la conversación nacional ilustra la incertidumbre sobre el futuro del sistema constitucional estadounidense, casi 250 años después de que el país obtuviera la independencia. Más que en ningún otro momento en generaciones, se cuestiona el compromiso del presidente con los límites al poder y el Estado de derecho, y sus críticos temen que el país se encamine por una senda oscura.Después de todo, Trump ya intentó una vez aferrarse al poder desafiando la Constitución, cuando trató de anular las elecciones de 2020 a pesar de haber perdido. Más tarde pidió la “rescisión” de la Constitución para volver a la Casa Blanca sin una nueva elección. Y en las 11 semanas transcurridas desde que reasumió el cargo, ha presionado los límites del poder ejecutivo más que ninguno de sus predecesores modernos.“En mi opinión, esto es la culminación de lo que ya ha empezado, que es un esfuerzo metódico por desestabilizar y socavar nuestra democracia para poder asumir un poder mucho mayor”, dijo en una entrevista el representante Daniel Goldman, demócrata por Nueva York y consejero principal durante el primer juicio político a Trump.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Picks Ed Martin, ‘Stop the Steal’ Promoter, for Management and Budget Staff Chief

    Ed Martin, who has been chosen by President-elect Donald J. Trump to be the chief of staff for his Office of Management and Budget, is an anti-abortion activist who helped to organize the “Stop the Steal” movement to overturn the 2020 election for Mr. Trump.Mr. Martin, a longtime Republican operative in Missouri, served as chief of staff to former Gov. Matt Blunt of Missouri nearly two decades ago and ran the state party 10 years ago. But it was his alignment with the anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly in the last few years of her life that amplified his national profile as a conservative hard-liner.In saying on Tuesday that he had selected Mr. Martin to serve at the O.M.B., Mr. Trump noted that Mr. Martin had co-written a book with Ms. Schlafly — published a few days after she died in September 2016 — which urged conservatives to vote for Mr. Trump.Mr. Martin has continued to promote his alignment with Ms. Schlafly through an organization he runs bearing her name, Phyllis Schlafly Eagles.Mr. Martin will work under Russell Vought, a close ally of Mr. Trump’s who ran O.M.B. for part of his first administration. Mr. Trump also on Tuesday named Representative Dan Bishop, a Republican who recently lost the attorney general race in North Carolina, as deputy director of O.M.B.The office is expected to play a crucial role within the Trump administration in helping Mr. Trump to wield power across federal agencies. Mr. Vought was one of the influential figures behind Project 2025, the blueprint that the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups have mapped for the Trump administration. Mr. Trump during the election distanced himself from the project but has since been plucking people affiliated with it to serve under him.Mr. Martin did not respond to immediate requests for comment.Mr. Martin worked with Mr. Vought on the Republican National Committee’s new policy platform, which pulled back some of the party’s hard-line language on abortion. Yet Mr. Martin has backed anti-abortion policies that include a national ban, and has expressed openness to the idea that women and doctors should be prosecuted for abortion.He also served as an organizer and financier in the “Stop the Steal” movement trying to promote efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to the Congressional Committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. In a speech outside the building a day earlier, Mr. Martin spoke of “die-hard true Americans,” and said he would work until “we have a last breath and go home to the Lord because we will stop the steal.” After that he helped usher a small right-wing organization once associated with Ms. Schlafly, America’s Future, over to retired Gen. Michael T. Flynn, a major promoter of election conspiracy theories. Mr. Flynn and other family members who work at the organization have turned the group into a backer of far-right conspiratorial ideology. More

  • in

    Kash Patel Would Bring Bravado and Baggage to F.B.I. Role

    President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice to run the F.B.I. has a record in and out of government that is likely to raise questions during his Senate confirmation hearings.Few people tapped for any top federal post, much less a job as vital as F.B.I. director, have come with quite so much bravado, bombast or baggage as Kash Patel.On Saturday, Mr. Patel, 44, a Long Island-born provocateur and right-wing operative, was named by President-elect Donald J. Trump to lead the F.B.I., an agency he has accused of leading a “deep state” witch hunt against Mr. Trump. The announcement amounted to a de facto dismissal of the current director, Christopher A. Wray, who was appointed to the job by Mr. Trump and still has almost three years left on his 10-year term.Mr. Patel’s maximum-volume threats to exact far-reaching revenge on Mr. Trump’s behalf have endeared him to his boss and Trump allies who say the bureau needs a disrupter to weed out bias and reshape its culture.But his record as a public official and his incendiary public comments are likely to provoke intense questioning when the Senate weighs his nomination — and determines whether he should run an agency charged with protecting Americans from terrorism, street crime, cartels and political corruption, along with the threat posed by China, which Mr. Wray has described as existential.Here are some of the things Mr. Patel has said and done that could complicate his confirmation.He was accused of nearly botching a high-stakes hostage rescue.In October 2020, Mr. Patel, then a senior national intelligence official in the Trump administration, inserted himself into a secret effort by members of SEAL Team Six to rescue Philip Walton, an American who was 27 at the time and had been kidnapped by gunmen in Niger and taken to Nigeria.Mr. Patel, whose involvement broke with protocol, assured the State and Defense Departments that the Nigerian government had been told of the operation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    End of Trump Cases Leaves Limits on Presidential Criminality Unclear

    Donald J. Trump is set to regain office without clarity on the scope of presidential immunity and with a lingering cloud over whether outside special counsels can investigate high-level wrongdoing.The end of the two federal criminal cases against President-elect Donald J. Trump on Monday left momentous, unsettled questions about constraints on criminal wrongdoing by presidents, from the scope of presidential immunity to whether the Justice Department may continue to appoint outside special counsels to investigate high-level wrongdoing.Both cases against Mr. Trump — for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and his later hoarding of classified government documents and obstruction of efforts to retrieve them — were short-circuited by the fact that he won the 2024 election before they could be definitively resolved.Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought both cases against Mr. Trump, asked courts on Monday to shut them down. The prosecutor cited the Justice Department’s longstanding view that the Constitution implicitly grants temporary immunity to sitting presidents, lest any prosecution distract them from their official duties.The result is not just that Mr. Trump appears set to escape any criminal accountability for his actions. (Mr. Smith left the door open to, in theory, refiling the charges after Mr. Trump leaves office, but the statute of limitations is likely to have run by then.) It also means that two open constitutional questions the cases have raised appear likely to go without definitive answers as Mr. Trump takes office.One is the extent of the protection from prosecution offered to former presidents by the Supreme Court’s ruling this summer establishing that they have a type of broad but not fully defined immunity for official acts taken while in office.The other is whether, when a president is suspected of committing crimes, the Justice Department can avoid conflicts of interest by bringing in an outside prosecutor to lead a semi-independent investigation into the matter.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Georgia Poll Workers Defamed by Giuliani Receive Some of His Assets

    Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the two Georgia poll workers defamed by Rudolph W. Giuliani after the 2020 election, received his watch collection, a ring and his vintage Mercedes-Benz on Friday.The deliveries, which Mr. Giuliani’s lawyer, Joseph Cammarata, reported to the court on Friday, were a long time coming for the women, who are mother and daughter. It was also a small down payment on what the former New York City mayor owes them.In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Mr. Giuliani spread lies about the women, asserting without evidence that they tried to steal the election from former President Donald J. Trump. At the time, Mr. Giuliani was working as Mr. Trump’s personal attorney and was helping to lead the effort to overturn the 2020 election results. Mr. Giuliani’s false statements about the women led to a torrent of threats and harassment, upending the women’s lives and sending them into hiding. Mr. Giuliani, who has about $11 million in assets, has taken nearly a year to get to this point. He filed for bankruptcy after a federal jury returned with a $148 million defamation judgment last December. But his bankruptcy case was dismissed about eight months later because he refused to cooperate with basic court orders. Last month, Judge Lewis J. Liman of Federal District Court in Manhattan ordered Mr. Giuliani to hand over his car, his Madison Avenue apartment and his valuable collection of jewelry and sports memorabilia within seven days to a receivership controlled by Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss. That would enable them to start selling those items, the proceeds of which would serve as partial payment of the $148 million judgment against Mr. Giuliani.Mr. Giuliani missed that deadline and subsequent others.Earlier this week, Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers asked the judge for permission to withdraw as his counsel, citing ethical concerns. This threw into question, once again, when Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss would receive the assets, the bulk of which come from his apartment in New York and his condo in Florida. Mr. Trump owes Mr. Giuliani about $2 million in unpaid legal fees. Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss are looking to collect that as well. A trial set for January in New York is to determine whether Mr. Giuliani can claim his $3.5 million Palm Beach condo as his primary residence, which, under Florida law, would keep it from being seized by Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss. In the letter to the court on Friday, Mr. Cammarata requested a delay for the trial so that his client could attend President-elect Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20. “There would be no harm to the plaintiffs by a delay of a few days in the trial schedule,” Mr. Cammarata wrote. More

  • in

    Proud Boys Leader Convicted of Sedition for Role in Jan. 6 Attack Asks Trump for Pardon

    A leader of the Proud Boys who was convicted last year of seditious conspiracy for his role in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, on Wednesday asked President-elect Donald J. Trump for a pardon.The Proud Boys leader, Joseph Biggs, who is serving a 17-year prison term, was the first of dozens of Proud Boys members found guilty in connection with Jan. 6 to formally request clemency for the part he played in the Capitol attack. Other high-ranking members of the extremist organization, including its former chairman, Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison in his Jan. 6 case, have also signaled they intend to ask Mr. Trump for pardons.Mr. Biggs’s lawyer, Norm Pattis, sent a letter to Mr. Trump on Wednesday requesting clemency for his client that opened by praising Mr. Trump for his “re-election to the presidency.” Mr. Pattis quickly pivoted to asking the president-elect for “a complete pardon” for Mr. Biggs, suggesting that exonerating Mr. Biggs would serve “the broader public interest” in much the same way that the clemency granted to thousands of Confederate supporters helped to heal the nation in the years that followed the Civil War.“These are divisive times,” Mr. Pattis wrote. And he brought up the 2020 election, which many of Mr. Trump’s supporters were challenging on the day of the attack on the Capitol. “Suspicions and bitterness about the election lingers to this day,” he added.“A pardon of Mr. Biggs,” Mr. Pattis went on, “will help close that wound and inspire confidence in the future.”While Mr. Trump repeatedly promised during his recent campaign to pardon the more than 1,500 people charged so far in connection with the Capitol attack, his transition team has not yet put in place a formal policy about how to handle clemency requests like Mr. Biggs’s.Many of the rioters, their families and some outside activists who have supported their cause have been pushing Mr. Trump and his allies to create a formal protocol that would offer a broad version of amnesty to the defendants.Those who support such a move have privately expressed concern about hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters deluging the president-elect’s administration with pardon requests. They would rather see a systemic approach to the issue of pardons worked out in advance of Mr. Trump taking office. More

  • in

    Chris Wallace to Quit CNN After 3 Years

    The 77-year-old veteran anchor told The Daily Beast that he planned to venture into streaming or podcasting.Chris Wallace, a veteran TV anchor who left Fox News for CNN three years ago, announced on Monday that he was leaving his post to venture into the streaming or podcasting worlds.Mr. Wallace, 77, told The Daily Beast that he was leaving the network to pursue independent content creation, where, he told the outlet, “the action seems to be.” He mentioned he was still unsure what form of content he would make, but said his career in broadcasting was over.He said his decision to leave CNN at the end of his three-year contract did not come from discontent. “I have nothing but positive things to say. CNN was very good to me,” he said.One of the network’s most recognizable faces, Mr. Wallace started in 2022 as an on-screen commentator and hosted a weekly talk show called “Who’s Talking to Chris Wallace?” He also anchored CNN’s coverage of the U.S. presidential election last week.Before joining CNN, Mr. Wallace worked at Fox News for 18 years and hosted “Fox News Sunday.” He turned heads at the conservative news outlet when he spoke out against President Trump’s “direct, sustained assault on freedom of the press” in 2020. He moderated an unruly presidential debate in 2020 between President Trump and Joseph R. Biden Jr.Mr. Wallace had initially joined the network to be part of its new CNN+ service, which imploded just weeks after its much-promoted release.CNN’s chief executive, Mark Thompson, confirmed Mr. Wallace’s departure in a statement posted by the network.A representative for Mr. Wallace did not respond immediately to a request for comment. More