Presidential Election of 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump, monstruo estadounidense

      by

      WASHINGTON D. C. — Los monstruos ya no son lo que solían ser.Estoy leyendo Frankenstein de Mary Shelley para una asignación de la escuela y el monstruo es magnífico. Al principio tiene una mente elegante y dulzura de temperamento, lee Las penas del joven Werther de Johann Wolfgang von Goethe y recoge leña para una familia pobre. Pero su creador, Victor Frankenstein, lo abandona y le niega una pareja para calmar su soledad. La criatura no encuentra a nadie que no retroceda con miedo y disgusto ante su apariencia, hecha de muchas piezas dispares, su piel y ojos amarillos y labios negros. Amargado, busca vengarse de su creador y del mundo.“Doquiera que mire, veo felicidad de la cual solo yo estoy irrevocablemente excluido”, se lamenta. “Yo era bueno y cariñoso; el sufrimiento me ha envilecido”.Al final del libro, antes de desaparecer en el Ártico, el monstruo reflexiona que alguna vez tuvo “grandes pensamientos honorables”, hasta que se acumuló su “espantoso catálogo” de hazañas malignas.El monstruo de Shelley, a diferencia del nuestro, tiene conciencia de sí mismo y una razón para causar estragos. Sabe cómo sentirse culpable y cuándo abandonar el escenario. La malignidad de nuestro monstruo se deriva de la psicopatía narcisista pura, y se niega a abandonar el escenario o cesar su vil mendacidad.Ni por un momento pasó por la mente de Donald Trump que un presidente estadounidense que comete sedición sería algo debilitante y corrosivo para el país. Era solo otra manera para que el Emperador del Caos puliera su título.Escuchamos el jueves por la noche el espantoso catálogo de las hazañas de Trump. Están tan fuera de lo común, son tan difíciles de entender que, de alguna manera, todavía estamos procesándolas en nuestras mentes.En un horario estelar, la audiencia del comité de la Cámara de Representantes encargado de investigar los hechos del 6 de enero, no trató de examinar el bufonesco y grandilocuente camino que tomó Trump para llegar a la presidencia. La audiencia trató de revelar a Trump como un monstruo insensible, y muchos saldrán convencidos de que debería ser acusado penalmente y encarcelado. ¡Enciérrenlo!La audiencia puso de manifiesto el hecho de que Trump hablaba muy en serio acerca de derrocar al gobierno. Si su otrora perro faldero, Mike Pence, hubiese sido colgado en la horca frente al Capitolio por negarse a ayudarlo a conservar su cargo de manera ilegítima, que así sea, dijo Trump. “Tal vez nuestros seguidores tengan razón”, comentó ese día, de manera escalofriante, al señalar que su vicepresidente “se lo merece”.Liz Cheney usó con inteligencia las palabras de los exasesores de Trump para mostrar que, a pesar de sus malévolas quejas, Trump sabía que no había fraude a un nivel que hubiera cambiado el resultado de las elecciones.“Dejé en claro que no estaba de acuerdo con la idea de decir que las elecciones fueron robadas, no estaba de acuerdo con decir eso públicamente por lo que le dije al presidente que esas eran tonterías”, declaró William Barr, fiscal general de Trump.En contraposición con su padre, Ivanka Trump, en una declaración grabada, dijo que aceptó la versión de la realidad de Barr: “Respeto al fiscal general Barr. Así que acepté lo que él decía”.(Su esposo, Jared Kushner, ganó el premio mayor al descaro en su declaración: estaba demasiado ocupado organizando indultos para cretinos como para prestar atención a si los asistentes de Trump amenazaban con renunciar por el cretino que estaba en el despacho oval).Los expertos en datos de Trump le dijeron sin rodeos que había perdido. “Así que allí no hay nada que contender”, comentó Mark Meadows.Trump simplemente no podía soportar ser etiquetado como un perdedor, algo que su padre detestaba particularmente. Trump subvirtió las elecciones con manía por puro egoísmo y maldad, al saber que es fácil manipular a las personas en las redes sociales con la Gran Mentira.A Trump le parecía bien que sus seguidores violaran la ley, atacaran a la policía y fueran a la cárcel, mientras él elogiaba su “amor” a la distancia. Es increíble que ningún legislador haya sido asesinado.Mires donde mires, hay algo que te hiela la sangre. El monstruo de Frankenstein no es el único que ha abandonado los “pensamientos de honor”.Rusia, también en las garras de un monstruo, invade y destruye a una democracia vecina sin ningún motivo, excepto los delirios de grandeza de Vladimir Putin.En Uvalde, Texas, se desarrolla la inimaginable historia de cómo la policía retrasó una hora el rescate de escolares porque a un comandante le preocupaba la seguridad de los oficiales.Íconos codiciosos del golf se unieron a una gira financiada por los saudíes, a pesar de que el príncipe heredero saudí ordenó desmembrar a un periodista. (Kushner está bajo investigación sobre si negoció su posición en el gobierno para asegurar una inversión de 2000 millones de dólares de los saudíes para su nueva firma de capital privado).Como lo señaló Bennie Thompson, presidente del comité, cuando el Capitolio fue atacado en 1814, fue por los británicos. Esta vez, fue por un enemigo interno, incitado por el hombre que estaba en el corazón de la democracia que había jurado proteger.“Lo hicieron alentados por el presidente de Estados Unidos”, declaró Thompson sobre la muchedumbre, “para tratar de detener la transferencia del poder, un precedente que se había respetado durante 220 años”.Es alucinante que tanta gente aún acepte a Trump cuando es tan claro que solo se preocupa por sí mismo. Se apresuró a desestimar a su hija Ivanka Trump el viernes, al indicar que su opinión no tenía validez ya que ella “no estaba involucrada en observar ni estudiar los resultados de las elecciones. Hacía tiempo que ella estaba fuera de la jugada”.Dejemos que algunos conservadores descarten las audiencias como “un festival de bostezos”. Dejemos que Fox News se niegue groseramente a transmitirlas.La sesión fue fascinante, al describir una historia de terror protagonizada por los Proud Boys rapaces y un monstruo que incluso Shelley podría haber apreciado. Los niveles de audiencia fueron un éxito, con casi 20 millones de espectadores.Caroline Edwards, la dura oficial de policía del Capitolio que sufrió una conmoción cerebral, y a la que le rociaron los ojos, y se levantó para volver a la pelea, describió el ataque como un paisaje infernal.“Estaba resbalando en sangre de otras personas”, recordó. “Saben, yo… estaba atrapando a la gente mientras caía. Yo, cómo decirlo, yo estaba… fue una carnicería”.En su discurso distópico inaugural, Trump prometió poner fin a la “carnicería estadounidense”. En cambio, ofreció esa misma carnicería. Ahora debe rendir cuentas por su intento de golpe de Estado, y no solo ante el tribunal de la opinión pública.Maureen Dowd, ganadora del Premio Pulitzer de 1999 en la categoría de comentario distinguido y autora de tres bestsellers del New York Times, es columnista de Opinión desde 1995. @MaureenDowd • Facebook More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Cuatro conclusiones del segundo día de las audiencias del 6 de enero

      by

      Los congresistas que investigan el asalto al Capitolio afirmaron que Trump no quiso escuchar las recomendaciones de sus colaboradores e insistió en declararse victorioso y decir que le robaron las elecciones, sin tener pruebas.El gran tema durante el segundo día de audiencias del comité que investiga los sucesos del 6 de enero fue que al expresidente Donald Trump se le dijo repetidamente, incluso su propio fiscal general se lo comentó, que su “gran mentira” sobre una elección fraudulenta no tenía fundamento. De todos modos hizo el reclamo falso en la noche de las elecciones y no ha parado desde entonces.Tal como lo hicieron durante la audiencia de apertura, los miembros del comité usaron testimonios en video de algunos de los amigos y asesores más cercanos de Trump, incluidos comentarios contundentes del exfiscal general William P. Barr, para demostrar que el exmandatario sabía que sus afirmaciones no tenían fundamento.Aquí presentamos otras conclusiones del segundo día de las audiencias.Trump fue descrito como alguien ‘distanciado de la realidad’, después de las eleccionesEl testimonio en video de Barr fue uno de los más convincentes de la mañana, y el exfiscal general describió a Trump como alguien que, en los días posteriores a las elecciones, estaba cada vez más “distanciado de la realidad”. En su testimonio, Barr dijo que en repetidas ocasiones le dijo al expresidente que sus afirmaciones de fraude eran infundadas, pero “nunca hubo indicios de que se interesara por los hechos reales”.La cruda descripción de la conducta del exmandatario es una pieza clave del argumento que el comité trata de formular: que Trump sabía que sus afirmaciones sobre una elección fraudulenta no eran ciertas pero, de todos modos, las dijo. Barr dijo que en las semanas posteriores a las elecciones, le dijo repetidamente “cuán locas eran algunas de estas acusaciones”.Read More on the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsMaking a Case Against Trump: The committee appears to be laying out a road map for prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump. But the path to any trial is uncertain.The Meaning of the Hearings: While the public sessions aren’t going to unite the country, they could significantly affect public opinion.An Unsettling Narrative: During the first hearing, the panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Trump’s Depiction: Mr. Trump was portrayed as a would-be autocrat willing to shred the Constitution to hang onto power. Liz Cheney: The vice chairwoman of the House committee has been unrepentant in continuing to blame Mr. Trump for stoking the attack on Jan. 6, 2021.El comité argumenta que Trump fue un mentiroso consciente. Pero el testimonio de Barr ofrece otra posible explicación: que el expresidente llegó a creerse las mentiras que estaba diciendo.“Pensé que, si realmente creía en esas cosas, ya sabes, había perdido el contacto con, con… se había distanciado de la realidad, si realmente creía en esas cosas”, le dijo Barr al comité.Dos grupos rodeaban a Trump: ‘El equipo normal’ vs. ‘El equipo de Rudy’Uno de los aspectos que quedaron claros el lunes fue que había dos grupos de personas alrededor de Trump durante los días y semanas posteriores a las elecciones.Bill Stepien, el director de campaña de Trump, caracterizó a su grupo como “El equipo normal”, a diferencia del equipo dirigido por Rudy Giuliani, el abogado personal de Trump.Al ser un veterano político republicano, Stepien estuvo entre los asistentes de campaña, abogados, asesores de la Casa Blanca y otras personas que instaron a Trump para que abandonara sus afirmaciones infundadas de fraude. En cambio, el equipo de Giuliani impulsaba la paranoia del expresidente instándolo a respaldar las afirmaciones fantasiosas y sin fundamento sobre la recolección de votos, la supuesta manipulación de las máquinas de votación y otras denuncias. “Los llamábamos: mi equipo y el equipo de Rudy”, dijo Stepien a los investigadores del comité en las entrevistas. “No me importaba estar relacionado con ‘El equipo normal’”.Los miembros del comité esperan que la descripción de los dos grupos que competían por la atención de Trump evidencie que el expresidente tomó una decisión: escuchar al grupo dirigido por Giuliani en vez de atender las recomendaciones de las personas que dirigieron su campaña y trabajaron en su gestión. En palabras del “Equipo normal”, Trump decidió escuchar a los que decían argumentos “locos”.Lo que pasó durante la noche de las elecciones en la Casa BlancaLa audiencia del lunes comenzó con un vívido retrato de la noche de las elecciones en la Casa Blanca, describiendo la reacción del expresidente, y quienes lo rodeaban, cuando Fox News dijo que Joe Biden ganó en Arizona. Usando testimonios en video de los asesores más cercanos del exmandatario y algunos miembros de su familia, el comité mostró cómo Trump rechazó las advertencias que le dieron.Stepien dijo en un video que había instado al expresidente para que no declarara su victoria prematuramente, después de haberle explicado que era muy probable que los votos demócratas se contaran más tarde. Trump lo ignoró, según dijeron Stepien y otras personas. En cambio, escuchó a Rudy Giuliani, quien según sus asistentes estaba borracho esa noche, e instaba al expresidente para que se declarara victorioso y dijera que las elecciones estaban siendo robadas.Chris Stirewalt, el editor político de Fox News que fue despedido después de que su cadena declarara la victoria de Biden en Arizona, le dijo al comité que el cambio en los resultados de esa noche que provocó las afirmaciones del presidente sobre manipulación de votantes no fueron más que los resultados esperados de los votos demócratas que se contaron después de los republicanos. Y se mostró orgulloso de que su equipo haya sido el primero en calificar con precisión los resultados de Arizona y dijo que había “cero” posibilidades de que Trump hubiera ganado ese estado.El comité dice que se enviaron millones de dólares a un ‘Fondo de Defensa Electoral’ inexistenteNo fue solo la “gran mentira”, según el comité del 6 de enero. También fue “la gran estafa”.En una presentación de video que concluyó la segunda audiencia, el comité describió cómo Trump y sus asistentes de campaña utilizaron afirmaciones infundadas de fraude electoral para convencer a los partidarios del expresidente con el fin de que enviaran millones de dólares a algo llamado “Fondo de Defensa Electoral”. Según el comité, los partidarios de Trump donaron 100 millones de dólares en la primera semana después de las elecciones, aparentemente con la esperanza de que ese dinero ayudaría a su líder en la lucha para anular los resultados.Pero un investigador del comité dijo que no había evidencia de que ese fondo existiera. En cambio, millones de dólares fluyeron hacia un comité de acción política que el presidente estableció el 9 de noviembre, solo unos días después de las elecciones. Según el comité, esa instancia envió 1 millón de dólares a una fundación benéfica dirigida por Mark Meadows, el exjefe de gabinete de Trump, y otro millón a un grupo político dirigido por varios de sus exmiembros del personal, incluido Stephen Miller, el arquitecto de la agenda de inmigración de Trump.Zoe Lofgren, representante demócrata por California, resumió los descubrimientos de esta manera: “A lo largo de la investigación del comité, encontramos evidencia de que la campaña de Trump y sus colaboradores engañaron a los donantes sobre el destino de sus fondos y para qué se utilizarían”.Y agregó: “Así que no solo se trató de una gran mentira, también se hizo una gran estafa. Los donantes merecen saber adónde van realmente sus fondos. Se merecen algo mejor que lo que hizo el presidente Trump y su equipo”.Michael D. Shear es un corresponsal veterano de la Casa Blanca y dos veces ganador del Premio Pulitzer que también formó parte del equipo que ganó la Medalla de Servicio Público por la cobertura de la COVID-19 en 2020. Es coautor de Border Wars: Inside Trump’s Assault on Inmigración. @shearm More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Panel Tracks How Trump Created and Spread Election Lies

      by

      In its second hearing this month, the committee showed how the former president ignored aides and advisers in declaring victory prematurely and relentlessly pressing claims of fraud he was told were wrong.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol made a wide-ranging case on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump created and relentlessly spread the lie that the 2020 election had been stolen from him in the face of mounting evidence from an expanding chorus of advisers that he had been legitimately defeated.The committee, in its second hearing this month, traced the origins and progression of what it has described as Mr. Trump’s “big lie.” It showed through live witness testimony and recorded depositions how the former president, defying many of his advisers, insisted on declaring victory on election night before the votes were fully counted, then sought to challenge his defeat with increasingly outlandish and baseless claims that he was repeatedly informed were wrong.“He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” William P. Barr, the former attorney general, said of Mr. Trump during a videotaped interview the panel played on Monday, in which he at one point could not control his laughter at the absurdity of the claims that the former president was making.“There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were,” Mr. Barr said.The panel also used the testimony of Bill Stepien, Mr. Trump’s campaign chief, who told its investigators that Mr. Trump had ignored his election-night warning to refrain from declaring a victory that he had no basis for claiming. Instead, the president took the advice of Rudolph W. Giuliani — his personal lawyer who was, according to Jason Miller, a top campaign aide, “definitely intoxicated” — and said he had won even as the votes were still being tabulated.It was all part of the committee’s bid to show how Mr. Trump’s dissembling about the election results led directly to the events of Jan. 6, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol in the deadliest attack on the building in centuries, spurred on by the president’s exhortations to “stop the steal.”Investigators went further on Monday, detailing how the Trump campaign and its Republican allies used claims of a rigged election that they knew were false to mislead small donors and raise as much as $250 million for an entity they called the Official Election Defense Fund, which top campaign aides testified never existed.“Not only was there the big lie,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who played a key role in the hearing, “there was the big rip-off.”Money ostensibly raised to “stop the steal” instead went to Mr. Trump and his allies, including, the investigation found, $1 million for a charitable foundation run by Mark Meadows, his chief of staff; $1 million to a political group run by several of his former staff members, including Stephen Miller, the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda; more than $200,000 to Trump hotels; and $5 million to Event Strategies Inc., which ran the Jan. 6 rally that preceded the Capitol riot.Aides said Kimberly Guilfoyle, the girlfriend of Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr., was paid $60,000 to speak at that event, a speech that lasted less than three minutes.“It is clear that he intentionally misled his donors, asked them to donate to a fund that didn’t exist and used the money raised for something other than what he said,” Ms. Lofgren said of Mr. Trump.Read More on the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsMaking a Case Against Trump: The committee appears to be laying out a road map for prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump. But the path to any trial is uncertain.The Meaning of the Hearings: While the public sessions aren’t going to unite the country, they could significantly affect public opinion.An Unsettling Narrative: During the first hearing, the panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Trump’s Depiction: Mr. Trump was portrayed as a would-be autocrat willing to shred the Constitution to hang onto power. Liz Cheney: The vice chairwoman of the House committee has been unrepentant in continuing to blame Mr. Trump for stoking the attack on Jan. 6, 2021.But the bulk of the session was dedicated to showing how determined Mr. Trump was to cling to the fiction that he had won the election, only digging in more deeply as aide after aide informed him that he had not.Representatives Liz Cheney and Zoe Lofgren at the hearing.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesThe list of aides and advisers who sought to steer Mr. Trump away from his false claims was long and varied, according to the committee’s presentation. They included low-level campaign lawyers who outlined how they told the president that the returns coming in from the field showed that he was going to lose the race. Also among them were top officials in the Justice Department — including his onetime attorney general — who walked through how they had investigated claims that the race had been rigged or stolen and found them not only to be unsubstantiated, but to be nonsensical.“There were suggestions by, I believe it was Mayor Giuliani, to go and declare victory and say that we’d won it outright,” Mr. Miller said in a video interview played by the panel.Mr. Stepien later said he considered himself part of “Team Normal,” while a separate group of outside advisers including Mr. Giuliani were encouraging Mr. Trump’s false claims.The committee played several portions of a deposition by Mr. Barr, Mr. Trump’s last attorney general, who called the president’s claims of a stolen election “bullshit” and “bogus.”“I told them that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time,” Mr. Barr testified. “And it was a great, great disservice for the country.”Mr. Trump was still at it on Monday, issuing a rambling 12-page statement several hours after the committee hearing ended in which he doubled down on his claims of fraud, complaining — yet again without any evidence — that Democrats had inflated voter rolls, illegally harvested ballots, removed Republican poll watchers from vote-counting facilities, bribed election officials and stopped the counting on election night when he was still in the lead.“Democrats created the narrative of Jan. 6 to detract from the much larger and more important truth that the 2020 Election was rigged and stolen,” Mr. Trump wrote.Representative Bennie Thompson, the committee’s chairman, said Mr. Trump waged an attack on democracy.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesIn the hearing room on Monday, the panel showed in striking detail how Mr. Trump’s advisers tried and failed to get him to drop his lies and accept defeat. In his deposition, Mr. Barr recalled several scenes inside the White House, including one in which he said he asked Mr. Meadows and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and top adviser, how long Mr. Trump intended “to go on with this stolen election stuff.”Mr. Barr recalled that Mr. Meadows had assured him that Mr. Trump was “becoming more realistic” and knew “how far he can take this.” As for Mr. Kushner, Mr. Barr recounted that he responded to the question by saying, “We’re working on this.”After informing Mr. Trump that his claims of fraud were false, Mr. Barr had a follow-up meeting with the president and his White House counsel, Pat Cipollone. Mr. Barr described in his deposition how Mr. Trump became enraged that his own attorney general had refused to back his fraud allegations.Chris Stirewalt, the first witness of the day, was on the Fox News team that called Arizona for Joseph R. Biden Jr.Doug Mills/The New York Times“This is killing me,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Trump as saying. “You must have said this because you hate Trump.”Altogether, Mr. Trump and his allies filed more than 60 lawsuits challenging the results of the election. But among the numerous claims of fraud, Mr. Barr told the committee, the worst — and most sensational — concerned a purported plot by Chinese software companies, Venezuelan officials and the liberal financier George Soros to hack into machines manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems and flip votes away from Mr. Trump.These allegations were most prominently pushed by a former federal prosecutor named Sidney Powell, who collected several unvetted affidavits from witnesses who supposedly had information about Dominion. In the weeks after the election, Ms. Powell, working with a group of other lawyers, filed four federal lawsuits laying out her claims in the Democratic strongholds of Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee and Phoenix even though the Trump campaign had already determined that some of her allegations were false.All of the suits — known as the “Krakens,” a reference to a mythical, havoc-wreaking sea beast — were eventually dismissed and deemed to be so frivolous that a federal judge sanctioned Ms. Powell and her colleagues. Dominion has sued her and others for defamation.Mr. Barr, in his deposition, described the claims against Dominion as “crazy stuff” — a sentiment that was echoed by other Trump aides whose testimony was presented by the committee.After Mr. Barr left his position as attorney general, his successor, Jeffrey A. Rosen, also told Mr. Trump his claims of widespread fraud were “debunked.”The committee showed through live witnesses and recorded depositions how Mr. Trump refused to listen to those around him.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesAnother witness who testified on Monday and dismissed Mr. Trump’s claims of fraud was Byung J. Pak, the former U.S. attorney in Atlanta who abruptly resigned on Jan. 4, 2021. After speaking with Mr. Barr, Mr. Pak looked into allegations of election fraud in Atlanta, including a claim pushed by Mr. Giuliani that a suitcase of ballots had been pulled from under a table in a local counting station on election night.Mr. Trump and his allies also claimed that there was rampant fraud in Philadelphia, with the former president recently asserting that more people voted in the city than there were registered voters. In his deposition, Mr. Barr called this allegation “rubbish.” To bolster this argument, the committee called Al Schmidt, a Republican who served as one of three city commissioners on the Philadelphia County Board of Elections.Mr. Schmidt rejected the fraud claims raised by Mr. Trump and his allies, saying there was no evidence that more people voted in Philadelphia than were registered there or that thousands of dead people voted in the city.Mr. Schmidt also testified that after Mr. Trump posted a tweet accusing of him by name of committing election fraud, he received threats online from people who publicized the names of his family members, his address and photographs of his home.Zach Montague More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Inside the Night That Began Trump’s Bid to Overturn the Election

      by

      Donald J. Trump’s advisers urged him not to declare victory on election night in 2020. He listened to the one who told him what he wanted to hear.The Jan. 6 committee used interviews with Donald J. Trump’s own family and his closest advisers to illustrate how he rejected advice and falsely claimed he won the election.Doug Mills/The New York TimesWASHINGTON — Rudolph W. Giuliani seemed drunk, and he was making a beeline for the president.It was election night in 2020, and President Donald J. Trump was seeing his re-election bid slip away, vote by vote. According to video testimony prepared by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and personal lawyer for Mr. Trump, was spouting conspiracy theories.“They’re stealing it from us,” Mr. Giuliani told the president when he found him, according to Jason Miller, one of the president’s top campaign aides, who told the Jan. 6 committee that Mr. Giuliani was “definitely intoxicated” that night. “Where do all the votes come from? We need to go say that we won.”Several times that night, Mr. Trump’s own family members and closest advisers urged him to reject Mr. Giuliani’s advice. Mr. Miller told him not to “go and declare victory” without a better sense of the numbers. “It’s far too early to be making any proclamation like that,” said Bill Stepien, his campaign manager. Even his daughter Ivanka Trump told him that the results were still being counted.But in the end, Mr. Giuliani was the only one that night who told the president what he wanted to hear.Mr. Giuliani’s rantings about stolen ballots fed into the president’s own conspiracy theories about a rigged election, nursed in public and private since long before the votes were counted. They helped spark a monthslong assault on democracy and — in the committee’s view — led inexorably to the mob that breached the Capitol hoping to stop the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr. as president.Mr. Trump told Mr. Miller, Mr. Stepien and the rest that they were being weak and were wrong. During a conversation in the reception area of the White House living quarters, he told them he was going to go in “a different direction.”Not long after, Mr. Trump did just that, appearing for the cameras at 2:21 a.m. in the East Room in front of a wall of American flags.He denounced the election in the speech, calling the vote “a fraud on the American public” and an “embarrassment” to the country. “We were getting ready to win this election,” he told his supporters and the television viewers. “Frankly, we did win this election.”The inside account of the White House that night was assembled by the Jan. 6 committee. During its second public hearing on Monday, the committee played a video that painted a vivid portrait of how Mr. Trump rejected cautions from his closest aides and advisers and went out to declare himself the winner.Testimony from those closest to the former president effectively documented the formal beginning of Mr. Trump’s insistence that the election was stolen.Read More on the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsMaking a Case Against Trump: The committee appears to be laying out a road map for prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump. But the path to any trial is uncertain.The Meaning of the Hearings: While the public sessions aren’t going to unite the country, they could significantly affect public opinion.An Unsettling Narrative: During the first hearing, the panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Trump’s Depiction: Mr. Trump was portrayed as a would-be autocrat willing to shred the Constitution to hang onto power. Liz Cheney: The vice chairwoman of the House committee has been unrepentant in continuing to blame Mr. Trump for stoking the attack on Jan. 6, 2021.Mr. Trump had not been shy about that expectation; weeks before Election Day, he had predicted a “fraud like you’ve never seen.” And even as the votes were being counted, Mr. Trump began delivering that message. But the testimony offered at Monday’s hearing was the linchpin of the argument that the committee is trying to make: that Mr. Trump knew his claims of a fraudulent election were not true and made them anyway.“That’s the bottom line,” said Representative Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is chairman of the committee. “We had an election Mr. Trump lost, but he refused to accept the results of the democratic process.”In the weeks to follow election night, Mr. Trump was repeatedly told by top aides that his claims of fraud were baseless.The committee underscored that fact with long video clips of former Attorney General William P. Barr, who said that beating back the “avalanche” of fraud allegations from the president was “like playing whack-a-mole because something would come out one day and then the next day it would be another issue.” He called the claims of fraud from Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani “completely bogus and silly and usually based on complete misinformation.”But the committee’s depiction of the White House on election night was the day’s most compelling narrative. And the testimony by Trump aides saying they had doubts about Mr. Trump’s claims of fraud was striking, particularly because some of those same aides had expressed support for the president in public, casting doubt on the outcome of the election.At just after 11:15 p.m., Fox News called Arizona for Mr. Biden, a major blow to Mr. Trump’s campaign. Using interviews with Ivanka Trump, her husband, Jared Kushner, and several of the president’s campaign aides, the committee video captured how the sense of celebration inside the White House residence turned from giddy optimism to grim anxiety.“Both disappointed with Fox and concerned that maybe our data or our numbers weren’t accurate,” Mr. Miller testified, describing the mood among the president’s supporters.After the Arizona call, Mr. Trump’s team was livid, according to earlier reporting about the night. Mr. Trump told aides to get Fox News to reverse course somehow. Mr. Miller made a call to a contact at the network. Mr. Kushner reached out to the network’s owner.“Hey, Rupert,” the president’s son-in-law said into a cellphone as Rupert Murdoch, the head of the network’s corporate parent, took his call.But soon, there would be another concern for the group of aides who later were referred to as “Team Normal,” according to Mr. Stepien. They received an alarming warning: Mr. Giuliani had had too much to drink and had made his way upstairs to the living quarters, where the president was watching returns.Several of Mr. Trump’s aides tries to run interference, but Mr. Giuliani, who had been staring at the screens in the campaign war room and insisted that the president had won Michigan, was undeterred.He demanded to see the president, according to a former aide familiar with the conversation.Mr. Stepien confronted Mr. Giuliani. How are we winning? he asked him. Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, was there as well, and told Mr. Giuliani that he was wrong to say Mr. Trump had won Michigan.“That’s not true, Rudy!” he said loudly, according to the person familiar with the conversation. (Mr. Meadows would almost immediately go on to publicly and privately embrace the president’s fraud accusations, as documented in text messages discovered by the committee.)The president’s aides soon failed in their effort to keep Mr. Giuliani away from him. In the video presentation, Mr. Giuliani dismissed his rivals for their attempts to stop him from giving the president his advice.“I spoke to the president,” he told the committee investigators. “They may have been present. But I talked to the president several times that night.”Few of the president’s aides went public with their doubts about the president’s chances in the days after the election. In fact, it was the opposite. During a conference call with reporters the day after the election, Mr. Stepien said that he believed Mr. Trump would win Arizona by 30,000 votes when the counting was over.Mr. Trump had been saying for months that he would win the election, even as polling showed him behind Mr. Biden, in a political climate soured by Mr. Trump’s bumbling and erratic performance during the coronavirus pandemic. But he still started sowing seeds of doubt about the reliability of mail-in ballots, made available more broadly because of the pandemic, much earlier in the year.Warned weeks before Election Day that those ballots, along with the ones cast through early voting, would be tallied later than the same-day votes cast for Mr. Trump, the president stunned advisers by declaring he would simply go out and say he had won.“We want all voting to stop,” Mr. Trump said in his remarks early the morning of Nov. 4. “We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. OK?”Later that day, Ivanka Trump sent a text to a chain that included Mr. Meadows: “Keep the faith and the fight!” Mr. Trump almost immediately began telling Mr. Giuliani to start gathering what information he could.By Friday, it was clear from the Trump campaign’s data guru that the numbers simply were not there for him to succeed. The following day, Mr. Stepien, Mr. Miller and other aides were sent by Mr. Kushner to tell Mr. Trump that he had extremely low odds of any success coming from ongoing challenges.When the men arrived at the White House residence, Mr. Trump was calm, but he was not interested in heeding the warnings. He continued repeating his election conspiracies after Monday’s hearing, issuing a rambling 12-page response with a simple bottom line:“They cheated!” he wrote. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Hearings Focus on Fox News Call That Made Trump’s Loss Clear

      by

      At Fox News, there was little drama over the decision to project Joseph R. Biden the winner of Arizona. But the relationship between Trump and the network was never the same.Shortly before 11:20 p.m. on Nov. 3, 2020, Bill Sammon, the managing editor for Fox News in Washington, picked up the phone in the room where he and others had been reviewing election returns. On the other end of the line was the control room.Mr. Sammon informed the producers and executives listening in that the network was calling Arizona for Joseph R. Biden Jr., effectively declaring an end to one of the most contentious presidential elections in modern times. He clicked a box on his computer screen, and Arizona turned blue on the map that viewers saw at home.Inside Fox News, the moment unfolded with little drama despite its enormous implications. To the people in the room with Mr. Sammon, the result was clear. On the outside, it immediately provoked a fury with President Trump and his supporters, who maligned Fox News, the country’s most watched cable news channel and his longtime stalwart defender, as dishonest and disloyal.The relationship between the former president and the network would never be the same.The events of that night were the focus of a congressional hearing on Monday that peeled back the curtain on the decision-making process at Fox News. The hearing, part of the House investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, featured testimony from a former senior editor at Fox News who explained how there was never any doubt that his team was making the correct call on Arizona — even though most other news outlets would not call the state for days.“We already knew Trump’s chances were very small, and getting smaller based on what we had seen,” Chris Stirewalt, who was the politics editor for Fox News until he was fired two months after the election, told the House committee. Mr. Stirewalt described the cautious, analytical approach they took to determining that Mr. Trump could not come from behind and overtake Mr. Biden in Arizona.At Mr. Sammon’s insistence, he said, they took a vote of the people who worked on Fox News’ so-called decision desk. And only after the group agreed unanimously did Mr. Sammon issue it.“We looked around the room. Everybody says, ‘yea.’ And on we go,” Mr. Stirewalt testified before the committee, adding that they had already moved on to looking at calling other states by the time they heard of the backlash their decision created.Read More on the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsMaking a Case Against Trump: The committee appears to be laying out a road map for prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump. But the path to any trial is uncertain.The Meaning of the Hearings: While the public sessions aren’t going to unite the country, they could significantly affect public opinion.An Unsettling Narrative: During the first hearing, the panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Trump’s Depiction: Mr. Trump was portrayed as a would-be autocrat willing to shred the Constitution to hang onto power. Liz Cheney: The vice chairwoman of the House committee has been unrepentant in continuing to blame Mr. Trump for stoking the attack on Jan. 6, 2021.Mr. Stirewalt’s testimony was part of the second televised hearing by the committee, which is aiming to refocus the country’s attention on the horrors of that day and to make a compelling case that Mr. Trump continued to lie about voter fraud and “stolen” votes despite being told by the family and aides closest to him that he had lost.On Monday, the hearing centered on people who said they did not believe that any hard evidence or data supported the former president’s contention that he must have won because the early vote returns showed him ahead on Election Day.At issue was what political observers have called the “Red Mirage.” On Election Day, Mr. Trump was widely expected to appear far ahead as polls closed across the country, because the first votes counted are primarily those from people who voted in person that day — the method favored by Republicans. But that, warned political experts, would probably be a “mirage.” Mr. Trump’s lead would shrink, they said, or perhaps evaporate entirely, as states tallied the mail-in ballots, which were favored by Democrats and take longer to count.For several weeks before the election, a group of advisers, including Stephen K. Bannon and Rudolph W. Giuliani, had encouraged Mr. Trump to declare victory on the night of the election, arguing that he could easily dismiss mail-in ballots as riddled with fraud regardless of whether he had any evidence for the claim.Fox’s Arizona call blew a hole in that strategy. A projected loss in traditionally red Arizona — which a Democratic presidential candidate had won only once since Harry Truman — coming from a presumably loyal outlet, augured a bad night.But Fox News had good reason to feel confident about a call no other news outlet was prepared to make at that point in the evening, with roughly one-fourth of the vote still uncounted in Arizona, Mr. Stirewalt said. Its decision desk used data that other networks did not have.After the 2016 election, Rupert Murdoch, who oversees Fox News as part of his larger conservative media empire, urged Fox to pull out of the consortium of news organizations that used polls to project results. Those polls had wrongly predicted a Hillary Clinton victory.That paved the way for Fox News and The Associated Press to go their own way in 2020, according to an account of the decision desk’s process that Mr. Stirewalt gave for the book “Insurgency: How Republicans Lost Their Party and Got Everything They Ever Wanted.” In the weeks leading up to the election, they surveyed 100,000 voters across the country who had cast ballots early, giving them a sense of how misleading the “mirage” might be. On the night of the election, the Fox News decision desk compared those surveys with another layer of data: actual precinct-level vote tallies that the A.P. was tracking.On Monday, Mr. Stirewalt testified that the joint A.P.-Fox News project worked remarkably well. “Let me tell you, our poll in Arizona was beautiful,” he said. “And it was doing just what we wanted it to do.”Some of Mr. Trump’s former aides testified that the Fox call shocked them but also undermined their confidence in his chances of victory. Jason Miller, a senior aide on the Trump campaign, said in video testimony played by the committee that he and others were “disappointed with Fox” for making the call but at the same time “concerned that maybe our data or our numbers weren’t accurate.”Mr. Miller had shared none of that concern on election night, when he tweeted that Fox was a “complete outlier” whose call should be ignored by other media. At Mr. Trump’s insistence, he and other aides immediately reached out to Fox executives, producers and on-air talent to demand an explanation. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, went straight to the top, calling Mr. Murdoch. The scene played out in part on the air as Fox talent commented about the complaints raining down on them from the Trump campaign.“Arnon, we’re getting a lot of incoming here, and we need you to answer some questions,” the network’s chief political anchor, Bret Baier, said at one point, referring to Arnon Mishkin, the person on the decision desk who was responsible for analyzing the data and recommending when Fox issue its calls.On Monday, Mr. Stirewalt did not describe either Mr. Murdoch or Lachlan Murdoch, the Fox Corporation executive chairman, as being part of the decision desk’s process. And network executives have said the Murdochs were not involved.Though Fox News coverage is typically favorable to conservative, pro-Trump points of view, that deference has never been adopted by the decision desk, which is a separate part of the news-gathering operation overseen by Mr. Mishkin, a polling expert who is also a registered Democrat. In the days after the election, Mr. Mishkin was unwavering in his defense of the call as Fox anchors pressed him. Once, as the host Martha MacCallum peppered Mr. Mishkin with a series of “what if” scenarios that could bolster Mr. Trump’s chances of eking out a victory, Mr. Mishkin responded sarcastically, “What if frogs had wings?” (Mr. Mishkin remains a paid consultant for the network, not an employee, and will run the decision desk for the midterm elections in November.)The decision desk was created under the former Fox News chairman and founder Roger Ailes, who relished making controversy and drawing ratings more than he cared about toeing the line for the Republican Party. Its quick calls angered Republicans on more than one occasion, including in 2012, when it was the first to project that President Barack Obama would win Ohio and a second term, and in 2018 when it declared that Republicans would lose the House of Representatives even as votes were still being cast on the West Coast.Though Fox News and the Murdochs stood by the Arizona projection, they paid a price for it.As Mr. Trump’s rally goers took up a new chant, “Fox News sucks,” the former president urged his supporters on Twitter to switch to Fox’s smaller, right-wing competitors instead, Newsmax and One America News Network.With anchors who steadfastly refused to acknowledge Mr. Trump’s loss, Newsmax saw a ratings bump as Fox, the No. 1 cable news network for two decades, showed some rare — if short lived — slippage.Soon, various Fox opinion hosts were giving oxygen to false assertions that the election was stolen, several of which were methodically debunked at Monday’s hearings, including by one former Trump aide, who called them “nuts.”Mr. Stirewalt, who was among the Fox News journalists who defended the Arizona call, was notified of his firing on Jan. 19, 2021. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Your Tuesday Briefing: Europe Recalculates on Ukraine

      by

      Plus the Jan. 6 hearings continue and truckers in South Korea strike.Good morning. We’re covering Europe’s recalculation on Ukraine, revelations from the Jan. 6 hearings and a trucker strike in South Korea.This bridge once connected the cities of Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk.Ivor Prickett for The New York TimesEurope recalculates as Russia gainsAs Russia advances in the east, European leaders are under mounting pressure to forge a cohesive strategy to outline what might constitute Ukrainian victory — or Russian defeat.European leaders say that it is up to Ukraine to decide how and when to enter negotiations to end the war. They have all provided significant financial and military support to Ukraine, which has continued to press for more weapons.But some European allies are increasingly nervous about a long war. They do not want to bring NATO into direct conflict with Russia — and they do not want to provoke President Vladimir Putin to use nuclear or chemical weapons. Here are recent updates.What’s next: Yesterday, word emerged that the leaders of France, Germany and Italy planned to visit Kyiv, perhaps as early as this week.Fighting: Ukraine is outgunned and running out of Soviet-era ammunition in the east. Russian forces are poised to take Sievierodonetsk, the last major city in the Luhansk region. Moscow is now closing in on neighboring Lysychansk.Death: The burned corpse of one Russian fighter is still in the military vehicle where he died. “Two weeks later still he sits, his last thoughts gone from his skull, cracked open and wet from the rain,” my colleague Thomas Gibbons-Neff writes, reflecting on this war and his time as a U.S. Marine.Asia: Ukraine’s stubborn resistance has made Taiwan rethink its own military strategy.Committee members shared testimony yesterday.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTrump was ‘detached from reality’The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol continued to conduct hearings yesterday. One after another, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle testified that they told the former president that his claims of widespread election fraud were bogus. But Trump pushed the lie anyway.William Barr, the former attorney general, said in a recorded deposition that Trump had grown delusional. Barr said that in the weeks after the 2020 election, he repeatedly told Trump “how crazy some of these allegations were.”Better Understand the Russia-Ukraine WarDig Deeper: Understand the history of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, the causes of the conflict and the weapons that are being used.Outside Pressures: Governments, sports organizations and businesses are taking steps to punish Russia. Here are some of the sanctions adopted so far and a list of companies that have pulled out of the country.Stay Updated: To receive the latest updates on the war in your inbox, sign up here. The Times has also launched a Telegram channel to make its journalism more accessible around the world.“He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” Barr said, speaking of Trump. “There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were.”Resources: Here are four takeaways from yesterday’s hearings and five takeaways from the first day of hearings last week. The next hearing is scheduled for tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern (that’s 10 p.m. in Hong Kong).Analysis: The committee is trying to make the case that Trump knew his claims of a fraudulent election were not true. Barr’s testimony suggests another explanation: Trump actually came to believe his own lies.Finances: The committee said that Trump had used lies about fraud to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. The big lie was also a “big rip-off,” a committee member said.The truckers have disrupted life in South Korea.Yonhap/Agence France-Presse, via Getty ImagesTruckers in South Korea strikeA truck-driver strike in South Korea stretched into a seventh day yesterday, forcing the country’s manufacturers to scale back production and slowing traffic at its ports.The union representing the truckers said it asked repeatedly for safer conditions and reasonable fares. The truckers are protesting surging fuel prices and demanding minimum pay guarantees, Reuters reported. One trucker told Reuters that he earns about $2,300 a month, and that his monthly fuel bill had increased by about $1,000 since April.That strike is proving costly for South Korea’s economy and leading to widespread domestic delays: Over the first six days, it has resulted in production and shipment disruptions for automobiles, steel and petrochemicals worth 1.6 trillion won (about $1.25 billion), the government said.Global context: The strike may further disrupt the battered global supply chain. But so far, The Associated Press reported, the country hasn’t reported any major disruption of key exports.What’s next: Yesterday, the truckers said they may escalate disruptions if demands are not met, Reuters reported, including stopping shipments of coal to a power plant. THE LATEST NEWSAsiaThe Japanese yen is approaching its lowest point in two decades, The Wall Street Journal reported.Beijing is racing to control a coronavirus outbreak linked to a 24-hour bar, Reuters reported.Chinese police arrested nine people on suspicion of assault after footage of an attack against women at a restaurant went viral, The Associated Press reported.World NewsPolice officers and rescue team searched for Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira this weekend.Bruno Kelly/ReutersPolice found the belongings of a British journalist and a Brazilian expert on Indigenous peoples who disappeared in the Amazon after receiving threats.Global stocks tumbled after U.S. stocks fell into a bear market yesterday, a 20 percent decline from January. Here are live updates.Iraq faces political chaos: Dozens of members of Parliament resigned under the direction of a powerful Shiite cleric, threatening the formation of a new government.Michelle Bachelet, the U.N.’s top human-rights official, said she would not seek a second term. The announcement followed her widely-criticized visit to China.Iran suspects Israel fatally poisoned two scientists, which could escalate the shadow war between the two countries.EuropeThe Grenfell Tower burning in 2017.Daniel Leal-Olivas/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFive years ago today, 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire in London. Their families are still looking for answers and accountability.A court cleared the way for Britain’s controversial plan to resettle immigrants in Rwanda. Flights are planned to begin today.French centrists appeared to have maintained a majority in the first round of parliamentary elections, a victory for President Emmanuel Macron.What Else Is HappeningPresident Jair Bolsonaro has consistently questioned Brazil’s electoral process, despite little evidence of past fraud. Now, the military has joined him.A new study found that smokers lost their nicotine craving after suffering a stroke or other brain injury, which may reveal the neural underpinnings of addiction.SpaceX won approval to launch a giant new rocket to orbit, which could eventually travel to Mars.A Morning ReadHigh inflation, especially in food prices, has hurt Indians who work in the informal sector.Manjunath Kiran/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIndia’s economy is growing quickly: Exports are at record highs and profits of publicly traded companies have doubled. But India can’t produce enough jobs, a sign of its uneven growth and widening inequality.ARTS AND IDEASArt as collectiveDocumenta, arguably the world’s largest exhibition of contemporary art, opens later this month in Kassel, Germany. It will run for 100 days and host nearly one million visitors.Ruangrupa, a radical Indonesian creative collective, is directing the 15th edition of Documenta. The group has long spurned the idea of art as object, and instead turns social experiences into art.For their sole solo gallery exhibition, ruangrupa threw a party and left the detritus as the exhibition. Some artists were skeptical it was art. “We told them: ‘You felt energetic and inspired. You met your friends. That’s the art,’” one member said.At Documenta, they will work with 14 other collectives and their colleagues to experiment with the idea of the lumbung, the common rice store traditionally found in Indonesian villages, built and shared by everyone. “It’s not just that they don’t create tangible objects, they don’t even create intangible experiences,” Samanth Subramanian writes in The Times Magazine, adding, “Instead of collaborating to make art, ruangrupa propagates the art of collaboration. It’s a collective that teaches collectivity.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookKelly Marshall for The New York TimesThis spicy shrimp masala draws inspiration from Goa and Karachi.What to WatchStream these five science fiction movies.InterviewTom Hanks spoke to The Times about his new Elvis movie, his faith in America and the long arc of his career.Now Time to PlayPlay today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Furry foot (Three letters).Here are today’s Wordle and today’s Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. Ben Hubbard, who has doggedly covered the Middle East, will be our next Istanbul bureau chief.The latest episode of “The Daily” is U.S. intelligence gaps in the war in Ukraine.You can reach Amelia and the team at briefing@nytimes.com. More