Presidential Election of 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why Republicans Are So Angry About the Supreme Court Leak

      by

      The country is divided. There are those Americans furious that the Supreme Court is soon to take away the right to have an abortion. And there are those Americans furious that someone leaked that the Supreme Court was soon to take away the right to have an abortion.Among those Americans angry with the anonymous leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is the entire Republican Party. “Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the Supreme Court,” said Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, in a statement issued after the leak. “This lawless action should be investigated and punished as fully as possible. The Chief Justice must get to the bottom of it and the Department of Justice must pursue criminal charges if applicable.”Senator Ted Cruz of Texas told Fox News, “The leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion will do lasting damage to the integrity of the court and the independence of the judiciary.” And Senator Mike Lee of Utah wrote that because the Supreme Court relies on “decorum and confidentiality” to do its work, it is therefore “dangerous, despicable, and damaging” to leak its deliberations to the public. The Supreme Court, he declared, “is not a political body.”He might also have added that it has a right to privacy.In any case, McConnell, Cruz, Lee and the rest of their Republican colleagues must be joking.The Supreme Court is, and has always been, a political body. That’s true of the justices, certainly. Over the course of the court’s history, most of them were chosen with political considerations in mind, to the point that many were politicians themselves. It’s true of the institution as well. The Supreme Court deals with political issues — not simply abstract questions of law — and operates within the context of political conflict and political struggle.And the Supreme Court, right now, is an avowedly partisan institution, an unaccountable super-legislature controlled by men and women drawn from a cadre of conservative ideologues and apparatchiks, acting on behalf of the Republican Party and its allies. Whatever legitimacy it had retained was sacrificed in the drive to build the majority that seems poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and open the floodgates to harsh restrictions on the reproductive autonomy of millions of Americans.When McConnell led the Senate Republican caucus in a blockade of President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court in 2016 and then killed what remained of the judicial filibuster the next year to place Neil Gorsuch in the seat instead, they diminished the legitimacy of the court. When those same Republicans looked past a credible accusation of sexual assault to confirm Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, they again diminished the legitimacy of the court. And when, with weeks left before the 2020 presidential election, Republicans ignored their own rule from four years earlier — that an election-year vacancy “should not be filled until we have a new president” — to place Amy Coney Barrett on the bench in a rushed, slapdash process, they once more diminished the legitimacy of the court.What’s more, their occasional protests notwithstanding (in a speech last year at the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, Barrett insisted the court was “not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”), the court’s conservatives have done almost nothing to dispel the view that their majority is little more than the judicial arm of the Republican Party. They use “emergency” orders to issue sweeping rulings in favor of ideologically aligned groups; they invent new doctrines designed to undermine voting rights protections; and as we’ve just witnessed, they’ll let nothing, not even 50 years of precedent, stand in the way of a sweeping ideological victory.No discussion of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, or lack thereof, is complete without mention of the fact that its current composition is the direct result of our counter-majoritarian institutions. Only once in the past 30 years — in the 2004 election — has anything like a majority of the American electorate voted for a president who promised a conservative Supreme Court. The three members who cemented this particular conservative majority — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett — were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and were confirmed by senators representing far fewer than half of all Americans.The typical response to this point is to say we do not elect presidents by popular vote. And we don’t, that’s true. But Americans have always acted as if the popular vote conveys democratic legitimacy. That’s why supporters of Andrew Jackson condemned the “corrupt bargain” that placed John Quincy Adams in the White House in 1825, why many supporters of Samuel Tilden were furious with the compromise that gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency after the 1876 presidential election and why allies of George W. Bush were prepared to argue that he was the rightful winner of the 2000 election in the event he lost the Electoral College but won a majority of voters.It matters whether a president has democratic legitimacy. Donald Trump did not. But rather than act with that in mind, he used his power to pursue the interests of a narrow ideological faction, giving its representatives free rein to shape the Supreme Court as they saw fit. The court, then, is stained by the same democratic illegitimacy that marked Trump and his administration.Republicans seem to know this, and it helps explain why they’re so angry about the leak. They hope to write conservative ideology into the Constitution. For that to work, however, Americans need to believe that the court is an impartial arbiter of law, where each justice uses reason to come to the correct answer on any given issue of constitutional interpretation.The leak throws that out the window. The leak makes it clear that the Supreme Court is a political body, where horse-trading and influence campaigns are as much a part of the process as pure legal reasoning.If the court is a political body — if it is a partisan body — then a roused and unhappy public may decide to reject its judgments and authority. That public may ask itself why it should listen to a court that doesn’t heed its opinion. And it may decide that the time has come to reform the court and dismantle the ill-gotten majority that conservatives worked so hard to create.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

    • 25 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Unpopularity

      by

      Covid helps explain it.Shortly after taking office, President Biden called on the government to do better. “We have to prove democracy still works,” he told Congress. “That our government still works — and we can deliver for our people.”Most Americans seem to believe Biden has not done so: 42 percent of Americans approve of his job performance, while 53 percent disapprove, according to FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls.In today’s newsletter, I want to use Covid as a case study for how Biden failed to persuade Americans that the government delivered and instead cemented perceptions that it cannot.Polling suggests that Covid — not the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan — jump-started Biden’s political problems. His approval rating began to drop in July, weeks before the withdrawal.Source: FiveThirtyEightThat timing coincides with the rise of the Delta variant and reports that vaccine protection against infection was not holding up. Both came after Biden suggested for months that an “Independence Day” from Covid was near, setting up Americans for disappointment as it became clear that his administration would not fulfill arguably its biggest promise.The Covid exampleAt first, the Biden administration’s pandemic response helped highlight how government can solve a big problem. Millions of Americans were receiving shots a day — a campaign that Biden compared to wartime mobilization.But then things went awry, culminating in the disappointment many Americans now feel toward Biden’s handling of Covid.Biden’s administration gave mixed messages on boosters and masks that at times appeared to contradict data and experts. As we have covered before, U.S. officials often have not trusted the public with the truth about Covid and precautions.Getting a booster in Jackson, Ala., last year.Charity Rachelle for The New York TimesCongress also lagged behind, with pandemic funding caught in intraparty squabbles and partisan fights — the kind of gridlock that has often prevented lawmakers from getting things done in recent years.“American government is fairly slow and very incremental,” said Julia Azari, a political scientist at Marquette University. “That makes it very difficult to be responsive.”Perhaps Biden’s biggest mistake was, as Azari put it, “overpromising.” He spent early last summer suggesting that vaccines would soon make Covid a concern of the past — a view some experts shared at the time, too.Biden could not control what followed, as the virus persisted. But he could have set more realistic expectations for how a notoriously unpredictable pandemic would unfold.Another problem preceded Biden’s presidency: the political polarization of the pandemic. It made vaccines a red-versus-blue issue, with many Republicans refusing to get shots. Yet the vaccines remain the single best weapon against Covid.Given the high polarization, Biden’s options against Covid are now limited. His support for vaccines can even turn Republicans against the shots, one study found.“There is more that could be done, but the impact would probably only be at the margins, rather than transformative,” said Jen Kates of the Kaiser Family Foundation.Even if Biden cannot do much, the public will likely hold him responsible for future Covid surges; voters expect presidents to solve difficult issues. “People blame the administration for problems that are largely outside its control,” said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College.Lost trustBiden framed his call to deliver as a test for American democracy. He drew comparisons to the 1930s — “another era when our democracy was tested,” then by the threat of fascism. He pointed to new threats: Donald Trump challenging the legitimacy of U.S. elections and China’s president, Xi Jinping, betting that “democracy cannot keep up with him.”There is a historical factor, too. Since the Vietnam War and Watergate, Americans’ trust in their government has fallen. If Biden had succeeded, he could have helped reverse this trend.But Covid, and the government’s response to it, did the opposite. Trust in the C.D.C. fell throughout the pandemic: from 69 percent in April 2020 to 44 percent in January, according to NBC News.Distrust in government can turn into a vicious cycle. The government needs the public’s trust to get things done — like, say, a mass vaccination campaign. Without that support, government efforts will be less successful. And as the government is less successful, the public will lose more faith in it.Given the polarization surrounding Covid and the government’s mixed record, skepticism seems a more likely outcome than the renaissance of trust that Biden called for.THE LATEST NEWSWar in UkraineThe Russian ship Moskva off Havana in 2013.Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty ImagesThe U.S. provided intelligence that helped Ukraine sink the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.Russia intensified its attacks in the eastern regions of Ukraine, hoping for a victory by Monday. But it is difficult to evaluate how the actual fighting is going.Ukrainian forces, mounting a highly mobile defense, regained ground elsewhere in the east.An operation to evacuate 200 remaining civilians from a steel factory in Mariupol was underway this morning. Russia bombed the complex overnight.Here’s what the war looks like on Russian TV, where the goal is often to leave viewers confused.The VirusA mass cremation for Covid victims in New Delhi last year.Atul Loke for The New York TimesThe pandemic’s true toll: nearly 15 million excess deaths — including 4.7 million in India, nearly 10 times its official total.The F.D.A. further limited the use of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine, citing concerns over a rare clotting disorder.PoliticsKarine Jean-Pierre will take over from Jen Psaki.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesKarine Jean-Pierre will become the first Black woman and first openly gay person to serve as White House press secretary.As president, Trump proposed launching missiles into Mexico to destroy drug labs and cartels, his defense secretary writes in a memoir.The White House hosted labor organizers who have unionized workplaces at Amazon, Starbucks and elsewhere.Texas plans to challenge a Supreme Court ruling requiring public schools to educate undocumented immigrants.Other Big StoriesTwo assailants, at least one armed with an ax, killed at least three people in an Israeli town.The next front in the fight over abortion rights: pills.Amber Heard accused Johnny Depp, her ex-husband, of sexual assault, seeking to counter Depp’s testimony that she had been the aggressor.The stock market had its best day in over a year on Wednesday. Then it fell sharply yesterday.New York City’s rent panel backed the largest increase since 2013, affecting more than two million people.OpinionsThe end of Roe v. Wade will worsen America’s cultural wars, Michelle Goldberg argues.Biden should cancel student debt — but only for those in precarious situations, says David Brooks.The Supreme Court lost its legitimacy long before the draft abortion ruling leaked, Jamelle Bouie writes.NFTs and cryptocurrencies were meant to liberate the internet. Instead, they’re polluting it with scams, Farhad Manjoo writes.MORNING READSHandle with care: Peek into Bob Dylan’s archive, including notebooks and fan mail.Ancient relic: Goodwill sold a Roman bust for $34.99. Its 2,000-year journey to Texas remains a mystery.Great gowns: They’re the dry cleaners to the stars.Modern Love: For a family scattered by war, a group chat is everything.A Times classic: How gender stereotypes are changing.Advice from Wirecutter: The best anti-mosquito gear.Lives Lived: Marcus Leatherdale captured downtown Manhattan in the AIDS-darkened 1980s, photographing Andy Warhol, Madonna and others. Leatherdale died at 69.ARTS AND IDEAS Products from the show “CoComelon.”Alexander Coggin for The New York TimesParents dread it. Kids love it.With vivid colors, ear-worm songs and simple animation, the cartoon series “CoComelon” has an almost hypnotic effect on toddlers. The show is the second-largest channel on YouTube and holds a firm spot on Netflix’s top 10.This is all by design — “CoComelon” is a production of Moonbug Entertainment, a London company that produces several of the world’s most popular online kids’ shows.Moonbug treats children’s shows like a science, where every aesthetic choice or potential plot point is data-driven and rigorously tested with its target audience. Should the music be louder or more mellow? Should the bus be yellow or red? The answer is yellow — infants are apparently drawn to yellow buses, as well as minor injuries and stuff covered in dirt.“The trifecta for a kid would be a dirty yellow bus that has a boo-boo,” a Moonbug exec said during a company story session. “Broken fender, broken wheel, little grimace on its face.”Read more from inside one of the pitch sessions for a kids’ show juggernaut. — Sanam Yar, a Morning writerPLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookDane Tashima for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Barrett Washburne.This veggie burger uses cabbage and mushrooms for crunch.ProfileHe has sampled Fergie in his music, vacationed with Drake and has been co-signed by Kendrick Lamar. Meet Jack Harlow.Spring CleaningMarie Kondo is here to help you tidy up your pandemic clutter.Late NightTrevor Noah has thoughts on interest rates.Take the News QuizHow well did you follow the headlines this week?Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was offhanded. Here is today’s puzzle — or you can play online.Here’s today’s Wordle. Here’s today’s Mini Crossword and a clue: Bagel variety (five letters).If you’re in the mood to play more, find all our games here.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. The Times’s Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns discussed their reporting about Jan. 6 on NPR’s “Fresh Air.”Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about anti-abortion activists. Still Processing” is about “Fatal Attraction.”Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti, Ashley Wu and Sanam Yar contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Giuliani Pulls Out of Interview With Jan. 6 Committee

      by

      The former personal lawyer to Donald J. Trump withdrew from an interview scheduled for Friday after the panel would not let him record it, his lawyer said.WASHINGTON — Rudolph W. Giuliani, who helped lead President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election as his personal lawyer, on Thursday abruptly pulled out of a scheduled Friday interview with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol after the panel refused to let him record the session.Mr. Giuliani has been negotiating with the panel about testifying for months, and had finally reached an agreement to speak about matters other than his conversations with Mr. Trump or any other topic he believes is covered by attorney-client privilege, said his lawyer, Robert J. Costello.Mr. Giuliani’s sudden withdrawal threatens what could have been a major breakthrough for the investigation. His testimony could have included details about interactions with members of Congress and others involved in the plans who were not Mr. Giuliani’s clients, Mr. Costello said. And with Mr. Giuliani under a subpoena to testify, the standoff raises the specter of yet another protracted legal battle between the committee and a former Trump aide.The impasse began when Mr. Costello told the committee on Thursday that Mr. Giuliani intended to record the interview on video. When the panel’s lawyers refused to allow him to do so, he canceled the meeting, Mr. Costello said.“He’s willing to talk about anything that is not privileged,” Mr. Costello said. “The only sticking point we’ve had is recording the interview. Now, that tells me they’re more interested in keeping things secret than getting to the so-called truth. If you’re interested in the person’s testimony, why would you not agree to this?”Mr. Costello said that Mr. Giuliani’s testimony was not yet off the table, and that he would continue to negotiate with the panel’s lawyers. He said that Mr. Giuliani, a former New York mayor, “simply doesn’t trust” members of the committee, specifically Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, and believes that they will selectively edit his testimony.“If they changed their mind and they said, ‘Listen, we’ll jointly record the interview,’ then we would participate,” Mr. Costello said.Tim Mulvey, a spokesman for the committee, said the panel would consider enforcement actions against Mr. Giuliani if he does not change course and comply with the committee’s subpoena.“Mr. Giuliani had agreed to participate in a transcribed interview with the select committee. Today, he informed committee investigators that he wouldn’t show up unless he was permitted to record the interview, which was never an agreed-upon condition,” Mr. Mulvey said. “Mr. Giuliani is an important witness to the conspiracy to overthrow the government, and he remains under subpoena. If he refuses to comply, the committee will consider all enforcement options.”The committee has interviewed more than 970 witnesses and has recommended criminal contempt of Congress charges against four of Mr. Trump’s closest allies, who have refused to fully cooperate.Mr. Trump’s final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has been referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal charges after refusing an interview with the committee. Another former aide, Stephen K. Bannon, was indicted in November after refusing to provide information to congressional investigators.Last month, the House voted to recommend criminal contempt of Congress charges against Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino Jr., two other close allies of Mr. Trump, after the pair defied subpoenas from the committee.The Justice Department has yet to act on the referrals for Mr. Meadows, Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino.As a key figure in Mr. Trump’s attempts to stave off electoral defeat, Mr. Giuliani would be in a position to tell investigators about a series of extraordinary measures undertaken last fall and winter in a bid to maintain the losing president’s grip on power.Among those efforts was a scheme to disrupt the normal workings of the Electoral College by persuading lawmakers in contested swing states to draw up alternate slates of electors showing Mr. Trump was victorious in states that were actually won by President Biden.Mr. Giuliani was also instrumental in vetting a plan to use the Department of Homeland Security to seize voting machines and examine the data housed inside them for supposed evidence of fraud. At Mr. Trump’s direction, Mr. Giuliani asked a top homeland security official if the department could legally take control of the machines — a notion the official shot down. Mr. Giuliani later opposed an even more explosive proposal to have the military seize the machines.Mr. Giuliani was subpoenaed with other members of a legal team that billed itself as an “elite strike force” and pursued a set of lawsuits on behalf of Mr. Trump in which they promulgated conspiracy theories and made unsubstantiated claims of fraud in the election.The committee’s subpoena sought all documents that Mr. Giuliani had detailing the pressure campaign that he and other Trump allies initiated targeting state officials, the seizure of voting machines, contact with members of Congress, any evidence to support the conspiracy theories he pushed and any arrangements for his fees.On Jan. 6, speaking to a crowd of Trump supporters before a pro-Trump mob attacked the Capitol, Mr. Giuliani called for “trial by combat.” Later, after the building was under siege, both he and Mr. Trump called lawmakers in an attempt to delay the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Proposed Launching Missiles Into Mexico to ‘Destroy the Drug Labs,’ Esper Says

      by

      It is one of the moments in his upcoming memoir that the former defense secretary described as leaving him all but speechless.President Donald J. Trump in 2020 asked Mark T. Esper, his defense secretary, about the possibility of launching missiles into Mexico to “destroy the drug labs” and wipe out the cartels, maintaining that the United States’ involvement in a strike against its southern neighbor could be kept secret, Mr. Esper recounts in his upcoming memoir.Those remarkable discussions were among several moments that Mr. Esper described in the book, “A Sacred Oath,” as leaving him all but speechless when he served the 45th president.Mr. Esper, the last Senate-confirmed defense secretary under Mr. Trump, also had concerns about speculation that the president might misuse the military around Election Day by, for instance, having soldiers seize ballot boxes. He warned subordinates to be on alert for unusual calls from the White House in the lead-up to the election.The book, to be published on Tuesday, offers a stunningly candid perspective from a former defense secretary, and it illuminates key episodes from the Trump presidency, including some that were unknown or underexplored.“I felt like I was writing for history and for the American people,” said Mr. Esper, who underwent the standard Pentagon security clearance process to check for classified information. He also sent his writing to more than two dozen four-star generals, some cabinet members and others to weigh in on accuracy and fairness.Pressed on his view of Mr. Trump, Mr. Esper — who strained throughout the book to be fair to the man who fired him while also calling out his increasingly erratic behavior after his first impeachment trial ended in February 2020 — said carefully but bluntly, “He is an unprincipled person who, given his self-interest, should not be in the position of public service.”A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Mr. Esper describes an administration completely overtaken by concerns about Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign, with every decision tethered to that objective. He writes that he could have resigned, and weighed the idea several times, but that he believed the president was surrounded by so many yes-men and people whispering dangerous ideas to him that a loyalist would have been put in Mr. Esper’s place. The real act of service, he decided, was staying in his post to ensure that such things did not come to pass.One such idea emerged from Mr. Trump, who was unhappy about the constant flow of drugs across the southern border, during the summer of 2020. Mr. Trump asked Mr. Esper at least twice if the military could “shoot missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs.”“They don’t have control of their own country,” Mr. Esper recounts Mr. Trump saying.When Mr. Esper raised various objections, Mr. Trump said that “we could just shoot some Patriot missiles and take out the labs, quietly,” adding that “no one would know it was us.” Mr. Trump said he would just say that the United States had not conducted the strike, Mr. Esper recounts, writing that he would have thought it was a joke had he not been staring Mr. Trump in the face.In Mr. Esper’s telling, Mr. Trump seemed more emboldened, and more erratic, after he was acquitted in his first impeachment trial. Mr. Esper writes that personnel choices reflected that reality, as Mr. Trump tried to tighten his grip on the executive branch with demands of personal loyalty.Among Mr. Trump’s desires was to put 10,000 active-duty troops on the streets of Washington on June 1, 2020, after large protests against police brutality erupted following the police killing of George Floyd. Mr. Trump asked Mr. Esper about the demonstrators, “Can’t you just shoot them?”Mr. Esper describes one episode nearly a month earlier during which Mr. Trump, whose re-election prospects were reshaped by his repeated bungling of the response to the coronavirus pandemic, behaved so erratically at a May 9 meeting about China with the Joint Chiefs of Staff that one officer grew alarmed. The unidentified officer confided to Mr. Esper months later that the meeting led him to research the 25th Amendment, under which the vice president and members of the cabinet can remove a president from office, to see what was required and under what circumstances it might be used.Mr. Esper writes that he never believed Mr. Trump’s conduct rose to the level of needing to invoke the 25th Amendment. He also strains to give Mr. Trump credit where he thinks he deserves it. Nonetheless, Mr. Esper paints a portrait of someone not in control of his emotions or his thought process throughout 2020.Mr. Esper singles out officials whom he considered erratic or dangerous influences on Mr. Trump, with the policy adviser Stephen Miller near the top of the list. He recounts that Mr. Miller proposed sending 250,000 troops to the southern border, claiming that a large caravan of migrants was en route. “The U.S. armed forces don’t have 250,000 troops to send to the border for such nonsense,” Mr. Esper writes that he responded.In October 2019, after members of the national security team assembled in the Situation Room to watch a feed of the raid that killed the Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Mr. Miller proposed securing Mr. al-Baghdadi’s head, dipping it in pig’s blood and parading it around to warn other terrorists, Mr. Esper writes. That would be a “war crime,” Mr. Esper shot back.Mr. Miller flatly denied the episode and called Mr. Esper “a moron.”Mr. Esper also viewed Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s final White House chief of staff, as a huge problem for the administration and the national security team in particular. Mr. Meadows often threw the president’s name around when barking orders, but Mr. Esper makes clear that he often was not certain whether Mr. Meadows was communicating what Mr. Trump wanted or what Mr. Meadows wanted.He also writes about repeated clashes with Robert C. O’Brien, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser in the final year, describing Mr. O’Brien as advocating a bellicose approach to Iran without considering the potential fallout.Mr. O’Brien said he was “surprised and disappointed” by Mr. Esper’s comments. More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      In Arizona, a Swing State Swings to the Far Right

      by

      SIERRA VISTA, Ariz. — Kari Lake has a strategy to get elected in 2022.Keep talking about 2020.Minutes into her pitch at the Cochise County Republican headquarters in the suburbs of southern Arizona, Ms. Lake zeroed in on the presidential election 18 months ago, calling it “crooked” and “corrupt.” She claimed nearly a dozen times in a single hour that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald J. Trump, a falsehood that the audience — some of whom wore red hats reading “Trump Won” — was eager to hear. Ms. Lake, a former local Fox anchor who won Mr. Trump’s endorsement as she campaigns to become Arizona’s next governor, calls the 2020 election a key motivation in her decision to enter the race.“We need some people with a backbone to stand up for this country — we had our election stolen,” Ms. Lake said in an interview after the Cochise County event in March, adding, “I don’t know if it’s a winning issue, but it’s a winning issue when it comes to saving this country.”Republicans in many states have grown increasingly tired of the Stop the Steal movement and the push by Mr. Trump to reward election deniers and punish those who accept President Biden’s victory. At a time when Mr. Biden’s approval ratings are sinking, leaders in the party are urging candidates to focus instead on the economy, inflation and other kitchen-table issues.But 12 weeks before its Republican primary in August, Arizona shows just how firm of a grasp Mr. Trump and his election conspiracy theories still have at every level of the party, from local activists to top statewide candidates. And this week’s victory for J.D. Vance, the “Hillbilly Elegy” author who received the former president’s endorsement in the Republican primary for an Ohio Senate seat, shows that loyalty to Trumpism goes a long way in battleground states.Still, some establishment Republicans worry that party leaders have gone too far and are effectively handing the closely divided swing state to Democrats in November.“Anybody who is still re-litigating 2020 will lose the general election,” said Kathy Petsas, a Republican who has served as a precinct captain and collected signatures for several candidates this year. “I think people at home have caught on, and I don’t think a lot of our candidates have caught on.”Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona with President Donald J. Trump in 2020. The race to replace Mr. Ducey, who cannot run again because of term limits, has become among the most expensive governor’s races in state history.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTwo forces have helped ensure election denialism remains a core issue in Arizona: the Republican-sponsored and widely derided review of the presidential vote in the state’s largest county, and Mr. Trump’s continued attacks on the Republican governor, Doug Ducey, for rebuffing his efforts to block election certification. More than three dozen Republicans running for office in Arizona — including six candidates for statewide posts — have made denying the 2020 results a centerpiece of their campaigns, according to two groups tracking candidates, States United Action and Pro-Democracy Republicans. States United Action is nonpartisan; Maricopa County’s top elections official, a Republican, began Pro-Democracy Republicans earlier this year.In interviews with more than a dozen voters at Ms. Lake’s campaign events, nearly all said “election integrity” was their top issue, and none believed that Mr. Biden was the legitimate winner of the presidential election.“We need strong Republicans to get rid of the RINOs who aren’t willing to do anything, like our governor,” said Claribeth Davis, 62, using the acronym for “Republicans in name only” to refer to Mr. Ducey. Ms. Davis, a medical aide, said she recently moved from the Phoenix suburbs to Cochise County’s Sierra Vista, a rural section of southern Arizona, to “be with more like-minded people.”Trump supporters in November 2020 gathered outside the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office in Phoenix, where ballots were being counted.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesNumerous courts and reviews have found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. The Republican-ordered review by Cyber Ninjas, a now-defunct company with no previous experience in elections, concluded that there had actually been even more votes for Mr. Biden and even fewer for Mr. Trump in Maricopa County. The county’s board of supervisors rebutted nearly all of the group’s claims. But none of that has tamped down the fervent belief among many Republicans that control of the country has been snatched away from them.“There’s nothing but elitists in charge,” said Suzanne Jenkins, a 75-year-old retiree who described herself as a Tea Party Republican and who drove about an hour to Sierra Vista to hear Ms. Lake speak.Understand the Ohio and Indiana Primary ElectionsTrump’s Grip: J.D. Vance’s win in Ohio’s G.O.P. Senate primary was a strong affirmation of the former president’s continued dominance of the Republican Party.How Vance Won: The author of “Hillbilly Elegy” got a big endorsement from Donald J. Trump, but a cable news megaphone and a huge infusion of spending helped pave his way to victory.Ohio Takeaways: It was a good night for Mr. Trump, and not just because of Mr. Vance. Here’s why.Winners and Losers: A progressive challenger was defeated (again) in Ohio, and a Trump-endorsed Pence (not that one) won in Indiana. These were some of the key results.There has been little political upside for moderate and more establishment Republicans in Arizona to speak out against the party’s far-right wing. Instead, the handful of them who have done so have faced protests, censure from local Republican organizations and harassment. Bill Gates, the Republican chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, who has repeatedly defended the state’s 2020 election, has received death threats.“There’s not enough pushback,” said State Senator Paul Boyer, a Republican who is not running for re-election. “Because everyone is afraid of a primary.”For generations, Arizona was a reliably red state. Even as Senator John McCain fashioned himself into a moderate maverick, the state was a hotbed of conservative anti-immigration politics that helped give rise to Mr. Trump’s candidacy and presidency. Mr. McCain’s name is now invoked as an insult by conservative Republicans, including Ms. Lake.But in the last four years, voters have elected two Democratic senators and chosen a Democrat for president for the first time in more than two decades, though Republicans remain in control of the State Legislature and the governor’s mansion.Arizona has long been a source of right-wing enthusiasm for the national party. The former Maricopa County sheriff, Joe Arpaio, made national headlines in the early 2000s for his anti-immigrant policies, and in 2010 the Legislature passed what became known as the “show me your papers” law, effectively legalizing racial profiling. It was later struck down, and Mr. Arpaio is now running for mayor in a Phoenix suburb.Ms. Lake, who quit her job as an anchor for the local Fox station because of what she called its bias and dishonesty, frequently blasts the media as “brainwashed,” “immoral” and “the enemy of the people.” And her widespread name recognition has helped give her an early lead in the polls.But winning the crowded Republican primary is far from certain. Ms. Lake faces especially fierce opposition from Karrin Taylor Robson, a Phoenix-based business owner who has contributed millions to her own campaign. Already, the race to replace Mr. Ducey, who cannot run again because of term limits, has become among the most expensive governor’s races in state history, with $13.6 million in spending so far.Ms. Taylor Robson has not made the 2020 election the major focus of her campaign, but when asked whether she considered Mr. Biden the fairly elected president, she responded in a statement, “Joe Biden may be the president, but the election definitely wasn’t fair.”“We need some people with a backbone to stand up for this country — we had our election stolen,” said Kari Lake, who won Mr. Trump’s endorsement in her campaign for governor.Cassidy Araiza for The New York TimesMs. Lake says Arizona should finish the border wall that Mr. Trump began building. She has emphasized her ties to the former president, appearing with him at his rally in the state earlier this year, fund-raising with him at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida and including his name on her campaign signs.Ms. Lake has made conspiracy theories a centerpiece of her campaign — releasing a television ad that told viewers that if they were watching the ad, they were in the middle of a “fake news” program. “You know how to know it’s fake?” she says to the camera. “Because they won’t even cover the biggest story out there: the rigged election of 2020.” She also touts her endorsement from the chief executive of MyPillow, Mike Lindell, a key financier of right-wing efforts to discredit the 2020 election.From first-time candidates to incumbents in Congress and the State Legislature, many Republicans in Arizona have increasingly embraced an extremist brand of right-wing politics.Representative Paul Gosar and State Senator Wendy Rogers both spoke at the America First Political Action Conference, a group with strong ties to white nationalists, and both were censured by their legislative bodies for their violent rhetoric and antics. Ms. Rogers and State Representative Mark Finchem, a Republican who is running for secretary of state, have acknowledged ties to the Oath Keepers militia group. Ron Watkins, who is widely believed to have played a major role in writing the anonymous posts that helped spur the pro-Trump conspiracy theory known as QAnon, is running for Congress. Jim Lamon, a Republican running for U.S. Senate, falsely claimed to be an elector for Arizona last year.Even Mr. Ducey, who was formally censured by the state Republican Party last year for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, has acknowledged the energy on the state’s hard-right, signing a bill that will require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. When reporters asked about his support for Ms. Rogers, Mr. Ducey said that “she’s still better than her opponent,” a Democrat, though he later applauded the Legislature’s vote to censure her. Mark Brnovich, the Arizona attorney general who is now running for U.S. Senate, has faced repeated criticism from other Republicans, including Ms. Lake and Mr. Trump, and accusations that he is dragging out the investigation into the presidential election.Representative Paul Gosar spoke at a Trump rally in Florence, Ariz., in January.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesState Senator Wendy Rogers, an Arizona Republican, addressed the crowd at a Trump rally. She was censured by the State Senate in March after giving a speech to a white nationalist gathering.Ross D. Franklin/Associated PressA few Republican candidates have made the economy and immigration the focus of their campaign. But even among those candidates, almost none have offered a full-throated defense of the 2020 election. Some Republicans believe that while focusing on 2020 is both irresponsible and politically unwise, it may not matter in Arizona, where the president’s approval rating is now at its lowest since he took office, a dive largely driven by independent voters.Because independent and third-party voters make up roughly 34 percent of the electorate, it is impossible to win the state with Republicans alone. Ms. Lake and other candidates like her may have already hit a ceiling even among primary voters, as polls show many voters remain undecided, and there is evidence of growing support for other candidates.“I am concerned that if these people get elected it will make another decade of craziness,” said Bob Worsley, a former state senator who describes himself as a moderate Republican. “I don’t know who has the stature to say, ‘Let’s bring this party back, bring the establishment base back into power.’ Now we’re a purple state and we don’t have a John McCain to try to crack the whip.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Oath Keepers Leader Sought to Ask Trump to Unleash His Militia

      by

      A dramatic account of how the militia leader, Stewart Rhodes, tried to reach Donald J. Trump on Jan. 6 with a message that the group could help keep him in power was revealed in federal court.Even as the beleaguered police were still trying to disperse a violent mob at the Capitol last January, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right Oath Keepers militia, undertook a desperate, last-ditch effort to keep President Donald J. Trump in the White House, according to court papers released on Wednesday.In a suite at the Phoenix Park Hotel, just blocks from the Capitol, Mr. Rhodes called an unnamed intermediary and, the papers said, repeatedly implored the person to ask Mr. Trump to mobilize his group to forcibly stop the transition of presidential power.But the person refused to speak with Mr. Trump, the papers said. And once the call was over, Mr. Rhodes, turning to a group of his associates, declared, “I just want to fight.”Witnessing this scene, which unfolded in the twilight hours of Jan. 6, 2021, was William Todd Wilson, a midlevel Oath Keepers leader from North Carolina. On Wednesday, Mr. Wilson, 44, pleaded guilty in federal court in Washington to charges of seditious conspiracy and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in their investigation of the Oath Keepers’ role in the Capitol attack.Mr. Wilson’s tale of what took place at the Phoenix Park — the same hotel that Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the far-right Proud Boys, had stayed at days earlier — was among the most dramatic accounts to have emerged so far in the government’s monthslong investigation of the Oath Keepers.Phillip Linder, a lawyer for Mr. Rhodes, said he did not know who his client had called from the hotel in his effort to reach Mr. Trump.In a 15-page statement of offense released in conjunction with his plea, Mr. Wilson also admitted to helping stockpile weapons in hotel rooms in Virginia for a so-called quick reaction force assembled to “provide firearms or cover to co-conspirators” who were “operating inside of Washington” on Jan. 6.With his guilty plea, Mr. Wilson, a military and law enforcement veteran, became the third member of the Oath Keepers charged with sedition to reach a deal with the Justice Department to help in its most serious criminal case connected to the Capitol attack. As part of their inquiry, prosecutors have fanned out across the country interviewing dozens of members of the group. More than 20 Oath Keepers have been charged.The new court papers paint a picture of Mr. Wilson as a man enraged by the results of the 2020 election. In early November, for example, he expressed outrage in an Oath Keepers group chat after Georgia was called for Joseph R. Biden Jr.“Rigged,” he wrote. And then, “I’m ready to go coyote hunting.”On Dec. 14, 2020 — the day that a majority of electors cast their votes for Mr. Biden in the Electoral College — Mr. Wilson saw an article posted in the group chat that was written by Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s onetime national security adviser. The article warned about “unelected tyrants,” and Mr. Wilson wrote to his compatriots, “It is time to fight.”After several phone calls with Mr. Rhodes in early January, Mr. Wilson admitted driving from North Carolina to the Washington area on Jan. 5 with an AR-15-style rifle, a 9-milimeter pistol, 200 rounds of ammunition, body armor, pepper spray and a pocketknife. As he traveled, court papers say, he posted a message in the group chat, saying, “It’s going to hit the fan tonight!”On the day of the attack, the papers said, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Rhodes and other Oath Keepers bypassed barricades at the Capitol, unlawfully entering a restricted area. As plumes of smoke rose from the ground, the papers said, Mr. Wilson heard Mr. Rhodes declare that they were in the middle of a “civil war.”Moments later, the papers say, Mr. Wilson entered the Capitol armed with his pocketknife — the first Oath Keeper to have breached the building. He admitted that his goal in entering the building was to gather intelligence and to disrupt the final certification of the Electoral College count.The sedition case against the Oath Keepers — one of two separate cases brought against members of the group — was made public in January with the arrest of Mr. Rhodes, a former Army paratrooper who went on to earn a law degree at Yale. In an indictment of Mr. Rhodes and 10 of his subordinates, prosecutors fleshed out a detailed portrait of a plot to disrupt the transfer of power from Mr. Trump to Mr. Biden, starting shortly after Election Day and continuing even after the Capitol was attacked.Just two days after voting ended, prosecutors say, Mr. Rhodes told several members of his group to refuse to accept Mr. Biden’s victory — by force, if necessary.“We aren’t getting through this without a civil war,” he wrote on the encrypted chat app Signal. “Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body, spirit.”Throughout November and December, Mr. Rhodes issued an increasingly threatening — and paranoid — series of communiqués, calling on Mr. Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and saying he had men stationed outside Washington ready to act on the president’s command. In the days leading up to the storming of the Capitol, Mr. Rhodes went on a gun-buying spree, spending thousands of dollars on military-grade firearms, ammunition and other tactical gear, prosecutors say.While Mr. Rhodes never entered the Capitol, several members of the Oath Keepers did. Some have been accused of seeking to hunt down Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Others have been charged with assaulting police officers.Through their lawyers, those facing charges have repeatedly said they converged on Washington just before Jan. 6 not to attack lawmakers, but instead as part of a security detail tasked with protecting conservative celebrities like Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime ally of Mr. Trump.According to the group’s internal communications, the Oath Keepers sometimes performed security work in the chaotic postelection period with another far-right paramilitary outfit, the 1st Amendment Praetorian.By pleading guilty and agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors, Mr. Wilson appeared to put Mr. Rhodes in even more legal jeopardy.He will most likely be able to help the government better understand the composition and mission of the quick reaction forces, which were stationed in Virginia and were said to have been poised to aid the Oath Keepers at the Capitol if Mr. Trump had invoked the Insurrection Act. According to the new court papers, Mr. Wilson also heard Mr. Rhodes discussing the need on multiple occasions to “engage in force, up to and including lethal violence, in order to stop the transfer of power.”Mr. Wilson joins two other Oath Keepers charged with sedition — Brian Ulrich and Joshua James — in reaching cooperation deals with the government. In the past month or so, prosecutors have also struck similar arrangements with three key members of the Proud Boys, which also played a crucial role in the Capitol attack.When Mr. Ulrich, 44, pleaded guilty last week, he admitted to rushing to the Capitol with five compatriots in golf carts then marching into the building while the police were trying to clear it. In the days leading up to the attack, he also acknowledged sending messages in a private Oath Keepers group chat, saying that “civil war” would be necessary if Mr. Biden took office.“Trump acts now a few hundred radicals die trying to burn down cities,” Mr. Ulrich wrote in the chat on Dec. 19, 2020 — the same day Mr. Trump posted a tweet urging his supporters to go to Washington for a “wild” protest. “Trump sits on his hands Biden wins … millions die resisting the death of the 1st and 2nd amendment.”During his own guilty plea in March, Mr. James, the leader of an Alabama Oath Keepers chapter, said he had gone with Mr. Ulrich to the Capitol in a golf cart and assaulted a police officer in the building. After the riot, Mr. James acknowledged helping Mr. Rhodes get out of Washington by taking some of the arms and ammunition that the Oath Keepers leader had stored in his vehicle.Mr. James, 33, has admitted to being involved in meetings with Mr. Rhodes within weeks of the election where he learned about the Oath Keepers’ “plans to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power,” court papers say. He has also acknowledged helping Mr. Rhodes arrange a conference call on the online meeting site GoToMeeting to “facilitate planning” for Jan. 6.While Mr. James served on Mr. Stone’s protective detail before the Capitol was stormed, it remains unclear if he has provided prosecutors with any information about the longtime Trump adviser. According to private group chats seized by the government, the leader of the Oath Keepers’ Florida chapter, Kelly Meggs, reached a deal to protect Mr. Stone in early January. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Panel Seeks to Interview Three More G.O.P. Lawmakers

      by

      All three quickly declined. The panel also said it had evidence that some House Republicans sought pardons from President Donald J. Trump in connection with the effort to overturn the election.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol sent letters on Monday seeking interviews with three Republican members of Congress, and the panel said it had gathered evidence that some House Republicans sought presidential pardons in the aftermath of the violence that engulfed the Capitol.The committee requested interviews with Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona, the former leader of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus; Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama, who has said former President Donald J. Trump has continued to seek reinstatement to office; and Representative Ronny Jackson of Texas, Mr. Trump’s former White House doctor. All three quickly declined, seeking to paint the committee’s work as illegitimate.In a letter to Mr. Biggs, the committee’s leaders wrote that they wanted to question him about evidence they had obtained on efforts by certain House Republicans to seek a presidential pardon after Jan. 6 in connection with Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.“Your name was identified as a potential participant in that effort,” Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, and Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, the leaders of the committee, wrote to Mr. Biggs. “We would like to understand all the details of the request for a pardon, more specific reasons why a pardon was sought and the scope of the proposed pardon.”The committee also said it wanted to interview Mr. Biggs about a Dec. 21, 2020, meeting he attended at the White House with several other members of the Freedom Caucus. There, the discussion included a plan in which former Vice President Mike Pence would unilaterally refuse to count certain states’ certified electoral votes on Jan. 6.Investigators said they also had evidence about Mr. Biggs’s efforts to persuade state legislators to join Mr. Trump’s push to overturn the 2020 election.The panel also wants to question Mr. Biggs about Ali Alexander, a prominent organizer of so-called Stop the Steal rallies with ties to far-right members of Congress who sought to invalidate the 2020 election results. Mr. Alexander has said that he, along with Mr. Biggs, Mr. Brooks and Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona, set the events of Jan. 6 in motion.Investigators also want to question Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama about his statement that former President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly asked him to remove President Biden and force a special election.Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters“We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Mr. Alexander said in a since-deleted video posted online. He added that even if they couldn’t lobby the lawmakers, “we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.”The committee described Mr. Alexander as “an early and aggressive proponent of the Stop the Steal movement who called for violence before Jan. 6.”“We would like to understand precisely what you knew before the violence on Jan. 6 about the purposes, planning and expectations for the march on the Capitol,” Mr. Thompson and Ms. Cheney wrote to Mr. Biggs.Mr. Brooks, who wore body armor onstage that day as he told the crowd to “start taking down names and kicking ass,” and Mr. Biggs, who provided a video message for Mr. Alexander to play at a Dec. 19 rally, have denied coordinating event planning with Mr. Alexander.The panel wants to question Mr. Brooks about statements he made in March claiming that Mr. Trump had asked him repeatedly in the months since the election to illegally “rescind” the results, remove President Biden and force a special election.Mr. Brooks said Mr. Trump had made the request of him on multiple occasions since Sept. 1, 2021. He said the former president did not specify exactly how Congress could reinstall him, and that Mr. Brooks repeatedly told him it was impossible.“I told President Trump that ‘rescinding’ the 2020 election was not a legal option. Period,” Mr. Brooks said.Investigators said they had questions for Mr. Jackson, the former White House doctor who is now a member of Congress, about why he was mentioned in encrypted messages from the Oath Keepers, a militia group, some of whose members have been charged criminally in connection with the attack. In the messages, the militia members appear to have Mr. Jackson’s cellphone and say he is “on the move” and “needs protection” as the violence was underway.Members of the Oath Keepers, including its leader, Stewart Rhodes, exchanged encrypted messages asking members of the organization to provide Mr. Jackson personally with security assistance, suggesting that he has “critical data to protect,” according to federal prosecutors.“Why would these individuals have an interest in your specific location? Why would they believe you ‘have critical data to protect’?” Mr. Thompson and Ms. Cheney wrote to Mr. Jackson. “Why would they direct their members to protect your personal safety? With whom did you speak by cellphone that day?”On Jan. 6, Mr. Jackson posted photographs of himself at Mr. Trump’s rally on the Ellipse that preceded the violence, and posted to Twitter: “American Patriots have your BACK Mr. President! We will FIGHT for YOU and we will fight for OUR country!!”Mr. Thompson and Ms. Cheney wrote to Mr. Jackson: “We would like to discuss how and when you returned from the Ellipse to the Capitol, and the contacts you had with participants in the rally or the subsequent march from the Ellipse to the Capitol.”In a statement, Mr. Jackson denied being in contact with the members of the Oath Keepers.“I do not know, nor did I have contact with, those who exchanged text messages about me on Jan. 6,” Mr. Jackson said. “In fact, I was proud to help defend the House floor from those who posed a threat to my colleagues. The committee’s witch hunt against me is nothing more than a coordinated attempt to do the media’s work on taxpayers’ dime.”Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3Trump allies’ involvement. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Jury to Consider Whether Trump Illegally Interfered in 2020 Election

      by

      The panel will have up to a year to recommend whether the prosecutor should pursue criminal charges against the former president and his allies.ATLANTA — As the criminal investigation of Donald J. Trump by Manhattan prosecutors appears to be stalling out, the separate investigation into whether the former president and his allies illegally interfered with Georgia’s 2020 election results took a significant step forward on Monday, as 23 people were chosen to serve on a special investigative grand jury.The panel will focus exclusively on “whether there were unlawful attempts to disrupt the administration of the 2020 elections here in Georgia,” Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of the Fulton County Superior Court told 200 potential jurors who had been called to a downtown Atlanta courthouse swarming with law enforcement agents.The ability of the special grand jury to subpoena witnesses and documents will help prosecutors, who have encountered resistance from some potential witnesses who have declined to testify voluntarily. The panel will have up to a year to issue a report advising District Attorney Fani T. Willis on whether to pursue criminal charges.Some legal experts have said the inquiry could be perilous for Mr. Trump, who, in a January 2021 phone call, asked Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to put Mr. Trump ahead of his Democratic rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., in Georgia’s presidential election tally.The seating of the Georgia grand jury comes as a criminal inquiry in Manhattan has come to an apparent standstill. Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, is said to be concerned about the strength of the New York case, which focuses on whether Mr. Trump exaggerated the value of assets in annual financial statements. People close to the investigation have told The New York Times that the inquiry may lose steam if other witnesses do not step up to cooperate.In the Georgia case, a group of legal experts, in an analysis published last year by the Brookings Institution, wrote that the call to Mr. Raffensperger, and other postelection moves by Mr. Trump, put the former president at “substantial risk” of criminal charges in Georgia, including racketeering, election fraud solicitation, intentional interference with performance of election duties and conspiracy to commit election fraud.The investigation is also likely to look at Trump allies who inserted themselves into election administration matters in Georgia, including Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani; Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; and Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff. The investigation is within the purview of the Fulton County district attorney because many of the actions in question took place in or involved phone calls to officials in Fulton County, which includes the State Capitol building in downtown Atlanta and numerous government offices.In addition to the call with Mr. Raffensperger, Mr. Trump has publicly described how he called Gov. Brian Kemp after the election and asked him to call a special election to “get to the bottom” of “a big election-integrity problem in Georgia.” Mr. Trump also called Chris Carr, the state attorney general, asking him not to oppose a lawsuit challenging the election results in Georgia and other states, and Mr. Raffensperger’s chief investigator, asking her to find “dishonesty” in the election.In January 2021, Mr. Trump asked Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to put Mr. Trump ahead in Georgia’s presidential election tally.Audra Melton for The New York TimesThe investigations into such matters were already underway, Judge McBurney said in court on Monday. “But now it’s time for 26 members of our community to participate in that investigation,” he said, referring to the 23 jurors and three alternates.Judge McBurney told potential jurors to announce that they had a potential conflict if they were convinced that a crime had definitely been committed in regard to the 2020 elections — or if they were convinced that no crimes at all had occurred. Roughly 25 said they had such a conflict.The special grand jurors will issue subpoenas, hear testimony and review documents. The meetings will be confidential, and jurors will not be allowed to discuss the proceedings outside of their meetings. But the judge noted that witnesses could speak about the proceedings publicly if they so wished.In January, a majority of the judges in the Fulton County Superior Court system approved Ms. Willis’s request for the special grand jury, allowing it to meet for up to a year beginning May 2. After the panel makes recommendations regarding criminal prosecutions, it will be up to Ms. Willis, a Democrat, to return to a regular grand jury to seek criminal indictments.Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University, said that impaneling the grand jury was a sign that prosecutors had acknowledged the complexity, sensitivity and unique nature of the case. Among other things, Ms. Willis has raised the possibility that Mr. Trump and his allies violated the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO. Like the federal RICO law, which has been used to target the Mafia and other organized crime networks, Georgia’s state racketeering statute is a tool that can be used to go after a broad range of groups that take part in patterns of criminal conduct. Proving that case would require a deep examination of multiple moving parts.Among them, potentially, are a call that Mr. Graham made to Mr. Raffensperger asking whether mail-in votes could be discarded in counties with high rates of questionable ballot signatures; a visit Mr. Meadows made to suburban Atlanta to monitor an election audit there; and postelection appearances that Mr. Giuliani made before state legislative committees in which he asked for an alternative pro-Trump slate of electors to be appointed.“There’s a lot more than just the phone call,” said Mr. Kreis, who added that the case involved areas of the law that were “underdeveloped.”“We don’t have a lot of claims or potential claims that someone violated Georgia law by soliciting election fraud, because you’d have to be pretty crazy to go to the secretary of state’s office to demand a change in vote tabulations,” he said. “These are things so brazen it’s almost beyond belief.”Mr. Trump has other legal challenges to overcome in the wake of his one-term presidency, all of them taking on greater importance given the fact that he appears to be positioning himself to make another presidential run in 2024.The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 7Numerous inquiries. More