Presidential Election of 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      McConnell and McCarthy’s Jan. 6 Fury at Trump Faded by February

      by

      In the days after the attack, Representative Kevin McCarthy planned to tell Mr. Trump to resign. Senator Mitch McConnell told allies impeachment was warranted. But their fury faded fast.In the days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building, the two top Republicans in Congress, Representative Kevin McCarthy and Senator Mitch McConnell, told associates they believed President Trump was responsible for inciting the deadly riot and vowed to drive him from politics. Mr. McCarthy went so far as to say he would push Mr. Trump to resign immediately: “I’ve had it with this guy,” he told a group of Republican leaders.But within weeks both men backed off an all-out fight with Mr. Trump because they feared retribution from him and his political movement. Their drive to act faded fast as it became clear it would mean difficult votes that would put them at odds with most of their colleagues.“I didn’t get to be leader by voting with five people in the conference,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, told a friend.The confidential expressions of outrage from Mr. McCarthy and Mr. McConnell, which have not been previously reported, illustrate the immense gulf between what Republican leaders say privately about Mr. Trump and their public deference to a man whose hold on the party has gone virtually unchallenged for half a decade.The leaders’ swift retreat in January 2021 represented a capitulation at a moment of extraordinary political weakness for Mr. Trump — perhaps the last and best chance for mainstream Republicans to reclaim control of their party from a leader who had stoked an insurrection against American democracy itself.This account of the private discussions among Republican leaders in the days after the Jan. 6 attack is adapted from a new book, “This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden and the Battle for America’s Future,” which draws on hundreds of interviews with lawmakers and officials, and contemporaneous records of pivotal moments in the 2020 presidential campaign.Mr. McConnell’s office declined to comment. Mark Bednar, a spokesman for Mr. McCarthy, denied that the Republican leader told colleagues he would push Mr. Trump to leave office. “McCarthy never said he’d call Trump to say he should resign,” Mr. Bednar said.Representative Kevin McCarthy in the Capitol two weeks after the riot.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesNo one embodies the stark accommodation to Mr. Trump more than Mr. McCarthy, a 57-year-old Californian who has long had his sights set on becoming speaker of the House. In public after Jan. 6, Mr. McCarthy issued a careful rebuke of Mr. Trump, saying that he “bears responsibility” for the mob that tried to stop Congress from officially certifying the president’s loss. But he declined to condemn him in sterner language.In private, Mr. McCarthy went much further.On a phone call with several other top House Republicans on Jan. 8, Mr. McCarthy said Mr. Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 had been “atrocious and totally wrong.” He faulted the president for “inciting people” to attack the Capitol, saying that Mr. Trump’s remarks at a rally on the National Mall that day were “not right by any shape or any form.”During that conversation, Mr. McCarthy inquired about the mechanism for invoking the 25th Amendment — the process whereby the vice president and members of the cabinet can remove a president from office — before concluding that was not a viable option. Mr. McCarthy, who was among those who objected to the election results, was uncertain and indecisive, fretting that the Democratic drive to impeach Mr. Trump would “put more fuel on the fire” of the country’s divisions.But Mr. McCarthy’s resolve seemed to harden as the gravity of the attack — and the potential political fallout for his party — sank in. Two members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet had quit their posts after the attack and several moderate Republican governors had called for the president’s resignation. Video clips of the riot kept surfacing online, making the raw brutality of the attack ever more vivid in the public mind.The mob breaking into the Capitol.Win McNamee/Getty ImagesOn Jan. 10, Mr. McCarthy spoke again with the leadership team and this time he had a plan in mind.The Democrats were driving hard at an impeachment resolution, Mr. McCarthy said, and they would have the votes to pass it. Now he planned to call Mr. Trump and tell him it was time for him to go.“What he did is unacceptable. Nobody can defend that and nobody should defend it,” he told the group.Mr. McCarthy said he would tell Mr. Trump of the impeachment resolution: “I think this will pass, and it would be my recommendation you should resign.”He acknowledged it was unlikely Mr. Trump would follow that suggestion.Mr. McCarthy spent the four years of Mr. Trump’s presidency as one of the White House’s most obedient supporters in Congress. Since Mr. Trump’s defeat, Mr. McCarthy has appeased far-right members of the House, some of whom are close to the former president. Mr. McCarthy may need their support to become speaker, a vote that could come as soon as next year if the G.O.P. claims the House in November.Representative Kevin McCarthy with Mr. Trump in Bakersfield, Calif., in 2020.Doug Mills/The New York TimesBut in a brief window after the storming of the Capitol, Mr. McCarthy contemplated a total break with Mr. Trump and his most extreme supporters.During the same Jan. 10 conversation when he said he would call on Mr. Trump to resign, Mr. McCarthy told other G.O.P. leaders he wished the big tech companies would strip some Republican lawmakers of their social media accounts, as Twitter and Facebook had done with Mr. Trump. Members such as Lauren Boebert of Colorado had done so much to stoke paranoia about the 2020 election and made offensive comments online about the Capitol attack.“We can’t put up with that,” Mr. McCarthy said, adding, “Can’t they take their Twitter accounts away, too?”Mr. McCarthy “never said that particular members should be removed from Twitter,” Mr. Bednar said.Other Republican leaders in the House agreed with Mr. McCarthy that the president’s behavior deserved swift punishment. Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the second-ranking House Republican, said on one call that it was time for the G.O.P. to contemplate a “post-Trump Republican House,” while Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the head of the party’s House campaign committee, suggested censuring Mr. Trump.Yet none of the men followed through on their tough talk in those private conversations.In the following days, Mr. McCarthy heard from some Republican lawmakers who advised against confronting Mr. Trump. In one group conversation, Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio cautioned that conservative voters back home “go ballistic” in response to criticism of Mr. Trump, demanding that Republicans instead train their denunciations on Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden.“I’m just telling you that that’s the kind of thing that we’re dealing with, with our base,” Mr. Johnson said.When only 10 House Republicans joined with Democrats to support impeaching Mr. Trump on Jan. 13, the message to Mr. McCarthy was clear.By the end of the month, he was pursuing a rapprochement with Mr. Trump, visiting him at Mar-a-Lago and posing for a photograph. (“I didn’t know they were going to take a picture,” Mr. McCarthy said, somewhat apologetically, to one frustrated lawmaker.)Mr. McCarthy has never repeated his denunciations of Mr. Trump, instead offering a tortured claim that the real responsibility for Jan. 6 lies with security officials and Democratic legislative leaders for inadequately defending the Capitol complex.Senator Mitch McConnell, left, with Senator Patrick Leahy after it was announced that Mr. Leahy would preside over Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesIn the Senate, Mr. McConnell’s reversal was no less revealing. Late on the night of Jan. 6, Mr. McConnell predicted to associates that his party would soon break sharply with Mr. Trump and his acolytes; the Republican leader even asked a reporter in the Capitol for information about whether the cabinet might really pursue the 25th Amendment.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 5Signs of progress. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Alex Jones Reaches Out to Justice Dept. About Jan. 6 Interview

      by

      The effort by the Trump ally to get an immunity deal is the latest sign of progress in the investigation, which recently brought on a well-regarded prosecutor.The federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election appears to be gaining traction, with the Justice Department having brought in a well-regarded new prosecutor to help run the inquiry and a high-profile witness seeking a deal to provide information.Alex Jones, the host of the conspiracy-driven media outlet Infowars and a key player in the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” movement, is in discussions with the Justice Department about an agreement to detail his role in the rally near the White House last Jan. 6 that preceded the attack on the Capitol.Through his lawyer, Mr. Jones said he has given the government a formal letter conveying “his desire to speak to federal prosecutors about Jan. 6.”The lawyer, Norm Pattis, maintained that Mr. Jones had not engaged in any “criminal wrongdoing” that day when — chanting slogans about 1776 — he helped lead a crowd of Trump supporters in a march to the Capitol as violence was erupting.As a condition of being interviewed by federal investigators, Mr. Jones, who is known for his rants about the “Deep State” and its supposed control over national affairs, has requested immunity from prosecution.“He distrusts the government,” Mr. Pattis said.While convincing federal prosecutors to grant him immunity could be an uphill climb for Mr. Jones, his discussions with the Justice Department suggest that the investigation into the postelection period could be gathering momentum.Two weeks ago, another prominent Stop the Steal organizer, Ali Alexander, a close associate of Mr. Jones, revealed that he had received a subpoena from a federal grand jury that is seeking information on a broad swath of people — rally planners, members of Congress and others close to former President Donald J. Trump — connected to political events that took place in the run-up to Jan. 6. Mr. Alexander, who marched with Mr. Jones to the Capitol that day, has said that he intends to comply with the subpoena.Supporters of Mr. Trump outside the Capitol during the mob attack.Kenny Holston for The New York TimesSeveral months ago, the department quietly took another significant step, adding Thomas Windom, a career federal prosecutor from Maryland, to help in the expanded Jan. 6 investigation, according to three people familiar with the matter.Mr. Windom has been working with officials from the national security and criminal divisions at the Justice Department to determine whether and how to investigate potential criminal activity related to the Jan. 6 attack, other than what took place during the assault.His work complements two teams led by prosecutors in the Washington U.S. attorney’s office: one focused on charging people for participating in the riot and one focused on more complicated conspiracy cases stemming from it, such as the seditious conspiracy case that was brought against Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers.Mr. Windom is looking into the more politically fraught question of whether a case can be made related to other efforts to overturn the election, a task that could move the investigation closer to Mr. Trump and his inner circle. Mr. Alexander’s lawyers have been dealing with Mr. Windom, for example, in responding to the broad subpoena seeking information about the pro-Trump rallies and other efforts to keep Mr. Trump in office.Those efforts could extend to issues such as the plan by Trump allies to have seven swing states falsely certify that Mr. Trump won, and then mail those false documents to the National Archives and Congress. However, Mr. Windom does not yet have a robust team of prosecutors, leaving unclear how extensive the investigation might become.Mr. Windom was described by former colleagues as a diligent, aggressive lawyer capable of handling complex investigations. In his former job, Mr. Windom prosecuted some high-profile cases in Maryland — among them those involving domestic and international terrorism, public corruption and national security.Mr. Windom, for example, helped to secure convictions against a trio of violent members of a white supremacist group called “The Base,” which had hoped to trigger a race war in the United States. Two of the defendants received lengthy prison sentences.In another case, Mr. Windom prosecuted Christopher Hasson, a white nationalist and lieutenant in the U.S. Coast Guard, who had plotted to kill journalists, Democratic politicians, professors, Supreme Court justices and those he described as “leftists in general.”Mr. Windom also charged Tawanna P. Gaines, a Maryland lawmaker, with stealing about $22,000 in campaign funds. She pleaded guilty in 2019 and was later sentenced to six months in prison.“Thomas is a thorough and creative investigator and an experienced trial attorney,” said Robert K. Hur, a former U.S. attorney in Maryland. “He’s calm under pressure and accustomed to building and trying complex, high-stakes cases. Having tried two cases with him, I know his considerable skill before judges and juries.”Thomas Windom, a highly regarded federal prosecutor who won high-profile cases in Maryland, was brought on to bolster the politically fraught investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Julio Cortez/Associated PressIf prosecutors ultimately speak with Mr. Jones, they will encounter a polarizing figure with a broad range of ties to people in pro-Trump circles, including some of Mr. Trump’s aides and advisers. Mr. Jones was closely involved in pro-Trump rallies in Washington on Nov. 14 and Dec. 12 in 2020, working with rally organizers, prominent speakers and far-right militant groups like the Oath Keepers, whose members provided security at the gatherings.One of Mr. Jones’s top lieutenants at Infowars, Owen Shroyer, also was at the forefront of the mob that stormed the Capitol. Mr. Shroyer was arrested in August and is facing federal misdemeanor charges in connection with the riot.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 5Signs of progress. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      With or Without Trump, the MAGA Movement Is the Future of the Republican Party

      by

      The fissures in the Democratic Party are on display for all to see, since it is the party in power, but the divisions in the Republican Party and the conservative movement are deeper, wider and far more threatening.Matthew Continetti, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, describes the developments that have brought the conservative movement to a boil in his new book, “The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism.”In Continetti’s telling, there was deepening frustration and anger on the right after Republicans took control of the House in 2011 but still could not block the seemingly inexorable move to the left. In 2011, the Department of Education declared that Title IX required universities to investigate charges of sexual harassment with few due-process protections for the accused — to the dismay of many conservatives (and plenty of liberals). In 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services mandated that Obamacare cover the costs of contraception and abortifacients. In 2016, the Department of Education advised schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice.“These administration dictates made many conservatives question the efficacy of controlling Congress,” Continetti writes. “The legislative body seemed unable to prevent the Obama agenda in any fashion.”Conservatives have controlled the Supreme Court since 2006, when Justice Samuel Alito replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, but in 2015 the court established the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. “Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the deciding vote in Obergefell v. Hodges,” Continetti reports, noting that Kennedy’s “decision nullified bans on gay marriage in 31 states. Social conservatives were apoplectic.”As the same time, white working-class culture was unraveling, as Charles Murray observed in his 2012 book, “Coming Apart.”“At the top of society,” Continetti writes, “a self-perpetuating elite lived inside a bubble of affluent neighborhoods and postal codes Murray called ‘Super-Zips,’ while mass suffering played out below. Most Americans, Murray pointed out, did not enjoy the benefits of intact families, vibrant communities and church membership.” Addiction levels, Continetti continued, were staggering. “Opioid and heroin abuse caused a spike in deaths, in some years killing as many Americans as died in Vietnam.”Most important, from a political perspective: “All this happened under the noses of most conservative and Republican elites. They lived in the wealthy Virginia and Maryland suburbs surrounding Washington, D.C. They enjoyed life in the Super-Zips,” Continetti writes. The elite of the right “were separated from growing numbers of their own party by background, education, income and lifestyle.”The stage was set for a political explosion and it came in the form of Donald Trump. The conservative elite in Washington sneered: “‘It is simply childish to trust this contemptible parody of a father figure,’ wrote Michael Gerson in The Washington Post. George Will said that he deserved to lose 50 states. Charles Krauthammer called him a ‘rodeo clown.’”None of that mattered.“Anti-establishment conservatives found him refreshing,” Continetti adds. “Not one iota of Trump was politically correct. He played by no rules of civility. He genuflected to no one. He despised the media with the same intensity as the conservative grass roots.”Millions of voters may have found Trump “refreshing,” but there continue to be dissenters on the right who see the consequences as disastrous.David French, a senior editor at The Dispatch, warned in an interview with Sean Illing of Vox:Here’s what’s the terrifying thing on the right that can be a career- and reputation-ending allegation: “You’re weak. You’re a coward.” So the transformation, this flipping upside down of morality, turning bullying into strength, turning restraint into vice, all of that, what has then happened is it enables the Trumpists and the Trumpist world. They’re wielding this sword that is very sharp culturally in red spaces, this accusation of weakness and cowardice, as a weapon to keep people in line, because they’ve defined support for this movement as evidence of your strength.Yuval Levin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (and a contributing Opinion writer for The Times), described a transformation on the right that began before Trump but has accelerated under his direction. Speaking at a March 2021 Harvard Kennedy School forum, Levin said: “I think conservatives are naturally defenders of a society’s institutions — not blindly, they’re also reformers — but they believe in the purposes of those institutions.”The Republican Party, he continued,has gradually become hostile to Americans’ institutions. It sees them as possessed by the other party. It sees them as corrupt. It looks at them through a populist lens as the source of the problem, rather than the source of solutions.In the fall of 2016, with Trump as the Republican presidential nominee, Levin wrote in Politico magazine:This election cycle has revealed serious fault lines and weaknesses on the right, and the Republican Party will be working to make sense of it all for years. But for conservatives — I mean those who champion some version of the difficult balance of traditionalism in the moral arena, market mechanisms for addressing our economic challenges, and American strength in a dangerous world — all bound by a limited-government constitutionalism — this sorry year’s lessons have one overarching implication: We can no longer treat the G.O.P. simply as our own.Levin faults the conservative movement for clinging to “an agenda almost frozen in amber, locking in place a 1980s-style policy program even as the nation changed around us.”“Trump blew it all up,” Levin wrote. “It’s not that he had a rival policy prescription; his campaign largely amounts to a frantic venting of frustrations punctuated by demagogic chest-thumping. But his approach clearly appealed to a significant portion of Republican voters.”In fact, Trump did have one crystal-clear policy objective: to drastically reduce immigration, legal and illegal. The Washington Post editorial board wrote in September 2020:Without the assent of Congress, President Trump has remade almost every major facet of America’s immigration system over the past three-plus years, slashing levels of legal and illegal arrivals; refugees and asylum seekers; Muslim and Christian migrants. He has sought to strip citizenship from naturalized Americans and subject “dreamers” raised in this country to deportation. He tried to deter illegal border crossings by sundering families, thereby traumatizing migrant teens, tweens and toddlers.While many on the left deeply opposed these policies, Trump’s base was overwhelmingly behind him. As The Post pointed out:Mr. Trump has largely succeeded in delivering on the anti-immigration message that drove his 2016 victory and continues to animate much of his base. Only a small fraction of his border wall has been built, and Mexico has paid for none of it, but the thrust of his nativist vision has taken root in hundreds of rule changes and policy shifts that have slammed shut America’s doors.Placing Trump in a line of conservative demagogues who proved ultimately transient, Continetti writes:Every so often the right has embraced a demagogic leader who pulls it toward the political fringe. From Tom Watson to Henry Ford, Father Coughlin to Charles Lindbergh, Joseph McCarthy to George Wallace, Ross Perot to Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul to Donald Trump, these tribunes of discontent have succumbed to conspiracy theories, racism and anti-Semitism. They have flirted with violence. They have played footsie with autocracy.One aspect of the rise of Trump that has not received adequate attention is the substantial intellectual infrastructure that has buoyed the Trumpist right, its willingness to rupture moral codes and to discard traditional norms — an infrastructure that includes the Claremont Institute, Hillsdale College, First Things magazine and the American Mind website.Take the analysis of John Marini, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, in his 2016 essay “Donald Trump and the American Crisis”:Social institutions dependent upon the old morality have become intellectually indefensible. In terms of contemporary social and political thought, it is the good understood as the old that is no longer defensible, and its political defense has therefore become untenable. This alone makes the defense of reasonable conservatism — and constitutionalism itself — something akin to the defense of a dream that masquerades itself as reality in the minds of its votaries.Or take the view of Sohrab Ahmari, a columnist for First Things, that courtesy and common decency serve to protect a dysfunctional established order:Progressives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy.In other words, Ahmari writes, “To recognize that enmity is real is its own kind of moral duty.”Or take the view of Glenn Ellmers, a visiting research scholar at Hillsdale College, in his 2021 essay “‘Conservatism’ Is No Longer Enough”:Our norms are now hopelessly corrupt and need to be destroyed. It has been like this for a while — and the MAGA voters knew it, while most of the policy wonks and magazine scribblers did not … and still don’t. In almost every case, the political practices, institutions, and even rhetoric governing the United States have become hostile to both liberty and virtue.I asked a number of center-right conservative thinkers the following questions: To what degree was the Trump takeover of the Republican Party a legitimate democratic insurgency by a white working/middle-class electorate that had been providing crucial margins of victory to the Republican Party, but whose opposition to liberal immigration and trade policies (and whose support for universal benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare) had been rejected by the Republican establishment? And will the tension between an increasingly “woke” corporate America and a Republican Party taking “anti-woke” stands become a significant conflict?Most of those I contacted voiced considerable optimism that everyone on the first tier of prospective Republican candidates to replace Trump as the 2024 nominee, should such a development come to pass, could restore the Republican Party’s viability in presidential elections, especially in the suburbs.“For me,” wrote Rich Lowry, editor in chief of National Review, “the obvious path ahead is national candidates — say, a Ron DeSantis, Tom Cotton or Glenn Youngkin — who learn the positive lessons from Trump, reject the negative, and, free of all his baggage, forge a new political and substantive synthesis that is appealing to the Trump base and the suburbs.”In his email, Lowry acknowledged that in Trump’s wake, the balance of power within the Republican Party and the conservative movement has shifted:The current tensions and arguments on the right aren’t anything new — there’s been a multi-front struggle within conservatism as long as modern conservatism has existed. What’s new is that the populist tendency has usually been subordinate to the classic liberal element, and now, with the advent of Trump, populism has the upper hand.Conservatives across the board, Lowry continued, arestill robustly pro-life and pro-gun, and support the police and oppose softheaded progressive approaches to public order. Conservatives have long supported cultural coherence, and opposed political correctness and its associated ideologies in academic and K-12 education.That said, however,the right has rejected the lazy business-oriented consensus on immigration and China that held sway for too long. We won’t see a so-called comprehensive immigration reform again for a long time — and good riddance.In addition, Lowry noted, “any impetus to pursue entitlement reform has completely disappeared.”One striking theme in other conservative responses to my inquiry was the unanimous belief in the effectiveness and political gain to be made by the current Republican assault on “woke” corporations supporting transgender rights and on corporations requiring employees to undergo diversity training using principles of “critical race theory” — an assault led by Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida.John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, emailed in reply to my inquiry: “Nothing could be better for the G.O.P. than for its politicians to engage in battles with mega-corporations and for Republican officials to lose their reputations for being the handmaidens of big business.”Bradford Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, wrote by email:The Democratic Party, the universities, and much of corporate America have moved so far left on key cultural issues — from gender to race — that they’ve unintentionally made the “culture war the new big tent” for Republicans like Gov. Ron DeSantis. By opposing far-left positions championed by Democrats and C-suite executives that are unpopular not only with conservatives but also moderates, DeSantis and other Republicans are turning the cultural issues of the day to their political advantage. What’s more: Corporate America’s leftward turn on cultural issues only reinforces the anti-elitist tenor and trajectory of today’s Republican Party, as exemplified by what we’re seeing in Florida.Continetti also replied by email:Donald Trump won the 2016 Republican primary thanks to a committed base of supporters and a multicandidate field that split the opposition vote. Yet Trump earned neither a majority of votes overall nor majorities in the key primary states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. He benefited from divisions and flaws among his many rivals as well as his canny political instincts that allowed him to seize on the issue of immigration and connect it to worries over international terrorism.Even Trump’s Electoral College victory, Continetti continued,masked the fragility of his general-election coalition. He lost the popular vote. Republican Senate candidates in swing states ran ahead of him. Trump became president because he had the good fortune of running against the second-most-unpopular general election candidate in the history of the Gallup poll (Trump is number one).While Trump’s policy agenda includesopposition to illegal immigration, resistance to international trade, a general dislike of permanent alliances and overseas intervention, he also combined these modifications with the Reaganite agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, increased defense spending, conservative judicial appointments and support for Israel.Noting that Trump has “a contempt for the ‘niceties of liberal democracy’ and an admiration for nationalist strongmen who use state power to diminish the cultural power of the progressive left,” Continetti added that “Trump’s inability to accept defeat was behind his ‘Stop the Steal’ movement that, in a horrific illustration of what happens when one abandons the ‘niceties of liberal democracy,’ culminated in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.”I asked John Yoo, a law professor at Berkeley and author of the notorious 2003 “torture memos” while he was a deputy assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, whether the Republican Party had become the party of Patrick J. Buchanan, the fire-breathing populist conservative who ran unsuccessfully for president in 1992.“I sure hope not,” Yoo replied. “If it indeed became anti-immigrant, anti-trade and America First in foreign policy, it would indeed mirror Pat Buchanan’s insurgency. But I think the party is still fighting over these policies. The response of party leaders to Ukraine shows that the older Republican internationalist wing of the party is still alive and strong.”A number of the conservatives I contacted were reluctant to go on the record for fear of retribution within a severely conflicted and possibly retaliatory conservative movement.As one put it, “I apologize for the background request, but Trump has absolutely ruined the discourse among conservative intellectuals, elites, think tankers, pundits, etc. We were all basically on the same side, then Trump won the nomination, and it seemed like everybody turned on everybody, depending on the shades or nuances of your views.”Which, in turn, raises a question: Would a Youngkin or DeSantis or Cotton presidency in 2025 or 2029 be a conservative corrective to Trump, or would any of these three possibilities simply give a patina of legitimacy to Trump’s flagrantly aberrant moral compass?David French summarizes the Republican dynamic in a recent Atlantic essay, “Free Speech for Me but Not for Thee”:As the Republican Party evolves from a party focused on individual liberty and limits on government power to a party that more fully embraces government control of the economy and morality, it is reversing many of its previous stances on free speech in public universities, in public education, and in private corporations. Driven by a combination of partisan animosity and public fear, it is embracing the tactics that it once opposed.The primal forces unleased by Trump have not lost momentum. Whoever ends up as the Republican Party nominee in 2024 — whether it is Trump himself or one of the other contenders — will be under pressure to continue the abandonment of principle. Among the others, there might be less lying and less overt narcissism, but any one of them could yet govern in the mold of Trump. Whether Trumpism is more powerful with Trump or without him is still an open question, but the MAGA movement shows no real sign of abating.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

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Lo necesitamos’: la enorme influencia de Trump en el Partido Republicano

      by

      Mientras acumula fondos, reparte favores y trata de aplastar a sus rivales, el expresidente domina a su partido y se prepara para otra campaña respaldando a quienes lo ayudan a expulsar a los funcionarios que frustraron su intento de subversión de las elecciones de 2020.PALM BEACH, Florida — Una noche cualquiera, Donald Trump se pasea por el patio de Mar-a-Lago y pronuncia unas palabras desde un atril para darle la bienvenida al candidato que le paga por el privilegio de recaudar fondos allí.“Este es un lugar especial”, dijo Trump en una de esas noches de febrero en su club privado. “Solía decir que era la ‘zona cero’, pero después del World Trade Center ya no usamos ese término. Este es el lugar donde todo el mundo quiere estar”.Durante 15 meses, un desfile de aspirantes (senadores, gobernadores, líderes del Congreso y contendientes republicanos de todas las tendencias) ha hecho el recorrido para jurarle lealtad y presentar su candidatura. Algunos han contratado a los asesores de Trump con la esperanza de obtener una ventaja al buscar su respaldo. Otros compran anuncios en Fox News que solo se transmiten en el sur de Florida. Y están los que le llevan regalos; y los que sacan los trapos sucios. Casi todos repiten la mentira de que las elecciones de 2020 fueron robadas.Mientras trabaja desde un gran escritorio de madera que recuerda al que usó en la Oficina Oval, Trump ha transformado la antigua suite nupcial de Mar-a-Lago en una sede informal del Partido Republicano y ha amasado más de 120 millones de dólares, una suma que duplica la del Comité Nacional Republicano. Los registros federales muestran que su iniciativa recaudó más fondos en línea que el partido, casi todos los días durante los últimos seis meses de 2021. La excepción fueron dos jornadas, una de las cuales fue la víspera de Navidad.Y mientras otros expresidentes han cedido el escenario político, Trump ha hecho lo contrario, ya que trata de emprender una agresiva campaña de venganza contra los republicanos que lo han perjudicado, con su respaldo a más de 140 candidatos en todo el país y con la transformación de las primarias de 2022 en una prueba de su persistente influencia.Al inspirar miedo, acaparar dinero, repartir favores y tratar de aplastar a sus rivales, Trump no solo se está comportando como un poderoso actor, sino como algo más cercano al jefe de una maquinaria política del siglo XIX.“Los líderes de los partidos nunca han desempeñado el papel que Trump está desempeñando”, dijo Roger Stone, un asesor intermitente de Trump desde la década de 1980 a quien se ha visto en fechas recientes en Mar-a-Lago. “Porque él puede, y no se rige por las reglas convencionales de la política”, explicó.Esta imagen de Trump como un jefe de partido moderno se ha extraído de más de 50 entrevistas con asesores en activo y retirados de Trump, rivales políticos, republicanos que han buscado su apoyo y funcionarios y estrategas del Partido Republicano que están lidiando con su influencia.Es evidente que Trump disfruta del poder. Pero mientras insinúa una y otra vez la posibilidad de aspirar a la Casa Blanca por tercera vez, la pregunta que se plantea es si puede seguir siendo el rey de la nación si no aspira a la corona.Por ahora, se ha adentrado en las minucias de limpiar al Partido Republicano de sus críticos, incluso si, de manera típica, la planificación y ejecución pueden ser desordenadas. Ha centrado sus esfuerzos casi obsesivamente en instalar personajes leales en puestos estatales clave en el campo de batalla (gobernadores, senadores, miembros de la Cámara, secretarios de Estado y fiscales generales de los estados) a menudo en vez de los mismos funcionarios que frustraron sus intentos de subvertir los resultados de 2020.Ha presionado a los candidatos para que cambien las contiendas en las que participan, aconsejó a los republicanos sobre a quién contratar, se involucró en las reglas de registro del partido en Wyoming y en la contienda por el presidente de la cámara estatal en Michigan. También condicionó su respaldo al gobernador Mike Dunleavy de Alaska a que no apoyara a la senadora titular del estado, Lisa Murkowski; Dunleavy accedió rápidamente. La semana pasada, mostró su desacuerdo al instar a los residentes de Pensilvania a no votar por Bill McSwain en las primarias para gobernador, con el argumento de que el político no había aceptado por completo sus acusaciones de fraude electoral de 2020.Trump no quiso ser entrevistado para este artículo.Las personas cercanas a Trump dicen que se siente complacido por el ejercicio crudo de su poder. Escucha a los cabilderos de los republicanos de alto rango, como el representante Kevin McCarthy, líder del partido en la Cámara de Representantes, y luego los ataca sin previo aviso. Un día después de que McCarthy regañó al representante republicano de Carolina del Norte, Madison Cawthorn, por decir que sus colegas en Washington habían celebrado orgías y consumido cocaína, Trump le concedió a Cawthorn un codiciado espacio para hablar en su próximo mitin.Durante 15 meses, un desfile de aspirantes (senadores, gobernadores, líderes del Congreso y contendientes republicanos de todas las tendencias) ha hecho el recorrido hasta Mar-a-LagoSaul Martinez para The New York Times‘Clientelismo político en desarrollo’Ahora, toda una economía política gira en torno a Trump, en la cual sus propiedades están haciéndose de enormes sumas: tan solo los candidatos federales y las comisiones han pagado casi 1,3 millones de dólares por la celebración de eventos en Mar-a-Lago, según muestran los registros. Ha surgido una falange de aduladores de Trump, a los que los candidatos pagan con la esperanza de conseguir reuniones, aunque los antiguos seguidores de Trump advierten que, en el juego de la influencia, el comprador siempre debe tener cuidado.“Si alguien anda por ahí vendiendo su capacidad para conseguir respaldos, está vendiendo algo que no es suyo”, dijo Michael Caputo, un exasesor que todavía habla con Trump. “Lo que parece ser clientelismo político en desarrollo, en realidad, es la confluencia de muchos asesores que fingen saber cómo conseguir el respaldo de Trump. Pero, en realidad, nadie sabe el camino a seguir”.Sin embargo, aunque el clientelismo político en Nueva York no es nuevo, como lo demuestra Tammany Hall, una máquina política que perduró durante casi dos siglos y cuya longevidad se debe a la difusión del patrocinio, Trump puede ser muy tacaño. Aunque celebra mítines para algunos candidatos, en muchos casos, su apoyo no va más allá de un correo electrónico y un cheque de 5000 dólares. Trump casi nunca ha desplegado su enorme lista de seguidores para ayudar a otros políticos con el fin de que recauden dinero (la representante Elise Stefanik de Nueva York fue una rara excepción, a principios de este año). Frente a la posibilidad de las derrotas de alto perfil, el equipo del exmandatario planea gastar directamente para ayudar a algunos candidatos vulnerables que han recibido su respaldo; una transferencia de efectivo a un súper PAC de Georgia fue solo el primer paso.Taylor Budowich, uno de sus voceros, señaló que centrarse solo en el gasto directo no toma en cuenta el valor que tiene el aval de Trump para los votantes y la “cobertura mediática gratuita” que genera. “Alguna vez se llegó a decir que un respaldo ni siquiera vale el papel en el que está impreso, pero ahora hay una excepción: el respaldo de Trump”, dijo Budowich.A diferencia de los jefes políticos del pasado, Trump ha hecho mucho énfasis en los mecanismos electorales, además de sembrar en todo momento la desconfianza en el sistema mediante afirmaciones falsas de manipulación de votos.Como decía el corrupto “Boss” Tweed, de Tammany, mientras se apoyaba en una urna en una famosa caricatura de la década de 1870: “Mientras yo cuente los votos, ¿qué vas a hacer al respecto?”.O como le dijo Trump a Breitbart News este mes: “Hay una expresión de que los contadores de votos son más importantes que el candidato, y podrías usar esa expresión en este momento”.Ejercer el poder sobre el partido y vender la ficción de unas elecciones robadas también son estrategias para desviar la atención de la desafortunada salida de Trump de la Casa Blanca como perdedor.Michael D’Antonio, biógrafo de Trump, trazó un paralelismo entre este periodo y una crisis anterior en la carrera de Trump: su bancarrota a principios de 1990. “Para cualquier otra persona estos habrían sido acontecimientos demoledores”, dijo. “Pero para Trump solo marcaron un cambio en su método y en su búsqueda del poder. Y nunca aceptó que fueran derrotas de verdad”.Los demócratas se están preparando para las derrotas en 2022. Pero los estrategas de ambos partidos dicen que el gran perfil público de Trump representa un riesgo para los republicanos, porque las encuestas privadas y los grupos de discusión muestran que sigue siendo un poderoso factor de rechazo para los votantes indecisos.Pero las primarias republicanas son otra historia, donde pocos candidatos serios se han separado de Trump. “La toma del control del Partido Republicano por parte del presidente Trump ha sido tan completa”, dijo Boris Epshteyn, otro exasesor de Trump que a veces visita Mar-a-Lago, “que incluso los republicanos más moderados están intentando hablar de MAGA”.El representante Madison Cawthorn de Carolina del Norte fue reprendido por decir que sus colegas en Washington habían organizado orgías y consumido cocaína, sin embargo, Trump le otorgó un codiciado espacio para hablar en su próximo mitin.Veasey Conway para The New York Times“Necesito ver las encuestas, necesito ver la financiación, necesito ver que te estás haciendo un nombre”, le dijo Trump a Joe Kent, quien ganó su respaldo para intentar vencer a Jaime Herrera Beutler, la representante por el estado de Washington.Nathan Howard/Associated Press‘Como cangrejos en una cubeta’No hay mejor ejemplo del dominio de Trump sobre el partido que las genuflexiones y maniobras de quienes buscan su visto bueno en la política.Algunos candidatos pagan para asistir a las recaudaciones de fondos en Mar-a-Lago de otros aspirantes, y esperan lograr captar la atención de Trump, o mejor aún, una foto. “Momento épico”, fue el término que usó una candidata a la Cámara de Representantes para describir los pocos segundos que estuvo con Trump y que subió en un video a su cuenta de Instagram.Cuando Trump invitó a los candidatos de Michigan para que lo acompañaran en un evento, resonó la voz de un hombre: “Yo también me postulo para gobernador, ¿puedo ir?”. Era Ryan Kelley. “¿Te postulas para gobernador de qué?”, le preguntó Trump, un poco confundido. “¡Michigan!”, le respondió Kelley y se acercó, estrechando la mano de Perry Johnson, uno de sus oponentes.Johnson, por su parte, ha frecuentado Mar-a-Lago y publicó con orgullo un video pixelado de Trump alabando sus “buenos números en las encuestas” en otra recaudación de fondos. Incluso pagó un anuncio de televisión dándole la bienvenida a Trump a Michigan, antes de un mitin celebrado el 2 de abril.Sin embargo, Trump lo desairó en el mitin y, en cambio, elogió a una candidata rival, Tudor Dixon, que había realizado su propia recaudación de fondos en Mar-a-Lago en febrero.En muchos sentidos, la búsqueda de su respaldo es una réplica en la vida real del antiguo papel de Trump en la telerrealidad.“¿Qué era El aprendiz sino un lamentable tumulto de personas que se comportaban como cangrejos en una cubeta y que pedían que él los sacara de ahí?”, recordó D’Antonio, su biógrafo. “Estas personas no son otra cosa que concursantes que compiten por su aprobación”.En una de las escenas más recordadas, el año pasado, Trump llevó a varios candidatos al Senado de Ohio a una sala de Mar-a-Lago, donde empezaron a atacarse unos a otros con discursos mientras él los observaba. “Las cosas se salieron de control”, dijo un candidato, Bernie Moreno, quien no culpó a Trump por el caos, sino a sus rivales. Desde entonces, Moreno se retiró porque no quiere dividir el voto a favor de Trump.Casi todos los contendientes de Ohio han publicado anuncios que resaltan sus vínculos con Trump y buscan su respaldo de manera personal. Jane Timken se define como “la verdadera conservadora de Trump”. Josh Mandel se presenta como “pro-Dios, pro-armas, pro-Trump”. Mike Gibbons dice que él y Trump son dos “hombres de negocios con los mismos principios”.Trump no respaldó a ninguno de ellos; en cambio, apoyó al escritor J. D. Vance. En un debate previo al respaldo, Matt Dolan, el único aspirante republicano que no compite por el apoyo de Trump, sugirió que sus rivales estaban poniendo a los electores de Ohio en segundo lugar. “Hay gente en este escenario que, literalmente, está luchando por obtener un voto”, afirmó, “y la persona que les dará ese voto no está en Ohio”.Dolan es una excepción. En general, una audiencia con Trump puede llevar al éxito o al fracaso de una candidatura. Por eso, los candidatos planean mucho sus estrategias.A Trump le gusta la adulación y le gusta recompensar a los aduladores. Pero los expertos dicen que llevar material visual convincente también es importante. El uso de letras de gran tamaño es fundamental, con fotos y gráficos en color.“No es un tipo muy digitalizado, así que llevamos todo impreso”, dijo Joe Kent, quien logró ganarse el respaldo de Trump en su esfuerzo por desbancar a la representante republicana de Washington, Jaime Herrera Beutler, una de las diez representantes republicanas que votaron a favor del juicio político en contra de Trump.“Necesito ver las encuestas, necesito ver la financiación, necesito ver que te estás haciendo un nombre”, le indicó Trump, como recordó Kent.Cuando le gusta lo que ve, Trump envía unas palabras de aliento, garabateadas con un marcador en las impresiones de las noticias. “¡Lo estás haciendo genial!”, le escribió en enero a Kent. “¡Lo estás haciendo genial!”, también le escribió en octubre pasado a Harriet Hageman, quien está desafiando a Liz Cheney, la representante por Wyoming.Cuando el representante Billy Long, candidato al Senado en Missouri, se reunió por primera vez con Trump el año pasado, le llevó una copia impresa de una encuesta favorable. Pero sintió que lo habían derrotado cuando Trump “estiró el brazo y recogió otra encuesta” que Long supuso que provenía de un rival, aunque podría haber formado parte del paquete que su equipo le prepara para las reuniones con los candidatos.“Donald Trump hará lo que quiera hacer cuando quiera hacerlo”, dijo Long. “Eso no es ningún secreto”.En marzo, un grupo que instó a Trump para que cesara su respaldo a Matthew DePerno, candidato a fiscal general de Michigan, compró un anuncio que se publicó en West Palm Beach.Nic Antaya para The New York TimesTrump ha expresado su deseo de tomar el control de los puestos de conteo de votos en Michigan, con el fin de reunir apoyos para Kristina Karamo, su candidata para ser secretaria de Estado.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesTelevisión de precisiónLa televisión es una vía popular para llegar a Trump y algunos candidatos tratan de hacerlo mediante la transmisión de anuncios lejos de su electorado. Durante el verano, Trump estuvo en su club de golf de Bedminster, Nueva Jersey, y Jim Lamon, un candidato al Senado de Arizona, pagó por un anuncio en Fox News de Nueva Jersey.Michele Fiore, concejala de la ciudad de Las Vegas, anunció su candidatura a gobernadora de Nevada con un comercial pro-Trump que se transmitió en West Palm Beach. Luego desistió y decidió postularse al cargo de tesorera estatal y dijo en otro comercial que el equipo de Trump le aconsejó que optara por ese cargo.Y en marzo, un grupo que instó a Trump a rescindir su respaldo a Matthew DePerno, un republicano que se postulaba para fiscal general en Michigan, lanzó un comercial que atacaba a DePerno y que se transmitió en West Palm Beach.Otros han utilizado los medios audiovisuales con una precisión aún mayor.En noviembre, Blake Masters, candidato al Senado en Arizona, publicó un video que decía: “Creo que Trump ganó en 2020”, el día antes de volar a Florida para una recaudación de fondos en Mar-a-Lago. Según los registros de su campaña, el comercial costó 29.798,70 dólares.Algunos atraen la atención de Trump en televisión, entre comerciales.La vicegobernadora de Idaho, Janice McGeachin, apareció en el programa de Fox News de Tucker Carlson en junio y se deshizo en elogios hacia Trump. Al día siguiente, él la llamó.“Fue lo mejor”, afirmó la vicegobernadora, quien agregó que “le hizo saber” al exmandatario que planeaba desafiar al gobernador Brad Little, el republicano en funciones y le pidió su apoyo. Poco después, estaba en un avión rumbo a Nueva York para una reunión en la Torre Trump. “Lo que quería era darle un gran abrazo y decirle cuánto lo amamos”, dijo. “Y eso fue lo primero que hice”.McGeachin le dijo a Trump que Little no había luchado lo suficiente para anular las elecciones de 2020. En el otoño presentó su propuesta en Mar-a-Lago, y se marchó con una gorra roja firmada por el expresidente que suele usar en sus eventos. Pronto, Trump la apoyó de manera formal, aunque no dejó de elogiar a Little, que apenas unos días antes asistió a una recaudación de fondos en Mar-a-Lago para una organización no lucrativa afín a Trump.McGeachin, quien causó revuelo recientemente al grabar un discurso para una reunión de nacionalistas blancos, es vista como una candidata con pocas posibilidades en las primarias de mayo.El episodio encapsula las peculiaridades del estilo de Trump como jefe del partido: la receptividad al cortejo intensivo, la toma de decisiones aleatoria, la posibilidad de excederse y la exigencia de que se amplifiquen sus falsas afirmaciones de fraude electoral.“Creo que es el respaldo más codiciado en la historia política”, dijo McGeachin.Las encuestas han mostrado que David Perdue está detrás del gobernador de Georgia, Brian Kemp, en la contienda del 24 de mayo, lo que se considera como una muestra de la influencia de Trump.Audra Melton para The New York TimesTed Budd, representante por Carolina del Norte, es el candidato de Trump para el Senado y desafiará en las primarias de mayo al representante Mark Walker, un antiguo aliado del expresidente Trump.Veasey Conway para The New York TimesMano duraCon la vista puesta en su historial de victorias y derrotas en materia de respaldos, Trump está tratando cada vez más a los candidatos republicanos como piezas de ajedrez que se pueden mover, intercambiar o abandonar. Pero, hasta ahora, los resultados han sido dispares.En Georgia, reclutó al exsenador David Perdue para enfrentar al gobernador Brian Kemp, un republicano que desafió a Trump al certificar las elecciones de 2020 y respaldar el resultado. Trump presionó al otro candidato en la campaña, Vernon Jones, un exdemócrata, para que se postulara a la Cámara de Representantes, con su respaldo.Esa maniobra funcionó, pero las encuestas han mostrado que Perdue está detrás de Kemp de cara a la contienda del 24 de mayo, lo que es visto como una primera muestra de la influencia de Trump.En Carolina del Norte, Trump trató de conseguir que un aliado, el diputado Mark Walker, abandonara su campaña al Senado y dejara la vía libre para el candidato que él respaldaba, el diputado Ted Budd, para que se enfrentara al exgobernador Pat McCrory en las primarias de mayo. Pero después de que los tribunales alteraron los mapas políticos del estado, Walker se negó y amenazó con dividir el voto pro-Trump, aunque las encuestas muestran que Budd lidera de todos modos.Trump ya retiró uno de sus respaldos. Fue el caso de Mo Brooks, representante por Alabama que quería postularse al Senado de ese estado, y Trump cesó su apoyo después de que Brooks cayó en las encuestas y se cree que podría hacer lo mismo con otros aspirantes que no lideran las encuestas. Por ejemplo, ha hablado en privado de moderar su postura a favor de McGeachin.Trump ha sido especialmente efectivo en el reclutamiento de rivales para sus críticos republicanos más importantes, como Cheney.El año pasado, entrevistó a varios contrincantes potenciales, con la esperanza de establecer un enfrentamiento de dos personas. Entre ellos se encontraba Darin Smith, un abogado de Cheyenne, que voló a Bedminster y luego dijo que lamentaba no haber contado antes con la asesoría de los miembros del equipo de Trump. Finalmente, el expresidente respaldó a Harriet Hageman, exfuncionaria del partido, cuyos asesores incluyen a los estrategas actuales y anteriores de Trump como Justin Clark, Nick Trainer, Bill Stepien y Tim Murtaugh.“Ya sea que ames el pantano o lo odies, es una realidad”, dijo Smith, quien desde entonces ha respaldado a Hageman. “Hay órbitas alrededor de Trump”.Es posible que en ningún otro lugar Trump haya profundizado más en la política local que en Michigan, guiado en parte por la copresidenta del partido, Meshawn Maddock, una aliada cercana que organizó autobuses para llevar a los manifestantes a Washington el 6 de enero de 2021. En noviembre de 2020, después de que Trump convocó a los legisladores de Michigan a la Casa Blanca para una reunión extraordinaria mientras buscaba anular las elecciones, los dos líderes legislativos del Partido Republicano del estado lo rechazaron. Ahora, Trump ha dado su respaldo a más de media decena de candidatos a la legislatura de Michigan para encumbrar al marido de Maddock, el diputado estatal Matt Maddock, como próximo presidente de la Cámara de Representantes del estado.Trump no ha ocultado su deseo de tomar el control de los puestos de conteo de votos del estado mientras reúne apoyos para DePerno y Kristina Karamo, sus candidatos a los cargos de fiscal general del estado y la Secretaría de Estado.“Recuerden que no solo se trata de 2022, se trata de asegurarnos de que Michigan no sea manipulado y robado nuevamente en 2024”, dijo Trump en las afueras de Detroit el 2 de abril. Y agregó: “No hago esto a menudo con la gente de los estados. Pero esto es muy importante”.Mitch McConnell, líder de la minoría del Senado; Kevin McCarthy, el líder de la minoría de la Cámara de Representantes; y el exvicepresidente Mike Pence en la Oficina Oval con Trump, en marzo de 2020Erin Schaff/The New York TimesAfirmando el dominioEs cierto que la estrategia de guerra de Trump proyecta poder, pero lo que más asusta a otros líderes republicanos es su perdurable popularidad entre la base del partido.El flujo interminable de mensajes de recaudación de fondos republicanos que usan el nombre de Trump, y que a veces dan la idea de que el dinero es para él, es evidencia de su influencia con los pequeños donantes. Las encuestas también muestran que la mayoría de los votantes republicanos valoran su respaldo. “Su dominio del partido a nivel de votantes de base no tiene precedentes”, dijo Stone, quien ha sido asesor de Trump desde hace mucho tiempo.Plenamente consciente de esto, Trump también ha afirmado su dominio sobre los líderes republicanos del Congreso.En la Cámara de Representantes, McCarthy, que espera convertirse en el presidente de ese órgano legislativo después de las elecciones intermedias, ha tratado de mantener a Trump al margen en algunas primarias, ejerciendo presión, por ejemplo, para que deje de respaldar a Mary Miller, la representante por Illinois, quien fue elegida en el mismo distrito que el representante Rodney Davis. Pero Trump la respaldó de todos modos.“El temor legítimo de McCarthy es que se gane la mayoría, pero que 10 miembros de la Cámara se unan y digan: ‘No vamos a votar por usted ni por nada que desee’”, dijo Stone. Y agregó que, en ese caso, Trump tendría influencia en esos votos.En el Senado, Mitch McConnell de Kentucky, el líder de la minoría, no ha hablado con Trump desde que dejó la Casa Blanca, pero accedió a que el exmandatario respaldara a Herschel Walker para el Senado en Georgia, a pesar de las dudas iniciales de su equipo.Quienes están descontentos con el reinado de Trump como jefe del partido están buscando señales de que su control se está perdiendo, y varios rivales potenciales para 2024 (Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, Tom Cotton) parecen menos temerosos últimamente de estar en desacuerdo públicamente con Trump.Las contiendas en las que Trump ha respaldado a un candidato serán objeto de estudio para ver si disminuyen su poder. Pero el hecho es que muchos de los candidatos a los que se opone en las primarias siguen diciendo que son republicanos que apoyan a Trump. Pocos ven una fecha de caducidad en su dominio hasta, y a menos, que decline postularse de nuevo en 2024 o sea derrotado.Una reciente aparición en el pódcast del Comité Nacional Republicano captó tanto las ventajas como los inconvenientes del inquebrantable apego del partido hacia Trump. Por mucho, se trató del episodio del pódcast más visto en YouTube, hasta que el sitio lo retiró por difundir información errónea.“No se puede subestimar el poder de su apoyo”, le había dicho Ronna McDaniel, la presidenta del partido, a Trump. Y luego agregó: “Lo necesitamos”.Shane Goldmacher es reportero político nacional y antes fue el corresponsal político en jefe de la sección Metro. Antes de unirse al Times, trabajó en Politico, donde cubrió la política del Partido Republicano a nivel nacional y la campaña presidencial de 2016. @ShaneGoldmacher More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Fearing a Trump Repeat, Jan. 6 Panel Considers Changes to Insurrection Act

      by

      The 1807 law allows a president to deploy American troops inside the country to put down a rebellion. Lawmakers fear it could be abused by a future president trying to stoke one.WASHINGTON — In the days before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, some of President Donald J. Trump’s most extreme allies and members of right-wing militia groups urged him to use his power as commander in chief to unleash the military to help keep him in office.Now, as the House committee investigating last year’s riot uncovers new evidence about the lengths to which Mr. Trump was willing to go to cling to power, some lawmakers on the panel have quietly begun discussions about rewriting the Insurrection Act, the 1807 law that gives presidents wide authority to deploy the military within the United States to respond to a rebellion.The discussions are preliminary, and debate over the act has been fraught in the aftermath of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Proponents envision a doomsday scenario in which a rogue future president might try to use the military to stoke — rather than put down — an insurrection, or to abuse protesters. But skeptics worry about depriving a president of the power to quickly deploy armed troops in the event of an uprising, as presidents did during the Civil War and the civil rights era.While Mr. Trump never invoked the law, he threatened to do so in 2020 to have the military crack down on crowds protesting the police killing of George Floyd. Stephen Miller, one of his top advisers, also proposed putting it into effect to turn back migrants at the southwestern border, an idea that was rejected by the defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper.And as Mr. Trump grasped for ways to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, some hard-right advisers encouraged him to declare martial law and deploy U.S. troops to seize voting machines. In the run-up to the Jan. 6 attack, members of right-wing militia groups also encouraged Mr. Trump to invoke the law, believing that he was on the brink of giving them approval to descend on Washington with weapons to fight on his behalf.“There are many of us who are of the view that the Insurrection Act, which the former president threatened to invoke multiple times throughout 2020, bears a review,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and a member of the Jan. 6 committee.While no evidence has emerged that Mr. Trump planned to invoke the act to stay in office, people close to him were pushing for him to do so. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, attended a meeting in the Oval Office on Dec. 18, 2020, in which participants discussed seizing voting machines, declaring a national emergency and invoking certain national security emergency powers. That meeting came after Mr. Flynn gave an interview to the right-wing television network Newsmax in which he talked about a purported precedent for deploying troops and declaring martial law to “rerun” the election.Some hard-right advisers to Mr. Trump encouraged him to declare martial law and deploy U.S. troops to seize voting machines after the 2020 election.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesThe idea was also floated by Roger J. Stone Jr., the political operative and longtime confidant of Mr. Trump, who told the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in an interview that Mr. Trump should consider invoking the Insurrection Act.In the weeks before the riot, the notion was prevalent among militia members and other hard-right supporters of Mr. Trump. It has surfaced repeatedly in evidence that federal prosectors and the House committee have obtained during their investigations into the Capitol attack.In December 2020, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia group, wrote an open letter to Mr. Trump in which he called on the president to “use the Insurrection Act to ‘stop the steal,’” begin seizing voting data and order a new election.“Clearly, an unlawful combination and conspiracy in multiple states (indeed, in every state) has acted to deprive the people of the fundamental right to vote for their representatives in a clear, fair election,” Mr. Rhodes wrote, adding, “You, and you alone, are fully authorized by the Insurrection Act to determine that such a situation exists and to use the U.S. military and militia to rectify that situation.”Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia group, wrote an open letter to Mr. Trump in which he called on the president to “use the Insurrection Act to ‘stop the steal.’”Jim Urquhart/ReutersIn text messages and social media posts ahead of the Capitol riot, other Oath Keepers members also discussed the possibility of Mr. Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. Two of them, Jessica Watkins and Kelly Meggs, the head of the militia’s Florida chapter, have been charged in connection with the attack.And Mr. Rhodes sent armed men to a hotel in Virginia on Jan. 6 to await Mr. Trump’s order, which the militia leader said would nullify Washington gun restrictions and allow the group to take up arms and fight for the president.The House committee, which has interviewed more than 850 witnesses, is charged with writing an authoritative report about the events that led to the violence of Jan. 6 and coming up with legislative recommendations to try to protect American democracy from a repeat. Though their recommendations are likely to garner widespread attention, they are not guaranteed to become law.One such recommendation is almost certainly to be an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act, which Mr. Trump and his allies tried to use to overturn the 2020 election. In recent weeks, the panel has begun discussing whether to call for revisions to the Insurrection Act, which empowers the president to deploy troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy.”The changes under discussion could add a higher and more detailed threshold for a president to meet before he could deploy troops domestically, including requiring consultation with Congress.“Essentially, the former president threatened by tweet to send in the armed services to take over civilian governments, because he saw things that he didn’t like on TV,” Ms. Lofgren said, referring to Mr. Trump’s threats to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to racial justice protests. “That’s not really the history of the use of the act, and maybe more definition of terms might be in order.”The last time lawmakers turned their attention to a potential overhaul of the Insurrection Act was after Mr. Trump threatened in 2020 to invoke it to crush protests that spread across the country after a white police officer killed Mr. Floyd, an unarmed Black man, in Minnesota.“If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” Mr. Trump said then. White House aides drafted a proclamation to invoke the Insurrection Act in case the president followed through with the threat.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3Debating a criminal referral. More

    • 225 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Lee and Ted Cruz Fought So That One Man Wouldn’t Have to Face the Pain of Defeat

      by

      Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are two of the most prominent “constitutional conservatives” in the Senate. They built their political careers on their supposed fidelity to the Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers. Cruz made his constitutional conservatism the centerpiece of his 2016 campaign for president, while Lee has written three books on the founding era and presents himself, to the public, as a constitutional scholar rather than a mere politician.It is interesting, then, that Lee and Cruz were among the Republican senators most involved in Donald Trump’s attempt to subvert the Constitution and install himself in office against the will of the voters.As The Washington Post reported last month, Cruz worked “directly with Trump to concoct a plan that came closer than widely realized to keeping him in power.” According to this plan, Cruz would object to and delay the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6 in favor of a 10-day election audit that would give Trump-friendly state legislatures time to overturn the result and send new electors to Congress.And as CNN reported last week, Lee was in close contact with Mark Meadows, then the White House chief of staff, in the months, weeks and days before the Jan. 6 attack. Lee supported and encouraged the president’s effort to overturn the election, with both ideas and political assistance. “I have an additional idea for the campaign,” he wrote to Meadows on Nov. 23, 2020. “Something is not right in a few states. I think it could be proven or disproven easily with an audit (a physical counting of all ballots cast) in PA, WI, GA, and MI.”Two weeks later, Lee would tell Meadows, “If a very small handful of states were to have their legislatures appoint alternative slates of delegates, there could be a path.” And on Jan. 4, 2021, Lee told Meadows that he had been “calling state legislators for hours today, and am going to spend hours doing the same tomorrow” in hopes of finding “something from state legislatures to make this legitimate and to have any hope of winning.”Lee eventually voted to certify the results of the presidential election and had previously told journalists, and the public, that he was dismayed by the events of Jan. 6. In their book covering the insurrection, “Peril,” Bob Woodward and Robert Costa report that Lee “was shocked” by the conservative legal scholar John Eastman’s plan to delay final certification of the election and “had heard nothing about alternative slates of electors.”But the truth is that Lee was with the president from the start. His only real objection — the only thing that gave him pause — was that Trump and his allies had not crossed their “T’s” or dotted their “I’s.” Which is to say that they had not done the work necessary to give their attempted self-coup a veneer of legality and constitutional fidelity. Or, as Lee wrote to Meadows, “I know only that this will end badly for the president unless we have the Constitution on our side.”Cruz and Lee were not the only “constitutional conservatives” to support Trump’s attempt to keep himself in office after losing the Electoral College vote (to say nothing of the popular vote). Their participation in the plot, however, tells us something important about what it actually means to be a “constitutional conservative.”The term is supposed to convey a principled commitment to both the Constitution and the institutions of the American republic it helped bring into being. But if Cruz, Lee and other “constitutional conservatives” have any commitment to the Constitution, it is only to the letter of the document, not its spirit.The spirit of the Constitution, of the Philadelphia Convention and everything that followed, is embodied in self-government. The point of the deliberation and experimentation of the founding moment was to find some ground on which the American people, however narrowly defined, could live out the principles of the Revolutionary War they had just fought and pursue their common interests.Whatever the specifics of the governing charter, the essential idea was that this government would be one that, as James Madison wrote, “derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people.”The people have, for now, agreed to elect the president through a process that gives a good deal of discretion to a broad range of officials, some elected, some appointed, but all working with legitimate authority. In the main, they used that authority to allow as many people to vote as possible, in accordance with our laws and our norms.If, under those conditions, Donald Trump had won the 2020 presidential election, neither Cruz nor Lee nor anyone else in the Republican Party would have disputed the outcome or contested the process. It would have been a shining example of the strength of our republic.But he did not win, and so our “constitutional conservatives” fought to undermine and overturn our institutions so that one man would not have to face the pain of defeat. Which gets to the truth of what that “constitutional conservatism” really seems to be: not a principled attempt — however flawed in conception — to live up to the values of the founding, but a thin mask for the will to power.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

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Effort to Remove Marjorie Taylor Greene From Ballot Can Proceed, Judge Says

      by

      The case that Ms. Greene unsuccessfully sought to have dismissed mirrors efforts against other Republicans centered on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.A federal judge cleared the way on Monday for a group of Georgia voters to move forward with legal efforts seeking to disqualify Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from running for re-election to Congress, citing her role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.The disqualification effort is based on a constitutional provision adopted after the Civil War that barred members of the Confederacy from holding office. It mirrors several other cases involving Republican members of Congress, whose roles leading up to and during the deadly riot have drawn intense criticism.The judge, Amy Totenberg, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by President Barack Obama, denied Ms. Greene’s request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order in the high-profile legal feud.Ms. Greene, 47, who is known for her unflinching loyalty to former President Donald J. Trump and for her clashes with Democrats, has steadfastly denied that she aided and engaged in the attack on the Capitol.In the 73-page ruling, Judge Totenberg wrote that Ms. Greene had failed to meet the “burden of persuasion” in her request for injunctive relief, which she called an extraordinary and drastic remedy.“This case involves a whirlpool of colliding constitutional interests of public import,” Judge Totenberg wrote. “The novelty of the factual and historical posture of this case — especially when assessed in the context of a preliminary injunction motion reviewed on a fast track — has made resolution of the complex legal issues at stake here particularly demanding.”James Bopp Jr., a lawyer for Ms. Greene, said on Monday night that the ruling was flawed and minimized the adverse effect that the disqualification effort was having on Ms. Greene’s right to run for office.“This is fundamentally antidemocratic,” Mr. Bopp said, maintaining that Ms. Greene had “publicly and vigorously condemned the attack on the Capitol.”He called the effort to remove her from the ballot part of a well-funded nationwide effort to strip voters of their right to vote for candidates of their choice, with elections determined by “bureaucrats, judges, lawyers and clever legal arguments.”In her request for an injunction, Ms. Greene argued that it would be impossible to fully resolve the case before Georgia holds its primary elections on May 24. Absentee ballots will start to be mailed on April 25, Ms. Greene’s motion said.In the ruling, Judge Totenberg determined that Ms. Greene had failed to prove that there was a strong likelihood that she would prevail on the merits of her legal claims. A state administrative judge is scheduled to hear the case on Friday.The decision by Judge Totenberg stood in stark contrast with a recent ruling in a similar case involving Representative Madison Cawthorn in North Carolina. In blocking that disqualification effort, U.S. District Judge Richard E. Myers II, an appointee of Mr. Trump, ruled that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution narrowly applied to members of the Confederacy after the Civil War.Ms. Greene’s critics have said that she frequently referred to efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results as “our 1776 moment” in public comments that led up to the riot at the Capitol. They contend that the phrase was a code used to incite violence, and point to the third section of the 14th Amendment in their argument to drop her from the ballot.That section says that “no person shall” be a member of Congress or hold civil office if they had engaged in insurrection or rebellion after “having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State.”Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3Debating a criminal referral. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Allies Are Still Feeding the False 2020 Election Narrative

      by

      Fifteen months after they tried and failed to overturn the 2020 election, the same group of lawyers and associates is continuing efforts to “decertify” the vote, feeding a false narrative.A group of President Donald J. Trump’s allies and associates spent months trying to overturn the 2020 election based on his lie that he was the true winner.Now, some of the same confidants who tried and failed to invalidate the results based on a set of bogus legal theories are pushing an even wilder sequel: that by “decertifying” the 2020 vote in key states, the outcome can still be reversed.In statehouses and courtrooms across the country, as well as on right-wing news outlets, allies of Mr. Trump — including the lawyer John Eastman — are pressing for states to pass resolutions rescinding Electoral College votes for President Biden and to bring lawsuits that seek to prove baseless claims of large-scale voter fraud. Some of those allies are casting their work as a precursor to reinstating the former president.The efforts have failed to change any statewide outcomes or uncover mass election fraud. Legal experts dismiss them as preposterous, noting that there is no plausible scenario under the Constitution for returning Mr. Trump to office.But just as Mr. Eastman’s original plan to use Congress’s final count of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, to overturn the election was seen as far-fetched in the run-up to the deadly Capitol riot, the continued efforts are fueling a false narrative that has resonated with Mr. Trump’s supporters and stoked their grievances. They are keeping alive the same combustible stew of conspiracy theory and misinformation that threatens to undermine faith in democracy by nurturing the lie that the election was corrupt.The efforts have fed a cottage industry of podcasts and television appearances centered around not only false claims of widespread election fraud in 2020, but the notion that the results can still be altered after the fact — and Mr. Trump returned to power, an idea that he continues to push privately as he looks toward a probable re-election run in 2024.Democrats and some Republicans have raised deep concerns about the impact of the decertification efforts. They warn of unintended consequences, including the potential to incite violence of the sort that erupted on Jan. 6, when a mob of Mr. Trump’s supporters — convinced that he could still be declared the winner of the 2020 election — stormed the Capitol. Legal experts worry that the focus on decertifying the last election could pave the way for more aggressive — and earlier — legislative intervention the next time around.“At the moment, there is no other way to say it: This is the clearest and most present danger to our democracy,” said J. Michael Luttig, a leading conservative lawyer and former appeals court judge, for whom Mr. Eastman clerked and whom President George W. Bush considered as a nominee to be the chief justice of the United States. “Trump and his supporters in Congress and in the states are preparing now to lay the groundwork to overturn the election in 2024 were Trump, or his designee, to lose the vote for the presidency.”Most of Mr. Trump’s aides would like him to stop talking about 2020 — or, if he must, to focus on changes to voting laws across the country rather than his own fate. But like he did in 2020, when many officials declined to help him upend the election results, Mr. Trump has found a group of outside allies willing to take up an outlandish argument they know he wants to see made.The efforts have been led or loudly championed by Mike Lindell, the chief executive of MyPillow; Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser; Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House chief strategist; and Boris Epshteyn, an aide and associate of Mr. Trump’s.Another key player has been Mr. Eastman, the right-wing lawyer who persuaded Mr. Trump shortly after the election that Vice President Mike Pence could reject certified electoral votes for Mr. Biden when he presided over the congressional count and declare Mr. Trump the victor instead.Mr. Eastman wrote a memo and Mr. Epshteyn sent an email late last year to the main legislator pushing a decertification bill in Wisconsin, laying out a legal theory to justify the action. Mr. Eastman met last month with Robin Vos, the speaker of the State Assembly, and activists working across the country, a meeting that was reported earlier by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.Jefferson Davis, an activist from Wisconsin, said he had asked Mr. Eastman to join the meeting after hearing about his work on behalf of Mr. Trump following the election.“If it was good enough for the president of the United States,” Mr. Davis said in an interview, “then his expertise was good enough to meet with Speaker Vos in Wisconsin on election fraud and what do we do to fix it.”Mr. Vos has maintained that the Legislature has no pathway to decertification, in line with the guidance of its own lawyers.John Eastman, left, has made clear that he has no intention of dropping his fight to show that the election was stolen.Jim Bourg/Reuters“There is no mechanism in state or federal law for the Legislature to reverse certified votes cast by the Electoral College and counted by Congress,” the lawyers wrote, adding that impeachment was the only way to remove a sitting president other than in the case of incapacity.But Mr. Eastman has made clear that he has no intention of dropping his fight to prove that the election was stolen. The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack has said his legal efforts to invalidate the results most likely violated the law by trying to defraud the American people. A federal judge recently agreed, calling Mr. Eastman’s actions “a coup in search of a legal theory.”Legal experts say his continued efforts could increase his criminal exposure; but if Mr. Eastman were ever to be charged with fraud, he could also point to his recent work as evidence that he truly believed the election was stolen.“There are a lot of things still percolating,” Mr. Eastman said in an interview with The New York Times last fall. He claimed that states had illegally given people the ability to cast votes in ways that should have been forbidden, corrupting the results. And he pointed to a widely debunked video from State Farm Arena in Atlanta, which he claimed showed that tabulation ballots were run through counting machines multiple times during the election.Charles Burnham, Mr. Eastman’s lawyer, said in a statement that he “was recently invited to lend his expertise to legislators and citizens in Wisconsin confronting significant evidence of election fraud and illegality. He did so in his role as a constitutional scholar and not on behalf of any client.”The fringe legal theory that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Epshteyn are promoting — which has been widely dismissed — holds that state lawmakers have the power to choose how electors are selected, and they can change them long after the Electoral College has certified votes if they find fraud and illegality sufficiently altered the outcome. The theory has surfaced in multiple states, including several that are political battlegrounds.As in Wisconsin, state legislators in Arizona drafted resolutions calling for the decertification of the 2020 election. In Georgia, a lawsuit sought to decertify the victories of the Democratic senators Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. And Robert Regan, a Republican favored to win a seat in the Michigan House, has said he wants to decertify the 2020 election either through a ballot petition or the courts.Mr. Bannon, Mr. Lindell and Mr. Epshteyn have repeatedly promoted decertification at the state level on Mr. Bannon’s podcast, “War Room,” since last summer, pushing it as a steady drumbeat and at times claiming that it could lead to Mr. Trump being put back into office. They have described the so-called audit movement that began in Arizona and spread to other states as part of a larger effort to decertify electoral votes.“We are on a full, full freight train to decertify,” Mr. Epshteyn said on the program in January. “That’s what we’re going to get. Everyone knows. Everyone knows this election was stolen.”Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3Debating a criminal referral. More