Presidential Election of 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Michael Flynn Re-emerges Pushing QAnon, Stolen 2020 Election Lies

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutTracking the ArrestsVisual TimelineInside the SiegeMurder Charges?The Oath KeepersAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyPushing QAnon and Stolen Election Lies, Flynn Re-emergesRecast by President Trump’s most ardent supporters as a MAGA martyr, Michael T. Flynn has embraced his role as the man who spent four years unjustly ensnared in the Russia investigation.Michael T. Flynn at the Dec. 12 rally in Washington to protest the presidential election.Credit…Jonathan Ernst/ReutersFeb. 6, 2021Updated 4:48 p.m. ETIn Washington’s respectable circles, Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, is a discredited and dishonored ex-general, a once-esteemed military intelligence officer who went off the rails ideologically and then was fired a mere 24 days into the Trump administration for lying to the F.B.I. about contacts with the Russian ambassador.As if he cared.Where others see disgrace, Mr. Flynn, 62, has found redemption. Recast by former President Donald J. Trump’s most ardent supporters as a MAGA martyr, Mr. Flynn has embraced his role as the man who spent four years unjustly ensnared in the Russia investigation.He was one of the most extreme voices in Mr. Trump’s 77-day push to overturn the election, a campaign that will be under scrutiny as the former president’s second impeachment trial gets underway next week. Mr. Flynn went so far as to suggest using the military to rerun the vote in crucial battleground states. At one point, Mr. Trump even floated the idea of bringing Mr. Flynn back into the administration, as chief of staff or possibly F.B.I. director, people familiar with the conversations told The New York Times.And now, safely pardoned and free to speak his mind, Mr. Flynn has emerged from the Trump presidency much as he entered it — as the angry outsider who pushes fringe ideas, talks of shadowy conspiracies and is positioning himself as a voice of a far right that, in the wake of the Capitol riot, appears newly, and violently, emboldened.All that has changed for Mr. Flynn are the subjects at hand, and his apparent willingness to cash in on his notoriety.Mr. Flynn’s dark view of Islam and eagerness to cultivate President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia have given way to an embrace of QAnon, the pro-Trump conspiracy theory, and a readiness to question the very fabric of American democracy. He has swapped a government job and an obsessive focus on “radical Islamic terrorism” for selling QAnon-branded T-shirts and a new media partnership with conspiracy theorists called Digital Soldiers.Yet his underlying message remains much the same as it was back in 2016, when he was leading chants of “lock her up” at Trump rallies: Washington’s establishment is irredeemably corrupt, and real Americans — that is, supporters of himself and Mr. Trump — are wise to it.“This country is awake,” he declared at the pro-Trump rally in Washington last month. “We will not stand for a lie.”It was the night before a mob attacked the Capitol, and the crowd on hand in Washington’s Freedom Plaza — some of whom would take part in the coming violence — left little doubt about where Mr. Flynn stood.“We love you, we love you, we love you,” they chanted. None of the other speakers at the rally — a boldface-name collection of Trumpworld characters like Roger Stone and Alex Jones — got as enthusiastic a reception.With Mr. Trump now in his post-presidency at Mar-a-Lago, a loose coalition that draws together militia members and conspiracy theorists along with evangelical Christians and suburban Trump supporters is searching for direction. Call it the alt-truth movement, and if it is to coalesce into something more permanent, it may well be, at least in part, because figures like Mr. Flynn continue to push false claims of how a deep-state cabal stole the election.“In order for us to breathe the fresh air of liberty, we the people, we are the ones that will decide our path forward, America’s future forward,” he said at the Jan. 5 rally. “It may not be a Republican Party, it may not be a Democratic Party, it will be a people’s party.”Martial LawMr. Flynn, who did not respond to an interview request for this article, spent 33 years as an Army intelligence officer, earning a reputation for being outspoken and unconventional and, in the years that followed the Sept. 11 attacks, for being unusually good at unwinding terrorist networks.Much of that work involved mapping out loose webs of ideological fellow travelers, figuring out who gave voice to extremist ideas and who committed the violence — two groups that were not always directly tied to each other. If a similar attempt was made to map the network of people who spread Mr. Trump’s stolen-election lie that led to the storming of the Capitol, Mr. Flynn himself would probably appear as one of those leading voices for his part in riling up Mr. Trump’s supporters without taking part in the attack.Perhaps most responsible for Mr. Flynn’s re-emergence is the conspiracy-theorizing lawyer Sidney Powell. Ms. Powell took over his legal defense in the Russia investigation after he had twice pleaded guilty in a deal to cooperate with prosecutors, and charted a combative new path. She challenged the deal and, marshaling a small army of like-minded Twitter users, recast Mr. Flynn from a turncoat into a victim, a man who had taken the fall to save his son, who was also under investigation.Mr. Flynn with his son, Mike Flynn Jr., at Trump Tower in New York in 2016.Credit…Sam Hodgson for The New York TimesIt was the story of the Russia investigation as a malevolent plot that first began priming tens of millions of Americans to believe Mr. Trump’s conspiracy theories about the deep state. As one of the heroes of that narrative, Mr. Flynn became an ideal messenger when it was refashioned into the demonstrably false claim that Democrats and their deep-state allies had rigged the election.Within days of being pardoned on Nov. 27, Mr. Flynn began sharing those views in the right-wing media.In some appearances, he described himself as a marked man. “I gotta make sure I’m a moving target, because these son-of-a-guns, they’re after me, in a literal and a figurative sense,” he told listeners of “The Matrixxx Groove Show,” a QAnon podcast.In an interview with Newsmax, the conservative channel, he suggested Mr. Trump could impose martial law in swing states he had lost and rerun the elections.“People out there talk about martial law like it’s something that we’ve never done,” Mr. Flynn said. He noted that the military had taken over for civilian authorities dozens of times in American history, though he did not mention that it had never done so to help decide an election.The suggestion horrified many of Mr. Flynn’s former compatriots in uniform. Even discussing personal politics is frowned upon in the military, and most generals see it as their duty to stay above the political fray after retirement, as well. There have long been exceptions, of course, but to many who had served with Mr. Flynn, a retired general calling for the military to help decide an American election represented a new level of recklessness.“Mike, stop. Just stop. You are a former soldier,” Tony Thomas, a retired general who headed the Joint Special Operations Command, wrote on Twitter. Throughout his military career, in fact, all most of Mr. Flynn’s fellow soldiers had known about his politics was that he was a registered Democrat. Then came 2016, and the sight of a retired general leading chants for the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton, a former senator and secretary of state.When a number of generals privately and publicly urged him to dial back his support for Mr. Trump, Mr. Flynn called them “disrespectful.” If they could use their titles to get on corporate boards, he could use his to back Mr. Trump, he countered in an interview at the time, saying, “I care deeply about this country.”In any case, he said, he had never really been part of their club.‘Flynn Facts’Mr. Flynn has described his family as “definitely lower middle class,” and he joined the military without the West Point pedigree of many of his peers. He graduated instead from the Army’s Reserve Officer Training Program at the University of Rhode Island, a short drive from the town where he was raised.Yet he rose to be a lieutenant general, among the most respected military officers of his generation. He helped reshape the Joint Special Operations Command at the height of the war in Iraq, and ran military intelligence in Afghanistan during the Obama administration’s troop surge. In 2012, President Barack Obama named him director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.Mr. Flynn, the Obama administration’s director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testing before Congress with James Clapper, then head of national intelligence.Credit…Christopher Gregory/The New York TimesThen his career unraveled. After only two years, he was forced out when his attempt to reform the sprawling agency left subordinates squabbling and his superiors alarmed.Mr. Flynn, though, claimed that he had been fired for refusing to toe the Obama administration’s line that Islamist militants were in retreat. His position was vindicated with the rise of the Islamic State, and Mr. Flynn quickly became something of a cult figure among conservatives for what they saw as his brave stand against the Obama administration’s perfidy..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1amoy78{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1amoy78{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1amoy78:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.As his relentless focus on Islamist militancy intensified, his views veered hard to the right. He argued that militants posed a threat to the very existence of the United States, and at times crossed the line into outright Islamophobia, tweeting “fear of Muslims is RATIONAL.”In Mr. Trump, he found a presidential candidate who shared his dark and conspiratorial view of Islam.The similarities between the two men did not end there: Both shared a fondness for Twitter and often exhibited a loose relationship with the truth. When Mr. Flynn ran the D.I.A., his dubious assertions were so common that subordinates came up with a name for them: “Flynn facts.” (In January, he was among those banned from Twitter with Mr. Trump.)So it was no great stretch to see Mr. Flynn hurling conspiracy theories about an election that federal election-security experts considered among the best run on record, and for Mr. Trump to listen.Supporters gathered outside a sentencing hearing in Washington in 2018 after Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. Credit…Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLast Dec. 18, Mr. Flynn participated in a raucous White House meeting in which Ms. Powell proposed that the president appoint her as a special counsel investigating voter fraud. Mr. Trump at one point also raised the idea of putting Mr. Flynn in charge of the F.B.I., and later suggested making him chief of staff for the final weeks of his administration, according to Trump and Flynn associates familiar with the conversations, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering either man.Whether the president was serious about either idea is an open question. But Mr. Flynn shot them down, saying he needed to focus on paying off millions of dollars in legal debts he had amassed fighting off the Russia investigation.Joining the FringeHis plan for paying those bills appears to rely on leveraging his public persona into cold, hard cash. There are the T-shirts and other merchandise, which he is selling through a company called Shirt Show USA. The website features shirts emblazoned with #FightLikeAFlynn and camo trucker hats with the emblem “WWG1WGA,” a reference to a popular QAnon motto, “Where we go one, we go all.”Then there is his new media venture, Digital Soldiers, which will publish reader-submitted stories. Mr. Flynn is building it with UncoverDC, a website that has pushed QAnon and conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 pandemic and President Biden.The tenor of Digital Soldiers is unmistakably QAnon, a movement centered on the claim that Mr. Trump, secretly aided by the military, was elected to smash a cabal of Democrats, international financiers and deep-state bureaucrats who worship Satan and abuse children. The supposed dishonesty of the mainstream media is central to QAnon, and Digital Soldiers — a phrase followers often use to describe themselves — represents Mr. Flynn’s fullest embrace of the movement to date.“Digital Soldiers from all over the world have stepped up to fill the void where real journalism once stood,” the website says.This past summer, Mr. Flynn posted a video of himself taking QAnon’s “digital soldier” oath. To many of the movement’s followers, Mr. Flynn ranks just below Mr. Trump. Some have speculated that he is the mysterious figure known as “Q,” the purported government insider with a high-level security clearance who began posting cryptic messages in 2017 about the deep state trying to destroy the president.Mr. Flynn posted a video of himself taking a QAnon oath this past summer.“They really take his word as gospel,” said Travis View, a close observer of the movement who hosts the podcast “QAnon Anonymous.” “In the mythology, they often say that he knows where the bodies are buried, and that’s why they tried to railroad him over Russia.”The phrase “digital soldiers” is drawn from a speech Mr. Flynn gave shortly after the 2016 election during which he inadvertently laid the groundwork for the conspiracy theory. He compared the Trump campaign to an insurgency — a theme that QAnon adherents would later adopt for themselves — with “an army of digital soldiers.”“This was irregular warfare at its finest — in politics,” he said.Among QAnon faithful, who believe that Mr. Trump and others use public statements to send secret signals, Mr. Flynn’s speech is considered something of a foundational text. And now, in naming his new media outlet Digital Soldiers, many believe he is sending them a message to carry on, even though Mr. Trump left office before the predicted apocalyptic showdown with his enemies — know as “the storm” — could come to pass.As one QAnon devotee noted in an IRC channel, a relatively dated online chat room technology favored by those particularly suspicious of possible surveillance, “If they kill or capture Trump, Flynn can still carry out the mission.”“The troops march to the beat of his drum,” wrote the user, who went by the screen name “specialist.”The plan, the user added, was “masterful.”Ken Vogel and Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Fox Business Cancels ‘Lou Dobbs Tonight’

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyLou Dobbs’s Show Is Canceled by Fox BusinessMr. Dobbs, a loyal supporter of former President Donald J. Trump, was named in a $2.7 billion lawsuit filed on Thursday against the Fox Corporation and two other Fox anchors.Lou Dobbs had the top-rated show on Fox Business. It was canceled the day after he was one of three Fox anchors named in a lawsuit filed by Smartmatic, an election technology company.Credit…John Lamparski/Getty ImagesFeb. 5, 2021Updated 9:48 p.m. ETLou Dobbs, one of former President Donald J. Trump’s most loyal media supporters, abruptly lost his pulpit on Friday when Fox Business canceled his weekday television show, which had become a frequent clearinghouse for baseless theories of electoral fraud in the weeks after Mr. Trump lost the 2020 presidential race.Mr. Dobbs’s decade-long tenure at the network ended with little warning — a guest host filled in for his Friday slot — only a day after the election technology company Smartmatic filed a defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corporation and Fox News.The suit, which seeks damages of at least $2.7 billion, also named Mr. Dobbs as an individual defendant along with two other Fox anchors, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro. Smartmatic specifically cited Mr. Dobbs’s program, which by late last year had become so packed with falsehoods about Mr. Trump’s defeat that Fox Business was forced to run a fact-checking segment debunking some of its own anchor’s assertions.Executives at Fox did not elaborate on Friday about why they had canceled Mr. Dobbs’s program, which was the top-rated show on Fox Business and drew a bigger audience than its competition on CNBC. The network said in a statement that it regularly reviewed its programming lineup.“Plans have been in place to launch new formats as appropriate postelection, including on Fox Business,” the network said. “This is part of those planned changes.”A person familiar with Fox’s decision said the network’s concerns about Mr. Dobbs predated this week’s filing of the Smartmatic lawsuit. But the person, who requested anonymity to describe private personnel matters, conceded that Mr. Dobbs’s extreme and unrepentant endorsements of Mr. Trump’s false election claims had imperiled his position, as did other moments. For instance, on the day of siege at the U.S. Capitol, Mr. Dobbs described protesters as merely “walking between the rope lines.”The cancellation came as lawsuits and legal threats are rippling the landscape of media organizations popular with right-wing viewers. Dominion Voting Systems has sued two lawyers who represented Mr. Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sydney Powell, over false claims they made on Fox News and other outlets that the company aided President Biden’s victory, and it is considering additional litigation.Mr. Dobbs, 75, rose to fame as a CNN anchor, becoming a mainstay of television business news. He began hosting his Fox program in 2011, lured by the network’s co-founder Roger Ailes, and was watched by a soon-to-be-very influential fan: Mr. Trump, who shared Mr. Dobbs’s right-wing values, particularly the anchor’s hard-line stance against unchecked immigration.The men also shared an interest in questioning President Barack Obama’s birthplace, a canard that helped lead to Mr. Dobbs’s exit from CNN in 2009.At the White House, Mr. Trump came to see Mr. Dobbs’s program as required viewing; his allies learned that an appearance on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” would guarantee attention in the West Wing. The president even patched in the television host during some policy discussions with his White House staff.Mr. Trump, who was barred from Twitter last month, has been circumspect since leaving the White House in what subjects he comments on. But roughly an hour after the news of Mr. Dobbs’s departure broke, the former president issued a statement to The New York Times.“Lou Dobbs is and was great,” Mr. Trump said. “Nobody loves America more than Lou. He had a large and loyal following that will be watching closely for his next move, and that following includes me.”Mr. Dobbs and his wife, Debi Segura, at a state dinner at the White House in 2019. Former President Donald J. Trump considered Mr. Dobbs’s show required viewing.Credit…Pool photo by Ron SachsThe loyalty went both ways. As recently as Thursday, his final day on Fox Business, Mr. Dobbs spoke disparagingly of Republican Party leaders for, in his view, showing insufficient loyalty to Mr. Trump. He described Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leaders in Congress, as “toadies for the Democratic Party.”Mr. Dobbs remains on contract with Fox, but the network has no plans to put him back on the air, according to a person briefed on its plans. For now, a rotating group of hosts will replace Mr. Dobbs in his 5 p.m. slot. The anchors Jackie DeAngelis and David Asman will sit in for him next week. (“Lou Dobbs Tonight” repeats at 7 p.m.) The cancellation was reported earlier by The Los Angeles Times.The Smartmatic lawsuit filed on Thursday cited a false claim from a November episode of “Lou Dobbs Tonight”: that Hugo Chávez, the former president of Venezuela, had a hand in the creation of Smartmatic technology, designing it so that the votes it processed could be changed undetected. (Mr. Chávez, who died in 2013, did not have anything to do with Smartmatic.)The Chávez claim was made by Ms. Powell, who worked as a lawyer for Mr. Trump and was a frequent guest on Mr. Dobbs’s program. She was also sued by Smartmatic on Thursday, along with Mr. Giuliani. Mr. Dobbs was also cited in the lawsuit for using the phrase “cyber Pearl Harbor” to describe a supposed vote-fraud conspiracy, borrowing language used by Ms. Powell.There are signs that the other hosts named in the suit, Ms. Bartiromo and Ms. Pirro, may be in a more favorable position with Fox management than Mr. Dobbs.It was clear weeks ago that defamation suits from Smartmatic and Dominion could be imminent. Since then, Ms. Bartiromo was picked to audition for a new 7 p.m. program on Fox News, and Ms. Pirro debuted a new travel program, “Castles USA,” on the Fox Nation streaming service, in which she visits castles around the country.Fox has pledged to fight the Smartmatic litigation, saying in a statement: “We are proud of our 2020 election coverage and will vigorously defend this meritless lawsuit in court.”Don Herzog, who teaches First Amendment and defamation law at the University of Michigan, said it was possible that canceling Mr. Dobbs could aid Fox in its defense of the lawsuit. If Mr. Dobbs had continued to discuss Smartmatic or promote election fraud on his program, the network could have been liable for each new claim, Mr. Herzog said.Fox officials could also argue that the lawsuit made them aware of untruths that Mr. Dobbs had helped spread. And in a trial atmosphere, the cancellation of Mr. Dobbs’s program might help persuade jurors that the network was acting in good faith.Mr. Herzog said a responsible judge would counter that sentiment: “A judge should instruct a jury that what Fox does later to try to show they’re acting in good faith doesn’t settle the question of whether they were acting in good faith at some earlier time.”Such was the sudden nature of Mr. Dobbs’s exit that even the anchor who filled in for him on Friday, Mr. Asman, did not appear to have been briefed on the news.At the end of the 5 p.m. broadcast, Mr. Asman smiled at the camera, wished his viewers a happy weekend, and added a parting note:“Lou will be back on Monday.”John Koblin More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Three false claims about the election made in Mike Lindell’s new film.

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Campaign to Subvert the 2020 ElectionTrump’s RoleKey TakeawaysExtremist Wing of G.O.P.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyThree false claims about the election made in Mike Lindell’s new film.One America News ran an extensive disclaimer before the broadcast.Mike Lindell, the chief executive of MyPillow, has long been a vocal supporter of former President Donald J. Trump.Credit…Al Drago for The New York TimesKellen Browning and Feb. 5, 2021, 7:22 p.m. ETThe 2020 presidential election was three months ago, but one of the biggest backers of the false theory that it was rigged against former President Donald J. Trump has not given up his hope of overturning the results.On Friday, Mike Lindell, the embattled chief executive of MyPillow who helped finance Mr. Trump’s legal efforts to challenge election results, aired a falsehood-laden film about election fraud on One America News.The network promoted the two-hour film, titled “Absolute Proof,” on Twitter Thursday, urging viewers to join Mr. Lindell “for a never-before-seen report breaking down election fraud evidence & showing how the unprecedented level of voter fraud was committed in the 2020 Presidential Election.”There has been no substantial evidence of fraud in the election, which President Biden won. Mr. Lindell’s theories have led to Twitter removing him and MyPillow from its platform and several major retailers cutting ties with the pillow manufacturer.Before showing the film on Friday, the network ran an extensive disclaimer that described Mr. Lindell as “solely and exclusively responsible for its content,” and noted that “this program is not the product of OAN’s reporting” and was “presented at this time as opinions only.”YouTube took down “Absolute Proof” on Friday, saying it violated the company’s presidential election integrity policy, which prohibits false claims that widespread fraud, errors or glitches changed the outcome of the vote.Two companies that provide election technology, Dominion and Smartmatic, have filed defamation suits in recent weeks against people and organizations that have made baseless claims about the companies.Here are three much-examined areas that come up in the film. One America and Mr. Lindell did not respond to requests for comment.1. No, Dominion files were not manipulated.The crux of many arguments that election fraud occurred, and repeated in Mr. Lindell’s film, is the unsubstantiated claim that Dominion software was somehow manipulated to delete votes for Mr. Trump, or to hide some sort of conspiracy.Many of these unsubstantiated claims stem from an instance in Antrim County, Mich., when a clerical error in reporting results led the county to initially show a landslide vote in favor of Mr. Biden. The error was soon corrected, but conspiracy theorists have latched onto the incident as evidence that voting was rigged.Files “were deleted from the Dominion system in Antrim County. We know that for a fact,” Matt DePerno, a lawyer who has fought to investigate the incident, told Mr. Lindell in the film. “Wow,” Mr. Lindell responded.There has been no evidence that votes were manipulated in the county, and a hand-counted audit of votes in December affirmed the outcome there.2. No, foreign countries did not interfere with voting machines.Mr. Lindell interviewed retired Army Col. Phil Waldron, another member of the movement that fought to overturn the election. Mr. Waldron, who said his military background involves “information warfare,” pushed the unfounded claim that the Chinese government invested money in Dominion and therefore has access to its files and data.“A lot of movements of votes, direct access to Pennsylvania voting precincts, county tabulation centers, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, all of that coming directly from foreign countries, China being the predominant one,” Mr. Waldron said.He also claimed that overseas servers in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom somehow played a role in manipulating results. The manipulation, Mr. Waldron said, was “part of a coup that was aided and abetted by a foreign-threat nation-state, a peer enemy nation-state: China.”Election officials and cybersecurity experts have said there is no credible evidence that China helped Mr. Biden win the election.3. No, votes for Biden were not counted multiple times.Melissa Carone, an information technology worker who said she was contracted by Dominion for the election, was brought on the show to tell Mr. Lindell that she watched thousands of ballots run through voting machines without ever seeing a single vote for Mr. Trump.Ms. Carone, whose testimony was ruled “not credible” by a Michigan judge in November, told Mr. Lindell that when ballots jammed inside the machine, people tabulating the votes were re-scanning dozens of ballots and counting them twice.“It’s like counting a deck of cards, you could sit there and run the same deck of cards through this tabulator over and over and over again,” Mr. Lindell observed.Michigan election officials have said that ballots were “not scanned multiple times inappropriately.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Will Examine Giving F.B.I. More Resources to Counter Domestic Extremism

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyU.S. Will Examine Giving F.B.I. More Resources to Counter Domestic ExtremismThe issue of violent extremist groups in the United States has come to the top of the agenda since a mob of far-right groups stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.The F.B.I. headquarters in Washington.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesJulian E. Barnes and Feb. 5, 2021, 6:22 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The Biden administration will examine if additional F.B.I. agents are needed at the bureau’s field offices to address the threat of domestic violent extremism, a senior administration official said on Friday.Last month, the White House ordered a review of the threat of domestic violent extremism, led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That assessment will inform a policy review that will consider F.B.I. resources, additional authorities, foreign influence operations and other questions.The senior administration official said that the assessment and initial policy review would take about 100 days. The official spoke on a conference call with reporters on ground rules of anonymity to broach current policy discussions.The issue of violent extremist groups in the United States has come to the top of the agenda since a mob of far-right extremist organizations stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. The assault, which aimed to stop the counting of Electoral College votes and halt the transition of power to the Biden administration, has led to a string of federal charges against the rioters.Since the attack, there have been a series of questions about the intelligence gathered before Jan. 6, and whether the federal government was taking the threat of violence and extremist groups seriously enough.There is broad interest across the government in the issue of violent domestic groups. On Thursday, both Democrats and Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee expressed support for new domestic terrorism laws intended to stop violence similar to the attack on the Capitol. And Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virgina, who is the new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said this week that he had bipartisan support for his panel to investigate the matter.In a letter last month to President Biden, Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a member of the intelligence committee, backed the administration’s assessment request and asked that the role of foreign adversaries be examined.“It is crucial we understand the full extent of the threat facing our nation to ensure the tragic events of Jan. 6, 2021, never happen again,” Mr. Cornyn wrote.The administration official said the bulk of the intelligence review would fall to the intelligence arms of the F.B.I. and Department of Homeland Security, but it is the role of the director of national intelligence to coordinate assessments that involve multiple departments.However, an element of the review will look at potential links between domestic groups and foreign networks and organizations, the official added. That part of the review will involve intelligence agencies, including the C.I.A. and National Security Agency, which are restricted in their collection of intelligence on Americans.White House officials expect that as part of the policy review, the F.B.I. will seek additional resources to deal with domestic violent extremism. The official noted that a Department of Homeland Security examination found that white supremacist terrorism was the most lethal domestic threat from 2018 to 2020.While some F.B.I. field offices have a squad of agents who deal primarily with the threat of domestic extremist groups, not all of them have a full contingent of resources dedicated to the fight. However, former F.B.I. officials say the domestic terrorism threat can vary from state to state.But the official said another part of the review would look at whether the bureau’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces were structured to address the threat of American extremist groups and antigovernmental organizations. The review will look at whether the task forces are capable of reporting episodes of domestic violent extremism and track the groups that are involved, the official said.International terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda, are far more hierarchical. In contrast, the official said, domestic extremist groups are more loosely organized. Membership can shift, and different groups can come together, as they did during the Capitol attack, and then split apart.Adam Goldman More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The MyPillow Guy’s Fever Dream

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }What to WatchBest Movies on NetflixBest of Disney PlusBest of Amazon PrimeBest Netflix DocumentariesNew on NetflixAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCritic’s NotebookThe MyPillow Guy’s Fever DreamIn a bizarre, two-hour-plus disinfomercial on OANN, an election conspiracist sells a myth of a victory stolen.In a self-made video that is airing on OANN, Mike Lindell promotes his false election fraud claims with interviews and makeshift graphics.Credit…via michaeljlindell.comFeb. 5, 2021, 5:25 p.m. ETTV’s latest, most outrageously paranoid conspiracy-thriller has arrived. It has everything: cyberespionage, evil vote-stealing machines, wicked media cabals. And it aired Friday on One America News Network.It is “Absolute Proof,” a two-hour-plus disinfomercial made and hosted by Mike Lindell, the chief executive of the MyPillow company and a fervent advocate of the myth that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald J. Trump and handed to President Biden. Mr. Lindell paid OANN to air it multiple times starting Friday.In it, Mr. Lindell sits behind a news desk stamped with the seal of “WVW Broadcast Network.” He interviews a lineup of guests featured in the monthslong effort to discredit and overturn the legitimate election, whose wild charges he punctuates with a hearty “Wow!” He claims that Mr. Trump not only won the election but won by such a margin that he “broke the algorithm” of voting machines.Mr. Lindell used to sell pillows on TV. Now he’s peddling dreams. In this sweet, terrible dream, your candidate did not lose an election that he lost. Complex nefarious forces are arrayed against you. But if only the media (including, apparently, some of the most fervently pro-Trump media) would relent and let the truth be known, you might get your country back.The content of Mr. Lindell’s stolen-election case poses a challenge for a newspaper reviewer, because it is hogwash, widely discredited hogwash, and it can be irresponsible to spread the specifics unnecessarily, even to debunk them.Even OANN, which has courted election truthers, seemed to realize that “Absolute Proof” was volatile content. A mammoth disclaimer before the broadcast emphasized that Mr. Lindell purchased the airtime and that “the statements and claims expressed in this program are presented at this time as opinions only.”The message is not so much “Don’t try this at home” as “Don’t try us in court.”Mr. Lindell is less shy. He holds forth in a blustery conspiracist voice that channels “The X-Files” by way of “Homeland” by way of an old “Saturday Night Live” Mike Ditka impression.He promises to expose “all the evil in our country, all the criminals in the country, all the ones that tried to suppress this.” He complains of his suspension by Twitter and his treatment by OANN’s competitor Newsmax, which cut off an interview with him this week when he launched into an accusation of fraud by voting machines that the network had disavowed under pain of legal action. He grouses about the stores that will no longer sell his pillows.His monologues are the sort that people will change subway cars to avoid. “They’re suppressing, cancel culture, they’re trying to cancel us all out,” he says. “I’ve just seen churches, the Christian churches, they’re being attacked right now, people on social media, anyone that speaks up, they’re going, ‘You can’t say that, pfft, you’re gone.’”All while a cartoon rubber stamp slaps “CANCELED” on the screen.If the off-the-rack newsroom set was meant to give Mr. Lindell’s accusations an air of gravitas, the production undercuts it. Creepy murder-show music swells up and fades out randomly in the middle of interviews. An accusation of communist meddling is illustrated with a crude graphic of hands holding a hammer and sickle. Segues between interviews are so clumsy I have to assume editing sabotage by the deep state.The whole chintzy production has the feel of a man, and a movement, unraveling. But its existence also says something about the larger conservative-media landscape postelection.Every right-wing outlet has had to decide how much to indulge the lies about the election popular with a large chunk of its audience. OANN and Newsmax seized an opportunity to outflank Fox News, some of whose commentators have played footsie with election fraud conspiracies but whose news operation committed the heresy of acknowledging that Mr. Biden won an election that he won.But all the “rigging” talk has also raised the existential threat of enormous lawsuits from the election-machine companies that conspiracists have impugned. On Newsmax, which had sought to out-Trump Fox, the anchor who cut off Mr. Lindell read a statement that included the lines: “The election results in every state were certified. Newsmax accepts the results as legal and final.”Now, it seems, it was Newsmax’s turn to be insufficiently MAGA. Mr. Lindell’s paid vanity-cast may have given OANN the opportunity to court dead-ender Trumpists, albeit under the shield of a “please don’t sue us” card.For hours on end, Mr. Lindell spun that audience the story it craved, then implored it to help him spread that story through social media. Onscreen, a graphic showed a smartphone bubbling out the logos of social-media platforms, including, for some reason, the online-payment system Venmo and Google Plus, which shut down in 2019.It’s tempting just to laugh at all this. And make no mistake, you should laugh at all this! It is a healthy sign that after years of alternative facts, you have still retained some sense of reality and the absurd.But you should also cry, a little. Because it’s not hard to imagine an audience who wants to believe, seeing the world maps with menacing lines purporting to show “hacking,” hearing the talk of “cyberforensics,” and concluding, still, that there must be something to all this.In fact, you don’t need to imagine them. Just look at pictures from the Capitol on Jan. 6.It may seem ridiculous that a pillow executive is paying a minor cable channel to let him play Fox Mulder with the election on a faux news set, because it is ridiculous. But ridiculous does not mean harmless.Mike Lindell’s argument may not have merit or coherence. But he has a sense of his market, of what plays through their heads when they turn out the lights and their heads hit their pillows.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The $2.7 Billion Case Against Fox News

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyThe DailySubscribe:Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsThe $2.7 Billion Case Against Fox NewsSmartmatic, an election technology company, filed a billion-dollar lawsuit against the network over what the company says are false claims about its role in the 2020 election. We hear from Smartmatic’s C.E.O. and lawyer.Hosted by Ben Smith; produced by Rachel Quester, Neena Pathak and Alix Spiegel; edited by Lisa Tobin and Mike Benoist; and engineered by Chris Wood.More episodes ofThe DailyFebruary 5, 2021  •  More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Smartmatic Files $2.7 Billion Lawsuit Against Fox News

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Campaign to Subvert the 2020 ElectionTrump’s RoleKey TakeawaysExtremist Wing of G.O.P.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFox News Is Sued by Election Technology Company for Over $2.7 BillionSmartmatic accused Rupert Murdoch’s network of promoting a false narrative about the 2020 election that damaged the company.A Smartmatic representative demonstrating the company’s vote-processing system in 2018.Credit…Bob Andres/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, via Associated PressJonah E. Bromwich and Feb. 4, 2021Updated 9:47 p.m. ETLeer en españolIn the latest volley in the battle over disinformation in the presidential election, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corporation has been sued by an obscure tech company that has accused his cable networks of defamation and contributing to the fervor that led to the siege of the Capitol.The suit pits Smartmatic, which provided election technology in one county, against Donald J. Trump’s longtime favorite news outlet and three Fox anchors, Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeanine Pirro, all ardent supporters of the former president. A trial could reveal how Mr. Trump’s media backers sought to cast doubt on an election that delivered a victory to Joseph R. Biden Jr. and a loss to an incumbent who refused to accept reality.Filed in New York State Supreme Court, Smartmatic’s suit seeks at least $2.7 billion in damages. In addition to Mr. Murdoch’s Fox Corporation, Fox News and the three star anchors, it targets Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sidney Powell, lawyers who made the case for election fraud as frequent guests on Fox programs while representing President Trump.In its 276-page complaint, Smartmatic, which has requested a jury trial, argues that Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell “created a story about Smartmatic” and that “Fox joined the conspiracy to defame and disparage Smartmatic and its election technology and software.”“The story turned neighbor against neighbor,” the complaint continues. “The story led a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol.”Smartmatic filed the suit three months after an election repeatedly described as rigged or stolen by Mr. Trump and his supporters. Fox and its upstart competitors Newsmax and OANN gave significant broadcast time to hosts and commentators who argued against the election’s integrity at a time of a rancorous political divide, when conspiratorial notions have moved into the mainstream.Smartmatic’s suit follows two others filed last month by Dominion Voting Systems: one against Mr. Giuliani, the other against Ms. Powell. Dominion, a Smartmatic competitor, is another company that has figured prominently in baseless election-fraud theories.Even after the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, a deadly riot led by Trump loyalists, the talk of fraud has not fully died down. In an appearance on Tuesday on Newsmax, Mike Lindell, the MyPillow founder who has been one of Mr. Trump’s devoted supporters, began an attack on Dominion. In a sign that the threat of defamation lawsuits has deterred media outlets that have broadcast conspiracy theories, the Newsmax anchor Bob Sellers cut off Mr. Lindell and read a statement: “The election results in every state were certified. Newsmax accepts the results as legal and final. The courts have also supported that view.”Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network is one of three Fox anchors named in the lawsuit.Credit…John Lamparski/Getty ImagesIn its complaint, Smartmatic said Fox programs became a venue for a number of falsehoods about the company in the weeks after the election, a time when powerful Republicans in Congress were sowing doubts about the vote’s outcome and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, then the majority leader, had yet to congratulate Joseph R. Biden Jr. on his victory.The suit cites a false claim, made by Ms. Powell on a November episode of Mr. Dobbs’s show on Fox Business, that Hugo Chávez, the deceased president of Venezuela, had a hand in the creation of Smartmatic technology, designing it so that the votes it processed could be changed undetected. (Mr. Chávez, who died in 2013, did not have anything to do with Smartmatic.)The lawsuit also cites exchanges on Fox programs that it says helped spread the claim that it was the owner of Dominion (it is not) and that it had provided its services to districts in contested states. (In fact, Smartmatic was used in the 2020 election only by Los Angeles County.) The lawsuit also says that Fox helped promote the false notion that the company had sent votes to other countries to be manipulated.Smartmatic added in its complaint that Fox’s broadcasting of the false claims “jeopardized” its “multibillion-dollar pipeline of business”; damaged its election technology and software businesses; and made it difficult for the company to get new business in the United States, where it had made inroads after years of servicing elections in other nations.A Fox spokeswoman disputed the claims in Smartmatic’s lawsuit, saying in a statement: “Fox News Media is committed to providing the full context of every story with in-depth reporting and clear opinion. We are proud of our 2020 election coverage and will vigorously defend this meritless lawsuit in court.”Ms. Powell, who said she had not seen or received notice of the suit, said: “Your characterization of the claims shows that this is just another political maneuver motivated by the radical left that has no basis in fact or law.”Ms. Bartiromo, Mr. Dobbs, Ms. Pirro and Mr. Giuliani did not immediately reply to requests for comment.In its frontal attack on Mr. Murdoch’s company, Smartmatic argues that Fox cast it as a villain in a fictitious narrative meant to help win back viewers from Newsmax and OANN. Those two networks saw ratings surges in the weeks after the election, thanks to their embrace of the fiction that Mr. Biden was not the rightful victor. The Smartmatic suit also argues that Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell sought to enrich themselves and improve their standing with Mr. Trump’s supporters by making claims that were damaging to the company.After Smartmatic sent a letter to Fox requesting a retraction for what it called “false and misleading statements” about the company and threatening legal action, each of the shows led by the three Fox anchors aired a segment in which an election expert, Eddie Perez, debunked a number of false claims about Smartmatic. The prerecorded segment, broadcast in December, showed Mr. Perez responding to questions from an off-camera voice. In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Perez said that the finished product “almost looked like a deposition.”Smartmatic’s complaint described not only the reputational and financial damage the company said it had suffered, but also the harm done to the United States by the claims promoted by Mr. Trump’s allies and the Murdoch-controlled networks he had long favored.Fox Corporation, with about 9,000 employees, is run by Mr. Murdoch, 89, and his elder son, Lachlan, its chief executive. A penalty of $2.7 billion would be hefty. Fox Corporation made $3 billion in pretax profit on $12.3 billion in revenue from September 2019 to September of last year. The company is valued at about $17.8 billion.Ms. Bartiromo, the host of shows on Fox Business and Fox News, conducted an interview with Mr. Trump on Nov. 29, his first lengthy TV interview after the election. Ms. Pirro, a onetime prosecutor whose “Justice with Judge Jeanine” is a staple of Fox News’s Saturday night lineup, has been friends with Mr. Trump for decades.Don Herzog, who teaches First Amendment and defamation law at the University of Michigan, said that the suit’s main argument made sense. “You can’t just make false stuff up about people,” he said. He expressed doubt about the suit’s linking the false statements on Fox to the Capitol attack, however, saying the events of Jan. 6 had no bearing on whether the defendants had harmed Smartmatic.The suit’s success would depend on a variety of factors, Mr. Herzog added, including whether Smartmatic can persuade a jury that the company did not have the standing of a public figure before Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell made it better known.If the court determines that Smartmatic was a public figure, the burden of proof for its claims will be higher. The company will have to show that the defendants knew that their statements were false or that they had serious doubts about them. In its complaint, Smartmatic argues that Mr. Giuliani, Ms. Powell and the three Fox anchors acted with “actual malice” and “recklessly disregarded” the veracity of their statements.While it may be difficult to persuade jurors that Fox is responsible for what guests say on its programs, Timothy Zick, a William & Mary Law School professor who specializes in First Amendment law, said the company could be held responsible for the content of its broadcasts.“If they knew that the segment was going to include these false statements, then I don’t think that relieves them of liability,” he said.At times, the language of the Fox hosts echoed that of Mr. Trump’s lawyers. The lawsuit cites Ms. Powell referring to the supposed vote-fraud conspiracy as a “cyber Pearl Harbor,” a phrase repeated by Mr. Dobbs on his show and on Twitter.Antonio Mugica, chief executive of Smartmatic, in London. While there, he said, he received a kidnapping threat.Credit…Henry Nicholls/ReutersWhen Smartmatic started in April 2000, it offered its services to banks. The shift to election security came after Antonio Mugica, a company founder and its chief executive, was in Palm Beach County during the contested 2000 election. “We were in the first row watching that circus,” he said. “And it really caused an impact on all of us.”The company had success providing its electronic voting machines, online voting platforms and software products for elections around the world. It was also used in the 2016 Republican presidential caucus in Utah. In 2018, Los Angeles County chose Smartmatic to develop a new election system, and its technology was used there in the March presidential primary and again in the general election.After Election Day, the company’s name, along with that of Dominion, became integral to the baseless theories promoted by right-wing media outlets. Smartmatic employees and their family members received threats, including death threats, some of which were noted in the complaint.“I had one in which I was told they were going to actually come kidnap me in London, where I was at the time,” Mr. Mugica said. “They were sending three people. ‘Plane is landing tomorrow.’”Edmund Lee contributed reporting. Kitty Bennett contributed research.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Refuses Surprise Call to Testify in His Impeachment Trial

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump Refuses Surprise Call to Testify in His Impeachment TrialThe former president’s lawyers wasted little time in swatting away the invitation to testify, saying the trial was “unconstitutional” and the request to testify a “public relations stunt.”President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers denied that he incited the attack or meant to disrupt Congress’s counting of electoral votes to formalize President Biden’s victory.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesNicholas Fandos, Michael S. Schmidt and Feb. 4, 2021Updated 9:19 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House impeachment managers issued a surprise request on Thursday for Donald J. Trump to testify in his Senate trial next week, making a long-shot attempt to question the former president under oath about his conduct on the day of the Capitol riot. It was quickly rejected by his lawyers.In a letter to Mr. Trump, Representative Jamie Raskin, the lead House impeachment prosecutor, said the former president’s response this week to the House’s charge that he incited an insurrection on Jan. 6 had disputed crucial facts about his actions, and demanded further explanation.“Two days ago, you filed an answer in which you denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment,” wrote Mr. Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. “You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense.”He proposed interviewing Mr. Trump “at a mutually convenient time and place” between Monday and Thursday. The trial is set to begin on Tuesday.But Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, wasted little time in swatting away the invitation. They said that Mr. Trump wanted no part of a proceeding they insisted was “unconstitutional” because he is no longer in office, and called Mr. Raskin’s request a “public relations stunt.”“Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone: You cannot prove your allegations against the 45th president of the United States, who is now a private citizen,” they wrote in a letter to Mr. Raskin.Mr. Schoen and another adviser to Mr. Trump, Jason Miller, later clarified that the former president did not plan to testify voluntarily before or after the trial begins. Instead, his defense team intends to argue that the case should be dismissed outright on constitutional grounds, and that Mr. Trump is not guilty of the bipartisan “incitement of insurrection” charge in which the House asserts he provoked a mob with baseless voter fraud claims to attack the Capitol in a bid to stop Congress from formalizing his loss.The decision, if it holds, is likely to be helpful for both sides. With Senate Republicans already lining up to acquit Mr. Trump for the second time in just over a year, testimony from a famously impolitic former president who continues to insist falsely that he won the election risks jeopardizing his defense.Democrats might have benefited from Mr. Trump’s testimony, but his silence also allows the House managers to tell senators sitting in judgment that they at least gave Mr. Trump an opportunity to have his say. Perhaps more important, they quickly claimed — despite the defense’s protests — that his refusal established an “adverse inference supporting his guilt,” meaning that they would cite his silence as further proof that their allegations are true.“Despite his lawyers’ rhetoric, any official accused of inciting armed violence against the government of the United States should welcome the chance to testify openly and honestly — that is, if the official had a defense,” Mr. Raskin said in a statement Thursday evening. “We will prove at trial that President Trump’s conduct was indefensible.”Mr. Raskin could still try to subpoena testimony from Mr. Trump during the trial. But doing so would require support from a majority of the Senate and could prompt a messy legal battle over claims of executive privilege that could take weeks or longer to unwind, snarling the agenda of President Biden and Democrats. Members of both parties already pressing for a speedy trial signaled skepticism on Thursday to calling Mr. Trump.“I think it’s a terrible idea,” Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and one of Mr. Biden’s closest allies, said of Mr. Trump taking the witness stand. Asked to clarify his reasoning, he replied, “Have you met President Trump?”“I don’t think that would be in anybody’s interest,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the president’s allies. “It’s just a nightmare for the country to do this.”Read the Letter Calling on Trump to TestifyIn a letter to former President Donald J. Trump, the lead House impeachment prosecutor said Mr. Trump’s response this week to the House’s charge had challenged “overwhelming evidence” about his conduct as the assault unfolded, and demanded further explanation.The managers said their invitation for Mr. Trump to testify was prompted primarily by his lawyers’ official response to the impeachment charge, filed with the Senate on Tuesday. In it, Mr. Trump’s lawyers flatly denied that he incited the attack or meant to disrupt Congress’s counting of electoral votes, despite Mr. Trump’s clear and stated focus on using the process to overturn the results. They also denied that a speech to a throng of his supporters just before the attack in which Mr. Trump urged the crowd to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” against the election results, suggesting that Republican lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence had the power to change the outcome, “had anything to do with the action at the Capitol.”Mr. Trump’s team argued that the former president could not be culpable for those statements, or for the falsehoods he spread about election fraud, because they were protected by First Amendment rights given that he believes that he was the true winner.In his letter and subsequent statement, Mr. Raskin did not indicate whether he intended to try to subpoena testimony from Mr. Trump or any other witnesses when the trial begins.The question has proved a difficult one for the nine House managers. Because they moved quickly to impeach Mr. Trump only a week after the attack, they did no meaningful fact-finding before charging him, leaving holes in their evidentiary record. One of the most notable has to do with how precisely Mr. Trump conducted himself when it became clear the Capitol was under assault on Jan. 6.The president sent several tweets sympathizing with the mob and calling for peace during that time, but as the House managers made clear in their 80-page trial brief filed with the Senate this week, they possess little more direct evidence of how Mr. Trump responded. Instead they rely on news reports and accounts by lawmakers who desperately tried to reach him to send in National Guard reinforcements, which have suggested that he was “delighted” by the invasion.Testimony by Mr. Trump or other White House or military officials could clarify that. But in this case, a greater understanding would almost certainly prolong the trial by weeks or longer. Republicans are averse to an extended airing of Mr. Trump’s conduct, but for Democrats, the cost would be steep to their ambitions to pass coronavirus relief legislation and install the remainder of Mr. Biden’s cabinet — with very little chance of ultimately changing the verdict of the trial.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, with whom the decision will most likely rest, has indicated would be comfortable proceeding without witnesses.“We will move forward with a fair and speedy trial,” he said on Thursday. “The House managers will present their case. The former president’s counsel will mount a defense, and senators will have to look deep into their consciences and determine if Donald Trump is guilty, and if so, ever qualified again to enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”The calculus for Mr. Trump’s legal team is far simpler. In addition to alienating Republican senators reluctant to convict a former president who remains so popular in their party, Mr. Trump could put himself in legal jeopardy if he testified. He has a penchant for stating falsehoods, and it is a federal felony to do so before Congress.Mr. Schoen accused Democrats in the House and Senate of running an unfair proceeding. He said they had yet to share even basic rules, like how long the defense would have to present its case.“I don’t think anyone being impeached would show up at the proceedings we firmly believe are unconstitutional,” Mr. Schoen said in a text message.He and Mr. Castor also rejected Mr. Raskin’s reasoning that Mr. Trump’s failure to testify would bolster their argument that he is guilty.“As you certainly know,” they wrote, “there is no such thing as a negative inference in this unconstitutional proceeding.”But the managers also appeared to be appealing, at least in part, to Mr. Trump’s impulse for self-defense, betting that he might defy his lawyers’ guidance not to speak. Throughout Mr. Trump’s presidency — first during the Russia investigation and then in his first impeachment inquiry — he was eager to tell his side of the story, convinced that he was his own best spokesman.During the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump insisted to his legal team that he wanted to sit and answer prosecutors’ questions. That desire unnerved his lawyers, who believed that Mr. Trump would almost certainly make some sort of false statement and face greater legal consequences. One member of his legal team quit over the issue.Ultimately, Mr. Mueller declined to seek a subpoena for Mr. Trump’s testimony and accepted written responses from him that later prompted the special counsel to question whether Mr. Trump had been truthful.Hailey Fuchs More