More stories

  • in

    Demanda millonaria a Fox News: una empresa de tecnología electoral acusa a la cadena de difamación

    #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 storyDemanda millonaria a Fox News: una empresa de tecnología electoral acusa a la cadena de difamaciónSmartmatic demandó a la corporación de Rupert Murdoch por promover una narrativa falsa sobre las elecciones de Estados Unidos de 2020 que perjudicó a la empresa.Un representante de Smartmatic demuestra el sistema de procesamiento de votos de la compañía en 2018.Credit…Bob Andres/Atlanta Journal-Constitution vía Associated PressJonah E. Bromwich y 4 de febrero de 2021Actualizado 18:06 ETRead in EnglishLa corporación Fox de Rupert Murdoch y tres de sus populares presentadores son el objetivo de una demanda por difamación por 2700 millones de dólares presentada el jueves por una empresa que se convirtió en objeto destacado de las desacreditadas teorías sobre fraude generalizado en las elecciones presidenciales de Estados Unidos de 2020.Smartmatic, una empresa de tecnología electoral, presentó el jueves la demanda en la Corte Suprema del Estado de Nueva York contra la Corporación Fox, Fox News y los presentadores Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo y Jeanine Pirro. Como parte de la misma acción, la compañía demanda a Rudolph W. Giuliani y Sidney Powell, quienes presentaron el caso de fraude electoral como invitados en los programas de Fox mientras representaban al expresidente Donald Trump.En su demanda de 276 páginas, Smartmatic argumenta que Giuliani y Powell “inventaron una historia sobre Smartmatic” y que “Fox se unió a la conspiración para difamar y desprestigiar a Smartmatic y su tecnología y software electoral”.“La historia puso a vecinos contra vecinos”, continúa la denuncia. “La historia llevó a una turba a atacar el Capitolio de Estados Unidos”.Smartmatic, que prestó servicios para las elecciones de 2020 en un solo condado, presentó su demanda en las tensas postrimerías de una votación que Trump y sus partidarios han descrito repetida y falsamente como amañada o robada. Los medios de derecha, incluyendo a Fox y sus competidores emergentes Newsmax y OANN, han dado un tiempo de difusión significativo a aquellos que buscan subvertir el resultado de las elecciones en un momento de rencorosa desavenencia política, cuando las teorías e ideas conspiratorias se han trasladado a la cultura dominante.Smartmatic pide una indemnización por daños y perjuicios de “no menos de 2700 millones de dólares”, según la demanda, y solicita un proceso con jurado. Su acción contra Fox sigue después de dos demandas presentadas el mes pasado por Dominion Voting Systems: una contra Giuliani, la otra contra Powell. Dominion es otra empresa nombrada por los teóricos de la conspiración que alegan que hubo fraude electoral.Incluso después del asalto al Capitolio el 6 de enero, un disturbio mortal que fue dirigido por partidarios de Trump, las conversaciones sobre fraude no se han acabado del todo. En una aparición el martes en Newsmax, Mike Lindell, el fundador de MyPillow y uno de los más fervientes defensores de Trump, lanzó un ataque verbal contra Dominion. En una señal de que las demandas de Dominion han tenido efecto en los medios de comunicación de la derecha, el copresentador de Newsmax, Bob Sellers, cortó a Lindell y leyó una declaración: “Los resultados de las elecciones en todos los estados fueron certificados. Newsmax acepta los resultados como legales y definitivos. Los tribunales también han apoyado esa opinión”.El presentador de Fox Business Network, Lou Dobbs, durante una emisión de 2019Credit…John Lamparski/Getty ImagesGiuliani y Powell argumentaron repetidamente que hubo fraude electoral cuando aparecieron como invitados en los programas de Fox conducidos por Bartiromo, Dobbs y Pirro en las semanas posteriores a las elecciones, un momento en el que los poderosos republicanos del Congreso sembraban dudas sobre el resultado de las elecciones y Mitch McConnell, senador por Kentucky y entonces líder de la mayoría del Senado, aún no había felicitado a Joe Biden por su victoria.Smartmatic dijo en la demanda que la promoción de las afirmaciones falsas en Fox “puso en peligro” su “cartera de negocios multimillonaria”: dañó sus negocios de tecnología y software electoral; y dificultó que la empresa consiguiera nuevos negocios en Estados Unidos, donde había hecho incursiones después de años de prestar servicios electorales en otras naciones.Fox declinó hacer comentarios antes de ver la demanda. Bartiromo, Dobbs, Pirro, Giuliani y Powell no respondieron inmediatamente a la solicitud de comentarios.En su ataque frontal contra el imperio mediático de Murdoch, Smartmatic argumenta que Fox lo presentó como villano en una narrativa ficticia destinada a ayudar a atraer espectadores de Newsmax y OANN. Cada una de ellas experimentó un aumento de la audiencia en las semanas posteriores a las elecciones, gracias a su adopción de la ficción de que Biden no era el vencedor legítimo. La demanda de Smartmatic también argumenta que Giuliani y Powell trataron de enriquecerse y mejorar su posición ante los partidarios de Trump al hacer declaraciones que eran prejudiciales para la empresa.Fox Corporation, con unos 9000 empleados, está dirigida por Murdoch, de 89 años, y su hijo mayor, Lachlan, su director ejecutivo. Para la empresa, 2700 millones de dólares sería una multa considerable. Fox Corporation obtuvo 3000 millones de dólares de utilidades antes de impuestos, con unos ingresos de 12.300 millones de dólares entre septiembre de 2019 y septiembre del año pasado. Está valorada en unos 17.800 millones de dólares.La queja de Smartmatic no solo considera el daño reputacional y económico que la compañía dijo haber sufrido, sino también el daño causado a Estados Unidos por las afirmaciones promovidas por los aliados de Trump y las cadenas controladas por Murdoch que Trump favoreció por mucho tiempo.Dobbs, presentador de Fox Business Network, y Bartiromo, quien presenta programas en Fox Business y Fox News, han sido partidarios incondicionales del expresidente. El 29 de noviembre, Bartiromo realizó la primera entrevista televisiva larga de Trump después de las elecciones. Pirro, quien fue fiscal y cuyo programa Justice with Judge Jeanine es un básico de la programación de los sábados por la noche de Fox News, ha sido amiga de Trump desde hace décadas.Entre las conversaciones al aire que destaca la demanda de Smartmatic está una entre Powell y Dobbs el 16 de noviembre. Powell afirmó en el programa de Dobbs que Hugo Chávez, el fallecido presidente de Venezuela, había participado en la creación de la tecnología de Smartmatic, diseñándola para que los votos que procesaba pudieran cambiarse sin ser detectados. (Chávez, quien murió en 2013, no tuvo nada que ver con Smartmatic).“El software de Smartmatic está en el ADN de todos los programas y sistemas de las empresas de tabulación de votos”, dijo Powell más adelante en el programa.Dobbs añadió: “Ni siquiera sabemos quién demonios es realmente el dueño de estas empresas, al menos de la mayoría de ellas”.Después de que Smartmatic envió una carta en diciembre pidiendo una rectificación y amenazando con acciones legales, los programas dirigidos por los tres presentadores de Fox emitieron un segmento en el que un experto en elecciones, Eddie Pérez, desacreditaba una serie de afirmaciones falsas sobre Smartmatic. El segmento pregrabado mostraba a Pérez respondiendo a preguntas de una voz fuera de cámara. En una entrevista el miércoles, Pérez dijo que el producto final “casi parecía una declaración” legal.La demanda argumenta que las afirmaciones hechas en Fox eran demostrablemente falsas, dado que la tecnología de Smartmatic se utilizó solo en el condado de Los Ángeles y no en ninguno de los estados disputados durante las elecciones de 2020.Don Herzog, un profesor que enseña sobre la Primera Enmienda y las leyes sobre difamación en la Universidad de Michigan, dijo que la esencia de la demanda tenía sentido. “No se pueden inventar cosas falsas sobre la gente”, dijo. Sin embargo, expresó sus dudas sobre la conexión de la demanda de las declaraciones falsas de Fox con el ataque al Capitolio, al decir que los acontecimientos del 6 de enero no tenían relación con que los acusados hubieran perjudicado a Smartmatic.El éxito de la demanda dependerá de varios factores, añadió Herzog, entre ellos si Smartmatic puede convencer a un jurado de que la empresa no tenía la categoría de figura pública antes de que Giuliani y Powell la hicieran más conocida.Si la corte determina que Smartmatic era una figura pública, entonces la carga de la prueba de sus alegatos será mayor. La empresa deberá mostrar que Giuliani, Powell y otros de los acusados sabían que sus aseveraciones eran falsas o que tenían serias dudas sobre su veracidad. (“No creo que la corte determinará que es una figura pública”, dijo Herzog). En su demanda, Smartmatic alega que los presentadores de Fox y los dos invitados actuaron con “verdadero dolo” y “desestimaron temerariamente” la veracidad de sus declaraciones.Aunque puede ser difícil persuadir a un jurado que Fox es responsable por lo que los invitados dicen en sus programas, Timothy Zick, profesor de la Escuela de Derecho William & Mary que está especializado en la Primera Enmienda, dijo que la compañía podía ser responsabilizada por el contenido de sus emisiones.“Si sabían que el segmento iba a incluir estas declaraciones falsas, entonces no creo que eso los exima de responsabilidad” dijo. “Republicar las declaraciones falsas de otros también resulta difamatorio en circunstancias como esta”.En ocasiones, el vocabulario de los presentadores de Fox simulaba al de los abogados de Trump. En la demanda se cita a Powell refiriéndose a la supuesta conspiración como “ciber Pearl Harbor”, una frase que Dobbs repitió en su programa y en Twitter.Roberta A. Kaplan, una abogada que representa a la escritora E. Jean Carroll en su demanda de difamación contra Trump, dijo que era notable la abundancia de casos de difamación relacionados con el expresidente, dado que dichos casos desde hace mucho se consideran difíciles de ganar.“Lo que ha cambiado y la razón por la que estamos viendo muchos más casos de difamación ahora más que antes es porque, francamente, vivimos en un mundo en el que las personas con legitimidad y autoridad parecen no sentir ningún tipo de reparo en decir mentiras categóricas”, dijo.Antonio Mugica, director ejecutivo de Smartmatic, en Londres en diciembreCredit…Henry Nicholls/ReutersCuando Smartmatic iniciaba en abril de 2000, ofreció sus servicios a los bancos. El cambio hacia los servicios de seguridad electoral se dio luego de que Antonio Mugica, uno de los fundadores de la compañía y su director ejecutivo, estuvo en el condado de Palm Beach durante la disputada elección de 2000. “Estábamos en primera fila viendo el circo”, dijo. “Y verdaderamente a todos nosotros nos impactó”.La empresa tuvo éxito en todo el mundo al ofrecer sus máquinas de votación electrónica, plataformas de voto en línea y productos de software relacionados con elecciones. También fue empleada en el caucus presidencial de los republicanos de 2016, celebrado en Utah. En 2018, el condado de Los Ángeles eligió a Smartmatic para implementar un nuevo sistema de elecciones y su tecnología se utilizó ahí en la primaria presidencial de marzo y una vez más en la elección general.Luego del día de las elecciones, el nombre de la empresa, junto con el de Dominion, se convirtió en parte integral de las conspiraciones de fraude que promovieron los medios de la derecha. Los empleados de Smartmatic y sus familiares recibieron amenazas, incluidas amenazas de muerte, que se describen en la denuncia.“Recibí una en la que me dijeron que iban a venir a secuestrarme a Londres, donde me encontraba en ese momento”, dijo Mugica. “Iban a mandar a tres personas. ‘El avión aterriza mañana’”.Otra amenaza, dijo, estaba dirigida al hijo adolescente de otro fundador de la empresa, Roger Piñate. “Lograron encontrar su número celular, lo que ya de por sí asusta”, dijo Mugica. “Y llamaron y lo amenazaron por teléfono”.La denuncia de Smartmatic incluye el argumento de que la promoción de teorías desacreditadas sobre la elección perjudicó a la democracia.“Uno no solo considera el efecto de la conducta en el denunciante, sino el impacto más amplio que puede tener el mensaje, y ese es un efecto más amplio de esto”, dijo J. Erik Connolly, un abogado que representa a Smartmatic. “Si estás adjudicando indemnización punitiva, que en gran parte está diseñada para decir ‘No vuelvas a hacer esto’, es un mensaje más amplio. Que es relevante para el mensaje más amplio que una corte o el jurado deberían enviar aquí”.Edmund Lee More

  • in

    Clemency for Older Prisoners

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storylettersClemency for Older Prisoners“It is time for immediate action,” a law professor writes. Also: Angry Democrats; better ways to declutter.Feb. 4, 2021, 2:48 p.m. ETMore from our inbox:Enraged DemocratsNew Homes for Clutter, Not the Trash Can Credit…Seth Wenig/APTo the Editor:“Hard-Hit by Virus, Inmates Struggle to Find Place in Vaccine Line” (front page, Jan. 26) is an insight into the state’s failure to care for this highly vulnerable population. But it does not mention one simple option: clemency for older prisoners.Releasing the many long-serving prisoners over 65 who are not a danger to society would reduce crowding and the need for vaccination in prisons, while safeguarding the lives and health of these most vulnerable inmates. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has the power to do this right now (with appropriate quarantine). In many cases, he has clemency petitions on his desk.Governor Cuomo has promised rolling clemencies. When the new and highly transmissible Covid variants inevitably appear in prisons and their surrounding communities, vulnerable prisoners will face a death sentence, and all New Yorkers will be at risk from these hot spot facilities. It is time for immediate action.Cynthia Grant BowmanIthaca, N.Y.The writer, a law professor at Cornell, helped draft a clemency petition on behalf of one aged prisoner and filed amicus briefs in several New York State cases seeking release for others.Enraged Democrats Credit…Audra Melton for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump’s Base Nurses Anger Over Election” (front page, Jan. 19):Trump supporters are not the only ones enraged by the 2020 election. Many Democrats are enraged by the uphill battle necessary to overcome Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression targeting minorities. Many Democrats are enraged by being falsely accused of fraud and election interference by the Republicans who themselves undermined and attempted to overturn the election.Many moderates and progressives are angry at the far-right groups, including major media, that accuse the left of inciting the violent riot by the Trump mob at the Capitol. And many of us are furious at Donald Trump and his supporters for making public health measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19 and save lives into a political issue.The overwhelming majority that voted against Donald Trump have every reason to be angry at Mr. Trump and his supporters who feel so entitled that they are willing to bring down our democracy after they lost an election.Michael E. MahlerLos AngelesNew Homes for Clutter, Not the Trash Can Credit…Trisha KraussTo the Editor:Re “How to Declutter Quickly” (Here to Help, Jan. 27):I wish Melissa Kirsch had pointed out that the result of impulsively throwing things into the garbage is overflowing landfills that are a big problem for municipalities and the planet. The cake-decorating tips that she left at the curb might have been donated to a thrift store and then, for a dollar, might have provided a child being driven crazy by Zoom school with a fun activity. Clothing that was annoying Ms. Kirsch could have been donated to a local charity.It’s liberating to throw something into the garbage and be done with it, but it’s more considerate to try to find a new home for something we have purchased improvidently or no longer use.Diane S. GreenbergPalo Alto, Calif.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    For the Wine World, 2021 Brings Familiar Problems

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyThe PourFor the Wine World, 2021 Brings Familiar ProblemsThe year has changed. So has the government. But the challenges facing the wine industry — Covid, tariffs and climate change — remain.Credit…Davide BonazziFeb. 4, 2021, 11:37 a.m. ETIt’s a new year, and there’s a new administration in Washington, but the American wine industry remains tangled in the same set of thorny problems: Covid-19, government tariffs and climate change.The most immediately challenging, of course, is the unrelenting pandemic, which has crushed restaurants and other elements of the hospitality industry that are a crucial part of the sales and promotion system for wine. More than a few wineries also rely on their own tasting rooms and restaurants for sales and for building long-term customer bases.Many of those producers were at least able to pivot to direct-to-consumer and e-commerce operations. They developed relationships through Zoom tastings, and converted their public spaces into headquarters for shipping bottles to distant shoppers.A recent analysis of direct-to-consumer shipping by wineries found a 27 percent increase by volume in 2020 over 2019, not surprisingly the largest annual jump by far over the last decade, as locked-down consumers turned to online shopping.Like the rest of the country, the wine industry must await the mass vaccination of the population before it can return to some semblance of normality.What will that new world look like? It’s hard to say with any degree of certainty. The failure of governments at all levels to offer sufficient support to restaurants and their employees, while rightly demanding they operate at a fraction of capacity or close entirely, means that the hospitality industry will require years to recover.Though the pandemic is the greatest obstacle for restaurants and the wine industry, it is far from the only one.When the coronavirus shutdowns began last March, wine importers, distributors, retailers and restaurants were already reeling from the punitive tariffs the Trump administration imposed the previous October on many European foods and beverages. As a parting gesture, the administration ordered additional tariffs, which took effect on Jan. 12, just before Inauguration Day.The tariffs were part of an American retaliation against the European Union over subsidies the union gives to the European aerospace company Airbus. In 2019, the World Trade Organization ruled that the company had violated global trade rules.In response, the United States placed a 25 percent tariff on wines below 14 percent alcohol from France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, along with various European whiskeys, cheeses, olive oils and other foods. The additional tariffs that took effect in January include wines from France and Germany above 14 percent alcohol, and other beverages. Sparkling wines have so far been excluded.The Trump administration has never explained why it targeted wine and food in a dispute over aviation equipment. Indeed, while aircraft parts were also subject to tariffs, they were taxed at a far lower rate, 10 to 15 percent, than the 25 percent on food and drink.Economists may argue over the efficacy of using tariffs as a tool in international trade, but these particular tariffs have caused more harm to small American businesses than they have to the countries they were intended to penalize.According to the U.S. Wine Trade Alliance, an organization representing the wine trade, American imports of wines from the four countries affected by the tariffs over the first five months of 2020 dropped by nearly 54 percent compared with the first five months of 2019.Data compiled by Gomberg, Fredrikson & Associates, a wine industry analyst, demonstrated that for every dollar’s worth of wine not imported because of the tariffs, consumers spent $4.52 less at American distributors, retailers and restaurants.It’s difficult to calculate the precise effect of the pandemic on these figures. Many European wine producers hit by the tariffs simply found other markets for their products, said Ben Aneff, the managing partner of Tribeca Wine Merchants in New York and president of the trade alliance.In an additional move that seems thoughtless at best and spiteful at worst, the Trump administration did not exclude goods in either round of tariffs that had already been purchased by American businesses months and, for some, years in advance and were in transit to the United States. That required those businesses to pay the entire duty when the goods passed through customs, with no effect on the foreign businesses the tariffs were supposedly meant to penalize.“They could have chosen not to punish U.S. businesses for past purchases, and they chose not to,” Mr. Aneff said. “It’s like designing a medicine with all of the side effects and none of the cures.”The Biden administration has not taken a position on the tariffs. It has nominated Katherine Tai as the next United States Trade Representative, who is required to review tariffs every six months, with the next review scheduled for this month. It’s not clear whether Ms. Tai will be confirmed by the Senate in time, or whether a decision will have to wait until the next review in August.Mr. Biden could lift the tariffs with an executive order, as the chefs Kwame Onwuachi and Alice Waters recently urged in an Opinion column in The Washington Post. It would be unusual for a president to step in like that, particularly given the other current priorities, but for restaurants in particular the need is desperate.“The tariffs do significantly more damage to small U.S. businesses at their most vulnerable points, and, particularly for restaurants, this is their most difficult time,” Mr. Aneff said. “That seems really wrongheaded. These are businesses that are struggling as much as any in the U.S. They need to be supported.”The Trump trade policies likewise walloped American agricultural companies, which lost markets in China and Europe. President Trump paid billions of dollars in subsidies, much of it to big agricultural companies, but no such payments were offered to the restaurant and wine industry.Trade disputes unrelated to the European Union also cost the American wine industry much of its market in China, which placed retaliatory tariffs on American wines sold there.“It’s really had a significant effect on our exports in a market that was growing fast,” said Charles Jefferson, a vice president of public policy at Wine Institute, an advocacy group for California wine producers.He said exports to China dropped 33.9 percent in 2019, and another 40.8 percent in 2020.“We’ve opposed all these tariffs,” Mr. Jefferson said. “Wine should not be used as leverage in unrelated disputes.”While the pandemic and tariffs pose short-term challenges, climate change is an existential problem, requiring both long-term planning and immediate action, not just from the wine industry but also from society as a whole. The good news is that the Biden administration has made combating climate change a priority, which may encourage or compel the wine industry to act on its own.Nothing the wine industry does now will immediately curb the trend toward a warmer climate and more volatile weather patterns. No matter what steps the government takes, the planet will be hotter than it was 30 years ago. The episodes of drought and the wildfires that have plagued West Coast wineries will most likely continue.But an effort led by the federal government, using laws, incentives or both to encourage the difficult transformations that must occur in industry, agriculture and everyday life, may help slow the pace of long-term change. This effort may push the wine industry to act more aggressively, even though climate change has often taken a back seat to more immediate chores.While it remains to be seen how Mr. Biden’s climate effort will take shape, the wine industry can do a lot to reduce its carbon footprint.It can start, as some companies already have, by auditing its carbon emissions — that is, analyzing viticulture, winemaking, marketing, sales and other operations, and then setting targets in line with the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Winemakers will still have to figure out how to adapt to a warmer future. But at least they can help to control how that future will take shape rather than be victimized by whatever comes.Follow NYT Food on Twitter and NYT Cooking on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and Pinterest. Get regular updates from NYT Cooking, with recipe suggestions, cooking tips and shopping advice.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    A Trump-Supporting Congresswoman in New York City Stands Her Ground

    #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 storyA Trump-Supporting Congresswoman in New York City Stands Her GroundRepresentative Nicole Malliotakis represents Staten Island, where new Republican voters out-registered Democrats during the Trump administration.Representative Nicole Malliotakis said it was her duty to represent her more conservative, pro-Trump constituents. “There’s more of a burden on me now to hear their voice,” she said.Credit…Samuel Corum/Getty ImagesFeb. 4, 2021Updated 8:08 a.m. ETWhen Representative Nicole Malliotakis voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud, constituents and local Democrats protested outside her New York office.An editorial in her local paper, the Staten Island Advance, said she “let America down.”On Monday, a new political action committee — NICPAC, or Nicole Is Complicit PAC — raised more than $20,000 within four hours of launching its website.But Ms. Malliotakis unseated Max Rose, a Democrat, this past November in no small part because of her allegiance to former President Donald J. Trump, who endorsed her. The congresswoman has continued to stand firm with the former president’s base, even if that means leaving others behind.She said her loyalty was to New York’s Republicans, but especially to the narrow, conservative pocket of New York City — a swath of Staten Island and a portion of Brooklyn — that made her the only Republican elected to Congress from the five boroughs.“There’s more of a burden on me now to hear their voice,” Ms. Malliotakis, 40, said in an interview. “They want someone who is going to fight to be better, who is going to bring their perspective to the forefront, who is going to push back when policies are being proposed that will hurt them or cost them money or make their lives miserable.”Her stance could alienate the majority of New York voters, overwhelmingly Democratic, whom she needs to rise to higher office — or it could cement her place in New York politics as a rare Republican voice. Though there are more registered Democrats on Staten Island, which makes up the majority of Ms. Malliotakis’s district, Republicans registered far more new voters during the Trump administration than Democrats did, creating an invigorated, Trump-loving base that Ms. Malliotakis plays to.Ms. Malliotakis campaigning door to door in September in Staten Island. She unseated Max Rose, who was the Democratic incumbent.Credit…James Estrin/The New York TimesBut if she runs again in 2022, Ms. Malliotakis may face a completely different playing field. Congressional districts will be redrawn following the results of the 2020 census. New York could lose up to two congressional seats, decreasing its representation in the House from 27 people to 25, according to a prediction by Election Data Services, a political consulting firm.New York’s 11th District, which Ms. Malliotakis represents, will likely extend further into Brooklyn or into Lower Manhattan, picking up more Democratic voters and putting her seat in jeopardy.Some residents have been so unnerved by the events of Ms. Malliotakis’s nascent term that they are already plotting for her removal. NICPAC officially launched on Monday, establishing itself as a bipartisan watchdog organization of constituents both outraged over her decertification vote and disappointed in her lukewarm response to the Capitol riot. (Ms. Malliotakis’s statement condemned rioters and thanked the law enforcement officers.)The group plans to buy ads and conduct outreach to Ms. Malliotakis’s constituents, in order to “keep her accountable,” said Jonathan Yedin, a Democratic political operative and founding member of the PAC.“Some of us voted for her, some of us didn’t, but we’re all united in the message that she’s unfit to serve, given her actions,” Mr. Yedin said.Dan Hetteix, host of Radio Free Bay Ridge, a progressive politics podcast based in the 11th District, said Ms. Malliotakis had to try to secure her base to fend off opposition.“She needs to keep these new voters engaged in a ticket that doesn’t have Trump on it anymore,” Mr. Hetteix said. “She needs to make the most of Staten Island’s red voters. The more she can whip them up, the more she can resist whatever redistricting does to her.”Ms. Malliotakis defended her vote not to certify the presidential election results in a tweet. “I voted against certification of the two challenged states not to ‘overturn an election’ but to highlight need for a proper hearing into unconstitutional rule changes, irregularities and alleged fraud,” she wrote. “I swore an oath to the Constitution and REFUSED to turn a blind eye.”Peers find her ambitious, hardworking and sharp, and she has positioned herself as the antidote to the state’s far-left politicians. The congresswoman has even joined the “anti-socialist squad,” to counter a fellow New York representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and “the Squad.”Ms. Malliotakis is as much against unauthorized immigration and universal health care as she is in favor of strengthening bail laws and protecting father-daughter dances. But some local Democrats say that she’s a reactionary ideological flip-flopper.“She is someone who has changed everything she’s believed in every time she’s ever run for office,” said Kevin Elkins, a longtime adviser to Mr. Rose, whom Ms. Malliotakis defeated in November.Mark Murphy, a local businessman and former Democratic congressional candidate in the district, said he wants Ms. Malliotakis to move to the middle to better speak for all residents. “I want her to dial back the hard-core conservative ideology that is driving her, and think about who we, as a community, really are,” Mr. Murphy said.But Staten Island tends to vote Republican. In 2016 and 2020, it was the only borough in New York City that Mr. Trump won. Her base is expecting her to represent the sentiment of Trump voters in the district.In an interview, Ms. Malliotakis praised the successes of Mr. Trump’s term, proof, in her eyes, that he deserved to be re-elected: improved health care for veterans, low unemployment numbers, renegotiated trade deals. “People didn’t even know about the good things because the other side has been so busy criticizing him and trying to impeach him and investigate him over the four years, which I think was very unfair,” she said.Some believe that Ms. Malliotakis’s vote simply represented the wishes of a district that wanted to see Mr. Trump re-elected.“I really do believe she had a mandate from her constituents, who also overwhelmingly voted to support Trump, to object to the election results, as well as vote against impeaching the president,” said Peter Giunta, president of the Staten Island Young Republican Club.Allan Katz, a financial planner on Staten Island, voted for both Ms. Malliotakis and Mr. Trump last November. “Max Rose, when he was in office, voted for impeachment when most of his constituents wanted him to vote against it,” said Mr. Katz.In May, Ms. Malliotakis spoke at a rally in support of a tanning salon whose owner opened the business in defiance of coronavirus restrictions.Credit…Stephanie Keith/Getty ImagesSome of her supporters believe she is making all the right moves.“Number one, she is a rising star,” said Mike Long, the former chairman of the Conservative Party of New York, who has known Ms. Malliotakis for over a decade. “She knows exactly what she believes in and where she wants to go.”For years, Ms. Malliotakis has fought to be a significant Republican voice in the state.Born in New York in 1980 to Greek and Cuban immigrant parents, she grew up on Staten Island. Her mother fled the Castro regime in the late 1950s; her father arrived in the United States from Crete in 1962, with $50 to his name. One point of familial pride, she has said, is that neither of them took any public assistance.After working on state campaigns, Ms. Malliotakis was elected to the New York State Assembly in 2010. She gained citywide recognition when she faced Mayor Bill de Blasio in his 2017 re-election campaign, losing but ultimately seeing overwhelming support in her home borough, where about 70 percent of the population voted for her.In 2020, she challenged Mr. Rose in a particularly aggressive race. Ms. Malliotakis’s campaign seized on conservative backlash to the protests against racial injustice in the summer. Mr. Rose’s attendance at a single protest became a focal point of the campaign, enabling Ms. Malliotakis — who boasted the endorsement of five police unions — to accuse Mr. Rose of being a supporter of efforts to defund the police.She also grabbed Mr. Trump’s endorsement. Just four years earlier, she had served as the New York State chair for Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign, and had openly criticized Mr. Trump’s behavior, using the #NEVERTRUMP hashtag on social media.But once Mr. Rubio lost the nomination, Ms. Malliotakis shifted from being against Mr. Trump to entrenching herself fervently in his camp. She even hosted a get-well rally for him after he tested positive for the coronavirus.Longtime friends and local politicians were confused by the sudden switch, claiming that she swung right to secure votes.Mike Arvanites, a surveyor for the city’s Board of Elections in Staten Island, has known Ms. Malliotakis for so long that he was present at her 40-day blessing and baptism in their Greek Orthodox Church. He pointed out that Ms. Malliotakis was elected to the New York State Assembly during the rise of the Tea Party, but she rejected the group’s extremism.“The year she was running for mayor, she explained to me that she was terrified of some Trump supporters,” Mr. Arvanites, a Democrat, said.He said he believed that Ms. Malliotakis has been radicalized by several in her camp, including Leticia Remauro, a Republican operative associated with Ms. Malliotakis’s congressional campaign and a longtime friend of the congresswoman. Last month, Ms. Remauro was pilloried for saying “Heil Hitler” in an earlier protest against coronavirus restrictions. (Ms. Malliotakis released a statement repudiating Ms. Remauro’s remarks.)Ms. Malliotakis made her loyalty clear, joining three New York-based representatives and other Republicans in Congress to vote to overturn the election results.But she said she would keep an open mind when it comes to President Biden.“I’m willing to hear him out,” Ms. Malliotakis said in her interview. “There are opportunities for us to work together where there is some common ground, when it comes to vaccine distribution, reopening the economy and returning the jobs that we lost.”“But,” she said, “I’m also mindful of the fact that I’m going to need to push back.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    ‘The Courage to Put Country Over Party’: Arguments in Trump’s Trial

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyletters‘The Courage to Put Country Over Party’: Arguments in Trump’s TrialReaders call on Republican senators to “do the right thing, not the easy thing” and hold the former president accountable.Feb. 3, 2021, 12:56 p.m. ET“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Donald J. Trump told his supporters at a rally in Washington on Jan. 6.Credit…Kenny Holston for The New York TimesCapitol Police officers and lawmakers paid their respects to Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick at the Capitol Tuesday evening.Credit…Pool photo by Brendan SmialowskiTo the Editor:Re “House Case Calls Trump ‘Singularly Responsible’ for Rampage at Capitol” (front page, Feb. 3):Open Letter to Republican Senators:As I watch the memorial for Officer Brian Sicknick in the Capitol and reflect on his courage and integrity, I cannot help but think about the lack of courage and integrity that has been on display by Senate Republicans. This brave man gave his life because it was his job to save yours. It wasn’t political. You are alive because Officer Sicknick and the rest of the Capitol Police stepped up to the plate on Jan. 6.Your job now is to honor them by holding Donald Trump accountable for inciting the insurrection that led to Officer Sicknick’s death. It shouldn’t be political. It shouldn’t be about re-election. It shouldn’t be about holding onto support from the same people who stormed the Capitol. It should be about doing the right thing, not the easy thing.My hope is that you take your lead from the 10 House Republicans who had the courage to put country over party.Sharon S. OchsFallston, Md.To the Editor:Let me get this straight.The lies about the election being stolen plus his words that incited his followers to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6 have been publicly broadcast and quoted in print, and even many Republican members of Congress initially acknowledged that the former president bears some responsibility for the riot. But since according to decades-old policy a sitting president cannot be indicted, Donald Trump has faced no legal consequences for his role in the riot.And now for the coming impeachment trial, his defense team is arguing that it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president, a position that many Senate Republicans are rushing to support as a way to let Mr. Trump escape any form of responsibility for what many would claim was domestic terrorism.So it’s looking as if Donald Trump may get away scot-free. All this from the party of law and order?James G. GoodaleFort Myers, Fla.To the Editor:I try to imagine what would have happened if the mob had gotten Mike Pence. Donald Trump’s impeachment and conviction would have been a foregone conclusion. Why should Mr. Pence’s narrow escape lead us to a different conclusion?Michael B. HeckmanPine Bush, N.Y.To the Editor:The Senate trial’s constitutionality may be in question. But that can be answered only by the Supreme Court, not individual senators in the minority claiming the trial to be unconstitutional and therefore moot.Republicans wrap themselves in the Constitution. So walk the walk, senators. Don’t dodge your duty. Vote on the evidence of incitement of insurrection. And if Donald Trump is found guilty, he may resolve the question of constitutionality with an appeal to the Supreme Court.Ned GardnerApex, N.C.To the Editor:Although a great deal of attention has, appropriately, been focused on the trial of the impeachment charges against former President Donald Trump and whether his enablers in the Senate will vote to convict him, the principal focus should be on the criminal investigation and prosecution of serious crimes that endangered (and continue to endanger) our democracy and caused several deaths during the Jan. 6 assault on our Capitol.It is clear from incontrovertible recordings, and other sources, that there is substantial evidence to conclude that Mr. Trump engaged in criminal conduct in violation of both federal and state laws. Grand juries should be impaneled immediately to consider the evidence against him (and his co-conspirators) and take appropriate action.Throughout his life Mr. Trump has avoided responsibility for actions he has undertaken — most recently the immunity from prosecution afforded to presidents while in office. That immunity has expired, and Mr. Trump should be held accountable for his serious crimes.Richard SchaefferRye Brook, N.Y.The writer is a lawyer and former assistant district attorney.To the Editor:To all the Republicans who don’t think that inciting a violent insurrection to overthrow a lawful election is a crime meriting conviction, I would like them to complete the following sentence: “It would be an impeachable offense if Donald Trump _______.” It appears they would never fill in that blank.Laurie WoogWestfield, N.J.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    The QAnon Delusion Has Not Loosened Its Grip

    #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 storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe QAnon Delusion Has Not Loosened Its GripMillions of Americans continue to actively participate in multiple conspiracy theories. Why?Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C. on politics, demographics and inequality.Feb. 3, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Jeff Swensen/Getty ImagesA conspiracy theory promulgated by Donald Trump, the loser of the 2020 presidential election, has gripped American politics since Nov. 3. It has been willingly adopted by millions of his followers, as well as by a majority of Republican members of Congress — 145 to 108 — and by thousands of Republican state and local officials, all of whom have found it expedient to capitulate to the fantastical claim that the election was stolen by the Democratic Party, its officeholders, operatives and supporters.Trump’s sprawling conspiracy theory is “being reborn as the new normal of the Republican Party,” Justin Ling wrote in Foreign Policy on Jan. 6.A Dec 30 NPR/Ipsos poll found that “recent misinformation, including false claims related to Covid-19 and QAnon, are gaining a foothold among some Americans.”According to the survey, nearly a fifth of American adults, 17 percent, believe that “a group of Satan-worshiping elites who run a child sex ring are trying to control our politics.” Almost a third “believe that voter fraud helped Joe Biden win the 2020 election.” Even more, 39 percent, agree that “there is a deep state working to undermine President Trump.”The spread of these beliefs has wrought havoc — as demonstrated by the Jan. 6 assault on Congress, as well as by the overwhelming support Republicans continue to offer to the former president.Well before the election, on Aug. 22, 2020, my news-side colleagues Matthew Rosenberg and Maggie Haberman described the rising strength of conspiracists in Republican ranks in “The Republican Embrace of QAnon Goes Far Beyond Trump”:A small but growing number of Republicans — including a heavily favored Republican congressional candidate in Georgia — are donning the QAnon mantle, ushering its adherents in from the troll-infested fringes of the internet and potentially transforming the wild conspiracy theory into an offline political movement, with supporters running for Congress and flexing their political muscle at the state and local levels.Conspiracy theorists are by definition irrational, contradictory and inconsistent. Polarization, the Covid-19 pandemic and the specter of economic collapse have engendered suspicion. Many on the right see “liberal elites” pulling strings behind closed doors, and paranoia flourishes.According to Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent, professors of political science at the University of Miami and Notre Dame, conspiracy theorists do not “hold coherent, constrained policy positions.” In a forthcoming paper, “Who Supports QAnon? A Case Study in Political Extremism,” Uscinski explores what he identifies as some of the characteristics of the QAnon movement: “Support for QAnon is born more of antisocial personality traits and a predisposition toward conspiracy thinking than traditional political identities and motivations,” he writes, before going on to argue thatWhile QAnon supporters are “extreme,” they are not so in the ideological sense. Rather, QAnon support is best explained by conspiratorial worldviews and a predisposition toward other nonnormative behavior.Uscinski found a substantial 0.413 correlation between those who support or sympathize with QAnon and “dark” personality traits, leading him to conclude that “the type of extremity that undergirds such support has less to do with traditional, left/right political concerns and more to do with extreme, antisocial psychological orientations and behavioral patterns.”The illogic of conspiracy theorists is clear in the findings of a 2012 research paper, “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories,” by Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton, members of the psychology department at the University of Kent, and Michael J. Wood, a former Kent colleague. The authors found that a large percentage of people drawn to conspiracy thinking are willing to endorse “mutually incompatible conspiracy theories.”In one study, for example, “the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. Special Forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive.” In another study, “the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered.” For those who hold such beliefs, the authors wrote, “the specifics of a conspiracy theory do not matter as much as the fact that it is a conspiracy theory at all.”Douglas, in an email, wrote that “people are attracted to conspiracy theories when important psychological needs are not being met.” She identified three such needs: “the need for knowledge and certainty”; the “existential need” to “to feel safe and secure” when “powerless and scared”; and, among those high in narcissism, the “need to feel unique compared to others.”Uscinski and two collaborators, in their 2016 paper, “What Drives Conspiratorial Beliefs? The Role of Informational Cues and Predispositions,” describe how they identify likely conspiracy believers by asking respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statements:“Events like wars, the recession, and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of people who are working in secret against the rest of us”; “Much of our lives are being controlled by plots hatched in secret places”; “Even though we live in a democracy, a few people will always run things anyway”; “The people who really ‘run’ the country, are not known to the voters.”Believers in conspiracies will often automatically dismiss factual claims disputing their beliefs. Jovan Byford, a senior lecturer in psychology at the Open University in England, makes the case thatConspiracy theories seduce not so much through the power of argument, but through the intensity of the passions that they stir. Underpinning conspiracy theories are feelings of resentment, indignation and disenchantment about the world. They are stories about good and evil, as much as about what is true.Byford continues:Lack of evidence of a conspiracy, or positive proof against its existence, is taken by believers as evidence of the craftiness of those behind the plot, and their ability to dupe the public.There are five common ingredients to conspiracy theories, according to Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Mark van Vugt, professors of psychology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, in their paper “Conspiracy Theories: Evolved Functions and Psychological Mechanisms.”First, they write,Conspiracy theories make an assumption of how people, objects, or events are causally interconnected. Put differently, a conspiracy theory always involves a hypothesized pattern. Second, conspiracy theories stipulate that the plans of alleged conspirators are deliberate. Conspiracy theories thus ascribe intentionality to the actions of conspirators, implying agency. Third, a conspiracy theory always involves a coalition, or group, of actors working in conjunction. An act of one individual, a lone wolf, does not fit the definition of a conspiracy theory. Fourth, conspiracy theories always contain an element of threat such that the alleged goals of the conspirators are harmful or deceptive. Fifth, and finally, a conspiracy theory always carries an element of secrecy and is therefore often difficult to invalidate.Van Prooijen elaborated on his analysis in an email:Conspiracy theories are a powerful tool to demonize opposing groups, and in extreme cases can make people believe that violence is necessary. In this case (Jan. 6), the crowd clearly believed that the elections were stolen from their leader, and this belief incited them to fight for what they believed was a just cause. Most likely the conspiracy theories make them perceive themselves as a sort of “freedom fighter.”Van Prooijen sees conspiracy thinking as deeply rooted in the evolutionary past.Our theory is that conspiracy theories evolved among ancestral humans to prepare for, and hence protect against, potentially hostile groups. What we saw here, I think was an evolutionary mismatch: some mental faculties evolved to cope effectively with an ancestral environment, yet we now live in a different, modern environment where these same mechanisms can lead to detrimental outcomes. In an ancestral world with regular tribal warfare and coalitional conflict, in many situations it could have been rational and even lifesaving to respond with violence to the threat of a different group conspiring against one’s own group. Now in our modern world these mechanisms may sometimes misfire, and lead people to use violence toward the very democratic institutions that were designed to help and protect them.Why, I asked, are Trump supporters particularly receptive to conspiracies? Van Prooijen replied:For one, the Trump movement can be seen as populist, meaning that this movement espouses a worldview that sees society as a struggle between ‘the corrupt elites’ versus the people. This in and of itself predisposes people to conspiracy thinking. But there are also other factors. For instance, the Trump movement appears heavily fear-based, is highly nationalistic, and endorses relatively simple solutions for complex problems. All of these factors are known to feed into conspiracy thinking.The events of Jan. 6, van Prooijen continued,underscore that conspiracy theories are not some “innocent” form of belief that people may have. They can inspire radical action, and indeed, a movement like QAnon can be a genuine liability for public safety. Voltaire once said: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities” — and he was right.Credit…Damon Winter/The New York TimesIn their 2014 book “American Conspiracy Theories,” Uscinski and Parent argue that “Conspiracy Theories Are For Losers.” They write:Conspiracy theories are essentially alarm systems and coping mechanisms to help deal with foreign threat and domestic power centers. Thus, they tend to resonate when groups are suffering from loss, weakness or disunity.To illustrate how the out-of-power are drawn to conspiracy theories, the authors tracked patterns during periods of Republican and Democratic control of the presidency:During Republican administrations, conspiracy theories targeting the right and capitalists averaged 34 percent of the conspiratorial allegations per year, while conspiracy theories targeting the left and communists averaged only 11 percent. During Democratic administrations, mutatis mutandis, conspiracy theories aimed at the right and capitalists dropped 25 points to 9 percent while conspiracy theories aimed at the left and communists more than doubled to 27 percent.The “loser” thesis received strong backing from an August 2020 working paper, “Are Conspiracy Theories for Losers? The Effect of Losing an Election on Conspiratorial Thinking,” by Joanne Miller, Christina E. Farhart and Kyle Saunders, political scientists at the University of Delaware, Carleton College and Colorado State University.They make the parallel argument thatPeople are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories that make their political rivals look bad when they are on the losing side of politics than when they are on the winning side, regardless of ideology/partisanship.In an email, Miller compared polling from 2004, when John Kerry lost to George W. Bush, to polls after the 2020 election, when Trump lost to Biden:A 2004 a Post-ABC poll that found that 49 percent of Kerry supporters but only 14 percent of Bush supporters thought that the vote wasn’t counted accurately. But this year, a much larger percentage of Trump voters believe election fraud conspiracy theories than voters on the losing side in previous years. A January 2021 Pew poll found that approximately 75 percent of Trump voters believe that Trump definitely or probably won the election.Over the long haul, Miller wrote, “I find very little correlation between conspiratorial thinking and party identification or political ideology.” But, she quickly added. “the past four years are an outlier in this regard.”Throughout his presidency, Miller wrote,former President Trump pretty much governed as a “loser.” He continued to insist that he would’ve won the popular vote in 2016 had it not been for widespread election fraud. So it’s not surprising, given Trump’s rhetoric, that Republicans during the Trump presidency were more likely to endorse conspiracy theories than we’d have expected them to, given that they were on the winning side.The psychological predispositions that contribute to a susceptibility to conspiracy thinking are complex, as Joshua Hart, a professor of psychology at Union College, and his student, Molly Graether, found in their 2018 paper “Something’s Going on Here: Psychological Predictors of Belief in Conspiracy Theories.”Hart and Graether contend that “conspiracy theorists are more likely to believe that the world is a dangerous place full of bad people,” who “find it difficult to trust others” and who “view the world as a dangerous and uncontrollable.”Perhaps more interesting, Hart and Graether argue that conspiracy theorists are more likely “to perceive profundity in nonsensical but superficially meaningful ideas,” a concept they cite as being described by academics in the field as “b.s. receptivity.”To test for this tendency, psychologists ask participants to rank the “meaningfulness” of such incoherent and ludicrous sentences and phrases as “the future elucidates irrational facts for the seeking person,” “your movement transforms universal observations,” “the who silence infinite phenomena” and “the invisible is beyond all new immutability.” The scale is called “Mean perceived meaningfulness of b.s. sentences and genuinely meaningful sentences,” and can be found here.Adam M. Enders, a political scientist at the University of Louisville, argued in an email that:There are several characteristics of QAnon acolytes that distinguish them from everyone else, even people who believe in some other conspiracy theories: they are more likely to share false information online, they’re more accepting of political violence in various circumstances.In addition, Enders writes,QAnon followers are, in a sense, extremists both politically (e.g., wanting to overthrow the U.S. government) and psychologically (e.g., exhibiting many antisocial personality traits).Polarization, in Enders’s view, when joined with conspiracy thinking, produces a toxic mix:As polarization increases, tensions between political parties and other groups rise, and people are more willing to construct and believe in fantastical ideas that either malign out-groups (e.g., “Democrats are Satan-worshipping pedophiles”) or bolster the in-group (e.g., ‘we only lost because you cheated’). Conspiracy theories, in turn, raise the temperature of polarization and make it more difficult for people from different partisan and ideological camps to have fact-based discussions about political matters, even those that are in critical need of immediate attention.Conspiracy thinking has become a major internal, problem for the Republican Party, which is reflected by the current turmoil in party ranks over two newly elected congresswomen, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Lauren Boebert of Colorado, QAnon sympathizers with long records of florid, antagonistic conspiratorial accusations.There is some evidence that the Republican establishment has begun to recognize the dangers posed by the presence in that party of so many who are preoccupied — obsessed is not too strong a word — with denying the incontrovertible truth of Trump’s loss and Biden’s win in the 2020 election.Even Mitch McConnell, perhaps the most cunning and nefarious member of the Republican establishment, has come to see the liability of the sheer number of supposedly reputable members of the United States Senate caving in to patent falsehoods, warning colleagues earlier this week of the threat to their political survival posed by the “loony lies and conspiracy theories” voiced by allies of QAnon in the House of Representatives.“Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.’s airplane is not living in reality,” McConnell declared. “This has nothing to do with the challenges facing American families or the robust debates on substance that can strengthen our party.”McConnell has a history of bending with the wind, accommodating the extremists in his party, including Trump and Trump’s allies, and he voted in support of the claim that Trump’s second impeachment trial is unconstitutional. If the conspiracy wing of the Republican Party becomes strong enough to routinely mount winning primary challenges to mainstream incumbents, McConnell may well abandon his critique and accept a party moving steadily closer to something many Americans (though not all) could never have imagined: the systematic exploitation of voters gullible or pathological enough to sign on to preposterous conspiracy theories in order to engineer the installation in Washington of an ultraright, ethnonationalist crypto-fascist white supremacist political regime.The problem of keeping the extremist fringe at arm’s length has plagued the Republican Party for decades — dating back to Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society — but nothing in recent American history has reached the crazed intensity of Donald Trump’s perseverating, mendacious insistence that he won a second term in November. That he is not alone — that millions continue to believe in his delusions — is terrifying.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.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Liz Cheney Chooses Her Own Path, and It’s a Perilous One

    #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 storyLiz Cheney Chooses Her Own Path, and It’s a Perilous OnePro-Trump forces in Washington and in her home state of Wyoming view her opposition to Donald Trump as a betrayal. Now she faces a reckoning over her leadership role in the Republican Party.People protested Representative Liz Cheney at a rally in Cheyenne, Wyo., last week.Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesFeb. 3, 2021, 3:00 a.m. ETCHEYENNE, Wyo. — Liz Cheney was getting so many questions from constituents and colleagues about whether she would vote to affirm the 2020 election results that she responded in a way befitting her background as a State Department diplomat and lawyer: She issued a 21-page memo detailing the constitutional and legal reasons Congress should not interfere with certification.Doing so, she wrote, would set “an exceptionally dangerous precedent” that no Republican should want to be associated with.Ms. Cheney was right about the danger. But she was wrong about the willingness of her fellow Republicans to go along with it. In the House, two-thirds of them voted against certification. A week later, only nine others voted with her to impeach former President Donald J. Trump for encouraging a mob of his supporters to besiege the Capitol on Jan. 6.Now Ms. Cheney, the lone representative for Wyoming and the No. 3-ranking Republican in the House, is the most visible and imperiled target of the pro-Trump majority in the G.O.P., which wants to make actions like hers a disqualifying offense for any party member seeking office. A campaign backed by members of Mr. Trump’s family and some of his allies in Congress threatens to force her out of her position in House leadership. On Wednesday in Washington, she will attend a private House Republican meeting where lawmakers will have the opportunity to confront her in person.At home in Wyoming, the sense of betrayal among Republicans is burning hot at the moment. It’s especially acute among the conservative grass roots and local party activists whose strong presence in the state helped deliver Mr. Trump his largest margin of victory anywhere — beating Joseph R. Biden Jr. with 70 percent of the vote.At least one conservative state lawmaker — who described the impeachment vote as “an ice pick in the back” by Republicans who supported it — has printed “Impeach Liz Cheney!” yard signs and is vowing to challenge her in 2022. Ten county-level Republican Party organizations have voted to censure Ms. Cheney in recent days, and more are expected to follow suit.People close to Ms. Cheney, who insisted on anonymity so they could discuss her private views, said that her break with the pro-Trump faction reflected her belief that many more Republicans share her disgust with how seriously Mr. Trump undermined confidence in the country’s electoral system.As she watched Mr. Trump and his supporters peddle conspiracy theories and promote what she called “the big lie,” Ms. Cheney became deeply unsettled by how many of her colleagues seemed so cavalier about Mr. Trump’s actions, friends and associates said. She was also bothered by the way Republicans cheered and mimicked the kind of behavior she expected of a foreign authoritarian leader but never from an American president.Ms. Cheney was one of 10 House Republicans to support impeaching Donald J. Trump last month.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesIn conversations with colleagues, Ms. Cheney, 54, has said she hopes her example makes more Republicans in and out of public office comfortable acknowledging that they should have pushed back earlier.Her allies said that attempts to punish her were counterproductive at a time when the party should be united in opposition to Democratic control of Washington.“The beneficiaries of Republican fratricide are Democrats,” said Karl Rove, the former Bush strategist, who is close to the Cheney family. “So the more we have purity tests and everyone has to think and act alike, particularly when it comes to former President Trump, it’s only helping Democrats.”But many of her constituents see no problem with making an example of her.A rally outside the State Capitol last week headlined by Matt Gaetz, the Florida congressman and Trump loyalist, drew several hundred people. They chanted “No more Cheney!” and cheered as Mr. Gaetz ripped into “Never Trump” Republicans, calling them relics from a party that Mr. Trump has transformed from its days under the leadership of the Bushes and Ms. Cheney’s father, former Vice President Dick Cheney.“We control the true spirit and identity of America,” said Mr. Gaetz, who is leading the effort to oust Ms. Cheney from the House leadership.After his speech, Teresa Kunkel, a retired state employee, said that she had attended the rally because, as a Christian, she did not believe Ms. Cheney was being an honest representative for Wyoming. “She didn’t represent what we voted for,” Ms. Kunkel said. “She betrayed us — big time.”The second impeachment of Mr. Trump last month, which Ms. Cheney supported, was an injustice, Ms. Kunkel added. “It’s like: ‘I didn’t like what you did, so you’re out. And we’re in the majority, so we can do that.’ That’s cancel culture,” she said.Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida headlined the anti-Cheney rally in Cheyenne last week.Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesStill, the push for Ms. Cheney’s removal from leadership — a step that lawmakers rarely take against members of their own party — may not foreshadow the end of her political career in Wyoming, where the Cheney family is still widely respected.The fondness with which residents speak of Ms. Cheney’s father, and the esteem he still brings to this state that is home to only 580,000 people, suggest that many voters will grant Ms. Cheney, now entering her third term, a degree of independence from Mr. Trump that other Republicans don’t enjoy.The campaign to censure her has also triggered a very different response from moderate Republicans who feel more at home in the party of the Bushes and the Cheneys than they do in the party of Trump. These Republicans — both elected officials and private citizens — say the ugliness and vitriol that Trump supporters have displayed since the election has led them to have an overdue reckoning.“At first I was really mad at Liz,” said Amy Edmonds, a Republican from Cheyenne who is friendly with Ms. Cheney. “I thought she was rushing it. And I thought the election wasn’t fair.”But after she spoke with Ms. Cheney — and read the 21-page memo at the congresswoman’s insistence — Ms. Edmonds said she came to believe she was dead wrong in believing Mr. Trump’s allegations of election fraud.“I was in some kind of fog,” she said. “I don’t know how else to describe it.”Since her epiphany last month, Ms. Edmonds said, she has apologized to two friends she fought with who had tried to tell her that the election wasn’t rigged. And now she spends time thinking about how to engage other friends who promote false stories and disinformation about election fraud on Facebook.She admits that she hasn’t been very persuasive so far, and finds that when she sends people articles from reliable news sources that debunk Mr. Trump’s false claims, “They’ll write back and say, ‘Well, this is mainstream media.’”That’s a reflection of how durable Mr. Trump’s hold on Republican voters remains — and how difficult it will be for politicians like Ms. Cheney to convince Trump supporters that they have bought into “the big lie” of a stolen election, as she has privately described it to colleagues.Amy Edmonds said that after speaking to Ms. Cheney, she saw how wrong she had been to believe Mr. Trump’s allegations of election fraud. Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesMs. Cheney is, of course, in a much more difficult position than other Republicans who want their party to move past the most divisive aspects of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Her family legacy makes her, to some, an asset as a symbol of the more traditional conservative Republicanism, and the value it places on career public service, embodied by the Bushes and her father.But that also makes her a target for Trump loyalists who reject that tradition as the very culture that Mr. Trump claimed he would root out from Washington.Kim Small, who attended the rally at the capitol in Cheyenne last week, said of Ms. Cheney, “I honestly feel like she’s what we consider ‘the swamp.’” She said she attended the rally because she felt Ms. Cheney’s criticisms of Mr. Trump “put her at odds with the vast majority of her constituents.’’Ms. Cheney’s allies described her as at peace with the stance she has taken on Mr. Trump. Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of the nine other Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump, said that too many of his colleagues were doing the opposite of what Ms. Cheney is.“They’re waiting to see if Trump collapses,” he said. “And then if he does, they’ll be like, ‘I’ve never been with Trump, ever.’” He described the effort to punish Ms. Cheney as “cancel culture on the right.”The more difficult but ultimately meaningful path, Mr. Kinzinger said, is if Republicans signal that they don’t care about the pressure, the hostility and the possibility of political defeat.“I’m willing to not win a re-election over this,” he said. “People need to see examples of others doing this, speaking out. And damn the consequences.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Impeachment Case Argues Trump Was ‘Singularly Responsible’ for Capitol Riot

    #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 storyImpeachment Case Argues Trump Was ‘Singularly Responsible’ for Capitol RiotThe House managers cited the Constitution’s framers in urging that Donald J. Trump be convicted and disqualified from holding office. Mr. Trump’s lawyers said the Senate had no jurisdiction.“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,”  Donald J. Trump told his supporters at a rally in Washington on Jan. 6. Credit…Kenny Holston for The New York TimesNicholas Fandos and Feb. 2, 2021Updated 8:35 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House impeachment managers on Tuesday laid out their case against Donald J. Trump, asserting that he was “singularly responsible” for the deadly assault on the Capitol last month and must be convicted and barred from holding public office.In an 80-page brief filed on Tuesday, the managers outlined the arguments they planned to make when the Senate opens Mr. Trump’s trial next week, contending that the former president whipped his supporters into a “frenzy” as part of a concerted campaign to cling to power. Spinning a vivid narrative of a harrowing day when lawmakers were forced to flee as a violent pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol, the prosecutors also reached back centuries to bolster their case, invoking George Washington and the Constitutional Convention.“The framers of the Constitution feared a president who would corrupt his office by sparing ‘no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected,’” wrote the nine House Democrats, led by Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, quoting directly from the 1787 debate in Philadelphia. “If provoking an insurrectionary riot against a joint session of Congress after losing an election is not an impeachable offense, it is hard to imagine what would be.”In Mr. Trump’s own shorter filing, specked with typos and stripped of the former president’s usual bombast, his lawyers flatly denied that he had incited the attack and repeatedly argued that the Senate “lacks jurisdiction” to try a former president. They repeatedly urged an immediate dismissal of the single charge against him, “incitement of insurrection.”“The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th president because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, rendering the article of impeachment moot and a non-justiciable question,” the lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, wrote in their 14-page response to the charge.Their other broad argument was that Mr. Trump’s remarks on Jan. 6 and in the weeks before were constitutionally protected. While they did not argue explicitly that Mr. Trump had won the 2020 election, as some said he wanted his legal team to do, the lawyers sought to shroud his false claims of widespread voter fraud in free-speech arguments.They effectively argued that Mr. Trump believed he “won it by a landslide,” and therefore was within his First Amendment rights to “express his belief that the election results were suspect.” His claims could not be disproved, they added, because there was “insufficient evidence.”President Biden won the election by about seven million votes, according to results certified by every state. Dozens of cases Mr. Trump brought alleging voting fraud or improprieties were tossed out or decided against him, many times by Republican-appointed judges, for lack of evidence.The impeachment filings provided the clearest preview yet of the legal strategies that are likely to shape a politically fraught impeachment trial of Mr. Trump — his second in just over a year — that is scheduled to begin in earnest in the Senate on Tuesday. They indicated that both sides expected drawn-out debates over the constitutionality of a trial, as much as Mr. Trump’s culpability for what took place.Despite their initial criticisms, a majority of Republican senators now appear to be lining up once again to acquit Mr. Trump. But the arguments could determine the difference between a near-party-line verdict like the one that capped the former president’s first trial in 2020 or a more bipartisan rebuke that could constrain any future political ambition he harbors.Though senators have yet to agree to a final set of rules to govern the proceeding, both parties appear to share an interest in an exceedingly swift trial, without new witnesses or fact-finding, that could conclude as soon as Saturday, Feb. 13. That would be far shorter than any presidential impeachment trial in history. But Republicans are eager to turn a page on a divisive former president, and Democrats are impatient to turn to advancing the agenda of the current one.The House impeachment managers, led by Representative Jamie Raskin, right, submitted an 80-page brief blaming Mr. Trump for the violent attack.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesIf Mr. Trump’s lawyers were trying to reassure Republican senators that they could dismiss the case without confronting its merits, the House managers were aiming instead to force them to confront the terror of the Capitol riot with an unusually visceral prosecution. They have compiled hours of footage from Parler, Twitter and elsewhere that they plan to play from the well of the Senate next week to compel Republicans to face Mr. Trump’s conduct head on, rather than retreating behind arguments around the process.The approach was evident in their legal brief, which was more dramatic in parts than a typical courtroom filing. It follows Mr. Trump from his early-summer warnings about a “rigged” election up to his last, futile attempts to target Congress’s Jan. 6 counting session to snatch victory away from President Biden.All the while, the managers argued, Mr. Trump was issuing a “call to mobilize” to his supporters to “stop the steal.” He invited them to come to Washington in early January. Then used a speech on the Ellipse outside the White House just before the attack to urge them to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol to confront members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence.The calls incited the mob to action, they argued, citing videos posted on social media in which supporters of Mr. Trump can be heard yelling “invade the Capitol building” after he urges them to “show strength.”“He summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue,” the managers wrote.Unlike the first impeachment case against Mr. Trump, which centered on his pressure campaign on Ukraine, this one has bipartisan support and the prosecutors appear poised to make frequent use of Republicans’ own criticisms of Mr. Trump. Their brief quoted Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach, as well as Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, who said publicly that Mr. Trump “provoked” the mob.In making constitutional arguments in favor of Mr. Trump’s conviction, though, they reached hundreds of years further back, arguing that Mr. Trump had not only prompted violence but threatened the tradition of the peaceful transfer of power begun by Washington. They also cited debates by the founders about who would be subject to impeachment and when, as well as a 19th-century impeachment trial of a former war secretary, to assert that the Senate clearly had a right to try Mr. Trump even after he left office.“There is no ‘January exception’ to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution,” the managers wrote. “A president must answer comprehensively for his conduct in office from his first day in office through his last.”They also insisted that the First Amendment right to free speech could not shield Mr. Trump from responsibility for inciting violence that would seek to do harm to the Constitution, undermining all the rights enshrined there, including free speech.The president’s filing was narrower by design, with a lengthier, more detailed brief due from his lawyers early next week. Still, the contours of their defense were becoming clear.The lawyers said Democrats had misinterpreted Mr. Trump’s actions and his intent, denying that he was responsible for the Capitol riot or that he intended to interfere with Congress’s formalizing of Mr. Biden’s win. They said his words to supporters on Jan. 6 — “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore” — were not meant as a call to violent action, but were “about the need to fight for election security in general.”“It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior,” they wrote. In another section, they denied that Mr. Trump had “threatened” Georgia’s Republican secretary of state or “acted improperly” when he demanded during a January phone call that the official “find” the votes needed to overturn his loss in that state and vaguely warned of a “criminal offense.”The lawyers reprised an argument against the constitutionality of the trial popular with Republican senators. They asserted that a plain reading of the Constitution — which does not explicitly discuss what to do with an official impeached but not tried before he leaves office — does not permit the Senate to try a former president.But they also said that Mr. Trump “denies the allegation” that his claims that he won the election were false. If that argument plays a central role in the trial, Republican senators could quickly find themselves painfully wedged between a conspiracy theory they fear could do lasting damage to their party and millions of their own voters who believe it.Mr. Trump’s response appeared to be somewhat hastily assembled after the former president shook up his legal team just 48 hours before the brief was due; the response, for example, was addressed to the “Unites States Senate.”In an interview later, Mr. Schoen pointed to another potential argument that could help Mr. Trump: that at least some of the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol planned their attack in advance, suggesting that the former president was not the inciting force.“I have no reason to believe anyone involved with Trump was in the know,” he said of the violence that unfolded at the Capitol. Still, he conceded the heart of the defense would lie elsewhere.Nicholas Fandos More