Presidential Election of 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and others pause their political contributions.

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyBanks Halt Political Donations After Pro-Trump Mob Storms Capitol: Live UpdatesCitigroup, Goldman Sachs and others pause their political contributions.Jan. 11, 2021, 8:49 a.m. ETJan. 11, 2021, 8:49 a.m. ETJPMorgan Chase is halting all political donations from its PAC for six months.Credit…Justin Lane/EPA, via ShutterstockBig businesses often donate to both political parties and say that their support is tied to narrow issues of specific interest to their industries. That became increasingly fraught last week, after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and some Republican lawmakers tried to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win in the presidential election.A flurry of companies have since reviewed political giving via their corporate political action committees, according to the DealBook newsletter.Some big banks are pausing all political donations:Goldman Sachs is freezing donations through its PAC and will conduct “a thorough assessment of how people acted during this period,” a spokesman, Jake Siewert, told DealBook.JPMorgan Chase is halting donations through its PAC for six months. “There will be plenty of time for campaigning later,” said Peter Scher, the bank’s head of corporate responsibility.Citigroup is postponing all campaign contributions for a quarter. “We want you to be assured that we will not support candidates who do not respect the rule of law,” Candi Wolff, the bank’s head of government affairs, wrote in an internal memo.Other banks, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo, said they would review their corporate contribution strategy.Some companies are pausing donations to specific politicians. Marriott said it would pause donations from its PAC “to those who voted against certification of the election,” a spokeswoman told DealBook. She did not say how long the break would last or how the bank would decide when to resume.Blue Cross Blue Shield, Boston Scientific and Commerce Bancshares are taking a similar, targeted approach to donation freezes. The newsletter Popular Information is tracking the responses of these and other companies that donated to lawmakers who challenged the election result.The suspensions coincide with the first quarter after a presidential election, which is typically light on fund-raising anyway. Efforts by some companies to pause PAC donations to all lawmakers — those who voted to uphold the election as well as those who sought to overturn it — are raising eyebrows. And companies can still give to “dark money” groups that don’t disclose their donors but often raise far more money than corporate PACs.In other fallout, the P.G.A. of America said it would no longer hold its signature championship at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J.; the social app Parler, popular among conservatives as an alternative to Twitter, went dark this morning after Amazon cut it off from computing services; the payment processor Stripe banned the Trump campaign from using its services; YouTube blocked Steve Bannon’s podcast channel; and the debate continues over tech giants’ influence over public speech.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Inside the Billion-Dollar War Against Right-Wing Conspiracists

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySwayInside the Billion-Dollar War Against Right-Wing ConspiracistsJohn Poulos is the C.E.O. of Dominion Voting Systems. His $1.3 billion suit against an ex-Trump lawyer might be the “first step” in a powerful fight against actual fake news.Hosted by Kara SwisherMore episodes ofSwayJanuary 11, 2021  •  More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Can Andrew Yang Make It in New York City Politics?

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCan Andrew Yang Make It in New York City Politics?Mr. Yang has name recognition, fund-raising ability and some different ideas on how to run a government. How will that play in a city ravaged by the pandemic?Andrew Yang, who dropped out of the presidential race in February, will face scrutiny of his experience, views and basic knowledge of New York City if he runs for mayor.Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesJan. 11, 2021Updated 9:41 a.m. ETIn the last few months, the man who would be New York’s most famous mayoral candidate acted like anything but one.He spent more time barnstorming Georgia than he did the five boroughs. He openly contemplated cabinet roles and lobbied Washington lawmakers around stimulus relief. And he often made television appearances from his weekend home in the Hudson Valley rather than from his apartment in Hell’s Kitchen.Andrew Yang has a habit of practicing politics in unexpected ways.He began the presidential race as an unknown candidate and stayed relevant longer than more accomplished politicians did, building an ardent fan base through his quirky style, warnings about automation and championing of a universal basic income. He now turns to the New York City mayor’s race with significant name recognition, a vivid social media presence and a demonstrated ability to raise money.But he is still every bit the unorthodox contender, and that approach offers Mr. Yang both opportunities and monumental challenges in the race to lead New York out of a pandemic-fueled crisis. His candidacy — which may be officially announced as early as this week — would offer a clear test of whether New Yorkers want a splashy but inexperienced contender with bold ideas for navigating the city’s recovery, or whether a mood of citywide emergency propels a more familiar local figure with a traditional governing background.Mr. Yang, who most recently has been a CNN commentator, nonprofit founder, campaign surrogate and podcast host, embraces being a political outsider in a city where he has lived for 24 years — indeed, he has never voted for mayor, the office he is poised to seek.Now, he is betting that he would instantly inject a dose of star power into a muddled, crowded field, and that his pledges to be an ambitiously anti-poverty candidate would resonate in an economically ravaged city.But he is also sure to face scrutiny and pressure of a wholly different magnitude than he ever confronted as a genial presidential candidate who dropped out last February, as voters, rivals and the news media dissect his experience, views and basic knowledge of the city.“If someone’s looking for a candidate who has spent the last couple decades steeped in city government, like, I will likely not be their candidate,” Mr. Yang said in a Friday morning interview from his weekend home in New Paltz, N.Y., about 80 miles outside Manhattan.Mr. Yang, left, began the presidential race as an unknown candidate and stayed relevant longer than more accomplished politicians.Credit…Brittainy Newman/The New York TimesDetailing the public health and economic challenges facing New York, he continued, “If you look at that situation and say, ‘Hey, city government has been working great for us, and we need someone who has been a part of the firmament for X number of years,’ I would disagree with that assessment.”Mr. Yang grew up in Schenectady, N.Y. and Westchester County, attended Columbia Law School and stayed in New York City afterward, working, raising two young children and maintaining fond memories of Mayor Ed Koch from his suburban childhood.He has a slate of ideas for revitalizing a city reeling from the pandemic, proposing “the biggest implementation” of a basic income in the country, addressing broadband internet access and urging the establishment of a “people’s bank of New York” to assist struggling New Yorkers. Some operatives and lawmakers doubt the feasibility of his vision, and Mr. Yang, a neophyte when it comes to city political battles, will need to explain how he would achieve such sweeping goals given the city’s staggering financial challenges.Although he has never run for office in New York, Mr. Yang’s presidential bid showcased his fund-raising ability, especially among small-dollar donors. He has a larger national network than typical mayoral candidates, and intends to announce Martin Luther King III as a co-chair of the campaign, Mr. King confirmed.Mr. Yang has also enlisted the prominent New York operatives Bradley Tusk and Chris Coffey, and has been in touch with New York political figures including members of the congressional delegation; the City Council speaker, Corey Johnson; the city’s public advocate, Jumaane Williams; the Queens borough president, Donovan Richards Jr.; as well as union leaders, legislators and stakeholders like the Rev. Al Sharpton.But for much of his career — he has a mixed record of success in the nonprofit and start-up worlds — he has plainly been absent from New York politics.“Is he a New Yorker? I don’t even know,” said Kathryn S. Wylde, who leads the Partnership for New York City, an influential business organization. “I’ve never run into him as a New Yorker.”Asked about the most important thing he has done to understand the challenges facing New York and prepare for the mayoral contest after exiting the presidential stage, Mr. Yang cited the experience he and his family had of being in the city as it shut down amid the pandemic.But Mr. Yang, the father of a son with autism, also acknowledged that he has not remained in New York full time since then, which Politico reported on Friday.“We’ve spent more time upstate than in the city over the last number of months, but I also spent time in Georgia, as you know, I spent time in Pennsylvania campaigning for Joe and Kamala,” he said.Noting the challenges of fulfilling his CNN obligations from his apartment, he continued, “We live in a two-bedroom apartment in Manhattan. And so, like, can you imagine trying to have two kids on virtual school in a two-bedroom apartment, and then trying to do work yourself?”Mr. Yang in Pennsylvania campaigning for the Biden-Harris ticket in November. He also spent time in Georgia to try to help flip the Senate: “Most New Yorkers would be very excited about those goals,” he said.Credit…Associated PressIn fact, many New Yorkers have experienced just that dynamic, or far more challenging circumstances. Asked to respond to voters who expect their future mayor to have stayed in the city in its darkest moments, Mr. Yang suggested that his location was not relevant to his work at the time, and that New Yorkers would prioritize plans to move the city forward.“I was very focused on helping Joe and Kamala win, and then helping flip the Senate,” he said, though Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign was not especially fast-paced during the early days of the pandemic. “Most New Yorkers would be very excited about those goals, and are fairly indifferent to where I was doing that work from.”Mr. Yang’s allies hope that some of his strengths at the national level will translate in New York.During his presidential run, Mr. Yang connected with younger people, but the youth vote has not traditionally been influential in New York mayoral primaries. His candidacy will test whether he can bring more young people into the process, though he already has significant competition for the support of young progressive voters in particular.He demonstrated little traction with Black or Hispanic voters last year, but hopes that his universal basic income proposal will help him resonate across a range of communities of color, which were disproportionately hard-hit by the pandemic.That is an untested calculation in a diverse field that includes a number of candidates with much deeper ties to those communities and records of working on behalf of those voters. Mr. Yang may face an uphill battle in introducing himself as a New Yorker who understands the intricacies of the challenges at hand.Yet despite his untraditional background — and in some ways, because of it — he also possesses a set of political assets that may make him formidable.His signature issue, universal basic income, has growing political resonance as millions of Americans face unemployment, and the government cuts stimulus checks.“No elected official in the country has done more to shine a spotlight on the need for a basic income than Andrew Yang,” said Representative Ritchie Torres, who was recently elected to represent the South Bronx, adding that Mr. Yang was on a “very short list” of candidates whom he was considering endorsing.Mr. Yang also generates enthusiasm with a base of devoted fans that rivals may struggle to match in the sprint to the June Democratic primary.“There’s been a lack, I think, of excitement in this mayoral race,” said Assemblyman Ron Kim of Flushing, Queens, who recently dined on Korean barbecue with Mr. Yang in the area. “When Andrew was walking around, I saw an element of excitement.”Mr. Yang, the son of Taiwanese immigrants, would make history as New York’s first Asian-American mayor. Mr. Kim said he expected that Mr. Yang would connect with many Asian-American voters in New York, a constituency that has demonstrated growing political power across the country.In addition to meeting with New York elected officials and endorsing a number of them last year, Mr. Yang has engaged in some local philanthropic work in recent months.Representative Ritchie Torres, who represents the South Bronx, said Mr. Yang was on a “very short list” of candidates whom he was considering endorsing.Credit…Dave Sanders for The New York TimesHe launched Humanity Forward, a nonprofit organization that promotes direct cash relief, including to New Yorkers. For example, the organization promised $1 million in emergency cash relief to families in the Bronx. Justine Zinkin, the chief executive of Neighborhood Trust Financial Partners, which received that grant, confirmed the disbursement of $1,000 each to 1,000 Bronx residents.But in his own telling, Mr. Yang has primarily been focused on national obligations until recently. He said he did not begin to focus in earnest on a mayoral run until after the November election.Even then, he spent much of his time in Georgia. Mr. Yang argued that his efforts to help flip control of the Senate to the Democrats were significant for New York, citing the critical need for federal assistance for the struggling city.And it was in Georgia that he spent time with at least one of his future co-chairs of his expected mayoral campaign: Mr. King, the eldest son of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a human-rights activist, who cited Mr. Yang’s focus on the poor as especially compelling.But some New Yorkers said his time in Georgia has little relevance to his presumed next job as mayoral candidate.“Good for him as a human, but it wouldn’t be how I would use my time if I were running for mayor and the race were in six months,” said Eric Phillips, formerly a spokesman for Mayor Bill de Blasio. “He’s certainly done nothing that I’ve seen that demonstrates a command for city issues or the kind of really difficult decision-making that’s involved in managing 325,000 people and $90 billion. He hasn’t been involved in the civic fabric of the city.”News that he has not even voted for mayor also stunned some New Yorkers.Asked to explain that record, Mr. Yang acknowledged that in the past he may have taken city government “somewhat for granted.”“Right now we’re facing an historic crisis,” he said, adding that many New Yorkers “right now are engaging in different ways.”He promised that in the coming weeks, he would be accessible to his hometown.“Anyone who wants to talk to Andrew Yang in the days to come, like, I want to talk to them,” he said.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Roots of Josh Hawley’s Rage

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Roots of Josh Hawley’s RageWhy do so many Republicans appear to be at war with both truth and democracy?Ms. Stewart has reported on the religious right for more than a decade. She is the author of “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism.”Jan. 11, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETSenator Josh Hawley on Wednesday, as the crowd that would storm the Capitol marched.Credit…Francis Chung/E&E News and Politico, via Associated PressIn today’s Republican Party, the path to power is to build up a lie in order to overturn democracy. At least that is what Senator Josh Hawley was telling us when he offered a clenched-fist salute to the pro-Trump mob before it ransacked the Capitol, and it is the same message he delivered on the floor of the Senate in the aftermath of the attack, when he doubled down on the lies about electoral fraud that incited the insurrection in the first place. How did we get to the point where one of the bright young stars of the Republican Party appears to be at war with both truth and democracy?Mr. Hawley himself, as it happens, has been making the answer plain for some time. It’s just a matter of listening to what he has been saying.In multiple speeches, an interview and a widely shared article for Christianity Today, Mr. Hawley has explained that the blame for society’s ills traces all the way back to Pelagius — a British-born monk who lived 17 centuries ago. In a 2019 commencement address at The King’s College, a small conservative Christian college devoted to “a biblical worldview,” Mr. Hawley denounced Pelagius for teaching that human beings have the freedom to choose how they live their lives and that grace comes to those who do good things, as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines.The most eloquent summary of the Pelagian vision, Mr. Hawley went on to say, can be found in the Supreme Court’s 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Mr. Hawley specifically cited Justice Anthony Kennedy’s words reprovingly: “At the heart of liberty,” Kennedy wrote, “is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” The fifth century church fathers were right to condemn this terrifying variety of heresy, Mr. Hawley argued: “Replacing it and repairing the harm it has caused is one of the challenges of our day.”In other words, Mr. Hawley’s idea of freedom is the freedom to conform to what he and his preferred religious authorities know to be right. Mr. Hawley is not shy about making the point explicit. In a 2017 speech to the American Renewal Project, he declared — paraphrasing the Dutch Reformed theologian and onetime prime minister Abraham Kuyper — “There is not one square inch of all creation over which Jesus Christ is not Lord.” Mr. Kuyper is perhaps best known for his claim that Christianity has sole legitimate authority over all aspects of human life.“We are called to take that message into every sphere of life that we touch, including the political realm,” Mr. Hawley said. “That is our charge. To take the Lordship of Christ, that message, into the public realm, and to seek the obedience of the nations. Of our nation!”Mr. Hawley has built his political career among people who believe that Shariah is just around the corner even as they attempt to secure privileges for their preferred religious groups to discriminate against those of whom they disapprove. Before he won election as a senator, he worked for Becket, a legal advocacy group that often coordinates with the right-wing legal juggernaut the Alliance Defending Freedom. He is a familiar presence on the Christian right media circuit.The American Renewal Project, which hosted the event where Mr. Hawley delivered the speech I mentioned earlier, was founded by David Lane, a political organizer who has long worked behind the scenes to connect conservative pastors and Christian nationalist figures with politicians. The choice America faces, according to Mr. Lane, is “to be faithful to Jesus or to pagan secularism.”The line of thought here is starkly binary and nihilistic. It says that human existence in an inevitably pluralistic, modern society committed to equality is inherently worthless. It comes with the idea that a right-minded elite of religiously pure individuals should aim to capture the levers of government, then use that power to rescue society from eternal darkness and reshape it in accord with a divinely-approved view of righteousness.At the heart of Mr. Hawley’s condemnation of our terrifyingly Pelagian world lies a dark conclusion about the achievements of modern, liberal, pluralistic societies. When he was still attorney general, William Barr articulated this conclusion in a speech at the University of Notre Dame Law School, where he blamed “the growing ascendancy of secularism” for amplifying “virtually every measure of social pathology,” and maintained that “free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people.”Christian nationalists’ acceptance of President Trump’s spectacular turpitude these past four years was a good measure of just how dire they think our situation is. Even a corrupt sociopath was better, in their eyes, than the horrifying freedom that religious moderates and liberals, along with the many Americans who don’t happen to be religious, offer the world.That this neo-medieval vision is incompatible with constitutional democracy is clear. But in case you’re in doubt, consider where some of the most militant and coordinated support for Mr. Trump’s postelection assault on the American constitutional system has come from. The Conservative Action Project, a group associated with the Council for National Policy, which serves as a networking organization for America’s religious and economic right-wing elite, made its position clear in a statement issued a week before the insurrection.It called for members of the Senate to “contest the electoral votes” from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other states that were the focus of Republicans’ baseless allegations. Among the signatories was Cleta Mitchell, the lawyer who advised Mr. Trump and participated in the president’s call on Jan. 2 with Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state. Cosignatories to this disinformation exercise included Bob McEwen, the executive director of the Council for National Policy; Morton C. Blackwell of The Leadership Institute; Alfred S. Regnery, the former publisher; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch; and more than a dozen others.Although many of the foot soldiers in the assault on the Capitol appear to have been white males aligned with white supremacist movements, it would be a mistake to overlook the powerful role of the rhetoric of religious nationalism in their ranks. At a rally in Washington on Jan. 5, on the eve of Electoral College certification, the right-wing pastor Greg Locke said that God is raising up “an army of patriots.” Another pastor, Brian Gibson, put it this way: “The church of the Lord Jesus Christ started America,” and added, “We’re going to take our nation back!”In the aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection, a number of Christian nationalist leaders issued statements condemning violence — on both sides. How very kind of them. But few if any appear willing to acknowledge the instrumental role they played in perpetuating the fraudulent allegations of a stolen election that were at the root of the insurrection.They seem, like Mr. Hawley himself, to live in a post-truth environment. And this gets to the core of the Hawley enigma. The brash young senator styles himself not just a deep thinker who ruminates about late-Roman era heretics, but a man of the people, a champion of “the great American middle,” as he wrote in an article for The American Conservative, and a foe of the “ruling elite.” Mr. Hawley has even managed to turn a few progressive heads with his economic populism, including his attacks on tech monopolies.Yet Mr. Hawley isn’t against elites per se. He is all for an elite, provided that it is a religiously righteous elite. He is a graduate of Stanford University and Yale Law School and he clerked for John Roberts, the chief justice. Mr. Hawley, in other words, is a successful meritocrat of the Federalist Society variety. His greatest rival in that department is the Princeton debater Ted Cruz. They are résumé jockeys in a system that rewards those who do the best job of mobilizing fear and irrationalism. They are what happens when callow ambition meets the grotesque inequalities and injustices of our age.Over the past few days, following his participation in the failed efforts to overturn the election, Mr. Hawley’s career prospects may have dimmed. Two of his home state newspapers have called for his resignation; his political mentor, John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, has described his earlier support for Mr. Hawley as “the biggest mistake I’ve ever made”; and Simon & Schuster dropped his book. On the other hand, there is some reporting that suggests his complicity in efforts to overturn the election may have boosted his standing with Mr. Trump’s base. But the question that matters is not whether Mr. Hawley stays or goes, but whether he is simply replaced by the next wannabe demagogue in line. We are about to find out whether there are leaders of principle left in today’s Republican Party.Make no mistake: Mr. Hawley is a symptom, not a cause. He is a product of the same underlying forces that brought us President Trump and the present crisis of American democracy. Unless we find a way to address these forces and the fundamental pathologies that drive them, then next month or next year we will be forced to contend with a new and perhaps more successful version of Mr. Hawley.Katherine Stewart (@kathsstewart) is the author of “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism.”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

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Never Forget What Ted Cruz Did

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyNever Forget What Ted Cruz DidThe senator has been able to use his Ivy League pedigree as a cudgel. After last week, his credentials should condemn him.Contributing Opinion WriterJan. 11, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Pool photo by Olivier DoulieryWhen I was growing up, I was often reminded that people with fancy educations and elite degrees “put their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.” This was back in the early 1960s, before so many rich Texans started sending their kids to Ivy League schools, when mistrust of Eastern educated folks — or any highly educated folks — was part of the state’s deep rooted anti-intellectualism. Beware of those who lorded their smarts over you, was the warning. Don’t fall for their high-toned airs.Since I’ve been lucky enough to get a fancy enough education, I’ve often found myself on the other side of that warning. But then came Jan. 6, when I watched my Ivy League-educated senator, Ted Cruz, try to pull yet another fast one on the American people as he fought — not long before the certification process was disrupted by a mob of Trump supporters storming the Capitol and forcing their way into the Senate chamber — to challenge the election results.In the unctuous, patronizing style he is famous for, Mr. Cruz cited the aftermath of the 1876 presidential election between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden. It was contentious and involved actual disputes about voter fraud and electoral mayhem, and a committee was formed to sort it out. Mr. Cruz’s idea was to urge the creation of a committee to investigate invented claims of widespread voter fraud — figments of the imaginations of Mr. Trump and minions like Mr. Cruz — in the election of Joe Biden. It was, for Mr. Cruz, a typical, too-clever-by-half bit of nonsense, a cynical ploy to paper over the reality of his subversion on behalf of President Trump. (The horse trading after the 1876 election helped bring about the end of Reconstruction; maybe Mr. Cruz thought evoking that subject was a good idea, too.)But this tidbit was just one of many hideous contributions from Mr. Cruz in recent weeks. It happened, for instance, after he supported a lawsuit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (under indictment since 2015 for securities fraud) in an attempt to overturn election results in critical states (it was supported by other Texan miscreants like Representative Louie Gohmert).The esoteric exhortations of Jan. 6 from Mr. Cruz, supposedly in support of preserving democracy, also just happened to occur while a fund-raising message was dispatched in his name. (“Ted Cruz here. I’m leading the fight to reject electors from key states unless there is an emergency audit of the election results. Will you stand with me?”) The message went out around the time that the Capitol was breached by those who probably believed Mr. Cruz’s relentless, phony allegations.Until last Wednesday, I wasn’t sure that anything or anyone could ever put an end to this man’s self-serving sins and long trail of deceptions and obfuscations. As we all know, they have left his wife, his father and numerous colleagues flattened under one bus or another in the service of his ambition. (History may note that Senator Lindsey Graham, himself a breathtaking hypocrite, once joked, “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”)But maybe, just maybe, Mr. Cruz has finally overreached with this latest power grab, which is correctly seen as an attempt to corral Mr. Trump’s base for his own 2024 presidential ambitions. This time, however, Mr. Cruz was spinning, obfuscating and demagoguing to assist in efforts to overturn the will of the voters for his own ends.Mr. Cruz has been able to use his pseudo-intellectualism and his Ivy League pedigree as a cudgel. He may be a snake, his supporters (might) admit, but he could go toe to toe with liberal elites because he, too, went to Princeton (cum laude), went to Harvard Law School (magna cum laude), was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Mr. Cruz was not some seditionist in a MAGA hat (or a Viking costume); he styled himself as a deep thinker who could get the better of lefties from those pointy headed schools. He could straddle both worlds — ivory towers and Tea Party confabs — and exploit both to his advantage.Today, though, his credentials aren’t just useless; they condemn him. Any decent soul might ask: If you are so smart, how come you are using that fancy education to subvert the Constitution you’ve long purported to love? Shouldn’t you have known better? But, of course, Mr. Cruz did know better; he just didn’t care. And he believed, wrongly I hope, that his supporters wouldn’t either.I was heartened to see that our senior senator, John Cornyn, benched himself during this recent play by Team Crazy. So did seven of Texas’ over 20 Republican members of the House — including Chip Roy, a former chief of staff for Mr. Cruz. (Seven counts as good news in my book.)I’m curious to see what happens with Mr. Cruz’s check-writing enablers in Texas’ wealthier Republican-leaning suburbs. Historically, they’ve stood by him. But will they want to ally themselves with the mob that vandalized our nation’s Capitol and embarrassed the United States before the world? Will they realize that Mr. Cruz, like President Trump and the mini-Cruz, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, would risk destroying the country in the hope of someday leading it?Or maybe, just maybe, they will finally see — as I did growing up — that a thug in a sharp suit with an Ivy League degree is still a thug.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

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Why We Are Introducing an Article of Impeachment

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyWhy We Are Introducing an Article of ImpeachmentOne of the authors of the impeachment article against President Trump makes his case.Mr. Cicilline is a U.S. representative and a member of the House Judiciary Committee.Jan. 11, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesSince his resounding defeat in the presidential election in November, Donald Trump has done everything but concede to the democratic will of the American people. He unleashed an avalanche of lies and baseless claims of fraud — conspiracy theories that filled his supporters with a delusional belief that the election had been stolen from him. He filed a bevy of absurd lawsuits. He attempted to cajole and intimidate officials at all levels of government into subverting the election and keeping him in office. And then, running out of recourse, legitimate and illegitimate, he incited an insurrection against the government and the Constitution that he swore to uphold.The attempted coup at the United States Capitol last Wednesday, which took place as lawmakers inside counted the electoral votes that would formalize Joe Biden’s overwhelming election by the American people, marks one of the lowest points in our country’s 245-year experiment in democracy.From Andrew Jackson to Richard Nixon, we have seen presidents abuse their power, but we had never witnessed an American president incite a violent mob on the citadel of our democracy in a desperate attempt to cling to power.We cannot let this go unanswered. With each day, Mr. Trump grows more and more desperate. We should not allow him to menace the security of our country for a second longer.Once the House opens for legislative business, my co-authors — Representatives Ted Lieu and Jamie Raskin — and I will introduce an article of impeachment to remove Mr. Trump from office for incitement of insurrection.As lawmakers who have impeached this president once before, we do not take this responsibility lightly. In fact, it was not our first choice of action. In the midst of last Wednesday’s siege, we were among those that asked Vice President Mike Pence to convene the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to quickly remove Mr. Trump from office. We have called on the president to resign.Days have passed, and it is clear that neither of those possibilities will be realized. So it is Congress’s responsibility to act.The American people witnessed Mr. Trump’s actions for themselves. We all saw his speech on Jan. 6. We watched his fanatics storm the Capitol at his request. Five people died, including a U.S. Capitol Police officer and four of the president’s supporters. We fear what Mr. Trump may do with his remaining time in office.That is why we believe the article of impeachment should be voted on as soon as possible. It is true that even after we act, Senator Mitch McConnell may, as he did one year ago, try to prevent a conviction in the U.S. Senate. It is also true that a trial might extend into the first days of the Biden administration.Neither of those possibilities should deter us in our work. Some argue that another impeachment trial would further divide our country and further inflame Trump supporters. But the truth is that we do not have a choice. This impeachment charge is meant to defend the integrity of the republic. Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress must attend to the duties of their oath. Failing to act would set an irresponsibly dangerous precedent for future presidents who are about to leave office.Further, there can be no healing of the divisions in our country without justice for the man most responsible for this horrific insurrection. The president must be held accountable. That can happen only by impeaching him for a second time and convicting him in the Senate. A conviction that would allow Congress to prohibit him from ever serving in federal office again.What happened last Wednesday was an abomination. There is no question about that. There is also no question that Mr. Trump becomes more of a threat to public safety by the moment.The only question now is what Congress will do about it.David N. Cicilline (@davidcicilline) is a member of the Democratic Party and House Judiciary Committee who has represented Rhode Island’s First Congressional District since 2011. 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

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Business Rules the Trump Administration Is Racing to Finish

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Jobs CrisisCurrent Unemployment RateThe First Six MonthsPermanent LayoffsWhen a $600 Lifeline EndedAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Business Rules the Trump Administration Is Racing to FinishFrom tariffs and trade to the status of Uber drivers, regulators are trying to install new rules or reduce regulations before President-elect Joe Biden takes over.President Trump is rushing to put into effect new economic regulations and executive orders before his term comes to a close.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 11, 2021, 3:00 a.m. ETIn the remaining days of his administration, President Trump is rushing to put into effect a raft of new regulations and executive orders that are intended to put his stamp on business, trade and the economy.Previous presidents in their final term have used the period between the election and the inauguration to take last-minute actions to extend and seal their agendas. Some of the changes are clearly aimed at making it harder, at least for a time, for the next administration to pursue its goals.Of course, President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. could issue new executive orders to overturn Mr. Trump’s. And Democrats in Congress, who will control the House and the Senate, could use the Congressional Review Act to quickly reverse regulatory actions from as far back as late August.Here are some of the things that Mr. Trump and his appointees have done or are trying to do before Mr. Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20. — Peter EavisProhibiting Chinese apps and other products. Mr. Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday banning transactions with eight Chinese software applications, including Alipay. It was the latest escalation of the president’s economic war with China. Details and the start of the ban will fall to Mr. Biden, who could decide not to follow through on the idea. Separately, the Trump administration has also banned the import of some cotton from the Xinjiang region, where China has detained vast numbers of people who are members of ethnic minorities and forced them to work in fields and factories. In another move, the administration prohibited several Chinese companies, including the chip maker SMIC and the drone maker DJI, from buying American products. The administration is weighing further restrictions on China in its final days, including adding Alibaba and Tencent to a list of companies with ties to the Chinese military, a designation that would prevent Americans from investing in those businesses. — Ana SwansonDefining gig workers as contractors. The Labor Department on Wednesday released the final version of a rule that could classify millions of workers in industries like construction, cleaning and the gig economy as contractors rather than employees, another step toward endorsing the business practices of companies like Uber and Lyft. — Noam ScheiberTrimming social media’s legal shield. The Trump administration recently filed a petition asking the Federal Communications Commission to narrow its interpretation of a powerful legal shield for social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube. If the commission doesn’t act before Inauguration Day, the matter will land in the desk of whomever Mr. Biden picks to lead the agency. — David McCabeTaking the tech giants to court. The Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust suit against Facebook in December, two months after the Justice Department sued Google. Mr. Biden’s appointees will have to decide how best to move forward with the cases. — David McCabeAdding new cryptocurrency disclosure requirements. The Treasury Department late last month proposed new reporting requirements that it said were intended to prevent money laundering for certain cryptocurrency transactions. It gave only 15 days — over the holidays — for public comment. Lawmakers and digital currency enthusiasts wrote to the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, to protest and won a short extension. But opponents of the proposed rule say the process and substance are flawed, arguing that the requirement would hinder innovation, and are likely to challenge it in court. — Ephrat LivniLimiting banks on social and environmental issues. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is rushing a proposed rule that would ban banks from not lending to certain kinds of businesses, like those in the fossil fuel industry, on environmental or social grounds. The regulator unveiled the proposal on Nov. 20 and limited the time it would accept comments to six weeks despite the interruptions of the holidays. — Emily FlitterOverhauling rules on banks and underserved communities. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is also proposing new guidelines on how banks can measure their activities to get credit for fulfilling their obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act, an anti-redlining law that forces them to do business in poor and minority communities. The agency rewrote some of the rules in May, but other regulators — the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation — did not sign on. — Emily FlitterInsuring “hot money” deposits. On Dec. 15, the F.D.I.C. expanded the eligibility of brokered deposits for insurance coverage. These deposits are infusions of cash into a bank in exchange for a high interest rate, but are known as “hot money” because the clients can move the deposits from bank to bank for higher returns. Critics say the change could put the insurance fund at risk. F.D.I.C. officials said the new rule was needed to “modernize” the brokered deposits system. — Emily FlitterNarrowing regulatory authority over airlines. The Department of Transportation in December authorized a rule, sought by airlines and travel agents, that limits the department’s authority over the industry by defining what constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice. Consumer groups widely opposed the rule. Airlines argued that the rule would limit regulatory overreach. And the department said the definitions it used were in line with its past practice. — Niraj ChokshiRolling back a light bulb rule. The Department of Energy has moved to block a rule that would phase out incandescent light bulbs, which people and businesses have increasingly been replacing with much more efficient LED and compact fluorescent bulbs. The energy secretary, Dan Brouillette, a former auto industry lobbyist, said in December that the Trump administration did not want to limit consumer choice. The rule had been slated to go into effect on Jan. 1 and was required by a law passed in 2007. — Ivan PennAdvertisementContinue reading the main story More