Subterms
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
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
#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Presidential TransitionliveLatest UpdatesHouse Moves to Remove TrumpHow Impeachment Might WorkBiden Focuses on CrisesCabinet PicksAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyDealBook More
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
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
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
#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
#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Presidential TransitionLatest UpdatesHouse Moves to Remove TrumpHow Impeachment Might WorkBiden Focuses on CrisesCabinet PicksAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyHouse Moves to Force Trump Out, Vowing Impeachment if Pence Won’t ActSpeaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would formally call on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to strip President Trump of power, and move to impeach the president if he refused.House Democrats effectively gave the vice president a final ultimatum: use his power under the Constitution to force President Trump aside or make him the first president in American history to be impeached twice.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesNicholas Fandos, Peter Baker and Jan. 10, 2021Updated 10:18 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House moved on two fronts on Sunday to try to force President Trump from office, escalating pressure on the vice president to strip him of power and committing to quickly begin impeachment proceedings against him for inciting a mob that violently attacked the seat of American government.In a letter to colleagues, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said the House would move forward on Monday with a resolution calling on Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment, and wrest the powers of the presidency. She called on Mr. Pence to respond “within 24 hours” and indicated she expected a Tuesday vote on the resolution.Next, she said, the House would bring an impeachment case to the floor. Though she did not specify how quickly it would move, leading Democrats have suggested they could press forward on a remarkably quick timetable, charging Mr. Trump by midweek with “high crimes and misdemeanors.”“In protecting our Constitution and our democracy, we will act with urgency, because this president represents an imminent threat to both,” she wrote. “As the days go by, the horror of the ongoing assault on our democracy perpetrated by this president is intensified and so is the immediate need for action.”Ms. Pelosi’s actions effectively gave Mr. Pence, who is said to be opposed to the idea, an ultimatum: use his power under the Constitution to force Mr. Trump out by declaring him unable to discharge his duties, or make him the first president in American history to be impeached twice.Far from capitulating, Mr. Trump made plans to proceed as if the last five earth-shattering days had simply not happened at all. But momentum in Washington was shifting decisively against him.More than 210 of the 222 Democrats in the House — nearly a majority — had already signed on to an impeachment resolution by Sunday afternoon, registering support for a measure that asserted that Mr. Trump would “remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution” if he was not removed in the final 10 days of his term. A second Republican senator, Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, said he should resign immediately, joining Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. And a Republican House member hinted more clearly than before that he could vote to impeach, even as he cautioned that it could backfire and further galvanize Mr. Trump’s supporters.With few Democrats hopeful Mr. Pence would act, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the party’s No. 3, said the House could vote to impeach Mr. Trump by Wednesday, one week before Inauguration Day. Lawmakers were put on notice to return to Washington, and their leaders consulted with the Federal Air Marshal Service and police on how to safely move them back into a Capitol that was ransacked in a shocking security failure less than a week ago.“If we are the people’s house, let’s do the people’s work and let’s vote to impeach this president,” Mr. Clyburn said on “Fox News Sunday.” “The Senate will decide later what to do with that — an impeachment.”Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House, said the House could vote to impeach by midweek.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesMr. Clyburn argued in favor of delaying the start of any Senate trial for several months to allow President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. to take office without the cloud of an all-consuming impeachment drama. It would be nearly impossible to start a trial before Jan. 20, and delaying it further would allow the House to deliver a stinging indictment of the president without impeding Mr. Biden’s ability to form a cabinet and confront the spiraling coronavirus crisis.“Let’s give President-elect Biden the 100 days he needs to get his agenda off and running,” Mr. Clyburn, an influential ally of Mr. Biden, said in another interview on CNN.The uncertainty underscored how little precedent those seeking to contain the president had to guide them. No president has been impeached in the final days of his term, or with the prospect of a trial after he leaves office — and certainly not just days after lawmakers themselves were attacked.A two-thirds majority is needed to convict and remove a president in the Senate. But if he were found guilty, a simple majority of the Senate could then bar Mr. Trump from holding office in the future.Mr. Biden has tried to keep a distance from the impeachment issue. He spoke privately Friday with Ms. Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the top Senate Democrat. But publicly he has said that the decision rests with Congress, and that he intends to remain focused on the work of taking over the White House and the government’s coronavirus response.“In 10 days, we move forward and rebuild — together,” Mr. Biden wrote on Twitter on Sunday.At the White House, Mr. Trump remained out of sight for a fourth straight day and made no public comment on either the assault on the Capitol or the brewing impeachment threat. The White House announced instead that he would travel on Tuesday to Alamo, Texas, to promote his border wall as part of a series of activities highlighting what he sees as the achievements of the last four years.Otherwise, the basic work of the final days of a presidential term had essentially been halted. A slew of pardons that were under discussion were put on hold after the riot, according to people informed about the deliberations. And around the White House, the president’s advisers hoped he would let go of giving himself a pardon, saying it would look terrible given what had taken place.Among those said to be furious with the president was Melania Trump, the first lady. While she has stayed quiet publicly, people close to the situation said she was upset with her husband for what had taken place, as well as his decision not to attend Mr. Biden’s inauguration.The hearse carrying Officer Brian Sicknick of the U.S. Capitol Police, who was killed in the Capitol riot, passing in front of the White House on Sunday.Credit…Erin Scott for The New York TimesOther than a video message he posted on Thursday night, Mr. Trump has said nothing about the attack since its conclusion and taken no responsibility for it, nor has he said anything publicly about the U.S. Capitol Police officer killed by the mob. Only after much criticism did he order flags lowered to half-staff at the White House and other federal facilities on Sunday in honor of the officer and another who Capitol Police said had died off duty days after responding to the riot at the Capitol.In past furors, any anger within his own party tended to fade with passing days, but this time, the disenchantment among many Republicans appeared to be hardening, particularly with new videos emerging, including one showing the mob dragging a police officer down the steps outside the Capitol and beating him.“The more time, images, and stories removed from Wednesday the worse it gets,” Josh Holmes, a longtime adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, wrote on Twitter. “If you’re not in a white hot rage over what happened by now you’re not paying attention.”It was that fury driving Democrats forward with stunning speed.The four-page impeachment article that had gained overwhelming support among Democrats — written by Representatives David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Ted Lieu of California — was narrowly tailored to Mr. Trump’s role “willfully inciting violence against the government of the United States.” Democrats involved in the process said they had drafted the text with input from some Republicans, though they declined to name them.None were expected to join as a co-sponsor before it was introduced on Monday, but Democrats said multiple House Republicans were privately discussing voting to impeach. When the House impeached Mr. Trump in 2019 for a pressure campaign on Ukraine to smear Mr. Biden, not a single Republican supported the charges.“I’ll vote the right way, you know, if I’m presented with that,” said Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.The House indictment, which lawmakers and aides cautioned was still subject to change, would squarely blame for the rampage on Mr. Trump, stating that his encouragement was “consistent” with prior efforts to “subvert and obstruct” the election certification. That would include a Jan. 2 phone call pressuring Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” the votes he needed to claim victory in a state Mr. Biden clearly and legally won.“It was an attack on our country and our democracy,” Mr. Cicilline said in an interview. “We simply cannot just allow this to stand unaddressed.”More details emerged on Sunday about Mr. Trump’s role, which could shape the debate about impeachment. The president was deeply involved in the planning of the rally on Wednesday where he exhorted thousands of followers to march to the Capitol and demonstrate strength. He personally helped select who would speak and what music would play, according to people briefed on how the event came together.Mr. Trump’s supporters as he spoke before they stormed the Capitol on Wednesday.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesThe president had been excited about the event for days, more focused on that and trying to overturn the Electoral College vote count than anything else. Heading into Wednesday, some advisers privately said Mr. Trump appeared to believe that Mr. Pence could legally hand him the election in his role presiding over the vote count.At one point, Mr. Trump told the vice president that he had spoken with Mark Martin, the former chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, who he said had told him that Mr. Pence had that power. Mr. Pence had assured Mr. Trump that he did not. Mr. Trump made the vice president defend his rationale in a meeting with lawyers that Rudolph W. Giuliani had helped line up.Both parties conceded they had no clear picture of how many senators in the party might ultimately vote to convict Mr. Trump.Mr. Toomey said Mr. Trump had “spiraled down into a kind of madness” since the election and had effectively “disqualified himself” from ever running for office again. But a day after he called Mr. Trump’s conduct “impeachable,” Mr. Toomey argued an impeachment would be impractical with Mr. Trump already headed for the exit.“I think the best way for our country, Chuck, is for the president to resign and go away as soon as possible,” he told the host Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I acknowledge that may not be likely, but I think that would be best.”In speaking with associates about the prospect of another impeachment, Mr. Trump was hit with the reality that few people from his defense team in last year’s Senate trial would be part of any new proceeding.Jay Sekulow, who has served as his lead personal lawyer, and two other private lawyers, Marty Raskin and Jane Raskin, will not participate in a future impeachment defense, according to a person briefed on the planning, nor will Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, or Patrick F. Philbin, his deputy.This time, only a few of his allies on Capitol Hill have offered to speak up in defense as well. Among those who have, many have used calls for “unity” to argue against impeachment or calling for Mr. Trump’s resignation. In most cases, the lawmakers adamant that Democrats should let the country “move on” were among those who, even after Wednesday’s violence, voted to toss out electoral results in key swing states Mr. Biden won based on claims of widespread voter fraud that courts and the states themselves said were bogus.“The Democrats are going to try to remove the president from office just seven days before he is set to leave anyway,” Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, said on Fox News. “I do not see how that unifies the country.”Michael D. Shear More
