Presidential Election of 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      From Bush v. Gore to ‘Stop the Steal’: Kenneth Chesebro’s Long, Strange Trip

      by

      Mr. Chesebro, a buttoned-down Harvard lawyer, evolved from left-leaning jurist to key player in the Trump false electors scandal. What happened?In January 2001, Kenneth Chesebro was a mild-mannered Harvard lawyer toiling for Al Gore during the 2000 presidential election recount battle. Two decades later, on Jan. 6, 2021, he joined the mob outside the Capitol, reborn as a MAGA-hatted kingpin.On Friday, Mr. Chesebro’s journey took another turn, when he pleaded guilty in a criminal racketeering indictment in Fulton County, Ga., and agreed to testify against former President Donald J. Trump and other co-defendants, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and several other top Trump aides.Mr. Chesebro, 62, a workaholic who brought platinum credentials to Mr. Trump’s shambolic legal team, is the third defendant to plead guilty for his role in what prosecutors say was a criminal conspiracy to create fraudulent slates of pro-Trump electors in six states, including Georgia, that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won.Mr. Chesebro’s trial, which had been scheduled to begin Monday, will no longer go forward. Liberal lawyers from his former life had hoped it would provide clues to an enduring mystery: What happened to “The Cheese?’’“I still don’t see what should have been a warning sign,” Laurence H. Tribe, the Harvard constitutional law scholar who was Mr. Chesebro’s mentor, said in an interview. “Was there anything I could or should have done?”Some former colleagues say Mr. Chesebro’s 180-degree turn came after a lucrative 2014 investment in Bitcoin and a subsequent posh, itinerant lifestyle. Others, like Mr. Tribe, see Mr. Chesebro as a “moral chameleon” and his story an old one about the seduction of power.“He wanted to be close to the action,” said Mr. Tribe, who is among 60 lawyers and scholars who signed an ethics complaint in New York that could result in Mr. Chesebro’s disbarment. At Harvard, Mr. Chesebro assisted Mr. Tribe on many cases, including Bush v. Gore, which Mr. Tribe, as Mr. Gore’s chief legal counsel, argued before the Supreme Court.“I was representing a vice president who might become president,” Mr. Tribe said. Mr. Chesebro, he continued, “saw me as having access to power. When the world turned and Donald Trump became president, I stopped hearing from him.”Laurence H. Tribe was a mentor to Kenneth Chesebro at Harvard Law School. When Mr. Tribe represented former Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 presidential election recount battle, Mr. Chesebro helped him.Stephen Crowley/The New York TimesMr. Chesebro has responded that in his work for Mr. Trump, he was providing him with the zealous legal advocacy that all clients deserve when he proposed a scheme that he acknowledged at the time “could appear treasonous.”“It is the duty of any attorney to leave no stone unturned in examining the legal options that exist in a particular situation,” Mr. Chesebro said in an interview with Talking Points Memo, before he was indicted. Beyond that interview, he has said very little, citing his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination for most of a deposition he gave to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attacks.Emails released in the run up to Mr. Chesebro’s trial suggest it was not just the law that drove him. In emails to the other Trump lawyers fighting to overturn the 2020 results, Mr. Chesebro estimated the odds of the Supreme Court stepping in at 1 percent. Still, he added, appealing to the high court has “possible political value.”After his guilty plea on Friday, Mr. Chesebro’s lawyer, Scott R. Grubman, said in an email that “Mr. Chesebro is glad to be able to move on with his life and avoid spending even a minute in jail.” Mr. Grubman noted that Mr. Chesebro had pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy, rather than the racketeering charge.‘The Cheese’ RisesMr. Chesebro grew up in Wisconsin Rapids, in the heart of the state. His father, Donald Chesebro, was a high school music teacher, clarinetist and local bandleader inducted into the Polka Hall of Fame.Mr. Chesebro graduated from Northwestern University and went on to Harvard Law School, where in a nod to his roots in America’s dairyland classmates dubbed him “The Cheese.” (His name is actually pronounced CHEZ-bro.)His classmates remember him as intelligent and clever among the students who clustered around Mr. Tribe. They describe him as socially awkward — “Hi, it’s um, Ken,” he would say on phone calls — and in trying to ingratiate himself with faculty staff members ended up pestering them by hanging around a little too long at their desks.But he worked hard, pulling all-nighters in writing briefs, especially if one was going to have Mr. Tribe’s name on it.Mr. Chesebro graduated from law school in 1986 and secured a coveted job, clerking in Washington for U.S. District Court Judge Gerhard A. Gesell, who presided over some of the most pivotal political cases of the 1970s and 1980s.Judge Gesell, who died in 1993, ruled against the Nixon administration’s effort to stop The Washington Post and The New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers about America’s involvement in Vietnam. He presided over several Watergate trials, ruling that President Richard M. Nixon’s office tape recordings were in the public domain because they had already been played in court, and that Nixon’s firing of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox was illegal.The energetic judge prided himself on moving swiftly through his caseload with the help of a single clerk, who from 1986 to 1987 was Mr. Chesebro.Early one morning the judge entered his chambers to find Mr. Chesebro asleep on a sofa. A former clerk recalled that Mr. Chesebro confessed to him that without telling the judge, he had been living in the courthouse. The judge was generous with his staffers, the former clerk said, and had Mr. Chesebro told him he needed housing, he likely would have helped, the clerk said.Judge Gerhard Gesell, who presided over some of the most pivotal political cases of the 1970s and ’80s, prided himself on moving swiftly through his caseload with the help of a single clerk. From 1986 to 1987, that was Mr. Chesebro.Diana Walker, via Getty ImagesAfter his clerkship Mr. Chesebro did not join the government or a big plaintiffs’ firm, as many Gesell protégés did, but moved back to Cambridge and hung out his own shingle. For the next two decades he did occasional work for Mr. Tribe, writing briefs for his mentor.In 1994 he married Emily Stevens, a physician. Around the same time he began writing appellate briefs for a slew of cases brought by smokers against the major American tobacco companies. He registered to practice in multiple states, and crisscrossed the country.Holly Hostrup, a California lawyer who worked with Mr. Chesebro on appellate briefs defending multibillion-dollar verdicts against Philip Morris, recalled him as a fine lawyer. “He was obviously bright and had good arguments and had good experience and had been hired onto big cases and won big cases,” she said. Ms. Hostrup belongs to a lawyers’ email list and said that Mr. Chesebro had been weighing in on tobacco cases as recently as this year.After Mr. Chesebro’s indictment Ms. Hostrup asked an expert in courtroom psychology to help her understand: “How does a person who worked on all those cases on the plaintiffs’ side become a MAGA Republican?”“To my mind,’’ she said, “it was like turning around and going to work for Philip Morris.”Richard Daynard, a Northeastern University law professor and president of its Public Health Advocacy Institute, devised the legal strategy for suing the tobacco giants. “Ken was a guy with really interesting ideas, and proud of them,” he recalled.“I can see the seduction,” he added, speaking of Mr. Chesebro’s embrace by Trump World. “I’m a Democrat, and if I had some bright ideas Biden’s advisers were taking seriously, that’s a big deal, a kind of opportunity.“But of course I’m not about to throw my body over the tracks by saying this is a wonderful human being and whatever he was doing had to be for good reason.”Sudden Wealth, Severed TiesDuring the 2000 presidential election recount battle in Florida, Mr. Chesebro served on the research team assisting Mr. Tribe and other legal luminaries representing Mr. Gore. After Mr. Gore lost, Mr. Tribe and Mr. Chesebro worked together on a few more big lawsuits, then largely went separate ways.But they stayed in touch. Mr. Chesebro’s 2014 investment in Bitcoin netted him “several million dollars,” he wrote in an email to Mr. Tribe that was quoted in a recent article in Air Mail. His marriage ended, and Mr. Chesebro acquired expensive homes in Boston and Manhattan, and a villa in Puerto Rico.Soon after Mr. Chesebro’s big payday, his name began appearing on legal briefs filed by far-right conservatives, including John Eastman and a former Wisconsin judge, James Troupis. All three were described as co-conspirators in the federal indictment for the 2020 election scheme. He made hefty campaign donations to far-right Republicans, maxing out to Mr. Trump in 2020.Mr. Chesebro’s lawyers, Scott Grubman and Serreen Meki, speaking to journalists after his guilty plea in Atlanta on Friday.Pool photo by Alyssa PointerMr. Troupis appealed to Mr. Chesebro for help several days after the election. According to the Georgia indictment, Mr. Chesebro drafted a flurry of incriminating memos.In emails laying out the false electors plan, Mr. Chesebro misinterpreted Mr. Tribe’s work on Bush v. Gore, repeatedly citing it to support his theories. Mr. Tribe called him out in an article in August titled “Anatomy of a Fraud.” More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      El delicado tema de la bebida de Giuliani

      by

      Era difícil no ver a Rudolph Giuliani en el Grand Havana Room, el club de puros del Midtown que seguía tratándolo como el rey de Nueva York y que era un imán para simpatizantes y curiosos.En los últimos años, muchos de sus allegados temían que cada vez fuera más difícil no verlo.Durante más de una década la forma de beber de Giuliani había sido un problema, admitieron con tristeza sus amigos. Y, a medida que recuperaba protagonismo durante la presidencia de Donald Trump, cada vez era más complicado ocultarlo.Algunas noches, cuando Giuliani se pasaba de copas, algún colaborador/socio hacía discretamente una seña al resto del club: la mano vacía, inclinada hacia atrás en un gesto de beber y fuera de la vista del exalcalde, por si los demás preferían mantener las distancias. Algunos aliados, al ver a Giuliani bebiendo whisky antes de salir en las entrevistas de Fox News, se escabullían en busca de un televisor, para mirar con tensión sus pobres defensas de Trump.Incluso en lugares menos bulliciosos —la fiesta de presentación de un libro, una cena por el aniversario del 11 de septiembre, una reunión íntima en el propio apartamento de Giuliani— su constante y llamativa embriaguez a menudo asustaba a sus acompañantes.“No es ningún secreto, ni le hago ningún favor si no menciono ese problema, porque lo tiene”, dijo Andrew Stein, expresidente del Concejo Municipal de Nueva York que conoce a Giuliani desde hace décadas. “De hecho, es una de las cosas más tristes que creo que pasan en la política”.Nadie cercano a Giuliani, de 79 años, ha insinuado que su forma de beber pueda excusar o explicar su actual deterioro legal y personal. En agosto fue a Georgia para que le hicieran una ficha policial, no por su comportamiento nocturno ni por sus imprudentes entrevistas por cable, sino por presuntamente hacer mal uso de las leyes que defendía con ahínco cuando era fiscal federal, subvirtiendo así la democracia de un país que antaño lo idolatraba.Sin embargo, según sus amigos, para casi cualquier persona cercana los hábitos de bebida de Giuliani han sido el patrón que ha marcado su caída y no la causa del colapso de su reputación. Esta forma de beber, aseguran, ha sido la evidencia omnipresente de que algo no iba bien con el lugarteniente más incauto del expresidente mucho antes del día de las elecciones de 2020.Ahora, los fiscales en el caso electoral federal contra Trump se enfocan en los hábitos de bebida de Giuliani y muestran interés en saber si el expresidente ignoró lo que sus ayudantes describieron como la embriaguez evidente del exalcalde que en los documentos judiciales es mencionado como “Co-conspirador 1”.Los riesgos legales que comparten han convertido un asunto sobre el que durante mucho tiempo han susurrado antiguos ayudantes del Ayuntamiento, asesores de la Casa Blanca y las altas esferas de la política en una subtrama de investigación en un caso sin precedentes.La oficina de Jack Smith, el fiscal especial, ha interrogado a testigos sobre el consumo de alcohol de Giuliani cuando asesoraba a Trump, incluida la noche de las elecciones, según una persona familiarizada con el tema. Los investigadores de Smith también han preguntado sobre el nivel de conocimiento de Trump sobre el consumo de alcohol de su abogado, mientras trabajaban para anular las elecciones y evitar que Joe Biden fuera certificado como ganador de 2020 casi a cualquier precio. (Un portavoz del fiscal especial declinó hacer comentarios).Giuliani fue uno de los rostros más públicos del esfuerzo de Trump por revertir las elecciones de 2020.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesLas respuestas a esas preguntas podrían complicar cualquier esfuerzo del equipo de Trump para apoyarse en la llamada defensa del consejo del abogado, una estrategia que podría presentarlo como un cliente que solo seguía las indicaciones profesionales de sus abogados. Si esa orientación procedía de alguien que Trump sabía que estaba incapacitado por el alcohol, especialmente cuando muchos otros le dijeron al exmandatario que definitivamente había perdido, su argumento podría debilitarse.En entrevistas y testimonios ante el Congreso, varias personas que se encontraban en la Casa Blanca durante la noche de las elecciones —la noche en la que Giuliani instó a Trump a declarar su victoria, a pesar de los resultados— han dicho que el exalcalde parecía estar borracho, que arrastraba las palabras y olía a alcohol.“El alcalde estaba definitivamente intoxicado”, dijo Jason Miller, uno de los principales asesores de Trump y veterano de la campaña presidencial de Giuliani en 2008, al comité del Congreso que investiga el ataque del 6 de enero en el Capitolio en una declaración a principios del año pasado. “Pero no conozco su nivel de intoxicación cuando habló con el presidente”. (Giuliani negó furiosamente esta versión y condenó en términos despiadados a Miller, que había hablado elogiosamente de él en público).En privado, Trump, que desde hace tiempo se describe como abstemio, ha hablado con sorna de la forma de beber de Giuliani, según una persona familiarizada con sus comentarios. Pero los monólogos de Trump a sus colaboradores pueden revelar una visión del exalcalde que muchos republicanos comparten: atribuye a Giuliani el cambio de la ciudad de Nueva York tras las décadas de 1970 y 1980, de alta criminalidad, y afirma que ha sufrido últimamente sin él al mando. Luego vuelve a lamentarse de la imagen actual de Giuliani.Trump no se detiene en su propio papel en esa trayectoria.En una declaración en la que no se abordaron versiones específicas sobre la bebida de Giuliani o su posible relevancia para los fiscales, Ted Goodman, un asesor político del exalcalde, elogió la carrera de Giuliani y sugirió que estaba siendo difamado porque “tiene el coraje de defender a un hombre inocente” refiriéndose a Trump.“Estoy con el alcalde regularmente desde hace un año, y la idea de que es alcohólico es una mentira absoluta”, dijo Goodman, añadiendo que “se ha puesto de moda en ciertos círculos difamar al alcalde en un esfuerzo de no perder el favor de la llamada ‘alta sociedad’ de Nueva York y del circuito de cócteles de Washington, D. C.”.“El Rudy Giuliani que todos ven hoy”, continuó Goodman, “es el mismo que acabó con la mafia, limpió las calles de Nueva York y consoló a la nación tras el 11-S”.Un portavoz de Trump no respondió a una petición de comentarios.Muchos de los que conocen bien a Giuliani se cuidan de hablar de su vida, y especialmente de su forma de beber, con muchos matices. Dicen que la mayoría de los elementos del actual Giuliani siempre estuvieron ahí, aunque menos visibles.Mucho antes de que el alcohol se convirtiera en un problema, Giuliani tenía inclinación a hacer afirmaciones generalizadas e infundadas de fraude electoral. (“Me robaron las elecciones”, dijo una vez sobre su derrota como alcalde en 1989, aludiendo a supuestas artimañas “en las zonas negras de Brooklyn y en Washington Heights”).Mucho antes de que el alcohol se convirtiera en un problema podía arremeter contra enemigos reales o supuestos. (“Un hombre pequeño en busca de balcón”, dijo en una ocasión Jimmy Breslin, refiriéndose a Giuliani).En las entrevistas con amigos, colaboradores y antiguos ayudantes, el consenso era que, más que transformar por completo a Giuliani, la bebida había acelerado un cambio en su alquimia, al amplificar características que tenía desde hace mucho tiempo como conspiracionismo, credulidad, debilidad por la grandeza.Amante de la ópera —con un sentido operístico de su propia historia—, Giuliani lleva mucho tiempo invitando a sus seguidores, como ha hecho Trump, a procesar sus pruebas personales como propias, arrastrando a las masas a través del tumulto, la tragedia y el divorcio público.Sin embargo, ahora su mundo es pequeño, se estrecha para reflejar sus circunstancias.En agosto, Giuliani ingresó en la cárcel del condado de Fulton, en Atlanta, tras ser acusado en un amplio caso de chantaje contra Trump y sus aliados.  Brynn Anderson/Associated PressSe enfrenta a una acusación de chantaje (entre otras) en Georgia, a un caso de difamación interpuesto por dos trabajadores electorales y a acusaciones de conducta sexual inapropiada por parte de una antigua empleada (él ha dicho que se trató de una relación consentida) y de una antigua ayudante de la Casa Blanca (él ha negado esta versión).Uno de sus abogados ha dicho que Giuliani está “a punto de quebrar”. Otro, Robert Costello, antaño protegido del exalcalde, lo ha demandado por impago de honorarios legales.El círculo de Giuliani se ha reducido debido al alejamiento de sus viejos amigos. Su licencia de abogado fue suspendida en Nueva York. El Grand Havana Room cerró en 2020.La mayoría de los días, Giuliani presenta un programa de radio en Manhattan y se detiene para hacerse selfis en la acera con algún que otro desconocido.La mayoría de las noches, se queda para emitir en directo desde el apartamento que compartió durante mucho tiempo con su tercera exesposa, Judith Giuliani. Recientemente lo ha puesto a la venta.“A Rudy le encanta la ópera”, dijo William Bratton, su primer comisario de policía, a quien Giuliani una vez le regaló una colección de discos de La Bohème. “Pocas óperas tienen un final feliz”.Una derrota aplastante y una preocupación crecienteGiuliani grabando su programa de radio semanal desde su despacho en el Ayuntamiento en mayo de 2000.Ruby Washington/The New York TimesGiuliani siempre fue el tipo de funcionario electo que mantuvo ocupados a los investigadores de la oposición: enredos amorosos, conflictos de personal, un montón de comentarios incendiarios.Pero mientras se preparaba para la vida después del Ayuntamiento —montando una efímera campaña para el Senado en el año 2000 y expresando sus aspiraciones presidenciales— los funcionarios demócratas dijeron que la bebida de Giuliani fue un tema que nunca salió a relucir.Había una razón para eso. Como alcalde, según sus antiguos colaboradores, Giuliani no solía beber en exceso y esperaba que su equipo siguiera su ejemplo.En parte, parece que eso se debía a su inseguridad: criado a las afueras de Manhattan en una familia de medios modestos, Giuliani siempre tuvo cuidado de no perder la cabeza, según un alto funcionario municipal, porque no quería bajar la guardia ante las élites neoyorquinas.Otra consideración era práctica. Giuliani estaba encantado con la naturaleza de la alcaldía a toda hora y se apresuraba a acudir a los escenarios de emergencia para proyectar autoridad y control mucho antes de que le revelara ese instinto al resto del mundo durante los ataques del 11 de septiembre.Nadie duda de que el atentado, y su perfil ascendente, lo reconfiguraron de manera profunda. El 10 de septiembre de 2001, era un caso perdido por su carácter polarizador que lo había llevado a enemistarse con los artistas, además de criticar duramente a los propietarios de hurones y defender a su departamento de policía durante los sonados asesinatos de hombres negros desarmados, incluyendo un episodio en el que Giuliani atacó al fallecido y autorizó la publicación de su expediente de arresto.Pero, a mediados de semana, se había convertido en un emblema mundial de tenaz determinación, llegando a ser considerado el hombre esencial de la ciudad. (Giuliani no tardó en verse a sí mismo de esta manera: a pocas semanas de las elecciones para sucederlo, empezó a presionar a fines de septiembre para aplazar la fecha de entrada en funciones del próximo alcalde y permanecer en el cargo unos meses más. Según George Pataki, exgobernador republicano, le pidió que ampliara su mandato. La idea tuvo pocos adeptos y fue descartada).El prestigio político de Giuliani creció tras los atentados terroristas del 11 de septiembre de 2001. El año pasado, fue criticado por decir que fue “en cierto modo, el mejor día de mi vida”.Robert F. Bukaty/Associated PressLos años siguientes fueron un torbellino de duelo y celebridad —recuerdos desgarradores, negocios lucrativos, un título honorífico de caballero británico—, una tensión que pareciera que Giuliani todavía lucha por superar.El año pasado fue criticado por calificar el 11 de septiembre como “en cierto modo, el mejor día de mi vida”. También da la impresión de que los recuerdos de ese día lo persiguen, sin importar las puertas que le abrió: en 2018, después de una colonoscopia, contó que le informaron que durante el procedimiento estuvo hablando dormido como si estuviera estableciendo un centro de comando en la zona cero cuando cayeron las torres.Se suponía que la gestión de Giuliani en la crisis impulsaría su campaña presidencial, planeada desde hace tiempo, y lo consagraría como el principal candidato republicano en 2008. Pero no fue así.En cambio, los primeros relatos sobre el consumo excesivo de alcohol por parte de Giuliani se remontan a ese período de fracaso electoral. Aunque cualquier fracaso político puede molestar, quienes conocen a Giuliani dicen que esta, su primera derrota en casi dos décadas, fue especialmente devastadora.Cuando su gran apuesta electoral en Florida acabó en una humillación, Giuliani cayó en lo que Judith Giuliani calificó más tarde como una depresión clínica. Se quedó durante semanas en Mar-a-Lago, el club de Trump en Florida. Los dos no eran muy amigos, pero se conocían desde hacía años a través de la política neoyorquina y el sector inmobiliario.Durante su campaña presidencial en 2008, Giuliani apostó fuerte por tener una buena actuación en Florida, pero terminó de tercero, por lo que renunció un día después.Chip Litherland para The New York TimesPor ese entonces, Giuliani bebía en exceso, según declaraciones de Judith Giuliani a Andrew Kirtzman, autor de Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America’s Mayor, publicado el año pasado.“Literalmente se caía de borracho”, dijo Kirtzman en una entrevista, señalando que varios incidentes a lo largo de los años, según la esposa de Giuliani, requirieron atención médica. Kirtzman dijo que llegó a considerar la bebida de Giuliani como “parte de la erosión general de su autodisciplina”. (Giuliani ha dicho que pasó un mes “relajándose” en Mar-a-Lago. El abogado de Judith Giuliani expresó su decisión de no ser entrevistada).Algunos de los que se reunieron con Giuliani después de la campaña quedaron impresionados por su evidente falta de atención, por su desesperación por recuperar lo que había perdido.George Arzt, antiguo ayudante del exalcalde Edward Koch, con quien Giuliani se enfrentó a menudo, recordaba haberlo visto deambular en bucle por un restaurante de los Hamptons, como si esperara a que alguien lo parara, mientras el resto de su grupo cenaba en un salón trasero.“Caminaba de un lado a otro como si quisiera que todo el mundo lo viera, más de una vez”, dijo Arzt. “Solo quería que lo reconocieran”.Las personas cercanas a Giuliani se preocuparon especialmente cuando su tercer matrimonio empezó a resquebrajarse, y se inquietaron por el comportamiento que llegó a mostrar incluso en reuniones nominalmente oficiales, como una cena anual para estrechos colaboradores en torno al 11 de septiembre.Giuliani y su esposa de ese entonces, Judith Giuliani, de pie a la derecha, en 2005. Ella ha dicho que el exalcalde cayó en una depresión y bebió mucho tras perder las elecciones de 2008.Bill Cunningham/The New York TimesEn casi cualquier compañía, Giuliani parecía propenso a montar una escena. En mayo de 2016, estropeó una importante cena con los clientes del bufete de abogados al que se había unido recientemente con una serie comentarios islamófobos mientras estaba borracho, según un libro del año pasado de Geoffrey Berman, quien luego se convertiría en el fiscal federal en Manhattan.En la cena del aniversario del 11 de septiembre de ese año, según recuerda un antiguo colaborador, Giuliani parecía que estaba embriagado mientras pronunciaba unas palabras que fueron de un partidismo despiadado, y un tono discordante para los invitados, dado el acontecimiento que se conmemoraba.Al año siguiente, según recuerda una persona que solía asistir a esos eventos, se suspendió la cena tradicional. Semanas antes del aniversario, Giuliani tuvo que ser ingresado en el hospital por una lesión en la pierna.Después de beber demasiado, diría más tarde Judith Giuliani, el exalcalde había sufrido una caída.Imprudencia, agravios y mayor aislamientoGiuliani y Trump en septiembre de 2020. El exalcalde sigue elogiando al expresidente y le ha pedido ayuda económica.Al Drago para The New York TimesA pocos días del final de la presidencia de Trump ―y con el fantasma de un segundo juicio político acechando tras el motín del Capitolio―, Giuliani no fue ambiguo.A falta de aliados y en busca de otro escenario público, el exalcalde no solo quería representar a Trump ante el Senado. “Tengo que ser su abogado”, le dijo Giuliani a un confidente, según una persona con conocimiento directo de la conversación.Para ese entonces, gran parte de la órbita de Trump estaba convencida de que era una mala idea. Los esfuerzos legales de Giuliani desde las elecciones habían fracasado rotundamente. Fue el causante de luchas internas, destacadas por el correo electrónico que un asociado suyo le envió a los funcionarios de la campaña pidiendo que Giuliani recibiera 20.000 dólares diarios por su trabajo (Giuliani ha dicho que desconocía esa petición). También estaba destinado a ser un testigo potencial.La incursión de Giuliani en la política ucraniana ya había contribuido al primer juicio político de Trump. Y, durante años, algunos funcionarios en la Casa Blanca habían visto la indisciplina e imprevisibilidad de Giuliani ―su red de negocios en el extranjero, sus misteriosos compañeros de viaje y, a menudo, su forma de beber― como un importante lastre.Antes de algunas de las participaciones televisivas de Giuliani, se sabía que los aliados del presidente compartían mensajes sobre el estado nocturno del exalcalde mientras bebía en el Trump International Hotel de Washington, donde Giuliani era tan asiduo que se colocó una placa personalizada en su mesa: “Despacho privado de Rudolph W. Giuliani”. (“Se notaba”, dijo un asesor de Trump sobre las noches en que Giuliani salía al aire después de beber).Giuliani ha dicho que no cree haber concedido nunca una entrevista estando borracho. “Me gusta el whisky”, le dijo a NBC New York en 2021. Y añadió: “No soy alcohólico. Soy funcional. Probablemente funciono más eficazmente que el 90 por ciento de la población”.En el Grand Havana de Nueva York, algunas personas se apartaban cuando las conversaciones casi a gritos de Giuliani lo delataban.“La gente pasaba por ahí después de que empezaba a beber mucho y actuaban como si no estuviera”, dijo el reverendo Al Sharpton, un viejo antagonista y compañero en el club de fumadores. (Sharpton dijo que solía hacer una broma: a veces, tanto él como otras personas que se oponían a Trump, animaban juguetonamente a un mesero para que le llevara más licor a Giuliani antes de que participara en Fox).Pero Sharpton atribuyó los problemas del exalcalde a un vicio diferente, como muchos amigos han hecho en privado.Cuando empezó a perseguir a Trump, me dije: “Este tipo es adicto a las cámaras”, recordó Sharpton. Y añadió que Giuliani “tenía que conocer los aspectos negativos de Donald Trump”. En poco tiempo, observó Sharpton, Giuliani “estaba con tipos a los que habría metido en la cárcel cuando era fiscal”.Es posible que Giuliani parezca nostálgico de los días en que tenía tanta influencia, y se muestre dispuesto a saldar viejas cuentas y destruir a nuevos adversarios, mientras insiste en que se le niega lo que le corresponde.El mes pasado, al reflexionar sobre la muerte de su segundo comisionado de policía, Howard Safir, Giuliani se desvió repentinamente durante su transmisión en directo y divagó al estilo de Trump, aprovechando la ocasión para desprestigiar al predecesor de Safir, Bratton, con quien se enemistó.“Quizá el hecho de que Bratton fuera a Elaine’s todas las noches y se emborrachara lo ayudó”, dijo Giuliani. (“Si el programa no fuera tan triste, sería divertidísimo”, dijo Bratton a través de un mensaje de texto).Otras quejas de Giuliani son más actuales. Ha reclamado en repetidas oportunidades porque Fox News ha dejado de invitarlo a sus programas, a pesar de que se esforzó por sacar a la luz los escándalos que rodeaban a Hunter Biden ―y fue vilipendiado por eso― mucho antes de que se convirtieran en un tema importante en los debates republicanos.Una participación televisiva de Giuliani que fue proyectada durante una audiencia celebrada el año pasado por el comité de la Cámara de Representantes que investigaba los disturbios del Capitolio y los acontecimientos que los rodearon.Doug Mills/The New York TimesEn 2021, las autoridades federales registraron el domicilio de Giuliani y confiscaron sus dispositivos en el marco de una investigación que originó titulares vergonzosos pero que, en última instancia, no ocasionaron cargos, lo que exacerbó aún más su sentimiento de persecución.También es posible que parezca herido, porque algunos amigos del pasado se han alejado.“Se siente traicionado por algunos de los amigos que solían ser sus amigos”, dijo John Catsimatidis, el multimillonario político propietario de la emisora local que emite el programa de radio de Giuliani. “¿Te gustaría tener a esos amigos como amigos?”.Aunque Giuliani no parece incluir a Trump en esta categoría ―sigue adulando públicamente a un hombre al que le ha pedido ayuda económica―, su relación ha sufrido algunas tensiones. En su último fin de semana en el cargo, Trump criticó a Giuliani en una reunión privada, según una persona informada al respecto.El mes pasado, el club de Trump en Bedminster, Nueva Jersey, fue el lugar de una recaudación de fondos para la defensa legal de Giuliani.Pero días después, en el aniversario del 11 de septiembre, Trump no dijo una sola palabra en público sobre el neoyorquino más asociado con la tragedia.Giuliani centró sus objeciones en otro punto, al comentar sobre el sitio que se le había asignado entre los dignatarios en la ceremonia. “No nos ponen demasiado cerca a los que tuvimos algo que ver con el 11 de septiembre”, dijo.Al valorar su propio legado esa misma semana en su transmisión en directo, en la que se definió como el alcalde de Nueva York más exitoso de la historia, Giuliani aún parecía consumido por la posición que ocupa ahora en su ciudad.También sonaba resignado.“Esta torcida ciudad demócrata”, dijo, “nunca tendrá una placa para mí”.Olivia Bensimon More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Fined $5,000 for Violating Gag Order in NY Fraud Trial

      by

      The former president used social media to attack a clerk for the judge in his civil fraud case, and left a copy of the post online for weeks.The judge presiding over the civil fraud trial of Donald J. Trump fined the former president $5,000 on Friday for a “blatant violation” of a gag order imposed this month.The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, stopped short of holding Mr. Trump in contempt but warned that the former president still could face harsher punishments, even jail time, if he ran afoul of the order again.In the trial’s opening days, Justice Engoron had barred Mr. Trump from attacking his court staff after the former president posted a picture on social media of Justice Engoron’s law clerk, Allison Greenfield, with Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader. Mr. Trump labeled Ms. Greenfield “Schumer’s girlfriend” and said she was “running this case against me.”A spokeswoman for Mr. Schumer this month called the social media post “ridiculous, absurd, and false,” adding that the senator did not know Ms. Greenfield.Mr. Trump’s post was removed from his social media platform, Truth Social, on Oct. 3, the day Justice Engoron imposed the gag order, but a copy of the post remained visible on his campaign website.The post was finally removed from the website around 10 p.m. on Thursday, after Justice Engoron learned of it and contacted Mr. Trump’s legal team. A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Christopher M. Kise, said in court on Friday that the failure to remove the post sooner was “inadvertent.” He apologized on behalf of Mr. Trump.In a new order on Friday, Justice Engoron said he had imposed only a “nominal” $5,000 fine because it was Mr. Trump’s first violation and an unintentional error, but he warned that additional infractions would merit harsher punishments.“Make no mistake: future violations, whether intentional or unintentional, will subject the violator to far more severe sanctions,” Justice Engoron wrote. He said possible punishments included steeper fines, holding Mr. Trump in contempt of court and “possibly imprisoning him.”The judge added that, “In the current overheated climate, incendiary untruths can, and in some cases already have, led to serious physical harm, and worse.”Mr. Trump, who has frequently attacked judges, prosecutors and witnesses in the civil and criminal cases against him, is subject to limitations on his speech not only in the Manhattan fraud case, but a federal case in which he is accused of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The judges overseeing the cases must strike a balance between respecting the First Amendment rights of a man seeking the White House again and keeping their courts orderly and dignified.They also must consider what would be an effective punishment — and deterrent — for a man who estimates his net worth in the billions.In the gag order, Justice Engoron had said that personal attacks on his staff were “unacceptable” and that he would “not tolerate them under any circumstances.”He forbade any posts, emails or public remarks about his staff members, adding that serious punishments would follow were he disobeyed.Both his gag order and the one levied by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, the federal judge in Washington overseeing the election case, leave Mr. Trump wide ambit for comment.Judge Chutkan’s written order, put on hold Friday for more arguments, prevents Mr. Trump from making public comments targeting her staff, the special counsel Jack Smith and his employees, and “any reasonably foreseeable witnesses.”But Mr. Trump remains free to criticize his political opponents, the judges themselves and an American justice system he has described as rigged against him.Mr. Trump has also taken aim at Letitia James, the New York attorney general, who brought the civil fraud case against him, his adult sons and their family business.Ms. James has accused them of fraudulently inflating Mr. Trump’s net worth to obtain favorable loans from banks. The trial will continue next week with the testimony of Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer turned nemesis.Mr. Trump himself was absent from the proceedings on Friday, but he attended the trial earlier in the week, using the camera-lined hallway outside the courtroom to issue periodic statements on his legal cases and political matters. In person, he did not come close to violating Justice Engoron’s order. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Turmoil Over Student Support for Hamas

      by

      More from our inbox:A Harder Slap on the Wrist for Sidney Powell?A billboard truck displayed the names and faces of Harvard students who were linked to an anti-Israel letter.Sophie Park for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Student Letter Hits Fault Line in Free Speech” (front page, Oct. 19):The unequivocal support for Hamas by some students at elite colleges is irksome and puzzling. These bright young students claim to value tolerance and inclusion while objecting to capital punishment.The savage murders of Israeli babies and senior citizens in their homes and the rape of young Israeli women do not seem to perturb Hamas’s many followers at Harvard and Columbia, but don’t they realize that Hamas brutally persecutes the L.G.B.T.Q. community in Gaza, subjugates women, and tortures and summarily executes dissidents?Ironically, Israel has a much better record on these core human rights issues that progressives insist are key.Adam M. ShawBaltimoreTo the Editor:While the article accurately portrays some of the fears invoked by these dangerous attempts at doxxing at Harvard, the damage has extended even further than described. As a member of the class of 2021, I’ve heard from several classmates who were included in the doxxing list yet have not been associated for years with the student groups that signed onto this statement holding the “Israeli regime” responsible for “all unfolding violence.” Others who appear on the doxxing list are indeed active members of one of the groups, yet had nothing to do with their leadership’s signing onto the statement.This is the logical consequence of such McCarthyite tactics: They provide no opportunity for the accused to respond.Bill Ackman, the hedge fund billionaire who urged that the names of students be circulated to avoid hiring them, and others should be ashamed of themselves for allowing a recent Stanford undergraduate to determine the fates of students partly through “tips sent to an email address.”Such unverified, crowdsourced allegations are misguided in any circumstances, but especially so when they are directed at individuals from marginalized backgrounds.Jonah S. BergerPittsburghTo the Editor:Students who support the liberation and self-determination of Palestine are being targeted for being “antisemitic.” The harassment of these students demonstrates that there is no recognition of the free speech rights of those who critique the Israeli government’s brutal military occupation.We in the U.S. must end the silencing of dissent about Israel’s actions. The nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to force changes in policies of forced removal of Palestinians must be honored as a legitimate tactic instead of being labeled antisemitic.We must learn to listen to the legitimate opinions that the U.S. should not be complicit in Israel’s colonial-settler policies, just as we must listen to the demands for a cease-fire, an end to military aid and a space where Palestinians can represent themselves in diplomatic avenues.Carla S. SchickOakland, Calif.To the Editor:It strikes me that the students at Harvard who complain about being “doxxed” misunderstand the concept of free speech. Free speech means that you are free to say whatever is on your mind “free” of government restrictions. It does not mean that your speech is free of consequences.If you open your mouth and say something stupid, people will naturally think you’re stupid. If you say mean things, they likely will think you mean. And if you act as an apologist for terrorists, people will understand you to be an apologist for terrorists.Words have consequences. I, for one, have little sympathy for these individuals.Sanford H. MargolinPiedmont, Calif.A Harder Slap on the Wrist for Sidney Powell?Sidney Powell and Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2020. It remains unclear what Ms. Powell might say about former President Donald J. Trump if called upon to testify against him.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Trump Insider Agrees to Testify in Georgia Case” (front page, Oct. 20), about Sidney Powell’s plea deal:A letter of apology and a minor fine?That is an appropriate punishment when you throw a rock through the neighbor’s window, or steal bubble gum from the local candy store. It is a decidedly less than adequate response when you have deliberately and repeatedly taken part in an effort to undo the results of a presidential election with the clear purpose of throwing this nation into chaos.I understand that plea bargains are just that, an accord intended to recognize that a wrong was done but minimize the punishment inflicted. But telling Sidney Powell to go sit in a corner for five minutes, I mean, really?I understand the big prize is the former president, but I think Ms. Powell may have been convinced to testify even if her wrist had been slapped a bit harder.Maybe what should have been required was a letter of apology not just to the citizens of Georgia but also to a larger audience — like our entire country.Robert S. NussbaumFort Lee, N.J. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Deep Roots of Republican Dysfunction

      by

      The collapse of the House Republican majority into chaos is the clearest possible evidence that the party is off the rails.Of course, the Republican Party has been off the rails for a while before now. This was true in 2010, when Tea Party extremists swept through the party’s ranks, defeating more moderate Republicans — and pretty much any other Republican with an interest in the actual work of government — and establishing a beachhead for radical obstructionism. It was true in 2012, when many Republican voters went wild for the likes of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich in the party’s presidential primary, before settling on the more conventionally presidential Mitt Romney. But even then, Romney reached out to Donald Trump — famous, politically speaking, for his “birther” crusade against President Barack Obama — for his blessing, yet another sign that the Republican Party was not on track.The truth of the Republican Party’s deep dysfunction was obvious in 2013, when congressional Republicans shut down the government in a quixotic drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and it was obvious in 2016, when Republican voters nominated Trump for president. Everything that has followed, from the rise of influencer-extremist politicians like Representative Lauren Boebert to the party’s complicity in insurrectionist violence, has been a steady escalation from one transgression to another.The Republican Party is so broken that at this point, its congressional wing cannot function. The result is that this period is now the longest the House of Representatives has been in session without a speaker. And as Republican voters gear up to nominate Trump a third time for president, the rest of the party is not far behind. The only question to ask, and answer, is why.One popular answer is Donald Trump who, in this view, is directly responsible for the downward spiral of dysfunction and deviancy that defines today’s Republican Party. It’s his success as a demagogue and showman that set the stage for the worst of the behavior we’ve seen from elected Republicans.The problem, as I’ve already noted, is that most of what we identify as Republican dysfunction was already evident in the years before Trump came on the scene as a major figure in conservative politics. Even Trump’s contempt for the legitimacy of his political opponents, to the point of rejecting the outcome of a free and fair election, has clear antecedents in conservative agitation over so-called voter fraud, including efforts to raise barriers to voting for rival constituencies.Another popular answer is that we’re seeing the fruits of polarization in American political life. And it is true that within both parties, there’s been a marked and meaningful move away from the center and toward each side’s respective flank. But while the Democratic Party is, in many respects, more liberal than it has ever been, it’s also not nearly as ideologically uniform as the Republican Party. Nor does a rigid, doctrinaire liberalism serve as a litmus test among Democratic voters in Democratic Party primaries outside of a small handful of congressional districts.Joe Biden, for example, is the paradigmatic moderate Democrat and, currently, the president of the United States and leader of the Democratic Party, with ample support across the party establishment. And in Congress, there’s no liberal equivalent to the House Freedom Caucus: no group of nihilistic, obstruction-minded left-wing lawmakers. When Democrats were in the majority, the Congressional Progressive Caucus was a reliable partner of President Biden’s and a constructive force in the making of legislation. If the issue is polarization, then it seems to be driving only one of our two parties toward the abyss.Helpfully, the extent to which the Democratic Party still operates as a normal American political party can shed light on how and why the Republican Party doesn’t. Take the overall strength of Democratic moderates, who hold the levers of power within the national party. One important reason for this fact is the heterogeneity of the Democratic coalition. To piece together a majority in the Electoral College, or to gain control of the House or Senate, Democrats have to win or make inroads with a cross-section of the American public: young people, affluent suburbanites, Black, Hispanic and Asian Americans voters, as well as a sizable percentage of the white working class. To lose ground with any one of these groups is to risk defeat, whether it’s in the race for president or an off-year election for governor.A broad coalition also means a broad set of interests and demands, some of which are in tension with one another. This has at least two major implications for the internal workings of the Democratic Party. First, it makes for a kind of brokerage politics in which the most powerful Democratic politicians are often those who can best appeal to and manage the various groups and interests that make up the Democratic coalition. And second, it gives the Democratic Party a certain amount of self-regulation. Move too far in the direction of one group or one interest, and you may lose support among the others.If you take the internal dynamics of the Democratic Party and invert them, you get something like those within the Republican Party.Consider the demographics of the Republican coalition. A majority of all voters in both parties are white Americans. But where the Democratic Party electorate was 61 percent white in the 2020 presidential election, the Republican one was 86 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. Similarly, there is much less religious diversity among Republicans — more than a third of Republicans voters in 2020 were white evangelical Protestants — than there is among Democrats. And while we tend to think of Democrats as entirely urban and suburban, the proportion of rural voters in the Democratic Party as a whole is actually greater than the proportion of urban voters in the Republican Party. There is, in other words, less geographic diversity among Republicans as well.Most important, where nearly half of Democrats identify themselves as either “moderate” or “conservative” — compared with the half that call themselves “liberal” — nearly three-quarters of Republicans identify themselves as “conservative,” with just a handful of self-proclaimed moderates and a smattering of liberals, according to Gallup. This wasn’t always true. In 1994, around 33 percent of Republicans called themselves “moderate” and 58 percent said they were “conservative.” There were even, at 8 percent, a few Republican liberals. Now the Republican Party is almost uniformly conservative. Moderate Democrats can still win national office or hold national leadership. Moderate Republicans cannot. Outside a handful of environments, found in largely Democratic states like Maryland and Massachusetts, moderate Republican politicians are virtually extinct.But more than the number of conservatives is the character of the conservatism that dominates the Republican Party. It is, thanks to a set of social and political transformations dating back to the 1960s, a highly ideological and at times reactionary conservatism, with little tolerance for disagreement or dissent. The Democratic Party is a broad coalition geared toward a set of policies — aimed at either regulating or tempering the capitalist economy or promoting the inclusion of various groups in national life. The Republican Party exists almost entirely for the promotion of a distinct and doctrinaire ideology of hierarchy and anti-government retrenchment.There have always been ideological movements within American political parties. The Republican Party was formed, in part, by adherents to one of the most important ideological movements of the 19th century — antislavery. But, as the historian Geoffrey Kabaservice has observed, “The conversion of one of America’s two major parties into an ideological vehicle” is a “phenomenon without precedent in American history.”It is the absence of any other aim but the promotion of conservative ideology — by any means necessary, up to and including the destruction of democratic institutions and the imposition of minority rule — that makes this particular permutation of the Republican Party unique. It helps explain, in turn, the dysfunction of the past decade. If the goal is to promote conservative ideology, then what matters for Republican politicians is how well they adhere to and promote conservatism. The key issue for conservative voters and conservative media isn’t whether a Republican politician can pass legislation or manage a government or bridge political divides; the key question is whether a Republican politician is sufficiently committed to the ideology, whatever that means in the moment. And if conservatism means aggrieving your enemies, then the obvious choice for the nation’s highest office is the man who hates the most, regardless of what he believes.The demographic homogeneity of the Republican Party means that there isn’t much internal pushback to this ideological crusade — nothing to temper the instincts of politicians who would rather shut down the government than accept that a majority of Congress passed a law over their objections, or who would threaten the global economy to get spending cuts they could never win at the ballot box.Worse, because the institutions of American democracy give a significant advantage to the current Republican coalition, there’s also no external force pushing Republican politicians away from their most rigid extremes. Just the opposite: There is a whole infrastructure of ideologically motivated money and media that works to push Republican voters and politicians farther to the right.It is not simply that the Republican Party has politicians like Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. It’s that the Republican Party is practically engineered to produce politicians like Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. And there’s no brake — no emergency off-switch — that might slow or stop the car. The one thing that might get the Republican Party back on the rails is a major and unanticipated shift in the structure of American politics that forces it to adapt to new voters, new constituencies and new conditions.It’s hard to imagine what that might be. It can’t come soon enough.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Sidney Powell Pleads Guilty in Georgia Trump Case

      by

      Ms. Powell, a lawyer who pushed baseless theories about ballot fraud in 2020, is the second defendant to accept a plea deal in the election interference case. Sidney Powell, the Trump-aligned lawyer and conspiracy theorist indicted in Georgia and accused of participating in a plot to overturn former President Donald J. Trump’s election loss in 2020, pleaded guilty on Thursday morning to six misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference of election duties.Ms. Powell, who appeared in a downtown Atlanta courtroom, was sentenced to six years of probation for the charges, a significantly less-severe outcome than she would have faced if found guilty of the charges for which she was originally indicted, which included a violation of the state racketeering law.She was also fined $6,000 and agreed to pay $2,700 restitution to the State of Georgia, as well as write an apology letter “to the citizens of the state of Georgia.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Sidney Powell Seeks Distance From Trump Ahead of Georgia Trial

      by

      Ms. Powell, a lawyer who promoted conspiracy theories about election fraud after Donald J. Trump’s 2020 defeat, now says she never represented him or his campaign.Few defenders of Donald J. Trump promoted election fraud theories after his 2020 defeat as stridently as Sidney K. Powell. In high-profile appearances, often alongside other members of the Trump legal team, she pushed conspiracies involving Venezuela, Cuba and China, as well as George Soros, Hugo Chávez and the Clintons, while baselessly claiming that voting machines had flipped millions of votes.But now Ms. Powell, who next week will be one of the first defendants to go to trial in the Georgia racketeering case against Mr. Trump and 17 of his allies, is claiming through her lawyer that she actually “did not represent President Trump or the Trump campaign” after the election.That claim is undercut by Ms. Powell’s own past words, as well as those of Mr. Trump — and there is ample video evidence of her taking part in news conferences, including one where Rudolph W. Giuliani, then Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, introduced her as one of “the senior lawyers” representing Mr. Trump and his campaign.Most of the Georgia charges against Ms. Powell relate to her role in a data breach at an elections office in rural Coffee County, Ga. There, on the day after the Jan. 6 riots, Trump allies copied sensitive and proprietary software used in voting machines throughout the state in a fruitless hunt for ballot fraud.At a recent court hearing, Ms. Powell’s lawyer, Brian T. Rafferty, said that his client “had nothing to do with Coffee County.”But a number of documents suggest otherwise, including a 392-page file put together by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that was obtained by The New York Times. The file, a product of the agency’s investigation into the data breach, has been turned over to Georgia’s attorney general, Chris Carr, a Republican.It is not clear that Mr. Carr will take any action, given that Fulton County’s district attorney, Fani T. Willis, has already brought racketeering charges against Ms. Powell, Mr. Trump and 17 others. The Fulton indictment accuses them of participating in a “criminal organization” with the goal of subverting Georgia’s election results.Brian Rafferty, a lawyer representing Ms. Powell, spoke during a hearing this week.Pool photo by Alyssa PointerJury selection in Ms. Powell’s trial and that of Kenneth Chesebro, a legal architect of the plan to deploy fake electors for Mr. Trump in Georgia and other swing states, starts on Monday. Ms. Powell and Mr. Chesebro demanded a speedy trial, their right under Georgia law, while Mr. Trump and most other defendants are likely to be tried much later.Ms. Powell’s vow during a Fox Business Network appearance in 2020 to “release the kraken,” or a trove of phantom evidence proving that Mr. Trump had won, went viral after the election, though the trove never materialized. The next year, after Dominion Voting Systems sued her and a number of others for defamation, Ms. Powell’s lawyers argued that “no reasonable person would conclude” that some of her wilder statements “were truly statements of fact.”That led the office of Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, to crow that “The Kraken Cracks Under Pressure,” and precipitated a spoof of Ms. Powell on Saturday Night Live.Not all are convinced that her conduct veered into criminality.“You have to separate crazy theories from criminal conspiracies,” said Harvey Silverglate, a Boston-area lawyer and civil liberties advocate who has a unique perspective: He is representing John Eastman, another lawyer-defendant in the case, and is a co-author of a 2019 book with Ms. Powell that looked at prosecutorial overreach.“That’s the big dividing line in this whole prosecution — what is criminal and what is wacky, or clearly erroneous or overreaching,” Mr. Silverglate said.Ms. Powell, he added, is “in a tougher position” than his own client, because the accusations against her go beyond the notion that she merely gave legal advice to the Trump campaign as it sought to overturn Mr. Biden’s win. But Mr. Silverglate also said he didn’t think prosecutors would win any convictions in the Georgia case or the three other criminal cases against Mr. Trump in New York, Florida and Washington, given how politicized the trials will be.“I think in any jurisdiction — even Washington, D.C. — you will have at least one holdout,” he said.Ms. Powell is a North Carolina native and a onetime Democrat who spent a decade as a federal prosecutor in Texas and Virginia before establishing her own defense practice. In 2014, she wrote a book, “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” She billed it as an exposé of a department riddled with prosecutors who used “strong-arm, illegal, and unethical tactics” in their “narcissistic pursuit of power.”Ms. Powell appeared on Mr. Trump’s radar when she represented his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who in 2017 pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States during the presidential transition. He later tried to withdraw the plea.Ms. Powell, appearing on Fox News, argued that the case should never have been brought and that the F.B.I. and prosecutors “broke all the rules.” Mr. Trump would go on to pardon Mr. Flynn a few weeks after losing the 2020 election.On election night itself, Ms. Powell was at the White House watching the returns come in, according to her testimony to House investigators. When they asked what her relationship with Mr. Trump had been, she declined to answer, she said, because of “attorney-client privilege.”By Nov. 14, Mr. Trump, in a tweet, specifically referred to Ms. Powell as a member of his “truly great team.” Ms. Powell’s lawyer has pointed out that she was not paid by the Trump campaign. But the Trump connection helped her raise millions of dollars for Defending the Republic, her nonprofit group that is dedicated in part to fighting election fraud.Around that time, Ms. Powell, Mr. Flynn and other conspiracy-minded Trump supporters began meeting at a South Carolina plantation owned by L. Lin Wood, a well-known plaintiff’s attorney. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation file, it was decided there that an Atlanta-based technology firm, SullivanStrickler, “would be used to capture forensic images from voting machines across the nation to support litigation” and that “Powell funded SullivanStrickler’s efforts.”By late November, the Trump team grew exasperated with Ms. Powell’s wild claims and publicly cut ties. But the schism was short-lived; she would make several trips to the White House in the weeks that followed.On Dec. 18, Ms. Powell attended a heated Oval Office meeting with Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani that the Georgia indictment lists as an “overt act” in furtherance of the election interference conspiracy. According to the Georgia indictment, they discussed “seizing voting machines” as well as possibly naming Ms. Powell a special counsel to investigate allegations of voter fraud, though the appointment was never made.Sidney Powell appeared on a screen during a July 2022 hearing of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attacks.Doug Mills/The New York TimesOn Jan. 7, a number of Trump allies, along with SullivanStrickler employees, traveled to Coffee County. “We scanned every freaking ballot,” Scott Hall, a Georgia bail bondsman who made the trip, recalled in a recorded phone conversation at the time. He pleaded guilty to five misdemeanors last month and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.Misty Hampton, a defendant in the racketeering case who was the Coffee County elections administrator, welcomed the Trump-aligned team into the building. But the Georgia Bureau of Investigation file makes clear that the county election board did not officially approve the visit and that local officials lacked authority over the voting equipment. (Ms. Hampton, Ms. Powell and other Fulton County defendants are among the subjects of the state investigation listed in the G.B.I. file, as is Katherine Friess, a lawyer who worked with Mr. Giuliani after the election.)While SullivanStrickler didn’t deal exclusively with Ms. Powell, a number of the firm’s employees have asserted that Ms. Powell was the client for its work copying the Coffee County election data, according to the G.B.I. investigation.“The defense’s stance that Sidney Powell was not aware of the Coffee County breaches is preposterous,” said Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, a plaintiff in civil litigation over Georgia’s voting security that unearthed much of what happened in Coffee County.According to the racketeering indictment, the data copied that day included “ballot images, voting equipment software and personal voter information.” SullivanStrickler invoiced Ms. Powell more than $26,000 for its work, and her organization, Defending the Republic, paid the bill.Mr. Raffensperger, the secretary of state, subsequently replaced Coffee County’s voting machines and said that “the unauthorized access to the equipment” had violated Georgia law. More