Presidential Election of 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Fact-Checking Trump’s Election Lies

      by

      The former president faces multiple charges related to his lies about the 2020 election. Here’s a look at some of his most repeated falsehoods.Before the 2020 election had even concluded, President Donald J. Trump laid the groundwork for an alternate reality in which he was declared the victor, falsely assailing the integrity of the race at nearly every turn.Those lies are now central to two criminal indictments brought against him by the Justice Department and in Georgia, and formed what prosecutors have described as the bedrock of his attempts to overturn the election.In public, he made more than 800 inaccurate claims about the election from the time the polls began closing on Nov. 3, 2020, to the end of his presidency, according to a database compiled by The Washington Post. Dozens of times, he simply characterized the election as “rigged,” “stolen” or “a hoax,” and flatly and falsely declared he had won — even as a mountain of evidence proved otherwise. Other falsehoods were more specific about the voting and ballot-counting process, contained unproven allegations and promoted conspiracy theories.Here are five common ways in which Mr. Trump has lied about the 2020 election.How Mr. Trump sought to undermine the election:Mischaracterizations of the voting and counting processFalse claims about barred observers and lack of verificationBaseless examples of supposed fraudConspiracy theories about voting machinesNon sequiturs that do not prove fraudMischaracterizations of the voting and counting processWhat Mr. Trump Said“Last night I was leading, often solidly, in many key States, in almost all instances Democrat run & controlled. Then, one by one, they started to magically disappear as surprise ballot dumps were counted. VERY STRANGE, and the ‘pollsters’ got it completely & historically wrong!”— On Twitter on Nov. 4False. Dozens of times before and after the 2020 election, Mr. Trump described the legitimate vote-counting process as suspicious. For months, officials across the country had warned that tallying ballots may take days or even weeks to complete, given the prevalence of absentee voting that year. Studies and experts predicted that on election night, Mr. Trump could lead in key states, but that lead could slowly erode as officials continued to count mail-in ballots.That’s precisely what happened. Mr. Trump’s early leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia narrowed and then reversed. But the same thing also happened to Joseph R. Biden Jr., who initially led early vote tallies in North Carolina and Ohio only to eventually lose the final count. And in Florida, the candidate in the lead changed four times as more ballots were counted and before Mr. Trump ultimately prevailed.Officials sorting and counting mail-in and absentee ballots in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., on Nov. 4, 2020.Robert Nickelsberg for The New York TimesWhat Mr. Trump Said“I’ve been talking about mail-in ballots for a long time. It’s really destroyed our system. It’s a corrupt system.”— In a news conference on Nov. 5, two days after the election.False. Numerous independent studies and government reviews have found voter fraud to be extremely rare in all forms, including mail-in voting.Mr. Trump himself has voted by mail in Florida, which he has claimed is more secure because they use “absentee ballots” rather than mail-in ballots. (The state itself refers to them as “vote-by-mail ballots.”)But there is no meaningful difference between “absentee ballots” and “vote-by-mail ballots.” The terms are often used interchangeably. Moreover, they are both secure forms of voting. Both mail-in and absentee ballots are paper ballots marked by hand by the voter, which the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan group of public officials, considers the “gold standard of election security.” Twenty-seven states conduct signature verification for mail ballots, 12 require the signature of a witness or notary, and a handful of others ask voters to provide identification.What Mr. Trump Said“It’s amazing how those mail-in ballots are so one-sided, too. I know that it’s supposed to be to the advantage of the Democrats, but in all cases, they’re so one-sided.”— Nov. 5 news conferenceThis lacks evidence. Many studies have found little evidence that mail-in ballots help one party over another. Of the nine states where more than half of voters cast their ballots by mail in the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Trump won four. Several Republican states like Iowa, Missouri and Alabama expanded mail-in ballots in the 2020 election.What Mr. Trump Said“We used to have what was called Election Day. Now we have election days, weeks and months, and lots of bad things happened during this ridiculous period of time.”— In a Dec. 2 speech at the White HouseFalse. The 2020 election was certainly not the first presidential election where results were not immediately ascertained. The first federal elections were held in 1788, but there was no single day until Congress passed a law in 1845 that set aside the Tuesday after the first Monday of November for elections. Slow vote counting and limits in communication then meant that days, weeks or even months passed before voters learned who had won in several elections in the 19th century. In the modern day, close elections dragged out to the next morning in 1960 and 1976. And famously, it took more than a month for the 2000 election to be resolved, when the Supreme Court ended a recount in Florida that December and effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush.False claims about barred observers and lack of verificationWhat Mr. Trump Said“The OBSERVERS were not allowed, in any way, shape, or form, to do their job and therefore, votes accepted during this period must be determined to be ILLEGAL VOTES.”— On Twitter on Nov. 6False. Mr. Trump has complained about poll observers being denied access to watch ballot counting in key states. His own legal filings acknowledged the presence of Republican observers in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona, and there were at least 134 Republican poll challengers present inside TCF Center in Detroit, a convention center where votes were counted.A lawyer for Mr. Trump acknowledged that there were “a nonzero number” of campaign observers allowed in the counting room in Philadelphia. In Michigan, the campaign relied on affidavits from election observers who claimed they witnessed fraud.Observers watching the voting process in Las Vegas on Election Day 2020.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesWhat Mr. Trump Said“The Fake recount going on in Georgia means nothing because they are not allowing signatures to be looked at and verified. Break the unconstitutional Consent Decree!”— On Twitter on Nov. 16False. This was an inaccurate reference to a legal settlement between Georgia and the Democratic Party. Under the settlement signed in March 2020, officials in the state must notify voters whose signatures were rejected within three business days and give them the chance to correct issues. It did not bar officials from verifying signatures.Georgia’s secretary of state, a Republican, noted that the state trained election officials on signature matching, required a confirmed match and created a portal that checked and confirmed driver’s licenses of voters. Moreover, signatures are not verified again during the recount process, as ballots are separated from the signed envelopes during the initial counting process.What Mr. Trump Said“In Pennsylvania, the secretary of state and the State Supreme Court in essence abolished signature verification requirements just weeks prior to the election, in violation of state law. You’re not allowed to do that.”— In the Dec. 2 news conferenceThis is misleading. Federal courts have ruled against Mr. Trump’s assertion.In August 2020, the League of Women Voters and other groups sued Pennsylvania over a lack of clarity in state policy over mail-in ballots that had been rejected because of issues with the signatures, noting the absence of official guidance or uniform standards. A month later, Pennsylvania’s top election official told county election officials that they could not reject ballots because of a perceived mismatch in signatures. In response, the Trump campaign added a challenge to this guidance to an existing lawsuit.In October, a federal judge appointed by Mr. Trump ruled against the campaign, writing that the state election code “does not impose a signature comparison requirement.” About two weeks later, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which included two Republicans, ruled unanimously that the election code does not require signature verification.Baseless examples of supposed fraudWhat Mr. Trump Said“In Fulton County, Republican poll watchers were ejected, in some cases, physically from the room under the false pretense of a pipe burst. Water main burst, everybody leave, which we now know was a total lie. Then election officials pull boxes, Democrats, and suitcases of ballots out from under a table.”— In a speech on Jan. 6, 2021, shortly before a mob of loyalists stormed the CapitolFalse. Election officials have said and surveillance videos show that this did not happen.A water leak caused a delay for about two hours in vote counting at the State Farm Arena, but no ballots or equipment were damaged. Georgia’s chief election investigator, Frances Watson, testified that a “review of the entire security footage revealed that there were no mystery ballots that were brought in from an unknown location and hidden under tables.”Election observers and journalists were present at State Farm Arena when the water leak occurred. They were not asked to leave, Ms. Watson said, but simply “left on their own” when they saw one group of workers, who had completed their task, exit.Election workers counting absentee ballots at State Farm Arena in Atlanta on Nov. 4, 2020.Audra Melton for The New York TimesWhat Mr. Trump Said“Everybody knows that dead people, below age people, illegal immigrants, fake signatures, prisoners, and many others voted illegally.”— In a series of tweets on Dec. 13This lacks evidence. Mr. Trump has claimed that tens of thousands of dead people voted in key states: 20,000 in Pennsylvania, 17,000 in Michigan and 5,000 in Georgia.The Pennsylvania figure most likely referred to a lawsuit filed by a conservative group accusing the state of including 21,206 supposedly deceased people on voter rolls. But a federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush took issue with the group’s methodology and declined to remove the names from the rolls. This does not support the notion that 20,000 dead people cast ballots.The Michigan figure might refer to a list of supposedly deceased voters who submitted absentee ballots posted by a right-wing personality to social media. That list included people who were alive or who shared a name with a deceased person. A state audit later found that of 2,775 absentee ballots cast by voters from May 2019 to November 2020 who had died by Election Day, 2,734 had died within 40 days of the elections.And while it is unclear where Mr. Trump got his 5,000 deceased voters figure for Georgia, officials have found only four cases of dead people voting.What Mr. Trump Said“In Detroit, turnout was 139 percent of registered voters. Think of that. So you had 139 percent of the people in Detroit voting.”— In the Jan. 6 speech“A group of Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania say 200,000 more votes were counted in the 2020 Election than voters (100% went to Biden).”— On Twitter on Dec. 29False. About 51 percent of registered voters and 38 percent of the entire population cast a ballot in Detroit.The figure for Pennsylvania was a reference to faulty analysis conducted by state Republican lawmakers. The analysis relied on a voter registration database that Pennsylvania’s Department of State said was incomplete as a few counties — including Philadelphia and Allegheny, the two largest in the state — had yet to fully upload their data. The department called the analysis “obvious misinformation.”Conspiracy theories about voting machinesWhat Mr. Trump Said“All of the mechanical ‘glitches’ that took place on Election Night were really THEM getting caught trying to steal votes. They succeeded plenty, however, without getting caught. Mail-in elections are a sick joke!”— On Twitter on Nov. 15This lacks evidence. Issues with unofficial vote counts in a few counties in Michigan and Georgia on election night were caused by human error, not nefarious software, and were quickly rectified. In Michigan, election workers erroneously double-counted votes in one county and improperly configured the software in another, before realizing the mistakes and correcting them. In Georgia, the software delayed the reporting of results.In April, Fox News agreed to pay $787.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems for knowingly spreading falsehoods about the company’s election technology switching votes during the 2020 election. While the network did not apologize or make an admission of guilt in its settlement, Dominion obtained and released a trove of internal communications in which personalities and executives at Fox expressed skepticism about the claims. No credible evidence has ever emerged that issues with voting machines affected vote tallies.Voting machines in Atlanta the day after the 2020 election.Audra Melton for The New York TimesWhat Mr. Trump Said“When you look at who’s running the company, who’s in charge, who owns it, which we don’t know, where are the votes counted, which we think are counted in foreign countries, not in the United States.”— In the Dec. 2 news conferenceThis lacks evidence. This was an oblique reference to conspiracy theories about Dominion’s supposedly nefarious ties to the financier George Soros and Venezuela advanced by members of his legal team, who also face charges in Georgia.Dominion does not have any ties to Venezuela or Mr. Soros. The company’s chief executive said in an April 2020 letter to Congress that he owned a 12 percent stake in the company, while a private equity firm, Staple Street Capital Group in New York, owned about 75 percent, The Associated Press reported. No other investor held more than 5 percent of Dominion. A 2018 news release also announced Dominion’s acquisition by Staple Street.Mr. Trump also could have been referring to another popular baseless claim, which was that the U.S. military had seized computer servers that had evidence of voter fraud from a company in Germany. The company in question and the Army both denied the claims.Non sequiturs that do not prove fraudWhat Mr. Trump Said“With over 74 million votes, over, think of that, more than, I got more votes than any sitting president in history, 11 million more votes than we got in 2016.”— In a campaign rally in Georgia on Dec. 5This is misleading. One of Mr. Trump’s most repeated complaints assumes that it is improbable that he lost the 2020 election because the vote count that year was higher than his vote count in 2016. Mr. Trump received 74 million votes in the 2020 presidential election, 12 million more than he received in the 2016 election. President Biden, of course, received even more votes in 2020, 81 million.A large number of votes received by the losing candidate is not evidence of fraud. To wit, Hillary Clinton also received two million more votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama did in 2012.A crowd gathered outside of the TCF Center in Detroit as absentee ballots were counted on Nov. 4, 2020.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesWhat Mr. Trump Said“In Georgia, 0.5 percent of the mail-in ballots were rejected in 2020 compared to 5.77 percent. That’s a difference of 11 times more. It’s hundreds of thousands of votes. In Pennsylvania, .03 percent were rejected in 2020 compared to a much, much higher percentage in 2016.”— In the Dec. 5 campaign rallyThis is misleading.In 2020, about 0.4 percent of absentee ballots in Georgia were rejected, compared with about 5.8 percent in 2016, according to reports from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. But in Pennsylvania, the rejection rate actually increased from 0.9 percent in 2016 to 1.3 percent in 2020. (Mr. Trump’s 0.03 percent rejection rate came from a partial tally from Nov. 5, before Pennsylvania had completed counting its ballots.)In its 2020 report, the election commission noted that although the total number of mail-in ballots tallied in 2020 was more than double the amount in 2016, the rejection rate did not change significantly nationally: 0.8 percent in 2020 and 1 percent in 2016.The decline in Georgia’s rejection rate of mail-in ballots is also not evidence of fraud. The rate had also decreased to 3.1 percent in the 2018 midterm elections. A 2021 analysis of absentee ballot rejections from the Election Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology noted that Georgia enacted a ballot-curing process — in which voters are notified about errors with their ballots and are given the chance to fix them — after the 2016 election. The 18 states with such processes all had lower rejection rates, according to the analysis.We welcome suggestions and tips from readers on what to fact-check on email and Twitter. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      For an Atlanta Reporter, a Trump Scoop Long in the Making

      by

      George Chidi’s cameo appearance in the indictment of Donald J. Trump in Georgia was a plot twist, but not an accident.The scoop of a lifetime for George Chidi, a freelance journalist in Georgia, began at the State Capitol on the morning of Dec. 14, 2020, when a longtime source walked briskly past, eyes averted as if he didn’t know him, then disappeared into Room 216.Mr. Chidi, concluding that something odd was taking place on the other side of the door, turned the knob and stepped into history.What he saw, and simultaneously live-streamed from his phone, were six to 10 people who reacted with alarm to his presence. As the source, an 18-year-old Republican activist named CJ Pearson, bustled wordlessly out of the room, Mr. Chidi asked what was going on.“Education,” one of the people said.Mr. Chidi was soon escorted out of the meeting, but once in the corridor he asked who had reserved the room. Eventually, a clerk informed him that it was the House speaker, David Ralston, a Republican, who had done so at the behest of one of President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers, Ray Smith. An hour or so later, the state’s Republican chairman, David Shafer, stepped out and told a gathering crowd of reporters that he and the others in the room were providing an “alternate” slate of electors favoring Mr. Trump as a means of challenging Georgia’s official 2020 election results.As of this week, that challenge is characterized as important evidence of a criminal enterprise in a 98-page indictment, the State of Georgia vs. Donald John Trump and 18 other conspirators. It appears on Page 17 under the heading, “Creation and Distribution of False Electoral College Documents.”David Shafer, then the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, leading a meeting about an alternate slate of electors at the State Capitol in Atlanta on Dec. 14, 2020.Ben Gray/Associated PressRecounting the tableau at a coffee shop in Decatur, Ga., on Tuesday morning, only hours after the indictment was made public at the Fulton County courthouse, Mr. Chidi said he wanted to dispel any notion that his achievement had been a fluke, like a journalistic equivalent of scratching a winning lottery ticket.“It’s not like I just wandered into the Capitol that day,” Mr. Chidi said. “This was years of reporting.”Bald, voluble and insomnia-prone, Mr. Chidi, 50, has a nonlinear but relentless career trajectory that offers an object lesson in how local journalism, imperiled though it may be, can achieve national significance.He is a curious hybrid of old school and new school, an aggressively skeptical journalist but also a man unwilling to remain on the sidelines taking notes. In 2012, he participated in Occupy Atlanta protests that incurred the scorn of Republicans. Five years later, he worked to help close a blighted homeless shelter in the city, to the consternation of some local progressives.Twice he has lost bids for public office, first for state representative and then for county commissioner. He also served two terms on the City Council of Pine Lake, Ga.Mr. Chidi currently makes his living from the 300 or so subscribers who pay $10 a month to read his Substack page, called The Atlanta Objective. The title reflects his animating interest, both in civics and as a writer. He describes a city of enduring promise and vexing inequality, in which the average income of a white household is $80,000 — more than double that of a Black household.In terse but evocative prose and deep reporting, Mr. Chidi examines topics like homelessness and street shootings. He is not shy about contrasting himself with the comparatively polished members of the national press who descended on the Fulton County courthouse to capture the moment of Mr. Trump’s indictment.The son of a Nigerian-born doctor and a stay-at-home mother of Polish descent, Mr. Chidi spent his adolescence as a nerdy Dungeons & Dragons aficionado, one of the only Black students at his school in Northbridge, Mass. After flunking out of the University of Massachusetts, he joined the Army as a reservist in 1991. A slot for a military journalist opened up. As someone with a few English credits who could type over 20 words a minute, Mr. Chidi qualified.Beginning in 1995, he spent the next four years with the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii, a setting that amounted to on-the-job-training for a local reporter.“Chidi always tested the limits,” recalled Dee McNutt, his former supervising editor at The Hawaii Army Weekly. “He would always try for a different angle, and sometimes I’d have to sit him down and talk to him about it. But he made us better.”Mr. Chidi contrasts himself with members of the national press who descended on the Fulton County courthouse this week to capture former President Donald J. Trump’s indictment.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesReturning home to the Boston area in 1999, Mr. Chidi struggled to find regular journalism work. He made ends meet as a substitute teacher while moonlighting as a security guard. Finally, in 2004, he landed a reporting job for The Rocky Mount Telegram in Rocky Mount, N.C., which paid $14 an hour. His profiles of migrant workers in the area’s tobacco fields caught the notice of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which hired him in 2005. An editor for that newspaper, Bill Torpy, recalled strolling through Centennial Olympic Park with Mr. Chidi just after he accepted the new job.“George threw his arms in the air, twirled around and yelled, ‘Atlanta!’” Mr. Torpy said.But the elation proved to be short-lived. Mr. Chidi spent the next two years as a crime reporter, a despairing beat. He said he came to view crime as “a political issue,” one that reflected a city’s social and budgetary choices that all too often came at the expense of a nonwhite underclass. At around the same time, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ceased its practice of endorsing political candidates, which Mr. Chidi interpreted as the paper’s reluctance to risk offending readers during a challenging time for local journalism.“I think he just got tired of it,” Mr. Torpy said. “When you’re working for a newspaper, you’re there to report, and you can’t be an activist. He needed to be where there’s no wall separating the two. And that’s where he is now.”As a self-described independent journalist, Mr. Chidi’s work often takes him to the State Capitol. He was there on Dec. 19, 2016, videotaping demonstrators who marched outside the building while the state’s 16 electoral votes for Mr. Trump were being tallied.Four years later, Mr. Chidi anticipated that the 2020 electoral certification would be far less placid. He attended a “Stop the Steal” rally in which the right-wing personalities Alex Jones, Ali Alexander and Nicholas Fuentes spoke from the Capitol steps and then, the next day, from inside the building. Mr. Chidi recognized many of the attendees as members of far-right local militia groups he had seen squaring off with antiracist protesters months earlier in Stone Mountain, where Mr. Chidi lived.It was with those encounters in mind that he made his way back to the State Capitol on Dec. 14, 2020.Asked the morning after Mr. Trump’s indictment whether he would now leave the story to the national press, Mr. Chidi put down his cup of coffee and thought for a moment.“Hell, no,” he said. “I want to compete with those guys. Come to my home turf and see what happens.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump Uses Supporters’ Donations to Pay His Legal Bills

      by

      Facing a wide array of criminal charges, the former president is using money from small donors to defend himself legally — a practice that raises ethical questions.Former President Donald J. Trump faces a mountain of legal bills as he defends himself against a wide array of federal and state charges, with the latest coming this week in Georgia.To pay lawyers, he has often turned to money from supporters: Over the past two years, he has drawn tens of millions of dollars from a political action committee he controls called Save America PAC. Originally set up in 2020 as he galvanized supporters around his baseless claims of election fraud, the group — technically known as a leadership PAC — has been sustained in large part by contributions from small donors.Experts say the practice is most likely legal but that it raises ethical questions about how Mr. Trump treats his donors.Why is he doing this?Because Mr. Trump, who is famously tightfisted with his personal fortune, has mounting legal bills, a ready source of cash to cover them and not much standing in his way.Even before he entered the 2024 race, Save America was paying his legal bills as he faced federal and state investigations into his business practices, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and his handling of classified documents after he left the White House.As charges have arrived, the legal bills have ballooned. Mr. Trump will have to pay lawyers in Florida, Georgia, New York, and Washington, D.C., as well as costs for things like databases for managing discovery.According to its public filings, Save America has also paid lawyers who are representing witnesses in the Trump investigations, including the congressional inquiry into the Capitol riot, raising questions about possible efforts to influence testimony.Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, has said that the PAC is paying legal bills for witnesses to protect them from “financial ruin.” Mr. Cheung did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.In 2021 and 2022, Save America spent $16 million on legal bills, The New York Times has reported. In the first six months of this year, almost a third of the money raised by his committees and the super PAC backing him has gone toward legal costs — more than $27 million, according to a Times analysis of federal records.The legal payments could have tax implications, some experts said, if the underlying legal matter were deemed by the Internal Revenue Service to be related to Mr. Trump personally, rather than to his official role. The payments could, in theory, count as taxable income for Mr. Trump.But other experts said that the broad discretion of campaign finance laws would most likely shield him from any tax liability.Is it legal?Most likely, yes, although the rules governing what PACs and campaign committees can pay for are byzantine and not firmly settled.A campaign committee cannot pay for things that benefit a candidate personally, including legal bills that are unrelated to government matters.There is no such restriction on leadership PACs. While these organizations, which are controlled by the candidate, cannot spend money directly on the campaign, they can pay for legal fees.“Under prevailing F.E.C. interpretation, this whole discussion is moot,” said Saurav Ghosh, a former lawyer at the Federal Election Commission who is now the director of federal campaign finance reform for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group. “He can pay all the lawyers, for all the matters, and according to the F.E.C., these rules don’t even matter.”The more important question, Mr. Ghosh said, is: “Is that an abuse of donors?” Mr. Trump is raising money for one stated reason — his run for office — and apparently using some of it for another, his legal troubles, Mr. Ghosh said. “I think it sets a very bad precedent.”Save America’s fund-raising efforts have been a focus of one of the investigations by the special counsel Jack Smith, who has brought indictments against Mr. Trump in Washington and Florida. Mr. Smith’s team has asked why Save America is paying some witnesses’ lawyers.Mr. Trump’s team is also setting up a legal-defense fund to help cover some of his allies’ legal fees, The Times reported last month. The fund is not expected to cover Mr. Trump’s own bills, but it could alleviate pressure on Save America.Do Trump’s donors and supporters care?Neither the indictments nor the reports about how he is paying for his legal expenses have dented his popularity in polls. Mr. Trump’s die-hard followers seem to have embraced his legal cause as their own, and he has used each indictment as an opportunity to solicit financial contributions.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a onetime Trump ally turned fierce critic who is now running for the Republican presidential nomination, has called attention to Mr. Trump’s use of donor money to cover his legal bills.Speaking this month on CNBC, Mr. Christie said: “And the fact is, when you look at just his campaign filings yesterday, almost most of the money that middle-class Americans have given to him, he spent on his own legal fees.”Mr. Christie continued, “I mean, this guy’s a billionaire.” How, exactly, does it work?Since Mr. Trump set up Save America after the 2020 election, it has been a war chest to sustain his political operation. It has brought in more than $100 million, but has also spent quickly, including on legal bills.In February 2022, the PAC said it had $122 million in cash on hand. By the beginning of this year, that number was down to $18 million, filings show. More than $16 million of the money spent went to legal bills — some for witnesses in the investigations, but mostly to firms representing Mr. Trump.A further $60 million was transferred in late 2022 to MAGA Inc., a super PAC supporting Mr. Trump.This year, Save America asked the super PAC for the money back, a sign of the committee’s growing need for cash.Most of the money that has gone to legal fees came from cash that Save America stockpiled between 2020 and 2022. But Save America is also receiving 10 percent of every dollar currently being donated to Mr. Trump.Here’s how it works: Mr. Trump now raises money primarily through the Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, a type of group that allows candidates to divide contributions between their campaign and another committee.In November, when Mr. Trump began his campaign, 99 cents of every dollar raised into the committee went to his campaign committee, and 1 cent went to Save America. But as The Times reported in June, sometime this year the split changed: 90 percent of the money went to the campaign, while 10 percent went to Save America — 10 cents on every dollar raised went to the PAC that Mr. Trump has used to pay his legal bills. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Georgia Indictment Speaks to History

      by

      Decades from now, when high school students want to learn about the great conspiracy against democracy that began in 2020, they could very well start with the 98-page indictment filed Monday night in Georgia, in which former president Donald Trump is accused of leading a “criminal enterprise” to stay in power.No one knows whether these charges will lead to convicting Mr. Trump and the other conspirators or to keeping him from power. But even if it doesn’t, the indictment and the evidence supporting it and the trial that, ideally, will follow it will have a lasting value.Unlike the other three cases against Mr. Trump, this one is an indictment for history, for the generations to come who will want to know precisely how the men and women in Mr. Trump’s orbit tried to subvert the Constitution and undermine American democracy and why they failed. And it is a statement for the future that this kind of conduct is regarded as intolerable and that the criminal justice system, at least in the year 2023, remained sturdy enough to try to counter it.History needs a story line to be fully understood. The federal special counsel Jack Smith told only a few pieces of the story in an indictment limited to Mr. Trump, focusing mainly on the groups of fake state electors that Mr. Trump and his circle tried to pass off as real and the pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to certify them. But in Georgia, Fani Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, was unencumbered by the narrower confines of federal law and was able to use the more expansive state RICO statute to draw the clearest, most detailed picture yet of Mr. Trump’s plot.As a result, her story is a much broader and more detailed arc of treachery and deceit, naming 19 conspirators and told in 161 increments, each one an “overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy,” forming the predicate necessary to prove a violation of the RICO act. (Neither of the indictments, unfortunately, holds Mr. Trump directly responsible for the Jan. 6 riot — a tale best told in the archives of the House Jan. 6 committee.)Not each of the acts is a crime, but together they add up to the most daring and highest-ranking criminal plot in U.S. history to overturn an election and steal the presidency — and a plot that appears to have violated Georgia law, leaving no question about the importance of prosecuting Mr. Trump and his co-conspirators. Ms. Willis has risen to the occasion by documenting a lucid timeline, starting with Mr. Trump’s brazenly false declaration of victory on Nov. 4, 2020, and continuing with scores of conversations between the president and his lawyers and aides as they try to persuade a number of states to decertify the vote.The narrative contains tweets that might be just eye-rolling on their own — such as Mr. Trump’s utterly false claim that Georgia Democrats had fed phony ballots into voting machines — but that in context demonstrate a relentless daily effort to perpetrate a fraud well past his forced exit from the White House on Inauguration Day.The world knows about people like Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, who was asked by Mr. Trump to “find” him enough votes to overturn the state election and who refused. It knows about how Mr. Pence rebuffed his boss’s demands to decertify the vote on Jan. 6 and of officials in other states and in the Justice Department who collectively helped save democracy by resisting pressure from the conspirators.But Ms. Willis, in trying to tell the full story, made sure the high cost paid by lesser-known figures was also recorded for the books. Specifically, the indictment focuses on the outrageous accusations made against Ruby Freeman, the Atlanta election worker who was singled out by Mr. Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani for what they insisted was ballot stuffing and turned out to be nothing of the kind.Mr. Giuliani told a Georgia House committee on Dec. 10, 2020, that Ms. Freeman and her daughter, Shaye Moss, were “quite obviously surreptitiously passing around USB ports as if they’re vials of heroin or cocaine” in order to alter votes on “crooked Dominion voting machines.” For this, Mr. Giuliani — who admitted last month that he had made false statements about the two women and is facing a defamation suit they filed — was charged in the indictment with the felony offense of making false statements.Ms. Freeman was also targeted by other conspirators charged in the case, and she may well have been chosen for that role because she is Black and was thus a more believable villain to the kinds of people who have most ardently swallowed Mr. Trump’s lies for many years. As the indictment painstakingly lays out, Stephen C. Lee, a Lutheran pastor from Illinois, went to Ms. Freeman’s home and tried to get her to admit to election fraud; he was charged with five felonies. He enlisted the help of Willie Lewis Floyd III, a former head of Black Voices for Trump, to join in intimidating Ms. Freeman; Mr. Floyd was charged with three felonies. Trevian Kutti, a publicist in the worlds of cannabis and hip-hop, was also recruited to help pressure Ms. Freeman, who said Ms. Kutti tried to get her to confess to voter fraud. Ms. Kutti now faces three felony charges.In the “vast carelessness” of their scheme, to use F. Scott Fitzgerald’s phrase, the plotters smashed up institutions and rules without regard to the resulting damage, willfully destroying individual reputations if it might help their cause. Ms. Freeman was one of those who was smashed, exposed by Mr. Trump to ridicule and abuse, though he never paid a price. Now, thanks to Ms. Willis, Ms. Freeman’s story will reach a jury and the judgment of history, and the record will show precisely who inflicted the damage to her and to the country.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

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Indictment Has Georgia Republicans Fearing Replay of 2020

      by

      State officials who rejected Donald Trump’s calls to subvert the election results say the party must move on from 2020 in order to defeat President Biden in 2024.Georgia Republicans say they know a winning message for 2024: Under President Biden, voters are struggling with inflation, gas prices are on the rise and undocumented migrants are streaming across the southern border.But they fear Donald J. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, won’t be able to stay on message.Mr. Trump’s obsession with the 2020 election, now heightened by two criminal cases over his efforts to steal it, threatens to reopen wounds in the state’s G.O.P. that have bedeviled it in the two and a half years since he pushed to overturn Mr. Biden’s narrow victory there. If Mr. Trump is the nominee, it’s unlikely he would contain his vitriol toward the officials who defied him to certify the 2020 election results, including the state’s popular governor — making for potential competing visions.“I don’t think he’ll let us” unite, said Jack Kingston, a former House Republican from Georgia and a Trump ally. “His nature isn’t to sit down and say nice things, even about Brian Kemp, one of the most successful governors in the country.”Like many Republicans, Mr. Kingston believes that Mr. Trump’s false claims that the election in Georgia was rigged cost the G.O.P. two Senate seats in runoffs in January 2021. Democrats flocked to the polls to secure victories for Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, while many Republican voters appeared to heed the former president’s warnings that the state’s election system was “rigged” and stayed home.Mr. Trump’s false claims will now most likely be on trial in the state — and in its most populous county, Fulton — as the presidential election heats up. The 41-count indictment is the most sweeping of the four criminal cases that Mr. Trump faces, stretching from the Oval Office to the Georgia secretary of state’s office to the elections office in tiny Coffee County, where Trump allies successfully copied sensitive software.Early voters casting their ballots for the 2020 election in Suwanee, Ga.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesRepublicans in Georgia “have always had fissures,” said Rusty Paul, the Republican mayor of Sandy Springs, a rapidly growing Fulton County suburb abutting the capital city, Atlanta, to the north. Voters in North Georgia and other rural stretches tend to be staunchly conservative. Voters in the populous suburbs of Atlanta were once reliably Republican, but more moderate. Low-country Republicans in Savannah are still another breed.But the most difficult disconnect at the moment is the pro-Trump leadership of the Georgia Republican Party, versus the voters who soundly rejected the primary candidates handpicked by Mr. Trump in 2022. Those Trump-backed candidates challenged state officials, including Mr. Kemp and the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, who refused to go along with Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In a runoff election, a small but critical slice of Georgia Republicans cast ballots for Mr. Warnock or stayed home altogether, helping the Democrat win a full six-year term against Mr. Trump’s chosen U.S. Senate candidate, the retired football star Herschel Walker.Senior Republicans in the state believe the eventual presidential nominee will secure the support of the hard-core Republican base. They’re more concerned about the Republican voters who backed both Mr. Kemp and Mr. Warnock — and who recoil at the party leadership’s ardently pro-Trump stance.“That disconnect between the Republican leadership and the rank-and-file voters creates organizational problems,” Mr. Paul said, adding, “How do you get voters fired up and ready to go when they disagree with you?”The initial response of Georgia’s Republican base to Monday’s indictment, Mr. Trump’s fourth, is likely to mirror the national Republican response: rally around the candidate. But over time, Mr. Paul predicted, that could change, suggesting that “there’s beginning to be some fatigue with President Trump.”Mr. Kemp refuted stolen election claims that Mr. Trump made on Truth Social on Tuesday, saying that elections in Georgia are “secure, accessible and fair.”“The future of our country is at stake in 2024 and that must be our focus,” he wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter.Mr. Raffensperger also weighed in: “The most basic principles of a strong democracy are accountability and respect for the Constitution,” he said in a statement. “You either have it or you don’t.”Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia has become a target of the former president’s wrath after failing to back his false election claims and refusing to aid in the effort to overturn the vote.Alex Slitz/Associated PressMr. Kemp has committed to supporting the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 regardless of who it is. But he has kept his distance from the party’s far-right factions. Neither he nor Mr. Raffensperger attended the state party convention in June — an event that once served as a conservative confab peppered with unflashy business meetings but has now become beholden, in the eyes of some state conservatives, to culture wars and election denialism.Georgia, with its 16 electoral college votes and genial suburban Republicans, has never been terribly friendly to Mr. Trump’s brand of pugilistic politics. Mr. Trump’s 50.8 percent in 2016 was down from Mitt Romney’s 53.3 percent in 2012 and George W. Bush’s 58 percent in 2004. The trend continued in 2020 when Mr. Trump slipped below 50 percent and lost to Mr. Biden by 11,779 votes.Geoff Duncan, Georgia’s Republican former lieutenant governor and a fierce Trump critic, emerged from grand jury testimony on Monday and said, “We’re either as Republicans going to take our medicine and realize the election wasn’t rigged” or lose again.“Donald Trump was the worst candidate ever in the history of the party, even worse than Herschel Walker, and now we’re going to have to pivot,” he said. “We want to win an election in 2024. It’s going to have to be someone other than Donald Trump.”That entreaty contrasted with the conclusion of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the far-right Republican and Trump ally who represents Northwest Georgia. “Corrupt Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis’ ‘investigation’ (WITCH HUNT) of President Trump dragged on for over two and a half years, just in time to interfere with the 2024 Presidential Election,” she wrote on X. “That’s not a coincidence. That’s election interference.”Mr. Biden’s allies suggest that Mr. Trump’s ongoing crusade against Georgia Republicans could help Democrats keep the state in 2024.“Donald Trump is the one candidate around which Democrats can rally and will turn out to vote against him,” said Fred Hicks, an Atlanta-based Democratic political strategist. “This is a real crisis moment for Republicans who care about electability.”Joshua McKoon, chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, said he thought the indictment would drive Republican voters in the state to unite around what they see as the politically motivated targeting of not only the former president but several state figures, including a sitting state senator and the former chairman of the state party. But, he added that same development could have a chilling effect on efforts to recruit and organize state activists.“I think the intent of this kind of activity is to discourage people from being involved,” Mr. McKoon said. “It’s sort of like sending a message, ‘you better be careful about how active you are in the party or you may find yourself criminally indicted.’”Mr. Trump, should he be the Republican nominee, would almost certainly maintain his conservative base of support through next year. But for any G.O.P. candidate to succeed in 2024, he or she would need to woo Georgia’s moderate and swing voters — the same small group whose distaste for Mr. Trump in 2020 helped Mr. Biden to victory, and who elected both Mr. Kemp and Mr. Warnock in 2022.Cole Muzio, president of the Georgia-based conservative group Frontline Policy Council, called Mr. Trump’s standing in the state “very dubious at best,” should he win the Republican nomination. For the G.O.P. to carry the state in the next presidential election, he added, “it can’t be about 2020.”“Good grief, we can’t keep re-litigating 2020 because if we do, we will lose the most consequential election in my life,” he said. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      It’s Not Your Father’s Democratic Party. But Whose Party Is It?

      by

      Has the left’s half-century struggle to return the Democratic Party to its working-class roots become an exercise in futility? This is perhaps the most vexing question facing the party of liberal America.It is not an easy one to answer. In recent years, the Democratic electorate has moved in two directions.First: The percentage of Democrats with a college degree has almost doubled, growing to 41 percent in 2019 from 22 percent in 1996.Second: While the percentage of Democrats who are non-Hispanic and white has fallen to 59 percent from 76 percent over the same period, according to Pew Research, nonwhite Democrats — Black, Hispanic, Asian American or members of other minority groups — have grown to 41 percent from 24 percent.In terms of the entire U.S. population (as of July 2022), those described by the census as “white alone, not Hispanic or Latino” made up 58.9 percent of the United States — down from 69.1 percent in 2000 — while the percentage of Black, Hispanic, Asian American and other minorities increased to 41.1 percent from 30.9 percent over the same period.Have American politics reached a tipping point?Eitan Hersh and Sarang Shah, political scientists at Tufts and Berkeley, contended in their Aug. 1 paper, “The Partisan Realignment of American Business,” that both the Democratic and the Republican Parties have undergone radical reorientations:The ongoing development of the Democratic Party as a party not of labor but of socioeconomic elites, and the ongoing development of the Republican Party as a party not of business but of working-class social conservatives, represents a major, perhaps the major, American political development of the 21st century.In an email, Hersh elaborated on their analysis: “This is one of the most important developments in recent American political history because we seem to be in the midst of a realignment, and that doesn’t happen every day or even every decade.”One reflection of this trend, according to Hersh, is the growing common ground that cultural liberals and corporate America are finding on social issues:A company taking a position on L.G.B.T.Q. rights may at first seem like it’s a company not staying in its lane and getting into political questions unrelated to its core business. But if the company needs to take a position in order to satisfy its work force or because potential new hires demand political activism, then the decision is no longer just social; it’s economic.Another example: For a while it looked like the Republican Party could appeal to social conservatives but maintain the economic policy supported by business elites. But now, you start to see real attempts by Republican thought leaders to be more assertive in meeting the economic needs of their constituencies.As a result of this realignment, Hersh argued, a crucial battleground in elections held in the near future will be an intensifying competition for the support of minority voters:Democrats can win with college-educated whites plus nonwhite voters. They can’t win with more defection from nonwhite voters. The Republicans are making the argument that their cultural and economic values are consistent with working-class Americans and that their positions transcend racial categories.If the Republican Party “could move beyond Trump and focus on this vision (which, of course, is impossible with Trump there making everything about Trump), they’d be presenting a set of arguments and policies that will be very compelling to a large number of Americans,” Hersh wrote.Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has long argued that Democrats need to regain support from white voters without college degrees and to stop defections among working-class Black and Hispanic voters, argued that the socioeconomic elite — well-educated, largely white liberals — are imposing damaging policies on the Democratic Party.In a recent essay, “Brahmin Left vs. Populist Right,” Teixeira wrote:The fact is that the cultural left in and around the Democratic Party has managed to associate the party with a series of views on crime, immigration, policing, free speech and, of course, race and gender that are quite far from those of the median working-class voter (including the median nonwhite working-class voter).Instead, Teixeira contended:Democrats continue to be weighed down by those whose tendency is to oppose firm action to control crime or the southern border as concessions to racism, interpret concerns about ideological school curriculums and lowering educational standards as manifestations of white supremacy and generally emphasize the identity politics angle of virtually every issue. With this baggage, rebranding the party — making it more working-class oriented and less Brahmin — is very difficult, since decisive action that might lead to such a rebranding is immediately undercut by a torrent of criticism.I asked Teixeira whether the changing Democratic Party has reached a point of no return on this front, and he emailed back:A good and big question. In the short run it looks very difficult for them to shed much of their cultural radicalism and generally make the party more attractive to normal working-class voters. Over the medium to long term, though, I certainly think it’s possible, if there’s an internal movement and external pressures/market signals consistent with the need for a broader coalition. That is, if enough of the party becomes convinced their coalition is too narrow and therefore some compromises and different approaches are necessary. That may take some time.Michael Podhorzer, a former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., agreed that “There is no way to define ‘socioeconomic elites’ in which it isn’t obvious that both parties are dominated by socioeconomic elites.” He added that “since the 1970s, both left and right parties now represent different factions within the socioeconomic elites.”In the process, Podhorzer argued, “Labor and working people have been demoted from a seat at the table to a constituency to be appealed to.”The idea that the Democratic Party is a pro-business party, Podhorzer wrote, “is hardly a bulletin. It’s been pro-business since Carter. Deregulation (including Glass-Steagall, holding companies, communications, etc.) as well as trade agreements (NAFTA, China W.T.O., proposed T.P.P., etc.) are all Democratic Party ‘accomplishments.’”Podhorzer, however, took sharp issue with Hersh, Shah and Teixeira. “I find Teixeira’s constant harping on Democratic elites, as well as Hersh’s and others’ use of the term to be playing with fire at this moment,” he told me.The focus on cultural elitism, in Podhorzer’s view, masksbillionaires’ collective influence over the political process or the ways in which their success is responsible for immiseration and what we call inequality. This enables fascist politicians to shift the blame to intellectual and cultural elites, like liberals or people with college degrees, redirecting the inevitable resentments of the losers in the winner-take-all economy.For that reason, Podhorzer continued,centrist commentators and Democratic strategists who have aggressively and continuously diagnosed the party’s capture by a woke elite unwittingly — and without justification — affirm the fascist worldview in which cultural, rather than economic or political, elites are the source of their disappointments.However these disputes are resolved, there is clear evidence of the demographic realignment of the Democratic Party.Brian Schaffner, a political scientist at Tufts, writing by email, demonstrated the evolution of the Democratic and Republican electorates by citing data from the Cooperative Election Study, which he oversees:We ask workers what industries they work in, and just between 2014 and 2020 we saw some notable shifts, depending on the category. In 2014, 42 percent of people working in construction identified as Republican, and 38 percent called themselves Democrats, a four-point advantage for Republicans. Just six years later, that group was 49 percent Republican and 29 percent Democratic, a 20-point gap. By contrast, Republicans had a nine-point edge among people who work in finance and insurance in 2014 (48 percent Republican, 39 percent Democratic), but by 2020, Democrats held a three-point edge (45 percent Democratic, 42 percent Republican).The Republican advantage among manufacturing workers has grown to 13 points from seven points over those six years, according to Schaffner, and the four-point Democratic advantage among transportation and warehouse workers has turned into an eight-point Republican edge. Workers in professional, scientific and technical industries were evenly split in 2014, but by 2020, Democrats had gained a 15-point advantage. In the education industry, Democrats increased their advantage from a 14-point gap in 2014 to a 22-point advantage in 2020.Schaffner wrote that “these are pretty sizable shifts in partisanship, which fit the narrative that white-collar workers are shifting more Democratic at the same time that blue-collar industries are becoming more Republican.”There are, however, strong arguments that despite the ascendance of well-educated, relatively comfortable Democrats, the party has retained its commitment to the less well off, as evidenced by the policies enacted by the Biden administration.Most of those who challenged the Hersh-Shah thesis did not dispute the ascendance of the well educated in Democratic ranks; instead they argued that the party has retained its ideological commitments to the bottom half of the income distribution and to organized labor.Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, expressed strong disagreement with the Hersh-Shah paper in an email responding to my inquiry.“There is no question that the class profile of Democratic voters has become U-shaped, with both poorer and higher-income voters siding most strongly with the party,” Hacker wrote, but he went on to say:Even as the Democratic Party has come to rely more heavily on affluent suburban voters, its platform, legislative agenda and national elected representatives’ communications via Twitter have all remained highly focused on economic issues. In fact, the national platform and Democratic agenda have become substantially bolder — that is, bigger in scope, broader in policy instruments (e.g., industrial policy), and generally more redistributive overall.Hacker specifically challenged Hersh and Shah’s claim that corporate America is shifting to the Democratic Party, citing evidence of the Republican tilt of contributions by Fortune 1,500 C.E.O.s, by the Forbes Wealthiest 100 and in the distribution pattern of dark money.Steve Rosenthal, a former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. who is now a political consultant, agreed with Hacker on the pro-labor commitment of the Biden administration, despite the severe weakening of the labor movement in recent decades. Biden, he wrote by email, “has been the most pro-union, pro-worker president we have had in my lifetime.”Rosenthal acknowledged, however, that the union movement has suffered terrible setbacks in recent years, especially in Midwest battleground states:For decades, we’ve been saying both parties are too accommodating to corporate America. Perhaps the biggest change is not in how the parties operate or what they stand for but the decline in the labor movement. In the mid-90s, between 30 and 40 percent of the electorate in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio came from union households, and they were voting 60 percent-plus Democratic. I used to say even back then that the only white working-class voters who were voting Democratic were in unions.Since then, Rosenthal wrote, “their vote share has decreased precipitously, to a low of now something like 14 percent in Wisconsin to the mid-20 percent in the other states.”Julie Wronski, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi, contended that the Hersh-Shah paper creates a false dichotomy:The partisan business and labor interests are an either-or scenario. The Democratic Party can be the party of labor and the party of socioeconomic elites. The Republican Party can be the party of business and working-class social conservatives.Democrats can support labor interests, Wronski wrote by email,through initiatives to raise the minimum wage and bolster unions and can support the more progressive social issues of socioeconomic elites that relate to D.E.I. initiatives. Republicans can provide tax breaks and the like to businesses while still firmly espousing socially conservative positions on issues related to racial, religious and gender identity. Republicans can be the party of supporting red state businesses, while Democrats can be the party of supporting blue state businesses.Business, Wronski argued, is not so much realigning with the Democratic Party as it is polarizing into different camps based on “cleavages in how businesses interact with the political realm based upon social issues,” with “partisan polarization of businesses based on social issues and the group identities of the company’s stakeholders, employees and clients.”Matt Grossmann, a political scientist at Michigan State, agreed by email thatthere is definitely a significant change in the party coalitions, though it has occurred slowly rather than in one critical election. The main demographic change is in education among white Americans: College-educated whites are moving toward Democrats, while non-college-educated whites are moving toward Republicans.This has not reversed the traditional class divide of the parties, Grossmann argued, “because high-income, low-education voters are the most Republican and low-income, high-education voters are the most Democratic,” while “nonwhite voters also remain much more Democratic.”Despite these shifts, Grossmann wrote that he does not “see evidence that the Democratic Party has abandoned redistributive politics or changed its positions on business regulation. Instead, they are increasingly emphasizing social issues and combining social concerns with their traditional economic concerns.”David Hopkins, a political scientist at Boston College, is writing a book with Grossmann. Hopkins argued in an email that “we are in the midst of a realignment, in the sense that the education gap between the two parties (separating degree-holding Democrats from degree-lacking Republicans) is now much larger than the income gap.”But, Hopkins stressed,party change on economic policy is the dog that hasn’t barked here. For all its conspicuously populist style, the Trump presidency’s biggest legislative achievement was a tax reform package that provided most of its benefits to wealthy and corporate taxpayers. And the Democrats show no signs of rethinking their traditional advocacy of an expanded welfare state funded by redistributing wealth downward from rich individuals and businesses — with Biden’s policy agenda ranging from greater education spending to a federal child tax credit to subsidized child care and prescription drug costs.Despite their new source of support among the well-educated affluent, Hopkins continued,Democrats still fundamentally see themselves as the defenders of the interests of the socially underprivileged. And despite their own contemporary popularity among the white working class, Republicans still define themselves as the champions of capitalism and entrepreneurship.Sean Westwood, a political scientist at Dartmouth, cast doubt on Hersh and Shah’s claims in an emailed response to my inquiry: “There are clearly changes in the role of socioeconomic elites in the Democratic Party and the role of the working class in the Republican Party, but the evidence doesn’t show that either party has abandoned its traditional base.”On average, Westwood continued,the Republican Party still maintains a wealthier base than Democrats, and Democrats still capture more support from labor than Republicans. Similarly, Republicans continue to vote for business interests, and Democrats continue to back pro-labor regulation. It is hard to say we are at a turning point in party composition and focus while these things are still true.It is possible, Westwood wrote, that the Hersh-Shah paper “could be prophetic, but a complete picture of American politics suggests it is too early to assess if we have truly seen a major development in American politics.”In the meantime, as the Democratic Party continues to win college-educated white voters by larger and larger numbers, the development of most concern to those determined to maintain the party’s commitment to the less well off is the incremental but steady decline in Democratic support from nonwhite voters.Over the past three presidential elections, according to a detailed Catalist analysis of recent elections, Democratic margins among Black voters without college degrees have steadily fallen: Barack Obama 97 to 3 percent, or a 94-point advantage in 2012; Hillary Clinton 93 to 6 percent, or an 87-point advantage in 2016; and Biden 90 to 8 percent, or an 82-point edge in 2020. The same pattern was true for Hispanic voters without degrees: Obama 70 to 27 percent, or 43 points; Clinton 68 to 27 percent, or 41 points; and Biden 60 to 38 percent, or 22 points.The current Democratic Party may actually be the best coalition that the left can piece together at a time when American politics is notable for contradictory, crosscutting economic, racial and cultural issues. But can the party, with its many factions, outcompete the contemporary Republican Party, a party that has its own enormous liabilities — most notably Donald Trump himself?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

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Loyalty to Donald Trump Has Led Rudy Giuliani to Being Indicted

      by

      It is easy to forget, and in some ways difficult to imagine, that Rudy Giuliani was once revered for his integrity. He was seen by many as a hero long before Sept. 11, a seemingly fearless U.S. attorney who broke the back of the mob, took on Wall Street titans and sent political power brokers to prison.With each sensational indictment handed down by his office in the 1980s, Mr. Giuliani spoke like the priest he almost became about good and evil, and the seductions of power and money.“It’s a rare individual in public office who does not eventually become personally corrupt,” he said in 1988.The comment takes on new meaning when you read through the Georgia grand jury’s indictment, Mr. Giuliani’s first as a defendant. The details make it clear that the crusader of the 1980s and 1990s has completely lost his ability to distinguish right from wrong. He has gone from a moral compass in a city teeming with corruption to a long-ago leader who has descended into a moral void.He stands accused of participating in a wide-ranging conspiracy to upend the 2020 presidential election. It’s a remarkable irony, and a catastrophic blow to his legacy, that the Fulton County, Ga., district attorney, Fani Willis, has brought charges against him under a version of the federal RICO law that Mr. Giuliani famously employed against the Mafia. The indictment also portrays his venal, if stumbling, efforts to employ his old prosecutorial gifts to Donald Trump’s advantage.Mr. Giuliani in mid-November 2020 with a chart about plans to dispute some presidential election results.Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesToday Mr. Giuliani is 79 years old and seems lost in a fog, a confused man railing on X, previously known as Twitter, about Joe and Hunter Biden and bragging about decades-old accomplishments as if his work for Mr. Trump had not turned him into a figure of ridicule and contributed to two presidential impeachments. He has been drowning in criminal investigations, lawsuits and defamation cases, and is apparently burning through the vast sums that he earned over his career, much of it from consulting and speaking fees after 9/11. He now makes Cameo videos for $325 apiece.Yet the indictment is a vivid reminder of how dangerous he was in the Trump years. In the former president’s last months in office, an untold number of Trump White House and campaign lawyers and even the attorney general labored to convince Mr. Trump that he had lost the election. But it was Mr. Giuliani who had the president’s ear. And he was telling Mr. Trump that he had won.Predictably, Mr. Trump named him to lead the postelection legal fight. Mr. Giuliani dove into the work, seemingly more than willing to cross legal and ethical lines, evolving from prosecutor to transgressor. He used his understanding of the criminal mind not to enforce the law, but to propagate what the grand jury describes as a conspiracy.A prosecutor’s job is to weave together a compelling story out of a blizzard of facts and paint a vivid picture to jurors in a trial. Mr. Giuliani was a master of the art. As an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, in 1974, he accused then-Representative Bertram Podell of being “a United States congressman who agreed to sell the influence of his office for money.” At trial, he conducted a withering cross-examination that rattled the congressman so much that he changed his plea to guilty. It made Mr. Giuliani’s career.His formidable talents brought him to the highest levels of the Justice Department and won him public adoration. With each victory he spoke from a moral pedestal. “If we can teach our entire society that no matter how powerful you are … you have to pay a price when you violate the law,” he said shortly before landing a racketeering conviction in 1987.In the years that followed, he applied those prosecutorial gifts to his own career, cultivating a heroic image: America’s greatest corruption fighter; the mayor who cleaned up New York; the personification of leadership on Sept. 11. The dramatic story line overshadowed acts of callousness — cheating on his wives, according to friends and colleagues; slandering Patrick Dorismond, an unarmed Black man who had been killed by an undercover detective; cashing in on his 9/11 fame; and pursuing political and legal misadventures for President Trump in Ukraine.With his ethical bedrock crumbling, Mr. Giuliani attempted to put his old skills to work in 2020 and spin a gripping story to Mr. Trump’s advantage.On Dec. 3, he brought the stolen election claims to Georgia, a pivotal state that Joe Biden had surprisingly won. He was welcomed by Republicans at a Georgia State Senate committee hearing at the state capital, where he claimed, falsely, that Dominion Voting Systems equipment had turned Trump votes into Biden votes, and that almost 100,000 nonexistent mail-in ballots were counted. Mr. Giuliani looked on as a member of his team falsely characterized a video showing vote counters pulling out ballot containers from under a desk in Atlanta’s State Farm Arena on election night and alleged, falsely, that the containers were “suitcases” filled with illegal ballots.A week later, Mr. Giuliani made a presentation to the Georgia House in which he accused two election workers of “quite obviously surreptitiously passing around USB ports as if they’re vials of heroin or cocaine.” (He recently admitted in a civil court filing that he made false statements about the election workers.) The picture he painted in the Georgia House was as vivid as it was dishonest. The Georgia indictment laid it out in great detail.“This is going to be the election that will be the dirtiest election, the most crooked election, the most manipulated election in American history,” Mr. Giuliani said at a third December appearance in front of the Georgia legislature. “Georgia is going to be at the center of it because you have what I call the Zapruder film. … If you can watch that and not realize that this was a major situation of voter fraud, then you’re a fool or a liar.”As he traveled from state to state, hearing to hearing, an increasing number of people inside and outside of the White House threw cold water on his claims. After Georgia’s secretary of state’s office proved his most serious charges patently false, Mr. Giuliani’s accusations began to irk Trump campaign officials.“When our research and campaign legal team can’t back up any of the claims made by our Elite Strike Force Legal Team, you can see why we’re 0-32 on our cases,” one senior adviser wrote on Dec. 8, according to one of the federal indictments against Trump. “I’ll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it’s tough to own any of this when it’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.” Two days later, Mr. Giuliani was in front of the state legislature, saying, “every single vote should be taken away from Biden.”His fabrications did not stop with false claims about the video. He helped oversee the scheme in which false elector certificates were submitted in favor of Mr. Trump rather than Mr. Biden.Mr. Giuliani had another lawyer send memos to Trump points of contact in several states, explaining how they could mimic legitimate electors, but the memo didn’t mention that they intended to disrupt the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory on Jan. 6. When some Trump false electors in Pennsylvania expressed concerns about participating, Mr. Giuliani assured them that the certificates they signed would be used only if Mr. Trump won certain litigation according to one of the federal indictments. He didn’t appear to give any such assurances to the fake electors from other states, and the false certificates with their names were submitted. False electors from Michigan are now facing state charges.On the night of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Mr. Giuliani placed calls to members of Congress in an attempt to continue to spread the debunked charges in hopes of buying time to delay certification of Mr. Biden’s victory, according to one of the federal indictments against Mr. Trump. “Georgia gave you a number in which 65,000 people who were underage voted,” he said in a phone message that federal prosecutors claim was intended for a U.S. senator. The correct number was zero.After spending years of his life escaping the shadow of his father’s criminal past — Harold Giuliani served a year and four months in Sing Sing for robbing a milkman — Mr. Giuliani put his future and even personal freedom on the line for Mr. Trump. He is now facing prison time himself.Faced with the political irrelevance and collapsing client base that would accompany Mr. Trump’s defeat, he seemingly made a Faustian bargain, working to undermine democracy in order to save his career. He was ultimately thwarted by the rule of law, and his own bumbling. The disaster he has made of his life, and the ruination of his legacy, are of his own making.“I am a basically simple person,” Mr. Giuliani told a reporter back in 1989. “I think there are rules, [and] you have to try to live as best you can by those rules. If those rules are laws, you had better darn well live by them.”After a half-century crafting, enforcing and then breaking those rules, Mr. Giuliani is now faced with the reality that they apply to him.Andrew Kirtzman is the author of “Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America’s Mayor,” for which David Holley served as the researcher.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

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Special Counsel Used Warrant to Get Trump’s Twitter Direct Messages

      by

      The nature of the messages or who exactly wrote them remained unclear, but it was a revelation that such messages were associated with the former president’s account.The federal prosecutors who charged former President Donald J. Trump this month with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election got access this winter to a trove of so-called direct messages that Mr. Trump sent others privately through his Twitter account, according to court papers unsealed on Tuesday.While it remained unclear what sorts of information the messages contained and who exactly may have written them, it was a revelation that there were private messages associated with the Twitter account of Mr. Trump, who has famously been cautious about using written forms of communications in his dealings with aides and allies.The court papers disclosing that prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, obtained direct messages from Mr. Trump’s Twitter account emerged from a fight with Twitter over the legality of executing a warrant on the former president’s social media. Days after the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the platform shut down his account.The papers included transcripts of hearings in Federal District Court in Washington in February during which Judge Beryl A. Howell asserted that Mr. Smith’s office had sought Mr. Trump’s direct messages — or DMs — from Twitter as part of a search warrant it executed on the account in January.In one of the transcripts, a lawyer for Twitter, answering questions from Judge Howell, confirmed that the company had turned over to the special counsel’s office “all direct messages, the DMs” from Mr. Trump’s Twitter account, including those sent, received and “stored in draft form.”The lawyer for Twitter told Judge Howell that the company had found both “deleted” and “nondeleted” direct messages associated with Mr. Trump’s account.The warrant was first revealed last week when a federal appeals court in Washington released court papers about Twitter’s attempt to challenge certain aspects of the warrant.The court papers unsealed on Tuesday revealed that Mr. Smith’s prosecutors sought “all content, records and other information” related to Mr. Trump’s Twitter account from October 2020 to January 2021, including all tweets “created, drafted, favorited/liked or retweeted” by the account and all direct messages sent from, received by or stored in draft form by the account.The warrant, which was signed by a federal judge in Washington in January after Elon Musk took over Twitter, now called X, is the first known example of prosecutors directly searching Mr. Trump’s communications and adds a new dimension to the scope of the special counsel’s efforts to investigate the former president.Mr. Trump’s Twitter account was often managed by Dan Scavino, a longtime adviser going back to his days in his private business, and it was unclear if any direct messages were from when he was using the account.CNN earlier reported the revelation that Mr. Trump’s direct messages were sought by the search warrant.A spokesman for Mr. Trump, asked for comment, referred to a post the former president made on his social media website, Truth Social, on Monday, in which he called Mr. Smith a “lowlife” and accused him breaking into his Twitter account. “What could he possibly find out that is not already known,” Mr. Trump wrote.The election charges filed against Mr. Trump accuse him of three overlapping conspiracies: to defraud the United States, to disrupt the certification of the election at a proceeding at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and to deprive people of the right to have their votes counted.Mr. Trump’s relentless use of Twitter is detailed several times in the indictment.The indictment notes, for instance, how Mr. Trump used Twitter on Dec. 19, 2020, to summon his followers to Washington on Jan. 6 for what he described as a “wild” protest. The message ultimately served as a lightning rod for both far-right extremists and ordinary Trump supporters who descended on the city that day, answering Mr. Trump’s call.The indictment also describes how Mr. Trump used Twitter in the run-up to Jan. 6 to instill in his followers “the false expectation” that Vice President Mike Pence had the authority to use his role in overseeing the certification proceeding at the Capitol “to reverse the election outcome” in Mr. Trump’s favor.On Jan. 6, Mr. Trump continued posting messages on Twitter that kept up this drumbeat of “knowingly false statements aimed at pressuring the vice president,” the indictment said. Ultimately, when Mr. Pence declined to give in, Mr. Trump posted yet another tweet blaming the vice president for not having “the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution.”One minute after the tweet was posted, the indictment said, Secret Service agents were forced to evacuate Mr. Pence to a secure location. And throughout that afternoon, it added, rioters roamed the Capitol and its grounds, shouting chants like “Traitor Pence” and “Hang Mike Pence.”When the special counsel’s office obtained the warrant for Mr. Trump’s Twitter account, prosecutors also got permission from a judge to force Twitter not to inform the former president that they were scrutinizing his communications.If Mr. Trump had learned about the warrant, the court papers unsealed on Tuesday said, it “would result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses or serious jeopardy to this investigation.”Twitter challenged this so-called nondisclosure order, arguing that prosecutors had violated the company’s First Amendment rights by seeking to keep officials from communicating with Mr. Trump, one of its customers.The company also asked to delay complying with the warrant until the issues surrounding the provision were resolved. Otherwise, it claimed, Mr. Trump would not have a chance to assert executive privilege in a bid to “shield communications made using his Twitter account.”Ultimately, Twitter not only lost the fight but also was found to be in contempt of court for delaying complying with the warrant. Judge Howell fined the company $350,000. More