More stories

  • in

    ¿Qué sigue para Trump tras el fallo de la Corte Suprema sobre la inmunidad presidencial?

    Analistas y observadores ya preveían, a grandes rasgos, la decisión que establece que los presidentes merecen protección considerable por sus actos oficiales. Trump lo proclamó como una victoria.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Un sistema jurídico que le ha propinado golpes dolorosos a Donald Trump en los últimos seis meses le acaba de dar una de las mejores noticias que ha recibido desde que empezó su campaña.El lunes, la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos, cuya mayoría calificada conservadora se consolidó con los magistrados nominados por Trump, le concedió al expresidente inmunidad parcial ante procedimientos judiciales ahora que intenta eludir una acusación formal del fiscal especial Jack Smith en relación con sus esfuerzos para impedir la transferencia de poder tras las elecciones de 2020.Desde hace meses, tanto analistas políticos como observadores de la corte ya esperaban, a grandes rasgos, este fallo: que los presidentes tienen derecho a una protección considerable por sus actos oficiales. Sin embargo, Trump lo proclamó como una victoria.“Este es un gran triunfo para nuestra Constitución y democracia. ¡Estoy orgulloso de ser estadounidense!”, escribió Trump en puras mayúsculas en su plataforma Truth Social.La decisión implica que es casi una certeza que un juicio sobre el caso se postergue hasta después de las elecciones de noviembre, y si Trump gana, es casi seguro que el Departamento de Justicia descarte el caso, según personas cercanas al exmandatario.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Special Counsel Is Said to Be Planning to Pursue Trump Cases Past the Election

    Jack Smith plans to continue two criminal cases against Donald J. Trump until Inauguration Day if the former president wins, according to a person familiar with his thinking.The special counsel Jack Smith plans to pursue his two criminal cases against former President Donald J. Trump through the election and even up until Inauguration Day if Mr. Trump wins the presidential race, according to a person familiar with Mr. Smith’s thinking.Mr. Smith believes that under Justice Department regulations, his mandate as special counsel and his authority to keep the cases going do not depend on a change of administration and extend until he is formally removed from his post, the person said.As a practical matter, that means that the special counsel’s office is prepared to push forward for as long as possible on the two indictments it has filed against Mr. Trump. One of those, brought in Washington, has accused the former president of plotting to subvert the 2020 election. The other, filed in Florida, has charged Mr. Trump with holding on to a trove of highly sensitive classified documents after he left office and then obstructing the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them.Mr. Smith’s decision to keep the cases going, reported earlier by The Washington Post, comes as a landmark Supreme Court ruling on executive immunity this week has effectively postponed the election interference case until after voters go to the polls in November.At the same time, Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who is overseeing the classified documents case in Florida, has declined to set a trial date as she grapples with an ever-expanding constellation of legal issues and court hearings.A spokesman for Mr. Smith declined to comment about his plans for the two cases.It is not unusual that a special counsel like Mr. Smith would seek to continue prosecuting cases under his command even after a change of presidential administrations. The Justice Department regulations governing special counsels give prosecutors like him day-to-day independence from the attorneys general who appointed them.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Two Vulnerable House Democrats Say Biden Will Lose Against Trump

    Two House Democrats facing challenging re-election races in rural districts said on Tuesday that President Biden would lose in November to former President Donald J. Trump, adding to widespread pessimism within the Democratic Party about its presidential nominee.The two Democrats, Representatives Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, did not call on Mr. Biden to step aside, nor did they indicate that any other Democrat stood a better chance of defeating Mr. Trump in the fall.But Mr. Golden and Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez, who are some of the most vulnerable incumbents in Congress this election cycle, essentially delivered a warning that they were preparing for Mr. Biden to be a critical liability at the top of the ticket. A poor performance by Mr. Biden in the presidential election could doom their own chances for re-election.In an opinion essay in The Bangor Daily News, Mr. Golden, who represents a district that Mr. Trump won in 2020, said that he had assumed Mr. Trump would win for months now and that he had made his peace with that outcome.“Lots of Democrats are panicking about whether President Joe Biden should step down as the party’s nominee,” he wrote. “Biden’s poor performance in the debate was not a surprise.”“It also didn’t rattle me as it has others,” Mr. Golden added, “because the outcome of this election has been clear to me for months: While I don’t plan to vote for him, Donald Trump is going to win. And I’m OK with that.”In an interview with a local television station, Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez, a first-term Democrat from a rural red district, also predicted that Mr. Biden would lose, blaming his dismal debate performance.“About 50 million Americans tuned in and watched that debate,” she told KATU News, appearing crestfallen throughout the interview. “I was one of them for five very painful minutes.”After carefully considering her response to a question about whether the president should step aside, Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez said: “The truth, I think, is that Biden will lose to Trump. I know it’s difficult, but I think the damage has been done.”She added that Democratic primary voters had already chosen Mr. Biden and that “a core tenet of democracy is that you accept the results of an election.”“Biden is the nominee,” she said. More

  • in

    Biden Says He ‘Fell Asleep on the Stage’ During Debate With Trump

    President Biden acknowledged on Tuesday that he “fell asleep on the stage” during his disastrous debate last week, blaming his performance on the fact that he had traveled “around the world a couple times” in the two weeks before the face-off with former President Donald J. Trump.“I wasn’t very smart,” Mr. Biden, 81, told donors at a fund-raiser in Virginia. “I decided to travel around the world a couple times, I don’t know how many time zones.”“It’s not an excuse but an explanation,” he said.White House officials have blamed Mr. Biden’s having a cold at the time for his disjointed debate performance. Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, repeated that explanation at a briefing for reporters on Tuesday afternoon.But Mr. Biden offered a different reason to the donors on Tuesday night. He referred to his decision to travel to France for several days two weeks before the debate and return to the United States before heading back to Europe for the Group of 7 summit in Italy.He decided to make that cross-Atlantic trip back and forth, Mr. Biden said, blaming himself for not having “listened to my staff,” which he implied had told him not to do that. He said the decision caused him to be tired during the debate.Mr. Biden’s comments came as the White House struggled to respond to a chorus of anxiety within the Democratic Party about whether the president is capable of mounting a winning campaign against Mr. Trump in November.For more than a year, Mr. Biden and his aides have repeatedly denied that the president’s age has affected his ability to perform his duties. They have repeatedly criticized journalists who raised the issue that large majorities of voters say they believe Mr. Biden is too old to be president.But the debate, which was watched by about 51 million people, raised serious doubts among voters and many Democratic activists. Lawmakers in the party also expressed concerns, with Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas on Tuesday becoming the first Democrat in Congress to call on Mr. Biden to drop out of the race.The president and his campaign have refused to even consider doing that. They say Mr. Biden remains determined to stay in the race and to defeat Mr. Trump, who he says is a threat to democracy in America. More

  • in

    Who Is Lloyd Doggett? Texas Democrat Calls for Biden to Exit Race

    Representative Lloyd Doggett, a little-known Texas progressive, on Tuesday became the first Democrat in Congress to call on President Biden to step aside as the party’s nominee after a halting debate performance that has raised major questions about his health, age and mental acuity.In going public with his concerns, Mr. Doggett, who has represented his Austin-based district for close to 30 years, spoke aloud what most other Democrats have only dared to say in private since Thursday’s debate.Mr. Doggett is a rank-and-file congressman with little national profile. But his public statement gave voice to a growing sense of doom and worry among Democrats about whether Mr. Biden can continue as the party’s nominee, and if by doing so he might cost the party not only the White House but also any chance of controlling Congress.“President Biden saved our democracy by delivering us from Trump in 2020,” Mr. Doggett said in the statement. “He must not deliver us to Trump in 2024.”In an interview on Tuesday afternoon, the congressman said he made the decision to break with his party and call for Mr. Biden to take himself out of the race after feeling “alarmed” as he watched the debate with his wife at their Washington home.He was dismayed when Mr. Biden did not even try to debunk many of the falsehoods that former President Donald J. Trump put forward in his answers. He was disconcerted when the president seemed to lose his train of thought and trail off in discussing health care, ending an answer with the words, “we beat Medicare.” And “we were all troubled,” he said, by Mr. Biden’s lack of forceful answers on abortion and reproductive freedom.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Tim Ryan Says Kamala Harris Should Replace Biden as Democratic Nominee

    Tim Ryan, a former Ohio congressman, called on Democrats to replace President Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the party’s ticket in the November election against former President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Ryan, in a Newsweek opinion column, wrote that he had lost confidence in Mr. Biden’s ability to defeat his rival after watching the president struggle in Thursday’s head-to-head debate with Mr. Trump. He noted that Mr. Biden had said he would be a bridge to a new generation of Democratic leaders, an idea he said he liked. “Regrettably, that bridge collapsed last week,” he wrote.“Witnessing Joe Biden struggle was heartbreaking,” Mr. Ryan wrote of the debate. “And we must forge a new path forward.”In 2020, Mr. Ryan endorsed Biden after his own bid for the party’s nomination failed. During the midterm elections in 2022, he lost his bid for Senate in Ohio to J.D. Vance, a Republican who is said to be on Mr. Trump’s shortlist of running mates.Since Mr. Biden’s poor debate performance last week, the noise has intensified about whether Democrats should replace him as the party’s nominee. He is scheduled to accept the Democratic nomination at the party’s convention in August in Chicago.While figures such as Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom, the governors of Michigan and California, have drawn attention as potential replacements, Mr. Ryan wrote that Ms. Harris gives Democrats their best shot at holding the presidency. “Those who say that a Harris candidacy is a greater risk than the Joe Biden we saw the other night and will continue to see are not living in reality,” he wrote. “It is not just utterly preposterous for the haters to say that, it is insulting.” More

  • in

    How Partisan Media Covered the Trump Immunity Decision

    Liberal and conservative media outlets alike on Monday gave top billing to the news that the Supreme Court granted former President Donald J. Trump significant immunity from prosecution.But the similarities stopped there.Liberal outlets criticized the ruling as a biased move from a conservative Supreme Court. They said it only heightened the stakes for November’s general election, since the decision complicates the criminal case that accuses Mr. Trump of trying to overturn the last election.Many conservative outlets offered a relatively straightforward assessment of the decision, which left to lower courts to decide which aspects of Mr. Trump’s conduct were protected from prosecution. But several conservative commentators nonetheless celebrated the 6-3 decision and admonished Democrats who opposed it.Here’s how a selection of outlets covered the news:FROM THE LEFTMeidasTouchThe court’s ruling found Mr. Trump was immune from being prosecuted for “official” acts during his presidency, but said he was not immune from being prosecuted for “unofficial” conduct.Such broad immunity was needed to maintain “an energetic, independent executive,” according to the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The ruling also said a district court would have to decide what entailed official and unofficial conduct, including Mr. Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021. That process would likely delay any trial of Mr. Trump until after November’s election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    There’s No Reason to Resign Ourselves to Biden

    Though Joe Biden’s debate performance last week was among the most painful things I’ve ever witnessed, it at least seemed to offer clarity. Suddenly, even many people who love this president realized that his campaign has become untenable.For years, loyal Democrats have been suppressing their private anxiety about Biden’s decline. In the debate’s miserable aftermath, there was finally space to acknowledge the obvious: Biden is too old for this. “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced,” James Baldwin wrote. The Democratic Party’s predicament is an awful one, but there was a cold, flinty relief in being forced to reckon with it.Since then, however, the Biden campaign has quickly moved to squash that reckoning, framing the divide in the Democratic Party as one between naïve, hysterical outsiders and savvy, resolute insiders. Biden surrogates fanned out to discount the debate as a single “bad night.” A campaign email slammed those calling on the president to step aside as the “bed-wetting brigade,” and offered tips for responding to “your panicked aunt, your MAGA uncle, or some self-important podcasters,” an apparent reference to the former Obama officials who host “Pod Save America.” On Monday, I listened to a recording of a Zoom meeting with Biden’s national finance committee in which his deputy campaign manager, Quentin Fulks, accused the media of blowing the debate “out of proportion,” and his campaign manager, Jen O’Malley Dillon, compared it to Barack Obama’s lackluster performance against Mitt Romney in 2012.Some allies of the president have even suggested that Democrats learn from Donald Trump’s unswerving followers. “If Republicans are standing lock step” with the 78-year-old disgraced criminal Trump, said the MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart, “then Democrats damn well should be standing lock step with their ethical and morally decent 81-year-old president.”I don’t blame people in the Biden camp for doing everything they can to tamp down an intraparty revolt. That’s their job, and I take some comfort that they’re doing it as well as is possible, since if Biden is the nominee, it’s imperative that he defeats Trump. But as long as there’s time to replace Biden, Democrats should not allow themselves to be bullied into fatalism and complacency.More than a setback, Biden’s showing at the debate was a revelation, confirming the worst fears of his doubters. Since then, several news reports have made it clear that the Biden we all saw onstage is familiar to those who see him behind the scenes. Axios reported that, according to presidential aides, Biden is alert and engaged from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., but not necessarily outside of those hours. The Wall Street Journal reported that European officials were worried about Biden’s “focus and stamina” even before the debate, “with some senior diplomats saying they had tracked a noticeable deterioration in the president’s faculties in meetings since last summer.” This is not a fixable problem.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More