More stories

  • in

    ‘Dictators Do Not Go on Vacation,’ Zelensky Warns Washington and Europe

    President Volodymyr Zelensky pushed back against skepticism of a Ukraine victory, calling on world leaders not to ask when the war would end, but why Russia was still able to wage it.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called on world leaders not to abandon his country, citing the recent death of a Russian dissident as a reminder that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia of would continue to test the international order, and pushing back against the idea of a negotiated resolution to the war.Mr. Zelensky, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security Conference, said that if Ukraine lost the war to Russia, it would be “catastrophic” not only for Kyiv, but for other nations as well.“Please do not ask Ukraine when the war will end,” he said. “Ask yourself why is Putin still able to continue it.”The two topics that have loomed over nearly every discussion at the yearly meeting of world leaders have been Russia and the potential weakening of trans-Atlantic relations, amid an increasingly pessimistic assessment of Kyiv’s ability to beat Moscow.Mr. Zelensky’s speech on Saturday came as Ukrainian forces retreated from a longtime stronghold, Avdiivka, giving Russian troops their first significant victory in almost a year.And it came a day after attendees of the conference were shaken by the news that the prominent dissident Aleksei A. Navalny had died in a Russian Arctic penal colony. It was a stark reminder, Mr. Zelensky warned, of how Moscow would continue to test the Western-backed international rules-based order.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

    Michigan’s G.O.P. Nominating Process Appears Headed For Chaos

    As early in-person voting began on Saturday in Michigan, a fight for control of the G.O.P. in the crucial battleground state plunged Republicans there deeper into a political maelstrom, with rival factions potentially barreling toward hosting dueling nominating conventions.As if things weren’t already confusing.In a little over a week, the state will host a traditional primary on one day, and then a caucus-style convention a few days later. Now, it seems, there could actually be two conventions, in different parts of the state, each claiming legitimacy.Former President Donald J. Trump is headed to Michigan on Saturday night, with a campaign rally in Waterford Township, about 30 miles northwest of Detroit. While he has made it clear which faction he is supporting, and so has the national party, that has done little to dissuade the Trump-styled election denier attempting to hold on to power.The feud, already being waged in state court, appears to be only gaining intensity.Pete Hoekstra, whom the Republican National Committee recognized on Wednesday as the state party’s rightful chairman after his election last month, said he was moving forward with plans to hold a statewide nominating convention on March 2 in Western Michigan.But Kristina Karamo, defying the R.N.C.’s determination that she had properly been removed as party chairwoman earlier in January and Mr. Trump’s endorsement of Mr. Hoekstra, has also indicated that she will continue hosting a convention on the same day, for the same purpose, but in Detroit.At stake at the convention will be 39 of Michigan’s 55 Republican presidential delegates. The other 16 will be decided during the state’s Feb. 27 primary, which includes at least nine days of early voting. The hybrid process, new this year, was adopted by Republicans in order to comply with R.N.C. rules after Michigan’s Democratic governor moved up the primary date.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

    On the Ground of Biden’s Antitrust Agenda

    Doha Mekki, one of President Biden’s key antitrust enforcers, talks about the Justice Department’s big wins and losses, and what could be in store if President Biden gets another four years.Big deals are waiting on the tarmac as Wall Street and the business world anticipate how the presidential election will change antitrust enforcement.President Biden has taken an aggressive approach to policing deals that some have called overreaching and others have lauded as a necessary return to scrutiny on the power wielded by big business. Dealmakers say they are holding some deals back in hope of a more lenient approach in the next administration.Doha Mekki is on the ground executing the strategy. She’s worked at the Justice Department under three administrations: as a trial attorney during the Obama presidency, in the front office during the Trump presidency and now as the principal deputy assistant attorney general under Jonathan Kanter.In a recent interview at the Penn Carey Law Antitrust Association’s annual symposium, DealBook talked with Mekki about the department’s big wins and losses, and what could be in store if Biden gets another four years. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.You led the lawsuit that successfully blocked JetBlue’s acquisition of Spirit Airlines (the decision is under appeal). In a case like that, how do you weigh the risk that a company will fail because it’s too weak on its own against the risk of a more consolidated industry?There’s a whole doctrine in antitrust that deals specifically with firms that are financially not viable. And it bears noting — and certainly the court noted — that the company did not make that argument. In fact, what Spirit, I think, projected to its shareholders for a long time was that they still intended to grow.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

    No, Wind Farms Aren’t ‘Driving Whales Crazy’

    Donald Trump has attacked the President Biden’s climate and energy policies with gusto, but many of his criticisms are simply untrue.As the South Carolina Republican primary approaches, former President Donald J. Trump, the front-runner, is increasingly hammering President Biden with inaccurate statements on energy issues.Mr. Trump — who has called climate change a “hoax,” “nonexistent” and “created by the Chinese” — rolled back more than 100 climate and environmental protections during his administration, while promoting the development of fossil fuels. He has claimed, falsely, that windmills cause cancer, that energy efficient buildings have no windows and that solar rooftops leave older people without air-conditioning in the summer.This month, Mr. Trump has repeated many of his false claims, sometimes with new twists. Here is a closer look at three of Mr. Trump’s recent climate and energy assertions.WHAT WAS SAID:“I will end Joe Biden’s war on American energy, cancel his ban on exporting American natural gas, beautiful, clean natural gas.”— Donald J. Trump at an event in North Charleston, S.C. on Feb. 14This is false. In January, President Biden announced that he would temporarily pause approvals for permits for new liquefied natural gas export terminals until the Department of Energy conducts a study on the economic, security and climate implications of increased exports. This is not a ban; the United States continues to export more natural gas than any other nation. Even with the pause in approving new terminals, the country is still on track to nearly double its export capacity by 2027 because of projects already permitted and under construction.Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk testified to Congress that the review would take “months,” not years, to complete.WHAT WAS SAID:“We are a nation whose leaders are demanding all electric cars, despite the fact that they don’t go far. They cost too much, and whose batteries are produced in China with materials only available in China when an unlimited amount of gasoline is available inexpensively in the United States, but not available in China.”— Donald J. Trump at an event in Conway, S.C., on Feb. 10This is misleading. There’s a lot here. But let’s start with this: No administration can mandate how many cars sold in the United States must be all-electric.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

    In Trump Case, Thorny Conflict of Interest Question Looms

    At the heart of the effort to disqualify the prosecutors in Donald J. Trump’s election interference case is the argument that the romantic relationship between Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, and Nathan J. Wade, the special prosecutor she hired, created a conflict of interest.That argument has been put forth primarily by Ashleigh Merchant, the lawyer for Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official and a co-defendant in the case. Ms. Merchant accuses the district attorney of hiring Mr. Wade after they became romantically involved, and notes that the pair took several vacations together that were paid for by Mr. Wade.But Mr. Wade says the romantic relationship began after he was hired. And according to Ms. Willis, they “roughly divided” the costs of the trips.Ms. Merchant said in a recent court filing that the pair had “personally enriched themselves off the case.” That enrichment, she wrote, “is a form of self-dealing, which creates a personal interest in the case. In other words, the more work that is done on the case (regardless of what justice calls for) the more they get paid.”That personal interest, she added, is “at odds with the district attorney’s obligation to seek justice.” Ms. Merchant and other defense lawyers have also argued that the situation violates various laws and the State Bar of Georgia’s rules of professional conduct.Some legal observers have rejected out of hand the idea that the relationship and Mr. Wade’s financing of the couple’s vacations amount to a conflict of interest under Georgia law. But the presiding judge in the matter, Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court, has indicated that he thinks that it is at least possible that such a conflict exists, depending on what additional details emerge in Thursday’s hearing.“The state has admitted that a relationship existed,” Judge McAfee said earlier this week. “And so what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit — again, if there even was one.”He said that even “the appearance of” a conflict could lead to disqualification. More

  • in

    Chinese Influence Campaign Pushes Disunity Before U.S. Election, Study Says

    A long-running network of accounts, known as Spamouflage, is using A.I.-generated images to amplify negative narratives involving the presidential race.A Chinese influence campaign that has tried for years to boost Beijing’s interests is now using artificial intelligence and a network of social media accounts to amplify American discontent and division ahead of the U.S. presidential election, according to a new report.The campaign, known as Spamouflage, hopes to breed disenchantment among voters by maligning the United States as rife with urban decay, homelessness, fentanyl abuse, gun violence and crumbling infrastructure, according to the report, which was published on Thursday by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a nonprofit research organization in London.An added aim, the report said, is to convince international audiences that the United States is in a state of chaos.Artificially generated images, some of them also edited with tools like Photoshop, have pushed the idea that the November vote will damage and potentially destroy the country.One post on X that said “American partisan divisions” had an image showing President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump aggressively crossing fiery spears under this text: “INFIGHTING INTENSIFIES.” Other images featured the two men facing off, cracks in the White House or the Statue of Liberty, and terminology like “CIVIL WAR,” “INTERNAL STRIFE” and “THE COLLAPSE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.”The campaign’s artificially generated images, some of them also edited with tools like Photoshop, have pushed the idea that the November vote will damage and potentially destroy America.via XWe 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

    The Trauma of the Trump Years Is Being Rewritten

    Americans rehabilitate ex-presidents all the time.It was fascinating to see the rebranding of George W. Bush — the man who took us into the disastrous Iraq war and horribly bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina — into a charming amateur artist who played buddies with and passed candy to Michelle Obama.And it didn’t just happen for him. The Monica Lewinsky scandal faded in our consideration of Bill Clinton. Barack Obama’s reliance on drone strikes and his moniker “deporter in chief” rarely receive mention now.This is because our political memories aren’t fixed, but are constantly being adjusted. Politicians’ negatives are often diminished and their positives inflated. As Gallup noted in 2013, “Americans tend to be more charitable in their evaluations of past presidents than they are when the presidents are in office.”Without a doubt, Donald Trump benefits from this phenomenon. The difference is that other presidents’ shortcomings pale in comparison to his and his benefit isn’t passive: He’s seeking the office again and, as part of that, working to rewrite the history of his presidency. His desperate attempts, first to cling to power, then to regain it, include denying the 2020 election results and embracing the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection that his denials helped fuel.His revisionism has worked remarkably well, particularly among Republicans. A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll conducted in December found that Republicans “are now less likely to believe that Jan. 6 participants were ‘mostly violent,’ less likely to believe Trump bears responsibility for the attack and are slightly less likely to view Joe Biden’s election as legitimate” than they were in 2021.This is one of the truly remarkable aspects of the current presidential cycle: the degree to which our collective memory of Trump’s litany of transgressions have become less of a political problem for him than might otherwise be expected. Even the multiple legal charges he now faces are almost all about things that happened years ago and, to many citizens, involve things that the country should put in the rearview mirror.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

    Haley Trails Trump by 36 Points in South Carolina, New Poll Shows

    A Winthrop University poll released Wednesday shows Nikki Haley losing badly in South Carolina, her home state, with a little more than a week before the state’s Republican primary.Nearly two-thirds of likely Republican primary voters, 65 percent, said they supported former President Donald J. Trump, and only 29 percent said they supported Ms. Haley. Those numbers are very close to the average results of recent polls of South Carolina.After receiving 19 percent of the caucus vote in Iowa and 43 percent of the primary vote in New Hampshire, Ms. Haley has rested her argument for her campaign’s viability on the premise that she may not be beating Mr. Trump yet, but she is gaining ground. In an interview with NBC last month, she said of her performance in South Carolina, “I don’t think that necessarily has to be a win, but it certainly has to be better than what I did in New Hampshire, and it certainly has to be close.”The poll’s fine print was also bad for Ms. Haley: Only 49 percent of registered voters, including Republicans and Democrats, said they had a favorable opinion of her, down from 59 percent in the last Winthrop poll in November. The drop was sharpest among Republicans, 56 percent of whom had a favorable opinion of her, down from 71 percent in November.Mr. Trump’s approval rating among all registered voters was about the same as Ms. Haley’s, 48 percent. But he benefits from a huge 81 percent favorability rating among Republicans, and unlike Ms. Haley, he is getting more popular over time. In November, 45 percent overall and 77 percent of Republicans viewed him favorably.The poll was conducted from Feb. 2 to 10 among 1,717 adults registered to vote in South Carolina, 749 of whom said they were likely or certain to vote in the Republican primary. The margin of sampling error for the full poll is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points, and the margin of sampling error for likely primary voters is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.The timing of the poll means it predated Mr. Trump’s speech over the weekend, in which he suggested that he would encourage Russia to attack NATO members whom he considered financially delinquent and insinuated that Ms. Haley’s husband, a major in the National Guard who is deployed to Djibouti, had left the country to escape her.Ms. Haley is trying to recover from an embarrassing result last week in the Nevada primary, where Mr. Trump was not on the ballot but she nevertheless got fewer votes than a “None of These Candidates” option did. She has hammered Mr. Trump for those comments.“The most harm he’s ever come across is whether a golf ball hits him on a golf cart, and you’re going to go and mock our men and women in the military?” she said on Monday. More