Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Asa Hutchinson Makes Pitch as Bigger Names and Personalities Crowd Him Out

      by

      Holding court in a Pizza Ranch restaurant on Tuesday in Newton, Iowa, Asa Hutchinson was trying to keep his long-shot presidential bid aloft as formidable Republican heavyweights continued to dominate the state’s attention.The would-be caucusgoers listened as he avoided easy answers, carefully sidestepped social issues that he worried were too divisive and made copious references to his previous stints in government — that his stops along the path leading him here had included the House of Representatives, leadership roles in the Homeland Security Department and Drug Enforcement Administration and, most recently, the governor’s mansion in Arkansas.The problem for Mr. Hutchinson was clear and obvious — only eight Iowa voters were there with him, all tucked into the Pizza Ranch’s “Bunk House,” a party room just off the buffet table.“Our strategy is to do well in Iowa; we want to be in the top five,” he explained. “We want to be able to go to New Hampshire, which we’ve been campaigning in, and then we’re going to hit the South — South Carolina, Arkansas and the other Southern states. We’re in this for the long haul.”Mr. Hutchinson seems to represent a throwback to a different era of Republicanism, embracing the earnest “compassionate conservatism” of former President George W. Bush.Kathryn Gamble for The New York TimesMr. Hutchinson’s campaign has been struggling to reach anything like cruising altitude. With the first Republican debate, in Milwaukee, a little more than a month away, he is far from having the 40,000 individual donors required to meet the Republican National Committee’s threshold for a spot on stage. A failure to appear could sink his campaign.“I’ll be very straightforward with you: I’m not there yet,” the former governor told the radio host Hugh Hewitt last week, adding, “we’re above 5,000, so we’ve got, again, more work to do.”He has yet to post public fund-raising numbers: “You’ll get the report when it’s filed later this week,” he said on Tuesday. He then acknowledged: “We’d like to have more money.”But Mr. Hutchinson’s struggles go beyond fund-raising, to the heart of any politics: appeal. Or just who is looking to buy what he’s selling in a race dominated by far bigger names: a former president, a former vice president, the sitting governor of the third largest state in the nation, the only Black Republican in the Senate, and others.Mr. Hutchinson entered the race relatively early, and with an obvious calling card: his outspoken opposition to former President Donald J. Trump. But that lane is now occupied by a much more brash contender, former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.Another distinguishing feature of Mr. Hutchinson’s candidacy is his lengthy government résumé. But voters looking for strong credentials seem to be more drawn to Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations.Few would question Mr. Hutchinson’s religious faith, but former Vice President Mike Pence has been in the trenches with the G.O.P.’s evangelical voters for years. Nor does Mr. Hutchinson have the personal wealth being brought to the campaign by the North Dakota governor, Doug Burgum, or the smooth salesmanship of the moneyed entrepreneur and author Vivek Ramaswamy.Instead, Mr. Hutchinson seems to represent a throwback to a different era of Republicanism, embracing the earnest “compassionate conservatism” of former President George W. Bush, remaining unaligned with any particular wing of the party and offering a broad pitch.He says the economy will be the defining issue of the 2024 race, and though he says that he, too, worries about contested cultural issues like transgender rights, he frets that such issues may be leading the party’s leadership astray.“Today, regretfully we have leaders that build on the divide, increase the divide, and say, how can we make money off the divide?” he said in Newton.And he scorns easy answers, even when his audience might look for them. Asked about China and the fentanyl trade, he explained that China sends hard-to-trace precursor chemicals to Mexico, where the drug cartels then manufacture the opioids. China broke off cooperation on the issue when an American politician — and a Democrat at that — former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, visited Taiwan.“I don’t know if you can make China do anything,” he said.For months, Mr. Hutchinson has said that he has time to gain altitude, but even he spoke with a tone of desperation on Tuesday, noting that the Iowa caucuses were recently scheduled for an early date, Jan. 15, with the first debate just over the horizon.Kathryn Gamble for The New York TimesHe castigated one competitor, Mr. Ramaswamy, by name, for meeting slogans like “Drain the swamp!” with easy answers, such as an eight-year term limit for federal employees, which he said would make recruitment and retention of vital employees like border patrol officers next to impossible.As for the party’s “Build the wall!” mantra relating to all aspects of border security, he noted that on a recent trip to the border he had seen places where smugglers had blasted holes in the wall with acetylene torches and Border Patrol welders had patched them over, marking the repair dates in chalk.“I’m looking at a wall with all kinds of welding marks on there and all kinds of scribbled dates on there,” he said. “The point being that a wall is not enough.”But in an era of Republican passion, the broad appeal and conciliatory talk that worked for Mr. Bush nearly a quarter century ago now feels a mile wide and an eighth of an inch deep, always on the verge of drying up completely.The few voters who came to hear Mr. Hutchinson’s message on Tuesday said they were not giving up on his chances. Deanna Ward, of Ames, a retired secretary at Iowa State University, said at a Tuesday morning meet-and-greet in Nevada, Iowa, that she liked Mr. Hutchinson’s national security experience and handle on policy.“He understands the border crisis, he understands diplomacy,” she said.Steve and Anna Wittmuss drove from their home in West Des Moines, about an hour away, to catch Mr. Hutchinson in Newton. Mr. Wittmuss leans Republican, he said; Ms. Wittmuss is a Democrat. Both are eager for an alternative to the front-runner in the Republican race, Mr. Trump.Mr. Christie’s stalwart criticism of Mr. Trump has its appeal, said Mr. Wittmuss, who fondly recalled listening to Mr. Christie in 2016, as he recited lengthy and nuanced answers to difficult political questions.“Then he went back to New Jersey and did some things so stupid you just couldn’t believe it,” he said, pointing to the scandal that became known as Bridgegate as well as Mr. Christie’s infamous 2017 trip to a beach that had been closed because of a government shutdown.For months, Mr. Hutchinson has said that he has time to gain altitude, but even he spoke with a tone of desperation on Tuesday, noting that the Iowa caucuses were recently scheduled for an early date, Jan. 15, with the first debate just over the horizon.In Nevada, Iowa, Luke Spence, a pilot for United Airlines, hosted Mr. Hutchinson and estimated that he had staged around 50 “Coffee With the Candidate” events since he had started them as a personal passion project in 2019, during the run-up to the 2020 Iowa caucuses. On Tuesday morning, he said, he had gathered his smallest crowd ever. Just six Iowans had climbed the stairs, above Farm Grounds Coffee Shop on the town square, to hear Mr. Hutchinson.“Well, it’s a Tuesday morning,” Sue Vande Kamp of Nevada said afterward, as she praised Mr. Hutchinson’s ability and willingness to listen to voter concerns.Mr. Hutchinson said he was undeterred by such showings. He said he would not be lured into setting the terms of his withdrawal, if, say, he misses the debate in August, or the later debates, or if he fails to secure a top finish in the caucuses in January.“The only standard I set for myself is, we all should be self-evaluating as time goes on,” he said. “You know, I don’t expect 12 to be in the race when you get into Super Tuesday.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      What to Watch for as FBI Director Christopher Wray Testifies Before Congress

      by

      Stoked by former President Donald J. Trump, congressional Republicans have been trying to undermine the F.B.I.’s legitimacy with the public.Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, confronted an extraordinary political storm on Wednesday in testifying before Congress, with Republicans who once defended the bureau now denouncing it as a weapon wielded against former President Donald J. Trump and his supporters.Mr. Wray, who is appearing for the first time before the House Judiciary Committee since Republicans won the House, is most likely girding for the worst. The committee, led by Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, has said it “will examine the politicization” of the F.B.I. under Mr. Wray and Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.In his opening statement, Mr. Jordan accused the bureau of a litany of abuses. He urged Democratic lawmakers to join Republicans in blocking the reauthorization of a warrantless surveillance program known as Section 702 and raised questions about funding for the bureau’s new headquarters.“I hope they will work with us in the appropriations process to stop the weaponization of the government against the American people and end this double standard that exists now in our justice system,” he said.Anticipating the questioning to come, the top Democrat on the committee, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, described the hearing as “little more than performance art.” He countered that Republicans had initiated an array of “baseless investigations” in a bid to “protect Donald Trump from the consequences of his actions.”Stoked by the former president, congressional Republicans have adopted an increasingly caustic tone in their criticism of the country’s premier law enforcement agency, trying to damage its legitimacy and to undermine its standing with the public.That criticism was once trained on the bureau’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia during the 2016 election. It is now focused on other flash points: Mr. Trump’s indictment in an inquiry into his handling of classified documents; the F.B.I.’s role in the search of his estate in Florida in August, as part of that inquiry; unfounded claims of a “two-tiered” system of justice favoring Democrats; and the Justice Department’s plea agreement with President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.So far, Republicans have not provided evidence that the F.B.I. and Mr. Wray are partisan, but they will try to catch him off balance and seed doubt about his motives.Here is what to look for:How will Mr. Wray respond?Mr. Wray infuriated Mr. Trump, who viewed the director’s declaration of independence as disloyalty. But Mr. Wray has previously testified before Congress, steadfastly defending the F.B.I. as nonpartisan and taking fire on Twitter from Mr. Trump, while he was president.Mr. Trump appointed Mr. Wray in 2017 after he fired James B. Comey, who as F.B.I. director had opened the Russia investigation. Since then, Mr. Wray has been under constant pressure from Republicans, who have simultaneously decried lawlessness in cities run by Democrats while attacking the F.B.I.’s role in political investigations.In the past, Mr. Wray has responded to attacks by parsing his words carefully. In his opening statement, he forcibly defended the F.B.I. and declined to discuss open investigations, which is the policy of the Justice Department.“I want to talk about the sheer breadth and impact of the work the F.B.I.’s 38,000 employees are doing, each and every day,” he said, citing the bureau’s work in addressing violent crime, fentanyl trafficking and efforts by China to steal trade secrets. “Because the work the men and women of the F.B.I. do to protect the American people goes way beyond the one or two investigations that seem to capture all the headlines.”Republicans are going to war.Mr. Trump and his supporters — as well as a vocal group of former F.B.I. officials who have aligned themselves with Republicans in Congress — believe the government is trying to silence and punish conservatives and see the bureau as a dangerous extension of that effort.Case in point: In January, House Republicans voted to investigate law enforcement, creating the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.Republicans have claimed that the F.B.I. prodded Twitter to discriminate against their party as well as conservative or right-wing protesters at school board meetings and abortion clinics. Those issues have proved to be powerful drivers of voter turnout in the party’s pro-Trump base.The subcommittee is led by Mr. Jordan, a close ally of Mr. Trump’s.Last month, House Republicans on the Oversight Committee moved to hold Mr. Wray in contempt of Congress. But they called off a planned vote days later after the bureau said it would make available a document at the center of their dispute, involving an unverified allegation of bribery against Mr. Biden when he was vice president.Mr. Trump and his supporters have promoted the idea that the Mar-a-Lago search was intended to neutralize his electoral chances.Mr. Trump and his allies have raged at his indictment and the search of Mar-a-Lago in August, when F.B.I. agents descended on his residence and uncovered hundreds of classified documents.The former president and his supporters have said that Mr. Trump declassified the records, meaning there was no misconduct to start, and that the search was an example of an uneven application of justice.But so far no evidence has emerged that the documents were declassified or that the search, which was approved by a federal judge, was improper or politically motivated. In fact, the search unfolded after Mr. Trump repeatedly resisted the government’s requests that he return the material.In recent weeks, Steven D’Antuono, the former top F.B.I. agent overseeing the documents case, testified behind closed doors before Mr. Jordan.Asked if “anyone was motivated by animus” in the documents investigation, Mr. D’Antuono said no, according to a transcript of his testimony.Mr. Trump appointed Mr. Wray in 2017 after he fired James B. Comey.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesHunter Biden reached a plea deal. Republicans hate it.Under the deal with the Justice Department, Mr. Biden agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor counts of failing to pay his 2017 and 2018 taxes on time and to be sentenced to probation. The department also said it would not prosecute him for buying a handgun in 2018 during a period when he was using drugs.Republicans have assailed the deal, calling it too lenient, even though years of investigation by a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney found evidence to charge Mr. Biden only on the narrow tax and gun issues, rather than the wide-ranging international conspiracies peddled by Mr. Trump and his allies.That U.S. attorney, David C. Weiss, who signed off on the agreement, has also come under fire. On Monday, Mr. Weiss rebutted a key element of testimony to Congress by an Internal Revenue Service official who said that Mr. Weiss had complained about being blocked from pursuing more serious charges.Republicans will claim the Durham investigation showed that the F.B.I. was politically motivated in pursuing its Russia inquiry.A final report by John H. Durham, the Trump-era special counsel, looked at the origins of the F.B.I.’s investigation into any ties Mr. Trump’s campaign had with Russia but found no evidence of politically motivated misconduct.Still, Mr. Durham’s report has continued to fuel Republican claims of bias, with some accusing the F.B.I. of making moves motivated by political favoritism.That charge almost immediately resurfaced during Mr. Wray’s hearing. Mr. Durham’s “ lengthy report reluctantly concluded that the F.B.I. quote, failed uphold its mission of strict fidelity to the law,” Representative Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, said shortly after Mr. Wray’s testimony began.Even as Mr. Trump and his loyalists had long insisted that Mr. Durham’s investigation would unearth a “deep state” conspiracy intended to damage him politically, Mr. Durham never charged high-level government officials.Instead, Mr. Durham developed only two peripheral cases involving accusations of making false statements, both of which ended in acquittals, while using his report to cite flaws in the F.B.I.’s early investigative steps that he attributed to confirmation bias.Will Americans trust the F.B.I.?Republicans have claimed the Justice Department is “weaponized” against conservatives, but the allegations that were brought forth by aggrieved former F.B.I. officials have foundered.Instead, Democratic investigators have uncovered that those former F.B.I. officials have trafficked in right-wing conspiracy theories, including about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol, and have received financial support from a top ally of Mr. Trump’s.In a heated exchange, Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, said the American public trusted the F.B.I. more under J. Edgar Hoover, the bureau’s first director, than under the leadership of Mr. Wray. Mr. Wray countered that the number of F.B.I. applicants had surged in Mr. Gaetz’s home state. Mr. Gaetz said he was “deeply proud” of these people and “they deserve better than you.”Still, the back-and-forth is having an impact. Mr. D’Antuono, in his testimony, rebuffed allegations of political bias and rejected calls to defund the bureau — but expressed concern about the future.“In my opinion,” he said, “the more the American people hear about not trusting the F.B.I., it’s not a good day for this country.” More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Confronts a Murdoch Empire No Longer Quite So Supportive

      by

      The Florida governor has faced tough questions and critical coverage lately from Fox News and other conservative outlets, in a sign of growing skepticism.In March, as Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida laid the groundwork for his presidential run, he joined the Fox News host Brian Kilmeade to play a nationally televised game of catch on his hometown baseball field outside Tampa.The questions Mr. DeSantis faced were as relaxed as the tosses.“Locker room gets you ready for the press, right?” Mr. Kilmeade asked. “Because your teammates, if they like you a lot, they rip you all the time.”At the time, Mr. DeSantis was seen by many in the Republican Party as the strongest possible alternative to former President Donald J. Trump, who had repeatedly attacked the network and had seen his relationship with its owner, Rupert Murdoch, evaporate.Four months later, with Mr. DeSantis’s campaign having failed to immediately catch fire against Mr. Trump, Fox News is not taking it quite so easy on Mr. DeSantis anymore.Over the last week, he has confronted noticeably tougher questions in interviews with two of the network’s hosts, Will Cain and Maria Bartiromo, who pressed him on his anemic poll numbers and early campaign struggles. It was a striking shift for a network that for years has offered Mr. DeSantis a safe space as a congressman and a governor.Other outlets in Mr. Murdoch’s media empire have also been slightly less friendly of late.A recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal criticized a tough immigration bill that Mr. DeSantis signed into law in May. And The New York Post, which hailed the governor as “DeFuture” on its front page last year, has covered his lagging poll numbers, as well as the backlash to a video his campaign shared that was condemned as homophobic.Mr. DeSantis was always bound to be subjected to more scrutiny as a candidate, rather than a candidate in waiting. His decision to challenge Mr. Trump — who remains a favorite of Fox News’s audience and some of its hosts, including Ms. Bartiromo — was also certain to result in sideswipes from fellow Republicans.But taken together, the signs of skepticism from previously friendly conservative megaphones suggest that Mr. Murdoch’s media empire might now be reassessing him as the early shine comes off his campaign.Rupert Murdoch’s news outlets are less determinative of outcomes in Republican politics than they once were, but they remain influential.Victoria Jones/Press Association, via Associated PressEven if Mr. Murdoch’s outlets as a whole are less determinative of outcomes in Republican politics than they once were, they remain influential, and G.O.P. candidates and major party donors still pay close attention to their coverage.Whether Mr. Murdoch wants to see Mr. DeSantis as the nominee is unclear. Some of Mr. DeSantis’s moves — like his ongoing punitive battle with Disney — are unlikely to have pleased the business-minded Mr. Murdoch, who nearly a decade ago called for federal officials to make immigration reform a priority.The media mogul likes to watch political races play out, even live-tweeting reactions to one of the Republican presidential debates during the 2016 election. Mr. Murdoch has privately told people that he would still like to see Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia enter the race, according to a person with knowledge of the remarks. And he has made clear in private discussions over the last two years that he thinks Mr. Trump, despite his popularity with Fox News viewers, is unhealthy for the Republican Party.A spokesman for Mr. Murdoch and a spokesman for Fox did not respond to an email seeking comment.Mr. DeSantis’s campaign declined to comment. Privately, his advisers say that tougher questions were always expected and that the governor plans to continue holding interviews with Fox hosts who may challenge him.Republican voters view Mr. DeSantis favorably overall, but he has been unable to meaningfully narrow the polling gap between him and Mr. Trump since entering the race, even as he remains the former president’s leading challenger. Mr. DeSantis has also continued to show an awkward side in unscripted exchanges where he is challenged — a contrast with Mr. Trump, a no-holds barred campaigner who seems to enjoy combative interviews.The tide has not completely shifted. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page took a new jab at Mr. Trump for adjusting his policy positions depending on which audience he is addressing, and gave Mr. DeSantis a slight boost by comparing him favorably.For Fox, navigating its coverage of Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Trump and an already bitter Republican presidential primary race is just one challenge.This spring, the network paid dearly for its airing of Mr. Trump’s false election claims, settling a defamation lawsuit related to its coverage of the 2020 presidential contest for a staggering $787.5 million. Further legal dangers lie ahead.Less than a week after the settlement, Fox dismissed Tucker Carlson, its most popular prime-time host, in an earthquake for the conservative media ecosystem. The network now faces persistent concerns about dipping ratings and upstart competitors that are eager to claw away Fox viewers who want a more pro-Trump viewpoint.Although Mr. Trump still appears on Fox News, his relationship with the network remains hostile, to the extent that people close to him say there is little chance he will participate in the first Republican presidential debate, which Fox News is hosting next month. (Mr. Trump, who leads in national polls by roughly 30 percentage points, also does not want to give his rivals a chance to attack him in person, those people said.)Mr. DeSantis, who typically shuns one-on-one interviews with mainstream political reporters, has a long and positive history with Fox News.Mr. DeSantis with his wife, Casey, after winning the Florida governor’s race in 2018. For years, he has enjoyed a friendly relationship with Fox News. Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesAs a congressman, he co-hosted the show “Outnumbered” several times. In 2018, he announced his run for governor on “Fox & Friends.” During the coronavirus pandemic, Sean Hannity of Fox News praised Mr. DeSantis in an interview, saying: “I’m an idiot. I should be in Florida. You should be my governor.”And after declaring his candidacy for president in a glitch-ridden livestream on Twitter seven weeks ago, Mr. DeSantis immediately went on Fox for an interview, although the network did poke fun at his technical difficulties.Mr. Trump himself raged earlier in the year about what he perceived as Fox’s excessively friendly treatment of Mr. DeSantis. “Just watching Fox News. They are sooo bad,” Mr. Trump wrote on his TruthSocial site in May. “They are desperately pushing DeSanctimonious who, regardless, is dropping like a rock.”He has also taken digs at features in The New York Post, including one in which the writer Salena Zito did a lengthy interview with Mr. DeSantis in his hometown, Dunedin, Fla. — an article Mr. Trump denounced as a “puff piece.” (The Post, once one of Mr. Trump’s favorite papers, has ripped into him.)Mr. Trump was undoubtedly more pleased last Thursday when Mr. Cain, the Fox host, pressed Mr. DeSantis on his poll numbers, asking the governor why he was so far behind.In response, Mr. DeSantis suggested that he was being unfairly attacked both by the “corporate media” and, somewhat incongruously, by the president of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who has criticized him for his hard-line stances on immigration.“So I think if you look at all these people that are responsible for a lot of the ills in our society, they’re targeting me as the person they don’t want to see as the candidate,” explained Mr. DeSantis, adding that his campaign had “just started.”Mr. Cain tried again, saying that he believed Mr. DeSantis had “done a wonderful job” as governor but that “there are those that say there’s something about you that’s not connecting, for whatever reason, not connecting with the voter.”Mr. DeSantis wove around the question and noted that his campaign had raised $20 million in its first six weeks.“We’re in the process of building out a great organization, and I think we’re going to be on the ground in all these early states,” he said.Mr. Cain is no dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporter. He has talked about voting against Mr. Trump in 2016. But when Mr. DeSantis joined Ms. Bartiromo, who relentlessly pushed the former president’s conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, for an interview on Sunday, he surely expected to be challenged.“You’ve done a great job pushing back against ‘woke,’ we know that,” Ms. Bartiromo said after allowing Mr. DeSantis to hit his usual talking points for several minutes. “But I’m wondering what’s going on with your campaign. There was a lot of optimism about you running for president earlier in the year.”Mr. DeSantis forced out a laugh as Ms. Bartiromo read negative headlines about his campaign. He then jumped into a rebuttal that focused on his efforts to build strong organizing operations in Iowa and New Hampshire.“Maria, these are narratives,” he said. “The media does not want me to be the nominee.”Jonathan Swan More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Energy Transition Is Underway. Fossil Fuel Workers Could Be Left Behind.

      by

      The Biden administration is trying to increase renewable energy investments in distressed regions, but some are skeptical those measures would be enough to make up for job losses.Tiffany Berger spent more than a decade working at a coal-fired power plant in Coshocton County, Ohio, eventually becoming a unit operator making about $100,000 annually.But in 2020, American Electric Power shut down the plant, and Ms. Berger struggled to find a job nearby that offered a comparable salary. She sold her house, moved in with her parents and decided to help run their farm in Newcomerstown, Ohio, about 30 minutes away.They sell some of the corn, beans and beef they harvest, but it is only enough to keep the farm running. Ms. Berger, 39, started working part time at a local fertilizer and seed company last year, making just a third of what she used to earn. She said she had “never dreamed” the plant would close.“I thought I was set to retire from there,” Ms. Berger said. “It’s a power plant. I mean, everybody needs power.”The United States is undergoing a rapid shift away from fossil fuels as new battery factories, wind and solar projects, and other clean energy investments crop up across the country. An expansive climate law that Democrats passed last year could be even more effective than Biden administration officials had estimated at reducing fossil fuel emissions. While the transition is projected to create hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs, it could be devastating for many workers and counties that have relied on coal, oil and gas for their economic stability. Estimates of the potential job losses in the coming years vary, but roughly 900,000 workers were directly employed by fossil fuel industries in 2022, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.The Biden administration is trying to mitigate the impact, mostly by providing additional tax advantages for renewable energy projects that are built in areas vulnerable to the energy transition. But some economists, climate researchers and union leaders said they are skeptical the initiatives will be enough. Beyond construction, wind and solar farms typically require few workers to operate, and new clean energy jobs might not necessarily offer comparable wages or align with the skills of laid-off workers.Coal plants have already been shutting down for years, and the nation’s coal production has fallen from its peak in the late 2000s. U.S. coal-fired generation capacity is projected to decline sharply to about 50 percent of current levels by 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration. About 41,000 workers remain in the coal mining industry, down from about 177,000 in the mid-1980s.The industry’s demise is a problem not just for its workers but also for the communities that have long relied on coal to power their tax revenue. The loss of revenue from mines, plants and workers can mean less money for schools, roads and law enforcement. A recent paper from the Aspen Institute found that from 1980 to 2019, regions exposed to the decline of coal saw long-run reductions in earnings and employment rates, greater uptake of Medicare and Medicaid benefits and substantial decreases in population, particularly among younger workers. That “leaves behind a population that is disproportionately old, sick and poor,” according to the paper.The Biden administration has promised to help those communities weather the impact, for both economic and political reasons. Failure to adequately help displaced workers could translate into the kind of populist backlash that hurt Democrats in the wake of globalization as companies shifted factories to China. Promises to restore coal jobs also helped Donald J. Trump clinch the 2016 election, securing him crucial votes in states like Pennsylvania.Federal officials have vowed to create jobs in hard-hit communities and ensure that displaced workers “benefit from the new clean energy economy” by offering developers billions in bonus tax credits to put renewable energy projects in regions dependent on fossil fuels.Tiffany Berger, who was laid off when the plant in Coshocton County was shut down, struggled to find work that offered a comparable salary. She moved in with her parents and decided to help run her family’s farm.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesIf new investments like solar farms or battery storage facilities are built in those regions, called “energy communities,” developers could get as much as 40 percent of a project’s cost covered. Businesses receiving credits for producing electricity from renewable sources could earn a 10 percent boost.The Inflation Reduction Act also set aside at least $4 billion in tax credits that could be used to build clean energy manufacturing facilities, among other projects, in regions with closed coal mines or plants, and it created a program that could guarantee up to $250 billion in loans to repurpose facilities like a shuttered power plant for clean energy uses.Brian Anderson, the executive director of the Biden administration’s interagency working group on energy communities, pointed to other federal initiatives, including increased funding for projects to reclaim abandoned mine lands and relief funds to revitalize coal communities.Still, he said that the efforts would not be enough, and that officials had limited funding to directly assist more communities.“We’re standing right at the cusp of potentially still leaving them behind again,” Mr. Anderson said.Phil Smith, the chief of staff at the United Mine Workers of America, said that the tax credits for manufacturers could help create more jobs but that $4 billion likely would not be enough to attract facilities to every region. He said he also hoped for more direct assistance for laid-off workers, but Congress did not fund those initiatives. “We think that’s still something that needs to be done,” Mr. Smith said.Gordon Hanson, the author of the Aspen Institute paper and a professor of urban policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said he worried the federal government was relying too heavily on the tax credits, in part because companies would likely be more inclined to invest in growing areas. He urged federal officials to increase unemployment benefits to distressed regions and funding for work force development programs.Even with the bonus credit, clean energy investments might not reach the hardest-hit areas because a broad swath of regions meets the federal definition of an energy community, said Daniel Raimi, a fellow at Resources for the Future.“If the intention of that provision was to specifically provide an advantage to the hardest-hit fossil fuel communities, I don’t think it’s done that,” Mr. Raimi said.Local officials have had mixed reactions to the federal efforts. Steve Henry, the judge-executive of Webster County, Ky., said he believed they could bring renewable energy investments and help attract other industries to the region. The county experienced a significant drop in tax revenue after its last mine shut down in 2019, and it now employs fewer 911 dispatchers and deputy sheriffs because officials cannot offer more competitive wages.“I think we can recover,” he said. “But it’s going to be a long recovery.”Adam O’Nan, the judge-executive of Union County, Ky., which has one coal mine left, said he thought renewable energy would bring few jobs to the area, and he doubted that a manufacturing plant would be built because of the county’s inadequate infrastructure.“It’s kind of difficult to see how it reaches down into Union County at this point,” Mr. O’Nan said. “We’re best suited for coal at the moment.”Federal and state efforts so far have done little to help workers like James Ault, 42, who was employed at an oil refinery in Contra Costa County, Calif., for 14 years before he was laid off in 2020. To keep his family afloat, he depleted his pension and withdrew most of the money from his 401(k) early.In early 2022, he moved to Roseville, Calif., to work at a power plant, but he was laid off again after four months. He worked briefly as a meal delivery driver before landing a job in February at a nearby chemical manufacturer.He now makes $17 an hour less than he did at the refinery and is barely able to cover his mortgage. Still, he said he would not return to the oil industry.“With our push away from gasoline, I feel that I would be going into an industry that is kind of dying,” Mr. Ault said. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Lashes Out at Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa

      by

      The former president snubbed one influential Iowa leader and attacked another, testing his immunity to traditional political pitfalls in a crucial state.Iowa may be the most important state on Donald J. Trump’s early 2024 political calendar, but he hasn’t been making many friends there lately.He lashed out at Iowa’s popular Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, and then his campaign informed one of the state’s politically influential evangelical leaders, Bob Vander Plaats, that the former president would skip a gathering of presidential candidates this week in Des Moines.The back-to-back moves on Monday — which the campaign of Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida labeled a “snub of Iowa conservatives” in an email on Tuesday — show the extent to which Mr. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, acts as if he is immune to traditional political pitfalls while he is also under indictment and his rivals are seeking to capitalize on some voters’ fatigue with his antics.“With Trump’s personality, I feel he thinks he owns Iowa,” said Steve Boender, a board member for the Family Leader, the conservative Christian group organizing the event on Friday that Mr. Trump is skipping. “And I’m not sure he does.”“I think Trump’s negativity is hurting things a little bit,” added Mr. Boender, who remains unaligned for 2024.It is not surprising that Mr. Trump will skip the Family Leader gathering. He has generally avoided these “cattle call” events, which feature all the candidates, as advisers see such settings as lowering him to the level of his far-behind opponents. In addition, Mr. Vander Plaats has made no secret of his desire to move past Mr. Trump, including traveling to Tallahassee to have lunch with Mr. DeSantis at the governor’s mansion.“I think there’s no doubt, most likely, I will not endorse him,” Mr. Vander Plaats said of Mr. Trump. “So he believes if he shows up and I don’t endorse him that will make him look weak.”But as a result, he said, Mr. Trump was missing out on speaking to an estimated audience of 2,000, and “many of those people still love him dearly.”Bob Vander Plaats, an influential evangelical leader in Iowa, said he would most likely not endorse Mr. Trump in 2024. Steve Hebert for The New York TimesOver the weekend, The New York Times reported on the various ways Ms. Reynolds has appeared cozy with Mr. DeSantis, to the growing frustration of Mr. Trump, who appointed her predecessor to an ambassadorship. He wants credit for her ascent and career; she won re-election in a landslide last year. He erupted in public on Monday.“I opened up the Governor position for Kim Reynolds, & when she fell behind, I ENDORSED her, did big Rallies, & she won,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social, referring to her 2018 race. “Now, she wants to remain ‘NEUTRAL.’ I don’t invite her to events!”Ms. Reynolds’s office declined to comment. Mr. DeSantis quickly came to her defense on Twitter, saying she is “a strong leader who knows how to ignore the chirping and get it done.”Mr. Trump’s remark spurred some backlash from Iowans who support Ms. Reynolds, including Cody Hoefert, who served as co-chair of the Iowa Republican Party from 2014 to 2021.“It was a continuation of a series of unforced errors by the former president,” Mr. Hoefert said, also citing Mr. Trump’s comments opposing a six-week abortion ban.Ms. Reynolds has called the Iowa Legislature into a special session this week to pass a six-week ban after a previous effort was blocked by the state’s top court. Mr. Trump has said so strict a ban — when many women don’t even know they are pregnant — is “too harsh.”Mr. Hoefert said his break with Mr. Trump — during whose presidency he remained a loyal party officer — was not because of other allegiances.“This was not, ‘I’m going to attack Trump because I’m supporting X candidate,’” he said. “It’s because I’m tired of the former president making everything about himself and attacking his friends and potential supporters and other Republicans who are doing great conservative things over what seems like a personal vendetta.”Republicans opposed to Mr. Trump’s leading the party again predicted that the attacks would play poorly with voters.“He’s shown his penchant for self-destructive behavior, and it’s one of those things that I think voters notice,” said David Kochel, a longtime Republican operative from Iowa who has advised Ms. Reynolds. “Kim Reynolds is very popular in Iowa. She hasn’t attacked Trump. She won’t — she’s told everyone she’ll go to their events, and the fact that he has such an ego he assumes everyone has to endorse him. That’s not going to happen in these early states.”Brett Barker, the chair of the Story County Republican Party in Iowa, saw it as a needless battle. “I don’t think it’s helpful to pick fights with sitting governors who are really popular in their home states,” he said, before adding: “I don’t know how harmful it’s going to be in the big picture.”Mr. Trump’s attacks on Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, whose loyalty Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Mr. Trump have been battling for, could have political consequences in the state, according to some Republican strategists.Kathryn Gamble for The New York TimesA person close to Mr. Trump who was not authorized to speak publicly acknowledged that his attack on Ms. Reynolds was not part of a scripted plan, but questioned whether it would actually erode his standing, despite predictions of political fallout. His team believes he has enough support among Iowans to counteract elected officials’ views.Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, cited a “scheduling conflict” as his reason for missing the Family Leadership Summit, and noted that Mr. Trump would be back in Iowa next week. That visit will be for a Trump town hall with Fox News’ Sean Hannity.“The president will be in Florida this weekend headlining the premier national young voter conference with Turning Point Action conference while DeSantis is nowhere to be found,” Mr. Cheung said of an event expected to draw a more pro-Trump crowd.The Family Leader event — which is expected to feature Mr. DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, Vivek Ramaswamy, the former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley and former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas — is the second major conservative gathering in two months that Mr. Trump is bypassing.Mr. Vander Plaats said that “half the battle” in Iowa was showing up, and that Mr. Trump had fallen short so far on that score.“Iowa is tailor-made for him to get beat here,” he said. “And to the contrary, if he wins here, I’m not sure there’s any way to stop him from being the nominee.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis’s Risky Strategy: Trying Not to Trick Small Donors

      by

      Diverging from Donald Trump, who has often cajoled, guilt-tripped and even misled small donors, the DeSantis team is pledging to avoid “smoke and mirrors” in its online fund-raising.In the months before the 2020 presidential election, Roy W. Bailey, a Dallas businessman, received a stream of text messages from Donald J. Trump’s re-election campaign, asking for money in persistent, almost desperate terms.“Have you forgotten me?” the messages read, Mr. Bailey recalled. “Have you deserted us?”Mr. Bailey was familiar with the Trump campaign: He was the co-chair of its finance committee, helped raise millions for the effort and personally contributed several thousand dollars.“Think about that,” Mr. Bailey said recently about the frequency of the messages and the beseeching tone. “That is how out of control and crazy some of this fund-raising has gotten.”He did, ultimately, desert Mr. Trump: He is now raising money for Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, whose campaign has pledged to avoid the kinds of online fund-raising tactics that irritated Mr. Bailey and that have spread in both parties, particularly the Republican Party, in recent years as candidates have tried to amass small donors.No phony deadlines, Mr. DeSantis has promised donors. No wildly implausible pledges that sizable contributions will be matched by committees affiliated with the campaign. And no tricking donors into recurring donations.This strategy is one of the subtle ways Mr. DeSantis’s team is trying to contrast him with Mr. Trump, who has often cajoled, guilt-tripped and occasionally misled small donors. Although his campaign has not directly called out Mr. Trump’s methods, on the day Mr. DeSantis declared he would run for president, his website prominently vowed to eschew “smoke and mirrors,” “fake matches” and “lies” in its fund-raising.For the DeSantis campaign, the vow of no trickery is risky. Mr. Trump, the most successful online Republican fund-raiser ever, has shown that such tactics work. But Generra Peck, Mr. DeSantis’s campaign manager, said that approach damaged the long-term financial health of the Republican Party because it risked alienating small donors.“We’re building a movement,” Ms. Peck said last month in an interview at DeSantis campaign headquarters in Tallahassee.So far, it’s difficult to tell if Mr. DeSantis’s approach is working. His fund-raising slowed after his campaign began in late May, and campaign officials did not provide figures that would have shed light on its success with small donors.It is difficult to tell if Gov. Ron DeSantis’s approach is working. His fund-raising slowed after his campaign began in late May, and campaign officials did not provide figures that would have shed light on its success with small donors.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesThe battle to raise money from average Americans may seem quaint in the era of billionaires and super PACs, which have taken on outsize roles in U.S. elections. But straight campaign cash is still, in many ways, the lifeblood of a campaign, and a powerful measure of the strength of a candidate. For example, G.O.P. presidential contenders must reach a threshold of individual donors set by the Republican National Committee to qualify for the debate stage, a bar that is already causing some candidates to engage in gimmicky contortions.To highlight what it bills as a more ethical approach to fund-raising, the DeSantis campaign has devoted a giant wall inside its modest office to scrawling the names — first name, last initial — of every donor to the campaign, tens of thousands of them so far.It is an intensive effort. During work hours, campaign staff members — as well as Mr. DeSantis himself, in one instance — constantly write names on the wall in red, blue and black markers.“We want our staff to look at that wall, remember who supports us, to remember why we’re here,” Ms. Peck said.Mr. DeSantis’s advisers argue that being more transparent with donors could be a long-term way for Republicans to counter the clear advantage Democrats have built up in internet fund-raising, largely thanks to their online platform ActBlue, founded in 2004. A Republican alternative, WinRed, didn’t get off the ground until 15 years later. A greater share of Democrats than Republicans said they had donated to a political campaign in the last two years, according to a recent NBC News poll, meaning the G.O.P. has a less robust pool of donors to draw from.“One of the biggest challenges for Republicans, across the board, is building out the small-dollar universe,” said Kristin Davison, the chief operating officer of Never Back Down, the main super PAC supporting Mr. DeSantis.The tell-the-truth approach to deadlines and goals has been tested by other campaigns, including those of Senator Bernie Sanders, who built a durable network of grass-roots donors in his two presidential runs.Mr. DeSantis’s campaign said last week that it had raised $20 million in his first six weeks as an official presidential candidate, but the amount that came from small donors will not be apparent until later this month, when campaigns file second-quarter disclosures.The campaign did not respond to a question about how many small donors had contributed so far. It had set a goal of recruiting 100,000 donors by July 1, but as of late June, the wall had only about 50,000 names, according to a fund-raising email.And although Mr. DeSantis’s team has pledged to act transparently when it comes to small donors, senior aides in the governor’s office have faced accusations that they inappropriately pressured lobbyists into donating to his campaign.Eric Wilson, the director of the Center for Campaign Innovation, a conservative nonprofit focused on digital politics, said the DeSantis campaign was wise to avoid online pressure tactics, which he likened to a “dopamine arms race” that burns out donors and turns off voters.“They can be effective, but voters say they don’t like them,” Mr. Wilson said. “You can’t make the entire meal around sugar.”Mr. Wilson said he had also seen other campaigns try more honest communications: “You are starting to see a recalibration.”For instance, the campaign of former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina said in May that Mr. DeSantis had imitated language used in Ms. Haley’s fund-raising emails.The ways that campaigns reach out to potential small donors online grew out of old-fashioned telemarketing and fund-raising by mail. Before email, campaigns sent out fake telegrams, letters stamped to appear they had been hand-addressed, surveys and other gimmicks to draw donations.The DeSantis campaign has also adopted a “subscriber exclusive” model, allowing donors to join so-called tele-town halls with Mr. DeSantis, gain early access to merchandise and receive weekly “insider” updates. Nicole Craine for The New York TimesIn the era of email and smartphones, it is easier to reach a large number of prospective donors, but the risk of bombarding and overwhelming them is higher. It can also be harder to induce people to open messages, let alone contribute. The subject line has to be compelling, and the offers need to stand out — which can lead, for example, to dubious promises that campaigns will somehow “match” any contributions made, a practice that has been widely criticized.Mr. Trump’s campaign sends about 10 emails per day, in addition to text messages. His campaign has escalated bogus matching promises to the point of absurdity, telling donors that their contributions will be matched at “1,500%.”A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.The tactics aren’t limited to Republicans. Democratic groups have also been criticized and mocked for vague promises of “300 percent matches” in their fund-raising pitches.For its part, the DeSantis campaign said its strategy was devised to establish long-term relationships with small donors, rather than to suck them dry as quickly as possible.The DeSantis campaign has adopted a “subscriber exclusive” model, allowing donors to join so-called tele-town halls with Mr. DeSantis (“You guys are part of the team,” the governor told listeners during a June 12 call), gain early access to merchandise, and receive weekly “insider” updates. It’s the carrot, not the stick, a blueprint that campaign officials said was adopted in part from the business world.Mr. Trump’s campaign has clearly taken notice.The DeSantis campaign said recently that it had raised $20 million in his first six weeks as a candidate, but the amount that came from small donors will not be apparent until later this month. Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesOn Friday, in an apparent round of fund-raising one-upsmanship, the Trump campaign announced a new donor initiative, saying it would build a “big, beautiful Donor Wall” at its New Hampshire headquarters.“And I don’t mean scribbled on the wall with a crayon, like some other campaigns do,” said the campaign email, which was written in Mr. Trump’s voice, “but a heavy, respectable plaque with the names of our great donors finely etched within.”All for a donation of $75.Patricia Mazzei More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Lawyers Seek Indefinite Postponement of Documents Trial

      by

      The former president’s legal team argued in a court filing that no trial date should be set until all “substantive motions” in the case were resolved, setting up an early key decision by Judge Aileen M. Cannon.Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump asked a federal judge on Monday night to indefinitely postpone his trial on charges of illegally retaining classified documents after he left office, saying that the proceeding should not begin until all “substantive motions” in the case had been presented and decided.The written filing — submitted 30 minutes before its deadline of midnight on Tuesday — presents a significant early test for Judge Aileen M. Cannon, the Trump-appointed jurist who is overseeing the case. If granted, it could have the effect of pushing Mr. Trump’s trial into the final stages of the presidential campaign in which he is now the Republican front-runner or even past the 2024 election.While timing is important in any criminal matter, it could be hugely consequential in Mr. Trump’s case, in which he stands accused of illegally holding on to 31 classified documents after leaving the White House and obstructing the government’s repeated efforts to reclaim them.There could be complications of a sort never before presented to a court if Mr. Trump is a candidate in the last legs of a presidential campaign and a federal criminal defendant on trial at the same time. If the trial is pushed back until after the election and Mr. Trump wins, he could try to pardon himself after taking office or have his attorney general dismiss the matter entirely.Some of the former president’s advisers have been blunt in private conversations that he is looking to winning the election as a solution to his legal problems. And the request for an open-ended delay to the trial of Mr. Trump and his co-defendant, Walt Nauta, a personal aide, presents a high-stakes question for Judge Cannon, who came into the case already under scrutiny for making decisions favorable to the former president in the early phases of the investigation.The filing came in response to one submitted last month by prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, who requested a trial date of Dec. 11. Judge Cannon, appearing to adopt the brisk calendar mandated by the Speedy Trial Act, had initially scheduled the case to go to trial in August.Judges have wide latitude to set schedules for trials, and scheduling orders are typically not subject to appeal to higher courts. That said, given the extraordinary nature of Mr. Trump’s case and the potential implications of a delay, prosecutors under Mr. Smith could in theory try to come up with a rationale to challenge a scheduling decision made by Judge Cannon to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.Mr. Trump’s lawyers pitched their request to Judge Cannon as a plea for cautious deliberation and as a means of safeguarding democracy.“This extraordinary case presents a serious challenge to both the fact and perception of our American democracy,” wrote the lawyers, Chris M. Kise and Todd Blanche for Mr. Trump, and Stanley Woodward Jr. and Sasha Dadan for Mr. Nauta.“The court now presides over a prosecution advanced by the administration of a sitting president against his chief political rival, himself a leading candidate for the presidency of the United States,” they wrote. “Therefore, a measured consideration and timeline that allows for a careful and complete review of the procedures that led to this indictment and the unprecedented legal issues presented herein best serves the interests of the defendants and the public.”The lawyers also took note of the unusual intertwining of law and politics in the case, suggesting that Mr. Trump’s status as a presidential candidate should be factored into the timing of the trial.“President Trump is running for president of the United States and is currently the likely Republican Party nominee,” they wrote. “This undertaking requires a tremendous amount of time and energy, and that effort will continue until the election on Nov. 5, 2024.”“Mr. Nauta’s job requires him to accompany President Trump during most campaign trips around the country,” they continued. “This schedule makes trial preparation with both of the defendants challenging. Such preparation requires significant planning and time.”Walt Nauta, Mr. Trump’s co-defendant and personal aide, leaving the federal courthouse in Miami on Thursday.Alon Skuy/Getty ImagesAnd they suggested that there was no rationale for an expedited trial.“While the government appears to favor an expedited (and therefore cursory) approach to this case, it cannot point to any exigency or urgency requiring a rapid adjudication,” they wrote. “There is no ongoing threat to national security interests nor any concern regarding continued criminal activity.”On Monday, hours before Mr. Trump’s lawyers requested a delay of the trial, a lawyer for Mr. Nauta asked Judge Cannon to postpone a hearing to discuss the issue of the classified materials in the case that was scheduled for Friday. The defense and the prosecution ultimately agreed to delay the hearing, which will take place in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., until next Tuesday.Judge Cannon agreed to that schedule change in a brief order issued on Tuesday morning.In making their case to delay the trial, Mr. Trump’s lawyers cited the expansive discovery evidence provided to them by the government.The first discovery disclosure, they said, contained more than 833,450 pages of material, including about 122,650 emails and 305,670 other documents. The lawyers said that after subsequent troves of evidence were handed over, they would most likely make more requests to the government for further information.They also pointed to the complex process of deciding how to handle the sensitive materials at the heart of the case under the Classified Information Procedures Act — the subject of the hearing that had been scheduled for Friday. The lawyers strongly hinted that they were going to fight the government during the pretrial litigation over classified material, a process that could take up significant amounts of time.The filing by Mr. Trump’s legal team presents Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee, with a key early test.Southern District of Florida“In general, the defendants believe there should simply be no ‘secret’ evidence, nor any facts concealed from public view relative to the prosecution of a leading presidential candidate by his political opponent,” the lawyers wrote. “Our democracy demands no less than full transparency.”Aside from its request for a delay, the filing served as a preview of Mr. Trump’s legal strategy as the lawyers laid out ways in which they planned to attack his indictment.They suggested, for example, that they intended to challenge some of the charges he is facing by arguing that the Presidential Records Act permitted Mr. Trump to take documents with him from the White House. That interpretation of the Watergate-era law is at odds with how legal experts interpret it and was not successful during an extended legal battle last year over an outside arbiter who was put in place to review a trove of materials seized by the F.B.I. from Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida.The former president’s lawyers also suggested that they might raise “constitutional and statutory challenges” to Mr. Smith’s authority as special counsel. Moreover, they laid the groundwork for questioning whether an impartial jury could be seated at the trial while Mr. Trump was running for office.“There is simply no question any trial of this action during the pendency of a presidential election will impact both the outcome of that election,” they wrote, “and, importantly, the ability of the defendants to obtain a fair trial.” More

    • 38 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Filing

      by

      Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2023 Page 7 of 12

      11. Indeed, significant effort will be required to sort through the purportedly classified documents once received from the Government before any motions on behalf of the Defendants can even be filed. At present, based on the Government’s requested schedule, the trial would begin December 11, 2023, with pre-trial motions due in the preceding months. From a practical matter, the volume of discovery and the CIPA logistics² alone make plain that the Government’s requested

      schedule is unrealistic.

      12. By way of further example, the Government’s proposed timeline differs markedly from two relatively recent CIPA involved cases, United States v. Reality Winner, 464 F. Supp. 3d 1375 (S.D. Ga.), aff’d, 835 F. App’x 1002 (11th Cir. 2020), and United States v. Chaoqun, No. 18-CR-611, 2020 WL 1689826 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2020). In Winner, the defendant was indicted June 7, 2017, but trial was not set to commence until October 15, 2018 (a plea was ultimately entered prior to trial). In Chaoqun, the defendant was indicted January 24, 2019, but the case was not tried until September 12, 2022. The timelines in both these cases contrast starkly with the Government’s proposed six-month timeline in this case.

      Furthermore, contrary to the Government’s assertion regarding the nature of the legal issues in this matter, (see ECF No. 34), this case presents novel, complex, and unique legal issues, most of which are matters of first impression. As noted above, this Court will need to evaluate the intersection between the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2209, and the various criminal statutes forming the basis of the indictment. These will be questions of first impression for any court in the United States, and their resolution will impact the necessity, scope, and timing of any trial. Moreover, also as noted above, the Defendants anticipate pursuing

      13.

      2 For example, the Defendants cannot possibly provide the requisite notice under CIPA section 5(a) before a full review of the purportedly classified information.

      -7 More