Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Georgia Election Inquiry: Grand Jury Likely to Hear Case Next Week

      by

      The district attorney in Atlanta is expected to take the findings from an election interference investigation to a grand jury, which could issue indictments.The fourth criminal case involving Donald J. Trump is likely to come to a head next week, with the district attorney in Atlanta expected to take the findings from her election interference investigation to a grand jury.The Georgia investigation may be the most expansive legal challenge yet to the efforts that Mr. Trump and his advisers undertook to keep him in power after he lost the 2020 election. Nearly 20 people are known to have been told that they could face charges as a result of the investigation, which Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., has pursued for two and a half years.Ms. Willis has signaled that she would seek indictments from a grand jury in the first half of August. In a letter to local officials in May, she laid out plans for most of her staff to work remotely during the first three weeks of August amid heightened security concerns. Security barriers were recently erected in front of the downtown Atlanta courthouse, and at lunchtime on Tuesday, 16 law enforcement vehicles were parked around the perimeter.On Tuesday afternoon, two witnesses who received subpoenas to appear before the Fulton County grand jury said in interviews that they had not received notices instructing them to testify within the next 48 hours, a sign that the case will not get to the jury until next week.Earlier this month, Mr. Trump was indicted in a federal case brought by the special counsel Jack Smith, in an investigation also related to election interference that listed a number of unindicted co-conspirators. The Georgia inquiry, elements of which overlap with the federal case, involves not just the former president, but an array of his aides and advisers at the time of the 2020 election, several of whom are expected to face charges.If Mr. Trump were to be convicted in a federal prosecution, he could theoretically pardon himself if he were re-elected president. But presidents do not hold such sway in state matters. Moreover, Georgia law makes pardons possible only five years after the completion of a sentence. Getting a sentence commuted requires the approval of a state panel.Mr. Trump’s lawyers have described an indictment in Georgia as a foregone conclusion in recent legal filings, and the forewoman of a special grand jury that heard evidence for several months last year strongly hinted afterward that the group, which served in an advisory capacity, had recommended Mr. Trump for indictment.Two grand juries have been hearing cases at the Fulton County Courthouse during the current Superior Court term, which began on July 11 and runs through Sept. 1. Twelve of 23 jurors need to agree that there is probable cause to hand down criminal charges after hearing evidence in a case.“The work is accomplished,” Ms. Willis recently told a local TV station. “We’ve been working for two and a half years. We’re ready to go.”“The work is accomplished,” Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., recently told a local TV station. “We’ve been working for two and a half years. We’re ready to go.”Audra Melton for The New York TimesHer office began investigating in February 2021 whether the former president and his allies illegally meddled in the 2020 election in Georgia, which Mr. Trump narrowly lost to President Biden.The inquiry focused on five things that happened in Georgia in the weeks after the election. They include calls that Mr. Trump made to pressure local officials, including a Jan. 2, 2021, call to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, during which Mr. Trump said he wanted to “find” nearly 12,000 votes, or enough to reverse his loss.Ms. Willis’s office also scrutinized a plan by Trump allies to create a slate of bogus electors for Mr. Trump in Georgia, even though Mr. Biden’s victory had been certified several times by the state’s Republican leadership. The office also investigated harassment of local election workers by Trump supporters, as well as lies about ballot fraud that were advanced by Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer at the time, and other allies during legislative hearings after the election.At times the investigation stretched beyond Fulton County, including to rural Coffee County, about 200 miles southeast of Atlanta, where Trump allies and contractors working on their behalf breached the election system in the first week of 2021.Ms. Willis has said that by bringing charges under Georgia’s version of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, her inquiry could cover a wide range of issues. Broadly speaking, so-called RICO laws require prosecutors to prove that a group of people conspired to take part in organized criminal activity.With RICO indictments, Ms. Willis said in an interview last year, “there are sometimes acts that occurred outside of the jurisdiction that are overt acts that we can use if they are evidence of the greater scheme.”The special grand jury heard evidence in the case for roughly seven months and recommended more than a dozen people for indictments, its forewoman has said. The Trump aides and allies whose conduct has been scrutinized in the inquiry include Mr. Giuliani, who was told last year that he was a target who could face charges. A number of other lawyers who worked to keep Mr. Trump in power have also been under scrutiny in the investigation, including John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro.Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, was ordered to testify before the special grand jury last year. He traveled to Georgia after the election and became personally involved in the efforts to keep Mr. Trump in office despite his loss.Ms. Willis’s office also sought the testimony of Jeffrey Clark, a former high-ranking official at the Justice Department, but was blocked by the department. Mr. Clark sought to intervene in Georgia on Mr. Trump’s behalf after the 2020 election, over the strong objections of more senior officials at the department.More than half of the 16 Republicans who were bogus Trump electors in Georgia are cooperating with Ms. Willis’s office, but others have been told they could face charges, including David Shafer, the former leader of the state Republican Party.Mr. Trump’s lawyers have called the Atlanta inquiry a “clown show” and have filed numerous court motions seeking to disqualify the district attorney and derail the investigation. They argued that the special grand jury proceedings were unconstitutional, and that Ms. Willis has made prejudicial public statements.But Georgia judges have shown no inclination to act before any charges are brought. Both the presiding Fulton Superior Court judge, Robert C.I. McBurney, and the Georgia Supreme Court have rejected motions from the Trump team in recent weeks.Two witnesses who have been subpoenaed to appear before Fulton grand jurors currently hearing cases — George Chidi, an independent journalist, and Jen Jordan, a former state senator — said Tuesday afternoon that they had not received 48-hour notices to appear this week. Mr. Chidi was one of a handful of reporters who discovered a December 2020 meeting of bogus Trump electors, and Ms. Jordan, a Democrat, attended a legislative hearing in which Mr. Giuliani and other Trump allies advanced false claims of election fraud.This has been a busy year for Mr. Trump’s lawyers. In April, he was indicted in state court in Manhattan on 34 felony counts related to his role in what prosecutors described as a hush-money scheme, covering up a potential sex scandal to clear his path to the presidency in 2016.In June, he was indicted in Miami on federal criminal charges related to his handling of classified documents and whether he obstructed the government’s efforts to recover them after he left office.Christian Boone contributed reporting. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Replaces Campaign Manager in Major Shake-Up

      by

      As Ron DeSantis tries to put his campaign back on track, he is replacing Generra Peck with James Uthmeier, one of the most trusted aides in the governor’s office.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has replaced his campaign manager, Generra Peck, in the latest shake-up in his weekslong attempt to reinvigorate his struggling bid for the White House.The chief of staff in the governor’s office, James Uthmeier, one of Mr. DeSantis’s most trusted aides, will be replacing Ms. Peck, the campaign confirmed in a statement. Mr. Uthmeier previously served as general counsel to the governor and worked in the Trump administration. The Messenger earlier reported the move.Ms. Peck, who will stay on as the campaign’s chief strategist, had drawn heavy criticism from Mr. DeSantis’s allies and donors after heavy spending led to a fund-raising shortfall. In response, the campaign had to lay off more than a third of its staff and start holding smaller events — a leaner operation more suited to a candidate who is trailing well behind the front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump.In 2022, Ms. Peck oversaw Mr. DeSantis’s overwhelming re-election as governor. But she had never run a presidential campaign. The changes are the third major shift in the structure of the DeSantis campaign in recent weeks, after the layoffs and the departure of other senior members of his early 2024 team.“James Uthmeier has been one of Gov. DeSantis’s top advisers for years, and he is needed where it matters most: working hand in hand with Generra Peck and the rest of the team to put the governor in the best possible position to win this primary and defeat Joe Biden,” Andrew Romeo, the campaign’s communications director, said in a statement.In addition, an adviser working for the main super PAC backing Mr. DeSantis, David Polyansky, who works with the group’s main strategist, Jeff Roe, will join the campaign.Mr. Polyansky, who had been overseeing the super PAC’s early state operations, was on the trail in recent weeks with Mr. DeSantis as the group, Never Back Down, put together a bus tour for the governor. After the campaign’s cash crunch, the super PAC began taking over many of the functions normally associated with a campaign, like organizing retail stops and speaking events.“David Polyansky will also be a critical addition to the team, given his presidential campaign experience in Iowa and work at Never Back Down,” Mr. Romeo said.Ms. Peck had come under fire for building a campaign team so quickly that Mr. DeSantis was forced to lay off aides only two months into his candidacy.The campaign’s finances were so worrying that Mr. Uthmeier, while still chief of staff, received a personal briefing on its finances from Ethan Eilon, now the deputy campaign manager, and then delivered an assessment to the governor.James Uthmeier previously served as general counsel to Mr. DeSantis and worked in the Trump administration.MA and F Collection 2018, via Alamy More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Prosecution of Donald Trump May Have Terrible Consequences

      by

      It may be satisfying now to see Special Counsel Jack Smith indict former President Donald Trump for his reprehensible and possibly criminal actions in connection with the 2020 presidential election. But the prosecution, which might be justified, reflects a tragic choice that will compound the harms to the nation from Mr. Trump’s many transgressions.Mr. Smith’s indictment outlines a factually compelling but far from legally airtight case against Mr. Trump. The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, of his freedom of speech and of the contours of presidential power. If the prosecution fails (especially if the trial concludes after a general election that Mr. Trump loses), it will be a historic disaster.But even if the prosecution succeeds in convicting Mr. Trump, before or after the election, the costs to the legal and political systems will be large.There is no getting around the fact that the indictment comes from the Biden administration when Mr. Trump holds a formidable lead in the polls to secure the Republican Party nomination and is running neck and neck with Mr. Biden, the Democratic Party’s probable nominee.This deeply unfortunate timing looks political and has potent political implications even if it is not driven by partisan motivations. And it is the Biden administration’s responsibility, as its Justice Department reportedly delayed the investigation of Mr. Trump for a year and then rushed to indict him well into G.O.P. primary season. The unseemliness of the prosecution will likely grow if the Biden campaign or its proxies uses it as a weapon against Mr. Trump if he is nominated.This is all happening against the backdrop of perceived unfairness in the Justice Department’s earlier investigation, originating in the Obama administration, of Mr. Trump’s connections to Russia in the 2016 general election. Anti-Trump texts by the lead F.B.I. investigator, a former F.B.I. director who put Mr. Trump in a bad light through improper disclosure of F.B.I. documents and information, transgressions by F.B.I. and Justice Department officials in securing permission to surveil a Trump associate and more were condemned by the Justice Department’s inspector general even as he found no direct evidence of political bias in the investigation. The discredited Steele Dossier, which played a consequential role in the Russia investigation and especially its public narrative, grew out of opposition research by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.And then there is the perceived unfairness in the department’s treatment of Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, where the department has once again violated the cardinal principle of avoiding any appearance of untoward behavior in a politically sensitive investigation. Credible whistle-blowers have alleged wrongdoing and bias in the investigation, though the Trump-appointed prosecutor denies it. And the department’s plea arrangement with Hunter came apart, in ways that fanned suspicions of a sweetheart deal, in response to a few simple questions by a federal judge.These are not whataboutism points. They are the context in which a very large part of the country will fairly judge the legitimacy of the Justice Department’s election fraud prosecution of Mr. Trump. They are the circumstances that for very many will inform whether the prosecution of Mr. Trump is seen as politically biased. This is all before the Trump forces exaggerate and inflame the context and circumstances, and thus amplify their impact.These are some of the reasons the Justice Department, however pure its motivations, will likely emerge from this prosecution viewed as an irretrievably politicized institution by a large chunk of the country. The department has been on a downward spiral because of its serial mistakes in high-profile contexts, accompanied by sharp political attacks from Mr. Trump and others on the right. Its predicament will now likely grow much worse because the consequences of its election-fraud prosecution are so large, the taint of its past actions so great and the potential outcome for Mr. Biden too favorable.The prosecution may well have terrible consequences beyond the department for our politics and the rule of law. It will likely inspire ever-more-aggressive tit-for-tat investigations of presidential actions in office by future Congresses and by administrations of the opposite party, to the detriment of sound government.It may also exacerbate the criminalization of politics. The indictment alleges that Mr. Trump lied and manipulated people and institutions in trying to shape law and politics in his favor. Exaggeration and truth-shading in the facilitation of self-serving legal arguments or attacks on political opponents have always been commonplace in Washington. Going forward, these practices will likely be disputed in the language of, and amid demands for, special counsels, indictments and grand juries.Many of these consequences of the prosecution may have occurred in any event because of our divided politics, Mr. Trump’s provocations, the dubious prosecution of him in New York State and Mr. Smith’s earlier indictment in the classified documents case. Yet the greatest danger comes from actions by the federal government headed by Mr. Trump’s political opponent.The documents case is far less controversial and far less related to high politics. In contrast to the election fraud case, it concerns actions by Mr. Trump after he left office, it presents no First Amendment issue and it involves statutes often applied to the mishandling of sensitive government documents.Mr. Smith had the option to delay indictment until after the election. In going forward now, he likely believed that the importance of protecting democratic institutions and vindicating the rule of law in the face of Mr. Trump’s brazen attacks on both outweighed any downsides. Or perhaps he believed the downsides were irrelevant — “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.”These are entirely legitimate considerations. But whatever Mr. Smith’s calculation, his decision will be seen as a mistake if, as is quite possible, American democracy and the rule of law are on balance degraded as a result.Watergate deluded us into thinking that independent counsels of various stripes could vindicate the rule of law and bring national closure in response to abuses by senior officials in office. Every relevant experience since then — from the discredited independent counsel era (1978-99) through the controversial and unsatisfactory Mueller investigation — proves otherwise. And national dissensus is more corrosive today than in the 1990s, and worse even than when Mr. Mueller was at work.Regrettably, in February 2021, the Senate passed up a chance to convict Mr. Trump and bar him from future office, after the House of Representatives rightly impeached him for his election shenanigans. Had that occurred, Attorney General Merrick Garland may well have decided not to appoint a special counsel for this difficult case.But here we are. None of these considerations absolve Mr. Trump, who is ultimately responsible for this mammoth mess. The difficult question is whether redressing his shameful acts through criminal law is worth the enormous costs to the country. The bitter pill is that the nation must absorb these costs to figure out the answer to that question.Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a co-author of “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Pence Qualifies for First G.O.P. Debate, His Campaign Says

      by

      The former vice president had appeared at risk of missing out on the debate, but he reached the required donor threshold on Monday, his campaign said.Former Vice President Mike Pence on Monday crossed the threshold of 40,000 unique donors required to take part in the first Republican presidential primary debate, his campaign said.Mr. Pence had already met a polling threshold required by the Republican National Committee, his team has said. Hitting both benchmarks means that Mr. Pence is the eighth candidate to qualify for the debate stage on Aug. 23.A spokesman for Mr. Pence did not respond to a message seeking comment. Fox News earlier reported Mr. Pence’s qualification; a person familiar with the matter confirmed the report, which said that the Pence campaign had made a point of noting it was the first to submit its information to the R.N.C. to be verified.The question of whether Mr. Pence would make the debate stage in Milwaukee for the first face-off of the primary season has lingered for weeks, since shortly after he entered the race.Others who have said they have qualified for the debate are Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida; former Gov. Nikki Haley and Senator Tim Scott, both of South Carolina; former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey; the businessman Vivek Ramaswamy; and Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota. Mayor Francis X. Suarez of Miami also said on Monday that he had reached the donor threshold, but he has not yet met the polling requirement.Former President Donald J. Trump qualified long ago, but he has made clear that he is not inclined to attend the debate. However, Mr. Trump told party officials at a recent meeting that he was keeping an open mind about it.Like other non-Trump contenders, Mr. Pence needs the debate stage to try to gain traction.Mr. Pence is running as a traditional, Reagan-esque conservative in a party transformed by the man he served as vice president.Mr. Pence has been in headlines for the past week, since Mr. Trump was indicted on four counts related to his efforts to thwart the transfer of power to Joseph R. Biden Jr. and remain in office. Mr. Pence’s refusal to go along with Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign, in which Mr. Trump sought for the vice president to use his ceremonial role overseeing the Electoral College certification in Congress to reverse the election outcome, factors heavily into the indictment. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Conservative on How His Party Has Changed Since 2016

      by

      The 2024 Republican presidential primary is officially underway, and Donald Trump is dominating the field. But this is a very different contest than it was in 2016. Back then, the Republican Party was the party of foreign policy interventionism, free trade and cutting entitlements, and Trump was the insurgent outsider unafraid to buck the consensus. Today, Trump and his views have become the consensus.The primary, then, raises some important questions: How has Donald Trump changed the Republican Party over the past eight years? Is Trumpism an actual set of policy views or just a political aesthetic? And if Trump does become the nominee again, where does the party go from here?[You can listen to this episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]Ben Domenech is a longtime conservative writer who served as a speechwriter in George W. Bush’s administration and co-founded several right-leaning outlets, including RedState and The Federalist. He’s currently a Fox News contributor, an editor at large at The Spectator and the author of the newsletter The Transom. From these different perches, he has closely traced the various ways the Republican Party has and, crucially, has not changed over the past decade.This conversation explores whether Donald Trump really did break open a G.O.P. policy consensus in 2016, the legacy of what Domenech calls “boomer Republicanism,” how to reconcile Trump’s continued dominance with his surprisingly poor electoral record, the rise of “Barstool conservatism” and other new cultural strands on the right, whether conservatives actually want “National Review conservatism policy” with a “Breitbart conservatism attitude,” what Domenech thinks a G.O.P. candidate would need to do to outperform Trump and more.This episode contains strong language.This episode was hosted by Jane Coaston, a staff writer for Times Opinion. Previously, she hosted “The Argument,” a New York Times Opinion podcast. Before that she was the senior politics reporter at Vox, with a focus on conservatism and the G.O.P.You can listen to our whole conversation by following “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts. View a list of book recommendations from our guests here.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)UTAThis episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Emefa Agawu. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, with Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld. Our senior editor is Rogé Karma. The show’s production team also includes Rollin Hu and Kristin Lin. Original music by Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Special thanks to Sonia Herrero. More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis reconoce la derrota de Trump en 2020

      by

      “Joe Biden es el presidente”, dijo el gobernador de Florida en una entrevista con NBC News. DeSantis y otros aspirantes republicanos han estado implementando nuevas estrategias contra Donald Trump.Ron DeSantis, el gobernador de Florida, afirmó claramente en una entrevista reciente que Donald Trump perdió las elecciones de 2020, deslindándose así de la ortodoxia de la mayoría de los votantes republicanos. Esto sucede mientras los rivales republicanos del expresidente prueban nuevas estrategias de ataque contra él para reimpulsar sus campañas.“Por supuesto que perdió”, dijo DeSantis en una entrevista con NBC News divulgada el lunes. “Joe Biden es el presidente”.Los comentarios de DeSantis —que, tras tres años de evasivas, constituyen la primera vez que reconoce de manera clara el resultado de las elecciones de 2020— fueron la señal más reciente de que los rivales de Trump tratan de usar sus crecientes problemas legales en su contra. Desde que Trump fue acusado de cargos de conspiración para anular las elecciones de 2020, tanto DeSantis como el ex vicepresidente Mike Pence se han distanciado drásticamente del expresidente por sus acciones que el 6 de enero de 2021 desencadenaron los disturbios en el Capitolio.La crítica ha sido sutil. Ninguno de los candidatos ha atacado a Trump de manera abierta ni ha sugerido que los cargos estén justificados. En sus comentarios más recientes, DeSantis continuó sugiriendo que las elecciones tuvieron problemas, y dijo que no habían sido “perfectas”. Pero ambos parecen estar buscando maneras de usar la acusación para ejercer presión sobre las debilidades del expresidente y formular argumentos a su favor que incluso los partidarios de Trump tomen en cuenta.DeSantis también ha estado tratando de reimpulsar su campaña en declive, y sus donantes lo han presionado para que modere sus posturas con el fin de atraer a una audiencia más amplia.Sin embargo, DeSantis debe encontrar la manera de ganar las elecciones primarias republicanas, en las que Trump tiene una ventaja dominante en las encuestas. Los más recientes comentarios de DeSantis, aunque correctos, podrían enfrentarlo a gran parte de la base republicana: aunque se determinó ampliamente que las elecciones de 2020 fueron seguras, cerca del 70 por ciento de los votantes republicanos afirman que la victoria del presidente Biden no fue legítima, según una encuesta de CNN realizada el mes pasado.A través de un comunicado, Steven Cheung, portavoz de Trump, dijo que “Ron DeSantis debería dejar de ser el mayor animador de Joe Biden”.Hasta el momento, de los candidatos más destacados, el exgobernador de Nueva Jersey, Chris Christie y Pence son los que se han pronunciado de forma más enérgica contra Trump. La plataforma desde la que se está postulando Christie es explícitamente anti-Trump. Pence ha dicho que el exmandatario merece la “presunción de inocencia”, pero también ha afirmado que, de ser necesario, testificaría en el juicio por los hechos del 6 de enero.“El pueblo estadounidense merece saber que el presidente Trump me pidió que lo pusiera por encima de mi juramento a la Constitución, pero mantuve mi juramento y siempre lo haré”, le dijo Pence a CNN en una entrevista que se transmitió el domingo. “Y en parte me postulo a la presidencia porque creo que cualquiera que se ponga por encima de la Constitución nunca debería ser presidente de Estados Unidos”.Pero ninguno de los argumentos parece estar resonando entre los votantes republicanos. Christie tiene alrededor del 2 por ciento de apoyo en las encuestas nacionales, y Pence aún no ha calificado para el primer debate republicano que se celebrará a fines de este mes. En una cena para el Partido Republicano de Iowa a finales del mes pasado, la audiencia abucheó al exrepresentante de Texas Will Hurd, un candidato con pocas posibilidades, luego de que acusó al expresidente de “correr para no ir a prisión”.En la entrevista de NBC, DeSantis dijo que considera que hubo problemas en la forma en que se realizaron las elecciones de 2020. Citó el uso generalizado de boletas por correo, las donaciones privadas a los administradores electorales por parte del fundador de Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, y los esfuerzos de las empresas de redes sociales para limitar la difusión de informaciones sobre la computadora portátil de Hunter Biden.“No creo que hayan sido unas elecciones bien hechas”, dijo DeSantis. “Pero también creo que los republicanos no se defendieron. Tienes que defenderte cuando eso está sucediendo”.DeSantis reconoció el viernes que las falsas teorías conspirativas del exmandatario sobre las elecciones del 2020 argumentando que estuvieron amañadas “no tenían fundamentos”.En el período previo a las elecciones de mitad de mandato del año pasado, DeSantis hizo campaña a favor de escandalosos negacionistas electorales, como Doug Mastriano, quien se postuló para gobernador en Pensilvania, y Kari Lake, quien lo hizo en Arizona.Ambos perdieron, al igual que todos sus homólogos más conocidos, lo que demostró que si bien la negación de los resultados de las elecciones presidenciales puede tener buenos resultados en las primarias republicanas, no funciona tan bien en las elecciones generales en los estados disputados. El 60 por ciento de los votantes independientes en todo el país creen que Biden ganó las elecciones de 2020, según la encuesta de CNN, una señal ominosa para los republicanos que aceptan el negacionismo electoral de cara a 2024.Para los partidarios radicales de Trump, los recientes comentarios de DeSantis sobre las elecciones de 2020 fueron vistos como descalificadores.“Cualquier político que diga que Donald Trump perdió esas elecciones y que Biden realmente ganó, está acabado”, afirmó Mike Lindell, el fundador de una compañía de almohadas que ha sido un gran promotor de las teorías de conspiración sobre las máquinas electorales, en una entrevista con The New York Times el lunes. “Su campaña básicamente se acaba cuando hacen un comentario como ese”.Sin embargo, el cambio de DeSantis sirve para reforzar su argumento general contra Trump: que bajo su liderazgo, los republicanos han tenido un mal desempeño en tres elecciones seguidas.Además, podría ayudar a calmar los temores de algunos de los grandes donantes de DeSantis. Robert Bigelow, quien contribuyó con más de 20 millones de dólares a un súper PAC (sigla en inglés que designa al comité de acción política) que respaldaba a DeSantis, le dijo a Reuters la semana pasada que no dará más dinero a menos que el candidato adopte un enfoque más moderado. La campaña del gobernador está experimentando un déficit de recaudación de fondos y el mes pasado despidió a más de un tercio de su personal.Como parte del “reimpulso” de su campaña, DeSantis ha salido de su zona de confort mediática en la que solo conversaba con analistas conservadores y presentadores de opinión en Fox News para darle más acceso a los principales medios de comunicación, por lo que ha concedido entrevistas a CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC y The Wall Street Journal. También ha respondido más preguntas de los periodistas en los actos de campaña electoral.DeSantis ha utilizado esas plataformas para criticar a Trump por su edad, su incapacidad de “drenar el pantano” durante su mandato y por la “cultura de la derrota” que, según DeSantis, se ha apoderado del Partido Republicano bajo el liderazgo de Trump.“Creo que soy el único candidato actual que puede ganar las primarias, derrotar a Joe Biden y luego cumplir con todas estas cosas que sabemos que deben hacerse”, dijo DeSantis en un evento de la estación televisiva WMUR con votantes de Nuevo Hampshire, la semana pasada.Sin embargo, también ha defendido sistemáticamente a Trump por los cargos penales. Ha afirmado que representan el uso del gobierno federal como un arma contra un rival político de Biden.En conjunto, los comentarios de DeSantis sobre el expresidente sugieren que en vez de apresurarse, está avanzando poco a poco hacia una confrontación más directa con Trump. El gobernador nunca lo menciona por su nombre en los discursos de campaña dirigidos a los votantes, y prefiere abordar el tema solo cuando los asistentes a los eventos de su campaña o los periodistas se lo preguntan.Algunos candidatos que se están postulando para la candidatura republicana ya han confirmado la legitimidad general de las elecciones de 2020.En una conversación con los votantes el mes pasado, el senador Tim Scott de Carolina del Sur —quien actualmente ocupa el tercer lugar en Iowa, detrás de Trump y DeSantis, según la encuesta más reciente de The New York Times/Siena College— dijo que no creía las elecciones hubieron sido “robadas”.“Hubo trampa, pero ¿se robaron las elecciones?”, preguntó Scott. “Hay una diferencia”.Nikki Haley, exgobernadora de Carolina del Sur, ha rechazado las afirmaciones falsas de Trump de que las elecciones fueron robadas, pero ha oscilado entre las críticas y la defensa del expresidente.Antes de los disturbios en el Capitolio, Haley se negó a reconocer que Trump estaba actuando de manera imprudente o que fue irresponsable al negarse a aceptar la derrota. Pero inmediatamente después criticó de forma severa a Trump y predijo erróneamente que había caído tan bajo que iba a perder cualquier viabilidad política.En cuestión de meses, Haley volvió a respaldar a Trump, asegurando que el Partido Republicano lo necesitaba. Después de que se hiciera pública la acusación sobre el 6 de enero contra Trump, Haley dijo en un programa de radio de Nuevo Hampshire que de forma premeditada se había abstenido de publicar una declaración porque estaba “cansada de comentar sobre todos los dramas de Trump”.Vivek Ramaswamy, el millonario de la biotecnología que ha sido un firme defensor de Trump, declaró a través de un comunicado: “Joe Biden prestó juramento como el presidente número 46 de Estados Unidos y, como dije poco después de la toma de posesión, acepto ese resultado”.Pero agregó: “En realidad, no creo que Joe Biden esté liderando el país. Creo que es un títere de facto de la clase gerencial en el Estado administrativo que lo utiliza como instrumento para lograr sus propios objetivos”.Al señalar, como lo hizo DeSantis, las quejas sobre la difusión del caso de la computadora portátil de Hunter Biden, Ramaswamy afirmó: “Las grandes empresas de tecnología se robaron las elecciones de 2020”.Ruth Igielnik More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Bluntly Acknowledges Trump’s 2020 Defeat: ‘Of Course He Lost’

      by

      “Joe Biden’s the president,” the Florida governor said in an interview with NBC News. He and other Republican presidential candidates have been testing new lines of attack against Donald Trump.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida clearly stated in a new interview that Donald J. Trump lost the 2020 election, diverging from the orthodoxy of most Republican voters as the former president’s struggling G.O.P. rivals test out new lines of attack against him.“Of course he lost,” Mr. DeSantis said in an interview with NBC News published on Monday. “Joe Biden’s the president.”The comments came after Mr. DeSantis, who is polling well behind Mr. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, acknowledged on Friday that the former president’s false theories about a rigged 2020 election were “unsubstantiated.”For years, Mr. DeSantis dodged direct answers to questions about whether he believed the election was stolen. During the 2022 midterms, he also campaigned for Republican candidates nationwide who vehemently denied the 2020 results.Now, Mr. DeSantis’s increasingly aggressive stance suggests that Mr. Trump’s legal problems have sent his Republican competitors looking for some way to take advantage. While none of his top rivals are openly attacking him over his latest criminal charges, they are trying to press on his weaknesses — acknowledging reality and bursting the bubble of denial that he and many Republicans live in.Mr. DeSantis’s latest answer, while accurate, may put him at odds with much of the Republican base. Although the 2020 election was widely found to have been secure, roughly 70 percent of Republican voters say that President Biden’s victory was not legitimate, according to a CNN poll conducted last month. Mr. Trump continues to insist that he was the rightful winner.So far, of the most prominent candidates, former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and former Vice President Mike Pence have spoken out most strongly against Mr. Trump. Mr. Christie is running on an explicitly anti-Trump platform. Mr. Pence has said that Mr. Trump deserves the “presumption of innocence” but has also said he would testify in the former president’s trial over Jan. 6, 2021, if called to do so.“The American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution, but I kept my oath and I always will,” Mr. Pence told CNN. “And I’m running for president in part because I think anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.”But neither argument appears to be resonating with Republican voters. Mr. Christie is polling at about 2 percent in national surveys, and Mr. Pence has not yet qualified for the first Republican debate later this month. At a dinner for the Republican Party of Iowa late last month, the audience booed former Representative Will Hurd of Texas, a long-shot candidate, after he accused the former president of “running to stay out of prison.”In the NBC interview, Mr. DeSantis still said he saw problems with how the 2020 election was conducted, citing the widespread use of mail-in ballots, private donations to election administrators from the Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and efforts by social media companies to limit the spread of a report about Hunter Biden’s laptop.“I don’t think it was a good-run election,” Mr. DeSantis said. “But I also think Republicans didn’t fight back. You’ve got to fight back when that is happening.”Still, his more forceful response to the 2020 question serves as a reminder to Republican voters that under Mr. Trump, the party has performed poorly in three elections in a row.His remarks may help assuage the fears of some big-money donors. Robert Bigelow, who contributed more than $20 million to a super PAC backing Mr. DeSantis, told Reuters last week that he would not give more money unless Mr. DeSantis adopted a more moderate approach. The governor’s campaign is experiencing a fund-raising shortfall and last month laid off more than a third of its staff.Mr. DeSantis has also had more opportunities to address sensitive subjects like 2020 in recent weeks. As part of a “reboot” of his campaign, he has opened himself up to more interviews with mainstream news outlets, retreating from the safety of sitting down only with hosts from Fox News and conservative pundits. He has recently given one-on-one interviews to CNN, CBS, ABC and The Wall Street Journal, in addition to NBC, and has also taken far more questions from reporters on the campaign trail.He has used those platforms to dig at Mr. Trump for his age, his failure to “drain the swamp” during his term in office, and the “culture of losing” that Mr. DeSantis says has overtaken the Republican Party under Mr. Trump’s leadership.But he has also defended Mr. Trump over the criminal charges, saying they represent the “weaponization” of federal government against a political rival of Mr. Biden. Taken together, Mr. DeSantis’s comments on the former president suggest he is inching, rather than running, toward more direct confrontation.In the NBC interview, Mr. DeSantis also stated his belief that Republicans must move their focus beyond the indictments against Mr. Trump to challenging Mr. Biden, and continued to defend Florida’s new standards on how slavery is taught in schools.And he provided more of an explanation for his campaign-trail promise that migrants suspected of smuggling drugs across the southern border would be shot. Mr. DeSantis has often said that smugglers who try to break through the border wall would be left “stone-cold dead,” usually to thunderous applause at campaign events. But he has not said how U.S. law enforcement would identify them.“Same way a police officer would know,” Mr. DeSantis replied when asked to explain the mechanics of his policy. “Same way somebody operating in Iraq would know. You know, these people in Iraq at the time, they all looked the same. You didn’t know who had a bomb strapped to them. So those guys have to make judgments.”Ruth Igielnik More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      If Mike Pence Is a Big Hero, We’re in Big Trouble

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I know we’ll get to the latest Trump indictment in a moment, but I wanted to start by raising a subject we haven’t discussed in detail before: capital punishment. Last week, a jury sentenced Robert Bowers, who murdered 11 worshipers at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, to death. I sort of assume you’re against the death penalty but wanted to know your reaction to the verdict.Gail Collins: Bret, many folks who are opposed to the death penalty — including me — feel that if there was one time they’d like to see an exception, it’d be the Tree of Life mass murder.Bret: Agreed.Gail: Still, I wish the jury had come back with a life sentence. Tell that miserable excuse of a human being that he’s going to spend the rest of his existence alone, in a cell, being shunned and treated like the pariah he is.The death penalty just doesn’t work for me. On the intellectual side, there isn’t convincing evidence to suggest that the death penalty deters violent crime. And on the moral side, I just can’t see responding to the deliberate taking of life with deliberate taking of life.I assume you disagree?Bret: I always thought the sole purpose of capital punishment was justice, so even if the death penalty did deter violent crime, that argument wouldn’t hold water with me. But my support has softened over the years, mainly because, as I grow older, I think it’s wrong to foreclose the possibility of atonement and redemption in prison, particularly for those who committed crimes when they were young.Gail: Good thought.Bret: And yet there are some crimes that are so premeditated, hateful and cruel that I think society has to respond in the severest way possible. Life in prison with three meals a day, an hour for exercise, friendships with other inmates, answering fan mail (and there will be fan mail) — all that mocks the idea of justice. I don’t for a second doubt that justice was done when the war criminal Adolf Eichmann was hanged or the serial killer Ted Bundy was executed or the terrorist Timothy McVeigh was killed by lethal injection. Bowers belongs in their company.And, um, speaking of justice, what do we make of Trump indictment No. 3?Gail: We’ve gotten to the real bottom line, Trump-crime-wise. The country can get past a president who breaks the law in his private life, hides official documents and hides the evidence that he hides official documents. But we can’t survive a president who makes a serious attempt to wreck the election system and stay in office after he’s been voted out.That just can’t be overlooked. He has to be punished.Bret: I thought the right remedy for Jan. 6 was political, via immediate impeachment and conviction, as I wrote at the time. I worry that the latest case is going to turn on the question of whether Donald Trump truly believed he had won the election and could have his vice president reject electoral ballots. In other words, it’s going to be about Trump’s state of mind and his First Amendment rights, rather than the disgrace of his behavior, which increases the chances of his ultimate acquittal.Gail: All this drama keeps bringing me back to Mike Pence — and believe me, I never thought I’d be in a world where I wanted to be back with Mike Pence in any way, shape or form. But when the critical moment came, he followed through and declared the actual election winner the actual election winner.Bret: Sorry, but I will never buy the whole “Mike Pence was a hero” business. He was Trump’s faithful enabler for more than four years, his beard with evangelicals, his ever-nodding yes man. He was mute for the eight weeks after the 2020 election when his boss was busy denying the result. He called Kamala Harris to congratulate her only on Jan. 15, more than two months after she and Joe Biden were declared the winners. And if Pence had tried to overturn the election on Jan. 6, he’d now be facing his own federal indictment.Gail: No way I’m going to battle on behalf of the virtues of Mike Pence. You win.Bret: The only Republican I like these days is Chris Christie. I forgive him for endorsing Trump in 2016 because he’s going so hard and so eloquently against his former friend. I also think he has the right theory of the primary race, which is that the only way to beat Trump is to oppose him frontally. Unfortunately, he’s likelier to end up as Liz Cheney’s rival on “Dancing With the Stars” than he is in the White House.Gail: Well, I’d certainly pay good money to watch that season.But right now, I’m just rooting for a Christie smash-down at that Republican debate this month. Looks like he’ll qualify. And I guess Trump will be too chicken to attend, right?Bret: My guess, too. He has such a commanding lead over the other Republicans that a debate can only hurt him, particularly with Christie in the ring.Switching topics: Congress and spending!Gail: My favorite!Bret: I’d like to propose a legislative idea to you and see if we can find common ground. Right now we have serious problems with our defense-industrial infrastructure. Our shipyards don’t have enough resources to build sufficient numbers of submarines, destroyers and frigates to increase the size of the Navy. Many of our existing ships must wait years for necessary repairs even as we face a growing maritime challenge from China. We’re struggling to replace all of the munitions we’ve given to Ukraine, especially artillery shells but also Stingers and Javelins. And inflation has eaten away at the value of our defense dollars. This doesn’t get a lot of mainstream attention, but people close to the problem understand that it borders on an emergency.So my suggestion is that pro-Ukraine Democrats and anti-China Republicans — and vice versa — unite around legislation that would fund a five-year, $250 billion supplemental defense bill to refurbish our defense infrastructure, create thousands of unionized jobs, restock our munitions and help our allies. In honor of Franklin Roosevelt, I would call it the Arsenal of Democracy Bill. Are you on board?Gail: Hmm. Appreciate your concerns about the shortage of military supplies, and I feel pretty supportive of our aid to Ukraine.My big reservation, however, is that the Pentagon doesn’t really need the extra money. It could come up with the funds itself if it would just cut back on waste. The infamous overcharging by suppliers, for instance, and the purchase of way more planes and weapons than we need.Bret: There’s waste in every government program. Progressives mainly seem to notice it when it comes to the one item of government spending they don’t like.Gail: Defense spending tends to get bipartisan support, not so much because it’s worthy as because so many lawmakers see the money going into their districts. Good target for conservative cost cutting.Sorry, F.D.R.Bret: This seems to me an opportunity for a real bipartisan victory that brings the country around the sensible objective of being strong in the face of aggressive autocracies. I’m picturing a bill sponsored by Richard Blumenthal, one of Connecticut’s two Democratic senators, whose state makes many of our nuclear submarines, and Mike Gallagher, the intelligent and sensible Republican congressman from Wisconsin.Gail: Fine lawmakers, but I’m still not buying that one.Bret: OK, enough of my legislative fantasies. Question for you: Considering that the economy is doing relatively well, why aren’t Biden’s poll numbers better — not even on how he handles the economy?Gail: Excellent question. You’d think a guy who passes breakthrough legislation on everything from education to global warming, who has done a terrific job handling a very troubled economy and is respected as a leader around the world would be superpopular. And I truly think if you had an actual election right now, people would turn out in droves to give Biden another term.Bret: I wouldn’t be so sure. The latest New York Times/Siena poll has Trump and Biden in a dead heat. Sixty-five percent of voters think the country is on the wrong track. Food prices keep moving up. The effects of the migration crisis, which have now hit so many places far north of the border, will be felt for years in housing, the school system, even parks. There’s a palpable sense of urban decay in one city after another. Kamala Harris makes a lot of independent voters nervous. Also — and I can’t say this enough, even if it isn’t nice — Biden just seems feeble.Gail: I said if we had an election now, they’d turn out in droves to vote for Biden. Not that they’d be excited about it. The ideal opposition to a crazy, irresponsible former reality TV star isn’t a calm, 80-year-old career politician. I think people are yearning for somebody who’s charismatic and able to get them wildly excited about the future — like the early Barack Obama.We’ll see if anybody pops up.Bret: That person would be Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan. But I guess we’re just going to have to accept the cards we’re dealt. Feeble versus evil. Can’t America do better?The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More