Right-Wing Extremism and Alt-Right

Subterms

    More stories

    • 38 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      A House Divided

      by

      House Republicans are struggling with a test of governing.The vote for House speaker is the kind of government procedure that Americans often ignore, but yesterday’s highly unusual votes have important implications for the future of the Republican Party and how it will govern.On their first day in the majority, House Republicans couldn’t agree on who will lead them. Representative Kevin McCarthy has sought for years to become speaker, but some members of his party’s far-right faction refused to back him. It was the first time in 100 years that the House failed to elect a speaker on the first ballot, and lawmakers adjourned after three ballots without making a choice. The Democratic House leader, Hakeem Jeffries, even received more votes than McCarthy in all three rounds of voting.Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right lawmaker who has become a close ally of McCarthy’s, accused her fellow hard-liners of “playing Russian roulette with our hard-earned Republican majority.” Bill Huizenga, another McCarthy supporter, asked his colleagues, “You guys aren’t interested in governing?”Meanwhile, Donald Trump, who had endorsed McCarthy, refused to say after the votes if he was sticking to his endorsement. (McCarthy later said that he had talked to Trump and still had his support.)Part of McCarthy’s problem is that his party holds a narrow margin in the House, with 222 seats to Democrats’ 212. So he requires support from Republicans’ right-wing flank to reach the majority he needs to be speaker. But that is only part of the story.Republicans also don’t agree on what the party is and what it should stand for: Should it continue down the path that Trump began when he won the Republican nomination for president in 2016? Or should the party moderate and embrace more compromise to consolidate power?“There are a number of lawmakers in this group who have never liked McCarthy and have never trusted him,” said my colleague Catie Edmondson, who covers Congress. “They see him as an extension of the establishment in D.C. that they want to tear down.”The answers to these questions will help shape how Republicans will govern — whether they will stick to an uncompromising version of Trumpism or adopt more moderate views to win over more voters. “Regardless of the outcome, the votes have already shown there is a powerful group of right-wing lawmakers who are not going to be afraid to throw their weight around,” Catie said.Today’s newsletter will look at the potential consequences for Republicans and the country.Trumpism or notThe Republican fracture in the House is the latest example of a broader debate within the party: Should Republicans fully embrace Trumpism?McCarthy has sworn allegiance to Trump, who has called him “my Kevin.” But while McCarthy has courted far-right members, he takes a more pragmatic view of politics than much of the party’s far right. He believes that for Republicans to accomplish anything, they have to nominate more moderate candidates who can win in swing districts. And to pass major bills, Republicans may occasionally have to compromise.McCarthy’s Republican opponents take a more hard-line approach. Many do not believe in compromising with politicians who do not believe in Trumpism. They would like to oust Trump critics from the party. And they don’t trust McCarthy to carry out that vision.These ideological divides animate many of the debates over who should be the next speaker. They are also driving other debates within the party, including over who should be the party’s presidential nominee in 2024.No compromiseIn party politics, extreme flanks frequently butt heads with more moderate figures. What’s unusual about modern-day far-right lawmakers is their willingness to reject compromise and take on their own leaders. They effectively evicted the past two Republican speakers, John Boehner and Paul Ryan. McCarthy himself had to withdraw from the speaker race in 2015 after a right-wing revolt, giving way for Ryan’s bid.Since then, McCarthy has made overtures to ultraconservatives to shore up their support. One example: Before yesterday’s vote, he announced that he would allow just five lawmakers to call a vote at any time to oust the speaker. The move was a shift from his previous stance opposing a snap vote altogether, but it still fell short of the view of the party’s hard-liners, who said such a vote should require only one lawmaker proposing it.The concession was not enough for those ultraconservatives, who still see McCarthy as too moderate. The right-wing Club for Growth released a statement on Monday that suggested it opposed McCarthy’s bid for speaker unless he met specific demands. It criticized House Republican super PAC spending in primaries, which McCarthy has leveraged to boost more moderate candidates.Potential consequencesBecause Republicans don’t control the Senate or White House, their infighting in the House may not lead to immediate, broader consequences.But House Republicans do have some things they want to get done and need a speaker for, particularly staffing House committees to investigate the Biden administration. A protracted debate over who should lead the House is already slowing down those inquiries.And eventually, a divided House majority could lead to more government shutdowns and economic crises if Republicans can’t secure the votes for must-pass bills.At the very least, the situation is a preview of Republicans’ struggles to move on from the 2020 election.For moreMcCarthy lost support as the balloting continued. Nineteen Republicans opposed him during the first and second votes, and 20 during the third.The Republican defectors coalesced around Jim Jordan, a hard-right congressman from Ohio who supports McCarthy.Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert are among those opposing McCarthy. Their demands include limits on spending and a vote on term limits for members of Congress.George Santos, who made false claims about his background, spent his first day in Congress shunned by his Republican colleagues.Salary transparency in California. Legal sports betting in Ohio. These are some of the laws taking effect.THE LATEST NEWSN.F.L.Damar Hamlin of the Buffalo Bills is still in critical condition after suffering cardiac arrest during a game on Monday.Medical experts said a blow to the chest, in a precise spot at a precise moment, could have sent Hamlin’s heart into an erratic rhythm.After a wrenching year for Buffalo, one bright spot — the Bills — has become another source of pain. “Buffalo is strong, but this is all too much,” a news anchor said.The N.F.L. is a uniting force. But fans must recognize their complicity in the violence on the field, The Times’s Kurt Streeter writes.Severe WeatherA satellite image of a storm approaching the West Coast.NOAA, via Associated PressCalifornia has endured several powerful storms in recent weeks. Today brings another.Climate change plays a role in shaping these storms, known as “atmospheric rivers.”In the Philippines, flooding and landslides have killed at least 51 people.Other Big StoriesU.S. pharmacies will be allowed to sell abortion pills with a prescription, the F.D.A. ruled.The 28-year-old accused of killing four University of Idaho students in November agreed to be extradited to Idaho from Pennsylvania.Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced former cryptocurrency executive, pleaded not guilty to fraud and other charges.Employees at the Microsoft-owned video game maker ZeniMax Media unionized, a labor victory at a large U.S. tech company.A decade after the self-immolation of a 26-year-old fruit seller sparked a revolution, hospital burn wards in Tunisia still fill with young men who set themselves aflame.OpinionsThe surge of respiratory viruses exposes a health care industry unprepared to look after critically ill children, Alexander Stockton and Lucy King argue in this video.It’s time for laws to better support and fairly pay workers with disabilities, Pepper Stetler writes.MORNING READSFamily Arcade in East Hollywood.Franck BohbotWorld Through a Lens: Timeless portraits of the arcades of Los Angeles.Happiness challenge, Day 3: Make small talk with a stranger. (If you missed the first couple of days, start from the beginning.)Wonder: A sense of awe can be a salve for a turbulent mind.A Times classic: His family had money. Hers didn’t.Advice from Wirecutter: Essential home-repair tools.Lives Lived: The drummer Fred White was the “brick wall” of the band Earth, Wind & Fire, his half brother once wrote, providing the beat on hits like “September” and “Boogie Wonderland.” White died at 67.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICU.S.M.N.T. coach claims blackmail: Gregg Berhalter said that someone contacted U.S. Soccer last month about a 1991 domestic violence incident in an apparent attempt to “take him down.”Zion Williamson to miss at least three weeks: The Pelicans star will again miss extended time with an injury — this one a hamstring strain. It’s a blow for New Orleans, whose sustained success is a big surprise of this N.B.A. season.ARTS AND IDEAS A drawing by Roman, 9, shows the fall of Mariupol.Lyndon French for The New York TimesA child’s view of warAs Russia waged war across Ukraine, a mother and daughter visited hospitals, orphanages and residences for displaced families to offer art therapy to children. Their works are part of a new exhibit at Chicago’s Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art.“Their sense of artistic expression is what every adult wishes they had,” said Christina Wyshnytzky, an assistant curator at the museum. Many children chose to depict images of war — tanks, soldiers, planes. But the children who had experienced the most severe trauma tended to focus on lighter images.“It’s hard not to start crying when you work with them,” Yustyna Pavliuk, one of the women behind the program, said, “but they continue living.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Testani for The New York TimesEach mouthful of kung pao shrimp is a little spicy and chewy, savory and crisp.What to ReadIn her latest novel, “Sam,” Allegra Goodman delivers a portrait of a girl at risk that shimmers with intimacy and depth.What to WatchMurder is as ubiquitous as the bone-chilling Canadian weather in “Three Pines,” a noirish Amazon series.Late NightThe hosts discussed Kevin McCarthy.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was tributary. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Xbox user (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. “Tryna,” “doomscrolls” and more than 1,900 other words appeared for the first time in Times Crossword puzzles last year.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about Russia’s military.Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      How Far Right Are the 20 Republicans Who Voted Against McCarthy

      by

      The Republicans who blocked Representative Kevin McCarthy of California from becoming speaker on Tuesday include some of the most hard-right lawmakers in the House; most denied the 2020 election, are members of the Freedom Caucus, or both. Here’s a closer look at the 20 lawmakers. Re-elected representatives Newly elected Andy Biggs Ariz. 5th Dan Bishop […] More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Speaker Fight Reveals a Divided and Disoriented House Republican Majority

      by

      In failing to coalesce around Kevin McCarthy for speaker, Republicans showcased divisions that portend real difficulties in governing.WASHINGTON — House Republicans began their new majority rule on Tuesday with a chaotic and historic debacle, an embarrassing failure to rally around a leader that showcased the difficulties they will face in performing even the basics of governing and their lack of a unifying agenda.Handed narrow control of the House by voters in November, Republicans squandered the opening hours of the new Congress they could have used to dispel concerns about their capabilities. Instead, they feuded in a disorderly display over who among them should be speaker as the most extreme elements of the new majority repeatedly rejected Representative Kevin McCarthy of California.Despite Mr. McCarthy’s prominent role in fund-raising and delivering the House to Republicans and his backing among most in the party ranks, about 20 Republicans refused to support him and for the first time in a century forced repeated rounds of voting for the speakership. After three flailing attempts at electing a speaker, Republicans abruptly called for the House to be adjourned until noon Wednesday as they scrambled for a way out of their leadership morass. The stalemate meant the usually routine organization of the new House did not occur and its members were not sworn in, nor could any legislation be considered.The paralysis underscored the dilemma facing House Republicans: No matter the concessions made to some of those on the far right, they simply will not relent and join their colleagues even if it is for the greater good of their party, and perhaps the nation. They consider themselves conservative purists who cannot be placated unless all their demands are met — and maybe not even then. Their agenda is mostly to defund, disrupt and dismantle government, not to participate in it.It means that whoever emerges from the messy leadership fight will face deep-seated resistance when trying to shepherd spending bills and other measures that are fundamental to governance. Tuesday’s spectacle reflected that House Republicans have grown more skilled at legislative sabotage than legislative success, leaving the difficult business of getting things done to others.“The rebels just don’t like McCarthy, and they seem to not be able to find a way to like him,” said John Feehery, a longtime Republican strategist and former top House aide. “They lack a legislative maturity to understand it can’t be personal. It has to be just business.”Mr. McCarthy himself sought to make the conflict about something bigger than himself in an appeal to his opponents to put aside whatever feelings they had about him so Republicans could move forward.A New Congress BeginsThe 118th Congress opened on Jan. 3, with Republicans taking control of the House and Democrats holding the Senate.George Santos: The congressman-elect from New York, a Republican who has made false claims about his background, education and finances, brings his saga to Capitol Hill.Pelosi Era Ends: Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to become House speaker, leaves a legacy that will be difficult for the new leadership of both parties to reach.Elise Stefanik: The New York congresswoman’s climb to MAGA stardom is a case study in the collapse of the old Republican establishment, but her rise may also be a cautionary tale.Retirements: While each legislative session always brings a round of retirements, the departure of experienced politicians this year is set to reverberate even more starkly in a divided Congress.“This can’t be about that you are going to leverage somebody for your own personal gain inside Congress,” Mr. McCarthy told reporters. “This has to be about the country.”But the holdouts were not yet budging.“I have heard nothing new from Kevin,” said Representative Lauren Boebert, Republican of Colorado and a McCarthy foe, between rounds of votes.To try to quell the revolt, Mr. McCarthy had already promised new rules that would open him or another figure to regular efforts to depose them from the speakership, along with requirements that would leave the leadership hamstrung and at the mercy of conservatives in trying to advance legislation.Representative Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican and hard-right alternative for speaker favored by some conservatives, conceded that the legislative outlook was limited at best, considering that bills favored by House Republicans were unlikely to pass in the Democratic Senate or to be signed by President Biden.“So be it,” said Mr. Jordan in nominating Mr. McCarthy. “They have to answer to the people in 2024.”He also alluded to what was likely to be an epic struggle to keep the government running and stave off a disastrous debt default with Republicans in charge of the House, saying that their principal task was to ensure that Congress never again passed the kind of sprawling spending bill enacted last month.The breakdown on the House floor was the latest and most pronounced of the assaults by the hard right on its own congressional leadership in recent years. Archconservatives drove out John A. Boehner in 2015, denied Mr. McCarthy the votes needed to succeed Mr. Boehner at the time and complained about the stewardship of the compromise consensus choice of Paul D. Ryan. But Tuesday’s attack was their most aggressive yet, a nationally televised implosion that showcased the intransigence and unwillingness to compromise of a segment of House Republicans in what should have been a moment of triumph.

      .css-5h54w2{display:grid;grid-template-columns:2.271fr 1fr;grid-template-rows:repeat(6,1fr);grid-gap:4px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-5h54w2{grid-gap:8px;}}.css-5h54w2 > :nth-child(1){grid-column:1;grid-row:1 / 4;}.css-5h54w2 > :nth-child(2){grid-column:1;grid-row:4 / 7;-webkit-align-self:end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:end;}.css-5h54w2 > :nth-child(3){grid-column:2;grid-row:1 / 3;}.css-5h54w2 > :nth-child(4){grid-column:2;grid-row:3 / 5;}.css-5h54w2 > :nth-child(5){grid-column:2;grid-row:5 / 7;-webkit-align-self:end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:end;}.css-rrq38y{margin:1rem auto;max-width:945px;}.css-1wsofa1{margin-top:10px;color:var(–color-content-quaternary,#727272);font-family:nyt-imperial,georgia,’times new roman’,times,Songti TC,simsun,serif;font-weight:400;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1wsofa1{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;}}@media (max-width:600px){.css-1wsofa1{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}The difficulty for Mr. McCarthy to secure speaker illustrated the dilemma facing House Republicans going forward.

      Even Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, typically a Republican firebrand eager to stir turmoil, castigated those holding out on Mr. McCarthy because of how it reflected on the party’s image.“If the base only understood that 19 Republicans voting against McCarthy are playing Russian roulette with our hard-earned Republican majority right now,” Ms. Greene said on Twitter. “This is the worst thing that could possibly happen.”Democrats were enjoying the tumult to a degree but also recognized the problems it could mean down the road. Representative Mike Quigley, a senior Democrat from Illinois, said the speaker fight was the culmination of a growing Republican ethos of “taking their ball and going home” if they fail to get what they demand.Other Democrats watched in amazement as they saw Republicans open their reign with a clash that would leave whoever was eventually chosen badly undermined and the party’s strength diluted from the start.“What a weakened position they have put themselves in,” marveled Representative Rosa DeLauro, a senior Democrat from Connecticut.The uproar in the House was in marked contrast to the opening day of the Senate, where seven new members were sworn in and senators then quietly adjourned for three weeks. While House Republicans were ensnared in a brutal internal battle, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, was scheduled to appear alongside President Biden on Wednesday to celebrate funding for a major public works project in Kentucky.As they sought a way out of their dilemma, some Republicans acknowledged the poor message they were sending with the stalemate but also said that it was likely to be a distant memory with voters once the leadership question was resolved.“Just like everything in three months that becomes small ball, it becomes insignificant,” said Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado. “In a year and a half, when people are starting to think about voting again, they are not thinking about that. They are thinking about what have we accomplished. It is more important to do things than it is to have a good first impression.”His colleagues no doubt hope Mr. Buck is correct. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Transcripts Reveal Disagreements That Divided Trump Camp

      by

      Interviews revealed that people in President Donald J. Trump’s orbit had very different views on seizing voting machines, the Proud Boys and each other’s roles.The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol on Friday released more than 40 additional transcripts of its interviews, bringing the total number of transcripts published to more than 160.So far, the transcripts have added details to the public’s understanding of how police intelligence failures contributed to the Capitol attack, how former President Donald J. Trump considered “blanket pardons” for those charged, and how Trump-aligned lawyers allegedly tried to steer witness testimony.The committee is rushing to publish more interviews before Jan. 3, when Republicans will take control of the House. Though the committee conducted more than 1,000 interviews, many of them were informal; only a few hundred were transcribed sessions.Here are some takeaways from the thousands of pages released this week.Giuliani thought seizing voting machines could be an impeachable offense.At a chaotic meeting in the Oval Office in December 2020, outside advisers urged Mr. Trump to use the military to seize voting machines in a bid to rerun the election.That was too much for even Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer who had encouraged baseless election fraud claims but told Mr. Trump that the plan could be impeachable behavior.“This may be the only thing that I know of that you ever did that could merit impeachment,” Mr. Giuliani recalled telling the president.In his interview with the committee, Mr. Giuliani refused to discuss his role in many aspects of the effort to overturn the 2020 election, though he said he had rejected Mr. Trump’s idea of granting him a pardon.“The president asked me what I thought of it,” he said of the pardon. “And I said I thought it would be a terrible mistake for him.”Mr. Giuliani was less forthcoming when asked if Mr. Trump had ever thought of pardoning himself. “That would be privileged, actually, if he raised that with me,” he said.The Secret Service was concerned about the Proud Boys leader’s White House visit.On Dec. 12, 2020, hours before hundreds of members of his far-right group took part in a pro-Trump protest, Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, posted a photo of the White House steps on social media.Understand the Events on Jan. 6Timeline: On Jan. 6, 2021, 64 days after Election Day 2020, a mob of supporters of President Donald J. Trump raided the Capitol. Here is a close look at how the attack unfolded.A Day of Rage: Using thousands of videos and police radio communications, a Times investigation reconstructed in detail what happened — and why.Lost Lives: A bipartisan Senate report found that at least seven people died in connection with the attack.Jan. 6 Attendees: To many of those who attended the Trump rally but never breached the Capitol, that date wasn’t a dark day for the nation. It was a new start.“Last minute invite to an undisclosed location,” Mr. Tarrio wrote on Parler, a right-wing social media app.Newly released emails and testimony suggest that some Secret Service agents were concerned about how a prominent far-right extremist had so easily gained access to the White House.Committee investigators later determined that the White House visit had been a public event that was likely arranged by a friend of Mr. Tarrio, Bianca Gracia, the founder of a group called Latinos for Trump.In an email obtained by the committee, Ron Rowe, the chief of staff to the Secret Service’s director, asked Bobby Engel, a Secret Service agent: “Can we get some specifics on who submitted him for the tour? Why didn’t we pick up on his role/membership in the Proud Boys?”Anthony Ornato, a former Secret Service agent who was Mr. Trump’s deputy chief of staff for operations, told the panel that he did not recall if he knew who the Proud Boys were at the time of Mr. Tarrio’s visit. The group’s name notably came up during a 2020 presidential debate.Mr. Tarrio is one of five members of the Proud Boys who are now on trial in Washington, where they are facing charges of seditious conspiracy. Opening arguments are expected to begin next month.Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, denied that she had discussed her political activities with her husband.Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated PressVirginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas tried to play down her role in contesting the election.In a wide-ranging interview, Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who is known as Ginni, sought to play down her role in attempts to challenge election results.Ms. Thomas acknowledged that she had exchanged text messages after the election with Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, in which she recommended that he support Sidney Powell, a pro-Trump lawyer who was pushing false accusations that foreign governments had hacked into the country’s voting machines.Ms. Thomas denied that she had discussed her activities with her husband. But she did acknowledge that she had been referring to Justice Thomas as her “best friend” in texts with Mr. Meadows, in which she said a talk with her “best friend” had cheered her up while she was distraught over Mr. Trump’s loss.“My husband often administers spousal support to the wife that’s upset,” she told investigators.Ms. Thomas also acknowledged taking part in a project called FreeRoots that had sent mass emails to state lawmakers in key swing states saying they had “power to decide if there were problems in their election.”In a tense exchange with Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and vice chairwoman of the panel, Ms. Thomas said that she still believed that the election had been marred by fraud. When questioned further, Ms. Thomas could not come up with any specific instances of fraud.C.I.A. staff had a ‘suicide pact’ to resign if Trump fired the director.New details also arose this week about plans to replace the director of the Central Intelligence Agency with a Trump loyalist in the final stages of the administration. The committee received testimony about a mass resignation plan at the C.I.A. in opposition to Mr. Trump’s attempt to replace Gina Haspel as director with Kashyap P. Patel, a lawyer and staunch supporter of the president.According to Alyssa Farah Griffin, the former White House communications director, Ms. Haspel had a “suicide pact” in place, in which the entire intelligence community would resign if she were removed from her post.“Allegedly, for about 14 minutes, Kash was actually the C.I.A. director,” Ms. Griffin said.Trump’s White House was marked by constant infighting.One theme throughout the transcripts is the intense infighting that was a constant feature of the Trump White House. Lawyers fought with lawyers. Communications staff fought among themselves. The president berated aides of all ranks.Some examples: Ms. Griffin provided a scathing assessment of Kayleigh McEnany, the former White House press secretary: “I am a Christian woman, so I will say this. Kayleigh is a liar and an — She’s a opportunist.”The Trump adviser Jason Miller told investigators he was “pissed off” when he learned that Cleta Mitchell, a longtime conservative lawyer, listed his name as the official to contact on a document she circulated denying that President Biden had won the election. “I called Cleta and said, ‘What the hell?’” Mr. Miller said. “And she said, ‘Yeah, you guys weren’t moving fast enough, so I just put your name on it and sent it out.’”Trump didn’t want to do ‘a big PR push’ for a Capitol Police officer who died after Jan. 6.The transcripts also show the conditional nature of the former president’s support for law enforcement. Mr. Trump agreed at the urging of his staff to lower the flag over the White House to honor a Capitol Police officer who died after Jan. 6, but “was adamant that we not do a press release or a big PR push,” Mr. Miller wrote in a text message.“We want to make it clear nobody is a stronger supporter of law enforcement than President Trump but we don’t want to blast it out,” Mr. Miller wrote.A furniture executive bankrolled private jets for Trump’s circle.Testimony released Friday detailed how Patrick Byrne, a former chief executive of the furniture retail company Overstock, took on the role of a financier who chartered private jets for people in Mr. Trump’s circle as they fought election results.Trips included bringing Trump supporters and members of the Proud Boys to attend rallies in Washington before Jan. 6, taking lawyers and cyberexperts to investigate voting machines and transporting people who signed affidavits about election fraud.Mr. Byrne also attended a White House meeting in which participants urged Mr. Trump to seize voting machines. In his deposition, Mr. Byrne said he had called for the meeting and asked the president to “put us in, coach.”Senator Mike Lee initially supported Mr. Trump, but ultimately voted to certify the election for Mr. Biden.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesIn one telling, the fake electors scheme originated from a senator.According to Ms. Mitchell, Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, came up with the idea to submit alternate electors to cast their ballots for the former president instead of Mr. Biden.“It was actually Mike Lee’s idea,” she told investigators.Mr. Lee has said he was eager to fight alongside Mr. Trump, but backed off when evidence of a stolen election did not appear. Mr. Lee ultimately voted to certify the election for Mr. Biden. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Israel’s Hard-Line Government Takes Office, Testing Bonds With Allies

      by

      Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition will likely test ties with the United States and Europe, amid fears that it will undermine the country’s democracy and stability.Benjamin Netanyahu was sworn in as prime minister of Israel for a sixth time.Amir Levy/Getty ImagesJERUSALEM — Israel’s new government was sworn in on Thursday, returning Benjamin Netanyahu to power at the head of a right-wing and religiously conservative administration that represents a significant challenge for the country on the world stage.Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition will likely test Israel’s ties with the United States and Europe, amid fears that his coalition partners will undermine the country’s liberal democracy and its stability. Mr. Netanyahu dismissed those concerns in a speech in Parliament before a vote of confidence and the swearing-in of his ministers.“There is a broad consensus among us about most of the challenges we face, though certainly not about all of them,” he said. “I hear the constant lamentations of the opposition about ‘the country being over’ and ‘the end of democracy.’ Members of the opposition, losing in elections is not the end of democracy — it is the essence of democracy.”The makeup of Mr. Netanyahu’s government and the policies it has pledged to pursue have raised concerns about increased tensions with Palestinians, the undermining of the country’s judicial independence and the rolling back of protections for the L.G.B.T.Q. community and other sectors of society.Mr. Netanyahu’s return as prime minister for a sixth time comes at a critical moment for Israel as it faces fundamental challenges: Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons; growing international criticism of its handling of the occupied West Bank; and a global tide of antisemitism.The coalition has been clear in its manifesto — hammered out in agreements with various parties as ministries were handed out — about what it intends to do.It has declared the Jewish people’s “exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel” and pledged to bolster Jewish settlement in the West Bank — explicitly abandoning the internationally recognized formula for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Peace talks have been on hiatus for years.Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and its manifesto have raised concerns about increased tensions with Palestinians and protections for L.G.B.T.Q. people.Abir Sultan/EPA, via ShutterstockThe new government is also pressing for an overhaul of the judiciary that Mr. Netanyahu — currently on trial on corruption charges — and his supporters insist will restore the proper balance between the branches of government. Critics say the move would curb the power of the independent judiciary, damaging Israel’s democratic system and leaving minorities more vulnerable.Mr. Netanyahu’s past coalitions have been balanced by more moderate parties, but this time, he had to rely more heavily on far-right parties to form a government. That could complicate Israel’s relations with perhaps its most important ally, the United States, and with American Jews, who have been among Israel’s strongest supporters abroad.What to Know About Israel’s New GovernmentNetanyahu’s Return: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, is set to return to power at the helm of the most right-wing administration in Israeli history.The Far Right’s Rise: To win election, Mr. Netanyahu and his far-right allies harnessed perceived threats to Israel’s Jewish identity after ethnic unrest and the subsequent inclusion of Arab lawmakers in the government.Arab Allies: Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies have a history of making anti-Arab statements. Three Arab countries that normalized relations with Israel in 2020 appear unconcerned.Worries Among Palestinians: To some Palestinians, the rise of Israel’s far right can scarcely make things worse. But many fear a surge of violence.President Biden on Thursday said in a statement that he looked forward to working with a prime minister “who has been my friend for decades, to jointly address the many challenges and opportunities facing Israel and the Middle East region, including threats from Iran.”But Mr. Biden also hinted at possible sources of tension with the new government, like L.G.B.T.Q. rights and conflicts with Palestinians. He said “the United States will continue to support the two state solution and to oppose policies that endanger its viability.”Thomas R. Nides, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, said the administration would respond to the Israeli government’s actions rather than coalition deals that may not materialize.“We’ve been told over and over by Prime Minister Netanyahu that he has his hands on the wheel and wants to be the prime minister of everyone,” he said in an interview. “He’s a very talented and very experienced prime minister. We want to work closely with him on mutual values we share, and at this point not get distracted by everyone else. So the focus is on the prime minister and the prime minister’s office.”Another concern for many Jews in the United States who identify with more liberal streams of Judaism is the new government’s policies on religion, which give more weight to strict Orthodox demands. Particularly distressing to many Jews outside Israel, the coalition has promised to restrict the Law of Return, which currently grants refuge and automatic citizenship to foreign Jews, their spouses and descendants who have at least one Jewish grandparent, even though they may not qualify as Jewish according to strict religious law.“We are profoundly concerned about the intentions of this government and we are taking their promises and agenda very seriously,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish denomination in the United States.The coalition partners, he said, also want to narrow who is counted as a legitimate Jew in the Jewish homeland. The “Who is a Jew” debate has surfaced before, but this time, Rabbi Jacobs said, Israelis whose extreme views excluded them from the establishment in the past hold key positions in the government.An ultra-Orthodox man voting in Bnei Brak, Israel, last month. The government’s platform reflects numerous Orthodox demands that liberal Jews in the United States have objected to.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York Times“Israel doesn’t get to decide alone,” he said of Jewish identity. “In some ways, these policies are meant to push us away. But the result is that we are going to lean in harder because of the importance of the state of Israel in all our lives.”Hundreds of American rabbis have signed an open letter protesting the government proposals.The policies of the new government could also have repercussions with Arab states, even as Israel has in recent years forged diplomatic ties with countries like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.King Abdullah II of Jordan said in an interview with CNN on Wednesday that he was “prepared to get into a conflict” if Israel tries — as some coalition members hope — to change the status of a Jerusalem holy site revered by Muslims and Jews, over which Jordan has custodianship. Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1994.Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party has emphasized the parts of the government’s policies aimed at deepening and expanding Israel’s peace and normalization deals with Arab countries, and he has spoken of Saudi Arabia as his next goal.But other clauses of the coalition’s platform talk of promoting Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank and further entrenching Jewish settlement in the heart of the land Palestinians have envisaged as their state.Bezalel Smotrich, the ultranationalist new finance minister who ultimately wants to annex the West Bank, will also serve as a minister within the defense ministry responsible for agencies dealing with the construction of Jewish settlements and civilian life in the occupied territories. That is likely to increase tensions with Israel’s allies abroad who place a premium on keeping the two-state option alive.Bezalel Smotrich, right, the new ultranationalist finance minister with Itamar Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, in Parliament on Thursday. Pool photo by Amir CohenThe Biden administration “is going to do everything possible to minimize friction and focus on areas of agreement,” said Daniel B. Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and now a fellow at the Atlantic Council. “But friction will be impossible to completely avoid over issues related to the Palestinians, the future of two states and possibly the holy sites and the status of the Arab citizens of Israel.”European allies have so far taken a wait-and-see stance similar to the Biden administration’s. Christofer Burger, the spokesman of the German Foreign Office in Berlin, said Wednesday that bilateral relations with Israel “remain unchanged.”But he noted the Israeli plan to retroactively authorize West Bank settlements built without government permission, saying, “We expect the new Israeli government to refrain from such unilateral moves that would undermine the basis of a negotiated two-state solution.”Some Israeli diplomats have taken a stand against the new government. Israel’s ambassador to France, Yael German, resigned on Thursday, stating in a letter that she could “no longer continue to represent policies so radically different from all that I believe in.”And more than a hundred retired Israeli ambassadors and senior Foreign Ministry officials took the extraordinary step of signing a letter to Mr. Netanyahu this week expressing their “profound concern” at the potential harm to Israel’s strategic relations.“The letter was not politically motivated but was written out of pragmatic concern for how you prevent weakening Israel’s standing in the international arena,” said Jeremy Issacharoff, a signatory and former ambassador to Germany.For many Palestinians, the hard-line government is merely exposing what they have said all along about Israel’s true intentions.“Its annexationist agenda of Jewish supremacy is now very blunt and clear,” Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to Britain, said by phone. “The two-state solution was never a Palestinian demand,” he said, “but an international requirement that we have accepted. Now, publicly, this government does not endorse the idea of partition. That’s the heart of it.”Israel’s new national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who was convicted in the past of inciting racism and support for a terrorist group, has been given expanded powers over the police and additional forces to fight crime in Arab communities.The coalition has also vowed to amend the current anti-discrimination law, which applies to businesses and service providers, allowing them to refuse to provide a service contrary to their religious beliefs in a way that critics say could lead to discrimination against the L.G.B.T.Q. community or others.Mr. Netanyahu seemed to address that fear through Amir Ohana, a Likud member who on Thursday became the first openly gay speaker of the Parliament, and thanked his life partner and their two children from the podium during the inauguration ceremony. Mr. Netanyahu made a point of being photographed sitting next to Mr. Ohana and his family at a toast afterward.Yet an ultraconservative, anti-gay minister has been given wide powers over some programs taught in public schools and the ultra-Orthodox parties in the coalition have secured copious funding for adults who choose full-time Torah study over work.“This is unlike anything we have seen before,” Mr. Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador, said. “The majority of the coalition and many of its dominant members with a lot of leverage over the prime minister subscribe to a worldview that defines issues of national and Jewish identity, religion and state and democracy unlike any previous Israeli right-wing government.”Jim Tankersley More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Israel’s New Hard-Line Government Raises Hackles Ahead of Inauguration

      by

      The country’s president warned the far-right incoming minister of national security that he was raising alarms at home and abroad over racism, discrimination and undermining democracy.JERUSALEM — Israel’s incoming prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, concluded coalition agreements on Wednesday to form the most right-wing and religiously conservative government in the country’s history, a day ahead of an expected vote in Parliament to install the new leaders.The coalition pledged to expand Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, a move that will deepen the conflict with the Palestinians. And its members agreed to prioritize potentially far-reaching changes that would curb the power and influence of the independent judiciary, one of a number of measures that critics warn risk damaging Israel’s democratic system and paving the way for racism and discrimination against minorities.Even before the swearing-in ceremony on Thursday, a broad public backlash against the government prompted an unusual intervention by Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, who reflected the alarm in some constituencies at home and abroad over the most contentious clauses in the coalition agreements.Mr. Herzog summoned Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of Jewish Power, an ultranationalist party, and the incoming minister of national security, for a meeting and conveyed “voices from large sections of the nation and the Jewish world concerned about the incoming government,” the president’s office said. He urged Mr. Ben-Gvir “to calm the stormy winds.”The president is a largely ceremonial figurehead who has no legal authority to influence the new government, but his voice carries moral weight and is supposed to unify Israelis.Mr. Ben-Gvir told Mr. Herzog that he and the new government “will pursue a broad national policy for the sake of all parts of Israeli society,” according to the statement from the president’s office.The meeting came the same morning that the coalition agreements reached between the partners of the incoming government were presented to Parliament on Wednesday, a final step required a day before the vote in Parliament to approve the new coalition.What to Know About Israel’s New GovernmentNetanyahu’s Return: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, is set to return to power at the helm of the most right-wing administration in Israeli history.The Far Right’s Rise: To win election, Mr. Netanyahu and his far-right allies harnessed perceived threats to Israel’s Jewish identity after ethnic unrest and the subsequent inclusion of Arab lawmakers in the government.Arab Allies: Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies have a history of making anti-Arab statements. Three Arab countries that normalized relations with Israel in 2020 appear unconcerned.Worries Among Palestinians: To some Palestinians, the rise of Israel’s far right can scarcely make things worse. But many fear a surge of violence.The government’s guidelines began with a declaration of the Jewish people’s “exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel” and pledged to bolster Jewish settlement in all areas, including the occupied West Bank — a statement that reflected this government’s abandonment of the internationally recognized formula for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.“We have achieved the goal,” Mr. Netanyahu told his Likud party lawmakers on Wednesday as the intense coalition negotiations came to an end nearly two months after the Nov. 1 election.“A huge public in Israel — more than two million Israelis — voted for the national camp led by us,” he said. “We will establish a stable government that will last its full term and serve all the citizens of Israel.”Israel’s incoming prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of the Likud party, campaigning in the city of Sderot in October. Mr. Netanyahu is set to return to office 18 months after he was ousted.Amit Elkayam for The New York TimesBut the agreements were already causing strains with the Jewish diaspora, and particularly with the largely non-Orthodox community in North America, and are raising concerns regarding Israel’s international standing.More than a hundred retired Israeli ambassadors and senior Foreign Ministry officials signed a letter to Mr. Netanyahu on Wednesday expressing their “profound concern” at the potential harm to Israel’s strategic relations, first and foremost with the United States, arising from the apparent policies of the incoming government.In an interview with CNN, King Abdullah II of Jordan said he was “prepared to get into a conflict” if Israel crossed red lines and tried to change the status of a Jerusalem holy site revered by Muslims and Jews, and over which Jordan has custodianship. Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1994, but relations between King Abdullah and Mr. Netanyahu have long been tense.Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving prime minister, is set to return to office 18 months after he was ousted. On trial for corruption, he has grown ever more dependent on his hard-line allies because the more liberal parties refuse to sit in a government led by a premier under criminal indictment.One of the most controversial elements of the new government’s plans is the prioritization of changes to the judiciary, including legislation that will allow Parliament to override Supreme Court rulings. This would limit the influence of the independent judiciary, which has played an important role in preserving minority rights in a country that lacks a formal constitution, and would give more unchecked power to the political majority.But coalition agreements are not binding, and many of their clauses remain on paper, never materializing. The clauses about the judiciary are vague and provide little detail about what will be changed, how or by when. The proposal to allow Parliament to override Supreme Court rulings, for example, does not specify whether a simple Parliamentary majority of 61 of the 120 lawmakers will be enough to strike down a Supreme Court decision or if a special majority will be required.Mr. Ben-Gvir was convicted in the past on charges of inciting racism and of support for a terrorist group and ran in the election on a bullish ticket of fighting organized crime and increasing governance, particularly in areas heavily populated by members of Israel’s Arab minority.This week, Parliament passed legislation expanding ministerial powers over the police in a way that critics say will allow Mr. Ben-Gvir to politicize the force’s operations. The coalition agreement states that he will have the authority to change open-fire regulations, potentially allowing the police a freer hand that could fuel tensions with Arab citizens of Israel.Mr. Ben-Gvir and his allies have insisted that the coalition agreements include promises to amend the current anti-discrimination law, which applies to businesses and service providers, to allow them to refuse to provide a service that is contrary to their religious beliefs and to hold gender-segregated events.Israelis demonstrating against the new government of Mr. Netanyahu this month in Jerusalem.Mostafa Alkharouf/Anadolu Agency, via Getty ImagesFar-right lawmakers suggested this week that meant that doctors could refuse to provide treatments that go against their religious conscience — for example, providing fertility treatment to a person in a same-sex relationship — or that hoteliers could turn away certain customers.Their statements set off a public uproar and forced Mr. Netanyahu to issue clarifications saying that no discrimination will be tolerated against the L.G.B.T.Q. community or any other sections of Israeli society, even though his conservative Likud party is a signatory to the coalition agreements.Israeli banks, insurance companies, medical professionals, legal experts and business leaders have denounced the proposed amendments and stated that they will not cooperate with any discriminatory conduct in their fields.Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting from Rehovot, Israel. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Israel’s New Government Pushes A Rush of Far-Right Initiatives

      by

      Benjamin Netanyahu needed the support of far-right factions to return to the prime minister’s office. Now they want to curb the powers of the judiciary, giving rise to fears about an erosion of democracy.JERUSALEM — As Israel’s prime minister designate, Benjamin Netanyahu, prepares to swear in his new hard-line government and return to office, his deals to cement the support of far-right coalition partners are raising widespread concerns about the country’s future as a liberal democracy.The emerging coalition will be the most hard-right and religious administration in Israel’s history, made up of Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party and another five far-right and ultra-Orthodox factions. Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving prime minister, who was ousted 18 months ago, is on trial for corruption and has grown ever more dependent on these hard-line allies because the more liberal parties refuse to sit in a government led by a premier under criminal indictment.That dependency, critics say, has weakened him in the coalition negotiations, forcing him to go along with at least some of the demands for far-reaching changes that would limit the powers of the judiciary and curb the independence of the police.Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line allies need him just as much as he needs them; they, too, have no alternative path to power. But their fundamental lack of trust in Mr. Netanyahu, who has a record of breaking promises to coalition partners, led them to insist on a rush of legislation to anchor their new roles and authorities in law, with potentially damaging consequences for the democratic system.Israelis demonstrating against the new government of Benjamin Netanyahu last week in Jerusalem.Atef Safadi/EPA, via Shutterstock“What we see in the legislation preceding the formation of the government is a change in the rules of the game of Israeli democracy,” said Gayil Talshir, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.The outgoing prime minister, Yair Lapid, a centrist, described the incoming government on Thursday as “dangerous, extremist, irresponsible.”“It will end badly,” he said, calling it “a clearance sale of Israel’s future.”The legislative rush and drafts of coalition agreements include proposals that would allow Parliament to override Supreme Court decisions and would give more weight to politicians in the selection of judges.Legal amendments would greatly expand the powers of the incoming minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who oversees the police. Mr. Ben-Gvir is the leader of the ultranationalist Jewish Power party and the main advocate of the bill, which would give him the authority to set policy for the police, something critics say will allow him to politicize the force’s operations.He was convicted in the past on charges of inciting racism and of support for a terrorist group, and ran in the election on a bullish ticket of fighting organized crime and increasing governance, particularly in areas heavily populated by members of Israel’s Arab minority.What to Know About Israel’s New GovernmentNetanyahu’s Return: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, is set to return to power at the helm of the most right-wing administration in Israeli history.The Far Right’s Rise: To win election, Mr. Netanyahu and his far-right allies harnessed perceived threats to Israel’s Jewish identity after ethnic unrest and the subsequent inclusion of Arab lawmakers in the government.Arab Allies: Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies have a history of making anti-Arab statements. Three Arab countries that normalized relations with Israel in 2020 appear unconcerned.Worries Among Palestinians: To some Palestinians, the rise of Israel’s far right can scarcely make things worse. But many fear a surge of violence.Another amendment will allow Bezalel Smotrich, the leader of the Religious Zionism party, to serve as a second minister in the hallowed Ministry of Defense. Mr. Smotrich, whose party ultimately seeks to annex the occupied West Bank, has been promised authority over the agencies dealing with Jewish settlements and Palestinian and Israeli civilian life in the occupied West Bank, in consultation with the prime minister.A third change will allow Aryeh Deri, the leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, to serve as a minister despite a recent conviction and a suspended prison sentence for tax fraud. That amendment, analysts say, could end up applying to Mr. Netanyahu should he ultimately be convicted or reach a plea deal including a suspended sentence.Mr. Netanyahu denies all wrongdoing and says the cases against him will collapse in court.The incoming minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who oversees the police. Mr. Ben-Gvir is the leader of the ultranationalist Jewish Power party and the main advocate behind a bill greatly expanding his powers.Gil Cohen-Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesStill, experts say, the proposed changes outlined in the coalition agreements are still in flux.“Constitutional political changes are being carried out in record speed, even before the government has been established,” said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, a nonpartisan research center. “This demonstrates the fragility of our democracy.”But Mr. Plesner emphasized that such practices were not unprecedented in Israel and that there were still many possible outcomes.“There is a discrepancy,” he said, “between the ideas and initiatives and declarations of politicians before elections, and what is actually happening in the negotiating room and being manifested in coalition agreements and government policy.”Mr. Netanyahu, who has already pushed Israel further to the right during his 15 years in power, will now be the main force of moderation in his government compared with his more hard-line partners. Though he is known for his aggressive campaign tactics, Mr. Netanyahu has generally protected the democratic system during his long tenure.He has rejected the warnings about damage to Israeli democracy as fear-mongering by those who lost the election and has pledged to act in the interest of all Israel’s citizens.“We were elected to lead in our way, the way of the national right and the way of the liberal right,” he said in a recent speech to Parliament, “and that’s what we will do.”The most immediate concerns revolve around the law expanding the powers of Mr. Ben-Gvir, the national security minister. It has passed its first reading in Parliament but is still pending final approval.In the past, the minister overseeing the police would set policy priorities in consultation with the commissioner of police, but would not interfere in operational matters or have any influence over investigations.The proposed legislation subordinates the police to the minister’s authority, leading legal officials and experts to fear a politicization of the force. And it grants the minister the right to set priorities and time frames for investigations in a departure from past practices.“The Israel Police will be run under a threatening and belligerent man who lacks responsibility and experience, who wishes to turn it into a political agency,” and to turn the police commissioner into a “puppet,” the outgoing minister of public security, Omer Bar-Lev, told Parliament this week.Mr. Ben-Gvir argues that the police should be subordinate to a minister’s policy in the same way that the military carries out the government’s policy. But critics say that unlike the military, which fights Israel’s enemies, the mission of the police is to deal with Israeli citizens — including corrupt politicians.Aida Touma-Sliman, a Palestinian-Israeli lawmaker, told the committee discussing the bill that the incoming minister’s goals were “ideological” and “racist” and would end up creating a “political police.”Human rights activists say they are worried that the legislation giving Mr. Ben-Gvir broader control over the police could be used to suppress protests.Noa Sattath, the executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, said her organization petitioned the parliamentary committee discussing the bill to exclude protests from Mr. Ben-Gvir’s areas of authority, as did the committee’s own legal adviser. But Mr. Ben-Gvir rejected that recommendation.“Clearly the minister wants to have authority over the way the police deal with protests,” said Ms. Sattath, who described the bill as endangering one of the foundations of the Israeli democratic system.Clash between Palestinians and the Israeli army in Nablus, in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday.Zain Jaafar/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn the face of mounting criticism, Mr. Ben-Gvir told the parliamentary committee on Thursday that he would postpone the discussions and voting on the most contentious parts of the bill until after the inauguration of the government.Also of concern are the proposals to change the way the judiciary operates.If implemented, they will dramatically curb the powers of the Supreme Court, which has long been seen by liberal Israelis and analysts as one of the country’s most important institutions safeguarding against the erosion of liberal democratic values. Because Israel has only one house of Parliament and no formal constitution, the judiciary plays a critical role in protecting minority rights and offsetting rule by the parliamentary majority.The coalition partners are keen to see these judicial changes, not least to ensure that the Supreme Court cannot overturn the hasty legislation now making its way through Parliament.“In the coming weeks we will have to face the most significant threats Israeli democracy has seen in recent decades,” Mr. Plesner said at a recent conference at his institute on the implications of the judicial changes proposed by members of the incoming coalition.“The issues on the agenda concern the nature of the state and the basic rights of each and every one of us.”Myra Noveck More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Last Lesson of the Jan. 6 Committee

      by

      The hearings of the House select committee on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol presented a careful, convincing and disturbing account of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. They provided an abundance of detail about what we’ve long known: that Mr. Trump and his allies engaged not only in an assault on Congress, but on democracy itself.The work done by the committee over the past 18 months may be even more important than its report, which is expected to be released Thursday. The long months of scouring investigation and the carefully staged hearings, in which the evidence of Mr. Trump’s malfeasance was presented to the public, were critical elements in the nation’s full understanding of the attack on the Capitol. Through the work of these hearings, Congress showed that the best possible answer to political violence lay in the tools that were right at hand: the rule of law, checks and balances, testimony given under oath and the careful process of bureaucracy.Like a slow-motion replay, the committee’s work also gave Americans a second chance to comprehend the enormity of what transpired on Jan. 6. It seems plausible, as some members of the panel have asserted, that the hearings made protecting democracy a significant issue in the midterm elections and helped to persuade voters to reject some election deniers who ran for state offices. The sustained attention on Mr. Trump’s conduct in his final days in office is also valuable as he mounts a renewed campaign for the presidency. And the hearings focused the attention of the public and policymakers on the extremist groups that participated in the attack on the Capitol and that pose a threat of renewed violence.Congressional hearings are often filled with the distraction of partisan squabbling, grandstanding and detours into tangential subjects. The Jan. 6 committee was different, and the American people were better off for it. Mr. Trump and others refused to answer subpoenas from the committee, which would have given them an opportunity to answer questions and make their case. Their refusal is unfortunate; they deserve the chance to defend themselves and present their account of the facts, and Americans deserve the chance to hear from them. They’re still due that chance, and Mr. Trump may still have his say in a court of law.The seven Democrats and two Republicans who served on the committee captured the attention of Americans who may not have been sufficiently informed or alarmed about Mr. Trump’s role in the events of Jan. 6 to take notice. The two Republicans on the committee, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, deserve particular credit for defying their own party to participate. Their presence, and the damning testimony delivered by Mr. Trump’s own aides and allies, conveyed the message that some things are necessarily more important than loyalty to a political party.Americans have also learned, thanks to these hearings, exactly how close this country came to even greater tragedies. Rioters came within 40 feet of Vice President Mike Pence. A Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, in late December 2020 sought to send a letter — based on lies — to officials in Georgia and potentially several other key states that warned of election irregularities and called for a special legislative session to select alternate slates of presidential electors.The lesson, in part, is that our democracy is inescapably fragile. It requires Americans, and those who serve them as elected officials and in law enforcement, to act in good faith. The committee rightly spent many hours of its work documenting the actions of all those local, state and federal officials who defied Mr. Trump’s demands and acted in many different ways to protect democracy.The dangers remain clear and present, so this work is not complete. House Republicans will be in the majority come January, including many who sought to overturn President Biden’s victory, and some who encouraged the rioters.Political violence is on the rise, especially among right-wing extremists.And Mr. Trump is running for president again on a platform of his grievances, still insistent that he did not lose the last election, still refusing to accept the rule of law. He is, in fact, escalating his rhetoric.The nation needs to respond to these threats. Congress needs to pass the reforms to the electoral process that are included in the year-end omnibus spending bill. Law enforcement can do more to crack down on extremist violence. Voters should reject Mr. Trump at the polls.As the select committee’s chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, emphasized at its final hearing on Monday, the government should continue to pursue those responsible for the Jan. 6 attack and to hold them accountable.More than 900 people already have been charged with crimes related to the attack on the Capitol, and several hundred of those have either been convicted or pleaded guilty. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the extremist Oath Keepers group, was convicted of seditious conspiracy in November. Jury selection has begun in the federal trial of Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, another extremist group, who faces similar charges.The committee called upon the Justice Department to also bring criminal charges against Mr. Trump and the lawyer John Eastman, for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including Mr. Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack. The Justice Department is still engaged in its own investigation. As we wrote in August, if there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then he should be charged and tried; the same goes for all of the others whom the committee referred to the Justice Department.Mr. Thompson, urging action on all these fronts, said that as a nation, “We remain in strange and uncharted waters.” Yet the hearings also underscored that the country is better off with clarity and truth.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