Rumors and Misinformation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      El delicado tema de la bebida de Giuliani

      by

      Era difícil no ver a Rudolph Giuliani en el Grand Havana Room, el club de puros del Midtown que seguía tratándolo como el rey de Nueva York y que era un imán para simpatizantes y curiosos.En los últimos años, muchos de sus allegados temían que cada vez fuera más difícil no verlo.Durante más de una década la forma de beber de Giuliani había sido un problema, admitieron con tristeza sus amigos. Y, a medida que recuperaba protagonismo durante la presidencia de Donald Trump, cada vez era más complicado ocultarlo.Algunas noches, cuando Giuliani se pasaba de copas, algún colaborador/socio hacía discretamente una seña al resto del club: la mano vacía, inclinada hacia atrás en un gesto de beber y fuera de la vista del exalcalde, por si los demás preferían mantener las distancias. Algunos aliados, al ver a Giuliani bebiendo whisky antes de salir en las entrevistas de Fox News, se escabullían en busca de un televisor, para mirar con tensión sus pobres defensas de Trump.Incluso en lugares menos bulliciosos —la fiesta de presentación de un libro, una cena por el aniversario del 11 de septiembre, una reunión íntima en el propio apartamento de Giuliani— su constante y llamativa embriaguez a menudo asustaba a sus acompañantes.“No es ningún secreto, ni le hago ningún favor si no menciono ese problema, porque lo tiene”, dijo Andrew Stein, expresidente del Concejo Municipal de Nueva York que conoce a Giuliani desde hace décadas. “De hecho, es una de las cosas más tristes que creo que pasan en la política”.Nadie cercano a Giuliani, de 79 años, ha insinuado que su forma de beber pueda excusar o explicar su actual deterioro legal y personal. En agosto fue a Georgia para que le hicieran una ficha policial, no por su comportamiento nocturno ni por sus imprudentes entrevistas por cable, sino por presuntamente hacer mal uso de las leyes que defendía con ahínco cuando era fiscal federal, subvirtiendo así la democracia de un país que antaño lo idolatraba.Sin embargo, según sus amigos, para casi cualquier persona cercana los hábitos de bebida de Giuliani han sido el patrón que ha marcado su caída y no la causa del colapso de su reputación. Esta forma de beber, aseguran, ha sido la evidencia omnipresente de que algo no iba bien con el lugarteniente más incauto del expresidente mucho antes del día de las elecciones de 2020.Ahora, los fiscales en el caso electoral federal contra Trump se enfocan en los hábitos de bebida de Giuliani y muestran interés en saber si el expresidente ignoró lo que sus ayudantes describieron como la embriaguez evidente del exalcalde que en los documentos judiciales es mencionado como “Co-conspirador 1”.Los riesgos legales que comparten han convertido un asunto sobre el que durante mucho tiempo han susurrado antiguos ayudantes del Ayuntamiento, asesores de la Casa Blanca y las altas esferas de la política en una subtrama de investigación en un caso sin precedentes.La oficina de Jack Smith, el fiscal especial, ha interrogado a testigos sobre el consumo de alcohol de Giuliani cuando asesoraba a Trump, incluida la noche de las elecciones, según una persona familiarizada con el tema. Los investigadores de Smith también han preguntado sobre el nivel de conocimiento de Trump sobre el consumo de alcohol de su abogado, mientras trabajaban para anular las elecciones y evitar que Joe Biden fuera certificado como ganador de 2020 casi a cualquier precio. (Un portavoz del fiscal especial declinó hacer comentarios).Giuliani fue uno de los rostros más públicos del esfuerzo de Trump por revertir las elecciones de 2020.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesLas respuestas a esas preguntas podrían complicar cualquier esfuerzo del equipo de Trump para apoyarse en la llamada defensa del consejo del abogado, una estrategia que podría presentarlo como un cliente que solo seguía las indicaciones profesionales de sus abogados. Si esa orientación procedía de alguien que Trump sabía que estaba incapacitado por el alcohol, especialmente cuando muchos otros le dijeron al exmandatario que definitivamente había perdido, su argumento podría debilitarse.En entrevistas y testimonios ante el Congreso, varias personas que se encontraban en la Casa Blanca durante la noche de las elecciones —la noche en la que Giuliani instó a Trump a declarar su victoria, a pesar de los resultados— han dicho que el exalcalde parecía estar borracho, que arrastraba las palabras y olía a alcohol.“El alcalde estaba definitivamente intoxicado”, dijo Jason Miller, uno de los principales asesores de Trump y veterano de la campaña presidencial de Giuliani en 2008, al comité del Congreso que investiga el ataque del 6 de enero en el Capitolio en una declaración a principios del año pasado. “Pero no conozco su nivel de intoxicación cuando habló con el presidente”. (Giuliani negó furiosamente esta versión y condenó en términos despiadados a Miller, que había hablado elogiosamente de él en público).En privado, Trump, que desde hace tiempo se describe como abstemio, ha hablado con sorna de la forma de beber de Giuliani, según una persona familiarizada con sus comentarios. Pero los monólogos de Trump a sus colaboradores pueden revelar una visión del exalcalde que muchos republicanos comparten: atribuye a Giuliani el cambio de la ciudad de Nueva York tras las décadas de 1970 y 1980, de alta criminalidad, y afirma que ha sufrido últimamente sin él al mando. Luego vuelve a lamentarse de la imagen actual de Giuliani.Trump no se detiene en su propio papel en esa trayectoria.En una declaración en la que no se abordaron versiones específicas sobre la bebida de Giuliani o su posible relevancia para los fiscales, Ted Goodman, un asesor político del exalcalde, elogió la carrera de Giuliani y sugirió que estaba siendo difamado porque “tiene el coraje de defender a un hombre inocente” refiriéndose a Trump.“Estoy con el alcalde regularmente desde hace un año, y la idea de que es alcohólico es una mentira absoluta”, dijo Goodman, añadiendo que “se ha puesto de moda en ciertos círculos difamar al alcalde en un esfuerzo de no perder el favor de la llamada ‘alta sociedad’ de Nueva York y del circuito de cócteles de Washington, D. C.”.“El Rudy Giuliani que todos ven hoy”, continuó Goodman, “es el mismo que acabó con la mafia, limpió las calles de Nueva York y consoló a la nación tras el 11-S”.Un portavoz de Trump no respondió a una petición de comentarios.Muchos de los que conocen bien a Giuliani se cuidan de hablar de su vida, y especialmente de su forma de beber, con muchos matices. Dicen que la mayoría de los elementos del actual Giuliani siempre estuvieron ahí, aunque menos visibles.Mucho antes de que el alcohol se convirtiera en un problema, Giuliani tenía inclinación a hacer afirmaciones generalizadas e infundadas de fraude electoral. (“Me robaron las elecciones”, dijo una vez sobre su derrota como alcalde en 1989, aludiendo a supuestas artimañas “en las zonas negras de Brooklyn y en Washington Heights”).Mucho antes de que el alcohol se convirtiera en un problema podía arremeter contra enemigos reales o supuestos. (“Un hombre pequeño en busca de balcón”, dijo en una ocasión Jimmy Breslin, refiriéndose a Giuliani).En las entrevistas con amigos, colaboradores y antiguos ayudantes, el consenso era que, más que transformar por completo a Giuliani, la bebida había acelerado un cambio en su alquimia, al amplificar características que tenía desde hace mucho tiempo como conspiracionismo, credulidad, debilidad por la grandeza.Amante de la ópera —con un sentido operístico de su propia historia—, Giuliani lleva mucho tiempo invitando a sus seguidores, como ha hecho Trump, a procesar sus pruebas personales como propias, arrastrando a las masas a través del tumulto, la tragedia y el divorcio público.Sin embargo, ahora su mundo es pequeño, se estrecha para reflejar sus circunstancias.En agosto, Giuliani ingresó en la cárcel del condado de Fulton, en Atlanta, tras ser acusado en un amplio caso de chantaje contra Trump y sus aliados.  Brynn Anderson/Associated PressSe enfrenta a una acusación de chantaje (entre otras) en Georgia, a un caso de difamación interpuesto por dos trabajadores electorales y a acusaciones de conducta sexual inapropiada por parte de una antigua empleada (él ha dicho que se trató de una relación consentida) y de una antigua ayudante de la Casa Blanca (él ha negado esta versión).Uno de sus abogados ha dicho que Giuliani está “a punto de quebrar”. Otro, Robert Costello, antaño protegido del exalcalde, lo ha demandado por impago de honorarios legales.El círculo de Giuliani se ha reducido debido al alejamiento de sus viejos amigos. Su licencia de abogado fue suspendida en Nueva York. El Grand Havana Room cerró en 2020.La mayoría de los días, Giuliani presenta un programa de radio en Manhattan y se detiene para hacerse selfis en la acera con algún que otro desconocido.La mayoría de las noches, se queda para emitir en directo desde el apartamento que compartió durante mucho tiempo con su tercera exesposa, Judith Giuliani. Recientemente lo ha puesto a la venta.“A Rudy le encanta la ópera”, dijo William Bratton, su primer comisario de policía, a quien Giuliani una vez le regaló una colección de discos de La Bohème. “Pocas óperas tienen un final feliz”.Una derrota aplastante y una preocupación crecienteGiuliani grabando su programa de radio semanal desde su despacho en el Ayuntamiento en mayo de 2000.Ruby Washington/The New York TimesGiuliani siempre fue el tipo de funcionario electo que mantuvo ocupados a los investigadores de la oposición: enredos amorosos, conflictos de personal, un montón de comentarios incendiarios.Pero mientras se preparaba para la vida después del Ayuntamiento —montando una efímera campaña para el Senado en el año 2000 y expresando sus aspiraciones presidenciales— los funcionarios demócratas dijeron que la bebida de Giuliani fue un tema que nunca salió a relucir.Había una razón para eso. Como alcalde, según sus antiguos colaboradores, Giuliani no solía beber en exceso y esperaba que su equipo siguiera su ejemplo.En parte, parece que eso se debía a su inseguridad: criado a las afueras de Manhattan en una familia de medios modestos, Giuliani siempre tuvo cuidado de no perder la cabeza, según un alto funcionario municipal, porque no quería bajar la guardia ante las élites neoyorquinas.Otra consideración era práctica. Giuliani estaba encantado con la naturaleza de la alcaldía a toda hora y se apresuraba a acudir a los escenarios de emergencia para proyectar autoridad y control mucho antes de que le revelara ese instinto al resto del mundo durante los ataques del 11 de septiembre.Nadie duda de que el atentado, y su perfil ascendente, lo reconfiguraron de manera profunda. El 10 de septiembre de 2001, era un caso perdido por su carácter polarizador que lo había llevado a enemistarse con los artistas, además de criticar duramente a los propietarios de hurones y defender a su departamento de policía durante los sonados asesinatos de hombres negros desarmados, incluyendo un episodio en el que Giuliani atacó al fallecido y autorizó la publicación de su expediente de arresto.Pero, a mediados de semana, se había convertido en un emblema mundial de tenaz determinación, llegando a ser considerado el hombre esencial de la ciudad. (Giuliani no tardó en verse a sí mismo de esta manera: a pocas semanas de las elecciones para sucederlo, empezó a presionar a fines de septiembre para aplazar la fecha de entrada en funciones del próximo alcalde y permanecer en el cargo unos meses más. Según George Pataki, exgobernador republicano, le pidió que ampliara su mandato. La idea tuvo pocos adeptos y fue descartada).El prestigio político de Giuliani creció tras los atentados terroristas del 11 de septiembre de 2001. El año pasado, fue criticado por decir que fue “en cierto modo, el mejor día de mi vida”.Robert F. Bukaty/Associated PressLos años siguientes fueron un torbellino de duelo y celebridad —recuerdos desgarradores, negocios lucrativos, un título honorífico de caballero británico—, una tensión que pareciera que Giuliani todavía lucha por superar.El año pasado fue criticado por calificar el 11 de septiembre como “en cierto modo, el mejor día de mi vida”. También da la impresión de que los recuerdos de ese día lo persiguen, sin importar las puertas que le abrió: en 2018, después de una colonoscopia, contó que le informaron que durante el procedimiento estuvo hablando dormido como si estuviera estableciendo un centro de comando en la zona cero cuando cayeron las torres.Se suponía que la gestión de Giuliani en la crisis impulsaría su campaña presidencial, planeada desde hace tiempo, y lo consagraría como el principal candidato republicano en 2008. Pero no fue así.En cambio, los primeros relatos sobre el consumo excesivo de alcohol por parte de Giuliani se remontan a ese período de fracaso electoral. Aunque cualquier fracaso político puede molestar, quienes conocen a Giuliani dicen que esta, su primera derrota en casi dos décadas, fue especialmente devastadora.Cuando su gran apuesta electoral en Florida acabó en una humillación, Giuliani cayó en lo que Judith Giuliani calificó más tarde como una depresión clínica. Se quedó durante semanas en Mar-a-Lago, el club de Trump en Florida. Los dos no eran muy amigos, pero se conocían desde hacía años a través de la política neoyorquina y el sector inmobiliario.Durante su campaña presidencial en 2008, Giuliani apostó fuerte por tener una buena actuación en Florida, pero terminó de tercero, por lo que renunció un día después.Chip Litherland para The New York TimesPor ese entonces, Giuliani bebía en exceso, según declaraciones de Judith Giuliani a Andrew Kirtzman, autor de Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America’s Mayor, publicado el año pasado.“Literalmente se caía de borracho”, dijo Kirtzman en una entrevista, señalando que varios incidentes a lo largo de los años, según la esposa de Giuliani, requirieron atención médica. Kirtzman dijo que llegó a considerar la bebida de Giuliani como “parte de la erosión general de su autodisciplina”. (Giuliani ha dicho que pasó un mes “relajándose” en Mar-a-Lago. El abogado de Judith Giuliani expresó su decisión de no ser entrevistada).Algunos de los que se reunieron con Giuliani después de la campaña quedaron impresionados por su evidente falta de atención, por su desesperación por recuperar lo que había perdido.George Arzt, antiguo ayudante del exalcalde Edward Koch, con quien Giuliani se enfrentó a menudo, recordaba haberlo visto deambular en bucle por un restaurante de los Hamptons, como si esperara a que alguien lo parara, mientras el resto de su grupo cenaba en un salón trasero.“Caminaba de un lado a otro como si quisiera que todo el mundo lo viera, más de una vez”, dijo Arzt. “Solo quería que lo reconocieran”.Las personas cercanas a Giuliani se preocuparon especialmente cuando su tercer matrimonio empezó a resquebrajarse, y se inquietaron por el comportamiento que llegó a mostrar incluso en reuniones nominalmente oficiales, como una cena anual para estrechos colaboradores en torno al 11 de septiembre.Giuliani y su esposa de ese entonces, Judith Giuliani, de pie a la derecha, en 2005. Ella ha dicho que el exalcalde cayó en una depresión y bebió mucho tras perder las elecciones de 2008.Bill Cunningham/The New York TimesEn casi cualquier compañía, Giuliani parecía propenso a montar una escena. En mayo de 2016, estropeó una importante cena con los clientes del bufete de abogados al que se había unido recientemente con una serie comentarios islamófobos mientras estaba borracho, según un libro del año pasado de Geoffrey Berman, quien luego se convertiría en el fiscal federal en Manhattan.En la cena del aniversario del 11 de septiembre de ese año, según recuerda un antiguo colaborador, Giuliani parecía que estaba embriagado mientras pronunciaba unas palabras que fueron de un partidismo despiadado, y un tono discordante para los invitados, dado el acontecimiento que se conmemoraba.Al año siguiente, según recuerda una persona que solía asistir a esos eventos, se suspendió la cena tradicional. Semanas antes del aniversario, Giuliani tuvo que ser ingresado en el hospital por una lesión en la pierna.Después de beber demasiado, diría más tarde Judith Giuliani, el exalcalde había sufrido una caída.Imprudencia, agravios y mayor aislamientoGiuliani y Trump en septiembre de 2020. El exalcalde sigue elogiando al expresidente y le ha pedido ayuda económica.Al Drago para The New York TimesA pocos días del final de la presidencia de Trump ―y con el fantasma de un segundo juicio político acechando tras el motín del Capitolio―, Giuliani no fue ambiguo.A falta de aliados y en busca de otro escenario público, el exalcalde no solo quería representar a Trump ante el Senado. “Tengo que ser su abogado”, le dijo Giuliani a un confidente, según una persona con conocimiento directo de la conversación.Para ese entonces, gran parte de la órbita de Trump estaba convencida de que era una mala idea. Los esfuerzos legales de Giuliani desde las elecciones habían fracasado rotundamente. Fue el causante de luchas internas, destacadas por el correo electrónico que un asociado suyo le envió a los funcionarios de la campaña pidiendo que Giuliani recibiera 20.000 dólares diarios por su trabajo (Giuliani ha dicho que desconocía esa petición). También estaba destinado a ser un testigo potencial.La incursión de Giuliani en la política ucraniana ya había contribuido al primer juicio político de Trump. Y, durante años, algunos funcionarios en la Casa Blanca habían visto la indisciplina e imprevisibilidad de Giuliani ―su red de negocios en el extranjero, sus misteriosos compañeros de viaje y, a menudo, su forma de beber― como un importante lastre.Antes de algunas de las participaciones televisivas de Giuliani, se sabía que los aliados del presidente compartían mensajes sobre el estado nocturno del exalcalde mientras bebía en el Trump International Hotel de Washington, donde Giuliani era tan asiduo que se colocó una placa personalizada en su mesa: “Despacho privado de Rudolph W. Giuliani”. (“Se notaba”, dijo un asesor de Trump sobre las noches en que Giuliani salía al aire después de beber).Giuliani ha dicho que no cree haber concedido nunca una entrevista estando borracho. “Me gusta el whisky”, le dijo a NBC New York en 2021. Y añadió: “No soy alcohólico. Soy funcional. Probablemente funciono más eficazmente que el 90 por ciento de la población”.En el Grand Havana de Nueva York, algunas personas se apartaban cuando las conversaciones casi a gritos de Giuliani lo delataban.“La gente pasaba por ahí después de que empezaba a beber mucho y actuaban como si no estuviera”, dijo el reverendo Al Sharpton, un viejo antagonista y compañero en el club de fumadores. (Sharpton dijo que solía hacer una broma: a veces, tanto él como otras personas que se oponían a Trump, animaban juguetonamente a un mesero para que le llevara más licor a Giuliani antes de que participara en Fox).Pero Sharpton atribuyó los problemas del exalcalde a un vicio diferente, como muchos amigos han hecho en privado.Cuando empezó a perseguir a Trump, me dije: “Este tipo es adicto a las cámaras”, recordó Sharpton. Y añadió que Giuliani “tenía que conocer los aspectos negativos de Donald Trump”. En poco tiempo, observó Sharpton, Giuliani “estaba con tipos a los que habría metido en la cárcel cuando era fiscal”.Es posible que Giuliani parezca nostálgico de los días en que tenía tanta influencia, y se muestre dispuesto a saldar viejas cuentas y destruir a nuevos adversarios, mientras insiste en que se le niega lo que le corresponde.El mes pasado, al reflexionar sobre la muerte de su segundo comisionado de policía, Howard Safir, Giuliani se desvió repentinamente durante su transmisión en directo y divagó al estilo de Trump, aprovechando la ocasión para desprestigiar al predecesor de Safir, Bratton, con quien se enemistó.“Quizá el hecho de que Bratton fuera a Elaine’s todas las noches y se emborrachara lo ayudó”, dijo Giuliani. (“Si el programa no fuera tan triste, sería divertidísimo”, dijo Bratton a través de un mensaje de texto).Otras quejas de Giuliani son más actuales. Ha reclamado en repetidas oportunidades porque Fox News ha dejado de invitarlo a sus programas, a pesar de que se esforzó por sacar a la luz los escándalos que rodeaban a Hunter Biden ―y fue vilipendiado por eso― mucho antes de que se convirtieran en un tema importante en los debates republicanos.Una participación televisiva de Giuliani que fue proyectada durante una audiencia celebrada el año pasado por el comité de la Cámara de Representantes que investigaba los disturbios del Capitolio y los acontecimientos que los rodearon.Doug Mills/The New York TimesEn 2021, las autoridades federales registraron el domicilio de Giuliani y confiscaron sus dispositivos en el marco de una investigación que originó titulares vergonzosos pero que, en última instancia, no ocasionaron cargos, lo que exacerbó aún más su sentimiento de persecución.También es posible que parezca herido, porque algunos amigos del pasado se han alejado.“Se siente traicionado por algunos de los amigos que solían ser sus amigos”, dijo John Catsimatidis, el multimillonario político propietario de la emisora local que emite el programa de radio de Giuliani. “¿Te gustaría tener a esos amigos como amigos?”.Aunque Giuliani no parece incluir a Trump en esta categoría ―sigue adulando públicamente a un hombre al que le ha pedido ayuda económica―, su relación ha sufrido algunas tensiones. En su último fin de semana en el cargo, Trump criticó a Giuliani en una reunión privada, según una persona informada al respecto.El mes pasado, el club de Trump en Bedminster, Nueva Jersey, fue el lugar de una recaudación de fondos para la defensa legal de Giuliani.Pero días después, en el aniversario del 11 de septiembre, Trump no dijo una sola palabra en público sobre el neoyorquino más asociado con la tragedia.Giuliani centró sus objeciones en otro punto, al comentar sobre el sitio que se le había asignado entre los dignatarios en la ceremonia. “No nos ponen demasiado cerca a los que tuvimos algo que ver con el 11 de septiembre”, dijo.Al valorar su propio legado esa misma semana en su transmisión en directo, en la que se definió como el alcalde de Nueva York más exitoso de la historia, Giuliani aún parecía consumido por la posición que ocupa ahora en su ciudad.También sonaba resignado.“Esta torcida ciudad demócrata”, dijo, “nunca tendrá una placa para mí”.Olivia Bensimon More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Conservative Election Activists Use Virginia as a Dry Run for 2024

      by

      Inspired in part by Donald Trump’s baseless rigged-election claims, the activists are trying to recruit supporters to serve as poll watchers and election workers in the state’s legislative contests.In 2021, after Republican victories in Virginia, conservative activists were so proud of their work training poll watchers, recruiting election workers and making other attempts to subtly influence the voting system that they wrote a memo called “The Virginia Model.” The memo detailed ways that other states could follow Virginia’s lead in protecting so-called election integrity.Now these activists are turning their attention back to Virginia, which is a month away from tossup elections that will decide control of the state’s closely divided legislature and offer both national parties clear evidence of their electoral strengths and weaknesses heading into 2024.Every Tuesday night, Virginia Fair Elections, the group that drafted “The Virginia Model,” holds trainings for poll watchers aligned with its mission and encourages conservative activists to register to work at the polls. The organization also hosts trainings for new members of local election boards.The trainings are permeated by an undercurrent of mistrust in the electoral system: Poll watchers are encouraged to arrive early and insist on being as close as legally possible to election workers, voters and ballot machines; to make sure to inspect those machines; and to look for any evidence of potential fraud.“All of us have eyes on,” Clara Belle Wheeler, a former member of the Virginia State Board of Elections who now leads the trainings, said at the end of an hourlong training session for poll watchers last Tuesday, according to an audio recording of the meeting obtained by The New York Times. “I’m watching.”The group, like many others across the country, is taking its cues from former President Donald J. Trump, who has continued to make baseless claims that American elections are rigged. Behind the scenes and at public events, conservative activists who share his beliefs have been working to overhaul voting laws and recruit activists and supporters to serve as poll watchers and election workers.In numerous counties and localities across Virginia, conservative activists have been appointed to local election boards, the bodies that are in charge of determining early voting hours and locations, leading some to move early polling locations or reduce voting access on the weekends. The state also withdrew from the Electronic Registration Information Center, known as ERIC, an interstate clearinghouse for voter data that helps ensure secure elections, but became a flashpoint on the right based on a widely debunked conspiracy theory.Democrats and voting rights groups say these moves could have significant consequences — that seemingly small changes and pressures on the system could add up and potentially affect the outcome of an election. They worry that overly aggressive poll watchers could intimidate voters, or that conspiracy-minded Trump supporters who insert themselves in the election process could interfere with the results.“This is sort of like a death by 1,000 cuts, and there’s no necessarily one thing that you can point to and say, ‘That’s what’s going to swing the election,’” said Aaron Mukerjee, the voter protection director for the Virginia Democratic Party. “Taken together, the goal is to disenfranchise enough voters that they can win the election.”It is often difficult to determine whether changes to election laws or other attempts to intervene in the voting process ultimately affect outcomes. Turnout alone does not determine how many voters may have been affected. In the Trump era, changes in voting patterns have scrambled the longtime presumption that higher turnout helps Democrats and lower turnout aids Republicans.And there is no evidence that Republican election activists aided victories in Virginia in 2021, nor that their policies and activities necessarily benefit either party. During that election, poll watchers at 13 voting sites were observed being disruptive, according to reports filed by elections workers.In the run-up to the 2021 election, activists trained by Virginia Fair Elections collected claims of malfeasance and filed a lawsuit challenging at least 390 ballot applications that were missing Social Security numbers. The suit was dismissed, but conservative news outlets focused on the complaint and began to argue that the coming vote in Virginia would be “stolen,” as many activists believed had happened in 2020. (Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, ended up winning, and his party made gains in the legislature.)Nonetheless, Republican-aligned groups like Virginia Fair Elections continue to try to tighten voting laws.Virginia Fair Elections is managed by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank that was formed in 1996 with moderate fund-raising in the low six figures annually. But as the think tank shifted its focus to so-called election integrity efforts after the last presidential contest, it raised over $508,000 in 2021, according to data kept by ProPublica.That money included a $125,000 grant earmarked for the “Virginia Fair Elections project” from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a major funder of groups that have proliferated myths about voter fraud. Its board includes Cleta Mitchell, a longtime conservative lawyer who played a key role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.In 2021, the “Virginia Model” executed by Virginia Fair Elections became the blueprint for the Election Integrity Network, a national coalition guided by Ms. Mitchell that quickly became one of the most influential organizations seeking to change voting laws and recruit local activists.Last year, Virginia Fair Elections hosted a two-day gathering conceptualized by Ms. Mitchell. The group boasted of having trained 4,500 poll watchers and election officials, and of covering 85 percent of polling locations in Virginia on Election Day in 2021 and during the 45 days of early voting.Cleta Mitchell has guided the Election Integrity Network, one of the most influential organizations seeking to change voting laws and recruit activists to serve as poll watchers and election workers.Matt Rourke/Associated PressIn August, Virginia Fair Elections held a similar meeting at a Sheraton hotel outside Richmond. The daylong event featured 12 discussions, including a keynote speech from Mollie Hemingway, a well-known conservative columnist. A panel discussion held just after lunch highlighted one front in which the network has made significant gains: county election boards and registrars, who serve as the chief election officials in Virginia localities.“The most important thing we do, however, is the hiring, and sometimes the firing, of the general registrar, and I think just as critical, if not more so, is the appointment, the training and potentially the dismissal of election officers,” John Ambrose, a Republican who serves as the vice chair of the electoral board of Richmond, told the audience to loud applause, according to an audio recording of the panel obtained by Documented, a liberal investigative group, and shared with The Times.Ms. Wheeler and the president of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy did not respond to text messages seeking comment. Virginia Fair Elections did not respond to multiple requests for comment.Under a peculiarity of Virginia law, the party of the most recently elected governor holds the advantage in the partisan makeup of local election boards. After Mr. Youngkin won the governor’s office in 2021, boards across the state flipped to 2-to-1 Republican control from 2-to-1 Democratic control.Groups like Virginia Fair Elections worked to place people they had trained on local election boards across the state, which meant that in many places, conservative priorities became policy.At least 10 counties in Virginia, including at least four with predominantly Black populations, have canceled Sunday voting for the coming elections. Some of the 10 counties, among them Richmond, Spotsylvania, Virginia Beach and Chesterfield, contain major population centers.Sundays are popular voting days for Black communities, where “Souls to the Polls” events led by churches have a long history of fostering community and helping protect against intimidation at the polls.“Democracy is coming under attack, whether it’s the Republican-led electoral boards throughout different localities who are cutting down on Sunday voting, or even closing early-vote locations that were in predominately Black communities,” said Joshua Cole, a pastor and a Democratic candidate for the House of Delegates in the Fredericksburg area. He pointed to the Mattaponi Baptist Association of Virginia, a local association of Black churches, several of which are no longer able to hold Souls to the Polls events.“Don’t take that right away from Christians, especially African American Christians, when it’s been a staple in the community for years,” he said.Joshua Cole, a Democratic candidate for the House of Delegates, has been critical of the push for counties to cancel Sunday voting, which are traditionally popular voting days for Black communities. Ryan M. Kelly/Associated PressSome local election officials acknowledged that the shift in partisan control was the main cause for the changes.“The reason Sunday voting is no longer an option for the City of Richmond is because the political representation from our electoral board has changed from Democratic to Republican since 2021,” said Katherin Cardozo-Robledo, the executive assistant to the electoral board in Richmond, a city whose population of about 230,000 is roughly 45 percent Black.Others, however, said there simply wasn’t enough demand.“We have elections every November in Virginia, so we did not continue it last year, either,” said Mary Lynn A. Pinkerman, who oversees elections in Chesapeake, which is roughly 30 percent Black. “Our city has approximately 176,000 voters, and when we tried it after being told there would be busloads coming, we only had 170 voters come that day. We do not have enough of a demand for it in our city.”With just a month left before polls close in Virginia, both parties are focused on the legislative elections, but the conservative activists have larger goals in mind.“What we’re doing is so critical,” Sheryl Stanworth, an attendee at the Tuesday training, said during the gathering. “We’ve got a presidential election to be looking forward to.” More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Australia Sees ‘Trump Style’ Misinformation in ‘Voice’ Campaign

      by

      The reverberations from election conspiracy theories, until recently the domain of political fringes, could be acute, as witnessed by the United States and Brazil.The ballots should, according to the official instructions, be marked with a “yes” or a “no.” A clear and legible “y” or “n” is also likely to be counted. So is a checkmark, for affirmative, but an “X” is considered too ambiguous by the authorities and does not count as a “no” vote.This is how Australians have voted in constitutional referendums for decades. But as the debate over this month’s Aboriginal “Voice” referendum has become increasingly antagonistic and polarized, the process has come under attack.For the first time, in as long as experts can remember, the leader of a mainstream political party in the country has cast doubt on the integrity of an electoral process. Conspiracy theories of a rigged election, the likes of which have led to the storming of government buildings in the United States and Brazil, have rippled from the far right of the political fringes, raising alarm. Election officials have fought back but faced vitriol on social media.A ballot for postal voting in the referendum.James D. Morgan/Getty Images“We may look back at the Voice referendum as a turning point for when election lies and conspiracies went mainstream in Australia,” said Kurt Sengul, a lecturer at the University of Sydney who studies far-right populism. The current debate in the country, he added, was “the first significant Trump style misinformation and disinformation campaign we’ve seen in recent political history,” referring to former President Donald J. Trump.And even though Australia is not at immediate risk of experiencing the kind of election denial seen in the United States, Mr. Sengul added, “That does not bode well for Australian democracy.”The referendum, on whether to set up a body to advise Parliament on Aboriginal issues, has bitterly divided Australia and given rise to a slew of baseless claims on social media, including that the advisory body could seize property or land, or residents would be required to pay rent to Indigenous people if the referendum passed.A rally opposing the “Voice” referendum was held last month in Sydney.David Gray/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesCaught in the turbulence is the matter of why a checkmark on a ballot counts as a vote while an “X” does not.Longstanding legislation requires officials to count votes as long as the voters’ intent is clear, even if they do not follow the instructions on the ballot paper. Legal advice over the decades has confirmed that an “X,” which many people use on forms and documents to indicate a “yes,” does not show clear intent.However, some pundits and politicians have suggested that the variance is unfair. The leader of the conservative opposition party, Peter Dutton, said that he did not want “a process that’s rigged.”Mr. Dutton did not respond to requests for comment. Fair Australia, which is leading the opposition to the referendum said in a statement: “We understand the rules in relation to formality but believe they give an unfair advantage to the ‘Yes’ campaign. The responsibility for any erosion in trust lies with those who made the unfair rules, not with those who call them out.”A rally in support of the Voice in Melbourne last month.William West/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesUnlike in the United States, where national elections are run by a patchwork of state and local officials, in Australia, they are administered by one independent agency, the Australian Electoral Commission, which enjoys broad trust and support and is widely praised by analysts.The agency aims to make voting, which is compulsory in Australia, as accessible as possible. During federal elections, mobile voting stations are taken to remote Indigenous communities using helicopters, four-wheel-drive vehicles and even boats.“The AEC is the gold standard for how you should run elections,” said Bruce Wolpe, who has written a book called “Trump’s Australia.” He added that when Australians go to the polls, “they know their vote will be counted accurately and they’ll abide by the results, and that’s a big deal for how this democracy works in contrast to the U.S.”The commission moved quickly to counter inaccurate claims about the referendum, responding to posts on social media, sending officials to TV and radio shows, and condemning much of the commentary around the issue as “factually incorrect.”In addition to dealing with the issue of check and “X” marks, during this referendum campaign, the commission has debunked suggestions that ballot papers would not be securely stored, pushed back against claims that the referendum would not go ahead and sparred with users who flushed information booklets down toilets, sometimes responding to hundreds of social media comments a day.But even as officials have become more assertive in fighting disinformation, their task is only getting harder.For several years now, experts have watched the political polarization and spread of voting fraud conspiracies in the United States and worried that such rhetoric would leech into Australia’s domestic politics because of the two countries’ close ties.“It is an ongoing concern that we’re seeing groups draw inspiration from U.S. politics that is highly polarized and attempt to export those tactics here,” said Josh Roose, a political sociologist at Deakin University in Melbourne.Tom Rogers, the electoral commissioner, said that after Australia’s 2019 federal election, he “really started to worry about what we were seeing globally.” His agency realized it wasn’t enough to simply run elections fairly and well.“You’ve got to tell people what you’re doing,” he said.Tom Rogers, the Australian electoral commissioner, with the agency’s executive leadership team.Australian Electoral CommissionThe commission started running digital literacy campaigns to educate voters about fake news, working with social media companies and countering incorrect claims about the electoral process online.Its strategy came to national attention during last year’s federal election, when its tongue-in-cheek humor — including beseeching voters not to draw an “eggplant emoji” on their ballot papers — drew both acclaim and criticism. On social media, the agency tries to respond to as many comments as possible — even ones that may seem outlandish, said Evan Ekin-Smyth, who leads that effort.“We take an approach of: Unless you’re going to engage in something that’s deliberately false, deliberately bad faith, we’ll give a response,” he said. “Why not? We’re there to provide fact-based information about the process that we run. No matter how crazy a theory might seem, some people believe it.”However, the agency dialed back the humor for the referendum because it was experiencing new levels of attacks on social media, including, for the first time, threats of physical harm, Mr. Rogers said.Mr. Ekin-Smyth admitted that the agency’s strategy probably would not change the minds of everyone determined to believe conspiracy theories, but he hoped that by injecting accurate, factual information into the discussion, the commission could help stop these theories from spreading further.“Does it feel like we’re pushing a boulder up a hill? Sort of, sometimes,” he said. But “if we’re keeping that boulder from rolling down the hill, that’s pretty good, isn’t it?” More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Turnover of Election Officials in Swing States Adds Strain for 2024, Report Says

      by

      A tide of resignations and retirements by election officials in battleground states, who have increasingly faced threats, harassment and interference, could further strain the election system in 2024, a national voting rights group warned in a report released on Thursday.The group, the Voting Rights Lab, said that the departures of election officials in Arizona, Pennsylvania and other swing states had the potential to undermine the independence of those positions.The 28-page report reveals the scope of challenges to the election system and underscores the hostile climate facing election officials across the nation. Resignations have swept through election offices in Texas and Virginia, while Republicans in Wisconsin have voted to remove the state’s nonpartisan head of elections, sowing further distrust about voting integrity.In Pennsylvania, more than 50 top election officials at the county level have departed since the 2020 election, according to the report, which said that the loss of their expertise was particularly concerning.In Arizona, the top election officials in 13 of 15 counties left their posts during the same period, the report said. Some of the defections have taken place in counties where former President Donald J. Trump’s allies have sought to require the hand-counting of ballots and have spread misinformation about electronic voting equipment.“They are leaving primarily due to citing harassment and security concerns that are stemming from disproven conspiracy theories in the state,” said Liz Avore, a senior adviser for the Voting Rights Lab.The Justice Department has charged at least 14 people with trying to intimidate election officials since it created a task force in 2021 to focus on such threats, according to the agency. It has secured nine convictions, including two on Aug. 31 in Georgia and Arizona, both battleground states.“A functioning democracy requires that the public servants who administer our elections are able to do their jobs without fearing for their lives,” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in a statement at the time.Along with the departures, the Voting Rights Lab report examined a series of issues that it said could create obstacles for the 2024 election, including the approval of new rules in Georgia and North Carolina since 2020 that are likely to increase the number of voter eligibility challenges and stiffen identification requirements.In another area of concern for the group, it drew attention to the expiration of emergency rules for absentee voting in New Hampshire that were enacted during the pandemic.At the same time, some other battleground states have expanded voting access. Michigan will offer at least nine days of early voting in 2024, accept more forms of identification and allow voters to opt in to a permanent mail voting list, while Nevada made permanent the distribution of mail ballots to all voters, the report said. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Giuliani’s Drinking Has Trump Prosecutors’ Attention in Federal Election Case

      by

      Rudolph W. Giuliani had always been hard to miss at the Grand Havana Room, a magnet for well-wishers and hangers-on at the Midtown cigar club that still treated him like the king of New York.In recent years, many close to him feared, he was becoming even harder to miss.For more than a decade, friends conceded grimly, Mr. Giuliani’s drinking had been a problem. And as he surged back to prominence during the presidency of Donald J. Trump, it was getting more difficult to hide it.On some nights when Mr. Giuliani was overserved, an associate discreetly signaled the rest of the club, tipping back his empty hand in a drinking motion, out of the former mayor’s line of sight, in case others preferred to keep their distance. Some allies, watching Mr. Giuliani down Scotch before leaving for Fox News interviews, would slip away to find a television, clenching through his rickety defenses of Mr. Trump.Even at less rollicking venues — a book party, a Sept. 11 anniversary dinner, an intimate gathering at Mr. Giuliani’s own apartment — his consistent, conspicuous intoxication often startled his company.“It’s no secret, nor do I do him any favors if I don’t mention that problem, because he has it,” said Andrew Stein, a former New York City Council president who has known Mr. Giuliani for decades. “It’s actually one of the saddest things I can think about in politics.”No one close to Mr. Giuliani, 79, has suggested that drinking could excuse or explain away his present legal and personal disrepair. He arrived for a mug shot in Georgia in August not over rowdy nightlife behavior or reckless cable interviews but for allegedly abusing the laws he defended aggressively as a federal prosecutor, subverting the democracy of a nation that once lionized him.Yet to almost anyone in proximity, friends say, Mr. Giuliani’s drinking has been the pulsing drumbeat punctuating his descent — not the cause of his reputational collapse but the ubiquitous evidence, well before Election Day in 2020, that something was not right with the former president’s most incautious lieutenant.Now, prosecutors in the federal election case against Mr. Trump have shown an interest in the drinking habits of Mr. Giuliani — and whether the former president ignored what his aides described as the plain inebriation of the former mayor referred to in court documents as “Co-Conspirator 1.”Their entwined legal peril has turned a matter long whispered about by former City Hall aides, White House advisers and political socialites into an investigative subplot in an unprecedented case.The office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, has questioned witnesses about Mr. Giuliani’s alcohol consumption as he was advising Mr. Trump, including on election night, according to a person familiar with the matter. Mr. Smith’s investigators have also asked about Mr. Trump’s level of awareness of his lawyer’s drinking as they worked to overturn the election and prevent Joseph R. Biden Jr. from being certified as the 2020 winner at almost any cost. (A spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment.)Mr. Giuliani was one of the most public faces of Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. Erin Schaff/The New York TimesThe answers to those prompts could complicate any efforts by Mr. Trump’s team to lean on a so-called advice-of-counsel defense, a strategy that could portray him as a client merely taking professional cues from his lawyers. If such guidance came from someone whom Mr. Trump knew to be compromised by alcohol, especially when many others told Mr. Trump definitively that he had lost, his argument could weaken.In interviews and in testimony to Congress, several people at the White House on election night — the evening when Mr. Giuliani urged Mr. Trump to declare victory despite the results — have said that the former mayor appeared to be drunk, slurring and carrying an odor of alcohol.“The mayor was definitely intoxicated,” Jason Miller, a top Trump adviser and a veteran of Mr. Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign, told the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol in a deposition early last year. “But I do not know his level of intoxication when he spoke with the president.” (Mr. Giuliani furiously denied this account and condemned Mr. Miller, who had spoken glowingly of him in public, in vicious terms.)Privately, Mr. Trump, who has long described himself as a teetotaler, has spoken derisively about Mr. Giuliani’s drinking, according to a person familiar with his remarks. But Mr. Trump’s monologues to associates can betray a layered view of the former mayor, one that many Republicans share: He credits Mr. Giuliani with turning around New York City after the high-crime 1970s and 1980s and contends that it has suffered lately without him in charge. Then he returns to a lament about Mr. Giuliani’s image today.Mr. Trump does not dwell on his own role in that trajectory.In a statement that did not address specific accounts about Mr. Giuliani’s drinking or its potential relevance to prosecutors, Ted Goodman, a political adviser to the former mayor, praised Mr. Giuliani’s career and suggested he was being maligned because “he has the courage to defend an innocent man” in Mr. Trump.“I’m with the mayor on a regular basis for the past year, and the idea that he is an alcoholic is a flat-out lie,” Mr. Goodman said, adding that it had “become fashionable in certain circles to smear the mayor in an effort to stay in the good graces of New York’s so-called ‘high society’ and the Washington, D.C., cocktail circuit.”“The Rudy Giuliani you all see today,” Mr. Goodman continued, “is the same man who took down the mafia, cleaned up the streets of New York and comforted the nation following 9/11.”A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment.Many who know Mr. Giuliani best are careful to discuss his life, and especially his drinking, with considerable nuance. Most elements of today’s Mr. Giuliani were always there, they say, if less visible.Long before alcohol became a concern, Mr. Giuliani was prone to sweeping, unsubstantiated claims of election fraud. (“They stole that election from me,” he once said of his 1989 mayoral loss, alluding to supposed chicanery “in the Black parts of Brooklyn and in Washington Heights.”)Long before alcohol became a concern, he could be quick to lash out at enemies real or perceived. (“A small man in search of a balcony,” Jimmy Breslin once said of him.)In interviews with friends, associates and former aides, the consensus was that, more than wholly transforming Mr. Giuliani, his drinking had accelerated a change in his existing alchemy, amplifying qualities that had long burbled within him: conspiracism, gullibility, a weakness for grandeur.A lover of opera — with a suitably operatic sense of his own story — Mr. Giuliani has long invited supporters, as Mr. Trump has, to process his personal trials as their own, tugging the masses along through tumult, tragedy, public divorce.Yet there is a smallness to his world now, a narrowing to reflect his circumstances.In August, Mr. Giuliani was booked at the Fulton County jail in Atlanta after he was charged in a sprawling racketeering case against Mr. Trump and his allies. Brynn Anderson/Associated PressHe faces a racketeering charge (among others) in Georgia, a defamation case brought by two election workers and accusations of sexual misconduct from a former employee (he has said this was a consensual relationship) and a former White House aide (he has denied this account).One of his lawyers has said Mr. Giuliani is “close to broke.” Another, Robert Costello, once a protégé of the former mayor’s, is suing him for unpaid legal fees.Mr. Giuliani’s circle has shrunk as old friends have fallen away. His law license was suspended in New York. The Grand Havana Room closed in 2020.Most days, Mr. Giuliani hosts a radio show in Manhattan, stopping for sidewalk selfies with the occasional stranger.Most nights, he stays in for a livestream from the apartment he long shared with his third ex-wife, Judith Giuliani. It recently went up for sale.“Rudy loves opera,” said William J. Bratton, his first police commissioner, to whom Mr. Giuliani once gave a CD collection of “La Bohème” as a gift. “Few operas end in a happy place.”A crushing defeat and a growing concernMr. Giuliani recording his weekly radio show from his office at City Hall in May 2000.Ruby Washington/The New York TimesMr. Giuliani was always the kind of elected official who kept opposition researchers busy: romantic entanglements, personnel conflicts, a trail of incendiary remarks.But as he prepared for life after City Hall — mounting a short-lived Senate campaign in 2000 and harboring visions of the presidency — Democratic operatives say Mr. Giuliani’s drinking was one issue that never came up.There was a reason for that. As mayor, former aides said, Mr. Giuliani did not generally drink to excess and expected his team to follow his lead.Part of this seemed to flow from insecurity: Reared outside Manhattan in a family of modest means, Mr. Giuliani always took care to keep his wits about him, one senior city official said, because he did not want to lower his guard in view of New York’s elites.Another consideration was practical. Mr. Giuliani thrilled to the all-hours nature of the mayoralty, hustling toward scenes of emergency to project authority and control long before 9/11 showcased this instinct to the wider world, and he was vigilant about staying ready.No one doubts that the attack, and his ascendant profile, profoundly reshaped him. On Sept. 10, 2001, he was the polarizing lame duck who had antagonized artists, warred gratuitously with ferret owners and defended his police department through high-profile killings of unarmed Black men — including one episode in which Mr. Giuliani attacked the deceased and authorized the release of his arrest record.By midweek, he had become a global emblem of tenacious resolve, held up as the city’s essential man. (Mr. Giuliani quickly came to see himself this way, too: With the election to succeed him weeks away, he began pushing by late September to postpone the next mayor’s start date and remain in office for a few more months, even asking the Republican governor, George Pataki, to extend his term, according to Mr. Pataki. The idea had few takers and was abandoned.)Mr. Giuliani’s political standing rose after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Last year, he faced criticism for calling that day “in some ways, you know, the greatest day of my life.”Robert F. Bukaty/Associated PressThe years that followed were a swirl of mourning and celebrity — wrenching remembrances, lucrative business ventures, an honorary British knighthood — a tension that Mr. Giuliani can still sound as if he is struggling to reconcile.He faced criticism last year for calling Sept. 11 “in some ways, you know, the greatest day of my life.” He has also seemed haunted by it, no matter what doors it opened: After a colonoscopy in 2018, he told people then, he was informed that he had been talking in his sleep as if he was establishing a command center at ground zero when the towers fell.Mr. Giuliani’s stewardship in crisis was supposed to hypercharge his long-planned presidential campaign, enshrining him as the early Republican front-runner in 2008. It did not.Instead, the earliest accounts of Mr. Giuliani’s excessive drinking date to this period of campaign failure. Though any political flop can sting, those who know Mr. Giuliani say that this one, his first loss in nearly two decades, was especially shattering.When his big electoral bet on Florida ended in humiliation, Mr. Giuliani fell into what Judith Giuliani later called a clinical depression. He stayed for weeks afterward at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s club in Florida. The two were not especially close friends but had known each other for years through New York politics and real estate.During his presidential run in 2008, Mr. Giuliani bet heavily on a strong performance in Florida, but finished third and dropped out a day later. Chip Litherland for The New York TimesAround this time, Mr. Giuliani was drinking heavily, according to comments Ms. Giuliani made to Andrew Kirtzman, the author of “Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America’s Mayor,” published last year.“Literally falling-down drunk,” Mr. Kirtzman said in an interview, noting that several incidents over the years, in Ms. Giuliani’s telling, required medical attention. Mr. Kirtzman said that he came to consider Mr. Giuliani’s drinking “part of the overall erosion of his self-discipline.” (Mr. Giuliani has said he spent a month “relaxing” at Mar-a-Lago. Ms. Giuliani declined through her lawyer to be interviewed.)Some who encountered Mr. Giuliani after the campaign were struck by how transparently he missed the attention he once commanded, how desperate he seemed to recapture what he had lost.George Arzt, a longtime aide to former Mayor Edward I. Koch, with whom Mr. Giuliani often clashed, recalled watching Mr. Giuliani wander on a loop through a restaurant in the Hamptons, as if waiting to be stopped by anyone, while the rest of his party dined in a back room.“He would walk back and forth like he wanted everyone to see him, more than once,” Mr. Arzt said. “He just wanted to be recognized.”People close to Mr. Giuliani particularly worried about him as his third marriage began to fray, growing unnerved at snapshots of his behavior even at nominally sanctified gatherings, like an annual dinner for close associates around Sept. 11.Mr. Giuliani and his wife at the time, Judith Giuliani, standing at right, in 2005. She has said he fell into a depression and drank heavily after his 2008 election loss.Bill Cunningham/The New York TimesIn almost any company, Mr. Giuliani seemed liable to make a scene. In May 2016, he derailed a major client dinner at the law firm he had recently joined with a fire hose of Islamophobic remarks while drunk, according to a book last year by Geoffrey S. Berman, who would later become the United States attorney in Manhattan.At the 9/11 anniversary dinner that year, a former aide remembered, Mr. Giuliani appeared intoxicated as he delivered remarks that were blisteringly partisan — and tonally jarring for guests, given the event being commemorated.The next year, a longtime attendee recalled, the traditional dinner was scrapped. Weeks before the anniversary, Mr. Giuliani had been rushed to the hospital with a leg injury.After drinking too much, Ms. Giuliani would say later, the former mayor had taken a fall.Recklessness, grievance and increased isolationMr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump in September 2020. The former mayor still praises the former president, and has appealed to him for financial help. Al Drago for The New York TimesWith a few days left in the Trump presidency — and the specter of a second impeachment trial looming after the Capitol riot — Mr. Giuliani was unambiguous.Short on allies and angling for another public showcase, the former mayor did not just want to represent Mr. Trump before the Senate: “I need to be his lawyer,” Mr. Giuliani told a confidant, according to a person with direct knowledge of the exchange.By then, much of Mr. Trump’s orbit was quite certain that this was a bad idea. Mr. Giuliani’s legal efforts since the election had roundly failed. He was the source of infighting, highlighted by an associate’s email to campaign officials asking that Mr. Giuliani be paid $20,000 a day for his work. (Mr. Giuliani has said he was unaware of the request.) He was also destined to be a potential witness.Mr. Giuliani’s foray into Ukrainian politics had already helped get Mr. Trump impeached the first time. And for years, some in the White House had viewed Mr. Giuliani’s indiscipline and unpredictability — his web of foreign business affairs, his mysterious travel companions and, often enough, his drinking — as a significant liability.Before some of Mr. Giuliani’s television appearances, allies of the president were known to share messages about the former mayor’s nightly condition as he imbibed at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, where Mr. Giuliani was such a regular that a custom plaque was placed at his table: “Rudolph W. Giuliani Private Office.” (“You could tell,” one Trump adviser said of the nights when Mr. Giuliani went on the air after drinking.)Mr. Giuliani has said he does not think he ever gave an interview while drunk. “I like Scotch,” he told NBC New York in 2021, adding: “I’m not an alcoholic. I’m a functioning — I probably function more effectively than 90 percent of the population.”At the Grand Havana in New York, some steered clear when Mr. Giuliani’s near-shouting conversations gave him away.“People would walk by after he started drinking a lot and act like he wasn’t there,” said the Rev. Al Sharpton, a longtime antagonist and a fellow member at the cigar club. (Mr. Sharpton said he did indulge in a running gag: He and others who opposed Mr. Trump sometimes playfully encouraged a server to double Mr. Giuliani’s liquor orders before he went on Fox.)But Mr. Sharpton attributed the former mayor’s troubles to a different vice, as many friends have privately.“When he started running after Trump, I said, ‘This guy’s addicted to cameras,’” Mr. Sharpton recalled, adding that Mr. Giuliani “had to know the negative sides of Donald Trump.” Before long, Mr. Sharpton observed, Mr. Giuliani was “running with guys that he would have put in jail when he was U.S. attorney.”Mr. Giuliani can seem wistful now about the days when he held such influence — and fanatical about settling old scores and destroying new adversaries, forever insisting that he is denied his due.Reflecting on the death last month of his second police commissioner, Howard Safir, Mr. Giuliani swerved suddenly during his livestream into Trump-style projection, using the occasion to smear Mr. Safir’s predecessor, Mr. Bratton, with whom Mr. Giuliani fell out.“Maybe Bratton going to Elaine’s every night and getting drunk actually helped,” Mr. Giuliani said. (“If the show wasn’t so sad, it would be hilarious,” Mr. Bratton said via text.)Other complaints from Mr. Giuliani have been more current. Fox News stopped inviting him on, he has groused repeatedly, even though he was working to highlight scandals surrounding Hunter Biden — and was vilified for it — well before they became a prime Republican talking point.A television clip of Mr. Giuliani was shown during a hearing last year by the House committee investigating the Capitol riot and the events surrounding it. Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Giuliani’s home was searched, and his devices were seized, by federal authorities in 2021 as part of an investigation that produced embarrassing headlines and, ultimately, no charges, further inflaming his sense of persecution.He can seem wounded that some past friends have drifted away.“He feels betrayed by some of the friends who used to be his friends,” said John Catsimatidis, the billionaire political fixture who owns the local station that carries Mr. Giuliani’s radio show. “How’d you like to have those friends as friends?”While Mr. Giuliani does not seem to place Mr. Trump in this category — still publicly fawning over a man to whom he has appealed for financial help — their relationship has endured some strain. On Mr. Trump’s final weekend in office, he excoriated Mr. Giuliani in a private meeting, according to a person briefed on it.Last month, Mr. Trump’s club in Bedminster, N.J., was the site of a fund-raiser for Mr. Giuliani’s legal defense.But days later, on the Sept. 11 anniversary, Mr. Trump did not say a public word about the New Yorker most associated with the tragedy.Mr. Giuliani focused his objections elsewhere, remarking often on his allotted location among dignitaries at the memorial. “They don’t put those of us who had anything to do with Sept. 11 too close,” he said.Appraising his own legacy later that week on his livestream, where he called himself New York’s most successful mayor in history, Mr. Giuliani still seemed consumed by his standing now in his city.He also sounded resigned.“This crooked Democratic city,” he said, “would never have a plaque for me.”Olivia Bensimon More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Campaign Puts Out Baseless Claim of Plot to ‘Steal’ Election

      by

      As legal cases against former President Donald J. Trump churn forward on at least five fronts, two of them related to his lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him, his campaign is advancing baseless claims that the 2024 election, too, is on track to be stolen from him.In a statement on Monday, two advisers to Mr. Trump’s campaign — Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita — called on the Republican National Committee to “immediately cancel the upcoming debate in Miami and end all future debates in order to refocus its manpower and money on preventing Democrats’ efforts to steal the 2024 election.”They declared that if the R.N.C. proceeded with the debate, it would prove that “national Republicans are more concerned about helping Joe Biden than ensuring a safe and secure election.”Mr. Trump refused to attend the first two debates. The third is scheduled for Nov. 8. A Trump campaign spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. Ms. Wiles and Mr. LaCivita did not cite any evidence in their statement to support their claim that Democrats are trying to steal the 2024 election.A spokeswoman for the R.N.C. did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The committee is formally neutral in the primary; Mr. Trump’s campaign is effectively asking it to abandon that neutrality and turn its focus to the general election before any votes are cast.The statement follows a playbook that Mr. Trump used in both 2016 and 2020, pre-emptively suggesting that the upcoming elections would be rigged against him. He repeatedly planted in his supporters’ minds the idea that he could not possibly lose a fair vote and that, therefore, if he did lose, it would be evidence of fraud in and of itself.Trust in the security of U.S. elections among Republicans has plunged. Supporters of Mr. Trump, many of whom believed his lie that the 2020 race was stolen from him, stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to block the formalization of President Biden’s victory. Election officials have faced harassment and violent threats. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Fact Checkers Take Stock of Their Efforts: ‘It’s Not Getting Better’

      by

      The momentum behind organizations that aim to combat online falsehoods has started to taper off.After President Biden won the election nearly three years ago, three of every 10 Americans believed the false narrative that his victory resulted from fraud, a poll found. In the years since, fact checkers have debunked the claim in lengthy articles, corrections posted on viral content, videos and chat rooms.Listen to This ArticleListen to this story in the New York Times Audio app on iOS.This summer, they received a verdict on their efforts in an updated poll from Monmouth University: Very little has changed. Three of every 10 Americans still believed the false narrative.With a wave of elections expected next year in dozens of countries, the global fact-checking community is taking stock of its efforts over a few intense years — and many don’t love what they see.The number of fact-checking operations at news organizations and elsewhere has stagnated, and perhaps even fallen, after a booming expansion in response to a rise in unsubstantiated claims about elections and the pandemic. The social networking companies that once trumpeted efforts to combat misinformation are showing signs of waning interest. And those who write about falsehoods around the world are facing worsening harassment and personal threats.“It’s not getting better,” said Tai Nalon, a journalist who runs Aos Fatos, a Brazilian fact-checking and disinformation-tracking company.Elections are scheduled next year in more than 5,500 municipalities across Brazil, which a few dozen Aos Fatos fact checkers will monitor. The idea exhausts Ms. Nalon, who has spent recent years navigating a disinformation-peddling president, bizarre theories about the pandemic, and an increasingly polluted online ecosystem rife with harassment, distrust and legal threats.Voters in Brasília in October. Elections are scheduled next year in more than 5,500 municipalities across Brazil, which a few dozen Aos Fatos fact checkers will monitor.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesMs. Fatos’s organization, one of the leading operations of its kind in Brazil, started in 2015 as attention to the fight against false and misleading content online surged. It was part of a fact-checking industry that bloomed around the world. At the end of last year, there were 424 fact-checking websites, up from just 11 in 2008, according to an annual census by the Duke University Reporters’ Lab.The organizations used an arsenal of old and new tools: fact checks, pre-bunks that tried to inform viewers against misinformation before they encountered it, context labels, accuracy flags, warning screens, content removal policies, media literacy trainings and more. Facebook, which is owned by Meta, helped spur some of the growth in 2016 when it started working with and paying fact-checking operations. Online platforms, like TikTok, eventually followed suit.Yet the momentum seems to be idling. This year, only 417 sites are active. The addition of new sites has slowed for several years, with just 20 last year compared with 83 in 2019. Sites such as the Baloney Meter in Canada and Fakt Ist Fakt in Austria have gone quiet in recent years.“The leveling-off represents something of a maturing of the field,” said Angie Drobnic Holan, the director of the International Fact-Checking Network, which the nonprofit Poynter Institute started in 2015 to support fact checkers worldwide.The work continues to draw interest from new parts of the world, and some think tanks and good-government groups have begun offering their own fact-checking services, experts said. Harassment and government repression, however, remain major deterrents. Political polarization has turned fact-checking and other misinformation defenses into a target among right-wing influencers, who claim that debunkers are biased against them.Yasmin Green, chief executive of Jigsaw, a group within Google that studies threats like disinformation and extremism, recalled one study in which a participant scrolled past a fact check shared by a journalist from CNN and dismissed it out of hand. “Well, who fact-checks the fact checkers?” the user asked.“We’re in this highly distrustful environment where you’re evaluating just on the basis of the speaker and distrusting people who you decided their judgment is not trustworthy,” Ms. Green said.“We’re in this highly distrustful environment where you’re evaluating just on the basis of the speaker,” said Yasmin Green of Jigsaw, a group within Google that studies disinformation.Rengim Mutevellioglu for The Washington Post, via Getty ImagesIntervening against misinformation has a broadly positive effect, according to researchers. Experiments conducted in 2020 concluded that fact checks in many parts of the world reduced false beliefs for at least two weeks. A team at Stanford determined that education about misinformation after the 2016 election had probably contributed to fewer Americans visiting websites in 2020 that were not credible.Success, however, is inconsistent and contingent on many variables: the viewer’s location, age, political leaning and level of digital engagement, and whether a fact check is written or illustrated, succinct or explanatory. Many efforts never reach crucial demographics, while others are ignored or resisted.After falsehoods swarmed Facebook during the pandemic, the platform instituted policies against Covid-19 misinformation. Some researchers, however, questioned the effectiveness of the efforts in a study published this month in the journal Science Advances. They determined that while the amount of anti-vaccine content had declined, engagement with the remaining anti-vaccine content had not.“In other words, users engaged just as much with anti-vaccine content as they would have if content had not been deleted,” said David Broniatowski, a professor at George Washington University and an author of the paper.The remaining anti-vaccine content was more likely to be misleading, researchers found, and users linked to less trustworthy sources than they did before Facebook put its policies in place.“Our integrity efforts continue to lead the industry, and we are laser-focused on tackling industrywide challenges,” Corey Chambliss, a spokesman for Meta, said in an emailed statement. “Any suggestion to the contrary is false.”In the first six months of this year, more than 40 million Facebook posts received a fact-check label, according to a report that the company submitted to the European Commission.Social platforms where false narratives and conspiracy theories still spread widely have scaled back anti-disinformation resources over the past year. Researchers found that fact-checking organizations and similar outlets grew gradually more dependent on social media companies for a financial lifeline; misinformation watchers now worry that increasingly budget-conscious tech companies will start reducing their philanthropy spending.Such a move could “really turn the screws on fact checkers,” said Yoel Roth, the former head of trust and safety at Twitter, which is now known as X.Yoel Roth, former head of trust and safety at Twitter, said that if tech companies cut back on their philanthropy spending it could “really turn the screws on fact checkers.”Evelyn Hockstein/ReutersIf Meta ever cuts the budget for its third-party fact-checking program, it could “decimate an entire industry” of fact checkers that depend on its financial support, said Mr. Roth, now a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. (Meta said its commitment to the program had not changed.)X has undergone some of the most significant changes of any platform. Its billionaire owner of less than a year, Elon Musk, embraced an experiment that relied on its own unpaid users rather than paid fact checkers and safety teams. The expanded fact-checking program — Community Notes — allows anyone to write corrections on posts. Users can deem a note “helpful” so it becomes visible to everyone; some notes have appeared alongside content from Mr. Musk and President Biden and even a viral post about a groundhog falsely accused of stealing vegetables.X did not respond to a request for comment. Tech watchdogs fretted this week about the quality of content on X after The Information reported that the platform was cutting half the team dedicated to managing disinformation about election integrity; the company had said less than a month earlier that it planned to expand the team.Crowdsourced fact-checking has shown mixed results in research, said Valerie Wirtschafter, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. An article she co-wrote in The Journal of Online Trust and Safety found that the presence of a Community Note did not keep posts from spreading widely. Users who created misleading posts saw no change in the engagement for subsequent posts, suggesting that they paid no penalty for sharing falsehoods.Since most popular posts on X get a surge in attention within the first few hours, a Community Note added hours or days later would do little to reach people who had read the falsehoods, said Mr. Roth, who resigned from the company after Mr. Musk’s arrival last year.“I’ve never found a way around having humans in the loop,” he said in an interview. “My belief, and everything I’ve seen, is that on its own, Community Notes is not a sufficient replacement.”Defenders against false narratives and conspiracy theories are also struggling with another complication: artificial intelligence.The technology’s reality-warping abilities, which still manage to stump many of the tools designed to identify their use, are already keeping fact checkers busy. Last week, TikTok said it would test an “A.I.-generated” label, automatically appending it to content detected as having been edited or created with the technology.Tests are also being run using A.I. to quickly parse the enormous volume of false information, identify frequent spreaders and respond to inaccuracies. The technology, however, has a shaky track record with truth. After the fact-checking organization PolitiFact tested ChatGPT on 40 claims that had already been meticulously researched by human fact checkers, the A.I. either made a mistake, refused to answer or arrived at a different conclusion from the fact checkers half of the time.Between new technologies, fluctuating policies and stressed watchdogs, the online information ecosystem is in its messy adolescent years — “it’s gangly, and it’s got acne, and it’s moody,” said Claire Wardle, a co-director of the Information Futures Lab at Brown University.She is hopeful, however, that society will learn to adapt and that most people will continue to value accuracy. Misinformation during the 2022 midterm elections was less toxic than feared, thanks partly to media literacy efforts and training that helped the authorities respond far more quickly and aggressively to rumors, she said.“We tend to get obsessed with the very worst conspiracies — the people who got radicalized,” she said. “Actually, the majority of audiences are pretty good at figuring this all out.”Audio produced by More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump me atacó. Después, Musk lo hizo. No fue casualidad

      by

      Timo LenzenCuando trabajaba en Twitter, ahora conocida como X, dirigí al equipo que puso por primera vez una etiqueta de verificación de hechos en uno de los tuits de Donald Trump. Tras la violencia del 6 de enero, ayudé a tomar la decisión de suspender su cuenta en Twitter. Nada me preparó para lo que ocurriría después.Respaldado por sus seguidores en las redes sociales, Trump me atacó públicamente. Dos años después, tras su adquisición de Twitter y después de que yo dimití de mi puesto como responsable de confianza y seguridad de la empresa, Elon Musk echó más leña al fuego. He vivido con guardias armados en la puerta de mi casa y he tenido que trastocar la vida de mi familia, así como esconderme durante meses y mudarme una y otra vez.No es una historia que me guste recordar. Pero he aprendido que lo que me ocurrió no fue casualidad. No fue solo una venganza personal o la “cultura de la cancelación”. Se trató de una estrategia que no solo afecta a personas específicas, como en mi caso, sino a todos nosotros, ya que está cambiando a gran velocidad lo que vemos en internet.Los individuos —desde investigadores académicos hasta trabajadores de empresas de tecnología— son cada vez más objeto de demandas, comparecencias ante el Congreso y despiadados ataques en línea. Estos ataques, organizados en gran medida por la derecha, están teniendo el efecto deseado: las universidades están reduciendo sus esfuerzos para cuantificar la información abusiva y engañosa que se difunde en internet. Las empresas de redes sociales están evitando tomar el tipo de decisiones difíciles que mi equipo tomó cuando intervinimos ante las mentiras de Trump sobre las elecciones de 2020. Las plataformas no empezaron a tomarse en serio estos riesgos sino hasta después de las elecciones de 2016. Ahora, ante la posibilidad de ataques desproporcionados contra sus empleados, las empresas parecen cada vez más reacias a tomar decisiones controvertidas, lo cual permite que la desinformación y el abuso se enconen para evitar provocar represalias públicas.Estos ataques a la seguridad en internet se producen en un momento en el que la democracia no podría estar más en riesgo. En 2024, está prevista la celebración de más de 40 elecciones importantes, entre ellas las de Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea, la India, Ghana y México. Lo más probable es que estas democracias se enfrenten a los mismos riesgos de campañas de desinformación respaldadas por los gobiernos y de incitación a la violencia en línea que han plagado las redes sociales durante años. Deberíamos preocuparnos por lo que ocurra.Mi historia comienza con esa verificación de datos. En la primavera de 2020, tras años de debate interno, mi equipo decidió que Twitter debía aplicar una etiqueta a un tuit del entonces presidente Trump que afirmaba que el voto por correo era propenso al fraude y que las próximas elecciones estarían “amañadas”. “Conoce los hechos sobre la votación por correo”, decía la etiqueta.El 27 de mayo, la mañana siguiente a la colocación de la etiqueta, la asesora principal de la Casa Blanca, Kellyanne Conway, me identificó de manera pública como el director del equipo de integridad de Twitter. Al día siguiente, The New York Post publicó en su portada varios tuits en los que me burlaba de Trump y otros republicanos. Los había publicado años antes, cuando era estudiante y tenía pocos seguidores, sobre todo amigos y familiares, en las redes sociales. Ahora, eran noticia de primera plana. Ese mismo día, Trump tuiteó que yo era un “odiador”.Legiones de usuarios de Twitter, la mayoría de quienes días antes no tenían ni idea de quién era yo ni en qué consistía mi trabajo, comenzaron una campaña de acoso en línea que duró meses, en la que exigían que me despidieran, me encarcelaran o me mataran. La cantidad de notificaciones de Twitter arrunió mi teléfono. Amigos de los que no tenía noticias desde hacía años expresaron su preocupación. En Instagram, fotos antiguas de mis vacaciones y de mi perro se inundaron de comentarios amenazantes e insultos (algunos comentaristas, que malinterpretaron el momento de manera atroz, aprovecharon para intentar coquetear conmigo).Me sentí avergonzado y asustado. Hasta ese momento, nadie fuera de unos pocos círculos bastante especializados tenía idea de quién era yo. Los académicos que estudian las redes sociales llaman a esto “colapso de contexto”: las cosas que publicamos en las redes sociales con un público en mente pueden acabar circulando entre un público muy diferente, con resultados inesperados y destructivos. En la práctica, se siente como si todo tu mundo se derrumba.El momento en que se desató la campaña en contra de mi persona y mi supuesta parcialidad sugería que los ataques formaban parte de una estrategia bien planificada. Los estudios académicos han rebatido en más de una ocasión las afirmaciones de que las plataformas de Silicon Valley son tendenciosas contra los conservadores. Pero el éxito de una estrategia encaminada a obligar a las empresas de redes sociales a reconsiderar sus decisiones quizá no requiera la demostración de una verdadera mala conducta. Como describió en una ocasión Rich Bond, expresidente del Partido Republicano, tal vez solo sea necesario “ganarse a los árbitros”: presionar sin cesar a las empresas para que se lo piensen dos veces antes de emprender acciones que podrían provocar una reacción negativa. Lo que me ocurrió fue parte de un esfuerzo calculado para que Twitter se mostrara reacio a moderar a Trump en el futuro y para disuadir a otras empresas de tomar medidas similares.Y funcionó. Mientras se desataba la violencia en el Capitolio el 6 de enero, Jack Dorsey, entonces director general de Twitter, anuló la recomendación del departamento de confianza y seguridad de que se bloqueara la cuenta de Trump debido a varios tuits, incluido uno que atacaba al vicepresidente Mike Pence. En cambio, se le impuso una suspensión temporal de 12 horas (antes de que su cuenta se se suspendiera indefinidamente el 8 de enero). Dentro de los límites de las normas, se animó a los miembros del personal a encontrar soluciones para ayudar a la empresa a evitar el tipo de reacción que da lugar a ciclos de noticias furiosas, audiencias y acoso a empleados. En la práctica, lo que sucedió fue que Twitter dio mayor libertad a los infractores: a la representante Marjorie Taylor Greene se le permitió violar las normas de Twitter al menos cinco veces antes de que una de sus cuentas fuera suspendida de manera definitiva en 2022. Otras figuras prominentes de derecha, como la cuenta de guerra cultural Libs of TikTok, gozaron de una deferencia similar.En todo el mundo, se están desplegando tácticas similares para influir en los esfuerzos de confianza y seguridad de las plataformas. En India, la policía visitó dos de nuestras oficinas en 2021 cuando comprobamos los hechos de las publicaciones de un político del partido gobernante y la policía se presentó en la casa de un empleado después de que el gobierno nos solicitó bloquear cuentas implicadas en una serie de protestas. El acoso volvió a rendir frutos: los ejecutivos de Twitter decidieron que cualquier acción que pudiera ser delicada en la India requeriría la aprobación de los más altos mandos, un nivel único de escalada de decisiones que, de otro modo, serían rutinarias.Y cuando quisimos revelar una campaña de propaganda llevada a cabo por una rama del ejército indio, nuestro equipo jurídico nos advirtió que nuestros empleados en la India podrían ser acusados de sedición y condenados a muerte. Así que Twitter no reveló la campaña sino hasta más de un año después, sin señalar al gobierno indio como autor.En 2021, antes de las elecciones legislativas de Rusia, los funcionarios de un servicio de seguridad estatal fueron a la casa de una alta ejecutiva de Google en Moscú para exigir la retirada de una aplicación que se usaba para protestar en contra de Vladimir Putin. Los agentes la amenazaron con encarcelarla si la empresa no cumplía en 24 horas. Tanto Apple como Google retiraron la aplicación de sus respectivas tiendas y la restablecieron una vez concluidas las elecciones.En cada uno de estos casos, los empleados en cuestión carecían de la capacidad para hacer lo que les pedían los funcionarios de turno, ya que las decisiones subyacentes se tomaban a miles de kilómetros de distancia, en California. Pero como los empleados locales tenían la desgracia de residir dentro de la jurisdicción de las autoridades, fueron objeto de campañas coercitivas, que enfrentaban el sentido del deber de las empresas hacia sus empleados contra los valores, principios o políticas que pudieran hacerles resistirse a las demandas locales. Inspirados por la idea, India y otros países comenzaron a promulgar leyes de “toma de rehenes” para garantizar que las empresas de redes sociales contrataran personal local.En Estados Unidos, hemos visto que estas formas de coerción no las han llevado a cabo jueces y policías, sino organizaciones de base, turbas en las redes sociales, comentaristas de noticias por cable y, en el caso de Twitter, el nuevo propietario de la empresa.Una de las fuerzas más recientes en esta campaña son los “archivos de Twitter”, una gran selección de documentos de la empresa —muchos de los cuales yo mismo envié o recibí durante mis casi ocho años en Twitter— entregados por orden de Musk a un puñado de escritores selectos. Los archivos fueron promocionados por Musk como una forma innovadora de transparencia, que supuestamente exponían por primera vez la forma en que el sesgo liberal de las costas de Estados Unidos de Twitter reprime el contenido conservador.El resultado fue algo muy distinto. Como dijo el periodista de tecnología Mike Masnick, después de toda la fanfarria que rodeó la publicación inicial de los archivos de Twitter, al final “no había absolutamente nada de interés” en los documentos y lo poco que había tenía errores factuales importantes. Hasta Musk acabó por impacientarse con la estrategia. Pero, en el proceso, el esfuerzo marcó una nueva e inquietante escalada en el acoso a los empleados de las empresas tecnológicas.A diferencia de los documentos que por lo general saldrían de las grandes empresas, las primeras versiones de los archivos de Twitter no suprimieron los nombres de los empleados, ni siquiera de los de menor nivel. Un empleado de Twitter que residía en Filipinas fue víctima de doxeo (la revelación de información personal) y de acoso grave. Otros se han convertido en objeto de conspiraciones. Las decisiones tomadas por equipos de decenas de personas de acuerdo con las políticas escritas de Twitter se presentaron como si hubieran sido tomadas por los deseos caprichosos de individuos, cada uno identificado por su nombre y su fotografía. Yo fui, por mucho, el objetivo más frecuente.La primera entrega de los archivos de Twitter se dio tras un mes de mi salida de la empresa y unos cuantos días después de que publiqué un ensayo invitado en The New York Times y hablé sobre mi experiencia como empleado de Musk. No pude evitar sentir que las acciones de la empresa eran, hasta cierto punto, represalias. A la semana siguiente, Musk fue incluso más allá y sacó de contexto un párrafo de mi tesis doctoral para afirmar sin fundamentos que yo aprobaba la pedofilia, un tropo conspirativo que suelen utilizar los extremistas de ultraderecha y los seguidores de QAnon para desprestigiar a personas de la comunidad LGBTQ.La respuesta fue todavía más extrema que la que experimenté tras el tuit que Trump publicó sobre mí. “Deberías colgarte de un viejo roble por la traición que has cometido. Vive con miedo cada uno de tus días”, decía uno de los miles de tuits y correos electrónicos amenazantes. Ese mensaje y cientos de otros similares eran violaciones de las mismas políticas que yo había trabajado para desarrollar y hacer cumplir. Bajo la nueva administración, Twitter se hizo de la vista gorda y los mensajes permanecen en el sitio hasta el día de hoy.El 6 de diciembre, cuatro días después de la primera divulgación de los archivos de Twitter, se me pidió comparecer en una audiencia del Congreso centrada en los archivos y la presunta censura de Twitter. En esa audiencia, algunos miembros del Congreso mostraron carteles de gran tamaño con mis tuits de hace años y me preguntaron bajo juramento si seguía manteniendo esas opiniones (en la medida en que las bromas tuiteadas con descuido pudieran tomarse como mis opiniones reales, no las sostengo). Greene dijo en Fox News que yo tenía “unas posturas muy perturbadoras sobre los menores y la pornografía infantil” y que yo permití “la proliferación de la pornografía infantil en Twitter”, lo que desvirtuó aún más las mentiras de Musk (y además, aumentó su alcance). Llenos de amenazas y sin opciones reales para responder o protegernos, mi marido y yo tuvimos que vender nuestra casa y mudarnos.El ámbito académico se ha convertido en el objetivo más reciente de estas campañas para socavar las medidas de seguridad en línea. Los investigadores que trabajan para entender y resolver la propagación de desinformación en línea reciben ahora más ataques partidistas; las universidades a las que están afiliados han estado envueltas en demandas, onerosas solicitudes de registros públicos y procedimientos ante el Congreso. Ante la posibilidad de facturas de abogados de siete dígitos, hasta los laboratorios de las universidades más grandes y mejor financiadas han dicho que tal vez tengan que abandonar el barco. Otros han optado por cambiar el enfoque de sus investigaciones en función de la magnitud del acoso.Poco a poco, audiencia tras audiencia, estas campañas están erosionando de manera sistemática las mejoras a la seguridad y la integridad de las plataformas en línea que tanto ha costado conseguir y las personas que realizan este trabajo son las que pagan el precio más directo.Las plataformas de tecnología están replegando sus iniciativas para proteger la seguridad de las elecciones y frenar la propagación de la desinformación en línea. En medio de un clima de austeridad más generalizado, las empresas han disminuido muy en especial sus iniciativas relacionadas con la confianza y la seguridad. Ante la creciente presión de un Congreso hostil, estas decisiones son tan racionales como peligrosas.Podemos analizar lo que ha sucedido en otros países para vislumbrar cómo podría terminar esta historia. Donde antes las empresas hacían al menos un esfuerzo por resistir la presión externa; ahora, ceden en gran medida por defecto. A principios de 2023, el gobierno de India le pidió a Twitter que restringiera las publicaciones que criticaran al primer ministro del país, Narendra Modi. En años anteriores, la empresa se había opuesto a tales peticiones; en esta ocasión, Twitter accedió. Cuando un periodista señaló que tal cooperación solo incentiva la proliferación de medidas draconianas, Musk se encogió de hombros: “Si nos dan a elegir entre que nuestra gente vaya a prisión o cumplir con las leyes, cumpliremos con las leyes”.Resulta difícil culpar a Musk por su decisión de no poner en peligro a los empleados de Twitter en India. Pero no deberíamos olvidar de dónde provienen estas tácticas ni cómo se han extendido tanto. Las acciones de Musk (que van desde presionar para abrir los archivos de Twitter hasta tuitear sobre conspiraciones infundadas relacionadas con exempleados) normalizan y popularizan que justicieros exijan la rendición de cuentas y convierten a los empleados de su empresa en objetivos aún mayores. Su reciente ataque a la Liga Antidifamación demuestra que considera que toda crítica contra él o sus intereses empresariales debe tener como consecuencia una represalia personal. Y, en la práctica, ahora que el discurso de odio va en aumento y disminuyen los ingresos de los anunciantes, las estrategias de Musk parecen haber hecho poco para mejorar los resultados de Twitter.¿Qué puede hacerse para revertir esta tendencia?Dejar claras las influencias coercitivas en la toma de decisiones de las plataformas es un primer paso fundamental. También podría ayudar que haya reglamentos que les exijan a las empresas transparentar las decisiones que tomen en estos casos y por qué las toman.En su ausencia, las empresas deben oponerse a los intentos de que se quiera controlar su trabajo. Algunas de estas decisiones son cuestiones fundamentales de estrategia empresarial a largo plazo, como dónde abrir (o no abrir) oficinas corporativas. Pero las empresas también tienen un deber para con su personal: los empleados no deberían tener que buscar la manera de protegerse cuando sus vidas ya se han visto alteradas por estas campañas. Ofrecer acceso a servicios que promuevan la privacidad puede ayudar. Muchas instituciones harían bien en aprender la lección de que pocas esferas de la vida pública son inmunes a la influencia mediante la intimidación.Si las empresas de redes sociales no pueden operar con seguridad en un país sin exponer a sus trabajadores a riesgos personales y a las decisiones de la empresa a influencias indebidas, tal vez no deberían operar allí para empezar. Como a otros, me preocupa que esas retiradas empeoren las opciones que les quedan a las personas que más necesitan expresarse en línea de forma libre y abierta. Pero permanecer en internet teniendo que hacer concesiones podría impedir el necesario ajuste de cuentas con las políticas gubernamentales de censura. Negarse a cumplir exigencias moralmente injustificables y enfrentarse a bloqueos por ello puede provocar a largo plazo la necesaria indignación pública que ayude a impulsar la reforma.El mayor desafío —y quizá el más ineludible— en este caso es el carácter esencialmente humano de las iniciativas de confianza y seguridad en línea. No son modelos de aprendizaje automático ni algoritmos sin rostro los que están detrás de las decisiones clave de moderación de contenidos: son personas. Y las personas pueden ser presionadas, intimidadas, amenazadas y extorsionadas. Enfrentarse a la injusticia, al autoritarismo y a los perjuicios en línea requiere empleados dispuestos a hacer ese trabajo.Pocas personas podrían aceptar un trabajo así, si lo que les cuesta es la vida o la libertad. Todos debemos reconocer esta nueva realidad y planear en consecuencia.Yoel Roth es académico visitante de la Universidad de Pensilvania y la Fundación Carnegie para la Paz Internacional, y fue responsable de confianza y seguridad en Twitter. More