Storming of the US Capitol (Jan, 2021)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Court Day: An Encounter With Jack Smith and a Different Swearing In

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump returned to Washington on Thursday, rose to full height, lifted his right hand and swore an oath. This time it was not to assume power, but to promise that he would abide by a bond agreement that would allow him to leave the federal courthouse without paying bail or agreeing to any travel restrictions.Mr. Trump’s second federal arraignment seemed on the face of it to be more routine than the first one: last month in Miami after he was indicted on charges of mishandling classified national security documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to reclaim them.He seemed a bit more at ease. And so did the man who has led the investigation that resulted in his indictments, Jack Smith, the normally stony-faced special counsel, who allowed himself a few smiles as he shook hands with F.B.I. agents when the half-hour hearing ended.But if his second federal arraignment was less novel in a been-there-done-that way, the gravity of the four charges the government has leveled against him gave the proceedings a sense of historical weight not present in the Florida case.As if to underscore that point, at least three of the district court judges who have presided over trials of the Trump supporters charged for their roles in the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, filed into the back row of the visitors gallery to observe. One of them was Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who called out Mr. Trump’s “irresponsible and knowingly false claims that the election was stolen” in imposing a harsh sentence on a rioter who bludgeoned a Capitol Police officer into unconsciousness.But all eyes in the courtroom were, once again, on the second face-to-face encounter between the former president and Mr. Smith, who has filed charges that could put the 77-year-old Mr. Trump in a federal prison for the rest of his life. This time, unlike in Miami, the two men were positioned in a way that they could be visible to each other.Mr. Smith entered the courtroom — normally used by the district’s chief judge, James E. Boasberg — about 15 minutes before the scheduled 4 p.m. start, with his lead prosecutor in the case, Thomas P. Windom, and positioned himself in a chair behind his team, with his back against the rail dividing participants from the gallery.Mr. Trump walked in very slowly — in his signature long red tie and long blue suit coat — surveying the room and mouthing a greeting to no one in particular. His in-court retinue included M. Evan Corcoran, a lawyer for Mr. Trump who is a witness in the documents case, and one non-lawyer, his spokesman, Steven Cheung. Mr. Trump glanced briefly in Mr. Smith’s direction, but he did not seem to make eye contact.That was a strikingly different approach than he has taken outside the courtroom, where he has called Mr. Smith “deranged” and promised to fire him if he is re-elected.Mr. Trump spoke in respectful tones when questioned by Moxila A. Upadhyaya, the magistrate judge who presided over the proceeding.Yet if he seemed chastened and ill-at-ease in Florida, he was more animated in his return to Washington, with flashes of his usual, freewheeling conversational style.When she asked his name, he replied, “Donald J. Trump” — then added “John!”When she asked his age, he raised his voice a notch and intoned, “seven-seven!”At the end of the proceeding, Judge Upadhyaya thanked Mr. Trump, who said, “Thank you, your honor.” On the “all rise” command, he stood up. One of his lawyers put his arm on Mr. Trump’s back and guided him away from the table and out the courtroom door. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Charges That Were Notably Absent From the Trump Indictment

      by

      An indictment this week did not accuse former President Donald Trump of inciting the mob that attacked the Capitol, but it did show that some close to him knew violence might be coming.There was something noticeably absent when the special counsel, Jack Smith, unsealed an indictment this week charging former President Donald J. Trump with multiple conspiracies to overturn the 2020 election: any count that directly accused Mr. Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.The indictment asserted that as violence erupted that day, Mr. Trump “exploited the disruption,” using it to further his goal of stopping the certification of his loss in the election. But it stopped short of charging him with actually encouraging or inciting the mob that stormed the building, chasing lawmakers from their duties.Still, the charging document, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, made abundantly clear that a group of aides and lawyers surrounding Mr. Trump were highly aware that he was playing with fire by pushing forward with his plan to pressure his vice president, Mike Pence, to throw the election his way during the congressional proceeding on Jan. 6.While some of the aides and lawyers were aghast by what might, and ultimately did, take place, others seemed unconcerned, especially those who were later named as Mr. Trump’s co-conspirators in the case.In one scene described in the indictment, a senior adviser to Mr. Trump warned the lawyer John Eastman just days before the Capitol was attacked that his plan to have Mr. Trump strong-arm Mr. Pence was “going to cause riots in the streets.”According to the indictment, Mr. Eastman “responded that there had previously been points in the nation’s history where violence was necessary to protect the republic.”More than 1,000 people have been charged so far with taking part in the Capitol attack, which caused millions of dollars’ worth of damage and injuries to more than 100 police officers. Among those accused are nearly 350 defendants charged with assaulting the police and 10 members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia who were convicted at trial of seditious conspiracy, a crime that requires showing that physical force was used against the government.In December, the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 recommended that the Justice Department charge Mr. Trump with several federal crimes, including inciting insurrection — a count that would have directly placed the blame for the attack on Mr. Trump’s shoulders. But Mr. Smith’s prosecutors did not include that charge in the indictment.Instead, they focused on counts that detailed Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging machinations to remain in power in the weeks leading up to the attack and on how he took his time in issuing a plea for calm to his supporters once the attack was underway.At a news conference announcing the charges, Mr. Smith asserted that the assault on the Capitol was “fueled by lies,” but over the course of its 45 pages, the indictment itself never quite makes that accusation directly against Mr. Trump.And yet the charges did lay out how Mr. Eastman, who is identified in the indictment only as Co-Conspirator 2, and Jeffrey Clark, a loyalist in Mr. Trump’s Justice Department who appears as Co-Conspirator 4, understood and even accepted that violence might result from their plans to subvert the democratic process and keep Mr. Trump in the White House.Three days before the Capitol was attacked, the indictment says, a deputy White House counsel told Mr. Clark that there had been no voting fraud sufficient to change the results of the election and that if Mr. Trump nonetheless maintained his grip on power, there would be “riots in every major city in the United States.”Mr. Clark’s response, according to the indictment, was to bring up a federal law that allows the president to summon the military to quell domestic unrest.“That’s why there’s an Insurrection Act,” he said.For reasons that remain unknown, prosecutors chose not to include in the indictment any evidence from Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows. In a gripping testimony last year in front of the House Jan. 6 committee, Ms. Hutchinson described how Mr. Trump, knowing his supporters were armed and threatening violence on Jan. 6, urged them to march to Capitol anyhow — and even sought to join them.Ms. Hutchinson told the panel that Mr. Trump had demanded that security checkpoints be removed outside his rally on the Ellipse, near the White House, even though he had been warned that some in the crowd had been spotted with weapons.“They’re not here to hurt me,” she quoted Mr. Trump as saying.In theory, Mr. Smith’s team could bring new charges against Mr. Trump at almost any time, using accounts like Ms. Hutchinson’s to support an accusation that Mr. Trump played some role in encouraging the violence at the Capitol. The incitement charge recommended by the House committee is written quite broadly, making it a crime to “incite, assist with or participate in” a rebellion or an insurrection against federal laws or government authority.Prosecutors could also try to connect Mr. Trump more directly with the violence through the statements made by scores of rioters charged in the Capitol attack who have said that they were answering Mr. Trump’s call when they traveled to Washington and joined in the assault.“Hey we’re going back to Washington January 6 — Trump has called all patriots,” an Iowa woman named Deborah Sandoval wrote on Facebook on Dec. 21, 2020, two days after Mr. Trump summoned his followers to a “wild” protest in the city. “If the electors don’t elect, we will be forced into civil war.”Still, prosecutors are often wary of bringing incitement charges because they typically involve behavior like speeches or social media posts that the First Amendment protects, within limits.And Mr. Trump’s lawyers have already signaled that he intends to use a First Amendment defense against the charges he is facing.During his speech before the attack, Mr. Trump did at one point tell his followers to march on the Capitol “peacefully,” and, after the building had been stormed, he posted messages on Twitter belatedly asking people in the crowd to “remain peaceful.”But prosecutors say that even though he issued those calls, he did not ask his supporters to leave the Capitol grounds until after 6 p.m. that day. And as he made that request, the indictment said, he continued to repeat his false claims that a “sacred landslide victory” had been “viciously stripped away” from him. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What’s Next in the Trump Election Case? Setting a Pretrial Timetable

      by

      The election case against former President Donald J. Trump will now move to the pretrial phase before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan after he pleaded not guilty on Thursday.The government has been asked to file a brief by Aug. 10 proposing a trial date and an estimate of how long it believes its part of the trial will take. Mr. Trump’s defense team will have to file a brief addressing those details by Aug. 17.The first hearing before Judge Chutkan to discuss such matters will be at 10 a.m. on Aug. 28, a magistrate judge, Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya, said.If the classified documents case is any guide, prosecutors are likely to argue for a speedy trial while Mr. Trump’s defense team urges Judge Chutkan to put the matter off until after the 2024 election. (If Mr. Trump or an ally wins the presidency, he or she could direct the Justice Department to drop the case, but the defense argument will be that they need a lot of time to go through the evidence and carry out their own inquiry.)In parallel with those filings, it is likely the government will ask Judge Chutkan to issue a protective order restricting how the defense team can handle evidence turned over in discovery, in which prosecutors are required to provide the defense with relevant evidence that investigators have gathered.Once the judge does so — a standard step — a prosecutor, Thomas P. Windom, told Judge Upadhyaya that the government is prepared to immediately turn over a large amount of material.Discovery is often the subject of disputes, in which the defense argues that the judge should order the government to make more information available than it wants to.The defense is also likely to file a variety of motions asking Judge Chutkan to exclude certain evidence from any trial or to throw out one or more charges in the case.Earlier in the investigation, for example, Mr. Trump’s lawyers had tried to block the grand jury from obtaining certain documents and hearing certain testimony on the grounds that they were covered by attorney-client or executive privilege. They largely lost those fights, but will have the opportunity to object to allowing the information to be used at trial. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Pence, the Indictment and the Chaos of Donald Trump

      by

      What if he’s president again? Who will be around for that, inside a second Trump administration, when he asks why the military can’t shoot protesters in the legs, or when he wants to withdraw all military dependents from South Korea and throw Asia into an economic crisis?Nobody, outside his supporters, wants to talk about the eventuality — not probable but definitely not impossible — that Donald Trump will be re-elected. His former cabinet secretaries don’t. The people — the foreign ministers and former national security officials — at the Aspen Security Forum don’t.And the closer you get to presidential campaign events, elections can become a kind of dreamscape, a contained universe where meta attacks are signaled yet nothing seems that weird about Mr. Trump’s dominance. After Friday night’s Lincoln Dinner in Des Moines — a fund-raiser for the Iowa Republican Party, held in the city’s convention center — the candidates hosted after-parties off a long hallway, producing an animatronicesque gallery effect.In one room, for about an hour, Mr. Trump stood grinning and shaking hands and posing for photos, with an ever-replenishing line of dozens waiting to get in, and dozens wandering out, ice cream in hand and wearing “TRUMP COUNTRY” stickers. In the next room, Senator Tim Scott, a putting green and cornhole game. In the next, Mayor Francis Suarez of Miami and a live band, with a foursome playing dominoes, red wine on the table. Through another door, at a more subdued valence, you could see Mike Pence talking to little groups of people, mostly older couples, a father and son, a nod, a hand on a shoulder, a photo. Nikki Haley signed books and posters in the hall, and 20-something aides holding red “DESANTIS 2024” signs roamed, directing people to his room, where Republicans threw baseballs at pyramids of Bud Light cans. Step, repeat.This looked fun and vaguely normal — like something from the past. In reality, Mr. Pence is disappearing, politically, before our eyes. Mr. Scott says he can hold only the rioters who were violent, and not Mr. Trump, responsible for the events of Jan. 6. The physical distance between all three of them on Friday night was roughly the distance that separated that mob from Mr. Pence, or the mob from the Senate chamber, that day.That wasn’t that long ago. You can read all about it, across 45 pages in the federal indictment against Mr. Trump for events some of which unfolded in public. We know what happens to people around Mr. Trump. To preserve influence, those hired by him either exist on a total MAGA wavelength, or else have to dodge or lie sometimes to beat back chaos. And in the indictment, the frayed and unnerving interpersonal dynamics abound: Consider the case of Co-conspirator 4, whose description matches Jeffrey Clark, and who prosecutors say kept pressing to send a letter claiming the Justice Department had concerns — or had even found — “significant irregularities” in the 2020 election.It’s hard not to flash back and then forward, to that surreal period when politicians joined the first administration and to think about the even more uncertain future. Recall the photo of Mitt Romney and Mr. Trump eating dinner after the 2016 election; despite having opposed Mr. Trump’s nomination, there was Mr. Romney, offering himself as secretary of state. Mr. Romney’s expression captured a strong public sentiment toward people who joined the Trump administration: at best, it was seen as a slightly embarrassing exposure of the pursuit of power and personal ambition.The last year of the Trump administration concentrated how bad and complex this situation was: The government transformed into a body that had to handle crisis, but also one in which officials’ intentions could not be always known by the public, and one in which the act of joining government service came with deep personal repercussions. The pandemic required, for instance, a massive collaboration across departments and the private sector to produce a vaccine. Things had to stop, or start, with government employees at moments of intense crisis.And, in books, committee depositions and now in this latest indictment, the months after the 2020 election sound especially abysmal — a White House ghost town deserted by people tired of dealing with Mr. Trump and his break with reality about election’s outcome. They left behind a few panicked people who remained grounded in reality like former White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Mr. Pence, and then Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and the rest. Again and again, people describe desperate circumstances, arguments about doing things like seizing the voting machines, or trying to persuade Mr. Trump to call off the riot. According to prosecutors, at 7:01 p.m. on Jan. 6, Mr. Cipollone called Mr. Trump and asked him to withdraw his objections to certification; Mr. Trump refused. Would there be more Clarks or Cipollones in a future administration? The idea for many around Mr. Trump is to use a second administration as a path to clearing out parts of the government and reorganizing it around a stronger executive, with true believers underneath him. Jonathan Swan has written extensively about those plans, most recently in an article about the expansive efforts Trump allies want to undertake, like placing the Federal Trade Commission under presidential control, or using Schedule F to fire federal employees. The idea for the next term, in Mr. Trump’s telling, is also retribution.This only ups the anxiety around, basically, who might be involved in such an administration and what the broader American public would tolerate from them. In his book, “Why We Did It,” Tim Miller debates this question with Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former White House communications official. “Governing is happening under him whether we want it to be or not,” she argues, citing the prospect of whatever goon would serve instead of her, which Mr. Miller concedes is true. But, he counters: “This logic is circular. It justifies anything! Alyssa was a flack; she wasn’t securing loose nukes.” She counters again, ticking off different things people had talked Mr. Trump out of: invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests or firing Defense Secretary Mark Esper.In these circumstances, the line between “responsible influence, working to contain the worst impulses in private” and “passive bystander” and “amoral chump” is difficult to discern.Mr. Pence’s experience highlights the dangers for the individual and the public. In his book, Mr. Esper describes the way Mr. Pence represented a sane, normal presence in meetings. But, Mr. Esper writes, he could never discern how much their boss even considered the vice president’s views: “He was part cheerleader and part sounding board, though I could never tell how much influence he really had with Trump. He often didn’t say much in meetings that the president attended, and he rarely disagreed with Trump in front of us.”Mr. Trump’s first vice president ended up trapped inside the Capitol with a mob calling for his death by hanging. Now people talk about the other Republican presidential candidates as though they might be his running mate this time around, as though all this didn’t just happen. And now, as Mr. Pence runs for president himself, the reward for coming through in a central moment of American history is a kind of surround-sound aversion.At first, at that dinner in Iowa last week, Mr. Pence talked brightly, in the expectation of applause, which came, sort of, at muted levels, muted even for the kinds of things — like his abortion politics — that resulted in applause for others.This was tepid, indifferent clapping, a kind of subtle hell worse than booing, where people who knew you have forgotten you. Mr. Pence kept talking, the delivery staying even and polished, the brightness fading, talking about restoring civility. “So I thank you for hearing me out tonight,” he said, almost somber.On Tuesday evening, Mr. Pence was one of few Republican candidates to put the situation plainly: “Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” At the moment, Mr. Pence has not yet qualified for the debates, and is polling badly.As Mr. Trump told him when he balked at the idea of returning votes to the states, according to the indictment, “You’re too honest.”Katherine Miller is a staff writer and editor in Opinion.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s 2024 Campaign Seeks to Make Voters the Ultimate Jury

      by

      Donald J. Trump has long understood the stakes in the election: The courts may decide his cases, but only voters can decide whether to return him to power.The indictment of former President Donald J. Trump on charges of conspiring to overthrow the 2020 election ensures that a federal jury will determine whether he is held accountable for his elaborate, drawn-out and unprecedented attempt to negate a vote of the American people and cling to power.But it is tens of millions of voters who may deliver the ultimate verdict.For months now, as prosecutors pursued criminal charges against him in multiple jurisdictions, Mr. Trump has intertwined his legal defenses with his electoral arguments. He has called on Republicans to rally behind him to send a message to prosecutors. He has made clear that if he recaptures the White House, he will use his powers to ensure his personal freedom by shutting down prosecutions still underway.In effect, he is both running for president and trying to outrun the law enforcement officials seeking to convict him.That dynamic has transformed the stakes of this election in ways that may not always be clear. Behind the debates over inflation, “wokeness” and the border, the 2024 election is at its core about the fundamental tenets of American democracy: the peaceful transfer of power, the independence of the nation’s justice system, the meaning of political free speech and the principle that no one is above the law.Now, the voters become the jury.Mr. Trump has always understood this. When he ran for president the first time, he channeled the economic, racial and social resentments of his voters. But as his legal peril has grown, he has focused on his own grievances and projected them onto his supporters.“If these illegal persecutions succeed, if they’re allowed to set fire to the law, then it will not stop with me. Their grip will close even tighter around YOU,” Mr. Trump wrote to supporters on Tuesday night. “It’s not just my freedom on the line, but yours as well — and I will NEVER let them take it from you.”Mr. Trump’s arguments have so far been effective in his pursuit of his party’s nomination. After two previous indictments — over hush-money payments to a porn star and purloined classified documents — Republican voters rallied behind the former president with an outpouring of support and cash.A New York Times/Siena College poll released this week found that Mr. Trump has a commanding lead over all his Republican rivals combined, leading Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida by a two-to-one margin in a theoretical head-to-head matchup. Mr. Trump, even as America’s best-known criminal defendant, is in a dead heat with Mr. Biden among general election voters, the poll found.About 17 percent of voters who said they preferred him over Mr. Biden supported Mr. Trump despite believing that he had committed serious federal crimes or that he had threatened democracy after the 2020 election.The prevailing Republican view is that the charges against Mr. Trump are a political vendetta.Republicans have spent two years rewriting the narrative of the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, reimagining the violent attempt to disrupt the Electoral College vote count as a freedom fight against a Washington “deep state.” The result is that in many quarters of the Republican Party, Mr. Trump is more trusted than the prosecutors, special counsels and judges handling the cases against him.“Even those who were fence sitting or window shopping, many of them are of the belief that the justice system under President Biden is simply out to get the former president,” said Jimmy Centers, a former aide to former Gov. Terry Branstad of Iowa, a Republican who later served as Mr. Trump’s ambassador to China. “It has only strengthened his support in Iowa, to the point at which his floor is much more solid than what it was earlier this spring.”Whether Republicans continue to stand by Mr. Trump, as they have for months, remains to be seen in the wake of Tuesday’s indictment.“At a certain point, are you really going to hitch your whole party to a guy who is just trying to stay out of jail?” asked former Representative Barbara Comstock, a Virginia Republican who lost her seat when suburban voters turned against Mr. Trump in 2018. “There may be another strategy that Republicans could come up with. And if they can’t, I think they lose.”Strategists supporting rivals of Mr. Trump say that over time, the continued charges could hurt his standing with Republican voters, distract Mr. Trump from focusing on presenting his plans for the future and raise questions about his electability in the general election.“Even though people will rally around him in the moment, it starts to erode favorablity and his market share,” said Kristin Davison, chief operating officer of Never Back Down, the super PAC backing Mr. DeSantis. “More people will start to look forward.”Or they may not.Republicans’ responses to the third indictment have been similar to their complaints about the previous two — if slightly more muted. Loyal allies in Congress have rallied around Mr. Trump, blasting the Justice Department while most of his rivals for the party’s nomination declined to directly attack him over the charges.Richard Czuba, a veteran pollster who conducts surveys for Detroit’s media outlets, said opinions about Mr. Trump on both sides of the aisle had long been cased in cement. Like the past three cycles, this election will probably be another referendum on Mr. Trump, he said, and the outcome is likely to depend on which side can best drive its voters to the polls — regardless of whether Mr. Trump faces three indictments or 300.“We have to be brutally honest: Donald Trump sucks all the oxygen out of the room,” Mr. Czuba said. “If you were with him, you’re with him. If you were against him, you’re against him.”Still, Democrats are hopeful that in a general election, the indictments might sway some small slice of independents or swing voters. There is little doubt that a steady drumbeat of news out of the various court proceedings will ensure that Mr. Trump’s legal troubles continue to dominate the news in 2024. Court appearances and legal filings will compete for attention with debates and policy rollouts.Biden campaign officials and allies believe they can focus on topics with a more direct impact on the lives of voters — economic issues, abortion access and extreme weather — without explicitly addressing Mr. Trump’s issues.About an hour after news of Mr. Trump’s indictment broke, Mr. Biden and his wife finished dinner at a seafood restaurant in Delaware, then went to the movies. The president did not address the indictment, just as he had stayed silent after reports broke of the first two.Still, Democrats believe there will be an impact. Representative Brendan Boyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat who is a member of the Biden campaign’s national advisory board, said prosecuting Mr. Trump for his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack has the potential to galvanize the country in a way that the other legal cases against Mr. Trump do not.Tens of millions of people tuned in last summer for the hearings of the House Select Committee’s investigation of the Capitol riot, he noted, and Mr. Trump’s approval ratings among persuadable voters dropped afterward.Although a federal trial would not be televised, a steady stream of news may be enough to remind voters of the stakes in electing a candidate who is also a defendant, he said.“When you see witness after witness, day after day,” Mr. Boyle said, “I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that that could end up changing things.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      It’s No Surprise That Donald Trump Is Being Charged Under a Reconstruction-Era Law

      by

      Of the four charges included in the latest federal indictment of Donald Trump, one — violating Section 241 of Title 18 of the United States Code — seemed to surprise many. It shouldn’t have.That statute dates back to Reconstruction, as Congress responded to the Confederacy’s white-power insurrection against the United States. Reconstruction sought not only to restore the Union after the Civil War, but also to build guardrails against such an authoritarian faction ever again being able to subvert the Republic.It’s therefore appropriate that Section 241 and other Reconstruction-era laws are precisely those that the American legal system is turning to in response to a former president who stoked the flames of an insurrection in which a violent mob stormed the Capitol in an effort to undermine the democratic process. One of the rioters, later sentenced to three years in prison, carried a Confederate flag into the Capitol, an indelible image captured in photographs and widely circulated.Congress enacted Section 241 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1870 (also known as the Enforcement Act for its role in enforcing the terms of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, crucial to providing Black people with the rights and protections of citizenship). The law addressed the rise of white supremacist groups after the Civil War, especially the Ku Klux Klan, which organized citizens and public officials to intimidate freed Black people to suppress their participation in the political process. It empowered federal agents to stop these conspirators from depriving any Americans, in particular Black Americans, of the right to have a say in their government.The Justice Department has charged Mr. Trump with doing exactly that: the government asserts in its detailed 45-page indictment that through his attempts “to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election,” Mr. Trump conspired to “injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate” voters in exercising their “right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.”Bringing civil rights charges against the former president is not overreach by the Justice Department, as some have suggested. By enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1870, the department is doing the very thing the law was designed to do by prosecuting a political leader who, while in office and after, sought to cancel the votes of millions to hold power.In 1871, with Klan violence continuing, Congress passed two more bills to enforce the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, known as the Ku Klux Klan acts. Among other things, these laws empowered citizens to sue anyone who conspired to intimidate or retaliate against them for exercising their political rights.Armed with these laws, the Justice Department oversaw the arrest and conviction of hundreds of Klansmen, and by 1873 the group had been effectively (though temporarily) crushed. While Section 241 has regularly been used ever since to police civil rights violations, with the end of Reconstruction in 1877, Klan Act litigation brought by private parties declined precipitously, according to our research, until in recent years.In July 2017, our organization, Protect Democracy, filed a Klan Act lawsuit against the 2016 Trump campaign over what we asserted was its role in Russian efforts to compromise the political rights of Americans. While that suit did not succeed, it was the beginning of a spate of private Klan Act litigation unseen in more than 100 years.Several lawsuits have been filed by our group and others. Among the results: A restraining order was issued against armed groups that surrounded ballot drop boxes in ways that intimidated voters; the Proud Boys were ordered to pay more than $1 million in damages for desecrating the property of a Black church; and a jury ordered 17 white nationalist leaders and organizations to pay more than $26 million in damages to nine people who suffered physical or emotional injuries at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017. Still pending are lawsuits seeking damages against those responsible for Jan. 6, against those who organized a car caravan that threatened to drive a campaign bus off the highway and against Mr. Trump and others for seeking to deprive Black voters from having their votes counted in the 2020 election.Other Reconstruction-era laws are also in the center of debates today. Congress recently reformed the Electoral Count Act, passed in response to the contested presidential election of 1876, after Mr. Trump and his allies sought to use the law’s ambiguities to overturn the 2020 election. The former president has also pledged, if re-elected, to abolish the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. That guarantee was ratified in 1868 to reverse the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision holding that African Americans were not citizens.Yet another 14th Amendment provision, Section 3’s prohibition on those who have engaged in insurrection against the United States from holding power again, was recently applied for the first time since Reconstruction to bar from office a New Mexico county commissioner who breached the barricades outside the Capitol on Jan. 6. And recently, our organization filed a voting rights lawsuit under the 1870 law that readmitted Virginia to the Union. The Virginia Readmission Act limited the circumstances in which the state could disenfranchise its citizens, and our lawsuit argues that the state’s lifetime ban on voting by anyone convicted of any felony violates that law.These battles are the newest iterations of the Reconstruction-era clashes. Just as the integration of freed Black people into our democracy in the 1870s was met with fierce resistance, so too did the election of the nation’s first Black president give rise to a revival of open bigotry. And just as the enactment of laws in the 1870s to enforce equal citizenship were met with intransigence, so too today should we expect to see their enforcement resisted.The outcome of these legal clashes will determine the future of the country’s experiment in self-government. Either these laws will finally be fully realized and usher in a true multiracial democracy or the 150-year resistance to Reconstruction will prevail and white Americans reluctant to share power will reinforce their dominance over a diversifying nation. Authoritarianism rather than democracy would then be the order of the day.Ian Bassin is a co-founder and the executive director of the group Protect Democracy and a former associate White House counsel. Kristy Parker is counsel at Protect Democracy and the former deputy chief of the criminal section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Election Charges Set Up Clash of Lies Versus Free Speech

      by

      The indictment of former President Donald J. Trump over his efforts to retain power accuses him of conspiracies built on knowing falsehoods. His supporters say he is protected by the First Amendment.Running through the indictment charging former President Donald J. Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election was a consistent theme: He is an inveterate and knowing liar.The indictment laid out how, in the two months after Election Day, Mr. Trump “spread lies” about widespread election fraud even though he “knew that they were false.”Mr. Trump “deliberately disregarded the truth” and relentlessly disseminated them anyway at a “prolific” pace, the indictment continued, “to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.”Of course, Mr. Trump has never been known for fealty to truth.Throughout his careers in business and politics, he has sought to bend reality to his own needs, with lies ranging from relatively small ones, like claiming he was of Swedish and not German descent when trying to rent to Jewish tenants in New York City, to proclaiming that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.If you repeat something enough, he has told confidants over time, people will believe it.By and large, this trait has served him well, helping him bluster and bluff his way through bankruptcies and then to the White House and through crises once he was there: personal scandals, two impeachments and a special counsel’s investigation when he was in office.But now he is being held to account in a way he never has been before for what a new special counsel, Jack Smith, is asserting was a campaign of falsehoods that undermined the foundations of democracy.Already, Mr. Trump’s lawyers and allies are setting out the early stages of a legal strategy to counter the accusations, saying that Mr. Trump’s First Amendment rights are under attack. They say Mr. Trump had every right to express views about election fraud that they say he believed, and still believes, to be true, and that the actions he took or proposed after the election were based on legal advice.Jack Smith, the special counsel, announced an indictment of former President Donald J. Trump in Washington on Tuesday.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe indictment and his initial response set up a showdown between those two opposing assertions of principle: that what prosecutors in this case called “pervasive and destabilizing lies” from the highest office in the land can be integral to criminal plans, and that political speech enjoys broad protections, especially when conveying what Mr. Trump’s allies say are sincerely held beliefs.While a judge and jury will ultimately decide how much weight to give each, Mr. Trump and his allies were already on the offensive after the indictment.“So the First Amendment protects President Trump in this way: After 2020, he saw all these irregularities, he got affidavits from around the country, sworn testimony, he saw the rules being changed in the middle of the election process — as a president, he’s entitled to speak on those issues,” Mr. Trump’s defense lawyer in the case, John Lauro, said on Wednesday in an interview on CBS.”What the government would have to prove in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that speech is not protected by the First Amendment, and they’ll never be able to do that,” he said.Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, the No. 3 Republican in the House, said in a statement that Mr. Trump had “every right under the First Amendment to correctly raise concerns about election integrity in 2020.”Representative Gary Palmer of Alabama, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, called the indictment a “criminalization of disinformation and misinformation, which raises serious concerns about the public’s right to speak openly in opposition to policies they oppose.”Legal experts were skeptical about the strength of those claims as a defense. They pointed out that the indictment said on its second page that all Americans had the right to say what they wanted about the election — even if it was false. But, the indictment asserts, it is illegal to use those false claims to engage in criminal conduct, the experts said.An individual’s free-speech rights essentially end as soon as those words become evidence of criminality, they said. In the case of the indictment against Mr. Trump, the prosecutors argue that Mr. Trump used his statements to persuade others to engage in criminal conduct with him, like signing fake slates of electors or pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to block or delay Electoral College certification of President Biden’s victory.According to the indictment, Mr. Trump “knowingly” used “false claims of election fraud” to try to “convince the vice president to accept the defendant’s fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them.”The indictment goes on to say that when those efforts failed, Mr. Trump turned to using the crowd at the rally on the Ellipse “to pressure the vice president to fraudulently alter the election results.”Samuel W. Buell, a professor of law at Duke University and a lead federal prosecutor in the Justice Department’s prosecution of Enron, said that it “won’t work legally but it will have some appeal politically, which is why he is pushing it.”“There is no First Amendment privilege to commit crimes just because you did it by speaking,” Mr. Buell said.Referring to both public and private remarks, Mr. Buell said that “there is no First Amendment privilege for giving directions or suggestions to other people to engage in illegal acts.”Referring to the fictional television mafia boss Tony Soprano, Mr. Buell added, “Tony Soprano can’t invoke the First Amendment for telling his crew he wants someone whacked.”For decades, Mr. Trump’s penchant for falsehoods and exaggerations was well known in New York City. He was so distrusted by Mayor Ed Koch in the 1980s that one of the mayor’s deputies, Alair Townsend, famously quipped, “I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump if his tongue were notarized.”Mr. Trump spoke with journalists by phone while pretending to be a spokesman representing himself, in order to leak information about his business or his personal life. He claimed to have dated women who denied being involved with him. He claimed that he lived on the 66th through 68th floors of Trump Tower, which in fact has only 58 floors.Reaching the presidency did not lead to a change in his habits. The Washington Post’s fact checker identified more than 30,000 false or misleading claims from him over his four years in office, a figure equivalent to 21 a day.Mr. Trump has already tried to invoke the First Amendment in civil cases related to the attacks on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In February 2022, a federal judge in Washington ruled that lawsuits related to whether he incited the crowd that stormed the Capitol could proceed, in part because the First Amendment did not protect the speech he gave on the Ellipse before the riot.“Only in the most extraordinary circumstances could a court not recognize that the First Amendment protects a president’s speech,” Judge Amit P. Mehta of the Federal District Court in Washington ruled. “But the court believes this is that case. Even presidents cannot avoid liability for speech that falls outside the expansive reach of the First Amendment. The court finds that in this one-of-a-kind case the First Amendment does not shield the president from liability.”The experts and defense lawyers who read the indictment against Mr. Trump said that claiming that he was relying on the advice of lawyers was likely to provide Mr. Trump with a stronger defense than if he invoked the First Amendment.In the interview on CBS, Mr. Lauro leaned into that argument, saying that Mr. Trump had a “smoking gun of innocence” in a memo that the conservative legal scholar John Eastman wrote for him. The memo said Mr. Trump could ask Mr. Pence to pause the congressional certification of the election. Mr. Eastman was not a White House lawyer at the time.“John Eastman, who is an eminent scholar, gave the president an option — several options,” Mr. Lauro said.Alan Feuer More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Far-Reaching Consequences of the Latest Trump Indictment

      by

      The latest charges against Donald Trump amount to “the most consequential of all the indictments filed so far,” the Opinion columnist David French argues in this audio essay. On Tuesday, the former president was indicted on four federal counts related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, efforts that were part of what French calls “one of the most malicious conspiracies in American history.” Despite this, the case, which hinges on proving Trump’s intent, may not be a slam dunk.Christopher Smith for The New York TimesThe Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.This Opinion Short was produced by Vishakha Darbha. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin and Annie-Rose Strasser. Mixing by Pat McCusker. Original music by Pat McCusker and Carole Sabouraud. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. More