Storming of the US Capitol (Jan, 2021)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Seeks to Force Trump White House Lawyers to Testify in Jan. 6 Inquiry

      by

      The move is part of an effort by prosecutors to punch through the claims of privilege the former president is using to hamper the investigation of his push to overturn the election.The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to force the two top lawyers in Donald J. Trump’s White House to provide additional grand jury testimony as prosecutors seek to break through the former president’s attempts to shield his efforts to overturn the 2020 election from investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter.Prosecutors filed a motion to compel testimony from the two lawyers, Pat A. Cipollone and Patrick F. Philbin, last week. They told Beryl A. Howell, a judge in Federal District Court in Washington who oversees grand jury matters, that their need for the evidence the men could provide should overcome Mr. Trump’s claims that the information is protected by attorney-client and executive privilege, the people said.The filing was the latest skirmish in a behind-the-scenes legal struggle between the government and Mr. Trump’s lawyers to determine how much testimony witnesses close to the former president can provide to the grand jury, which is examining Mr. Trump’s role in numerous schemes to reverse his election defeat, culminating in the mob attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Mr. Cipollone, Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, and Mr. Philbin, who served as his deputy, initially appeared before the grand jury last month after receiving subpoenas, but declined to answer some of the questions prosecutors had about advice they gave to Mr. Trump or interactions they had with him in the chaotic post-election period, one of the people familiar with the matter said.The government’s filing, which was reported earlier by CNN, asked Judge Howell to force the men to return to the grand jury and respond to at least some of the questions they had declined to answer.If compelled to testify fully, Mr. Cipollone and Mr. Philbin could provide the grand jury with firsthand accounts of the advice they gave Mr. Trump about his efforts to derail the results of the election with a variety of schemes, including one to create fake slates of pro-Trump electors in states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. They could also tell the grand jury about Mr. Trump’s activities and mind-set on Jan. 6 and the tumultuous weeks leading up to it.Judge Howell has already ruled in favor of the government in a similar privilege dispute concerning testimony from two top aides to former Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short and Greg Jacob, according to several people familiar with the matter. Both Mr. Short and Mr. Jacob returned to the grand jury this month and answered questions that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had sought to block as being privileged during their original appearances.Prosecutors are also seeking to force Patrick F. Philbin, the former deputy White House counsel, to provide additional testimony.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesThe closed-door battle over how much evidence the grand jury should hear about Mr. Trump’s role in reversing his defeat and how much should be kept away as privileged is almost certain to continue as more witnesses close to the former president are called in for testimony.Last month, about 40 subpoenas were issued to a large group of former Trump aides — among them, Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s final chief of staff; Dan Scavino, his onetime deputy chief of staff for communications; and Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top speechwriter and a senior policy adviser.It is likely that Mr. Trump will try to assert some form of privilege over the testimony of each of those potential witnesses in a bid to narrow what the grand jury can hear about him.Even as the Justice Department presses forward in seeking evidence about Mr. Trump’s involvement in the events leading up to the Capitol attack, the House committee investigating Jan. 6 is also continuing to hear from witnesses.On Tuesday, Hope Hicks, a former top aide to Mr. Trump, testified for about four hours in front of the panel, according to two people familiar with the matter.The interview of Ms. Hicks, which was conducted virtually, came late in the committee’s 16-month investigation and after it has most likely concluded holding public hearings. Still, the members of the panel have kept pushing for more information about Mr. Trump’s state of mind in the final weeks of his administration and how often he was told there was no evidence of a stolen election.During a meeting with Mr. Trump, Ms. Hicks told the former president that she had seen no evidence of widespread fraud that could overturn the results of the election, according to the book “Confidence Man” by Maggie Haberman, a reporter for The New York Times.“You’re wrong,” Mr. Trump replied, hoping to scare others out of agreeing with her.Throughout August, the panel interviewed top administration officials, including Robert O’Brien, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser; Elaine Chao, the former transportation secretary; and Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state. Investigators asked questions regarding reports of discussions about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office, among other topics.Ms. Hicks served as the White House communications director in 2017 and 2018 and then returned to the White House as a counselor to Mr. Trump during his final 10 months in office.It was not immediately clear exactly what Ms. Hicks told the committee, but investigators went over certain text messages with her, according to a person familiar with the matter.A spokesman for the committee and a lawyer for Ms. Hicks declined to comment.Maggie Haberman More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Election Deniers Running for Office

      by

      More from our inbox:The Trump Subpoena Is a MistakeAbduction of Ukrainian Children: An ‘Insidious’ Russian PlaybookBerlusconi’s Affection for Putin‘Stop Eating Animals’ The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “2020 Election Skeptics Crowd the Republican Ticket Nationwide” (front page, Oct. 15):It is inevitable that many Republican election deniers running for office in November will be elected, especially in red states and districts, but I am just as worried about the election deniers who will lose.Will they accept their losses or, like Donald Trump, refuse to concede and charge that their election was rigged? Even worse, and again emulating Mr. Trump, will they incite their supporters to storm the offices where votes are being tabulated and/or where elections are being certified? This could be especially problematic in districts and states that take a long time to count absentee and mail-in ballots.Democracy requires that losers accept their losses. Unfortunately, 2020 election deniers care more about winning at any price than they do about democracy. I envision violence breaking out at county election boards and state offices from Maine to California. I just hope that local police departments are better prepared than the Capitol Police were on Jan. 6.Richard KaveshNyack, N.Y.The writer is a former mayor of Nyack.To the Editor:The number of election skeptics running should not come as a surprise to anyone. When we allow partisan politicians to gerrymander their states into electorally “safe” districts, the real voting occurs in the primaries. Extremists tend to win in the primaries, so this system almost guarantees that extremists, from both ends of the political spectrum, will be elected.When we send extremists of the left and the right to Washington, no one should be surprised that the process of compromise, so essential for good government, is impossible for them.Until the Supreme Court bars partisans from the electoral mapping process, America will remain stuck in a political quagmire of its own making. In recent times partisans have been barred from this process in countries such as Canada, Britain and Australia. Why can’t we take the same step in America?James TysonTrenton, N.J.To the Editor:In the midst of Covid, America significantly relaxed its voting formalities for 2020, with unrequested mail-in ballots; unsupervised, 24-hour drop boxes; and no-excuse-needed absentee voting. When the G.O.P. suggests that lax voting procedures harmed electoral integrity, they are charged with threatening American democracy. Yet when the G.O.P. attempts to restore pre-Covid voting formalities, the Democrats histrionically scream that American democracy is being threatened by Jim Crow voter suppression.The Times not only fails to challenge this specious Democratic assertion, but also joins the charge.Mike KueberSan AntonioTo the Editor:It seems that there has been one essential question left unasked in this challenging time period for our republic. I would suggest directing it to each and every election-denying Republican who was “elected” on that very same 2020 ballot:If the 2020 election was ripe with fraud, as you claim, and Donald Trump was cheated at the polls, then please explain how your election to office on the very same ballot managed to avoid being tainted as well.I expect the silence to be deafening.Adam StolerBronxTo the Editor:I object to The Times’s use of the term “skeptics” to describe Republican candidates who claim that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. Please leave “skeptic” to its proper uses. No one would say a politician who claimed that 2 + 2 = 13 million is a “math skeptic.” There are plenty of suitable words in the dictionary, including “liar” and “loon.”William Avery HudsonNew YorkThe Trump Subpoena Is a MistakeFormer President Donald J. Trump’s legal team could also invoke executive privilege in an attempt to ward off the subpoena.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Is Subpoenaed, Setting Up Likely Fight Over His Role on Jan. 6” (front page, Oct. 22):The decision by the House Jan. 6 committee to subpoena former President Donald Trump to testify is a mistake.Even if he agrees to appear before the committee, Mr. Trump’s behavior is predictable. Based on his inability to accept defeat, and his view of disagreement as something personal that warrants lashing out at the other party, we can expect him to approach the committee as an enemy, deserving nothing but contempt.Based on his past and continuing behavior, we can expect him to be nasty, offensive and obnoxious. Attempting to belittle the committee members individually and as a group, he would make a mockery of the proceedings. Nothing of substance would be accomplished, except to place his personality on public display, which continues to delight his supporters.So the committee should avoid the futile effort and potential embarrassment, and refrain from trying to have Mr. Trump appear before it.Ken LefkowitzMedford, N.J.Abduction of Ukrainian Children: An ‘Insidious’ Russian PlaybookA broken window at a hospital in March in Mariupol, Ukraine. Russian officials have made clear that their goal is to replace any childhood attachment to home with a love for Russia.Evgeniy Maloletka/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Taken by Russia, Children Become the Spoils of War” (front page, Oct. 23):The abduction of Ukrainian children into Russian families is more than “a propaganda campaign presenting Russia as a charitable savior.” It follows an insidious playbook used by Soviet leaders after their 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.Thousands of Afghan children were abducted to the Soviet Union to be given a Communist education, so that a new generation of Afghans would be trained to lead a Soviet-sponsored Afghanistan. In 1989, however, Soviet troops were forced from Afghanistan, unable to prevail against Afghans fiercely defending their homeland.Vladimir Putin may very well be repeating past practices, hoping to brainwash Ukrainian children into a love for Russia, and thus preparing them to lead a Russian-dominated Ukraine.But he should learn other lessons from the past instead: that people defending their country are not easily defeated, and that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan upended the Soviet leadership and, ultimately, the Soviet Union itself.Jeri LaberNew YorkThe writer is a founder of Human Rights Watch and the former director of its Europe and Central Asia division.Berlusconi’s Affection for Putin Vladimir Rodionov/SputnikTo the Editor:Re “Berlusconi, Caught on Tape Gushing Over Putin, Heightens Concerns” (news article, Oct. 21):Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s talk of “sweet” letters and affection for Vladimir Putin, the barbaric Russian president, is as troubling as the right-wing political party that has ascended to power in Italy, a party in which Mr. Berlusconi has a patriarchal, deeply influential role.But Mr. Berlusconi’s defense of Mr. Putin’s savage invasion of Ukraine is even more sickening and chilling. Woe to Europe and the world if we see any significant scaling back or ultimately an abandonment of financial and military support for Ukraine.Mr. Putin may send Mr. Berlusconi bottles of fine vodka, but the Russian leader’s main exports to the real world are terror, autocracy and death.Cody LyonBrooklyn‘Stop Eating Animals’Lily and Lizzie after being rescued.Direct Action EverywhereTo the Editor:Re “I Took 2 Piglets That Weren’t Mine, and a Jury Said That Was OK,” by Wayne Hsiung (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 21):Mr. Hsiung’s powerful essay reveals the horror of animals being raised for meat. Meat production creates catastrophic global warming and tortures sentient beings. Stop eating animals.Ann BradleyLos Angeles More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Will Trump Get Indicted for Jan. 6?

      by

      More from our inbox:The Russia-Iran AllianceAn Unreal Foreign PolicyWhen I Realized That ‘Youth Is a Members-Only Club’A Good Divorce Damon Winter/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Has Told Americans Exactly Who He Is,” by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, Oct. 15):I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Wegman’s essay on Donald Trump and his blatant misdeeds, as so masterfully presented by the Jan. 6 committee. But we are approaching two years from Jan. 6 and there are still no indictments resulting from clear evidence of overwhelming criminal conduct by Mr. Trump.The mantra that no one is above the law rings hollow, as any normal person engaging in such Trumpian conduct would be wearing an orange suit by now. What more does the Justice Department or the Georgia prosecutor possibly need to take the action the evidence so clearly demands?I thought that when New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, filed a complaint accusing Donald Trump and his business of fraud that it would give courage to weak-kneed prosecutors to follow suit. Yet we wait and doubt whether the Teflon man will ever be brought to justice. Without such action, future leaders will feel no risk in taking actions that could destroy our democracy.We need indictments and justice, and we need them now!Richard GoetzDelray Beach, Fla.To the Editor:Jesse Wegman is correct to say that the Republican Party “is now infected from coast to coast with proudly ignorant conspiracymongers, wild-eyed election deniers and gun-toting maniacs.”About half of Americans are willing to allow that party to return to power. That half includes not just the unreachable Trump base but also millions of Americans who know that President Biden won the election, are probably opposed to political violence and likely support representative democracy. It is these Americans, who are not deep into delusions, lies and conspiracies, but nonetheless willing to hand power to a Republican Party that is, who currently pose the greatest threat to American democracy.Richard SeagerNew YorkTo the Editor:“Trump Has Told Americans Exactly Who He Is” is true today and has been true ever since he was first a candidate in the 2016 election. He has never shown, or aspired to be, more than what he has shown us right from the start. Sadly, many who follow him think this is fine, and perhaps the Jan. 6 committee’s report illuminating his actions may change some minds. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.As the very wise Maya Angelou once said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” I did, and I haven’t changed my mind.Cathy PutnamConcord, Mass.The Russia-Iran AllianceA drone believed to be Iranian-made nearing its target in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Monday.Yasuyoshi Chiba/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Deadly Message Sent by Drones: It’s Russia and Iran vs. the West” (front page, Oct. 18):Reprising the alliance that killed tens of thousands of noncombatants in Syria, Iran is now supplying Russia with drones used to attack Ukrainian cities and murder their inhabitants. The collaboration between these two vile dictatorships is based only on a mutual contempt for human life, abhorrence of freedom and hatred of the United States.What will it take for the Biden administration to break off its efforts to revive President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran, which would only delay, not prevent, the Islamic Republic’s emergence as a nuclear-armed power?Howard F. JaeckelNew YorkAn Unreal Foreign Policy Jhonn Zerpa/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:In “The U.S. Cannot Uphold the Fiction That Juan Guaidó Is the President of Venezuela,” (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Oct. 8), William Neuman makes a blunt, but accurate, observation about U.S. policy in Venezuela: It’s incoherent and frankly detached from reality.But Venezuela is hardly an anomaly. U.S. foreign policy is often stuck in an immovable vortex, with inertia and an unwillingness to admit failure the defining features. The foreign policy establishment is either incapable of adapting to situations or is too confident of its ability to will things into existence.While it doesn’t hurt to be ambitious, it also doesn’t hurt to understand the limits of your power. The U.S. remains the most powerful nation in the world, with boundless economic potential and a military second to none, but other countries have independent agency, their own core interests and the resiliency to ensure that those interests are protected.The result is a wide divergence between the grand objectives the U.S. hopes to accomplish and the reality the U.S. operates in. Thus, we see Nicolás Maduro still running Venezuela, Bashar al-Assad sitting comfortably in the presidential palace in Syria and Kim Jong-un of North Korea the leader of a nuclear-weapons state.Instead of seeking to transform the world to its liking, a mountainous undertaking if there ever was one, the U.S. should work within the world that exists. Otherwise, failure is all but assured.Daniel R. DePetrisNew Rochelle, N.Y.The writer is a fellow at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank based in Washington.When I Realized That ‘Youth Is a Members-Only Club’ Irving Browning/New-York Historical Society, via Bridgeman ImagesTo the Editor:Pamela Paul’s delightful Oct. 20 column, “Wait, Who Did You Say Is Middle-Aged?,” made me remember the afternoon I drove my two sons — teenagers then — home from school. A song blending Southern and garage rock was playing on the radio.“Mom, bet you don’t know who’s singing,” they dared.“That’s easy,” I said. “It’s Kings of Leon.”My older son gaped at his brother. “How could she know that?” Both were flummoxed, even offended, that I, a woman then in her 50s, got the answer right. Suddenly Kings of Leon, a band they followed, became uncool.I realized then and there that youth is a members-only club. And no amount of worldly knowledge — not even a gentle bribe of chocolate chip cookies, perhaps — could win me the price of admission.Reni RoxasEverett, Wash.A Good Divorce David HuangTo the Editor:Re “A Cure for the Existential Crisis of Married Motherhood,” by Amy Shearn (Sunday Opinion, Oct. 9):Ms. Shearn nails it in her tribute to happy divorced motherhood. The key to that freedom, I would assert, is a good divorce, meaning one that puts children first.It has been my mission since my own divorce 12 years ago to promote the concept of a good divorce, one that makes co-parenting the pinnacle of achievement for couples who must go through this difficult change.A good divorce means attending parent-teacher conferences with your ex, helping your child select a birthday gift for your ex-spouse, and relying on family and friends whenever possible to help ease the transition.My daughter, Grace, gave me the definition of a “good divorce” when she was only 8, saying, “A good divorce is when parents are nice to each other, like you and Daddy.”As Ms. Shearn acknowledges, some divorces are brutal, and for those parents a good divorce might not be realistic. For the rest of us, a good divorce is a goal divorced parents should aspire to, because it is an attainable outcome.Sarah ArmstrongSan FranciscoThe writer is vice president, global marketing operations, at Google and the author of “The Mom’s Guide to a Good Divorce: What to Think Through When Children Are Involved.” More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Says Trump Signed Statement With Data His Lawyers Told Him Was False

      by

      The determination came in a decision by a federal judge that John Eastman, a lawyer for the former president, had to turn more of his emails over to the House Jan. 6 committee.Former President Donald J. Trump signed a document swearing under oath that information in a Georgia lawsuit he filed challenging the results of the 2020 election was true even though his own lawyers had told him it was false, a federal judge wrote on Wednesday.The accusation came in a ruling by the judge, David O. Carter, ordering John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who strategized with the former president about overturning the election, to hand over 33 more emails to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Judge Carter, who serves with the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, determined that the emails contained possible evidence of criminal behavior.“The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public,” Judge Carter wrote. He added in a footnote that the suit contained language saying Mr. Trump was relying on information provided to him by others.The committee has fought for months to get access to hundreds of Mr. Eastman’s emails, viewing him as the intellectual architect of plans to subvert the 2020 election, including Mr. Trump’s effort to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to block or delay congressional certification of the Electoral College results on Jan. 6, 2021. Repeatedly, the panel has argued that a “crime-fraud exception” pierces the typical attorney-client privilege that often protects communications between lawyers and clients.The emails in question, which were dated between Nov. 3, 2020, and Jan. 20, 2021, came from Mr. Eastman’s account at Chapman University, where he once served as a law school dean.Judge Carter wrote on Wednesday that the crime-fraud exception applied to a number of the emails related to Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman’s “efforts to delay or disrupt the Jan. 6 vote” and “their knowing misrepresentation of voter fraud numbers in Georgia when seeking to overturn the election results in federal court.”Judge Carter found four emails that “demonstrate an effort by President Trump and his attorneys to press false claims in federal court for the purpose of delaying the Jan. 6 vote.”In one of them, Mr. Trump’s lawyers advised him that simply having a challenge to the election pending in front of the Supreme Court could be enough to delay the final tally of Electoral College votes from Georgia.“This email,” Judge Carter wrote, “read in context with other documents in this review, make clear that President Trump filed certain lawsuits not to obtain legal relief, but to disrupt or delay the Jan. 6 congressional proceedings through the courts.”Another email was related to the lawsuit Mr. Trump and his lawyers filed in Fulton County, Ga., in December 2020, contending that thousands of votes had been improperly counted and citing specific numbers of dead people, felons and unregistered voters who had cast ballots.In one email ordered for release, Mr. Eastman made plain his view that Mr. Trump should not sign a document making specific claims about voter fraud in the county because his legal team had learned they were inaccurate.“Although the president signed a verification for [the state court filing] back on Dec. 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate,” Mr. Eastman wrote. “For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate.”But Mr. Trump did sign a new verification, on Dec. 31, 2020, after the suit was moved to federal court. The suit included a caveat that the voter fraud figures it used were to be relied upon “only to the extent” that “such information has been provided” to Mr. Trump’s legal team; the suit also stated that such data was subject to “amendment” or “adjustment.”The episode was the latest example of how Mr. Trump was repeatedly told that his claims of widespread voter fraud were false and often pressed forward with them anyway. His attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, informed him at least three times that his accusations about fraud were unfounded, as did other top officials at the Justice Department, the White House Counsel’s Office and the Trump campaign.Judge Carter’s ruling came as part of a federal lawsuit Mr. Eastman filed at the beginning of the year, seeking to bar the committee from obtaining his emails as part of its inquiry into Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.In a previous ruling, issued in March, Judge Carter offered a sweeping analysis of how Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman most likely committed felonies, including obstructing the work of Congress on Jan. 6 and conspiring to defraud the United States.Mr. Eastman has also been a focus of the Justice Department’s investigation into Jan. 6 and the months leading up to it.In June, federal agents seized Mr. Eastman’s phone as part of what appears to be a broad grand jury inquiry into Mr. Trump’s role in intersecting schemes to stay in power, including a plan to create fake slates of pro-Trump electors in states that were won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. A flurry of subpoenas issued by the grand jury, sitting in Washington, named Mr. Eastman and several other lawyers close to Mr. Trump as subjects of interest. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Mastriano’s Time at War College Draws Scrutiny in Governor’s Race

      by

      The crowning chapter of Doug Mastriano’s military career — a stint on the faculty of the U.S. Army War College — has flared up in his campaign for Pennsylvania governor.Two former professors at the War College in Carlisle, Pa., publicly declared Mr. Mastriano unfit for public office. A photograph surfaced of Mr. Mastriano posing in a Confederate uniform with other faculty. And Mr. Mastriano’s Ph.D. dissertation has been criticized as deeply flawed, with a former academic adviser saying his doctorate rests “on very shaky grounds.”Mr. Mastriano — the Republican nominee for governor in a crucial battleground state — received his Ph.D. in history from the University of New Brunswick in Canada in 2013, the year after he joined the faculty of the War College. His research focused on a World War I hero, Sgt. Alvin York, who credited his exploits killing and capturing German soldiers to divine intervention and who inspired the 1941 Gary Cooper movie “Sergeant York.”“I think Mastriano really likes that story because York became the kind of spiritual warrior that Mastriano sees himself as being,” said Jeffrey Scott Brown, a history professor at the University of New Brunswick who advised Mr. Mastriano but objected to his academic techniques. Dr. Brown’s criticisms included Mr. Mastriano’s amateur archaeological sleuthing on a French battlefield and his credulity in accepting divine intervention to explain Sergeant York’s heroics.“I’ve been concerned about this for a decade,” Dr. Brown said in an interview.Mr. Mastriano, who has a policy of not interacting with the news media except for right-wing outlets, did not respond to detailed questions sent to his campaign.Struggling with poor fund-raising and a strategy of courting only the Trump-centric base, Mr. Mastriano is trailing his Democratic opponent, Josh Shapiro, the Pennsylvania attorney general, by double digits in polling.On Friday, Mr. Mastriano held a campaign rally in Erie, Pa., with Jack Posobiec, a far-right provocateur and Navy veteran who helped spread the “PizzaGate” hoax — the false rumor in 2016 that Hillary Clinton and other Democratic officials were running a child sex trafficking ring out of a Washington pizza parlor. “We’re going to shock all the prognosticators,” Mr. Mastriano told a crowd of about 350, according to The Erie Times-News. He added, “We’re going to take our state back by storm.”Mr. Mastriano, 58, capped off a three-decade military career by teaching for five years at the War College, which educates top officers in graduate studies focused on leadership and military-civilian relations.Two former faculty colleagues said his role as a candidate and state senator in two areas — spreading lies about the results of the 2020 election, and marching on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — violated his military oath.“The officer corps is sworn to defend the Constitution rather than any one person or president,” Tami Davis Biddle, who was chair of the War College’s faculty council, wrote in an opinion article for a Harrisburg newspaper. “None of its members is entitled to toy with insurrection, treat Jan. 6 as legitimate protest, or follow election deniers who would undercut our most important political institutions.”In an interview, Dr. Biddle, who retired last year, said: “If you’re going to say the 2020 election was won by Trump, that was simply not true. To lobby for keeping Trump in office when he had lost an election was outrageous.”Mr. Mastriano, who led the charge in Pennsylvania to overturn President Biden’s election, pushed to have the State Legislature appoint a slate of false electors. He organized buses to take protesters to Washington on Jan. 6 and bypassed police barricades breached by other marchers. He has said that as governor he could decertify voting machines at will and might require all Pennsylvania voters to re-register in order to cast ballots.Another former War College faculty member, Rick Coplen, a West Point graduate and a combat veteran, said Mr. Mastriano had tried to “undermine our democracy.”Mr. Coplen was a professor of economic development at the War College for a decade. He accused Mr. Mastriano of “helping former President Trump in trying to overthrow the legitimate, clearly understood and agreed-upon electoral results.” His concerns were reported earlier by The Philadelphia Inquirer.Mr. Coplen ran unsuccessfully this year in the Democratic primary for a congressional seat in South Central Pennsylvania. He said his criticism of Mr. Mastriano was not motivated by partisanship.“This is about the fundamental stuff of American democracy,” he said in an interview. “When I was 18 years old, like my fellow West Point cadets, I raised my right hand and pledged the same oath to the U.S. Constitution. That’s most important, regardless of party.”Dr. Brown, at the University of New Brunswick, was a member of the examining board for Mr. Mastriano’s dissertation.He objected to Mr. Mastriano’s field research in France that claimed to precisely identify the location of Sergeant York’s heroics, which Dr. Brown said was conducted amateurishly with members of Mr. Mastriano’s son’s Boy Scout troop. He also objected to assertions in the dissertation that Sergeant York was protected by the hand of God. On Page 223 of his dissertation, Mr. Mastriano writes, “The idea that York survived the carnage because of Divine Intervention also speaks of a miracle.”Sgt. Alvin York in 1919.U.S. Army, via Associated PressDr. Brown said such a statement was unscholarly. “You’re allowed to discuss someone’s belief — that York believed there was literal divine intervention,” Dr. Brown said. “But to present it as settled historical fact is not acceptable for professional historians.”Another scholar, James Gregory, a history graduate student at the University of Oklahoma, has identified what he says are multiple errors in Mr. Mastriano’s treatise. After he reported 35 problematic passages to the University of New Brunswick, Mr. Mastriano added 21 corrections in 2021. But Mr. Gregory insisted there were many more issues that, in his view, added up to academic dishonesty.Dr. Brown shared documents he wrote in 2013 spelling out his own objections, including an email he said was sent to Mr. Mastriano’s dissertation supervisor raising “serious misgivings.” Nonetheless, the Ph.D. was granted. Dr. Brown’s name appears on the dissertation, which, he said, surprised him because he had been told he was no longer needed on the evaluation committee.The University of New Brunswick, which released the dissertation last month under pressure, said in a statement it could not discuss Mr. Mastriano’s degree without his consent. It added that two independent academics would review the university’s procedures to ensure that its granting of doctorates meets “the highest standard.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Threat to Democracy? Start With Corruption, Many Voters Say

      by

      In a Times/Siena survey, respondents’ concerns about democracy often diverged from typical expert analysis.A rally called Save America last week in Mesa, Ariz. People have very different ideas of what that term means. Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesWhen we started our national poll on democracy last week, David Leonhardt’s recent New York Times front-page story on threats to democracy was at the top of my mind. His article focused on two major issues: the election denial movement in the Republican Party, and undemocratic elements of American elected government like the Electoral College, gerrymandering and the Senate.But when we got the results of our Times/Siena poll late last week, it quickly became clear these were not the threats on the minds of voters.While 71 percent of registered voters agreed that democracy was “under threat,” only about 17 percent of voters described the threat in a way that squares with discussion in mainstream media and among experts — with a focus on Republicans, Donald J. Trump, political violence, election denial, authoritarianism, and so on.Instead, most people described the threat to democracy in terms that would be very unfamiliar to someone concerned about election subversion or the Jan. 6 insurrection — and I’m not just talking about stop-the-steal adherents who think the last election already brought American democracy to an end.The poll results help make sense of how so many voters can say democracy is under threat, and yet rank “threats to democracy” low on the list of challenges facing the country.When respondents were asked to volunteer one or two words to summarize the current threat to democracy, government corruption was brought up most often — more than Mr. Trump and Republicans combined.For some of these voters, the threat to democracy doesn’t seem to be about the risk of a total collapse of democratic institutions or a failed transition of power. Or they may not view the threat as an emergency or a crisis yet, like being on the brink of sustained political violence or authoritarianism.Instead, they point most frequently to a longstanding concern about the basic functioning of a democratic system: whether government works on behalf of the people.Many respondents volunteered exactly that kind of language. One said, “I don’t think they are honestly thinking about the people.” Another said politicians “forget about normal people.” Corruption, greed, power and money were familiar themes.Overall, 68 percent of registered voters said the government “mainly works to benefit powerful elites” rather than “ordinary people.”Another 8 percent of voters cited polarization as the major threat to democracy. Like corruption, polarization poses a threat to democracy but might not necessarily count as an imminent crisis.And perhaps most surprising, many voters offered an answer that wasn’t easily categorized as a threat to democracy at all. Inflation, for instance, was cited by 3 percent of respondents — about the same as the share citing political extremists and violence. For perhaps as many as one-fifth of voters, the “threat to democracy” was little more than a repackaging of persistent issues like “open borders” and “race relations” or “capitalism” and “godlessness.”The 17 percent of voters who cited something related to Mr. Trump and election denial seemed to elevate the issue of democracy the most: Overall, 19 percent of those respondents volunteered that the state of democracy was the most important problem facing the country — more than any other issue.Among everyone else: Just 4 percent stated that concern as the No. 1 issue.My colleagues have more on this story here. More