Storming of the US Capitol (Jan, 2021)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Book Review: ‘The Divider’ Is a Sober Look at the Trump White House

      by

      In “The Divider,” political journalists keep their cool as they chronicle the outrageous conduct and ugly infighting that marked a presidency like no other.THE DIVIDER: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021, by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser“His job wasn’t to get things done but to stop certain things from happening, to prevent disaster.” This line from Peter Baker and Susan Glasser’s detail-rich history of the Trump administration, “The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021,” technically applies to his first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson. But in truth it describes any of several dozen beleaguered helpmates to the former president, whose propensity for petulant rage kept Washington in a fit of indignation and the White House in a mode of perpetual damage control for the better part of four years. Comprehensively researched and briskly told, “The Divider” is a story of disasters averted as well as disasters realized.Squeezing the tumultuous events of the long national fever dream that was the Donald Trump presidency between two covers — even two covers placed far apart, as is the case with this 752-page anvil — would tax the skills of the nimblest journalist. Yet the husband-and-wife team of Baker and Glasser pull it off with assurance. It’s all here: the culture wars and the corruption, the demagogy and the autocrat-love, the palace intrigue and the public tweets, the pandemic and the impeachments (plural).To be sure, asking readers in 2022 to revisit the Sturm und Drang of the Trump years may seem like asking a Six Flags patron, staggering from a ride on the Tsunami, to jump back on for another go. But those with strong stomachs will find a lot they didn’t know, and a lot more that they once learned but maybe, amid the daily barrage of breaking-news banner headlines, managed to forget.Baker, The New York Times’s chief White House correspondent, and Glasser, a staff writer at The New Yorker, are the perfect pair to write this book, with a combined 60 years of Washington reporting experience and two other jointly authored books to their names. (I know both of them through professional circles; when Glasser edited Politico Magazine, she hired me to write a history column.) For a book produced so quickly, they draw on an impressively broad array of materials: hundreds of original interviews, reams of contemporary daily journalism, and an already-fat library of memoirs and journalistic accounts of the Trump years, including those by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, and Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin. (Something about writing a Trump book seems to call for two reporters.)Even while cataloging Trump’s most outrageous behaviors, Baker and Glasser strive to maintain a professional, dispassionate tone: analytical but not polemical. Inevitably, however, their low opinion of Trump shines through, occasionally garnished with a soupçon of snark. Of the president’s curiosity about whether nuclear bombs might deter tropical storms, they write, “Trump’s plans to deal with Hurricane Dorian thankfully did not involve atomic warfare.” Apart from the landmark Abraham Accords of 2020, which opened diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations, they devote only fleeting attention to Trump’s concrete achievements, of which even critics must concede there were a few. The strength of the pre-Covid economy — for which Trump doesn’t deserve full credit but which still helped millions of voters look past his failings and failures — is little discussed. Trump fans will surely object to the consistently negative judgments about their tribune.But the authors are persuasive in arguing that in this White House, “impulse and instinct ruled.” Given the sheer number of crises and conflicts that erupted on Trump’s watch, herding them all into a narrative isn’t easy. To impose order on the chaos, the authors center each chapter on its own topic or story line — Trump’s rocky relationship with foreign allies, for example, or the 2018 budget battle over the Mexico wall. Other chapters focus on key supporting players, who are rendered with deft portraits, such as Jared Kushner, Trump’s widely reviled but fireproof son-in-law, or the president’s antagonist-turned-sycophant, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.Some of the weightiest chapters take up Trump’s relationship with Russia. Former Moscow correspondents and longtime Russia jocks, Baker and Glasser eschew the wilder conspiracy theories that were bandied about in left-wing circles during Robert Mueller’s probe of the 2016 campaign’s Russia connections.Instead, “The Divider” soberly and carefully reconstructs events to reveal anew Trump’s shocking deference to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin — notably at the 2018 Helsinki summit, where, the authors pointedly write, “Trump acknowledged that he would accept the word of Putin over that of his own intelligence agencies.” The chapters on the 2019 Ukraine scandal, when Trump linked aid to its government to delivery of dirt on Joe Biden, re-establish the gravity of the first impeachment, which has since been overshadowed by the second.If “The Divider” has a dominant theme, it may be the struggle within the “almost cartoonishly chaotic White House” by people more reasonable and ethical than Trump to rein in his most dangerous instincts. Because everyone had different ideas about where to restrain and where to encourage Trump, the White House became a den of “ongoing tribal warfare,” they write — an “Apprentice”-style reality-TV show in which the parties vied to win Trump’s favor and outlast their rivals, even while at times sabotaging the president’s agenda as they saw fit..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.The dishy gossip and mocking nicknames the Trumpies coin for one another (Kushner is the “Slim Reaper,” Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen “Nurse Ratched”) make for amusing reading; they also highlight a dysfunctionality rare for even the Washington freak show. Every chapter, it seems, has a sentence like this: “While Priebus, Bannon and Kushner disliked each other, the one thing they agreed on was they all loathed [Kellyanne] Conway.” Or: “In public, Mattis, Tillerson and McMaster were portrayed as fellow members of the Axis of Adults. In private, there was pettiness that at times suggested a middle school cafeteria.” The backbiting — and the sub rosa efforts to thwart their own president — led to constant personnel turnover, a dreary parade of firings, resignations and defenestrations. Trump would cashier one aide in favor of someone presumably more compliant, only for the new guy to find that Trump was even more willful and heedless of rules than he had dreamed. Time and again, staffers debate whether to stay put in hopes of mitigating Trump’s basest impulses or to run screaming from the room. Even more stunning is the number of onetime loyalists who, after their tours of duty, emerged as among the president’s most strident critics.Many Trump aides — even some, like National Security Adviser John Bolton or Attorney General William P. Barr, who might deserve harsh criticism on other grounds — did intervene valiantly at times to keep Trump in check. Without their small acts of resistance, things could have gone even worse. Yet Baker and Glasser seem to endorse the view of the Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, who, during the first impeachment, warned Republicans, “You will not change him, you cannot constrain him.” They write: “So many had told themselves that they could manage the unmanageable president, that they could keep him from going too far, that they could steer him in the direction of responsible governance. … They had justified their service to him or their alliances with him or their deference to him on the grounds that they could ultimately control him. And what Schiff was saying is that three years had shown that was not possible.” In this instance, Schiff was talking specifically about Trump’s plans to “compromise our elections,” and his words proved tragically prescient. “The Divider” concludes with a riveting few chapters on Trump’s mad scheming to hold onto power after his November 2020 defeat — resulting in the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol.In the book’s final passages, we see Trump lurking in exile in Mar-a-Lago like a movie villain, having escaped Washington by the skin of his teeth, defeated but not altogether vanquished. In Hollywood, such endings serve to leave the door open to another installment. But as good as this book is, let’s hope Baker and Glasser won’t be writing a sequel.David Greenberg is a professor of history and of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University. He is writing a biography of the late congressman John Lewis.THE DIVIDER: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021 | By Peter Baker and Susan Glasser | 752 pp. | Doubleday | $32 More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Two Top Trump Political Aides Among Those Subpoenaed in Jan. 6 Case

      by

      Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser, and Brian Jack, who served as White House political director, are among those who received requests for information this week from a federal grand jury.The Justice Department has subpoenaed two former top White House political advisers under President Donald J. Trump as part of a widening investigation related to Mr. Trump’s post-election fund-raising and plans for so-called fake electors, according to people briefed on the matter.Brian Jack, the final White House political director under Mr. Trump, and Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top speechwriter and a senior policy adviser, were among more than a dozen people connected to the former president to receive subpoenas from a federal grand jury this week.The subpoenas seek information in connection with the Save America political action committee and the plan to submit slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump from swing states that were won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the 2020 election. Mr. Trump and his allies promoted the idea that competing slates of electors would justify blocking or delaying certification of Mr. Biden’s Electoral College win during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.A lawyer for Mr. Miller declined to comment. Mr. Jack, who remains an adviser to Mr. Trump as well as to Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican leader, and several other House Republicans, declined to comment.A subpoena does not indicate someone is under investigation, but the Justice Department may send one to people from whom it is seeking information.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 9Making a case against Trump. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Was Biden’s Democracy Speech Too Harsh?

      by

      More from our inbox:The Reasons Behind the Teacher ExodusThe Reusable Bag Glut Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “With Malice Toward Quite a Few,” by Bret Stephens (column, Sept. 7):While declaring Donald Trump to be the “gravest threat American democracy faces” out of one side of his mouth, out of the other Mr. Stephens decries President Biden’s harsh words for the MAGA Republicans fervently supporting Mr. Trump.He can’t have it both ways.Many Republicans in Congress to this day refuse to admit that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Until these Republicans can bring themselves (and convince the majority of their party) to acknowledge that the presidency was not stolen from Mr. Trump, sharp words to save our democracy are warranted.Lincoln’s “malice toward none” address was given after the insurgents seeking to destroy the Union were defeated, making Mr. Biden’s identification of threats to democracy timely and vital.Carl MezoffStamford, Conn.To the Editor:Bret Stephens nailed it. The threat to democracy is not Republicans or even just MAGA Republicans. It is the sinister and buffoonish Donald Trump, plus his inner circle that pushed his lies in the aftermath of the 2020 election.Even the Jan. 6 riot was not a threat to democracy. Nor was it an insurrection. It was a violent venting that petered out on its own that same afternoon.But what caused that violent venting? Part of it was Mr. Trump’s lies. But a bigger part of it was the left’s actual attempts to steal the 2016 and 2020 elections, not by miscounting votes, but first by the claims of collusion with Russia (a hoax, as I and many others believe) and later by suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story. In between, the Democrats and media did everything possible to evict Mr. Trump from office. If all that was “democracy,” then Watergate wasn’t a crime.Donald Trump is one of the worst sore losers of all time, totally unfit for office. But he was also endlessly pushed and goaded, just as Republicans have been pushed, goaded, demeaned and vilified for decades by the arrogant, condescending left. That’s what brought Mr. Trump to the fore to begin with.Mark GodburnNorfolk, Conn.To the Editor:While I acknowledge the validity of some of Bret Stephens’s criticism of President Biden’s speech in Philadelphia, I take issue with his conclusion: “The gravest threat American democracy faces today isn’t the Republican Party, MAGA or otherwise. It’s Trump.”This overlooks the fact that Trumpism has metastasized and infected the entire Republican Party. And getting rid of Donald Trump won’t eliminate the damage to our politics and electoral system that he leaves in his wake.John J. ConiglioEast Meadow, N.Y.To the Editor:I agree with much of what Bret Stephens says about President Biden’s speech. I was a registered Republican from 1970 to 2016. I left the party the day Donald Trump got the nomination.I think there is one simple litmus test that separates the MAGA deplorables from the regular or moderate Republicans. If you deny that Joe Biden won the election, if you insist that it had to be rigged, if you attended the Jan. 6 riot and acted violently, then yes, you are a MAGA extremist bent on the destruction of our democracy. It’s that simple.Steven SchwartzWest Orange, N.J.To the Editor:Re “Does Biden Truly Think Democracy Is in Crisis?,” by Ross Douthat (column, Sept. 5):Since democracy means that the candidate with the most votes is declared the winner, how could anyone, including Mr. Douthat, not believe that we are in a crisis of democracy, when the other major party candidate and his minions refuse to acknowledge that Joe Biden was the winner?Ross ZuckerCastine, MaineThe writer is a retired professor of political science at Touro University.To the Editor:Ross Douthat questions whether President Biden and the Democrats really believe that Donald Trump and his followers are a threat to democracy, because Republicans are not a majority party. But with the Electoral College, voting restrictions, gerrymandering, a Senate biased toward rural states and a Supreme Court tilted way to the right, our system is quite vulnerable to rule by a minority party.If that party becomes authoritarian, it can indeed be a threat to democracy. Those who don’t take such a threat seriously espouse a dangerous complacency.Chris MillerEl Cerrito, Calif.The Reasons Behind the Teacher ExodusHallsville Intermediate School in Hallsville, Mo. The superintendent of the school district there said the pool of qualified teaching applicants has all but dried up in recent years.Whitney Curtis for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “How Bad Is the Teacher Shortage? It Depends on Where You Live” (news article, Aug. 30):Low pay, as the article indicates, is a major reason that young people are not becoming teachers and that older, experienced teachers are leaving the profession.Consider some other reasons:Parents who harass, verbally abuse and even assault teachers in school parking lots and even outside their homes.Schools so inadequately funded that teachers often have to use their own meager paychecks to pay for classroom supplies.Schools so badly in need of repairs that they are dangerous to the health and well-being of everyone who works in them.The prospect of a gunman with an AR-15 rifle walking into a classroom, forcing teachers to put their own bodies between themselves and their students.Threats that teachers can be fired or even jailed for uttering a perfectly legitimate word or phrase that some politicians deem offensive.Politicians have done more than anyone else to create the teacher shortage — and they will have to fix it.Dennis M. ClausenEscondido, Calif.The writer is a professor of American literature and creative writing at the University of San Diego.To the Editor:Today there is a mass exodus from the classroom by many educators, and I can’t blame them. I was a teacher for 31 years. They can make more money at a different job with less stress.Some of my nonteaching friends have asked, “What can we do to support teachers so they stay in the classroom?”You can volunteer in the classroom, donate classroom supplies, speak up for better teacher pay and smaller class sizes, appreciate the demands and constraints of a teacher’s job, and speak highly of teachers in front of your children.According to the National Education Association, 55 percent of teachers are thinking of leaving the profession. We can’t let this happen.To all of the educators staying in the profession, we can’t thank you enough. Teachers can’t do this alone. They need your support. Thank you to all of the supportive, understanding parents out there. We need you.Deborah EngenSugar Land, TexasThe Reusable Bag GlutExperts calculate that a typical reusable plastic bag has to be reused 10 times to account for the additional energy and material used to make it. For cotton tote bags, it’s much higher.Jeenah Moon/ReutersTo the Editor:Re “New Jersey Bag Ban’s Unforeseen Consequence: Too Many Bags” (front page, Sept. 2):Perhaps the New Jersey supermarkets and online food delivery services could take back the previous delivery’s reusable bags — and reuse them.Marianne VaheyWoodbridge, Conn.To the Editor:I also accumulated many reusable bags while grocery shopping online during the pandemic. I’m giving mine to an organization that provides meals for the homeless. Food banks and nonprofit thrift shops can also probably use them.Betsy FeistNew YorkTo the Editor:My local C-Town supermarket packs groceries for delivery or curbside pickup in the corrugated cardboard shipping boxes that they get food in. They are very efficient in their arrangements, so I generally only need two boxes when I might need six bags.Anne BarschallTarrytown, N.Y. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Post-Election Fund-Raising Comes Under Scrutiny by Justice Dept.

      by

      A federal grand jury has issued subpoenas seeking information about Save America PAC, which was formed as Donald J. Trump promoted baseless assertions about election fraud.A federal grand jury in Washington is examining the formation of — and spending by — a fund-raising operation created by Donald J. Trump after his loss in the 2020 election as he was soliciting millions of dollars by baselessly asserting that the results had been marred by widespread voting fraud.According to subpoenas issued by the grand jury, the contents of which were described to The New York Times, the Justice Department is interested in the inner workings of Save America PAC, Mr. Trump’s main fund-raising vehicle after the election. Several similar subpoenas were sent on Wednesday to junior and midlevel aides who worked in the White House and for Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.The fact that federal prosecutors are now seeking information about the fund-raising operation is a significant new turn in an already sprawling criminal investigation into the roles that Mr. Trump and some of his allies played in trying to overturn the election, an array of efforts that culminated with the mob attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.The expanded Jan. 6 inquiry is playing out even as Mr. Trump is also under federal investigation on an entirely different front: his decision to hold onto hundreds of government documents marked as classified when he left office and his failure to comply with efforts by the National Archives and the Justice Department to compel their return.On Thursday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to revisit her decision to temporarily stop prosecutors from gaining access to the classified documents for use in that investigation.The new subpoenas related to Mr. Trump’s fund-raising vehicle did not make clear what possible crime or crimes the Justice Department might be investigating. The House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol and what led to it has also been examining Mr. Trump’s fund-raising operation, and has raised questions about whether it had duped donors through misleading appeals about election fraud.The Justice Department’s Jan. 6 inquiry related to Mr. Trump has so far largely centered on a plan to create slates of electors pledged to him in seven key swing states that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won.The new subpoenas appeared to have been issued by a different grand jury than the one that has been gathering evidence about the so-called fake electors plan, although the two grand juries seemed to be focused on some overlapping subjects.The inquiry into Mr. Trump’s fund-raising appears to be at a relatively early stage.Save America was officially registered with the Federal Election Commission on Nov. 9, 2020 — two days after news organizations declared Mr. Biden’s victory over Mr. Trump.Since then, it has been a key hub of an operation controlled by Mr. Trump’s team that has been the dominant force in Republican low-dollar fund-raising.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 9Making a case against Trump. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      F.B.I. Sought Interview With Trump Aide in Capitol Riot Case

      by

      Federal prosecutors issued a subpoena to William Russell, who served as a special assistant to the former president, and went to his home in Florida.Federal prosecutors issued a subpoena to a personal aide to former President Donald J. Trump as part of the investigation into the events leading up to the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, people familiar with the matter said.The move suggests that investigators have expanded the pool of people from whom they are seeking information in the wide-ranging criminal investigation into efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reverse his loss in the 2020 election and that agents are reaching into the former president’s direct orbit.This week, F.B.I. agents in Florida tried to approach William S. Russell, a 31-year-old aide to Mr. Trump who served as a special assistant and the deputy director of presidential advance operations in the White House. He continued to work for Mr. Trump as a personal aide after he left office, one of a small group of officials who did so.It was not immediately clear what the F.B.I. agents wanted from Mr. Russell; people familiar with the Justice Department’s inquiry said he has not yet been interviewed. But a person with knowledge of the F.B.I.’s interest said that it related to the grand jury investigation into events that led to the Capitol attack by Mr. Trump’s supporters.That investigation is said to have focused extensively on the attempts by some of Mr. Trump’s advisers and lawyers to create slates of fake electors from swing states. Mr. Trump and his allies wanted Vice President Mike Pence to block or delay certification of the Electoral College results during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 to allow consideration of Trump electors whose votes could have changed the outcome.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 9Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsMaking a case against Trump. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Biden and Trump: ‘Contrasting Visions for America’

      by

      More from our inbox:Would Iran Abide by a New Nuclear Deal?Ukrainian Attacks in CrimeaNew York’s Ruined SkylinePresident Biden blamed his predecessor for stoking a movement filled with election deniers and people calling for political violence.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Biden Portrays Democracy as Under Fire in the U.S.” (front page, Sept. 2):What a day it was Thursday for contrasting visions for America.Early in the day, former President Donald Trump promised that if he returned to the presidency, he would issue full pardons and a government apology to rioters who attacked law enforcement officials and violently stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to stop the democratic transfer of power.Then in the evening, we heard President Biden describe what he called the “battle for the soul of the nation” against “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.” He appealed to the conscience of America to reject MAGA Republicans who do not respect the Constitution, do not believe in the rule of law, do not recognize the will of the people, thrive on chaos and embrace violence. He earnestly appealed to our values — democracy, freedom, honor, dignity and honesty. As Lincoln called them in another time of crisis, “the better angels of our nature.”These opposing visions for America could not present a more striking contrast and binary choice for the people.David PedersonExcelsior, Minn.To the Editor:President Biden gave a powerful speech identifying the threat to democracy posed by MAGA Republicans. He could have made it even stronger by including more detail on the effort of Republicans to put election deniers in office in November’s elections.The White House or the Democratic National Committee should fill this gap by publishing a list of election deniers who are candidates for offices, such as governor or secretary of state, in which they would have the power to control or influence vote tabulation and certification in 2024. The defeat of such candidates is a political and practical imperative.Douglas M. ParkerOjai, Calif.The writer served in the White House Counsel’s Office during the Watergate investigations and publishes a political blog, RINOcracy.com.To the Editor:Democracy is not at risk. The Democratic Party’s power is at risk. President Biden is conflating his party’s survival with democracy’s. If anything, he increased the threat to the Democratic Party in the next election by engaging in such shallowness.Andrea EconomosHartsdale, N.Y.To the Editor:The issue is charged. Are you a MAGA Republican or are you a patriotic American? One cannot wear the mantle of a freedom-loving patriot in the United States of America and storm the steps of our Capitol with the intent of stopping the peaceful transfer of power because your guy lost the election. Political violence and intimidation cannot be tolerated in this Republic. We are a country founded on the rule of law and democratic principles.In his speech, outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia, President Biden cautioned us that the fate of this democracy rests in our hands, that it is not guaranteed. Of course he is right. It is time to choose.Felicia MassarskyPhiladelphiaWould Iran Abide by a New Nuclear Deal?President Biden and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi.Illustration by The New York Times; images by Pool, Malte Mueller and Padel Bednyakov, via Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Will Iran Pay for Its Murderous Campaign?” by Bret Stephens (column, Aug. 24):Mr. Stephens argues that the Iranian government must be understood primarily, if not solely, on the basis of the “murderous tentacles” it has extended into many parts of the world. Based on that claim, Mr. Stephens concludes that a new nuclear deal must not be made with Iran, because Iran “doesn’t stop at red lights,” it “has found ways to cheat” in the past and “the lifting of sanctions will provide it with a financial bonanza.”Both his characterization of the Iranian government and the conclusions he draws therefrom are dubious. The Iranian government’s human rights abuses cannot be excused, but they are also not reasons not to strike a deal with Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. They are also not unique, and the singling out of Iran in this regard (in contrast to Saudi Arabia or Israel, for example) reveals the weakness of the argument.Most important, Mr. Stephens ignores the most obvious evidence to support the argument against the one he advances: If Iran abided by the previous nuclear deal, then why wouldn’t it be likely to abide by a new one?Annie Tracy SamuelChattanooga, Tenn.The writer is an associate professor of Middle East history at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and the author of “The Unfinished History of the Iran-Iraq War: Faith, Firepower, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.”To the Editor:Just a few months ago, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Iran was several weeks away from having enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb. Now the conventional wisdom is that it already has enough material, meaning a deal would just be a gift in the form of sanctions relief.The billions of dollars available to Iran upon granting it sanctions relief would immediately enable the Iranian regime to step up its support of terrorism for Hezbollah, for Hamas and for Islamic Jihad and other proxies, thereby destabilizing the entire Middle East.Walk away from the Iran deal!Holly RothkopfNew YorkUkrainian Attacks in CrimeaDaniel Babii, 18, with the 112 Brigade of the Ukrainian Territorial Defense, talks with his girlfriend on Saturday before deploying to the front lines in eastern Ukraine.Lynsey Addario for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “As Attacks Mount in Crimea, Kremlin Faces Rising Pressures at Home” (news article, Aug. 21):Let’s hope President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent hints about liberating Crimea are more posturing for a negotiated settlement than his actual war plans. Let’s also hope that Mr. Zelensky has coordinated his shift from pure defense to offensive strikes into Russia with U.S. policymakers to ensure our military aid is consistent with our own security goals.Illegally annexed or not, Crimea has been more de facto Russian than Ukrainian for the past few centuries. After eight years of actual annexation and a long history of a majority Russian presence, Vladimir Putin and most Russians consider Crimea to be sacred and vital to Russian security interests.Without acquiescing to Russia’s occupation of Crimea, the U.S. must recognize that our support for attempts to restore Crimea to its status before annexation will almost certainly lead to mission creep and direct confrontation with Russia. Without undercutting our support for the defense of Ukraine, the U.S. should ensure that Mr. Zelensky’s goals are consistent with our own regarding Crimea.Dennis CoupeGranite Bay, Calif.The writer is former director, national security legal issues, at U.S. Army War College.New York’s Ruined SkylineA view of Billionaires’ Row in Midtown Manhattan, where a number of supertall residential towers have yet to satisfy a range of safety-related tasks required by the city buildings department.Timothy A. Clary/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Hochul Puts Bet on New Towers Amid Office Glut” (front page, Aug. 29):I can remember that as a young boy first seeing the Manhattan skyline, I was mesmerized by its Art Deco beauty in its soaring tapered majesty. That was in the late 1970s, and much has changed.The skyline now has all but obliterated those gorgeous edifices. All you see now are either soaring pencil-thin glass rods of dubious design or massive grotesque behemoths.What’s been allowed to happen to the Manhattan skyline is tragic. Can you imagine Paris or Rome allowing their landmarks to be overwhelmed and overshadowed by these monstrosities?Don’t even get me started on the desecration of McKim, Mead & White’s gorgeous Penn Station. Instead of trying to replicate it, now the state is pushing a plan to build 10 towers around the eyesore.It’s heartbreaking that New York City hasn’t been a better guardian of its architectural beauty. You have destroyed the very thing that makes the city magical to a young boy. You should be ashamed.Shannon DeasonSan Antonio More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      They Were at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Now They’re Running for Congress.

      by

      A handful of Republicans who heeded President Donald J. Trump’s call to march to the Capitol are now vying to return to Washington, this time as lawmakers.WASHINGTON — As rioters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Derrick Van Orden, a retired Navy SEAL, had a front-row seat to the mayhem, perching on the grounds beside a tall, intricately carved, sandstone lantern pier.J.R. Majewski, an Air Force veteran from Ohio, was also at the Capitol that day, alongside a live-streamer who frequently elevates the QAnon conspiracy theory. So was Sandy Smith, a self-described entrepreneur and farmer from North Carolina who attended former President Donald J. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse and then marched up Capitol Hill.“I still stand with President Trump and believe he won this election!” Ms. Smith wrote on Twitter the night of Jan. 6, 2021. She had posted that afternoon that she had come to Washington to “#FightForTrump.”All three are seeking to return to the Capitol next year — this time as members of Congress.Nearly two years after the deadly attack, which sent lawmakers and the vice president fleeing for their lives, people who were on hand for the riot are seeking to become members of the institution that the mob assaulted. They are running for Congress in competitive districts, in some cases with the support of Republican leaders.It is the latest sign of how the extreme beliefs that prompted the Capitol assault — which was inspired by Mr. Trump’s lies of a stolen election and fueled by a flood of disinformation — have entered the mainstream of the party. And it underscores how Republican leaders whose lives were in peril on Jan. 6 are still elevating those voices in the hopes of taking control of the House.J.R. Majewski has repeatedly maintained that he “committed no crimes” and “broke no police barriers” during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.Jon Stinchcomb/News Herald, via Imagn Content ServicesHistorically, party leaders have sought to recruit mainstream, broadly appealing candidates to run in competitive districts, wary of alienating independent and moderate voters whose support is typically needed. In many areas of the country, House Republicans have followed that model, elevating diverse candidates with compelling personal stories.But as they near the prospect of winning back the House majority, Republican leaders have also thrown their backing behind extreme right-wing candidates who are devoted to Mr. Trump and have been active in his political movement, including his efforts to overturn his 2020 defeat.A handful of them answered his call to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6, as he sought to intimidate members of Congress into rejecting the electoral votes that would confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. Should those candidates prevail in the midterm elections, they would grow the ascendant ranks of hard-right lawmakers who have reshaped the Republican Party in Mr. Trump’s image. And if the party succeed in its drive to retake the House, they would add to the extremist wing of the new majority.Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader who is in line to become House speaker if Republicans prevail, campaigned last month for Mr. Majewski in Fremont, Ohio. Mr. McCarthy criticized an ad by Representative Marcy Kaptur, the veteran Democratic incumbent, that portrayed Mr. Majewski as an extremist who broke through police barricades at the Capitol on Jan. 6.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 9Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsMaking a case against Trump. More

    • 175 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Panel Calls Gingrich to Testify, Saying He Had Role in Trump Plot

      by

      In a letter to the former House speaker, the select committee said the Georgia Republican had deliberately incited anger among voters with false claims of election fraud.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol on Thursday asked former Speaker Newt Gingrich to sit for a voluntary interview about his involvement in former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election.In a letter to Mr. Gingrich, the Georgia Republican who held the speakership in the late 1990s, the committee said its investigators had obtained evidence that he was in contact with senior advisers to Mr. Trump about television advertisements that amplified false claims of fraud in the 2020 election and other aspects of the scheme to block the transfer of power, both before and after a mob attacked the Capitol.“Some of the information we have obtained includes email messages that you exchanged with senior advisers to President Trump and others, including Jared Kushner and Jason Miller, in which you provided detailed input into television advertisements that repeated and relied upon false claims about fraud in the 2020 election,” Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and chairman of the committee, wrote in a letter to Mr. Gingrich.“These advertising efforts were not designed to encourage voting for a particular candidate,” Mr. Thompson added. “Instead, these efforts attempted to cast doubt on the outcome of the election after voting had already taken place. They encouraged members of the public to contact their state officials and pressure them to challenge and overturn the results of the election.”The letter to Mr. Gingrich asked that he preserve all records and communications he had with the White House, Mr. Trump, the Trump legal team and others involved in the events of Jan. 6. It requested that he sit for an interview during the week of Sept. 19.Mr. Thompson said Mr. Gingrich pushed messages explicitly designed to incite anger among voters, even after Georgia election officials had faced intimidation and threats of violence. In particular, Mr. Gingrich advocated promoting the false claims that election workers in Atlanta had smuggled in fake votes in suitcases.“The goal is to arouse the country’s anger through new verifiable information the American people have never seen before,” Mr. Gingrich wrote to Mr. Kushner, Mr. Miller and Larry Weitzner, a media consultant, on Dec. 8, 2020. “If we inform the American people in a way they find convincing and it arouses their anger, they will then bring pressure on legislators and governors.”He also pushed for a coordinated plan to put forward pro-Trump electors in states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr.On Nov. 12, 2020, Mr. Gingrich wrote to Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and the White House counsel Pat A. Cipollone, asking: “Is someone in charge of coordinating all the electors?”On the evening of Jan. 6, Mr. Gingrich continued to push efforts to overturn the election, emailing Mr. Meadows, at 10:42 p.m. after the Capitol had been cleared of rioters, asking if there were letters from state legislators about decertifying the results of the election. More