Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Court Dismisses Trump Campaign’s Defamation Suit Against New York Times

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCourt Dismisses Trump Campaign’s Defamation Suit Against New York TimesA New York State judge ruled that the opinion essay at the center of the suit was constitutionally protected speech.The campaign of former President Donald J. Trump sued three news organizations last year. Two of the lawsuits have been dismissed.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesMarch 9, 2021, 8:31 p.m. ETA New York State court on Tuesday dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by the re-election campaign of Donald J. Trump against The New York Times Company, ruling that an opinion essay that argued there had been a “quid pro quo” between the candidate and Russian officials before the 2016 presidential election was protected speech.The Times published the Op-Ed, written by Max Frankel, a former executive editor of The Times who was not named as a defendant in the suit, in March 2019 under the headline “The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo.” Mr. Frankel made the case that in “an overarching deal” before the 2016 election, Russian officials would help Mr. Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in exchange for his taking U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Russia direction.Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign, Donald J. Trump for President Inc., filed the suit in New York State Supreme Court in February 2020, alleging defamation and accusing The Times of “extreme bias against and animosity toward” the campaign.In his decision on Tuesday, Judge James E. d’Auguste noted three reasons for dismissal. He wrote that Mr. Frankel’s commentary was “nonactionable opinion,” meaning it was constitutionally protected speech; that the Trump campaign did not have standing to sue for defamation; and that the campaign had failed to show that The Times had published the essay with “actual malice.”“The court made clear today a fundamental point about press freedom: We should not tolerate libel suits that are brought by people in power intending to silence and intimidate those who scrutinize them,” David McCraw, The Times’s deputy general counsel, said in a statement.A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not immediately reply to a request for comment.The Times had filed a motion to dismiss the case and impose sanctions on the campaign. The judge declined to impose sanctions.The Times was a frequent target of Mr. Trump’s attacks on the press during his four years in office. Before the suit, he accused the paper of “treason,” and he often threatened to take news organizations to court. Last year, the Trump campaign made good on the threats, filing defamation suits against The Times, CNN and The Washington Post. In November, a federal judge dismissed the suit against CNN. The Post suit is pending.In all three actions, the Trump campaign’s lawyer was Charles J. Harder, who represented Terry G. Bollea, the former professional wrestler known as Hulk Hogan, when he sued Gawker Media in 2012 over the publication of a sex video. That suit, secretly funded by the conservative tech investor Peter Thiel, resulted in a $140 million decision that prompted Gawker Media’s bankruptcy and sale.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Representative Eric Swalwell Sues Trump Over Capitol Riot

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutTracking the ArrestsVisual TimelineInside the SiegeThe Lost HoursThe Oath KeepersAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFormer Impeachment Manager Sues Trump Over Capitol RiotThe suit by Representative Eric Swalwell accuses Donald J. Trump of inciting the Jan. 6 attack and conspiring to prevent Congress from formalizing President Biden’s victory.“The horrific events of Jan. 6 were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the defendants’ unlawful actions,” according to the suit, filed by Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesMarch 5, 2021, 5:35 p.m. ETA House Democrat who unsuccessfully prosecuted Donald J. Trump at his impeachment trial sued him in federal court on Friday for acts of terrorism and incitement to riot, trying to use the justice system to punish the former president for his role in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.The suit brought by Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, accuses Mr. Trump and key allies of whipping up the deadly attack and conspiring with rioters to try to prevent Congress from formalizing President Biden’s election victory.Echoing the case laid out in the Senate, which acquitted him, it meticulously traces a monthslong campaign by Mr. Trump to undermine confidence in the 2020 election and then overturn its results, using his own words and those of his followers who ransacked the building to narrate it.“The horrific events of Jan. 6 were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the defendants’ unlawful actions,” Mr. Swalwell asserts in the civil suit, filed in Federal District Court in Washington. “As such, the defendants are responsible for the injury and destruction that followed.”Though not a criminal case, the suit charges Mr. Trump and his allies with several counts including conspiracy to violate civil rights, negligence, incitement to riot, disorderly conduct, terrorism and inflicting serious emotional distress. If found liable, Mr. Trump could be subject to compensatory and punitive damages; if the case proceeds, it might also lead to an open-ended discovery process that could turn up information about his conduct and communications that eluded impeachment prosecutors.In addition to the former president, the suit names as defendants his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, who led the effort to overturn Mr. Trump’s election defeat when Congress met on Jan. 6 to formalize the results.All three men joined Mr. Trump in promoting and speaking at a rally in Washington that day, which Mr. Swalwell says lit the match for the violence that followed with incendiary and baseless lies about election fraud.Read the Suit: Swalwell v. TrumpThe suit from Representative Eric Swalwell accuses Mr. Trump and several allies of inciting the attack and conspiring with rioters to try to prevent Congress from formalizing President Biden’s victory.Read DocumentA majority of the Senate, including seven Republicans, voted to find Mr. Trump “guilty” based on the same factual record last month, but the vote fell short of the two-thirds needed to convict him. Several Republicans who voted to acquit him, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, concluded that Mr. Trump was culpable for the assault but argued the courts, not the Senate, were the proper venue for those seeking to hold him accountable.Phil Andonian, a lawyer representing Mr. Swalwell, said that the lawsuit was an answer to that call.That Mr. Trump “seems to be made of Teflon cuts in favor of finding a way to pierce that because he hasn’t really been held fully accountable for what was one of the darkest moments in American history,” he said in an interview.The lawsuit adds to Mr. Trump’s mounting legal woes as he transitions into life after the presidency and contemplates a political comeback. Another Democratic lawmaker, Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, already filed suit on similar grounds in recent weeks with the N.A.A.C.P.Prosecutors in New York have active inquiries into his financial dealings, and in Georgia, prosecutors are investigating his attempts to pressure election officials to reverse his loss.In a statement, Jason Miller, an adviser to Mr. Trump, blasted Mr. Swalwell as a “a lowlife with no credibility” but did not comment on the merits of the case.Mr. Brooks rejected the claims, saying he would wear Mr. Swalwell’s “scurrilous and malicious lawsuit like a badge of courage.” He said he made “no apology” for his actions around the riot, when he urged rallygoers outside the White House to start “taking down names and kicking ass.”Both men resurfaced Republican attacks on Mr. Swalwell questioning his character based on his former association with a woman accused of being a Chinese spy. Mr. Swalwell broke off contact with the woman after he was briefed by American intelligence officials, and has not been accused of any wrongdoing.Mr. Giuliani, who urged the same crowd to undertake “trial by combat,” and a lawyer for Donald Trump Jr. did not respond to requests for comment.Both Mr. Thompson’s suit and Mr. Swalwell’s rely on civil rights law tracing to the 19th-century Ku Klux Klan Act, but their aims appear to differ. The earlier suit targets Mr. Trump’s association with right-wing extremist groups, naming several groups as defendants and explicitly detailing racialized hate it claims figured in the attack. Mr. Swalwell focuses more narrowly on punishing Mr. Trump and his inner circle for the alleged scheme.“He lied to his followers again and again claiming the election was stolen from them, filed a mountain of frivolous lawsuits — nearly all of which failed, tried to intimidate election officials, and finally called upon his supporters to descend on Washington D.C. to ‘stop the steal,’” Mr. Swalwell said in a statement.In the suit, Mr. Swalwell describes how he, the vice president and members of the House and Senate were put at direct risk and suffered “severe emotional distress” as armed marauders briefly overtook the Capitol in Mr. Trump’s name.“The plaintiff prepared himself for possible hand-to-hand combat as he took off his jacket and tie and searched for makeshift instruments of self-defense,” it says.During the Senate trial, Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers flatly denied that he was responsible for the assault and made broad assertions that he was protected by the First Amendment when he urged supporters gathered on Jan. 6 to “fight like hell” to “stop the steal” he said was underway at the Capitol.The nine House managers argued that free speech rights had no place in a court of impeachment, but they may prove a more durable defense in a court of law. Though the suit targets them in their personal capacities, Mr. Trump may also try to dismiss the case by arguing that the statements he made around the rally were official, legally protected acts.Lyrissa Lidsky, the dean of the University of Missouri School of Law, said that the suit relied on a novel application of civil rights law originally meant to target racialized terrorism in the Reconstruction-era South. But she predicted the case would ultimately boil down to the same fundamental questions that animated Mr. Trump’s trial in the Senate: whether his words on Jan. 6 and leading up to it constituted incitement or were protected by the First Amendment.“By filing the suit, Swalwell is trying to relitigate in the court of public opinion the case he lost in the impeachment trial,” Ms. Lidsky said. A change of venue can sometimes produce different outcomes, she added, but Mr. Swalwell faces an uphill climb.“I wouldn’t hold my breath,” she said.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Case Could Limit Options to Fight Republican Voting Restrictions

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storySupreme Court Case Could Limit Options to Fight Republican Voting RestrictionsThe Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments on an Arizona case that could further undermine the ability of the Voting Rights Act to protect access to the ballot.People lined up to vote at a polling place in Phoenix in November. Arizona is one of several states where Republican legislatures are drafting legislation to restrict voting access.Credit…Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesReid J. Epstein and March 3, 2021, 1:27 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — There was not much subtlety to the Republicans’ argument to the Supreme Court on Tuesday for allowing laws that effectively limit voting access for people of color.Overturning a restrictive Arizona law, said Michael A. Carvin, the lawyer representing the Republican Party of Arizona, “puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game, and every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us,” referring to the part of the Voting Rights Act that is generally used to protect voting access for minority groups.“It’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing,” he said.Mr. Carvin’s explanation, in response to a softball question from Justice Amy Coney Barrett about the Republican Party’s interest in a lawsuit brought by Democrats against Arizona, struck at the heart of the latest Supreme Court case that could have a major impact on states’ ability to curtail voting rights.At issue before the court are Arizona laws forbidding third-party collection of ballots, which Republicans derisively call harvesting, and another requiring election officials to discard ballots cast at the wrong precinct. The broader question is the future of the Voting Rights Act, and whether states will be allowed to restrict voting access unimpeded.Should the Republican argument prevail at the Supreme Court, where conservative justices hold a six-to-three majority, it could give the party’s lawmakers wide latitude to enact voting restrictions to eliminate early voting on Sundays, end third-party ballot collection and restrict who can receive an absentee ballot — all voting mechanisms Democratic lawyers argued would disproportionately curtail voting access to people of color.Republicans, in the era of former President Donald J. Trump, have made limiting access to voting a key provision of their political identity. Republicans in at least 43 states are trying to roll back laws increasing access to the ballot box that even some of them had once supported.In Washington and across the country, Republicans have adopted Mr. Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, say voters don’t trust the system, and argue, despite numerous studies to the contrary, that easier access to voting inevitably leads to fraud.While Republican officials have for a generation proffered specious arguments about voter fraud affecting election results, the Trump era marks the first time there has been a party-wide, nationwide effort to limit access to the ballot for people of color and young voters — a population far more inclined to vote for Democrats.“You can’t build a foundation of lies and then use that foundation to disenfranchise voters, particularly voters of color,” said Tom Perez, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who prosecuted voting rights cases as head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration. “We’re on really dangerous turf right now when you have Republicans fueling these laws on the basis of falsehoods and the courts are going to be a last resort.”In this case, the justices have a range of options. They could leave the existing law intact and rule narrowly that the Arizona case was wrongly decided. Arizona’s attorney general and a lawyer for the state’s Republican Party suggested on Tuesday that the court could also choose to exempt some parts of election law — such as a ballot-collection law that deals with how voting is conducted, rather than who votes — from Section 2 coverage.Or they could rule that a higher standard is needed to show that intentional discrimination or past injustices caused a violation — for example, requiring more substantial evidence of discrimination, or ruling that past discrimination no longer needs to be considered.Limiting what can be argued under the Voting Rights Act would cut off many legal avenues to challenge new voting restrictions passed by Republican lawmakers.Conservatives hold a six-to-three majority on the Supreme Court, which could lead to decisions that give Republicans wide latitude to enact voting restrictions.Credit…Alyssa Schukar for The New York TimesLast week, Iowa legislators sent to Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, legislation that would cut a third of the state’s early-voting period and lop off an hour of Election Day voting. In Georgia, Republican lawmakers are aiming to sharply limit voting access on Sundays, when many Black voters follow church services with “souls to the polls” bus rides to cast ballots. And in Arizona, Republican lawmakers are backing bills to curtail the automatic mailing of absentee ballots to voters who skip elections, and trying to raise to 60 percent the threshold to pass citizen-led ballot referendums.Republicans in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have also pushed for new voting restrictions, though their Democratic governors are certain to veto any such proposals. The key legal tool in question at the Supreme Court is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which governs after-the-fact challenges to state voting laws. Limiting its application — as the court did in 2013 with the Voting Rights Act’s requirement that some states receive Justice Department clearance before changing voting laws or drawing new legislative maps — could allow states to enact far more sweeping restrictions on voting, while increasing legal hurdles to overturn the new laws.Section 2 lawsuits have proven pivotal in striking down or modifying restrictions on people’s ability to cast ballots. Among them are a 2015 case overturning Texas’ strict voter ID law and a 2016 decision nullifying a North Carolina voting law, whose constraints ranged from strict ID requirements to limiting voter registration and early voting. In the latter case, an appeals court wrote that Republicans in the state legislature had used the law to target Black voters “with almost surgical precision.”“It would make it all the harder to stop some of these really dangerous voting laws,” said Stephen Spaulding, a senior counsel for public policy at Common Cause. “It would be an accelerant for further voter suppression.”Mark Brnovich, the Arizona attorney general who argued the case before the court, said Section 2 can only apply if there is a “substantial” disparity impacting voters of color, a higher standard than Democrats believe exists under the 14th and 15th Amendments. He said that absent the higher bar, Section 2 would “improperly inject race into all voting laws, and impede a state’s ability to run their elections.”Without the Voting Rights Act, Democrats have few tools to stop Republican-controlled states from limiting voting access.House Democrats on Wednesday are expected to pass H.R. 1, a bill to standardize federal election rules by overriding many of the restrictive voting laws enacted in the states and to dramatically expand voting access. But the proposal has little chance of proceeding through the Senate unless Democrats there agree to suspend or terminate the filibuster’s 60-vote requirement to pass most legislation.Though a majority of justices seemed inclined to uphold Arizona’s laws at the end of the nearly two-hour argument on Tuesday, it was not at all clear how broadly their ruling might impact Section 2, the last remaining pillar of the 1965 law, voting-rights experts said.One big reason is that the law says that whether the section is violated rests heavily on local circumstance, such as whether a law purporting to stop fraud was preceded by actual evidence of fraud. Another is that many violations do not rest on proof of intentional bias — which can be difficult or impossible to prove — but on evidence that the law in question perpetuates old injustices.The justices appeared on Tuesday to be grappling with how direct that link between an old injustice and a new violation needs to be. For example, a voting literacy test like those of the Jim Crow era might be equally applied to all voters, but it might disproportionately keep minorities from voting because an old injustice — like a segregated school system that gave Black voters a poorer education — caused them to fail. That is a clear link.Activists from Black Voters Matter worked to direct people to polling places in Georgia in January.Credit…Audra Melton for The New York TimesBut other laws, including the ones in Arizona, may affect minorities disproportionately, yet require a finer judgment as to why. One question in the argument on Tuesday was whether the evidence of intentional bias, including an inflammatory video alleging ballot fraud by Latinos, was sufficient to support a violation.In striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, the justices effectively said that the federal government no longer could hold veto power over voting laws in states with a history of discrimination because times had changed, and past discrimination in those states no longer was relevant.“Nobody struck down Section 5,” said Myrna Pérez, who directs the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center for Justice, referring to the clause that gave the government veto power known as pre-clearance. “Nobody said it was an overextension of Congress’s power. They just said it didn’t apply.”Few expect the court to go that far in this case. But a substantial weakening of the standards could make it much harder for plaintiffs to prove that a restriction on voting rights was a violation.In her closing statement on Tuesday, Jessica Ring Amunson, the lawyer for Katie Hobbs, Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state, urged the court to seek a higher vision of democracy than the “zero-sum” game the Republicans described. The country functions best, she said, when all eligible Americans have the right and access to vote.“We should actually want to ratchet up participation so that every eligible citizen who wants to vote can do so. Candidates and parties should be trying to win over voters on the basis of their ideas, not trying to remove voters from the electorate by imposing unjustified and discriminatory burdens,” she said.Speaking of the Republicans, Ms. Amunson concluded: “Unfortunately, petitioners have made clear that that is not their vision of democracy.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      A Supreme Court Test for What’s Left of the Voting Rights Act

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyA Supreme Court Test for What’s Left of the Voting Rights ActWhile state legislatures consider new voting restrictions to address claims of election fraud, the justices will hear arguments on what kind of legal scrutiny such laws should face.The Supreme Court has never considered how a particular provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to policies that restrict the vote.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesFeb. 28, 2021, 12:24 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — As Republican state lawmakers around the nation are working furiously to enact laws making it harder to vote, the Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear its most important election case in almost a decade, one that will determine what sort of judicial scrutiny those restrictions will face.The case centers on a crucial remaining provision of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race. Civil rights groups are nervous that the court, now with a six-justice conservative majority, will use the opportunity to render that provision, Section 2, toothless.The provision has taken on greater importance in election disputes since 2013, when the court effectively struck down the heart of the 1965 law, its Section 5, which required prior federal approval of changes to voting procedures in parts of the country with a history of racial and other discrimination.But Chief Justice John G. Roberts’s majority opinion in the 5-to-4 decision, Shelby County v. Holder, said Section 2 would remain in place to protect voting rights by allowing litigation after the fact.“Section 2 is permanent, applies nationwide and is not at issue in this case,” he wrote.But it is more than a little opaque, and the Supreme Court has never considered how it applies to voting restrictions.The new case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, No. 19-1257, was filed by the Democratic National Committee in 2016 to challenge voting restrictions in Arizona. Lawyers for civil rights groups said they hoped the justices would not use the case to chip away at the protections offered by Section 2.“It would be just really out of step for what this country needs right now for the Supreme Court to weaken or limit Section 2,” said Myrna Pérez, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice, which submitted a brief supporting the challengers.Civil rights lawyers have a particular reason to be wary of Chief Justice Roberts. When he was a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, he unsuccessfully worked to oppose the expansion of Section 2, which had initially covered only intentional discrimination, to address practices that had discriminatory results.The Arizona case concerns two kinds of voting restrictions. One requires election officials to discard ballots cast at the wrong precinct. The other makes it a crime for campaign workers, community activists and most other people to collect ballots for delivery to polling places, a practice critics call “ballot harvesting.” The law makes exceptions for family members, caregivers and election officials.“I can’t believe the court would strike down common-sense election integrity measures,” Mark Brnovich, the state’s attorney general, said in an interview. In his brief, he wrote that “a majority of states require in-precinct voting, and about 20 states limit ballot collection.”Whether the particular restrictions challenged in the case should survive is in some ways not the central issue. The Biden administration, for instance, told the justices in an unusual letter two weeks ago that the Arizona measures did not violate Section 2. But the letter disavowed the Trump administration’s interpretation of Section 2, which would limit its availability to test the lawfulness of all sorts of voting restrictions.Section 2 bars any voting procedure that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.” That happens, the provision goes on, when, “based on the totality of circumstances,” racial minorities “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”Dissenting in the Shelby County case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Section 2 was not nearly as valuable as Section 5.A polling site in Phoenix in 2016. The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, was filed by the Democratic National Committee that year to challenge voting restrictions in Arizona.Credit…Max Whittaker for The New York Times“Litigation occurs only after the fact, when the illegal voting scheme has already been put in place and individuals have been elected pursuant to it, thereby gaining the advantages of incumbency,” she wrote. “An illegal scheme might be in place for several election cycles before a Section 2 plaintiff can gather sufficient evidence to challenge it. And litigation places a heavy financial burden on minority voters.”While Section 5 was available, Section 2 was used mostly in redistricting cases, where the question was whether voting maps had unlawfully diluted minority voting power. Its role in testing restrictions on the denial of the right to vote itself has been subject to much less attention.But Paul M. Smith, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, which submitted a brief supporting the challengers, said lower courts had worked out a sensible framework to identify restrictions that violate Section 2.“It is not enough that a rule has a racially disparate impact,” he said. “That disparity must be related to, and explained by, the history of discrimination in the jurisdiction. Our hope is that the court will recognize the importance of maintaining this workable test, which plays an essential role in reining in laws that operate to burden voting by Blacks or Latinos.”The two sets of lawyers defending the measures in Arizona did not agree on what standard the Supreme Court should adopt to sustain the challenged restrictions. Mr. Brnovich, the state attorney general, said the disparate effect on minority voters must be substantial and caused by the challenged practice rather than some other factor. Lawyers for the Arizona Republican Party took a harder line, saying that race-neutral election regulations that impose ordinary burdens on voting are not subject at all to challenges under Section 2.Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that both Arizona restrictions violated Section 2 because they disproportionately disadvantaged minority voters.In 2016, Black, Latino and Native American voters were about twice as likely to cast ballots in the wrong precinct as were white voters, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority in the 7-to-4 decision. Among the reasons for this, he said, were “frequent changes in polling locations; confusing placement of polling locations; and high rates of residential mobility.”Similarly, he wrote, the ban on ballot collectors had an outsize effect on minority voters, who use ballot collection services far more than white voters because they are more likely to be poor, older, homebound or disabled; to lack reliable transportation, child care and mail service; and to need help understanding voting rules.Judge Fletcher added that “there is no evidence of any fraud in the long history of third-party ballot collection in Arizona.”In dissent, four judges wrote that the state’s restrictions were commonplace, supported by common sense and applied neutrally to all voters.Lawmakers were entitled to try to prevent potential fraud, Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain wrote. “Given its interest in addressing its valid concerns of voter fraud,” he wrote, “Arizona was free to enact prophylactic measures even though no evidence of actual voter fraud was before the legislature.”The appeals court stayed its ruling, and the restrictions were in place for the election in November.Mr. Brnovich will argue before the justices on Tuesday in the case that bears his name. He said the Ninth Circuit’s approach “would jeopardize almost every voting integrity law in almost every state.”Leigh Chapman, a lawyer with the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which filed a brief supporting the challengers, said the Supreme Court faced a crossroad.“Especially in the absence of Section 5,” she said, “Section 2 plays an essential role in advancing the federal commitment to protecting minority voters and ensuring that they have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      One Question for Manhattan D.A. Candidates: Will You Prosecute Trump?

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyOne Question for Manhattan D.A. Candidates: Will You Prosecute Trump?The investigation into Donald J. Trump has been the focus of enormous attention, but candidates have mostly avoided talking about the case.Former President Donald J. Trump and his company are under investigation in Manhattan. Prosecutors are scrutinizing whether the Trump Organization manipulated property valuations to get loans and tax benefits.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesNicole Hong and Feb. 23, 2021Updated 7:28 a.m. ETLast month, during a virtual debate among the eight candidates running to be Manhattan’s top prosecutor, a final yes-or-no question jolted the group: Would they commit to prosecuting crimes committed by former President Donald J. Trump and his company?The candidates ducked.“I actually don’t think any of us should answer that question,” said one contender, Eliza Orlins, as her opponents sounded their agreement.Despite the candidates’ efforts to avoid it, the question hangs over the hotly contested race to become the next district attorney in Manhattan. The prestigious law enforcement office has been scrutinizing the former president for more than two years and won a hard-fought legal battle this week at the Supreme Court to obtain Mr. Trump’s tax returns.The current district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., who has led the office since 2010, is unlikely to seek re-election, according to people with knowledge of his plans, though he has yet to formally announce the decision. He has until next month to decide, but is not actively raising money and has not participated in campaign events.If Mr. Vance brings criminal charges this year in the Trump investigation, the next district attorney will inherit a complicated case that could take years to resolve. Every major step would need the district attorney’s approval, from plea deals to witnesses to additional charges.But the most high-profile case in the Manhattan district attorney’s office is also the one that every candidate running to lead the office has been reluctant to discuss.The eight contenders know that any statements they make could fuel Mr. Trump’s attacks on the investigation as a political “witch hunt,” potentially jeopardizing the case. Many of them have said it is unethical to make promises about Mr. Trump’s fate without first seeing the evidence.Still, the question comes up repeatedly at debates and forums, a sign of the intense interest surrounding the Trump investigation in Manhattan, where President Biden won 86 percent of the vote in last year’s election.The candidates are all Democrats, and whoever wins the June 22 primary is almost certain to win the general election in November. At the moment, no Republicans are running. With no public polling available, there is no clear favorite in the race, and in such a crowded field, a candidate may win with a small plurality of the vote. Ranked-choice voting, which will be featured for the first time in the mayoral primary, will not be used in the race.Cyrus Vance Jr., who has been Manhattan district attorney for more than a decade, is not expected to run again. Credit…Craig Ruttle/Associated PressThe candidates have found themselves walking a political tightrope: vowing to hold powerful people like Mr. Trump accountable, without saying too much to prejudge his guilt.“I’ve been very active and vocal on my feelings on Trump’s abuses of the rule of law, of his terrible policies, of his indecency,” said Dan Quart, a New York State assemblyman who is a candidate in the race. “But that’s different than being a district attorney who has to judge each case on the merits.”“It’s incumbent upon me not to say things as a candidate for this office that could potentially threaten prosecution in the future,” he added.The stakes are high. Should Mr. Trump be charged and the case go to trial, a judge could find that the statements made by the new district attorney on the campaign trail tainted the jury pool and could transfer the case out of Manhattan — or even remove the prosecutor from the case, according to legal ethics experts.Mr. Trump is already laying the groundwork for that argument. In a lengthy statement he released on Monday condemning Mr. Vance’s investigation and the Supreme Court decision, he attacked prosecutorial candidates in “far-left states and jurisdictions pledging to take out a political opponent.”“That’s fascism, not justice,” the statement said. “And that is exactly what they are trying to do with respect to me.”Mr. Vance’s investigation has unfolded as a growing number of Democratic leaders have called for Mr. Trump and his family to be held accountable for actions that they believe broke the law.After the Senate acquitted the former president on a charge of incitement in his second impeachment trial this month, the public interest quickly shifted to the inquiry in Manhattan, one of two known criminal investigations facing Mr. Trump.Mr. Vance was widely criticized after he declined in 2012 to charge Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. after a separate fraud investigation and then accepted a donation from their lawyer. The investigation examined whether Trump Organization executives had misled buyers of units at a Trump condo building in Lower Manhattan. (Mr. Vance returned the donation after the public outcry.)Mr. Vance’s victory over the ex-president at the Supreme Court may temper that criticism. But many of the district attorney candidates have still attacked his decision to close the earlier Trump investigation, campaigning on the belief that his office gave too many free passes to the wealthy and powerful.In August, Ms. Orlins, a former public defender, suggested on Twitter that, if she were to become district attorney, she would open an investigation into Ivanka Trump.“You won’t get off so easy when I’m Manhattan D.A.,” she wrote, referring to the fraud investigation that Mr. Vance had shut down. The message drew cheers from her supporters but raised eyebrows among some lawyers.Erin Murphy, a professor who teaches professional responsibility in criminal practice at New York University School of Law, said the message suggested Ms. Orlins was more focused on a desired outcome than she was on due process.“It feels like a vindictive thing,” said Ms. Murphy, who supports a rival candidate, Alvin Bragg.In an interview, Ms. Orlins said that she did not regret the tweet.“I’m passionate about what I believe,” she said. She maintained that, if elected, she would still evaluate evidence against the Trump family without prejudice.Some candidates have been more circumspect in addressing the elephant in the room, responding to questions about Mr. Trump by emphasizing their experience investigating powerful people.Liz Crotty, who worked for Mr. Vance’s predecessor, Robert M. Morgenthau, said in an interview that she would be well-equipped to oversee a complicated case because as a prosecutor she had investigated the finances of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator.Diana Florence, a former Manhattan prosecutor, cited her history of taking on real estate and construction fraud to demonstrate that she would not be afraid to pursue the rich and influential.Mr. Vance’s office began its current investigation into Mr. Trump in 2018, initially focusing on the Trump Organization’s role in hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Mr. Trump.Since then, prosecutors have suggested in court filings that their investigation has expanded to focus on potential financial crimes, including insurance and bank-related fraud. Mr. Vance has not revealed the scope of his investigation, citing grand jury secrecy.In August 2019, Mr. Vance’s office sent a subpoena to Mr. Trump’s accounting firm seeking eight years of his tax returns. Mr. Trump repeatedly attempted to block the subpoena. On Monday, the Supreme Court put an end to his efforts, with a short, unsigned order that required Mr. Trump’s accountants to release his records.Tahanie Aboushi, a civil rights lawyer who is running, said Mr. Vance’s failure to prosecute Mr. Trump earlier reflected a central theme of her campaign. She sees the former president as the beneficiary of a system that allows powerful people to get away with misconduct for which poor people and people of color are harshly punished.“None of my policies are targeted at Trump or a direct response to Trump,” she said in an interview. “It’s the system as a whole and how it’s historically operated.”Other candidates have focused on their experience managing complex cases, in tacit acknowledgment of the obstacles ahead in a potential prosecution of a former president. Lucy Lang, a former prosecutor under Mr. Vance running in the race, has touted her familiarity with long-term cases in Manhattan courts, including her leadership of a two-year investigation into a Harlem drug gang.Daniel R. Alonso, who was Mr. Vance’s top deputy from 2010 to 2014 and is now in private practice, said that any potential case would be an “uphill battle.”“You can’t have a D.A. who doesn’t have the gravitas and the level of experience to know how to handle the case,” he said.Several of the contenders already have experience suing the Trump administration and dealing with the scrutiny that comes with it.Tali Farhadian Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, has pointed to her role in a lawsuit that successfully stopped federal immigration authorities last year from arresting people at state courthouses. She handled the case as the former general counsel for the Brooklyn district attorney.Mr. Bragg, who served as a chief deputy at the New York attorney general’s office when it sued Mr. Trump’s charity in 2018, said it was critical in politically charged cases to ignore the public pressure.“When you do the right thing for the right reason in the right way, justice is its own reward,” he said. “You can’t be motivated by public passions. You have to be rooted in the facts.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      N.A.A.C.P. Sues Trump and Giuliani Over Election Fight and Jan. 6 Riot

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Campaign to Subvert the 2020 ElectionKey TakeawaysTrump’s RoleGeorgia InvestigationExtremist Wing of G.O.P.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyN.A.A.C.P. Sues Trump and Giuliani Over Election Fight and Jan. 6 RiotThe civil rights group brought the suit on behalf of Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, with other Democrats in Congress expected to join as plaintiffs.Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against former President Donald J. Trump and others over the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesFeb. 16, 2021, 10:00 a.m. ETWASHINGTON — The N.A.A.C.P. on Tuesday morning filed a federal lawsuit against former President Donald J. Trump and his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, claiming that they violated a 19th century statute when they tried to prevent the certification of the election on Jan. 6.The civil rights organization brought the suit on behalf of Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi. Other Democrats in Congress — including Representatives Hank Johnson of Georgia and Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey — are expected to join as plaintiffs in the coming weeks, according to the N.A.A.C.P.The lawsuit contends that Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani violated the Ku Klux Klan Act, an 1871 statute that includes protections against violent conspiracies that interfered with Congress’s constitutional duties; the suit also names the Proud Boys, the far-right nationalist group, and the Oath Keepers militia group. The legal action accuses Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani and the two groups of conspiring to incite a violent riot at the Capitol, with the goal of preventing Congress from certifying the election.The suit is the latest legal problem for Mr. Trump: New York prosecutors are investigating his financial dealings; New York’s attorney general is pursuing a civil investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s company misstated assets to get bank loans and tax benefits; and a Georgia district attorney is examining his election interference effort there. In the lawsuit, Mr. Thompson said he was forced to wear a gas mask and hide on the floor of the House gallery for three hours while hearing “threats of physical violence against any member who attempted to proceed to approve the Electoral College ballot count.” Mr. Thompson also heard a gunshot, according to the suit, which he did not learn until later had killed Ashli Babbitt, one of the rioters in the Capitol lobby.Mr. Thompson is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in the lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in Washington. The suit does not include a specific financial amount.Mr. Thompson, 72, claims he was put at an increased health risk by later being required to shelter in place in a cramped area that did not allow for social distancing. The lawsuit notes that Mr. Thompson shared confined space with two members of Congress who tested positive for the coronavirus shortly after the attack at the Capitol.In an interview on Monday, Mr. Thompson said he would not have brought the suit against Mr. Trump if the Senate had voted to convict him in last week’s impeachment trial.“I feared for my life,” Mr. Thompson said. “Not a day passes that I don’t think about this incident. I was committed to seeing justice brought to this situation.”He added: “This is me, and hopefully others, having our day in court to address the atrocities of Jan. 6. I trust the better judgment of the courts because obviously Republican members of the Senate could not do what the evidence overwhelmingly presented.”Mr. Thompson said he had already received a second dose of a Covid vaccine by Jan. 6 and therefore did not quarantine after his close contacts with colleagues who tested positive. But he noted, “There were a number of members who were very concerned about being housed in those numbers with people refusing to wear masks.”Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have recently raised the prospect of Mr. Trump being held accountable in the courts for the riot. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, voted to acquit Mr. Trump in the impeachment trial but then appeared to encourage people to take their fight to the courts.“He didn’t get away with anything, yet,” Mr. McConnell said at the trial’s conclusion, noting: “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation.”Derrick Johnson, president of the N.A.A.C.P., said the decision to seek compensatory and punitive damages was rooted in a history of tools that have worked to fight back against white supremacy.“The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit against the Ku Klux Klan that bankrupted a chapter,” he said, referring to a 2008 judgment against a Kentucky-based Klan outfit that ordered the group to pay $2.5 million in damages. “This is very similar. If we do nothing, we can be ensured these groups will continue to spread and grow in their boldness. We must curb the spread of white supremacy.”While much of the focus of the impeachment trial rested on how the violent mob was threatening former Vice President Mike Pence as well as congressional leaders like the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, N.A.A.C.P. officials said the attack was deeply rooted in racial injustice.“Underlying this insurrection were the actions of folks who were challenging the voices of people of color,” said Janette McCarthy Louard, deputy general counsel of the N.A.A.C.P. “If you look at whose votes were being challenged, these came from largely urban areas. The votes of people of color were being challenged.”The suit, for instance, charges Mr. Giuliani with attempting to reject “the votes cast by voters in Detroit, the population of which is 78 percent African-American.” It also says Mr. Giuliani inaccurately claimed there was fraud in voting in Milwaukee and Madison, Wis., “both of which have large African-American populations.”Joseph M. Sellers, a partner at the civil rights law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, which jointly filed the case, said the lawsuit named Mr. Trump in his personal capacity because his conduct challenging another branch of government to do its job falls outside the official duties of the president.“He was engaging in conduct that is so far outside any remotely legitimate scope of his presidential duties,” Mr. Sellers said. “He no longer has the immunity of the president.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Fox Files Motion to Dismiss Smartmatic’s $2.7 Billion Lawsuit

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFox Files Motion to Dismiss Smartmatic’s $2.7 Billion Defamation SuitIn a court filing, Rupert Murdoch’s media company says it had the right to broadcast the debunked claims of election fraud promoted by President Donald Trump’s legal team on Fox News and Fox Business.The Manhattan headquarters for Rupert Murdoch’s American media companies Fox Corporation, home of Fox News and Fox Business, and News Corp.Credit…Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesMichael M. Grynbaum and Feb. 8, 2021Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corporation on Monday filed a motion to dismiss the $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit brought against it last week by the election technology company Smartmatic, which has accused Mr. Murdoch’s cable networks and three Fox anchors of spreading falsehoods that the company tried to rig the presidential race against Donald J. Trump.The lawsuit has roiled right-wing news media outlets whose star personalities repeatedly cast doubt on Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the wake of the election and raised the specter of a significant financial penalty for Fox. On Friday, the day after the lawsuit was filed, Fox canceled the nightly Fox Business program hosted by Lou Dobbs, who is named in the suit along with the Fox anchors Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro.In its 44-page response filed in New York State Supreme Court, Fox argues that the claims of electoral fraud made on its channels by Mr. Trump’s lawyers — including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who are also named in the defamation suit — were matters of significant interest to viewers and handled fairly.“This lawsuit strikes at the heart of the news media’s First Amendment mission to inform on matters of public concern,” Fox says in the motion, adding, “An attempt by a sitting president to challenge the result of an election is objectively newsworthy.”Paul D. Clement, a partner in the Washington office of the law firm Kirkland & Ellis who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush, is leading Fox’s defense. “Smartmatic’s theory is fundamentally incompatible with the reality of the modern news network and deeply rooted principles of free speech law,” Mr. Clement said in a statement.A spokesman for Smartmatic did not immediately reply to a request for comment.“It’s a strong move on their part to try to come out and dismiss the claim,” said Timothy Zick, a professor at William & Mary Law School who specializes in First Amendment law.Mr. Zick said that Fox was making use of the concept of “neutral reportage,” arguing that it could not be sued for defamation while covering the news. “They’re arguing that shields Fox News as an organization for simply reporting on the controversy, which is a matter of public interest,” he said.A key to Fox’s defense is the argument that it cannot be held responsible for statements made on its programs by Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell, given their roles as Mr. Trump’s legal representatives.“The public had a right to know, and Fox had a right to cover, that the president and his allies were accusing Smartmatic (and others) of manipulating the election results, regardless of the ultimate truth or accuracy of those allegations,” the motion reads. It also asserts that Smartmatic’s suit does not identify defamatory statements by television hosts employed by Mr. Murdoch’s company.Fox also argues that Smartmatic should be considered a public figure. That argument, which is likely to be contested by the tech company, means that Smartmatic must meet a high bar to prove that it was defamed: demonstrating that the defendants knew their statements were false, or at least had serious doubts about them.Smartmatic’s 276-page lawsuit alleges that Mr. Trump’s lawyers used Fox’s platform, and its sympathetic anchors, to spin conspiracies about the company that damaged its reputation and commercial prospects. The suit has been applauded by those seeking to curb the flow of disinformation from right-wing news outlets, but it has also raised questions about the limits of speech in a changing media landscape.Fox’s argument in its motion — that it provided a forum for newsworthy interviews — may cut into the conceptual heart of Smartmatic’s case, which groups Fox, its hosts and their guests as defendants who collaborated to spread falsehoods.The defamation lawsuit cites exchanges on Fox programs that, Smartmatic said, helped spread the false claim that it was the owner of a rival election tech company, Dominion Voting System, and that it provided its services to districts in multiple contested states. In fact, Smartmatic was used in the 2020 election only by Los Angeles County.And Smartmatic offers vivid examples of Fox programming that spread bizarre falsehoods, like a claim by Ms. Powell made on Mr. Dobbs’s show that the former president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, had assisted the company in creating software that could covertly alter votes. (Mr. Chávez died in 2013 and had nothing to do with Smartmatic.)In other exchanges cited by Smartmatic, Fox anchors alternately expressed support and astonishment as Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell spun out their claims. In one case, a phrase used by Ms. Powell — “cyber Pearl Harbor” — was later invoked by Mr. Dobbs on his show and on social media.Fox’s response on Monday included a 14-page appendix under the title “Fox’s Evenhanded Coverage of Smartmatic,” documenting instances from Fox News and Fox Business that the company believes showed skepticism toward the Trump team’s claims.Among the examples are three identical, pretaped fact-checking segments that ran in mid-December on programs hosted by Ms. Bartiromo, Mr. Dobbs and Ms. Pirro and that featured Eddie Perez, an election expert who debunked a number of false claims about Smartmatic.The segments were broadcast after Smartmatic sent a letter to Fox demanding retractions and threatening legal action.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Isn’t the Only One on Trial. The Conservative Media Is, Too.

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutTracking the ArrestsVisual TimelineInside the SiegeMurder Charges?The Oath KeepersAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyOn PoliticsTrump Isn’t the Only One on Trial. The Conservative Media Is, Too.The former president’s second impeachment trial begins oral arguments on Tuesday. But conservative media organizations face an even more consequential test in the weeks and months ahead.Outside the Fox News headquarters in New York on the day of President Biden’s inauguration. The network and other conservative outlets have faced lawsuits over false claims about the election.Credit…Carlo Allegri/ReutersFeb. 8, 2021Updated 9:47 p.m. ETWith the Senate’s impeachment trial starting oral arguments on Tuesday, Donald Trump now faces the possibility of real consequences for his role in inciting the Capitol siege of Jan. 6.But the apparatus that fed him much of his power — the conservative news media — is facing a test of its own. This might ultimately have a much bigger impact on the future of American politics than anything that happens to Mr. Trump as an individual.In recent weeks, two voting-technology companies have each filed 10-figure lawsuits against Mr. Trump’s lawyers and his allies in the media, claiming they spread falsehoods that did tangible harm. This comes amid an already-raging debate over whether to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prevents online companies from being held liable for the views expressed on their platforms.“The greatest consequence of the Trump presidency has been the weaponizing of disinformation and parallel dismantling of trust in the media,” Mark McKinnon, a longtime political strategist and co-host of the Showtime political series “The Circus,” told me in an email.“Unfortunately, it took the perpetration of the big lie that the election was a fraud, an insurrection at the Capitol, and almost destroying our democracy for someone to finally take action. But it appears to be working,” Mr. McKinnon said. “Nothing like threatening the bottom line to get the desired attention.”On Thursday, the voting-machine company Smartmatic filed a $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News, some of its prominent hosts and two lawyers who represented Mr. Trump, Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. The suit accuses them of mounting a campaign of defamation by claiming that Smartmatic had been involved in an effort to throw the election to Joe Biden. Fox News said in a statement that it was “committed to providing the full context of every story with in-depth reporting and clear opinion,” adding that “we are proud of our 2020 election coverage and will vigorously defend against this meritless lawsuit in court.”The Fox suit came on the heels of a similar $1.3 billion suit that Dominion Voting Systems brought against Mr. Giuliani the week before.The impact of both lawsuits was immediate. Newsmax, an ultraconservative TV station that has expanded its popularity by lining up to the right of Fox News, cut off an interview with the MyPillow founder Mike Lindell last week as he attacked Dominion — something that commentators had done on the station many times before. Then, over the weekend, Fox Business sidelined Lou Dobbs, one of Mr. Trump’s fiercest TV news defenders and a defendant named in the Smartmatic lawsuit.Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia, said that unlike many libel lawsuits, the Dominion and Smartmatic cases do not appear to be publicity stunts; they have a firm legal basis.“In recent years it has been a boom time for nuisance claims against media organizations,” Dr. Peters said, citing lawsuits brought against traditional news media by Trump allies like Representative Devin Nunes and Joe Arpaio. “The language at issue in the Dominion and Smartmatic litigation has involved statements of fact that would be provably false,” he added. “The language at issue is not necessarily opinion, hyperbole or some other form of invective.”Because the suits seem to be serious, Dr. Peters said, “this is a corrective for companies and individuals being sued — and for those not being sued it is a shot across the bow.”But in a media landscape permanently altered by polarization, and by Mr. Trump’s indifference to facts, Fox News and other conservative broadcasters face significant competition from popular YouTubers and Twitter users, who have much more leeway to express potentially harmful views.Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a left-leaning group, said this leaves Fox News fighting a two-front war.“They’re getting attacked by their own people,” he said. “If you’re a conservative channel or host, you need to pick away at Fox News.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1amoy78{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1amoy78{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1amoy78:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.Mr. Carusone pinpoints spring 2017 as a moment of symbolic transition. That’s when the Fox News host Sean Hannity began embracing a series of baseless claims tying Hillary Clinton to the death of a Democratic aide, claims that Mr. Trump had co-signed. “In August of 2016, Sean Hannity was chastising conservative media figures for promoting the Seth Rich conspiracy theories,” Mr. Carusone said. “And yet in May of 2017, Hannity is launching his own investigation into who in Hillary Clinton’s campaign murdered Seth Rich. There is no clearer moment of when they shifted their posture.”Mr. Carusone said that Mr. Hannity’s evolution was goaded by Mr. Trump’s ability to use social media to promote unproven, reckless arguments — and by social media companies’ ability to give him a platform without themselves facing repercussions for his speech, thanks to Section 230. “Trump increasingly was able to leapfrog Fox News, in terms of building a relationship to Fox News’s own audience,” he said. “So Fox News lost the keys to the gate.”But in the past month, Mr. Trump has lost his set of keys, too. He was kicked off Twitter and Facebook after the Capitol riot, and since leaving the White House he has been as quiet as a church mouse. In his absence, Fox News has begun to focus more on attacking Mr. Biden and other Democrats on the news of the day than on importing conspiracy theories from online.Going forward, Mr. Carusone said, “I think they’ll try to soften some of the content on the edges, and to lean heavier into the partisan attacks and less on the right-wing fever swamp fantasies and narratives.”Proponents of media reform say that this moment presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rethink government policy related to online speech in particular. Ellen Goodman, a Rutgers Law School professor who focuses on information policy, said that maintaining a healthy marketplace of ideas was crucial to democracy.“If this is a moment of radical, ‘Build Back Better’ adjustments, and a revival of the middle class, what would the democracy-building part of that look like?” she said. She proposed instituting taxes or regulations that would “make the surveillance-capitalism model less attractive,” preventing social media companies from microtargeting audiences in the interest of selling them products.Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard Law School professor who studies digital media, sees a sea change coming. In the early decades of the internet, he said, most legal discussions were guided by a question of “rights,” particularly the right to free speech under the First Amendment. But in recent years, a new interest in what he called “the public health framework” has taken hold.“Misinformation and extremism — particularly extremism that’s tied to violence — can result in harm,” Mr. Zittrain said. “Given that there are compelling things in both the rights framework and the health framework, there’s going to be a balance struck.”On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More