Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk Allies Help Start Pro-Trump Super PAC

      by

      Some of Elon Musk’s closest friends have helped start a new super PAC meant to help former President Donald J. Trump, creating an avenue for Mr. Musk and his $250 billion fortune to potentially play a significant role in the 2024 presidential race.The group, America PAC, is likely to draw significant support from Mr. Musk, according to three people close to the group who spoke on the condition of anonymity; it is not confirmed whether he has already donated. The group’s founding donors span Mr. Musk’s social circle and include a tight-knit network of wealthy tech entrepreneurs who frequently finance one another’s startups, philanthropic projects and favored political candidates.Mr. Musk had not donated to the super PAC as of June 30, the end of the most recent disclosure period, according to a Monday filing with the Federal Election Commission. But his tilt to the right, especially in his commentary on his social media site X, has left Republicans hoping he will wade more into funding conservative candidates and causes. On Saturday, soon after Mr. Trump survived an assassination attempt, Mr. Musk went on X to issue a full-throated endorsement of the former president.The super PAC, according to three people close to the organization, is led in part by Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of the software company Palantir and a politically ambitious venture capitalist in Austin who serves as a political confidant to Mr. Musk. Mr. Lonsdale, the people say, has played a key role in fund-raising for the group in its opening weeks, encouraging his network of influential entrepreneurs to support the super PAC. His personal company donated $1 million to the group.The top early donors to America PAC include several powerful conservatives from the tech industry. Contributions include $1 million from Antonio Gracias, a private-equity mogul and a board director at SpaceX; $1 million from Ken Howery, an early executive at PayPal alongside Mr. Musk who served as Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Sweden; and $500,000 from Shaun Maguire, an investor at Sequoia Capital who is close to Mr. Musk.The group has released few details about its operations and its strategy, other than that it has been running field and digital programs on behalf of the former president, mostly encouraging early and mail-in voting. People close to it say that a key operative is Dave Rexrode, a top political operative who most recently has served as a key ally to Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia. Mr. Rexrode did not respond to requests for comment in recent days.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Had a Clear Message: Trump Was a Threat. Then the Shooting Happened.

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump has gone from being an instigator of political violence to a victim of it. The assassination attempt raised questions about how far language should go in a heated campaign.For months, the message from the White House and Wilmington was as stark as it was simple: This year’s election amounts to an existential choice between a defender of democracy and a destroyer of democracy. Nothing less than the future of America is at stake.And then the bullets started flying.The assassination attempt over the weekend has complicated President Biden’s argument now that former President Donald J. Trump has gone from being a longtime instigator of political violence to a victim of it. Republicans, including Mr. Trump’s newly anointed running mate, Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio, instantly blamed Mr. Biden, citing his sharp rhetoric.No one in Mr. Biden’s camp thinks that is a good-faith argument, especially from allies of a former president who sent the mob that marauded the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and did nothing to stop its assault, and has now vowed to pardon rioters convicted of violent crimes. But the images of Mr. Trump with blood streaked across his face after being grazed by a would-be assassin’s bullet raise the question of how far language should go in a heated campaign.Mr. Biden, who has long preached unity and civility, conceded on Monday that it was “a mistake” to tell supporters a week ago that he wanted to “put Trump in a bull’s-eye,” an expression that was certainly metaphorical but opened the president to criticism after his opponent found himself in literal cross hairs. At the same time, Mr. Biden and his team have made clear that they will not back off efforts to demonstrate that Mr. Trump is a budding dictator who is dangerous to the country.“How do you talk about the threat to democracy, which is real, when a president says things like he says?” Mr. Biden asked Lester Holt of NBC News on Monday during his first interview since the assassination attempt. “Do you just not say anything because it may incite somebody? Look, I’m not engaged in that rhetoric. Now, my opponent is engaged in that rhetoric.”Mr. Biden responded to the shooting in Butler, Pa., on Saturday by calling Mr. Trump to express relief that he was not more seriously wounded and urging Americans to “lower the temperature” this campaign season. His campaign suspended television ads and its regular barrage of attack emails.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Gunman Appears to Have Acted Alone, but Motives Remain Unclear

      by

      The 20-year-old gunman who tried to assassinate former President Donald J. Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania appears to have acted alone, F.B.I. officials said on Sunday, but investigators remain unsure of his motives and political beliefs and have not yet been able to determine what evidence might be on his cellphone.Agents found what officials described as a “rudimentary” explosive device in the gunman’s vehicle, and possible explosives were also found at his residence, according to a person with knowledge of the investigation.F.B.I. officials confirmed that the gunman’s father had legally purchased the AR-15-type semiautomatic rifle used in the shooting. But they said it was not clear whether the father gave his son the weapon or whether he took it without permission.Kevin Rojek, the F.B.I. special agent in charge in Pittsburgh, said the family was cooperating with the investigation.Dozens of federal investigators scrambled to determine why the gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks of Bethel Park, Pa., climbed atop a nearby building and squeezed off a volley of shots on Saturday evening that injured Mr. Trump, killed a man attending the rally with his family and left two other people at the site critically injured before he was killed by a Secret Service sniper.F.B.I. officials said Mr. Crooks did not have a history of mental illness or criminal activity.He does not appear to have left behind any written statement that could easily explain his motivations or provide clues to any external connections or influences, according to a senior law enforcement official.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What We Know About the Trump Rally Shooting Victims So Far

      by

      The Trump rally shooting that sent shock waves across the nation killed a father of two and critically wounded two other men on Saturday evening.The victims, all adult men, include a longtime volunteer firefighter and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran. All were from the Pittsburgh area, according to the Pennsylvania State Police. One died at the scene, while the two critically wounded victims were transported to Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh and were in critical but stable condition, officials said. As more details began to emerge on Sunday, tributes and prayers for the victims and their families were pouring in, including from officials such as Mayor Ed Gainey of Pittsburgh, and Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania.Here’s what we know so far about the victims.Corey ComperatoreCorey Comperatore, 50, was fatally shot in the head after he dove to cover family members who accompanied him to the rally, according to the governor. Governor Shapiro said on Sunday that Mr. Comperatore “died a hero.” He added, “Corey was the very best of us.”Mr. Comperatore was a father of two from Sarver, Pa., who worked at a plastic manufacturing company and loved fishing. He spent several years as a volunteer firefighter, at one point serving as the chief of the Buffalo Township Volunteer Fire Company. He attended nearby Cabot Church, where he was selected as a future trustee in 2021, helping oversee issues like church property and insurance.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Assassination Attempt Against Donald Trump

      by

      What we know about the shooting in Pennsylvania. Authorities have identified the gunman who tried to assassinate Donald Trump yesterday but are still racing to understand what the shooter’s motives were and how he was able to get so close to Trump.The F.B.I. named the gunman as Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old from Bethel Park, Pa., roughly 40 miles from Butler, the small city in western Pennsylvania where the attack occurred. Crooks was a registered Republican, though records show that he had donated money to a liberal voter turnout group in 2021. Here is the latest on Crooks.The attack killed one spectator at the scene and left two others critically injured, officials said. Trump had blood on his face as he was escorted from the stage but was safe this morning.The assassination attempt added a shocking and violent turn to a presidential campaign that had already been more tumultuous than any in decades. In today’s newsletter, we’ll help you understand what we know this morning.What happenedOur colleague Simon Levien was at the rally during the shooting. “Trump had just started to talk about immigration in his stump speech when several shots rang out from the bleachers to his right,” he wrote. “Everyone immediately ducked — myself included.”There were two bursts of fire — first three shots, and then five.Trump put his hand to his ear and then ducked, before Secret Service agents rushed the stage to shield him. As they began to move him offstage, Trump told them to wait and defiantly pumped his fist, with blood on his face, while the crowd chanted, “U.S.A.” (Watch the video here.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Sunday Read: ‘A Republican Election Clerk vs. Trump Die-Hards in a World of Lies’

      by

      Tally Abecassis and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTubeCindy Elgan glanced into the lobby of her office and saw a sheriff’s deputy waiting at the front counter. “Let’s start a video recording, just in case this goes sideways,” Elgan, 65, told one of her employees in the Esmeralda County clerk’s office. She had come to expect skepticism, conspiracy theories and even threats related to her job as an election administrator. She grabbed her annotated booklet of Nevada state laws, said a prayer for patience and walked into the lobby to confront the latest challenge to America’s electoral process.The deputy was standing alongside a woman that Elgan recognized as Mary Jane Zakas, 77, a longtime elementary schoolteacher and a leader in the local Republican Party. She often asked for a sheriff’s deputy to accompany her to the election’s office, in case her meetings became contentious.“I hope you’re having a blessed morning,” Zakas said. “Unfortunately, a lot of people are still very concerned about the security of their votes. They’ve lost all trust in the system.”After the 2020 election, former President Donald J. Trump’s denials and accusations of voter fraud spread outward from the White House to even the country’s most remote places, like Esmeralda County. Elgan knew most of the 620 voters in the town. Still, they accused her of being paid off and skimming votes away from Trump. And even though their allegations came with no evidence, they wanted her recalled from office before the next presidential election in November.There are a lot of ways to listen to “The Daily.” Here’s how.We want to hear from you. Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at thedaily@nytimes.com. Follow Michael Barbaro on X: @mikiebarb. And if you’re interested in advertising with The Daily, write to us at thedaily-ads@nytimes.com.Additional production for The Sunday Read was contributed by Isabella Anderson, Anna Diamond, Sarah Diamond, Elena Hecht, Emma Kehlbeck, Tanya Pérez, Frannie Carr Toth and Krish Seenivasan. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      America’s Gerontocracy Problem Goes Beyond the President

      by

      Whether or not Joe Biden persists in his run for president, America’s gerontocratic crisis will keep on worsening. But high-profile symptoms like Mr. Biden’s difficulties provide an opportunity to confront the issue — a social form of sclerosis that will persist unless and until more power is transferred from the wrinkled to the rest.Gerontocracy transcends government as a full-scale social phenomenon, in which older people accumulate power of different kinds, and then retain it.This form of power is both old and new. The term “gerontocracy” was popularized a century ago by the Scottish anthropologist J.G. Frazer to refer to a very early form of government, in which power reposed in councils of elders. Since premodern societies valued the past over the future, and the ancestral over the innovative, it was only natural to allocate authority to those with cumulative experience and nearer the realm of the honored dead.When the Constitution imposed an age minimum of 30 (and no maximum) on the Senate, that restriction alone excluded roughly three-quarters of the white population from serving. This set up the distant possibility of our present, in which Mr. Biden could become one of the youngest senators ever when he took his seat at age 30, while Dianne Feinstein (age 90), Robert Byrd (92) and Strom Thurmond (100) all either died in office or just months after retirement.The Supreme Court is also an outpost of elder rule. The Constitution gives federal judges life tenure, so it is entirely up to them when they finally depart, alive or dead. And it is not surprising when they die in the midst of opining on the law: Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 87, William Rehnquist at 80 and Antonin Scalia at 79. At least five federal judges have passed 100 years of age while on the bench.The Supreme Court was quasi-gerontocratic from the start, like the Senate, only more so. The popular and professional ideology of the judicial role emphasizes even more the association of age with wisdom. And the Supreme Court’s oracular purposes, priestly trappings and mystical rituals make it resemble, more than any other American political institution, gerontocratic clubs like the Roman Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More