Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Acknowledges He Wanted to Go to the Capitol on Jan. 6

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he asked his Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol after his speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, acknowledging a key detail of his actions that were central to the findings of the House committee established to investigate the attack.During a campaign rally in Waukesha, Wis., Mr. Trump brought up a sensational but disputed element of testimony given to the House Jan. 6 committee by a Trump White House aide: that Mr. Trump had lunged for the wheel and physically struggled with Secret Service agents when they refused to take him to join the large crowd of supporters who were marching toward the Capitol.“I sat in the back,” Mr. Trump said, giving his version of events. “And you know what I did say? I said, ‘I’d like to go down there because I see a lot of people walking down.’ They said, ‘Sir, it’s better if you don’t.’ I said, ‘Well, I’d like to.’”“It’s better if you don’t,” Mr. Trump recounted an agent saying. The former president said he replied, “All right, whatever you guys think is fine,” and added, “That was the whole tone of the conversation.”President Biden’s campaign immediately highlighted Mr. Trump’s comments, amplifying that the former president had intended to participate in what would become an attack by his supporters on the Capitol in an effort to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.It is not the first time that Mr. Trump has spoken of his effort to go to the Capitol on Jan. 6. He has said in several interviews that he regretted not marching on the Capitol with his supporters that day, and that his Secret Service detail prevented him from doing so.“Secret Service said I couldn’t go,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Washington Post in April 2022. “I would have gone there in a minute.”Cassidy Hutchinson, the former White House aide, later testified to Mr. Trump’s conversation with Secret Service agents during televised hearings held by the House Jan. 6 committee. Ms. Hutchinson was not in the car with Mr. Trump, and said that her testimony to those events came secondhand or thirdhand from what other people had told her that day.In an interview with the same committee, Mr. Trump’s driver, whose name was not disclosed, said: “The president was insistent on going to the Capitol. It was clear to me he wanted to go to the Capitol.”Mr. Trump at the rally on Wednesday portrayed his requests to his Secret Service detail as casual ones.In the interview with investigators for the House panel, the driver said that while he did not see Mr. Trump accost agents or reach for the steering wheel, “what stood out was the irritation in his voice, more than his physical presence.”After Mr. Trump was driven back to the White House by his Secret Service detail, the former president sat and watched the ensuing violence play out on television, according to testimony by an array of former administration officials. After Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse where he repeated his false claims that the election was stolen from him and urged attendees to march on the Capitol, a mob of his supporters overran police barricades to storm the building, temporarily disrupting the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory.In a lengthy interview with Time magazine published on Tuesday, Mr. Trump said he would “absolutely” consider pardoning every person who had been convicted on, or pleaded guilty to, charges related to the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6. He also would not rule out the possibility of political violence after this year’s election.“I think we’re going to win,” he said. “And if we don’t win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election.” More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Democrats Reintroduce Legislation to Legalize Marijuana

      by

      The bill, which reflects growing support for legalization, would end the federal prohibition on cannabis. But it is unlikely to pass in an election year and a divided government.Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation on Wednesday to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major policy shift with wide public support, but it is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government.The bill, which amounts to a Democratic wish list for federal cannabis policy, would end the federal prohibition on marijuana by removing it from a controlled substances list. The government currently classifies the drug as among the most dangerous and addictive substances.The legislation would create a new framework regulating cannabis and taxing the burgeoning cannabis industry, expunge certain federal marijuana-related offenses from criminal records, expand research into marijuana’s health impacts and devote federal money to helping communities and individuals affected by the war on drugs.The measure, which was first introduced in 2022, was led by Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader; Ron Wyden of Oregon, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Fifteen other Senate Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors.“Over the decades, millions of Americans, most often Americans of color, have had their lives derailed and destroyed by our country’s failed war on drugs,” Mr. Schumer, the first majority leader to call for federal legalization, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “In place of the war on drugs, our bill would lay the foundation for something very different: a just and responsible and common-sense approach to cannabis regulation.”He reintroduced the measure one day after the Justice Department recommended easing restrictions on cannabis and downgrading it to a lower classification on the controlled substances list. That move did not go as far as some advocates and many Democrats have urged, but it was a significant shift reflecting the Biden administration’s efforts to liberalize marijuana policy.“Reclassifying cannabis is a necessary and long-overdue step, but it is not at all the end of the story,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s time for Congress to wake up to the times and do its part by passing the cannabis reform that most Americans have long called for. It’s past time for Congress to catch up with public opinion and to catch up with the science.”But despite support from top Democrats, the legislation is highly unlikely to move in Congress during this election year. Republicans, many of whom have opposed federal cannabis legalization, control the House, and none have signed on to the bill. Congress has also labored to perform even the most basic duties of governance amid deep divisions within the Republican majority in the House. And few must-pass bills remain, leaving proponents without many opportunities to slip it into a bigger legislative package.Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations, warned about the dangers of legalization and argued that such a bill would “commercialize” the marijuana industry and create “Big Tobacco 2.0.”“Let’s not commercialize marijuana in the name of social justice,” said Mr. Sabet, now the president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-legalization advocacy group. While he supported certain elements of the bill, such as expunging criminal records and removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, he said legalization was ultimately about “supersizing a commercial industry.”“And we really have to think long and hard after our horrible experience with Big Tobacco in our country,” he said, “whether that’s going to be good for us or not.”Still, the legislation reflects growing support among Democrats and across the country in both Republican- and Democratic-leaning states for legalizing access to marijuana, in addition to the issue’s potential political value ahead of an expected election rematch between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.Legalization, in some form, is broadly popular across the country, with 88 percent of Americans saying marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, according to a January survey by the Pew Research Center. Twenty-four states have legalized small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use, and 38 states have approved it for medicinal purposes. And where marijuana legalization has appeared on state ballots, it has won easily, often outperforming candidates in either party.Advocates of legalization have emphasized the issue’s political potency in trying to convince elected officials.“If anybody was looking at the political tea leaves, they would have to realize that obstructing cannabis policy reform — it is a losing proposition as a politician,” said Morgan Fox, the political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, an advocacy group. “This is really a rallying point for people that care about cannabis policy reform.”At least one Democrat, Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, a leading cannabis advocate in Congress, has urged the Biden administration to embrace full legalization and make it a more prominent part of Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign. He has argued that the issue could help the president engage young people, whose support for him has faltered, but who could be crucial to victory in November.The Biden administration’s move to downgrade cannabis on the controlled substances list also reflects the president’s evolution on the issue. Mr. Biden has pardoned thousands of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses in an effort to remedy racial disparities in the justice system. And Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, has emphasized that Mr. Biden had been “very, very clear he doesn’t believe that anyone should be in jail or be prosecuted just for using or possessing marijuana.”Mr. Trump’s record on legalization is more mixed. In 2018, his administration freed prosecutors to aggressively enforce federal marijuana restrictions in states that had eased prohibitions on the drug. Mr. Trump later appeared to break with his administration, saying he was likely to support a legislative proposal to leave legalization to states, and he pardoned several nonviolent drug offenders.“This has not been an issue that is really coming up in conversation, at rallies or in media appearances and whatnot,” Mr. Fox said. “It’s kind of an unknown, how a future Trump administration would deal with cannabis.”Congress is considering more incremental bills that would ease restrictions on marijuana — such as by allowing legal cannabis businesses to access financial services — several of which have bipartisan support. But most are not expected to move during this Congress, given Republican opposition. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Law Firm Defending Trump Seeks to Withdraw From a Long-Running Case

      by

      The firm, LaRocca Hornik, has represented Donald Trump’s political operation in numerous suits dating to his first presidential run, including a pregnancy discrimination case in New York.A law firm that has long defended Donald J. Trump’s campaign and businesses from employment lawsuits has abruptly asked to withdraw from a yearslong case over what it calls an “irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.”The firm — LaRocca, Hornik, Greenberg, Rosen, Kittridge, Carlin and McPartland — has represented Mr. Trump’s political operation in numerous suits dating to his first presidential run, helping secure several settlements and dismissals and billing nearly $3 million in the process.But late on Friday, it asked a federal magistrate judge to allow it to withdraw from a suit filed by a former campaign surrogate, A.J. Delgado, who says she was sidelined by the campaign in 2016 after revealing she was pregnant. The timing of the motion was notable, just two days after the same federal court had ordered the campaign to turn over in discovery all complaints of sexual harassment and gender or pregnancy discrimination from the 2016 and 2020 campaigns — materials that the defendants have long resisted handing over.A.J. Delgado in 2016.via YouTubeIn the request, filed in federal court in Manhattan, the lead lawyer, Jared Blumetti, did not provide any details about the dispute, asking permission to “explain” the matter privately with the judge. Mr. Blumetti did not respond to a request for comment.The apparent rupture with a long-trusted firm comes at a busy time, legally speaking, for the former president.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

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Prevalence of Standing Ovations

      by

      More from our inbox:China, America and the Climate ChallengeKids’ Reactions to the ‘Cringe-Worthy’ News TodayDebate Conditions Pablo DelcanTo the Editor:Re “Bravo! Hurray! Wahoo! (Meh.),” by John McWhorter (Opinion, April 16):The currency of the standing ovation is indeed seriously debased. The impulse to stand up during the ovation following a performance may in some cases represent a kind of unconscious one-upmanship. “I’m more sensitized than most people to the sublimity of what we all have just witnessed, and it is imperative that I separate myself from the underappreciative herd.”Needless to say, if other audience members follow suit by rising from their seats, then you can raise the ante by hoisting your clapping hands up from the standard mid-torso level to over your head — signifying that the artistry one is acknowledging is not just merely great, but really most sincerely great.I confess that although I invariably applaud performances, I usually “sit out” the competitive appreciation derby, and haul myself to my feet only if I feel particularly inspired. I avoid the over-the-head clapping mode at all times. Maybe this marks me as a philistine; I’ve been called worse.David EnglishActon, Mass.To the Editor:I admit that I’m often among the first to give a standing ovation. I always wondered why the holdouts would deny something so simple to these hardworking actors.You have to walk out of the theater a few minutes later anyway, so why not stretch your legs and participate with your fellow theatergoers in the shared joy of theater? Perhaps it’s generational, cultural or regional, or maybe it’s a combination.Jumping to my feet in appreciation of the actors’ hard work is my way of giving back, and it feels really good! I’m sure the actors like to feel the good will as well.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Biden y López Obrador prometen una acción conjunta para abordar la migración ilegal

      by

      En una declaración conjunta, los presidentes de EE. UU. y de México se comprometieron a abordar la migración no autorizada, pero no especificaron ninguna acción concreta.El presidente Joe Biden y el mandatario de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, prometieron el lunes una acción combinada para prevenir la migración ilegal. Biden se encuentra bajo una intensa presión política desde todos los bandos para enfrentar el impacto del aumento de los cruces fronterizos antes de las elecciones presidenciales de este año.En una declaración conjunta, Biden y López Obrador afirmaron que habían ordenado a sus asesores de seguridad nacional “trabajar juntos para implementar de inmediato medidas concretas para reducir significativamente los cruces fronterizos irregulares y al mismo tiempo proteger los derechos humanos”.La declaración, que se produjo luego de que ambos líderes conversaron telefónicamente el domingo, no especificó ninguna acción concreta. Un alto funcionario gubernamental se negó a dar detalles sobre lo que Estados Unidos y México podrían “implementar inmediatamente”. Pero el funcionario dijo que, entre las posibilidades que se están analizando, hay medidas coercitivas más estrictas para impedir que se utilicen ferrocarriles, autobuses y aeropuertos para el cruce ilegal de fronteras y más vuelos que regresen a los inmigrantes a sus países de origen.Este tema podría ser decisivo para la permanencia de Biden en la Casa Blanca durante otros cuatro años. Las encuestas realizadas en los últimos meses, tanto a republicanos como a demócratas, indican que la situación en la frontera genera gran preocupación. Incluso algunos de los más fervientes partidarios del presidente en ciudades liberales le están exigiendo que haga algo para frenar el flujo de inmigrantes.El más reciente plan del presidente al respecto —con un proyecto de ley de migración muy restrictivo que contaba con cierto apoyo bipartidista— se estancó en los últimos meses tras ser bloqueado por los republicanos en la Cámara de Representantes. Biden había pedido que la legislación se aprobara junto con la ayuda financiera para Israel, Ucrania y Taiwán, pero cuando el Congreso llegó a un acuerdo sobre la financiación a principios de este mes, la legislación fronteriza no estaba incluida.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

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Election Deniers Are Still Shaping Arizona Politics

      by

      There have been few political consequences for many Republicans accused of helping Trump try to overturn the 2020 election.Two years ago, a group of election deniers ran for office in Arizona, with Kari Lake’s campaign for governor topping the ticket. When many of them lost, it seemed like a convincing rebuke of the conspiracy theory-steeped Republicans who wanted to control the levers of electoral power in 2024.It turned out, though, that the small matter of losing was not going to keep election deniers out of the spotlight, nor away from key roles in the Arizona Republican Party and beyond.And neither will an indictment, it seems.Last week, the Democratic attorney general of Arizona charged 17 people with counts including conspiracy, fraud and forgery, alleging they made efforts to overturn former President Donald Trump’s narrow loss in the 2020 election that amounted to a crime. Eleven of the people charged cast fake electoral votes in support of Trump.The defendants who got the most attention are the ones who were closest to Trump at the time, like former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Boris Epshteyn, who is one of Trump’s legal advisers. (While their names were redacted in the indictment, detailed descriptions contained in the charging documents made it easy to tell who they are.)But the trajectory of some of the 11 local and lower-profile defendants is even more revealing. Their story shows how Republicans who sought to challenge the 2020 election results continue to face few political consequences, and how deeply their philosophy is woven into the politics of 2024 in Arizona and elsewhere.“The party has not only not created any distance, it has continued to forcefully embrace” election deniers, said Barrett Marson, a Republican strategist in Phoenix.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Flirting With Quack Economics

      by

      More than 30 years ago, the economists Rudiger Dornbusch (one of my mentors) and Sebastian Edwards wrote a classic paper on what they called “macroeconomic populism.” Their motivating examples were inflationary outbreaks under left-wing regimes in Latin America, but it seemed clear that the key issue wasn’t left-wing governance per se; it was, instead, what happens when governments engage in magical thinking. Indeed, even at the time they could have included the experience of the military dictatorship that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983, which killed or “disappeared” thousands of leftists but also pursued irresponsible economic policies that led to a balance-of-payments crisis and soaring inflation.Modern examples of the syndrome include leftist governments like that of Venezuela, but also right-wing nationalist governments like that of Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, who insisted that he could fight inflation by cutting interest rates.Will the United States be next?I wish people would stop calling Donald Trump a populist. He has, after all, never demonstrated any inclination to help working Americans, and his economic policies really didn’t help — his 2017 tax cut, in particular, was a giveaway to the wealthy. But his behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic showed that he’s as addicted to magical thinking and denial of reality as any petty strongman or dictator, which makes it all too likely that he might preside over the type of problems that result when policies are based on quack economics.Now, destructive economic policy isn’t the thing that alarms me the most about Trump’s potential return to power. Prospects for retaliation against his political opponents, huge detention camps for undocumented immigrants and more loom much larger in my mind. Still, it does seem worth noting that even as Republicans denounce President Biden for the inflation that occurred on his watch, Trump’s advisers have been floating policy ideas that could be far more inflationary than anything that has happened so far.It’s true that inflation surged in 2021 and 2022 before subsiding, and there’s a vigorous debate about how much of a role Biden’s economic policies played. I’m skeptical, among other things because inflation in the United States since the beginning of the Covid pandemic has closely tracked with that of other advanced economies. What’s notable, however, is what the Biden administration didn’t do when the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates to fight inflation. There was a clear risk that rate hikes would cause a politically disastrous recession, although this hasn’t happened so far. But Biden and company didn’t pressure the Fed to hold off; they respected the Fed’s independence, letting it do what it thought was necessary to bring inflation under control.Does anyone imagine that Trump — who in 2019 insisted that the Fed should cut interest rates to zero or below — would have exercised comparable restraint?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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Surprise Tactics and Legal Threats: Inside R.F.K. Jr.’s Ballot Access Fight

      by

      Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s effort to get on the ballot in 50 states has already cost millions, federal campaign finance records show.As Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent presidential campaign mounts a bruising state-by-state battle for ballot access, he has often credited enthusiastic volunteers and grass-roots backers with driving the effort.In fact, the operation has become increasingly reliant on consultants and paid petitioners whose signature-gathering work has yielded mixed results and raised questions of impropriety, even among Mr. Kennedy’s fans. In order to get Mr. Kennedy on the ballot in all 50 states, as is his goal, his campaign has deployed a multipart strategy: aggressive legal action, shrewd political alliances and surprise filing tactics meant to slow or prevent challenges.In most states, Mr. Kennedy, 70, an environmental lawyer and heir to an American political dynasty, must produce thousands of signatures, under rules that are varied, intricate and confusing at times even to the local officials administering elections. The effort has already cost his campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a supporting super PAC at least $2.4 million more, federal campaign finance records show. It has involved a number of professionals who specialize in getting people on the ground with clipboards and petitions, and helping candidates navigate the complicated process. Their success is what will make or break Mr. Kennedy’s campaign. More