Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      In Iowa, Nikki Haley Looks Beyond Her Rivals’ Attacks

      by

      In her first campaign stop since Wednesday’s heated Republican debate, Ms. Haley suggested that fierce criticism from her opponents continued to not be worth her time.In her first campaign stop since Wednesday’s contentious Republican debate, Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador and former governor of South Carolina, largely ignored the many attacks that her fellow candidates, aware of her rise in the polls, had lobbed at her. What she did discuss suggested she continued to feel that the criticism wasn’t, as she said on Wednesday night, “worth my time.”Speaking to about 100 people in a convention center conference room in Sioux City, Iowa, on Friday, Ms. Haley stuck to the topics that have become the cornerstones of her campaign — her foreign policy experience and her willingness to tell “hard truths.” She railed against China, pledged to be a fiscally responsible president and even answered a question about fears that Venezuela could invade its South American neighbor, Guyana.Despite her growing rivalry with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida to become the chief alternative to former President Donald J. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, Ms. Haley did not mention Mr. DeSantis by name, nor did she mention the debate — where she was in the line of fire for much of the evening — until the final minutes of the event.Responding to a voter’s question about her standing in the race, Ms. Haley said she did not think she needed to win the Iowa caucus to be successful.“The momentum is on our side,” she said. “The way I look at it is, we just need to have a good showing in Iowa. I don’t think that means we have to win, necessarily, but I think that we have to have a good showing.”Ms. Haley also appeared to indicate that she would not accept an offer to be Mr. Trump’s running mate, if he were to win the nomination and ask her. “I’ve never played for second,” she said.Ms. Haley’s campaign has gained prominence in recent weeks. Many national polls now put her in a heated race for second place with Mr. DeSantis, and she is running at a similar level in Iowa, at roughly 17.5 percent. (Mr. Trump is well ahead of them both, at more than 45 percent.)Late last month, Americans for Prosperity Action, the conservative political network founded by the billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, endorsed Ms. Haley, which gave her campaign access to the network’s financial might and to a pool of staff members to knock on doors and make phone calls.During the Republican debate in Tuscaloosa, Ala., on Wednesday, Ms. Haley’s increasing prominence made her the target of frequent attacks from Mr. DeSantis and the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. Mr. Ramaswamy in particular assailed her, calling her a “fascist,” asserting that she was in the pocket of business interests and at one point holding up a notepad on which he had written, “Nikki = Corrupt.”“I love all the attention, fellas,” Ms. Haley quipped at one point, even as she appeared, at least at moments, to fade into the debate’s background. Some analysts suggested afterward that Ms. Haley had not mounted a strong enough defense of herself.Unlike former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who rehashed his debate zingers during his campaign stops in New Hampshire on Thursday, Ms. Haley appeared to have moved on. She said the debates had served to winnow the field, and she predicted that another candidate — evidently Mr. DeSantis, though she did not name him — would drop out of the race after the Iowa caucuses.“We’ve got three major people that are going to go into Iowa, and I think after Iowa, one’s going to drop,” Ms. Haley said. “And then I think you’re going to have a play with me and Trump in New Hampshire, and then we’re going to go to my home state in South Carolina, and then we’re going to take it.”Many in attendance in Sioux City appeared to agree with Ms. Haley’s decision to largely ignore the attacks from her opponents, saying they had admired her debate performance on Wednesday.“She did so well at the debate,” said Adrienne Dunn, a 48-year-old Sioux City resident who is leaning toward voting for Ms. Haley but has not made a final decision. “She was prepared. She had good answers.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      In Las Vegas, Biden Speaks the Name He Often Doesn’t

      by

      The president openly attacked his predecessor, former President Donald J. Trump, deploying direct criticism he has frequently avoided, at an event announcing billions for high-speed rail service.Just a few months ago, President Biden rarely said the name of his likely opponent in the 2024 presidential election — former President Donald J. Trump — instead invoking other Republicans as proxies during public events or, on occasion, referring simply to “the former guy.”But speaking in Las Vegas on Friday, Mr. Biden didn’t hold back.“Trump just talks to talk,” he said at the Carpenters International Training Center in Las Vegas, a union hub favored by Democrats. “We walk the walk.”And then his words turned even sharper: “He likes to say America is a failing nation. Frankly, he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.”Mr. Biden was in Las Vegas to announce $8.2 billion in funding for passenger rail projects, and he used the opportunity to criticize his predecessor’s approach to infrastructure, saying that “the last administration tried to cancel” a rail project in California and that his latest investments “stand in stark contrast.”“He always talked about ‘infrastructure week,’ four years of ‘infrastructure week,’ but it failed — he failed,” Mr. Biden said, referring to Mr. Trump. “On my watch, instead of infrastructure week, America’s having ‘infrastructure decade.’”The shift comes as officials for the Biden campaign have taken an interest in trying to use Mr. Trump, and his actions and words both during and after his presidency, as a foil to bolster Mr. Biden’s re-election effort. That strategy is one that some other elected Democrats across the country have been less keen on, arguing that Mr. Biden needs to do more to promote his own accomplishments while in office.A poll released last month by The New York Times and Siena College found that Mr. Trump was leading Mr. Biden in Nevada by 10 points, the largest margin across six critical battleground states surveyed.Mr. Trump, who in most national polls leads the field of Republican primary candidates by more than 40 percentage points, will hold a rally in Reno later this month.Mr. Biden’s visit to Las Vegas came on the heels of two tragedies in the state: the killing of two state troopers in a hit-and-run last week, and a shooting on Wednesday at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, that killed three faculty members. Mr. Biden met with the university’s president and some of its students and other community members before delivering his remarks on the infrastructure funding, according to the White House.For a few minutes during his speech, he paused to address gun violence, renewing his calls for Congress to “step up” and pass legislation that would include restrictions on assault rifles and universal background checks.“Folks, we got to get smart,” he said. “There have been over 600 mass shootings in America this year alone, plus daily acts of gun violence that don’t even make the national news.” He added, “This is not normal.”But the event’s primary focus was to promote his administration’s agenda, and in doing so, indirectly make his pitch for another four years in office to a friendly audience.Mr. Biden, who earned the nickname Amtrak Joe after commuting by train between Delaware and Washington, D.C., for decades, particularly praised an allocation for a 218-mile high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles.He also talked up the latest employment figures released Friday by the Labor Department — which reported that employers had added 199,000 jobs in November — briefly acknowledging that “we know the prices are still too high for too many things.”Mr. Biden appeared alongside several members of Nevada’s congressional delegation, including Senator Jacky Rosen, a Democrat who is facing a competitive re-election next year after defeating an incumbent herself in 2018.Nevada is one of several key states where Democrats will need to succeed next year to retain control of the White House and the Senate. While Nevada has voted for Democrats in the last several presidential elections — including Mr. Biden in 2020 — other races have been more inconsistent.Senator Catherine Cortez Masto won re-election in the 2022 midterms in a narrow victory, helping the Democrats maintain control of the Senate. But that same year, voters ousted the state’s Democratic governor, Steve Sisolak, in favor of his Republican challenger, Joseph Lombardo. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Appeals Court Upholds Trump Gag Order in Election Case, but Narrows Terms

      by

      The decision largely left in place an order limiting what the former president can say about his upcoming federal trial but allowed him more leeway to criticize Jack Smith, the special counsel.A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the gag order imposed two months ago on former President Donald J. Trump in the criminal case accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, but narrowed its terms to allow him to keep attacking one of his main targets: Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing his federal prosecutions.The fight over the gag order has pitted the First Amendment rights of a presidential candidate against fears that his vitriolic language could spur his supporters to violence against participants in the case. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed that a gag order was justified, its adjustments gave Mr. Trump broader latitude to lash out at some of the people he has been targeting for months.In its ruling, a three-judge panel sought to strike a cautious balance between what it called “two foundational constitutional values”: the integrity of the judicial system and Mr. Trump’s right to speak his mind.To that end, the panel kept in place the gag order’s original measures restricting Mr. Trump from attacking any members of Mr. Smith’s staff or the court staff involved in the case. It also preserved provisions that allowed Mr. Trump to portray the prosecution as a political vendetta and to directly criticize the Biden administration and the Justice Department.And in one respect, the court expanded the restrictions, adding a measure barring Mr. Trump from commenting on the relatives of lawyers or court staff members involved in the case if the remarks were intended to interfere with how the trial participants were doing their jobs.“We do not allow such an order lightly,” Judge Patricia A. Millett wrote for the panel. “Mr. Trump is a former president and current candidate for the presidency, and there is a strong public interest in what he has to say. But Mr. Trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that govern all other criminal defendants. That is what the rule of law means.”But the court cut back on the gag order in two important ways. In addition to freeing Mr. Trump to go after Mr. Smith, the public face of the prosecution, it relaxed a flat restriction against targeting witnesses — allowing Mr. Trump to criticize them if his remarks were not connected to their roles in the case.After the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, first imposed the gag order on Mr. Trump in Federal District Court in Washington in October, Mr. Trump appealed seeking to get it overturned entirely as unconstitutional. As it hinted it might do at oral arguments last month, the appellate panel instead kept a version in place, but modified some of its terms.The modifications to the order mean that Mr. Trump can now return to using some of his favorite social media epithets and refer to Mr. Smith, as he has numerous times, as a “thug” or as “deranged.” The alterations also mean that Mr. Trump can lash out in a limited way against those of his political adversaries who also may be witnesses in the election interference trial, including former Vice President Mike Pence and former Attorney General William P. Barr.Asked for comment, the Trump campaign issued a statement saying the appeals court had struck down “a huge part of Judge Chutkan’s extraordinarily overbroad gag order.” Mr. Trump’s lawyers have promised to challenge the gag order all the way to the Supreme Court.The appeals court’s ruling rejected many of Mr. Trump’s legal team’s arguments for lifting the gag order entirely, including that his remarks are all constitutionally protected as political speech, that he could not be held responsible for his listeners’ responses to his speech, and that the court could not proactively gag him before any harm was shown to have occurred.“Many of former President Trump’s public statements attacking witnesses, trial participants, and court staff pose a danger to the integrity of these criminal proceedings,” Judge Millett wrote. “That danger is magnified by the predictable torrent of threats of retribution and violence that the district court found follows when Mr. Trump speaks out forcefully against individuals in connection with this case and the 2020 election aftermath on which the indictment focuses.”But the original order, she said, “sweeps in more protected speech than is necessary,” so the First Amendment required a narrower tailoring of the restriction.Judge Millett and her two colleagues on the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — Judges Cornelia Pillard and Brad Garcia — were appointed by Democratic presidents. Judge Chutkan was also put on the bench by a Democrat.While gag orders are not uncommon in criminal prosecutions, the order imposed in the election interference case has resulted in a momentous clash. Mr. Smith’s prosecutors have sought to protect themselves and their witnesses from Mr. Trump’s “near-daily” social media barrages, while the former president has argued that the government has tried to censor his “core political speech” as he mounts another bid for the White House.Mr. Trump has often blurred the lines between his criminal cases and his presidential campaign, using court appearances to deliver political talking points and employing public remarks to assail his prosecutions as a form of persecution.Complicating matters, several of his political adversaries, including Mr. Pence, are likely to be witnesses against him when the election subversion case goes to trial as early as March.The decision by the appeals court means that the two gag orders placed on Mr. Trump — one in the federal election case and the other in his civil fraud case in Manhattan — have now been reinstated after judges had temporarily paused them.Late last month, a state appeals court in New York put back in place a gag order barring Mr. Trump from attacking the court staff in his civil trial. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Cómo cubrir a Trump? Univision, como otros medios, busca una respuesta

      by

      Los reclamos contra Univision comenzaron en cuanto se emitió su entrevista con Donald Trump. Un mes después, aún no han cesado.Para los críticos de Univision, la entrevista del 9 de noviembre —con sus preguntas fáciles y pocas preguntas de seguimiento del entrevistador, Enrique Acevedo— ha confirmado sus temores desde que la cadena, tradicionalmente de tendencia de izquierda, se fusionó con la cadena mexicana Televisa a principios del año pasado en un acuerdo de 4.800 millones de dólares. La cadena, argumentan ellos, estaba dando un preocupante giro a la derecha con sus nuevos propietarios, que tienen fama de cultivar relaciones con los principales políticos de México, donde Televisa ha sido un temido artífice de figuras de influencia durante más de 50 años.Las maniobras de última hora de Univision levantaron aún más sospechas. Pocas horas antes de la emisión de la entrevista, la cadena retiró su invitación a la campaña de Biden para emitir anuncios durante el especial de una hora con Trump, citando lo que parecía ser una nueva política de la empresa. Apenas una hora después, Univision canceló abruptamente una entrevista con el director de medios hispanos de la campaña de Biden.Pero la razón de los cambios en la cadena no puede explicarse solo por consideraciones políticas, según las entrevistas con más de una decena de periodistas y ejecutivos actuales y retirados de Univision, entre ellos Acevedo y Daniel Coronell, presidente de noticias de la cadena.Los medios de comunicación hispanos son susceptibles a la misma inquietud que afecta a otras redacciones estadounidenses. Las audiencias de las noticias de televisión en español están en declive, lo que se suma a la presión de una economía desigual. Y el dilema sobre cómo cubrir a Trump —¿debe tener una cobertura exhaustiva, mínima o incluso alguna?— preocupa a Univision tanto como a sus homólogos en inglés.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?  More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Kenneth Chesebro Is a Key Witness as ‘Fake Electors’ Face Charges

      by

      Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the plan to deploy people claiming to be Trump electors in states won by President Biden, is cooperating with inquiries in Michigan, Arizona and Nevada.Twenty-four of the so-called fake Trump electors now face criminal charges in three different states, and one of the legal architects of the plan to deploy them, Kenneth Chesebro, has emerged as a witness in all of the cases.Mr. Chesebro, a Harvard-trained lawyer, helped develop the plan to have Republicans in battleground states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2020 present themselves as Trump electors. The scheme was part of an effort to have Congress block or delay certification of Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory on Jan. 6, 2021.Earlier this week, a Nevada grand jury indicted six former Trump electors, including top leaders of the state’s Republican Party, on charges of forging and submitting fraudulent documents.In August, a grand jury in Atlanta returned an indictment against former president Donald J. Trump and 18 allies, including three who were fake electors in Georgia. And in July, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel brought charges against all 16 Republicans who acted as Trump electors in her state. (In October, she dropped charges against one of them, James Renner, in exchange for his cooperation.)Interest in Mr. Chesebro intensified after he pleaded guilty in October to a single felony charge of conspiracy in Georgia and was sentenced to five years’ probation. He had originally been charged with seven felonies, including one charge under the state racketeering law.“Everything happened after the plea in Georgia,” said Manny Arora, one of Mr. Chesebro’s lawyers in Georgia. “Everyone wants to talk about the memos and who he communicated with.”The lawyer was referring to memos written by Mr. Chesebro after the 2020 election that outlined what he himself called “a bold, controversial strategy” that was likely to be rejected by the Supreme Court. Since his plea agreement in Georgia, Mr. Arora said, Mr. Chesebro was interviewed in Detroit by Ms. Nessel’s office, and he was also listed as a witness this week in the Nevada indictment.Asked if Mr. Chesebro had agreements in place to avoid prosecution in the various jurisdictions, another one of his lawyers, Robert Langford, said “that would be a prudent criminal defense, that’s typically what you do,” adding that he did not “want to comment on anything happening in any of the states.”Mr. Chesebro is also expected in Arizona next week, where the state’s attorney general, Kris Mayes, has been conducting her own inquiry into the electors plot for several months, people with knowledge of that inquiry said. (Mr. Chesebro’s Michigan and Arizona appearances were reported earlier by CNN and The Washington Post.)Mr. Chesebro worked for Vice President Al Gore during the presidential election recount battle of 2000 but later came to back Mr. Trump. He and another lawyer, John Eastman, are seen as the key legal architects of the plan to use bogus electors in swing states lost by Mr. Trump, a development that left some of his old colleagues scratching their heads.“When the world turned and Donald Trump became president, I stopped hearing from him,” Lawrence Tribe, who was Mr. Gore’s chief legal counsel and a Chesebro mentor, recently said.Mr. Chesebro’s lawyers continue to generally defend his conduct, saying he was simply an attorney offering legal advice during the 2020 election. But Mr. Arora said that the legal team in Georgia decided to take a plea agreement because the document that was signed by the fake electors in Georgia did not include language explaining that what they were signing was a contingency plan, pending litigation.“They didn’t do that in Georgia,” he explained. “Because he was involved in it and that language wasn’t in there, we decided to plead to that count. It wasn’t because the whole thing was fraudulent or that this was a scam.”The three state electors investigations have taken very different approaches.Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga., brought a broad racketeering case that includes Mr. Trump and top aides like Rudolph W. Giuliani, his former personal lawyer, and Mark Meadows, who served as White House chief of staff. Ms. Willis reached cooperation agreements with most of the fake electors before charges were brought.The Michigan and Nevada cases center on the electors themselves, rather than those who aided their actions, though Ms. Nessel has said that her inquiry remains open.Underlying claims of widespread election fraud that propelled the alleged fake electors scheme have never been substantiated. New legal filings this week from Jack Smith, the special counsel in the Justice Department who has charged Mr. Trump in his own federal election inquiry, underscore the illegitimacy of Mr. Trump’s chronic claims of election fraud, highlighting that as far back as 2012 he was making baseless contentions about President Barack Obama’s defeat of Mitt Romney.Mr. Trump made similar statements after his 2016 loss in the Iowa caucus, when he claimed that Senator Ted Cruz “didn’t win Iowa, he illegally stole it,” and after he lost the popular vote in the general election to Hillary Clinton, which he said he won “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Conundrum of Covering Trump Lands at Univision’s Doorstep

      by

      The howls of protest against Univision began as soon as its interview with Donald J. Trump aired. A month later, they still haven’t stopped.To critics of Univision, the Nov. 9 interview — with its gentle questioning and limited follow-ups from the interviewer, Enrique Acevedo — has confirmed their fears since the traditionally left-leaning network merged with the Mexican broadcaster Televisa early last year in a $4.8 billion deal. The network, they said, was taking a troubling turn to the right under its new owners, who have a reputation for cultivating relationships with leading politicians in Mexico, where Televisa has been a feared kingmaker for more than 50 years.Last-minute maneuvering at Univision raised further suspicions. Just hours before the interview aired, the network reversed its invitation to the Biden campaign to run ads during the hourlong special with Mr. Trump, citing what appeared to be a new company policy. Scarcely an hour later, Univision abruptly canceled an interview with the Biden campaign’s director of Hispanic media.But the reason for changes at the network can’t be explained by political considerations alone, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former Univision journalists and executives, including Mr. Acevedo and Daniel Coronell, the network’s president of news.Hispanic media is proving susceptible to the same upheaval straining other American newsrooms. Spanish-language television news audiences are in decline, compounding pressure from an uneven economy. And the dilemma over how to report on Mr. Trump — should he get exhaustive, minimal or even no coverage? — is vexing Univision just as it is its English-language counterparts.Univision executives have said they are making a pivot toward the center — a strategy that reflects the split political preferences of the Hispanic electorate and the need to broaden their audience.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?  More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Hunter Biden Charged With Evading Taxes on Millions From Foreign Firms

      by

      The Justice Department charged President Biden’s son after a long-running and wide-ranging investigation with substantial political repercussions.A federal grand jury charged Hunter Biden on Thursday with a scheme to evade federal taxes on millions in income from foreign businesses, the second indictment against him this year and a major new development in a case Republicans have made the cornerstone of a possible impeachment of President Biden.Mr. Biden, the president’s son, faces three counts each of evasion of a tax assessment, failure to file and pay taxes, and filing a false or fraudulent tax return, according to the 56-page indictment — a withering play-by-play of personal indulgence with potentially enormous political costs for his father.The charges, filed in California, came five months after he appeared to be on the verge of a plea deal that would have avoided jail time and potentially granted him broad immunity from future prosecution stemming from his business dealings. But the agreement collapsed, and in September, he was indicted in Delaware on three charges stemming from his illegal purchase of a handgun in 2018, a period when he used drugs heavily and was prohibited from owning a firearm.The tax charges have always been the more serious element of the inquiry by the special counsel, David C. Weiss, who began investigating the president’s son five years ago as the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for Delaware. Mr. Weiss was retained when President Biden took office in 2021.Mr. Biden “engaged in a four-year scheme to not pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019,” Mr. Weiss wrote.“Between 2016 and Oct. 15, 2020, the defendant spent this money on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature, in short, everything but his taxes,” he added.If convicted, he could face a maximum of 17 years in prison, Justice Department officials said.Read the Tax Indictment Against Hunter BidenThe president’s son was indicted on nine counts accusing him of evading federal taxes on millions of dollars he has made in his work with foreign companies.Read Document 56 pagesThe charges, while serious, were far less explosive than ones pushed by Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans, who have been angry with the department for failing to find wider criminal wrongdoing by the president’s son and family.But the failure of Mr. Biden’s lawyers to reach a new settlement after talks with Mr. Weiss fell apart has now subjected Mr. Biden to the perils of two criminal proceedings in two jurisdictions, with unpredictable outcomes.Many of the facts laid out in Thursday’s indictment were already widely known, and the litany of Mr. Biden’s actions tracks closely with a narrative he drafted with prosecutors in the plea deal that collapsed over the summer under the withering scrutiny of a federal judge in Delaware.Prosecutors said that he “subverted the payroll and tax withholding process of his own company,” Owasco PC, by withdrawing millions from the coffers that he used to subsidize “an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills.” They also accused him of taking false business deductions.Mr. Weiss called out Mr. Biden for failing to pay child support and his reliance on associates, including the Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris, to pay his way. Prosecutors included a chart that tracked the cash he siphoned from Owasco’s coffers — $1.6 million in A.T.M. withdrawals, $683,212 for “payments — various women,” nearly $400,000 for clothing and accessories, and around $750,000 for restaurants, health and beauty products, groceries, and other retail purchases.Throughout the document, Mr. Weiss presented an unflattering split-screen of Mr. Biden, scooping up millions in income and gifts from friends while stubbornly refusing to pay his taxes. That pattern even persisted into 2020, after he had borrowed money to pay off his tax liabilities from the previous few years, prosecutors wrote.“Defendant spent $17,500 each month, totaling approximately $200,000 from January through Oct. 15, 2020, on a lavish house on a canal in Venice Beach, Calif.,” they wrote, adding that “the I.R.S. stood as the last creditor to be paid.”In a statement, Abbe Lowell, Mr. Biden’s lawyer, said Mr. Weiss had “bowed to Republican pressure” and accused him of reneging on their previous agreement. He said the special counsel had not responded to his request for a meeting a few days ago to discuss the details of the case.“If Hunter’s last name was anything other than Biden, the charges in Delaware, and now California, would not have been brought,” he said.The indictment includes a more detailed description of Mr. Biden’s activities and tangled business deals than the government had previously made public. Taken in its totality, the filing paints a damning portrait of personal irresponsibility by a man who leveraged his last name to finance his vices while willfully ignoring his tax liabilities.The Hunter Biden case sits at the crowded intersection of America’s colliding political and legal systems. There is now a very real prospect that President Biden’s son will be defending himself in two federal criminal trials during a presidential election year — as former President Donald J. Trump, his father’s likely opponent, confronts the possibility of two federal criminal trials in his classified documents and election interference cases.The additional charges come on the cusp of a vote by the Republican-led House to formalize its impeachment inquiry into President Biden, which is largely based on unsubstantiated allegations that he benefited from his son’s lucrative consulting work for companies in Ukraine and China.Republican leaders in the House released draft text of a procedural impeachment resolution against President Biden on Thursday, just hours before word of the new charges started to percolate through official Washington. It is not clear what effect the indictment will have on their inquiry.The indictment contains no reference to President Biden. But prosecutors pointed out that Hunter Biden’s compensation from Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, dropped from $1 million a year in 2016, when his father was still in office, to $500,000 in March 2017, two months after he left office.The decision to indict the president’s troubled son was an extraordinary step for Mr. Weiss, who was named a special counsel in August by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.The Justice Department has been investigating Mr. Biden since at least 2018. Despite examining an array of matters — including Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma, ties to oligarchs and business deals in China — the investigation ultimately narrowed to questions about his taxes, like his failure to file his 2017 and 2018 returns on time, and the gun purchase.The special counsel, David C. Weiss, has been investigating an array of issues surrounding Hunter Biden.Will Oliver/EPA, via ShutterstockThe investigation appeared to have come to a conclusion in June when Mr. Weiss and Mr. Biden’s lawyers announced that Mr. Biden would plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges.As part of the deal, prosecutors charged Mr. Biden with lying about whether he was using drugs but, under a so-called pretrial diversion agreement, agreed not to prosecute Mr. Biden on that. In return, Mr. Biden agreed to admit that he had used drugs at the time of the purchase and the deal remained contingent on him remaining drug free for the next two years.But the deal abruptly imploded.At a hearing in July, Judge Maryellen Noreika of the Federal District Court in Wilmington, Del., sharply questioned elements of the deal, telling the two sides repeatedly that she had no intention of being “a rubber stamp.”One objection centered on a provision that would have offered Mr. Biden broad insulation against further prosecution on matters under scrutiny during the federal inquiry. Mr. Weiss’s prosecutors and Mr. Biden’s lawyer at the time, Christopher J. Clark, disagreed on whether that shielded him from being prosecuted in connection with his foreign business dealings.The other objection had to do with the diversion program on the gun charge, under which the judge would play a role in determining whether Mr. Biden was meeting the terms of the deal.Judge Noreika said she was not trying to sink the agreement, but to strengthen it by ironing out ambiguities and inconsistencies. But by the end, the sides had splintered, prosecutors filed paperwork indicating they would proceed with a prosecution and the embattled Mr. Weiss requested to be named special counsel, which requires him to file a report at the conclusion of the investigation.Since taking control of the House in January, top Republicans have used their new investigative power to push the narrative that the president has been complicit in an effort engineered by Hunter Biden to enrich his family by profiting from their positions of power, especially through business and investment transactions abroad.The investigation has become a central focus of House Republicans, and of Mr. Trump, who has seized upon it as a counter to his own legal woes. Earlier this year, two former I.R.S. agents who worked on the investigation testified before a House committee that they had been discouraged from fully investigating interactions of Hunter Biden and his father, and that Mr. Weiss had complained that he did not have the authority to expand the investigation to other jurisdictions.Mr. Weiss denied those claims.On Thursday, Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, the chairman of the House oversight committee, credited the “two brave I.R.S. whistle-blowers” for forcing Mr. Weiss to abandon plea negotiations and file charges.“The Department of Justice got caught in its attempt to give Hunter Biden an unprecedented sweetheart plea deal,” Mr. Comer said in a statement, adding that the men should be applauded “for their courage to expose the truth.”Luke Broadwater More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Chris Christie, Fresh Off Feisty Debate, Courts Voters in New Hampshire

      by

      Mr. Christie rejoined the campaign trail, energized by a debate performance in which he seized the spotlight with attacks on Mr. Trump and his rivals.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey returned to New Hampshire on Thursday for a series of campaign appearances that quickly became more like a victory lap after his performance in the third Republican Party debate.In a series of stops at universities, Mr. Christie told war stories about his moments in the debate spotlight, offering a highlights reel of his zingers against his opponents. Mr. Christie, who has faced calls to exit the race from some donors and strategists, won praise for his performance on the stage, particularly his series of scathing attacks against Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Vivek Ramaswamy, a tech entrepreneur.Speaking to students at Keene State College in the western part of the state, Mr. Christie recounted with visible glee a shouting match with Mr. DeSantis, who dodged a question on Mr. Trump’s fitness to be president. Mr. DeSantis, he implied, was eager to quickly move past the question. Mr. Christie said that he wouldn’t allow it.“All he’s looking to do is for the red light in front of us to come on, which means he could stop,” Mr. Christie said, adding, “When the light goes on, he stops and he lets out a sigh of relief, like, Oh my God, thank God it’s over. But it wasn’t, because there’s another living human being onstage. And I said, ‘He doesn’t answer the question.’”Mr. Christie cast the debate as a crucial moment in a race that is heading into the final stages before votes are cast in January. “I’m telling you right now, I’m gonna be the last person standing against Donald Trump,” he said. “There’s gonna be no place for him to hide. And then you’re gonna be more entertained than you’ve ever been in your entire life.”Mr. Christie is widely trailing his rivals, sitting at third place in polls in New Hampshire. He has staked his candidacy on a full-throated attack against Mr. Trump but has struggled to find an audience among Republican primary voters for that message. He seized the opportunity onstage Wednesday, painting Mr. Trump as one step away from being a felon and attacking the other Republican presidential candidates for their reluctance to criticize the former president.In an interview, Mr. Christie said he was personally offended by Mr. Ramaswamy’s attacks on Nikki Haley, a former governor of South Carolina, as being corrupt, unintelligent and inauthentic.“Who would think that somebody would be enough of a jackass to say that Nikki Haley was not as smart as his 3-year-old son,” Mr. Christie said in an interview. “When I heard that, I have to tell you the truth, I was just like, I’m not gonna let him get away with that.”Whether his energetic performance could give Mr. Christie an opportunity to make gains among voters who are most sympathetic to his anti-Trump crusade remains to be seen.Mr. Christie, gesturing below, has trailed his rivals for most of the campaign, and he has been the most vocal critic of former President Donald J. Trump among the Republican field.Sophie Park for The New York TimesAt Franklin Pierce University, Mr. Christie asked for the votes of faculty members and students in attendance — even high schoolers, some too young to cast a ballot in the primary in January.“I urge you to register and get involved. But I’ve got to give you a reason to get involved,” Mr. Christie said.Mr. Christie talked up his policy priorities, including increasing treatment options for people with mental health issues, addressing the opioid epidemic and cutting spending to reduce inflation.Yet, even among a group that tends to tilt Democratic, Mr. Christie faced heckles and criticism. In his appearances, Mr. Christie embraced conservative positions that have not typically energized college students. He did not endorse banning semiautomatic rifles or broadly forgiving student debt. He told a young audience at Keene State College that he is “an unabashed and complete parental rights advocate” when it comes to the issue of transgender youth.As he addressed a packed room in a student hall at Keene State College, protesters outside bearing signs supporting abortion, immigration and Palestine jeered him — dancing, playing music and occasionally banging on the glass windows behind him. One member of the audience tried to use the last question of the town hall to ask why Mr. Christie wears his pants so high.“You know, that’s an example of one of the reasons that political candidates are reluctant at times to come to college campuses,” Mr. Christie said, declining to answer the question.Still, he found some supporters among the packed rooms. Allison Keyson, 19, a student at Keene State College, said she was torn between supporting Mr. Christie and Ms. Haley.“His career is pretty inspiring to me. It’s kind of what I would like to do. I’m gonna get into law, and I would like to go into politics as well,” Ms. Keyson, a registered independent, said. “He is definitely an inspiring candidate.” More