Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Temporarily Free From Gag Order in Election Case

      by

      A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington lifted the order for at least two weeks, freeing the former president to say what he wants about prosecutors and witnesses.An appeals court in Washington on Friday paused the gag order imposed on former President Donald J. Trump in the federal case accusing him of seeking to overturn the 2020 election, temporarily freeing him to go back to attacking the prosecutors and witnesses involved in the proceeding.In a brief order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the pause of about two weeks was needed to give it “sufficient opportunity” to decide whether to enact a longer freeze as the court considered the separate — and more important — issue of whether the gag order had been correctly imposed in the first place.The panel’s ruling came in response to an emergency request to lift the order pending appeal that Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed on Thursday night. While the judges — all three of whom were appointed by Democrats — paused the gag order until at least Nov. 20 to permit additional papers to be filed, they wrote in their decision on Friday that the brief stay “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of Mr. Trump’s broader motion for a more sustained pause.The gag order, which was put in place last month by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Federal District Court in Washington, has now been frozen, reinstated and frozen again. The protracted battle, with its back-and-forth filings and multiple reversals, has pitted two visions of Mr. Trump against each other.Prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, have repeatedly tried to portray the former president as a serial abuser of social media whose often belligerent posts about people involved in the election subversion case have had dangerous effects in the real world.Mr. Trump’s lawyers, by contrast, have sought, without evidence, to paint Judge Chutkan’s order as an attempt by President Biden to “silence” his chief opponent in the 2024 election as the race heats up. The former president’s lawyers have argued that the order undermines Mr. Trump’s First Amendment rights to express one of the central messages of his campaign: that the four criminal prosecutions brought against him in the past several months are a form of political persecution.Mr. Trump appears to have paid close attention to the various iterations of the order, and the most recent pause opened the possibility that he could return to making threatening posts that violated the initial restrictions that Judge Chutkan put in place.Her written order barred Mr. Trump from targeting members of her court staff, Mr. Smith or members of his staff, or any people who might reasonably be called to appear as witnesses at trial.The previous time the gag order was lifted — a move Judge Chutkan herself undertook — Mr. Trump almost immediately assailed Mr. Smith as “deranged.”He also made at least two public comments that appeared to target his former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who could be called as a witness in the case. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Presidential Fantasy Draft America Needs

      by

      Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat, Carlos Lozada and Listen to and follow ‘Matter of Opinion’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicThe polls are clear: Neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump has the full confidence of American voters. But is Biden’s latest competition, Democratic Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, the answer to voters’ malaise? Or perhaps an independent candidate like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?On this week’s episode of “Matter of Opinion,” the hosts imagine their own alternative candidates for 2024 and debate what good — if any — could come from long-shot contenders.(A transcript of this episode can be found in the center of the audio player above.)Illustration by The New York Times; Photograph by Ken Wiedemann/Getty ImagesMentioned in this episode:“Dean Phillips Has a Warning for Democrats,” by Tim Alberta in The AtlanticThoughts about the show? Email us at matterofopinion@nytimes.com.Follow our hosts on X: Michelle Cottle (@mcottle), Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT), Carlos Lozada (@CarlosNYT) and Lydia Polgreen (@lpolgreen).“Matter of Opinion” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Sophia Alvarez Boyd and Derek Arthur. It is edited by Alison Bruzek. Mixing by Carole Sabouraud. Original music by Isaac Jones, Efim Shapiro, Carole Sabouraud, Sonia Herrero and Pat McCusker. Our fact-checking team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. Our executive producer is Annie-Rose Strasser. Special thanks to Katherine Miller. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump 14th Amendment Disqualification Trial: What to Know About the Colorado Case

      by

      The lawsuit in Denver is one of several across the country arguing that former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold office again.The continued existence of former President Donald J. Trump’s 2024 campaign is being litigated this week in an unassuming courtroom in Colorado.The trial stems from a lawsuit brought by voters in the state who argue that Mr. Trump is ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution because of his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. And the Colorado disqualification case isn’t isolated. Oral arguments stemming from a similar suit, in Minnesota, were held on Thursday.Here is a look at the Colorado case and beyond.What is the background on the Colorado lawsuit?It was filed in September in a state district court in Denver by six Colorado voters — four Republicans and two independents — who are suing with the help of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.These voters argue that Mr. Trump’s presence on the Republican primary ballot next year would harm them by siphoning support from their preferred candidates and, if he won the nomination, by depriving them of the ability “to vote for a qualified candidate in the general election.”They are demanding that the Colorado secretary of state not print Mr. Trump’s name on the ballot, and are asking the court to rule that Mr. Trump is disqualified in order to end any “uncertainty.”What is the 14th Amendment, and what does it say?The Colorado case specifically concerns Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.The central questions are whether the 14th Amendment applies to the presidency; whether Mr. Trump’s behavior before and on Jan. 6 constitutes “engaging in insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution; and whether election officials or the courts can deem a person ineligible under Section 3 without specific action by Congress identifying that person.Constitutional experts have emphasized in interviews with The New York Times that the answers to these questions are not simple or self-evident.In public writings, some scholars have argued that Mr. Trump is ineligible. In an academic article, the conservative law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen concluded: “It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction.” Others have argued the opposite, with the law professors Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman saying in a recent draft paper that they see “no sound basis” for Mr. Baude’s and Mr. Paulsen’s conclusions.What is the plaintiffs’ side saying?From Monday through Wednesday, lawyers for the plaintiffs — the six Colorado voters — called seven witnesses:Daniel Hodges, a Washington, D.C., police officer, and Winston Pingeon, a Capitol Police officer, who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6. They testified that rioters had come equipped with tactical gear and had made it clear that they believed themselves to be acting on Mr. Trump’s behalf. On cross-examination, lawyers for Mr. Trump sought to distance him from the rioters, noting that the officers could not know that any individual rioter had heard his speech.Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, who said lawmakers had read Mr. Trump’s Twitter posts during the attack and saw them as connected “to our own safety in the chamber and also the integrity of the proceedings.” On cross-examination, lawyers for Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Swalwell’s own Twitter post urging Democrats to “fight” against abortion restrictions and asked if that was a call for violence; Mr. Swalwell said no.William C. Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University and an expert on presidential authority in national security. He testified that Mr. Trump could have deployed National Guard troops without a request or permission from local officials.Peter Simi, a professor of sociology at Chapman University and an expert on political extremism. He testified that the far right used “doublespeak” — language that insiders understood to be calling for violence but that maintained plausible deniability. For years, he said, Mr. Trump built credibility with members of groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, such that they saw him as an ally speaking to them in that way.Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University and an expert on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. He said that when the amendment was ratified, “insurrection” was understood to refer to “any public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of the law,” and “engaged” meant “any voluntary act in furtherance of an insurrection, including words of incitement.”Hilary Rudy, a deputy elections director in the Colorado secretary of state’s office. She testified that the secretary of state had a legal obligation to grant ballot access only to qualified candidates, that courts could play a legitimate role in determining who was qualified, and that the office would abide by whatever the court decided.The plaintiffs’ lawyers plan to call one additional witness Friday afternoon.What is Trump’s side saying?As of Thursday, lawyers for Mr. Trump had called six witnesses:Kashyap Patel, a former chief of staff at the Defense Department. He testified that Mr. Trump had pre-emptively authorized the deployment of 10,000 to 20,000 National Guard troops to keep the peace on Jan. 6, and that they were absent because the mayor of Washington had not requested them. Under cross-examination, Mr. Patel said he did not know of any document showing Mr. Trump’s authorization.Katrina Pierson, a former spokeswoman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, who described internal disagreements over who should speak at Mr. Trump’s Jan. 6 rally. She testified that Mr. Trump nixed most of the planned speakers, including the most incendiary ones. She also said he had expressed a desire for 10,000 National Guard troops.Amy Kremer, an organizer of the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse, called the rally attendees “freedom-loving citizens” and “happy warriors,” and said she had seen no indication of violence or violent intent while Mr. Trump was speaking. Under cross-examination, she acknowledged that she had been inside the area that required magnetometer scans, and that she would not have seen anything that happened outside that area.Thomas Van Flein, general counsel and chief of staff to Representative Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona. He testified that the rally crowd was peaceful, but acknowledged that he had left before Mr. Trump spoke.Tom Bjorklund, who is the treasurer of the Colorado Republican Party but testified as a private citizen, attended Mr. Trump’s speech and then went to the Capitol, where he witnessed the riot but did not enter the building himself. He said in the first part of his testimony that he had not seen any violence from Trump supporters. Later, he said he had watched people break windows, but advanced the conspiracy theory that it was a false-flag operation by “antifa.” He also said he had understood Mr. Trump’s “instructions” to be for peaceful protest.Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, testified that he believed the Jan. 6 committee’s report — which the plaintiffs have frequently cited as evidence in their case — was one-sided in its assessment of Mr. Trump’s “culpability” in the attack.Mr. Trump’s team plans to call one more witness Friday morning: an expert who will offer a different interpretation from Professor Magliocca’s of the wording in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.What has the judge said?Before the trial began on Monday, Mr. Trump’s team made several motions to dismiss the case. Judge Sarah B. Wallace, who is overseeing the trial, rejected them.On Wednesday, after the plaintiffs had finished calling most of their witnesses, Mr. Trump’s lawyers requested a “directed verdict” — a conclusion, before the defense had called any witnesses, that no legally sufficient basis existed for the plaintiffs to prevail. They argued that even if the plaintiffs’ claims were accepted as fact, that would not legally justify disqualifying Mr. Trump. His words, they said, did not meet the Supreme Court’s standard for incitement and therefore were protected by the First Amendment.Judge Wallace denied the request, but emphasized that her denial should not be construed as a ruling on the legal questions involved — including whether Mr. Trump had “engaged in insurrection” as the 14th Amendment meant that phrase, and whether the First Amendment limited how the 14th could be applied.Rather, she said she was denying the request because in order to grant it, “I would have to decide many legal issues that I am simply not prepared to decide today.”What happens next?It is not clear how long it will take for Judge Wallace to rule after the trial ends on Friday.However, the trial is being conducted under an expedited process with the goal of having a final resolution before a January deadline for the Colorado secretary of state to certify who is on the primary ballot — and everyone involved understands that her initial ruling needs to come with enough time for appeals to be resolved, too.The United States Supreme Court is expected to have the final say.Chris Cameron More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      It Isn’t Easy to Be Mitt Romney

      by

      It’s a wretched time to be an institutionalist in the Republican Party. But it’s a vital time to read about one.The new speaker of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, is an election denier who finds the separation of church and state passé, while his party’s base seems eager to renominate a twice-impeached, four-times-indicted former president for the White House. It is in this era of degraded Republicanism that McKay Coppins has published “Romney: A Reckoning” — a look inside the public life and private misgivings of Willard Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, 2012 Republican presidential nominee, current senator from Utah and politician eternally miscast for his time and his party.“You don’t want to be the only one sitting at the table and no one wants to sit with you,” Romney says to Coppins, explaining how he feels during Republican caucus lunches. The feeling has trailed Romney throughout his political life.The easy story to write about Romney today is that of the courageous apostate, the lone Republican senator who voted to convict Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial, the throwback to a vision of a party that barely exists today: fiscally conservative, morally upright, constitutionally conscientious. Washington journalists love tales of party-bucking mavericks, and Romney fits the part. Yet that is not the sole story that Coppins, a staff writer at The Atlantic, has chosen to tell.Instead, he explores the extent to which Romney wrestles with, and intermittently accepts, his role in what the Republican Party has become. When Coppins asks Romney if he would still have taken that courageous vote in Trump’s impeachment trial had the senator been 30 years younger, with many campaigns and elections still ahead of him, Romney demurs. “I don’t know the answer to that,” he admits. “I think I recognize now my capacity to rationalize decisions that are in my self-interest.”It is a memorable distillation of a life in politics, of the tension between high principle and unseemly justification. It’s a tension Romney has navigated better than most, in part for his willingness to acknowledge its existence.Rationalizations appear throughout Romney’s career. One came in 2012, when, as a presidential candidate, he sought and publicly accepted Trump’s endorsement for president, at a time when Trump was a reality-show host promoting the birtherism canard about President Barack Obama. Stepping on a Las Vegas stage with Trump was “one of the more humiliating chores” of Romney’s political life, Coppins writes, but the candidate explained it away as one of those things that politicians do. After all, if Obama could welcome endorsements from Kanye West and Lena Dunham, why couldn’t Romney stand alongside the host of “The Apprentice”? The awkwardness of the meeting was exquisite. “There are some things you just can’t imagine happening,” Romney said in front of the microphone. “This is one of them.”Four years later, during the 2016 presidential primary campaign, Romney delivered a brutal speech at the University of Utah attacking Trump’s policies (“The country would sink into a prolonged recession”), intelligence (“He is very, very not smart”), honesty (“His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University”) and character (“Imagine your children and grandchildren acting the way he does”). He almost seemed to enjoy himself, delivering zingers and pausing for laughs as though Trump’s ascent to the White House was one more thing he couldn’t imagine happening. During the race, he also assailed prominent Republicans, like Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey and one of the first mainstream party leaders to back Trump. The endorsement “diminishes you morally,” Romney told Christie in an email, and only withdrawing it could “preserve your integrity and character.”Romney also tried to coordinate strategy with Trump’s primary opponents and, once it was clear Trump had secured the nomination, he even hoped to rustle up a third-party candidate. All such efforts are part of a self-perceived family trait that the senator calls the “Romney obligation” — the compulsion to run toward a crisis, whether that means saving the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City from mismanagement and corruption or trying to rescue the 2016 Republican Party from its Trumpian fate.But Coppins raises the inevitable question: “Where was this principled stand when Romney was running for president himself?” Romney’s answer comes off as vaguely dismissive. “Obviously if I did anything to help legitimize him, I regretted it,” he said. That’s a big “if.” Obviously.John Angelillo/UPI, via Associated PressPerhaps, as Coppins suggests, Romney didn’t consider Trump much of a political threat in 2012, just one more bombastic donor to attract and appease. But there was no such excuse four years later, when Romney legitimized Trump yet again, this time shortly after the 2016 election, agreeing to meet with Trump to discuss becoming his secretary of state. After meeting with Trump, Romney even told reporters that he had “increasing hope that President-elect Trump is the very man who can lead us to that better future.” It is hard to reconcile the man who pilloried Trump at the University of Utah earlier that year with the one sitting at dinner with Trump and Reince Priebus at Trump Tower’s Jean-Georges, with a look, as Coppins writes, of “forlorn defeat.”To his credit, Romney fesses up to his mixed motives. “I looked at what was happening in the world, and these were really troubling times,” he said to Coppins, arguing, as many Republicans did at the time, that the country needed serious people in the new administration. But Romney also relished the power and the relevance. “I like being involved and being in the middle of things, and having something important to do,” he said. “If you can’t be president, being secretary of state’s not a bad spot to come thereafter.” Trump wanted Romney to go further and repudiate his earlier attacks against him, but Romney declined. In a recent interview with me, Coppins described the secretary of state dalliance as “the last temptation” for Romney.The earlier temptations emerge well before Trump appears on the scene. As chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Romney traveled the country in 2006 to raise funds for candidates and try out his own message ahead of the primary season. He wanted to talk about jobs, but conservative crowds preferred to talk guns and terrorists and abortion. Romney complied. “When you speak to the N.R.A.,” he told Coppins, “you change your tone. I admit it.… You say the things that make the audience respond positively.”It’s quite a Trumpian approach, though maybe just a political one, too. “A new incentive structure took shape on those stages,” Coppins writes. “A new persona formed.” Soon, Romney began blasting the “death tax” during speeches, for instance, mainly because doing so got a good response. “It was one of those things you say because you don’t know what you’re talking about when you’re first running for president,” he told Coppins, a seemingly banal quote that grows more stunning with each rereading. Romney complains that he is “the authentic person who seems inauthentic,” but moments like those help explain why.There is a certain obliviousness to Romney’s campaigning, especially so during his 2012 presidential run, when the candidate still regarded the Tea Party as merely a movement for fiscal discipline. His campaign strategist, Stuart Stevens (who in the years since has become one of the most vociferous anti-Trumpers and one of the most disillusioned ex-Republicans), harbored no such illusions, telling Romney at the time that the primary was not about policy or ideology but about grievance and tribalism. “The base is southern, evangelical, and populist,” Stevens said. “You’re a Yankee, Mormon, and wealthy. We’re going to have to steal this nomination.”Observers of American politics often marvel that a country that twice elected Barack Obama could then replace him with Donald Trump. But it’s no less remarkable that a Republican Party that nominated Romney in 2012 could then turn around and choose Trump as its standard-bearer in 2016.Maybe Romney did steal the 2012 nomination from the proto-Trump Republican Party, or maybe Trump snatched the 2016 primary from the last gasp of the party establishment, or perhaps both are true. Regardless, Romney and his wife, Ann, were shocked as they watched Trump’s rallies on television, with the crowds “crescendoing to a state of near-delirium that bordered on bloodlust,” Coppins writes. As Ann Romney said to her husband, “Those people weren’t at our events.”Unless they were. In politics, people can be as extreme, or as reasonable, as their options.Damon Winter/The New York TimesCoppins depicts Ann Romney as the pivotal influence in her husband’s life; he is always trying to win and preserve her approval. A close second is his father, George Romney, the governor of Michigan, Republican presidential candidate and Housing and Urban Development secretary in the Nixon administration. “He’s both inspired by and at times haunted by his dad’s legacy,” Coppins told me, and their political careers feature parallels as well as divergences. Mitt’s stand against Trump is reminiscent of George’s opposition to the 1964 nomination of Barry Goldwater, and during the protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, Mitt thinks back to his father’s steadfast support for civil rights in the late 1960s, even as urban unrest spread and Richard Nixon peddled law and order.Decades later, Romney remains aggrieved at the news media’s response when his father — in an infelicitous choice of metaphor — complained that he had undergone a “brainwashing” by the government spin about the Vietnam War. The controversy surrounding his use of that term finally derailed George Romney’s presidential aspirations. At the start of his own campaign for the 2008 nomination, Romney gave his senior staff a copy of an 88-page master’s thesis, written in 1969 by a George Romney campaign staffer, describing how his father had gone from front-runner to also-ran. The elder Romney’s crucial political misstep, Coppins writes, was a compulsion to speak his mind and stick to his beliefs, no matter the consequences, even when seeking the nation’s highest office.His son sought to avoid that mistake in his own White House bids. “The one question Romney would struggle to answer — even a decade later — was whether he had been true to himself in his pursuit of the presidency,” Coppins writes. (I hate to say it, but if you can’t settle that question after all those years, maybe you know the answer.) When Romney speaks to student groups these days, Coppins reports, the senator advises them never to trade away their integrity for political gain, and he says it with an air of someone who has lived that trade-off. “It’s not worth it,” he tells them. “Believe me.”Upon joining the Senate in 2019, “Romney finally felt free to follow his father’s example — the way he’d always wanted to — without worrying about the politics.” He knew that voting to convict Trump of abusing the powers of the presidency would marginalize him in the modern Republican Party, and he agonized over the decision; after all, it is one thing to be an outlier, another to be an outcast. (His 2012 running mate, Paul Ryan, a former House speaker, showed his colors by reaching out when he had learned how Romney would vote, not to offer support but to try to talk him out of it.) “My promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside,” Romney said on the Senate floor, a brief but indelible counterpoint to what his party had become.Did this moment come late in Romney’s career, only once the prize of the presidency was no longer possible? Yes. Did it allow Romney to make a statement rather than a difference, in that his isolated vote could not produce Trump’s conviction? Of course. But over time, a statement can become a difference. As a senator, Romney still voted in line with Trump’s agenda most of the time, but his declaration that Trump’s behavior was “wrong, grievously wrong” was the assertion of principle over self-interest, affirming his father’s legacy and bringing him closer to fulfilling the Romney obligation. When I asked Coppins how history might look upon Romney, he answered: “If we could all be remembered for eventually reaching the best version of ourselves, I think that would be wonderful. And I think that would be fair for him.”Romney has long kept private journals, and Coppins noticed that the most copious entries came during the 2012 campaign, when Romney imagined he was gathering material for a memoir. He would never write one because, as he explained to Coppins, no one reads memoirs by the losers. That may be so. But “Romney: A Reckoning” shows that books about the losers can be worth the read, and that eventual victories can be worth the losses.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Pence’s Hell Is Ours Too

      by

      It’s one thing to disparage Donald Trump. It’s quite another to throw your body between him and his efforts to steal the presidency. Mike Pence, God love him, did the latter, and that sealed his doom. To the hard-core MAGA corps, tyranny is the meaty breakfast of champions. Virtue and democracy are a wimp’s veggie canapés.But that’s not the only moral of Pence’s miserable polling and early exit from the contest for the Republican presidential nomination, which is, incredibly, even less appetizing for his departure. He did something else that was just as dissonant with the mood of his party — with the mood of America, really. He talked about goodness. He privileged upbeat over downbeat. While others maniacally fanned the flames of anger, Pence mellowly stoked the embers of hope.That’s not going to cut it in 2024. Pence’s fate validated that.I’m braced for the campaign season from hell, for a race for the White House that’s a rhetorically violent duel of dystopias, a test of who can sound the shriller death knell for America. It could be all Armageddon all the time.An exchange involving Pence and Vivek Ramaswamy in the Republican presidential debate last August in Milwaukee foreshadowed that. Pence took aim at his much younger rival’s perversely exuberant negativity, schooling him: “We’re not looking for a new national identity. The American people are the most faith-filled, freedom-loving, idealistic, hard-working people the world has ever known.” They just needed better leaders and a more responsive and responsible government.Ramaswamy practically snorted in performative disbelief. “It is not morning in America,” he countered, summoning the ghost of Ronald Reagan only to flog it. “We live in a dark moment. And we have to confront the fact that we’re in an internal sort of cold, cultural civil war.”Well, the “dark moment” purveyor has crossed the polling and fund-raising thresholds to appear on the stage of the next debate, which is in Miami next week. He rolls on. The pitchman for “freedom-loving, idealistic” Americans doesn’t. His bid for the presidency is history, much as good old-fashioned American optimism sometimes seems to be.That’s the context for the intensifying presidential campaign, in which the smartest strategy for spiteful times may be convincing voters that your opponent’s victory won’t merely jeopardize the health of the country. It will endanger the future of civilization. It will turn a “dark moment” pitch black. With a new war in the Middle East, a grinding war in Ukraine and China eyeing Taiwan like a great white sizing up a baby seal, that’s not a tough sell.And if President Biden, 80, is the Democratic nominee and Donald Trump, 77, is the Republican one, the conditions for extreme ugliness are optimal. (Or is that pessimal?) Assuming no major swerves from the present, each of these men would stagger agedly into the general election amid questions about his cognitive zest — and with anemic favorability ratings — that all but compel him to savage his opponent as the direr of two evils. That’s what wounded politicians do. They make the other candidate bleed.Biden, I feel certain, would prefer to play the happy warrior — it’s a better fit for his earnestness and goofiness. But those aren’t the cards he has been dealt. That’s not the casino he’s in.The world roils, and here at home, to his and his aides’ understandable bafflement and frustration, voters seem to be much more focused on the bad in the economy than the good (low unemployment, increased wages, annualized G.D.P. growth of 4.9 percent for the most recent quarter). In polls, Americans express more confidence in Trump’s ability to manage the economy than in Biden’s.On top of which, a majority of Democrats say that they’d prefer someone other (and younger) than Biden to be the party’s nominee, and the war between Israel and Hamas is sharpening intraparty divisions that have largely been avoided over the past few years.One solution is obvious: Divert attention to the MAGA menace. That tactic is as warranted as the menace is real. And Biden has practice at it, having given a big speech about a country “at an inflection point” before the midterms last year and having since issued stern warnings about “MAGA extremists.” Trump and other Republicans have even more thoroughly rehearsed their lines about America’s descent under Democrats into a lawless, borderless, “woke” abyss. Watch almost any hour of Fox News for florid depictions of this lurid hellscape, or listen to Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis, a merchant of vengeance who defines himself almost entirely in terms of whom (and what) he’s against and how mercilessly he’ll punish them.“Much of the rhetoric from the declared and potential Republican candidates so far is remarkable for its dystopian tone,” Ashley Parker wrote in The Washington Post in March, noting the “apocalyptic themes” as prominent Republicans “portray the nation as locked in an existential battle, where the stark combat lines denote not just policy disagreements but warring camps of saviors vs. villains, and where political opponents are regularly demonized.”That was before Trump’s four indictments on 91 felony counts and the extra rage into which they whipped him. Before he mused publicly about whether Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be executed for treason. If Trump was apocalyptic in March, he’s in an even more desperate realm now. I don’t think there’s a word — or, in presidential politics, a precedent — for it.What that bodes for the next year, and especially for the months just before Election Day, is a furious effort to fill Americans with even more fear and more anger than they already feel. Tell me how our country is governable on the far side of that.And say goodbye to Pence, not just as a candidate but as an emblem and ambassador of an attitude and era that are long gone.For the Love of SentencesHarrison Ford in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”CBS, via Getty ImagesIn The Times, Jason Horowitz and Elisabetta Povoledo appraised the art collection of Silvio Berlusconi, the flamboyant former prime minister of Italy, who died earlier this year: “The paintings are now stashed in an enormous hangar that critics have characterized as a sort of Raiders of the Lousy Art warehouse.” (Thanks to Rob Hisnay of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, and Miriam Bulmer of Mercer Island, Wash., for nominating this.)Also in The Times, Erin Thompson reflected on the fate of statues memorializing the Confederacy: “We never reached any consensus about what should become of these artifacts. Some were reinstalled with additional historical context or placed in private hands, but many simply disappeared into storage. I like to think of them as America’s strategic racism reserve.” (Susan Davy, Kingwood, Texas, and Mike Stirniman, Fremont, Calif.)And Patti Davis, in a tribute to the actor Matthew Perry’s candor about addiction, wrote: “That’s the best we can do in life — be truthful and hope those truths become lanterns for others as they wander through the dark.” (Eric Sharps, Campbell, Calif.) In The New Yorker, David Remnick analyzed the raw, warring interpretations of the massacre in Israel on Oct. 7: “There were, of course, facts — many of them unknown — but the narratives came first, all infused with histories and counter-histories, grievances and fifty varieties of fury, all rushing in at the speed of social media. People were going to believe what they needed to believe.” (Anne Palmer, Oberlin, Ohio)In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Emma Pettit experienced cognitive dissonance as she examined the academic bona fides of a “Real Housewives of Potomac” cast member: “It’s unusual for any professor to star on any reality show, let alone for a Johns Hopkins professor to star on a Bravo series. The university’s image is closely aligned with world-class research, public health, and Covid-19 tracking. The Real Housewives’ image is closely aligned with promotional alcohol, plastic surgery, and sequins.” (Mitch Gerber, Rockville, Md.)In Grub Street, Mark Byrne took issue with a friend’s comment that the Greenwich Village restaurant Cafe Cluny is “too expensive for what it is.” “This is Manhattan: ‘Too expensive for what it is’ is written in rat’s blood on the stoops of our walk-ups,” he riffed. (Todd P. Lowe, Louisville, Ky.)In The Washington Post, Alexandra Petri responded to House Speaker Mike Johnson’s insistence that “the human heart,” not easy access to deadly firearms, is the problem behind mass shootings: “Why don’t we have alien hearts with extra ventricles, splendidly green and impervious to pain; or efficient, 3D-printed e-hearts; or anatomically inaccurate paper hearts? So many better kinds of hearts to have! It isn’t the guns. The problem is the human heart. Weak, feeble, pitiful heart. Put it up against a gun, and it loses every time.” (David Sherman, Arlington, Va.)Also in The Post, Rick Reilly put Mike McDaniel, the sunny head coach of the Miami Dolphins, and Bill Belichick, the gloomy head coach of the New England Patriots, side by side: “One is as open as a new Safeway, and the other is as closed up as an old submarine. One will tell you anything you want; the other will hand out information on a need-to-go-screw-yourself basis. One looks like a nerd who got lost on a stadium tour and wound up as head coach. The other looks like an Easter Island statue nursing a grudge.” (Mary Fran McShea, Frederick, Md.)And in The Athletic, Jason Lloyd described how Kevin Stefanski, the head coach of the Cleveland Browns, almost — but not quite — continued that pro football team’s magic streak of improbable victories in a game last weekend against the Seattle Seahawks: “He nearly had the lady sawed in half when he hit an artery.” (Jason Keesecker, Durham, N.C.)To nominate favorite bits of recent writing from The Times or other publications to be mentioned in “For the Love of Sentences,” please email me here and include your name and place of residence.What I’m Reading, Listening to and DoingErin Schaff for The New York TimesCount me among those people who are terrified that third-party candidates might throw the 2024 presidential election to Donald Trump, and consider me horrified, in that context, at the selfishness of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West and the recklessness of the No Labels folks. The stakes of — and case against — what they’re doing are beautifully illustrated by Matt Bennett, one of the leaders of the group Third Way, in an especially fine episode of the podcast of the CNN political director, David Chalian, that was released Friday.The feedback that I received about my assertion in last week’s newsletter that college students should be challenged, not coddled, included recommendations for other writing on the topic, some of it from a decade or more ago, showing that the problem is hardly new. I found this eloquent, 21-year-old speech by P. F. Kluge about Kenyon College especially fascinating.My Times colleague Adam Nagourney did an impressive amount of research and got extraordinary access to key players to produce his recently published book “The Times,” which chronicles this news organization’s challenges, changes, resilience and growth over much of the past half century. If you’re an admirer of The Times and curious about its inner workings, you’ll find much to savor.Speaking of Times colleagues, David Leonhardt, a Pulitzer winner whose superb reflections and analysis in the Times newsletter The Morning are probably familiar to you, has just released an important new book, “Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream.” It’s on the top of my night table stack, metaphorically speaking, and might well appeal to you as well.On the evening of Mon., Nov. 20, I’ll be talking with the brilliant Times critic and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Wesley Morris at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Wesley is a delight to listen to, so if you’re in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, please join us. Details about the event, which is open to the public, are here.On a Personal NoteRegan during a past autumn in Central Park Frank Bruni/The New York TimesThe view of the midtown Manhattan skyscrapers from the north curve of the Great Lawn last weekend was as breathtaking as ever, but something wasn’t right.My amble through the Ramble was richly scored with bird song — and the trees wore their best autumn finery — but the magic wasn’t complete. I felt an absence.Regan wasn’t by my side. She and her dog sitter were back at our new home in North Carolina. And Central Park without her wasn’t Central Park at all.Since she and I moved away from New York City in the summer of 2021, my return trips to our former stamping grounds have been rare. I’ve been busy. I prefer looking forward to looking back. My new home is so easy, and the city is so tough. I have reasons aplenty and excuses galore.But I did return on Saturday, ever so briefly, for two friends’ big joint birthday party, and I found time for a two-hour walk though Central Park, which Regan and I used to visit multiple times daily. She’s how I know it so well. She’s why I love it so much.She tugged me into it, motivated me to explore it and forced me to look at it in fresh and more expansive ways, as I described extensively in my most recent book, “The Beauty of Dusk.” That’s part of what dogs do for us — they widen our worlds, in terms of both our movements and perceptions.Watching her romp across and rummage through Central Park’s lawns, arbors and woods, I imagined all of that through her eyes, ears and nose, and I tuned into details that I wouldn’t have spotted and savored otherwise.Being in the park without her was like being there with my gait impeded, my senses dulled, my emotions muffled. The park’s grandeur was intact. But my heart felt a little smaller. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Run-Up: Clallam County Has Voted for Every Presidential Winner Since 1980

      by

      Listen and follow ‘The Run-Up’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicClallam County in Washington State is far from Washington, D.C. — almost as far as you can go without leaving the continental United States.It’s right on the border with Canada. It’s home to about 78,000 people and Olympic National Park. It’s home to Forks, perhaps best known as the setting of Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight” series.It’s also the home of a particular piece of political trivia.“I don’t think as a community we think in terms of red or blue. That’s not how we define who we are.”Bryon Monohan, a former mayor of Forks, Wash. “It feels like just kicking the can down the road and just, like, staving off a bunch of stuff that I don’t really want to have happen.”Kate Bradshaw, with her husband, John Stanek, on a vote for President Biden in 2024“With the abortion issues coming up, I’m more hopeful. There will be more women voting Democratic.”Rosa Cary, a substitute teacher, who said she used to be more politically active online but has pulled back from the “negativity.”Of more than 3,000 counties in the United States, it is the only one that has voted for the winner of the presidential race every year since 1980. It earned this distinction in 2020.That year’s contest — the race between President Biden and former president Donald J. Trump — broke the streaks of other longstanding bellwether counties. But Clallam, which went for Mr. Trump in 2016 by more than 1,100 votes, chose Mr. Biden.The country is a year out from the 2024 presidential election, and despite a robust Republican primary field, the race is looking like it could easily be a 2020 rematch. So at “The Run-Up,” we thought Clallam County could give us something resembling a prediction.Astead W. Herndon, left, host of “The Run-Up,” and Caitlin O’Keefe, a producer, spent more than 11 hours in the Fairmount Diner in Port Angeles, Wash., in conversation with 18 voters.We spent a day in the Fairmount Diner in Port Angeles, Wash., talking to a wide range of people: committed Biden voters, committed Trump voters, people who were hoping for anyone but Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump.From a lot of the Democratic voters we talked to, we heard the sorts of concerns that have been reflected in national polls. People felt Mr. Biden was too old to be the nominee again. And they were worried the party was out of touch with the concerns of rural voters.Downtown Port Angeles. Some voters wondered what effect the resumption of student loan payments might have on the local economy.The climate and natural beauty in Clallam County has made it an attractive destination for retirees, which residents say contributes to the roughly even partisan split in the county.It wasn’t all gloom, though. Voters like John Stanek and Kate Bradshaw, a married couple who have been in Clallam for more than a decade, expressed satisfaction with the Biden administration — and cautious optimism for 2024.“I guess I’m in the 30 percent approval rating,” Mr. Stanek said. “I think he’s done a pretty good job.”“I feel like a lot of the time the older generation just sees things completely different from the way that I do.”Kaya, left, and Sierra Boeckermann, sisters and servers at Fairmount Diner“Under Trump, I think people felt that they could spend money on things that they needed to. I work on a lot of 2016 cars.”Rick Parr, an auto mechanic in Port AngelesRosa Cary, a substitute teacher, said she had been in the county for just over a year. A lifelong Democrat, she expressed measured optimism about 2024.“I don’t believe it’ll be a landslide,” she said. “I don’t believe that Biden will win by a larger margin.”But given that Mr. Biden won once without “any trial or indictments” taking place against his opponent, Ms. Cary said, she thinks he has a better chance now.The Fairmount Diner did live up to the promise we had been given by locals: The patrons were politically mixed. Alongside those cautiously upbeat Democrats were Trump supporters, including several who had moved with the county and voted for Mr. Trump after voting for former President Barack Obama twice.The Fairmount Diner where the patrons were politically mixed.They said the issues that mattered most to them were a strong economy and stopping illegal immigration — and indicated that they had also embraced the baseless claim that the 2020 election was rigged, which changed how they were looking ahead to 2024.“I didn’t accept them in the first place,” Rick Parr, a Trump supporter and auto mechanic from Port Angeles, said of the 2020 results. “How can a man that’s sat in his basement win an election?”“Dread. That’s the best we have? An individual who is getting up in years followed by an individual who is under indictment?”Matthew Roberson, a Never Trump Republican, on his outlook for 2024“I am an optimist. I am one who has great confidence in our society, our ability to stabilize, our ability to make adjustments.”W. Ron Allen, chairman and chief executive of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe “In my life, at times, I’ve been hesitant to admit I’m wrong. Now I do it all the time.”Jim Bourget, discussing his 2016 vote for Donald Trump. He voted for President Biden in 2020.For Republicans who had hoped their party would move on from Mr. Trump in 2024, a feeling of being politically homeless combined with worry about the outcome of other races.“We’re trying to elect a Republican governor this year for the first time since 1985,” said Matthew Roberson, who is involved with the party locally. “We’ve got two decent candidates running. But, you know, if Donald Trump is on the ballot, that’s going to be more of a challenge.”A map in the Forks, Wash., visitors’ center shows the many destinations people traveled from to get to the Olympic Peninsula — and to “Twilight” territory.Like all of the best diners, the Fairmount attracts a loyal clientele. “All the same people have been coming here since they were little kids,” said Sierra Boeckermann, a waitress.With Clallam County’s perfect record of picking presidents since 1980, will it be right again in 2024?Everyone we asked seemed to think that Clallam would back Mr. Biden in his re-election bid — and that he would win. They weren’t all happy to be making this prediction, but if Mr. Biden wins, it will keep the streak alive.Credits“The Run-Up” is hosted by More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Man Who Stormed Capitol as Princeton Student Gets 2-Month Prison Term

      by

      Larry Giberson was a sophomore studying political science when he joined the riot in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.A 22-year-old New Jersey man was sentenced to two months in prison on Wednesday for taking part, as a Princeton University student, in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by a mob loyal to former President Donald J. Trump.The man, Larry F. Giberson Jr., pleaded guilty in July to civil disorder, a felony, after federal prosecutors charged him with that crime and several misdemeanors, according to court records. At the riot, according to a federal agent’s affidavit, Mr. Giberson cheered on others as they used weapons and pepper spray to attack the police officers guarding a tunnel and tried, unsuccessfully, to start a chant of “Drag them out!” among other actions.The misdemeanors were dismissed as part of Mr. Giberson’s plea agreement, court records show. He was also sentenced to six months of supervised release under home detention.Larry Gibersonvia FBIBefore being sentenced, Mr. Giberson, of Manahawkin, N.J., expressed remorse in court for what he called his “careless and thoughtless actions,” The Associated Press reported.“I don’t believe my defining moment was there on the Lower West Terrace,” he said, referring to the section of the Capitol he had entered, according to The A.P. “Instead, I believe my defining moment is now, standing before you.”He was sentenced by Judge Carl J. Nichols of U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., who was appointed to the federal bench by Mr. Trump. Judge Nichols called Mr. Giberson’s actions “reprehensible” and said the two-month sentence was “something of a break,” The A.P. reported.“I do believe that his expressions of remorse, generally and then again today, are candid and truthful,” the judge said. “That’s important to me.”The maximum sentence for civil disorder is five years. Prosecutors had argued in court filings for a prison term of 11 months to be followed by three years of supervised release. The office declined to comment on Mr. Giberson’s sentence.Charles Burnham, Mr. Giberson’s lawyer, had sought a sentence that did not include prison time or supervised release. Mr. Burnham did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Mr. Giberson graduated from Princeton in May, Mr. Burnham wrote in a court filing. The Daily Princetonian, a student newspaper, reported in July that Mr. Giberson had earned a bachelor’s degree in politics and certificates in values and public life and French.It is unclear whether Princeton took any action against Mr. Giberson as a result of his arrest. A university spokesman did not respond to an email inquiry on Wednesday.Mr. Giberson is one of more than 1,100 people who have been charged with crimes stemming from the Capitol riot amid an investigation that is continuing, according to the Justice Department. More than 400 have been charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement authorities.He was among a group of rioters who pushed against a phalanx of officers defending the Capitol at a tunnel entrance on the Lower West Terrace, according to an affidavit filed by a federal agent. With Mr. Giberson at the front of the crowd, one officer was briefly crushed between the rioters and the tunnel doors, the affidavit says.Mr. Giberson had traveled to Washington with his mother for the “Stop the Steal” rally that day after seeing Mr. Trump’s social media post urging his supporters to descend on the city to protest Congress’s imminent certification of President Biden as the winner of the 2020 election, court records show.Mr. Burnham, Mr. Giberson’s lawyer, wrote in a court filing that his client had not been motivated to come to Washington because of “membership in radical groups” or a belief in “online conspiracy theories.”Rather, Mr. Burnham wrote, Mr. Giberson had “studied the issues surrounding the 2020 election and concluded that state actors had interfered with the electoral process in unconstitutional ways.”Mr. Giberson and his mother became separated after making their way to the Capitol from the rally, court records show. After entering the tunnel and joining the push against the officers, he waved other rioters in and joined a second round of shoving against the officers, the federal agent’s affidavit says.Mr. Giberson could be seen in publicly available video footage wearing a blue “Make America Great Again” cap on his head and a Trump flag around his neck and climbing toward the tunnel entrance, the affidavit says.Federal investigators matched a photo of Mr. Giberson from the day of the riot with images posted on social media and the Princeton website, as well as with photos from his high school, the affidavit says. He was arrested in March.There is no record of his mother’s having been charged in connection with the Capitol riot. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Hints at a Delay in Trump Documents Trial

      by

      Responding to a request from the former president’s lawyers, Judge Aileen Cannon said she could make “reasonable adjustments” to the timetable for the trial, which is scheduled to start in May.The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s prosecution on charges of mishandling classified documents signaled on Wednesday that she was inclined to make some “reasonable adjustments” to the timing of the case, expressing concern that it could “collide” with Mr. Trump’s other federal trial.Speaking during a hearing in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, did not specify how she planned to change the schedule of the documents case and said she would soon issue a written order with the details.But she seemed skeptical that the trial date in the documents case — now set for May 20 — could comfortably coexist with Mr. Trump’s Washington-based trial on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, which is set to start in early March.“I’m having a hard time seeing, realistically, how this work can be accomplished in this compressed time period,” Judge Cannon said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More