Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Two Adverbs That Define Biden and Trump

      by

      Akshita ChandraPresidents are forever linked to their most memorable lines or slogans, phrases that become inseparable from their passage through history. Ronald Reagan proclaimed morning in America. Barack Obama promised America hope and change. Donald Trump pledged to make America great again. Our leaders also utter words they might rather take back — say, about lip-reading or the meaning of “is” — but their go-to lines can capture their message, signal their attitude and even betray their worldview.Joe Biden has long settled on his preferred pitch. “We are living through a battle for the soul of this nation,” he wrote in 2017, after the darkness of Charlottesville. Biden highlighted the battle for that soul again in his 2020 and 2024 campaign announcements and has revisited it in multiple speeches. It is ominous and a bit vague — John Anzalone, Biden’s 2020 pollster, complained during that race that no one knows what “soul of America” means and that the line “doesn’t move the needle.” But it does provide the rationale for Biden’s candidacy and presidency. Under Trump, Biden contends, America was becoming something other than itself.Yet there is another Biden line — a single word, really — that also stands out, and it comes up whenever this president reflects on that American soul, on what the country is and what it might become. It is still.“We have to show the world America is still a beacon of light,” Biden wrote in that same post-Charlottesville essay.“We have to prove democracy still works — that our government still works and we can deliver for our people,” he said in a speech to a joint session of Congress in April 2021.“We are still an America that believes in honesty and decency and respect for others, patriotism, liberty, justice for all, hope, possibilities,” the president said in a speech in September at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where he asserted that the foundations of the Republic were under assault by MAGA forces. “We are still, at our core, a democracy.”There is an insistent quality, almost a stubbornness, to Biden’s “still.” Its implicit assumption is that many Americans may no longer believe in the nation’s professed virtues or trust that they will last much longer, that we must be persuaded of either their value or their endurance. To say that America is a democracy is to issue a statement of belief. To say that we are still a democracy is to engage in an argument, to acknowledge — and push back against — mounting concerns to the contrary.The contrast between Biden saying America is still a democracy and Trump vowing to make it great again is more than a quirk of speechwriting. What presidents say — especially what they grow comfortable repeating — can reveal their underlying beliefs and basic impulses, shaping their administrations in ways that are concrete, not just rhetorical. Biden’s “still” stresses durability; Trump’s “again” revels in discontinuity. “Still” is about holding on to something good that may be slipping away; “again” is about bringing back something better that was wrested away. Both candidates, now in a dead heat in the 2024 presidential race, look to the nation’s past but through divergent lenses. It’s the difference between America as an ideal worth preserving and an illusion worth summoning.Biden’s use of “still” is both soothing and alarming. It connotes permanence but warns of fragility. The message of “still” is that we remain who we are, but that this condition is not immutable, that America as Biden envisions it exists somewhere between reality and possibility. “If we do our duty in 2022 and beyond,” Biden said ahead of the midterm elections last year, “then ages still to come will say we — all of us here — we kept the faith. We preserved democracy. We heeded not our worst instincts but our better angels. And we proved that for all its imperfections, America is still the beacon to the world.”Remember, it’s only when things are wretched that presidents reach for Lincoln. In good times, no one gives a damn about our better angels.Americans do recognize the threat to our system of government, but they just don’t seem that energized by the dangers. A New York Times/Siena College poll last fall found that more than 70 percent regarded American democracy as being at risk, but only 7 percent thought that was the nation’s most important problem. Biden’s message demands that we care. “Democracy is hard work,” the president said at a Summit for Democracy meeting in March.In that speech, Biden also indulged in a bit of a victory lap. “Here in the United States, we’ve demonstrated that our democracy can still do big things and deliver important progress for working Americans,” he said, citing lower prescription-drug costs, new infrastructure investments, electoral reform and his administration’s efforts against climate change. It was an answer to Biden’s speech before Congress two years earlier, when he said we had to prove that democracy still functions. “It’s working,” he told the summit. “It’s working.”But three months later, after the Supreme Court declared affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional, the president reiterated his concern that the basic American promise of equal opportunity remains unfulfilled. “The truth is — we all know it,” he stated. “Discrimination still exists in America. Discrimination still exists in America. Discrimination still exists in America.” That third and final still was especially vociferous.Even as Biden affirms what he believes we still are, he also reminds us of all he believes we still must do — his “still” entails duty along with reassurance. The president can declare, as he did in 2021, that “it’s never ever, been a good bet to bet against America, and it still isn’t,” but the need to state it so emphatically acknowledges that the stakes are rising, and that the odds are not improving.Over the years, Biden has offered varying visions about what America still means to him. In his 2007 memoir, “Promises to Keep,” he reflected on the nation’s ability to inspire the globe after a visit to a refugee camp in Chad. “We sometimes forget that America is the one country in the world that still shimmers, like that ‘shining city on the hill,’ as a promise of a brighter tomorrow,” he wrote. But in Evan Osnos’s 2020 book, “Joe Biden: The Life, the Run and What Matters Now,” Biden considered a different vision of what America still is. “Watching [George] Floyd’s face pinned against that curb and his nose being crushed, I mean, the vividness of it was, like, ‘Holy God. That still happens today?’”Biden’s “still” was once a contrast to the plight of other countries; now it is about competing visions of our own.In Jon Meacham’s 2018 book, “The Soul of America,” that presidential biographer and Biden wordsmith points to the “universal American inconsistency” of upholding rights and freedoms for some but not others. “The only way to make sense of this eternal struggle,” Meacham concludes, “is to understand that it is just that: an eternal struggle.”At times, Biden seems torn over whether the struggle is eternal or temporary. In his 2017 essay on the battle for the soul of the nation, he noted that charlatans and political con artists “have long dotted our history,” invariably blaming immigrants for our troubles and capitalizing on the hopelessness and despair of struggling communities. But in the video launching his 2020 campaign, he expressed confidence that history will deem Trump an “aberrant moment” in the national timeline, and only if Trump was granted eight years in the White House would he “forever and fundamentally” transform the national character. In other words, vote for Biden and America would still be America.Of course, Biden didn’t say Trump would need eight consecutive years to remake the nation; two nonconsecutive terms could prove even more definitive. That would mean that we tried Trump, attempted an alternative, and then decided we wanted him back after all. It would mean we chose Trump, again.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

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Prosecution of Donald Trump May Have Terrible Consequences

      by

      It may be satisfying now to see Special Counsel Jack Smith indict former President Donald Trump for his reprehensible and possibly criminal actions in connection with the 2020 presidential election. But the prosecution, which might be justified, reflects a tragic choice that will compound the harms to the nation from Mr. Trump’s many transgressions.Mr. Smith’s indictment outlines a factually compelling but far from legally airtight case against Mr. Trump. The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, of his freedom of speech and of the contours of presidential power. If the prosecution fails (especially if the trial concludes after a general election that Mr. Trump loses), it will be a historic disaster.But even if the prosecution succeeds in convicting Mr. Trump, before or after the election, the costs to the legal and political systems will be large.There is no getting around the fact that the indictment comes from the Biden administration when Mr. Trump holds a formidable lead in the polls to secure the Republican Party nomination and is running neck and neck with Mr. Biden, the Democratic Party’s probable nominee.This deeply unfortunate timing looks political and has potent political implications even if it is not driven by partisan motivations. And it is the Biden administration’s responsibility, as its Justice Department reportedly delayed the investigation of Mr. Trump for a year and then rushed to indict him well into G.O.P. primary season. The unseemliness of the prosecution will likely grow if the Biden campaign or its proxies uses it as a weapon against Mr. Trump if he is nominated.This is all happening against the backdrop of perceived unfairness in the Justice Department’s earlier investigation, originating in the Obama administration, of Mr. Trump’s connections to Russia in the 2016 general election. Anti-Trump texts by the lead F.B.I. investigator, a former F.B.I. director who put Mr. Trump in a bad light through improper disclosure of F.B.I. documents and information, transgressions by F.B.I. and Justice Department officials in securing permission to surveil a Trump associate and more were condemned by the Justice Department’s inspector general even as he found no direct evidence of political bias in the investigation. The discredited Steele Dossier, which played a consequential role in the Russia investigation and especially its public narrative, grew out of opposition research by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.And then there is the perceived unfairness in the department’s treatment of Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, where the department has once again violated the cardinal principle of avoiding any appearance of untoward behavior in a politically sensitive investigation. Credible whistle-blowers have alleged wrongdoing and bias in the investigation, though the Trump-appointed prosecutor denies it. And the department’s plea arrangement with Hunter came apart, in ways that fanned suspicions of a sweetheart deal, in response to a few simple questions by a federal judge.These are not whataboutism points. They are the context in which a very large part of the country will fairly judge the legitimacy of the Justice Department’s election fraud prosecution of Mr. Trump. They are the circumstances that for very many will inform whether the prosecution of Mr. Trump is seen as politically biased. This is all before the Trump forces exaggerate and inflame the context and circumstances, and thus amplify their impact.These are some of the reasons the Justice Department, however pure its motivations, will likely emerge from this prosecution viewed as an irretrievably politicized institution by a large chunk of the country. The department has been on a downward spiral because of its serial mistakes in high-profile contexts, accompanied by sharp political attacks from Mr. Trump and others on the right. Its predicament will now likely grow much worse because the consequences of its election-fraud prosecution are so large, the taint of its past actions so great and the potential outcome for Mr. Biden too favorable.The prosecution may well have terrible consequences beyond the department for our politics and the rule of law. It will likely inspire ever-more-aggressive tit-for-tat investigations of presidential actions in office by future Congresses and by administrations of the opposite party, to the detriment of sound government.It may also exacerbate the criminalization of politics. The indictment alleges that Mr. Trump lied and manipulated people and institutions in trying to shape law and politics in his favor. Exaggeration and truth-shading in the facilitation of self-serving legal arguments or attacks on political opponents have always been commonplace in Washington. Going forward, these practices will likely be disputed in the language of, and amid demands for, special counsels, indictments and grand juries.Many of these consequences of the prosecution may have occurred in any event because of our divided politics, Mr. Trump’s provocations, the dubious prosecution of him in New York State and Mr. Smith’s earlier indictment in the classified documents case. Yet the greatest danger comes from actions by the federal government headed by Mr. Trump’s political opponent.The documents case is far less controversial and far less related to high politics. In contrast to the election fraud case, it concerns actions by Mr. Trump after he left office, it presents no First Amendment issue and it involves statutes often applied to the mishandling of sensitive government documents.Mr. Smith had the option to delay indictment until after the election. In going forward now, he likely believed that the importance of protecting democratic institutions and vindicating the rule of law in the face of Mr. Trump’s brazen attacks on both outweighed any downsides. Or perhaps he believed the downsides were irrelevant — “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.”These are entirely legitimate considerations. But whatever Mr. Smith’s calculation, his decision will be seen as a mistake if, as is quite possible, American democracy and the rule of law are on balance degraded as a result.Watergate deluded us into thinking that independent counsels of various stripes could vindicate the rule of law and bring national closure in response to abuses by senior officials in office. Every relevant experience since then — from the discredited independent counsel era (1978-99) through the controversial and unsatisfactory Mueller investigation — proves otherwise. And national dissensus is more corrosive today than in the 1990s, and worse even than when Mr. Mueller was at work.Regrettably, in February 2021, the Senate passed up a chance to convict Mr. Trump and bar him from future office, after the House of Representatives rightly impeached him for his election shenanigans. Had that occurred, Attorney General Merrick Garland may well have decided not to appoint a special counsel for this difficult case.But here we are. None of these considerations absolve Mr. Trump, who is ultimately responsible for this mammoth mess. The difficult question is whether redressing his shameful acts through criminal law is worth the enormous costs to the country. The bitter pill is that the nation must absorb these costs to figure out the answer to that question.Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a co-author of “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency.”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

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis reconoce la derrota de Trump en 2020

      by

      “Joe Biden es el presidente”, dijo el gobernador de Florida en una entrevista con NBC News. DeSantis y otros aspirantes republicanos han estado implementando nuevas estrategias contra Donald Trump.Ron DeSantis, el gobernador de Florida, afirmó claramente en una entrevista reciente que Donald Trump perdió las elecciones de 2020, deslindándose así de la ortodoxia de la mayoría de los votantes republicanos. Esto sucede mientras los rivales republicanos del expresidente prueban nuevas estrategias de ataque contra él para reimpulsar sus campañas.“Por supuesto que perdió”, dijo DeSantis en una entrevista con NBC News divulgada el lunes. “Joe Biden es el presidente”.Los comentarios de DeSantis —que, tras tres años de evasivas, constituyen la primera vez que reconoce de manera clara el resultado de las elecciones de 2020— fueron la señal más reciente de que los rivales de Trump tratan de usar sus crecientes problemas legales en su contra. Desde que Trump fue acusado de cargos de conspiración para anular las elecciones de 2020, tanto DeSantis como el ex vicepresidente Mike Pence se han distanciado drásticamente del expresidente por sus acciones que el 6 de enero de 2021 desencadenaron los disturbios en el Capitolio.La crítica ha sido sutil. Ninguno de los candidatos ha atacado a Trump de manera abierta ni ha sugerido que los cargos estén justificados. En sus comentarios más recientes, DeSantis continuó sugiriendo que las elecciones tuvieron problemas, y dijo que no habían sido “perfectas”. Pero ambos parecen estar buscando maneras de usar la acusación para ejercer presión sobre las debilidades del expresidente y formular argumentos a su favor que incluso los partidarios de Trump tomen en cuenta.DeSantis también ha estado tratando de reimpulsar su campaña en declive, y sus donantes lo han presionado para que modere sus posturas con el fin de atraer a una audiencia más amplia.Sin embargo, DeSantis debe encontrar la manera de ganar las elecciones primarias republicanas, en las que Trump tiene una ventaja dominante en las encuestas. Los más recientes comentarios de DeSantis, aunque correctos, podrían enfrentarlo a gran parte de la base republicana: aunque se determinó ampliamente que las elecciones de 2020 fueron seguras, cerca del 70 por ciento de los votantes republicanos afirman que la victoria del presidente Biden no fue legítima, según una encuesta de CNN realizada el mes pasado.A través de un comunicado, Steven Cheung, portavoz de Trump, dijo que “Ron DeSantis debería dejar de ser el mayor animador de Joe Biden”.Hasta el momento, de los candidatos más destacados, el exgobernador de Nueva Jersey, Chris Christie y Pence son los que se han pronunciado de forma más enérgica contra Trump. La plataforma desde la que se está postulando Christie es explícitamente anti-Trump. Pence ha dicho que el exmandatario merece la “presunción de inocencia”, pero también ha afirmado que, de ser necesario, testificaría en el juicio por los hechos del 6 de enero.“El pueblo estadounidense merece saber que el presidente Trump me pidió que lo pusiera por encima de mi juramento a la Constitución, pero mantuve mi juramento y siempre lo haré”, le dijo Pence a CNN en una entrevista que se transmitió el domingo. “Y en parte me postulo a la presidencia porque creo que cualquiera que se ponga por encima de la Constitución nunca debería ser presidente de Estados Unidos”.Pero ninguno de los argumentos parece estar resonando entre los votantes republicanos. Christie tiene alrededor del 2 por ciento de apoyo en las encuestas nacionales, y Pence aún no ha calificado para el primer debate republicano que se celebrará a fines de este mes. En una cena para el Partido Republicano de Iowa a finales del mes pasado, la audiencia abucheó al exrepresentante de Texas Will Hurd, un candidato con pocas posibilidades, luego de que acusó al expresidente de “correr para no ir a prisión”.En la entrevista de NBC, DeSantis dijo que considera que hubo problemas en la forma en que se realizaron las elecciones de 2020. Citó el uso generalizado de boletas por correo, las donaciones privadas a los administradores electorales por parte del fundador de Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, y los esfuerzos de las empresas de redes sociales para limitar la difusión de informaciones sobre la computadora portátil de Hunter Biden.“No creo que hayan sido unas elecciones bien hechas”, dijo DeSantis. “Pero también creo que los republicanos no se defendieron. Tienes que defenderte cuando eso está sucediendo”.DeSantis reconoció el viernes que las falsas teorías conspirativas del exmandatario sobre las elecciones del 2020 argumentando que estuvieron amañadas “no tenían fundamentos”.En el período previo a las elecciones de mitad de mandato del año pasado, DeSantis hizo campaña a favor de escandalosos negacionistas electorales, como Doug Mastriano, quien se postuló para gobernador en Pensilvania, y Kari Lake, quien lo hizo en Arizona.Ambos perdieron, al igual que todos sus homólogos más conocidos, lo que demostró que si bien la negación de los resultados de las elecciones presidenciales puede tener buenos resultados en las primarias republicanas, no funciona tan bien en las elecciones generales en los estados disputados. El 60 por ciento de los votantes independientes en todo el país creen que Biden ganó las elecciones de 2020, según la encuesta de CNN, una señal ominosa para los republicanos que aceptan el negacionismo electoral de cara a 2024.Para los partidarios radicales de Trump, los recientes comentarios de DeSantis sobre las elecciones de 2020 fueron vistos como descalificadores.“Cualquier político que diga que Donald Trump perdió esas elecciones y que Biden realmente ganó, está acabado”, afirmó Mike Lindell, el fundador de una compañía de almohadas que ha sido un gran promotor de las teorías de conspiración sobre las máquinas electorales, en una entrevista con The New York Times el lunes. “Su campaña básicamente se acaba cuando hacen un comentario como ese”.Sin embargo, el cambio de DeSantis sirve para reforzar su argumento general contra Trump: que bajo su liderazgo, los republicanos han tenido un mal desempeño en tres elecciones seguidas.Además, podría ayudar a calmar los temores de algunos de los grandes donantes de DeSantis. Robert Bigelow, quien contribuyó con más de 20 millones de dólares a un súper PAC (sigla en inglés que designa al comité de acción política) que respaldaba a DeSantis, le dijo a Reuters la semana pasada que no dará más dinero a menos que el candidato adopte un enfoque más moderado. La campaña del gobernador está experimentando un déficit de recaudación de fondos y el mes pasado despidió a más de un tercio de su personal.Como parte del “reimpulso” de su campaña, DeSantis ha salido de su zona de confort mediática en la que solo conversaba con analistas conservadores y presentadores de opinión en Fox News para darle más acceso a los principales medios de comunicación, por lo que ha concedido entrevistas a CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC y The Wall Street Journal. También ha respondido más preguntas de los periodistas en los actos de campaña electoral.DeSantis ha utilizado esas plataformas para criticar a Trump por su edad, su incapacidad de “drenar el pantano” durante su mandato y por la “cultura de la derrota” que, según DeSantis, se ha apoderado del Partido Republicano bajo el liderazgo de Trump.“Creo que soy el único candidato actual que puede ganar las primarias, derrotar a Joe Biden y luego cumplir con todas estas cosas que sabemos que deben hacerse”, dijo DeSantis en un evento de la estación televisiva WMUR con votantes de Nuevo Hampshire, la semana pasada.Sin embargo, también ha defendido sistemáticamente a Trump por los cargos penales. Ha afirmado que representan el uso del gobierno federal como un arma contra un rival político de Biden.En conjunto, los comentarios de DeSantis sobre el expresidente sugieren que en vez de apresurarse, está avanzando poco a poco hacia una confrontación más directa con Trump. El gobernador nunca lo menciona por su nombre en los discursos de campaña dirigidos a los votantes, y prefiere abordar el tema solo cuando los asistentes a los eventos de su campaña o los periodistas se lo preguntan.Algunos candidatos que se están postulando para la candidatura republicana ya han confirmado la legitimidad general de las elecciones de 2020.En una conversación con los votantes el mes pasado, el senador Tim Scott de Carolina del Sur —quien actualmente ocupa el tercer lugar en Iowa, detrás de Trump y DeSantis, según la encuesta más reciente de The New York Times/Siena College— dijo que no creía las elecciones hubieron sido “robadas”.“Hubo trampa, pero ¿se robaron las elecciones?”, preguntó Scott. “Hay una diferencia”.Nikki Haley, exgobernadora de Carolina del Sur, ha rechazado las afirmaciones falsas de Trump de que las elecciones fueron robadas, pero ha oscilado entre las críticas y la defensa del expresidente.Antes de los disturbios en el Capitolio, Haley se negó a reconocer que Trump estaba actuando de manera imprudente o que fue irresponsable al negarse a aceptar la derrota. Pero inmediatamente después criticó de forma severa a Trump y predijo erróneamente que había caído tan bajo que iba a perder cualquier viabilidad política.En cuestión de meses, Haley volvió a respaldar a Trump, asegurando que el Partido Republicano lo necesitaba. Después de que se hiciera pública la acusación sobre el 6 de enero contra Trump, Haley dijo en un programa de radio de Nuevo Hampshire que de forma premeditada se había abstenido de publicar una declaración porque estaba “cansada de comentar sobre todos los dramas de Trump”.Vivek Ramaswamy, el millonario de la biotecnología que ha sido un firme defensor de Trump, declaró a través de un comunicado: “Joe Biden prestó juramento como el presidente número 46 de Estados Unidos y, como dije poco después de la toma de posesión, acepto ese resultado”.Pero agregó: “En realidad, no creo que Joe Biden esté liderando el país. Creo que es un títere de facto de la clase gerencial en el Estado administrativo que lo utiliza como instrumento para lograr sus propios objetivos”.Al señalar, como lo hizo DeSantis, las quejas sobre la difusión del caso de la computadora portátil de Hunter Biden, Ramaswamy afirmó: “Las grandes empresas de tecnología se robaron las elecciones de 2020”.Ruth Igielnik More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      G.O.P. Contenders Feed Voter Distrust in Courts, Schools and Military

      by

      As Donald J. Trump has escalated his attacks on the justice system and other core institutions, his competitors for the Republican nomination have followed his lead.Ron DeSantis says the military is more interested in global warming and “gender ideology” initiatives than in national security.Tim Scott says the Justice Department “continues to hunt Republicans.”Vivek Ramaswamy has vowed to “shut down the deep state,” borrowing former President Donald J. Trump’s conspiratorial shorthand for a federal bureaucracy he views as hostile.As Mr. Trump escalates his attacks on American institutions, focusing his fire on the Justice Department as he faces new criminal charges, his competitors for the Republican nomination have followed his lead.Several have adopted much of Mr. Trump’s rhetoric sowing broad suspicion about the courts, the F.B.I., the military and schools. As they vie for support in a primary dominated by Mr. Trump, they routinely blast these targets in ways that might have been considered extraordinary, not to mention unthinkably bad politics, just a few years ago.Yet there is little doubt about the political incentives behind the statements. Polls show that Americans’ trust in their institutions has fallen to historical lows, with Republicans exhibiting more doubt across a broad swath of public life.The proliferation of attacks has alarmed both Republicans and Democrats who worry about the long-term impact on American democracy. Public confidence in core institutions — from the justice system to voting systems — is fundamental to a durable democracy, particularly at a time of sharp political division. Former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign says he is fighting “abuse, incompetence, and corruption that is running through the veins of our country at levels never seen before.”Doug Mills/The New York Times“We’ve had these times of division before in our history, but we’ve always had leaders to bridge the gaps who have said we need to build respect, we need to restore confidence in our institutions — today we have just the opposite,” said Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas and a moderate whose campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has so far gained little traction.“That defines the course of 2024,” he added. “We’re going to have a leader that brings out the best of America, which is the first job of being president. Or you’re going to have somebody that increases distrust that we have in our institutions.”Mr. Trump is still the loudest voice. As he blames others for his defeat in 2020 and, now, after being charged in three separate criminal cases, he has characterized federal prosecutors as “henchmen” orchestrating a “cover-up.” After he was indicted last week on charges related to his attempts to overturn the election, his campaign cited “abuse, incompetence and corruption that is running through the veins of our country at levels never seen before.”Mr. DeSantis, however, has echoed that view, making criticisms of educators, health officials, the mainstream news media, “elites” and government employees central to his campaign, and even, at times, invoking violent imagery.“All of these deep-state people, you know, we are going to start slitting throats on Day 1,” Mr. DeSantis said during a New Hampshire campaign stop late last week. The governor, a Navy veteran, used similar language about the Department of Defense late last month, saying that if elected he would need a defense secretary who “may have to slit some throats.”Other candidates, too, have keyed into voters’ trust deficit. Mr. Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur, wants to shut down the F.B.I. and the I.R.S. as part of his fight against the so-called deep state. Nikki Haley, a former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations, has said she opposes red-flag gun laws because “I don’t trust that they won’t take them away from people who rightfully deserve to have them.”Even Mike Pence, who has criticized Mr. Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election at the heart of the charges filed late week, has suggested the Justice Department is politically motivated in its prosecution, warning of a “two-tiered system of justice,” with “one set of rules for Republicans, and one set of rules for Democrats.”Running against the government is hardly new, especially for Republicans. For decades, the party called for shrinking the size and reach of some federal programs — with the exception of the military — and treated President Ronald Reagan’s declaration that “government is the problem” as a guiding principle.But even some Republicans, largely moderates who have rejected Trumpism, note the tenor of the campaign rhetoric has reached new and conspiratorial levels. Familiar complaints about government waste or regulatory overreach are now replaced with claims that government agencies are targeting citizens and that bureaucrats are busy enacting political agendas.“Does anyone believe the IRS won’t go after Middle America?” Nikki Haley tweeted in April.Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations, tweeted in April, “Does anyone believe the IRS won’t go after Middle America?” Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesNone of the candidates responded to requests for interviews about these statements.Casting doubt on the integrity of government is hardly limited to Republican candidates. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-shot candidate for the Democratic nomination, has made questioning public health officials on long-established science a focus of his campaign. In her quixotic bid for the nomination, Marianne Williamson has declared that she is “running to challenge the system.”And President Biden, whose resistance to institutional change has often frustrated the left wing of his party, has mused about his skepticism of the Supreme Court — “this is not a normal court,” he said after the court’s ruling striking down affirmative action in college admissions.A Gallup poll released in July found that public confidence in major American institutions is at record low levels, with historic levels of distrust in the military, police, schools, big business and technology. Several other institutions — including the presidency, the Supreme Court and the criminal justice system as well as newspapers and broadcast news, are just slightly above the record low they hit last year.There is an unmistakable partisan divide: Republicans are far less likely to express confidence in a majority of institutions in the survey, including the presidency and public schools. Democrats have far more doubt about the Supreme Court and the police. (There is bipartisan distrust in the criminal justice system, with less than one in four voters expressing confidence in the system.)The military has seen an especially steep decline in trust from Republican voters, with 68 percent saying they have confidence in the armed forces, compared with 91 percent three years ago. Mr. DeSantis in particular has spoken to that shift on an institution that Republicans were once loath to criticize.“When revered institutions like our own military are more concerned with matters not central to the mission — from global warming to gender ideology and pronouns — morale declines and recruiting suffers,” he said when he announced his bid. “We need to eliminate these distractions and get focused on the core mission.”In a Fox News interview, he recently said, “The military that I see is different from the military I served in.”Feeding on voters’ already deeply embedded skepticism might have once been seen as politically risky, but social media and the right-wing media have helped change that, said Sarah Longwell, a Republican consultant who conducts weekly focus groups with her party’s voters.Ms. Longwell says these forces have created a “Republican triangle of doom,” with the party’s voter base, politicians and partisan media creating a feedback loop of complaints and conspiracy theories.“The lack of trust has become a defining feature of our politics,” she said. “Voters feel like there is an existential threat any time that someone who doesn’t share your politics is in charge of something. We’ve lost the sense that neutral is possible.”But that does not explain the whole picture. The public’s trust in government institutions has been slipping for decades, first declining in the wake of the Vietnam War and then again after Watergate and yet again after the war in Iraq and the Great Recession.Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur, wants to shut down the F.B.I. and the I.R.S.Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesFormer Gov. Jerry Brown of California noted that he ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 1992 by attacking Washington institutions as corrupt, but the argument never caught fire in the way it has with Republicans, he said, in part because his party’s base generally trusted government.Today he sees the country as more polarized. Notions that would have once been seen as being on the fringe, such as Mr. Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, are mainstream. Many Republican voters expect to hear candidates attack election results routinely, undermining the system they depend on for power.“Democracy does depend on trust,” even if “politics depends on fear,” Mr. Brown said in a recent interview. “The world is getting more dangerous, and at home it’s getting less governable.”The impact of the lack of trust was particularly apparent in the pandemic, when many Americans blamed public authorities for inconsistent guidance and unpopular lockdowns. Ultimately, that distrust fed the anti-vaccination campaigns.Questioning public health officials has been essential to the rise of Mr. DeSantis, who more than two years ago wrote an essay in The Wall Street Journal with the headline: “Don’t Trust the Elites.”Mr. Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur, has also taken aim at the government. In another era, he might have been an unlikely hero for the anti-establishment — a Harvard-educated businessman who has lent more than $15 million to his own campaign.Still, as the disdain for the elites has metastasized deeper and further into the party, Mr. Ramaswamy has embraced the pugilistic language of Mr. Trump, frequently on social media.“Shut down the FBI & IRS,” he posted this month. “Pardon defendants of politicized prosecutions. Replace civil service protections with 8-year term limits. Punish bureaucrats who violate the law. Get aggressive.”Kitty Bennett More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Cheers the Defeat of Rapinoe and the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team

      by

      The former president taunted a U.S. team after its defeat on the world stage.When the United States lost to Sweden in the Women’s World Cup on Sunday, many American viewers saw it as a painful collapse on the grandest stage — the sort of agonizing moment that happens in sports.For former President Donald J. Trump, it was a sign of national decline.The loss was “fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation under Crooked Joe Biden,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media platform.“Many of our players were openly hostile to America — No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close,” he added. “WOKE EQUALS FAILURE. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA.”The taunt was an extension of a longstanding feud between Mr. Trump and Megan Rapinoe, the retiring soccer star who once refused to visit the Trump White House, and whose missed penalty kick contributed to the team’s loss. (After the game, Ms. Rapinoe summed up the miss as a sort of “sick joke.”)But it was also a striking example of the unforgiving moment in right-wing politics, when a former president will taunt an American team competing on the national stage and relish the agony of its defeat.President Biden congratulated the team on Twitter: “I’m looking forward to seeing how you continue to inspire Americans with your grit and determination — on and off the field.”“Your unwavering support means a lot to us,” the team said to its fans on Sunday. “Our goal remains the same, to win.”Criticism of the team was common in the online right-wing ecosystem even before its loss.Megyn Kelly, the podcast host, said that Ms. Rapinoe had “poisoned the entire team against the country for which they play” ahead of the game. The right-wing activist Brigitte Gabriel wrote late last month, “I love America and that’s why I am rooting against the woke U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team this year.”Richard Lapchick, the president of the Institute for Sport and Social Justice, drew a parallel between Mr. Trump’s attack on Ms. Rapinoe and his attacks in 2017 on N.F.L. players who, inspired by Colin Kaepernick, knelt for the national anthem to protest racial inequality and police brutality. After Mr. Trump’s criticism six years ago, “what was seemingly a dimming protest movement in the N.F.L. was suddenly reignited so that they had even owners and coaches” expressing support, Dr. Lapchick said.“I think that his doing this again this week will reinforce the base of athlete activism that I think has grown significantly stronger in the last couple of years,” he said.The conservative criticism has been focused on both Ms. Rapinoe’s political statements — including her support of gay and transgender rights, which Mr. Trump has attacked — and the women’s national team’s fight for pay equity. Mr. Trump and others disparage these stances as “woke,” the right’s catchall shorthand for progressive views on gender, race and other issues.A recent article in The Washington Examiner, a conservative publication, accused the women’s national soccer team of appearing “far more concerned pushing a woke agenda regarding equal pay for female athletes and the rights of L.G.B.T. citizens than they have been with winning games.”Ms. Rapinoe has been a target of the right since at least 2019, when she refused to visit the White House after the United States won the last Women’s World Cup. Mr. Trump criticized her at the time. She has long been outspoken, and she is among the athletes who have knelt for the national anthem.While “anti-woke” attacks have reliably stirred the right-wing base, a recent New York Times/Siena College poll indicates that they don’t reflect most voters’ priorities.A minority of the presidential candidates, including former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and former Representative Will Hurd of Texas, have urged Republicans to focus on concrete matters like inflation.Then again, so has Mr. Trump — to a point.“I don’t like the term ‘woke,’” he said in Iowa in June, adding, “It’s just a term they use — half the people can’t even define it, they don’t know what it is.”Mary Jo Kane, a professor emerita and founder of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota, suggested that the mere existence of Mr. Trump’s latest attack was “a reflection of the growth and the power and the significance of a cultural moment of women’s sports.”“The fact that the former president of the United States is commenting on women’s sports — nobody used to comment on women’s sports,” she said. “The fact that this has become yet another arena that is culturally contested and commented on is, ironically and unwittingly, a demonstration of the role of women’s sports in our society.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Bluntly Acknowledges Trump’s 2020 Defeat: ‘Of Course He Lost’

      by

      “Joe Biden’s the president,” the Florida governor said in an interview with NBC News. He and other Republican presidential candidates have been testing new lines of attack against Donald Trump.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida clearly stated in a new interview that Donald J. Trump lost the 2020 election, diverging from the orthodoxy of most Republican voters as the former president’s struggling G.O.P. rivals test out new lines of attack against him.“Of course he lost,” Mr. DeSantis said in an interview with NBC News published on Monday. “Joe Biden’s the president.”The comments came after Mr. DeSantis, who is polling well behind Mr. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, acknowledged on Friday that the former president’s false theories about a rigged 2020 election were “unsubstantiated.”For years, Mr. DeSantis dodged direct answers to questions about whether he believed the election was stolen. During the 2022 midterms, he also campaigned for Republican candidates nationwide who vehemently denied the 2020 results.Now, Mr. DeSantis’s increasingly aggressive stance suggests that Mr. Trump’s legal problems have sent his Republican competitors looking for some way to take advantage. While none of his top rivals are openly attacking him over his latest criminal charges, they are trying to press on his weaknesses — acknowledging reality and bursting the bubble of denial that he and many Republicans live in.Mr. DeSantis’s latest answer, while accurate, may put him at odds with much of the Republican base. Although the 2020 election was widely found to have been secure, roughly 70 percent of Republican voters say that President Biden’s victory was not legitimate, according to a CNN poll conducted last month. Mr. Trump continues to insist that he was the rightful winner.So far, of the most prominent candidates, former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and former Vice President Mike Pence have spoken out most strongly against Mr. Trump. Mr. Christie is running on an explicitly anti-Trump platform. Mr. Pence has said that Mr. Trump deserves the “presumption of innocence” but has also said he would testify in the former president’s trial over Jan. 6, 2021, if called to do so.“The American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution, but I kept my oath and I always will,” Mr. Pence told CNN. “And I’m running for president in part because I think anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.”But neither argument appears to be resonating with Republican voters. Mr. Christie is polling at about 2 percent in national surveys, and Mr. Pence has not yet qualified for the first Republican debate later this month. At a dinner for the Republican Party of Iowa late last month, the audience booed former Representative Will Hurd of Texas, a long-shot candidate, after he accused the former president of “running to stay out of prison.”In the NBC interview, Mr. DeSantis still said he saw problems with how the 2020 election was conducted, citing the widespread use of mail-in ballots, private donations to election administrators from the Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and efforts by social media companies to limit the spread of a report about Hunter Biden’s laptop.“I don’t think it was a good-run election,” Mr. DeSantis said. “But I also think Republicans didn’t fight back. You’ve got to fight back when that is happening.”Still, his more forceful response to the 2020 question serves as a reminder to Republican voters that under Mr. Trump, the party has performed poorly in three elections in a row.His remarks may help assuage the fears of some big-money donors. Robert Bigelow, who contributed more than $20 million to a super PAC backing Mr. DeSantis, told Reuters last week that he would not give more money unless Mr. DeSantis adopted a more moderate approach. The governor’s campaign is experiencing a fund-raising shortfall and last month laid off more than a third of its staff.Mr. DeSantis has also had more opportunities to address sensitive subjects like 2020 in recent weeks. As part of a “reboot” of his campaign, he has opened himself up to more interviews with mainstream news outlets, retreating from the safety of sitting down only with hosts from Fox News and conservative pundits. He has recently given one-on-one interviews to CNN, CBS, ABC and The Wall Street Journal, in addition to NBC, and has also taken far more questions from reporters on the campaign trail.He has used those platforms to dig at Mr. Trump for his age, his failure to “drain the swamp” during his term in office, and the “culture of losing” that Mr. DeSantis says has overtaken the Republican Party under Mr. Trump’s leadership.But he has also defended Mr. Trump over the criminal charges, saying they represent the “weaponization” of federal government against a political rival of Mr. Biden. Taken together, Mr. DeSantis’s comments on the former president suggest he is inching, rather than running, toward more direct confrontation.In the NBC interview, Mr. DeSantis also stated his belief that Republicans must move their focus beyond the indictments against Mr. Trump to challenging Mr. Biden, and continued to defend Florida’s new standards on how slavery is taught in schools.And he provided more of an explanation for his campaign-trail promise that migrants suspected of smuggling drugs across the southern border would be shot. Mr. DeSantis has often said that smugglers who try to break through the border wall would be left “stone-cold dead,” usually to thunderous applause at campaign events. But he has not said how U.S. law enforcement would identify them.“Same way a police officer would know,” Mr. DeSantis replied when asked to explain the mechanics of his policy. “Same way somebody operating in Iraq would know. You know, these people in Iraq at the time, they all looked the same. You didn’t know who had a bomb strapped to them. So those guys have to make judgments.”Ruth Igielnik More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley Fights to Stay Competitive in GOP Primary Dominated by Trump

      by

      The former South Carolina governor is campaigning at a grueling pace, but polling suggests that so far, Republican voters aren’t flocking to her.Nikki Haley is campaigning at a grueling pace as she fights to stay competitive in the Republican presidential contest, crisscrossing Iowa and New Hampshire to find a clear lane forward in a race dominated by Donald J. Trump and his mountain of legal problems.So far, that path is elusive.By many measures, Ms. Haley is running a healthy campaign poised to capitalize on rivals’ mistakes. She has built a robust fund-raising operation and her team has cash to spare: A super PAC backing her this week announced a $13 million advertising effort in Iowa and New Hampshire. And at events, voters often like what she has to say.“She is not pounding the pulpit,” Eric Ray, 42, a Republican legal defense consultant in Iowa, said after watching her speak at a barbecue restaurant last weekend in Iowa City, adding that she had his vote. “She is not jumping up and down. She is not screaming the word ‘woke.’ She is making reasonable arguments for reasonable people.”Yet as Ms. Haley tries to occupy a lonely realm between the moderate and far-right wings of her party, her attempts to gain national traction — talking openly about her positions on abortion, taking a hard stance against transgender girls playing in girls’ sports, attacking Vice President Kamala Harris — appear to be falling flat with the Republican base at large.Polls show Ms. Haley stuck in the low single digits in Iowa and New Hampshire, and trailing both Mr. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida in her home state, South Carolina. Nationally, the first New York Times/Siena College poll of the 2024 campaign showed Mr. Trump carrying the support of 54 percent of likely Republican primary voters. Ms. Haley sat in a distant third, tied at 3 percent with former Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.Ms. Haley is polling in the low single digits in Iowa and New Hampshire, and trailing both Donald J. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida in her home state, South Carolina.John Tully for The New York TimesWorryingly for Ms. Haley, as Mr. DeSantis’s campaign has stumbled and given his competitors an opening, it has been Mr. Scott, her local Republican rival, who has appeared best positioned to benefit.“I wouldn’t dismiss her just yet,” said Dante Scala, a professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. But, he added, “When you are treading water among your own party’s voters — that is a problem.”Allies of Ms. Haley, 51, the sole Republican woman in the race, argue that she has beaten long odds before, stunning political analysts to win the South Carolina governor’s office by climbing from fourth place in the polls and fund-raising.Her campaign says it has exceeded its benchmarks: At least 2,000 gathered in Charleston, S.C., for the kickoff of her presidential bid. Ms. Haley has held more events in Iowa and New Hampshire than most of her competitors, and her bid is attracting the interest of a wide mix of donors.When voters ask about how she can prevail, Ms. Haley points to retail politics — “get used to this face, because I am going to keep on coming back” — and her financial strength. Her top competitors have spent millions of dollars, with little to show for it, she suggests, because few voters have been paying attention in these early summer months.“We haven’t spent anything,” she said in Iowa City, declaring her campaign was about “to kick into full gear.” She added, “You will see me finish this.”But Mr. Trump poses a different type of obstacle for her, and for every other Republican candidate playing catch-up.Ms. Haley, who served as United Nations ambassador under the former president, has carefully calibrated her approach to Mr. Trump and his unwavering followers. Delivering many of the same broadsides he does, but cloaking them in calm tones and plain language, she has alternated between criticism and praise of the former president.Ms. Haley at a campaign stop last month in Iowa City. She has spent years toeing the line between Reagan-Bush neoconservatism and the Trump-centric politics of today’s Republican voters.Scott Olson/Getty ImagesHer unwillingness to directly confront Mr. Trump has drawn criticism from some anti-Trump Republicans. Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey recently compared the reluctance of Ms. Haley and other candidates to mention Mr. Trump to the “Harry Potter” world’s fear of uttering the name “Voldemort.”“Nikki, it’s OK,” Mr. Christie said. “Say his name. It’s all right.”Ms. Haley fired right back, saying: “I’m not obsessively anti-Trump like he is. I talk about policies.”At a gathering with six other Republican rivals on Sunday in Iowa — though not including Mr. Trump — Ms. Haley mentioned the former president in passing, not as a 2024 rival, but to recall how he “lost his mind” in delight over a briefing book she prepared while serving as his U.N. ambassador. Her speech was heavy on foreign policy, most notably warning that China was outpacing the United States in shipbuilding, hacking American infrastructure and developing “neuro-strike weapons” to “disrupt brain activity, so they can use it against military commanders.”Ms. Haley has spent years toeing the line between the Reagan-Bush neoconservatism she once sought to emulate and the Trump-centric politics of today’s Republican voters.During the 2016 election, when Mr. Trump first ran, she did not support him in the Republican primary or his pledge to build a border wall. But she eventually said she would vote for him and later agreed to serve as his ambassador. She left on good terms at the end of 2018, receiving a rare glowing review from Mr. Trump in an administration in which staff turmoil and turnover were rampant.After the Capitol riot, she faulted the president. But she later contended that he was needed in the Republican Party and lavished praise on his approach to foreign policy, including his dealings with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea. She has since echoed Mr. Trump’s hard-line immigration message, including an idea to deploy the military against drug cartels in Mexico.In recent stump speeches and political events, Ms. Haley has turned China — and not Mr. Trump — into her foil, amplifying her attacks on the Biden administration for its attempts to thaw relations with the global superpower.As governor of South Carolina, she lauded and welcomed Chinese companies, helping them expand or open new operations in the state. But on the 2024 trail, she has argued that this investment accounted for less than 2 percent of the jobs and projects her administration brought in, and that she did not learn how dangerous China was until she became U.N. ambassador.“I’ve been across the negotiating table from China,” Ms. Haley told an audience of more than 50 people at a manufacturing company in Barrington, N.H., promising to crack down on the “Chinese infiltration at our universities” and the importation of fentanyl from China across the Southwestern border. “They don’t play by the rules, they never have.”A bright spot for Ms. Haley is her fund-raising. She raised $7.3 million through her presidential campaign and affiliated committees from April through June, according to financial filings that revealed her strong appeal to small donors. Her robust network of bundlers, or supporters who raise money from friends and business associates, includes 125 such backers. Forty percent of them are first-time bundlers, and the group includes powerful women in business and politics, according to her campaign.Ms. Haley has turned China into her foil, attacking the Biden administration for its attempts to thaw relations with the global superpower.John Tully for The New York TimesJennifer Ann Nassour, one of her bundlers and a former chairwoman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, said Ms. Haley was in a prime position to break out at the first Republican debate this month.“No one wants to see another Trump-Biden showdown,” Ms. Nassour said, adding that it was “not good for democracy.”At the town hall event in Barrington, Toby Clarke, 64, asked Ms. Haley a question weighing on many G.O.P. voters who would like to move on from Mr. Trump: How can the Republican Party come together and avoid splitting its primary results in a way that hands the nomination to the former president?“Everybody is worried that this is going to turn into 2015 all over again,” Ms. Haley responded, assuring Mr. Clarke that the field of Republican candidates was smaller and that she was meeting the necessary benchmarks to pull ahead. “It’s not going to be 2015 all over again.”At an event at a vineyard in Hollis, N.H., later that day, with attendees shielded under umbrellas as rain poured from the sky, Ms. Haley expressed optimism, promising to outwork her rivals.“Republicans have lost the last seven out eight popular votes for president — that is nothing to be proud of,” she said. “We need a new generational leader.”Trip Gabriel More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Calls for Recusal of Judge as His Lawyer Denies Pence’s 2020 Claims

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump spent the weekend on the attack on Truth Social while his lawyer, John F. Lauro, ran through a gantlet of interviews Sunday morning.Appearing on five television networks Sunday morning, a lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump argued that his actions in the effort to overturn the 2020 election fell short of crimes and were merely “aspirational.”The remarks from his lawyer, John F. Lauro, came as Mr. Trump was blanketing his social media platform, Truth Social, with posts suggesting that his legal team was going to seek the recusal of Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, the federal judge overseeing the case, and try to move his trial out of Washington.With his client facing charges carrying decades in prison after a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Trump for his role in trying to overturn the election, his third criminal case this year, Mr. Lauro appeared in interviews on CNN, ABC, Fox, NBC and CBS. He endeavored to defend Mr. Trump, including against evidence that, as president, he pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, to reject legitimate votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr. in favor of false electors pledged to Mr. Trump.“What President Trump didn’t do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything,” Mr. Lauro said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He asked him in an aspirational way.”Mr. Lauro used the same defense on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” when asked about Mr. Trump’s now-infamous call to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger. During that call, President Trump pressured Mr. Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” to win the state and suggested that Mr. Raffensperger could face criminal repercussions if he did not.“That was an aspirational ask,” Mr. Lauro said.His portrayal of Mr. Trump’s approach is at odds with two key moments in the indictment.In one, prosecutors say that on Jan. 5, 2021, Mr. Trump met alone with Mr. Pence, who refused to do what Mr. Trump wanted. When that happened, the indictment says, “the defendant grew frustrated and told the Vice President that the defendant would have to publicly criticize him.”Mr. Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, then alerted the head of Mr. Pence’s Secret Service detail, prosecutors said.That same day, after The Times reported that Mr. Pence had indeed told Mr. Trump that he lacked the authority to do what Mr. Trump wanted, the president issued a public statement calling the report “fake news.” According to the indictment, Mr. Trump also falsely asserted: “The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.”As Mr. Lauro made the rounds on all five Sunday news shows — what is known as the “full Ginsburg,” from when Monica Lewinsky’s lawyer, William Ginsburg, did the same amid allegations about her affair with President Bill Clinton — Mr. Trump waged his own campaign on Truth Social.“WOW, it’s finally happened! Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor Indiana until I came along and made him V.P., has gone to the Dark Side,” Mr. Trump wrote on Saturday. A few days earlier, he mocked Mr. Pence, now a 2024 rival, for “attracting no crowds, enthusiasm or loyalty from people who, as a member of the Trump Administration, should be loving him.”Mr. Trump went on: “I never told a newly emboldened (not based on his 2% poll numbers!) Pence to put me above the Constitution, or that Mike was ‘too honest.’”His attack came after a judge warned Mr. Trump against intimidating witnesses and after prosecutors flagged another Truth Social post by Mr. Trump as potentially threatening.On Sunday, Mr. Trump also attacked Jack Smith, the special counsel in the Jan. 6 case, and Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, calling Mr. Smith “deranged” and Ms. Pelosi “sick” and “demented.”In one all-caps message, Mr. Trump accused Mr. Smith of waiting to bring the case until “right in the middle” of his election campaign.In the other posts, Mr. Trump attacked Ms. Pelosi, the former House speaker, who recently said that the former president had seemed like “a scared puppy” before his arraignment. “She is a sick & demented psycho who will someday live in HELL!” Mr. Trump wrote.And he channeled his grievances with the court process toward Judge Chutkan and toward the population of Washington, D.C., writing that he would never get a “fair trial.”For his part, Mr. Pence has been criticizing Mr. Trump’s actions in carefully calibrated terms. He has repeatedly used the same phrases, arguing that anyone who “puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” He repeated similar lines on Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” following Mr. Lauro’s appearance, and on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”“What I want the American people to know is that President Trump was wrong then and he’s wrong now: that I had no right to overturn the election,” Mr. Pence told the CNN anchor Dana Bash. “I had no right to reject or return votes, and that, by God’s grace, I did my duty under the Constitution of the United States, and I always will.”Maggie Haberman More