Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How to Make Trump Go Away

      by

      After more than three decades in and around politics, I now spend most of my time grappling with political questions in the classroom and in focus groups. There is one conundrum that fascinates me above others: Why does Donald Trump still generate such loyalty and devotion? And unlike 2016, can a different Republican win the nomination in 2024 who largely shares Mr. Trump’s agenda but not his personality?To answer these questions, I have hosted more than two dozen focus groups with Trump voters across the country, the most recent for Straight Arrow News on Wednesday night to understand their mind-sets in the aftermath of his historic indictment in Manhattan. Many felt ignored and forgotten by the professional political class before Mr. Trump, and victimized and ridiculed for liking him now. Like Republican primary voters nationwide, the focus group participants still respect him, most still believe in him, a majority think the 2020 election was stolen, and half still want him to run again in 2024.But there is a way forward for other Republican presidential contenders as well.It begins by reflecting more closely on Mr. Trump’s rule-breaking, paradigm-shattering campaign in 2016 and all of his unforced errors since then. It accurately reflects the significant attitudinal and economic changes in America over the past eight years. And it requires an acceptance that pummeling him and attempting to decimate his base will not work. Trump voters are paying laserlike attention to all the candidates. If they think a candidate’s mission is to defeat their hero, the candidate will fail. But if a 2024 contender convinces them that he or she wants to listen to and learn from them, they’ll give that person a chance. Neither Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz understood this dynamic when they attacked Mr. Trump in 2016, and that’s why they failed.So consider this a playbook for potential Republican candidates and for G.O.P. voters and conservative independents wanting someone other than Mr. Trump in 2024, a strategic road map based on informed experiences with Trump voters for the past eight years. This is what I’ve learned from these focus groups and research.First, beating Mr. Trump requires humility. It starts by recognizing that you can’t win every voter. You can’t win even half of them: Mr. Trump’s support within the Republican Party isn’t just a mile wide, it’s also a mile deep. But based on my focus groups since 2015, roughly a third of Trump voters prioritize the character of the country and the people who run it — and that’s enough to change the 2024 outcome. It’s not about beating Mr. Trump with a competing ideology. It’s about offering Republicans the contrast they seek: a candidate who champions Mr. Trump’s agenda but with decency, civility and a commitment to personal responsibility and accountability.Second, Mr. Trump has become his own version of the much-hated political establishment. Mar-a-Lago has become Grand Central Terminal for politicians, political hacks, lobbyists, and out-of-touch elites who have ignored, forgotten and betrayed the people they represent. Worse yet, with incessant fund-raising, often targeting people who can least afford to give, Mr. Trump has become a professional politician reflecting the political system he was elected to destroy. For more than seven years, he has used the same lines, the same rallies, the same jokes and the same chants. That’s perfectly fine for some Trump voters. But there’s a clear way to appeal to other Republican voters firmly focused on the future rather than on re-litigating the past. It starts with a simple campaign pitch along these lines: “We can do better. We must do better.”Third, recognize that the average farmer, small business owner and veteran will hold greater sway with the Trump voter than the famous and the powerful. Having endorsements or campaign ads from members of Congress will generate less support than the emotional stories of people who, just like so many Trump supporters, were knocked down, got back up and are now helping others to do the same. They just need to be authentic — and be able to say that they have voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 and 2020 — so the Never Trump label won’t stick. Their best message: the Trump of today is not the Trump of 2015. In other words: “Donald Trump had my back in 2016. Now, it’s all about him. I didn’t leave Donald Trump. He left me.”Fourth, compliment Mr. Trump’s presidency while you criticize the person. Trump focus groups are incredibly instructive in helping differentiate between the passionate support most Trump voters feel for his efforts and his accomplishments and the embarrassment and frustration they have with his comments and his behavior. For example, most Republicans like his tough talk on China, but they dislike his bullying behavior here at home. So applaud the administration before you criticize the man. “Donald Trump was a great president, but he wasn’t always a great role model. Today, more than ever, we need character — not just courage. We don’t need to insult people to make a point, or make a difference.”Fifth, make it more about the grandchildren. Millions of Trump voters are old — really old. They love their grandchildren, so speak specifically about the grandkids and their grandparents will listen as well. “We mistake loud for leadership, condemnation for commitment. The values we teach our children should be the values we see in our president.”The looming debt ceiling vote is the perfect hook. The increase in the annual deficit under Trump ranks as the third-largest increase, relative to the size of the economy, of any U.S. presidential administration. Long before Covid, Republicans in Congress were told by the Trump White House to spend more — and that spending contributed to the current debt crisis. Mr. Trump will say he was fiscally responsible, but the actual numbers don’t lie. “We can’t afford these deficits. We can’t afford this debt. We can’t afford Donald Trump.”Sixth, there’s one character trait that unites just about everyone: an aversion to public piety while displaying private dishonesty. In a word, hypocrisy. Until now, that hasn’t worked for Trump’s opponents, but that’s because the examples weren’t personally relevant to Mr. Trump’s voters. During his 2016 campaign, Trump condemned Barack Obama repeatedly for his occasional rounds of golf, promising not to travel at taxpayer expense. What was Trump’s record? Close to 300 rounds of golf on his own personal courses in just four years, costing hardworking taxpayers roughly $150 million in additional security. This may sound minor, but delivered on the debate stage, it could be lethal. “While more than half of America was working paycheck to paycheck, he was working on his short game. And you paid for it!”Seventh, you won’t be elected with Republicans alone. The successful candidate must appeal to independents as well. In 2016, Mr. Trump promised his voters that they would get tired of winning. But he alienated independents to such a degree that they abandoned Republicans and joined Democrats, giving America Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2018, President Biden in 2020, and Majority Leader Schumer in 2020. Just one Senate seat in 2020 would have brought the Democratic agenda to a complete halt. Most of Mr. Trump’s endorsements in highly contested races in 2022 lost in a midterms surprise that few people (including me) anticipated. If Mr. Trump is the nominee in 2024, are Republicans fully confident he will win independents this time? The ex-president surely loses if Republicans come to believe that a vote for Mr. Trump in the primaries means the election of Mr. Biden in the general.And eighth, you need to penetrate the conservative echo chamber. You need at least one of these on your side: Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, Newt Gingrich and, of course, Tucker, Hannity or Laura. Thanks to the Dominion lawsuit, we all know what Fox News hosts say in private. The challenge is to get them to be as honest in public. That requires a candidate as tough as Mr. Trump, but more committed publicly to traditional conservative ideology like ending wasteful Washington spending — and the ability to get it done. “Some people want to make a statement. I want to make a difference.”Among the likely Republican rivals to Mr. Trump for the nomination, no one is coming close yet to doing some or all of this. Ron DeSantis has only mildly criticized Mr. Trump, preferring an all-out assault on Disney instead. No worries. He has plenty of time to get his messaging in order. But when he and his colleagues step onto the Republican debate stage in August, they will have but one opportunity to prove they deserve the job by proving they understand the Trump voter.To be clear, if Mr. Trump runs exclusively on his administration’s record, he probably wins the nomination. So far, he has proved himself incapable of doing so. Most Republicans applaud his economic and foreign policy successes and his impact on the bureaucracy and judiciary, particularly in comparison to his predecessor and now his successor.But that’s not the Donald Trump of 2023. The cheerleading stops for many when asked to evaluate Mr. Trump’s ongoing public comments and behavior. In 2016, the campaign was about what he could do for you. Today, it’s about what is being done to him. If he becomes increasingly unhinged, or if his opponents focus on his tweets, his outbursts and his destructive personality, a sizable number of Republicans could choose someone else, as long as they prioritize core, time-tested priorities like lower taxes, less regulation, and less Washington.Republicans want just about everything Mr. Trump did, without everything Mr. Trump is or says.Frank Luntz is a focus group moderator, pollster, professor and communications strategist who worked for Republican candidates in previous elections.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

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why Are We So Obsessed With the Way Politicians Eat?

      by

      I never thought I would relate to Ron DeSantis, a man whose political beliefs I vehemently oppose. But a few weeks ago, when I read this report about the Florida governor’s eating habits, I felt a deep sense of somewhat shameful recognition.“He would sit in meetings and eat in front of people,” an unnamed former DeSantis staffer told The Daily Beast, “always like a starving animal who has never eaten before.”This is me. I don’t eat my food; I inhale it.Actually, this is my entire family. I sometimes joke that my husband and I got married because we both eat so quickly and aggressively. Dinner at our house rarely lasts more than 10 minutes. When I eat in public, I have to consciously try to slow down — and I hate that.Where DeSantis lost me, though, is in the one detail about his manners that went viral. Per The Daily Beast:Enshrined in DeSantis lore is an episode from four years ago: During a private plane trip from Tallahassee to Washington, D.C., in March of 2019, DeSantis enjoyed a chocolate pudding dessert — by eating it with three of his fingers, according to two sources familiar with the incident.It’s an image so specific — scooping pudding with not one, not two, but three fingers — that I can’t erase it from my mind. It’s so indelible that it ricocheted around the internet: Talking Points Memo called it “PuddingGate.” In an interview covering DeSantis’s possible run for president, Piers Morgan asked the governor if he’d really eaten pudding with three fingers. “I don’t remember ever doing that,” DeSantis hedged. “Maybe when I was a kid.”PuddingGate reminded me of a similar uproar in 2019, after The Times published an anecdote about Senator Amy Klobuchar, at the time a presidential contender, eating salad with a comb, another surprising and unforgettable moment in the annals of political dining. Then memories of other politicians-and-food stories came flooding back to me: Why do I remember that Barack Obama’s White House chef joked that Obama ate exactly seven almonds as a snack? (An allegation Obama was moved to debunk.) And why is any of my precious brain space, what little is left of it, occupied by a 2016 report that Donald Trump prefers his steak so well done “it would rock on the plate”? (In 2017, The Takeout asked if Trump dunking a $54 steak in ketchup was “a crime” — though not one he was recently charged with.)“I think in our minds, what and how people eat tells us a lot about who they are,” said Priya Fielding-Singh, a sociologist and an assistant professor of family and consumer studies at the University of Utah, and the author of “How the Other Half Eats.” The public believes that a person’s eating habits tell us something unique and authentic about them, she said, “something that we can’t learn through their political speeches or policy endorsements. It gives us this window into their character, their values, their willpower, self-discipline, virtuousness, laziness.”Our interest in politicians’ eating habits isn’t new, either. According to Harold Holzer, the director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College and the author of “The Presidents vs. the Press: The Endless Battle Between the White House and the Media — From the Founding Fathers to Fake News,” Americans have been turning a spotlight on the diets of presidents at least since Thomas Jefferson served ice cream at the White House. “People were amazed at what he was eating,” Holzer said.Holzer, who has studied Abraham Lincoln most extensively, said Lincoln didn’t have much of an appetite, “but when he was hungry, he would take out a pen knife and core an apple,” cutting off chunks and eating them, which some people apparently found odd.Perhaps these stories are able to take hold because they correspond with our perceptions of each of these men — Jefferson as the well-traveled aristocrat, bringing a delicacy to greater recognition in the States, and Lincoln as more of a common man, less concerned with appearances. Remember the hubbub when Obama bemoaned the price of arugula during his first presidential run? People glommed onto that detail because it fit with the claims that he was too elitist to appeal to regular, vegetable-hating Americans. (Good thing he didn’t call the bitter green “rocket” or he might not have made it out of the primaries.)As Holzer notes, part of any presidential campaign — any high-profile campaign, really — involves traveling around and eating local delicacies in the correct way: Lord help you if you eat pizza with a knife and fork. Heaven forfend if you order lox, capers and onions on a cinnamon-raisin bagel, Cynthia Nixon’s “troubling” selection during New York’s 2018 gubernatorial race that prompted commentator George Conway to tweet “Lox her up?”Writing for The Atlantic in 2018, the food anthropologist Kelly Alexander called this “gastropolitics”:Since the advent of American democracy, politicians have deployed foods in order to show how populist they are — how much they are like you and me. They attend barbecues in the South (and in Arizona) and corn festivals in the Midwest; they visit citrus growers in Florida, Mexican restaurants in California, and fishermen in Maine and Massachusetts, all while eating whatever the local specialty is in front of as many people and as much press as possible.But there’s a difference between information about eating habits that politicians control or release themselves (for example, Canada’s Green Party leader giving President Biden a “Peace by Chocolate” bar from a company founded by Syrian immigrants) and the often unflattering details that leak, sometimes from anonymous former staffers who seem to have an ax to grind. The latter tend to make more headlines because we may think that the way someone eats in private is more representative of their true self.Which brings me back to DeSantis. I don’t share the view of New York magazine’s Margaret Hartmann, who entertained the possibility that eating pudding with three fingers is “so weird it may end his 2024 presidential bid before it officially starts.” If you’re a fan of the governor, I doubt you’d be moved to vote against him because his hunger overcame his sense of good manners. Though he’s dipping in the national polls against Trump, he beat Trump among regular Florida Republican primary voters in one new poll, and his approval rating is higher in his home state than it was in September. The brand he’s trying to create is that of a regular (you know, Yale-and-Harvard-educated regular) guy who’s battling “elites” on every front. As an unfazed DeSantis said to Morgan: “They’re talking about pudding? Like, is that really the best you’ve got? OK, bring it on.”One sure takeaway, though? If you’re ever running for office, keep spare utensils handy at all times.Tiny VictoriesParenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.My oldest daughter is 19 and in her second year of university. The tiny victories are just as sweet, even though she no longer needs me to wipe her face. As this semester began, she was juggling two part time jobs as well as full time study. I urged her to reduce her waitressing shifts the same week that lectures started. She was sure that she’d be fine to keep working at the restaurant at the same pace for a couple of weeks. Turns out, it was too much. Oh, my friends, how sweet it is to receive a text message that begins “Mum! You were right.”— Miriam McCaleb, North Canterbury, New ZealandIf you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Looms Next After Trump’s Indictment in New York

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump now faces a very different legal challenge in the culmination of a more than two-year Atlanta investigation into election interference.ATLANTA — The indictment of Donald J. Trump in New York over hush-money payments to a porn star was a global spectacle, with the former president glumly returning to his old stomping grounds in Manhattan as TV networks closely tracked his procession of black SUVs on their way to the courthouse.But strip away the high drama, and the actual charging document in the case was far less grand — 34 felony counts of a fairly narrow and common bookkeeping charge that Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, described as the “bread and butter” of his office’s white-collar criminal prosecutions.In Georgia, however, there is another criminal investigation of Mr. Trump nearing completion, this one also led by a local prosecutor, Fani T. Willis of Fulton County. While nothing is certain, there are numerous signs that she may go big, with a more kaleidoscopic indictment charging not only Mr. Trump, but perhaps a dozen or more of his allies.Her investigation has targeted a wide range of conduct centered around efforts to subvert the democratic process and overturn Mr. Trump’s 2020 election loss. Nearly 20 people are already known to have been told that they are targets who could face charges, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, and David Shafer, the head of the Georgia Republican Party.For Mr. Trump, the possibility of a second and potentially more complex criminal indictment in another state underscores the blizzard of legal challenges he is facing, even as he emerges as the clear front-runner among Republican presidential candidates.For Ms. Willis, the choice to pursue a narrowly focused indictment or more a sprawling one — a classic prosecutor’s dilemma — carries with it potential risks and benefits on both sides. And American history offers few examples in which the stakes are so high.Fani T. Willis, the district attorney for Fulton County, Ga., has said that seeking an indictment under the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, statute is an option that she is considering.Audra Melton for The New York Times“Certainly prosecutors would have this conversation of what’s in the best interest of justice and what is strategically preferable for a case,” said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former federal prosecutor. A narrow case can be easier for jurors to understand. But it is also possible to go “too narrow,” Ms. McQuade said, denying a jury the ability to see the entire scope of a defendant’s criminal behavior.If, on the other hand, a wide-ranging scheme is charged, “you allow them to see the full scope of criminal conduct,” she said. But going big could cause jurors to become lost amid a profusion of evidence, with a long trial increasing the possibility of a mistrial.In Georgia, the investigation is focused on myriad efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s narrow loss in Georgia after his 2020 election defeat, including his January 2021 phone call to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, in which he pressed Mr. Raffensperger, a fellow Republican, to recalculate the results and “find” him enough votes to win.Mr. Trump is also under investigation by Jack Smith, a special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, for his role in the events leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and his decisions to retain sensitive government documents at his home in Florida.If Ms. Willis chooses to seek indictments in the Georgia case, she may do so after a new grand jury begins its work in the second week of May, though nothing is set in stone. Typically, presenting such cases to a regular grand jury is a short process that takes a day or two.The wide scope of the investigation has been evident for months, and Ms. Willis has said that seeking an indictment under the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, statute is an option that she is considering. Like the similar federal law, the Georgia RICO statute allows prosecutors to bundle what may seem to be unrelated crimes committed by a host of different people if those crimes are perceived to be in support of a common objective.Election workers counted absentee ballots in Atlanta in 2020.Audra Melton for The New York TimesMs. Willis has extensive experience with racketeering cases, including a case she won involving a group of public-school educators accused of altering students’ standardized tests. Her office is currently pursuing racketeering charges against two gangs connected to the hip-hop world, including one led by the Atlanta rapper Jeffery Williams, who performs as Young Thug.“I think jurors are very, very intelligent,” Ms. Willis said at a news conference in August, in which she announced a racketeering case against a third Atlanta-area gang known as Drug Rich. “RICO is a tool that allows a prosecutor’s office or law enforcement to tell the whole story. And so we use it as a tool so that they can have all the information they need to make a wise decision.”After starting the Trump investigation in February 2021, Ms. Willis’s office sought the aid of a special grand jury to gather and consider evidence. In Georgia, such juries do not have indictment powers but can issue subpoenas in long-running investigations. The body was empaneled last spring and completed its work in January after hearing closed-door testimony from 75 witnesses, though its recommendations have remained largely under seal.Emily Kohrs, the forewoman of that special grand jury, strongly hinted in an interview with The New York Times in February that Mr. Trump was among more than a dozen people who had been recommended for indictment. “You’re not going to be shocked,” she said, when asked whether Mr. Trump was named in the report. “It’s not rocket science.”Court records show that the special grand jury sought testimony from witnesses including Mark Meadows, who served as White House chief of staff under Mr. Trump; Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an ally of the former president; and Trevian Kutti, a former self-described publicist for rapper Kanye West who, according to prosecutors, was involved in a plot to force a Fulton County elections worker to give a false confession of election fraud.Documents also show that prosecutors are following numerous narrative threads in Georgia involving either Mr. Trump or his allies. These include Mr. Trump’s phone calls to Georgia officials, including the one to Mr. Raffensperger; specious statements about election fraud made by Mr. Giuliani and others at state legislative hearings; the convening of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College at the Georgia State Capitol; Ms. Kutti’s bizarre meeting with the elections worker, Ruby Freeman, two days after Mr. Trump’s phone call to Mr. Raffensperger, in which Mr. Trump falsely accused Ms. Freeman of being a “vote scammer”; and a plot by allies of Mr. Trump involving the copying of sensitive election software in rural Coffee County, Ga.In Georgia, the investigation is focused on efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s loss in Georgia after his 2020 election defeat, including his January 2021 phone call to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, in which he pressed Mr. Raffensperger to “find” him enough votes to win.Audra Melton for The New York TimesThe battle lines have already been drawn. Mr. Trump has steadfastly maintained his innocence and used inflammatory language to assail the prosecutors in both Georgia and New York. And last month, his legal team in Georgia filed a 52-page motion, with more than 400 additional pages of exhibits, challenging a case that has yet to be filed. Legal experts saw it as a sign of what’s to come.“That’s indicative of the type of motions you’ll see if there’s an indictment,” said Melissa D. Redmon, a law professor at the University of Georgia who has been a prosecutor in Fulton and Clayton Counties. “Every single step is going to be challenged from the beginning.”In New York, Mr. Bragg said he, too, was focusing on crimes that thwarted the democratic process, though these were from the 2016 campaign. In a statement, he said that Mr. Trump had “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.” He is accused of covering up a potential sex scandal involving the porn star Stormy Daniels.Mr. Trump more than once has compared his legal tribulations to those of the notorious Chicago mob boss Al Capone. He said on social media, as recently as February, that he had more lawyers working for him than Capone, who was famously found guilty in 1931 and sentenced to 11 years in prison for tax evasion — hardly the most lurid or troubling of his many misdeeds.Mr. Bragg’s decision in New York opened him up to intense criticism from Republicans, who have called the charges flimsy and politically motivated, and the alleged offenses insufficient to merit the nation’s first indictment of a former president. Even some Democrats note that the New York charges seem pedestrian compared with the allegations looming against Mr. Trump elsewhere.“Is it as problematic as Jan. 6 or what happened at Mar-a-Lago? No,” David Pepper, the former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, said recently, referring to federal investigations into Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents. “But that doesn’t mean you don’t investigate it.”If Ms. Willis brings a sprawling RICO case, it could present its own problems, said Michael J. Moore, a former U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. Asking a jury to consider multiple acts that do not tie directly back to Mr. Trump might make it more difficult “to point the finger at him with the strength that you might have been able to in a simpler case,” he said.Mr. Moore also wondered how far a trial involving Mr. Trump would stretch into the coming presidential election season. He noted that the jury selection process in the multi-defendant racketeering case involving Young Thug had been going on for roughly four months, and that the judge in the case had estimated the trial could take up to nine months.“We’re just going to have to face the reality that we’re going to have to deal with that,” he said. More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Trump Investigation Poses Challenges for Federal Prosecutors

      by

      The concurrent investigations create complications for separate teams relying on similar evidence, some of the same criminal targets and a small, shared pool of witnesses.WASHINGTON — The Fulton County district attorney’s investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia is nearing a decision point, posing fresh challenges for federal prosecutors considering charging him in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.The long-running investigation by Fani T. Willis in Atlanta substantially overlaps with the broader inquiry into Mr. Trump’s conduct by the special counsel, Jack Smith, in Washington. Both rely on similar documentary evidence, some of the same criminal targets and a small, shared pool of witnesses with knowledge of the former president’s actions and intent.Mr. Trump’s critics believe the concurrent investigations provide assurance that the former president and architects of the scheme to install fake electors in battleground states, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and John C. Eastman, will be held to account.But they also create complications for two aggressive investigative teams pursuing some of the same witnesses, increasing the possibility of discrepancies in testimony that Mr. Trump’s lawyers could exploit. Ms. Willis and her team have a head start, having begun their work in February 2021, and are expected to seek indictments early next month. That raises the pressure on Mr. Smith, who has pledged to work quickly, to move even faster, according to current and former prosecutors.The investigation by the Fulton County district attorney, Fani T. Willis, overlaps with the broader inquiry into Mr. Trump’s conduct by the special counsel, Jack Smith, in Washington.Audra Melton for The New York Times“Normally, the lead federal prosecutor just picks up the phone and tries to work it out with the local prosecutor, but it’s obviously a lot more difficult in a case of this magnitude,” said Channing D. Phillips, who served as acting United States attorney for the District of Columbia from March to November 2021. “The stakes of not working things out are incredibly high.”The investigative efforts are by no means the same. Mr. Smith’s purview extends into other areas, most notably the investigation into whether Mr. Trump mishandled classified documents that were found at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office.The federal investigation into Jan. 6 focuses on several charges, according to two law enforcement officials: wire fraud for emails sent between those pushing the false electors scheme; mail fraud for sending the names of electors to the National Archives and Records Administration; and conspiracy, which covers the coordination effort. (A fourth possible charge, obstruction of an official proceeding before Congress, has been used in many cases brought against participants in the Capitol attack.)And some of Ms. Willis’s work has been more parochial in nature, including a review of false statements that Trump allies like Mr. Giuliani made at state legislative hearings in December 2020.Justice Department officials said the indictment of Mr. Trump by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, over a hush money payment to a porn star will have little effect on their investigations. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan passed on bringing a similar case.But the Georgia investigation is entirely different. The Justice Department has no authority to order local prosecutors to step aside in areas where the investigations do overlap, unless their investigations conflict with federal law. In fact, internal department rules discourage indicting the subjects of prior state prosecutions.Moreover, there is “no formal rule book” for settling jurisdictional questions or for deciding the chronological sequence of prosecutions, and disputes are usually hashed out informally, as they arise, on an ad hoc basis, said Preet Bharara, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.Local and federal prosecutors routinely work together to coordinate charging decisions based on which jurisdiction offers better chances of conviction or a stiffer sentence. But in many high-profile cases, prosecutors view dueling investigations as a nuisance or even a hazard.Witnesses, even forthright ones, sometimes offer different accounts when interviewed by lawyers representing different offices. Differences between state and federal laws can lead to damaging conflicts over strategy and priorities. Then there is what is known as “witness fatigue,” when important players simply grow tired or uncooperative after running gantlets of government inquisitors.Fulton County prosecutors are conducting a wide-ranging investigation that includes calls made by Mr. Trump to exert pressure on state officials and efforts by the former president and his allies to replace legitimate electors in Georgia with pro-Trump alternates. Last year, Ms. Willis’s office sought to interview two key figures who had served in the Justice Department: Richard Donoghue, the acting deputy attorney general in the waning days of the Trump administration, and Jeffrey Clark, an assistant attorney general who led the department’s environmental division.Shortly after Mr. Trump left office, it emerged that Mr. Clark had tried to circumvent the department’s leaders and aid Mr. Trump’s efforts to stay in power. He even drafted a letter that was to have been sent to lawmakers in Georgia falsely claiming that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” that would affect the state’s election results and urging lawmakers to convene a special session.Mr. Donoghue was alarmed when he saw the draft, according to testimony he provided to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack.Aides to Ms. Willis filed what are known as Touhy requests, named after a 1951 Supreme Court case. Under the rule, local prosecutors are required to get authorization from the Justice Department to question its current or former employees. But the requests were ultimately rejected.It is not clear why the department rejected the requests. But both men were at the center of an investigation into Mr. Clark’s conduct by the Justice Department’s inspector general that was subsequently handed off to Mr. Smith’s team.A spokesman for Mr. Smith declined to comment.The possibility of an indictment in the Georgia investigation next month raises the pressure on the special counsel, Jack Smith, to move even faster, according to current and former prosecutors.Peter Dejong/Associated PressFulton County prosecutors also declined to comment. The forewoman of an Atlanta special grand jury that issued an advisory report in January, which has remained largely under seal, appeared to hint in an interview this year that it had recommended that Mr. Trump be indicted.The Atlanta case has put additional pressure on Mr. Smith. Justice Department officials have said they wanted to make charging decisions in the spring or summer, before the 2024 election kicks into high gear — which raises the question of whether Mr. Smith will try to bring charges before Ms. Willis does.“Looking at this as a federal prosecutor, I would just want to go first,” said Joyce Vance, a University of Alabama law professor who served as the U.S. attorney in Birmingham from 2009 to 2017. “I don’t want to have to try my case after it’s already been brought in a state court. You really want to go first to avoid problems with witnesses, and other technical or legal problems.”If Ms. Willis moves first, Mr. Smith’s team would have to obtain department approval to waive an internal rule that precludes “multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s).”Demonstrators rallying for Mr. Trump near his Mar-a-Lago estate this week.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesThat is not considered a high bar, however. Mr. Smith would simply have to show that the state case did not completely cover all the issues addressed in a federal case. It is believed that exemption was recently used to obtain a hate crimes conviction against three men who murdered Ahmaud Arbery, a young Black man who was jogging through their neighborhood.John P. Fishwick Jr., a former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia, said he often requested that local prosecutors step aside when he thought their investigations conflicted with his. He suggested that Mr. Smith could at least consider asking Ms. Willis to do the same.“D.O.J. and state prosecutors do not play well in the same sandbox, but at the end of the day, if it gets into a tug of war, D.O.J. is usually going to win,” he said. “The federal government just has more power as far as compelling witnesses, more power to assign people to a case and more oomph, in general.”While prosecutors should clear up disputes over access to witnesses and documents, it is vital that the two efforts be seen as independent and fact-driven and not a “witch hunt,” as Mr. Trump has described all of the investigations into him, former Justice Department officials say.“I don’t think they would coordinate on things like timing or language of the charges or anything like that — although that wouldn’t be illegal,” said Mary McCord, a former top official in the department’s national security division who is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center.“But the goal here is avoid any appearance that they are coordinating prosecutions for political purposes,” added Ms. McCord.Glenn Thrush More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      In Hundreds of Jan. 6 Cases, Justice Dept. Wins a Battle (for Now)

      by

      The ruling of a federal court left open the possibility of future challenges to a law that has been used against hundreds of people charged in the Capitol attack.A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the viability of a criminal charge that has been used against hundreds of people indicted in connection with the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — and that congressional investigators have recommended using in a potential criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump.The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia means that the charge — the obstruction of an official proceeding before Congress — can continue to be used in the Justice Department’s prosecutions related to the Jan. 6 riot. It could also ultimately be used against Mr. Trump should the special counsel, Jack Smith, decide to file a case against him related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.But even though the three-judge panel, in a 2-1 ruling, left in place the status quo and temporarily avoided crippling hundreds of Jan. 6 cases by invalidating the obstruction count, it still presented a serious challenge to the Justice Department moving forward.A provision of the law requires proving that any interference with a congressional proceeding be done “corruptly.” Two of the judges said they were inclined to define that term in a narrow way as receiving a personal benefit — even though the panel as a whole put off a final decision on the issue.The split decision left wiggle room for defense lawyers to try a flurry of complicated new efforts to invalidate the charge in all of the cases in which it has been used.A future ruling that narrowed the definition of “corruptly” could have significant effects on the Jan. 6 prosecutions.It could bar the Justice Department from using the obstruction count against defendants who did not commit other unlawful acts like assaulting a police officer. It could even lead to the charge being dropped in situations in which defendants did not personally benefit from the obstruction they are accused of taking part in — circumstances that could be hard to apply to Jan. 6 defendants.Almost from the start of the vast investigation of the Capitol attack, prosecutors have used the obstruction count to describe the event at the heart of Jan. 6: how, by storming the Capitol that day, members of a pro-Trump mob disrupted the certification of Mr. Trump’s electoral defeat that was taking place inside during a joint session of Congress.Defense lawyers have long maintained that prosecutors overreached in their use of the law, stretching the statute beyond its intended scope and using it to criminalize behavior that too closely resembled protest protected by the First Amendment. In December, they challenged the viability of the law in arguments in front of the appeals court, making various claims that the charge was a poor fit for what happened at the Capitol and that it should not have been used against any of the rioters.In its ruling, the appellate panel acknowledged that the obstruction count had never been used in the way it has been used in Jan. 6 cases, but decided that it was nonetheless a viable charge in the riot prosecutions. The ruling reversed decisions made in three separate Jan. 6 cases by Judge Carl J. Nichols, the only judge in Federal District Court in Washington, where the cases are being heard, to have struck down the obstruction charge..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.The obstruction charge — formally known in the penal code as 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) — was never a perfect fit for the many cases stemming from the Capitol attack. It was passed into law as part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which sought to clamp down on corporate malfeasance.The measure was initially intended to prohibit actions like shredding documents that were part of a congressional proceeding. In his initial rulings, Judge Nichols said the count had been used inappropriately because the cases of the three rioters he was considering had nothing to do with destroying or tampering with documents or records.The appellate panel — made up of two Trump appointees and one judge appointed by President Biden — ruled that Judge Nichols’s interpretation of the law was too narrow and that the obstruction committed by the three defendants in question did not have to relate solely to documents.The panel noted that the defendants had been rightfully charged with obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The cases included those of Joseph Fischer, a Pennsylvania police officer accused of pushing at law enforcement officers during the Capitol attack; Garret Miller, a Dallas man charged with storming the building and facing off with officers inside; and Edward Jacob Lang, a self-described social media influencer from New York who prosecutors say attacked the police with a baseball bat.The obstruction charge has been used so far in more than 300 riot cases, including against prominent defendants in far-right groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia. Part of the appeal of the count to prosecutors is that it carries a hefty maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.In December, in one of its final acts, the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 included the obstruction count in its recommendations to the Justice Department of what charges should be filed against Mr. Trump. A federal judge in California, considering a lawsuit stemming from the committee’s work, separately determined that Mr. Trump had likely committed obstruction as defined by the law.The appellate panel reserved judgment on the definition of “corruptly” because it was not directly part of the appeal of Judge Nichols’s earlier decisions, leaving open the possibility of future challenges on that issue.In its arguments before the appeals court, the government claimed that acting corruptly should be broadly construed and include various unlawful behavior like destroying government property or assaulting police officers. The defense had argued for a narrower interpretation, seeking to define the term as acting illegally to procure something to directly benefit oneself or another person.The panel split on the issue, with two of the judges — Gregory G. Katsas and Justin R. Walker — agreeing on the narrow, more personal view of “corruptly.” The third judge, Florence Y. Pan, took the broader view of the term but was able to get Judge Walker to vote with her to uphold the obstruction law overall.Judge Walker only agreed to join Judge Pan if they adopted the narrow definition, setting up a conflict that will, eventually, have to be resolved. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Wanted to Hire Laura Loomer, Anti-Muslim Activist

      by

      The former president’s aides feared that hiring Ms. Loomer, who has a long history of bigoted remarks, would set off a backlash. That proved to be correct.Former President Donald J. Trump recently told aides to hire Laura Loomer, a far-right and anti-Muslim activist with a history of expressing bigoted views, for a campaign role, according to four people familiar with the plans.Mr. Trump met with Ms. Loomer recently and directed advisers to give her a role in support of his candidacy, two of the people familiar with the move said. On Tuesday, after Mr. Trump’s arraignment in Manhattan, Ms. Loomer attended the former president’s speech at Mar-a-Lago, his resort and residence in Palm Beach, Fla.Some of Mr. Trump’s aides were said to have concerns that such a hire would cause a backlash, given her history of inflammatory statements and her embrace of the Republican Party’s fringes.That proved to be correct: The New York Times’s report on the potential hire ignited a firestorm among some of Mr. Trump’s most vocal conservative supporters, and by late Friday, a high-ranking campaign official said Ms. Loomer was no longer going to be hired.Reached by phone on Friday morning, Ms. Loomer said, “Out of respect for President Trump, I’m not going to comment on private conversations that I had with the president.”“The president knows I have always been a Trump loyalist,” she added, “and that I’m committed to helping him win re-election in 2024. He likes me very much. And it’s a shame that he’s surrounded by some people that run to a publication that is notorious for attacking him in order to try to cut me at the knees instead of being loyal to President Trump and respecting their confidentiality agreements.”Ms. Loomer twice ran unsuccessfully for Congress and is known for offensive attention-grabbing behavior.She once described Islam as a “cancer” and tweeted under the hashtag “#proudislamophobe,” and she has celebrated the deaths of migrants crossing the Mediterranean.In 2018, she was barred from Twitter for violating its hateful conduct policy. To protest the ban, Ms. Loomer, who is Jewish, affixed a yellow Star of David to her clothes — just as “Nazis made the Jews wear during the Holocaust,” she said — and handcuffed herself to the entrance to Twitter’s New York headquarters.Twitter said she was violating its rules, while she said she was being barred for conservative activism. (She was reinstated after the billionaire Elon Musk bought the platform.)Ms. Loomer sent The New York Times a screenshot of the tweet that prompted her ban for hateful conduct. In the tweet, she describes Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, as “pro Sharia” and “anti Jewish.”“I know a lot of people don’t like me, but that’s their problem, not mine,” she said on Friday. “I have proven my loyalty to President Trump countless times over, and even if other people try to malign me and undermine President Trump’s wishes, I will continue to be a ride-or-die Trump supporter. Trump deserves loyalty and he deserves to have loyal people working for him who do not leak to the press.”She was also barred from the ride-hail apps Lyft and Uber for making bigoted comments about Muslim drivers. Asked about these comments, in which she called on Twitter for “a non Islamic form of Uber or Lyft,” Ms. Loomer said she was responding to a Muslim driver “throwing me out of an Uber for being a Jew on Rosh Hashana.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.In a 2017 appearance on a far-right podcast called Nationalist Public Radio, Ms. Loomer described her beliefs.“Someone asked me, ‘Are you pro-white nationalism?’ Yes. I’m pro-white nationalism,” Ms. Loomer said. “But there’s a difference between white nationalism and white supremacy. Right? And a lot of liberals and left-wing globalist Marxist Jews don’t understand that.” She added, “So this country really was built as the white Judeo-Christian ethnostate, essentially. Over time, immigration and all these calls for diversity, it’s starting to destroy this country.”Her remarks on the podcast were brought to light in 2021 by a blog called Angry White Men that tracked white supremacy movements.The news of Ms. Loomer’s potential hire drew criticism from Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a far-right Trump ally.“She spent months lying about me and attacking me just because I supported Kevin McCarthy for Speaker and after I had refused to endorse her last election cycle,” Ms. Greene wrote on Twitter.Warning that Ms. Loomer “can not be trusted,” Ms. Greene said of Mr. Trump, “I’ll make sure he knows.”Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign focused heavily on anti-Muslim sentiment, and as president, he barred travel from several predominantly Muslim countries. He has been a supporter of Ms. Loomer’s in the past, backing her Florida congressional campaign in 2020, when she ran to represent a Palm Beach County district that included Mar-a-Lago.“Great going Laura,” he wrote on Twitter when she won the Republican primary. “You have a great chance against a Pelosi puppet!”She lost that race in the fall, in which she was supported by her friend Roger J. Stone Jr., Mr. Trump’s longest-serving adviser. In the 2022 midterm elections, she came close to ousting the incumbent Republican in another Florida district, Representative Daniel Webster, in the primary, winning 44 percent of the vote.“I ran for Congress as the first deplatformed candidate in United States history,” Ms. Loomer said on Friday. “I’m a Jewish conservative woman, a Trump loyalist, and a free speech absolutist and I also used to work for Project Veritas, too,” she added, referring to the conservative group that conducts sting operations on news outlets and liberal organizations. “It’s not like I’m some kind of fringe person. I won the G.O.P. primary in 2020, and President Trump literally voted for me.”In recent months, Ms. Loomer has caught the attention of people in Mr. Trump’s inner circle — and Mr. Trump himself — by posting videos on social media that personally attack his potential rival for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.Ms. Loomer has accused Mr. DeSantis and his wife, Casey, who had breast cancer, of wanting “to play the ‘cancer survivor’ card to make people think they are untouchable from criticism.”On Twitter in February, Ms. Loomer posted: “Ron and Casey DeSantis are social climbers who will NEVER be Donald and Melania Trump,” adding, “Ron DeSantis will never have what it takes to be ICONIC like Trump.”Ms. Loomer also organized a group of Trump supporters outside an event in Leesburg, Fla., where Mr. DeSantis was signing his new book.“Anybody who follows me knows that I’m the person who has been independently leading the charge on opposition research, aggressively exposing damning and consequential stories about Ron DeSantis and other Trump opponents,” Ms. Loomer said on Friday. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Bet: Criminal Case Could Help His Campaign, and Vice Versa

      by

      The former president aims to apply political pressure to prosecutors — while revving up support for his campaign by portraying himself as a victim of Democratic persecution.PALM BEACH, Fla. — At one end of the palatial Donald J. Trump Grand Ballroom at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday, the former president made his first public comments about his arrest. At the opposite end of the hall — a space illuminated by 16 crystal chandeliers and bigger than four professional basketball courts — were several cardboard boxes stuffed with white campaign T-shirts.The shirts read “I STAND WITH TRUMP,” and had a date printed on them in bold type: 03-30-2023 — the day Mr. Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury for his role in a hush-money scandal.After Mr. Trump’s indictment, it has become impossible to tell where his legal defense ends and his presidential campaign begins.The blurring of the lines between his White House bid and his mounting court battles is at the center of a high-stakes, norm-shattering bet from Mr. Trump: that he is capable of swaying public opinion to such a degree that he can simultaneously bolster his legal case and gin up enthusiasm — and campaign contributions — from his supporters.His legal calculation, according to aides and allies close to him, is that his pressure campaign against the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, will lead to his acquittal and deter other prosecutors from seeking additional indictments — though some of his lawyers have warned him that’s unlikely.Politically, Mr. Trump’s strategy is to paint himself as a victim of Democratic persecution, generating sympathy and good will to aid his campaign for a third consecutive Republican presidential nomination.Trump supporters outside the Manhattan courthouse where Mr. Trump was arraigned on Tuesday over his role in a hush-money payment.Ahmed Gaber for The New York Times“President Trump isn’t just right to speak this way, he has a duty to use his bully pulpit to expose corrupt and uncontrolled prosecutors,” said Rod R. Blagojevich, a former Democratic governor of Illinois who was imprisoned for corruption until Mr. Trump commuted his sentence in 2020. “I applaud him for it.”Mr. Trump and his allies repeatedly have made baseless accusations of wrongdoing by Mr. Bragg.No one can say for certain whether a recent uptick for Mr. Trump in presidential primary polls has been the result of his braiding of legal and political tactics, or the recent stumbles by his chief potential Republican rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, or some combination of the two.But Mr. Trump’s conflation of his political and legal campaigns has been on display for weeks.His public remarks about his arrest on Tuesday were made from the same stage — surrounded by the same “Make America Great Again” banners and American flags — where he announced his 2024 White House bid nearly five months earlier. One of the lawyers seated near Mr. Trump during his arraignment in the New York courthouse was Boris Epshteyn, who has provided both political and legal advice to the former president and other Republican candidates.At Mr. Trump’s first major rally of the race last month in Texas, his campaign distributed “Witch Hunt” signs for the crowd to wave. The campaign has sent more than three dozen fund-raising appeals to supporters this week — each one referring to Mr. Trump’s legal battles. On Tuesday, one email solicited campaign contributions in return for T-shirts printed with a fake mug shot of the former president and the words “not guilty.” (The authorities in New York opted not to take an actual mug shot.)“Donald Trump has been masterful at blurring the line between his own potential legal and political peril,” said Rob Godfrey, a longtime Republican strategist based in South Carolina. “But now that he faces actual legal peril, it will be fascinating to see how loyal his supporters are, whether they have the same tolerance for chaos he continues to and whether any of his opponents figure out a way to peel anyone away from him.”Mr. Trump has long viewed public opinion as the solution to an increasingly lengthy list of personal dramas, political scandals and legal crises. He used similar tactics as president during the 22-month investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, and his approval rating was virtually unchanged. Mr. Trump’s legal advisers had urged him to create a team outside the White House structure to respond publicly to the Mueller inquiry, but he declined.One of Mr. Trump’s political high-water marks — in terms of re-election polling and fund-raising — came in February 2020, after a Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him in his first impeachment trial.More recently, he has spent months seeking to make state and federal prosecutors investigating his behavior appear indistinguishable from the Democratic and Republican opponents actively trying to stunt his political career.Mr. Trump has proved his skills at using investigations, impeachments and indictments to inflate his campaign coffers (and using a portion of those contributions to pay legal fees). His campaign has claimed to have raised more than $12 million from online contributions during the past week since he was indicted by the grand jury.But his strategy in the hush-money case to mingle his legal troubles with his 2024 presidential campaign carries significant risks and masks, at least for now, potential problems.While the Trump team has celebrated the recent influx of campaign cash, there have been questions about how many more new donors he can tap and whether he can maintain his fund-raising prowess without an immediate crisis to leverage. His only public campaign finance report so far showed a less-than-stellar haul for such a prominent political figure.The bigger question for the former president is how attacks on the court system and law enforcement — on Wednesday he called on his party to defund the F.B.I. and Justice Department in response to his criminal indictment — will help him win back moderate Republicans and independent voters who have abandoned him, and his preferred candidates and causes, for three consecutive election cycles.At Mr. Trump’s first big campaign rally of the 2024 race, in Waco, Texas.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesMr. Trump has used his standing as a former president — and as the front-runner for the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination — to repeatedly describe the felony charges in New York (and open criminal investigations in Georgia and Washington) as a politically motivated attack aimed at undermining his White House bid.But that message ignores a series of electoral disappointments for Republicans since Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory made him the face of the party. Those defeats — in 2018, 2020 and 2022 — have been largely the result of a Democratic base motivated to vote against him and a significant defection of moderate Republicans turned off by his antics.Additionally, every major investigation focusing on Mr. Trump started well before he announced his third presidential campaign. By the time he opened his White House bid in November, Mr. Trump had spent months pushing for an unusually early campaign introduction, a move intended in part to shield him from a stream of damaging revelations emerging from the investigation into his attempts to cling to power after losing the 2020 election.Similarly, Mr. Trump has been using his legal battle to energize his enthusiastic backers and coalesce support in a divided Republican Party. While public opinion polls show Mr. Trump has a wide lead over most other primary contenders and potential rivals, about half of the party remains opposed to his candidacy.In the Mar-a-Lago ballroom on Tuesday, Mr. Trump’s campaign set up the room with a center aisle for the former president and his V.I.P.s to walk to their seats.The aisle resembled something a wedding party might use to make an entrance. But it also appeared to embody the very line that Mr. Trump has sought to blur: Mr. Epshteyn, one of Mr. Trump’s legal counselors, smiled and waved as the crowd cheered his arrival along with several campaign aides and family members.“The only crime that I have committed,” Mr. Trump said a few minutes later from center stage, “is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it.” More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Así fue la audiencia en la que se formularon los cargos contra Trump

      by

      Estos son algunos de los momentos más importantes de la comparecencia del expresidente ante la corte.NUEVA YORK — El expresidente Donald Trump se sentó en silencio en la sala del juzgado de Manhattan, el martes, mientras los fiscales formulaban las acusaciones en su contra. El procedimiento fue su primera experiencia como acusado penal.Una transcripción de 32 páginas de la audiencia solo ofrece un indicio de las consecuencias dramáticas de la comparecencia y el largo proceso legal que se avecina. Es uno de los procesos judiciales más esperados del mundo. Y, sin embargo, solo lo vieron de primera mano las pocas decenas de personas que estuvieron presentes en la sala donde se dieron a conocer los delitos que se le imputan a Trump.A continuación, presentamos algunos de los momentos más importantes de la audiencia:La audiencia comienza y Trump hace su declaraciónEL TRIBUNAL: Vamos a instruir al señor Trump.EL SECRETARIO DEL JUZGADO: Donald J. Trump, el Gran Jurado del condado de Nueva York ha presentado la acusación formal 71543 del año 2023 en la que se le imputan los delitos de 34 cargos de falsificación de registros empresariales en primer grado. ¿Cómo se declara ante esta acusación formal: culpable o no culpable?TRUMP: No culpable.En la sala del tribunal, las persianas estaban cerradas cuando Trump entró cerca de las 02:30 p. m., con un traje azul marino, corbata roja y un semblante inexpresivo. Estuvo flanqueado por agentes judiciales armados, mientras caminaba por el pasillo hacia el frente. Se autorizó a los fotógrafos para que entraran al palco del jurado para tomarle una foto, y él giró la cabeza y miró fijamente a las cámaras hasta que los fotógrafos tuvieron que marcharse.La comparecencia de Trump no comenzó de inmediato. Se vio obligado a esperar unos 10 minutos, sentado en silencio en la mesa de la defensa, mientras un abogado que representaba a organizaciones de medios de comunicación pedía que se concediera a los periodistas más acceso al procedimiento. El exmandatario hizo una mueca de burla cuando ese abogado afirmó que se podía confiar en los periodistas profesionales.Cuando el abogado terminó de hablar, el juez Juan Merchan, quien en la transcripción es identificado como “El tribunal”, pidió que Trump compareciera. Al expresidente se le leyeron los cargos que se le imputaban: 34 delitos graves de falsificación de registros empresariales. En la silenciosa sala, Trump se inclinó hacia delante y, hablando por el micrófono de la mesa de la defensa, dijo que era no culpable.Un fiscal presenta el casoSR. CONROY: El acusado, Donald J. Trump, falsificó registros empresariales de Nueva York con el fin de ocultar una asociación delictiva para socavar la integridad de las elecciones presidenciales de 2016 y otras violaciones a las leyes electorales.Chris Conroy, fiscal de la oficina del fiscal del distrito de Manhattan, se levantó y comenzó a detallar los cargos. Se derivan del pago de una suma de dinero para silenciar a una actriz porno, Stormy Daniels, que Michael Cohen, quien era un colaborador de Trump, pagó en el periodo previo a las elecciones de 2016. Trump reembolsó el dinero a Cohen después de ser elegido. Los fiscales acusan al exmandatario de orquestar la creación de registros empresariales falsos relacionados con los reembolsos.La falsificación de registros empresariales solo es un delito grave en el estado de Nueva York cuando se comete con la intención de “cometer u ocultar” otro delito. Al decir que Trump había falsificado registros “para ocultar una asociación delictiva”, Conroy ofreció un posible avance del caso más amplio de la fiscalía contra Trump.Los miembros del equipo de la defensa recibieron copias de la acusación. Trump le entregó una copia a uno de sus abogados, Joseph Tacopina. El exmandatario fue la única persona en la mesa de la defensa que no aceptó una copia.Las recientes publicaciones de Trump en las redes sociales se incorporan al expedienteUn momento extraordinario sucedió cuando Conroy comenzó a referirse a las publicaciones recientes que Trump ha hecho en las redes sociales. El expresidente prometió que en caso de que lo acusaran habría “muerte y destrucción” y publicó lenguaje racista e imágenes amenazantes dirigidas contra el fiscal de distrito Alvin Bragg.SR. CONROY: Nos preocupa mucho el peligro potencial que este tipo de retórica supone para nuestra ciudad, para los posibles jurados y testigos, así como para el proceso judicial.A continuación, Conroy repartió copias impresas de los mensajes de Trump al juez y al equipo de la defensa. El expresidente le dio su copia a Tacopina, pero un minuto después se la pidió de vuelta, haciéndole señas con la mano derecha. Otro de sus abogados, Todd Blanche, se opuso enérgicamente a los comentarios de Conroy sobre las publicaciones en las redes sociales.SR. BLANCHE: Es cierto que el expresidente Trump ha respondido y que lo ha hecho con contundencia. Es cierto que, como parte de esa respuesta, está absolutamente frustrado, molesto y cree que su presencia en esta sala del tribunal es una grave injusticia.Blanche afirmó que Trump “tiene derechos y se le permite pronunciarse públicamente”.Eso pareció incitar a Merchan, quien habló con calma y seriedad, cuando respondió que no tenía la intención inmediata de imponerle una “orden de mordaza” a Trump, en contra de las preocupaciones expresadas recientemente por el equipo jurídico del expresidente. Los fiscales no han solicitado una orden de mordaza.EL TRIBUNAL: Ciertamente, el tribunal no impondría una orden de mordaza en este momento aunque se solicitara. Esas restricciones son las más serias y menos intolerables sobre los derechos de la Primera Enmienda. Eso aplica por partida doble al señor Trump, porque es candidato a la presidencia de Estados Unidos. Así que es evidente que esos derechos de la Primera Enmienda tienen una importancia crítica.Pero Merchan, quien es juez de la Corte Suprema estatal desde 2009, le advirtió a la defensa que hablara con Trump “y cualquier otra persona con la que sea necesario y les recuerden que, por favor, se abstengan de hacer declaraciones que puedan incitar a la violencia o a los disturbios civiles”.La fiscalía detalla las posibles restricciones a TrumpSRA. MCCAW: El acusado no puede proporcionar los materiales que recibe a través del proceso de presentación de pruebas a terceros, lo que incluye a la prensa, y no puede publicarlos en las redes sociales.Mientras Trump seguía sentado en silencio, Catherine McCaw, otra fiscal, le dijo al juez que su equipo estaba trabajando con los abogados de Trump para redactar una orden de protección, un documento que le pondría ciertas restricciones al exmandatario.La fiscal explicó que una de esas restricciones le prohibiría al expresidente publicar material específico del caso en las redes sociales o compartirlo con los reporteros. Si Trump viola alguna de las restricciones establecidas, Merchan decidiría si lo sanciona y cómo hacerlo.Trump vuelve a hablarA medida que se desarrollaba su audiencia de instrucción, Trump se mostraba cada vez más inquieto. Entrelazaba y desentrelazaba los dedos una y otra vez. Cruzaba y descruzaba los brazos. Golpeó la mesa con los nudillos. En una ocasión, infló las mejillas en un suspiro impaciente.Por último, más de media hora después de que hizo su declaración de inocencia, habló de nuevo —tras la indicación de sus abogados—, pero solo para responderle al juez cuando informó sobre su derecho a estar presente en el proceso y de las formas en que podía perder ese derecho.EL TRIBUNAL: Si perturba hasta tal punto que afecte a mi capacidad para presidir este caso y mi capacidad para garantizar que el caso se juzgue de la manera que debe juzgarse para ambas partes, tengo la autoridad para sacarlo de la sala y continuar en su ausencia, ¿comprende?ACUSADO SR. TRUMP: Sí, comprendo.El juez solicita la presencia de TrumpEL TRIBUNAL: Espero que todos los demás acusados comparezcan ante el tribunal, incluso los acusados de alto perfil.Teniendo en cuenta que Trump estaba acusado de delitos no violentos, los fiscales tenían prohibido siquiera solicitar su encarcelamiento. Mientras Merchan se preparaba para dejar ir al expresidente, Blanche insinuó que Trump podría no comparecer a su próxima cita con el tribunal, prevista para el 4 de diciembre. Cuando se le preguntó por su razonamiento, Blanche citó “el increíble gasto y esfuerzo y los problemas de seguridad” que conllevó la comparecencia.El juez reconoció que había sido una empresa enorme para todos los implicados. Pero señaló que faltaba “bastante para diciembre”. Por último, señaló que “en aras de la transparencia y para garantizar la imparcialidad de las normas jurídicas”, iba a discrepar de Blanche. La implicación: en la medida de lo posible, el juez pretende tratar a Trump como a cualquier otro acusado.Cuando se levantó la sesión alrededor de las 03:25 p. m., Trump fue la persona de la mesa de la defensa que se levantó con más lentitud. Se alisó las solapas de la chaqueta de su traje azul, ordenó un montón de papeles que había frente a él y salió de la sala.Embed Only More