Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      What the Trump Indictment Means for Ron DeSantis and the G.O.P.

      by

      There is a presumption among a certain kind of analyst — rooted, I presume, in a deeply buried belief in the vengeance of Almighty God — that because Republicans morally deserve Donald Trump they will be stuck with him no matter what. That having refused so many opportunities to take a righteous stand against him, they will be condemned to halt at the edge of a post-Trump promised land, gazing pathetically across the Jordan even as they cast in their lots with the False Orange Messiah once again.That assumption informs some of the reactions to the Trump indictment and the immediate rally effect that it produced among Republicans, with the former president’s (presumptive) leading challenger, Ron DeSantis, not only condemning prosecutorial overreach but promising some kind of Floridian sanctuary should Trump choose to become a fugitive from New York justice.A certain part of the media narrative was already turning against DeSantis, or at least downgrading his chances, in part because he hasn’t yet swung back hard at any of Trump’s wild attacks. Now with the indictment bringing the Florida governor and most of the G.O.P. leadership to Trump’s defense, that narrative is likely to harden — that this is just another case study in how leading Republicans can’t ever actually turn on Trump, and they will be condemned to nominate him once again 2024.In reality, the electoral politics of the indictment are just as murky as they were when it was just a hypothetical. One can certainly imagine a world where a partisan-seeming prosecution bonds wavering conservatives to Trump and makes his path to the nomination easier. But one can equally imagine a world where the sheer mess involved in his tangle with the legal system ends up being a reason for even some Trump fans to move on to another choice. (A poll this week from Echelon Insights showing a swing toward DeSantis in the event of an indictment offers extremely tentative support for that possibility.)Either way, the response from DeSantis and others right now, their provisional defense of Trump against a Democratic prosecutor, is not what will determine how this plays out politically.I have argued this before, but there’s no reason not to state the case again: The theory that in order to beat Trump, other Republicans need to deserve to beat him, and that in order to deserve to beat him they need to attack his character with appropriate moral dudgeon, is a satisfying idea but not at all a realistic one. It isn’t credible that Republican voters who have voted for Trump multiple times over, in full knowledge of his immense defects, will finally decide to buy into the moral case just because DeSantis or any other rival hammers it in some new and exciting way.Instead the plausible line of attack against Trump in a Republican primary has always been on competence and execution, with his moral turpitude cast as a practical obstacle to getting things done. And as others have pointed out, including New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait, nothing about defending Trump against a Democratic prosecutor makes that case any more difficult to make.You can imagine DeSantis on the debate stage: Yes, I condemn the partisan witch hunt that led to this indictment. But the pattern with my opponent is that he makes it too easy for the liberals. If you’re paying hush money to a porn star, you’re giving the other side what it wants.It was the same way all through his presidency — all the drama, all the chaos, just played into the Democrats’ hands. Into the deep state’s hands. He would attack lockdowns on social media while Dr. Fauci, his own guy, was actually making them happen. He tried to get our troops out of the Middle East, but he let the woke generals at the Pentagon disregard his orders. He didn’t finish the Wall because he was always distracted — there was a new batch of leaks from inside his White House every week. He’s got valid complaints about the 2020 election, about how the other side changed election laws on the fly during the pandemic — but he was president, he just watched them do it, he was too busy tweeting.I admire what he tried to do, he did get some big things accomplished. But the other side fights to win, they fight dirty, and you deserve a president who doesn’t go into the fight with a bunch of self-inflicted wounds.Is this argument enough? Maybe not. It certainly doesn’t have the primal appeal that Trump specializes in, where all those self-inflicted wounds are transformed into proof that he’s the man in the arena, he’s the fighter you need, because why else would he be dripping blood?But it’s the argument that DeSantis has to work with. And nothing about its logic will be altered when Trump is fingerprinted and charged.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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and Fox News, Twin Titans of Politics, Hit With Back-to-Back Rebukes

      by

      Donald Trump’s criminal indictment and Fox News’s civil trial have nothing in common, but, combined, they delivered a rare reckoning for two forces that have transformed politics.For the better part of a decade, Donald J. Trump and his allies at Fox News have beguiled some Americans and enraged others as they spun up an alternative world where elections turned on fraud, one political party oppressed another, and one man stood against his detractors to carry his version of truth to an adoring electorate.Then this week, on two consecutive days, the former president and the highest-rated cable news channel were delivered a dose of reality by the American legal system.On Thursday, Mr. Trump became the first former president in history to be indicted on criminal charges, after a Manhattan grand jury’s examination of hush money paid to a pornographic film actress in the final days of the 2016 election.The next day, a judge in Delaware Superior Court concluded that Fox hosts and guests had repeatedly made false claims about voting machines and their supposed role in a fictitious plot to steal the 2020 election, and that Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the network should go to trial.A lawyer for Fox News, Dan Webb, center, leaving the first hearing for the Dominion v. Fox case in Wilmington, Del., on March 21.Hannah Beier for The New York TimesBoth defendants dispute the claims. Still, the back-to-back blows against twin titans of American politics landed as a reminder of the still-unfolding reckoning with the tumult of the Trump presidency.For the left, the seismic week delivered an “I told you so” years in the making. Democrats who have long wanted Mr. Trump criminally charged got the satisfaction of watching a prosecutor and a grand jury agree.A day later, after years of arguing that Fox News was hardly fair and balanced, they could read a judge’s finding that Fox had not conducted “good-faith, disinterested reporting” on Dominion. Fox argues that statements made on air alleging election fraud are protected by the First Amendment.While the two cases have nothing in common in substance, they share a rare and powerful potential. In both, any final judgments will be rendered in a courtroom and not by bickering pundits on cable news and editorial pages.“There will always be a remnant, no matter how the matter is resolved in court, who will refuse to accept the judgment,” said Norman Eisen, a government ethics lawyer who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Mr. Trump’s first impeachment. “But when you look at other post-upheaval societies, judicial processes reduce factions down to a few hard-core believers.”He added, “A series of court cases and judgments can break the fever.”That, of course, could prove to be a Democrat’s wishful thinking.In this moment of constant campaigning and tribal partisanship, even the courts have had difficulty puncturing the ideological bubbles that Mr. Trump and Fox News pundits have created. The legal system produced a $25 million settlement of fraud charges against Trump University, dismissed dozens of lies about malfeasance in the 2020 election, pressed for the search for missing classified documents and ruled numerous times that Dominion’s machines did not in fact change votes.Yet hundreds of thousands of Americans remain devoted to both defendants.Embarrassing and damaging material has already come out through both cases, with little immediate sign of backlash..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.Thousands of text messages, emails and other internal company documents disclosed to Dominion and released publicly portray high-level figures at the network as bent on maintaining ratings supremacy by giving audiences what they wanted, regardless of the truth.Texts show the star prime time host Tucker Carlson calling Mr. Trump a “demonic force,” and the chairman of Fox Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, describing Sean Hannity as “privately disgusted by Trump.”Fox News has said Dominion took private conversations out of context. Its ratings dominance appears untouched by the negative headlines in recent weeks. Data from Nielsen show that in March the 10 top-rated cable shows in America were all on Fox News, led by “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” and that 14 of the top 20 were produced by the network.Still, experts believe the case has already resonated.“I’ve never seen a case before where journalists said they didn’t believe the story they were telling but were going to keep telling it because it’s what the audience wanted to hear,” said Lyrissa Lidsky, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Florida and an expert on defamation law. “It’s a shock wave saying it’s time to get serious about accountability.”Democrats, too, could see their illusions fall. Although many have clamored to see Mr. Trump charged, and felt vindicated this week, the risks of failure are considerable.If Mr. Trump’s lawyers file to have the charges simply dismissed as prosecutorial overreach and quickly win, the consequences would almost certainly strengthen Mr. Trump, who will make the case — and possibly others to follow — central to his primary campaign.But in a court of law, the magnetism that Mr. Trump and Fox News have over their audiences may lose some of its power. No matter how many times the former president insists outside the courtroom that he’s the victim of a political prosecution, inside the courtroom his lawyers will have to address the specific charges. They will win or lose based on legal arguments, not bluster.“I’ve been around for 50 years, and I’ve heard the political argument before,” said Stanley M. Brand, a veteran Washington defense lawyer. Mr. Brand cited the “Abscam” bribery case of the 1970s, when the defendants accused President Jimmy Carter of orchestrating the bribery sting, or the investigation of Senator Robert G. Torricelli, which was also surrounded by charges of politics. “It’s never worked in a court of law.”Members of the media and protesters outside Trump Tower in New York City on Thursday.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesJames Bopp Jr., a conservative defense lawyer, said he agreed with virtually all Republicans that the Manhattan district attorney had coaxed his grand jury to bring forward a specious indictment for the political purpose of damaging Mr. Trump.But, he said, Mr. Trump’s lawyers must answer the charges, not grandstand on the politics.“A charge is not automatically dismissible because it’s brought for political purpose,” he said. “The motive of prosecutors may be pertinent to the broader society. It’s not pertinent to a judge.”The exact charges against Mr. Trump may not be known until he is arraigned on Tuesday. The grand jury that brought the indictment was examining payments to Stormy Daniels and the core question of whether those payments were illegally disguised as business expenditures, a misdemeanor that would rise to a felony if those payments could be labeled an illegal campaign expenditure.If past legal skirmishes are an indication, Mr. Trump is likely to drag the proceedings out for months, if not years, with motion after motion as he builds his third presidential campaign around what he called on Friday the “unprecedented political persecution of the president and blatant interference in the 2024 election.”Likewise, Fox News will almost certainly continue to frame the Dominion case as that of a corporation intent on stifling the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and freedom of the press.“This case is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news,” the network said in a statement Friday.That may be left for a court to decide.Ken Bensinger More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      If DeSantis Thinks His Competence Will Help Him Beat Trump, He May Want to Think Again

      by

      The Republican establishment thought it could have Donald Trump’s political appeal without Donald Trump himself.That’s why many of the most prominent voices in conservative politics and media have lined up behind Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, as the presumptive leader of the Republican Party in the 2024 presidential race. He combines traditional, elite credentials and orthodox conservative views with a pugilistic, Trumpish affect. DeSantis, goes the thinking, could hold Trump’s working-class supporters and reclaim suburban Republicans who decamped for bluer pastures in the 2020 presidential election.To be the nominee, of course, DeSantis has to win the nomination. And to win the nomination, he has to topple Trump, who remains the largest orbital body in Republican politics. Trump’s pull is so powerful — his influence is so great — that he basically compelled much of the Republican Party, including would-be rivals, to defend him in the wake of his indictment by a Manhattan jury.Besting Trump, in other words, will require a certain amount of skill, finesse and political daring.DeSantis has to find an avenue of attack on the former president and actually take the shot, knowing that he could alienate legions of Republican voters in the process. He has to somehow persuade Trump supporters that he could do a better job — more effective and less chaotic — without disparaging Trump to the point where he, DeSantis, is no longer viable. And he has to do all of this before Trump can build steam and roll over him like he did his rivals in the 2016 Republican primary.The problem for DeSantis is that it might already be too late.According to a recent Fox News poll, more than 50 percent of Republican voters support Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, compared with 24 percent for Gov. DeSantis. According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 51 percent of Republican voters support Trump, compared with 40 percent for DeSantis. And according to a recent Morning Consult poll, 52 percent of Republicans support Trump, compared with 26 percent for DeSantis.A lot could change between now and next year. Trump could collapse and DeSantis could pick up the pieces. But let’s consider the context of the last 13 years of Republican politics. Republican voters have always liked Trump. When asked in a 2011 NBC News poll whom they wanted to win the party nomination, 17 percent said Trump, just behind Mitt Romney and beating both Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. Trump was so influential even then that Romney asked for his endorsement, sharing the stage with the real estate mogul at an embarrassing Las Vegas news conference.The weakest Trump has ever been among Republican voters was in the wake of Jan. 6, when it seemed as if the entire political class, Republicans included, was ready to cut him loose. But they didn’t. Prominent Republican leaders kept him in the fold. Conservative media defended his actions. He was vulnerable, yes. But he remained the dominant figure in Republican politics.DeSantis could have struck when the former president was weak. He didn’t. And now the most likely outcome is that Trump takes the crown again, tossing his rivals aside like a collection of old dolls.What’s clear in all of this is that the Republican establishment — DeSantis included, it seems — is as clueless about its situation now as it was when Trump came down the escalator in 2015. They seem to think that they can harness Trump’s energy without submitting to Trump himself. But Republican voters want Trump, and they won’t take any substitutes.The draw of Trump is that he is an entertainer and a showman who will turn those skills against their political enemies. DeSantis might be more competent, but Republican voters don’t want a manager, they want a performer. If Trump’s opponents can outperform him, then, maybe, they have a chance. But in a fight for attention between a seasoned celebrity and a conservative apparatchik, I know where I would place my bet.What I WroteMy Tuesday column was on the slogan “parents’ rights” and what it actually means.The reality of the “parents’ rights” movement is that it is meant to empower a conservative and reactionary minority of parents to dictate education and curriculums to the rest of the community. It is, in essence, an institutionalization of the heckler’s veto, in which a single parent — or any individual, really — can remove hundreds of books or shut down lessons on the basis of the political discomfort they feel. “Parents’ rights,” in other words, is when some parents have the right to dominate all the others.And my Friday column was on the farce that is the Republican Party’s claim to want to “protect children.”When you put all of this together, the picture is clear. The Republican Party will use the law and the state to shield as many children as possible from the knowledge, cultural influences and technologies deemed divisive or controversial or subversive by the voters, activists and apparatchiks that shape and guide its priorities. When Tucker Carlson, Christopher Rufo and Moms for Liberty say jump, their only question is: How high?But when it comes to actual threats to the lives of American children — from poverty, from hunger, from sickness and from guns — then, well, the Republican Party wants us to slow down and consider the costs and consequences and even possible futility of taking any action to help.Now ReadingEdward Ongweso Jr. on venture capitalists for Slate.Adam Serwer on “wokeness” for The Atlantic.Claire Potter on gun violence in her newsletter.Simona Foltyn on the consequences of the Iraq War for Boston Review.Adolph Reed Jr. on Bayard Rustin for Nonsite.Photo of the WeekJamelle BouieI have a few more pictures I want to share from my trip to Hawaii last December. This is the Makapu‘u Point Lighthouse, which comes at the end of a nice trail with a decent amount of elevation. I took a few different pictures of this lighthouse, from a few different angles, but this was the one that I think worked best.Now Eating: Pasta and LentilsWe’re all about pasta and legumes in this house — the kids are big fans of the combination — and this recipe from New York Times Cooking is a nice variation on the theme. I usually make this vegetarian, but you can fry pancetta and cook the vegetables in the rendered fat if you prefer.Ingredients3 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil, plus more for serving1 yellow onion, coarsely chopped8 garlic cloves, smashed and peeledkosher salt and black pepper1 cup brown or green lentils3 thyme sprigs3 fresh or dried bay leaves (optional)1 (28-ounce) can whole peeled tomatoes, crushed10 ounces tubular or ridged pasta, like penne½ cup freshly grated Parmesan, plus more for servingfresh parsley for garnishDirectionsIn a large pot or Dutch oven, heat the oil over medium-high. Add the onion and garlic, season with salt and pepper and cook, stirring occasionally, until golden brown and tender, 5 to 7 minutes. Add 5 cups of water, the lentils, the thyme and bay leaves (if using). Partially cover, bring to a boil, then reduce heat and simmer, partially covered, until the lentils are al dente, 25 to 30 minutes.Add the tomatoes and 1 teaspoon salt, and bring to a boil over high. Add the pasta and cook, stirring often to keep the pasta from sticking to the pot, until the pasta is al dente, 10 to 20 minutes. (It may take longer than the cook time on the package.) If the pot starts to look dry at any point, add more water, ¼ cup at a time.Turn off the heat, discard the thyme and bay leaves, then stir in the Parmesan. Cover and let sit for 3 minutes so the flavors meld and the sauce thickens. Season to taste with salt and pepper. Eat with more Parmesan and a drizzle of olive oil. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s GOP Rivals, Shielding Him, Reveal Their 2024 Predicament

      by

      Many of Donald Trump’s potential opponents snapped into line behind him, showing just how hard it may be to persuade Republican voters to choose an alternative.Last week, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida took a measured dig at Donald J. Trump by publicly mocking the circumstances that led New York investigators to the former president.“I don’t know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair,” Mr. DeSantis said.But as soon as Mr. Trump was indicted this week, Mr. DeSantis promptly vowed to block his state from assisting a potential extradition. In a show of support for his fellow Republican, Mr. DeSantis called the case “the weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda.”In the hours after a grand jury indicted Mr. Trump, many of his potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination snapped into line behind him, looking more like allies than competitors. All passed on the opportunity to criticize him, and some rushed to his defense, expressing concerns about the legitimacy of the case.The turnaround by some prospective contenders was so swift and complete that it caught even the Trump team off guard. One close ally suggested to Mr. Trump that he publicly thank his rivals. (As of Friday evening, he had not.)The reluctance to directly confront Mr. Trump put his strength as a front-runner on full display. His would-be challengers have been sizing up political billiard balls for the possibility of an increasingly tricky bank shot: persuading Republican voters to forsake him, while presenting themselves as the movement’s heir apparent.In one reflection of Mr. Trump’s durability, his team said it had raised more than $4 million in the 24 hours after the indictment was made public by The New York Times.“There has been a narrative for a while that we could have Trump policies with someone more electable, but the reaction to the indictment showed that power is unique to Trump,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in an interview. “Trump was the leading contender for the nomination before the indictment, and now he’s the prohibitive favorite.”The closest any possible Republican challenger came to criticizing Mr. Trump was former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who told Fox Business Network on Friday that while the yet-to-be-revealed charges might not end up being substantial, Mr. Trump should “step aside” now that he has been indicted.A day earlier, former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Mr. Trump’s most prominent official challenger so far, suggested the indictment was politically motivated, writing on Twitter, “This is more about revenge than it is about justice.”Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas said this week that while the yet-to-be-revealed charges might not end up being substantial, Mr. Trump should “step aside” now that he has been indicted. Win McNamee/Getty ImagesThe overwhelming unwillingness to attack or even criticize Mr. Trump reflected an unspoken fear among many of his rivals that Republican voters will punish any candidate who seems to be capitalizing on his legal problems. Rather than run hard against him, contenders appeared content to orbit around Mr. Trump, who remains the most powerful force in Republican politics.Even before the indictment, Mr. Trump’s team began waging what amounted to a political war on the Manhattan district attorney who brought the case. At almost every turn, his allies have hammered the prosecutor, Alvin L. Bragg, as being a puppet of Democratic forces seeking to harm Mr. Trump. Mr. Bragg’s office has defended its integrity.“I was one of the early people to break with Trump on some of the things he was doing, but I think this is kind of outrageous,” former Representative Francis Rooney, a Florida Republican, said in an interview. “This is the best thing to happen to Trump in a long time. It’s stupid, and they have no case.”On Friday, Mr. Trump’s team remained focused on the primary contest at his campaign headquarters in West Palm Beach, Fla. Advisers anticipated a continuation of their recent strategy, which has included smaller events and just one major rally since Mr. Trump opened his third White House bid in November..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.Still, it was an open question of how facing criminal charges — and potentially more to come in three other criminal investigations — would help Mr. Trump in a general election. Moderate Republicans and independent voters have peeled away from him during the past three election cycles.One major donor, who is not yet committed to a 2024 candidate, doubted that the indictment would sway many deep-pocketed Republicans who have already made up their mind one way or the other about Mr. Trump, calling it a “so what?” moment.Mike DuHaime, a veteran Republican strategist, wrote on Twitter that Mr. Trump’s indictment “wins back absolutely zero voters who left him between 2016 and 2020.”“No independent who voted for Biden thinks Trump is a martyr or victim suddenly worthy of support,” Mr. DuHaime wrote.Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers acknowledged it is hard to predict what will happen if a trial is playing out well into the primary season, or how an indictment affects the general election.But Mr. Trump’s team, according to one person close to him, argues that the indictment has the potential to overcome the “Trump fatigue” factor among some voters who have favorable opinions of him but are open to a new face for the party.According to this thinking, if these “fatigued” voters view the Manhattan investigation as a continuation of what Mr. Trump has often called a political “witch hunt” by Democrats, it could generate enough sympathy to overcome the reasons they had fallen away from him.But Mr. Trump’s team was working on Friday to chart a course forward. The indictment a day earlier had surprised his aides, although his political team was far more prepared than his legal team. His team had been working on what it calls “maximizing the bump” from the indictment, preparing for a fund-raising blitz and working on speech drafts for coming events.Mr. Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., announced Thursday that it would run ads attacking Mr. DeSantis over his votes on Medicare and Social Security while he was in Congress.Shortly after that announcement, Mr. DeSantis posted his support for Mr. Trump on Twitter.The Florida governor’s statement about a politically motivated attack was particularly noteworthy, not just because he is widely viewed as Mr. Trump’s chief presidential rival, but also because last year, he removed a twice-elected state attorney whom he accused of politicizing the job by trying to “pick and choose” what laws to enforce locally.Shortly after news of the indictment, Mr. DeSantis’s allies in the Florida Legislature introduced widely anticipated legislation that could change state law to roll back a requirement that the Florida governor resign before running for federal office. The move, which might have otherwise ignited a new wave of speculation about Mr. DeSantis’s future and encouraged critics to question his commitment to his current job, was mostly overlooked in the swirl of indictment news.For the most part, Mr. Trump’s potential rivals echoed previous criticisms of the New York investigation, or they said nothing at all.Former Vice President Mike Pence, who had been booked for a CNN interview before the indictment, condemned it as politically motivated. Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who has been the most outspoken possible contender in criticizing Mr. Trump, said nothing. Neither did Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.Within hours of the indictment, senior Republicans were evaluating what, exactly, the new reality meant for events during the presidential primary race. One senior Republican official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations, said the questions included what might happen if a primary debate date were announced, and then a matter related to the trial interfered.Other routine events, like the Iowa State Fair this summer or donor retreats where candidates appear, could raise the same concerns, the official said, adding that Republicans might face pressure to change dates to accommodate a trial schedule.In the meantime, as Friday wore on, Mr. Trump solicited opinions from a wide range of associates, advisers and friends. “Can you believe this?” he said to one person after another, vilifying Mr. Bragg with expletives in some cases. His wife, Melania Trump, was said to be furious on her husband’s behalf.Mr. Trump’s eldest sons denounced the indictment in interviews and on social media. He planned to keep a normal schedule through the weekend, including rounds of golf and attending a gala at his club, people familiar with the plans said.Mr. Trump also solicited opinions about his legal team, as his advisers discussed adding people amid a round of finger-pointing as to why there had been such a strong belief that the indictment was weeks away, if it was happening at all.Boris Epshteyn, who helps coordinate some of Mr. Trump’s legal teams on various cases and who told colleagues, based in part on public reports, that there would be no movement in the case for weeks, left Palm Beach during the day on Thursday. He returned after the indictment was public.Trip Gabriel More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Prepares to Surrender in New York as Police Brace for Protests

      by

      Donald J. Trump prepared on Friday to surrender to prosecutors in Manhattan next week as the New York police braced for protests and sharply partisan responses from Democrats and Republicans ushered in a tumultuous time for a deeply polarized nation.A day after a grand jury indicted Mr. Trump and made him the first former president to face criminal charges, metal barricades were up around the criminal courthouse on Centre Street in Lower Manhattan. Mr. Trump is expected to enter the often grimy and ill-lit building with his Secret Service protection to answer charges before a state judge on Tuesday.Dozens of reporters and camera crews camped out across the street on Friday, while 20 court officers stood at the courthouse entrances, monitoring activity on the street.Mr. Trump intends to travel to New York on Monday and stay the night at Trump Tower, people familiar with his preparations said. He has no plans to hold a news conference or address the public while he is in New York, the people said.Mr. Trump remained largely quiet on Friday at Mar-a-Lago, his resort in Florida, where he spent the day talking on the telephone with advisers. One of his lawyers, Joe Tacopina, said in a television interview that the former president would not take a plea deal and was prepared to go to trial, a typically defiant stance that is likely to endear him to his supporters, who see the prosecution as a politically motivated vendetta by Democrats.Late on Friday afternoon, Mr. Trump burst out on Truth Social, the social media platform he founded, writing in all capital letters that Democrats were “INDICTING A TOTALLY INNOCENT MAN IN AN ACT OF OBSTRUCTION AND BLATANT ELECTION INTERFERENCE.” He concluded that it was all happening “WHILE OUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL!”The former president is expected to be arraigned in Manhattan criminal court on charges related to payments made just before the 2016 presidential election to buy the silence of a porn star who said she had an extramarital affair with him. The former president, who has denied the affair, has been charged with more than two dozen counts in a sealed indictment, according to two people familiar with the matter, although the exact charges remain unknown.Conservative Republicans continued to criticize the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, whose office rebuked House Republicans for attempting to interfere in the case.The case, which could drag on for months and whose outcome is far from clear, is likely to test the country’s institutions and the rule of law. It will also have deep repercussions for the 2024 campaign for the White House, a race in which Mr. Trump remains the Republican front-runner.Mr. Trump has sought to capitalize on the criminal charges to energize his core supporters. On Thursday, he called Mr. Bragg “a disgrace” and denounced the indictment as “political persecution and election interference at the highest level in history.”His message was repeated across the conservative media sphere on Friday by Republican politicians and pundits.Mr. Trump was roundly defended on Fox News, including by hosts who had reviled him in private. Although the host Tucker Carson said of Mr. Trump in early 2021, “I hate him passionately,” according to a text released as part of a defamation suit against Fox, on Thursday Mr. Carlson called the indictment “one in a long line of unprecedented steps that permanent Washington has taken to stop Donald Trump from holding office in a democracy.” He also said: “Probably not the best time to give up your AR-15.”Supporters of Mr. Trump gathered outside his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on Thursday after the indictment was reported.Josh Ritchie for The New York TimesEven many of Mr. Trump’s potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination snapped into line behind him in the hours after news of the indictment broke, looking more like allies than competitors. All passed on the opportunity to criticize the former president — and some rushed to his defense — in a sign of just how reluctant 2024 contenders are to directly confront him and antagonize his many millions of supporters in the party.Mike Pence — the former vice president whose life was put at risk when Jan. 6 rioters sought him out after Mr. Trump blamed him for allowing Congress to ratify the results of the 2020 election — denounced the indictment for what he called “a campaign finance issue” as an “outrage” and a “political prosecution.”Speaking at the National Review Institute in Washington, Mr. Pence said that Mr. Bragg’s prosecution “should be offensive to every American left, right and center,” and that he believed that “the American people will see this for what it is.”Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a potential presidential candidate who has clashed with Mr. Trump, also rushed to his defense, posting on Twitter that the indictment was “un-American” and amounted to “the weaponization of the legal system.”.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.A few in the G.O.P. remained silent, among them Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, and Senator John Thune, the second-ranking Senate Republican. Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, who is also flirting with a presidential run, appeared to be keeping mum, as well. So too was Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor and one-time Trump ally who is considering a 2024 run for president and who recently vowed that he would never again support the former president.The indictment in Manhattan concerns hush money payments made in the final days of the 2016 campaign to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic film star who had threatened to go public with her claim that she had a short affair with Mr. Trump a decade earlier.Ms. Daniels was paid $130,000 not to speak publicly about her claims, and the payments were channeled through Mr. Trump’s fixer and personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, who has said Mr. Trump approved the scheme.The Manhattan case is likely to hinge on the way Mr. Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, handled reimbursing Mr. Cohen. Internal Trump Organization records falsely classified the reimbursements as legal expenses, helping conceal the purpose of the payments, according to Mr. Cohen. Mr. Trump’s lawyers deny this.In New York, falsifying business records can be a felony if it is done to cover up another crime, and in this case prosecutors are expected to argue that the underlying crime was a violation of campaign finance law. The exact charges, however, will not be unsealed until Tuesday when Mr. Trump is brought before Justice Juan M. Merchan, a New York County jurist with 16 years on the bench, who has been assigned to handle the case.Justice Merchan also oversaw the criminal tax fraud trial of Mr. Trump’s family real estate firm late last year.On Friday, Mr. Trump took aim at Justice Merchan on Truth Social, claiming that the judge hated him and that he had “railroaded” Allen H. Weisselberg, a former executive of the Trump Organization who has pleaded guilty to tax fraud charges.The indictment in Manhattan concerns hush money payments made in the final days of 2016 to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic film star.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesMr. Trump is also under investigation in Georgia, where prosecutors in Fulton County are expected to make a decision soon on whether to seek an indictment against him and his allies over their efforts to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.Mr. Trump famously made a call to the state secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, urging him to “find 11,780 votes,” which would have given him a victory in the state.A special grand jury has heard evidence in the Georgia case and produced a final report, though its recommendations on charges remain under seal.In Washington, a Justice Department special counsel is leading two separate investigations, into Mr. Trump’s broader actions to cling to power after his 2020 electoral defeat and into his hoarding of documents marked as classified after leaving office.If the other criminal investigations result in charges, there is no guarantee that the New York case will be the first to go to trial.“The fact that New York is first to indict does not mean it will be the first to try,” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor. “A federal indictment will be swifter if it comes.”Mr. Gillers noted that New York is more receptive to pretrial appeals than federal courts, meaning there will be many opportunities for Mr. Trump’s lawyers to delay a trial in the state by filing motions seeking, for instance, a change of venue or to remove a judge.The Manhattan district attorney’s office is also under pressure from House Republicans, who have used their investigative power to demand the district attorney turn over documents and testimony related to the Trump investigation, an extraordinary attempt by members of Congress to intervene in a criminal inquiry.Mr. Bragg’s office fired back in a letter on Friday, accusing three Republican committee chairmen who demanded documents — Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio on the Judiciary Committee, James R. Comer of Kentucky on the Oversight Committee and Bryan Steil of Wisconsin on the Administration Committee — of aiding a campaign to denigrate the district attorney’s office.The letter noted that before being indicted, Mr. Trump had used his social media platform to insult Mr. Bragg and threaten “death and destruction” if he were charged.“You could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury,” wrote Leslie Dubeck, the general counsel for the district attorney’s office.“Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges,” Ms. Dubeck wrote.Reporting was contributed by Maggie Haberman, Ben Protess, William K. Rashbaum, Neil Vigdor, Ben Shpigel, Richard Fausset, Danny Hakim and Chelsia Rose Marcius in New York and by Luke Broadwater, Jonathan Swan and Charlie Savage in Washington. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Did Not Indict Trump on Hush Money Charges

      by

      One aspect of the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Trump that has drawn considerable attention is why a local prosecutor brought charges linked to possible violations of federal campaign laws — and why the Justice Department has not.It is known Mr. Trump was under scrutiny by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York some years ago as part of an investigation that also looked at his longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen. Mr. Cohen eventually went to prison, but Mr. Trump was not charged at the time, or after he left office.The prosecutors and the Justice Department have never said publicly why Mr. Trump was not charged, but some of the reasons appear to concern how the prosecutors viewed Mr. Cohen, who is expected to be involved in the case brought by the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg.In 2018, the Southern District prosecutors brought charges against Mr. Cohen for paying $130,000 in hush money to the porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. During that investigation, the federal prosecutors concluded that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Cohen to pay off Ms. Daniels to keep her quiet about a sexual liaison she said she had with Mr. Trump. He has denied her assertion. The Southern District prosecutors accused Mr. Cohen of violating federal campaign finance laws, arguing that the payments to ensure the silence of Ms. Daniels, which were later reimbursed by Mr. Trump, amounted to an illegal donation to the Trump campaign. But the Southern District declined, at the time, to file charges against Mr. Trump.The federal prosecutors, and later Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, determined that prosecuting him would have violated a Nixon-era directive from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that was interpreted as preventing the indictment of a sitting president.That protection disappeared the moment Mr. Trump left office.Mr. Trump’s defenders have seized on the fact that no federal charges have been brought against the former president in connection with the hush money payment to portray the actions of Mr. Bragg as motivated by partisanship.The federal prosecutors in Manhattan appear to have briefly considered reviving the inquiry into Mr. Trump in January 2021, just before President Biden was sworn in, but decided against doing so, according to the recent book “Untouchable,” by Elie Honig, a former Southern District prosecutor. (The decision was made in New York, and senior department staff members in Washington played no role in the decision, current and former officials said.)Nicholas Biase, a spokesman for the Southern District, declined to comment.The decision not to indict appeared to be rooted in lingering concerns about Mr. Cohen’s credibility and cooperation as a government witness.The Southern District prosecutors had informed Mr. Cohen that he had to provide a comprehensive accounting of his conduct as a condition of a cooperation deal, but he declined to be debriefed on other uncharged criminal conduct, if any, in his past, the prosecutors said in a 2018 court filing.That ran afoul of a longstanding policy followed by the Southern District regarding cooperation agreements, according to current and former Justice Department officials: A potential cooperating witness must divulge the entire range of their criminal conduct over their lifetime to get a deal.It is a rule “that not every U.S. attorney’s office uses” but has become an essential requirement to bringing cases in the Southern District, one of the country’s busiest and most scrutinized legal venues, said Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor and University of Alabama law professor, in a post on Substack.Such an accounting must “encompass their entire criminal history, as well as any and all information they possess about crimes committed by both themselves and others,” the Southern District prosecutors wrote in the 2018 court filing that seemed to lament Mr. Cohen’s recalcitrance. The prosecutors said they had found Mr. Cohen to be “forthright and credible.”“Had Cohen actually cooperated, it could have been fruitful,” the prosecutors wrote. But because he did not, the prosecutors said, the “inability to fully vet his criminal history and reliability impact his utility as a witness.”By July 2019, in another court filing, Southern District prosecutors signaled they were unlikely to file additional charges in the hush-money investigation, reporting they had “effectively concluded” their inquiry into efforts to buy the silence of Ms. Daniels and another woman who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump.They did not include any explanation. But in private, federal prosecutors cited concerns that Mr. Trump’s lack of basic knowledge of campaign finance laws would make it hard to prove intent, according to three people familiar with the situation. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Fox News Suffers Major Setback in Dominion Case

      by

      A judge said the suit would go to trial, for a jury to weigh whether the network knowingly spread false claims about Dominion Voting Systems, and to determine any damages.Fox News suffered a significant setback on Friday in its defense against a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit that claims it lied about voter fraud in the 2020 election.A judge in Delaware Superior Court said the case, brought by Dominion Voting Systems, was strong enough to conclude that Fox hosts and guests had repeatedly made false claims about Dominion machines and their supposed role in a fictitious plot to steal the election from President Donald J. Trump.“The evidence developed in this civil proceeding,” Judge Eric M. Davis wrote, demonstrates that it “is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.”Judge Davis said the case would proceed to trial, for a jury to weigh whether Fox spread false claims about Dominion while knowing that they were untrue, and to determine any damages. The trial is expected to begin April 17.But he rejected much of the heart of Fox’s defense: that the First Amendment protected the statements made on its air alleging that the election had somehow been stolen. Fox has argued that it was merely reporting on allegations of voter fraud as inherently newsworthy and that any statements its hosts made about supposed fraud were covered under the Constitution as opinion.“It appears oxymoronic to call the statements ‘opinions’ while also asserting the statements are newsworthy allegations and/or substantially accurate reports of official proceedings,” Judge Davis said.For example, in a “Lou Dobbs Tonight” broadcast on Nov. 24, 2020, Mr. Dobbs said: “I think many Americans have given no thought to electoral fraud that would be perpetrated through electronic voting; that is, these machines, these electronic voting companies including Dominion, prominently Dominion, at least in the suspicions of a lot of Americans.”The judge said that statement was asserting a fact, rather than an opinion, about Dominion.Under defamation law, Dominion must prove that Fox either knowingly spread false information or did so with reckless disregard for the truth, meaning that it had reason to believe that the information it broadcast was false.Numerous legal experts have said that Dominion has presented ample evidence that Fox hosts and producers were aware of what they were doing.RonNell Andersen Jones, a law professor and First Amendment scholar at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law, said the judge had signaled that he disagreed with many of Fox’s arguments.“The case will head to the jury with several of the key elements already decided in Dominion’s favor,” Ms. Anderson Jones said.Dominion, in a statement, said: “We are gratified by the court’s thorough ruling soundly rejecting all of Fox’s arguments and defenses, and finding as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false. We look forward to going to trial.”A spokeswoman for Fox said the case “is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news.”“Fox will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings,” she added.Both parties had asked for the judge to grant summary judgment, meaning to rule in their favor on the merits of the evidence that each side had produced so far, including at a pretrial hearing last week. Dominion has argued that texts and emails between Fox executives and hosts proved that many knew the claims were false but put them on the air anyway.Fox has accused Dominion of cherry-picking evidence and argued that the First Amendment protected it because it was reporting on newsworthy allegations.In Friday’s decision, Judge Davis said damages, if they were awarded to Dominion, would be calculated by the jury. Lawyers for Fox pushed back on Dominion’s claim for $1.6 billion in previous hearings, arguing that the company had overstated its valuation and failed to show it suffered any loss of business.Fox has argued that Fox Corp, the parent company of Fox News, was not involved in the broadcasting of the allegedly defamatory statements. In the decision, the judge left that question up to a jury.The case is the highest profile so far to test whether allies of former President Donald J. Trump would be held accountable for spreading falsehoods about the 2020 election. The prosecutions of those who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, have mostly been focused on petty criminals and low-level agitators.Major revelations have been buried in the suit’s filings. Hundreds of pages of internal emails and messages in the weeks around the 2020 election, some of which were redacted, showed that many Fox executives and hosts did not believe the false claims of voter fraud they were broadcasting and made derogatory comments about Mr. Trump and his legal advisers.Tucker Carlson, the popular prime-time host, described Mr. Trump as “a demonic force, a destroyer” in a text with his producer. In a separate message to the host Laura Ingraham, Mr. Carlson said Sidney Powell, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, was lying about the fraud claims, but “our viewers are good people and they believe it.”The trove of messages also revealed the panic inside Fox News in the weeks after the election. Leaders including Suzanne Scott, the network’s chief executive, and Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of its parent company, fretted about angering viewers who felt the network had betrayed Mr. Trump when it correctly called Arizona for Joseph R. Biden Jr.As some of those viewers left for more right-wing channels like Newsmax in the days after the election, Ms. Scott told Mr. Murdoch in an email that she intended to “pivot but keep the audience who loves us and trusts us.” She added: “We need to make sure they know we aren’t abandoning them and still champions for them.”Mr. Murdoch acknowledged in his deposition that some Fox News hosts had “endorsed” the false fraud claims. He added that he “would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it in hindsight.”The suit has also had a recent complicating factor: A former Fox News producer filed her own lawsuits against the company this month, claiming that the network’s lawyers coerced her into giving a misleading testimony in the Dominion case. Fox News fired the producer, Abby Grossberg, who worked for the host Maria Bartiromo and Mr. Carlson, after she filed the complaints.On Monday, Ms. Grossberg’s lawyers filed her errata sheet, which witnesses use to correct mistakes in their depositions. She revised her comments to say she did not trust the producers at Fox with whom she worked because they were “activists, not journalists, and impose their political agendas on the programming.”Judge Davis’s ruling sets the stage for one of the most consequential media trials in recent history, with the possibility that Fox executives and hosts could be called to testify in person.In several recent hearings, the judge indicated that he was losing patience with Fox lawyers and their objections to Dominion’s efforts to introduce evidence into the record. And he said on Friday that he believed Dominion was correct in asserting that Fox had not “conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.” More