Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The DeSantis Foreign Policy: Hard Power, but With a High Bar

      by

      The Florida governor has never been the internationalist that some old-guard Republicans wanted or imagined him to be. A close reading of his record reveals how he might lead the U.S. abroad.When Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida made headlines recently by undercutting U.S. support for Ukraine, Republican hawks, many of whom cling to him as their only hope to defeat former President Donald J. Trump, wondered if they had misread him as an ideological ally.Mr. DeSantis ditched his previous backing for Ukraine to align himself with the increasingly nationalistic Republican base, which he will need to win the 2024 presidential primary if he runs. But he was never the committed internationalist that some old-guard Republicans had wanted or imagined him to be.Until now, Mr. DeSantis served as a Rorschach test for Republicans. There was, conveniently, something in his record to please each of the party’s ideological factions, and he had every incentive to be all things to all Republicans for as long as he could get away with it.Hawks had claimed Mr. DeSantis as their own for his fervent support of Israel and his denunciations of China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. And restraint-oriented Republicans had claimed Mr. DeSantis for his 2013 decision, as a congressman, to break with Republican hawks and oppose President Barack Obama’s requests to intervene militarily in Syria.Mr. DeSantis during a visit to Jerusalem in 2019. He has been a fervent supporter of Israel. Jeffrey Schweers – Usa Today NetworkYet, despite his policy shifts and inconsistencies — this week, he said he had failed to make himself clear on Ukraine and called President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a “war criminal” — Mr. DeSantis’s worldview is not a mystery.Unusually for a governor, Mr. DeSantis, whose spokeswoman declined interview requests, has a long paper trail on foreign policy. A close reading of more than 200 of his speeches, votes, writings and television commentaries over the past decade, as well as interviews with his peers, reveal the makings of a DeSantis Doctrine.‘Just a Jacksonian’Tucked between the campaign boilerplate in Mr. DeSantis’s new book, “The Courage to Be Free,” is a short chapter describing how his service in Iraq, as an officer in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, reinforced his doubts about former President George W. Bush’s “messianic impulse.”“Bush sketched out a view for American foreign policy that constituted Wilsonianism on steroids,” Mr. DeSantis writes, referring to former President Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic liberal internationalism after World War I. He recalls his reaction to a line in Mr. Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.”“I remember being stunned,” Mr. DeSantis writes. “Does the survival of American liberty depend on whether liberty succeeds in Djibouti?”Mr. DeSantis’s analysis of Mr. Bush’s attempt to use the military to “socially engineer a foreign society” is the sort of thing one hears from conservative elites who call themselves Jacksonians, after President Andrew Jackson, the 19th-century populist. Though The New York Times could find no public record of the Florida governor describing himself as a Jacksonian, the word kept coming up in interviews with people who know Mr. DeSantis.“I think he’s kind of dead-center where Republican voters are, which is to say that he’s neither an isolationist nor a neoconservative, he’s just a Jacksonian,” said David Reaboi, a conservative national security strategist whom Mr. DeSantis has hosted at the governor’s mansion.Mr. Reaboi was referring to a 1999 essay by the academic Walter Russell Mead, “The Jacksonian Tradition and American Foreign Policy,” which is still in heavy circulation on the intellectual right. It defines a Jacksonian as having a narrow conception of the U.S. national interest: protection of its territory, its people, its hard assets and its commercial interests overseas.A Jacksonian does not dream of implanting “American values” on foreign soil. He or she believes that if the U.S. military is to be deployed, it should use as much force as necessary to achieve a quick, clearly defined “victory,” with as few American casualties as possible. A Jacksonian cares little about lopsided casualty counts — so long as they’re in America’s favor — or about international law.Unlike Mr. Trump, a fellow Jacksonian but one who operates on pure instinct and would never dream of suffering through a foreign policy treatise, Mr. DeSantis has read deeply and has formed a philosophy about America’s place in the world. But you will rarely hear Mr. DeSantis invoke abstract values to justify the use of force — as some of his potential 2024 rivals and current party leaders have done.He has not framed the Ukraine war as a battle for “freedom,” as former Vice President Mike Pence has done, or as a mission to defend the post-World War II international security framework, as Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, has done. If Mr. DeSantis is elected president, there is unlikely to be any more Biden-esque talk of “autocracies versus democracies.” In Mr. DeSantis’s framing, these are the idealistic mutterings of a “Wilsonian.”Tucked between the campaign boilerplate in Mr. DeSantis’s new book are ideas similar to those one hears from conservative elites who call themselves Jacksonians, after President Andrew Jackson, the 19th-century populist.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesMr. DeSantis’s former House colleagues could not recall him ever worrying about whether girls got an education in Afghanistan or whether democracy could be spread throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Instead, they recall him expressing a hard-nosed and narrow view of the American national interest.“After law school, Governor DeSantis didn’t take a Wall Street job or join a human rights N.G.O.,” said Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who served with Mr. DeSantis in the House and remains close to him. “He joined the military, which both reflected his worldview and probably further shaped it, as did his choice to serve six years on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”Mr. DeSantis favors a robust U.S. military. A President DeSantis would most likely increase military spending; as a House member, he spoke approvingly of Mr. Trump’s increase of the Pentagon’s budget.In Iraq, one of Mr. DeSantis’s jobs was to provide counsel to commanders on the rules governing the battlefield. He saw his role as being a “facilitator, not an inhibitor,” he writes in his new book. He chafed at what he viewed as overly restrictive rules of engagement..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.“It is unacceptable to send someone wearing our nation’s uniform to a combat zone with one hand tied behind his back,” Mr. DeSantis writes. “War is hell, and it puts the lives of our military personnel at risk if operations get mired in bureaucracy and red tape.”Mr. DeSantis’s Jacksonianism predates the presidency of Mr. Trump.In 2013 and 2014, Mr. DeSantis broke with Republican hawks who were encouraging Mr. Obama to intervene militarily in Syria. Mr. DeSantis rejected the idea of missile strikes to respond to President Bashar al-Assad’s use of gas. And he voted against an amendment that would have authorized Mr. Obama to train and equip vetted Syrian rebels, because “mujahedeen fighters in Syria are not moderates nor are they pro-American.”Contempt for the State Department and the United NationsMr. DeSantis has often cited the writings of the late conservative intellectual Angelo Codevilla — and in particular his 2010 book, “The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It.”Mr. Codevilla, whose book came out at the height of the Tea Party movement, describes a permanent “ruling class” in Washington that looks down on the rest of the country and “makes decisions about war and peace at least as much forcibly to tinker with the innards of foreign bodies politic as to protect America.”This ruling class — a phrase Mr. DeSantis has co-opted — includes both the Republican and Democratic Party establishments. In his telling, these elites have pursued an unpatriotic agenda: They have assigned the U.S. military unwinnable and therefore demoralizing missions, and have been too generous to foreigners.Mr. DeSantis is widely seen as the strongest potential challenger to former President Donald J. Trump in the 2024 Republican presidential primary race.Scott Olson/Getty ImagesThis mental model defines how Mr. DeSantis thinks about the State Department and international institutions like the United Nations.In a floor speech on Jan. 5, 2017, Mr. DeSantis called for defunding the U.N. until the Security Council revoked a resolution condemning Israeli settlements as violations of international law.Mr. DeSantis derides the foreign policy professionals at the State Department to such an extent that it’s difficult to imagine him meeting with them, let alone listening to their advice. Mr. DeSantis has complained that the State Department is “Arabist in outlook” and “all in” with the Muslim Brotherhood.To the right of Trump on IsraelIn the early days of the Trump administration, the most pro-Israel president in living memory wasn’t pro-Israel enough for Mr. DeSantis, who was still a congressman. On Jun. 1, 2017, Mr. DeSantis issued a statement condemning Mr. Trump for delaying a decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.Public records show that Mr. DeSantis took only three foreign trips as a House member and has taken one foreign trip as governor. All were to Israel.In March 2017, Mr. DeSantis flew to Israel and scouted potential sites for the U.S. Embassy to heap public pressure on Mr. Trump to keep his campaign promise. Mr. DeSantis later pushed Mr. Trump to recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli territory — another controversial move.Mr. DeSantis has promised to be the “most pro-Israel governor in America” — a stance that helps him with both Jewish and evangelical constituents in Florida.Mr. DeSantis inserting a prayer for a safe Florida hurricane season in the Western Wall in Jerusalem during a visit in 2019. Jeff Schweers – USA TODAY NETWORKHe has used his powers as governor to pressure American companies to drop their boycotts of Israel. He took on Unilever over the decision by one of its companies, Ben & Jerry’s, not to sell ice cream in the occupied territories. Mr. DeSantis added Unilever to Florida’s “scrutinized companies” list, and Unilever reversed its decision. He used the same tactic against Airbnb — successfully pressuring the company to reverse itself over eliminating listings in Israeli settlements.As president, Mr. DeSantis would not be expected to dissuade Israel from annexing further land. He has referred to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria,” using the biblical names for the territory used by right-wing Israelis.During his first year in office, Mr. Trump briefly gestured at considering the Palestinian point of view. He even hosted the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, at the White House. It is hard to imagine Mr. DeSantis doing the same.In early 2018, when Mr. Trump was still aiming for what he called “the ultimate deal” between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Mr. DeSantis told the Heritage Foundation that a peace deal was not “worth spending capital on.”China superhawkAs governor, Mr. DeSantis has sought to restrict Chinese investments in Florida. His actions against the Chinese Communist Party suggest that as president, his China policy would be more comprehensively aggressive than Mr. Trump’s. But he seems to care less about trade issues than Mr. Trump did, and more about security concerns.Mr. DeSantis appears less likely to chase a Chinese trade deal, as Mr. Trump did for most of his presidency, and more likely to accelerate efforts to block Chinese investments in the U.S., especially in the high-tech and security sectors. (President Biden has kept Mr. Trump’s China tariffs.)In February, the DeSantis office announced a proposal to ban TikTok and “other social media platforms with ties to China” from state government devices.Mr. DeSantis has promised legislation to stop people or companies with China ties from buying “agricultural land and lands surrounding military bases,” and he plans to ban gifts to Florida universities from people or companies connected to the Chinese Communist Party.Political calculation and inconsistenciesMr. DeSantis’s recent statement that defending Ukraine was not a vital U.S. interest came after CNN unearthed comments he made in 2015 — which were circulated by people in Mr. Trump’s orbit — urging Mr. Obama to do more to defend Ukraine against Russia. As soon as Mr. DeSantis pivoted, the Trump campaign attacked him as a flip-flopping fake.If it was a politically calculated shift by Mr. DeSantis, it would not have been the first.On Sept. 9, 2013, Mr. DeSantis told Fox News that he accepted the Obama administration’s evidence that the Syrian government had gassed its people. But this, Mr. DeSantis argued, did not justify missile strikes against Syria, which he said risked escalating the conflict.Mr. DeSantis sounded different when the president firing missiles in response to Syrian gas was Mr. Trump. In a Fox News appearance on April 15, 2018, Mr. DeSantis said, “The strikes did what they were intended to do.”Nor has Mr. DeSantis been entirely consistent in his Jacksonianism. Speaking on a foreign policy issue that is politically potent in Florida, he can sound positively Wilsonian. He told the Venezuelan people in 2017, “We hear your cries of freedom.”Mr. DeSantis encouraged Mr. Trump — who ended up pushing unsuccessfully for regime change in Venezuela — “to apply additional pressure on the Maduro regime.” More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Unsettling Truth About Trump’s First Great Victory

      by

      Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory continues to confound election experts. How could American voters put such a fractious figure into the White House?This is more than an academic question. For the third time, Trump is the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.Three books, published in the years following Trump’s election — “Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America” by John Sides of Vanderbilt, Michael Tesler of the University of California-Irvine and Lynn Vavreck of U.C.L.A.; “White Identity Politics” by Ashley Jardina of George Mason University; and “Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity” by Lilliana Mason of Johns Hopkins — shed light on Trump’s improbable political longevity.Each points to the centrality of racial animosity.Sides, Tesler and Vavreck, for example, cite 2016 American National Election Studies data that asked four questions in order to explore dimensions of white identity: “the importance of white identity, how much whites are being discriminated against, the likelihood that whites are losing jobs to nonwhites, and the importance of whites working together to change laws unfair to whites.”The authors combine these questions into a “scale capturing the strength of white identity and found that it was strongly related to Republicans’ support for Donald Trump.”“Strongly related” is an understatement. On a 17-point scale ranking the strength of Republican primary voters’ white identity from lowest to highest, support for Trump grew consistently at each step — from 2 percent at the bottom to 81 percent at the highest level.Now, this earlier scholarship notwithstanding, three political scientists are presenting an alternative interpretation of the 2016 election. In their Feb. 28 paper “Measuring the Contribution of Voting Blocs to Election Outcomes,” Justin Grimmer of Stanford, William Marble of the University of Pennsylvania and Cole Tanigawa-Lau, also of Stanford, write:We assess claims that Donald Trump received a particularly large number of votes from individuals with antagonistic attitudes toward racial outgroups (Sides, Tesler and Vavreck, 2017; Mason, Wronski and Kane, 2021). Using the ANES, however, we show that in 2016 Trump’s largest gains in support, compared to Mitt Romney in 2012, came from whites with moderate racial resentment. This result holds despite the fact that the relationship between vote choice and racial resentment was stronger in 2016 and 2020 than in other elections.How could these two seemingly contradictory statements both be true? Grimmer, Marble and Tanigawa-Lau write:Decomposing the change in support observed in the ANES data, we show that respondents in 2016 and 2020 reported more moderate views, on average, than in previous elections. As a result, Trump improved the most over previous Republicans by capturing the votes of a larger number of people who report racially moderate views.In an email, Marble provided more detail:Whites with high levels of racial resentment supported Trump at a historically high rate compared to prior Republican presidential candidates. Yet, between 2012 and 2016, the number of people who scored at the high end of the racial resentment scale declined significantly. As a result, there were simply fewer high racial resentment voters for Trump to win in 2016 and 2020 than there were in earlier eras. At the same time, the number of people scoring at moderate levels of racial resentment increased. Trump was not as popular among this voting bloc, compared to those with high racial resentment. But because this group is larger, whites with moderate racial resentment scores ended up contributing more net votes to Trump.I asked Grimmer to explain the significance of his work with Marble and Tanigawa-Lau.Responding by email, Grimmer wrote:Our findings provide an important correction to a popular narrative about how Trump won office. Hillary Clinton argued that Trump supporters could be placed in a “basket of deplorables.” And election-night pundits and even some academics have claimed that Trump’s victory was the result of appealing to white Americans’ racist and xenophobic attitudes. We show this conventional wisdom is (at best) incomplete. Trump’s supporters were less xenophobic than prior Republican candidates’, less sexist, had lower animus to minority groups, and lower levels of racial resentment. Far from deplorables, Trump voters were, on average, more tolerant and understanding than voters for prior Republican candidates.The data, Grimmer continued,point to two important and undeniable facts. First, analyses focused on vote choice alone cannot tell us where candidates receive support. We must know the size of groups and who turns out to vote. And we cannot confuse candidates’ rhetoric with the voters who support them, because voters might support the candidate despite the rhetoric, not because of it.I asked Sides, Tesler and Vavreck for their assessment of the Grimmer, Marble and Tanigawa-Lau paper. They provided a one-paragraph response affirming, in the phrase “identity-inflected issues,” the crucial role of racial resentment:There are of course many complexities in characterizing changes in aggregate election outcomes over time. Several pieces of research into the 2016 election, including our book, “Identity Crisis,” and this interesting paper by Grimmer, Marble and Tanigawa-Lau, find that people’s vote choices in that election were more strongly related to their views on “identity-inflected issues” than they had been in prior elections. That is why our book argues that these issues are central to how we interpret the outcome in 2016.John Kane, a political scientist at N.Y.U. and a co-author with Lilliana Mason and Julie Wronski of “Activating Animus: The Uniquely Social Roots of Trump Support,” which was cited in the Grimmer paper, suggested that the Grimmer paper in fact provides a key corrective to the debate over the 2016 election. In an email, Kane pointed to a key section that reads:Trump’s surprising win in 2016 was not due to a large increase in Republican votes among the most racially resentful Americans. Instead, Trump’s support grew the most, relative to prior Republican candidates’, among whites with relatively moderate racial resentment scores. This potentially surprising finding is explained by the shifting distribution of racial resentment in the population.Grimmer’s point, Kane wrote, isto highlight the fact that, if we don’t account for a group’s size in the population (e.g., how many racially resentful people there are) and how many of them actually turn out to vote, we could incorrectly infer that certain groups have become more or less supportive of particular parties over time. I fully agree with this point and really do think it’s extremely important for people to understand.That said, Kane continued,The point about Trump voters being less racially resentful on average than voters for previous Republican candidates, while likely true, should, I think, be interpreted as a statement about why it’s important to be mindful of over-time changes in groups’ sizes in the population, and NOT as a statement about Trump being successful in attracting racially liberal voters (indeed, those lowest in racial resentment turned away from him, per Grimmer-Marble-Tanigawa-Lau’s own findings).Other scholars who have explored issues of race and politics were generally supportive of the Grimmer paper.Andrew Engelhardt, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, wrote by email:I find this argument persuasive because understanding election outcomes requires not just understanding what contributes to vote choice (e.g., racial group attachments, racial prejudice), but also how many people with that particular attitude turned out to vote and what share of the electorate that group makes up.The Grimmer paper, Engelhardt continued, “encourages us to take a step back and focus on the big picture for understanding elections: where do most votes come from and are these patterns consistent across elections?” Along these lines, according to Engelhardt,Discussion of racial resentment driving support for Trump could miss how folks low in racial resentment were actually critical to the election outcome. The paper makes just this clarifying point, noting, for instance, that White Democrats low in racial resentment were even more influential in contributing votes to Clinton in 2016 than to Obama in 2012. Change between 2012 and 2016 is not exclusively due to the behavior of the most prejudiced.“I like this piece,” Alexander George Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, wrote. “It is a nice reminder for scholars and, especially, the media, that it is important to think carefully about base rates.”In his email, Theodoridis argued:Donald Trump’s candidacy in 2016 was a stress test for Republican partisanship, and Republican partisanship passed with flying colors. The election was close enough for Trump to win because the vast majority of G.O.P. voters found the idea of either sitting it out or voting for a Democrat they had spent 20+ years disliking so distasteful that Trump’s limitations, liabilities and overt racism and misogyny were not a deal-breaker.Theodoridis noted that his oneminor methodological and measurement critique is that this sort of analysis has to take seriously what the racial resentment scale actually means. It may be that race is actually quite salient for those in the middle part of the scale, but they are just less overtly racist than those at the top of the scale. Also, the meaning of the racial resentment scale changes over time in ways that are not independent of politics, and especially of presidential politics. Position on the scale is not immutable in the way some descriptive characteristics may be.Sean Westwood, a political scientist at Dartmouth, was explicitly supportive of the Grimmer-Marble-Tanigawa-Lau methodology. Writing by email, Westwood argued:It is an interesting academic exercise to predict who will win the vote within a specific group, but it is more fundamental to elections to understand how many voters candidates will gain from each group. The limitation in Sides-Vavreck-Mason-Jardina is that they find a strong relationship between racial attitudes and Trump support, but while predictive of individual vote choice these results lead to relatively few total votes for Trump.Westwood contends thatthe important contribution from Grimmer et al is that there was a big change in the attitudes of the white electorate. A small number of whites with high levels of racial resentment did support Trump in 2016 at a higher rate than in prior elections, but the bulk of support for Trump came from more moderate whites. Trump managed to pull in support from racists, but he was able to pull in much more support from economically disadvantaged whites.The Grimmer paper, according to Westwood, has significant implications for those making “general claims about the future Republican Party,” specifically challenging those who believethat Republicans can continue to win by appealing to white Americans’ worst attitudes and instincts. While it is true Trump support is largest for the most racist voters, this group is a shrinking part of the electorate. Republicans, as Grimmer et al. show, must figure out how to appeal to moderate whites who hold more moderate attitudes in order to win. Racist appeals can win votes, but it is critical to remember that this number is smaller than the votes gained by speaking on economic concerns of moderate white voters (many of whom were uncomfortable with Trump’s racist rhetoric and were voting solely based on economic policy).Trump, Westwood concluded, “found support from both racists and moderates, but with the pool of racists voters shrinking, it is clear this is not a path to future victory.”Other scholars were more cautious in their response to the Grimmer paper. Daniel Hopkins, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, commented by email:The 2016 presidential election included ballots cast by more than 128 million Americans, and so any one narrative used to explain that election will be partial and incomplete. So I think it’s critical to avoid the idea that there is a single skeleton key that can explain all the varied undercurrents that led to Trump’s 2016 victory, or that any one paper will provide a definitive explanation. That said, I published an article in 2021 in Political Behavior titled “The Activation of Prejudice and Presidential Voting,” which I entirely stand by.Hopkins said his paper demonstrates thatwhite Americans’ prejudice against Black Americans was more predictive of their vote choice in 2016 than it had been in 2012. Importantly, it also shows that levels of prejudice against Black Americans were more predictive of voting in the 2016 G.O.P. primary than in the 2016 general election. But Grimmer and colleagues are looking at a different question using different data, so I don’t consider the analyses to be contradictory.One clear benefit emerging from the continuing study of Trump’s 2016 victory is a better understanding of the complexity and nuance of what brought it about.Marc Hetherington, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina, pointed out in an email that the presence of racial resentment among Republican voters emerged long before Trump ran for president, while such resentment among Democratic voters has been sharply declining:I think what Justin Grimmer would say is that racial resentment didn’t do more for Trump than it did for Romney. The highly racially resentful have, with reason, been voting for Republicans for a long time. Trump’s more explicit use of race didn’t make supporters more racially resentful. Levels of racial resentment among Republicans are no higher now than they were before Trump. In fact, they are slightly lower. And the highly racially resentful already knew full well that their home was in the G.O.P.While the focus of attention has been on those who fall at the high end of the distribution on racial resentment, Hetherington wrote,Almost all the change has taken place among Democrats, as they moved to lower and lower levels of resentment. In a statistical sense, the fact that there are now so many more people at the low end of the distribution than before will produce a larger coefficient for the effect of racial resentment on voting behavior. Put another way, racial resentment has a bigger effect. But that does not mean that those high in racial resentment are now even more likely to vote for Republicans or that there are more people high in resentment. In this case, I think it reflects that there are more people low in resentment than before and that they are even less likely to vote for Republicans than before. So the low end of the scale is doing the work.I began my examination of the Grimmer paper concerned that he and his co-authors might be drawing large conclusions from statistical oddities. After further examining the data and going over the commentary of the scholars I contacted, my own view is that Grimmer, Marble and Tanigawa-Lau have made a significant contribution to understanding the Trump phenomenon.Most important, they make the case that explanations of Trump’s victory pointing to the role of those at the extremes on measures of racial resentment and sexism, while informative, are in their own way too comforting, fostering the belief that Trump’s triumph was the product of voters who have drifted far from the American mainstream.In fact, the new analysis suggests that Trumpism has found fertile ground across a broad swath of the electorate, including many firmly in the mainstream. That Trump could capture the hearts and minds of these voters suggests that whatever he represents beyond racial resentment — anger, chaos, nihilism, hostility — is more powerful than many recognize or acknowledge. Restoring American politics to an even keel will be far tougher than many of us realize.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Michael Cohen’s Long Arc From Trump Ally to Chief Antagonist

      by

      He once said he would take a bullet for Donald Trump. Now, he’s hoping to help prosecutors put him away.When Michael D. Cohen stood before a federal judge to ask for leniency, he attributed much of his behavior to the influence of one man: Donald J. Trump.“Time and time again,” Mr. Cohen told the judge at his sentencing in late 2018, “I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds.”Ever since, Mr. Cohen has made it his work to expose those deeds. He testified for roughly seven hours at a congressional hearing in 2019, describing Mr. Trump as a liar and a cheater who made racist remarks. Mr. Cohen also met with the special counsel Robert S. Mueller II’s investigators and federal prosecutors in New York. And he was the impetus for the New York attorney general’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s business practices, laying the groundwork for a lawsuit that accused the former president of inflating his net worth by billions of dollars.Mr. Cohen’s transformation from trusted fixer to chief antagonist — a 180-degree turn against a man he once vowed to take a bullet for — upended his life. He went to prison for 13 months and then faced home confinement for more than a year. He endured years of attacks from Mr. Trump’s allies, ultimately emerging with a book deal, cable news appearances and a podcast, “Mea Culpa.”Now, Mr. Cohen is poised to seize his biggest moment yet: a day in court against Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump could be indicted in Manhattan as soon as this week.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesMr. Cohen is the key witness in the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into a hush-money payment to a porn star named Stormy Daniels. The payment, which Mr. Cohen said he made at Mr. Trump’s direction during the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, blocked Ms. Daniels from telling her story of an affair with Mr. Trump years earlier.Mr. Cohen has met with the prosecutors some 20 times and recently testified before a grand jury that could indict Mr. Trump as soon as this week, people with knowledge of the matter said. And he has provided documentation that bolsters his testimony, the people added.Mr. Trump has denied having any sexual encounter with Ms. Daniels and accused the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, a Democrat, of carrying out a political “witch hunt” against him.Mr. Trump’s team and Mr. Cohen’s critics maintain he is playing a cynical game based on rescuing his reputation and capitalizing on his guilty plea. But his supporters — in Congress, in the Democratic Party and on his expansive social media presence — credit him with a high-risk decision to challenge a president, and force the first significant cracks in Mr. Trump’s edifice.This account of the long, strange and now historically consequential arc of Mr. Trump’s once-loyal lawyer and fixer is drawn from interviews with nearly a dozen people who know him, and records from his various legal entanglements. Collectively, they paint a portrait of a complicated witness — a convicted liar and an opportunist, but also a compelling presence, who notes that his lies were on Mr. Trump’s behalf, and whose emotional vulnerability and blunt recitation of history prosecutors may rely on to charm a jury.“I know there’s a debate about the utilization of Michael as a witness, and that is going to be a colorful cross-examination,” said Norman Eisen, who served as the counsel for House Democrats during the first impeachment inquiry and developed a relationship with Mr. Cohen over the course of multiple meetings.“In dealing with me, he has never varied from our first meeting in 2019 to today in the details of what happened both in the hush money and in the larger financial frauds.”‘He has his purpose’Mr. Cohen had long idolized Mr. Trump, and then went to work for him.Jonathan Ernst/ReutersMr. Cohen, the son of a Holocaust survivor, was a 2003 New York City Council candidate and a mega-fan of Mr. Trump’s public persona before going to work for him. He got the job after impressing Mr. Trump, defending him at a condo board meeting at a Trump building in 2006.And he endeared himself to Mr. Trump by trying to be an indispensable aide and pit bull adviser to a real-estate developer and reality-television star.Part of his role became anticipating Mr. Trump’s whims and desires, and interpreting directions spoken in what Mr. Cohen would later describe as “code.”Mr. Trump had a penchant for compartmentalizing his life. When one of Mr. Trump’s friends asked Mr. Trump why he kept Mr. Cohen around, Mr. Trump replied, “He has his purpose.”That purpose, Mr. Cohen later said, included cleaning up some of Mr. Trump’s messes.In October 2016, while visiting his daughter in London, Mr. Cohen received calls from top executives at The National Enquirer, which had forged close ties to Mr. Trump over the years. They warned that Ms. Daniels was looking to sell her story.Within days, Mr. Cohen hammered out the hush-money deal with Ms. Daniels’s lawyer, securing Ms. Daniels’s silence at a crucial moment for the campaign.When Mr. Trump won the presidency soon after, Mr. Cohen did not accompany him to Washington, and left behind full-time employment at the Trump Organization to set up an office at the law firm Squire Patton Boggs in Midtown Manhattan.The Trump presidency was shaping up to be lucrative for Mr. Cohen: He soon had a roster of corporate clients, including a private equity firm, a large pharmaceutical company and even AT&T, as he held himself out as the personal lawyer to the president.But one issue trailed him: a complaint had been filed with the Federal Election Commission by the good-government group Common Cause about his payment to Ms. Daniels, which was publicly revealed in January 2018 by The Wall Street Journal.Soon, Mr. Cohen acknowledged to the F.E.C. and The New York Times that he had made the payment, insisting he did it on his own and that neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign had been a party to it. But he would not say whether Mr. Trump had been aware of the payment.At that time in Washington, Mr. Mueller’s investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s campaign had conspired with Russians in 2016, and whether Mr. Trump had obstructed justice, was proceeding apace. So were congressional investigations into Mr. Trump’s connections to Russia.Mr. Cohen testified to Congress that discussions about a Trump Tower project in Moscow stopped in January 2016. That turned out to be a lie, for which he would later fault Mr. Trump; the discussions went on until June 2016, into the presidential campaign.Mr. Mueller’s team was also scrutinizing Mr. Cohen, including for the hush-money deal, but soon handed off that inquiry to federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.The inquiry came to a head in April 2018, when F.B.I. agents searched Mr. Cohen’s office, home and a hotel where his family stayed while repair work went on at their apartment, taking emails, business records and other material. The event went off like a political bomb: The personal lawyer for a sitting president was the subject of an F.B.I. search based on probable cause that a crime was committed.It also imploded Mr. Cohen’s life. He confided in friends at the time that he was suicidal.As the search garnered wall-to-wall news coverage, Mr. Cohen received a call from Mr. Trump at the White House, with a message: stay strong.But as Mr. Cohen’s legal bills piled up, officials at the family-run Trump Organization began to balk at paying his lawyer, planting the seeds for Mr. Cohen’s break from a man he once idolized.A Seat at the Witness TableMr. Cohen was the sole witness at a 2019 hearing in Congress, where he likened Mr. Trump to “a mobster.”Erin Schaff/The New York TimesWithin months, the fracture between Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen was clear.Mr. Cohen soon hired Lanny Davis, a Democrat and a veteran Washington lawyer who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House.Mr. Davis had seen Mr. Cohen on television and reached out to Stephen Ryan, Mr. Cohen’s lawyer at the time. Soon, Mr. Davis and Mr. Cohen were virtually inseparable.In August of 2018, the federal prosecutors in the Southern District readied charges against Mr. Cohen for the hush money and a range of unrelated financial crimes. Mr. Davis said the prosecutors threatened to charge Mr. Cohen’s wife, Laura, with the tax crimes as well.Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in that case, and later, in another case brought by Mr. Mueller related to his congressional testimony about the potential Trump hotel deal in Moscow.At his first plea hearing, on the hush-money payment, Mr. Cohen pointed the finger at Mr. Trump, who he said directed him to pay it, an accusation that prosecutors later substantiated.Mr. Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison.Mr. Davis told Mr. Cohen that he had a path to winning back his credibility, but it wasn’t going to be enough to simply say he was sorry for what he had done. He would have to fully come clean about Mr. Trump, Mr. Davis said. Mr. Cohen told Mr. Davis he was ready.After his split with Mr. Trump, Mr. Cohen forged a relationship with Lanny Davis, left, a longtime Democrat who became his lawyer.Alex Brandon/Associated PressThey directed their effort at congressional Democrats, who were heading into their third year of investigations into Mr. Trump.In February 2019, Democrats announced that Mr. Cohen would appear at an unusual public hearing, the sole witness discussing the 45th president.Even before he arrived, Mr. Trump’s allies tried to intimidate him. Representative Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida, posted on Twitter an accusation that Mr. Cohen had been unfaithful to his wife — and she might not be loyal while he was in prison. Two of Mr. Trump’s closest allies, Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina, wrote a joint op-ed attacking Mr. Cohen as a “liar.”But when Mr. Cohen assumed a seat at a witness table for what would become a daylong event, he appeared prepared for the onslaught. He fought back, potentially foreshadowing how he might respond to attacks from Mr. Trump’s lawyers on the witness stand in the Manhattan case.“By coming today, I have caused my family to be the target of personal, scurrilous attacks by the president and his lawyer trying to intimidate me from appearing before this panel,” Mr. Cohen said in opening remarks at the congressional hearing. “Mr. Trump called me a rat for choosing to tell the truth, much like a mobster would do when one of his men decides to cooperate with the government.”As Mr. Jordan tried to rattle him, Mr. Cohen replied sternly, “Shame on you.”And Mr. Cohen delivered a striking prediction about what might happen the following year: “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power,” he said.Representative Elijah Cummings, Democrat from Baltimore and the committee chair, who knew Mr. Davis and had invited Mr. Cohen, told him “I know that you are worried about your family, but this is a part of your destiny.”In May 2019, Mr. Cohen began serving his time at a minimum security facility at Otisville, N.Y. It was there that he began to meet with the Manhattan district attorney’s office.Mr. Cohen was released in May 2020 on a medical furlough. But he was soon thrown back in prison by the Trump administration’s Bureau of Prisons, after he refused to sign a document stating he would not write a book, something he was doing.About two weeks later, a judge ordered him released, saying the move was “retaliatory.” He has told friends that he spent 51 days overall in solitary confinement.Twenty VisitsAgain and again in recent years, Mr. Cohen has visited the Manhattan district attorney’s office for meetings with prosecutors.Eduardo Munoz/ReutersBy early 2022, Mr. Cohen was home from prison and his visits with prosecutors moved to their offices in Lower Manhattan. Beginning in January of this year, he seemed to visit almost weekly, staging impromptu news conferences outside to tell reporters that his former boss was in trouble.Mr. Cohen is hardly a perfect witness. Mr. Trump’s lawyers will undoubtedly attack his character and invoke his criminal record. Some appear eager to cross-examine him.This week, at the request of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, one of Mr. Cohen’s former legal advisers testified before the grand jury in hopes of undercutting Mr. Cohen’s credibility. The witness, Robert J. Costello, briefly advised Mr. Cohen when he was facing the federal investigation in 2018, but they had a falling out as Mr. Cohen began taking public swipes at Mr. Trump.Mr. Costello, who was close with Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer at the time, Rudolph W. Giuliani, said he told the grand jury that Mr. Cohen was a liar. Mr. Cohen, in turn, said on MSNBC that Mr. Costello “lacks for any sense of veracity.”His cable news appearances, in which he makes off-the-cuff remarks about Mr. Trump and the investigation, have become quite frequent. Even the prosecutors who are relying on Mr. Cohen — and have decided to stake a large part of their case on his testimony — occasionally shake their heads at his media presence, according to a person close to the case.But Mr. Cohen, who has said he feels the need to defend himself publicly, has largely won the at least qualified approval of the district attorney’s office. In his book, Mark F. Pomerantz, the prosecutor who helped lead the investigation until early 2022, wrote that Mr. Cohen had impressed him as “smart but manipulative.”“He struck me as a somewhat feral creature,” Mr. Pomerantz continued. “Most importantly, I thought he was telling the truth.”Mr. Pomerantz argued that Mr. Cohen would play well with jurors, and that his anger at Mr. Trump could be explained: “He was angry with Trump because Trump had seduced Cohen into his criminal orbit, and Cohen had been the only one of Trump’s enablers to have gone to prison. Cohen was angry with himself for allowing himself to be seduced by Trump.”Mr. Cohen’s comprehensive knowledge of the hush-money case is likely another draw for prosecutors. The former fixer could connect all the dots that led to the payment. He liaised with each witness, and with Mr. Trump himself.On the first day of his grand jury testimony this month, when Mr. Cohen stopped outside the courthouse to entertain questions from reporters, he harkened back to what he had told the judge five years earlier.“This is all about accountability,” he said. “He needs to be held accountable for his dirty deeds.” More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Politics of a Trump Indictment

      by

      If you intend to indict and try a former president of the United States, especially a former president of the United States whose career has benefited from the collapse of public trust in the neutrality of all our institutions, you had better have clear evidence, all-but-obvious guilt and loads of legal precedent behind your case.The case that New York prosecutors are apparently considering bringing against Donald Trump, over hush-money payments made to Stormy Daniels that may have violated campaign finance laws, does not have the look of a slam dunk. The use of the phrase “novel legal theory” in descriptions of what the case might entail is not encouraging.Neither are the doubts raised by writers and pundits not known for their sympathy to Trump. Or the fact that we have a precedent of a presidential candidate indicted over a remarkably similar offense — the trial of John Edwards for his payments to Rielle Hunter — that yielded an acquittal on one count and a hung jury on the rest.The Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky precedent is a little less legally relevant, involving perjury rather than campaign-finance law. But the Clinton scandals established a general principle that presidents are above the law as long as the lawbreaking involved minor infractions covering up tawdry sex. If a potential Trump prosecution requires overturning that principle, then prosecutors might as well appear in court wearing Democratic Party campaign paraphernalia; the effect will be the same.That effect does not need to benefit Trump politically to make such a prosecution unwise or reckless. An indictment could hurt him at the polls and still be a very bad long-term idea — setting a precedent that will pressure Republican prosecutors to indict Democratic politicians on similarly doubtful charges, establish a pattern of legal revenge‌ seeking against the out-of-power party and encourage polarization’s continued transformation into enmity.But of course, the political question is inescapable: Will an indictment help Trump or hurt him in his quest to reclaim the Republican nomination and the presidency?Two generalizations are relatively easy to make. Even a partisan-seeming indictment won’t do anything to make Trump more popular with the independent voters who swing presidential elections; it will just be added baggage for a politician already widely regarded as chaotic and immoral and unfit for the office.At the same time, even an airtight indictment would be regarded as persecution by Trump’s most devoted fans. So whether or not there’s a wave of MAGA protests now, you would expect the spectacle of a prosecution to help mobilize and motivate his base in 2024.Alexander Burns of Politico argues that these two points together are a net negative for Trump. After all, he doesn’t need to mobilize his base. They will mostly be there for him, no matter what; he needs to persuade the doubtful and exhausted that he’s their man in 2024. And if even a few of these voters get weary of another round of Stormy Daniels sleaze, then he’s worse off. Burns writes, “If each scandal or blunder binds 99 percent of his base closer to him and unsettles 1 percent, that is still a losing formula for a politician whose base is an electoral minority. Trump cannot shed fractional support with every controversy but make it up on volume.”I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. That’s because in addition to the true base voter (who will be with Trump in any case) and the true swing voter (who probably pulled the lever for Joe Biden last time), there’s the Republican primary swing voter: the voter who’s part of Trump’s base for general election purposes but doesn’t love him absolutely, the voter who’s open to Ron DeSantis but swings between the two Florida Republicans, depending on the headlines at the moment.I can tell you two stories about how this kind of voter reacts to an indictment. In one, Trump does well with this constituency when he’s either out of the news or on the offensive and does worse when he seems weakened, messy, a loser. Hence the DeSantis bump in polling immediately after the 2022 midterms, when the underperformance of Trump’s favored candidates damaged his mystique and his flailing afterward made him look impotent. Hence his apparent recovery in polling more recently, as he’s taken the fight to DeSantis without the Florida governor striking back, making Trump look stronger than his not-yet-campaigning rival.Under this theory, even a politicized and partisan indictment returns Trump to a flailing position, making him seem like a victim rather than a master of events, a stumbling loser caught in liberal nets. So the Republican swing voter behaves like the general-election swing voter and recoils, and the disciplined DeSantis benefits.But there’s an alternative story, in which our Republican swing voter is invested not in specific candidates so much as in the grand battle with the liberal political establishment. In this theory the DeSantis brand is built on his being a battler, a scourge of cultural liberalism in all its forms, while Trump has lost ground by appearing more interested in battling his fellow Republicans, even to the point of hurting the G.O.P. cause and helping liberals win.What happens, though, when institutional liberalism seems to take the fight to Trump? (Yes, I know a single prosecutor isn’t institutional liberalism, but that’s how this will be perceived.) When the grand ideological battle is suddenly joined around his person, his position, his very freedom?Well, maybe that seems like confirmation of the argument that certain Trumpists have been making for a while — that there’s nothing the establishment fears more than a Trump restoration, that “they can’t let him back in,” as the former Trump White House official Michael Anton put it last year. And so if you care most about ideological conflict, it doesn’t matter if you don’t love him as his true supporters do; where Trump stands, there you must stand as well.This is the rally-to-Trump effect that seems most imaginable if an indictment comes — not a burst of zeal for the man himself but a repetition of the enemy-of-my-enemy dynamic that’s been crucial to his resilience all along.Of course, since at least some Democrats would be happy to see Trump rather than DeSantis as the nominee, you could argue that in this scenario the spoiling-for-a-fight conservatives would be essentially letting themselves be manipulated into fighting on the wrong battlefield, for the wrong leader, with the wrong stakes.But persuading them of that will fall to DeSantis himself, whose own campaign will make one of these two narratives of Republican psychology look prophetic ‌— the first in victory, the second in defeat.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Claims He’s Ready for Perp Walk if Indicted

      by

      Those who have spent time with Donald Trump in recent days say he has often appeared significantly disconnected from the severity of his potential legal woes.Donald J. Trump claims he is ready for his perp walk.Behind closed doors at Mar-a-Lago, the former president has told friends and associates that he welcomes the idea of being paraded by the authorities before a throng of reporters and news cameras. He has even mused openly about whether he should smile for the assembled media, and he has pondered how the public would react and is said to have described the potential spectacle as a fun experience.No one is quite sure whether his remarks are bravado or genuine resignation about what lies ahead.If he is truly looking forward to it, he might be disappointed.There is no indication, even if Mr. Trump is charged, that the authorities would have him take part in that storied New York City law-enforcement tradition known by detectives and crime reporters alike — walking the newly arrested past a cluster of journalists. If Mr. Trump is indicted and surrenders voluntarily, arrangements are likely to be made between the Secret Service and law enforcement to avoid a media circus.Another person who has spoken with Mr. Trump, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the former president was less concerned with the particulars of where he would be seen than with being assured of the opportunity to show the public he is not slinking away in shame.As he waits for a likely criminal indictment — making him the first current or former American president to face criminal charges — Mr. Trump has often appeared significantly disconnected from the severity of his potential legal woes, according to people who have spent time with him in recent days. He has been spotted zipping around his Palm Beach resort in his golf cart and on one recent evening acted as D.J. at a party with his personally curated Spotify playlists, which often include music from the Rolling Stones to “The Phantom of the Opera.”When Mr. Trump has focused on the case — one of four criminal investigations in Georgia, New York and Washington now facing the front-runner for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination — he has concentrated on projecting strength and avoiding any signals of shame over his circumstances, an approach that mirrors his handling of repeated political crises and his flair for creating dramatic, made-for-TV moments. Seeing Mr. Trump after a court appearance could also galvanize his supporters, whom Mr. Trump urged over the weekend to protest in the event of his arrest.“He wants to be defiant — to show the world that if they can try to do this to him, they can do it to anyone,” said one person who spoke to Mr. Trump over the weekend.A Trump campaign spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.Mr. Trump has been both invigorated and angered by the prospect of being arrested, according to those who have spoken with him. And he has also entertained a certain amount of magical thinking.For decades, according to people who worked with him years ago at the Trump Organization, Mr. Trump — who was first criminally investigated in the 1970s — was plainly frightened of being arrested. He spent years cultivating officials who might have influence over investigations into him or his company.Supporters of Mr. Trump gathered outside his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Tuesday.Josh Ritchie for The New York TimesHe has discussed the prospect that his recent pressure campaign — a series of personal, unproven and provocative attacks he has unleashed against investigators, Democrats and fellow Republicans — might persuade Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, to walk away from the case.That notion, according to legal experts, is highly unlikely, but Mr. Trump has a long history of believing he can bend external events to his will, and has sometimes succeeded.Mr. Bragg, who was a senior official in the New York attorney general’s office that brought a bevy of lawsuits against Mr. Trump’s administration, has publicly stated that his legal decisions would not be swayed by politics.Mr. Trump has a history of emerging from political scandals that would have ruined most traditional politicians.Even before Mr. Trump was elected, in October 2016, The Washington Post made public an outtake of Mr. Trump doing an interview with “Access Hollywood” a decade earlier and boasting about grabbing women’s genitals without their consent. As Republicans called for him to drop out that weekend, Mr. Trump’s impulse was to go to the street, where dozens of his supporters had gathered, and immerse himself in the crowd.And then years later in 2021, Mr. Trump sulked about his political future inside Mar-a-Lago. He had just been impeached for a second time, after his supporters rioted at the Capitol in an attempt to overturn his election defeat. People who spent time with him in those first post-White House months described a startling melancholy in his tone and hints of self-reflection as he sighed about his advanced age and expanding waistband.“The Good Lord’s given me good health up to now — but you never know,” he told one person at the time.But Mr. Trump slowly found relief in a new routine, playing 36 holes of golf a day and timing his arrival at dinner on the Mar-a-Lago terrace with nightly standing ovations from dues-paying members who were already seated. By June, Mr. Trump had again started hosting his signature campaign-style mega-rallies.Two years later, Mr. Trump has not only defied the expectations of many who believed he would never again seek public office, but he has also emerged as the strong favorite to win his third consecutive Republican presidential nomination.The experience has intensified Mr. Trump’s confidence in his old playbook, and his aides view the pending indictment — and the potential for more to come — as an asset for the campaign as they use the investigations to increase fund-raising and watch as primary rivals walk a careful line between criticizing prosecutors and backing Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump has again demonstrated his grip on Republican voters. But questions remain about whether his time-tested methods of galvanizing his supporters are worth the political costs he has paid with independent swing voters and moderate Republicans.These voters have turned on Mr. Trump, as well as many of the candidates and causes he has backed, for three consecutive election cycles that have ended in disappointment for his party.Mr. Trump, for now, appears content to follow his own formula for crisis communications, a method that eschews long-term planning for short-term gains. Mr. Trump has long emphasized the importance of winning the next headline at virtually any cost and with little regard for what happens next.On Saturday morning, Mr. Trump set off a frenzied news cycle by announcing on social media that he would be arrested within three days. Mr. Trump then visited one of his nearby golf courses, leaving his team to clarify that he had no direct knowledge of the timing of an arrest.By Saturday afternoon, Mr. Trump escaped the controversy by flying to the exact location of another past political humiliation: the BOK Center in Tulsa, Okla., where a sparse crowd attended his first pandemic-era rally on June 20, 2020.This time, on Saturday, Mr. Trump was not standing apart from the crowd but rather walking among it, his dark blue suit and red tie contrasting with a crowd outfitted mostly in T-shirts, hoodies and sports jerseys to watch the N.C.A.A. Division I wrestling championships.He chatted with wrestlers after their matches, met a few coaches and entertained a few brief chants in his honor — a performance aimed at showing swagger and masking any concern about a pending arrest.“He’s entirely focused,” one staff member remarked, “on the wrestlers.”Jonathan Swan More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis, Doubling Down, Presses Questions About Trump’s Character

      by

      In an interview with Piers Morgan, the Florida governor sought to strike a clear contrast with Donald Trump, calling himself a low-drama “winner.”Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, the closest prospective rival to Donald J. Trump in early polls of the 2024 Republican presidential primary, pressed forward with questions about the former president’s character and pointed to himself as a low-drama “winner” in an interview this week with the British media personality Piers Morgan.The interview, which Mr. Morgan wrote about Tuesday for The New York Post, was striking in terms of how expansive Mr. DeSantis was and of his choice of interviewer: Mr. Morgan, like Mr. DeSantis, has been a target of Mr. Trump’s ire.The interview took place at some point after an event Mr. DeSantis held on Monday in Panama City, Fla., where he criticized the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who is expected to indict Mr. Trump on charges related to hush-money payments to a porn star who said she had an affair with him. After that event, Mr. DeSantis also highlighted Mr. Trump’s personal conduct.In the interview with Mr. Morgan, Mr. DeSantis took clear aim at Mr. Trump’s often-criticized penchant for chaos and for hiring people who were at odds with his professed policy interests and who often leaked information to the news media.“I also think just in terms of my approach to leadership, I get personnel in the government who have the agenda of the people and share our agenda,” Mr. DeSantis said. “You bring your own agenda in, you’re gone. We’re just not going to have that. So, the way we run the government, I think, is no daily drama, focus on the big picture and put points on the board, and I think that’s something that’s very important.”When Mr. Morgan asked Mr. DeSantis “if he meant to be as censorious as he sounded” in his comments on Monday mentioning Mr. Trump’s personal conduct, the governor replied: “Well, there’s a lot of speculation about what the underlying conduct is. That is purported to be it, and the reality is that’s just outside my wheelhouse.”Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Mr. Trump, slammed Mr. DeSantis for the interview.“Ron DeSantis has finally shown his true colors,” he wrote on Twitter. “An establishment Never Trumper who despises the MAGA base and was faking it the entire time.”Taylor Budowich, a top official at the super PAC supporting Mr. Trump and a former spokesman for the president, wrote, “While the entire conservative movement is united against the unjust indictment of President Donald Trump, DeSantis is choosing to go off half-cocked and take shots on some low-rent vlog.”Mr. DeSantis, who has shied away from the mainstream news media, sounded a bullish note about running for president. He is expected to formally announce his candidacy in the coming months.“If I were to run, I’m running against Biden,” Mr. DeSantis said. He added that he would keep his focus on “Biden because I think he’s failed the country. I think the country wants a change. I think they want a fresh start and a new direction, and so we’ll be very vocal about that.”.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.Asked if he could beat President Biden, he said, “I think so.”Mr. Morgan wrote in The Post that when he asked a question about the conduct of leaders, Mr. DeSantis responded, “You really want to look to people like our founding fathers, like what type of character? It’s not saying that you don’t ever make a mistake in your personal life, but I think what type of character are you bringing?”He pointed to George Washington — who “always put the Republic over his own personal interest” — as an example.At another point, he described “truth” as “essential,” a notable comment in a discussion about Mr. Trump, who is known for telling falsehoods and whose lies about the 2020 election have dominated political life in the country for two years.Mr. DeSantis, who has faced attacks from Mr. Trump over Covid restrictions in Florida at the beginning of the pandemic, sought to turn the tables.“The approach to Covid was different,” Mr. DeSantis said. “I would have fired somebody like Fauci. I think he got way too big for his breeches, and I think he did a lot of damage.”In reality, Mr. Trump did not have direct control over Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the infectious-disease expert whom Republicans turned into a villain as the pandemic continued.Mr. DeSantis, who graduated from Yale University, claimed not to “know how to spell” one of Mr. Trump’s nicknames for him, Ron DeSanctimonious.“I don’t really know what it means, but I kind of like it,” Mr. DeSantis said. “It’s long, it’s got a lot of vowels. We’ll go with that, that’s fine. I mean, you can call me whatever you want, just as long as you also call me a winner, because that’s what we’ve been able to do in Florida, is put a lot of points on the board and really take this state to the next level.”Mr. DeSantis’s aggression this week has surprised Republican operatives and Trump allies. His comments to Mr. Morgan came a day after Mr. Trump made a statement on his social media site, Truth Social, insinuating that Mr. DeSantis might be gay — a response to Mr. DeSantis’s comments about “hush money” and “porn stars.” (Mr. Trump has denied having an affair with Stormy Daniels, the porn star in the New York case.)“Ron DeSanctimonious will probably find out about FALSE ACCUSATIONS & FAKE STORIES sometime in the future, as he gets older, wiser, and better known, when he’s unfairly and illegally attacked by a woman, even classmates that are ‘underage’ (or possibly a man!),” Mr. Trump wrote on Monday. “I’m sure he will want to fight these misfits just like I do!” More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Cronología del soborno a una actriz porno que podría culminar en una acusación formal contra Trump

      by

      Los fiscales de Manhattan que investigan un pago realizado a Stormy Daniels podrían estar a punto de convertir a Donald J. Trump en el primer expresidente estadounidense en ser acusado penalmente.En aquel momento, todo era más sórdido que trascendental. Una estrella de la telerrealidad invitó a una actriz porno que tenía la mitad de su edad a una habitación de hotel después de una ronda en un torneo de golf de celebridades. Ella llegó con un vestido de lentejuelas doradas y tacones con tiras. Él le prometió salir en televisión y luego, ella aseguró, se acostaron.Sin embargo, la cadena de acontecimientos derivados del encuentro de 2006 que la estrella del cine para adultos Stormy Daniels ha dicho que tuvo con la personalidad de la televisión Donald Trump está a punto de convertirse en un acontecimiento histórico: la primera acusación penal formal contra un expresidente de Estados Unidos.El fiscal de distrito de Manhattan Alvin Bragg señaló que está preparándose para presentar cargos por delitos graves contra Trump; se espera que Bragg lo acuse de ocultar los 130.000 dólares que Michael D. Cohen, el abogado y solucionador de problemas de Trump, le pagó a Daniels a cambio de su silencio antes de las elecciones presidenciales de 2016.Es probable que la condena dependa de que los fiscales demuestren que Trump reembolsó a Cohen y falsificó registros comerciales cuando lo hizo, posiblemente para ocultar una violación de la ley electoral.No sería un caso sencillo. Se espera que los fiscales utilicen una teoría jurídica que no ha sido evaluada en los tribunales de Nueva York, lo que plantea la posibilidad de que un juez pueda desestimar o limitar los cargos. El episodio ha sido analizado tanto por la Comisión Federal Electoral como por fiscales federales de Nueva York; ninguno tomó medidas contra Trump.Trump ha negado haber tenido relaciones sexuales con Daniels y asegura no haber hecho nada malo. El expresidente, que aspira a la candidatura republicana a la Casa Blanca en 2024, ha dejado claro que tachará la acusación de “cacería de brujas” política y la utilizará para movilizar a sus partidarios. El sábado, predijo que sería detenido el martes y convocó protestas.El principal testigo de los fiscales sería Cohen, quien se declaró culpable de violaciones al financiamiento de campañas federales en agosto de 2018 y admitió que ayudó a concertar el pago a Daniels —además de otro pago a una exmodelo de Playboy— para ayudar a la candidatura presidencial de Trump por órdenes de Trump.Cualquier acusación contra Trump presentada por el fiscal de distrito de Manhattan, Alvin L. Bragg, se sustentaría en una teoría legal que no ha sido probada en los tribunales de Nueva York, lo que hace que su éxito no esté para nada garantizado.Benjamin Norman para The New York TimesUna acusación formal marcaría otro episodio extraordinario en la era de Trump: un expresidente —cuyo mandato concluyó con una revuelta en el Capitolio, que trató de revocar unas elecciones justas y quien está bajo investigación por no devolver documentos clasificados— podría enfrentar su primera acusación penal por pagar por el silencio de una estrella porno.Un encuentro en el lago TahoeDaniels, cuyo nombre de pila es Stephanie Gregory y vivió la mayor parte de su infancia en un rancho destartalado en Baton Rouge, Luisiana, tenía 27 años en julio de 2006, cuando conoció a Trump, que entonces tenía 60, en el torneo de golf para famosos celebrado en Nevada.En su autobiografía de 2018, Full Disclosure, Daniels recuerda haberse sentido avergonzada y motivada a tomar el rumbo que tomó tras escuchar, siendo niña, al padre de un amigo referirse a ella como “escoria blanca”. Atraída por el dinero que podía ganar, Daniels comenzó a trabajar como bailarina exótica en un antro local llamado Cinnamon’s, incluso antes de terminar el bachillerato. A los 23 años, comenzó a actuar en películas pornográficas y poco después se casó con el primero de sus cuatro esposos: Bartholomew Clifford, quien dirigió películas para adultos bajo el nombre “Pat Myne”.Cuando conoció a Daniels, Trump ya se había transformado de magnate inmobiliario a estrella de telerrealidad; había viajado al torneo sin su tercera esposa, Melania, que se quedó en casa con su hijo recién nacido. Trump y Daniels se cruzaron en el campo de golf y más tarde en la sala de regalos, donde fueron fotografiados juntos en un estand de su productora de contenido pornográfico, Wicked Pictures. Trump la invitó a cenar.Mientras charlaban esa noche en el penthouse de Trump en Harrah’s Lake Tahoe —Daniels ha dicho que Trump llevaba un pijama de seda negro y pantuflas— él le dijo que debería participar en El aprendiz, un programa de telerrealidad de la NBC. Daniels dudo que él pudiera lograr que ella participara en el programa. Él le aseguró que sí, contó Daniels.De allí en adelante, Trump comenzó a llamarla de vez en cuando desde un número bloqueado, y le decía “honeybunch” (cariñito, en español). Se vieron al menos dos veces más en 2007, en una fiesta de presentación del efímero vodka Trump y en el hotel Beverly Hills, donde vieron la programación de la Semana del tiburón. Pero no volvieron a tener relaciones. Trump nunca la llevó a El aprendiz. Aun así, siguió llamándola, según ella. Al final, ella dejó de contestar.Vendiendo historiasStormy Daniels, una estrella de cine para adultos, recibió 130.000 dólares del mediador de Trump a cambio de su silencio.Shannon Stapleton/ReutersDesde el año 2000, Trump protagonizó campañas presidenciales improbables que parecían más trucos publicitarios que candidaturas serias. En 2011 inició otra, en la que promovió teorías conspirativas según las cuales el entonces presidente Barack Obama había nacido fuera del territorio estadounidense. Mientras lo hacía, Daniels, aún molesta, empezó a trabajar con una agente para ver si podía vender la historia de sus encuentros.Negociaron un trato por 15.000 dólares con Life & Style, una revista de farándula. Daniels le dijo al reportero que la entrevistó que creía que la oferta de Trump de convertirla en concursante había sido una mentira, según una transcripción que apareció después en internet.“¿Crees que solo fue para impresionarte, para intentar acostarse contigo?”, preguntó el reportero. “Sí”, respondió Daniels. “Y supongo que funcionó”, agregó.Cuando la revista contactó a la Organización Trump en busca de comentarios, Cohen devolvió la llamada. El abogado se había incorporado a la empresa cuatro años antes y se había convertido en el solucionador de Trump, haciendo todo lo necesario para resolver los problemas difíciles de su jefe y la familia Trump. Cohen amenazó con demandar, la revista eliminó el reportaje y Daniels no recibió ni un centavo.Por su parte, Trump abandonó la contienda presidencial y siguió siendo el presentador de El aprendiz.En octubre de ese año, la historia de Daniels sobre Trump salió a la luz de manera fugaz después de que su agente la filtrara a un blog de chismes llamado The Dirty, con la finalidad de despertar el interés de alguna publicación que quisiera pagar por la historia. Un par de medios de comunicación le dieron seguimiento, pero ninguno ofreció una remuneración. Daniels negó la historia, y su agente hizo que un abogado de Beverly Hills, California, Keith Davidson, retirara la publicación.Cuando Obama se preparaba para dejar el cargo en 2015, Trump decidió presentarse de nuevo a las elecciones presidenciales. Ese agosto, se sentó en su oficina de la Torre Trump con Cohen y David Pecker, el editor de American Media Inc. y su periódico sensacionalista más importante, The National Enquirer.Pecker, amigo de toda la vida de Trump, había recurrido a The Enquirer para impulsar las anteriores campañas presidenciales de Trump. Según tres personas familiarizadas con la reunión, Pecker prometió publicar historias positivas sobre Trump y negativas sobre sus rivales. También acordó trabajar con Cohen para encontrar y suprimir historias que pudieran perjudicar los nuevos esfuerzos de Trump, una práctica conocida como “atrapar y matar”.El National Enquirer, un tabloide dirigido por David Pecker, desempeñó un papel central en los esfuerzos por “atrapar y matar” historias negativas sobre Trump.Marion Curtis vía Associated PressEn la primavera de 2016, Daniels, con ayuda de su agente, intentó vender su historia de nuevo, esta vez por más de 200.000 dólares. Pero las publicaciones a las que contactó la rechazaron, incluido The Enquirer.Más o menos por esas fechas, Karen McDougal, exmodelo de Playboy, comenzó a explorar cómo monetizar su propia historia de su encuentro con Trump. McDougal, quien fue la conejita del año de Playboy en 1998, ha declarado haber tenido un amorío con Trump desde 2006, cuando ella tenía 35 años. Habían pasado tiempo juntos en su apartamento de la Torre Trump y en el mismo torneo de golf donde se dio el encuentro con Daniels. Pero según McDougal, ella puso fin a la relación en 2007. Trump ha negado el romance.En 2016, con su carrera como modelo en declive, McDougal contrató a Davidson, el mismo abogado que había ayudado a Daniels a eliminar la publicación del blog de 2011.Karen McDougal, exmodelo de Playboy, aseguró que también tuvo un amorío con Trump y que National Enquirer le pagó por su historia, la cual nunca fue publicada.Bennett Raglin/Getty Images for BacardiEl abogado se puso en contacto con el editor de The Enquirer, Dylan Howard, para venderle la historia de McDougal, y, según declaraciones de tres personas con conocimiento de las conversaciones, tanto Howard como Pecker informaron a Cohen. A finales de junio, Trump pidió personalmente ayuda a Pecker para mantener a McDougal en silencio, según un testimonio de Pecker ante los fiscales federales.Sni embargo, el tabloide no hizo nada sino hasta que McDougal estaba a punto de conceder una entrevista a ABC News. A principios de agosto, American Media acordó pagarle a McDougal 150.000 dólares por los derechos exclusivos de su historia sobre Trump, camuflando el verdadero propósito del acuerdo al garantizarle que aparecería en dos portadas de revistas, entre otras cosas, según han declarado cinco personas familiarizadas con los hechos.American Media admitiría después, en un acuerdo para evitar un proceso federal, que el principal propósito del acuerdo fue suprimir la historia de McDougal, la cual la empresa no tenía intención alguna de publicar.Mientras tanto, Daniels seguía sin encontrar a alguien que quisiera comprar su historia. Su suerte cambiaría a principios de octubre.‘Podría hacernos ver muy mal’El solucionador de problemas de Trump, Michael D. Cohen, a la derecha, fue a prisión en parte por violaciones de financiamiento de campañas relacionadas con pagos de sobornos. Le ha dado la espalda al expresidente y podría testificar en su contra.Jefferson Siegel para The New York TimesLa noticia cayó como una bomba en la contienda presidencial. El 7 de octubre de 2016, el diario The Washington Post publicó lo que se conocería como la cinta Access Hollywood, en la que Trump, sin darse cuenta de que el micrófono estaba encendido, fue grabado mientras describía en términos lascivos cómo manoseaba a las mujeres.La gente que rodeaba a Daniels se dio cuenta enseguida de que la nueva vulnerabilidad de Trump la convertía en una amenaza mayor, y por lo tanto su historia había ganado valor. Davidson, el abogado de Los Ángeles, también era amigo de la agente de Daniels, Gina Rodríguez, y del editor de The Enquirer, Howard. El día después de la aparición de la cinta Access Hollywood, Davidson y Howard se enviaron mensajes de texto sobre el daño que la cinta había causado a la campaña de Trump. Entonces, Howard le pidió a la agente de Daniels que le enviara otro mensaje a su jefe, Pecker.Los ejecutivos del Enquirer alertaron a Cohen, quien le pidió ayuda a Pecker para contener la historia.Howard regateó con la agente de Daniels, pero cuando le presentó a Pecker una oferta para comprar la historia por 120.000 dólares, el editor se negó.“Tal vez llame a Michael para avisarle y que él se encargue desde allí”, escribió Howard.Dylan Howard, editor del National Enquirer, conectó a Cohen con un abogado de Daniels para discutir un pago por la historia de su encuentro con Trump.Ilya S. Savenok/Getty Images para American MediaEsa noche, Cohen habló por teléfono con Trump, Pecker y Howard, según los registros obtenidos por las autoridades federales. Howard lo puso en contacto con el abogado, Davidson, quien negociaría el acuerdo en nombre de Daniels.Tres días después de la difusión de la cinta de Access Hollywood, Cohen aceptó pagar 130.000 dólares en un acuerdo que amenazaba con graves sanciones económicas para Daniels si alguna vez hablaba de su aventura con Trump. El contrato utilizó seudónimos: Peggy Peterson, o “PP”, para Daniels, y David Dennison, o “DD”, para Trump. Sus identidades solo se revelaban en una carta adjunta.Daniels firmó su copia sobre la cajuela de un auto cerca de un plató de filmación de una película pornográfica en Calabasas, California. Cohen firmó en nombre de Trump.Pero Cohen pospuso el pago. Ha dicho que estaba intentando averiguar de dónde sacar el dinero mientras Trump hacía campaña. Según Cohen, Trump había aprobado el pago y delegado en él y en el director financiero de la Organización Trump la tarea de organizarlo. Consideraron opciones para canalizar el dinero a través de la empresa, dijo Cohen, pero no se decidieron por una solución.Daniels comenzó a sentir que Trump intentaba darle largas al asunto hasta después de las elecciones del 8 de noviembre; si perdía, su historia perdería valor. A mediados de octubre, después de que Cohen incumpliera dos plazos del pago, el abogado de Daniels canceló el acuerdo, y la actriz porno empezó de nuevo a vender la historia. A la semana siguiente, Howard envió un mensaje de texto a Cohen diciéndole que si Daniels lo hacía público, su trabajo para encubrir el encuentro sexual también podría darse a conocer.“Podría hacernos ver muy mal a todos”, escribió Howard.Cohen aceptó hacer el pago de su propio bolsillo. Habló brevemente con Trump en dos ocasiones. Luego, transfirió 130.000 dólares de su línea personal de crédito a la cuenta de una empresa ficticia de Delaware y se los transfirió al abogado de Daniels.Davidson hizo circular un nuevo acuerdo de dinero por silencio. Daniels lo firmó y notarizó en una tienda UPS cerca de un Walmart Supercenter en Forney, Texas, cerca de su casa.“Espero que todo esté bien entre nosotros”, le escribió Cohen a Davidson en un mensaje de texto después.“Le aseguro que todo está muy bien”, respondió el abogado.Daniels guardó silencio. Una semana y media después, Trump ganó las elecciones.Una vez en la Casa Blanca, Trump se ocupó de otro asunto relacionado con Daniels. Firmó cheques para reembolsarle a Cohen el soborno.Jonah E. Bromwich More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Could Stand in the Middle of Fifth Avenue and Not Lose Mike Pence

      by

      Mike Pence wants to have it both ways.He wants to be the conservative hero of Jan. 6: the steadfast Republican patriot who resisted the MAGA mob and defended the institutions of American democracy. “Make no mistake about it,” Pence said at the Gridiron Club Dinner in Washington, D.C., this month. “What happened that day was a disgrace, and it mocks decency to portray it in any other way. President Donald Trump was wrong. I had no right to overturn the election and his reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day.”But Mike Pence also wants to be president. And he can’t fully repudiate the previous Republican president if he hopes to win the Republican presidential nomination, especially when that president is still on the stage, with a commanding role in Republican politics.The result is that Mike Pence has to talk out of both sides of his mouth. With one breath, he takes a righteous stand against the worst dysfunction of the Trump years. “We have to resist the politics of personality, the lure of populism unmoored by timeless conservative values,” Pence said last week while speaking to an audience of Republican donors in Keene, N.H.With his next breath, however, Pence rejects any effort to hold Trump accountable, especially when it asks him to do something more than give the occasional sound bite. Asked to testify about the events surrounding Jan. 6, Pence says no. Faced with a grand jury subpoena forcing him to testify, Pence says he’ll challenge it, under the highly dubious theory that as president of the Senate he was a legislative officer who, like other lawmakers, was covered by the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution and thus free of any obligation to testify.When asked this past weekend about potential criminal charges against the former president — possibly for falsifying records of a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, a porn star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford — Pence deflected, telling ABC News, “At the time when there’s a crime wave in New York City, the fact that the Manhattan D.A. thinks that indicting President Trump is his top priority I think just tells you everything you need to know about the radical left.”Who will hold Trump accountable, according to Pence? No one living. “History will hold Donald Trump accountable,” he said, as if “history” has agency separate from the people who make or write it.In fairness to Pence, he’s not the only Republican hedging his bets. None of Trump’s rivals — or anyone else who hopes to have a future in Republican politics — views either the investigation into his behavior or the potential charges against him as legitimate.“Here we go again — an outrageous abuse of power by a radical D.A. who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump,” tweeted House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.“I’m directing relevant committees to immediately investigate if federal funds are being used to subvert our democracy by interfering in elections with politically motivated prosecutions,” he added, without irony.“The Manhattan district attorney is a Soros-funded prosecutor. And so he, like other Soros-funded prosecutors, they weaponize their office to impose a political agenda on society at the expense of the rule of law and public safety,” said the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, the pot calling the kettle black.Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and current presidential aspirant, has been silent on the matter, and the long-shot candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, a venture capitalist, condemned the potential Trump indictment as a “disastrously politicized prosecution.”Whether or not you think it is a good idea to indict Trump in this particular case, it is striking to see how Republicans commit to the former president when asked to speak to his alleged crimes.But it speaks to a larger point, beyond the double-talk of Pence or the deflection and avoidance of other Republican politicians. Trump may not be as strong as he was as president. He may have been wounded by the long investigations into Jan. 6 and diminished by the failure of many of his handpicked MAGA candidates in the midterm elections. And yet, Trump is still the dominant figure in Republican politics. He still occupies the commanding heights of the Republican Party. And there’s no one — not DeSantis or Haley or any other potential contender — ready to challenge Trump for control of the party.There was hope, after the 2020 presidential election, that after his defeat Trump would somehow fade away. He didn’t. There was hope, after his failed putsch, that his time in the spotlight was over. It wasn’t. And there was hope, after the 2022 elections, that MAGA had run its course and Trump along with it. Wrong again.The only way to remove Trump from the board — to neutralize his influence in the Republican Party and to keep him out of power — is for Republicans to move against him with as much force as they can muster. It was true in 2015, when Republican elites could have coordinated themselves against him when he was still a curiosity and not the leading candidate for the nomination; it was true in 2019 and 2021 when he was impeached by the House, and it’s true now.Republicans can’t avoid conflict if they want to be free of Trump. They have no choice but to condemn him, reject his influence and refuse to defend his criminality.We can see, of course, in this instance and so many others that they won’t. Among Republicans with an ambition to lead, there’s no one who will take that step. Which tells us all we need to know about the state of the Republican Party. It was Trump’s when he was president, it is Trump’s while he’s still a private citizen, and it will be Trump’s next year, when the presidential race starts in earnest.Put differently, if there’s no voter Trump could lose if he stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot somebody, as Trump famously said, there are probably no leading Republican politicians who would leave his camp, either. Hell, they might even say the victim deserved it.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