Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Michael Cohen Meets With Prosecutors About Hush Money Paid to Stormy Daniels

      by

      The Manhattan prosecutors’ meeting with Michael D. Cohen could presage a flurry of activity as the district attorney’s investigation into the former president is revitalized.The Manhattan district attorney’s office on Tuesday took a significant step forward in its investigation of Donald J. Trump, meeting with his former personal lawyer about hush money paid to a porn star who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, according to people with knowledge of the matter.The questioning of the lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, offered the clearest sign yet that the district attorney’s office was ramping up its investigation into Mr. Trump’s role in the $130,000 hush money deal. Mr. Cohen has said publicly that Mr. Trump directed him, in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, to buy the silence of Stephanie Clifford, the actress known as Stormy Daniels.While the hush money was an impetus for the district attorney’s investigation, which began in 2018, prosecutors had shifted in recent years to a broader examination of Mr. Trump’s business practices. In recent months, however, the prosecutors returned to the payments, seeking to breathe new life into the investigation, The New York Times reported in November.There is no indication that prosecutors are close to making a decision about whether to seek charges against the former president, but the interview of Mr. Cohen could portend a flurry of investigative steps.Keith Davidson, the lawyer who represented Ms. Clifford and helped arrange the deal, was also contacted by the Manhattan prosecutors in recent weeks, but has not been interviewed, a person with knowledge of the matter said. And Mr. Cohen is expected to return for additional meetings in the coming weeks.In a brief interview after the meeting, Mr. Cohen credited the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, with assembling a group of prosecutors who had a “depth of knowledge of the case.” He added, “I don’t believe they would have called me in at this stage if this was merely for show.”He said he could not reveal the focus of the interview, citing a request from prosecutors not to discuss the investigation.Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny J. Davis, declined to discuss the questions asked by the prosecutors during the two-hour meeting but said, “I was impressed with the seriousness of their investigation and the professionalism of the prosecutors in the room.”A lawyer for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The meeting, first reported by CNN, came a week after Mr. Trump’s longtime chief financial officer, Allen H. Weisselberg, was sentenced to five months in the Rikers Island jail complex for orchestrating a tax fraud scheme at the Trump Organization. Mr. Weisselberg had pleaded guilty and testified against the Trump Organization last year, helping Mr. Bragg’s office secure the company’s conviction in the tax case. Last week, a judge imposed a $1.6 million criminal penalty on the company, the maximum punishment under the law.Mr. Trump was not accused of wrongdoing in the tax case, which was focused on off-the-books perks that the company doled out to Mr. Weisselberg and a few other executives.But Mr. Weisselberg’s plea — and the company’s conviction — appear to have emboldened Mr. Bragg and his prosecutors in their investigation of Mr. Trump, which seemed to have reached a dead end early in Mr. Bragg’s tenure.Under his predecessor as district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., prosecutors were beginning to present evidence to a grand jury about Mr. Trump’s businesses, focusing on whether he lied about the value of his assets to secure loans and other financial benefits. Soon after taking office in January of last year, Mr. Bragg developed concerns about establishing Mr. Trump’s intent to break the law, a key element of proving a case against him.In February, Mr. Bragg declined to proceed with the grand jury presentation, prompting the resignations of the two senior prosecutors leading the inquiry.Mr. Bragg said the investigation was continuing, and by late summer, prosecutors had retuned to their original focus: the hush money.The possibility of charges stemming from the payments had resurfaced within the district attorney’s office with such regularity in recent years that prosecutors came to refer to it as the “zombie theory” — an idea that just wouldn’t die.After Mr. Cohen helped arrange and made the $130,000 hush money payment, Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed Mr. Cohen, a move that is a potential area of focus for Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors. They are expected to scrutinize whether the company falsely accounted for the reimbursements as a legal expense in violation of a New York law that prohibits the falsifying of business records.That can be charged as a misdemeanor in New York. To make it a felony, prosecutors would need to show that Mr. Trump falsified the records reflecting the payment to help commit or conceal a second crime. It is possible, legal experts told The Times last year, that a violation of a New York State election law might underpin such a charge.In 2018, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance charges stemming from his role in the hush money payments. In court and in congressional testimony, he pointed the finger at Mr. Trump, saying the payout was done “in coordination with, and at the direction of” the president, whom federal prosecutors identified in court papers only as “Individual 1.”After Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea, the federal prosecutors explored whether to charge Mr. Trump or others with violations related to the hush money, but eventually told a federal judge that the U.S. attorney’s office had “effectively concluded its investigation” into who else might have been involved and criminally liable for the same crimes.Michael Rothfeld More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Kellyanne Conway’s View of Donald Trump

      by

      More from our inbox:Russia’s Aggression in UkraineI, Robot Damon Winter/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Case for (and Against) Donald Trump in 2024,” by Kellyanne Conway (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 15):A diversity of opinions and perspectives is a fantastic goal, and one reason I’ve been a longtime subscriber. Generally speaking, your opinion guest essays are well written and thoughtful and provide a point of view that makes one examine a topic with fresh eyes.The opinion from Ms. Conway is not that.Time and again she employs sloganeering to sling arrows at Democrats and non-Trumpists in an attempt to burnish the reputation of her former boss.She continues to attempt to turn neighbor against neighbor by perpetuating the othering of Trump detractors and the denial of Mr. Trump’s and her attacks on voting, democracy and simple decency.Hers is not another “opinion”; it is carefully crafted and intentional spin to appeal to people’s sense of grievance and to reaffirm the lies and misinformation they are so ready to believe.Her inclusion in your paper diminishes the quality of debate, and galvanizes a person America would be better off forgetting.Conn FishburnNashvilleTo the Editor:Kellyanne Conway opines that “when it comes to Donald J. Trump, people see what they wish to see,” and then goes on to demonstrate just that, never mentioning his blatant, willful, prolonged lying about the “stolen” 2020 election, which we now know not even he believes.Toss in the further elephants in the room — his central role in the Jan. 6 debacle, his fraudulent and shuttered foundation and university, the conviction of his family business entity’s C.F.O., and on and on, and it would appear that Ms. Conway is indeed a victim of the Trump Derangement Syndrome she decries.Even worse, she is clearly one who should know better, and even worse, likely does.Steve HeiligSan FranciscoTo the Editor:Talk about hedging your bets as a political forecaster and soft selling your qualifications for rehire! Kellyanne Conway’s well-composed essay on Donald Trump’s potential for 2024 felt like the needed equanimity, bipartisan advice and clear thinking the country needs.If Mr. Trump were smart he would rehire Ms. Conway as campaign manager for 2024, or at least pay close attention to her last sentences: “Success lies in having advisers who tell you what you need to know, not just what you want to hear. And in listening to the people, who have the final say.”Lisa BostwickSan FranciscoTo the Editor:Read Kellyanne Conway’s guest essay for what it really is — a job pitch to future Republican presidential candidates (conveniently name-dropped in the article).The pitch: If I could get a buffoon like Donald Trump elected and then get The New York Times to give me a full page to list his imaginary accomplishments, just think what I could do for you.Laura SchumacherSan DiegoTo the Editor:Kellyanne Conway writes: “Success lies in having advisers who tell you what you need to know, not just what you want to hear. And in listening to the people, who have the final say.”Since when has Donald Trump been known as a listener or as one who respects advisers who tell him what he needs to know?Mr. Trump’s overriding egotism and his self-infatuation prevent him from believing that anyone could know more about anything than The Donald himself.Ben MilesHuntington Beach, Calif.To the Editor:Thanks, Ms. Conway, for that delightful nostalgic stroll down the memory lane of alternative facts.Bruce LiptonNew YorkRussia’s Aggression in Ukraine Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Plundering Art, Russia Assaults Soul of Ukraine” (front page, Jan. 15):Like Nazi aggression in World War II, Russian aggression in Ukraine is an expression of absolute evil — a mixture of barbarism that knows no limits, genocide of both a people and their culture, and unremitting, centrally organized propaganda claiming that up is down, that black is white and that Russia is fighting a defensive war.Richard JoffeNew YorkI, RobotA robot prototype being developed by Yuhang Hu, a doctoral student in the Creative Machines Lab at Columbia University, where engineers are exploring the possibility of self-aware robots.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Robot, Know Thyself” (Science Times, Jan. 10):Robots with consciousness is an oxymoron. Consciousness is a necessary ingredient to what is usually deemed the defining characteristic of being human: the ability to choose.Computers/robots do not have that ability. Their “choice” is limited to what programmers program them to do. Admittedly that may occur under circumstances not contemplated when the machines are programmed, but the machine’s progression toward making a decision is based on its programming, not on free choice.Steven GoldbergBrooklynTo the Editor:A truly conscious robot will cost a fortune to the company that develops it, but at that level of sophistication it may decide to work on unnecessary projects, or stop working altogether for the company, instead opting to work for a competitor.Kevin J. LongoPutnam, Conn.The writer is a science tutor. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      In Pennsylvania, the 2020 Election Still Stirs Fury. And a Recount.

      by

      Election deniers in Lycoming County convinced officials to conduct a 2020 recount, a three-day undertaking that showed almost no change, but left skeptics just as skeptical.WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. — On the 797th day after the defeat of former President Donald J. Trump, a rural Pennsylvania county on Monday began a recount of ballots from Election Day 2020.Under pressure from conspiracy theorists and election deniers, 28 employees of Lycoming County counted — by hand — nearly 60,000 ballots. It took three days and an estimated 560 work hours, as the vote-counters ticked through paper ballots at long rows of tables in the county elections department in Williamsport, a place used to a different sort of nail-biter as the home of the Little League World Series.The results of Lycoming County’s hand recount — like earlier recounts of the 2020 election in Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona — revealed no evidence of fraud. The numbers reported more than two years ago were nearly identical to the numbers reported on Thursday.A ballot cast for former President Donald J. Trump that was part of the county’s recount.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesMr. Trump ended up with seven fewer votes than were recorded on voting machines in 2020. Joseph R. Biden Jr. had 15 fewer votes. Overall, Mr. Trump gained eight votes against his rival. The former president, who easily carried deep-red Lycoming County in 2020, carried it once again with 69.98 percent of the vote — gaining one one-hundredth of a point in the recount.Did that quell the doubts of election deniers, who had circulated a petition claiming there was a likelihood of “rampant fraud” in Lycoming in 2020?It did not.“This is just one piece of the puzzle,” said Karen DiSalvo, a lawyer who helped lead the recount push and who is a local volunteer for the far-right group Audit the Vote PA. “We’re not done.”Forrest Lehman, the county director of elections, oversaw the recount but opposed it as a needless bonfire of time, money and common sense. He sighed in his office on Friday.“It’s surreal to be talking about 2020 in the present tense, over two years down the road,” he said. He attributed the slight discrepancies between the hand recount and voting machine results to human error in reading ambiguous marks on the paper ballots.Lycoming County’s recount was part of the disturbing trend of mistrust in elections that has become mainstream in American politics, spurred by the lies of Mr. Trump and his supporters. Amid the Appalachian ridges in north-central Pennsylvania, such conspiracy theories have firmly taken hold.The county’s election professionals spent months responding to the arguments of the election deniers in public hearings and fielding their right-to-know requests for the minutiae of voting records. Mr. Lehman said he did not think an encounter with the facts would change the views of some people.“You close one election-denying door, they’ll open a window,” he said.Mr. Trump hosted a campaign rally in Lycoming County at the Williamsport Regional Airport in October 2020. Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesOne of the residents who pushed for the hand recount, Jeffrey J. Stroehmann, the former chair of Mr. Trump’s 2020 campaign in Lycoming County, said he was happy the results matched the 2020 voting machine counts, though he said other questions needed to be addressed.“Our goal from Day 1 when we approached the commissioners, we said our goal here is not to find fraud — if we find it, we’ll fix it — we just want to restore voter confidence,” said Mr. Stroehmann, a founder of the far-right Lycoming Patriots group.He and Ms. DiSalvo were inspired by the debunked claims of a retired Army officer named Seth Keshel, who gained attention in 2021 with the assertion that there were 8 million “excess votes” cast for Mr. Biden. His analysis has been dismissed by professors at Harvard, the University of Georgia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.A petition circulated by Ms. DiSalvo and Mr. Stroehmann noted that registered Republicans grew their numbers in Lycoming County compared with Democrats from 2016 to 2020, but that Mr. Biden managed to win more votes than Hillary Clinton. Election deniers found this suspicious.“If Republicans GAINED voters and Democrats LOST voters — why did Biden receive 30% MORE votes in the November 2020 election than Hillary Clinton did in 2016?” their petition asked.Mr. Lehman called the argument nonsensical. Party registration does not dictate how someone will vote, he said. Mr. Biden outperformed Mrs. Clinton in nearly every Pennsylvania county in the 2020 election. Mr. Trump also raised his vote totals in the county by 16 percent.“The voters’ unpredictability — it makes democracy both majestic and messy,” Mr. Lehman told county commissioners at a hearing last year. The commission ultimately approved the recount two to one, along partisan lines.Mr. Lehman monitoring ballots being recounted in Williamsport on Wednesday.Pat Crossley/Williamsport Sun-GazetteElection officials at every level have been harassed and vilified since 2020, when election conspiracists echoing Mr. Trump blamed officials and helped inspire the “Stop the Steal” movement. On an election conspiracy show that was streamed on Rumble, Mr. Stroehmann called for an investigation into Mr. Lehman, who he said is “part of the steal.”“Our director of voter services is playing for the other team,” Mr. Stroehmann said on the show. “He’s as liberal as the day is long.”Richard Mirabito, a Lycoming County commissioner who is a Democrat, said there was no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing by Mr. Lehman. “He’s held in the highest esteem of integrity,” he said. “Those kinds of statements undermine the confidence of people in our system.”Mr. Mirabito voted against the recount but was overruled by the two Republicans on the board. Scott L. Metzger, a Republican and the chair of the county commission, also vouched for Mr. Lehman. “He’s done an outstanding job,’’ he said. After the 2022 midterms, requests for recounts in Pennsylvania races that were not close inundated counties, delaying the certification of some results. In Arizona and New Mexico, rural county commissions held up certifying primary or general election results last year.Across the country, a wave of Trump-backed election conspiracists who ran for statewide offices with control over voting lost their races. But some election deniers won races at the local level, where pressure by activists on officials has a better chance of yielding results.Officials in Lycoming County, a rural area of north-central Pennsylvania, were still estimating the final cost of the recount.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesMr. Metzger — one of the two Republicans on the commission who approved the recount — said that he voted for it after thousands of people signed petitions, and others approached him on the street saying they didn’t want to vote because they distrusted the system. Now that the recount matched what voting tabulator machines showed in 2020 and that there was no evidence of fraud, Mr. Metzger said, it was time to move on. “As far as I’m concerned, I’m done with it,” he said.Before the commissioners voted for the recount, Ms. DiSalvo and Mr. Stroehmann presented the results of what they called a door-to-door canvass of some county residences. The canvassing was conducted by volunteers from Audit the Vote PA, a group founded in 2021 under the false belief that Mr. Trump, not Mr. Biden, won Pennsylvania.Canvassers claimed to have found multiple “anomalies,” including votes that were tabulated from people in nursing homes who did not recall voting, as well as people who said they had voted, though there was no record of it.Mr. Lehman said he and his staff addressed each case. For those in nursing homes, the election office pulled records showing they had returned a mail ballot with their signature on the envelope. The canvass, he said, lacked rigor, adding that he was not surprised some people might have claimed to have voted in a face-to-face interview when they actually had not.Election deniers have no plans to stand down. They have requested reams of documents that they believe will expose fraud once and for all.“We’ve received a series of crazy records requests,” Mr. Lehman said. “You can quote me. They are insane.”Stacks of boxes containing ballots from the 2020 election, which are stored in a secure room of the county’s elections department. Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesElection deniers asked for copies of every application for a mail ballot, requiring Mr. Lehman and his staff to laboriously redact all personal information. They are pressing for copies of every ballot cast on Election Day 2020, and they have gone to court to seek digital data from the voting machines at each of the 81 county precincts.Though observers from both parties watched the hand recount this week, Ms. DiSalvo raised questions about the process, including that Mr. Lehman oversaw the adding up of the recounted votes.“We asked to see the tally sheets before the final processing and were denied,” Ms. DiSalvo said, referring to the paperwork used by ballot counters. The elections director, she added, had a “vested interest in making sure the numbers aligned.”Her group has filed a right-to-know request for the hand-count tally sheets.Mr. Lehman, a former Eagle Scout and teacher, displays two iconic photographs in his office. One shows Harry S. Truman in 1948 holding aloft the famously erroneous “Dewey Defeats Truman” newspaper headline. The other shows Lyndon Johnson solemnly taking the oath of office on Air Force One in 1963 following the assassination of President Kennedy.“They’re both transitions of power,” Mr. Lehman said. “One is comic, the other tragic. We’ve managed to process them both as a country. I don’t know which category to put 2020 in. We need to get back to a place where we can process the outcomes of elections in a constructive, healthy way.” More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Kellyanne Conway: The Case for and Against Trump

      by

      Donald J. Trump shocked the world in 2016 by winning the White House and becoming the first president in U.S. history with no prior military or government experience. He upended the fiction of electability pushed by pundits, the news media and many political consultants, which arrogantly projects who will or will not win long before votes are cast. He focused instead on capturing a majority in the Electoral College, which is how a candidate does or does not win. Not unlike Barack Obama eight years earlier, Mr. Trump exposed the limits of Hillary Clinton’s political inevitability and personal likability, connected directly with people, ran an outsider’s campaign taking on the establishment, and tapped into the frustrations and aspirations of millions of Americans.Some people have never gotten over it. Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. There is no vaccine and no booster for it. Cosseted in their social media bubbles and comforted within self-selected communities suffering from sameness, the afflicted disguise their hatred for Mr. Trump as a righteous call for justice or a solemn love of democracy and country. So desperate is the incessant cry to “get Trump!” that millions of otherwise pleasant and productive citizens have become naggingly less so. They ignore the shortcomings, failings and unpopularity of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris and abide the casual misstatements of an administration that says the “border is secure,” inflation is “transitory,” “sanctions are intended to deter” Putin from invading Ukraine and they will “shut down the virus.” They’ve also done precious little to learn and understand what drives the 74 million fellow Americans who were Trump-Pence voters in 2020 and not in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.The obsession with Mr. Trump generates all types of wishful thinking and projection about the next election from both his critics (“He will be indicted!”) and his supporters (“Is he still electable?”). None of that is provable, but this much is true: Shrugging off Mr. Trump’s 2024 candidacy or writing his political obituary is a fool’s errand — he endures persecution and eludes prosecution like no other public figure. That could change, of course, though that cat has nine lives.At the same time, it would also be foolish to assume that Mr. Trump’s path to another presidency would be smooth and secure. This is not 2016, when he and his team had the hunger, swagger and scrappiness of an insurgent’s campaign and the “history be damned” happy warrior resolve of an underestimated, understaffed, under-resourced effort. It’s tough to be new twice.Unless what’s old can be new again. Mr. Trump’s track record reminds Republican primary voters of better days not that long ago: accomplishments on the economy, energy, national security, trade deals and peace deals, the drug crisis and the southern border. He can also make a case — one that will resonate with Republicans — about the unfairness and hypocrisy of social media censorship and alleged big tech collusion, as recent and ongoing revelations show. Mr. Trump, as a former president, can also be persuasive with Republican primary voters and some independents in making a frontal attack on the Biden administration’s feckless management of the economy, reckless spending and lack of urgency and competence on border control and crime.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesAccomplishing this will not be easy. Mr. Trump has both political assets to carry him forward and political baggage holding him back. For Mr. Trump to succeed, it means fewer insults and more insights; a campaign that centers on the future, not the past, and that channels the people’s grievances and not his own; and a reclamation of the forgotten Americans, who ushered him into the White House the first time and who are suffering economically under Mr. Biden.A popular sentiment these days is, “I want the Trump policies without the Trump personality.” It is true that limiting the name-calling frees up time and space for persuasion and solutions. Still, it may not be possible to have one without the other. Mr. Trump would remind people, it was a combination of his personality and policies that forced Mexico to help secure our border; structured new trade agreements and renewed manufacturing, mining and energy economies; pushed to get Covid vaccines at warp speed; engaged Kim Jong-un; played hardball with China; routed ISIS and removed Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful military commander; forced NATO countries to increase their defense spending and stared down Vladimir Putin before he felt free to invade Ukraine.When it comes to Donald J. Trump, people see what they wish to see. Much like the audio debate a few years ago, “Do you hear ‘Laurel’ or ‘Yanny’?,” what some perceive as an abrasive, scornful man bent on despotism, others see a candid, resolute leader unflinchingly committed to America’s interests.The case against Trump 2024 rests in some combination of fatigue with self-inflicted sabotage; fear that he cannot outrun the mountain of legal woes; the call to “move on”; a feeling that he is to blame for underwhelming Republican candidates in 2022; and the perception that other Republicans are less to blame for 2022 and have more recent records as conservative reformers.He also won’t have the Republican primary field — or the debate stage — to himself. If one person challenges Mr. Trump, it is likely five or six will jump into the race and try to test him, too. Possible primary challengers to Mr. Trump include governors with impressive records and huge re-election victories like such governors as Ron DeSantis of Florida, Kim Reynolds of Iowa and Greg Abbott of Texas; those who wish to take on Mr. Trump frontally and try to move the party past him, like Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey; those who can lay legitimate claim to helping realize Trump-era accomplishments like former Vice President Mike Pence and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; others who wish to expand the party’s recent down-ballot gains in racial and gender diversity to the presidential level, like former Gov. Nikki Haley and Senator Tim Scott, both of South Carolina.These are serious and substantive men and women, all of whom would be an improvement over Mr. Biden. For now, though, these candidates are like a prospective blind date. Voters and donors project onto them all that they desire in a perfect president, but until one faces the klieg lights, and is subjected to raw, relentless, often excessive scrutiny, and unfair and inaccurate claims, there is no way to suss out who possesses the requisite metal and mettle.The main talking point against Trump 2024 seems to be that Trump 2022 underperformed and that it left him a less-feared and less-viable candidate. Mr. Trump boasts that his general election win-loss record was 233-20 and that he hosted some 30 rallies in 17 states and more than 50 fund-raisers for candidates up for re-election, and participated in 60 TeleRallies and raised nearly $350 million in the 2022 cycle for Republican candidates and committees.Republican voters should be pleased that Mr. Trump and other Republican luminaries showed up and spoke up in the midterms. Mr. Trump wasn’t the only one who campaigned for unsuccessful candidates. Mr. DeSantis rallied in person for Kari Lake, Doug Mastriano and Tim Michels. Mr. Pence, Ms. Haley, and Mr. Pompeo endorsed Don Bolduc, for example. Even the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, seemed warm and hopeful about a few of the U.S. Senate candidates who came up short. In October 2021 Mr. McConnell claimed, “Herschel [Walker] is the only one who can unite the party, defeat Senator Warnock,” and in August 2022, “I have great confidence. I think [Mehmet] Oz has a great shot at winning [in Pennsylvania].”Damon Winter/The New York TimesContrast that to Joe Biden, who was unpopular and unwelcome on the campaign trail in the midterm elections. For seven years Mr. Trump hasn’t stopped campaigning, while one could say that Mr. Biden, who stuck close to home for much of 2020 and did relatively little campaigning in 2022, never truly started. It will be tough for Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris to avoid active campaigning when “Biden” and “Harris” are on the ballot.Any repeat by the 2024 Trump campaign of the disastrous mistakes in personnel, strategy and tactics of the 2020 Trump campaign may lead to the same 2020 result. With roughly $1.6 billion to spend and Joe Biden as the opponent, the 2020 election should have been a blowout. Instead, they proved the adage that the fastest way to make a small fortune is to have a very large one and waste most of it.Mr. Trump lost support among older voters, white men, white voters with a college degree, and independents, though he increased his vote share across notable demographics like Hispanics and Blacks. One wild card: Will the undercover, hidden 2016 Trump voter, those who wish to keep their presidential pick private from pollsters, return in 2024?Republicans must also invest in and be vocal about early voting. This is a competition for ballots, not just votes. As ridiculous as it was to vote nearly two months before Election Day and count the votes for three weeks thereafter, some of the state-based Covid-compelled measures for voting are now permanent. If these are the rules, adapt or die politically.Mr. Biden, for his part, will have his own record to run on, typical advantages of incumbency, powerful campaign surrogates who will join him in making the presidential race a referendum on Mr. Trump, and persistent calls for a third-party candidate who as a spoiler could do for Mr. Biden what Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton in 1992 — deliver the presidency to the Democrat with less than 45 percent of the popular vote.Whether the 2024 presidential election is a cage match rematch of Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump, or a combination of other candidates remains to be seen. Each of them has defied the odds and beat more than a dozen intraparty rivals to win their respective primaries. Each of them now faces calls for change, questions about the handling of classified documents and questions about age. For voters, vision matters. Winning the presidency is hard. Only 45 men (one twice) have been president. Hundreds have tried, many of them being told, “You can win!” even as they lost. Success lies in having advisers who tell you what you need to know, not just what you want to hear. And in listening to the people, who have the final say.Kellyanne Conway is a Republican pollster and political consultant who was Donald J. Trump’s campaign manager in 2016 and senior counselor to President Trump from 2017 to 2020. She is not affiliated with his 2024 presidential campaign.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.

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1), article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label {
      text-transform: uppercase;
      font-size: 1rem;
      font-weight: 600;
      line-height: 1.5rem;
      letter-spacing: 0.05em;

      }

      h1:first-letter {
      margin-left: 0;
      }

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1):after, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label:after {
      content: “Guest Essay”;
      display: block;
      color: white;
      }

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1) a:link, article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1) a:visited, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label {
      color: #D0021B;
      }

      @media screen and (min-width: 1024px){

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before{
      content: “”;
      width: 8.75rem;
      border: 1px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.25);
      unicode-bidi: normal;
      display: block;
      margin: -8px auto 35px;
      }

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(2),
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) > div > div:nth-of-type(2) p {
      font-weight: 100;
      -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;
      letter-spacing: 0.25px;
      margin-top: 10px;
      }

      }

      @media screen and (max-width: 1024px){
      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > div:nth-of-type(2) h1,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1{
      margin-bottom: 5px;
      }
      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:nth-of-type(1) a:link, article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:nth-of-type(1) a:visited {
      color: #D0021B;
      letter-spacing: 0.07em;
      font-size: 1rem;
      }

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1):after, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label:after{
      color: #111;
      }
      } More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why Eli Crane Defied Kevin McCarthy

      by

      The freshman Republican from Arizona was the only newcomer to hold out against Speaker Kevin McCarthy until the very end.WASHINGTON — Representative Eli Crane, Republican of Arizona, was still weeks away from being sworn in to Congress for the first time when Donald J. Trump, the former president, called to try to persuade him to support Kevin McCarthy for speaker.Mr. Trump had endorsed Mr. Crane during his campaign, helping him emerge victorious in a crowded Republican primary. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a political action committee aligned with Mr. McCarthy, had donated to his campaign. The pressure to fall in line, Mr. Crane said, was immense.“That’s always a tough situation, when you have a lot of respect and admiration for somebody, and the commitments that you’ve made to your voters,” Mr. Crane recalled in an interview in his new office this week, just days after he voted against Mr. McCarthy 14 times in a row.Mr. Crane, 43, a former member of the Navy SEALs and a contender on “Shark Tank,” last week was the sole newly elected congressman to vote against Mr. McCarthy until the bitter, drawn-out end — typically a perilous position for a freshman who harbors any ambition to serve on a powerful committee or play a role in legislating.But Mr. Crane said his constituents viewed Mr. McCarthy as part of the establishment they had sent him to Washington to upend — and he was not about to disappoint them as his first official act on Capitol Hill.On the December call with Mr. Trump, Mr. Crane said he had told the former president, “Sir, I’m sorry, we love you out in Arizona, but I’ve been listening to my voters.”Over five days in which Mr. McCarthy suffered defeat after humiliating defeat, Mr. Crane said he had heard a lot of “What’s it going to take” from the speaker’s allies as they tried to pull together the necessary votes to win the race. He did not want a particular committee. There was no change in the rules that he was after. He said he was not seeking notoriety. He was simply there to vote against Mr. McCarthy.“I did not want to come up here and be a representative who heard what my voters said and came up here and caved to the pressure,” Mr. Crane said. “I didn’t want anything, other than to do what I was sent here to do.”Before entering politics, Mr. Crane served five wartime deployments and 13 years in the military.Samuel Corum/Sipa, via Associated PressHis rigid anti-McCarthy stance caught many Republicans by surprise. Mr. Crane had never made voting against Mr. McCarthy a campaign promise, as some far-right candidates in other districts had done. He was not even the most far-right candidate in his primary.In fact, Mr. Crane had been quiet about his position on the speaker’s race until he signed on to a Dec. 8 letter demanding concessions from the incoming speaker. Some McCarthy allies assumed he was under the sway of a fellow lawmaker from Arizona, Representative Andy Biggs, who was mounting a protest bid for speaker against Mr. McCarthy.A Divided CongressAfter a dayslong spectacle over the House speakership, the 118th Congress is underway, with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats holding the Senate.Abortion: As part of an anti-abortion rights effort, House Republicans pushed through a bill that could subject doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties.I.R.S. Funds: Republicans in the House voted to cut funding for the Internal Revenue Service, as conservative lawmakers try to kneecap President Biden’s $80 billion overhaul of the agency.A Wide-Ranging Inquiry: The House approved the creation of a powerful new committee to scrutinize what Republicans say is the “weaponization” of government against conservatives.But Mr. Crane said his unshakable opposition was more reflective of his military background, which taught him to tough things out.“I’ve been through a ton of very difficult situations, and I’m very grateful for those,” he said.Still, it was a stunning way to enter Congress, where Mr. Crane was still getting lost in the hallways while also being one of a handful of holdouts who stood between Mr. McCarthy and the speakership..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.“Half the time, I’m trying to find where the bathroom is and where the gym is,” he said of his first days in Washington. “We finally found the gym.”It’s all a new world for Mr. Crane, who flipped his seat in November, defeating the Democratic incumbent, Tom O’Halleran, in a mostly rural district in northeastern Arizona whose lines had been redrawn to include more Republicans.During his campaign, Mr. Crane said he supported decertifying the 2020 election, a stance that did not appear to hurt him in the newly conservative district. He was by no means the furthest to the right in his primary; another candidate was Ron Watkins, a prominent conspiracy theorist suspected of being behind the QAnon conspiracy theory.Before entering politics, Mr. Crane served five wartime deployments and 13 years in the military. He then started Bottle Breacher, a company featured on the reality show “Shark Tank,” whose signature product was a .50-caliber bullet fashioned into a bottle opener and marketed as a gift for men and groomsmen. He became a brand ambassador for Sig Sauer, the firearms manufacturer.With tattooed arms and dark, slick-backed hair, Mr. Crane stands out in the sea of suits that is the Republican Conference, where he is now bent on disrupting the status quo simply for disruption’s sake.“He’s a new breed of MAGA,” said Stephen K. Bannon, the former adviser to Mr. Trump, who is close with Mr. Crane. “Smart, tough, lethal.”Late last Friday night after the 14th vote, the remaining holdouts were Mr. Biggs, Representatives Bob Good of Virginia and Matt Rosendale of Montana, and Mr. Crane. Representatives Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Matt Gaetz of Florida, two of the most vocal opponents in the final days, had finally relented and switched their votes to “present” on the second-to-last ballot.“Everybody was pressuring,” Mr. Crane said. As the group of defectors shrank from 20 to four, he said, “the pressure just kept escalating.”Mr. Crane was something of a wild card because he had said little, at all, throughout the process. And he was the sole freshman in the group.“The consensus between the group was: ‘We came this far together. If we go out, we’re going out together,’” he said. “When the suggestion was made to put this thing to bed when we knew we could not win, I wanted to make sure I did not leave those that had stood to the end.”At one point, he said, after the 13th failed vote, things became personal and heated. Mr. McCarthy, unable to spare a single supporter, had called a pair of Republican lawmakers back to Washington for the late-night vote, and a lawmaker approached Mr. Crane on the House floor to berate him for his intransigence.“No matter how this shakes out, make sure you go apologize to Wesley Hunt and all the other guys you’re screwing over this weekend who can’t be there for their families,” Mr. Crane said a colleague had told him.Mr. Hunt had left Washington to be with his wife, who had gone into labor earlier in the week and delivered their son prematurely, and returned to the hospital with postpartum complications.“I was very upset with him for saying that to me,” Mr. Crane said of the colleague, whom he did not know at the time and would not name. “I let him know that.”Mr. Crane said he has expressed interest in serving on the Natural Resources, Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs Committees, but is fully prepared to be punished for his vote.“I expect it,” Mr. Crane said, even though Mr. McCarthy assured some defectors last week that there would be no retribution against members who had voted against him. “We’ll see what happens. I might wind up in the broom closet.” More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Coming Year of Republican Drama

      by

      G.O.P. infighting figures to be the political story line of 2023.A 2015 presidential primary debate included, from left, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The first Republican primary debate this cycle is expected to be in late spring or summer.Ruth Fremson/The New York TimesThe Coming Year of Republican DramaGood morning, everyone! I’m finally back from a few weeks abroad and excited to get back in the swing of things. I hope you had a great holiday season.The start of an odd-numbered year is always an odd period for political analysts. We’re still litigating what happened in the last election, and yet it’s already time to look ahead to the next campaign. This year, the pivot from one election to the next is going even more slowly than usual.The Republican primary campaign hasn’t really gotten underway. By the end of January in 2019, a half-dozen Democratic candidates had entered the fray. This time, only former President Donald J. Trump has formally announced, and I wouldn’t say he “entered the fray.” There isn’t a fray if you’re alone in the arena.We did at least get a bit of January drama in lieu of a presidential race: the most rounds of voting for House Speaker since before the Civil War.Kevin McCarthy’s slog to the speakership was a fitting enough way to start the year. No, it’s not a half-dozen entrants to a presidential primary. But it’s still Republican infighting — and Republican infighting promises to be the political story line of the year, whether it’s in Washington or on the presidential debate stage (assuming that President Biden seeks the Democratic nomination without a serious contest).It has been a few years since Republicans have held center stage in such drama. The last year might have been 2017, before Mr. Trump established his dominance over the Republican Party and inaugurated an era of relative peace and unity — something like a conservative Pax Romana or Pax Britannica.But Mr. Trump’s dominance appears to be waning, and the fault lines and fissures of a still deeply factionalized Republican Party are being gradually re-exposed.This year, one of our biggest tasks will be to survey the newly revealed Republican landscape. This is not necessarily an easy assignment. In some ways, Republicans are a tougher challenge for political analysts than Democrats, who can usually be analyzed on a simple ideological spectrum or with the readily available demographic traits of members or their supporters, like race and education.The same can’t always be said for Republicans, a majority of whom are white conservatives. I do think educational attainment will be a central dividing line in this year’s Republican primary electorate, but good luck capturing the difference between Mr. McCarthy and the Freedom Caucus leader, Scott Perry — two conservative, California-born white Christians from evangelical denominations, ages 57 and 60 — based on demographics or their positions on the issues. It’s not Joe Biden versus Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that’s for sure.The old ways of thinking about the Republican Party may not be so useful anymore. In that regard, this month’s fight for House Speaker — which was eerily reminiscent of Obama-era fights between House leadership and the Freedom Caucus — may prove to be somewhat misleading. The pre-Trump Republican Party will not be making a comeback in most other respects. Carthage didn’t make a comeback with the decline of Rome, and Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Paul Ryan, Liz Cheney and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants won’t be making a comeback in 2023, either.Instead, 2023 offers opportunities for new players — most obviously Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis. And those new players on the national stage will mean a new set of hard-to-predict issues and fault lines. After so many years when Republicans were allied with Mr. Trump or else cowered on the sidelines, it is not at all obvious how Republican Party politics will scramble and realign if and when a vigorous challenge to Mr. Trump emerges.It’s not obvious how a challenge to Mr. Trump will divide the Republican electorate, either. For all we know, Mr. DeSantis might run at Mr. Trump from his right and attack him for bringing Dr. Anthony Fauci into our lives and the vaccine into our bodies. Maybe he’ll blame Mr. Trump’s trillion dollar coronavirus spending packages for bringing about inflation. Exactly how Mr. Trump might go after Mr. DeSantis is a mystery in its own right.It may not all add up to a “new era” of American politics or anything quite so grandiose. Mr. Trump could still win the Republican nomination again. But this year could look pretty different than what we’ve gotten used to over the last half decade. We’ll have our work cut out for us in the new year. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Giuliani Receives Grand Jury Subpoena for Records Related to Trump

      by

      The subpoena to Rudolph W. Giuliani in November came as prosecutors have been examining the workings of former President Donald J. Trump’s fund-raising vehicle.WASHINGTON — Rudolph W. Giuliani, the lawyer who oversaw former President Donald J. Trump’s legal challenges to the 2020 election, has received a grand jury subpoena for records related to his representation of Mr. Trump, including those that detailed any payments he received, a person familiar with the matter said on Monday.The subpoena, which was sent in November, bore the name of a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. It predated the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel chosen to take over the Justice Department’s investigation of the roles that Mr. Trump and several of his aides and lawyers played in seeking to overturn the results of the election. It remained unclear, however, if Mr. Smith and his team have assumed control of the part of the inquiry related to Mr. Giuliani.As part of its investigation, the special counsel’s office has been examining, among other things, the inner workings of Mr. Trump’s fund-raising vehicle, Save America PAC. The records subpoenaed from Mr. Giuliani could include some related to payments made by the PAC, according to the person familiar with the matter.Several subpoenas issued in the past several months have asked for records concerning Save America PAC. The House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol also looked into Mr. Trump’s fund-raising operation during its own separate inquiry, and raised questions about whether it had duped donors through misleading appeals about election fraud.A longtime ally of Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani effectively ran the former president’s attempts to overturn his defeat in the presidential race and has for months been a chief focus of the Justice Department’s broad investigation into the postelection period. His name has appeared on several subpoenas sent to former aides to Mr. Trump and to a host of Republican state officials involved in a plan to create fake slates of pro-Trump electors in states that were actually won by Joseph R. Biden Jr.Understand the Events on Jan. 6Timeline: On Jan. 6, 2021, 64 days after Election Day 2020, a mob of supporters of President Donald J. Trump raided the Capitol. Here is a close look at how the attack unfolded.A Day of Rage: Using thousands of videos and police radio communications, a Times investigation reconstructed in detail what happened — and why.Lost Lives: A bipartisan Senate report found that at least seven people died in connection with the attack.Jan. 6 Attendees: To many of those who attended the Trump rally but never breached the Capitol, that date wasn’t a dark day for the nation. It was a new start.In one of its final acts, the Jan. 6 committee referred Mr. Giuliani and others, including Mr. Trump, for prosecution by the Justice Department. Still, the emergence of the subpoena, which was reported earlier by CNN, was the first time evidence had surfaced suggesting that Mr. Giuliani had become directly embroiled in the inquiry into the part that Mr. Trump played in the events leading up to Jan. 6.Mr. Giuliani’s subpoena was issued about two months after prosecutors blanketed more than 40 other figures from Mr. Trump’s White House with subpoenas. In 2021, the Justice Department seized Mr. Giuliani’s cellphones and computers as part of a separate investigation into his efforts to dig up dirt on Mr. Biden in Ukraine.While acting as Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Mr. Giuliani undertook an array of efforts on his behalf.He promoted a baseless conspiracy theory that a cabal of international actors had hacked into voting machines produced by Dominion Voting Systems and used them to rig the election for Mr. Biden — despite the fact that an internal memo from the Trump campaign had determined earlier that many of the outlandish claims about Dominion were untrue.Mr. Giuliani also made persistent claims that the voting had been marred by widespread cheating and irregularities at a series of informal legislative hearings in key swing states around the country. But when he personally appeared in court in Philadelphia to defend a lawsuit challenging the election, he acknowledged to the judge in the case that the suit had not alleged that fraud had actually occurred.Before his subpoena was issued, Mr. Giuliani had confronted an array of setbacks related to his work for Mr. Trump.He is facing a defamation lawsuit from Dominion, alleging that he carried out “a viral disinformation campaign” about the company made up of “demonstrably false” allegations, in part to enrich himself through legal fees and his podcast.In June 2021, his law license was suspended after a New York court ruled he had made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” while fighting the results of the 2020 election.He is also facing similar disciplinary charges by local bar officials in Washington. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Special Grand Jury in Georgia Trump Inquiry Concludes Its Investigation

      by

      A hearing will be held to determine whether the report will be made public. Any criminal charges would have to be brought by a regular grand jury.ATLANTA — Eight weeks into Donald J. Trump’s latest run for president, a special grand jury investigating Mr. Trump and his allies for possible election interference in 2020 concluded its work on Monday. But the panel’s findings remain private for now, including whether it recommended criminal charges against the former president.The special grand jury was dissolved days after producing a report that was reviewed by the 20 judges on the Superior Court of Fulton County, which encompasses most of Atlanta. Its members were sworn in last May.“The court thanks the grand jurors for their dedication, professionalism and significant commitment of time and attention to this important matter,” Judge Robert McBurney, who oversaw the panel, wrote in an order dissolving it.A hearing will be held on Jan. 24 to determine whether the report will be made public, as the special grand jury is recommending, according to the judge’s order. Special grand juries cannot issue indictments, so any criminal charges would have to be sought from one of the regular grand juries that consider criminal matters in the county.Regular grand jury terms last two months. Defendants who are indicted can request speedy trials that begin by the close of the term that follows the two-month period in which they are indicted. Because of those protocols, most charges would most likely be brought at the beginning of the next grand jury term in early March, or further down the road.Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5An immediate legal threat to Trump. More