Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Online Fund-Raising Was Supposed to Save Politics. Instead, It’s Dragging Us to Hell.

      by

      In late 2003 the spirit of revolution was in the air and on our Yahoo browsers. Shock and awe had given way to the long slog of war. And the internet was allowing supporters of politicians to use new tools such as “the Web log, or ‘blog’” to plot together in real time.Amid this upheaval, Howard Dean’s presidential campaign saw an opportunity. It could leverage these new tools to raise money by channeling the “netroots” anger at the Republican president and the bipartisan establishment that got us into the quagmire in Iraq. Through this online community building, it brought in a record $14.8 million in a single quarter.Mr. Dean wasn’t the first to use online fund-raising in presidential politics. John McCain’s upstart campaign had leveraged it to a less prodigious degree in 2000. “McCain Gets Big Payoff on Web Site” was this paper’s headline a few days after his surprise New Hampshire win: He had brought in nearly a million dollars in “e-donations” in just two days.Mr. McCain and Mr. Dean both lost — but good-government types, the media and many regular Americans viewed this new funding mechanism and the little-d democratization of campaign finance as a way to challenge, and hopefully overtake, the corrupted status quo. “We really give people a lot of power, and other campaigns are scared to do that,” said Zephyr Teachout, the Dean campaign’s director of online organization, at the time.The dreams of an idealistic outsider disrupting the existing order quickly came to fruition in 2008 when Barack Obama upended the Clinton machine, then beat Mr. McCain at his own game with an unprecedented money bomb leveraging what the journalist Sasha Issenberg has called “the victory lab.”The overwhelmingly positive narrative about the power of small-dollar online fund-raising began to congeal: Grass-roots fund-raising is pure and good. Big-dollar donations from corporate cronies are suspect. This is what democracy looks like!!!As it turned out, grass-roots fund-raising is also what ending democracy looks like. As with any other mass movement, people-powered campaigns followed the standard Hofferian trajectory: beginning as a cause, turning into a business and becoming a racket. Our online fund-raising system is not only enriching scam artists, clogging our inboxes and inflaming the electorate; it is also empowering our politics’ most nefarious actors.It is how Donald Trump and his cast of clueless coupsters raised nine figures to “stop the steal” that they had fabricated to try to stay in power. It is one way our most extreme candidates dominate the conversation and gain power in our political system. It has redirected money from politicians who work to find compromises that might just help people, diverting it instead to those who either have no chance to win or, worse yet, can win and want to undermine that work for their own ends. And it’s hard to imagine how we can stop it.A warning of the hellscape to come took place in late 2009, when a little-known South Carolina congressman named Joe Wilson raised well over $2 million after he shouted “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during a health care address to a joint session of Congress. At first, the fallout from this incident transpired in a standard before-times fashion. Mr. Wilson, a mild-mannered Southerner, apologized to Mr. Obama for the outburst.But after the Democratic-controlled Congress censured him anyway, Mr. Wilson’s campaign team pressed the advantage. As CNN’s Peter Hamby reported at the time, it “bulked up to seize the fund-raising opportunity” and in the weeks that followed, Mr. Wilson retained a “new media strategist,” “uploaded fund-raising pleas to YouTube” and purchased banner ad space on The Drudge Report. The result: In just 12 days he collected more money than he spent during his entire previous campaign.This moment of proto-lib-owning virality offered a playbook for a new generation of political performance artists who were more native to these tools than Mr. Wilson and cared not at all about manners or the media elite’s opinion. They learned that they could raise money and gain influence not through the long slog of relationship and coalition building in Washington but instantaneously by being jerks on the internet and calling out their voters’ enemy du jour in the most ostentatious manner they could summon.It’s created a perverse incentive structure, empowering the congressional shock jocks at the expense of actual legislators. Meanwhile, a series of court decisions supercharged political fund-raising generally. The new no-limits era allowed big donors to maximize huge contributions to political committees and blasted billions in dark money through the system, continually raising the stakes of each fund-raising deadline.The elevation of the small-dollar donor has created other nightmarish unintended consequences, however. Democratic candidates with no hope of winning are raising ungodly sums from online liberals drawn to their flashy videos and clever slams. This is particularly the case when said candidates are running against notably loathed Republicans. In 2020, this meant Jaime Harrison, the current Democratic National Committee chairman, raised a record-breaking $131 million in his campaign against Senator Lindsey Graham, despite the fact that Mr. Harrison lost by double digits and never really had a prayer.The story was similar for Amy McGrath, who ran against Senator Mitch McConnell, and Randy “Ironstache” Bryce, who got shaved clean by Bryan Steil. The lesson remains unlearned: This year Marcus Flowers has raised $10 million in his assuredly hopeless race against Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene — double the receipts of more competitive races. Added together, hundreds of millions of dollars are being pumped into hopeless hype candidates. At a minimum, that money could be used more efficiently by the Democratic Party. But that entire way of thinking might be a reflection of broken politics brain. Aren’t there myriad better uses for all that altruism than pumping out hokey attack ads?As the social media outrage fund-raising model began to come into form, the political parties began to professionalize their grass-roots outreach using email and then text messages. Gone was the decentralized model Mr. Dean had road-tested, whereby supporters organized among themselves, recruiting neighbors and message board friends toward a common cause. By the 2010s, that was displaced by centralized, beta-tested boiler rooms that used powerful digital tools to prey on people’s emotions. The result is very little message variation within the party coalitions. We’ve seen a few exceptions, most notably Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign. But overall, it’s a race to the bottom to inflame a party’s own voters with the most intensity and frequency.To get a sense of just how noxious and stupid the material is that reaches America’s inboxes, I like to peruse The Archive of Political Emails’ The Firehose from time to time. A colleague of mine engineered the site for archival purposes, signing up for various lists and funneling them to the same place. You won’t be surprised to find out that The Firehose is largely devoid of that community-minded hopey-changey stuff that we were promised in the aughts. Instead it’s peppered with conspiracies, fearmongering, hyperbole, flat-out lies, gimmickry, rage fuel and a meme or two that I admit will get me to chuckle from time to time. (We all have our weaknesses.)Can we ever know the full effect that years of emails, texts, Facebook ads and viral Twitter ads with doom-driven fund-raising appeals have had on the average voter’s conception of the country and politics? How those stimuli may have contributed to the radicalization of their recipients, especially those who aren’t in on the joke (a nihilistic campaign politics trope in which the strategists make arguments they know are phony)?This part is a deep, bipartisan problem. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee might be the longest-running offender when it comes to sending apocalyptic, wheels-off messages demanding voters’ money. It has even been chastised from within its own ranks — to little effect.There is also the more direct grift. Last year I wrote about how the National Republican Congressional Committee’s donation form used a prechecked box scheme, which automatically doubled the dollar amount and made it recurring. A warning aggressively threatened donors if they unchecked the box. Similar tactics resulted in the Trump campaign’s having to return $122 million to supporters who had been duped and, in some cases, financially devastated. If the old fund-raising system was transactional, this new one is dominated by the eternal and emotionally toxic hunt for the small donor.As gross and unethical as those tactics are, the greatest threat resulting from all of this is how the very politicians who are refusing to abide by the results of democratic elections are often being funded: by the once vaunted online donor, even if this one just wants to watch the whole system burn.Senator Josh Hawley raised around $3 million in the first quarter of 2021, mostly after he was pictured giving a salute to the rioters about to storm the Capitol. He’s even merchandising this asininity. Most of the Republican leadership has fund-raised on Mr. Trump’s conspiracy-addled social media site. Rank-and-file voters who preferred candidates who promised to decertify the last election or who might certify the next one only if they get their preferred winner (or both) helped fund those candidates in Republican primaries this year.Many of these candidates have struggled to raise what is required for the general elections, in part because Mr. Trump is sucking up nine figures for his PACs, at least one of which spent copiously on legal fees this summer while spending little on supporting Republican candidates. But some wild-eyed insurrectionists might get swept into office during an election cycle in which Republicans perform well, and that is dangerous enough.Maybe, then, given the results of our two-decade experiment in people-powered politics, we might temper rhetoric that glorifies the mighty grass-roots dollar. And reflect on how we might reform our financing system to disincentivize the crazy-making. Empowering the little guy and draining the swamp sounds nice and all, but as it turns out, there is something to be said for a little gatekeeping.And if you don’t believe me, the O.G. disrupter basically admitted as much.Last week I called Mr. Dean to ask him to reflect on the devolution of the netroots model that seemed to offer so much hope for doe-eyed reformers two decades ago.“At the time, it was a way that a young generation could start pushing their way up by using technology,” he said, “and it was incredible.”“But now that technology has been abused,” he continued. “The right-wingers are using it in service of fascism.” He added, “And I just send all my fund-raising emails to junk.”Tim Miller, a writer at The Bulwark, is the author of “Why We Did It: A Travelogue From the Republican Road to Hell.”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

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Talk of ‘Civil War,’ Ignited by Mar-a-Lago Search, Is Flaring Online

      by

      Soon after the F.B.I. searched Donald J. Trump’s home in Florida for classified documents, online researchers zeroed in on a worrying trend.Posts on Twitter that mentioned “civil war” had soared nearly 3,000 percent in just a few hours as Mr. Trump’s supporters blasted the action as a provocation. Similar spikes followed, including on Facebook, Reddit, Telegram, Parler, Gab and Truth Social, Mr. Trump’s social media platform. Mentions of the phrase more than doubled on radio programs and podcasts, as measured by Critical Mention, a media-tracking firm.Posts mentioning “civil war” jumped again a few weeks later, after President Biden branded Mr. Trump and “MAGA Republicans” a threat to “the very foundations of our republic” in a speech on democracy in Philadelphia.Now experts are bracing for renewed discussions of civil war, as the Nov. 8 midterm elections approach and political talk grows more urgent and heated.More than a century and a half after the actual Civil War, the deadliest war in U.S. history, “civil war” references have become increasingly commonplace on the right. While in many cases the term is used only loosely — shorthand for the nation’s intensifying partisan divisions — observers note that the phrase, for some, is far more than a metaphor.Polling, social media studies and a rise in threats suggest that a growing number of Americans are anticipating, or even welcoming, the possibility of sustained political violence, researchers studying extremism say. What was once the subject of serious discussion only on the political periphery has migrated closer to the mainstream.But while that trend is clear, there is far less agreement among experts about what it means.Some elements of the far right view it literally: a call for an organized battle for control of the government. Others envision something akin to a drawn-out insurgency, punctuated with eruptions of political violence, such as the attack on the F.B.I.’s Cincinnati field office in August. A third group describes the country as entering a “cold” civil war, manifested by intractable polarization and mistrust, rather than a “hot” war with conflict.After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, his supporters demonstrated at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing.John Moore/Getty Images“The question is what does ‘civil war’ look like and what does it mean,” said Elizabeth Neumann, assistant secretary for counterterrorism at the Homeland Security Department under Mr. Trump. “I did not anticipate, nor did anyone else as far as I know, how rapidly the violence would escalate.”Ms. Neumann now works for Moonshot, a private security company that tracks extremism online. Moonshot found a 51 percent increase in “civil war” references on the most active pages on 4Chan, the fringe online message board, in the week after Mr. Biden’s Sept. 1 speech.But talk of political violence is not relegated to anonymous online forums.At a Trump rally in Michigan on Saturday night, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, said that “Democrats want Republicans dead,” adding that “Joe Biden has declared every freedom-loving American an enemy of the state.” At a recent fund-raiser, Michael T. Flynn, who briefly served as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, said that governors had the power to declare war and that “we’re probably going to see that.”On Monday, federal prosecutors showed a jury in Washington an encrypted message that Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers armed extremist group, had sent his lieutenants two days after the 2020 presidential election: “We aren’t getting through this without a civil war.”Experts say the steady patter of bellicose talk has helped normalize the expectation of political violence.In late August, a poll of 1,500 adults by YouGov and The Economist found that 54 percent of respondents who identified as “strong Republicans” believed a civil war was at least somewhat likely in the next decade. Only about a third of all respondents felt such an event was unlikely. A similar survey conducted by the same groups two years ago found nearly three in five people feeling that a “civil war-like fracture in the U.S.” was either somewhat or very unlikely.“What you’re seeing is a narrative that was limited to the fringe going into the mainstream,” said Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago and founder of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats.The institute’s researchers tracked tweets mentioning civil war before and after Mr. Trump announced the search on Mar-a-Lago. In the five preceding days, they logged an average of roughly 500 tweets an hour. That jumped to 6,000 in the first hour after Mr. Trump published a post on Truth Social on the afternoon of Aug. 8, saying “these are dark times for our Nation.” The pace peaked at 15,000 tweets an hour later that evening. A week later, it was still six times higher than the baseline, and the phrase was once again trending on Twitter at month’s end.Extremist groups have been agitating for some sort of government overthrow for years and, Mr. Pape said, the most radical views — often driven by white supremacy or religious fundamentalism — remain marginal, advanced by no more than 50,000 people nationwide.But a far larger group, he said, are the people who have been influenced by Mr. Trump’s complaints about the “Washington swamp” and “deep state” forces working against him and his allies.Trump supporters in Phoenix, too, protested after his election loss.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesThose notions, stirred in a smoldering crucible with QAnon conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine views and election denialism, have fueled a growing hostility toward the federal government and rising talk about states’ rights.“Did you know that a governor can declare war?” Mr. Flynn said at the fund-raiser on Sept. 18, for Mark Finchem, a Republican running for secretary of state in Arizona. “And we’re going to probably, we are probably going to see that.”Neither Mr. Flynn nor Mr. Finchem responded to a request for comment about the inaccurate remarks. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war and, in fact, specifically bars states from engaging in war “unless actually invaded.”However far-fetched, such ideas are often amplified by a proliferating set of social media channels such as the right-wing platform Gab and Mr. Trump’s Truth Social.Social media platforms are rife with groups and boards dedicated to discussions of civil war. One, on Gab, describes itself as a place for “action reports,” “combat vids” and reports of killed in action in “the civil war that is also looking to be a 2nd American Revolution.”In August, a single tweet stating “I think civil war has just been declared” managed to reach over 17 million profiles despite coming from an account with under 14,000 followers, according to Cybara, an Israeli firm that monitors misinformation.“Ideas go into echo chambers and it’s the only voice that’s heard; there are no voices of dissent,” said Kurt Braddock, an American University professor who studies how terrorist groups radicalize and recruit.Mr. Braddock said he did not believe these posts indicated any planning for a war. But he worries about what academics call “stochastic terrorism” — seemingly random acts of violence that are, in fact, provoked by “coded language, dog whistles and other subtext” in statements by public figures.A rally in Holland, Mich., in 2021 at a restaurant that had defied state pandemic measures.Emily Rose Bennett for The New York TimesMr. Trump is adept at making such statements, said Mr. Braddock, citing Mr. Trump’s April 2020 tweet reading “Liberate Michigan!” Less than two weeks later, mobs of heavily armed protesters occupied the state capitol in Lansing. He also pointed to Mr. Trump’s speech before the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, when he encouraged thousands of supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol and, later in the same remarks told them, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”“The statements Trump makes are not overt calls to action, but when you have a huge and devoted following, the chances that one or more people are activated by that are high,” Mr. Braddock said.A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to requests for comment.Mr. Trump used the term “civil war” in 2019, when he declared in a tweet that “it will cause a Civil War-like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal” if he was removed from office. Last month, Mr. Trump said there would be “problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before” if he was indicted over his handling of the classified documents that were the target of the F.B.I. search.Other Republicans have used language suggesting the country is on the brink. Ms. Greene wrote in August that the Mar-a-Lago search reflected the “type of things that happen in countries during civil war,” in posts to her nearly 900,000 combined followers on Facebook and Telegram. Senator Rick Scott of Florida likened the F.B.I. to the Gestapo, the secret police in Nazi Germany, saying “this cannot be our country.”Late last month, Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, told The Texas Tribune he believed immigration legislation was unlikely in part because of a “political civil war.” He has made similar comments before, including a November 2021 call for Texas to secede if Democrats “destroy the country.”Nick Dyer, a spokesman for Ms. Greene, said that she was “vehemently opposed to political violence” and that her civil war comments were about Democrats, who “are acting like a regime launching a war on their opposition.”McKinley Lewis, communications director for Mr. Scott, said he had “ZERO tolerance for violence of any kind” but added that he “continues to demand answers” related to the F.B.I.’s Mar-a-Lago search.Republicans have often argued that their language is political rhetoric and blamed Democrats for twisting it to stoke divisions. It’s Democrats and the left, they said, who are courting violence by labeling Mr. Trump’s supporters adherents of what Mr. Biden has called “semi-fascism.”In response to a query about Mr. Cruz’s comments, Maria Jeffrey Reynolds, a spokeswoman for the senator, said Mr. Cruz placed blame on President Biden, claiming that he has “driven a wedge down the middle of our country.”After President Biden delivered his speech on democracy, Brian Gibby, a freelance data entry specialist in Charlotte, N.C., wrote in a Substack post that he believed “the Second Civil War began” with the president’s remarks.“I have never seen a more divisive, hate-filled speech from an American president,” Mr. Gibby wrote.President Biden described Mr. Trump and his loyalists as a threat to “the very foundations of our republic” in a speech on democracy in Philadelphia.Doug Mills/The New York TimesAsked by The New York Times to explain his views, Mr. Gibby said he believed Mr. Biden was “escalating a hot conflict in America.” He worries something will happen around the November elections that will be “akin to Jan. 6, but much more violent,” where armed protest groups from both sides of the political spectrum come to blows.“Plan ahead, stock up, stay safe, get out of cities if you can,” he wrote. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk’s Twitter Will Be a Wild Ride

      by

      His deal to buy the company is back on. Here are six predictions about Twitter under Musk’s control, if it happens.Buckle up.Elon Musk, who for months has been strenuously trying to back out of a deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion, now appears ready to buy the company after all. In a surprise letter to Twitter on Monday night, Mr. Musk offered to take Twitter private at his originally proposed price — $54.20 per share — marking a possible end to one of the most dramatic legal feuds in Silicon Valley history.It’s worth noting that the deal could still fall apart — Mr. Musk is famously subject to 11th-hour mood shifts — but the most likely outcome now is that the world’s richest man will in fact become Twitter’s new owner, possibly as soon as this week.Much is unknown about what Mr. Musk will do with Twitter if he acquires it. The mercurial billionaire has made only the vaguest of public statements about his plans for the company and its products.But we now know, thanks in part to a bevy of text messages released as part of the protracted legal battle, that it will be nothing like business as usual. And there are at least six predictions I feel confident making, if the deal does in fact close.He’s going to clean house, starting with firing Twitter’s chief executive, Parag Agrawal.A juicy set of text messages between Mr. Musk and his friends and business associates emerged last week, as part of the legal battle. In them, Mr. Musk made clear that he was unhappy with Twitter’s current leadership — in particular with Parag Agrawal, the chief executive, who took over last year from Jack Dorsey.The texts revealed that Mr. Agrawal had initially sought to work constructively with Mr. Musk, and that the two even had a friendly dinner near San Jose, Calif., in March. But the men eventually clashed. Mr. Agrawal, at one point, told Mr. Musk via text message that his habit of tweeting things like “Is Twitter dying?” was “not helping me make Twitter better.”“What did you get done this week?” Mr. Musk shot back. “This is a waste of time.”From reading Mr. Musk’s texts, it’s clear he believes that Twitter’s leadership is weak and ineffective, and lacks the ability to carry out his vision for the company. If Mr. Agrawal doesn’t immediately resign once the deal is complete, I’d expect Mr. Musk to fire him on Day 1 and name himself or a close ally as a replacement.Mr. Musk has also expressed displeasure with other Twitter executives, and it’s hard to see how he could fire Mr. Agrawal without also clearing out most or all of the company’s top leadership and installing his own slate of loyalists.Parag Agrawal, the chief executive of Twitter, may be at risk of losing his job if Mr. Musk takes control of the company.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesEmployees will revolt.Another easy prediction to make about Mr. Musk’s takeover is that it will generate enormous backlash among Twitter’s rank-and-file employees.Twitter, more so than other social media platforms, has a vocally progressive work force and many employees who are deeply invested in the company’s mission of promoting “healthy conversation.” Those employees may believe — for good reason! — that under Mr. Musk’s leadership, Twitter will abandon many of the projects they care about in areas like trust and safety. Or they may simply not want to deal with the drama and tumult of a Musk regime, and start looking for jobs elsewhere.What Happened to Elon Musk’s Twitter DealCard 1 of 9A blockbuster deal. More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Pence and His Group Keep a 2024 Dream Alive

      by

      As he travels the country publicly backing Republican candidates and conservative causes ahead of the midterm elections, former Vice President Mike Pence has also been quietly huddling with donors and building a political operation that could serve as a springboard to a 2024 presidential campaign.Mr. Pence held a retreat with donors and allies at a Utah ski resort over the course of three days late last month that was organized by a nonprofit group he has used to highlight causes animating social conservatives. Those priorities include restricting abortion access, expanding the role of religion in public life, barring transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports and fighting corporate social and environmental initiatives.At the retreat, Mr. Pence and his wife, Karen Pence, mingled with major donors of the sort whose support would be critical to a presidential bid.One donor, Art Pope, a North Carolina businessman, said, “I personally would like to see him run for president,” but he added that there had been no formal discussions about it.Instead, donors were treated to panels featuring high-profile conservative figures discussing some of those hot-button Republican causes, according to an attendee, as well as an appearance by the Fox News host Sean Hannity and the debut of a slick campaign-style video paid for by Mr. Pence’s group, Advancing American Freedom.Tensions have been growing between Mr. Pence and his former boss, Donald J. Trump. They have endorsed opposing candidates in several Republican primary races this year, and Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticized Mr. Pence for refusing to delay the certification of the 2020 election results hours after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.And as Mr. Trump teases his intent to run for president again in 2024 despite facing mounting investigations of his business, his handling of classified material and his role in the Capitol attack, he has signaled that he would choose a different running mate, saying that Mr. Pence committed “political suicide” on Jan. 6.In a New York Times/Siena College poll of Republican voters in July, only 6 percent said they would vote for Mr. Pence if he ran for the 2024 G.O.P. presidential nomination, compared with 49 percent who said they would back Mr. Trump and 25 percent who supported Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.Another prospective candidate, Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, held his own donor retreat last month.Mr. Pence has walked a tricky line as he tries to set himself apart from what many in the G.O.P. see as Mr. Trump’s worst impulses..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-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.The former vice president has said that Mr. Trump is “wrong” that Mr. Pence had the legal authority to override the results of the election, and has urged Republicans to accept the outcome and look toward the future.At the same time, two of Mr. Pence’s top aides testified to a federal grand jury in Washington as part of the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the events surrounding the riot.The campaign-style video released by Advancing American Freedom at the retreat includes footage of Mr. Pence and Mr. Trump together during their time in office, and refers to the “Trump-Pence administration.” But it also features Mr. Pence declaring in a speech that “conservatives need to be focused on the challenges Americans are facing today and offer a bold and positive agenda.”According to the attendee, the retreat included panels on so-called cancel culture, with the right-wing commentator Candace Owens; on the future of the anti-abortion movement after the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade; and on energy policy, with David Bernhardt, a former interior secretary in the Trump administration who oversaw the rollback of environmental policies opposed by the oil and gas industry.Another panel featured the conservative investor Vivek Ramaswamy discussing efforts to push back against corporations that promote their commitment to environmental, social and governance causes, known as E.S.G., that generally align with a Democratic agenda. That opposition, which Mr. Pence has written about, has gained traction as an issue on the right.Advancing American Freedom, which was created in April 2021, is registered under a section of the tax code that does not require the group to reveal its donors or much information about its finances. It has yet to file an annual report with the I.R.S. that will show top-line financial figures.Advancing American Freedom said it had raised more than $10 million to date, and it announced at the retreat that it was planning a $35 million budget for 2023 for the group and a sister organization.Its money can be used to pay for a political operation for Mr. Pence in advance of a potential presidential bid, but its primary purpose cannot be supporting electoral campaigns by him or anyone else.The group has hired aides, waded into court fights over abortion rules and spent millions of dollars on ads attacking Democratic candidates.Mr. Pence also maintains a political action committee that has raised more than $920,000 this cycle and has helped fund his political efforts. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Files a Defamation Suit Against CNN

      by

      The former president has a history of threatening, and occasionally filing, lawsuits against media organizations whose coverage he deems unfair.Former President Donald J. Trump sued CNN on Monday, claiming that the network defamed him and demanding $475 million in damages.Over the course of his business and political career, Mr. Trump has frequently threatened to sue media organizations over news coverage that he deems unfair or disrespectful. Although he rarely followed through, his attacks on the media became a staple of his political messaging and have often been cited in fund-raising entreaties in the run-up to this year’s midterm elections.In 2020, his re-election campaign sued The New York Times and The Washington Post over opinion articles that linked Mr. Trump to Russian interference in American elections. His suit against The Times was dismissed; the suit involving The Post is pending.Mr. Trump’s complaint against CNN was filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. The lawsuit alleges a “campaign of dissuasion in the form of libel and slander” that, Mr. Trump asserts, has recently escalated “as CNN fears the plaintiff will run for president in 2024.”The 29-page suit cites numerous times when CNN hosts and guests criticized Mr. Trump over his policies and his questioning of the 2020 presidential election result. It also laments that some guests have invoked Adolf Hitler and the history of Nazi Germany in criticizing Mr. Trump’s behavior. Among the on-air guests cited as having defamed Mr. Trump is the singer Linda Ronstadt.A CNN spokesman declined to comment.A footnote in the lawsuit shows that Mr. Trump’s representatives contacted CNN in July to give notice of prospective litigation and request that the network stop referring to Mr. Trump’s comments about the 2020 election as “lies.” According to the suit, CNN declined Mr. Trump’s request and replied, “You have not identified a single false or defamatory statement in your letter.”In 2019, Mr. Trump threatened CNN with a lawsuit over “unethical and unlawful attacks.” CNN called that threat “a desperate P.R. stunt.” A suit never materialized.In Monday’s suit, Mr. Trump’s lawyers justified their demand for $475 million in damages in part by alleging that CNN’s coverage has caused the former president to suffer “embarrassment, pain, humiliation and mental anguish.” More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Maggie Haberman Talks About Reporting on Donald Trump

      by

      He often utters falsehoods, but his speaking style is more strategic than it sometimes seems. Listen for the first time to audio clips from interviews with Maggie Haberman.Donald Trump is the leading candidate to be the Republican nominee for president — for the third straight election — and he’s also a subject of multiple criminal investigations. My colleague Maggie Haberman has been covering him the entire time and has written a book about him, “Confidence Man,” being published tomorrow. She often broke stories in The Times that she uncovered while reporting for the book.For today’s newsletter, I spoke with Maggie about what she’s learned, about how much the media should cover Trump and about what’s likely next for him. David: You’ve spent more time covering and interviewing Trump than almost anybody, back to your days observing him when you were a New York Post reporter in the 1990s. You’ve also pointed out that he lies a lot. Given that, I’m curious: How does interviewing him help you better capture reality when he is not confined by reality?Maggie: He’s a former president and a potential future candidate, with huge influence over the party. Among other things, interviewing him helps illuminate how he keeps that influence: his obsession with us-versus-them politics, with salesmanship and with presenting a version of himself that is often very different from who he actually is.Additionally, there are moments of unintended candor by him.David: Yes, like his comments to you about the letters from Kim Jong-un that Trump apparently kept after leaving the White House.That’s gotten a lot of attention recently. (You can listen to the clip below.)‘Nothing of Great Urgency’ Was TakenAlthough Mr. Trump mentioned letters from Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader. (Interviewed on Sept. 16, 2021 at Bedminster, N.J.)Maggie: It was a question I asked on a lark, during our third interview for my book, held at his club at Bedminster, N.J., on Sept. 16, 2021. I asked him if he had taken any “memento” documents from the White House, knowing how proud he had been of items like his letters from the authoritarian Kim Jong-un.Trump’s immediate response was to deny having taken anything significant, saying, “Nothing of great urgency, no,” before — unsolicited — mentioning the Kim Jong-un letters, appearing to suggest he had them in his possession. A few months later, we learned he had a huge trove of White House material, including dozens of individual documents with classified markings.David: As I listened to the clip, it felt like part of a pattern with him. He was certainly not being straightforward. But he was also being just vague and confusing enough that it was hard to pin down exactly what he was saying. As the journalist Joe Klein has written, referring to this larger pattern, “He deployed words with a litigator’s precision — even if it sounded the opposite.”Maggie: That’s exactly it, and one of the difficulties of interviewing him, or tracking what he says, is he is often both all over the place and yet somewhat careful not to cross certain lines. This was a hallmark of his business career, when he would tell employees not to take notes, although behind closed doors with employees he tended to be clearer in his directives.At his rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, he told people to go “peacefully and patriotically” but also directed them to the Capitol with apocalyptic language about the election. Frequently, people around him understand the implications of words, even when he’s not being direct.David: Our readers can also listen to a clip of him telling you that he wasn’t watching the Jan. 6 rally on television. Isn’t there widespread documentation to the contrary?‘I Was Not Watching Television’Mr. Trump said he heard about the attack on the Capitol on the “late side.” (Interviewed on April 27, 2021 at Mar-a-Lago)Maggie: His aides told The Times that day and in the following days that he was watching television, and a public hearing held this year by the House committee investigating Jan. 6 documented that he was watching television. It represents two things, I think — his desire to construct an alternate reality, and his particular sensitivity to anyone suggesting he watches a lot of television, which he associates with people diminishing his intelligence (even though he watches a very large amount of television).David: How do you approach an interview with Trump?Maggie: I try to get specific pieces of information, answers that only he would have, even with all the caveats about what can be believed coming out of his mouth. One example was when I asked if he would be facing the same legal troubles if Robert Morgenthau, the former Manhattan district attorney, still held the office. His answer was no, because Morgenthau was “a friend of mine.” That was revealing about Trump’s engagement with prosecutors, as he has escaped one investigation after another over years.Maggie Haberman has observed Trump for decades.Amanda Andrade-Rhoades for The New York TimesDavid: You’ve written that Trump has a “relentless desire to hold the media’s gaze.” Do we cover him too much?Maggie: I think the criticism about too much coverage of Donald Trump felt very real to his primary opponents in 2016, and often to the Clinton campaign. But I would argue that he was leading the polls in the primaries and that the coverage was often not what one would call flattering.What I think is a significant criticism deals with the decades before, when he built this image of himself, with each news story serving as a brick in the artifice, as a self-made business tycoon. He definitely had successes, but he was reliant on his father in ways the public didn’t see and, thanks in part to the Times reporting on his tax returns, learned about years later. That’s something the industry needs to reckon with.Now, he’s a former president with a huge following, as he undermines faith in elections and embraces conspiracy theories. I’m not sure there’s a good argument for ignoring him, because he still gets heard through other means. There is a good argument for contextualizing him.David: What happens next? Does he want to be president again or just get revenge on Biden? And what do you think motivates him?Maggie: I think Trump misses the pomp and legal protections that the presidency afforded him. I also think he wants revenge on Biden, and on the media, and on a whole range of people. And he wants to be able to continue to raise money and get attention, both of which disappear if he doesn’t run. What I’m not clear on is that he really wants to wage another campaign, in part because he’s that much older and in part because he seems less engaged generally. But that will reveal itself in the coming weeks or months.InternationalVoters in Rio de Janeiro yesterday.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga for The New York TimesJair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s far-right president, outperformed the polls with 43 percent of the vote and will face Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (who received 48 percent) in a runoff.An independent commission in Indonesia will investigate the deaths of at least 125 people after the police fired tear gas at a soccer match.Before word of Vladimir Putin’s illegal land grab could reach residents of Lyman, Ukrainian soldiers held the city again.PoliticsA new Supreme Court term begins today. The justices are poised to continue their rightward push on issues including affirmative action and gay rights.On Jan. 6, 2021, 139 House Republicans rejected election results. They braced for a backlash. Instead, they have redefined the party.“We were tricked.” A woman with a counterintelligence background recruited asylum seekers for last month’s flights to Martha’s Vineyard, investigators say.Other Big StoriesDarcy Bishop in Naples, Fla., after Hurricane Ian.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesAs floodwaters rose in Florida because of Hurricane Ian, a woman saved her two disabled brothers.Marin County, Calif., was long a center of vaccine skepticism, but it has embraced Covid vaccines.Svante Paabo, a Swedish geneticist, won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for sequencing Neanderthals’ genomes.OpinionsGail Collins and Bret Stephens discuss pardoning Trump for taking those documents to Mar-a-Lago.William Siu makes video games. He won’t let his daughters play them.Migrating songbirds need you to turn your lights off, Margaret Renkl says.China’s dominance over commercial shipping threatens U.S. security, Michael Roberts writes.MORNING READSDifficult DMs: The challenges of dating with a chronic illness.Work Friend: Some people get to keep working from home. Get over it.Metropolitan diary: A “delightful” subway encounter.Quiz time: Take our latest news quiz and share how you did (the average was 8.6).A Times classic: The Minecraft generation.Advice from Wirecutter: The best hurricane-preparedness supplies.Lives Lived: Elias Theodorou was a Canadian mixed martial artist and a pioneer of the use of medical marijuana in sports. He died at 34.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICA statement win: Kansas City earned one of the best victories of the young N.F.L. season in Tampa Bay, 41-31. It was a key data point in an illuminating weekend of football.Pink slip: After seven years, 67 wins and a stretch of divisional dominance, Wisconsin fired Paul Chryst yesterday. Four games left: Aaron Judge and the Yankees close out the regular season in Texas this week, with Judge one home run shy of the A.L. single-season record. The series runs today through Wednesday with a doubleheader on Tuesday.ARTS AND IDEAS Goodbye, charcuterie.You may have seen people smearing butter across different surfaces and posting them across social media platforms lately — all in the name of the butter board.The instructions for creating a butter board are straightforward: Grab a cutting board. Slab a lot of soft butter on it. Then customize it, with ingredients like honey, lemon zest, edible flowers, chile flakes, figs or radishes (as you can see in these photos). “It’s simple, it’s fun, it’s artistic,” said one woodworker, whose board sales on Etsy have surged.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookAndrew Scrivani for The New York TimesIf you’re in the mood for butter now, try these cookies.TheaterThe Viennese Jewish family in Tom Stoppard’s play “Leopoldstadt” thinks it is too assimilated to be in danger when the Nazis arrive. They’re wrong.What to ReadIn “Bully Market,” Jamie Fiore Higgins describes being seduced, and ultimately repelled, by Goldman Sachs.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was pungency. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Otherwise (four letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. The Times won five Emmys and three Gerald Loeb Awards for business journalism.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about Latino voters.Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Shreeya Sinha and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Is There Anything That Will Make the ‘Former Guy’ Go Away?

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I know I speak for us both when I say that our thoughts are with everyone who was in the path of Hurricane Ian. In the meantime, mind if I run a possibly crazy idea by you?Gail Collins: Bret, there is nothing I would love more.Bret: A friend of mine, not at all conservative, thinks that Joe Biden would be smart to pardon Donald Trump for taking all those documents to Mar-a-Lago. Insane?Gail: Hmm. Is there a middle ground here? Where the authorities don’t press forward but leave him dangling in the wind?Bret: Eventually everyone gets his day in court. Not sure how long you can wangle the dangle.Gail: I’m not crazy about turning Trump into a martyr to the right by prosecuting him for something as stupid as the document pileup seems to be. But I can’t envision just giving him a pass.So what did you tell your not-at-all-conservative friend?Bret: A pardon does a few things. First, as you suggested, it denies Trump the martyr card. Second, it humiliates him and tacitly requires him to recognize Biden as the legitimate president. Third, it saves the Justice Department from a potentially very tricky prosecution that it very well might not be able to win. And finally, it returns the public’s gaze to the far more important issue, which is Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6, which has oddly fallen off the radar screen.On the downside —Gail: Sorry, my bottom line is no no no no no. Don’t love the idea of trying him at all, but as I see it, the man is a criminal, and we can’t just say that doesn’t matter because he used to be in the White House.Give me your final thought and then let me ask you about the other Big Republican Guy, the governor of Florida.Bret: If Trump faces prosecution for the documents, it all but guarantees that no Republican will challenge him in a primary if he decides to run again. But if Biden pardons him, he will be a more diminished figure, making it likelier that he will face a real challenger. And given the choice — a miserable one, I will admit — I’d much rather see The Ron as the Republican nominee than The Don.How about you? Is there a side of you that’s kinda hoping Trump gets the nomination, on the theory that it would be easier for the Democratic nominee to beat him than to beat DeSantis?Gail: That was indeed my feeling for a while, but watching DeSantis during the hurricane crisis made me feel that maybe he just doesn’t have the … electricity you need to be a presidential candidate.Really, I was sort of shocked by how flat he seemed in his public appearances. Joe Biden — who became president by being the dull guy who wasn’t scary — was more moving when he went on camera to talk about Florida.Bret: I saw it a little differently: DeSantis is smart enough to know that now is the time to drop the political antics and act like a sober, competent governor.Gail: Well, right now our main focus has to be on the folks whose world has been destroyed by the storm. Not dwelling, for instance, on how DeSantis once opposed giving aid to the New York folks who were hit by Hurricane Sandy.Bret: If I had a dollar for every politician who says and does one thing one year and another the next …. My main problem with most G.O.P. hopefuls is that they are what I’ve come to call “one-sheep Republicans.” Not sure if I need to explain —Gail: Oh, let yourself go.Bret: It’s a reference to an old joke about an old man whose lifetime of good deeds on behalf of his little village is undone on account of a single unfortunate moment of passion with a woolly companion. The point is that much as I prefer most Republican policy proposals on stuff like regulation and taxes, the refusal to forthrightly accept the results of the last election is their sheep.Gail: Bret, whenever I look at a Republican on TV, I will now see a little fluffy creature baa-ing softly in the corner. Thanks.We’ve spent a lot of time this election season — all of which I’ve found most enjoyable — talking about the terrible Republican presidential possibilities and the awful Republican Senate candidates in places like Arizona.Give me some Republicans who make your heart sing. There must be somebody out there who isn’t immigrant-bashing and election-denying.Bret: The only politician on earth who makes my heart sing is Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky. But in the beggars-can’t-be-choosers department, I admire Chris Sununu, the governor of New Hampshire, who earlier this year said of Trump, “I don’t think he’s so crazy that you could put him in a mental institution. But I think if he were in one, he ain’t getting out.” I also like Ben Sasse, who handily won re-election in Nebraska in 2020 despite being openly anti-Trump, and I’ve come around to liking Mitt Romney after I dumped all over him when he was running for president 10 years ago.Gail: I’ve already publicly apologized for my anti-Romney crusade. Although I’ve still got a plastic dog-on-the-roof-of-a-car someone sent me when I was, um, obsessing on his animal transport policy. Keeping it by my desk.Bret: And I think the former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley has shown at least some political courage, given her presidential ambitions, in accepting Biden’s election and putting some daylight between her and her former boss.Gail: Smart choice, although I have a pretty strong suspicion that if real presidential prospects arise, she’s gonna break your heart.Bret: Probably. And the Republicans I most admire are now fast on their way to becoming statues in the pantheon of political has-beens: Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, Rob Portman, Jeff Flake. Maybe they could even start a party?Gail: Or a secret society where they could all get together and root for their favorites. Must be secret, since at this point their endorsement would be the equivalent of a karate kick to any serious Republican candidate.Bret: Yeah, if you really want to sink DeSantis, maybe you should start telling rank-and-file Republicans that never-Trumpers like me are his biggest fans.Gail: Meanwhile, all the actual Republican candidates seem to want to talk about is crime and immigration, with a side of inflation. Let me jump off to a topic I’ve been wanting to revisit. Explain your attraction to the idea of a wall along the Mexican border.Bret: Gail, as you know I support a liberal immigration policy in general, not least from Mexico, where my dad was born and where I grew up. But immigrants need to come in, announced, through the front door of the United States, not unannounced from the back. The lack of effective border control encourages the latter, often at a terrible cost in lives. The wall isn’t a panacea, or even feasible along every mile of the border. But it needs to be part of an eventual overall solution where we bolt the back door shut in exchange for widening the front door. The two go together, no?Gail: Um … no. It’s not all that practical. People have gotten pretty good at getting over — not to mention under — it. And it’s a terrible symbol to the world that we’re a country that’s shut its doors. Which, as we agree, would be disastrous given our aging work force and a blow to our reputation as a nation that welcomes immigrants.Bret: We appear to be well on our way to having a record number of people trying to get across the border this year. Countries that can’t control their borders wind up getting very, very right-wing governments, as Sweden and Italy have recently discovered. A wall, or at least some kind of “smart fence” that accomplishes the same thing, doesn’t solve every immigration problem, but it solves a few. And it deprives the rabid right of one of its most effective political cards.Gail: Solves very little and makes an international statement about our hostility toward immigrants. But we’ll revisit this again … and again.Bret: Final question for you, Gail: We spend a lot of time in our conversations talking about conservative craziness. Any liberal or progressive craziness you’d like to vent about?Gail: Well, right now, our news-side colleague Maggie Haberman, one of the greatest reporters I’ve ever known, is being beaten up online for her book about Donald Trump, “Confidence Man.”The fact that Maggie was able to get access to Trump, even though she’s been totally spot on in her critique of his presidency, seems to bother some people. I’d say she deserves a medal.Bret: Viva Maggie!The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Latino Voters Who Could Decide the Midterms

      by

      Diana Nguyen and Rachel Quester and Marion Lozano and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherLatino voters have never seemed more electorally important than in the coming midterm elections: the first real referendum on the Biden era of government.Latinos make up 20 percent of registered voters in two crucial Senate races — Arizona and Nevada — and as much or more in over a dozen competitive House races.In the past 10 years, the conventional wisdom about Latino voters has been uprooted. We explore a poll, conducted by The Times, to better understand how they view the parties vying for their vote.On today’s episodeJennifer Medina, a national politics reporter for The New York Times.Dani Bernal, born in Bolivia and raised in Miami, described herself as an independent who’s in line with Democrats on social issues but Republicans on the economy.Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York TimesBackground readingTwo years after former President Donald Trump made surprising gains with Hispanic voters, Republican dreams of a major realignment have failed to materialize, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Jennifer Medina More