Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Jr. Plans to Meet With Jan. 6 Committee

      by

      The former president’s eldest son, who encouraged White House officials to pursue “multiple paths” to overturn his father’s election loss, is said to have agreed to appear voluntarily.WASHINGTON — Donald Trump Jr., former President Donald J. Trump’s eldest son, has agreed to meet soon with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, according to a person familiar with matter.The committee has not issued a subpoena for Donald Trump Jr.’s testimony, but he is expected to answer questions voluntarily, the person said. His testimony is slated to come after his fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle, met with the panel on Monday for a lengthy interview, which the panel had said would focus on her activities the morning of Jan. 6, 2021, including an Oval Office meeting with the former president, and her role raising money for the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol.Donald Trump Jr.’s agreement to testify was reported earlier by ABC News. It was confirmed by a person familiar with it who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks about the younger Mr. Trump’s plans to appear were confidential.He would be the latest family member of the former president to meet with the committee, which is investigating the deadliest attack on the Capitol since the War of 1812. More than 150 police officers were injured in the violence as a pro-Trump mob, believing the former president’s lie of a stolen election, stormed the building. Already, Mr. Trump’s sister Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, have testified during lengthy sessions with the panel.The cooperation of members of Mr. Trump’s family stands in contrast to the stance taken by some allies of the former president, who have refused to meet with the committee or turn over documents. The panel has not decided whether to ask the former president for an interview.The panel’s investigators have learned about some of the younger Mr. Trump’s actions concerning the effort to overturn the 2020 election through text messages he sent to Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff at the time.Donald Trump Jr. sent one message two days after Election Day in 2020 that laid out strategies for declaring his father the winner regardless of the electoral outcome.“We have multiple paths,” he wrote to Mr. Meadows on Nov. 5, 2020. “We control them all.”The message went on to lay out options that Mr. Trump or his allies ultimately employed in trying to overturn the results of the election, including legal challenges, promoting alternative slates of electors and focusing efforts on the statutory date of Jan. 6 for Congress’s official count of the Electoral College results.A lawyer for Donald Trump Jr. has said the message “likely originated from someone else and was forwarded.”The younger Mr. Trump also texted with Mr. Meadows during the riot, urging him to move the president to act as the violence played out.In December, Representative Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican and the vice chairwoman of the committee, read aloud at a public meeting from text messages Donald Trump Jr. sent to Mr. Meadows amid the Capitol siege, urging the president to speak out against the mob violence.“He’s got to condemn this shit ASAP,” the younger Mr. Trump texted Mr. Meadows.“I’m pushing it hard,” Mr. Meadows responded. “I agree.”In another message, the younger Mr. Trump implored Mr. Meadows: “We need an Oval address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.” More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      McConnell and McCarthy’s Jan. 6 Fury at Trump Faded by February

      by

      In the days after the attack, Representative Kevin McCarthy planned to tell Mr. Trump to resign. Senator Mitch McConnell told allies impeachment was warranted. But their fury faded fast.In the days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building, the two top Republicans in Congress, Representative Kevin McCarthy and Senator Mitch McConnell, told associates they believed President Trump was responsible for inciting the deadly riot and vowed to drive him from politics. Mr. McCarthy went so far as to say he would push Mr. Trump to resign immediately: “I’ve had it with this guy,” he told a group of Republican leaders.But within weeks both men backed off an all-out fight with Mr. Trump because they feared retribution from him and his political movement. Their drive to act faded fast as it became clear it would mean difficult votes that would put them at odds with most of their colleagues.“I didn’t get to be leader by voting with five people in the conference,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, told a friend.The confidential expressions of outrage from Mr. McCarthy and Mr. McConnell, which have not been previously reported, illustrate the immense gulf between what Republican leaders say privately about Mr. Trump and their public deference to a man whose hold on the party has gone virtually unchallenged for half a decade.The leaders’ swift retreat in January 2021 represented a capitulation at a moment of extraordinary political weakness for Mr. Trump — perhaps the last and best chance for mainstream Republicans to reclaim control of their party from a leader who had stoked an insurrection against American democracy itself.This account of the private discussions among Republican leaders in the days after the Jan. 6 attack is adapted from a new book, “This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden and the Battle for America’s Future,” which draws on hundreds of interviews with lawmakers and officials, and contemporaneous records of pivotal moments in the 2020 presidential campaign.Mr. McConnell’s office declined to comment. Mark Bednar, a spokesman for Mr. McCarthy, denied that the Republican leader told colleagues he would push Mr. Trump to leave office. “McCarthy never said he’d call Trump to say he should resign,” Mr. Bednar said.Representative Kevin McCarthy in the Capitol two weeks after the riot.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesNo one embodies the stark accommodation to Mr. Trump more than Mr. McCarthy, a 57-year-old Californian who has long had his sights set on becoming speaker of the House. In public after Jan. 6, Mr. McCarthy issued a careful rebuke of Mr. Trump, saying that he “bears responsibility” for the mob that tried to stop Congress from officially certifying the president’s loss. But he declined to condemn him in sterner language.In private, Mr. McCarthy went much further.On a phone call with several other top House Republicans on Jan. 8, Mr. McCarthy said Mr. Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 had been “atrocious and totally wrong.” He faulted the president for “inciting people” to attack the Capitol, saying that Mr. Trump’s remarks at a rally on the National Mall that day were “not right by any shape or any form.”During that conversation, Mr. McCarthy inquired about the mechanism for invoking the 25th Amendment — the process whereby the vice president and members of the cabinet can remove a president from office — before concluding that was not a viable option. Mr. McCarthy, who was among those who objected to the election results, was uncertain and indecisive, fretting that the Democratic drive to impeach Mr. Trump would “put more fuel on the fire” of the country’s divisions.But Mr. McCarthy’s resolve seemed to harden as the gravity of the attack — and the potential political fallout for his party — sank in. Two members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet had quit their posts after the attack and several moderate Republican governors had called for the president’s resignation. Video clips of the riot kept surfacing online, making the raw brutality of the attack ever more vivid in the public mind.The mob breaking into the Capitol.Win McNamee/Getty ImagesOn Jan. 10, Mr. McCarthy spoke again with the leadership team and this time he had a plan in mind.The Democrats were driving hard at an impeachment resolution, Mr. McCarthy said, and they would have the votes to pass it. Now he planned to call Mr. Trump and tell him it was time for him to go.“What he did is unacceptable. Nobody can defend that and nobody should defend it,” he told the group.Mr. McCarthy said he would tell Mr. Trump of the impeachment resolution: “I think this will pass, and it would be my recommendation you should resign.”He acknowledged it was unlikely Mr. Trump would follow that suggestion.Mr. McCarthy spent the four years of Mr. Trump’s presidency as one of the White House’s most obedient supporters in Congress. Since Mr. Trump’s defeat, Mr. McCarthy has appeased far-right members of the House, some of whom are close to the former president. Mr. McCarthy may need their support to become speaker, a vote that could come as soon as next year if the G.O.P. claims the House in November.Representative Kevin McCarthy with Mr. Trump in Bakersfield, Calif., in 2020.Doug Mills/The New York TimesBut in a brief window after the storming of the Capitol, Mr. McCarthy contemplated a total break with Mr. Trump and his most extreme supporters.During the same Jan. 10 conversation when he said he would call on Mr. Trump to resign, Mr. McCarthy told other G.O.P. leaders he wished the big tech companies would strip some Republican lawmakers of their social media accounts, as Twitter and Facebook had done with Mr. Trump. Members such as Lauren Boebert of Colorado had done so much to stoke paranoia about the 2020 election and made offensive comments online about the Capitol attack.“We can’t put up with that,” Mr. McCarthy said, adding, “Can’t they take their Twitter accounts away, too?”Mr. McCarthy “never said that particular members should be removed from Twitter,” Mr. Bednar said.Other Republican leaders in the House agreed with Mr. McCarthy that the president’s behavior deserved swift punishment. Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the second-ranking House Republican, said on one call that it was time for the G.O.P. to contemplate a “post-Trump Republican House,” while Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the head of the party’s House campaign committee, suggested censuring Mr. Trump.Yet none of the men followed through on their tough talk in those private conversations.In the following days, Mr. McCarthy heard from some Republican lawmakers who advised against confronting Mr. Trump. In one group conversation, Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio cautioned that conservative voters back home “go ballistic” in response to criticism of Mr. Trump, demanding that Republicans instead train their denunciations on Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden.“I’m just telling you that that’s the kind of thing that we’re dealing with, with our base,” Mr. Johnson said.When only 10 House Republicans joined with Democrats to support impeaching Mr. Trump on Jan. 13, the message to Mr. McCarthy was clear.By the end of the month, he was pursuing a rapprochement with Mr. Trump, visiting him at Mar-a-Lago and posing for a photograph. (“I didn’t know they were going to take a picture,” Mr. McCarthy said, somewhat apologetically, to one frustrated lawmaker.)Mr. McCarthy has never repeated his denunciations of Mr. Trump, instead offering a tortured claim that the real responsibility for Jan. 6 lies with security officials and Democratic legislative leaders for inadequately defending the Capitol complex.Senator Mitch McConnell, left, with Senator Patrick Leahy after it was announced that Mr. Leahy would preside over Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesIn the Senate, Mr. McConnell’s reversal was no less revealing. Late on the night of Jan. 6, Mr. McConnell predicted to associates that his party would soon break sharply with Mr. Trump and his acolytes; the Republican leader even asked a reporter in the Capitol for information about whether the cabinet might really pursue the 25th Amendment.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 5Signs of progress. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Alex Jones Reaches Out to Justice Dept. About Jan. 6 Interview

      by

      The effort by the Trump ally to get an immunity deal is the latest sign of progress in the investigation, which recently brought on a well-regarded prosecutor.The federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election appears to be gaining traction, with the Justice Department having brought in a well-regarded new prosecutor to help run the inquiry and a high-profile witness seeking a deal to provide information.Alex Jones, the host of the conspiracy-driven media outlet Infowars and a key player in the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” movement, is in discussions with the Justice Department about an agreement to detail his role in the rally near the White House last Jan. 6 that preceded the attack on the Capitol.Through his lawyer, Mr. Jones said he has given the government a formal letter conveying “his desire to speak to federal prosecutors about Jan. 6.”The lawyer, Norm Pattis, maintained that Mr. Jones had not engaged in any “criminal wrongdoing” that day when — chanting slogans about 1776 — he helped lead a crowd of Trump supporters in a march to the Capitol as violence was erupting.As a condition of being interviewed by federal investigators, Mr. Jones, who is known for his rants about the “Deep State” and its supposed control over national affairs, has requested immunity from prosecution.“He distrusts the government,” Mr. Pattis said.While convincing federal prosecutors to grant him immunity could be an uphill climb for Mr. Jones, his discussions with the Justice Department suggest that the investigation into the postelection period could be gathering momentum.Two weeks ago, another prominent Stop the Steal organizer, Ali Alexander, a close associate of Mr. Jones, revealed that he had received a subpoena from a federal grand jury that is seeking information on a broad swath of people — rally planners, members of Congress and others close to former President Donald J. Trump — connected to political events that took place in the run-up to Jan. 6. Mr. Alexander, who marched with Mr. Jones to the Capitol that day, has said that he intends to comply with the subpoena.Supporters of Mr. Trump outside the Capitol during the mob attack.Kenny Holston for The New York TimesSeveral months ago, the department quietly took another significant step, adding Thomas Windom, a career federal prosecutor from Maryland, to help in the expanded Jan. 6 investigation, according to three people familiar with the matter.Mr. Windom has been working with officials from the national security and criminal divisions at the Justice Department to determine whether and how to investigate potential criminal activity related to the Jan. 6 attack, other than what took place during the assault.His work complements two teams led by prosecutors in the Washington U.S. attorney’s office: one focused on charging people for participating in the riot and one focused on more complicated conspiracy cases stemming from it, such as the seditious conspiracy case that was brought against Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers.Mr. Windom is looking into the more politically fraught question of whether a case can be made related to other efforts to overturn the election, a task that could move the investigation closer to Mr. Trump and his inner circle. Mr. Alexander’s lawyers have been dealing with Mr. Windom, for example, in responding to the broad subpoena seeking information about the pro-Trump rallies and other efforts to keep Mr. Trump in office.Those efforts could extend to issues such as the plan by Trump allies to have seven swing states falsely certify that Mr. Trump won, and then mail those false documents to the National Archives and Congress. However, Mr. Windom does not yet have a robust team of prosecutors, leaving unclear how extensive the investigation might become.Mr. Windom was described by former colleagues as a diligent, aggressive lawyer capable of handling complex investigations. In his former job, Mr. Windom prosecuted some high-profile cases in Maryland — among them those involving domestic and international terrorism, public corruption and national security.Mr. Windom, for example, helped to secure convictions against a trio of violent members of a white supremacist group called “The Base,” which had hoped to trigger a race war in the United States. Two of the defendants received lengthy prison sentences.In another case, Mr. Windom prosecuted Christopher Hasson, a white nationalist and lieutenant in the U.S. Coast Guard, who had plotted to kill journalists, Democratic politicians, professors, Supreme Court justices and those he described as “leftists in general.”Mr. Windom also charged Tawanna P. Gaines, a Maryland lawmaker, with stealing about $22,000 in campaign funds. She pleaded guilty in 2019 and was later sentenced to six months in prison.“Thomas is a thorough and creative investigator and an experienced trial attorney,” said Robert K. Hur, a former U.S. attorney in Maryland. “He’s calm under pressure and accustomed to building and trying complex, high-stakes cases. Having tried two cases with him, I know his considerable skill before judges and juries.”Thomas Windom, a highly regarded federal prosecutor who won high-profile cases in Maryland, was brought on to bolster the politically fraught investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Julio Cortez/Associated PressIf prosecutors ultimately speak with Mr. Jones, they will encounter a polarizing figure with a broad range of ties to people in pro-Trump circles, including some of Mr. Trump’s aides and advisers. Mr. Jones was closely involved in pro-Trump rallies in Washington on Nov. 14 and Dec. 12 in 2020, working with rally organizers, prominent speakers and far-right militant groups like the Oath Keepers, whose members provided security at the gatherings.One of Mr. Jones’s top lieutenants at Infowars, Owen Shroyer, also was at the forefront of the mob that stormed the Capitol. Mr. Shroyer was arrested in August and is facing federal misdemeanor charges in connection with the riot.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 5Signs of progress. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Campaign Ordered to Pay $1.3 Million to Omarosa Manigault Newman in NDA case

      by

      An arbitrator found Mr. Trump’s campaign owes the former White House aide and “Apprentice” star for legal fees, after he sued her for writing a tell-all book.A court arbitrator has ordered former President Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign to pay nearly $1.3 million in legal fees to Omarosa Manigault Newman, the former “Apprentice” star, White House aide and author of the first tell-all book about the Trump White House.The award, handed down on Tuesday, concludes a protracted legal fight after Mr. Trump unsuccessfully sued Ms. Manigault Newman over her book, “Unhinged,” arguing that she had violated a nondisclosure agreement she had signed while working for his campaign in 2016.Mr. Trump lost the arbitration case in September 2021, one in a string of failed attempts to enforce nondisclosure agreements against former employees.Since the decision, both sides have continued to dispute the size of the award. Mr. Trump’s lawyers claimed Ms. Manigault Newman made bad-faith arguments and should not receive legal fees. But the arbitrator sided with her, noting the hefty expense of the case.“Respondent was defending herself in a claim which was extensively litigated for more than three years, against an opponent who undoubtedly commanded far greater resources than did respondent,” the arbitrator noted.A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an email seeking comment.Ms. Manigault Newman’s lawyers said they were struck by the amount that Mr. Trump’s campaign was ordered to pay.The award “hopefully will send a message that weaponized litigation will not be tolerated and empower other lawyers to stand up and fight,” said Ms. Manigault Newman’s lawyer, John Phillips, who provided a copy of the arbitrator’s ruling on the fees.Ms. Manigault Newman met Mr. Trump in 2004 during the first season of his reality television show, “The Apprentice.” Twelve years later, she helped Mr. Trump court skeptical Black voters during his 2016 campaign for the presidency. When he won, she followed him to the White House, and was ultimately dismissed from her job.Her book, published in August 2018, depicted a chaotic White House and was the first of several books written by former Trump presidential aides. She also released audio recordings of her conversations related to Mr. Trump. In one recording, Mr. Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, appeared to offer Ms. Manigault Newman a campaign contract in exchange for her staying quiet about her criticisms of the president and his family.Mr. Trump, who has often used the courts in disputes, sued Ms. Manigault Newman, and the suit played out over three years.The legality of such nondisclosure agreements, which Mr. Trump has favored for many years as a private businessman, has been a subject of debate before. But their efficacy has come into question in recent months. In March, Mr. Trump’s campaign was ordered to pay more than $300,000 in legal fees to a former campaign aide who said that the candidate had forcibly kissed her. The campaign sued, arguing she had violated the terms of her nondisclosure agreement. The judge in the case called the agreement “vague and unenforceable.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Lo necesitamos’: la enorme influencia de Trump en el Partido Republicano

      by

      Mientras acumula fondos, reparte favores y trata de aplastar a sus rivales, el expresidente domina a su partido y se prepara para otra campaña respaldando a quienes lo ayudan a expulsar a los funcionarios que frustraron su intento de subversión de las elecciones de 2020.PALM BEACH, Florida — Una noche cualquiera, Donald Trump se pasea por el patio de Mar-a-Lago y pronuncia unas palabras desde un atril para darle la bienvenida al candidato que le paga por el privilegio de recaudar fondos allí.“Este es un lugar especial”, dijo Trump en una de esas noches de febrero en su club privado. “Solía decir que era la ‘zona cero’, pero después del World Trade Center ya no usamos ese término. Este es el lugar donde todo el mundo quiere estar”.Durante 15 meses, un desfile de aspirantes (senadores, gobernadores, líderes del Congreso y contendientes republicanos de todas las tendencias) ha hecho el recorrido para jurarle lealtad y presentar su candidatura. Algunos han contratado a los asesores de Trump con la esperanza de obtener una ventaja al buscar su respaldo. Otros compran anuncios en Fox News que solo se transmiten en el sur de Florida. Y están los que le llevan regalos; y los que sacan los trapos sucios. Casi todos repiten la mentira de que las elecciones de 2020 fueron robadas.Mientras trabaja desde un gran escritorio de madera que recuerda al que usó en la Oficina Oval, Trump ha transformado la antigua suite nupcial de Mar-a-Lago en una sede informal del Partido Republicano y ha amasado más de 120 millones de dólares, una suma que duplica la del Comité Nacional Republicano. Los registros federales muestran que su iniciativa recaudó más fondos en línea que el partido, casi todos los días durante los últimos seis meses de 2021. La excepción fueron dos jornadas, una de las cuales fue la víspera de Navidad.Y mientras otros expresidentes han cedido el escenario político, Trump ha hecho lo contrario, ya que trata de emprender una agresiva campaña de venganza contra los republicanos que lo han perjudicado, con su respaldo a más de 140 candidatos en todo el país y con la transformación de las primarias de 2022 en una prueba de su persistente influencia.Al inspirar miedo, acaparar dinero, repartir favores y tratar de aplastar a sus rivales, Trump no solo se está comportando como un poderoso actor, sino como algo más cercano al jefe de una maquinaria política del siglo XIX.“Los líderes de los partidos nunca han desempeñado el papel que Trump está desempeñando”, dijo Roger Stone, un asesor intermitente de Trump desde la década de 1980 a quien se ha visto en fechas recientes en Mar-a-Lago. “Porque él puede, y no se rige por las reglas convencionales de la política”, explicó.Esta imagen de Trump como un jefe de partido moderno se ha extraído de más de 50 entrevistas con asesores en activo y retirados de Trump, rivales políticos, republicanos que han buscado su apoyo y funcionarios y estrategas del Partido Republicano que están lidiando con su influencia.Es evidente que Trump disfruta del poder. Pero mientras insinúa una y otra vez la posibilidad de aspirar a la Casa Blanca por tercera vez, la pregunta que se plantea es si puede seguir siendo el rey de la nación si no aspira a la corona.Por ahora, se ha adentrado en las minucias de limpiar al Partido Republicano de sus críticos, incluso si, de manera típica, la planificación y ejecución pueden ser desordenadas. Ha centrado sus esfuerzos casi obsesivamente en instalar personajes leales en puestos estatales clave en el campo de batalla (gobernadores, senadores, miembros de la Cámara, secretarios de Estado y fiscales generales de los estados) a menudo en vez de los mismos funcionarios que frustraron sus intentos de subvertir los resultados de 2020.Ha presionado a los candidatos para que cambien las contiendas en las que participan, aconsejó a los republicanos sobre a quién contratar, se involucró en las reglas de registro del partido en Wyoming y en la contienda por el presidente de la cámara estatal en Michigan. También condicionó su respaldo al gobernador Mike Dunleavy de Alaska a que no apoyara a la senadora titular del estado, Lisa Murkowski; Dunleavy accedió rápidamente. La semana pasada, mostró su desacuerdo al instar a los residentes de Pensilvania a no votar por Bill McSwain en las primarias para gobernador, con el argumento de que el político no había aceptado por completo sus acusaciones de fraude electoral de 2020.Trump no quiso ser entrevistado para este artículo.Las personas cercanas a Trump dicen que se siente complacido por el ejercicio crudo de su poder. Escucha a los cabilderos de los republicanos de alto rango, como el representante Kevin McCarthy, líder del partido en la Cámara de Representantes, y luego los ataca sin previo aviso. Un día después de que McCarthy regañó al representante republicano de Carolina del Norte, Madison Cawthorn, por decir que sus colegas en Washington habían celebrado orgías y consumido cocaína, Trump le concedió a Cawthorn un codiciado espacio para hablar en su próximo mitin.Durante 15 meses, un desfile de aspirantes (senadores, gobernadores, líderes del Congreso y contendientes republicanos de todas las tendencias) ha hecho el recorrido hasta Mar-a-LagoSaul Martinez para The New York Times‘Clientelismo político en desarrollo’Ahora, toda una economía política gira en torno a Trump, en la cual sus propiedades están haciéndose de enormes sumas: tan solo los candidatos federales y las comisiones han pagado casi 1,3 millones de dólares por la celebración de eventos en Mar-a-Lago, según muestran los registros. Ha surgido una falange de aduladores de Trump, a los que los candidatos pagan con la esperanza de conseguir reuniones, aunque los antiguos seguidores de Trump advierten que, en el juego de la influencia, el comprador siempre debe tener cuidado.“Si alguien anda por ahí vendiendo su capacidad para conseguir respaldos, está vendiendo algo que no es suyo”, dijo Michael Caputo, un exasesor que todavía habla con Trump. “Lo que parece ser clientelismo político en desarrollo, en realidad, es la confluencia de muchos asesores que fingen saber cómo conseguir el respaldo de Trump. Pero, en realidad, nadie sabe el camino a seguir”.Sin embargo, aunque el clientelismo político en Nueva York no es nuevo, como lo demuestra Tammany Hall, una máquina política que perduró durante casi dos siglos y cuya longevidad se debe a la difusión del patrocinio, Trump puede ser muy tacaño. Aunque celebra mítines para algunos candidatos, en muchos casos, su apoyo no va más allá de un correo electrónico y un cheque de 5000 dólares. Trump casi nunca ha desplegado su enorme lista de seguidores para ayudar a otros políticos con el fin de que recauden dinero (la representante Elise Stefanik de Nueva York fue una rara excepción, a principios de este año). Frente a la posibilidad de las derrotas de alto perfil, el equipo del exmandatario planea gastar directamente para ayudar a algunos candidatos vulnerables que han recibido su respaldo; una transferencia de efectivo a un súper PAC de Georgia fue solo el primer paso.Taylor Budowich, uno de sus voceros, señaló que centrarse solo en el gasto directo no toma en cuenta el valor que tiene el aval de Trump para los votantes y la “cobertura mediática gratuita” que genera. “Alguna vez se llegó a decir que un respaldo ni siquiera vale el papel en el que está impreso, pero ahora hay una excepción: el respaldo de Trump”, dijo Budowich.A diferencia de los jefes políticos del pasado, Trump ha hecho mucho énfasis en los mecanismos electorales, además de sembrar en todo momento la desconfianza en el sistema mediante afirmaciones falsas de manipulación de votos.Como decía el corrupto “Boss” Tweed, de Tammany, mientras se apoyaba en una urna en una famosa caricatura de la década de 1870: “Mientras yo cuente los votos, ¿qué vas a hacer al respecto?”.O como le dijo Trump a Breitbart News este mes: “Hay una expresión de que los contadores de votos son más importantes que el candidato, y podrías usar esa expresión en este momento”.Ejercer el poder sobre el partido y vender la ficción de unas elecciones robadas también son estrategias para desviar la atención de la desafortunada salida de Trump de la Casa Blanca como perdedor.Michael D’Antonio, biógrafo de Trump, trazó un paralelismo entre este periodo y una crisis anterior en la carrera de Trump: su bancarrota a principios de 1990. “Para cualquier otra persona estos habrían sido acontecimientos demoledores”, dijo. “Pero para Trump solo marcaron un cambio en su método y en su búsqueda del poder. Y nunca aceptó que fueran derrotas de verdad”.Los demócratas se están preparando para las derrotas en 2022. Pero los estrategas de ambos partidos dicen que el gran perfil público de Trump representa un riesgo para los republicanos, porque las encuestas privadas y los grupos de discusión muestran que sigue siendo un poderoso factor de rechazo para los votantes indecisos.Pero las primarias republicanas son otra historia, donde pocos candidatos serios se han separado de Trump. “La toma del control del Partido Republicano por parte del presidente Trump ha sido tan completa”, dijo Boris Epshteyn, otro exasesor de Trump que a veces visita Mar-a-Lago, “que incluso los republicanos más moderados están intentando hablar de MAGA”.El representante Madison Cawthorn de Carolina del Norte fue reprendido por decir que sus colegas en Washington habían organizado orgías y consumido cocaína, sin embargo, Trump le otorgó un codiciado espacio para hablar en su próximo mitin.Veasey Conway para The New York Times“Necesito ver las encuestas, necesito ver la financiación, necesito ver que te estás haciendo un nombre”, le dijo Trump a Joe Kent, quien ganó su respaldo para intentar vencer a Jaime Herrera Beutler, la representante por el estado de Washington.Nathan Howard/Associated Press‘Como cangrejos en una cubeta’No hay mejor ejemplo del dominio de Trump sobre el partido que las genuflexiones y maniobras de quienes buscan su visto bueno en la política.Algunos candidatos pagan para asistir a las recaudaciones de fondos en Mar-a-Lago de otros aspirantes, y esperan lograr captar la atención de Trump, o mejor aún, una foto. “Momento épico”, fue el término que usó una candidata a la Cámara de Representantes para describir los pocos segundos que estuvo con Trump y que subió en un video a su cuenta de Instagram.Cuando Trump invitó a los candidatos de Michigan para que lo acompañaran en un evento, resonó la voz de un hombre: “Yo también me postulo para gobernador, ¿puedo ir?”. Era Ryan Kelley. “¿Te postulas para gobernador de qué?”, le preguntó Trump, un poco confundido. “¡Michigan!”, le respondió Kelley y se acercó, estrechando la mano de Perry Johnson, uno de sus oponentes.Johnson, por su parte, ha frecuentado Mar-a-Lago y publicó con orgullo un video pixelado de Trump alabando sus “buenos números en las encuestas” en otra recaudación de fondos. Incluso pagó un anuncio de televisión dándole la bienvenida a Trump a Michigan, antes de un mitin celebrado el 2 de abril.Sin embargo, Trump lo desairó en el mitin y, en cambio, elogió a una candidata rival, Tudor Dixon, que había realizado su propia recaudación de fondos en Mar-a-Lago en febrero.En muchos sentidos, la búsqueda de su respaldo es una réplica en la vida real del antiguo papel de Trump en la telerrealidad.“¿Qué era El aprendiz sino un lamentable tumulto de personas que se comportaban como cangrejos en una cubeta y que pedían que él los sacara de ahí?”, recordó D’Antonio, su biógrafo. “Estas personas no son otra cosa que concursantes que compiten por su aprobación”.En una de las escenas más recordadas, el año pasado, Trump llevó a varios candidatos al Senado de Ohio a una sala de Mar-a-Lago, donde empezaron a atacarse unos a otros con discursos mientras él los observaba. “Las cosas se salieron de control”, dijo un candidato, Bernie Moreno, quien no culpó a Trump por el caos, sino a sus rivales. Desde entonces, Moreno se retiró porque no quiere dividir el voto a favor de Trump.Casi todos los contendientes de Ohio han publicado anuncios que resaltan sus vínculos con Trump y buscan su respaldo de manera personal. Jane Timken se define como “la verdadera conservadora de Trump”. Josh Mandel se presenta como “pro-Dios, pro-armas, pro-Trump”. Mike Gibbons dice que él y Trump son dos “hombres de negocios con los mismos principios”.Trump no respaldó a ninguno de ellos; en cambio, apoyó al escritor J. D. Vance. En un debate previo al respaldo, Matt Dolan, el único aspirante republicano que no compite por el apoyo de Trump, sugirió que sus rivales estaban poniendo a los electores de Ohio en segundo lugar. “Hay gente en este escenario que, literalmente, está luchando por obtener un voto”, afirmó, “y la persona que les dará ese voto no está en Ohio”.Dolan es una excepción. En general, una audiencia con Trump puede llevar al éxito o al fracaso de una candidatura. Por eso, los candidatos planean mucho sus estrategias.A Trump le gusta la adulación y le gusta recompensar a los aduladores. Pero los expertos dicen que llevar material visual convincente también es importante. El uso de letras de gran tamaño es fundamental, con fotos y gráficos en color.“No es un tipo muy digitalizado, así que llevamos todo impreso”, dijo Joe Kent, quien logró ganarse el respaldo de Trump en su esfuerzo por desbancar a la representante republicana de Washington, Jaime Herrera Beutler, una de las diez representantes republicanas que votaron a favor del juicio político en contra de Trump.“Necesito ver las encuestas, necesito ver la financiación, necesito ver que te estás haciendo un nombre”, le indicó Trump, como recordó Kent.Cuando le gusta lo que ve, Trump envía unas palabras de aliento, garabateadas con un marcador en las impresiones de las noticias. “¡Lo estás haciendo genial!”, le escribió en enero a Kent. “¡Lo estás haciendo genial!”, también le escribió en octubre pasado a Harriet Hageman, quien está desafiando a Liz Cheney, la representante por Wyoming.Cuando el representante Billy Long, candidato al Senado en Missouri, se reunió por primera vez con Trump el año pasado, le llevó una copia impresa de una encuesta favorable. Pero sintió que lo habían derrotado cuando Trump “estiró el brazo y recogió otra encuesta” que Long supuso que provenía de un rival, aunque podría haber formado parte del paquete que su equipo le prepara para las reuniones con los candidatos.“Donald Trump hará lo que quiera hacer cuando quiera hacerlo”, dijo Long. “Eso no es ningún secreto”.En marzo, un grupo que instó a Trump para que cesara su respaldo a Matthew DePerno, candidato a fiscal general de Michigan, compró un anuncio que se publicó en West Palm Beach.Nic Antaya para The New York TimesTrump ha expresado su deseo de tomar el control de los puestos de conteo de votos en Michigan, con el fin de reunir apoyos para Kristina Karamo, su candidata para ser secretaria de Estado.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesTelevisión de precisiónLa televisión es una vía popular para llegar a Trump y algunos candidatos tratan de hacerlo mediante la transmisión de anuncios lejos de su electorado. Durante el verano, Trump estuvo en su club de golf de Bedminster, Nueva Jersey, y Jim Lamon, un candidato al Senado de Arizona, pagó por un anuncio en Fox News de Nueva Jersey.Michele Fiore, concejala de la ciudad de Las Vegas, anunció su candidatura a gobernadora de Nevada con un comercial pro-Trump que se transmitió en West Palm Beach. Luego desistió y decidió postularse al cargo de tesorera estatal y dijo en otro comercial que el equipo de Trump le aconsejó que optara por ese cargo.Y en marzo, un grupo que instó a Trump a rescindir su respaldo a Matthew DePerno, un republicano que se postulaba para fiscal general en Michigan, lanzó un comercial que atacaba a DePerno y que se transmitió en West Palm Beach.Otros han utilizado los medios audiovisuales con una precisión aún mayor.En noviembre, Blake Masters, candidato al Senado en Arizona, publicó un video que decía: “Creo que Trump ganó en 2020”, el día antes de volar a Florida para una recaudación de fondos en Mar-a-Lago. Según los registros de su campaña, el comercial costó 29.798,70 dólares.Algunos atraen la atención de Trump en televisión, entre comerciales.La vicegobernadora de Idaho, Janice McGeachin, apareció en el programa de Fox News de Tucker Carlson en junio y se deshizo en elogios hacia Trump. Al día siguiente, él la llamó.“Fue lo mejor”, afirmó la vicegobernadora, quien agregó que “le hizo saber” al exmandatario que planeaba desafiar al gobernador Brad Little, el republicano en funciones y le pidió su apoyo. Poco después, estaba en un avión rumbo a Nueva York para una reunión en la Torre Trump. “Lo que quería era darle un gran abrazo y decirle cuánto lo amamos”, dijo. “Y eso fue lo primero que hice”.McGeachin le dijo a Trump que Little no había luchado lo suficiente para anular las elecciones de 2020. En el otoño presentó su propuesta en Mar-a-Lago, y se marchó con una gorra roja firmada por el expresidente que suele usar en sus eventos. Pronto, Trump la apoyó de manera formal, aunque no dejó de elogiar a Little, que apenas unos días antes asistió a una recaudación de fondos en Mar-a-Lago para una organización no lucrativa afín a Trump.McGeachin, quien causó revuelo recientemente al grabar un discurso para una reunión de nacionalistas blancos, es vista como una candidata con pocas posibilidades en las primarias de mayo.El episodio encapsula las peculiaridades del estilo de Trump como jefe del partido: la receptividad al cortejo intensivo, la toma de decisiones aleatoria, la posibilidad de excederse y la exigencia de que se amplifiquen sus falsas afirmaciones de fraude electoral.“Creo que es el respaldo más codiciado en la historia política”, dijo McGeachin.Las encuestas han mostrado que David Perdue está detrás del gobernador de Georgia, Brian Kemp, en la contienda del 24 de mayo, lo que se considera como una muestra de la influencia de Trump.Audra Melton para The New York TimesTed Budd, representante por Carolina del Norte, es el candidato de Trump para el Senado y desafiará en las primarias de mayo al representante Mark Walker, un antiguo aliado del expresidente Trump.Veasey Conway para The New York TimesMano duraCon la vista puesta en su historial de victorias y derrotas en materia de respaldos, Trump está tratando cada vez más a los candidatos republicanos como piezas de ajedrez que se pueden mover, intercambiar o abandonar. Pero, hasta ahora, los resultados han sido dispares.En Georgia, reclutó al exsenador David Perdue para enfrentar al gobernador Brian Kemp, un republicano que desafió a Trump al certificar las elecciones de 2020 y respaldar el resultado. Trump presionó al otro candidato en la campaña, Vernon Jones, un exdemócrata, para que se postulara a la Cámara de Representantes, con su respaldo.Esa maniobra funcionó, pero las encuestas han mostrado que Perdue está detrás de Kemp de cara a la contienda del 24 de mayo, lo que es visto como una primera muestra de la influencia de Trump.En Carolina del Norte, Trump trató de conseguir que un aliado, el diputado Mark Walker, abandonara su campaña al Senado y dejara la vía libre para el candidato que él respaldaba, el diputado Ted Budd, para que se enfrentara al exgobernador Pat McCrory en las primarias de mayo. Pero después de que los tribunales alteraron los mapas políticos del estado, Walker se negó y amenazó con dividir el voto pro-Trump, aunque las encuestas muestran que Budd lidera de todos modos.Trump ya retiró uno de sus respaldos. Fue el caso de Mo Brooks, representante por Alabama que quería postularse al Senado de ese estado, y Trump cesó su apoyo después de que Brooks cayó en las encuestas y se cree que podría hacer lo mismo con otros aspirantes que no lideran las encuestas. Por ejemplo, ha hablado en privado de moderar su postura a favor de McGeachin.Trump ha sido especialmente efectivo en el reclutamiento de rivales para sus críticos republicanos más importantes, como Cheney.El año pasado, entrevistó a varios contrincantes potenciales, con la esperanza de establecer un enfrentamiento de dos personas. Entre ellos se encontraba Darin Smith, un abogado de Cheyenne, que voló a Bedminster y luego dijo que lamentaba no haber contado antes con la asesoría de los miembros del equipo de Trump. Finalmente, el expresidente respaldó a Harriet Hageman, exfuncionaria del partido, cuyos asesores incluyen a los estrategas actuales y anteriores de Trump como Justin Clark, Nick Trainer, Bill Stepien y Tim Murtaugh.“Ya sea que ames el pantano o lo odies, es una realidad”, dijo Smith, quien desde entonces ha respaldado a Hageman. “Hay órbitas alrededor de Trump”.Es posible que en ningún otro lugar Trump haya profundizado más en la política local que en Michigan, guiado en parte por la copresidenta del partido, Meshawn Maddock, una aliada cercana que organizó autobuses para llevar a los manifestantes a Washington el 6 de enero de 2021. En noviembre de 2020, después de que Trump convocó a los legisladores de Michigan a la Casa Blanca para una reunión extraordinaria mientras buscaba anular las elecciones, los dos líderes legislativos del Partido Republicano del estado lo rechazaron. Ahora, Trump ha dado su respaldo a más de media decena de candidatos a la legislatura de Michigan para encumbrar al marido de Maddock, el diputado estatal Matt Maddock, como próximo presidente de la Cámara de Representantes del estado.Trump no ha ocultado su deseo de tomar el control de los puestos de conteo de votos del estado mientras reúne apoyos para DePerno y Kristina Karamo, sus candidatos a los cargos de fiscal general del estado y la Secretaría de Estado.“Recuerden que no solo se trata de 2022, se trata de asegurarnos de que Michigan no sea manipulado y robado nuevamente en 2024”, dijo Trump en las afueras de Detroit el 2 de abril. Y agregó: “No hago esto a menudo con la gente de los estados. Pero esto es muy importante”.Mitch McConnell, líder de la minoría del Senado; Kevin McCarthy, el líder de la minoría de la Cámara de Representantes; y el exvicepresidente Mike Pence en la Oficina Oval con Trump, en marzo de 2020Erin Schaff/The New York TimesAfirmando el dominioEs cierto que la estrategia de guerra de Trump proyecta poder, pero lo que más asusta a otros líderes republicanos es su perdurable popularidad entre la base del partido.El flujo interminable de mensajes de recaudación de fondos republicanos que usan el nombre de Trump, y que a veces dan la idea de que el dinero es para él, es evidencia de su influencia con los pequeños donantes. Las encuestas también muestran que la mayoría de los votantes republicanos valoran su respaldo. “Su dominio del partido a nivel de votantes de base no tiene precedentes”, dijo Stone, quien ha sido asesor de Trump desde hace mucho tiempo.Plenamente consciente de esto, Trump también ha afirmado su dominio sobre los líderes republicanos del Congreso.En la Cámara de Representantes, McCarthy, que espera convertirse en el presidente de ese órgano legislativo después de las elecciones intermedias, ha tratado de mantener a Trump al margen en algunas primarias, ejerciendo presión, por ejemplo, para que deje de respaldar a Mary Miller, la representante por Illinois, quien fue elegida en el mismo distrito que el representante Rodney Davis. Pero Trump la respaldó de todos modos.“El temor legítimo de McCarthy es que se gane la mayoría, pero que 10 miembros de la Cámara se unan y digan: ‘No vamos a votar por usted ni por nada que desee’”, dijo Stone. Y agregó que, en ese caso, Trump tendría influencia en esos votos.En el Senado, Mitch McConnell de Kentucky, el líder de la minoría, no ha hablado con Trump desde que dejó la Casa Blanca, pero accedió a que el exmandatario respaldara a Herschel Walker para el Senado en Georgia, a pesar de las dudas iniciales de su equipo.Quienes están descontentos con el reinado de Trump como jefe del partido están buscando señales de que su control se está perdiendo, y varios rivales potenciales para 2024 (Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, Tom Cotton) parecen menos temerosos últimamente de estar en desacuerdo públicamente con Trump.Las contiendas en las que Trump ha respaldado a un candidato serán objeto de estudio para ver si disminuyen su poder. Pero el hecho es que muchos de los candidatos a los que se opone en las primarias siguen diciendo que son republicanos que apoyan a Trump. Pocos ven una fecha de caducidad en su dominio hasta, y a menos, que decline postularse de nuevo en 2024 o sea derrotado.Una reciente aparición en el pódcast del Comité Nacional Republicano captó tanto las ventajas como los inconvenientes del inquebrantable apego del partido hacia Trump. Por mucho, se trató del episodio del pódcast más visto en YouTube, hasta que el sitio lo retiró por difundir información errónea.“No se puede subestimar el poder de su apoyo”, le había dicho Ronna McDaniel, la presidenta del partido, a Trump. Y luego agregó: “Lo necesitamos”.Shane Goldmacher es reportero político nacional y antes fue el corresponsal político en jefe de la sección Metro. Antes de unirse al Times, trabajó en Politico, donde cubrió la política del Partido Republicano a nivel nacional y la campaña presidencial de 2016. @ShaneGoldmacher More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Only the Feds Can Disqualify Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene

      by

      The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are casting a long shadow over the midterm elections. Voters in North Carolina are seeking to bar Representative Madison Cawthorn from running for re-election to his House seat, and those in Georgia are trying to do the same to Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene.These voters have filed complaints with state elections officials arguing that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies members of Congress who engage in insurrection from appearing on the congressional ballot. (Challenges to other elected officials have also begun involving other candidates.)But these challenges face an intractable problem: Only the federal government — not the states — can disqualify insurrectionists from congressional ballots. States cannot unilaterally create procedures, unless authorized by federal statute, to keep accused insurrectionists off the congressional ballot.If these members of Congress engaged in insurrection, then the U.S. House of Representatives may exclude them, or federal prosecutors may charge them with the federal crime of insurrection. But in light of an important 1869 judicial decision, the cases against Mr. Cawthorn and Ms. Greene — which are currently mired in both state and federal proceedings — cannot remove the candidates from the congressional ballot.The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War. Section 3 disqualified many former Confederates from holding certain public offices if they had taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution but subsequently, as Section 3 declares, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Since 1868, the federal judiciary has had few occasions to interpret Section 3. As a result, the courts are largely in uncharted territory. Nevertheless, there is some important on-point precedent.An 1869 case concerning Hugh W. Sheffey is instructive for the Jan. 6 litigation and how courts might see things today. Mr. Sheffey took an oath to support the Constitution but later served as a member of the Confederate Virginia legislature, thereby actively supporting the Confederacy.After the war, he served as a state court judge. As Judge Sheffey, he presided over the trial and conviction of Caesar Griffin for shooting with an intent to kill. Later, Mr. Griffin challenged his conviction in federal court. He argued that Section 3 should have disqualified Mr. Sheffey from serving as judge. Griffin’s case, as it is known, was heard on appeal by the federal circuit court in Virginia. Salmon P. Chase, the chief justice of the United States and an appointee of President Abraham Lincoln, presided over the appeal. Chief Justice Chase ruled against Mr. Griffin, finding that Section 3 did not disqualify Judge Sheffey, despite the fact that he had taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and that it was “admitted,” as the case stated, that he later committed a Section 3 disqualifying offense.Chief Justice Chase reasoned “that legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — and that “only” Congress can enact that legislation. Chief Justice Chase added that the exclusion of disqualified office holders “can only be provided for by Congress.” Congress must create the procedure that would determine if a defendant violated Section 3. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment emphasizes this principle: Congress, it states, “shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”In short, Griffin’s case teaches that in legal terms, Section 3 is not self-executing — that is, Congress must establish, or at least authorize, the process that affords accused insurrectionists an opportunity to contest the allegations brought against them.Mr. Cawthorn and Ms. Greene deny that they engaged in insurrection and oppose any assertion that they violated the law, which would include Section 3 disqualifying offenses. Moreover, in the Cawthorn and Greene cases, the plaintiffs have not pointed to any federal legislation authorizing the states to police Section 3 by disqualifying accused insurrectionists from the congressional ballot. Without federal authorization, state elections boards and even state courts could very well be powerless to make determinations about congressional candidates and Section 3.There may be another way, based on an existing statute, to disqualify a candidate from congressional ballots: the Insurrection Act of 1862. This legislation, which predated the 14th Amendment, mirrors one of the disqualifying offenses established in Section 3.The modern Insurrection Act is virtually unchanged from the statute Lincoln signed in 1862. If the Justice Department indicts and succeeds in convicting Mr. Cawthorn, Ms. Greene or others of insurrection under that act, then on that basis, state elections boards and state courts may remove these candidates from the congressional ballot.Representative Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesBut so far, the Justice Department has not charged any congressional candidates with inciting or engaging in an insurrection or with any other disqualifying offenses. Most of the Jan. 6 federal charges have been based on things like property crimes or for obstructing official proceedings or assaulting officers rather than insurrection.If the Justice Department does not secure a conviction of a Section 3 disqualifying offense before the state ballot is printed (the primary in North Carolina is scheduled for May 17 and the one in Georgia for May 24), then, generally, state boards of election and even state courts will be powerless to remove otherwise eligible congressional candidates from the ballot.Recently, some scholars and advocates have contested Chief Justice Chase’s opinion in Griffin’s case as precluding the state challenges against Mr. Cawthorn and Ms. Greene. In their view, even in the absence of a federal statute, state election officials who conclude that a person engaged in insurrection may proceed to remove that candidate from the congressional ballot. There is no Supreme Court precedent that squarely forecloses that position. Moreover, Chief Justice Chase’s decision was not rendered by the United States Supreme Court, and so it is not controlling precedent. On Monday, a federal court in Georgia allowed the state court disqualification proceeding to go forward against Representative Greene. The federal judge did so without citing or distinguishing Griffin’s case.Still, we think the chief justice’s opinion is persuasive; we expect state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, will likely follow this historically entrenched position. Chief Justice Chase’s approach is the simplest path. If the courts find that Section 3 is not self-executing, there is no need for state election officials to decide far more politically charged questions about whether Mr. Cawthorn and Ms. Greene — and potentially, looking ahead to 2024, Donald Trump — engaged in insurrection.Congress has not authorized the states to enforce Section 3 by striking congressional candidates from the ballot. Thus, state courts and elections boards lack jurisdiction to exclude alleged insurrectionists from the congressional ballot. In such circumstances, state governments must let the people decide who will represent them in Congress.Josh Blackman is a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. S.B. Tillman is an associate professor at the Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology. They recently wrote a law review article about the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to President Trump.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Fearing a Trump Repeat, Jan. 6 Panel Considers Changes to Insurrection Act

      by

      The 1807 law allows a president to deploy American troops inside the country to put down a rebellion. Lawmakers fear it could be abused by a future president trying to stoke one.WASHINGTON — In the days before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, some of President Donald J. Trump’s most extreme allies and members of right-wing militia groups urged him to use his power as commander in chief to unleash the military to help keep him in office.Now, as the House committee investigating last year’s riot uncovers new evidence about the lengths to which Mr. Trump was willing to go to cling to power, some lawmakers on the panel have quietly begun discussions about rewriting the Insurrection Act, the 1807 law that gives presidents wide authority to deploy the military within the United States to respond to a rebellion.The discussions are preliminary, and debate over the act has been fraught in the aftermath of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Proponents envision a doomsday scenario in which a rogue future president might try to use the military to stoke — rather than put down — an insurrection, or to abuse protesters. But skeptics worry about depriving a president of the power to quickly deploy armed troops in the event of an uprising, as presidents did during the Civil War and the civil rights era.While Mr. Trump never invoked the law, he threatened to do so in 2020 to have the military crack down on crowds protesting the police killing of George Floyd. Stephen Miller, one of his top advisers, also proposed putting it into effect to turn back migrants at the southwestern border, an idea that was rejected by the defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper.And as Mr. Trump grasped for ways to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, some hard-right advisers encouraged him to declare martial law and deploy U.S. troops to seize voting machines. In the run-up to the Jan. 6 attack, members of right-wing militia groups also encouraged Mr. Trump to invoke the law, believing that he was on the brink of giving them approval to descend on Washington with weapons to fight on his behalf.“There are many of us who are of the view that the Insurrection Act, which the former president threatened to invoke multiple times throughout 2020, bears a review,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and a member of the Jan. 6 committee.While no evidence has emerged that Mr. Trump planned to invoke the act to stay in office, people close to him were pushing for him to do so. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, attended a meeting in the Oval Office on Dec. 18, 2020, in which participants discussed seizing voting machines, declaring a national emergency and invoking certain national security emergency powers. That meeting came after Mr. Flynn gave an interview to the right-wing television network Newsmax in which he talked about a purported precedent for deploying troops and declaring martial law to “rerun” the election.Some hard-right advisers to Mr. Trump encouraged him to declare martial law and deploy U.S. troops to seize voting machines after the 2020 election.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesThe idea was also floated by Roger J. Stone Jr., the political operative and longtime confidant of Mr. Trump, who told the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in an interview that Mr. Trump should consider invoking the Insurrection Act.In the weeks before the riot, the notion was prevalent among militia members and other hard-right supporters of Mr. Trump. It has surfaced repeatedly in evidence that federal prosectors and the House committee have obtained during their investigations into the Capitol attack.In December 2020, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia group, wrote an open letter to Mr. Trump in which he called on the president to “use the Insurrection Act to ‘stop the steal,’” begin seizing voting data and order a new election.“Clearly, an unlawful combination and conspiracy in multiple states (indeed, in every state) has acted to deprive the people of the fundamental right to vote for their representatives in a clear, fair election,” Mr. Rhodes wrote, adding, “You, and you alone, are fully authorized by the Insurrection Act to determine that such a situation exists and to use the U.S. military and militia to rectify that situation.”Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia group, wrote an open letter to Mr. Trump in which he called on the president to “use the Insurrection Act to ‘stop the steal.’”Jim Urquhart/ReutersIn text messages and social media posts ahead of the Capitol riot, other Oath Keepers members also discussed the possibility of Mr. Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. Two of them, Jessica Watkins and Kelly Meggs, the head of the militia’s Florida chapter, have been charged in connection with the attack.And Mr. Rhodes sent armed men to a hotel in Virginia on Jan. 6 to await Mr. Trump’s order, which the militia leader said would nullify Washington gun restrictions and allow the group to take up arms and fight for the president.The House committee, which has interviewed more than 850 witnesses, is charged with writing an authoritative report about the events that led to the violence of Jan. 6 and coming up with legislative recommendations to try to protect American democracy from a repeat. Though their recommendations are likely to garner widespread attention, they are not guaranteed to become law.One such recommendation is almost certainly to be an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act, which Mr. Trump and his allies tried to use to overturn the 2020 election. In recent weeks, the panel has begun discussing whether to call for revisions to the Insurrection Act, which empowers the president to deploy troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy.”The changes under discussion could add a higher and more detailed threshold for a president to meet before he could deploy troops domestically, including requiring consultation with Congress.“Essentially, the former president threatened by tweet to send in the armed services to take over civilian governments, because he saw things that he didn’t like on TV,” Ms. Lofgren said, referring to Mr. Trump’s threats to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to racial justice protests. “That’s not really the history of the use of the act, and maybe more definition of terms might be in order.”The last time lawmakers turned their attention to a potential overhaul of the Insurrection Act was after Mr. Trump threatened in 2020 to invoke it to crush protests that spread across the country after a white police officer killed Mr. Floyd, an unarmed Black man, in Minnesota.“If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” Mr. Trump said then. White House aides drafted a proclamation to invoke the Insurrection Act in case the president followed through with the threat.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3Debating a criminal referral. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Can Democrats Turn Their 2022 Around?

      by

      With the midterms just over six months away, the electoral prospects for Democrats are looking bleak. President Biden’s approval rating is at 42 percent, around where Donald Trump’s was at this point in his presidency. Recent polls asking whether Americans want Republicans or Democrats in Congress found that Republicans are leading by about 2 percentage points. And with inflation spiking to its highest point in decades, Covid cases rising and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continuing to send economic and humanitarian shock waves across the globe, things don’t look as if they are going to get better anytime soon.What will it take for Democrats to turn things around? What fights should they be picking with Republicans, and how should they be making the case that they deserve another chance at leading the country?[You can listen to this episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]Sean McElwee is a co-founder and the executive director of Data for Progress, a research organization that gathers polling data to strategize on behalf of progressive causes and policies. Anat Shenker-Osorio is a principal at ASO Communications, a political communications firm that conducts analytic and empirical research to help progressive political campaigns. McElwee and Shenker-Osorio have deeply influenced my thinking on how words work in American politics: how campaigns can meaningfully address what voters want and how they can persuade swing voters and motivate the party’s base.In this conversation, McElwee and Shenker-Osorio help me understand where Democrats stand with the electorate and what, if anything, they can do to improve their chances in 2022. We discuss why Biden’s approval rating is so low, given the popularity of his policies, why governing parties so often lose midterm elections, whether Democrats should focus more on persuading swing voters or on mobilizing their base, why it’s important for Democrats to get their base to sing from the same songbook, what Democrats can learn from Trump about winning voters’ attention, how Republicans are running politics on easy mode, whether it was wise politically for Biden to double down on the message to fund the police, what political fights Democrats should pick in the lead-up to the midterms, how the party should address spiking inflation and more.You can listen to our whole conversation by following “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts. View a list of book recommendations from our guests here.Warning: This episode contains explicit language.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)Photo courtesy of Ahmad Ali“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris and Kate Sinclair; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Jeff Geld; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski. More