Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Thomas Barrack, Trump Fund-Raiser, Is Indicted on Lobbying Charge

      by

      Mr. Barrack, the chairman of Donald Trump’s inaugural committee, was accused of failing to register as a lobbyist for the United Arab Emirates, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.WASHINGTON — Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a close friend of former President Donald J. Trump’s and one of his top 2016 campaign fund-raisers, was arrested in California on Tuesday on federal charges of failing to register as a foreign lobbyist, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.A seven-count indictment accused Mr. Barrack, 74, of using his access to Mr. Trump to advance the foreign policy goals of the United Arab Emirates and then repeatedly misleading federal agents about his activities during a June 2019 interview.Federal prosecutors said Mr. Barrack used his position as an outside adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign to publicly promote the Emirates’ agenda while soliciting direction, feedback and talking points from senior Emirati officials.Once Mr. Trump was elected, they said, Mr. Barrack invited senior Emirati officials to give him a “wish list” of foreign policy moves they wanted Washington to take within the first 100 days, first six months, first year and by the end of Mr. Trump’s term, prosecutors said.Among other key Emirati objectives, Mr. Barrack pushed for the Trump administration not to hold a summit with Qatar, a rival Persian Gulf power that was under a blockade that the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, an Emirati ally, had organized, they said.Mr. Barrack is latest in a long string of former Trump aides, fund-raisers and associates to face criminal charges. The former president’s company, the Trump Organization, and its chief financial officer were indicted this month on state fraud and tax charges. Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, pleaded guilty in a hush-money scandal.Mr. Trump pardoned his 2016 campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who had been convicted in the special counsel’s investigation, and his former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who had been under federal indictment on charges that he misused money he helped raise for a group backing Mr. Trump’s border wall.Authorities have scrutinized a number of Trump aides and associates over suspicions that they improperly provided governments or other foreign interests access to Mr. Trump, his campaign or his administration. The indictment portrayed Mr. Barrack as a flagrant example of abusing such influence.“The defendant is charged with extremely serious offenses based on conduct that strikes at the very heart of our democracy,” the prosecutors in the case wrote to a federal judge in Los Angeles, asking her to detain Mr. Barrack pending his removal to New York for a bail hearing. “The defendant is charged with acting under the direction or control of the most senior leaders of the U.A.E. over a course of years.”Matt Herrington, a lawyer for Mr. Barrack, said: “Tom Barrack has made himself voluntarily available to investigators from the outset. He is not guilty and will be pleading not guilty.”Two other men were also charged with acting as Emirati agents without registering with the Justice Department, as required: Matthew Grimes, a former top executive at Mr. Barrack’s company, and Rashid al-Malik Alshahhi, an Emirati businessman who is close to the Emirates’ rulers.Mr. Grimes, 27, was arrested on Tuesday. Authorities were unable to arrest Mr. al-Malik, 43. An Emirati citizen, he had long lived primarily in California, prosecutors said. But three years ago, after the F.B.I. interviewed him, he left the country and has not returned, prosecutors said in court papers. Lawyers or representatives for the two men could not reached for comment.Prosecutors said Mr. Trump was among those betrayed by Mr. Barrack’s hidden allegiance to a foreign government from early 2016 to early 2018. And Mr. Barrack’s hopes to influence Mr. Trump or his aides were sometimes dashed.For example, Mr. Barrack had hoped that Mr. Trump would name him to be a Middle East envoy or an ambassador to the Emirates. Prosecutors said that Mr. Barrack advised Mr. al-Malik that such posts would empower the Emirates, and that Mr. al-Malik agreed Mr. Barrack could “deliver more” in such roles.But Mr. Trump did not give Mr. Barrack either job, and he remained an outside adviser to the administration.The indictment suggests that Mr. Barrack was working in direct cooperation with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, the de facto ruler of the Emirates and ostensibly one of Washington’s closest partners in the region. That could have implications for current U.S. policy.The indictment does not explicitly name Crown Prince Mohammed, but appears to clearly refer to him as “Emirati Official 1.” For instance, it states that “Emirati Official 1” met with Mr. Trump at the White House on May 15, 2017, the same day Crown Prince Mohammed met with the president. Other descriptions also match that of Crown Prince Mohammed, often referred to by American officials as M.B.Z.The indictment said that “Emirati Official 1” worked with Mr. Barrack to help scuttle U.S. plans for a conference at Camp David, Md., to press the Emirates to mend the rift with Qatar, another American partner.The indictment also referred to Mr. Barrack’s work with “Emirati Official 5,” who appears to fit the description of the Emirates’ influential ambassador to Washington, Yousef al-Otaiba. The indictment said that early in the Trump transition, the official wrote to Mr. Barrack to ask if he had insight into the new administration’s foreign policy appointments.“I do, and we are working through them in real time and I have our regional interest in high profile,” Mr. Barrack wrote back, according to the indictment.Mr. Barrack’s real estate and private equity firm, Colony Capital, profited from substantial investments from the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, countries that are closely aligned. In the three years after Mr. Trump became the Republican Party’s nominee for president in July 2016, Colony Capital received about $1.5 billion from those two Persian Gulf countries through investments or other transactions. Of that, about $474 million came from sovereign wealth funds controlled by their governments.Mr. Barrack stepped down as Colony Capital’s executive chairman in March. The firm was recently renamed DigitalBridge. According to a filing this month with Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Barrack owns 10 percent of that firm and is one of its directors.Mr. Barrack has been friends with Mr. Trump since the 1980s. He helped raise money for Mr. Trump’s first presidential campaign and ran his transition team after Mr. Trump won. He was perhaps best known for leading Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee, which raised $107 million — the most money ever collected and spent to celebrate an inauguration.Critics claimed the committee became a hub for peddling access to foreign officials or business leaders, or those acting on their behalf, but investigations by several local jurisdictions into the committee’s activities petered out with no charges filed.The federal inquiry into Mr. Barrack’s ties with foreign leaders was an outgrowth of the investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.The special counsel’s work put a spotlight on violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA, and led to a greater effort by the Justice Department to enforce it. The law requires those who work for foreign governments, political parties or other entities to influence American policy or public opinion to disclose their activities to the department.Several former Trump aides who were charged by the special counsel acknowledged violating the statute in guilty pleas, including Mr. Manafort, the 2016 campaign chairman, and Rick Gates, the deputy chairman. Mr. Mueller referred Mr. Barrack’s case to the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, apparently because the allegations went beyond his investigative mandate.According to the indictment, Mr. al-Malik was a key intermediary between Mr. Barrack and the Emirati leadership. In court papers, prosecutors said Mr. Barrack told State Department officials in 2017 that he did not know where Mr. al-Malik was from or whether he was affiliated with any foreign government. But privately, prosecutors said, Mr. Barrack repeatedly referred to Mr. al-Malik as the Emirates’ “secret weapon” to advance its foreign policy agenda with the Trump campaign and administration.After one media appearance, Mr. Barrack emailed Mr. al-Malik, boasting that he had “nailed it” for the “home team” — meaning the Emirates, the indictment said. The two men repeatedly met personally with high-level leaders of the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, including in May, August and December of 2016, court papers say. Late Tuesday, a federal magistrate detained Mr. Barrack and Mr. Grimes, pending a bail hearing on Monday. Prosecutors had described Mr. Barrack as a flight risk, citing his wealth, Lebanese citizenship, private jet and deep ties to the Emirates and other Persian Gulf countries.The indictment comes at a delicate moment for U.S. diplomacy in the region because the Emirates is waiting for the Biden administration to finalize approval of a $23 billion sale of high-tech weaponry agreed upon under Mr. Trump — including 50 F-35 fighter jets, as well as sophisticated drones.Sharon LaFraniere More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Tom Brady Jokes About Election Results as Buccaneers Visit White House

      by

      President Biden’s administration has revived a tradition of championship invitations that had grown sporadic under former President Donald J. Trump.WASHINGTON — Until a few hours before kickoff, Tom Brady was questionable for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ celebration of their Super Bowl title at the White House. He was the most prolific winner of titles and decliner of presidential invitations in league history.But when the band struck up and President Biden strode onto the South Lawn to meet the championship team, Mr. Brady, the quarterback and seven-time N.F.L. champion, was there, smiling in a dark suit and sunglasses, leading a small procession including his coach, his team’s owner and the commander in chief himself.A few minutes later he was back in the spotlight, tossing off political jokes like slant routes, mostly targeting Mr. Biden’s predecessor, Donald J. Trump, a longtime friend of Mr. Brady’s.Mr. Brady first needled Mr. Trump’s baseless claims that he actually won the 2020 presidential election, which many Trump supporters still believe. The quarterback said many people did not believe the Buccaneers could win the championship last year.“I think about 40 percent of the people still don’t think we won,” Mr. Brady said.“I understand that,” Mr. Biden said.Mr. Brady turned to Mr. Biden. “You understand that, Mr. President?” he said.Mr. Biden smiled. “I understand that,” he said again.“Yeah,” Mr. Brady continued. “And personally, you know, it’s nice for me to be back here. We had a game in Chicago where I forgot what down it was. I lost track of one down in 21 years of playing, and they started calling me ‘Sleepy Tom.’ Why would they do that to me?”Mr. Biden — whom Mr. Trump frequently called “Sleepy Joe” during the campaign — played along. “I don’t know,” he said.Mr. Brady, 43, is the most accomplished signal caller in N.F.L. history. After leading the New England Patriots to six championships in his first two decades in the league, he quarterbacked Tampa Bay to a 31-9 Super Bowl victory over the Kansas City Chiefs in February, shortly after Mr. Biden was inaugurated. It earned him and his teammates a request to visit the president at the White House.But as of Monday, White House officials could not say for sure if he planned to attend.Mr. Brady missed several presidential team visits under Mr. Trump and President Barack Obama after winning previous Super Bowls. He last trekked to a White House title ceremony in 2005, when George W. Bush was in office. His attendance this time around was rumored on Monday, then confirmed by photos posted to social media on Tuesday morning.Mr. Biden has in recent weeks also hosted the World Series champion Los Angeles Dodgers, as his administration revives a tradition of championship invites that had grown sporadic under Mr. Trump after many players boycotted the festivities. An N.F.L. champion last visited the White House in 2017.On Tuesday, while Mr. Brady’s teammates stood on risers and baked in the heat of the White House lawn, the president praised the Bucs for their persistence in reeling off an unbeaten run to the championship after starting the season with seven wins and five losses.“This is a team that didn’t fold, got up, dug deep,” the president said. “It’s an incredible run.”He singled out Tampa Bay receiver Chris Godwin, who was born and raised in the same states as Mr. Biden. “Born in Pennsylvania, raised in Delaware,” the president said. “Where I come from, that’s a heck of a combination, man.”The president could not resist sprinkling in a few stories of his own, less accomplished football career. And he could not resist ribbing Mr. Brady — and himself — about their ages.“A lot has been made about the fact that we have the oldest coach ever to win a Super Bowl and the oldest quarterback to win the Super Bowl,” said Mr. Biden, who at 78 was the oldest person ever sworn in as president. “Well, I’ll tell you right now: You won’t hear any jokes about that from me. As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing wrong with being the oldest guy to make it to the mountaintop.”Eventually, Mr. Biden gave way to the team owner, Bryan Glazer, and coach, Bruce Arians, and then to Mr. Brady and his comedy routine.When the laughter from the relatively small crowd on the lawn died down, Mr. Brady and the Buccaneers prepared to give the president a customary personalized jersey, with “Biden” across the back and the number 46, for Mr. Biden’s presidency. The band prepared to play Queen’s “We Are the Champions” while players, including the quarterback, posed for photos with onlookers including several Florida politicians.But first Mr. Brady had one more joke, about how he planned to make the most of the remainder of his time at the White House.“We’re going to challenge — 11 of us — 11 White House interns to game of football here on the lawn,” Mr. Brady said.“And we intend to run it up on you guys, so get ready to go.” More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump, Covid and the Loneliness Breaking America

      by

      I wasn’t planning on reading any of the new batch of Donald Trump books. His vampiric hold on the nation’s attention for five years was nightmarish enough; one of the small joys of the post-Trump era is that it’s become possible to ignore him for days at a time. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      US Backed Haiti's Jovenel Moïse Even as Democracy Eroded

      by

      Washington dismissed warnings that democracy was unraveling under President Jovenel Moïse, leaving a gaping leadership void after his assassination.As protesters hurled rocks outside Haiti’s national palace and set fires on the streets to demand President Jovenel Moïse’s resignation, President Trump invited him to Mar-a-Lago in 2019, posing cheerfully with him in one of the club’s ornate entryways.After members of Congress warned that Mr. Moïse’s “anti-democratic abuses” reminded them of the run-up to the dictatorship that terrorized Haiti in decades past, the Biden administration publicly threw its weight behind Mr. Moïse’s claim on power.And when American officials urged the Biden administration to change course, alarmed that Haiti’s democratic institutions were being stripped away, they say their pleas went unheeded — and sometimes never earned a response at all.Through Mr. Moïse’s time in office, the United States backed his increasingly autocratic rule, viewing it as the easiest way of maintaining stability in a troubled country that barely figured into the priorities of successive administrations in Washington, current and former officials say.Even as Haiti spiraled into violence and political upheaval, they say, few in the Trump administration took seriously Mr. Moïse’s repeated warnings that he faced plots against his life. And as warnings of his authoritarianism intensified, the Biden administration kept up its public support for Mr. Moïse’s claim to power, even after Haiti’s Parliament emptied out in the absence of elections and Mr. Moïse ruled by decree.President Donald Trump welcomed Mr. Moïse and other Caribbean leaders to his Mar-a-Lago resort in March 2019.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesWhen Mr. Moïse was assassinated this month, it left a gaping leadership void that set off a scramble for power with the few elected officials remaining. The United States, which has held enormous sway in Haiti since invading the country more than 100 years ago, was suddenly urged to send in troops and help fix the mess.But in interviews with more than a dozen current and former officials, a common refrain emerged: Washington bore part of the blame, after brushing off or paying little attention to clear warnings that Haiti was lurching toward mayhem, and possibly making things worse by publicly supporting Mr. Moïse.“It was predictable that something would happen,” said Senator Patrick Leahy, of Vermont. “The message that we send by standing alongside these people is that we think they are legitimate representatives of the Haitian people. They’re not.”Critics say the American approach to Mr. Moïse followed a playbook the United States has used around the world for decades, often with major consequences for democracy and human rights: reflexively siding with or tolerating leaders accused of authoritarian rule because they advance American interests, or because officials fear instability in their absence.Mr. Moïse’s grip on power tightened notably under Mr. Trump, who spoke admiringly of a range of foreign autocrats. Mr. Trump was also bent on keeping Haitian migrants out of the United States (they “all have AIDS,” American officials recounted him saying). To the extent that Trump officials focused on Haitian politics at all, officials say, it was mainly to enlist the country in Mr. Trump’s campaign to oust his nemesis in the region: Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro.President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela in Caracas in 2018.Miraflores Palace, via ReutersThe Biden administration arrived in January consumed by the pandemic and a surge of migrants at the border with Mexico, leaving little bandwidth for the tumult convulsing Haiti, officials say. It publicly continued the Trump administration policy that Mr. Moïse was the legitimate leader, infuriating some members of Congress with a stance that one senior Biden official now calls a mistake.“Moïse is pursuing an increasingly authoritarian course of action,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, now the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a joint statement with two other Democrats in late December, warning of a repeat of the “anti-democratic abuses the Haitian people have endured” in the past.“We will not stand idly by while Haiti devolves into chaos,” they said.In a February letter to Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, they and other lawmakers called on the United States to “unambiguously reject” the push by Mr. Moïse, who had already ruled by decree for a year, to stay in power. They urged the Biden administration to push for “a legitimate transitional government” to help Haitians determine their own future and emerge from “a cascade of economic, public health, and political crises.”But Mr. Biden’s top adviser on Latin America, Juan Gonzalez, said that at the time, the administration did not want to appear to be dictating how the turmoil should be resolved.Rep. Gregory Meeks during a hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs after testimony from Secretary of State Antony Blinken in March.Pool photo by Ken Cedeno“Tipping our finger on the scale in that way could send a country that was already in a very unstable situation into crisis,” Mr. Gonzalez said.Past American political and military interventions into Haiti have done little to solve the country’s problems, and have sometimes created or aggravated them. “The solution to Haiti’s problems are not in Washington; they are in Port-au-Prince,” Haiti’s capital, Mr. Gonzalez said, so the Biden administration called for elections to take place before Mr. Moïse left office.“The calculus we made was the best decision was to focus on elections to try to use that as a way to push for greater freedom,” he added.In reality, critics say, the Biden administration was already tipping the scales by publicly supporting Mr. Moïse’s contention that he had another year in office, enabling him to preside over the drafting of a new Constitution that could significantly enhance the president’s powers.Mr. Moïse was certainly not the first leader accused of autocracy to enjoy Washington’s backing; he was not even the first in Haiti. Two generations of brutal Haitian dictators from the Duvalier family were among a long list of strongmen around the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere who received resolute American support, particularly as allies against Communism.“He may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch,” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt supposedly said of one of them (though accounts vary about whether the president was referring to American-backed dictators in Nicaragua or in the Dominican Republic).Supporters of the former dictators held photos of Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier and Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier during a court hearing in Port-au-Prince in 2013.Dieu Nalio Chery/Associated PressThe debate has continued in both Democratic and Republican administrations about how hard to push authoritarian allies for democratic reforms. Once the threat of Communist expansionism faded, American administrations worried more about instability creating crises for the United States, like a surge of migrants streaming toward its shores or the rise of violent extremism.Elliott Abrams, a foreign policy official in multiple Republican administrations and a special representative on Venezuela in the Trump administration, argued that Washington should support democracy when possible but sometimes has few alternatives to working with strongmen.“In Haiti, no one has developed a good formula for building a stable democracy, and the U.S. has been trying since the Marines landed there a hundred years ago,” he said.Early on in the Trump administration, Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former co-star on “The Apprentice” and new adviser to the president, began pressing Mr. Trump and his aides to engage with Haiti and support Mr. Moïse.Officials were wary. Haiti supported Venezuela at two meetings of the Organization of American States in 2017, turning Mr. Moïse into what one official called an enemy of the United States and scuttling her efforts to arrange a state visit by him..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“I believed that a state visit between Mr. Trump and Mr. Moïse would have been a strong show of support for Haiti from the U.S. during a time of civil unrest,” Ms. Newman said, adding in a separate statement: “Jovenel was a dear friend and he was committed to being a change agent for his beloved Haiti.”Mr. Moïse just after being sworn in as president of Haiti in February 2017.Dieu Nalio Chery/Associated PressThe episode underscored the degree to which some top Trump officials viewed Haiti as just a piece of its strategy toward Venezuela. And in the eyes of some lawmakers, Mr. Trump was not going to feel empathy for Haiti’s problems.“We are all aware of his perception of the nation — in that he spoke about ‘s-hole’ countries,” said Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, a co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus.By 2019, nationwide protests grew violent in Haiti as demonstrators demanding Mr. Moïse’s ouster clashed with the police, burned cars and marched on the national palace. Gang activity became increasingly brazen, and kidnappings spiked to an average of four a week.Mr. Trump and his aides showed few public signs of concern. In early 2019, Mr. Trump hosted Mr. Moïse at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, as part of a meeting with Caribbean leaders who had lined up against Mr. Maduro of Venezuela.By the next year, Mr. Moïse’s anti-democratic practices grew serious enough to command the attention of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who publicly warned Mr. Moïse against delaying parliamentary elections.A Haitian police officer aimed his weapon at protesters who were calling for the resignation of President Moïse in Port-au-Prince in 2019.Rebecca Blackwell/Associated PressBut beyond a few statements, the Trump administration did little to force the issue, officials said.“No one did anything to address the underlying weaknesses, institutionally and democratically,” over the past several years, said Peter Mulrean, who served as the American ambassador to Haiti from 2015 to 2017. “And so we shouldn’t really be surprised that the lid blew off again.”After Mr. Biden’s election, lawmakers and officials in Washington took up the issue with new urgency. Mr. Moïse, who came to office after a vote marred by low turnout and allegations of fraud, had been ruling by decree for a year because the terms of nearly all members of Parliament had expired and elections to replace them were never held.Mr. Moïse won a five-year term in 2016, but did not take office until 2017 amid the allegations of fraud, so he argued that he should stay until 2022. Democracy advocates in Haiti and abroad cried foul, but on Feb. 5, the Biden administration weighed in, supporting Mr. Moïses’s claim to power for another year. And it was not alone: International bodies like the Organization of American States took the same position.Port-au-Prince at dusk last week.Federico Rios for The New York TimesMr. Blinken later criticized Mr. Moïse’s rule by decree and called for “genuinely free and fair elections this year.” But the Biden administration never withdrew its public position upholding Mr. Moïse’s claim to remain in office, a decision that Rep. Andy Levin, a co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus, blamed for helping him retain his grip on the country and continue its anti-democratic slide.“It’s a tragedy that he was able to stay there,” Mr. Levin said.The Biden administration has rebuffed calls by Haitian officials to send troops to help stabilize the country and prevent even more upheaval. A group of American officials recently visited to meet with various factions now vying for power and urge them “to come together, in a broad political dialogue,” Mr. Gonzalez said.The Americans had planned to visit the port to assess its security needs, but decided against it after learning that gangs were occupying the area, blocking the delivery of fuel.“How can we have elections in Haiti when gang members control 60 percent of the territory?” said Pierre Esperance, executive director of the Haitian National Human Rights Defense Network. “It will be gangs that organize the elections.”David Kirkpatrick contributed reporting. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      EE. UU. apoyó a Jovenel Moïse incluso al deteriorarse la democracia

      by

      Washington desestimó las advertencias de que la democracia se desmoronaba durante el mandato de Jovenel Moïse, lo que ha dejado un vacío de liderazgo después de su asesinato.Mientras los manifestantes lanzaban piedras afuera del palacio nacional de Haití y encendían hogueras en las calles para exigir la renuncia del presidente Jovenel Moïse, el presidente de Estados Unidos Donald Trump lo invitó a Mar-a-Lago en 2019, para luego posar sonriente junto a él en una de las entradas decoradas del club.Después de que miembros del Congreso advirtieron que los “abusos contrarios a la democracia” de Moïse les recordaban el periodo previo a la dictadura que aterrorizó a Haití en décadas pasadas, el gobierno de Biden respaldó en público el reclamo del poder de Moïse.Y, cuando los funcionarios estadounidenses instaron al gobierno de Biden a cambiar de rumbo, alarmados por el hecho de que las instituciones democráticas de Haití estaban desapareciendo, según dicen, sus súplicas no fueron escuchadas y en ocasiones no obtuvieron respuesta alguna.Durante el mandato de Moïse, Estados Unidos apoyó su gobierno, cada vez más autócrata, por considerarlo la manera más sencilla de mantener la estabilidad en un país con problemas que apenas figuraba en las prioridades de los sucesivos gobiernos de Washington, según funcionarios actuales y de gobiernos anteriores.Incluso cuando Haití entró en una espiral de violencia y agitación política, dicen, pocos en el gobierno de Trump tomaron en serio las repetidas advertencias de Moïse de que había complots para acabar con su vida. Y mientras se intensificaban las advertencias sobre su autoritarismo, el gobierno de Biden mantuvo su apoyo público al reclamo de poder de Moïse, incluso después de que el Parlamento de Haití quedó vacío por falta de elecciones y Moïse gobernó por decreto.El presidente Donald Trump recibió a  Moïse y otros líderes caribeños en Mar-a-Lago en marzo de 2019.Tom Brenner para The New York TimesEl asesinato de Moïse este mes dejó un enorme vacío de liderazgo que desencadenó una lucha por el poder entre los pocos funcionarios electos que quedaban. Estados Unidos, que ha tenido una enorme influencia en Haití desde que invadió el país hace más de cien años, de repente, se vio instado a enviar a su ejército y a ayudar a arreglar el desorden.Sin embargo, en entrevistas con más de una decena de funcionarios actuales y anteriores un comentario se repitió con frecuencia: Washington tiene parte de la culpa, después de haber ignorado o prestado poca atención a las claras advertencias de que Haití se tambaleaba hacia el caos y de que tal vez haya empeorado las cosas al apoyar de manera abierta a Moïse.“Era predecible que ocurriera algo”, aseveró el senador de Vermont Patrick Leahy. “El mensaje que enviamos al apoyar a estas personas es que creemos que son representantes legítimos del pueblo haitiano. No lo son”.Los críticos afirman que la estrategia que Estados Unidos aplicó con Moïse se basó en un manual que este país ha usado en todo el mundo desde hace décadas, a menudo con serias consecuencias para la democracia y los derechos humanos: aliarse o tolerar por reflejo a líderes acusados de gobernar de manera dictatorial porque promueven los intereses estadounidenses o porque los funcionarios temen la inestabilidad en su ausencia.El control de Moïse sobre el poder se fortaleció de manera importante durante el mandato de Trump, quien profesó su admiración por varios autócratas extranjeros. Trump también se empeñó en mantener a los migrantes haitianos fuera de Estados Unidos (funcionarios estadounidenses recordaron haberlo escuchado decir que “todos tienen SIDA”). Según fuentes oficiales, si los funcionarios de Trump se centraron en la política haitiana, fue principalmente para reclutar al país en la campaña de Trump para derrocar a su némesis en la región: el líder de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro.El presidente Nicolás Maduro de Venezuela en Caracas en 2018Palacio de Miraflores, vía ReutersLos funcionarios agregan que el gobierno de Biden llegó a la Casa Blanca en enero consumido por la pandemia y una oleada de migrantes en la frontera con México, lo que dejó poco espacio de maniobra para el tumulto que convulsiona a Haití. El nuevo gobierno dio continuidad a la política del gobierno de Trump, según la cual Moïse era el líder legítimo, postura que enfureció a algunos miembros del Congreso y que un alto funcionario de Biden ahora califica de error.“Moïse está siguiendo un curso de acción cada vez más autoritario”, dijo el representante Gregory Meeks, quien preside la Comisión de Asuntos Exteriores de la Cámara de Representantes, en una declaración conjunta con otros dos demócratas a finales de diciembre en la que advirtió de una repetición de los “abusos antidemocráticos que el pueblo haitiano ha soportado” en el pasado.“No vamos a quedarnos de brazos cruzados mientras Haití se sumerge en el caos”, dijeron.En una carta enviada en febrero al Secretario de Estado Antony J. Blinken, ellos y otros legisladores pidieron a Estados Unidos que “rechazara sin ambigüedades” el intento de Moïse, que ya había gobernado por decreto durante un año, de mantenerse en el poder. Instaron al gobierno de Biden a impulsar “un gobierno de transición legítimo” para ayudar a los haitianos a determinar su propio futuro y salir de “un torrente de crisis económica, de salud pública y política”.No obstante, el principal asesor de Biden para América Latina, Juan González, declaró que en ese momento el gobierno no quería dar la impresión de que quería imponer cómo debía resolverse la crisis.El congresista Gregory Meeks durante una audiencia del Comité de Asuntos Exteriores de la Cámara de Representantes después de la comparecencia del secretario de Estado Antony Blinken en marzo.Foto de consorcio por Ken Cedeno“Hacer que la balanza se inclinara de esa manera podría llevar a un país que ya estaba en una situación muy inestable a la crisis”, afirmó González.Las anteriores intervenciones políticas y militares de Estados Unidos en Haití hicieron poco por resolver los problemas del país y en ocasiones los generaron o agravaron. “La solución a los problemas de Haití no está en Washington, sino en Puerto Príncipe”, la capital de Haití, dijo González, por lo que el gobierno de Biden pidió que se celebraran elecciones antes de que Moïse dejara el cargo.“El cálculo que hicimos fue que la mejor decisión era centrarse en las elecciones para tratar de utilizarlas como una forma de impulsar una mayor libertad”, añadió.A decir de los críticos, la realidad es que el gobierno de Biden ya había inclinado la balanza al apoyar de manera pública el argumento de Moïse de que le quedaba un año más en el cargo, lo que le permitiría presidir la redacción de una nueva Constitución que podría aumentar de manera significativa las facultades del presidente.Moïse no es el primer gobernante acusado de ser un autócrata que cuenta con el apoyo de Washington; ni siquiera es el primero en Haití. Dos generaciones de brutales dictadores haitianos de la familia Duvalier forman parte de una larga lista de autócratas de todo el Caribe, América Latina, el Medio Oriente y otros lugares que recibieron el apoyo decidido de Estados Unidos, en particular como aliados contra el comunismo.“Puede que sea un desgraciado, pero ese desgraciado está con nosotros”, se dice que declaró el presidente Franklin Delano Roosevelt sobre uno de ellos (aunque las versiones varían sobre si el presidente se refería a los dictadores apoyados por Estados Unidos en Nicaragua o en la República Dominicana).Los partidarios de los exdictadores sostienen fotos de Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier y Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier durante una audiencia judicial en Puerto Príncipe en 2013.Dieu Nalio Chery/Associated PressEl debate sobre cómo presionar a los aliados autócratas para que realicen reformas democráticas ha continuado durante gobiernos demócratas y republicanos. Después de que la amenaza del expansionismo comunista se desvaneció, los gobiernos estadounidenses se preocuparon más por la inestabilidad que creaba crisis para Estados Unidos, como la oleada de migrantes que llegaban a sus costas o el aumento del extremismo violento.Elliott Abrams, funcionario de relaciones exteriores en varios gobiernos republicanos y representante especial en Venezuela durante el gobierno de Trump, argumentó que Washington debe apoyar la democracia cuando sea posible, pero a veces tiene pocas alternativas cuando se trata de autócratas.“En Haití, nadie ha desarrollado una buena fórmula para construir una democracia estable y Estados Unidos lo ha intentado desde que los marines desembarcaron allí hace cien años”, aseveró.Al principio del mandato de Trump, Omarosa Manigault Newman, ex coprotagonista de “El Aprendiz” y luego asesora del presidente, comenzó a presionar a Trump y a sus asesores para que se comprometieran con Haití y apoyaran a Moïse.Funcionarios del gobierno se mostraron cautelosos. Haití apoyó a Venezuela en dos reuniones de la Organización de Estados Americanos en 2017, lo cual convirtió a Moïse en lo que un funcionario calificó de enemigo de Estados Unidos y echó por tierra sus esfuerzos para organizar una visita de Estado a Estados Unidos.“Creía que una visita de Estado entre Trump y Moïse habría sido una muestra contundente del apoyo de Estados Unidos a Haití en un momento de agitación civil”, dijo Newman, quien agregó en otra declaración: “Jovenel era un buen amigo y estaba comprometido a ser un agente del cambio para su amado Haití”.Moïse poco después de tomar posesión como presidente en febrero de 2017.Dieu Nalio Chery/Associated PressEl episodio subrayó hasta qué punto algunos altos funcionarios de Trump consideraban a Haití como una pieza más de su estrategia hacia Venezuela. Y a los ojos de algunos legisladores, Trump no iba a sentir empatía por los problemas de Haití.“Todos somos conscientes de su percepción de la nación, cuando hizo referencia a los países de mierda”, comentó la representante republicana de Nueva York Yvette Clarke, quien copreside el caucus de Haití de la Cámara de Representantes.Para 2019, las protestas en todo Haití se volvieron violentas cuando los manifestantes que exigían la destitución de Moïse se enfrentaron a la policía, quemaron automóviles y marcharon hacia el palacio nacional. La actividad de las pandillas se volvió cada vez más descarada y los secuestros se dispararon a un promedio de cuatro a la semana.Trump y sus asesores mostraron escasos signos públicos de preocupación. A principios de 2019, Trump recibió a Moïse en su club Mar-a-Lago en Palm Beach, Florida, como parte de una reunión con los líderes del Caribe que se habían alineado contra el presidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro.Al año siguiente, las prácticas antidemocráticas de Moïse se agravaron lo suficiente como para llamar la atención del Secretario de Estado Mike Pompeo, quien advirtió en una declaración que Moïse no debía retrasar las elecciones parlamentarias.Un oficial de policía haitiano dirige su arma hacia los manifestantes que pedían la renuncia del presidente Moïse en Puerto Príncipe en 2019.Rebecca Blackwell/Associated PressSin embargo, salvo algunas declaraciones, el gobierno de Trump hizo poco para impulsar la cuestión, dijeron los funcionarios.“Nadie hizo nada para abordar las debilidades subyacentes, institucionales y democráticas” en los últimos años, afirmó Peter Mulrean, quien se desempeñó como embajador estadounidense en Haití entre 2015 y 2017. “Y, por lo tanto, no deberíamos sorprendernos realmente de que la situación se haya desbordado de nuevo”.Después de que Biden resultó electo, los legisladores y funcionarios en Washington retomaron el tema con nueva urgencia. Moïse, quien llegó al cargo tras una votación empañada por la escasa participación y las acusaciones de fraude, llevaba un año gobernando por decreto debido a que el mandato de casi todos los miembros del Parlamento había expirado y nunca se celebraron elecciones para sustituirlos.Moïse ganó un mandato de cinco años en 2016, pero no tomó posesión sino hasta 2017 en medio de acusaciones de fraude, por lo que argumentó que debía permanecer en el cargo hasta 2022. Los defensores de la democracia en Haití y en el extranjero manifestaron su descontento, pero el 5 de febrero, el gobierno de Biden se pronunció y apoyó el reclamo de Moïse de permanecer un año más en el poder. Y no fue el único: organismos internacionales como la Organización de Estados Americanos adoptaron la misma postura.Puerto Príncipe al atardecer esta semanaFederico Rios para The New York TimesPosteriormente, Blinken criticó que Moïse gobernara por decreto y convocó a que hubiera “elecciones de verdad libres y justas este año”. No obstante, el gobierno de Biden nunca se retractó de su postura pública de apoyar el reclamo de Moïse de permanecer en el cargo, una decisión que según el representante Andy Levin, quien copreside el Caucus de Haití de la Cámara de Representantes, ayudó a que el presidente haitiano mantuviera su control sobre el país y a que continuara su declive antidemocrático.“Es una tragedia que haya podido permanecer allí”, dijo Levin.El gobierno de Biden ha rechazado los llamados de las autoridades haitianas para que envíe al ejército a ayudar a estabilizar el país y así evitar más disturbios. Hace poco, un grupo de funcionarios estadounidenses visitó el país para reunirse con las distintas facciones que se disputan el poder e instarlas a “unirse en un amplio diálogo político”, comentó González.Los estadounidenses habían planeado visitar el puerto para evaluar sus necesidades de seguridad, pero decidieron no hacerlo tras enterarse de que las pandillas se habían apoderado de la zona y bloqueaban la entrega de combustible.“¿Cómo podemos celebrar elecciones en Haití cuando los miembros de las pandillas controlan el 60 por ciento del territorio?”, preguntó Pierre Esperance, director ejecutivo de la Red Nacional de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos de Haití. “Serán las pandillas las que organicen las elecciones”.David Kirkpatrick colaboró con este reportaje. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Two Men Charged With Plotting to Blow Up California Democratic Headquarters

      by

      The men consulted with an antigovernment paramilitary organization and hoped to start a “movement” that could keep former President Donald J. Trump in office.Angered by the results of the 2020 presidential election, two men in Northern California plotted for months to blow up the state Democratic Party headquarters in Sacramento, according to federal authorities.The men, who face conspiracy and weapons charges, consulted with an antigovernment paramilitary organization, hoping to start a “movement” that could keep former President Donald J. Trump in office. Using encrypted messaging apps, they discussed various targets, including the Governor’s Mansion as well as Twitter and Facebook offices, court documents said.“I want to blow up a democrat building bad,” documents quoted one defendant, Ian Benjamin Rogers, 45, as texting to the other man, Jarrod Copeland, 37.The suspected plot is the latest in a range of antigovernment activity linked to the 2020 election and its aftermath, some of it involving paramilitary groups.Mr. Rogers was arrested on Jan. 15 on state weapons charges after a search of his home and business turned up some 50 firearms, thousands of rounds of ammunition and five pipe bombs, court papers said. He has been held in jail in Napa County since his arrest.Black powder, pipes and other bomb-making material as well as various military manuals like the “U.S. Army Improvised Munitions Handbook” were also found, prosecutors said. Mr. Copeland was arrested on Thursday, when he and Mr. Rogers were indicted in federal court in San Francisco on charges of conspiring to attack the Democratic headquarters. Mr. Rogers also faces federal weapons charges.Mr. Copeland is accused of obstruction of justice charges and is suspected of erasing his communications about the plot after he learned that Mr. Rogers had been arrested. The charges of conspiracy to commit arson carry potential jail sentences of up to 20 years.Colin L. Cooper, a lawyer for Mr. Rogers, denied the charges. “He had nothing to do whatsoever with planning to storm the Democratic headquarters up in Sacramento,” Mr. Cooper said.John A. Ambrosio, Mr. Copeland’s lawyer, said he had entered a plea of not guilty and declined further comment. Mr. Copeland said in the documents that he thought Mr. Rogers just wanted to “blow off steam,” and that he did not take the threats seriously.In late November, according to the indictment, the two men began using text messages to discuss possible Democratic targets, including George Soros, a high-profile donor, before settling on the John L. Burton Democratic Headquarters in Sacramento.A month later, Mr. Copeland messaged to say he had contacted an antigovernment paramilitary group with the aim of gathering support for their “movement.” The two groups he mentioned in seeking help were the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters.Court papers said both Mr. Copeland and Mr. Rogers had been previously affiliated with the Three Percenters, whose name is based on the false premise that just 3 percent of American colonists fought the British in the Revolutionary War.A photograph of a Three Percenters sticker on a vehicle said to belong to Mr. Rogers was included in the documents.In text messages, Mr. Rogers said the two men should begin their attacks after the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20.In one of the texts obtained by the federal agents, Mr. Rogers wrote, “The democrats need to pay.” In reference to Mr. Trump, he added, “I hope 45 goes to war if he doesn’t I will.”Mr. Rogers ran an auto repair company in the city of Napa that specialized in servicing high-end British vehicles. When asked in a 2014 interview with a local news organization which person he admired most, his first response was Mr. Trump.Mr. Copeland, from Vallejo, joined the military in December 2013 but was arrested on desertion charges in both 2014 and 2016, when he received a dishonorable discharge, the court papers said. He is the manager at a tool company.The two men discussed the probability that they would be labeled terrorists but waved off the issue. “We will get tagged as domestic terrorists,” Mr. Copeland wrote at one point. Mr. Rogers responded, according to the court documents, “Like I care what we are labeled,” adding, “I just hope our actions will make others to get involved.”Kitty Bennett More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Lean Into It. Lean Into the Culture War.’

      by

      Should responsibility for the rampant polarization that characterizes American politics today be laid at the feet of liberals or conservatives? I posed that question to my friend Bill Galston, a senior fellow at Brookings and a columnist at The Wall Street Journal.He emailed me his reply:It is fair to say that the proponents of cultural change have been mostly on offense since Brown v. the Board of Education, while the defenders of the status quo have been on defense.Once the conflict enters the political arena, though, other factors come into play, Galston argues:Intensity makes a huge difference, and on many of the cultural issues, including guns and immigration, the right is more intense than the left.Galston put it like this:When being “right” on a cultural controversy becomes a threshold issue for an intense minority, it can drive the party much farther to the left or right than its median voter.Along with intensity, another driving force in escalating polarization, in Galston’s view, is elite behavior:Newt Gingrich believed that the brand of politics Bob Michel practiced had contributed to House Republicans’ 40-year sojourn in the political desert. Gingrich decided to change this, starting with Republicans’ vocabulary and tactics. This proved effective, but at the cost of rising incivility and declining cooperation between the political parties. Once the use of terms such as “corruption,” “disgrace” and “traitor” becomes routine in Congress, the intense personal antipathy these words express is bound to trickle down to rank-and-file party identifiers.The race and gender issues that have come to play such a central role in American politics are rooted in the enormous changes in society from the 1950s to the 1970s, Galston wrote:The United States in the early 1950s resembled the country as it had been for decades. By the early 1970s, everything had changed, stunning Americans who had grown up in what seemed to them to be a stable, traditional society and setting the stage for a conservative reaction. Half a century after the Scopes trial, evangelical Protestantism re-entered the public square and soon became an important build-block of the coalition that brought Ronald Reagan to power.One of the biggest changes in the country in the wake of the civil rights and immigration reforms of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s has been in the demographic makeup of the nation. Seventy years ago, the country was 89.5 percent white, according to the census. By 2019, the white share of the population fell to 60.1 percent. In 2019, Pew Research reported:Nonwhites are about twice as likely as whites to say having a majority nonwhite population will be good for the country: 51 percent of all nonwhite adults — including 53 percent of blacks and 55 percent of Hispanics — say this, compared with 26 percent of whites.In many ways, this transformation posed a challenge to customary social expectations. “How would the progressive cultural program deal with traditionalist dissent?” Galston asked:One option was to defuse a portion of the dissent by carving out exceptions to religious and conscience-based objections. The other was to use law to bring the objectors to heel. Regrettably, the latter course prevailed, generating conflicts over abortion with the Little Sisters of the Poor, with a baker over a cake for a same-sex wedding, among others, and with Catholic social service providers over same-sex adoptions.Recently two columnists who are hardly sympathetic to Trump or Trumpism — far from it — raised questions about whether the right or the left deserves blame or responsibility for the kind of conflicts that now roil elections. Kevin Drum, in “If you hate the culture wars, blame liberals,” and Damon Linker, in “The myth of asymmetric polarization,” make the case that the left has been the aggressor in the culture wars.“It is not conservatives who have turned American politics into a culture war battle. It is liberals. And this shouldn’t come as a surprise,” Drum wrote. “Almost by definition, liberals are the ones pushing for change while conservatives are merely responding to whatever liberals do.” Linker took this a step further, arguing that progressives do not want to acknowledge that “on certain issues wrapped up with the culture war, Democrats have moved further and faster to the left than Republicans have moved to the right,” because to do so “would require that they cede some of the moral high ground in their battles with conservatives, since it would undermine the preferred progressive narrative according to which the right is motivated entirely by bad faith and pure malice.”Drum and Linker were quickly followed by other commentators, including Peggy Noonan, a conservative columnist for The Wall Street Journal, who wrote a piece that was summed up nicely by its headline: “The Culture War Is a Leftist Offensive.”I asked Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, for his assessment of the Drum and Linker arguments, and he wrote back:It strains credulity to argue that Democrats have been pushing culture-war issues more than Republicans. It’s mostly Republican elites who have accentuated these issues to attract more and more working-class white voters even as they pursue a plutocratic economic agenda that’s unpopular among those voters. Certainly, Biden has not focused much on cultural issues since entering office — his key agenda items are all bread-and-butter economic policies. Meanwhile, we have Republicans making critical race theory and transgender sports into big political issues (neither of which, so far as I can tell, hardly mattered to voters at all before they were elevated by right-wing media and the G.O.P.).Hacker provided me with a graphic of ideological trends from 1969 to 2020 in House and Senate voting by party that clearly shows much more movement to the right among Republicans than movement to the left among Democrats.There is substantial evidence in support of Hacker’s argument that Republican politicians and strategists have led the charge in raising hot-button issues. On June 24, for example, Representative Jim Banks of Indiana, chairman of the Republican Study Committee — a group of conservative members of the House — sent out a memo telling colleagues:We are in a culture war. On one side, Republicans are working to renew American patriotism and rebuild our country. On the other, Democrats have embraced and given a platform to a radical element who want to tear America down.The letter ends: “My encouragement to you is lean into it. Lean into the culture war.”At the state legislative level, The Associated Press — in an April story, “In G.O.P. strongholds, a big push on ‘culture war’ legislation” — cited a surge in legislation restricting transgender surgery and banning the teaching of critical race theory.In this view, the left may start culture war conflicts, but the right is far more aggressive in politicizing them, both in legislative chambers and in political campaigns.Conversely, Andrew Sullivan, in “What Happened to You? The radicalization of the American elite against liberalism,” makes the case that the extreme left has created a hostile environment not only for conservatives but also for traditional liberals:Look how far the left’s war on liberalism has gone. Due process? If you’re a male on campus, gone. Privacy? Stripped away — by anonymous rape accusations, exposure of private emails, violence against people’s private homes, screaming at folks in restaurants, sordid exposés of sexual encounters, eagerly published by woke mags. Nonviolence? Exceptions are available if you want to “punch a fascist.” Free speech? Only if you don’t mind being fired and ostracized as a righteous consequence. Free association? You’ve got to be kidding. Religious freedom? Illegitimate bigotry. Equality? Only group equity counts now, and individuals of the wrong identity can and must be discriminated against. Colorblindness? Another word for racism. Mercy? Not for oppressors. Intent? Irrelevant. Objectivity? A racist lie. Science? A manifestation of white supremacy. Biological sex? Replaced by socially constructed gender so that women have penises and men have periods. The rule of law? Not for migrants or looters. Borders? Racist. Viewpoint diversity? A form of violence against the oppressed.Drum and Linker base much of their argument on Pew Research data (illustrated by the graphic below) to prove that the Democratic Party has shifted much farther to the left than the Republican Party has shifted to the right. On a zero (very liberal) to 10 (very conservative) scale, Drum wrote, “between 1994 and 2017, Democrats had gotten three points more liberal while Republicans had gotten about half a point more conservative.”A Nation DividedDemocrats and Republicans have drifted further apart over the years, as measured by a 10-point scale of political values. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Speaks on Voting Rights in Philadelphia

      by

      WASHINGTON — President Biden said on Tuesday that the fight against restrictive voting laws was the “most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War” and called Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election “a big lie.”In an impassioned speech in Philadelphia, Mr. Biden tried to reinvigorate the stalled Democratic effort to pass federal voting rights legislation and called on Republicans “in Congress and states and cities and counties to stand up, for God’s sake.”“Help prevent this concerted effort to undermine our election and the sacred right to vote,” the president said in remarks at the National Constitution Center. “Have you no shame?”But his words collided with reality: Even as Republican-led bills meant to restrict voting access make their way through statehouses across the country, two bills aiming to expand voting rights nationwide are languishing in Congress. And Mr. Biden has bucked increasing pressure from Democrats to support pushing the legislation through the Senate by eliminating the filibuster, no matter the political cost.In fact, the president seemed to acknowledge that the legislation had little hope of passing as he shifted his focus to the midterm elections.“We’re going to face another test in 2022,” Mr. Biden said. “A new wave of unprecedented voter suppression, and raw and sustained election subversion. We have to prepare now.”He said he would start an effort “to educate voters about the changing laws, register them to vote and then get the vote out.”The partisan fight over voting rights was playing out even as the president spoke, with a group of Texas Democrats fleeing their state to deny Republicans the quorum they need to pass new voting restrictions there.In his speech, Mr. Biden characterized the conspiracy theories about the 2020 election — hatched and spread by his predecessor, Mr. Trump — as a “darker and more sinister” underbelly of American politics. He did not mention Mr. Trump by name but warned that “bullies and merchants of fear” had posed an existential threat to democracy.“No other election has ever been held under such scrutiny, such high standards,” Mr. Biden said. “The big lie is just that: a big lie.”About a dozen Republican-controlled states passed laws this spring to restrict voting or significantly change election rules, in part because of Mr. Trump’s efforts to sow doubt about the 2020 results.Republicans, who have called Democrats’ warnings about democracy hyperbolic, argue that laws are needed to tamp down on voter fraud, despite evidence that it is not a widespread problem. They have mounted an aggressive campaign to portray Mr. Biden’s voting-rights efforts as self-serving federalization of elections to benefit Democrats.The president’s speech, delivered against the backdrop of the birthplace of American democracy, was intended to present the right to vote as a shared ideal, despite the realities of a deeply fractured political landscape.Democratic efforts to pass voting rights legislation in Washington have stalled in the evenly divided Senate. Last month, Republicans filibustered the broad elections overhaul known as the For the People Act, and they are expected to do the same if Democrats try to bring up the other measure — the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, named for a former Georgia congressman and civil rights icon — which would restore parts of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013.In a statement, Danielle Álvarez, the communications director for the Republican National Committee, said that Mr. Biden’s speech amounted to “lies and theatrics.” Republicans had unanimously rejected the For the People Act as a Democratic attempt to “pass their federal takeover of our elections,” she said.There were also concerns among more moderate members of Mr. Biden’s party that the legislation was too partisan. Senators Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have publicly said they would not support rolling back the filibuster to enact it.But other Democrats see a worrying increase in efforts by Republican-led state legislatures to restrict voting, along with court rulings that would make it harder to fight encroachments on voting rights.A Supreme Court ruling this month weakened the one enforcement clause of the Voting Rights Act that remained after the court invalidated its major provision in 2013. Mr. Biden said last year that strengthening the act would be one of his first priorities after taking office; but on Tuesday, he sought to shift responsibility to lawmakers.“The court’s decision, as harmful as it is, does not limit the Congress’s ability to repair the damage done,” the president said. “As soon as Congress passes the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, I will sign it and want the whole world to see it.”His rallying cry only underscored the impossibility of the task: Neither bill currently has a path to his desk.Activists who had wondered whether Mr. Biden would stake out a public position on the filibuster got their answer on Tuesday: “I’m not filibustering now,” the president told reporters who shouted questions after his speech.“It was strange to hear,” Eli Zupnick, a spokesman for the anti-filibuster group Fix Our Senate, said after watching the speech. “He did a great job of laying out the problem, but then stopped short of talking about the actual solution that would be needed to passing legislation to address the problem.”As Mr. Biden spoke in Philadelphia, the group of Texas Democrats had traveled to Washington, where they were trying to delay state lawmakers from taking up restrictive voting measures.Representative Marc Veasey, Democrat of Texas, speaking at a press conference with Democratic members of the Texas Legislature on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesBoth measures would ban 24-hour voting and drive-through voting; prohibit election officials from proactively sending absentee ballot applications to voters who had not requested them; add new voter identification requirements for voting by mail; limit the types of assistance that can be provided to voters; and greatly expand the authority and autonomy of partisan poll watchers.In Austin, Republicans vented their anger at the fleeing group, and Gov. Greg Abbott vowed to call “special session after special session after special session” until an election bill passed. The handful of Democratic lawmakers who did not go to Washington were rounded up and ordered onto the Statehouse floor. Shawn Thierry, a Democratic state representative from Houston, posted to Twitter a video of a Statehouse sergeant-at-arms and a state trooper entering her office to order her to be locked in the House chamber.“This is not an issue about Democrats or Republicans,” Vice President Kamala Harris told the Texas lawmakers when she met with them on Tuesday. “This is about Americans and how Americans are experiencing this issue.”James Talarico, 32, the youngest member of the Texas Legislature, said the group of Democrats had gone to Washington, in part, to pressure Mr. Biden to do more.“We can’t listen to more speeches,” Mr. Talarico said. “I’m incredibly proud not only as a Democrat but also an American of what President Biden has accomplished in his first few months in office. But protecting our democracy should have been at the very top of the list, because without it none of these issues matter.”The restrictions in the Texas bills mirror key provisions of a restrictive law passed this year in Georgia, which went even further to assert Republican control over the State Election Board and empower the party to suspend county election officials. In June, the Justice Department sued Georgia over the law, the Biden administration’s first significant move to challenge voter restrictions at the state level.“The 21st-century Jim Crow assault is real,” Mr. Biden said as he listed the details of the Texas bills. “It’s unrelenting, and we are going to challenge it vigorously.”Zolan Kanno-Youngs More