Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Impeachment Defense Team: Twisted Facts and Other Staples of the Trump Playbook

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentFriday’s HighlightsDay 4: Key TakeawaysWhat Is Incitement?Trump’s LawyersAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFor the Defense: Twisted Facts and Other Staples of the Trump PlaybookThe lawyers representing the former president in his impeachment trial are the latest in a rotating cast that has always had trouble satisfying a mercurial and headstrong client.Two of Donald J. Trump’s lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr., left, and Michael van der Veen, arrived at the Capitol on Friday. For many reasons, serving as one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers is a true high-wire act.Credit…Jason Andrew for The New York TimesMichael S. Schmidt and Feb. 12, 2021Updated 9:39 p.m. ETEver since Donald J. Trump began his run for president, he has been surrounded by an ever-shifting cast of lawyers with varying abilities to control, channel and satisfy their mercurial and headstrong client.During the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, Michael D. Cohen arranged for hush money payments to be made to a former pornographic film actress. In the second year of Mr. Trump’s presidency, John M. Dowd, the head of the team defending the president in the Russia investigation, quit after he concluded that Mr. Trump was refusing to listen to his counsel.By Mr. Trump’s third year in office, he had found a new lawyer to do his bidding as Rudolph W. Giuliani first undertook a campaign to undermine Joseph R. Biden Jr. and then helped lead the fruitless effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election, with stops in Ukraine and at Four Seasons Total Landscaping along the way.On Friday, the latest members of Mr. Trump’s legal cast took center stage in his impeachment trial and for the most part delivered exactly what he always seems to want from his lawyers: not precise, learned legal arguments but public combat, in this case including twisted facts, rewritten history and attacks on opponents.Despite an often unorthodox and undisciplined approach from his legal teams, Mr. Trump has survived more legal challenges as president than any of his recent predecessors. Although federal investigators uncovered the hush money payments and significant evidence he may have obstructed the Russia investigation, he was never charged. He was acquitted by the Senate in his first impeachment trial related to the Ukraine pressure campaign, and he appeared poised on Friday to see a similar outcome in this impeachment.Legal experts, white-collar defense lawyers and even some of Mr. Trump’s former lawyers acknowledge that his survival has largely been a function of the fact that he was the president of the United States, a position that gave him great powers to evade legal consequence.“At the outset of the administration I would have said it would be remarkable for someone to run this gauntlet and survive,” said Chuck Rosenberg, a former longtime senior Justice Department official.After initially stumbling in its first round of arguments on Tuesday, the latest team — either the seventh or eighth to defend Mr. Trump since he became president, depending on your math — followed the playbook Mr. Trump has long wanted his lawyers to adhere to.They channeled his grievances and aggressively spun, making what-about arguments that tried to cast his own behavior as not so bad when compared with the other side. Democrats found their performance infuriatingly misleading, but it potentially provided the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate opposed to convicting Mr. Trump with talking points they can use to justify their votes.“Hypocrisy,” one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Michael T. van der Veen, said after they played a several-minutes-long clip of prominent Democrats and media commentators using language like “fight” in an effort to show that Mr. Trump’s own words before the riot could have had no role in inciting the violence.David I. Schoen and the rest of Mr. Trump’s impeachment defense team followed the playbook that the former president has long wanted his lawyers to adhere to.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times“The reality is, Mr. Trump was not in any way, shape or form instructing these people to fight or to use physical violence,” Mr. van der Veen said. “What he was instructing them to do was to challenge their opponents in primary elections to push for sweeping election reforms, to hold big tech responsible.”Serving as one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers is a true high-wire act for a range of reasons, from his indifference to the law and norms to his long-held belief that he is his own best defender and spokesman. In the 1970s, under the tutelage of the lawyer Roy M. Cohn — whose aggressiveness was matched by his lack of adherence to ethical standards — Mr. Trump began conflating legal and public relations problems.These factors have often led Mr. Trump to ignore legal advice and dictate to the lawyers what he wants them to do. Some lawyers have survived for years with Mr. Trump through various investigations, such as Jay Sekulow and the Florida-based couple Marty and Jane Raskin. They were involved in defending Mr. Trump in his first impeachment battle. And they had successes defending Mr. Trump in the highest-profile investigation he faced as president, the special counsel inquiry into possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign in 2016 and Russian officials.But those lawyers are not part of his current team.Neither is Pat A. Cipollone, the former White House counsel who spent weeks at the end of the Trump term batting away various efforts to overturn the election results. As he did with a previous White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, Mr. Trump repeatedly wanted the White House counsels to act as his personal lawyers.And Mr. Trump’s willingness to listen to lawyers who tell him what he does not want to hear dwindled significantly after the Nov. 3 election. Instead, he relied on Mr. Giuliani, whom other Trump aides blame for ensnaring Mr. Trump in his two impeachment battles, to guide him in his effort to overturn the results of the election.Mr. Giuliani repeatedly told associates that he would be involved in the impeachment defense, despite his status as a potential witness, since he addressed the Trump rally crowd on Jan. 6. Mr. Trump ultimately told Mr. Giuliani that he would not be involved.But Mr. Trump’s advisers struggled to find a legal team that would defend him.Finally, with help from an ally, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Trump’s advisers announced that he had hired Butch Bowers, a well-known lawyer with experience representing South Carolina politicians facing crises.But just over a week before the trial was to begin, Mr. Bowers and the four lawyers connected to him abruptly left, though another lawyer, David I. Schoen, who was expected from the beginning to be part of the team, remained on board.In another reminder of his ad hoc approach, Mr. Trump asked associates on Thursday night whether it was too late to add or remove lawyers from the team, as Mr. Schoen briefly told the team he was quitting over a debate about how to use the video clips the defense showed on Friday. Mr. Trump called Mr. Schoen and he agreed to rejoin the team, two people briefed on the events said.Just a few hours before Mr. Trump’s team was to appear in the well of the Senate, the group was still hashing out the order of appearance of his two chief lawyers, Mr. Schoen and Bruce L. Castor Jr. In the end, they decided that a third lawyer, Mr. van der Veen, would deliver the opening act.The uncertainty apparently stemmed from Mr. Castor’s widely panned appearance on Tuesday, when he delivered a rambling, unfocused opening statement that enraged his client. Mr. Trump has told advisers and friends he did not want to hear from Mr. Castor anymore, people familiar with the Trump team’s discussions said.People familiar with the makeup of the legal team said that Eric Herschmann, a lawyer and ally of the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who worked in the West Wing in the final year of the administration, was a key figure in putting it together.When Mr. Trump asked Mr. Herschmann who had hired Mr. Castor after his disastrous outing on Tuesday, Mr. Herschmann, according to two people with knowledge of the exchange, sought to lay the blame on Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff. Mr. Herschmann did not respond to an email seeking comment.By the end of the day Friday, Mr. van der Veen, a personal injury lawyer from Philadelphia, had emerged as Mr. Trump’s primary defender, handling questions from senators, making a series of false and outlandish claims, calling the impeachment a version of “constitutional cancel culture” and declaring that Friday’s proceedings had been his “most miserable” experience in Washington.Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the lead House impeachment manager, responded, “I guess we’re sorry, but man, you should have been here on Jan. 6.”Chris Cameron More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why Trump's Second Impeachment Is a Visceral Reckoning

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentliveLatest UpdatesKey TakeawaysReporter AnalysisWhere Senators StandHouse ManagersTrump’s LawyersAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storynews analysisThe First Trial Seemed Abstract. This One Is a Visceral Reckoning Over Trump.At issue will be many aspects that defined Donald Trump’s presidency: his relentless assaults on truth, his fomenting of divisions, his shattering of norms and his undermining of an election.House impeachment managers watching the prosecution’s display of video from the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol during the trial on Monday. The video made clear how different this trial will be from the one a year ago.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesFeb. 9, 2021Updated 9:23 p.m. ETThis was no phone call transcript, no dry words on a page open to interpretation. This was a horde of extremists pushing over barricades and beating police officers. This was a mob smashing windows and pounding on doors. This was a mass of marauders setting up a gallows and shouting, “Take the building!” and “Fight for Trump!”As the United States Senate opened an unprecedented second impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday amid the echoes of history, the House managers prosecuting him played powerful video images of last month’s deadly assault on the Capitol that made abundantly clear how different this proceeding will be from the first.Where the case against Mr. Trump a year ago turned on what might have seemed like an abstract or narrow argument about his behind-the-scenes interactions with a far-off country, Ukraine, the case this year turns on an eruption of violence that Americans saw on television with their own eyes — and that the senators serving as jurors experienced personally when they fled for their lives.Rather than a judgment of where foreign policy turns into political excess, this sequel trial amounts to a visceral reckoning over Mr. Trump’s very presidency. At issue in the Senate chamber over the coming days will be many of the fundamental aspects that defined Mr. Trump’s four years in power: his relentless assaults on truth, his deliberate efforts to foment divisions in society, his shattering of norms and his undermining of a democratic election.Still, this trial may end up with the same verdict as the last one. On a test vote on the constitutionality of prosecuting a president after he leaves office, 44 Republicans on Tuesday stood by Mr. Trump, a measure of his enduring sway within his party and a signal that he most likely will win the 34 votes he needs for acquittal given the two-thirds supermajority required for conviction.But if the six Republicans who voted to proceed also vote to convict him for inciting an insurrection, it will be the most senators to break from a president of their own party in any impeachment trial in American history.“I would not have thought it when I was sitting on the Senate floor trying the first impeachment — it turns out that was just the opening act,” said Norman L. Eisen, a lawyer for House Democrats during last year’s trial on Mr. Trump’s pressure on Ukraine for political help. “The second one crystallizes all the anti-democratic elements that characterized Trump’s tenure and his Ukraine high crimes but brings them to an even higher pitch.”The emotional punch of this case was evident on the Senate floor on Tuesday. Sitting in what amounted to the crime scene, the same chamber they evacuated just a month ago moments before Mr. Trump’s supporters stormed in, some of the senators watched raptly as the scenes of violence played out on the screens before them. Others turned away.The lead House manager, Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, choked up as he recounted bringing his daughter and son-in-law to the Capitol that day, just a day after burying his 25-year-old son, only to have them sending farewell texts and making whispered goodbye phone calls because “they thought they were going to die.”Damage from the mob attack remained at the Capitol even as the impeachment trial got underway. Credit…Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times“Make no mistake about it, as you think about that day, things could have been much worse,” said Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island, another of the managers. “As one senator said, they could have killed all of us.”Mr. Trump’s defense team recognized the power of the other side’s presentation, with one of his lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr., admitting that the managers had done a good job in offering their case and even acknowledging that voters rejected Mr. Trump. But they complained that the House team was playing to emotions rather than law or reason, trying to rile up senators with inflammatory images and then twisting his words to unfairly blame the violence on Mr. Trump.David I. Schoen, another of the former president’s lawyers, said the videotape was “designed by experts to chill and horrify you and our fellow Americans” as if an impeachment trial “were some sort of blood sport.”“It is again for pure, raw, misguided partisanship,” Mr. Schoen added. “They do not need to show you movies to show you that the riot happened here. We will stipulate that it happened and you know all about it.”There is, of course, a certain paradox in a lawyer for a reality-show president complaining about the power of visual images. The longtime star of “The Apprentice” appreciates better than most how to tell a story on television.There was no compelling video in the Ukraine case, just recordings of people testifying to events the viewers could not watch themselves. None of the senators who rendered last year’s verdict felt physically threatened by Mr. Trump’s telephone call with Ukraine’s president seeking help smearing his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr.“This impeachment is a more of a made-for-television event, which is something the former president surely understands,” said Michael D’Antonio, a Trump biographer. “Where the previous one involved many narrative strands, a long span of time and very little action, this one offers a compact story with escalating tensions and a violent conclusion.”It also raises a broader indictment of Mr. Trump, one that may not seem quite so removed to everyday Americans who had little interest in Ukraine or saw Mr. Trump’s interventions there as politics as usual.When House Democrats moved to impeach Mr. Trump the first time, they debated whether to advance as many as 10 articles of impeachment charging him with all sorts of crimes, including obstructing the Russia investigation, authorizing hush money for women to cover up sexual affairs, illegally diverting money to his border wall and profiting personally from his office.Instead, they opted for the more circumscribed case involving Ukraine because they thought it was easiest to prove.Even some Republican senators agreed by the end of last year’s trial that Democrats had proved the case — they just did not deem it significant enough to merit conviction and removal from office. As a result, Mr. Trump emerged emboldened by his acquittal.This time, other than his staunchest allies, most Republican lawmakers are not defending Mr. Trump’s actions nor arguing that they were not impeachable. Instead, they have focused on process or politics, maintaining that it is unconstitutional to try a former president or a distraction from serious issues like fighting the coronavirus pandemic.But the case that will play out over the next week will put the most aberrant elements of Mr. Trump’s presidency on display. For four years, he played to the crowd, stirring anger, whipping up us-against-them conflicts and at times encouraging violence. He peddled dishonest versions of reality to suit his political needs and told supporters not to believe anyone but him. He undercut faith in democratic institutions and pushed boundaries other presidents would not have.The House’s impeachment managers heading to the Senate chamber at the start of the trial.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesAll of which played out in the months that led to the election on Nov. 3 and the Capitol siege on Jan. 6 and will now be scrutinized — how he promoted flagrantly bogus fraud complaints to try to cling to power even after voters rejected him, how he pressured state and local officials to subvert election results in his favor, how he revved up supporters to march on the Capitol by telling them their country was at stake.Michael W. McConnell, a conservative former appeals court judge and author of “The President Who Would Not Be King,” said the impeachment articles in the Ukraine case were weak. The abuse of power charge “stated a plausible ground” for removal but was “not so compelling,” while the obstruction of Congress article “was not legally sound” on its face.“This time, although the articles of impeachment were badly drafted, the charges are significantly more serious, unquestionably amounting to high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said. “I suspect that is why Mr. Trump’s defenders are desperately searching for a rationale for voting not to convict that is not based on defending or excusing what he did.”Mr. Trump benefits from the tribal nature of today’s politics. Much as they may not like him, most Republican lawmakers have stuck to their side of the fence — criticizing Mr. Trump’s actions was one thing, but joining hands with Democrats in a politically charged up-or-down verdict on his presidency is another. Similarly, polls show broad condemnation of Mr. Trump’s actions but only somewhat more support for conviction this time than last time.That is why Mr. Trump’s defense team played its own videos on Tuesday showing some Democrats calling for his impeachment almost from the minute he took office, arguing that their current drive is just the latest chapter in a campaign of retribution, a point intended to rally Republicans behind him again.And so while the Trump presidency is over, the struggle over the Trump presidency is not. For the next week, it will play out in gritty, angry, ugly words and images until its destined denouement.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Reporter Prepares to Cover His Second Impeachment Trial

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentliveLatest UpdatesWhere Each Senator StandsTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTimes InsiderCovering a Trial for the Ages. Again.Nicholas Fandos, a congressional correspondent who is reporting on his second presidential impeachment, talks about what seems similar and what feels different.Nicholas Fandos, right, with Representative Adam Schiff of California in May 2019 after a meeting of House Democrats about the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesFeb. 8, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETTimes Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.On Tuesday, the nation will begin only its fourth impeachment trial of a president, and Nicholas Fandos, a congressional correspondent for The New York Times, will cover his second. Mr. Fandos, who tracked every beat of the proceedings last year, will be reporting on the second trial of Donald J. Trump, who this time faces the charge of “incitement of insurrection” in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. In an edited interview, Mr. Fandos, who was in the building during that assault, discussed his work last year and the job ahead.Where will you be for the impeachment?Well, it’s probably going to work pretty differently than it did a year ago. I remember dozens of us crowding into the Senate press gallery talking about this virus coming out of China that was going to be a big story and nobody was going to care about the impeachment. And it kind of turned out to be true.This time around, I will probably be watching most of the proceedings from home in Washington because, like other news organizations, we’ve tried to limit our physical presence in the Capitol. Luckily, most of these proceedings are captured on C-SPAN or are livestreamed. Vaccinations are starting to get pretty common among lawmakers, but most reporters still don’t have them.How did covering the last impeachment prepare you to cover this one?It’s so wild. There have been three presidential impeachment trials in American history up to this point. So there’s a certain amount of specialized expertise you have to develop to understand the rules of impeachment and the different terms, not to mention the requirement that you have some mastery over a big, complicated political, legal and constitutional story. So, in some ways this time around, I’m lucky because I don’t need to learn the rules again.The last impeachment also involved a big investigation and learning a lot of esoteric things about Ukraine and actions by the president that happened out of public view. I was in the Capitol on Jan. 6, and I, like everybody else, had been watching as the president was trying to undermine and overturn the election results. In a lot of ways, I can understand the case more readily.What is it like to cover this trial when you were in the Capitol on Jan. 6?I have really visceral memories of that day. But as a journalist, I need to set those aside and cover the debates objectively. My own experience doesn’t have a role in that. Our job is always, at its most basic, to bear witness to events and describe what’s happening.Maybe it helps give me some additional access to the emotion and rawness that everybody that’s involved in this is experiencing. The Senate is the jury, and the members were themselves witnesses and victims, in a sense. Everybody’s in uncharted territory.What will you be doing during the trial?I’ll be following it instantaneously and also trying to step back and take a more considered look. That will include tweets, probably live chats and analysis, and short briefing items that we’ll put up on the website. Then at some point on most days, either I or my reporting partners will sit down and distill everything into a comprehensive article that will end up in the print paper the next day.What have you been doing to prepare?Both the prosecution and the defense have had to file lengthy written briefs that act as a preview of their arguments. I’m spending a lot of time trying to familiarize myself with those.I’ve also spent a lot of time going back and reading my own coverage from a year ago. It’s been really fascinating to see how many of the core issues are really the same but also different.What feels similar?The core charge against Donald Trump is in many ways the same. Essentially, he was accused of taking extraordinary, abusive steps to stay in office and to maintain his power at the expense of the Constitution and the country. And you’ll hear a lot of similar themes in the arguments this time. The defense of the president also seems similar. Basically, his lawyers are arguing that the charges are unconstitutional and unfair. I also think many of the political questions are the same. Are Republicans willing to punish and cross this figure, who may have committed these acts, but who is also the most popular figure in their party and commands a huge amount of loyalty? That political dynamic is amazingly unchanged.What feels different?Last year, this was playing out at the beginning of an election year with that momentous decision lingering. We thought then that if the Senate was a court of impeachment, then the November election was going to be the appeals court that was going to deliver the final verdict on Trump. Now that verdict has been delivered, and in a weird way the Senate is being asked to deliver another one on a slightly different question, which is whether Mr. Trump should be allowed to run for office again. It’s a similar question, but the timing changes the atmosphere and the immediacy of it.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Impeachment Case Against Trump Aims to Marshal Outrage of Capitol Attack

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentWhere Each Senator StandsSchumer’s Balancing ActTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyImpeachment Case Aims to Marshal Outrage of Capitol Attack Against TrumpArmed with lessons from the last impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, prosecutors plan a shorter, video-heavy presentation to confront Republicans with the fury they felt around the Capitol riot.The House impeachment managers, including Representative Jamie Raskin, center, meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi shortly before voting on whether to charge President Donald J. Trump with “incitement of insurrection.”Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesFeb. 7, 2021Updated 8:09 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — When House impeachment managers prosecute former President Donald J. Trump this week for inciting the Capitol attack, they plan to mount a fast-paced, cinematic case aimed at rekindling the outrage lawmakers experienced on Jan. 6.Armed with lessons from Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial, which even Democrats complained was repetitive and sometimes sanctimonious, the prosecutors managing his second are prepared to conclude in as little as a week, forgo distracting witness fights and rely heavily on video, according to six people working on the case.It would take 17 Republicans joining every Democrat to find Mr. Trump guilty, making conviction unlikely. But when the trial opens on Tuesday at the very scene of the invasion, the prosecutors will try to force senators who lived through the deadly rampage as they met to formalize President Biden’s election victory to reckon with the totality of Mr. Trump’s monthslong drive to overturn the election and his failure to call off the assault.“The story of the president’s actions is both riveting and horrifying,” Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the lead prosecutor, said in an interview. “We think that every American should be aware of what happened — that the reason he was impeached by the House and the reason he should be convicted and disqualified from holding future federal office is to make sure that such an attack on our democracy and Constitution never happens again.”Mr. Trump is unlikely to be convicted as 17 Republicans would need to join with every Democrat to reach the two-thirds majority that is needed to find him guilty.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesIn making Mr. Trump the first American president to be impeached twice, Democrats have essentially given themselves an unprecedented do-over. When Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, was preparing to prosecute Mr. Trump the first time for a pressure campaign on Ukraine, he read the 605-page record of President Bill Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial cover to cover, sending aides as many as 20 dispatches a day as he sought to modernize a proceeding that had happened only twice before.This time, a new group of nine Democratic managers need reach back only a year to study the lessons of Mr. Schiff’s prosecution: Don’t antagonize Republicans, use lots and lots of video and, above all, make succinct arguments to avoid lulling the jury of lawmakers into boredom or distraction.Mr. Trump’s lawyers have indicated that they once again intend to mount a largely technical defense, contending that the Senate “lacks jurisdiction” to judge a former president at all after he has left office because the Constitution does not explicitly say it can. Though many legal scholars and a majority of the Senate disagree, Republicans have flocked to the argument in droves as a justification for dismissing the case without weighing in on Mr. Trump’s conduct.But the lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, also plan to deny that Mr. Trump incited the violence at all or intended to interfere with Congress’s formalizing of Mr. Biden’s victory, asserting that his baseless claims that the election was “stolen” are protected by the First Amendment. And Mr. Castor told Fox News that he, too, would rely on video, possibly of unrest in American cities led by Democrats.The managers will try to rebut them as much with constitutional arguments as an overwhelming compendium of evidence. Mr. Raskin’s team has spent dozens of hours culling a deep trove of videos captured by the mob, Mr. Trump’s own unvarnished words and criminal pleas from rioters who said they acted at the former president’s behest.“The story of the president’s actions is both riveting and horrifying,” Mr. Raskin said in an interview. “We think that every American should be aware of what happened.”Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesThe primary source material may replace live testimony. Trying to call new witnesses has been the subject of an extended debate by the managers, whose evidentiary record has several holes that White House or military officials could conceivably fill. At the last trial, Democrats made an unsuccessful push for witnesses a centerpiece of their case, but this time, many in the party say they are unnecessary to prove the charge and would simply cost Mr. Biden precious time to move his agenda without changing the outcome.“It’s not that there should not be witnesses; it’s just the practical realities of where we are with a former president,” said Daniel S. Goldman, a former House lawyer who worked on Mr. Trump’s first impeachment. “This is also something that we learned from the last trial: This is a political animal, and these witnesses are not going to move the needle.”Mr. Raskin and other managers declined to speak about strategy, but current and former officials familiar with the confidential preparations agreed to discuss them anonymously. The prosecutors’ almost complete silence in the run-up to the trial has been another departure from the strategy of Mr. Trump’s first impeachment, when Democrats set up a sizable communications war room in the Capitol and saturated the cable television airwaves in an all-out battle against Mr. Trump in the court of public opinion.They have largely left it to trusted allies like Mr. Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to publicly discuss their case and bat back criticism about why the House is pressing its case even now that Mr. Trump is out of office.“If we were not to follow up with this, we might as well remove any penalty from the Constitution of impeachment — just take it out,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters who questioned why Democrats would consume so much of Congress’s time with a former president.Key questions about the scope and shape of the trial remain unsettled. Senators spent the weekend haggling over the precise structure and rules of the proceeding, the first time in American history a former president will be put on trial.Prosecutors and Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers expected to have at least 12 hours each to make their case. Mr. Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, has been coaching his colleagues in daily meetings to aggressively winnow down their arguments, cling to narrative where possible and integrate them with the visual aids they plan to display on TVs in the Senate chamber and on screens across the country.Behind the scenes, Democrats are relying on many of the same lawyers and aides who helped assemble the 2020 case, including Susanne Sachsman Grooms from the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and Aaron Hiller, Arya Hariharan, Sarah Istel and Amy Rutkin from the Judiciary Committee. The House also temporarily called back Barry H. Berke, a seasoned New York defense lawyer, to serve as chief counsel and Joshua Matz, a constitutional expert.Barry H. Berke, left, who is serving as chief counsel in the House’s impeachment case, conferring with Mr. Raskin.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesMr. Schiff said his team had tried to produce an “HBO mini-series” featuring clips of witness testimony to bring to life the esoteric plot about Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. Mr. Raskin’s may appear more like a blockbuster action film.“The more you document all the tragic events leading up to that day and the president’s misconduct on that day and the president’s reaction while people were being attacked that day, the more and more difficult you make it for any senator to hide behind those false constitutional fig leaves,” said Mr. Schiff, who has informally advised the managers.To assemble the presentation, Mr. Raskin’s team has turned to the same outside firm that helped put together Mr. Schiff’s multimedia display. But Mr. Raskin is working with vastly richer material to tell a monthslong story of how he and his colleagues believe Mr. Trump seeded, gathered and provoked a mob to try to overturn his defeat.There are clips and tweets of Mr. Trump from last summer, warning he would only lose if the election was “rigged” against him; clips and tweets of him claiming victory after his loss; and clips and tweets of state officials coming to the White House as he sought to “stop the steal.” There is audio of a call in which Mr. Trump pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” the votes needed to reverse Mr. Biden’s victory there; as well as presidential tweets and accounts by sympathetic lawmakers who say that once those efforts failed, Mr. Trump decisively turned his attention to the Jan. 6 meeting of Congress for one last stand.At the center is footage of Mr. Trump, speaking outside the White House hours before the mob overtook the police and invaded the Capitol building. The managers’ pretrial brief suggests they are planning to juxtapose footage of Mr. Trump urging his supporters to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol and confront Congress with videos posted from members of the crowd who can be heard processing his words in real time.The managers are working with material to tell a monthslong story of how they believe Mr. Trump seeded, assembled and provoked a mob of loyalists to try to overturn his loss.Credit…Jason Andrew for The New York Times“Even with this trial, where senators themselves were witnesses, it’s very important to tell the whole story,” Mr. Schiff said. “This is not about a single day; it is about a course of conduct by a president to use his office to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power.”But the proximity could also create complications. Several people familiar with the preparations said the managers were wary of saying anything that might implicate Republican lawmakers who echoed or entertained the president’s baseless claims of election fraud. To have any chance of making an effective case, the managers believe, they must make clear it is Mr. Trump who is on trial, not his party.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Has Trump's Reckoning Come Too Late?

      by

      body{ overflow: hidden; } body.show{ overflow: auto; } .coverimg{ opacity: 0; } body.show .coverimg{ opacity: 1; transition: opacity 1s 0.25s ease-in-out; } .leadin{ opacity: 0; } body.show .leadin{ opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.75s ease-in-out; } .desktop_only{ display:block; } .mobile_only{ display:none; } @media screen and (max-width: 720px){ .desktop_only{ display:none; } .mobile_only{ display:block; } } Finally the […] More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Juicio a Donald Trump: un colofón digno de un mandato presidencial

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentliveLatest UpdatesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedRepublican SupportKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAnálisis de noticiasLa conclusión predestinada de una presidenciaEl segundo proceso de destitución al presidente Trump —en un Capitolio rodeado de tropas— parecía la culminación inevitable de cuatro años que dejan a una nación fracturada, molesta y sin sentido claro de identidad.Integrantes de la Guardia Nacional durante un descanso en el Capitolio cuando resguardaban por turnos la Cámara de Representantes, que se preparaba para votar una moción para someter al presidente Trump a un proceso de destitución.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times15 de enero de 2021 a las 05:00 ETRead in EnglishWASHINGTON — Desde los lóbregos días de la Guerra de Secesión y sus repercusiones no se había visto en Estados Unidos un día como el del miércoles.En un Capitolio lleno de soldados fuertemente armados y de detectores de metal recién instalados, tras haber despejado el desastre físico del ataque de la semana pasada, pero con el desastre político y emocional aún a la vista, el presidente de Estados Unidos fue sometido a un proceso de destitución por intentar destruir la democracia estadounidense.De algún modo, parecía el colofón predestinado de una presidencia que en repetidas ocasiones rebasó todos los límites y tensó las relaciones de la clase política. A menos de una semana de que finalice, el periodo del presidente Donald Trump está llegando a su fin con una sacudida de violencia y recriminaciones en un momento en que el país se ha fracturado de manera profunda y ha perdido el sentido de identidad. Los conceptos de verdad y realidad se han pulverizado. La confianza en el sistema se ha erosionado. La ira es el común denominador.Como si no fuera suficiente que Trump es ahora el único presidente que ha sido sometido en dos ocasiones a un proceso de destitución o que los legisladores intentaran retirarlo del cargo a solo una semana del fin de su mandato, Washington se transformó en una miasma de suspicacia y conflicto. Un congresista demócrata acusó a sus colegas republicanos de ayudar a que integrantes de la turba la semana pasada exploraran de antemano el edificio. Algunos congresistas republicanos evadieron los magnetómetros de seguridad utilizados para vigilar que no entren armas al recinto o siguieron avanzando incluso después de activarlos.Todo esto estaba ocurriendo en el contexto de una pandemia que, aunque concita menos atención, ha aumentado de una manera catastrófica en las últimas semanas de la presidencia de Trump.Más de 4400 personas en Estados Unidos fallecieron por el coronavirus el día anterior a las votaciones de la Cámara de Representantes, más personas murieron en un solo día que todas las que fallecierno en Pearl Harbor, el 11 de septiembre de 2001 o durante la batalla de Antietam. Solo después de que varios congresistas se contagiaron durante el ataque al Capitolio y se implementaron nuevas reglas, finalmente usaron cubrebocas de manera constante durante el debate del miércoles.Los historiadores no han podido definir este momento. Lo comparan con otros periodos de enormes desafíos como la Gran Depresión, la Segunda Guerra Mundial, la Guerra de Secesión, la era de McCarthy y Watergate. Rememoran la paliza a Charles Sumner en el pleno del Senado y la maniobra para, por temor a un ataque, introducir furtivamente a Abraham Lincoln a Washington para su toma de posesión.Hacen referencia al espantoso año de 1968 en que el pastor Martin Luther King Jr. y Robert F. Kennedy fueron asesinados mientras que había alborotos en los recintos de las universidades y los centros de las ciudades por la guerra de Vietnam y los derechos civiles. Y piensan en las secuelas de los ataques del 11-S, cuando parecían inevitables más muertes violentas a gran escala. Sin embargo, nada es como estos acontecimientos.“Quisiera poder brindarles una analogía inteligente, pero sinceramente no creo que nada como esto haya sucedido antes”, dijo Geoffrey C. Ward, uno de los historiadores más respetados del país. “Si me hubieran dicho que un presidente de Estados Unidos iba a alentar a una turba delirante a marchar hacia nuestro Capitolio en busca de sangre, yo les habría dicho que estaban equivocados”.De igual manera, Jay Winik, un cronista destacado de la Guerra de Secesión y de otros periodos de conflicto, señaló que no había nada equivalente. “Es un momento insólito, prácticamente sin paralelo en la historia”, comentó. “Es difícil encontrar otro momento en el que la estructura que nos mantiene unidos se viniera abajo de la manera en que lo está haciendo ahora”.Todo esto deja por los suelos la reputación de Estados Unidos dentro de la escena mundial y convierte lo que al presidente Ronald Reagan le gustaba llamar “la ciudad brillante sobre la colina” en un apaleado caso de estudio de los desafíos a los que se puede enfrentar incluso una potencia demócrata madura.“Prácticamente se ha terminado el momento histórico en que éramos un ejemplo”, afirmó Timothy Snyder, historiador especialista en autoritarismo de la Universidad de Yale. “Ahora tenemos que volver a ganarnos nuestra credibilidad, lo cual quizás no sea algo tan malo”.Las escenas del miércoles en el Capitolio nos recordaron a la Zona Verde de Bagdad durante la Guerra de Irak. Por primera vez desde que los confederados amenazaron con cruzar el río Potomac, los soldados tuvieron que acampar por la noche en el Capitolio al aire libre.El debate para decidir el destino de Trump tuvo lugar en la misma sala de la Cámara Baja donde tan solo una semana antes los oficiales de seguridad desenfundaron sus armas y pusieron barricadas en las puertas al tiempo que los legisladores se lanzaban al suelo o escapaban por la puerta trasera para huir de la turba transgresora partidaria de Trump. Todavía flotaba en el aire la indignación por el asalto. También el miedo.No obstante, hasta cierto punto la conmoción ya había pasado y a veces el debate se sentía tan soporífero como de costumbre. La mayoría de los legisladores pronto se retiraron a sus esquinas partidarias.Cuando los demócratas exigieron rendición de cuentas, muchos republicanos se opusieron y los acusaron de precipitarse a una resolución sin audiencias ni pruebas y sin ni siquiera debatir lo suficiente. Los adversarios de Trump hicieron referencia a su discurso provocador durante un mitin justo antes del asalto. Sus defensores citaron las palabras provocadoras de la presidenta de la Cámara Baja, Nancy Pelosi; de la representante Maxine Waters, e incluso de Robert De Niro y de Madonna para argumentar que había un doble rasero.Daba igual que se comparan peras con manzanas. Importaba más la perspectiva. Trump buscó anular una elección democrática que perdió denunciando falsamente un fraude generalizado, presionando a otros republicanos e incluso a su vicepresidente a apoyarlo y envió a una multitud de seguidores revoltosos al Capitolio a “luchar como el demonio”. Sus aliados, no obstante, dijeron que Trump hacía tiempo era blanco de lo que consideraban ataques e investigaciones injustas y partidistas.“Donald Trump es el hombre más peligroso en ocupar el Despacho Oval”, declaró el congresista Joaquin Castro, demócrata por Texas.“La izquierda en Estados Unidos hasta ahora ha incitado más violencia política que la derecha”, declaró Matt Gaetz, congresista republicano por Florida.En la era de Trump, los puntos de vista radicalmente distintos encapsularon a Estados Unidos. En algún momento, el representante por Maryland Steny Hoyer, líder de la mayoría demócrata, se mostró irritado por la descripción de los hechos del partido contrario. “Ustedes no viven en el mismo país que yo”, exclamó. Y, al menos en eso, todos pudieron estar de acuerdo.Después de alentar a una multitud de sus partidarios a marchar hacia el Capitolio la semana pasada, Trump no ha mostrado arrepentimiento por su papel al incitar los disturbios.Credit…Oliver Contreras para The New York TimesTrump no se defendió y optó por dejar de lado los acontecimientos históricos. Después de las votaciones, publicó un mensaje en video de cinco minutos en el que censuró de manera más amplia la violencia de la semana pasada y repudió a quienes la perpetraron. “Cuando hacen algo así, no están apoyando nuestro movimiento, lo están atacando”, afirmó.Sin embargo, no manifestó pesar ni mostró darse cuenta de que hubiera tenido alguna responsabilidad por nada de esto cuando favoreció la política de la división no solo la semana pasada, sino durante cuatro años. Y aunque no mencionó de manera explícita el proceso de destitución, se quejó de “el ataque sin precedentes a la libertad de expresión” al referirse, al parecer, a la suspensión indefinida de su cuenta de Twitter y a las acciones contra sus aliados que trataron de ayudarle a impedir la certificación de los resultados de las elecciones.A diferencia del primer proceso de destitución de Trump, motivado por presionar a Ucrania para que le ayudara a desprestigiar a los demócratas, esta vez lo abandonaron algunas personas de su partido. Al final, diez republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes se unieron a todos los demócratas para aprobar el único artículo de juicio político, liderados por la representante por Wyoming, Liz Cheney, la tercera republicana en jerarquía. El hecho de que la familia Cheney, quienes solían considerarse provocadores ideológicos, aparecieran en este momento como defensores del republicanismo tradicional fue una prueba de cuánto ha cambiado el partido bajo el mandato de Trump..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-1sjr751{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1sjr751 a:hover{border-bottom:1px solid #dcdcdc;}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{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;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cs27wo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cs27wo{padding:20px;}}.css-1cs27wo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}The Trump Impeachment ›From Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and at the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by Mr. Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.Los diez republicanos disidentes no fueron tantos en comparación con los 197 miembros del partido que votaron contra el proceso de destitución. Por otro lado, fueron diez más de los que votaron para destituir a Trump en diciembre de 2019. También fueron el mayor número de miembros del propio partido del presidente en apoyar un proceso de destitución en la historia de Estados Unidos.Otros republicanos intentaron ser más sutiles al aceptar que Trump tenía responsabilidad por haber incitado a la muchedumbre y al mismo tiempo sostuvieron que eso no representaba un delito que amerita iniciar un proceso de destitución, o que resultaba insensato, innecesario y divisorio justo días antes de que Joe Biden, el presidente electo, tomara posesión del cargo.“Eso no significa que el presidente esté libre de culpa”, señaló el representante por California, Kevin McCarthy, líder de la minoría republicana y uno de los aliados más fieles de Trump, cuando se pronunció contra el juicio político. “El presidente tiene responsabilidad por el ataque del miércoles al Congreso por parte de los alborotadores. Debió haber reprendido de inmediato a la turba cuando vio lo que estaba sucediendo”.No obstante, era asombrosa la fidelidad que tantos republicanos de la Cámara Baja mostraron por un presidente que perdió su reelección y que ha hecho tanto daño a su propio partido. “Si la abrumadora mayoría de los representantes electos de uno de los dos partidos estadounidenses no puede rechazar la influencia de un demagogo ni siquiera después de que abiertamente conspiró para anular unas elecciones y al hacerlo amenazara sus vidas mismas, pues entonces tenemos un largo camino por delante”, señaló Frank Bowman, especialista en procesos de destitución de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Misuri.Brenda Wineapple, autora de The Impeachers, un libro sobre el juicio al presidente Andrew Johnson en 1868, dijo que identificó en el debate del miércoles algunos de los argumentos que se hicieron en aquel entonces en contra de la convicción: que sería un mal precedente, que solo dividiría aún más al país.También encontró otro eco, un deseo de superar al polarizante Johnson en favor de su esperado sucesor, Ulysses S. Grant, quien, como Biden, era visto como una figura conciliadora. “Me da esperanza”, dijo. “Debemos tener esperanza”.Pero la extensión de la reconciliación que necesita Estados Unidos es un proyecto que podría resultar abrumador para cualquier presidente sin un consenso bipartidista más amplio. Es posible que a Trump se le someta al proceso de destitución pero casi con certeza terminará la última semana de su mandato y no tiene planes de marcharse discretamente con vergüenza o en la ignominia como otros presidentes que perdieron la reelección han hecho, lo que lo convertiría en una fuerza residual de la vida nacional, incluso desmejorada.Lo que es más, las personas que ven su derrota como un llamado a las armas siguen siendo una fuerza. Los funcionarios de seguridad refuerzan las tropas en Washington para la toma de mando de Biden de la próxima semana, preocupados de que se repita la invasión al Capitolio. Luego de que Trump le dijo falsamente a sus seguidores una y otra vez que la elección había sido robada, las encuestas sugieren que millones de estadounidenses le creen.“La víspera de la elección de 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt dijo que la democracia es más que una palabra: ‘Es una cosa viva —una cosa humana—de cerebros y músculos y alma y corazón’”, dijo Susan Dunn, historiadora de Williams College y biógrafa del presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt.Ahora, dijo, tras los eventos de los últimos días y años, “sabemos que las democracias son frágiles y que los cerebros y el alma de nuestra democracia corren un grave riesgo”.Peter Baker es el corresponsal principal de la Casa Blanca y ha cubierto las gestiones de los últimos cuatro presidentes para el Times y The Washington Post. También es autor de seis libros, el más reciente de ellos se titula The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III. @peterbakernyt • FacebookAdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      After Second Impeachment, Giuliani Vows to Support Trump

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentliveLatest UpdatesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedRepublican SupportKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAfter 2 Impeachments, Giuliani Vows to Continue His Fervor for TrumpWhite House officials are universally angry with Rudolph W. Giuliani and blame him for both of President Trump’s impeachments. But he remains one of few people still willing to join Mr. Trump in the foxhole.Rudolph W. Giuliani spoke at the Trump rally on Jan. 6, before a mob stormed the Capitol. Credit…Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesKatie Rogers and Jan. 14, 2021Updated 8:47 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — When Rudolph W. Giuliani was treating his efforts to carry out President Trump’s wishes to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election as a payment opportunity — he proposed a daily retainer of $20,000 for his legal services from the burgeoning Trump campaign legal fund — the president dismissed it and responded by demanding to personally approve each expense.Nine weeks and another impeachment later, Mr. Trump began the day on Thursday by asking aides to erase any sign of a rift. Stripped of his Twitter account, Mr. Trump conveyed his praise through an adviser, Jason Miller, who tweeted: “Just spoke with President Trump, and he told me that @RudyGiuliani is a great guy and a Patriot who devoted his services to the country! We all love America’s Mayor!”White House officials are universally angry with Mr. Giuliani and blame him for both of Mr. Trump’s impeachments. But the president is another story.Even as he complains about Mr. Giuliani’s latest efforts as fruitless, the president remains unusually deferential to him in public and in private. “Don’t underestimate him,” Mr. Trump has told advisers.But only up to a point. While Mr. Trump and his advisers balked at the $20,000 request weeks ago, it is unclear whether the president will sign off on Mr. Giuliani being paid anything other than expenses.The on-again, off-again tensions are a feature of a decades-long, mutually beneficial relationship between the former New York City mayor from Brooklyn and the former real estate developer from Queens. Although the two were never particularly close in New York, Mr. Trump enjoyed having the former mayor as his personal legal pit bull during the special counsel investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia.In return, Mr. Giuliani, who failed at his own bid for the presidency in 2008, got to hang out with the president in the Oval Office and used his new connections to pursue lucrative contracts.Mr. Trump deployed Mr. Giuliani on politically ruinous missions that led to his impeachment — twice. Now, isolated and stripped of his usual political megaphones, the president faces the devastation of his business and political affairs for his part in encouraging a pro-Trump mob that went on to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6.Mr. Giuliani — who, for his part, encouraged a group of the president’s supporters that day to carry out “trial by combat” — is one of few people still willing and eager to join Mr. Trump in the foxhole. While most lawyers are reluctant to represent the president in a second Senate impeachment trial, Trump advisers said Mr. Giuliani remained the likeliest to be involved. Despite President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s certification as the winner, Mr. Giuliani has continued to push unproven theories about the election results and falsely attributed the violence to anarchists on the left.A podcast hosted by Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, was taken down on Thursday because of an interview in which Mr. Giuliani repeated false claims about the election. During the interview, Mr. Bannon pleaded with Mr. Giuliani to move on to a new topic.“I don’t mind being shut down for my craziness,” Mr. Bannon told Mr. Giuliani, according to Alexander Panetta, a reporter for CBC News who listened to the podcast before it was removed. “I’m not going to be shut down for yours.”Mr. Trump has always had an abundance of yes men and women around him, but Mr. Giuliani occupies a unique space in his orbit. Few people have had such durability with the president, and few have been so willing to say and do things for him that others will not.“Your typical role as legal counselor is to tell your client the hard truth and walk them away from risk,” Matthew Sanderson, a Republican political lawyer based in Washington, said in an interview. “Rudy instead seems to tell his client exactly what he wants to hear and walk him toward risk like they’re both moths to a flame.”That journey has left him looking worse for wear. Days after the election, Mr. Giuliani hit the road, challenging the results in a much maligned news conference in front of a Pennsylvania landscaping company. In another appearance that month, Mr. Giuliani was on camera with black liquid, apparently hair dye, streaming down his face as he railed against the election outcome.Few have been so willing to defend the president, and, paradoxically, few have been so damaging to his legacy..css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-1sjr751{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1sjr751 a:hover{border-bottom:1px solid #dcdcdc;}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{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;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cs27wo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cs27wo{padding:20px;}}.css-1cs27wo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}The Trump Impeachment ›Answers to your questions about the impeachment process:The current impeachment proceedings are testing the bounds of the process, raising questions never contemplated before. Here’s what we know.How does the impeachment process work? Members of the House consider whether to impeach the president — the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal case — and members of the Senate consider whether to remove him, holding a trial in which senators act as the jury. The test, as set by the Constitution, is whether the president has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House vote required only a simple majority of lawmakers to agree that the president has, in fact, committed high crimes and misdemeanors; the Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority.Does impeaching Trump disqualify him from holding office again? Conviction in an impeachment trial does not automatically disqualify Mr. Trump from future public office. But if the Senate were to convict him, the Constitution allows a subsequent vote to bar an official from holding “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” That vote would require only a simple majority of senators. There is no precedent, however, for disqualifying a president from future office, and the issue could end up before the Supreme Court.Can the Senate hold a trial after Biden becomes president? The Senate could hold a trial for Mr. Trump even after he has left office, though there is no precedent for it. Democrats who control the House can choose when to send their article of impeachment to the Senate, at which point that chamber would have to immediately move to begin the trial. But even if the House immediately transmitted the charge to the other side of the Capitol, an agreement between Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate would be needed to take it up before Jan. 19, a day before Mr. Biden is inaugurated. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said on Wednesday that he would not agree to such an agreement. Given that timetable, the trial probably will not start until after Mr. Biden is president.Mr. Giuliani stepped into the president’s legal affairs in April 2018. His eagerness to attack Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, impressed Mr. Trump, who was constantly making changes to his legal team. Most Trump advisers came to see Mr. Giuliani’s efforts with Mr. Mueller as a success.“There was never a moment when Rudy wasn’t willing to go lower, and that’s what Trump requires,” the Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio said. “He proved that actually delivering for Donald was not as important as continuing to try.”In addition to his work with Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani pursued side projects with the added cachet of being the president’s personal lawyer. Free of ethics laws that restrict government employees, Mr. Giuliani pursued lucrative deals even in the midst of the special counsel investigation.And then came the impeachments. When the history of the Trump presidency is written, Mr. Giuliani will be a central figure, first by pursuing a pressure campaign against the Ukrainian government to investigate Mr. Biden’s family members, and then by traveling the country in efforts to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory.Mr. Giuliani’s own legal problems have mounted alongside those of the president. As Mr. Giuliani pursued separate business opportunities in Ukraine, intelligence agencies warned that he could have been used by Russian intelligence officers seeking to spread disinformation about the election — reports that Mr. Trump shrugged off. Mr. Giuliani’s work in Ukraine continues to be a matter of interest in a continuing investigation by federal prosecutors in New York. And his remarks to Trump supporters before the Capitol riot are now the subject of an effort by the New York State Bar Association to expel him.Mr. Giuliani appears undeterred.In a 37-minute video published Wednesday evening, Mr. Giuliani tried to rewrite the history of the Capitol riot. Although Mr. Trump incited his supporters to march to the building and “show strength,” Mr. Giuliani suggested in the video that antifa activists had been involved, a repeatedly debunked theory that has proliferated in pro-Trump circles online.“The rally ended up to some extent being used as a fulcrum in order to create something else totally different that the president had nothing to do with,” Mr. Giuliani said.Now his calls to the president are sometimes blocked at the orders of White House officials. Advisers say that Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, holds Mr. Giuliani partly responsible for the mess currently embroiling the White House.But Mr. Giuliani hangs on in the shrinking circle around Mr. Trump.“He’s not alone,” Alan Marcus, a former Trump Organization consultant, said of the president. “He’s abandoned. Rudy’s just the last in a whole group of people.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Impeachment of President Trump: A Preordained Coda to a Presidency

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentliveLatest UpdatesHow the House VotedWhy Impeach Now?Republican SupportKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyNews analysisA Preordained Coda to a PresidencyThe impeachment of President Trump for a second time — in a Capitol ringed by troops — seemed like the almost inevitable culmination of four years that left the nation fractured, angry and losing its sense of self.Members of the National Guard resting in the Capitol during a break in shifts as the House prepared to vote on whether to impeach President Trump.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 13, 2021Updated 9:37 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Not since the dark days of the Civil War and its aftermath has Washington seen a day quite like Wednesday.In a Capitol bristling with heavily armed soldiers and newly installed metal detectors, with the physical wreckage of last week’s siege cleaned up but the emotional and political wreckage still on display, the president of the United States was impeached for trying to topple American democracy.Somehow, it felt like the preordained coda of a presidency that repeatedly pressed all limits and frayed the bonds of the body politic. With less than a week to go, President Trump’s term is climaxing in violence and recrimination at a time when the country has fractured deeply and lost a sense of itself. Notions of truth and reality have been atomized. Faith in the system has eroded. Anger is the one common ground.As if it were not enough that Mr. Trump became the only president impeached twice or that lawmakers were trying to remove him with days left in his term, Washington devolved into a miasma of suspicion and conflict. A Democratic member of Congress accused Republican colleagues of helping the mob last week scout the building in advance. Some Republican members sidestepped magnetometers intended to keep guns off the House floor or kept going even after setting them off.All of which was taking place against the backdrop of a pandemic that, while attention has drifted away, has grown catastrophically worse in the closing weeks of Mr. Trump’s presidency.More than 4,400 people in the United States died of the coronavirus the day before the House vote, more in one day than were killed at Pearl Harbor or on Sept. 11, 2001, or during the Battle of Antietam. Only after several members of Congress were infected during the attack on the Capitol and new rules were put in place did they finally consistently wear masks during Wednesday’s debate.Historians have struggled to define this moment. They compare it with other periods of enormous challenge like the Great Depression, World War II, the Civil War, the McCarthy era and Watergate. They recall the caning of Charles Sumner on the floor of the Senate and the operation to sneak Abraham Lincoln into Washington for his inauguration for fear of an attack.They cite the horrific year of 1968 when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated while campuses and inner cities erupted over the Vietnam War and civil rights. And they think of the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, when further violent death on a mass scale seemed inevitable. And yet none of them is quite the same.“I wish I could give you a wise analogy, but I honestly don’t think anything quite like this has happened before,” said Geoffrey C. Ward, one of the nation’s most venerable historians. “If you’d told me that a president of the United States would have encouraged a delusional mob to march on our Capitol howling for blood, I would have said you were deluded.”Jay Winik, a prominent chronicler of the Civil War and other periods of strife, likewise said there was no exact analog. “This is an extraordinary moment, virtually unparalleled in history,” he said. “It’s hard to find another time when the glue that holds us together was coming apart the way it is now.”All of which leaves the United States’ reputation on the world stage at a low ebb, rendering what President Ronald Reagan liked to call the “shining city upon a hill” a scuffed-up case study in the challenges that even a mature democratic power can face.“The historical moment when we were a model is basically over,” said Timothy Snyder, a Yale historian of authoritarianism. “We now have to earn our credibility again, which might not be such a bad thing.”At the Capitol on Wednesday, the scene evoked memories of Baghdad’s Green Zone during the Iraq war. Troops were bivouacked in the Capitol for the first time since the Confederates threatened to march across the Potomac.The debate over Mr. Trump’s fate played out in the same House chamber where just a week earlier security officers drew their guns and barricaded the doors while lawmakers threw themselves to the floor or fled out the back to escape a marauding horde of Trump supporters. The outrage over that breach still hung in the air. So did the fear.But the shock had ebbed to some extent and the debate at times felt numbingly familiar. Most lawmakers quickly retreated back to their partisan corners.The Trump Impeachment More