United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Canadians and Wayne Gretzky: Anatomy of a Relationship on Thin Ice

      by

      In tense political times, can “The Great One” be both a Trump supporter and a beloved hero in Canada? Some want him to pick a side. (Preferably the one to the north.)Where have you gone, Wayne Gretzky? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.In the meantime, a statue of Gretzky would have to do. The puck would drop soon, and outside the main doors to the arena, fans of the Edmonton Oilers swirled around the life-size bronze facsimile of Wayne Gretzky, Canada’s recently tarnished bigger-than-life hero.“I’d like him to be a little more Canadian,” said Rob Munro, a 43-year-old Oilers fan in a 1980s-era Mark Messier jersey. “I’m not anti-Gretzky, by any stretch. It’s just disappointing.”Mr. Gretzky, now 64, has long been frozen as an ideal — the ideal athlete, icon and Canadian. “The Great One,” he is still called, having led the Oilers to four Stanley Cup titles in the 1980s. He has stood as a national avatar for talent and decency for decades. “A true champion and gentleman of dedication and character,” reads a plaque at his bronze skates.Now Mr. Gretzky stands, silently, as a case study for what happens when heroes disappoint — and how quickly even the strongest allegiances can shift when stirred by Trumpian politics.“You were a great Canadian, but now you are not,” said Matthew Iwanyk, chief operating officer and host of Edmonton Sports Talk. “That is the majority sentiment you will get from Edmontonians.”Wayne Gretzky led the Oilers to four Stanley Cup titles in the 1980s, establishing himself as the greatest player in the history of the National Hockey League. David E. Klutho/Sports Illustrated, via Getty ImagesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Signals It Will End Challenge to Idaho Abortion Ban

      by

      The Trump administration is poised to roll back a Biden-era legal effort to blunt the effects of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.The Justice Department plans to drop a Biden-era challenge to Idaho’s law banning abortion in nearly all circumstances, a move that could end access to most abortions for women in the state whose pregnancy poses serious health risks, according to a court filing on Tuesday.The decision represents one of the first major steps under President Trump to roll back former Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s efforts to blunt the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.The Trump administration plans to “dismiss its claims in the above case, without prejudice” as early as Wednesday, a lawyer with the department’s civil division wrote in an email to lawyers for the state’s largest hospital system.The action would effectively lift a federal appellate court’s hold on parts of the near-total ban, which was passed by the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature in 2020 in anticipation of the nullification of the national right to an abortion.Excerpts from the government’s email were included in a request in Federal District Court by the Boise-based St. Luke’s Health System for a new temporary freeze to give it time to adjust to the law, which bans all abortions other than those required to prevent a woman’s death, or in certain cases of rape or incest.Hospitals in Idaho need the temporary delay “to train their staff about the change in legal obligations” and to arrange logistics “to airlift patients out of state” if they require an abortion rendered illegal in Idaho, wrote Wendy J. Olson, a lawyer for the system.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Justices can find these speeches to Congress to be a trial.

      by

      Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. makes a point of going to the State of the Union address. But he does not enjoy it, once calling it “a political pep rally.”He was there again on Tuesday, accompanied by Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by President Trump; Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by President Barack Obama; and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2018.“I’m not sure why we are there,” Chief Justice Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said in 2010, adding: “The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think, is very troubling.”But the chief justice has continued to attend, while other members of the court have long ago stopped going. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has said that he could not abide “the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments,” has not gone for more than a decade.Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called the addresses “very political events” and “very awkward,” adding, “We have to sit there like the proverbial potted plant most of the time.”He did speak, sort of, in 2010 in response to President Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United campaign finance decision, then just a few days old. He mouthed the words “not true.” He has not been back since.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Why Trump’s Speech to Congress Tonight Isn’t a State of the Union Address

      by

      President Trump’s address later on Tuesday to a joint session of Congress may look like a State of the Union speech and sound like a State of the Union speech, but it will not be one — at least not technically.Under the Constitution, the president is mandated “from time to time” to “give to the Congress information of the state of the union.” None other than George Washington delivered the first such speech in 1790.Since then, however, the injunction has been interpreted in various ways. Some presidents, especially in the 19th century, delivered written addresses to Congress. Others did not deliver an annual address, while some also chose to speak at the end of their terms.But starting with former President Ronald Reagan in 1981, all presidents have delivered high-profile speeches to Congress shortly after their inauguration, and then again each year.Those speeches early in the term are not considered State of the Union addresses, and the American Presidency Project at U.C. Santa Barbara flags them with an asterisk in its roundup of presidential speeches to Congress.The organization argues that the distinction makes little difference.“The impact of such a speech on public, media and congressional perceptions of presidential leadership and power should be the same as if the address was an official State of the Union,” it said. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What is Trump’s Crypto Reserve Plan?

      by

      The prospect of using taxpayer money to stockpile cryptocurrencies in a national reserve has drawn criticism from lawmakers and investors.The crypto market gives and takes: After President Trump’s plan for a national crypto reserve drew backlash from both Republicans and investors, the prices of digital tokens that would be involved soared higher — and then tumbled. (Bitcoin was trading at about $83,800 early on Tuesday, down nearly $10,000 from a day ago.)The plan has spurred a lot of questions about how it would work and the risks that would be involved.How would a national reserve work?Mr. Trump campaigned last summer on creating a federal Bitcoin stockpile and appointed the venture capitalist David Sacks as his crypto czar. Advisers have suggested holding on to any Bitcoin the government has already seized from criminals, recently estimated at about $17 billion.A bill proposed by Senator Cynthia Lummis, Republican of Wyoming, would direct the government to buy about 200,000 Bitcoin a year over five years, for a value of about $90 billion. (To help pay for that, the bill proposes taking $4.4 billion out of the Federal Reserve’s surplus, cutting into the Treasury Department’s coffers.) Of course, the digital token’s prices would probably rise in anticipation of those federal purchases.One unknown is whether Mr. Trump, in the face of divisions among Republican lawmakers on the idea of a reserve, would seek to test legal limits on his authority and create one unilaterally.Would taxpayer money be involved?That prospect drew the most criticism. Joe Lonsdale, a financier and Trump supporter, said it was “wrong to tax me for crypto bro schemes.” Another investor called the proposal an “unforced error” that would “enrich the insiders and creators of these coins at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. to Review Election Tampering Conviction of Pro-Trump Clerk

      by

      The decision, revealed in a filing in a Colorado clerk’s bid to overturn her conviction, marks another example of President Trump’s Justice Department intervening to aid supporters or go after foes.The Justice Department said on Monday that it would review the conviction of the former clerk of Mesa County, Colo., who was found guilty of state charges last summer of tampering with voting machines under her control in a failed attempt to prove that they had been used to rig the 2020 election against President Trump.The decision was the latest example of the Justice Department under Mr. Trump’s control seeking to use its powers to support those who have acted on his behalf and to go after those who have criticized or opposed him. It also played into the president’s effort to rewrite the history of his efforts to overturn the results of the election.Three weeks ago, the former clerk, Tina Peters, who was sentenced to nine years in prison on the state election tampering charges, filed a long-shot motion in Federal District Court in Denver effectively challenging the guilty verdict she received in August at the end of a trial in Grand Junction.But, in a surprise move, Yaakov M. Roth, the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil division, filed a court brief known as a statement of interest on Monday, declaring that “reasonable concerns have been raised about various aspects of Ms. Peters’s case.” In the filing, Mr. Roth said the federal judge who received Ms. Peters’s petition this month should give it “prompt and careful consideration.”Mr. Roth said that the Justice Department was concerned, among other things, about “the exceptionally lengthy sentence” imposed on Ms. Peters by the judge in Grand Junction. He also questioned a decision by state prosecutors to deny her bail as she appeals her conviction as “arbitrary or unreasonable.”The review of Ms. Peters’s case was part of a larger examination of cases “across the nation for abuses of the criminal justice process,” Mr. Roth wrote. The scrutiny of Peters case, he added, was being conducted under the aegis of an executive order that Mr. Trump issued seeking to end the “weaponization of the federal government.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      2 Democrats Begin Investigation of Move to Drop Adams Charges

      by

      In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the lawmakers, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Jasmine Crockett of Texas, accused the Justice Department of a coverup.Two top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have begun an investigation into the Justice Department’s request to drop federal criminal charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York.They accused the department of covering up a quid pro quo agreement between the Trump administration and the mayor.In a letter on Sunday to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the lawmakers, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Jasmine Crockett of Texas, cited an account provided by Danielle Sassoon, who resigned as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan over the department’s request. They said her resignation letter indicated that the administration may have agreed to “a blatant and illegal quid pro quo” with Mr. Adams: It would seek to have the case dropped, and Mr. Adams would assist in carrying out the administration’s immigration policy.“Not only did the Department of Justice attempt to pressure career prosecutors into carrying out this illegal quid pro quo; it appears that Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove was personally engaged in a cover-up by destroying evidence and retaliating against career prosecutors who refused to follow his illegal and unethical orders,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter.They added, “We write to demand that you immediately put an end to the cover-up and retaliation and provide documents and information about these disturbing accounts to Congress.”Ms. Sassoon was one of seven federal prosecutors who resigned over the department’s move to drop the corruption charges against Mr. Adams. A federal judge delayed a ruling on the request last month.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry into Schumer

      by

      Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.Justice Department officials have thus far rebuffed the unusual request by Mr. Martin, a partisan ally of President Trump with no previous prosecutorial experience, one of those people said.Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. Bringing such a case is highly unusual and winning a conviction would be difficult, according to current and former prosecutors.Last month, Mr. Martin signaled his intention to take an aggressive approach, writing Mr. Schumer a letter demanding “information and clarification” of remarks he made at a rally on March 4, 2020.“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Mr. Schumer’s staff retracted his statement and the senator apologized a day later, taking to the floor of the Senate to say, “I should not have used the words I used.”Mr. Schumer added that he had been referring to “political consequences” rather than violent retribution, chalking up his phrasing to his upbringing in Brooklyn.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More