Voter Fraud (Election Fraud)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Kenya Awaits Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Election

      by

      The Supreme Court is expected to rule by Monday on whether the recent election of William Ruto as president, now mired in a welter of conflicting accusations, should stand.NAIROBI, Kenya — With its hefty price tag and sophisticated anti-rigging measures, Kenya’s recent presidential election was supposed to be among the best that money could buy — an elaborate system that experts said was more transparent than those in many Western countries, posting online tens of thousands of results in a matter of hours.But since a victor was declared on Aug. 15, giving William Ruto a narrow margin over Raila Odinga, Kenya’s election still hangs in the balance. The outcome has been mired in a storm of rigging allegations, baroque conspiracy theories and vicious personal attacks directed at the same electoral commission chairman who only recently was being praised for a polling process seen by many as a model for Africa, and beyond.At the center of the dispute is Mr. Odinga, who at 77 is making his fifth bid for the presidency. As with most of his previous four attempts, he says he was cheated of a rightful victory.He has taken his accusations straight to Kenya’s Supreme Court, where seven judges have spent much of the past week trying to sift fact from fiction. A decision is expected by Monday evening.The task is considerable. Mr. Odinga turned up outside the courthouse with a van filled with boxes of legal fillings, which he helped to carry inside. But while Mr. Odinga enjoyed a fair measure of public sympathy in his previous election battles — by most estimates, victory was stolen from him at least once — this time his accusations are more contentious.His legal team appear to have taken a kitchen sink approach, making a wide range of charges that, analysts say, range from the plausible to the outlandish. They will be scrutinized by a Supreme Court with a reputation for independence: It forced a rerun of the 2017 election and earlier this year overturned constitutional changes championed by Mr. Odinga and President Uhuru Kenyatta.Raila Odinga speaks to supporters as he arrives to hold a news conference at the Kenyatta International Convention Centre in Nairobi last month, after filing a petition to the country’s top court, challenging his defeat in the presidential election.Yasuyoshi Chiba/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWith Kenya bitterly divided, the judges’ verdict on the election will be consequential, analysts say — not only for determining the result of the Aug. 9 vote, but also for the legitimacy of the ballot in a country widely seen as beacon of democracy on a continent where authoritarianism is rising.“These seven men and women are walking a tightrope,” Denis Galava, a former managing editor at the Daily Nation newspaper, said of the Supreme Court justices.After a series of bitterly, often violently, contested elections, many Kenyans hoped this one would yield a clean result followed by a smooth transfer of power. Violence was nearly absent during the vote and its aftermath. International and local groups that deployed thousands of election observers across Kenya said the vote went well.But in the hours before Mr. Ruto was declared winner on Aug. 15, with 50.5 percent of votes against 48.9 percent for Mr. Odinga, the process plunged into rowdy discord.At the national tallying center, Mr. Odinga’s top electoral representative proclaimed it a “crime scene” then stormed the dais with other supporters, flinging chairs and clashing with security officials who eventually drove the group out with truncheons. Two electoral commissioners were injured in the melee.Around the same time, signs emerged that powerful figures inside the government also opposed a Ruto victory.Supporters of William Ruto celebrating in Eldoret, Kenya, last month.Brian Inganga/Associated PressMany Kenyans, including members of the political elite, had supposed that Mr. Odinga would coast to victory thanks to his political alliance with Mr. Kenyatta, who had reached his two-term limit. That assumption was overturned as the results poured in. Some officials allegedly turned to other means to influence the result.Top government officials loyal to Mr. Kenyatta turned up at the tallying center hours before the result was announced, pressuring the electoral commission to push the election into a second round, according to a court filing by the commission chairman, Wafula Chebukati. (If no candidate gets over 50 percent of votes, Kenya’s system requires a runoff).He said the group, including the inspector general of police, the deputy chief of the armed forces and the solicitor general, warned him that “the country is going to burn” if Ruto was declared the winner, leaving “the blood of dead Kenyans” on the commission’s hands. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Bolsonaro Allies and Election Officials Reach Truce on Voting Machines

      by

      President Jair Bolsonaro has claimed that Brazil’s voting machines are vulnerable to fraud, with little evidence. Election officials agreed to explore changes to security tests before the October election.BRASÍLIA — President Jair Bolsonaro has made Brazil’s electronic voting machines the center of his attacks on the country’s electoral system, despite little evidence that the machines are at risk, raising concerns he will contest the presidential election results if he loses in October.But it now appears that, after quarreling for months, the president’s allies and Brazil’s election officials are starting to make peace.In a private meeting on Wednesday, Brazil’s elections chief and the country’s defense minister agreed to explore changes to security tests of the voting machines that the armed forces have sought for months, according to election officials.While the two sides have not yet finalized the details, Alexandre de Moraes, Brazil’s elections chief, said he would try to have some tests carried out on Election Day on machines that had just been used by voters, as the military has requested, according to a person involved in the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks were private.Fábio Faria, Brazil’s communications minister and a senior adviser to Mr. Bolsonaro, said in a text message that Mr. Faria felt the issue had been resolved.With less than five weeks left before the election, the agreement represented a notable détente that could weaken the president’s ability to claim voter fraud.Brazil’s armed forces have been a key ally of Mr. Bolsonaro in his criticism of the voting machines as vulnerable to fraud, despite little evidence. Mr. Bolsonaro, in turn, has said that he trusts the armed forces to ensure the elections are safe. In recent interviews, military officials have said that the security tests were their principal remaining concern. And now it appears that election officials are trying to comply with the military’s requests.The easing of tensions is positive for the outlook of Brazil’s elections, but Mr. Bolsonaro has agreed to similar truces in the past and then later continued his criticism of the electoral system.Brazil’s election officials have been planning to run security tests on 600 voting machines on Election Day by simulating the voting process on each machine. Those tests are scheduled to be completed in a controlled room outside voting stations.The military has said it is concerned that sophisticated malicious software could evade such simulated tests. For example, hacking software could be designed not to activate unless a real voter unlocked the machine with a fingerprint.Judge Alexandre de Moraes at his inauguration as head of the country’s Superior Electoral Tribunal, in mid-August.Antonio Augusto/Superior Electoral Tribunal, via Agence France-Presse/Getty ImagesElection security experts in Brazil have said such a scenario is technically possible but highly unlikely because of other controls in the voting machines. There has been no evidence of material fraud in Brazil’s voting machines.To solve for the hypothetical, the military has asked for security tests to be completed in actual voting centers during the election, on machines that were just used by actual voters.Elections officials had previously said such changes to the security tests so close to Election Day were not feasible. But on Wednesday, Mr. Moraes told Paulo Sérgio Nogueira, Brazil’s defense minister, that he would try to change the security tests for a limited number of machines. Military officials have suggested changing the tests for two to four machines per state in Brazil, but Mr. Moraes said Wednesday that he needed to discuss the issue with other elections officials to determine how many would be possible, according to the person involved in the meeting.The meeting over coffee between Mr. Moraes and Mr. Nogueira was positive and cordial, the person said.Military officials have said that they want certainty that there is no malicious software installed on the machines because Brazil’s voting system lacks paper backups for potential audits if there is suspicion of fraud.Mr. Bolsonaro has repeatedly claimed that the voting machines can be hacked, but when pressed for evidence, he has cited a 2018 hack of election officials’ computer network, which is not connected to the voting machines. A federal investigation into that hack concluded that the hackers could not gain access to any voting machines. Mr. Bolsonaro has not presented other evidence of past fraud. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      L. Lin Wood, a Trump Ally, Is Called to Testify in Election-Meddling Inquiry

      by

      Mr. Wood said he would appear before the special grand jury in Atlanta.ATLANTA — L. Lin Wood, a trial lawyer and an ardent supporter of Donald J. Trump who pushed a number of falsehoods about election fraud after the 2020 presidential contest, has been asked to give testimony in the criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the Georgia election, he confirmed on Tuesday.In a phone call, Mr. Wood said that his lawyer had been informed that Mr. Wood’s testimony was being sought by the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. Mr. Wood said he would comply and go before the special grand jury that has been looking into efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reverse Mr. Trump’s election loss.“I didn’t do anything wrong,” Mr. Wood said. “I’ve got nothing to hide, so I’ll go down and talk to them.”Prosecutors’ efforts to secure Mr. Wood’s testimony in the closed-door grand jury sessions were first reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.Mr. Wood, a trial lawyer, earned national fame for taking on high-profile clients, most notably Richard A. Jewell, who was wrongly suspected of setting off a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996.Last week, prosecutors in the election-meddling case noted — in court documents seeking the testimony of another pro-Trump lawyer, Sidney Powell — that Mr. Wood had given a December 2021 interview to CNBC in which he spoke of hosting meetings “at a plantation in South Carolina for the purpose of exploring options to influence the results of the November 2020 elections in Georgia and elsewhere.”The court filing noted that the meetings had been attended by Ms. Powell; Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser to Mr. Trump; “and other individuals known to be associated with the Trump campaign.”Mr. Wood said that he had been informed that he was a material witness but that he had not been informed that he was a target of the investigation.Prosecutors in Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta, have brought more than 30 witnesses before the special grand jury, which was impaneled with the sole purpose of looking into election interference. Once it has completed the work of hearing from witnesses and considering evidence, it will issue an advisory report that could be taken to a regular grand jury with the power to issue indictments.Prosecutors have already brought Rudolph W. Giuliani, a former lawyer for Mr. Trump, before the special grand jury and have told him he is a target, meaning he could eventually face an indictment. In recent days they have also signaled that they hope to compel the testimony of other well-known Trump associates, including Ms. Powell and Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Michigan GOP Set to Nominate Election-Denying Lawyer Backed by Trump

      by

      Several weeks after the 2020 election, as Donald J. Trump worked to overturn his defeat, he called a Republican lawmaker in Michigan with an urgent request. Mr. Trump had seen a report that made wild claims about rigged voting machines in a rural northern county in the state. He wanted his allies to look into it.The president told the lawmaker that a Michigan lawyer, Matthew DePerno, had already filed a lawsuit and that it looked promising, according to the lawmaker and two others familiar with the call.For that lawmaker, the lawyer’s name set off alarms. Mr. DePerno, a trial attorney from Kalamazoo, was well known in the Legislature for representing a former legislator embroiled in a sex scandal. Mr. DePerno had spent years unsuccessfully accusing lawmakers and aides of devising a complex plot to bring down his client, complete with accusations of collusion, stalking, extortion, doctored recordings and secretive phone tapping. Federal judges dismissed the cases, with one calling a conspiracy claim “patently absurd.”Mr. DePerno’s involvement will only undermine your cause, the lawmaker, who along with the others asked for anonymity to discuss the private conversation, told the president. Mr. Trump seemed to dig in: If everyone hates Mr. DePerno, he should be on my team, Mr. Trump responded, according to two of the people.Donald Trump endorsed the candidacy of Matthew DePerno, who pushed a conspiracy theory about the vote count in a rural Michigan county.Emily Elconin/ReutersBolstered by his association with the former president, Mr. DePerno on Saturday was nominated as the G.O.P. candidate for attorney general, the top legal official in the state, at a state party convention. He is among a coterie of election deniers running for offices that have significant authority over elections, worrying some election experts, Democrats and some Republicans across the country.This month, the Michigan attorney general’s office released documents that suggest Mr. DePerno was a key orchestrator of a separate plot to gain improper access to voting machines in three other Michigan counties. The attorney general, Dana Nessel, the Democrat Mr. DePerno is challenging for the office, requested that a special prosecutor be appointed to pursue the investigation into the scheme and weigh criminal charges. Mr. DePerno denies the allegations and called them politically motivated.Mr. DePerno played a critical role in the report mentioned by Mr. Trump about that rural county, Antrim. The report turned a minor clerical error into a major conspiracy theory, and was later dismissed as “idiotic” by William P. Barr, an attorney general under Mr. Trump, and “demonstrably false” by Republicans in the Michigan Senate.For some who have watched his career, there are parallels between Mr. DePerno’s dive into election conspiracies and his recent legal record. He has at times used the legal system to advance specious claims and unfounded allegations detailed in a blizzard of lengthy filings, according to an examination of court records in some of his cases and interviews with attorneys and judges.“The playbook is the same,” said Joshua Cline, a former Republican legislative aide whom Mr. DePerno sued as part of the conspiracy allegations involving the legislature. The case was dismissed in court. “It’s trying to play to a base of people and trying to get them to buy into something that when you put the magnifying glass to it, it falls apart,” Mr. Cline said. “It’s more than terrifying.”More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsThe Evidence Against a Red Wave: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, it’s increasingly hard to see the once-clear signs of a Republican advantage. A strong Democratic showing in a special election in New York’s Hudson Valley is the latest example.New Women Voters: The number of women signing up to vote surged in some states after Roe was overturned, particularly in states where abortion rights are at risk.Sensing a Shift: Abortion rights, falling gas prices, legislative victories and Donald J. Trump’s re-emergence have Democrats dreaming again that they just might keep control of Congress. But the House map still favors Republicans.Bruising Fights in N.Y.: A string of ugly primaries played out across the state, as Democrats and Republicans fought over rival personalities and the ideological direction of their parties.Mr. DePerno declined to be interviewed. In response to written questions, he stood by his claims and defended his legal tactics.“If you are criticizing me on being a bulldog of a lawyer who is well-versed in the law and procedure and who defends his client to the best of his ability, I take that criticism with pride,” he said in a statement.At least five times, Mr. DePerno’s clients or legal colleagues have asked Michigan’s Attorney Grievance Commission to investigate his conduct, according to records reviewed by The New York Times. Three requests have not been previously reported: The commission keeps the filings and investigations private unless they result in formal disciplinary complaints.Three of the five investigations were closed without disciplinary actions, the records showed. In at least one of those closed cases, however, the commission did find Mr. DePerno’s conduct — baselessly accusing a judge of taking a bribe — worthy of a private “admonishment,” according to a 2021 letter viewed by The Times. Mr. DePerno said a fourth inquiry, regarding the Michigan Legislature cases, also closed privately, and another, related to the Antrim County case, is still open. Mr. DePerno did not respond to a request for records confirming his account.Asked about the grievances, Mr. DePerno said: “I have never been disciplined. The reality is that any person at any time can file any garbage they want” with the commission.One of the completed investigations involved former clients who sued Mr. DePerno over malpractice, claiming he had taken actions without their consent, overcharged them and tried to foreclose on their home as payment. A federal magistrate judge also expressed concerns about Mr. DePerno’s conduct in the case, at one point sanctioning him for obstructing a deposition and coaching a witness. In the same hearing, the judge also said Mr. DePerno had “arrogantly tried to justify the unjustifiable” in a brief, and falsely and unethically accused another lawyer of being unprofessional.“Mr. DePerno, you get an F,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville said, according to a transcript.Mr. DePerno called the federal magistrate’s comments “overly harsh and unwarranted.” The malpractice lawsuit, which was first reported by Bridge Michigan, was later settled.A Scandal in the State HouseMr. DePerno also faced criticism in a far more prominent case. In 2015, he was hired by Todd Courser, a freshman state House member and Tea Party activist who was accused of trying to cover up an extramarital affair with a fellow legislator by producing a “false-flag” email, according to court filings and articles in The Detroit News.Mr. DePerno called in forensic experts to argue that audio recordings used by local media in reporting on the scandal had been doctored. He claimed that legislative leaders and aides had conspired to wiretap Mr. Courser and fabricate and destroy evidence. He lodged accusations of lying and bias against the lawyers and judges. He sued aides, lawmakers, The Detroit News, the Michigan State Police, the attorney general and even the hotel chain where Mr. Courser and the other lawmaker met.The legal blitz was not successful. Some claims were dismissed for procedural reasons; others were found to have no merit. One federal district judge, Gordon Quist, called the conspiracy claim “not only implausible, but absurd on its face.” Judge Quist did reject a request to sanction Mr. Courser and Mr. DePerno for filing claims with no basis in fact. An appeals court ruling also noted that one of his theories was “not entirely implausible,” but still found there was no merit to that claim.Another federal appeals court panel wrote that Mr. Courser spent “more time enumerating claims than developing arguments.”Mr. DePerno, left, with Todd Courser during a hearing in 2016. Mr. Courser was accused of trying to cover up an extramarital affair with a fellow legislator.David Eggert/Associated PressA state circuit court judge imposed a nearly $80,000 sanction against Mr. DePerno and Mr. Courser in a defamation lawsuit against The Detroit News, finding Mr. DePerno “does not have a reasonable basis that the underlying facts are true as represented,” according to a transcript of a state court hearing in 2019. Mr. DePerno later sued that judge in federal court, accusing him of bias. He eventually dropped the case against the judge and agreed to a settlement with the news organization that cut the payment to $20,000.The Courser cases became a legal morass, with criminal charges filed against Mr. Courser and a barrage of civil suits. The cases dragged on for years, exasperating lawyers and clients. Michael Nichols, a Michigan lawyer who represented a co-defendant in a related criminal case, said Mr. DePerno often seemed to be more interested in pushing his theory about political bias against Tea Party-aligned Republicans than defending his client against the criminal charges.“I think he wanted to make this all about getting attention as the doll of the Tea Party movement,” Mr. Nichols said.In August 2019, Mr. Courser pleaded no contest to willful neglect of duty by a public officer, a misdemeanor.Mr. Courser in a recent interview stood by his longtime contention that he is the victim of a conspiracy by the legislative aides, legislators and others.He said Mr. DePerno “did everything he had to do to defend his client against the tyranny and unjust prosecution.”“I have nothing but great praise and admiration,” Mr. Courser said. “He’s going to be a great attorney general.”2020 Election ClaimsShortly after Mr. Trump lost the presidential election in Michigan, Bill Bailey, a real estate agent in the state’s lower peninsula, noticed some anomalies in the initial vote count from his local county, Antrim.The results in the conservative county had suddenly, and briefly, been reported as a win for Joseph R. Biden Jr., owing to an error in the clerk’s office. Mr. Bailey connected with Mr. Trump’s legal team, which advised him to get a Michigan lawyer, according to an associate of the legal team.He found Mr. DePerno, who got a court order granting him access to data from Antrim County’s voting machines. That information became the basis for the Antrim report and also gave Mr. DePerno a place in the loose collection of Trump associates, self-proclaimed data gurus and lawyers who were searching for evidence that could propel the fiction that Mr. Trump won the race. Mr. DePerno, along with the others, have continued that quest.Mr. DePerno in October 2021, at an event calling for an “audit” of the 2020 election in Michigan, which Mr. Trump lost.Matthew Dae Smith/Lansing State Journal, via Associated PressAs his work in Antrim County gained national attention, he began raising money. By December 2020, Mr. DePerno had set up multiple donation links on his website under the banner of “The 2020 Election Fraud Defense Fund.” One was hosted by a Michigan resident and has raised $62,000 to date. Another was started by Mr. DePerno, and has raised more than $400,000, according to a live tracker on the site.Mr. DePerno eventually added a direct PayPal invoice button urging people to “Donate via PayPal.” The link went directly to his law firm’s website. Asked about the PayPal link, Mr. DePerno said it was meant for clients to pay their legal bills.Mr. DePerno has refused to answer further questions about how he has used the money. In June, Republicans in the State Senate asked the attorney general to investigate how people have used the Antrim County theory “to raise money or publicity for their own ends,” though they did not single out Mr. DePerno.By spring, as it became clear that Mr. DePerno was flirting with a run for attorney general, Republicans in Michigan grew fearful that his candidacy could be a drag on the entire ticket, according to multiple former members of the state party and others familiar with the state party discussions. They encouraged another Republican to run and tried — and failed — to head off a potential endorsement from Mr. Trump.In September, Mr. Trump issued an endorsement praising Mr. DePerno for being “on the front lines pursuing fair and accurate elections, as he relentlessly fights to reveal the truth.”Kitty Bennett More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How a Corporate Law Firm Led a Political Revolution

      by

      On a balmy Saturday night in June, Traci Lovitt hosted a 50th birthday party for her husband, Ara, at their 9,800-square-foot Westchester mansion overlooking Long Island Sound. The couple met while clerking for Supreme Court justices: Traci for Sandra Day O’Connor, Ara for Antonin Scalia. These days, Ara worked in finance. Traci was a top partner at — and a contender to one day run — the international law firm of Jones Day, best known for representing Donald Trump’s presidential campaigns. To serve as M.C. for the event, the Lovitts flew in Richard Blade, the veteran disc jockey Ara listened to while growing up in Southern California. But Blade wasn’t the party’s biggest star. That distinction belonged to Justice Amy Coney Barrett.One day earlier, Barrett and four of her colleagues on the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion. Now she was wearing a pink dress and sitting at a flower-bedecked table under a tent on the Lovitts’ lush lawn. Barrett clerked for Scalia in the same session as Ara, in 1998 and 1999, and also became friends with Traci, jogging together around the National Mall after work. (When Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court in 2020, Traci wrote to senators, praising the judge’s fair-mindedness and commitment to the rule of law.) But the connection to the court ran deeper than that. Scalia had spent years at Jones Day in the 1960s. And Traci ran an elite practice inside the firm that was focused in part on arguing cases before Barrett and her colleagues. Guests at the Lovitts’ estate danced to Blade’s beats until 1 a.m. At one point, an attendee spotted Barrett chatting with Noel Francisco, another Jones Day partner, who had himself clerked for Scalia the year before Lovitt and Barrett. Francisco left the firm in 2017 to become Trump’s solicitor general, responsible for representing the government before the Supreme Court, and returned in 2020, eventually taking over Jones Day’s enormous Washington office. Now his and Lovitt’s underlings were appearing regularly before the court. In one recent case brought by Jones Day, the court killed the Biden administration’s moratorium on home evictions during the pandemic. Less than a week after the Lovitts’ party, in another case Jones Day worked on, the court would severely limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of power-plant emissions.For much of its history, Jones Day was a juggernaut in the field of corporate litigation. A global goliath with more than 40 offices and about 2,500 lawyers, it raked in billions a year in fees from tobacco, opioid, gun and oil companies, among many other giant corporations in need of a state-of-the-art defense. More than most of its competitors, the firm had an army of litigators who had perfected the art of exploiting tiny legal wrinkles, of burying outmatched opponents in paperwork and venue changes and procedural minutiae. But over the past two decades, Jones Day has been building a different kind of legal practice, one dedicated not just to helping Republicans win elections but to helping them achieve their political aims once in office. Chief among those aims was dismantling what Don McGahn — the Jones Day partner who helped run Trump’s campaign and then became his White House counsel — disparagingly referred to as the “administrative state.” To do that, the firm was bringing all the ruthless energy and creativity of corporate law to the political realm.Jones Day lured dozens of young Supreme Court clerks, mostly from conservative justices, with six-figure signing bonuses and the opportunity to work on favored causes, including legal challenges to gun control and Obamacare. The firm allotted countless pro bono hours to aiding the needy — and also to assisting deep-pocketed right-wing groups as they fought against early voting and a federal corporate-oversight body.Representing Trump’s 2016 campaign, Jones Day helped him solidify Republican support by pledging to pick federal judges from a list that was vetted in advance by the law firm and the Federalist Society. When Trump won, a large fleet of Jones Day lawyers sailed into his White House, the Justice Department and other parts of his administration. But the biggest impact was on the judiciary. Trump delegated the task of selecting federal judges to McGahn, who — working closely with Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader — placed well over 100 conservatives on the federal courts, including several who had recently worked at Jones Day. Even after rejoining Jones Day in 2019, McGahn continued to advise Senate Republicans on judicial strategy.It is not uncommon for partners at corporate law firms to dabble in politics. Nor is it rare for a firm itself to throw its weight behind causes on the left or the right. One of the country’s richest firms, Paul, Weiss, for example, has long staked out liberal stances on the public issues of the day (even as it rakes in fees from companies that undercut those ideals). What sets Jones Day apart is the degree to which it penetrated the federal government under Trump and is now taking advantage of a judicial revolution that it helped set in motion.The power of that revolution, which is spreading to courtrooms and statehouses around the country, is now on vivid display. Even with Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the Supreme Court has been on a rightward tear. In its most recent term, Trump’s three appointees — the first two handpicked by McGahn and the third, Barrett, plucked by him out of academia for the federal bench — helped erase the constitutional right to abortion, erode the separation of church and state, undermine states’ power to control guns and constrain the authority of federal regulators. Jones Day had a hand in some of those cases, and the firm has telegraphed that it is eyeing additional legal challenges in line with its leaders’ ideology.Jones Day’s influence seems poised to grow. This year, it has been collecting fees from a remarkable assortment of prominent Republican players: a Trump political-action committee; moderates like Senator Susan Collins; Trump allies like Dr. Mehmet Oz; hard-liners like Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House minority leader, and Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — not to mention an assortment of super PACs supporting fringe candidates like Herschel Walker, the former N.F.L. star who is running for a Senate seat in Georgia. Francisco recently represented former Attorney General Bill Barr before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. McGahn recently began representing Senator Lindsey Graham as he fights a grand jury subpoena to testify about Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia. The chief of staff to Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is a recent Jones Day alum. The next Republican presidential administration — whether it belongs to Trump, DeSantis or someone else — will most likely be stocked with Jones Day lawyers.Founded in Cleveland in 1893, Jones Day was at the vanguard of an era of breakneck expansion in the legal industry. In the 1970s and ’80s, it was one of the first law firms to open multiple offices in the United States and then overseas. It was a tireless, and extremely successful, defender of some of America’s worst corporate actors. The firm helped R.J. Reynolds sow doubts about the dangers of cigarettes. It helped Charles Keating’s fraud-infested savings-and-loan association fend off regulators. It helped Purdue Pharma protect its patents for OxyContin. But it didn’t become a conservative machine until Stephen Brogan took over as managing partner in 2003.Brogan, the son of a New York City police officer, joined Jones Day straight out of the University of Notre Dame’s law school in 1977 and, aside from a two-year stint in the Reagan Justice Department, has worked there ever since. A number of Brogan’s allies said the key to understanding him and his politics was through his faith. “Brogan is extremely conservative, hard-core Catholic, and that is the bedrock of who he is,” one of his Jones Day confidants told me. Brogan brought on a series of high-profile devotees of the Federalist Society — including leading Reagan and Bush administration lawyers like Michael Carvin and Noel Francisco — to work in the firm’s issues-and-appeals practice, which became a sort of in-house conservative think tank. Even as most of the firm’s lawyers remained focused on bread-and-butter work for big companies, Jones Day took on a growing list of ideologically charged cases and causes, including efforts by the ultraconservative Buckeye Institute to prevent the expansion of early voting in Ohio and challenge the legitimacy of the Obama administration’s newly inaugurated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. By 2014, when a trio of Republican lawyers at Patton Boggs, a Washington law firm that was in financial trouble, began looking for a new home, Jones Day was a natural fit. It was huge, it had a thriving Washington office and its leaders were conservative. Plus, the Patton Boggs crew — McGahn, Ben Ginsberg and William McGinley — would fill a void. While Jones Day had built up a formidable practice advising companies on how to navigate the federal bureaucracy, the firm didn’t have a practice advising politicians on how to navigate election and campaign-finance laws. And without the relationships that came from helping people win office, it was harder for Jones Day to wield influence on Capitol Hill and in the White House. It helped that Ginsberg, who had been the top lawyer on presidential campaigns by George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, had known Francisco and Carvin for years. During the interview process, Ginsberg told Francisco that he recognized that Jones Day, despite its conservative reputation, probably employed a lot of Democrats. Would it be a problem to bring in a team that would represent polarizing Republicans? It would not, Francisco assured him. Indeed, promoting conservative principles was becoming part of the firm’s marketing pitch. “The government’s tentacles invade virtually every aspect of what our clients do,” Francisco said in a Jones Day promotional video in 2015. “The job of a lawyer and the job of courts is to ensure that the federal government lives within the limits that our Constitution sets, and I love making sure that those lines are enforced.” Ginsberg and McGahn were well known throughout the Republican establishment, and several would-be presidents soon came to them seeking counsel; Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Perry of Texas and Chris Christie of New Jersey would become clients. McGahn — who had recently served on the Federal Election Commission, watering down campaign-finance rules and slowing the agency’s decision-making in what he said was an effort to make it more responsive to the people and groups it regulated — also represented a who’s who of other G.O.P. power players: the Republican National Committee, the National Rifle Association, the billionaire Koch brothers.There was at least one other key client: Citizens United. The group, famous for its successful Supreme Court challenge of campaign spending restrictions, was run by Dave Bossie, an influential right-wing activist. One day in late 2014, Bossie and McGahn were on the phone, batting around ideas about which presidential campaigns the Jones Day lawyers should work for.The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 6The Trump InvestigationsNumerous inquiries. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Lindsey Graham Resists Testifying in Trump Investigation in Georgia

      by

      ATLANTA — Six days after major news organizations declared Donald J. Trump the loser of the 2020 presidential election, his allies were applying a desperate full-court press in an effort to turn his defeat around, particularly in Georgia.The pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell went on television claiming that there was abundant evidence of foreign election meddling that never ultimately materialized. Another lawyer, L. Lin Wood, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the certification of Georgia’s election results.That same day, Nov. 13, 2020, Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican and one of Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters, made a phone call that left Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, immediately alarmed. Mr. Graham, he said, had asked if there was a legal way, using the state courts, to toss out all mail-in votes from counties with high rates of questionable signatures.The call would eventually trigger an ethics complaint, demands from the left for Mr. Graham’s resignation and a legal drama that is culminating only now, nearly two years later, as the veteran lawmaker fights to avoid testifying before an Atlanta special grand jury that is investigating election interference by Mr. Trump and his supporters.Mr. Graham has put together a high-powered legal team, which includes Don F. McGahn II, a White House counsel under Mr. Trump. While Mr. Graham’s lawyers say that they have been told that he is only a witness — not a target of the investigation — that could change as new evidence arises in the case, which is being led by Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga. Her efforts to compel Mr. Graham to testify have been aided by legal filings from a number of high-profile, outside attorneys, including William F. Weld, a Trump critic and former Republican governor of Massachusetts.Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, center, during a hearing by the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesUnderscoring the risks for Mr. Graham, lawyers for 11 people who have been designated as targets who could face charges in the case have said that they were previously told that their clients were only “witnesses, not subjects or targets,” according to court filings.On Sunday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit temporarily blocked Mr. Graham from testifying and directed a lower court to determine whether he was entitled to a modification of the subpoena based on constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress. After that, the appeals court said, it will take up the issue “for further consideration.” The matter is now back before Leigh Martin May, a Federal District Court judge who already rejected Mr. Graham’s attempt to entirely avoid testifying; she asked the sides to wrap up their latest round of legal filings by next Wednesday. It seems increasingly likely that Mr. Graham will testify next month.Ms. Willis has said that she is weighing a broad array of criminal charges in her investigation, including racketeering and conspiracy. She has already informed at least 18 people that they are targets, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer. Mr. Giuliani fought to avoid testifying in person but was forced to appear before the grand jury last week.Regarding Mr. Graham, Ms. Willis’s office is seeking to learn more about his role in Mr. Trump’s post-election strategy, and who he spoke to on the Trump campaign team before or after he called Mr. Raffensperger. While Mr. Trump assailed Mr. Raffensperger on Twitter as a “so-called Republican” on the same day as that call, Mr. Graham told CNN that the former president did not encourage him to place the call.Understand Georgia’s Trump Election InvestigationCard 1 of 5Understand Georgia’s Trump Election InvestigationAn immediate legal threat to Trump. More

    • 38 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Deniers, Enablers, Accepters

      by

      We break down elected Republicans into three groups, based on their stances toward false claims about the 2020 election.Dozens of Republican officials continue to tell lies about the 2020 election, claiming that Donald Trump lost only because of fraud. These claims are especially worrisome for the future of American democracy because they suggest that those same officials might be willing to overturn a future election result and hand power to the rightful loser.On the other hand, dozens of other Republicans have never claimed that Trump lost because of fraud. This list includes most Republican senators (like Mitch McConnell, the party’s Senate leader), several governors (like Mike DeWine of Ohio) and other state-level officials.In the latter group of Republicans, however, a split is emerging. Some have decided that lies about the 2020 election are a red line they will not cross, and they have refused to endorse other Republicans making the claims. Others are actively campaigning for election deniers — and, in the process, enabling the spread of the false claims.In today’s newsletter, we will break down the three groups of Republicans: the deniers, the enablers and the accepters.We’ll also give you the latest results from last night’s primary elections in Florida, New York and Oklahoma.The deniersRepublicans who falsely claimed that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent now make up more than half of the party’s major elected officials in some states. In the House of Representatives, almost two-thirds of current Republican members objected to the 2020 result in at least one state. So did eight senators and attorneys general in 17 states.This faction of Republicans seems to be growing, too. Overall, Republican voters have nominated more than 100 candidates for Congress or statewide office who echo Trump’s false claims of fraud. The Washington Post has compiled a list, and it includes top officials in several swing states — like Michigan and Pennsylvania — that could determine the 2024 presidential election.Last night’s voting: In Oklahoma, Republicans nominated Markwayne Mullin, a Trump-endorsed congressman who has claimed that the 2020 election was stolen, in a Senate primary runoff.The enablersGov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is a telling case study. Many political analysts believe that DeSantis is likely to run for president in 2024. As he prepares for a potential campaign, DeSantis is trying to distinguish himself from Trump while also appealing to Trump’s supporters.Ron DeSantis at a rally in Phoenix this month.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesOne way he seems to be doing so is his approach to the false claims about the 2020 election. He has studiously avoided making them himself. (As Politico puts it: “When asked by reporters whether the last presidential election was rigged, DeSantis has instead highlighted changes to election laws he has supported or simply changed the topic.”) At the same time, DeSantis is embracing other Republicans who do echo Trump’s lies.He traveled to Arizona to campaign for Kari Lake, the Republican nominee for governor, and Blake Masters, the Senate nominee. In Pittsburgh last week, DeSantis gave a 40-minute speech at an event for Doug Mastriano, the Pennsylvania governor nominee. DeSantis has also held a rally with J.D. Vance, the Ohio Senate candidate who has claimed that 2020 featured “people voting illegally on a large-scale basis.”Among the other Republican enablers:Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona — despite saying that Lake was “misleading voters” about election fraud — is supporting her in the general election. “It’s important for Arizona Republicans to unite behind our slate of candidates,” he tweeted.Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia is scheduled to campaign this week with Tudor Dixon, the Republican nominee for Michigan governor, who has made false election claims.McConnell has endorsed Herschel Walker, the Trump-backed Georgia Senate candidate who has also repeatedly made false election claims. And a group affiliated with McConnell recently announced it would spend tens of millions of dollars on TV and radio ads to boost Vance.The acceptersThe number of Republicans who have treated false election claims as a defining issue is much smaller, but it’s not zero:Larry Hogan, Maryland’s Republican governor (who cannot run again, because of term limits), is refusing to endorse and is harshly criticizing his party’s nominee for governor this year, Dan Cox. Cox has called the 2020 election fraudulent and chartered buses for the Trump rally that preceded the Jan. 6 riot.John Bridgeland, a Republican former staffer to Rob Portman and George W. Bush, endorsed Tim Ryan, the Ohio Democrat running for Senate, over Vance. “If Vance is willing to undermine his own integrity and character for public office, imagine what he might do if he were a U.S. senator,” Bridgeland wrote in The Cincinnati Enquirer.In the Colorado Senate race, Joe O’Dea won the Republican nomination over a rival who attended Trump’s Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally. O’Dea criticized his opponent for focusing on the past.Most prominently, Representative Liz Cheney, who lost in a primary last week to Harriet Hageman, called on voters to oust election-denying Republicans. “Let us resolve that we will stand together — Republicans, Democrats and independents — against those who would destroy our republic,” Cheney said in her concession speech.The bottom line: It remains unclear whether the Republicans denying the 2020 election result — or the Republicans enabling those deniers — would ultimately be willing to overturn a future election. But their words and behavior certainly suggest that they might participate in such an effort or at least tolerate it.More resultsIn Florida, Democrats chose Representative Charlie Crist — the former Republican governor — to challenge DeSantis.Democrats outperformed polls in two House special elections in upstate New York, winning one and losing the other by single digits.In New York City, Jerry Nadler defeated Carolyn Maloney in a battle between powerful, long-serving House Democrats after a redrawn map combined their districts.In New York’s suburbs, Sean Patrick Maloney, chair of the Democratic House campaign committee, beat Alessandra Biaggi, a progressive state senator endorsed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.THE LATEST NEWSWar in UkraineCaptured Russian tanks on display in central Kyiv.Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesRussia invaded Ukraine six months ago today. Though Ukraine has ceded about one-fifth of its territory, the Kremlin has failed to accomplish many goals.See photos from Times photojournalists chronicling the war.Months after Russia took over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, all that prevents disaster are dedicated Ukrainian operators working at gunpoint.PoliticsThe Biden administration will offer updated Covid booster shots to Americans 12 and older this fall.Trump took more than 700 pages of classified documents to his Florida home.Other Big StoriesA former Louisville, Ky., detective pleaded guilty to misleading the judge who authorized the raid of Breonna Taylor’s apartment.Two men were convicted of plotting to kidnap Michigan’s governor in 2020.OpinionsA new approach to fighting homelessness in Seattle is working, Maia Szalavitz says.In a short documentary, John Hendrickson describes the frustration of having a stutter.MORNING READSStigma: The case for renaming monkeypox.Feeling off? How to tell whether you’re depressed or burned out.A Times classic: Get stronger.Advice from Wirecutter: Tips for hanging outdoor lights.Lives Lived: Julian Robertson didn’t invent short-selling, but he made it a central part of his investment strategy, helping to create the modern hedge fund industry. He died at 90.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICNew intel on a famous scandal: M.L.B.’s sign-stealing investigation found that former Astros GM Jeff Luhnow permanently deleted data from his phone before handing it over to investigators. This and more details are revealed in Evan Drellich’s upcoming book about the saga.A remarkably reasonable twist: After all that, Kevin Durant will remain with the Brooklyn Nets for the time being. His consolation prize is a lineup that features multiple All-Stars and has N.B.A. title aspirations. The resolution is best for all involved, Sam Amick writes.Another M.L.B. team up for auction? Los Angeles Angels owner Arte Moreno is exploring a sale after two decades characterized by losing despite cashing out for big stars. Oops. He’ll still fetch a massive return on his investment, however.ARTS AND IDEAS Harry Styles in New York on Saturday.The New York Times15 nights of StylesOver the weekend, Harry Styles began a 15-show run at Madison Square Garden, part of a trend of concert residencies, Ben Sisario writes. Celine Dion helped pioneer the form in Las Vegas, and Billy Joel brought it to New York in 2014. Now, younger artists like Styles and Adele are doing the same.By asking fans to come to them, artists can lower tour costs. But, experts say, residencies are only financially viable for superstars. “This doesn’t mean nobody’s going to Louisville,” Nathan Hubbard, a former Ticketmaster executive, said. “Most artists are still going to have to go market to market to hustle it.”For more: “The purest release of pent-up demand”: Times critics review Styles’s show.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookLinda Xiao for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Monica Pierini.Serve this tender golden almond cake with peaches and cream.What to Read“The Stolen Year,” by Anya Kamenetz, recounts Covid’s effects on American youth.FashionLinda Evangelista’s British Vogue cover presents an antiquated vision of fashion, Vanessa Friedman writes.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was midtown. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Orange coat? (four letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. The word “squishathon” — an event inviting New Yorkers to kill invasive lanternflies — appeared for the first time in The Times recently.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about the rise of workplace surveillance.Kitty Bennett, Matthew Cullen, Natasha Frost, Lauren Hard, Claire Moses, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Brasil: ¿Habrá un golpe de Estado de Bolsonaro?

      by

      El presidente Bolsonaro ha advertido la posibilidad de fraude e insinuado que impugnará los resultados si pierde. La élite política considera que no tiene respaldo para intentar aferrarse al poder.Una pregunta simple pero alarmante domina el discurso político en Brasil cuando faltan apenas seis semanas para las elecciones nacionales: ¿Aceptará el presidente Jair Bolsonaro los resultados?Durante meses, Bolsonaro ha atacado a las máquinas de votación electrónica de Brasil diciendo que están plagadas de fraude —a pesar de que prácticamente no hay pruebas— y a los funcionarios electorales de Brasil por estar alineados contra él. Ha insinuado que disputaría cualquier derrota a menos que se realicen cambios en los procedimientos electorales. Ha alistado a los militares brasileños en su batalla. Y ha dicho a sus decenas de millones de seguidores que se preparen para luchar.“Si es necesario”, dijo en un discurso reciente, “iremos a la guerra”.Con la votación del 2 de octubre, Brasil se sitúa ahora en la vanguardia de las crecientes amenazas globales a la democracia, impulsadas por líderes populistas, extremismo, electorados muy polarizados y desinformación en internet. La cuarta democracia más poblada del mundo se prepara para la posibilidad de que su presidente se niegue a dejar el poder por acusaciones de fraude que podrían ser difíciles de desmentir.Sin embargo, según entrevistas con más de 35 funcionarios del gobierno de Bolsonaro, generales militares, jueces federales, autoridades electorales, miembros del Congreso y diplomáticos extranjeros, la élite del poder en Brasil se siente confiada de que, aunque Bolsonaro pudiera disputar los resultados de las elecciones, carece del apoyo institucional para dar un golpe de Estado exitoso.El último golpe de Brasil, en 1964, condujo a una brutal dictadura militar que duró 21 años. “La clase media lo apoyó. Los empresarios lo apoyaron. La prensa lo apoyó. Y Estados Unidos lo apoyó”, dijo Luís Roberto Barroso, juez del Supremo Tribunal Federal y ex jefe de la autoridad electoral de Brasil. “Pues bien, ninguno de estos actores apoya un golpe ahora”.Personas preparándose para un paseo en moto celebrado en apoyo de Bolsonaro en Salvador, Brasil.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesEn cambio, los funcionarios se preocupan por el daño duradero a las instituciones democráticas de Brasil —las encuestas muestran que una quinta parte del país ha perdido la fe en los sistemas electorales— y por la violencia en las calles. Las afirmaciones de fraude de Bolsonaro y su potencial negativa a aceptar una derrota se hacen eco de las de su aliado Donald Trump; los funcionarios brasileños mencionaron repetidamente el ataque del 6 de enero de 2021 en el Capitolio de Estados Unidos como un ejemplo de lo que podría suceder.“¿Cómo tenemos algún control sobre esto?”, dijo Flávio Bolsonaro, senador e hijo de Bolsonaro, en una entrevista con el periódico brasileño Estadão en referencia a la violencia potencial. En Estados Unidos, dijo, “la gente estuvo al tanto de los problemas del sistema electoral, se indignó e hizo lo que hizo. No hubo orden del presidente Trump y no habrá orden del presidente Bolsonaro”.Este mes, más de un millón de brasileños, entre los que se encuentran expresidentes, académicos de alto nivel, abogados y estrellas del pop, firmaron una carta en defensa de los sistemas de votación del país. Los principales grupos empresariales de Brasil también publicaron una carta similar.El martes, en un acto al que acudieron casi todas las principales figuras políticas brasileñas, otro magistrado del Supremo Tribunal Federal, Alexandre de Moraes, asumió el cargo de nuevo jefe de elecciones del país y advirtió que castigaría los ataques al proceso electoral.“La libertad de expresión no es libertad para destruir la democracia, para destruir las instituciones”, dijo. Su reacción, añadió, “será rápida, firme e implacable”.La multitud se puso en pie y aplaudió. Bolsonaro se quedó sentado y frunció el ceño.Bolsonaro, cuyos representantes declinaron las solicitudes de entrevista, ha dicho que está tratando de proteger la democracia de Brasil mediante el fortalecimiento de sus sistemas de votación.Entre los funcionarios entrevistados, hubo un amplio desacuerdo sobre si al presidente derechista lo impulsaba una genuina preocupación por el fraude o simplemente el miedo a perder. Bolsonaro ha quedado constantemente por detrás del expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, un izquierdista, en las encuestas de opinión; si nadie gana la mayoría de los votos el 2 de octubre, está prevista una segunda vuelta para el 30 de octubre.Bolsonaro va por detrás del expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva en las encuestas.Dado Galdieri para The New York TimesSin embargo, hay cada vez más esperanzas de que suceda una transición sin sobresaltos si Bolsonaro pierde, porque el mandatario ahora parece estar dispuesto a una tregua.Sus aliados, incluyendo altos oficiales de las fuerzas armadas, están a punto de comenzar negociaciones con De Moraes sobre los cambios al sistema electoral diseñados para atender las críticas de seguridad del presidente, según tres jueces federales y un alto funcionario del gobierno cercano a las conversaciones previstas, que hablaron bajo la condición de anonimato porque son confidenciales.La idea es que Bolsonaro retroceda en sus ataques a las máquinas de votación, dijeron estas personas, si los funcionarios electorales aceptan algunos cambios solicitados por los militares de Brasil.“Tengo plena confianza en el sistema electoral de Brasil. Eso tampoco significa que sea infalible”, dijo Ciro Nogueira, jefe de gabinete de Bolsonaro. “Estoy seguro de que, como dice el presidente, el pueblo tendrá su opinión”. Y el sábado, Bolsonaro pareció insinuar en un mitin que aceptaría los resultados de las elecciones.Sin embargo, Bolsonaro ha hecho comentarios similares en el pasado y acordó una tregua similar el año pasado… y luego continuó sus ataques.Esos ataques han surtido efecto. Desde junio, los usuarios brasileños de Twitter han mencionado las máquinas de votación de Brasil más que la inflación o los programas de bienestar social en relación con las elecciones, y casi tanto como los precios de la gasolina, que han sido un punto importante del debate político, según un análisis realizado por investigadores de la Escuela de Comunicación de la Fundación Getúlio Vargas solicitado por The New York Times.Partidarios de Bolsonaro en Salvador, BrasilVictor Moriyama para The New York TimesUn sondeo realizado el mes pasado mostró que el 32 por ciento de los brasileños confía “un poco” en las máquinas de votación y el 20 por ciento no confía en ellas para nada.Y mientras que bastantes de los partidarios de Bolsonaro están convencidos de que el voto puede estar amañado, muchos más también tienen armas. Bolsonaro facilitó la compra de armas de fuego por parte de civiles con restricciones más laxas para los cazadores, y ahora más de 670.000 brasileños poseen armas bajo esas normas, 10 veces más que hace cinco años.Dentro de su gobierno, Bolsonaro se ha visto cada vez más dividido entre dos facciones.Una de ellas ha animado al presidente a dejar de atacar las máquinas de votación porque creen que el tema es impopular entre los votantes más moderados que necesita ganar y porque la economía de Brasil está repuntando, lo que ayuda a sus posibilidades de reelección, según dos altos asesores del presidente.Dijeron que el otro grupo, liderado por antiguos generales militares, ha alimentado al presidente con información errónea y lo ha instado a seguir advirtiendo de posibles fraudes.Los funcionarios electorales invitaron el año pasado a los militares a unirse a un comité para mejorar los sistemas electorales. Los militares sugirieron una serie de cambios, pero los funcionarios electorales dijeron que no podrían aplicarse a tiempo para la votación de octubre.Pero los líderes militares siguen presionando en busca de un cambio en particular: que las pruebas de integridad de las máquinas de votación se realicen con votantes reales, en lugar de con simulaciones.Durante meses, Bolsonaro ha acusado a los funcionarios electorales de estar alineados en contra suya.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesA los militares les preocupa que un pirata informático pueda implantar un software malicioso en las máquinas de votación que reconozca las simulaciones y permanezca inactivo durante esas pruebas, lo que le permitiría evadir la detección.Un experto en seguridad electoral dijo que tal hackeo es concebible pero improbable.De Moraes, el nuevo jefe de elecciones, ha señalado que estaría dispuesto a realizar cambios en los sistemas de votación, aunque no está claro lo que podría lograrse para el 2 de octubre.Bolsonaro lleva mucho tiempo en desacuerdo con De Moraes, que ha dirigido las investigaciones sobre las denuncias de desinformación y filtraciones de material clasificado que implican al presidente y a sus aliados. Bolsonaro ha criticado a De Moraes por considerarlo políticamente motivado, y dijo en un mitin el año pasado que ya no acataría sus dictámenes, declaración de la que luego se retractó.Por lo tanto, se esperaba que el ascenso de De Moraes a la presidencia del tribunal superior electoral de Brasil agravara aún más las tensiones.Pero en las últimas semanas, él y Bolsonaro han comenzado a chatear por WhatsApp en un esfuerzo por arreglar su relación, según una persona cercana al presidente. Cuando De Moraes le entregó en mano una invitación para su investidura como presidente del tribunal electoral este mes, Bolsonaro le regaló una camiseta del Corinthians, el equipo de fútbol favorito de De Moraes. (El Corinthians es el archienemigo del equipo favorito de Bolsonaro, el Palmeiras).Con las tensiones a flor de piel, los dirigentes brasileños decidieron hacer de la toma de posesión de De Moraes el martes de la semana pasada —normalmente un acto de trámite— una demostración de la fortaleza de la democracia brasileña.Las caravanas de motos se han convertido en algo habitual en los actos de apoyo al presidente en todo el país.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesEn un anfiteatro modernista y subterráneo, los jefes del Congreso brasileño, el Supremo Tribunal Federal y los militares se unieron a cinco de los seis presidentes vivos de Brasil para la ceremonia, incluidos Bolsonaro y Lula da Silva.Las cámaras enfocaron a Bolsonaro junto a De Moraes en la mesa principal, una escena poco habitual. Conversaron en voz baja, a veces entre risas, durante todo el evento. Entonces De Moraes se levantó para su discurso. Antes del evento, había advertido a Bolsonaro que no lo disfrutaría, según una persona cercana al presidente.“Somos la única democracia del mundo que calcula y publica los resultados electorales en el mismo día, con agilidad, seguridad, competencia y transparencia”, dijo. “La democracia no es un camino fácil, exacto o predecible. Pero es el único camino”.La sala le dedicó una ovación de 40 segundos. Bolsonaro fue de los primeros en dejar de aplaudir.Después, los dos hombres posaron para una foto. No sonrieron.Jack Nicas es el jefe de la corresponsalía del Times en Brasil, que abarca Brasil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay. Antes cubría tecnología desde San Francisco. Antes de unirse al Times, en 2018, trabajó durante siete años en The Wall Street Journal. @jacknicas • Facebook More