Voter Fraud (Election Fraud)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting AG

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney GeneralTrying to find another avenue to push his baseless election claims, Donald Trump considered installing a loyalist, and had the men make their cases to him.Jeffrey Clark, who led the Justice Department’s civil division, had been working with President Donald J. Trump to devise ways to cast doubt on the election results.Credit…Susan Walsh/Associated PressJan. 22, 2021Updated 8:50 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s top leaders listened in stunned silence this month: One of their peers, they were told, had devised a plan with President Donald J. Trump to oust Jeffrey A. Rosen as acting attorney general and wield the department’s power to force Georgia state lawmakers to overturn its presidential election results.The unassuming lawyer who worked on the plan, Jeffrey Clark, had been devising ways to cast doubt on the election results and to bolster Mr. Trump’s continuing legal battles and the pressure on Georgia politicians. Because Mr. Rosen had refused the president’s entreaties to carry out those plans, Mr. Trump was about to decide whether to fire Mr. Rosen and replace him with Mr. Clark.The department officials, convened on a conference call, then asked each other: What will you do if Mr. Rosen is dismissed?The answer was unanimous. They would resign.Their informal pact ultimately helped persuade Mr. Trump to keep Mr. Rosen in place, calculating that a furor over mass resignations at the top of the Justice Department would eclipse any attention on his baseless accusations of voter fraud. Mr. Trump’s decision came only after Mr. Rosen and Mr. Clark made their competing cases to him in a bizarre White House meeting that two officials compared with an episode of Mr. Trump’s reality show “The Apprentice,” albeit one that could prompt a constitutional crisis.The previously unknown chapter was the culmination of the president’s long-running effort to batter the Justice Department into advancing his personal agenda. He also pressed Mr. Rosen to appoint special counsels, including one who would look into Dominion Voting Systems, a maker of election equipment that Mr. Trump’s allies had falsely said was working with Venezuela to flip votes from Mr. Trump to Joseph R. Biden Jr.This account of the department’s final days under Mr. Trump’s leadership is based on interviews with four former Trump administration officials who asked not to be named because of fear of retaliation.Mr. Clark said that this account contained inaccuracies but did not specify, adding that he could not discuss any conversations with Mr. Trump or Justice Department lawyers. “Senior Justice Department lawyers, not uncommonly, provide legal advice to the White House as part of our duties,” he said. “All my official communications were consistent with law.”Mr. Clark also noted that he was the lead signatory on a Justice Department request last month asking a federal judge to reject a lawsuit that sought to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the results of the election.Mr. Trump declined to comment. An adviser said that Mr. Trump has consistently argued that the justice system should investigate “rampant election fraud that has plagued our system for years.”The adviser added that “any assertion to the contrary is false and being driven by those who wish to keep the system broken.”A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, as did Mr. Rosen. When Mr. Trump said on Dec. 14 that Attorney General William P. Barr was leaving the department, some officials thought that he might allow Mr. Rosen a short reprieve before pressing him about voter fraud. After all, Mr. Barr would be around for another week.Instead, Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Rosen to the Oval Office the next day. He wanted the Justice Department to file legal briefs supporting his allies’ lawsuits seeking to overturn his election loss. And he urged Mr. Rosen to appoint special counsels to investigate not only unfounded accusations of widespread voter fraud, but also Dominion, the voting machines firm.(Dominion has sued the pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, who inserted those accusations into four federal lawsuits about voter irregularities that were all dismissed.)Mr. Rosen refused. He maintained that he would make decisions based on the facts and the law, and he reiterated what Mr. Barr had privately told Mr. Trump: The department had investigated voting irregularities and found no evidence of widespread fraud.But Mr. Trump continued to press Mr. Rosen after the meeting — in phone calls and in person. He repeatedly said that he did not understand why the Justice Department had not found evidence that supported conspiracy theories about the election that some of his personal lawyers had espoused. He declared that the department was not fighting hard enough for him.As Mr. Rosen and the deputy attorney general, Richard P. Donoghue, pushed back, they were unaware that Mr. Clark had been introduced to Mr. Trump by a Pennsylvania politician and had told the president that he agreed that fraud had affected the election results.Election workers performing a recount in Atlanta in November. Mr. Trump focused on Georgia’s election outcome after he lost the state.Credit…Nicole Craine for The New York TimesMr. Trump quickly embraced Mr. Clark, who had been appointed the acting head of the civil division in September and was also the head of the department’s environmental and natural resources division.As December wore on, Mr. Clark mentioned to Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue that he spent a lot of time reading on the internet — a comment that alarmed them because they inferred that he believed the unfounded conspiracy theory that Mr. Trump had won the election. Mr. Clark also told them that he wanted the department to hold a news conference announcing that it was investigating serious accusations of election fraud. Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue rejected the proposal.As Mr. Trump focused increasingly on Georgia, a state he lost narrowly to Mr. Biden, he complained to Justice Department leaders that the U.S. attorney in Atlanta, Byung J. Pak, was not trying to find evidence for false election claims pushed by Mr. Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and others. Mr. Donoghue warned Mr. Pak that the president was now fixated on his office, and that it might not be tenable for him to continue to lead it, according to two people familiar with the conversation.That conversation and Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to “find” him votes compelled Mr. Pak to abruptly resign this month.Mr. Clark was also focused on Georgia. He drafted a letter that he wanted Mr. Rosen to send to Georgia state legislators that wrongly said that the Justice Department was investigating accusations of voter fraud in their state, and that they should move to void Mr. Biden’s win there.Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue again rejected Mr. Clark’s proposal.On New Year’s Eve, the trio met to discuss Mr. Clark’s refusal to hew to the department’s conclusion that the election results were valid. Mr. Donoghue flatly told Mr. Clark that what he was doing was wrong. The next day, Mr. Clark told Mr. Rosen — who had mentored him while they worked together at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis — that he was going to discuss his strategy with the president early the next week, just before Congress was set to certify Mr. Biden’s electoral victory.Unbeknown to the acting attorney general, Mr. Clark’s timeline moved up. He met with Mr. Trump over the weekend, then informed Mr. Rosen midday on Sunday that the president intended to replace him with Mr. Clark, who could then try to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College results. He said that Mr. Rosen could stay on as his deputy attorney general, leaving Mr. Rosen speechless.Unwilling to step down without a fight, Mr. Rosen said that he needed to hear straight from Mr. Trump and worked with the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, to convene a meeting for early that evening.Mr. Clark asked Mr. Trump to oust Jeffrey A. Rosen, the acting attorney general.Credit…Ting Shen for The New York TimesEven as Mr. Clark’s pronouncement was sinking in, stunning news broke out of Georgia: State officials had recorded an hourlong call, published by The Washington Post, during which Mr. Trump pressured them to manufacture enough votes to declare him the victor. As the fallout from the recording ricocheted through Washington, the president’s desperate bid to change the outcome in Georgia came into sharp focus.Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue pressed ahead, informing Steven Engel, the head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, about Mr. Clark’s latest maneuver. Mr. Donoghue convened a late-afternoon call with the department’s remaining senior leaders, laying out Mr. Clark’s efforts to replace Mr. Rosen.Mr. Rosen planned to soon head to the White House to discuss his fate, Mr. Donoghue told the group. Should Mr. Rosen be fired, they all agreed to resign en masse. For some, the plan brought to mind the so-called Saturday Night Massacre of the Nixon era, where Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and his deputy resigned rather than carry out the president’s order to fire the special prosecutor investigating him.The Clark plan, the officials concluded, would seriously harm the department, the government and the rule of law. For hours, they anxiously messaged and called one another as they awaited Mr. Rosen’s fate.Around 6 p.m., Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donoghue and Mr. Clark met at the White House with Mr. Trump, Mr. Cipollone, his deputy Patrick Philbin and other lawyers. Mr. Trump had Mr. Rosen and Mr. Clark present their arguments to him.Mr. Cipollone advised the president not to fire Mr. Rosen and he reiterated, as he had for days, that he did not recommend sending the letter to Georgia lawmakers. Mr. Engel advised Mr. Trump that he and the department’s remaining top officials would resign if he fired Mr. Rosen, leaving Mr. Clark alone at the department.Mr. Trump seemed somewhat swayed by the idea that firing Mr. Rosen would trigger not only chaos at the Justice Department, but also congressional investigations and possibly recriminations from other Republicans and distract attention from his efforts to overturn the election results.After nearly three hours, Mr. Trump ultimately decided that Mr. Clark’s plan would fail, and he allowed Mr. Rosen to stay.Mr. Rosen and his deputies concluded they had weathered the turmoil. Once Congress certified Mr. Biden’s victory, there would be little for them to do until they left along with Mr. Trump in two weeks.They began to exhale days later as the Electoral College certification at the Capitol got underway. And then they received word: The building had been breached.Maggie Haberman More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      We Have to Make the Republican Party Less Dangerous

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyWe Have to Make the Republican Party Less DangerousThe crisis Trump set in motion is far from over.Opinion ColumnistJan. 22, 2021Credit…Damon Winter/The New York TimesIn his Inaugural Address on Wednesday, Joe Biden said that after four years of Trumpian chaos — including two months of thrashing against the results of the election, culminating in an attack on the Capitol itself — “democracy” had “prevailed.” But it might have been better, if inappropriate to the moment, for the new president to have said that democracy had “survived.”In so many ways, Donald Trump was a stress test for our democracy. And as we begin to assess the damage from his time in office, it’s clear we did not do especially well.Forces we thought would constrain Trump out of simple self-preservation — public opinion and the demands of the election cycle — were of no concern to a president with ironclad loyalty from his base and a multipronged propaganda network at his side.Institutions we thought would curb his worst behavior — the courts, the federal bureaucracy — had a mixed record, enabling his desires as often as they stymied his most destructive impulses.And Congress, designed to check and challenge a lawless president, struggled to do its job on account of partisanship and party loyalty. With just 34 senators on his side, a president can act with virtual impunity, secure in the knowledge that he won’t be removed from office, even if the House votes to impeach him and a majority of senators wants to see him go.Yes, we held an election, and yes, Trump actually left the White House — the Secret Service did not have to drag him out. But the difference between our reality and one where Trump overturned a narrow result in Biden’s favor is just a few tens of thousands of votes across a handful of states. If it were Pennsylvania or Arizona alone that meant the difference between victory and defeat, are we so sure that Republican election officials would have resisted the overwhelming pressure of the president and his allies? Are we absolutely confident the Supreme Court would not have intervened? Do we think the Republican Party wouldn’t have done everything it could to keep Trump in the White House?We don’t have to speculate too much. At points before the election, key actors signaled some willingness to stand with Trump should the results come close enough to seriously contest. And recent reporting from Axios shows that the plan, from the start, was to try to use any ambiguity in the results to claim victory, even if Trump lacked the votes.We were saved, in short, by the point spread. This does not reflect well on American democracy. But it does make clear the source of our dysfunction: the Republican Party.This is not a new insight, but it’s worth repeating all the same, especially in light of President Biden’s inaugural call for unity, decency and the common good. The Republican Party in 2021 is a party in near total thrall to its most radical elements, a party that in the main — as we just witnessed a few weeks ago — does not accept that it can lose elections and seeks to overturn or delegitimize the result when it does. It disseminates false accusations of voter fraud and then uses those accusations to justify voter suppression and disenfranchisement. It feeds lies to its supporters and uses those lies, as Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley did, to challenge the fundamental processes of our democracy.When in power in Washington, the Republican Party can barely govern, and when out of power, it does almost everything it can to stymie the government’s ability to act. And it was the party’s nearly unbreakable loyalty to Trump that neutered the impeachment power and enabled his fight to overturn constitutional government, which ended on Jan. 6 with a deadly mob wilding through the Capitol.To even begin to fix American democracy, we have to make the Republican Party less dangerous than it is. The optimal solution would be to build our two-party system into a multiparty one that splits the radical from the moderate Right and gives the latter a chance to win power without appeal to the former. But this requires fundamental change to the American system of elections, which is to say, it’s not going to happen anytime soon (and may never).The only other alternative — the only thing that might force the Republican Party to shift gears — is for the Democratic Party to establish national political dominance of the kind not seen since the heyday of the New Deal coalition. Parties tend to change when they can’t win power. It’s part of the problem of our time that the Republican Party can win a large share of national power — up to and including unified control of Washington — without winning a majority of votes, because of its advantage in the counter-majoritarian elements of our system. Without that advantage, there’s immediate incentive to do something different.This, too, is unlikely. Even if President Biden has a successful four (or eight) years in office, it is difficult to imagine anything that could prompt the kind of national realignment that would give the Democratic Party a durable advantage in the House, the Senate and the states. In a system that awards political power on the basis of land and boundaries as much as it does votes, Democrats would have to reverse the convergence of geography and partisan identity — where rural and exurban voters mostly vote for Republicans while their urban and suburban counterparts mostly vote for Democrats — in order to win the kind of victory that would force the Republican Party off its current path and into the wilderness. And even then, as the example of the California Republican Party and Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader of the House, demonstrates, there’s no guarantee that the party will change its tune.The Trump stress test, in other words, has revealed a nearly fatal vulnerability in our democracy — a militant, increasingly anti-democratic Republican Party — for which we may not have a viable solution.With that said, I don’t think we’re doomed to minoritarian rule by reactionaries. Political life is unpredictable, and there’s no way to know what may change. Lofty dreams can enter reality and obvious certainties can vanish into thin air.But one thing is certain. The crisis of our democracy is far from over. The most we’ve won, with Trump’s departure, is a respite from chaos and a chance to make whatever repairs we can manage.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Prominent Lawyers Want Giuliani’s Law License Suspended Over Trump Work

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutLatest UpdatesInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsCapitol Police in CrisisAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyProminent Lawyers Want Giuliani’s Law License Suspended Over Trump WorkThe move by dozens of lawyers, including judges and former federal prosecutors, was the latest in a series of calls to censure him.Despite fierce criticism from the legal community, Rudolph W. Giuliani had doubled down on his baseless election fraud claims in recent weeks.Credit…Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJan. 21, 2021Updated 7:08 p.m. ETDozens of prominent lawyers have signed a formal complaint seeking the suspension of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s law license — the latest and loudest in a series of calls to censure him for his actions as President Donald J. Trump’s personal attorney.The lawyers said Mr. Giuliani had trampled ethical boundaries as he helped Mr. Trump pursue false claims of election fraud, then gave an incendiary speech repeating those claims just before the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.A draft of the complaint to the Supreme Court of New York’s attorney grievance committee accuses Mr. Giuliani of knowingly making false claims about the election and urges an investigation into “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in or out of court.”Calls to discipline Mr. Giuliani have mounted in the weeks since the riot and are intensifying even now, after Mr. Trump has left office. The latest complaint, signed by a bipartisan who’s-who of legal luminaries from New York and beyond, represents perhaps the most serious condemnation of Mr. Giuliani’s conduct to date.The list included former acting U.S. Attorney General Stuart M. Gerson, former U.S. district judges H. Lee Sarokin and Fern M. Smith, and two former state attorneys general, Scott Harshbarger of Massachusetts and Grant Woods of Arizona. Also signing the complaint were prosecutors who worked in the same United States attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York that Mr. Giuliani led during the 1980s, including Christine H. Chung.Ms. Chung, a steering committee member of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, the organization that filed the complaint, said that the group had reviewed the work that Mr. Giuliani did on Mr. Trump’s behalf, and that it amounted to “a purposeful campaign to go to the American people with a lie about a stolen election.”“This is a man that once led the highest prosecuting offices in this nation, and he knows what fraud is, and what it’s not,” said Ms. Chung, who did not work for the U.S. attorney’s office during Mr. Giuliani’s tenure. She added, “For a lawyer to be attacking the rule of law is disallowed, and it’s dangerous.”Ms. Chung said that by Thursday evening more than 1,000 people had signed the complaint, which anyone can sign on Lawyers Defending American Democracy’s website, and that she expected “thousands” more to add their names.The complaint, which calls to suspend Mr. Giuliani’s license to practice law during an investigation into his conduct, is one of several that have been filed with the grievance board. It comes a week after New York State Senator Brad Hoylman, the chairman of the State Senate’s judiciary committee, called for the state court system to begin the formal process of stripping Mr. Giuliani of his license to practice law.Conducting the investigation and deciding on a fitting penalty could take months, or even years, largely because of procedural hurdles and the complexity of Mr. Giuliani’s case, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an expert on legal ethics.Mr. Gillers said that he hoped the court would conduct a thorough investigation and would suspend Mr. Giuliani’s license while it did so, because Mr. Giuliani had traded on his reputation as a lawyer to promulgate false accounts.“It’s a privilege and an honor to be a New York lawyer, and by investigating Giuliani and possibly sanctioning him for his behavior the courts reaffirm that fact,” Mr. Gillers said.Mr. Giuliani, who did not respond to requests for comment, discussed the complaint on his radio show on Thursday afternoon.“The whole purpose of this is to disbar me from my exercising my right of free speech and defending my client, because they can’t fathom the fact that maybe, just maybe, they may be wrong,” Mr. Giuliani said..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-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-1amoy78{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1amoy78{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1amoy78:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1amoy78[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;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom 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 the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President 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.He went on to detail what he described as evidence of his accusations of fraud, and to claim that all his statements were based in fact. He called the complainants “idiots,” “malicious left-wingers” and “irresponsible political hacks.”“You want to disbar me?” Mr. Giuliani asked. “I think I’m going to move to disbar you.”The slew of calls for disciplinary action underscores how much Mr. Giuliani’s reputation has changed from his years as a federal prosecutor known for taking on organized crime and his two terms as the mayor of New York City, during which he championed law enforcement and emphasized cleaning up the streets.At Mr. Trump’s rally on Jan. 6, not long before a violent mob stormed the Capitol, Mr. Giuliani called for a “trial by combat” to address discredited claims of voter fraud.“I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation, on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there,” Mr. Giuliani said.The complaint accuses Mr. Giuliani of sticking to his false accusations of widespread voter fraud as recently as Sunday, sacrificing his reputation in the process.“Other lawyers observed ethical obligations by stepping back from representing Mr. Trump and his campaign,” the complaint reads. “Mr. Giuliani not only lent his stature and status as a lawyer to the venture but shows no inclination to stop lying.”Earlier this week, a person close to Mr. Trump said that Mr. Giuliani would not participate in Mr. Trump’s defense during his second impeachment trial in the Senate.Azi Paybarah contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ‘They Have Not Legitimately Won’: Pro-Trump Media Keeps the Disinformation Flowing

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }What to WatchBest Movies on NetflixBest of Disney PlusBest of Amazon PrimeBest Netflix DocumentariesNew on NetflixAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘They Have Not Legitimately Won’: Pro-Trump Media Keeps the Disinformation FlowingOne America News, a Trump favorite, didn’t show its viewers President Biden’s swearing in or his inaugural address.Credit…Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesJan. 20, 2021Updated 8:22 p.m. ETForgoing any appeals for healing or reflection, right-wing media organizations that spread former President Donald J. Trump’s distortions about the 2020 election continued on Wednesday to push conspiracy theories about large-scale fraud, with some predicting more political conflict in the months ahead.The coverage struck a discordant tone, with pro-Trump media and President Biden in a jarring split screen: There was the new president delivering an inaugural address of unity and hope, while his political opponents used their powerful media platforms to rally a resistance against him based on falsehoods and fabrications.For some outlets, like One America News, it was as if Mr. Biden weren’t president at all. The network, a favorite of Mr. Trump’s because of its sycophantic coverage, didn’t show its viewers Mr. Biden’s swearing in or his inaugural address.Rush Limbaugh, broadcasting his weekday radio show a few miles from the Palm Beach retreat where Mr. Trump is spending the first days of his post-presidency, told his millions of listeners on Wednesday that the inauguration of Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris did not make them the rightful winners of the election.“They have not legitimately won yet,” Mr. Limbaugh said, noting that he would be on “thin ice” for making such a claim. He then gave his listeners a false and inflated vote total for Mr. Trump and predicted the Democratic victories would be “fleeting.”“I think they know, with 74 million, maybe 80 million people who didn’t vote for Joe Biden, there is no way they can honestly say to themselves that they represent the power base in the country,” Mr. Limbaugh said.On One America News, viewers saw a lengthy documentary-style segment called “Trump: Legacy of a Patriot” instead of the inauguration. One of the network’s commentators, Pearson Sharp, provided the voice-over and offered only flattering words about the former president while he leveled false claims about voter fraud.Mr. Sharp repeated many of the discredited excuses that have formed the alternate version of events that Mr. Trump and his followers are using to explain his loss. The host claimed, for instance, that Mr. Trump couldn’t have been defeated because he won the bellwether state of Ohio and carried so many more counties than Mr. Biden did. “And yet somehow we’re still expected to believe that Joe Biden got more votes than any president in history,” Mr. Sharp said.Then he issued a rallying cry to Trump supporters. “Now it’s up to the American people to continue President Trump’s fight, or all the progress we’ve made as a nation will quickly unravel,” Mr. Sharp said.OAN personalities were also offering viewers an optimistic vision of a Republican Party that would live on in Mr. Trump’s image. The network’s White House correspondent, Chanel Rion, described Mr. Trump’s farewell remarks from Joint Base Andrews on Wednesday morning as “a temporary goodbye.”“The fight has only just begun,” she said.One OAN anchor discussed the possibility that Mr. Trump could form his own political party and call it the Patriot Party, an idea that other Trump allies have started floating. And there was talk on the network of Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter, challenging Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, when he is up for re-election in 2022.On Newsmax TV, another pro-Trump channel, commentators and guests appeared to be in less denial than their competitors on OAN. But they were no less dismissive of the new president. One questioned Mr. Biden’s appointment of a transgender woman to his cabinet and called the heavy presence of troops in Washington to prevent another uprising of Trump supporters an effort “to further suppress the voice of the American people.”A Newsmax anchor mockingly pointed out the presence of Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, whose personal troubles and business interests became a distraction for his father’s campaign after conservative media outlets published unverified stories about his work in China. “That doesn’t go away,” the anchor said.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      For Many Across America, a Sigh of Relief as a New Era Begins

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Presidential InaugurationliveLatest UpdatesScenes From the DayBiden’s SpeechBiden Sworn InBiden’s Long RoadCredit…Jason Andrew for The New York TimesFor Many Across America, a Sigh of Relief as a New Era Begins“I feel lighter,” said a woman in Chicago. For many in an exhausted, divided nation, the inauguration was a sea change, not just a transition.Credit…Jason Andrew for The New York TimesSupported byContinue reading the main storyJan. 20, 2021, 7:01 p.m. ETEarly Inauguration Day morning, she slipped into her pandemic-era work clothes of gray sweatpants and white shirt and ground the beans. Then, with her mug of coffee, she watched on her kitchen television as the green-and-white helicopter took air, removing from the White House grounds the outgoing 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.In that kitchen, in a brick Colonial house in Watertown, Mass., tears came to the eyes of the woman, Karolyn Kurkjian-Jones. Tears of unabashed joy.“It’s over, it’s over, it’s over,” Ms. Kurkjian-Jones, a retired kindergarten teacher and pandemic-furloughed concierge at the Boston Park Plaza hotel, said later. “He’s gone.”Since the election in November of Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the 46th president, a great deal of attention has been paid to the conspiracy theories of Republicans who supported Mr. Trump — especially those who, heeding his combustible words about a stolen election, overran the Capitol in a surge of violence and vandalism on Jan. 6.Vice President Kamala Harris celebrated after being sworn in Wednesday.Credit…Ruth Fremson/The New York TimesBut so many more Americans, nearly 81.3 million of them, are like Ms. Kurkjian-Jones, people who voted for Mr. Biden and against Mr. Trump. And, on Wednesday, exactly two weeks after the attack on the Capitol, they celebrated with liquor and baked goods, with Zoom calls and “Amazing Grace” and tears of joy, a new day: a day in which a nation pushed a reset button.In Chicago, not far from a bakery doing a brisk business in inauguration-themed treats — a Wonder Woman cake featuring the face of Vice President Kamala Harris, for example — Sarah Rassey, 40, made plans to watch the inauguration with her daughter, Madeleine, who also happened to be turning 5.“I feel lighter,” Ms. Rassey said of Mr. Biden’s presidency. “I’m just grateful, relieved, happy — and, honestly, I’ve been crying tears of joy since last night.”In Texas, a pair of sisters — both special-education teachers from Killeen — drove more than an hour to be in front of the State Capitol in Austin in time to watch the inauguration on a cellphone. Norma Luna, 49, and Sylvia Luna, 43, were there in part to honor a third sister, Veronica, 56, who died of the coronavirus on Election Day.Norma Luna, left, and her sister Sylvia watched a livestream of the inauguration from the Texas Capitol.Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times“It’s a relief,” Norma Luna cried as she watched the ceremony. “I didn’t think we could get here. We’re proud to be Americans again.”In Annandale, Va., Isra Chaker, 30, an advocate for refugees and asylum seekers at Oxfam America, felt unburdened of the need to justify her “Americanness” during the Trump administration — even though she was born and raised by Syrian immigrants in Boulder, Colo.“Today I know that I belong here,” Ms. Chaker, a Muslim who wears a hijab, said. “It was reaffirmed that we are all America and America is all of us.”And at the Calamari’s Squid Row restaurant in Erie, Pa., vodka was the noontime alcohol of choice among some women who call themselves the Drinking Girls. Mary Jo Campbell, 70, a retired university professor and an official in the Erie County Democratic Party, was there, along with her friends Linda, and Kathy, and Alice, and Cheryl, and Karen, and Amy, and Emily — a band assembled in commiseration after Mr. Trump’s election in 2016.The Presidential Inauguration More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ‘What Kind of Message Is That?’: How Republicans See the Attack on the Capitol

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutLatest UpdatesInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsCapitol Police in CrisisAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyThe DailySubscribe:Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcasts‘What Kind of Message Is That?’: How Republicans See the Attack on the Capitol We spoke to fans of President Trump about the Capitol riot and their feelings before Joe Biden’s inauguration.Hosted by Michael Barbaro; produced by Alix Spiegel, Luke Vander Ploeg, Stella Tan, Sydney Harper and Daniel Guillemette; edited by Lisa Chow and Lisa Tobin; and engineered by Chris Wood.More episodes ofThe DailyJanuary 19, 2021  •  More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Why Rage Over the 2020 Election Could Last Well Past Trump

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhy Rage Over the 2020 Election Could Last Well Past TrumpThe vast majority of Americans do not approve of the riot at the Capitol. But experts warn that the widespread belief there was election fraud, while false, could have dangerous, lasting effects.Polls indicate that only a small fraction of Americans approved of the riot in Washington last week. Credit…Jason Andrew for The New York TimesJan. 18, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETWASHINGTON — For many Trump supporters, the inauguration of Joseph R. Biden Jr. this week will be a signal that it is time to move on. The president had four years, but Mr. Biden won, and that is that.But for a certain slice of the 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump, the events of the past two weeks — the five deaths, including of a Capitol Police officer, the arrests that have followed, and the removal of Mr. Trump and right-wing extremists from tech platforms — have not had a chastening effect.On the contrary, interviews in recent days show that their anger and paranoia have only deepened, suggesting that even after Mr. Trump leaves the White House, an embrace of conspiracy theories and rage about the 2020 election will live on, not just among extremist groups but among many Americans.“I can’t just sit back and say, ‘OK, I’ll just go back to watching football,’” said Daniel Scheerer, 43, a fuel truck driver in Grand Junction, Colo., who went to the rally in Washington last week, but said he did not go inside the Capitol and had nothing to do with those who did. He said he did not condone those who were violent, but believed that the news media has “totally skewed” the event, obscuring what he sees as the real story of the day — the people’s protest against election fraud.“If we tolerate a fraudulent election, I believe we cease to have a republic,” he said. “We turn into a totalitarian state.”Asked what would happen after Mr. Biden took office, Mr. Scheerer said: “That’s where every person has to soul search.”Trump campaign billboards displayed along Texas State Highway 71 near La Grange, Texas, on Election Day. Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesHe continued: “This just isn’t like a candidate that I didn’t want, but he won fair and square. There’s something different happening here. I believe it needs to be resisted and fought against.”Mr. Scheerer said he was not advocating violence, nor was he part of any group that was. But he echoed the views of many who supported the events in Washington last week: A fervent belief that something bad was about to happen, and an instinct to fight against it.Polls indicate that only a small fraction of Americans approved of the riot in Washington last week. A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that 8 percent of adults and 15 percent of Republicans support “the actions of people who stormed the U.S. Capitol last week to protest Biden’s election as president.” That is far from most voters, but enough to show that the belief in a stolen election has entered the American bloodstream and will not be easy to stop.“It’s a dangerous situation,” said Lucan Way, a political scientist at the University of Toronto who writes about authoritarian regimes. “The ‘election was stolen’ narrative has become part of the political landscape.”The country’s political divide is no longer a disagreement over issues like guns and abortion but a fundamental difference in how people see reality. That, in turn, is driving more extremist beliefs. This shift has been years in the making, but it went into hyper-speed after the Nov. 3 election as Mr. Trump and many in his party encouraged Americans, despite all the evidence to the contrary, to believe the results were fraudulent. The belief is still common among Republicans: A Quinnipiac poll published Monday found that 73 percent still falsely believe there was widespread voter fraud.Now, with Mr. Biden’s inauguration on Wednesday and so many Americans enraged about the election, state capitals and Washington are on high alert, with soldiers and security perimeters, bracing for further acts of violence.“Polarization is not the problem anymore,” said Lilliana Mason, a political psychologist at the University of Maryland. “Now it’s the threat to democracy.”When Professor Mason began surveying people in 2017 about their tolerance for political violence for a book on partisanship, she did not expect to find much. Partisanship was always seen as an inert, harmless thing, she said, a way to get people interested in the otherwise boring topic of politics.She was wrong. She and her co-author, Nathan Kalmoe, found that the share of Americans who say it is “at least a little bit justified” to engage in violence for political reasons has doubled in three years, rising to 20 percent after the election, from 10 percent in 2017. The trend was the same for both Republicans and Democrats. But the election was a catalyzing event: The Republicans who said they condoned violence became more approving after it, Professor Mason said. Democrats stayed about the same.State capitals and Washington are on high alert, with soldiers and security perimeters, bracing for further acts of violence.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesProfessor Mason said she worried that more violence and attacks on elected leaders and state Capitols could be coming, saying the country could be in for a period like the Troubles, the conflict in Northern Ireland in which sectarian violence kept the region unstable for 30 years.In interviews with Mr. Trump’s more fervent supporters, people expressed a pattern of falsehoods and fears about the coming Biden administration. As events like the riot have raced ahead, so have conspiracy theories explaining them. They have blossomed in the exhausting monotony of coronavirus lockdowns.Theda Kasner, 83, a retired medical worker from Marshfield, Wis., who was originally interviewed for a New York Times polling story before the election, has been in an R.V. park in Weslaco, Texas, near the border with Mexico, since December. She is spending the winter there with her husband, for the sun and the beaches nearby. But the coronavirus is roaring through, and this week, their R.V. park went on lockdown.“I told my husband today, I said ‘I’m going stir crazy,’” she said. “We are practically quarantined in our units.”She has been spending lots of time in her motor home reading books and watching videos. One featured rousing, emotional music and footage of Mr. Trump and crowds of his supporters, with a voice talking darkly about a looming confrontation. It ended with the Lord’s Prayer and the date Jan. 20, 2021, flashing on the screen. Another, 48 minutes long, was of Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, an inventor, testifying before the Georgia State Senate about election fraud. She and her husband watch Newsmax TV, a right-wing network, in the evenings.When asked about the violence at the riot, Ms. Kasner repeated the common conspiracy theory that antifa had infiltrated the crowd. These days, she is finding herself increasingly confused in a sea of information, much of it false.She had heard on a video she was sent on Facebook that in the Biden administration, children could be taken away from their parents. “I am in a total state of, I don’t know what is happening,” Ms. Kasner said.A supporter of President Trump during the vote count at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia in November.Credit…Victor J. Blue for The New York Times“I simply cannot fathom what my country is becoming,” she said, saying that she had been sitting in her home in tears. For Mr. Scheerer, the fuel truck driver in Colorado, the multiple catastrophes of the past year — the coronavirus, the economic disruption that came with it, the political fear across the country — all fused into a kind of looming threat. The lockdowns infuriated him. He sees mask mandates not as public health but public control. Both, he believed, were signs of a coming tyranny. He left a truck-driving job he liked when, by his account, his boss told him he had to wear a mask or leave.Then came the election. On Jan. 6, he arrived in Washington for the rally to protest the results. Afterward, when pressed on how he felt about the event given the number of white supremacists in the riot, he said that they were only a fraction of the people there. Anyway, he said, their presence was insignificant compared the broader issue of fraud. “It’s way more than just being some kind of a Trump fanatic,” he said. He said he sees himself as “a guy up on the wall of a city seeing the enemy coming, and ringing the alarm bell.”Force he said, is only a last resort.“Are you OK with internment camps if you refuse to wear a mask or take a vaccination?” he asked. “I believe in a world where force has to be used to stop evil or the wrong act.”The inauguration stage in front of the U.S. Capitol Building.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times In western North Carolina, Kevin Haag, a retired landscaper who was at the Capitol last week but did not go inside, said people in his conservative community have grown increasingly alarmed about what has happened in the days since. His electric power company, Duke Energy, has announced it would pause donations for Republicans who voted against certifying the election results. It all feels like a vast piling on against Trump supporters, he said.To top it off, the Senate, the House and the White House now belong to Democrats.“Now it’s pretty scary, people are alarmed, they own it all now,” said Mr. Haag, who was first quoted in a Times story about the December rally in Washington for Mr. Trump. Mr. Haag, who is 67, is also a member of his local town council.In a telephone conversation this week, he said he is part of a group called the Armed Patriots, people from his area whose purpose, he said, is to protect the community. On Tuesday night, the group met, he said, and invited the public for a gun instruction session with two experts who talked about how to use an assault rifle. Sixty people attended, he said, including women.They also held a raffle of a gun to raise money for a website, he said, “because they are taking down our communications.”The meeting, he said, “was to educate and to relieve fear.”Mr. Haag insisted that the group was not a militia.“We are not here to take over the country,” he said. “If that’s what you are here for, we are not your group. We are here to protect our citizens and to stand up for our country.”He said he was still hoping that Mr. Trump would be the one to be inaugurated this week. But even if Mr. Trump did not succeed, the movement, he said, would continue.“It’s not about Trump, he was just championing the cause,” he said. “We don’t have Trump around right now, and we are picking up the ball and running with it ourselves.”Kitty Bennett contributed research.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 38 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      El abismo estadounidense

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsCapitol Police in CrisisThe police forced the crowd out of the Capitol building after facing off in the Rotunda, Jan. 6, 3:40 p.m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York TimesEl abismo estadounidenseTrump, la turba y lo que viene después: observaciones de un historiador del fascismo y la atrocidad política.The police forced the crowd out of the Capitol building after facing off in the Rotunda, Jan. 6, 3:40 p.m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York TimesSupported byContinue reading the main story15 de enero de 2021Actualizado 08:30 ETRead in EnglishLire en françaisCuando Donald Trump se paró frente a sus seguidores el 6 de enero y los instó a marchar hacia el Capitolio de Estados Unidos, estaba haciendo lo que siempre había hecho. Nunca tomó en serio la democracia electoral ni aceptó la legitimidad de su versión estadounidense.Incluso cuando ganó, en 2016, insistió en que la elección fue fraudulenta, que se emitieron millones de votos falsos para su oponente. En 2020, sabiendo que iba detrás de Joe Biden en las encuestas, pasó meses afirmando que la elección presidencial estaba amañada y señalando que no aceptaría los resultados si no le favorecían. El día de las elecciones afirmó erróneamente que había ganado y luego endureció su retórica: con el tiempo, su victoria se convirtió en una avalancha histórica y las diversas conspiraciones que la negaban cada vez eran más sofisticadas e inverosímiles.La gente le creyó, lo que no es para nada sorprendente. Se necesita una gran cantidad de trabajo para educar a los ciudadanos a resistir la poderosa atracción de creer lo que ya creen, o lo que otros a su alrededor creen, o lo que le daría sentido a sus propias decisiones anteriores. Platón advirtió de un riesgo particular sobre los tiranos: que al final se verían rodeados de gente que siempre les dice que sí y de facilitadores. A Aristóteles le preocupaba que, en una democracia, un demagogo rico y talentoso pudiera dominar fácilmente las mentes de la población. Conscientes de estos y otros riesgos, los creadores de la Constitución de Estados Unidos instituyeron un sistema de pesos y contrapesos. No se trataba simplemente de asegurar que ninguna rama del gobierno dominase a las demás, sino también de anclar en las instituciones diferentes puntos de vista.Listen to This ArticleAudio Recording by AudmEn este sentido, la responsabilidad de la presión de Trump para anular una elección debe ser compartida por un gran número de miembros republicanos del Congreso. En vez de contradecir a Trump desde el principio, permitieron que su ficción electoral floreciera. Tenían motivos para hacerlo. Un grupo de integrantes del Partido Republicano se preocupa sobre todo por jugar con el sistema para mantener el poder, aprovechando al máximo las imprecisiones constitucionales, las manipulaciones y el dinero sucio para ganar las elecciones con una minoría de votantes motivados. No les interesa que colapse la peculiar forma de representación que permite a su partido minoritario un control desproporcionado del gobierno. El más importante de ellos, Mitch McConnell, permitió la mentira de Trump sin hacer ningún comentario sobre sus consecuencias.Sin embargo, otros republicanos vieron la situación de manera diferente: podrían realmente romper el sistema y tener el poder sin democracia. La división entre estos dos grupos, los que participan en el juego y los que quieren patear el tablero, se hizo muy evidente el 30 de diciembre, cuando el senador Josh Hawley anunció que apoyaría la impugnación de Trump al cuestionar la validez de los votos electorales el 6 de enero. En ese momento, Ted Cruz prometió su propio apoyo, junto con otros diez senadores. Más de un centenar de representantes republicanos asumieron la misma postura. Para muchos, esto lucía como un espectáculo más: las impugnaciones a los votos electorales de los estados forzarían retrasos y votos en el pleno pero no afectarían al resultado.Los extremistas pro-Trump intentan escalar las paredes del edificio del Capitolio en Washington para pasar las barreras y entrar, 2:09 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesSin embargo, que el Congreso obviara sus funciones básicas tenía un precio. Una institución elegida que se opone a las elecciones está invitando a su propio derrocamiento. Los miembros del Congreso que sostuvieron la mentira del presidente, a pesar de la evidencia disponible y sin ambigüedades, traicionaron su misión constitucional. Hacer de sus ficciones la base de la acción del Congreso les dio vigor. Ahora Trump podría exigir que los senadores y congresistas se sometan a su voluntad. Podía poner la responsabilidad personal sobre Mike Pence, a cargo de los procedimientos formales, para pervertirlos. Y el 6 de enero, ordenó a sus seguidores que ejercieran presión sobre estos representantes elegidos, lo que procedieron a hacer: asaltaron el edificio del Capitolio, buscaron gente para castigar y saquearon el lugar.Por supuesto que esto tenía sentido de cierto modo: si la elección realmente había sido robada, como los senadores y congresistas insinuaban, entonces ¿cómo se podía permitir que el Congreso siguiera adelante? Para algunos republicanos, la invasión del Capitolio debe haber sido una sorpresa, o incluso una lección. Sin embargo, para quienes buscaban una ruptura, puede haber sido un atisbo del futuro. Luego, ocho senadores y más de 100 representantes votaron a favor de la mentira que les obligó a huir de sus cámaras.Los insurrectos amenazaron y persiguieron al agente Eugene Goodman dentro del Capitolio, a las 2:13 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesLa posverdad es prefascismo, y Trump ha sido nuestro presidente de la posverdad. Cuando renunciamos a la verdad, concedemos el poder a aquellos con la riqueza y el carisma para crear un espectáculo en su lugar. Sin un acuerdo sobre algunos hechos básicos, los ciudadanos no pueden formar una sociedad civil que les permita defenderse. Si perdemos las instituciones que producen hechos que nos conciernen, entonces tendemos a revolcarnos en atractivas abstracciones y ficciones. La verdad se defiende particularmente mal cuando no queda mucho de ella, y la era de Trump —como la era de Vladimir Putin en Rusia— es una de decadencia de las noticias locales. Las redes sociales no son un sustituto: sobrecargan los hábitos mentales por los que buscamos estímulo emocional y comodidad, lo que significa perder la distinción entre lo que se siente verdadero y lo que realmente es verdadero.La posverdad desgasta el Estado de derecho e invita a un régimen de mitos. Estos últimos cuatro años, los estudiosos han discutido la legitimidad y el valor de invocar el fascismo en referencia a la propaganda trumpista. Una posición cómoda ha sido etiquetar cualquier esfuerzo como una comparación directa y luego tratar esas comparaciones como tabú. De manera más productiva, el filósofo Jason Stanley ha tratado el fascismo como un fenómeno, como una serie de patrones que pueden observarse no solo en la Europa de entreguerras sino más allá de esa época.Mi propia opinión es que un mayor conocimiento del pasado, fascista o no, nos permite notar y conceptualizar elementos del presente que de otra manera podríamos ignorar, y pensar más ampliamente sobre las posibilidades futuras. En octubre me quedó claro que el comportamiento de Trump presagiaba un golpe de Estado, y lo dije por escrito; esto no es porque el presente repita el pasado, sino porque el pasado ilumina el presente.Una turba furiosa se enfrentó a la policía mientras intentaba entrar en el Capitolio, a las 2:00 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesComo los líderes fascistas históricos, Trump se ha presentado como la única fuente de la verdad. Su uso del término fake news (“noticias falsas”) se hizo eco de la difamación nazi Lügenpresse (“prensa mentirosa”); como los nazis, se refirió a los reporteros como “enemigos del pueblo”. Como Adolf Hitler, llegó al poder en un momento en que la prensa convencional había recibido una paliza; la crisis financiera de 2008 hizo a los periódicos estadounidenses lo que la Gran Depresión le hizo a los diarios alemanes. Los nazis pensaron que podían usar la radio para remplazar el viejo pluralismo del periódico; Trump trató de hacer lo mismo con Twitter.Gracias a la capacidad tecnológica y al talento personal, Donald Trump mintió a un ritmo tal vez inigualado por ningún otro líder de la historia. En su mayor parte eran pequeñas mentiras, y su principal efecto era acumulativo. Creer en todas ellas era aceptar la autoridad de un solo hombre, porque creer en ellas era descreer en todo lo demás. Una vez establecida esa autoridad personal, el mandatario podía tratar a todos los demás como mentirosos; incluso tenía el poder de convertir a alguien de un consejero de confianza en un deshonesto sinvergüenza con un solo tuit. Sin embargo, mientras no pudiera imponer una mentira verdaderamente grande, una fantasía que crease una realidad alternativa en la que la gente pudiera vivir y morir, su prefascismo se quedó corto.Un busto de George Washington, con una gorra de Trump, mientras los intrusos recorrían el edificio, a las 2:34 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson para The New York TimesAlgunas de sus mentiras fueron, sin duda, de tamaño mediano: que era un hombre de negocios exitoso; que Rusia no lo apoyó en 2016; que Barack Obama nació en Kenia. Esas mentiras de tamaño medio eran la norma de los aspirantes a autoritaristas en el siglo XXI. En Polonia el partido de la derecha construyó un culto al martirio que giraba en torno a responsabilizar a los rivales políticos por el accidente de avión que mató al presidente de la nación. El húngaro Viktor Orban culpa a un número cada vez más reducido de refugiados musulmanes de los problemas de su país. Pero esas afirmaciones no eran grandes mentiras; se extendían pero no rompían lo que Hannah Arendt llamaba “el tejido de la realidad”.Una gran mentira histórica discutida por Arendt es la explicación de Joseph Stalin de la hambruna en la Ucrania soviética en 1932-33. El Estado había colectivizado la agricultura, y luego aplicó una serie de medidas punitivas contra Ucrania que provocaron la muerte de millones de personas. Sin embargo, la versión oficial era que los hambrientos eran provocadores, agentes de las potencias occidentales que odiaban tanto el socialismo que se estaban matando a sí mismos. Una ficción aún más grande, en el relato de Arendt, es el antisemitismo hitleriano: las afirmaciones de que los judíos dirigían el mundo, los judíos eran responsables de las ideas que envenenaban las mentes alemanas, los judíos apuñalaron a Alemania por la espalda durante la Primera Guerra Mundial. Curiosamente, Arendt pensaba que las grandes mentiras solo funcionan en las mentes solitarias; su coherencia sustituye a la experiencia y al compañerismo.En noviembre de 2020, al llegar a millones de mentes solitarias a través de las redes sociales, Trump dijo una mentira peligrosamente ambiciosa: que había ganado unas elecciones que, de hecho, había perdido. Esta mentira era grande en todos los aspectos pertinentes: no tan grande como “los judíos dirigen el mundo”, pero lo suficientemente grande. La importancia del asunto en cuestión era grande: el derecho a gobernar el país más poderoso del mundo y la eficacia y fiabilidad de sus procedimientos de sucesión. El nivel de mendacidad era profundo. La afirmación no solo era errónea, sino que también se hizo de mala fe, en medio de fuentes poco fiables. Cuestionaba no solo las pruebas sino también la lógica: ¿Cómo podría (y por qué debería) una elección haber sido amañada contra un presidente republicano pero no contra senadores y representantes republicanos? Trump tuvo que hablar, absurdamente, de una “Elección (para Presidente) amañada”.Afuera del Capitolio, la multitud aplaudía mientras los asaltantes entraban en el edificio a las 2:10 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesLa fuerza de una gran mentira reside en su demanda de que muchas otras cosas deben ser creídas o no creídas. Para dar sentido a un mundo en el que las elecciones presidenciales de 2020 fueron robadas se requiere desconfiar no solo de los reporteros y de los expertos, sino también de las instituciones gubernamentales locales, estatales y federales, desde los trabajadores electorales hasta los funcionarios electos, la Seguridad Nacional y hasta la Corte Suprema. Esto trae consigo, por necesidad, una teoría de la conspiración: imagina a toda la gente que debe haber estado en ese complot y a toda la gente que habría tenido que trabajar en el encubrimiento.La ficción electoral de Trump flota libre de la realidad verificable. Está defendida no tanto por hechos como por afirmaciones de que alguien más ha hecho algunas afirmaciones. La sensibilidad es que algo debe estar mal porque siento que está mal, y sé que otros sienten lo mismo. Cuando líderes políticos como Ted Cruz o Jim Jordan hablaban así, lo que querían decir era: crees mis mentiras, lo que me obliga a repetirlas. Las redes sociales proporcionan una infinidad de pruebas aparentes para cualquier condena, especialmente una aparentemente sostenida por un presidente.En la superficie, una teoría de la conspiración hace que su víctima parezca fuerte: ve a Trump como resistiendo a los demócratas, los republicanos, el Estado Profundo, los pedófilos, los satanistas. Sin embargo, más profundamente, invierte la posición de los fuertes y los débiles. El enfoque de Trump en las supuestas “irregularidades” y “estados disputados” se reduce a las ciudades donde los negros viven y votan. En el fondo, la fantasía del fraude es la de un crimen cometido por los negros contra los blancos.No es solo que el fraude electoral de los afroestadounidenses contra Donald Trump nunca haya ocurrido. Es que es todo lo contrario de lo que sucedió, en 2020 y en todas las elecciones estadounidenses. Como siempre, los negros esperaron más tiempo que los demás para votar y era más probable que sus votos fuesen impugnados. Era más probable que estuvieran sufriendo o muriendo a causa de la COVID-19, y menos probable que pudieran tomarse un tiempo fuera del trabajo. La protección histórica de su derecho al voto fue eliminada por el fallo de 2013 de la Corte Suprema en el caso del Condado de Shelby contra Holder, y los estados se han apresurado a aprobar medidas del tipo que históricamente reducen el voto de los pobres y las comunidades de color.La afirmación de que a Trump se le negó una victoria por fraude es una gran mentira, no solo porque atenta contra la lógica, describe mal el presente y exige creer en una conspiración. Es una gran mentira, fundamentalmente, porque invierte el campo moral de la política estadounidense y la estructura básica de la historia estadounidense.Cuando el senador Ted Cruz anunció su intención de impugnar el voto del Colegio Electoral, invocó el Compromiso de 1877, que resolvió la elección presidencial de 1876. Los comentaristas señalaron que esto no era un precedente relevante, ya que en ese entonces realmente habían graves irregularidades de los votantes y se produjo un impasse en el Congreso. Para los afroestadounidenses, sin embargo, la referencia aparentemente gratuita llevaba a otra parte. El Compromiso de 1877 —por el que Rutherford B. Hayes tendría la presidencia, siempre que retirara el poder federal del Sur— fue el mismo acuerdo por el que los afroestadounidenses fueron expulsados de las casillas de votación durante la mayor parte del siglo. Fue el fin de la Reconstrucción, el comienzo de la segregación, la discriminación legal y Jim Crow. Es el pecado original de la historia afroestadounidenses en la era posesclavitud, nuestro más cercano roce con el fascismo hasta ahora.Si la referencia parecía distante cuando Ted Cruz y 10 colegas senadores dieron a conocer su declaración el 2 de enero, se acercó mucho cuatro días después, cuando las banderas confederadas desfilaron por el Capitolio.Un camarógrafo de The Daily Caller, un sitio web de derecha, después de ser rociado con gas pimienta durante el caos en el Capitolio, a las 3:45 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesAlgunas cosas han cambiado desde 1877, por supuesto. En ese entonces, eran los republicanos, o muchos de ellos, los que apoyaban la igualdad racial; eran los demócratas, el partido del sur, los que querían el apartheid. Fueron los demócratas, en ese entonces, quienes llamaron fraudulentos los votos de los afroestadounidenses, y los republicanos quienes querían que fueran contados. Esto se ha invertido ahora. En el último medio siglo, desde la Ley de Derechos Civiles, los republicanos se han convertido en un partido predominantemente blanco interesado —como Trump declaró abiertamente— en mantener el número de votantes, y en particular el número de votantes negros, lo más bajo posible. Sin embargo, el hilo conductor sigue siendo el mismo. Al ver a los supremacistas blancos entre la gente que asaltaba el Capitolio, era fácil ceder a la sensación de que algo puro había sido violado. Sería mejor ver el episodio como parte de una larga discusión estadounidense sobre quién merece ser representado.Los demócratas se han convertido en una coalición, una que lo hace mejor que los republicanos entre los votantes femeninos y no blancos y consigue votos tanto de los sindicatos como de los universitarios. Sin embargo, no es del todo correcto contrastar esta coalición con un Partido Republicano monolítico. En este momento, el Partido Republicano es una coalición de dos tipos de personas: aquellos que jugarían con el sistema (la mayoría de los políticos, algunos de los votantes) y aquellos que sueñan con romperlo (algunos de los políticos, muchos de los votantes). En enero de 2021, esto fue visible como la diferencia entre los republicanos que defendían el sistema actual con el argumento de que les favorecía y los que trataban de derribarlo.En las cuatro décadas desde la elección de Ronald Reagan, los republicanos han superado la tensión entre los jugadores y los rupturistas gobernando en oposición al gobierno, o llamando a las elecciones una revolución (el Tea Party), o afirmando que se oponen a las élites. Los rupturistas, en este arreglo, proporcionan una cobertura a los jugadores, al presentar una ideología que distrae de la realidad básica de que el gobierno bajo los republicanos no se hace más pequeño sino que simplemente se desvía para servir a una serie de intereses..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-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;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom 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 the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President 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.Al principio, Trump parecía una amenaza para ese equilibrio. Su falta de experiencia en política y su racismo abierto lo hicieron una figura muy incómoda para el partido; al principio, republicanos prominentes consideraban que su hábito de mentir continuamente era grosero. Sin embargo, después de ganar la presidencia, sus particulares habilidades como rupturista parecían crear una tremenda oportunidad para los jugadores. Liderados por el jugador en jefe, McConnell, consiguieron cientos de jueces federales y recortes de impuestos para los ricos.Trump no se parecía a otros rupturistas porque parecía no tener ninguna ideología. Su objeción a las instituciones radicaba en que podían limitarlo personalmente. Tenía la intención de romper el sistema para servirse a sí mismo y, en parte, ha fracasado por eso. Trump es un político carismático e inspira devoción no solo entre los votantes sino también entre un sorprendente número de legisladores, pero no tiene una visión más grande que la suya o la que sus admiradores proyectan sobre él. En este sentido, su prefascismo no estuvo a la altura del fascismo: su visión nunca fue más allá de un espejo. Llegó a una mentira verdaderamente grande no desde cualquier visión del mundo sino desde la realidad de que podría perder algo.Sin embargo, Trump nunca preparó un golpe decisivo. Carecía del apoyo de los militares, algunos de cuyos líderes había alienado. (Ningún verdadero fascista habría cometido el error que cometió allí, que fue amar abiertamente a dictadores extranjeros; a los partidarios convencidos de que el enemigo estaba en casa podría no importarles, pero a los que juraron proteger de los enemigos en el extranjero sí les importó). La fuerza de policía secreta de Trump, los hombres que realizaban operaciones de secuestro en Portland, era violenta pero también pequeña y ridícula. Las redes sociales demostraron ser un arma contundente: Trump podía anunciar sus intenciones en Twitter, y los supremacistas blancos podían planear su invasión del Capitolio en Facebook o en Gab. Pero el presidente, a pesar de todas sus demandas, ruegos y amenazas a los funcionarios públicos, no podía maquinar una situación que terminase con las personas correctas haciendo lo incorrecto. Trump pudo hacer creer a algunos votantes que había ganado las elecciones de 2020, pero no pudo hacer que las instituciones se alinearan con su gran mentira. Y pudo traer a sus partidarios a Washington y enviarlos al Capitolio, pero ninguno parecía tener una idea muy clara de cómo funcionaría esto o de lo que su presencia lograría. Es difícil pensar en un momento insurreccional comparable —con la toma de un edificio de gran importancia— que implicó tanto trabajo.Una mujer que había sido rociada con gas pimienta se apoyó en la puerta este de la rotonda del Capitolio, a las 3:47 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesLa mentira dura más que el mentiroso. La idea de que Alemania perdió la Primera Guerra Mundial en 1918 por una “puñalada por la espalda” judía tenía 15 años cuando Hitler llegó al poder. ¿Cómo funcionará el mito de la victimización de Trump en la vida estadounidense dentro de 15 años? ¿Y en beneficio de quién?El 7 de enero, Trump pidió una transición pacífica del poder, admitiendo implícitamente que su golpe de Estado había fracasado. Sin embargo, volvió a repetir e incluso amplió su ficción electoral: ahora era una causa sagrada por la que la gente se había sacrificado. La puñalada por la espalda imaginaria de Trump vivirá principalmente gracias a su respaldo por los miembros del Congreso. En noviembre y diciembre de 2020, los republicanos lo repitieron, dándole una vida que de otra manera no hubiera tenido. En retrospectiva, ahora parece como si el último compromiso tambaleante entre los jugadores y los rupturistas fuera la idea de que Trump debería tener todas las oportunidades de probar que se le había hecho mal. Esa posición apoyaba implícitamente la gran mentira de los partidarios de Trump que se inclinaban a creerla. No pudo contener a Trump, cuya gran mentira solo se hizo más grande.En ese momento, los rupturistas y los jugadores vieron un mundo diferente por delante, donde la gran mentira era un tesoro que había que tener o un peligro que había que evitar. Los rupturistas no tuvieron más remedio que apresurarse a ser los primeros en afirmar que creían en ella. Debido a que los rupturistas Josh Hawley y Ted Cruz deben competir para reclamar el azufre y la bilis, los jugadores se vieron obligados a revelar su propia mano, y la división dentro de la coalición republicana se hizo visible el 6 de enero. La invasión del Capitolio solo reforzó esta división. Por supuesto, algunos senadores retiraron sus objeciones, pero Cruz y Hawley siguieron adelante de todos modos, junto con otros seis senadores. Más de 100 representantes doblaron su apuesta en la gran mentira. Algunos, como Matt Gaetz, incluso añadieron sus propias florituras, como la afirmación de que la turba no estaba liderada por los partidarios de Trump sino por sus oponentes.Trump es, por ahora, el mártir en jefe, el sumo sacerdote de la gran mentira. Él es el líder de los rupturistas, al menos en la mente de sus partidarios. Por ahora, los jugadores no quieren a Trump cerca. Desacreditado en sus últimas semanas, es inútil; despojado de las obligaciones de la presidencia, volverá a ser embarazoso, como lo fue en 2015. Incapaz de proporcionar una cobertura para jugar astutamente, será irrelevante para sus propósitos diarios. Pero los rupturistas tienen una razón aún más fuerte para buscar la desaparición de Trump: es imposible heredar de alguien que todavía está por aquí. Aprovechar la gran mentira de Trump podría parecer un gesto de apoyo. De hecho, expresa un deseo de su muerte política. Transformar el mito de uno sobre Trump a uno sobre la nación será más fácil cuando esté fuera del camino.Como Cruz y Hawley pueden aprender, decir la gran mentira es ser propiedad de ella. Solo porque hayas vendido tu alma no significa que hayas hecho un buen negocio. Hawley no tiene ningún nivel de hipocresía; hijo de un banquero, educado en la Universidad de Stanford y en la Escuela de Derecho de Yale, denuncia a las élites. En la medida en que se pensaba que Cruz se apegaba a un principio, el de los derechos de los estados, que los llamados a la acción de Trump violaban descaradamente. Una declaración conjunta que Cruz emitió sobre la impugnación de los senadores al voto captó muy bien el aspecto posverdadero del conjunto: nunca alegó que hubiera fraude, solo que había alegaciones de fraude. Alegaciones de alegaciones, alegaciones hasta el final.Una mezcla de gas lacrimógeno lanzado por la policía y residuos de extintores de incendios descargados por extremistas pro-Trump flotaba en el aire de la Rotonda mientras la multitud merodeaba alrededor, a las 2:38 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesLa gran mentira requiere compromiso. Cuando los jugadores republicanos no se arriesgan lo suficiente, los rupturistas republicanos los llaman “RINO”, que en inglés es la sigla de “republicanos solo de nombre”. Este término alguna vez sugirió una falta de compromiso ideológico. Ahora significa una falta de voluntad para echar abajo una elección. Los jugadores, en respuesta, cierran filas en torno a la Constitución y hablan de principios y tradiciones. Todos los rupturistas deben saber (con la posible excepción del senador por Alabama Tommy Tuberville) que están participando en una farsa, pero tendrán una audiencia de decenas de millones que no lo saben.Si Trump sigue presente en la vida política estadounidense, seguramente repetirá su gran mentira incesantemente. Hawley, Cruz y los otros rupturistas comparten la responsabilidad de lo que eso desencadenará. Cruz y Hawley parecen estar postulándose para la presidencia. ¿Pero qué significa ser candidato a la presidencia y denunciar el voto? Si afirmas que el otro lado ha hecho trampa, y tus partidarios te creen, esperarán que te engañes a ti mismo. Al defender la gran mentira de Trump el 6 de enero, ellos sentaron un precedente: un candidato presidencial republicano que pierde una elección debe ser nombrado de todos modos por el Congreso. Los republicanos en el futuro, por lo menos los candidatos a presidente de la ruptura, presumiblemente tendrán un Plan A, para ganar y ganar, y un Plan B, para perder y ganar. No es necesario el fraude; solo las alegaciones de que hay alegaciones de fraude. La verdad debe ser remplazada por el espectáculo, los hechos por la fe.El intento de golpe de Trump de 2020-21, como otros intentos fallidos de golpe, es una advertencia para quienes se preocupan por el Estado de derecho y una lección para aquellos que no lo hacen. Su prefascismo reveló una posibilidad para la política estadounidense. Para que un golpe de Estado funcione en 2024, los rupturistas necesitarán algo que Trump nunca tuvo: una minoría furiosa, organizada para la violencia nacional, dispuesta a añadir intimidación a las elecciones. Cuatro años de amplificación de una gran mentira podría darles eso. Afirmar que el otro lado robó una elección es prometer que tú también robarás una. También es afirmar que el otro bando merece ser castigado.Observadores informados dentro y fuera del gobierno están de acuerdo en que la supremacía blanca de la derecha es la mayor amenaza terrorista para Estados Unidos. La venta de armas en 2020 alcanzó un nivel asombroso. La historia muestra que la violencia política ocurre luego de que los líderes prominentes de los principales partidos políticos abrazan abiertamente la paranoia.Nuestra gran mentira es típicamente estadounidense, envuelta en nuestro extraño sistema electoral, y depende de nuestras particulares tradiciones de racismo. Sin embargo, nuestra gran mentira también es estructuralmente fascista, con su extrema mendacidad, su pensamiento conspirativo, su inversión de los perpetradores y las víctimas y su implicación de que el mundo está dividido entre nosotros y ellos. Para mantenerlo en marcha durante cuatro años hay que cortejar el terrorismo y el asesinato.Cuando esa violencia llegue, los rupturistas tendrán que reaccionar. Si la aceptan, se convierten en la facción fascista. El Partido Republicano estará dividido, al menos por un tiempo. Uno puede, por supuesto, imaginar una funesta reunificación: un candidato de la ruptura pierde una estrecha elección presidencial en noviembre de 2024 y grita fraude, los republicanos ganan ambas cámaras del Congreso y los alborotadores en la calle, educados por cuatro años de la gran mentira, exigen lo que ven como justicia. ¿Se mantendrían los jugadores con los principios si esas fueran las circunstancias del 6 de enero de 2025?Sin embargo, este momento también es una oportunidad. Es posible que un Partido Republicano dividido sirva mejor a la democracia estadounidense; que los jugadores, separados de los rupturistas, empiecen a pensar en la política como una forma de ganar elecciones. Es muy probable que el gobierno de Biden-Harris tenga unos primeros meses más fáciles de lo esperado; tal vez se suspenda el obstruccionismo, al menos entre unos pocos republicanos y por poco tiempo, para vivir un momento de cuestionamientos. Los políticos que quieren que el trumpismo termine tienen un camino sencillo: decir la verdad sobre las elecciones.Estados Unidos no sobrevivirá a la gran mentira solo porque un mentiroso esté separado del poder. Necesitará una reflexiva repluralización de los medios y un compromiso con los hechos como un bien público. El racismo estructurado en cada aspecto del intento de golpe es un llamado a prestar atención a nuestra propia historia. La atención seria al pasado nos ayuda a ver los riesgos pero también sugiere la posibilidad de futuro. No podemos ser una república democrática si decimos mentiras sobre la raza, grandes o pequeñas. La democracia no consiste en minimizar el voto ni en ignorarlo, ni en jugar ni en romper un sistema, sino en aceptar la igualdad de los demás, escuchar sus voces y contar sus votos.Timothy Snyder es el profesor de la cátedra Levin de historia en la Universidad de Yale y el autor de historias de atrocidades políticas como Tierras de sangre y Tierra negra, así como del libro Sobre la tiranía, sobre el giro de Estados Unidos hacia el autoritarismo. Su libro más reciente es Nuestra enfermedad, unas memorias de su propia enfermedad casi mortal que refleja la relación entre la salud y la libertad. Ashley Gilbertson es una fotoperiodista australiana de la VII Photo Agency que vive en Nueva York. Gilbertson ha cubierto la migración y los conflictos a nivel internacional durante más de veinte años.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More