Washington DC

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Multimillion-dollar ruling against Giuliani shows cost of spreading election lies

      by

      The judge had already decided Rudy Giuliani defamed the two former Georgia election workers, the question was just how much that cycle of lies and ensuing harassment should cost him.A jury declared on Friday that it was worth an eye-popping $148m, far beyond expectations and a major blow to the former New York mayor and key Donald Trump ally.The case was one of a handful of ways pro-democracy groups are seeking consequences for election subversion ahead of the next presidential election. The plaintiffs hope the high-dollar decision will show to Giuliani and others that there’s a financial and human cost to spreading lies. The stakes are high with the 2024 presidential election quickly approaching and Trump probably on the ballot once again.This week’s case was a test for accountability for purveyors of election lies from the everyday people who get caught in their web through no fault of their own. The test worked: Giuliani will have to pay up. Whether it matters to serial liars remains to be seen, but it serves as a strong deterrent to those considering spreading unfounded election conspiracies.Beyond the money, however, this was an avenue for Freeman and her daughter, Moss, to speak directly to one of the people responsible for tearing their lives apart. A public figure such as Giuliani expects and accepts a level of intrusion into their privacy. Everyday people working elections, as Freeman and Moss were, shouldn’t have to.They took the stand this week to detail the onslaught of threats and harassment that came after Giuliani, an attorney for Trump, and Trump’s team put them at the center of an election conspiracy.Imagine this happened to you, their testimony called to mind. Imagine you were working your regular job, one you loved and found important. Imagine, then, that strangers saw surveillance video of you doing your job and twisted it into a narrative, saying that you had passed a USB drive to alter vote-counts, when in reality you passed a piece of candy. That you packed suitcases with fake votes to steal an election.Imagine some of the most powerful people in the country, with the most ardent followers, sent those lies ping-ponging around the internet to the point that your name online is attached to them forever, bringing a wave of hateful, racist, threatening messages to your inbox.It would dismantle your life. It dismantled theirs, they told the jury.Trump and his allies needed someone to scapegoat to try to overturn Georgia’s results, and they found it in these two women, said Michael Gottlieb, Freeman and Moss’s attorney.When she testified, Freeman wore a shirt with her name on it when she worked the elections in December 2020. She was proud of who she was. That’s how she was identified, she said. She no longer wears her name proudly – she had to move homes, hiring a lawyer for her new place to ensure her name wasn’t connected to it. Moss watched her son struggle in school, believing the whole ordeal was her fault. She doesn’t leave her house any more. She feels ostracized, anxious, afraid.Their testimony drove home the human cost of election lies, a harrowing tale for Americans watching democracy falter over the past few years. It was a warning sign to voters: this is the state of our politics today, that two unwitting public servants have their lives upended for political games and gain.Giuliani did not testify in the case himself, despite expectations that he would, later saying he was concerned the judge would deem any missteps as contempt of court. His lack of testimony came after his lawyer declined to cross-examine Freeman. Joe Sibley, Giuliani’s attorney, said he did not take the stand or question Freeman because the women had been through enough.But Sibley also acknowledged in his closing remarks that Giuliani “hasn’t exactly helped himself with some of the things that have happened in the last few days”.The case shifted, with Giuliani’s team no longer attempting to defend his actions but instead deflect blame. Sibley pointed to another defamation case by Freeman and Moss against the rightwing media outlet Gateway Pundit, saying the outlet probably identified the women first and ignited the flood of harassment.The testimony – even the damages themselves – may not deter Giuliani and his associates. He plans to appeal and tie up any payouts as long as possible, and it’s unclear whether he has money to cover the damages. (That’s a limit of defamation law visible in the defamation verdicts against Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist who owes Sandy Hook shooting families millions but largely has not yet paid them.)And after the verdict was announced, Giuliani sounded just as obstinate as ever. He called the number “absurd” and claimed it would be “reversed so quickly it will make your head spin”.The lack of reconciling with the effect of his actions tracks with the continued election denialism ever-present in Trumpworld, even as penalties slowly mount. As he tries to regain the White House, the former president himself hasn’t accepted he lost it fairly in the first place. Now, he and his team are working to sow election distrust at all levels still in 2024, despite the legal repercussions from 2020.But a verdict of this size will still resonate, if not for the loudest voices, then at least for those with lesser platforms. It sends the clear message the plaintiffs hoped for.“Today’s a good day. A jury stood witness to what Rudy Giuliani did to me and my daughter and held him accountable, and for that I’m thankful,” said Freeman, speaking at the court after the verdict. “Today is not the end of the road, we still have work to do. Rudy Giuliani was not the only one who spread lies about us, and others must be held accountable too. But that is tomorrow’s work. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Rudy Giuliani faces third day of trial for defaming Georgia election workers

      by

      The third day of a federal trial against Rudy Giuliani for defamation against two Georgia election workers begins on Wednesday after a day of harrowing testimony from Shaye Moss, whose life was upended after Giuliani spread election lies about her.Moss and Ruby Freeman are suing Giuliani for his claims, from which the former New York City mayor and Trump ally has not backed down this week. After the first day of trial, Giuliani doubled down on his claims, saying they were true, leading the judge to question Giuliani’s mental fitness.Just as they have been all week, Moss, Freeman and Giuliani are in the courtroom. Moss and Freeman are sitting next to each other at a table with their lawyers. Freeman’s back is to Giuliani, who is sitting at a table parallel to them with his lawyer.Freeman is expected to testify later today.Both women are seeking up to $43m in damages over Giuliani’s false claims that accused them of fraudulently counting mail-in ballots, a sum that Giuliani’s lawyer said would be like a “death penalty” for his client.Ashlee Humphreys, a professor at Northwestern who studies social media, is the first witness on Wednesday. She is expected to testify about how she calculated the damages Moss and Freeman are entitled to.The case is seen as a test for one avenue pro-democracy groups are using to try to hold election deniers accountable for the consequences of spreading conspiracy theories. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Blow to Trump as court upholds most of gag order in election interference case

      by

      Donald Trump may now assail the special counsel who brought the federal criminal case against him over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, in addition to being free to criticize the judge, the justice department, the Biden administration and the case as politically motivated.The former president remains barred, however, from attacking potential trial witnesses, court staff or the special counsel’s staff, as well as the family members of any court staff or the special counsel’s staff.That was the ruling handed down on Friday by the US court of appeals for the DC circuit, which found that Trump’s inflammatory statements posed a threat to the fair administration of justice and only partly narrowed the gag order imposed by the federal judge overseeing the case in Washington.“Mr Trump is a former president and current candidate for the presidency,” the appeals court wrote in a 68-page opinion. “But Mr Trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that govern all other criminal defendants.”The decision by the three-judge panel marks the latest defeat for Trump over the gag order, which was entered by the US district judge Tanya Chutkan in October after prosecutors complained that Trump’s statements and social media posts could intimidate potential trial witnesses.Trump is expected to appeal the ruling to the US supreme court, people close to his legal team said on Friday. A Trump spokesperson added: “President Trump will continue to fight for the First Amendment rights of tens of millions of Americans to hear from the leading presidential candidate at the height of his campaign.”The ruling from the three circuit judges – all Democratic appointees – struck a cautious balance between allowing Trump to criticize the case as a political vendetta while he runs for re-election, and protecting the people involved in the case who Trump has targeted in his statements.In particular, the judges concluded that the original gag order was too broad in preventing Trump from personally attacking the special counsel Jack Smith. They also narrowed the order to say Trump can attack people involved in the post-2020 election matters as long as he does not target their trial testimony.But the judges were adamant that Trump’s relentless attacks clearly threatened the integrity of proceedings because his statements about potential witnesses could chill their testimony at trial while his statements about court staff could impede them from fulfilling their jobs.“Mr Trump’s documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated, real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in this case,” the opinion said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe judges also rejected all three of Trump’s arguments for lifting the gag order in its entirety, finding that his lawyers appeared to take the extreme position that only Trump’s first amendment rights – and no other consideration – mattered when it came to restricting his speech.They wrote that they found untenable Trump’s position that there could only be a gag order after a Trump statement caused harm or chilled a witness, not least because the point of a protective order was to ensure no such harm would occur in the first place.They also rejected Trump’s complaint that a gag order amounted to being bound by a “heckler’s veto” – gagging a defendant merely because of fears about how a third party might act – because the court had an obligation to ensure third parties did not threaten proceedings.The judges were also unimpressed with Trump’s argument that his political speech mattered more than criminal trial proceedings. “The existence of a political campaign,” the court wrote, “does not alter the court’s historical commitment or obligation to ensure the fair administration of justice.” More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Federal judge rejects Trump’s attempt to dismiss 2020 election subversion case

      by

      A federal judge on Friday rejected Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss his federal criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, ruling that he enjoyed no immunity from prosecution simply because it was based on actions he took when he was still president.The order by the presiding US district judge Tanya Chutkan simultaneously denied two of Trump’s motions to dismiss – on presidential immunity grounds and constitutional grounds – setting the stage for Trump to appeal to the DC circuit and ultimately the US supreme court.“The court cannot conclude that our constitution cloaks former presidents with absolute immunity for any federal crimes they committed while in office,” Chutkan wrote. “Nothing in the constitution’s text or allocation of government powers requires exempting former presidents.”“Defendant’s four-year service as commander in chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens,” Chutkan’s 48-page opinion added.Trump’s lawyers had always expected to lose their initial attempt to toss the charges, which is scheduled for trial in federal district court in Washington next March, and to use the appeals process as their final strategy to delay the case as long as possible.The former president has made it no secret that his strategy for all his impending cases is to delay, ideally beyond the 2024 election in November, in the hopes that winning re-election could enable him to potentially pardon himself or direct his attorney general to drop the charges.Trump’s lawyers filed their motions to dismiss in October, advancing a sweeping and unprecedented interpretation of executive power that argued former presidents could not be held criminally accountable for actions undertaken while in office.The filing contended that all of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment, from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification to organizing fake slates of electors, were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.At the heart of the Trump legal team’s filing was the extraordinary contention that not only was Trump entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but that the immunity applied regardless of Trump’s intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment.The judge emphatically rejected the presidential immunity arguments in the opinion accompanying her order, writing that neither the US constitution nor legal precedent supported such an extraordinary extension of post-presidential power.“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass,” Chutkan wrote. “Former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability.”The judge appeared to take particular umbrage at the Trump lawyers’ claim that it was unconstitutional to charge Trump just because no other former presidents before him had been charged, writing that while his case was unprecedented, so too were the crimes for which he has been charged.“The supreme court has never immunized presidents – much less former presidents – from judicial process merely because it was the first time that process had been necessary,” Chutkan wrote, invoking US history and the pardon conferred to Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandalThe presidential pardon to Nixon was granted and accepted precisely to prevent the possibility of criminal prosecution over Watergate, the opinion said – without which, there would have been no need for a pardon in the first place.The judge noted, however, that she was not expressing an opinion on an adjacent argument Trump had raised about whether his actions related to January 6 could be prosecuted because they fell within the so-called “outer perimeter” of his duties as president.Chutkan’s denial came hours after the DC circuit also rejected Trump’s attempt to use a similar presidential immunity argument to protect himself from several civil lawsuits seeking to hold him accountable for inciting the violence that took place during the January 6 Capitol attack.In a statement, a Trump spokesperson attacked the order: “Radical Democrats, under the direction of crooked Joe Biden, continue to try and destroy bedrock constitutional principles and set dangerous precedents that would cripple future presidential administrations and our country as a whole, in their desperate effort to interfere in the 2024 presidential election.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Henry Kissinger, US foreign policy giant, dies aged 100 – video obituary

      by

      Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state under Richard Nixon, became one of the most prominent and controversial figures of US foreign policy in the 20th century. He remained influential until the end of his life, in large part thanks to his founding of his geopolitical consulting firm and the authorship of several books on international affairs More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why Judges in the Trump Jan. 6 Trial Need a Rocket Docket

      by

      If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for president in 2024, it’s now clear he will likely still have criminal indictments hanging over his head on Election Day. It’s possible that his criminal liability for the events leading up to the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol will remain unresolved.If that happens, voters will go to the polls without knowing whether one of the candidates in the current election is criminally responsible for trying to overturn the last one and subvert the will of the voters.Having an election under such circumstances is unthinkable. As Richard Nixon might have put it, voters have a right to know whether their candidate is a crook. It can be avoided, but it’s going to require the judiciary to take some extraordinary steps. And whether it happens will be decided by a relative handful of federal jurists — including a number appointed by Mr. Trump himself.Of the four criminal cases pending against Mr. Trump, the federal election interference prosecution in Washington currently has the best chance of going to trial before the 2024 presidential vote. The trial date is set for March 4. The Federal District Court judge overseeing the case, Tanya Chutkan, has been doing an admirable job of keeping it on track. But legal developments that are out of her hands now threaten to derail that schedule: Expected pretrial appeals could push the trial date past the November election.Mr. Trump has moved to dismiss the case on various grounds, including claims of presidential immunity and violation of the double jeopardy clause. For most pretrial motions, if the motion is denied, the defendant must wait to raise the issue again on appeal following conviction, if there is one.But these two motions fall into a narrow category of claims that usually entitle a defendant to an interlocutory appeal — in this case, an appeal before trial. Because these are claims of a constitutional right not to be tried at all, a post-conviction appeal is not an adequate remedy. By that time, the right has already been lost. A defendant is allowed to appeal such claims before the government may put him on trial.If, as expected, Judge Chutkan denies these motions, Mr. Trump will have a right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (I expect the appeals will focus primarily on the immunity claim; the double jeopardy argument seems frivolous.) If he loses before a three-judge panel there, he can ask the full court to review that decision. If that fails, he can ask the Supreme Court to review the case. While all that goes on, the trial cannot proceed.In a typical case, an appeals process like this could easily take a year or more. In the first prosecution of Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, appeals over his claims of constitutional immunity under the speech or debate clause delayed the trial for about 18 months, even with the Supreme Court declining to take the case.In the Trump case, delays like that would push the trial well past November. If Mr. Trump wins the election, he would be able to shut down the two federal prosecutions and could probably have the state prosecutions at least postponed while he is in office.This appears to be the primary defense strategy in Mr. Trump’s criminal cases: delay as much as possible to put off any trials until after next November, when Mr. Trump hopes to be in a position to put an end to his legal problems.Having an election with Mr. Trump on the ballot and his criminal liability for Jan. 6 unresolved could spell disaster for the rule of law. It’s also completely avoidable if the courts — and in particularly, the judges who control the schedule — are willing to do what’s necessary: put the resolution of these motions on a fast track to ensure the case can go to trial as scheduled.Typically, the judicial and political calendars do not intersect. We expect judges to ignore political considerations and campaign schedules when making their decisions. But in times of political crisis, the federal judiciary cannot simply turn a blind eye. It must respond in a way that will enable the political system to address that crisis in a timely manner. This is one of those times.This is not a proposal for the courts to act in a partisan fashion. We don’t know whether Mr. Trump’s claim of immunity will be upheld. If it is rejected, we don’t know what the result of the trial will be. The outcome of the legal process is not the point. The point is that the country deserves to know that outcome before it chooses the next leader of the free world.There is precedent for this kind of judicial rapid response. During Watergate, the appeal of the order for President Nixon to turn over the subpoenaed White House tapes was resolved in only about two months — and that included arguments before and an opinion by the Supreme Court. During the 2000 presidential election, that court heard arguments in Bush v. Gore on Dec. 11 and the very next day issued its opinion shutting down the vote recount in Florida. The usually sedate appellate courts can move with dispatch when they want to.This case requires similar urgency. The initial appeals here could be easily heard and decided within a few weeks. Whether to grant a rehearing before the full Court of Appeals is discretionary, but if it does grant such a hearing, it needs to be equally speedy.After the District of Columbia Circuit rules, the losing party will seek Supreme Court review. If Mr. Trump loses the motions, my own hunch is that the Supreme Court may not take the case. In past disputes the justices have not shown much willingness to go out of their way to help Mr. Trump, and the last thing this embattled court needs right now is to wade into another controversy. But if the court does feel the need to weigh in on these novel constitutional issues, it also needs to move very swiftly.There’s no reason the entire process, including Supreme Court review, could not be completed by January. That would allow the trial date to stay on track if the motions are denied.There’s no concern about Mr. Trump being prejudiced by this relatively breakneck pace. He has vast financial and legal resources. The issues are already fully briefed before Judge Chutkan. The issues are novel — because nothing like Jan. 6 has happened before — but the questions are not extraordinarily complex; we need a rocket docket, but this is not rocket science.Some might argue that voters already have enough information about Mr. Trump’s actions and Jan. 6. But a criminal trial is different. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Mr. Trump and his allies made repeated claims of voter fraud and a “rigged” election. Those claims uniformly failed when tested in court by the adversary system, where actual evidence is required and witnesses testify under oath. In an age of disinformation and fake news, courts remain the arena where facts still matter.Some voters will not accept the verdict of a criminal trial, no matter what the outcome. But for many it could be a critical data point when casting their ballot.It’s already not possible to have the trial completed before most of the presidential primaries; Super Tuesday, with over a dozen primaries in states and territories across the country, is March 5. Mr. Trump could have the nomination sewn up by the time the trial is over. But the trial could easily be concluded before the Republican convention in July, so the delegates could decide whether they really want to nominate a felon (if that is the outcome) to lead the country.A functioning democracy requires an informed electorate. It’s hard to imagine a more important piece of information for voters to have next November than whether a candidate is criminally culpable for trying to overturn the last presidential election.Our legal system can resolve this case expeditiously while still protecting the defendant’s rights, but the judiciary will have to step up and do its part to protect democracy.Randall. D. Eliason is the former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School. He blogs at Sidebarsblog.com.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. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 rioter found guilty after judge calls defence argument ‘gobbledegook’

      by

      A January 6 rioter who represented himself using “sovereign citizen” arguments – which a judge called “bullshit” and “gobbledegook” – was found guilty on Tuesday.Taylor James Johnatakis, 39 and from Kingston, Washington, will be sentenced later.On 6 January 2021, Donald Trump sent supporters to Congress to try to stop certification of his defeat by Joe Biden, telling them to “fight like hell” in his cause.According to the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Johnatakis “came to the Capitol with a megaphone strapped to his back [and] joined the riot at the base of the south-west staircase when the mob was overwhelming police officers, who were forced to retreat toward the Capitol.“Johnatakis followed right behind those retreating police officers [and] was one of the first rioters to reach the top of the south-west staircase, where he was confronted with a line of police barricades and police officers protecting the Capitol.“Johnatakis organised and coordinated other rioters to assault the police line … Specifically, using his megaphone, Johnatakis directed rioters to move up to the police line”, then orchestrated an attack using bike racks …“As a result of this attack, at least one police officer was injured.”Johnatakis was arrested in February 2021 and became one of more than 1,200 people charged over the riot. More than 400 have been sentenced to jail, some after being convicted of seditious conspiracy.Trump was impeached (for a second time) over the riot but acquitted when Senate Republicans stayed loyal. He now faces 13 state and four federal charges over his attempted election subversion, among 91 criminal charges in total, but nonetheless leads Republican primary polling by vast margins.In court last week, Johnatakis mounted his own defence, attempting to cite “sovereign citizen” ideology. As defined by the Anti-Defamation League, sovereign citizens form “an extreme anti-government movement whose members believe the government has no authority over them”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionJohnatakis also said he had “repented all [his] sins” and the case should be “discharged”, but the judge, Royce C Lamberth, was not buying.Telling Johnatakis his arguments were “bullshit” and “gobbledegook”, Lamberth said: “When they find you guilty, you’re going to jail. You could get a lesser sentence if you weren’t so hard-headed.”On Tuesday, the jury found Johnatakis guilty on seven charges, three of them felonies.The charges were: obstruction of an official proceeding; assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers; civil disorder; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds; and an act of physical violence in the Capitol grounds or buildings. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘The Lincoln shiver’: a visit to the Soldiers’ Home, a less-known Washington gem

      by

      When Joe Biden seeks release from Washington pressures, he goes to his house in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Donald Trump, of course, had Mar-a-Lago in Florida and even Richard Nixon had the “Western White House”, in San Clemente, California. Presidents often have places to go to escape.Abraham Lincoln needed an escape more than anyone but his bolt hole was closer to home: a cottage at the Soldiers’ Home, on a hill north of the White House in Washington DC itself. It’s still there, a lesser-known historical site in the capital.Callie Hawkins, chief executive of President Lincoln’s Cottage, a national monument since 2000, says: “At the height of the civil war, some of Lincoln’s close friends suggested he take a break, go somewhere else. And he said, ‘Three weeks would do me no good. This follows me wherever I go.’“It would be natural to think of this place as a retreat of some kind. But in many ways, this place brought him closer to the war. He was surrounded by veterans who were wounded. At that time, they lived in the building next door. Just in front of us, about 200 yards away, is the first national cemetery. And then from the other side of the house, he could have looked out on to Maryland and Virginia, both slave-holding states. And so it was really a constant reminder, being out here, of reality.“We’ll walk up to the statue, because I want to see how you stand up to Lincoln. You’re pretty tall yourself.”I’m 6ft 4in but in his famous hat, Lincoln has me matched. The bronze, by Ivan Schwartz and showing the 16th president with the horse he rode to and from the White House each day in the hot months – June to November – was installed in 2008.“It’s different in purpose to the Lincoln Memorial” on the National Mall, Hawkins says. “We wanted to push back against that idea that Lincoln can only be viewed from afar, as a figure larger than life, on a throne in a temple. Here, you can walk up and look him in the eye. And this is a view that many people who were part of this community, on the grounds of the Soldiers’ Home, would have had.”The statue is the most obvious manifestation of Lincoln at the Soldiers’ Home. But his presence is evoked elsewhere.From the terrace, where Lincoln played checkers with Tad, his son, visitors can look out as Lincoln did, down over Washington, to the Capitol, or out to Virginia and Maryland. Inside, the house is sparsely furnished, without attempt to recreate its look in Lincoln’s day. The result is strongly evocative. With the shutters closed, the study where Lincoln worked is dark. Next door, the drawing room is light.“It’s pretty magical,” Hawkins says. “There’s this thing that happens to a lot of people when they come in the cottage. It’s one of those sensations you can’t quite describe, but we have done our best and call it the ‘Lincoln shiver’.“It’s this full-body sensation as you are standing in this place and moving throughout these rooms, that Lincoln did the same at one of the most pivotal moments in American history. Added to that is that it’s a home, and homes are our most intimate spaces. You can just imagine Lincoln in his night shirt, or pajamas and bedroom slippers, moving about these grounds.”Hawkins describes one such appearance by Lincoln, during an evening visit from George Borrett, a British traveler, in 1864.“They brought them into this room and told them to have a seat. A few minutes later, Lincoln came walking through those folding doors.”I turn, see the doors, and there it is: the Lincoln shiver.There are other reasons for it. Lincoln and his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, grieved here, after the death of their son Willie at the White House in 1862. Hawkins now oversees a striking exhibition about the Lincolns and grief, meant to help those grieving today. Other projects also seek to apply Lincoln’s legacy to modern problems. In January, Prison Reimagined will show portraits of presidents by incarcerated artists.But Hawkins’s evocation of Lincoln, in the drawing room he used, remains extremely powerful, conveying the simple humanity for which Lincoln has long been loved but also his place as perhaps the most powerful expressor – and expression – of the American democratic ideal.“His hair was ruffled, his eyes were sleepy, and his feet were enveloped in carpet slippers. He was essentially in his pajamas to greet people he had no idea were coming and who he did not know. Borrett said, naturally enough, the president asked about their travels. And then President Lincoln asked what I consider to be a really strange question. ‘What do you think of our great country?’“This was a country that in 1864, at the time of their visit, was literally at war with itself. And Lincoln asked a stranger, ‘What do you think of our great country?’ It’s such a such an interesting question. I think it really demonstrates Lincoln’s love for this country, his hope for this country, and what he thought was possible.”The conversation with Borrett happened the year after Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address: a short speech, at the site of the greatest civil war battle, that became a foundational text. Lincoln delivered it 160 years ago today.My visit to President Lincoln’s Cottage is somewhat less momentous, an hour or so’s respite from reporting the politics of a country as divided as at any time since that civil war. But for those of us who ponder such problems daily, Lincoln’s conversation with George Borrett has more to offer.“Lincoln started to talk about democracy,” Hawkins says. “This country being the last best hope of Earth. That if democracy didn’t take hold here, it didn’t have a chance anywhere.”
      President Lincoln’s Cottage is open daily, with hourly guided tours More