Travel News

Here are the takeaways from Day 6 of Derek Chauvin’s trial.

On day six of Derek Chauvin’s trial, the former police officer accused of killing George Floyd brought two key witnesses to the stand: the doctor who spent 30 minutes trying to save Mr. Floyd’s life before he declare dead, and the head of the Minneapolis Police Department.

Both witnesses provided testimony that may strengthen the arguments of the prosecution, who argued that Mr. Floyd died because Mr. Chauvin knelt on top of him for more than nine minutes, rather than through complications related to the drug use or heart disease. Here are the main takeaways from Monday.

  • Dr Bradford T. Wankhede Langenfeld, who was a senior resident at Hennepin County Medical Center, said he believed Mr Floyd had died from lack of oxygen. The cause of Mr. Floyd’s death will prove to be a determining factor in this case. The lawsuit argued that “asphyxiation”, or oxygen deficiency, caused Mr. Floyd’s death. During cross-examination, Dr. Wankhede Langenfeld told Eric J. Nelson, counsel for Mr. Chauvin, that asphyxiation can be caused by a number of factors, including drug use; a toxicology report found methamphetamine and fentanyl in Mr Floyd’s system.

  • The testimony of Dr Wankhede Langenfeld also gave jurors a better understanding of what happened after Mr Floyd was taken from the scene of the arrest to the Cup Foods convenience store. Last week, jurors heard from two paramedics who arrived at the scene. One of them, Derek Smith, said he tried to revive Mr. Floyd using several techniques, but none were effective. Mr Smith said Mr Floyd appeared to be dead by the time he arrived at Cup Foods.

    On Monday, Dr Wankhede Langenfeld said he tried to save Mr Floyd for about 30 minutes before declaring him dead. Dr Wankhede Langenfeld said at the time he considered overdose to be a less likely cause of death because paramedics who brought Mr Floyd to hospital made no mention of an overdose. Additionally, the doctor said patients with cardiac arrest had a 10-15% decrease in their chance of survival for every minute that CPR was not given. Police officers did not administer CPR at the scene, even after Mr. Floyd lost consciousness.

  • Minneapolis Police Department chief Medaria Arradondo testified Monday that Mr. Chauvin “absolutely” violated departmental policies when he knelt on top of Mr. Floyd for more than nine minutes. “Once Mr. Floyd had stopped resisting, and certainly once he was in distress and tried to verbalize it, it should have stopped,” Chief Arradondo said. The statement was an unequivocal rebuke from Mr. Chauvin’s leader and an unusual display of an interim leader testifying against a police officer.

    Mr Chauvin’s defense pushed back on the issue of possible policy violations, asking Chief Arradondo whether police officers often need to assess many factors when applying force to a suspect, such as any potential threat from a crowd in the room. proximity. Throughout the trial, Mr. Nelson pointed to the crowds of passers-by who gathered along the sidewalk during the arrest, suggesting they may have hampered Mr. Chauvin’s ability to provide medical assistance. to Mr. Floyd.

Travel News

Takeaways from Day 5 of Trump’s impeachment trial

The conclusion of Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial was briefly questioned on Saturday after a demand for last-minute testimony threatened to extend proceedings over whether the president had incited the 6 January at the Capitol. But the House impeachment officials who raised the demand quickly dropped the issue, paving the way for closing arguments and a vote that allowed Mr. Trump to acquit the second acquittal of the crimes and serious crimes.

Here are some takeaways from day five of the trial.

In a 57 to 43 vote, the Senate acquitted Mr. Trump for the second time in 13 months. But it was the most bipartisan support for the conviction of one of four indictments in American history.

Democrats needed 17 Republicans to vote with them to condemn Mr. Trump on a single charge of “inciting insurgency” for his role in the assault on Capitol Hill. In the end, only seven broke ranks, but it was one more than expected, with North Carolina Senator Richard M. Burr crossing party lines.

Senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania also voted to convict Mr. Trump.

In closing arguments, Mr. Trump’s defense team denounced the deadly violence of January 6 and argued that the former president had been criticized by a biased news outlet and the victim of a long “vendetta” of from his political opponents.

Colorado Representative Joe Neguse, one of the impeachment officials, spoke of the prospect of more politically motivated attacks in the future if Mr. Trump were not held accountable.

“Senators, this cannot be the start. This cannot be the new normal, ”Neguse said on Saturday. “This must be the end. This decision is in your hands. “

But even as the trial spared Mr. Trump a conviction, criminal charges against his supporters for their role in the riot are escalating. Already, more than 200 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the attack, and investigators are just getting started.

Additional evidence produced in the coming months could provide a more accurate picture of Mr. Trump’s role on that day, leaving open the possibility that Saturday’s acquittal might not be the final say on his legacy.

Mr. Burr, a reliable Conservative vote from North Carolina, unexpectedly decided to condemn Mr. Trump on Saturday.

“The president promoted baseless conspiracy theories to cast doubt on the integrity of a free and fair election because he didn’t like the results,” Burr said in a statement on Saturday afternoon. . “The evidence is compelling that President Trump is guilty of inciting an insurgency against a branch of the same government and that the charge rises to the level of high felonies and misdemeanors.”

Mr. Burr, who retires at the end of his term after the 2022 election, has at times had a cold relationship with Mr. Trump. As head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Burr led a bipartisan investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

While Mr Burr’s vote was surprising, the vote of Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, was more puzzling.

Mr McConnell told his colleagues early on Saturday he would vote to acquit the former president, and he did. But after the impeachment trial ended, Mr McConnell spoke in the Senate and said: “There is no doubt – none – that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for bringing about the events of the day.

Mr McConnell has been an advocate for the former president and even supported Mr Trump’s refusal to concede the election for more than a month after Joseph R. Biden Jr. was declared the winner. As Mr. McConnell stood next door, Mr. Trump inflamed his supporters with his fraudulent allegations of voter fraud that led to the assault on Capitol Hill. Mr McConnell’s repudiation of Mr Trump was at times stronger than that of senators who voted to convict.

Mr McConnell said that while Mr Trump is responsible for the riot, the Senate should not try a former president. Impeachment, he said, is a “limited tool” intended to remove officials from office, not to prosecute them afterwards. At the start of the trial, the Senate voted that the trial was appropriate over the objections of most Republicans, including Mr. Burr and Mr. McConnell.

Despite the partisan divisions that defined the trial, Republican and Democratic senators agreed on Saturday that the proceedings should not be extended with testimony.

On Saturday morning, the Senate was ready to hear arguments from the prosecution and the defense, but plans for an early end were threatened by 11th hour evidence which prosecution officials say the House, was crucial to their case: details of a phone call with Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House minority leader, in which Mr. Trump allegedly sided with the rioters as his supporters took sides. assault the Capitol.

On Friday night, Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler from Washington, one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump, released a statement detailing a conversation she had with Mr. McCarthy in which he described his conversation with the president.

The prospect of allowing testimony angered Republicans.

“If you want a delay, it will be long with a lot of witnesses,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on twitter the Saturday.

“If they want to drag this out, we’re going to drag it out,” Republican Senate leadership Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa said during a recess. “They won’t get their names, they won’t get anything,” she said, referring to President Biden’s appointments to the top positions in his administration.

Democrats wanted a quick trial in part so they could focus on filling Mr. Biden’s cabinet and start working on his agenda.

After behind-the-scenes negotiations, both sides agreed to put Ms Herrera Beutler’s statement on the record.

Michael T. van der Veen, one of Mr Trump’s attorneys, has expressed frustration at the possibility of delaying proceedings with testimony. A trial lawyer in Philadelphia, Mr. van der Veen has occasionally erupted due to the lack of judicial standards in the Senate chamber that are typical of courtrooms across the country.

“If they want to have witnesses, I’m going to need at least more than 100 depositions, not just one,” van der Veen said on Saturday, adding that raising witnesses at this stage of the trial was “inappropriate and inappropriate. “(The Senate faced a similar situation in Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial.) But the courtroom standards he is accustomed to do not apply in impeachment proceedings, which are in effect. largely designed by the Senate.

“We should close this case today. We have each prepared our closing arguments, ”he said. At one point, he got so enraged that he had to step back “and cool the room down a bit”.

Mr van der Veen, who is part of a team of lawyers who took over the defense after Mr Trump separated from his first team, lamented that he had only had eight days to prepare.

“This is the most miserable experience I have had here in Washington, DC,” he said Friday.

Reporting was contributed by Alan rappeport Emily cochrane, Nicolas fandos, Maggie Haberman, Charlie savage, Luke broadwater and Glenn thrush.

Travel News

5 takeaways from day one of Trump’s second impeachment trial

Former President Donald J. Trump’s second indictment trial began on Tuesday, 370 days after he was acquitted of serious crimes and misdemeanors in his first trial. He is accused of “incitement to insurgency” for his role in igniting violence on January 6 at the US Capitol. House impeachment officials and Mr. Trump’s defense team clashed over whether the Constitution allowed the Senate to hold a trial of a former president, ultimately deciding he could go from there. ‘before.

Here are some takeaways from the first day.

In a 56-to-44 vote, the Senate rejected Mr. Trump’s defense team’s argument and ruled, mostly in party favor, that he had the jurisdiction to try a former president dismissed. This paved the way for Wednesday’s trial.

The impeachment officials, led by Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, argued that the dismissal of this impeachment trial would create a “January exception,” setting the precedent for a lame president to act inconsequentially in cases of last weeks of its administration.

The defense team called the prosecution case an “immediate indictment” and argued that a former president should not have to stand trial, as this would set a precedent for any former public servant to be punished after leaving office at the whim of the ruling party.

On the question of competence, only a simple majority is required, contrary to the two-thirds majority required for a conviction. Six Republicans joined the 50 Democrats in deciding the Senate could proceed with the trial.

In a 13-minute video of scenes from the Jan.6 assault on Capitol Hill, the House’s top impeachment official, Mr. Raskin, showed a graphic visual recording of the attack, including the language explicit rioters and rallying screams, plus clips of Mr. Trump’s comments during the day – like his speech to supporters before some of them stormed the Capitol and a Twitter post hours after the attacks, in which he wrote: “Remember this day forever.”

Scenes of chaos in the video showed crowds of protesters violently pushing through security barricades and lines of police. Footage from inside the building included an officer screaming as he was crushed by a door as well as the gunshot fired by another officer, which killed one of the rioters, Ashli ​​Babbitt.

For many senators on Tuesday, the images offered different perspectives of what they experienced firsthand, as they were kicked out of the same Senate chamber in shock and fear.

“You are asking what a high felony and misdemeanor is under our Constitution,” Raskin told senators at the end of the video. “It is a high felony and misdemeanor. If it is not an impenetrable offense, then there is no such thing.

One of Mr Trump’s defense attorneys, David I. Schoen, accused House directors of hiring a “movie company” to put together the most disturbing footage from that day. Mr Schoen also offered a video account featuring a collection of calls from Democrats for Mr Trump’s impeachment over the past four years, a bogus equivalence as none of those comments led to violence.

Even though this is a new Senate – with Democrats in the majority – and the nature of what Mr Trump is accused of is different from the allegations he faced in his first impeachment trial , there is little doubt that Mr. Trump will ultimately be acquitted. , the same as a year ago.

Democrats would need 17 Republicans to break away from the former president and vote with them to have the two-thirds needed to convict Mr. Trump. If the six Republican senators who voted with Democrats on Tuesday on the Senate’s right to hold the trial also vote to convict Mr. Trump, Democrats would still need 11 more Republican deserters to secure a conviction.

For Democrats, a guilty verdict would be a formal and permanent renunciation of Mr. Trump’s behavior. If Mr. Trump were to be convicted, the Senate could hold a vote to decide whether to prevent him from running again – what Democrats have argued is in the best interest of the country.

An acquittal would give Republicans a suspended sentence for their party’s most popular member. But that would only delay the inevitable counting of their party’s faces between the more moderate members and the far-right who not only defends Mr. Trump, but also seeks to punish his fellow Republicans for betraying him.

For Democrats, an acquittal could still be some sort of political victory, as the trial provided an opportunity to publicly condemn Mr. Trump’s actions during his final days as president and to present an official record of Republican senators. refusing to punish him.

Already, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee has come under fire for suggesting that Mr. Trump be given a pass for the events of January 6.

“Listen, everyone makes mistakes, everyone deserves a mulligan every now and then,” Mr. Lee said on Fox News after House leaders’ arguments, using a golf term for a do- over.

As the longest-serving Democrat in the Senate, Mr. Leahy, 80, is the chairman of Mr. Trump’s Senate trial.

Last year, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. held the post, a constitutionally enshrined appointment. This time, however, Chief Justice Roberts was not interested in the job. And because the Constitution does not stipulate who should oversee the trial of a former president, it rests with Mr Leahy, empowering him to rule on key issues such as the admissibility of evidence.

On January 6, Mr Leahy was among lawmakers who had to scurry away from the violent crowd, making him one of hundreds of witnesses who were on Capitol Hill that day. And as one of 100 senators, he will also vote on whether to condemn Mr. Trump for inciting violence against the United States.

Mr. Leahy’s three hats were part of several reminders that these proceedings in the Senate, although called a trial, are not analogous to those held in courtrooms across the country.

Mr. Trump’s defense team unsuccessfully argued that Mr. Leahy’s conflict of interest was one of the reasons the trial was unconstitutional.

Bruce L. Castor Jr., the lawyer who launched the arguments for Trump’s defense team on Tuesday, took senators down a winding path of generalizations about the Senate, Mr. Trump’s right to liberty of expression and the difference between murder and manslaughter in the criminal justice system.

“I have no idea what he’s doing,” said Alan M. Dershowitz, who was part of Mr. Trump’s defense team during his first impeachment trial last year, on the Conservative Newsmax TV channel. “Maybe he’ll bring it home, but right now that doesn’t seem like an effective defense to me.

While Mr. Castor spoke, other senators seemed worried and began to speak among themselves.

“The president’s lawyer just chatted over and over again,” Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn told reporters after the debate ended. “I saw a lot of lawyers and a lot of argument, and it wasn’t one of the best I’ve seen.

Mr Schoen, another of Mr Trump’s lawyers, appeared to regain attention in the room by arguing that the Constitution does not allow the impeachment of a former president.

“This trial is going to tear this country apart, perhaps as we have only seen once in our history,” said Mr Schoen, an apparent reference to the civil war. “Politically,” he added, “this is wrong, as evil can be for all of us as a nation.”

Glenn thrush contribution to reports.

Travel News

Key takeaways from Trump’s effort to overturn the election

Ultimately, Mr. Trump agreed to focus on a different goal: blocking Congressional certification of the results on Jan.6.

With attention drawn to the president’s daily tirades and subversive maneuvers, a group of activists – little-known but increasingly influential – traveled from town to town in MAGA-red buses, organizing rallies to pressure key senators to challenge the vote. The bus tour was organized by a group called Women for America First.

The group would help build a strongly Trumpian coalition that included incumbent and incumbent members of Congress, grassroots voters and “dismantled” extremists and conspiracy theorists promoted on an early draft of its “Trump March” homepage – since deleted but found in internet archives – including white nationalist Jared Taylor, prominent QAnon supporters and Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio.

Women for America First had various ties to the president and those close to him. Its leader, Amy Kremer, was a key organizer of the Tea Party era and an early supporter of Mr. Trump, having launched a super PAC Women for Trump in 2016. And two of the group’s organizers had their own important links. One, Jennifer Lawrence, knew Mr. Trump through his father, who had done business with him; another, Dustin Stockton, had credibility in the gun rights community as a coordinator with Gun Owners of America. The two had also worked with Mr. Bannon.

Among the sponsors of the bus tour were Mr Bannon and Mike Lindell, the founder of MyPillow, who says he has spent $ 2 million so far to investigate the voting machines and foreign interference. Mr Lindell, along with Mr Byrne, was part of an ongoing shift within the Republican Party as mainstream donors withdrew from what has become an overt attack on the Democratic system and new donors have risen up for finance the narrative of the stolen elections.

Women for America First was the original organizer of the January 6 rally in Washington. But at the end of the year, Mr. Trump decided to join the rally himself, and the event effectively became a White House production, with several people familiar with the administration and the Trump campaign. joining the team.

Former Trump campaign adviser Katrina Pierson was the White House liaison, a former administration official said. And the president discussed the timing of the speeches, as well as the music to be played, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversations.

Travel News

Five takeaways from the unfolding China-US space war

The stars of the new space age include not only famous entrepreneurs, but a rising generation of dreamers and actors. Small businesses, developing states and even high schools are now putting spacecraft into orbit.

But Beijing intends to dominate the democratized space age. It builds lasers on the ground that can zap spaceships and repeat cyberattacks meant to separate the Pentagon from its orbital fleets.

Seven years ago, Washington seized on a new strategy to strengthen the US military’s hand in a potential space war. The plan evolved under the Obama and Trump administrations and is expected to intensify under President Biden.

Here’s how the fight for space started and how it’s going now:

In 2007, China shattered one of its own abandoned satellites into thousands of swirling shards, making global headlines. The message to Washington was clear: Beijing was a strong new rival.

China carried out a dozen more tests after the 2007 incursion. Some of the fast warheads fired much higher, in theory endangering most classes of American spacecraft.

But Beijing has also sought to diversify its anti-satellite force beyond warheads.

The insight was simple. Every aspect of American space power was controlled from the ground by powerful computers. If penetrated, the brains of Washington’s space fleets could be degraded or destroyed. Moreover, these attacks were remarkably inexpensive compared to other anti-satellite weapons.

China began developing viruses to infect enemy computers, and in 2005 began incorporating cyber attacks into its military exercises. Increasingly, his military doctrine called for paralyzing the first attacks.

The idea is that advances in the commercial sector can do for US space forces what Steve Jobs did for terrestrial gadgets. To counter the Chinese threat, the Obama administration has sought to harness the breakthroughs of space innovators as a way to reinvigorate the military.

Washington has injected billions of dollars into commercial ventures like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin. The result has been the development of swarms of tiny satellites as well as fleets of reusable rockets, innovations believed to make anti-satellite targeting much more difficult, if not impossible.

The Trump administration has pursued Obama’s trade strategy, although neither the White House nor the newly formed Space Force has publicly acknowledged its origin.

President Donald J. Trump has also sought to acquire offensive weapons. the Space Force has taken possession of its first offensive weapon, which fires beams of energy from ground sites to disrupt the orbiting enemy spacecraft.

The Trump administration last year asked Congress to start what it called counter-space weapons, valuing their expected cost at several hundred million dollars. The Army’s classified budget for offensive capabilities is said to be much higher.

Lloyd J. Austin III, a retired four-star Army general who was confirmed last week as Mr. Biden’s defense secretary, told the Senate he would keep a “laser focus” on maintaining and the sharpening of America’s “competitive advantage” over China. increasingly powerful military. Among other things, he called for further US investment in “space platforms” and repeatedly referred to space as a domain of war.

Mr. Austin spoke of the need to build orbital resilience, as well as the continued use of innovations from space entrepreneurs as a way to strengthen the military hand. The threatening new era, he said, highlighted the importance of “improving our combat capabilities” in space. And he called China “the rhythm threat.”

Travel News

4 takeaways from Biden’s Electoral College victory

Some voters were escorted by the police. Some voted in an undisclosed location. Some have drawn a national audience for what is generally an obscure and procedural constitutional undertaking. Most wore masks and adhered to social distancing rules out of respect for the coronavirus pandemic that has defined this long campaign.

And in the end, President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 presidential race was confirmed on Monday, as he surpassed the 270 Electoral College votes he needed to enter the White House. next month, despite relentless President Trump. promoting conspiracy theories and attacks on the integrity of the results.

All the voters on the main battlefields, whose results challenged Mr. Trump, have supported Mr. Biden.

Here are four takeaways about the long-term effects of Mr. Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome, Mr. Biden’s victory, and the future of the democratic process in the United States.

Joe Biden was elected 46th President of the United States.

This may not sound like news to those of you who have followed the events of the past five weeks, considering that Mr. Biden has beaten Mr. Trump by over seven million votes. But the elections were not completely over until the Electoral College intervened, and it took place on Monday. It has fallen, and rightly so, in California – a state at the center of opposition to the president – to put Mr. Trump’s Democratic challenger at the top.

The question now is how Republicans who refused to recognize the election result will respond to this unsurprising news. Many, including Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell, had argued that the race was simply started by the news media, and not yet by the Electoral College. They used that reasoning to refuse to consider Mr. Biden the president-elect, let alone meet with him.

Such an argument is now much more difficult to make. “Now is the time to turn the page,” Biden is expected to say in a speech Monday night.

Yes, the majority of voters called to vote for Mr. Biden.

But Monday started with senior White House adviser Stephen Miller, declaring on Fox News that there had been “a fraudulent electoral result” and say that an “alternative voters list” in the contested states would vote and send to Congress the results of the states the president lost.

Mr. Miller is not alone; much of the Republican Party still refuses to fully and publicly recognize election results, even though they have been certified by all 50 states, Electoral College voters have voted, and the Supreme Court has refused to hear a court challenge that Mr. Trump had teased it as “perhaps the most important case in history”.

Democracy is fragile and based on public trust. And while the outcome of this year’s race has been affirmed, the sour message from Mr. Trump and his allies threatens to weaken the pillars of the institutions that run the U.S. election.

“The greatest danger to America is the naive belief that there is something unique that guarantees America will remain a democratic civil society,” said Stuart Stevens, longtime Republican strategist turned critic of Trump . on Twitter. “Much of a big party has turned against democracy. It is foolish to believe that this has no consequences.

There are dissidents. Representative Paul Mitchell of Michigan, who is retiring and served in the Republican House leadership, said on Monday that despite voting for Mr. Trump last month, he was leaving the party for the remainder of his term, discouraged by the efforts to cancel the elections. .

“I believe that crude political considerations, and not constitutional or electoral integrity concerns, motivate many party leaders to support ‘stop theft’ efforts, which is extremely disappointing to me,” he wrote in an open letter to party leaders.

The system survived the messy 2000 recount and two presidents elected in the 21st century despite the loss of the popular vote. There were “infidel”, albeit meaningless, voters in 2016. The big unknown is the cumulative impact of these past fights and the further erosion of democratic norms this year on the next inevitably close and contested election.

“I hope you can see me smile behind the mask.”

These words from Nancy Mills, the president of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, came at the end of the poll in Pennsylvania on Monday, after the state gave its 20 electoral college votes to Mr Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris . Mr. Biden beat Mr. Trump there by about 81,000 votes.

Ms. Mills was officially the president of the Pennsylvania Electoral College delegation. In almost every other presidential election, his role in history would be ceremonial and almost unnoticed.

Not this year. One of the many unusual things about this election was that Americans got to see – and wanted to see – what is usually a postscript on election day. From Monday morning, delegations of voters began to gather in states across the country, with debates being broadcast live by video or even television.

Due to the pandemic, members of the electoral college observed social distancing rules and wore masks. But the country could see the solemnity and ceremony that accompany the process even in years when no one is watching. The appointment of officers for the day. The distribution of secret bulletins. Waiting for the official count.

The vote in Pennsylvania went uninterrupted. But Ms Mills hinted at the drama that lasted all day as she brought the proceedings to an end.

“We are the state that put Joseph R. Biden and Kamala Harris above the threshold of 270 constituencies,” she said. “We are the state that restored dignity and honor to the United States of America.”

Inside the Georgia Capitol, Democratic voters gathered on the floor of the State Senate to vote for Mr Biden as president and Ms Harris as vice president, the first time the State had voted Democratic in 28 years.

“Today we will fulfill our constitutional duty,” said Nikema Williams, President of the Georgia Democratic Party and elected to Congress, calling the meeting to order.

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, a group of Republicans gathered for some sort of shadow ceremony, anointing their own list of pro-Trump voters. The group’s vote had no real impact on the electoral college’s count. David Shafer, Chairman of the Republican Party of Georgia, explained the non-voter vote as an attempt to keep Mr. Trump’s legal options open.

“If we had not met today and if we had not voted, the race for the president’s election would have indeed been mentioned,” he said. written on twitter.

A similar effort was underway elsewhere, including in Pennsylvania, where the state’s Republican Party announced a “voters” meeting for Mr. Trump in Harrisburg. The Second List efforts follow a 1960 presidential election precedent between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, when some Democrats in Hawaii conditionally voted for Mr. Kennedy during the recount and court challenges took place. are continued.

In 2020, the Republican target indicates when the election will be fully decided, keep going.

The last date circled is January 6, when Congress has its final say on the election. Some Trump allies are organizing a ground challenge for Mr. Biden’s victory.

Travel News

Five takeaways from the Vatican McCarrick explosive report

On Tuesday, the Vatican released a massive report investigating how Theodore E. McCarrick, disgraced former cardinal and archbishop of Washington, reached the heights of the Catholic Church, though leaders received reports that he had sexually abused minors and adult seminarians over decades.

Here are five takeaways from the report:

Pope John Paul II personally made the decision to raise Mr McCarrick even after an American cardinal warned that he had been accused of sexual misconduct.

In 1999, when Mr. McCarrick was considering taking over the Archdiocese of New York, Cardinal John O’Connor of New York wrote a six-page letter to the Vatican Ambassador to the United States. concerns that Mr. McCarrick had asked young adult men to sleep in his bed with him and that some priests had suffered psychological trauma due to Mr. McCarrick’s inappropriate behavior.

“I regret having to recommend such a promotion very strongly, especially if it was at a cardinal seat,” Cardinal O’Connor said. “Nevertheless, I submit my comments to a higher authority and more particularly to our Holy Father.”

Vatican officials shared the assessment with Pope John Paul II. But the Pope dismissed the allegations after Mr. McCarrick wrote him a letter directly denying them, and he still elevated Mr. McCarrick to the Archdiocese of Washington, one of the country’s most important posts. “McCarrick’s direct relationship with John Paul II probably also had an impact on the Pope’s decision-making,” the report says.

Pope John Paul II initially called for an investigation into the allegations, but the Vatican now suggests he was deceived by three New Jersey bishops, who provided “inaccurate and incomplete information” to the Holy See, according to the report.

“This inaccurate information appears to have had an impact on the conclusions of advisers to John Paul II and, therefore, John Paul II himself,” the report said, dismissing some of the blame.

The allegations were dismissed as “rumor”, according to the report, and “McCarrick’s refusal was believed.” The bishops were also asked to keep this investigation secret.

The report also describes a disturbing account by a New Jersey priest, Msgr. Dominic Bottino, who said he saw two of the New Jersey bishops watch Mr. McCarrick touch a man’s crotch in 1990, and also failed to inform the Pope of the incident.

Shortly after Benedict XVI became Pope in 2005, he quickly extended Mr. McCarrick’s tenure as Archbishop of Washington.

But he turned the tide by the end of the year, based on “new details” regarding the allegations against Mr McCarrick, and “urgently sought” to replace Mr McCarrick in that role. As of Easter 2006, Mr. McCarrick was absent.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, an official in the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, wrote two letters in 2006 and 2008 calling on a church to investigate rumors about Mr McCarrick. Instead of formally investigating the allegations, Benedict XVI authorized a Vatican official to “appeal to McCarrick’s conscience” and ask him to “keep a low profile and minimize travel.” But this request was not a formal order, and Mr. McCarrick continued to roam the world freely on behalf of Catholic causes and institutions.

Archbishop Viganò became Vatican ambassador to the United States in 2011 and was asked to conduct an investigation to determine whether the allegations against Mr McCarrick were credible. The report states that “Viganò did not take these measures.”

Pope Francis was aware that there were rumors of wrongdoing, but until 2017, according to the report, no one provided him with documentation on the allegations. Pope Francis believed that everything had already been reviewed by Pope John Paul II. He also knew that under his predecessor, Benedict, Mr. McCarrick had remained active, and therefore he saw no need to change the approach of the church.

In June 2017, the Archdiocese of New York learned of an allegation of sexual abuse by Mr. McCarrick over a minor decades earlier. Shortly thereafter, Pope Francis called for the resignation of Mr. McCarrick from the College of Cardinals.

Pope Francis first promised a “comprehensive study” of the Vatican’s handling of the McCarrick affair in 2018. The long-awaited result is a highly unusual public inquiry into the abuses and cover-ups spanning decades and reaching the highest levels of the Vatican ranks. .

The report will have broad implications for a world church that has been rocked for decades by its mismanagement of sexual abuse by the clergy.

John Paul II is not just a pope – he is also a saint. During his accelerated canonization mass in 2014, Pope Francis greeted him as “the Pope of the family”.

The church now has to reckon with having one of its most beloved pontiffs involved is one of its most notorious scandals.

Sharon otterman contribution to reports.

Travel News

Five takeaways from President-elect Biden’s victory speech

Joseph R. Biden Jr. waited a long time to deliver the speech he gave in Delaware on Saturday night. Not just the five days since election day, but arguably the 48 years since he was first elected to the Senate, during which he ran for president three times. And at 77, as Mr. Biden trotted up the track toward an explosion of car horns and screeches, beaming and almost looking surprised by the standing ovation, it was clear his time had come.

Here are five takeaways from the President-elect’s victory speech.

The contrast between Mr. Biden and President Trump was invigorating and noticeable in almost every passage, as the President-elect invoked his own spirituality and shared the credit of the moment with his supporters and the people around him.

He quoted a hymn, “On Eagle’s Wings”. He thanked his supporters: “I owe you, I owe you, I owe you everything.” He warmly congratulated Kamala Harris, his running mate, and celebrated that she would be the first woman, let alone a woman of color, to serve as vice president: so hard for so many years to get there.

Especially, even as the nation faces one of the darkest periods in its history – a deadly pandemic, economic decline, political polarization – Mr. Biden was relentlessly optimistic, even cheerful. “We can do it,” he said. “I know we can.”

There were many notable passages in the speech, but one stood out. “May this dark era of demonization in America begin to end here and now,” he said. It’s likely a line people will talk about long after Biden’s presidency.

Mr. Biden only mentioned Mr. Trump’s name once during his 17-minute speech. He ignored the fact that the president had not conceded, and that he had challenged – without any evidence – the legitimacy of the election. Mr. Biden also failed to note that many senior Republican leaders, likely following Mr. Trump, failed to offer him the usual kudos.

But while Mr. Biden didn’t dwell on the president, he certainly spoke to his supporters, a notable contrast to Mr. Trump’s speech after his own victory in 2016. “To those who voted for President Trump , I understand your disappointment this evening ”. he said. “I myself lost a few elections. But now let’s give ourselves a chance. “

And while ignoring Mr. Trump’s protests about the election, Mr. Biden made it clear that there should be no doubt about the legitimacy of the result. “The people of this nation have spoken,” he said. “They gave us a clear victory. A convincing victory. A victory for “We the people”. We won with the most votes ever cast for a presidential ticket in the history of this nation – 74 million. “

Mr. Biden’s strategy here was clear. He has surpassed the 270 Electoral College votes needed to become president, and could end up collecting more than 300. He is now moving beyond the contest with Mr. Trump and ascending to the role of president-elect. The transition is near, and the trappings of the presidency have begun to surround him – apparent in the size of the Secret Service contingent that followed him to deliver his speech, and the way each TV channel spoke of him as as elected president.

He seeks to relegate Mr. Trump to the sidelines and turns to the urgent task of forming a new government and dealing with the crises it will face.

Mr Biden left no doubt that the coronavirus pandemic would be a priority for his administration in a way it has not been under Mr Trump.

Mr Biden announced that on Monday he would appoint senior science and health experts to a committee tasked with developing a pandemic plan, which he said would be ready to be put in place when he and Ms. Harris will take office in January. Mr Biden told the nation that bringing the coronavirus under control is essential to normalcy and economic prosperity.

“We can’t fix the economy, restore our vitality, or savor life’s most precious moments – hugging a grandchild, birthdays, weddings, graduations, all the moments that matter most to us – as long as we don’t have this virus under control, ”he said.

Mr. Trump took a very different approach. Throughout his campaign, he urged Americans not to fear the virus, saying the danger was exaggerated by his political opponents. He defied advice from health officials on precautions such as wearing a mask, even after he himself was diagnosed with the virus.

Mr Biden’s victory comes as the country sets daily records for new infections and health officials warn of a bleak winter. Masks were everywhere during his celebration.

Mr. Trump set the tone for his presidency during his inauguration, with a somber speech in which he notably did not exceed his base of supporters. The strategy had led him to a narrow victory in 2016 – in the Electoral College; he lost the popular vote – and he sought to recapture it in his losing campaign this year.

Mr. Biden has aggressively moved the other way.

“I pledge to be a president who does not seek to divide, but to unify – who does not see the red and blue states, but the United States,” he said on Saturday. “And who will work with all my heart to earn the trust of all the people.”

To some extent, this mirrors what Mr Biden said during the campaign, but the approach will take on new urgency as he becomes president. While waiting for the outcome of two rounds in Georgia, the Senate is controlled by Republicans, and it will have to reach out to senators from the Red States if it wants to pass an agenda.

There have been some impressive fireworks during this campaign – the ones over the Washington skyline the night Mr. Trump accepted the Republican nomination from the backyard of the White House come to me. the mind.

This one, however, set a bar that can be hard to match: fireworks and drones spelled out Mr Biden’s name, Ms Harris’s name and a map of the United States. Mr Biden and Ms Harris, surrounded by their families, stood on stage, gazing at the Delaware sky, lit over and over again the night Mr Biden had waited for most of his life.

Travel News

Six takeaways from the final presidential debate

“We are learning to live with it,” Mr. Trump said, citing his own hospitalization and recovery.

“Learn to live with it?” Mr. Biden said incredulously. “Come on. We die with it.”

Mr Trump attempted to fire Mr Biden for campaigning primarily from home this spring and summer (“We can’t lock ourselves in a basement like Joe does”). He scoffed at the plexiglass partitions that have emerged in New York City restaurants and other places to socially alienate people, dismissing the idea of ​​diners sitting “in a plastic-wrapped cubicle.”

“We cannot shut down our nation,” he said. “Or we won’t have a nation.”

Mr Biden advocated for the priority given to public health, warning Americans of a “dark winter” approaching. “Stop the virus, not the country,” he said, triggering one of the evening’s scripted lines.

The candidates disagreed, civilly, on health care and the environment. Mr Biden said he would push the country to “switch from the oil industry” and end federal subsidies.

“It’s a big statement,” Mr. Trump replied. “Will you remember that, Texas?” Will you remember that in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma?

Biden’s statement has garnered applause from progressives but is quickly distancing himself from Democrats in energy-intensive states, such as Rep. Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Rep. Xochitl Torres Small of New Mexico.

Overall, Colin Reed, a Republican strategist, said the debate was a draw.

“The two candidates came prepared not only in tone and content, but also in substance,” he said. “For Biden, a push is a win right now. Trump is the one who needed the coup de grace.

Isabella Grullón Paz contributed reporting.