News
As Democrats Reel, Two Front-Runners Emerge in a Leadership Battle
Days before Republicans take full control of Washington, the Democratic National Committee is mired in an intramural fight that is less about how the party found itself locked out of power than about disputes over donor influence, personality conflicts and past slights and jealousies.
The two candidates who have emerged as front-runners to become D.N.C. chair, Ken Martin of Minnesota and Ben Wikler of Wisconsin, are both middle-aged white men from the upper Midwest and chair of their state parties whose politics are well within the Democratic mainstream.
Yet, as is common during internal Democratic squabbles, fault lines in the race have formed not over ideological differences but over arguments about party mechanics.
Mr. Martin, 51, is campaigning on a platform of returning power and resources to state parties, while his supporters are attacking Mr. Wikler, 43, as a tool of major donors and Democratic consultants in Washington.
Mr. Wikler’s supporters include a host of D.N.C. officials who have been perturbed at Mr. Martin for creating a group of state party chairs that has competed within the national committee for influence. They say that the Wisconsinite, who turned his state party into a fund-raising juggernaut, is the more dynamic figure who managed to turn state elections, like a 2023 Supreme Court contest, into national causes.
At the same time, Democrats who are not directly involved in the D.N.C. race described the field to succeed the departing chair, Jaime Harrison, as uninspiring. Among the party’s top leaders, only Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, has weighed in on the race (for Mr. Wikler). Some Democrats see the D.N.C. contenders’ arguments about relationships with donors and their regular promises of more money for state parties as papering over a broader discussion of why Vice President Kamala Harris lost the election.
“Had Kamala or Biden made a call and said, ‘Look, we want to rally around X, Y and Z,’ I may have taken an interest in someone,” said Donna Brazile, a veteran D.N.C. member who has served in the past as interim party chair. “Other than giving state parties more resources, which is as old as the Republic itself, I haven’t heard anything new.”
Aides to President Biden and Ms. Harris declined to say whether either of them would back a candidate for party chair.
The post of D.N.C. chair is often described as one of the worst jobs in American politics — especially when Democrats do not hold the White House. Whoever wins the vote on Feb. 1 will be responsible for helping lead a party grappling with why it lost again to Donald J. Trump while keeping peace among a constellation of interest groups, donors, congressional committees, ambitious governors and state parties.
And when the 2028 presidential primary race begins in earnest, the D.N.C. chair will set the rules for the contest (including which state goes first and who qualifies for debates) and presumably try to remain neutral about whom Democrats choose as their nominee.
Mr. Martin now has endorsements from “well over 100” of the 448 members of the D.N.C., according to Justin Buoen, a campaign adviser. He entered the race in November claiming support from 83 members. Another candidate, former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, has the backing of “more than 60” D.N.C. members, according to a spokesman, Chris Taylor. And James Skoufis, a New York state senator, said he was “the first choice” of 23 D.N.C. members.
Mr. Wikler’s team has not revealed his whip count.
None of the candidates have released a list of members supporting them, and if multiple contenders remain in the race, it appears unlikely that anyone will receive the majority required to win the election on the first ballot — leaving candidates jockeying to be a second choice should voters recalibrate their options.
Four other candidates have also qualified for four party-sanctioned candidate forums scheduled for this month, as well as for the Feb. 1 ballot. They are Nate Snyder, a former Homeland Security official in the Biden and Obama administrations; Marianne Williamson, the perennial presidential candidate; Quintessa Hathaway, who lost an Arkansas congressional race in 2022; and Jason Paul, a Massachusetts lawyer who self-published a book titled “Trench Warfare Politics in the Tinder Era.”
Jeff Weaver, who was a senior aide to Mr. Sanders’s 2016 and 2020 presidential bids and to Representative Dean Phillips’s long-shot 2024 primary challenge to Mr. Biden, has argued to allies that Mr. Wikler is too tied to the party’s major donors.
Mr. Weaver has pointed in particular to the billionaire Reid Hoffman, whom he blames for Mr. Wikler’s attempt to keep Mr. Phillips off the Democratic presidential primary ballot last year in Wisconsin. The state’s Supreme Court subsequently ordered that Mr. Phillips’s name appear on the primary ballot, though he ended his campaign before Wisconsin voted.
“In my view, one of the most important roles of the new D.N.C. chair is to ensure we have a fair and open process in the 2028 Democratic primaries,” Mr. Weaver said. “We need to make sure we have someone at the D.N.C. who is a guardian of the fair process.”
Mr. Hoffman, who over the years has contributed millions of dollars to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, is supporting Mr. Wikler, according to a person briefed on the billionaire’s deliberations.
Mr. Wikler’s other backers argue that he can help unite the party.
“The best thing about him, in my view, is he is a completely honest broker between the ideological factors in the party,” said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a centrist think tank that has backed Mr. Wikler and has a long relationship with Mr. Hoffman. “That has got to be the ideology of the D.N.C. chair: Get to 50 percent plus one, and then once you’re in office, go with God.”
And yet still others look at both Mr. Wikler and Mr. Martin and see party leaders who underperformed in 2024. Ms. Harris lost Wisconsin to Mr. Trump, and in solidly Democratic Minnesota, the party lost control of the Legislature because one Democrat elected to the State House was found not to be a resident of his district.
The D.N.C. chair occupies a high-profile position but answers to a very small electorate. The D.N.C. members who will vote on the post are party insiders elected from their states, ex officio members based on other offices they hold and at-large members appointed over the years by national chairs.
There is little utility to advertising or appearing on cable television: Several D.N.C. members pointed out that Mr. Wikler probably swayed more votes by appearing last month on a radio show in Fargo, N.D., that was hosted by one of North Dakota’s D.N.C. members than he did by going on “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart.
Yet some of the candidates’ messaging has not gone over well. Mr. Skoufis, an admitted long-shot candidate who has attacked the party and its strategies, sent holiday postcards to members. “Wishing you lots of cheer this holiday season” the front of the card read, and on the back: “Unless you’re a political consultant who’s been ripping off the D.N.C. Nothing but coal for them!”
Among those who received the postcards were D.N.C. members who have at times been on the party’s payroll and who were not amused.
Other attempts by supporters to sway the party vote have been discouraged. Some donors who organized efforts to call D.N.C. members on behalf of either Mr. Martin or Mr. Wikler were asked to stop for fear the work would backfire, according to a person briefed on the conversations.
“Nobody is really addressing the elephant in the room, which is we need to have a knock-down, drag-out fight about what the future is going to look like,” said Mr. Snyder, one of the long-shot candidates. “I haven’t met anybody with overbearing enthusiasm for the process or a particular candidate, Ben or Ken.”
Theodore Schleifer contributed reporting.
News
Defense Lawyers Seek to Block Special Counsel Report in Trump Documents Case
Defense lawyers asked both the Justice Department and a federal judge on Monday night to stop the special counsel, Jack Smith, from publicly releasing a report detailing his investigation into President-elect Donald J. Trump’s mishandling of classified documents after he left office in 2021.
The two-pronged attempt to block the report’s release arrived as Mr. Trump was only two weeks away from being sworn in for a second term as president. With the case against Mr. Trump already dismissed, the report would essentially be Mr. Smith’s final chance to lay out damaging new details and evidence, if he has any.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers, in an aggressively worded letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, said they had recently been shown a draft copy of Mr. Smith’s report, calling it an example of the special counsel’s “politically motivated attack” against Mr. Trump. They demanded that Mr. Garland not allow Mr. Smith to make the report public and “remove him promptly” from his post.
“The release of any confidential report prepared by this out-of-control private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor would be nothing more than a lawless political stunt, designed to politically harm President Trump,” the lawyers wrote. In separate court papers, lawyers for Mr. Trump’s two co-defendants in the classified documents case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, sought a more direct path toward stopping the release of Mr. Smith’s report. They asked the judge who oversaw the case, Aileen M. Cannon, to issue an emergency order to bar Mr. Smith from making the report public until the case “has reached a final judgment and appellate proceedings are concluded.”
Both attempts to block Mr. Smith could face an uphill battle.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers have no power to force Mr. Garland to stop the report from coming out, and their letter amounted to little more than a belligerent request. It is also unclear whether Judge Cannon would have the authority to tell the attorney general how to handle a report by a special counsel that he himself appointed, especially when the case is technically out of her hands and in front of an appeals court.
That happened because Judge Cannon threw out the case in its entirety in July, ruling, in the face of decades of precedent, that Mr. Smith had been unlawfully appointed as special counsel. Mr. Smith and his deputies challenged that decision, and it was being considered by a federal appeals court in Atlanta when Mr. Trump won the election in November.
Citing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president, Mr. Smith dropped the appeal where Mr. Trump was concerned, effectively ending his role in the case. But he did not drop the appeal against Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira, and federal prosecutors in Florida now plan to pursue it when Mr. Smith steps down, likely before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.
Mr. Smith has also moved to dismiss the other federal case he brought against Mr. Trump, accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. It remains unclear when Mr. Smith plans to file a report in that case and whether it will accompany the report on the documents prosecution or be contained in a separate document.
The effort by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to block the release of the report was only their latest attempt to kill or push back any legal filings or proceedings that might be embarrassing or damaging to the president-elect.
Earlier on Monday, a state judge in Manhattan rejected Mr. Trump’s most recent attempt to delay his sentencing on 34 felony charges, saying that the hearing would go on as scheduled on Friday.
Justice Department regulations call for all special counsels to file reports to the attorney general explaining why they filed the charges they did, and why they decided not to file any other charges they might have been considering. The attorney general can then decide whether to release the report to the public.
It remains unclear when Mr. Smith was planning to finish his report in the classified documents case. But the lawyers for Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira said in their court papers that the report was likely to be released “within the next few days.”
Should either or both reports eventually see the light of day, it is possible they will not contain much in the way of new or revelatory information.
The report in the classified documents case could be complicated by the fact that it would likely have to undergo a careful review by the intelligence community for any classified information it contained. The report in the election interference case might not break significant new ground, if only because in October Mr. Smith filed a sprawling, 165-page brief laying out the evidence he planned to offer at trial.
Still, in their letter to Mr. Garland, Mr. Trump’s lawyers complained that the draft report in the classified documents case said that Mr. Trump had “harbored a ‘criminal design’” and was the “head of the criminal conspiracies” detailed in the indictment. The draft also said, the lawyers wrote, that “Mr. Trump violated multiple federal criminal laws.”
Mr. Trump’s lawyers turned the tables on Mr. Smith, accusing him of “unethical” conduct and “improper activities.” Those accusations had possible implications for future retribution against Mr. Smith, given that two of the lawyers who signed the letter to Mr. Garland, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, have been chosen by Mr. Trump to serve in high positions in his Justice Department.While Mr. Garland has not said publicly whether he intends to release either report by Mr. Smith, he has done so in the past with other reports by other special counsels.
In February, for example, Mr. Garland permitted the release of a report by the special counsel Robert K. Hur concerning President Biden’s handling of classified materials after he served as vice president. The report concluded that criminal charges were not warranted, but also offered an unflattering assessment of Mr. Biden’s memory and cognitive capacity in the middle of the 2024 presidential campaign.
News
Live news: Death toll from Tibet earthquake rises to 53
Indonesia has been accepted as a full member of the Brics group of emerging economies, according to a statement from Brazil, the bloc’s presiding nation.
The statement said Indonesia “shares with other . . . members the support for the reform of the global governance institutions and contributes significantly to the deepening of Global South cooperation”.
Brics leaders endorsed Indonesia’s candidacy in August 2023, but Jakarta formally notified its interest in joining the group only after President Prabowo Subianto came to power in October.
The bloc was initially made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, but has expanded in recent years.
News
Rudy Giuliani is held in contempt of court in $148 million defamation case
NEW YORK — Rudy Giuliani was found in contempt of court Monday for failing to properly respond to requests for information as he turned over assets to satisfy a $148 million defamation judgment granted to two Georgia election workers.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled after hearing Giuliani testify for a second day at a contempt hearing called after lawyers for the election workers said the former New York City mayor had failed to properly comply with requests for evidence over the last few months.
Liman said Giuliani “willfully violated a clear and unambiguous order of this court” when he “blew past” a Dec. 20 deadline to turn over evidence that would help the judge decide at a trial later this month whether Giuliani can keep a Palm Beach, Florida, condominium as his residence or must turn it over because it is deemed a vacation home.
Because Giuliani failed to reveal the full names of his doctors, a complete list of them, or of his other professional services providers, the judge said he will conclude at trial that none of them were in Florida or had been changed after Jan. 1, 2024. That was the date Giuliani says he established Palm Beach as his permanent residence.
Liman also excluded Giuliani from offering testimony about emails or text messages to establish that his homestead was in Florida.
The judge said Giuliani produced only a dozen and a half “cherry picked” documents and no phone records, emails or texts related to his homestead. He said he can also make inferences during the trial about “gaps” in evidence that resulted from Giuliani’s failure to turn over materials.
Liman said he would withhold judgment on other possible sanctions.
On Friday, Giuliani testified for about three hours in Liman’s Manhattan courtroom, but the judge permitted him to finish testifying remotely on Monday for over two hours from his Palm Beach condominium. By the time the judge issued his oral ruling, Giuliani was no longer present at all.
Joseph Cammarata, Giuliani’s attorney, noted in an email afterward that the election workers were not in the courtroom either and he called the outcome “no surprise.”
“This case is about lawfare and the weaponization of the legal system in New York City,” he said.
Cammarata said the state criminal case against President-elect Donald Trump and the civil litigation against Giuliani were “very similar. It’s the left wing Democrats trying to use liberal Judges in New York to win when they should lose on the merits.”
At the start of the hearing, Giuliani appeared before an American flag backdrop, which he said he uses for a program he conducts over the internet, but the judge told him to change it to a plain background. He also at one point held up his grandfather’s heirloom pocket watch and said he was ready to relinquish.
Giuliani conceded that he sometimes did not turn over everything requested in the case because he believed what was being sought was overly broad, inappropriate or even a “trap” set by lawyers for the plaintiffs.
He also said he sometimes had trouble turning over information regarding his assets because of numerous criminal and civil court cases requiring him to produce factual information.
Liman labeled one of Giuliani’s claims “preposterous” and said that being suspicious of the intent of lawyers for the election workers was “not an excuse for violating court orders.”
Giuliani, 80, said the demands made it “impossible to function in an official way” about 30% to 40% of the time.
After the ruling, the former mayor issued a statement through his publicist saying it was “tragic to watch as our justice system has been turned into a total mockery, where we have charades instead of actual hearings and trials.”
The election workers’ lawyers say Giuliani has displayed a “consistent pattern of willful defiance” of Liman’s October order to give up assets after he was found liable in 2023 for defaming their clients by falsely accusing them of tampering with ballots during the 2020 presidential election.
They said in court papers that Giuliani has turned over a Mercedes-Benz and his New York apartment, but not the paperwork necessary to monetize the assets. And they said he has failed to surrender watches and sports memorabilia, including a Joe DiMaggio jersey, and has not turned over “a single dollar from his nonexempt cash accounts.”
Giuliani said Monday that he was investigating what happened to the DiMaggio jersey and that he currently doesn’t know where it is or who has it.
Aaron Nathan, a lawyer for the election workers, declined to comment after Monday’s ruling.
The trial over whether Giuliani must surrender his Florida condominium and World Series rings is set for Jan. 16.
His lawyers have predicted that he will eventually win back custody of his personal items on appeal.
-
Health1 week ago
New Year life lessons from country star: 'Never forget where you came from'
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta’s ‘software update issue’ has been breaking Quest headsets for weeks
-
Business6 days ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture6 days ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports6 days ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics4 days ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics4 days ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics2 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?