Categories
Business

Out of Trump’s Shadow, World Financial institution President Embraces Local weather Combat

Mr. Malpass ingratiated himself with the employees of the World Bank with his steady, reserved approach and his personable manner. He has also benefited from low expectations. But some development experts still want to see more of his tenure with three more years.

Scott Morris, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a think tank in Washington, said it was unfortunate that the World Bank seemed to leave the door open to funding fossil fuel projects. He suggested that Mr. Malpass did not have to come up with a clear strategic vision for the bank just yet, but attributed acceptance of climate change to him.

“It is remarkable to compare his statements today with his positions as a tax officer in the Trump administration two years ago, when the official position was to remove the word ‘climate’ from documents of a multilateral institution,” said Morris. “According to this standard, he has made a remarkable development into a climate leader.”

He added, “But it’s a question versus what, and is he up to the job of running this critical body on climate finance?”

The bank will accelerate its efforts in the coming months. Mr Malpass, in a speech last month about building a green, resilient and inclusive recovery. said His team integrated climate into all of the bank’s country strategies and would produce climate and development reports for 25 countries this year.

Mr. Malpass has recently worked to gain favor with the Biden administration. He speaks regularly to Ms. Yellen and personally invited her to take part in last week’s climate discussion.

When asked what the transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration had meant for the bank, Mr. Malpass responded carefully. He noted that under Mr. Trump, the United States had approved a capital increase for the bank. He said the new White House team is deeply committed to the bank’s goals of reducing poverty, making food accessible and preparing countries for a changing climate.

“The guidelines of the Biden administration were very supportive of this mission,” said Malpass.

Lisa Friedman contributed to the coverage.

Categories
Politics

Republicans Take Up Trump’s Struggle, Leaving Policymaking Behind

WASHINGTON – Republikanische Gesetzgeber verabschieden Wahlbeschränkungen, um rechtsgerichtete Aktivisten zu befrieden, die immer noch von der Lüge des ehemaligen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump gepackt werden, dass eine weitgehend günstige Wahl gegen sie manipuliert wurde. GOP-Führer schlagen auf trumpianische Weise auf Unternehmen, Baseball und die Nachrichtenmedien ein, um viele der gleichen Konservativen und Wähler anzusprechen. Und Debatten über die Größe und den Umfang der Regierung wurden von der Art von Kulturkriegskonflikten überschattet, die der Boulevardkönig genoss.

Dies ist die Party, die Mr. Trump neu gemacht hat.

Als sich GOP-Führer und Spender an diesem Wochenende zu einem Party-Retreat in Palm Beach versammeln und am Samstagabend einen Abstecher nach Mar-a-Lago zu einem Empfang mit Mr. Trump machen, hat der allgegenwärtige Einfluss des ehemaligen Präsidenten in republikanischen Kreisen eine Partei gründlich enthüllt animiert von einem besiegten Amtsinhaber – eine bizarre Wendung der Ereignisse in der amerikanischen Politik.

Herr Trump ist von Twitter ausgeschlossen, von vielen republikanischen Beamten stillschweigend verachtet und darauf reduziert, in seinem tropischen Exil in Florida Bittsteller zu empfangen. Nur drei Monate nach dem Angriff seiner Kritiker auf das Kapitol hat Herr Trump Wege gefunden, eine führerlose Partei beinahe gravitativ in den Griff zu bekommen hoffte, würde den Mann marginalisieren und sein Erbe beschmutzen.

Seine Präferenz für politische Kämpfe auf rotem Fleisch anstatt zu regieren und politische Entscheidungen zu treffen, hat die Parteiführer in einen Zustand der Verwirrung darüber versetzt, wofür sie stehen, selbst wenn es um Geschäfte geht, die einst das Geschäft des Republikanismus waren. Seine einzige Amtszeit hat jedoch deutlich gemacht, wogegen die äußerste Rechte steht – und wie sie ihre Kämpfe führen will.

Nachdem die Republikaner im vergangenen Jahr buchstäblich ihre traditionelle Parteiplattform aufgegeben hatten, um Mr. Trump aufzunehmen, haben sie sich gegen die wahrgenommenen Exzesse der Linken organisiert und sich im Kampf seine Taktik der verbrannten Erde geliehen. Senator Mitch McConnell, der Führer der republikanischen Minderheit, hat diese Woche Unternehmen verärgert, weil sie sich mit Demokraten wegen von der GOP unterstützter Wahlbeschränkungen auf die Seite gestellt hatten, nur um zurückzutreten, nachdem er anscheinend angedeutet hatte, er wolle Unternehmen vollständig aus der Politik ausschließen.

Sie tun relativ wenig, um Präsident Biden Gegenargumente zur Reaktion auf das Coronavirus, zu seinen expansiven Vorschlägen zur sozialen Wohlfahrt oder, mit der wichtigen Ausnahme der Einwanderung, zu den meisten politischen Fragen vorzulegen. Stattdessen versuchen die Republikaner, die Debatte auf Themen zu verlagern, die innerhalb ihrer Koalition inspirierender und einheitlicher sind und ihnen helfen könnten, Demokraten zu tarieren.

Die Republikaner haben sich daher auf Kämpfe um scheinbar kleinräumige Themen eingelassen, um ein größeres Argument vorzubringen: Indem sie den Rückzug einer Handvoll rassenunempfindlicher Dr. Seuss-Bücher aus der Veröffentlichung hervorheben; die Rechte von Transgender-Personen; und die Bereitschaft großer Institutionen oder Unternehmen wie Major League Baseball und Coca-Cola, sich mit Demokraten in Bezug auf das Wahlrecht zusammenzutun, versucht, eine Nation im Griff von Eliten darzustellen, die von Identitätspolitik besessen sind.

Es ist ein auffallend anderer Ansatz als das letzte Mal, als die Demokraten 2009 und 2010 die volle Kontrolle über die Regierung hatten, als die Konservativen die große Rezession nutzten, um die Wut über Präsident Barack Obama und die Bundesausgaben auf ihrem Weg zu mittelfristigen Gewinnen zu schüren. Aber Herr Biden, ein weißer politischer Veteran, ist für die rechtsextreme Basis der Partei keine große Folie und es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass er mit dem ganzen Land polarisierender wird.

“2010 hatte das Furnier von philosophischer und ideologischer Kohärenz, aber wir machen uns jetzt nicht einmal die Mühe, ein Lippenbekenntnis dazu abzulegen”, sagte Liam Donovan, ein republikanischer Lobbyist. “Trump machte Beschwerden, die der Aperitif waren, in die Vorspeise.”

Obwohl dieser Ansatz möglicherweise nicht das politische Äquivalent einer ausgewogenen Mahlzeit ist – ein Plan für eine langfristige Erholung -, bedeutet dies nicht, dass es eine schlechte Strategie für den Erfolg bei den Wahlen 2022 ist, die die Kontrolle über das Haus und den Senat bestimmen wird.

Sogar Demokraten sehen das Risiko, dass republikanische Nachrichten zu kulturellen Themen bei einem großen Teil der Wähler Anklang finden. Dan Pfeiffer – ein ehemaliger Adjutant von Herrn Obama, der unter dem, was sein Chef 2010 als “Shellacking” bezeichnete, gelitten hat – warnte die Mitglieder seiner Partei diese Woche, dass sie nicht einfach die Augen verdrehen sollten, wenn die Republikaner “Kultur abbrechen” beklagen.

“Die Republikaner sprechen diese kulturellen Themen an, um ihre Partei zu vereinen und unsere zu spalten”, schrieb er in einem Aufsatz. “Deshalb müssen wir das Gespräch aggressiv auf die wirtschaftlichen Probleme zurückführen, die unsere Partei vereinen und ihre teilen.”

Langjährige Republikaner bestreiten das nicht sehr. “Demokraten haben das getan, von dem ich nie gedacht hätte, dass es so schnell gehen könnte – sie haben die Republikaner dazu gebracht, ihre Augen von dem abzuwenden, was uns trennt, und uns dazu gebracht, unsere Augen auf die wahre Opposition zu richten”, krähte Ralph Reed, ein republikanischer Stratege.

Dies mag auf eine zu rosige Einschätzung zurückzuführen sein, da Herr Trump immer noch hungrig nach Rückzahlung gegen seine parteiinternen Kritiker ist, mit einer Reihe umstrittener Vorwahlen an Deck und Demokraten, die bereit sind, die Vorteile einer wirtschaftlichen Erholung zu nutzen.

Aber es besteht kein Zweifel, dass sich die Republikaner für einen Stil der Post-Trump-Politik einsetzen, der dieses Präfix überflüssig macht.

Insbesondere möchten sie die Einwanderung in einem Moment hervorheben, in dem es an der Grenze einen Anstieg von Migranten ohne Papiere gibt. Es ist nicht nur das Markenzeichen von Mr. Trump, sondern hat auch die stärkste kulturelle Resonanz mit seiner stark weißen Basis.

Eine NPR / Marist-Umfrage im letzten Monat ergab, dass 64 Prozent der unabhängigen Wähler Herrn Bidens Umgang mit der Pandemie zustimmten, aber nur 27 Prozent seine Herangehensweise an die Einwanderung unterstützten.

Bei einem privaten Mittagessen im letzten Monat am selben Tag, an dem die Hausdemokraten Herrn Bidens Konjunkturprogramm durchgesetzt hatten, sagte Senator Tom Cotton, ein Republikaner aus Arkansas mit dem Ohr von Herrn McConnell, zuversichtlich voraus, dass der Zustrom an der Grenze die Eintrittskarte der Partei sein würde die Mehrheit.

“Ich denke, dies ist ein zentrales Thema in der Kampagne im Jahr 2022 – auch weil mir nicht klar ist, dass Joe Biden stark genug ist und die politische Willenskraft besitzt, das Notwendige zu tun und die Grenze unter Kontrolle zu bringen”, sagte Cotton in einem anschließenden Interview.

Es sind nicht nur Konservative, die sich auf die Grenze konzentrieren. Der Repräsentant John Katko, ein gemäßigter New Yorker Republikaner, der einen Bezirk im Hinterland vertritt, der sich stark für Mr. Biden einsetzte, warnte davor, dass Einwanderungsschübe um Mr. Bidens Hals “hängen” würden, wenn er nicht vorsichtig wäre.

„Es ist kein gutes Thema für die Leute in den Vororten. Es ist kein gutes Thema für gemäßigte Republikaner. Es ist kein gutes Thema für gemäßigte Demokraten. Für Unabhängige ist das sicherlich kein gutes Thema “, sagte er.

Die Republikaner haben trotz der Plädoyers der Wirtschaftslobby ein umfassendes Einwanderungsabkommen so gut wie aufgegeben, da sie viel davon haben, die Demokraten für das Thema verantwortlich zu machen.

Dies ist jedoch kaum das einzige Problem, bei dem sich die Republikaner mit der Industrie unwohl fühlen, obwohl sie bei ihren Entscheidungen selektiv vorgehen.

Herr McConnell zum Beispiel hält weiterhin an den Steuersenkungen von 2017 fest, die den Unternehmenssatz als Kronjuwel der gesetzgeberischen Errungenschaften der Partei in den Trump-Jahren senkten, und es ist sehr unwahrscheinlich, dass er bald einer Streikposten-Linie der Gewerkschaften beitritt.

Aber er sieht eindeutig einen politischen Vorteil in der Konfrontation mit der Major League Baseball und den Unternehmenstitanen wie Delta und Coca-Cola, die Georgiens Wahlgesetz denunziert haben – eine Intervention, die in einer Zeit vor Trump selbst unwahrscheinlich gewesen wäre.

“Unternehmen werden schwerwiegende Konsequenzen haben, wenn sie zu einem Mittel für linksradikale Mobs werden, um unser Land von außerhalb der Verfassungsordnung zu entführen”, warnte er diese Woche und fügte später hinzu, dass er kein Problem damit habe, dass Unternehmen weiterhin Kandidaten finanzieren.

Andere in der Partei sind noch weiter gegangen und haben die kartellrechtliche Befreiung bedroht, die der professionelle Baseball genießt – eine eindeutig trumpianische Vergeltungstaktik.

Jüngste Parteiumfragen zeigen, dass sich republikanische Wähler mehr als jedes andere Problem nach Kandidaten sehnen, die “nicht in einem Kampf mit den Demokraten zurücktreten”, was sich in einer Umfrage der GOP-Firma Echelon Insights Anfang dieses Jahres ergab.

Menschen, die sich nach rechts hingezogen fühlen, “fühlen, dass sich die Lebensweise, die sie kennen, schnell ändert”, sagte Kristen Soltis Anderson, die republikanische Meinungsforscherin, die die Umfrage durchgeführt hat, in einem Interview mit Ezra Klein.

Die Republikaner haben versucht, diese Ängste zu schüren, indem sie liberale Positionen zu Themen wie Polizeiarbeit oder Transgender-Rechte als Knüppel des Kulturkrieges eingenommen haben, auch wenn dies bedeutet, auf einige konservative Werte zu verzichten. In Arkansas wurde diese Woche von Gouverneur Asa Hutchinson, einer Republikanerin, ein Veto eingelegt, als ein Versuch konservativer Gesetzgeber, Transgender-Kindern den Erhalt geschlechtsbejahender Medikamente oder Operationen zu untersagen, illegal wurde. Er argumentierte, dass der Gesetzentwurf “einen neuen Standard für gesetzgeberische Eingriffe in Ärzte und Eltern setzen würde” und dass es keine Ausnahmen für Kinder gab, die bereits mit Hormonbehandlungen begonnen hatten. Trotzdem wurde er von den Gesetzgebern seiner Partei außer Kraft gesetzt, und Mr. Trump griff ihn als “leichtes RINO” an.

Dennoch ist es die Bereitschaft, sich auf einen politischen Kampf einzulassen, der derzeit in der Partei am wichtigsten ist.

“Es ist die übergeordnete Tugend geworden, nach der Republikaner in ihren Führern suchen”, sagte Reed, der GOP-Stratege. Er sagte, dass die Partei in einer früheren, weniger Stammesära die spaltende Gesetzesvorlage von Georgia, die den Zugang zu Abstimmungen einschränkte, zurückgezogen hätte. “Nachdem das Geschäft und die Medien die Wagen umkreist hatten, hätten wir den Gesetzgeber zurückgerufen, einige Korrekturen vorgenommen und wären weitergegangen”, sagte er. “Jetzt graben wir uns einfach ein.”

Die sich wandelnde Kultur der GOP ist in Florida deutlich zu sehen, wo Gouverneur Ron DeSantis als Präsidentenholz auftaucht, fast ausschließlich, weil er die Berichterstattung mit Waffen bewaffnet hat, die kritisch gegenüber seinem Umgang mit dem Coronavirus sind.

Die tatsächliche Reaktion von Herrn DeSantis auf die Krise ist nicht das, was Konservative erfreut. Vielmehr strotzt er vor skeptischer Berichterstattung, so wie es Mr. Trump tat, als er die „falschen Nachrichten“ verärgerte. Das jüngste Beispiel kam diese Woche, als „60 Minutes“ ein Segment ausstrahlte, das darauf hinwies, dass Herr DeSantis Publix-Lebensmittelgeschäfte, die in Florida allgegenwärtig sind, zu Unrecht zu Vertreibern des Coronavirus-Impfstoffs gemacht hatte, nachdem das Unternehmen 100.000 US-Dollar an ihn gespendet hatte.

Herr DeSantis hat für das Stück nicht mit CBS zusammengearbeitet. Aber mit der Sympathie anderer Republikaner weinte er schlecht über das Segment, nachdem es lief, und wurde mit einem begehrten Interview zur Hauptsendezeit in Fox News belohnt, um seine Beschwerde darzulegen.

“Dies ist das schlagende Herz der Republikanischen Partei im Moment – die Medien haben die Demokraten als Opposition abgelöst”, sagte Scott Jennings, ein republikanischer Stratege in Kentucky. “Die Plattform ist das, gegen was die Medien heute sind, ich bin dafür und was auch immer sie sind, ich bin dagegen.”

Dies hat zu einer merkwürdigen Alchemie in der Hauptstadt geführt, in der eine Reihe von geschäftsorientierten Republikanern zunehmend politisch obdachlos werden. Bemerkenswert unter ihnen ist die Handelskammer, die die GOP-Gesetzgeber verärgerte, indem sie sich an die Demokraten schmiegte, aber jetzt entsetzt über die von Herrn Biden vorgeschlagene Erhöhung der Körperschaftsteuer ist.

“Es ist eine seltsame Zeit”, sagte Tony Fratto, ein ehemaliger Beamter der Bush-Administration, der Herrn Biden unterstützte, aber Geschäftskunden vertritt, denen eine Steuererhöhung unangenehm ist. “Ich weiß nicht, wohin ich gehen soll, aber viele Leute fühlen sich nicht wohl, wo die Partys gerade sind.”

Außer vielleicht für einen kürzlich pensionierten Mann aus Florida.

Categories
Politics

Supreme Courtroom Vacates Ruling on Trump’s Twitter Exercise

The Supreme Court on Monday overturned an appeals court ruling that President Donald J. Trump violated the first amendment by banning people from his Twitter account after posting critical comments.

A unanimous three-person jury from the appeals court ruled in 2019 that Mr Trump’s account was a public forum from which he could not exclude people based on their views.

The Supreme Court move was anticipated as Mr Trump is no longer President and Twitter has permanently banned his account.

More surprising was a 12-page consensus opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas, who pondered the dangerous power some private corporations have over freedom of expression.

“Today’s digital platforms offer opportunities for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech from government actors,” he wrote. “But also unprecedented is the concentrated control over so much language in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to delve into applying our legal teachings to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructures such as digital platforms. “

No other judiciary followed suit, and Justice Thomas’ views on the First Amendment can be idiosyncratic. His opinion, however, reflected widespread frustration, particularly among conservatives, of letting private corporations decide what the public can read and see.

The Court of Appeal “feared that then President Trump would break off the speech by using the functions provided by Twitter,” wrote Justice Thomas. “But if the goal is to make sure the language isn’t stifled, the dominant digital platforms themselves must inevitably be the biggest concern.”

Categories
World News

U.S.-China commerce relations strained, Biden group retains Trump’s powerful stance

The prospect for US-China trade is likely to continue to be questioned after high-level diplomatic talks this week revealed that President Joe Biden’s team is not planning to use the Trump administration’s harsh tone in talks with Beijing to give up completely.

Although Washington and Beijing signed a ceasefire in their trade feud with last year’s “Phase 1” agreement, representatives on both sides are far from satisfied with the status quo and see the other as major economic rivals.

This competition was seen on Thursday when the countries began two day meetings in Anchorage, Alaska.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken began by stating that the US “would highlight its deep concern about actions by China, including cyber attacks against the United States in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan [and] economic constraint on our allies. “

Yang Jiechi, director of the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Foreign Affairs Commission, said the US “does not have the qualifications to say it wants to speak to China from a position of strength”.

Although the talks were viewed as a diplomatic exercise rather than an economic exercise, the prickly exchange is likely an early snapshot of the fierce battles ahead for the Biden trade team. And it is about one of the most valuable trade relationships in the world.

China is currently the US’s third largest merchandise trading partner with a total of $ 558.1 billion (reciprocal trade) in 2019, according to the USTR office. That massive volume of trade supported an estimated 911,000 U.S. jobs as of 2015, with 601,000 from goods exports and 309,000 from service exports.

China is also the third largest export market for American farmers, and annual trade in agricultural commodities totaled $ 14 billion two years ago. China is the largest importer of goods in the United States.

Clete Willems, a former World Trade Organization litigator in the USTR office, told CNBC on Friday that he was not surprised at the lack of progress in Anchorage.

Willems, who was once a member of Trump’s trade team and is now a current partner with the Akin Gump law firm, said the Anchorage meetings were more a chance to officially voice complaints rather than a realistic attempt to take economic remedial action.

“I had low expectations of Alaska and those expectations were met,” said Willems happily of the talks.

“I think [the Chinese government] I misunderstood the situation with the Biden team and they thought these guys would come in and undo all Trump action, “he added.” I think they find out that it won’t. But I think you need to hear it right from blinking. “

The trade negotiations with China are of economic importance, but also provide an opportunity to protect US national security interests and secure access to critical technologies.

Weeks before the meetings in Anchorage, Alaska, the Biden government drafted an executive order directing government departments to review key supply chains, including those for semiconductors, high-capacity batteries, medical supplies, and rare earth metals.

“The Biden administration has signaled that trade at any price is not their position and that they will not curtail their views and neglect human rights or national security (for example) in order to have a ‘good’ trade relationship,” said Dewardric McNeal. An Obama-era political scientist at the Department of Defense said in an email on Friday.

Although Biden’s mandate did not mention China by name, he directed the agencies to investigate gaps in domestic manufacturing and supply chains that are dominated or passed through by “nations that are becoming or becoming unfriendly or unstable.”

The directive has been widely viewed as part of China, one of the world’s largest exporters of rare earth metals, a group of materials used in the manufacture of computer screens, state-of-the-art weapons, and electric vehicles.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (2nd R) speaks together with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (R) in front of Yang Jiechi (2nd L), director of the office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs, and Wang Yi (L), China’s foreigner minister at the US-China talks opening session on March 18, 2021 at the Captain Cook Hotel in Anchorage, Alaska.

Frederic J. Brown | AFP | Getty Images

Still, Chinese negotiators, including Foreign Secretary Wang Yi, may have hoped for a warmer reception from Blinken after four turbulent years under President Donald Trump and his top diplomat Mike Pompeo.

The Trump administration has made it a habit of imposing punitive tariffs and sanctions to counter ongoing complaints about China’s lack of intellectual property protection, required technology transfers, and other unfair business practices.

“The Biden team understands the complexities of trade and commerce between the two countries and hopes to be more focused and predictable in identifying and addressing issues and concerns (more surgical and less destructive), competitive and collaborative,” said McNeal , a senior policy analyst at Longview Global, added on Friday.

As of Friday afternoon, the U.S. team in Alaska had taken no steps to ease restrictions on American sales to Chinese companies, including telecommunications giant Huawei, to ease visa restrictions for members of the Communist Party, or to reopen the Chinese consulate in Houston .

Negotiations with Beijing will likely be a top priority for newly confirmed US sales representative Katherine Tai.

The Senate’s unanimous vote to confirm her nomination, a first for the Biden government, reflects cross-party confidence in her ability as an accomplished and practiced trade attorney.

“Katherine Tai is exactly the kind of qualified and established person who is able to serve President Biden and the country reasonably well,” said Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Senate minority, in the Senate ahead of the confirmatory vote in early March.

Katherine C. Tai speaks ahead of the Senate Finance Committee hearings to consider her appointment as Ambassador of the United States Commercial Agent on February 25, 2021 in Washington, DC.

Bill O’Leary | Pool | Reuters

Tai will soon face a litany of trade disputes instigated by the Trump administration, but talks with Beijing are expected to be a top priority.

She and her team are expected to review Trump’s ongoing policies, including tariffs on Chinese steel, aluminum and consumer goods, as well as components of the Phase 1 deal.

“She knows how to be tough on China and she knows how to do it in coordination with others,” said Willems, who previously represented the US with Tai at the WTO. He added that it will be important for Tai to act as the voice for US trade interests in a government with a deep diplomatic bank.

“You have a government with a very strong secretary of state, very strong national security advisers who are very close to President Biden and who are very oxygen-consuming in US politics in general. And they are going to have to get through that.”

– CNBC’s Nate Rattner and Yen Nee Lee contributed to the coverage.

Categories
Politics

Biden Revokes Trump’s Pause on Inexperienced Playing cards

WASHINGTON – President Biden reopened the country to people looking for green cards on Wednesday, ending a ban on legal immigration imposed by President Donald J. Trump last spring. He cited the need to protect American jobs during the pandemic.

In a proclamation, Mr. Biden said the ban “did not advance the interests of the United States” and challenged Mr. Trump’s claims that the way to protect the American economy during the health crisis is to protect the country from the rest of the United States seal off the world.

“On the contrary,” Biden said of his predecessor’s immigration ban, “it harms the United States by preventing certain family members of US citizens and legal permanent residents from joining their families here.” It also harms industries in the US that employ talent from around the world. “

The president’s action was the latest example of his efforts to roll back Mr Trump’s attack on the nation’s immigration system. Since taking office, Mr Biden has issued several implementing regulations and directives aimed at lifting the restrictions on immigrants introduced over the past four years.

In April, as the coronavirus crisis deepened, Mr. Trump ordered a “break” from issuing green cards, one of the key ways foreigners can get permission to live and work in the US.

At the time, Mr Trump described his action as a way to protect Americans, millions of whom lost their jobs when the coronavirus threat brought the economy to a standstill.

“By cutting off immigration, we will help put unemployed Americans first in America’s reopening. So important, “said Trump. “It would be wrong and unjust if the Americans laid off by the virus were replaced by new migrant workers from abroad. We have to take care of the American worker first. “

Updated

Apr. 24, 2021, 8:33 p.m. ET

Mr. Trump’s critics accused him of using the pandemic as an excuse to push his agenda of severely restricting immigration. And many scholars found that studies repeatedly cast doubt on the idea that immigration is a direct threat to American jobs, as many immigrants take jobs that Americans don’t want.

Mr. Biden repeated that feeling. In his proclamation, he wrote that he “stated that” the unrestricted entry into the United States “of people seeking green cards” is not detrimental to the interests of the United States. “

Foreign nationals trying to move to the US can attempt to become “legal permanent residents” – also known as green cards – which will allow them to live in the country and eventually apply for citizenship.

Mr Trump’s proclamation did not prevent American citizens from bringing their spouses or children to the United States. But it has excluded other foreigners, including relatives of green card holders and those seeking green cards based on a job offer.

An analysis by the then Institute for Migration Policy estimated that the policy could affect up to 660,000 people.

Mr Biden has vowed to bring United States immigration policies back to what they were before Mr Trump became president. He has increased the number of refugees who can be relocated to the country and he has taken steps to process applications from asylum seekers waiting in poor camps on the Mexican border.

However, Mr Biden has also proposed a wider revision of the country’s immigration laws to fulfill an election promise he made to send laws to Congress on the first day of his presidency.

In his legislation, the president would offer most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States an eight-year path to citizenship. The legislation was proposed in the House and Senate by Mr Biden’s Democratic allies, but it is unclear whether it can deserve enough Republican support to pass the Senate.

Categories
Politics

Supreme Court docket Denies Trump’s Bid to Conceal Taxes, Monetary Information

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday denied a final attempt by former President Donald J. Trump to protect his financial records and issued a brief, unsigned order that ended Mr Trump’s fierce 18-month battle against the Manhattan prosecutor’s tax filings in investigating possible financial crimes.

The court order was a decisive defeat for Mr Trump, who went to extraordinary lengths to keep his tax returns and related documents confidential and took his case to the Supreme Court twice. No disagreements were found.

From the start, Mr. Trump’s struggle to keep his return under wraps had tested the scope and limits of the president’s power. Last summer, the judges rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that prosecutors cannot investigate a seated president and ruled that no citizen was above the “common duty to produce evidence.” This time, the court denied Mr. Trump’s urgency motion to block a subpoena on his records, effectively closing the case.

The ruling is also a huge victory for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat. He now has access to Mr. Trump’s eight years’ worth of personal and corporate tax returns, as well as other financial records that investigators believe Mr. Vance to be critical to their investigation into whether the former president and his company manipulated property values ​​in order to get them get bank loans and tax benefits.

“The work continues,” said Mr Vance in a statement.

In his own long statement, Mr. Trump commented on the Supreme Court decision and investigation. He characterized the investigation as a politically motivated attack by the New York Democrats and called it “a continuation of the greatest political witch hunt in our country’s history”. He also falsely reiterated that he won the 2020 election.

“The Supreme Court should never have allowed this ‘fishing expedition’, but they did,” Trump said. He added, “For more than two years, New York City has been reviewing almost every transaction I’ve ever conducted, including finding tax returns filed by the largest and most respected law and accounting firms in the United States.”

Prosecutors in Manhattan now face a monumental task. Dozens of investigators and forensic accountants go through millions of pages of financial documents. Mr. Vance brought in an outside consultancy and a former federal attorney with significant experience in white collar and organized crime cases to gain an insight into the arcana of commercial real estate and tax strategies.

The Supreme Court order set in motion a series of events that could lead to the terrifying possibility of criminal proceedings against a former US president. At the very least, the ruling removes Mr Trump’s control over his best-kept financial records and the power to decide when, if at all, they will be made available for public inspection.

The court’s decision concerned a grand jury subpoena issued by Mr. Vance’s office in August 2019 and sent to Mr. Trump’s accountants, Mazars USA. The company has announced that it will comply with the courts’ final decision, which means the grand jury should receive the documents in a short time. On Monday, Mazars issued a statement saying it “remains committed to all of our professional and legal obligations”.

The pivotal next phase of the Manhattan investigation will begin this week when investigators collect a huge amount of digital records from a law firm representing Mazars, according to people aware of the matter who spoke about the anonymity condition of the investigation because of the sensitivity of the investigation as well former prosecutors and others who described next steps.

Armed with the subpoena, investigators will go to the law firm’s Westchester County office outside of New York City and take away copies of tax returns, financial reports, and other tax records and notices from Mr. Trump and those of his companies.

The investigation, which began in 2018, first looked at hush money payments to two women who had said they had affairs with Mr Trump, relationships that the former president has denied. However, since then, potential crimes such as insurance, tax and banking fraud have emerged.

Even before the Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Vance’s investigation had intensified as his office had issued more than a dozen subpoenas and interviewed witnesses in the past few months, including employees of Deutsche Bank, one of Mr. Trump’s top lenders.

One focus of Mr. Vance’s investigation is whether Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, has increased the value of some of its signature properties in order to get the best possible credit while lowering values ​​to lower property taxes, those of the Knowing have said of the matter. The prosecution is also reviewing statements made by the Trump Organization to insurance companies about the value of various assets.

Mazars’ records – including tax returns, the business records on which they are based, and communications between the Trump Organization and its accountants – can allow investigators to get a more complete picture of possible discrepancies between what the company claims to its lenders and the company Get tax authorities said the people.

It remains unclear whether prosecutors will ultimately bring charges against Mr. Trump, the company, or any of its executives, including Mr. Trump’s two adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump.

The court order will not place Mr. Trump’s tax returns in the hands of Congress or automatically publish them. The grand jury’s nondisclosure laws keep the recordings private unless Mr. Vance’s office charges and brings the documents into evidence in a lawsuit.

The New York Times received tax return data for more than two decades for Mr. Trump and the hundreds of companies that make up his corporate organization, including detailed information from his first two years in office.

Last year, the Times published a series of research articles based on an analysis of the data that showed that Mr Trump had paid virtually no income tax for many years and that he is undergoing an audit where a negative decision could cost him more than $ 100 million. He and his companies file separate tax returns and employ complicated and sometimes aggressive tax strategies.

As a candidate in 2016, Mr. Trump promised to disclose his tax returns, but he never did, breaking White House tradition. Instead, for reasons that have been speculated about, he fought hard to keep the returns out of control.

In 2019, Mr Trump went to court to combat the subpoena, arguing that as the seated president he was safe from criminal investigation. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ruled against this argument, and prosecutors may require third parties to produce a sitting president’s financial records for use in a grand jury investigation.

Mr Trump appealed to the Supreme Court. In July 2020, the judges firmly rejected Mr Trump’s central constitutional argument against the subpoena in a seminal judgment.

“No citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the general duty to produce evidence if requested in a criminal case,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in favor of the majority in that decision.

Although Judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. disagree on other aspects of the decision, all nine judges agreed to the proposal. But the court gave Mr. Trump another opportunity to challenge the subpoena on more specific grounds.

Mr Trump did just that, arguing that the subpoena was too broad and constituted political harassment. These arguments were rejected by a trial judge and the New York federal appeals court. The appeals court found that the documents presented to the grand jury would not be published, undermining the argument that Mr Vance was trying to embarrass Mr Trump.

“There is nothing to indicate that these are anything but normal documents that are normally relevant to a grand jury investigation into possible financial or corporate misconduct,” the court said in an unsigned statement.

Mr. Trump’s attorneys then filed an “emergency motion” and asked the Supreme Court to stand up for him. They asked the court to block the appellate court’s decision while it decided whether to hear another appeal from Mr Trump, arguing that the president would suffer irreparable damage if the grand jury saw his financial records.

In response, Mr. Vance’s attorneys referred to the Times articles. The cat, they said, was out of the pocket. “With the details of his tax returns now being made public, the confidentiality interests alleged by the applicant have been severely weakened, if they survive at all,” said Vance.

In addition to combating the subpoena from Mr. Vance’s office in court, Mr. Trump sued the suspension of a Congressional subpoena for his return and successfully challenged a California law requiring presidential candidates to clear their return.

Legal experts said the court order effectively ended Mr Trump’s legal search and further attempts to thwart the subpoena could undermine his defense.

“Trump is not respected as a former president,” said Anne Milgram, a former Manhattan assistant district attorney who later served as attorney general in New Jersey and was critical of Mr. Trump. “Under the laws of New York State, he has the same rights as others in the state. Neither more nor less. “

Jonah E. Bromwich and Maggie Haberman contributed to the coverage. Kitty Bennett contributed to the research.

Categories
Business

Trump’s Tax Returns Are ‘One Piece of the Puzzle.’ Prosecutors Are Getting Extra.

When New York prosecutors can finally examine former President Donald J. Trump’s tax returns, they will find a true guide to getting rich while losing millions of dollars and paying little to no income taxes.

However, whether they find evidence of criminal offenses also depends on other information not included in the actual returns.

The United States Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. to receive eight years of Mr. Trump’s income tax return and other documents from his accountants. The decision ended a longstanding legal battle over prosecutors’ access to the information.

The New York Times more or less previewed what to expect last year as it received and analyzed decades of income tax data for Mr Trump and his companies. The tax records offer an unprecedented and very detailed look into the Byzantine world of Mr. Trump’s finances, which he has been bragging about for years and which he wants to keep secret.

The Times audit found the former president had reported hundreds of millions of dollars in business losses, spent years without paying federal taxes, and received a tax refund of $ 72.9 million prior to an Internal Revenue Service audit that he had requested a decade ago.

Among other things, the record found that Mr Trump had paid just $ 750 in federal income taxes in his first year as president and no income tax at all for 10 of the last 15 years. They also revealed that between 2010 and 2018 he had written off $ 26 million in “consulting fees” as business expenses, some of which were apparently paid to his older daughter Ivanka Trump when she was an employee of the Trump Organization.

The legitimacy of the charges that reduced Mr. Trump’s taxable income has since been the subject of Mr. Vance’s investigation and a separate civil investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Ms. James and Mr. Vance are Democrats, and Mr. Trump has tried to portray the multiple investigation as politically motivated while denying any wrongdoing.

Mr. Vance’s office has issued subpoenas and interviews over the past few months investigating various financial matters, including whether the Trump Organization has misrepresented the value of assets in making loans or paying property taxes, as well paying $ 130,000 in hush money during the 2016 campaign to Stephanie Clifford, the pornographic film actress whose stage name is Stormy Daniels. Among those surveyed were employees of Deutsche Bank, one of Mr Trump’s largest lenders.

Despite all of its revelations, Mr Trump’s tax filings are also noteworthy for what they fail to show, including new details about the payment to Ms. Clifford, which was the first focus of Mr Vance’s investigation when it began two years ago.

The tax returns are self-reported accounting for income and expenses and often do not have the specificity required to know, for example, whether legal costs related to hush money payments have been claimed as a tax write-off or whether money has ever been paid from Russia moved by Mr. Trump’s bank accounts. The lack of this level of detail underscores the potential value of other records that Mr. Vance had access to with the Supreme Court decision on Monday.

In addition to filing tax returns, Mr. Trump’s accountants, Mazars USA, are also required to provide business records on which these returns are based and communicate with the Trump Organization. Such material could provide important context and background for decisions Mr Trump or his accountants made in preparing the tax return.

John D. Fort, a former chief of the IRS criminal investigation department, said tax returns are a useful tool for uncovering clues but could only be fully understood with additional financial information obtained elsewhere.

“It’s a very important personal financial document, but it’s only part of the puzzle,” said Fort, CPA and director of investigations at Kostelanetz & Fink in Washington. “What you find in the return must be continued with interviews and subpoenas.”

However, the Times’ investigation of Mr. Trump’s returns revealed a number of misleading claims and falsehoods he made about his wealth and business acumen.

Many of Mr. Trump’s claims to generous philanthropy fell apart when he examined his tax returns, raising questions about both the size of certain donations and the totality of his tax-deductible donations. For example, $ 119.3 million of the approximately $ 130 million in charitable deductions claimed since 2005 turned out to be the estimated value of no real estate pledges, sometimes after a planned project failed.

At least two of these land-based charity prints, one related to a golf course in Los Angeles and the other in a Westchester estate called Seven Springs, are known to be part of Ms. James’s civil investigation to see if appraisals are endorsed The tax depreciation was excessive.

In a broader sense, the tax filings showed how the public disclosures he filed as a candidate and then as president offered a skewed view of his overall finances by reporting glowing numbers for his golf courses, hotels, and other businesses on a gross revenue basis, which they achieved every year. The actual bottom line after losses and expenses was much grimmer: while Mr. Trump’s public filing showed revenue of $ 434.9 million in 2018, his tax returns reported losses totaling $ 47.4 million.

And such bad numbers were not an anomaly. Mr. Trump’s many golf courses, a core part of his business empire, posted losses of $ 315.6 million from 2000 to 2018, while the revenue from licensing his name to hotels and resorts was so good at the time of his entry into the White House how dry they were. Additionally, Mr. Trump has several hundred million dollars in loans, many of which he has personally guaranteed and which will mature over the next few years.

The Times investigation also revealed that he faces a potentially devastating IRS audit focused on the huge refund he requested in 2010, which covers all federal income taxes he paid through 2005 plus interest. Mr Trump repeatedly cited the ongoing audit as a reason he was unable to publish his tax returns after initially announcing it, despite nothing stopping him in the audit process.

Should an IRS ruling ultimately be against him, Mr. Trump could be forced to repay more than $ 100 million, taking into account interest and possible penalties, in addition to approximately $ 21.2 million in state and local tax refunds, which were based on the numbers in his federal records.

Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig contributed to the coverage.

Categories
Politics

Promotions for Feminine Generals Had been Delayed Over Fears of Trump’s Response

“It was about timing, not that it was women,” Miller, who served as acting Secretary of Defense for nearly three months, said in an interview.

Had Mr Trump won re-election, General Milley would most likely have sent the recommendations to the White House for approval, hoping for the best. But the General and Mr. Esper felt that under a Biden administration, the selection process was faced with a smoother selection process.

Mr. Biden and Mr. Austin could always select other candidates, but Mr. Esper and General Milley were confident that the new team would confirm their selection, which had been reviewed and evaluated over several months.

Col. Dave Butler, spokesman for General Milley, declined to comment on the article.

General Van Ovost is already a four-star officer who heads the Air Force Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. Of the 43 four-star generals and admirals in the US military, she is the only woman. General Van Ovost, a seasoned Air Force Academy graduate who was selected to lead the multiservice transport command, also located at Scott Air Force Base, played out her strengths.

General Richardson is the three-star commander of the Army component of the Pentagon’s North Command in San Antonio, which plays an important role in the military support for FEMA’s Covid vaccination program.

“Very capable, great team builder,” said Anthony R. Ierardi, a retired commander of the Army’s First Cavalry Division, which included General Richardson, in an email. “Get things done.”

Categories
Politics

Biden Takes Middle Stage With Bold Agenda as Trump’s Trial Ends

WASHINGTON – President Biden’s allies say that after the impeachment process of his predecessor is distracted, he will be quick to press for the passage of his $ 1.9 trillion coronavirus relief plan before moving on to an even bigger agenda in Congress that is Infrastructure, immigration and crime includes judicial reform, climate change and health care.

Mr Biden has so far been able to move his agenda forward amid the whirlwind of impeachment, trial and acquittal of former President Donald J. Trump. House committees are already debating parts of the coronavirus relief laws he calls the American Rescue Plan. Despite the Trump drama, several president’s cabinet members were confirmed. And Mr Biden’s team urges lawmakers to act swiftly when the senators return from a week-long hiatus.

Without the spectacle of constitutional conflict, the new president “is now center stage in a way the first few weeks did not allow,” said Jennifer Palmieri, who served as communications director for President Barack Obama. She said the end of the process means “2021 can finally begin”.

In a post-trial statement, Mr. Biden reiterated his hopes for bipartisan support and pledged to work bipartisan to “heal the soul of the nation.” However, Mr Biden’s outlook is compounded by the fact that much of his agenda is aimed at dismantling Mr Trump’s policies or addressing what Democrats have viewed as his failure, especially the fiddled response to the pandemic.

And the 43 “not guilty” Senate Republican votes on Saturday have greatly eased both political opportunities and challenges for Mr Biden: a small minority of Republican senators willing to brave the wrath of Mr Trump’s powerful political movement by voting condemn him while Mr Trump continues to rule most of his party.

The reality is that Mr Trump’s influence over Republicans will be an obstacle to Mr Biden’s priorities even if the former President leaves Washington. Even with control of both Houses of Congress, the Democrats will still need Republican support on many of Mr Biden’s agenda items to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

“Trump will certainly continue to be a force in the Republican Party. They have to decide whether or not they are trapped, ”said Winnie Stachelberg, executive vice president at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “President Biden is focused on the welfare of the American people. He will not be derailed and distracted from this main mission, whatever the sideshow former President Trump does. “

In the past few days, senior members of Mr Biden’s team have started internal meetings at the White House to discuss what the next phase of his agenda will be and how it will be implemented, according to two senior White House advisers. Some of this could be publicly announced in March, if Mr Biden is expected to deliver a joint address to Congress, as is the custom in the first year of a president’s office.

Administration officials acknowledge that Mr Biden will now receive more public attention, a reality they plan to capitalize on with the President’s first substantive trip outside Washington earlier this week. Mr Biden will attend a CNN town hall-style event in Milwaukee on Tuesday and travel to another part of the country on Thursday.

“For understandable reasons, it will be more of a spotlight than it was last week,” said Jen Psaki, White House press secretary. “Now there may be a focus on the president’s agenda again, getting relief into the hands of the American people.”

Public polls show that the president’s agenda is widespread even among some Republicans. This has added pressure from Democratic progressives to refrain from compromising with Republicans that could water down Mr Biden’s political proposals. And the Republicans, still bracing for the loss of the Senate and White House, have not yet banded together in a rigorous substantive assault on the president’s agenda.

“He might be able to get more country on his side when it comes to supporting the agenda as there is no cohesive Republican argument,” said Ms Palmieri of Mr Biden.

Given the razor-thin margins in Congress, the president’s hopes for a swift implementation of an ambitious agenda are more likely if he can at least count on the support of Republicans. And Mr Trump’s influence on the party threatens the prospect of cross-party cooperation.

For the first 24 days of Mr Biden’s presidency, Mr Trump had a constant presence – not on the Twitter account he is banned from using, but as an impeachment target to spark a riot to prevent his own fall. Reporters encamped in Palm Beach, Florida as wall-to-wall cable networks covered the Senate trial that would determine its fate.

Mr Biden tried to distance himself from the debate over whether Mr Trump should be held accountable for the January 6 uprising in the Capitol for fear it would lose momentum on his agenda.

Even when the process is over, Mr Trump seems unwilling to lose sight of the nation’s psyche. Former President aides say Mr Trump plans to hold a press conference from Mar-a-Lago, his home in Florida, in the coming days. In a statement immediately after the trial ended, Trump, who has expressed an interest in running for president again in 2024, indicated that he had no plans to disappear from television screens or from the political life of Republicans in Congress.

“Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to make America great again has only just begun,” wrote the former president. “I have a lot to share with you in the months ahead, and I look forward to continuing our incredible journey together to achieve American greatness for all of our people. There has never been anything like it! “

Ms Psaki said the president, who steadfastly refused to comment on the ongoing impeachment process, is not focusing on Mr Trump. She said that mentions of his comments or activities were very rare in private conversations between the president and his aides.

“The political campaign is over,” she said. “He hit Donald Trump. He and we don’t want to get involved in this fight again. “

Presidents often refer to their predecessors long after leaving the world’s largest bullying pulpit.

When Mr. Obama took office in 2009, he vowed to end his predecessor George W. Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy” and blamed him for the country’s economic problems. In 2017, Mr Trump repeatedly downgraded Mr Obama’s performance to encourage the change he felt was necessary.

But perhaps more than any other past president, Mr Biden has used Mr Trump as an effective political slide, constructing his agenda almost entirely as a rejection of Mr Trump’s politics and personal conduct during his turbulent four years in office.

Mr Biden’s first actions on Day 1 were a flash of executive orders designed to undo many of Mr Trump’s policies in a single day. And he often sees his broader agenda as the necessary response to actions his predecessor took or not taken. Late last week, he said again that Mr Trump’s administration had failed to provide the government with tools to fight the coronavirus pandemic.

“What we thought was available, from vaccine to vaccine, was not the case,” Biden told a non-partisan group of mayors and governors.

Joe Lockhart, who served as press secretary for President Bill Clinton, said the most important thing Mr Biden can do to advance his broad agenda is successfully fighting the pandemic and working to repair the troubled economy.

“Where he will gain political capital is to compare his handling of the pandemic to the disastrous efforts of the Trump administration,” Lockhart said. The end of impeachment, he said, “paves the way for people to focus on it.”

The question for Mr Biden is whether he can use the political space to build support for his proposals. And if he can, will public pressure be enough to convince Republicans in Congress to oppose Mr. Trump’s influence?

Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and a close ally of the president, said Mr Biden would continue to push for bipartisan collaboration on coronavirus relief law and other priorities. But he said he was confident the president would not be put off by the Republican opposition.

“He’s making strides in the relief backed by three-quarters of the American people,” Coons said on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. “And from the way he spoke when he was inaugurated, to the actions he took in the first few weeks, he shows us what real presidential leadership looks like in sharp contrast to his predecessor.”

Categories
Politics

Trump’s Legal professionals Deny He Incited Capitol Mob, Saying It’s Democrats Who Spur Violence

Former President Donald J. Trump’s legal team mounted a combative defense on Friday focused more on assailing Democrats for “hypocrisy” and “hatred” than justifying Mr. Trump’s own monthslong effort to overturn a democratic election that culminated in last month’s deadly assault on the Capitol.

After days of powerful video footage showing a mob of Trump supporters beating police officers, chasing lawmakers and threatening to kill the vice president and House speaker, Mr. Trump’s lawyers denied that he had incited what they called a “small group” that turned violent. Instead, they tried to turn the tables by calling out Democrats for their own language, which they deemed just as incendiary as Mr. Trump’s.

In so doing, the former president’s lawyers went after not just the House Democrats serving as managers, or prosecutors, in the Senate impeachment trial, but half of the jurors sitting in front of them in the chamber. A rat-a-tat-tat montage of video clips played by the Trump team showed nearly every Democratic senator as well as President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris using the word “fight” or the phrase “fight like hell” just as Mr. Trump did at a rally of supporters on Jan. 6 just before the siege of the Capitol.

“Suddenly, the word ‘fight’ is off limits?” said Michael T. van der Veen, one of the lawyers hurriedly hired in recent days to defend Mr. Trump. “Spare us the hypocrisy and false indignation. It’s a term that’s used over and over and over again by politicians on both sides of the aisle. And, of course, the Democrat House managers know that the word ‘fight’ has been used figuratively in political speech forever.”

To emphasize the point, the Trump team played some of the same clips four or five times in less than three hours as some of the Democratic senators shook their heads and at least one of their Republican colleagues laughed appreciatively. The lawyers argued that the trial was “shameful” and “a deliberate attempt by the Democrat Party to smear, censor and cancel” an opponent and then rested their case without using even a quarter of the 16 hours allotted to the former president’s defense.

In the process, they tried to effectively narrow the prosecution’s “incitement of insurrection” case as if it centered only on their client’s use of that one phrase in that one speech instead of the relentless campaign that Mr. Trump waged since last summer to discredit an election he would eventually lose and galvanize his supporters to help him cling to power.

“They really didn’t address the facts of the case at all,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the lead impeachment manager. “There were a couple propaganda reels about Democratic politicians that would be excluded in any court in the land. They talk about the rules of evidence — all of that was totally irrelevant to the case before us.”

After the Trump team’s abbreviated and at times factually challenged defense, the senators posed their own questions, generally using their queries to score political points. The questions, a total of 28 submitted in writing and read by a clerk, suggested that most Republicans remained likely to vote to acquit Mr. Trump when the Senate reconvenes for final arguments at 10 a.m. Saturday, blocking the two-thirds supermajority required by the Constitution for conviction.

Some of the few Republicans thought to be open to conviction, including Senators Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, grilled the lawyers about what Mr. Trump knew and when he knew it during the attack. The managers have argued that it was not just the president’s words and actions in advance of the attack that betrayed his oath, but his failure to act more assertively to stop his supporters after it started.

The Trump Impeachment ›

What You Need to Know

    • A trial is being held to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is guilty of inciting a deadly mob of his supporters when they stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, violently breaching security measures and sending lawmakers into hiding as they met to certify President Biden’s victory.
    • The House voted 232 to 197 to approve a single article of impeachment, accusing Mr. Trump of “inciting violence against the government of the United States” in his quest to overturn the election results. Ten Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to impeach him.
    • To convict Mr. Trump, the Senate would need a two-thirds majority to be in agreement. This means at least 17 Republican senators would have to vote with Senate Democrats to convict.
    • A conviction seems unlikely. Last month, only five Republicans in the Senate sided with Democrats in beating back a Republican attempt to dismiss the charges because Mr. Trump is no longer in office. Only 27 senators say they are undecided about whether to convict Mr. Trump.
    • If the Senate convicts Mr. Trump, finding him guilty of “inciting violence against the government of the United States,” senators could then vote on whether to bar him from holding future office. That vote would only require a simple majority, and if it came down to party lines, Democrats would prevail with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaking vote.
    • If the Senate does not convict Mr. Trump, the former president could be eligible to run for public office once again. Public opinion surveys show that he remains by far the most popular national figure in the Republican Party.

Responding to the senators, the defense lawyers pointed to mildly worded messages and a video that Mr. Trump posted on Twitter after the building was stormed calling on his supporters not to use violence while still endorsing their cause and telling them that he loved them. The managers repeated that Mr. Trump never made a strong, explicit call on the rioters to halt the attack, nor did he send help.

Mr. Romney and Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, zeroed in on Mr. Trump’s failure to exhibit concern for his own vice president, Mike Pence, who was targeted for death by the former president’s supporters because he refused to try to block finalization of the election. Even after Mr. Pence was evacuated from the Senate chamber that day, Mr. Trump attacked him on Twitter, saying that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”

Mr. van der Veen told the senators that “at no point was the president informed that the vice president was in any danger.” But in fact, Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama, told reporters this week that he spoke by telephone with Mr. Trump during the attack and told him that Mr. Pence had been rushed out of the chamber. Officials have said that Mr. Trump never called Mr. Pence to check on his safety and did not speak with him for days.

Another new account emerged as the trial broke for the day, potentially adding to senators’ understanding of Mr. Trump’s state of mind. Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler, Republican of Washington State, who voted to impeach last month, confirmed a report by CNN that when Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, called Mr. Trump during the attack pleading with him to call off the riot, the president told him, “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” A spokesman for Mr. McCarthy did not respond to a request for comment, but Ms. Herrera Beutler said he had relayed details of the conversation to her directly.

The defense team struggled to avoid directly addressing what managers called Mr. Trump’s “big lie” that the election was stolen, which led his supporters to invade the Capitol to try to stop Congress from counting the Electoral College votes ratifying the result. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, challenged Mr. Trump’s lawyers to say whether they believe he actually won the election.

“My judgment?” Mr. van der Veen replied derisively and then demanded: “Who asked that?”

“I did,” Mr. Sanders called out from his seat.

“My judgment’s irrelevant in this proceeding,” Mr. van der Veen said, prompting an eruption from Democratic senators. He repeated that “it’s irrelevant” to the question of whether Mr. Trump incited the riot.

Senate Democrats dismissed the defense’s efforts to equate Mr. Trump’s actions with Democratic speeches. “They’re trying to draw a dangerous and distorted equivalence,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, told reporters during a break in the trial. “I think it is plainly a distraction from Donald Trump inviting the mob to Washington.”

But for Republicans looking for reasons to acquit Mr. Trump, the defense was more than enough. “The president’s lawyers blew the House managers’ case out of the water,” said Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin.

Even Ms. Murkowski, who called on Mr. Trump to resign after the Capitol siege, said the defense team was “more on their game” than during the trial’s opening day this week, although by day’s end, she indicated to a reporter she was agonizing over the decision.

“It’s been five weeks — less than five weeks — since an event that shook the very core the very foundation of our democracy,” she said. “And we’ve had a lot to process since then.”

During the question period, senators closely watched for clues about where their colleagues stood. Although most lawmakers still guessed that only a handful of Republicans would vote to convict, an additional group of Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have said almost nothing to colleagues about the unfolding trial in private or during daily luncheons before it convenes, prompting speculation that they could be preparing to break from the party.

The managers need 17 Republicans to join all 50 Democrats to reach the two-thirds required for conviction. While Mr. Trump can no longer be removed from office because his term has ended, he could be barred from ever seeking public office again.

The former president had trouble recruiting a legal team to defend him. The lawyers who represented him last year during his first impeachment trial did not come back for this one, and the set of lawyers he initially hired for this proceeding backed out in disagreement over strategy.

Bruce L. Castor Jr., the leader of this third set, was widely criticized for his preliminary presentation on Tuesday, including reportedly by Mr. Trump, and his colleague David I. Schoen briefly quit on Thursday night in a dispute over how to use videotape in their presentation.

Mr. Castor and Mr. Schoen were largely supplanted on Friday by Mr. van der Veen, who has no long history with the president and in fact was reported to have once called Mr. Trump a “crook” with an expletive, a statement he has denied. Just last year, Mr. van der Veen represented a client suing Mr. Trump over moves that might limit mail-in voting and accused the president of making claims with “no evidence.”

But Mr. van der Veen on Friday offered the sort of aggressive performance that Mr. Trump prefers from his representatives as he accused the other side of “doctoring the evidence” with “manipulated video,” all to promote “a preposterous and monstrous lie” that the former president encouraged violence.

A personal injury lawyer whose Philadelphia law firm solicits slip-and-fall clients on the radio and whose website boasts of winning judgments stemming from auto accidents and one case “involving a dog bite,” Mr. van der Veen proceeded to lecture Mr. Raskin, who taught constitutional law at American University for more than 25 years, about the Constitution. The managers’ arguments, Mr. van der Veen said, were “less than I would expect from a first-year law student.”

He and his colleagues argued that Mr. Trump was exercising his free-speech rights in his fiery address to a rally before supporters broke into the Capitol. The lawyers leaned heavily on Mr. Trump’s single use of the word “peacefully” as he urged backers to march to the Capitol while minimizing the 20 times he used the word “fight.”

“No thinking person could seriously believe that the president’s Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse was in any way an incitement to violence or insurrection,” Mr. van der Veen said. “The suggestion is patently absurd on its face. Nothing in the text could ever be construed as encouraging, condoning or inciting unlawful activity of any kind.”

Sensitive to the charge that Mr. Trump endangered police officers, who were beaten and in one case killed during the assault, the lawyers played video clips in which he called himself a “law and order president” along with images of antiracism protests that turned violent last summer.

They likewise showed video clips of Democrats objecting to Electoral College votes in past years when Republicans won, including Mr. Raskin in 2017 when Mr. Trump’s victory was sealed, comparing them with Mr. Trump’s criticism of the 2020 election. At the same time, those videos also showed Mr. Biden, then vice president, gaveling those protests out of order.

Stacey Plaskett, a Democratic delegate from the Virgin Islands and one of the managers, objected that many of the faces shown in the videos of Democratic politicians and street protesters were Black. “It was not lost on me so many of them were people of color and women, Black women,” she said. “Black women like myself who are sick and tired of being sick and tired for our children.”

The defense lawyers contended that Democrats were pursuing Mr. Trump out of personal and partisan animosity, using the word “hatred” 15 times during their formal presentation, and they cast the trial as an effort to suppress a political opponent and his supporters.

“It is about canceling 75 million Trump voters and criminalizing political viewpoints,” Mr. Castor said. “That’s what this trial is really about. It is the only existential issue before us. It asks for constitutional cancel culture to take over in the United States Senate. Are we going to allow canceling and banning and silencing to be sanctioned in this body?”

Emily Cochrane and Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.