Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

​

​

Aaron BlakeJuly 19, 2023 at 1:15 p.m. EDT

Former president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump leaves the opening of his campaign headquarters in Manchester, N.H., last month. (Reba Saldanha/Reuters)

(How can people vote for a man who was found by a jury in a court to have raped a woman and has been accused of sexual assault by 27 woman. No decent human being could support such a person.)

“After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.

Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.

“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.

The filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts.

Kaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.”

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”

Kaplan also flatly rejected the Trump team’s suggestion that the conduct Trump was found liable for might have been as limited as groping of the breasts.

The reason? Trump was not accused of that, so the only alleged offense that would have qualified as “sexual abuse” was forced digital penetration. Beyond that, Trump was accused of putting his mouth on Carroll’s mouth and pulling down her tights, which Kaplan noted were not treated as alleged sexual abuse at trial.

“The jury’s finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina,” Kaplan wrote, calling it the “only remaining conclusion.”

Kaplan also noted that the verdict form did not ask the jury to decide exactly what conduct Trump had committed, and that neither prosecutors nor Trump’s lawyers had requested it to do so.

“Mr. Trump’s attempt to minimize the sexual abuse finding as perhaps resting on nothing more than groping of Ms. Carroll’s breasts through her clothing is frivolous,” Kaplan wrote.

He added that the jury clearly found that Trump had “ ‘raped’ her in the sense of that term broader than the New York Penal Law definition.”

The motion was a part of Trump’s efforts to appeal the verdict against him. That’s an effort that will apparently continue as he faces a separate defamation lawsuit from Carroll, dealing with claims Trump made about her allegations while he was still president.

But for now, Trump’s effort to push back has led to a rather remarkable clarification that severely undercuts his main talking point.“

The Rise of Kamala Harris Is Atypical and Distinctly American - The New York Times

The World According to Kamala Harris

Published Oct. 26, 2024 Updated Oct. 30, 2024

Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times

"The rise of Kamala Harris, the tenacious child of high-achieving immigrants, is atypical. But her story is also distinctly American.

In Kamala Harris’s closing argument at the Ellipse in Washington on Tuesday, she sought to cast herself in thoroughly relatable terms. “I’ve lived the promise of America,” she said near the end of her speech, repeating the sentence twice more, as if trying to weave herself into the fiber of an electorate that has yet to understand her.

The candidate’s self-description was factually accurate, but what it left out was far more revealing. From interviews with about 100 people currently or formerly associated with Ms. Harris, understanding the Democratic nominee for president requires taking her assertion “I’ve lived the promise of America” and breaking it into three parts.

First, she is the tenacious eldest child of supremely motivated, risk-taking immigrants: a mother who came from India with the ambition of curing breast cancer, and a Jamaican father who set his sights on shaping his country’s modern economy.

Second, she is the offspring of scientists whose devotion to reason and methodology would guide her in her first career as a law-and-order, linear-minded prosecutor rather than an ideologue. “Fix it,” she would say. Or, “Let’s move on.”

Third, she is the daughter of an Asian woman and a Black man — a human Venn diagram “living in the intersections as a woman of color,” said her friend Mini Timmaraju, the president and chief executive of Reproductive Freedom for All. From Ms. Harris’s childhood in the Berkeley flatlands of California to her current position in the White House, she has lived with the awareness that her gender and racial background have made the world prone to prejudging her.

“It’s not a new thing for her, being disrespected for reasons that have nothing to do with her actual capabilities,” said Jill Louis, an attorney and friend of Ms. Harris since the two were sorority sisters at Howard University. “Does she talk about it? No. Because she’s not a whiner.”

Still, said Ms. Louis of her friend, “You learn to put those shields up early.”

Vice President Kamala Harris has emphasized her middle-class roots. She dwells less on her experiences as a woman of color.Ruth Fremson/The New York Times

That armor has confounded even those who have known her for decades. One of them, the former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, once Ms. Harris’s political mentor and boyfriend, reflected on her in a recent interview. “She’s still a mystery,” he said. “Still a mystery. And she’s going to keep it that way.”

A Succession of Risks

From certain angles, Kamala Harris lives the life of a perfectly normal American woman.

She works out in the morning as penance for her sweet tooth. She dances to hip-hop and R&B, as she once did to Aretha Franklin’s “Rock Steady” in the living room of her childhood home in Berkeley. She has a piercing, attenuated laugh that amuses her friends, even though one of them likes to ask her in mock exasperation, “Are you done yet?”

She is married to a man she calls Dougie who is fond of the band Rage Against the Machine. She goes to a Baptist church and has been known not to take calls when the San Francisco 49ers are playing. She is superstitious: When she ran for district attorney and attorney general in California, she always ate on Election Day at Delancey Street Restaurant, a San Francisco institution.

She can be emotionally inaccessible to some, particularly members of the media, while warming immediately to those who are vulnerable or grief-stricken. She is a spur-of-the-moment visitor at hospitals where friends or their loved ones lie dying. She gravitates toward the children of others, taking them aside to inquire about their school work and favorite teachers.

So yes, she is normal. But ordinary, no.

What Ms. Harris characterized in her acceptance speech as her “unexpected” journey to the precipice of the Oval Office becomes somewhat less so when considering her origins.

Her father, Donald Harris, a product of Jamaica’s entrepreneurial class, immigrated to America in 1961 at the age of 22 to study economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Sixty years later, after becoming Stanford University’s first Black professor of economics to achieve tenure, his role in the development of Jamaica’s post-colonial economy would earn him that country’s Order of Merit, a distinction that only 15 living individuals can possess.

After her parents separated when she was 5, Ms. Harris fixated on a single role model, her mother. Shyamala Gopalan Harris hailed from upper-crust Tamil Brahmin stock in what is now known as Chennai, India, and took her own journey to California at the age of 19 to become a biomedical scientist.

She would go on to receive grants from the National Institutes of Health for her pioneering work in the field of breast cancer research before dying of cancer herself in 2009. In November 2021, while attending the Paris Peace Forum, Vice President Harris visited the Institut Pasteur, where she met with a scientist who had collaborated with her mother on estrogen research four decades earlier.

Ms. Harris’s parents, Shyamala Gopalan and Donald Harris.via Kamala Harris Campaign

Ms. Harris fixated on her mother as a role model after her parents separated.Kamala Harris campaign, via Associated Press

Ms. Harris is, in sum, a child of high achievers, raised in a household frequented by intellectuals and civil rights activists. Huey P. Newton, the founder of the Black Panther Party, was a familiar presence in her neighborhood. At the Black cultural center where her mother took Ms. Harris and her younger sister most Thursday evenings, legendary figures like James Baldwin, Nina Simone and Shirley Chisholm took the stage.

By the time she was 12, Ms. Harris had already visited Jamaica, India and Zambia and was attending school in Montreal, after her mother took a job at McGill University there. As difficult as such a transition would have been for any child, much less a girl of color thrust into an overwhelmingly white student body, she came out of it with passable French and a determination to “return home for college,” as she later wrote.

“Home” turned out to be the prestigious historically Black university, Howard, the Washington, D.C.-based alma mater of one of her childhood heroes, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. At Howard, where she carried a briefcase to class and was on the school debate team, she struck her classmates as a preternaturally worldly young woman determined to forge her own path. “She always had her own style and was never a follower,” said Stacey Johnson Batiste, a friend since kindergarten. “She’s been wearing pearls as long as I can remember.”

At what is today known as UC Law San Francisco, she was not a gifted student in the way her parents were, and was not viewed as “most likely to succeed,” a distinction that fell to her classmate, J. Christopher Stevens, a future U.S. ambassador who was killed by militants in Benghazi, Libya. But she became president of the school’s Black Law Students Association and organized a jobs fair on campus for herself and her fellow seniors.

Straight out of law school in 1989, Ms. Harris became one of a handful of applicants to join the district attorney’s office of Alameda County, an esteemed Oakland group of prosecutors with a storied history: Earl Warren, who as chief justice of the Supreme Court would later write the majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education establishing racial segregation in public schools as unconstitutional, became the county’s district attorney in 1925.

As a line prosecutor, Ms. Harris handled some of the office’s toughest cases, many of them involving sexual assault or child abuse. “She had very strong skills in the courtroom,” said her former supervisor, Nancy O’Malley, who later became the county’s district attorney. “But what drew me to recruit her for sex crimes cases was how she could sit in the hallway next to a victim and show them such compassion that she’d win their trust and have the courage to take the witness stand.”

Ms. O’Malley could also see that her young prosecutor “was obviously very ambitious’’ as she began to move into San Francisco society and politics. In March 1994, the San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen noted in print that the California state assembly speaker, Willie Brown, had celebrated his 60th birthday in the company of Clint Eastwood, Barbra Streisand and “the speaker’s new steady, Kamala Harris, an Alameda County deputy D.A. who is something new in Willie’s love life.”

Ms. Harris campaigning in San Francisco in 2003, when she ran for district attorney against her former boss and won.Mike Kepka/San Francisco Chronicle, via Getty Images

Mr. Brown went on to appoint Ms. Harris to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (with an annual salary of $97,088) and then, six months after she resigned, to the California Medical Assistance Commission (which paid $72,000 annually). A year later, Ms. Harris accompanied Mr. Brown — who was 31 years older than her and married, though long estranged from his wife — to the wedding of Nancy Corinne Pelosi, the eldest daughter of the San Francisco congresswoman and future House speaker.

“No question, Willie opened doors for Kamala,” said Art Torres, the chairman of the state’s Democratic Party from 1996 to 2009. “But as soon as she walked through them, you couldn’t help but notice her and say, ‘Who is this future star?’”

Though the two broke up just after Mr. Brown won election as mayor of San Francisco in December 1995, Ms. Harris had by then cemented friendships with many of the city’s high-profile Democratic donors, including Vanessa Getty and Susan Swig. She was also given a seat on the board of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. “We wanted to grab her before one of the city’s other cultural institutions did,” said Chuck Collins, an attorney and longtime museum board member.

In 1998, Ms. Harris said goodbye to the East Bay, relocated to San Francisco and joined its district attorney’s office. The D.A., Terence Hallinan, belonged to one of the city’s dominant political families, along with the Pelosis and the Feinsteins. But Ms. Harris was among Mr. Hallinan’s deputies who found his management style to be chaotic. She resigned in 2000 and moved over to the city attorney’s office. Three years later she ran against him and won.

Her long-shot victory against Mr. Hallinan amounted to the first in what would be a series of career risks. The second one came four years later, when Ms. Harris became the first prominent elected Democrat in California to endorse the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama, whom she had met at a fund-raiser in San Francisco during his 2004 run for the Senate.

The two ascendant Black Democrats developed a natural kinship, though Ms. Harris fretted over her political bet to break from a party apparatus that had sworn its allegiance to Hillary Clinton. In the end, said Brian Brokaw, who later became her political consultant, “it was a defining moment in her career.’’

Mr. Obama’s victory in 2008 all but guaranteed Ms. Harris a job in the administration’s Justice Department. Instead, she elected to run for state attorney general, a post that had never been occupied by either a woman or a person of color, much less both.

Her 2010 upset victory by less than a point over Steve Cooley, the Republican district attorney of Los Angeles County, featured elements that foreshadowed her current candidacy: She took on Mr. Cooley’s claim that she was a “radical” by vowing to represent “all the people of California,” and turned in a convincing debate performance aided by her opponent’s unforced errors. Her electoral outcome also took four weeks to confirm.

Nonetheless, the race established Ms. Harris as a national star. “I was so in awe of the gamble she took, running as a woman of color to be the state’s lead prosecutor,” said Barbara Boxer, at the time a U. S. senator from California. “In those days, political machines wouldn’t take a risk on a woman. She had to build her own machine.”

Ms. Harris was elected attorney general of California in 2010, becoming the state’s first woman and first person of color to hold the post.Damian Dovarganes/Associated Press

As San Francisco district attorney, Ms. Harris unleashed a flurry of new initiatives, some more successful than others. In similar fashion, the new state attorney general made the most of her elevated profile, taking on some risky initiatives.

She led partnerships with other states and Mexico to attack transnational gangs. Twice, she went toe to toe with the administration of Mr. Obama: First, in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, she pushed for a more advantageous settlement with the banks than Justice Department officials had brokered. Later, in the case of Corinthian Colleges, she demanded that the for-profit institution pay back the students it had swindled, when the Education Department preferred to see Corinthian’s debts forgiven. In both cases, Ms. Harris prevailed.

Four years into Ms. Harris’s tenure, Ms. Boxer announced that she would not seek another term in the Senate. Ms. Harris declared her candidacy a few days later and proceeded to swamp the field. Following Ms. Harris’s victory in November 2016, Ms. Boxer congratulated her successor, saying, “This is the dream job of a lifetime.”

It therefore surprised Ms. Boxer when, only two years into the job, Ms. Harris declared that she was running for president. In daring to fail — which Ms. Harris ultimately did, suspending her presidential campaign in December 2019, six weeks before the first primary votes were cast — the candidate displayed something that Ms. Boxer would later describe as awe-inspiring.

“It was her unflappability,” she said. “She always saw herself this way, as presidential material.”

A Prosecutor’s View

Ms. Harris’s 2019 campaign revealed a person for whom, despite her previous four electoral victories, politics did not come naturally. She struggled to define herself ideologically. She could not convince Democratic donors that she was more electable than the two top candidates in the field, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Senator Bernie Sanders.

And, said Mr. Brown, her political mentor, “What she hasn’t ultimately mastered is how to become the most interesting candidate to the media.”

Those who have known Ms. Harris from her earlier days in California say that unlike the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, she is not a political junkie. Those who have worked with her as vice president also point out the distinctions between herself and her boss, Mr. Biden.

She is culturally to the left of him, having grown up among the Bay Area’s L.G.B.T.Q. community, and her reflexive support for women’s reproductive freedom is uncomplicated by the traditional Catholic beliefs Mr. Biden holds. At the same time, she lacks his reverence for New Deal-style big government.

The president, his aides say, sees the world in two opposing political camps, democracies and autocracies. The vice president sees the world as bifurcated, with those who obey the rules on one side and those who break them on the other.

The most common descriptor of Ms. Harris by those who have worked with her, is “prosecutor.”

Ms. Harris often speaks to audiences as she once did to juries, making her case through the stark marshaling of facts. She prizes linearity and scorns what she terms “fancy speeches.” Her speechwriters are instructed to strip away purple prose in favor of declarative sentences.

Ms. Harris speaking with her staff backstage at a campaign event in Clarkston, Ga., on Thursday. She still thinks like a prosecutor, many who have worked with her say.Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Fittingly for a career prosecutor, the modifier most used by subordinates to describe Ms. Harris is “prepared.” Early in her political career, when meeting an influential person, she would direct staffers to collect that person’s business card, retain it in a book and later find a pretext for following up with him or her.

Before making up her mind on a policy, she will often deputize an aide to argue the opposite side of the issue. The policy binders assembled for her by past and current aides are throwbacks to the ones she carried into a courtroom: assiduously organized, written in direct language and detailed to a fault. Several staffers interviewed for this article spoke, half-joking, of their dread of Ms. Harris’s later handing back the briefing books ravaged by her copious marginalia.

On Capitol Hill, Senator Harris’s preparedness was evident in her grilling of witnesses. A Democratic colleague of hers on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, recalled, “As a brand-new senator, she sat at the very end of the dais. Usually, by the time it’s the new senator’s turn, all the good questions would have already been asked. But she was always light on her feet, thought fast and managed to get important information.”

During the nationally televised Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2018 of Brett M. Kavanaugh before the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Harris was the 20th of 21 members to question him. Still, she managed to stump the nominee with one of the hearing’s most memorable lines of inquiry: “Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body?”

“In some ways, she was ahead of her time with that question,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, a more senior Democratic colleague on the Judiciary Committee. “She was calling attention to where these guys were on these issues.”

An Unfamiliar Role

After 17 years as a district attorney, state attorney general and U.S. senator, Ms. Harris became vice president and was no longer her own boss.

She was not free to set an agenda, start pilot programs or even to hire a staff of her own choosing.

Mr. Biden had in fact given her the same level of influence that he had as vice president in the Obama administration: She would be able to participate across the entire spectrum of White House policymaking, and she would be the last person to talk to the president before a major policy decision was reached. There was a major difference, however.

Unlike Vice President Biden, who often briefed reporters off the record and in the process described his own impact on major issues, the influence of Ms. Harris was opaque at best. Given that she was serving a president who had spent nearly half his life on Capitol Hill, it was never clear what value she could add as a one-term senator.

President Biden gave Ms. Harris the same level of influence that he had as vice president in the Obama administration.Doug Mills/The New York Times

The two assignments that she was publicly given by Mr. Biden — ensuring passage of voting rights legislation, and addressing the root cause of migration from Latin American countries — stood little chance of being seen as successful, and in fact were not. For the first time in her public life, Ms. Harris was viewed by many as unserious. While Mr. Biden’s favorability ratings languished, hers were even worse. “She was second fiddle, by the nature of the office,” said Jeff Flake, the former Republican senator of Arizona, who had worked alongside Ms. Harris on the Judiciary Committee. “It’s extremely difficult to gain respect in that job, and she was doing the best she could with it.”

She gave few interviews, and often struggled when she did. When Lester Holt of NBC News asked her in June 2021 why she had not been to the border when she was working on immigration, she retorted, “And I haven’t been to Europe.” More than a dozen of her friends and political associates said they cringed at her defensiveness.

Many of her top aides were new not only to the White House but to the political warfare of Washington and lacked the leverage to go to bat for her in the West Wing. In Ms. Harris’s first 18 months in office, before she turned to more seasoned advisers, she had a high staff turnover and struggled to hold her own against the president’s tight inner circle of older men who had served him for decades.

But she seized whatever opportunities she could to make her mark on Biden administration policies, people close to her said. An initiative she had championed as state attorney general to lower diesel fumes, and which she brought to the Senate in the form of the 2019 Clean School Bus Act, ultimately became a $5 billion set-aside for electric school buses in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. A bill she introduced in 2019 as a senator to replace lead pipes nationwide finally achieved funding through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Mr. Biden’s team cast the president as the architect of those laws, as was to be expected. The same held true with the 2022 gun safety law known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was seen as a culmination of Mr. Biden’s decades-long effort to stem gun violence. Behind the scenes, however, Ms. Harris and her staff worked with the White House’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention to implement the law through a series of executive actions, including improving active-shooter drills at schools and requiring that all businesses principally engaged in the business of selling firearms undergo background checks.

Ms. Harris was not a big player in shaping the landmark economic legislation of Mr. Biden’s presidency, and it was his experienced foreign policy team that took the lead in the international response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But she did focus on help for small businesses and families, particularly as an early champion of the child care tax credit and in funneling Covid relief money to small businesses. In February 2022 she was dispatched to the Munich Security Conference, where she briefed Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, on Russia’s hostile intentions. (Mr. Zelensky reacted skeptically to Ms. Harris’s warnings. Five days later, Russian troops invaded his country.)

The event that finally gave Ms. Harris a national platform was the June 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. Still, she was initially leery when Mr. Biden’s chief of staff at the time, Ron Klain, urged her to become the administration’s leading voice on women’s reproductive rights. She did not want to be seen as a figurehead, she told Mr. Klain, especially if Mr. Biden, long uncomfortable discussing abortion in public, showed any equivocation in backing her efforts. Mr. Klain assured her that she would have the president’s full support.

Anti-abortion activists celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in Washington in 2022. Ms. Harris became the administration’s leading voice on abortion rights.Shuran Huang for The New York Times

Ms. Harris proceeded to convene dozens of meetings with activists, mayors and medical professionals across the country, often in states with highly restrictive abortion laws. At an event in Nevada, a local staffer at Planned Parenthood, Raquel Cruz-Juarez, made the observation that a person did not have to abandon their faith to recognize that the government should not be telling women what to do with their bodies.

Turning to an aide, Ms. Harris said, “You need to write that down.”

Ms. Harris took Ms. Cruz-Juarez’s sentiment back to the White House, where Mr. Biden had been inclined to tout his economic accomplishments as the predominant message for the upcoming 2022 midterm elections. By November, the party had largely taken Ms. Harris’s view that abortion rights was the winning issue. The Democrats held onto the Senate and lost far fewer House seats than anticipated in the best midterm performance by a Democratic administration in modern history.

Four months ago, following Mr. Biden’s abysmal debate performance against former President Donald J. Trump, most party leaders turned against him. His vice president did not. “She was 100 percent loyal to the president in saying it was his choice, and she stood completely behind him,” Mr. Klain said. “But once he made the decision, she moved forward in a way that showed her political prowess and the affection she had in the party. She became the consensus nominee because she deserved it.”

A Unicorn

Rarely has Ms. Harris discussed the barriers she and other women have faced, especially those of color. She has instead emphasized how her mother, “a brown woman with an accent,” maintained her composure and “taught us to never complain about injustice, but do something about it.”

One of those injustices she has mentioned was how her mother faced sexual discrimination at the University of California at Berkeley, where she worked as a scientist at the cancer research laboratory in the 1970s. Two childhood friends of Ms. Harris recalled that her mother relocated to McGill after her job at Berkeley was terminated because of a clash with a male colleague. (The Washington Post first reported on this incident.)

Several years later, Ms. Harris, by then a teenager, returned to the Bay Area during summer vacation and joined a few Black friends who were driving to a party on Alameda Island. According to two friends to whom Ms. Harris later described the incident, their car was pulled over by local police officers. Though the officers did not issue any citations, Ms. Harris and her friends were instructed to turn around and depart the island immediately.

In college, her friend and sorority sister Ms. Louis later recalled, “she’d talk about what I’d call disparaging slurs for every aspect of her heritage.” Upon entering politics in 2003, she faced two opponents in the race for district attorney, both white men, who would broadly hint that she owed her candidacy to Mr. Brown, despite the facts that the two had ended their relationship eight years earlier and that the mayor was neither an adviser nor a donor to her campaign.

Later still, Ms. Harris, the only woman of color on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was cut off by her Republican colleagues while attempting to question witnesses during committee hearings, an unusual breach of protocol, twice in one week.

“As a Black woman of multiple backgrounds, she’s in some ways a unicorn in American politics,” said Mr. Collins, the attorney who served with Ms. Harris on the board of San Francisco’s Museum of Modern Art. “And for all of us with diverse backgrounds, particularly from her generation or earlier, we’ve always had an unmitigated focus on excellence, knowing that in order to achieve it, we have to overperform.”

Ms. Harris has said that her mother “taught us to never complain about injustice, but do something about it.”Erin Schaff/The New York Times

One of Ms. Harris’s earliest efforts in the Senate was to address disparities in maternal health among Black women, who suffer the highest rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S.

“The problem is no secret in our community, but it had never gotten serious attention in the federal government,” said Representative Lauren Underwood, a Black Democrat from Illinois who teamed with Ms. Harris and another Black Democrat, Representative Alma Adams of North Carolina, to write the so-called Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act. “As the only Black woman in the Senate, her voice was uniquely suited to tackle that issue.”

Noting that Ms. Harris carried a piece of the legislation with her into the White House, where it was signed into law in November 2021, Ms. Underwood said, “That doesn’t happen without her leadership.”

Ms. Harris has often used the vice president’s official residence at the Naval Observatory to stage events that signal her dedication to inclusiveness. In June 2023, she threw a Pride event that included among the roughly 300 attendees Donna Sachet, a San Francisco activist and drag performer whom Ms. Harris knew from her days in the city.

In an interview, Ms. Sachet recalled being surprised and thrilled to have received her invitation but also somewhat nervous. She emailed the vice president’s social secretary and asked if she would be able to attend “in my persona.”

Yes, came the reply, along with the request that Ms. Sachet arrive a half-hour early, so that she could be included in the V.I.P. seating. She did so. The vice president spotted her, walked over and gave her a hug.

Looking around the residence in amazement, Ms. Sachet said, “I don’t even know how I got invited to this.”

“Because I put you on the list,” Ms. Harris replied.

The End of an Unexpected Journey

On the morning of July 21, 2024, Ms. Harris was fixing pancakes for her niece’s two daughters in the vice president’s residence when she received a call from Mr. Biden, who informed her that he would not be seeking a second term and was instead endorsing her to succeed him. The conversation was brief, and Ms. Harris knew what to do after it was over.

What ensued over the next 10 hours, with Ms. Harris sitting in her workout clothes in the living room of the vice president’s official residence while surrounded by eight aides with buzzing cellphones, was a demonstration of her methodical nature as she proceeded in short order to consolidate support within the party.

Campaign staff installing “Kamala” signs at the headquarters of the former Biden campaign office in Wilmington, Del., in July, after the president withdrew from the race.Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Her swift success was in large part a testament to Mr. Biden’s imprimatur. But it also was a validation of the unsung work she had done as his vice president. “I’d been on so many Zoom calls with her on so many issues,” said Ms. Klobuchar, who had already announced her support of the vice president by the time she received a call from her that afternoon. “She was doing important stuff behind the scenes.”

That groundswell of support, combined with her energetic public appearances after Mr. Biden’s endorsement, catapulted Ms. Harris to overnight-sensation status as she waltzed unopposed into the Democratic convention. The journey that she described in her acceptance speech as “unexpected” would over time take on an aura of inevitability.

Nonetheless it is a trajectory freighted with portent, of the sort that sometimes seems like the fruit of a Hollywood scriptwriter’s overly caffeinated imagination. A daughter of immigrants, reverential of law and order, determinedly stoic, finds herself pitted against a bombastic white male who has been accused and convicted of numerous criminal offenses and whose political vocabulary is a soundtrack of grievance and bigoted insults.

The two have in common a desire for the presidency and nothing else.

If Mr. Trump loses, he is likely to claim otherwise, as he has ever since he was defeated four years ago. Ms. Harris, for her part, publicly acknowledged that she had no path to victory during her previous quest for the presidency, when she suspended her campaign on Dec. 3, 2019, before the Iowa caucuses.

Five days earlier, she and her husband hosted a Thanksgiving dinner at their rental house in Des Moines, where Ms. Harris had been spending much of the previous weeks campaigning. In addition to the Harris family, two other invited guests showed up: Ms. Klobuchar, then Ms. Harris’s rival for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and her husband, John Bessler.

“She already knew what was upon her,” Ms. Klobuchar recalled.

But, she added, the subject of defeat did not come up. Instead, Ms. Harris made the dinner, served it, sat with her niece’s two small daughters in her lap, left the campaign at the end of the weekend and returned to her job in the Senate."

The Rise of Kamala Harris Is Atypical and Distinctly American - The New York Times

Trump’s Family Fortune Originated in a Canadian Gold-Rush Brothel (Three Generations of criminals)

"Canadians amused by the improbable presidential run of Donald Trump might be surprised to learn the role their own country played in shaping his story.

Trump's grandfather started the family fortune in an adventure that involved the Klondike gold rush, the Mounties, prostitution and twists of fate that pushed him to New York City.

Friedrich Trump had been in North America a few years when he set out for the Yukon, says an author who's just completed a new edition of her multi-generational family biography.

​That Canadian chapter proved pivotal for the entrepreneurial German immigrant, says Gwenda Blair, author of The Trumps: Three Generations That Built An Empire.

"It allowed him to get together the nest egg he'd come to the United States for," the author and Columbia University journalism professor said in an interview.

"Whether he could've accumulated that much money somewhere else, in that short a period of time, as a young man with no connections, and initially not even English, is certainly ... unlikely."

He'd left Europe in 1885 at age 16, a barber's apprentice whose father died young.

Trump wanted a life outside the barber shop, far from the family-owned vineyards his ancestors had been working since they'd settled in Germany's Kallstadt region in the 1600s carrying the soon-altered surname Drumpf.

He sailed in steerage to join his sister in New York.

Within five years he'd anglicized his name to Frederick; moved to the young timber town of Seattle; and amassed enough cash to buy tables and chairs for a restaurant.

His next big move was heralded by the front page of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of July 17, 1897, and its exclamatory headline: "Gold! Gold! Gold!"

It described a resplendent scene at the port involving mountains of yellow metal and men returning from the "New Eldorado" with fortunes as high as $100,000.

Trump sold everything and headed north.

A caravan of prospectors arrives at Chilkoot Trail to join the great Gold Rush. (Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

The move to Canada spared him financial disaster. He not only sold off two Seattle eateries, but also land in nearby Monte Cristo, Wash. — right before floods and avalanches destroyed the nearby railroad and development plans for the town were scrapped.

Blair describes his perilous northward journey in early 1898.

After boarding a crowded ship to Alaska, Trump trekked over mountains, through Canadian customs, and to the Yukon River where he had to build a boat from scratch and transport a year's worth of personal supplies.

The worst was a notorious mountain pass. The U.S. National Parks Service estimates 3,000 animals died on the White Pass, with many bones still visible today in its so-called Dead Horse Gulch.

"Owners whipped horses, donkeys, mules, oxen, and dogs until they dropped. The bodies were not buried or even moved," Blair writes.

"Travellers ... had no choice but to walk over the remains. As the months went by, the walls of the pass were stained dark red from the blood."

Restoring the Tagish role in the Klondike gold rush

Gold rush links between El Dorado and B.C. highlighted in new exhibit

Trump smelled opportunity.

He opened a canteen along the route, Blair says, where weary travellers likely stopped for a bite of Arctic roadkill. There are records for similar establishments along the route, Blair writes: "A frequent dish was fresh-slaughtered, quick-frozen horse."

This established a pattern for Trump's Canadian business model.

It's summed up in one chapter title: "Mining the Miners."

Unlike other gold-crazed migrants, Blair wrote, "[Trump] realized that the best way to get [rich] was to lay down his pick and shovel and pick up his accounting ledger."

'Liquor and sex'

In his three years in Canada, Trump opened the Arctic Restaurant and Hotel in two locations with a partner — first on Bennett Lake in northern B.C., and then moving it to Whitehorse, Yukon.

Their two-storey wood-framed establishment gained a reputation as the finest eatery in the area, Blair said — offering salmon, duck, caribou, and oysters.

It offered more than food.

"The bulk of the cash flow came from the sale of liquor and sex," Blair wrote. She cited newspaper ads referring obliquely to prostitution — mentioning private suites for ladies, and scales in the rooms so patrons could weigh gold if they preferred to pay for services that way.

He had made money; perhaps even more unusual in the Yukon, he had also kept it and departed with a substantial nest-egg.

- Gwenda Blair, author

One Yukon Sun writer moralized about the backroom goings-on: "For single men the Arctic has the best restaurant," he wrote, "but I would not advise respectable women to go there to sleep as they are liable to hear that which would be repugnant to their feelings and uttered, too, by the depraved of their own sex."

The Mounties initially tolerated the rowdiness. There were exceptions, according to the legendary Canadian writer Pierre Berton. People faced forced labour or banishment from town if they cheated at cards; made a public ruckus; or partied on the Lord's Day.

"Saloons and dance halls, theatres and business houses were shut tight one minute before midnight on Saturday," Berton wrote in "Klondike Fever."

"Two minutes before twelve the lookout at the faro table would take his watch from his pocket and call out: 'The last turn, boys!"'

'I wouldn't call him a pimp'

Trump acted as cook, bouncer, waiter.

But Blair cautions: "I wouldn't call him a pimp."

She said backroom ribaldry was part of the restaurant package in those towns, and it's not clear how the arrangement worked: "As somebody trying to attract business to his restaurant, of course he would have liquor. Of course he would arrange easy access to women. A pimp is, I think, a different business model."

By early 1901, trouble was brewing.

The Mounties announced plans to banish prostitution, and curb gambling and liquor. Trump quarrelled with his partner. Gold strikes were getting scarcer.

"The boom was over, Frederick Trump realized," Blair wrote. "He had made money; perhaps even more unusual in the Yukon, he had also kept it and departed with a substantial nest-egg."

He returned to Germany with US$582,000 in today's currency, and found a wife. But he was greeted as a draft-dodger for being away and becoming a U.S. citizen during his military years.

So he was deported from his own country. He boarded a ship for New York, his wife pregnant with Donald's dad.

The elder Trump died of pneumonia in 1918, leaving behind some real estate. His son built the empire, his grandson the global brand.

Ironically, their heir is now running for president on a platform of mass-deportation. But Donald and grandpa share some traits — an entrepreneurial spirit, and formative youthful adventures in Canada.

Donald met his first wife, Ivana, at the Montreal Olympics".

Trump’s Family Fortune Originated in a Canadian Gold-Rush Brothel