Evelyn Reynolds

With little more than a month to go before the US presidential election season kicks off in Iowa, a new projection of political spending says a record $15.9bn will be spent on advertising, up more than 30% up on the 2019-2020 election cycle.The assessment, by GroupM, one of the world’s largest paid advertising agencies, suggests total political ad revenue could add a billion more to reach a total of $17.1bn, if including direct mail pitches.Despite voters already knowing the likely two nominees – Joe Biden and Donald Trump – depriving the two main parties of traditional meet-our-candidate introduction spending, the extraordinary spend on political advertising next year is now so large that it will be the 10th largest singular ad market in the world – larger than all of Australia’s.The projected ad spending totals in the presidential election year will also be five times higher than the $3.6bn spent on political and issue ads during the last midterm elections. By the 2028 presidential election, the group said, political ad spending could reach $20bn.According to the GroupM survey, obtained by Axios, a majority of political advertising spend in the US goes to local broadcast TV. But an increasing amount goes to digital platforms.Other novelties of the year ahead in political advertising, the outlet said, are the use of AI to place ads. In August, the Federal Election Commission opened a public debate on how to address the malicious use of AI in campaign ads. The window for comments closed in October.The GroupM projection is higher by $6bn than similar political ad spending forecasts. AdImpact projects the 2023-2024 election cycle will be the most expensive of all time, totaling $10.2bn in political expenditures across all media and a 13% increase over the 2019-2020 election cycle.The survey projected that $2.7bn would be spent directly on presidential candidates, $2.1bn on Senate candidate spending, and $1.7bn on house candidates. The area projected to see the most spending on political advertising is “down ballot” – political spending not related to presidential, House, Senate or governor races, at $3.3bn. More

Lawyers for Donald Trump, defending him against charges that he retained national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago club, have asked a federal judge to grant them unprecedented access to the classified information that prosecutors want to redact before it gets introduced at trial.“Cleared counsel for President Trump seek attorneys’-eyes-only access to these filings so that we can challenge the [special counsel’s] assertions in adversarial proceedings,” the Trump legal team said in the 18-page filing.The request – asking for access to the US government’s sealed court filings that are off limits to defense counsel by default under statute – is significant because even a partial ruling in Trump’s favor by the US district judge Aileen Cannon could trigger the first appeal in the case.Such an appeal to the 11th circuit would be interlocutory, meaning it would have to be adjudicated before trial, almost certainly delaying other pre-trial deadlines and therefore the May 2024 trial date, which is already estimated to be running about four months behind schedule.The Trump motion was also widely regarded by legal experts as extraordinary because it turned on its face the point of the complex procedures governing how classified documents can be made public in criminal cases without risking national security.Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury in June with violating the Espionage Act by retaining documents about the likes of US nuclear secrets, which means his case will be tried under the rules laid out in the seven-section Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.At issue in the Trump case is the Cipa section 4 filing submitted by special counsel prosecutors. Under section 4, the government can file a motion to redact classified information that would qualify as discovery but would not be “relevant or helpful” to defense counsel.The goal of section 4 is to eliminate what was previously known as the “graymail” problem in national security cases, where defense counsel threatened to reveal classified information at trial, betting that the government would prefer to drop the charges rather than risk disclosure.It remains unclear what prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith want to redact, other than the fact that it encompasses “four categories of especially sensitive classified information”, according to recently unsealed filings.The judge technically has discretion under the statute to decide how to proceed with section 4 filings, but legal experts said the Trump motion, asking to see everything, amounted to a request to defeat the entire purpose of Cipa section 4 to protect against the threat of graymail.Trump’s lawyers essentially argued that special counsel prosecutors should be forced to share what classified information they want to redact because the criminal justice system broadly disfavors filings that are not shown to defense counsel, and because they have the necessary clearances.The Trump team also made a novel argument about how the development of laws granting greater access to national security matters – like having motions to suppress evidence in the secret foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) courts – should prompt Cannon to consider creating new precedent.The Trump legal team’s motion also asked for the judge to order special counsel prosecutors to file redacted versions of their Cipa section 4 filing on the public docket, which could shed light on the government’s legal arguments about the relevance of some of the classified information. More

California has lost two towering figures in the US House of Representatives in the past two years, first with the decision by then House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to step back followed by Kevin McCarthy’s announcement he would be resigning from Congress altogether after being ejected from leadership by his own party.The two represent diametrically opposed politics. But in their home state, their exit from top congressional leadership has had ripple effects, upsetting a political infrastructure that they had each spent decades building up.After the recent death of Dianne Feinstein – one of the most senior members of the Senate – and the upcoming departures of a number of senior California representatives, the most populous US state, with a historically oversized influence on national policy, has found itself somewhat in a political morass.“It’s pretty uncommon to have back-to-back speakers from the same state,” said Marc Sandalow, associate director of the University of California Washington Center. “And then to lose two speakers in succession – that’s a huge turnover.”The upcoming retirements of the veteran representatives Anna Eshoo, Tony Cárdenas and Grace Napolitano have compounded the state’s losses. Moreover, three California representatives – Katie Porter, Barbara Lee and Adam Schiff – are vying for the Senate seat left vacant by the late Dianne Feinstein, contributing to a power vacuum in the House. Overall, the Californians leaving Congress have decades of seniority in the House, Sandalow noted. (However, with the former California senator Kamala Harris in the vice-president’s office, the state is still represented at the highest levels of the US government.)Both parties will probably see their fundraising efforts affected. But particularly for Republicans, McCarthy’s departure will leave a huge gap.“Kevin McCarthy was the last pulse pulsating in the body that is the California Republican party,” said Mike Madrid, a longtime California Republican political consultant. In a state that overall leans Democratic, but with sizable conservative and moderate pockets, McCarthy’s sway for years helped boost his party’s candidates.“Kevin at least had the power of the speakership and the influence of national donors,” Madrid said. “And now that’s gone.” Perhaps gone too, he added, is the political goodwill and influence McCarthy spent decades building up in his home state.McCarthy, 58, has vowed “to support the next generation of leaders”, promising to elevate a new generation of Republicans in an opinion essay for the Wall Street Journal. But his spectacular ouster, and uneasy alliance with far-right members of his party who ultimately ran him out, has diminished his influence, said Madrid. “Kevin’s legacy has taken an extraordinarily big hit. His reputation during the Trump years dramatically lost a lot of lustre.”Such is not the case for Pelosi, 83, who stepped away from House leadership on good terms. She announced in September that she will be seeking re-election in 2024, and has been spending the past year continuing to fundraise for fellow Democrats while growing her own political war chest.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“She still has an immense amount of clout, but she’s now an important voice in the room, as opposed to the voice in the room,” said Dan Schnur, a lecturer at the UC Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies and a veteran Republican consultant. “Still, we’re seeing a generational shift with her stepping back.”It remains unclear who will step up. Along with Feinstein, Pelosi was part of a generation of Bay Area leaders that helped define Democratic politics and policy for decades. They have also been kingmakers, pulling up many state leaders, including California’s governor, Gavin Newsom.“And they have very much been part of the political establishment,” said Sandalow, “Their departure opens the door to potentially far more progressive candidates to emerge.”Still, at least until she retires, Pelosi is likely to remain a powerful influence. “Pelosi is probably the top fundraiser in the history of the US Congress,” said Sandalow, a longtime Washington correspondent for the San Francisco Chronicle who has written a biography of the former speaker.Both she and McCarthy, he added, “knew how to tap California’s deep pockets, and then distribute money to their candidates around the country to buy influence”. More

Six US senators have introduced a new “Fans First Act” to address flaws in the live event ticketing system by increasing transparency in ticket sales, protecting consumers from fake or overpriced tickets, and building accountability measures for bad actors.The bipartisan bill, brought to Congress by three Republicans (John Cornyn of Texas, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Roger Wicker of Mississippi) and three Democrats (Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Peter Welch of Vermont and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico), is the latest effort by Congress to combat high and exploitative ticket pricing for concerts and other live events.The heated situation with online ticket sellers – predominantly by Ticketmaster, by far the largest of retailers – reached a boiling point in 2022, when demand for tickets to see Taylor Swift’s and Bruce Springsteen’s tours, respectively, crashed the site and sent prices soaring.Several Swift fans went on to sue Ticketmaster for “fraud, price-fixing and antitrust violations”, alleging that “intentional deception” allowed scalpers to buy the majority of tickets, to be resold at a mark-up; within hours of the Eras tour sale, tickets were being resold on secondary seller sites for as much as $22,000 (£18,000).“Because no other venue can hold half as many people as the stadiums and venues working through Ticketmaster, Taylor Swift and other popular musicians have no choice but to work through Ticketmaster,” the suit alleged. The controversy led to congressional hearings with Ticketmaster executives. Though started before the Swift debacle, the US justice department launched an antitrust investigation into Ticketmaster’s parent company, Live Nation, over whether it abused its power in the multibillion-dollar live entertainment industry.According to an announcement signed by the six senators, the Fans First Act seeks to improve pricing transparency by requiring all live event ticket sellers and resellers to disclose the total cost of the ticket, including fees, when the fan initially selects a ticket for purchase; a breakdown of the ticket cost; clear terms and conditions of purchase; which seat or section they are selling in order to avoid ticket misrepresentation; and whether or not they are the original seller.The act would also strengthen the Better Online Ticket Sales (Bots) Act, signed into law in 2016, to further prohibit the use of bots to purchase tickets online, and would impose civil penalties on resellers engaging in illegal ticket sale practices. The bill would create a reporting website for fans to file complaints, to be enforced and monitored by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general. And it seeks to stop bad actors by prohibiting the sale of “spec” tickets which resellers do not yet possess, prevents the use of deceptive websites and bad actors masquerading as legitimate sellers, and requires reporting of Bots Act violations from ticketing companies to the FTC.“The current ticketing system is riddled with problems and doesn’t serve the needs of fans, teams, artists or venues,” said Cornyn in the announcement. “This legislation would rebuild trust in the ticketing system by cracking down on bots and others who take advantage of consumers through price gouging and other predatory practices and increase price transparency for ticket purchasers.”Live Nation, the owner of Ticketmaster, applauded the new bill: “We support the Fans First Act and welcome legislation that brings positive reform to live event ticketing. We believe it’s critical Congress acts to protect fans and artists from predatory resale practices, and have long supported a federal all-in pricing mandate, banning speculative ticketing and deceptive websites, as well as other measures. We look forward to our continued work with policymakers to advocate for even stronger reforms and enforcement.” More

Beyond the tumult surrounding Donald Trump’s presidential bid and his threats to seek revenge against his political enemies should he win, the Republican frontrunner has seized on an issue that even some Democrats say could attract new voters in 2024.Trump is backing “school choice” programs that use taxpayer dollars to send students to private and religious schools. It is a stance with wide appeal as parents have become increasingly fed up with the state of US public education.Polls show that about 70% of parents favor greater education options. The issue resonates strongly enough with some voters that Trump’s support could make a difference in the presidential election as well as help Republicans in state and congressional races.“It’s popular among the Republican base, it’s popular among independents and even popular among the Democratic base – in particular African Americans and Hispanics,” said Jason Bedrick, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.In a banner year for the school-choice movement, 10 states, all governed by Republicans, enacted or expanded programs in 2023 that allow varying uses of public tax dollars for private education assistance, from tuition to tutoring and therapy.For reform advocates, the momentum is a natural outgrowth of the conservative “parents’ rights” movement born of the Covid-19 pandemic, when concerns about safety mushroomed into screaming matches at school board meetings over curriculum, learning loss and diversity initiatives.Many Democrats, backed by powerful teachers’ unions, continue to view such programs with suspicion, however, saying they are attempts by Republicans to weaken public education while further enriching wealthy families.But some Democrats warn that their candidates must embrace education options or risk ceding their historic edge over Republicans on the issue.“If we don’t offer an alternative to private school choice, we are going to lose more voters on this issue,” said Jorge Elorza, CEO of Democrats for Education Reform, which favors school-choice options such as charter schools. “We’re going to lose close elections on this issue.”Polling by Elorza’s group in four 2024 battleground states – Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina – showed Republicans held a three-point advantage on the question of which party people trust most on education.Elorza said he was concerned particularly about Black voters in states like Georgia, where a slight shift in the 2020 elections would have tilted the state toward Trump.After Republicans in Arizona enacted a sweeping state-funded voucher plan last year, enrollment in the program exceeded budget projections, prompting the Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, to argue that it clashes with other state priorities.In Florida, about 123,000 students joined a similar program after it was expanded in March with the backing of the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, another presidential candidate who regularly touts it on the campaign trail and in debates.The majority of those students were already attending private schools – a statistic jumped on by critics who argued the program mainly benefits wealthy parents.According to Step Up for Students, the non-profit that administers the Florida program, of the close to 227,000 total students who now receive assistance, about 108,000 are from families who qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches.The makeup of the program reflects a broad cross-section of demographic groups: 36% of the students are Hispanic and 20% are Black.Shemeika Williams, a Black mother of three who works in a south Florida hospital, said she would not be able to afford the private Christian academy her 17-year-old daughter attends if the state did not cover transportation and tuition costs.Williams, 41, calls herself an independent and said the legislation will make it more likely she will back Republican candidates in the future.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I will support anyone who will benefit me and my family,” she said. “They are helping people who don’t have the resources.”School choice has long been championed by conservatives, including Betsy DeVos, who served as Trump’s education secretary.Trump supports a bill pending in the US House of Representatives that would provide tax relief to corporations and individuals who provide scholarships to allow students to attend private and religious schools.He has also called for more federal support of home schooling, the fastest-growing form of K-12 education in the nation, by providing tax incentives.A Trump campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, said Trump seeks to “liberate students from failing schools and raise the quality of education across the board”.School choice, Cheung said, “is an issue that should unify voters of all backgrounds”.Public policy thinktanks such as the Brookings Institution have conducted studies that show vouchers and other choice programs do not produce gains in academic performance and education attainment, largely because the quality of schools that receive private money vary wildly.Conservative advocacy groups argue otherwise, saying there is a measurable improvement in student performance without a corresponding negative effect on public schools.Some Democratic-leaning groups say recent elections showed voters were rejecting the Republican message on education.In a memo last month, the National Education Association, a teachers’ union, noted that voters re-elected the Democratic governor in Kentucky in November in a race in which the Republican candidate’s support for a voucher plan became a top campaign issue.Education was a central issue in races across the country this year. But frequently, Republican candidates who favored private school-choice programs were portrayed by Democrats as supporting efforts to ban controversial education materials and diversity efforts, making it difficult to measure the viability of the issue on its own. More

As Donald Trump and his allies start plotting another presidency, an emerging priority is to find hard-right lawyers who display total fealty to Trump, as a way to enhance his power and seek “retribution” against political foes.Stocking a future administration with more ideological lawyers loyal to Trump in key posts at the justice department, other agencies and the White House is alarming to former DoJ officials and analysts who say such plans endanger the rule of law.Trump’s former senior adviser Stephen Miller, president of the Maga-allied legal group America First Legal, is playing a key role in seeking lawyers fully in sync with Trump’s radical agenda to expand his power and curb some major agencies. His search is for those with unswerving loyalty to Trump, who could back Trump’s increasingly authoritarian talk about plans to “weaponize” the DoJ against critics, including some he has labeled as “vermin”.Miller is well known in Maga circles for his loyalty to Trump and the hard-line anti-immigration policies he helped craft for Trump’s presidency. Notably, Trump has vowed to make those policies even more draconian if he is the GOP nominee and wins again.Such an advisory role for Miller squares with Trump’s desire for a tougher brand of lawyer who will not try to obstruct him, as some top administration lawyers did in late 2020 over his false claims about election fraud.“They’re looking for lawyers who worship Trump and will do his bidding,” Ty Cobb, a former White House lawyer during the Trump years and former justice department official, said. “Trump is looking to Miller to pick people who will be more loyal to Trump than the rule of law.”Cobb added that “Trump trusts Miller greatly”, although Miller is not a lawyer.“Trump doesn’t care about the rule of law or the quality of the criminal justice system,” Cobb said. “He only cares about fealty to him.”Miller’s legal group, which raked in a hefty $44m dollars in 2022, also has a board seat with Project 2025, a sprawling effort led by the Heritage Foundation and dozens of other conservative groups to map policy plans for a second Trump term – or another GOP presidency if Trump is not the nominee.Project 2025 includes schemes to curb the justice department, the FBI and other agencies, giving Trump more power to seek revenge – as he has pledged to do in campaign speeches and Truth Social posts – against critics in both parties, which could benefit from conservative lawyers’ sign-offs, but which justice department veterans warn would undermine the legal system.“It seems that they are looking for lawyers who will do whatever Trump wants them to do, and that is the antithesis of implementing the rule of law,” Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general under George HW Bush, said.“When you consider the number of lawyers who became Trump’s severe critics after joining the first Trump administration and participating in a lot of questionable actions, selection for a new administration will have to exclude pretty much anyone who has any inclination to defend our legal system or question the president asserting absolute authority.”Ayer’s analysis is underscored by Trump’s 2020 anger at top lawyers such as the then attorney general William Barr, the then White House counsel Pat Cipollone and others, who pushed back on Trump for his false claims that he lost to Biden due to fraud.Trump has cited Barr – one of several former top lawyers and officials who later became critics – as someone he would press the justice department to launch inquiries against, according to the Washington Post.The former president, who faces 91 criminal charges in four jurisdictions including 17 involving his aggressive efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat, has also threatened to appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” Biden and his family.Trump has attacked the prosecutions against him as political witch-hunts, arguing they give him the right if he wins the presidency again to use the justice department and FBI as tools to attack his opponents.Trump’s retribution agenda was partly revealed on Tuesday at a Fox News town hall, when he slyly said if he was elected again he would not be a dictator “except for day one”.To help facilitate Trump’s agenda, Miller plus the former Trump aide John McEntee, who started as Trump’s personal aide and then became a key adviser in 2020, have reportedly been working with others at Project 2025 to identify tougher pro-Trump lawyers.Besides Miller’s group, numerous conservative groups have board seats on Project 2025 including the Center for Renewing America, a thinktank run by the former Trump budget director Russ Vought. The center employs Jeffrey Clark, a former justice department official who pushed false information about voting fraud in 2020 as part of Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. Clark has written a paper that Vought’s center published titled The US Justice Department Is Not Independent.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHowever, Clark and several other former Trump lawyers are now facing major legal headaches after aiding Trump’s efforts to block Biden’s victory, which could complicate Miller’s hunt for new diehard Trump lawyers.Clark and other key conservative lawyers including Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman have been charged by the Fulton county, Georgia, district attorney, Fani Willis, in a sprawling racketeering case against Trump and 18 others for seeking to thwart Biden’s Georgia victory. Other Trump legal advisers who were charged, including Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis, have struck plea deals with Willis.Some experts foresee real dangers to democracy in Miller’s search for lawyers who would back Trump’s emerging far-right agenda.“This is a search for people with situational ethics,” Timothy Naftali, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, said.“They’re trying to screen out people who have higher loyalties to the US constitution. It’s likely they’re looking for people whose higher loyalty is to Donald Trump,” he said. “They’re trying to find lawyers who believe in dictatorship. You have to wonder what kind of people in good conscience could sign up for a Trump revenge tour. This appears to be a casting call for an American political horror movie.”If Trump wins, some of the lawyers who may be candidates for key posts according to the New York Times include a few who work at either Miller’s group or have worked for Texas’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, a close Trump and Miller ally who has faced several ethics and criminal inquiries.Miller and his legal center did not respond to a request for comment for this story.Miller’s lawyer search could benefit from his group’s contacts in Maga circles and rapid growth. When America First Legal was launched in 2021, it soon garnered $1.3m from the Maga-allied Conservative Partnership Institute, where Trump’s ex-chief of staff Mark Meadows is a senior official. Meadows and Vought have both served on the board of Miller’s group.America First Legal’s deep pockets have helped fund an array of lawsuits against the Biden administration, states targeting immigration policies and what Miller has labeled “the equity cult”. Just last month, America First Legal filed a brief opposing the limited gag order placed on Trump by a federal judge overseeing special counsel Jack Smith’s four-count criminal indictment of Trump for election subversion.More broadly, the mission statement of Miller’s America First Legal reveals its ideological compatibility with Trump’s authoritarian-leaning agenda, of which hard-right lawyers would be assets in implementing should Trump get another term.“Our security, our liberty, our sovereignty, and our most fundamental rights and values are being systematically dismantled by an unholy alliance of corrupt special interests, big tech titans, the fake news media, and liberal Washington politicians,” the mission statement reads.Given Miller’s strong ties to Trump, some GOP congressional veterans are alarmed by his search for more ideological lawyers who would not question Trump’s emerging authoritarian agenda.“They’re looking for grifters and sycophants like Jeffrey Clark and Ken Paxton,” said the former House member Charlie Dent.In Dent’s eyes, these kinds of lawyers would “do whatever they’re told. This is absolutely dangerous.” More

This week, Joe Biden admitted that he probably would not be running for re-election if Donald Trump was not likely to be the Republican candidate. The thoughts of a rehashed presidential race in 2024 has many Americans dreading next year, and some are looking to third-party or independent candidates as potential alternatives.
So why hasn’t an outsider been more successful in the past? Is running independently of the Democrat and Republican parties a legitimate offer to voters, or nothing more than an election spoiler? And if the answer is the latter, why should the president be the one to worry?
This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Nitish Pahwa of Slate about why Democrats are worried that Biden could suffer the same fate as Hilary Clinton in 2016

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

Hunter Biden has been indicted on nine tax charges in California, becoming the second indictment against the president’s son, adding fuel to a scandal that Republicans have been seizing on in the lead-up to the 2024 election.The state charges on Thursday follow federal firearms charges in Delaware alleging Biden unlawfully obtained a revolver in October 2018 after he falsely stated he was not using narcotic drugs.The new charges include three felonies and six misdemeanor offenses, and Biden faces a possible 17-year sentence if convicted.“The Defendant engaged in a four-year scheme to not pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019,” the 56-page indictment said, adding that Biden “spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills”.In 2018 alone, the indictment read, Biden “spent more than $1.8 million, including approximately $772,000 in cash withdrawals, approximately $383,000 in payments to women, approximately $151,000 in clothing and accessories” among other expenditures.Biden’s lawyers did not immediately respond to an inquiry and the White House declined to comment.He had previously been on track to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax charges as part of a plea deal with prosecutors, which covered $4m in personal income taxes that he allegedly failed to pay in 2017 and 2018.But the agreement imploded in July after a judge raised questions about it. The deal had been pilloried as a “sweetheart deal” by Republicans, who have been investigating nearly every aspect of Biden’s business dealings as well as the justice department’s handling of the case. He eventually paid back taxes with a loan from a friend.The state charges come as Republicans in Congress have pushed forward with a possible impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden in connection with his son’s scandals. The House is on track to vote next week on authorizing a formal inquiry, although no evidence has emerged so far to prove that the president accepted bribes or engaged in an influence-peddling scheme, as some GOP representatives have suggested.Some Republicans have expressed doubt about a possible impeachment, questioning whether a case is merited. In September, witnesses brought in by Republicans on the House oversight committee said there was no evidence of crimes by Joe Biden, but also called for further investigation.Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to the gun charges in Delaware, which marked the first time a sitting US president’s child faced criminal prosecution. His lawyer said at the time that the special counsel David Weiss was “bending to political pressure” by filing the indictment.Under the previous plea deal that fell apart, Hunter Biden would have been sentenced to two years of probation. In the draft agreement, prosecutors had noted that his struggles with addiction had worsened during the period after the death of his brother Beau Biden in 2015.Weiss, the attorney in Delaware, was appointed special counsel by attorney general, Merrick Garland, in August.The new case is set to add chaos to what will already be an extraordinary election year, in which the sitting president will be dealing with the fallout of his son’s possible trials, while his likely opponent, Donald Trump, is facing four separate criminal cases and 91 charges. More