Evelyn Reynolds

Donald Trump was already reeling from multiple legal setbacks when a New York judge last week handed the former president a staggering defeat in his civil fraud case, ordering him to pay roughly $450m to the state after finding him liable for conspiracy to manipulate his net worth.The decision by Justice Arthur Engoron capped a bad legal week for Trump, who had watched his lawyers attempt to get access to sealed filings in a classified documents case in Florida and then watched his lawyers lose their attempt to delay his first criminal trial in New York.There may be worse coming.The immediate priority for Trump’s legal agenda remains, according to people familiar with the matter, figuring out how to come up with $450m – a figure that includes pre-judgment interest – or finding a company prepared to help him post bond within 30 days of when the court entered the judgment, so that he can appeal the penalty.Trump saw the ruling as a two-pronged stab at his personal identity: it is likely to almost entirely drain his accounts of cash and it bars him from running the Trump Organization, the vehicle he used to attain his fame, for three years.Trump’s preference is to avoid using his own money while he appeals and his lawyers have contacted several companies to provide the bond, which essentially assures the state that Trump has the money to pay the judgment should he lose his challenge.To obtain the bond, Trump would first have to find a company willing to accept him. He would then have to pay a premium to the bond company and offer collateral, likely in the form of his most prized assets, which would accrue interest and fees.If the penalty is upheld on appeal, Trump will face a huge financial burden. In an interview under oath with the New York attorney general’s office last year, Trump said he had $400m in cash and cash equivalents, though that figure could not be verified.A proportion of that figure comes from Trump’s sales of two properties after he left the White House, as well as new ventures including a real estate branding deal in Oman.The deals were intended to give Trump a cash cushion in the event of a sudden financial setback. But even if Trump’s $400m claim was accurate, that would clearly be wiped out should the $450m penalty be largely upheld.Adding to the total sum Trump must disgorge is an $83.3m judgement entered against him last month after he lost the second defamation trial involving the writer E Jean Carroll. That figure is not payable immediately, but it is another massive figure for which he has to account.Trump may ultimately find himself without enough of a cushion and face the need to mortgage or sell some of his properties. While Trump is not expected to go bankrupt – his total holdings are in the billions – it would mark a particularly humiliating moment for the former president.The legal woes extend beyond causing him financial pain. On Thursday, it was confirmed Trump would face trial in New York on charges that he falsified business records over hush money payments to a porn star to shield himself from bad press before the 2016 election.Jury selection in the case is now scheduled for 25 March, despite a last-ditch attempt by Trump’s lawyers to stave off the trial.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBefore the hearing to affirm the trial date, people involved in the situation said, Trump’s advisers had retained some hope it might be delayed even if they believed it was the most politically advantageous case of all his four criminal indictments.If Trump must face a criminal case before the election in November, they would choose the hush money case because Trump may not face jail time even if he is convicted, an outcome that could desensitize voters to the other, federal criminal cases looming before him.But Trump may have to grapple with the fallout from another legal setback in Atlanta, after he and his co-defendants charged by the Fulton county district attorney over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election struggled to argue she should be disqualified from bringing the case.The second day of the evidentiary hearing examining whether Fani Willis’s romantic relationship with her top deputy, Nathan Wade, amounted to some sort of kickback scheme sufficient to generate a conflict of interest went sideways for the defendants.The defendants called Terrence Bradley, the former divorce lawyer for Wade, to testify that the relationship started before Willis hired Wade to work on the Trump case on 1 November 2021, in order to contradict Willis and Wade’s testimony.The objective was to have Bradley contradict under oath the testimony of Willis and Wade, in order to make the case that they committed perjury and argue the presiding Fulton county superior judge, Scott McAfee, to discredit their testimony.But Bradley was a particularly reluctant witness and testified he had privileged information about when the relationship started, but not personal knowledge he obtained separate from him representing Wade.By the end of the day, it appeared uncertain whether the defendants had met their burden of proof to force Willis off and make the criminal charges in Georgia go away. More

Joe Biden’s White House is prepared to send long-range tactical missiles to Ukraine if Congress approves a new funding package, according to a US media report on Monday.Citing two unnamed officials, NBC News said that the administration was willing to send a variant of the missiles – known as Atacms (army tactical missile systems) – if a new $60bn aid package approved by the Senate, but held up for now by congressional Republicans, becomes law.The US approved the transfer of a short-range variant of the missiles in October after Kyiv offered assurances that they would not be used to strike inside Russian-held territory. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, later said that the weapons had “proven themselves”.Newer variations of Atacms that the Biden administration wants to send to Ukraine have a maximum range of nearly 200 miles (300km), typically carrying cluster bomblets, allowing Ukrainian forces to strike the Crimean Peninsula.According to officials who spoke with NBC anonymously, it was possible that the US would request that Nato allies provide the missiles to Ukraine against the expectation that the American government would refill depleted stockpiles.Ukraine’s defense minister, Rustem Umerov, said in recent days that the fall of Avdiivka to Russian forces had shown that supplies of “long-range weapons are needed to destroy enemy formations”.A US state department readout ahead of a meeting between the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, and Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, in Munich said it anticipated the diplomats would discuss “pressing” issues related to “ammunition, air defense, [and] long-range capabilities”.Kuleba later said he had discussed the supply of long-range Atacms with his US counterpart at a meeting on Saturday, calling the system “an important symbol” to Ukrainians who had been defending themselves from the invasion Russia launched in February 2022.“There is only one way to destroy Russian capabilities in Ukraine. It’s to hit deep into the occupied territories, bypassing Russian radio-electronic warfare and interceptors,” he said.“If you want to hit behind the lines, disrupt their logistics and supplies, destroy their depots of ammunition, you can do it only with long-range missiles,” he added.In October, after the system was used to hit helicopters at two airfields in Russian-occupied territory, Vladimir Putin called delivery of tactical ballistic missiles to Kyiv “another mistake by the United States”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Russian president claimed that delivery of the missiles would “not do Ukraine any good either. It will simply prolong [their] agony.”“War is war,” Putin said. “And, of course, I have said that [Atacms] pose a threat. It goes without saying. But what counts most is that they are completely unable to drastically change the situation along the line of contact. It’s impossible.”A spokesperson for the US defense department confirmed to NBC that as it stands, there is no funding available to send more military equipment to Ukraine.“Without a supplemental [funding bill], we do not currently have a security assistance package to give to Ukraine,” the spokesperson said. “At the same time, I won’t speculate on the contents of any future packages if a supplemental were to be passed. We will let you know if this changes and if we have a new package to announce.” More

Donald Trump has offered a belated acknowledgement of the purportedly sudden death of Alexei Navalny, three days after the Russian opposition leader collapsed in one of Russia’s penal colonies. But Trump failed to join with – or acknowledge – international outrage at Navalny’s political nemesis, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.“The sudden death of Alexei Navalny has made me more and more aware of what is happening in our country,” Trump posted on his Truth Social network. The former US president and presumptive Republican White House nominee added: “It is a slow, steady progression, with CROOKED, Radical Left Politicians, Prosecutors, and Judges leading us down a path to destruction.”Trump’s statement, which turned a grave global political issue into one of significance to his agenda, comes one day after Nikki Haley – his lone remaining opponent in the Republican presidential primary – criticized him for avoiding substantial comment on Navalny’s death.“Either he sides with Putin and thinks it’s cool that Putin killed one of his political opponents – or he just doesn’t think it’s that big of a deal,” Haley said on Sunday on ABC News’ This Week. “Either one of those is concerning. Either one of those is a problem.”Separately, minutes before his Truth Social post about Navalny on Monday, Haley had appeared on Fox News and said: “It is amazing to me how weak in the knees [Trump] is when it comes to Putin.”“He is yet to say anything about Navalny’s death, which – Putin murdered him,” Haley said.Haley, who served as US ambassador to the United Nations during Trump’s presidency, joined other prominent American politicians, including Joe Biden, in condemning Putin for Navalny’s death.Navalny’s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, on Monday accused Putin of killing her husband. She also accused Russian authorities of hiding his corpse and of waiting for traces of the Novichok nerve agent to disappear from his body.“I urge you to stand next to me,” Navalnaya said in comments directed to Russians generally. “I ask you to share the rage with me – rage, anger, hatred towards those who dared to kill our future.”But Trump, who frequently praised Putin during his single term in the White House, has largely elected to remain silent about Navalny’s death.Haley’s criticism of Trump’s approach to Navalny’s death comes as the former president leads her by 30 percentage points in polling ahead of the forthcoming Republican presidential primary in South Carolina, where she was once governor.At a recent campaign rally in that state, Trump claimed to have told the head of state “of a big country” while he was in the Oval Office that if the foreign leader’s nation did not meet its financial obligations to Nato, then Russia could “do whatever the hell they want” as far as Trump was concerned.The Republican US senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on Sunday said that he supported Trump’s call for fair contributions to the Nato alliance. “I want to have a system where if you don’t pay, you get kicked out,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut, Graham added, “No, I’m not inviting Russia to invade Ukraine,” as it did nearly two years ago.In his statement on Navalny, Trump identified only his personal political priorities and issues, alluding to the immigration crisis at the US-Mexico border and his lies that he lost the 2020 election to Biden because of electoral fraud.He also referred to “unfair courtroom decisions” as he faces more than 90 pending criminal charges, including for subversion of the election that he lost to Biden. Trump additionally is grappling with how to pay civil judgments in excess of half a billion dollars after being adjudicated a business fraudster as well as being found liable for sexually abusing and defaming the magazine columnist E Jean Carroll.“WE ARE A NATION IN DECLINE, A FAILING NATION!” he wrote in his post about Navalny.Despite his reluctance to dwell on Navalny, polls at the moment suggests Trump enjoys a slight advantage with the American electorate over Biden. More

The late-night talkshow host John Oliver has offered to pay Clarence Thomas $1m annually – as well as give him a $2m tour bus – if the Republican judge resigns from the US supreme court.Oliver made the proposal on Sunday’s episode of his HBO show Last Week Tonight, saying the supreme court justice had 30 days to accept or it would expire.The British-born, progressive comedian’s offer came after a steady drumbeat of media investigations in the previous several months established that Thomas failed to disclose that political benefactors bought him lavish vacation travel and real estate for his mother. Thomas also failed to disclose – as required – that he allowed school fees for a family member to be paid off and had been provided a loan to buy a luxury motor coach, all after openly complaining about the need to raise supreme court justices’ salaries.As a result, Thomas’s impartiality came into question after he sided with the contentious ruling that eliminated the federal abortion rights once provided by the Roe v Wade case.He also recently listened to arguments over whether Donald Trump can be removed from states’ ballots in the presidential election after the former president’s supporters – whom he told to “fight like hell” – staged the January 6 attack at the US Capitol in Washington DC. Thomas resisted pressure to recuse himself from matters pertaining to the Capitol attack, even though his wife, Ginni Thomas, is a conservative political activist who has endorsed false claims from Trump and his supporters that the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen from him – which in turn fueled January 6.Oliver alluded to all of those circumstances as he extended his lucrative offer to Thomas, saying: “Lot on your plate right now, from stripping away women’s rights to hearing January 6 cases … and you deserve a break, you know, away from the meanness of Washington. So you can be surrounded by the regular folks whose lives you made demonstrably worse for decades.”The host suggested that Thomas could upgrade his “favorite mode of travel” by signing a contract requiring him to step down from the supreme court in exchange for $1m annually from Oliver along with the tour bus, which is outfitted with a king-sized bed, a fireplace and four televisions.Oliver joked that Thomas possibly feared that making such a trade might attract negative judgment from one of his top benefactors: the Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow, who was reported to have maintained a private collection of Nazi memorabilia that included a pair of paintings by Adolf Hitler.But Oliver said: “That’s the beauty of friendship, Clarence. If they’re real friends, they’ll love you no matter what your job is. So I guess this might be the perfect way to find out who your real friends actually are.“So that’s the offer – $1m a year, Clarence. And a brand new condo on wheels. And all you have to do … is sign the contract and get the fuck off the supreme court,” Oliver remarked. “The clock starts now – 30 days, Clarence. Let’s do this!”The yearly salary for supreme court justices – whose appointments are for life – is $298,500.Neither Thomas nor the supreme court immediately commented publicly on Oliver’s offer. Oliver acknowledged he could end up going on “stand-up tours … for years” to be able to afford paying Thomas’s retirement if the justice accepts the proposal.The arch-conservative is the longest-serving member of a supreme court dominated 6-3 by rightwingers. Thomas has been there since his 1991 confirmation, which was marked by testimony from Anita Hill, who accused him of sexual harassment while he supervised her in two separate jobs, at the US Department of Education and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. More

The Wisconsin governor, Tony Evers, has signed into law a pair of new state legislative maps, undoing a Republican gerrymander that has shaped Wisconsin politics for more than a decade and giving Democrats a chance at winning control of the state in future elections.“It’s a new day for Wisconsin,” said Evers at a press conference on Monday to cheers from a room of anti-gerrymandering activists.His signature likely marks the end of a protracted fight over Wisconsin’s legislative lines and greatly reduces the Republican bias baked into the current maps. Republicans have enjoyed unchallenged control over the state assembly and senate for more than a decade because of legislative maps they drew to ensure that they would have large majorities in both chambers even in years Democrats won the majority of votes statewide.The new maps are the result of a December ruling from the Wisconsin supreme court that the current state assembly and senate maps are unconstitutional. The court ordered the state to adopt new legislative maps before the 2024 election. Evers, lawmakers in both parties and multiple outside groups submitted revised maps to the court for consideration. After consultants hired by the court to review them said that the maps drawn by the Republican lawmakers maintained their partisan gerrymander and “do not deserve further consideration,” Republicans lawmakers decided to adopt the maps Evers had proposed – which give them a slight edge at maintaining their majorities – rather than roll the dice on court-drawn maps that could benefit Democrats even more.“We kind of have a gun to our head,” said Republican state senator Duey Stroebel during the senate debate over the bill on 13 February.Republican lawmakers had done everything they could to avoid this outcome, even threatening to impeach supreme court justice Janet Protasiewicz, whose election in April 2023 created a liberal majority on the court. They dropped the threats only after a panel of former Wisconsin supreme court judges recommended against pursuing impeachment.View image in fullscreenEvers signed the bill despite pressure from powerful Democrats in the state to veto it. When the bill made its way through the legislature, Democratic lawmakers opposed it nearly uniformly, citing concerns about a line in the bill that leaves the current maps in place for recalls and special elections ahead of the November general election. And they have expressed concerns about possible future legal challenges to the legislative maps and general distrust of the Republican legislators who agreed to the law’s passage.“If you believe that WI Republicans are planning to run on Gov. Evers’ maps in November, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you,” wrote Democratic state senator LaTonya Johnson on the social media site X.But it’s not clear exactly what those legal challenges would look like.“I am extremely skeptical of this idea that there is a good basis for challenging the law, really on any grounds,” said Quinn Yeargain, a legal scholar who focuses on state constitutional law. “I’m as much of a partisan Democrat and progressive as anybody else is, but being intellectually honest about what’s going on here is also important.”Evers had previously said he would sign these maps into law, and stood by his word.“I did spend a lot of time talking to the folks who had differences of opinion,” said Evers, of legislative Democrats who opposed the bill. “But I felt at the end of the day this is the right thing to do for the people of the state of Wisconsin.”The maps were heralded by anti-gerrymandering activists in Wisconsin as a win.“We’re in the business of fair maps,” said Nick Ramos, the executive director of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and an organizer with the group Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition. “And Governor Evers’ maps are good – like, really good. They’re going to do a lot for the state.” More

New research reveals that dozens of New York universities, hospitals, museums and non-profits are employing lobbyists that also work for fossil fuel companies, which some say is blatantly “aiding and abetting” climate crisis.New York’s wealthiest lobbying firms work double-duty in the state capital, representing the political interests of both the victims and perpetrators of the climate crisis, according to a new report from F Minus, a database of state-level lobbying disclosures released last year, and LittleSis, a project created by the non-profit corporate and government accountability watchdog Public Accountability Initiative.The report analyzed the client rosters of six of the top lobbying firms in New York, revealing how the state’s cultural, business and educational leaders – many of whom tout their commitment to slowing climate crisis – are quietly linked to the fossil fuel industry.New York University, which proudly pledged to divest its $5bn endowment from coal, oil and gas companies last year, shares its lobbyists with six fossil fuel companies, including Valero and National Grid.Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, a non-profit that offers education on the deadly health effects of cigarette smoke inhalation, works with the same New York-based lobbying firm as Koch Industries, known for its prolific history of climate denial and pollution of American air and water.The New Museum, which currently exhibits a series of paintings featuring endangered plants and animals, employs the same lobbying firm as BP America and the Williams Companies, the largest operator of gas pipelines in the country.“You have schools like NYU scrutinizing the energy efficiency of every single lightbulb on campus, but then they turn around and hire the same firms that represent the people who are causing the climate crisis,” said James Browning, executive director of F Minus.Browning said the clients of fossil fuel lobbyists are “aiding and abetting” climate change, lending their cultural cache and credibility to these lobbying firms.“If lobbyists only worked with fossil fuel clients, it would be much easier for lawmakers in Albany to dismiss them, close the door and not return any of their calls,” Browning said. “But because they have all these prestigious clients, clients that are a huge part of New York’s economy, it lends these lobbyists a kind of shield from scrutiny.”Last year, Brown & Weinraub, one of the top-paid lobbying firms in New York, helped the American Petroleum Institute oppose the creation of a superfund that would generate $3bn annually for disaster recovery and climate resiliency projects. Brown & Weinraub also works with Google, which last year ramped up its public commitment to environmental causes.A spokesperson for Google told the Guardian that the company has a proven track record of sustainability, investing in renewable energy and working to cut emissions.But Browning warns that Brown & Weinraub can use Google’s name to advance lobbying efforts for other, less politically attractive clients, like fossil fuel companies.“We know that in the capitol building, it’s pretty hard to say no to a meeting with the people who represent Google,” Browning said. “That’s why it’s worth investigating who else your lobbyist does business with.”The problem extends far beyond New York: in 2022 alone, Google shared lobbying firms with fossil fuel clients in 17 states.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNationwide, a whopping 1,500 lobbyists are working on behalf of fossil-fuel companies while simultaneously representing hundreds of Democratic cities, universities and tech giants. These outwardly left-leaning clients offer a kind of environmentally-conscious visage for lobbyists, allowing them to adopt the language of the environmental movement while still enjoying the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry.Pittsburgh, notably, has embraced fossil fuel lobbyists more than any other major US city, according to a 2023 report from F Minus and LittleSis.Part of the issue, climate advocates say, is that companies and non-profits overestimate the ethical guardrails that exist for political lobbyists.“Laws regulating the relationship of lobbyists and their clients are scarce and not especially transparent,” said Carroll Muffett, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law. “The rules regarding conflicts of interest for lobbyists are not nearly as stringent as they are for attorneys, for example.”Last month, in an email correspondence with the state commission on ethics and lobbying in government, F Minus confirmed that there is no provision in the New York Lobbying Act that “prohibits a lobbyist from working for and against a bill at the same time”.Without robust oversight of political lobbyists, firms are left to self-regulate conflicts of interest. It is unclear how a lobbying firm handles situations where one client supports climate-related legislation while another client opposes it.“In cases where there is a conflict of interest, but maybe not a direct one, there is this big question: where does your lobbyist’s true allegiance lie,” Muffett said. “You need to remember that question whenever you are dealing with a lobbying firm that is heavily invested in and funded by the fossil fuel industry.” More

The progressive US congresswoman Rashida Tlaib has called on her fellow Michigan Democrats to vote “uncommitted” in the state’s presidential primary election – at the expense of the party’s incumbent, Joe Biden – in late February.Appearing in a video posted to X on Saturday by Listen to Michigan, a political campaign to encourage the state’s voters to vote “uncommitted” in the 27 February primary, Tlaib justified her stark display of displeasure with Biden by alluding to Israel’s military strikes on Gaza, which local authorities say have killed nearly 29,000 Palestinians since last October.Tlaib – Congress’s only Palestinian American lawmaker – also criticized the Biden White House’s support for Israel, which launched its military campaign in Gaza in response to the 7 October Hamas attacks that killed about 1,200 Israelis.Speaking in front of the Ford Community & Performing Arts Center in Dearborn, which has one of the US’s largest populations of Arab Americans, Tlaib said: “It is important … to not only march against the genocide, not only make sure that we’re calling our members of Congress and local elected [officials], and passing city resolutions all throughout our country. It is also important to create a voting bloc, something that is a bullhorn to say, ‘Enough is enough.’”Tlaib added: “We don’t want a country that supports war and bombs and destruction. We want to support life. We want to stand up for every single life killed in Gaza … This is the way you can raise our voices. Don’t make us even more invisible. Right now, we feel completely neglected and just unseen by our government.“If you want us to be louder, then come here and vote uncommitted” rather than in support of Biden, the Democratic party’s presumptive nominee for November’s presidential election.The congresswoman’s message echoed the calls of Listen to Michigan, whose campaign manager is Tlaib’s sister Layla Elabed.Speaking to Business Insider, Elabed said: “Voting uncommitted is our way of demanding change, and this is going to be our vehicle to return political power back to us.”More than 30 elected officials across south-east Michigan have already pledged to vote “uncommitted” in the state’s 27 February primary elections. Those officials include the Dearborn mayor, Abdullah Hammoud, along with city council members and state representatives.A statement released by Listen to Michigan earlier in February said, “Let us be clear: we unequivocally demand that the Biden administration immediately call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. We must hold our president unaccountable and ensure that we, the American taxpayers, are no longer forced to be accomplices in a genocide that is backed and funded by the United States government.”It also said: “Therefore, we pledge to check the box for ‘uncommitted’ on our ballots in the upcoming presidential primary election. These are not empty words; they signify our steadfast commitment to justice, dignity, and the sanctity of human life, which is greater than loyalty to any candidate or party.”With the 81-year-old president facing increasing pressure over his handling of Israel’s military strikes in Gaza, as well as scrutiny over his age, Arab and Muslim Americans across multiple swing states – including Michigan – have organized campaigns under the slogan #AbandonBiden.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTlaib’s latest video announcement has received mixed responses.The former Ohio Democratic state senator Nina Turner tweeted, “Arab Americans do not want their tax dollars going to kill their family members. It’s unnerving to see the liberal response to that demand. Rashida Tlaib is absolutely justified to endorse this.”Meanwhile, in response to Tlaib’s endorsement of Listen Michigan, the conservative group Republicans Against asked on X who among Democrats would run against the congresswoman ahead of her running for re-election in November.Tlaib last year was censured by the Republican-led US House over her criticisms of Israel. She responded to the censure measure by saying that she would “not be silenced” and that “Palestinian people are not disposable”. More

The daughter of former president Ronald Reagan has hit out at contemporary White House politics, saying she thinks her late father would be “appalled” by the personal tenor of current political discourse.“I think he’d be appalled … it was just more civilized,” Patti Davis told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “He didn’t understand lack of civility. He didn’t understand attacking another person. … He didn’t understand cruelty. And that’s what we’re dealing with now.“I think he would be really scared for our democracy,” Davis added.Davis, 71, supposed that her father – a former Republican California governor who served two terms as president beginning in 1980 and gained a reputation as “the great communicator” – would have sought to address voters rather than opposing candidates.“I think he would address the American people at what has divided us,” Davis – the author of a new book, Dear Mom & Dad – told Meet the Press. She added that she thought Reagan would interpret contemporary political division as fear that had translated into anger.“There are people on the public stage and on the political front who understand very well that synergy between fear and anger and who are masterful at exploiting it,” Davis remarked.Reagan was 69 when he took office and 77 when he stepped down – four years younger than Democratic incumbent Joe Biden and the same age as the presumptive Republican nominee to challenge him, former president Donald Trump.Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in 1994 but may have been suffering from aspects of dementia during his second term.Davis said that cognitive tests for presidential candidates was “probably” appropriate.Her comment on cognitive tests came as the Biden White House continued to push back on a special counsel Robert Hur, who assessed the president to be a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” in a report declining to prosecute Biden over his retention of some classified documents before his presidency.Trump, too, has faced questions about his mental acuity after, for instance, confusing Biden with Barack Obama as well as his fellow Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley with former Democratic US House speaker Nancy Pelosi.Davis said: “We know about what age can do. It doesn’t always do that, but it would probably be a good idea.” More