Subterms
Archive: CNN, ABC News, BBC News, CBS News, NBC News, The Independent
Listen to Science Weekly’s episode on fluoride here
Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com
Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/politcspodus More
Several Democratic members of Congress from Connecticut have been targeted by bomb threats on their homes, the lawmakers or their offices said on Thursday.Jim Himes, Joe Courtney and John Larson all reported that their homes were the subject of bomb threats. Police who responded said they found no evidence of a bomb on the lawmakers’ properties.This happened a day after a number of Donald Trump’s most prominent cabinet picks and appointees reported that they had received bomb threats and “swatting attacks”, in which perpetrators initiate an emergency law enforcement response against a victim under false pretences.Courtney’s Vernon home received a bomb threat while his wife and children were there, his office said.Himes said on Thursday morning he was notified of the threat against his home during a Thanksgiving celebration with his family. The US Capitol police and Greenwich and Stamford police departments responded.Himes extended his family’s “utmost gratitude to our local law enforcement officers for their immediate action to ensure our safety”. He added: “There is no place for political violence in this country, and I hope that we may all continue through the holiday season with peace and civility.”Larson also said on Thursday that East Hartford police responded to a bomb threat against his home.The threats follow an election season marked by violence. In July, a gunman opened fire at a Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, grazing him in the ear and killing one of his supporters. The Secret Service later thwarted a subsequent assassination attempt at Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course in Florida, when an agent spotted the barrel of a gun poking through a perimeter fence while Trump was golfing.Among those who received threats on Wednesday were New York representative Elise Stefanik, Trump’s pick to serve as the next ambassador to the UN; Matt Gaetz, Trump’s initial pick to serve as attorney general; Oregon representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who Trump chose to lead the Department of Labor, and former New York congressman Lee Zeldin, who has been tapped to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. More
Despite Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the presidential election, a political scientist who developed a model that correctly predicted his sweep of battleground states warns that voters have not necessarily given the president-elect a mandate to make radical changes.In a paper released with little fanfare three weeks before the vote, Cornell University professor of government Peter Enns and his co-authors accurately forecast that Trump would win all seven swing states, based on a model they built that uses state-level presidential approval ratings and indicators of economic health.In an interview with the Guardian, Enns said his model’s conclusions suggest voters chose Trump not because they want to see his divisive policies implemented, but rather because they were frustrated with the state of the economy during Joe Biden’s presidency, an obstacle Kamala Harris was not popular enough to overcome.“If this election can be explained by what voters thought of Biden and Harris and economic conditions, it really goes against the notion of a mandate for major change from Trump,” said Enns.“If Trump was looking to maximize support, being cautious about changes that are massive changes would be what the model suggests is the optimal strategy.”On the campaign trail, Trump promised norm-shattering measures to accomplish his objectives, ranging from deploying the military to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants to levying trade tariffs against allies that do not cooperate with his administration.On 5 November, voters responded by giving Trump an overwhelming victory in the electoral college, and also by making him the first Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years.Both outcomes were predicted in the paper released on 15 October by Enns, Jonathan Colner of New York University, Anusha Kumar of Yale University School of Medicine and Julius Lagodny of German media firm El Pato. At the time, polls of the seven swing states showed Trump and Harris tied, usually within their margin of error, signaling that the election was either’s to win.Rather than focusing on the candidates’ support nationwide or in the swing states, Enns and his co-authors built a model that combines two types of data: presidential approval ratings from all 50 states using data from Verasight, the survey firm he co-founded, among others, and a Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia index measuring state-level real income, manufacturing and labor market conditions. Both sets of data were compiled more than 100 days before the vote.Enns first deployed the model in the 2020 presidential election, where it correctly predicted the outcome in 49 states, with the exception of Georgia. This year, Enns and his co-authors wrote that Harris, who took over as the Democratic nominee for Biden in late July, was on track to lose both the popular vote and the electoral college, including battleground states Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Georgia.“If Harris wins the election, we will not know exactly why, but we will know her victory surmounted conditions so disadvantageous to the Democratic party that the incumbent president dropped out of the race. She will have added major momentum to the Democratic campaign and/or Trump and the Republican party will have squandered a sizable advantage,” Enns and his co-authors wrote.The forecast wound up being accurate, though, with ballot counting continuing in a few states, Trump seems set for a plurality victory in the popular vote, not the 50.3% majority they predicted.Then there’s the question of whether Biden would have done better if he had stayed in the race. The 82-year-old president has been unpopular through most of his term as Americans weathered the highest inflation rate since the 1980s, even as the labor market recovered strongly from the Covid pandemic. Biden was also dogged by concerns about his age and fitness for office, which culminated in a terrible debate performance against Trump in June that led him to drop out of the race weeks later.“Given Biden’s low approval ratings and economic conditions, our model forecasted less than a one in 10 chance of a Biden victory if he had stayed in the race. Even after accounting for Harris’s approval ratings, which are notably higher than Biden’s, the Democrats face an uphill battle,” the authors wrote.If Harris had a chance to overcome the disadvantages she entered the race with, Enns said it would have required convincing voters she would be a very different president than her boss – which it appears she failed to do.“There’s some economic headwinds, there’s the Biden incumbency headwinds. And what I think that suggests is, given these headwinds that Harris faced, the optimal strategy would have been to differentiate herself more from Biden,” Enns said.But the vice-president’s fate may have been sealed in the years that preceded her bid for the White House, when she failed to build the sort of public profile that would have pushed her approval ratings up to the level that she needed them to be.“If she had been more popular, you can think about what could have happened to make our forecast wrong. So the fact that 100 days out, our forecast was so accurate, that really enhanced the campaign, had minimal effect on the outcome,” Enns said.“The task at hand was to outperform the forecast, and her campaign wasn’t able to do that.” More
Democrat Derek Tran ousted Republican Michelle Steel in a southern California House district Wednesday that was specifically drawn to give Asian Americans a stronger voice on Capitol Hill.Steel said in a statement: “Like all journeys, this one is ending for a new one to begin.” When she captured the seat in 2020, Steel joined Washington state Democrat Marilyn Strickland and California Republican Young Kim as the first Korean American women elected to Congress.Tran, a lawyer and worker rights advocate and the son of Vietnamese refugees, declared victory earlier this week. He said his win “is a testament to the spirit and resilience of our community. As the son of Vietnamese refugees, I understand firsthand the journey and sacrifices many families in our district have made for a better life.”The contest is one of the last to be decided this year, with Republicans now holding 220 seats in the House, with Democrats at 214. The Associated Press has not declared a winner in California’s 13th district, where Democrat Adam Gray was leading Republican John Duarte by a couple of hundred votes.Steel held an early edge after election day, but late-counted ballots pushed Tran over the top.Steel filed a statement of candidacy on Monday with federal regulators, which would allow her to continue raising funds. It wasn’t immediately clear if she planned to seek a return to Congress.In the campaign, Tran warned of Republican threats to abortion rights. Steel opposes abortion with exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant woman, while not going so far as to support a federal ban. Tran also warned that Donald Trump’s return to the White House would put democracy at risk.On Capitol Hill, Steel has been outspoken in resisting tax increases and says she stands strongly with Israel in its war with Hamas. “As our greatest ally in the Middle East, the United States must always stand with Israel,” she said. She advocates for more police funding and has spotlighted her efforts on domestic violence and sexual abuse.The largest demographic in the district, which is anchored in Orange county, south-east of Los Angeles, is Asian Americans, and it includes the nation’s biggest Vietnamese community. Democrats hold a four-point registration edge.Incomplete returns showed that Steel was winning in Orange county, the bulk of the district. Tran’s winning margin came from a small slice of the district in Los Angeles county, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly two to one. More
Some Democratic figures have accused Kamala Harris’s campaign of being self-congratulatory after a series of recent public appearances from the candidate and her senior staff in which they declined to admit making any errors that could have contributed to her defeat.Some of the criticism was aimed at Harris herself, following a video call to thank campaign donors in which the vice-president expressed pride in her failed race for the White House.She appeared to boast that the coalition assembled during her three-and-a-half-month campaign after succeeding Joe Biden as the Democrats’ nominee ranked among the “best political movements”. She insisted it would have “a lasting effect”, despite it ending in a decisive loss to Donald Trump, something she and her supporters warned beforehand would be a catastrophe.“I am proud of the race we ran, and your role in this was critical,” the vice-president said in a 10-minute address. “What we did in 107 days was unprecedented. Think about the coalition that we built, and we were so intentional about that – you would hear me talk about it all the time.”Although she admitted the election “didn’t turn out like we wanted”, she noted that the campaign raised nearly $1.5bn dollars, a record, and praised the success in fundraising from grassroots donors – despite reportedly ending the race $20m in debt and sending post-election fundraising emails to donors.After some of the vice-president’s key staffers also appeared on a podcast billed as dissecting reasons for the defeat, one member of the Democratic National Committee’s finance team called the Harris campaign “self-congratulatory” .Lindy Li told NewsNation she was “stunned that there was no sort of postmortem or analysis of the disastrous campaign”.“It was just patting each other on the back,” she said. “They praised Harris as a visionary leader, and at one moment during the call, she was talking about her Thanksgiving recipe.”Referring to a Pod Save America podcast posted on Tuesday in which Harris’s key aides discussed the $1bn-plus campaign spend, Li said: “They failed to mention that hundreds of millions of dollars went to them and their friends right through these consulting firms.“These consultants were the primary beneficiaries of the Harris campaign, not the American people.”One explanation on the podcast by Stephanie Cutter, a Harris adviser, on why the vice-president had declined to break with Biden despite the president’s persistently low approval ratings drew criticism.“She felt like she was part of the administration. So why should she look back and cherry pick some things that she would have done differently when she was part of it?” Cutter told the podcast. “She had tremendous loyalty to President Biden. So the best we could do, and the most that she felt comfortable with was saying like, look, vice-presidents never break with their presidents.”One X user posted: “If the guys at pod save America don’t have an episode just straight shit talking all these losers who helped us lose im never listening to another episode. [Because] wtf was this nonsense.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAnother podcast guest, David Plouffe, a former adviser to Barack Obama, was criticised after claiming: “It’s really hard for Democrats to win battleground states.” He said the party needed “to dominate the moderate vote” to win future elections.Jeet Heer, a writer for the leftwing Nation magazine responded: “Is it too much to ask for a little humility and self-reflection from the people whose strategies failed badly?”Another social media user posted: “Anybody with more than two brain cells who’s committed to building up the democratic party would be analyzing the depressed voter turnout numbers. But the dudes at pod save America have no goal other than reliving their glory days.”The discussion, which also included Harris’s campaign chair, Jen O’Malley Dillon, and Quentin Fulks, the campaign’s deputy manager, was also ridiculed by some on the right.Bill O’Reilly, a former Fox News host, told NewsNation: “It’s kind of like the New York Jets. You guys follow the football, nobody did anything wrong, and they’re 3-8 … I hope people see the absurdity of this.”James Carville, a veteran Democratic strategist and the architect of Bill Clinton’s 1992 election win, criticised aides who advised Harris not to go on the Joe Rogan podcast before election. Trump, by contrast, granted a three-hour interview to Rogan.“If I were running a 2028 campaign and I had some little snot-nosed 23-year-old saying, ‘I’m going to resign if you don’t do this,’ not only would I fire that motherfucker on the spot, I would find out who hired them and fire that person on the spot,” Carville said in a foul-mouthed video rant posted on social media. “I’m really not interested in your uninformed, stupid, jackass opinion as to whether you go on Joe Rogan or not.” More
As Democrats think about how to counter the Trump administration, they need to accept a very simple lesson from the last eight years. Big tech and big business are part of the political opposition working on behalf of Donald Trump, not the Democrats’ allies working against Trump and Trumpism.It shouldn’t seem necessary to point out what seems to be an obvious fact. Nonetheless, there are some Democrats trying to stay close to big tech, or downplaying the importance of anti-monopoly policy when it comes to authoritarian risks. For example, a few days ago, Priorities USA, the largest Democratic party Super Pac, held a big resistance strategy session hosted by “our friends at Google”.As another example, Adam Jentleson, a political writer and a former chief of staff for US senator John Fetterman, wrote a recent piece for the New York Times that among other things criticized fighting monopolies as a “niche issue”. He argued that there’s a dichotomy between kitchen table issues and challenging corporate power, and we should focus on the former.The belief that big tech, and more broadly big business, is helpful to Democrats has already been tried – and found to be untrue.When Trump was elected in 2016, one central pillar of the Democratic resistance involved using big tech platforms as a counterweight. If you remember, the CEO of Google even joined anti-Trump protests. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and pre-Elon Musk Twitter were scolded for using technologies that enabled extremism, but instead of aggressively moving to regulate the algorithmic design, change liability rules or break them up, Democrats focused on nudging platforms on editorial policy.The assumption was they could be corralled into the “right” set of editorial practices, ones that would help defeat Trump and Maga-ism, and limit the reach of his rhetoric in the short term. This was the context in which the “misinformation and disinformation” framework was born.We use the phrases all the time now, but it is worth reflecting on how strange they are. Sometimes misinformation refers to inadvertent lies, and disinformation describes purposeful lies, but sometimes the terms encompass factually correct but misleading information, or as Barack Obama argued in 2022, the “suppression of true information” if such suppression was done for, among other things, “political gain” or “targeting those you don’t like”.Not only did these new categories infuriate those who were caught in the broad, fuzzy definitions, but they focused Democratic attention away from questions of power. The mis/disinformation framework fit part and parcel with joining with big tech as an anti-fascist alliance. “We”, the science-grounded Democrats, would successfully work hand in hand with the biggest tech companies in the world to protect America.Eight years later, the Democrats have lost the White House, House of Representatives and Senate. The big tech platforms are awash in extremist content. Big tech should not look like the ally anymore. Not only is Musk fully ensconced at the head of the power table, right next to Trump, but the CEOs of Meta, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon all reached out to Trump before the election, perhaps taking seriously his threat to put Mark Zuckerberg in jail if he opposed him, perhaps just realizing that Trump is a deregulatory juggernaut.Musk reportedly joined a recent phone call between Trump and the CEO of Google. We can anticipate dozens of such meetings at the highest levels, and strong relationships being born. And instead of repeatedly insisting that tech titans have too much power, we have spent eight years arming them with language that can be used to suppress dissent.Repeated polling has shown that voters actually hate corporate monopolies, and antitrust politics are extremely popular. I don’t want to overclaim the point – antitrust politics disappeared in America for the 30 years between 1980 and 2020, and it is fair to argue that anti-monopoly policy, especially against big tech, can use more experimentation in how we talk about it. On the substance, however, we should be very concerned.Facebook, Google and Amazon have destroyed the actual bulwark against autocratic leaders – local journalism – while cozying up to actual autocracy. They now control the digital ad industry. According to one recent research report, if they paid news organizations what they make off them by standing as a middleman between readers and writers, they would be handing over between $12bn and $14bn a year. The very journalists and news organizations we rely on for fact-finding and fact-checking are scared of being shadowbanned – Jeff Bezos’s fear of Trump being exhibit A of how that can impact editorial content.Google, thankfully, has officially been called an illegal monopolist by a court, thanks to the work of the Department of Justice under assistant attorney general Jonathan Kanter, and other antitrust cases regarding Facebook and Amazon are winding their way through the court system. But even if Google is forced to divest Chrome, which seems possible, the failure of Democrats in power to put serious tech-busting legislation to a vote now seems grotesque. It looks like we didn’t even try to stop the incoming power couple of Trump and tech.While pundits are trying to sort through the messaging lesson of how Kamala Harris lost what seemed like a winnable election, we would do well to look further back, and remember the real lessons from 2016: joining hands with big tech oligarchs is joining hands with the destruction of the Democratic party and democracy.
Zephyr Teachout is a professor at Fordham Law School and the author of Break ’Em Up: Recovering Our Freedom from Big Ag, Big Tech, and Big Money More
Many people are drawing the wrong conclusions about what happened in the 2024 election. The conventional wisdom is that large swaths of population groups shifted their political allegiances to Donald Trump, propelling him to victory over Kamala Harris.A more careful reading of the data, however, shows that those conclusions are inaccurate, and the biggest problem for Democrats was a failure to turn out Democratic voters. Coming to terms with the unfounded faith in voter persuasion – at the extent of tried and true voter turnout programs – will have profound implications for the future of the Democratic party and the country.The cause of the confusion is the fact that Trump won dozens of counties across the country that voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Seeing that the Democratic margin had shrunk or evaporated in these places, most in the media rushed to report a massive national shift to the right, replete with graphics showing maps with red arrows pointing rightward.Looking more closely at the results and comparing them to the data from the 2020 election, one can see that while the counties did swing, the voters, for the most part, did not. What leaps out from a careful comparison is the finding that Democratic voter turnout fell through the floor. Trump didn’t win those counties because people switched their votes to him; he won because significant numbers of people who voted for Biden in 2020 did not vote at all in 2024.The decline in voter turnout is first visible from the simple fact that the total number of votes cast in 2024 is smaller than the number cast in 2020 (153m in 2024 versus 155m in 2020). This is despite the fact that the size of the US population has increased by 4.5 million people since the last election.It is when one takes a closer look at the underlying data that the picture comes into sharper focus. In nearly a third of the top 50 counties that flipped from Democrat to Republican, Trump’s vote actually declined from his 2020 numbers. If Democratic voters are coming over to the Republican ranks, their vote total should go up, not down. In Pinellas county, Florida, for example, Trump got nearly 7,000 fewer votes than in 2020, but the Democratic vote total plummeted by 35,000 votes.This pattern is evident in nearly all of the counties that flipped. Even in the counties where Trump’s vote increased marginally over 2020, that increase was generally dwarfed by the Democratic decline. In Erie county in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania, Trump improved on his 2020 showing by 801 votes, but the votes for Harris dropped by 2,618 votes, more than enough to have carried the county had those voters cast ballots.Just as is the case in medicine, an effective treatment requires an accurate diagnosis. The anemic Democratic voter turnout is the result of a cataclysmic failure of theory of change, strategy and spending, most notably by the Democratic Super Pac Future Forward.Super Pacs have great freedom and flexibility in that there are no limits on the size of contributions they can receive and few restrictions on their electoral activities. I helped create one of the country’s first such committees, Vote Hope, in 2007 to help Barack Obama, and our theory of change was that boosting Black voter turnout would help elect the country’s first Black president. Accordingly, we spent our money on hiring canvassers to knock on doors and buses to drive voters to the polls.Future Forward embraced the view that they could devise clever television and digital ads that would persuade Trump-leaning voters to back the Democrats. Accordingly, they poured nearly $700m into an advertising avalanche that was redundant to Harris’s ads and obviously ineffective. In a fawning New York Times profile, their effort was described as “animated by the idea that a blend of data science, political science and testing can usher in a new era of rigor in advertising”.There were seven battleground states where the parties concentrated their time, energy, and resources. Imagine if Future Forward had spent $100m in each state, hiring canvassers, investing in community-based civic engagement organizations, and funding the labor-intensive and expensive yet effective work of getting out the vote. Such a program would have boosted voter turnout, bringing back out the coalition that defeated Trump in 2020.A failure of this magnitude demands soul-searching and brutal re-assessment of prior assumptions and strategies. The work of defending and ultimately taking back the country starts now, and a sober assessment of the election results makes clear that 2024 marks the requiem for the widely held but thinly supported view that it makes more sense to invest in persuasion over the power-building program of getting out the vote.
Steve Phillips is the founder of Democracy in Color, and author of Brown Is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority and How We Win the Civil War: Securing a Multiracial Democracy and Ending White Supremacy for Good More
Trump has broken his silence on the decisions by prosecutors to drop the election interference charges and the classified documents case against him.In a post on Truth Social, the president-elect said: “These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought.”He continued:
Over $100m Dollars of taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party’s fight against their Political Opponent, ME. Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before. They have also used State Prosecutors and
District Attorneys, such as Fani Willis and her lover, Nathan Wade (who had absolutely zero experience in cases such as this, but was paid MILLIONS, enough for them to take numerous trips and cruises around the globe!), Letitia James, who inappropriately, unethically, and probably illegally, campaigned on “GETTING TRUMP” in order to win Political Office, and Alvin Bragg, who himself never wanted to bring this case against me, but was forced to do so by the Justice Department and the Democrat Party.
It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden will attend Donald Trump’s inauguration in January, a White House spokesman told Reuters.“The president promised that he would attend the inauguration of whomever won the election,” said Andrew Bates, senior deputy press secretary at the White House. “He and the First Lady are going to honor that promise and attend the inauguration.”Just hours after Joe Biden pardoned two turkeys in an event marking the official start of the holiday season in Washington, First Lady Jill Biden received the White House Christmas tree. The Frasier fir was delivered to the White House from the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina, a region recently impacted by Hurricane Helene.Jack Smith is planning to release a final report into his investigations into Donald Trump’s classified documents and election interference cases, CNN reports.Attorney general Merrick Garland will publicly release the report, as he has past special counsel reports, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN. However, it remains unclear how much information will be included in the reports.Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has dropped his office’s lawsuit against Elon Musk and his America Pac. Krasner had sued Musk over his super Pac’s $1m-a-day lottery, where swing state voters were entered into a drawing every day before the presidential election in exchange for signing a petition.Teddy Schleifer of Puck News first posted a screen capture of the court case today, marking it “Discontinued and Ended”.A Philadelphia judge had rejected Krasner’s request for an injunction, on the basis that Musk’s lottery violated state election laws, on 4 November.Donald Trump has declined to sign presidential transition paperwork that requires disclosure of private donors. The memorandum of understanding, which requires an incoming president to disclose the names of private donors and caps their donations at $5,000, would give Trump access to up to $7.2m in federal funding.Here’s Robert Tait with more:Sidestepping it means Trump can raise unlimited amounts of cash from rich backers to finance his return to the White House while concealing what they are being promised in return.He is the first incoming president not to sign the federal transition funding agreement, which is dictated by the Presidential Transition Act.Transition funds are typically raised to pay for staff, office space and travel needed to put together an administration.Trump’s decision to avoid the standard procedure has alarmed ethics experts, who warn that it enables wealthy individuals to influence the makeup of a new administration without their names or potential conflicts of interest being disclosed.It also means the president-elect can accept unlimited donations from foreign donors, who – in contrast to rules prohibiting foreigners from contributing to election campaigns – are legally allowed to donate to transitions.Chuck Schumer, Senate majority leader, has scheduled Senate Democrats’ leadership elections for 3 December, according to reports.According to CNN, the leadership elections will start at 9:30am, per a Democratic leadership aide.Meanwhile, the Democratic national committee announced earlier today that it will select its next chair during a 1 February vote. The committee also plans to hold four forums for candidates in January.Trump has broken his silence on the decisions by prosecutors to drop the election interference charges and the classified documents case against him.In a post on Truth Social, the president-elect said: “These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought.”He continued:
Over $100m Dollars of taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party’s fight against their Political Opponent, ME. Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before. They have also used State Prosecutors and
District Attorneys, such as Fani Willis and her lover, Nathan Wade (who had absolutely zero experience in cases such as this, but was paid MILLIONS, enough for them to take numerous trips and cruises around the globe!), Letitia James, who inappropriately, unethically, and probably illegally, campaigned on “GETTING TRUMP” in order to win Political Office, and Alvin Bragg, who himself never wanted to bring this case against me, but was forced to do so by the Justice Department and the Democrat Party.
It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
While the case involving classified documents case will be dropped against Donald Trump, prosecutors say they will continue to pursue the case against two of his employees.According to CNN, special counsel Jack Smith said that while he is dropping the prosecution of Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents, prosecutors will proceed with the case against two of his employees – Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira – who are co-defendants in the case.Both individuals, who work for Trump, are accused of assisting the former president in obstructing the federal investigation into sensitive government documents.CNN noted that the case is now before the 11th US circuit court of appeals, which is reviewing a judge’s order dismissing all charges.Vice-president-elect JD Vance has responded to the news that prosecutors have dropped election interference charges and the classified documents case against Donald Trump.“If Donald J. Trump had lost an election, he may very well have spent the rest of his life in prison,” Vance wrote. “These prosecutions were always political.”He continued: “Now it’s time to ensure what happened to President Trump never happens in this country again.”In statement, Steven Cheung, the communications director for the president-elect, said: “Today’s decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law.“The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country,” he added.Federal prosecutors have also moved today to abandon the classified documents case against Donald Trump, similarly to the election interference case, in light of longstanding justice department policy that says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution – even though Trump has not yet been inaugurated.The announcement in an appeals court filing in Florida came shortly after the similar filing was made by prosecutors in Washington DC, where they asked to dismiss the case accusing Trump of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, the Associated Press reports.The move amounts to a predictable but nonetheless stunning conclusion to a criminal case that just one year ago had been seen as the most perilous legal threat that he faced. It reflects the practical consequences of Trump’s electoral victory, ensuring he enters office free from scrutiny over his hoarding of top secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida after leaving office in January 2021 – conduct that prosecutors said had jeopardized national scrutiny.The dismissal had been foreshadowed in recent weeks by the revelation that special counsel Jack Smith was evaluating how to wind down both that case and a separate pending prosecution he brought charging Trump with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.Justice department legal opinions dating back decades say sitting presidents cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office and the government’s filings today indicate that, although unprecedented, they have decided this also applies to a president-elect who was charged while still a private citizen. More
