Archive by Author

Elon Musk named sole director of Twitter, dissolves board

Elon Musk has been named sole director of Twitter, dissolving the board in place before he completed his $44 billion acquisition of the company, the social media platform said in a securities filing on Monday. 

Musk became the sole director of the company “in accordance with the terms of the Merger Agreement,” the company told the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Twitter’s board members Bret Taylor, Parag Agrawal, Omid Kordestani, David Rosenblatt, Martha Lane Fox, Patrick Pichette, Egon Durban, Fei-Fei Li and Mimi Alemayehou will no longer serve on the board, the company said. 

The disbanding of the board is among the string of changes the billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO put in place after assuming ownership of the company last week, concluding a six-month process. 

After the acquisition, Musk also reportedly let go of some of the company’s top executives, including Chief Executive Officer Agrawal, Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal and Vijaya Gadde, the head of legal policy.

Musk’s ownership triggered concerns from critics that he will peel back content moderation policies in a way that will lead to more hate speech and misinformation on the platform. The Washington Post reported Friday that racist and antisemitic tweets spread quickly on Twitter after Musk’s takeover.

Musk may also allow users who have had accounts banned in the past, including former President Trump, back on the platform. On Friday, Musk said he is planning to create a “content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints,” and that “no major content decisions,” including about reinstating accounts, will happen before the council convenes. 

Musk is also reportedly planning to start charging users $20 per month to have a verified account.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of his taxes to House

Former President Trump filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court Monday after a lower court declined to reverse its ruling mandating that he turn over his tax records to the House Ways and Means Committee. 

Trump on Thursday lost his latest bid to block the panel from accessing his records after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reconsider a unanimous August ruling from one of the court’s three-judge panels ordering their release.

House Democrats have been seeking the records for years, saying they need to probe how the Internal Revenue Service conducts its routine presidential audits, while Trump’s attorneys have argued the matter is purely political. 

“The Committee’s purpose in requesting President Trump’s tax returns has nothing to do with funding or staffing issues at the IRS and everything to do with releasing the President’s tax information to the public,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the filing. 

The emergency filing comes after Democratic lawmakers celebrated the lower court’s Thursday decision to not take further action.

“The law has always been on our side,” House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “Former President Trump has tried to delay the inevitable, but once again, the Court has affirmed the strength of our position. We’ve waited long enough—we must begin our oversight of the IRS’s mandatory presidential audit program as soon as possible.”

The panel’s oversight subcommittee chairman echoed that sentiment, with Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) noting it has been 1,303 days — “nearly as long as the Civil War” — since the committee first requested the records.

Presidents and vice presidents have undergone such auditing since 1977. Federal tax law also requires Treasury Department officials to hand over individual tax returns upon receiving a written request from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. 

Trump’s lawyers had argued that the law is unconstitutional and that compliance with the request would pose First Amendment and separation of powers concerns. 

The August ruling that Trump is seeking to overturn determined that the request was well within the committee’s purpose, as it was “made in furtherance of a subject upon which legislation could be had.”

“Further, the Request did not violate separation of powers principles under any of the potentially applicable tests primarily because the burden on the Executive Branch and the Trump Parties is relatively minor,” Judge David Sentelle, an appointee of former President Reagan, wrote in the opinion.

The Monday request from Trump’s attorneys came as his legal team gave opening statements in New York in a separate case accusing both the Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corp. of helping executives avoid paying taxes by offering off-the-books perks.

His company is also facing another civil lawsuit filed by the New York attorney general for financial fraud, a matter the state also referred to the IRS.

Updated at 1:54 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Donald Trump Jr. mocks Paul Pelosi attack

Donald Trump Jr. posted several photos and comments on Twitter and Instagram making light of the violent home-invasion attack last week against Paul Pelosi, the wife of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Former President Trump’s eldest child and the executive vice president of the Trump Organization on Sunday retweeted a photo of a piece of underwear and a hammer that was captioned: “Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.”

“The internet remains undefeated… Also if you switch out the hammer for a red feather boa you could be Hunter Biden in an instant,” Donald Trump Jr. wrote.

Paul Pelosi, 82, was attacked early Friday morning by an assailant who was reportedly shouting “Where is Nancy?” when he broke into their California home.

When police arrived, they found the assailant tussling with Paul Pelosi over a hammer before the attacker began beating him with it.

Upon arrival, officers quickly detained the suspect, David DePape, who has frequently espoused far-right conspiracy theories online.

Paul Pelosi underwent a successful surgery for a skull fracture and is expected to survive.

Former President Trump on Monday called the attack “a terrible thing,” and other Republicans have decried the act of political violence.

“Look at what’s happened to San Francisco generally. Look at what’s happening in Chicago. It was far worse than Afghanistan,” Donald Trump said.

Donald Trump Jr., however, began posting memes mocking the attack over the weekend. He retweeted another photo joking about banning hammers on Monday morning.

On Instagram, Trump Jr. posted a salacious “South Park” meme with characters from the TV show, including one holding a hammer.

“Dear fact checkers this has nothing at all to do with anything going on in the news and simply posting a cartoon of what appears to be an altered South Park scene,” Donald Trump Jr. wrote.

On Saturday, he also tried to twist the attack against Democrats.

“Imagine how safe the country would be if democrats took all violent crime as seriously as they’re taking the Paul Pelosi situation,” he tweeted. “They simply don’t care about you.”

President Biden has warned that DePape’s chants of “Where is Nancy?” were eerily similar to the chanting of the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“And what makes us think that one party can talk about stolen elections, COVID being a hoax, that it’s all a bunch of lies, and it not affect people who may not be so well balanced,” Biden said Friday.

“What makes us think that it’s not going to corrode the political climate? Enough is enough is enough. Every person of good conscience needs to clearly and unambiguously stand up against violence in our politics, no matter what your politics are.”

Members of both parties have called for an end to political violence in the wake of the attack.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump: Attack on Paul Pelosi a 'terrible thing'

Former President Donald Trump in an interview Sunday called the attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband in their San Francisco home a “terrible thing” as he railed against crime in Democrat-led cities.

“With Paul Pelosi, that’s a terrible thing, with all of them it’s a terrible thing,” Trump said in an interview with Americano Media, a conservative Spanish language outlet. “Look at what’s happened to San Francisco generally. Look at what’s happening in Chicago. It was far worse than Afghanistan.”

“We have to give the police back their dignity, their respect. They can solve the problem. But today if a police officer says something that’s slightly out of line it’s like the end of his life, the end of his pension, the end of his family,” Trump continued. “We can’t do that. We have to give the police back their authority and their power and their respect. Because this country is out of control.”

Trump remained silent on the attack on Paul Pelosi over the weekend, as others in the GOP sent mixed messages about it. Many Democrats, including President Biden, called for members of both parties to unequivocally condemn the attack as they worried about a rise in political violence.

Paul Pelosi, 82, was attacked early Friday morning in his home by an intruder, police said. Authorities arrived at the home and found the two men tussling over a hammer. The suspect then gained control of the hammer and used it to attack Paul Pelosi.

Paul Pelosi underwent surgery for a skull fracture and is expected to recover.

Before the assault occurred, the man confronted Paul Pelosi and shouted, “Where is Nancy? Where is Nancy?” according to a source briefed on the attack. The Speaker was not home at the time.

Biden and other Democrats tied the assailant’s rhetoric and attack directly to Republicans’ false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, something Trump still regularly promotes at rallies and on social media.

Trump and the Speaker have had a tumultuous relationship dating back to Trump’s time in the White House. The two briefly tried to work together for an infrastructure deal and on other legislative matters, but the relationship rapidly soured, particularly after the first impeachment of Trump.

Nancy Pelosi went viral for ripping up Trump’s State of the Union speech in early 2020. Trump repeatedly derided the Speaker as “Crazy Nancy.” She has frequently deemed Trump unfit to hold office, and most recently gained attention for saying she would have “punched him out” had Trump tried to come to the Capitol during the rioting there on Jan. 6, 2021.

–Updated at 11:00 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pence: Post-2020 election meeting with Trump, lawyers 'a new low'

Former Vice President Mike Pence reportedly writes in a forthcoming book that a meeting between former President Trump, campaign lawyers and outside attorneys after the 2020 election was “a new low.”

Pence describes a “contentious back-and-forth” between Trump campaign lawyers and outside attorneys in November 2020 while discussing legal issues associated with challenging the election, according to an excerpt of his book obtained by Axios.

“Even in an office well acquainted with rough-and-tumble debates, it was a new low …. [and] went downhill from there,” Pence writes.

While the campaign lawyers reportedly gave a negative report concerning election challenges, Pence notes that attorneys including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani contested their claims.

“Your lawyers are not telling you the truth, Mr. President,” Giuliani said to Trump over speaker phone during the meeting, Pence writes, according to Axios.

“In the end, that day the president made the fateful decision to put Giuliani and Sidney Powell in charge of the legal strategy,” Pence writes. “The seeds were being sown for a tragic day in January,” referring to Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Pence’s autobiography is expected to cover his time as vice president, including a focus on his willingness to push back on Trump, as well as other points in his life.

“Loyalty is a Vice President’s first duty; but there is a greater one—to God and the Constitution,” reads the description of his book, entitled “So Help Me God.”

Pence writes in the book that his relationship with Trump “broke down” when the former president “pressured” Pence to overturn the 2020 election, according to the description.

“The vice president refused to leave the Capitol, and once the riot was quelled, he reconvened Congress to complete the work of a peaceful transfer of power,” the publisher adds, referring to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Source: TEST FEED1

Why the fate of Medicare and Social Security is a midterm issue

The fate of Social Security and Medicare is back in the spotlight less than two weeks before the midterms.

The White House and Democrats have made both entitlements central to their closing pitch to voters, sounding the alarm that a Republican majority in the House would look to cut programs that millions of Americans rely on in a bid to reduce spending.

While some GOP lawmakers have not shied away from talk of altering those programs, many in the party have dismissed the Democratic attacks as a ploy designed to shift attention away from persistent inflation and broader concerns about the economy.

Democrats in recent days have zeroed in on a particularly bleak scenario: that a Republican-led House would hold the debt ceiling hostage, threatening a government default and economic crisis if the Biden administration does not agree to spending cuts.

“[They would] put us in default unless we yield to their demands to cut Social Security and Medicare. They’re so determined to cut Social Security and Medicare, they’re willing to take down the economy over it,” Biden told supporters in Syracuse, N.Y., on Thursday. “There is nothing, nothing that will create more chaos or do more damage to the American economy than that happening, if it were to happen.”

Strategists and Democratic officials view tying Republicans to attacks on Medicare and Social Security as a salient message. Those programs benefit older voters who reliably cast ballots, even in midterm or off-year elections. The programs are also overwhelmingly popular with the public, making proposed cuts or changes politically risky.

A June poll from the left-leaning Data for Progress found large majorities wanted to strengthen Social Security, including 73 percent of independents and 73 percent of Republicans.

As a result, any Republican suggestion to alter Social Security or Medicare has been turned into an attack ad, and the White House has been happy to amplify the prospect of the GOP cutting back entitlement programs.

Biden vowed Tuesday to refuse any effort to cut entitlements in the next Congress during an address to the Democratic National Committee, highlighted past GOP comments on the programs during a Thursday appearance in Syracuse, and he tweeted Friday that Republicans “are so determined to cut these programs they’re willing to take down the American economy over it.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has run ads in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District highlighting Rep. Don Bacon’s (R-Neb.) suggestion to raise the eligibility age for Social Security; in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District citing GOP candidate Karoline Leavitt’s stance on privatizing Social Security; and in Michigan’s 8th Congressional District calling attention to Republican Paul Junge’s comments on the need to make changes to Social Security, including by raising the eligibility age.

Republicans have long advocated for reduced spending, and some in the party have argued entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare have gotten too big or should be restructured or privatized to ensure they remain solvent.

Much of the focus during this election cycle has been on a proposal from Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the head of the Senate GOP campaign arm, released in February. The 11-point plan to “Rescue America” included a proposal to sunset government programs every five years, meaning lawmakers would need to vote to extend Medicare and Social Security.

Biden on Thursday also cited comments earlier this year from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who suggested funding for Social Security and Medicare should be approved yearly through the budgeting process.

But with majorities in the House and Senate within reach, GOP officials have treaded carefully around Scott’s proposal and avoided committing to changes to entitlement programs.

Multiple lawmakers, including those in the running to chair the House Budget and House Ways and Means committees, have spoken about the possibility of entitlement reform as a way to rein in spending.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said last week he would not “predetermine” any potential plans around cutting entitlements or tying them to the debt ceiling. But a day later he sought to tamp down concerns, saying he meant he would not raise the debt ceiling without a discussion around reducing spending.

Instead, House Republicans have pointed to their midterm messaging and policy platform, dubbed the “Commitment to America,” which broadly vows to “Save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare.”

“Let me just shut the door on that right now,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry (R-Pa.) said last week when asked about tying entitlement reform to the debt ceiling. “This is a — this is the Democrats’ usual playbook in the last three weeks here. It’s a last-ditch desperate attempt to scare our senior citizens. No one’s going to get into that.”

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chairman of the influential Republican Study Committee, said at a CBS News event earlier this month that the debt ceiling could be used to call for spending caps, balanced budgets, or to cut discretionary spending — actions that would not include Social Security and Medicare. 

Despite Republicans vehemently denying Democratic attacks, the White House and others feel that messaging around Social Security and Medicare is not only an effective midterm message, but a necessary warning to the public about what could happen under GOP control in the next two years.

Some experts argue it’s simply too difficult to predict how a Republican majority would function, since it is unclear both how large a GOP majority would be, and whether McCarthy or another leader will be able to marshal it.

“Are they going to want to do things that are extreme and outlandish and crazy and ridiculous? Absolutely,” said Craig Varoga, a veteran of dozens of Democratic campaigns. “Is it going to involve Social Security and Medicare? I don’t think they’re going to take anything off the table.”

Emily Brooks contributed reporting.

Source: TEST FEED1

Jim Jordan poised to serve as top Biden foe in potential GOP House

A Republican takeover of the House next year would instantly shift the lower chamber from a force allied with President Biden to perhaps his fiercest collective adversary — one with real power to disrupt the second half of the president’s first term. 

But nowhere is that shift expected to be more pronounced than the Judiciary Committee, where Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — a conservative firebrand and staunch supporter of former President Trump — is poised to take the gavel. 

Jordan, a founder and former head of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, has already made clear his intent to use the panel to launch what would certainly be some of the most high-profile — and politically significant — investigations next year into the operations of both the White House and the broader administration. 

On the short list are probes to scrutinize Biden’s involvement in his son Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings; the Homeland Security Department’s handling of the southern border; the Justice Department’s oversight of local school boards; and the FBI’s seizure of documents Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House. 

“If that doesn’t warrant a real investigation and real change coming, I don’t know what does,” Jordan told the Fox Business Network last week, previewing an array of topics he’s vowing to examine if the House flips, as many election watchers expect. 

Perhaps most significantly, Jordan’s gavel would also lend him jurisdiction over potential impeachments — an idea that’s already gaining steam in the conservative corners of the GOP conference, where the calls to oust Biden and members of his Cabinet have grown only louder throughout this year.

Those dynamics may put Jordan in the driver’s seat of what could potentially be Congress’s most consequential undertaking ahead of the 2024 presidential election, when Trump may be on the ballot to avenge the 2020 defeat he still hasn’t acknowledged. 

Yet a strong conservative push for impeachment could also put Jordan in a squeeze, caught between Biden’s loudest critics, including Trump, and more wary Republican leaders — a group he’s tangled with in the past — who are already signaling concerns about the political risks of trying to oust the president. 

In that scenario, Jordan, the agitator-turned-chairman, would be forced to choose between the aggressive entreaties of a right wing he helped to groom and the cautious posture of leaders he once opposed — a delicate position for a figure more accustomed to throwing bombs than deflecting them.

Trump, from the sidelines, would almost certainly join the pro-impeachment crowd, putting only more pressure on Jordan to pursue it. 

Whatever might happen with impeachment, outside observers are already predicting that a Jordan-led Judiciary panel will be a force to watch if Republicans are empowered with a House majority. 

“There is a lot in Jim Jordan’s record that makes the potential prospect of him having such a powerful post, having control over the House Judiciary Committee, troubling,” Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told The Hill.

“Nothing in Jim’s Jordan career so far has screamed out ‘balance,’” Bookbinder said, a trait he thinks is important in a committee with oversight of justice and law enforcement issues and which serves a role demanding transparency and upholding democratic norms.

“The Judiciary committees are always an important place for those issues. They’re a place where there can be real positive action, but also a place where there can be deeply politicized hearings that can make things worse,” he added.

Jordan and his allies have rejected such criticisms, saying he’s simply aiming to bring some accountability to the administration after two years of neglect under the current chairman, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.). 

“Ultimately holding people accountable, that’s for the Justice Department to take up,” Jordan told Fox Business. “But our job is to get the truth and the facts out there.

“We’re going to do that.” 

Jordan and the Judiciary Committee will not be alone, of course, in battling with Biden if the House changes hands next year. 

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who’s in line to lead the powerful Oversight and Reform Committee, is also promising deep dives into the president and his administration, vowing a focus on Hunter Biden, the border and the COVID-19 response. And Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), as expected chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would likely use that perch to examine last year’s deadly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. 

But Jordan is perhaps the most prominent national figure poised to take on the mantle of Biden antagonist if the House flips. 

In public comments, Jordan has already forecast where his priorities would be if he takes the gavel. And a source close to him elucidated that focus this week, saying immigration issues — including the border, crime, taking on Big Tech and oversight of the Justice Department and the FBI — would be among his top concerns, an emphasis already reflected by Jordan’s work this Congress as the Judiciary Committee’s senior Republican. 

During his time as ranking member, Jordan has also focused squarely on various domestic terrorism angles, a topic where he sees the Biden administration focusing too many resources on those with conservative viewpoints — and parents of public school children.

Jordan has sent a bevy of letters on a memo from Attorney General Merrick Garland signed in October of last year, noting a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff” amid broader discussions over COVID-19 policies and how issues such as race and gender are addressed at school.

The memo largely encouraged coordination, asking the FBI to convene meetings with local law enforcement in the following 30 days to discuss how to respond to threats of violence. It ultimately resulted in little payoff, particularly given the swift GOP backlash.

The outcry from Republican lawmakers led the National School Boards Association, which wrote to Biden requesting assistance on the rising threats, to issue a statement saying its members “regret and apologize” for its outreach letter.

But it’s remained a consistent talking point for Jordan, who by his own count has sent more than 100 letters on the subject. 

The latest asked the Justice Department to preserve all its documents related to the Garland memo, saying the “anti-parent directive remains in effect, and as a result, the threat of federal law enforcement continues to chill the First Amendment rights of American parents.”

And Jordan scored a win last week when Jill Sanborn, a former FBI official tasked with overseeing the counter-terrorism division of the bureau, agreed to voluntarily sit with the panel’s investigators.

The FBI as well as the Department of Homeland Security have warned of the risks from domestic violent extremism (DVE), a category that includes those motivated by a wide variety of subjects. Leaders of each have cautioned that those motivated by race and ethnicity, particularly white supremacy, are among the most dangerous. 

Jordan, citing a whistleblower to the committee, contends some FBI cases have been inappropriately labeled as DVE “in order to appease the Biden Administration’s woke left-wing agenda.”

He also sent a new duo of letters Friday, this time to Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, saying lawmakers “are investigating the Biden Administration’s callous disregard for the safety and security of our southern border.” 

The letters ask for preservation of documents — a common tactic from the minority when they lack subpoena power and a reflection of their future priorities. 

“Committee Republicans will continue to pursue these matters, including into the 118th Congress if necessary,” Jordan wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP bracing for Trump indictment soon after Election Day 

Republican aides and strategists privately expect Attorney General Merrick Garland to pursue an indictment of former President Trump within 60 to 90 days after Election Day, predicting the window for prosecuting Trump will close once the 2024 presidential campaign gains momentum.  

Republican aides on Capitol Hill and veteran party strategists emphasize they don’t have any inside information on what Garland might do, but they say the attorney general is under heavy pressure from Democrats to act and the deadline for pursuing an indictment is fast approaching.  

GOP aides also warn that an indictment of Trump by the Biden administration would further polarize the nation and likely strengthen Trump’s support from the Republican Party’s base as the former president and his allies would frame the Department of Justice’s prosecution as a political witch hunt.  

“A couple of weeks after the election, I assume that Garland will indict Trump,” said one veteran Republican aide, expressing a sentiment shared by several other GOP aides and strategists.  

A second Republican aide warned an indictment “could actually end up helping the [former] president politically.”  

“People have been talking about splintering support and dampening enthusiasm among Republican voters for him. An indictment could actually galvanize and reunify Republicans around him,” the aide said, predicting the Republican backlash to an indictment would be stronger if Garland brings an indictment later in the 2024 election cycle.  

“There’s a substantial risk in waiting,” the source added.  

Republican aides and strategists point out the party base quickly rallied behind Trump after the FBI raided his Mar-a-Lago estate in early August.  

Before the FBI raid, Trump had mulled announcing his 2024 presidential campaign well before the midterm election as it appeared he was losing support among Republican voters to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.  

But GOP aides on Capitol Hill believe any anxiety Trump might have felt about losing relevance with the GOP base was ameliorated after it rallied around him in August in response to the FBI’s action.  

The backlash will be stronger if Garland brings an indictment once Trump’s expected 2024 presidential campaign is up and running, they warn.  

The second Republican aide said “the decision Garland has to make is really tough,” saying that he has a strong potential case to charge Trump with violating Section 793 of the Espionage Act for taking highly classified government documents to Mar-a-Lago. At the same time, the aide warned that any prosecution would “plunge the country which is already so divided … into a potentially precarious situation.”  

Garland has played his cards close to the vest, showing little indication of whether he will charge the former president. But the FBI’s raid in August made clear he is willing to investigate him.  

There are actually two different investigatory probes that could lead to indictments of Trump.

One is related to the documents taken from the White House and found at Mar-a-Lago, while the other concerns the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capital.

While many Democrats would like to see Justice charge Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 attack, Jeffrey Robbins, a former federal prosecutor, said federal prosecutors’ strongest case would be to indict Trump for violating the Espionage Act in connection to the Mar-a-Lago documents.   

“I think that the Espionage Act violations are relatively straightforward, even self-evident, and that the Department likely already has substantial evidence of obstruction of justice,” he said.  

GOP aides and strategists warn there’s a risk of political violence in response to any indictment against Trump. The former president warned last month that if the Department of Justice indicts him, “you’d have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before.” 

“I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it,” he warned.  

The former president hasn’t made a formal announcement of his decision but has given every indication that he will launch another bid for the White House next year.  

Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that an indictment wouldn’t stop him from running for president.  

“If a thing like that happened, I would have no prohibition against running,” he said.  

A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.  

Vin Weber, a Republican strategist, said it would be a “bad idea” to indict Trump because it would sow more political discord into a deeply divided nation, and waiting well into the 2024 election cycle would only make it worse.  

“I think an indictment is a bad idea, but I think that Garland is under such political pressure by the Democratic left that it may well happen,” he said.  

“I don’t think it’s a good idea and I don’t want to be misinterpreted as supporting [it.] If it’s going to happen, though, it should happen as soon after the [midterm] election as possible because it complicates everybody’s plans: Biden’s plans, Trump’s plans, every other Republican’s plans,” he said.  

“If this is going to happen, it’s not in anyone’s interest to prolong this process until the presidential process for ’24 is underway and drop this like a bomb into the middle of an already established presidential field,” he added.  

Some legal experts agree that Garland needs to act soon if he intends to prosecute Trump to minimize the appearance that the Department of Justice is acting from political motivation.  

“I think that the department will strive to bring an indictment as soon as it can consistent with other constraints, in order to at least minimize the ‘legs’ on the inevitable barrage of charges it will face that by indicting the former president it is interfering with an upcoming presidential election,” said Robbins.  

He said the Justice Department “will face a storm of such criticism whenever it acts, but doing so as soon as possible at least provides some defense, however limited, against that inevitable criticism.” 

Robbins said Garland has good reason to postpone the announcement of an indictment until after the 2022 midterm election because otherwise it would immediately become the top political issue in Senate and House races around the country. 

“Had he indicted right before the midterms it truly would have rocked the indictment with criticisms that there had been a violation of the de facto policy within the DOJ” not to launch prosecutions of political figures within two or three months of an election and “really would have undercut the credibility of the indictment and in addition could very well have affected the midterms,” he added.  

But other prominent legal experts don’t think Garland needs to announce an indictment within the next 60 to 90 days since the first contest of the Republican presidential primary won’t take place until January 2024.  

“I doubt the timing of the midterm elections has much to do with the timing of any indictment of Donald Trump,” said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former federal prosecutor.   

“The next time he will appear on the ballot, if ever, will be in the 2024 primary elections, which begin in January of 2024. The DOJ policy would not come into play until 60 days or so before that date,” she said.  

She said Garland “has all of 2023 to play with.”  

Faced with mounting political pressure on both sides, Garland has stayed tight-lipped about prosecuting Trump. He did reveal in August, however, that he “personally” approved the raid on Mar-a-Lago.  

“Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly without fear or favor,” he said in August.  

Source: TEST FEED1