“This confirms President Trump’s position that, as one of his senior advisors, you had an obligation to assert executive privilege on his behalf and fully comply with the principles of confidentiality stated above when you responded to the Committee’s subpoena,” the attorney, Evan Corcoran, wrote on Trump’s behalf.
The letter appears calculated to undercut the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta rejecting Navarro’s effort to dismiss the cases against him. Mehta noted in a 39-page opinion last week that Navarro had presented no evidence that Trump actually asserted executive privilege on his behalf — even though he made explicit assertions to block the testimony of other former aides.
“Defendant has failed to come forward with any evidence to support the claimed assertion of privilege,” Mehta wrote. “And, because the claimed assertion of executive privilege is unproven, Defendant cannot avoid prosecution for contempt.”
Mehta is unlikely to consider Corcoran’s letter sufficient to derail Navarro’s trial. Navarro had initially claimed in court arguments that Trump told him, during a private conversation, to assert executive privilege before the Jan. 6 committee. But Corcoran’s letter makes no reference to such an assertion.
It’s the second time Trump has made a last-second bid to disrupt the pending contempt trials for aides who defied the select committee. Days before longtime ally Steve Bannon faced a criminal trial for contempt, Trump took the opposite tack — writing a letter to Bannon waiving any potential executive privilege and clearing the way for Bannon to testify to the committee. Prosecutors dismissed the gambit as a stunt to disrupt the trial, and Bannon ultimately took no steps to actually comply with the select committee’s subpoena, even after Trump’s explicit permission.
Navarro, like Bannon, both claimed that they were categorically “immune” from appearing before the Jan. 6 committee to discuss their involvement in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. They said their sensitive conversations with Trump were protected by executive privilege and therefore they could not be compelled by Congress to discuss them. But U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols rejected Bannon’s contention, noting that longstanding legal precedents don’t permit witnesses to defy congressional subpoenas even over assertions of executive privilege.
And in both cases, prosecutors noted that there was no evidence Trump had asserted privilege on Bannon or Navarro’s behalf.
[ad_2]
#Trump #intervene #Navarro #faces #trial #defying #Jan #committee
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Earlier this month, Garland appointed a special counsel to determine whether laws were broken in connection with the presence of the apparently-classified records at the Penn Biden Center in Washington and later at Biden’s Delaware home.
Asked if he had any regrets about the way the matters had been handled thus far, Garland called the law enforcement decisions “appropriate” and unaffected by politics.
“That is what we’ve done and that is what we will continue to do,” Garland said, flanked by a Justice Department task force handling fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision in June to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion.
While Garland said Monday that the Justice Department has pursued the Trump- and Biden-related cases “without regard to who the subjects are,” there remain special protections for a sitting president under longstanding Justice Department legal opinions. Those opinions preclude criminal charges against a president while he remains in office, but they do not rule out the possibility of such charges once a president leaves office.
[ad_2]
#Garland #defends #handling #Biden #Trump #classified #document #probes
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The committee Democrats want the GAO to probe why the IRS didn’t ask Treasury or Congress for more resources if the agency was struggling to fully audit Trump’s voluminous returns.
The lawmakers also ask in their letter what administrative actions the IRS and Treasury could take and what laws Congress could consider passing to protect the program from potential meddling.
“Members of Congress need further information related to the failures to conduct presidential audits during the Trump Administration to ensure that, as elected representatives, we are adequately equipped to assess and address the integrity and continued function of the presidential audit program, as well as necessary improvements to the program,” they wrote.
The questions follow the release of a report in December describing how a single agent at the IRS was assigned to audit Trump and none of the described audits were completed before the former president left the White House. An internal IRS memo dug up by the Ways and Means Committee said it was impossible to examine the more than 400 pass-through entities reported by Trump with existing agency resources.
The subsequent release of six years of Trump’s returns included more than 2,700 pages of a complex array of sole proprietorships and income flowing from foreign countries.
Democrats are eager to keep the issue in the spotlight as Trump mounts another bid for the presidency.
Republicans have countered that Democrats cherrypicked information from the audit files of the former president and that they didn’t see anything out of the ordinary in Trump’s tax returns.
[ad_2]
#Dems #watchdog #investigate #IRSs #tardy #audit #Trump
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
In a wide-ranging interview with POLITICO, the House’s former top attorney described his tenure battling a former president who tested the limits of executive power at every turn, resisting efforts at accountability in ways that previous chief executives had not. But he has faith that his work helped to stem future presidential attempts to push constitutional boundaries, lending more power to lawmakers.
“I just feel like the Biden administration and future administrations are not going to act like the Trump administration,” Letter said. “They’re not going to show such ignorance of our system and think that the executive branch can ignore the legislative branch. That’s not the way it works.”
Until the Capitol attack, Letter was convinced that his role in Trump’s first impeachment would’ve been the pinnacle of a job already marked by extraordinary legal confrontations. That changed on Jan. 6.
Letter was returning to the House floor from some basement vending machines when he ran into Speaker Nancy Pelosi being whisked from the Capitol under heavy guard. Don’t go back up there, one official told him. An angry mob had breached the building.
But Letter, in a panic, said he had to retrieve several giant binders that were full of sensitive strategy and scripts for the day’s proceedings. He opted to forgo evacuating with Pelosi and instead raced back to the chamber.
“I was the last person in before they locked the doors,” Letter recalled.
The attack on the Capitol led to the Jan. 6 select committee, where the House’s then-top attorney charted a legal strategy that Letter now describes as one of the hallmarks of his tenure.
Through his work on that panel, Letter secured at least two streams of information that became a core element of the committee’s voluminous findings: Trump’s confidential White House records and the Chapman University emails of attorney John Eastman, an architect of the then-president’s bid to subvert the 2020 election.
Letter also won court fights to obtain telephone records from Arizona GOP chair Kelli Ward, who took part in Trump world’s plan to send false electors to Congress. And he helped direct the House’s strategy to hold certain Trump advisers in contempt of Congress, which resulted in prosecutions of Trump advisers Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon.
“We had a whole enormous number of people that, as we now know, were putting together this massive, not just a conspiracy, but a whole bunch of conspiracies, to attack our democracy,” Letter said.
Additionally, Letter played a role in the select committee’s decision to subpoena five sitting Republican members of Congress to testify before the Jan. 6 select committee, including now-Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
He has moved on now that Republicans have gained the House majority, taking a new job as chief legal officer for Brady: United Against Gun Violence. That role bears a more significant connection to his Jan. 6 committee work than it may appear, in his view. Brady, he noted, had previously written a report that credited D.C.’s strict gun laws with limiting the damage rioters caused; if they had been able to stockpile firearms closer to the Capitol, it could’ve been much worse, the report said.
And he still remembers the Capitol attack vividly. Letter said he was one of the last to leave the House chamber on Jan. 6, recalling the scene in which Capitol Police officers aimed their firearms at a rear door that the pro-Trump mob had attempted to breach. He finally evacuated at around the same moment one rioter, Ashli Babbitt, was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer.
Letter doesn’t remember hearing the shot. But that same evening, as he was processing his own trauma, he was still acting as an attorney — representing a sergeant-at-arms official who had attempted to administer medical aid to Babbitt and faced questions about the incident from Washington-area law enforcement.
He’d kept doing his job right after being evacuated from the chamber, too. Letter joined lawmakers at a safe location in the Capitol complex, where he continued to draft scripts to rebut potential challenges, should the House reconvene and continue the session (as it did later that night). But he noticed something else that bothered him — a group of House Republicans were crowded 10 feet away and refusing to wear masks, despite the raging pandemic and the limited availability of vaccines at the time.
“I’m not going to get killed by insurrectionists,” he remembers thinking. “I’m going to die of Covid.”
One of the most interesting challenges for the House counsel, Letter said, is having to technically be the lawyer for every member of the chamber — even those who would later battle the Jan. 6 select committee.
Though the position is filled by the speaker, the House general counsel is often called upon to represent individual members in legal disputes. Letter remembers successfully representing Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) in a First Amendment case, even though she had also been considered one of Trump’s enablers in the election gambit.
But when lawmakers aim legal disputes at each other — as when McCarthy sued to block Pelosi from implementing a system of “proxy voting” amid the pandemic, or when Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) sued to overturn House fines for refusing to wear masks on the floor — Letter defaulted to representing the speaker and the institution as a whole.
Overall, Letter says he believes his efforts helped empower the institution of the House by putting teeth behind its subpoenas and earning court rulings that reinforced Congress’ power to obtain information to support potential legislation.
Republicans, who now hold the gavels of powerful investigative committees that Letter had previously aided, have fretted that some of the rulings during Letter’s tenure could cut against the House’s authority. One example the GOP notes is Democrats’ pursuit of Trump’s financial information through his accounting firm, which resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that established a test for the type of private information Congress could request from a sitting president.
While Letter acknowledged the criticism, he said he considered that case a “major victory” for Congress. The Supreme Court endorsed lawmakers’ sweeping power to demand information, he argued, and agreed they could obtain a president’s private information under specific circumstances, which the House ultimately met in that instance.
Mostly, he said, the rulings he pursued all the way to the Supreme Court were a function of Trump’s willingness to battle Congress more aggressively than any of his predecessors. But Letter hopes that marked a unique moment in history.
“I would hope that we’ll go back to a system where there are nowhere near as many fights in court,” he said.
[ad_2]
#Houses #legal #lieutenant #Trump #wars #speaks #Jan
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Once again, the legal pitfalls and enthusiasm deficit that plague Donald Trump’s bid for the 2024 Republican nomination are on display. On Thursday, a federal judge imposed $938,000 in sanctions on Trump and his lawyers. Meanwhile, an appearance touted by Trump as a major campaign event was nothing more than a closed-door speech to deep-pocketed election-deniers at a Trump property.
For those looking for uplift from a Trump campaign, those days are over. Rather, personal grievance and claims of a stolen 2020 election will likely be his dominant themes. For the 45th president, that may bring catharsis. For everyone else in the Republican party, that spells chaos, headache and the possibility of another Trump defeat at the hands of Joe Biden and the Democrats.
“Mr Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” the court thundered in its ruling. “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process.”
Judge Donald Middlebrooks shredded Trump and his lawyers for bringing a failed and frivolous racketeering lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, her political allies and a passel of ex-government officials. In the judge’s eyes, the lawsuit was little else than a repackaged Trump campaign stump speech.
A day later, Trump dropped a separate lawsuit filed against Letitia James, New York’s attorney general. That case too was pending before Middlebrooks, who similarly viewed that matter as “vexatious and frivolous”. The threat of sanctions hung in the air.
As for the Trump speech the public never heard, it now is another self-inflicted nothingburger, up there with his much-touted Trump NFT superhero trading cards – a waste of time and attention, a lost opportunity.
Earlier in the day, Trump had vowed to deliver a major political announcement later that night. He also promised to resume his signature rallies. Instead, he spoke behind closed doors at Trump Doral, his resort in Miami, to Judicial Watch, a tax-exempt group ostensibly dedicated to promoting “integrity, transparency and accountability in government and fidelity to the rule of law”.
That is the line Judicial Watch feeds the IRS. Reality is different. Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch’s president, pushed Trump to declare victory early on election night 2020 and stop counting ballots. Fitton also argued that White House records were Trump’s to keep.
Rule of law? Not so much, actually.
To be sure, Trump still leads the pack of prospective Republican presidential nominees. No other Republican contender possesses the same rapport with the party’s white working-class base; no one else is owed so much by Kevin McCarthy, the beleaguered speaker of the House.
By the numbers, Trump retains a double-digit advantage over Ron DeSantis, Florida’s spite-filled but mirthless governor. So far, the 45th president’s mounting legal woes, listless campaign and friction with the evangelical leadership have not displaced him from his perch.
At the same time, the Republican field appears poised for a growth spurt, and if 2016 teaches anything, it is that more actually is merrier from Trump’s vantage point. It dilutes the opposition.
Right now, anyway, Trump’s prospective challengers are running in place or forming circular firing squads. Mike Pence, his vice-president, hawks So Help Me God, a memoir. His numbers last hit double digits in June 2022. Candidates in retrograde usually lose.
Apparently, Pence is betting that abortion and the supreme court’s decision overturning Roe v Wade may get him to the promised land. Or not. In case Pence forgot, voters in otherwise reliably conservative Kansas and Kentucky rejected abortion bans.
Meanwhile, Mike Pompeo, Trump’s secretary of state, and Nikki Haley, his one-time UN ambassador, are publicly engaged in a personal spat. In Never Give an Inch, his soon-to-be released memoir, Pompeo trashes Haley for “abandoning” Trump and being less than consequential.
Celebrity Apprentice is back. “Haley has become just another career politician whose ambitions matter more than her words,” Taylor Budowich, a former Trump spokesman who sued the January 6 committee, has since chimed in.
To be sure, Haley gives as good as she gets. She accuses Pompeo of peddling “lies and gossip to sell a book” – arguing that Pompeo “is printing a Haley anecdote that he says he doesn’t know for certain happened this way”, to quote Maggie Haberman.
Yet for all of his would-be opponents’ missteps, Trump’s road to re-nomination won’t be a coronation. His mojo is missing, his aura of inevitability damaged, if not gone. In the two months since Trump announced his candidacy, he has barely ventured from the confines of Mar-a-Lago, his redoubt by the Atlantic.
There is also the primary calendar. Trump could well face Chris Sununu, New Hampshire’s popular governor, in the state’s primary. A Trump loss in the Granite State would be monumental. He won that contest seven years ago. And down in Georgia, governor Brian Kemp may be aching for revenge.
Beyond that, Trump has suffered a series of recent legal setbacks. Last month, a Manhattan jury convicted the Trump Organization on tax and fraud charges. As a coda, the court imposed $1.6m in fines, the maximum allowed under state law.
Then there is the pending sexual assault and defamation litigation brought by E Jean Carroll. At a rage-filled deposition, the ex-reality show host flashed moments of verbal incontinence. There, he confused the plaintiff with Marla Maples, his second wife. In that split second, his much-hyped “she’s not my type” defense may have vanished.
The near future does not appear much brighter. A trial is set for later this spring.
Meanwhile, the special counsel moves ahead and the Manhattan district attorney reportedly shows renewed interest in Trump Organization payments to Stormy Daniels. Along the way, Michael Cohen has resurfaced. The circus is back.
To top it off, in Georgia, a Fulton county court will hear arguments this coming week on whether to release a grand jury report on the 2020 election. If indicted, Trump’s fate on extradition could well rest with DeSantis. Now that’s ironic.
[ad_2]
#Trump #comeback #working #Lloyd #Green
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
The lawsuit was filed just weeks after James sued Trump, three of his adult children and his business empire for fraudulent financial practices. She is seeking up to $250 million as well as an order blocking Trump from real estate transactions in New York for five years.
Trump has blasted the suit, including after James won a judicial order in November that installed an independent monitor over his business dealings as the New York case proceeds. That case is ongoing.
There was no immediate comment from Trump’s attorneys on why they dropped his Florida lawsuit, but the federal judge overseeing the case recently ripped his claims as “both vexatious and frivolous.”
The withdrawal Friday also came the morning after the same Florida judge ordered nearly $1 million in sanctions against Trump and his attorney Alina Habba in a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and federal officials.
[ad_2]
#Trump #withdraws #Florida #lawsuit #York #attorney #general
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Republicans have vowed not to raise the federal government’s borrowing capacity unless Biden makes steep cuts to federal spending, potentially impacting social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare. Trump’s video is a warning to his fellow party members not to go there. Instead, he suggests targeting foreign aid, cracking down on migration, ending “left wing gender programs from our military,” and “billions being spent on climate extremism.”
“Cut waste, fraud and abuse everywhere that we can find it and there is plenty there’s plenty of it,” Trump says. “But do not cut the benefits our seniors worked for and paid for their entire lives. Save Social Security, don’t destroy it.”
The video message was shared in advance of its release with POLITICO.
Trump’s position echoes his long-held, albeit unorthodox, conviction that the Republican Party should stay away from attaching themselves to entitlement reform. Prior to being elected president, Trump was highly critical of then-Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for pushing austerity budgets during the Obama years. As a candidate for president, he insisted he would preserve both Medicare and Social Security. There was never any serious discussion of doing so during his time in office, though he obliquely hinted he may consider it in a second term.
Nevertheless, in issuing his statement now, Trump places his fellow Republicans in a political corner. Several of them have openly discussed using the looming debt ceiling standoff to extract cuts in non-discretionary spending, though party leadership has not fully embraced such a demand.
Over the last few months Trump himself has insisted that congressional Republicans use the debt ceiling as a leverage point to achieve policy objectives, despite having done no such thing during any of the times the debt ceiling was lifted when he was president. But his statement makes clear he views certain pursuits as off limits. And it puts him at least partially on the same page as Biden, who has not only insisted he won’t cut Social Security or Medicare but excoriated Republicans for suggesting they would.
The statement is among a series of policy-specific videos Trump has released since formally launching his third bid for the White House. And it suggests that the ex-president is looking to enhance his footprint on the current political landscape following weeks of criticisms that his campaign was off to a sluggish start.
Trump is slated to be in South Carolina next Saturday to make announcements related to campaign hires at an event his aides have described not as a rally but a more “intimate” gathering. Since announcing his third presidential run, Trump has not held any rallies and has remained at his properties in South Florida.
But Trump’s team has said they are at work behind the scenes from the campaign headquarters in West Palm Beach, and the ex-president will soon start making more public appearances, including a speech at the upcoming CPAC conference outside Washington, D.C.
Trump’s team has also asked Facebook to allow him back on the platform after he was thrown off of it following the Jan. 6 insurrection he helped foment. The social media platform has played an important role in fundraising and voter outreach, according to aides, and Meta is set to decide if it will lift Trump’s suspension this month.
[ad_2]
#Trump #GOP #Dont #touch #Medicare #Social #Security #debt #ceiling #fight
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The judge ordered Trump and Habba to pay $938,000 to cover the legal costs for the 31 defendants Trump linked in his year-old lawsuit. It’s the second time Middlebrooks has sanctioned Habba in the Clinton lawsuit. The first time was a $50,000 order sought by a single defendant, Charles Dolan. The new round of sanctions was sought by the remaining defendants.
In the new order, Hillary Clinton got the biggest award of fees for a single defendant: almost $172,000.
It’s the latest legal setback for Trump, who continues to face peril in advancing criminal probes and civil lawsuits related to his effort to overturn the 2020 election and his retention of sensitive national security records at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving office.
Middlebrooks’ ruling included a point-by-point recitation of the flaws in Trump’s initial lawsuit, noting that it often misstated, distorted or cherrypicked from key documents he claimed supported allegations of a grand conspiracy between Clinton and the Justice Department to target Trump for criminal prosecution.
“The Amended Complaint is a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion. This is a deliberate attempt to harass; to tell a story without regard to facts,” Middlebrooks, an appointee of former president Bill Clinton, wrote.
He specifically cited Trump’s claim that Clinton conspired with former FBI Director James Comey to seek a Trump prosecution — one that Middlebrooks noted never occurred — as “categorically absurd.” He also noted that Trump and Habba repeatedly mischaracterized the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. They also cited Russian intelligence — shared by then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe with Sen. Lindsey Graham — as a basis for one of their claims, without noting that it was Russian intelligence and that Ratcliffe said it was unverified.
“Mr. Trump’s lawyers saw no professional impediment or irony in relying upon Russian intelligence as the good faith basis for their allegation,” Middlebrooks wrote.
In his order, Middlebrooks cited Habba’s attacks on him in a Fox News interview, which he said continued to distort the facts of the case and make baseless allegations of improprieties by federal judges and magistrates. He also recounted a litany of other cases filed by Trump and his attorneys that bore similar hallmarks of frivolity.
[ad_2]
#Judge #sanctions #Trump #Habba #million #completely #frivolous #Clinton #suit
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
American presidents face many era-defining challenges: wars, pandemics, recessions. But one that gets less attention seems to keep haunting them: paperwork.
Last November, at Joe Biden’s thinktank in Washington DC, aides to the US president were packing up and they found something that shouldn’t have been there: a stash of classified documents.
As David Smith tells Michael Safi, that was not the end of the matter. A further search of Biden’s property turned up more secret documents that needed to be handed over to the national archives. It’s left Biden with a legal headache, but perhaps more pressing: a political one.
The revelations have been leapt upon by supporters of Donald Trump who wasted no time in calling for Biden to face the same scrutiny as the former president who saw his own home raided by the FBI after ignoring demands to hand over documents he had taken without authorisation.
Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Support The Guardian
The Guardian is editorially independent.
And we want to keep our journalism open and accessible to all.
But we increasingly need our readers to fund our work.
Support The Guardian
[ad_2]
#Biden #Trump #classified #documents #podcast
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
Trump’s best argument is that his policies were better than Biden’s. Biden’s best argument is that he’s not Trump.
It’s the weirdest, and most dispiriting, symbiotic relationship in politics. It’s the career politician soaked in conventional politics versus the upstart developer with zero respect for rules. The establishmentarian versus the populist. Boring versus erratic. And … unpopular versus unpopular, as well as, now that you mention it, old versus old.
If Biden stepped aside, Trump might feel a little less driven to run, whereas if Trump declined to run, Democrats would have to be a lot more nervous about how Biden would match up against a younger, less toxic GOP opponent.
As it is, the weakness of each is a motivator and prop for the other.
Just consider the latest news: It’s probably a good rule of thumb not to run a presidential candidate who’s under federal investigation for mishandling classified documents.
But does that rule still hold when your candidate could well be running against another candidate also under federal investigation for mishandling classified documents?
These are the imponderables that a potential Biden-Trump rematch presents.
Both can point fingers at the other for his respective lapses in storing classified documents, and try to argue, in effect, “Hey, your special-counsel investigation is much worse than my special-counsel investigation.”
Trump tucked into this argument in his characteristic fashion. In a Truth Social post, he mocked Biden for having classified documents “on the damp floor” of his “flimsy, unlocked, and unsecured” garage, whereas Mar-a-Lago is “a highly secured facility, with Security Cameras all over the place.” (Of course, Biden famously insisted that his garage was locked — he has a classic Corvette to protect, after all).
Biden’s team and allies have made the opposite case that, in contrast to Trump, his mistakes were inadvertent and immediately reported to authorities who could take the appropriate steps, whereas Trump resisted returning the files for months.
Regardless of the merits, there’s no doubt that Biden’s possession of classified documents materially assists Trump in his case; it might save him from indictment.
By the same token, Trump’s possession of classified documents materially assists Biden in his case; the discovery of the documents in Biden’s various unsecure locations may be a fiasco, but not one as drawn-out and legally fraught as the Mar-a-Lago drama.
It’s a little like both parties running candidates in the 1972 campaign who had authorized break-ins, or in a 1980 campaign who had presided over double-digit inflation.
Biden can lean on Trump in a similar fashion on all sort of other matters. Biden hasn’t lived up to his billing as a normal president, but the most prominent Republican alternative is dining with antisemites and musing about suspending the Constitution. Biden is a gaffe machine, but so is his adversary. Biden would be 82 years old if inaugurated in 2025; Trump would be 78.
The midterms were proof of concept for the proposition that Biden can use Trump and a Trumpified Republican Party to get the voting public to tolerate or look beyond his own failings. This is a playbook that would be much more difficult to run against Ron DeSantis or other potential Republican nominees.
Now, it’s entirely possible that the second season of Trump versus Biden never makes it to production. Despite all signs indicating that he wants to run again, Biden might pull up short because he doesn’t feel up for it. For his part, Trump has a significant chance of winning the Republican nomination, yet it isn’t a gimme, and it shouldn’t help him that Biden and the Democrats so obviously want to run against him, just as they wanted to run against so many of his acolytes last November.
If the prospect of returning to 2020 is unappealing, look on the bright side: We never really left.
Trump has never let us forget that he lost to Biden (although he prefers to refer to it as getting the election stolen from him), while Biden has never let us forget that Trump is waiting in the wings.
Despite their enmity, both men want and need each other politically, whether that’s what the country is interested in or deserves or not.
[ad_2]
#Opinion #Codependency #Biden #Trump
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
