Monthly Archives: April 2022

Lets say you were under investigation for attempted murder. While this was happening, it probably wouldnt be a great idea to try and murder another person, and it definitely wouldnt be a good idea to get caught attempting to murder thesameperson the cops already suspected you tried to kill. To most people, this is common sense. But of course, not everyone is savvy to the dont try to murder someone while already under investigation for attempted murder rule, and by some people, we meanDonald Trumpand his cronies, who are at this very moment, despite the active congressional investigation into their attempt to overturn the 2020 election, still trying to overturn the 2020 election.

John Eastman, the right-wing attorney who played a huge role in trying to get the election results thrown out more than a year ago, has not stopped in his quest to have Joe Bidens win decertified, ABC News reports. During a private meeting on March 16, Eastman and a small group of Trump allies spent nearly two hours attempting to convince the Republican leader of the Wisconsin State Assembly to invalidate the Electoral College results, according to Will Steakin, Katherine Faulders,and Laura Romeros report. Eastman reportedly pushed Speaker Robin Vos to start reclaiming the electors and either completely do over the election or have a new slate of electors seated that would declare someone else the winner. As Vanity Fairs Eric Lutz reported earlier this month, last summer, Vos hired Michael Gablemanan early supporter of Trumps rigged election claimsto launch an investigationto restore full integrity and trust in elections and answer the many questions that had been raised about the 2020 vote, which Vos previouslyclaimedwas plagued by irregularities. Gableman, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, told Wisconsin lawmakers in early March that they ought to take a very hard look at decertifying the election. So you can see why Eastman and Co. believed theyd have a receptive audience.

Following the March 16 sit-down, Trump said in a statement that Speaker Vos should do the right thing and correct the Crime of the Centuryimmediately! It is my opinion that other states will be doing this, Wisconsin should lead the way! Sources told ABC News that the ex-president has been in contact with multiple people in Wisconsin working on the effort and has received regular updates from MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, the conspiracy theorist who was sued by Dominion Voting Systems for $1.3 billion over his unhinged claims about its voting machines.

The Wisconsin meeting is only the latest recent attempt by Trump allies to nullify Bidens win, more than 17 months on from the election, according to ABC. In February, for instance, Eastman teamed up with a group of Colorado election deniers for an emergency town hall meeting. There, the crowd attacked Colorado secretary of state Jena Griswold, falsely claiming shed participated in an election-fraud conspiracy. Eastman also bragged about election lawsuits in Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin, and said that people whove condemned his effort to overturn the results of a free and fair election are pure evil.

Incredibly, all of this is happening as Trump, Eastman, and other allies of the former president are being investigated by the Houses January 6 committee. In March, a judge ordered the conservative attorney to hand over emails hed been trying to withhold from the panel on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The judge sided with House lawmakers, who had argued the documents were no longer privileged if they were part of a crime. The true animating force behind these emails, JudgeDavid Carter wrote, was advancing a political strategy: to persuade Vice President[Mike]Penceto take unilateral action on January 6. He added that based on the evidence, Trump more likely than not committed a crime in trying to block Bidens win. And apparently, he and his pals are still at it!

In a statement, Jefferson Davis, a Wisconsin activist who was present at the March 16 meeting, insisted to ABC News that John Eastman has never suggested a do-over and did not say so in the closed meeting with Speaker Vos.Voss office did not respond to multiple requests for comment from ABC News.

In an interview with The Washington Post published last week, Trump appeared to suggest that Biden should be forced to vacate the White House, and that he should replace him. If you are a bank robber, or youre a jewelry store robber, and you go into Tiffanys and you steal their diamonds and get caught, you have to give the diamonds back, he said.

In related news...

The New York Times has obtained audio of a December 30, 2020, conference call in which a Trump ally and Roger Stone mentee named Jason Sullivan told supporters of the then president to storm the Capitol on January 6 and intimidate lawmakers into blocking Bidens win.

Originally posted here:

Surprise: Trump and His Cronies Are Still Actively Trying to Overturn the 2020 Election - Vanity Fair

If you want to satirise a power figure or a political movement, you automatically reach for Shakespeare. Theatrical history is littered with examples. In 1937, Orson Welles staged a modern-dress Julius Caesar that evoked the worlds of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. In 1941, Bertolt Brecht used Richard III as a template for his anti-Hitlerian The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui. In 1966, Barbara Garsons MacBird! daringly suggested that Lyndon Johnson was a modern Macbeth implicated in the death of JFK. So it is hardly surprising that writers and directors turn to the Bard in depicting Donald Trump.

The current example is Mike Bartletts The 47th at the Old Vic, which uses King Lear, Julius Caesar and Richards II and III to try and nail the Trump phenomenon: although highly ingenious, it is hardly likely to cause controversy. The opposite was the case when, in 2017, the New York Public Theaters annual summer Shakespeare in the Park production was a Julius Caesar in which the tyrant was a blond-quiffed figure with a Slovenian-accented wife: a conspirator even argued that the Romans loved him so much that they would forgive him if Caesar had stabbed their mothers on Fifth Avenue. Such was the uproar over the assassination of the Trump-like Caesar that two of the Public Theaters sponsors pulled their support. That production features prominently in a book by Jeffrey R Wilson unequivocally entitled Shakespeare and Trump.

I can understand the temptation to look to the man from Stratford to explain the disruptive politician from Queens. My problem is that Trump lacks the reflectiveness, the rhetoric, the political acumen and the psychological complexity of Shakespeares tragic heroes and emblematic kings. When Bartlett wrote King Charles III, it was possible to believe that our future monarch would suffer the crises of conscience of his Shakespearean forebears. In the case of The 47th it requires all the skill of the brilliant Bertie Carvel to persuade us that Trump is a dramatically compelling protagonist.

The more Bartletts Trump mimics the irony of Mark Antony or the demonism of Richard III, the more conscious you become of the gap between the politician and the prototype. Bartletts Trump is at his best when, still speaking blank verse, he attacks Kamala Harris for the Democrats failure to listen to peoples needs. You speak to them like kids, he tells her. And not just kids but poorer, less good-looking / Trashy kids that you and your celebrities / All constant lecture from your raised pile. That hits home. But, while Bartletts play is amusing and reads well, it struck me that the real Shakespearean parallel with Trump lies not among the kings and emperors but in the figure of Parolles in Alls Well That Ends Well: a hollow braggart who adopts a tone of leering curiosity towards women (Are you meditating on virginity? he asks Helena) and who lies his way out of trouble.

So how do you dramatise Trump? Four years ago, Tony Kushner announced he was writing a play about him: having classified Trump as borderline psychotic, Kushner went on to say that he really is very boring, and so far nothing has emerged. My own hunch is that you either have to tackle Trump on his own terms as a man who treats politics as a form of performance art or you have to analyse the source of his appeal rather than the man himself.

In the first category, I would place a Harold Pinter sketch, The Pres and an Officer, which was premiered as part of Jamie Lloyds season of short Pinter plays in 2018. In the sketch we saw an orange-complexioned, extravagantly coiffured Jon Culshaw, in a fit of pique, ordering the nuking of London under the mistaken impression it was the capital of France. The other method, of examining why people actually voted from Trump, was pursued by a number of writers in a show called Top Trumps staged by Theatre 503 in 2017. One particular piece by Christopher Adams was simply a verbatim interview with the writers mother on why she felt Trump would make her and the nation safer: Mark Lawson in his review said the piece should be taught on creative writing courses as an example of how to explore views with which the writer disagrees.

But if any one play explained Trumps America it was Lynn Nottages Sweat, written in 2015 before his election and set in a Pennsylvania rustbelt town in 2000. Through diligent research and careful listening, Nottage explored what she called the American de-industrial revolution and the anger and despair that greeted increasing unemployment and a steel firms proposal that everyone take a 60% pay cut to save the plant. Trump was never mentioned, but Nottages play did more than all the spoofs and satires to explain his electoral success. Shakespeare himself, of course, had a phrase for this process: By indirections find directions out.

See the original post here:

Sad! Is Donald Trump just too boring for a grand Shakespearean makeover? - The Guardian

The attorney general, Merrick Garland, is facing more political pressure to move faster and expand the US Department of Justices investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack and charge Donald Trump and some of his former top aides.

With mounting evidence from the January 6 House panel, court rulings and news reports that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy in his aggressive drive to thwart Joe Bidens election win in 2020, Garland and his staff face an almost unique decision: whether to charge a former US president.

Ex-justice officials caution, however, that while theres growing evidence of criminal conduct by Trump to obstruct Congress from certifying Bidens win on January 6 and defraud the government, building a strong case to prove Trumps corrupt intent a necessary element to convict him probably requires more evidence and time.

In an important speech in January this year, Garland said he would hold all January 6 perpetrators, at any level accountable, if they were present at the Capitol that day or not, who were responsible for this assault on our democracy, which suggested to some ex-prosecutors that Trump and some allies were in his sights.

But rising pressures on Garland to move faster with a clearer focus on Trump and his top allies have come from Democrats on the House panel investigating the Capitol attack.

Those concerns were underscored this past week when the House sent a criminal referral to the justice department charging contempt of Congress by two Trump aides, trade adviser Peter Navarro and communications chief Dan Scavino, who refused to cooperate after being subpoenaed.

We are upholding our responsibility, the Department of Justice must do the same, panel member Adam Schiff said. Likewise, Congresswoman Elaine Luria urged Garland to do your job so we can do ours.

About four months ago, the House sent a criminal contempt of Congress referral to the justice department for the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, but so far he has not been indicted.

Some former top DoJ officials and prosecutors, however, say Garland is moving correctly and expeditiously in pursuing all criminal conduct to overturn Bidens election in its sprawling January 6 inquiry.

When people (including many lawyers) criticize the DoJ for not more clearly centering the January 6 investigation on Trump, they are expressing impatience rather than a clear understanding of the trajectory of the investigation, the former justice inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian.

DoJ is methodically building the case from the bottom up. It is almost surely the most complex criminal investigation in the nations history, involving the most prosecutors, the most investigators, the most digital evidence and the most defendants, he added.

Bromwich added that people view the scores of ongoing criminal prosecutions of participants in the January 6 insurrection as somehow separate from the investigation of Trump. They are not. He is the subject of the investigation at the top of the pyramid. People need to carefully watch what is happening, not react based on their impatience.

The departments investigation is the biggest one ever. More than 750 people have been charged so far with federal crimes, and about 250 have pleaded guilty.

Still, concerns about the pace of the investigation and why charges have not been filed against Trump have been spurred in part by a few revelations over the last couple of months.

Last month, for instance, federal judge David Carter in a crucial court ruling involving a central Trump legal adviser, John Eastman, stated that Trump more likely than not broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.

Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history, Carter wrote in a civil case which resulted in an order for Eastman to release more than 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.

Similarly, the January 6 select committee made a 61-page court filing on 2 March that implicated Trump in a criminal conspiracy to block Congress from certifying Bidens win.

On another legal front that could implicate Trump and some top allies, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, revealed in January that the DoJ was starting a criminal investigation into a sprawling scheme reportedly spearheaded by Trumps ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign aides to replace legitimate electors for Biden with false ones pledged to Trump in seven states that Biden won.

Further, the Washington Post reported late last month that the DoJ had begun looking into the funding and organizing of the January 6 Save America rally in Washington involving some Trump allies. Trump repeated his false claims at the rally that the election was stolen.

We won this election, and we won it by a landslide, Trump falsely told the cheering crowd. You dont concede, when theres theft involved, he said, urging the large crowd to fight like hell, shortly before the Capitol attack by hundreds of his supporters that led to 140 injured police and several deaths.

A Trump spokesperson, Taylor Budowich, has called the House January 6 inquiry a circus of partisanship. And Budowich attacked Judge Carters ruling as absurd and baseless, noting that Carter was a Clinton-appointed judge in California.

Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that recent actions by the House January 6 panel and by the DoJ, along with court opinions, have notably increased legal threats to Trump. Anyone would need ice in their veins not to feel the heat when all three branches of the federal government are breathing down your neck, he said.

On the issue of whether Trump may be indicted, Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration, said the critical question should be whether there is adequate proof of wrongful intent. Citing Carters ruling that Trump more likely than not broke the law, Ayer said that the evidence of such intent has recently become a lot stronger.

Nonetheless, Ayer and Aftergut stress Garland has to juggle competing priorities lest he politicize his department, while being extra careful to ensure any charges he may bring against Trump will stand up in court.

Garlands between the rock of defending one justice department ideal and the hard place of protecting another. On one hand, no person is above the law. On the other hand, the department needs to avoid, as much as possible consistent with the first ideal, appearing political, Aftergut said.

Theres nothing easy about the position Garlands in, Aftergut added. The safest course, before considering a prosecution of a former president, would be to demand considerably more evidence of guilt than youd require in any other case.

Ayer added: Garland is right not to be discussing the specifics of whether and how Trump may be indicted, a stance Garland has adopted to protect the DoJs credibility as not political. At the same time, Ayer suggested that Garland should spend more time talking to the country about impartial justice and the idea that no person is above the law.

There are clear risks in moving too fast to appease critics.

Garland must make his decisions based on the law in relation to the facts, the former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said. The more politicians endeavor to pressure Garland to act, it runs the risk that any decision Garland makes will be seen as politically motivated rather than based on purely legal considerations.

That seems to fit with Garlands approach. In his 5 January speech this year, Garland emphasized, we follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money. But most important, we follow the facts not an agenda or an assumption. The facts tell us where to go next.

And, if there is enough evidence, following the rules could end up with Trump getting charged.

DoJ will never announce that it is investigating Trump and his inner circle. Such an announcement would violate DoJ policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, said Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School and a former attorney for the eastern district in Michigan.

Garland, McQuade added, is avoiding the mistake FBI director Jim Comey made in investigating Hillary Clinton, for which Comey was properly criticized, referring to two status reports about the investigation made in the months before the 2016 election.

Ultimately, McQuade said that Garlands biggest challenge will be proving that Trump had corrupt intent or intent to defraud, both of which would require proving that he knew his fraud claims were false. It can be very difficult to prove what was in someones mind, but it is not impossible.

See the original post here:

Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge ex-president - The Guardian

Donald Trump Jr. has suggested that New York subway cameras were intentionally disabled for political reasons to prevent a mass shooting from being recorded.

The eldest son of former President Donald Trump made the remarks on Twitter Wednesday, referring to New York Mayor Eric Adams' admission that cameras were not working when a shooter opened fire on commuters on Tuesday. Trump Jr.'s comments are the latest in a string of tweets accusing law enforcement of bending to politics as they responded to the shooting.

Following the shooting, reports emerged that security cameras at Sunset Park's 36th Street station, the scene of the attack, were not working and did not capture the incident. Adams confirmed to WCBS that there was "some form of malfunction with the camera system," which he said was under review.

The shooting presented a significant challenge for Adams, a Democrat, who has prioritized public safety in the nation's largest city, particularly on its public transit system.

"Why do the security cameras never seem to work when the reality of the crime isn't good for the leftist narrative???" Trump Jr. said on Twitter.

Fabien Levy, Adams' press secretary, told Newsweek in an email that collaboration between the New York Police Department, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and other agencies led to the arrest of the suspected shooter.

"It's sad that certain individuals want to politicize an attack on our city," said Levy.

Police on Wednesday arrested suspected shooter Frank James, who faces terrorism charges for the incident that left 10 people wounded.

Leading up to the shooting, James had posted videos to YouTube predicting a "civil war" between races. He also said that white people viewed Black people as being rightfully slaves. James in a video also criticized Adams, saying the mayor had contributed to his mental health problems and he had emerged from a facility with "more issues."

Trump Jr. on Wednesday retweeted a tweet from a writer for conservative blog RedState referencing James' videos saying "the media won't care a bit that he was motivated by left-wing talking points."

In another tweet, Trump Jr. suggested the attack wasn't described as "terror" because "the description wasn't good for the narrative."

He also took aim at the FBI, which was criticized by the former president and his allies for its investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia.

"Great work NYPD," wrote Trump Jr. "Despite the constant attacks from the leftist leaders of New York you guys still get it done... unlike the FBI leadership who seem far more interested in creating crimes and letting the actual bad guys go."

Twitter users responded to Trump Jr.'s tweet suggesting politics were behind the malfunctioning subway cameras by pointing to recently revealed text messages showing he sought to block certification of the 2020 election. Another Twitter user posted video of speeches given by Trump Jr. and his father before a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in 2020.

Another Twitter user pointed to Donald Trump's ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein was famously found dead in his New York jail cell and his death has been labeled a suicide.

However, conspiracy theories have continued to circulate that he was murdered by a powerful figure worried about potentially compromising information held by Epstein, who faced charges for running a sex trafficking operation.

A big driver behind the conspiracy theories was the two malfunctioning cameras outside his cell.

Update 4/14/22, 6 p.m. ET: This story has been updated with additional information and background.

See original here:

Donald Trump Jr. Blames Failed Security Cameras on 'Leftist Narrative' - Newsweek

Donald Trump has claimed he has been investigated more than some of the country's most notorious figures combined, including gangster Al Capone, while claiming the Democrats have "weaponized" the judicial system.

In an interview with Sean Hannity, the Fox News host asked Trump if President Joe Biden has been "compromised" by recent revelations regarding emails sent from his son Hunter Biden's laptop, which were originally dismissed by large sections of the media.

In response, the former president suggested the New York Postwhich first reported on the content of the laptop which Hunter Biden left in a repair shop in Delaware, and which detailed his business dealings in China and Ukrainehas "enhanced their reputation" after The New York Times and The Washington Post authenticated some of the original claims, more than 18 months after story first appeared.

Trump added the dismissal of the Hunter Biden story, which was published just weeks before the 2020 Election, may have affected the outcome while once again pushing false claims the election was rigged, and hit out at the investigations against him over his attempts to overturn the results.

"What they're doing is they suppressed the vote, and they artificially suppressed the vote, and probably illegally suppressed the vote. And nobody wants to talk about it. But it's a very dangerous thing," Trump said.

"Now what they do is they use prosecutors... look, I've gotten through in five years more investigations than Al Capone, Jesse James, and Billy the Kid put together. If I fly over Democrat states in my aeroplane, I end up before a grand jury. It's a disgrace.

"The people of this country aren't going to take it," Trump added. "They've weaponized law enforcement, they've weaponized the AGs in the states, and the Attorney General, and the district attorneys. I mean, it's such a horrible thing that they're doing."

Despite being linked to a number of murders during his time as a prohibition-era mobster, Capone was only jailed over charges of tax fraud.

Hunter Biden is under a federal investigation over his finances, including claims of money laundering and alleged business dealings with foreign countries, including China, which he denies.

President Biden is not implicated in the investigation.

Trump is facing a number of criminal and civil investigations, but has not been charged or indicted in any of them.

These include allegations he committed a crime with his attempts to stop Congress certifying the election results in favor of Biden on January 6. Trump is also being investigated for alleged election interference in relation to a phone call he had with Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which the former president asked him to "find" 11,780 votes to overturn Biden's win in the state.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is also looking into allegations of tax fraud at The Trump Organization.

Elsewhere during the Hannity interview, Trump suggested former Attorney General Bill Barr refused to look into his baseless claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election because he was worried about getting impeached.

Barr resigned as attorney general in December 2020 over Trump's false insistence the election was rigged, soon after revealing the Justice Department had found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Follow this link:

Donald Trump Says He Has Faced More Investigations Than Al Capone - Newsweek

A series of 13 studies with over 10,000 participants tested the change in Americans prejudice following the presidency of Donald Trump. The researchers found that explicit racial and religious prejudice increased amongst Trumps supporters, while prejudice decreased among those who opposed him. This research was published in Nature Human Behavior.

In recent decades, there has been a downward trend in prejudice toward racial and religious minorities. However, some studies suggest that racial and religious prejudice had a critical role in Trumps presidential victory. While some commentators have suggested that numerous trends following the 2016 elections (e.g., increases in reports of hate crimes, minorities reporting more discrimination) point toward a rise in racial and religious prejudice in America, others have argued that these increases may be a consequence of increased national attention to issues of prejudice. Other commentators from both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that even if there has been a rise in discrimination, it only reflects extremist fringe groups, rather than the broader American population.

In this work, Benjamin C. Ruisch and Melissa J. Ferguson examine whether a single counter-normative public figure, and his widespread acceptance by a large portion of the American people, can lead to large-scale changes in social norms and societal prejudices.

The authors tested two key predictions. First, that racial and religious prejudice significantly increased among Trump supporters but not other Americans. Second, that increase in prejudice reflected the increased acceptability of expressing prejudice (i.e., changes in social norms).

Studies 1-9 were multi-year longitudinal studies involving over 1000 participants, examining the the breadth and depth of changes in prejudice across various target groups and measure types. At Time 1, they included at least one measure of prejudice and various questions assessing views on social and political issues. Time 2 measures were nearly identical, and also included a question regarding support for Donald Trump.

The researchers included a wide range of measures on political ideology, political party identification, perceptions of the US economy, perceived threat and political knowledge/sophistication, as well as demographic characteristics such as age, gender, race, education and income. As well, they looked at environmental factors, including income inequality, racial diversity and voter turnout in participants home counties by extracting this information based on participants geographic location.

Study 9 included data from the VOTER survey conducted by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group and YouGov. Responses on voting history, political attitudes, daily lives, social group memberships, health history and demographics from over 7500 participants who completed this survey in both 2016 and 2019 were included. These studies did not allow for the isolation of Trump support as a causal factor of changes in prejudice. However, they did allow the researchers to track changes before and after his political ascension, while statistically adjusting for over 80 possible predictors.

Using both correlational and experimental methodologies, Studies 10-13 included 1402 participants and were conducted for the purpose of providing support for a causal explanation.

Across Studies 1-9, Ruisch and Ferguson found that support for Donald Trump predicted a significant increase in prejudice towards a range of social, racial and religious minoritized groups. Those who generally opposed Trump, including liberals and conservatives, showed decreases in prejudice in the same time period. Studies 10-13 provided indirect support for the mechanism behind the shift in social norms.

Trump supporters perceived that expressing prejudice had become more acceptable since his election, and this perception predicted greater personal prejudice among them. As well, experimentally leading participants to feel that Trump supporters approved of his controversial rhetoric significantly increased Trump supporters personal expressions of prejudice .

The authors concluded, Together, this research suggests that the presidency of Donald Trump may have substantially reshaped the topography of prejudice in the United States.

The research, Changes in Americans prejudices during the presidency of Donald Trump, was authored by Benjamin C. Ruisch and Melissa J. Ferguson.

Read the original post:

Donald Trump's presidency associated with significant changes in the topography of prejudice in the United States - PsyPost

President Joe Biden's pollster says there's 'no indication' the president won't seek reelection in 2024, arguing that Democrats don't have an alternative who could beat former President Donald Trump.

"I think that a lot of us feel that if Trump runs, there's no one else that could beat Trump [other] than Joe Biden," John Anzalone told Politico's Ryan Lizzain an interview published on Friday.

As for whether or not Biden will actually run, Anzalone said there's "no indication that he won't run." Biden, who is already the oldest president in American history, has also refused to rule out a second term.

"I'd be very fortunate if I had that same man running against me," Biden recently told reporters.

Anzalone said the 2022 midterms are shaping up to be the "worst political environment" for Democrats of his lifetime. But the good news, Anzalone says, is that even with anemic approval ratings Biden is still leading Trump in a hypothetical 2024 rematch.

"You go head-to-head and Joe Biden's always ahead of him," Anzalone said. "Not by a lot one or two points. Even at his lowest approval rating, he still beats Donald Trump."

Trump is very publicly flirting with a 2024 run, even referring to himself as the 47th president. Some of his potential challengers for the GOP presidential nomination have pledged to not run if Trump decides to try to become the first president since Grover Cleveland to try to successfully reclaim the White House.

Biden's current numbers have sparked massive concerns among Democrats. According to the FiveThirtyEight's weighted average, the president has a 41.6% approval rating.

See the original post:

Biden's pollster suggests that only Biden could beat Trump in 2024 - Business Insider