Manchin and Sinema Screw Biden Yet Again, Give Trump Control of Labor Board
NEW YORK (AP) — The outgoing head of the nation’s top public health agency urged the next administration to maintain its focus and funding to keep Americans safe from emerging health threats. “We need to continue to do our global work at CDC to make sure we are stopping outbreaks at their source,” Dr. Mandy Cohen, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. “We need to keep that funding up. We need to keep the expertise up. We need to keep the diplomacy up.” Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.India’s fourteenth Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh passed away on Thursday at the age of 92. He was admitted to the AIIMS Delhi’s emergency unit after his health deteriorated. Singh, born on September 26, 1932, in Gah, Punjab (now in Pakistan), was one of the most prominent economic experts and political figures of the country. Before becoming the prime minister in 2004, Singh worked as an economic advisor, deputy chairman of the erstwhile planning commission, deputy governor in the Reserve Bank of India, chief economic adviser to the Government of India and more. Most notable of his work was his tenure as the Finance Minister under Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao’s government in 1991 and was most famous for the liberalization privatization and globalization (LPG) reforms in 1991. Below is a detailed timeline of his life and career from his birth to his death: Birth And Early Life On September 26, 1932, Dr. Manmohan Singh was born in Gah, a village in present-day Pakistan, to a Sikh family. After the partition of India in 1947, Singh and his family migrated to India, settling in Amritsar, Punjab. He completed his schooling in Amritsar and later moved to Delhi for higher education. In 1952, he pursued a Bachelor's degree in Economics from Panjab University in Chandigarh later completed his Master's degree in Economics from the prestigious University of Cambridge in the UK from 1954 to 1957. Post that, he earned a Doctor of Philosophy in Economics from the University of Oxford. Career From 1957 to 1965, Singh worked as a lecturer in Economics at Panjab University, Chandigarh. From 1969 to 1971, Singh worked as the professor of International Trade at Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University. From 1971 to 1972, he was the economic adviser with the Ministry of Foreign Trade. With his master over the craft, in 1976 he was appointed as the Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of India, contributing to the economic policy-making process. In 1982, Singh returned to RBI as a Deputy Governor Three years later, he was appointed as the Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and in 1987 he became the Secretary of the Department of Economic Affairs in the Ministry of Finance. As The Finance Minister The 1990s were a pivotal time for the Indian economy and Singh was the finance minister under Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao’s government. He was the architect of India's landmark economic reforms, which turned the economic landscape of India. One of the most notable contributions of Dr Singh was the the liberalization privatization and globalization or the LPG policy which opened the economic doors of India to the foreign world. Under his leadership as the FM, India witnessed substantial economic growth, moving from a closed, highly regulated economy to a market-driven one. He also worked to control India's fiscal deficit and stabilised the economy by adopting sound macroeconomic policies. As The PM Singh became the 14th Prime Minister of India after the Congress Party’s victory in the general elections. His tenure marks a shift towards further liberalization and modernization of the Indian economy. During his tenure, India experienced robust economic growth, averaging 8–9 per cent GDP growth per year. In 2005, Singh was instrumental in the landmark civil nuclear deal with the United States, which allowed India to access nuclear technology despite not being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Singh’s government emphasised rural development, social security programs, and the implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), which guarantees employment for rural workers. In 2009, he was re-elected as Prime Minister after the Congress Party won the general elections again. His second term continues the focused on inclusive economic growth and managing the global financial crisis of 2008. While remaining a Member of Parliament (MP) from 2014 to 2019, he largely stayed out of the public spotlight, occasionally commenting on key national issues such as economic reforms, the state of the Indian economy, and global affairs. Throughout his career, Dr Singh earned numerous accolades, including India’s second-highest civilian honor, the Padma Vibhushan (1987), the Asia Money Award for Finance Minister of the Year (1993, 1994), and the Euro Money Award for Finance Minister of the Year (1993). He was also the recipient of honorary degrees from several prestigious universities, including Cambridge and Oxford.That displeasure tracks with the bipartisan uproar in Washington that ignited over the president's about-face. The survey found that a relatively small share of Americans "strongly" or "somewhat" approve of the pardon, which came after the younger Biden was convicted on gun and tax charges. About half said they "strongly" or "somewhat" disapprove, and about 2 in 10 neither approve nor disapprove. The Democratic president said repeatedly that he would not use his pardon power for the benefit of his family, and the White House continued to insist, even after Republican Donald Trump's election win in November, that Biden's position had not changed — until it suddenly did. "I know it's not right to believe politicians as far as what they say compared to what they do, but he did explicitly say, 'I will not pardon my son,'" said Peter Prestia, a 59-year-old Republican from Woodland Park, New Jersey, just west of New York City, who said he strongly disagreed with the move. "So, it's just the fact that he went back on his word." In issuing a pardon Dec. 1, Biden argued that the Justice Department had presided over a "miscarriage of justice" in prosecuting his son. The president used some of the same kind of language that Trump does to describe the criminal cases against him and his other legal predicaments. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said it was a decision that Biden struggled with but came to shortly before he made the announcement, "because of how politically infected these cases were" as well as "what his political opponents were trying to do." The poll found that about 4 in 10 Democrats approve of the pardon, while about 3 in 10 disapprove and about one-quarter did not have an opinion or did not know enough to say. The vast majority of Republicans and about half of independents had a negative opinion. For some, it was easy to see family taking priority over politics. "Do you have kids?" asked Robert Jenkins, a 63-year-old Democrat who runs a lumber yard and gas station in Gallipolis, Ohio. "You're gonna leave office and not pardon your kid? I mean, it's a no-brainer to me." But Prestia, who is semiretired from working for a digital marketing conglomerate, said Biden would have been better off not making promises. Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS Feed | SoundStack | All Of Our Podcasts "He does have that right to pardon anybody he wants. But he just should have kept his mouth shut, and he did it because it was before the election, so it's just a bold-faced lie," Prestia said. Despite the unpopularity of his decision, the president's approval rating has not shifted meaningfully since before his party lost the White House to Trump. About 4 in 10 Americans "somewhat" or "strongly" approve of the way Biden is handling his job as president, which is about where his approval rating stood in AP-NORC polls since January 2022. Still, the pardon keeps creating political shock waves, with Republicans, and even some top Democrats, decrying it. Older adults are more likely than younger ones to approve of Biden's pardoning his son, according to the poll, though their support is not especially strong. About one-third of those ages 60 and older approve, compared with about 2 in 10 adults under 60. The age divide is driven partially by the fact that younger adults are more likely than older ones to say they neither approve nor disapprove of the pardon or that they do not know enough to say. About 6 in 10 white adults disapprove of the pardon, compared with slightly less than half of Hispanic adults and about 3 in 10 Black adults. Relatively large shares of Black and Hispanic Americans — about 3 in 10 — were neutral, the poll found. "Don't say you're gonna do something and then fall back," said Trinell Champ, 43, a Democrat from Nederland, Texas, who works in the home health industry and said she disapproved of the pardon. "At the end of the day, all you have is your word." Champ, who is Black, voted for Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump. "I just had my hopes up for her, but I wasn't 100% positive," she said. Champ also said she does not approve of Biden's handling of the presidency and thinks the country is on the wrong track. "While he was in office, I felt like I really didn't see a lot of changes," she said. "I just felt like everything just kind of stayed the same," Champ said. Overall, though, the pardon did not appear to be a driving factor in many Americans' assessment of Biden's job performance. The share of Black Americans who approve of the way he is handling his job as president did fall slightly since October, but it is hard to assess what role the pardon may have played.
Fully half of the best films ever —from Charlie Chaplin’s to Claude Lanzmann’s—are replete with cinematic selfies. Yet they are rare over all, perhaps because the camera is an unflinching diagnostician. The medium admits self-portraiture with obvious ease (just step in front of the camera), but few filmmakers can withstand its penetrating gaze, which is surely why the practice self-selects toward the masters of the art. In the newest release to take up the challenge, Leos Carax’s “It’s Not Me,” the French director approaches the genre as a mosaic. He presents an audiovisual collage in which he only occasionally appears, made up of archival film clips and still photos, music and voice-overs, title cards and effects, and some newly filmed footage. With these elements, he forms a thematic and emotional self-portrait, delving into his personal life, taking stock of his career, and reflecting on art, politics, family, and the cinema as a form of self-discovery. Carax, who is sixty-four, has been making films since 1980 and made his first feature, “ Boy Meets Girl ,” in 1984. His early career was meteoric. By 1991, he had directed two movies (“ Bad Blood ” and “The Lovers on the Bridge”) of breathtakingly grand-scale inspiration, but he has made only three features since (most recently, “ Annette ,” from 2021). His ambitions, formed by spectacular golden-age classics and by the moderns’ uninhibited artistry, have run up against the realities of the economy and the psychology of contemporary cinema—its all-too-common division of industrial power and artistic intent. Yet his presence in the world of film—even when it takes the form of his absence—has, alongside his output, made him an exemplary outlier, a living myth, albeit a reticent one. He doesn’t so much cultivate a public image as he bears it, as something of an Icarus of romantically visionary designs. With “It’s Not Me,” Carax confronts the aberration of celebrity (even art-house celebrity) by means of a cinematic self-creation that’s both a matter of sincere reticence and an audaciously assertive work of art. “It’s Not Me” (now playing in theatres and available for purchase on Amazon and other sites, and, as of January 1st, streaming on the Criterion Channel) is as elusive as the title suggests. It’s a barely feature-length film, which originated as a commission from the Pompidou Center. Though only forty-two minutes long, it’s crowded with images and ideas, like a collection of keepsakes overflowing the little chest of drawers in which they’re kept. It’s also mercurially allusive, with its teeming material jammed together associatively, in an impressionistic whirl of abrupt transitions and superimpositions. Yet, as digressive as its surface seems, an artist’s sense of creative organization is at work. Elements are gathered together thematically and, subtly but surely, a chronological arc emerges. The result is a classical autobiography built of fragments and gaps—less a collection than a personal constellation. The title “It’s Not Me” may seem like a puckishly implausible denial, yet it’s accurate. The film, a shy director’s self-portrait, is filled with things that aren’t Carax but that make him who he is, whether memories or ideas, phrases or images, worldly deeds and works of art—especially, of course, movies. A crucial element of modernism is the endnote—as typified by T. S. Eliot’s “ The Waste Land ”—as a vital aesthetic element, linking a sometimes cryptic art work to the cultural precedents on which it depends and to which it subtly refers. That’s the tacit premise on which “It’s Not Me” runs, and its equivalent of Eliot’s endnotes are the credits, which detail all the films and music on which Carax draws. There are clips from thirty-one movies, including Eadweard Muybridge’s primordial motion studies, F. W. Murnau’s “Sunrise,” Nicholas Ray’s “Bigger Than Life,” Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo,” and much of Carax’s own work. The soundtrack features Miles Davis, Prokofiev, Beethoven, and musicians who have figured in Carax’s films, such as Kylie Minogue, Sparks, and, of course, David Bowie, whose song “Modern Love” anchored an unforgettable set piece in “Bad Blood.” Early on, Carax shows himself in bed, accompanied by an allusion to the opening of “Swann’s Way,” and his vision of himself reaches back before firsthand memory, to his conception (featuring egg-related clips from “Bad Blood” and Ernst Lubitsch’s “The Marriage Circle”) and his family origins. His story and his family’s reach into the crises of the twentieth century and into contemporary politics. There are images of Shostakovich, Hitler, and clips that include documentary footage of an infamous 1939 pro-Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden (and its interruption by a young man outraged by the antisemitism on display). There is a segment showing politicians whom Carax deems to be possessed of “hate,” such as Xi Jinping, Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Bashar al-Assad, and Vladimir Putin. (“They all claim to be humiliated and offended,” he notes.) There’s an astoundingly appalling bedtime story about Hitler and death camps; an extended lament on widespread indifference to migrants whose corpses wash up on European beaches; and visions of resistance, including documentary footage of Pussy Riot, and the French Resistance as personified by one of its heroes, Jean Moulin. Carax riffs on his father’s identity, and the sense of paternity on display extends to “bad” movie fathers like ones played by James Mason, Robert Mitchum, and Adam Driver (in Carax’s “Annette”). Another of Carax’s cited father figures is Jean-Luc Godard, whose presence is felt throughout: the soundtrack even features a phone message Godard left for Carax asking him to call back, and the very nature of the project is reminiscent of Godard’s self-portrait film “JLG/JLG.” There are differences, of course; unlike Carax, Godard was a character, acting often in his own films and those of others, and he cultivated his public image with an artistic aplomb. Still, the similarities are felt, stylistically and technically, in the collage-like form and the free manipulation of archival images—and, above all, in a shared sense of audacious yet exquisite aestheticism yoked to a strain of refined, resolute insolence. Carax’s art is exemplified with clips of ecstatic and intimate performances that he has elicited from regular collaborators, such as Julie Delpy, Juliette Binoche, Michel Piccoli, Denis Lavant, and Carax’s late partner, Katerina Golubeva. Her death, in 2011, haunts the film and hovers over Carax’s depiction of their daughter, Nastya, seen in home movies as a small child and, as an adult, as an accomplished pianist. (Carax uses special effects to transform a performance of her into a gothic extravaganza.) He interrogates himself, in particular, as director of actresses, through the self-accusingly melancholy lens of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s story “The Birth-Mark,” about a murderous quest for perfect beauty. While following his own life cinematically, Carax includes reflections on the art itself—in particular, his view of the lost grandeur of its classics, which he has sought to recapture with modern means. He discusses “the gaze of the gods” offered by the heavy equipment of the silent-film era, comparing it ruefully with the meekness of lightweight modern technology. He draws a similarly self-deprecating contrast between the laborious wonder that film of motion represented for the nineteenth-century pioneer Muybridge and the ease of modern motion capture as depicted ( and transfigured ) in his own movie “ Holy Motors .” In an extended sequence, launched by a poetic riff on blinking, he links today’s inexhaustible profusion of images with a metaphorical form of blindness. The movie concludes with a sequence of astounding, giddy inspiration. After the endnote-like credits comes an ingenious mashup of Carax’s celebrated “Modern Love” sequence in “Bad Blood” with his most recent feature, “Annette.” It’s a fusion of the classic and the modern, the spectacular and the whimsical, the boldly fictional and the self-effacingly metafictional. It’s no mere happenstance that Carax places this set piece after his modernist endnotes—it’s a whiplash assertion that the naming of his self-defining obsessions is beside the point. The movie’s referential fragmentation is secondary to its unity as an experience. What’s most personal about “It’s Not Me” is what can’t be sourced in the credits: the art of the cinema itself. ♦ New Yorker Favorites A man was murdered in cold blood and you’re laughing ? The best albums of 2024. Little treats galore: a holiday gift guide . How Maria Callas lost her voice . An objectively objectionable grammatical pet peeve . What happened when the Hallmark Channel “ leaned into Christmas .” Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .Google reportedly asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to end Microsoft ’s exclusive agreement to host OpenAI ’s technology on its cloud servers. The company did so after the agency asked it about Microsoft’s business practices as part of a broader investigation, The Information reported Tuesday (Dec. 10), citing an unnamed source. Reached by PYMNTS, the FTC, Google and Microsoft declined to comment on the report. OpenAI did not immediately reply to PYMNTS’ request for comment. Cloud service providers like Google want to be able to host OpenAI’s AI models so that their customers can access that technology without having to access Microsoft servers, Reuters reported Wednesday (Dec. 11), citing The Information’s paywalled article. Companies that buy OpenAI’s technology through Microsoft may see additional charges if they don’t use the company’s servers to run their operations , according to the report . It was reported in November that the FTC was set to investigate allegedly anticompetitive practices at Microsoft’s cloud computing business. The regulator will focus on allegations that the tech giant illegally uses the market power of its Office 365 productivity software to benefit its Azure cloud service, Reuters reported Nov. 14. The Financial Times reported the same day that the probe had not yet reached the stage where the FTC would formally request information from Microsoft. After reports surfaced that details of an antitrust investigation into the tech giant were leaked , Microsoft formally requested an investigation into the FTC. The company asked the FTC’s inspector general to examine whether senior management at the agency disclosed nonpublic information about the probe and to release its findings publicly. The FTC said in March 2023 that it was seeking comments on the business practices of cloud computing providers that could impact competition and data security. The agency said it was especially concerned about the reliance of certain segments of the economy on a handful of cloud service providers, the ability or inability of customers to negotiate their contracts with cloud providers, and incentives providers offer to use more than one of their services. In November 2023, the FTC said its request for information about cloud computing providers’ business practices raised “a number of issues.”
Consumer advocate, PUC, lawmakers set to tussle over state energy policy rolesFormer Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection, Lynda Tabuya (left) and Opposition Leader, Inia Seruiratu (right) Opposition Leader Inia Seruiratu has called for a thorough investigation into potential criminality and a possible cover-up related to the dismissal of former Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection Lynda Tabuya. While acknowledging the Prime Minister’s decision to remove Tabuya from her ministerial role, Seruiratu expressed concerns about the integrity of the former. The main issue raised by Seruiratu involves the misrepresentation of Tabuya’s marital status. Tabuya had previously declared that she had been divorced from Robert Semaan since 2016 which allowed her to exempt his assets from official declarations. However, Seruiratu stated that recent revelations suggest they are still married, casting doubt on her honesty and transparency. Seruiratu also pointed to the controversy surrounding a private video involving Tabuya, which has circulated widely. The video, which Tabuya has stated is a personal matter with her husband, contradicts her earlier claim of being divorced. Seruiratu said that these contradictions further undermine her credibility and trust with the public. Another concern highlighted by Seruiratu is Tabuya’s role as co-chair of the National Taskforce to address Pornography in Fiji. Given the strict code of conduct required for such a position, Seruiratu argued that Tabuya’s involvement in this matter compromises her ability to lead efforts to combat pornography and protect children from online exploitation. Seruiratu also raised concerns about the influence of FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali in closing the investigation into Tabuya’s false declaration. He called for an investigation into whether Tabuya exerted any influence over Malimali to end the case, stressing the importance of maintaining the integrity of Fiji’s anti-corruption institutions. Seruiratu called for a transparent investigation into these matters to restore public trust. He emphasized the need for public officials to uphold the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability. He also stated that he would bring this matter to parliament to ensure it receives the attention it deserves. Meanwhile, FBC News has sent questions to Tabuya and Malimali regarding the concerns raised by Seruiratu.
UConn's Dan Hurley Blames 'S--ty Calls' for Loss to Memphis; Technical Foul a 'Joke'
None
Beginning New Year’s Day, Illinois workers making minimum wage will see wages rise by $1 and tipped workers will see their paychecks bump to $9 an hour. Youth workers under 18 who work fewer than 650 hours a year will have a $13 minimum wage. The final increase, ending a six-year ramp which began with the minimum wage rising from $8.25 to $9.25 on Jan. 1, 2020, puts a bow on Gov. JB Pritzker’s first major legislative victory. He signed the wage increase in February 2019 about a month after being sworn in for his first term, checking off a top campaign promise. “Since day one of my administration, I’ve made it my mission to build an economy that works for everyone and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour fulfills that promise to our working families,” Pritzker said in a statement. “This increase honors the workers who power our state and ensures they can better support their families, bringing us closer to a stronger, more equitable economy for all.” Illinois will be one of 10 states with a minimum wage of $15 or greater, according to the National Employment Law Project. Twenty-two other states are also increasing their wages on Jan. 1. The minimum wage increase is one of many economic changes that have happened since 2019, including effects of the pandemic, Illinois Chamber of Commerce CEO Lou Sandoval told Capitol News Illinois. He said those have caused businesses to adjust their operations in a variety of ways, such as increasing automation. “I think you’re starting to see businesses pivot in terms of how they’re adjusting,” Sandoval said. “You’re seeing this at the national chains.” Some restaurants, for example, are “moving away from larger sit-down areas into grab-and-go.” Illinois job growth has been slow since October 2019, according to a November report by the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. The state has seen a net increase of 28,700 jobs from October 2019 through October 2024. That’s a growth rate of 0.5%, compared to the national rate of 4.9%. The rate of new job postings by businesses at the beginning of the year will shed some light on how the jump to $15 on Jan. 1 is impacting business operations, Sandoval said. To help small businesses with the change, the state provides a tax credit through 2027 to businesses with 50 or fewer employees for wages paid to minimum-wage workers. The 2019 minimum wage law marked the first increase since the wage hit $8.25 in 2010. Senate Majority Leader Kimberly Lightford, D-Westchester, introduced a bill to raise it to $15 an hour in 2017 that was passed by the General Assembly and vetoed by Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner. Lightford sponsored the initiative again in 2019. “As a state, we have helped countless workers make ends meet, reduce financial stress, and provide a more solid foundation for their futures,” Lightford said in a statement. “The $15 minimum wage is a testament to our commitment to economic justice and our belief that everyone who works full time deserves a living wage.” The value of a $15 minimum wage, however, has changed since lawmakers acted in 2019. A person making $8.25 in February 2019 would need to earn $10.30 today to have the same buying power after inflation, according to the Consumer Price Index. A $15 hourly wage today has the buying power that $12.02 had in February 2019. A person would need to make an $18.72 wage today to have the same buying power that $15 had in February 2019. Top Democrats didn’t say if they will push for new increases. “As a Senator of 25 years, history has shown my commitment of fighting to ensure workers are paid a living wage. That commitment still holds strong today,” Lightford said in an email statement. Pritzker said he supports ideas that will help workers make more money, but didn’t commit to supporting any plan to raise the minimum wage further when pressed about it at a news conference Dec. 11. “We always are thinking about how do you balance the need for higher wages with the needs that businesses have to hire people and do it affordably. But I think we did it the right way when we did it back in 2019,” Pritzker said. The new $15 wage equates to a 40-hour-per-week annual salary of $31,200 before taxes. That equals the federal government’s poverty level for a four-person household. The poverty level is $15,060 in a single-person household. But according to calculations in a national project by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, $15 hourly still doesn’t equate to a “living” wage in Illinois, based on U.S. Census Bureau cost of living and other cost estimates provided by federal agencies adjusted for inflation. A single adult with no children needs a $22.86 hourly salary to make a living wage in Illinois, while a two-parent household with two working adults and three children would each need to earn $31.69. In a two-parent household with one working adult and one child, the worker needs $36.49 to make a living wage, according to the MIT project. Inflation is making it hard for workers to benefit from wage increases, Sandoval said, adding rising wages also cause businesses to raise prices. “They might get the wage increase on one side, but their cost of living goes up accordingly,” Sandoval said.
Crookston Times Celebrates Local Nonprofits with Twelve Days of GivingNone
Special counsel Jack Smith moved to abandon two criminal cases against on Monday, acknowledging that Trump’s will preclude attempts to federally prosecute him for retaining classified documents or trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The decision was inevitable, since longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face Yet it was still a momentous finale to an unprecedented chapter in political and law enforcement history, as federal officials attempted to hold accountable a former president while he was simultaneously running for another term. Trump emerges indisputably victorious, having successfully delayed the investigations through legal maneuvers and then winning reelection despite indictments that described his actions as a threat to the country’s constitutional foundations. “I persevered, against all odds, and WON,” Trump exulted in a post on Truth Social, his social media website. He also said that “these cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought.” The judge in the election case granted prosecutors’ dismissal request. A decision in the documents case was still pending on Monday evening. The outcome makes it clear that, when it comes to a president and criminal accusations, nothing supersedes the voters’ own verdict. In court filings, Smith’s team emphasized that the move to end their prosecutions was not a reflection of the merit of the cases but a recognition of the legal shield that surrounds any commander in chief. “That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” prosecutors said in one of their filings. They wrote that Trump’s return to the White House “sets at odds two fundamental and compelling national interests: on the one hand, the Constitution’s requirement that the President must not be unduly encumbered in fulfilling his weighty responsibilities ... and on the other hand, the Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.” In this situation, “the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” they concluded. Smith’s team said it was leaving intact charges against two co-defendants in the classified documents case — Trump valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira — because “no principle of temporary immunity applies to them.” Steven Cheung, Trump’s incoming White House communications director, said Americans “want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.” Trump has long described the investigations as politically motivated, and he has vowed to fire Smith as soon as he takes office in January. Now he will start his second term free from criminal scrutiny by the government that he will lead. The election case brought last year was once seen as one of the most serious legal threats facing Trump as he tried to reclaim the White House. He was to Joe Biden in 2020, an effort that climaxed with his supporters’ violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But the case quickly stalled amid legal fighting over Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity from prosecution for acts he took while in the White House. The U.S. Supreme Court in July ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, and sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which allegations in the indictment, if any, could proceed to trial. The case was just beginning to pick up steam again in the trial court in the weeks leading up to this year’s election. Smith’s team in October filed a lengthy brief laying out new evidence it planned to use against him at trial, accusing him of “resorting to crimes” in an increasingly desperate effort to overturn the will of voters after he lost to Biden. In dismissing the case, Chutkan acknowledged prosecutors’ request to do so “without prejudice,” raising the possibility that they could try to bring charges against Trump when his term is over. She wrote that is “consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office.” But such a move may be barred by the statute of limitations, and Trump may also try to pardon himself while in office. The separate case involving classified documents had been widely seen as legally clear cut, especially because the conduct in question occurred after Trump left the White House and lost the powers of the presidency. The indictment included dozens of felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding classified records from his presidency at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and obstructing federal efforts to get them back. He has pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing. The case quickly became snarled by delays, with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon slow to issue rulings — which favored Trump’s strategy of pushing off deadlines in all his criminal cases — while also entertaining defense motions and arguments that experts said other judges would have dispensed with without hearings. In May, she indefinitely canceled the trial date amid a series of unresolved legal issues before dismissing the case outright two months later. Smith’s team appealed the decision, but now has given up that effort. Trump faced two other state prosecutions while running for president. One of them, a New York case involving hush money payments, on felony charges of falsifying business records. It was the first time a former president had been found guilty of a crime. The sentencing in that case is on hold as Trump’s lawyers try to have the conviction dismissed before he takes office, arguing that letting the verdict stand will interfere with his presidential transition and duties. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office is fighting the dismissal but has indicated that it would be until Trump leaves office. Bragg, a Democrat, has said the solution needs to balance the obligations of the presidency with “the sanctity of the jury verdict.” Trump was also indicted in Georgia along with 18 others accused of participating in a sprawling scheme to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election there. Any trial appears unlikely there while Trump holds office. The prosecution already after an appeals court agreed to review whether to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over her with the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case. Four defendants have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty.s the college football season reaches its thrilling conclusion, the Trophy debate has become a hot topic, with dominating the conversation. star , never one to shy away from controversy, has now added his voice to the mix. Parsons, fresh off helping his team secure a much-needed 34-26 victory over the Washington , took to social media to deliver his fiery take. The Cowboys' defensive leader didn't mince words, claiming, "We shouldn't even be discussing the Heisman!!! is the Heisman winner!!" The statement raised eyebrows, not only because of its boldness but also because Hunter remains the favorite for the prestigious award, boasting impressive odds of -400 compared to Jeanty's +400. Still, ' declaration has sparked a heated debate among fans and analysts alike. The ' win on Sunday was a pivotal moment in their season, snapping a five-game losing streak and temporarily silencing speculation about tanking for better draft prospects. Despite Parsons' insistence that Dallas wouldn't throw games for draft capital, questions linger about the team's future moves. With early mock drafts suggesting Jeanty could be a realistic pick for the , Parsons' endorsement carries added weight. The Boise State running back has shown tremendous promise and would fill a significant need for Dallas. However, Hunter's unique two-way abilities as both a cornerback and receiver could make him an irresistible option for any team drafting higher. Will Dallas embrace the tank? The ' draft strategy remains uncertain. If their Thanksgiving clash against the New York Giants results in another win, it could take them out of the running for top-tier prospects like Hunter. On the other hand, a poor finish to the season might position them to land the star, whose versatility has been lauded as a once-in-a-generation talent. As the NFL season pushes toward its postseason and college football nears its climactic awards ceremony, all eyes will be on how these narratives unfold. For now, Micah Parsons' passionate endorsement has ensured that Jeanty remains in the spotlight-and perhaps on the Cowboys' radar come draft day.