The criminal cases against Donald Trump are now basically dead
President-elect Donald Trump was indicted four times — including two indictments arising out of his failed attempt to steal the 2020 election. One of these indictments even yielded a conviction, albeit on 34 relatively minor charges of falsifying business records.
But the extraordinary protections the American system gives to sitting presidents will ensure that Trump won’t be going to prison. He’s going to the White House instead.
The federal charges against Trump are doomed
Two of the indictments against Trump are federal, and two were brought by state prosecutors in New York and Georgia. The federal indictments (one about Trump’s role in fomenting the January 6 insurrection, and the other about his handling of classified documents) are the most immediately vulnerable. Once Donald Trump becomes president, he will have full command and control over the US Department of Justice, and can simply order it to drop all the federal charges against him. Once he does, those cases will simply go away.
The White House does have a longstanding norm of non-interference with criminal prosecutions, but this norm is nothing more than that — a voluntary limit that past presidents placed on their own exercise of power in order to prevent politicization of the criminal justice system. As president, Trump is under no constitutional obligation to obey this norm. He nominates the attorney general, and he can fire the head of the Justice Department at any time.
Indeed, Trump is reportedly considering Judge Aileen Cannon, a judge who has consistently tried to sabotage one of the Justice Department’s prosecutions of Trump, to be the next US attorney general. Cannon, who oversees Trump’s federal classified documents’ trial, even tried to disrupt the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump before he was indicted. There’s no indication that her apparent loyalty to Trump would diminish if she becomes the nation’s top prosecutor.
The fate of the state charges is a little more uncertain, but they are unlikely to amount to anything either
The fate of the state charges against Trump is a little more uncertain, in large part because there’s never been a state indictment of a sitting president before, so there are no legal precedents governing what happens if a state attempts such a prosecution (or, in the case of New York, to impose a serious sentence on a president who was already convicted).
It is highly unlikely that the state prosecutions can move forward, however, at least until Trump leaves office. On the federal level, the Department of Justice has long maintained that it cannot indict a sitting president for a variety of practical reasons: The burden of defending against criminal charges would diminish the president’s ability to do their job, as would the “public stigma and opprobrium occasioned by the initiation of criminal proceedings.” Additionally, if the president were incarcerated, that would make it “physically impossible for the president to carry out his duties.”
There’s little doubt that the current Supreme Court, which recently held that Trump is immune to prosecution for many crimes he committed while in office, would embrace the Justice Department’s reasoning. The Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, the immunity case, rested on the Republican justices’ belief that, if a president could be indicted for official actions taken in office, he “would be chilled from taking the ‘bold and unhesitating action’ required of an independent Executive.”
The kind of justices who favor such “bold and unhesitating action” over ensuring presidential accountability to the law are unlikely to tolerate a prosecution of a sitting president.
These same practical considerations would apply with equal force to a state prosecution of a president, and there’s also one other reason why a constitutional limit on state indictments of the president makes sense. Without such a limit, a state led by the president’s political enemies could potentially bring frivolous criminal charges against that president.
This argument may not seem particularly compelling when applied to a convicted criminal like Donald Trump. But imagine if, say, Ron DeSantis’s Florida had attempted to indict, try, and imprison President Joe Biden. Or if the state of Mississippi had indicted President Lyndon Johnson to punish him for signing civil rights legislation that ended Jim Crow.
In constitutional law, the same rule that applies to liberal democratic presidents like Biden or Johnson must also apply to an anti-democratic president like Trump.
One open question is whether Trump could be incarcerated during the lame-duck period before he is sworn into office. The only state that could conceivably do this is New York, as that is the only place where Trump has been convicted. Trump is currently scheduled for a sentencing hearing on November 26 in that case.
The question of whether an already-convicted president-elect can be incarcerated is unique — this situation has thankfully never arisen before in US history, so there’s no definitive law on this subject. But it’s worth noting that neither the New York prosecutors nor the judge overseeing this case have pushed for a quick sentencing process. Judge Juan Merchan chose to delay sentencing until after the election, and the prosecution did not oppose this move. Merchan may decide to delay matters even further now that Trump has won the election.
And even if the sentencing does move forward, the charges against Trump in New York are relatively minor, and could only result in him being fined or sentenced to probation.
Again, there’s never been a state prosecution of a sitting president before, so there are no precedents to rely on here. It’s possible that, once Trump leaves office, New York or Georgia (the other state with an open case against Trump) may try to resume its long-pending prosecutions against him — although that assumes that the 78-year-old Trump survives his second term in office, and that these states still have the will to prosecute him four years from now.
The bottom line is that these prosecutions are likely dead. And they are almost certainly going nowhere for the next four years.
Dave Portnoy releases Zach Bryan diss track after country singer’s ugly breakup with Barstool host
Dave Portnoy made it clear there is no love lost between him and "lyin' Zach Bryan" after the country singer's messy split with Brianna "Chickenfry" LaPaglia.
nypost.com
Rachel Bilson laughs off 1 similarity she shares with ex Adam Brody’s hit ‘Nobody Wants This’
The "O.C." alum told The Post there is one aspect of others' online dating profiles that interests her the most.
nypost.com
China officially 'doesn't care' about Trump win; unofficially, experts say Beijing is rattled
China's initial response to President-elect Trump's victory was matter of fact, but experts say Xi Jinping will be closely watching Trump's words and actions.
foxnews.com
Lawfare versus Trump falls apart as he wins the presidency again
Donald Trump's victory was the largest jury verdict that some of us anticipated for years of unrelenting weaponization of the legal system.
nypost.com
Trump proposed big Medicaid and food stamp cuts. Can he pass them?
President-elect Donald Trump, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance (R-OH), and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) at the Republican National Convention in 2024. Johnson and Vance will have to shepherd any safety net cuts through Congress. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images Now that it is clear Donald Trump will become president again and will have a Republican Senate and almost certainly a Republican House to back him, it’s important to ask: What will he do with these majorities? And given his track record last time, what will it mean for poor Americans and the programs they rely on? The last time Donald Trump won the presidency, in 2016, I wrote a piece predicting a huge rollback of the safety net. The Affordable Care Act, with its massive expansion of Medicaid and patient protections, would be repealed; Medicaid itself would see its funding slashed and its guarantee of coverage to poor people eliminated; food stamps would be cut deep and maybe turned over to the states, much as welfare for single parents was in 1996, largely destroying that program. I was wrong. Trump, and especially then-House Speaker Paul Ryan, did try to do all of that, but in the end enough Republicans realized that repealing the Affordable Care Act wasn’t viable. Medicaid and food stamps survived more or less intact. A Democratic House after the 2018 midterms and, more importantly, a global pandemic, meant that by 2020, the safety net was significantly stronger than it had been in 2016. I do not know that the same scenario will play out in 2025, and I certainly hope the pandemic part does not repeat. But despite the devastating electoral blow to Democrats, there are reasons for safety net supporters to be optimistic. The Senate is solidly Republican but not a total blowout, and four defections would be enough for a bill to fail. With Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, who opposed Obamacare repeal in 2017, still in the chamber, it’s not difficult to imagine them and two allies blocking serious changes again. The House results will not be known exactly for weeks but look, if anything, closer. And while House Speaker Mike Johnson surely wants to slash the safety net, he is not Paul Ryan. Shrinking government is not his all-consuming passion the way it was for 2017’s House speaker, who once famously said he dreamed of cutting Medicaid while drinking out of kegs as a college student. Here’s what Republicans might attempt to do to safety net programs, and why achieving it might be difficult. Health care programs will shrink, but serious cuts will be challenging to pass On health care, Republicans have one victory that’s more or less baked in. As part of the 2021 stimulus package, Joe Biden and the Democratic Congress adopted expanded subsidies for the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces. If you were an individual or small business buying private insurance, the tax credits you received to offset premiums were larger. Subsidies were no longer cut off for people making over 400 percent of the poverty line (about $125,000 for a family of four), and subsidies for people below that were made more generous. These provisions were later extended through the end of 2025 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. It’s hard to imagine a Republican Congress voting to extend these measures past next year, though insurance companies will certainly lobby for it. Trump’s past budgets have also zeroed out subsidies for private health insurance entirely, which would be a much larger shift. But subsidies for private insurance are a relatively small part of federal spending on health care. This fiscal year, they amount to $125 billion — very significant, but piddling next to $858 billion on Medicare and $607 billion on Medicaid. Trump has promised not to cut Medicare, much as he did in 2016, and while his budgets as president did envision spending reductions, they were mostly minor and came from cutting provider payments rather than limiting eligibility. He did, repeatedly and explicitly, propose cutting Medicaid. The most recent Trump budget to explicitly lay out its plans, for fiscal year 2020, entailed at least $1.1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act over a decade, per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). At that time, the agency was projecting $6.2 trillion in 10-year spending on non-Medicare health programs, meaning Trump was calling for a cut of over 17 percent. Trump waffled on how clear he wanted to be in calling for Medicaid cuts. His 2021 budget was too vague for the CBO to even model. But when he was clear, the proposals had three steps: Repeal the ACA’s Medicaid coverage expansion and replace it with a “block grant” for states to spend how they like on health programs. Place a “per capita cap” on the rest of Medicaid, meaning states would only be granted a set amount per covered person by the federal government, regardless of what health care they actually received. Impose a work requirement, specifically to “require able-bodied, working-age individuals to find employment, train for work, or volunteer” in order to receive Medicaid. What unites these proposals, especially the per-capita cap and block grant, is that they mean Congress and the White House don’t have to make granular decisions about who specifically is covered and for what. They can simply cut spending and pass decisions on how to spend what’s left to the states. Without knowing the exact cap and block grant amounts for the future, it’s hard to say exactly how big these cuts would be, but the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Gideon Lukens and Allison Orris analyzed how Medicaid would’ve been cut if per-capita caps had been put in place in 2018. By 2020, most states would’ve had to slash spending on disabled enrollees (by 12 percent in Pennsylvania and 13 percent in Kentucky); seniors would have seen cuts in 21 states, including cuts of around 17 percent in California; children would have seen cuts in 28 states. The point here is not the specific numbers but that the idea can, in practice, amount to very significant reductions in resources for the program. There is not much room to cut Medicaid without reducing access to the program. Physicians are already paid about 28 percent less by Medicaid than by Medicare, and Medicare in turn pays roughly 22 percent less than private insurers. Medicaid, in other words, pays maybe half of what private insurance pays. Further cuts to prices paid to providers would almost certainly reduce the number who accept the program, making it that much harder for poor people to find care. More likely, states would respond to federal cuts by restricting eligibility and kicking people off the program. Whether Trump can make these plans a reality depends strongly on what moderate Republicans (like Murkowski and Collins in the Senate and Don Bacon and David Valadao in the House) feel about them. While we don’t know margins for sure right now, it’s looking like Republicans will have 53 Senate seats and fewer than 225 House seats (they need 218 to pass a bill there). That means that even a very small number of defections would be enough to defeat legislation, even legislation that is advanced through the budget reconciliation process and thus needs only 50 Senate votes plus Vice President-elect JD Vance’s tie-breaker. Murkowski and Collins alone wouldn’t be able to sink a Medicaid cuts bill, but they would only need two other defections to help them. Remember that in 2017, the bill that Sen. John McCain famously killed with them by making a thumbs-down motion on the Senate floor was the so-called “skinny repeal,” which would have only repealed the individual mandate and a few other provisions. The idea was that this bill could then go to a conference committee with the House’s Obamacare repeal bill, where they’d hash out a compromise measure. Some Republicans who voted for the skinny repeal, like Lindsey Graham and Ron Johnson, did so only after being promised that the House’s bill, which included deep Medicaid cuts, would never become law. There was rather deep opposition to passing sweeping cuts, even outside the three Republicans who blocked the Senate bill. As West Virginia Republican Shelley Moore Capito said that summer, “I did not come to Washington to hurt people.” All this suggests to me that getting 50 votes for sweeping Medicaid cuts in the Senate will be rather difficult. More difficult still might be the House, where Republicans will have to defend a number of seats where Harris won and where candidates will not want to enter 2026 midterms with votes to shred Medicaid hanging on them like albatrosses. Food stamps face brutal cuts The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), colloquially called food stamps, is perhaps the most important safety net program for the very poor. Seventy-five percent of recipients are at or below the poverty line, and over one in five report having no other source of income besides food stamps. The share of single parents living on less than $2 a day is nearly 10 percent before you include SNAP benefits. Food stamps take the number below 3 percent, slashing it by over two-thirds. Because the program grew out of efforts to prop up crop prices by redirecting “surplus” crops to poor people, it is the province of the Department of Agriculture, and is renewed every five years in a “farm bill” controlled by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. The last farm bill, that of 2018, expired on September 30 of this year, meaning that writing a new farm bill will be one of Congress’s main priorities early next year. Glenn Thompson, the Republican chair of the House Ag Committee, released his proposed farm bill in May. Its most striking provision would limit the ability of the Department of Agriculture to update its Thrifty Food Plan, upon which SNAP benefit levels are based. This would amount to a $30 billion cut over a decade, and is a response to the Biden administration updating the Thrifty Food Plan, which resulted in a nearly 30 percent hike in benefit levels. Trump’s past budgets have envisioned much more sweeping cuts. His last one proposed a nearly 30 percent cut to the program, including new work requirements on top of those already in the program and a plan to shift a big share of the program into a “Harvest Box,” a plan in which households would not get to choose the food they buy but instead be sent a monthly box of shelf-stable foods that the government picks. Realistically, I suspect the Harvest Box plan in particular will struggle to get traction, in part because major retailers like Walmart and Kroger rely on revenue from customers using food stamps and will fight efforts to redirect funds from them to government provision of food. What’s more, farm bills usually go through regular order, meaning that they’re subject to the filibuster and will need Democratic support in the Senate, which will not be forthcoming for sweeping cuts. That said, Trump has been consistent about wanting to restrict SNAP as a program and will have Ag Committee chairs in both houses who are broadly on his side. The potential for sharp cuts is definitely present. The 2021 child tax credit is gone, but the credit might improve all the same An area where Trump is unlikely to sign sweeping cuts and might even oversee modest expansions is the child tax credit. Kamala Harris ran on reviving the 2021 version of the child tax credit, which expanded it from $2,000 to as much as $3,600 per child and for the first time made it fully refundable, so poor Americans could benefit even if they were out of work. She also proposed a “baby bonus” of $6,000 to families with newborns. Those dreams are dead for at least the next four years. But with the 2017 Trump tax cuts expiring next year, including their doubling of the child credit from $1,000 to $2,000, changes are likely coming to the credit all the same. While returning to 2021 is impossible, it’s likely that the end result will direct more money to poor Americans than the credit does under current law. Republicans have been insistent that any credit include a “phase-in,” or a provision stating that families must have some earnings to receive the child tax credit. But within that framework, they’ve expressed openness to increasing the amount working families receive. JD Vance notably called for a $5,000 baby bonus, only to be one-upped by Harris’s $6,000 bid. This past year, Republican Jason Smith, the chair of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, cut a deal with Democrat Ron Wyden, the outgoing chair of the Senate Finance Committee, to expand the child credit by altering the way it phases in. Smith will still be the head tax-writer in 2025 and is likely to push for this provision to stay in. The complication is that Republicans face a wide array of expiring tax provisions next year, and while some, like incoming Senate Finance Committee chair Mike Crapo, suggest they don’t want to pay for extending those provisions, the reality of higher interest rates (meaning government deficits are now more costly to run) suggests that they probably can’t pass everything they want. Given a wish list that runs from extending those cuts to exempting tips and Social Security income from taxation to letting people deduct interest on car loans, that means that expensive provisions like child tax credit expansions will likely get squeezed. It’s hard to say what exactly will make it into the final package. One of the least-trumpeted changes of the past half-century is the steady growth of America’s safety net. In 1979, the average lower-income American got $5,300 from government programs aimed at poor people. In 2019, that number was $15,800. America’s commitment to poor people more than tripled, and the result was a marked reduction in poverty. Trump’s reelection threatens that trend. But his first term, and those of Presidents Bush and Reagan before him, were not enough to reverse it. There are reasons to think it could continue even through the next four years.
vox.com
Michael J. Fox shares rare photos of his and Tracy Pollan’s daughter Esmé for her 23rd birthday
Along with Esmé, the "Family Ties" co-stars are also parents of son Sam, 35, and 29-year-old twin daughters Aquinnah and Schuyler.
nypost.com
Fuming Joe Scarborough blames racism, misogyny among black and Hispanic voters for Harris’ loss
"A lot of Hispanic voters have problems with black candidates," the former Florida congressman proclaimed.
nypost.com
Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Matt Cartwright concedes race to GOP challenger
Democrat Pennsylvania Rep. Matt Cartwright faced Republican challenger, local businessman, Rob Bresnahan in the race for the state's 8th Congressional District seat.
foxnews.com
Prince William walks nature trails near South Africa’s Table Mountain to promote conservation
Prince William went on an early-morning nature walk near South Africa’s Table Mountain on Tuesday to promote the work of conservation rangers in a unique urban national park.
nypost.com
California DA Pamela Price recalled over 'progressive leftist' crime policies
Alameda County residents voted to oust District Attorney Pamela Price on Wednesday. Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao was also ousted from office.
foxnews.com
FTC lawsuit accuses L.A. cash app Dave of charging hidden fees
The Federal Trade Commission is accusing Los Angeles-based cash app Dave Inc. of misleading customers about fees, the amount of money it gives out and when they can get it.
latimes.com
What do last-minute tickets cost for the Texans-Lions game at NRG Stadium?
This will be a tough one for Houston- Detroit comes into week 10 with a seven-game win streak.
nypost.com
'Got our a--es kicked': Dems privately fret about losing House after GOP victory in White House, Senate
Democrats are growing increasingly concerned that their path to flipping the House of Representatives is narrowing.
foxnews.com
NY Times editorial says Trump’s victory is a ‘grave threat’ to republic
The New York Times editorial board was despondent over President-elect Donald Trump's decisive victory, declaring his return to power was a "grave threat" to the republic.
nypost.com
Suspect accused of molesting kids snatched from their beds —including a toddler almost 40 years ago
David Mundt, 61, is currently awaiting extradition.
nypost.com
Katharine McPhee, 40, reacts to husband David Foster turning 75 — and reveals if they’re ‘mourning’ their younger years
"We're kind of both cut from the same cloth." — Katharine McPhee
nypost.com
California, it's going to be OK. This is our moment
The California-as-disaster-epic narrative is back. Here are a few reasons not to buy into it, and instead to embrace the state as a bellwether for the country.
latimes.com
‘The View’ co-host Sunny Hostin blames ‘uneducated white women’ for Trump’s victory
"I'm profoundly disturbed... we know now that he will have unfettered power," Hostin said.
nypost.com
With new Trump presidency, California is in for the fight of our lives
American voters put Donald Trump back into the White House with a resounding defeat — not just of Kamala Harris but of the California values she represented.
latimes.com
Fox News projects former President Trump to win Michigan
Fox News projects that former President Donald Trump has won the critical battleground state of Michigan and will take home the state's 15 electoral votes.
foxnews.com
Trump wins Michigan, nearly completing swing-state sweep
The Great Lake State -- which President Biden won in 2020 -- was central to both campaigns.
nypost.com
Tips for a range of post-election emotions, according to experts
From a favored candidate's loss to navigating conversations with family members who voted differently, here's how to manage your mental health after a tumultuous election — and resources if you need additional support.
cbsnews.com
Tesla shares surge by double-digits on Trump victory after Elon Musk’s campaign support
Tesla founder Elon Musk has outspokenly supported a Trump win, joining the former president at his rallies and donating millions to a pro-Trump PAC he created.
nypost.com
‘My wife thinks half my inheritance is hers — but I’m not sharing any of it’
A man has taken to Reddit after a miscommunication became apparent between himself and his wife around his inheritance.
nypost.com
Here are the Historic Wins of the 2024 Election
Sarah McBride leads the way as the first openly transgender member of the U.S. Congress.
time.com
Undecided races of the 2024 election: Live results and analysis
Follow 538 for live updates on the uncalled races in the 2024 election, including who will control the U.S. House and how big the GOP's majority in the Senate will be.
abcnews.go.com
Mitch McConnell sings Trump campaign praises: 'Sharper operation this time'
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell congratulated President-elect Trump and the leaders of his campaign for wins they were able to deliver on election night.
foxnews.com
World awaits Harris address after Trump wins 2024 election
Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to address voters at Howard University on Wednesday after former President Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential race. CBS News' Aaron Navarro has the latest.
cbsnews.com
Watch Live: Kamala Harris concedes 2024 presidential election to Donald Trump
Kamala Harris is set to give her concession speech to supporters at Howard University at 4pm ET after Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
nypost.com
Election Night Brought a Torrent of Bad News for Democrats. But There Are a Few Silver Linings.
There are a thousand reasons to despair—and a few to hope.
slate.com
Courteney Cox says this candle is why Jennifer Aniston’s house smells so good: ‘Her favorite’
Aniston scents her home with a little help from her friends.
nypost.com
Historian with streak of accurate election forecasts since 1984 falls short after 2024 Trump victory
Historian Allan Lichtman's "keys to the White House" prediction that Vice President Harris would win the 2024 election marks the second time he has made an incorrect prediction since 1984.
foxnews.com
Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry survives House challenge from Democratic journalist Janelle Stelson
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — Republican Rep. Scott Perry has defeated Democratic challenger Janelle Stelson in Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District — one of the year’s tightest House races. Rep. Scott Perry conducts a news conference in Mechanicsburg, Pa., Oct. 11. Perry, 62, leads with 50.8% of the vote to Stelson’s 49.2% as 98% of votes have been...
nypost.com
Kevin McCarthy says "you might see a much different Trump" in coming term
The former speaker, who was ousted by member of his party in 2023, encouraged Democrats to "take this opportunity to rebuild their party."
cbsnews.com
What happened in ‘Yellowstone’ Season 5, Part 1? A plot refresher ahead of Part 2
Kevin Costner left "Yellowstone" after the first part of Season 5.
nypost.com
Trump expected to strategize in meetings after victory as transition team fires on all cylinders
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to spend the day with his team in West Palm Beach, strategizing about what comes next in his historic comeback.
nypost.com
Liz Cheney acknowledges Trump's victory: 'We have a new President-elect'
Former Rep. Liz Cheney acknowledged President-elect Donald Trump's 2024 presidential election victory. She had been supporting Vice President Kamala Harris.
foxnews.com
Scott Boras reveals first clues about Juan Soto’s free agency as interest builds
Scott Boras is starting to let out some morsels of information in the Juan Soto sweepstakes.
nypost.com
On Prime Video, Brian Williams hosted an election-night fever dream
Brian Williams hosted Amazon Prime’s election-night coverage from an old MGM soundstage tricked out with the latest tech -- and some truly weird graphics.
washingtonpost.com
Natalie Portman ‘isn’t surprised’ ex Benjamin Millepied moved on quickly after their divorce
"Natalie isn’t surprised that Benjamin has moved on because of how their relationship ended. She thought he’d move on pretty quickly," a source told Us Weekly.
nypost.com
Dave Portnoy blames Kamala Harris loss on Dems’ ‘arrogance’ and ‘moral superiority’: We had ‘no choice’ but to vote for Trump
“That was the worst campaign and the pure arrogance and the moral superiority have driven people away," Portnoy said in a post-Election Day rant.
nypost.com
Jason Kelce reveals what he regrets the most about Penn State fan incident
Former Philadelphia Eagles star center Jason Kelce addressed Saturday's incident between him and fan during a recent episode of "New Heights."
foxnews.com
How CEOs Should Navigate the Trump Presidency
Now CEOs have to pilot their enterprises in uncertainty by addressing three key priorities, write Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian.
time.com
Travis Kelce gushes over ‘cool’ Caitlin Clark, discusses Jason’s ‘hateful’ fan interaction on New Heights
Between Travis making an appearance at the Indianapolis Eras tour concert and Jason getting into an altercation with a college student, the Kelce brothers have definitely been in the headlines lately. The duo decided to discuss Jason’s heated interaction as well as the tight end’s exchange with Caitlin Clark on the most recent episode of...
nypost.com
Need a bit of healing? There’s a new show for that.
“The Art of Care,” a world premiere from Mosaic Theatre Company, is a tremendously heartfelt treatise on the power of human connection.
washingtonpost.com
What Trump’s Win Means for His Legal Cases
With the power of the White House, Trump stands to effectively shield himself from legal accountability—at least for the next four years.
time.com
Sunny Hostin Forced To Walk Back Her Remark About “Uneducated White Women” As ‘The View’ Unpacks Trump’s Victory
Hostin initially claimed that 52% of "uneducated white women" voted for Trump.
nypost.com