
Washington Post: Justice Department to pursue Trump prosecutions past the election, even if he wins
CNN
Justice Department officials will continue to pursue the federal criminal cases against Donald Trump past Election Day, even if he wins, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
Justice Department officials will continue to pursue the federal criminal cases against Donald Trump past Election Day, even if he wins, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. The plan is due to a view that DOJ rules against charging or prosecuting a sitting president would not kick in until Inauguration Day in January, people familiar with the discussions told The Post. The Washington Post’s reporting comes a day after the Supreme Court ruled that Trump may claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took at the end of his presidency. The court’s decision is likely to further delay a trial on the federal election subversion charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, leaving Trump poised to avoid pre-election trials in the most significant criminal prosecutions he faces after being found guilty in his hush money trial in May. (His sentencing in that trial has been postponed until September in the wake of the court’s ruling.) Officials who were not part of the special counsel’s deliberations told CNN they believed the long-standing DOJ policy against criminally charging a sitting president does not extend to a president-elect. The department policy applies to a “sitting president,” the officials told CNN – so even if Trump were to win reelection in November, he could still stand trial before he was inaugurated in January 2025.

The Defense Department has spent more than a year testing a device purchased in an undercover operation that some investigators think could be the cause of a series of mysterious ailments impacting spies, diplomats and troops that are colloquially known as Havana Syndrome, according to four sources briefed on the matter.

Lawyers for Sen. Mark Kelly filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to block Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s move to cut Kelly’s retirement pay and reduce his rank in response to Kelly’s urging of US service members to refuse illegal orders. The lawsuit argues punishing Kelly violates the First Amendment and will have a chilling effect on legislative oversight.











