Who will succeed Mitch McConnell as Senate leader?

(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump continues to announce his picks for top jobs inside his administration, most recently naming nominees for energy secretary and to helm the Federal Communications Commission.

Meanwhile, fallout continues for former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s choice to serve as attorney general. The House Ethics Committee was investigating Gaetz for alleged sexual misconduct and illicit drug use. Calls are growing for the panel to release its report on Gaetz, who resigned from the House last week.

Speaker Johnson denies discussing Gaetz draft report with House Ethics chairman

House Speaker Mike Johnson denied that he has discussed the details of the draft ethics report on Matt Gaetz with House Ethics Chairman Michael Guest, and further denied that President-elect Donald Trump or Gaetz have pressured him to bury the report.

“I haven’t talked to Michael Guest about the report. I talk to all my colleagues but I know where the lines are. I have no idea about the contents of the report,” Johnson told reporters as he walked back to his office after his news conference this morning.

Despite persistent questions, Johnson maintained his position that Gaetz’s resignation from the House last week should put an end to the ethics inquiry.

“My job is to protect the institution and I have made very clear that I think it’s an important guardrail for our institution that we not use the House Ethics Committee to investigate and report on persons who are not members of this body,” Johnson declared. “Matt Gaetz is not a member of the body anymore.”

Johnson denied that Gaetz or Trump had pressured him to block release of the draft report, repeating that the speaker “has no involvement” in the ethics report and “can’t direct the ethics committee to do anything.”

“I’ve simply responded to the questions that have been asked of me about my opinion on whether that should be released. Matt Gaetz is no longer a member of Congress and so we don’t issue ethics reports on non-members,” he said. “I think it’s an important guardrail for us to maintain for the interest of the institution so that’s my position.”

“I wouldn’t have that conversation with [Gaetz]. Because that’s not appropriate for us to do that,” Johnson continued. “President Trump respects the guardrails of our institution as well, and I’m very guarded about those things. So neither of those gentlemen would breach that.”

-ABC News’ Jay O’Brien, John Parkinson, Lauren Peller, Isabella Murray

Musk backs Gaetz for AG amid allegations: ‘Gaetz will be our Hammer of Justice’

Billionaire Elon Musk is throwing his support behind Matt Gaetz, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, as allegations continue to surface surrounding what witnesses told the House Ethics Committee regarding the former congressman.

“Matt Gaetz has 3 critical assets that are needed for the AG role: a big brain, a spine of steel and an axe to grind,” Musk wrote on X. “He is the Judge Dredd America needs to clean up a corrupt system and put powerful bad actors in prison.”

“Gaetz will be our Hammer of Justice,” he added.

Musk also directly addressed the allegations against Gaetz, stating that he considers them “worth less than nothing.”

Musk’s public support for Gaetz comes as the billionaire continues to play a large role in Trump’s transition, as ABC News has previously reported.

Speaker Johnson says he hasn’t discussed Gaetz ethics drama with Trump

House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday he has not talked to Trump about a draft report on the House Ethics Committee’s investigation into former Rep. Matt Gaetz — as members on both sides of the aisle call on the speaker to release the draft despite Gaetz’s resignation and the committee’s lack of jurisdiction over former members.

“I have not discussed the ethics report with President Trump. And as you know, I’ve spent a lot of time with him,” Johnson, R-La., said. “He respects the House and the parameters, and he knows that I would not violate any of those rules or principles, and so it has not been discussed.”

The speaker also said he hasn’t discussed the report with Trump’s advisers.

“They’re busy filling the Cabinet,” he said. “This has not been a subject of our discussion.”

Johnson reiterated his position against the release of the draft report. He also brushed off the fact that there is some precedent for its release following a member’s exit from Congress, saying the House is now in a “different era.”

“I’ve made this really clear. There’s a very important principle that underlies this, and that is the House Ethics Committee has jurisdiction over members of Congress — not former members, not private citizens, not someone who’s left the institution,” he said. “I think that’s a really important parameter for us to maintain. I think it’s important for the institution itself.”

Johnson said that he would not support a private viewing of the report for senators under the “same principle.”

-ABC News’ John Parkinson, Isabella Murray and Lauren Peller

Top Dem on House Ethics Committee says Gaetz report should be released

The top Democrat on the House Ethics Committee — Pennsylvania Rep. Susan Wild — told reporters Monday that she believes the committee’s report on former Rep. Matt Gaetz should be disclosed to the public.

“You either are going to disclose it or you’re not going to disclose it. So, and there’s plenty of precedents in the Ethics Committee to disclose the report even after a member has resigned,” Wild said.

Wild, who is leaving office at the end of this session, said it’ll take “one or more” Republicans to join Democrats on the committee to achieve a majority vote to release the report.

Asked if that’s a possibility, Wild said she hasn’t talked to all of the members and doesn’t know, but she stressed that all eight members of the ethics panel now have access to the draft report.

“I believe there will be a unanimous Democratic consensus that it should be released,” she added.

Wild said there is a scheduled committee meeting on Wednesday, but said it “remains to be seen” what the chairman’s agenda is.

“But I believe we should vote on whether we are to disclose it [Gaetz report] or not, and we’ll see what happens after that,” she said.

House Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., told reporters Monday that he has read the Gaetz report but declined to comment further due to the confidentiality of the committee.

-ABC News’ Lauren Peller, John Parkinson and Isabella Murray

Trump nominates Sean Duffy as transportation secretary

Trump announced Monday he is nominating former Wisconsin Rep. Sean Duffy for transportation secretary.

The position requires Senate confirmation.

“He will prioritize Excellence, Competence, Competitiveness and Beauty when rebuilding America’s highways, tunnels, bridges and airports,” Trump said in a statement. “He will ensure our ports and dams serve our Economy without compromising our National Security, and he will make our skies safe again by eliminating DEI for pilots and air traffic controllers.”

Duffy co-hosts “The Bottom Line” on Fox Business and is a Fox News contributor.

-ABC News’ Hannah Demissie

Trump to attend SpaceX launch on Tuesday: Sources

Trump is expected to attend Tuesday’s SpaceX launch in Texas, multiple sources told ABC News.

SpaceX said it is planning to hold the sixth integrated flight test of its Starship megarocket from its Starbase in Cameron County, Texas, on Tuesday afternoon.

SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who will co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency, has rarely left Trump’s side since the election — appearing in family photos with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and even traveling with him to New York for Saturday’s UFC fight.

Trump frequently marveled at the intricacies of the SpaceX rocket launch while on the campaign trail.

“It was so exciting, so I’m watching it, and this monstrous thing is going down, right and it’s coming down, it’s first of all, doing all sorts of flips up in the air,” Trump said at his last campaign rally of the cycle in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

-ABC News’ Kelsey Walsh, Lalee Ibssa and Katherine Faulders

How Democrats could force the Ethics Committee to release the Gaetz report

All eyes will be on the House Ethics Committee’s expected closed-door meeting this Wednesday — but it’s possible that Congress can go around the committee entirely to release the panel’s findings on former Rep. Matt Gaetz.

According to House rules, any member of Congress can go to the floor and tee up a vote on a “privileged resolution” that would force the Ethics Committee to release its report on Gaetz, within two legislative days.

The member would only have to argue that not releasing the report impacts the “dignity” or “integrity” of the House or “reputation” of its members.

The action would be unusual, but not unprecedented. In the 1990s, Democrats repeatedly tried to force the Ethics Committee to divulge information about investigations into then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Those efforts came up short because Republicans closed ranks around Gingrich and the majority. But Gaetz is incredibly unpopular on Capitol Hill, and it would only take a handful of Republicans — along with all Democrats — to pass the resolution.

“If you’re a member of Congress, do you really want to be in the business of defending Matt Gaetz?” former Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania, who led the Ethics Committee, said to ABC News on Monday.

The Ethics Committee was investigating allegations of sexual misconduct and illicit drug use against Gaetz, who resigned last week after being named Trump’s pick for attorney general.

If the Ethics Committee doesn’t vote to release its findings on Wednesday, expect more Democrats to raise the possibility of forcing a floor vote — one that would force Republicans on the record about Gaetz.

-ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel

Hegseth flagged as potential ‘insider threat’ by Guardsman who was ‘disturbed’ by ‘Deus Vult’ tattoo

The National Guardsman who in 2021 pegged Pete Hegseth as a potential “insider threat” clarified in an interview with ABC News that his complaint targeted a “Deus Vult” tattoo on the Fox News host’s arm, not a cross on his chest, as Hegseth has repeatedly claimed.

As Reuters and The Associated Press first reported, Sgt. DeRicko Gaither sent an image of the “Deus Vult” tattoo to Maj. Gen. William Walker shortly before President Joe Biden’s inauguration. The phrase, which translates to “God wills it,” has since been co-opted by white nationalist groups.

“This information is quite disturbing, sir,” Gaither wrote in the email to Walker, who has not responded to ABC News’ request for comment. “This falls along the lines of (an) Insider Threat.”

Hegseth — Trump’s pick for defense secretary — claimed in his book, “The War on Warriors,” that he was removed from service ahead of Biden’s inauguration because fellow servicemembers had flagged a tattoo of the Jerusalem Cross on his chest as a white nationalist symbol.

But Gaither clarified in a text message to ABC News that his complaint targeted the “Deus Vult” tattoo, despite “the narrative that has been out there.”

“Just so we are clear. This has NOTHING to do with the Jerusalem Cross tattoo on his chest,” Gaither said. “This has everything to do with the ‘DEUS VULT’ Tattoo on his inner bicep.”

Gaither, who confirmed the contents of his complaint to ABC News, emphasized that “this wasn’t then and isn’t now a personal attack towards Pete Hegseth.”

“The information received and [the] email sent on January 14th was the protocol that had to be followed because of the position assignment that I was assigned to,” explained Gaither, who was at the time assigned as the Guards’ head of security. “The protocol was followed and would be followed again if this issue involved any other service member, myself included.”

Hegseth fired back at the initial coverage of this matter in the AP by claiming it was “Anti-Christian bigotry.”

“They can target me — I don’t give a damn — but this type of targeting of Christians, conservatives, patriots and everyday Americans will stop on DAY ONE at DJT’s DoD,” Hegseth wrote on social media on Friday.

-ABC News’ Nathan Luna and Lucien Bruggeman

Homan says he’s headed to Mar-a-Lago to put ‘final touches’ on deportation plan

Incoming “border czar” Tom Homan said Monday that Trump’s new administration is already working on a plan to deport undocumented immigrants and that he’s headed to Mar-a-Lago this week “to put the final touches” on it.

Speaking on Fox News’ America Reports, Homan reiterated his plan to “take the handcuffs of ICE” and ramp up arrests.

“ICE knows what they’re looking for. They just never go arrest them, because Secretary Mayorkas has told them [to] tone down the arrests,” Homan said.

Homan also repeated his claim that ICE will “arrest the bad guys first.” He said that under the Biden administration, the removal of “criminal aliens” has decreased 74%. ABC News has not independently verified the accuracy of that claim.

Homan acknowledged during the interview that a mass deportation plan will require significant resources and that he doesn’t know what the current ICE and Customs and Border Protection budgets are, though added that Trump is “committed” to getting the funding for his plan.

-ABC News’ Armando García

‘Dangerous’: Caroline Kennedy weighs in on RFK’s views on vaccines

Caroline Kennedy weighed in on her cousin Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s views on vaccines during remarks on Monday after he was announced as the nominee for Health and Human Services secretary.

“I think Bobby Kennedy’s views on vaccines are dangerous, but I don’t think that most Americans share them. So we’ll just have to wait and see what happens,” she said at the National Press Club of Australia.

“You know, I grew up with him,” she added. “So, I have known all this for a long time and others are just getting to know him.”

Kennedy added that her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy, had fought for affordable health care, and that her family was proud of President Barack Obama signing the Affordable Care Act, which she said was built on Sen. Kennedy’s work.

“I would say that our family is united in terms of our support for the public health sector and infrastructure and has greatest admiration for the medical profession in our country, and Bobby Kennedy has got a different set of views,” Caroline Kennedy said.

–ABC News’ Oren Oppenheim

Trump transition live updates: Ethics Committee expected to meet on Gaetz: Sources

President-elect Donald Trump continues to announce his picks for top jobs inside his administration, most recently naming nominees for energy secretary and to helm the Federal Communications Commission.

Meanwhile, fallout continues for former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s choice to serve as attorney general. The House Ethics Committee was investigating Gaetz for alleged sexual misconduct and illicit drug use. Calls are growing for the panel to release its report on Gaetz, who resigned from the House last week.

‘Dangerous’: Caroline Kennedy weighs in on RFK’s views on vaccines

Caroline Kennedy weighed in on her cousin Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s views on vaccines during remarks on Monday after he was announced as the nominee for Health and Human Services secretary.

“I think Bobby Kennedy’s views on vaccines are dangerous, but I don’t think that most Americans share them. So we’ll just have to wait and see what happens,” she said at the National Press Club of Australia.

“You know, I grew up with him,” she added. “So, I have known all this for a long time and others are just getting to know him.”

Kennedy added that her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy, had fought for affordable health care, and that her family was proud of President Barack Obama signing the Affordable Care Act, which she said was built on Sen. Kennedy’s work.

“I would say that our family is united in terms of our support for the public health sector and infrastructure and has greatest admiration for the medical profession in our country, and Bobby Kennedy has got a different set of views,” Caroline Kennedy said.

–ABC News’ Oren Oppenheim

House Ethics Committee expected to meet to discuss Gaetz report

The House Ethics Committee is expected to meet on Wednesday and discuss its report of Rep. Matt Gaetz, multiple sources tell ABC News.

While the meeting can still be cancelled, sources said the committee could potentially take a vote on whether to release the report.

-ABC News’ Rachel Scott and Will Steakin
 

‘Morning Joe’ co-hosts say they met with Trump on Friday

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski said on Monday morning that they had met with President-elect Donald Trump on Friday at Mar-a-Lago.

The goal of the meeting, they said, was to “restart communications” among the liberal-leaning morning show hosts and the incoming administration.

“Last Thursday, we expressed our own concerns on this broadcast, and even said we would appreciate the opportunity to speak with the president-elect himself. On Friday, we were given the opportunity to do just that. Joe and I went to Mar-a-Lago to meet personally with President-elect Trump. It was the first time we have seen him in seven years,” Brzezinski said.

Scarborough said the hosts and Trump did not “see eye to eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so.”

“What we did agree on was to restart communications,” Brzezinski added, noting that Trump seemed “cheerful” and “upbeat.”

—ABC News’ Oren Oppenheim

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court, faced with sagging public confidence and a deepening perception its decisions are politically-motivated, could soon play a critical role in how some 2024 presidential ballots are cast and counted and, potentially, how contested election results are certified.

“As prepared as anyone can be,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s junior justice, when asked recently about the flood of election-related lawsuits headed toward the high court.

Hundreds of state and federal cases involving disputes over the legitimacy of state voter rolls, access to voting places, and procedures for counting ballots are currently pending. A majority of them were brought by Republicans.

“It is a deluge,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank tracking the unprecedented volume of election-year litigation. “It is a strategy to sow disinformation and chaos in the election system.”

Many of the lawsuits, predicated on “conspiracy theories” and advancing tenuous legal arguments, will ultimately be tossed out on technical grounds, Weiser said. But some may reach the justices with the potential to alter voting procedures in the final weeks of the campaign, depending on how they rule.

In one closely-watched case from Mississippi, the Republican National Committee has asked a conservative federal appeals court panel to prohibit the counting of mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they are postmarked on or before Nov. 5. Roughly 20 states have long standing laws permitting late-arriving ballots, including Nevada, Virginia and Ohio.

“They’re saying federal law says election day means election day, which means that anything that comes afterwards was not on election day,” Weiser said of the GOP effort. “The argument has been raised in many cases across the country, and the courts have been routinely rejecting it. But given the context of the players involved, there’s now not a 0% risk that this could happen.”

In North Carolina, Republicans have sued state election officials seeking to remove 225,000 voters ahead of Election Day, claiming voter registration forms lacked the required identification information. The case is among more than three dozen GOP-led suits attempting to purge alleged ineligible voters, according to Democracy Docket, a left-leaning group tracking the litigation.

“It doesn’t strike me as implausible that you would see a case like that sharply before the Supreme Court in late October,” said University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq.

While the justices have generally sought to avoid interference in state voter registration policies and election procedures close to an election — a concept known as the Purcell Principle — they have occasionally issued rulings that have resulted in major changes.

In the past few weeks, the court has issued decisions allowing Arizona to require proof of citizenship for state voter registration and rejecting Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s bid to appear on the Nevada ballot.

“They’ve never really explained what is the ‘status quo’ and what is ‘last minute,’ and they have been incredibly inconsistent in how they applied [Purcell],” said Caroline Fredrickson, a Georgetown law professor and former president of the American Constitution Society.

Other possible scenarios for Supreme Court involvement in the 2024 election could unfold after Nov. 5, as local and state election officials tabulate ballots and certify results.

“Imagine a state such as Georgia, where you have a state election board that has in the past weeks evinced a certain tendency to invite and foment election related litigation, resisting certification of a slate of presidential electors that the state election board disfavors,” said Huq. “What happens then? Perhaps the Supreme Court would be called in to tell us.”

The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA) mandates that states must certify their results by Dec. 11, but does not spell out what would happen if they do not do so. There could be litigation to resolve the appointment of a state’s electors for president by Dec. 16 when the Electoral College meets to cast votes.

The law explicitly directs disputes over certification to a three-judge panel for resolution with the U.S. Supreme Court getting the final word.

“It’s certainly contemplated as a second layer fail-safe,” said Weiser, “but I’m relatively confident that all the earlier layer fail-safes are going to hold and that we’re not going to be in that scenario.”

The court could also be asked to weigh in on any attempt by members of Congress to disqualify former President Donald Trump from a second term, if he were to win the election, during certification of the electoral vote on Jan. 6, 2025.

In the case Trump v. Anderson last year, the justices unanimously ruled that states could not disqualify a presidential candidate as an “insurrectionist” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it left open a federal process to make that determination.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says anyone who took an oath “as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution” and who then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort to the enemy” cannot hold office.

Trump’s critics allege he clearly violated Section 3 given his connection to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and efforts to block certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.

Under the ECRA, if one-fifth of the members of the House and Senate voted to object to certification of Trump’s electors on the grounds that he is ineligible to hold office, that decision could ultimately be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

“You could imagine a kind of Bush v Gore style, very, very rapid sequence of motions or petitions being filed and making their way through the court system,” said Huq. “I can imagine that happening, although I think it’s unlikely. But I suspect the Supreme Court would make short work of it.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s election interference case has dismissed the case, after special counsel Jack Smith asked the judge to toss the case due to a long-standing Justice Department policy that bars the prosecution of a sitting president.

Smith earlier Monday moved to dismiss Trump’s election interference case and the appeal of his classified documents case ahead of Trump’s impending inauguration, due to the DOJ’s presidential immunity policy and not because the charges lacked merit.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the charges against Trump without prejudice, leaving open the highly unlikely possibility of a future prosecution.

In a two-page opinion, Judge Chutkan wrote that dismissing the case without prejudice is “appropriate” and would not harm the “public interest,” agreeing with Smith’s argument that Trump’s immunity would not cover him when he leaves office.

“Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office,” Chutkan wrote.

However, it’s extremely unlikely that any prosecutor would attempt to bring the same charges in the future, in part because the statute of limitations for the alleged crimes will have expired by the time Trump leaves office in four years.

Trump’s lawyers did not oppose the government’s motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.

Smith also asked the judge in Trump’s classified documents case that his appeal against Trump’s two co-defendants in that case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Olivera, be allowed to continue.

Smith’s requests came nearly 16 months after a grand jury first indicted Trump over his alleged efforts to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“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,” Smith stated in his motion.

“The country have never faced the circumstance here, where a federal indictment against a private citizen has been returned by a grand jury and a criminal prosecution is already underway when the defendant is elected President,” the motion said. “After careful consideration, the Department has determined that OLC’s prior opinions concerning the Constitution’s prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President apply to this situation and that as a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated.”

Smith moved to dismiss his appeal of the charges against Trump in his classified documents case, in which Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case in July over her finding that Smith was improperly appointed to his role. Smith appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that legal precedent and history confirm the attorney general’s ability to appoint special counsels.

Monday’s filing asked the court to dismiss that appeal — but it sought to keep the appeal in place for Nauta and De Olivera, two Trump employees who pleaded not guilty to obstruction charges.

“The appeal concerning the other two defendants will continue because, unlike defendant Trump, no principle of temporary immunity applies to them,” the filing said.

In a statement, John Irving, a lawyer for De Oliveira, said, “The Special Counsel’s decision to proceed in this case even after dismissing it against President Trump is an unsurprising tribute to the poor judgment that led to the indictment against Mr. De Oliveira in the first place. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. If they prefer a slow acquittal, that’s fine with us.”

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung, in a statement, called Smith’s motions to dismiss a “major victory for the rule of law” and said, “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”

In the election interference case, Trump last year pleaded not guilty to federal charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” trying to enlist the vice president to “alter the election results,” and promoting false claims of a stolen election during the

Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.

Smith subsequently charged Trump in a superseding indictment that was adjusted to respect the Supreme Court’s July ruling that Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken as president.

Earlier this month, Judge Chutkan cancelled the remaining deadlines in the election interference case after Smith requested time to “assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy” following Trump’s election.

Judge Chutkan had been in the process of considering how the case should proceed in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.

Smith had faced filing deadlines of Dec. 2 for both the election interference case and the classified documents case, after Smith’s team requested more time to determine how to face the unprecedented situation of pending federal cases against someone who had just been elected to the presidency.

Getting Monday’s filings in a week ahead of schedule now raises the question of whether Smith will be able to beat the clock to officially close his office down and submit his final report to Attorney General Merrick Garland — as is required of him per the DOJ’s special counsel regulations — before Inauguration Day.

The final report will have to go through a classification review by the intelligence community, a process that can sometimes take weeks before it is approved for any kind of public release.

Garland has made clear in appearances before Congress and in public statements that he is committed to making public the final reports of all special counsels during his tenure, which included reports by special counsel Robert Hur following his probe of President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents before assuming the presidency, and by special counsel John Durham following his probe of the 2016 Russia investigation.

Special counsel David Weiss is still continuing his investigation of FBI informant Alexander Smirnov, who pleaded not guilty to charges of lying about President Biden and his son Hunter Biden, and is set to take the case to trial in California next week. It’s unclear whether he will formally close his investigation down and submit a final report prior to Trump taking office.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.