The discussion on a recent CNN panel took a dramatic turn when South Carolina GOP Rep. Nancy Mace’s pronunciation of Vice President Kamala Harris' name ignited a heated debate over respect and racial sensitivity.
The CNN conversation, initially centered on Harris’ economic policies, quickly shifted to accusations of disrespect and racism, essentially cutting off discussion of the original topic, as the Western Journal reports.
During the panel, Mace pronounced Harris' first name with emphasis on the “mal” in Kamala, which drew immediate reactions from Democratic strategist Keith Boykin and Professor Michael Dyson. Both Boykin and Dyson, who are African American, expressed concern that the pronunciation was incorrect and insensitive, especially given the racial and cultural significance of names.
Boykin was the first to address Mace’s pronunciation, attempting to correct her while emphasizing the importance of getting it right. Despite Mace’s attempt to rectify her pronunciation, the issue did not subside. Mace’s response, asserting that she would pronounce Harris’ name as she chose, further fueled the debate.
The panelists' exchange quickly became more contentious. Dyson argued that Mace's pronunciation was not just a simple mistake but part of a broader issue of racial insensitivity. He linked the act to what he said were historical patterns of disrespect towards Black people, suggesting that it perpetuated a legacy of white supremacy. Mace, visibly frustrated, denied any racist intent and found Dyson’s remarks to be offensive. She stood firm on her stance, rejecting the notion that her pronunciation was an act of racism.
While the panel discussion was initially intended to focus on Harris' economic policies, the argument over name pronunciation took center stage. Boykin and Dyson repeatedly corrected Mace, which prevented the conversation from returning fully to the intended topic.
As the discussion veered further from its original focus, Dyson expanded his critique, connecting the issue to broader societal problems. He highlighted the struggles faced by Black women and criticized the disrespect shown towards Harris, framing it within a larger context of racial injustice.
Despite attempts to steer the conversation back to policy matters, the issue of Harris’ name and the accusations surrounding it continued to dominate the exchange. Mace, who had been prepared to discuss Harris’ economic record, found herself defending against allegations of racism instead.
Dyson’s remarks intensified the discussion as he accused Mace of embodying a disregard for Black women’s experiences. He suggested that Mace’s attitude reflected a broader societal problem where the humanity of Black individuals, especially women, is often overlooked.
Mace reacted strongly to these accusations, expressing her anger and frustration. She denied that her actions had any racial undertones and rejected the notion that she was perpetuating a legacy of white supremacy. The back-and-forth exchanges between the panelists became increasingly heated, with interruptions and overlapping arguments becoming more frequent.
The discussion touched on other sensitive topics, including Harris’ stance on LGBTQ+ issues and Republican policies. Dyson continued to challenge Mace’s perspectives, while Boykin supported Dyson’s critique, reinforcing the argument that names hold significant cultural importance.
The CNN panel discussion, intended to explore Vice President Kamala Harris' economic policies, was overshadowed by a contentious debate over the pronunciation of her name. The exchange between Rep. Nancy Mace, Democratic strategist Keith Boykin, and Professor Michael Dyson quickly escalated into accusations of disrespect and racism.
Boykin and Dyson criticized Mace’s pronunciation, arguing that it reflected a broader issue of racial insensitivity. Mace defended herself, denying any racist intent and rejecting the accusations as offensive. The debate ultimately highlighted the deep divisions over issues of race and respect, overshadowing the intended policy discussion.
Three members of the Georgia State Election Board have been accused of ethics violations by a former election official.
Cathy Woolard, former chair of the Fulton County Board of Elections, filed a complaint against Rick Jeffares, Janice Johnston, and Janelle King, alleging they violated laws and ethics codes to assist Donald Trump in disrupting the presidential election, as The New Republic reports.
Woolard's complaint, filed on Friday, claims that the actions of these board members have severely undermined public trust and pose a threat to the integrity of Georgia's elections. According to Woolard, the trio aimed to further their own political agendas rather than uphold the law.
Specifically, Woolard alleges that on July 12, Jeffares, Johnston, and King organized a private meeting to pass two election rules proposed by Georgia Republican Party Chair Jeff Koons. These rules included a requirement for daily online posting of county ballot counts and an increase in the number of partisan monitors during the vote-counting process. Woolard argues that this meeting violated the Open Meetings Act because it was held privately and excluded two other board members, further eroding public confidence in the election process.
On the same day as the controversial meeting, Cleta Mitchell, a known Trump ally, publicly supported the board members, calling them "great" and urging others to support them. This public endorsement raised further concerns about the impartiality of the board members and their motivations.
The complaint also highlights a recent board decision that passed with a 3-2 vote, instituting a new rule that requires a "reasonable inquiry" before certifying election results. This rule, according to Woolard, could make it easier for county election officials to delay or refuse certification of election outcomes.
Adding to the controversy, Johnston reopened a complaint regarding the administration of the 2020 election in Fulton County, a case that had been closed in May on the advice of the state attorney general. This move has been criticized as a politically motivated effort to revisit baseless claims of election fraud.
Donald Trump has not remained silent on these developments. He reposted a video of the board meeting on Truth Social, urging action on the reopened Fulton County case. At a recent rally in Atlanta, Trump praised the three board members, referring to them as "pitbulls fighting for honesty, transparency, and victory."
Woolard's complaint suggests that these public endorsements and the board members' actions create at least the appearance of impropriety. She also points to Jeffares's reported interest in a position in a potential Trump administration as further evidence of their partisan motives.
Woolard, who resigned as Chair of the Fulton County Board of Elections on July 3 after serving as interim chair during the Georgia primary elections, stated that it was time for someone else to lead the board through the upcoming fall elections. The ethics complaint filed by Woolard is not the only legal challenge the Georgia State Election Board is facing. In July, government ethics watchdog American Oversight filed a lawsuit against the board, alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act.
Georgia has been a significant battleground in the ongoing debates over election integrity, particularly since the 2020 presidential election. The state has seen the highest number of certification refusals since 2020, and it continues to be a focal point for Trump’s election fraud claims.
A report from American Doom has revealed that Georgia employs at least 22 individuals who support election denial conspiracies as election officials. This includes two members of the Georgia State Election Board, adding to the concerns about the board's ability to conduct fair and impartial elections.
As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the actions of the Georgia State Election Board will likely remain under intense scrutiny. Woolard’s complaint, along with the ongoing lawsuit by American Oversight, could have significant implications for how the upcoming elections are conducted in the state.
The debate over whether former President Donald Trump should remain on the ballot has sparked considerable controversy and discussion across the political spectrum.
Amid investigations and growing criticism, supporters, including one reader of the Courier Journal who drafted an emphatic letter to the editor, argue that removing Trump from the ballot would be unfair and politically motivated.
Connie Chesser, a vocal advocate for Trump, called in her letter for a comprehensive investigation that extends beyond Trump. She believes that fairness requires scrutiny of President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, first lady Jill Biden, and other government officials, including county judges and law enforcement. According to Chesser, everyone connected to the White House and Congress should be examined with the same rigor applied to Trump.
Many supporters of Trump maintain that there is no legitimate reason to exclude him from any state's ballot. They argue that his encouragement of peaceful support for America should discredit claims that he poses a threat to the democratic process. Critics, however, contend that certain states, particularly those with left-leaning agendas, are pushing for his removal as part of a broader political strategy.
Trump's defenders highlight his past contributions to the country, arguing that his leadership once strengthened the nation and can do so again. They believe that, with divine support, Trump has the potential to restore the United States to its former glory, emphasizing the need for strong national defense and military preparedness.
In addition to defending Trump, some of his supporters express concern about the direction of the country under current leadership. They see the efforts to remove Trump from the ballot as part of a larger, troubling trend of political overreach and a danger to individual freedoms.
Chesser's call for investigations into other political figures reflects a broader sentiment among Trump's supporters. They argue that if Trump is subjected to intense scrutiny, other leaders should face the same level of investigation to ensure fairness. This view suggests that political accountability should be applied evenly across the board, regardless of party affiliation.
Some believe that the focus on Trump distracts from more pressing issues facing the nation. They argue that the country would benefit more from addressing these challenges rather than engaging in what they see as politically motivated attacks on a former president. The sentiment among these supporters is clear: stop the divisive investigations and work toward national unity.
The debate surrounding Trump's ballot status has also raised questions about the integrity of the democratic process. Supporters insist that excluding a candidate from the ballot sets a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining voter choice and eroding trust in the electoral system.
As discussions continue, the implications of removing Trump from the ballot extend beyond the former president himself. Some argue that such a move could further polarize an already divided nation, leading to increased political tensions and unrest. Others warn that it could open the door to future efforts to exclude candidates based on partisan considerations rather than legal grounds.
Supporters of Trump emphasize the importance of focusing on the nation's future rather than dwelling on past controversies. They believe that Trump's vision for the country, rooted in strength and resilience, offers a path forward that can unify and uplift the American people.
In the conclusion of this ongoing debate, many of Trump's supporters are calling for an end to what they perceive as unjust attacks on the former president. They argue that the country should prioritize rebuilding its strength and standing on the global stage, potentially through a renewed focus on military capabilities.
The debate over whether to keep Trump on the ballot remains a contentious issue, with strong opinions on both sides. As the situation evolves, the nation will continue to grapple with questions of fairness, accountability, and the future direction of American democracy.
Recently released photos of Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man who attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump, have prompted a surge of speculation about the July 13 incident in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Eerie images showing Crooks just minutes before the attack have fueled conspiracy theories despite the FBI’s ongoing insistence that he acted alone, as the Daily Mail reports.
Crooks, 20, attempted to kill Trump during a rally, but was ultimately shot and killed by a Secret Service sniper. The attack, which left Trump with a minor injury and resulted in the death of one rally attendee, continues to generate questions.
Among the photos now circulating, one shows Crooks standing on a wall in a grassy area near the rally. He is holding a cell phone, seemingly observing the surroundings. In another image, he is seen looking over his shoulder, a posture that some have interpreted as suspicious.
The FBI’s report on Crooks maintains that he acted alone, but these images have reignited a wave of conspiracy theories. Some speculate that Crooks may have been working with others, despite the lack of evidence to support this claim.
Documents released to the watchdog group Judicial Watch include pictures and local law enforcement plans for the rally. These documents have become a focal point for those questioning the official narrative.
One viral video showing a woman shouting at Crooks before the shooting has been a key driver of speculation. The woman’s words, "Crooks. What are you doing? Get over here. Get down," have led some to believe she may have been an accomplice. This theory was later debunked, with authorities confirming she had no involvement in the plot.
Another theory gaining attention was propagated by conservative podcaster Alex Jones. He suggested that the attack was part of a “Deep State” coup attempt, an accusation that has found a receptive audience among his followers.
Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) also weighed in, claiming without evidence that President Joe Biden ordered the attack on Trump. This unfounded assertion has further polarized public opinion.
Security measures at the rally have come under intense scrutiny. Despite the Secret Service's presence, Crooks managed to bring a firearm and explosive materials into the event. A remote detonator was also found in his car, raising concerns about how these items evaded detection.
Crooks’ suspicious behavior before the attack included lingering around metal detectors and using a range finder. He fired his weapon at 6:11 p.m., just eight minutes after Trump took the stage, further intensifying scrutiny of the event's security protocols.
While the FBI continues to assert that Crooks acted alone, the release of these images and the ongoing discussions they have sparked suggest that the public remains divided over the true nature of the incident. As the investigation continues, the debate over what really happened at the Butler rally is unlikely to subside anytime soon.
These new images, combined with the complex array of conspiracy theories and unanswered questions, ensure that this story will remain a focal point of public interest for the foreseeable future.
Chicago is preparing for a significant number of migrants set to arrive just as the city readies to host the Democratic National Convention, though expectations for the influx have been scaled back.
The Windy City’s mayor assures that the incoming migrants will not interfere with the convention despite financial strains and previous high arrival numbers, as the Daily Mail reports.
Chicago is bracing for the arrival of new migrants in the lead-up to the Democratic National Convention, though the anticipated surge has decreased from earlier projections. Initially, Mayor Brandon Johnson had prepared for the possibility of up to 25,000 migrant arrivals, but the current expectations are far lower.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s office confirmed that buses filled with migrants are en route to Chicago. This follows a pattern seen over the last two years, during which over 46,500 migrants have entered the city. As of January, Texas has been responsible for transporting approximately 31,000 of those migrants to Chicago.
The mayor’s office has indicated that the new arrivals will not impact the convention's schedule, a sentiment echoed by migrant advocate Andre Gordillo, who acknowledged that while the influx is significant, it is not expected to disrupt the event.
Abbott’s office has maintained that Texas will continue sending migrants to sanctuary cities like Chicago to alleviate pressure on its border towns. A spokesperson for the governor emphasized that this practice will persist until the federal government takes more decisive action to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.
Texas has also sent over 10,000 migrants to other sanctuary cities, including New York, Denver, and Washington, D.C. Chicago, in particular, has seen its taxpayers bear a considerable financial burden, with nearly $150 million spent on migrant-related expenses since August 2022.
The ongoing migrant bussing has been a contentious issue, with Chicago and other sanctuary cities grappling with the challenges of accommodating these individuals while managing their own resources.
Despite the challenges, the number of migrants arriving in Chicago has decreased in recent months, with administration officials crediting an executive order signed by President Joe Biden in June. According to Gordillo, this order has been instrumental in reducing the flow of migrants, though it is currently being contested in court.
Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection indicates that encounters at southwest border ports of entry dropped by 29 percent from May to June. This reduction has been most pronounced since early 2024, with fewer migrants crossing the border compared to earlier in the year or last fall. The decline in arrivals offers some relief to Chicago, which has struggled to manage the influx. However, the city remains vigilant as it prepares for the potential arrival of additional migrants in the weeks leading up to the Democratic National Convention.
The financial impact of the migrant influx has been substantial for Chicago, with taxpayers spending nearly $150 million on related expenses over the past two years. This significant outlay has raised concerns about the city’s ability to continue providing services to both residents and migrants.
As the city prepares to host the Democratic National Convention, there are ongoing debates about the sustainability of its current approach to managing the migrant situation. While the reduced number of arrivals provides some breathing room, the financial strain remains a critical issue.
Mayor Johnson has expressed confidence that the city will be able to handle the situation without disrupting the convention. However, the long-term implications of the migrant influx and the financial burden on Chicago taxpayers continue to be a topic of concern.
The Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago is set to become a focal point for protest as thousands of demonstrators prepare to converge on the city.
The convention, at which Kamala Harris will officially accept her party's nomination, has attracted the participation nearly 100 groups, whose protests will highlight issues ranging from abortion access to U.S. support for Israel, and the ongoing climate crisis, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The protests are expected to draw between 30,000 and 40,000 people for the "March on the DNC 2024," set to take place on the convention's opening day.
The broad range of causes represented at the upcoming protests underscores the discontent felt by many Americans on various fronts.
Demonstrators are set to advocate for abortion rights, voice opposition to U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel, and raise concerns about poverty, the housing crisis, and climate change. Among the most prominent groups expected to protest are CODEPINK, the Palestinian Feminist Collective, and Students for Justice in Palestine Chicago.
The timing of these protests is significant, given the ongoing war in Gaza, which has now entered its 10th month. The conflict has intensified calls for a ceasefire and an end to U.S. military aid to Israel. Despite recent remarks by Harris, which acknowledged the suffering on both sides of the conflict, there has been no indication from the Biden administration of a shift in policy.
Hatem Abudayyeh, the national chairman of the U.S. Palestinian Community Network advocacy group, expressed skepticism about Vice President Harris's recent statements. “Harris represents the administration -- she represents Biden. There is nothing that she has expressed independently that tells us she does not support the policies,” Abudayyeh said, highlighting the concerns of many activists who feel that their voices are not being heard by those in power.
The lead-up to the protests has not been without controversy. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration has faced criticism for denying permits for stages and sound systems near the United Center, the main venue for the DNC. Protest organizers argue that these restrictions limit their ability to effectively communicate their message and are pushing for greater visibility near the convention site.
In response to these permit denials, organizers sought to extend and widen the permitted protest route. However, their efforts were met with legal challenges. U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood recently ruled against altering the protest path, siding with the city's argument that the restrictions were necessary for crowd control and public safety.
This legal battle has further fueled tensions between protest organizers and city officials. Activists argue that the restrictions are an attempt to stifle dissent and minimize the impact of the demonstrations. Despite these setbacks, organizers remain committed to making their voices heard during the convention.
As the DNC approaches, all eyes are on Chicago to see how the city will handle the influx of protesters. The scale of the planned demonstrations presents a significant challenge for local law enforcement, which must balance the need for security with the constitutional rights of citizens to peacefully assemble and protest.
Harris's recent comments during her meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which she stated that she would not “look away in the face of these tragedies,” have done little to assuage the concerns of activists. Many remain steadfast in their demands for a ceasefire and an end to U.S. military aid to Israel, issues that will undoubtedly be at the forefront of the protests.
The outcome of these protests and the response from city officials and the DNC itself will likely have lasting implications for the broader political landscape. As the nation watches, the ability of the protesters to make their voices heard and the city's capacity to manage such a large-scale event will be critical to the narrative that emerges from this week's events in Chicago.
Former Rep. George Santos, the controversial figure who once represented New York’s 3rd Congressional District, is expected to plead guilty to a series of criminal charges that have plagued him since his brief tenure in Congress.
Santos’s plea deal -- which could bring prison time -- comes after months of legal battles and controversy following his indictment and subsequent expulsion from the House of Representatives in December 2023, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The former congressman was originally facing 23 felony charges related to various fraudulent activities, most notably stemming from his 2022 congressional campaign. His trial, initially scheduled for Sept. 9, was set to bring to light the details of these allegations. However, with this unexpected development, the trial has been averted as Santos appears to have reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors.
The terms of the plea deal remain undisclosed, leaving many to speculate about the extent of the punishment Santos might face. The expectation is that Santos will make a statement in court, acknowledging his involvement in the crimes, possibly at his upcoming sentencing, scheduled for a Monday afternoon.
Santos’s legal troubles have been a topic of significant media attention, particularly given his initial stance. He had previously pleaded not guilty to all counts, dismissing the charges as part of a politically motivated "witch hunt." This plea deal represents a stark reversal from his earlier position.
The core allegations against George Santos are rooted in his 2022 congressional campaign. Federal prosecutors accuse Santos of falsifying financial records to lend legitimacy to his campaign. These falsifications were not merely clerical errors, but allegedly intentional acts aimed at deceiving both regulators and the public.
Additionally, Santos is accused of illegally profiting from his campaign through a series of fraudulent transactions. Prosecutors allege that he repeatedly charged donors' credit cards without authorization, siphoning thousands of dollars under the guise of campaign contributions. These actions were compounded by his alleged involvement in a fraudulent super PAC, through which he solicited donations under false pretenses.
Another significant aspect of the case involves Santos’s financial disclosure to the House of Representatives. Despite claiming unemployment and collecting $24,000 in unemployment benefits, Santos was simultaneously employed in Congress, raising serious ethical and legal questions.
Santos’s downfall was rapid and dramatic. His indictment led to his expulsion from the House of Representatives in December 2023, a rare and severe measure that underscored the gravity of the charges against him. Despite this, Santos attempted to stage a political comeback in 2024 by running for Congress once again, this time as an independent candidate in New York’s 1st congressional district.
His campaign, however, was short-lived. Santos eventually withdrew from the race, citing concerns that his candidacy would split the conservative vote in the district. This decision marked the end of his political aspirations, at least for the foreseeable future.
Since his expulsion from Congress, Santos has pursued several unconventional avenues to generate income. Among these were selling personal videos on Cameo, charging for subscriptions on OnlyFans, and even dabbling in the cryptocurrency market. These ventures have been met with mixed reactions, highlighting the continued public fascination with his tumultuous career.
As Santos prepares to plead guilty in federal court, the plea deal marks a significant turning point in what has been a highly controversial and closely watched legal saga. Originally facing 23 felony charges related to his 2022 congressional campaign, Santos’s decision to plead guilty brings an end to the possibility of a protracted trial and the potential for even more damaging revelations.
Santos’s case has highlighted serious concerns about financial misconduct and ethics in politics, with allegations that he falsified records, defrauded donors, and lied about his employment status. Despite his initial denials and accusations of a "witch hunt," the expected guilty plea represents a full acknowledgment of his actions.
In a turn of events that has raised significant concerns about investigative transparency, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) revealed that the FBI released the body of presidential assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks for cremation only ten days after the attempt on former President Donald Trump's life.
Higgins argues that this early release, coupled with the cleanup of evidence from the crime scene, has severely hindered the ongoing investigation, as Breitbart reports.
On July 13, a shocking assassination attempt was made on former President Trump. Just ten days later, on July 23, the FBI permitted the cremation of Crooks' body, raising immediate red flags for Rep. Clay Higgins. Upon seeking to examine Crooks' body, Higgins found it had already been released and cremated without prior notification to relevant authorities.
Higgins, concerned about the integrity of the investigation, pointed out that the FBI had cleaned up biological evidence from the crime scene. “Cops don’t do that, ever,” he remarked, questioning the FBI’s rapid actions. Despite the Butler County Coroner having legal authority over the body, Higgins asserted that such a decision for cremation could only take place with FBI consent.
Higgins’ inquiries on Aug. 5 unveiled a baffling reality: many key local authorities, including the Butler County Coroner and Sheriff, were unaware of the body’s cremation. He reported, “Nobody knew this until Monday, August 5.”
The FBI released the crime scene after merely three days, a move that left many first responders and law enforcement officials surprised and distrustful. Higgins characterized the FBI’s actions as contradictory to standard law enforcement practices.
Congress was actively investigating the assassination attempt dubbed "J13" when this revelation came to light. According to Higgins, the FBI should have been fully aware that such premature actions would hamper congressional investigations and other oversight efforts. He elaborated, “The FBI does not exist in a vacuum. They had to know that releasing the J13 crime scene would injure the immediate observations of any following investigation.”
Higgins was notably disturbed by the delayed coroner's and autopsy reports, which were overdue as of Aug. 5. Highlighting the importance of his examination, he stated, “I will not ever be able to say with certainty that those reports and pictures are accurate according to my own examination of the body.” He further argued that the reports and photographs alone couldn’t guarantee an accurate understanding of the body’s state without firsthand examination, suggesting that any resultant findings could be suspect.
On the same day as the cremation, both the House Homeland Security Committee and the Oversight Committee had initiated investigations into J13. Speaker Mike Johnson subsequently announced the creation of an official congressional investigation team to delve deeper into the incident.
Higgins continued to question the rationale behind the FBI's decision to release Crooks' body for cremation under these questionable circumstances. “Why, then, by what measure, would the FBI release his body to the family for cremation?” he asked, expressing his skepticism about the agency's motivations.
Higgins did not pull back in condemning the FBI’s actions, describing them as a "pattern of investigative scorched earth." This accusation implies that the federal agency's handling of the case may have been reckless and obstructive, potentially compromising the trust and efficacy of the investigative process.
The timeline and nature of the FBI’s actions in releasing both the body and the crime scene have become central concerns. Congress and Rep. Higgins are scrutinizing these decisions, demanding accountability and transparency from the agency.
Summing up, Rep. Clay Higgins has expressed grave concerns about the FBI's decision to release Thomas Matthew Crooks' body for cremation. The seriousness of the early cleanup of biological evidence and the release of the crime scene after only three days strike at the heart of the investigative integrity. With congressional investigations underway, the focus remains on whether due diligence and proper procedures were followed by the FBI.
As the U.S. presidential race heats up, a dispute over debate schedules between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris's campaigns intensifies.
The disagreement centers on the number of debates, with Trump advocating for more appearances than Harris, leading to a highly publicized conflict, as the Daily Caller reports.
The Trump campaign has publicly accused Harris's campaign of dishonesty regarding the agreed-upon schedule for the upcoming presidential debates. This accusation underscores the rising tensions between the two camps as the election approaches.
Former President Donald Trump has proposed a schedule of three presidential debates. His campaign's insistence contrasts sharply with the Harris campaign’s acceptance of fewer such meetings, proposing just two presidential debates and one vice presidential debate. Karoline Leavitt, the National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign, stated that the Harris campaign's claim of an agreement on fewer debates was false. This denial adds another layer of controversy to the pre-election environment.
The specified channels for these debates include Fox News, ABC, and NBC/Telemundo, according to the Trump campaign. These platforms are meant to host the presidential debates, while CNN and CBS are set for the vice-presidential debates involving Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance, and Harris’s counterpart, Tim Walz.
The Harris campaign suggested dates for the debates, with the first presidential debate tentatively scheduled for Sept. 10 and a hint at another in October. However, the Trump team has refuted any proposals for an October presidential debate.
Leavitt criticized the Harris team's approach, suggesting it might be a tactic to gauge Harris’s performance in the first debate before committing to a second one. This strategy, according to the Trump campaign, illustrates a lack of confidence in Harris’s debating abilities. Amid these strategic plays, both campaigns previously opted out of organizing debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates, which traditionally organizes such events.
Historically, debates have played a critical role in presidential races. Previously, Trump had challenged former President Joe Biden to debates before Biden's performance issues led to his withdrawal, prompting Harris's candidacy. Biden and Trump had initially agreed to a second debate in September before this change. CBS News had also lined up four potential dates for the vice-presidential debates, with Walz agreeing to participate on Oct. 1.
To date, the only debate that both campaigns have officially confirmed is the one on Sept. 10, hosted by ABC News. This debate is anticipated to be a crucial moment in the election cycle, providing voters a direct comparison between the presidential candidates.
In a series of statements, Leavitt has been vocal about the Harris campaign’s reluctance to engage fully in the debate process. She criticized Harris for not taking more proactive steps to engage with the media and the public in various formats.
"Let’s be clear: President Trump will be on the debate stage three times... If Harris and Walz don’t show up, an empty podium can stand in their place, proving to the American people just how weak they are," Leavitt declared, emphasizing the Trump campaign's readiness to debate extensively. This strong rhetoric from the Trump campaign seeks to frame the debate schedule as a reflection of Harris's willingness and ability to engage with critical national issues openly.
As election day draws near, the debate over debates highlights the strategic differences and priorities of the competing campaigns. The discussions around debate schedules are more than logistical—they also serve as a means for each campaign to position their candidate as the more transparent and engaged choice.
The ongoing disputes and strategic positioning are likely to intensify as each side tries to gain an upper hand before voters head to the polls. The outcome of these debates, both on and off the stage, could be instrumental in shaping the final weeks of the campaign.
Victoria Jackson, a beloved 65-year-old former Saturday Night Live cast member, has announced the heartbreaking news that her cancer has returned, perhaps giving her only months to live.
Jackson, who originally revealed her cancer diagnosis in 2016, shared in an Instagram video on Aug. 14 that she may have just over 34 months to live, as the New York Post reports.
The comedienne, who entertained audiences on SNL from 1986 to 1992, disclosed that her current tumor, which is the size of a marble, is located on her windpipe. Due to its position, surgery is not an option, and she faces the harrowing possibility of suffocation.
In the video, Jackson spoke candidly about her prognosis, expressing a combination of resolve and resignation. She mentioned that she would soon begin a medication regimen intended to shrink the tumor, which could potentially extend her life by an estimated 32.6 months.
Despite the grim diagnosis, Jackson’s message was also one of reflection. She noted the Bible's reference to 70 years as a typical lifespan and expressed gratitude for the life she has lived, saying, “I’ve had a fantastic life.” Jackson’s thoughts have also turned to the milestones she hopes to witness in the months she has left. She shared her deep desire to meet her grandson, who is expected to be born in October, and to see her daughter Aubrey have a baby.
Jackson’s career has been filled with memorable moments and bold choices. Known for her quirky humor and unique voice, she became a household name during her six years on SNL, where she was especially recognized for her appearances on Weekend Update and her various impersonations.
After leaving SNL, Jackson pursued various projects, including a role as a Las Vegas showgirl in a sitcom that ultimately didn’t make it to air. She continued to stay in the public eye through appearances on shows like Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and by performing stand-up comedy across the country.
In 2007, Jackson became associated with the conservative group Friends of Abe, a move that coincided with her outspoken political and religious views. She has often claimed that these views led to her being blacklisted in Hollywood.
Jackson has also been vocal about her dissatisfaction with the direction SNL has taken in recent years. She has criticized what she perceives as a strong political bias in the show, arguing that its humor no longer reflects the balanced approach of earlier seasons.
She lamented that current political satire on the show, particularly portrayals of figures like Donald Trump, is done with what she sees as an undercurrent of hate, contrasting it with the more light-hearted jabs of her era.
Jackson’s sharp commentary extends beyond the world of comedy. She has made headlines over the years for her controversial positions, including her public disapproval of a same-sex kiss on the show Glee, which drew considerable attention.
In her video, Jackson provided more than just updates on her health. She gave fans a glimpse into her personal life, sharing that she is married to former police officer Paul Wessel and has two daughters. As she faces the possibility of only having months left, Jackson’s thoughts are focused on her family.
Victoria Jackson’s announcement is a poignant reminder of the fragility of life, even for those who once brought so much joy to others. As she prepares for what lies ahead, her reflections on a life well-lived offer a powerful message of gratitude and acceptance.