Vice President Kamala Harris is facing renewed scrutiny after a 2019 video resurfaced in which she vowed to shut down detention facilities housing illegal immigrants.
This comes when Harris's current stance on immigration seems more stringent than her previous positions. According to Fox News, Harris made the 2019 promise during a campaign event, stating that if elected president, she would close these facilities on her first day in office.
In the resurfaced clip, an attendee asked Harris directly whether she would commit to closing immigration detention centers. Without hesitation, Harris responded, "Absolutely, on day one." This clear and decisive promise is now under the spotlight as her current actions and rhetoric on immigration are viewed as tougher and more nuanced.
Harris, who previously served as the attorney general of California, a border state, has since emphasized her experience in fighting transnational crime, including going after gangs, drug cartels, and human traffickers. She has underscored the importance of comprehensive immigration reform, which includes robust border security and a pathway to citizenship.
Her shift from a firm promise to close detention centers to a more comprehensive approach to immigration has drawn criticism from various corners, especially from conservatives who accuse her of promoting weak border policies. This change has not gone unnoticed by Republicans, who argue that Harris' current stance contradicts her earlier commitments.
GOP vice presidential nominee Senator JD Vance has been particularly vocal, accusing Harris of intentionally weakening the border. He contends that her earlier pledge to close detention centers is indicative of her broader strategy to create an open border, a charge that Harris has not directly addressed in recent statements.
Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, echoed this sentiment, suggesting that Harris’ past remarks reveal her true intentions regarding immigration policy. Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump White House senior adviser Stephen Miller have also joined the chorus of criticism, framing Harris as a proponent of policies that would lead to chaos at the border.
These criticisms have added fuel to an already heated debate over the future of U.S. immigration policy, particularly as Harris continues to advocate for what she describes as necessary reforms. Opponents are now using her past statements to paint her as inconsistent and untrustworthy on the issue.
As of July 2024, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data reveals that over 37,000 migrants are currently held in 18 private detention facilities across the country. Of these detainees, more than 10,000 have criminal records and around 4,600 are facing pending charges.
Republican lawmakers, including Representative Chip Roy of Texas, have seized on this discrepancy, arguing that progressive leaders like Harris are pushing for a borderless society supported by unsustainable government programs. Roy has warned that such policies would weaken national security and burden American taxpayers with immense financial costs.
In response to these criticisms, Harris has doubled down on her call for comprehensive immigration reform. She insists that her experience as a border state attorney general gives her unique insight into the complexities of the issue. She says she focuses on creating a balanced approach that combines security with compassion.
Despite the backlash, Harris has maintained that her goal is to fix what she describes as a "broken" immigration system. She argues that this requires more than just closing detention centers—it demands a complete overhaul of the current policies, including the establishment of a fair and equitable pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
The resurfaced 2019 video of Kamala Harris promising to close migrant detention centers has reignited the debate over her immigration policies. While she has since shifted to a more comprehensive approach, the criticism from conservatives highlights the ongoing divide over how the U.S. should handle immigration. Harris' evolving stance will undoubtedly remain a key issue as the 2024 election approaches.
According to legal experts, Donald Trump’s latest legal battle, a $100 million lawsuit against the Department of Justice, is fraught with challenges that make success unlikely.
As reported by Newsweek, Trump has sued the DOJ over the FBI's 2022 raid on his Mar-a-Lago estate, alleging political persecution, but experts doubt the case will stand due to a lack of evidence and governmental immunity.
In August 2022, the FBI conducted a search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property, seizing thousands of pages of documents, many of which were classified. This raid led to Trump being charged with hoarding classified materials and obstructing justice, allegations he has vehemently denied, insisting that he is the victim of a political witch hunt.
The lawsuit, filed by Trump’s attorney, Daniel Epstein, in a federal court in South Florida, accuses the United States of "political persecution" and "tortious conduct." Trump’s legal team claims that the FBI raid was conducted with the intent to harm him politically, thus violating his rights. The suit is seeking $100 million in damages.
The Justice Department, which now has 180 days to respond to the lawsuit, has not yet publicly commented on the matter. However, legal professionals like trial attorney Neama Rahmani are skeptical of Trump’s chances in court. “I expect Trump’s lawsuit against the Department of Justice to be dismissed."
Rahmani also noted that the government’s actions followed legal protocols. According to Rahmani, the government initially requested the return of the classified documents before issuing a subpoena and later executing a search warrant signed by a federal judge. “The prosecution was the culmination of Trump ignoring the requests and subpoena and obstructing justice to prevent the lawful return of the documents,” Rahmani explained.
Trump’s lawsuit comes after a contentious period in which he faced 40 federal charges over his handling of sensitive materials. These charges, brought before Judge Aileen Cannon, were dismissed last month due to procedural issues related to the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Despite this dismissal, Special Counsel Smith is appealing the decision, indicating that the legal battles surrounding this case are far from over.
Although Judge Cannon’s dismissal was a temporary victory for Trump, Rahmani emphasized that it does not equate to exoneration. “Even though Judge Cannon ultimately dismissed the prosecution, for dubious reasons, she did so on procedural grounds related to Smith’s appointment. It doesn’t mean Trump is actually innocent,” Rahmani pointed out.
Furthermore, the legal concept of governmental immunity presents a significant obstacle to Trump’s lawsuit. The government is generally protected from civil lawsuits unless there is a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Rahmani believes that such a violation does not exist in this case, making it unlikely that Trump’s lawsuit will proceed.
The next steps in this legal saga will hinge on the DOJ’s forthcoming response and the outcome of Special Counsel Smith’s appeal. Both proceedings could significantly impact the trajectory of Trump’s lawsuit and his broader legal strategy.
For now, the lawsuit remains a symbol of Trump’s broader narrative of persecution, a theme that has been central to his rhetoric since the FBI’s raid. Whether or not the courts will entertain this narrative in the context of his lawsuit against the DOJ remains to be seen.
Trump’s $100 million lawsuit against the Department of Justice over the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago is a high-stakes legal move that faces numerous hurdles. With legal experts expressing skepticism and governmental immunity in play, the lawsuit’s chances of success appear slim.
Google’s recent admission that it blocked search predictions related to the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump has ignited a political firestorm.
Fox Business reported that Google’s executives are now under scrutiny as Senator Roger Marshall calls for them to testify under oath about the company’s handling of sensitive search data.
The controversy erupted after Google revealed that its autocomplete function intentionally omitted search predictions regarding the assassination attempt on Trump. This incident occurred on July 13, leaving the former president with a wound to his ear, one spectator dead, and two others critically injured.
Mark Isakowitz, Google’s Vice President, explained that the decision to block such search predictions aligns with the company’s policy against promoting or predicting hypothetical political violence. He clarified that Google's systems are designed to avoid suggesting search terms that could be construed as accusations of serious wrongdoing, particularly when insufficient evidence supports such claims.
Isakowitz emphasized that these policies aim to prevent harm by limiting the spread of potentially harmful information. However, the revelation that Google’s systems continued to block predictions related to the assassination attempt as late as July 28 has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers, particularly Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas.
Sen. Marshall, a Republican, has expressed deep concern over what he perceives as Google’s attempt to downplay or obscure the assassination attempt on a former president. He argues that Google's actions could hinder public awareness and accountability in cases of significant political violence.
In response to the controversy, Sen. Marshall has demanded that Google’s top executives appear before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He has made it clear that he expects these executives to testify under oath, where they would be required to provide a full account of their company’s actions without the protection of corporate jargon or technical explanations.
Marshall’s insistence on testimony comes amid growing concerns over the influence of large tech companies on public discourse, especially when it comes to politically sensitive topics. He has publicly criticized Google’s explanation for the autocomplete omissions, calling it an inadequate defense that fails to address the seriousness of the issue.
“Google is now openly admitting that they were blocking and eliminating search prompts regarding the assassination attempt on President Trump,” Marshall said in a statement. He described Google’s actions as a deliberate effort to downplay the incident, labeling their written defense as “bizarre” and suggesting it was a “hypothetical act of political violence.”
Sen. Marshall has hinted that if Republicans regain control of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee after the November elections, they may pursue a more extensive investigation into Google’s practices. This could lead to broader scrutiny of how tech companies handle politically sensitive information and the implications for national security.
As the situation developed, Google acknowledged the issue and began implementing improvements to its systems. However, the company's response has not quelled the criticism from Sen. Marshall, who remains skeptical of Google’s commitment to transparency and accountability.
In his statement, Marshall emphasized that the time for corporate evasions is over. He believes that Google’s executives must be held accountable for their actions, particularly when they involve significant national security concerns. “Under oath, they won’t be able to hide behind an algorithm or get away with corporate double-speak,” Marshall warned.
Following the revelation that Google designed its search autocomplete to omit results pertaining to an assassination attempt against former President Trump, Senator Roger Marshall has demanded that Google executives testify under oath before the Senate Homeland Security committee. Despite the incident being widely covered, Google's policy prohibited autocomplete predictions related to "hypothetical political violence," which resulted in the omission of search results about the attack. The company has acknowledged the issue and stated that it has begun implementing improvements to its autocomplete system.
According to a report by The Washington Examiner, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s ballot access could be at risk in multiple states following a rejection in New York.
New York Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba ruled against Kennedy, finding that he violated state law by listing a New York address as his residence on the ballot access petition despite living in California.
The ruling has raised concerns about Kennedy's ballot access in other states, with challenges already emerging in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Kennedy had previously defeated legal challenges in six other states, but the New York decision could set a precedent for future objections.
Kennedy's legal troubles began when New York Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba ruled in favor of Clear Choice PAC, a political action committee challenging Kennedy's ballot access.
The court determined that Kennedy violated New York state law by listing a New York address as his residence despite residing in California. This decision was a result of Kennedy's attempt to avoid electoral complications arising from the fact that both he and his running mate, Nicole Shanahan, are California residents.
Prior to this ruling, Kennedy had successfully defended his ballot access in six states against similar legal challenges. However, Clear Choice PAC has signaled its intent to challenge Kennedy's residency in other key states, including Illinois and Pennsylvania.
Additionally, Maine's Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, indicated she would consider objections to Kennedy's petition based on the New York residency issue, though a recent challenge in Maine was dropped after the objector withdrew.
Kennedy and his running mate are currently listed on the ballot in 18 states and are working to secure access in 21 additional states. Despite the setback in New York, the campaign recently announced it has collected signatures for ballot access in every remaining state and Washington, D.C., signaling their determination to be included on ballots nationwide.
The fallout from the New York ruling could have significant implications for Kennedy's presidential bid, particularly in states where ballot access is already under scrutiny. Should other states follow New York’s lead in questioning Kennedy’s residency, his ability to compete in the 2024 election could be severely compromised.
Kennedy's campaign has focused on obtaining ballot access in critical swing states such as Michigan and North Carolina, while efforts are ongoing in Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin. However, the status of Kennedy’s ballot access in Arizona remains unclear, further complicating his path to a successful campaign.
A significant challenge facing the Kennedy campaign involves the constitutional implications of using his California residence in the context of the 12th Amendment. Losing access to California's 55 electoral votes would be catastrophic for Kennedy’s chances, making his decision to list a New York address on his petition a strategic, albeit legally questionable, move.
Democratic allies, including Clear Choice Action, have targeted Kennedy's ballot access in numerous states, intensifying the legal battles he faces. The New York ruling adds another layer of complexity to these efforts as Kennedy's opponents continue to question the legitimacy of his campaign.
The New York Supreme Court ruling has placed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s presidential campaign in a precarious position. With his ballot access now in question across multiple states, the campaign faces significant legal and strategic challenges in the months leading up to the election. Despite securing a spot on the ballot in 18 states, Kennedy’s ability to compete in key battleground states remains uncertain. As the campaign works to overcome these obstacles, the implications of the New York decision could have far-reaching consequences for Kennedy's bid for the White House.
According to the Washington Examiner, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is facing an increasingly bitter primary challenge from former Minneapolis City Councilman Don Samuels, who is accused of seeking Republican support and big-money groups to unseat her.
Omar, a progressive "Squad" member, narrowly defeated Samuels by a mere 2 percentage points in the 2022 primary. However, this year's race has seen heightened tensions following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which has further polarized the candidates.
Samuels, who entered the race after the attack, has taken a strong stance against Omar’s pro-Palestinian views. He has gone so far as to call her a “pawn for Hamas,” directly challenging her foreign policy positions. This criticism echoes a broader trend in which pro-Israel groups have targeted progressive lawmakers, leading to the defeat of two of Omar's colleagues, Reps. Cori Bush (D-MO) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), in recent elections.
Pro-Israel groups have significantly increased their fundraising efforts against Omar, although the financial opposition she faces is less intense than that faced by Bush and Bowman.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a prominent pro-Israel lobby, has spent roughly $19,000 in support of Samuels, a figure dwarfed by the $9 million and $14.5 million spent against Bush and Bowman, respectively.
Amid these attacks, Omar has accused Samuels of attempting to court GOP voters, a move she describes as “shameful.” She contends that Samuels is relying on support from "vile MAGA Republicans," including figures like Laura Loomer and Royce White, to gain an edge in the primary. In response, Samuels has pushed back, pointing out that Omar herself has received donations from Republican-aligned donors.
Federal campaign finance reports reveal that Farouk Shami, a known Trump ally, donated $6,600 to Omar’s campaign in 2023. Samuels, on the other hand, emphasizes that over 75% of his campaign contributions come from within the district and are largely from Democratic donors. He argues that Omar is attempting to distract voters from her record by focusing on his campaign's financial support.
Despite their differences, both Omar and Samuels acknowledge that they share many similar policy positions. However, Samuels accuses Omar of being a divisive figure, suggesting that her approach to politics is more about making headlines than effecting change. Omar, in turn, has accused Samuels of co-opting her platform, claiming that he is simply adopting her “winning policies” without offering any new ideas.
Recent polling conducted by Lake Research Partners suggests that Omar holds a substantial lead, with a 27-point advantage over Samuels. This polling data, coupled with Omar’s significant spending on advertising—$2.6 million compared to Samuels' $32,000—paints a picture of a campaign that is well-funded and well-organized.
The primary election is further complicated by Minnesota’s open primary system, which allows Republican voters to participate in the Democratic primary. This has raised concerns that GOP voters could sway the outcome of the race, potentially giving Samuels an unexpected boost.
While the race is expected to favor the Democratic nominee in the general election, with a D+30 rating from the Cook Political Report, the influence of Republican voters in the primary remains a key factor to watch.
In addition to the financial and strategic battles, top left-wing lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), have rallied in support of Omar, reinforcing her standing within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. This support contrasts with the significant opposition from pro-Israel groups, highlighting the deep divisions within the party over foreign policy issues.
As the primary election approaches, the race between Rep. Ilhan Omar and Don Samuels continues to intensify, with accusations and counter-accusations dominating the discourse. While both candidates share similar policy views, their approaches and campaign strategies differ significantly, reflecting the broader ideological battles within the Democratic Party. With Omar holding a strong lead in the polls and significant financial backing, the outcome of this contentious primary will likely hinge on the influence of GOP voters and the effectiveness of each candidate's campaign tactics.
The U.S. Secret Service has responded to allegations that its agents broke into a hair salon in Massachusetts during a campaign event for Vice President Kamala Harris last month.
According to a report by Conservative Brief, the agency's spokeswoman, Melissa McKenzie, issued a statement suggesting that Secret Service personnel would not enter a business without the owner's permission.
Alicia Powers, the salon owner, claimed that individuals dressed as Secret Service agents covered her security cameras with duct tape and used lock-picking techniques to enter her building. Powers alleged that several people used her bathroom and counter for about two hours without permission, leaving the building unlocked and the camera still taped when they departed.
Powers reported that the intruders, whom she believes were Secret Service agents, used lock-picking techniques to access her salon. She alleges that they covered her security cameras with duct tape, used her bathroom, set off alarms, and left the building unsecured when they departed. Powers expressed her frustration, stating that the individuals were in her salon for about an hour and a half without her knowledge or consent.
Security camera footage from the salon reportedly shows a person dressed as a Secret Service agent approaching a door with a roll of tape and using a chair to cover the camera. This footage has fueled the controversy, leading to questions about the agency’s involvement in the incident.
In response to the allegations, Secret Service spokeswoman Melissa McKenzie stated that the agency takes its relationships with business partners very seriously.
"The U.S. Secret Service works closely with our partners in the business community to carry out our protective and investigative missions," McKenzie said. She emphasized that the agency would not enter a business without the owner's permission.
The controversy surrounding the salon break-in is not the only issue plaguing the Secret Service. Less than a month ago, the agency faced severe criticism following an attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
During the rally, a shooter identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks was able to get dangerously close to Trump despite having been flagged as suspicious by law enforcement over an hour before the shooting. The Secret Service, which was responsible for coordinating security at the event, has been accused of failing to act on these warnings.
Newly released footage from the Butler rally shows local police officers expressing frustration with the Secret Service’s handling of the event. In the footage, a Butler Township police officer can be heard angrily stating that he had warned the Secret Service about security concerns days before the rally.
Officers described losing track of Crooks, who had been seen lurking near the rally site, observing people from the woods by a water tower. The officers also expressed confusion and frustration over the lack of security personnel on the roof, which had been a planned precaution.
One officer, in particular, voiced his disappointment, stating, “I thought you guys were on the roof. I thought it was you. I thought it was you.” The response from another officer, “No,” underscored the lapse in security that allowed the shooter to get close to Trump.
The U.S. Secret Service is currently navigating one of the most challenging periods in its history. The agency is facing serious allegations from a Massachusetts salon owner, who claims that agents broke into her business during a Vice President Kamala Harris event. At the same time, the agency is also under fire for its handling of security at a recent Trump rally, where a botched assassination attempt took place. These controversies have led to the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle and have sparked widespread calls for increased oversight and reform within the agency.
According to Conservative Brief, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz faces backlash over claims that he misrepresented his military service by stating he was deployed to a war zone.
The allegations have sparked criticism from politicians and military personnel, pointing out discrepancies between his statements and actual service record.
Governor Tim Walz's integrity has come under scrutiny following a C-SPAN video in which he allegedly overstated his military service. The footage shows Walz, then a U.S. Representative, speaking to a Gold Star family and asserting that he had participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in 2004.
Walz went on to describe experiences that align with war deployments, stating that returning troops were shown “the horse whisperer” and directed to behave politely upon their return. Despite his vivid recounting, records indicate that Walz was never in combat zones.
This discrepancy has fueled criticism, leading many to question the validity of his claims and the motivations behind them.
Tim Walz served in both the Army and the Army National Guard for 24 years. Although his service record is extensive, it does not include combat deployment. Notably, when his unit received orders to deploy to Iraq, Walz chose to retire instead.
This decision factored significantly into the condemnation from senior military personnel and politicians alike. It has further complicated his current political standing as critics highlight the contrast between his statements and actual decisions.
Senator J.D. Vance, among others, has not only questioned Walz’s honesty but also his motives. In a pointed critique, Vance stated, "He lied about his service for political gain."
Senator J.D. Vance, a former U.S. Marine, has been particularly vocal about Walz's claims. Vance noted that Walz’s decision to retire came right when his unit was Iraq-bound. This timing has led Vance to challenge Walz’s narrative that he was unaware of the deployment order.
Vance said, "He decided to quit — to retire; whatever word you want to use … because he wanted to run for Congress." The senator emphasized that this action showcased a lack of transparency on Walz's part.
Vance further accused Walz of lying about the circumstances of his retirement, bringing attention to statements from senior officers who supported this claim.
A resurfaced video shows Gov. Tim Walz falsely claiming that he was deployed to Afghanistan in 2004 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, despite never serving in a combat zone. Walz, who served in the Army and Army National Guard for 24 years, retired before his unit was deployed to Iraq, a decision that has sparked criticism from various military personnel and politicians, including Sen. J.D. Vance.
Vance accused Walz of lying about his military service for political gain, pointing out inconsistencies in Walz's statements about his retirement and deployment status. Additionally, Walz has faced criticism for anti-gun remarks where he claimed Americans shouldn't carry the same weapons he used "in war," further complicating his public image.
Lara Trump has attributed recent technical issues, including a campaign hack and a glitch during a high-profile interview between Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump, to what she called the "Deep State."
According to a report by Mediaite, Lara Trump expressed her concerns about the timing of these technical difficulties, hinting that they could be deliberate attempts to sabotage the Trump campaign.
In an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump addressed two separate incidents: a reported hack of the Trump campaign by Iranian actors and technical difficulties during a live-streamed interview between former President Donald Trump and Elon Musk on X (formerly Twitter).
Lara Trump suggested these events were part of a "massive effort" to prevent Donald Trump from returning to the White House. She expressed her belief that various entities, including adversaries and members of the Washington establishment, are working together to hinder Trump's campaign.
The discussion on Fox News touched upon the Trump campaign's claim that it had been hacked by Iran over the weekend. Additionally, Hannity brought up the technical issues that plagued Donald Trump's interview with Elon Musk on X, which Musk attributed to a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack.
Lara Trump seized on these topics to present a broader narrative of opposition to her father-in-law's presidential bid. She argued that these incidents were not isolated but part of a coordinated effort to undermine Trump's campaign.
The RNC co-chair suggested that the perceived opposition stems from fear of Donald Trump's potential return to power. She claimed that various groups, including international adversaries, have benefited from the current administration and are resistant to the changes a second Trump presidency might bring.
In her interview with Hannity, Lara Trump offered her interpretation of the recent events affecting the Trump campaign. She stated:
Yeah, Sean, I think it's pretty obvious at this point, there are a lot of people out there and there's a massive effort, of course, to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. These people are terrified. This is the deep state. This is the swamp in Washington, D.C.. These are the people who are our adversaries in many cases, they know that the jig is up, the game is over when Donald J. Trump returns to the White House and they are petrified of it.
Trump's comments reflect a narrative often employed by supporters of the former president, which portrays him as an outsider battling entrenched interests in Washington and beyond.
The assertions made by Lara Trump on Fox News highlight the contentious nature of the current presidential race. By framing recent campaign difficulties as deliberate attempts to thwart Donald Trump's bid for the presidency, she is appealing to supporters who view the former president as a disruptive force in American politics.
These claims also underscore the role that cybersecurity and technology are likely to play in the upcoming election. With campaigns increasingly reliant on digital platforms for outreach and fundraising, the potential for hacks and technical disruptions remains a significant concern.
In conclusion, Lara Trump's appearance on Fox News brought attention to recent challenges faced by the Trump campaign, including an alleged hack by Iranian actors and technical difficulties during a livestreamed interview. She attributed these issues to a coordinated effort by what she termed the "deep state" to prevent Donald Trump from returning to the White House.
Her comments reflect ongoing tensions in the presidential race and highlight concerns about cybersecurity and foreign interference in elections. The interview also touched on broader themes of national security and America's role on the global stage, framing Donald Trump as a transformative figure in international relations.
According to a report by The New Republic, Kamala Harris's presidential campaign has been modifying the headlines of real news articles in Google search results to portray her more favorably.
The campaign is transforming these articles into advertisements by adding a "Paid for by Harris for President" banner above the URLs.
The altered headlines and subheads emphasize support for Harris's accomplishments, potentially creating the impression that certain news organizations are endorsing her when they are not.
For example, an NPR article about Harris's economic plan was given the headline "Harris Will Lower Health Costs" with a subhead stating, "Kamala Harris will lower the cost of high-quality, affordable health care."
Several media outlets, including CNN, USA Today, and NPR, told Axios they were not aware their brands were being used in this manner by the Harris campaign. A spokesperson for The Guardian, another outlet featured in the ads, said they would contact Google for more information about this practice.
While this style of advertising is common in commercial marketing and does not violate Google's rules, it may potentially undermine trust in news organizations.
It is unclear why the Harris campaign felt the need to employ this tactic, given the generally positive coverage Harris has received since President Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed her.
The Guardian spokesperson stated:
While we understand why an organization might wish to align itself with the Guardian's trusted brand, we need to ensure it is being used appropriately and with our permission.
In contrast to Harris's campaign, Donald Trump's team is not running similar ads, according to Google's transparency center. However, Trump has previously edited articles he posted on his social media platform, Truth Social.
Trump has a history of criticizing mainstream media, often referring to journalists as the "enemy of the people" and vowing retribution against the press for what he claims is unfair treatment. This stark difference in approach to media relations highlights the contrasting strategies of the two campaigns.
The use of altered headlines in political advertising raises questions about the impact on public trust in news organizations and political campaigns. While the ads include a disclosure banner, modifying real headlines could blur the lines between journalism and political messaging.
This tactic may also reflect the increasingly competitive nature of digital political advertising, where campaigns are constantly seeking new ways to grab voters' attention in crowded online spaces. However, it remains to be seen whether the potential benefits outweigh the risks of eroding public trust in media institutions.
In conclusion, the Harris campaign's practice of altering news headlines in Google ads has raised concerns among media outlets and observers. While not violating Google's rules, this tactic potentially blurs the line between journalism and political advertising. The campaign's approach contrasts sharply with Trump's antagonistic stance towards mainstream media.
A report from The Daily Beast details the 1995 DUI arrest of Tim Walz, now a potential vice presidential candidate, and the subsequent handling of this incident by his campaign team.
Nebraska State Trooper Stephen Rasgorshek arrested Walz for drunk driving in September 1995. Walz initially responded responsibly, admitting fault and using the incident as a teachable moment for his students. However, when Walz ran for Congress in 2006, his campaign manager Kerry Greely claimed Walz wasn't drunk during the arrest, attributing his behavior to ear damage affecting his balance and hearing.
Following the arrest, Walz displayed immediate remorse, reporting the incident to his principal and offering his resignation. The principal, however, urged him to stay, although Walz chose to step down from his extracurricular duties. This early response to the arrest was seen by many as a genuine attempt to take responsibility for his actions.
The legal proceedings culminated in a March 13, 1996, hearing at Danes County Court, where Walz pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of reckless driving. He was fined $200 plus court costs. Despite this setback, Walz continued his career in education, moving to Minnesota, where he taught and coached. His team’s success, including a state championship win, marked a significant recovery in his professional life.
Walz entered politics in 2006 when he ran for Congress as a Democrat. During his campaign, the 1995 DUI arrest resurfaced, prompting his campaign staff to address the issue. Kerry Greely, his campaign manager, and Meredith Salsbery, his spokesperson, attributed the arrest to a hearing issue that they claimed affected Walz's balance and comprehension during the sobriety tests.
Rasgorshek strongly disputes these claims. According to the trooper, Walz was given the sobriety tests in the patrol car, and both the breathalyzer and hospital tests confirmed that Walz was over the legal blood alcohol limit, registering at .128. Rasgorshek expressed disbelief at the campaign’s narrative, noting that his loud voice is well-known among his friends and family, making it unlikely that Walz couldn't hear him.
The trooper recalled his initial impression of Walz, suggesting that if Walz had maintained his early stance of taking responsibility and quitting alcohol, it would have been commendable. Rasgorshek believes that Walz’s later attempts to downplay the arrest through explanations about ear damage undermined the honesty he initially demonstrated.
The contrast between Walz’s early response to the DUI arrest and the narrative presented by his campaign years later has fueled ongoing debate. While the initial handling of the incident was marked by transparency and accountability, the later shift in messaging has cast a shadow over the event.
As Walz’s vice-presidential bid brings renewed scrutiny to his past, the 1995 arrest is once again a topic of discussion. Supporters and critics alike are revisiting the details of the arrest and the conflicting stories that have emerged over time.
Rasgorshek's perspective on the incident has remained consistent. He emphasizes that anyone can get a DUI, but what matters most is how they handle the aftermath. In his view, Walz’s decision to attribute his arrest to a medical issue rather than continue with the narrative of personal growth is regrettable.
Reflecting on the situation, Russell Harford, a colleague of Walz, noted that Walz took his role as a teacher and coach seriously, understanding the impact his actions had on the students. Harford mentioned that Walz began using his experience to educate students on the dangers of drinking and driving, finding a way to turn the negative experience into a teachable moment.
Judge Hansen, who presided over the 1996 hearing, also commented on the potential for positive outcomes from the incident. He urged Walz to share his experience with students, highlighting the idea that every adversity contains the seed of greater benefit.
The 1995 DUI arrest of Tim Walz, now a vice-presidential candidate, continues to be a topic of discussion, particularly in light of the conflicting narratives that have emerged over the years. While Walz initially responded with accountability, the subsequent explanations from his campaign have muddied the waters.