The Ohio Secretary of State's office has issued a warning to election boards after a troubling discovery.
Following an investigation into the submission of illegal voter registration forms, Secretary of State Frank LaRose called on all 88 Ohio county boards of elections to exercise increased vigilance as the state nears the 2024 voter registration deadline, as a press release from his office explains.
LaRose’s Election Integrity Unit uncovered the illegal forms after one was submitted in Haitian Creole. The Clark County Board of Elections identified the unauthorized document and traced its origins to a county government assistance office.
The form was mistakenly included among materials outsourced to a foreign language translation service. Director of Investigations Hun Yi confirmed this and praised the Clark County Board for promptly rejecting the form and collaborating to trace its origin.
LaRose emphasized the gravity of the situation. He expressed concerns over the form's submission, given the significant population of Haitian refugees in Springfield. His office remains vigilant against fraudulent voter registration activities.
The secretary also warned about the involvement of third-party groups in these illegal practices. Black Fork Strategies, among others, is under scrutiny for submitting fraudulent voter registrations in multiple Ohio counties.
LaRose reiterated the importance of vigilance as the state approaches the 2024 election. His office has been aggressively pursuing groups and individuals responsible for fraudulent registrations. County boards were advised to pay close attention to any submissions, particularly those from third-party organizations.
Director Yi echoed this sentiment, reminding all officials to scrutinize any forms submitted by public or private entities. He urged local boards to be especially cautious of third-party groups hiring paid canvassers who might prioritize quantity over accuracy.
The investigation also revealed ongoing efforts to audit the statewide voter rolls for compliance with Ohio's citizenship voting requirement. The Secretary's office has employed federal and state databases to identify any potential non-citizen registrations.
LaRose pointed to the need for a statewide effort to ensure election integrity. His office continues to enforce strict rules against the use of unauthorized registration forms, a requirement mandated by law.
He also warned that fraudulent activities could become more frequent as the election draws nearer, especially from third-party groups or paid operatives working under bounty systems. “We’re cracking down on illegal forms that aren’t authorized,” LaRose stated. “We’re reminding elections officials to remain vigilant and protect the integrity of the election process.”
Ohio’s Election Integrity Unit has been monitoring the situation closely, continuing investigations into the fraudulent practices of Black Fork Strategies and other involved groups. The secretary has made clear that any evidence of groups encouraging non-citizens to participate in elections will be investigated thoroughly.
As the state moves closer to the 2024 election, Ohio voters can expect increased scrutiny of registration forms and enhanced measures to protect the integrity of the voter rolls.
Democratic Party vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz’s political trajectory has been significantly shaped by his training at Camp Wellstone, as has recently been revealed.
Walz's rise from high school teacher to a prominent political figure mirrors the far-left ideologies and grassroots strategies of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, as Breitbart reports.
Then a high school teacher and football coach from Mankato, Minnesota, Walz made waves in the political arena by leveraging his experiences at Camp Wellstone. His journey began in January 2005 when he joined Camp Wellstone to hone his political skills. The camp, founded in 2003 to honor the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, aims to train progressive candidates, campaigners, and organizers.
Walz’s upset victory in Minnesota's conservative 1st Congressional District in 2006 marked Camp Wellstone’s first success at the federal level. This win showcased the effectiveness of the camp’s training and highlighted Walz’s dedication to progressive principles. However, Walz's ties to far-left movements and connections with China have stirred controversies throughout his career.
Camp Wellstone, inspired by the radical methodologies of Saul Alinsky, utilizes training materials like his famous treatise, Rules for Radicals. The camp has been a springboard for many progressive leaders, including Tim Walz. Influential figures such as Keith Ellison, Melvin Carter, and Peggy Flanagan were trained at the camp, contributing to a robust network of progressive politicians.
The late senator, a political science professor and advocate for Alinsky’s teachings, is the namesake and inspiration behind Camp Wellstone. Wellstone was supported by the Democratic Socialists of America and championed numerous progressive causes. His unexpected victory in the 1990 Senate election against Rudy Boschwitz catapulted him into the national spotlight.
Wellstone's tragic death in a 2002 plane crash left a void in progressive politics, but his legacy endures through Camp Wellstone, which continues to shape future leaders. Prominent alumni advocate Wellstone’s ethos, reflecting in policies and political movements in Minnesota and beyond.
Wellstone Action, now rebranded as re:power, has played a crucial role in developing leaders who champion progressive policies. Financial backing from organizations like the Tides Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has enabled the camp to maintain its influential presence.
Noteworthy graduates, including Ellison, Carter, and Flanagan, have made significant strides in shaping Minnesota’s political landscape. The training provided by Camp Wellstone has proven to be "hands down the ‘go to’ training center in the progressive movement," as noted by Jon Youngdahl.
Walz’s ascent from a political novice to a federal figure underscores the effectiveness of Camp Wellstone’s training methodologies. The camp’s focus on grassroots mobilization, inspired by Paul Wellstone, has equipped candidates like Walz with the skills to navigate and influence the political arena successfully.
Tim Walz’s statements underscore the profound impact of Camp Wellstone on his career. "Once I decided to run for Congress, I went to Camp Wellstone in January of 2005 to learn how to do it. I had no idea; I’d never given a stump speech before," Walz stated, highlighting his initial political naiveté.
David Wellstone, reflecting on Walz’s journey, mentioned that the camp "helped shape the way that he politicked." Such endorsements underscore the transformative nature of the training Walz received at Camp Wellstone. Marcia Avner noted, "He has been so seasoned by the work here," further attesting to the camp’s lasting influence on his political trajectory.
Flanagan, herself an alumna of the camp, remarked, "What you see is what we saw back then, but it has been strengthened with extraordinary experience." This statement illustrates the consistency and growth of Walz's political identity shaped by the camp's training and Wellstone's ideology.
White House National Security Council communications adviser John Kirby found himself at the center of controversy after accidentally sending an email to Fox News that appeared dismissive of veterans' concerns about the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal.
As reported by The Western Journal, the incident occurred on September 11, 2024, the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The situation unfolded when Fox News sent an email inquiry to the White House, including quotes from four veterans who had voiced strong criticisms of the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal.
Kirby, intending to respond only to White House staffers on the National Security Council, inadvertently hit "reply all," including Fox News in his response.
Kirby's email, which was not meant for public consumption, stated: "Obviously no use in responding. A 'handful' of vets indeed and all of one stripe."
This message, seemingly dismissive of the veterans' concerns, quickly sparked outrage among veterans and their supporters. The four veterans quoted in the original Fox News inquiry were Republican Rep. Cory Mills of Florida, Mark Geist, Stuart Scheller, and Chad Robichaux, all of whom had offered scathing criticisms of the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Upon realizing his mistake, Kirby sent a follow-up email to Fox News, stating, "Clearly, I didn't realize you were on the chain." However, the damage had already been done, with the initial email revealing what many perceived as the administration's true stance on veterans' concerns.
The email incident comes amid ongoing scrutiny of the Biden administration's handling of the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal. Earlier in the week, Republican Rep. Mike McCaul of Texas, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, released a report criticizing the administration both for the withdrawal itself and for subsequent attempts to deflect responsibility.
In response to Kirby's accidental email, Rep. McCaul expressed his disapproval, stating that the Biden-Harris administration has consistently disregarded veterans, service members, and Gold Star families over their botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. This statement, shared on social media by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority, further fueled the controversy surrounding Kirby's email.
The veterans quoted in the original Fox News inquiry had strong reactions to the administration's handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and Kirby's recent press conference performance.
Mark Geist, a Marine veteran and member of the security team that fought in the 2012 Battle of Benghazi, criticized Kirby's press conference, pointing out what he perceived as a one-sided presentation of facts and falsehoods.
Stuart Scheller, a former Marine who was court-martialed for publicly criticizing U.S. military leadership over the Afghanistan withdrawal, offered a scathing assessment of Kirby and military leadership. Scheller stated:
I am proud that I identified the mistakes and poor planning in real time. It still pains me that it cost me my career. John Kirby, a former Navy admiral, represents the morally weak military officer class willing to parrot narratives for individual advancement. These politicians in uniform demonstrate, time and time again, that they are terrified of honest assessments of failure.
Chad Robichaux, another veteran quoted in the Fox News inquiry, emphasized the strategic implications of the withdrawal. He highlighted the abandonment of Bagram Air Base and the consequences for Afghan women and girls, as well as the sensitive equipment left behind.
The accidental email from White House adviser John Kirby has reignited the debate surrounding the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan. The incident has brought renewed attention to the concerns of veterans and their families and the Biden administration's handling of the withdrawal and its aftermath. As criticism mounts, the White House faces increasing pressure to address these concerns and provide a more comprehensive response to the issues raised by veterans and military families.
Two presidential candidates, Cornel West and Claudia De la Cruz, were recently disqualified from appearing on the Georgia ballot in the upcoming election due to improper paperwork filed by their electors.
According to the Associated Press, the ruling affects their candidacies, even though their names may still appear on the ballot. Despite this, as the court decided, any votes cast for these candidates will not be counted.
The decision was made by Fulton County Superior Court Judges Thomas A. Cox Jr. and Emily Richardson. They ruled that neither West, who is running as an independent, nor De la Cruz, the Party for Socialism and Liberation nominee, had submitted the necessary paperwork in time. Their electors did not meet the required signature count under Georgia election laws.
Georgia is set to mail its military and overseas ballots as early as Tuesday. However, election officials are now required to post notices at polling locations, informing voters that while West and De la Cruz may appear on the ballot, their votes will not be counted.
West’s campaign spokesperson, Edwin DeJesus, expressed confidence that an appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court would reverse the decision. Meanwhile, Estevan Hernandez, co-chair of De la Cruz’s campaign in Georgia, decried the court’s decision as an attack on voters’ rights.
“We are appealing this decision which negates basic democratic rights of the people of Georgia to vote for the candidate of their choice,” Hernandez stated in response to the ruling.
Both West and De la Cruz plan to appeal the ruling, with their campaigns gearing up for a legal battle ahead of the general election. If their disqualification is upheld, the remaining presidential options for Georgia voters will include Donald Trump (Republican), Kamala Harris (Democrat), Chase Oliver (Libertarian), and Jill Stein (Green Party).
Georgia law automatically qualifies Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian candidates, while other parties must meet signature requirements. In this case, West and De la Cruz’s electors were found to have failed in this process. Cox pointed out that West needed just one elector to properly qualify, but none of the necessary signatures were presented in time.
Despite this, the campaigns remain hopeful for a reversal. "We are confident that we will win the appeal," DeJesus wrote in an email.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger initially overruled an administrative law judge’s earlier decision to disqualify West and De la Cruz. However, the recent judicial ruling reversed that decision. Stein, on the other hand, was qualified by Raffensperger due to her status as a Green Party candidate in over 20 states under a new Georgia law.
Another candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., had also been disqualified, though he has since withdrawn his candidacy in Georgia and endorsed Trump for president. Democrats, meanwhile, had mounted challenges against the inclusion of West, De la Cruz, and Stein, with only Stein surviving the legal battles.
Judge Cox dismissed the Democratic challenge to Stein’s inclusion, ruling that Raffensperger “has a clear legal duty to allow the Unified Green Party to qualify candidates for presidential elector and to allow those candidates access to the Nov. 4, 2024 General Election ballot.”
Two Georgia judges have disqualified presidential candidates Cornel West and Claudia De la Cruz from appearing on the state's ballot due to improper filing of paperwork by their electors. The ruling, if upheld on appeal, means votes for these candidates will not be counted in Georgia, even if their names remain on printed ballots. This decision narrows the field of presidential choices for Georgia voters and highlights the intricate legal requirements for ballot access in U.S. elections.
Former President Donald Trump's recent threats to prosecute political rivals have raised alarms among legal and democracy experts.
According to a report by USA TODAY, these experts warn that Trump's history suggests he could follow through on such threats if he were to secure a second presidential term.
On September 9, 2024, Trump took to Truth Social, alleging widespread cheating in the 2020 election despite numerous recounts and audits disproving his claims. He warned that after winning the 2024 election, those who allegedly "CHEATED" would face prosecution.
This statement follows recent posts calling for military tribunals against former President Barack Obama and indictments against the House committee that investigated the January 6 riot.
Trump's threats are not merely rhetorical, according to experts. During his first term, he reportedly attempted to use the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute political opponents. In 2017, Trump allegedly asked then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from campaign-related investigations and prosecute Hillary Clinton.
The following year, Trump reportedly told White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute both Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey. McGahn warned Trump that such actions could lead to impeachment.
Legal experts express worry that Trump could be more successful in prosecuting rivals in a potential second term. Amanda Carpenter, a former Republican staffer now working for Protect Democracy, points out that checks on presidential power have weakened.
Carpenter notes that Trump allies have plans to erode Justice Department independence. Additionally, the Supreme Court's July 1 presidential immunity decision and the diminishing number of congressional Republicans who supported Trump's January 6-related impeachment could further embolden such efforts.
Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, likens Trump's threats to actions seen in authoritarian regimes. He emphasizes the danger to democracy when political winners imprison their opponents.
Not all legal experts view Trump's threats as equally concerning. University of California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo argues that prosecuting Trump's rivals could be a way to deter future politically motivated prosecutions.
Yoo contends that without the threat of prosecution against their own leaders, Democrats might continue to charge future Republican presidents without restraint. However, he also states that he doesn't take Trump's social media posts seriously, viewing some as jokes. Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, counters this view. He argues that the appropriateness of prosecution should be based on whether a serious crime was committed, not on political retaliation.
Trump's campaign maintains that he believes anyone breaking the law should face prosecution, including those engaging in election fraud. However, critics argue that Trump's threats are based on unproven claims and conspiracy theories rather than substantiated evidence of wrongdoing.
The debate surrounding Trump's prosecution threats highlights the tension between political rhetoric and legal accountability. Experts warn that such threats if acted upon, could significantly impact the integrity of the U.S. justice system and the stability of democratic institutions. As the 2024 election approaches, the potential consequences of these threats continue to be a subject of intense scrutiny and concern among legal and political observers.
Former President Donald Trump called for the dismissal of ABC News' entire staff following Tuesday night's presidential debate, where he faced off against Vice President Kamala Harris.
According to The Daily Beast, the demand came via a post on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social, despite polls indicating that viewers largely perceived Harris as the debate's victor.
In his social media statement, Trump asserted that he had delivered a "GREAT DEBATE" performance, contradicting the findings of several post-debate polls. The former president also accused the debate moderators, Linsey Davis and David Muir, of partisanship, claiming he was effectively debating three opponents instead of one.
The gap between Trump's self-assessment and public opinion is evident in the results of multiple post-debate surveys. A CNN/SSRS poll of 605 registered voters revealed that 63% believed Harris won the debate, compared to 37% for Trump. Similarly, a YouGov poll of 2,166 registered voters showed 54% favoring Harris's performance, with 31% supporting Trump.
Perhaps most notably, a Republican-sponsored poll conducted by SoCal Strategies/On Point Politics/Red Eagle Politics found that 53% of the 572 likely voters surveyed thought Harris outperformed Trump, who received 34% support. These figures present a clear contrast to Trump's assertion of a successful debate showing.
The discrepancy between these poll results and Trump's claims raises questions about the former president's perception of his performance and the broader public's assessment of the debate.
While Trump criticized the debate moderators, many media critics offered positive assessments of their work. Linsey Davis and David Muir's approach to moderating, particularly their handling of fact-checking, garnered praise from several quarters.
Slate's Justin Peters described it as "the best-moderated presidential debate of the Trump era," highlighting the moderators' sharp questions and calm approach. TIME TV critic Judy Berman noted that their fact-checking efforts were "sporadic but effective" in maintaining the debate's honesty.
However, not all reviews were positive. Fox News Media Buzz host Howard Kurtz offered a dissenting opinion, stating:
ABC gets a D-, and that's being generous. In fact the network's moderators were so blatantly biased against Donald Trump that it vindicated his pregame criticism of ABC as dishonest.
This range of opinions underscores the challenges inherent in moderating high-stakes political debates and the differing perspectives on what constitutes fair and effective moderation.
The debate's aftermath extended beyond political discourse, impacting the financial markets as well. Shares of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, experienced a significant downturn following the debate. The stock price fell by 10% by the close of trading on Wednesday, reaching its lowest point since the company went public in March.
This market reaction suggests that investors may have viewed Trump's debate performance negatively, potentially influencing their confidence in his media ventures. The connection between political performance and business interests highlights the complex interplay between Trump's various roles as a former president, current candidate, and business figure.
Donald Trump's call for ABC News to fire its staff following the presidential debate has sparked controversy. Post-debate polls consistently showed Vice President Kamala Harris as the perceived winner, contradicting Trump's claims of a strong performance. Media critics generally praised the moderators' approach, particularly their fact-checking efforts. The debate's aftermath also saw a decline in Trump Media & Technology Group's stock price, highlighting the event's broader implications.
In a dramatic turn of events on Tuesday night, rock legend Jon Bon Jovi found himself in an unexpected role of crisis intervention on Nashville's Seigenthaler Pedestrian Bridge.
CNN reported that the musician played a crucial part in persuading a woman to step back from the ledge of the bridge overlooking the Cumberland River.
The incident, which occurred while Bon Jovi was filming a music video, was captured on surveillance footage and later shared by the authorities. The police statement, posted on the department's social media platform on Wednesday, credited Bon Jovi with helping to bring the situation to a safe resolution.
The woman, whose identity had not been disclosed by the authorities, was subsequently transported to a local hospital for evaluation and treatment.
What began as a routine music video production on the public bridge quickly evolved into a tense situation when Bon Jovi and his crew noticed a woman in distress. The surveillance footage, released by the Nashville Metro Police Department, shows the "Livin' on a Prayer" singer approaching the woman who was holding onto the bridge's ledge.
In the video, Bon Jovi, accompanied by an unidentified individual, can be seen engaging with the woman. Their interaction culminates in a poignant moment as the rock star helps lift her back over the ledge to safety, followed by a comforting embrace.
A source close to the situation revealed that the singer and his team were in the midst of filming when they encountered the unfolding crisis. This unexpected interruption to their creative process highlights the unpredictable nature of public spaces and the potential for everyday heroes to emerge.
The incident has drawn praise from local law enforcement, underscoring the importance of community involvement in crisis situations. Nashville Police Chief John Drake commented on the event, stating, "It takes all of us to help keep each other safe."
Chief Drake's words echo the sentiment that public safety is a collective responsibility, with citizens and public figures alike playing crucial roles in maintaining the well-being of their communities.
This act of intervention aligns with Jon Bon Jovi's long-standing commitment to community service and crisis support. The singer's experience in helping individuals during difficult times is rooted in his work with the JBJ Soul Foundation, an organization he established in 2006.
The foundation's mission, as stated on its website, is to "break the cycle of hunger, poverty and homelessness" through various programs and by supporting community-based organizations. This incident on the Nashville bridge serves as a real-world application of the principles Bon Jovi has championed through his philanthropic efforts.
The foundation's work has likely provided Bon Jovi with valuable insights and training in approaching sensitive situations, skills that proved critical during Tuesday night's events on the Seigenthaler Pedestrian Bridge.
Jon Bon Jovi's intervention on the Nashville bridge potentially saved a life. The rock icon, while filming a music video, noticed a woman in distress on the ledge and successfully persuaded her to safety. Nashville police praised Bon Jovi's actions, and the woman was taken to a local hospital for evaluation. This incident highlights the importance of community involvement in crisis situations and aligns with Bon Jovi's ongoing philanthropic work through his JBJ Soul Foundation.
Former President Donald Trump has reignited the contentious healthcare debate by calling for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.
As reported by NBC News, this move has reopened a political fight that many Republicans had hoped to put behind them.
During the September 11 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump criticized the current state of healthcare in the United States, stating that Obamacare was "lousy" and "not very good today." He expressed his intention to replace the ACA with a better system, although he did not provide specific details of his plan.
Trump's comments have caught many by surprise, given that Republicans have been trying to distance themselves from efforts to repeal the ACA. The former president indicated that he has "concepts of a plan" and promised to release "concepts and options" in the near future.
This move has potentially significant political implications. The Harris campaign is reportedly exploring ways to use Trump's remarks against him, considering paid ads and healthcare-focused events to highlight the issue.
David Plouffe, a senior adviser to the Harris campaign, criticized Trump's approach, stating:
He promised us a health care plan back in 2015. A long time ago. Never came. Last night, he said he had the concepts of the plan. But he still wants to basically throw tens of millions of people off health care. People in swing states are going to hear about that very soon.
The timing of Trump's comments is particularly noteworthy, as the Biden administration recently announced that ACA enrollment has reached an all-time high.
In 2024, 20.8 million Americans signed up for coverage through the ACA marketplace, with approximately 50 million Americans having been covered through ACA private marketplaces since 2014.
Vice President Harris defended the ACA during the debate, emphasizing its popular provisions:
You have no plan. And what the Affordable Care Act has done is eliminate the ability of insurance companies to deny people with pre-existing conditions. I don't have to tell the people watching tonight. You remember what that was like? Remember when an insurance company could deny if a child had asthma, if someone was a breast cancer survivor, if a grandparent had diabetes? And, thankfully, as I've been vice president, we over the last four years have strengthened the Affordable Care Act.
The renewed focus on healthcare has put some Republican senators in a difficult position. While acknowledging issues with the current system, they seem reluctant to fully embrace Trump's call for replacement.
Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who is up for re-election, expressed a nuanced view on the matter. He acknowledged problems with the ACA but stopped short of calling for its repeal. Senator Scott stated: "You want to have a safety net so people can get health care. ... So the way I would look at it is, I wouldn't talk about what we should do with the ACA. I say: How are we going to fix the system?"
Trump's call to replace Obamacare has reignited a long-standing debate over healthcare in the United States. This move comes at a time when ACA enrollment is at an all-time high, with 20.8 million Americans signed up in 2024.
The Harris campaign is exploring ways to use Trump's comments against him, while some Republican senators express reluctance to revisit the ACA repeal fight. As the 2024 election approaches, healthcare policy is likely to remain a central and contentious issue.
In a high-stakes presidential debate that captivated the nation, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris faced off for the first time on Tuesday, September 11, 2024, in Philadelphia.
According to body language expert Susan Constantine, the debate revealed a series of tactical maneuvers and emotional responses that significantly impacted both candidates' performances.
Constantine's analysis provides insight into the non-verbal communication that played a crucial role in this pivotal political event. As reported by Fox News, the expert's observations suggest that Harris employed a strategy of deliberately provoking Trump, successfully baiting him on multiple occasions throughout the evening.
Constantine noted that Harris seemed well-prepared to target Trump's known weak points, particularly when it came to the topic of rally attendance. By questioning the size and enthusiasm of crowds at Trump's events, Harris managed to elicit strong defensive reactions from the former president.
"He fell for every one of her games; they were all tactics," Constantine explained. "So when she would poke the bear, he would growl back, and she would keep poking the bear and especially when it came to, of course, the crowds."
As the debate progressed, Trump's body language began to betray his growing frustration. Constantine observed:
You could see that Trump was getting really, really upset about it. At one point, he dropped his shoulders, dropped his head, and he sunk. And then you see the upper lip [move upward] very quickly. It was a micro-expression of leakage, of hatred and disgust and scorn… he was really angry at her for saying that.
While Trump's demeanor became increasingly serious and tense, Harris maintained a more upbeat appearance throughout the debate. However, Constantine cautioned that Harris's frequent smiles were not always genuine, describing them as "perma-smiles" that lasted unnaturally long.
"Real smiles don't last beyond the very longest four seconds," Constantine pointed out. "When a person holds that smile and does it throughout, that's condescending, and what she's doing is she is also dismissing what Trump is saying and [that] is covered with the perma-smile. That is inauthentic."
The expert also noted Harris's effective use of hand gestures and direct eye contact with the camera, suggesting that the vice president had likely received coaching on her presentation skills.
Despite her overall strong performance, Constantine identified a moment of vulnerability for Harris when she was asked about abortion restrictions. The expert observed signs of evasion in Harris's body language during this exchange.
"She evaded that question because she couldn't really answer," Constantine explained. "So that's when her eyes go down she starts to do the 'bobblehead.' And that was a cluster of deception."
Interestingly, Constantine also commented on the pre-debate interaction between the candidates, praising Harris for her approach to the initial handshake. The vice president's decision to move into Trump's space to engage with him was seen as a positive gesture by the body language expert.
The ABC Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on September 11, 2024, was a significant political event that showcased the power of non-verbal communication in high-stakes situations. Susan Constantine's analysis revealed Harris's strategic provocation of Trump, which led to visible emotional responses from the former president. The debate highlighted contrasting presentation styles, with Harris maintaining a composed demeanor while Trump displayed increasing frustration. Both candidates had moments of strength and vulnerability, demonstrating the complex dynamics at play in presidential debates.
Jim Sasser, a former U.S. Senator from Tennessee and ambassador to China, has passed away at the age of 87.
According to NBC News, Sasser died on September 11, 2024, at his home in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, from an apparent heart attack.
Sasser, a Democrat, represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate for 18 years, from 1977 to 1995. Following his tenure in the Senate, he was appointed by President Bill Clinton as the U.S. ambassador to China, a position he held until 2001.
Sasser's political career began in the early 1970s when he managed the unsuccessful re-election campaign of Senator Albert Gore Sr. in 1970. He then served as chairman of the Tennessee Democratic Party from 1973 to 1976 before launching his own successful bid for the Senate.
In 1976, Sasser defeated Republican Bill Brock to win his Senate seat. He went on to win re-election in 1982 and 1988, establishing himself as a prominent figure in the Democratic Party. During his time in the Senate, Sasser served as chairman of the budget committee from 1989 to 1992.
Sasser's political trajectory seemed to be on an upward path, with the possibility of becoming Senate majority leader. However, his senatorial career came to an unexpected end in 1994 when he was defeated by Republican Bill Frist, a political newcomer at the time.
Following his defeat in the Senate, Sasser's public service career took a new direction. President Bill Clinton appointed him as the U.S. ambassador to China, a role he assumed in 1995. Sasser's tenure as ambassador coincided with a period of evolving U.S.-China relations, and he held the position until 2001.
After retiring from his diplomatic post, Sasser transitioned into a consulting role. He also spent time as a fellow at Harvard University, continuing to contribute his expertise and experience to academic and policy discussions.
Sasser's children, Gray and Elizabeth, reflected on their father's dedication to public service and his personal priorities. They shared, "He believed in the nobility of public service and the transformational power of government."
The Sasser siblings also emphasized their father's commitment to his constituents, noting that he took pride in his "quiet achievements" for ordinary Tennesseans, such as assisting with disability claims or VA benefits. In a touching tribute, they added:
As his friends and former staff will attest, Dad loved his family, the State of Tennessee, his years serving in the US Senate and old cars too, and loved them in that order.
Jim Sasser's political career spanned a significant period in Tennessee's history. His election to the Senate in 1976 marked a victory for the Democratic Party, and he remained an influential figure in state and national politics for nearly two decades. Notably, Sasser was the last Democrat to represent Tennessee in the U.S. Senate. His defeat in 1994 coincided with a broader shift in the state's political landscape as Republican candidates began to dominate statewide elections.
Throughout his career, Sasser maintained strong ties to his home state. Born in Memphis and raised in Nashville, he completed his undergraduate and law degrees at Vanderbilt University before practicing law in Nashville and becoming involved in Democratic politics.
Jim Sasser's passing marks the end of an era in Tennessee politics. His 18-year tenure in the U.S. Senate and his service as ambassador to China left a lasting impact on both state and national levels. Sasser's commitment to public service, his rise through the ranks of the Democratic Party, and his diplomatic role in U.S.-China relations define his legacy. He is survived by his wife Mary, children Gray and Elizabeth, and four grandchildren.