In a surprising twist, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called on his supporters to vote for Donald Trump in every state, even those in which he mounted a strong campaign of his own.
The former independent presidential candidate reversed his previous guidance, now encouraging his base to back Trump as a means to fulfill the goals of his campaign, as Just the News reports.
RFK, Jr., who previously ran for president as an independent, has shocked political observers by urging his supporters across the country to cast their ballots for Trump. This marks a significant change from his earlier position, which allowed supporters in non-competitive states to still vote for him.
In a fundraising email sent Thursday, Kennedy issued a direct plea, urging his followers to back Trump, regardless of where they live. "No matter what state you live in, I urge you to vote for Donald Trump," Kennedy wrote. He explained his rationale, stating that this was "the only way we can get me and everything I stand for into Washington D.C."
Kennedy had initially planned to remove his name from the ballot in just 10 key swing states. This decision was originally framed as a strategic move, aimed at preventing his candidacy from splitting the vote in battleground regions. The goal was to avoid hindering Trump’s path to the White House by siphoning votes from Republican-leaning constituencies in competitive races.
However, Kennedy has since expanded this plan. His latest decision includes removing his name from the ballot in several more states, including deep-red areas such as South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. This expansion signals an even deeper commitment to the strategy of consolidating support for Trump across the nation.
These traditionally Republican states are not typically seen as battlegrounds in presidential races, but Kennedy’s withdrawal from their ballots suggests an effort to further eliminate the possibility of divided votes that could hurt Trump’s campaign.
Before this shift, Kennedy had maintained a nuanced position. He had suggested that his supporters in key battleground states could cast their ballots for Trump while leaving room for voters in uncompetitive regions to continue supporting him. This approach allowed him to maintain a presence in the race without directly impacting the larger dynamics between Trump and the Democratic nominee.
The new message, however, eliminates this ambiguity. Kennedy now asks his base to support Trump outright in every state, signaling a complete alignment with Trump’s candidacy in the final stretch of the election cycle.
His decision reflects a clear pivot in his political calculations, driven by a desire to influence the national outcome in a way that aligns with his broader policy goals. Kennedy emphasized that the move is not about abandoning his own campaign, but rather ensuring that his political vision is represented in Washington through Trump's potential presidency.
Kennedy's Thursday fundraising email emphasized this newfound urgency. By urging his supporters to rally behind Trump, Kennedy linked his vision to that of Trump’s campaign, arguing that the Republican candidate represents the best vehicle for advancing the issues his own campaign championed.
"The reason is that is the only way we can get me and everything I stand for into Washington D.C.," Kennedy wrote, making it clear that his endorsement of Trump is based on shared objectives. His supporters, particularly those who resonated with his anti-establishment rhetoric, are now being directed to place their hopes for change in Trump's hands.
This call to action was designed to mobilize Kennedy’s base, ensuring that their political energy is redirected toward Trump’s candidacy. It represents a final step in Kennedy’s transformation from an independent contender to a vocal Trump supporter.
Former First Lady Melania Trump has announced her upcoming memoir, titled "Melania," which she says will provide readers with "the truth" about her experiences.
In a promotional video released on Thursday, Mrs. Trump described the book as a "deeply personal and reflective journey," addressing what she considers "misrepresentation" during her time in the public eye.
According to The New York Post, the memoir is set for release on October 8, 2024, less than a month before the upcoming presidential election. Mrs. Trump, who has often been portrayed as a private individual thrust into the spotlight, emphasized her desire to clarify facts and share her perspective. The 54-year-old former model, born in what is now Slovenia, married Donald Trump in 2005 and found herself navigating the complex world of American politics during her husband's presidency.
Melania Trump, born in present-day Slovenia, worked as a fashion model before marrying Donald Trump in 2005. Her tenure as First Lady has been marked by scrutiny, with the public often speculating about her role in the White House.
She maintained a lower profile compared to previous First Ladies, appearing at some high-profile events while missing others. This inconsistency led to rumors and gossip about her involvement and interest in political affairs.
Melania has faced various controversies throughout her time in the public eye, many stemming from leaks and disclosures by former aides. These incidents have further contributed to what she describes as a skewed narrative of her time as First Lady.
The upcoming memoir will provide her version of events that have led to her portrayal in the media. One of the most infamous moments occurred when Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former advisor, recorded and leaked a conversation in which Melania expressed frustration over her duties related to White House Christmas decorations.
In that recording, Melania Trump was overheard complaining about working “my ass off” on Christmas arrangements, questioning why it was necessary. Her words sparked public outrage, especially given her role in organizing traditional holiday events. Another controversy involved Stephanie Grisham, a former White House press secretary, who revealed a text exchange with Melania during the January 6 Capitol riot. When asked if she would issue a statement condemning the violence, Melania reportedly replied simply, “No.”
As Donald Trump prepares to run for president once again, facing off against Vice President Kamala Harris in November, Melania’s memoir release comes at a strategically significant time. The book’s October 8 launch date places it just weeks before the election, potentially drawing renewed attention to the former First Lady.
Melania has made it clear that this memoir is a personal project, stating that it has been a reflective journey for her. The book is available for preorder at $40, with signed copies priced at $75. While she has generally avoided the political limelight, her proximity to Donald Trump’s political career has often thrust her into public discussions. Her memoir may provide an opportunity to set the record straight on these matters.
In her public comments, Melania expressed the importance of sharing her truth, noting that as a private person, she feels a responsibility to correct false impressions. This project will give readers an in-depth look at her life from her own perspective.
Melania’s time in the White House was marked by moments of both public service and personal controversy, with her reserved nature often fueling public curiosity. She has now taken control of her narrative with this memoir.
Melania Trump’s memoir, “Melania,” will be available on October 8, just weeks before her husband’s crucial face-off with Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
Former President Donald Trump has announced that his youngest son, Barron Trump, will be attending New York University's Stern School of Business.
The news was revealed in an exclusive interview with Daily Mail Online, where the proud father shared details about Barron's college choice and future plans.
Barron, who recently turned 18 and graduated from Oxbridge Academy in Palm Beach, Florida, in May, was reportedly accepted to numerous colleges. However, he ultimately chose NYU's prestigious Stern School of Business, known for its highly selective undergraduate program.
Donald Trump expressed his enthusiasm for Barron's decision, praising his son's intelligence and the quality of the chosen institution. He stated:
He's a very smart guy, and he'll be going to Stern, the business school, which is a great school at N.Y.U.
The former president also mentioned that Barron had considered following in his father's footsteps by attending the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. However, Barron ultimately opted for NYU, with Trump citing the school's high quality and his son's preference for the institution.
NYU's Stern School of Business is renowned for its rigorous academic program and competitive admission process. With an acceptance rate of approximately 5%, it is one of the most selective undergraduate business programs in the country. The school boasts notable alumni, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Home Depot co-founder Kenneth Langone.
Trump revealed that Barron plans to continue playing soccer while in college, a sport he has been passionate about for years. The young Trump has previously played for one of DC United's youth teams, showcasing his dedication to the sport.
As the first boy to grow up in the White House since John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1963, Barron Trump has lived through numerous public events and scrutiny. His mother, Melania Trump, has been known to be highly protective of her son, shielding him from the media spotlight as much as possible during his father's presidency.
The move to NYU will mark a significant transition for Barron as he steps into a more independent role as a college student. The campus's proximity to Trump Tower in Manhattan, where Barron spent much of his childhood before his father became president, may provide a sense of familiarity during this new chapter of his life.
In the same interview, Donald Trump shared insights into Barron's involvement in his current presidential campaign. The former president highlighted his son's understanding of social media and influencer culture, describing him as a crucial link to younger voters.
Trump explained how Barron has helped connect the campaign with popular Gen Z influencers and podcasters, mentioning:
He knows so much about it. Adin Ross, you know, I mean, I do some people that I wasn't so familiar with, different generation. He knows every one of them. And we've had tremendous success.
This revelation sheds light on the evolving roles within the Trump family and how they are adapting to reach new audiences in the digital age.
Barron Trump's decision to attend NYU's Stern School of Business marks a significant milestone in his academic journey. The former president's pride in his son's achievements and the insights into Barron's role in the campaign provide a glimpse into the family's dynamics. As Barron transitions from life in the White House to college, his choice of NYU reflects both his academic ambitions and his connection to New York City.
A federal judge has ruled that a section of Illinois' concealed carry law, which prohibits permit holders from carrying guns on public transportation, is unconstitutional.
According to the Chicago Tribune, the decision was made by U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston in Rockford, Illinois. The ruling comes as a result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by four individuals who argued that the law violated their Second Amendment right to self-defense.
The lawsuit cited the landmark 2022 case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new constitutional standard requiring gun laws to be consistent with historical precedents.
Judge Johnston noted that the defendants, including Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx, failed to provide evidence of an American tradition of firearm regulation that would justify the ban on public transportation. The judge ruled that historical laws cited by the defendants were not applicable to the plaintiffs' argument about self-defense rights.
The defendants ... failed to meet their burden to show an American tradition of firearm regulation at the time of the Founding that would allow Illinois to prohibit Plaintiffs — who hold concealed carry permits — from carrying concealed handguns for self-defense onto the CTA and Metra.
The plaintiffs' attorney, David Sigale, welcomed the ruling but advised permit holders to continue following the law until the broader applicability of the ruling is clarified. Attorney General Raoul's office indicated that they are reviewing the decision and will likely appeal.
Governor JB Pritzker criticized the ruling, stating that many conservative judges have misunderstood what it means to uphold public safety while respecting the Second Amendment.
Well, unfortunately many of the conservative judges who’ve been appointed have misunderstood what it means to uphold public safety and we still believe in the Second Amendment. It’s part of the Constitution. You have rights as a result of the Second Amendment. But there are limitations to that.
The ruling comes at a time when Chicago's crime rates have been a concern, particularly on public transportation. According to city officials, there have been 626 instances of violent crime reported on the CTA this year, up from 547 in the same period last year.
The defendants attempted to cite historical laws, including a nearly 700-year-old law, to justify the prohibition. However, the judge ruled that these laws did not serve as appropriate historical analogs to the plaintiffs' argument.
The judge also rejected arguments made by Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx, who claimed that the government has a right of exclusion similar to that of private property owners.
Johnston described this argument as "breathtaking, jawdropping, and eyepopping," stating that government ownership of property does not exempt it from constitutional protections.
In summary, a federal judge in Rockford, Illinois, has ruled that Illinois' concealed carry law cannot prohibit permit holders from carrying guns on public transportation. The ruling, based on a 2022 lawsuit, argues that the law violates the Second Amendment right to self-defense. The plaintiffs' attorney welcomed the ruling, while the Illinois Attorney General's office indicated it will likely appeal. The decision comes amid concerns about crime on Chicago's public transportation system and is part of a broader legal landscape involving challenges to Illinois gun laws.
The United States seized an aircraft belonging to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Monday.
The seizure occurred in the Dominican Republic, where the plane was undergoing maintenance. CNN reported that the US believes the aircraft was purchased illegally and used for illicit activities.
US officials stated that the seizure was a result of an investigation into alleged corruption and sanctions violations by the Venezuelan government. A Dassault Falcon 900EX aircraft was flown to Florida after being seized. US Attorney General Merrick Garland released a statement alleging that the aircraft was illegally purchased for $13 million through a shell company and smuggled out of the United States.
The Justice Department stated that the plane was purchased from a company in Florida and illegally exported in April 2023. The plane was flown from the United States to Venezuela through the Caribbean. According to the Justice Department, the plane was used for Maduro's international travels and flew "almost exclusively to and from a military base in Venezuela." Records show that the plane's last registered flight was in March, flying from Caracas to the Dominican capital of Santo Domingo.
Dominican Republic President Luis Abinader confirmed that the plane was seized but stated that it was not registered under the Venezuelan government's name. Instead, it was registered under "the name of an individual."
Dominican Republic Foreign Minister Roberto Álvarez added that the country's Attorney General's Office received an order last May from a national court to "immobilize" the plane. The US had requested that it be immobilized so they could search it for "evidence and objects linked to fraud activities, smuggling of goods for illicit activities and money laundering," he said.
US officials have been trying to disrupt the flow of billions of dollars to the Maduro regime for years. Homeland Security Investigations has seized dozens of luxury vehicles, among other assets, heading to Venezuela. "The plane was seized in violation of US sanctions with Venezuela and other criminal matters that we're still looking at regarding this aircraft," said Anthony Salisbury, Special Agent in Charge, Homeland Security Investigations.
A high-ranking official from the Dominican Republic told CNN that Maduro's aircraft had been in Dominican territory undergoing maintenance at the time it was seized by US authorities. The source added that the government had no record that Maduro's private plane was in the country until it was seized. US officials worked closely with the Dominican Republic, which notified Venezuela of the seizure, according to one of the US officials.
The Venezuelan government issued a statement on Monday condemning the seizure of the aircraft as "piracy." They accused Washington of escalating "aggression" toward Maduro's government following a contested presidential election this July.
"Once again, the authorities of the USA, in a recurring criminal practice that could not be labeled anything but piracy, have illegally seized an aircraft that has been used by the president of the Republic, justifying its action in coercive measures that, illegally and unilaterally, they impose around the world," the statement said.
This latest incident further escalates tensions between the US and Venezuela. The US has long accused Maduro of corruption and drug trafficking and has imposed numerous sanctions on his government. In 2017, two of Maduro's wife's nephews were sentenced to 18 years in prison in the US for drug trafficking. They were later released in a prisoner exchange.
In 2020, the US Department of Justice charged Maduro with narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and corruption. The US is offering a $15 million reward for information leading to his arrest. The US has also expressed concerns about the legitimacy of Venezuela's recent presidential election, in which Maduro was re-elected.
The seizure of Maduro's plane is a significant development in the ongoing tensions between the US and Venezuela. The US alleges that the plane was purchased illegally and used for illicit activities, while Venezuela condemns the seizure as "piracy." The incident highlights the deep mistrust and animosity between the two countries.
According to a legal expert, a recent Supreme Court decision regarding Title IX could potentially benefit Vice President Kamala Harris's political campaign.
As reported by Newsweek, the nation's highest court denied the Biden administration's request to partially lift a ban on enforcing new Title IX education discrimination rules across the country.
The ruling, which came as a surprise during the court's typical recess period, prevents the Department of Education from implementing changes to the landmark civil rights law that would include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This decision has sparked discussions about its potential impact on the upcoming election and Harris's campaign strategy.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in August 2024 maintained the status quo regarding Title IX enforcement in 26 states. These states had challenged the Biden administration's new rules, which were set to take effect on August 1, 2024. The administration had sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court to override objections from Republican attorneys general concerning prohibitions on gender identity discrimination.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the administration had not provided sufficient grounds to overturn lower courts' interim conclusions. The justices found that the provisions likely to be unlawful were interconnected with other aspects of the rule, making it difficult to implement partial changes.
This decision effectively halts the implementation of Biden's sweeping changes to Title IX, which aimed to broaden the scope of the 1972 law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational programs.
Michael Popok, speaking on the MeidasTouch podcast, suggested that this ruling could be advantageous for Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign. He argued that the decision allows Harris to highlight key issues that resonate with the Democratic base, particularly concerning women's rights and LGBTQ+ protections.
Popok stated:
For Kamala Harris in the campaign, it is a gift. It puts, once again, Donald Trump, his misogyny, his being against women, the platform on abortion, the platform against women's autonomy and reproductive rights, squarely on the ballot for November.
This perspective suggests that Harris could use the ruling to draw clear distinctions between the Democratic and Republican platforms on issues of gender equality and discrimination.
The Title IX ruling may have far-reaching effects on the upcoming election campaign. It provides an opportunity for Harris to address concerns about gender identity discrimination and reproductive rights, issues that have been at the forefront of political debates in recent years.
Popok further elaborated on how Harris and her running mate could leverage this ruling in their campaign messaging. He suggested that it allows them to demonstrate their commitment to a diverse range of constituencies, including transgender individuals and women concerned about reproductive rights.
The attorney emphasized that this approach could showcase the inclusive nature of the Democratic Party's platform, potentially appealing to a broad spectrum of voters concerned about civil rights and equality.
The Supreme Court's recent Title IX ruling has created a new dynamic in the political landscape leading up to the 2024 election. Legal experts suggest that this decision could provide Vice President Kamala Harris with an opportunity to highlight key issues in her campaign. The ruling maintains current Title IX enforcement in 26 states, preventing the implementation of new rules regarding gender identity discrimination. As the election approaches, this development may shape campaign strategies and public discourse on issues of gender equality and civil rights.
Lawyers representing former President Donald Trump are seeking to dismiss the federal election subversion case against him, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrows the scope of the prosecution.
This dismissal strategy could potentially delay the trial beyond the upcoming presidential election in that it raises significant concerns about the timing and fairness of the proceedings, as the Associated Press reports.
Trump’s defense team, bolstered by a recent Supreme Court ruling, has filed a joint proposal with prosecutors for the next steps in the case. The defense argues that the charges related to Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election should be dismissed based on the Supreme Court's interpretation, which they believe limits the scope of what can be prosecuted. This filing, made late on Friday, outlines the conflicting views of both sides and anticipates a protracted legal battle that could extend well into the next year.
The defense team is relying heavily on a recent Supreme Court opinion that narrowed the prosecution's ability to bring certain charges against Trump. The ruling has given Trump's lawyers a new avenue to argue that many of the allegations in the indictment, particularly those involving Trump's communications with former Vice President Mike Pence and his actions related to alternate slates of electors, should be considered immune from prosecution. They contend that these actions fall under the protections offered by the Supreme Court's decision, which deemed Trump "presumptively immune" from prosecution for his conduct during the post-election period.
This argument has already found some support in the legal system. A federal judge in Florida recently dismissed a separate case involving classified documents, citing similar grounds of immunity. Trump's legal team now hopes to achieve a similar outcome in the election subversion case.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, faces the challenging task of determining which elements of the indictment can proceed under the narrowed scope set by the Supreme Court. Her decisions will be crucial in shaping the future of the case and could significantly impact the timeline of any potential trial.
Trump's lawyers have made it clear that they intend to challenge every aspect of the indictment that they believe falls under the protection of the Supreme Court's ruling. They argue that if the court cannot definitively rebut the presumption of immunity, the entire indictment should be dismissed. In a statement submitted to the court, Trump's legal team wrote, “If the Court determines, as it should, that the Special Counsel cannot rebut the presumption that these acts are immune, binding law requires that the entire indictment be dismissed because the grand jury considered immunized evidence.”
This legal strategy could have significant implications for the timing of the trial. The Trump team envisions that the pretrial arguments alone could stretch into the fall of 2025 or even later, making it increasingly unlikely that the trial would take place before the next presidential election. This delay could have substantial political ramifications, as Trump is currently a leading contender for the Republican nomination.
On the other hand, special counsel Jack Smith's team has indicated its readiness to proceed with the case. Smith's office has stated that it is prepared to file an opening legal brief on the issue of Trump’s immunity “promptly at any time the Court deems appropriate.” This suggests that the prosecution is eager to push forward despite the defense’s attempts to delay.
The case against Trump is one of the most high-profile legal battles in recent memory, with significant implications for the rule of law and the integrity of the electoral process. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how former presidents are held accountable for their actions while in office, particularly in matters related to the peaceful transfer of power.
Trump’s defense team is focusing its efforts on discrediting the charges related to his alleged pressure on Pence to refuse the certification of electoral votes. They argue that these actions, as well as other communications about the 2020 election, are protected under the Supreme Court’s ruling. The defense maintains that these allegations should not be subject to prosecution and that the case should be dismissed in its entirety if the court agrees.
As the legal proceedings unfold, Judge Chutkan's decisions will be closely watched. Her rulings on what elements of the indictment can move forward will not only determine the trajectory of this case but also influence public perception of the justice system's ability to handle such politically sensitive matters.
In conclusion, the legal battle over the federal election subversion case against Donald Trump is entering a critical phase. With the defense seeking dismissal based on a Supreme Court ruling, the timing of any potential trial remains uncertain. The stakes are high, as the outcome could have far-reaching implications for both the upcoming presidential election and the broader legal landscape.
Rudy Giuliani is embroiled in a new legal battle, as two former Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, have filed a civil lawsuit against Giuliani, accusing him of attempting to protect his assets after a $148 million defamation verdict.
Freeman and Moss allege that Giuliani, a former lawyer to Donald Trump, is exploiting Florida’s homestead law by falsely declaring a Palm Beach condominium as his primary residence, to avoid paying judgments against him, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The lawsuit comes in the wake of a federal judge’s decision in July to dismiss Giuliani’s bankruptcy case, which had previously provided him with protections from creditors. The case, dismissed due to Giuliani's failure to meet court deadlines and fully disclose his financial situation, has left him vulnerable to the enforcement of the hefty defamation judgment. Freeman and Moss’s legal team argue that Giuliani's move to designate the Palm Beach property as his primary residence is an attempt to shelter it under Florida's homestead exemption, which safeguards primary residences from court judgments.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, aims to challenge Giuliani's claim that the Palm Beach condominium is his primary home. Freeman and Moss assert that Giuliani has not genuinely established the property as his primary residence. Their legal team points to evidence suggesting that Giuliani has spent significant time away from the condominium, calling into question the authenticity of his residency claim.
In a filing related to the case, attorneys for Freeman and Moss highlighted that Giuliani spent 34 days out of a 47-day period away from the Palm Beach property. They argue that there is little evidence to suggest that Giuliani has been physically present at the condominium for the remainder of the time. The lawsuit seeks to enforce an August 8 lien against the property, which would allow Freeman and Moss to seize and sell the condominium if necessary to satisfy the judgment.
Freeman and Moss were the targets of false accusations by Giuliani, who claimed they had engaged in fraudulent activities during the 2020 presidential election. These allegations, made as part of Giuliani's broader efforts to contest the election results, were later debunked by Georgia authorities. In December, a Washington, D.C., jury ordered Giuliani to pay $148 million in damages for defaming the two election workers.
Ted Goodman, a representative for Giuliani, has criticized the new lawsuit, describing it as an attempt to "harass and intimidate" Giuliani. Goodman also labeled the $148 million verdict as "objectively unreasonable" and noted that an appeal is still pending. According to Goodman, this latest legal action is part of a broader effort to "censor and bully" Giuliani and to discourage others from exercising their right to free speech.
Goodman further argued that the justice system has been "weaponized" against Giuliani and others who have spoken out on controversial matters, particularly those related to the 2020 election. He suggested that the lawsuit is an example of how the legal process is being used to target individuals based on their political beliefs and expressions.
Despite Giuliani's attempts to challenge the judgment and his efforts to protect his assets, Freeman and Moss continue to pursue legal action to ensure they are compensated for the harm they suffered. The August 8 lien on Giuliani's Palm Beach condominium represents a significant step in their efforts to enforce the court's ruling and hold Giuliani accountable for his defamatory statements.
The dismissal of Giuliani's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case has left him in a precarious financial position. Without the protections that bankruptcy provided, Giuliani is now fully exposed to the claims of creditors, including Freeman and Moss. The former mayor's financial difficulties have been compounded by his inability to comply with court requirements, which led to the dismissal of his bankruptcy case.
Freeman and Moss’s lawsuit is a stark reminder of the legal and financial challenges Giuliani faces as he contends with the consequences of his actions. The ongoing litigation underscores the seriousness of the defamation judgment and the lengths to which Freeman and Moss are willing to go to secure justice.
As the legal battle unfolds, the focus will remain on whether Giuliani's claims about his Palm Beach property can withstand scrutiny. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for Giuliani's financial future and the ability of Freeman and Moss to collect the damages awarded to them.
In summary, Rudy Giuliani is facing a lawsuit from Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, who accuse him of attempting to shield his assets after a $148 million defamation judgment. The lawsuit challenges Giuliani's claim that a Palm Beach condominium is his primary residence, with evidence suggesting he spends little time there. The legal battle, which follows the dismissal of Giuliani's bankruptcy case, raises questions about his financial future and the enforcement of the defamation judgment.
Vice President Kamala Harris has adjusted her positions on key immigration and border security policies, signaling a shift towards a more pragmatic approach as she campaigns for the presidency.
According to Fox News, Harris has modified her stance on issues such as decriminalizing illegal border crossings and closing immigration detention centers.
The Harris campaign confirmed these changes to Fox News, emphasizing the Vice President's commitment to bringing all sides together to build consensus. Campaign spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg stated that Harris believes real leadership involves finding common-sense solutions and making progress through bipartisan efforts.
Harris's current positions on immigration and border security have been shaped by her three years of governance as part of the Biden-Harris administration. This marks a departure from her previous statements as a California senator and during her 2020 Democratic presidential primary campaign.
In 2017, Harris expressed support for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, arguing that they should be treated as civil offenses rather than criminal acts. She famously stated, "An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal," a position that garnered both praise and criticism at the time. However, the Harris campaign now aligns with the administration's stance, asserting that unauthorized border crossings are indeed illegal.
During her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris had promised to shut down immigration detention centers on "day one" if elected. She had also suggested potentially starting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency "from scratch."
The Vice President's current position, as clarified by her campaign, now mirrors the administration's approach. This includes ensuring sufficient resources to enforce immigration laws, prioritizing detention and removal for individuals posing threats to public safety and national security, and ensuring compliance with immigration proceedings and decisions.
Harris has repeatedly backed the bipartisan Senate package that emerged from negotiations earlier this year. This package includes increased funding for border security, including ICE bed space and mechanisms to limit asylum entries into the United States. The Vice President has also supported President Biden's executive order signed in June, which limited asylum at the border and has been credited with causing a sharp decrease in border crossings after three years of a historic crisis.
The Trump campaign has pushed back against narratives suggesting that Harris has become more moderate on immigration issues. They argue that her past statements and positions are well-documented and accuse her of dishonesty rather than a genuine shift in perspective.
Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has also weighed in on the broader Democratic Party's approach to immigration. In a post on Twitter/X, Musk suggested:
The US Democratic Party as a whole has a massive incentive to bring in and legalize illegal immigrants, as they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. No grand conspiracy theory is needed. The simple incentive of winning elections explains why they won't even deport criminals who assault police officers on camera, because that would mean losing those votes.
The Harris campaign's shift in immigration policy positions reflects the complex and evolving nature of the immigration debate in the United States. As Vice President and potential presidential candidate, Harris must navigate the competing demands of border security, humanitarian concerns, and political realities.
This adjustment in stance also highlights the challenges faced by politicians as they transition from regional roles to national leadership positions. Harris's evolving perspective on immigration issues demonstrates the impact that executive experience can have on policy positions.
In conclusion, Vice President Kamala Harris has modified her stance on key immigration and border security issues. Her campaign now emphasizes a pragmatic approach focused on bipartisan solutions and effective governance. This shift reflects the complexities of national leadership and the ongoing challenges of addressing immigration policy in the United States. As the 2024 election approaches, Harris's evolving positions on these critical issues will likely continue to be a subject of debate and scrutiny.
A Chicago high school volleyball coach has resigned following controversial remarks made on a radio show about Tim Walz's son on August 22.
According to NewsNation, the comments were directed at Gus Walz, the 17-year-old son of vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, and his emotional reaction during the Democratic National Convention.
Amy Jacobson, the now-former Chicago Public Schools coach, co-hosted the "Chicago's Morning Answer" radio show where the controversial comments were made. Jacobson and her co-host, Dan Proft, discussed Gus Walz's televised response to his father's nomination acceptance, drawing parallels to a 1994 "Saturday Night Live" sketch. The conversation led to widespread criticism and ultimately resulted in Jacobson's resignation from her coaching position at a Chicago public high school.
During the radio program, Jacobson and Proft commented on Gus Walz's emotional display at the Democratic National Convention. Proft compared the teenager's reaction to a comedic sketch from "Saturday Night Live," suggesting similarities between Gus Walz and the portrayal of a young Andrew Giuliani enthusiastically praising his father, Rudy Giuliani.
The hosts' remarks were met with significant backlash, particularly after it was revealed that Gus Walz lives with a learning disorder that affects his ability to read social cues. Tim and Gwen Walz had previously disclosed that their son has a non-verbal learning disorder, anxiety disorder, and ADHD, describing these conditions as Gus's "secret power" rather than setbacks.
Chicago Public Schools responded to the incident with a statement emphasizing their commitment to inclusivity and rejecting any comments contrary to those values. The statement read, in part:
As a system, we are committed to serving all students and we strive to ensure a safe, welcoming and inclusive environment, free of any bias, discrimination or harassment. We strongly disagree with any remarks contrary to those values.
In the aftermath of the controversy, Jacobson and Proft faced repercussions for their on-air comments. Jacobson, who had been involved with the high school's volleyball program for several years and had two sons on the varsity team, resigned from her coaching position after parents demanded her removal.
Jacobson later issued a public apology on her radio show, stating that she would have "reacted differently if I had the additional information" about Gus Walz's learning disabilities. She emphasized her lack of awareness regarding his condition at the time of her initial comments.
Proft, Jacobson's co-host, also experienced professional consequences. He appears to have lost his position on the board of Envision Unlimited, an organization that provides care for individuals with intellectual, developmental, and psychiatric disabilities.
The organization released a statement indicating that a board member had made comments "wholly inconsistent with our values and code of ethics" and that they had decided to remove this individual from their board.
The controversy surrounding the radio hosts' comments has drawn attention from various public figures. Former First Lady Michelle Obama praised Gus Walz for showing "real love" in his emotional reaction to his father's nomination. This positive reinforcement stands in stark contrast to the criticism leveled by the radio hosts.
In response to the incident, Tim and Gwen Walz released a statement to PEOPLE magazine, describing their journey in understanding and supporting their son's needs. They emphasized the positive aspects of Gus's unique perspective, stating:
When our youngest Gus was growing up, it became increasingly clear that he was different from his classmates. Gus preferred video games and spending more time by himself. When he was becoming a teenager, we learned that Gus has a non-verbal learning disorder in addition to an anxiety disorder and ADHD, conditions that millions of Americans also have. Like so many American families, it took us time to figure out how to make sure we did everything we could to make sure Gus would be set up for success as he was growing up. It took time, but what became so immediately clear to us was that Gus' condition is not a setback — it's his secret power.
The resignation of a Chicago high school volleyball coach following controversial comments about Tim Walz's son has sparked a broader conversation about sensitivity in public discourse. The incident led to immediate consequences for both the coach and her radio co-host, including job losses and public apologies. It has also brought attention to the importance of understanding and respecting neurodevelopmental conditions, as highlighted by the Walz family's openness about their son's experiences. The controversy serves as a reminder of the potential impact of public statements and the need for empathy in discussions about individuals with diverse needs.