Daily Mail reported that Anthony Scaramucci, a former White House Press Secretary, has delivered a harsh assessment of former President Donald Trump’s chances in the upcoming 2024 election.
Scaramucci, along with several other prominent Republicans, has voiced concerns that Trump may be losing ground to Kamala Harris in the race.
Scaramucci, who served as Press Secretary for just 11 days in 2017 before becoming an outspoken critic of Trump, didn’t hold back in his recent comments. He argued that Trump, once a dominant force in the Republican Party, is now showing signs of fatigue and irrelevance. Scaramucci says the former president is "getting boring" and "getting old." This assessment comes as the 2024 election season heats up, with Harris gaining a slight edge in the polls.
Scaramucci pointed out significant changes in the electorate since Trump’s initial victory in 2016. He highlighted the loss of over 20 million baby boomers, replaced by 40 million Generation Z voters who may not resonate with Trump’s message. These demographic shifts, combined with Trump’s recent missteps on the campaign trail, are fueling doubts among some Republicans about his ability to secure a victory.
Veteran Fox News analyst Brit Hume echoed these concerns, noting that while Trump has maintained a loyal base, it may not be enough to win. "When you get down to it, the past eight to 10 years have been about Donald Trump. Everything has been about Donald Trump," Hume said, expressing worry that Trump is "not a majority candidate."
Hume’s analysis suggests that Trump’s polarizing nature could be a liability in the general election. Although his supporters remain enthusiastic, their numbers might not be sufficient to carry him over the finish line, especially against a candidate like Harris, who is already benefiting from Democratic unity following President Joe Biden’s decision to step aside.
Polls indicate a tight race, with Harris currently holding a narrow 1.4 percent lead over Trump, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average. This slim margin is enough to concern Trump’s camp, especially as dissatisfaction with the state of the country remains high. A recent poll revealed that 65% of Americans are unhappy with the direction the nation is headed, a figure that could play a crucial role in the outcome of the election.
Hume also pointed out that Trump’s recent gaffes have not helped his cause. These mistakes have become a growing issue as the campaign progresses, potentially alienating undecided voters who could tip the scales in a closely contested election. Trump’s ability to rally his base is undeniable, but Hume stressed that this may not be sufficient to win over the broader electorate.
The stakes are high, with the first presidential debate between Trump and Harris scheduled for September 10 in Philadelphia. This event, moderated by ABC News, will be a critical moment for both candidates as they seek to solidify their positions with voters.
As absentee and early voting begin soon, Trump’s campaign is ramping up efforts to counter Harris’s growing momentum. With voting set to start as early as 50 days before Election Day on November 5, the race is entering a critical phase. Trump’s team has announced a series of rallies and press events aimed at energizing supporters and drawing media attention away from the Democratic National Convention, where Harris will formally accept her party’s nomination.
The Republican campaign’s strategy will focus on key swing states, with Trump and his running mate, Senator J.D. Vance, holding events in these crucial battlegrounds. The campaign will culminate in a major rally on Friday, just days before the first debate. Republican surrogates, including Senators Rick Scott and Ron Johnson, along with Representatives Byron Donalds and Mike Waltz, will be present at the convention, where they plan to make a splash with a surprise special guest appearance on Thursday.
While Trump’s team is pulling out all the stops, the challenges ahead are formidable. The political landscape has shifted since 2016, and the 2024 race is shaping up to be one of the most contentious in recent memory. As both parties prepare for the final stretch, the question remains whether Trump can overcome the hurdles that have emerged or if Harris will capitalize on the growing dissatisfaction with the current state of the country.
Anthony Scaramucci, a former Trump staffer, predicts that Donald Trump will lose the upcoming election to Kamala Harris because he finds Trump "old" and "boring." Scaramucci cited changes in the electorate since 2016, including the loss of baby boomers and the addition of Generation Z voters who are interested in politics. Additionally, Fox News analyst Brit Hume echoed concerns about Trump's appeal, highlighting a general dissatisfaction with the current state of the country and Trump's polarizing nature.
George Santos, the former U.S. Representative expelled from Congress, is expected to plead guilty in his fraud case during a hearing on Monday in federal court on Long Island, according to sources familiar with the matter.
As reported by ABC News, this development could potentially avoid a trial scheduled to begin next month, for which hundreds of potential jurors had already been summoned.
The sources, however, caution that Santos, known for his erratic behavior, could still change his mind. The former congressman currently faces 23 felony charges, including allegations of defrauding donors, lying about his finances, and improperly accepting unemployment benefits.
Santos has previously pleaded not guilty to all charges against him. The specific charges to which he is expected to plead guilty and the potential sentence remain unclear at this time.
The criminal charges primarily involve financial misconduct, although Santos has also been accused of misrepresenting elements of his background and biography during his campaign to represent parts of Queens and Nassau County.
Two associates of Santos, including his former campaign treasurer, have already entered guilty pleas for their roles in the alleged fraud scheme. This development adds weight to the case against the former congressman.
The legal proceedings have garnered significant attention due to Santos' high-profile expulsion from the House of Representatives and the nature of the allegations against him.
If Santos does indeed plead guilty, it would mark a significant shift in his legal strategy. The move would effectively cancel the trial scheduled for next month, altering the course of the legal proceedings that have been closely watched by the public and political observers.
The potential guilty plea raises questions about the strength of the prosecution's case and what information may have come to light that could have influenced Santos' decision.
It also sparks curiosity about any potential plea deal that may have been negotiated between Santos' legal team and federal prosecutors.
The case has drawn attention to the vetting process for political candidates, the importance of transparency in campaign finances, and the personal backgrounds of those seeking public office.
George Santos is expected to plead guilty in his fraud case during a hearing on Monday, potentially avoiding a trial set for next month. The former congressman faces 23 felony charges related to financial misconduct and misrepresentation. If the guilty plea proceeds, it will mark a significant development in the high-profile case that led to Santos' expulsion from the House of Representatives.
The Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago is set to become a focal point for protest as thousands of demonstrators prepare to converge on the city.
The convention, at which Kamala Harris will officially accept her party's nomination, has attracted the participation nearly 100 groups, whose protests will highlight issues ranging from abortion access to U.S. support for Israel, and the ongoing climate crisis, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The protests are expected to draw between 30,000 and 40,000 people for the "March on the DNC 2024," set to take place on the convention's opening day.
The broad range of causes represented at the upcoming protests underscores the discontent felt by many Americans on various fronts.
Demonstrators are set to advocate for abortion rights, voice opposition to U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel, and raise concerns about poverty, the housing crisis, and climate change. Among the most prominent groups expected to protest are CODEPINK, the Palestinian Feminist Collective, and Students for Justice in Palestine Chicago.
The timing of these protests is significant, given the ongoing war in Gaza, which has now entered its 10th month. The conflict has intensified calls for a ceasefire and an end to U.S. military aid to Israel. Despite recent remarks by Harris, which acknowledged the suffering on both sides of the conflict, there has been no indication from the Biden administration of a shift in policy.
Hatem Abudayyeh, the national chairman of the U.S. Palestinian Community Network advocacy group, expressed skepticism about Vice President Harris's recent statements. “Harris represents the administration -- she represents Biden. There is nothing that she has expressed independently that tells us she does not support the policies,” Abudayyeh said, highlighting the concerns of many activists who feel that their voices are not being heard by those in power.
The lead-up to the protests has not been without controversy. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration has faced criticism for denying permits for stages and sound systems near the United Center, the main venue for the DNC. Protest organizers argue that these restrictions limit their ability to effectively communicate their message and are pushing for greater visibility near the convention site.
In response to these permit denials, organizers sought to extend and widen the permitted protest route. However, their efforts were met with legal challenges. U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood recently ruled against altering the protest path, siding with the city's argument that the restrictions were necessary for crowd control and public safety.
This legal battle has further fueled tensions between protest organizers and city officials. Activists argue that the restrictions are an attempt to stifle dissent and minimize the impact of the demonstrations. Despite these setbacks, organizers remain committed to making their voices heard during the convention.
As the DNC approaches, all eyes are on Chicago to see how the city will handle the influx of protesters. The scale of the planned demonstrations presents a significant challenge for local law enforcement, which must balance the need for security with the constitutional rights of citizens to peacefully assemble and protest.
Harris's recent comments during her meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which she stated that she would not “look away in the face of these tragedies,” have done little to assuage the concerns of activists. Many remain steadfast in their demands for a ceasefire and an end to U.S. military aid to Israel, issues that will undoubtedly be at the forefront of the protests.
The outcome of these protests and the response from city officials and the DNC itself will likely have lasting implications for the broader political landscape. As the nation watches, the ability of the protesters to make their voices heard and the city's capacity to manage such a large-scale event will be critical to the narrative that emerges from this week's events in Chicago.
In a dramatic and unexpected turn of events, President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 election last month, following intense pressure from prominent Democratic leaders, most notably former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Biden’s decision came after receiving an ultimatum from Pelosi, signaling a deep rift in a decades-long political alliance, as the Daily Mail reports.
Biden’s announcement, made on Sunday, June 21, capped off a period of personal reflection and political isolation during a bout of COVID-19. The pressure from Pelosi and other key figures within the Democratic Party, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, ultimately swayed Biden’s decision.
The most significant factor in Biden’s decision to step aside was an ultimatum from Pelosi. According to four sources, Pelosi made it clear that she was prepared to publicly express her concerns about Biden's ability to defeat former President Donald Trump in the upcoming election. This threat was reportedly conveyed during a phone call, during which Pelosi suggested that she would reveal polling data detrimental to Biden’s prospects.
While Pelosi’s office and the White House officially denied that such a phone call took place, the sources insist that the conversation was pivotal in Biden’s decision-making process. The tension between Biden and Pelosi has only grown since the announcement, with the two not having spoken since Biden revealed his withdrawal.
During recent interviews, Pelosi has struggled to navigate questions about her role in Biden’s decision, further fueling speculation about the extent of her involvement. Despite the denials, the damage to their once-close relationship seems irreparable.
In addition to Pelosi’s ultimatum, other high-profile Democrats, including Schumer and Jeffries, had also been urging Biden to reconsider his 2024 bid. Schumer, in particular, had a direct and candid meeting with Biden in Delaware just a week before the announcement. The meeting reportedly underscored the growing concerns within the party about Biden’s electability.
Following the announcement, Biden conspicuously left Pelosi out of his communications with other Congressional leaders, signaling the depth of the breach between them. Biden’s focus now appears to be shifting toward his "Biden Cancer Moonshot" initiative, which recently saw a significant $150 million boost in research funding.
Biden’s decision not to attend the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where Vice President Kamala Harris will be formally nominated, further underscores his withdrawal from the political spotlight. Instead, Biden plans to address the convention briefly on Monday.
On a personal level, the fallout from Biden’s withdrawal has been significant. First Lady Jill Biden has reportedly expressed deep concern and dissatisfaction with how the withdrawal was managed. There is particular anger toward Pelosi, with both Jill and Hunter Biden feeling betrayed by someone they once considered a close ally.
Despite the controversy, Pelosi continues to wield considerable influence on Capitol Hill. Her ability to navigate political turmoil and maintain her power base underscores her resilience, even as she faces backlash from the Biden family and others within the Democratic Party.
Biden and Pelosi’s relationship, once marked by mutual respect and collaboration, now appears to be in tatters. The future of their political alliance remains uncertain, with Biden focusing on his post-presidency initiatives and Pelosi continuing to assert her dominance in Congress.
As the Democratic Party moves forward without Biden on the ticket, the implications of this seismic shift in leadership are yet to be fully realized. The impact of Pelosi’s ultimatum, and the broader pressure campaign from Democratic leaders, will likely be felt for years to come.
Henry Argueta-Tobar, a 19-year-old Guatemalan immigrant, was recently rearrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers after serving just 190 days in jail for a second-degree rape conviction.
Despite initially being sentenced to 20 years in prison, Argueta-Tobar's punishment was significantly reduced, prompting his rearrest and raising concerns about the Biden administration's immigration policies.
According to Daily Mail, Argueta-Tobar, who had entered the United States illegally in 2019 as an accompanied minor, was convicted last month for raping a Maryland resident. Originally sentenced on July 3 to 20 years, the court suspended all but 190 days of his sentence, leading to widespread outrage and the eventual intervention by ICE.
The decision to reduce Argueta-Tobar's sentence has drawn significant criticism, particularly as the Charles County Sheriff's Office arrested him in December 2023 for the crime. Following his conviction, an immigration detainer was issued by ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division with the Charles County Detention Center, a request that went unheeded.
Vernon Liggins, Deputy Field Office Director for ERO Baltimore, stated that Argueta-Tobar had “made his way to Maryland and victimized one of our residents,” emphasizing that the agency could not permit him to “continue to threaten our communities.”
After being released by the Charles County Detention Center, Argueta-Tobar was apprehended again on August 15 by ICE officers, ensuring that he remains in custody as the debate over his case continues.
Argueta-Tobar’s troubled history with U.S. immigration enforcement dates back to May 2019, when the U.S. Border Patrol near El Paso, Texas, first apprehended him. After his illegal entry, he was transferred to ERO El Paso and released under an order of recognizance, allowing him to remain in the country while his case proceeded.
In February of this year, a Department of Justice immigration judge in Baltimore ordered Argueta-Tobar to be removed to Guatemala, but by that time, he had already committed the crime for which he was recently convicted.
Despite this removal order, Argueta-Tobar remained in the United States until his recent arrest by ICE, casting a spotlight on the effectiveness and enforcement of current immigration policies.
The case has also brought renewed attention to the Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM) program, which has come under fire for its perceived leniency. A recent report revealed that out of the 24,000 migrants enrolled in the program, 21,400 have been allowed to remain in the U.S.
Since the FERM program’s inception in May 2023, over 840,000 migrants traveling in family units have been apprehended by authorities at the border, but only a small fraction of those have been removed. This has led to criticism from lawmakers, including Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has been vocal about the administration's approach.
Johnson took to social media platform X to express his frustration, accusing the Biden-Harris administration of having “no intention of enforcing our laws” and asserting that the administration is allowing “millions of illegals” into the country without adequate oversight.
In summary, Henry Argueta-Tobar's arrest and the subsequent controversy highlight the complex issues surrounding illegal immigration and criminal justice in the United States. As debates over the FERM program and immigration enforcement continue, the case underscores the challenges faced by authorities in balancing security concerns with humanitarian considerations.
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.
Just The News reported that former President Donald Trump announced plans to sue the Justice Department for $100 million, claiming the FBI's 2022 Mar-a-Lago raid was politically motivated and violated his constitutional rights.
The Justice Department's actions stem from an FBI raid on August 8, 2022, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida. This raid was part of a federal investigation into Trump’s supposed improper retention of classified documents following his departure from the White House. The investigation led to 37 felony charges against Trump, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making false statements.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all the charges levied against him. Special Counsel Jack Smith, assigned after the raid to ensure an impartial investigation, faced significant legal opposition. Eventually, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case brought by Smith, ruling that both his appointment and the funding of his office violated the Appointments Clause in the Constitution.
Trump's attorney, Daniel Epstein, filed the notice of intent to sue the DOJ. The Justice Department now has 180 days from the receipt of Epstein's notice to respond and reach a resolution, or the case will proceed to federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
Epstein's filing accuses the DOJ and FBI of multiple acts of "tortious conduct," including intrusion upon seclusion, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Epstein alleges that decisions by Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray were politically charged and violated constitutional guidelines. He claims they bypassed established protocols that are mandatory during investigations, such as seeking consent from Trump, notifying his attorneys, and using the local U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Epstein asserts that the DOJ’s actions have caused Trump $15 million in actual harm due to legal costs and emotional distress. Additionally, he seeks punitive damages totaling $100 million for Trump. Epstein emphasized that his mission is broader than defending Trump; it aims to uphold the rule of law for all Americans.
"What President Trump is doing here is not just standing up for himself – he is standing up for all Americans who believe in the rule of law and believe that you should hold the government accountable when it wrongs you," Epstein told Fox Business' Lydia Hu.
Epstein argued that Garland and Wray's decisions showed a "clear intent to engage in political persecution – not to advance good law enforcement practices." He described the raid's execution as "inconsistent with protocols requiring the consent of an investigative target, disclosure to that individual’s attorneys, and the use of the local U.S. Attorney’s Office."
Trump's legal submission emphasizes his expectation of privacy at Mar-a-Lago, arguing that the FBI's actions were not in line with standard procedures for searching an investigative target's premises. Epstein also criticized the special counsel’s office for issuing what he described as a "lawless criminal indictment" against Trump.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the pending lawsuit. However, Epstein insists that the matter transcends individual grievances and involves holding the government accountable for its actions. "If someone doesn't stand against that in a very public way and seek to obtain and protect their rights, then the government will have a mandate to roughshod over every American," Epstein stated.
Epstein's remarks also highlighted the timing of the investigation, hinting at its political implications. He characterized the case as "very accurate and precise election interference," suggesting that the entire special counsel investigation aimed to hinder Trump’s potential 2024 presidential campaign. "The entire special counsel investigation was about interfering with his ability to get elected," he remarked.
The upcoming months will be crucial in determining the future course of this high-profile legal battle. Should the Justice Department fail to respond to the notice within the stipulated period, the lawsuit will proceed to federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
Trump’s lawsuit against the DOJ accuses the department and the FBI of politically biased actions, infringing on his constitutional rights during the Mar-a-Lago raid. His legal team, led by Daniel Epstein, is pushing for $100 million in damages, spotlighting the alleged deviation from standard procedures and the perceived political motivations behind the investigation. The lawsuit could redefine the boundaries of executive power and governmental accountability.
A report by Conservative Brief suggests that the group "Republicans For Harris" may be a creation of Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign rather than a genuine grassroots organization.
The claim is based on an undercover audio recording obtained by the Maine Wire, a local conservative publication. In the recording, Peter Mills, a registered Democrat and prominent figure in the group, is heard discussing the organization with an undercover operative.
Mills indicates that the Harris campaign is organizing the group and directs the operative to Amy Cookson, a staffer on Harris' campaign with an email address ending in "@kamalaharris.com."
Audio recordings released by The Maine Wire last Friday have raised questions about the legitimacy of the "Republicans for Kamala" group. These recordings indicate that the group, which purports to be a grassroots movement of disillusioned Republicans, may instead be a carefully orchestrated effort by Harris’s campaign.
Peter Mills, a registered Democrat and a prominent member of the group, was recorded discussing the origins of "Republicans for Kamala." In the conversation, Mills suggested that the Harris campaign created the group and that its primary goal was to attract Republicans who are dissatisfied with Trump, particularly from Maine’s Second Congressional District.
Mills was recorded by a "citizen journalist" using the pseudonym "Tim Dillon." During the exchange, Mills directed Dillon to contact Amy Cookson, a staffer associated with the Harris campaign. Notably, Cookson’s email address ended with “@kamalaharris.com,” further suggesting her direct involvement with the campaign.
Additional evidence suggests that the group is composed of individuals who may not align with the Republican Party at all. In an email obtained during the investigation, Cookson reportedly outlined the composition of the "Republicans for Kamala" group in Maine. According to the email, the group includes paid lobbyists, registered Democrats, and at least one former Republican politician.
Among those mentioned were Tony Payne, an unaffiliated lobbyist, and Roger Katz, a former state senator. These revelations have fueled skepticism about the authenticity of the group’s Republican identity and its true purpose.
Mills, in his recorded comments, expressed the urgency of the Harris campaign to find Republicans willing to distance themselves from Trump. He suggested that statements from these individuals, even if they remain Republicans, could be “very influential” in swaying public opinion.
The emergence of "Republicans for Kamala" has drawn comparisons to The Lincoln Project, a group formed by Republicans in 2020 to oppose then-President Trump. However, the key difference lies in the level of transparency and apparent independence. The Lincoln Project members did not use email addresses ending in “@joebiden.com,” contrasting with the reported use of campaign-affiliated emails in the "Republicans for Kamala" group.
In a commentary piece, the Western Journal went as far as labeling "Republicans for Kamala" an "astroturfed scam." This term is often used to describe a fake grassroots organization designed to give the appearance of widespread support for a particular cause when, in reality, it is driven by a political or corporate agenda.
The report raises questions about the authenticity of the "Republicans For Harris" group, suggesting it may be an orchestrated effort by the Harris campaign to create the appearance of Republican support. According to the audio, the group is actively seeking Republicans, particularly from Maine's Second District, who are willing to speak out against former President Donald Trump.
The report also mentions that in Maine, the group appears to consist of paid lobbyists, registered Democrats, and Republican critics of their own party. This revelation has led to comparisons with previous anti-Trump Republican groups, such as The Lincoln Project, though with potentially closer ties to the opposing campaign.
Axios reported that Vice President Kamala Harris proposed eliminating taxes on tips for service industry workers, an idea first put forward by her Republican rival, Donald Trump, in June.
Trump quickly accused Harris of being a "copycat" and appropriating his policy proposal. The former president took to his Truth Social platform to suggest Harris lacks imagination and is playing catch-up by adopting his stance on not taxing tips.
He questioned how long it would be before she copies another one of his policies and said she is "looking really bad now" as people wait to see what idea of his she will mirror next.
Harris’s proposal has garnered significant attention, particularly with the endorsement by Nevada's Culinary Union on the same day she made her pledge. Representing 60,000 hospitality workers, the union's support underscores the policy's alignment with labor interests. Trump’s interest in the topic originated in June after a Nevada waitress voiced frustrations over government taxation of her tips, an incident that resonated with many service employees.
The converging promises from Harris and Trump underscore the bipartisan appeal of this proposal. Despite their political differences, both appear dedicated to alleviating financial pressure on service workers. This uncommon political agreement has brought the issue to the forefront of national debate.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz has introduced legislation to exempt tips from federal income tax, receiving backing from Nevada's Democratic Senators Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto. House Speaker Mike Johnson has also committed to passing this bill. Democratic Representative Ritchie Torres is among the lawmakers showing support, suggesting a growing consensus on the issue.
While the growing support for the proposal is noteworthy, critical details remain unclear. Neither Harris nor Trump have specified whether their respective proposals would eliminate income taxes only or both income and payroll taxes on tips. This ambiguity leaves questions about the plan’s full impact and feasibility.
The lack of specifics has made it difficult to ascertain the number of workers who would benefit if the policy were implemented. However, according to 2022 data, there were about 2.19 million waiters and waitresses in the U.S., the majority of whom do not pay federal income taxes due to low earnings.
Some political observers rank the elimination of tax on tips as a pivotal issue for the upcoming elections. With both Republican and Democratic support, this proposal might alter the financial landscape for millions of Americans in the service industry.
Rep. Ritchie Torres’s quip, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day," illustrates the rare occasion where political adversaries find agreement. Yet, the adoption of Trump’s proposal into the Republican Party's 2024 platform hints at a larger strategic play. Trump has actively claimed ownership of the idea, accusing Harris of leveraging it for political gain by asserting, "This was a TRUMP idea - She has no ideas, she can only steal from me."
Harris, anticipating the long-term impacts, stated:
It is my promise to everyone here when I am president we will continue to fight for working families, including to raise the minimum wage and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.
The conversation surrounding this policy continues to evolve, driven by both political and public interest. With bipartisan support and legislation in the pipeline, the discourse over the future of tip taxation remains fervent.
In summary, the push to eliminate taxes on tips marks a rare bipartisan agreement in a politically polarized landscape. The support from significant figures like Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, along with notable legislative action, indicates that change may be on the horizon for service and hospitality workers.
Retired Army Command Sergeant Major Doug Julin has accused Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of circumventing the military chain of command to retire before his battalion's deployment to Iraq.
Walz is said to have known months in advance about the imminent deployment but chose to retire instead of fulfilling his duties, a move which has since led to controversy and scrutiny over his actions, as Breitbart reports.
Julin asserted that in late 2004, senior leaders, including himself, were informed of an upcoming deployment to Iraq within the year and to prepare accordingly. After meeting with Walz’s battalion before February 2005, Walz assured Julin he would lead his unit into Iraq.
By February 2005, Walz informed Julin that he had put in a bid to run for Congress but had not yet been selected or nominated.
During meetings in March and April 2005, Walz reiterated his commitment to lead his battalion into Iraq, despite his congressional ambitions.
However, come June 2005, Julin discovered that Walz was replaced by Command Sergeant Major Tom Behrends and had retired from his position, which he secured by bypassing the usual chain of command. Julin remarked that Walz went around him and sought approval from someone two levels higher, who should have directed Walz back to Julin for discussion of the move.
Julin emphasized that Walz circumvented proper military protocol in securing his retirement. According to Julin, the necessary deployment orders had not been issued at that time, but Walz was well aware of the impending deployment.
Despite repeated attempts, the Harris-Walz campaign has not responded to CNN's requests for comment.
Julin detailed that by going above and beyond normal procedures, Walz effectively circumvented his superior officers to secure retirement in what Julin termed a “backdoor process.” Julin’s concern stems from the notion that Walz had prior knowledge but chose to leave the military without fulfilling his duty to his battalion.
He is explicit in stating that, contrary to claims, Walz was aware he would be deployed to Iraq, even if official orders had yet to be issued.
Walz's actions have led to public scrutiny, raising questions about his choices during a critical period of his military career.
In sum, during the fall of 2004, notification of an upcoming deployment to Iraq was given to senior leaders, including Julin, accelerating preparatory actions for the battalions involved. By early 2005, conversations took place between Walz and Julin regarding Walz running for Congress, but it was made clear that he would still lead his battalion into Iraq.
Upon learning about Walz's retirement in mid-2005 and the manner it was obtained, Julin expressed discontent and raised concerns about the procedural integrity and Walz's ethical responsibilities to his unit.