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.
In 2019, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz bypassed his own state legislature to adopt California's vehicle emissions standards, setting off contentious legal and economic debates in the state.
Walz's decision led to the implementation of the "clean cars" rule in Minnesota, which has been met with opposition and legal challenges, particularly from the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association and GOP lawmakers, as the Washington Free Beacon reports.
On Sept. 25, 2019, Walz announced his plan to adopt California's electric vehicle (EV) regulations. The governor directed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to draft a "clean cars" rule, modeled after California's Advanced Clean Cars program, which would impose stricter emissions standards and mandate increased delivery of electric vehicles to Minnesota dealerships starting in 2024.
Walz's decision to bypass the Minnesota Legislature utilized a seldom-invoked provision from past legislation. Consequently, the "clean cars" rule was adopted in July 2021, making Minnesota the 14th state to follow California's lead on this issue. Under federal law, California can pursue stricter emissions standards with a waiver, and Minnesota aimed to align with these regulations.
However, this move faced significant backlash. GOP lawmakers and the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association strongly opposed the new mandate. Scott Lambert, President of the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association, argued that Walz had unlawfully ceded Minnesota's regulatory authority to California.
"Governor Walz unilaterally imposed California emission standards on Minnesota via administrative rule," Lambert said. He also expressed skepticism about the governor's understanding of the rule's implications, suggesting that Walz had been misled by his advisors.
The economic ramifications of this decision have been a focal point of opposition. Major automakers like General Motors, Ford, and Volkswagen announced plans to scale back EV production due to economic challenges, a trend that critics say will be exacerbated by the new mandate. Between January and March 2024, electric vehicles accounted for only 6.5% of new car sales in Minnesota, trailing behind states without similar mandates like Utah and Florida.
According to a March 2024 study by Boston Consulting Group, automakers are losing approximately $6,000 on every $50,000 electric vehicle sold. The average transaction price for an electric vehicle stands at $56,371, nearly $8,000 more than that of a gasoline-powered vehicle. The Minnesota Auto Dealers Association attempted to overturn the rule through legal channels but was unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, solidifying the rule's standing.
Prominent voices on both sides of the political spectrum have voiced their concerns. Isaac Orr, a Minnesota-based energy expert, criticized Walz's penchant for adopting California-style energy policies. "Governor Walz has never seen a California energy policy that he did not try to implement in the state of Minnesota," Orr said.
Minnesota House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth also weighed in, saying that Walz had unilaterally imposed "expensive California style vehicle mandates" and criticized him for partnering with Vice President Kamala Harris, suggesting that the administration aims to eliminate gas-powered vehicles entirely.
Dean Urdahl, a Republican state representative, argued that the legislature would not have passed such a mandate. "I don't think it would have passed in the legislature, basically adopting the California automobile standards. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work for Minnesota," he said.
Despite the legal and political battles, the "clean cars" rule is set to take effect for the 2025 model year. The regulation is expected to increase electric vehicle sales in Minnesota by over 200%, a substantial shift for the state's auto market.
Walz has remained steadfast in his position, emphasizing Minnesota's leadership role in combating climate change. "If Washington won't lead on climate, Minnesota will," he declared back in 2019, but whether his fellow Minnesotans will stand for that continued approach, only time will tell.
On Thursday, bodycam footage showing the intense confrontation between a local police officer and Thomas Crooks, the would-be assassin of former President Donald Trump, was released.
According to the Washington Examiner, the footage captures the moments leading up to Crooks opening fire at a rally on July 13 despite being confronted by law enforcement.
Lt. Matthew Pearson, acting chief of the Butler Township Police Department, shared the revealing footage with the Washington Examiner. The video provides a stark view of events, beginning with an officer running towards the American Glass Research (AGR) building at 6:10 p.m., just a minute before the former president was shot.
In a dramatic sequence, the bodycam footage captures another officer hoisting his colleague onto the AGR building's roof. The officer briefly spots Crooks before Crooks turns his weapon toward him. As the officer attempts to draw his own gun, he falls approximately 8 feet, spraining his ankle in the process. Moments later, Crooks opens fire on Trump at 6:11 p.m.
Amidst the chaos, the injured officer quickly warns his peers about Crooks, providing a detailed description, which includes Crooks donning full tactical gear, having long hair and glasses, and carrying a bag. Although police on the ground were initially unaware of Crooks's fate, officers soon discovered Crooks’s lifeless body on the roof after the attack.
Further footage shows Crooks lying dead with a stream of blood running from the roof's peak to the edge. Additional clips reveal the intense aftermath as four officers carry Crooks’s blood-soaked body to a white tent. Reactions from rallygoers are also documented, including a witness exclaiming about the sight of Crooks being shot.
Inquiries from attendees about Crooks's unnoticed presence on the roof were met with officers' speculations involving various means of scaling the building. Although a bloodied receipt for a five-foot ladder was found on Crooks, the FBI stated that it likely wasn’t used in the attack.
Butler County Sheriff Michael Slupe highlighted the heroism of the officers, suggesting they might have saved Trump's life by buying him critical time to react. "Can you imagine 10 seconds before that?" Slupe remarked, envisioning the peril Trump had narrowly escaped.
Slupe also defended the officer’s actions during the confrontation. A rallygoer’s remark about snipers on other rooftops led to further speculation about Crooks’s undetected approach, emphasizing the complexity of the situation faced by law enforcement.
Supporting documents unveiled by Senator Chuck Grassley provide further background on Crooks's activities and mindset. Grassley shared bodycam footage along with 46 pages of documents detailing Crooks’s membership at the Clairton Sportsmen’s Club.
The records show that Crooks joined the local gun club on August 10, 2023, and had visited 43 times, with 20 of those visits for target practice within the first four months. Crooks’s final visit, notably, was on July 12, 2024, one day before the attack occurred, focusing predominantly on rifle shooting.
The intense bodycam footage released on Thursday brings to light the critical seconds during which local police confronted Thomas Crooks. From the initial rooftop scramble to Crooks's final moments, the footage captures the fraught nature of the encounter and the subsequent aftermath.
Officers quickly shared vital details and warnings, enabling a swift response, even as Crooks managed to open fire. The heroism displayed by the involved officers, as suggested by Sheriff Michael Slupe, may have narrowly prevented a greater tragedy, illustrating the unpredictable risks inherent in protecting public figures.
Former President Donald Trump sat down with streamer Adin Ross to discuss various topics, including his legal troubles in Georgia and other political matters.
As reported by Fox5 Atlanta, Trump claimed Young Thug is being 'treated unfairly' during an interview with influencer Adin Ross.
In a bid to reach younger voters, former President Donald Trump participated in an interview with popular streamer Adin Ross. The conversation brought to light Trump's opinions on several pressing issues, with a particular focus on Georgia's ongoing legal drama.
During the interview, Trump criticized Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for her investigation into his actions following the 2020 presidential election. Willis has been spearheading efforts to seek indictments against Trump and 18 others for allegedly attempting to overturn the election results in Georgia.
Four of the defendants have pleaded guilty, while Trump and the others have entered not-guilty pleas. Trump's legal team has accused Willis of misconduct, alleging that her romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, a former special prosecutor, influenced the case. Willis and Wade have admitted to their relationship but maintain that it began after Wade was hired and did not impact the investigation.
In March, Judge Scott McAfee ruled that either Willis or Wade must step aside, resulting in Wade’s resignation. Trump's criticism extended beyond the election inquiry, claiming that Willis intended to indict several senators unrelated to the election case.
Court documents revealed thirty unindicted co-conspirators, leaving only one associated with a notable White House meeting in December 2020 unnamed. Trump expressed his admiration for Georgia, referencing a rally he held with Senator JD Vance at Georgia State University.
Not all of Trump's remarks about Georgia were positive. He critiqued the state's governor, Brian Kemp, and first lady Marty Kemp. He also falsely claimed credit for funding historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) during the pandemic, a claim refuted by Clark Atlanta University. Furthermore, Trump described Atlanta as a "killing field," a comment that Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens promptly rebuked.
The topic of rapper Young Thug's legal troubles also surfaced during the interview. Young Thug faces charges of conspiracy to violate Georgia’s anti-racketeering law, along with gang, drug, and gun-related crimes. His trial began in January 2023, with jury selection extending nearly ten months before opening statements commenced in November.
The case is now presided over by Judge Paige Reese Whitaker, the third judge to manage it. Trump suggested that Young Thug was receiving unfair treatment from Willis, echoing concerns raised by Ross during the conversation.
The conversation took another turn when Trump repeated a debunked conspiracy theory about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, alleging that Trudeau is the son of Fidel Castro. The Canadian government has categorically denied this claim, clarifying that Trudeau’s parents visited Cuba years after his birth.
Adin Ross, born on Oct. 11, 2000, in Boca Raton, Florida, has gained significant popularity as a streamer. Known for his diverse content and engaging personality, Ross initially streamed NBA 2K on Twitch before gaining wider recognition through collaborations with figures from the music industry. In 2021, he transitioned to the streaming platform Kick, expanding his repertoire to include comedy, lifestyle, and interactive content.
The interview detailed Trump’s opinions on various legal and political matters, including conflicts with Fulton County DA Fani Willis, unfair treatment of Young Thug, and repeating debunked theories about Justin Trudeau. Trump's engagement with streamer Adin Ross marks a strategic move to influence younger voters while highlighting key narratives in his ongoing political strategy.
The House Oversight and Accountability Committee has launched a probe into Vice President Kamala Harris's work on immigration at the U.S. border.
According to The Hill, Committee Chair James Comer has requested documents and correspondence from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding Harris’s efforts.
On Tuesday, the committee initiated its scrutiny under the leadership of James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky. Comer directed CBP to supply any relevant records involving communication with the Vice President's office.
President Joe Biden has tasked Vice President Harris with implementing a strategy to address the fundamental causes of migration from Latin America. This approach primarily focuses on developing and fostering democracy within the region to reduce the flow of migrants to the United States.
Despite CBP's limited role in these broader goals, Comer’s request specifically targets the agency. Harris's strategy involves several other key departments, including the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Critics have questioned the relevance of involving CBP in this probe, as its primary responsibility is managing daily border operations. Notably, the CBP website currently omits any reference to Harris’s root causes strategy.
Comer’s letter expressed doubts about Harris's actions to mitigate the border crisis. As noted by Comer, Harris has centered her efforts on addressing the underlying factors that drive migration.
Harris’s initiative includes a plan to inject $4 billion into the region over four years. Her recent travels to countries like Mexico, Guatemala in 2021, and Honduras in 2022 are highlighted as evidence of her focus on Central America rather than the U.S. southern border.
In addition to these travels, the probe follows a report by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, another Republican, who reviewed the handling of migrants on the terror watch list. This further fuels the partisan debate on border management.
Republicans criticize the current administration for what they see as failed border policies. Conversely, Democrats believe that Republicans have hindered progress by rejecting a bipartisan immigration solution.
In June, President Biden's updated policy restricted asylum claims and border movement, significantly reducing the number of crossings. DHS reported 83,536 encounters between ports of entry in June, the lowest level since January 2021 and below the pre-pandemic June 2019 amounts.
Despite these numbers, questions remain regarding Vice President Harris’s tangible achievements at the border. Comer’s office has yet to clarify why CBP was chosen for this inquiry over other agencies directly involved with Harris’s portfolio.
The House Oversight and Accountability Committee has initiated an investigation into Vice President Harris's border strategies, requesting documents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Led by Chair James Comer, the inquiry aims to leverage immigration issues politically. Harris's efforts focus on the root causes of migration in Latin America, involving agencies like the State Department and USAID. Despite CBP's minor role, Comer questions Harris's effectiveness on the border crisis. Democrats argue that GOP criticisms ignore bipartisan efforts and point to recent policies that have decreased border crossings.
Knewz.com reported that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has definitively denied former President Donald Trump's attempt to dismiss the case, accusing him of interfering in the 2020 election.
Judge Chutkan's decision means that allegations of Trump's efforts to overturn the election results will continue to be heard in federal court.
The ruling came after the Supreme Court granted Trump partial immunity from prosecution for official acts during his presidency. Despite this, Judge Chutkan concluded that Trump’s legal team had failed to present convincing evidence of political bias or prosecutorial misconduct.
The case, based in Washington, DC, focuses on accusations that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, which he lost to Joe Biden. Federal prosecutors have accused Trump of attempting to pressure officials, disseminating false claims about election fraud, and leveraging the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, to retain power.
Trump's legal team argued that the case was a "political witch hunt" purportedly orchestrated by the Biden administration to influence the 2024 election. However, Judge Chutkan highlighted the lack of substantial evidence supporting this claim.
The former president's defense additionally contended that he was specifically targeted and that the charges were intended to obstruct his potential re-election campaign. Judge Chutkan dismissed these assertions, pointing out that Trump’s actions were not merely in challenging the election results but involved knowingly making false statements to further criminal conspiracies and obstructing the electoral certification process.
Chief Justice John Roberts, addressing the scope of presidential immunity, clarified that the president cannot be prosecuted for exercising essential constitutional functions but does not enjoy immunity for unofficial acts. The president, according to Roberts, is not above the law.
By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court granted Trump partial immunity, sparing him from prosecution for specific official actions taken during his tenure. However, Chief Justice Roberts emphatically stated that the president does not possess immunity for actions outside the trajectory of his official duties.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent emphasized that the ruling undermines a core constitutional principle — that no individual, including the president, is above the law. Her argument underscores ongoing concerns about accountability within the executive branch.
As federal prosecutors continue to build their case, Trump faces four criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against the rights of citizens. The resilience of this case reflects the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law.
Judge Chutkan has scheduled a follow-up hearing on August 16 to discuss the next steps in the trial. This hearing is crucial for setting timelines and addressing procedural issues as the case moves forward.
In his defense, Trump has repeatedly claimed that the case is a politically motivated attempt to prevent him from running for president in 2024. These assertions, despite being robustly dismissed by the court, continue to shape public perception and media discourse.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed former President Donald Trump's attempt to have the 2020 election interference case thrown out. The case involves accusations of Trump leading efforts to overturn the election results, pressuring officials, spreading misinformation, and attempting to use the Capitol riot chaos to stay in power. Judge Chutkan found no evidence of prosecutorial vindictiveness and stated that Trump was charged with making false statements and obstructing election certification proceedings. The next court hearing is scheduled for August 16.