A day after a failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton made a startling declaration about the former president's impact on national and global security.
In an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Fox News reported that Clinton expressed her concerns about Trump's potential return to power, describing him as a "danger to our country and the world."
The former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee criticized the media's coverage of Trump, arguing that journalists should maintain a consistent narrative about the threats he poses.
Clinton's comments came in the wake of a second assassination attempt on Trump in the past two months, adding a layer of complexity to the political discourse.
Clinton took aim at the press, suggesting that their approach to covering Trump has been inadequate. She expressed frustration with what she perceives as the media's tendency to jump from one Trump-related controversy to another without maintaining a coherent narrative about his potential dangers.
Referencing the late journalist Harry Evans, Clinton advocated for a more objective approach to covering Trump, urging journalists to focus on his actions and statements consistently.
The interview's timing is significant, coming just a day after the latest attempt on Trump's life. On September 16, 2024, Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, allegedly pointed an AK-47 at Trump while he was golfing at his club in West Palm Beach, Florida. Secret Service agents intervened, firing at Routh, who fled but was quickly apprehended.
This incident followed a more serious attempt in July, where a gunman opened fire at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania, wounding the former president and resulting in one fatality and two critical injuries.
Clinton emphasized the importance of taking Trump's words and actions seriously. She highlighted the need for Americans to be aware of Trump's stated intentions and plans, referencing Project 2025 and Trump's alleged desire for dictatorial powers.
Clinton stated:
Americans need to understand that they have to take Trump both seriously and literally. He has said what he wants to do. He and his allies with Project 2025, his desire to be a dictator, at least on day one, all of that is in the public record. And I believe that more Americans have to be, you know, willing to endure what frankly is discomforting and to some extent kind of painful, to take him at his word and to be outraged by what he represents.
Clinton touched upon the challenges posed by the Electoral College system in the upcoming election. She expressed cautious optimism about the potential for voters to reject Trump's politics, noting increased support for the Harris-Walz ticket from some Republicans. However, Clinton acknowledged that the race remains close and that the Electoral College continues to be a significant hurdle for Democratic candidates.
The interview also served as a platform for Clinton to promote her latest memoir, "Something Lost, Something Gained." The book has been described as a warning to American voters about the potential consequences of a Trump return to power. Clinton used the interview to reinforce her message, urging Americans to consider the implications of their votes in the upcoming election.
Hillary Clinton's interview on MSNBC following the recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump has reignited discussions about the former president's impact on American politics. Clinton warned of the dangers she believes Trump poses to the nation and the world, criticizing media coverage of his actions and statements. Clinton urged Americans to take Trump's words seriously and consider the potential consequences of his return to power while also expressing hope that voters would reject what she described as "politics of hate and division."
Gwen Walz, the first lady of Minnesota, has faced criticism for her recent campaign speech in Wisconsin, where she used a hand gesture to say "bye bye" to former President Donald Trump.
As reported by Fox News, her speech was deemed "cringe" and "condescending" by critics who found her gestures and remarks inappropriate.
Walz, who was campaigning for her husband, Governor Tim Walz, and Vice President Kamala Harris, used a sweeping hand gesture to illustrate the need to "turn the page" on Trump's presidency. This gesture was met with applause from the audience but drew criticism from others who found it disrespectful and in poor taste.
Gwen Walz began her speech by referencing Vice President Kamala Harris's debate performance, where Harris repeatedly called for turning the page on the current political climate. Walz echoed this sentiment, asking the audience to join her in a symbolic gesture of turning the page.
Gwen Walz said:
Now you probably saw that debate the other night. Yeah, that was great. And what Kamala Harris told us we had to do, was we had to turn the page. Yeah, because we have something really exciting headed in our direction.
She then asked the audience to mimic her gesture, emphasizing the need to move on from Trump's presidency. Walz continued by saying, "You know what else that looks like? Bye, bye. Bye bye, Donald Trump," which elicited mixed reactions from viewers.
Critics were quick to condemn Gwen Walz's speech, labeling it as "cringe" and "condescending." Some compared her to Hillary Clinton, suggesting that her remarks were even worse. The backlash highlighted the polarizing nature of political rhetoric and the sensitivity surrounding discussions about former President Trump.
The first lady's speech was seen as an embodiment of "Trump Derangement Syndrome," a term used to describe an irrational hatred or fear of Trump. This criticism underscores the divisive nature of political discourse and the challenges faced by public figures in navigating such contentious issues.
"I'm sorry you have to watch this," one critic quipped of a clip of Gwen Walz.
Gwen Walz is a former teacher who met her husband, Tim Walz, when they both worked as educators in the 1990s. She has served as the first lady of Minnesota since 2019, when Tim Walz was sworn in as governor. This is not the first time Gwen Walz has drawn criticism for her public remarks.
Previously, she made headlines for her comments about the 2020 Minnesota riots. In an interview with KSTP, Walz described how she kept her windows open to smell the burning tires during the riots, a remark that was widely criticized as bizarre and insensitive.
Again we had more sleepless nights during the riots. I could smell the burning tires, and that was a very real thing. And I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening.
Gwen Walz's campaign speech in Wisconsin has drawn criticism for her use of a hand gesture to say "bye bye" to former President Donald Trump. The speech was deemed "cringe" and "condescending" by critics who found her gestures and remarks inappropriate. Walz echoed Vice President Kamala Harris's call to "turn the page" on the current political climate, but her symbolic gesture was met with mixed reactions. Critics compared her to Hillary Clinton and labeled her remarks as an embodiment of "Trump Derangement Syndrome." This is not the first time Walz has faced criticism for her public remarks, as she previously drew backlash for her comments about the 2020 Minnesota riots.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson pulled a vote on a critical government funding bill on Wednesday, citing discord within his party, and the decision came just hours before the bill was set to go to the floor, throwing the legislative process into turmoil.
The bill’s withdrawal adds pressure to Congress -- and to Johnson -- as a government shutdown looms, as The Independent reports.
The temporary spending measure, designed to keep federal agencies running for six months, is now on hold. With the Oct. 1 deadline approaching fast, lawmakers face a daunting task of passing a bill in time to avoid a shutdown. The legislative proposal’s inclusion of the SAVE Act -- a provision requiring proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration—has fueled opposition both within the Republican Party and from Democrats.
Johnson, who took over as Speaker following last year’s ousting of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy by far-right Republicans, is no stranger to internal party conflict. He acknowledged the ongoing struggle, stating that his decision to pull the bill stemmed from the lack of consensus among House Republicans. At least six GOP members expressed opposition to the proposal, aligning themselves with Democrats, who oppose the voter registration measure.
“We’re having thoughtful conversations, family conversations within the Republican conference, and I believe we’ll get there,” Johnson said, hinting at the tense negotiations ahead. The Speaker also indicated that discussions would continue over the weekend as lawmakers work to bridge the divide.
With the threat of a government shutdown looming, some Republicans may be forced to make significant concessions to ensure federal agencies remain funded. Meanwhile, Democrats are pushing for changes to the bill, including removing the voter registration requirement and shortening the funding period to December.
The inclusion of the SAVE Act has been a sticking point in the negotiations. The provision, which mandates voters to prove their U.S. citizenship before registering, is deeply unpopular with Democrats. It is also seen as a hurdle in passing the bill through the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority.
The Biden administration has made it clear that the president would veto any measure that includes the SAVE Act, putting even more pressure on Republicans to find a compromise. With far-right figures, including former President Donald Trump, advocating for a shutdown if the controversial provision is removed, the path forward for Johnson and his colleagues appears fraught. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer has been tasked with building support for the bill, although whether he can rally enough members behind it remains uncertain. Johnson and Emmer will continue to negotiate through the weekend in an effort to reach a resolution.
As the Oct. 1 deadline nears, the potential consequences of inaction are growing clearer. If a stopgap spending bill is not passed, the federal government will face a partial shutdown, with many federal agencies and programs forced to halt operations. With the clock ticking, congressional leaders are working around the clock to avoid this outcome.
Yet, with deep divisions within the Republican Party and strong opposition from Democrats, Johnson’s efforts to unite his conference could falter. Avoiding a shutdown may require Republicans to make concessions that will be difficult for their more conservative members to accept. The decision to delay the vote reflects the ongoing struggle for control within the House GOP, which has been dealing with internal turmoil since last year. Far-right Republicans successfully ousted former Speaker McCarthy, and the party has struggled to find a cohesive direction ever since.
For Johnson, who is still navigating the complexities of party leadership, finding common ground is crucial. Yet the decision to pull the vote signals that the path forward is anything but certain. Congressional leaders from both parties will need to continue negotiating in the coming days, with the hope of reaching a compromise before time runs out. Failure to do so could mean a prolonged shutdown, damaging both the economy and the credibility of congressional leadership.
The impasse highlights the larger issues at play in Washington, where partisan divisions have made passing even routine measures like government funding bills increasingly difficult. With former President Trump weighing in and urging a shutdown over the voter registration measure, Johnson faces pressure from multiple sides.
Johnson and his colleagues now face a critical weekend, during which they will work tirelessly to avoid a government shutdown. For the Speaker, the stakes are high, as this moment may define his early tenure as House leader. “We’re going to work through the weekend on that,” Johnson stated, expressing his resolve to get the bill back on track. But with opposition from both wings of his party and Democrats remaining firm in their stance, the road to consensus remains long.
In a press conference held in Los Angeles on Friday, former President Donald Trump vowed to begin large-scale deportations from Springfield, Ohio, and Aurora, Colorado.
The former president cited criminal activity involving Venezuelan and Haitian immigrants as the reason for these potential removals, as Just the News reports.
During the press conference, Trump drew attention to rising concerns about crime in these two towns. Aurora has recently made headlines due to reports of a Venezuelan gang overtaking several apartment complexes. Meanwhile, Springfield has seen a noticeable increase in illegal immigrants from Haiti. Both cities, according to Trump, have suffered due to their inability to control these incoming populations.
Trump specifically mentioned a wave of criminal activity in Aurora, claiming Venezuelan criminals were sent from their homeland and are now residing in the United States. He alleged that Venezuela deliberately released prisoners, sending them across the border to the U.S. "They moved all their criminals," Trump said during the press event. "They emptied their jails, and those criminals are now taking over cities." Trump promised that deportations would begin in Aurora, where these issues have attracted national attention.
In Springfield, rumors have been circulating about Haitian illegal immigrants involved in highly controversial behavior. Trump addressed the claims that they have been abducting and consuming pets and wildlife. These allegations have been disputed by local authorities.
The issue of illegal immigration in Springfield was brought into even sharper focus with the death of 11-year-old Aiden Clark. The boy was struck and killed by a school bus in August 2023, which, according to Sen. JD Vance, was driven by a Haitian illegal immigrant. Trump echoed Vance’s concerns, highlighting the tragedy as further evidence of the urgent need for deportation measures in the town. Sen. Vance, who has consistently advocated for stricter immigration policies, has lent his support to Trump’s planned deportations in Ohio.
Trump also brought these issues to a broader national audience during the most recent presidential debate on Tuesday evening. He referred back to both Aurora and Springfield as examples of what he calls a broader crisis of illegal immigration threatening American communities.
Trump’s pledge to focus initially on Springfield and Aurora comes as part of what he promises will be the largest deportation effort in U.S. history. His statements have drawn both attention and controversy. While some local residents in these cities have expressed concern about crime rates, others question whether deportations are the right solution, particularly in light of conflicting reports surrounding some of the alleged criminal activity.
"We're going to get these people out," Trump stated unequivocally, referring specifically to the Venezuelan immigrants in Aurora. "We're bringing them back to Venezuela," he added, stressing the urgent need to remove individuals he deems a danger to public safety.
The former president reiterated that the planned deportations would begin in these two cities but could expand to other regions as needed. He suggested that more towns suffering from the impacts of illegal immigration would soon be added to the list of targets for future deportation efforts. While addressing the crowd, Trump painted a picture of an invasion from within, where criminal elements from outside countries are gradually undermining local communities.
Supporters of Trump’s immigration platform have praised the focus on local towns like Springfield and Aurora. They argue that a concentrated effort in these communities will bring much-needed relief to residents who feel threatened by rising crime rates.
Critics of Trump, however, continue to question the legitimacy of some of the claims surrounding these alleged crimes, particularly the unsubstantiated rumors regarding pet abductions in Springfield. Despite this, Trump’s base remains steadfast, agreeing with his assertion that stronger action is necessary.
With his ongoing campaign for the presidency, Trump continues to focus on immigration as a core issue, promising sweeping changes if elected. The promise of significant deportations marks a return to one of his signature policy platforms.
Former President Donald Trump's recent threats to prosecute political rivals have raised alarms among legal and democracy experts.
According to a report by USA TODAY, these experts warn that Trump's history suggests he could follow through on such threats if he were to secure a second presidential term.
On September 9, 2024, Trump took to Truth Social, alleging widespread cheating in the 2020 election despite numerous recounts and audits disproving his claims. He warned that after winning the 2024 election, those who allegedly "CHEATED" would face prosecution.
This statement follows recent posts calling for military tribunals against former President Barack Obama and indictments against the House committee that investigated the January 6 riot.
Trump's threats are not merely rhetorical, according to experts. During his first term, he reportedly attempted to use the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute political opponents. In 2017, Trump allegedly asked then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from campaign-related investigations and prosecute Hillary Clinton.
The following year, Trump reportedly told White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute both Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey. McGahn warned Trump that such actions could lead to impeachment.
Legal experts express worry that Trump could be more successful in prosecuting rivals in a potential second term. Amanda Carpenter, a former Republican staffer now working for Protect Democracy, points out that checks on presidential power have weakened.
Carpenter notes that Trump allies have plans to erode Justice Department independence. Additionally, the Supreme Court's July 1 presidential immunity decision and the diminishing number of congressional Republicans who supported Trump's January 6-related impeachment could further embolden such efforts.
Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, likens Trump's threats to actions seen in authoritarian regimes. He emphasizes the danger to democracy when political winners imprison their opponents.
Not all legal experts view Trump's threats as equally concerning. University of California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo argues that prosecuting Trump's rivals could be a way to deter future politically motivated prosecutions.
Yoo contends that without the threat of prosecution against their own leaders, Democrats might continue to charge future Republican presidents without restraint. However, he also states that he doesn't take Trump's social media posts seriously, viewing some as jokes. Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, counters this view. He argues that the appropriateness of prosecution should be based on whether a serious crime was committed, not on political retaliation.
Trump's campaign maintains that he believes anyone breaking the law should face prosecution, including those engaging in election fraud. However, critics argue that Trump's threats are based on unproven claims and conspiracy theories rather than substantiated evidence of wrongdoing.
The debate surrounding Trump's prosecution threats highlights the tension between political rhetoric and legal accountability. Experts warn that such threats if acted upon, could significantly impact the integrity of the U.S. justice system and the stability of democratic institutions. As the 2024 election approaches, the potential consequences of these threats continue to be a subject of intense scrutiny and concern among legal and political observers.
Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina was hospitalized on Tuesday night following a reported collapse during an event in Washington, D.C., according to a statement from his office.
As reported by UPI, the 77-year-old Republican congressman was taken ill and is currently undergoing evaluation at a local hospital.
The incident occurred during a Ukraine Independence Day celebration in the nation's capital. While details remain limited, Wilson's office confirmed his hospitalization through a post on his personal X account late Tuesday.
Alan Wilson, the congressman's son and South Carolina Attorney General, provided an update on his father's condition. In a post on his own X account, Alan Wilson shared information from his conversation with his mother, who was at the hospital with Rep. Wilson.
Alan Wilson stated:
Doctors have confirmed to us that he has experienced stroke-like symptoms. I was able to speak with him moments ago and I am incredibly thankful that he is stable and being monitored by medical professionals.
This statement offers some insight into the nature of Rep. Wilson's medical situation, though further details about his condition and prognosis have not been released.
Rep. Joe Wilson, a Charleston native, has been serving in the U.S. Congress since 2001.
His political career spans over two decades, during which he has established himself as a prominent figure in South Carolina's political landscape.
Currently, Wilson is seeking re-election in November for his 2nd Congressional seat. He faces a challenge from Democratic candidate David Robinson II in the upcoming election. This hospitalization comes at a crucial time in his campaign, potentially impacting his re-election efforts.
Beyond his role as a representative for South Carolina's 2nd Congressional District, Wilson holds a significant position within the House of Representatives.
He serves as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a role that underscores his involvement in shaping U.S. foreign policy.
His participation in the Ukraine Independence Day celebration at the time of his reported collapse aligns with his committee responsibilities and interests in international affairs. The event where the incident occurred highlights Wilson's engagement with global issues, particularly those related to Ukraine.
Rep. Joe Wilson, a 77-year-old South Carolina Republican, was hospitalized after reportedly collapsing during a Ukraine Independence Day event in Washington, D.C. His son confirmed that doctors have observed stroke-like symptoms, though Wilson is currently stable and under medical supervision. Wilson, serving in Congress since 2001, is seeking re-election in November and holds a senior position on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
A federal lawsuit filed by U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas claims that the Biden administration is illegally funding Palestinian terrorism with American tax dollars.
The case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division alleges that President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken are violating the Taylor Force Act by allowing U.S. funds to benefit the Palestinian Authority (PA).
According to The Center Square, the lawsuit was filed in December 2022 by America First Legal on behalf of Rep. Jackson and two other plaintiffs. The legal action claims that the U.S. government has sent over $6.3 billion to the Palestinian Authority since 1993, despite concerns about the PA's funding of terrorism.
The Taylor Force Act, signed into law in 2018, prohibits U.S. funds from benefiting the Palestinian Authority unless it terminates its prisoner and martyr fund. This fund reportedly pays salaries to imprisoned terrorists and provides rewards to family members of deceased terrorists.
Rep. Jackson expressed his concerns about the alleged violation of this act, stating, "The president is breaking the law by allowing our tax dollars to fund terrorism in Israel, and he must be stopped."
The lawsuit contends that the Trump administration had halted funding to the PA due to its refusal to discontinue the controversial martyr fund. However, it alleges that the Biden administration has since resumed financial support to the region.
The legal complaint asserts that the current administration has sent approximately $1.5 billion to the region, including $500 million for "Economic Support Funds" in Gaza and the West Bank. Additionally, it claims that $1 billion was allocated to the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA).
These funding decisions have come under scrutiny, particularly after the discovery that UNRWA was allegedly housing a Hamas headquarters under a hospital. This revelation prompted 23 U.S. attorneys general to call for a complete halt to UNRWA funding by Congress.
The Biden administration has attempted to dismiss the lawsuit but has so far been unsuccessful. The court required the administration to comply with several demands and stated that it was plausible that the administration had circumvented the Taylor Force Act.
In response to these allegations, the Biden-Harris administration maintains that U.S. taxpayer money is not being used to fund terrorism. They point to recent actions, such as the Department of Justice filing terrorism and murder charges against six Hamas leaders, as evidence of their commitment to combating terrorism.
AFL Senior Vice President Reed Rubinstein offered a stark assessment of the situation:
The October 7 atrocities were, in part, a natural, ordinary, and predictable consequence of Biden's illegal, irrational, and disgraceful policies.
The ongoing legal battle highlights the complex nature of U.S. foreign aid in the region and the challenges of balancing humanitarian support with security concerns. As the case proceeds, it continues to raise questions about the oversight and allocation of U.S. funds in politically volatile areas.
The lawsuit alleges that the Biden administration is violating the Taylor Force Act by sending funds to the Palestinian Authority. It claims that over $6.3 billion has been sent since 1993, with recent allocations including $1.5 billion under the current administration. The case remains before the U.S. District Court, with the administration maintaining that U.S. taxpayer money is not funding terrorism.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has announced plans to hold a hearing on September 24 to discuss the implications of a recent Supreme Court decision granting former President Donald Trump broad immunity from prosecution for official acts during his presidency.
According to The Hill, Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) revealed the hearing date on Monday, expressing concern over the potential consequences of the ruling.
The hearing comes in response to the Supreme Court's controversial 6-3 decision in July, which dealt a significant blow to special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump for allegedly obstructing the certification of President Biden's 2020 election victory. Democrats have been vocal in their criticism of the ruling, arguing that it could have far-reaching effects on presidential accountability.
Senator Durbin took to social media platform X to announce the upcoming hearing, emphasizing the need for congressional scrutiny of the decision. He stated that Congress cannot ignore the potential dangers posed by the Supreme Court's ruling in the Trump immunity case.
The decision has sparked intense debate among lawmakers and legal experts. Critics argue that it potentially places the president above the law, a concept that runs counter to the principles of equal justice.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has expressed her own reservations about the ruling. In a recent interview with CBS "Sunday Morning," she voiced concern that the decision treats one individual under specific circumstances differently from how the criminal justice system typically operates.
The Supreme Court's ruling has raised questions about the extent of presidential immunity and its implications for future cases involving executive actions. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the decision.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) warned that granting Trump immunity for crimes related to official acts could prevent the American public from learning whether the former president is guilty of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results before the upcoming November presidential election.
Whitehouse went further in his criticism, stating:
The far-right radicals on the Court have essentially made the President a monarch above the law, the Founding Fathers' greatest fear.
The hearing is expected to delve into the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision and its potential impact on the balance of power within the federal government. Legal experts and scholars may be called to testify on the historical precedents and constitutional principles at stake.
The committee is likely to explore the boundaries of presidential immunity and whether the ruling creates a two-tiered justice system, as suggested by Justice Brown Jackson. This examination could have significant implications for how future cases involving presidential actions are handled.
The hearing may also address concerns about the potential for abuse of power if presidents are granted broad immunity for their official acts. Critics argue that such immunity could embolden future presidents to act with impunity, knowing they are shielded from prosecution.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on September 24 will examine the Supreme Court's ruling granting former President Trump broad immunity from prosecution for official acts. The decision has been criticized by Democrats for potentially placing the president above the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern about unequal treatment in the criminal justice system. Senator Whitehouse warned the ruling could prevent the public from knowing if Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election results before the upcoming presidential election.
ABC News has released the rules for the upcoming presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, scheduled for September 10th.
The debate, to be held at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, will feature 90 minutes of debate time with two commercial breaks. ABC News reports that the event will be moderated by "World News Tonight" anchor David Muir and ABC News Live "Prime" anchor Linsey Davis.
Trump has claimed on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the debate will not allow for adjustments to the nominees' height behind the podium. This statement comes amid the former president's history of making height-related comments about political opponents.
The debate will follow a structured format with specific time allocations for each segment. Candidates will have two minutes to answer each question, followed by a two-minute rebuttal and an additional minute for follow-up or clarification.
There will be no opening statements, but each candidate will have two minutes for closing remarks.
A virtual coin toss determined podium placement and the order of closing statements. Trump won the toss and chose to give the last closing statement, while Harris selected the right podium position on screen, which is stage left.
Microphones will be live only for the candidate whose turn it is to speak and muted for the other candidate. Only the moderators will be permitted to ask questions during the debate.
Trump's recent social media post about height adjustments has drawn attention to the topic of candidate appearances during debates. He wrote on Truth Social:
No boxes or artificial lifts will be allowed to stand on [sic] during my upcoming debate with Comrade Kamala Harris. We had this out previously with former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he was in a debate, and he was not allowed a "lift."
The former president went on to claim that such adjustments would be "a form of cheating." This statement references Trump's past feud with former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, whom he taunted as "Mini Mike Bloomberg" during the 2020 Democratic nomination bid.
The topic of candidates' heights has been a recurring theme in political discourse. Vice President Harris has previously clarified her own height during an interview with Katie Couric, stating that she is "5'4" and a quarter — sometimes 5'4" and a half," and "5'7' and a half" in heels.
Trump's height has been reported as both 6'2" and 6'3". The former president's focus on height has been a pattern in his political rhetoric, previously making unsubstantiated claims about Bloomberg requesting to stand on a box during a Democratic primary debate.
In conclusion, the upcoming presidential debate between Harris and Trump will follow strict rules set by ABC News. The event will take place without an audience and feature specific time allocations for questions and responses.
Trump's recent claims about height adjustments have reignited discussions about candidate appearances during debates. As the debate approaches, both candidates are likely preparing their strategies for this high-stakes political encounter.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was seen with her former colleague and paramour, Nathan Wade, during her daughter’s arrest after a routine traffic stop.
Despite previous claims that their relationship had ended, Willis and Wade appeared together at the scene of the traffic incident, raising questions about their ongoing connection, as the Western Journal reports.
Willis’ daughter, Kinaya Willis, was pulled over by police in Tyrone, Georgia, on Aug. 24 for allegedly using her phone while driving. Bodycam footage from the scene reveals that Fani Willis arrived at the stop accompanied by Wade, sparking interest due to their past relationship and professional ties.
Kinaya Willis was stopped for using her phone while driving, which she said happened because she received call from her mother. During the interaction, an officer asked if the two adults were Kinaya’s parents, to which Willis responded that Wade was “just a friend.” The officer then informed Willis that Kinaya’s license had been revoked earlier in the year.
The revocation of Kinaya’s license, which took place in May, was unknown to both Kinaya and her mother, according to their statements. Willis expressed surprise upon learning this from the officer, saying it was “news to me.”
Wade left the scene in the same car in which he had arrived with Willis, while Willis drove away in her daughter’s car. The situation has since drawn attention not only for its personal implications but also for the potential legal consequences.
Nathan Wade’s presence during the arrest raised eyebrows because of his prior involvement in high-profile legal cases led by Fani Willis. Wade had previously been appointed as a special prosecutor by Willis in the case against former President Donald Trump, who is accused of election interference in Georgia.
However, Wade stepped down from his role earlier this year after allegations surfaced regarding his romantic relationship with Willis. The two were reportedly no longer involved, but the footage from Kinaya’s traffic stop suggests a continued personal connection.
Wade’s proximity to the case involving Trump and his presence during the family incident with Willis raises questions about the impartiality of the legal process. Former President Trump’s legal team has been critical of Willis’ handling of the election case, and this incident may provide further grounds for their opposition.
Kinaya Willis now faces legal trouble of her own due to her revoked license and the traffic violation. She is expected to appear in Tyrone Municipal Court on Oct. 24 to answer the charges against her.
As for Fani Willis, her involvement in the case against Trump remains a key issue in Georgia’s legal landscape. The presence of Wade during her daughter’s arrest complicates the narrative, especially given Wade’s prior involvement as a special prosecutor in the same case. The bodycam footage showing Willis and Wade together may fuel further scrutiny from those who are critical of Willis’ conduct in both her personal and professional life. The footage comes at a time when Willis is in the national spotlight due to the high-profile nature of the Trump case.
Fani Willis was present during her daughter Kinaya’s arrest for driving with a revoked license, accompanied by Nathan Wade. Wade had previously stepped down from his role as a special prosecutor in the Trump case due to his alleged affair with Willis.
The situation brings new attention to their relationship and raises questions about ongoing legal matters. Kinaya will face a court appearance on Oct. 24, and the bodycam footage has drawn both personal and political interest. With Willis’ role in the Trump case continuing to develop, this incident may further complicate the public’s perception of her professional and personal life.