A DOJ spokesman was caught on a hidden camera blasting Alvin Bragg and other prosecutors for executing a “perversion of justice” against Donald Trump.
The post WATCH: Top DOJ Spokesman Calls Trump Cases ‘Perversion of Justice’ on Hidden Camera appeared first on Breitbart .
‘Helping asylum-seeking families’
Havldimir quickly became a celebrity in Norway, swimming his way into their Nordic hearts.
But this beluga whale’s odd story started in 2019 when he was discovered in northern Norway near the island of Ingoya wearing a harness with “Equipment St Petersburg” written in English connected to a mount for a small camera.
Hvaldimir, as Norwegians dubbed him – mixing together the Norwegian word for whale and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s name – was intelligent, friendly and responded to hand signals, leading Norway’s spy agency to believe he had been held in captivity by Russia and used for research purposes.
Once Hvaldimir was freed from his harness, though, his friendly personality made him beloved in the country.
CRITICALLY ENDANGERED WHALE SEEN OFF CALIFORNIA COAST: ‘EVERY SIGHTING IS INCREDIBLE VALUABLE TO US’
He was fed and monitored by the Norwegian government and dubbed a “free-swimming whale” by the Norwegian Orca Survey, venturing as far as Sweden but always returning home, according to The Telegraph .
Hvaldimir was found dead off southern Norway last weekend.
“It’s absolutely horrible,” marine biologist Sebastian Strand, who worked with Marine Mind, told Norwegian public broadcaster NRK. “He was apparently in good condition as of (Friday), so we just have to figure out what might have happened here.”
BREACHING WHALE CAPSIZES BOAT AFTER LANDING ON TOP OF IT OFF NEW HAMPSHIRE, SHOCKING VIDEO SHOWS
Hvaldimir may have died of natural causes, but conservation groups NOAH and One Whale have filed police reports claiming he was shot, according to the Telegraph.
The Oceanic Preservation Society said that a necropsy will be done on Hvaldimir to determine his cause of death in the next few weeks.
“We’ve been absolutely devastated over the news, and are deeply saddened that humanity failed this beloved whale,” the organization said on social media.
Nonprofit Marine Mind said on Facebook that Hvaldimir “bridged the gap” between humans and wild animals in a way “few can.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“Hvaldimir was not just a beluga whale; he was a beacon of hope, a symbol of connection, and a reminder of the deep bond between humans and the natural world,” the organization said. “Over the past five years, he touched the lives of tens of thousands, bringing people together in awe of the wonders of nature. His presence taught us about the importance of ocean conservation, and in doing so, he also taught us more about ourselves.”
Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
NYT chief political analyst Nate Cohn asks, “As Groups Have Shifted, Has It Become a ‘Normal’ Election?” The idea that any election could be “normal” when a convicted felon under multiple other criminal indictments is one of the candidates is odd, but he’s framing the question narrowly: “The candidates fought over the issues and their agendas. There were no questions about whether a candidate was going to drop out.”
More importantly, though, the polling seems to show some anomalies have been reversed.
The return of the generational divide
The Democratic lead among young voters is back. In high-quality polls over the last month, Vice President Harris leads Mr. Trump by an average of 20 points among the youngest reported demographic cohort (whether that be 18 to 29 or 18 to 34 in a given poll). The same polls showed Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump tied among young voters in July. Older voters, meanwhile, have barely edged at all toward Ms. Harris. Put it together, and the usual generational divide in American politics has returned.
That said, the polling isn’t entirely typical. Ms. Harris still leads among seniors, a group that post-election studies found had tilted slightly toward Mr. Trump in 2020. The gap between the current polling of seniors and the estimated result among them in the last election isn’t especially large. But it’s an eye-popping difference nonetheless.
It’s hard to be sure whether Ms. Harris’s strength among seniors is because the aging of the boomers is helping Democrats, or because the polls are just wrong and struggling to reach Mr. Trump’s supporters, or because Democrats and Mr. Biden had actually been faring better among seniors than previously estimated all along. Whatever the explanation, it’s not a statistical fluke due to small sample sizes: Polls have shown Democrats faring surprisingly well among seniors for a while now, including ahead of the 2020 election.
One additional data point for the thought-provoking possibility that Democrats have simply been stronger among seniors all along: the authoritative Pew NPORS study. It found Democrats either tied or ahead of Republicans among seniors in leaned party identification in each of its annual surveys over five years, which together have more than 7,000 total respondents over 65. Similarly, more seniors said they backed Mr. Biden than Mr. Trump in 2020 in each survey.
A rebound among Black and Hispanic voters
Mr. Trump’s strength among Black and Hispanic voters was one of the most surprising trends of the cycle. With Ms. Harris as the Democratic nominee, it’s no surprise that Mr. Trump has come back to earth.
n the past month of high-quality polls, Ms. Harris has a 78-14 lead among Black voters and a 52-41 lead among Hispanic voters. Our New York Times/Siena College battleground state surveys showed similar results, with Ms. Harris ahead 80-15 among Black voters and 52-42 among Hispanic ones. In each case, Ms. Harris is about halfway between Mr. Biden’s weakened standing before he dropped out of the race and his stronger estimated finish in the 2020 election.
While this is certainly closer to typical, “normal” is not quite the right term for the current numbers. Mr. Trump’s tallies today — 14 percent support among Black voters and 41 percent among Hispanic voters — would still represent the highest level of backing a Republican presidential candidate has received in pre-election polls since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Ms. Harris may still make additional gains among these groups over the last two months. It’s also possible that the polls are overestimating Mr. Trump’s strength or that many of Mr. Trump’s Black and Hispanic supporters simply won’t turn out to vote.
But it’s also starting to become conceivable that Mr. Trump will post some of the best results on record for a Republican among voters of color — and that he will do so against a Black Democratic candidate who also has South Asian heritage. It would not amount to a “racial realignment,” but it would be a development with important consequences for the future of American politics.
As we’ve noted many times since the switch atop the Democratic ticket, Harris is a relatively fresh face who seems, for whatever reason, to be getting little of the blame for unpopular occurrences over the last four years that Biden was shouldering. It’s hardly surprising that she has recaptured traditional Democratic voters.
I haven’t seen enough robust polling to explain the modest shift Trumpward of Black and Hispanic voters. My strong suspicion is that it’s primarily men drawn to “traditional” messaging at a time when male power is on the wane. And, certainly, a woman as the nominee is further fuel on that fire.
The engagement gap is fading
One of the most unusual features of the polling over the last year was Mr. Biden’s pronounced weakness among less engaged voters, even as he held his own among the kinds of voters who propelled Democratic success in midterm and special elections.
This pattern has faded a bit since Ms. Harris’s entry into the race, though it’s not gone altogether. In the last Times/Siena battleground state polls, Ms. Harris trailed by six points among voters who didn’t vote in the 2022 midterms, compared with Mr. Biden’s 15-point deficit in May. The latest Cook Political Report surveys show a similar pattern , using slightly different definitions of political engagement.
Less engaged voters, of course, are probably those who are least tuned in to all the drama of the last two months. We’ll see how they shift over the final stretch.
Again, this is hardly surprising. A re-run of 2020 with the two candidates four years older and demonstrating signs of cognitive decline was unlikely to engage low-engagement voters. There’s at least a new plot twist to the story now.
There was a tweet on Twitter (or is it an X on X?) that showed Donald Trump talking with his nose getting bigger and bigger. It has long been definitively established that Donald Trump is truth challenged (i.e. a seemingly non-stop lie machine). Those who point out the lies are usually then accused by Trump supporters of having Trump Derangement Syndrome, a phrase intending to define the person being attacked but which actually defines the attacker using the phrase.
But here is some news about Trump lies. There is a trend.
Trump says the same lies over and over and when it has been proven they are lies he…simply repeats them over and over again and again.
In a speech last week to the National Guard Association of the United States, former President Donald Trump claimed that he was the president who “created” the Veterans Choice health care program, and got it “passed in Congress,” after others had wanted to do so “for 57 years.”
In reality, President Barack Obama was the president who signed the program into law in 2014. The law Trump signed in 2018, the VA MISSION Act, expanded the Veterans Choice program but didn’t create it.
I could fact-check this Trump lie half-asleep – because he’s been telling it for more than six years.
Trump’s lying is most exceptional in its relentlessness, a never-ending avalanche of wrongness that can bury even the most devoted fact-checkers. But it’s also notable for its repetitiveness. He has found his hits, and he’ll keep playing them no matter how many times they are debunked.
As Trump enters the post-Labor Day sprint of his 2024 campaign for the presidency, his commentary is filled with many of the same false claims he made as president from 2017 to 2021. He’s even repeating some of the false claims he used during his 2016 presidential campaign.
As a fact-check reporter for CNN, I watch or read the transcript of every public appearance by Trump and his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. While Harris’ campaign remarks to date have been heavy on thematic rhetoric and light on assertions of fact, with a smattering of false or misleading claims, Trump’s 2024 interviews and speeches are littered with old falsehoods I’ve come to call “the repeats” – assertions I have fact-checked as false over and over for years.
Dale lists some of the lies that Trump repeats again and again (and again) and writes:
Trump’s regular false claims of a “rigged” 2020 election echo his language from both his 2016 campaign and 2020 campaign. (The claims were baseless then and are baseless now.)
And less importantly, when Trump declared in June, July and again on Thursday that he had been named “Man of the Year” in Michigan long before he entered politics, it was the third straight presidential election he had told this silly lie he debuted in 2016. (There is no evidence the award even exists, let alone that Trump, who has never lived in Michigan, received it.)
This does work for Trump, since he uses repetition:
Nobody really knows how much of Trump’s deployment of old lies is strategic and how much is mere force of habit. Regardless, his persistence produces a clear benefit for him.
News outlets tend to focus on new material. While some outlets may be inclined to fact-check a false Trump claim the first, second, third or even 10th time he utters it, they are far less likely to devote precious resources to a claim on the 100th or 150th utterance – especially because he is constantly mixing in dozens of new lies that require time and resources to address. And so, by virtue of shameless perseverance, Trump often manages to outlast most of the media’s willingness to correct any particular falsehood, eventually getting that claim into news coverage and social media clips nearly uncorrected.
That’s not to say his lying is an unmitigated victory.
Dale notes that many polls indicate many American’s don’t trust Trump as he delivers a medley of his favorite untruths at campaign rallies, on social media and to the mainstream media. He ends with this:
So as long as Trump or any other major political figure keeps reviving their past nonsense, we should keep debunking that nonsense. Even if we already did it eight years ago.
The post Trump’s Greatest Hits: Trump repeatedly uses same lies even when proven as lies appeared first on The Moderate Voice .
by Andy Kroll, ProPublica, and Nick Surgey, Documented
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, privately heaped praise on a major religious-rights group for fighting efforts to reform the nation’s highest court — efforts sparked, in large part, by her husband’s ethical lapses.
Thomas expressed her appreciation in an email sent to Kelly Shackelford , an influential litigator whose clients have won cases at the Supreme Court. Shackelford runs the First Liberty Institute, a $25 million-a-year organization that describes itself as “the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious liberty for all Americans.”
Shackelford read Thomas’ email aloud on a July 31 private call with his group’s top donors.
Thomas wrote that First Liberty’s opposition to court-reform proposals gave a boost to certain judges. According to Shackelford, Thomas wrote in all caps: “YOU GUYS HAVE FILLED THE SAILS OF MANY JUDGES. CAN I JUST TELL YOU, THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH.”
Shackelford said he saw Thomas’ support as evidence that judges, who “can’t go out into the political sphere and fight,” were thankful for First Liberty’s work to block Supreme Court reform. “It’s neat that, you know, those of you on the call are a part of protecting the future of our court, and they really appreciate it,” he said.
On the same call, Shackelford attacked Justice Elena Kagan as “treasonous” and “disloyal” after she endorsed an enforcement mechanism for the court’s newly adopted ethics code in a recent public appearance. He said that such an ethics code would “destroy the independence of the judiciary.” (This past weekend, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she too was open to an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court.)
After the call, First Liberty sent a recording of the 45-minute conversation to some of its supporters. ProPublica and Documented obtained that recording.
Ginni Thomas did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
First Liberty Institute did not directly respond to ProPublica and Documented’s questions about the recording. Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel at First Liberty Institute, said in a statement : “First Liberty is extremely alarmed at the Leftist attacks on our democracy and judicial independence and is fighting to bring attention to this dangerous threat. It’s shameful that the political Left seems perfectly fine destroying democracy to achieve the court decisions they favor instead of working through democratic and constitutional means.”
The July 31 call led by Shackelford came shortly after President Joe Biden had announced support for a slate of far-reaching Supreme Court changes . Biden endorsed term limits for justices, a constitutional amendment reversing the court’s recent presidential immunity decision and a binding ethics code for the court’s nine members. Kagan’s comments came before Biden’s. She did not mention any of the structural proposals Biden endorsed.
On the donor call, Shackelford voiced strong opposition to various court reform proposals, including the ones floated by Biden, as well as expanding the size of the court. All of these proposals, Shackelford said, were part of “a dangerous attempt to really destroy the court, the Supreme Court.” This effort was led by “people in the progressive, extreme left” who were “upset by just a few cases,” he said.
This is not the first time that a spouse of a Supreme Court justice injected themselves into controversial political matters. Ginni Thomas sent dozens of messages after the 2020 election that echoed then-President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud. In messages to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows , Thomas said “Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History” and urged Trump to not concede the election. In emails to Arizona and Wisconsin lawmakers, she pleaded with them to fight back against supposed fraud and send a “clean slate of Electors.” She later wrote , “The nation’s eyes are on you now. … Please consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you do not stand up and lead.” (Thomas said in 2022 she regretted sending the inflammatory messages to Meadows.)
Martha-Ann Alito, the wife of Justice Samuel Alito, faced scrutiny for flying an upside-down American flag at the family’s Virginia home — a symbol used by the Stop the Steal movement that claimed the 2020 election had been stolen from Trump. The flag flew outside the Alito home as the Supreme Court was deciding whether to hear a case related to the 2020 election. (Samuel Alito told The New York Times he had no role in flying the flag. He said his wife did it in response to “a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”)
The push to change how the court functions grew after a series of ProPublica stories showed that wealthy Republican donors have showered Thomas and Alito with free gifts and travel that they failed to disclose. Following ProPublica’s reporting, Thomas amended past disclosure reports , and the Supreme Court adopted the ethics code , its first ever.
Thomas and Alito have said they weren’t required to disclose free flights or hospitality from friends.
First Liberty has been at the forefront of a decadeslong and successful effort to expand the First Amendment rights of religious groups, even as those interests can collide with other constitutional principles like maintaining the separation of church and state or providing equal protection for protected classes.
In the last several years, First Liberty has notched big victories. In June 2022, the Supreme Court’s six conservatives ruled in favor of several Maine families represented by First Liberty and the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning legal advocacy group, when it struck down the state’s ban on using public funding to pay for religious schooling. Days later, the six conservatives ruled again in favor of a First Liberty plaintiff — in this case, a former football coach at a Washington state public high school who had been fired for praying on the field after games. The conservative majority said the coach had been wrongly removed from his job, a decision hailed by religious groups and criticized by some experts who said it would now be more difficult for public schools to keep education separate from religion.
First Liberty has also represented a bakery in Oregon whose owners refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, citing their religious beliefs; religious groups that opposed the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate; and nearly three dozen Navy SEALs and military members who refused to be vaccinated for the virus on the basis of their faith. In all the cases, First Liberty’s plaintiffs won partial or full victories in lower courts or at the Supreme Court.
Shackelford, who is First Liberty’s president and CEO, has led the group for nearly three decades. His influence extends into the broader conservative movement. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a former First Liberty attorney, once called Shackelford a mentor. Shackelford has served as vice president of the Council for National Policy, an umbrella group that brings together conservative leaders and deep-pocketed donors. He also works closely with Ziklag, the secretive network of ultrawealthy conservative Christians that aims to “take dominion” over every major sphere of influence in American culture. According to internal Ziklag newsletters obtained by ProPublica and Documented, Shackelford has participated in Supreme Court prep sessions and appeared on strategy conference calls organized by the group.
On the July 31 donor call, Shackelford kept the focus squarely on the mounting calls to reform the Supreme Court. In addition to Biden’s proposals, several groups, including prominent liberal legal outfits, have proposed other changes including term limits and stronger ethics guidelines. And earlier in July, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law said it had received a $30 million gift from the private-equity investor Jim Kohlberg to create a new project that will “seek reform of the Supreme Court.”
Shackelford described all of this — Kagan’s speech, Biden’s announcement, the $30 million donation — as if it was a coordinated effort. “They’re doing everything in their power,” he told the donors. “They’re hitting from every direction.” The “extreme left,” he explained, was “upset by just a few cases, but that’s all they need to say, ‘We’re ready to totally’ — they would call ‘reform’ or ‘restructure’ the court — but almost everything they propose would actually destroy the court.”
He aimed his fiercest criticism on the donor call at Kagan. “That is incredible, somewhat treasonous, what Kagan did,” Shackelford said. “The chief justice rules the court. They’re trying to keep the other branches’ hands off of them. And then you’ve got Kagan from the inside really being somewhat disloyal and somewhat treasonous in what she’s doing.”
Shackelford accused ProPublica of being part of a campaign to “delegitimize or get rid of the court.” He said that the ethics lapses unearthed by ProPublica’s reporting were “false” and “baseless,” even though they helped spark the creation of a new ethics code and led to Thomas filing new financial disclosure forms , in effect admitting that he had failed to disclose certain gifts.
ProPublica stands behind all of the stories in its “Friends of the Court ” series. Donors do not have access to stories ahead of their publication, and they have no say over coverage decisions.
Turning to what his donors could do to help, Shackelford said that prayer was at the top of the list. “This is a spiritual battle,” he said. “Because the evil that will occur if we lose the rule of law is beyond, I think, what any of us can even think through.”
But First Liberty needed more than prayer — it also needed money. “We need resources to be able to do a bunch of the things that will make a difference between now and the next six months. And that turned out to be key last time,” he said, referring to a similar instance in 2021 and 2022.
Near the start of the Biden presidency, he said, First Liberty raised $3 million to run a campaign that sought to block efforts to add more justices to the high court and to reform or eliminate the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Getting rid of the filibuster then would’ve removed the 60-vote procedural hurdle that currently exists for most types of legislation.
According to Shackelford, First Liberty conducted polling, ran advertisements, worked with social media influencers and urged Congress to oppose these changes. In particular, Shackelford said, his group focused its activities on convincing Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to oppose filibuster reform.
In the end, both senators did just that. “We stopped this from happening,” Shackelford said. (Spokespeople for Manchin and Sinema did not respond to requests for comment.)
But now, he went on, First Liberty needed more money if it wanted to mount a similar campaign to stop Supreme Court reform. He mentioned the Brennan Center’s recent $30 million gift and then asked, “Where’s our, you know, $10 million guy or gal?”
And to anyone who wondered about the odds that Supreme Court reform would actually happen, Shackelford responded: “I don’t know. I mean, 25%? 30%? Whatever it is, it’s amazing how big that is when you consider that our country will be over and the rule of law will be over.”
Before the call ended, Shackelford wanted his “very top supporters” to know that they had the support in this fight from key figures in high places. He said that a First Liberty staffer based in Washington, D.C., had recently been in a meeting with Ginni Thomas. Afterward, Thomas sent the email that praised First Liberty for joining the fight against Supreme Court reform.
“‘Great to meet through the meetings today,’” Thomas wrote, according to Shackelford, who read the email aloud to the donors. “‘I cannot adequately express enough appreciation for you guys pulling into reacting to the Biden effort on the Supreme Court,” she said, adding, “Many were so depressed at the lack of response by R’s and conservatives” to recent court-reform proposals. The rest of Thomas’ email, Shackelford said, was the all-caps gratitude.
Do you have any information about the Supreme Court and efforts to block court reform that we should know? Andy Kroll can be reached by email at andy.kroll@propublica.org and by Signal or WhatsApp at 202-215-6203.
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America
, CC BY-SA 2.0
, via Wikimedia Commons. Republished from ProPublica.
The post Ginni Thomas Privately Praised Group Working Against Supreme Court Reform: “Thank You So, So, So Much” appeared first on The Moderate Voice .
A frequent MSNBC guest on Friday delivered a lengthy black list of targets he demands the FBI investigate, including “mainstream media,” “internet platforms,” certain “influencers,” as part of “a battle between authoritarianism on the one hand and democracy on the other.”
That guest, founding partner in a now-closed equity firm and author of an anti-Facebook book Roger McNamee, also said tech CEO Elon Musk should be “prosecuted” over a failure to “moderate his speech in the interest of national security” in posts on X, which Musk owns.
On Friday’s The Last Word on MSNBC, guest host Ali Velshi first brought up YouTube’s recent banning of right wing channels to a wide-reaching Russian disinformation scheme that saw indictments handed down for two employees of another channel, RT this week.
McNamee, in his reply, immediately broadened the scope beyond that incident, saying that this “kind” of thing has been going on for years, and that the FBI has to launch widespread investigations and prosecutions across all sectors of society to root out people “aligned with Russia, but also those with “enthusiasm for authoritarianism” or who have “broken down the traditional role” their institutions’ “would play in our democracy.”
After listing the many groups and individuals this government purge should target to fight authoritarianism, he added, in answer to a Velshi question about Elon Musk allegedly spreading “disinformation ” on X, McNamee advocated prosecution, on the grounds that some of Musk’s companies have government contracts while he’s “actively undermining” the administration with his personal opinions on the platform.
“Somewhere in there is a legal case that needs to be prosecuted,” McNamee cryptically advised.
MCNAMEE: You know, the Department of Justice and the FBI have a lot of work to do. They need to be investigating members of Congress and the Senate. They need to be investigating internet platforms. They need to be investigating, obviously, these influencers. But they also need to be paying a visit to some of the members of of mainstream media who have also aligned with Russia.
And I think the way to think about this, the way our viewers should think about this, is it’s really a battle between authoritarianism on the one hand and democracy on the other. And Russia may have triggered the initial enthusiasm for authoritarianism, and they did it by appealing to fundamentalist Christians in the United States. But over time, that has brought to it billionaires from Silicon Valley. It’s brought to it media moguls. It’s brought all kinds of people who have broken down the traditional role that these institutions would play in our democracy.
—
MCNAMEE: So the critical element in thinking about Elon Musk is, like any American, he has a right to his own opinion, and he has a right to express his opinion. However, that right is not unlimited, and he is under some special limitations that wouldn’t apply to normal people. Because his companies, specifically Starlink and SpaceX X, are government contractors, and as such, he has obligations to the government that would for any normal person and should for him, require him to moderate his speech in the interest of national security. So what you have is somebody who runs a really strategic defense and aerospace projects for the federal government who’s actively undermining the government, which is paying him. And somewhere in there is a legal case that needs to be prosecuted.
Watch the clip above via MSNBC .
The post MSNBC Guest Demands FBI Investigations Of Big Tech, Social Influencers, MSM, Billionaires, Senators & Reps to Battle – Authoritarianism first appeared on Mediaite .
‘Paul Goldsmith had more natural talent than any driver I ever had anything to do with’
Former President Trump painted a gloomy picture of a potential Harris presidency during a campaign speech on Saturday, claiming that Israel would be “doomed” under Harris’ watch and that the upcoming November election “may be our last.”
Speaking to a crowd in Mosinee, Wisconsin, Trump promised to “prevent World War III,” after speaking to the crowd about topics ranging from Social Security reform to implementing tariffs.
“I will end the chaos in the Middle East and I will prevent World War III,” Trump said at the podium. “And I’m the only one that can do it. I will prevent World War III.”
“And if I don’t win this election, Israel, with comrade Kamala Harris at the helm of the United States, is doomed.” he continued. “Israel is doomed.”
HARRIS CAMPAIGN AGREES TO ABC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE RULES WITH SOME ‘ASSURANCES’: REPORT
Acknowledging that the claim was a “tough statement,” the Republican nominee expanded on his argument and said that Americans “may have no country left,” if Israel were to be defeated.
“Israel will be gone,” Trump added. “One year, two years. Israel will no longer exist. I better win, I better win, or you’re going to have problems like we’ve never had.”
“We may have no country left. It may be our last election.”
TRUMP SLAMS ABC AHEAD OF PIVOTAL NETWORK-HOSTED DEBATE: ‘THEY’RE THE WORST, THEY’RE THE NASTIEST’
Harris has also accused Trump of threatening democracy in the past. Last month, Harris said that Trump “wants to be an autocrat.”
“I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-Un, who are rooting for Trump because they know he is easy to manipulate with flattery and favors,” the Democratic nominee claimed.
“They know Trump won’t hold autocrats accountable – because he wants to be an autocrat.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign for comment.
The post DONALD TRUMP’S WORD SALADS (CARTOON) appeared first on The Moderate Voice .
