Stories Chosen For You
Herschel Walker told a campaign audience earlier this year that he had special insight about the U.S.-Mexico border because he lives in Texas.
However, the Donald Trump-endorsed Republican is running for U.S. Senate in Georgia, where officials are facing pressure to investigate exactly where he resides as voters are already casting ballots for the Dec. 6 special election, reported CNN.
Earlier in that same speech, Walker, a former football standout at the university, said he had decided to run for Georgia's Senate seat while at his home in Texas.
“Everyone asks me, why did I decide to run for a Senate seat? Because to be honest with you, this is never something I ever, ever, ever thought in my life I’d ever do, and that's the honest truth,” Walker said. “As I was sitting in my home in Texas, I was sitting in my home in Texas, and I was seeing what was going on in this country. I was seeing what was going on in this country with how they were trying to divide people.”
Georgia Democrats have called for an immediate investigation into Walker's residency, and whether he lied about it to get onto the ballot.
WASHINGTON — Now that officials have returned to Congress for the lame-duck session, Republicans are being asked about their party's former president meeting with avowed anti-Semites at his country club.
Speaking to Raw Story on Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said flatly he couldn't understand why Donald Trump would take a meeting with Kanye West to begin with.
"I just think any time we're talking about that is a bad day for him," said Graham. "I don't know why you'd want to give oxygen to Kanye West. And I don't doubt that Trump didn't know the other guy."
The "other guy" that Graham is referring to is radical right-wing extremist Nick Fuentes, who supports a range of policies like mandating American women be denied the right to vote, demanding they wear veils in church and requiring that they marry early as teens and serve as a baby-making factory. In one show he lamented the "good old days" when men could punch women and burn them alive. At the same time, he has denied that the Holocaust happened, while also mocking those who died in it as "burnt cookies."
On Monday, West walked off of an interview with right-wing commentators when he got even the slightest pushback on his pro-Nazi ideology.
According to Graham, the decision to bring West and Fuentes to Mar-a-Lago was a costly distraction for Trump.
"He should be talking about America's problems and how to fix them and comparing his presidency to Bidens and issues that matter. And if he's not doing that, that's a bad day for him," said Graham.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) refused to answer questions on Monday from reporters about Trump's meeting with West and Fuentes, saying that he had better things to do than denounce Nazis or white supremacy. It prompted one of his former colleagues to question what exactly that was that he could do in the two seconds it would take him to convey their ideas were wrong or bad.
Raw Story gave him a second chance to respond to questions about whether Fuentes and West should be accepted by a prominent leader in his party. He refused to speak. Raw Story asked if that was a "no comment," but again, he refused to say a word.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said that he doesn't know West, but it seems to him that the man has serious mental health issues.
"I hope somebody in his life will intervene," said Rubio. West has acknowledged that he is bipolar, but Nazism is not a recognized mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. "The other guy is just a flat-out, antisemite. I don't know how he got in there. Wish he hadn't had dinner with him. I know Trump's not an anti-Semite, so I have no idea how that guy got in there but they shouldn't have allowed him."
Sen. Ron Johnson, who narrowly won his 2022 reelection by just 1 percent, couldn't understand why reporters were asking Republicans that question and not Democrats. One reporter said that Democrats don't generally invite Nazis to dinner, but Johnson simply walked off.
Another Republican senator, Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who isn't up for reelection until 2026, was happy to denounce the meeting.
Democrats, by contrast, were happy to talk about Donald Trump breaking bread with the extremists.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is Jewish, told Raw Story that the meet-up was "disgraceful." When we asked whether the Republicans should weed out those pieces of their party, Sanders said simply that it's something for them to answer.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who was also raised in a Jewish family, told Raw Story that the meeting with Trump was "abhorrent."
He took it a bit further, however, and discussed the impact of such extremists meeting with a former and possibly future president. "It's a sign of an increasing threat. It's beyond abhorrent."
Former President Donald Trump's former legal advisor John Eastman penned a 2020 election memo that urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to overrule certified election results based on mere accusations of fraud.
While Eastman's theory of the power of state legislatures to reject certified elections was never put to the test, The Atlantic reports that another potentially radical interpretation of state legislatures' powers has made its way to the United States Supreme Court.
Over the past several months, many legal experts have penned "friends of the court" briefs debating Moore v. Harper and the constitutional arguments for and against it.
At the case's heart is a debate over the power of state legislatures that is based on the following words in the United States Constitution: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations."
State governments set the rules for federal elections and state races. In some states this year, they elected a governor and a U.S. Senator on the same ballot, because the Constitution says they can decide how their elections work. The state legislative theory uses the words "the legislatures thereof" to justify other state-level entities like courts or state legislatures intervening.
"At the center of Moore is a ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court throwing out an aggressively gerrymandered congressional map put together by the state’s Republican legislature, which the court found violated the state constitution," the Atlantic explained. "The GOP lawmakers are now challenging that ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing that, under the independent state legislature theory, the state court lacked the authority to involve itself in the legislature’s work."
The Supreme Court's intervention in the 2000 Florida recount has resurfaced in this argument, in part because former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in his concurrence for Bush v. Gore that the Constitution's “legislature thereof” language could allow Florida courts to interpret the state’s own election law: “The text of the election law itself” as written by the state legislature, Rehnquist wrote, “and not just its interpretation by the courts of the States, takes on independent significance.”
Law school professors Leah Litman and Kate Shaw, however, have written a reply brief to the North Carolina legislators arguing that using this approach would rewrite the electoral process entirely.
Furthermore, argues election law expert Rick Hasen “a muscular reading of the independent state legislature theory would provide a fig leaf for state legislators to try to reverse presidential election results and overturn the will of the people in a presidential election.”
Speaking about it to The Atlantic, Hasan was hopeful that the judiciary would know better than to step into something like this. Still, there's a fear that the Supreme Court might “conclude it is a political question the courts can stay out of."
Hasen’s letter to the court joined with longtime Republican elections lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg and a group of conservative lawyers led by former Judge Thomas Griffith warning that a flood of lawsuits challenging elections would follow. That could, in turn, fuel false claims of election fraud or a leader's claims that any election they lose is "rigged."
Ginsberg was particularly dire in his warning about what such a change would mean, and he argues that “the credibility of the electoral system” will be a “guaranteed casualty.”