Fox News host Maria Bartiromo admitted that Vice President Kamala Harris had experienced a "meteoric rise" but blamed it on former President Barack Obama.
"Obama reportedly pulling all the strings from four years of the Biden-Harris administration to the meteoric rise of Kamala," Bartiromo said during an interview with conservative Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI).
Bartiromo noted that Harris had risen from San Francisco district attorney to vice president in 20 years.
"What can you tell us about Obama and his influence here?" the Fox News host asked Schweizer.
"She was campaigning for Barack Obama in 2003 before he was in the U.S. Senate," Schweizer opined. "And that's why I think there is considerable evidence that Barack Obama is the one that essentially instituted this coup and saw to it that Joe Biden was kicked to the side and Kamala Harris would be the nominee."
Bartiromo pointed to an unverified report that Obama had threatened to use the 25th Amendment against President Joe Biden if he didn't step down. But as an unelected public figure, Obama cannot invoke the 25th Amendment.
"So, in my mind, there's lots of evidence, and his fingerprints are all over this," Schweizer agreed.
"OK, but specifically, did Obama threaten Biden with the 25th Amendment that they have gotten the OK from the cabinet that they will push it forward if he doesn't step down?" Bartiromo pressed. "Did they threaten Biden to say, you better get out?"
"I don't have that same evidence, but it would certainly fit the pattern for Barack Obama," the conservative guest admitted.
On Sunday morning, CNN host Jake Tapper faced an avalanche of criticism after inviting Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on to talk about the changing presidential race now that Vice President Kamala Harris appears to be the 2024 Democratic presidential candidate.
What ended up happening was Tapper sitting back and letting Cotton ramble with no fact-checking as Arkansas Republican went on extensive rants about Harris — all of them current MAGA talking points about the vice president who Republicans are trying to paint as more liberal than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
Moments after the interview (which can be seen below) with Cotton, social media lit up with criticism of the "State of the Union" noting he failed to do any "pushback."
As one commenter on X said of the interview: "What a farce."
According to commenter G Money, "Tom Cotton is full of s--t, lied and distorted the truth, yet Jake Tapper had absolutely no pushback. None. Jake used to have a backbone. Seems like he gave it up for a paycheck."
'Watching Jake Tapper, not fact check Tom Cotton this morning is pretty disappointing," Kevin Lee wrote to which Lady Jane replied, "'No push back' seems to be the theme of most if not all television interviews lately. I'm old enough to remember when the threat of being investigated by 60 Minutes was used to assure good behavior. Whatever happened?"
XChief wrote, "Watching Jake Tapper interview Sen. Tom Cotton on CNN. Tapper is showing Cotton videos of the unbelievable thing Trump and Vance said, then letting him give preposterous answers, or evade all together, with ZERO pushback or follow up. WTF?"
MJ wrote, "What has Tom Cotton ever done in the Senate? Nothing besides being a lap dog for Maga. Why would CNN Jake Tapper think he needs to be interviewed? Giving these lying machines air time is asinine. Ridiculous!"
"Tom Cotton is on CNN right now and Jake Tapper is just letting him lie and lie and lie and lie more without any pushback. Every interview should have some credibility," Rick Jahnz observed.
Upstate NY Bob contributed, "Made the mistake again of hoping to see direct questioning on a Sunday morning political program. Once again Jake Tapper allowed a MAGA guest to avoid answering questions. Zero follow ups. I wonder if Tom Cotton has to claim his CNN appearance as a campaign donation."
ABC host Martha Raddatz called out a surrogate for Donald Trump after the former president told a group of Christians that they would never have to vote again if he was elected in 2024.
"You won't have to do it anymore," Trump told the group recently. "You won't have to vote anymore. My beautiful Christians, I love you, Christians."
Raddatz pushed Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) to explain Trump's remarks on Sunday.
"Former President Trump facing some backlash for those comments Friday night, saying his supporters won't have to vote again in four years," Raddatz said. "Governor, what the heck did he mean there?"
"Well, I think I think that was a classic Trumpism, if you will," Sununu laughed. "I think he's just trying to make the point that this stuff can be fixed."
"You know, obviously, we want everybody to vote in all elections," he continued. "But I think he was just trying to make a hyperbolic point that it can be fixed as long as he gets back into office and all that."
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg rebuffed Fox News host Shannon Bream on Sunday after she suggested that Vice President Kamala Harris was unqualified to lead the country.
During an interview on Fox News Sunday, Bream noted that one conservative New York Times columnist had called Harris's candidacy "anti-democratic."
"That's the playbook of ruling parties in autocratic states," the Times column charged.
"You know the optics of this, that it was donors who pulled the plug on President Biden and they're the ones calling the shots about how this proceeds," Bream said.
"Well, it's true that the Democratic Party is not famous for falling in line," Buttigieg replied. "That's part of why it's so remarkable that in a matter of days, Kamala Harris has consolidated our big tent party."
"And this is something that is coming from the ground up. You can feel it," he continued. "And it's a level of energy that, frankly, I haven't seen on the campaign trail in a long time."
Bream argued that Harris had not received any Democratic delegates during primary voting.
"The idea that somebody hasn't been tested or vetted when they have been the vice president of the United States for nearly four years just doesn't make any sense," Buttigieg disagreed. "She is in obviously one of the most visible leadership roles in the country."
"And she's demonstrated both her effectiveness in that job and a vision for the country that Americans agree with," he continued. "And that's a real reason I think she's going to win, is that most Americans already agree with her on the issues that they care about the most, that affect them the most, whether we're talking about choice and her stance on defending a woman's right to choose versus Donald Trump, who eliminated a right to choose in this country."
A faction of Colorado Republicans intent on ousting party chair Dave Williams gathered Saturday in a church in Brighton to speak out against his leadership, but a last-minute court order barred them from holding an official meeting to finish the job.
Instead they held a “rally” where party members aired their grievances against Williams, blaming him for causing rifts in their ranks and dragging attention away from elections.
“This whole thing is Dave Williams’ fault,” party official Kathleen Chandler told the group of about 100 people.
Williams did not reply to a message from Colorado Newsline.
A judge on Friday issued a temporary restraining order after Williams filed a lawsuit asking the court to prevent Nancy Pallozzi, chair of the Jefferson County Republican Party, and Todd Watkins, vice chair of the El Paso County Republican Party, from misrepresenting official party business. Watkins
had called for the Saturday meeting, where he had wanted the party’s State Central Committee to vote on whether to remove Williams and other party officials from leadership positions. Party executives had previously determined the meeting would be “illegal."
According to an executive committee decision document, shared by Williams with Newsline, the meeting would be illegal because party officials were unable to properly verify the names of voting members who signed a petition in support of the special meeting request.
The lawsuit, filed in Arapahoe County District Court on July 18, highlights
party bylaws that say if at least a quarter of voting members in the GOP’s central committee sign onto a request for a special meeting, the meeting must be called within 10 days of the request and held within 30 days of the call. If the chairman doesn’t call a meeting, any voting member can do so, according to the bylaws.
Attendees of the rally Saturday included state Reps. Richard Holtorf, Mike Lynch and Gabe Evans, who is running for Colorado’s 8th Congressional District seat. They also included Douglas County GOP Chairman Steve Peck and Brighton Mayor Greg Mills.
The job of the chair is to get Republicans elected. And he's not.
– Eli Bremer, on Dave Williams
“If you’re not getting a net gain of Republicans in our state of Colorado, you have failed as chair,” Mills said to the crowd.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Windsor, the state’s most prominent Republican, chimed in Friday, writing on
Facebook about the November election, “I stand ready to publicly help and provide support to Republicans up and down the ballot, regardless of whether or not I agree with them on every issue. If Chairman Williams can’t do the same and refuses to show candidates he will, Republicans in Colorado and nationally will look in a different direction for leadership over the final 100 days.”
A group of Republican congressional nominees, along with state Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, also urged Williams to resign in a signed letter Friday that Colorado Newsline obtained. They implored the State Central Committee to vote to remove Williams if he does not resign. The congressional nominees who signed the letter include Evans, Valdamar Archuleta, Marshall Dawson, Jeff Hurd, John Fabbricatore and Jeff Crank, who
beat Williams last month in the 5th Congressional District primary election.
Watkins told Colorado Newsline that the difference between this group and Willams and other party executives is that “we want the body to run the party, not the single-mindedness of three people and their extremist points of view.”
The primary complaints from those looking to unseat Williams are that he did not relinquish his position as head of the party when he
entered a race for Congress, even though the dual positions created a conflict of interest; that the state party under his leadership eliminated a tradition of neutrality in primary races and instead endorsed Williams and other favored candidates; that the state party spent money on behalf of Williams in his primary race against a fellow Republican; and that the state party under Williams has engaged in anti-LGBTQ and other messaging that could alienate voters.
The day after Williams lost the primary election, the organizers of the effort to oust him
submitted a petition and request for a vote on removing him as head of the party.
Eli Bremer, a former El Paso County GOP chairman, has already announced his interest in running to replace Williams as chair, along with Holtorf and
Brita Horn, chief of the Rock Creek Volunteer Fire Department in McCoy. Peck has also reportedly announced his interest in running for chair.
Bremer told Colorado Newsline that what sets him apart from Williams is “competence.”
“The job of the chair is to get Republicans elected. And he’s not,” Bremer said.
Colorado Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: info@coloradonewsline.com. Follow Colorado Newsline on Facebook and X.
Climate and environmental defenders on this week implored U.S. senators to block a permitting reform bill introduced this week by Sens. Joe Manchin and John Barrasso that campaigners linked to Project 2025, a conservative coalition's agenda for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
Common Dreams reported Monday that Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—respectively the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted that although the proposal "includes several positive reforms for the accelerated development of transmission projects," it also advocates "limiting opportunities for communities to challenge projects, loosening oversight for drilling and mining projects, extending drilling permits and fast-tracking [liquified natural gas] permits, and several other provisions friendly to fossil fuel giants."
"This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
These are nearly identical policies to what's proposed in Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership. The plan, which was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, calls for "unleashing all of America's energy resources," including by ending federal restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands; limiting investments in renewable energy; and rolling back environmental permitting restrictions for new oil, gas, and coal projects, including power plants.
While Manchin has been trying—and failing—to pass fossil fuel-friendly permitting reform legislation for years, Brett Hartl, director of public affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that his "Frankenstein legislation is taken straight from Project 2025, and it's the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry."
Hartl said the bill "deprives communities of the power to defend themselves and gives that power to Big Oil by making it harder for communities to challenge polluting projects in court," and "prioritizes the profits of coal barons over public health."
"And it mandates oil and gas extraction in our oceans," he continued. "The insignificant crumbs thrown at renewable energy do nothing to address the climate emergency."
"Monday was the hottest day in recorded history," Hartl noted. "It's shocking that as the climate emergency continues to break records around us, the Senate continues to fast-track the fossil fuel expansion that is killing us. This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
Hartl added that "to preserve a livable planet," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "must squash this legislation now."
Manchin—who has said this will be his last term in office—has been a steadfast supporter of the fossil fuel industry, partly because his family owns a coal company. The senator says his permitting reform bill "will advance American energy once again to bring down prices, create domestic jobs, and allow us to continue in our role as a global energy leader."
However, Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International's U.S. manager, warned Thursday that "this bill is yet another dangerous attempt by Sen. Manchin to line the pockets of his fossil fuel donors, sacrificing communities and our climate along the way."
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else," she continued. "It would unleash more drilling on federal lands and waters, unnecessarily rush the review of proposed oil and gas export projects, and lift the Biden administration's pause on new LNG exports."
"We urge Congress to reject this proposal and commit to action that protects frontline communities from the impacts of fossil fuel development and the climate crisis," Rosenbluth added.
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else."
NRDC managing director of government affairs Alexandra Adams said Wednesday that "this bill is a giveaway for the oil and gas industry that will ramp up drilling and environmental destruction at a time when we need to be putting a hard stop to fossil fuels."
"We cannot afford to roll back so many of our bedrock environmental and community legal protections and offer a blank check to the oil and gas industry," she stressed. "We need new solutions for permitting if we are going to meet our clean energy potential and address the climate challenge. But this is not it."
"This bill would altogether be a leap backward on climate, health, and justice if passed into law," Adams added. "The Senate should reject it and look toward alternative solutions already being considered."
Hours after United States President Joe Biden announced he was dropping out as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, British musician Charli XCX endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, tweeting “kamala IS brat.”
The tweet immediately went viral, bemusing media commentators yet electrifying certain segments of the electorate.
Charli XCX’s chart-topping album Brat is a brash mix of dance and electronic club hits that celebrates drugs, cigarettes, messiness and vulnerability. To be “brat”, then, is to embrace your messiness and vulnerability – being your own authentic self.
It is dominating chunks of Gen Z and queer culture, for whom it is now “brat summer” (or for her Australian fans, “brat winter”).
The link between Harris and Brat has been building for weeks, driven by online fan communities and linking seamlessly into pre-existing Harris memes.
To the delight of many, on the day Biden stepped down a group of gay men were spotted in unofficial Brat/Harris crop tops.
Harris’ campaign has embraced the pop culture moment, sensing its potential to excite young voters. Her account immediately followed Charli XCX on X, and the background on Harris’ official account briefly changed to Brat’s distinctive “slime green” colour.
While the “brat vote” is unlikely to decide the election, the role of music and popular culture in a political contest is one of the few historical continuities in a campaign that has been unprecedented on multiple fronts.
For decades, presidents and presidential aspirants have tried (with varying degrees of success) to use music and musicians to connect with voters.
In the 20th century, this was primarily through the campaign song.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy used a modified version of High Hopes, performed by the celebrated crooner and his personal friend Frank Sinatra.
In 1992, Bill Clinton ran a Baby Boomer campaign, using Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop as his song. The band reunited to headline Clinton’s 1993 inauguration ball.
Republicans tended to rely on more personalised songs rather than popular hits, with titles such as Go with Goldwater in 1964 and Nixon’s the One in 1968.
When Republicans did try and engage with contemporary artists, they tended to fare poorly.
In 1984, Ronald Reagan referenced Bruce Springsteen’s hit Born in the USA, claiming they had a shared vision of the American Dream. Springsteen – who had already refused to allow the campaign to use his song – quickly expressed his profound disagreement
Yet subsequent Republican presidential aspirants, including Pat Buchanan and Bob Dole, also used the song until Springsteen objected.
The politics of contemporary music
In the 21st century, the politics of popular culture and the music industry are front and centre. Presidential contenders choose songs by artists who are in broad ideological agreement with their core themes. They aim for songs that will be a sonic shorthand for their base.
Thus Republicans tend to rely on country music and patriotic rock songs by artists such as Billie Ray Cyrus, Lee Greenwood, Billie Dean and Van Halen. Kid Rock, a conservative country rock/rap rock artist, has been both a song choice and a performer at the Republican National Convention.
Democrats have emphasised civil rights and feminist icons such as Curtis Mayfield, Dolly Parton and Aretha Franklin, politically conscious rock stars such as Bruce Springsteen and John Mellencamp, and pop artists such as Katy Perry.
Sometimes, musical choices offer instructive insights into how politicians see themselves.
Republican Nikki Haley, a 2024 presidential challenger, waxes lyrical about the inspiration she draws from Joan Jett and liked to walk out on stage to I Love Rock’N’Roll and Bad Reputation.
Obama, music super fan
No discussion of music and the presidency would be complete without reference to Barack Obama.
Where once rap and hip hop groups like 2-Live Crew and NWA were arrested on obscenity charges, Obama enthusiastically enjoyed these genres and defended them as both forms of artistic expression and sources of social commentary.
Obama’s association with popular culture has continued unabated since he left the White House. Twice a year, he releases playlists of his “favourite songs” and has defended himself from charges that youthful interns are curating the eclectic choices.
On social media, artists often share when they have been added to Obama’s “liked songs” on Spotify. Recently, there was the hilarious claim by The Dare that Obama had favourited Girls, a two minute “indie sleaze” ode to horniness.
The power of music
Harris talks frequently about her love of R&B. On election eve in 2020, she chose to walk out on stage to Mary J Blige’s Work That, a song celebrating female empowerment and self love.
Given the many firsts Harris represented, it was a fitting song in a moment of profound symbolism.
And on the day that Harris became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Beyoncé, who is extraordinarily strict about approving song use, gave permission for Harris to use Freedom as an official campaign song. Freedom honours the historic power and resilience of Black women and is a rallying cry for the future.
While Harris likely won’t be filmed doing the viral Tik Tok dance to Charli XCX’s track Apple anytime soon, “kamala IS brat” is just another, perhaps more memetastic moment, where music functions as a means of political connection and community for Americans.
An MSNBC panel of pundits couldn't help but laugh on Sunday after former President Donald Trump promised "so much electricity" that Americans would be saying, "Please, President, we don't want any more electricity."
During a Sunday panel discussion on MSNBC, host Alicia Menendez read a quote from a recent Trump rally.
"Let me just read it to you because the nuttiness will come through," she said. "We will be creating so much electricity that you'll be saying, please, please, President, we don't want any more electricity. We can't stand it. You'll be begging me, no more electricity, sir. We have enough. We have enough."
"I mean, the guy is a disaster," she observed.
Stuart Stevens suggested that Trump was struggling because he would have picked a different vice presidential candidate if he had known he would be running against Vice President Kamala Harris.
Stevens explained, "They would have chosen another VP contender had they known that they were going to run against Harris."
Menendez wondered if Republicans would consider replacing Trump if they were a "serious party."
"Yes, but that's a time far away," Stevens said. That party doesn't exist anymore. You know, I mean, look, it's clear Donald Trump is a couple of tall boys short of a six-pack."
"But the underlying problem is he — there is no policy here," he continued. "OK, maybe we'll talk about contrast, but you should be able to talk about what you want to do."
Without an actual campaign platform, Stevens said Project 2025 had filled the vacuum.
Former House GOP Committee Counsel Sophia Nelson agreed.
She said Trump "represents a large swath of Americans who also have those grievances."
"You have this fear of D.E.I., this fear of disappearing, this fear of being replaced," she asserted.
"They want to go back to the 1950s. And Vice President Harris, as she says, we're not going back," Nelson added. "She's framed it about freedom. And Project 2025 is all about taking away our freedoms, all of us."
"There's a lot of stuff in there that you should read about because it's about taking away freedom."
MSNBC host and former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele couldn't control his mirth on Sunday morning after a noted conservative campaign strategist explained Donald Trump's voter woes.
According to Stevens, the ex-president will have to scramble for more white voters.
"Trump did better with white women in 2020 than he did in 2016," he began. "He went from 2 percent winning white women to winning them by 7 percent. At the same time he dropped with white men from 30 percent in '16 to 17 percent in '20. I think that is where this battleground is going to be."
"I think that Harris has increased a percentage of nonwhite voters who are going to be in this race," he added. "I have never been worried that Trump was taking more African-Americans. In 1964 [Barry] Goldwater got 7 percent. In 2020, of African American votes, Trump got 8 percent — that is one point every 56 years. That is not going to change."
At that point Steele and his "The Weekend" co-host Symone Sanders-Townsend began laughing.
"What will the percentage of the white vote be?" Stevens continued. "Overall in the electorate what will Trump's share be? Trump needs to be north of 57 percent of the white vote to win this race, probably more like 58 percent. I think it is going to be very interesting to see their increasingly desperate ways to try to get that vote."
According to a report from CNN's Alayna Treene, the change from President Joe Biden to Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democrat's likely presidential candidate is creating problems for Donald Trump on the stump.
Reporting from St. Cloud, Minnesota, where Trump held a rally late Saturday night, Treene reported on a "notable" moment in the ex-president's Saturday speech where he was clearly "struggling."
Speaking with CNN hosts Victor Blackwell and Amara Walker, Treene explained that Trump is on unsure footing on how exactly to attack Harris, with the correspondent telling the hosts, "He also made some personal attacks on her saying that, going after her laugh when he was comparing her to perhaps Margaret Thatcher saying Margaret Thatcher didn't laugh like that."
"But I also want you to listen to this moment because I found this very interesting as well. I think it shows how Donald Trump is struggling a bit to adapt to the new playbook," she added before showing a clip of a rambling Trump stumbling and saying, "Sarcasm doesn't work when you have a crooked press. You know, when I imitated him — because Biden — and I don't want to waste a lot of time because it's over now, right? He's gone, I told you he would be. I told you he wasn't going to make it!"
"Victor and Amara, I found that really notable honestly because I think it exemplifies what I'm hearing in my conversations with Donald Trump's senior advisers, which is they are still figuring out the best way to define Harris," Treene explained.
Given this dramatic change, what does Vance’s selection mean for the Republican Party and conservatism, the political philosophy that the GOP once claimed to embrace?
I am a political scientist whose research and political analysis focuses on the relationship between Trump, the Republican Party and conservatism. Everyday citizens define conservatism in different ways, but at its root it is a philosophy that supports smaller and less-centralized government because consolidated power could be used to silence political competition and deny citizens their liberties.
Since 2015, Trump has tightened his grip on the Republican Party, moving it further away from its professed conservative ideology. The choice of Vance as Trump’s running mate – and the competition that preceded it – are the latest steps in this process.
Political columnist George Will describes how Trumpism has steered the Republican Party away from traditional conservative views.
Vance came from a small pool of contenders that included other noteworthy politicians who likewise once vehemently opposed Trump. By examining their trajectories, we can see how the Republican Party has abandoned conservative values to serve a single man.
Elise Stefanik
Elise Stefanik ran for Congress in 2014 from a district in upstate New York as a mainstream Republican who admired Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Ryan was a traditional conservative who had run for vice president alongside former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012. Romney endorsed Stefanik for Congress, saying that she was “a person of integrity. Every campaign is different, but values don’t change.”
This switch was a significant moment in the party’s ideological transformation. Stefanik’s rising star subsequently landed her in the mix for vice president, which she called “An honor. A humbling honor.”
Statements like these made sense coming from a serious conservative whose worldview was defined by his family’s Cuban heritage and who opposed communism, tyranny and excessive government power.
Eventually, though, Rubio became a Trump ally. He voted to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial in 2021, which centered on charges that Trump had incited an insurrection. In line with Trump’s wishes, Rubio opposed establishing an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 events.
In early 2024, Rubio was asked in an ABC interview if he really wanted to be vice president even though Trump had defended calls by Jan. 6 insurrectionists to hang former Vice President Mike Pence for certifying the 2020 election results.
This refusal to acknowledge and challenge Trump’s apparent support of lawlessness by his followers was an abdication of fundamental conservative values.
Sen. Marco Rubio called Donald Trump ‘a con artist’ and a threat to conservatism in 2016, but sought to be his running mate in 2024.
When Trump refused to flatly condemn white supremacists a few years later in a 2020 presidential debate, Scott suggested that Trump “misspoke” and should correct the comments, but added, “If he doesn’t correct it, I guess he didn’t misspeak.” After dropping out of the Republican primaries in 2024, Scott endorsed Trump as someone who could “unite the country.”
Why Vance?
These converted Trump allies still hold modern conservative stances on issues such as abortion and health care. But in seeking to become Trump’s running mate, they tacitly endorsed an executive’s attempt to overturn a democratic election and subvert the liberties of U.S. citizens. Such a shift violates the spirit of conservatism.
These politicians have also moved away from conservative principles in areas including U.S. foreign policyand immigration. But the fundamental shift that is most profound is in their attitudes toward abuse of government power.
Instead, people close to Trump call the 39-year-old Vance the new heir to Trump’s MAGA movement. Vance is more than a protegé, though; he embodies Trump’s influence on the Republican Party’s evolving relationship with government power and insists his political conversion is genuine.
If there was any speculation that Republicans would revert to some form of traditional conservatism after Trump leaves politics, the prospect of a JD Vance presidency makes clear that the answer is no.
Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear drew standing ovations from the crowd Saturday at the Iowa Democratic Party’s Liberty and Justice Celebration event.
Beshear said the upcoming election would be vital to protecting Americans’ rights and keeping former President Donald Trump out of office.
“Women’s rights are on the line, our economic recovery is on the line, the Senate and the House are on the line and the future of our sacred democracy is on the line,” Beshear said.
Beshear, who is one of several
high-profile Democrats being vetted to be Kamala Harris’s running mate, also took shots at GOP vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance for his lack of conviction and his comments about his “origin story.”
“He ain’t from Kentucky. He ain’t from Appalachia. And he ain’t gonna be your vice president,” Beshear said.
Vance’s book, “Hillbilly Elegy,” recounts his upbringing in Middletown, Ohio, largely by a grandmother who moved away from the Appalachian region of Kentucky.
Outside of the keynote speaker, Iowa Democratic leaders who took the stage bashed Iowa Republican policies. Officials criticized changes to the
Iowa Area Education Agencies (AEA) and the anti-abortion law that will take effect Monday.
Iowa Democratic Chair Rita Hart vowed that the November election in Iowa would be different, and that Democrats would flip many seats both at the state Legislature and in Congress.
State House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst blasted Iowa Republicans over their leadership of the state and said the crowd would change Republicans’ attitude.
“Republicans feel like they’re going to be in charge forever. They vote like it and they act like it,” Konfrst said. “It’s our job to tell everyone that that’s not true. We’re going to flip the Iowa House.”
Iowa Auditor Rob Sand criticized efforts by state leaders to reduce the power of state auditors and repeated his colleagues’ assurances that Democrats would win big in the upcoming election.
“We’re going to move on and continue to build the power of the Democratic Party in the state of Iowa so that we can restore checks and balances and make sure that we have transparency and accountability and justice rising in the state of Iowa,” Sand said.
Iowa GOP spokesperson Luke Wolff said in a press release shortly after the event ended that a “radical speaker” like Beshear did not belong in Iowa.
“He is a privileged, out of touch Governor with an awful track record, and his policies have absolutely no place here. It makes sense the Iowa Democrats look to him as an inspiring figure who fits their radical agenda,” Wolff said.
Other speakers at the event included state Senate Minority Leader Pam Jochum, and congressional challengers Ryan Melton, Lanon Baccam and Sarah Corkery.
Beshear ended his speech with a call for unity and reiterated his endorsement of Harris.
“This November, we’re gonna win and get back to being each other’s neighbors. We’re gonna get back to being Americans before we’re Democrats or Republicans. We’re gonna get back to working together,” Beshear said. “What [Harris] will do as president is not move the country to the right or the left. She will move it forward.”
Beshear is expected to speak again at another rally near Atlanta, Georgia on Sunday.
Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and X.
For nearly 20 years, former President Donald Trump has made an annual tradition of sending out a statement of his net worth, primarily in the hopes of being included in the Forbes 400 list.
Now, the ex-president is keeping his net worth private, according to a new report by Business Insider. The publication learned that Trump's court-appointed financial monitor, retired judge Barbara Jones, wrote in a recent footnote of her latest report on the Trump Organization that the real estate mogul will no longer send out statements publicizing his net worth — something he's done since 2004.
"Based on discussions with the Trump Organization, my understanding is that the Trump Organization does not intend to develop any estimations of value for any entity, the Trump Organization as a whole, or the guarantors' collateral," Jones' footnote read.
In the event that a lender needs to know the value of the Trump Organization's real estate portfolio, the company is now reportedly inviting outside parties to simply hire their own appraiser to determine the value of a given asset. The ex-president's company has also said it would hire an independent property appraiser to gauge the worth of a building in the event of an inquiry.
The statements, which typically numbered between 20 and 30 pages, were often sent out to "dazzle" the media — most notably Forbes, in the hopes of being included on the publication's annual list of America's 400 wealthiest billionaires. Forbes notably excluded Trump from its 2023 billionaires list, which was published several months before Judge Arthur Engoron handed down his $454 million civil fraud judgment. Forbes wrote last October that Trump's "social media platform and commercial real estate holdings are sputtering."
In 2011, Trump sent one such statement to a Deutsche Bank executive, and in the cover letter, wrote: "Hopefully, you will be impressed!" He was eventually found to have artificially inflated his net worth by roughly $2.7 billion.
The fraud trial that lasted from late 2023 to early 2024 found that while he was a New York real estate developer, Trump had a deliberate pattern of lying about his net worth in order to obtain favorable insurance premiums, collateralize his buildings to get bigger and better loans and to garner more favorable tax breaks. Judge Engoron wrote that the level of fraud Trump perpetrated had the ability to "leap off the page and shock the conscience."
Engoron ruled before the trial even began that the former president was guilty of fraud. Trump appealed that decision only for a New York appeals court to uphold Engoron's initial ruling. The trial itself was only to determine how much Trump owed the Empire State in penalties.
Approximately six months before his civil fraud trial started, Trump told New York Attorney General Letitia James in a deposition that his company had "a lot of cash."
"When we testify," he added, "we're going to have numbers that are going to knock your socks off."
In addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars he still owes the State of New York, Trump is also on the hook for an $83.3 million judgment for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. And a separate trial in 2023 found Trump liable for sexual abuse, and a judge ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million.
