Former Fox News host Pete Hegseth encounters mounting challenges in his bid to become the next Secretary of Defense under President-elect Donald Trump's administration.
A recent Daily Mail/J.L. Partners poll reveals that American voters largely disapprove of Hegseth's nomination, with only 28 percent viewing his appointment as appropriate.
Recent allegations of binge drinking and inappropriate behavior around women have complicated Hegseth's confirmation prospects.
The former television personality must secure support from nearly all Republican senators, as he can only afford to lose three GOP votes in the upcoming confirmation process early next year.
Key Republican senators have begun voicing their reservations about Hegseth's appointment. Senator Joni Ernst, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently indicated her hesitation during a Fox News interview with Bill Hemmer.
Ernst, who served 23 years in the Iowa Army National Guard, emphasized the importance of thorough vetting. Her stance carries particular weight as she has been mentioned as a potential alternative nominee should Hegseth's bid fail.
Female GOP senators, including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, have scheduled meetings with Hegseth next week to discuss the various allegations against him.
The comprehensive survey of 1,000 registered voters demonstrated a clear pattern of concern regarding Hegseth's qualifications. A slim majority viewed him unfavorably, with 29 percent explicitly stating his selection was inappropriate.
Among Trump's cabinet nominations, only Hegseth and Kristi Noem, the nominee for the Department of Homeland Security, were viewed as inappropriate choices by voters. This places Hegseth in a particularly vulnerable position.
Notably, 16 percent of respondents had never heard of Hegseth, while 27 percent expressed no opinion, indicating a significant gap in public awareness about the nominee.
Support among Republican voters remains surprisingly tepid for a Trump nominee. Only 57 percent of GOP voters expressed support for Hegseth's confirmation, marking him as one of the least popular cabinet picks.
During his recent Capitol Hill appearances, Hegseth attempted to shore up support by emphasizing Trump's backing. He shared with reporters his recent conversation with the president-elect.
As Hegseth said while heading to meet Senator Mike Rounds:
I spoke to Trump this morning, just a few minutes ago. He supports us fully. If he wants a meeting we will have a meeting.
Senator Ernst expressed her concerns during a televised interview, stating:
I think for a number of our senators they want to make sure that any allegations have been cleared and that's why we have to have a very thorough vetting.
The confirmation process has entered a critical phase as Hegseth continues his meetings with lawmakers. His efforts to convince senators of his vision for the Pentagon have intensified over three consecutive days of Capitol Hill visits.
Pete Hegseth's nomination as Defense Secretary faces significant hurdles amid voter skepticism and senatorial concerns.
His confirmation depends on maintaining nearly unanimous Republican support in the Senate, where he can only lose three GOP votes.
The situation has prompted discussions about potential alternative candidates, with Senator Joni Ernst emerging as a possible backup choice. The outcome of next week's meetings with key female Republican senators could prove decisive in determining whether Hegseth's nomination moves forward or falters.
A major shakeup in Manhattan's federal prosecution leadership brings significant implications for high-profile cases, including Mayor Eric Adams' corruption charges.
According to New York Post, Damian Williams, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced his resignation effective December 13, ahead of President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration, prompting mixed reactions about the future of ongoing investigations.
Williams' departure marks a historic moment for the Southern District, concluding his tenure as the office's first Black U.S. Attorney following his appointment by President Biden in 2021.
His announcement comes amid several major ongoing cases, including the corruption investigation of Mayor Eric Adams and the prosecution of Sean "Diddy" Combs.
The resignation has sparked immediate celebration among Mayor Adams' supporters, who view the leadership change as potentially beneficial to his defense.
Trump has previously expressed his belief that Adams faced overzealous prosecution under Williams' leadership. Despite these hopes, the corruption case maintains momentum, with all four federal prosecutors remaining assigned to the investigation.
Federal prosecutors have indicated the likelihood of additional charges against Mayor Adams in a revised indictment. The mayor, who maintains his innocence and has entered a not-guilty plea, faces a status hearing scheduled for December 20. These developments suggest the case will proceed regardless of the leadership transition.
The Southern District's reputation for independence from Washington's Department of Justice oversight remains a cornerstone of its operations. This autonomous stance is expected to continue even under Trump's administration, potentially affecting the optimistic outlook of Adams' supporters.
During his tenure, Williams demonstrated a nonpartisan approach to justice by pursuing cases against prominent Democrats.
His office secured a conviction against former New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez in a bribery scheme involving gold bars and other valuable items. Williams offered these thoughts about his departure:
It is bitter in the sense that I am leaving my dream job, leading an institution I love that is filled with the finest public servants in the world. It is sweet in that I am confident I am leaving at a time when the Office is functioning at an incredibly high level — upholding and exceeding its already high standard of excellence, integrity, and independence.
Williams' office also successfully prosecuted Sam Bankman-Fried, the cryptocurrency entrepreneur and Democratic donor, resulting in a 25-year prison sentence for an $8 billion fraud scheme.
The prosecution of Sean "Diddy" Combs for alleged racketeering and sex trafficking continues to develop under the office's supervision.
Jay Clayton, Trump's choice for Williams' replacement, brings a different background to the role as the former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman.
His lack of prosecutorial experience has raised questions about the office's future direction. The appointment still requires Senate confirmation, leaving Edward Y. Kim, Williams' deputy, to serve as acting U.S. Attorney in the interim.
Trump's selection of his criminal defense lawyer, Todd Blanche, as second-in-command at the Department of Justice adds another layer to the transition. Blanche's previous experience as a Southern District prosecutor could influence the office's operations and case management approach.
The City Hall source maintains optimism about Clayton's potential fresh perspective on Adams' case. However, the combination of Clayton's regulatory background and Blanche's prosecutorial experience suggests a complex dynamic for future cases.
Damian Williams' resignation as Manhattan's top federal prosecutor marks a significant transition in the Southern District of New York's leadership. His departure on December 13 comes amid several high-profile cases, including the corruption investigation of Mayor Eric Adams and the prosecution of Sean "Diddy" Combs.
The upcoming leadership change brings uncertainty to ongoing investigations, with Jay Clayton awaiting Senate confirmation as Williams' successor. The Southern District's commitment to independence and prosecution of high-profile cases remains steadfast, despite the anticipated shift in administration and leadership style.
Naomi Biden, the eldest grandchild of President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden, has shared exciting news about her first child with husband Peter Neal.
According to the Daily Mail, Naomi has revealed the gender of her baby, confirming that she is expecting a boy. The announcement comes weeks after Naomi confirmed her pregnancy on Election Night, sparking speculation about the timing and its potential impact on the political landscape.
Naomi and Peter shared the news via Instagram, with Peter posting a snapshot of their baby boy's ultrasound. The couple celebrated their anniversary on Monday, with Peter expressing his love and gratitude for Naomi.
Peter's post read, "I love you so much, happy anniversary, I'm the luckiest ever ever ever." He then shared the ultrasound image, adding, "And so is he. I love you more than anything in the world." Naomi re-shared the posts on her Instagram Stories, confirming the exciting news.
Naomi first revealed her pregnancy on Election Night earlier this month, posting a photo of herself cradling her baby bump on Instagram. The timing of her post raised eyebrows, as some believed it was a strategic move to overshadow Vice President Kamala Harris's potentially historic night. Naomi's announcement was accompanied by a caption that read, "(We) voted," along with an American flag and upside-down smiley face emoji.
This announcement marks a significant milestone for the Biden family, as Naomi's child will be the first great-grandchild of President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden.
The news comes as Naomi and Peter celebrate their first wedding anniversary, having tied the knot in an opulent ceremony on the White House lawn on November 19, 2022. The couple currently resides in Georgetown, having previously lived in the White House.
The timing of Naomi's pregnancy announcement has sparked speculation about its political implications. Some have suggested that the Bidens were attempting to draw attention away from Vice President Kamala Harris's Election Night watch party, which the Bidens did not attend.
Jill Biden's choice of attire on Election Day—a bright red pantsuit, often associated with the Republican party—also fueled rumors of political tension within the Democratic Party.
One person wrote on X, "As the wife of a Democrat politician, there's no way she doesn't know how this looks. Joe and Jill are pissed." Another theorized, "Jill Biden knows exactly what she did. Her outfit was on purpose." The hashtag 'Democrats For Trump' was used by some to suggest that Jill Biden was sending a message to Republican supporters.
Naomi, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., is the eldest daughter of Hunter Biden and his ex-wife, Kathleen Buhle. She and Peter married in a lavish ceremony on the White House lawn, becoming the first presidential grandchild to be married at the White House.
Naomi works as a lawyer in the nation's capital and has been a prominent figure in the Biden family's public appearances.
The upcoming arrival of Naomi and Peter's baby boy marks a joyous occasion for the Biden family. As they prepare to welcome their first child, the couple continues to navigate their personal and professional lives in the public eye. The announcement of their baby's gender has been met with excitement and well-wishes from friends, family, and the broader political community.
The Biden family has long been involved in public service, with Joe Biden serving as the 46th President of the United States.
The announcement of Naomi's pregnancy and the subsequent reveal of her baby's gender have added a personal touch to the family's public image. As the Bidens prepare to welcome their first great-grandchild, they continue to navigate the complexities of political life and family dynamics.
The timing of Naomi's pregnancy announcement and the speculation surrounding it have highlighted the intersection of personal and political narratives within the Biden family. As they look forward to the arrival of their baby boy, Naomi and Peter continue to embody the values of love, family, and service that have defined the Biden legacy.
Naomi Biden's announcement of her baby's gender has been met with excitement and anticipation within the Biden family and the broader political community. As the Bidens prepare to welcome their first great-grandchild, they continue to navigate the complexities of political life and family dynamics. The upcoming arrival of Naomi and Peter's baby boy marks a joyous occasion for the Biden family, one that is sure to be celebrated with love and warmth.
The announcement of Naomi's pregnancy and the subsequent reveal of her baby's gender have added a personal touch to the family's public image, highlighting the intersection of personal and political narratives within the Biden family. As they prepare to welcome their first great-grandchild, the Bidens continue to navigate the complexities of political life with grace and resilience.
A heated discussion unfolds between financial experts regarding President-elect Trump's potential authority to dismiss Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell from his position.
Breitbart News economics editor John Carney suggested during a Fox Business Network appearance that Trump possesses the legal power to remove Powell from his position, though he believes such action is unlikely due to potential legal complications.
The discussion took place on Fox Business Network's "Kudlow" program, where Carney and guest host David Asman analyzed Powell's recent statements about fiscal responsibility.
This conversation highlighted the complex relationship between the Federal Reserve's monetary policies and the federal government's fiscal decisions. The timing of Powell's comments about unsustainable fiscal paths has drawn attention from economic analysts.
Powell's recent statements about fiscal responsibility have sparked debate among financial experts. His comments about the federal government's fiscal policy being on an unsustainable path, particularly during full employment, have raised questions about the timing of such observations.
The Federal Reserve chairman expressed specific concerns about large deficits during periods of economic stability.
Powell's statement on fiscal responsibility drew immediate criticism from the show's participants. In his remarks, Powell stated:
The U.S. fiscal, federal government's fiscal path, fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path. You've got a very large deficit at, you're at full employment and that's expected to continue. So it's important that we, you know, that to be dealt with. It is ultimately a threat to the economy.
The timing of Powell's concerns about fiscal responsibility has been questioned, particularly in relation to his previous positions during the Biden administration's spending initiatives. Critics point out the apparent inconsistency in his approach to fiscal policy oversight during different administrations.
The discussion delved into the Federal Reserve's handling of the American Rescue Plan in 2021. Carney highlighted how the Fed provided monetary accommodation during this period, which he argues contributed to significant inflation.
The Federal Reserve's characterization of inflation as "transitory" during this period has been a point of contention among economic analysts.
The relationship between monetary policy and fiscal spending has become increasingly scrutinized. The Fed's decisions during the implementation of major spending packages have raised questions about its independence and role in economic oversight. These concerns have become particularly relevant as the nation prepares for another Trump presidency.
Critics argue that the Federal Reserve's approach to fiscal policy has been inconsistent across different administrations. This perception has fueled debates about the institution's independence and its role in supporting or questioning government spending decisions.
Carney's analysis of Trump's authority to remove Powell centers on constitutional interpretation. He argues that executive branch officers, including the Fed chairman, serve at the president's discretion. The legal basis for this argument rests on traditional executive power principles and recent Supreme Court decisions.
The potential for legal challenges to such a removal action presents significant complications. Any attempt to remove Powell would likely result in prolonged court battles, potentially extending beyond his current term. This practical consideration might influence Trump's approach to Fed leadership.
The discussion of presidential authority over Fed leadership raises broader questions about central bank independence. These questions become particularly relevant during transitions between administrations with different economic philosophies and approaches to monetary policy.
Breitbart News economics editor John Carney presented his analysis on Fox Business Network regarding President-elect Donald Trump's authority to remove Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
The discussion centered on Powell's recent comments about fiscal responsibility and the Fed's historical positions on government spending.
While Carney argues that legal authority exists for such a removal, he predicts that Trump is unlikely to pursue this option due to potential legal challenges that could extend beyond Powell's current term. The situation highlights ongoing tensions between presidential authority and Federal Reserve independence, as well as questions about consistency in fiscal policy oversight across different administrations.
A seemingly routine voter outreach moment during the 2024 election turned into a social media controversy for Vice President Kamala Harris.
According to the Daily Mail, Harris faced criticism after eagle-eyed viewers noticed her phone appeared to display the camera app during what was presented as a live call with a voter at the Democrat party's Washington, DC headquarters.
The incident quickly gained traction on social media platforms, with viewers questioning the authenticity of the interaction.
The vice president was captured on video speaking enthusiastically into her phone, engaging in what appeared to be a conversation about voting. During the exchange, Harris turned her phone screen toward the cameras, inadvertently revealing what some viewers claimed was an active camera app rather than an ongoing phone call.
During the filmed interaction, Harris displayed her characteristic enthusiasm, addressing the supposed voter with animated engagement.
She was heard asking about their voting status and offering words of appreciation for their participation in the democratic process.
Social media users quickly began sharing screenshots and observations about the incident. Some viewers expressed skepticism about the authenticity of the phone call, while others defended the vice president, suggesting technical explanations for what was seen on the screen.
One social media user noted on X:
Kamala just pretended to talk to a voter on the phone but mistakenly showed that her phone was open to the camera app. LMAO Everything about Kamala is FAKE and STAGED
Some supporters offered technical explanations for the phone display, pointing out how modern smartphones behave during calls. They explained that iPhone screens often show different apps while maintaining an active call connection.
One defender on social media provided a detailed technical explanation, suggesting that the camera app's appearance could be explained by normal phone functionality. They noted that iPhones can display various screens while maintaining an active call.
Harris continued her voter outreach efforts throughout the day, making several other calls that were broadcast live. These subsequent interactions featured more extensive conversations about the importance of voting and civic participation.
The incident occurred against the backdrop of a tight electoral race, with Harris entering Election Day and showing strong numbers in the final polling data.
Recent surveys indicated she held a 51 percent support rate among likely voters, compared to Trump's 47 percent.
The PBS News/NPR/Marist poll revealed interesting shifts in voter demographics, particularly regarding gender gaps. Trump's previous strong lead among male voters had significantly decreased in the final days before the election.
These polling numbers represented crucial metrics as both campaigns made their final push for voter turnout on Election Day.
The phone call controversy emerged as part of Harris's broader Election Day activities, which included multiple voter outreach efforts and public appearances.
Throughout the day, she maintained an active presence at Democratic headquarters, engaging with supporters and campaign staff.
Despite the social media reaction to the phone incident, Harris continued her scheduled activities, making several more calls to voters. These subsequent conversations focused on encouraging voter participation and emphasizing the significance of the electoral process.
A tense moment unfolded during Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris's campaign event when medical professionals on stage appeared uncertain about how to handle an audience member's medical emergency.
According to The Daily Caller, the incident occurred during Harris's Friday rally in Houston, where numerous physicians in white coats were present to support her pro-choice platform.
Dr. Richard Todd Ivy, an OB/GYN with 25 years of experience, was delivering remarks about abortion access when the medical situation developed.
The gathering, which featured notable appearances by Beyoncé, Willie Nelson, and Kelly Rowland, took an unexpected turn as crowd members began calling for medical assistance.
Video footage captured the doctors on stage looking around in apparent confusion while Dr. Ivy initially attempted to continue his speech before acknowledging the situation.
Dr. Ivy eventually paused his presentation to point out that someone needed medical attention. Despite the presence of multiple healthcare professionals on stage, none appeared to leave the platform to assist the distressed individual.
The situation was eventually resolved, with a female physician informing Dr. Ivy that the affected person was stable. However, the identity of those who provided medical assistance to the rally attendee remains unclear.
The event continued with Dr. Ivy returning to his planned remarks about what he described as a healthcare crisis regarding abortion access in Texas.
Former First Lady Michelle Obama addressed the crowd in Michigan the following day, speaking passionately about women's healthcare issues.
She delivered a strong message about political representation in healthcare decision-making:
Do not, do not put our lives in the hands of politicians, mostly men, who have no clue or do not care about what we as women are going through, who don't fully grasp the broad reaching health implications that their misguided policies will have on our health outcomes
The rally experienced some turbulence when attendees, who had anticipated a musical performance from Beyoncé, expressed disappointment.
The pop icon's appearance was limited to a five-minute speaking engagement, leading some audience members to voice their dissatisfaction during Harris's speech.
Harris has positioned abortion rights as a central focus of her 2024 presidential campaign.
The Houston event, which took place beneath a backdrop displaying "Vote for Reproductive Freedom," aimed to reinforce this message with the presence of medical professionals and celebrity endorsements.
When faced with protesters, Harris employed the same strategy she had used earlier in October, suggesting that disruptive attendees relocate to a smaller rally down the street. This response came after some audience members began booing, disappointed by the brevity of Beyoncé's appearance.
The incident has sparked discussions about the intersection of political theatre and medical responsibility.
While the stage was filled with healthcare professionals advocating for reproductive rights, their hesitation to respond to a medical emergency has drawn attention to the complex relationship between political advocacy and professional obligations.
The rally's mixed reception, coupled with the medical emergency response, presents a challenging narrative for the Harris campaign as it continues to emphasize reproductive rights as a key campaign issue. The event's aftermath demonstrates the delicate balance between organizing political spectacle and maintaining professional credibility.
Early voting data suggests former President Donald Trump could secure a lead over Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race.
According to political analyst Mark Halperin, early voting trends indicate a potential victory for Trump, utilizing insights primarily from swing states.
New York Post reported that Mark Halperin, the editor-in-chief of the 2WAY video platform and former NBC News reporter, has analyzed the early voting figures showing Trump's favorability.
Halperin, 59, brings years of political reporting and analysis into play, observing trends that lean noticeably toward the Republican side, especially in critical battleground states.
In Nevada, a key swing state, early voting has swung unexpectedly toward the Republicans, a shift from previous election cycles where Democrats typically led. The Nevada Independent recently highlighted that Republicans surpassed Democrats in statewide early vote counts by a margin of 8,000 votes.
Clark County, which houses Las Vegas and serves as a crucial battleground within Nevada, has shown an unusual pattern this election.
Despite the county's tendency to favor Democrats, this year, early voting has tilted towards Republicans, albeit by a narrower margin than seen in past elections.
Haperlin noted the significance of these early figures. "The Democrats usually have a huge lead there, it's 4,500 votes. The rural are overperforming their share of the electorate," he commented, emphasizing the unexpected Republican surge.
This shift in early voting dynamics is critical as it provides insights into potential election-day outcomes. Halperin drills into the importance of day-to-day tracking of these trends to predict possible results before the polls close.
Despite the current advantageous trends for Trump, Halperin cautioned against overreading the early data. "Don’t overread the early vote, OK? It can change. We don’t know exactly who’s casting these ballots, how they’re voting, etc.," he stated, suggesting that while the trends are currently favorable, the outcome is not guaranteed.
However, his conversations with various analysts in the last 24 hours suggest a strong leaning. "But every analyst I’ve talked to, including people who speak publicly, say if this continues, Donald Trump can’t lose because the Democrats can’t possibly do well enough on Election Day," he elaborated.
The latest averages from RealClearPolitics also show Trump leading in all seven battleground states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These states are crucial for securing the presidency and currently forecast a Republican overperformance as per early voting metrics.
Analyzed insights from these key states provide a broader perspective on national voting behaviors and trends, with early voting serving as a barometer for election day enthusiasm and turnout among party lines.
Halperin's analysis stresses the value of early voting figures. "It’s more important than almost anything because it’s giving us insight into a variety of factors that are counting for a Republican overperformance by various metrics in the early voting in the battleground states," he explained.
According to Halperin's critical view, the early vote numbers are not just indicative but might be decisive.
"If the early vote numbers stay the way they are, and that’s a big if, we’ll almost certainly know before Election Day who’s going to win," he projected, hinting at a possible early verdict in the presidential race based on sustained trends.
In summary, Trump's lead in early voting across key battleground states, as pointed out by Mark Halperin, suggests a strong position. These insights derived from states like Nevada, where historically Democrats have led, mark a notable shift in voting patterns.
Should these trends hold, they forecast Trump's potential re-election and signify a broader political shift in voter sentiment. Political analysts, including Halperin, are watching these dynamics closely, recognizing their potential to predict the final electoral outcome even before the last vote is cast.
In a controversial move, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz allocated $126,000 in taxpayer funds to a meatpacker under investigation for employing children in hazardous jobs.
The funding came after revelations of child labor at JBS USA's meat processing plants, where minors worked hazardous overnight shifts, drawing scrutiny to Walz's judgment, as the Daily Caller reports.
Earlier in February 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor found serious violations at JBS USA, a major meat processing company. Investigators discovered that at least 31 minors were hired to clean heavy equipment during the night, tasks deemed exceedingly risky for their age group.
These minors were employed not directly by JBS but through a third-party service. The investigation highlighted a disturbing trend of child labor in industries hiring minors through subcontractors to perform dangerous jobs.
Among these children, 22 were working at the JBS facility in Worthington, Minnesota. This plant later became the focus of a job training grant issued by the state.
In June 2023, the Minnesota Office of Higher Education stepped in to provide support to JBS's Worthington plant. They announced a grant to train 28 staff members, under the auspices of enhancing career opportunities within the state.
Walz, defending the grant, highlighted its role in career development, suggesting that such initiatives help maintain workforce talent within local businesses and support economic growth.
The governor's statement emphasized the dual benefit of such programs, yet the public response was mixed, given the timing after the child labor scandal revelations.
JBS's struggles are not confined to labor issues alone. The company, along with other meat producers, faced a lawsuit alleging an unlawful conspiracy to manipulate beef prices. The complaint, which also involves major brands like McDonald's, accuses them of artificially limiting beef supply to inflate prices.
Further complicating JBS's corporate image, its parent company J&F Investments SA settled a massive foreign bribery case in October 2020, agreeing to pay over $250 million in penalties.
Moreover, New York Attorney General Letitia James brought another lawsuit against JBS in February 2023, accusing the corporation of misleading the public about its environmental practices.
The Walz administration has previously faced scrutiny over its oversight capabilities. An audit report criticized it for overlooking a $250 million fraud scheme, calling into question the administration's vigilance and governance practices.
Amid these past and present controversies, Walz's decision to fund JBS has been met with notable criticism. Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna sharply condemned the move, describing it as supporting a company that engages in what she called "literal slavery."
The intersection of political, social, and ethical issues surrounding the Governor's funding to JBS has sparked a broader debate about taxpayer money's role in supporting businesses accused of unethical practices.
While Walz heralded the funding as beneficial for Minnesotan workers and businesses alike, his detractors argue that it sends the wrong message about state tolerance towards exploiting vulnerable workers, particularly migrant children in dangerous jobs.
The discussion uncovers deep divides on labor, immigration, and corporate responsibility interfacing squarely with government policies and public funds allocation.
To summarize, Gov. Tim Walz granted $126,000 to JBS, a company ensnared in child labor and other legal issues. This funding, meant to support job training, came after significant violations involving child labor were revealed at JBS's Minnesota plant.
The parent company's history of legal trouble and accusations of misleading environmental practices add layers to the controversy.
This story encapsulates not only the complex relationship between business and government but also the societal imperatives to protect children and uphold labor standards.
A bold proposal is gaining traction on the campaign trail, and it could change the way America elects its presidents.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz advocated for the elimination of the Electoral College during a campaign stop in California on Tuesday.
Speaking alongside California Governor Gavin Newsom, Walz pushed for replacing the current system with a national popular vote, according to Just the News.
Walz, who is running as Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate in the 2024 election, has joined a chorus of Democrats who have long urged for the change. The push for a national popular vote gained momentum after the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton lost the presidency to Donald Trump despite winning the popular vote.
Democrats fear a similar outcome in 2024, where Harris could win the popular vote but lose the presidency through the existing Electoral College system.
At the event, Walz mentioned that he and Newsom had previously discussed the issue of electoral reform. While both governors are focused on securing victories in key battleground states, including Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Walz emphasized the need for broader reform.
Walz said:
I think all of us know the Electoral College needs to go. We need a national popular vote that is something. But that’s not the world we live in.
Walz’s remarks come as part of a larger conversation within the Democratic Party about the fairness of the Electoral College. Many Democrats argue that the current system does not reflect the will of the people, pointing to instances where candidates have won the presidency without securing the majority of the popular vote.
As governors like Walz and Newsom advocate for change, some states have already taken steps toward implementing a national popular vote through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
This initiative would require states to pledge their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of the state's own voting outcome. However, the compact has yet to secure the 270 electoral votes necessary to take effect.
The compact, which has been passed by several states, represents an effort to bypass the constitutional amendment process, which is notoriously difficult. Amending the U.S. Constitution requires approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states—a monumental task in the current political climate.
Walz’s comments come amid growing concerns among Democrats about the 2024 presidential election. Many fear that Vice President Kamala Harris could face a similar fate to Clinton in 2016—winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College.
This potential outcome has reignited calls for reform, with many Democrats pushing for the national popular vote to replace the current system.
Harris herself has expressed openness to the idea of reform. During a 2019 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live, she said she was "open to a discussion" about replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote.
“There’s no question that the popular vote has been diminished in terms of making the final decision about who’s the president of the United States and we need to deal with that, so I’m open to the discussion,” Harris said at the time.
Although Walz has voiced support for electoral reform, his campaign has remained focused on winning key swing states in the 2024 election. During his campaign stop in California, Walz acknowledged the importance of securing 270 electoral votes under the current system, even as he expressed his desire for change.
Campaign officials have clarified that Walz’s comments about the Electoral College do not reflect an official position of the Harris-Walz ticket. Instead, they say, Walz was speaking to a crowd of enthusiastic supporters about the broader need for electoral reform.
The movement to eliminate the Electoral College has been met with resistance from Republicans and some moderate Democrats, who argue that it would disproportionately benefit larger, more populous states. Critics of the national popular vote system claim that it would give too much power to urban areas while diminishing the influence of rural voters.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has called for the replacement of the Electoral College with a national popular vote, reigniting a long-standing debate within the Democratic Party. Although the Harris-Walz campaign is focused on securing electoral votes in key swing states, Walz’s comments highlight growing concerns about the fairness of the current system. The push for a national popular vote has gained traction through efforts like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but it has yet to secure enough support to take effect.
A New York appellate court is raising eyebrows over the substantial penalty imposed on former President Donald Trump in a civil fraud case in which no financial losses were reported.
According to The Federalist, the New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, scrutinizes the $450 million penalty ordered by Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron in February.
Attorney General Letitia James brought the case, accusing Trump of inflating his personal wealth to secure better loan terms. At Thursday's hearing, several justices expressed concerns about the penalty's calculation and the justification for the case itself.
Trump's legal team argued that the case violated the statute of limitations and that the statute used to bring charges against the former president did not justify the action taken.
Justice Llinét Rosado questioned the method used to calculate the penalty, while Justice Peter Moulton described the amount as "troubling." Moulton pressed New York Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale on how the penalty relates to the harm caused, given that the parties involved in the transactions appeared satisfied.
Vale acknowledged the substantial nature of the penalty but justified it by citing the extent of alleged fraud and illegality. She argued that the large number reflects the scale of the misconduct rather than direct financial losses.
Justice David Friedman probed further, asking Vale if the Attorney General had brought similar cases under the same law and circumstances. He expressed doubt about the justification for taking action to protect Deutsche Bank against Trump, noting that both parties were sophisticated and no money was lost.
The justices' inquiries extended beyond the penalty to the very foundation of the case. Justice Moulton raised concerns about potential "mission creep" in the application of the law used to prosecute Trump, suggesting it may have been used in a manner not originally intended.
Vale defended the broad interpretation of the statute, arguing that it allows the Attorney General to intervene and stop fraud and illegality. However, the justices pressed for clarification on the limits of the Attorney General's authority in interfering with private transactions where no harm was claimed.
The discussion touched on the potential political motivations behind the case, with references made to Attorney General James' campaign promises to target Trump legally. This aspect of the case has drawn criticism from various quarters, including former Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
The scrutiny of this case by the appellate court occurs against a backdrop of ongoing debates about the use of lawfare in political contexts. Former Governor Cuomo's statement that the case would not have been brought if Trump were not running for president adds weight to concerns about the potential politicization of legal processes.
CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg echoed similar sentiments, describing the prosecution as a mistake and highlighting its political nature. These comments underscore the complex interplay between law and politics in high-profile cases involving political figures.
The case has also sparked discussions about the valuation of Trump's properties, particularly Mar-a-Lago. The significant discrepancy between Trump's valuation and that of a local Palm Beach County appraiser has become a focal point in debates about the case's merits.
The appellate court's scrutiny of this case could have far-reaching implications for future legal actions against political figures.
The questions raised about the Attorney General's authority and the justification for penalties in cases without clear financial victims may influence how similar cases are approached in the future.
Furthermore, the court's decision could impact Trump's ongoing legal battles and his political future. With Trump having posted a $175 million bond in April and appealing the ruling, the outcome of this appeal could significantly affect his financial and legal standing.
The case also highlights the challenges of applying existing legal frameworks to complex financial transactions involving high-profile individuals. The justices' probing questions reflect a broader concern about balancing the need to prevent financial misconduct with the rights of individuals engaged in sophisticated business dealings.
The New York appellate court's scrutiny of the $450 million penalty in Trump's civil fraud case has raised significant questions about the case's merits and the calculation of damages. The justices expressed concerns about the penalty's justification, given that no financial losses were reported, and questioned the Attorney General's authority in bringing the case.
