Fact-checkers slammed Vice President Kamala Harris for several contradictions during an interview on Thursday, Newsweek reported. Harris and her running mate Tim Walz sat for the interview with CNN's Dana Bash meant to help the campaign.
The interview was Harris's first since naming Walz her vice presidential running mate. She was asked softball questions, and Bash seldom pushed back on Harris's statements.
Despite the help from Bash, there were several times that Harris' answers were not completely truthful or at least evasive which could imperil her candidacy. She made claims about positive job numbers, her immigration record, and other key policy proposals.
One of the most glaring problems came when she was asked about banning fracking. This is an important issue to voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania, and it's clear that she has that in mind when suddenly flip-flopping on it.
Even a leftist media outlet couldn't ignore some of the incongruencies, though Newsweek attempted to spin them. Harris touted President Joe Biden's administration that created "over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs" as well as "300,000 new clean energy jobs."
This is not entirely true, as the numbers for manufacturing jobs are revised based on seasonal fluctuations, and green jobs are projected but not actual. However, one glaring omission was the role the COVID-19 pandemic played in the rebound in employment.
In the years following the lockdowns, businesses reopened, and people went back to work, resulting in a significant increase in jobs. Harris similarly falsly claimed that illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador was down by playing with the timing.
While the decrease was true as of 2023, the 2024 data already revealed an increase year over year in the number of these immigrants illegally crossing into the U.S. However, Harris's most dubious claim was her changing views on fracking.
When Harris was a candidate for president in the 2020 presidential election, she unequivocally supported a ban on fracking. She implied that those vies have changed, but the rhetoric on the issue only softened when she was reflecting Biden's views as his running mate.
Ohio GOP Sen. J.D. Vance, who is former President Donald Trump's running mate, slammed Harris. "If you look at the way that Kamala Harris has governed, she's actually governed as a far-left person," Vance said on Fox & Friends Friday, Fox News reported.
"She's just trying to pretend that she's not far left now because, of course, she wants to win the American people's votes over the next couple of months. But if she does, she's going to do the same thing that she's been doing for the last few years," Vance predicted.
He went on to point out that she is claiming to have moved to the center while her record shows she's a rabid leftist. "She has governed as a person who believes those things, and unfortunately, the American people are far off because of it," Vance said.
Harris is an avowed leftist who will continue to govern as such despite her lies. She had to tell a different tale in the interview because the truth is unpopular with the American people, and she knows it.
Attorney Steven Sadow said revelations about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' remarks are the “death knell” for the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump, Newsweek reported. In a filing Monday, Sadow asserted that Willis made statements that could prejudice jurors against Trump.
Trump has been accused of attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election. He allegedly called Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and ordered him to "find votes" that would give the state's electoral college votes to Trump.
However, the case could be in jeopardy with Willis at the helm. As Trump's attorneys have argued, there is evidence that Willis has made prejudicial remarks against Trump while pursuing legal action against him.
Sadow believes that an opinion from Georgia Supreme Court Justice Harold Nelson Hill suggests that Trump's defense has a point. Willis had made false claims of racism while speaking to a church in January that could jeopardize the jury.
Sadow believes that Hill provided the rationale for dismissing Trump's case in a 1981 opinion. "[B]efore a trial, the court should be sensitive to the potential for prejudice to the defendant," Hill said at the time.
"I believe that a trial court should disqualify the state's attorney if his continued presence in the case would cause a reasonable potential for prejudice to the defendant. A reasonable potential for prejudice standard would rigorously protect defendants," Hill added.
"It would not require a showing of actual, or likely, harm. Rather, the trial court would focus on the possibility of an unfair trial. Yet, this rule would place the burden on defendants of demonstrating some real, not imagined, chance of prejudice,'" Hill said.
Sadow thinks this is easily proven in Trump's case, though the judge in Trump's case incorrectly relied on a later decision in Williams v. State in 1988 to overlook Wills' conduct. "Here, even Hill's 'reasonable potential for prejudice' pretrial standard is easily met," Sadow wrote in the filing.
"With nationwide slanderous media coverage on every available network, appellants have shown that there is not only a 'real chance,' but a substantial probability, for unfair treatment during the trial process," he added. Willis has denied any prejudice, though she hasn't responded to the latest iteration of the charge from Sadow.
The speech Trump's defense referenced happened on Jan. 14 at the historically black Big Bethel AME Church in Atlanta, the New York Post reported. Willis addressed the congregation and attempted to explain away allegations about an improper relationship.
The co-defendants in Trump's case outed Willis' affair with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor she hired for the case. In the course of that explanation, Willis implied that her critics were motivated by racism though she didn't mention Trump or his case by name.
"They only attacked one. First thing they say, ‘Oh, she’s gonna play the race card now,'" Willis told the congregation. "But no, God, isn’t it them that’s playing the race card when they only question one?"
Willis was already compromised because of her improper relationship with Wade. However, Trump's defense is correct that the case should be dismissed because she poisoned the well of potential jurors by making such remarks about racism.
Special counsel Jack Smith's superseding indictment revised the charges against former President Donald Trump, CNN reported. Smith was forced to do so following the Supreme Court's decision granting presidential immunity.
Trump's attorneys argued that his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, fell under the protection of his presidential duties. The Supreme Court agreed with Trump in a 6-3 ruling.
This meant that some charges Smith pursued would likely be negated upon appeal. To complicate matters, Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion did not provide a roadmap for how Smith could successfully proceed, which meant he had to go back to the drawing board.
A new grand jury returned the new indictment Wednesday, which contains key revisions and additions to the charges. Smith has attempted to turn the focus to Trump's status as a political candidate during the unrest to skirt the immunity issue.
As Georgia State University constitutional lawyer Anthony Michael Kreis pointed out, Smith has pivoted to "trying to make a clean case for why this is indictable and why these indictable offenses all stem from conduct that Donald Trump did as a candidate and not as president in any formal or official capacity." This means that certain presidential briefings have been removed from Smith's case.
Also gone are references to Trump's conduct while the unrest occurred which would confirm his role as an official. During the breach of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters, Trump took meetings with presidential advisers who implored him to intervene.
Based on their recommendations, Trump posted a message to protesters on X, then Twitter, to "remain peaceful." Later that day, he posted a video message from the Rose Garden asking rioters to leave the building.
The new indictment no longer references those actions or a call Trump engaged in with then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy during the unrest. Notably, prosecutors removed Trump's alleged comment from the outer Oval Office that "this is what happens when they try to steal an election." The comment fits neatly with their narrative, but the venue does not.
One portion that remains despite its ties to official proceedings is Trump's conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence about holding off on certifying the votes. Smith has recast the conversations as those between Trump, the candidate, and Pence, his running mate, while downplaying their respective roles as president and vice president.
While Smith has reworked some of the previous charges, he has also added new information to find something that sticks. His revised indictment adds more background about the electoral vote certification process that he believes will help.
This is because the obstruction charge requires a threshold imposed by another Supreme Court ruling from a Jan. 6 defendant. As Reuters reported, obstruction of an official proceeding happens only if the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity" of records or documents in the proceedings.
It may be a stretch, but Smith is attempting to link Trump's conduct that day to an effort to hinder the use of certifying documents by Congress. Because staffers were forced off the Senate floor during the certification, they took documents with them.
Smith's theory dictates that if Trump was the impetus for them to move those documents, the obstruction charge could remain. It seems like a stretch, but Smith is desperate to salvage his case against Trump as the election draws nearer.
Smith is intent on prosecuting Trump no matter the obstacles. This case and the charges appear highly politicized, given the hoops Smith is willing to jump through to ensure there is something he can pin on the former president.
Special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment Tuesday to retool charges against former President Donald Trump, Breitbart reported. Trump slammed this move as "an effort to resurrect a 'dead' Witch Hunt" and called for the charges to "be dismissed immediately."
Smith originally charged Trump with four crimes in connection with an alleged effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. The case hit a roadblock as the president's legal team asserted that his conduct fell under presidential immunity.
The question of whether the privilege applied reached the Supreme Court, which sided with Trump in July. This forced Smith back to the drawing board to work around the issue.
What the new grand jury came up with this week was a revision to the same charges with language that skirts immunity. "The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States," Smith said.
Trump called Smith's decision to pursue "a 'dead' Witch Hunt in Washington, D.C." was "an act of desperation." He charged that Smith was trying to "save face" and called Tuesday's move "a ridiculous new Indictment against me, which has all the problems of the old Indictment, and should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY," Trump wrote on Turth Social.
"His Florida Document Hoax Case has been completely dismissed," Trump noted. Earlier this year, a Florida judge threw out Trump's classified documents case in the Sunshine State on the grounds that Smith was unlawfully appointed.
Trump said Smith's indictment was "merely an attempt to INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION, and distract the American People from the catastrophes Kamala Harris has inflicted on our Nation, like the Border Invasion, Migrant Crime, Rampant Inflation, the threat of World War III, and more..." Smith's effort will now continue with just two months left before Election Day.
Trump makes it clear that he believes the continued legal attacks are political. Smith is pursuing charges even after the Supreme Court defanged most of them, which defies reason except if the aim is something other than justice.
According to Fox News, Trump is still being charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of and an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. Trump has pleaded not guilty to them all.
However, Trump is no longer being accused of using the Justice Department in his efforts to overturn the election results. That charge initially came through Jeffrey Clark, who was a senior official in Trump's Justice Department.
Clark allegedly wanted to send letters to state officials claiming that his office "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election" to stop the certification. Trump did not participate but rewarded Clark by keeping on as acting attorney general.
Clark and Trump were dropped as co-conspirators. These changes came just three days before the court's deadline for Smith to make his decision on what to do with the case in light of the immunity decision. It's unlikely that the trial will proceed before the November election.
Trump has faced several legal challenges while trying to conduct a presidential campaign, and now he must continue to defend himself despite the case being on shaky ground. Smith's decision to file a new indictment suggests this is no coincidence.
An Arizona judge set a 2026 trial date for Rudy Guiliani, Mark Meadows, and 16 others connected to former President Donald Trump, CNN reported. These defendants are accused of conspiring to subvert the 2020 presidential election results on behalf of the former president.
Arizona Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen, who is a Democrat, ordered the trial to begin on January 5, 2026, to prosecute a case that will be six years old by then. He clarified that the start date is still a "moving target" despite the decision on Monday.
The date is six months later than originally requested. However, the judge explained that it would allow defense attorneys time for the discovery process and interviews for some 80 witnesses the prosecutors have listed for the trial.
Notably, Trump is not one of those indicted but is referred to as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in legal filings about the alleged attempt to overturn the election results. Prosecutors have claimed to this fact proves that the indictment is not politically motivated.
Prosecutors claim that several Republicans planned to unlawfully cast electoral votes in a scheme allegedly cooked up by conservative attorney John Eastman. Arizona has dubbed them fake electors as they planned to cast electoral votes for Trump on the notion that he had won the state.
Earlier this month, prosecutors successfully flipped their first defendant when Jenna Ellis, Trump's 2020 campaign attorney, turned state's witness to avoid charges for herself. She will now testify against others in Trump's circle.
Initially, prosecutors pinned her with several felony counts which later proved useful for turning her. They struck a similar plea deal with Loraine Pellegrino, who was nabbed for allegedly signing a false electoral document, that has also turned her into a witness.
Pellegrino will plead guilty to a false document charge, but the other criminal charges concerning the conspiracy will be dismissed. Others of the so-called fake electors will have to wait until 2026 for their cases to be adjudicated as they face criminal charges.
Still, White House aide and Trump confidant Boris Epshteyn, who was also named in the indictment, is sticking to a plea of not guilty. Meanwhile, other big fish like Guiliani, Trump's personal attorney at the time, and then-chief of staff Mark Meadows, are not going down without a fight.
Meadows objected to the indictment claiming he was involved in advocating for Trump but didn't participate in the elector effort. His attorneys requested moving his trial to federal court because his conduct fell under official duties at the time.
"Nothing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se. Rather, it consists of allegations that he received (and occasionally responded to) messages from people who were trying to get ideas in front of President Trump or seeking to inform Mr. Meadows about the strategy and status of various legal efforts by the President’s campaign," the filing said.
"This is precisely the kind of state interference in a federal official’s duties that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits and that the removal statute shields from adjudication in a state court," Meadows' attorneys argued. Guiliani's attorneys also cited the Constitution but took a First Amendment approach.
"How is Mr. Giuliani to know that, oh my gosh, he presided over a meeting in downtown Phoenix. How is he to know that that's a crime?" Guiliani's attorney, Mark Williams, said about Guiliani's claims about a stolen election, according to CBS News.
Although Trump wasn't indicted, this case is being used to pressure Trump's associates to turn against him because they repeated claims that many people felt were worth exploring about the 2020 election. The left will stop at nothing to get Trump, whether directly or through his associates and supporters.
In the wake of his decision to step down from the ballot in November, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has lost his Secret Service protection.
Kennedy, who had been running as an independent presidential candidate, had been denied Secret Service protection despite repeated requests until former President Donald Trump was shot at a Pennsylvania rally in July.
But just over a month later, law enforcement sources told the New York Post that his protection was being pulled because he is no longer an active candidate.
Kennedy will still be on the ballot in blue states, he said, but will be removing his name from swing states.
The Post said it was customary for the Secret Service to scale back or terminate its protection when a candidate suspends their campaign.
Kennedy cited evidence of at least 34 distinct threats against him in his requests for protection.
In addition, his father Bobby Kennedy and uncle President John F. Kennedy were both assassinated.
The Secret Service has been under fire since Trump's shooting, which has been attributed to failures in communication between the agency and local law enforcement, among other failures.
It came out after the Trump shooting that the Secret Service repeatedly denied requests from the Trump campaign for additional protection.
On the day of the shooting, some Secret Service resources were apparently diverted to First Lady Jill Biden, who was also in the region.
Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned 10 days after the shooting.
At least five of Secret Service personnel that were on duty the day of the shooting have been placed on administrative duty while the incident is investigated.
They haven't lost their jobs, but are not allowed to do any kind of security planning.
Trump has said the personnel who have been protecting him are doing a good job, but the higher-ups seem to be making political decisions that benefit the Biden-Harris administration rather than doing a fair and impartial job of protecting everyone who needs it.
As frustration continues to mount about the pace of investigation regarding the assassination attempt targeting Donald Trump last month, there has finally been at least a small step toward possible accountability for those responsible for the security lapses that fateful day in Pennsylvania.
The New York Post reports that the head of the Pittsburgh field office of the U.S. Secret Service has been placed on leave along with a handful of other agents, a decision made as part of its inquiry into the failure to protect Trump at his July 13 rally in Butler.
The employment actions against the agents were first reported by CBS News on Friday, and they were taken amid a continuing probe of the incident which left Trump injured, two spectators seriously wounded, and another rally attendee dead.
Internal affairs staff within the agency are working to unravel the decision-making processes and failures that allowed a 20-year-old gunman to open fire on the outdoor rally crowd.
The outlet reported that one agent working directly on Trump's security detail is among those placed on leave, though it remained unclear whether all those impacted were facing disciplinary actions or were on leave for a number of other possible reasons.
Anthony Guglielmi, Secret Service spokesman, would not confirm details of the reported leave, declaring it an internal personnel matter.
He did, however, attempt to persuade Americans that the agency's “mission assurance review is progressing,” adding that the agency will continue “examining the processes, procedures and factors that led to this operational failure.”
Not everyone is pleased with the pace of the probe or with the seeming delay in employment-related actions against those who may have been derelict in their duty to safeguard Trump.
According to the president of Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research, Tristan Leavitt, the actions taken last week should have been done almost immediately after the shooting itself, or those involved should have at least been put on investigative leave at that time.
Leavitt continued, “If paid leave, the Secret Service has to abide by the 2016 law we passed that requires them to fish or cut bait: finish your investigation and propose a personnel action or put them back to work on admin duties.”
“Don't waste taxpayer dollars just giving them a paid vacation,” Leavitt added.
As CBS News further noted, numerous levels of discipline are possible in the Secret Service context, with anyone on administrative leave still likely collecting paychecks and performing paperwork or other duties inside an office.
As the Secret Service and congressional panels continue to pursue answers as to what went so terribly wrong in Butler, Pennsylvania last month, Trump is resuming the sort of large-scale event he loves most, seemingly as confident as he can be with the increased measures taken for his protection.
Just this week, the former president appeared at an outdoor rally in North Carolina, though the dais from which he spoke featured newly introduced bulletproof glass panels as an added element of security that could clearly be seen by all.
A federal judge imposed a preliminary injunction on Attorney General Letitia James' ability to crack down on the speech of pro-life pregnancy centers, Just the News reported. The case involves whether these centers can recommend abortion pill reversal services to women regretting their decision.
James is attempting to deny centers the right to advise clients that there is a way to stop chemical abortions once they're started. Using anti-fraud laws, James pursued pro-life pregnancy centers that called abortion pill reversal safe and effective in social media posts, promotional materials, and other ads.
This prompted the Options Care Center, Gianna's House, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates to sue the state. Now, U.S. District Judge John Sinatra's order Thursday halts that action against the plaintiffs.
Caleb Dalton, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom representing the organizations, celebrated the ruling. "Women in New York have literally saved their babies from an in-progress chemical drug abortion because they had access to information through their local pregnancy centers."
Leftists in government on both coasts have attempted to limit the dissemination of information about abortion pill reversal. Attorneys General have sued pro-life pregnancy centers, but the win against James marks the "first substantial ruling" against this action.
The decision came from a Tump-appointed judge who noted that even if the government crackdown fell under "commercial speech," which is more regulated, he would still rule the same. Still, it sets the precedent for other cases that could proceed similarly.
Notably, other challenges to these legal crackdowns provide additional avenues to fight back. For instance, Bob Ferguson, who is the Washington attorney general and gubernatorial nominee, abandoned his pursuit after the Obria Medical Clinics PNW threatened to countersue after its insurer nonrenewed the medical group's policy which provided ammunition for legal action.
Unfortunately, these attacks are not just coming in the form of legal action from government officials. Crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations have been attacked 93 times since the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, was leaked.
"While the Department of Justice continues to mercilessly target peaceful pro-lifers, violent activists like those who vandalized Aid for Women, escape relatively unpunished," a news release from the organization said Friday. Instead, the justice system mounts its own attack on those seeking to save babies.
People who regret starting a chemical abortion have a right to know if there's a procedure that can halt the process that kills their babies. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit with the narrative pushed by pro-abortion politicians who attack life in the womb.
Proponents of abortion pill reversal claim that administering high doses of natural progesterone to women who have taken mifepristone, which blocks the hormone, negates the effects of the medication. Studies haven't specifically proven this, but an Ivy League-trained reproductive research chief told the New York Times that the mechanism "makes biological sense."
Even Planned Parenthood admits that the two-step drug protocol may not work if both drugs aren't given. "Studies on the abortion pill do show that if you take the first medicine but not the second, the abortion pill is less likely to work," a blog post on its site notes.
Another section outlining the protocol to induce abortion notes that the second medication, misoprostol, "causes the uterus to empty." This means if blocking progesterone doesn't kill a fetus, taking a pill that causes the body to expel the baby will finish the job.
It's no wonder the anti-life crowd doesn't want the public to know there may be an escape hatch before the second pill is taken. However, it's disturbing that they have the support of so many in the justice system to suppress that knowledge.
The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision to toss a pro-abortion ballot initiative over administrative failures by the organizers, Just The News reported. Arkansans for Limited Government was attempting to enshrine abortion rights through an amendment to the state's constitution.
The decision means this issue will not appear on the ballot in November's general election. The lower court had thrown out the ballot initiative because Arkansas for Limited Government didn't provide documentation for the people who were paid to gather signatures.
The state's high court ruled in a 4-3 decision to keep the question off the ballot. "We find that the Secretary correctly refused to count the signatures collected by paid canvassers because the sponsor failed to file the paid canvasser training certification," the court said.
This decision is a blow to Vice President Kamala Harris, who is running for president on a radically pro-abortion ticket. She and other Democrats have leaned into the issue this election cycle as Republicans continue to fight for the rights of the unborn.
The initiative the group proposed would have allowed abortion for all reasons up to 20 weeks in pregnancy, and up until birth for cases of rape, incest, and threats to the mother's health. Shockingly, abortion perpetrators at Planned Parenthood found it was too restrictive to back.
Arkansas for Limited Government was outraged at the decision that meant babies would escape the abortionists' instruments of death. The organizers called it a "dark day for Arkansas" in an emailed statement to the Associated Press.
"This effort has generated a wave of fiercely engaged Arkansas women. We are outraged," the group added.
"We will not back down. And we will remember this in November," Arkansas for Limited Government claimed. However, thanks to the Arkansas Supreme Court judges, their perverted priorities will have to wait.
The state's GOP Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders posted to X that the reprieve for the unborn came about in part because of her leadership.
"Proud I helped build the first conservative Supreme Court majority in the history of Arkansas, and today that court upheld the rule of law, and with it, the right to life," Sanders said.
Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, Democrats have doubled down on their crusade to keep abortion legal throughout pregnancy. As Politico pointed out, Democrats now speak of it in a way "once unimaginable."
Far from the "safe, legal, and rare" mantra previously embraced to make it more palatable, Democrats are now about championing abortion as a sacred right. That was the theme at this week's Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
Harris sees this as a winning issue, as it has become front and center now that a bad U.S. Supreme Court precedent has been overturned. Democrats see it as a foundation for their platform and a way to win over women voters, but they won't benefit from the ballot initiative to drive turnout in Arkansas.
"Look at the immediate shift that we’ve seen with the vice president around trusting women. From a messaging standpoint, it’s really important because it’s setting up a broader kind of values framework for the policy to live in," Planned Parent CEO Alexis McGill Johnson said about the change in an interview.
The ballot initiative in Arkansas was defeated, and that is good news. However, the broader issue is that this is quickly becoming a nation where women believe they're only free when they have the right to kill their babies.
Target CEO Brian Cornell blasted Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign for suggesting his store is price-gouging customers on groceries, CNBC reported. Harris has proposed a ban on the practice as part of her platform.
Last week, Harris said she would ban "corporate price-gouging in the food and grocery industries" if elected president in November. Cornell was asked about this practice in an interview on the network's "Squawk Box" Wednesday.
That position has blown up in her face now that Cornell disputed the premise of this claim and noted the company's slight profit margins as evidence. "We’re in a penny business," Cornell said.
Harris has a problem with her campaign as Americans feel the bite of inflation caused by President Joe Biden's administration. As his vice president, she is at least partly responsible for those policies and could begin to change things now.
To deflect from these inconvenient facts, she has attacked retailers for alleged profiteering. Cornell disputed her claim, explaining that Target has "reduced prices on 5,000 items" to ease customers' financial stress.
The store has slashed prices on items like diapers and peanut butter in the hopes of attracting customers who are struggling to keep up. Other companies are doing the same, including Walmart, which has reduced its prices, and McDonald's, which has added cheaper value items to its menu.
Moreover, Cornell explained that the nature of the retail business is not conducive to artificially raising prices for items even if they wanted to. "Is there a more competitive space than retail?" Cornell asked rhetorically.
He said that his company is "celebrating the fact that we delivered a margin rate of 6%" while CEOs in other industries "are delivering 20, 30, 40, or 50%" at the same time. "So, we're in a penny business," Cornell said.
Harris is scrambling to distance herself from the failed administration she's a part of by proposing awful solutions that will make things worse. Former President Donald Trump pointed out her role in the problem during his campaign rally Wednesday, the New York Post reported.
"Kamala Harris won’t end the economic crisis; she will only make it worse. I gave Harris and Biden an economic miracle, and they quickly turned it into an economic nightmare with a nation-wrecking agenda ripped straight out of Kamala’s San Francisco liberal playbook," Trump pointed out.
Democrats often see a problem and decide that adding more government control is the solution. Trump's plan is the opposite, as he correctly calls for less government regulation to ensure energy independence and ease inflation.
"At the center of our effort to bring the cost of living under control will be the all-out push to end the Biden-Harris war on a thing called American energy. We will drill, baby, drill," Trump said.
Harris is desperate to make voters forget about the reality of her involvement in inflation. Meanwhile, her proposed policies will only wreck the economy and cause untold numbers of food shortages and further economic issues.