Trump suggests if he loses election, Jewish Americans would ‘have a lot to do with that’
Kelsey Walsh, Lalee Ibssa and Soo Rin Kim, ABC News
(WASHINGTON) — During his speech at an antisemitism event in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, former President Donald Trump pledged to be the “defender” of Jewish Americans if he wins but also seemed to suggest that if he loses the election, it will be their fault.
“My promise to Jewish Americans is this: With your vote, I will be your defender, your protector, and I will be the best friend Jewish Americans have ever had in the White House,” Trump said.
In his pitch to Jewish voters, Trump brought up some statistics — though he didn’t say where they came from — suggesting he has a lower percentage of Jewish voters ready to vote for him than Vice President Kamala Harris.
“I’m at 40%; that means you got 60% voting for somebody that hates Israel,” Trump said, alluding to the vice president. “It’s only because the Democrat[s] hold a curse on you. You can’t let this happen. 40% is not acceptable because we have an election to win.”
Trump continued, “I really haven’t been treated right, but you haven’t been treated right because you’re putting yourself in great danger, and the United States hasn’t been treated right.”
“I’m not going to call this as a prediction, but in my opinion, the Jewish people would have a lot to do with the loss. If I’m at 40%, I’m at — think of it, that means 60% of voting for Kamala, who in particular is a bad Democrat. The Democrats are bad to Israel, very bad,” he said.
Later in the evening, at an event for the Israeli American Council, Trump continued the same theme.
While talking about the election, he complained about his low support among the Jewish community, ending his speech by saying Jewish voters haven’t treated him “properly” after repeatedly saying Jewish people who vote for a Democrat should have their heads examined.
“I’ll put it to you very simply and as gently as I can, I wasn’t treated properly by the voters who happen to be Jewish,” he said. “I don’t know. Do they know what the hell is happening if I don’t win this election and the Jewish people would really have a lot to do with that if that happens because, at 40%, that means 60% of the people are voting for the enemy. Israel, in my opinion, will cease to exist within two years, and I believe I’m 100%,” said Trump as the crowd appeared to chat among themselves.
Earlier in the night, at the antisemitism event, Trump called on his Democratic opponent to “disavow the support of all Hamas sympathizers, anti-Semites, Israel haters, on college campuses and everywhere else.”
(WASHINGTON) — Forty-two years ago, Lita Rosario-Richardson was the only woman on Howard University’s debate team. She made sure that changed — successfully recruiting Kamala Harris.
“I noticed Kamala’s analytical skills and critical thinking skills and that she had a very cogent way of making arguments,” said Rosario-Richarson.
Rosario-Richardson and Harris’ former debate opponents are some of the people who know her debating style best. Many of them are now expressing for the first time how Harris’ earlier debates could impact her upcoming one on Sept. 10 against former President Donald Trump.
The ABC News presidential debate will take place on Sept. 10 at 9 p.m. ET and air on ABC and stream on ABC News Live, Disney+ and Hulu.
Seizing a moment
When then-San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris took the stage against Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley in the general race for California attorney general in 2010, Harris was trailing in the polls.
A reporter asked Cooley about accepting both his pension as a former LA district attorney and an attorney general salary, which would bring him over $400,000 from taxpayers.
“I definitely earned whatever pension rights I have and I will certainly rely upon that to supplement the very low – incredibly low salary that’s paid to the attorney general,” Cooley responded.
Harris’ campaign turned Cooley’s answer into a campaign ad.
Her former aides tell ABC News that Harris had hoped to focus the race on her accomplishments and vision, but she signed off on the ad regardless.
In an interview with ABC News, Cooley said “I think she had very good consultants who constructed an ad,” but added he thought Harris “was not smart.”
On election night, Cooley was narrowly ahead and initially claimed victory, but Harris emerged as the winner when the votes were fully counted weeks later.
Cooley said he had not watched the debate since it happened, but he predicted that in the upcoming debate against Trump “a lot is going to depend upon the rules of the debate, and if she is there for an hour and a half on generally important issues and the questions are fair, she will not be well in a debate setting. She needs her teleprompter. She needs her notes that are probably written by someone else in order to do well.”
Cooley and Harris’ former aides both said neither had a teleprompter during the AG debate and both had notes on stage.
Former California Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico, who lost to Harris in the primary for the AG race, said it would be a mistake for Trump to assume Harris is “dumb” going into the debate. “She’s not dumb, and she’s going to prosecute him. She’s not going to debate him … She’s going to treat him like one of the defendants that she prosecuted when she was a rank and file DA in Oakland.”
A perceived Achilles’ heel
Just a few months before the 2010 general election debate, Torrico, former Facebook executive Chris Kelly, Congressman Ted Lieu, former LA City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and former state assembly member Pedro Nava were among Harris’ opponents in the AG primary race.
Congressman Lieu remembered, “She came from a law enforcement background, and that really came out. She didn’t take any crap. I wouldn’t want to debate her.”
Nava was one of the five men who faced Harris in the primary debate held by Los Angeles ABC station KABC. He described her as unfazed, saying, “There’s nothing more scary than a woman who doesn’t fear men.”
Delgadillo, who was next to Harris at the debate, said what stood out to him most was a call she made to him after the race. “She was extraordinarily magnanimous and gracious after defeating all of us,” he said.
Torrico said he knew Harris was the frontrunner going into the race.
He said, “The question that I always had in my mind was, can we trap her? Can we get her to say something? Can we get her to lose her cool?”
Torrico said in one forum they were seeking the Service Employees International Union’s endorsement. Torrico said he reminded the members in attendance that he had represented many of them, and knowing many spoke Spanish, answered part of a question in Spanish. “They went crazy … and I just looked at her and I thought, ‘Okay, bring it now.'”
He said Harris deflected the original question. “She just went after corporate America and the rich,” he said. “She just totally diffused all of the enthusiasm.”
“I was just sitting there fuming and saying, ‘She’s not answering the question at all. I just answered the question. I hit a home run … and everyone’s clapping for you.'”
Torrico said, “I always thought it was an Achilles’ heel for her … she’s very good at saying a lot of things without answering the actual question.”
He said once at a forum, when he didn’t know she was in attendance, he initially felt he had a great response on stage to a question about criminal justice. “I said something like, whoever the next attorney general is, he would have to do such and such.” Torrico said Harris “just popped out of nowhere, threw her finger in the air and declared, ‘or she will have to!'”
“I was like, ‘Oh God, what are you doing here? Where’d you come from?'” said Torrico.
“The room loved it,” he said.
Torrico said he grew reflective at the DNC. “I’m among the many people she vanquished on the path to where she is now,” he said.
Changing a moment
During her first public office debate for San Francisco district attorney, Harris had been in single digits in the polls, but her former campaign manager says that would change during one of the forums.
Someone in the audience asked Harris how she’d lead independently of the current mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown. Harris had dated Brown about a decade before when he was the Speaker of California’s State Assembly. Harris responded by walking over to her opponents, Bill Fazio and the current DA, Terrance Hallinan, and mentioned the scandals that had been highlighting about each other.
Then she said, “I want to make a commitment to you that my campaign is not going to be about negative attacks.”
Former Harris aides say moments like that helped her beat Fazio, and got her to the runoff.
Fazio said he doesn’t recall that specific moment, but told ABC News that he had more experience as a trial attorney than Harris. But “she certainly was a much more accomplished and natural politician than I ever was. It’s probably the reason I lost.”
“She didn’t back down”
As the only woman at the time on Howard’s debate team, Rosaro-Richardson noticed how Harris challenged men.
“Oftentimes men use their physical prowess and the strength of their voices to win an argument. But I noticed that she didn’t allow that to deter her,” she said.
She remembers one specific moment when Harris was debating a man during her time on the Howard team.
“She was in cross examination, and [the opponent] hit her hand … I don’t know if it was intentional,” she said.
She said Harris stated out loud, “He hit my hand.” But Harris, according to Rosario-Richardson, did a “good job of it at the time … it didn’t throw her off. She was able to gather herself back after a few seconds and get back to the point.”
Rosario-Richardson said she will be watching Tuesday’s debate with other Howard alums and believes Donald Trump will be her most unpredictable opponent yet.
“I would say this is a unique situation because of the unpredictability of how Donald Trump will approach this debate and whether or not she can focus on substantive issues or focus on personal attacks,” Rosario-Richardson said.
She added that regardless of having known Harris’ debate style for over four decades, she has little idea of what to expect like everyone else. “I’m going to be excited. I’m going to feel some of the anticipation,” she said.
(SIERRA VISTA, Ariz.) — On the same day Vice President Kamala Harris is set to give her formal acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, former President Donald Trump will be focusing on the topic he has criticized Harris for the most: immigration.
Trump will spend the day on Thursday at the U.S.-Mexico border in southern Arizona after spending the week hopping from one battleground state to another, focusing on policy-centered speeches in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Both Trump and running mate JD Vance are engaging in counterprogramming to the DNC, which is taking place in Chicago this week.
With Harris formally the Democratic candidate and set to face Trump, the former president has zeroed in on criticizing Harris’ immigration policies, putting the blame squarely on her for the situation at the border as he latches on to his inaccurate reference to her as the “border czar.”
The label stems from President Joe Biden assigning Harris to oversee and lead diplomatic talks with Northern Triangle countries to address the root cause of migration. Republicans quickly focused on the assignment, dubbing her the “border czar” — though technically Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas is in charge of the border.
Harris has defended her work on the border, and her campaign has included in a tv ad that as president she would “hire thousands more border agents and crack down on fentanyl and human trafficking.”
After touring the border, Trump is set to deliver his remarks right by the border wall he backed with a long stretch of the structure as his backdrop.
It’s a throwback to his campaign promise from his very first presidential campaign to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — and an emphasis on his current campaign’s promise to finish the wall. His administration implemented roughly 450 miles of barriers, much of which was just upgrading existing barriers.
Border security and immigration has continued to be one of Trump’s main campaign issues this election. The former president has repeatedly pushed anti-immigrant rhetoric on the campaign trail, claiming immigrants in the country illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country” and that they are taking away Americans’ jobs.
His disparaging comments on immigrants living in the country without authorization have ramped up in recent months. Trump has described migrants crossing the border as violent criminals by highlighting stories about crimes committed by them, despite crime statistics analysis suggesting that U.S. citizens commit crimes at higher rates than unauthorized immigrants.
“Relative to undocumented immigrants, U.S.-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes,” according to a 2020 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
On Wednesday, Trump suggested that there were migrants in the country illegally at his campaign event in Asheboro, North Carolina.
“We probably have a few here. Welcome, welcome, but we probably have a few here, and [Harris is] all for it,” Trump quipped as the crowd responded by chanting, “Build that wall.”
Throughout the week, Trump has attempted to stay on message on key themes of the economy, crime and safety, and national security as allies and supporters push for Trump to focus on his potential second term agenda rather than spewing personal attacks.
Throughout his speeches this week, Trump has been criticizing DNC speakers, taking specific aim at former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama, calling Barack Obama’s tone “nasty.”
“Did you see Barack Hussein Obama last night? He was taking shots at your president. And so is Michelle. They always say, please stick to policy, don’t get personal. Yet they are getting personal all night long, these people. Do I still have to stick to policy?”
“I try and be nice to people, you know, but it’s a little tough when they get personal,” Trump lamented.
(WASHINGTON) — A Justice Department watchdog on Thursday found that former Attorney General Bill Barr and a Trump-appointed former U.S. Attorney ran afoul of Justice Department policy in their “unusual” handling of a criminal investigation of mail-in ballots during the 2020 election.
Trump later amplified the investigation to support his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.
In an 82-page report, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was highly critical of the steps taken by Barr and former U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania David Freed to amplify the otherwise-minor incident involving discarded ballots.
DOJ officials quickly determined the incident was likely a mistake by a mentally-impaired individual, however, those details they refused to make public until well after the election, the report said.
Horowitz also specifically noted he was “troubled” by the way Barr personally briefed Trump on the matter before public details of the investigation had come to light.
While Horowitz ultimately didn’t conclude either Barr or Freed engaged in “misconduct,” he used the report to urge the DOJ to implement a series of reforms that would clarify and tighten certain policies related to the issuing of public statements surrounding criminal investigations as well as contacts with the White House.
The investigation centered on an incident in September 2020, where the FBI had been told by the District Attorney’s Office in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, about an employee of a local elections office who allegedly discarded nine mail-in ballots.
Days after the matter was referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Freed issued a public statement on the investigation that stated all nine ballots were cast for Trump, only to later issue a corrected statement that stated seven were cast for Trump while the other two were unknown.
Additionally, Freed’s office took the unusual step of making public a letter he had sent to the Luzerne County Board of Elections that provided additional information on the early stages of their investigation that suggested potential criminal culpability by the individual who discarded the ballots.
“The selective details about the investigation included in the initial MDPA statement and the letter suggested that the actions of the individual who engaged in the conduct were intentional and likely chargeable criminally,” the report states.
“However, even at that early stage of the investigation, Department leadership was aware of information that substantially undercut this narrative—including that the subject of the investigation was mentally impaired, appeared to have discarded the ballots by mistake, and would likely not be criminally charged,” the report added.
And while DOJ quickly determined prior to Election Day that no charges were warranted in the matter, the office declined to issue a statement until Jan. 15, 2021, weeks after Freed resigned from office.
The IG’s investigation found Barr was “personally involved” in the events, and that he “encouraged and authorized” Freed to issue the initial statement that mentioned the ballots were cast for Trump.
“Our investigation also found that Barr briefed President Trump about the Luzerne County investigation the day before the statements were issued and specifically disclosed to the President that the recovered ballots were “marked for Trump,” information that was not public at that time and that Trump revealed on a national radio show the next morning,” the report states.
“Other than Freed and the OPA Director, nearly every DOJ lawyer we interviewed— both career employees and Trump Administration political appointees—emphasized how ‘unusual’ it would be for the Department to issue a public statement containing details about an ongoing criminal investigation, particularly before any charges are filed.”