Chalamagne Tha God: ‘Dinner table issues’ were at the top of voters’ minds
ABC News
In the aftermath of Kamala Harris’ failed bid for president, Charlamagne Tha God called for unity and pointed to voters’ economic frustrations and concerns over safety as decisive in Donald Trump’s victory.
“I know it feels like the divided states of America over the last several years, but it is still the United States of America,” said the influential radio host who supported Harris. “We’ve got to unify in some way, shape or form.”
Charlamagne (né Lenard McKelvey) co-hosts the popular iHeart Radio program “The Breakfast Club,” which is heard by millions of monthly listeners, and is the author of the new book “Be Honest or Die Lying.”
Harris joined Charlamagne for an audio town hall in October, where she discussed how her economic plan would boost Black communities and cast a Donald Trump presidency in dark terms.
In an interview with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl on “This Week,” Charlamagne said he’s “optimistic” about America regardless of Harris’ loss.
“I do believe in the future of this country because I have no choice but to,” he said.
Following President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the race and endorse Harris in August, Charlamagne applauded the vice president’s candidacy for energizing the Democratic Party.
Charlamagne said there was “no life whatsoever” with the Biden campaign and had previously called for him to not run for reelection.
“The vice president made a lot of people sit up on the couch and pay attention and at least be curious,” he said. “She has nothing to be ashamed of, she ran a great campaign”
In a stark demographic shift from 2020, Trump won one in three voters of color, notably gaining among Black and Latino voters. Charlamagne attributed part of this shift as “a backlash to race and gender and identity politics.”
Trump improved his 2016 and 2020 numbers in traditional Democratic strongholds, like New Jersey and New Mexico. Charlamagne said that “dinner table issues” were top of mind for voters.
“Every day people wake up and all they want to do is have more money in their pocket and they want to feel safe,” he said. “I don’t care if you’re black, white, gay, straight, whatever religion you are, those are the two things that you’re thinking about every day.”
He also said that Democrats “didn’t know how to message” their stance on immigration, including the bipartisan border bill that Trump and his allies effectively killed.
“It’s not like the Democrats didn’t want border security. They just didn’t know how to message it right,” Charlamagne said. “‘Build the wall’ may sound elementary, but you know what that signals to people? Border security.”
When asked if Harris should have done more to separate herself from Biden, Charlamagne said, “I think that if she wanted to go in a different direction, she should have expressed that.”
He also pointed to Harris’ appearances on “The View” and her interview with Fox’s Brett Baier, where she gave mixed answers on how she would be a different leader than the current president.
Even as an outspoken critic of Trump, Charlamagne said he’s choosing to have a positive outlook on the next four years.
“We just got to hope for the best,” said Charlamagne. “Like, I’m not wishing for America to fail. Why would I want that?”
(PHOENIX) — President Joe Biden was in Arizona on Friday to apologize to Native Americans for the federal government forcing Indian children into boarding schools where the White House said they were abused and deprived of their cultural identity.
Departing the White House Thursday, Biden said he was going to Arizona “to do something that should have been done a long time ago.”
He said he would make “a formal apology to the Indian nations for the way we treated their children for so many years.”
The White House called his trip to Gila River Indian Community outside Phoenix — his first to Indian Country as president — “historic.”
Officials said he will discuss the Biden-Harris administration’s record of delivering for tribal communities, including keeping his promise to visit the swing state, which is happening close to Election Day.
“The president also believes that to usher in the next era of the Federal-Tribal relationships we need to fully acknowledge the harms of the past,” the White House said.
“For over 150 years, the federal government ran boarding schools that forcibly removed generations of Native children from their homes to boarding schools often far away. Native children at these schools endured physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, and, as detailed in the Federal Indian Boarding School Investigative Report by the Department of the Interior (DOI), at least 973 children died in these schools,” the White House said.
“The federally-run Indian boarding school system was designed to assimilate Native Americans by destroying Native culture, language, and identity through harsh militaristic and assimilationist methods,” it said.
(WASHINGTON) — Amid escalating rhetoric from former President Donald Trump threatening to prosecute his enemies should he win the 2024 election, Attorney General Merrick Garland will deliver remarks to the Justice Department workforce Thursday urging they continue to adhere to longstanding principles intended to protect DOJ from improper politicization.
“Our norms are a promise that we will fiercely protect the independence of this Department from political interference in our criminal investigations,” Garland will say, according to excerpts of his prepared remarks provided to reporters.
Garland will add, “Our norms are a promise that we will not allow this Department to be used as a political weapon. And our norms are a promise that we will not allow this nation to become a country where law enforcement is treated as an apparatus of politics.”
The remarks come as Garland has sought to refute allegations from Trump and his allies of weaponization of the department through its prosecution of individuals involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as Special Counsel Jack Smith’s dueling prosecutions of Trump himself for his alleged mishandling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Those close to Garland have disputed those accusations as baseless — pointing in part to DOJ’s prosecution and conviction of Democrats like disgraced New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez on corruption charges as well as the separate Special Counsel prosecutions of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.
Trump and his allies, in turn, have ramped up in recent months their promises to use the Justice Department as a tool of retribution against his political enemies — with Trump in a Truth Social post over the weekend threatening “long term prison sentences” for “Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials” he baselessly accused of being involved in “cheating” in the 2020 and 2024 elections.
According to the excerpts, Garland will forcefully rebuke what he describes as a “dangerous — and outrageous” spike in threats targeting DOJ employees under his tenure.
“Over the past three and a half years, there has been an escalation of attacks on the Justice Department’s career lawyers, agents, and other personnel that go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and necessary oversight of our work,” Garland will say. “These attacks have come in the form of conspiracy theories, dangerous falsehoods, efforts to bully and intimidate career public servants by repeatedly and publicly singling them out, and threats of actual violence.”
Garland will use his remarks specifically to point to steps taken during his tenure he says have been aimed at isolating the department from allegations of politicization, such as re-implementing policies intended to limit contacts with the White House.
Those policies, however, were complicated by the Supreme Court’s July ruling that effectively granted Trump immunity in his federal election subversion case over his alleged efforts to use the Justice Department to overturn the election. The court’s conservative majority determined that Trump and other presidents should be shielded from any criminal liability for contacts with the DOJ, that they said clearly fall within the chief executive’s core powers.
As a result, Special Counsel Smith returned a superseding indictment two weeks ago against Trump that stripped out any mentions of the alleged DOJ plot.
(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.
