Harris accepts CNN offer for second presidential debate on Oct. 23
(NEW YORK) — Vice President Kamala Harris said Saturday she has accepted an offer from CNN for a second presidential debate against former President Donald Trump on Oct. 23.
Harris said in a statement on X that she accepted the offer for the debate and called on her opponent to accept as well.
“I hope @realDonaldTrump will join me,” she said in her post.
The Harris campaign challenged Trump to another debate less than an hour after the Sept. 10 ABC News presidential debate ended. However, Trump said in a statement that he would not participate in another debate against Harris. He has not publicly responded to the CNN offer.
The October CNN debate would have the same rules as the debate in June that the network held between Trump and President Joe Biden, according to Harris campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon. That includes no audience and the microphones would be muted when one candidate isn’t speaking, sources with knowledge of the rules told ABC News.
The debate would take place long after early voting begins in several states across the country. A debate between vice presidential candidates Gov. Tim Walz and Sen. JD Vance is scheduled for Oct. 1 on CBS.
“It would be unprecedented in modern history for there to just be one general election debate,” O’Malley Dillon said in a statement. adding that “debates offer a unique chance for voters to see the candidates side by side and take stock of their competing visions for America.”
ABC News’ Rick Klein and Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump participated in another town hall Wednesday where he took several shots at his opponent Vice President Kamala Harris’ record and continued to throw out falsehoods about her and his record in office in front of a friendly crowd in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Advisers point to events like this as how Trump is preparing for next week’s ABC News debate in Philadelphia against Vice President Kamala Harris.
The former president, who often downplays the need for formal debate preparations, did offer some insight into how he will approach sharing the debate stage with Harris, saying he would limit his outbursts during an audience Q&A portion of the event which will air later this week.
“When I had Biden, you and I had the same discussion. And I let him talk. I’m gonna let her talk,” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity when asked how he will respond to Harris when she tries to get under his skin.
“There are those who say that Biden is smarter than she is. If that’s the case, we have a problem,” Trump said, attacking Harris’ intelligence earlier by claiming she has “no idea what the hell she’s doing.”
“You can go in with all the strategy you want but you have to sort of feel it out as the debate is taking place,” he said, going on to talk about his multiple debate appearances.
“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face” Trump quipped, quoting former boxing champion Mike Tyson.
Trump zeroed in on what he characterized as Harris’ policy inconsistencies, something that advisers have encouraged him to focus on. He specifically highlighted her changed position on fracking in front of a crowd in one of the country’s top fossil fuel-producing states.
“She wants no fracking. In Pennsylvania, she wants no fracking. She said it 100 times, there will be no fracking. There will be no fracking. There will be no fracking. Then just recently, she said, ‘Yes, I could approve fracking.’” Trump continued, “Look, this is a woman who is dangerous. I don’t think it’s too smart, let’s see.”
“You can’t take the chance. You have no choice. You’ve got to vote for me, even if you don’t like me,” he said, arguing that Americans didn’t know enough about Harris.
Trump held a town hall in Wisconsin last week with former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard was recently named to Trump’s presidential transition team and has been advising him during his debate preparations.
Wednesday’s town hall, which was taped in the afternoon before airing during Hannity’s regular 9 p.m. ET time slot, comes in lieu of a debate that Fox was attempting to hold Thursday night. While debate invitations were sent to both candidates, only Trump accepted as Harris campaign officials said future debates are contingent on Trump showing up to the ABC News debate next week.
“I think he’s a nice guy,” Trump said, pointing to Hannity. “But I would have preferred a debate.”
The former president and Hannity repeatedly criticized Harris’ lack of interviews as reasons to argue she’s unfit for office, pushing unfounded claims about her interview with CNN last week. However, while Trump sat down with Hannity for longer than Harris’ CNN interview, it was a friendly hour with the conservative TV host who rarely pushed back or pressed Trump on a number of topics.
Trump was asked to detail the differences between his previous presidential campaigns.
“It’s not that different. It’s still about the forgotten man and the forgotten woman. People are being treated horribly in this country,” Trump said.
Trump continued to spread anti-immigrant rhetoric, accusing Venezuelans of “taking over the whole town” in Aurora, Colorado, as he again promised to oversee the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history.
“Take a look at Aurora. In Colorado, where Venezuelans are taking over the whole town. They’re taking over buildings, the whole town…They’re knocking down doors and occupying apartments of people. The people are petrified. And it’s getting worse and worse,” Trump said, referring to a viral video that appeared to show an armed mob roaming around an apartment complex in Aurora.
However, the Aurora Police Department vehemently denied accusations that the apartment complex is being run by a Venezuelan gang.
“We’ve been talking to the residents here and learning from them to find out what exactly is going on, and there’s definitely a different picture,” Interim Police Chief Interim Heather Morris said in a Facebook video the department posted last week, while adding, “I’m not saying that there’s not gang members that don’t live in this community.”
The City of Aurora also provided clarity on the situation in a post on X, saying while there was a concern about a “small” presence of the Venezuelan gang members in Aurora, the city is taking the situation seriously. The city stressed that Aurora is a “safe community” and that reports of gang members are “isolated to a handful of problem properties alone.”
Trump criticized Harris’ rhetoric after Hannity played a 2016 clip of Harris from a speech at a Los Angeles mosque, in which she urged the public not to use terms such as “radical Islamic terrorism” and “illegal alien.”
“She wants to be politically correct, and we can’t be politically correct,” Trump responded.
“You need a president that’s not going to be taking you into war. We won’t have World War III when I’m elected, but with these clowns, you’re going to end up having world war – it’s going to be a war like no other,” he said.
Hannity briefly mentioned at the top of his program the school shooting earlier in the day in Winder, Georgia, where two students and two teachers were killed and nine people were injured. Trump cited Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban to tout his record on crime and national security.
“Well, it’s a sick and angry world for a lot of reasons, and we’re going to make it better. We’re going to heal our world. We’re going to get rid of all these wars that are starting all over the place, and we’re going to make it better,” Trump said.
“You know, Victor Orban made a statement. They said, ‘Bring Trump back, and we won’t have any problems.’ He was very strong about that,” he added.
Trump also took time to defend himself and his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, against Harris’ running mate Gov. Tim Walz’s argument that they’re “weird.” Trump fired back at that sentiment, poking fun at some of Walz’s quirks.
“Something’s weird with that guy. He’s a weird guy. JD is not weird. He’s a solid rock. I happen to be a very solid rock,” said Trump. “We’re not weird. We’re other things, perhaps, but we’re not weird. But he is a weird guy.”
(WASHINGTON) — Amid escalating rhetoric from former President Donald Trump threatening to prosecute his enemies should he win the 2024 election, Attorney General Merrick Garland delivered remarks to the Justice Department workforce on 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 said.
Garland added, “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.
Garland forcefully rebuked 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 said. “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 used 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) — Voters across the country tuned in to the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday night to see Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump discuss issues and share their visions for the country.
Many were looking to see how Harris defined herself on the debate stage, especially given that she entered the race relatively late as a presidential candidate.
Some undecided or formerly undecided voters spoke with ABC News both before and after the debate.
Before the debate, they shared what they were hoping to see — and after, if they thought Harris made the case for herself as a presidential candidate as well as their thoughts a potential second debate between Trump and Harris. These voters also previously spoke with ABC News earlier in the election cycle, including before President Joe Biden dropped out of the race.
Patrick O’Rourke, a retired scientist and independent voter from Georgia, said ahead of the debate that he did not trust Harris to be a “unifier” for the country.
“If I can force myself to vote for VP Harris, it will be with the hope of [split-party control between the presidency and Congress] … I hope for a president who can respect the constitution and earn the respect of our country,” he told ABC News by text.
At 10:09 p.m. ET, as the debate was still on air, he texted ABC News that he had turned off the debate.
“Former President Trump has forced me into voting for VP Harris,” he said. The reasons: because of how Trump discussed Ashli Babbit — a Trump supporter who was fatally shot during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol — whom the former president said “was shot by an out-of-control police officer;” and after Trump promoted being endorsed by Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, who is considered an authoritarian leader.
That doesn’t mean he thinks Harris made a strong positive case or defined herself enough, though.
Asked how he felt about her performance, O’Rourke said, “Still don’t know who she is other than not Donald Trump. Right now, that’s enough.”
Many voters feel they could benefit from more information about Harris and her platforms. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that 28% of likely voters said they feel they need to still learn more about Harris, while only 9% of likely voters felt that way about Trump.
O’Rourke said on Wednesday morning that he’s also not interested in another debate.
“One is enough for this cycle. I do not need to see another debate … I don’t need the candidates telling me what the other one’s policies are,” O’Rourke said.
But he said he’d like to see interviews with the candidates where they talk about economic policy, foreign affairs and civil justice priorities.
Rebecca Bakker, a registered nursing professor who lives near Grand Rapids, Michigan, told ABC News by text ahead of the debate that she was still undecided — although she had said beforehand she was not supporting Trump.
She was hoping to hear Harris “drill down on a clear economic message,” as well as clarity from her on how she would solve foreign policy and border issues.
Bakker told ABC News after the debate that the showing solidified her decision to not vote for Trump, who did not come across to her as “presidential” or as outlining clear policies.
“I think Harris did a great job to bait him so he [would] unravel during the debate and this worked to her advantage,” she said by text, but she felt Harris was still a bit “murky” on how her positions on some issues have changed.
“I remain undecided- she didn’t sway me enough (yet) to vote for her but for sure [Trump] swayed me enough NOT to vote for him,” Bakker wrote.
Bakker said she would like another debate to see if either candidate “reframes their narrative to address specifics on policies without ‘one of them’ losing focus and returning to childish behavior,” she wrote, adding she wants to see Harris discuss the economy and border issues more directly.
“So far, I don’t have a clear idea of her plan to address these areas.”
Karen Hughes, an independent voter and retired parole and probation specialist from Nevada, had previously been undecided but had decided to begrudgingly vote for Biden before he left the race in July. Ahead of the debate, Hughes told ABC News by text she was “hoping to see some policy discussions tonight. I’m interested in hearing Trump’s (final) position on abortion, and Harris’s explanation for why she won’t ban fracking.”
The debate affirmed her choice to vote for Harris, Hughes said on Wednesday, as she felt Harris “presents as competent, positive, and very sure of herself. I felt she knew exactly to get into Trump’s head and he fell for it every time,” Hughes said — although she said she felt Harris was still unclear about the shift in her position on fracking. Hughes also criticized Trump’s invocation of “wild conspiracy theories.”
But she’s not looking for another debate: “I think this one was good enough.”
Ian Mackintosh, a voter from Pennsylvania who lives in the Pittsburgh area, also said he hoped ahead of the debate to hear about policy. On Wednesday, he told ABC News by text, “Honestly, I thought it was a complete waste of 90 minutes. If anything, it moved me away from both candidates.”
While he said he understands the challenges of going in depth on complex policy stances in two minutes, it “could have been more substantial” with “less baiting and intentionally riling up the other candidate.”
Mackintosh said he is also disillusioned by Harris’ stance on Israel and Gaza, which he feels is the same as Biden’s.
He said he would not be interested in watching a second debate, and added, “After last night’s debacle I will probably only vote down-ballot.”
Brendan Fitzsimmons, a physician from Wyoming who is a Republican but does not support Trump, told ABC News by text before the debate that he did not expect much from the candidates, “although I would enjoy it if there is a lot of entertainment to it,” he said.
Fitzsimmons admitted that going into the debate, he didn’t feel sold on Harris: “I think she’ll be a terrible president, but I hope she wins,” calling her the “lesser of two evils.”
The morning after the debate, Fitzsimmons said the night changed how he was feeling about Harris.
“I enjoyed the debate and I thought they were both fairly strong, but all in all, Harris was stronger and won the debate and I think showed to a lot of people that she can be president … I am very concerned about foreign affairs, and I think she may be OK in that way,” he told ABC News by text.
Matthew Labkovski, a Republican voter from Florida who supported former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley during the Republican presidential primaries, told ABC News by text before the debate that he hoped to see the candidates discuss policy, and not engage in personal attacks. He said Tuesday evening that he was currently not planning on voting for president.
After the debate, Labkovski said on Wednesday, “I think it actually convinced me not to vote for Donald Trump. All I saw was fear mongering from him and what seemed to be a stretching of the truth,” he said, particularly when it came to Trump’s false claims about abortion and about a false conspiracy theory over immigrants eating pets.
“I am still not convinced though with Harris, as I didn’t get enough policy with her in this debate. To be honest, I would love another debate to see if I was actually comfortable in voting for her,” he said.
Labkovski also criticized Harris’ laughter during the debate, saying that he wished she had remained more even-keeled.
He added that he would have liked her to discuss how she would implement the policies she was talking about.
“How is she going to fight inflation? How is she going to bring peace? That’s what I was hoping the debate would bring … I needed more from her to actually sway from not voting in the presidential slot.”