“That’s game over”: Legal experts say new Jenna Ellis revelation is beyond “devastating” for Trump
Igor Derysh – November 14, 2023
Jenna Ellis John Bazemore-Pool/Getty Images
Former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis told prosecutors in Fulton County, Ga., that a senior aide to the former president told her he was “not going to leave” the White House even after losing numerous legal challenges.
Ellis in a video of a confidential proffer session with prosecutors obtained by ABC News and The Washington Post said that Trump aide Dan Scavino told her “the boss” would refuse to leave the White House even though she told him that their cause was “essentially over.”
“And he said to me, in a kind of excited tone, ‘Well, we don’t care, and we’re not going to leave,'” Ellis recalled. “And I said, ‘What do you mean?’ And he said ‘Well, the boss’, meaning President Trump — and everyone understood ‘the boss,’ that’s what we all called him — he said, ‘The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power.'”
Ellis added: “And I said to him, ‘Well, it doesn’t quite work that way, you realize?’ and he said, ‘We don’t care.'”
Ellis also told prosecutors that Scavino’s statement “indicated to me that he was serious and that was in furtherance of something that he had discussed with the boss.
EXCLUSIVE: ABC News has obtained video from Georgia prosecutors' interview with ex-Trump attorney Jenna Ellis, in which Ellis tells them she was personally informed by a top Trump adviser that Trump was "not going to leave" the White House — despite losing the 2020 election.… pic.twitter.com/J9c4bm9cbZ
New York University Law Prof. Ryan Goodman, a former special counsel for the Pentagon, told CNN that Ellis’ revelation could be key evidence in the Fulton case as well as Trump’s federal election subversion case in D.C.
“She’s adding something that’s golden evidence for prosecutors both in Georgia and in DC, which is, they don’t have to prove this but if they can show that Trump knew he lost and was still trying to hold on to power, that’s it,” he said. “That’s game over. And that’s exactly what she says is the context of the conversation.”
Gwen Keyes, a former DeKalb County, Ga., district attorney, told MSNBC that Ellis’ testimony may be key to the Fulton case.
“That is a key element of every one of the crimes that is listed in the indictment,” she said. “That being that the defendants knew that they were perpetrating a lie, and so this goes right to the heart of that.”
Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who was also on the segment, pointed out that the conversation between Ellis and Scavino took place after the safe harbor deadline to resolve state disputes, after state electors met to cast their vote and after the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s legal challenge.
“You might remember, that Jenna Ellis testified before the Jan. 6 Committee, that at a holiday party, Donald Trump said to Mark Meadows, his chief of staff, ‘I don’t want people to know that we lost. It’s embarrassing, figure it out. We need to figure it out.’ So, all of this together paints a really damaging picture for Donald Trump,” he said.
Fellow former TrumpWorld attorney Sidney Powell told prosecutors in her proffer session that she knew nothing about election law when she sought to challenge Trump’s loss.
“Did I know anything about election law? No. But I understand fraud from having been a prosecutor for 10 years, and knew generally what the fraud suit should be if the evidence showed what I thought it showed,” she told prosecutors.
Though Trump has denied that Powell was ever his attorney, Powell described being in close contact with him and said he frequently called her for updates on the legal efforts, even after his campaign publicly distanced from her.
“He always wanted to know where things were in terms of finding fraud that would change the results of the election,” she said.
Powell also confirmed reporting that Trump was “willing to appoint me a special counsel” to investigate fraud and seize voting machines, though the effort fell through.
“I called Mark Meadows the next morning just to run it to ground, and said, ‘Hey, when can I come pick up my badge and my key?'” Powell said. “He essentially laughed — I mean he said, you know, ‘It’s not going to happen.'”
Powell said she was present when multiple advisers told Trump that he lost and prosecutors questioned why the president followed her advice instead of the others.
“Because I didn’t think he had lost,” Powell replied, later adding: “I saw an avenue pursuant to which, if I was right, he would remain president.”
"The boss is not going to leave."
Video excerpts show former Trump lawyers telling Georgia prosecutors about efforts to overturn 2020 election.
National security attorney Bradley Moss said the revelations from Ellis and Powell were “devastating.”
“Trump never had any intention of complying with the election results. He was told repeatedly in the presence of a convicted co-defendant that he had lost. He ignored it and conspired with his lawyers to overthrow the election anyway,” he tweeted.
“Devastating is an understatement,” agreed former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman, adding: “The series of revelations from the video interviews of the Defendants to pleaded guilty in Fulton County really serves to validate Willis’s strategy of charging broadly then giving pleas. The testimony is just overwhelming.”
Trump attorney Steve Sadow in a statement to ABC News called the “purported private conversation” described by Ellis “absolutely meaningless.”
“The only salient fact to this nonsense line of inquiry is that President Trump left the White House on January 20, 2021, and returned to Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida,” Sadow said. “If this is the type of bogus, ridiculous ‘evidence’ DA Willis intends to rely upon, it is one more reason that this political, travesty of a case must be dismissed.”
Ex-Prosecutor Says A Torn-Up Note Could Be Key To Taking Down Donald Trump
Lee Moran – November 14, 2023
Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann on Monday pointed to a ripped-up note he argued “absolutely” shows Donald Trump’s intent in his failed efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump aide Jonny McEntee wrote the note after then-U.S. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and then-U.S. Army Chief of Staff James McConville issued a statement in December 2020 saying the military could not determine the outcome of a U.S. election.
McEntee wrote: “[Acting Defense Secretary] Chris Miller spoke to both of them and anticipates no more statements coming out. (If another happens, he will fire them).”
The torn-up note was patched up and appeared as part of the House Jan. 6 Committee’s investigation into the deadly U.S. Capitol riot. It is now included in ABC News journalist Jonathan Karl’s new book “Tired of Winning: Donald Trump and the End of the Grand Old Party.”
MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace asked Weissmann if the note got “right at his [Trump’s] intent of what he wanted them [the military] to do.”
“Absolutely,” replied Weissmann.
The military is “incredibly law-abiding” and “really stands for the rule of law,” he continued. “As much of you think of it as a military organization with a hierarchy, they are also trained that they do not violate the Constitution. And when there’s an invalid order, they know that they cannot follow it because the Constitution comes first.”
Weissman said he was concerned that Trump, who has been indicted over his alleged efforts to thwart democracy and toss out the 2020 result, has now learned “the levers of power,” which he’ll know how to pull immediately should he win a second term.
“I remember when he first started a friend … said this was malevolence matched by incompetence so they weren’t really effective,” he recalled. “The Muslim ban is a perfect example where it took them so many tries to get it ‘right’ so it could pass muster.”
“But I took your book as that it going to be a pale comparison about what will come in a Trump 2.0.,” Weissmann added to Karl.
John Hanno, Tarbabys Blog – Veteran’s Day, November11, 2023
HuffPost
‘Brilliant’ Joe Biden Ad Torches Donald Trump In Simplest Possible Way
Lee Moran – November 14, 2023
Donald Trump’s derogatory comments about U.S. military service members and veterans were used against him in a powerful new ad released by President Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign to mark Veterans Day.
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough hailed the spot as “brilliant” because it simply used the former president’s own words “to drive the message home.”
The video highlights Republican 2024 front-runner Trump’s description of fallen soldiers as “suckers” and his criticism of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for being captured during the Vietnam War.
“If you don’t respect our troops, you can’t lead them,” the ad says at the end.
Why Biden Shouldn’t Run for Reelection—According to Biden Himself
Rob Anderson – November 14, 2023
When Joe Biden was deciding in late 2018 whether to run for president, he reached out to his network of would-be supporters with a pithy, pragmatic ask. “If you can persuade me there is somebody better who can win, I’m happy not to do it,” he said, according to The New York Times. It turned out there wasn’t somebody better to take on President Trump—or at least, Biden wasn’t persuaded that there was—and a few months later he officially threw his hat into the ring.
It wasn’t exactly a surprise. Biden, already a twice-failed presidential candidate, had been openly weighing another run for years. In a 2017 speech at Colgate University, he said he regretted “not being president” and that he could have beaten Trump. “I had a lot of data,” Biden said. “I was fairly confident that if I was the Democratic Party nominee, I had a better-than-even chance of being president.” And in January 2019, he said, bluntly, “I don’t see the candidate who can clearly do what has to be done to win.”
Within the next three months, though, the Democratic field ballooned with myriad compelling, experienced candidates, most of whom were far younger and more representative of the party’s diverse coalition. Did Biden, then 76 years old, really still believe he was the best hope to stop Trump? It seemed he did, based on a simple calculus. He had the blue-collar bona fides to win over working-class whites in the Midwest, high support among African American voters, thanks in part to his close relationship with the most popular Democratic president of the modern era, and a folksy charm to win over suburban soccer moms. And the pollsagreed.
But Biden’s decision to jump into the race wasn’t just strategic; it was moral. As the candidate best positioned to beat Trump, he owed it to the American people to run. “We are in the battle for the soul of this nation,” he said in his April announcement video. “If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation—who we are—and I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”
It was a sound—and winning, it turned out—argument. But if you apply the logic of Biden’s 2020 campaign to today’s presidential race, the conclusion is decidedly different, albeit equally clear: He should not be running for reelection.
First, the idea that Biden is uniquely qualified to unify the factions in the Democratic Party, let alone the nation as a whole, no longer holds true. Black voters are as alienated from the Democrats as they have been in decades. Blue-collar voters are defecting en masse. Suburban voters have turned on him too. And after years of commanding the spotlight himself, Biden can no longer bask in the glow of the now-distant Obama years. Today, his approval ratings are on par with Trump’s and Jimmy Carter’s at this point in their presidencies. Even more troubling, they dip below those of George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, and Lydon Johnson. Things didn’t turn out well for any of them. Why would Biden be any different?
He’s not. Biden has lost all of his advantages in battleground states, trailing Trump in Nevada, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. A recent Times/Siena poll showed that among registered voters in those five states plus Wisconsin—all of which Biden carried in 2020—he trails Trump by four points (which is barely within the margin of error). His campaign argues that polls always look bad for incumbents at this stage and that it’s easy to overblow an outlier poll here and there. But the Times/Siena poll wasn’t an outlier. Polling data aggregators have consistently shown Trump beating Biden for over two months now.
Democrats looking for a calm, nuanced explanation for why these polls shouldn’t be troubling will have to look elsewhere than the president, who said on Thursday he simply doesn’t believe he’s trailing in battleground states. Even the Biden of 2018 wouldn’t buy that.
It’s true that a lot could change between now and next November. The Biden optimists often note that Trump could become a convicted felon, but it’s not at all clear whether that would actually hurt Trump in the election. Inflation has eased, but prices are expected to remain high—perhaps for good. Russia’s war in Ukraine is at a stalemate, and one can only guess how much worse the conflict in the Middle East will get.
As much as political commentators like to disdain them for it, Americans ultimately pick their presidents on a feeling. The candidate who wins is the one who best recognizes the national mood and taps into it. After years of Bill Clinton’s slipperiness, the idea of grabbing a beer with George W. Bush sounded a lot better than chilling with the sweater-vested Al Gore and kite-surfing John Kerry. Barack Obama made the electorate feel hopeful after years of wars and recession. And in the end, Donald Trump tapped into a powerful feeling of resentment.
In 2020, voters turned to Biden because he promised competence and normalcy after the chaos and negativity that Trump had wrought. There’s no doubt that Biden delivered on that front—and even passed some historic legislation—but ultimately many Americans are still racked by despair and pessimism. In 2024, just like they have in the past, Americans will pull the lever, wisely or not, for whichever candidate they feel will most likely shake us out of our current malaise just to get us someplace different, for better or for worse.
Seen through this lens, the answer to the question that baffles some pundits—why is Biden so unpopular?—seems fairly obvious. The antidote to a world enmeshed in wars, a leaden economy, and an environmental catastrophe is not a mumble-prone 80-year-old incumbent. There’s no tactful way to say it: We want to face the apocalypse with Bill Pullman’s President Whitmore, not Weekend at Bernie’s.
The country is once again facing more than a 1 percent chance of a second Trump term—indeed, perhaps a greater than 50 percent chance. At the top of the Democrats’ priorities should be nominating someone with an overwhelming chance to stop that from happening. That candidate is not Joe Biden.
To be sure, even if Biden were swayed by my modest proposal, dropping out of the race would cause a host of complications. The deadlines for candidates to file in several primaries have already passed. And the candidates most prepared to step into his place—Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, maybe Dean Phillips—wouldn’t be a likelier bet to beat Trump. But were Biden to drop out, it would clear the way for more promising candidates to step in: Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. And as the likelihood of a second Trump presidency came into view, Democratic voters, as in the run-up to the 2020 election, would eventually flock to the candidate they felt was most likely to take down Trump.
While the strategic arguments for Biden’s candidacy have all but collapsed, the pressing moral argument he made in 2018 remains as true now as ever. If Democrats lose the White House in 2024, they won’t be turning over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to a generic Republican or even a Trump mini me like Ron DeSantis. They will most likely be handing the keys back to Trump himself. And if the Biden of 2019 is to be believed, that will fundamentally alter the character of our nation. If only the Biden of today would listen.
Donald Trump is talking like a Nazi again. Over the weekend, in both a speech and a subsequent social media post, he referred to his enemies as “vermin”—a favorite word of fascists and antisemites of yore—and channeled Hitler, declaring that America’s biggest enemies were domestic foes that needed to be “rooted out” and destroyed. “The real threat is not from the radical right; the real threat is from the radical left, and it’s growing every day, every single day,” he said. “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within.”
As if doubling down on the authoritarianism, Axios reported on Monday morning that Trump and his allies had formulated a plan to purge the federal government of ideological opponents. Trump and his allies “are pre-screening the ideologies of thousands of potential foot soldiers, as part of an unprecedented operation to centralize and expand his power at every level of the U.S. government if he wins in 2024,” wrote Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei. Although they note that this plan—which they’ve taken to calling “Agenda 47”—has an “authoritarian sounding” name, Allen and VandeHei (the latter of whom has harbored some authoritarian sentiments of his own), ever eager to ingratiate themselves, observe that those in charge of this plan “are smart, experienced people, many with very unconventional and elastic views of presidential power and traditional rule of law.” For sure!
Finally, to underline the weekend of goose-stepping, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung responded to the criticism by tellingThe Washington Post that those “who try to make [the] ridiculous assertion [that Trump is channeling Hitler] are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.” Not exactly a posture aimed at reassuring those who are alarmed by the increasingly fascistic bent of the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination.
The response to Trump’s “vermin” comments and the revelation of the “Agenda 47” plan have led to a deserved round of hand-wringing about Trump’s authoritarianism, the threat his political project poses to American democracy, and the media’s role in covering both. In 2016, the press failed to adequately capture the sum total of this threat, partly because Trump’s political career was seen as a doomed project and partly because it was still too abstract. Seven years later, Trump’s rhetoric is substantially darker and we’ve had plenty of hard evidence of his willingness to push past the acceptable boundaries of our democracy in his continued insistence that the 2020 election was stolen from him, as well as in the Capitol riots that this rhetoric inspired.
Emphasizing Trump’s authoritarianism—and the related damage he can do to the fabric of the country—will be a necessity both for the press and for Joe Biden. Trump is rather transparently announcing his intentions to purge and weaponize the federal government against his political opponents, immunize himself against legal prosecution, and manipulate the levers of power to preserve his own for as long as possible. Given the threat of physical violence that so often accompanies his words, this is more or less open fascism. But declaiming against it will not be enough to defeat him.
“This is not normal” was a potent rallying cry during Trump’s presidency—it was arguably the defining admonition of that period. In many ways, Trump’s abnormality has only metastasized since voters evicted him from the White House. His rhetoric has grown more extreme. He is facing multiple criminal trials and will likely head into the presidential election as both his party’s nominee and as a convicted felon.
But Trump very much is a normal Republican now. That is true in many frightening ways, certainly. Trump’s political rivals have begun to echo his authoritarianism. Vivek Ramaswamy has arguably an even more insane plan to force the federal bureaucracy to submit to his will (he has suggested firing everyone whose social security number ends in an odd number). Ron DeSantis has called for shooting migrants. Nikki Haley has advocated for invading Mexico. Trump’s positions are the norm in the GOP now, and they will remain that way for the party’s foreseeable future: The GOP has, in eight years, been remade in his image.
But Trump has also become a normal Republican in the traditional sense, in that he’s more or less ended up embracing the long-standing policy positions of his GOP forebears. During his first term in office, his most important legislative accomplishment was a gigantic tax cut for corporations and the rich. Even though it is unlikely that he will staff his second-term office with the same kind of establishment figures—think Rex Tillerson and Steven Mnuchin—who briefly defined the early part of his presidency, one can rightly assume that he will continue to pursue regressive, supply-side economic policies, especially considering that this is what Republicans in Congress will want to do. The domestic agenda of a second Trump term would likely involve the greatest hits of Republican fiscal policy: tax and entitlement cuts, as well as the elimination of various environmental, labor, and economic regulations.
For all the talk of Trump’s abnormality, the fact that he’s always marched to the recognizable, old-school beats of the GOP drum has always been the less celebrated aspect of his time in politics. So there’s a danger in continually casting him as a pathbreaking sort of politician. Voters don’t like the status quo. They’ve repeatedly voted to reject the economic dogmas that have defined Republican policymaking for several consecutive elections. They thought that this was what they were getting from Trump in the first place—and the media did a much better job of selling Trump as a change-of-pace candidate, and clung to the notion that he was an economic populist long after he’d demonstrated no real interest in refreshing the Republican brand.
Democratic messaging needs to account for both Trump’s unique authoritarian leanings and his embrace of vintage Republican ideas. To solely advance the idea that Trump is a unique political figure in American life—a wild departure from the norm—runs the risk of implanting the idea that he is a politician bent on shattering the status quo during a time when many might prefer the short sharp shock of change. Ideally, you want to capture Trump as a chaos agent whose plans to sledgehammer the system won’t lead anywhere fruitful or new, but will more deeply entrench the unpopular ideas for which the GOP has long been known.
The clearest and most potent position for Democrats is to push on reproductive rights—it embodies the new post-Dobbs dystopia with the Republican Party’s decades-long effort to bring it about. Trump has, of late, escaped much attention for his abortion policy, in part because he’s skipped the Republican debates and in part because many of his opponents have adopted even more extreme positions. (Trump claims to oppose a nationwide abortion ban, though it seems highly likely he would sign one if he was given the chance.) More to the point, no one in the country is more responsible for the repeal of Roe v. Wade than Donald Trump, who appointed the three justices to the Supreme Court necessary to do the deed. Still, there is nothing new under the sun. Here we see a normal Republican doing normal Republican stuff. It is both odious and unpopular: Republicans have repeatedly lost elections when abortion is on the ballot. It will be again in 2024.
For Democrats, campaigning against Trump’s reelection will be an exercise in threading a needle between the new threats he poses and bad, old ideas to which he clings. This is something Democrats did successfully in the 2020 presidential election and then refined to great effect in the 2022 midterms; voters said that abortion and threats to democracy were the two issues that were front of mind as they tamed the “red wave” that was supposed to sweep Republicans into power. With less than a year before the election, both Biden and the press are doing a better job of making the case that Trump is a unique danger to the Republic. They should spend a little time reminding voters that he’s just as bad in other, more banal ways, as well.
Trump Campaign Officials Try to Play Down Contentious 2025 Plans
Maggie Haberman – November 14, 2023
Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in Claremont, New Hampshire, U.S., November 11, 2023. REUTERS/Brian Snyder (Brian Snyder / reuters)
Two top officials on former President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign on Monday sought to distance his campaign team from news reports about plans for what he would do if voters return him to the White House.
Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, who are effectively Trump’s campaign managers, issued a joint statement after a spate of articles, many in The New York Times, about plans for 2025 developed by the campaign itself, and trumpeted on the trail by Trump, as well as efforts by outside groups led by former senior Trump administration officials who remain in direct contact with him.
Wiles and LaCivita focused their frustration on outside groups, which they did not name, that have devoted considerable resources to preparing lists of personnel and developing policies to serve the next right-wing administration.
“The efforts by various nonprofit groups are certainly appreciated and can be enormously helpful. However, none of these groups or individuals speak for President Trump or his campaign,” they wrote, calling reports about their personnel and policy intentions “purely speculative and theoretical” and “merely suggestions.”
Trump’s team has sought to portray him as the most substantive candidate on policy in the Republican Party. But according to several people with knowledge of the internal discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, Trump’s campaign advisers have grown enraged at what they perceive alternately as credit-taking by the groups, and headlines that could be problematic for more moderate voters in a general election.
The statement noticeably stopped short of disavowing the groups and seemed merely intended to discourage them from speaking to the press.
One challenge for the Trump team is that the most incendiary rhetoric and proposals have come from Trump’s own mouth.
For instance, an article in the Times in June explored Trump’s plans to use the Justice Department to take vengeance on political adversaries by ordering investigations and prosecutions of them, eradicating the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department investigative independence from White House political control.
Trump said in June: “I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.”
The Times recently published an extensive article on Trump’s immigration plans for a second term. He has promised what he called “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” and has used increasingly toxic language to describe immigrants, including saying that they are “poisoning the blood of our country.”
The Times article detailed plans for an immigration crackdown in part based on a lengthy interview with Stephen Miller, the architect of the Trump White House immigration policy. The Trump campaign, after being approached by Times reporters about Trump’s immigration agenda, had asked Miller to speak with them.
President Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign pounced on the article concerning immigration — which described plans for mass detention camps, among other things — saying that Trump had “extreme, racist, cruel policies” that were “meant to stoke fear and divide us.”
Other Times articles have focused on plans being fleshed out by close allies of Trump who occupied senior roles in his White House and are likely to return to power if he is elected.
Those plans include efforts to increase White House control over the federal bureaucracy that are being developed, among others, by Russell Vought, who was Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget.
But as the Times noted, Vought’s plans dovetailed with statements Trump made in a video his campaign published on its website, including vowing to bring independent regulatory agencies “under presidential authority.”
The Times series has also examined plans by Trump allies to recruit more aggressive lawyers seen as likely to bless extreme policies. Trump fired the top lawyer at the Department of Homeland Security in 2019 after disputes over White House immigration policies and has blasted key lawyers from his administration who raised objections to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
The statement from Wiles and LaCivita on Monday said that, “all 2024 campaign policy announcements will be made by President Trump or members of his campaign team. Policy recommendations from external allies are just that — recommendations.”
Joe Scarborough Warns Trump Is ‘Going Full-On Hitler’ After Weekend Rhetoric
Josephine Harvey – November 13, 2023
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Donald Trump is “going full-on Hitler” after the former president referred to political opponents as “vermin” over the weekend.
The “Morning Joe” host took it as a warning ahead of the 2024 election.
“You look at the language of Donald Trump, you look at what Donald Trump says he’s going to do, and you go back to Maya Angelou saying that ‘when somebody tells you who they are, believe ‘em the first time,’” Scarborough said on his morning show Monday, quoting the late civil rights activist.
“We have to believe him, and we also have to believe that this is the most important election probably since 1864,” he added. That election, during the Civil War, saw Abraham Lincoln elected to a second term.
In a Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump vowed to “root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream.”
“The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within,” the leading contender for the Republican 2024 nomination added.
He made similar remarks during a Veterans Day rally in Claremont, New Hampshire.
Last month, Trump drew rebuke after he said undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” another phrase that echoes language used by Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.
People warned me before I came to Tel Aviv a few days ago that the Israel of Oct. 7 is an Israel that I’ve never been to before. They were right. It is a place in which Israelis have never lived before, a nation that Israeli generals have never had to protect before, an ally that America has never had to defend before — certainly not with the urgency and resolve that would lead a U.S. president to fly over and buck up the whole nation.
After traveling around Israel and the West Bank, I now understand why so much has changed. It is crystal clear to me that Israel is in real danger — more danger than at any other time since its War of Independence in 1948. And it’s for three key reasons:
First, Israel is facing threats from a set of enemies who combine medieval theocratic worldviews with 21st-century weaponry — and are no longer organized as small bands of militiamen but as modern armies with brigades, battalions, cybercapabilities, long-range rockets, drones and technical support. I am speaking about Iranian-backed Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen — and now even the openly Hamas-embracing Vladimir Putin. These foes have long been there, but all of them seemed to surface together like dragons during this conflict, threatening Israel with a 360-degree war all at once.
How does a modern democracy live with such a threat? This is exactly the question these demonic forces wanted to instill in the mind of every Israeli. They are not seeking a territorial compromise with the Jewish state. Their goal is to collapse the confidence of Israelis that their defense and intelligence services can protect them from surprise attacks across their borders — so Israelis will, first, move away from the border regions and then they will move out of the country altogether.
I am stunned by how many Israelis now feel this danger personally, no matter where they live — starting with a friend who lives in Jerusalem telling me that she and her husband just got gun licenses to have pistols at home. No one is going to snatch their children and take them into a tunnel. Hamas, alas, has tunneled fear into many, many Israeli heads far from the Gaza border.
The second danger I see is that the only conceivable way that Israel can generate the legitimacy, resources, time and allies to fight such a difficult war with so many enemies is if it has unwavering partners abroad, led by the United States. President Biden, quite heroically, has been trying to help Israel with its immediate and legitimate goal of dismantling Hamas’s messianic terrorist regime in Gaza — which is as much a threat to the future of Israel as it is to Palestinians longing for a decent state of their own in Gaza or the West Bank.
But Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza entails urban, house-to-house fighting that creates thousands of civilian casualties —innocent men, women and children — among whom Hamas deliberately embedded itself to force Israel to have to kill those innocents in order to kill the Hamas leadership and uproot its miles of attack tunnels.
But Biden can sustainably generate the support Israel needs only if Israel is ready to engage in some kind of a wartime diplomatic initiative directed at the Palestinians in the West Bank — and hopefully in a post-Hamas Gaza — that indicates Israel will discuss some kind of two-state solutions if Palestinian officials can get their political house unified and in order.
This leads directly to my third, deep concern.
Israel has the worst leader in its history — maybe in all of Jewish history — who has no will or ability to produce such an initiative.
Worse, I am stunned by the degree to which that leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, continues to put the interests of holding on to the support of his far-right base — and pre-emptively blaming Israel’s security and intelligence services for the war — ahead of maintaining national solidarity or doing some of the basic things that Biden needs in order to get Israel the resources, allies, time and legitimacy it needs to defeat Hamas.
Biden cannot help Israel build a coalition of U.S., European and moderate Arab partners to defeat Hamas if Netanyahu’s message to the world remains, in effect: “Help us defeat Hamas in Gaza while we work to expand settlements, annex the West Bank and build a Jewish supremacist state there.”
Let’s drill down on these dangers.
Last Saturday night, a retired Israeli Army commander stopped by my hotel in Tel Aviv to share his perspective on the war. I took him to the 18th-floor executive lounge for our chat, and when we got into the elevator to go up, we joined a family of four — two parents, a toddler and a baby in a stroller. The Israeli general asked them where they were from. “Kiryat Shmona,” the father answered.
As we stepped out, I joked with the general that he could dispense with his briefing. It took just 18 floors and those two words — “Kiryat Shmona” — to describe Israel’s wickedly complex new strategic dilemma created by the surprise Hamas attack of Oct. 7.
Kiryat Shmona is one of the most important Israeli towns on the border with Lebanon. That father said hisfamily had fled the northern fence line with thousands of other Israeli families after the pro-Iranian Hezbollah militia and Palestinian militias in southern Lebanon began lobbing rockets and artillery and making incursions in solidarity with Hamas.
When might they go back? They had no idea. Like more than 200,000 other Israelis, they have taken refuge with friends or in hotels all across this small country of nine million people. And it has takenonly a few weeks for Israelis to begin driving up real estate prices in seemingly safer central Israeli towns. For Hezbollah, that alone is mission accomplished, without even invading like Hamas. Together, Hezbollah and Hamas are managing to shrink Israel.
On Sunday I drove down to a hotel on the Dead Sea to meet some of the hundreds of surviving members of Kibbutz Be’eri, which had some 1,200 residents, including 360 children. It was one of the communities hardest hit by the Hamas onslaught — suffering more than 130 murders in addition to scores of injured and multiple kidnappings of children and elderly. The Israeli government has moved most survivors of the kibbutz across the country to the Dead Sea, where they are now starting their own schools in a hotel ballroom.
I asked Liat Admati, 35, a survivor of the Hamas attack who ran a clinic for facial cosmetics for 11 years in Be’eri, what would make it possible for her to go back to her Gaza border home, where she was raised.
“The main thing for me to go back is to feel safe,” she said. “Before this situation, I felt I have trust in the army. Now I feel the trust is broken. I don’t want to feel that we are covering ourselves in walls and shelters all the time while behind this fence there are people who can one day do this again. I really don’t know at this point what the solution is.”
Before Oct. 7, she and her neighbors thought the threat was rockets, she said, so they built safe rooms, but now that Hamas gunmen came over and burned parents and kids in their safe rooms, who knows what is safe? “The safe room was designed to keep you safe from rockets, not from another human who would come and kill you for who you are,” she said. What is most dispiriting, she concluded, is that it appears that some Gazans who worked on the kibbutz gave Hamas maps of the layout.
There are a lot of Israelis who listened to the recording, published by The Times of Israel, of a Hamas gunman who took part in the Oct. 7 onslaught, identified by his father as Mahmoud, calling his parents from the phone of a Jewish woman he’d just murdered and imploring them to check his WhatsApp messages to see the pictures he took of some of the 10 Jews he alone killed in Mefalsim, a kibbutz near the Gaza border.
“Look how many I killed with my own hands! Your son killed Jews,” he says, according to an English translation. “Mom, your son is a hero,” he adds. His parents can be heard seemingly rejoicing.
This kind of chilling exuberance — Israel was built so that such a thing could never happen — explains the homemade sign I saw on a sidewalk while driving through the French Hill Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem the other day: “It’s either us or them.’’
The euphoric rampage of Oct. 7 that killed some 1,400 soldiers and civilians has not only hardened Israeli hearts toward the suffering of Gaza civilians. It has also inflicted a deep sense of humiliation and guilt on the Israeli Army and defense establishment, for having failed in their most basic mission of protecting the country’s borders.
As a result, there is a conviction in the army that it must demonstrate to the entire neighborhood — to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the Houthis in Yemen, to the Islamic militias in Iraq, to the Hamas and other fighters in the West Bank — that it will stop at nothing to re-establish the security of the borders. While the army insists that it is hewing to the laws of war, it wants to show that no one can outcrazy Israel to drive its people from this region — even if the Israeli military has to defy the U.S. and even if it does not have any solid plan for governing Gaza the morning after the war.
As Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, told reporters on Wednesday: “Israel cannot accept such an active threat on its borders. The whole idea of people living side by side in the Middle East was jeopardized by Hamas.”
This conflict is now back to its most biblical and primordial roots. This seems to be a time of eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth. The morning-after policy thinking will have to wait for the mourning after.
Which is why I so worry about the leadership here today. I was traveling around the West Bank on Tuesday when I heard that Netanyahu had just told ABC News that Israel plans to retain “overall security responsibility” in Gaza “for an indefinite period” after its war with Hamas.
Really? Consider this context: “According to Israel’s official Central Bureau of Statistics, at the end of 2021, 9.449 million people live in Israel (including Israelis in West Bank settlements), the Times of Israel reported last year. “Of those, 6.982 million (74 percent) are Jewish, 1.99 million (21 percent) are Arab, and 472,000 (5 percent) are neither. The Palestinian Bureau of Statistics puts the West Bank Palestinian population at a little over three million and the Gaza population at just over two million.”
So Netanyahu is saying that seven million Jews are going to indefinitely control the lives of five million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza — while offering them no political horizon, nothing, by way of statehood one day on any demilitarized conditions.
Early on the morning of Oct. 29, as the Israeli Army was just moving into Gaza, Netanyahu posted and then deleted a message on social media in which he blamed Israel’s defense and intelligence establishment for failing to anticipate Hamas’s surprise attack. (Netanyahu somehow forgot how often the Israeli military and intelligence leaders had warned him that his totally unnecessary coup against the country’s judicial system was fracturing the army and Israel’s enemies were all noticing its vulnerability.)
After being slammed by the public for digitally stabbing his army and intelligence chiefs in the back in the middle of a war, Netanyahu published a new post. “I was wrong,” he wrote, adding that “the things I said following the press conference should not have been said, and I apologize for that. I fully support the heads of [Israel’s] security services.”
But the damage was done. How much do you suppose those military leaders trust what Netanyahu will say if the Gaza campaign stalls? What real leader would behave that way at the start of a war of survival?
Let me not mince words, because the hour is dark and Israel, as I said, is in real danger. Netanyahu and his far-right zealots have taken Israel on multiple flights of fancy in the last year: dividing the country and the army over the fraudulent judicial reform, bankrupting its future with massive investments in religious schools that teach no math and in West Bank Jewish settlements that teach no pluralism — while building up Hamas, which would never be a partner for peace, and tearing down the Palestinian Authority, the only possible partner for peace.
The sooner Israel replaces Netanyahu and his far-right allies with a true center-left-center-right national unity government, the better chance it has to hold together during what is going to be a hellish war and aftermath. And the better chance that Biden — who may be down in the polls in America but could get elected here in a landslide for the empathy and steel he showed at Israel’s hour of need — will not have hitched his credibility and ours to a Netanyahu Israel that will never be able to fully help us to help it.
This society is so much better than its leader. It is too bad it took a war to drive that home. Ron Scherf is a retired member of Israel’s most elite special forces unit and a founder of Brothers in Arms, the Israeli activist coalition that mobilized veterans and reservists to oppose Netanyahu’s judicial coup. Immediately after the Hamas invasion,
Hillary Clinton visits “The View”, says Donald Trump winning in 2024 would be the ‘end of our country’
Joey Nolfi – November 8, 2023
“The wreckage is almost unimaginable,” Clinton said on The View.
Hillary Clinton brought a premonition of the United States’ decimation when she visited The View for a summit on current events.
The former Secretary of State stopped by the show Wednesday for a multi-segment interview, during which cohost Sunny Hostin told Clinton that her 2016 election loss to Donald Trump would go down as “one of the most pivotal moments” in U.S. history, and asked the politician to comment on Trump’s potential re-election in 2024 despite multiple indictments against him.
“I can’t even think that, because I think it would be the end of our country as we know it, and I don’t say that lightly. I hated losing, and I especially hated losing to him because I’d seen so many warning signals during the campaign,” Clinton replied, adding that she tried to support Trump as the leader of the country. “Literally, from his inauguration on, it was nothing but accusing people of things, making up facts, denying the size of the crowd at his own inauguration. Everything I worried about, I saw unfolding.”
She said the warning signs are “even worse now” and speculated that he was “restrained” by those around him during his first term from 2016 through 2020 because “they stood up to him.”
The camera then cut to View star Alyssa Farah Griffin, who worked for Trump’s communications team before resigning — and subsequently spoke out against her former boss in 2020.
ABC Hillary Clinton on ‘The View’
Clinton went on to predict that, if Trump regained control of the White House, his administration would be filled with “people who have no principles, no conscience, who are totally tied to his fortunes, literally, and therefore would do whatever he said,” she observed. “The wreckage is almost unimaginable.”
The 76-year-old finished her thought by comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler, who was “duly elected” in Germany, Clinton said, as well as other authoritarian and dictatorial leaders in history.
Unlike Trump, though, Clinton stressed that those figures “didn’t usually telegraph” their intentions at first, she stressed. “Trump is telling us what he intends to do. Take him at his word. The man means to throw people in jail who disagree with him, shut down legitimate press outlets, do what he can to undermine the rule of law and country’s values.”
Before throwing the show to commercial, moderator Whoopi Goldberg referenced Trump’s ongoing criminal woes — which he has consistently pushed back against and called a “witch hunt” against him — telling the audience that “he’s not going to do a whole bunch of stuff right now” as he’s tied up in a legal web.
At a live speaking event in New York City in October, Griffin and fellow ex-Trump associate Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified during the House investigation into the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, warned their fellow Republicans about electing Trump in 2024, amid polls indicating that the ex-Apprentice TV host is the party’s leading candidate.
“I think it’s the responsibility of every American to make sure his name is not on the Republican ticket,” Hutchinson said, later adding: “If Donald Trump were to be elected to a second term in office, I fear for the future of our country, I fear for the future of our democracy.” (Trump’s office did not respond to EW’s request for comment.)
Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear Narrowly Secures a Second Term Following Tough Reelection Bid
Virginia Chamlee – November 7, 2023
Beshar won reelection against Republican nominee Daniel Cameron, Kentucky’s attorney general
AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley (2)Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron
Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear won his reelection bid in Kentucky, a red state easily carried by former President Donald Trump in the past two presidential elections, the Associated Press reports. Beshear defeated GOP nominee Daniel Cameron, currently Kentucky’s attorney general.
Polling showed Beshear, 45, with a sizable lead as recently as last month, when he was up 16 points, but an Emerson College poll released last week saw both candidates tied at 47%, with 4% of voters undecided.
Greg Eans/The Messenger-Inquirer via APKentucky Gov. Andy Beshear at a reelection campaign event in Owensboro on Nov. 4, 2023
Representing a conservative state with a Republican-dominated legislature and two Republican U.S. senators, Beshear worked hard to shift the focus of the race away from partisan politics, instead zeroing in on his leadership.
Speaking at a campaign rally Monday, he said, “I run as a proud Democrat, but you saw the moment I won, I took that hat off and I serve every single family, because it’s time for us to recognize that a good job isn’t Democrat or Republican. So, whether you’re a Democrat, Republican or independent, there is a place for you in this campaign.”
In a separate event held in recent days, Beshear stressed that he is adept at reaching across the aisle and working with conservative politicians, saying, “The people of northern Kentucky know how hard I’ve worked to get this grant for building this corridor. But I didn’t do it alone. The person I did it with is a Republican governor of Ohio. We worked across party lines to get it done.”
AP Photo/Timothy D. EasleyKentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, the 2023 Republican nominee for governor
Cameron, 37, would have made history as the first Black Republican governor in the country since the Reconstruction era.
Cameron previously made national headlines for his handling of the investigation into Louisville police officers involved in Breonna Taylor‘s 2020 killing. In that case, his office opted not to seek criminal charges for the officers who fired at Taylor, leading to widespread protests against the decision. (The federal Justice Department later announced civil rights charges against four Louisville police officers in relation to her death.)
Kentucky’s 2023 gubernatorial race was closely watched, with many political pollsters speculating that it could signify how next year’s presidential race will play out in the state. Kentucky has not given its Electoral College votes to a Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton‘s 1996 reelection bid.
