<Former President Donald Trump suggested that an "enemy from within" could threaten Election Day security, saying in an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday that "if necessary" the National Guard or military may have to intervene, sparking alarm online.

On Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, Bartiromo asked Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, "What are you expecting? Joe Biden said he doesn't think it's going to be a peaceful Election Day."

During a White House press briefing, Biden said last week that he is confident that the upcoming election will be "free and fair," but said he was concerned about the transfer of power being peaceful on account of Trump's words and actions following his loss in 2020.

Trump responded, "I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within...We have some very bad people, some sick people, radical left lunatics. And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military."

At another point during the interview, he said, "We have two enemies. We have the outside enemy. And, and then we have the enemy from within. And the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia, and all these countries."

Steven Cheung, Trump's campaign spokesperson, told Newsweek in an email Sunday night: "President Trump is 100% correct—those who seek to undermine democracy by sowing chaos in our elections are a direct threat, just like the terrorist from Afghanistan that was arrested for plotting multiple attacks on Election Day within the United States."

On October 8, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a criminal complaint against Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi for "conspiring to conduct an Election Day terrorist attack in the United States on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)," according to the department's press release.

The former president's "enemy from within" comments raised concern on social media.

A video segment of the interview has been widely circulating on X, formerly Twitter, with over 2.9 million views as of Sunday evening.

New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser reposted the X video and wrote, "The enemy within. Straight up language of dictators and tyrants, who want to use the military on their own people."

Trump made a controversial comment about being a dictator while speaking with Fox News' Sean Hannity in December 2023, telling the host that he won't be a dictator in his hypothetical second term "except on day one."

"We're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator," he said.

His drilling comment was a reference to his vow to expand oil drilling in the United States. He later said that the comments were in a "joking manner." Trump also said that "I'm not going to have time for retribution."

In reference to his December comment, lawyer, musician, and broadcaster Steve Martin, replied on X to a video segment of the Sunday exchange and wrote: "If he wins he will declare Martial Law the first day. That's why he says he only wants one day as dictator."

Jon Favreau, former President Barack Obama's speechwriter and Pod Save America co-host, said of the exchange on X, "Donald Trump floats sending the U.S. military after U.S. citizens who don't support him."

Ian Sams, a spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign, released a statement on Sunday in a campaign email: "Donald Trump is suggesting that his fellow Americans are worse 'enemies' than foreign adversaries, and he is saying he would use the military against them. This should alarm every American who cares about their freedom and security. What Donald Trump is promising is dangerous, and returning him to office is simply a risk Americans cannot afford."

Election Day this year is November 5 and it will be the first presidential election since 2020, and the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The former president currently faces four felony counts related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results leading up to the riot where thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden's 2020 election victory. Trump maintains his innocence in the case and says it is politically motivated.

The riot erupted following claims from Trump that the election had been stolen from him via widespread voter fraud, despite there being no evidence to back up his claims. The insurrection resulted in one protester being killed and dozens of police officers injured.>

<Republican lawsuits in Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina challenging the legitimacy of overseas ballots have prompted a backlash among military personnel, their spouses, veterans and elected officials.

Scores of veterans and active-duty members of the armed forces have posted online or contacted their elected representatives out of concern that their votes might not be counted. Military and elected leaders, along with voting rights advocates, have decried the lawsuits as well, calling them a betrayal to the men and women serving the country overseas.

“Literally, these are the people who are putting it all on the line for what we have in America,” said Allison Jaslow, an Army veteran who served in Iraq and now is chief executive of the nonprofit Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “And we’re going to compromise their ability to have a say in how they vote for who sends them to war? It’s just beyond the pale.”

A group of House Democrats over the weekend called on Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to guarantee that overseas Americans, including those serving in the armed forces, retain their right to participate fully in U.S. elections, after six Pennsylvania Republican members of Congress filed a lawsuit last week.

The Democrats said they had heard from constituents domestically and overseas after The Washington Post reported on the lawsuits. The Pennsylvania suit asks a federal judge to order that all overseas ballots, including those from military personnel and their families, be set aside and the identities of the voters confirmed before the votes are counted.

The Republican National Committee filed separate lawsuits in Michigan and North Carolina last week alleging that the states allow “overseas citizens who never lived in either state to illegally vote,” according to a news release. Both states allow people born to parents who were previously legal state residents to cast ballots.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) asked a judge Monday to sanction the RNC for what she described in a filing as a “frivolous” lawsuit.

Cleta Mitchell, one of the lawyers who helped former president Donald Trump challenge his defeat in Georgia in the last election cycle, worked with leaders in Pennsylvania on the lawsuit, she told The Post. Mitchell said protocols around overseas voting are “porous,” creating ample opportunities for noncitizens to request ballots and vote illegally.

Mitchell said those who support the lawsuit are not trying to disenfranchise eligible voters but rather trying to firm up a system that makes it too easy for those not entitled to vote in U.S. elections to cast ballots.

She said state-level failures “have created a very unstable, nonverified and nonverifiable voting program that is easily exploited and manipulated.”

Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.), an Army veteran whose district is home to 40,000 veterans and military families as well as the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, called the Republican lawsuits “an attempt to disenfranchise literal active duty military members who are overseas, risking their life for our country,” as well as their families. Ryan is among the Democrats who signed the letter to Austin.

Joseph Votel, a retired four-star Army general, said in an interview that he was shocked to learn of the lawsuit and compared it to a “hostage-taking” of the votes of men and women who have taken an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution.

“I would just say as a retired senior military officer and somebody that served overseas and did vote a number of times by absentee ballot very, very frequently, that the expectation of our military members and their roles as citizens is that their votes will count,” Votel said.

In the letter sent to Austin on Saturday and reviewed by The Post, Ryan, along with Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) and others, requested “further clarification” on how Austin plans to protect voting rights among Pennsylvania residents living abroad.

Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder said in statement that Austin “believes that service members serving overseas, eligible family members and U.S. citizens overseas have the right to vote, and DOD will continue to work to help them do so.”

The ballots in question are governed by a federal law known as the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which requires states to allow eligible Americans living overseas, including military personnel, to vote in federal elections. Although many states require overseas voters to provide identification such as a driver’s license or passport, Pennsylvania does not. The Republican House members who filed the suit said that makes those ballots vulnerable to fraud....>

<....President Joe Biden issued an executive order in March 2021 requiring Austin, as the head of the Defense Department, to facilitate voting among both military and nonmilitary Americans abroad. The Democrats who signed the letter called on Austin to enforce that order, and also asked him to explore whether the Republican lawsuit could threaten the constitutional rights of overseas Americans.

“While some of our colleagues are actively seeking to sow discord and misinformation, we urge you to carry out President Biden’s executive order and Federal Law to the best of your ability and ensure that all Americans have their constitutionally guaranteed right to participate in federal elections,” the lawmakers wrote.

Overseas voting has traditionally been supported by both Republicans and Democrats because of how many uniformed Americans use it. Even in 2020, when Trump attempted to discredit domestic absentee balloting in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, he and his allies did not attack overseas voting.

The Pennsylvania lawsuit is notable for targeting a group of voters that was long thought to favor Republicans because of the prevalence of military personnel stationed overseas, but is now seen as more evenly divided or even leaning Democratic. The suit adds to a long list of Republican-backed litigation around the country with just weeks to go before the Nov. 5 election, with much of it aimed at disqualifying mail-in votes or removing ineligible voters from rolls.

While in the Army, Jaslow said, one of her duties was serving as a voting assistance officer, helping service members understand their rights, how to register to vote and how to vote absentee. The point, she said, is to make sure that service members follow the rules and understand them.

For voting purposes, service members can declare either where they lived before entering the military or a later address, but they must declare one, according to an Army guide on the issue.

Pat Moore, senior counsel for Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign, said it’s notable that none of the three lawsuits mentions an example of an ineligible voter casting a ballot from overseas. He said that roughly 20,000 overseas voters from Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina apiece cast ballots in the 2020 election.

It’s clear, Moore added, that Republicans are calculating that overseas votes overall, including civilians, will favor Harris.

“If six Republican congressmen want to go on record saying they are harmed by military voters casting ballots, be our guest,” Moore said.

Six of Pennsylvania’s eight Republican congressmen signed on to that lawsuit. Among them is Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), an Army veteran who served in the military for 40 years. All of the lawmakers who brought the case voted against accepting Pennsylvania’s electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, despite no evidence of widespread fraud. Perry’s phone was seized by the FBI during the Justice Department’s investigation into the attempt to activate Trump’s presidential electors in states he had lost, part of the effort to reverse the 2020 presidential election. Perry’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In addition to Perry, the Republican House members who brought the suit are: Guy Reschenthaler, Dan Meuser, Glenn Thompson, Lloyd Smucker and Mike Kelly. All are seeking reelection this year.

Ryan said that soon after news of the lawsuit circulated, he heard from multiple local Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion leaders as well as veterans in his district who were “really stunned” by the effort.

“This is an attack on the voting rights of veterans and a lot of other Americans from Trump cronies who have no respect for the law,” Ryan said.

The backlash has apparently cooled efforts by Republicans to remove people from voter rolls they claim are not eligible, in some cases using unreliable data to claim that the individuals are not residents of the states where they are registered. On Monday, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and Attorney General Aaron Ford, both Democrats, announced a settlement with a longtime conservative activist in the state who had been seeking to remove scores of names from registration rolls, some of them people serving in the military overseas.

The activist, Chuck Muth, said he would screen out Army post office addresses in future voter-roll challenges.>

<If Democrats aren't panicking yet, they might want to start. The Kamala Harris honeymoon is over, and the glow has dissipated.

In six of the seven battleground states, former President Donald Trump now shows a slight lead in the polls. An NBC News poll released Sunday shows Harris and Trump tied in the national vote.

We are three weeks out from Election Day and one thing has become clear: Trump might actually win.

A Trump win would raise a lot of questions for Republicans. He's an objectively bad candidate who doesn't represent conservatism well.

However, it would raise even more questions for Democrats. How could they have lost to such a uniquely awful opponent?

Democrats chose poorly − twice

If Trump wins this election, it will expose the Democrats' weakness in choosing a nominee and relaying party ideas. In that case, they'll have backed inept candidates not once but twice this year. How embarrassing.

President Joe Biden barely won the 2020 election with 7 million votes. Since then, he has declined physically and mentally. Propping him up as the Democratic nominee earlier this year was not just unwise but unscrupulous.

Opinion: What did Kamala Harris know about Biden's deteriorating health? And when did she know it?

The Democratic Party knew Biden was unwell and hoped no one would notice. In June, the presidential debate against Trump exposed his decline.

Democrats then hastily replaced Biden with his vice president. Never mind that she had not won a single primary, that their collective approval ranking was tanking and that her politics are much more extreme than Biden's.

It was either pick Harris or go on with Biden, who Democrats feared would lose in a landslide.

Democrats are too extreme

If you listen to Democrats and the news media, the GOP is the party of extremists and idiots. There are fringe folks on the right, to be sure. But far-left extremists have found a home in the Democratic Party as well.

In the past couple of decades, the Democratic Party has built its foundation around far-left ideas. If Trump wins reelection, it will be yet another indication that much of the nation has rejected such progressive policies.

Harris' economic plans center on government handouts and government control. What other candidate espouses giving away billions of taxpayers' dollars for down payments for first-time homebuyers? Not even the Obama administration did that.

Harris and her running mate's social policies are no better: As governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz signed legislation that allows abortion essentially without restrictions, made Minnesota a sanctuary state for transgender youth and expanded access to driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants.

Sophistry is common among politicians. We've gotten used to it. But Harris and Walz have taken dishonest campaigning to a new level.

A Trump win might reveal that voters, including some who usually support Democrats, are tired of the party's extremism. It also could demonstrate that voters may not support identity politics as much as the Democratic Party wishes they would.

The GOP could win a trifecta

Republicans could very well come out of this election in strong shape, controlling not only the White House but also both houses of Congress. They appear to be on track to win the Senate.

Control of the House looks like a toss-up for now, but the GOP might retain the majority after Election Day.

With a Republican majority in the Senate, Trump could enact solid reforms and end Biden policies that have wreaked havoc on Americans.

Trump also might be able to extend his soon-to-expire tax cuts, rescind Biden's executive orders on his obscene student loan forgiveness plan and start to enforce federal laws on border security and migration....>

<....Trump seems like an easy candidate to beat

Of all the candidates who [sic] Republicans could have nominated, one would think that Democrats could most easily defeat Trump again. Embarrassingly easy [sic].

Trump is a childish, narcissistic buffoon who wants power more than he loves his country. He's a dishonest misogynist who happily defies political norms. He's a charlatan who has captured a sect of Republicans in a way that's alarming. He can't speak without rambling about nonsense. He refuses to seek advice, admit wrongdoing or work to improve himself.

Nonetheless, I do believe that conservative policies are always better for Americans. In fact, they're so good, Democrats like former President Bill Clinton espoused them.

If Trump wins, it won't be because of his stellar candidacy. It will be because the Democratic Party − its candidates and its ideas − was much weaker than expected.

And if Trump could enact a few decent conservative policies while in office, thanks to a GOP majority in the Senate, it would be a massive improvement to the past four years. A few policy changes might steer America back in the right direction.

Trump's success on Election Day would showcase just how weak the Democratic Party really is in America.>

<Ever since Donald Trump arrived on the national political scene in 2015, he has displayed a perplexing and troubling attitude toward freedom of speech. At one moment he tries to sell himself as a vigorous advocate for freedom of expression. At another, when someone says something that he does not like or threatens his political interests, Trump will not only denounce the speaker but will call for drastic measures to curtail the offending speech. We were reminded of that again last week by his fury at CBS News for its interview with his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. That fury was first expressed in ways that respect the boundaries and traditions of free expression in the country. But that didn’t last long before Trump called for the punishment of the major broadcaster.

Perhaps this should not be surprising from someone as notoriously thin-skinned as Donald Trump. He is like the boxer who can throw a punch but can’t take one. Trump cannot abide any slight or deviation from Trumpian orthodoxy.

Of course, what the former president does not understand is that the protection of free expression is most needed when speech is unpopular, offensive, or heretical. Or maybe he does understand, but prefers a speech environment compatible with his authoritarian style of leadership and his excessive need for flattery and approval.

Either way, Americans cannot count on Donald Trump to protect or respect freedom of expression when it most needs protection and respect. Let’s consider Trump’s effort to convince us that he will.

In 2016, during his first campaign for the presidency, Trump said he would put protecting free speech near the top of his agenda. In October of that year at a rally in Ohio, he asked his audience “Do you want free speech?” and responded to their enthusiastic applause, “You’ll have it.”

The 2016 Republican platform that Trump helped fashion contained a separate section on freedom of speech. In that section, the GOP said it opposed any “restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas.”

In his acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump promised to "protect free speech for all Americans."

Three years later when he was president, Trump tried to burnish his free speech credentials while also using free speech claims to intimidate those whose understanding of free speech did not align with his own. He did so when he signed an Executive Order on campus free speech. It directed agencies to withhold federal funds from colleges that did not promote “free inquiry.”

And, over the last year, when judges issued gag orders against him in his various legal trials, Trump cried foul and alleged that they violated his freedom of speech.

In September, the former president again waved the First Amendment flag. He said that if he is returned to the White House, he would “bring back free speech in America ‘because it’s being taken away.’” But for all his talk, it is clear that Trump is no card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

As Reason’s Damon Root points out, “This is the same Trump who favors government censorship of the internet in order to suppress speech that he finds objectionable. It's the same Trump who favors gutting libel laws in order to make it easier for him to silence journalists who write unkind things about him. It's the same Trump who wants the government to forcibly shutter houses of worship in which people might say, read, or think unpopular things.”

Trump's attack on CBS fits into the profile that Root outlines.

Among other things, Trump complained that CBS had colluded with the Harris campaign to make her look “presidential.” “I’ve never seen this before,” he said, “but the producers of '60 Minutes' sliced and diced (‘cut and pasted’) Lyin’ Kamala’s answers to questions, which were virtually incoherent, over and over again, some by as many as four times in a single sentence or thought, all in an effort, possibly illegal as part of the ‘News Division,’ which must be licensed, to make her look ‘more Presidential,’ or a [sic] least, better.”

He went back to his familiar playbook and denounced “60 Minutes” for presenting what he dubbed a “Fake News Scam.” Trump claimed that “Her REAL ANSWER (to a question about Israel) WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better.”

Trump was right that what was presented on “60 Minutes” was not the complete answer to the question she was asked by the interviewer, Bill Whittaker, about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was listening to the Biden Administration....>

<....CBS edited her response, with one part of it used as a teaser on its Sunday morning show “Face the Nation” and the other part saved for broadcast the next night on “60 Minutes.” And Trump is not alone in his criticism of the way CBS handled the Harris interview.

The New York Daily News reports that “Former CBS News staffers are demanding an independent investigation into ‘60 Minutes’ over” what the paper hyped as “the brewing Kamala Harris interview scandal.”

Editing of interviews or speeches is common in broadcast journalism, and Trump critics have their own complaints about the practice. They worry that the full insanity and incoherence of what Trump says every day on the stump is lost in the snippets of his speeches that make it to news broadcasts. This kind of criticism is the very stuff of free expression. But Trump’s reaction to the Harris interview went much further and crossed a First Amendment red line.

Trump accused “60 Minutes” of doing something that “is totally illegal,” and then demanded “TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE.” He elaborated his charge and broadened his demand for punishment.

“60 Minutes,” Trump said, “is a major part of the News Organization of CBS, which has just created the Greatest Fraud in Broadcast History. CBS should lose its license, and it should be bid out to the Highest Bidder, as should all other Broadcast Licenses, because they are just as corrupt as CBS – and maybe even WORSE!”

The Chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, called Trump’s threat “serious” and said it “should not be ignored.” She stated unequivocally, “The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

What Trump said about CBS was not the first time he has gone after a news media outlet. Several weeks ago, after ABC hosted the presidential debate which he lost, he targeted it. “ABC took a big hit last night" Trump observed before arguing that the network ought to lose “their license for the way they did that."

And, on October 10, he issued an ominous warning to the New York Times, “Wait until you see what I’m going to do with them, you’re going to have so much fun.”

Some idea of fun.

As MSNBC’s Steve Benen correctly observed, ”There is… a qualitative difference between whining about fact-checking and publicly raising the idea of using governmental power to strip a major American outlet of its broadcasting license.” The latter is part of Trump’s “plan to crack down on the free press” should he be elected in November.

That crackdown would not just damage the press, it would undermine the very fiber and fabric of this country. As former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1960, “Since the earliest days philosophers have dreamed of a country where the mind and spirit of man would be free; where there would be no limits to inquiry; where men would be free to explore the unknown and to challenge the most deeply rooted beliefs and principles.”

Until now, America has been that place. It is up to us to decide if we want to keep it that way.>

<This election season, voters are deciding whether to put Donald Trump back in the White House. Many people know the downside of a second Trump administration, most know he welcomed a violent insurrection — even if many Republicans minimize it. Most people know he lies more than any public figure on record, even if some cynically defend that as just part of politics.

It’s certainly no secret that Trump has changed his position on big things, rather than advancing the same consistent view of policy. Just consider women’s rights and abortion, which is a larger issue than any other for voters right now, according to a new NBC News poll.

That’s a response to Trump-appointed judges helping overturn Roe v. Wade, which led to abortion bans or restrictions in more than 20 states. Those are functionally Trump’s bans because his actions enabled them. He now touts ending Roe as his accomplishment and “honor” even though for most of his adult life he proclaimed himself to be “very pro-choice.” That is a major policy change.

On the same issue, President Joe Biden has also changed over time. In 2006, he told Texas Monthly he did not “view abortion as a choice and a right.” But then Biden’s position shifted. As president, he took administrative action to protect women’s rights after the Dobbs ruling. His Department of Justice is currently taking some red states to court to protect women using abortion medication and traveling for health care.

So what really matters here? Is it a president’s personal beliefs — if they have them — or what they do? Or some combination?

Biden is a lifelong practicing Catholic and that used to shape his policy stances more. Back in the 1970s — a very different time for women’s rights — he said he didn’t like the Roe decision because “it went too far.”

“I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body,” Biden told Washingtonian magazine in 1974.

Now, Biden still says he has a religious view on the topic but, as president of the whole country, he also thinks the Supreme Court precedent in Roe should have been upheld. Just last year he put it plainly, telling a crowd at a Maryland fundraising event, “I’m a practicing Catholic. I’m not big on abortion, but … Roe vs. Wade got it right.”

Biden says he is expressing a nuanced difference between his religious upbringing and his obligations as a leader. In a nation where there are many religious and spiritual views, there is no way to have one religion rule public policy for all....>

<.....While other candidates have emphasized that their religion would not dictate every decision in office, many voters have a common shorthand about choosing candidates whose personal beliefs supposedly should match their own.

However, it is worth noting a contrast here: Voters seek belief alignment with their chosen candidates but the power brokers and insiders who often run things do not do that. They use a very different lens. Many do not care what politicians personally believe — or even what they sometimes say. It’s only what they do in office that matters, and if it can be predicted or shaped.

So on the same issue of abortion, one of the most effective political operations in the U.S. is the anti-abortion movement’s effort to change the courts and the law. Despite Trump’s proclaimed or past beliefs on the issue, they did just that. They focused not on what Trump had said in the past, but whether they could get him to appoint anti-abortion judges if he won.

The leader of this effort is Leonard Leo, a conservative power broker who heads the Marble Freedom Trust and chairs the Federalist Society. Leo has been involved in every Republican Supreme Court pick in the modern era, deploying incredible wealth into these efforts. ProPublica calls him “The Man Behind the Right’s Supreme Court Supermajority.” Leo largely moves behind the scenes, but I did ask him about this in an interview at Cornell Law School in 2019.

Leo told me how he spoke to then-candidate Trump in 2016, who suggested he release a list of Supreme Court picks he would consider if elected. In an example of how power brokers work, Leo told me about how he handed then-candidate Trump a list of suggested names. When Trump released that list of Leo-handpicked judges to the public, he showed political insiders he could give them a plan, not a belief system.

This approach is not confined to any one issue. Other examples reveal how power brokers often look beyond the candidates’ “proclaimed values.” Just take tech billionaire Peter Thiel, an early Trump backer who spoke at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Thiel hired and advanced Sen. JD Vance from employee to candidate to Trump endorsee. In 2021, he brought Vance to a meeting with the former president, helping the then-candidate secure Trump’s backing.

In order to score Trump’s endorsement, Vance had to reverse the core story he used to rise to national prominence, a book tour slamming Trump’s influence on the GOP. In a matter of months, Vance went from “Never Trump” to “Always Trump.” Some can view that as just a cynical part of politics but, for Vance backers, it shows the Ohio senator can be shaped into virtually anything.

That is the contrast at the heart of this year’s race and the reality of political beliefs in the MAGA era: Where some see a candidate’s malleability as a liability, power brokers see it as a bonus.>

<The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a ruling against a Texas citizen journalist whom police arrested for asking the government questions, injecting new life into a free speech case that essentially asked if reporters working outside traditional media are entitled to a weaker version of the First Amendment.

Journalist Priscilla Villarreal's lawsuit will now go back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The judges there ruled 9–7 earlier this year that it was not clearly unconstitutional when law enforcement in Laredo, Texas, leveraged an obscure Texas statute to try to punish her for her reporting.

Known in Laredo as "Lagordiloca"—which translates roughly to "the fat, crazy lady"—Villarreal has built a large Facebook following over the years by livestreaming directly from crime scenes and traffic accidents. She is a celebrity around town, known for her colorful and profane commentary, as well as for her muckraking, which has zeroed in at times on law enforcement misconduct.

That's why, she says, the police devised a way to retaliate against her. "They were just looking for something to arrest me," Villarreal told me in Laredo last November. "Because I was exposing the corruption, I was exposing them being cruel to detainees….They were doing things they weren't supposed to."

In 2017, law enforcement zeroed in on her after she published a story about a family involved in a fatal traffic accident and another about a Border Patrol agent who'd committed suicide. Villarreal corroborated her information with a source within the Laredo Police Department, which then arrested her for doing so.

To set that in motion, the government invoked a statute that criminalizes soliciting nonpublic information if the person asking intended to "benefit" from it. Law enforcement said Villarreal personally gained from her reporting by getting attention on Facebook. Though it appears to have been written to discourage government corruption, the police used the law to make a crime out of standard journalism: seeking information not yet known and publishing it.

Despite looking to many ideologically diverse organizations—from Christian conservatives to libertarians to progressives—like a textbook violation of the First Amendment, Villarreal had mixed results in court. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas gave the public employees qualified immunity, which blocks federal civil suits against state and local government actors if the way in which they allegedly violated the Constitution had not yet been "clearly established" in prior case law. That opinion was then forcefully overturned by the 5th Circuit. "If that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution," wrote Judge James C. Ho, "it's hard to imagine what would be."

But that conclusion ruffled some feathers on the same court, which voted to have the full spread of judges—as opposed to the typical three-person panel—re-hear the case. In January, a sharply divided 5th Circuit reversed that decision. "Villarreal and others portray her as a martyr for the sake of journalism. That is inappropriate," wrote Judge Edith Jones for the majority. "Mainstream, legitimate media outlets routinely withhold the identity of accident victims or those who committed suicide until public officials or family members release that information publicly." The defendants were again given qualified immunity.

The Supreme Court's ruling today throws out that decision and adds yet another reversal to Villarreal's collection. The justices ordered the 5th Circuit to reconsider in light of the high court's recent guidance in Gonzalez v. Trevino, in which the majority last summer made it easier for victims of retaliatory arrests to get their day in court. Gonzalez, too, centered on a woman who was allegedly targeted and arrested for her speech, and the Court's ruling there also overturned a decision from the 5th Circuit.>

Had to know Edith Jones and James Ho would lead the fight to circumscribe others' rights....

<A Georgia judge on Tuesday temporarily halted a rule requiring clerks to verify vote totals by hand counting ballots in the 2024 election.

Judge Robert McBurney said in his Tuesday ruling that it was appropriate to pause the change because it introduced fresh uncertainty into the process just weeks before Election Day.

"Anything that adds uncertainty and disorder to the electoral process disserves the public," according to a copy of the decision posted by Democracy Docket, a website that tracks election cases.

The Georgia Election Board in August empowered county election board members to investigate discrepancies between the number of ballots cast and voters in each precinct, and examine a trove of election-related documents before certifying their results.

The board's 3-2 vote was powered by three allies of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who lost to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia in the 2020 election and made false claims of widespread voting fraud.

"From the beginning, this rule was an effort to delay election results to sow doubt in the outcome, and our democracy is stronger thanks to this decision to block it," according to the statement from Quentin Fulks, a spokesperson for the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, Democratic National Committee co-executive director Monica Guardiola and congresswoman Nikema Williams.>

Choke on it, obstructionist m*****f******!!

<A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen’s attempted purge of supposed non-U.S. citizens violates the law.

District Judge Anna Manasco’s decision followed Allen’s announcement that he was removing over 3,200 people from the state’s voter rolls on Aug. 13. Under the National Voter Registration Act, states are prohibited from removing voters from the rolls during a 90-day “quiet period” prior to an election.

This year, that period began on Aug. 7. A group of nonprofits representing Alabama residents and the Department of Justice filed separate lawsuits challenging the purge.

Allen “blew the deadline when he announced a purge program to begin eighty-four days before the 2024 General Election,” Manasco’s decision states.

While Allen’s purge order purported to target noncitizens, at least 22% of the people removed from the voter rolls were actually U.S. citizens. In the Justice Department lawsuit, lawyers noted that more than 700 people targeted by the purge re-registered — a sign that they were citizens all along — after Allen ordered their registrations to be deactivated. These citizens were not only purged from the rolls but referred to the state attorney general for prosecution.

Manasco’s decision orders Allen to halt and reverse the voter purge program by directing county clerks to restore the purged persons to active voter status and to send them letters explaining that they are eligible to vote in the November election unless they are actually not U.S. citizens or had filed a removal request.

Allen’s purge is part of a concerted Republican campaign to foment fear that the 2024 election could be stolen due to noncitizen voting. GOP secretaries of state and governors across the country have announced sweeping purges of supposed noncitizens from the voter rolls. Noncitizen voting, however, is not only illegal but also vanishingly rare. And since noncitizen voting is so rare, it is no surprise that almost all of these purges sweep up actual U.S. citizens, as Allen’s purge did.

Alabama is one of two states led by Republicans that have faced lawsuits for violating the 90-day quiet period. In Virginia, GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order launching his own noncitizen purge program on Aug. 7 — the day the quiet period began. A group of national nonprofits and the Department of Justice have sued, separately, to stop it.>

<Over the last few years, elections for public education officials have gone from overlooked and low-profile to heated and politicized affairs, a shift that’s due in large part to conservatives increasingly eyeing schools as places where they can wield significant influence and enact a specific agenda.

Moms for Liberty, a far-right group that popped up in Florida during the COVID pandemic and has since campaigned nationwide for a variety of conservative causes, is a significant driver of this shift. The so-called “parental rights” organization has thrown its support behind school board candidates across the country who have gone on to ban books, pass policies that hurt LGBTQ+ kids, and limit what teachers can do and say in their classrooms.

In 2022, more than half of the candidates endorsed by Moms for Liberty won their races, with those in Florida seeing particular success. But the following year, the group’s high-profile attempts in Pennsylvania were largely a dud.

This year, the group said it has identified 77 candidates for endorsements but has not publicly released the list.

“We continue to strive to have all voters across the country engage in their local school board elections and get to know the candidates because we know that change happens at the local level,” Moms for Liberty co-founders Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich said in an emailed statement to HuffPost. “We have seen an incredible win rate the past two years that shows the power of our grassroots organization and we are excited to see that same kind of win rate this year.”

But even as the group keeps a lower public profile than it has during previous elections, its impact is clear. Across the country, far-right extremists are looking to get on school boards and reshape public schooling.

The blueprint for a right-wing, Moms for Liberty-style candidate has been made, and conservatives are following it. These candidates typically rail against “critical race theory,” a college-level academic framework for understanding structural racism that has been co-opted by conservatives to mean talking about race at all and making white people feel uncomfortable. They falsely claim books about gender or sexual identity are inherently pornographic. They may smear teachers as groomers, and make sure transgender children are targeted and ostracized at school.

Parental rights and fighting to keep trans kids from playing sports are now Republican talking points at all levels of government.

“The work of Moms for Liberty hasn’t been as visible. But the rhetoric they use and their candidates are very much visible,” Tamika Walker Kelly, the president of the North Carolina Association of Educators, told HuffPost.

In blue, red, and purple states alike, this election is shaping up to have dozens of hotly contested school board races that feature right-wing candidates going up against their more liberal counterparts and hoping to shape the next generation of public school students.

North Carolina

There is perhaps no state where more is on the line for public education than North Carolina. Some of the largest school districts in the state could end up with an ultraconservative majority, and the Republican candidate for the top statewide educational role attended the Jan. 6, 2021, rally at the U.S. Capitol and has no experience in education.

The Wake County school board, the state’s largest school system, is at the epicenter of the fight for North Carolina’s schools. Five of the board’s nine seats are up for grabs.

This isn’t the first time right-wingers have tried to influence Wake County schools. In 2009, after a Tea Party takeover of the school board led to the erosion of long-term integration policies, the Democrats took action and have managed to keep the school board liberal for the last decade and a half.

But now, Republicans in Wake County are trying to make inroads in the schools again. Conservative activists have tried banning books in the county and recently ginned up a moral panic about sexually explicit content in schools after a high school student claimed a book she read in class was inappropriate. (The book in question was “Tomorrow Is Too Far” by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, which depicts a relationship between cousins and has the line “he tried to fit what you both called his banana into what you both called your tomato.”)

To Democrats, the GOP vision is clear. “Their goal is to make public schools go away,” Kevyn Creech, the chair of the Wake County Democrats, told HuffPost. “They want to get rid of the Department of Education, make everything religious, and privatize it all.”.....>

<....Democratic leaders are particularly worried because a Republican win for state superintendent, coupled with GOP victories at the county level, could create the perfect storm.

The state superintendent for public instruction oversees more than 2,500 schools in North Carolina and an $11 billion budget. The race is between Democrat Mo Green, the former superintendent of Guilford County schools, and Republican Michele Morrow, who homeschooled her own children.

After defeating the Republican incumbent in March, Morrow made headlines when CNN discovered that she had attended the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection with her children. (There is no evidence that she entered the Capitol building or committed any crimes.) She has also called for the execution of prominent Democrats and made a video saying former President Donald Trump should use the U.S. military to stay in power after he lost the election in 2020.

Morrow ran for school board in Wake County in 2022 and lost by 20 points. As a candidate for superintendent, she has lobbed homophobic and transphobic attacks at Green and vowed to rid the state’s schools of diversity, equity and inclusion programs and censor what teachers can say in the classroom.

Educators believe that a Morrow win will set the state’s schools on a dark path.

“Morrow and her extremist agenda will push our public schools further behind,” Walker Kelly said. “We will continue to see the further underfunding and disrespect of our public school system.”

The state superintendent would work closely with the Republican-led North Carolina General Assembly — meaning Morrow could wield influence over the schools and usher in her extremist agenda, which centers white conservative Christian ideology.

“As a department of the state, there’s still enough power to do damage to public schools,” Walker Kelly said.

South Carolina

In South Carolina, the school board race in Berkeley County, a Charleston suburb, is shaping up to feature right-wing candidates looking to further entrench a Moms for Liberty-style agenda against a slate of candidates who have branded themselves as the “education over politics” group. Five of the board’s nine seats are up for grabs.

Moms for Liberty has already made its mark in the county. In 2022, six of the new board members were endorsed by the group. One of their first actions was to fire the superintendent and ban critical race theory.

Last year, Angelina Davenport, a parent in the school district and a Moms for Liberty member, challenged 93 books in the Berkeley County school district, leading to a costly and time-intensive review of each book. Now she’s running for school board on a parental rights platform.

At a school board meeting, she said the books she challenged were “unconstitutional and ungodly.”

“Why is it acceptable to make choices for my child, choices I’m not included in, choices I do not agree with?” she said. Board members told Davenport was free to opt her child out of any material she found objectionable.

Maryland

Further north in Maryland, there’s yet another school board race with at least one extreme candidate.

In Anne Arundel County, home to the state’s capital of Annapolis, all seven seats on the board are open. One candidate, Chuck Yocum, is running on parental rights and barring transgender students from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity. His campaign website features a long screed about how public schools used to be good but have been ruined by teachers unions and the creation of the Department of Education.

“Unions, once held in high regard as fighting for fairness are fighting to take parents rights and put biological males in female locker rooms and sports,” he wrote. “Something that until about five minutes ago would have gotten a young man arrested. Now, it’s encouraged.”

Yocum used to be a high school teacher and was fired from his job in 1993 after being charged with child sexual abuse. He was acquitted at trial the following year and worked in administrative positions until he retired this year.>

<One of the EU’s most senior politicians has branded Elon Musk a “promoter of evil” in a major escalation of the war of words between Brussels and the outspoken tech billionaire.

Věra Jourová, a Czech politician who is in charge of the commission’s work on online misinformation and hate speech, said Mr Musk is “not able to recognise good and evil” and called X – formerly known as Twitter – “the main hub for spreading anti-Semitism”.

Ms Jourová is leaving Brussels after a five-year stint as the EU’s vice president for values and transparency. She was EU commissioner for justice from 2014 to 2019.

She has previously attacked X for easing rules on content moderation since Mr Musk bought Twitter and rebranded it two years ago.

“We started to relativise evil, and he’s helping it proactively. He’s the promoter of evil,” Ms Jourová told Politico. She added that while she had never met him, “even without this personal meeting, I would say that out of all the bosses I met, he is the only one who is not able to recognise good and evil”.

Since Musk took over Twitter, it has become an increasing target of Brussels regulators.

The EU has accused the company of breaking its new social media rules through its paid-for “blue tick” verification service, saying that it means users could be deceived. The claims could lead to a multimillion-euro fine.

Mr Musk alleged the commission had offered him a “secret deal” in which the company would avoid a fine if it agreed to censor content and vowed a “very public battle in court”. The claim was denied by Brussels.

The company, which has closed its Brussels office, has also been accused of breaking advertising transparency rules and has been investigated over claims it is allowing posts promoting Hamas. In July the EU said the investigation into this matter was still ongoing, having charged X with other breaches related to transparency rules. It has so far not been charged with issues related to promoting Hamas.

Thierry Breton, one of the bloc’s top tech regulators, was accused of meddling in the US election when he wrote to Mr Musk on the eve of a live streamed interview between the billionaire and Donald Trump, warning X to comply with EU laws on inciting violence and hate. Mr Breton has since retired from his role.

Linda Yaccarino, the chief executive of X, said the letter was an “unprecedented attempt” to stretch EU law to US politics.

The degree of intervention has reportedly led Mr Musk to privately consider blocking X for users in the EU.

X pulled out of a voluntary EU code of practice regarding disinformation, overseen by Ms Jourová, during the early months of Mr Musk’s ownership.>

<Donald Trump doesn't want details from Jan. 6 evidence against him to be released to the public until after the Nov. 5 election, according to a Thursday morning court filing.

That evidence had been schedule to be released Thursday.

Trump faces federal criminal charges for what Smith alleges in a court filing was a "criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election."

The former president faces criminal charges for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a violent pro-Trump mob intent on stopping congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

In a Thursday legal filing, Trump's lawyers objected to public release of the detailed evidence against him, asking the court to block public release of the evidence until Nov. 14.

Trump's lawyers said in their motion, it is "essential that the public fully understand the arguments and documents on both sides of this momentous issue, and is not misled by one-sided submissions."

A Smith motion in the case Oct. 2 said Trump is seeking immunity for his Jan. 6 actions, claiming they were official presidential acts.

Smith argued in that motion that Trump is not immune because Trump acted privately as a candidate Jan. 6 "when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted-a function in which the defendant, as president, had no official role."

Smith said the evidence "provides a comprehensive account of the defendant's private criminal conduct."

Trump's lawyers said in their filing that keeping the evidence details from the voting public until after the election serve's the public's interest "in ensuring that this case does not unduly interfere, or appear to interfere, with the ongoing election."

They said a stay on releasing the evidence would make sure that Smith's Jan. 6 criminal election conspiracy evidence "is accompanied by President Trump's rebuttal."

The evidence in question was an attachment to Smith's immunity motion unsealed two weeks ago by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkin that was to be unsealed Thursday.

Chutkin has maintained that whether or not evidence in the case is damaging to Trump politically is not and should not be a consideration in the court case, which should be guided only by the administration of justice.

The Oct. 2 special counsel court filing said Trump "resorted to crimes to try to stay in office.">

<A bit of lagniappe before we get to how Judge Tanya Chutkan has explained it all to us. Down in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis attempted to stifle ads in favor of a Florida reproductive-rights referendum by threatening the television stations thinking of running them. Naturally, the TV stations went to court and, on Thursday, the court agreed with them, kicked DeSantis in the jewels for good measure, a delivered an opinion with the greatest punchline in legal history. Take it away, federal judge Mark Walker:

The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945) (Jackson, J., concurring). “In this field every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.” Id. To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it’s the First Amendment, stupid."

Cue the music.

Anyway, on to the main event. Judge Chutkan began by speaking a long-neglected truth in her order to unseal the 2,000 pages of redacted documentary evidence that was compiled by Jack Smith's shop. She effectively demolished the threadbare argument that doing so would interfere in the election and she did so by turning it on its head.

If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access— withholding could itself constitute — or appear to be — election interference

And with that, we were off to examine, in minute detail, with footnotes, Jack Smith's findings on what the former president* recently referred to as a "day of love" on the National Mall and the U.S. Capitol. Obviously, it's going to take a while to assimilate the massive amount of information contained therein, but there are some highlights that jump out immediately.

The four volumes of material are severely redacted, but all that means, as my friend Glenn Kirschner points out on Xwitter, is that Jack Smith is still grinding away. But there are some silver-studded highlights, like the actual documents signed by the conspirators in the fake electors scheme, including the culprits in the several states where the plot was undertaken. The fourth volume takes a close look at the activities undertaken by the former president* and Jack Eastman, the now-disbarred lawyer who first came up with every crazy idea that the former president* ate up with gusto.

There is a description of a downright bonkers plan to steal the election after the "safe harbor" deadline cooked up by someone whose name is redacted but who presented it to the former president*.

In Volume V, there is a memo, marked personal and confidential, that is indicative of a White House so deep into its own product that it will do anything, including smash the Constitution to rubble, in order to have Mike Pence decline to certify the election. It reads, in bold type and identified in the document as:

But this election was stolen by a strategic Democrat [sic] plan to systematically flout existing election laws for partisan advantage: we're no longer playing by Queensbury Rules, therefore,

The main thing here is that VP Pence should exercise his 12th Amendment authority without asking for permission -- either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his action in court where [redacted] (who, in 2001, conceded that the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the (electoral) vots [sic] and others who would press a lawsuit...would have their past position -- that these are non-judiciable political questions -- thrown back at them to get their lawsuit dismissed. The face is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter.

If the illegality and fraud that demonstrably occurred here is allowed to stand -- and the Supreme Court has signaled unmistakably that it will not do anything about it -- then the sovereign people no longer control the direction of the government and we will have ceased to be a self-governing people. The stakes could not be higher.

Dozens of courts subsequently have proved that the factual basis for this proposal is utterly false, but as that noted constitutional authority Sam Spade reminds us, the cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter.

More, I guarantee you, to follow.>

<It was a windy Monday in eastern Pennsylvania. As shoppers walked out of two local supermarkets, gusts whipped their grocery bags, threatening to leave a mess of milk, chicken breast, and cereal in the parking lot. Losing groceries would be a blow for many of the shoppers I spoke with, whose votes are disproportionately important in the presidential election that's less than three weeks away.

Forks and Palmer townships are in Northampton, one of only two bellwether counties in Pennsylvania — it went for former President Barack Obama twice, former President Donald Trump in 2016, and President Joe Biden in 2020 by less than 1 percentage point. The county's Democratic-leaning cities of Easton and Bethlehem are surrounded by more rural, Republican areas, making Northampton the type of elusive swing district we hear so much about.

Both Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump were in Pennsylvania that same Monday, courting voters at a rally and town hall, respectively. With its 19 electoral votes, Pennsylvania is arguably the most crucial state in the country in this presidential election.

Easton's mayor, Salvatore J. Panto Jr., knows Pennsylvania — and especially Northampton County — well. A moderate Democrat who's lived in Easton his entire life, he's serving his sixth term as the city's mayor. Panto spoke with me in his office, where photos of his grandchildren and memorabilia from the city's annual garlic fest line the shelves. A toy police car is parked on his coffee table, and a small American flag sits on his desk.

"We were trending toward Kamala, but I think they're losing ground as we get closer and closer to the election," Panto said. He predicts, like many others, that the margins in Pennsylvania will be slim and the results decided by voters' impression of the economy.

"People go to the store and that's where — that's their bellwether. Their bellwether is, how much am I paying for eggs? How much am I paying for bread? How much am I paying for milk?" he said, adding that gas prices were important for voters.

When I spoke to voters leaving two stores — the Giant in Forks Township and the Walmart in Palmer Township — Panto's hypothesis largely proved correct. When asked about the issues motivating them, many gestured toward the contents of their carts and said the economy, especially inflation (which has cooled significantly, even though prices remain higher than a few years ago).

"I think it's the top of everybody's concern right now — the gas prices, the economy, food prices," Ann Hess, 70, told me outside the Giant. "It's a big deal. This was almost $40! Three bags and there's no meat in here." And this, she pointed out, was just for her. Hess, a widow and retired nurse, said she's voting for Harris. She doesn't trust Trump to handle the economy or much of anything else.

It was an afternoon of political whiplash as I talked to people in the Giant and Walmart parking lots. Voters like them will decide which way the state of Pennsylvania swings, which may very well decide the election. There was Vivian M., 50, who said she is most concerned about inflation and frustrated that Harris hasn't done more during her time in office. There was 46-year-old Michelle Kerns, who said she doesn't think Harris gets enough credit for easing inflation.

None of this was particularly surprising — there's a reason that Harris and Trump are both dumping enormous sums of money into purple Pennsylvania. Still, after talking to people stepping out of the same store, carrying items with the same price tags, who'd reached such different conclusions, it felt like I was in a parking-lot-size microcosm of the country....>

<....People talked about topics beyond the economy, of course, many of which I expected — the border, reproductive rights, and the general division in the country. Three women told me that abortion access is their top priority, including Kerns and Hess, who mentioned her four granddaughters.

I was surprised by the number of men who named reproductive rights as their motivating issue — a recent poll from The Wall Street Journal found that significantly more women than men in battleground states said abortion access was their top priority. Daryl Thompson, 72, said he's scared we're going "to take a giant, 1950s leap back."

Two other male retirees voiced similar concerns. Bob George, a 66-year-old former Yuengling beer salesman, mentioned his daughter. Edward Pyatt, 60, reminded me there was a time when people believed women shouldn't have the right to vote.

"Why is everybody playing God?" the Easton native asked. "Everybody is playing God! I cannot tell you what to do with your body."

Pyatt said he thinks other Black men aren't voting for Harris in part because they're scared of electing a woman. Many of the women I talked to mentioned a gender gap among their friends, but none stated it more plainly than Pyatt.

Both Pyatt and George said they voted for Trump in the past — Pyatt twice and George in 2016. Pyatt told me that he's hoped Trump would bring change, but his expenses have remained consistent. On top of that, he said the former president is "very disrespectful." When I asked George what changed about Trump between 2016 and 2020, he quickly shot back, "Him."

"I just think he's a little — I don't trust him," George told me, shaking his head. "I just don't trust him at all. He says things, and this Project 2025 he's going to use, I feel." But George, for all of his conviction, didn't seem interested in arguing with people or trying to convince them to think differently. He said his son supports Trump, while his daughter supports Harris. They all live in Northampton County.

"There's a big divide here. But I respect him. He can vote for whoever he feels is good for him," George said of his son.

Nearly everyone I spoke to said their friends and family are split, and that Pennsylvania really is as up for grabs as the polls say. Yet some of those I interacted with — or tried to interact with — had no interest in being in the national spotlight or being labeled an all-important battleground-state voter.

I heard many iterations of "I'm not following the election" or "I'm sick of talking about it." One woman even told me she was writing in her dog's name instead of Trump or Harris. And there were those who insisted they had nothing to say but couldn't seem to help themselves, like the woman who barreled past me with her cart before turning around to yell, "Taxes!"

Panto, the Easton mayor, told me he sees widespread political disengagement in the county, but, essentially, all politics are local. What I heard in those parking lots is perhaps more telling than any national-trend reporting or broad political guesswork. Panto suspects that people's day-to-day finances will ultimately decide the election.

"That's what it comes down to," he said, "out of my paycheck every week, how much goes to my mortgage, how much goes to my food bill, and how much goes to my gasoline bill?">

<Kari Lake’s last-ditch effort to slime Ruben Gallego in the lead-up to Election Day landed with a dud.

Lake had been hyping up an effort by The Washington Free Beacon, a right-wing media outlet, to pry loose documents related to Gallego’s divorce from his ex-wife, Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego.

Although the Gallegos have publicly been amicable since their split, Lake and other conservatives have homed in on the fact that their divorce came as Kate Gallego was pregnant, and the fishing expedition has seemed intent on finding details that could be used to sling mud at Gallego. Lake has run ads referring to Gallego as a “deadbeat dad” and last week promised that a “massive story” was on the horizon.

But on Thursday, an Arizona court unsealed the documents … and the world is still waiting on that massive story. As The Washington Post reported:

In an interview with The Washington Post last year, Gallego attributed the divorce to his post-traumatic stress disorder from serving in the Iraq War. The documents, however, offer little insight into why the Gallegos’ marriage fell apart. Instead, the 465 pages that were unsealed Thursday by the Yavapai County Superior Court detail standard divorce proceedings, including the dividing of property and assets, as well as custody and child support arrangements. They also include no details of any illegal activity or infidelity and expressly state that no physical abuse had occurred.

As far as drama is concerned, this is like turning on the television expecting to see “Bad Girls Club” but finding “Antiques Roadshow” instead.

It does, though, seem to signal quite a bit of desperation on Lake’s part. In recent weeks, she has also attacked Gallego over his long-estranged father’s criminal record. Gallego has called Lake’s attacks pathetic, and it’s hard to disagree.

Trailing in virtually all reputable polls and seemingly deserted — at least, financially — by the Republican Party’s well-funded power brokers, Lake is pulling out all the stops to avoid her second successive campaign defeat.>

<Nearly a decade into his career in politics, Donald Trump has consistently argued that his potential rivals shouldn’t be permitted to stand between him and power. In October 2015, for example, the Republican said Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be “allowed” to run for president. In February 2016, Trump said Ted Cruz was “not allowed” to run for president, either. A month later, the future president said John Kasich shouldn’t have been “allowed” to run against him in a GOP primary.

Ahead of Election Day 2020, Trump said Joe Biden shouldn’t have been “allowed” to run for president. In July 2024, he said Kamala Harris shouldn’t be “allowed” to run, either.

Four months later, as a HuffPost report noted, the former president insisted that the Democratic vice president should now be “forced off” the campaign trail.

In a Thursday post on his Truth Social platform, former President Donald Trump argued that Vice President Kamala Harris “should be investigated and forced off the Campaign,” thereby allowing President Joe Biden “to take back his rightful place” at the top of the Democratic ticket. Trump did not specify what he believes Harris — who became the Republican’s rival in the White House race after Biden dropped his reelection bid this summer — should be investigated for.

In recent weeks, as the GOP nominee has struggled to come up with a coherent closing message, he’s fixated on a handful of preoccupations, including his desire to see Biden return to the ballot, his baseless “60 Minutes” conspiracy theory, and his insistence that Harris should stop running against him.

Remarkably, in a pair of odd online missives, Trump managed to tie all three threads together in one weird package.

The harangue began with this item, in which the Republican called for “60 Minutes” to be “IMMEDIATELY TAKEN OFF THE AIR,” argued that CBS should “LOSE ITS LICENSE” to broadcast, said Harris “should be investigated and forced off the Campaign,” and concluded that Biden should “allowed to take back his rightful place” on the Democratic ticket.

Less than a minute later, Trump added strange new details to his “60 Minutes” conspiracy theory — he believes CBS News producers might have “’CREATED’ many additional new answers for her” as part of the broadcast — before wrapping things up with a veiled threat.

“RELEASE THE TAPES FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICA,” the GOP nominee wrote. “We can do it the nice way, or the hard way!”

What, exactly, would “the hard way” entail? He didn’t say, and your guess is as good as mine, though the phrasing was certainly ominous.

There’s no point in going line by line in Trump’s rants, pointing out every error of fact and judgment, though it’s difficult to brush off the Republican’s insistence that his major-party opponent “should be investigated and forced off the Campaign,” despite the fact that she's done nothing wrong.

It’s one thing to say that a rival candidate is undeserving of support, but it’s far more pernicious to argue that a rival shouldn’t even be permitted to seek support. The former is normal; the latter is authoritarian.>

<Donald Trump on Friday called the judge presiding over his criminal election interference case in Washington, D.C., "the most evil person" for ordering the release of nearly 1,900 pages of previously sealed documents filed by prosecutors.

Trump suggested U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan made the files public to harm the Republican presidential nominee's chances in November's election.

"Now, it's a terrible thing, what's happening, and the judge is, this judge is the most evil person," Trump said on Dan Bongino's podcast.

"What judge would say, 'We're going to release something, you know, a couple of days before?'" the former president asked.

Trump said "it's not even believable" that Chutkan had made public the filings by special counsel Jack Smith, whom he called "a sick puppy."

"They're going to release something else, and always before the election," Trump said. "You know, they want to do it before the election. So election interference."

Smith has charged Trump with crimes related to his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to President Joe Biden.

In an order Thursday, Chutkan rejected the argument by Trump's lawyers that the documents shouldn't be released until after November's presidential election, where the Republican faces Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump's attorneys contended that unsealing the records beforehand could be seen as election interference.

But Chutkan wrote that, on the contrary, the delay Trump was asking for, by itself, "risks undermining that public interest."

"If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute — or appear to be — election interference," Chutkan wrote.

Chutkan in a previous order had written that Trump "repeatedly accuses the Government of bad-faith partisan bias."

"These accusations, for which Defendant provides no support, continue a pattern of defense filings focusing on political rhetoric rather than addressing the legal issues at hand," the judge wrote. "Not only is that focus unresponsive and unhelpful to the court, but it is also unbefitting of experienced defense counsel and undermining of the judicial proceedings in this case."

Trump lawyer John Lauro had no immediate comment on Trump's characterization of the judge.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for Smith, declined to comment.

Smith's office, in a filing responding to Trump's lawyers about proposed redactions to the documents being released, wrote, "The defendant's opposition includes his standard and unsupported refrain that the Government's position is motivated by improper political considerations."

"That allegation is false — just as it was false when the Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case on grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution," prosecutors wrote.

Trump's comments Friday about Chutkan came a year after the judge imposed a limited gag order in the case that barred him and other "interested parties ... from making any public statements, or directing others to make any public statements, that target" Smith or his staff, defense lawyers, or "any of this court's staff or other supporting personnel."

"Defendant's presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize these proceedings," Chutkan wrote in that order.

The gag order did not bar Trump from making comments about Chutkan herself.

A federal appeals court in December upheld that gag order, but narrowed its conditions, ruling that Trump should not be barred from making comments about Smith personally.>

<It's not what you know...

Q: How does an undisciplined college flunky who cannot remember the sixth move of the Sicilian Najdorf get a managerial job supervising 130 empties?

A: His resume uses the same misleading method as when posting on the internet.>

Piss up a rope, <fredthepissant>.

<The rural-urban divide is one of the defining features of the American electorate: Democrats dominate in cities, while Republicans rule in rural areas. But as the presidential race has shown, the two parties are treating the voters in their opponents’ favored territory in very different ways.

Democrats are working to attract rural voters and promoting policy initiatives to improve life for rural Americans. Republicans are heaping contempt and calumny on cities and treating their residents as deluded.

Conservatives have long disdained urban areas and those who live in them. But as Election Day approaches, Donald Trump and JD Vance are deploying a particularly nasty anti-urban strategy, seemingly driven by the belief that if Americans who don’t live in cities — or ever go there — look upon them with disgust and fear, then they’ll vote Republican.

In rural Pennsylvania last week, Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, unveiled a policy plan to address some of the challenges faced by rural Americans. It includes an effort to hire 10,000 desperately needed health care professionals to work in rural areas. The day before, Vance traveled to Minneapolis, but not to offer the Trump-Vance plan for urban America. Instead, Vance insulted and demeaned the city, falsely claiming that Walz let it “burn to the ground” in 2020 during protests against police violence and that the city “has now become overrun with crime.” Vance warned that “the story of Minneapolis is coming to every community across the United States of America if we promote Kamala Harris to president of the United States.” Never mind that Minneapolis was named the happiest city in America this year, just one of its absurdly long list of accolades.

Vance’s strategy of insulting the city he was in mirrored Trump’s approach last week in Detroit, where the former president told an audience that “our whole country will end up being like Detroit” if Harris wins. In fact, Detroit is in the midst of a remarkable revival, with new economic development, plummeting crime rates and a population that is increasing for the first time in decades.

Imagine the thermonuclear freakout that would grip the entire political world if Harris or Walz went to, say, a rural Pennsylvania county, declared it a dystopia and its residents deranged, and warned darkly that the whole country would be gripped by that kind of rural horror if they didn’t win the election. They’d be pilloried for insulting the “heartland,” where “real Americans” supposedly live. Commentators of all ideological stripes would savage them for being so cruel to such a significant portion of the electorate. It would dominate coverage of the campaign for the rest of the election.

But we’ve gotten used to Republicans describing our cities as repulsive and frightening for so long that it no longer strikes us as unusual. When Trump says that in America’s cities, “you can’t walk across the street to get a loaf of bread. You get shot. You get mugged. You get raped,” it’s easy to dismiss the ham-handed hyperbole, but we know that millions of Americans believe it.

That’s because conservative media’s efforts to regularly portray cities as chaotic and more dangerous amplify a long anti-urban tradition in America that dates back to the nation’s founding. Thomas Jefferson believed the countryside was where all good things could be found, while cities were as disgusting as the people who lived there. “Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue,” Jefferson wrote in 1785. “The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body.”...>

<....Conservatives have long portrayed cities as places of danger and corruption. Richard Nixon aired frightening ads focused on urban crime in his 1968 run for the White House. In 2016, Ted Cruz accused Trump of having “New York values” (he didn’t say exactly what those values were, but they had to be bad). Conservatives celebrated Jason Aldean’s song “Try That in a Small Town,” a warning to urbanites not to bring their crime and chaos to small towns.

As Republicans have secured their hold over rural areas in recent years, they have only increased the shade they throw at cities. Democrats, said Sen. Tom Cotton in 2022, “want to make you live in downtown areas, in high-rise buildings, and walk to work or take the subway.” (The horror!) “Serious question,” tweeted Vance the year before. “I have to go to New York soon and I’m trying to figure out where to stay. I have heard it’s disgusting and violent there. But is it like Walking Dead Season 1 or Season 4?”

For the record, New York is by some measures the safest big city in America. When he’s not in Washington, Vance lives in Cincinnati, a city of 300,000; he describes his posh neighborhood as “the perfect combo of proximity to the city and to nature.”

Yet in the picture Trump and Vance paint, every American city is in flames — and it’s no accident that they make constant reference to the protests against police brutality that swept the country in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020. Though 98% of those protests saw no injuries and there was no property damage in 97%, Republicans would have you believe that entire cities burned to the ground, as Vance falsely claimed about Minneapolis. You don’t have to be steeped in scholarship on race to grasp the racial subtext to the GOP attack on urban America and the people who live there.

It might be easier to assume goodwill on Republicans’ part if, like Democrats, they actually seemed interested in finding more votes in cities. Instead, they sneer at urban areas and the Americans who live there, hoping to generate anti-urban disdain and fear that will win them votes elsewhere. Given that Republicans have lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections, the evidence for this strategy’s success is thin at best. But whether it works this time or not, it’s one more iteration of Republicans’ larger strategy of winning through division. And it’s shameful.>