Tag: campaign 2024
Ukraine war

Trump Special Envoy: No, We Won't Be Ending Ukraine War On 'Day One'

Donald Trump's incoming special envoy for Ukraine and Russia is tempering expectations about ending Russia's war on Ukraine, saying that the administration will try to end the war in the first 100 days of Trump's term, rather than in the first 24 hours Trump had repeatedly promised.

"Let's set it at 100 days and move all the way back and figure a way we can do this in the near term to make sure that the solution is solid, it's sustainable, and that this war ends so that we stop the carnage," Keith Kellogg, whom Trump appointed in November to advise him on the war in Ukraine, said in an interview on Fox News. "I think that's going to be very, very important to do. It's going to be important for our national security. It's a part of our vital national interests, and it's also good for Europe as well and the globe as well."

Kellogg’s comments are a major change from the Day One promise Trump made multiple times during the 2024 election campaign.

“They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done—I’ll have that done in 24 hours," Trump said during a CNN town hall in May 2023.

In September’s presidential debate—the one and only debate he had with Vice President Kamala Harris—Trump went even further, saying the war would be over even before he took the oath of office.

“That is a war that’s dying to be settled. I will get it settled before I even become president," Trump said.

Kellogg isn’t the only Trump administration official to say Trump can’t end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office.

Rep. Mike Waltz, the Florida Republican who is Trump’s incoming national security adviser, told ABC News on Sunday that Trump will end the war “in the coming months”—which is not Day One.

"I just don't think it's realistic to say we're going to expel every Russian from every inch of Ukrainian soil, even Crimea,” Waltz said.

Ultimately, ending the war in Ukraine in one day is only the latest campaign promise Trump is backtracking on.

In December, Trump tried to temper expectations on lowering grocery prices—possibly the main reason why he won a second term in the first place. "It's hard to bring things down once they're up. You know, it's very hard," Trump said in an interview with Time magazine.

Of course, Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on all of the country’s imports is expected to raise grocery prices.

And Vice President-elect JD Vance backtracked on Trump’s promise to pardon all of the people who pleaded guilty or were convicted for storming the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

"If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned, and there's a little bit of a gray area there,” Vance said in a Sunday appearance on Fox News.

To be sure, not pardoning violent insurrectionists is a good thing.

But it’s nevertheless another campaign promise Trump and his administration are reneging on before they take office.

In a December interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, Trump said he would be pardoning the insurrectionists on Day One.

"Look. I know the system. The system's a very corrupt system. They say to a guy, 'You're going to go to jail for two years or for 30 years.' And these guys are looking, their whole lives have been destroyed," Trump said.

When asked if that means he will pardon them, Trump said, "Yeah, I'm going to look at everything. We're going to look at individual cases."

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Book: Fox Insider Texted Questions To Trump Before Town Hall

Book: Fox Insider Texted Questions To Trump Before Town Hall

A Fox News insider gave Donald Trump's campaign the questions in advance of Trump’s January 2024 town hall on the network, according to a forthcoming book. Later that year, Trump baselessly claimed someone at ABC had “very likely” provided Vice President Kamala Harris with the questions for their debate — and called for government retribution against the network if that were confirmed.

CNN reported on the Fox revelations Wednesday after obtaining advance excerpts of Politico reporter Alex Isenstadt’s book Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump’s Return to Power. Isenstadt writes that shortly before the start of Trump’s Iowa town hall, moderated by Fox anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, a Trump staffer started receiving text messages from a Fox insider with the questions. From CNN’s article:

“About thirty minutes before the town hall was due to start, a senior aide started getting text messages from a person on the inside at Fox. Holy s–t, the team thought. They were images of all the questions Trump would be asked and the planned follow-ups, down to the exact wording. Jackpot. This was like a student getting a peek at the test before the exam started,” Isenstadt writes.

“Trump was pissed” about the questions, which he thought were too aggressive, but the campaign “workshopped answers” with him, Isenstadt reported.

While it's unclear who might have had access to the town hall questions, there is no shortage of Fox employees who value Trump’s political success over questions of journalistic integrity. The network effectively fused with Trump’s first-term White House, as several network hosts served as his advisers and a revolving door opened up between Fox and his administration. The network’s fawning coverage of his 2024 campaign helped him win the GOP primary and the general election, and he has since named 17 current or former Fox staffers to top posts in his second administration.

(A Fox spokesperson told CNN that “we take these matters very seriously and plan to investigate should there prove to be a breach within the network,” a comical sentiment based on the network’s past handling of Trump-related ethics violations.)

For his part, Trump subsequently claimed that a campaign receiving the questions from a news outlet source before a high-profile event should trigger serious consequences for the host outlet.

Following his disastrous September 2024 debate performance, Trump alleged on his Truth Social platform that “People are saying that Comrade Kamala Harris had the questions from Fake News ABC. I would say it is very likely.” He went on to claim that if that were the case, “ABC’s license should be TERMINATED.”

The former president’s claims were total garbage and a reflection of his poor information diet. Trump subsequently made clear he was running with the claims of a random X poster — whose profile stated “Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS” — who claimed to be in possession of an affidavit from an “ABC whistleblower” which alleged that “the Harris campaign was given sample questions."

ABC categorically denied Black Insurrectionist’s claims, and the document he eventually released was rife with inconsistencies (which did not stop several prominent MAGA influencers and Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo from running with it). The Associated Press subsequently revealed that “Black Insurrectionist” was a white man who has “repeatedly been accused of defrauding business partners and lenders."

Trump’s threats of government retaliation, however, are deadly serious.

The Federal Communications Commission does not license broadcast networks — but it does license individual broadcast stations, including the eight owned and operated directly by ABC and the hundreds of additional affiliates. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Biden appointee, responded to Trump’s call by suggesting it runs afoul of the First Amendment.

But when Brendan Carr, a Republican FCC member and the author of Project 2025’s chapter on the commission, was asked about the controversy during a House hearing, he “would not answer if he believed the FCC had grounds to revoke the ABC license after the debate.” Trump has since named Carr to replace Rosenworcel as FCC chair — and Carr subsequently suggested in a letter to Bob Iger, CEO of ABC’s parent company, Disney, that his FCC would closely scrutinize ABC’s affiliate agreements.

Trump is an authoritarian who looks for any opportunity to punish news outlets he doesn’t like. But if Isenstadt’s story is accurate, he has no problem taking all the help he can get from favored ones.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl

Dirty Tricksters Who Targeted Black Voters In Detroit Will Be Prosecuted

The Michigan Court of Appeals on Friday upheld criminal charges against two far-right operatives who prosecutors say made a series of robocalls in the state during the 2020 election particularly targeting Black voters in Detroit.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that criminal charges had been filed against Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl back in 2020 after it had been found that the pair had made about 85,000 calls spreading misinformation and fear about voting across Midwestern states.

After hearing arguments concerning the case in November of 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) supported assertions that Burkman and Wohl had utilized “corrupt means” and instructed the Court of Appeals to examine whether the pair’s actions violated state election laws.

The Michigan Supreme Court concluded in June of this year that the defendants attempted to deter Black metro Detroiters from participating in the 2020 election using the “immoral or depraved” method of spreading election misinformation, particularly for mail-in voting, using “racially based motives”.

“Defendants discussed their desire to “hi-jack this boring election” and arranged for the distribution of a robocall specifically to “black neighborhoods” with the call stating that the consequences of mail-in voting would include voter information being used by police departments to effectuate old warrants, by credit card companies to collect outstanding debts, and (potentially) by the CDC to support mandatory vaccination efforts,” the MSC wrote in its opinion in June.

In that opinion, the MSC ruled that the Court of Appeals needed to review whether Burkman and Wohl’s conduct violated Michigan law, specifically a section of election law pertaining to elector influence.

Michigan’s election laws say, “A person shall not attempt, by means of bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device, either directly or indirectly, to influence an elector in giving his or her vote, or to deter the elector from, or interrupt the elector in giving his or her vote at any election held in this state.”

On Friday, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that because the calls directly pertained to misinformation about mail-in voting and promlegating false information in order to disrupt and deter Black voters in Michigan, they violate the law and Burkman and Wohl’s criminal charges stand.

“There can be no reasonable dispute that voting by mail is a voting procedure. That is, voting by mail is “a particular way of accomplishing” voting, which fits the definition of “procedure.” The robocall was related to the procedure, because it alleged that, if a voter used the voting procedure identified, certain negative events “will” occur,” Court of Appeals Judge Anica Letica wrote in the opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge James Redford argued that the robocalls did not pertain to voting requirements or procedures, but rather possible negative consequences of participating in absentee voting, so the court has not fulfilled the inquiries set out by the Michigan Supreme Court to uphold the charges.

Nessel applauded the court’s decision saying in a statement her office looks forward to the case being brought to trial.

“Voter intimidation infringes upon the fundamental right to vote,” Nessel said. “I am grateful the Court of Appeals saw this conduct for what it was—a gross misrepresentation of voting procedures meant to scare voters from participating in our elections.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

This story originally appeared in Michigan Advance, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Donald Trump

Trump Won Vowing To 'Get Prices Down Fast' -- But Now 'It's Very Hard'

As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned—and won—this year on the promise he would lower prices for Americans angry after the COVID pandemic’s inflation brought steep price increases, but now he’s backtracking, saying he’s not sure he will actually be able to fulfill those vows. Outrage at Trump, and the people who voted for him based on that pledge, was palpable on Thursday.

As recently as Sunday, MSNBC reports, Trump insisted, “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”

On Monday, Fox News reported: “Pointing to high grocery prices, Trump says, ‘I won an election based on that'”

But in his TIME magazine “Person of the Year” interview, Trump suggested he might not be able to lower prices as he promised to do. Appearing to remove himself from the equation, he declared: “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”

Sam Stein of The Bulwark and MSNBC noted via social media, “’Prices will come down,’ Trump told voters during a speech last week laying out his vision for a return to the White House. ‘You just watch: They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast, not only with insurance, with everything.'”

The President-elect told TIME he would “like to bring them down” when asked, “If the prices of groceries don’t come down, will your presidency be a failure?” but insisted if prices do not drop he doesn’t think that will make his second term a failure.

On the campaign trail Trump repeatedly promised he would lower prices and inflation, asHuffPostreported Thursday:

“’We will end inflation and make America affordable again, and we’re going to get the prices down, we have to get them down,’ Trump said at a rally in September. ‘It’s too much. Groceries, cars, everything. We’re going to get the prices down.'”

“’We will cut your taxes and inflation, slash your prices, raise your wages and bring thousands of factories back to America,’ Trump said at a Georgia rally in October, reciting a line he used in speeches at several other events.”

“Trump also specifically promised to get gas prices down: ‘I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months.'”

Stein’s post earlier Thursday morning quoting Trump saying “You know, it’s very hard” to bring prices down set of an explosion of anger at the incoming occupant of the White House.

“Trump has already folded on prices. He has no plans to make life more affordable for the majority of Americans,” declared Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative.

“All of you idiots who voted for Trump over food prices should feel pretty stupid,” journalist Roland Martin remarked in response.

Politico White House reporter Adam Cancryn responded to Stein: “Trump in Asheville in August: ‘From the day I take the oath of office, we will rapidly drive prices down, and make America affordable again’ ‘Prices will come down. You just watch. They’ll come down and they’ll come down fast. Not only with insurance, with everything.'”

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake added: “Trump on Sept. 23: ‘Vote Trump, and your incomes will soar. Your net worth will skyrocket. Your energy costs and grocery prices will come tumbling down.'”

“Oh, Trump doesn’t have a plan to bring down costs for Americans? I’m shocked,” snarked Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).

Tom Bonier, a veteran Democratic political strategist noted, “He’s likely right, which is why the Biden record of increasing wages while slowing inflation has put our country on the right track, but of course no one could admit that until Trump won by running against inflation.”

Ron Fournier, a business executive and former journalist asked, “Wait. He promised to bring them down. Did he …

… lie?”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World