Connect with us

Politics

Trump has notched a list of once-unthinkable 'firsts.' Will they prevent him from winning?

Published

on

Trump has notched a list of once-unthinkable 'firsts.' Will they prevent him from winning?

Former President Trump stands on the verge of a series of firsts that once would have seemed unthinkable.

Winning a second term as president would make the Republican nominee the first occupant of the White House to be: a convicted felon, an adjudicated sexual offender, a twice-impeached federal office holder and a serial denier of election results that have been certified by the courts and Congress.

Trump has not only weathered those largely self-inflicted wounds, but persuaded somewhere approaching half of Americans to consider putting him back in the White House. For a significant share of Trump supporters it is his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, who is too extreme to lead the country.

Many Harris supporters express incredulity that Trump remains a viable candidate. But veteran political analysts said that, for mostly apolitical voters who don’t follow the news closely and who may decide the election, Trump’s repeated departures from political norms may have little practical effect on their daily lives.

The analysts say it is incumbent on Harris to use the closing days of the campaign to explain why Trump’s past failures should matter to them.

Advertisement

“I think for her it is about saying that this is a guy who brings chaos, who is unhinged, who is too out of control,” said Patrick Toomey, a partner in BSG, a Democrat-aligned polling firm. “With that and his crazy vendettas and penchant for retribution, will he ever be focused on delivering help for average Americans?”

A longtime Republican pollster agreed. Greg Strimple of GS Strategy Group said the best possible messengers to make that case to the small group of moderate and wavering voters are the phalanx of Republicans and former Trump administration officials who say Trump is unfit for office.

Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, former national security advisor John Bolton, former White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and Gen. Mark Milley — the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — are just a few of a large cadre of those who served during the Trump administration who have since signaled that they believe he is not fit to serve a second term. No other president in modern history has provoked so many high-level defections.

Strimple said those once handpicked by the former president to help him lead the country can deliver a powerful closing argument against Trump: “We saw it from the inside,” they can say. “And it’s worse than you think.”

“Trump right now is doing what he needs to do to be successful, and that’s making it an issues referendum on the last four years of Biden-Harris,” Strimple said. “She really needs to find a pivot to get this back onto a referendum [about] character and the leadership style of Donald Trump.”

Advertisement

The list is long of politicians who foundered after a single misstatement or damning personal revelation. Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s bid for the presidency disintegrated in 2011 after he froze on a debate stage when asked to name the three federal departments he had pledged to eliminate.

Trump’s misstatements became so frequent, and his insistence on spurning corrections so adamant, that much of the U.S. media pushed back harder. It became common for Trump not just to be accused of being wrong, but of intentionally lying.

By the time he left the White House in 2021, the Washington Post had cataloged 30,573 Trump falsehoods during his four years in office. That amounted to 21 erroneous claims a day — what the newspaper called a “tsunami of untruths.”

But Trump not only has transcended the fact-checking, he has turned his battles with the mainstream media, academics and other experts into a cudgel: Only he dared stand up to elites, who he contended did not understand, or care about, average Americans.

His most ardent followers see each ensuing condemnation from the media and the courts not as proof of guilt but as a continuation of a “witch hunt” against their hero. Evangelicals look past personal shortcomings because Trump delivered on his promise to overturn the abortion rights protected in Roe vs. Wade. Business leaders focus on tax cuts and deregulation. Working class Americans remember that prices were lower when Trump was president.

Advertisement

A partial list of some of Trump’s impolitic and scandalous moments and how he responded:

34 felony convictions

In May, a New York jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts, involving his part in a cover-up of hush money payments to keep former adult film star Stormy Daniels from going public about having sex with him.

Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 21. He continues to appeal, charging, among other things, that politics motivated prosecutors.

Jan. 6: Impeached and indicted

On Jan. 6, 2021, having lost his November election against Biden, Trump urged his followers to march to the U.S. Capitol and “fight” as Congress voted to certify the result. His loyalists stormed the Capitol, injuring about 140 police officers, while he watched on TV. It took three hours before Trump said in a Rose Garden video that his followers should “go home now.”

Trump has repeatedly said he did nothing wrong because he told the crowd to march “peacefully and patriotically.” He recently reframed the melee as “a day of love.” But in his hourlong speech on Jan. 6, he invoked the word “fight,” or variations, 20 times, saying at one point: “We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Advertisement

The House voted to impeach Trump for inciting the insurrection, but the Senate acquitted him of the charges, allowing him to remain in office.

Special counsel Jack Smith led a federal investigation that resulted in Trump being charged with taking part in a scheme to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. The prosecutor is trying to keep the case alive by showing that many of Trump’s actions fall outside so-called official acts that the U.S. Supreme Court has said should be immune from prosecution.

Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), continue to claim that Trump won in 2020 — a claim that dozens of courts and reviews have rejected.

Georgia election interference charges

• In early 2021, as Congress prepared to certify former Vice President Joe Biden’s victory over then-President Trump, he called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, making various claims about ballots being “shredded” and his supporters being denied a chance to vote. Without offering proof of widespread abuses, Trump insisted: “I just want to find 11,780 votes. I need 11,000 votes, give me a break.”

More than two years later, a grand jury in Fulton County, Ga., indicted Trump on charges of racketeering and other crimes, saying the former president had conspired to change the outcome of the 2020 election while participating in a “criminal enterprise.”

Advertisement

A judge later threw out some of the counts against Trump, saying prosecutors failed to provide enough detail about the underlying felony he was accused of committing. Trump contends the prosecution amounted to retaliation by a Democratic prosecutor, Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis. The case remains unresolved, in part because of the former president’s efforts to disqualify Willis.

Classified documents case

• In June 2023, a special counsel filed dozens of felony counts against Trump, accusing him of illegally hoarding classified documents from his time in the White House. Special counsel Smith contended that Trump kept the documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., and then obstructed the FBI when federal agents tried to get the records back.

He pleaded not guilty and denied doing anything wrong. A federal judge appointed by Trump dismissed the case in July, saying that Smith had been improperly appointed by Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland instead of being confirmed by Congress.

Found liable for sexual abuse

In May 2023, a New York jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996. She won a $5-million judgment. Earlier this year, a jury awarded an additional $83.3 million after concluding that the former president continued to defame Carroll on social media.

Trump’s lawyers have tried to have the verdicts thrown out, contending the trial court allowed jurors to hear improper and inflammatory evidence.

Advertisement

Ukraine and the first impeachment

• In 2019, Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and suggested his government should launch an investigation into former Vice President Biden, his Democratic opponent, and Biden’s son Hunter. The request came at the same time that Trump was withholding crucial military aid to the struggling U.S. ally.

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for what House prosecutors said was Trump’s attempt to strong-arm the Ukrainians.

Trump said the House’s investigation and impeachment amounted to “three years of sinister witch hunts, hoaxes, scams,” with Democrats “trying to nullify the ballots of tens of millions of patriotic Americans.” He was acquitted by the Senate.

A $355-million fraud judgment

• In February of this year, a judge ordered the former president to pay $355 million, plus interest, after concluding that Trump lied for years about his wealth on financial statements. Those documents were used to obtain loans to support his real estate empire.

Appellate court judges signaled last month that they may have sympathy for some of Trump’s arguments. They noted that none of the companies he did business with suffered financial harm and questioned whether the trial judge awarded too large a judgment.

Advertisement

Each time the media and other observers have predicted Trump had crossed a threshold he couldn’t survive, he has proved otherwise. It’s a pattern that has been repeated throughout Trump’s life: He has moved ahead, despite reports of marital infidelity, multiple business failures, half a dozen bankruptcies and the airing of a video in which he boasted that he could grab women “by the pussy.”

Trump’s odd behavior lands the same way. He makes speeches with long and sometimes nonsensical digressions. Just in recent days, he stopped a Q&A session near Philadelphia when a couple of people fainted, instead playing music for the crowd for more than half an hour while he swayed along on stage. He used a four-letter word to describe his opponent, Harris. And he ended a long digression about Arnold Palmer with a vulgar aside about the golf great’s anatomy.

But even some who describe themselves as exhausted with Trump’s misbehavior say they are more focused on other things. The two issues mentioned most commonly: Inflation and illegal immigration.

“All of these [Trump failures] should matter. But common-sense arguments, arguments that worked in the past have stopped working,” said Strimple, who recently has completed polling for the Cook Political Report. “Right now, Trump has successfully made it a referendum on the Biden-Harris administration.”

Strimple agreed with Toomey, the Democratic pollster, that Harris needs to put the focus back on Trump’s most outlandish statements and actions.

Advertisement

But to truly be the “change” candidate that she needs to be, Harris also must make much clearer how her presidency would be different from that of Biden, whom she has served with for four years, said Strimple, and Steve Schmidt, a one-time Republican political strategist and ardent Trump opponent.

Harris did serious damage to that effort when she went on “The View” this month and said that “not a thing that comes to mind” when she was asked if there was anything that she would have done differently from President Biden over the last four years, Schmidt said on his podcast, “The Warning.”

Harris later has said she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet and focus on housing and small business in new ways, trying to distinguish herself from Biden.

But Schmidt urged her to do even more to make her independence clear.

“What people want to know is what she will do differently from Biden,” Schmidt said. “Unless and until you cross that bridge, you’re going to fall short on election day.”

Advertisement

Politics

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Published

on

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Advertisement

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

Advertisement

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons

— President Trump

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

Advertisement

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

Advertisement

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

Advertisement

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Advertisement

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

Advertisement

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Advertisement

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

on

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement. 

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

Advertisement

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

Advertisement

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant.  (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

Advertisement

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting.
”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Advertisement

Related Article

White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Continue Reading

Trending