Raw Story

“I love my country more than my party,” said Stephanie Grisham, a former Tucson resident who was one of Donald Trump’s “closest advisors” in the White House, as she endorsed Kamala Harris for president at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night.

Grisham, speaking on stage at the DNC in Chicago, said “Kamala Harris tells the truth, respects the American people, and she has my vote.”

Earlier this month, Grisham — who served as a spokeswoman for Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign and through nearly all of his White House tenure — joined a group of “Republicans for Harris,” supporting the Democratic candidate for president.

Tuesday, she described herself as having been a “true believer” and “one of his closest advisors,” spending time with the Trump family on holidays.

“Behind closed doors, Trump mocks his supporters,” she said. “He calls them basement-dwellers.”

“He has no empathy, no morals, no fidelity to the truth,” said the former advisors to the Republican president. “Say it enough and they’ll believe you,” Grisham said Trump said.

Grisham noted that she was criticized during her time as a White House spokeswoman for never holding a press briefing.

“Unlike my boss, I never wanted to stand at that podium and lie,” she said.

“I might not agree with Vice President Kamala Harris on everything, but I know that she will fight for our freedom, protect our democracy and represent America with honor and dignity on the world stage,” Grisham said in a statement released by the group earlier this month.

Grisham, who got her political start in Arizona, worked on Trump’s first presidential campaign, beginning in May 2016, and began working in his administration after he won the 2016 election, serving both the president and first lady, and eventually rising to the position of press secretary and communications director.

Grisham resigned from her post, at the time chief of staff for Melania Trump, effective immediately in the aftermath of the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, in which Trump supporters broke windows and smashed doors in an attempt to halt the tally of electoral votes for Joe Biden.

Now, the person who once served as Trump’s top White House spokeswoman is endorsing Harris, his Democratic opponent.

The group of Republicans, announced earlier in August by the Harris for President campaign, includes Grisham, former Cabinet secretaries Chuck Hagel and Ray LaHood, ex-governors Christine Todd Whitman, Bill Weld and Jim Edgar, numerous former members of Congress such as Adam Kinzinger, Susan Molinari and Denver Riggleman, and Mesa Mayor John Giles.

Giles also spoke at the DNC on Tuesday night. Kinzinger is also scheduled to speak at the convention.

“There is nothing ‘conservative’ about Donald Trump. Conservatives believe in the Constitution, not a ‘man’s’ ego,” Kinzinger tweeted. “Endorsing American democracy and the future today, and leaving the past in the dust. I’m endorsing @KamalaHarris.”

Grisham served in numerous roles for Trump. She worked in the White House from the beginning of Trump’s term, and was named his press secretary and communications director in May 2019, replacing Sarah Huckabee Sanders. During her year-long tenure in that post, she never held a single on-camera briefing for reporters.

Grisham, a former flack for Republicans in Arizona who worked on Trump’s presidential campaign and then controversially was paid by taxpayers here while working on Trump’s transition team, had been appointed as the first lady’s top spokeswoman in March 2017.

Disagreements with Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, caused her to leave the West Wing in spring 2020 and return to the East Wing to work for the first lady’s office again.

In 2018, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel — an investigative agency unrelated to the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller — determined that Grisham violated the federal Hatch Act prohibition on government employees campaigning while using taxpayer resources. Grisham tweeted the Trump political slogan “#MAGA” (“Make America Great Again”) using her official account, and a warning letter was issued.

Grisham worked as the spokeswoman for the Republicans in the Arizona Legislature after a stint of several years as the public information officer for state Attorney General Tom Horne.

Grishman was named “Best PR Person” at the state Capitol by the Arizona Capitol Times in 2015, when she demonstrated a sense of humor about her work with a video spoof.

The next year, she didn’t endear herself to reporters when she enforced then-House Speaker David Gowan’s attempt to block journalists from the floor of the Legislature if they didn’t submit to background checks. Gowan was targeting Hank Stephenson of the Cap Times, who investigated Gowan’s improper use of state vehicles as he campaigned for Congress. Gowan had to repay taxpayers $12,000 after Stephenson’s report.

Gowan’s move, billed as a “security measure,” was met with condemnation and mockery by the press, and he backed down several days later.

Grisham was involved in political scandals while working for Horne, who was accused of improperly coordinating with the head of the group Business Leaders of Arizona during his 2010 campaign. Those allegations were mooted when the Arizona Supreme Court found that his due process rights were violated by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk during the investigation.

During Horne’s 2014 re-election campaign, Grisham worked in his government office and as a campaign staffer — including doing political work while on the clock for taxpayers. Horne was fined $10,000 by the Clean Elections Commission over the violations in his losing bid, but another state probe into the issue was dropped after three years of investigation.

Prior to her series of government jobs, she was a spokeswoman for AAA Arizona, beginning in 2007, and also worked for the Arizona Charter Schools Association.

Grisham was divorced from former husband Dan Marries, the KOLD Channel 13 anchor, in 2004. She then married Todd Grisham, a KOLD sportscaster who later became an announcer for Fox Sports and ESPN. They divorced in 2006.

She began working for the Trump campaign in May 2016, after the Legislature adjourned.

After Trump’s election, Grisham first worked with the incoming president’s transition team, and then as a deputy press secretary. She was named a “special assistant to the president” and communications director for the first lady on March 27, 2017.

After the 2020 election, Grisham reportedly texted a lobbyist that the rumors of election fraud were false.

Grisham handed in her resignation on the evening of the Jan. 6 insurrection, CNN reported, following a day of clashes in which a woman was fatally shot inside the Capitol building and Trumpist rioters invaded the chambers of the House and Senate, forcing members of both bodies, along with Vice President Mike Pence, to take shelter in safe rooms.

The hours-long riot, which Pence called “unprecedented violence and vandalism” and and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called a “failed insurrection,” interrupted the counting of electoral votes to formally complete the election of Biden, who will be sworn in as president on January 20. Lawmakers convened later in the night to again take up the process of acknowledging Biden’s election victory.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and X.

Former President Donald Trump has aroused the ire of some Swifties in a key swing state.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that some local fans of Taylor Swift are not happy about Trump posting a fake AI-generated endorsement suggesting that the pop music icon has endorsed his 2024 campaign.

Swift has not yet made an endorsement in the 2024 race, although she backed President Joe Biden in the 2020 election and it's widely expected that she will encourage her followers to back Vice President Kamala Harris at some point in the next few weeks.

Given this, 23-year-old Swift fan Marissa Slattery told the Inquirer that she was dismayed by Trump's audacity.

“It’s kind of just more like infuriating than anything else, because people that are fans of her know that it’s not true, but people that don’t know much about her and see him posting that would just take it at face value,” she said.

ALSO READ: 'I told the truth': Ex-Trump aide Grisham defends from MAGA attacks after revealing text

22-year-old Swift fan Caroline Macaluso, meanwhile, believed that Trump was playing with fire by falsely claiming Swift's endorsement.

"Does he think that nothing’s gonna happen?” she asked. “I mean, Taylor has very, very publicly endorsed registering to vote and always making sure that you’re ready to vote, and during the 2020 election was publicly endorsing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris."

She also added that “Swifties are a force to be reckoned with" and could tip the election against Trump this fall.

Swift in 2020 strongly denounced Trump's reaction to the protests against the killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police and accused him of being a racial arsonist.

"After stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism your entire presidency, you have the nerve to feign moral superiority before threatening violence?" she wrote on Twitter. "‘When the looting starts the shooting starts’??? We will vote you out in November."

The second night of the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago featured not only well-known Democrats like former President Barack Obama, former First Lady Michelle Obama and Doug Emhoff (presidential nominee Kamala Harris' husband), but also, some conservative Republicans who are backing Harris — including Stephanie Grisham (who served as press secretary for the Trump White House as well as former First Lady Melania Trump), Ana Navarro (a GOP strategist known for her scathing Never Trump commentary on CNN and "The View") and Mesa, Arizona Mayor John C. Giles.

During her speech, Grisham laid out some reasons why, despite being a long-time Republican, she turned against GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and is now supporting Harris.

Journalist Bess Levin, in a Vanity Fair column, takes a look at Republicans who supported former President Trump in the past but are "all in" for Harris this year.

READ MORE: Meet the prominent Republicans who are backing Harris at DNC

The "programming" that "probably got the most under" Donald Trump's "extremely thin skin" at the 2024 DNC, Levin argues, was a "video featuring a collection of former supporters who called him out on his lies, untrustworthiness, and lack of morals — and told the world they would not be voting for him in November."

The ex-Trump supporters in that video said things like "We've seen what Donald Trump really is, and it disgusts me to my core" and "I hate the way he disrespects women."

Levin notes that in another video aired at the 2024 DNC, Florida voter Rich Logis explained why he went from being a "full-fledged member of MAGA" and a "MAGA pundit" in the past to being "all in for Kamala Harris" this year.

The Vanity Fair columnist also highlights Grisham's anti-Trump comments.

READ MORE: 'Mind blowing': Experts stunned by Harris' half a billion cash haul in 'just under a month'

Grisham told NBC News, "I never thought I’d be speaking at a Democratic convention. But after seeing firsthand who Donald Trump really is, and the threat he poses to our country, I feel very strongly about speaking out.

READ MORE: 'I’m not going to quit': Swing state GOP official who endorsed Harris now faces expulsion

Bess Levin's full Vanity Fair column is available at this link.

A Baton Rouge judge who’s been removed from conducting trials while under investigation for alleged misconduct has accepted a hefty pay stipend just before her suspension.

The same bonus was made available to all Louisiana judges, thanks to the largesse of legislators who’ve routinely boosted the judiciary’s pay. This one’s been under scrutiny because judges can receive it before doing barely a month’s worth of work in the fiscal year that started July 1.

The Louisiana Supreme Court disqualified 19th Judicial District Court Judge Eboni Johnson Rose on an interim basis. In a 5-2 vote on Aug. 6, justices took action based upon the recommendation of the Louisiana Judiciary Commission, which is made up of Supreme Court justices and has received multiple complaints about Rose.

An official with the state Supreme Court confirmed that Rose received a stipend of $14,691 on July 31. The Louisiana Legislature approved a one-time payment for all city, parish, district court and appellate judges as well as Supreme Court justices.

Rose has not responded to messages left at her court office and with her campaign. An extended investigation could cast a pall over her run for a seat of the state’s First Circuit Court of Appeal. Rose, a Democrat, is facing Kelly Balfour, a Republican, in the Nov. 5 election.

A potential permanent ouster of Rose could break up a family triad on the 19th Judicial District Court. Her father is Judge Don Johnson, and her uncle is Chief Judge Ron Johnson. .

According to WAFB-TV, higher courts have overturned Rose’s rulings because of mistakes made during trial and sentencing. They include allowing a jury to continue deliberating and change its mind after its members found a defendant not guilty. After Rose issued a conviction , another judge declared a mistrial.

In another trial, Rose convicted a Baton Rouge police officer of “misdemeanor” malfeasance, although the crime is designated a felony in state law.

Rose has also been engaged in a war of words with East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar Moore.

WAFB obtained documents in which Rose, who is Black, implied that Moore’s office targeted Black people and wanted to “stick every n—er in jail.”

Associate Justices William Crain and Jay McCallum wrote concurring opinions in which they said Rose should be removed from trials without pay. But because state law doesn’t allow that option, she will continue to receive her salary while the investigation takes place.

Rose will have to pay the court for the cost of her investigation, which the order said “shall be resolved by the Commission within six months, unless good cause is shown.”

The stipend Rose accepted came out of a protracted fight among state lawmakers who had first been asked to consider a permanent pay raise for judges. That proposal fell flat politically because a salary increase for public school teachers had already been snubbed.

Instead, legislators settled on a stipend for judges on the condition they all complete a workload study to determine if too few or too many judges are assigned to each district and appellate court. Gov. Jeff Landry vetoed that study requirement but kept the stipend intact.

An argument among Louisiana Judiciary Compensation Commission members followed over whether judges should be able to receive their stipends up front, in installments or at the end of the fiscal year. Those in favor of an immediate lump sum payment won the day, allowing the stipends to go out in July — the first month of the state’s fiscal year.

Among those who accepted the stipend was James Genovese, right as he was leaving his associate justice seat on the Louisiana Supreme Court to become the new president of Northwestern State University.

Genovese brushed off suggestions that he hadn’t earned the stipend after resigned from the court within the first month of the fiscal year.

“I have served 29 years as a judge,” Genovese said.”I’ve earned it.”

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com. Follow Louisiana Illuminator on Facebook and X.

Major pharmaceutical companies lashed out following a landmark deal unveiled Thursday to cut the costs of 10 key medicines, with some saying the price-setting process was not transparent.

Their statements came after US President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris announced a deal to lower costs of the first 10 drugs picked for Medicare price talks.

The agreement with drugmakers -- who said they came on board with negotiations as they had no choice -- is set to save seniors in the United States $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket costs.

It is the result of months of negotiations and is anticipated to save Medicare $6 billion in the first year alone, said Biden, referring to the federal health insurance for seniors.

While the announcement is a likely boon for Democratic presidential candidate Harris as she works on her economic messaging ahead of November's election, pharmaceutical companies have long resisted the cuts.

The US government is initially limited to picking 10 drugs for price talks and can expand the program in subsequent years.

- 'Not objective' -

The agreements come on the back of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a major package of energy transition policy and social reforms.

This allowed Medicare to start negotiating drug costs for the first time in its nearly 60-year existence.

Novartis, whose heart failure treatment Entresto is among the 10 selected medicines, pushed back against the price-setting process as "not objective or transparent."

"Novartis believes the price-setting provisions in the IRA are unconstitutional and will have long-lasting and devastating consequences," the company added in a statement.

It said it agreed to a "maximum fair price" only to "avoid other untenable options including catastrophic fines or the removal of all our products from both Medicare and Medicaid."

For the 10 selected drugs, discounts from 2023 prices range from 38 percent to 79 percent. The new costs will take effect in 2026.

Besides Entresto, the drugs include Farxiga by AstraZeneca used against diabetes, as well as anticoagulant Eliquis -- used by millions of Medicare beneficiaries.

AstraZeneca said in a separate statement that it accepted the price, as "walking away is not an option."

If a manufacturer refused to accept the price, access for Medicare and Medicaid patients could be compromised, it said.

- Patient costs? -

Companies also warned that patients could still face higher costs and argued that the deal undervalued their products.

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), which is behind Eliquis, cautioned that "insurance plans and their pharmacy benefit managers are ultimately responsible for what patients will pay."

"The IRA does not protect patients from potential increases to their cost sharing or restrictions in access" to Eliquis once the maximum fair price goes into effect in 2026, the company added.

CFRA analyst Sel Hardy, however, noted that BMS management seemed confident it could navigate the impact of the IRA on Eliquis.

A Johnson & Johnson spokesperson called the law arbitrary and lacking in scientific approach.

This "undervalues the benefit our medicines deliver to millions of patients," J&J said.

- 'Historic milestone' -

US residents face the highest prescription drug prices globally, leaving many people to pay partially out of their own pockets despite already exorbitant insurance premiums.

The new deal was reached after Democrats pushed for the government to be able to negotiate prices directly with drug manufacturers for federal health programs.

The White House said the agreement for lower prices is a "historic milestone."

"The vice president and I are not backing down," Biden said in a Thursday statement.

His comments came ahead of a first joint public event with Harris since she replaced him as the Democratic candidate in the upcoming election.

"We will continue the fight to make sure all Americans can pay less for prescription drugs and to give more breathing room for American families," he said.

Rising costs of living are a key issue for the 2024 election.

Last October, drugmakers behind the selected medicines for serious illnesses grudgingly agreed to negotiate on cutting prices.

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts' decision on Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim paved a path for Judge Tanya Chutkan to convict the former president, a Harvard Law School professor argued Thursday.

The controversial ruling granting limited immunity makes it possible for special counsel Jack Smith to land a conviction on federal election interference charges in Washington D.C.'s federal court, Prof. Richard Lazarus wrote in a Washington Post editorial.

"Roberts Jr.’s opinion offers a surprisingly clear road map for the successful felony prosecution of Trump," Lazarus argues. "[Chutkan] should follow that clear pathway without further delay."

Lazarus focused on the allegation that Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 election by spreading disinformation he knew to be false.

This allegation involves three acts Smith argues were criminal: Trump's in-person pressure campaign on election officials, the incitement of a mob at the "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6, 2021, and his urging former Vice President Mike Pence to block certification of the election.

"At most, only one of these three acts is derailed by the Supreme Court’s ruling," Lazarus wrote, "leaving plenty of room for Trump’s conviction on multiple felony counts."

As proof, Lazarus pointed to Roberts' own words in his majority ruling on limited presidential immunity when conducting "official acts."

The Harvard professor argued Roberts sent a message to Chutkan that she was free to conclude Trump's conversations with public officials and speeches to the public were not official acts simply because he was president at the time.

ALSO READ: Trump's insatiable ego is destroying the former president

"Roberts’s opinion did not hesitate to make clear that Chutkan could legitimately conclude that all these contacts were unofficial in nature," Lazarus wrote. "The court carefully pointed out that 'this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function.'”

Lazarus said he doubts the case will be prosecuted before the November election but that a clear path lies ahead for Smith and his team.

"The bottom line is clear," Lazarus wrote. "Whether you are outraged by or sympathetic to the surprising sweep of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, it nevertheless leaves the former president very much open to a successful felony prosecution."