Raw Story

Former Republican Tara Setmayer cannot help but notice Donald Trump is struggling to fight back against Vice President Kamala Harris the ways that worked in the past.

Speaking to MSNBC on Tuesday, Setmayer, who leads the Seneca Project, said that Trump's team knows he can't debate while Harris can.

"And they're worried because she's a prosecutor, and Donald Trump has never really fully been cross-examined in front of the American people," she explained. "He didn't take the stand in his criminal trials. He is ill-prepared to be challenged by, not only a woman, but a woman of color. So, if I were his campaign sure, I'd be nervous about having Donald Trump on the stage next to a younger, smarter, more skilled debater and speaker than my candidate."

ALSO READ: History shows presidential debate victors often win the battle but lose the war

Meanwhile, after spending months attacking President Joe Biden for being too old, Trump is "the old one in the race now." Setmayer said that there's nothing the campaign can do to fix the visual. "And the American people will see that contrast and the binary choice."

Trump on Thursday announced that he had finally agreed to do a debate with Harris on ABC News on Sept. 10, and Setmayer said she couldn't possibly imagine him actually backing out of it.

"I don't think Donald Trump's ego will allow him to let those taunts go by," she said. "I think it's interesting that the Harris campaign is going about it this way, but it's smart politics. They know that this gets under Donald Trump's skin, and when he's irritated, he makes more mistakes."

Ultimately, Setmayer explained, Harris is in the stronger position "and it's unraveling him. He just cannot seem to land a punch on her and it shows in his response thus far."

See the full comments below or at the link here.

- YouTube youtu.be

Sen. J.D. Vance threw an insult at Vice President Kamala Harris Tuesday that almost immediately boomeranged.

Former President Donald Trump's running mate took to X to accuse Harris of "flip-flopping" on her border security policy positions ahead of the presidential election in November — then faced stern reprimand from a fellow Republican.

"Kamala Harris is a fake," wrote Vance. "If she wants to build the border wall, she could start right now!"

Vance shared an Axios report that described Harris' support of a bipartisan border security bill — killed earlier this year by Trump allies who reportedly feared the impact such a solution would have on his reelection campaign — as an about-face.

Harris, as California's representative in the Senate, was one of three senators to oppose a compromise that would provide billions of dollars for then-President Trump's promised border wall in exchange for a Dreamers citizenship policy, Politico reported in 2020.

At the Democratic National Convention last week, Harris promised to revive the dead-on-arrival border security bill that includes $650 million in funding for a border wall, about 4 percent of the $18 billion Trump requested in 2018.

ALSO READ: Trump is losing his audience

It was this policy position Vance presented as proof that Harris was a "fake" — an argument that did not impress former GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL).

"BREAKING," replied Kinzinger, "In the irony of all ironies, @JDVance calls Kamala Harris 'fake.'"

Vance has also been accused of flip-flopping with his support of Trump — whom he once dubbed "America's Hitler" — and misrepresenting his upbringing for the convenience of his political career, spurring one columnist to dub him the "Hillbilly phony."

Political commentator Keith Olbermann mocked Vance with the fake rumors involving the Ohio senator and common living room furniture.

"You voted against it," Olbermann said, with the addition of an unprintable moniker involving a futon.

Political commentator and Navy veteran Jared Ryan Sears replied with a lengthy rebuke of Vance's analysis that included a basic political lesson about the extent of Harris' power as vice president.

"The Vice President doesn't have the authority to build a wall or to pay for it," he wrote. "Someone running for the position should know that...Just because you want a dictatorship, doesn't mean America is one."

Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign is earning praise for the way that it is taking the fight to former President Donald Trump in the area that is supposed to be one of his strongest points: Masculinity.

Writing in The Bulwark, Ilyse Hogue made the case that the Harris campaign is trying to present a more positive vision of masculinity than the one presented by the twice-impeached, thrice-married, quadruple-indicted, 34-count convicted felon at the top of the GOP ticket.

In fact, Hogue thought that the goal of the campaign is to "demolish" Trump's masculinity altogether.

In particular, Hogue examined the contrast in masculinity projected by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

ALSO READ: Democrats are reclaiming freedom and the American flag

"He sprinkled his speech with references to football plays and trophies he earned by shooting rifles, and he undergirded those endeavors with a clear directive about the responsibility that naturally accompanies them," she argued. "Might and brawn mean nothing if they are not used to protect and defend — and not just your women and children, but your community and country."

Hogue also zeroed in on comedian D.L. Hughley, whom she said came in to "drive a stake through the heart of the former president's brand of toxic virility" by making him the butt of nonstop jokes.

"He may have landed the punchline of the night by branding the ex-president’s need for a succession of trophy wives as being more than a little sad and embarrassingly outdated," she wrote. "His remark that the rise of Republicans for Kamala meant Trump would finally know what it feels like when 'YOU get left for a younger woman' got uproarious applause."

The U.S. Supreme Court has made voting rights advocates nervous about November's election with a recent decision changing registration rules in Arizona.

The justices neglected to clarify in that ruling when they would take up election and voting cases, and experts fear the court will unevenly applying an ambiguous legal principle, known as Purcell, that's intended to minimize chaos by making changes to voting rules right before an election, reported CNN.

"[The Arizona ruling] is creating additional uncertainty around a principle that already had very few concrete parameters,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “It’s hard to understand exactly what the court is doing when it comes to Purcell and that creates a lot of anxiety that the rule could be applied in a way that’s inconsistent and tips the scales one way or the other.”

A 2006 Supreme Court decision established the "Purcell principle" cautioning federal courts about last-minute changes to the election status quo, but it's not entirely clear what should count as "last-minute" or "status quo," and experts are concerned that lack of clarity could be an important factor in this year's election – especially since the court avoided making any clarifications on that topic in their Arizona decision.

“If the entire purpose of Purcell is to reduce the risk of voter confusion, how does that come within a country mile of the difference-splitting result that we saw in the Arizona case?” said CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump exploits AP photo error for new $99 'Save America' book

The court will almost certainly be asked to take up election-year lawsuits, some of which are already being considered by lower courts, right up to Election Day and beyond, but some experts were puzzled by their silence on the Purcell principle.

“It’s something we need, but it needs some fleshing out,” said Chad Ennis, vice president of the conservative Honest Elections Project. “I’d like a little more clarity on when Purcell applies going into the election.”

Ennis said some flexibility was needed on the doctrine because some election rules take longer to implement, but he said more certainty would be helpful – and others would have preferred some clarity on what type of cases the court would consider taking up.

“The problem is, these cases are always in an emergency posture, so you’re always dealing with short fuses,” said Derek Muller, a professor and elections expert at the Notre Dame Law School. “But the court just seems not interested in adding more details about its basis for granting or denying.”

A senior adviser to the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris believes a lingering point of contention regarding the upcoming debate has been settled.

Appearing Monday on "The Situation Room," Ian Sams hit back at the notion that the vice president was pushing back against debating.

"That's not entirely accurate," he said "Let's take a step back — when she became the nominee she agreed to the Sept. 10 debate."

As part of that, he said, there's been discussions with ABC on the formatting of that debate. He attacked Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for waffling.

ALSO READ: Trump is losing his audience

"Trump has been all over the place. He backed out. He attacked the debate," said Sams. "He said we should go over to Fox News, before he decided to come back to the debate."

Sams then suggested Trump's "handlers" were — behind the scenes — plotting to keep microphones muted. However, the matter appeared to be settled Monday, he added.

"Today in Virginia, President Trump was asked about it, and he said 'It doesn't matter to me. I'd probably rather have them on.' So as far as we're concerned, this debate is over, and we're looking forward to the Sept. 10 debate."

When asked if the Harris campaign had confirmed with the Trump campaign over whether to have microphones muted, Sams doubled down.

"Well, we heard from the horse's mouth. We heard him say he's happy to do that. I think it's really important, the vice president thinks it's really important there be open and frank exchanges between the two candidates where they can get engaged with each other to talk about the issues that matter to the American people," he said.

More importantly, Sams added, the campaign wants Americans to see an "unfettered" and "dangerous" Trump.

"That's what we're going to get if he becomes president again," said Sams.

Watch the clip below or at this link.

COLUMBIA — South Carolina’s attorney general is questioning whether a major fundraising platform for Democrats committed fraud. State Democratic leaders and a representative of the platform contend the allegations are nonsense.

The allegations are outlined in a letter released Monday from Attorney General Alan Wilson to the CEO of Massachusetts-based ActBlue — a platform that processes donations to Democratic campaigns. ActBlue acts as a pass-through, sending donations made online to candidates in exchange for a percentage fee.

Wilson says ActBlue may have split large donations into smaller donations to avoid campaign limits, which he likened to a “smurfing” money-laundering scheme. He also says the platform may have allowed for “straw donors,” when one person makes a donation on behalf of another.

In the letter, Wilson writes that his office found specific examples of South Carolina donors making so many contributions that it appeared “implausible and highly suspicious.” The letter makes no direct accusations. Sprinkled throughout are terms such as “may,” “if true” and “raise the question.” It asks for additional information about the process that ActBlue uses to verify donor information.

“Alarmingly, some of these individuals list their occupations as ‘unemployed’ or report jobs that could not be reasonably commensurate to the total amount of financial contributions made by others in similar positions,” he wrote. “The allegations also raise the question of whether contributions were made without the reported donors’ consent or awareness, which is equally troubling.”

The information is based on public records, according to the letter. It does not specify whether the donations were made to state or federal candidates, although it does say that either could be in violation of the law.

The letter was sent to ActBlue on Thursday. Wilson is asking for a response by Sept. 6.

In a statement, an ActBlue spokesperson declined to address Wilson’s letter specifically but said the platform enforces strict anti-fraud policies. The spokesperson also confirmed the platform is cooperating with Wilson.

“We are aware of recent attempts to spread misinformation about our platform,” the statement reads. “These false so-called ‘allegations’ are intentionally designed to mislead the public.”

State Democratic leaders also dismissed the claims from Wilson, saying that a donation made through ActBlue includes all the same required information as any other political donation.

“It’s all reported. It’s all there. There’s no way to do straw donors,” Jay Parmley, state executive director for the Democratic party, told the Gazette Monday afternoon. “(Wilson) would rather make a stupid point that has no basis in fact than doing a little bit of research.”

Parmley described ActBlue as a “godsend” that made it much easier for candidates to receive donations.

“This is not going to go anywhere, but (Wilson is) going to try and confuse the electorate, make people think there’s something wrong,” Parmley said.

This is not the first time Republicans have raised questions about ActBlue.

Virginia’s attorney general, Jason Miyares, sent a similar letter in early August. Indiana’s attorney general Todd Rokita announced his office was looking into “allegations” last Wednesday. Both are Republicans.

In Maryland, right-wing filmmaker James O’Keefe alleged a laundering operation for donations through ActBlue in the spring based on information that experts dismissed as dubious.

Whitney Michael, a senior advisor with Wilson’s office, did not provide specifics about what prompted the letter other than saying the issue was “brought to our attention.”

“This isn’t a blue or a red issue. This is a transparency issue,” Michael said.

Michael said that ActBlue has promised to provide additional information, and next steps would be based on that information.

Fake donations do have a history in South Carolina.

In 2012, then-Lt. Gov. Ken Ard resigned after being indicted for campaign violations. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years’ probation and 300 hours of public service.

This included a straw-donor scheme that involved Ard giving money to others to be donated to back to the campaign, falsely inflating the number of donations that he received. He also paid a $48,000 ethics fine for using money from his campaign to pay for personal items, like clothes, football tickets and a flat-screen TV.

SC Daily Gazette is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. SC Daily Gazette maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seanna Adcox for questions: info@scdailygazette.com. Follow SC Daily Gazette on Facebook and X.