Elections
Kamala Harris: ‘We all have PTSD from 2016’
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s running mate Senator Kamala Harris, D-CA, lamented to voters in Troy, Michigan this week that “we all have” Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from the 2016 election when President Donald Trump won.
“You guys are seriously, you guys are seriously gonna make this happen,” Harris said. “You know that. I mean, you know, we all have PTSD from 2016, yes.”
Harris explained how Democrats can learn from the mistakes of 2016, highlighting that “in Michigan, we missed that election on average by two votes per precinct, think about that.”
She said, “Two votes per precinct on average. And what that tells us, right, is we want to be motivated by optimism and understanding what we know and what we have the power to do. Ifwe just turn out just an extra three or four more votes per district, we win. Right? Per precinct. So, this is doable. We can do this. We will do this. We’re gonna do this. We’re gonna elect Joe Biden the next president of the United States. Yes we are. Yes we are and you guys are gonna do this.”
Watch the full clip here:
Special counsel Jack Smith continues to ask U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to silence former President Donald Trump by any means necessary ahead of an October 16 hearing on a proposed gag order.
Smith’s original request was unsealed last week, prompting Trump to respond on social media platforms and interview, which Smith’s office says bolsters their case to place a gag order on Trump.
In a 22-page filing, senior assistant special counsel Molly Gaston said prosecutors rejected Trump’s claims that their proposed gag order was an attempt to silence him on the campaign trail. Rather, she said, it was an effort to prevent him from trying to make “use of his candidacy as a cover for making prejudicial public statements about this case.”
NEW: Jack Smith again begs Judge Chutkan to muzzle Donald Trump by claiming basically everyone is a "witness" in the Jan 6 case: pic.twitter.com/P4vBlRdjUG
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) October 1, 2023
“[T]here is no legitimate need for the defendant, in the course of his campaign, to attack known witnesses regarding the substance of their anticipated testimony,” Gaston wrote.
“[N]o other criminal defendant would be permitted to issue public statements insinuating that a known witness in his case should be executed,” Gaston wrote. “This defendant should not be, either.”
-
education5 days agoParents, advocates call on leaders to step down after ZERO children pass math at 13 Baltimore state schools
-
Elections4 days agoBiden impeachment inquiry begins: Hunter traveled to at least 15 countries with VP dad on his official trips
-
Immigration6 days agoLocal TX developer accused of selling land to illegal immigrants creating entire town with ‘four cartels operating there’
-
Politics5 days agoThe Looming National Debt Crisis: The Uncomfortable Truth No One Wants to Discuss
