Harvard-Harris Poll: Huge Majorities Say Biden ‘Too Old, Shouldn’t Run’

A large majority of voters in a new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll said President Joe Biden should not seek a second term in office, with most saying either that he has been a bad president or that he’ll be too old to serve for four more years. 

Most respondents, at 71%, said they don’t think Biden should run again, compared to 29% who say he should seek a second term. 

Of those who said Biden shouldn’t run:

  • 45% said he is a bad president.
  • 36% said he’s too old.
  • 60% said they have doubts about his mental fitness. 
  • 26% said they believe it is time for a change. 

“President Biden may want to run again, but the voters say no to the idea of a second term, panning the job he is doing as president. Only 30 percent of Democrats would even vote for him in a Democratic presidential primary,” said Mark Penn, the co-director of the Harvard CAPS–Harris Poll survey.

Meanwhile, Biden came out as the favorite among potential Democrat candidates, but only netted about a third of the Democrats polled. His nearest potential challenger for the nomination was Vice President Kamala Harris, at 18%, followed by other possible candidates such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, getting only single-digit nods. 

If Biden chooses not to run, Harris was the choice of most voters, at 25%, followed by Clinton at 15% and Sanders at 12%. 

Biden’s approval ratings suffered in the poll as well, as he got a 38% overall approval rating. He scored low in other categories as well:

  • Handling inflation, 28%
  • The economy, 32%
  • Stimulating jobs, 43%
  • Reacting to COVID-19, 50%

Meanwhile, a majority of the poll’s respondents, at 61%, also said former President Donald Trump should not run for the White House again either, with 39% saying he should run. 

Among those who said that Trump should not run: 

  • 39% said he was erratic.
  • 33% said he would divide the country. 
  • 30% said he was responsible for Jan. 6. 

Furthermore, most voters, at 60%, said they would consider a moderate, independent candidate should Biden and Trump running against each other again, with 40% saying they would not consider it. 

By party, 53% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats said they’d consider the moderate candidate. 

However, voters said, by a small lead, that they would pick Trump over either Biden or Harris if the election were being held now:

  • Trump over Biden, 43% to 40%.
  • Trump over Harris, 45% to 39%.

But Harris came out ahead in a potential race against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is also being mentioned as a potential contender against Trump for the GOP nomination, at 39% to 37%. 

The survey was conducted on June 28-29 and polled 1,308 registered voters. The online sample was drawn from the Harris Panel and weighted to reflect known demographics. It was a collaboration of the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University and the Harris Poll and did not report a confidence interval.

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Actor Jon Voight: Biden ‘Must Be Impeached’

Actor Jon Voight said that President Joe Biden “must be impeached” in a June 28 video posted on Twitter.

“We must protect this nation and bring back safety. We are all feeling very unsafe. We are all angry,” Voight said in the video. “Let’s remember why.

“It starts with the seat of the president of the United States. He has wronged this nation’s glory. He has taken down our morals, our true gift of a land of the free. He must be impeached. We cannot wait another second having him dictate our path.”

Voight said that the nation is “saddened by so much turmoil,” due to the “horror” of so many “criminals ruining lives,” and that the nation needs to restore its police forces to guard its citizens, neighborhoods, and businesses.

He then called on Americans to “get him out” and “restore this nation to greatness.”

“Don’t let this President Biden tear down every inch that was sacrificed with the blood, sweat, and tears for his dictation of lies,” Voight said. “I urge all to see truths. I urge all to make a difference for our children’s future, our future.”

He said the land “is being broken down,” but can be rebuilt through American values “to her feet with glory.”

The 83-year-old Academy Award-winning American actor is a supporter of former President Donald Trump. He has been outspoken against Democrats and their agenda, calling them “evil” in a November 2020 Vanity Fair article and saying the nation is in “our greatest fight since the Civil War.”

“My fellow Americans, I stand here with all that feel as I do: disgusted with this lie that Biden has been chosen,” he said at the time. “As if we all don’t know the truth.”

In 2019, Trump presented Voight with two national awards: the Medal of Arts and National Humanities Medal, The Associated Press reported at the time.

“Each of today’s recipients has made an outstanding contributions to American society, culture, and life,” Trump said during the 2019 ceremony. “They exemplify the genius, talent, and creativity of our exceptional nation.”

Voight won an Oscar for portraying a Vietnam war veteran in 1978’s “Coming Home” and also starred with Dustin Hoffman in the 1969 film “Midnight Cowboy.”

More recently, Voight played Mickey Donovan in the “Ray Donovan” television series from 2013 to 2020, according to IMDB.

“Coming Home” co-star and Democratic activist Jane Fonda said their opposing political views ended their friendship in the years since the film.

“I don’t know what happened to Jon,” Fonda said during an interview with Howard Stern in 2020. “You know, we were pretty close. He was my best friend among Hollywood people. We won Academy Awards together for ‘Coming Home.'”

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Trump Social Media Firm Subpoened by Feds, Stock Regulators

Donald Trump’s social media company and some of its employees received subpoenas from both a federal grand jury and securities regulators, according to a public disclosure Friday, possibly delaying or even killing a deal promising a cash infusion needed to take on Twitter.

Trump Media & Technology Group received subpoenas from a grand jury in New York and the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a securities document filed by Digital World Acquisition Corp. on Friday. Digital World has plans to buy Trump Media, releasing $1.3 billion for its fledging business, but the deal is unlikely to be done during two legal probes.

Trump, who is Trump Media’s chairman, was not among the employees who received subpoenas, according to a Trump Media statement.

On Monday, Digital World announced it had received subpoenas from the same grand jury convened by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office. Digital World has been under investigation by the SEC for possible violations for months, a development that has weighed on the stock.

Digital World stock closed Friday at $5.78, down 25% in a week. It had been at over $100 last year after the company announced it had a deal to buy the former president’s social media firm.

The SEC has been looking into whether Digital World broke rules by having substantial talks about buying Trump’s company starting early last year before Digital World sold stock to the public for the first time in September. Just weeks later it announced it would be buying Trump’s company.

Digital World is one of a once-popular group of “blank-check” companies that go public as empty corporate entities with no operations, only offering investors the promise they will buy a business in the future. As such, they are allowed to sell stock to the public quickly without the usual regulatory disclosures and delays, but only if they haven’t already lined up possible acquisition targets.

Trump’s social media offering, called Truth Social, launched in February. It said it is fighting Big Tech limits on speech. Trump was banned from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube last year after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Trump Media last year lined up dozens of investors to pump $1 billion into the company, but can’t get the cash until the Digital World acquisition is completed. An additional $300 million would come from Digital World itself.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Source link

Ginni Thomas’ Attorney Says She Won’t Testify for Jan. 6 Committee

The attorney for Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, said in a letter that his client refuses to testify in front of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, protest and riot at the Capitol.

Citing “no sufficient basis” for her testimony, attorney Mark Paoletta said in a Tuesday letter to the committee that Thomas would not be testifying and that she has become the target of “an avalanche of death threats and other abuse by the unprecedented assault on the conservative Supreme Court justices and their families,” the Boston Globe reported Wednesday.

In the letter, Paoletta asked the committee “to provide a better justification for why Mrs. Thomas’s testimony is relevant to the Committee’s legislative purpose,” according to CNN.

The committee requested her testimony with a June 16 letter saying the panel wanted to inquire about her alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, Committee Chairman Bernie Thompson told CNN at the time.

The request came after emails between Ginni Thomas and conservative attorney John Eastman became known, allegedly tying her to the efforts of former President Donald Trump and his supporters to declare the results of the election invalid, the report said.

While the details contained within the emails are not yet public, Thomas said in an interview with The Daily Caller at the time that she “looked forward” to speaking with the committee and that she “can’t wait to clear up misconceptions.”

Calling the narrative that has emerged from the revelations about the correspondence with Eastman being connected to Trump or the events at the Capitol “distorted” and “blatantly false,” Paoletta said in the letter to the committee that “there is no story here.”

“She held no official or unofficial role in the White House, nor in President Trump’s reelection campaign,” CNN reported the attorney wrote.

Paoletta said there is no documentation tying his client to the events of that day or to any actions taken by the White House during that time.

“Mrs. Thomas was not, and is not, familiar with Mr. Eastman’s specific litigation efforts,” Paoletta said in the letter describing his client’s communications with Eastman. “Not a single document shows any coordination between Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Eastman. And further, all of these emails were exchanged on or before Dec. 9, [2020] before the electors met and were certified by each of their states.”

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Bannon Requests Jan. 6 Hearing Trial Delay

Steve Bannon requested in a court filing on Wednesday that a trial stemming from multiple contempt of Congress charges be delayed in light of the ongoing televised hearings.

Bannon, who worked for several months as a senior adviser to former President Trump, was indicted by the Justice Department in November after failing to respond to a subpoena levied against him by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Since then, the Republican insider has levied several attempts to counter-subpoena, throw out his charges and now delay his trial with the help of attorneys David Schoen, Robert Costello and Evan Corcoran.

This week, Bannon’s legal team asked for his trial’s start date to be pushed back from July 18 to Oct. 25, arguing the series of public hearings scheduled by the Jan. 6 panel could influence jurors’ opinions.

“Public impact is not limited to the hearings themselves, but to the media coverage that magnified the hearings. In Washington, D.C., where (the) trial will take place — and where the acts alleged in the Indictment took place — every major media outlet treated the hearings as a top news story,” Bannon’s camp wrote.

“Those broadcasts have been repackaged and re-broadcast in countless forms, creating a saturation of the information sources available to Washington, D.C. residents,” the filing added.

The attorneys further claimed that the July 18 date was too aggressive and should be picked up by the committee later in the year.

“When (the) trial was scheduled, neither the Court nor the parties were aware of the June and upcoming July media blitz by the Select Committee,” they added.

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Hillary Clinton: SCOTUS Justice Thomas ‘A Person of Grievance’ In Law School

Former Secretary of State and failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said this week that U.S. Supreme Court conservative Justice Clarence Thomas has been “a person of grievance” since she attended law school with him at Yale in the early 1970s.

“I went to law school with him,” Clinton said in a CBS Mornings interview posted on Twitter by the network Tuesday. “He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I’ve known him, resentment, grievance, anger, and he has signaled in the past to lower courts, to state legislatures, to find cases, pass laws, ‘get them up’ (to the Supreme Court).”

Clinton and Thomas were at the school between 1969-74, according to their individual biographies.

Thomas is one of the majority of six conservative justices who voted last week to overturn 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal nationwide.

In the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case decided last week, the court overturned the decision and sent the issue back to the states to decide.

In his separate concurrent opinion, Thomas said the court should revisit certain cases decided on the 14th amendment’s due process clause because they were “demonstrably erroneous.”

“Nothing in the court’s opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Thomas wrote. “For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold (right of married people to obtain contraception), Lawrence (right to engage in consensual sexual acts), and Obergefell (right to same sex marriage).”

Clinton said that this part of his concurrent opinion was “signaling” for lower courts and conservative states to bring a case regarding these previous rulings back in front of the court to be overruled.

“The people he is speaking to, which are the right-wing, very conservative judges, and justices, and state legislatures,” Clinton said. “There’s so many things about it that are deeply distressing, but women are going to die, women will die.”

Thomas, who just turned 74, was appointed to the supreme court by President George H.W. Bush, taking his seat on Oct. 23, 1991, after contentious confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate.

Clinton lost to former Republican President Donald Trump in 2016, who went on to appoint three conservative justices top the high court that he said would overturn the Roe decision.

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Former Trump Advisor John Eastman Claims He Was ‘Frisked’ by FBI Agents Who Seized His Phone

John Eastman, the lawyer who was hired by former President Donald Trump to look into alleged election issues, has claimed that he was “frisked” by federal agents and had his cellphone seized while he was leaving a restaurant last week.

Eastman filed a motion in the U.S. District Court in New Mexico on Monday asking for the seized belongings to be returned to him, arguing that the search warrant officers had used was “unlawful” and violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

According to the motion, federal agents served a search warrant on Eastman on June 22 while he was leaving a restaurant which allowed them to seize any electronic or digital device of his, including cell phones, iPads, USBs, and computers.

The motion does not state exactly where the alleged frisking incident occurred but CNN reported that it took place in New Mexico,

Eastman asked the federal agent to show him the warrant but the officer declined, according to the motion. He was then “forced” to unlock his phone for officers.

“Federal agents served a search warrant (Exhibit 1) on movant while movant was exiting a restaurant. Movant asked to see the warrant, but the executing officer refused. Movant was frisked. Movant’s phone—an iPhone Pro 12—was seized. Movant was forced to provide biometric data to open said phone,” reads the filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. “He was only given a copy of the search warrant but not the supporting affidavit referenced in it.”


The motion goes on to state that the federal agents identified themselves as members of the FBI but that they “appeared to be executing a warrant issued at the behest of the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General.”

Eastman argues that the search warrant was unlawful because the Department of Justice’s Office of the Attorney General “outstripped its mandate by targeting a person outside of the DOJ”, and because the warrant issued “does not describe with particularity the items to be seized, is overboard and provides no probable cause link to any criminal activity” which violates the requirements of the fourth amendment.”

The lawyer adds that the warrant violated his fifth and sixth amendment rights and “fundamental privacy interests” because officers “forced” him to unlock the iPhone with face ID, which effectively forced him to “testify.”

“By its very breadth, the warrant intrudes on significant privacy interests, both of [Eastman] and of others whose communications with him are accessible on the seized cell phone,” his lawyers wrote in the motion.

The Epoch Times has contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) for comment.

Advising Donald Trump

Eastman, a former conservative legal scholar at Chapman’s Fowler School of Law, began advising Trump in August 2020, according to court papers. He begin working closely with Trump in December 2020, after it was declared that President Joe Biden had won the election.

The attorney had sought to use alternative electors to overturn the election results in favor of Trump, his emails allegedly showed, and argued that then-Vice President Mike Pence could block the certification of the electoral votes.

He also appeared on stage alongside Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani at the “Stop the Steal” event on Jan. 6 where he claimed that election fraud had taken place in the 2020 elections.

Due to his close ties with Trump, the lawyer has become the latest individual ordered by a judge to hand over his communications— amounting to roughly 19,000 emails sent from his Chapman email account between Nov. 3, 2020, and Jan. 20, 2021—to the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol.

Eastman had initially sued to block a congressional subpoena, asserting his Fifth Amendment right.

The attorney ultimately resigned from Chapman University in January 2021 following backlash over his appearance on stage on Jan. 6, however, he claims he did not enter the Capitol building on the day of the breach.


Katabella Roberts is a reporter currently based in Turkey. She covers news and business for The Epoch Times, focusing primarily on the United States.

Source link

Green Day Singer: Renouncing US Citizenship Over SCOTUS Rulings

Billie Joe Armstrong, lead singer for the punk rock band Green Day, said he’s “renouncing his citizenship” from the United States, apparently in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade (a 5-4 decision) and upholding the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision (6-3 vote).

Armstrong’s public pronouncement came on Friday, while Green Day was performing in London.

While speaking to the audience, the 50-year-old Armstrong said, “(Expletive) America,” before saying, “There’s too much (expletive) stupid in the world.”

On Saturday night, Armstrong reportedly offered a similar message of angst at Green Day’s show in Huddersfield, England.

Concertgoers claim Armstrong told the crowd “(expletive) the Supreme Court of America” before the song, “American Idiot,” which the band had previously claimed was written in anger about not being represented by national leadership.

If Armstrong — who was born in Oakland, California — genuinely wants to renounce his citizenship, here are some tips, according to USA.gov.

“Giving up your U.S. citizenship has consequences,” warns the website. “You should never make this decision lightly, as it can only be undone under very limited circumstances. Renouncing your U.S. citizenship means that you:

  • Give up your rights and responsibilities as a U.S. citizen.
  • Must become a citizen of another nation or risk becoming ‘stateless.’
  • May need a visa to visit the United States.”

Armstrong has publicly supported the presidential campaigns of Democrat Barack Obama and Independent Bernie Sanders over the past 15 years. He has also taken public shots at former President Donald Trump through the years, including one Hitler comparison.

In an exchange with Kerrang! magazine, prior to the 2016 president election, Armstrong quipped the only thing worse than Trump’s candidacy … was the millions of people across the country supporting it.

“The worst problem I see about Trump is who his followers are,” Armstrong told the magazine. 

Armstrong added, “I actually feel bad for them, because they’re poor, working-class people who can’t get a leg up. They’re pissed off, and he’s preyed on their anger. He just said, ‘You have no options and I’m the only one, and I’m going to take care of it myself.’ I mean, that’s (expletive) Hitler, man!”

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Trump Slams Conservative Pundits Who Don’t See ‘Potential Greatness of Our Country’

Former President Donald Trump slammed three conservative-leaning pundits on Sunday, apparently out of frustration with the post-decision coverage of this week’s landmark rulings from the Supreme Court.

In a Save America press release, Trump wrote:

“I listen to all of these foolish (stupid!) people, often living in a bygone era, like the weak and frail RINO, Peggy Noonan, who did much less for Ronald Reagan than she claims, and who actually said bad things about him and his ability to speak, or Rich Lowry, who has destroyed the once wonderful and influential National Review, the pride and joy of the legendary William F. Buckley, or George Will, whose mind is decaying with hatred and envy before our very eyes, or Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, two people who are finally out of the conversation and of no relevance whatsoever. Where do these people come from?”

Trump’s comment on Noonan might stem from a Thursday piece in The Wall Street Journal, where the prominent conservative writer suggested the Republican Party base was rejecting Trump as a future leader.

The Lowry comment could involve a different writer from The National Review saying that Trump was wrong to claim victory for Roe v. Wade being overturned by the Supreme Court, even though all three Trump-appointees — Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — sided with the majority in striking down Roe v. Wade (a 5-4 decision) and upholding Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (a 6-3 decision).

And the George Will comment might reflect the simmering feud between Trump and Will, who often questioned Trump’s policies and conduct during his presidential tenure (2017-21).

To close out his statement, Trump added: “[Noonan, Lowry, and Will] have no idea what the MAGA movement is, and even less of an understanding of America First, which is necessary, and even vital, to save our Country. People like these are nasty, jealous, not smart, and of no use to the potential greatness of our Country. They talk, they criticize, and they complain, but they don’t have the ability or talent to get anything done. They are shortsighted ‘losers,’ and will never understand what it takes to Make America Great Again!”

On the flip side, late Saturday night, Trump praised conservative writer John Nolte for his Roe v. Wade reflection piece.

“Thank you to John Nolte for truly understanding the way life works. This was not an easy thing to do, but I am very proud to have done it. Likewise, few would have had the courage to write about it. Thank you John!”

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Rep. Brooks Slams ‘Flawed’ Jan. 6 Hearings, Offers Conditions for Testifying

Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., on Thursday wrote a lengthy letter to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, unrest at the Capitol, detailing his feelings about being subpoenaed for testimony and questioning the fairness of hearings that don’t provide opportunities for witness cross-examination.

Brooks also submitted a series of conditions for providing sworn testimony to the House panel, all of which were available for public consumption on his Twitter account.

The letter initially reads:

“I understand the Committee wishes to depose me concerning January 6 events and have heard rumor the Committee ‘issued’ a subpoena for my appearance. I have on countless occasions been in public venues in Alabama, in my Congressional office, on the House Floor, and numerous places in between, yet no Committee subpoena has been served. This is puzzling.

“I don’t believe I have knowledge of January 6 events that are not already known or that add to what the Committee already knows.

”As the Committee knows, I have already made multiple, lengthy sworn statements in the Eric Swalwell lawsuit in federal court and made multiple, lengthy written and oral statements elsewhere.

”Presumably, the Committee has already obtained and reviewed these statements,” said Brooks, who recently lost Alabama’s GOP runoff primary for a U.S. Senate seat to Republican Katie Britt.

“I have numerous reservations about the Committee. Here are a few examples:

  • “The Committee refused to seat all of the majority party’s Republican appointees (a first in the history of the House of Representatives). This means minority party witnesses who might illuminate different views are less likely to be called and appropriate cross-examination questions are not asked, thereby failing to reveal truth (the purported goal of the Committee). No court of law would use such a flawed process. Why? Because judicial processes are designed to find truth.”
  • “The Committee insists on doing the public’s business (deposing witnesses) clandestinely and in secrecy. Hence, the Committee’s processes conflict with time-honored judicial processes designed to maximize the likelihood that viewers reach a fair, just and accurate impression of the truth of a matter.”
  • “I have read about leaked witness testimony. This distorts truth perception among the American people because the testimony leaked is in bits and pieces, not the whole, thereby depriving Americans of testimony and facts needed to make an informed decision about January 6 events.”
  • “A witness’s demeanor is critical to determining veracity and truth. This is one of the reason why judges and juries responsible for discerning truth view witness testimony in person. Failure to observe live testimony, in its entirety, reduces the ability of Americans to determine the truth of this matter.”

Regarding the conditions for offering sworn testimony, Brooks is seeking:

(1) A public hearing: The testimony must be provided in an open setting, meaning that TV/Web viewers would have live access to Brooks’ comments.

(2) Jan. 6 scope: Every question must have relevance to the events of that day in 2021.

(3) Questions by congressional leaders only; congressional staffers and any other non-elected leaders would not be permitted to submit queries to Brooks.

(4) Document disclosure: Brooks would require a minimum of seven days of preparation time, before commenting on prior statements, electronic communications, written communications, etc.

(5) Deposition date options: The testimony must be provided on days when Brooks was already slated to be in Washington.

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link