Election anxiety has hit a fever pitch among Washington, D.C. residents, and the German-owned corporate media outlet POLITICO wants its readers to know all about it. In an all-too-long column, senior editor Michael Schaffer details the planned flight of several residents from the nation’s capital for election night over fears of chaos and violence. Most of those interviewed apparently confuse Election Day with the riots that occurred on January 6 while Congress took up the certification of the 2020 presidential election.
One of the Washington, D.C. residents interviewed is Shreya Tulsiani, a researcher with Truth Initiative. “January 6th was a very scary time. I used to live right off of North Capitol Street, so I could see the Capitol. There were Proud Boys petting my dog that day. I don’t want to be a part of it,” she told POLITICO. How she knew the individuals petting her dog were Proud Boys and not another protest group or just random people walking by is unclear.
Tulsiani tells Schaffer that she believes November 5 could be just as dangerous as January 6 in Washington, D.C. She says, “I feel like election week might be crazy too. I don’t know what’s planned but I don’t want to be near it.” She goes on to insinuate the protective measures taken—including military checkpoints and the deployment of National Guard troops across the capitol ahead of Joe Biden’s 2021 presidential inauguration—were just as frightening as the Capitol riots.
“I know that the response here is, like, let’s bring out the tanks, let’s bring out the people with guns. That doesn’t make me feel safe either,” Tulsiani says.
D.C. Councilwoman Brooke Pinto claims she’s already getting questions from businesses in her ward—which includes the posh Georgetown neighborhood—as to whether they should board up in anticipation of unrest on election night. It should be noted that Georgetown is around five miles from the U.S. Capitol—and about two-and-a-half miles from the White House, where revelers usually gather for presidential elections—and the neighborhood lacks Metro subway access, making it difficult to reach for those without their own transportation.
Schaffer goes on to insinuate that any election night conflicts would have been unthinkable prior to January 6, 2021. However, the POLITICO editor is evidently and conveniently unaware of the actual violence and rampant property destruction that broke out across the country in the wake of President Donald J. Trump’s 2016 election victory.
However, at least one Washington, D.C. resident is skeptical of any political violence on election night—the city’s Democrat mayor, Muriel Bowser. “People have certain risk tolerances, and I don’t think they should be boarding up their businesses, but we’re not going to give them that advice,” she said earlier this week in response to the pear-clutching panic among capital residents.
show less
Election anxiety has hit a fever pitch among Washington, D.C. residents, and the German-owned corporate media outlet POLITICO wants its readers to know all about it. In an all-too-long column, senior editor Michael Schaffer details the planned flight of several residents from the nation's capital for election night over fears of chaos and violence. Most of those interviewed apparently confuse Election Day with the riots that occurred on January 6 while Congress took up the certification of the 2020 presidential election.
show more
President Donald J. Trump is floating the elimination of the federal income tax, with the revenue from it being replaced by income from import and export tariffs. The tax policy change, first floated by Trump during a recent campaign stop at a Bronx, New York barbershop, has caught fire on social media—even receiving the enthusiastic backing of former Congressman and libertarian firebrand Ron Paul (R-TX).
While the concept might sound farfetched on the modern political stage, it was not that long ago that the U.S. federal government was entirely—or almost entirely—funded through tariff revenue. Trump emphasized this fact during his Bronx stop. “It had all tariffs—it didn’t have an income tax,” Trump remarked at the Knockout Barbershop. He expressed concern about the financial burden income taxes impose on citizens, stating, “They’re paying tax, and they don’t have the money to pay the tax.”
TRUMP’S TARIFF PLAN.
On the campaign trail, Trump has strongly pushed for a more aggressive U.S. tariff policy. The 2024 Republican presidential nominee has proposed introducing a broad tariff regime on foreign imports ranging from 10 to 20 percent, with a significant 60 percent tariff on goods imported from China. The former Republican president has also said the U.S. should retaliate against any nation that tariffs American goods—even if those tariffs are 100 or 200 percent.
Several nations with strong diplomatic and economic ties to the United States still maintain high tariffs on American goods, especially automobiles. Both Germany and Japan have been able to tariff American car makers for almost 80 years because of the post-World War II Marshall Plan. Trump, however, proposes that this arrangement should change with either the countries dropping their high tariffs or the U.S. enacting their own on German and Japanese cars.
Today, tariffs only account for about two percent of federal revenue, while income taxes comprise about 94 percent of the government’s cash flow. While a ramp-up in tariff use could significantly change this dynamic, cuts to federal spending would still likely be needed. Currently, U.S. imports total approximately $3 trillion annually, while income and payroll taxes bring in $4.2 trillion.
THE TRUTH ABOUT TARIFFS.
Lastly, Democrats and some anti-Trump Republicans have tried to brand tariffs as inflationary. However, these attacks are highly misleading and, in some instances, outright falsehoods. Tariffs are, in simple terms, a form of consumption tax. Like most taxes, consumption taxes are deflationary in their economic effect. Properly understood inflation is either caused by increased demand driven by an expanding money supply or by the constriction of the supply of goods through policy or other means.
Tariffs neither increase the monetary supply nor prevent consumers from accessing goods; they are merely taxes importers pay on foreign goods. The most famous tariff legislation in U.S. history, the Smoot-Hawley Act, had a deflationary impact on the economy, not an inflationary one.
President Donald J. Trump is floating the elimination of the federal income tax, with the revenue from it being replaced by income from import and export tariffs. The tax policy change, first floated by Trump during a recent campaign stop at a Bronx, New York barbershop, has caught fire on social media—even receiving the enthusiastic backing of former Congressman and libertarian firebrand Ron Paul (R-TX).
show more
Bryan Lanza, senior adviser to the Donald Trumpcampaign, believes negative stories about the former president are set to emerge, telling CNN that “these fake things coming out” are part of a predictable election-time strategy by the Democrats. “You’re going to have something come out in the next couple of days, I suspect, and then something coming out next week,” he said.
One new allegation against former President Trump comes from Stacey Williams, a former swimsuit model who accuses Trump of groping her at Trump Tower in 1993—over 30 years ago—while Jeffrey Epstein was present. Britain’s far-left Guardian is still seeking to substantiate the claims, with only a vague reference to two friends of Williams who claim she told them about the supposed incident years ago so far.
On Monday, Williams recounted her experience during a Zoom call organized by Survivors for Kamala, a group supporting Vice President Kamala Harris—whose husband currently faces allegations of publicly slapping an ex-girlfriend at a film festival in 2012.
Responding to Williams’s allegations, Trump’s campaign press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, dismissed them as “unequivocally false,” saying they were fabricated by Harris’s campaign to undermine Trump.
Lanza says the accusations follow a pattern of fabricated allegations: “This is a long playbook that the Democratic Party has done and they try to come up with somebody at the last minute to try to distract from the fact that they have yet to make their case of why Kamala Harris would have to actually be president.”
Bryan Lanza, senior adviser to the Donald Trump campaign, believes negative stories about the former president are set to emerge, telling CNN that "these fake things coming out" are part of a predictable election-time strategy by the Democrats. "You're going to have something come out in the next couple of days, I suspect, and then something coming out next week," he said.
show more
With the 2024 presidential election set to be decided in less than two weeks, speculation regarding the potential cabinet picks for both major party candidates is rife. One of the important roles the election victor will choose is who will serve as the United States Attorney General.
While neither former President Donald J. Trump nor Vice President Kamala Harris has publicly stated who they prefer for the role, presidential transition documents and conversations among lawmakers on Capitol Hill have given some idea of who Trump is considering. Among the names being circulated are at least three sitting United States senators, a former acting Attorney General, a conservative legal expert, the former chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a U.S. District Court judge. Here they are, in no particular order:
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM!?
One name that was floated even before the 2024 election cycle kicked off in earnest is U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). While the pick would likely rankle conservatives and MAGA loyalists alike, Graham does have extensive legal experience and has been a close ally of Trump—even during the 2024 Republican primary.
Before his election to public office, Graham served in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps with the U.S. Air Force—eventually becoming the military service branch’s top prosecutor in Europe. After leaving active duty, Graham worked in private practice as an attorney for several years before being elected to the South Carolina State House of Representatives and, subsequently, the U.S. Congress.
From 2019 until 2021, Graham served as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is currently its ranking member. The South Carolina Republican—known for being a bipartisan lawmaker—made waves for his unusually vocal criticism of Democrats over their treatment of Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Graham would represent a wet and compromising approach to the Office of the Attorney General, representing almost no change from the public disaster that was Bill Barr. With Trump only being able to serve one more term, it would be a huge waste of time and indeed an unnecessary risk to appoint someone like Graham.
SENATOR JOSH HAWLEY.
Along with Sen. Graham, another member of the upper house of Congress said to be under consideration for Attorney General is Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO). Like Graham, the senior Senator from Missouri has extensive legal experience in private and government practices.
A graduate of Yale Law School, Hawley worked as a lawyer in private practice from 2008 to 2011 before joining the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as an attorney. While at the Becket Fund, Hawley served on a legal team that won Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores—a Supreme Court decision that held privately-owned, for-profit companies were exempt from Obamacare’s contraception mandate.
In 2016, Hawley was elected as the Attorney General for the State of Missouri, where he served before defeating incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in 2018. Sen. Hawley serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has developed a reputation as an aggressive and formidable interrogator of witnesses brought before the body.
SENATOR ERIC SCHMITT.
Joining Sen. Hawley as a contender for Attorney General is the junior Senator from Missouri, Eric Schmitt. The 49-year-old lawmaker succeeded Hawley as Attorney General for Missouri before being elected to the United States Senate in 2022. Also like Hawley, Schmitt has been an outspoken critic of the Biden-Harris DOJ and its partisan lawfare campaign against President Trump and his allies.
A conservative and populist politician, Schmitt checks a lot of the right boxes for an Attorney General nominee. Additionally, the junior Senator from Missouri has joined Trump on the campaign trail as a confidant, helping with the Republican nominee’s debate preparation ahead of Trump thrashing Joe Biden on CNN in June. Biden’s debate performance was so catastrophic he subsequently quit the presidential race.
As Missouri’s Attorney General, Schmitt worked to invalidate Obamacare. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he sued school districts and municipalities for overstepping their legal authority when implementing mask mandates.
FORMER ACTING AG JEFF CLARK.
One of the most interesting names being circulated is former acting U.S. Attorney General Jeff Clark. The former acting Attorney General in the final days of Trump’s first term in office, Clark has been one of the top targets of the Biden-Harris government’s lawfarecampaign against Trump and his allies.
Clark, a well-known and respected administrative lawyer, was appointed Assistant Attorney General during the Trump administration. During this time, he became concerned about potential voter fraud in the November 2020 election. He has drawn the ire of Democrats for simply authoring an unpublished legal memo on the constitutional actions Georgia state lawmakers could take to challenge the 2020 presidential election results due to allegations of voter fraud.
Two years ago, federal law enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) raided Clark’s home—though the agency has yet to publicly state why the raid was conducted. Perhaps in anticipation of Clark’s possible appointment to Attorney General, Democrats have been pursuing an effort to strip the attorney from practicing law in the District of Columbia.
A documentary drawing attention to the dubious lawfare campaign against Clark was recently released to the public. Fearless Point of Attack: The Jeff Clark Story features numerous attorneys and others defending Clark, including law professor Robert Destro, who stated, “Jeff is being persecuted, I would argue, because he gave legal advice that he thought was good faith legal advice.”
MIKE DAVIS.
Conservative legal expert Mike Davis is another name that has begun floating around those close to the Trump campaign. Davis, the founder, and president of the Article III Project (A3P), previously served as Sen. Chuck Grassley‘s (R-IA) chief counsel for judicial nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under Grassley’s chairmanship—and with the aid of Davis—the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed a historic 85 federal judicial nominees put forward by then-President Trump to lifetime appointments. Among them were two United States Supreme Court Justices, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch.
In addition to his work on judicial and legal matters, Davis heads the Internet Accountability Project (IAP), a nonprofit group aimed at holding Big Tech accountable for its partisan political bias and economic distortions. Davis has been an outspoken proponent of religious liberty, and his deep ties to those in the MAGA and America First movements make him a fan favorite.
On social media, Davis has routinely pointed out the hypocrisy and unprecedented lawfare campaign pushed by Democrats through hyperbolic quips about the actions he’d take as “Acting Attorney General.”
JUDGE AILEEN CANNON.
A somewhat surprising name has also emerged from a leaked document related to Trump’s presidential transition team. The document, titled “Transition Planning: Legal Principals,” lists U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon as a possible choice for Attorney General.
Cannon, nominated by Trump as a federal judge in 2020, gained attention after dismissing a case involving 40 criminal counts against the former president regarding his handling of classified documents post-presidency. Cannon found many issues with the lawfare prosecution, ultimately ruling that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional. Smith was neither appointed by the president nor confirmed by Congress.
The U.S. District Court judge appears second on the attorney general list, following former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Jay Clayton.
FORMER SEC CHAIRMAN JAY CLAYTON.
Jay Clayton, the former chairman of the SEC, is considered a top contender for Attorney General. With extensive experience in several fields of law as a partner with Sullivan & Cromwell, Clayton has an impressive resume—especially regarding legal representation in the U.S. financial sector.
Clayton was one of the first appointments announced by then-President-elect Donald Trump, being tapped for the role of SEC chairman on January 4, 2017. Interestingly, Clayton’s nomination was endorsed by future Trump antagonist, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. It was Vance’s office that colluded with Mark Pomerantz in its investigation of Trump regarding an alleged 2016 campaign finance violation and business record fraud.
The dubious case would later be prosecuted by Vance’s successor, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and is currently pending appeal. Some have speculated that Pomerantz pushed Bragg into the prosecution despite its legally questionable grounding.
Jack Montgomery contributed to this report.
show less
With the 2024 presidential election set to be decided in less than two weeks, speculation regarding the potential cabinet picks for both major party candidates is rife. One of the important roles the election victor will choose is who will serve as the United States Attorney General.
show more
Around 29 million Americans have now cast early votes, either in-person or by mail. Data company TargetSmart reports that 43 percent of early voters so far are registered Democrats, 39 percent are Republicans, and 18 percent are not aligned with the two major parties.
While early voting does favor the Democrats slightly overall, other sources indicate Vice President Kamala Harris’s party is doing a worse job turning out supporters in battleground states than in previous elections, while Republicans are turning out much stronger for former President Donald J. Trump.
CNN—using data from Catalist, election officials, and Edison Research—notes that at this point in the 2020 election, early votes in Pennsylvania were 71 percent Democratic and 20 percent Republican. This year, the Democrats have dropped to 61 percent, and the GOP has risen to 29 percent.
Meanwhile, the Democratic advantage has vanished in North Carolina. In 2020, they led the GOP on 40 percent to 28 percent; now, the parties are tied at 34 percent.
Conversely, the GOP now leads early voting in Arizona and Nevada, accounting for 42 percent and 38 percent of early voters, respectively. Democrats sit at 36 percent in both states. At this point in 2020, the Democrats led Republicans in both states, 42 percent to 34 percent and 44 percent to 33 percent.
Local media in Nevada report an “unheard of” advantage for Republicans in early in-person voting, and the GOP is also said to be ahead in mail-in votes—traditionally a Democrat strength—in North Carolina. Early voting is also taking place in Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, but information on the party registration of early voters in those swing states is not available.
Around 29 million Americans have now cast early votes, either in-person or by mail. Data company TargetSmart reports that 43 percent of early voters so far are registered Democrats, 39 percent are Republicans, and 18 percent are not aligned with the two major parties.
show more
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) may need some help from President Donald J. Trump in getting across the finish line in the Lone Star State. Recent polling data suggests Cruz, seeking his third term in the U.S. Senate, is running a concerning five points behind Trump in Texas. The gap suggests Cruz may be vulnerable, with his Democrat opponent, Colin Allred, running just a point behind him.
An October voter survey released by Emerson College shows Cruz leading Allred 48 percent to 47 percent. Meanwhile, Trump has a comfortable lead over Vice President Kamala Harris, with 53 percent to her 46 percent. While the five-point gap between Trump and Cruz is concerning, even more alarming is the survey suggesting independent voters are breaking for Allred 47 percent to 42 percent. Conversely, those same independents break for Trump with 49 percent to Harris’s 47 percent.
CRUZ’S JEFF ROE PROBLEM.
Complicating matters in Texas is Cruz’s symbiotic relationship with Republican political consultant Jeff Roe. Without Roe, Cruz likely would not have won his initial Senate run in 2012, and without Cruz, Roe likely would still be a relatively unknown entity in campaign consulting outside his home state of Missouri.
While Roe‘s national profile took a severe hit during the 2024 Republican presidential primary—as the consultant spearheading Governor Ron DeSantis’s (R-FL) disastrous campaign—he retains relevance because of Cruz. However, there are some in both Trump-world and the Republican Party at large who may not mind seeing Sen. Cruz lose his seat if it means being rid of Roe once and for all. During the 2024 primary, Roe was often taunted by Trump campaign advisor Chris LaCivita on X (formerly Twitter), with the latter slamming Roe’s management of the pro-DeSantis Never Back Down SuperPAC.
After DeSantis dropped out of the race and endorsed Trump’s 2024 bid to retake the White House, LaCivita and Trump advisor Susie Wiles pushed lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, to drop Roe as a consultant. Johnson, for his part, complied—cutting ties with Roe this past February.
show less
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) may need some help from President Donald J. Trump in getting across the finish line in the Lone Star State. Recent polling data suggests Cruz, seeking his third term in the U.S. Senate, is running a concerning five points behind Trump in Texas. The gap suggests Cruz may be vulnerable, with his Democrat opponent, Colin Allred, running just a point behind him.
show more
Nate Silver, known for his analytical work at FiveThirtyEight, predicts a victory for former President Donald J. Trump in November. In a piece published in the New York Times on Wednesday, Silver writes, “In an election where the seven battleground states are all polling within a percentage point or two, 50-50 is the only responsible forecast… Yet when I deliver this unsatisfying news, I inevitably get a question: ‘C’mon, Nate, what’s your gut say?’ So OK, I’ll tell you. My gut says Donald Trump.”
Silver believes his gut feeling may resonate with “many anxious Democrats.” Previously, Democrat pollsters have expressed fear that Trump’s support is being significantly undercounted, as it was in 2016 and 2020, which would turn tight margins between Trump and Harris into comfortable leads for the America First leader.
“What accentuates my concern is when you poll people who have not voted in ’20 but are planning to vote today, they are disproportionately Trump voters,” said pollster Celinda Lake in September.
Silver is skeptical that there are “shy Trump voters” who mislead pollsters but believes there may be merit to the idea that the former president’s supporters have a “nonresponse bias.” They “often have lower civic engagement and social trust, so they can be less inclined to complete a survey from a news organization,” he observes.
On his election prediction more broadly, Silver cautions people against placing too much credence on his instinct or anyone else’s. He emphasizes, “A 50-50 forecast really does mean 50-50.”
Nate Silver, known for his analytical work at FiveThirtyEight, predicts a victory for former President Donald J. Trump in November. In a piece published in the New York Times on Wednesday, Silver writes, "In an election where the seven battleground states are all polling within a percentage point or two, 50-50 is the only responsible forecast... Yet when I deliver this unsatisfying news, I inevitably get a question: 'C’mon, Nate, what’s your gut say?' So OK, I’ll tell you. My gut says Donald Trump."
show more
Self-identified “Reddit witches” are expressing frustration over their inability to cast harmful spells on former U.S. President Donald J. Trump. Users on the subreddit ‘WitchesVsPatriarchy’ are attributing the difficulty to “protection” surrounding Trump.
One post proposed focusing spells against Project 2025, a policy plan by the Heritage Foundation. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz often link Project 2025 to Trump, although his campaign has distanced itself from the initiative. The user also encouraged others to cast spells in support of Harris and the Democratic Party, reflecting concerns over current polling. The witch concluded by urging people who shared her call to action to avoid using her username.
Reddit “Witches” are trying to cast spells on Trump but they’re upset because he has “some kind of protection around him.” pic.twitter.com/WdCaAsUTtH
The post gained significant attention online, amassing over 1.7 million views after being shared on Elon Musk’s X platform. The concept of Trump’s alleged “protection” prompted a variety of reactions and speculation among users on social media. Several participants pondered what form this purported protection around Trump could take.
The Catholics for Catholics organization recently ran a billboard campaign featuring Donald Trump. It urged prayers for the country’s leaders, specifically calling on the aid of St. Michael the Archangel, commander of the Heavenly host.
Trump himself shared a traditional Catholic prayer to St. Michael on social media in September, calling on the archangel to “by the power of God, cast into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.”
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about… pic.twitter.com/Z3RoeGUslh
Self-identified "Reddit witches" are expressing frustration over their inability to cast harmful spells on former U.S. President Donald J. Trump. Users on the subreddit 'WitchesVsPatriarchy' are attributing the difficulty to "protection" surrounding Trump.
show more
Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlanticmagazine, is pushing an unfounded smear campaign against President Donald J. Trump just weeks before the November presidential election. In a story regarding Trump’s relationship with the military, Goldberg—reliant on his signature use of hearsay quotes from anonymous sources—attempts to claim Trump denigrated murdered U.S. soldier Vanessa Guillén. However, Goldberg’s smear is receiving pushback from the Guillén family, namely Venessa’s sister Mayra Guillén.
“Wow. I don’t appreciate how you are exploiting my sister’s death for politics—hurtful [and] disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members,” Mayra Guillén wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter), responding to The Atlantic and Goldberg. She added: “President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family [and] Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today.”
Wow. I don’t appreciate how you are exploiting my sister’s death for politics- hurtful & disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members. President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today. https://t.co/o8cDrKOKBV
Relying on anonymous sources and allegedly contemporaneous notes of a December 4, 2020, Oval Office meeting with national security and defense officials, Goldberg claims Trump balked at having to pay $60,000 for Vanessa Guillén’s funeral. According to Goldberg’s unnamed sources, Trump referred to the deceased soldier as “a f**king Mexican.” Notably, two officials present at the December meeting—former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Kash Patel, Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense—are both on the record saying the former Republican president never said what Goldberg alleges.
In an even stranger twist, Goldberg goes on to insinuate—again without actual evidence—that a Trump campaign spokesman authored a statement from the Guillén family dismissing the allegations in his report. The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief goes out of his way to mention that he repeatedly asked the spokesman if they wrote the statement and that the individual repeatedly denied the accusation.
‘SUCKERS & LOSERS’ HOAX.
This isn’t the first time that Goldberg has attempted to smear Trump by publishing the gossip of anonymous Washington, D.C. insiders. Goldberg claimed in 2020 that Trump had, while in France for the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War two years previously, called the country’s war dead “suckers” and “losers.”
The hoax was initially relayed to Goldberg through unnamed officials he alleges were familiar with the matter. However, 25 people, including 14 who had been part of Trump’s entourage in France, subsequently denied the remarks were ever made. John Bolton, who was present at the conversation where the “losers” comment was supposedly uttered, is among those who have confirmed the story is “simply false,” despite his hostile relationship with the former president.
show less
Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlanticmagazine, is pushing an unfounded smear campaign against President Donald J. Trump just weeks before the November presidential election. In a story regarding Trump's relationship with the military, Goldberg—reliant on his signature use of hearsay quotes from anonymous sources—attempts to claim Trump denigrated murdered U.S. soldier Vanessa Guillén. However, Goldberg's smear is receiving pushback from the Guillén family, namely Venessa's sister Mayra Guillén.
show more
A video allegedly showing an America PAC vote canvasser in Nevada using GPS spoofing technology to simulate door-to-door voter outreach without actually visiting the locations is raising concerns President Donald J. Trump’s get-out-the-vote operation may be compromised. First obtained by the Guardian newspaper, the footage appears to be an instructional video outlining how users can download an application to falsely position themselves at targeted addresses, complete with fabricated survey responses.
America PAC—backed by a $75 million contribution from tech billionaire Elon Musk—has largely spearheaded voter outreach efforts for Trump’s presidential campaign in several critical swing states. If the use of GPS spoofing applications is widespread among canvassers, it could seriously undermine efforts to mobilize Trump’s voter base in critical battleground states like Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Despite the release of the video, the full extent of the spoofing practice remains uncertain, largely due to the difficulty of detecting such activities without corroborative data from alternative tracking systems. However, the Guardian notes it casts doubt on the authenticity of voter interactions reported by America PAC’s field operations.
In response to these developments, America PAC, alongside its vendors Blitz, Patriot Grassroots, Echo Canyon, and the Synapse Group, issued a statement asserting their use of advanced auditing tools designed to identify fraudulent activities and ensure accountability within their operations. Additionally, Blitz—which oversees canvassing efforts in Arizona and Nevada—employs the Quickbooks Workforce app that includes tracking features—although these can be circumvented by disabling location services.
America PAC is not alone in facing such challenges; GPS spoofing has been a longstanding issue in political canvassing that is costly to monitor effectively.
A video allegedly showing an America PAC vote canvasser in Nevada using GPS spoofing technology to simulate door-to-door voter outreach without actually visiting the locations is raising concerns President Donald J. Trump's get-out-the-vote operation may be compromised. First obtained by the Guardian newspaper, the footage appears to be an instructional video outlining how users can download an application to falsely position themselves at targeted addresses, complete with fabricated survey responses.show more
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
