An internal memo circulated to "interested parties" — and leaked to Politico — regarding Donald Trump's campaign against Kamala Harris sheds light on the tactic the former president's team is planning to take. “Americans might vote for a liberal, but they won’t vote for a lunatic," top strategists David Lee and Chris Grant wrote in the memo, according to the news site. It suggests strategists are going to double down on attempts to paint Harris and her campaign members as extremists far to the left of liberals.
The report said Trump's super PAC intends to run $100 million in ads across the Rust Belt, Arizona, and Nevada to spread the message. They will focus on calling Vice President Kamala Harris a “soft-on-crime radical who is too dangerous for the White House ," the report stated. ALSO READ: Why ‘vanilla’ Tim Walz is the ingredient to beat Trump: Dem lawmakers It comes after Trump spent the past few weeks claiming that Harris was lenient on crime approach and it particularly hurt communities of color.
Though In an interview with Fox News ' Laura Ingraham, Trump also claimed that Harris put " thousands and thousands of Black people in jail for marijuana" while a prosecutor in California . The ads will start running during the Democratic National Convention next week. Read the full report here.
Donald Trump responded to Vice President Kamala Harris's reported lead in three vital swing states with a rant insisting polls were inaccurate and unfair. Trump took to Truth Social Monday afternoon to share an analysis from an anonymous pollster he claimed had called into question a New York Times-Siena Poll survey that found Harris taking the lead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. "A Major, and highly respected, Pollster: 'Don’t let the embargo of other polling fool anyone - Democrats are in real trouble,'" Trump wrote .
"Fake Polls are changing their methods and standards from 3 weeks ago. Highly inaccurate (dishonest!)." Trump's campaign has also issued a memo — which cited pollster Tony Fabrizio and data consultant Tim Saler — arguing the results dramatically understated the former president's support among registered voters.
The memo questioned the model for identifying likely voters and claimed public surveys were being released to depress support for the Republican nominee. ALSO READ: Harris has figured out Trump’s greatest liability Washington Post analyst Philip Bump rejected Fabrizio's and Saler's argument as "particularly silly" in an analysis released Monday. "The idea — one Trump himself offered repeatedly in 2020 — is that polls showing Trump trailing somehow make Trump supporters less likely to support Trump," Bump writes.
"It’s not clear how this manifests; is the argument that those voters will consider casting a ballot in November until they remember the Times’s August poll?" The Trump campaign calls into question any poll that doesn't favor their candidate, Bump argued, and, as Harris gains momentum, they've begun conditioning followers to reject an election loss in November. "The point isn’t to increase Trump’s credibility," Bump wrote. "It’s to erode everyone else’s.
That way, when they accurately report the results in November, Trump can remind his supporters to reject them if necessary." Two women have filed federal complaints against Texas hospitals they say refused to treat their ectopic pregnancies, leading both women to lose their fallopian tubes and endanger their future fertility. Texas law allows doctors to terminate ectopic pregnancies, a condition in which the fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tubes, instead of the uterus.
Ectopic pregnancies are always non-viable and can quickly become life-threatening if left untreated. Despite these protections, these women say they were turned away from two separate hospitals that refused to treat them. The complaint alleges that the doctors and hospitals are so fearful of the state’s abortion laws, which carry penalties of up to life in prison when violated, that they are hesitating to perform even protected abortions.
The complaints were filed with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, a federal statute that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing medical care to anyone who shows up.
That rule has long been interpreted to include medically necessary abortions, which has run up against state bans, including in Texas. Typically, federal EMTALA complaints are investigated by state health agencies, but the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the complaint, is asking for it to instead be handled by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS. “CMS should not rely solely on a state agency’s assessment of the facts in reaching its determination because of Texas state officials’ hostility toward interpreting EMTALA as requiring hospitals to provide pregnancy termination to pregnant patients experiencing emergency medical conditions,” they wrote in the complaints.
The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year declined to say that Idaho’s abortion ban trumps the EMTALA requirement, but a federal appeals court in New Orleans has found that Texas hospitals cannot be required under EMTALA to provide life-saving abortions.
Similar diagnoses, similar results Kyleigh Thurman says in the complaint that she went to Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital in Round Rock, north of Austin, with a tubal ectopic pregnancy. She says the hospital initially discharged her without treating the ectopic pregnancy, but she returned three days later with vaginal bleeding and worsening symptoms. Despite her doctor’s orders, the hospital refused to give her methotrexate, a common treatment that stops an ectopic pregnancy from continuing to develop.
“Infuriated, Ms. Thurman’s OB-GYN met Ms. Thurman at Ascension Williamson to plead with the medical staff to give her methotrexate,” the complaint says.
They eventually agreed. But it was too late; the ectopic pregnancy had grown too large, and ruptured. Thurman nearly bled to death and had to have her right fallopian tube removed.
A spokesperson for Ascension declined to discuss the specifics of the case, but said in a statement that they are “committed to providing high-quality care to all who seek our services.” Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz had a similar experience at Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital, outside Dallas. An emergency room physician diagnosed her with a tubal ectopic pregnancy and said she should get an injection of methotrexate or have surgery to remove the pregnancy.
She chose surgery, but once the on-call OB/GYNs arrived, the complaint alleges, the hospital refused to treat her and told her to come back in 48 hours. “Ms. Norris-De La Cruz’s mother asked if the hospital’s refusal to provide care had anything to do with Texas’s abortion bans but received no response,” the complaint says.
“As the conversation became more heated, the OB/GYN confirmed it was possible that Ms. Norris-De La Cruz could rupture over the next 48 hours and subsequently stormed out of the room.” Texas Health did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Norris-De La Cruz eventually found an OB/GYN through a friend who agreed to perform an emergency surgery to remove the ectopic pregnancy. By then, the mass had grown so large that it required also removing her right fallopian tube and 75% of her right ovary. “I ended up losing half of my fertility and if I was made to wait any longer, it’s very likely I would have died,” Norris-De La Cruz said in a statement.
“These bans are making it nearly impossible to get basic emergency healthcare. So, I’m filing this complaint because women like me deserve justice and accountability from those that hurt us. Texas state officials can’t keep ignoring us.
We can’t let them.” EMTALA fights EMTALA was created almost 40 years ago to stop hospitals from refusing to treat patients just because they couldn’t pay. It requires hospitals to stabilize anyone experiencing a medical emergency before they’re allowed to be transferred or discharged.
The regulation has typically been interpreted to require hospitals to perform an abortion if that is the necessary stabilizing treatment. Hospitals have been cited for EMTALA violations in the past for failing to perform a medically necessary abortion. But that was before Roe v.
Wade was overturned in 2022. Now, more than a dozen states, including Texas, have banned nearly all abortions with only narrow exceptions to save the life of the pregnant patient. The Biden administration issued guidance to hospitals in 2022 that said doctors must perform an abortion if they believe it is necessary to stabilize a patient’s emergency medical condition.
“When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted,” the guidance said. Texas sued the Biden administration, saying the guidance was an effort to “force hospitals and doctors to commit crimes.” U.
S. District Judge Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee who hears nearly all lawsuits filed in Lubbock, sided with the state, ruling that the guidance “goes well beyond EMTALA’s text.” The 5th U.
S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agreed, effectively ruling that Texas hospitals cannot be required to perform life-saving abortions under EMTALA. That ruling remains in effect, even after the Supreme Court ruled in a separate EMTALA case stemming from the Idaho abortion ban.
In that case, the high court rejected Idaho’s arguments on procedural grounds, rather than on the merits of the case. These new federal complaints will likely again surface the question of whether hospitals can be held accountable for not performing medically necessary abortions to stabilize a patient. Hospitals that face EMTALA complaints are investigated and can face discipline ranging from citations to monetary settlements, to losing the ability to accept Medicare and Medicaid, which is effectively a death sentence for a hospital.
While Texas’ abortion laws allow doctors to terminate ectopic pregnancies, nothing in state law requires them to do so. “It’s impossible to have the best interest of your patient in mind when you’re staring down a life sentence,” Beth Brinkmann, senior director of U.S.
Litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “Texas officials have put doctors in an impossible situation. It is clear that these exceptions are a farce, and that these laws are putting countless lives in jeopardy.
” Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe gave tips on how to make Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas answer allegations about gifts received by rich donors when he joined legal analyst Allison Gill for their weekly"Jack" podcast , in which they give updates on the cases investigating former President Donald Trump . The hosts addressed the recent complaint sent by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) to the Department of Justice .
The pair asked the DOJ to open an official investigation into Thomas over allegations he violated federal ethics and tax laws . In a statement , they mentioned extensive reporting that Thomas accepted millions of dollars in gifts, luxury travel, and other payments from billionaire benefactors like GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, some of whom may have had financial interests before the court , at least indirectly. "What they need to open an investigation is information that a federal crime has been committed," McCabe said of the FBI's standards.
Read Also: Clarence Thomas has a bump-stock death wish for Americans "There's no law or policy that prevents DOJ from doing that. In fact, they are tasked with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal law. This could easily be that.
So, it would fall well within their authority to do it, but it would be very, very, very controversial." Gill noted that if the FBI can investigate a co-equal branch of government like a member of Congress, then it certainly can do so with a member of the Supreme Court as another co-equal branch of government. He spoke specifically about the case of Wyden and Whitehouse, who brought up questions involving Thomas' taxes.
Thomas was accused of getting a loan for the motor coach, which didn't need to be paid back. If the loan "for his luxury motor coach was forgiven, Thomas would owe taxes on the forgiveness of that loan. And if he did not, that could be a violation of the law," Gill said.
"So, the tax case is both good and bad," McCabe said. "It's a little bit tough to work through the hypothetical because of the IRS's investigative jurisdiction, which is actually statutory in nature." Gill asked about failing to fill out the financial disclosure forms, which has happened on multiple occasions with Thomas.
But McCabe said that likely wouldn't give rise to a violation of federal criminal law. "If it were a general public corruption case, you would need an allegation that a federal justice received the money in return for making a particular judgment or taking an official act on behalf of the person who gave him money," McCabe continued. "But again, if that information came to you .
.. then you would have the information necessary to meet that low threshold of having information that violates federal or criminal law has occurred or will occur.
" It prompted Gill to question why the two senators would send their request for investigation directly to the Justice Department when it should probably go to the IRS investigators. McCabe said that it is likely political or performative and that the DOJ could simply forward it to the IRS for its investigation. Listen to the full comments on the podcast here.
.
