On Friday, after the rousing Democratic convention was over, Trump charged that Harris’s securing of the Democratic Party’s nomination posed a “threat to democracy.” “It was a coup. We had a coup,” Trump said of Harris’s nomination, “the first coup of the history of our country, and it was very successful.
” This from a man who actually tried to orchestrate a coup — who continues to baselessly claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him, who after the election threatened state election officials if they didn’t change their tallies, and on January 6, 2021, urged a crowd of armed followers to attack the U.S. Capitol to prevent the election results from being certified.
What’s Trump’s basis for his absurd claim that Harris orchestrated a coup? He argues that Harris has “no right” to run for president because she got “no [primary] votes to Biden’s 14 Million.” READ: 'Compare and contrast': Ex-GOP insider has theory why Trump's attacks on Harris don't land This is utter nonsense. The Democratic Party had the power to replace Biden with Harris.
In choosing Biden, primary voters elected delegates to pick their nominee. Once Biden dropped out, those delegates could pick his replacement. They chose Harris.
Their overwhelming enthusiasm for Harris at last week’s convention should have laid to rest any doubts about whether the Democratic Party is behind her. Why is Trump saying this was a coup? Some analysts think he’s laying the groundwork for claiming, if and when he loses the 2024 election , that the results are illegitimate. That may be part of Trump’s motive, but there’s a far simpler explanation: Trump simply cannot believe that Biden — or anyone in Biden’s shoes — would put the nation above their own personal ambition.
Trump’s malignant narcissism cannot conceive of selfless patriotism. To Trump, no one would relinquish power simply because it is in the nation’s interest that they do so. Therefore, the Democrats must have forced Biden out.
Trump insists it “was an overthrow of a president. This was an overthrow,” adding “they deposed a president.” Trump is even claiming it was a “vicious, violent overthrow.
” In Trump’s addled brain, the transition from Biden to Harris had to be vicious and violent because Biden would never have peacefully relinquished power. Before the convention, Trump predicted that Biden, “whose Presidency was Unconstitutionally STOLEN from him,” would crash it and take back the nomination. Several times during last week’s Democratic convention, Trump described Biden as an “angry man” who was “seething” at being replaced by Harris.
It is Trump who’s angry and seething, because he now faces an opponent who’s attracting bigger crowds than his and has more volunteers, more donations, better ratings, higher poll numbers, and better vibes. It’s not just that Biden did what Trump would never do — bow out for the good of the nation. It’s that Trump cannot believe Biden bowed out for the good of the nation.
The man who claims to want to “put America first” has always put himself first, and thinks everyone else in public life puts themselves first, too. Or they’re violently overthrown. NOW READ: 'His stability is in question': Biden hits Trump for claiming Harris ousted him in 'coup' Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor.
His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/ Special counsel Jack Smith urged the 11th U.
S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse federal judge Aileen Cannon's decision to dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump — but there's little chance she'll be removed, a columnist wrote. The Trump-appointed judge tossed out the federal case last month by ruling that Smith had been unlawfully appointed and funded, but the special counsel's appellate brief highlighted how unusual her decision was and pointed to numerous contradictions with previous decisions, wrote MSNBC's Jordan Rubin .
"Smith’s brief didn’t indicate his intention to seek a new judge," Rubin wrote. "That doesn’t mean that the appeals court couldn’t still remove her while reversing her, but there’s reason to not expect that here." Cannon cited U.
S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in her decision, which was based in part on the deeply conservative jurist's concurring opinion in the Trump immunity case in which he questioned Smith's appointment because the special counsel had not been confirmed by Congress. ALSO READ: Donald Trump exploits AP photo error for new $99 'Save America' book "That wasn’t the issue in the immunity case , so we don’t know how many other justices (if any) agree with Thomas," Rubin wrote.
"But it would seemingly make it more difficult to kick a judge off a case in part for reaching a decision citing a sitting Supreme Court justice’s reasoning, however flawed that reasoning is." "Of course, if the high court ultimately upholds Cannon’s ruling if the case gets to the justices, that would moot any reassignment issue — as would a Trump presidential victory in November, which could lead to him eliminating the case entirely," Rubin added. A GOP strategist, faced with a growing number of Republican lawmakers and national security experts warning voters away from former President Donald Trump , conceded Tuesday he was faced with a problem.
Brad Todd, a strategist managing down-ticket campaigns across the nation, was made to watch on CNN Tuesday multiple video montages of never-Trump Republicans declaring support for Vice President Kamala Harris . "You put me in a tough spot," Todd admitted to anchor Kasie Hunt. Todd made this admission as he tried to make his case that the growing number of former Trump appointees who've turned against him — and the 200 former staffers for conservative bigwigs such as President George W.
Bush and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) — was just politics as usual. ALSO READ: Donald Trump exploits AP photo error for new $99 'Save America' book "The first name on that letter today was a finance intern," Todd said.
"So let's not get carried away with exactly how broad this is." Hunt responded to this claim with a video montage featuring back-to-back comments from high-ranking former security staff who once worked for Trump and now speak out against him. Gen.
Mark Milley, Trump's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declares "We don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator." Trump's former Defense secretary Mark Esper says, "I think he's unfit for office." Former National Security Advisor John Bolton closes the montage with the warning, "I think he's dangerous.
" Before pivoting to make his case for Trump, Todd was forced to admit, "I agree with John Bolton on virtually every policy issue." Todd then argued these comments showed a lack of loyalty to the former commander-in-chief and that voters appreciated his ability to make enemies out of former staffers. "Trump is very well-defined," Todd said.
"The main thing they like about him is that he fights and that he fights against the far-left and they see the left and the Democratic Party, is way too far left. They know his downsides." As expressed by the hundreds of Republicans who endorsed Harris on Monday, those downsides include a threat to democracies across the globe.
"At home, another four years of Donald Trump's chaotic leadership, this time focused on advancing the dangerous goals of Project 2025 , will hurt real, everyday people and weaken our sacred institutions," the endorsement reads. "Abroad, democratic movements will be irreparably jeopardized as Trump and his acolyte JD Vance kowtow to dictators like Vladimir Putin while turning their backs on our allies. We can’t let that happen.
" Watch the video below or click here. CHICAGO — Not two months ago, high-profile Democrats begin calling for President Joe Biden to drop out as the Democratic presidential nominee — attributing much of his plummeting poll numbers to his age and a disastrous debate performance against Republican nominee Donald Trump . Many had grown convinced Biden had neither the mental sharpness nor physical stamina to beat Trump, say nothing of serving another four-year term — he’d be 86 years old when he left the White House in early 2029.
ALSO READ: ‘Absolutely essential’: Son of Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes is all in for Kamala Harris While the Constitution provides minimum age limits to run for federal office (25 in the House, 30 in the Senate, 35 for president), there’s no limit to how old someone can be as a member of Congress, a Supreme Court justice or commander-in-chief. And many federal leaders certainly aren’t retiring early. The average age of a member of Congress is 61 — and many have worked well into their late 80s or beyond.
Trump and Biden are both deep into their senior years — 78 and 81, respectively. Still, Democratic delegates at the Democratic National Convention, who nominated Kamala Harris , 59, as their presidential candidate, overwhelmingly told Raw Story they wouldn’t want to put an age limit or mandatory retirement age on anyone in the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government. Carole Cadue-Blackwood, Kansas delegate, gave an emphatic “no” to Raw Story’s question.
Gina Spade and Carole Cadue-Blackwood, Kansas delegates (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson / Raw Story ) But, she added: “I would think there would be a competency exam,” Cadue-Blackwood said. Guy Cecil, a delegate from Washington, D.C.
, and longtime Democratic political operative, says an age limit isn’t necessary. Guy Cecil, D.C.
delegate (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson / Raw Story) “I think ultimately voters should make the right decision. They can assess the ability of the candidates, the age of the candidates,” Cecil said. “I think we should leave it in voters’ hands to make those decisions.
” Carl Donovan, a Montana delegate, said age limits aren’t necessary because voters have the ability to vote out members of Congress — plus term limits exist for the presidency. Carl Donovan, Montana delegate (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson / Raw Story) Democratic delegates are somewhat out of step with most Americans on the issue of age limits, with a Business Insider/Morning Consult poll in 2022 finding that about three in four Americans supported age limits for politicians — and more than four in 10 viewed the ages of political leaders as a "major" problem. And, of course, the Supreme Court doesn’t have any service restrictions — no age caps, term limits or the ability to be voted out of their jobs.
Justices — along with all federal judges — enjoy lifetime appointments. ALSO READ: ‘Stop the Steal’ organizer hired by Trump campaign for Election 2024 endgame In one extreme example last decade, a U.S.
district court judge served until he was 104 . He died while still actively presiding over cases. “I think there should be term limits for the Supreme Court, whatever number amount of terms that is,” said Tony Vauss, mayor of Irvington, N.
J. “But as far as the presidency, there's already term limits for two-term limits, so, I'm pretty happy with that.” Tony Vauss, New Jersey delegate (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson / Raw Story) While Vauss wants the Supreme Court to be more “above board” and “nonpartisan,” he still doesn’t support an age limit, especially in the context of Biden.
“He's done more in four years than most presidents have done in their entire time,” Vauss said. “It's not about age. It's about what you can accomplish.
” Brandon Williford, a Wisconsin delegate, wasn’t sure about the idea of an age limit. Brandon Williford, Wisconsin delegate (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson / Raw Story) “That's a great question,” he said. “I think you gotta just leave it up to the people.
I mean, just maybe do a referendum, or do some type of surveys or something like that. We got a democracy so let’s get people to participate in that.” ALSO READ: Inside the Democratic National Convention corporate moneyfest One South Carolina delegate, originally from Puerto Rico, pointed out that the territory’s Supreme Court justices have a mandatory retirement age at 70 years old.
That delegate, Mayra Rivera-Vazquez, said the age limit in Puerto Rico has “been working perfectly” and gives way to “a new generation.” Mayea Rivera-Vazquez, South Carolina delegate (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson / Raw Story) “You need new people and new vision, new ideas,” Rivera-Vazquez said. “I'm kind of hesitant about the Congress because sometimes we have younger people and new people, but we also need the wisdom of older people.
” Rivera-Vazquez acknowledged that her congressman, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), is in his eighties. “I don’t think you should be penalized just because you’re a senior person,” she said.
“Eventually, we'll all be senior, too.” As for the U.S.
Supreme Court, which has come under intense scrutiny for apparent conflicts of interest and partisanship , Rivera-Vazquez said she’d be open to an age limit. “It’s about time,” she said..
