Dave Smith Tells Tucker Carlson That Kamala Turning Down Joe Rogan Was Actually 'The Right Move' For Her CampaignNew Foto - Dave Smith Tells Tucker Carlson That Kamala Turning Down Joe Rogan Was Actually 'The Right Move' For Her Campaign

Comedian Dave Smith told Daily Caller News Foundation co-founder Tucker Carlson on Monday that former Vice President Kamala Harris not going on popular podcaster Joe Rogan's show was the "right move" for her campaign due to being unable to risk being "exposed." Despite an extended "open invitation" to the former vice president during her 2024 presidential campaign in October, the Harris campaign missed their opportunity with Rogandueto a "scheduling" conflict at the time. While discussing the landscape of new media and how it's changed politics on "The Tucker Carlson Show," Carlson asked Smith how long he believes the movement could last. "That's a good question. It's very hard. It's very hard to make predictions because it's such a new model," Smith said. "We really don't know much about this. One of the things that I find that — which, you never want to get ahead of yourself, especially these days. There's so many things that could happen that it's kind of impossible to even know what 2028 looks like, but I'm assuming right now JD Vance is probably going to be the guy." "You look at Kamala Harris' campaign and see Joe Biden the same way. And Joe Biden, specifically, because he was senile. Joe Biden, younger Joe Biden, while he was never a very bright guy, maybe would have been a little bit different politically, but Kamala Harris. So she kind of famously, infamously now, turned down the Joe Rogan experience. She could have been on the show, but she didn't." Former President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential campaign in July and endorsed Harris. The former vice president appeared toavoidin-depth interviews about the policies she began campaigning on as she hadflip-floppedon many that she advocated for prior to 2020. President Donald Trump, however, broke into the new media landscapesittingwith various podcasters like comedian Theo Von, wrestler Mark Calaway and comedian Andrew Schultz. In one of his last episodes with podcasters, TrumpjoinedRogan for a three-hour unscripted interview, racking up millions of views.(RELATED: Jasmine Crockett Tells Chuck Todd Why She Thinks Kamala Harris Struggled With Black Men) WATCH: "So she kind of famously, infamously now, turned down the Joe Rogan experience. She could have been on the show, but she didn't. Now, a lot of people were saying, 'Oh, what a stupid move, turning that down,'" Smith said. "I kind of disagree. I go, that probably was the right move. If you had no soul and you're working for the Kamala Harris campaign and your only objective in this world was to get her elected and that invite came in, you're probably going, 'No, no, no, no, no, no. We can't. You will be exposed. You can't go do this.'" "The fact is that Kamala Harris, by the nature of who she is as a person and by the nature of what she was running on, is not built for a three-hour unedited, unscripted conversation," Smith said. "Say whatever you will about Donald Trump. The man's got a lot of flaws, but he is built for that. He could do eight hours, I think." Following the release of Rogan's episode featuring Trump, Harris' campaign quickly attempted to push back on the popular podcaster,calling outher team for missing the opportunity and saying they had requested that Rogan "travel to her" for the discussion. In February, Rogan publiclyrespondedto an excerpt from NBC reporter Jonathan Allen and The Hill reporter Amie Parnes' new book claiming one of Rogan's representatives allegedly relayed to the Harris team that he was unable to interview her on the same day as Trump due to it being a "personal day." Rogan said his team had not "lied" about Trump's interview date, but just didn't tell them the date he was booked as he had been scheduled "a long time ago." "So going just into 2028, think about what a change this is. This is the new standard. To be a presidential candidate you have to be able to go and do a three-hour podcast and actually probably several of them, right? Trump did a whole bunch of them before he got elected and she didn't and lost. That's it," Smith said. "So that in itself just changes everything. Now we have to actually see who you are as a person because it doesn't even matter. It doesn't even matter what you're talking about for three hours," Smith added. "It doesn't even matter if you're getting grilled. It's just I get to see who you are … That's the new normal." All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter's byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Dave Smith Tells Tucker Carlson That Kamala Turning Down Joe Rogan Was Actually ‘The Right Move’ For Her Campaign

Dave Smith Tells Tucker Carlson That Kamala Turning Down Joe Rogan Was Actually 'The Right Move' For Her Campaign Comedian Dave Smit...
Continental DivideNew Foto - Continental Divide

Largely unnoticed by the general public on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean is a particular way America has pulled away from Europe: The average American is now vastly more affluent than the average European. The difference is not only reflected in the overall sizes of their respective economies but by the much more practical metrics of disposable income, living space, and accessibility to basic services. Despite the overwhelming evidence, though, the idea that Americans are better off than their European counterparts is an unpopular sentiment. I casually mentioned on a recent episode of Paul Krugman's interview show that, whereas both continents were similarly affluent a few decades ago, America is now nearly twice as rich as Europe. Cue a flood of outraged emails. The strength of this reaction may have had something to do with Krugman's audience, which skews progressive and American. But I've had similar reactions from very different audiences in the past. When I cited the same stat to a center-right member of the European Parliament a few months ago, he insisted that such stats just weren't meaningful; in all of the metrics of life quality that truly mattered, such as disposable income and access to good housing, Europeans were surely doing at least as well as Americans. But they are not. In the decades immediately before and after the turn of the millennium, the United States and the richest large countries in Europe, such as Germany and the United Kingdom, were similarly affluent. In 1995, Germany'sGDP per capitawas a little higher ($32,000) than that of the United States ($29,000), with the United Kingdom lagging behind at a noticeable distance ($23,000). By 2007, at the cusp of the Great Recession, the order had slightly changed: Britain was now in the lead ($50,000), with the United States ($48,000) and Germany ($42,000) following closely behind. Today, to an extent that few people on either continent have fully internalized, a significant economic gulf separates America and Europe. On average, Americans are now nearly twice as rich as Europeans. According to thelatest available datafor GDP per capita, for example, the United States now stands at $83,000, with Germany at $54,000 and the United Kingdom at $50,000, enjoying a markedly smaller income. The contrast to less affluent European countries is even more striking. The GDPs per capita of France ($45,000), and Italy ($39,000) have fallen to about half that of the United States. Portugal ($27,000), Greece ($23,000), and Poland ($22,000) are less than one-third that of the United States. GDP per capita is, of course, vulnerable to many of the critiques made by those who are skeptical of the great economic divergence. If America is vastly less equal than Germany or the United Kingdom, then it is indeed possible that the lion's share of that economic pie is captured by a very small number of people; in that case, America's greater GDP simply wouldn't translate into notably more affluence for the average person. The problem with this seemingly plausible explanation is that it doesn't hold up to empirical scrutiny. America is indeed somewhat more unequal than Europe. But the difference is not nearly as stark as some people on both sides of the continent seem to assume. Indeed, the GINI coefficient (a standard metric economists use to measure inequality) for the United States, at 0.39, is only modestly higher than that of Britain, at 0.36, and only moderately higher than that of Germany, at 0.29. As a result, metrics that aren't skewed by outsized wealth at the top, like household income at the median, still show a vast divergence between the two continents. According to official figures for median disposable income, for example, the continents remain quite far apart. These figures aren't influenced by outliers at the top; colloquially, we might therefore say that they represent a typical income. They also account for both the taxes that citizens pay and the transfer payments they receive from the state; they thus reflect the fact that European countries tend to redistribute more between their citizens. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the median disposable income in 2023 was $51,000 in the United States, $39,000 in Germany, and $33,000 in the United Kingdom. That's a lot of numbers about income. And that makes it easy to imagine, as I think a lot of skeptics about the great divergence do, that they somehow don't translate into things that are actually important for people's everyday lives. Sure, this argument goes, if you make a lot less money, you might find it hard to compete for certain goods whose prices are indexed to a global market. If your heart is set on a vintage Rolex or a Ferrari supercar, much richer buyers from the United States or China might be able to price you out of the market. But when it comes to living in a nice apartment or going out to a delicious restaurant, the comparison between your wage and that of people in faraway countries matters much less; so perhaps Europeans are just as able to afford those crucial amenities. To test this hypothesis, I tried to compile a lot of data about day-to-day material amenities. How spacious are the houses and apartments of people on each side of the Atlantic? How often can they afford to eat out or to order takeout? And what kind of digital goods can they afford to access? Let's start with housing. Since home prices are very expensive in the United States, many Americans might imagine that Europeans can afford to live in nicer apartments despite their nominally lower incomes. But thefigurespaint a different picture. The average home size in the United States is about 2,200 square feet. In Germany, it is 1,200 square feet. In the United Kingdom, it is 800 square feet. This extra space translates into all kinds of everyday amenities: Americans, for example, have about double the number of bathrooms per resident, enjoy much bigger refrigerators, and are much more likely than Europeans to have a dryer or a dishwasher in their home. Dining out tells a similar story. The numbers are a little less exact, but estimates suggest that Americans eat out at a restaurant, have food delivered to their home, or order takeout about twice a week on average. According to a2022 Gallup pollfocusing exclusively on takeout food, for example, about 3 in 5 Americans say that they order food for pickup at least several times a month. Eating out is far less common in Europe, where there is a smaller number of restaurants per capita, and the percentage of income people are able to devote to eating out is significantly lower. These differences in standard of living are even evident in many aspects of the digital economy. The United States and the United Kingdom both have about 80personal computers per capita, for example (making this one of the rare metrics on which Britain has kept up with its former colony). But Germany has only 66 computers per capita, with countries like Italy (37) and Poland (17) even further behind. The discrepancy is even more striking regarding the most basic currency of the digital age: access to the internet. According toData Pandas, the median speed of a broadband connection in the United States is currently estimated at 280 Mbps. In Britain, it is 136 Mbps. In Germany, it is 96 Mbps. Of course, there's more to life than being materially rich. Europe is a beautiful continent. Most Europeans make a perfectly comfortable living. Many are deeply embedded in thick networks of community, which benefit from a high level of mutual trust. They live in vibrant cities with beautiful buildings and a strong sense of history. There is a reason social media posts that highlight the appeal of a European lifestyle regularly gomega-viral. Indeed, to most people—including me—many other things are far more important. As someone who grew up in Europe, I myself feel the continent's pull. I have happily lived in England in the past, love Paris, and at least once a week fantasize about permanently moving to Italy. It is also true that America's economic model has significant drawbacks. Thanks to a more generous welfare state and stronger community ties, the poorest Europeans probably fare better than do the poorest Americans. And of course, there are unique annoyances and indignities that even comparatively affluent Americans suffer. For the most part, for example, I receive much better medical care in the United States than I ever have in Europe—but every time I have to deal with the insurance industry,I wonder whether the increase in quality is worth the increase in stress. Americans have some good reasons to keep indulging their fantasies of livingUnder the Tuscan Sunor following in the footsteps ofEmily in Paris. And Europeans can rightfully remain proud of the unique beauty found in places like Berlin or Lisbon or Siena as compared to a typical American suburb. But it is possible to maintain this preference without denying the reality that Europe has suffered significant economic decline relative to the United States, and that this is now having serious consequences for ordinary people. Indeed, it is striking that my American friends who dream of moving to Europe usually do so because they can telework for U.S. companies or are about to retire; my European friends who dream of moving to the United States, by contrast, do so because they are frustrated by a lack of economic opportunities and recognize that they don't have an adequate outlet for their talents. When a development as striking as the economic divergence between Europe and America is so little known or discussed by the broader public, the reason is usually that it discomfits all kinds of other narratives. That is clearly true in this case: Europeans and Americans, the left and the right, each have reasons of their own to ignore or downplay this fact. Europeans don't like to recognize how far they have fallen behind the globe's economic leaders. Meanwhile, Americans on all sides of the political spectrum have become so consumed with the negativity bias of social media that they don't want to see any good news about their own country. The American left is an obvious example, as it is more singularly focused on the inadequacies of the welfare state and the legacy of "structural racism." Acknowledging that, wealth inequality and the disparity between different ethnic groups notwithstanding, the average African-American is now richer than the average European would seem like sacrilege to many progressives. But even on the American right, many have now become convinced that the global system built by America has turned to its disadvantage. They see the country, as President Donald Trump did in hisfirst inaugural address, as the land of American carnage, with "mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities [and] rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation." But for all of America's problems, what's truly striking about the last decades is just how successful the United States has been. As China rose and Europe's share of global GDP cratered, America's share held up astonishingly well. As a result, two regions that were once similarly affluent have undergone a remarkable divergence: gradually but seemingly inexorably, America has become vastly richer than Europe. Read more at The Dispatch The Dispatch is a new digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary, informed by conservative principles. Sign up for free.

Continental Divide

Continental Divide Largely unnoticed by the general public on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean is a particular way America has pulled away f...
A look at the leading candidates for Poland's next presidentNew Foto - A look at the leading candidates for Poland's next president

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poland holdsa presidential electionSunday as the conservative incumbent Andrzej Duda nears the end of his second and final term. If none of the 13candidateswins at least 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held June 1 between the top two. All signs indicate it will be a showdown between Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski and conservative historian Karol Nawrocki. While much of the power in Poland lies with the prime minister and legislature, the presidency is far more than ceremonial, with influence over foreign policy and military affairs and ability to veto legislation. Here is a look at the top four candidates: Rafał Trzaskowski, the liberal mayor of Warsaw Trzaskowski, a political ally of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, has been leading in polls with support just above 30% — a clear edge over his two main rivals, both conservative nationalists. Supporters of the 53-year-old praise his pro-European stance and his role in modernizing Warsaw, which has seen significant infrastructure andcultural investmentduring his tenure. However, Poland remains a largely conservative, Catholic country. Trzaskowski's liberal views — particularly his support for LGBTQ+ rights and participation in Pride parades — alienate some voters outside urban centers. He also faces criticism over local governance, including allegations of inefficiency, controversial real estate management and perceived wasteful spending. In a runoff, he could expect the bulk of right-wing voters to coalesce behind the other candidate. Trzaskowski could also be vulnerable to voter apathy among centrists and progressives who are frustrated with Tusk's inability to deliver on key campaign promises, such as loosening Poland'sstrict abortion law. This is the second presidential campaign for Trzaskowski after Duda narrowly defeated him five years ago. Karol Nawrocki, a conservative histo rian Nawrocki, 42, isthe candidaterepresenting Poland's conservative Law and Justice party. The historian currently heads the Institute of National Remembrance, wherehe angered Russiawith effortsto topple Soviet-era memorials.He previously directed theMuseum of the Second World Warin Gdansk, putting his national conservative stamp on the institution. His academic work has focused on anti-communist resistance and organized crime in communist-era Poland. He is not a party member, and his candidacy represents the Law and Justice party'sstrategyto present a fresh face as it aims to regain influence. The party ruled for eight years butlost powerto Tusk's coalition in 2023. Nawrocki's campaign has been marred by controversies. Journalists revealed that in 2018, under the pseudonym "Tadeusz Batyr," he published a book on a notorious gangster. In a television interview, Batyr — with his face blurred and his voice altered — praised Nawrocki's work without disclosing they were the same person. Separately Nawrocki, using his real identity, praised Batyr's work. Nawrocki also been linked to a scandal involving the acquisition of an apartment from an elderly pensioner named Jerzy. Allegations suggest Nawrocki promised to care for Jerzy in return but failed to fulfill the commitment, leading the man to end up in a state-funded retirement home. Nawrocki denies wrongdoing in both cases. Sławomir Mentzen, a far-right firebrand and beer entrepreneur At 38, Sławomir Mentzen has emerged as a prominent figure in the presidential race, leveraging his savvy use of social media platforms to connect with younger voters. His sleek videos and populist messaging have resonated with many young people, especially men. Mentzen also has been actively touring the country, aiming to broaden his appeal to older demographics. The rise ofhis Confederation partycoincides with a broader surge of populist right-wing movements across Europe. However, Mentzen's political journey has not been without controversy. In 2019, he made headlines with a statement outlining what he termed the "Five Points of Confederation": "We don't want Jews, homosexuals, abortion, taxes or the European Union." While he later said the remark was taken out of context, it has continued to shadow him. Although the Confederation party has emphasized its free-market positions and distanced itself from some extreme elements, many Poles remain wary of Mentzen's past statements. He experienced an early surge in the polls that faded after he advocated for the introduction of tuition fees at state universities, a stance that proved unpopular given Poland's tradition of free higher education. He also has taken a hard-line position on abortion, opposing it even in cases of rape — a view that for many went too far. Mentzen is also a successful entrepreneur. He has degrees in economics and physics and owns a brewery in the central city of Torun that has produced beers with names such as "White IPA Matters," "Hate Speech" and "Bitcoin." The "White IPA Matters" beer had a marketing campaign featuring a Black bartender, triggering controversy. In a personal revelation, Mentzen disclosed in 2024 that he has autism. He shared that while he possesses strong concentration skills, he sometimes struggles with interpreting others' emotions. Szymon Hołownia, parliament speaker with a showman's flair Szymon Hołownia, 48, is a former television personality who transitioned into politics, bringing charisma and a fresh face to the political scene. Once a seminary student, he became widely known as the co-host of Poland's version of "Got Talent." His political journey began in earnest with his candidacy in the 2020 presidential election, where he secured nearly 14% of the vote to finish third. In 2020, Hołownia founded the Poland 2050 movement, which evolved into a political party. In the 2023 election, the party joined forces with the conservative agrarian Polish People's Party to create the Third Way coalition, which then joined Tusk's coalition. Hołownia was elected as the speaker of the Sejm, Poland's lower house of parliament. His showman's flair energized Poles hungry for new faces in a political scene dominated by many of the same figures for decades, including Tusk. Captivated citizens began watching live sessions of parliament online, drawn by his energy and wit. Some analysts say his decision to join Tusk's government, however, has undermined his image as a refreshing outsider.

A look at the leading candidates for Poland's next president

A look at the leading candidates for Poland's next president WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poland holdsa presidential electionSunday as the cons...
The Federal Government's 175,000 Pages of Regulations Turn the Rule of Law Into a Cruel JokeNew Foto - The Federal Government's 175,000 Pages of Regulations Turn the Rule of Law Into a Cruel Joke

After mountain runner Michelino Sunseri ascended and descended Grand Teton in record time last fall, his corporate sponsor, The North Face,heraldedhis achievement as "an impossible dream—come true." Then came the nightmare: Federal prosecutorschargedSunseri with a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail for using a trail that the National Park Service described as closed, although it hadnever botheredto clearly inform the public of that designation. Sunseri unwittingly violated one of the myriad federal regulations that carry criminal penalties—a body of law so vast and obscure that no one knows exactly how many offenses it includes. Anexecutive orderthat President Donald Trump issued last week aims to ameliorate the injustices caused by the proliferation of such agency-defined crimes, which turn the rule of law into a cruel joke. TheCode of Federal Regulations"contains over 48,000 sections, stretching over 175,000 pages—far more than any citizen can possibly read, let alone fully understand," Trump's order notes. "Worse, many [regulations] carry potential criminal penalties for violations." How many? As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and co-author Janie Nitze note in their 2024bookon "the human toll of too much law," even experts cannot say for sure, although "estimates suggest thatat least300,000 federal agency regulations carry criminal sanctions today." At the federal level, in other words, regulatory crimes outnumber statutory crimes—anotheruncertain tally—by a factor of roughly 60 to 1. Since the latter category has exploded during the last century, that is no small feat, but it is what you might expect when unaccountable bureaucrats are free to invent crimes. "Many of these regulatory crimes are 'strict liability' offenses, meaning that citizens need not have a guilty mental state to be convicted of a crime," Trump notes. "This status quo is absurd and unjust. It allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it." Trump said prosecutors generally should eschew criminal charges for regulatory violations based on strict liability and focus on cases where the evidence suggests the defendant knowingly broke the rules. Trump also instructed federal agencies to "explicitly describe" conduct subject to criminal punishment under new regulations and prepare lists of regulatory violations that already can be treated as crimes. Given the enormous volume and range of federal regulations, that last requirement is a tall order. But if the agencies that issue those regulations cannot specify all of the violations that can trigger criminal penalties, what hope does the average American have? Those penalties may not be readily apparent, because "you need to consult at least two provisions of law to identify regulatory crimes," GianCarlo Canaparo, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation,explainedin Senate testimony this month. A regulation that says "Swiss cheese must have holes throughout the cheese," for example, says nothing about criminal prosecution, which is authorized by a separate provision of the U.S. Code. Canaparo noted other examples gathered byMike Chase, author of the comical yet accurate bookHow to Become a Federal Criminal. It is a federal crime, for instance, "to sell a tufted mattress unless you have burned 9 cigarettes on the tufted part of it," "to submit a design to the Federal Duck Stamp contest if your design does not primarily feature 'eligible waterfowl,'" and "to sell a small ball across state lines unless it is marked with a warning that says, 'this toy is a small ball.'" Getting a handle on this bewildering situation will require more than prosecutorial restraint, a matter of discretion that is subject to change at any time. Canaparo argues that Congress should eliminate "excess federal crimes," addmens rea("guilty mind") requirements to provisions that lack them, and recognize a defense for people who did not realize their conduct was unlawful. As he notes, rampant overcriminalization makes a mockery of the old adage that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." © Copyright Creators Syndicate Inc. The postThe Federal Government's 175,000 Pages of Regulations Turn the Rule of Law Into a Cruel Jokeappeared first onReason.com.

The Federal Government's 175,000 Pages of Regulations Turn the Rule of Law Into a Cruel Joke

The Federal Government's 175,000 Pages of Regulations Turn the Rule of Law Into a Cruel Joke After mountain runner Michelino Sunseri asc...
Buck Sexton Tells Megyn Kelly What Surprise He Thinks Would Have Happened If Biden Refused To Debate TrumpNew Foto - Buck Sexton Tells Megyn Kelly What Surprise He Thinks Would Have Happened If Biden Refused To Debate Trump

Co-host of "The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show," Buck Sexton, told SiriusXM's Megyn Kelly on Tuesday that he believes former President Joe Biden would have gotten through to Election Day if his campaign had refused to debate President Donald Trump. Chaos within the Democrat Partyeruptedin June 2024 following Biden's disastrous debate against Trump, in which he could be seenstrugglingto finish his arguments. While discussing a new book detailing allegations of Biden's mental fitness during his time in the White House, Kelly called out Axios' Alex Thompson. "That's why last week I was ripping Alex Thompson, who got this award for his coverage of the Biden mental infirmity, which he did more than any other on the left. But when he accepted the award at the White House Correspondents' Center, he was like, 'We missed it. You know, the people in this room missed it,'" Kelly said. "You didn't miss anything." "They didn't miss it," Sexton responded. "Exactly, they didn't miss anything. They sold their souls to defeat Trump, and they failed. Now they're trying to buy them back off of layaway. This is not something that's hard to understand when you look at it in the totality." Soon after Biden entered the White House in January 2021, Republicans began to warn Americans and Democrats about their concerns regarding Biden's mental fitness. However, the party officials and media pundits collectively brushed off warnings of the former president's mishaps, with Biden's White Housedescribingviral clips of him freezing and wandering off as "cheap fakes" and blaming Republicans.(RELATED: Biden Reportedly Failed To Recognize Famous Actor At Fundraiser Before Dropping Out Of Race) WATCH: "Again, like I said, all along my bet with Clay [Travis] … [which] was, and I'm not kidding, 'Clay, you don't understand.' This was a two-year long bet, OK? This was for two years, I was saying, leading up to the election, 'If they have to wheel him out in a wheelchair,' and I use those words, 'They will do it because Kamala is such a disaster.' Now, I ended up not being right, although, as I like to point out, it was very, very close," Sexton said. "They would have pushed Joe out, and they could have pushed Joe out with these stories, but they recognized that Kamala was a uniquely untalented and incapable politician. They made a calculated decision," Sexton added. Tensions within the Democrat Partybroke afterBiden's June debate, leading pundits and lawmakers to call for him to step aside in the race for the 2024 election. With Biden'sposton X revealing that he would drop from the race, the now former president also announced he would endorse now former Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place. "The only shock here to me — by the way, I think they would have gotten Biden through the election if they had just said what I told them they should say all along, which is 'We will not platform an insurrectionist and an election denier in Donald Trump,'" Sexton said. "They would have been able to do it. And here's the craziest thing of all. Had they refused to debate, they would have at least gotten him to Election Day. And I think it would have been closer than it was against Kamala. I really do." A new excerpt of Thompson's and CNN anchor Jake Tapper's new bookreleasedTuesday claimed aides to Biden considered putting him in a wheelchair during his time in the White House due to his stiff gait worsening. Other former White House aides have come forward, calling out the former president's time in office, blaming Biden for Harris' loss. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter's byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Buck Sexton Tells Megyn Kelly What Surprise He Thinks Would Have Happened If Biden Refused To Debate Trump

Buck Sexton Tells Megyn Kelly What Surprise He Thinks Would Have Happened If Biden Refused To Debate Trump Co-host of "The Clay Travis ...

 

TEC POLITICS © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com