Karoline Leavitt excoriates media for perpetuating 'complete scam' of Russia hoax
"Unfortunately, so many Americans, from listening to outlets in this room, believed in these lies, and it's a complete scam, and it's a scandal and the president wants to see accountability for that," Leavitt told reporters.
"He wants to see all those who perpetuated this fraud against our country, who betrayed our country and the Constitution, to be thoroughly investigated and held accountable, and it's been 10 years of this," Leavitt said. "And I would just add, based on everything the [DNI] director has said and declassified, all of you in this room should go through it and take a look at this report and review the intelligence, because, unfortunately, that hasn't happened."
Leavitt made the remarks in response to a question from a reporter who asked if the White House believes that the Supreme Court's immunity decision protects former President Barack Obama from prosecution.
During the briefing, Leavitt was joined by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who said that her findings at the DNI suggest that the Obama administration promoted a "contrived narrative" that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
"There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false," Gabbard said. "They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true it wasn't."
Leavitt also criticized the outlets that were present at the briefing.
"Many of the people who perpetuated this hoax — Clapper, Andy McCabe and James Comey and many others — have been hired by major networks in this room to go on television and continue to spew these lies, knowing that they are lies," she said.
The press secretary also blasted the Democratic Party for their part in pursuing the Russia narrative.
"Just flashback to 2016 and the years after the entire Trump-one presidency was embroiled in this scandal that was perpetuated by the Democrat Party, and you had major Democratic Party officials in this city, namely Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, who went on television and told the American people, 'Donald Trump is an asset of Russia,'" she continued.
"It was a lie," Leavitt said. "They always knew it. So Hillary Clinton herself said that President Trump would be a puppet for Putin. Sen. Tim Kaine, at the time, called President Trump 'Vladimir Putin's defense lawyer.' Adam Schiff stated, and one of the worst things a lawmaker could do is to tell the American people, 'I know something you don't know, it's just classified, and I can't tell you,' and that's what he said. 'I can tell you that the case is more than that. I can't go into the particulars, but there's more than circumstantial evidence now.'"
"And not enough people in this room, not enough journalists in this country pushed Adam Schiff to say, 'What are you talking about? What evidence do you have?' Everybody just ran with the lies, and it led to impeachments, and it led to the division of our country," she said.
Trump on Tuesday claimed that Obama was the "ringleader" of Russiagate, calling for him to be criminally investigated amid new claims that members of his administration allegedly "manufactured" intelligence that prompted the Trump–Russia collusion narrative.
"Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response," Obama spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement. "But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one."
"These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction," Obama's spokesman continued. "Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Six months in, young people have soured on Trump's job handling
Since Donald Trump took office for his second term, his job ratings have markedly declined — and more with young people than any other age group. What has made so many young Americans change their minds so quickly? For context, President Trump's electoral performance with voters under 30 improved a lot in 2024: While he lost this group to former Vice President Kamala Harris, it was by a much smaller margin than in 2020. And men under 30 ended up splitting roughly evenly between Trump and Harris. These trends prompted some observers to marvel at how conservative Gen Z had become, especially young men, and to wonder whether it marked a durable change. About half a year on from Inauguration Day, many young people have changed their minds on Trump. It looks more like many young voters gave him the benefit of the doubt when he took office, but their evaluations of him quickly started to sink. Among Americans ages 18-29, his job approval rating has fallen from a high of 55% just after he was inaugurated to 28% now. That means that half of his former approvers now disapprove. In percentage-point terms, the size of that drop is more than double what we've seen in any other age group. Which young voters have dropped off? Among young people, it's the less partisan and politically engaged who have seen the steepest drops. For example, about half of independents under 30 approved of Mr. Trump in February, but that has dropped to about one in five now. The same is true of young people who didn't vote in the 2024 election. Party identifiers and '24 voters have fallen off, too, but not to the same extent. There are also differences by gender, with young men starting out more approving of Mr. Trump than young women were. Women's ratings of the president had already begun dipping by March, while it was not until April — and the downturn in the U.S. stock market — that young men's ratings started to decline. Both have fallen steadily since then, but a faster drop among young men in the last few months has meant the gender gap in approval of Mr. Trump has shrunk. (See the bottom of this article for statistical details on estimating these smaller subgroups.) CBS News polling over the past few months offers several clues as to what young people are unhappy about these days. A majority now say Mr. Trump is doing different things than he promised during the 2024 campaign. That's a reversal in sentiment from early February, when seven in 10 said he's doing what he said he would. And it's young men who have been the most likely to flip on this question. On top of that, the administration is experiencing low points on several economic evaluations: The share of young people saying the economy is getting worse has risen to six in 10. And young Americans are less likely than older ones to see the job market as good. Overtime, young people have increasingly rated it as fairly or very in 10 also tell us that Mr. Trump's policies are making them worse off financially. That is the highest we've seen to date, and it represents a complete change from what young people expected when he was inaugurated. Back then, they were much more likely to say his policies would make them better off than worse majorities feel the Trump administration is focusing too much on tariffs (72%), deportations (64%), and ending DEI programs (55%). These shares have all grown significantly over time. By contrast, seven in 10 say the administration isn't focusing enough on lowering prices, which was a key campaign issue. Looking back and ahead… Instead of marking a permanent rightward shift, Mr. Trump's better-than-expected performance with young voters last year is beginning to look more like a temporary reaction. Indeed, less partisan voters tend to be more responsive to short-term forces, like the economic conditions that drove many at the ballot box in 2024. And when Trump was inaugurated, many young people hoped he would turn the economy around, with his initial ratings likely reflecting some optimism. This honeymoon period quickly faded. His 18-29 rating is now below Joe Biden's when he left office. Looking ahead to 2026, Republicans' electoral success may depend on both the president's numbers and youth turnout. If views of Mr. Trump's job handling don't improve over the next year, they could be a drag on GOP congressional candidates. And while young voters are less likely to turn out in non-presidential years, both the 2018 and 2022 midterms saw record numbers go to the polls, including voters under 30. In fact, in 2022, young voters turned out at a rate that came close to saving the Democrats' majority. In a tight contest, they could be pivotal again. Estimating small subgroups in polls In order to more precisely estimate trends in approval among young people, I aggregated our polls and ran a statistical model that controls for respondents' race, education level, 2024 vote, and survey date. Why take this approach? All polls have a margin of error, and the margin of error is greater for subgroups within the poll, as a function of sample size and routine weighting. So, even though young people are represented proportionate to their share of the population, estimating what percentage of them approve of the president naturally comes with a higher margin of error. It's driven by random variation in which types of young people respond to a given poll, and margins of error grow as you slice data more thinly — for instance, in disaggregating young people by gender. Since a single poll can only do so much, we can combine data across polls to boost sample sizes and gain confidence in our estimates. Aggregating surveys yields sample sizes of over 1,200 men and 1,300 women under 30 to analyze. And the model smoothens out poll-to-poll randomness within these subgroups. The modeled estimates for any given time point are consistently within range of the unmodeled survey data, typically within a few points. And importantly, they tell the same story: both young men and young women's views of Trump have worsened, and the gender gap has decreased. John Oliver: The 60 Minutes Interview Finding the plane used for Argentina's dictatorship-era "death flights" | 60 Minutes Immigration agent told 18-year-old U.S. citizen "you got no rights here" during arrest
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's EPA to repeal finding that climate pollution endangers human health
WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency will rescind the long-standing finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health, as well as tailpipe emission standards for vehicles, setting off what it describes as the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. Republican President Donald Trump's pick to run the EPA Lee Zeldin announced the agency's plan to rescind the "endangerment finding" on the Ruthless podcast on Tuesday, saying it will save Americans money and unravel two decades of regulation aimed at reducing carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases from cars, power plants, oil production and other sources. In 2009, the EPA under former Democratic President Barack Obama issued a finding that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to pollution and endanger public health and welfare. It was upheld in several legal challenges and underpinned subsequent greenhouse gas regulations. "With regard to the endangerment finding, they'll say carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that's the end of it. They'll never acknowledge any type of benefit or need for carbon dioxide," Zeldin told the podcast. "It's important to note, and they don't, how important it is for the planet." Reuters reported last week that the EPA plans to repeal all greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines in the coming days after it removes the scientific finding that justified those rules, according to a summary. It is also expected to justify rescinding the endangerment finding by casting doubt on the scientific record used to make the finding, saying that "developments cast significant doubt on the reliability of the findings," the summary seen by Reuters says. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Massachusetts v. EPA case in 2007, said the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and required the agency to make a scientific finding on whether they endanger public health. If finalized, this action will devastate the EPA's ability to carry out its primary authority to limit climate pollution under the federal Clean Air Act. Environmental activists immediately condemned the announcement. 'As if any doubt remained, the Trump Administration has formalized climate denial as the official policy of the United States government," said Sierra Club Acting Executive Director Loren Blackford in a statement. "If approved, rescinding the endangerment finding would strike a decisive blow to the EPA's authority to limit deadly greenhouse gas emissions and protect our people and our planet from the very worst of the climate crisis. Nearly every single day we see increased incidents of extreme weather, record heatwaves, deadly floods and droughts all threatening our lives and communities—all of which are the undeniable result of greenhouse gas emissions. 'The Trump administration is again taking a sledgehammer to the very foundation of our government and settled law, and doing so only to the benefit of corporate polluters while we pay the price." Zeldin said he will make the formal announcement on Tuesday afternoon in Indiana. Contributing: Ben Adler
Bloomberg
17 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Hakeem Jeffries to Visit Texas as Trump Pushes Redrawing Congressional Maps
Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the US House of Representatives, will meet with Texas Democrats in Austin on Wednesday, according to people familiar with the matter, as a national battle intensifies over President Donald Trump's drive to redraw the state's congressional maps. Trump has said that revamping Texas congressional districts would add as many as five seats for the Republicans, giving the party a leg up as it seeks to defend its narrow House majority in midterm elections next year. Texas state lawmakers have been holding hearings on the controversial effort, but new proposed maps have yet to be released.
