Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig says that America’s democracy is at risk due to the current state of the Republican Party.
Luttig, a conservative-leaning former judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals, joined CNN This Morning on Wednesday to discuss the “decay” of the Republican Party under Donald Trump’s leadership.
“What do you think has happened to your party?” Harlow asked Luttig.
His answer:
Frankly, I don’t care about the Republican Party at all, except to the extent that the two political parties in America are the political guardians of democracy in our country. American democracy simply cannot function without two equally healthy and equally strong political parties. So, today, in my view, there is no Republican Party to counter the Democratic Party in the country. And for that reason, American democracy is in grave peril.
“There is no Republican Party?” Harlow asked him. Luttig explained by outlining his view that “a political party is a collection, an assemblage of individuals who share a set of beliefs and principles and policy views about the United States of America.”
“Today there is no such shared set of beliefs and values and principles, or even policy views, within the Republican Party for America,” Luttig determined. “Until or unless the Republican Party can pull itself together into a credible Republican political party, we simply don’t have two competing parties in America.”
On Monday, Indiana Rep. Victoria Spartz (R) announced she would seek another term in Congress after all.
“Deciding where your duty lies — family, work, or country, is never an easy task. Earlier last year, I decided to take some time off from running for public office to recharge and spend more time in Indiana with my family,” Spartz said in a statement.
Rep. Victoria Spartz R-IN, who initially said she would not run for reelection, and even threatened to resign from Congress early, now says she will run again in 2024 pic.twitter.com/yPakOttfLG
“However, looking where we are today, and urged by many of my constituents, I do not believe I would be able to deliver this Congress, with the current failed leadership in Washington, D.C., on the important issues for our nation that I have worked very hard on,” she continued.
Last year, Spartz announced that she would not be running for another term, saying in a statement at the time “being a working mom is tough” and that she wanted to spend more time with her daughters.
However Spartz seemed to signal she would reconsider her decision in recent months, saying on NewsNation’s “The Hill” in September, “I do need to regroup because I think my party is failing the people.”
The solidly red district in Indiana’s Fifth Congressional District went for former President Trump in 2020 by 16 points.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is leaving the door open to another presidential bid after his unsuccessful 2024 campaign, signaling he could reemerge as a contender in the increasingly competitive 2028 Republican primary.
“We’ll see,” DeSantis told Fox News host Sean Hannity on his podcast, “Hang Out with Sean Hannity.” The full interview is set to be released Tuesday.
🚨 NOW: Ron DeSantis is signaling a possible 2028 run, saying President Trump built a powerful voter base but Republicans must deliver results to keep it.
He pointed to Florida’s 2022 landslide win as proof conservative leadership can secure victories.pic.twitter.com/s6Blk59SYL
DeSantis, who is term-limited and will leave office in January 2027, faces a relatively short window to decide his political future. With the 2028 primary season expected to ramp up shortly thereafter, he will have roughly a year out of office to assess whether to launch another White House run.
Once viewed as a rising star in the GOP, DeSantis entered the 2024 presidential race with significant momentum. His national profile surged his opposition to COVID-19 lockdowns and a dominant nearly 20-point reelection victory in Florida in 2022. Early on, he was widely considered one of the strongest alternatives to former President Trump.
However, his campaign struggled to gain traction amid a prolonged and often contentious rivalry with Trump, who retained deep loyalty among Republican voters. After finishing a distant second in the Iowa caucuses — with just over 21 percent of the vote and nine delegates — DeSantis suspended his campaign ahead of the New Hampshire primary and endorsed Trump. He ultimately placed third overall in the Republican primary, behind Trump and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley.
Reflecting on that race, DeSantis suggested his support was constrained by Trump’s presence in the field.
“They were conservative voters, right? They didn’t want the non-conservative, they wanted me,” he said. “But the timing didn’t work out, obviously, for that.”
“So you just got to see what happens,” he added.
Looking ahead, the 2028 Republican primary is already beginning to take shape, with several high-profile figures jockeying for early position. Vice President JD Vance currently holds a significant polling advantage, benefiting from his national platform and close alignment with Trump-era politics.
Recent surveys illustrate the early dynamics of the race. A poll conducted by Echelon Insights found that 40 percent of Republican-leaning respondents favored Vance. Secretary of State Marco Rubio followed at 16 percent, while Donald Trump Jr., DeSantis and Haley trailed with 9 percent, 5 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Thirteen percent of respondents remained undecided.
A separate poll by The Public Sentiment Institute showed a somewhat tighter field, with DeSantis polling at 13.5 percent — good for third place — behind Vance (29.3 percent) and Rubio (15.5 percent). Nearly 10 percent of respondents were undecided.
The early polling underscores both the opportunity and the challenge for DeSantis. While he remains a recognizable figure with a record that appeals to conservative voters, he would likely enter a crowded field that includes establishment figures like Rubio, Trump-aligned candidates such as Vance and Trump Jr., and other potential contenders still weighing bids.
With Trump’s future political role uncertain and no clear consensus successor, the 2028 race is shaping up to be a wide-open contest. Whether DeSantis can reestablish himself as a top-tier candidate may depend on how effectively he rebuilds momentum after his 2024 defeat — and whether the political environment proves more favorable the second time around.
On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump accused former impeachment leader Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) of committing mortgage fraud.
“I have always suspected Shifty Adam Shiff (sic) was a scam artist,” Trump wrote. He then claimed that Fannie Mae’s Financial Crimes Division had determined that Schiff had improperly declared a Maryland home as his primary residence to secure better mortgage terms, despite representing California in Congress.
“Adam Schiff said that his primary residence was in MARYLAND to get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America, when he must LIVE in CALIFORNIA,” Trump alleged, before outlining what he described as a fraudulent timeline beginning in 2009 and ending in 2020.
According to Trump’s post, the alleged “fraud” began on February 6, 2009, with the refinancing of a property in Maryland, and continued “through multiple transactions” until October 13, 2020, when the property was finally “correctly designated as a second home.” He concluded the post with a familiar refrain: “Crooked Adam Schiff (now a Senator) needs to be brought to justice.”
As of Tuesday morning, no independent confirmation of such an investigation has been reported.
Schiff’s ownership of the Maryland property was reported on during his Senate campaign by CNN, which at the time reported that the then-House member wasn’t likely to face any legal repercussions because the law at issue is ambiguous when it comes to the definition of a primary residence.
However, Schiff’s spokesperson during the campaign and his current press secretary, told CNN last year that he has claimed both his properties as primary residences for mortgage purposes “because they are both occupied throughout the year and to distinguish them from a vacation property.”
The animosity between Trump and Schiff has been swirling for year and dates back to at least 2017, when the California lawmaker emerged as one of Trump’s most vocal critics during the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Schiff later served as the lead impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment trial in 2020, drawing attacks from the former president, who routinely referred to him as “Pencil Neck” and “Shifty Schiff.”
On Tuesday, President-elect Trump announced former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, has been nominated to be The United States Ambassador to Israel.
“Mike has been a great public servant, Governor, and Leader in Faith for many years,” Trump said in a statement. “He loves Israel, and the people of Israel, and likewise, the people of Israel love him. Mike will work tirelessly to bring about Peace in the Middle East!”
Huckabee served as governor of Arkansas from 1996-2007, winning two full terms after taking over for former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker (R), who resigned.
Trump’s ambassador to Israel during his first term was David Friedman, who worked on brokering the Abraham Accords, which aimed to normalize relations between Israel and Arab nations.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Former President Trump is suing CBS News for $10 billion in damages.
Trump’s attorneys said the complaint comes due to “CBS’ partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion calculated to confuse, deceive, and mislead the public.”
Trump’s legal team also argued the edits were done in an effort to “attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party as the heated 2024 Presidential Election — which President Trump is leading — approaches its conclusion.”
“President Trump brings this action to redress the immense harm caused to him, to his campaign, and to tens of millions of citizens in Texas and across America by CBS’s deceptive broadcasting conduct,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit comes after Trump’s attorneys wrote letters to CBS News demanding the network release the full transcript of the “60 Minutes” interview with Harris after it aired two different answers to the same question. Trump attorneys asked CBS to preserve all documents and communications related to the interview pending a potential legal battle.
The lawsuit filed Thursday specifically references the exchange Harris had with “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker. In a preview clip that aired on “Face the Nation,” Harris was asked why it seemed like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t listening to the U.S.
“Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region,” Harris responded in the “Face the Nation” clip.
“We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end,” Harris said in the primetime special.
Critics have accused CBS News of editing Harris’ “word salad” answer to shield the vice president from further backlash.
Trump lawyers argue that news organizations “are responsible for accurately representing the truth of events, not distorting an interview to try and falsely make their preferred candidate appear coherent and decisive, which Kamala most certainly is not.”
“Due to CBS’ actions, the public could not distinguish which Kamala they saw in the Interview: the candidate or the actual puppet of a behind-the-scenes editor,” the lawsuit states, noting that Whitaker’s question “was of the utmost public significance — U.S. foreign policy on the matter of the Israel/Gaza war — at a time of immense importance, mere weeks before the most critical presidential election in American history.”
Trump is demanding a jury trial and at least $10 billion in damages for CBS’ alleged “ongoing false, misleading, and deceptive acts; the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action; and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.”
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
Donald Trump’s recent moves in Mar-a-Lago have triggered a distinct uptick in criticism from his Republican colleagues.
Trump hosted the rapper “Ye,” formerly known as Kanye West as well as white nationalist Nick Fuentes for dinner at his Florida resort last week. Ye has also faced criticism for his recent antisemitic remarks published on his social media channels.
Trump said in a post on Truth Social that Ye brought Fuentes, who has been labeled a “white supremacist” by the Justice Department, to the dinner and claimed he did not know who Fuentes was. Fuentes has denied that the Holocaust took place.
“So I help a seriously troubled man, who just happens to be black, Ye (Kanye West), who has been decimated in his business and virtually everything else,” Trump wrote. “And who has always been good to me, by allowing his request for a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, alone, so that I can give him very much needed ‘advice.’”
“He shows up with 3 people, two of which I didn’t know, the other a political person who I haven’t seen in years,” the former president added. “I told him don’t run for office, a total waste of time, can’t win. Fake News went CRAZY!”
Trump’s recent actions caused Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy to strongly rebuke the former President on Twitter.
“President Trump hosting racist antisemites for dinner encourages other racist antisemites. These attitudes are immoral and should not be entertained,” Cassidy tweeted.
President Trump hosting racist antisemites for dinner encourages other racist antisemites. These attitudes are immoral and should not be entertained. This is not the Republican Party.
— U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (@SenBillCassidy) November 28, 2022
Cassidy was among the seven Senate Republicans to vote to impeach the former President but the Senator’s harsh language comes after Trump saw a tepid response from GOP lawmakers after announcing his third campaign.
This isn’t the behavior you expect from a sitting Congressman…
Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) was kicked out of a pro-Donald Trump event this week.
In footage posted to social media, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus can be seen talking with store owner Karen Angulo, a former local GOP chair, and being told to leave the event. Virginia state Sen. John McGuire (R) was in attendance at the event and can be seen talking to someone in the background of the Good video. He is challenging Good for his congressional seat.
“We invited our State Senator John McGuire as a special guest because John has been a supporter of President Trump and never wavered, unlike Bob Good,” Angulo wrote in a statement about the incident with Good.
In the video from the Trump store opening. Angulo repeatedly tells Good to leave, and he, at one point, reads from an email inviting all Republicans supporting Trump to the event.
BOB GOOD was kicked out of grand opening of a Pro-Trump store in VA-05.
In a statement about the incident, she called it “embarrassing.”
“I repeatedly asked Bob to leave. Once he finally relented and left our store, Bob and his paid campaign staff stood out front for over four hours trying to block people from entering our store,” she wrote. “The whole thing was very embarrassing behavior for anyone, let alone a sitting member of Congress.”
The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley responded President-elect Donald Trump’s social media post over the weekend…
Haley replied on X by highlighting her previous service, saying, “I was proud to work with President Trump defending America at the United Nations. I wish him, and all who serve, great success in moving us forward to a stronger, safer America over the next four years.” The reply received harsh criticism from Trump critics, which Haley noted as she said her family was frustrated that she didn’t make clear at the time she had told Trump aides she was not interested in a job.
“I had no interest in being in his cabinet. He knew that,” Haley said on her SiriusXM show, Nikki Haley Live, adding:
But to go a little further, his best friend, Steve Witkoff, came to our house in South Carolina, spoke to me and my husband, and basically wanted a truce between me and Donald Trump. And I told him at the time, there was no truce needed, that I had, that Trump had my support, there was no issue on my end.
And at that point he was like, ‘What do you want? Tell me what you want. Is there anything you want?’ And I said, ‘There’s nothing I want.’ And there wasn’t anything I wanted. And then several weeks back I talked to Howard Lutnick, his transition director, and he asked, you know, if I knew of people that would be good in the cabinet, if there was any insight. And what I said is, I think it’s really important that Trump surround himself with people that are going to tell him the truth.
And I, you know, mentioned someone that I thought would be good for Commerce Secretary and mentioned that I thought the UN Ambassador should be a cabinet pick. But I did not ask anything for me. And I have made it clear to everyone that I was not interested in the administration. So my husband and son were upset and said, ‘Why didn’t you say that in the tweet? Instead of just wishing him well?’
Haley concluded by noting Trump’s social media post was nothing new to her, “And the truth is, I know the game he was playing. I don’t need to play that game.”
“But more importantly, we have to look at the bigger picture. It is time to move on. It is time for us to focus on what America needs to do to be strong again, what America needs to do to be safe. The American people have spoken and spoken very loudly, and at this point, we should pray that President Trump does well. We should pray that everyone that he appoints does well. We should hope for the sake of our kids and generations to follow us, that all of this goes forward. So, you know, do I take it personally? No. That’s who he is. He can be shallow at times and I think he showed that. But I don’t have to be shallow. And at the end of the day, I’m very comfortable with where I am, and I’m comfortable with what happened,” she added.
A group of Evanston, Illinois, residents are suing their city government over a $20 million scheme to give away $25,000 each to Black residents as “reparations” for wrongs experienced by past generations.
The nonprofit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “filed a class action lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969.” (RELATED: San Francisco Debates $5 Million Per Person Reparations Proposal)
The New York Times photo archive, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“The Evanston, Illinois’ ‘reparations’ program is nothing more than a ploy to redistribute tax dollars to individuals based on race,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This scheme unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not identify as Black or African American. This class action, civil rights lawsuit will be a historic defense of our color-blind Constitution.”
“Through a series of resolutions, the Evanston City Council created a program to provide $25,000 cash payments to residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969 and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren,” JW reports, after filing a class action, civil rights lawsuit which challenges “on Equal Protection grounds Defendant City of Evanston’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a program that makes $25,000 payments to residents and direct descendants of residents of the city five-plus decades if not more than a century ago. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the Defendant’s use of race to be unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing to use race as a requirement for receiving payment under the program and request that the Court award them and all class members damages in the amount of $25,000 each.”
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
JW argues that “the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because:”
Remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling governmental interest. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 505 (1989); see also Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307 ((1978) (opinion of Powell, J.) (describing “societal discrimination” as “an amorphous concept of injury that may be ageless in its reach into the past.”) Remedying discrimination from 55 to 105 years ago or remedying discrimination experienced at any time by an individual’s parents, grandparents, or great grandparents has not been recognized as a compelling governmental interest…
Defendant also has not and cannot demonstrate that its use of a race as an eligibility requirement is narrowly tailored. Among other shortcomings, Defendant’s use of race as a proxy for experiencing discrimination between 1919 and 1969 does not limit eligibility to persons who actually experienced discrimination during that relevant time period and therefore is overinclusive. Defendant also failed to consider race-neutral alternatives, such as requiring prospective recipients show that they or their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents actually experienced housing discrimination during the relevant time period because of an Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure, as Defendant requires for the third group of prospective recipients. Nor did Defendant take into account race-neutral anti-discrimination remedies before adopting its race-based eligibility requirement.
According to JW, the program works as follows:
The first group of persons eligible for the $25,000 payments are current Evanston residents who identify as Black or African American and were at least 18 years of age between 1919 and 1969. Evanston refers to this group as “ancestors.”
The second group are individuals who identify as Black or African American who are at least 18 years of age and have at least one parent, grandparent, or great grandparent who identifies (or identified) as Black or African American, lived in Evanston for any period between 1919 and 1969, and was at least 18 at the time. Evanston refers to this group as “direct descendants.” A “direct descendant” is not required to be a current resident of Evanston to receive the payment.
“At no point in the application process are persons in the first and second groups required to present evidence that they or their ancestors experienced housing discrimination or otherwise suffered harm because of an unlawful Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure or some other unlawful act or series of acts by Evanston between 1919 and 1969,” Judicial Watch states in the laws.” “In effect, Evanston is using race as a proxy for having experienced discrimination during this time period.” (RELATED: Squad Member Introduces Proposal For $14 Trillion In Reparations)
Judicial Watch states in the lawsuit that “the six plaintiffs satisfy all eligibility requirements for participating in the program as ‘direct descendants’ other that the race requirement (the actual number of individuals who are potential class members is in the tens of thousands).”
Christine Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC is assisting Judicial Watch in the lawsuit.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News.
