DNC gave ex-Harris booster 'no choice' but to leave, she says, as Dems cry turncoat
EXCLUSIVE: A former Democrat fundraiser and political strategist is responding to questions about her leaving the party, saying she "didn't plan" on making the exit and "had no choice but to leave the cult."
"I'm the only one from the campaign telling the truth," Lindy Li, who fundraised for Democrats in the 2024 presidential election, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "DNC leadership responded to my questions with deeply personal attacks. I had no choice but to leave the cult and am finally free to return to my roots as a conservative."
Piers Morgan said in a post on X he was "confused" by one of Li's posts during the campaign, where she is pictured with presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris and said that she "already voted" for her in Pennsylvania.
"I'm confused. On Monday, you told me you didn't vote for Kamala in the 2024 election. But you posted this on your X account on October 3. Though oddly, you have now deleted it overnight. What's going on?" Morgan wrote Wednesday.
Li, responding to the question, said that as a surrogate of the Harris campaign, she "didn't want to hurt Harris by disclosing I didn't vote for her" and felt a "responsibility" to "see the campaign through," despite personal objections.
"As a public-facing surrogate of the campaign and a member of the team, I had a responsibility to see the campaign through, despite my personal objections — supporting Harris through Election Day was the right thing to do," Li told Fox News Digital.
"I didn't leave the DNC. They pushed me out for simply asking for accountability for how the billions of dollars were spent."
Li was a well-known fundraiser for the Democrats' 2024 presidential campaign before announcing her exit from the party in December after she said she was ostracized for criticizing then-Democrat presidential nominee Harris.
The former Democrat said her decision to leave the party "wasn't easy" but was the "result of a decade-long progression."
"It took a while for me to get here over the course of the past year. I just realized that the values of the Democratic Party are so incongruous to mine," Li told Fox. "It just contradicts everything I believe, everything from open borders to woke and DEI insanity. It's just not my party anymore."
"No one is contradicting me on the facts, they are coming after me as a person," Li said, telling Fox that she is already working on fundraising for the GOP for the 2026 midterms.
Fox News Digital reached out to the DNC for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP leadership unleashes fury on Dem governor ahead of blockbuster congressional hearing
FIRST ON FOX: House Republican leadership slammed Democratic Gov. Tim Walz ahead of a blockbuster congressional hearing addressing sanctuary city policy this week. GOP Whip and Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer wished Walz "good luck" before the former vice presidential candidate is set to testify alongside Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul at a House Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday. "From hurling outrageous insults against ICE agents to offering a multitude of taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal aliens in Minnesota, Tim Walz's immigration agenda can be summed up easily: pro-illegal alien, anti-Minnesotan," GOP Whip Emmer told Fox News Digital. "If Tim Walz thinks he will be able to defend his abysmal record before Congress, then he's even more of a buffoon than I thought. I only have one thing to say to Timmy as he heads to Washington this week: GOOD LUCK." Handful Of House Democrats Join Republicans In Sanctuary City Crackdown Emmer paired his comments to Fox News Digital with a new video slamming Walz's various immigration policies titled "Protecting Illegals, Not Minnesotans: That's the Walz Way." Read On The Fox News App The three "sanctuary governors" will face a barrage of questions from members of the committee this week, as anti-ICE riots raged in Los Angeles over the weekend and the Trump administration continues to ramp up deportations across the country. Though the term "sanctuary city" is not legally defined, illegal immigrants will flock to the mainly Democrat-led regions to reduce the likelihood of deportation. Sanctuary cities often refuse Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests for information, like arrests or releases, and typically deny ICE detainer requests to hold jailed illegal migrants beyond their release date. California Republicans Slam Newsom, Bass For Letting La Burn With Riots Amid Trump Immigration Blitz House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Kentucky, said in a media advisory for the upcoming hearing that "The governors of these states must explain why they are prioritizing the protection of criminal illegal aliens over the safety of U.S. citizens." "Sanctuary policies only provide sanctuaries for criminal illegal aliens." Comer explained. "Former President Biden created the worst border crisis in U.S. history and allowed criminal illegal aliens to flood our communities." "The Trump Administration is taking decisive action to deport criminal illegal aliens from our nation but reckless sanctuary states like Illinois, Minnesota, and New York are actively seeking to obstruct federal immigration enforcement." 'Sick Puppy' Tim Walz Should Never Have Been On Dems' 2024 Ticket, Trump Says The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, June 12 at 10 a.m. ET. Fox News Digital reached out to Walz but did not receive a article source: GOP leadership unleashes fury on Dem governor ahead of blockbuster congressional hearing
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump uses LA protests to redirect dissent from policy failures to the ‘enemy within'
Donald Trump walked out to a thunderous standing ovation as Kid Rock's American Bad Ass boomed from the sound system. He watched martial artists slug it out behind a chain-link fence. A female champion let the US president try on her gold belt. It was a night of machismo, spectacle and violence. Shortly before he joined an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) event in Newark, New Jersey, on Saturday night, Trump had signed an order deploying 2,000 national guard troops to Los Angeles, where protests sparked by sweeping immigration raids led to clashes between authorities and demonstrators. Related: US national guard arrive in Los Angeles after protests over immigration raids The White House said Trump was sending in the guardsmen to 'address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester' in California. Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said the move was 'purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions'. Experts said it was the first time in 60 years that a president has activated a state's national guard – a reserve military – without a request from its governor. Critics also saw it as an authoritarian flex by a strongman president who has relentlessly trampled norms and burst through guardrails. Since returning to office in January, Trump has sought to crush dissent at cultural institutions, law firms, media companies and universities. Many believed it was only a matter of time before he took the fight to the streets. The protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) raids present him with an antagonist that can be used as a focal point for anger, hatred and fear, ensuring that dissent is redirected away from the government and toward 'an enemy within'. Trump is the master of distraction and, with the help of lurid rightwing media clips, wants to divert attention from policy failures and his ugly feud with Elon Musk. Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator, tweeted: 'Important to remember that Trump isn't trying to heal or keep the peace. He is looking to inflame and divide. His movement doesn't believe in democracy or protest – and if they get a chance to end the rule of law they will take it. None of this is on the level.' As with much else in his scorched earth second term, Trump advertised this in advance. Last October he told Fox News: 'I always say, we have two enemies. We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within, and the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries.' He added: 'We have some very bad people. We have some sick people. Radical left lunatics I think it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by national guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can't let that happen.' There are echoes of 2020 when Trump used national guard troops in Washington to quell Black Lives Matter protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. The troops fired teargas to clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House to allow Trump to stage a photo-op at a church. The former defense secretary Mark Esper later revealed that Trump asked about the protesters: 'Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?' Trump and his rightwing allies have been busy rewriting the history of 2020 as a flashpoint when rioters brought carnage to US cities. Yet their narrative omits Trump's conspicuous failure to activate the national guard in response to his supporters' attempt to overturn his election defeat by laying siege to the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. Cory Booker, a Democratic senator for New Jersey, told NBC's Meet the Press programme on Sunday: 'We are now at a point where we have a president who sat back and did nothing as people stormed our Capitol, viciously beat police, and then when those people – who viciously beat police and led to some of their deaths, therefore cop killers – were convicted by juries, he then pardoned them all. 'So for him to be talking to anybody right now about responsible law enforcement to protect people is hypocritical at best.' Now California – a Democrat-dominated state regularly invoked by Trump and his allies as a hive of 'wokeness' and immigration lawlessness – is the ideal target for Trump to whip up the fervor and resentments of his base. The government is deploying the national guard 'not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle', Newsom wrote on social media. 'Don't give them one.' In a sign of how much has changed from his first term, there are no Mark Espers to push back this time. Instead the current defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, threatened to involve regular military forces, writing that active-duty marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues'. And Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and architect of Trump's draconian immigration crackdown, posted messages such as 'We will take back America' and 'Insurrection' – the latter raising the spectre of Trump invoking the Insurrection Act, one of the most powerful emergency powers at the disposal of a president. The 18th-century wartime law would allow Trump to deploy the military on US soil against civilian protests, evoking parallels with autocratic regimes around the world that declare martial law. Again, the president has teed up a preview: on Saturday tanks will roll on the streets of Washington for a parade to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US army. It also happens to be Trump's birthday.
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Less red tape, more trains: SCOTUS boosts the ‘abundance' agenda
Whether that's a good or bad thing divides progressives. Advertisement Some environmentalists decried the ruling. 'This disastrous decision to undermine our nation's bedrock environmental law means our air and water will be more polluted, the climate and extinction crises will intensify, and people will be less healthy,' Wendy Park, an attorney for one of the environmental groups that challenged the railway, told Reuters. But the more interesting story here was the dogs that didn't bark — the liberals that a decade ago probably would have lambasted the ruling, but were notably silent. It's also interesting that the court's three liberals joined the 8-0 ruling (one justice recused himself). Advertisement Broadly speaking, the abundance theory is that Democrats need to show they can do stuff and build things if they are going to win the trust of voters. For too long, progressives have said they believe in the power of government to help people — to build housing, transit lines, clean energy, etc. — but then hobbled the ability of either the government or the private sector to actually do any of those things. Now voters just don't believe their promises — and they're right to be leery, since progressive rules too often turn progressives priorities like the California High Speed rail project into quagmires. Indeed, parts of Kavanaugh's ruling sound eerily like the words of a Democratic policy wonk. Because of overly onerous reviews, he wrote, 'fewer projects make it to the starting line. Those that survive often end up costing much more than is anticipated or necessary… And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.' The original 1970 environmental-review law was never intended to work this way, he said. 'A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development 'under the guise' of just a little more process,' he wrote. 'The goal of the law is to inform agency decision-making, not to paralyze it,' he wrote. A rail overpass being built in Hanford, Calif., that may or may not carry high speed trains at some point. IAN C. BATES/NYT The gist of the ruling is that projects can't be expected to analyze every imaginable environmental impact. It's one thing for backers to study the immediate, predictable environmental impact of a construction project on wildlife, for instance. But environmental groups also wanted the Utah review to include an analysis of the extra greenhouse gas emissions the project could lead to if it led to more global oil production and use that pushed up emissions, something that was outside the control of either the railroad or its regulators. Advertisement It's easy to see how that thinking can lead to absurd outcomes. The further from the actual project, the more an analysis of environmental 'impact' is built on speculation and conjecture. At an extreme, it's like asking the butterfly to study its environmental impact on the hurricane. There has to be some limiting principle on the scope of reviews to avoid the kind of paralysis that Kavanaugh warned about — and that California's rail project in fact experienced. You probably won't find a Democrat willing to say it, but Kavanaugh and the court did them a big favor. They can spend less time fighting among themselves now that the decision has been made for them to narrow the scope of environmental review. And the next time progressives run on promises to build transit lines or green energy, the ruling makes it a little bit more likely they'll actually be able to deliver. This is an excerpt from , a Globe Opinion newsletter about the future of transportation in the region. Sign up to . Alan Wirzbicki is Globe deputy editor for editorials. He can be reached at
