Trump turns ire on Kamala Harris after Biden cancer news with Beyoncé, Oprah warning for 'illegal' donations
Donald Trump kicked off Monday morning by turning his attacks towards former 2024 rival Kamala Harris just hours after Joe Biden 's devastating cancer diagnosis was made public.
The president is demanding a 'major investigation' into Harris after she dolled out massive amounts of campaign cash for major celebrity appearances from the likes of single-name icons Beyonce and Oprah.
Trump claims that Harris' lofty spending for performances at her events equates to using donations to pay for endorsements, which is illegal.
Still, the slew of celebrity appearances and mini concerts, including from Bruce Springsteen and Bono, did not help Harris get any closer to getting promoted to the Oval Office.
The post on Monday came after just hours former President Biden's office announced that he was diagnosed with an 'aggressive form' of prostate cancer.
He claimed that his 2024 rival illegally paid celebrities to endorse her and pointed to the performances and appearances at her event by big names like Beyonce, Oprah, Bruce Springsteen and Bono
Trump posted on Sunday to his Truth Social well wishes for Biden's recovery.
'Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden's recent medical diagnosis,' the president wrote. 'We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.'
But the next morning Trump was back to his usual social media antics and turned his attacks to Biden's former No. 2.
'How much did Kamala Harris pay Bruce Springsteen for his poor performance during her campaign for president?' he questioned in his Truth Social post. 'Why did he accept that money if he is such a fan of hers? Isn't that a major and illegal campaign contribution?'
'What about Beyonce?' the president continued. 'And how much went to Oprah, and Bono??'
He insisted: 'I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter. Candidates aren't allowed to pay for endorsements, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment.'
Trump often had celebrities who supported him appear or perform at his campaign rallies. This included Kid Rock, Jason Aldean, Billy Ray Cyrus and God Bless the USA singer Lee Greenwood. He even had the Village People perform their hit song Y.M.C.A. at his inaugural rally.
His post, however, suggests that Trump did not pay for these performances – at least not from his campaign funds.
Trump said on Truth Social that Harris was desperate to get these 'expensive' and 'unpatriotic' performers to come to her events to 'artificially build up her sparse crowds.'
'This was just a corrupt and unlawful way to capitalize on a broken system,' Trump concluded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Everyone's a winner: how awards shows became popular again
The annual Tony awards, honoring excellence in American theatre, have never exactly been a TV ratings powerhouse compared to the Oscars or Grammys. Yet the most recent ceremony experienced a surprise surge in viewership, with broadcast viewership up 44% compared to the 2024 installment. It was the largest audience since the last pre-pandemic edition in 2019. That seems to sync up with the record-setting season that the awards were celebrating, where Broadway productions featured a number of movie stars drawing huge crowds (and ticket prices). Yet apart from George Clooney and a few other familiar faces, it wasn't a particularly starry Tonys; Denzel Washington, Jake Gyllenhaal and Kieran Culkin weren't nominated, and there wasn't a single crossover mass-culture powerhouse like Hamilton or The Producers (whose winning telecasts are still the highest-rated of the 21st century). Moreover, Broadway isn't alone; the Oscars experienced ratings growth (part of a four-year upward trend), and the left-for-dead Golden Globes have stabilized. This trend goes back nearly a year, to last fall, when MTV's more specialized Video Music Awards saw an uptick and Emmy viewership jumped up 50% to a three-year high. Awards shows, so often derided as bloated, self-congratulatory ratings ploys, have somehow survived the streaming apocalypse to become broadcast TV's last stand. (Apart from real sports, of course.) In some ways, it makes sense. Very few scripted shows still command watch-it-live urgency, not least because it's not always clear when or if they air live in the first place. Awards shows, however, only really need the date; most of them run for the full prime-time block, and in some cases on multiple channels. (The VMAs are basically shown on the entire Paramount family of channels, as if to scoop up as many errant unconverted cable-watchers as possible.) It seems related to how Saturday Night Live has become one of the highest-rated shows on network TV simply by not bleeding quite as many viewers as its primetime brethren: everyone knows when and where it's on and what its deal is – yet it also doesn't require full and sustained attention to enjoy. Similarly, awards shows sprawl out like a lazy couch stretch, while also breaking into easy-to-follow segments. And despite the ubiquity of shareable online highlights – you probably could have watched three-quarters of the Tonys in 47-second clips on social media – those bits and bobs are really more fun if you're actually watching along in real time, rather than piecing together the timeline like an awards detective. Remember various apps trying to sync up Watch Parties for isolating friends during the height of Covid? Awards shows do that for you: it's live, on TV, ready for your second-screen experience. That's been true for decades at this point, since well before Elon Musk bought Twitter. (If anything, the social media landscape seems more fragmented now than it did five or six years ago.) What's emerged from the great streaming shift is that awards shows function as particularly organic second-screen entertainment, something streamers have quietly and insidiously backwards-engineered with some of their shows and movies. Scripted (shudder) 'content,' material that's clearly designed to be passively consumed while fiddling with your phone or folding laundry, tends toward clunky exposition, repeated plot points, and an overall glossy indifference to tight, engaging narrative. Viewers may not immediately clock the difference, especially if they're performing the designated distractions while watching, but the empty-calorie nature of so many streaming movies and shows may eventually (fail to) add up, especially when compared with so much great work of the past. But awards shows are already like that by design! Hosts, presenters, announcers and on-screen graphics all tell you what's happening, repeatedly. Clips, speeches and live performances even offer catch-up context for whatever plays, songs or movies you aren't personally caught up with. Rare moments of chaos or genuine spontaneity get the instant-replay treatment on social media – as do micro-expressions from just about anyone caught on camera, subject to ridiculous levels of analysis exploiting the fact that sometimes people, even famous ones, affect neutral expressions in public. Network TV has approximated a particularly celeb-saturated Instagram feed without even trying. There's probably a grim irony in the fact that many millions of people would prefer to second-screen the experience of Anora winning a bunch of Oscars than to actually sit down and pay attention to Anora – just one of many movies that is, in terms of merging art and entertainment, a lot more potent and intellectually rewarding than a veg-out in front of the Oscars, even if someone as funny as Conan O'Brien is hosting. It's possible that our modern pop-cultural feeds have been awards-ified without even realizing it, turning too many other experiences into a kind of destructively participatory sporting event. Then again, it's hard to hold that against the Tonys, which offers an annual big-budget sampler of Broadway material to a lot of viewers who don't have regular access to the highest-profile stages in the country. (Hell, some of us media types who live in New York City still had no idea what Floyd Collins was before the ceremony.) If it takes an old-fashioned self-congratulatory awards show to cheerfully force-feed us some genuine culture in the virtual company of others, hey, it sure beats scrolling alone.
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
'The greatest shot in the history of golf': World No 284 produces 122-yard putt on the 'world's HARDEST golf course' ahead of 125th US Open
PGA Tour pro Zac Blair has produced what one fan has described as 'the greatest shot in the history of golf' on the famously difficult Oakmont Country Club course in the build-up to the US Open. Golf stars have been taking to the course - known as the toughest to tackle in the sport - as they prepare for the 125th installment of the major, which begins on Thursday morning. The course at Oakmont Country Club, situated in Pennsylvania, is known as the 'Beast' by members who play on it with regularity. Phil Mickelson once described it as the 'hardest' layout he's played. Rory McIlroy, who recently completed the golf Grand Slam by winning the Masters, has even been struggling on the Oakmont grass during practice rounds, claiming the Pittsburgh venue 'felt impossible' after a recent visit. So, when a video started circulating of Blair - who is ranked 284th in the world - executing an extraordinary 122-yard putt onto the green the notoriously tough hole number one. clip posted by Andy Johnson, a golf fan, displays Blair impressively drilling the ball down the fairway, and it sloped perfectly onto the green into a perfect position to putt home. . @z_blair from 122 with the putter on 1 at Oakmont….pretty good. — Andy Johnson (@AndyTFE) June 10, 2025 The majority of the build-up to the third major of the year has been congested with complaints from the world's best golfers, so it's fair to say that fans have been left stunned by the shot from Utah-born Blair. One particularly amazed social media user, wrote: 'No exaggeration, that might have been the greatest shot in the history of golf.' Another's reaction was short but sweet: 'That's a tremendous putt.' Meanwhile, a different fan was left in disbelief: 'Absurdly good [laughing face emojis]. He hit that left hand low?! Insanity.' Not all fans were left impressed, however. Many X accounts couldn't see what was so special about the shot. 'Mostly luck. No pressure. The shots Rory hit in Augusta on Sunday were way more impressive than this,' read one reply to the video. However, I'm not sure the great McIlroy will agree with the comment. The Masters champion was one of many taking part in the US Open to admit to struggling with the Oakmont Country Club course. On Tuesday, the Northern Irishman - who was beaten to the title by Bryson DeChambeau last year - opened up about the difficulties he faced on a scouting mission at the course last week. 'Last Monday felt impossible,' McIlroy said. 'I birdied the last two holes for 81. It felt pretty good, it didn't feel like I played that badly [on Tuesday]. It's much more benign right now than it was that Monday. 'They had the pins in dicey locations and greens were running at 15.5 [on the stimpmeter]. It was nearly impossible. This morning it was a little softer. The pins aren't going to be on 3 or 4% slopes all the time. 'If you put it in the fairway, it's certainly playable. But then you just have to think about leaving your ball below the hole and just trying to make as many pars as you can. You get yourself in the way of a few birdies, that's a bonus. 'I'm glad we have spotters out there because last Monday you hit a ball off the fairway and you were looking for a good couple of minutes just to find it. It's very penal if you miss. Sometimes it's penal if you don't miss. The person with the most patience and the best attitude this week is the one that's going to win.'
Reuters
42 minutes ago
- Reuters
Democratic governors embrace border security, reject Trump immigrant 'abuses'
WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) - Three prominent Democratic U.S. governors face a grilling on Thursday from a Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives panel over immigration policy, as President Donald Trump steps up a crackdown on people living in the country illegally. The governors of New York, Illinois and Minnesota are due to testify to the House Oversight Committee following days of protests in downtown Los Angeles over the Trump administration's aggressive ramping up of arrests of migrants. Tensions escalated as Trump ordered the National Guard and Marines into California to provide additional security. Trump's immigration crackdown has become a major political flashpoint between the White House and national Democrats. California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, seen as a contender for the party's presidential nomination in 2028, in a Tuesday night video speech accused Trump of choosing "theatrics over public safety." Minnesota's Tim Walz, who ran unsuccessfully for vice president last year; Illinois' JB Pritzker, also seen a 2028 hopeful, and New York's Kathy Hochul, walked a careful line in their prepared testimony for Thursday's hearing, voicing support for immigration enforcement, if not Trump's tactics. "If they are undocumented, we want them out of Illinois and out of our country," Pritzker said. At the same time, Pritzker lashed out against "any violations of the law or abuses of power" and said, "Law-abiding, hardworking, tax-paying people who have been in this country for years should have a path to citizenship." Reuters/Ipsos polls show Trump getting more support for his handling of immigration than any other policy area. "Minnesota is not a sanctuary state," Walz proclaimed, adding that state officials cooperate with federal immigration authorities, while noting that it offers "respect" to cities and counties that choose to give no more than the legal minimum support to the Department of Homeland Security.
