Donald Trump has outdone himself. 

His rhetoric has long been extreme but, in campaign remarks as it heads towards a close, it’s more so.

Consider the direct quotes from his “enemy within” interview on Fox News on 13 October.

Asked about “bureaucrats undermining you” in a second term, he replied: “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.”

Referring to Adam Schiff, a Democratic candidate for the Senate, he says: “Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, who’s a total sleazebag, is going to become a senator. But I call him the enemy from within.”

Asked whether he expects chaos on election day from outside agitators, he replied: “I think the bigger problem are the people from within.

“We have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics.

“It should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary by the military.”

Critics have interpreted the remarks as a threat to use the military against political opponents, even though he would need to be president to try.

They accuse Trump of shaping an authoritarian agenda – true, they say, because it’s laid out in his own words.

Donald Trump, after all, is a man who has used dehumanising language in discussing particular groups, has undermined institutions that keep a check on power, threatened the media and once told an interviewer he would not be a dictator “except on day one.”

If he does have the look and sound of an autocrat-in-waiting, it is not seen or heard by his supporters.

‘Far-left activists’

Of the “enemy within” remarks, Trump’s running mate JD Vance dismissed the notion he was talking of using the military against political rivals.

He said: “We have various far-left activists who are talking about civil unrest in this country if Donald Trump were to be elected president again.

“If you have people who are rioting in American streets, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans, whatever their political persuasion is, we’re not going to let that happen.

“We believe in law and order in this country. That’s what Donald Trump is talking about.”

It is a question of language and how it lands.

‘Fascist to the core’

In an explosive intervention into the discussion, Trump has been branded a “fascist” by his most senior military adviser in office.

General Mark Milley, retired, is quoted as calling Trump “fascist to the core” and “the most dangerous person to this country”.

It is authoritative commentary from a man who was in the room and it finds an echo.

Major-General Randy Manner, retired, sees parallels between Trump and Adolf Hitler, no less.

Read more:
Kamala Harris risks combative Fox News interview
Demographic divides that will decide the US election

Maj-Gen. Manner is a member of the National Security Leaders for America, a group of retired, senior members of the military.

They span the political divide but, as a collective body, have thrown their backing behind Kamala Harris.

Maj-Gen. Manner told Sky News: “It is 100% true, according to the definition, that Trump is a fascist.

“People who are powerful and authoritarian align, so the dangers to the world are significant, in terms of worsening the threshold for peaceful co-existence.

“Many of the attributes of what Trump has been doing here in the United States emulate the actions taken by Adolf Hitler between 1922 and 1933.

“There are so many similarities of style, of technique, of divide the people and have a small group of thugs do your dirty work for you, without any regard to the rule of law.

“There are very real similarities.”

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Kamala Harris clearly believes it presents an opportunity to unstick the polls.

Having bounced on to the campaign stage extolling joy and opportunity, she has pivoted back to democracy and the threat posed, she claims, by Donald Trump.

It will be for the voter to assess what Trump means and whether what he says should be taken seriously – and if not, why not?

It was a gamble for Kamala Harris to agree to this interview – Fox News is the place where no Democrat likes to go.

But in an election so unbelievably close, and with less than three weeks to go, she knew it was a gamble she needed to take.

She needs to reach a new audience. There are undecideds out there. They will decide this election.

Many are staunch Republicans who can’t stomach Donald Trump. Fox News is where she will find many of them.

Was it worth it? Did it pay off?

It was combative for sure. The interviewer, veteran Fox host Bret Baier, gave her a hard time; the sort of grilling she has consistently avoided through this campaign.

And at times you could see why. She was not agile in her answers. She was evasive. She did not articulate clear policy that will improve Americans lives. She deflected to Trump.

Immigration was a dominant focus; the chaos that’s worsened on the southern border through her time as vice president.

Harris dodged a direct question on how many undocumented migrants had entered America.

She had no decent answer when asked about the three young women murdered by undocumented migrants over the last few years.

She could have seen this coming- apparently she didn’t.

There were moments where Harris looked like she knew it wasn’t going well. She lost her temper a few times. That reflected discomfort at the questions, but also allowed her to show her spikiness.

She stood up to many of Baier’s tough questions, often deflecting, yes, but with answers as combative as the lines thrown at her.

To the Fox viewer who’s heard she isn’t tough – she might have surprised. Her prosecutorial side came through, and remember, many of Fox News’ audience won’t have seen her perform like this.

However, her defence of her record at the heart of the incumbent administration was tricky for her.

She was rattled and deflected – throwing it back on Trump.

“More than 70% of people think the country is on the wrong track,” Baier put to her.

“Why are they saying that if you are turning the page? You have been in office for three and a half years.”

Picking up on his sentence, Harris said: “And Donald Trump has been running for office since…”

Baier interrupted her: “I don’t know what you are talking about.”

She replied: “What I am talking about is that over the last decade… it is clear to me, and certainly the Republicans who are on stage with me, the former chief of staff to the president Donald Trump, former defence secretaries, national security advisor, and his vice president warn that he is unfit to serve, that he is unstable, that he is dangerous”.

“If that’s the case,” Baier interjected, “why is half the country supporting him? Why is he beating you in a lot of swing states? Why, if he’s as bad as you say, that half of this country is now supporting this person who could be the 47th president of the United States? Why is that happening?”

“This is an election for president of the United States. It’s not supposed to be easy.” Harris replied.

It was hardly a robust response.

Read more:
Ultimate guide to the US election
The demographic divides that will decide US election

Her unwillingness to distance herself from President Biden partly reflects her lack of agility, but is also partly because she believes admitting faults would be damaging (I don’t think it would at this stage) – as well as the fact that she is proud of core Biden achievements.

Under the Biden-Harris presidency, inflation is down, unemployment is down, crime is down, record legislation has been passed.

That’s the Biden legacy she naturally wants to attach herself to.

Her deflections to Trump exposed insecurity of her own track record but also allowed her to warn of the dangers she sees in Trump.

This was interesting and reflects an urgent shift in strategy by the Democrats.

When she became the candidate, she moved away from Biden’s looped warnings about Trump being a “threat to democracy”. Instead, with her, it was all about “joy” and the future.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Now, with less than three weeks to go and the polls so tight, she has pivoted back to the core of Biden’s “Trump’s a grave danger” argument.

The net outcome of this interview? Anyone she pulls in from the Fox News demographic is a win for her. She may have pulled some with her tough combative style.

But against that, her answers on immigration and her record as vice president will have cemented some other Fox News waverers to Trump.

My hunch? She didn’t gain from this interview.

The case of two brothers who were convicted of killing their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion in 1989 has been thrust back into the spotlight thanks to a Netflix drama telling their story.

Lyle Menendez, 56, and his 53-year-old brother Erik are serving life in prison without parole for the shotgun murders of their father and mother – Jose and Kitty Menendez.

But weeks after the release of a Netflix drama about the brothers called Monsters and a new documentary, their family has called for their release.

But what is the case for the brothers’ freedom? Is there new evidence, and can they get out?

What the family says

The Menendez brothers, who were were 21 and 18 at the time their parents died, admitted shooting them before they were found guilty of first-degree murder and conspiracy to murder in 1996.

But they claim they killed their mother and father in self-defence after enduring physical, emotional and sexual abuse over many years.

On 17 October, two dozen extended family members gathered for a news conference in Los Angeles.

Jose Menendez’s niece Anamaria Baralt spoke on their behalf, telling reporters: “Both sides of the family are united, sharing a new bond of hope.

“This is about truth, justice and healing… Their continued incarceration serves no rehabilitative purpose.”

Ms Baralt said the brothers were victims of a “culture that was not ready to listen”, as she called on the district attorney’s office to “take into account the full picture”.

Joan Andersen VanderMolen, Kitty Menendez’s sister, also told reporters: “I had no idea the extent of the abuse they suffered at the hands of my brother-in-law. None of us did.

“We know that abuse has long effects, and victims of trauma sometimes act in ways that are very difficult to understand.”

Family not entirely united

Kitty Menendez’s brother, Milton Andersen, 90, has said “the appropriate sentence” for the pair was life in prison without parole.

Read more:
Kim Kardashian visits Lyle and Erik Menendez in jail
Netflix series star ‘stands with’ Menendez brothers
Monsters creator reacts after Menendez family label drama ‘grotesque’

His lawyer said: “He believes that there was no molestation that occurred. He believes that the motive was pure greed, because they had just learned that they were going to be taken out of the will.”

An old defence with new evidence

The Menendez brothers have maintained their parents abused them since they were first charged with the murders.

Prosecutors at the time contended there was no evidence of any molestation. They said the brothers were after their parents’ multimillion-dollar estate.

The jury in their first trial in 1993 was deadlocked before the jury in their second trial found them guilty, rejecting a death sentence in favour of life without parole.

But their lawyers argue that because of society’s changing views on sexual abuse, the brothers may not have been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole today.

They say they should have been charged with manslaughter rather than murder, but this was not an option for the jury during the second trial.

The brothers’ defence team also say they’ve uncovered a letter that Erik Menendez had written to his cousin that was dated months before the murders, in which he talked about what he said was abuse from his father and being afraid of him.

LA district attorney George Gascon briefly shared the letter to his Instagram page before deleting the post.

In the handwritten letter, Erik wrote: “I’ve been trying to avoid dad… every night, I stay up thinking he might come in.”

He also said he was “afraid” and that he needed to “put it out of my mind” and “stop thinking about it”.

Roy Rossello, a former member of the band Menudo, also spoke out in the Peacock documentary series Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed, alleging he was also raped by Jose Menendez.

Is there a real chance brothers could be freed?

Yes, because prosecutors in Los Angeles are currently reviewing the brothers’ convictions, with a court hearing scheduled for 26 November.

The brothers’ lawyers have asked them to look at whether the pair have been rehabilitated, based on their behaviour in prison.

If the court rules they have, the brothers could be released, or have their sentence reduced.

The lawyers have also submitted the letter Erik wrote to his cousin as new evidence, saying it was not seen by the jury when the brothers were sentenced in 1996 and could have influenced their decision.

If the court rules in their favour on this point but not on their rehabilitation, it could lead to a retrial.

In a news conference, Mr Gascon clarified that the review was not to determine whether or not the brothers killed their parents, saying it was “factual” and “well established” that they had.

He also said more than 300 people had been resentenced during his term as district attorney and that only four had gone on to reoffend.

Have the brothers reacted to the review?

Erik’s wife Tammi Menendez has commented on his behalf on social media, writing on X: “We truly value the support we’ve received following the District Attorney’s statement. We hold onto hope that this November will bring the resolution we have all been wishing for. We would deeply appreciate your ongoing prayers as we await their official response.”

After the family’s news conference, she added: “Erik feels deeply grateful and profoundly humbled by the overwhelming outpouring of love and support from his family today. Their belief in him and encouragement, care, and understanding mean more to him than words can express.”