Connect with us

Latest

Trump appeals for unity, rips ’60 Minutes,’ after a history of inflammatory rhetoric on both sides

Published

on

I don’t want to hear any more about motives. 

When someone engages in a mass shooting – or attempts to kill a president – they are by definition crazy. 

In the case of the Washington Hilton gunman, his motive is spelled out in his so-called manifesto: He hates President Donald Trump. 

Despite a background in engineering and teaching, he somehow became convinced that Trump was in cahoots with Jeffrey Epstein, calling the president a rapist and pedophile. 

HOW TRUMP SURVIVES: BATTLING THE MEDIA, FORMER ALLIES AND ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS

📣

FROM THE EDITORS  -  Keeping our readers safe extends beyond the headlines. We've secured an exclusive antivirus offer from TotalAV to help protect your devices and personal information.

But again, who cares about motive? Anyone who would storm an event protected by the Secret Service – knowing he could easily wind up dead – is not sane. 

We do this all the time, try to impose a rational framework on irrational attackers.

The shooter was charged in court yesterday with attempted assassination of the president. 

COLE ALLEN CHARGED IN TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT IN FIRST COURT APPEARANCE AFTER WHCA DINNER SHOOTING

Another thing we do regularly is blame an entire class of people for the actions of a single attacker. 

After the Secret Service captured the California gunman – who I’m not naming, under my usual policy of not providing the attention they crave – many conservatives blamed “the left.”

Trump himself accused the Democrats of “dangerous” and “hateful” speech. 

MS NOW anchor Antonia Hylton countered that the president should have said more about inflammatory rhetoric. 

Just weeks ago, she said, he “posted about the possible extermination of an entire civilization online” and “has called his political foes ‘vermin, lunatics, scum, terrorists, the enemy within.’  He has certainly contributed — at a minimum — to the political rhetoric.”

This ideological finger-pointing is nothing new. One year ago, a gunman posing as a police officer killed Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman, a Democrat and former speaker, and her husband in their home. The killer, a Trump supporter, also wounded a Democratic senator and his wife in their home. Trump said he was “not familiar” with the case.

One year ago, a man with a history of mental illness and a criminal record set fire to the mansion of Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, on the first night of Passover. He said he would have attacked Shapiro with a sledgehammer if he had encountered him. He had tried to convince his family to vote for Trump and slammed Shapiro for his position on the Palestinians. Trump didn’t contact Shapiro that day but did call the next day.

The gunman who badly wounded Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords, and killed six others in Arizona, was said by many in the press to have been inspired by a Sarah Palin political map that put political opponents in crosshairs. Turns out the killer never saw the map. The New York Times apologized and corrected the false accusation, and a Palin suit against the paper was unsuccessful. 

This even goes back to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which President Clinton blamed on the atmosphere caused by the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters.

The security lapses at the Washington Hilton were unforgivable. It’s no accident that President Reagan was shot outside the same hotel in 1981, an attack I covered, in which Reagan lost far more blood than was originally disclosed. 

All the gunman had to do to beat the system is take trains to Washington and check in as a guest. As at past White House Correspondent Association dinners, the checking even for tickets was inconsistent. Some journalists and other guests are there only for the pre-parties hosted by news organizations.

As Red Letter reporter Abi Baker explained:

“I didn’t have a dinner ticket, just an invite to a pre-party, so I flashed my phone at security, pulling up the email invitation. There was no barcode to scan, no list to check—just an email for a network news reception that could have been forwarded by anyone. At the party I was invited to, no one asked for ID, only my name. At others, just feet from the ballroom, I walked in without being stopped.”

Incredibly, the Secret Service didn’t even invoke the highest level of security for an event attended by the president, vice president, House speaker and top Cabinet officials. There were other events and receptions going on at the hotel at the same time, so the building couldn’t be secured. There may be other reasons to get rid of the press dinner, but it can never again be held at the Hilton, a sprawling structure that has now been the target of two attempted presidential assassinations. 

KIMMEL CALLS MELANIA TRUMP AN ‘EXPECTANT WIDOW’ BEFORE WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS’ DINNER SHOOTING

Melania Trump, meanwhile, ripped Jimmy Kimmel for telling this joke:

During a parody skit about the press dinner, he said: “Our First Lady Melania is here. Look at her, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expected widow.”

Tasteless, to be sure. But this was days before Kimmel or anyone else imagined there would be gunfire at the dinner. 

“Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country,” the first lady said in a statement. “His monologue about my family isn’t comedy- his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America,” she said in a statement. “People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate…

“A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him. Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.”

The president added his voice yesterday, saying that in light of his “despicable call to violence,” Kimmel should be “immediately fired by Disney and ABC.” In fairness, Kimmel wasn’t calling for violence, he was doing a comedy sketch, but his words were offensive.

MELANIA TRUMP CALLS FOR ABC TO FIRE JIMMY KIMMEL OVER ‘HATEFUL AND VIOLENT RHETORIC’

In December, as part of their long-running feud, Trump called Kimmel “a dead man walking!” and that CBS should “put him to sleep…it is the humanitarian thing to do!”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said yesterday that Trump has been the target of “completely deranged” rhetoric since he first ran for president. She blamed a “left-wing culture of hatred.” By falsely accusing him of being a “fascist” and “threat to democracy,” she said, elected Democrats and some in the media have “helped to legitimize this violence and bring us to this dark moment.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, while calling for a lowering of the temperature, said “you have some of the most prominent figures in the House and in the Senate on the Democrat side effectively calling for war. They use those kinds of metaphors. And it incites violence, because there are crazy people in society, and they get radicalized online.”

During an interview on “60 Minutes,” Norah O’Donnell read from the shooter’s document. Having somehow convinced himself that Trump was part of Jeffrey Epstein’s child abuse network, he wrote: “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” 

“I was waiting for you to read that,” Trump said, “because I knew you would – because you’re horrible people…I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody. Excuse me, I’m not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person… You should be ashamed of yourself, reading that – because I’m not any of those things.”

O’Donnell said she was just citing the shooter’s words. 

TRUMP CALLS ’60 MINUTES’ HOST ‘DISGRACEFUL’ FOR READING WHCD SUSPECT’S ALLEGED MANIFESTO ON AIR

It’s important to recognize that Trump also has a history of violent rhetoric. He has accused journalists of “treason,” a crime punishable by death.

He has said “if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath,” though he was referring to the auto industry.

During the campaign, he said the Democrats were running a “Gestapo administration.”

In 2020, he reposted a video of a supporter saying, “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.”

Two days before the election, he said this about renegade Republican Liz Cheney: 

“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

And, of course, he pardoned and praised the Jan. 6 rioters.

A Utah prosecutor said the man charged last September with killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk, despite coming from a Republican family, had moved toward a leftist ideology, and had become “increasingly concerned about gay and trans rights.” (He had a transgender roommate.)

The shooter, in court last week, asked that the media be barred from covering the trial because it taints the jury pool.

But that brings us back to the useless question of motive. Who cares? There’s no question the recent spate of violence has come from shooters and suspects who at a minimum could be described as anti-Trump.

Some criticized the president for bringing up his planned White House ballroom, because it would be bulletproof and heavily secured. It’s hardly surprising that he would use the occasion to plug his pet project. 

But a tragedy was averted that could have been so much worse was thankfully averted.

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE’S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY’S HOTTEST STORIES

FBI Director Kash Patel, who was at the Hilton media dinner, said at a briefing yesterday that Trump had delivered a “message of unity” after the gunfire on Saturday night. We could use more of that, from both sides.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said “the political violence and rhetoric has got to stop.” He did not exclude “many in this room” for their negative coverage of the president.

Fortunately for all of us, the Secret Service did its job at the last security checkpoint that prevented the irrational gunman from opening fire in the room below. 

Continue Reading

Latest

JUST IN: ‘Squad’ Congressional Candidate Arrested

Published

on

JUST IN: ‘Squad’ Congressional Candidate Arrested

A Democratic congressional nominee who defeated a sitting member of Congress earlier this year was arrested Thursday during a major protest against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outside the United Nations in New York City.

Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democratic nominee for New York’s heavily Democratic 13th Congressional District, was taken into custody as demonstrators gathered near U.N. headquarters ahead of Netanyahu’s address to the General Assembly.

Avila Chevalier defeated five-term Rep. Adriano Espaillat in June’s Democratic primary after campaigning as a critic of U.S. support for Israel and receiving the backing of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Now, just months after that upset victory, she was among the politicians, activists and entertainers arrested during Thursday’s demonstration.

The protest, organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, drew roughly 250 people to First Avenue and East 39th Street, just blocks from U.N. headquarters.

📣

FROM THE EDITORS  -  Keeping our readers safe extends beyond the headlines. We've secured an exclusive antivirus offer from TotalAV to help protect your devices and personal information.

Demonstrators sat in the roadway while protesting Netanyahu’s appearance and U.S. support for Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

Police arrested protesters who blocked the road and refused orders to move.

Avila Chevalier defended her decision to participate and sharply condemned Netanyahu.

“As the Democratic Nominee for New York’s 13th Congressional District, I refuse to allow a war criminal to roam the streets of our city unchallenged,” she said.

“I refuse to play host to a man who has overseen the slaughter or injury of more than 64,000 children in Gaza with American taxpayer dollars.”

The description of Netanyahu as a “war criminal” reflects Avila Chevalier’s position. Netanyahu and the Israeli government have rejected accusations that Israel’s military campaign constitutes genocide and have maintained that Israel is targeting Hamas while seeking to minimize civilian casualties.

The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity. Netanyahu and Israel reject the allegations and dispute the court’s jurisdiction.

Avila Chevalier’s arrest comes after a Democratic primary campaign in which U.S. policy toward Israel emerged as a significant dividing line between her and Espaillat.

She has advocated ending U.S. military support for Israel and has aligned herself with the Democratic Party’s democratic-socialist and pro-Palestinian wing.

Espaillat’s support for Israel became one of the issues Avila Chevalier used to challenge the longtime incumbent.

She ultimately defeated him in the June Democratic primary, securing the nomination in a district covering parts of northern Manhattan and the Bronx.

Thursday’s demonstration showed that she has no intention of softening her position after winning the nomination.

As police led her away, Avila Chevalier told reporters:

“We’re standing against war. Stop the genocide. U.S. dollars for health care, for housing, for education. Not for bombing children.”

She was not the only New York political figure taken into custody.

New York City Council Member Chi Ossé was also arrested during the demonstration.

Ossé similarly condemned U.S. financial support for Israel.

“I’m sick and tired of my taxpayer dollars going towards an active genocide,” Ossé said.

Council Member Alexa Avilés was also among those arrested.

The protest attracted a number of prominent activists and entertainers as well.

Actor Hannah Einbinder and whistleblower Chelsea Manning were among those taken into custody, while other reports identified actor Susan Sarandon among those arrested.

The NYPD said more than 100 people were arrested during the protests surrounding Netanyahu’s appearance.

The demonstration unfolded as Netanyahu addressed the United Nations amid intense international criticism of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Netanyahu used his appearance to defend Israel’s conduct and push back against allegations surrounding the war.

The Israeli government maintains that its military campaign is directed against Hamas and points to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage, as the catalyst for the war.

Palestinian health officials say more than 73,000 people have been killed in Gaza during the ensuing Israeli military campaign. Those figures do not distinguish in their topline count between civilians and combatants.

The political fight over the war has increasingly spilled into Democratic electoral politics in the United States.

Avila Chevalier’s primary victory over Espaillat was one of several 2026 races in which candidates critical of U.S. support for Israel defeated established Democratic politicians.

Her victory also positioned her to potentially become another democratic-socialist voice in Congress if elected in November.

Thursday’s arrest underscored how central the issue remains to her political identity.

Avila Chevalier did not merely issue a statement condemning Netanyahu’s appearance.

She joined demonstrators in the street outside the United Nations and was taken into police custody alongside other protesters.

For a congressional nominee only months away from the general election, it was an unusually visible act of protest.

And it offered voters a clear look at the kind of politics Avila Chevalier intends to bring to Washington if she wins the seat in November.

Continue Reading

Latest

Jeanine Pirro Makes Massive Announcement – WH In Total Shock

Published

on

Jeanine Pirro Makes Massive Announcement – WH In Total Shock

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is launching a new federal division in Washington dedicated to pursuing fraud against the government and recovering taxpayer money.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia announced Wednesday the creation of its new Fraud and Asset Recovery Division, a specialized unit that will bring prosecutors, investigators, auditors and support personnel together to pursue civil fraud cases.

The new division will put a particular emphasis on the False Claims Act, one of the federal government’s most powerful tools for recovering money lost through fraud.

Pirro tied the sweeping reorganization directly to the Trump administration’s campaign against fraud, waste and abuse throughout the federal government.

“President Trump has prioritized the elimination of fraud, waste, and abuse involving federal agencies and programs,” Pirro said.

📣

FROM THE EDITORS  -  Keeping our readers safe extends beyond the headlines. We've secured an exclusive antivirus offer from TotalAV to help protect your devices and personal information.

“This new Fraud and Asset Recovery Division will reinforce and consolidate our resources to hold fraudsters accountable and recover taxpayer dollars.”

Pirro then delivered an unmistakable warning to anyone attempting to defraud the government.

“We are sending a clear message: those who cheat the federal government will face decisive, coordinated action,” Pirro said.

The new division represents a significant restructuring inside one of the country’s most consequential U.S. Attorney’s Offices.

Pirro’s office is expanding and realigning resources from its existing Affirmative Civil Enforcement unit, which had operated within the Civil Division.

Officials said the change is intended to separate proactive civil enforcement work from much of the Civil Division’s massive defensive caseload.

That workload, according to the Justice Department, had limited the personnel and resources available to launch affirmative investigations and pursue fraud litigation.

The new structure is designed to change that.

Rather than forcing fraud investigations to compete with defensive civil litigation for resources, prosecutors and investigators will now have a dedicated division focused on finding fraud, pursuing cases and recovering federal money.

Assistant U.S. attorneys will work alongside investigators, auditors and support staff inside the new operation.

Dan Schiffer will serve as chief of the Fraud and Asset Recovery Division, while Sean M. Tepe will serve as deputy chief.

One of their primary weapons will be the False Claims Act.

Originally enacted in 1863 amid widespread fraud involving Civil War government contractors, the law allows the federal government to pursue individuals and companies that knowingly submit false claims for government money.

Those found liable can face triple the government’s damages along with additional civil penalties.

The law also contains powerful whistleblower provisions allowing private individuals to bring lawsuits on behalf of the federal government and potentially receive a portion of money successfully recovered.

And the amount of money involved is enormous.

False Claims Act settlements and judgments exceeded $6.8 billion during fiscal year 2025 — the highest single-year total in the law’s history.

Whistleblowers filed a record 1,297 qui tam lawsuits during the same year, while the federal government opened 401 new investigations.

Since Congress substantially strengthened the False Claims Act in 1986, settlements and judgments have surpassed $85 billion.

Pirro’s office already has experience pursuing major civil fraud cases.

According to the Justice Department, previous cases handled by the Washington office have involved allegations against government contractors accused of improperly billing commercial and international costs to federal contracts, software manufacturers accused of false disclosures and intentional overbilling, medical-device companies accused of misbranding and off-label marketing, and pharmaceutical manufacturers accused of violating federal medication regulations.

The new division will go beyond False Claims Act cases.

Its responsibilities will also include civil collections for federal agencies, enforcement of agency and inspector-general subpoenas and civil asset forfeiture actions.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office Financial Litigation Unit is also being folded into the Fraud and Asset Recovery Division.

That unit is responsible for collecting money already owed to the federal government, including criminal fines, special assessments, restitution, civil judgments and settlements.

It also handles certain debts owed to federal agencies, including student-loan debts owed to the Department of Education.

The result is a division with responsibilities on both sides of the government’s financial enforcement system: investigating suspected fraud and pursuing money already determined to be owed.

The restructuring comes as the Justice Department intensifies federal fraud enforcement nationwide.

But Pirro’s Fraud and Asset Recovery Division is specifically housed inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, placing a dedicated civil fraud operation in the nation’s capital and at the center of the federal government.

The announcement itself does not accuse any newly identified company, contractor, nonprofit or individual of wrongdoing, and the Justice Department has not announced the division’s initial investigative targets.

Officials also have not publicly specified the division’s total staffing level or additional budget.

What the Justice Department has made clear is its objective.

Pirro is consolidating prosecutors, investigators, auditors and financial-enforcement personnel into a single operation charged with aggressively pursuing fraud against federal programs and recovering money for taxpayers.

The numbers illustrate the potential stakes.

More than $6.8 billion was recovered through False Claims Act settlements and judgments in fiscal 2025 alone.

More than $85 billion has been recovered since the law was strengthened in 1986.

And now Pirro’s Washington office is establishing an entire division dedicated to expanding that work.

For individuals and companies doing business with the federal government, Pirro’s message was direct:

Those who cheat the government should expect a coordinated response.

Continue Reading

Latest

Senate Vote 50-49 On Save America Act — Dems Stunned!

Published

on

Senate Vote 50-49 On Save America Act — Dems Stunned!

The SAVE America Act secured 50 votes in the U.S. Senate during a dramatic late-night showdown, giving supporters of the Republican-backed election legislation a significant boost even as a procedural hurdle prevented the measure from advancing.

The 50-49 vote came during the Senate’s marathon June 4-5 “vote-a-rama,” when Sen. Mike Lee of Utah brought forward the voting provisions of the House-passed legislation.

At the center of the proposal are two major changes to federal election law: requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and requiring eligible photo identification when casting a ballot.

The proposal also includes provisions directing states to verify voter rolls and remove noncitizens who are found to be improperly registered.

Lee’s amendment drew 50 votes in support and 49 against.

📣

FROM THE EDITORS  -  Keeping our readers safe extends beyond the headlines. We've secured an exclusive antivirus offer from TotalAV to help protect your devices and personal information.

But that was not enough.

Because the amendment faced a budget point of order under the Senate’s reconciliation rules, Lee needed 60 votes to waive the objection.

His motion fell 10 votes short.

The result meant the proposal could not be added to the broader reconciliation package despite attracting 50 Senate votes.

The late-night tally nevertheless marked an improvement for supporters following an earlier attempt by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Graham’s broader amendment failed 48-50 after four Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — joined Democrats in opposing the effort.

Lee then brought forward a narrower version focused on the SAVE America Act’s voting provisions.

This time, Collins voted in support.

Murkowski, McConnell and Tillis remained opposed.

The result: 50-49.

That distinction quickly became a major talking point for supporters of the legislation.

They had demonstrated that 50 sitting senators were prepared to vote for the proposal, but Senate procedural rules still stood between those votes and adoption of the amendment.

Vice President JD Vance has the constitutional authority to break a 50-50 Senate tie when one occurs. But the vote before senators Thursday night required 60 votes to waive the budgetary objection, meaning a vice-presidential tiebreaker could not overcome that particular hurdle.

The fight is therefore far from over.

The SAVE America Act has become one of the Republican Party’s major election-policy priorities heading toward the 2026 midterms.

Supporters argue that requiring documentary proof of citizenship would strengthen enforcement of the existing prohibition against noncitizen voting in federal elections and increase confidence that voter rolls contain only eligible voters.

Opponents see the legislation very differently.

Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and critics argue that requiring additional citizenship documentation could make registration more difficult for some eligible American citizens who do not readily possess the required documents.

Those competing arguments have fueled an increasingly intense battle over the legislation.

The House previously approved the SAVE America Act, while President Donald Trump, Vice President Vance and Republican lawmakers have pushed for its enactment.

But the Senate has been the major obstacle.

The chamber voted earlier this year to begin consideration of the legislation, yet supporters have not demonstrated the 60 votes generally needed to overcome a filibuster and bring contested legislation to a final vote.

Republicans subsequently attempted to use the reconciliation process to advance the election provisions alongside a massive immigration and border-security package.

That strategy created a different obstacle.

Senate reconciliation rules restrict the types of provisions that can be included in budget legislation, allowing senators to raise points of order against provisions considered outside those limits.

Overcoming such an objection requires 60 votes.

That is precisely where Lee’s amendment failed.

The underlying proposal attracted 50 votes.

The motion needed 60.

The outcome immediately renewed Republican debate over Senate procedure and the future of the legislation.

Lee has argued that the 50-vote showing demonstrates that the original House-passed proposal has simple-majority support in the Senate, even though supporters remain short of the votes necessary to overcome the chamber’s procedural barriers.

The dispute also places renewed attention on the filibuster.

Republican leaders have repeatedly acknowledged that the 60-vote threshold remains a central obstacle to moving the SAVE America Act through the Senate under ordinary procedures.

But eliminating the legislative filibuster would itself require sufficient support among Republican senators, and GOP leaders have not demonstrated that those votes exist.

That leaves supporters searching for another path.

For now, the SAVE America Act remains stalled.

But the late-night vote established an important piece of the Senate math surrounding the legislation.

An earlier attempt attracted only 48 votes.

Lee’s narrower proposal attracted 50.

That still wasn’t enough to clear the 60-vote procedural threshold.

But it demonstrated that 50 senators were willing to back the voting provisions when they were put before the chamber — a result supporters are certain to point to as they continue pushing for another vote.

The immediate effort failed.

The broader fight over the SAVE America Act did not.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 Political Signal