Which Alternate Universe Does Newt Gingrich Live In?

October 26, 2016

Writer

If Newt Gingrich's alternate universe includes a pipe dream in which he outmaneuvers Fox News star Megyn Kelly, he might want to consider changing realities.

In a bizarre encounter with the host of The Kelly File, the former Speaker of the House and Trump devotee got into a sparring match that left him looking petty, angry and unhinged. Kelly, on the other hand, came off as calm, cool and collected.

"I'm listening to this, and I'm thinking, Her poor husband and children ever trying to pick a fight with mom or the wife? You're dead. You're dead. Listen, you know she's angry, yet she is completely emotionless," Glenn said on radio Wednesday.

Co-host Pat Gray agreed.

"She's completely under control, and he's out of control," he said.

Gingrich's universe also includes the state of Pennsylvania magically allowing early voting.

"They're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That's unprecedented. ...All I can report to you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting, which is also true in Florida," Gingrich claimed.

However, co-host Stu Burguiere made a very salient point.

"We're talking about two alternative universes, and we need to find those universes. One is the universe where Donald Trump is winning in an unprecedented way: The early vote in Pennsylvania. The other universe is the one we live in, in which Pennsylvania does not allow early voting. That's the other universe," he said.

"Holy cow," Glenn replied.

Alternate universe, indeed.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these controlled questions:

• Which candidate is consistently polling ahead in Pennsylvania?

• Do facts matter if you're a Trump supporter?

• Does Gingrich consider Fox News part of the MSM?

• Which three states has Fox News moved to the left as a likely win for Hillary?

• Is it acceptable for a gentleman to publicly accuse a woman of being obsessed with sex?

• Has Trump's crassness rubbed off on Gingrich?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Last night, it was Megyn Kelly versus Newt Gingrich on the facts. It was -- it was quite an amazing thing. And I think Newt Gingrich said everything right towards the beginning when he said, "We are dealing with two alternative universes." And he's right. I think there is the universe that Newt Gingrich is living in and the universe that everyone else is living in. But maybe it's just me.

I want you to listen to this. And we could take clips, but as I was watching it this morning, I thought to myself, "Man, I could stop it at three different points and say, that was incredible. That was incredible to watch."

But wait, there's more. I think you need to hear the whole thing in context. Listen to this.

NEWT: Good to be back.

MEGYN: I mean, with Cook and many other non-partisan, independent pollsters now saying that the Senate is likely lost to the Republicans, what does that say? I mean, if Donald Trump loses this White House race and the Republicans lose the Senate, does that suggest that the Republicans nominated the wrong candidate at the top of their ticket?

NEWT: Well, the next two weeks are a contest of two parallel universes. I just listened to that report.

First of all, I used to hang with Charlie Cook when he would explain that Donald Trump was hopeless and would not get the nomination. I like Charlie. That doesn't mean he's infallible.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second.

I want to just say something here. There's something that I want to get to later. Michael Moore says Donald Trump is going to win. And when you hear his explanation of why he believes he's going to win, I think he has a good point. I think he may be right. And it was what I was talking about yesterday and what I was saying to the people up in New York, who are in the mainstream media. Who say, Donald -- Hillary Clinton is going to win. I'm not so sure of it.

STU: Typical Glenn. Glenn Beck is dumb!

GLENN: You should turn your mic on.

STU: It is on.

GLENN: Oh, it's just not working today? Good. Thank you, guys. Thank you for finally getting it done. Stu's mic is not working.

GLENN: But you need to listen to that. We'll get to that in a second. But I want to point out here that when you're watching this -- Newt Gingrich throws up his hands and shrugs his shoulders when he says -- when Megyn says, "If they lose the Senate, does that mean they nominated the wrong person?" He just shrugs it off as, "Eh, I don't know. We're in two parallel universes." If we lose the Senate or the House, that's a really bad thing. Can we all agree that we're in that universe, that that's a bad thing? Now.

NEWT: Report we just got. Republicans are actually outvoting Democrats in Florida. They're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That's unprecedented. They've cut the Democratic lead --

MEGYN: You predict a win in Pennsylvania?

NEWT: I think they might.

MEGYN: Really? You think Trump's going to win Pennsylvania.

NEWT: Look, all I can report to you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting, which is also true in Florida, which is unprecedented.

MEGYN: But all the polls in Pennsylvania had her winning.

NEWT: What?

MEGYN: All of the polls in Pennsylvania have her head.

NEWT: I know. I just told you, we have two alternative universes right now.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. So there's one universe where the facts say one thing and another universe where the facts say something else. Stu, can you help me out with the early voting that Democrats are behind and that Republicans are outvoting them?

STU: You know, it's a -- it's an interesting point he's making there. There has been some -- I think Donald Trump's early voting looks pretty good in Iowa, I would say. I would say --

GLENN: In Florida? He's saying that they're --

PAT: Florida and Pennsylvania.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Because he said, again, we're talking about two alternative universes.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And we need to find those universes. One is the universe where Donald Trump is winning in an unprecedented way: The early vote in Pennsylvania.

The other universe is the one we live in, which Pennsylvania does not allow early voting. That's the other universe. So --

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: It's going to be -- it would be unprecedented if he was winning the early vote in Pennsylvania.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: Are you kidding?

STU: They don't do it there.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: They don't have early voting in Pennsylvania?

STU: No, that's not a thing.

PAT: What the hell is he talking about?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, he's just --

PAT: You don't need a single fact if you're a Trump supporter. You don't need fact one.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

JEFFY: That's amazing.

STU: That is amazing.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead. So go ahead.

NEWT: I will -- for example, the Democrats are 50,000 votes behind, where they were with Barack Obama in turnout. The governor is very confident we're going to carry Iowa, which Obama carried last time.

GLENN: Do you agree with that?

STU: I actually --

PAT: Wait. 50,000 behind where they were with Obama doesn't mean they're losing to Trump.

GLENN: I know. And it depends also on '12 or on '08. '08 was unprecedented. So being behind in '08 is not necessarily saying --

STU: And those are good things to consider. I actually do think he's going to win Iowa. I could be wrong on it, and it could change. But his numbers are good in Iowa in the early voting. And his polling has been strong in Iowa throughout, as opposed to other states -- comparing it to other states that are similar or ones --

PAT: Isn't that interesting since Ted Cruz won Iowa in the primary? That's interesting.

STU: Yeah. Iowa has been a strong state for Trump polling against --

PAT: Because they haven't been that strong for Republicans lately.

STU: Right.

PAT: And now --

GLENN: They're still not.

PAT: And they're still not.

GLENN: They're still not. They're still not.

NEWT: -- case like this. In Minnesota, we're almost certainly going to win the congressional seat up around Duluth, which is a very Democratic area. But it deeply dislikes Hillary Clinton. And represent --

MEGYN: But let me just ask you -- let me just ask you, because you say it's two alternative universes. I mean --

NEWT: Yeah.

PAT: Why not North Dakota too? There's a guy running for alderman, who may win, and he doesn't like Hillary either.

GLENN: All right. All right.

PAT: Stupid.

MEGYN: These are sort of small examples of how he might be ahead in early voting and so on. But I'm telling you that the Fox News decision desk just moved Iowa that you just mentioned, Indiana, second congressional district in Maine -- all of them moved left, moved more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. And, in fact, all of the moves that have been on this map over the past three weeks, by Larry Sabato, by Cook, by the Fox News decision desks -- these are nonpartisan outlets that are just trying to call the electoral --

NEWT: What? They're not nonpartisan outlets. Every outlet you describe is part of the establishment.

MEGYN: Fox News. Really? Are we? I don't think so.

NEWT: Oh, come on.

MEGYN: Every state they've moved, they've moved it to the left, towards the left, towards Hillary. And you tell me whether that's all made up.

PAT: So he's attacking Fox News who has been in the bag for Trump the entire election.

GLENN: I think he's only attacking --

PAT: He may be only attacking Megyn Kelly.

STU: And the Fox News polls.

PAT: Yeah, and the polls.

STU: He's trying is what he's doing. He's doing his best.

GLENN: He's muddying the waters.

PAT: He's grasping at straws.

NEWT: No, I think they're two alternative universes. You have a poll which suggests that she's going to get a Barack Obama turnout among African-Americans. I don't think that's going to happen. You have a Washington Post/ABC News poll when where they took out eight percent of the vote because they didn't like the way it voted.

Look, I've been around long enough. I remember when the Detroit liberal newspaper, on the Sunday before the election, said John (inaudible) would lose by 14 points. He won the governorship that year. I don't take polls as seriously as people who have never run for office.

MEGYN: But your candidate -- your candidate loves them and has touted them from the beginning. And he's been behind in virtually every one of them, out of the last 40 polls that we've seen over the past month. That's the reality.

STU: The important point to remember here -- because I think a lot of Trump people realize this, but in case you're on the Newt Gingrich bandwagon, the issue with the problem with the primary was not saying the polls were wrong and Donald Trump was losing and then he wound up winning. It was that he was winning the whole time. And people, like myself, for example, gave you reasons why the polls probably were not going to work out in Donald Trump's favor. And they did. He wound up winning. But he was winning the whole time. So now the same people that were questioning the polls and saying -- or, questioning the polls now that they were saying they were right then. The point here seems to be that the polls are right. The polls have done a pretty good job in predicting these things.

GLENN: Well, the polls showed him winning at the time against his candidates. But they showed him losing against Hillary.

STU: The same polls.

GLENN: The same polls.

STU: The same methodology. The same organizations.

GLENN: Right. It's why we were saying during the primary, stop looking at those polls. He's telling you he's winning in everything. He's losing in all of the critical polls which show the head-to-head against Hillary. He was the only one that was losing every single time to Hillary Clinton.

Now, those were the same polls that showed him winning against Marco Rubio, against Ted Cruz. But losing at the same time to Hillary Clinton.

STU: The margin increased, not decreased, but increased as Trump won the primary.

GLENN: Yes. Increased. Yes. Yes.

PAT: Which is a point we tried to make a million times here.

GLENN: Yes. It was going the wrong direction.

STU: The wrong direction. And it's like, to believe that, you have to believe that part of the poll done by the same organization was biased. But the other part of the same poll done by the same organization is not biased. These are not -- these are not, you know, intellectually consistent arguments.

GLENN: No. Because they were done at the same time. It's not like these polls -- it's not like the polls showed him winning against Clinton during the primary. Those same polls showed him losing against --

PAT: I don't think he won a single one during the primary.

GLENN: I don't -- not that I remember. Stu, you'd be better at that.

PAT: Did he win a single poll, head-to-head, during the primary, against Hillary?

STU: I can get you the numbers on that, but I think he did win a couple. All of those that he -- I think he won a couple by one or two points.

GLENN: It was like 51 polls or something --

STU: I think it was over 100.

PAT: It was more than that. Yeah, he had lost 118 out of 120, or something like that.

STU: I can find it.

NEWT: Do you want to assume the election is over? Skip the next two weeks and we can talk about the future.

GLENN: Now, listen to this.

MEGYN: I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you whether you believe your candidate is behind based on these numbers and what it says about the down-ballot races.

NEWT: I believe the odds are at least one in three and maybe better than that. But the difference in intensity and the difference in determination and the degree to which Hillary Clinton is clearly the most corrupt, dishonest person ever nominated by a party, all mean that the odds are pretty good she's not going to win.

Now, I actually believe that. This is not just because I'm for Donald Trump. I actually believe the American people are sickened by this.

MEGYN: So let me ask you --

NEWT: Sure.

MEGYN: Let's assume she is corrupt. Right? She was just as corrupt three weeks ago and three months ago. And she would have been corrupt and collapsing physically on September 11th of this year and her poll numbers tanked. But then you know what happened: He had a rough first debate. He took the bait on Alicia Machado. He stayed in that trap for a week. The Access Hollywood tape came out, which was not produced by Hillary Clinton. That was Trump, on camera talking about grabbing women --

NEWT: That was -- Megyn, I just heard -- look, I just heard you go through this with Governor Pence. I get it. I know where you're coming from. Let me point out something to you.

MEGYN: Sure.

NEWT: The three major networks spent 23 minutes --

GLENN: That no one watches.

NEWT: Attacking Donald Trump that night and 57 seconds on Hillary Clinton's secret speeches. You don't think this is a scale of bias worth of Pravda and Izvestia. I mean, you want to know why Donald Trump has had a rough time --

MEGYN: If Trump is a sexual predator, that is --

NEWT: He's not a sexual predator. You can't say that. You could not defend that statement.

MEGYN: Okay. That's your opinion. I'm not taking a position on it. I am not taking a position on it.

NEWT: I am sick and tired of people like you, using language --

GLENN: Like you.

NEWT: -- that's inflammatory that's not true.

MEGYN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. You have no idea whether it's true or not. What we know is that there are at least --

NEWT: Neither do you.

MEGYN: That's right. And I'm not taking a position on it, unlike you.

NEWT: Oh, yes, you are. When you use the words, you took a position. And I think it's very unfair of you to do that, Megyn. I think that is exactly the bias people are upset by.

MEGYN: So what I said -- incorrect.

PAT: Wow.

MEGYN: I think that your defensiveness on this may speak volumes, sir.

What I said -- no, no, let me make my point, and then I'll give you the floor.

What I said is, "If Trump is a sexual predator, then it's a big story." And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will. That's what we saw. Then we saw 10 women come forward after he denied actually doing it at a debate to say, "That was untrue. He did it to me. He did it to me." We saw reporters. We saw people who had worked with him. People from Apprentice and so on and so forth. He denies it all, which is his right. We don't know what the truth is.

PAT: Newt knows -- Newt knows her. He should know better than this. You don't take Megyn Kelly head-to-head like this.

GLENN: All I can think of this whole time --

PAT: What are you doing?

GLENN: All I can think of -- I'm listening to this, and I'm thinking, "Her poor husband and children ever trying to pick a fight with mom or the wife. You're dead."

PAT: Bad idea. Bad idea.

GLENN: You're dead. Listen, you know she's angry, yet she is completely emotionless.

PAT: She's completely under control, and he's out of control.

GLENN: And he's out of control, and he's about to really lose control.

MEGYN: To you, as a media story, we don't get to say the ten women are lying. We have to cover that story, sir.

NEWT: Well, sure. Okay. So it's worth 23 minutes of the three networks to cover that story, and Hillary Clinton in a secret speech in Brazil to a bank that pays her 225,000 saying her dream is an open border where 600 million could come to America, that's not worth covering?

MEGYN: That is worth covering. And we did.

NEWT: You want to go back to the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated about sex, and you don't care about public policy.

MEGYN: Me? Really?

NEWT: That's what I get out of watching you tonight.

PAT: Wow.

MEGYN: You know what, Mr. Speaker, I'm not fascinated by sex. But I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we're getting in the Oval Office. And I think the American voters would like --

NEWT: Okay. So we're going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing because, after all, you are worried about sexual predators.

MEGYN: Yeah. Listen, it's not about me. It's about the women and men in America. And the poll numbers show us that the women in America, in particular, are very concerned about these allegations. And in large part believe that they are a real issue. And don't dismiss the --

NEWT: You want to comment -- do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

MEGYN: We, on the Kelly File, have covered that story as well, sir. I will tell you the polls --

NEWT: No, I just want to hear you use the words. I want to hear the words "Bill Clinton, sexual predator." I dare you. Say "Bill Clinton, sexual predator."

GLENN: Out of control.

MEGYN: Mr. Speaker, we've covered -- excuse me, sir.

NEWT: Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. $850,000 penalty.

MEGYN: Excuse me, sir. We, on the Kelly File, have covered the Clinton matter as well. We have hosted Kathleen Willey.

NEWT: Try saying it.

MEGYN: We've covered the examples of him being accused as well, but he's not on the ticket. And the polls also show that the American people is less interested in the deeds of Hillary Clinton's husband than they are in the deeds of the man who asks us to make him president, Donald Trump.

We're going to have to leave it at that, and you can take your anger issues and spend time working on them, Mr. Speaker.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Kelly File

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

Glenn's Show Prep