Samantha Bee of 'Full Frontal' Talks With Glenn About Bridging the Divide

December 08, 2016

Writer

What does it mean to be men and women of good will? What does it mean to love your neighbor as you would love yourself? What does that look like in action? We need to figure it out because it's the only way we can find peace on earth and peace with each other.

Samantha Bee, host of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee on TBS, joined Glenn in studio Wednesday to begin a dialogue about uniting our divided nation. While the two would traditionally be viewed as opponents, even adversaries, based on their political views, they both believe we've got to get back to place where we can listen to others, hear their opinions and be open to different viewpoints.

“People are receiving their news in their own bubble of the internet. It’s very difficult to penetrate that with actual information,” Bee said. “I don’t really know how to penetrate that. I don’t think anybody really does.”

As a result of that information bubble, many people define others by who or what they hate --- and it's no way to come together and find common ground.

How do we heal the divide? It starts one conversation at a time, by taking a risk and reaching outside your comfort zone.

"If we can find honest people who are actually struggling with that --- how we do this without causing more problems --- we will make it. We will make it," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Why did Samantha want to talk with Glenn?

• Does Glenn think Samantha has a potty mouth?

• Should presidents be messianic figures?

• Is Samantha an American?

• Why is civil discourse essential?

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

GLENN: Joining us now -- and she just said, "Wow, this is real." And I said, "No, I think most people would think this is unreal."

SAMANTHA: Maybe.

GLENN: From Full Frontal, Samantha Bee. And we don't know each other.

SAMANTHA: No.

GLENN: We've talked to each other once last night for about 25 minutes.

SAMANTHA: Yes. It was a very pleasant conversation. It was great.

GLENN: It was.

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: Why are you here?

SAMANTHA: I don't know. (laughter)

I don't know. Why are you having me here?

I'm here. We're doing -- well, we're doing a piece -- we're doing a piece with Glenn, and so you generously invited me to be on your show. We are merging worlds in a way.

GLENN: In a way.

SAMANTHA: In a way.

GLENN: Because I'm sure we haven't talked about it, but I'm sure there are many things we don't agree on.

SAMANTHA: I can pretty much guarantee that for sure.

GLENN: Yeah. So --

SAMANTHA: I don't think that's a bad thing.

GLENN: I don't either.

SAMANTHA: I don't see that as -- I don't see that as a bad thing.

GLENN: I think people trying to control people's lives is a bad thing.

SAMANTHA: Yes. I do agree with you.

GLENN: Oh, my -- the first thing off her mouth --

SAMANTHA: What! What!

GLENN: Your world is coming crumbling down.

STU: You are a sellout.

SAMANTHA: Uh-oh.

GLENN: Did you lose some crazy bet? And now here you are.

SAMANTHA: I'm winning the bet. I'm here.

GLENN: Saying I agree with Glenn.

SAMANTHA: It's okay with us to agree with each other on some things. I feel like there's a shared humanity, right?

GLENN: There is.

SAMANTHA: We really literally have to have conversations with people we don't agree with. It's essential.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: And I do feel like -- I'm sure that a lot of your listeners or your viewers have either not watched your show, or they have watched my show and they have not -- and turned it off.

GLENN: Yes. Turned it off in anger.

SAMANTHA: Or, you know, one interesting thing that happened on our show -- we went to the conventions, of course. And while I was at the Republican convention, so many people there came up to me privately and said, "Oh, my God, I love your show. It's really funny."

GLENN: I think you're really funny.

SAMANTHA: Thank you. Well, I wasn't really --

GLENN: You have a potty mouth.

SAMANTHA: I wasn't fishing for a compliment.

(laughter)

Definitely have a potty mouth for sure.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: But people I think -- I think people on both sides of the aisle can appreciate a well-crafted joke. And I do think it's essential to be able to make fun of yourself. It's just --

GLENN: Uh-huh. Is there a problem -- because this is -- you'll notice that -- I mean, except for the conservatives that have a stick lodged someplace.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: Or Al Gore and Tipper, when they were against the -- you know, wanted the parental labels on CDs or albums, I think at the time.

SAMANTHA: Albums, I remember those.

GLENN: Yeah.

The -- most people don't have a problem with The Simpsons because they know The Simpsons might take your guy on and hit him hard in the face.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the very next joke or the very next episode, going to hit the other side just as hard.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you think that comedy -- you know, The Daily Show and your show, do you think you do that? Do you think you hit your side just as hard?

SAMANTHA: I think that we look for those opportunities for sure. I think that, you know, we launched in a very particular moment in American politics. I mean, we launched at the beginning, really, of campaign season. And so there was just a plethora of material.

GLENN: Sure.

SAMANTHA: For us to select from.

GLENN: Sure.

SAMANTHA: I think that moving forward, that will happen more and more for sure. But there's no -- there's...

GLENN: Here's why I ask this question.

SAMANTHA: Yeah. Are you going to show a little bit of our show to acclimatize people to the tone?

GLENN: Uh, no.

SAMANTHA: You don't need -- that's okay. I promise, some of you will really like it. It's very edgy.

GLENN: No. I -- I like it. It is -- it is -- I used to -- I was much more of an artist with the F-word than you ever will be.

SAMANTHA: Okay. Oh. Oh.

GLENN: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Okay.

GLENN: And then I found Jesus and all of that stuff.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: So I've cleaned up my act. And so it is a little assaulting for viewers that are not used to that -- you know, Mike Huckabee will watch it and say, "I've never heard a woman use the F-word before."

SAMANTHA: Well, he would 100 percent find me to be nasty.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: Yes.

GLENN: He might go farther than that.

SAMANTHA: He would go further than that.

GLENN: You may be from the underworld.

SAMANTHA: Definitely from the upside down.

GLENN: But, anyway, I find you very, very funny.

PAT: We actually have played clips of your show.

SAMANTHA: Which -- I was curious about that because you mentioned that last night.

STU: We can play -- as you might know --

SAMANTHA: In like a favorable way, right?

STU: Yes. No, actually --

PAT: Donald Trump can't read.

JEFFY: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Trump can't read.

STU: We thought that was really funny.

PAT: And -- that was very funny. And the trolls in Russia. We played --

JEFFY: Yeah, the hacker.

GLENN: We spent an hour talking about the trolls in Russia.

SAMANTHA: Did you?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That was really interesting. How the heck did you find those people?

SAMANTHA: Well, you know, we have an incredible research team.

STU: Yeah, ours sucks.

JEFFY: Yeah, no kidding.

GLENN: We got this guy.

STU: We have that guy. He just sits over there and types --

SAMANTHA: Oh, boy. That's it. The whole team.

GLENN: Well, he ate the whole team.

(laughter)

SAMANTHA: You know, we have -- yeah, we have an -- we have just an amazing team of people. And we had one woman who was able to -- she just ended up in I don't know chat rooms. I don't know what she did to kind of infiltrate that world. But she ended up chitchatting a paid Russian troll. And, you know, the story was born out of that. And then it just kind of grew and grew. And then we decided it was worth it to go to Russia and speak to them in person.

PAT: Did you ever at any point believe they might be not the real thing?

SAMANTHA: Not real.

PAT: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Well, you know, you have to treat them -- you have to -- obviously, you have to be very suspicious.

PAT: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: I think we did our absolute best due diligence with them.

PAT: Uh-huh.

SAMANTHA: And we determined that we were comfortable -- we were comfortable believing that they were real. And I believe that they were real.

PAT: It sounded like they were.

SAMANTHA: Since the story aired, Russian media has tried to discredit the story in various ways. But that's kind of what they do.

JEFFY: They do.

GLENN: So is it disturbing to you at all because we've been on this Russian thing for, four years? Three years? About the influence of Russia and Putin. And it's interesting because a lot of people that were -- were okay with that in saying, "Yeah, okay. I believe you. Yeah, that's wrong. That's bad. That's dangerous."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: In the last year, many of them have said, "That's propaganda. That's crazy. That's not happening." Or it's, "So what?"

SAMANTHA: Right.

GLENN: Does it bother to you that we seem to be playing musical chairs, that under the last president I was freaked out and thinking, "Oh, my gosh." And now, under this president, you're saying, "Oh, my gosh."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Well, it's not just me saying it. There are a lot more people.

GLENN: No, no. I am saying it -- I'm saying it as well.

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: But the point that at least I have been trying to make and many people in our audience have been trying to make -- and we were never taken serious is no president should ever make you feel that way. Not because we elect the great guys. Our Founders knew, they're going to elect bad guys. It's the balance of power. No man should have so much power that he can reach into your life and change our culture and change everything.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you see that? Or?

SAMANTHA: I -- you know, I guess fundamentally I don't really trust anyone. I don't really --

GLENN: We don't either.

SAMANTHA: I don't really -- I just don't see presidents or -- I don't -- as these messianic figures.

GLENN: Right.

SAMANTHA: I just don't think that any one person or leader is going to be everything to everybody. And, of course -- you know, the pendulum swings.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: It --

PAT: Uh-huh.

SAMANTHA: It's -- I think what we're going through right now feels very different to me, in my experience, which is limited because, remember, I'm an immigrant. And this is the first election that I was able to vote in.

GLENN: You're from, where?

SAMANTHA: So that was -- I'm from Canada, you guys.

GLENN: Oh, that's not an immigrant.

PAT: Oh.

STU: I'm a Bluejays fan.

SAMANTHA: That's a total -- my immigrant experience, I came across with my babushka. You know.

GLENN: Yeah.

So it's not that -- the thing that I think we can unite on that I -- and it seems -- it seems almost eye-roll stupid, but it's not, is the Bill of Rights.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The Bill of Rights -- we all agree -- you know, I was dumb enough in 2003 to go, "Oh, George Bush, he'd never misuse the Patriot Act." By 2006, I'm like, "Oh, my gosh, how stupid was I." Then -- and left -- you know, the people on the left were right there.

And the reason why a lot of us didn't listen to that warning was because, "You're just the other side. You're just against George Bush."

Oh, my God, shut up.

And now, under Barack Obama, it expanded and got worse. And under this guy, it's going to expand and get even worse.

SAMANTHA: Do you feel like the world is going to be -- or our world -- at least I feel -- and this is part of the reason why we're here today is because I do think that it's important for us to kind of redraw the lines a little bit. I don't think that it's as clear-cut as left and right or liberal and conservative anymore. I feel like --

GLENN: True liberals --

SAMANTHA: -- you need to form alliances in a different way now. I think that, you know, there are things that are imperiled now, or certainly there feels like there's an urgency and there feels like there's violence in the air to me.

And I think that it's going to be more important than ever for people to kind of reach into areas where they wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable and hold hands with people --

GLENN: I agree.

SAMANTHA: -- in a different way.

And I think -- you know -- and it's more about -- and it's more than just talking, too. It's actually more than just civil discourse.

Civil discourse is really, for me, just the beginning of change.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: You know, that's a nice place to start. It's a very privileged idea that we can all sit here and go, "We should speak to each other nicely. We should actually be civil."

GLENN: Yes. We should do more -- we should also listen to each other.

SAMANTHA: Speak nice. Speak -- you know, speak properly to each other.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: Listen to one another. But then there's an action moment too, where you have to -- you have to defend people. You have to stand up for people who are imperiled in this new world. You have to take action. I don't know what the action moment is. We do have to find it.

GLENN: It will come. It will present itself. Don't look for trouble. It will come. Be prepared for trouble.

SAMANTHA: This is all so comforting.

GLENN: No, no. But don't you --

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: You just prepare for it. And then if it doesn't come, it doesn't come. But if it does, we'll know it when it comes. And then we are prepared and united to stand on common principles.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But no one wants to talk about common principles. Everybody is talking about policies. And that's been our problem -- that's been my problem. I wanted you here because I think you felt -- you feel right now like I felt -- not in '08, but in '12.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Where I thought, "Okay." For instance, TIME Magazine just made Donald Trump person of the year.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: And in the headline, it says, "President of the divided states of America."

I completely agree with that. But there's a lot of people that will look at that and go, "Really? Slap across the face." Where Newsweek, in '08, ran the headline and the cover, "We're all socialists now."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Dismissing the good portion of the population that was like, "No, I'm not a socialist. I don't want to be a socialist. No."

So one side just dismissed the other. And we're still doing that. Just dismissing.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: In '12, I'm -- I was shocked that the American people could know all of this information and still vote for him because of, I thought, lies, of doctors cutting off of feet, and everything else. And you feel that way now about Donald Trump. So do I.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But you kind of lost faith in, "Crap, it's not just the president, it's the people around me too. I don't understand how they're disconnecting from truth. They're just accepting it." Do you understand what I'm saying?

SAMANTHA: I do. But I'm not sure I know what the question is.

GLENN: So my question is: How do we take on -- how do you take on your side and say, "You know what, there are some things that -- lying about Benghazi did matter. It did matter."

SAMANTHA: There are consequences to lies.

GLENN: Right.

SAMANTHA: I think we are seeing that. I don't really know how to --

GLENN: How do you mean that? We're seeing that?

SAMANTHA: When you -- well, there are just false narratives. There's -- I mean, we've all been talking about fake news. We were talking about it on the show the other night.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: There's so much distrust. There's so much -- we -- you know, people are receiving their news in their own bubble of the internet.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: It's very difficult to penetrate that with actual information.

GLENN: On both sides.

SAMANTHA: I agree.

GLENN: We're self-selecting out.

SAMANTHA: Well, of course.

I don't really know how to -- I don't really know how to penetrate that. I don't think anybody really does.

GLENN: But that's what we're here for.

SAMANTHA: But that is why we -- that is why we need to be so vigilant and so diligent and do things in a different way and take ownership of those.

GLENN: We're going to spend some more time together. I'm doing something for your show.

SAMANTHA: No. Delightful.

GLENN: And then we're going to spend some time on Facebook.

But -- look at that look. "Delightful."

SAMANTHA: No, it is. It's going to be delightful.

GLENN: Look at that look. I saw that look.

SAMANTHA: Don't -- don't read anything sinister of that. It will be fun, I promise.

GLENN: All right. It is nice to meet you.

SAMANTHA: It is so nice to meet you.

Featured Image: Samantha Bee, host of 'Full Frontal with Samantha Bee' on TBS on 'The Glenn Beck Program', December 8, 2016.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn'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."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

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."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

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:

Glenn's Show Prep

Samantha Bee of 'Full Frontal' Talks With Glenn About Bridging the Divide

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

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

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

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?