Bill O’Reilly Slams ‘Corrupt’ Media Backlash Over Trump’s Call With a Gold Star Widow

The Trump administration came under fire this week after a congresswoman spoke to the press about a confidential phone call between President Donald Trump and the widow of a U.S. soldier who died in Niger.

What happened, and is this just another case of people being outraged over nothing again? Bill O’Reilly didn’t hold back in his analysis of the story on today’s show.

“They don’t know what happened,” he said of the media. “They couldn’t possibly know. Yet they use this once again to divide the country in a hateful way, and it’s on them.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: The one, the only, Mr. Bill O'Reilly joins us now. Bill, did you see -- did you see the speech from Kelly yesterday?

BILL: Beck. Yes, yes, yes, yes. You left one thing out though, which is really the crux of all the savagery -- and that's the word, "savagery" -- that's going on in this country right now. And that's the media.

What happened was that 24 hours before the president made the call to the widow of the slain soldier in Niger, the family knew the president was going to call, because you have to give them a heads-up and find out where they're going to be and all of that.

Then the family apparently alerts this Congresswoman Wilson. Why? Why?

Would you -- if it were your son, Beck, would you alert any politician?

GLENN: Never.

BILL: That you were going to get a call from the president.

GLENN: Never.

BILL: I would. So who would do that? What's the point of that? So then the call comes in. And they're in the call apparently, on a speakerphone, and the president was disregarding the advice of General Kelly as chief of staff. Because General Kelly said, "Listen, the family is grieving. No matter what you say, it's not going to make a difference. And it's a very difficult situation for any president to be in." But you said to his credit, and I agree with that, but Donald Trump said, "Look, I want to try. I want to try to give them words of sympathy." And it is an honor to get a call from the president of the United States.

GLENN: It is. And I will tell you this as a sidebar, we were all very, very upset -- at least I was -- Taya Kyle wasn't. But I was very upset. And I asked Taya Kyle for a year, has the president reached out at all? I mean, here's this great hero. Has the president reached out at all? Now, she didn't want the call.

But still, it is something that a president should do.

BILL: Well, you're talking about President Obama.

GLENN: Yes, I am.

BILL: Yeah. And he didn't. Because there is no protocol that is in stone. And I think there should be. And that's what I said on BillO'Reilly.com yesterday. There should a way to handle these kinds of things that always happens.

Now, I don't think that should require a phone call.

GLENN: No, I don't think so either.

BILL: But the president is the commander-in-chief. He has the option to do that.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: So, anyway, so the call comes into the limo. And they're all in the limo. And according to General Kelly, President Trump was trying to tell the widow that her husband was a hero because he voluntarily put his life at risk for his country. That was the theme of the call. He was a hero. He voluntarily. And I guess they used the word signed up. He knew the danger. But he did it anyway because he wanted to protect his country, which is a noble sentiment.

Okay. So then the call is over. Within, what? Ten minutes. This congresswoman is calling CNN. That can't happen spontaneously, Beck. That's got to be planned in advance. You can't just call up a major network and say, "I want to be on your air." They got to vet you. They got to know who you are. All of that.

So you can't tell me that this wasn't a setup. It was an absolute setup. That is a huge story.

The second huge story is, as they always do, the barbarians on cable news and broadcast news, believe every word Wilson says. Okay? Like they were there. Even though Wilson, incredibly, admits while I didn't hear the whole phone call.

How could you not possibly hear the whole phone call, if it's in a car on a speakerphone and you were sitting there?

So right away, her credibility is zero. So I'm watching the cable news, and I'm seeing these hit one after the other after the other. Of, oh, what a disgrace. This is horrible. He's insensitive. He's this, he's that. This is talking about Trump. They don't know what happened. They couldn't possibly know.

Yet they use this once again to divide the country in a hateful way. And it's on them. It's on them.

This media we have now is as corrupt as any time in our republic. This is off the chart, from the newspapers, to the television programs, to the internet. It is corrupt in the extreme, and it is harming the United States. No question.

GLENN: Okay. So I want to go back to that. You sound like you're speaking with some passion there.

BILL: I'm really keyed off, Beck.

GLENN: No, I know you are.

BILL: I got to deal with this personally. I got to deal with this kind of crap all the time. You do.

Anybody that doesn't toe the far left line is in danger now. I mean, it's so out of control. So out of control.

GLENN: Bill, I will tell you -- I will tell you, we have spoken off the air about my -- I had a -- I had a day in court in Boston on the Boston bombing.

And, you know, I had good government sources. And the government knew exactly what sources. And some day, some journalists -- well, no, they won't. No, they won't. Some day I'll just write a book, I guess, with this in it. But I have all of the documents. I have all of the transcripts from the trial. I have absolutely everything, including the ability to speak about the trial, because that was part of one of the conditions of the settlement.

But I will tell you, it's not just the media, it is the government that is corrupt. You cannot defend yourself if the government won't respond and abide by the constitutional constraints. And they don't.

You have no way to defend yourself.

BILL: The only -- and I sympathize because you were at Fox News Channel when you broke that story. And I am familiar with the story. And I know you didn't make it up. And I know you were going on people in the government telling you certain things. So that's absolutely true.

But I don't have any expectation the United States government would do anything for anybody at any time. Zero expectation on that.

But what we have here is, the -- the president of the United States is now in a position where the media, about 80 to 90 percent of it wants to destroy him.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: When has that ever happened? How can you run a democracy when the media doesn't care about the truth or any kind of accurate reportage? Their whole bent every single day is to destroy the leader of the country.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't know how you can run a democracy, let alone a republic like ours.

BILL: I mean, it is shameful and disgraceful. And the politicians on both sides, you know, they're scrambling for cover. They go, I don't want to be in this.

You know, I give Kelly a lot of credit. I said on BillO'Reilly.com yesterday, look, you expect the chief of staff to defend his boss, the president. You expect that. Okay?

So we have to listen to what Kelly has to say very closely, as you pointed out. But what he brought to the explanation was logic. Here's what was said and why it was said. And then his disgust with this congresswoman trying to -- who hates Trump. Trying to make it a political issue. But he didn't take it a step further. Is that the media immediately grabbed on to this corrupt congressman, congresswoman, and ran with it. They always do. And it's just sickening.

GLENN: So, Bill, here we are, we're looking at this corrupt media. Do you see a way out of this?

BILL: I don't. I don't. I mean, I've been in this business 43 years. And, you know, I try to run an honest program. As do you. I wouldn't be appearing here every Friday if I thought you weren't. I'm trying to run an honest enterprise at BillO'Reilly.com. And look at things and verify things and check things out. And if I can't get it, I don't say it.

But you put on these cables, and they don't -- I'm not going to use an obscenity, but you know what I'm talking about. They couldn't care less. It's, we're going to get Trump. Going to get him today. Here's how we're going to get him. Tomorrow, we'll get him this way, and we'll get O'Reilly, we'll get Beck, we'll get Limbaugh. We'll get Hannity. We'll get anybody we disagree with. We'll get them.

GLENN: So do you believe that the right is -- some people in the right are engaging in this same behavior? We'll get the left. We'll get the media. It doesn't matter who they are, or what they've done.

BILL: Certainly they're -- in the Hillary Clinton situation, there's an element of that. And I'm not sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton, okay? I'm not. I think she's an imperious woman -- word of the day "imperious" -- who lost the election because people flatout didn't like her. And I really -- I mean, if there's one person I would not want to dine with, it would be her. Okay? I just don't have any use for her at all. But there is an element on the right, that incorporates some of these scorched earth, I hate you tactics. But it's not nearly -- it's not even in the same universe as organized and funded as it is on the far left. It's individuals on the far right, okay?

So you can't make the comparison. Because they don't have the megaphone, number one. They don't have the organized cabal. And, you know, there are various websites like Breitbart and Daily Caller and some of them like that. They do their thing. But it's not nearly the way it is when you have Comcast, NBC, NBC. CNN. I mean, these are huge, huge conglomerates. So I don't think it's any comparison.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com, talking about General Kelly's speech yesterday. And, Bill, I want to hit one more thing here before we move on. And that is, his question, is there anything sacred anymore?

BILL: You know, I don't think that's a question that can be answered in a specific way. I mean, I think most Americans are decent people. And to them, there are things that are sacred.

But, you know, I hate to keep going back and being boring, but to the media, you know, no. There isn't. Politicians, again, it's a case-by-case basis. But there are good people, and there are people that understand that the world is not a place where trying to destroy people should be your main focus.

And I think folks are getting disgusted. I'm waiting for the backlash, Beck. I'm waiting for the backlash. I think it's going to come against the media.

GLENN: And how would that manifest itself?

BILL: Well, it will be ratings. You're seeing it in the NFL. The backlash against the NFL. You're seeing the ratings down, fairly significantly. And also, marketing and merchandising.

I think you're going to see a backlash against the media because people are disgusted with it.

GLENN: So what is the replacement? Because I'm afraid that the backlash comes and then you just don't believe anything or anyone, and so you just unplug. That's not good.

BILL: No, it's not. And, you know, I think people will, what they call look in. They'll look in on occasion. The newspaper industry is dead. Good. TIME Magazine, Newsweek, dead, good. Television is still there, but declining.

So they'll look in on their machines, on their devices, on the internet. They'll look in. But I really think that people have had it.

GLENN: Well, people in Media Matters are already in the halls of Facebook and Twitter and everyone else. Google.

BILL: Yeah, you're never going to get a square play on the net. It's just a convenience thing. I mean, I go -- just so people know, I go to CBSNews.com in the morning. Because they give me a headline service that's useful. Sometimes their articles are ridiculous. But I know immediately when I'm getting conned. I go to theHill.com to get the Washington stuff. I write for them. And they're fairly fair. They have both sides.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: And that's about it.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: That's about it for me.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. More of the news of the week and his perspective without the spin. BillO'Reilly.com. Coming up, more in a minute.

(OUT AT 9:31AM)

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com is joining us.

Bill, let me give you something from the Wall Street Journal. Now, the Wall Street Journal is the most liberal paper in America. I mean, mainstream paper. When it comes to the news. However, its editorial section is not.

And in the editorial section -- I don't know if you saw this, Donald Trump may be following Palin's trajectory. And I'd like to get your thought on this.

BILL: I didn't see the piece yet. So just tell me what the theme was.

GLENN: Okay. So here it is: In this day, like Sarah Palin supporters, who saw her intellect polish as proof of her sincerity -- but in times, she lost a place through antic statements, intellectual thinness, and general strangeness. The same may happen or be happening with Donald Trump.

And what they're saying is, you know, what you liked about Sarah was she was just, you know, one of us. Saying it like it is. And then after a while, that started to wear really thin. And you're like, I don't think there's anything behind this. And then the -- the theatrics and everything else. And it just wore thin. And she's nowhere.

BILL: All right. I know both people pretty well, particularly Trump. I wouldn't say I know Sarah Palin very well. But I've been around her enough to be able to evaluate her.

GLENN: Yeah. I do too.

BILL: It's an unfair comparison. There's no similarity and intellect between Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. Trump has a much wider frame of reference than Ms. Palin. There is similarity in that they're both populists, and they both tailor their message to the folks, and they both can't stand the media. So they're similar.

But if the Palin thing was going to happen to Trump, it would have happened already. All right? Trump's problem is that his wording sometimes is imprecise. All right? It's not as exact as it has to be for a president. He just wanders too much.

Ms. Palin didn't really know that much as far as history is concerned or, you know, her country. And when Katie Couric asked her about what she read, she couldn't really articulate that.

So there's a big difference between Trump's life experience and what he's accomplished and what Sarah Palin has accomplished.

GLENN: Next story. Transgender Wyoming woman convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl inside a bathroom.

Michelle Martinez, known -- formerly known as Miguel Martinez, before identifying as a female, found guilty first degree and second degree sexual abuse of a minor. Could face 70 years in prison.

Martinez, who was a family friend, invited the girl into the bathroom on March 23rd. Touched her. Penetrated her. The girl told her mother immediately.

Martinez, when questioned by police, became notably hostile and defensive. Said the girl was just talking crap before denying being a child molester. He is also calling accusations a publicity stunt. He has pleaded not guilty on both counts.

BILL: You know, what do you want me to say -- you know, this is a heinous thing. All Americans should want justice. So let it play out. There's really -- you know, I don't think you can take one or two situations and make any general points. What I will say is that the pressure from the politically correct precincts and the ACLU, to force public schools and public facilities to allow people who were born one gender to go into a locker room of another gender is insane.

And there is an easy solution, whereas you make a third facility for transgendered people to use. And you would think that they would want privacy anyway. So make a facility. It costs a little money. But in this PC world, that's the solution to the problem.

So I'm not big on generalizing from specific heinous situations. I don't think that's fair. And I want to be fair.

But I think that this movement for America to do things that are not in the best interest of children and are not based in common sense, common sense says you build a third facility. So that's my take.

GLENN: President Trump releases petition requesting support on standing during the national anthem.

I read this, this morning, and he came out yesterday and said, I want to know who is patriot enough to stand and pledge to stand during the national anthem. I want -- I've issued a petition.

And I thought it was a little strange. And then I saw where the URL leads, and it's to the GOP. This --

BILL: I'm going to comment on that. But I want you to answer the next question on Killing England, my number one book, because it plays into this. And I don't want your audience to think I'm crass in using the question about the anthem to promote my book, okay?

GLENN: All right. All right. Well, you're not the boss of me.

BILL: I want you to set it up.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

BILL: Rather than me be a doofus.

GLENN: This is probably -- if this is the way we're going to run this show, this is probably something you should have said before we went on the air. It's a little -- it's a little less crass.

BILL: No, but I want to be honest here. I want them to know the interaction is genuine.

GLENN: All right. All right. All right.

BILL: Okay. National anthem. No question Donald Trump is using it for political benefit. Everybody got that? Because he's already come out. He's already said he believes that everybody should respect the flag and the anthem. Most Americans concur. Word of the day "concur."

GLENN: No, the other was the word of the day.

BILL: And he won. He won it, okay? So he's on the side of apple pie and goodness and flag and anthem. Okay. Enough. Enough. You're the president. We need the tax cut. All right? You don't have to keep going back. We don't need a petition. We don't need to go trick-or-treating, dressed up like the flag, okay? We don't need it. We got it. You won. There's my take.

Now, Killing England. Go.

GLENN: You're not the boss of me.

The budget that they passed yesterday, only one G.O.P. person voted against it. Rand Paul.

BILL: Of course.

GLENN: There's no cuts. Real cuts to this. How do you feel about the Republicans?

BILL: Yeah. I'm not surprised. Because the Republican Party knows there's only one thing that's going to save it at this point, and that's the tax revision. And the working people getting the 4,000-dollar average into their pockets. So if they have to spend more money to get that -- which is what the trade is, okay? They're going to do it. So there's no surprise here.

GLENN: I don't think there's any trade.

BILL: Because it's all about tax cuts.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't think there's any trade.

Okay. Tell me about Killing England.

BILL: England. England. Okay. Number one book. Knocked off Hillary Clinton in the New York Times Best Seller list. Three weeks running, which is amazing because I don't have the platform I used to have to market the book.

GLENN: (clearing throat)

BILL: Well, your -- and you've been generous, Beck. You really have. I have to say.

GLENN: All right.

BILL: And there's no kickback. Although, I did send Beck a free book.

GLENN: I don't believe -- I don't believe you did.

BILL: No, I did. I sent you a free book.

GLENN: Did you sign it?

BILL: Yes, I signed it.

GLENN: You did not.

BILL: I think I just put one N in Glenn. No, I spelled your name correctly.

But, look, the reason I'm trying to get people's attention on this is because I obviously want the book to be successful, but I want you to compare George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, the three central characters in our revolution, to what we have now. To what we have now.

I mean, it's unbelievable, the difference in -- in every single way. Intellect. Character. Courage.

And right down the line. When you get through reading about these men who gave us this unbelievable freedom that we have, that's now being abused, by the way. But we have it. When you read about the suffering they went through -- the suffering, and what they actually did. And you compare it to these weasels that we've put into power -- I mean, across-the-board. There's some good people. But most of them are just -- are just ugh. Glenn.

GLENN: Also, the weasels that we have become. I mean, we don't really demand the highest standards from ourselves anymore, as a people.

BILL: Well, you're generalizing though. I'm going back to, there are people who do that. And it wasn't uniform back in 1775, '76.

GLENN: No, I know that.

BILL: Half of the colonists wanted to stay with the insane king.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: And they wanted to do it, most of them, for money reasons. Not because they believed in the monarchy. They were cowards.

So human nature is human nature. I always say that. But I think the majority of Americans do want high standards and are good people. I don't know if I differ from you or what on that.

GLENN: I'm not sure anymore. I would have said yes to that. But I'm not sure anymore. I'm not sure that we're much different than we were in the colonies, with the exception of that we are also -- we have -- you know, there was an overwhelming understanding back then of some morality. Some things were sacred, to a majority of people. And I don't know if that's true at all anymore.

BILL: Well, we're certainly more fragmented and scattered. And our focus is not on other people.

I mean, I did a thing last night for a Philadelphia radio station, where the subject of religion came up. Because religion is under fire in this country, as everybody knows. If you're a believer and you live in Los Angeles or New York, they think you're a kook. You know, if you go to church every Sunday, people look at you like, what's wrong with you?

Certainly, back then, that was not the case. And so there is a big difference. The secular progressives have power. They have power. And they're using it because the media sympathizes with them, and they get their message out. And it's easy for them to get their message out. So you're right in that sense, that there's been a big erosion in, you know, treating your neighbor as yourself, putting other people ahead of you. How often do we hear that these days?

GLENN: Yeah, not very often as well. Bill, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

BILL: All right, Beck. I did send you a free Killing England. So you find it in all of your stuff. You find that book.

GLENN: Right. Right. I'll find it after you send it.

BILL: Oh, man.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly -- Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. Number one book, three weeks running in the country, is Killing England.

Bill O'Reilly, thanks for joining us.

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.


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?