THE DOCUMENTS for 'Civil War: The Left's Revolution Playbook EXPOSED'

Photo by Warren Wong on Unsplash

Last week I told you about the growing trend this month, a narrative that the Left is building about how President Trump will lose the election in November and refuse to leave office.

Democrats have been delusional about Trump from day one, so I guess this narrative isn't really surprising.

But the repeated references to this really make you sit up and take notice. Is someone passing out talking points? Because this is remarkably coordinated messaging. And this messaging has a familiar ring to it when you remember the Color Revolutions that happened in Eastern Europe during the Obama administration.

WATCH: Civil War: The Left's Revolution Playbook EXPOSED

Color Revolution might as well be the name of the Left's insurance policy for the U.S. presidential election. They seem to be following the same playbook they used in countries like Ukraine — because they ARE using the EXACT same playbook. On previous episodes, I explored everything the Obama administration did in Ukraine, in coordination with George Soros, through Civil Society 2.0, the “tech camps," etcetera, so I'm not going to revisit those specifics tonight. But if you're not already a BlazeTV subscriber, please join us so you can refresh your memory by watching those episodes on demand. Your support helps us bring you the vital information that no one else is digging up.

The Left is done with regular U.S. presidential elections. 2016 ruined it for them. The coronation for the first female American president was all set, the decorations were ready, the catering was ordered. But when this outsider crashed their party, the Left vowed with remarkable unity — never again.

Now, through the Color Revolutions that the State Department instigated around the world, especially in Eastern Europe, there are American experts in this field of “mostly peaceful" regime change. These Americans are specialists who have developed a systematic approach to Color Revolution. And now, in their desperate hour, they seem to be using this playbook on their own nation.

The Left and the mainstream media have waged a four-year war to delegitimize President Trump with a singular focus on November 3, 2020. In the Left's collective mind, losing this election is an impossibility. But there's still the annoying wild card of American voters. That's where their Color Revolution playbook comes in. Make no mistake – the goal just under six weeks from now is to set the system right, with the ruling class elites back in charge. Democracy is convenient and all when the people obediently elect this ruling class. But when the people wreck the system and put someone like Trump in office? The people have to be put back in their place.

Last week I told you about one of these Color Revolution specialists, Michael McFaul. He was the U.S. Ambassador to Russia under Obama. McFaul wrote an academic paper in 2005 about the “Seven Pillars" a country needs to have in place for a successful Color Revolution. I showed you those Seven Pillars on the chalkboard last week and I'm going to return to the first four a little later. Remember, a “Color Revolution" is not an old-school, banana republic-type military coup. It's a strategy the U.S. has used for regime change in foreign nations with a few main components: questioning the legitimacy of an election; mass street protests and civil disobedience; and relying on Media for positive coverage and promotion.

A year after his paper on the Seven Pillars, Michael McFaul wrote a book titled – Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough. Who wrote the only endorsement featured on the book's back cover?

A guy you may have heard of with a vested interest in these kinds of revolutions: George Soros.

McFaul is just one of several Color Revolution specialists who were diplomats during the Obama Administration. One of the most influential of these specialists is the Obi Wan Kenobi to McFaul's Luke Skywalker, a guy named Norman Eisen. He is a longtime DC lawyer and former ambassador.

In 2003, Eisen co-founded a government watchdog organization called CREW — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Bookmark that one, because CREW will pop up again later.

When President Obama took office in 2009, he made Norman Eisen Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform, better known as the White House “Ethics Czar." I want you to pause for a moment to let it register that this guy was Obama's “Ethics Czar" — that's going to take on a lot of irony after you hear about all that he's currently involved with.

In 2011, Obama appointed Eisen Ambassador to the Czech Republic. So, like Michael McFaul and many other Color Revolution specialists in the State Department, Eisen honed his craft on the ground in Eastern Europe. This Color Revolutionary guard is a relatively close-knit group of people with strong connections to the Obama administration and the Left's top power players. And they all share the common goal of removing President Trump from office.

Norman Eisen actually wrote a 100-page report that is a playbook for the Color Revolution movement. He didn't even try to be subtle about it.

It's titled: “The Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding."

In this playbook, Eisen writes (p. 24):

Opposition leaders may also choose to pursue more extreme institutional measures available to them, such as IMPEACHMENT PROCESSES, votes of no confidence, and recall referenda. To raise the profile of their campaign against democratic erosion, opposition leaders can also utilize extra-institutional tools – engaging in or encouraging, for example, a protest, strike, or boycott, in conjunction with civil society.

Hmm, interesting. “Encouraging protests" sounds like precisely what Democrats have been doing for the past four months, refusing to condemn the violence in the process. It's also precisely what they're gearing up for after November third, broadcasting this idea that Trump will claim victory and refuse to leave office.

It's also no accident that Eisen's playbook mentions impeachment as a viable option.

If the name Norman Eisen rings a bell, you might remember him for another prominent role he played this year — Special Counsel for Adam Schiff's House impeachment committee.

Eisen literally wrote the book on impeachment in July, it's called: A Case for the American People: The United States v. Donald J. Trump.

The Left tried so hard to make it seem like Trump brought impeachment on himself.

But Eisen admits that he had already drafted ten articles of impeachment one month before Nancy Pelosi had even announced an official impeachment inquiry of Trump last year. In fact, as soon as Democrats retook the House in 2018, Jerry Nadler hired Eisen to get ready for impeachment. After all, impeachment is in Eisen's Color Revolution playbook.

Let that sink in for a moment — House Democrats hired one of the architects of Color Revolution to lead their impeachment effort. It was part of the plan from the very beginning. And I mean the VERY beginning.

The weekend of President Trump's inauguration in 2017, David Brock, head of Media Matters, put together a conference with over 100 liberal donors to map out how Democrats would “kick Donald Trump's ass." Media Matters, along with CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) produced another 50-page playbook for the conference. And remember who the co-founder and board chair of CREW is? Norman Eisen.

Here's a quote from page two:

Trump will be defeated either through impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020.

The memo says CREW will be responsible for filing lawsuits against President Trump:

Trump will be afflicted by a steady flow of damaging information, new revelations, and an inability to avoid conflicts issues.

They have certainly fulfilled that pledge. CREW has dozens of pending lawsuits against President Trump and his administration.

What does all this mean? It means that Norman Eisen who wrote one of the Color Revolution playbooks — which includes impeachment as a strategy for regime change — and who was also Special Counsel to the Democrats' House impeachment committee, was planning President Trump's removal BEFORE Trump was ever sworn in.

Well, the Mueller report failed them. Impeachment failed them. The full Color Revolution treatment is all they've got left or everything they've worked for the last four years is a waste. Their whole plan hinges on the November third election. But they've been laying the groundwork since 2017, and their “Seven Pillars" to pull off a successful Color Revolution seem to be in place

Next, I want to take a closer look at the first four of these pillars...

They were already establishing that Donald Trump's legitimate election put the nation "under siege."

So now I've told you about Norman Eisen, one of the key architects of Color Revolution strategy.

He even wrote a Color Revolution playbook that he actually called “The Democracy Playbook." I mentioned how before Trump was even sworn-in as President, Eisen collaborated with David Brock, head of Media Matters, on a written strategy to remove Trump. Right at the top of their 50-page action plan, they write:

The progressive infrastructure groups we've built together were started long before Hillary Clinton ran for president. They were always intended to be the first line of defense — and offense — when we are under siege.

Did you catch that? They were already establishing that Donald Trump's legitimate election put the nation “under siege." It's also disturbing that their “first line of defense and offense" is not voters, not better ideas — it's their AGENDA through the “progressive infrastructure groups" they've built.

Again, quoting from the first page of their action plan:

We have the mandate. Together, we won the popular vote and Democrats picked up seats in the Senate and the House. TRUMP IS THE LEAST POPULAR INCOMING PRESIDENT IN MODERN HISTORY AND THE OUTGOING PRESIDENT AND POPULAR VOTE WINNER ARE AGAIN THE MOST ADMIRED MAN AND WOMAN IN THE NATION. THE COUNTRY DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP-STYLE CHANGE.

That clearly ties-in to the second pillar on Michael McFaul's list of the seven factors that need to be in place to pull off a successful Color Revolution. Number two:

“An unpopular incumbent."

That messaging began the day after Trump's election.

On Inauguration Day, remember how much the media crowed about the supposedly small crowd on the Washington Mall?

Trump's alleged unpopularity has been the standard operating message for four years.

According to the Left and their Media friends, Trump has NEVER been popular.

And of course, when you own the entertainment industry, it's easy to perpetuate the message that Trump is unpopular. Since at least 2008, the Left has elevated Saturday Night Live's election influence to mythic proportions.

So, right out of the gate, SNL went outside its own cast to get Alec Baldwin to play Trump as a nasty moron. Or what about Showtime's new James Comey glorification project? Watch this and see if you can figure out who the villain is...

The Left and the Media have also made a big deal this year out of a group called The Lincoln Project. The narrative here is that President Trump is so unpopular and dangerous, that this group of Republicans organically got together and organized to campaign for Joe Biden instead.

In reality, the Lincoln Project has raised over $20 million from Leftist donors to campaign against not just Donald Trump, but Republican Senators who are up for re-election.

According to its FEC filings, the Lincoln Project hired the Katz Watson Group for “fundraising consulting."

Fran Katz Watson who owns that consulting firm is a longtime Democratic operative who used to be the national finance director for the DNC. Her firm's other clients include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The Lincoln Project has also paid consulting fees to a firm run by Adrienne Elrod — she was Spokesperson and director of strategic communications for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.

As if that's not proof enough that the Lincoln Project is just a Democratic opposition campaign in Republican clothing, its communications director is Keith Edwards who was formerly on Mike Bloomberg's presidential campaign staff. The Lincoln Project is the very definition of “Republican in Name Only."

Pillar two is clearly in place — if you hammer home the idea every day for four years that President Trump is wildly unpopular, it helps you create the perception that he could not possibly win a legitimate election. Which helps you develop the fourth pillar on the list:

“An ability to quickly drive home the point that voting results were falsified."

Recently, Democrats spent a couple weeks flooding the airwaves with the conspiracy theory that President Trump is going to sabotage the U.S. Postal Service with cutbacks and closing facilities so they can't deliver all the mail-in ballots on time.

Any time Trump has been critical of mail-in-voting, the Left immediately frames it as “voter suppression." It all seems to be part of their groundwork to deny any positive election result for the President.

Now, just in the past week, we're also seeing blame placed on “right-wing" media — including me — that we're working to delegitimize a Biden victory. It's all part of the narrative that Biden winning the election is a foregone conclusion, and that Trump disputing that result will be fake news.

And of course, social media will jump in and do its part for the cause with their Fact Checks. Because what's a good Color Revolution these days without the aid of social media?

Facebook, for example, is very proud of their third-party fact-checking program. They use fact-checkers that are certified by IFCN – the International Fact-Checking Network. Sounds very official, but what exactly is the IFCN? It's a project of the Poynter Institute. Founded in 1975, Poynter bills itself as:

The world's leading instructor, innovator, convener and resource for anyone who aspires to engage and inform citizens.

One of the major funders of Poynter, of course, is George Soros' Open Society. Poynter also owns PolitiFact. PolitiFact's two largest financial supporters are the E.W. Scripps Company and... Facebook. PolitiFact is also one of the IFCN's certified fact-checkers, which means in essence that the IFCN certifies itself as a legitimate fact-checker. Not sure how that's supposed to fly. But it doesn't matter because it's a Left-wing operation, which means it's automatically trustworthy.

Next time you see a “fact check" from PolitiFact, take it with a tiny grain of salt, since it is largely funded by Facebook.

So, how does election polling play into this narrative that Trump is unpopular and will somehow falsify the voting results? How accurate are these polls that the Media and political class rely so heavily on? In 2016, nearly every poll predicted an easy victory for Hillary Clinton, which made Donald Trump's shock win that much more devastating to Democrats and Mainstream Media. Four years later it seems like déjà vu, because the polls once again indicate virtually no chance that President Trump gets re-elected. What's going on here? Can anyone put any real stock in polls anymore?

The Left MUST make the case that Trump's presidency is at least a semi-autocratic situation.

We're going over the first part of Michael McFaul's “Seven Pillars" list of essential factors that need to be in place for a successful Color Revolution. The first item on the checklist is:

“A semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime."

Obviously the United States is not a fully autocratic regime, but the Left MUST make the case that Trump's presidency is at least a semi-autocratic situation. I'd say they've done a pretty good job staying on message.

They tried so hard pushing the Russian collusion hoax, which was supposed to make their case for them that Trump aspires to be just like Putin. Here is the author of the Color Revolution pillars himself, Michael McFaul, in a BBC radio interview LESS THAN A MONTH after Trump took office...

It's interesting that even now they still try to tie Trump to Russia — which is the one place where the State Department apparently could not get their Color Revolution done. That must be why Michael McFaul lasted just two years as U.S. ambassador to Russia.

Next, any autocratic president worth their salt will have some sort of thuggish force to help carry out their will. Enter Charlottesville.

The tiki-torch-carrying neo-nazis, and the armed white supremacists provided the Left with the perfect visuals they needed to paint this far-out fringe as Trump's wacko militia.

Now, anytime Antifa or BLM instigate some of their famous “mostly-peaceful" protests, we're told the real threat is from Trump's wacko right-wing militia.

The Left has tried building the case from day one that Trump is an aspiring dictator. But the Covid pandemic has exposed the inconsistency of their scheme.

Their constant attack against the President for six months is that he hasn't been autocratic ENOUGH in addressing the pandemic.

Why on earth, they wonder, won't the President declare a national mask mandate? I don't know, maybe because he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so? Isn't forcing every citizen to wear a mask EXACTLY what an autocratic ruler would do?

Trump has resisted the kind of heavy-handed responses to the pandemic that Democratic governors around the nation embraced without flinching.

Naturally, they get praised for it, while Trump is blamed for the deaths of 200,000 Americans. THAT is insane.

By the way, Joe Biden now says that if he's president, he'll have the authority to create a national mask mandate. Autocratic for me, but not for thee!

Speaking of that, Barack Obama's presidency proved that any degree of autocratic is not really a concern for the Left as long as it's THEIR guy in charge. It's so nonsensical.

  • Spying on the Associated Press and threatening reporters with jail on issues of identifying sources.
  • Using the IRS to target Tea Party members.
  • Attempting to force nuns to grant access to birth control.
  • Going around the Constitution's treaty provisions to make the disastrous Iran deal.

Who did all that? President Obama. And that's barely scratching the surface.

Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by simple decree than Barack Obama. By Executive Order, he decreed the U.S. joining the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan, and transgender restrooms. Through Obama's 276 Executive Orders, he instituted 560 major regulations — classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having “significant economic or social impacts."

Regardless what you think about President Trump's comments to the media, or his tweets, or any of his impulsive tendencies, those things are not what makes an autocratic ruler. Being autocratic is working to expand your power beyond the Constitutional limits. Obama clearly did that, A LOT. And Trump has not.

The end-result of the Color Revolutionaries trying to establish Trump as a scary authoritarian ruler is their conclusion that he will refuse to leave office when he loses the election. There is no actual proof that Trump would refuse to leave office. And even if he tried to refuse, they haven't really explained how he would pull off such a feat.

As for Pillar Number Three: “A united and organized opposition" — this is the Left's specialty.

They've been united and organized since before Day One of Trump's presidency. I've already mentioned the David Brock and Norman Eisen conference on Inauguration weekend that brought together 100 of the most powerful Leftist donors to map out a plan for removing Trump.

Then there is the Transition Integrity Project, headed by Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff John Podesta. Note how the “Transition" is basically assumed. A Biden win is their foregone conclusion. The TIP conference invited 100 current and former government officials, academics, and journalists to wargame various election outcome scenarios.

It was started by Rosa Brooks who is a Georgetown law professor. She served as special counsel to George Soros' Open Society Foundation where she is also on the Advisory Board. It's hilarious that every mention of the Transition Integrity Project in the media calls it “non-partisan." Look at this quote from a Washington Post article Rosa Brooks wrote weeks after the TIP war games:

A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis.

Sure, it doesn't get much more bi-partisan than that. Does that not sound like a veiled threat to vote for Joe or face street-violence?

The conclusions of the TIP report make it clear that any effort by Trump to stop the street violence using the National Guard, or to have Attorney General Barr investigate voter fraud will automatically be seen as election interference by Trump. Which would then just reinforce Pillar Number One that Trump is a power-mad autocratic monster.

Self-fulfilled prophecies are the darnedest things.

The Color Revolutionary guard is so united and organized, that one election war gaming conference wasn't enough. A coalition of 50 Left-wing organizations held a Zoom conference earlier this month called the “Democracy Defense Nerve Center." One participant told the Daily Beast that they strategized about practical matters, like how to "occupy s--t, hold space, and shut things down, not just on Election Day but for weeks."

Classy.

Participants in the Democracy Defense Nerve Center say such a large number of groups has never coordinated so closely before. Really — who could've possibly seen that coming?

Rahna Epting — executive director of MoveOn was in the conference and said:

It is very obvious that Trump is laying the groundwork for claiming victory no matter what... we will fight to protect it [our democracy] from what we truly see as a president who has gone off the rails and taking this country down an authoritarian fascist path.

I don't know what kind of Disney version of authoritarian fascist leaders these people have studied, because if they knew anything about ACTUAL fascist governments, they would know that their Lefty Election Fight Club Meetings, their books, and tweets, and hundreds of millions of dollars in fundraising WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED. They would all be canceled, thrown in prison, executed. That's what happens under normal dictatorships.

If Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist, then every one of these Color Revolutionary clowns should fall on their faces and THANK GOD ALMIGHTY that they would be so lucky to live under such oppression.


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.