Ep. 1402 - The Official Story On Trump’s Shooting Makes No Sense At All
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, as more comes out about Trump's attempted assassin, and we learn more about what happened on that day, the story makes less and less sense. Something isn't adding up. We'll try to sort through it today. Also, Trump announces JD Vance as his vice presidential pick. Biden tries to defend his own "inciting" rhetoric. Scientists now claim that climate change is messing with time itself. And, in the wake of the assassination attempt, a number of conspiracy theories have taken hold on the Left. Trump arranged to have someone shoot him in the head, they claim. But, don't judge this theory until you hear the evidence, which is completely nonexistent.
Ep.1402
- - -
DailyWire+:
We are giving you a presidential discount. Get 47% off annual memberships now with code FIGHT: http://dailywire.com/subscribe
Get 10% off your tickets to “Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot” at http://angel.com/MATT
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsor:
PureTalk - Get 50% Off Your First Month! http://www.PureTalk.com/WALSH
ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE! http://www.ZipRecruiter.com/WALSH
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, as more comes out about Trump's attempted assassin, and we learn more about what happened on that day, the story makes less and less sense.
Something just isn't adding up.
We'll try to sort through it today.
Also, Trump announces J.D.
Vance as his vice presidential pick.
Biden tries to defend his own inciting rhetoric.
Scientists now claim that climate change is messing with time itself.
And in the wake of the assassination attempt, a number of conspiracy theories have taken hold on the left.
Trump arranged to have someone shoot him in the head, they claim.
But don't judge this theory until you hear the evidence, which is completely non-existent.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
You've heard me say for a long time that cell phone service with PureTalk is half the cost of
Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.
You might be thinking, where's the catch?
There's no way PureTalk can offer unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data for just $20 a month.
Well, I say, just ask the thousands of my other listeners who have already switched.
They are loving America's most dependable 5G network.
They love PureTalk's U.S.
customer service, their selection of premium phones, and the money that they're saving month to month.
So, what are you waiting for?
It's time to start supporting companies who share your values, like creating American jobs and supporting our veterans.
It's time to switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk.
Plus, with no contract and a 30-day money-back guarantee, you have nothing to lose.
Visit puretalk.com slash Walsh to upgrade your cell phone service to America's most dependable 5G network and save an extra 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh today.
72 hours after an assassin shot and nearly killed Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, here is the official story so far.
A random 20-year-old acting completely alone walked within 150 yards of a presidential campaign rally with a rifle, climbed onto a rooftop in full view of Secret Service snipers, set up his shot, and fired without anyone intervening and with no help from anyone.
This 20-year-old is also so politically radical as to an attempt at assassination, and yet not radical enough to have ever posted any political writings or commentary on any social media site ever in his life.
He also wrote no manifesto, left behind no indication about why he did it.
Even after authorities gained access to his phone, they say they still have no clue about his motivations.
All we're told is that for some reason, he obviously wanted Donald Trump dead.
There's just a handful of videos of the shooter circulating, including one in which he makes some weird sexual joke, and one in which he appears briefly in a Black Rock video featuring his high school classroom.
Other than that, it's as if he never existed.
As far as we can tell, this man's last and only political act before attempting to kill the Republican candidate was to register as a Republican, reportedly.
Oh, and apparently there were Trump signs outside of his parents' home, we're now told, where he was living.
Watch.
Investigators dressed in plainclothes as well as FBI agents approach this house.
That's where the family of Thomas Crooks lives, which is right here on Milford Drive.
Then we started to see those agents going door-to-door, canvassing the neighborhood and speaking with people who live here.
They're trying to get answers to the many questions that still remain.
Crooks' motive is still unclear.
Records show he is a registered Republican, and neighbors today told us that they've actually seen Trump signs outside of the home over the course of the last few years.
Now, if all that's true, we have no idea why these signs are outside the shooter's home.
We have no clarity on this point whatsoever, because none of this makes sense, and nobody's explaining anything.
Nevertheless, you must believe the official narrative and ask no questions about it or else you are a conspiracy theorist.
And one thing we know about assassination attempts is that there's never any conspiring involved.
There's never been a conspiracy behind an assassination attempt, right?
So we wouldn't want to engage in that.
As unbelievable and insulting as this is, this is the version of events that you're being told to accept.
But with every hour that goes by, it somehow makes even less sense than it did before.
Every new detail is more baffling than the last.
Last night, for instance, CBS News reported that several Beaver County police snipers were stationed inside the building that the shooter eventually climbed on top of.
They were supposedly looking for threats in the crowd at the rally, but there were no officers or snipers on the roof for reasons that remain unexplained, even though that would be the rational spot to place those snipers on top of the building rather than inside of it.
But it's now an uncontested fact that the shooter used the police staging area as a vantage point to shoot Donald Trump.
According to the local outlet Beaver Countian, which broke the story,
quote, "A security operations plan had placed each of the three counter snipers inside of the building
looking out of windows toward the rally, with none stationed on its roof. Due to a lack of manpower,
the men did not have spotters assigned to them, as would be standard operating procedure."
So, maybe the excuse is that they couldn't spare anyone to watch the roof, they just ran out of
people. Obviously, we need to know exactly who drafted that security operations plan,
because that person should never be in charge of any security operation ever again.
Nevertheless, roughly a half hour before the shooting started, these snipers positioned inside the building saw the 20-year-old shooter, without his rifle, looking up at the roof observing the building before he disappeared, and then came back and sat down.
So, and by the way, so this is, and one thing you'll see as we go through this story is that This guy was not, by all appearances, some sort of evil super genius, okay?
He went through this thing very slowly and clumsily, just walking around, like he's 30 minutes ahead of time, staring at the spot where he wants to perch himself to shoot a presidential candidate, just in full view of the police officers.
In fact, his actions were so suspicious that one of the snipers inside the building took a photo of the gun.
Additionally, according to a separate local news station, "a law enforcement officer had also previously seen Crooks on
the ground and called him in as a suspicious person with a picture before 5.45pm."
Officers supposedly looked around, couldn't immediately find him, and that was it for then at that moment.
So just to review, this man was on the radar of the security forces at the rally 30 minutes before he fired the first shot.
And he fired it on top of the very same building where the police were staged.
Already 30 minutes before the crime took place.
They had enough reason to detain this guy, at the very least.
And delay the rally, but it gets even worse.
At one point, and this part is, I mean, the whole thing's baffling, but this in particular.
At one point, in full view of the snipers inside the command post, the gunman, quote, took out a range finder, prompting police sniper to radio his command post about it.
That meant that he alerted the Secret Service to the threat.
But still, nobody detained the man and nobody pulled Trump off the stage, even though there's only one reason a suspicious person would be using a rangefinder right outside of a Trump rally.
And everybody knows what it is.
There is no conceivable innocent reason for a guy to be lurking around the site of a campaign rally with a rangefinder.
Or if there is an innocent reason, the innocent reason is significantly less plausible than the sinister reason.
Yet nothing was done.
So the man disappeared again, then came back a third time, this time carrying a backpack.
And once again, the snipers called in to their command post, explaining that this suspicious man was now walking towards the back of the building.
But nobody stopped him.
Nobody took any physical action to prevent what they could evidently see coming.
Apparently all of these reports prompted some police officers to call for backup and try to scale the roof to stop the shooter, but they obviously failed to do so.
The gunman climbed on top of the building using an air conditioning unit, not a ladder as previously reported, and fired several shots at Trump before he was taken out.
So, what explains why Donald Trump wasn't taken off the stage at any point in this process?
Until a gunman had already shot him in the head.
Because even if you want to claim that for some reason they couldn't confront the suspect right away, or, which, it doesn't make any sense, even if that were true, well, you can take Trump off the stage, at the very least, until you manage to get the weird guy with the rangefinder and the backpack off of the building.
Why didn't Secret Service snipers on the roof behind Trump take out the shooter before he was able to open fire?
If you look at some of the videos from the rally, you'll notice that initially the snipers behind Trump appear to be kind of relaxed at first.
They're standing up.
They're not in the prone position looking through their rifle scope.
But then some people in the bleacher see something.
They start pointing.
Eventually the Secret Service snipers go prone, clearly responding to a threat.
So I want to show you two clips.
First, the snipers in their relaxed posture, and then what the snipers were doing just
before the shots rang out.
We're going to make it.
And it's not easy because we have millions and millions of people in our country that shouldn't be here.
Dangerous people.
Criminals.
We have criminals.
We have drug dealers.
We have people that should not be here.
And it's much tougher than if it happened.
You know, we had the strongest border ever.
In recorded history, we had the best border.
In fact, if they could ever put up a chart, I don't know if they can do it.
You are told if you want to really see something that said, take a look what happened.
Four months old, and if you want to really see something that said, take a look what happened.
I think they hit him because the guy is dead.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
So this is a much more serious failure than we were told it was.
This is not a case of the Secret Service somehow failing to notice the shooter.
They clearly knew he was there, or that some potentially imminent threat was very close to the stage.
We know that from the video.
We know from the reporting.
At a minimum, they had reason to think that Trump was in imminent danger.
They had very good reason to think that.
But they essentially did nothing in response.
They let Trump take a bullet to the head before they addressed the threat in any way.
According to the Biden administration, we should not be outraged or concerned about any of this.
Yesterday, the head of the DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas, explained that he has quote, 100% confidence in the director of the Secret Service, who he oversees.
Watch.
Do you, does the President have confidence in the Secret Service Director after Saturday's failures?
I have 100% confidence in the Director of the United States Secret Service.
I have 100% confidence in the United States Secret Service.
And what you saw on stage on Saturday with respect to individuals putting their own lives at risk for the protection of another is exactly what the American public should see every single day.
It is what I indeed do.
Now, just to remind you, this is the same Alejandro Mayorkas who claims the border is completely secure.
Now he's saying that he has 100% confidence in the director of the Secret Service three days after the Secret Service allowed the leading presidential candidate to take a headshot from a rifle while he delivered a speech on stage.
The only conceivable way you'd have 100% confidence in this agency and the people who lead it is if you're fine with the outcome of Trump getting shot at.
I mean, at this point, it's not really a conspiracy theory to say the Biden administration apparently thinks that Saturday's assassination attempt was acceptable.
They're coming right out and saying it to our faces.
If it was unacceptable, they would fire the people who allowed it to happen.
But they aren't.
I mean, saying you have 100% confidence in the Secret Service after an incident like this, it's like looking out over the wreckage of a collapsed bridge and declaring that you have 100% confidence in the engineering team that designed it.
A hundred percent confidence, not even like 90% confidence or 73% confidence.
Their utter and total and catastrophic failure has not lost them even one percentage point of confidence in your book.
And it's not just the DHS secretary saying this.
Last night, Joe Biden was asked by Lester Holt about the director of the Secret Service.
He made it clear he has no problem with the director's performance.
He also made it clear he has no idea who the director is because he said, I've heard from him, even though the director of the Secret Service is a woman.
Watch.
Is it acceptable that you have still not heard, at least publicly, from the Secret Service director?
Well, I've heard from him.
But have you heard from her publicly?
So Biden may not be sure who the director of the Secret Service is, but he's sure that he or she or whoever is doing a great job.
agencies, the Homeland Security, all the major elements.
So Biden may not be sure who the director of the Secret Service is, but he's sure that
he or she or whoever is doing a great job, as evidenced by the fact that her agents nearly
got his chief political rival killed.
And of course, because no one in the Biden administration has any shame whatsoever, the
Secret Service director has said that she has no intention of stepping down.
It's just like the pullout from Afghanistan, which directly resulted in the deaths of several U.S.
service members.
Nobody resigned after that debacle.
Nobody was fired.
Nobody in the government seemed to care, frankly, and we're seeing that repeat after the single most significant security failure by the Secret Service since the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life.
Actually, it's worse than that.
I mean, based on everything we know now, we can say with a high degree of confidence that this is the worst security failure by the Secret Service in its history.
Okay, it first was put in charge of protecting the President in 1901.
And this is the worst we've ever seen since 1901.
But no one in any position of authority in the agency or outside of it will be held accountable in any way whatsoever.
This is why our system of government has lost all the trust the public may have had in it at one point.
There's no sense of accountability, no sense of responsibility.
If anything, these people are embracing their failures almost as if they wanted them to happen.
Which means we'll never be told the truth about what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday.
We'll never be given the full story of how it happened, why this guy was allowed to do this, or who this guy even is.
And the thing is, even if we are someday given all that information, there will still be no reason for any of us to believe it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Summers here and seasonal businesses are hiring for everything from camp counselors to lifeguards.
Whoever you're looking to hire this summer, ZipRecruiter can help.
Right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter finds qualified candidates fast.
It doesn't just cast a wide net and hope for the best.
ZipRecruiter's cutting-edge technology actively seeks candidates with the skills and experience you need Once you've reviewed your list of qualified candidates, you can invite your top choices to apply.
This streamlined process encourages them to apply sooner, allowing you to fill that role faster.
Lots of seasonal businesses are hiring right now, so gear up for the summer with ZipRecruiter's high-speed hiring tools.
See why four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a qualified candidate within the first day.
Just go to this exclusive web address right now to try ZipRecruiter for free.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter.
Smartest way to hire.
Okay, not to repeat myself, but talking about the Secret Service Director, this did just come in as I'm filming.
Just came across my desk, and this is the Daily Mail.
Secret Service Director gives bizarre reason why an agent wasn't on the roof where gunman Thomas Matthew Kirk's opened fire on Trump as he rejects calls to resign.
Embattled, we just talked about her rejecting the calls, but in terms of, you know, as far as what is the excuse?
Like, why didn't you have anyone watching that roof?
Why wasn't anybody on the roof?
We now have her answer to that, such as it is.
Embattled Secret Service head Kimberly Cheal has revealed the fateful and bizarre reason why her agency failed to put an agent on the roof that gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks used to carry out an assassination attempt on Donald Trump.
She says, quote, get a load of this, that building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point.
And so, you know, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof.
And so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building from inside.
That's what she's going with.
That it was a sloped roof.
And so they couldn't put agents on top of it.
Now, where do you even begin with an excuse like this?
We're supposed to believe that trained snipers cannot be trusted to be on a slightly sloped roof without falling off and breaking their necks?
I mean, we're not talking about the Empire State Building, okay?
This is... It's a slightly sloped roof.
It's like a very... You couldn't even slide down it if you tried to.
You have to scoot yourself down.
You wouldn't just slide off of it.
So, we're supposed to believe that trained snipers Who are trained enough that they're being entrusted with security at a presidential campaign rally, that they can't get on a slope route?
I mean, is this how it works out in the field?
If there's a hostage situation at a bank, and you need a sniper posted on a roof to take out the bad guy, would you look up and say, oh, never mind, we can't, all the roofs, you know what I'm saying, there's a slight slope on that roof, we can't do it.
Sorry, he might fall off and sprain his ankle, we can't do it.
You know, we can only save hostages if they're surrounded by flat roofs.
It's really only a flat roof situation is what we can do.
I don't think it works that way.
In fact, I know it doesn't work that way because, as Colin Rugg on Twitter has pointed out, the snipers who were behind Trump during the rally, the ones who didn't take out the bad sniper before it was too late, they are on a sloped roof!
Okay, so you already have security agents on sloped roofs at this very rally, and yet that particular sloped roof you couldn't be on because it has a slope.
Um, it's just, it's so brazen, the excuses are so brazen and so insulting to our intelligence that they leave you, once again, with no good options when you're trying to interpret all this and figure out what's really going on.
And the refusal to be accountable, right?
The refusal to admit any fault, it's so, that refusal is so extreme and so obsessive That what she's really telling us now, what the head of the Secret Service is telling us, Kim Cheadle, is that there's nothing she would do differently, even after the fact.
Okay, with the benefit of hindsight, this woman apparently cannot identify a single thing she would have done to prevent a presidential candidate from getting shot in the head.
When you have someone show up at a presidential campaign rally to attempt an assassination, Who's wandering around the site with a backpack and a range finder for 30 minutes and then perches himself on the roof of the building where police are stationed.
That the head of Secret Service looks at that scenario and there's nothing she would have done differently.
That's it.
There's nothing we could have done.
It was totally outside of our control.
So, again, no good options either.
This woman, Kim Cheadle, is such a lying piece of garbage.
Such a fraudulent liar that obviously she needs to lose her job and should be criminally investigated for negligence.
Or she's so incompetent, she is so stupid and incompetent that she genuinely looks at this situation and scratches her head and says, I don't know, what could we have done?
All the rest of us who were not in the Secret Service, we have no experience with any of this at all, we can look at the scenario and we can identify like 50 different things you could have done to stop this from happening.
We can identify 50 different things you could have done before the rally.
We can identify 50 different points in that 30-minute window when you could have prevented it from happening.
So we can do that, and yet she cannot.
Or she can, but she refuses to.
So either she's just incompetent and stupid to an inconceivable degree, or she's a liar.
I tend to think it's kind of, it's a bit of both.
So I kind of, I go with, you know, you got a chocolate and vanilla choice here.
I go with the swirl.
We don't need to choose.
Because I think that she's definitely incompetent and very stupid, but she's also a liar.
There's, you just can't believe any of this.
So, we are left.
To speculate.
We speculate about what her actual motives are, and then we also have to speculate about, okay, none of this makes any sense.
What you're telling us makes no sense.
You're giving us reasons why the agents on the ground did not act.
And those reasons don't make any sense, so we're still at square one here.
And we're asking ourselves, OK, well, those can't be the reasons.
That makes no sense.
The roof is too sloped.
The roof is too sloped.
That doesn't make any sense.
So we have to ask ourselves, what was the real reason?
That's not the real reason.
What is it?
As I said at the top, I think we'll never be given the full answer to that question.
All right, big political news breaking yesterday right after we finished filming a show.
Daily Mail reports Donald Trump picked Ohio Senator J.D.
Vance as his running mate on Monday afternoon, choosing a grassroots favorite ahead of more seasoned political operators.
The former president left it until the last possible moment, using all his showman skills to leave the world guessing before opting for 39-year-old Vance.
Trump made his announcement on Truth Social, saying, And, you know, this was a great pick, in my opinion.
I think Vance accomplishes all of the things that a vice president, especially one for Donald Trump, needs to accomplish.
And that begins now with assassination insurance.
You can just look at the reaction from Trump's opponents, and you can see it.
They hate Vance.
They hate him at least as much as they hate Trump.
They see him as just as dangerous, quote unquote, as Trump, if not even more.
So you take Trump out and you're stuck with President Vance.
Now that's not...
That's not going to be an appealing option to Trump's enemies.
It doesn't guarantee they won't try it anyway, but it does give you some insurance there.
And Vance is a great pick, even aside from all that.
He's a talented politician, charismatic figure, articulate, consistent defender of the MAGA agenda, America first guy, someone you can pass the torch to.
And not to get ahead of ourselves, but he'll be a formidable candidate in 2028.
In fact, you know, the bench, the Republican bench is shaping up pretty well.
You've got Vance, DeSantis, Vivek.
Junkin.
So these are young, talented guys, conservative.
For the first time in my lifetime, I think we can say that the Republican bench is more talented than the Democrat bench, especially when the Democrat bench consists of Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom and nobody else.
Gretchen Whitmer, I guess, is the other one.
But we are told that in Vance's case, he has some baggage.
Baggage, we're told.
And the baggage is that in 2016, eight years ago, if you can believe this, he didn't like Trump.
He wasn't a Trump guy eight years ago.
Here's Politico reporting on that.
In the year before Trump took the Oval Office, Vance, who once described himself as a never-Trump guy,
was quick to criticize the former president using words like idiot and even Hitler to describe Trump.
Since then, Vance said that he regrets his past criticism of Trump, especially during his contentious Republican Senate primary in 2021.
The Ohio senator who got Trump's endorsement in the primary has also since called Trump a great president.
But before the endorsement that helped him grab a Senate seat, here are five things the vice presidential pick said about Trump.
I'm a never-Trump guy, Vance said in an interview with Charlie Rose in 2016 while publicizing his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy.
I never liked him.
As someone who doesn't like Trump myself, I sort of, I understand where Trump's voters come from, but I also don't like Trump himself, and that made me realize that maybe I'm not quite part of either world totally.
Also included in the ads for Club for Growth, Action, and USA Freedom Fund were some of Vance's since-deleted tweets criticizing the former president.
My God, what an idiot, he wrote in one of his tweets.
In a private Facebook message in 2016, Vance questioned whether Trump would be America's Hitler or just a cynical asshole like Nixon.
Et cetera and so forth.
That's going to be one of the primary attacks on Vance right now, and it has been, that he said those things because Vance didn't like Trump eight years ago.
That's the scandal here.
And I always think it's funny when people try to use this kind of ammunition, because what is the ammunition exactly?
Like, what is the attack?
That his views have changed to some extent over the course of nearly a decade?
That he doesn't hold all of the exact same opinions now that he did eight years ago?
Doesn't that make him just...
Human?
Doesn't that make him a human being?
I mean, does any human on Earth today hold all of the exact same opinions now that they did in 2016, whether about Trump or anyone else, or anything else?
And if so, if that's the case for you, if you can do a survey of all of your opinions and say, oh yeah, they haven't changed at all.
Since 2016.
Then that's embarrassing for you.
It shows that you are entirely closed off from receiving new information.
You're not going to adjust your views on anything.
It shows that you're not engaged in any critical thinking.
You're not a reflective, thoughtful person in that case.
Now, you know, with that said, if somebody has completely and fundamentally changed their core beliefs, Right?
If they've totally switched, right down to the core, everything that they say they believe, well, I mean, that could be okay also.
People go through conversion experiences, and if they're converting from the bad thing to the good thing, then that should be celebrated.
And that can also be a sign of critical thinking.
But at least in that case, it's something that you should have to explain.
Especially if you want to hold political office.
If you've completely changed everything you believe, then, well, then there are questions that people should ask about that.
You should be able to tell the story of your political conversion.
And again, especially if you want to be some kind of a leader, you need to be able to demonstrate that not only was it sincere, but that you now are, you know, that you didn't just arrive at these opinions six hours ago.
That you have, you know, yes, your views have changed dramatically and drastically and at a fundamental level, but you are now, you know, firm in your beliefs and all of that.
You have to prove that you're not just a fraud kind of shifting with the winds, flip-flopping back and forth and so on.
But a person whose core beliefs have remained basically intact while changing their views about things on the peripheral, such as changing their opinion about a politician like Trump, and this is the case for J.D.
Vance, well, in that case, there's not even a lot to explain there.
Like, that's, again, just being a normal, thoughtful human.
And I'm in this boat myself.
My core values and beliefs have remained basically unchanged my whole adult life because I really believe in them and I happen to think they're true, fundamentally.
But all of the opinions and perspectives kind of surrounding them, the stuff that's closer to the surface, you have your core beliefs and then a lot of the peripheral opinions, it's really like how do you apply those beliefs and all that sort of thing.
And that stuff, yeah, that changes.
That's changed for me in some cases somewhat dramatically over the course of the last 10 or 15 years.
Which is why it's funny when people do this to me, right?
They do this to everybody if you're in public, any kind of public forum.
For me, they'll dig up some blog post from 2014 or something and they'll say, oh yeah?
Well, if you say this now, then why were you saying this other relatively different thing 10 years ago, huh?
What's up with that?
Hey, look at this.
Here's something you said in 2012.
A bit different, but you're singing a different tune now, aren't you?
Apparently your perspective as a 38-year-old man with six kids is somewhat different from your perspective when you were a 26-year-old man with no kids.
What's going on?
What are you, learning and changing and growing?
Con artist?
Grifter?
So you get a lot of that, and it's very, very stupid.
Especially when, again, we're talking about the opinions closer to the surface.
And something like, how do I feel about this guy, Donald Trump, that is an opinion closer to the surface.
It's not a core belief, okay?
At least it shouldn't be.
Your view on Donald Trump as a person and as a political candidate is not a core belief at your soul.
That is more, you have your core beliefs, and then really, especially when Trump first came on the scene, the big question was whether he aligns with those beliefs, whether you can trust him.
I mean, all that, that's what the question was.
And the fact that Vance has changed his view on that is just, It doesn't mean anything.
It shouldn't even be worth talking about, really.
And if we learn anything from it, actually, it's that, and this is something we've seen time and time again with Trump, to his credit, which is that he really doesn't hold a grudge.
He probably holds a grudge less than anyone we've ever seen in politics.
Because we've seen exactly this.
You could have someone who has attacked Trump in quite strident terms for a long time, and they change their opinion, and Trump will embrace them.
You know, he doesn't hold it against them.
Everybody else, right, is going to fans and saying, well, why did you say that eight years ago?
But Trump has already moved past it.
As mentioned, Biden was interviewed by NBC on Monday.
He was asked about recent comments where he said that Trump should be put in the bullseye.
That's what he said.
Watch how he responds to that.
Here it is.
Well, let's talk about the conversation this has started, and it's really about language, what we say out loud, and the consequences of those.
You called your opponent an existential threat on a call a week ago.
You said it's time to put Trump in the bullseye.
There's some dispute about the context, but I think you appreciate that word.
I didn't say crosshairs.
I was talking about focus on.
Look, the truth of the matter was, what I guess I was talking about at the time was, there's very little focus on Trump.
Yeah, the term was bullseye.
It was a mistake to use the word.
I didn't say crosshairs.
I meant focus on him.
Focus on what he's doing.
Focus on his policies.
Focus on the number of lies he told in the debate.
I mean, there's a whole range of things.
Look, I'm not the guy that said I want to be a dictator on day one.
I'm not the guy that refused to accept the outcome of the election.
I'm not the guy who said that I want to accept the outcome of this election automatically.
Only love your country when you win.
And so the focus was on what he's saying and I mean the idea.
But have you taken a step back and done a little soul searching on things that you may have said that could incite people who are not balanced?
Well, I don't think.
How do you talk about the threat to democracy, which is real, when a president says things like he says?
Do you just not say anything because it may incite somebody?
Look, I have not engaged in that rhetoric.
Now, my opponent is engaged in that rhetoric.
He talks about there'll be a bloodbath if he loses, talking about how he's going to forgive all those, actually, I guess, suspend the sentences of all those who were arrested and sentenced to go to jail because of what happened in the Capitol.
I'm not out there making fun of, like, remember the picture of Donald Trump when Nancy Pelosi's husband was hit with a hammer, talking about, joking about it?
I mean, I can't even watch this guy anymore.
I can't get through clips of him.
It's nuclear-level cringe every time.
A frail old man disintegrating right in front of us.
And his defense is that he didn't say crosshairs.
So he said that Trump is in the bullseye, but he didn't say crosshairs.
But that means the same thing.
I mean, well, there is a distinction, right?
Crosshairs are what you use to aim and the bullseye is what you're aiming at.
So you're saying that Trump is the bullseye means he's the thing you're aiming at.
That doesn't, that's not much better.
I don't think that that's any better at all.
I think that, again, is basically the same thing.
But I will say to, I don't know if this counts as a defense of Biden.
It's something I very rarely do.
But I will say that that's not even the point, right?
This stuff about, oh, well, Biden said Trump's in the bullseye.
You know, nobody thinks that the shooter heard about the bullseye comment and took it literally and then went out and tried to assassinate Trump because of it.
Nobody thinks that, right?
We don't think that.
That's not what anybody is saying.
Yeah, I will say it's like a little unfair to use that particular phrase against Biden, because that kind of language, crosshairs, bullseye, etc., pretty common in politics.
It's on the level of Trump's bloodbath comment, which was about the economy, right?
And then the media tried to twist it wildly out of proportion.
And we rightly condemn the media for trying to turn that into something it wasn't, because bloodbath is, yeah, it's violent language, quote-unquote, but it is metaphorical language.
It's very common metaphorical language.
And so you're being intentionally obtuse.
If you listen to Trump say, it's gonna be a bloodbath, and you say, oh, he's signaling, this is a dog whistle.
I mean, come on, you've heard that phrase a million times.
And just like bullseye, you know, in the crosshairs, even though he didn't say that, he said bullseye, but the term bullseye is very often used in a metaphorical way.
And we all know that.
We've all used that kind of language and we all get it.
And it is important to point that out, not because I have any interest really in defending Biden.
And, you know, if people do, Use this against him and take it intentionally out of context.
Well, that's just him getting a taste of his own medicine, so I'm not going to cry any crocodile tears for him.
Don't get me wrong.
But it is important to point out, not for Biden's sake, but because we need to stay focused on the actual point here, which is that Biden is partly responsible for inciting this assassination attempt.
But not because of metaphorical language he used.
That's not the point.
Okay?
The rhetoric that concerns us is the 10 years that he, along with pretty much every other prominent Democrat, spent labeling Trump a fascist dictator and a threat to democracy.
Because that was not metaphorical.
I mean, they didn't mean it that way.
They meant that in a literal way.
So, when they said that he was a dictator, they said he's a fascist.
When they compared him to Hitler, They did not intend it as a poetic license or hyperbole.
They didn't intend for us to take it that way.
And if you would ask them at the time, they would have said, no, I mean, literally, that's what he is.
He's just as bad as Hitler, if not worse.
They said this many times.
And Biden himself, many times in the weeks before the shooting and for years before that, said that Trump is a threat.
He's a threat to democracy.
He's a threat to our way of life.
That's the stuff right there.
That's what all these people should be held accountable for.
Doesn't matter, bullseye, bloodbath, like that's not the point.
When you demonize your political opponent to that level, and in those terms, and you use words like a threat, he is a threat, he's a threat to you.
Well, yes, people, If some crazy person hears that and interprets that as, oh, well, this guy's a threat to me.
I gotta take him out.
That's not even the crazy guy misinterpreting it.
He's not even really taking it farther than you intended.
He's just listening to you and taking what you said to heart.
No, he's not taking it too far.
He's simply believing you is all he's doing.
And we don't need to get into this point again.
We talked about it yesterday.
But it does bear repeating, at least briefly, that if everything they said about Trump was true, then yeah, it would be morally justified to assassinate him.
If it's true that he's an evil dictator, he wants to destroy democracy, destroy the country, existential threat, I mean, all these things.
He wants to enslave people, he's gonna bring Handmaid's Tale, all that.
If all that was true, then, I mean, yeah, of course that it would be justified.
Pretty much any act that you would take to prevent this person from seizing power could be morally justified.
The only thing that makes it morally unjustified is that all of that stuff wasn't true.
But they said it.
They said it over and over again.
They may not have believed it.
I don't think that Biden ever believed it.
He doesn't believe anything at this point.
He doesn't know what the hell's going on.
But all the other Democrat mouthpieces that have been saying this, the prominent Democrats, the ones in positions of power that have been saying this over and over again about how Donald Trump is a threat, they know it's not true.
I mean, they don't believe it.
In fact, they know better than anyone how untrue it is.
They were there when Trump was in office from 2016 to 2020.
They know how that went down.
They know that far from being a dictator wielding authoritarian power, he could barely wield any power at all.
Because they had the entire federal government, its bureaucratic tentacles everywhere, in every area, with their hand in every pot, sabotaging him.
So they know that.
But when you have this kind of language and this kind of rhetoric and this kind of propaganda being hammered relentlessly over and over and over again for years and years and years, you don't even have to be crazy to come to believe it, which is not an excuse, obviously, for this shooter or anybody else.
But it's a point about the propaganda that when it's that relentless, It doesn't even take an already crazy person to start to believe it.
Speaking of relentless propaganda, climate change is another example of that.
So I just want to read this headline to you, okay?
Here's the headline.
It is attention-grabbing, at least it was for me.
Climate change is messing with time more than previously thought.
Scientists find.
So that's the headline.
The headline is that climate change is so bad, and we're gonna find out just how bad it is, okay?
But it's so bad that it's not just warming up the earth and it's gonna drown us all and all that.
It's actually warping time itself.
Our very conception of time is being changed because of climate change.
It's a big study and it's a big important thing.
It's a big headline.
So let's find out a little bit about this.
How could that be the case?
Okay.
The impacts of human-caused climate change are so overwhelming that they're actually messing with time, according to new research.
Polar ice melt caused by global warming is changing the speed of the Earth's rotation and increasing the length of each day, in a trend set to accelerate over the century as humans continue to pump out planet-heating pollution, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
And yet another sign of the huge impact humans are having on the planet Quote, this is a testament to the gravity of ongoing climate change, says a geophysicist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a report author.
The number of hours, minutes, and seconds making up each day on Earth are dictated by the speed of the Earth's rotation, which is influenced by a complex knot of factors.
And there's some science there which may or may not interest you.
These include processes in the planet's fluid core, the ongoing impact of the melting of huge glaciers after the last ice age, as well as melting polar ice due to climate change.
Okay, so the climate change is making the day longer.
The day is getting longer and longer.
So if you feel, if you've been feeling that, if you've been perceiving that, that it feels like the days just drag on and on and on, it's true because of climate change.
That is all the fault of climate change.
But how long are these days getting because of climate change?
Well, you have to read about, I don't know, 10 paragraphs down before you get to this.
The team of international scientists looked at a 200-year period between 1900 and 2100 using observational data and climate models to understand how climate change has affected day length in the past and to project its role in the future.
Climate change fueled sea level rise caused the length of a day to vary between 0.3 and 1 milliseconds in the 20th century.
Over the past two decades, however, the scientists calculated an increase in day length of 1.33 milliseconds per century.
Significantly higher than at any other time in the 20th century.
So that was it.
That's what it's all leading to.
It's making the day longer.
It's a big problem.
Big enough problem, we need a study about it.
We need a CNN headline about it.
And how is it affecting the day?
Well, it's making the day longer by, well, it's not even a day.
It's increasing by 1.33 milliseconds per century.
So, by my quick napkin calculation here, with time changing this quickly due to climate change, a day will be a full second longer In about 90,000 years.
I think that's how it works out.
So, 90,000 years from now, people, if there's any people left on Earth, are going to be just, days will be eternal.
They're going to linger on forever.
The day will never end.
Days will drag on and on and on for a full second longer.
They'll have to endure that additional second.
Per day in 90,000 years, about.
But this is actually a perfect example of what we were just discussing.
It may seem like you have to be crazy to believe in all the apocalyptic predictions that we hear constantly about climate change.
It may seem like only a nutcase would believe this stuff, but that's not true.
All you have to be is someone who is surrounded by the propaganda all the time, has no real out, you know, doesn't have anyone in their life who's a voice of sanity, not anybody that they listen to anyway.
And on top of that, be someone who's not exactly a critical thinker.
That's all.
And that describes, like, a lot of people.
You don't have to be a maniac.
And if you're in that group and you see a headline like this, and of course you don't read on, you don't keep reading and do the math and all that, they don't want you to do that, just the headline's all you need.
It's even affecting our perception of time.
That's how bad climate change is.
An entire second in 90,000 years.
Pretty bad stuff.
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American Dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing to create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
It's gcu.edu.
Well, the ticket is set.
Trump vans for 2024.
And now we turn our attention to making the case for why our ideas are the best for the future of America instead of the left's dystopian fantasies.
The Daily Wire, we're not interested in pandering.
We are fighting a daily battle against the erosion of everything that makes this nation great.
Now, here's where you come in.
We need you in this fight.
We're making it ridiculously easy to join us.
For a limited time, get 47% off your annual membership with our special presidential deal.
That's 47% off all new annual memberships.
With Daily Wire Plus, you get access to everything.
Uncensored shows that don't bow to the woke mob, ad-free content, podcasts that actually make you smarter.
And news that isn't filtered through the left propaganda machine.
Join now for 47% off, but hurry, this deal is only available for a limited time.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
It's dailywire.com slash subscribe and join the fight now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
I haven't spent a whole lot of time on this show talking about the left's reaction to
the assassination attempt on Donald Trump.
The reaction has been everything you'd expect, just as vile and depraved as you knew it would be.
There's been a lot of stuff like this.
Here's Jack Black's bandmate, Kyle Gass, at a concert in Australia, making a wish on stage.
Watch.
Happy birthday to you!
Make a wish, man!
Don't miss Trump next time.
[laughter]
[applause]
Thank you.
[swoosh]
Don't miss Trump next time, he says.
Now, that's obviously a disgusting thing to say.
To say it at all is despicable and grotesque.
To say it in a foreign country is cowardly and traitorous, if not legally traitorous, then morally at least.
And they've since apologized for that and backtracked and everything, and now apparently they're shutting down their tour because of it.
All that's to be expected.
But, you know, it was said, and it's actually not shocking.
In fact, the only thing shocking in that clip is that apparently people actually attended a Jack Black concert.
So Australia's fall from grace continues.
And there are many more clips and social media posts like that one.
We don't need to harp on them.
But I do want to take a moment for today's Daily Cancellation to focus briefly on a different sort of reaction from the left.
Mere moments after the shooting happened on Saturday, many leftists had already decided that the shooting didn't actually happen at all.
Or it did, but it was planned ahead of time by Trump himself.
He hired somebody to shoot at him.
Or he pretended that the guy shot at him.
The theory isn't exactly clear.
The left cannot meme, and it also can't come up with coherent conspiracy theories, we've learned.
But the basic idea, whatever the specifics might be, is that the shooting was staged.
In fact, this idea is so popular that the word staged was trending nationwide immediately after the shooting.
The Guardian reports, quote, Soon after a bullet grazed Donald Trump's ear, the conspiracy theory hashtag started appearing.
Social media discourse on the shooting was immediately punctuated by hashtag staged, hashtag fake assassination, hashtag staged shooting, as a familiar refrain took hold.
Don't trust what they tell you.
One post on X with the hashtag staged queried whether a bullet really tore past Trump's ear.
It's been viewed more than 500,000 times.
Quote, if it grazed him, then where did the traveling bullet go as it would have continued flight towards those people, it asked.
Much of the skeptical commentary relies on analyzing images and footage taken by official media outlets at the Pennsylvania rally.
Another tweet from an account critical of Trump had said, quote, Or had 2.1 million views as of Monday, although it did not carry one of the hashtags that proliferated around the internet from Saturday into Sunday.
"A presidential candidate got shot in the face, and our collective reaction as a country was to laugh
because nothing has ever looked so fake," it said.
Now, I don't know a single person whose reaction was to laugh,
but then again, I'm not a sociopath, and I don't surround myself with sociopaths.
For a more detailed explanation of the staged theory, you can, of course, turn to TikTok,
which is full of videos from self-appointed crime scene analysts
who have determined that this shooting could not have actually happened.
Or if it did, it had to be Trump behind it.
Here's one.
I mean it's a little weird you know that this is America and shooters don't miss unless they're hired to.
People often flee the scene of a shooting but these people did not.
Instead, they crouched down not enough to protect themselves,
just enough so they could keep recording.
And when they saw that the Cheeto puff was okay, they erupted into applause and the Secret Service
still did not rush him off the stage because there was no active threat perceived,
even though it had not been declared that the shooter had been apprehended.
And I'm just wondering something that I can't say out loud.
(laughs)
(sighs)
This is America and shooters don't miss unless they're hired to, she says.
She apparently believes that America is populated exclusively by expert marksmen.
We're a nation of highly trained assassins who never miss unless we're paid to.
We're a nation of John Wicks, she imagines.
Never mind the fact that any gang shooting in any major city will expend about 10 bullets just to hit the target once in the leg.
This wasn't a gang shooting, obviously, but the point still stands.
And if you don't find her reasoning compelling, maybe you'll be persuaded by this guy with a ponytail and a tie-dye shirt, the true mark of a forensics expert.
Watch.
Trump's floundering.
Project 2025.
Everything is like hitting the fan, right?
He needs a bump.
And there's a lot of dedicated MAGA out there.
MAGA, be honest.
Would any of you be willing to take a bullet for your president?
Your idol?
Your king?
God?
Anyway, so it's not unreasonable to think they found somebody who's willing to lay their life on the line because how the hell does this guy wander around crawl around up for seven minutes people are pointing this guy out he's able to get a shot off and really like if he was skilled enough to pull all this off you really don't think he'd be a better shot like I'm sorry, but a lot of this seems fishy.
A lot of this seems planned.
That photograph with the flag and like it just seems so staged.
Of all the absurdly false claims packed into that 50 second clip, probably the most absurd is the claim that Trump was the one floundering prior to this assassination attempt.
It was Trump.
I mean, the Biden campaign had just endured two weeks where the top headline on every news channel and in every publication was that their candidate is senile and unable to perform the basic functions of the office.
So, if anyone was desperate and likely to do something drastic, it was them.
And yet, this conspiracy theory is pervasive on the left and has gone far beyond the boundaries of TikTok and Twitter.
The YouTuber James Kluge went out into the real world and asked random liberals what they think about it.
And let's just say that the idea that TikTok and Twitter aren't real life has taken a major blow.
Watch.
Oh, it's a false flag.
False flag?
Yeah, false flag.
People, somebody died and two people injured?
What do you think about that?
False flag.
False flag.
I thought it was magnificently staged.
It was professionally done.
It almost looked real.
Wait, wait, wait.
Staged by who?
Oh, by Mr. Trump, of course.
I think this whole thing is staged.
You think it was staged?
Yeah.
It depends on everybody's view.
Yeah.
A view of the assassination attempt?
What do you think?
Does it kind of depend on where you're standing whether or not you agree with the assassination attempt or disagree with it?
I just don't see... I just don't see that being the truth, but that's my... I'd rather just not make any comment.
Really quick, what do you call it, the truth?
What do you mean?
Oh, you just don't believe it was an assassination attempt?
No.
No, no.
Please don't.
We're so anti-Trump, I don't even want to... Was there a bad thing, though?
I mean... Was it a bad thing?
Would you condemn it?
Oh, that he got shot?
Of course!
Of course you don't do that!
That's all I'm asking.
Yeah, that's really bad.
Yeah, exactly.
You don't do that.
Was it staged, probably.
So you just thought it was fake?
Of course.
One person died in the crowd, two critically injured.
What happened there?
It wouldn't matter to Trump.
Do you think he cares that people died for him to be elected?
Death doesn't mean anything to Trump.
Now, staged from whose side?
Do you think Donald Trump staged it for attention?
Could be, or it could be the other side trying to make a scene or something, but I don't... The fact that he only got his ear and he would, like, sit up and said, America, I don't know, come on.
Right.
It doesn't feel normal.
So as you can tell, this is a big lift for the conspiracy theorists.
They prefer to claim that no bullet was ever fired, that the gun was shooting blanks or something, but the people in the audience were hit and one was tragically killed, so that fantasy is ruled out.
So they're left with option B, which is that Trump arranged to have a real gun Of course, the funny thing is that if Trump really did this, which, as anybody with an IQ above freezing already knows, he didn't, it would still mean that he's incredibly brave.
I mean, it would mean that he's an evil, conniving villain, yes, but certainly the bravest evil, conniving villain in history.
If he hired someone to shoot at his head, I mean, all I can say is that if I really wanted something and the only way I could obtain it somehow was to allow someone else to aim an AR-15 at my ear, I would choose to simply not have that thing, whatever it is, whether it's the presidency or anything else.
So even in the left's feverish imagination, even in the fictional land of their most far-fetched, deranged conspiracy theories, Trump's physical bravery is almost superhuman.
Now, I don't think we need to spend much more time explaining why Trump didn't arrange to be shot in the head.
It's the kind of conspiracy theory that debunks itself.
I think the slightly more interesting question is why these people are humiliating themselves by advancing this moronic theory in the first place.
Partly it's their basic instinct to demonize Trump at every turn, in every situation, reflexively, no matter what happens.
We know that.
But at a deeper level, I think these people can't wrap their minds around the fact that Trump responded with such dignity and courage in such a harrowing circumstance.
Because they know that if they were in his shoes, if someone shot at them, they would crumple into a ball, they would hyperventilate, cry uncontrollably.
They cannot accept that anyone could respond differently, least of all Donald Trump.
And maybe deeper still, they recognize that this is a defining moment for Donald Trump.
It is no doubt the defining moment of his life.
And he defined himself in that moment as someone who was brave and admirable.
Trump's enemies cannot stand that fact.
I mean, it fills them with rage.
They can't accept it.
Because they want Trump to be defined by his sins and his foibles, both real and imagined.
They've spent a decade working on this project to define Trump.
They want to define him.
They want Trump to be defined by, you know, the Access Hollywood tape, or January 6th, or whatever.
They've worked again for a decade to define him in the most negative terms possible.
And then, this happens.
And all of that work goes to waste.
But there is a lesson here for all of us, if only we're willing to learn it, which is that we're all defined by moments.
Only a few moments, when all is said and done.
Now most of us will never have a moment that ends up in the history book, like Trump, but even so, when we die, at our funeral, or for years after that, those closest to us will not vividly remember, or remember at all, the vast majority of the things we did and said.
It's a sad truth, really.
It's like something you should really let sink in.
Because, in fact, almost everything we have ever done or said will be forgotten.
It's already been forgotten, even by us.
Instead, there will be just a few moments, a few defining moments, that live on in people's minds.
Just a few moments will determine how you are remembered.
A hundred years from now, Trump's name will be associated with only a few things.
Maybe only one.
And if it is just one, it will be this one.
A hundred years from now, your name, my name, will probably be forgotten entirely, as is the fate of the vast majority of humans who've ever lived, but for however long you're remembered, you will be remembered through moments.
Only a few.
Will they be moments where you rise to the occasion?
Where you fail to?
That's up to you to decide.
And that's the lesson we could all learn from this.
Unless we're too busy inventing the dumbest conspiracy theories of all time.
Which is why the people squandering this learning opportunity in that way are today cancelled.
