Trump Finally Admits What He Thinks of His Supporters

“The press will take that and they’ll say ‘he said a horrible thing,” Trump accurately predicted after telling supporters in Nevada on Sunday, “I don’t care about you. I just want your vote. I don’t care.”

The comments came as Trump remarked on a passing breeze during a scorching outdoor rally in Las Vegas where temperatures climbed above 100 degrees. Six people were hospitalized, and 24 more were treated by EMTs on-site for heat-related illness. Sunday’s rally followed a similar event in Arizona on Thursday where at least 11 people were hospitalized for heat exhaustion, which Team Trump wrote off as “enthusiasm.”

Trump’s recent rallies, which either occur outdoors or involve long lines outside waiting to be let in, have been punctuated by people boiling in the sun. Team Trump has taken no efforts to mitigate the heat for his followers—and in fact booked the Nevada rally after his supporters collapsed in Arizona. This comes despite the fact that a third of Trump’s supporters are those most sensitive to heat.

Though Trump’s sun-fried supporters let out laughs at his remark, Trump has a history of despising his supporters. During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump expressed gratitude for the highly contagious disease because it meant he didn’t have to shake hands with “these disgusting people.”

“He talked all the time about the people themselves being disgusting,” Olivia Troye, former homeland security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence and member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, told The New York Times in 2020 while discussing Trump’s view of his supporters. “It was clear immediately that he wanted nothing to do with them.”

Trump’s latest admission of apathy while holding rallies that keep sending people to the hospital speaks volumes on Trump’s perception of his base, but it begs the question of how he’s expected to get their votes if he keeps encouraging them to do things that can kill them.

MAGA Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene took the stage before Donald Trump’s campaign speech in Las Vegas on Sunday, and the Georgia Republican aimed to stoke outrage with her words, as opposed to make logical sense.

“If you think gas prices are high now, just wait until you’re forced to drive an electric vehicle,” she shouted into the microphone. Greene waited a moment to let her word salad sink in and grinned as the crowd began to boo.

Could they even understand why, or had the confused alchemy of her buzz words worked their magic? Either way, the crowd at Sunset Park appeared to follow her down her rabbit hole.

To try to imagine what Greene actually meant by this comment would be a disservice to the facts, which are that gas prices are down this month, and that electric vehicles don’t actually use gas, as Greene seems to imply. While it’s cheaper to buy a gas-guzzling car, it’s ultimately less expensive to power and maintain an E.V.—again, widely understood to be powered by electricity, as the name suggests.

Greene grinned as she looked out onto the booing crowd, and put her hand up as if to say “I know that’s right!” instead of simply spewing a list of meaningless words to describe a nonexistent grievance.

Representative Dan Bishop, a far-right Republican from North Carolina who is currently campaigning to be the state’s attorney general, is portraying himself as a champion for the little guy. Just this week, he promised a “reckoning” against the “gangster government.”

But Bishop’s track record shows that he doesn’t just protect the little guy. While he won consumer protection victories over his 23-year career, he also has worked with powerful organizations accused of taking advantage of much weaker individuals. Case in point: his “gangster government” comment wasn’t about sticking up for citizens’ rights against the federal government, but about billionaire Donald Trump being found guilty of felony business fraud by a jury of his peers.

Bishop also doubled down on his position that the trial was “rigged” with a wildly offensive comment.

“They go into a place where they know the fight is unfair. It’s as bad as it was in Alabama in 1950 if a person happened to be Black in order to get justice, and that’s what they did in New York. So, it was fundamentally rigged,” he said on an episode of The Pete Kaliner Show.

Bishop, who has only been a congressman since 2023, is seeking to replace his home state’s Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein. (Stein is running for governor against Hitler-quoting Republican Mark Robinson.) Bishop must defeat his congressional colleague, Democratic Representative Jeff Jackson, a former prosecutor.  

While Bishop’s own website touts his experience as a “tenacious litigator, handling complex commercial cases,” he has never served as a public prosecutor. Online records—only made available in recent months as North Carolina switches to an online court filing system—show that while working as an attorney, the Republican lawmaker worked multiple times with organizations accused of questionable business practices.

One of the most egregious cases began in 2002, when Bishop defended Fischer-Schindler, LLC, which was accused of stealing at least $1 million from plaintiff Larry Black through an invented investment scheme. In addition to F&S, Bishop also defended James Schindler. In court documents, Black’s attorney described the alleged blatant theft: “To say Defendants engaged in an elaborate ‘Ponzi’ scheme is probably an insult to the late Mr. Ponzi.” 

Ultimately, Bishop’s clients were voluntarily dismissed in this case, which simply means the plaintiff chose to drop those defendants for an unspecified reason. The estate of Doss Fischer—who is listed in the court documents as an “agent, manager or member of F&S”—was ordered to pay Black $1 million plus interest. 

Also in 2002, Bishop also defended a company that was accused of racial discrimination toward one of its employees, allegedly denying her promotions due to her race. The parties eventually reached a private settlement, ending the case. 

In 2009, Bishop represented Charlotte Hanson, who, with her husband Sidney, was accused of operating a Ponzi scheme that targeted retirement-age people, raising around $32.5 million from approximately 500 clients. While the Hansons had promised high returns on supposed investments, court documents alleged that they instead used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle for themselves of resort vacations and private plane rentals, as well as making payments to agents who supplied their scheme with new customers interested in purchasing so-called “private loan agreements.” 

Bishop provided legal counsel to Charlotte Hanson to ensure she cooperated with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, after which he withdrew from the case. She was ultimately removed as a defendant.

Two years later, a district court judge ordered Sidney to pay $23 million in restitution, plus interest, to his victims, as well as a $1.2 million fine to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. He was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison.

In 2011, Bishop helped defend Fuzion Investment Capital (FIC), which was accused of wrongfully terminating an employee, Jeffrey Stec, who was “rendered destitute” by the firing, according to the lawsuit. Stec alleged that after he sold his fitness center company to FIC as part of a bankruptcy deal, with FIC promising that he would be able to buy the company back, FIC instead underpaid him to the tune of $80,000 in owed wages and fired him and terminated his management rights without proper cause—canceling his family’s health insurance in the process. Stec voluntarily dismissed his case 29 days after filing it.*

That year, Bishop also was involved in a lawsuit against a group of businessmen who were accused of engaging in an “active conspiracy” to defraud a 78-year-old Mary Rudolph, who was recovering from heart surgery, according to the lawsuit. 

Bishop represented two of the businessmen involved in the case, as well as the company Rudolph co-owned, Beacon Independent Living LLC, in a counterclaim against Rudolph. Bishop’s firm withdrew less than three months after taking on the case, and he did not defend the plaintiff’s business partner or the person who took control of the business while the case played out. After Bishop’s firm withdrew, parties agreed to dismiss the case entirely. 

The New Republic contacted Bishop’s office for comment on his legal history, but he did not respond by time of publication.

It’s possible that Bishop’s career is merely the result of meeting the obligation of a good lawyer and representing all manner of clients. But it could also be an indication of the people he actually intends to protect if elected attorney general. And if that’s the case, then North Carolinians will pay the highest cost.

State attorneys general have a tremendous influence over how laws are implemented and prosecuted. And over the past two years, an increasing number of attorneys generals have wielded outsized influence and power, protecting the privileged while pushing through cruel regulations that target some of the most vulnerable communities.

* This article originally misstated the status of Jeffrey R. Stec v. Fuzion Investment Capital, LLC, et al., which was dismissed in March 2011. This article has also been updated for clarity.

Independent presidential candidate Cornel West is trying to collect signatures to get as many state ballots as possible, and if he succeeds in North Carolina, it might be thanks to Republican operatives.

NBC News reports that the Justice for All Party, which is supporting West, authorized three people to collect signatures who either work for or used to work for Blitz Canvassing, a Republican political firm. The firm has supported numerous Republican House and Senate candidates, as well as former presidential candidate Ron DeSantis.

A West campaign spokesperson said the campaign wasn’t aware that the three were connected to a Republican firm and did “not have any specific comments since we are not familiar with them or their affiliations.”

The NBC report also noted that a high amount of West’s signatures in the state came from Republican-voting counties, even though West considers himself a socialist advocating pro-Palestine policies. In April, a Republican activist was captured on video gathering signatures for West outside a Trump rally in Wilmington, North Carolina.

“This helps take away votes from Joe Biden,” the activist told one person at the rally, according to a video posted to X (formerly Twitter) by a Washington Post reporter. “We’re helping the Trump team who’s trying to get him on there,” added a woman by his side.

NBC also obtained petition signatures submitted by the Justice for All Party showing that several registered Republicans signed petitions to get West on the ballot on the same day as the Trump rally and in the same county.

West is not alone among third-party candidates for receiving help from Republicans in order to serve as a spoiler in the 2024 presidential election. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has received most of his campaign contributions from conservatives, has been praised by Donald Trump, and has had conservatives opposed to Biden serving as his advisers. (Unfortunately, that assistance has led Republicans to start worrying that he could hurt Trump in the end.)

West’s campaign has been criticized as a vanity effort likely to have a spoiler effect on Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, if it has any effect at all. Describing the 2024 election, he’s said, “Neofascists like brother Trump or milquetoast neoliberals like brother Biden? Wow, I’m so happy to make a world-shaking decision.” In August, a Daily Beast investigation found that he owed $543,778.78 in unpaid taxes.

A collective of far-right media figures have launched a militia—and like any serious militarized group of extremist quacks, they’re recruiting on Instagram, according to a new report from researchers at media watchdog Media Matters for America.

Dubbed “North American Patriot and Liberty Militia,” or “NAPALM” for short, the group is led by people whose names you’re better off not remembering, such as white supremacist conspiracy theorist Stew Peters, who, between naps in the tanning bed, spends his days screaming at a camera that “Jews control media” and “diversity isn’t America’s strength” while directing his viewers to buy guns.

Joining Stew Peters—whose name matches his mind perfectly if you say it very quickly—is QAnon-loving podcaster Ann Vandersteel, right-wing radio host Pete Santilli, who routinely threatens public officials with violence (how else do you get enough listeners to turn ad revenue?), and former Fox host Rochelle Richardson, who still goes by “Silk” of the MAGA duo “Diamond and Silk,” even though it disbanded after Diamond died. Joining the media blabbernauts are a man so obsessed with violence he was banned from running for office and a woman who was involved in the 2022 ultracringe “People’s Convoy”—an anti-vax protest where conspiracy theorists and QAnon adherents literally drove around in circles while living in a parking lot.

While any calls for far-right mobilizing around violence is cause for concern, “NAPALM” looks at first blush to be a QVC-rebrand of the Oath Keepers, itself a deeply embarrassing movement endeared by former cops and retired military desperate to find meaning by cosplaying as G.I. Joes instead of discussing their midlife crises to a licensed therapist. On announcing its creation, the group’s website claims to already have “300+ local chapters” and “over 20,000+ members” spanning “active sheriffs, former military, farmers, and pastors.”

The group also insists, in defiance of reality and for the feds, who are most definitely watching, “This is not a fringe / extremist group.” Shortly after Media Matters published its article announcing the group’s use of Instagram to recruit, Instagram nuked—or should I say napalmed—their account, as recruiting for militias and extremist groups is strictly against Meta’s terms of service.

Fans of 11-time Grammy Award–winning singer Dolly Parton came to her aid this week, in response to a tacky, homophobic hit piece published by a right-wing magazine.

The Federalist is a conservative outlet that has previously taken aim at Taylor Swift, accusing her of indoctrinating her listeners into man-hating feminism, a thinly veiled grievance about their inability to control the thoughts of young women. Now it’s taken aim at the Queen of Country herself, likely for much the same reason.

The newest article took issue with Parton using her Christian faith as a rationale for her acceptance of all people, including those who identify as LGBTQ+.

“Parton’s version of love, which includes condoning immoral sexual behavior, (be who you are she said), is unaligned with God’s vision for humanity,” the author wrote, going on to compare Parton to a secular leader spreading “false gospel.”

Trying to cut down such a beloved figure and awarded philanthropist is pretty ridiculous, and especially ironic for a publication that previously published an article pushing for her to be the next president of the United States.

The publication of this wildly homophobic tirade was timed to hitch a ride on the wave of attention Parton has received since announcing her new musical, Hello, I’m Dolly! Now, as one user on X declared, “they came for Dolly. we ride at dawn.”

Users warned conservatives not to hurt themselves, dying on a hill against the army of the Backwoods Barbie. “If you ever doubted that MAGA is a suicide cult, they’re coming after Dolly Parton. Kool-aid can’t be far behind,” wrote one user.

“Folks, a land war in Asia is the SECOND biggest blunder anyone can make. The first? Coming for Dolly Parton,” wrote another.

A different user simply proclaimed, “No. You do not come after Dolly Parton. You absolutely do not.”

Hundreds of X users joined in a chorus of support for their beautiful, blonde, big-haired leader. At the end of the day, old homophobes can’t hold a candle to the influence of stars like Parton—no one can light up the masses like they do. And as the old Parton adage goes: “A loose tongue can lead to broken teeth.”

Lawyers representing Southwest Airlines no longer have to undergo “religious liberty training” from a far-right Christian hate group, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, overturning a ruling from August. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the training would likely violate the lawyers’ constitutional rights and exceed the court’s authority. Three Republican judges sat on the panel making the decision, two of whom were appointed by Donald Trump.

Last year, a federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ordered three senior lawyers for the airline to take eight hours of training from the Alliance Defending Freedom as part of sanctions resulting from a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by a former flight attendant.

The attendant, Charlene Carter, sued Southwest for firing her in 2017 after she sent anti-abortion messages to her union’s former president. Carter argued she had been discriminated against based on her religious beliefs, and U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr ruled in her favor, ordering she be reinstated. Starr also ordered Southwest to issue a statement to its employees saying that the airline “may not” engage in religious discrimination against them.

When Southwest said that it “does not” do so, Carter demanded additional sanctions against the company, to which Starr responded by requiring the religious liberty training. Why Starr brought in the ADF is unclear, as they weren’t representing Carter and had no involvement in the case whatsoever.

The Alliance Defending Freedom is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for advocating laws promoting discrimination against LBGTQ people. ADF recently represented the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case 303 Creative v. Elenis, where a web designer sued to have the right to refuse services to LGBTQ people based on an entirely fabricated premise. The group has also fought against reproductive rights, helping to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Charlatan Comer was caught yet again doing something he’s criticized Biden for. In a desperate attempt to impeach Biden, the House Oversight chair has long accused Biden of using pseudonymous emails to dodge public records and help obscure his involvement in his messy son’s chaos. In a pristine example of “every accusation is a confession” theory, it turns out Comer did exactly that.

While serving as Kentucky’s commissioner of agriculture, Comer sent numerous emails using pseudonyms. Two Kentucky government email accounts named for Comer’s son, Harlan—who at the time was just 7 years old—were uncovered by The Daily Beast during a records request related to Comer’s 2014 marijuana mishap exposed earlier this week.

One email to an aide with the Kentucky Department of Agriculture purportedly sent from the 7-year-old reads, “I’ll touch base with you today about Hemp. Some things have happened over night [sic] with respect to hemp so we may be growing it this year.” Though kids sometimes pick up odd hobbies, The New Republic was unable to find any evidence that Harlan was growing hemp in his early childhood, let alone sending emails to state agencies.

Other emails were signed to “Jamie”—an incredibly uninventive pseudonym for someone who has gone by Jamie throughout his life—with an automated “Sent from my iPhone” signature. A spokesperson for Comer rebuffed queries into the emails, claiming all of Comer’s emails were “monitored and maintained” by staff, which naturally begs the question as to why staff for Comer were handling emails related to his private business dealings with a Chinese company.

“As the Commissioner of Agriculture, Congressman Comer’s email accounts were solely monitored and maintained by staff,” the unnamed spokesperson told The Daily Beast. “All communications are publicly available through the Kentucky Open Records Act.”

Given his lackluster aptitude for creativity, it’s no wonder Comer reached so close to home to find things to lob at Biden. If that’s the case, we can reasonably expect to hear Comer claim Biden abused his college girlfriend.

Not even California Representative Nancy Pelosi believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should address Congress.

Speaking to CNN on Friday, the former House speaker said that it was “wrong” to invite Netanyahu, and that she would “absolutely not” have invited him if she were still leading the chamber.

“Frankly, I didn’t approve of his being invited the last time, but the Speaker just on his own invited him without consulting the rest of the leadership,” Pelosi said, recalling when former House Speaker John Boehner called on Netanyahu to address Congress in 2015. “And he came, and he criticized President Obama for the masterful work that he had done with the nuclear agreement regarding Iran to stop them from developing a nuclear weapon.

“And I thought it was completely inappropriate,” she continued. “I feel very sad that he has been invited. But who knows, by then will he still be prime minister?”

“Everything I read is they’re unhappy about this, they’re unhappy about that,” Pelosi said, referring to Benny Gantz, the Israeli minister without portfolio who has given Netanyahu an ultimatum: Adopt Gantz’s party’s objectives by Saturday or witness the National Unity Party’s exit from government. “I wish that he would be a statesman and do what is right for Israel.”

Pelosi then quickly rotated through her usual positions on the conflict: advocating for a two-state solution, decrying Hamas as a “terrorist organization” that is “dedicated to the destruction of Israel,” and lamenting that the hostages are not free and that the “people of Gaza are suffering.”

“We need to help them and not have him stand in the way of that for such a long time,” Pelosi said. “I think it’s going to invite more of what we have seen in terms of discontent among our own people about what’s happening there.”

Pelosi’s comments are a surprising shift for the California Democrat, who has been unyielding in her support for Israel. In January, she came under fire for accusing pro-Palestine protesters of having ties to Russia and the Kremlin.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas amended his previous financial disclosures Friday, retroactively acknowledging that the lavish trips he had taken in 2019 were financed by the Republican megadonor, billionaire real estate developer, and Nazi memorabilia collector Harlan Crow.

The expenses were first revealed last year in a series of investigations by ProPublica that found the conservative justice had been pocketing favors from Crow in a number of ways, including private school tuition for his nephew; the renovation of the home where his mother still lives; and undisclosed trips on the billionaire’s yacht, private jet, and at his private resort.

The annual financial disclosures are one of the few insights into the private lives of the nation’s highest judiciary. In his 2023 report, Thomas included an unusual addendum, defending his decision to accept luxurious gifts from Crow while admitting that he had “inadvertently omitted” details about the favors on his previous disclosures, blaming the leaked Roe v. Wade decision for his reasoning to avoid commercial air travel.

“Because of the increased security risk following the Dobbs opinion leak, the May flights were by private plane for official travel as filer’s security detail recommended noncommercial travel whenever possible,” Thomas wrote at the time.

The court, which had long avoided the kinds of formal ethics regulations imposed on lower courts due to its special constitutional status, implemented its first ethics code in November—in part to respond to public scrutiny over the undocumented gifts embraced by Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, who failed to report a luxury fishing vacation to Alaska with hedge fund billionaire ​​Paul Singer in 2008.