Panicking Trump Loses It Over FBI Director’s Bullet Injury Testimony

Donald Trump is seriously pissed that FBI Director Christopher Wray is asking questions about what really happened during the attempted assassination of the former president.

While appearing before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday, Wray testified about the agency’s ongoing investigation into the deadly shooting at a Trump rally almost two weeks ago. Wray said it was still unclear what had caused the injury Trump suffered to his ear, whether a bullet or a piece of shrapnel from a teleprompter.

Trump, who began claiming within hours of the attack that he’d been struck by a bullet, didn’t like that one bit. He said as much in a rant on Truth Social Thursday night, which took aim at Wray (whom Trump appointed) specifically.

“FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress yesterday that he wasn’t sure if I was hit by shrapnel, glass, or a bullet (the FBI never even checked!), but he was sure that Crooked Joe Biden was physically and cognitively ‘uneventful’—Wrong!” Trump wrote.

“That’s why he knows nothing about the terrorists and other criminals pouring into our Country at record levels. His only focus is destroying J6 Patriots, Raiding Mar-a-Lago, and saving Radical Left Lunatics, like the ones now in D.C. burning American flags and spray painting over our great National Monuments—with zero retribution,” Trump continued.

In the nearly two weeks since the attack, Trump’s team has not released an official medical report on Trump’s injury, only a memo from Trump’s former White House physician, Texas Representative Ronny Jackson. Still, Trump has continued to double down on his claims that it had been a bullet that grazed his ear.

“No, it was, unfortunately, a bullet that hit my ear, and hit it hard. There was no glass, there was no shrapnel. The hospital called it a ‘bullet wound to the ear,’ and that is what it was. No wonder the once storied FBI has lost the confidence of America!” Trump wrote Thursday.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is fighting back against Donald Trump’s move to throw out his hush-money convictions.

After the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity for “official acts” last month, Trump asked the state of New York to throw out his 34 felony convictions. Bragg’s office replied with a legal filing of its own asking the state to reject Trump’s bid, arguing that even if official acts were excluded, they were “only a sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof” the jury saw before voting to convict Trump.

The filing, made public Thursday, stated that the evidence Trump’s lawyers are challenging isn’t protected, citing a footnote in the Supreme Court’s ruling that includes a “public records exception” for introducing evidence from protected official acts. Even if protected evidence was introduced, “any error was harmless in light of other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.”

“The Supreme Court has long recognized that a President can act in an unofficial, personal capacity,” the filing, written by Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo, states. “Nothing in the Court’s recent immunity decision changes that basic fact.… This case involved evidence of defendant’s personal conduct, not his official acts.”

In May, Trump was convicted of falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime in the first degree by using his former fixer Michael Cohen to sweep an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels under the rug before the 2016 presidential election. He has long alleged that the case, along with his other criminal and civil cases, is part of a plot against him by those opposed to his presidency.

Judge Juan Merchan is expected to rule on Trump’s immunity in early September. If he rules in favor of the district attorney’s office, sentencing for Trump’s conviction will take place on September 18, possibly leading to the first prison sentence ever for a former president.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks Elon Musk shouldn’t throw stones in a glass house.

When Ocasio-Cortez pointed out Wednesday that the more than 100 empty seats in Congress were being filled by nonmembers “in order to project the appearance of full attendance and support” at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech, Musk took it upon himself to attack the politician.

Musk must have been feeling personally offended, as he was one of those butts in seats, having been personally invited to Capitol Hill by Netanyahu.

“The Democratic Party has become openly & boldly antisemitic,” he replied to Ocasio-Cortez.

Ocasio-Cortez was quick to point out that Musk should probably be careful with accusations of antisemitism, considering his repeated enabling of antisemites on his social media platform. She posted a screenshot of a Wall Street Journal article about Musk agreeing with a post last year stating that Jewish people hold a “dialectical hatred” of white people.

“Hmm 🤔 sometimes being quiet is free and good for you,” Ocasio-Cortez responded.

At the time of the incident last year, the Anti-Defamation League said Musk was using his “influence to validate and promote antisemitic theories.”

In response, Musk doubled down. “I am deeply offended by ADL’s messaging and any other groups who push de facto anti-white racism or anti-Asian racism or racism of any kind,” he said. “I’m sick of it. Stop now.”

Similarly, even after getting embarrassed by Ocasio-Cortez, Musk continued to post about it late into the night. “People who have been lifelong Democrats refuse to accept the clear reality that the Democratic Party is rapidly become openly antisemitic,” Musk wrote. “This trend is accelerating, not slowing down.”

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz called out Senator J.D. Vance for calling Democrats “childless cat ladies” on MSNBC Wednesday night, saying he doesn’t “think it will work” for one big reason.

“My God, they went after ‘cat people,’ good luck with that! Turn on the internet and see what cat people do when you go after ’em,” Walz said, drawing laughter from The 11th Hour’s Stephanie Ruhle. “It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.”

Walz has been discussed as a potential running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris, and endearing himself to cat people is a surefire way to help his chances. He’s not wrong when he talks about the power of cat people on the internet, and he would know: He and his family own an orange and white cat named Honey.

Vance has also been criticized by Democratic lawmakers and even celebrities like Jennifer Aniston, putting him in the internet’s doghouse as Harris’s popularity continues to spawn memes about coconut trees and Charli XCX’s album “Brat.” 

Walz, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, and Senator Mark Kelly are among the many names being discussed as vice presidential candidates. Walz already made a successful appearance on Fox News Tuesday morning, angering Donald Trump. If he keeps landing blows like this against Vance and Trump, he might quickly become the internet’s favorite for V.P., if not Harris’s.

Elon Musk just declared he’d fight Mark Zuckerberg “any place, any time, any rules.” Déjà vu much?

While Musk was at Capitol Hill on Wednesday as a guest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an ABC News reporter asked him if he was still considering fighting the Meta CEO.

Last year, the two tech billionaires floated the idea of a televised fight after Musk tweeted that he would be “up for a cage fight” against Zuckerberg. “I have this great move that I call ‘The Walrus,’ where I just lie on top of my opponent & do nothing,” said Musk at the time.

Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is trained in Brazilian jiujitsu.

The cage fight served as a strange proxy for the feuding tech bosses’ social media companies and additionally distracted from Musk’s billion-dollar losses that year across his portfolio.

After going back and forth for more than a month, determining location and hyping up the event in August, Zuckerberg suddenly said it was “time to move on” from the cage fight idea.

Zuckerberg still seems over the fight idea. “Are we really doing this again?” he wrote Wednesday on Threads, Meta’s response to X (formerly Twitter), in response to a post about Musk’s comment.

Zuckerberg’s disinterested tone is probably representative of how most Americans feel about the fight.

Recently, Musk and Zuckerberg have both spent their free time sucking up to presidential candidate Donald Trump. Musk reportedly pledged to donate $45 million a month to Trump’s campaign, a promise he is now trying to walk back. Zuckerberg said he thought Trump was “badass” when he raised his fist after a bullet grazed his ear.

With these tech billionaires meddling in politics, it begs the question: Can you really fight if you’re on the same team?

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear issued a heartfelt apology Thursday after going “over the line” into divisive politics and simmering culture wars.

“I’ve wanted to make sure that I set the record straight,” he said during a press conference Thursday. “So, I do owe an apology … to Diet Mountain Dew.”

Beshear solemnly pulled out a plastic bottle of the bright green zero-sugar soda.

“Ale8One is definitely the soft drink of Kentucky, but I don’t believe the government should be making your decisions,” Beshear said.

“So, if you enjoy Diet Mountain Dew, uh, you be you. We want to support you. And to Diet Mountain Dew, very sorry. Didn’t mean to say negative things about you. Just remember, I am from here, just like everybody else that’s speaking out.”

Beshear’s trolling comes just days after Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance joked during a rally Monday that Democrats would think it was “racist” that he’d been drinking Diet Mountain Dew. It was an absurd idea that made him laugh really hard, and made plenty of Americans laugh really hard at him.

On Monday, Beshear had robustly condemned Vance’s comment, calling it “weird.”

“Who drinks Diet Mountain Dew?” the Kentucky governor asked on CNN, noting that Vance “ain’t from here.”

Beshear, a popular Democratic leader in an otherwise red state, is in the process of being vetted as a possible running mate, according to the Courier-Journal. In the past week, Beshear has repeatedly gone after Vance for being a “phony,” and seems to be subtly hinting at the Republican’s stance on abortion in his slight about the government “making your decisions” for you.

Meanwhile, Vance has been linked to plenty of ideas that are way more divisive than liking diet soda, but like his running mate Donald Trump, he’s proving to be prone to gaffes as well.

In his appearance on Fox and Friends Thursday morning, Donald Trump proposed that protesters who vandalize the American flag should face jail time.

In light of flag burning that occurred at protests against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress Wednesday, Trump said, “I think you should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag.” His remarks echo those he made as president-elect in 2016 and again amid protests against police brutality in 2020.

Trump went on, “Now people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people. Those are stupid people that say that. We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence.”

Many online were quick to point out that the sainted conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would be among such “stupid people.” Scalia detested flag burning but opposed state coercion against it, joining the majority opinion when the court struck down anti–flag burning laws in 1989 and 1990.

Justifying his idea on Fox, Trump lamented that protesters who burn the flag project a weak image of America to the world, saying, “Putin and President Xi of China, all over the world they’re watching this—Kim Jong Un, he looks at us like we’re a bunch of babies.… That wouldn’t happen in their countries. It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.”

Indeed, such protest would be unthinkable in authoritarian countries like Russia and China, where flag desecration is punishable by imprisonment. But Trump would do well to consider that emulating these countries’ restrictions on symbolic speech, to quote an opinion Scalia joined, would undermine “the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.”

Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance has found himself yet again in hot water, after it was uncovered that he promoted a book decrying progressives as “unhuman,” written by a far-right conspiracy theorist.

Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) was written by the Pizzagate guy, Jack Posobiec, and ghostwriter Joshua Lisec, with a foreword by the recently imprisoned MAGA movement architect Steve Bannon.

The book supposedly tracks the opponents of conservatism throughout history and endorses a modern-day McCarthyism to root out the “radicals” from American institutions. “They don’t believe what they say. They don’t care about winning debates. They don’t even want equality. They just want an excuse to destroy everything. They want an excuse to destroy you,” Posobiec and Lisec wrote.

Vance provided a glowing promotional blurb about the book, which is included on the website of right-wing publisher Skyhorse Publishing, Mother Jones reported Thursday.

“In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people,” wrote Vance. “In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.”

Vance’s endorsement of the book demonstrates just how plugged-in the Ohio Republican is to the extremist, conspiratorial faction of his party.

In addition to run-of-the-mill conservative takes such as election denialism, a conspiracy about big-money backers to Democratic movements, and January 6 apologia, Unhumans veers into the ridiculous when discussing the beliefs of conservatives’ progressive enemies.

“On a base level, unhumans seek the death of the successful and the desecration of the beautiful,” Posobiec and Lisec claimed.

When comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the French Revolution, they wrote: “There is no way to reason with those who manipulate the have-nots en masse to loot and to shoot. They simply hate those who are good-looking and successful.”

Of course, their far-right screed has dark implications. After Trump was indicted in May on 34 criminal charges, Posobiec advocated for violent revolt against progressives. “Take the path of the hunter, and with one singular voice, we are going to make them the prey,” he said.

Since accepting the nomination at the Republican National Convention last week, Vance has been consistently embroiled in controversy over his past statements, including his blatantly sexist comment about “childless cat ladies” and humiliating rumors about having sex with a couch.

Beneath it all, Vance is still part of the intellectual “new right” movement, influenced by pronatalism, techno-authoritarianism, and conservative economic populism. Evidently, his reading list also includes extremist, conspiratorial material—if he even bothered to read it, before lending his name to it. Either way, Vance gave Posobiec, and all of his dangerous and ridiculous ideas, a boost.

On Fox News Thursday morning, Donald Trump had a weird instruction for his supporters: they don’t have to vote.

“My instruction: We don’t need the votes, I have so many votes,” Trump said on Fox & Friends before going on a rant about how much support he has in Florida.

Trump’s message was preceded by talking about how his campaign had lawyers at “every poll booth,” suggesting that he thinks that he can legally get the election outcome he wants. He said something similar in October, too, when he told supporters at a New Hampshire rally, “You don’t have to vote, don’t worry about voting. The voting—we got plenty of votes.”

At that time, Trump also told his supporters to “get out there and watch those voters!” If he’s using the same words now, it could mean that he wants to encourage voter intimidation at the polls. It would go with the new Republican Party platform he’s pushed, which makes veiled threats to “secure our elections.”

It’s another example of how Trump and MAGA are attempting to undermine faith in the coming election. Trump lost the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020, so he might be making a preemptive strike at the legitimacy of the results should he lose the popular vote a third time. Still, it’s not clear why he’s telling his supporters not to vote at all. Perhaps it’s another example of the former president and convicted felon’s cognitive decline.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has chosen cruelty, emboldened by the conservative Supreme Court.  

Following the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision on Grants Pass v. Johnson in June, which essentially criminalized homelessness, Newsom issued an executive order Thursday for the removal of homeless encampments throughout his state. 

Newsom urged local governments to destroy the encampments, where tens of thousands of unsheltered Californians live, “with urgency and dignity.”

“We are done,” said Newsom. “It’s time to move with urgency to clean up these sites.”

California accounts for nearly one-third of all people experiencing homelessness in the country, and 49 percent of unsheltered people, or those sleeping without a roof over their head, per federal data.

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, cities and localities were supposed to provide an offer to shelter, and have available shelter beds, before clearing homeless encampments. Now an offer to shelter is not necessary before cops and bulldozers roll in. 

According to a January 2023 point-in-time count, which often undercounts the number of homeless people, California had approximately 180,000 homeless individuals and roughly 70,000 beds available, meaning that 110,000 people had nowhere to go. 

In Thursday’s press release, Newsom directed agencies to follow the “blueprint” set by the California Department of Transportation’s, or Caltrans, existing encampment policy, which has “resolved more than 11,000 encampments” since 2021. Newsom claims that Caltrans will store personal property cleared during the encampment for a limited period of time. But a recent investigation from Type Investigations shows that, in reality, it is nearly impossible for homeless people to recover their stolen belongings. 

Meanwhile, private contractors can make millions of dollars clearing a single camp. 

This executive order is exactly what homeless advocates and unhoused people feared would happen following the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

It’s not clear if all localities will follow Newsom’s order. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, for instance, has shown hesitancy to further criminalize the homeless following the Grants Pass decision. 

“This ruling must not be used as an excuse for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail,” she said. 

Meanwhile, San Francisco Mayor London Breed cheered on the ruling, saying the city planned to be “very aggressive and assertive in moving encampments.” Similarly (and horrifyingly), the Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris warned, “I’m warming up the bulldozer.”