Whose Fault Was The Attack On Trump? - Former CIA Agent Mike Baker
Watch on YouTubeVideo summary
Former CIA agent Mike Baker characterizes the assassination attempt on Donald Trump primarily as a logistical and security protocol failure rather than an intelligence lapse, noting that while investigations are ongoing in Washington D.C., early observations suggest a series of compounded mistakes led to the breach. The core issue appears to be a breakdown in command and control between the Secret Service, which holds primacy within its designated perimeter, and local law enforcement agencies like Butler County police who controlled areas outside it but lacked coordination with counter-sniper teams on rooftops. Baker points out that despite Trump's status as a presumptive nominee facing significant threats from groups upset over past actions under his administration, the security package may have been diluted by an over-reliance on contractors and local officers rather than fully vetted Secret Service agents. He argues that standard protocols should not change based on election cycles alone, yet resources are often stretched thin during heated political seasons, leading to gaps in coverage where line-of-sight positions were left unmonitored or inadequately staffed. The discussion extends beyond operational mechanics to the broader toxic discourse surrounding both candidates and how inflammatory rhetoric may have contributed to the violence. Baker highlights that demonizing opponents using extreme analogies—such as comparing Trump to Hitler—or focusing relentlessly on President Biden's cognitive frailty creates an environment where irrational actors can take hyperbole literally, potentially motivating attacks. He notes that while some media outlets attempted to downplay or mischaracterize events immediately after the shooting, platforms like X (formerly Twitter) proved more effective in providing real-time, unfiltered information compared to mainstream news cycles. This transparency allowed for a clearer view of Trump's resilience as he stood up and encouraged his supporters despite being shot, creating a stark visual contrast with Biden's perceived weakness during their recent debate. Baker suggests this imagery could shift undecided voters who were previously focused on policy but had abandoned the campaign due to fatigue with chaos or concerns about leadership capability. Political ramifications are analyzed through the lens of how both parties might respond in the coming months leading up to November and beyond. The incident has effectively silenced much of the drumbeat regarding Biden's fitness for office, making it politically difficult for Democrats within Congress to push harder for his removal without appearing insensitive or inconsistent given the recent attack on Trump. Conversely, Republicans face pressure to avoid exploiting the tragedy excessively while leveraging the powerful "victim card" that Trump now holds after surviving an assassination attempt and a legal conviction. Baker also touches upon the selection of J.D. Vance as Donald Trump's running mate, viewing him as someone who shares the base but lacks experience in winning over moderates or independents compared to alternatives like Marco Rubio. He emphasizes that future security enhancements will likely involve increased scrutiny on threat assessments for all candidates, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose recent approval of a Secret Service detail signals a shift toward acknowledging legitimate campaign threats regardless of political affiliation. Finally, Baker addresses the human and institutional elements involved in such high-stakes environments, criticizing what he sees as misplaced priorities like diversity initiatives that might compromise operational standards or training rigor necessary for life-or-death situations. He recounts specific details about agents fumbling with weapons due to physical differences rather than lack of skill, arguing that capability should always supersede demographic quotas when selecting personnel for executive protection roles. The episode concludes by reflecting on the importance of accountability at all levels—from individual officers making split-second decisions under fire to agency leadership ensuring robust communication systems and adequate staffing. Baker stresses that rebuilding public trust requires transparency from agencies like DHS and the Secret Service, admitting failures openly rather than deflecting blame onto lower-level employees or external factors. Ultimately, he hopes this tragedy will serve as a grim reminder for everyone involved in executive protection to remain vigilant against complacency while striving to restore civility and focus on substantive policy debates ahead of the election.
Read the full video transcript
How big of an intelligence failure was
this?
Well, it's you have to think of it more
as a logistical failure as opposed to an
intelligence failure. This was a a
breakdown in in what should be very
standard security protocols. And look,
the Secret Service does that very well,
but clearly, right? And you always have
to I I I'd caveat this with one thing.
You have to always wait for an
investigation to to finish, right?
They're they're currently in the middle
of their own investigation as to what
the hell happened. Um and obviously, as
soon as this happens, everybody on
social media is an executive protection
expert, right? So, everybody's talking
about, you know, exactly how this
happened. Well, well, you know, what
they I I so I think it's important not
to get out over your skis, but in a
situation like this, clearly, it would
be insane to say that there weren't uh
failures, there weren't breakdowns here.
And even people with no experience can
can look at this and say, "I'm sorry,
how how did you not have somebody up on
top of a roof that had line of sight to
the stage, to the rally event?" Uh and
so,
typically, look, when when something
like this happens, and I I've done
countless, you know, advanced plannings
and security assessments and risk and
threat assessments and and and
typically, when something happens like
this,
it's not one thing, right? It's it's a
it's a series of of mistakes or missteps
that compound and then you end up with
this this goat rope that never should
have happened.
Um so,
they're doing an investigation. Uh
Congress, of course, has called for an
investigation. I wouldn't expect
anything to come from that. Um because
Washington D.C. is where all
investigations go to die. And
but the uh the bureaus is involved. Uh
Secret Service obviously doing in own
hot wash.
Uh and they sit underneath the
Department of Homeland Security.
You know, so if DHS does a review, fine.
But there's so much video footage of
this, right? And it happened in real
time with so many people watching, and
so many different angles
that
I think in this case, unlike sometimes,
sometimes you get investigations of a of
a of an event and you don't get much
transparency, right? Because internally
they're trying to figure out okay, how
do we improve this? Well, you don't want
to have necessarily talk about all that
activities because you're informing
people who might have nefarious intent.
But here
it was it was clear for everyone to see
that there was a significant number of
issues and problems.
Whose responsibility who does the buck
ultimately stop with when we're talking
about this? Homeland Security, Secret
Service, local law enforcement?
Well, I think what you're going to find
likely is First of all, in terms of who
has primacy on the ground, it's the
Secret Service, right?
So, they established a security
perimeter
and then according to at least early
reports and what what Secret Service is
saying is then they designated local law
enforcement as having control outside
that designated security zone, which
included the building where the shooter
uh
took up position.
But
that's you know, ultimately it's the
Secret Service's responsibility. So
they should have obviously said, "Okay,
so what are you doing in relation to
those buildings that have line of
sight?" And if local law enforcement had
said, "Well, we've got a We've got a
couple of unarmed officers that are
patrolling the ground
and you know, interacting with the
attendees out on the ground." Then you'd
say, "Okay, well, how about you give me
a state trooper or one of your local
officers up on that rooftop and that one
over there, any building, right?
That's got a line of sight.
Uh and you post somebody up there, just
cover it down.
That's Secret Service's ultimate
responsibility, even if you know,
theoretically, okay, on paper, this area
over here is under the control of local
authorities.
So, there is a procedural problem,
there's a command and control problem,
there's a communications problem during
the course of this rally.
I think you'll also find there was some
uh, command and control issues in terms
of the ability for the sniper or the
counter-sniper team on site, and they
had a couple of them up there. Um,
to act, right? And there was probably, I
don't know this, I'm speculating, right?
But I'm speculating based on experience
from past events,
that, you know, there may have been a
lag time in getting the, you know, the
the go no-go figured out in terms of
taking a shot on the on the target.
Uh, there may have been problems at the
top of Secret Service in terms of what
did they allow for as a security package
for former President Trump. When you say
that, you mean the uh, number and
quality of the people that were on the
ground? Yeah, you've got a kind of got a
standard, you know, former president
security package, uh, because they get
coverage for life after they they finish
their their time.
And
you could easily argue
that perhaps the package for Trump,
given that he's now the presumptive
nominee for the November election, that
clearly he
he draws a lot of heat. Should have been
beefed Should have been beefed up.
Should have been beefed up. And look,
also, look, hey, hey, it was under
the Trump administration when, you know,
we tagged Soleimani. Um, and the
Iranians and their various proxies are
still very upset about that, and we know
that they've been looking at various
opportunities to try to target
individuals they feel responsible. So,
there were a variety of reasons why you
could look and go, "Yeah, the package
for for for former President Trump needs
to be more robust
than say what we're would normally
allocate." And so, that may be I don't
know I'm not saying it is. I'm just
saying that may be an issue where now
you've got more of a of a of a
procedural problem with management,
right?
Um and then you've got the whole other
issue of just general discourse. If you
demonize somebody
on either side and call them Hitler,
um
fascist, you know, intent on destroying
democracy,
um
a a
a threat to the nation as President
Biden's referred to him even the day
before the shooting,
um
you're probably,
you know, inciting some irrational
person who, you know, may not be able to
process all that as hyperbole, right?
Yeah, they're going to take it
literally. This is a point that Tulsi
Gabbard made where she said that how can
you expect someone to not try and stop
Hitler if you keep calling them Hitler?
Would you not go back in time and try
and kill Hitler? And if literally Hitler
there was a magazine that had him
looking like the few A number of
magazines that have had him basically in
the same um
poster style that Adolf Hitler did in
the past, you know, how many more
analogies do you need to draw? And it's
one of these things where until the
repercussions and the consequences of
doing that become kinetic, everyone
thinks that it's just a lot. Well,
Trump's bombastic, he's gregarious, he
says crazy things. We need to push back
with the same sort of technology that he
uses, which is words and and and
imagery.
Uh and then someone takes it up a notch.
Yeah, look, I mean it's it's it's clear
and people always say, "Ah, it's
whataboutism." But it's clear it's it's
a problem on both sides, right? On the
on the edges of both sides there's all
this rhetoric and hyperbole. So, there's
no doubt about that, but you're right.
Look, if the New Republican, that was
one of the magazines that had the the
sort of this propaganda poster of of
Trump as Hitler.
They're throwing these things out there
and
I think rational people look at that and
go, "Okay, well, man, that's over the
top. It's rhetoric, hyperbole. I I get
it. You guys are using this as a
campaign strategy." But, there are a lot
of people out there who aren't going to
process it that way. Yeah. And disappear
down these rabbit holes. So, there's a
there's a lot of layers here. So, when
you say who's responsible, you know, it
depends on at what
altitude level of magnification you want
to look at it from. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Where does the Where does the domino
begin? One of the things that I did read
was that there was a lot of Homeland
Security contractors on site as opposed
to Secret Service agents. That there was
a more heavy reliance on local law
enforcement than you would have done
typically. I'm going to guess that this
is
the package that security detail
packages you mentioned
just being more diluted than it should
be. You have some talent and then some
of the talent I guess is questionable
based on the video footage.
But, then you also have this sort of
the outer regions which are maybe not
even more as competent and more of that
was done by contractors and more of that
was done by local law enforcement than
typical. Yeah, look, the election
season, any election season, right? But,
particularly now when everything's so
heated and and both sides have been
lobbing hand grenades at each other for
quite some time.
It's it's a difficult time for Secret
Service, right? They're just they're
they're stretched.
You know,
thin because there's so much to do and
they and their resources are working
constantly. So, yes, they draw on, but
they typically draw on even, you know,
when when it's not an election season,
they draw on local authorities.
And there was a significant presence at
the rally of Butler County
police.
And
you know, there's going to be some other
issues about, you know, there was an
encounter between one of those police
officers who, you know, attempted to go
up and interact with the shooter and
then, you know, um didn't when the
shooter pointed a gun at him.
Uh and then, you know, the the the
firing started shortly thereafter, but
look, there's a real breakdown there,
right? Because
you've got a moment where obviously this
guy has enough time to go to the
building, try to get up to the top of
the building to interact. Where are the
comms with the with the, you know,
counter sniper team saying,
"I'm going up on the top of the building
to interact with somebody who apparently
has a weapon because lots of people on
the ground saw him and alerted the
authorities." So, there's there's again,
as I mentioned, it's it's never just one
thing. It's a series of of problems
usually that contribute to a security
breakdown. It's interesting. I get what
you mean about during an election cycle
there's more people, more places, more
checks need to be done, but it's not
like you don't know this. Right. You
know reliably it's going to happen in 4
years time and 4 years after that and 4
years after that. So, all of this could
have been prepared for in advance,
whether it's training, whether it's
recruitment, whether it's
whatever you need in terms of staffing.
I remember reading not so long ago as
well after Trump's indictment,
conviction, whatever it is,
uh that there'd been some suggestion to
completely rescind
the security detail from him or at the
very least to dial it back as some kind
of recompense that he needed to pay for
now being a felon. Exactly. Yeah, that
was there was a move in in Congress by
uh
Uh I think it was
uh Congressman uh
Jeffries maybe. I I I don't want to get
caught with the wrong name, but um
one or a handful had I think kind of
floated the idea that well, probably
somebody
who's been convicted shouldn't have
Secret Service protection. It's an
asinine idea. I mean, it was a
completely asinine idea because he's
still a former president and he's still
the presumptive nominee, but they were
trying to score some political points,
right? And that's and that's been part
of the problem. You get you're getting a
lot of dysfunctional and irrational
behavior because um
you know, the an element within the
Democrat Party has this this uh I I
don't even know how to describe that the
the hatred for Trump. But then again, on
the on the right side on the extreme
right, obviously you've got the same
sort of rhetoric that goes and and and
demonizes the Democrats and Biden and
all this. It just
it
uh it's not a it's not a good place for
the nation to be, obviously, given what
can happen and what we saw happen on
Saturday.
It's I think at least at the moment a
little bit asymmetric that only one side
has control over how much protection an
ex-president gets. And you know, it's so
it just seems to me it it it seems to me
like the amount of protection should be
proportionate to the potential threat.
And you know, regardless of
whether you like or don't like Trump,
he's a pretty big target. I mean, you
know you
you don't need to do much to Biden to
cause him to fall over, but you know,
Trump's a a much much larger target.
I'm going to let that one go.
Um
but yeah, no, you're not you're not
wrong.
And that's why you do
risk and threat assessments on a
constant basis, right? Because the
risks, the threats, they change.
They can increase, they can decrease,
and you're always doing that. Whether
you're talking about executive
protection,
you know, for a political candidate,
whether you're talking about, you know,
what sort of level of protection you
provide to a facility or it doesn't
matter. So, you're absolutely right, and
they should have been looking at this.
Now, they they did say that they there
there has been some comment that the
Secret Service did
heavy up the the security package to
some degree back in June, I believe, for
for Trump. Um but it's only now that
they've approved
Secret Service protection for Robert F.
Kennedy, right? And Yeah. you know,
that's an indication that really what
the Democrats wanted was they just
wanted him to go away. They didn't want
They almost didn't want to acknowledge
that Kennedy was a a candidate out
there. Uh, dude, so I've been to I went
to dinner with an with RFK at a friend's
house maybe about a year ago, then I
went to uh,
rally thing of his in Austin about 6
months ago, and then I went to another
meet-up with him about 2 months ago. And
at each one of those, he's made it very,
very plain, I have no security detail. I
have no
uh, extra special care from the
government despite the fact that I come
from the most assassinated family in
American political history. Yeah, it was
insane. It it were you know, and it has
been and I but I do think it was a it
was essentially for a very
uh, political reason, which was we don't
want to acknowledge that he's a
candidate, we just want him to go away.
Can you I mean, you know, And giving
giving him the detail is almost like a
stamp of approval in some way. This is a
legitimate person.
it's it's it's it's kind of that
formalizing of his candidacy in a way,
right? It's a lot of people process it
that way. They see the Secret Service
detail and they imagine, you know, okay,
he's a presidential candidate, right?
And And they were so afraid of him
taking oxygen out of the room. Um, but
now as a result of what happened on
Saturday, they've they've uh, reviewed,
I assume they're going to, you know,
increase the package for uh, President
Trump. They've approved a package for
for uh, Robert F. Kennedy. Um, you know,
they've been looking at I'm I'm in
Milwaukee where they have the Republican
National Convention there. You know,
they immediately got on the ground here
and started reviewing uh, the security.
Go figure. I mean, that should have been
done. Look, this is not There's There's
There's a a methodology here, right? And
you can have little bits and pieces that
that change based on what the event is,
but the standard practice, the standard
protocols really don't change that much.
And so, more than anything, there were
there was a command and control and a
communications breakdown between Secret
Service and and local authorities that I
would I I I believe an investigation is
going to prove contributed mightily to
what happened on Saturday. What will the
process from here internally be to
investigate? I imagine it's just going
to be a [ __ ] nightmare to try and
work out who's culpable, what happened,
how's this going to occur, whilst also
doing the investigation, which requires
resources from the very thing that
you're trying to now beef up given the
failure that just occurred during a time
when you need them more than ever, but
also that time is trying to be split
working out what the [ __ ] happened.
Yeah. Well, that Yeah, and you raise a
really good point and that's where
that's where a congressional
investigation can really kind of muck up
the works get in the way because, you
know, they you know, they they get out
there and they start sucking up oxygen
that really needs to be spent uh you
know,
doing operations. But uh look, it's
important uh right after after this
go rogue uh you know, internally Secret
Service was doing a hot wash. What's
this mate? Stop using these words. What
do you mean?
Oh, I mean, they were they were
basically just uh doing a after-action
review of
you know, what happened immediately in
the aftermath of this thing. Um but
there's a lot of moving parts as you
pointed out. Look, it's there's DHS
personnel, there's the local law
enforcement. Um
it's not a good sign that so soon after
this event there's already some finger
pointing going on
um saying, "Well, that was their zone
um not ours."
Butler County saying, "Well, that's you
know, doesn't matter. Secret Service has
primacy, so they should, you know, be
telling us what to do in a sense." So,
that's not necessarily a good
indication.
Um
but, you know, I think this thing has
got to play out in uh in public in part
because
you know, government agencies, whether
it's a Secret Service or the Bureau, or
CIA, whatever, they, you know, they
they've lost a lot of credibility, um,
which is kind of a painful thing to
admit. Um,
but they've lost a lot of credibility
over the recent past, and so,
you know, one of those things, one of
those ways I think you build back some
level of trust is to be more
transparent. And and again, they don't
have anything to lose because everybody
They're starting at zero. Yeah, they're
starting
Well, I meant I meant because everybody
was watching, they can afford to be more
transparent, but but okay, I'll take
your point. Yeah.
Uh, so, you know, going into the rest of
this year, do you think these sorts of
threats are over, or are there more
serious risks to come as we get toward
the presidential election?
Uh,
well, the the threat's not over, for
sure. You know, um, that never goes
away, right? You never get this down to
to zero. It's not how the game is
played. So, they have to approach every
event, whether it's the RNC happening
outside, or whether it's, um, any other
campaign rally, uh, the DNC, which will
be taking place in Chicago, uh, they've
got to approach every event in the same
fashion, right? And yes, they'll be
more,
um, under the spotlight, you know, from
the public and and from, you know, their
own agencies and the various people
involved, but and that's a good thing,
right? It it kind of refocuses the mind.
Um, you know, I'm not saying that the
event on Saturday was good, I'm just
saying that
it's going to one of the one of the
one of the end results will be
everyone's going to be a little bit more
on their game, um, because they're going
to be reminded in a very terrible way
what's at stake.
They You could argue they shouldn't have
to be reminded, but you know, you do
these events and you do these events,
and the thing about executive protection
is it can be a grind. Mentally, it can
be a real grind, right?
Why? Well, you're
you're standing out at outside a door,
you know, there's Secret Service
details, there's a lot of hurry up and
wait, you know, it's it can be kind of
mind-numbing in a way, right? There's,
you know, and then you got a movement,
okay, fine, now I got to go do another
advance and I'm doing the advance and
there's there's a lot of routine, a lot
of, you know, wrote, which
you know, can it can be a bit, again, it
can be a bit mind-numbing.
Um Which inevitably causes people to pay
less attention, which then allows small
errors to to kick up. Yeah, I was
speaking to uh Tim Kennedy, I got him to
break down the body language of the
uh counter sniper uh from the Secret
Service that was on the roof and he's,
you know, looking he's coming up off his
glass, he's going back down, then he
flinches and then he goes back down
again and, you know, he uh Tim's
assessment was he thought that was a
person who'd never been in a firefight
before. Um that that was someone who
potentially hadn't seen combat action.
But another thing to consider is that
this isn't training. You haven't just
rocked up, cat fought caffeine, you
know, on the range with your buddy,
that's your spotter and I know when I'm
going to need to shoot. You've been
there for how many hours? Sat up there
doing this thing, you know, that sort of
endurance um and as it continues to go
on. But again, that it seems to me that
all of that can be fixed just by more
volume and higher quality personnel, you
know, if you've got someone that's doing
the night shift, don't make them do the
day shift. You know, you can have
sufficient resources that you don't need
to to drain everyone like that. Yeah, I
think that's absolutely right. You've
got to have You've got to have
sufficient staffing and and, you know,
again, talking about how much of a grind
it can be,
uh it's not the sort of business where
you can just, you know,
you know, just just work through people
until they're exhausted, right? You've
got people have to be at a at an optimum
level
um all the time. And so that requires
you to be able to work through a number
of shifts
uh of rotations and so you have to have
those resources, but
look, I and and and training, you know,
you got to you've got to have constant
training.
Um, and and that costs money and time.
And so, sometimes those things get
kicked aside. I don't I'm not saying
they did, I'm just saying that, you
know, sometimes in in in the world of
government, you know, certain things can
be pushed aside in in favor of other
things that aren't really as
operationally beneficial.
How likely do you think it is that the
heads of Homeland Security or the Secret
Service going to end up getting fired or
disciplined for this?
Well, I don't think DHS
Mayorkas, I don't think he's going
anywhere. He's He seems to be,
you know, coated in Teflon
because, you know, you could argue he
should have been fired for the
you know, for the the lack of management
of the US southern border for the past 3
years, but I don't think he's going
anywhere. Kimberly Cheatle over at
Secret Service,
look, she, you know, she's been there,
what, almost 30 years, maybe longer. She
was, you know, an agent and a
supervising agent for 27 years,
finished up, then went to
I forget uh
Pepsi, I think, where she was global
security director, and then she got
called in. She had worked on Vice
President Biden's detail years and years
ago. And so, that Who knows? Maybe that
was part of the connection, but she came
back in to run the Secret Service.
Is she going to be kicked out? I don't
think so.
Um, Washington D.C. is not typically a
place where people get fired.
Why Why is that? Just nepotism and
people know people and people know
things and you scratch my back? Yeah, I
think, you know, look, you know, people
people get reassigned at lower levels,
you know, if if there's if if things go
sideways, um,
typically, you know, that that [ __ ]
rolls downhill, and uh so, you may get,
you know, mid-level officers or agents,
you know, they get reassigned or put on
ice.
But,
typically, people don't, you know, at
higher levels, you know, they're not
expected to pay the price. I don't know
why.
Uh but it's a little bit like um
it's a little bit like this problem with
with the civil discourse and people
talking about how we have to turn the
temperature down, right? Well, that
requires self-awareness and it requires
a willingness to accept some
responsibility for
where we got to now, right? Because they
were part of the problem. But, I don't
think politicians necessarily
um
or political appointees tend to be, you
know, loaded for bear with
self-awareness or willingness to accept
responsibility.
What do you think happens to the
political discourse moving forward from
here? How do you think it changes or
doesn't? Yeah.
I think give it another
uh I don't know, 15 minutes
um and we're going to be right back.
We're going to revert to the mean. I
don't know. I I have no doubt
um that
the there there will be a a short period
of time, uh including I I think
including Trump's
uh nominating speech at the RNC. I
think, you know, that's going to be more
uh dialed back than people would imagine
coming from Trump.
He said that he rewrote a a brand new
one. Yeah.
Yeah. And I'm sure he did. I look, he's
got Look, it's
I don't think you can go through that an
experience like that
and not
have some
moment of reflection, right? Uh now,
whether it lasts, whether he can change
his stripes, I don't know. Whether the
Democrats can change their stripes, who
knows? You know, look, they they ran a
campaign based on Trump as a fascist and
he's going to destroy democracy and it
was working for them, right? It was
energizing at least their their base and
and I think they felt like that's the
narrative they were going to run with
for the next few months.
I don't think I don't think either
side's really going to dial it back
significantly for any period of time.
So, yes, there'll be a this there'll be
a moment, but then I think everyone's
going to kind of revert back to the
normal, jump back in their trenches, and
you know, we'll be right back to that.
Biden said, or at least the Dems said
that they'd turned off their campaign
ads for a little while, sort of a show
of a mark of respect. I imagine that if
you'd kept running those, there'd be
some in there that are absolutely tone
deaf for a guy that just got shot. Um
but yeah, there is a big question. Can
you say that Trump is Hitler one day,
and then the next day wish him well,
given that he was just shot?
It does seem I know. I know. Well, he's
Hitler.
blowing with the wind. Thank god he was
only grazed.
Um
yeah, I it's it's a it's a Yeah, it's a
really good question, but I think
what they're counting on is
the attention span of the of of
Americans, maybe. Um you know,
everybody's so busy just trying to get
by and feed their families and do their
work and kind of whatever, and they're
all staring at TikTok anyway.
Um so,
I I think they honestly think, yeah,
sure, we can we can get away with this
incredible pivot from he's going to
terminate the Constitution and and take
away all your rights, and he's you know,
the biggest threat to the nation, and
and then turn around and go, well, we
sure I talked to Donald, and I told him
I was really
I I But I think they feel like, you
know, they can get away with it because
they've done it. [ __ ] no. Yeah, yeah.
Selective amnesia of the entire
populace. So, yeah, I'm I'm glad that
you brought up TikTok, your favorite
topic of discussion. I This is the first
time
that I've
observed Actually, I didn't even do this
with January 6th, cuz with January 6th,
I actually watched mostly Fox News CNN
coverage. I was watching things be
streamed live. Um but on Saturday, this
happened just as I was going for dinner
here in Montana, and I for the first
time realized just how important X,
Twitter, is as a social media. It was a
genuine utility
for everybody that wanted to know what
was going on, and I wasn't
I'm not going to Facebook
to find out this information. I'm not
going to TikTok to find out this
information. I'm not going to Instagram
to find out this information. I'm not
going to the mainstream media to find
out this information, like mostly
peaceful but fiery assassination attempt
from CNN or whatever the headline was.
Yeah, there were some headlines. There
were some headlines that he was pulled
from the rally because he fell down.
And Secret Service interrupts Trump
rally. Yeah. Yeah, and or there was
there was a New York Times uh article
just today that said, you know, that
referred to the the assassination
attempt as
uh that somebody shot at the president
during a rally.
And you think, okay, so so I I I agree
with you, you know, I think X has kind
of proven its its its usefulness in this
Agreed. event over the weekend. Yeah, I
was I was uh
I spent probably more time monitoring
what was happening there
than I think pretty much anything else.
Although I was perfect I was perfecting
a new TikTok dance, so I had to
That wasn't easy,
but it's going to be a hit. I'll tell
you what else I didn't see much of. Um
I didn't see much sort of crazy
misinformation,
uh wild accusations. I haven't seen much
that people have really needed to row
back. Now, uh
is that
the um is that the benefit of the
platform, or is that simply just because
of what users were talking about? Um you
know, you you you can't promote a tweet
which lies about something that somebody
he actually post. You can only actually
promulgate whatever messages people say.
That's right. But, yeah, I was I was
really impressed. I was looking at X and
going, "Holy [ __ ] like we need this
thing." And I've not I've I've not had
that sense really before. It's just
like, "Oh, it's you know, if you've got
Truth Social on one side and you've got
X kind of more toward the middle and
then you've got Threads on the other
side." You know, it's just it's just
another one of these, but it yeah, it
made me think differently, I think.
Yeah, I think the it it takes a little
while for the crazy to come out, right?
So, I have seen some conspiracy theories
that, you know, this was an inside job,
you know, and and you know, and then of
course all the all the you know, the
sort of the armchair executive
protection specialists, you know,
talking about exactly, you know, how
what went wrong 5 minutes after the
event, right? And they okay, well, at
least let the dust settle a little bit
Yeah.
before Let's mop the blood up off the
off the stage kind of before you
be might be good, but no, they did the
look, the the imagery was amazing. Um
the
like him or hate him, right? There's a
lot of people on both sides of that for
Trump, but you have to you have to
think, good God, right? I mean, he the
fact that he stood up, had the
wherewithal to kind of like face the
crowd, you know, give him that
indication that he was fine and he was,
you know, I mean, that's
those instincts, right? You can't teach
that, right? That's
that's kind of in there somewhere and
and so I think that was that was
amazing, right? Again, people who hate
him are going to say it was terrible. He
shouldn't have like shook his fist at I
did hear CNN was upset with him cuz he
shook his fist at the crowd and said,
"Fight." And they were like, "Well, that
seems inappropriate."
he's stoking a wartime rhetoric. He just
got shot. He just got shot. I just got
shot. They're upset because he's like
shaking his fist and he's and then
they're like, "Well, that's that's
that's not appropriate."
And inappropriate inappropriate to get
aggressive when you've been when you've
just been shot. Yeah. dude, I I said
this to Tim, look, I
have I sort of respect Trump in that I
find him a an interesting orator and his
sort of staying power has been has been
impressive, but I've never before said
that I admired him.
You know, I I don't know
whether it's because he's kind of like a
WWE character, which he actually also
happened to be briefly for a little
while,
or he's super gregarious and he's out
there and he's all of these things. And
he's like older and he's from a
different culture and all of these
things. Lots and lots and lots of
things, right?
And I saw that video and then I saw that
imagery and I was like, that is [ __ ]
badass. That is a you there is no amount
of media training or
sort of top-down dictatorial
rhetoric building and image sort of
promoting that you can do
to make being shot than standing up and
putting your fist in the air and going
fight fight fight.
That is him. That's his character. That
is his character. We saw everything
stripped back. Who is the guy? Like, if
you want to know who someone is, shoot
them in the ear,
right?
Well, let's say okay, now for you for
those of you watching at home,
that's
that's you know, let's let's step back
on that guidance, but
um
Okay, kids.
No, but I I take your point and also the
the the striking thing is
just the the the the the contrast,
right, between that
and and what we had been talking about
on nonstop, right, on Friday and
Thursday and Wednesday before that,
which was
feebleness, fragility,
feebleness, the mental acuity issues
from Biden. And so that contrast, I
think, is going to hit really hard for
some time now
going through this election. And
obviously, you know, the Republicans
will use that imagery,
um you know, but I think they have the
rest of time. They have to be But they
do have to be careful, right? I mean,
just you don't want to
you know, cuz look, we you know, we
there was a fatality there.
Um you know, people maybe
Maybe maybe more. Yeah, maybe more. And
so, uh I think they they're going to
want to
So, I'm hoping what this does is
I hope it dials down the discourse. I
hope it keeps things for a little bit of
time. Again, I'm cynical, but may you
know, civil.
And I hope it makes the Trump campaign
more reflective, right? About their
strategy and their tone and the way that
they approach things. What what does
What does that mean? Be more specific
for me. Well, I think look, everybody
talks about Everybody talks about how
you got to win the moderates, right? You
got to win the the independents, you
know, if you if you're going to win at
all in November.
And I think
um
if if if what we got was the Trump of
old, right? He's not winning those
people, right? Cuz they already left him
in 2020. That's why he didn't win,
right? Cuz they were like, I'm tired of
the chaos. I'm tired of the noise. I'm
tired of the you know, all of this. And
and uh
so, I think that
if this makes him more or the campaign
more reflective and they say, you know,
what
you know, let's let's
let's continue to dial it back. The
Democrats are going to do whatever
they're going to do. If they get back to
throwing hand grenades, okay, fine, let
them.
But let's be the let's be the contrast,
right? I think that's the way that you
get and and then just focus on policies.
Just talk about policies. Nothing else.
Well, you already had a a little bit
more of a pivot to a slightly more
statesman-like version of Trump during
the debate. And then after the debate,
you know, there was no
posting about Biden. There was no silly
tweet or what equivalent. There was
There was none of that. It silence was
his greatest weapon for the first time
ever. Absolutely. Absolutely. When you
when your enemy's imploding, don't don't
get in the way.
in the way. Yeah, precisely. Um talk to
me about what you think this does to
Trump's image among the American
populace. How do you think that this
incident changes it if if at all? Well,
I I don't know that it uh look I I I
think it
I think it will make a difference with
some who were undecided. Not necessarily
I'm not talking necessarily about, you
know,
independents and moderates who are
focused on politics. But I think those
people who, you know, maybe don't spend
a lot of time thinking about politics,
but were still kind of undecided.
Maybe maybe unregistered or you know,
I wasn't I wasn't sure if I was going to
vote at all. Yeah. I I think that that
and it and part of that will be that
contrast between this guy standing up
after he's shot and what they saw during
that debate if they happened to see
clips or they watched some of the
debate. I think that contrast will
influence a certain group.
Um I think if he can if he can
I don't I don't know if statesman's the
right word, but I think if he can be
more moderate then and speak to the
issues and just stay there, then I think
that can influence those moderates and
independents perhaps that that are a
little more focused on politics and did
abandon
uh or abandon the the campaign the last
time around. So, I think it can have an
impact. Uh look,
the Democrats, you know, they must be
amazed right now, right? Because all
that conversation about Biden, that's
that's nowhere to be found, right?
That's done, at least for now. People
are not talking about Biden. They're not
talking about his feebleness, his mental
acuity, is he still fit to serve? And
so, I think the White House is if
anything has taken a breath and going,
"Oh, thank God."
I I I'm not sure that. So, I I think
that I get what you mean. The it's a
good day for bad news or it's a good day
to be senile, I suppose. Um but the
problem is that this recent shooting
assassination attempt is framed against
the
uh foundation that we already had.
Everyone still already has that in the
back of their mind. We know the
fragility that we've seen of the
existing president, the fact that he
doesn't have that sort of gusto and that
get-up that that we want to show from a
a leader up against China, up against
Russia, et cetera. Uh and then you have
this even if you're not looking at it
anymore, it's like just being in a cold
bath and getting into a hot one. You're
like, "Holy [ __ ] this is different."
So, I I I do think that that's going to
be there. I also agree, I think the more
mature and
uh
standoffish that the Republicans can be
when it comes to messaging around this,
I think that's going to benefit them
more. For the first time ever, this is
one of my George, who I'm traveling with
at the moment, told me this yesterday.
For the first time ever,
Trump has a victim card.
He's never had a victim card before.
Trump has that's He has a [ __ ] victim
card. Yeah. Yeah. Well, although I would
argue that the the base, right? His his
loyal loyal supporters view him as as
the the supreme victim, right? Just
being victimized by lawfare and the the
Biden administration. And so, I think
that group always looks at him in that
regard, right? You know, look what
they're doing to him again. And now he's
being shot in the
And now he's being shot, yeah. in the in
the [ __ ] hand. Well, so another
interesting thing is how much damage
does this incident do to the left moral
high ground around not being the violent
ones.
Yeah, I don't think they care. I think
they just they'll they'll just
I've never seen any awareness on their
part that that could be an issue, right?
It's just it's sort of like that mostly
peaceful Antifa riots and, you know,
burnings and and violence.
Yeah, I I think that they just brush
that aside. And so, I don't know that um
they're worried about that idea. They
all jumped on the notion. They were they
were they were really wordsmithing, but
they jumped on the notion in their
statements about the uh assassination
attempt that the shooter was a
registered Republican. And
uh
uh they, you know, and by the way, why
do all these guys look the same? I don't
I don't understand.
Um
They all have
You know, and I didn't I didn't say
that. My oldest boy said that. He said,
"What the hell is it with with with
people like What What are they What What
is the commonality?" You know, his point
was maybe they need to do a study of all
these people and find out what they have
that What was that thing that was super
racist in the 19 Was it phrenology or
physiognomy or whatever it was?
Something like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Like face shape as being indicative.
What What do we What What do we know
about the shooter?
You know, uh what, 20 years old from the
from the area, Bethel Bethel Park in
Pennsylvania.
Um
You know, I've only heard a few comments
from people who claim that they knew him
in high school. And those are typical
comments, quiet, loner, bullied. Um
uh you know, his dad purchased legally
legally, apparently, the long gun that
was used on Saturday by his kid um some
6 months ago.
Um
and
you know, so there's not a lot there's
not a lot of information out there. It's
interesting the bureau's got his
obviously they got his electronic
devices. They took his phone down to
Quantico and you know, once again
they're they're you know, struggling it
according to reports. I don't know
whether that's the case or not, but they
say they're struggling to unlock it.
Um phone of a 20-year-old loner from
Bethel Green or whatever it is. Yeah, so
I think it's it's uh
you know, we'll we'll get more detail,
but that's one of those areas, right?
Where you have to be I always hate to
see people speculating about motives
because that's one of the things in
terms of an investigation, regardless of
what type of shooting event it is, that
you really need to let the facts, you
know, come to light before you start
talking in in earnest about oh you know,
what the motivation of the shooter was.
So bizarre, man. I there's definitely, I
think, another discussion to be had
around what is the training of local law
enforcement. You know, we've had it
before. I I was watching this
documentary about um
I I there's a name for them. What's the
name for police officers that don't
enter firefights even though they should
do? It's like the It's not coward or
whatever. It's like there's a specific
name for it, you know, like a um false
valor or whatever. There's like an
equivalent sort of name for it. But Blue
shag. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, just
failing at duty. And uh you know, I saw
in this same uh documentary I was
talking about that a lot of the police
officers were saying that they spend
more time in diversity meetings than
they do with their firearm in their
hand. Yeah. And that is true. I when you
look at the consistency of training,
that's why that
you know, so one of the things that
could drive you crazy during that that
sort of the height of the defund the
police was really uh you you're just
[ __ ] stupid because if you want a
better police force, a more responsible
police force, a more responsible police
force, you want to actually give them
more funds for training. That's where it
all starts, right? So, part of the
problem is again, going back to the
something we talked about earlier is
that, you know, a lot of times when you
hit budget cuts, training's one of the
first things to go. And that can't be
the case when you're talking about law
enforcement.
Especially not if you're going to be a
guy who goes up a ladder and sees a dude
with a a long gun and
Yeah. And that again, I I I I'm I'm
fascinated by the comms portion of this
and and the the line of communication
because there's a period of time there,
right? Where the attendees alert the
local authorities, local authorities
decide someone, you know, Bob's got to
go over there and investigate. Well, at
the same time, all that communication
should have been shared with the counter
sniper teams and command and control
from the Secret Service, right? They
should have have making decisions in
real time. So, if that person was going
up a ladder on that building, they
should have had him in their sights at
that point, right? Now, maybe they
didn't have line of sight on the on the
shooter. Maybe he, you know, he was out
of range I'm not out of range, but out
of sight. And then he pops up and points
his weapon at the But, that's the time
to shoot him. As soon as they you know,
I So, there's little steps here, but
again, you know, is it fair for me
without the investigation being done to
make all these, you know, statements? I
don't know. I'm just speaking from, you
know, from past experience on other but
you know, we they got to let the
investigation play out. It's just it's
such a the event had such magnitude and
such impact that it's natural. I get why
people rush to make judgment or
statements or talk about things. It
makes sense. Do you think that this
stops Biden from stepping down because
Trump now has a a martyr vote?
Well, I think
Yeah, that's that's a
Yeah, that's a really interesting point,
but I think it goes back to what I was
saying when
Uh I was I was trying to refer to
the the the fact that the noise around
Biden's situation has died down
to no noise, right? So, I think it does
uh buy him significant time. And I think
him coming out and saying, you know,
look, we need to be civil. We need to
think about how we talk about each
other. He's trying to be presidential.
He's trying to show, obviously, like
with every event that he's had since the
debate that he's he's up to the job.
But, I think
it's making it more difficult, right?
For the Democrats to
continue to beat the drum. There were
probably prior to Saturday there were
probably more Democrats in Congress or
in the Senate who were going to step
out, you know, and say, we think he
needs to go, right? That that was a
building drumbeat. I think that
it's more difficult now for them to do
that because of the events of Saturday
and because of the feeling like, okay,
well, maybe
you know, maybe we just got to stick
with Joe.
Um
Dude, think about the last
3 weeks
of [ __ ] news.
Yeah.
Well, think about the like I mean really
think about this past year, right?
Everything's been going on. I mean
obviously
you know, Ukraine, [ __ ] Gaza, right?
Um
you know,
the the the discourse on around the
election, this event on Saturday. I mean
good god.
Um
you know, all we need is a pandemic.
Sorry. Sorry I shouldn't say that.
That's terrible, but you know, not that
we won't get one. We're going to get
another pandemic by the way.
It'll happen. It'll continue to happen.
Uh
talk to me about J.D. Vance.
Yeah, interesting. I guess not an uh
unexpected choice. You know, they've
been banging on for a while saying it
was either going to be Vance or or uh
Burgum or uh Rubio.
Um
and
look, J.D. Vance is close to his to
Trump's son. They're very good friends.
Uh he's
he's an interesting cat, right? Has
almost
know anything about him. Explain to me
who he is. Yeah, he's got almost no
political experience. Uh he wrote that
book Hillbilly Elegy, which was a very
interesting book. I mean a very
interesting book. Um and you know, they
made a movie out of it I think, but he's
a political newcomer.
Um he's been a very uh
staunch supporter of Trump.
Out of he's out of Ohio.
Um
and
you know, of the candidates
I don't know that if what you were
saying was I want to I want to pick a
candidate who can really help me win
over
um
you know, uh groups that I'm I'm I I
need to win.
I don't know that J.D. Vance is that
person because he's he's already got his
base, right? And so I think J.D. Vance
kind of shares the same
supporters.
Uh Rubio, you know, could have shored up
shored up Florida. Obviously, you know,
with the Hispanic vote as well would
help. He's a much more seasoned
politician. Uh Burgum is, you know, he's
he's a good friend of Trump's. He's he's
got, you know, very good political
instincts, business instincts. Um
Nikki Haley was hanging out there. And I
got to tell you, if you wanted the
moderates or you wanted the independent
voters, um
you could argue that Nikki Haley could
have been a terrific choice except they
got, you know, they were so sideways
with each other during the the primary.
What do you think? Do you think there's
any chance that Trump changed his
VP pick post Saturday? No, that's
interesting.
Uh
No, probably not. I think I think the
the the The wheels are in motion too
much at this point.
Yeah, I think the fact of that would
have changed his decision possibly would
have been if Biden had stepped out.
Um and had pulled himself out. That that
may have
recalibrated the thinking perhaps uh
over the VP pick. But I I don't think
Saturday, I think at that point he he
you know, he just he went with Vance um
and
didn't change his mind. Uh
I I was in a I'm in a group chat with a
bunch of different people here. Uh one
of them saying uh Thiel hired him at his
VC fund Mithril, uh also endorsed his
Senate campaign with the biggest
individual donation ever for a Senate
campaign of $15 million.
Very happy with Vance, super smart,
competent, veteran, rust belt, blue
collar orientation. Also, and sad that
this is the case, he provides
assassination insurance.
Yeah, well, look, I mean, Trump had been
saying that, right? He said, you know,
his his decision over who to pick would
be, you know, if something bad happens,
are they ready to step in. But okay, to
be fair, you know, every presidential
nominee says that. I want my VP pick to
be ready on day one. Um
and
look, I like I like Vance in the sense
that he's
he's unique, right? He's not a he's not
a 110-year politician, right? And uh
that's not a bad thing at all. And I
like the fact that he's a veteran.
That's a very good thing. Um so I'm I'm
just saying it's an interesting choice
in the sense that I don't know that it
expands the voting block necessarily for
the campaign because it's drawing from
the same
kind of block as opposed to maybe one of
the other picks. But then again, you
know, you want somebody that you can,
you know,
be simpatico with. And Vance has been a
staunch supporter.
Nikki Nikki Haley might have just been a
[ __ ] nightmare from behind the scenes
from day one.
Well, I think it would have been It
would have been a
very interesting dynamic.
Yeah. Yeah, I think that's that's the
case. And maybe Rubio, you know, was a
bit of the same way. You know, maybe
there was some, you know, concern over
past, you know,
you know, uh
punches they'd thrown at each other. So,
who knows? I
At the end of the day, does it does it
matter all that much? I I don't know
that a VP pick matters all that much.
Look, if if Biden stays in,
um
you know, I think the the the key has
got to be saying, "Look, you're you're
not running against Biden. You're
running against, you know, President
Harris." because I don't think anybody
in their right mind believes that Biden,
you know, makes it through 4 years if he
wins.
So, a a vote for Biden is a vote for
Kamala Harris. And you're willing to say
that Kamala Harris, you know, is
is could be the leader of the free
world. And I can't even say that with a
straight face. I mean, that's that's
more terrifying than the president
getting shot or the presidential
candidate being shot in the ear.
I've seen this map, the election map of
when Reagan got shot afterward, and
you've got red red red red red red red
red red, and then this one
blue dot that remained up at the top.
How
likely, or how unlikely, is that to be
the case given the sort of never die,
never Trump, etc. kind of even after all
of this you you've basically got the
ultimate one-two punch. Like, jab in the
face. Biden's completely incompetent.
Punch, the other guy is totally
competent and can literally get shot and
stand up 15 seconds later. Yeah. It But
that's just Surely there's no way that
we can see a a huge red sweep in the
same way because people are just so
passionate about hating Trump. Yeah.
Yeah, it's that's it's a different it's
it's a different situation. You can't
It's apples and oranges when you're
talking about what happened with Reagan,
I think. And And so, like, there's no
way he's going to run the table again
anywhere near close. It's going to be a
close race, still.
Um and I think that
you know, the jury's still out. Maybe
maybe when the noise dies down, right,
and you know, the election really heats
up again and the rhetoric, you know,
comes back kind of the way it was, that
the Democrats, you know, start
reevaluating again
uh Biden's, you know,
uh suitability.
And, you know, so that could be that
could be the next big event in terms of
the election season that we're we're in
the middle of. [ __ ] hell. Okay, so
one of the things that I really wanted
to ask you uh
one of your expertise, international
relations.
Uh first off, have any other world
leaders of interest said anything that's
interesting? And secondly, how do you
think other countries, the Chinas, the
Russias, the Irans of the world, how do
you think they interpret the ease with
which a 20-year-old bullied kid with bad
hair was able to shoot the president's
ear off? Yeah. Well, I think that I
think the jihadists are looking at it
and going, "What? That's it? That's all
we
All we had to do was climb up on a damn
shed?" Um yeah, so I think that they're
looking at it from a security breakdown
and thinking, "Oh my god, maybe we've
been overthinking this." Right?
Gave them too much credit. Yeah. And so
but they look the Chinese regime has
always Xi Jinping and and the foreign
ministry they you know they were very
muted in their response after the
assassination attempt and you know they
you know wished wished him well
but they they tend to you know try to
be seen as not wading in because they
don't want anybody stepping in their
business.
Um
European leaders said exactly what you
would imagine, you know, everybody was
condemning the political violence.
Um it was weren't really many
um
I'm trying to think Slovakia, Robert
Fico, you know, he made a couple of
interesting comments cuz he had been you
know the uh they'd try to assassinate
him not that long ago, shot him I think
four times.
Um so
he he alluded to the idea that you know
the the rhetoric from the opposition
party, you know, probably played a role.
Mhm. But there there was pretty much
just what you would expect, you know,
condemnation of political violence from
from world leaders. You know, UK
Keir Starmer, the new prime minister, he
came in and weighed in very quickly. Um
and and so that makes sense. It's
you wouldn't expect anything different.
Um I think Russian Russian
I'm trying to remember what what they
they they didn't really say much. I
think Peskov, the spokesperson for the
Kremlin, made a made an off-handed
comment. Um but you know, basically it
was not that difficult.
another advertisement of America's
infighting
operational
poor management, the fact that one party
that's kind of in charge of the
protection detail for the other party
isn't capable of
stopping this. It's It's more sort of
America falling flat on its face on the
world stage only recently after the guy
that's in charge couldn't string a
sentence together.
Yeah, it was interesting. I mean, I
speaking of that, you know, the
the White House during the NATO summit,
which was just, you know, concluded last
week, um
uh John Kirby was was asked and he said,
"Look, I you know, the nobody in NATO
questions uh Biden's abilities, right?
We don't have to justify Biden to
anybody. They all, you know, firmly
believe well, what else are the NATO
leaders going to say? You know, I mean,
they you know, but it was it was
interesting that that even at that point
when it was clear that there were some
issues,
um the White House was still trying to
portray Biden as as, you know, being on
top of his game and sharp as a tack and
all the other Like I
again, we're all getting older, right?
You know, you, me, everybody, we're all
getting older. We all age differently,
right? It's not age, it's mental acuity.
And we've all got elderly parents. We've
all got elderly grandparents. We all
know what it looks like.
So, um
I think the problem the White House has,
even during this moment when that talk
has died down, is that people understand
that process, right? And they know what
it looks like cuz they've seen it or
they've had to deal with it directly.
So, I don't know ultimately that they're
going to be able to hold the line and
keep him in there.
Uh
but frankly, Kamala Harris and John
Kirby and Karine Jean-Pierre and
you know, everybody in his little circle
and his family,
um
they've kind of been lying to the
American public
um for quite some time now and trying to
cover up what's been happening despite
the fact that we've been seeing bits and
pieces of it, but that's why he hasn't
been out there, right? What was it
called? What was it called when you when
you take videos out of context? What was
that? There was a name for it.
Oh, a cheap fake. Cheap fake. Yeah,
that's what how they were referring to
it. It was a It was a cheap fake every
time that there was a reference to it.
Or that we were just And the media, for
the most part, were willing to cover it
up as well.
Complicit. Did you read, I think it was
Ben Usha, he wrote an article called
common knowledge.
I didn't read that, no. I'll send it to
you I'll send it to you afterwards. So,
basically the the break down is
phenomenal. It's so good. And uh
it basically says that it's not enough
for you to know a thing.
You need to know that other people know
that thing, too.
So, for instance, it's not enough for
you to know that Biden It's the
emperor's new clothes. Yeah. Right? You
can pick your favorite fairy tale of
choice. Um and the problem being that
until you have reliable
insight that other people will agree
with your position, nobody is prepared
to take the position. So, it's not
enough for you to know that you know.
Yeah.
to know that everybody else also knows.
And what we saw on the debate night was
common knowledge be distributed to the
masses. There was nowhere else for
anybody to hide. Therefore, when you
come out as someone who previously has
said Biden's sharp as a tack or what you
know, pick New York Times [ __ ] like
Washington Post, whoever it is. Yeah.
And then you pivot and say something
else. Well, it's a completely costly
position to hold because everybody else
knows it. Like it's the same with the
free speech position. You know, free
speech doesn't matter for people who
agree with you or who you agree with.
Free speech only matters for the people
who you disagree with because it's a
costly position in order to be able to
hold that. And it's the same with this
common knowledge thing. And it's so
interesting to me because
for those of us that exist terminally
online in the heterodox sphere of
Substackistan, we have all known this
for forever. This is something This is
to me talking like doing jokes about
Biden's mental degradation was hacky. It
was so obvious that it felt low ball to
say.
And then you watch the debate and you go
Oh.
There's people in the world who don't
have access to my common knowledge. Now,
I'm sure that there's [ __ ] tons of stuff
that I don't know about, but that was
one of the things that I did. So much so
that I take it for granted. It's an
accepted fact and it's so much of an
accepted fact that it would be hacky and
low ball to make a joke about it. And
Right. Oh, the world thinks that this is
[ __ ] revolutionary and it really
broke my brain for a while when I
realized, oh, my
understanding and the way that I see
certain parts of the world and the way
that maybe the rest of the part a big
chunk of the populace does Yeah. is is
[ __ ] miles apart. I'm no [ __ ]
clairvoyant political divinity guy.
But [ __ ] me, I knew that. And for it to
be a revelation was just like, oh, wow.
This really does show how
echo bubbles and the still the power of
legacy media to be able to filter what
actually gets down to the sort of ocean
floor of most people
wild wild is And the and the and the the
ability to repeat a message, right? If
you're you know, if you just keep saying
the same thing over and
a tack. Sharp as a tack. Sharp as a
tack.
and and then it and then it works. And
then then we find out that they you
know, had been basically complicit in
hiding this and you know, that's why
and then of course, you know, people
come out and pundits come out and and
people who had just been on on their
shows, you know, talking about how great
he is, you know, saying, well, I you
know, we've kind of seen this for a
while. I can't believe that they've
hidden it from us and you know, like
it's kind of like it's kind of like
again what we talked about earlier
calling Trump Hitler and then the next
day wishing him well. You know, it's
it's it's that it's that immediate
turnaround that
to me is shocking, but but
people just move on, right? And they and
they know that, right? They know they
can do this. There's almost no shame
because they just like, okay, I'm going
to I'm going to pivot and completely
reverse my position and now I'll be fine
in a day or two." Um it's it's shocking.
But anyway,
in the interim, just just rounding out
the conversation on security, does Tim
Kennedy or Eric Prince need to be called
in? Do you Do you go private security to
uh bolster
uh Trump's security detail or maybe
maybe other people's security details?
No. No, I think look I I you know I
was out in we had a large operation out
in Iraq
um
early days of Iraq, right? I'm mean
talking '03, '04, '05, '06. I mean and
uh
you know, we were we had a large private
security operation out there and and um
uh
that's a that's a that's a war zone, so
it's a little bit different. But when
we're talking about augmenting Secret
Service with, you know, private
security, I
I I I don't think so. I think look they
the challenges that you face when you
try to augment Secret Service with with
private guys? Uh Iraqi power Yeah,
you're just you're just layering on
potential communications and command and
control issues and and I just think it's
and it's also
um
I think look, the Secret Service
uh
they're staffed with some great people,
right? We always have to be careful
about, you know, there's there's this
tendency to say, "Oh, they're all
screwed. Dismantle it, you know, that's
it was a cry but you got to get rid of
the bureau and get rid of the agency and
do all these things." And I'm thinking
really that's that's that's your take on
this? Um how about just fixing problems?
And uh so the Secret Service
uh
augmented by
uh local and state uh you know, law
enforcement uh they can do the job.
They've been doing the job, right? Um
you know, part of this is
they've got to
they've got to be transparent again.
They've got to come out and say these
are the steps that that occurred. And
and some of them won't surprise us
because we all watched, right? Um but
they've got to be very clear about what
those steps are and they've got to be
very clear about how they intend to not
have it happen again, right? And that's
going to require some people taking
responsibility and that's where I think
that can be a problem because you have
to make people at the top take
responsibility and maybe suffer some
consequences as opposed to just saying,
you know, the officer on the ground who
failed to communicate in real time what
he was about to do by going up on that
building, you know, that's the guy who's
you we can all blame. Yeah, I I have had
it in my head since Saturday. I wonder
whether there is a level of negligence
you reach where it almost becomes
complicity.
Well, I I don't I don't think it's
complicity. It can be um what's the word
I'm looking for? Complacency, you know,
maybe at times.
Um
Well, I didn't you know, it's just the
the the the reason that I brought up the
private security thing is
I saw that trailer saying
30% of Secret Service staff are going to
be female by 2030.
I spoke to Tim and Tim explained to me
that the mile time for guys versus girls
to run is different. The weight load
that you need to be able to lift is
different. The height, all of the rest
of the stuff. You know, you saw a a
woman who was He came up She came up to
Trump's
nipple, maybe? You know, you got this
big guy got this big dude and this like
little woman in
And that's where you That's where you
decided to go as far as the height
measurement was the nipple? Yeah, the
nipple. I think that's precisely why she
That's precisely why she got to. And um
you know,
No, I I know what you mean. And then,
you know, they would yet a yet an agent,
you know, kind of fumble [ __ ] with
their weapon trying to re hold you know,
holster it.
That was the same one who used Trump hid
behind Trump like this. Like sort of in
that kind of like uh top of the [ __ ]
the guy woman in the kitchen from Tom
and Jerry. Like
Yeah, that's a great cultural pull right
there.
Yeah, you haven't thought about that for
a while, have you? Tom and Jerry. [ __ ]
you. Look, I my biggest
you there's no room for DEI in in the
world of operations and security, right?
You just simply choose the It shouldn't
be the way it is in everything, not just
those sectors, but you you choose the
most qualified capable people.
And if they can't cut it, then you move
them out and you bring in somebody who's
more capable and qualified. And you're
right, you can't you you there's a
problem when you when you
I think the Secret Service will say that
look, we didn't lower the standards,
right? That's not that's not what we
did, right? But you hear that all the
time. Problem is that
that belies the reality, right? Out in
Iraq is a good example, right? The for a
while there it was only we're only
bringing former, you know, spec ops guys
out, right? Well, that's a that's a
that's a small pool, right? There's not
a lot It's not a lot of former guys
there with that qualification. So, then
you started seeing, you know, everybody
squatters and everybody coming out there
and claiming that they were a spec ops
former, you know, this and that. And and
so uh you've got a you've got a limited
pool of capable people, I believe,
right? That you can choose from for
certain jobs. And you just have to take
those people and say, "Fuck DEI. That's
not what's important in this business."
Right? Um and and again, I I don't want
to rush to judgment, right? I don't know
the qualifications of these people. We
have to kind of look and see, you always
let's be measured, that sort of thing.
But I take your point and I I don't
disagree with it at all.
Well, the the problem being the reason
that I meant I mentioned uh Eric or Tim
or some of the private contractor is
that
you know, Tim brought it up to me. He
said, "The people that you see that are
on Trump's detail, even though they may
not have performed like the A-team, they
weren't hired yesterday. You don't get
hired and then get put on a presidential
candidate's detail. You have been in the
agency for a while. You've been hired
and trained long ago. You've been around
for a long time. So, in order to say,
well, we're going to rectify it, we're
going to train better, we're going to
hire better, we're going to change the
DEI initiative, we're going to do
whatever it is that they say that
they're going to do. Brilliant. You
know, the
2028 election may very well be more way
more secure than this one. But, you
know, when you're thinking what's going
to happen over the next however long, uh
RFK Jr. has just been given a secret
service detail. That's going to take
some of the resources away. And how many
people are going to have their time
taken up going through [ __ ] meeting
after meeting after hearing after court
case after Joey investigation.
As you said, sucking the oxygen out of
the room and taking the attention away
from the thing that it needs to be
focused on. So, yeah, I I I don't know
what I mean. It America is not showering
itself in glory. And oddly, the only
person that is at the moment is Trump.
That's a great way to put it. That's No,
I you know, that's That's going to drive
a lot of people crazy when they hear you
say that. But
true. Dude, I I People can go back and
listen. I I don't think I've ever been
complimentary about Trump. Not that I
was particularly critical of him over
Biden. But, I'm like, he's just a
[ __ ] dude. He's a dude that's kind of
a bit crazy. And I just think
Tell me. Tell me that you look at that
photo and you don't think
Yeah, like that's some late '80s
flag-flying Americana. Yeah. Like
legitimacy. Um Yeah. It's it's it's
crazy.
he's out there yelling Wolverines,
right? No, yeah, no, I I I again, and
it's that imagery that's so important,
right? Because people make decisions
quickly. People don't dig deep, you
know, they're and and they're going to
see that and maybe they make up their
mind and and you know, what again, you
can't What are you going to argue with
that? You're going to look at that and
then you're going to look at that
President Biden from the debate and
you're going to go, okay, who's
Obviously. Tell you what's Tell you
what's an awesome awesome video that you
can get a hold of. So, uh Evan, the guy
that took the photo, um he is a
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu guy, looks an awful
lot like a Navy SEAL. Like, mass- He
looks like He looks like a young Jocko
Willink. It's a hard dude. And, um, if
you watch the video, there's a panoramic
version of the stage, and those shots
start firing, he doesn't stop and cower.
He starts strafing across the front of
the stage to get those shots. There's
two guys that get them. Really
interesting video that you can find, um,
which was shot on a pair of Ray-Ban Meta
glasses. So, I've I've got a pair of
those, too. So, it's a pair of
sunglasses that you wear, and they've
got two little lenses on either side,
and they can shoot up to about a minute
of video in very high quality, and the
color representation's really good. And
this guy, so Evan's the guy that took
the photo, the photos that are going
around everywhere. There's another dude
who presumably got very similarly good
photos as that one.
think he's from the New York Times. I
think, yeah, Doug Mills, maybe. Yeah, so
he Yeah, it is Doug Mills. He had the
foresight when he's round the back he's
round the back of the stage, and
the video begins, but you can't remotely
start those glasses. So, he's had his
his camera like this, or whatever it is,
like this, and he's shoot shoot shoot
shoot shoot, and he's taking his hand
off, pressed the button, held it, you
have to hold it if you want to take a
video, and then gone back to that, and
if you watch I I messaged Dean, the guy
that will edit this episode, you met him
in in Miami, my video guy. I was asking
him, "What is that dude, Doug, what's
what's that dude doing?" Because you
actually see from his glasses you can
see both of his hands, right? So, he's
got his hands up like this, and you're
looking at this thing. And, um, he
he's shooting a lot This is during a
firefight. Yeah.
These guys, it's so cool. I love seeing
people who know their craft inside out
doing something, and what's coolest
about this isn't the shot the shots that
he get, it's the seamlessness with which
he does it. So, you see that he's
shooting, and he can't frame up
properly. So, he takes his hand off the
front of the the camera, flips the
screen down, so that he can get a better
look, and he's uh, he's working on his I
think either exposure or focus, whatever
Dean said, and then he's checking he's
checking the screen. He's going like
this. And Dean was like, he's working
about every one to two one and a half
seconds he's looking at the composition
of his shot during this. So he's
shooting shooting shooting look.
Shooting shooting shooting look.
Shooting shooting shooting shooting in
the burst burst burst burst burst.
I would I'm like that's the one of the
coolest parts of it. I'm like it's
unbelievable.
You know what else is amazing? If you
watch right behind Trump is some lady,
right? As soon as the shooting starts,
literally the shooting starts, she puts
up her phone.
It and she just she's just in the
audience, right? She's like first or
second row behind Trump. So you got to
watch watch the videos that are out
there and you'll see she's got a I think
she's got a white case on her phone. And
she's sitting there and wearing a white
shirt, I think, and she and and it
literally
the it starts off and she just puts her
phone up.
And I'm like, God. So I I don't know
whether this is true. Tim is the only
guy that's told me this. He said that
the man who died
com- com- compa-
yeah, compa- compa- compa- yes,
he apparently, this is what Tim said,
threw himself on top of his family.
And that he took the the shot in his
head while saving
are saying. Yeah, using his body, which
is the Aurora, Colorado shooting all
over again, right? That someone goes in
and boyfriends throw themselves on top
of their girlfriends. Yeah. Yeah, no,
it's
you know, and I think I think that's
another reason why look you you know, if
if no one else had been hurt, maybe they
would treat a little bit differently,
but you can't you got to be very
measured about how they talk about this
uh from the Republican side, from the
campaign side, and I think they their
their best thing to do is just let it
go. Obviously, they'll probably
reference it during the RNC speeches or
whatever, but they got to let it go.
Just go and then just and then just let
you some of the imagery speak for
itself, but move on and go to the issues
and
looks too um
callous
to to use it as a look at how awesome we
are we're hard as whilst a guy died and
there's one or two people still in
intensive care. Exactly. Dude, I I hate
to say this, but
I got to pop. That's all right, dude. I
appreciate you for doing this emergency
episode. I needed to get you on. Uh Mike
Baker, ladies and gentlemen, MB Company
Man. MB Company Man.
Um also uh President's Daily Brief
podcast. Look at me marketing right now.
Just before we finish up, I'm putting
that out. He's talking about that, but
the President's Daily Brief podcast
available on all podcast platforms and
we do a weekend TV show now called the
situation report. Well, you'll have a
lot to talk about next weekend. Mate, I
really appreciate you. Uh stay safe at
the RNC. If you enjoyed that episode,
you will love a selection of the best
clips from the podcast over the last
couple of months and it's available
right here.
Go on.
Give them a watch.