Luke Ford

Mark Halperin:
I’ve looked at a lot of news coverage since this started, and I want to show you two news reports that echo what we saw after George Floyd around the country, including cities like Portland, Oregon, where the media minimized violence, property destruction, and threats to law enforcement.

Here’s the first one:

Reporter (clip A1):
Demonstrations have been going on right outside the federal detention center. Most were very peaceful—chanting, shouting, honking horns, expressing anger about the detention of immigrants. Most of the evening, federal agents stayed inside the building. But at one point, demonstrators got very close, went onto the property, tagged the building, banged on fences. Shortly afterward, agents started firing tear gas, and then they came out.

Mark Halperin:
Again, the tone suggests it’s law enforcement’s fault for responding.

Here’s another report:

Reporter (clip A2):
With a large group of people, it could turn volatile if law enforcement moves in the wrong way and turns a bunch of people just having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation between officers and demonstrators.

Mark Halperin:
“A bunch of people having fun watching cars burn.” Putting the blame on federal officials, including ICE and the National Guard, for defending themselves.

Democrats, who should know better, hear this kind of left-wing media coverage and get a distorted impression. But the facts aren’t unclear. Is this operation something that should be scrutinized? Absolutely. There are people here illegally who contribute to their communities—they have jobs, care for children, clean houses. Immigration is a tough issue, a human issue, for America to grapple with.

But what isn’t complicated: If ICE says they’re deporting specific people, some of whom are violent criminals, and then violence is directed against ICE, the issue there is clear. That’s a breakdown of civic order. When the president says local officials can’t or won’t maintain order, and the National Guard or military is brought in, Democrats should say, “Thank you for helping our community.” They can still oppose the immigration policy. But how can a political party claim the violence is incited by federal officials?

The Democratic response is equally confusing. Vice President Kamala Harris, who lives in Southern California and has rarely weighed in since leaving office, called the people being deported “our immigrant neighbors.” Technically true—they’re immigrants, illegal immigrants, living nearby—but that phrase reflects the Democrats’ desire to blame Donald Trump. They want to suggest this violence is Trump’s fault. It’s not.

Trump openly promised this action as a candidate, clearly, in speeches like one he gave in Iowa. There was no ambiguity. Now he’s enforcing that promise, going into blue areas—possibly being provocative or changing the subject. He even sent ICE agents into Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Locals there were shocked, saying things like, “That woman cares for my kids,” or “That guy sells me papaya in the park.” It’s tragic to see these lives upended, but these are people who chose to enter illegally.

My heart breaks for them on a human level, but tens of millions of Americans voted for Trump precisely to restore order, to bring sanity back to our immigration system—for security, criminal justice, and because our healthcare and education systems simply can’t afford unchecked illegal immigration.

I don’t understand why Democrats think attacking law enforcement, either verbally or politically, is the right approach. Oppose Trump’s immigration policies politically if you disagree. But as ICE officials are being attacked, how can anyone justify criticizing law enforcement for enforcing the law?

California Democratic officials keep repeating that Trump is evil, doesn’t care about immigrants, wants to destroy communities, uses aggressive law enforcement, rubber bullets against reporters, tear gas against babies. This rhetoric results directly in attacks on law enforcement. Enforcing the law is not breaking the law. You can disagree with the policy, but this is one of the clearest examples of Trump Derangement Syndrome I’ve ever seen.

Mark Halperin:
I continue to be struck by how Americans view the attempted assassination of President Trump about a year ago. It feels longer because so much has happened, but it remains an incredible prism through which to understand how red and blue America view Donald Trump and his role in our lives.

What an extraordinary event—not just a former president, but the front-runner for the presidency, nearly killed on the eve of his convention. Donald Trump has dominated American life politically, culturally, symbolically, and emotionally like no one else in our lifetime. On that day, others were grievously wounded; Cory Comper lost his life, and Donald Trump himself almost died.

Nearly a year later, it’s clear that those on the left—who dislike Trump, disagree with him, and wish he weren’t president—didn’t treat this assassination attempt the way they would have if it had been Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or Bill Clinton. They tried to dismiss it. Understanding their reaction helps us grasp the ongoing divide in America between those glad Trump was president and those deeply unhappy about it.

The shooting happened at a busy political time, shortly before Trump’s convention, his selection of running mate J.D. Vance, and Joe Biden dropping out of the race just eight days later. But even today, the shooter’s motive—Thomas Krooks, whose name you might barely recognize due to minimal scrutiny—remains unknown. Imagine: someone attempts to assassinate a former president and leading candidate, yet between the government and media, the motive is still an absolute mystery.

However, two critical aspects are clear. First, many Americans, particularly MAGA supporters, rallied dramatically around Trump after the attack. Notably, Elon Musk went from leaning Democrat to full-on supporting Trump due to Trump’s display of grit and heroism that day in Butler. Trump himself believes divine intervention saved him. Many supporters share this belief, citing how unusual it was that Trump happened to turn and pick up his famous immigration chart at precisely that moment, possibly saving his life. Millions viewed this as a rallying, divine moment.

Second, something far less uplifting is also clear: how this event exposed hostility towards Trump from certain individuals and institutions that oppose him and his movement. The corporate media’s response at the time—and ever since—highlights their deep-seated hostility and loss of credibility among Americans, even some who don’t support Trump. Major liberal institutions—corporate media, universities, nonprofits—lost credibility by failing to treat the assassination attempt with the seriousness they would have for a Democrat.

As with Biden’s mental acuity and the Russiagate investigation, there’s been no retraction, no accountability, and no self-reflection. Instead, media figures almost immediately blamed Trump’s rhetoric for provoking the attack—without knowing the shooter’s motive, which we still don’t know.

For instance, here’s Martha Raddatz of ABC News shortly after the attack, placing blame on Trump himself:

Martha Raddatz (ABC News):
President Trump and his supporters have contributed to this violent rhetoric. We looked at some of the things former President Trump has said—he warned last March of potential death and destruction if he were charged. He said, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” He later claimed he was joking, but those were indeed his words.

Mark Halperin:
Now, the “bloodbath” comment was about the auto industry, often taken out of context by the press. Regardless, Trump has said many divisive things, but to blame him in the immediate aftermath of his own near-murder is incredible.

Similarly, here’s Margaret Brennan from CBS News taking the same line:

Margaret Brennan (CBS News):
The language around this campaign has been us-versus-the-system. Trump claims all legal cases against him are politically motivated. By alleging a connection to this attempt on his life, that would escalate tensions further.

Mark Halperin:
Again, rather than waiting to learn the shooter’s motive—which remains unknown—they immediately blamed Trump himself. After events like this, people often jump to conclusions about motive. After the Oklahoma City bombing, many wrongly speculated foreign terrorists were involved; it turned out to be homegrown terrorism. In this case, with no clear motive, media immediately blamed Trump’s own words.

At Trump’s convention speech, media largely mocked his visible bandage and questioned whether he was actually shot. Here’s Michael Steele, former Republican National Committee chairman turned anti-Trump commentator, speculating openly on MSNBC:

Michael Steele (MSNBC):
It’s been several days since this horrific event occurred. Yet, we’ve not received a medical report detailing Trump’s injuries. If he was shot by a high-caliber bullet, there should be very little ear left. Was there cosmetic surgery involved? Were stitches needed? Was the damage from glass shards, as some reporters on the scene suggested, instead of the bullet? There are a lot of questions around that ear.

Mark Halperin:
Conspiracy theories exist on both left and right. But this skepticism came a week after doctors explained clearly what happened, after forensic evidence confirmed the shooting, after the weapon was recovered. Yet, the hostility persisted, underscoring again how profoundly this event demonstrates why so many Americans have lost faith in our institutions and media.

Mark Halperin:
Next up, my reported monologue—hopefully entertaining to you, but also breaking through to anybody from the media who’s watching. It’s amazing to me how the conspiracy continues to deny what happened, pretending something else happened, and the long-running effort by Democrats colluding with the media attempting to cover up Joe Biden’s loss of mental acuity. There’s now a battle to define Biden’s legacy, hold Democrats accountable, and to ask people running for president in 2028 or considering it what they knew. That’s important, but as a professional journalist, my focus is to get people to admit what happened, figure out how it happened, and ensure it doesn’t happen again.

This Hugh Hewitt interview is unfortunately a perfect example of that ongoing cover-up of the media’s role. Then later, my privilege and delight to have Brit Hume here to discuss all manner of things.

Why am I returning to the media’s role in attempting to cover up Joe Biden’s mental acuity loss? Because there’s been a long-running cover-up where media and Democrats suppressed the truth. Now, they’re trying to suppress their role in it. The media hasn’t admitted their part, first creating a fiction that Biden was fine, and now pretending the Biden circle hid Biden’s decline from them.

Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson claim their book revealed the truth—that Democrats privately saw Biden’s decline as early as 2023 but didn’t speak up, and the media couldn’t know because it was secret. That’s fiction. Everyone saw it publicly for years; the media ignored it due to bias against Trump and pressure from the Biden White House.

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Tapper and Thompson about their book. Hugh’s usually great, but in this case, he allowed them to continue this false narrative uninterrupted. Hugh said hundreds of people saw Biden’s infirmity privately—no, millions saw it publicly. When Biden talked to a dead congresswoman in 2022, everyone saw it, yet the media said nothing meaningful.

Hugh Hewitt (to Jake Tapper):
At a September 20th, 2023 event, what happened? Michael Shear from the New York Times was there. Hundreds knew Biden had fallen into infirmity. Is that fair?

Jake Tapper:
It’s fair. In late 2023 and early 2024, hundreds saw moments causing concern. But your larger point—that hundreds saw what we saw debate night behind the scenes and didn’t speak out—is true.

Mark Halperin:
That makes me crazy. Millions saw it publicly. The media, including Tapper, saw it publicly but remained silent. Special counsel Robert Hur described Biden as elderly with poor memory, declining to indict him. Tapper and CNN criticized Hur at the time but now pretend no one could have known.

Hugh Hewitt:
Hundreds knew but didn’t defend Hur’s assessment.

Mark Halperin:
Again, millions saw it. Yet Hugh helped the myth that no one knew.

Alex Thompson:
Democrats had incentives not to speak out. Donors didn’t want Biden’s backlash. Democratic leaders feared they’d be driven out like Dean Phillips. Democrats believe Trump is an existential threat, rationalizing putting someone they know isn’t capable into office.

Mark Halperin:
That’s exactly true about the media, too. Yet the authors refuse to hold the media accountable.

Jake Tapper:
Our reporting suggests Biden’s infirmity was visible as early as 2015 after Beau’s death, initially mistaken for grief but later seen as cognitive decline that worsened significantly by 2023.

Mark Halperin:
This contradiction—claiming it started years ago but simultaneously saying nobody could know—is outrageous. Hugh admits conservatives saw Biden’s decline publicly early on, yet still says it’s astonishing nobody knew until the debate. It doesn’t add up.

Hugh Hewitt:
My father-in-law had Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, so I recognized Biden’s decline early. I’m astonished we didn’t find out until the debate.

Mark Halperin:
Again, Hugh knew well before. He contradicts himself. Hugh also asks why conservatives like him, who pointed out Biden’s decline publicly, weren’t quoted in the book.

Alex Thompson:
Mainly, the book got too long. Also, we aimed to show behind-the-scenes events, not public observations.

Mark Halperin:
Excluding public evidence is exactly the problem—pretending Biden’s decline was a secret. Everyone saw it publicly. The book ignores liberal media bias. Tapper knows bias exists but argues Trump uniquely drove media bias.

Jake Tapper:
Trump adds extra motivation. There is a difference between factual reporting and observation-based commentary. We focused on proof, not commentary.

Mark Halperin:
Nonsense. They relied on Democrats who weren’t doctors, making observational judgments, same as conservatives did publicly. Hugh and the authors call it a conspiracy of silence among Democrats but omit the media’s identical complicity.

Jake Tapper:
There was an unbelievable conspiracy of silence among Democrats who saw Biden’s decline and said nothing.

Mark Halperin:
Exactly. But also among the press, whose silence aimed at preventing Trump’s victory. The media acted just like Democrats, ignoring obvious evidence to serve political purposes. Hugh aiding this fiction deeply frustrates me. The press betrayed public trust through a massive institutional failure. I urge you to reflect on this honestly—it’s outrageous they deny bias when their bias led to dangerous decisions affecting our democracy.