Former President Donald Trump's campaign refused to schedule a debate with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, Breitbart reported. The campaign said it would be "inappropriate" to do so until it becomes official.
After an abysmal performance in his only debate against Trump this campaign, President Joe Biden announced Sunday that he was giving up on his reelection bid. He immediately endorsed Harris as his replacement, but nothing becomes official until the Democratic Party nominates her.
Trump campaign communications director Steven Cheung explained that this has led to the decision to hold off on confirming a debate. "Given the continued political chaos surrounding Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, general election debate details cannot be finalized until Democrats formally decide on their nominee," Cheung wrote in a statement Thursday.
"There is a strong sense by many in the Democrat Party — namely Barack Hussein Obama — that Kamala Harris is a Marxist fraud who cannot beat President Trump, and they are still holding out for someone ‘better.’ Therefore, it would be inappropriate to schedule things with Harris because Democrats very well could still change their minds," the statement said.
Harris is certainly Biden's pick, but many felt that she would be on shaky ground until she received the blessing of former President Barack Obama. The fact that he took his time doing so had likely caused Harris to panic in the meantime.
Sources close to the matter said that Obama was reluctant to do so and was shocked by Biden's decision to name Harris as his replacement. Obama was reportedly not convinced that Harris would be able to win in this contentious election.
Still, Barack and Michelle Obama finally gave their nod to Harris in a video released Friday, Fox News reported. Of course, it was a full five days after Biden made his announcement.
"I can’t have this phone call without saying to my girl Kamala: I am proud of you. This is going to be historic," Michelle Obama told Harris in the call that was clearly scripted.
"We called to say Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office," Barack Obama chimed in after the former first lady. Even with their formal endorsement, Harris has a way to go.
Having the Obamas' support is certainly a positive sign that Harris will be the Democratic Party nominee. Yet it isn't a done deal until the official nomination process wraps up.
The standard process would be to move toward an open convention next month when the Democratic Party convenes in Chicago. However, recently approved changes will allow for a virtual roll call that could come as early as Aug. 1, CBS News reported.
The call will only happen if Harris remains unchallenged. If anyone wishes to go against her, they must have 300 delegates sign an online petition by July 30 to be considered for the spot. If not, Harris could be named the candidate through the virtual option.
Even with this momentum behind her, the Trump campaign is still wise to wait for the process to play out. In the meantime, Harris is getting the full treatment from the establishment media to prop up the unpopular vice president as the next president.
When the time comes, Trump will have no trouble crushing Harris or any other candidate in the debate. However, the time has not yet come as the Democratic Party still works out Biden's replacement.
President Joe Biden said he would follow through with "Supreme Court reform" during his speech on Wednesday, The Hill reported. The president addressed the nation from the Oval Office days after quitting his reelection bid.
Biden spoke about his decision to exit the presidential race from behind the resolute desk in the short address. He also laid out his plans for what has now become a lame-duck presidency.
"Over the next six months, I’ll be focused on doing my job as president," Biden said. He listed off many things he would fix that he was also responsible for breaking, but also pledged that he would "call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy."
For decades, the left had zero problems with how the Supreme Court operated. Not so coincidentally, this was also during a time when liberals had the majority in the court.
Now that the court is 6-3 in favor of the conservative judges, Democrats seem to have homed in on perceived flaws in the Supreme Court system that has decided against some of their pet causes. They were outraged that the court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022.
The left also lost the battle over affirmative action as the court outlawed race-based admissions in higher education. Most recently, the high court found in favor of granting presidential immunity for former President Donald Trump, which may have sealed the deal for Biden.
Until now, Biden has been reluctant to tackle these initiatives because of the danger of politicizing the Supreme Court. However, several media reports state that Biden is ready to make changes, such as imposing an ethics code on justices.
This comes after Justice Clarence Thomas received scrutiny over high-value trips and gifts he received but did not report, which could become the rationale for Biden's change. The president also wants to impose term limits on the justices rather than lifetime appointments.
With Biden officially out of the running, he may be free to do more without worrying about scrutiny as an incumbent running for reelection. This could include the changes to the court and other issues he's promised to tackle in his final months.
Yet, Democrats have more to worry about than just what Biden does before he leaves office. With Harris now his replacement as the new presumptive Democratic nominee, they'll have to convince the American people that she is the person for the job.
To combat these succession woes, the establishment media has begun scrambling to change the narrative surrounding Harris. Fox News reported that the effort includes erasing unflattering news from her past.
One of the most striking examples is deleting a GovTrack report that pegged Harris as the "most liberal" senator in 2019. Like something out of George Orwell's 1984, that page was scrubbed sometime earlier this month, even as recently as the day after Biden left the race.
Whatever Biden does in his last few months can't be as horrible as what he's done with the rest of his term. Unfortunately, it still might backfire for his successor who already faces electoral challenges of her own.
Trump's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging the transfer of funds from the president to the vice president was improper, CBS News reported. Vice President Kamala Harris is running in place of President Joe Biden after the elderly Democrat dropped out of his reelection campaign.
Despite several assurances that the 81-year-old would remain in the presidential race, Biden announced over the weekend that he was stepping aside. He endorsed Harris, who has become the presumptive Democratic nominee in his place.
The FEC complaint named Harris, Biden, and their campaign treasurer, Keana Spencer. The dispute concerns millions of dollars raised for the Biden/Harris campaign while the president was still in the running, which is now under Harris's discretion.
The complaint alleges that they are "seeking to perpetrate a $91.5 million dollar heist of Joe Biden's leftover campaign cash — a brazen money grab that would constitute the single largest excessive contribution and biggest violation in the history of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the "Act")." This comes after an unprecedented candidate swap.
Former President Donald Trump's campaign attorney, David Warrington, accused Biden and Harris of "filing fraudulent forms with the Commission purporting to repurpose one candidate's principal campaign committee for the use of another candidate." It's as if Harris simply crossed out Biden's name and wrote her own instead of filing a Statement of Candidacy as is required.
"There is no provision in federal campaign finance law for Kamala Harris to take over Joe Biden's candidacy now by quite literally attempting to become him via an amendment of his Form 2, assuming control of his campaign by amending Form 1, and making off with all of his cash," Warrington wrote in legal filings. The Harris campaign will likely disagree.
The rationale is that the original campaign was filed naming the "principal campaign committee" with both Biden and Harris. The original fundraising committees have changed names to reflect Harris' new role, such as Harris for President and Harris Victory Fund.
Trump's case also seems questionable in light of FEC commissioner Dara Lindenbaum's statement to X, formerly Twitter. "I agree with @HvonSpakovsky, if @KamalaHarris becomes the Democrat Party presidential nominee, she gets access to the @JoeBiden campaign funds," Lindenbaum wrote on Sunday.
I agree with @HvonSpakovsky, if @KamalaHarris becomes the Democrat Party presidential nominee, she gets access to the @JoeBiden campaign funds. @FEC https://t.co/53HAXugefl pic.twitter.com/oxCp1KwUVM
— Dara Lindenbaum (@DaraLind) July 21, 2024
The Harris campaign experienced a fundraising bonanza in the days after she became the de facto nominee. From the time Biden dropped out Sunday until Monday night, Harris reportedly received $100 million in campaign contributions.
However, Warrington argued that the transfer of campaign funds from Biden to Harris also amounts to a donation and should be treated as such. "This is little more than a thinly veiled $91.5 million excessive contribution from one presidential candidate to another, that is, from Joe Biden's old campaign to Kamala Harris's new campaign," Warrington said.
"This effort makes a mockery of our campaign finance laws," he added. "Contributions by federal candidate committees to other federal candidates are limited to $2,000," Warrington pointed out.
"Yet, Biden for President is seeking to make an excessive contribution over approximately $91 million dollars — more than 45,000 times the legal limit," he added. Warrington also asserted that since Biden dropped out before transferring the money, he technically should have had to return it.
Democrats think just because their voters accepted this switcheroo that, the FEC will, too. However, the matter will have to be litigated as this is an unprecedented situation involving millions of dollars in campaign funds.
Former President Donald Trump has a double-digit lead against newly minted Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, Breitbart reported. Harris took over as the presumptive nominee after President Joe Biden stepped down from the race Sunday, thanks in part to pressure from former President Barack Obama.
Biden responded to calls from his own party to get out of the presidential race. After several assurances that he would stay, Biden abruptly announced via X, formerly Twitter, that he was dropping out Sunday.
Now, a Harris X/Forbes poll conducted before the announcement shows that 52% of likely voters choose Trump compared to 42% for Harris. When adjusted using the "leaning" question of the 6% who were undecided, the advantage still went to Trump with 54% to Harris' 46%.
🇺🇲 2024 GE: Among 2,169 likely voters by @Harris_X_ for @Forbes
🟥 Trump: 52%
🟦 Harris: 42%
⬜ Undecided: 6%With leans
🟥 Trump: 54%
🟦 Harris: 46%
—
#161 (1.6/3.0) | July 19-21 | 2,169 LVhttps://t.co/aftIVaQhd4 https://t.co/gK9W0GpOYK pic.twitter.com/eQG2zGoD5P— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) July 22, 2024
According to Politico, Obama had a role in getting Biden to step down from the race. In the aftermath, he has refrained from endorsing Harris while others in the party decided to do just that.
It's clear that Obama saw that Biden's campaign was faltering, and he, along with other prominent Democrats, leaned on Biden to give up his reelection bid. Harris became the logical choice, but Obama did not publicly support Harris immediately.
"We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges," Obama said in a statement Sunday, Fox News reported.
"I believe that Joe Biden’s vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond," Obama added.
Meanwhile, Harris has received the backing of the Clintons, Biden, and other Democrats. After having such an active role in convincing Biden to leave, Obama likely didn't want to seem as if he staged a coup and handpicked his replacement.
Even if Harris is not the most popular choice to replace Biden in the presidential election, she's the most logical at this late stage. According to The Hill, the Democratic convention is less than four weeks away, limiting the time for vetting and choosing a candidate.
Harris has name recognition and the infrastructure already in place to run a campaign since she was part of Biden's reelection bid. Rather than building from scratch, Harris can pick up where Biden left off.
Furthermore, as USA Today pointed out, endorsing Harris as his successor means that the money raised for the Biden/Harris ticket can seamlessly become a Harris war chest. The Biden campaign added another $127 million to its coffers in June, which Harris would then take over.
"If Harris remains on the ticket, as either the presidential or vice presidential candidate, the new ticket would maintain access to all the funds," campaign attorney Saurav Ghosh, who is affiliated with the Campaign Legal Center, explained. Fundraising wouldn't be so easy for a newcomer.
As her track record demonstrates, Harris is nobody's first choice for anything. However, the unprecedented situation Democrats face seems to justify choosing her even with such profound unpopularity.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday to order a new trial in a case where the lower court allowed closed-door meetings about whether to buy new voting machines from Dominion Voter Systems in 2020 and 2021.
The law allows closed-door executive meetings for three reasons: “To consider the purchase of property for public purposes, the sale of property at competitive bidding, or the sale or other disposition of unneeded, obsolete, or unfit-for-use property in accordance with (state law), if premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest.”
The court said it used grammar to decide the ruling.
“We apply the ordinary rules of grammar – specifically, the rules of punctuation – to determine the plain meaning of (the ORC provisions on executive sessions),” Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy wrote in the opinion. “In doing so, we conclude that the premature-disclosure clause applies to all the permissible reasons listed in the provision for entering executive session.”
The appeals court had said the premature disclosure clause only applied to the third reason--the disposition of obsolete property.
With this new interpretation, the supreme court sent the case back down to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to be looked at again.
The county did buy the machines after a judge in a separate lawsuit ordered them to.
The lawsuit was brought by Look Ahead America, a group in D.C. that has also advocated for January 6 defendants.
Dominion Voting Systems has been the target of accusations that its voting machines got President Joe Biden elected by allowing votes to be changed fraudulently.
Full disclosure, they won over $700 million dollars in a defamation lawsuit from Fox News, so at least one court felt they were maligned unfairly.
Other lawsuits are still pending.
But millions of Republicans still believe something is fishy there, and a lot of them would oppose their county buying new ones. Hence the secrecy--but that's not how local government is supposed to work.
Just because one party believes the other one is misinformed doesn't make it right for the other one to go behind their backs and do what they want anyway.
Time for a do-over--but how many more times are the courts going to have to correct these overreaching, tyrannical regimes before they change their ways? That's the question.
As the country continues to learn more about the security failures that led to an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, alarming details are emerging about decisions made by top officials at the agency responsible for his safety.
New reports have indicated that recent charges that the U.S. Secret Service denied repeated requests from Trump's team for additional security resources are in fact true, despite prior denials from the likes of Homeland Security Secretary Alexander Mayorkas, as the Daily Caller explains.
Investigations are underway regarding the shocking scene that unfolded in Butler, Pennsylvania last weekend when a gunman took aim at a Trump rally, killing one man and injuring several others, including the former president.
Observers in the media and elsewhere have expressed outrage and incredulity that a would-be assassin -- who was spotted by rally attendees in advance of his attack -- was able to scale a nearby roof and fire his weapon into the crowd.
In the wake of the event, allegations emerged that for at least two years prior to the fateful day in the Keystone State, Trump's team sought -- but was denied -- additional security assistance such as counter-sniper support and magnetometers.
Last week, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi rebuffed those claims, stating that there was “an untrue assertion that a member of the former President's team requested additional security resources & that those were rebuffed,” but new reporting from the Washington Post tells a different story.
According to the Post, requests from the Trump team for additional assistance were indeed denied by the Secret Service for a period of two years prior to the assassination attempt, and the denials were attributed to staffing shortfalls and an increased number in the individuals requiring the agency's services.
One internal whistleblower told the Post, “It's just true -- we don't have the resources to secure [Trump] like we did when he was president.”
Retired agent Bill Gage, explained, “I hate to dumb it down this much, but it is a simple case of supply and demand. The requests get turned down routinely. A director has to finally come forward to say we are way understaffed, and we cannot possibly continue with this zero-fail mission without a significantly bigger budget.”
The apparent contradiction between initial official responses to the Trump camp's claim and the reporting from the Post have sparked outrage among lawmakers, with Florida Republican Rep. Mike Waltz taking to X to vent his frustration.
“Once again Mayorkas has MISLED the public. On CNN he called my statement that President Trump's detail was DENIEDs repeated requests for stronger secret service protection “an irresponsible statement that is unequivocally false,” Waltz wrote. “Now WaPo is citing officials that I was CORRECT, and that Mayorkas LIED.”
As part of the ongoing quest for answers and accountability in the wake of such a catastrophic security failure, the House Oversight and Accountability Committee is poised to hold a hearing on Monday, as The Hill reports.
After a fair bit of uncertainty and internal discussion, embattled Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has confirmed her plans to heed a subpoena and appear at the proceedings, with the agency stating, “We are committed to better understanding what happened before, during and after the assassination attempt of former President Trump to ensure it never happens again.”
Considering the obfuscation in which the agency has already engaged, however, precisely how much clarity will ultimately emerge from the hearing is something that remains to be seen.
A federal court upheld a Mississippi law that confers a lifetime voting ban on felons convicted of certain crimes, The Hill reported. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision to strike down the law.
The law states that people convicted of felonies, including arson, bigamy, bribery, embezzlement, forgery, or theft, are barred from voting for life. The plaintiffs in the case sued on the grounds that this violated the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and 14th Amendment.
Thursday's 13-6 decision demonstrated that the full court disagreed. The decision stated that overturning the law "would thwart the ability of the State’s legislature and citizens to determine their voting qualifications, and would require federal courts overtly to make legislative choices that, in our federal system, belong at the State level," the majority opinion said.
“Do the hard work of persuading your fellow citizens that the law should change. The paramount lesson of the Constitution and Richardson is that the changes sought by Plaintiffs here can and must be achieved through public consensus effectuated in the legislative process, not by judicial fiat," the document went on.
The plaintiffs have argued that disenfranchising felons violates the Equal Protection Clause. "Denying broad groups of our citizens, for life, the ability to have a role in determining who governs them diminishes our society and deprives individuals of the full rights of representative government," the plaintiffs' attorney Jon Youngwood said in a written statement.
"We remain confident in this case, and our clients remain committed to ensuring that their right to vote is restored." Previously, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit had deemed it "cruel and unusual" punishment to strip voting rights.
"Mississippi stands as an outlier among its sister states, bucking a clear national trend in our nation against permanent disenfranchisement," the ruling from the smaller panel had determined. The decision said that "severing former offenders from the body politic forever, Section 241 ensures that they will never be fully rehabilitated, continues to punish them beyond the term their culpability requires, and serves no protective function to society."
This portion was overruled by the opinion of the full court. "Every circuit court that has had the chance to invalidate felon disenfranchisement has rejected the opportunity," the later majority opinion said.
Mississippi has the strictest voting laws, with some 11% of the electorate deemed ineligible. While some complain about disenfranchising voters, this type of law could be a major story in the upcoming presidential election.
These rules about allowing convicted felons could become front and center during the presidential election in November. Former President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts in a Manhattan court in May, the Associated Press reported.
Although he is not a resident of Mississippi, Trump's home state of Florida has similar rules that would keep him out of the voting booth. As the GOP presidential nominee, it will become fodder for his opposition if the candidate can't even vote for himself.
However, the liberal love affair with criminals may work in his favor this time. Since Trump was convicted in a New York court, where the laws are more favorable to felons, he may get to cast a ballot after all and provide a photo op that Democrats will bristle at.
"If a Floridian’s voting rights are restored in the state of conviction, they are restored under Florida law," explained Blair Bowie from the Campaign Legal Center. It remains to be seen what Trump's sentence will be in New York, but it appears the conviction is more meaningless by the day.
Felons have broken the law in a serious way, and they have to pay the price, even if it is for life. Allowing them the same rights to vote as the general public is antithetical to justice.
Political commentator Lou Dobbs passed away Thursday at the age of 78, Breitbart reported. Former President Donald Trump fondly remembered the veteran broadcaster who was fired after supporting his claims of voting machine fraud.
Trump eulogized Dobbs, who was a loyal supporter, in a post to Truth Social Thursday. “The Great Lou Dobbs has just passed away — A friend, and truly incredible Journalist, Reporter, and Talent," Trump wrote.
"He understood the World, and what was ‘happening,’ better than others. Lou was unique in so many ways, and loved our Country. Our warmest condolences to his wonderful wife, Debi, and family. He will be greatly missed!" the former president added.
According to CNN, Dobbs started at the network as one of the original broadcasters in 1980. His Moneyline program was a mainstay at CNN for nearly three decades.
Dobbs left in 2009 to join Rupert Murdoch’s new Fox Business News network. It was there that he would ultimately become a voice for the conservative movement and an ally for Trump.
During the Trump era, Dobbs echoed many of his opinions on air, including Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration and the “deep state.” The veteran news personality would also join Trump in questioning the validity of the 2020 presidential election results.
On his Fox Business program Lou Dobbs Tonight, he spoke about the possibility that the machines flipped votes to elect Joe Biden as president. It was a suspicion that the former president and many of his supporters shared.
Unfortunately, the theories became part of a defamation lawsuit against Fox. The network ultimately paid the tech companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic upwards of $787 million.
Dobbs was caught up in the defamation lawsuits for comments he made on air. In February 2021, Fox Business abruptly pulled Dobbs’ show over of the legal battles.
At the time, attorneys for Dobbs argued that he “denies the allegations of a disinformation camapaign” against Smartmatic. They also claimed he “engages in opinion commentary on issues of public interest, which is right under the U.S. Constitution.”
Still, the media company paid the price and Dobbs was cut loose. Despite his contentious exit, a Fox News Media spokesperson expressed “heartfelt condolences to his family” following news of his death.
“We are deeply saddened by the passing of Lou Dobbs. An incredible business mind with a gift for broadcasting, Lou helped pioneer cable news into a successful and influential industry,” the spokesperson said.
It’s unfortunate that his career at Fox ended on a sour note. However, to those who trusted his heart and voice, it took nothing away from his legacy.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) confronted Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle about the failures that led to the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump, Breitbart reported. She was joined by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) as the pair peppered Cheatle with questions amid calls for Cheatle to resign.
Blackburn and Barrasso descended on Cheatle at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday. They wanted her to answer for the failures that led to the attempt on Trump's life at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday.
"This was an assassination attempt. You owe the people answers. You owe President Trump answers," Blackburn can be heard telling Cheatle near the end of the clip shared to X, formerly Twitter.
🚨FULL VIDEO: Secret Service Director REFUSES to answer to the American people. pic.twitter.com/MPVOke5zhY
— Marsha Blackburn (@VoteMarsha) July 18, 2024
The American people are still reeling from the assassination attempt that narrowly missed killing Trump. The ease at which shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks was able to move into position and pull the trigger has many crying foul.
House and Senate lawmakers were briefed separately by Secret Service Deputy Director Ronald Rowe, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Deputy Director Paul Abbate about what led to the shooting. Cheatle participated in the one for the Senate that "was a cover-your-ass briefing by the Secret Service," Barrasso said to NBC News after the meeting.
Crooks had reportedly surveyed the venue days before the rally. On the day Trump was to speak, law enforcement spotted the would-be assassin acting suspiciously an hour before the event began, suggesting that there was plenty of warnings about him that went unheeded.
"The director of the Secret Service needs to go," Barrasso said. "That shooter was identified as a suspect, a suspicious character, a full one hour before the shooting occurred," Barrasso pointed out.
"Had a range finder, a backpack, and then they lost sight of him and never really followed up on that. This was an hour before," the Wyoming Republican charged.
Blackburn and Barrasso weren't alone in demanding accountability given the amount of errors that led to the shooting. On Wednesday, House Oversight Chairman James Comer announced that he would be issuing a subpoena to Cheatle.
The Kentucky Republican will compel her to testify on Monday in a public hearing about the incident. Johnson is also setting up a task force to investigate possible failures, including Cheatle's job performance leading up to the event.
"The reason we’re going to do it that way is because that is a more precision strike. It goes quicker, there’s not a lot of the procedural hurdles, and it will have subpoena authority for that task force as well," Johnson explained.
"It will be compiled of Republicans and Democrats to get down the bottom of this quickly so the American people can get the answers that they deserve," he promised. For her part, Cheatle has said, "The buck stops with me. I am the director of the Secret Service."
The lawmakers who confronted Cheatle had every right to do so on behalf of the American people. This was a horrific event, and we deserve answers as to how Cheatle and others let it happen.
An ex-classmate of Thomas Matthew Crooks said the would-be assassin once called him "stupid" for supporting former President Donald Trump, Fox News reported in an exclusive. The 20-year-old was shot and killed by law enforcement after shooting at Trump during a rally.
Former Bethel Park High School classmate Vincent Taormina said that Crooks spoke about his hatred for all politicians during the 2016 election. "He just did not like politicians, especially with the choices that we had. He did not like our politicians," Taormina said.
This may shed light on a possible motive for Crooks, who was identified as the gunman who shot at Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Saturday. The bullet took off a chunk of the former president's right ear, narrowly missing the former president's skull.
Unfortunately, Crooks bullets managed to kill 50-year-old Corey Comperatore, a Trump supporter and father of two, and critically wounded two others. Before the shooting, Crooks had no history of mental illness or criminal activity.
Taormina said that Crooks, who was usually introverted, would become "smug [and] arrogant" when discussing subjects like math and politics. "He would just talk, talk and act like he knew everything, especially politics related, and he would say it in a tone that was like, 'I'm better than you,' in a type of way," Taormina said.
The classmate recalled a particular discussion with Crooks in English class during the 2016 election. Taormina shared that he supported Trump over his potential Democratic rivals, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"I brought up the fact that I'm Hispanic and, you know, I'm for Trump. And he said, 'Well, you're Hispanic, so shouldn't you hate Trump?'" Taormina said.
"No. He's great. He was a great president. He called me stupid – or insinuated that I was stupid," the former classmate said of Crooks.
It's still unknown what the killer's exact motive was for attempting to assassinate the Republican presidential candidate. The FBI has recovered Crooks' cellphone and laptop and is conducting interviews to learn more about the late gunman.
Taormina said that the media has it all wrong when it comes to painting Crooks as a loner. While he was typically a shy and quiet student, Taormina said media reports of hin being a loner are wrong as Crooks had a few friends from school.
However, the former classmate admitted that those friends were other individuals who were seen as mentally unstable and the "type" that could become school shooters. "They were definitely the type, and they did, make threats to shoot up our school," he said.
Taormina said these were unconfirmed rumors, and there is no indication that these suspicions were ever confirmed. However, classmates noted that Crooks would not return to school for a few days after those threats were made.
"Everybody, anybody who knew him-knew him, should have seen something. They should have known something was up, and I know it's kind of easy to hide, but people are going to get their affairs in order before they do something that's bold and this drastic, and nobody saw it? And why?" Taormina said.
It's still a mystery who Crooks really was or what his possible motives might have been. However, it's clear that this isn't a simple cut-and-dry narrative that leftists were hoping for in the end.