Biden’s physician and business partner, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, says he is still experiencing mild upper respiratory symptoms and continues to take Paxlovid. He does not have a fever, and his symptoms are mild. Biden, 81, tested positive for COVID-19 on Wednesday. “He is vaccinated and boosted, and he is experiencing mild symptoms,” the White House […] The post Biden’s COVID Is Mild, “You’re Not Going to Get Rid of Him Quickly” appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Democrats began ramping up their attacks on Senator JD Vance (R-OH) within moments of former President Donald Trump’s announcement naming him as his 2024 running mate, but a former Democrat has stepped up in Vance’s defense. Former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who left the Democrat Party just prior to the 2022 midterm elections, fired right back when Vice President Kamala Harris attacked Vance. Gabbard began by quoting Harris, who had claimed that Vance would “be loyal only to Trump, not to our country,” and then laid out the reasons she believed that Harris was wrong. “@JDVance1 enlisted in the Marine Corps after 9/11 and deployed to Iraq in 2005, the same year I was there during the height of the war. He put his life on the line in service to our country,” Gabbard captioned the video she posted to X. “Was Kamala Harris ready to sacrifice her life for our country? Of course not. Once again, Kamala exposes her hypocrisy.” WATCH: Kamala Harris claims “JD Vance will be loyal only to Trump, not to our country.” @JDVance1 enlisted in the Marine Corps after 9/11 and deployed to Iraq in 2005, the same year I was there during the height of the war. He put his life on the line in service to our country. Was… pic.twitter.com/v9uSS7ASQe — Tulsi Gabbard ? (@TulsiGabbard) July 18, 2024 “The audacity that she has to say this is off the charts,” Gabbard said in the attached video. “She’s talking about JD Vance, someone who enlisted in the Marine Corps after the terrorist attack on 9/11.” “Kamala Harris is driven by her own political ambition,” she continued. “She’s a self-serving politician who should not be in office.” Gabbard became a household name during the 2020 Democratic primary after she attacked Harris’ record on criminal justice as a prosecutor in her home state of California. “I want to bring the conversation back to the broken criminal justice system that is disproportionately negatively impacting black and brown people all across this country today. Now Senator Harris says she’s proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she’ll be a prosecutor president,” Gabbard said at the time. “But I’m deeply concerned about this record. There are too many examples to cite but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana. She blocked evidence — she blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.” In the aftermath of that debate, support for Harris plummeted — and she ultimately left the primary in December of 2019.

A Princeton University student was suspended for two years after two women accused him of choking them on separate occasions. He presented text messages and other evidence to show their stories didn’t add up. He says he was treated with hostility during his campus hearing, where one administrator allegedly fell asleep. The student, referred to only as John Doe in his lawsuit against the university, now alleges Princeton violated his constitutional rights by ignoring his evidence and allowing his accusers to repeatedly change their stories. Princeton Freshman March 2023 In March of 2023, John was a freshman at Princeton University and became friends with a fellow female student referred to in court documents as Sarah Smith. Then, while attending an event at a Princeton Eating Club on March 3, John asked Sarah to keep an eye on his female friend — a woman only referred to as “Student 3” in the lawsuit — because she previously had a bad experience at a similar event. John wanted to make sure she felt safe.  Later, when John realized Sarah wasn’t keeping track of their mutual friend, he angrily confronted her. He admitted to getting close and yelling at her, prompting three different female students to stop and ask Sarah if she was okay. She said she was. The lawsuit also shows that a nearby security guard at the event witnessed the scene and did not intervene. When Sarah left the event, John texted her to make sure she returned home safely. He would later learn that she almost immediately told her roommates about him yelling at her, but never mentioned anything about him choking her or engaging in any other physical contact. April 1, 2023 A month later, on the night of April 1, John’s high school friend — only referred to in court documents as “Jane Doe” — came to visit him at Princeton. It was Jane’s first time visiting John’s school. That night, John, Jane, Student 3, another person referred to as “Student 4,” and John’s roommate were all in his dorm room. Everyone but John’s roommate was drinking. The four who were drinking then left for an event and while they walked, John and Jane kissed briefly. Student 3 – who had a crush on John – became upset and walked away, with Student 4 consoling her. Jane then shared a kiss with Sarah, whom she met the day before. John became upset at this interaction, because he had feelings for Jane and Sarah knew this. John and Jane started arguing, while Sarah, who was highly intoxicated, lay on the ground. While arguing, Jane suddenly collapsed and fell backwards into John before falling to the ground, screaming and crying. In his lawsuit, John questioned whether Jane did this “to end the argument, to bind her newfound Princeton friends to her, or because she was having some sort of genuine incident.” Jane claimed she was having a traumatic flashback to when her ex-boyfriend choked her. She said “Z choked me” and “he choked me,” according to John’s lawsuit. The group took Jane to Sarah’s room, but Jane asked to speak with John alone in the common room. Even though the two spoke, it was not until the next night that Jane first claimed John had choked her. John knew he didn’t choke her, but had no reason to doubt her sincerity at the time, so he told her he didn’t remember doing that. Over the next few days, Jane would write in text messages that John genuinely seemed to not remember allegedly choking her. During this time, however, Sarah and Jane became fast friends. Sarah told Jane she believed John could have choked her – even though Sarah didn’t see it – because, Sarah claimed, John had choked her weeks earlier. To John’s knowledge, it was the first time Sarah had ever accused John of choking her. John apologized to both women for yelling at them, and over the next few weeks, Jane repeatedly tried to get him to admit to choking her, which he wouldn’t. In one exchange, Jane claimed John “literally choked [her] out,” even though she never claimed to have lost consciousness. When John wouldn’t admit that he choked her, Jane responded by saying John “d[id]n’t even think [he] did anything that wrong.” John replied to this text by saying he had “acted wrong on many things,” but refused to concede that he choked her. Jane eventually demanded that John go to therapy, threatening to report him to Princeton if he did not. John agreed but soon stopped going because he said he didn’t think he was receiving any benefit. At one point, Jane threatened to report John if he didn’t call his parents and tell them he choked Jane while recording the conversation. John placed the strange call but only said he tried to pull Jane in to talk to her, and may have “damaged her windpipe ever so slightly.” Even with this recording, which John referred to in his lawsuit as “blackmail,” he refused to say he choked Jane. While all this was going on, Sarah and Jane continued to spend time with John, as part of groups or one-on-one. At one point, both women even stayed at John’s parents’ house for several days. By the end of the summer, John began commiserating with a mutual friend about their respective relationships with Jane and told each other how they were a little afraid of her. John believes Jane learned about this conversation, which may have been the catalyst for her to report John to Princeton. John Phelan via Wikimedia Commons Jane Reports John To Princeton September 2023 In early September of 2023, Jane reports John to Princeton, claiming he choked her five months earlier after she didn’t reciprocate a kiss and then kissed Sarah. When Princeton interviews Sarah as part of its investigation, she claims John had choked her at the beginning of March. John, however, would not receive first notice of the report until September 26.The notification simply stated someone submitted a report about him and requested an interview that same day. He received no other details or written notice of the allegations against him. The investigator assigned to the case also told John he couldn’t have a lawyer or even his parents present during the meeting or the disciplinary process.  During the interview, John was informed that two students, Jane and Sarah, had accused him of choking them on separate occasions months earlier. Although Jane wasn’t a Princeton student, she was still allowed to file an accusation with the school. October 1, 2023 John prepares a written response to the allegations and collected evidence, which he submits on October 2.  October 7, 2023 John asks for an update on the investigation. He is told the school is seeking additional interviews from witnesses, without disclosing which witnesses. October 23, 2023 Contrary to Princeton’s stated policies regarding disciplinary proceedings, John still has not received written notice of the allegations against him and has not been formally charged.  On the same day, John receives an email from Princeton’s deputy dean of undergraduate students, Joyce Chen, asking him to schedule a meeting with her to discuss the disciplinary process. John meets with her the next day and is told he will soon receive a packet of evidence and that a hearing for the matter would be scheduled just three days later, on October 27. The hearing would be held over Zoom and judged by two faculty members and three students, along with Dean Chen, the chair of the disciplinary committee.  John asked that the hearing be rescheduled and his request was granted. The hearing was moved toNovember 1. October 25, 2023 John is finally provided written notice of the charges against him. The charges state that while he was possibly intoxicated, he placed his hands around the neck of Jane, a non-student visiting from another university and applied pressure and/or choked her. He was also charged with the same infraction for Sarah.  John again requests the hearing be moved back so that he can properly review the large packet of evidence they provided. October 31, 2023 The day before the scheduled hearing, John receives an updated version of the evidence packet, containing 60 additional pages of evidence, which included interview summaries of witnesses the accusers had asked to be questioned. John was also notified that Jane would not attend the hearing, depriving John of the ability to question her. John responds by asking again if the hearing could be delayed. At 6:24 p.m. that same day, the dean says she doesn’t know if the hearing can be delayed. Twenty minutes later, the dean sends John yet another updated evidence packet with even more information. November 1, 2023 The next day, November 1, at 12:39 p.m., just six hours before the scheduled hearing, John is informed that his delay would be granted and the hearing would be held on either November 6 or 7 at 7:15 p.m. John was also told if he wanted to write an updated statement he could submit a new statement by 9:00 a.m. on November 3 – less than 48 hours away. November 4, 2023 Just two days before the new hearing, John receives another updated packet. The dean informs him that since he brought up the lack of evidence submitted by the accusers, she allowed the women to submit written statements including more evidence.  William Thomas Cain/Getty Images Interviews And Evidence November 6, 2023 Just 45 minutes before the hearing, the dean informs John he cannot ask leading questions during the hearing, but refuses to tell him which witnesses would be called. The final evidence packet John receives makes it clear that Princeton’s investigator interviewed Sarah and Jane three separate times, and were prompted to provide responses to what John said during his sole interview with the investigator. John was never similarly prompted to respond to what the women said. In fact, the first time he learned of any of their varied statements was in the evidence packets he kept receiving before the hearing. Student 4 – the only person who actually witnessed the incident between John and Jane – was also interviewed only once, while a female witness to an unrelated disciplinary charge against John was interviewed twice. John had been told the unrelated charge would not be brought to the attention of the disciplinary committee unless he was found responsible for choking Sarah and Jane. The evidence packet also showed that the investigator interviewed five students identified by the accusers – none of whom had any first-hand knowledge of the alleged incidents. At the same time, the investigator never interviewed Student X, despite filing a defamation lawsuit against Jane, nor did she interview John’s roommate, who interacted with Jane and Sarah in the days after the alleged incident with Jane. John also learned that male witnesses were not asked about alleged bruising on Jane’s neck following the alleged incident, while female witnesses were – and they provided conflicting accounts. Further, just before the hearing, Princeton interviewed Sarah’s roommates after John noted that she never told them about his alleged choking. Yet John’s roommate was not interviewed, even though he could have said whether Jane’s neck was bruised and whether Jane slept in John’s room for the rest of her stay at Princeton after the incident. Sarah and Jane’s witnesses were also given ample time to rebut John’s testimony, but neither John nor his witnesses were given the same opportunities. And while the packet redacted many parts, things that were prejudicial to John were not, such as unsubstantiated claims that he was “pro-life,” “sexist,” and “racist.”  Finally, the evidence packet showed numerous inconsistencies in Sarah and Jane’s allegations, yet Princeton never sought to clarify. For example, Jane’s story changed from not remembering anything about the night in question due to alcohol and later being told what happened, to claiming she remembered John accidentally grabbed her too hard. At one point, she texted John that he had almost “murdered two women in cold blood.” First Interview During her first interview with Princeton, Jane claimed John grabbed her throat and lifted her off the ground to the point she needed to stand on her tiptoes. Sarah also said in her initial interview that she didn’t see any marks on Jane’s throat, but in her second interview claimed to have seen a “slight bruise on the left side of [Jane]’s neck.”  Second Interview In her second interview, Jane claimed he choked her for only 5-6 seconds. She also claimed Sarah saw the choking, but John submitted a text message from Jane saying Sarah had not seen the incident. Further, Jane said she fell to the ground after John choked her, but after seeing John and Student 4’s statements about her oddly falling backwards into John’s arms, she changed her story to say that she “immediately tried to put some distance between herself and [John]” by “turn[ing] away from him,” adding that John then “grabbed [her] torso,” causing her to scream and fall to the ground. Third Interview In her third interview, after seeing evidence presented by John, Jane changed her story again to say that John “did not squeeze the sides of her neck with his fingers,” which would have been required to lift her off the ground, as she previously claimed. Instead, she now said he only “press[ed] from the front as we were facing each other,” which meant John never could have lifted her off the ground. As for Sarah’s allegations, she was never asked why she never discussed the alleged choking with John and only appeared angry with him for yelling at her. She was also not asked why she cropped images of text messages she submitted as evidence that removed her responses to John’s questions. John submitted photos of Jane from the week after the incident showing no bruising on her neck, which was visible in the photos. John was also able to show through evidence that Jane’s own parents didn’t seem to believe her story. Her mother at one point asked Jane if she was thinking of leaving Princeton earlier or “did you guys make up,” and Jane’s father seemingly dismissed her claims that John “choked” her by saying “I think [John] is OK.” Princeton investigators also found that John and Jane kissed after the alleged incident, as John had said during his interview. The evidence also showed that Jane lied about sleeping in Sarah’s room out of fear after the alleged incident, with John submitting photo evidence showing Jane had slept in his room for two nights, and that Sarah had also slept in his room during one of those nights. Jane also claimed she ended her friendship with John after he stopped going to therapy, but he was able to show texts between them more than a month after she learned he was out of therapy, including photo evidence that she and Sarah stayed at John’s house after this revelation. John also provided text messages that Jane was still in contact with him even after she made the allegations against him to Princeton. The evidence packet, according to John, also significantly undermined Sarah’s claims, with her friends and roommates saying she had only been upset because John yelled at her and never suggested he had choked her. After being presented with this evidence, Sarah changed her story to say John didn’t mean to choke her, but merely “pushing” on her neck – a change that was nearly identical to the descriptive change Jane had made. Sarah, too, claimed she spoke to John very little after the alleged incident, but photos and texts presented by John showed that was not true. Robert Merkel via Wikimedia Commons The Hearing Despite the contradictions to the women’s claims, the hearing began on the evening of November 6, 2023.. In his lawsuit, John said he learned from a source involved in the hearing panel’s process that the panel members had determined he was guilty before the hearing even began. Professor Elizabeth Harman allegedly gave an impassioned speech saying John was guilty and that it would be a “moral failing” to vote for anything other than to expel him. Despite the fact that the incidents were unrelated and occurred weeks apart, the hearing included both allegations against John. As John suspected, he and Student 4 – the only witness to the alleged incident with Jane who said no choking occurred – were treated with hostility by the panel, asked the same questions repeatedly with slight changes, and jumping on any perceived inconsistency. By contrast, Sarah and Jane’s witnesses, as well as Sarah herself, were not questioned about the numerous inconsistencies and changing statements, nor were they treated with hostility.  While John was questioned for more than an hour and a half, Sarah was questioned for just 30 minutes. She wasn’t asked about her inconsistencies but rather about John’s character. Members of the panel, according to John, also repeatedly demanded he explain why these two women would lie about the incidents, indicating the burden of proof lay with John and he had to disprove their claims, rather than Princeton needing to prove their claims. For example, one panel member allegedly asked John: You think that the fact thatJane spent time with you means that she wasn’t concerned about you as a danger, and how do you square that with her repeatedly demanding that you go to therapy, telling you that you have a serious problem, telling you that you need to tell your parents that you were violent with her? After John pointed out the changes in Sarah’s testimony, another panel member asked:  I guess, have you given any reason for [Sarah] to react this way? To John, this indicated that the panel member didn’t care that Sarah had contradicted herself if John couldn’t explain why she did it. To further illustrate that the panel didn’t need to hear Sarah’s testimony to convict John, John in his lawsuit includes a photo of Professor Harman allegedly falling asleep while Sarah spoke. In a statement to The Daily Wire, Harman said:  This is a screenshot of me awake, with my eyes open, looking down at the page as I take notes on the hearing. The panel also twisted John’s attempt in March to look out for a fellow student as somehow controlling. One panel member asked him:  You’ve referred a couple times to the fact that you were concerned about Student 3. Is that right? Who you wanted people to look out for? And I think what you’re saying is ‘Look at me. I’m a good guy. I was concerned about Student 3.’ And I just wanted to ask you if you could address a sort of different way of seeing this, which is that it’s intrusive for you to decide to make sure that Student 3’s okay by having people follow her. And indeed, she was followed by the one guy following her who you asked to follow her, that’s intrusive and controlling potentially. And then also that you are getting mad at someone for kissing Jane is also, you are taking yourself to have a say in how these other women in your life behave in an intrusive and controlling manner. Can you just see something if someone had that reaction to the stories that are being told? Confused, John asked for clarification:  I guess I’m trying to understand the question. So, the idea is that because I was trying to look out for Student 3 and someone could think that looking out for Student 3 is actually an intrusion, and so I’m the kind of person who makes intrusions, and so I’m the kind of person who would be upset about a kiss enough to attack someone. Is that the question? The panel member responded by saying they wanted John to agree that someone might see his actions as controlling. The panel member added:  You think you have a say and an entitlement to tell these women, friends of yours, how they should behave, what should be happening to them. John Phelan via Wikimedia Commons The Verdict Unsurprisingly, by 10:00 a.m. the following morning, just 10 hours after the hearing ended, John was found responsible. On November 8, he received the panel’s formal decision letter, which didn’t provide any rationale for the decision. It also neglected to identify what version of Jane or Sarah’s allegations he had been found responsible for. John put together an appeal that detailed all the unfairness he experienced during the investigation, but his appeal was denied. He was also denied the ability to review the full video recording of the Zoom hearing. He was only allowed access to the audio. He also was required to listen to the audio in a specific room on Princeton’s campus, could not get a copy of the audio or record it himself, could not use a transcription service to transcribe the interview, and he could only manually transcribe and take notes during his single listening session. John is now suing Princeton for breach of contract, due process violations, and sex-based discrimination. In a statement to The Daily Wire, Princeton said it believes this lawsuit “is without merit and will contest it vigorously,” adding, “We are confident this situation was handled in accordance with University policy.” In John’s lawsuit, he lays out Princeton’s policies regarding disciplinary hearings, and includes the fact that 98.5% of accused students have been found responsible. He also includes evidence that anytime a female student didn’t receive the desired outcome – the male accused student expelled or otherwise punished – she would complain to the press and the school would promise to do better, which to John meant finding even more men responsible no matter the evidence. “Princeton shouldn’t be allowed to toss a good student out of school for two years on the basis of a biased investigation and almost comically flawed hearing,” Justin Dillon, John’s attorney, told The Daily Wire in a statement. “And don’t even get me started about the Stalinist whiff surrounding the 98% conviction rate. Our client deserved more than the kind of ‘Yes, Comrade!’ process Princeton gave him.”

More and more prominent Democrats have moved to call for President Joe Biden to exit the 2024 presidential race, prompting mixed feelings — and complaints — from the hosts of ABC’s “The View.” For the most part, the hosts were upset that the Democratic Party would move to oust Biden — or at the very least, annoyed that plans to force him out of the race were reportedly being hatched behind his back. “It’s so depressing … I think he’s going to drop out,” Joy Behar said, arguing that it was convenient that Biden had just announced he had once again tested positive for COVID because he could use it as an excuse to bow out gracefully. “He needs this time to show how strong he is and he’s sick.” WATCH: Sunny Hostin doesn’t like the behind-the-scenes meetings urging Biden to get out are being leaked to the media. “It’s his decision to make. It seems to me that these…meetings are being leaked to force his hand.” But Biden still has her vote because Kamala is his VP. pic.twitter.com/8tfWFgidbi — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 18, 2024 Sunny Hostin complained that members of the party should not be working behind his back to push him toward the door, adding, “It’s his decision to make. It seems to me that these … meetings are being leaked to force his hand.” Hostin also noted that she would still vote for a Biden/Harris ticket regardless because she would support Vice President Kamala Harris being moved to the top of the ticket. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Sara Haines jumped in then, saying that she believed Democrats were only leaking information because pressuring the Biden camp in private had not been successful. “Democrats would not make it public if they didn’t need that pressure campaign to help with their decision,” she said. “Everyone needs to take the keys from grandpa one day.” WATCH: Using incendiary and inciting rhetoric, Behar proclaims, “Trump is the imperial wizard in some circles. They love him so much.” pic.twitter.com/S3ZFZBOMt6 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 18, 2024 Joy Behar argued that someone should take former President Donald Trump’s “keys,” too, claiming that “in some circles,” he was viewed as the “imperial wizard.” Cohost Whoopi Goldberg followed that up with her objections to the fact that Kai Madison Trump — daughter of Donald Trump Jr. and granddaughter of the former president — was given time to speak and “humanize” him. “I know his grandchild was up on the thing and they’re trying to humanize him and change your idea about who this guy is. Don’t fall for that!” she warned. WATCH: Hostin grows incensed over the idea of Kamala Harris getting “leapfrogged” and someone else getting the nomination if Biden drops out: “No Democrat nominee with win without the black vote. Black women will not support Kamala Harris being…overlooked.” pic.twitter.com/W8Z7nxB9tm — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 18, 2024 Hostin jumped back in, saying that the main problem with Biden being ousted would be if the Democratic Party then attempted to push Harris aside as well. “Black women will not support Kamala Harris being … overlooked,” she said, arguing that no Democrat could win in 2024 “without the black vote.”

'Apex was born in America and is going to stay in America'

'zero evidence the temperature has been turned down'

'you'll get higher than a rat'

News Dune: Prophecy Dune: Prophecy Gets Release Window and Trailer More Dune coming soon By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on July 18, 2024 Comment 0 Share New Share After over five years in development, the Max series Dune: Prophecy (fka Dune: The Sisterhood) is officially set to premiere later this year. Warner Bros. Discovery announced the news today, and also released a teaser trailer to commemorate the occasion. Here’s the official logline for the series: From the expansive universe of Dune, created by acclaimed author Frank Herbert, and 10,000 years before the ascension of Paul Atreides, Dune: Prophecy follows two Harkonnen sisters as they combat forces that threaten the future of humankind, and establish the fabled sect that will become known as the Bene Gesserit. Dune: Prophecy is inspired by the novel Sisterhood of Dune, written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson. The trailer gives us an unsurprising inkling as to what sacrifices the sisterhood must make to gain and contain control over the Imperium. How the series conveys that story is still an open question, of course, especially since the show has had its rocky moments, with one of the directors, one of the co-showrunners, and one of the lead actors, Shirley Henderson, leaving the production. Olivia Williams took over Henderson’s role, and she along with Emily Watson play the Harkonnen sisters who founded the Bene Gesserit. Other cast members include Travis Fimmel, Jodhi May, Mark Strong, Sarah-Sofie Boussnina, Josh Heuston, Chloe Lea, Jade Anouka, Faoileann Cunningham, Edward Davis, Aoife Hinds, Chris Mason, Shalom Brune-Franklin, Camilla Beeput, Jihae, Tabu, Charithra Chandran, Jessica Barden, Emma Canning, and Yerin Ha. The six-episode season of Dune: Prophecy is set to premiere on HBO and stream on Max in November 2024. Check out the trailer below. [end-mark] The post <i>Dune: Prophecy</i> Gets Release Window and Trailer appeared first on Reactor.

The investigation into the U.S. Secret Service‘s failure to secure the Pennsylvania campaign rally where former President Donald Trump was shot late Saturday afternoon should focus on whether the agency followed preventive protocols, a former member of the Secret Service told The Daily Signal. “If they followed the methodology that the Secret Service uses, that worked for me for 24 years,” said Ken Valentine, a retired agent who helped protect three presidents of both parties—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. “It’s super-solid. It can always be enhanced and improved, but I suspect what we’re going to see is that there was non-execution of agreed-upon protocols, and we’ll just see what those are.” Valentine said if he had been in Trump’s security detail on Saturday, he would have focused on preventing anyone from the top of the building from which the 20-year-old gunman fired upon the rally. One of the bullets grazed the former president in the right ear, bloodying Trump. “What they reacted to was gunfire,” Valentine explained. “What I wanted them to react to was the verbal word that ‘We have a man with a gun on a roof.’ You’re trying to prevent the actions that you can’t be fast enough to react to.” Law enforcement identified the shooter as suspicious more than an hour before he opened fire, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told Fox News after a briefing between members of the Senate and the Secret Service. Valentine wonders whether the Department of Homeland Security failed to provide the Secret Service with all of the resources it needed to protect Trump. “I think Secret Service is stuck in a department that tolerates the Secret Service, but doesn’t appreciate the mission of the Secret Service or what they’ve been asked to do,” he said. “So, I think the investigation is going to reveal all of that, and I’m not, not going to shy away from judgments once all the facts are in.” “If the top priority of DHS for the Secret Service was anything other than protecting these people, then that’s a failure,” Valentine said. “That’s got to be the No. 1 mission of the Secret Service.” For Secret Service agents, “your whole goal is to thwart and to prevent action, because action is always faster than reaction,” he said. “What you saw the other day was, really, a failure of the preventive efforts to stop action,” the retired agent said. “Someone was allowed to scale a building within rifle-shot of a secured venue, and then get off shots into that secured venue.” If protocol was not followed, it’s possible the shooter could have taken advantage of that alone, Valentine said. The reported assassination threat against Trump from Iran should have informed the Secret Service’s preparation to protect Trump, according to the former agent, as the Secret Service is a “threat-driven, intelligence-based agency.” The Secret Service needs to take responsibility for its failure on July 13, Valentine said. “I think, on the forefront, you have to accept responsibility for the failures, whatever they were, no matter who’s actually responsible for whatever big and little failings there were,” he said. “The Secret Service is in charge of protecting former President Donald Trump, candidate for president, and when he leaves the stage bleeding from a gunshot wound, your first reaction is that we own that, because we do.” That said, the Secret Service’s reaction to the gunfire was “heroic,” according to Valentine. “I can’t overstate the fact that these agents, some of whom are friends of mine, they jumped into the fray as bullets were in the air, and they covered [Trump], and then they evacuated [him],” Valentine said, “and that is exactly what we rehearse.” Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said Tuesday that her agency was solely in charge of security at the rally. Valentine described that as odd, as the Secret Service typically works in conjunction with federal, state, and local law enforcement partners. “You have that uniform presence, and then you have Secret Service, and their goal is to identify threats that are out there and then be able to communicate those threats when they encounter them. And for some reason, that wasn’t in play,” the former agent said. Valentine, who is a friend of Cheatle, doesn’t think it’s necessary to call for her resignation. “I don’t want to disparage anyone, but at the end of the day, there are going to be failures, things that were not done, that should have been done that would have prevented this, and so I hate that for everyone involved,” he said. “People died out there.” The man who was fatally shot during the assassination attempt on Trump was former fire chief Corey Comperatore. Comperatore died shielding his family from the gunshots. Two other people were seriously injured. The administration of President Joe Biden intervened to prevent the Secret Service from briefing a House committee investigating the assassination bid, the Washington Stand reported. Valentine called that “really not acceptable.” “If Congress has questions, then they’re typically going to get [answers], or they’re going to make noise until they do get them,” Valentine said. “Congress, in their oversight role, has a right to answers.” Though Valentine is proud of the Secret Service, he recognizes the failures of last Saturday afternoon. “I’m proud to be Secret Service, but you know, the failures have to be owned, and we’ll deal with them, but they were there,” he said. The post DHS Could Be at Fault in Trump Shooting, Former Secret Service Agent Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. YouTube has imposed stringent new policies regarding videos linked to firearms, profoundly affecting channels like the well-known Hickok45. With a subscriber base of 7.75 million, Hickok45 has been a cornerstone in the YouTube firearms community, offering content that spans reviews, safety tips, and educational discussions about firearms. The channel’s hosts, known as Hickok45 and his son John, revealed troubling news about YouTube’s policy shifts in a recent video. “We just had a chat with our Google rep,” explained John, noting the dire implications of the changes. Since the policy update on June 18th, all videos featuring sponsorships from firearms companies or related accessories are not only prohibited but also place the entire channel at risk of termination. This marks a significant pivot from prior regulations, where only the videos themselves were at risk. “Any videos posted with sponsorships of that kind post-June 18th will make your channel subject to being completely terminated,” John highlighted, stressing the severity of the situation. The channel, which has operated under these sponsorships for nearly its entire tenure, now faces the daunting prospect of losing nearly all its content, equating to 95% of its videos. Reflecting on the long history of the channel, Hickok45 expressed dismay at the sudden shift in policy: “All these things that were perfectly fine for what, 15, 20 years, exactly all of a sudden are horrible.” The channel’s longstanding presence and compliance with previous YouTube guidelines underscore the abrupt and drastic nature of the policy change, which now threatens their entire body of work. The changes represent a broader movement by YouTube to regulate content more strictly, aligning with a growing sensitivity towards gun-related content on social platforms. However, this shift poses existential threats to creators like Hickok45 who have built their audience around niche topics such as firearms and safety. The Hickok45 team remains hopeful, encouraging followers to subscribe and stay updated across their various channels, including their main, clips, and talks channels. “We’re trying to be optimistic and we hope we can still keep giving you guys the content that you like to see,” John added, hinting at ongoing efforts to adapt to these new constraints without sacrificing their channel’s essence. Last month, YouTube announced that it would intensify restrictions on firearm-related videos, a move aimed, it says, primarily at shielding its younger audience from exposure to potentially harmful content. The Google-owned video-sharing giant will now block videos that instruct viewers on how to disable firearm safety features, along with imposing age restrictions on content showcasing homemade firearms, automatic weapons, and certain accessories such as silencers, limiting their viewing to those aged 18 and older. This policy adjustment was scheduled to be implemented on June 18. YouTube’s new changes followed pressure from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg who recently challenged YouTube to curb the spread of firearm-related content among youth, criticizing the platform for allegedly not adequately enforcing its rules. Following the announcement of the new policy, Bragg commended YouTube’s decision, highlighting the direct impact of illegal and 3D-printed firearms on community safety. Despite these changes, YouTube has remained silent on whether these revisions were influenced by political pressures. Bragg has been particularly vocal about the dangers of “ghost guns” and has previously reached out to YouTube to adjust its content moderation practices to prevent its algorithm from recommending violent content to children. “We have heard firsthand from young individuals that YouTube’s algorithm is driving them to the world of illegal and 3D-printed firearms, which is having a direct impact on the safety of Manhattanites,” Bragg stated, commending YouTube for its cooperative stance in revising its guidelines. This situation highlights a broader issue with YouTube’s governance: the inherent instability creators face due to the platform’s ability to modify rules on a whim and enforce them retrospectively. Retroactive Rules and Creator Instability The principal concern with YouTube’s approach is the retroactive application of new policies. Content that was created and monetized under old rules can suddenly be found in violation of new guidelines, penalizing creators for past actions that were, at the time, completely within the rules. This creates a non-static environment where the goalposts can shift unexpectedly. For creators who have invested years into building their channels and audiences, this can mean a significant part of their digital livelihood is at risk overnight. Impact on Creator Trust and Strategy Such abrupt policy shifts undermine trust between YouTube and its vast community of content creators. Creators must constantly anticipate potential policy changes and adapt, often without clear guidance on what future rules might look like. This uncertainty complicates content strategy, discouraging investment in certain topics that might suddenly fall out of favor with YouTube’s policy team. Economic and Emotional Toll on Creators The economic implications are profound. Many YouTube creators rely on the platform as their primary source of income. When channels face demonetization or termination due to retrospective rule changes, it’s not just a revenue stream that dries up but a full-fledged business. Beyond economics, there’s an emotional and psychological toll as well, with creators feeling vulnerable to decisions made without their input or direct involvement. Calls for Transparency and Stability Many creators and critics are calling for greater transparency and stability in how YouTube enforces its policies. A platform that respects its creators needs to provide clear, consistent guidelines and ensure that changes are implemented in a way that considers the impact on existing content and its creators. Implementing a grace period or grandfathering older content could be potential solutions, allowing creators to adjust without immediate negative repercussions. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post YouTube’s New Firearm Censorship Policies Spark Crisis for Creators appeared first on Reclaim The Net.