NYC’s Madison Square Garden Faces Backlash After Planned Trump Rally

As Election Day looms, Donald Trump is finalizing his speaking schedule for the next several weeks. One surprising stop, according to sources familiar with the Republican candidate’s schedule, is a hometown visit to New York City.

The New York Post first reported that Trump will hold a rally at Madison Square Garden later this month. New York State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who represents the district, confirmed that the event will be held October 27 at 3 p.m.

In a solidly blue New York City, one might ask why Trump is bothering to campaign so close to the election in the city at all.

Online critics were quick to point out that the event bears a striking resemblance to a Nazi rally that took place in Madison Square Garden in 1939 during the reign of Adolf Hitler. At the time, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia was criticized for allowing the event to take place, but it proceeded anyway. Many also questioned the motivations of a Trump rally in a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican candidate for president since Ronald Reagan.

Hoylman-Sigal called the rally a “disastrous decision” by the venue “that will endanger the public safety of New Yorkers and has the potential to incite widespread violence.” Like many, he also called upon Madison Square Garden to cancel the event.

Donald Trump’s underlying reasons for supporting the state of Israel might have something to do with lining his own pockets.

The Trump Organization is reportedly looking to reopen talks about a lucrative hotel deal in Jerusalem, a discussion that began in earnest before the October 7 attack last year, The New York Times reported Wednesday. The organization was in talks to build a luxury property on the former site of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, according to sources and documents reviewed by the Times.

But that’s not the only Trumpian real estate project in the works in Israel. In Tel Aviv, the Trump Organization eyed a rising skyscraper as a possible location for another Trump-branded hotel, a project that would create the most hotel rooms in a single building just steps away from the headquarters of the Israel Defense Forces.

“The deal absolutely would have gotten done if not for Oct. 7,” Eric Trump, who oversaw the deal, told the Times, adding that the real estate group would “definitely” finalize a deal with the country “when the current situation that we’re all witnessing on TV every day is resolved.”

Trump has been anything but shy about his unequivocal support for Israel. One of his biggest donors—and the recipient of one of Trump’s Presidential Medals of Freedom—Miriam Adelson, is also the richest Israeli in the world, and has worked for years to influence and lobby U.S. politicians to make decisions that benefit the Israeli state.

Speaking earlier this week with New York radio show Sid & Friends, Trump claimed that “nobody’s done more for the Jewish people than I have.” And in an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Trump insisted that the state of Israel—not necessarily Jewish Americans—needed to “get smart” about supporting his candidacy while speculating about the potential “waterfront property” real estate development possibilities in Gaza.

“I think that Israel has to do one thing,” Trump said. “They have to get smart about Trump, because they don’t back me. I did more for Israel than anybody. I did more for the Jewish people than anybody. And it’s not reciprocal.”

The Democratic ticket is working overtime to bury Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s hot take on the Electoral College.

On Tuesday, the number two on the Democratic presidential ticket told a group of donors in Sacramento, California, that he no longer supported the Electoral College’s continued existence.

“I think all of us know, the Electoral College needs to go. We need a national popular vote,” Walz said to applause. “But that’s not the world we live in.”

“So we need to win Beaver County, Pennsylvania,” Walz continued. “We need to be able to go into York, Pennsylvania, and win. We need to be in western Wisconsin and win. We need to be in Reno, Nevada, and win. And the help that you give here today helps make that happen.”

But by Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign was already working to distance her from Walz’s perspective, telling USA Today that ridding the nation of the Electoral College is not an official position.

The controversial institution has been a matter of contention in the United States since its inception at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Critics have argued that the system—which almost singularly determines the outcome of presidential elections regardless of the popular vote—is wholly undemocratic, while offering outsize national influence to smaller, less densely populated, traditionally conservative regions of the country.

There have been at least two episodes in the last couple of decades in which Democratic candidates won the national popular vote but failed to win the White House due to the Electoral College: Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016.

“Governor Walz believes that every vote matters in the Electoral College and he is honored to be traveling the country and battleground states working to earn support for the Harris-Walz ticket,” a Harris campaign spokesperson said in a statement to USA Today. “He was commenting to a crowd of strong supporters about how the campaign is built to win 270 electoral votes. And, he was thanking them for their support that is helping fund those efforts.”

Donald Trump absolutely flailed during an appearance on a podcast where the hosts openly mocked the former president for his bullshit answers.

During an hour-and-a-half-long interview on Flagrant, a comedy podcast hosted by stand-up comedians Andrew Schulz and Akaash Singh, Trump spoke so incoherently that the hosts started to laugh at the Republican presidential nominee.

At one point, Singh asked Trump to speculate about who was responsible for his assassination attempt. As Trump embarked on his nonanswer, he became so blatantly incoherent he had to outright explain his own disjointed speech.

“You know, I do a thing called the weave,” Trump started to explain. “And there are those that are there fair that say, ‘This guy is so genius,’ and then others would say, ‘Oh he rambled.’ I don’t ramble.”

Trump claimed he actually needed an “extraordinary memory” to get so off topic.

“They don’t give you credit for that,” Schulz said, laughing, “that you can go all the way over here, and then get back.”

“I can go so far here, or there,” Trump said. “And I can come back to exactly where I started.”

As the interviewers cackled, it became clear that Trump—as ridiculous as his answers were—was being entirely serious about how impressive his “weaving” was.

Trump continued to explain the weave by repeating exactly what he had already said: “And some people think it’s so genius, but the bad people, what they say is, ‘You know, he was rambling.’”

“Yeah, you really weaved your way out of answering my question. Twice, ” Singh noted.

Later in the interview, Trump spoke so incoherently that the hosts started to openly laugh at the Republican presidential nominee’s “weave.”

“Dwight Eisenhower was sort of a moderate, General Eisenhower. Did you know that they had 8 percent generals president of the United States? Eight percent were generals, 92 percent were politicians, and then you had Trump,” Trump said. “You see, that’s a weave.”

As Trump tried to explain why he had even started to talk about Eisenhower, the hosts snickered, and Trump seemed to grow more and more confused.

“You gotta be sharp,” Trump said. “If you’re not sharp you’re dead.”

At another point, Schulz just couldn’t hold it together when Trump called himself “basically a truthful person.”

Trump’s disastrous appearance comes as his team launches criticism at Kamala Harris, attacking the vice president for appearing on a (far more popular) podcast in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.

Here’s something no one asked for: sex and dating advice from Donald Trump’s ex-adviser Stephen Miller.

While appearing on Jesse Watters’s Fox News program, Miller, who was seen as “the true driving force” behind Trump’s racist agenda during his presidency, was asked to give relationship advice to the network’s viewers.

Watters claimed that Fox was “getting a lot of texts from women about Miller,” and that his audience sees him as a “sexual matador.”

“What do you have to say for yourself?” asked Watters.

Miller responded with advice for young men. (For context, according to a recent survey, only 10 percent of young people say they watch cable news daily, while 45 percent say they never watch.)

“The best thing you can do is to wear your Trump support on your sleeve,” said Miller. “Show that you are a real man, show that you are not a beta. Be a proud and loud Trump supporter and your dating life will be fantastic.”

Unfortunately, Miller may be espousing lies per usual. According to a 2020 YouGov-Economist poll, while more than half of men say they would date a member of the opposite party, only 35 percent of women say the same. With more young women than ever identifying as left of center, being an out Trump supporter may cut off a significant part of the dating pool.

Progressive Democrats are rallying around Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan amid reports that business executives supporting Kamala Harris want her dismissed.

Billionaire Mark Cuban told Semafor on Tuesday that “if it were me, I wouldn’t” keep Khan next year, criticizing the FTC chair for taking on technology firms over artificial intelligence.

“The bigger picture is, she’s hurting more than she’s helping,” Cuban said, even while acknowledging her admirable antitrust efforts to improve pharmacy benefits.

Cuban’s comments drew a sharp reply from Senator Bernie Sanders, who posted on X Tuesday afternoon that Cuban “is wrong. Lina Khan is the best FTC Chair in modern history.

“By taking on corporate greed & illegal monopolies, Lina is doing an exceptional job preventing large corporations from ripping-off consumers & exploiting workers,” Sanders said, thanking Khan “for what you are doing.”

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez echoed Sanders’s show of support in her own post Wednesday morning. 

“Let me make this clear, since billionaires have been trying to play footsie with the ticket: Anyone goes near Lina Khan and there will be an out and out brawl. And that is a promise,” Ocasio-Cortez said in her post. “She proves this admin fights for working people. It would be terrible leadership to remove her.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s post alluded to Harris’s recent efforts to court business leaders and corporate executives and draw them away from Donald Trump. Several executives have pledged their financial support to the vice president, even forming a “Business Leaders for Harris” group to raise money. These include Cuban, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, and Ken Chenault, the former CEO of American Express who now heads a private equity firm.

Two finance executives told the Financial Times last week that they expected Harris to make more business-friendly appointments to the FTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Both Khan and Gary Gensler, who heads the SEC, have directed their agencies to go after corporate consolidation and malfeasance, with Khan making pro-worker reforms and Gensler taking on the cryptocurrency industry. Hoffman has made no secret of his desire to see Khan dismissed, accusing her of “waging war on American business.”

Will Harris side with business executives and dismiss Khan, or will she listen to progressives like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez and continue President Biden’s efforts to rein in corporate excess? It all depends on whose support the vice president thinks is more vital to defeating Trump.

Fox News host Sean Hannity platformed more Republican lies about the federal government’s response to this year’s hurricane season, despite the fact that the network seemingly had the truth on hand.

“You have DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas saying FEMA is running out of money and going bankrupt,” Hannity said Tuesday night. “Bankrupt? This has not been a busy hurricane season. This happened to FEMA—FEMA directed more than $1 billion to pay for housing and food for Harris-Biden illegal immigrants.”

“Because this story looks really bad for Democrats in charge, they are trying to just outright lie to you and pretend this is misinformation. This is a deepfake statement by conservatives. Well, it’s also on the FEMA website,” Hannity continued, providing no visual evidence of such claims. “It’s completely truthful, it’s completely real.”

But Hannity’s source doesn’t jibe with information that circulated even inside the conservative media behemoth. A fact sheet produced by conservatives on the House Appropriations Committee, obtained by Fox, revealed that FEMA “has enough funding in the short-term to address immediate needs for both Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton,” reported Fox News’s senior congressional correspondent Chad Pergram. Pergram tweeted about the fact sheet less than 30 minutes before Hannity went on air Tuesday night.

Further, the fact sheet clarified that there is “no funding connection between” the immigration program at the U.S.-Mexico border and the Disaster Relief Fund, noting that there is “no intermingling of funding between these two programs,” and that the only correlation between them is that they are both managed by FEMA.

FEMA has fervently rejected the accusation that it is out of funds, with agency leaders telling ABC News on Sunday that the notion was “frankly ridiculous and just plain false.”

“This kind of rhetoric is not helpful to people,” FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell said. “It’s really a shame that we’re putting politics ahead of helping people.”

Republicans, encouraged by lies spewed by Donald Trump, have launched a host of disinformation throughout the 2024 hurricane season. On top of the charge that the Biden administration has diverted funds from FEMA to assist undocumented immigrants enter the country, conservative leaders in heavily affected regions, including Florida and Georgia, have also claimed that working with the White House to expedite disaster relief “seemed political,” and have conspiratorially suggested that the hurricanes are a government manipulation.

By Tuesday, it became clear to federal officials that the lie that FEMA was out of money had stopped people from actually requesting their aid in the wake of Hurricane Helene, which devastated large swaths of North Carolina and Georgia.

The magnitude of the disaster caused by the bold-faced lies will only come to light after the full hurricane season has passed. On the immediate horizon swirls another massive superstorm, Category 5 Hurricane Milton, which is scheduled to slam the west side of Florida by Wednesday evening. Central Floridian leaders have repeatedly warned that Milton’s arrival at the Sunshine State’s shores will be a catastrophic event that will claim lives and demolish the region, with forecasted 10-to-15-foot storm surges that Tampa Mayor Jane Castor has described as “not survivable.”

After refusing to even do an interview with 60 Minutes, Donald Trump’s campaign is demanding that the CBS show release a full transcript of its interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.

The Trump campaign has taken issue with a truncated package that aired on Face the Nation Sunday ahead of the full interview, which showed Harris answering a question one way. But according to Fox News, when the full interview aired the next day, her answer was entirely different.

When host Bill Whitaker asked Harris about the U.S.’s relationship with international war criminal and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Face the Nation clip showed that Harris responded, “Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.”

The 60 Minutes interview showed Harris responding quite differently. “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end,” Harris said simply.

The Trump campaign’s national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, released a statement Tuesday accusing 60 Minutes of “deceptively” editing Harris’s full interview. 

“Why did 60 Minutes choose not to air Kamala’s full word salad, and what else did they choose not to air? The American people deserve the full, unedited transcript from Kamala’s sit-down interview. We call upon 60 Minutes and CBS to release it. What do they, and Kamala, have to hide?” Leavitt said.

It’s worth noting that Trump didn’t even attempt to do the interview, and gave some exceedingly flimsy reasons as to why. 60 Minutes brutally roasted Trump over his baseless excuses for breaking more than 50 years of tradition by not appearing for an interview. It seems that the former president couldn’t handle being fact-checked, nor did he want to face any “tough questions” like the ones that caused him to storm off set in 2020.  

Still, his campaign seems more than willing to nitpick Harris’s performance: Trump went ballistic Wednesday in a post on Truth Social, claiming 60 Minutes had “sliced and diced” Harris’s interview and baselessly insisting she had been hyper-edited into coherency. 

“Lyin’ Kamala’s answers to questions, which were virtually incoherent, over and over again, some by as many as four times in a single sentence or thought, all in an effort, possibly illegal as part of the ‘News Division,’ which must be licensed, to make her look ‘more Presidential,’ or a least, better,” Trump wrote. 

Trump also claimed that the interview violated campaign finance laws and that he had never heard of an interview being edited. However, Trump appeared in an interview that appeared heavily edited on Fox & Friends just three months ago. 

“This is a stain on the reputation of 60 Minutes that is not recoverable—It will always remain with this once storied brand. I have never heard of such a thing being done in ‘News,’” he wrote.

Donald Trump’s “God Bless the USA” Bibles weren’t actually made in the USA, it seems—they were printed in China.

The Associated Press reports that a Chinese printing company based in Hangzhou shipped 120,000 of the Bibles to the United States in February and March. Three separate shipments cost $342,000, averaging out to less than $3 per Bible. Trump is selling hand-signed copies of his branded Bible for $1,000, and the minimum price for an unsigned copy is $59.99, putting potential sales revenue at close to $7 million.

Trump announced that he was selling the Bibles in partnership with country singer Lee Greenwood in a Truth Social video on March 26, and two days later, 70,000 Bibles arrived at the port of Los Angeles.

The Bibles contain copies of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Pledge of Allegiance, and one version even memorializes the July 13 assassination attempt against the former president: Trump’s name is on the cover above the phrase, “The Day God Intervened,” likely stamped on after the Bible was printed. Trump has also been hawking assassination-themed sneakers for the last two months, and just like the Bibles, fans can shell out extra cash for hand-signed shoes.

The former president and convicted felon is clearly trying to rake in as much cash as possible by having the Bibles printed in China, saving him the costs of paying American workers. An August financial report shows that he made $300,000 in royalties from the texts. Trump’s fans across the country are helping him out with his blatant grift, with the Oklahoma state superintendent requiring specific criteria for Bibles in the state’s public schools (already constitutionally questionable) that only Trump’s God Bless the USA Bible can fit.

It’s telling that the Bibles are printed in China, which has long been attacked by Trump for hurting American businesses and taking American jobs. On the campaign trail, the former president has been touting his economic plan to institute tariffs against China and other countries. Would that include his Bibles? After all, Trump is all about “America First.”

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has spent the months following Donald Trump’s immunity decision in relative distress, despite the fact that he cooked up its majority opinion himself.

The chief justice reportedly never wanted the nation’s highest court to be a cog in the political machine, but the country’s reaction to the monumental decision has skewed his vision, according to a CNN analysis published Tuesday.

Since the court issued its consequential immunity ruling in Trump v. United States at the beginning of July, Roberts has skirted making public speeches, while colleagues and friends described the conservative justice as “especially weary,” the outlet reported.

Public opinion of the institution since the decision has soured. Fewer than half of Americans—approximately 47 percent—expressed favorable views of the Supreme Court in the ruling’s wake, with the majority of positive opinions coming from Republicans, according to a Pew Research Center survey.

Still, Roberts’s defenders argue that the backlash to the immunity decision was overblown.

“The Trump immunity case is less about Trump and more about not opening the door” to future administrations “coming after previous presidents,” said attorney Erin Murphy, one of Roberts’s former law clerks, at a Georgetown University Law Center session.

And some of Roberts’s longtime friends, such as Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus, have insisted that the reconstructed executive power still leaves room for a successful case against Trump.

“The bottom line is clear,” Lazarus wrote in an August essay for The Washington Post. “Whether you are outraged by or sympathetic to the surprising sweep of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, it nevertheless leaves the former president very much open to a successful felony prosecution.”

The case sprang out of Trump’s federal election interference trial as a preemptive defense, with Trump’s lawyers arguing that he could not be tried on conspiracy and obstruction charges due to presidential immunity privileges that he held during office. In a 6–3 ruling along ideological lines, the court ruled that some of the actions Trump was indicted for could be categorized as official acts during his presidency.

Writing the majority opinion, Roberts outlined that the president was not immune from criminal prosecution—except on some occasions.

“The President is not above the law,” Roberts wrote. “But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”

Sonia Sotomayor led the liberal justices with a scathing dissent, warning that “the President is now a king above the law.”

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she wrote.