Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Was Trump right when he said he could ‘shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters’?

Donald Trump
MEGA/Getty Images

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

On Jan. 23, 2016, Donald Trump was campaigning in Iowa when he made a remarkable announcement: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

Unfortunately, with less than two weeks to go until the 2024 election, it appears that despite the absurdity of that statement Trump might have been right.


He’s a convicted felon. He’s been impeached twice. There are a multitude of other criminal charges still outstanding. Yet polls indicate he is running neck-and-neck with Kamala Harris.

An ABC-Ipsos poll conducted in April — after he was found guilty in a hush money case in New York — indicated only 4 percent of Trump supporters said they would not vote for him and 16 percent said they would reconsider it.

Despite all that and The New York Times recently reporting that “the 78-year-old former president’s speeches have grown darker, harsher, longer, angrier, less focused, more profane and increasingly fixated on the past,” Trump’s supporters are standing by him.

And leading Republicans are ignoring his behavior.

On Sunday, CNN’s Jake Tapper had Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on his program. Tapper noted that Trump has referred to Democrats as “the enemy from within” and threatened to use the military against fellow Americans. He then played a clip in which Trump said:

“The bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they're the big — and it should be very easily handled by — if necessary, by the National Guard or if really necessary by the military, because they can't let that happen.”

Johnson responded by saying, “Jake, you know that's not what he's talking about there. What he's talking about is marauding gangs of dangerous, violent people.”

But Tapper pushed back, quoting Trump again and saying the former president was specifically talking about former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

As I listen to the excuses and denials by the speaker of the House and so many other members of Congress, I can’t help but wonder if there is anything that Trump could say or do that would change the minds of his supporters.

And that is what is so frustrating for Americans who believe in the ageless human, religious and philosophical values of truth, trust, reason and civility, and believe in the dignity of people across all cultural, economic, political, racial and gender demographics. It just doesn’t seem to matter.

Maggie Haberman of The New York Times summed it up well: “Trump is a really difficult figure to cover because he challenges news media processes every day, has for years. The systems ... were not built to deal with somebody who says things that are not true as often as he does or speaks as incoherently as he often does. I think the media has actually done a good job showing people who he is, what he says, what he does.”

The sentiment was echoed by Tom Rosenstiel, a journalism professor at the University of Maryland. “The people who don’t like or are infuriated by him cannot believe his success and would like the press to somehow persuade the people who do like him that they are wrong,” he said. “And the press can’t do that.”

Many Americans have already voted, either by mail or at early in-person locations. Those who have not yet cast a ballot need journalists to provide an accurate portrayal of Donald Trump, holding him to account for his words, just like Tapper did on Sunday.

Yet will any of that make any difference? Or was Trump correct back in January 2016?


Read More

Tank and fighter plane with lots of coins and banknotes.

A former Navy Lieutenant Commander warns that Trump and his associates are profiting from the Iran conflict through defense contracts, crypto ventures, and prediction markets while putting American troops and taxpayers at risk.

Getty Images, gopixa

The Blood Money Presidency

Trump is running a war racket. Between arms dealing, prediction markets, and crypto, the war in Iran is looking more and more like a not-so-elaborate scheme to rake in blood money for himself and his cronies. Even his own Defense Secretary attempted to buy defense stocks on the eve of the war. At least, if you have been wondering what we’re still doing at war with Iran, then Trump’s financial dealings may offer an explanation.

The Trumps are war dogs. Powerus, a startup based in West Palm Beach, was founded only last year, specializing in counter-drone tech tailored for none other than Middle East operations. Then, in March, just after Trump started a war in the Middle East, the company went public–and Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump joined the board with sizable equity stakes. The conflict of interest may be their entire business model. Just weeks after the brothers came aboard, the Air Force gifted Powerus its first military contract for an undisclosed number of interceptor drones. At the same time, the company is pitching drone demonstrations to Gulf countries that know buying from the President's sons is sure to curry favor. As former chief White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter put it: “This is going to be the first family of a president to make a lot of money off war — a war he didn’t get the consent of Congress for.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s petty pursuit of his ‘enemies’

President Donald Trump speaks during an arrival ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 28, 2026.

(Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

Trump’s petty pursuit of his ‘enemies’

When the history books write about Donald Trump, they’ll have a lot to say — little of it positive, I’d be willing to wager.

His presidencies have been marked by rank incompetence, unprecedented greed and self-dealing, naked corruption, ethical, legal and moral breaches and, as we repeatedly see, a rise in political division and anger. From impeachments to an insurrection to who-knows-what is still to come, the era of Trump has hardly been worthy of admiration.

Keep ReadingShow less
Whenever political violence erupts, Washington starts playing the blame game

Agents draw their guns after loud bangs were heard during the White House Correspondents' dinner at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2026. President Trump is attending the annual gala of the political press for the first time while in office.

(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Whenever political violence erupts, Washington starts playing the blame game

A heavily armed California man was caught trying to storm the White House correspondents’ dinner Saturday with the apparent intent to kill the president.

It didn’t take long for Washington to start arguing. Democrats denounce violent rhetoric from the right, but the alleged assailant seemed to be inspired by his own rhetoric. President Trump, after initially offering some unifying remarks about defending free speech, soon started accusing the press of encouraging violence against him. Critics pounced on the hypocrisy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fulcrum Roundtable:  ‘Chilling Effect’ on Dissent
soldiers in truck

Fulcrum Roundtable:  ‘Chilling Effect’ on Dissent

Congress and the Trump administration are locked in an escalating fight over presidential war powers as President Donald Trump continues military action against Iran without congressional authorization, prompting renewed debate over the limits of executive authority.

Julie Roland, a ten-year Navy veteran and frequent contributor to The Fulcrum, joined Executive Editor Hugo Balta on this month's edition of The Fulcrum Roundtable, where she expressed deep concerns regarding the Trump administration’s impact on military nonpartisanship and the rights of service members.

A former helicopter pilot and lieutenant commander, Roland has used her weekly column to highlight what she describes as a systemic attempt to stifle dissent within the armed forces.

Keep ReadingShow less