Transcript of Major Red Flags Surface on Shooting from Trump Admin... New

Some major red flags are surfacing over the quote official narrative from the Trump regime about the White House Correspondents' Dinner incident. They were previously pushing this narrative that the individual who they say is the shooter, Cole Thomas Allen, was able to actually fire off shots and hit one of the agents in the chest, but it was wearing a bulletproof vest. It doesn't seem that that narrative is accurate. We were seeing some signs that the way it was described seemed suspicious, lots of red flags. And now after this hearing took place, and after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch was questioned about it, he says that the— there's still an ongoing investigation into what took place. That's a weird thing to say, because normally the Trump regime would post a photograph of the weapons right away. They would definitely come out with all of these statements and anything else. I mean, it's all they've been doing doing is talking about Golden Ballroom, this Golden Ballroom, that, that blaming Jimmy Kimmel for the shooting, saying that this is why there needs to be no more No Kings protests. Let me just show you what happened moments ago during this press conference when Todd Blanch was asked a very basic question.

Have you been able to determine whether the gunman fired shots? Watch what he says here. Play this clip.

Have you been able to determine whether the gunman fired shots? If so, how many shots he fired? And who exactly— whose bullet hit the agent?

We're still— we want to get that right, so we're still looking at that. We— it appears, and I don't want to, to overstate because we are still looking at this, that there were 5 shots that law enforcement fired. We are— we have— all the evidence is being examined very carefully and expeditiously, and we'll know more soon. We do believe that, as the complaint lays out, that the suspect, that the defendant fired out of his shotgun. And we know that that happened. But as far as getting into exacting ballistics, I'm not going to do that today because it's still being, being looked at and finalized.

Yeah, I'm not buying that response right now. As Carney explains over here, SG Carney, Cole Allen was detained, quote, in connection with gunfire and for, quote, using a dangerous weapon. This sort of language makes it clear that, or unclear whether a shot was fired or not fired. You know, was the assault on the officer, was that in connection with being tackled? I mean, what happened over there? We need more data. I'll give you more from the official narrative. Then I'm gonna go back to what Blanche was saying. Uh, the sus— this is what we reported on the Midas Touch Network. Uh, the suspect in the White House Correspondents' Dinner incident appeared in federal court today, is now facing a charge of attempted assassination of Donald Trump, among other charges. Scott McFarland, the Midas Touch Network DC bureau chief, was on the scene in the courthouse. Here's what he told us was coming out of that courthouse. Cole Thomas Allen was arraigned moments ago in DC, where the criminal case against him has officially been unsealed. Wearing a blue jail uniform and flanked by US Marshals, Allen stood quietly as he was sworn in and confirmed he will be represented by a public defender.

Prosecutors charged Allen with attempted assassination, transporting a firearm in interstate commerce with intent to commit a felony, use of a firearm firearm in a crime of violence, use of a firearm, then why wouldn't Attorney General Todd Blanch then say, yes, he discharged the firearm. So that's interesting. Federal authorities say Allen was armed with a, uh, pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, a semi-automatic pistol, and knives at the time of the incident. The Justice Department is seeking pretrial detention, arguing the charges qualify as a federal crime of terrorism and mandate that he remain in custody. Now, back to that press conference conference with Todd Blanch. Todd Blanch said, look, we need this ballroom badly. And we need to make it very clear that this incident tells us one thing: the ballroom must be built. And now the Trump regime is pushing that taxpayers need to pay for it. Yeah, remember that private donor thing? That ain't happening. We need this. The Department of Homeland Security needs to pay for it. We need to attach this with the ICE funding bill. For real, that's where they're going with this. Here, play this clip.

Thank you for taking my question. You personally have called for a construction of this ballroom at the White House. The president has called for this as well. Today, the National Trust president put out a statement, says that they're grateful that everybody's okay. But, and I quote, we are not planning to voluntarily dismiss our lawsuit, which endangers no one and which respectfully asks the administration to follow the law. Ballroom construction is continuing unabated until June 5th at the earliest because the injunction is on hold. Where does the Justice Department go from here? And then I have a follow-up on that.

Well, we filed a motion today asking the court to do what what the plaintiffs refused to do. We absolutely believe that there is no better example of why this ballroom is necessary, aside from all the, the very positive things the ballroom will bring to this country and to Washington, D.C., than what happened on, on Saturday night. You guys, many of you all were there. That's one of the only places in D.C. that you can hold an event like that due to, due to its size and, and the structure of what we need. So we're basically stuck at this point in the city with having an event like that at a hotel. So underneath a ton of hotel rooms. And so the fact that we— aside, again, aside from the fact that the ballroom is spectacular, it's going to be beautiful, it's going to make this country look great every time it's used— it's also a meaningful safety issue. And so I'm not— I very much wish that the plaintiffs and their counsel would take a different view. But if they don't, we are going to continue to fight in court like we have been. And hopefully the judges at the D.C. Circuit Court will do the right thing.

Look, I want to show this as well. You have Lindsey Graham then holding a press conference at Donald Trump's behest. I mean, talk about raising major red flags here. And Lindsey Graham's out there saying now the taxpayers need to pay for the ballroom. I just want to show this clip as well because I forgot to show it before. Here, let's play it.

We're going to introduce legislation that would authorize $400 million to be spent to secure the— to build the presidential ballroom Underneath, there will be a lot of military stuff. There will be a Secret Service annex, uh, and we've paid for it by offsetting it with custom fees. But the estimate is $332 million. We're going to do $400 million because I think it's probably going to take more. Private donations can be used, but I think they should be used for buying china and stuff like that. Underneath this ballroom will be infrastructure that is national security-centric. The ballroom itself will avoid the dilemma of having to leave the White House grounds with future presidents and this president to go downtown in a place that's less secure. President Trump said to me this morning— excuse me, yesterday— we need the ballroom not just for me, but for future presidents. He literally could have left his bedroom, walked out the back of the White House, and been at the ballroom. That's what needs to happen when you have 1,000 or 2,000 people gathered in a day's environment. And the sooner we get the ballroom built, the more hardened it is, the better for the country.

So I hope and pray that most people in the Senate after Saturday night will support this bill.

And then Todd Blanch blames reporters in the room for fueling the current threat environment. He says, it's all of your fault, you all did this. And by the way, remember corporate news recently yesterday was like, oh, Donald Trump's tone, we're so appreciative, unifying, he's unifying to the media, he didn't attack it. What are you talking about here? Play this clip.

And what DOJ's stance is about it. Well, you just described the, the current threat environment pretty accurately, which is that the political violence and rhetoric has, has got to stop. And that's something President Trump said right after the incident on Saturday night. It's something that, that Carolyn Levitt talked about a couple hours ago. It is something that is— when you have a president who, and many people in this room, if we're going to be honest about it, have done it, has done as well. They're just as guilty as a lot of people on X. When you have, when you have reporters, when you have media, media just being overly critical and calling the president horrible names for no reason and without evidence, without proof, it shouldn't surprise us that this type of rhetoric takes place. If you look at what, at what it appears that this defendant had in his past, we're talking about somebody who is college educated, who has a job, who is otherwise living his life. And, and we'll find out more about him, as I expect, in the coming days and weeks. But that, but he chose to do what he did.

And so our threat environment is— we are ready. I mean, I'm not going to go through what, what the, what Director Patel just talked about with the way we responded, but this, this was something that we will always be prepared for. And, and it's sad that it has to happen. But it's not a new thing, unfortunately.

And then FBI Director Kash Patel encourages everyone, go out and thank a federal agent today. Thank them for what they did for saving the day. What are we even talking about? They did their job. We always want to make clear that we support our first responders on this show. Okay, we also want to condemn political violence in all its forms on this show. But yeah, you cash, you don't need to be weird about it. Like, I'm sure agents like, dude, what is this guy even talking about? Could we shut this guy up? Here, play this clip.

The president rightly said that we will act in a unified fashion, and it's because of President Trump's leadership and backing of the blue. Every single person in law enforcement that I stood with into late evening hours on Saturday, early evening hours on Sunday, and all day yesterday and today are thrilled to wear the badge and defend this country. Each and every one of them deserves our thanks, and I encourage everyone listening to go out there and shake the hand of a federal agent or police officer and say thank you for doing their job. Thank you for training endlessly to make sure they meet the mission requirements. And to— for me, as a director of the FBI, I want to thank our headquarters components for working diligently with our prosecutors and make sure that the American public knows it's not just federal agents that do this work. It's our intelligence analysts, our support staff, our laboratories, our fixed-wing assets, our critical incident response groups, our hostage rescue teams, agents sprung into action, got out of bed and haven't slept since. These prosecutors haven't slept since, and I promise you they're not going to be sleeping. They are going to give you every piece of evidence.

As the journal said, we will make public when appropriate to protect the integrity of this investigation, to make sure that due process is served, and we will meet the highest standards of the Constitution as we always do. And that is when we will continue to disclose information. I know the public—

and I'll be honest, I'm glad that Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries did not hold back when he was asked one of these questions by the press. So, do you think you need to tone down the rhetoric? Caroline Levitt says you need to tone down the rhetoric. And I like that he said, are you kidding me? This was pretty tough. Here, play this clip.

If we get a turnout that mirrors 2018 or 2020, and that's exactly what we expect That's what happened.

Mr. Leader, I know you said you stand by your comments. At the same time, you have been the subject of threats as well. So with respect to this comment about maximum warfare, even if it's about redistricting, why not tone down the language here in this moment?

I think that what's interesting to me, as you pointed out, is that the so-called White House press secretary, who's a disgrace, she's a stone cold liar, had the nerve to stand up there and read talking points being critical of statements, all taken out of context, that Democrats had made, and didn't have a word to say about anything that MAGA extremists have said or done, including providing aid and comfort to violent insurrectionists here at this Capitol on January 6th who brutally beat police officers. The president then pardoned those violent rioters, many of whom have gone back into communities across the country to reoffend. And as you pointed out, one of whom threatened to kill me. He said, kill the terrorist. Where did that language come from? What Republicans use that language? Why did that pardoned MAGA extremist, violent insurrectionist, choose to use the language of terrorism directed at me when he threatened to kill me at an event? And so how can we take them seriously when they raise these partisan attacks and completely ignore the fact that a lot of folks, including Governor Shapiro. His home was attacked by an arsonist when he and his kids and wife were there.

And this so-called White House press secretary wants to lecture America and lecture us about civility? Get lost! Clean up your own house before you have anything to say to us about the language that we use.

Donald Trump was then blaming Jimmy Kimmel for the shooting.

Wow.

Jimmy Kimmel, who is in no way funny, as attested to by his terrible television ratings, made a statement on his show that's really shocking. He said, our first lady is here. Look at her. She's so beautiful. You have the glow like an expectant widow. And a day later, the lunatic tried entering the ballroom of the White House correspondents, loaded up with a gun, handgun, and many knives. He was there for a very obvious and sinister reason. I appreciate that so many people are incensed by Jimmy Kimmel. No one is incensed by Jimmy Kimmel, a comedian, but you weirdos who are— who have no humor, who don't understand comedy. And by the way, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, there was not even going to be a comedian there in the first place. Let me also share with you what Democratic Congressmember— Congressmember Vindman had to say. Here, play this clip.

Congressman, what do you make of Republicans trying to put Donald Trump's ballroom in the reconciliation package? Um, I don't think it makes any sense. That's what I think. I think that, uh, the ballroom should have been fully—

should have gone through Congress at the start. And right now they're trying to jam it.

Um, and it doesn't make any sense.

Got it.

Thank you, Harrison.

Appreciate it.

And then as a reminder, Caroline Levitt during her press conference, pushing the same ballroom stuff here. Play this clip.

Thanks, Caroline. The president has talked about rescheduling the dinner within 30 days. Does he have a specific venue in mind, and would he consider hosting it at the White House? Well, unfortunately, we don't have a room big enough here at the White House, which is another point to be made. And the president is absolutely right. It's why the White House ballroom project is not just a fun project for President Trump like you will read in the media. It is actually critical for our national security that a larger, secure building on this complex, which is the most secure complex in the world, is built to accommodate not only large amounts of guests, but also the president, the vice president, members of the cabinet. The line of succession in this country should be able to gather freely in safety without the fear of threats or political violence. And the White House ballroom will provide that. And so it's critical that we get this project done as quickly as possible.

There you have it, folks. I mean, I think I'll say this, and I've said this to somebody else, and they said, talk to me about the coverage that you've been doing at the Midas Touch Network, you know, on this alleged shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. And here's how I said— I said, regardless of what's happened or didn't happen at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, the behavior by the Trump regime afterwards is really all you need to know, right? I mean, because they've taken— they've handled it in such an unserious manner. They were laughing after, joking, like high-fiving each other, then immediately talking about ballrooms and banning protests and yes, attacking the media right away and using it as a way to divide the country. And so if that's the way they handle it afterwards, then why should we the people treat any of this as being serious when they behave like jesters, when they behave like clowns, when they behave like Wade using this to divide the country? That's my perspective on it. Let me know what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. Thanks for watching. Want to stay plugged in?

Become a subscriber to our Substack at MidasPlus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free episodes of our podcast and more exclusive content only available at MidasPlus.com.