Jon Stewart Hits 'MAGA World' With A Brutal Wake-Up Call About The Real Trump
Trump is demanding that people stop talking about Epstein, causing some of the president's most loyal supporters to turn on him.
'Surprisingly, MAGA world, for the first time in memory, isn't just slavishly acquiescing to Trump's reality distortion field,' he said, and played clips of figures on the right trashing the president after the Justice Department said last week that the long-rumored Epstein client list doesn't exist.
Stewart said MAGA world is 'in open revolt,' with some even burning their infamous red hats.
'MAGA is losing their shit right now,' he said. 'They cannot believe what they're seeing. Trump is lying? Dismissing reasonable concerns as bad-faith whining? Attacking anyone who disagrees?'
He offered a message directly to the MAGA-verse.
'As a resident of blue America, can I just say right now to my red colleagues that my pronouns are 'how does' and 'my ass taste,'' he said. 'The Trump that you're just experiencing now, to your deep disappointment and dismay, is the dude we've been dealing with the whole fucking time. You just didn't realize it 'cause he's been nice to you.'
As an example, he showed how Trump treats disasters in red states very differently from those in blue ones, offering quick assistance in Texas after last week's deadly floods, but threatening to withhold aid in California during the fires earlier this year.
'Whatever you need, Daddy's here ― because you're the child he wanted,' Stewart told the red states.
But the blue ones?
'We're Eric,' he said.
See more in his Monday night monologue:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
News Analysis: Trump's 'force of personality' hasn't delivered on key foreign policy goals
When President Trump returned to the White House in January, he promised to deliver big foreign policy wins in record time. He said he would halt Russia's war against Ukraine in 24 hours or less, end Israel's war in Gaza nearly as quickly and force Iran to end to its nuclear program. He said he'd persuade Canada to become the 51st state, take Greenland from Denmark and negotiate 90 trade deals in 90 days. 'The president believes that his force of personality … can bend people to do things," his special envoy-for-everything, Steve Witkoff, explained in May in a Breitbart interview. Six months later, none of those ambitious goals have been reached. Ukraine and Gaza are still at war. Israel and the United States bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, but it's not clear whether they ended the country's atomic program once and for all. Canada and Denmark haven't surrendered any territory. And instead of trade deals, Trump is mostly slapping tariffs on other countries, to the distress of U.S. stock markets. It turned out that force of personality couldn't solve every problem. 'He overestimated his power and underestimated the ability of others to push back,' said Kori Schake, director of foreign policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. 'He often acts as if we're the only people with leverage, strength or the ability to take action. We're not.' Read more: Inside Trump's ICE expansion: Can he really hire 10,000 new agents? The president has notched important achievements. He won a commitment from other members of NATO to increase their defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product. The attack on Iran appears to have set Tehran's nuclear project back for years, even if it didn't end it. And Trump — or more precisely, his aides — helped broker ceasefires between India and Pakistan and between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. But none of those measured up to the goals Trump initially set for himself — much less qualified for the Nobel Peace Prize he has publicly yearned for. 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this,' he grumbled when the Rwanda-Congo agreement was signed. The most striking example of unfulfilled expectations has come in Ukraine, the grinding conflict Trump claimed he could end even before his inauguration. For months, Trump sounded certain that his warm relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin would produce a deal that would stop the fighting, award Russia most of the territory its troops have seized and end U.S. economic sanctions on Moscow. 'I believe he wants peace,' Trump said of Putin in February. 'I trust him on this subject.' But to Trump's surprise, Putin wasn't satisfied with his proposal. The Russian leader continued bombing Ukrainian cities even after Trump publicly implored him to halt via social media ('Vladimir, STOP!'). Critics charged that Putin was playing Trump for a fool. The president bristled: "Nobody's playing me." But as early as April, he admitted to doubts about Putin's good faith. 'It makes me think that maybe he doesn't want to stop the war, he's just tapping me along," he said. 'I speak to him a lot about getting this thing done, and I always hang up and say, 'Well, that was a nice phone call,' and then missiles are launched into Kyiv or some other city,' Trump complained last week. 'After that happens three or four times, you say the talk doesn't mean anything." The president also came under pressure from Republican hawks in Congress who warned privately that if Ukraine collapsed, Trump would be blamed the way his predecessor, President Biden, was blamed for the fall of Afghanistan in 2022. So last week, Trump changed course and announced that he will resume supplying U.S.-made missiles to Ukraine — but by selling them to European countries instead of giving them to Kyiv as Biden had. Trump also gave Putin 50 days to accept a ceasefire and threatened to impose 'secondary tariffs' on countries that buy oil from Russia if he does not comply. He said he still hopes Putin will come around. 'I'm not done with him, but I'm disappointed in him,' he said in a BBC interview. It still isn't clear how many missiles Ukraine will get and whether they will include long-range weapons that can strike targets deep inside Russia. A White House official said those details are still being worked out. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sounded unimpressed by the U.S. actions. 'I have no doubt that we will cope,' he said. Foreign policy experts warned that the secondary tariffs Trump proposed could prove impractical. Russia's two biggest oil customers are China and India; Trump is trying to negotiate major trade agreements with both. Meanwhile, Trump has dispatched Witkoff back to the Middle East to try to arrange a ceasefire in Gaza and reopen nuclear talks with Iran — the goals he began with six months ago. Despite his mercurial style, Trump's approach to all these foreign crises reflects basic premises that have remained constant for a decade, foreign policy experts said. 'There is a Trump Doctrine, and it has three basic principles,' Schake said. 'Alliances are a burden. Trade exports American jobs. Immigrants steal American jobs.' Robert Kagan, a former Republican aide now at the Brookings Institution, added one more guiding principle: 'He favors autocrats over democrats.' Trump has a soft spot for foreign strongmen like Putin and China's Xi Jinping, and has abandoned the long-standing U.S. policy of fostering democracy abroad, Kagan noted. Read more: Trump threatens Russia with tariffs and boosts U.S. weapons for Ukraine The problem, Schake said, is that those principles 'impede Trump's ability to get things done around the world, and he doesn't seem to realize it. 'The international order we built after World War II made American power stronger and more effective,' she said. 'Trump and his administration seem bent on presiding over the destruction of that international order.' Moreover, Kagan argued, Trump's frenetic imposition of punitive tariffs on other countries comes with serious costs. 'Tariffs are a form of economic warfare,' he said. 'Trump is creating enemies for the United States all over the world. ... I don't think you can have a successful foreign policy if everyone in the world mistrusts you.' Not surprisingly, Trump and his aides don't agree. 'It cannot be overstated how successful the first six months of this administration have been,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said last week. 'With President Trump as commander in chief, the world is a much safer place.' That claim will take years to test. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine
The world is moving closer to the brink of nuclear war in alarming ways that are more dangerous and harder to anticipate than during the Cold War. The famous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a harrowing near miss, but today's nuclear dangers are more complex. This is due to a variety of factors, particularly coming together in the Middle East: increasing tensions across the region, growing risks of nuclear proliferation, and now perils of surprise military attack during crises involving states with nuclear weapons or on the cusp of nuclear weapons. Israel's recent 12-day war against Iran is a harbinger of potentially growing nuclear dangers to come. For the first time in history, two nuclear armed states — Israel and the United States — bombed a state, Iran, with a major nuclear program that many believe is on the threshold of acquiring all the physical and technical capacities necessary to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. For sure, the 12-day war involved a series of attacks and counterattacks that were terrifying to live through, and there was great relief when they came to an end. However, the future is even more concerning. First, Israeli and American bombing did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as President Donald Trump astonishingly declared before he received bomb damage assessments. As is now widely agreed among U.S. defense intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan did not eliminate Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Although uncertainly remains about Iran's next steps, there is little doubt that Iran could attempt to produce a 'crude' bomb in a matter of months. And it is important to understand, a 'crude' bomb means a Hiroshima-style weapon that could lead to the deaths of 80,000 people from the immediate effects of the blast. Second, future information about Iran's nuclear program is fraught with high degrees of uncertainty. From the beginning, Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to have tremendous access to monitor its nuclear enrichment program. True, these inspections have fluctuated over time and have never been as fully comprehensive as many would have liked. However, for decades, the quarterly IAEA reports have been crucial for high confidence assessments about the scale of Iran's enrichment program and whether vast amounts of enriched uranium have not been siphoned off to develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has reportedly banned IAEA inspectors from its nuclear facilities, and the fear and suspicion about a surprise nuclear breakout will grow over time. Third, and most important, the 12-day war shows that the fear of surprise attack is now fully justified. It is important to recall that the war started June 13 with a stunning, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's bolt-from-the-blue strike occurred without warning and while Iranian negotiators were preparing to meet with their American counterparts just days later. Given these events, Israel, the United States and Iran now face the specter of one of the most terrifying scenarios for nuclear war: the 'reciprocal fear of surprise attack.' That's a situation in which both sides of a potential conflict fear being attacked first, leading them to consider — and possibly launch — a preemptive strike to avoid being caught off guard. The most worrisome aspect is that striking first in these circumstances has an element of rationality. If one side thinks the other is preparing for a surprise attack, then attacking first, even if it carries risks, may be the best way to reduce one's own losses. Of course, nuclear war is so horrible that the reciprocal fear of surprise attack may never lead to an actual outbreak of war. If so, then the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would not be a problem in the first place. Alas, we need to take this danger seriously. What can be done? Although there are no perfect solutions to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack, there is one step that would significantly matter: For the United States, Iran and Israel to declare that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis involving Iran. The general idea of 'no first use' pledges, as they are called, arose during the Cold War, but the United States has never been willing to make such a promise. At the time, this was thought of in the context of the U.S., Europe and Soviet contest in which America needed the implicit threat of the first use of nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet conventional military threat to U.S. nonnuclear European allies. The Middle East is clearly different. America's main ally, Israel, is a powerful nuclear weapons state and so does not rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter attacks on its homeland. For the United States, Israel and Iran to agree a limited no-first-use policy would not end the tensions over Iran's nuclear program. However, it would energize negotiations and avoid some of the worst ways that a nuclear war could inadvertently occur. The Nobel Laureate Assembly to Prevent Nuclear War taking place at the University of Chicago recently was a perfect place to begin a national conversation about the value of adapting U.S. nuclear doctrine to today's realities in the Middle East. If this assembly of the most brilliant minds on the planet could recommend this historic step in which the U.S., Iran and Israel each pledge they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the dispute involving Iran's nuclear program, this would be a meaningful step toward preventing nuclear war in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
DOJ rocked by wave of Trump firings
The Justice Department has been rocked by a wave of recent firings, a sign the administration is not done culling the ranks of career officials as it seeks to shape the department under a second Trump term. Maurene Comey, a New York-based federal prosecutor and the daughter of the former FBI director, was fired Wednesday without explanation. And news broke this week that the Justice Department also fired immigration court Judge Jennifer Peyton, who served as head of the Chicago immigration court system, shortly after the jurist gave a tour to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Those firings come on the heels of the dismissal of at least 20 staffers who worked under special counsel Jack Smith, a group that includes not only attorneys but also support staff and even U.S. Marshals. Attorney General Pam Bondi last week also fired the top career ethics official at the department, Joseph Tirrell, the latest in a string of ethics officials pushed out under President Trump. 'Every time I think we're at some point when the firings are over, there's another wave. So I would predict we'll see more,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'It's more dedicated career professionals being given walking papers when they really deserve to be elevated and empowered. And to fire the ethics attorney, I think, speaks volumes about where she's taking the department,' Blumenthal said. Justice Connection, a network of the department's alumni dedicated to protecting 'colleagues who are under attack,' estimate that more than 200 employees have been terminated at DOJ, a figure that includes firings at the FBI and other agencies, as well as prosecutors that worked on the cases of Jan. 6 rioters at the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. 'The senseless terminations at the Justice Department are growing exponentially. The very institution created to enforce the law is trampling over the civil service laws enacted by Congress. It's shameful, and it's devastating the workforce,' Stacey Young, executive director and founder of the group, said in a statement to The Hill 'DOJ leadership is making clear the ability to keep your job is not tied to your performance, your expertise, or your commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution. Those who remain at the department are now worried about how to uphold their professional ethical standards when it seems that their willingness to do whatever they are ordered matters more than any other aspect of their work.' The Justice Department declined to comment on personnel matters. Many of the attorneys that were fired have received brief letters saying they were terminated under the authority of the second article of the constitution, the one that establishes the presidency. A letter from Comey to her colleagues referenced the guiding ethos of the Justice Department: to pursue cases 'without fear or favor.' 'Our focus was really on acting 'without favor.' That is, making sure people with access, money, and power were not treated differently than anyone else; and making sure this office remained separate from politics and focused only on the facts and the law,' Comey said in the memo, adding, 'but we have entered a new phase where 'without fear' may be the challenge.' In the case of Peyton, Durbin said he sees a direct line between the tour she gave him – something he called a routine oversight visit – and her termination. 'Judge Peyton took time to show me the court and explain its functions. Soon after, she received an email from Department of Justice political appointees. The email claimed that immigration judges should not directly communicate with members of Congress and congressional staff and required all communications from congressional offices to be forwarded to headquarters for review and response,' Durbin said in a Tuesday email. 'Judge Peyton was fired soon after. Her abrupt termination is an abuse of power by the Administration to punish a non-political judge simply for doing her job.' On Smith's team, the recent firings make for at least 37 staffers who have been dismissed, according to Reuters. And on the ethics front, beyond Terrill, Jeffrey Ragsdale, the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which reviews the conduct of attorneys in the department, was fired in March. Brad Weinsheimer, another top ethics official, resigned after he was reassigned to a new working group focused on cracking down on sanctuary cities. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he sees two primary patterns. 'This is Pam Bondi attempting to go after all the president's perceived political enemies, to go after dedicated prosecutors who brought cases successfully to conviction. It's also part of the broader effort to completely rewrite history about Jan. 6,' he told The Hill, adding that he expects more firing of those 'deemed insufficiently pro-MAGA.' He then listed a string of officials inside and outside of DOJ that have been fired under Trump, including the heads of the Office of the Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. 'They seem to be doing everything they can to eviscerate any kind of watchdog or ethical oversight – clearly part of a pattern of trying to eliminate all accountability,' said Schiff, who sent a letter to Bondi this week asking for more details on Terrill's firings and plans to comply with ethics guidelines at the department. Beyond the firings, many Justice Department lawyers have left the department of their own accord, with several sharing with The Hill they feared being asked to do something illegal or would be forced to defend unlawful actions. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the result is a culture of fear at the Justice Department. 'The Department of Justice is now a joke. When you look at the history of a once storied and legendary department, Pam Bondi has defined her job as doing whatever Donald Trump wants. She's completely sycophantic and subservient. And there may be some lawyers still left in the building who are trying to do their jobs in an honest way consistent with professional ethics, but everything has been supported, subordinated to the political will of Donald Trump,' he told The Hill. 'It's a tough thing for the real lawyers who are still there, and they express a lot of fear and anxiety about where the DOJ is going.' He added that some Republican colleagues, largely former prosecutors, have privately expressed concern over the firings. 'I have had Republican colleagues who were former federal prosecutors telling me privately that they are absolutely appalled that United States assistant attorneys are being fired because they worked on the January 6 case,' Raskin said. 'Think about the implications of that. People are being fired for doing their jobs well, and their job was bringing cases against people who violently assaulted federal police officers,' he said. But that concern was not publicly shared by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the panel. 'I have confidence in President Trump, confidence in his team at the Justice Department, if that's what they think is in the best interest of fulfilling their mission, that's their call,' he told The Hill. 'I don't know this particulars about each individual, but if that's what the attorney general believes is in the best interest of the Justice Department's mission, that's fine.' Comey and Terrill both addressed morale in letters to their colleagues. Comey said unjustified firings mean 'fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain.' 'Do not let that happen. Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power. Of commitment to seek justice for victims. Of dedication to truth above all else,' she wrote. Terrill, too, hinted at a call to action from colleagues. 'I believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – 'the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,'' he wrote in a post on LinkedIn that included his brief termination notice. 'I also believe that Edmund Burke is right and that 'the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.'
