TRUNALIMUNUMAPRZURE:

OPEN THREAD: Monday, Monday.

DONATIONS: IF YOU’D LIKE TO SUPPORT INSTAPUNDIT, you can donate via this Stripe link, or use the “Make A Donation” button at the top of the right sidebar. Or you can take out a paid subscription to my Substack. And for those who prefer checks over electronic means, you can mail a check — made out to Glenn Reynolds, not to InstaPundit — to 118 N. Peters Rd. #12-230, Knoxville, TN, 37923. Thanks for your support!

MARK JUDGE: Outfoxed? Martha MacCallum Grilled Me For An Hour about Brett Kavanaugh.

Many of MacCallum’s questions were tough, but the Fox people listened to my points, and aired them. I told them about Blasey For referring to me in her letter to Senator Feinstein as “Mark G. Judge.” Mark G. Judge is an old journalism byline of mine—no one calls me that. It indicates they were doing opposition research on me. There was the fact that, according to The New York Times, Blasey Ford has a friend who spent all summer doing oppo research once. There was the fact that Blasey Ford’s dates of when the alleged assault took place kept changing—they were trying to link me with Kavanaugh, and when the dates didn’t work they simply changed them. The entire thing was a hit. This is why one of Blasey Ford’s oldest friends, an FBI veteran who is called “Tori” in Ford’s book, cut off all contact with Ford. Tori doesn’t want to jeopardize her FBI reputation by promoting criminal activity. Getting the picture?

Still, MacCallum battled me. Most notably, she said I wasn’t saying that Brett was innocent. I tried to point out her faulty logic: if someone makes something up about you and you have no recollection of it, people can just assume you are guilty. You can put anybody anywhere. There’s no need for proof or due process. Then, as we were filming “b-roll” outside the house, I tried to prove my point. “You know, Martha,” I said as we walked side by side, “when we were inside and away from the cameras you touched me in an inappropriate way.” It was completely untrue, and judging by her reaction she wasn’t taking it seriously—she knew the point I was making, her face kind of went blank. “So how do you feel?” I said. If I could make that kind of charge and be believed, I argued, we’d be living in East Germany.

Exit quote: “She thinks it’s a he-said/she-said, when it was a planned and purely evil bombing by the left.”

CHRISTIAN TOTO: Here’s Why Hollywood Is Addicted to Sequels, Prequels and Reboots.

It doesn’t get more Hollywood than “Fly Me to the Moon.”

The Apple production stars Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum in a rom-com tied to the ’60s space race and the moon landing “hoax.”

Big stars! A big budget (reportedly $100 million)? A sweet summer schedule release and the perfect counter-programming to kiddie hits (“Inside Out 2”) and horror frights (“Longlegs”).

And … thud.

“Fly Me to the Moon” snared a tepid $10 million in its opening weekend. It’ll need a supermodel’s legs to avoid losing a bundle following its theatrical run.

What happened?

The film had almost zero buzz up until its release date. That never helps. Summer audiences weren’t wooed by the comely stars or the ’60s-era setting.

And we’re still addicted to sequels, prequels and reboots.

Hopefully the film will make back some of its production costs when it goes to streaming, including Apple’s own Apple TV+ app. But 13 years after Lynda Obst wrote Sleepless in Hollywood: Tales from the New Abnormal in the Movie Business, her look at Hollywood’s obsession with sequel-itis still looks correct, alas:

THE COUNTRY’S IN THE VERY BEST OF HANDS: Trump shooter was ‘spotted on roof 26 minutes before assassination attempt’ as pressure mounts on how Secret Service allowed gunman to open fire at rally.

Related: Mystery Around Trump Shooter Deepens.

Two days after Thomas Matthew Crooks committed one of the most shocking acts of political violence in half a century, both investigators and people in his western Pennsylvania community are no closer to understanding why he did it.

The FBI has analyzed Crooks’s cellphone and has found nothing that explains why he climbed onto a roof and shot at former President Trump, grazing his ear, law-enforcement officials said. Crooks’s parents have spoken to law enforcement, but they also seemed to have little insight, telling authorities he didn’t appear to have any strong political leanings and had few, if any, friends.

The attempted assassination looked likely to drive the country to new levels of partisan distrust, but the initial mixed picture of the bespectacled young gunman of a quiet loner who wasn’t politically outspoken has instead left most of the American public scratching its head.

* * * * * * * *

Crooks appears to have acted alone, investigators said, and they were turning to his computer and other devices in hopes of finding any clues about his ideology.

More: Claire Lehmann on Courage and Cowardice in Pennsylvania:

The last attempted assassination of a US president provides a lesson. Forty-four years ago, a man named John Hinckley Jr. followed US President Jimmy Carter across multiple states, stalking him from Washington, D.C., to Columbus, and then Dayton, Ohio. Hinckley came within 20 feet of President Carter but decided at the last minute not to shoot him. That fate would await the next president, Ronald Reagan, outside the Washington Hilton hotel in an assassination attempt that left three Secret Service agents with gunshot wounds, and the President with serious injuries.

Surprisingly, this assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan lacked a clear political motivation. Hinckley was driven not by ideology, but by a delusional desire to impress actress Jodie Foster. A note he wrote prior to the shooting provides insight into his morbid fantasy:

Over the past seven months I’ve left you dozens of poems, letters and love messages in the faint hope that you could develop an interest in me. Although we talked on the phone a couple of times I never had the nerve to simply approach you and introduce myself. … The reason I’m going ahead with this attempt now is because I cannot wait any longer to impress you.

Seemingly irrational violence is not unique to Hinckley. In fact, it fits into a broader pattern identified by behavioural science. Psychologist Robert King, in a 2019 study on spree killers, wrote: “Males have been literally running amok—attacking innocent strangers en masse—across time and space.” In their study of spree killers, King and his colleague Nadia Butler analysed an archival search of 70 mass murderers, and found that they fell into two distinct groups. These groups were defined by age and stage of life. The younger killers, with an average age of 23, often had troubled pasts and mental health issues, and appeared to use violence as a way to obtain status, simply through infamy. By comparison, the older group, averaging 41 years old, were typically married with children and did not have a history of mental illness. They had recently experienced a significant loss in status, such as job loss or marital breakdown. Their primary motivation was jealousy.

* * * * * * * *

In the realm of political assassinations, we see a similar pattern of youth typically combined with mental illness or emotional disturbance. John Hinckley Jr. was 25 years old, with no job and no girlfriend, harbouring delusions of forming a relationship with Jodie Foster. Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated John F. Kennedy, was a 24-year-old with a history of violence, paranoia, and social rejection. Sirhan Sirhan was 24 when he killed Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, reportedly motivated by Kennedy’s support for Israel. John Wilkes Booth, Abraham Lincoln’s assassin, was just 26.

In an article for Quillette published last year, Robert King observed that “mass killings are, among many other things, a deliberately public, attention-seeking attempt to drive a wedge into the existing social order.” In 2024 America, what could be more attention-seeking than attempting to kill Donald Trump?

Read the whole thing.

I ALREADY SUPPORT HIM, YOU DON’T HAVE TO SELL ME.

Screenshot

DAVID HARSANYI ON THE RISE OF BLUEANON: How the Democrats Became a Party of Conspiracy Theorists.

Pennsylvania, the top political adviser to Democratic Party mega-donor Reid Hoffman — who had himself recently joked about Trump becoming a “martyr” — sent an email to journalists wondering why, “NOT ONE NEWSPAPER OR OPINION LEADER IN AMERICA IS WILLING TO OPENLY CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT TRUMP AND PUTIN STAGED THIS ON PURPOSE.”

Dmitri Mehlhorn implored reporters to consider the “possibility — which feels horrific and alien and absurd in America, but is quite common globally — … that this ‘shooting’ was encouraged and maybe even staged so Trump could get the photos and benefit from the backlash.”

Indeed, it was horrific to see social media explode with claims that the assassination attempt was “staged” and “false flag.” These theories garnered millions of likes, retweets, and views. And plenty of people who should know better, academics and activists, participated.

Indeed, Mehlhorn’s boss, the founder of LinkedIn, isn’t some unhinged commenter on Reddit; he is worth $2.5 billion. He pledged $100 million to fund efforts to oppose President Trump in 2020 and was on the same path in 2024.

Perhaps Mehlhorn felt comfortable posing conspiratorial questions to reporters because they have been quite receptive in the past. Mehlhorn, for example, padded his plea to journalists with conspiratorial mainstays of the contemporary left — theorizing that the assassination staging was a “classic Russian tactic” and urging them to consider “how often Putin and his allies run this play.”

The Russian collusion conspiracy theory — hatched by Democrats — is the most successful and consequential in American history, conceived by a major political party and spread by establishment media. Earlier this year Nancy Pelosi was still on MSNBC claiming that Putin probably “had” something “financial” on Trump.

Fortunately, one brave leftwing journalist looks to get to the bottom of her own party’s love of conspiracy theories:

What could possibly go wrong?

GREAT MOMENTS IN INTERVIEW PREP: Watch: Joe Biden Is Asked About His Inciteful ‘Bullseye’ Trump Comment, His Answer Just Doesn’t Cut It.

This is a bit like Biden’s staff taking the Dark Brandon Internet meme seriously, and then sending the old man out in front of a background that looks like a Nuremburg Rally. Unless you’re a hyper-online political junky who has followed the DNC-MSM’s unceasing attacks on Sarah Palin in 2011, would you even know or care why Biden is splitting this hair?

Naturally of course, Holt never punched back when Biden claimed he’s never used heated rhetoric when referring to Trump:

More examples at our sister-site Twitchy: ‘Bloodbath:’ President Joe Biden Tells NBC News He’s Not Engaged in Trump’s Sort of Rhetoric.

Oh, and speaking of inflammatory rhetoric:

HEH:

“A lot of people say it’s the most iconic photo they’ve ever seen. They’re right and I didn’t die. Usually you have to die to have an iconic picture.” — Donald Trump

Whether you love him, hate him, or have wearily resigned yourself to him, you gotta admit he’s funny.

Did I say heh? Yes, yes I did.