What Norah O’Donnell said during the Trump interview after she quoted the shooter’s “manifesto”
Trump gave an interview to 60 Minutes in which Norah O’Donnell asked him to comment on the shooter’s written letter, the so-called “manifesto.” This article is typical of the coverage of the incident:
O’Donnell on Sunday began reading a portion of the reported manifesto to Trump, saying, “The so-called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President. He appears to reference a motive in it. He writes this quote, ‘Administration officials, they are targets.’ And he also wrote this, ‘I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.’”
“Yeah, he did write that. I’m — I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody,” Trump said. “I’m not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all — stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated,” he said, later calling the CBS News senior correspondent “disgraceful.”
“You know, he’s a sick person,” Trump continued. “But you should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things.”
Critics of O’Donnell on the right agree with Trump that it was a kind of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” question that amplified the quote on a major TV program, without O’Donnell remarking on the obvious falsity of the allegations – probably because the media and Democrats have fostered such allegations. “Pedophile” is connected to the constant Epstein misrepresentations, “rapist” is a misreading of the court case won by E. Jean Carroll, and “traitor” could apply to anything from fake Russiagate to fake Nazi.
So yes, O’Donnell’s question was both inappropriate and designed to harm Trump. But I’m surprised that no articles and no videos I’ve seen discussing the exchange mentioned her truly pernicious followup question, which I bring you here:
Did you catch the statement of O’Donnell’s that has commonly been left out, the one I’m referring to as her followup question?: “Oh, you think, you think he was referring to you?” coupled with a mildly incredulous look? That sentence in particular reveals the duplicitous, disingenuous nature of O’Donnell’s approach. She knows full well that Trump would interpret the manifesto quote as referring to him because of course it does (for one thing, it levels charges that have become common against him, and for another the charges are against a single person and not a group). And yet she pretends the subject of the quote is in doubt and she uses Trump’s understandable interpretation – really, there is no other one possible – to imply some sort of consciousness of guilt on Trump’s part.
That’s what tells me what a nasty piece of work O’Donnell is, even more than the “pedophile, etc.” quote itself. And she sets it up by starting with another manifesto quote, “Administration officials, they are targets.” This is an attempt to establish that the shooter was also targeting the entire group, so that her later “oh, you think he was referring to you?” question might give her pose of feigned doubt some supposed credibility.
The entire thing was a setup, IMHO. O’Donnell almost certainly knew that reading the quotes might get a rise out of Trump – as well it should – and would cause the interview to be discussed and watched more widely.
NOTE: If you watch the whole clip, instead of just the part I cued up, you’ll see how the left is spinning it.
I caught it too, Neo. Political assassination right after a real attempt. These people are evil.
All O’Donnell did was reveal the moral rot in her soul.
Trump continually gives these cretins a platform to play to their deranged audience. Just stop legitimizing them for crying out loud. This was totally forseeable.
she have “crazy eyes”; hate will do that ….
I find it refreshing that Trump calmly dismisses the quote, then publicly scolds O’Donnell as a disgrace.
We are past the point of serious debate with these people. They have no interest in truth. Their whole aim is gotcha or outright character assassination.
Hold still while we beat you up.
O’Donnell will do fine with her side.
_____________________________
‘60 Minutes’ Anchor Corners Trump After He Lashes Out at Her
DIGGING HIS OWN HOLE
Norah O’Donnell turned the tables after Donald Trump lashed out at her for bringing up the manifesto of the WHCA dinner gunman.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/60-minutes-anchor-norah-odonnell-corners-trump-after-he-lashes-out-at-her-for-noting-gunmans-manifesto/
Didn’t Cole Allen make it clear that he, Cole Allen, was referring to Trump? What matters in the criminal charges is not what Trump thinks. It matters what Cole Allen thought. Trump’s answer is accurate to denote those ideas are Cole Allen’s and not Trump’s.
Ah the baselisk what would we do without them (recycle the tripe that other leftists had spouted out) honestly i would have wished that i hadnt seen that
Theres a continuum from rather to couric to o’donnell, what exactly is bari weiss to fix this, wretched hive of villainy that the tiffany network has become
I guess the circle has to continue until they succeed
First of all, this is an excellent case study of How Political Hatred Works: pronounce the defamatory statements AS FACT, hiding behind the “just reading the alleged manifesto of the alleged shooter” mask that was perfected in the “Russia Russia” hoax cycles; make obvious innuendoes, while feigning the “unbiased journalist here” persona; move along without allowing any rebuttal, because she knows the three slanders are not true, or should; and then close down shop.
However, Trump did get in one zinger, which I wish he would do more often, because the “literally Hitler!” slander should have been nipped in the first few minutes of its existence 10 years ago.
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/04/27/trump-remarks-to-norah-odonnell-about-no-kings-n2201730
The sustained and unvarying response at all times should be:
“If Trump were literally Hitler, you would be literally dead. End of discussion.”
bill fello (6:23 pm) said: “Trump continually gives these cretins a platform to play to their deranged audience. Just stop legitimizing them for crying out loud.”
At one time, Trump entering the cretins’ platform may have had the effect, for some few, of exposing for all to see what these cretins in fact are. At one time.
At this late date, I have the impression that that exposing effect is now very close to zero. The cretin people adhere to the cretin side, the Trumpkins adhere to the Trump side, and that’s that.
The battle lines are drawn. GOD, I hope it doesn’t devolve into out-and-out armed battle, but with each passing day, my hope candle is flickering with less and less strength to maintain light. It’s all so very discouraging.
[Connie] Chung asked Mrs. Gingrich to “just whisper it to me, just between you and me”; Mrs. Gingrich’s microphone volume was turned up as she replied, “She’s a bitch”. (Jan. 5, 1995) — Wikipedia
Before there was TDS there was GDS… Gingrich Derangement Syndrome. Gingrich was Speaker of the House for only about 5 years. But the Dems owned the House before Gingrich took down Speaker Wright and then took over the House. Gingrich as Speaker was a tectonic shift in DC politics.
The media had futilely tried to demonize Ronald Reagan, but the only result was that Reagan got the moniker “The Teflon President.” Why? Because people felt that they knew Reagan from his squeaky-clean movie characters. (I’d guess he was rather like his characters, but that’s just a guess.)
Nobody knew Newt Gingrich beforehand. So he was a blank canvas that could be smeared with great success. Why smear him and his family? Because for the left, it is all about political power.
Neo.
Sorry for being cryptic. Was working from my phone whose screen is considerably smaller than my fingers.
What I meant was that the haters don’t need repetition. Once is enough, and the worse the better. My question is why they buy the most unlikely crap regarding Trump and other republicans on the first exposure. They WANT to hate and all they need is a fresh subject. Relentless repetition is unnecessary. Possibly the repetition reinforces the stuff, keeps it alive, but the buy-in is complete on the first exposure. No matter how silly.
It’s one thing to hate because you’ve been misinformed.
It’s another to want to hate and grab the first mention which comes along as if it’s gospel.
When confronted with that kind of slander Trump should throw Bill Clinton’s genuine rape of Paula Jones into the accuser’s face. There are even photos of the poor woman’s beat up face and split lip.
I just listened to that smug fake news artist, John Lyons (Aussie ABC Washington Bureau Chief), spin the private meeting between POTUS Trump & King Charles III. He said there were no reporters & no cameras allowed, despite POTUS Trump’s “love of the camera & the running commentary reporters allow him to give on his presidency,” because both men “live under the shadow of Jeffrey Epstein, the King less so than his brother…who’s no longer a prince”…but both do not want reporters asking Epstein files related questions because “Trump’s name appears in those file 38,000 times.” His credentials need to be revoked…prissy SOB.
I’m also of the mind that the UK needs a new ambassador to the US because I hear the current one said the “only nation that the US enjoys a ‘special relationship’ with is Israel.” Ditto him too.
That Aussie ABC guy sounds like a piece of work, John Guilfoyle. One of my daughters, who works for a large government contractor, is coming to Australia for a month to help with a proposal there. I told her that it will be just like home — listening to colleagues slander Trump all the time, and the government is just as left-wing as her home base in Fairfax County, Virginia. Maybe the weather will be nice.
Kate…farther left than you could imagine and if she’s in Canberra…could be chilly. Not cold…but chilly. It’s the front side of winter.
Yes, she’s going to Canberra. She has checked the weather reports.
Richard Aubrey:
Thing is, what may seem like the first time really isn’t. The person may have been raised in a family or community that thinks people on the right are bad, bigoted, selfish, mean, etc.. The person may read a newspaper that’s been saying this for years. The person may have learned as much in school. Then Trump comes along, and even for people on the right he can take some getting used to. Of course the Democrat will be inclined to believe the worst of him from the start. And then it’s repeated over and over in a million different ways from people the person respects.
Okay, Ndeo,
That answers my question; they are raided to hate, trained to hate and a particular subject is….nothing new except for the title.
Given the correct circumstances, which have very occasionally come my way, it’s kind of fun to keep putting facts in their faces. I figure they know about half the reasons they believe/sell their nonsense are false. Fun to point them out, and fun to bring up the irrefutable new ones.
But you need the right circumstances.
A church friend who is pretty conservative but not active in politics (as far as I know) went to Australia last fall and loved it. “Weather is warm … people are kind and polite … they speak English … a lady left her purse on her seat at the Sydney Opera House at intermission and when I alerted her she looked at me like I had two heads – theft is not a worry … ” I think he would move there if he didn’t have family in the US.
It’s not really journalism or “news” that they do anymore, it’s strictly Democrat PR with a strategic shot of propaganda at a prescribed time and place.
Imagine a right-wing leaning late night TV host on MSM giving Michelle Obama the Melania treatment. With a Democrat run Administration that host would be fired yesterday.
I also think it’s easier for people to go with the “Trump is awful” groupthink because most people are followers, not leaders. Peer pressure and all that. Democrat ideals sound dreamy and wonderful; the reality not so much.
Democrats and their Media whores engaging in character assassination?
So what else is new…?
Certainly not this:
“North Carolina Finds 34K Dead People on State Voter Rolls”—
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/04/28/north-carolina-finds-34k-dead-people-on-state-voter-rolls/
H/T Powerline blog.
Hmm. Wonder what those dead voters’ preferred party might be …
Kate…I hope your daughter has time for more than work in Canberra. Lots to see and do. Museums aplenty and parks parks and more parks. She’ll find it captivating, I hope.
I have good friends and a daughter there. We’re west about 3 hours.
@M J R: The cretin people adhere to the cretin side, the Trumpkins adhere to the Trump side, and that’s that.
There are voters in the middle who are up for grabs and some are peeling off. Otherwise Trump wouldn’t hve been elected by such a large margin in 2024 vs 2016. (Leaving aside my reservations about 2020.)
But those who are changing — often blacks, hispanics, working-class — don’t have much of a profile in the news or online.
And again…
“Election probe targets ‘unusual’ reports in wake of Virginia redistricting referendum: AFPI. Fairfax County reported a late tranche of votes that helped the ‘Yes’ camp cross the finish line in the referendum.”—
https://instapundit.com/793358/
Gotta love that “‘unusual’ reports”…
They NEVER give up.
(Must be the thrill of the cheat!)
File under: Don’t trust…and verify like there’s no tomorrow…
As an amateur historian with an undergraduate degree in that subject, may I posit the theory that much of what we are dealing with today has its origins in the importation of what later was called “The Frankfurt School” of soi disant “progressives” (i.e, communists) back in the mid-1930’s? If one takes a moment to delve into the events of the day, one can see how these anti-American sentiments were largely imported from Germany, the home of Marx and Engels, after they were either expelled or voluntarily exited their natal land. Many of these parasites wound up at Columbia, where some of them founded “The New School” with headquarters in NYC and developed the abomination called “critical theory”. As time passed, many of them migrated to California (due to the tilt of the continent causing all the loose nuts to roll to the left, as attributed to among others, Frank Lloyd Wright). And so we see that the crazy nexus between NYC and California, culminating in the ascendance of Zorhan Mohamadami and Grabbin’ Newscum. Without going into greater detail, it is easy to analogize this phenomenon to something like the mechanism whereby a virus takes over a cell in order to reproduce, and in the process, kills its host. We are at the “taking over” point now, and I hope the “kills its host” part can be prevented by some immune reaction.
Steve (Retired/recovering lawyer):
They had a role, but the movement in that direction predated them and was a more home-grown development. Please see this post of mine, as well as this one.
Later, Howard Zinn was hugely influential in the America-hating trend, but if you look at his Wiki page it doesn’t seem as though his formative professors were of the Frankfurt School and they were born here.
WAIT !! WHAT !!
You must be kidding !!
You mean gun toting Cole Tomas Allen didn’t sprint past a security checkpoint so that he could obtain autographs of Trump and other govt.officials ????
Really ??
Geez; who would have thunk it.
MJR has TDS so just keep that in mind when he speaks of “Trumpkins.”
huxley (12:36 am), the number of those who are changeable is, at this point, relatively small. But I should not have expressed myself in such stark, black-&-white terms.
om (9:43 am), I am not now and never have been inflicted with TDS. My use of my made-up word “Trumpkins” was meant to be lighthearted in spirit, not anti-Trump.
“Did you catch the statement of O’Donnell’s that has commonly been left out, the one I’m referring to as her followup question?: ‘Oh, you think, you think he was referring to you?’ coupled with a mildly incredulous look?”
This is like an actual scene from “Mean Girls” (minus the “pretty” part):
Regina George: “You’re, like, really pretty.”
Cady [surprised]: “Thank you.”
Regina: “So you agree.”
Cady: “What?”
Regina [incredulous]: “You think you’re really pretty.”
@ M J R > “My use of my made-up word “Trumpkins” was meant to be lighthearted in spirit, not anti-Trump.”
I want one of the JD Vancekin dolls.
https://x.com/flapprdotnet/status/2049197161775018364/photo/1
For those who may have missed the fun from King Charles the Eleventy-first’s visit, this photo captures a remarkable moment, h/t Twitchy.
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2049169102845964539/photo/1
More here on the event details.
https://twitchy.com/fuzzychimp/2026/04/28/trump-with-bee-at-the-white-house-n2427642
Some of my favorite memes from the Twitchy staff, in addition to the Vance one:
https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/2049192256796873169/photo/1
“Computer, enhance.”
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/2049187620563882448/photo/1
“Marco Rubio after finding out Melania added a beehive to the White House South Lawn.”
https://x.com/gatorgar/status/2049177843385471000/photo/1
“Trump is like a fictional character ”
(NOTE: back when Walt ran Disney Studios.)
https://x.com/Prisonmitch/status/2049193141987635420/photo/1
“It’s some form of Elvish, I can’t read it.”
As Flappr said, retweeting the WH picture:
“Every week we are treated to a new iconic and surreal image.”
— TommyJay
Yes. This^^^, This did not start with Trump, and it’s not even about Trump. Before Trump was literally Hitler, Bush II was literally Hitler. Before Bush II was a warmonger, Reagan was a warmonger. It does all the way back to the 1960s as a major thing, and they were throwing the fascist allegation (albeit for a niche audience) as far back as FDR and Truman. But it was in the late 60s and 70s that it really took off, as that niche took over control of the Democratic Party from the former working-class base.
Part of the problem, again, is the class divide. The GOP politicians like Gingrich and the other ‘class of 94’ members were far less conservative than their rhetoric, a lot them just wanted to represent business. Also, a lot of them thought that winning the election and taking Congress meant that now they would receive the same treatment the Dems formerly did, they desperately wanted to be lauded and accepted by what was then the mainstream media.
Which of course was never, ever going to happen, no matter what.
Of course Gingrich should have warned his mother that reporters were her enemy, but I’m not sure he fully grasped that himself.
It’s not just the politicians, either. A lot of GOP rank and file voters had the same problem, they were never going to feel as if they were winning or getting anywhere until they saw it on the evening news or read it in Time or Newsweek.
Which, again, was never, ever going to happen, no matter what.
This latter problem is far less acute today on the GOP side. But it used to be a big deal. A lot of Republican voters would give and stay home because the press told them it was hopeless, the Dems had already won, they were just outvoted and a minority and they should give up. It often worked, back then. It’s much less potent now.
— Huxley
It’s much more about turnout than swing voters, most of the time. That’s been true for decades.
A big chunk of Trump’s margin in 2024 was not so much swingers as Dems who stayed home, depressed by the Biden Administration and the prospect of Harris.
That’s why off-year elections tend to go badly for the Presidential party, the other side is motivated and the Presidential party is inevitably disappointed, because reality always disappoints. So, one side turns out more than the other (usually).
It’s hard to overstate the importance of turning out your own side’s voters. It’s the single most important thing in electoral politics. You turn out your base, and then you add to that base from other sources. Politicians who try other formulas usually lose.
Genuine big swings happen from time to time, GOP to Dems under FDR, Dems to GOP under Reagan on a smaller scale. But turnout is usually more important.
(And even Reagan is often misremembered. We falsely remember him winning 2 landslides, because he won almost every State. It’s easy to forget that the first time, John Anderson was in the race, and he pulled almost entirely from Carter, whose support was already soft. Add Anderson’s 6.6% to Carter and Carter would likely still have lost, but the electoral map would have been mixed, and he’d probably have won some States.
1984, now, that was a genuine landslide.
But the Dem elites didn’t like their working class base, and drove a lof of them out. That turned the Dems from total-dominant to merely competitive.
The GOP benefited from that, but the GOP elites don’t like the working class and (esp.) the overlapping SoCons, either. So ever since Reagan they’ve been struggling to find Someone Else, Anyone Else, to take their place…and failing.
Bush I steered the GOP back toward patrician globalism and away from Reagan’s coalition, the result was a proto-Trumpian Perot vote and Clinton.
Bob Dole let his wife run his campaign in 1996, she ran on winning over ‘moderate Republicans and moderate Dems, economic ‘conservative/social liberal’, lost to Clinton.
Bush II ran populist (mostly) in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and won surprise victories each time. He started doing what his father taught him after 2004, esp. the immigration globalism and free trade and ‘any willing worker’, result: Dem control of Congress in 2006.
In 2008, Rudy Giuliani was going to be the nominee, everyone ‘knew’ that it would be Rudy vs. Hillary. Of course Rudy tried to run on a pure social lib business security approach, I heard him say in an interview he’d make up for what he lost in the South with primary votes in the northeast. He flamed out.
John McCain was going to win with the PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass) Dems, meaning Democratic women who were disgusted that Obama knocked Hillary out when it was her turn. The PUMAs, predictably, turned out for Obama. McCain tried to blame Palin, in fact Palin’s presence on the ticket saved him from a reverse-1984 landslide by boosting GOP turnout somewhat. Without her, he wouldn’t have just lost, he’d have lost humiliatingly.
In 2012, the initial promising candidate in the primaries was Mitch Daniels, who then called for ‘a truce on the social issues’ to focus on money issues. His campaign, and his political career, died the day that interview was published.
Mitt Romney tried to run as if he was the protagonist in an Ayn Rand novel, he was going to win on ‘makers vs. takers’. He assumed that every government employee would vote Dem and private sector voters would vote for him. That ignores social issues and nationalism and other factors, and he lost bigly because the Republican voters stayed home.
Not crossed over, note. Just stayed home. That’s all it took.
Of course the Inevitable Jeb tried to win the general by losing the primaries. He spent hundreds of megabucks to get nowhere and lose humiliatingly to Trump. He tried to distance himself from his brother on precisely the issues people still supported him on, and embraced the exact issues that had destroyed Bush II’s second term (esp. immigration).
Even the Donald himself made this mistake in 2020, though I think for different reasons: he didn’t much talk about or run on his strongest issues. It cost him.
Turnout turnout turnout turnout turnout. That’s the law of politics.
MJR:
A (sarc) tag is useful. Good to hear that TDS hasn’t claimed another mind.
It is impossible to hate the media too much.
om (3:41 pm) said:
“MJR: A (sarc) tag is useful. Good to hear that TDS hasn’t claimed another mind.”
om, mucho thanks for that clarification. I am mucho relieved. (sarco)
AesopFan (2:53 pm) said:
“I want one of the JD Vancekin dolls.”
Very cute photo, AesopFan. (M J R audibly chuckles.)
I think Guiliani was handicapped by some of the worst campaign staff, like john avalon, and rick wilson, they spent their meager sums rather poorly, if memory served, then there was a drip drip disparagement of his whole efforts in Washington and NY, there were three books full of this tripe, no good deed like salvaging new york, goes unpunished, maybe like with troy, there was little prospect of a Republican victory, because of the economic collapse that came suspiciously close to election day, and the infatuation with obama, as the fresh new thing, the late Michael Thomas, who because of his upper crust wasp roots, had demonstrated a rather toxic antisemitism, wrote a roman a clef about that interval, but with no skepticism about transpired, he took the narrative that walls street was saving the country,
about McCain like the 1919 black sox, at some point, he decided to throw the match, the Jones memo, that Schmidt and Wallace, worked off, to cover their tracks, of course they didn’t fill her in, as they played Russian roulette with the country,
Not defending McCain but he was leading in the polls in early September 2008. When Treasury Secretary Paulson told the nation “we need $800 billion or the economy’s going off the cliff” that sealed the election for Obama.
I know, I know, it’s hard to believe that 800 billion was once considered a considerable sum of money…
— FOAF
Dukakis was up in the polls for awhile in 1988, too. But the outcome was never really in doubt.
McCain was hobbled from day one by his support for immigration amnesty and open borders, compounded by his comments attacking the GOP base over the previous 8 years. He got the nomination by being the least bad of the ‘Rudy McRomney’ Trifecta the GOPe managed to force on the rank and file. Thus, he was the presumptive 2008 loser from the start.
He might have been able to turn it around, but that would have required doing stuff he flatly refused to do. His plan was to run on ‘vote for me because I’m a war hero and I can cross the aisle and work with the Dems to Get Stuff Done’. The former was irrelevant, the voters motivated by his war record were mostly already voting GOP. GOP voters heard ‘get stuff done’ as ‘Amnesty’.
He wanted to bypass the GOP voters and win without them.
He was counting on the good will he thought he had built up with the press to help him over the hump. Yes, seriously. Of course he found out the hard way that the moment the nomination was secure, his friends in the press demanded to know why he was opposing that nice Obama. 😆 Every time he landed an effective ad or attack, his press friends screeched ‘racist racist racist’. He stopped being ‘maverick McCain’ the day he stopped being useful to the Dems.
He was never really in the running because he refused to be in the running.