Selected Remarks and Responses

AI: Conclusion: Overall Accuracy: The article “Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and the Tottering American Empire” is a blend of well-founded factual reporting and provocative interpretation. On a factual level, most claims check out as accurate…The piece also accurately highlights contextual truths often underplayed elsewhere…In areas where we expected potential exaggeration, we found the core facts to be valid…

Partially Accurate or Misleading Points: There are a few areas of overreach or lacking context. The statement that Biden “avoided any direct conversations” with Xi Jinping was misleading, since Biden met Xi multiple times as President…

The article’s interpretive leap that Democrats timed Biden’s exit to avoid an Israel-policy challenger in the primaries is intriguing and consistent with known donor priorities, but it remains a hypothesis – we have no leaked DNC plan confirming this strategy. It is presented as speculation (“as various individuals have suggested” unz.com) rather than hard fact, so it’s an analytically plausible point rather than a verifiable fact. We should treat it as an informed conjecture…

Use of Sources: Generally, Unz uses sources ethically when citing specific facts. We did not find instances where he outright distorted a source’s words or presented a satirical source as real. He tends to cite strong evidence for the factual claims that underpin his narrative, lending credibility to his argument even if the argument itself is debatable….

Summary: The article as a whole is largely factually accurate in its narrative of events in mid-2024. It knits these facts into a perspective (America as an empire in decline, elites behaving desperately) that one may or may not agree with, but the factual building blocks are mostly solid….After careful analysis, we find the piece’s major historical and current-event assertions to be correct in substance…

Unz: Thanks, and I was carelessly incorrect regarding Biden’s meetings with Xi.

Preface

• Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and the Tottering American Empire
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • July 29, 2024 • 4,400 Words

Great. I’ll begin a fresh, comprehensive fact-check of the article “Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and the Tottering American Empire” from The Unz Review, carefully reviewing every factual claim and cited source for accuracy and proper context.

I’ll notify you as soon as the full report is ready.

Introduction

Overview: The Unz Review article by Ron Unz, “Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and the Tottering American Empire”, discusses recent U.S. political upheavals leading up to the 2024 election. It portrays an American establishment in crisis – from President Biden’s apparent cognitive decline and an unprecedented assassination attempt on Donald Trump, to the late-stage replacement of Biden by Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee. Unz draws parallels to the twilight of the Soviet Union and raises questions about media honesty, democratic legitimacy, and America’s trajectory as a global empire. Central themes include: Biden’s mental fitness (or lack thereof) and its concealment, Trump’s status as a hated outsider facing extreme opposition (even violence), the highly unusual elevation of Harris despite her past electoral failure, and the backdrop of the Israel–Gaza war fueling unrest within the Democratic base. The article blends factual reporting with conjecture – suggesting, for example, that the American “Deep State” might have countenanced assassination and that Biden’s ouster was orchestrated in undemocratic fashion. This report will systematically fact-check the factual assertions in the article, especially those about historical/current events, to assess their accuracy and whether sources are used appropriately and in context.

Methodology

Fact-Checking Approach: We closely read the entire article and extracted specific factual claims for verification. For each claim, we:

1. Identified the exact assertion (quoting or paraphrasing the article’s words).
2. Noted any source cited by Unz alongside the claim (e.g. hyperlinks to news, history, or data).
3. Verified the source’s existence and credibility: We checked if the cited source is real, reputable (e.g. major news outlet, academic, official data), and accessible. If accessible, we examined what it actually reports.
4. Cross-checked facts with independent authoritative sources: Using up-to-date news reports, official records, academic references, and credible databases, we confirmed whether the claim is factually accurate. We paid special attention to context (does the source fully support the claim or is it being mischaracterized?) and timeframe (some events unfolded in mid-2024, after any data the AI might have “known” by default, so we relied on contemporary news via the browser tool).
5. Assessed source usage: We evaluated if Unz represented his cited sources fairly and in context, or if he cherry-picked/misinterpreted information. We also considered whether any sources were omitted when they would contradict his narrative.
6. Classified each claim’s accuracy: We labeled each as accurate, partially accurate, or inaccurate/unsupported. “Partially accurate” indicates a claim contains some truth but is missing context or has minor errors, whereas “inaccurate” means it’s largely false or unsubstantiated by evidence.
7. Documented evidence with citations: For each claim, we provide supporting or refuting evidence with citations to the sources we consulted. These citations use the format 【source†lines】 to refer to the relevant passages.

After verifying individual claims, we also evaluated the ethical and contextual use of sources in the article as a whole. This involves checking if sources are high-quality and if the article’s interpretation stays true to the source’s meaning.

Finally, we present our findings in a structured format with clear headings and bullet points for readability. The Findings section below details each claim and our analysis, followed by a brief Source Representation Analysis and a Conclusion summing up the article’s overall accuracy and any needed corrections.

Findings

Below we address each significant factual claim from Unz’s article, along with analysis and a verdict on its accuracy. The claims are grouped by topic for clarity:

1. Biden–Trump Debate and Calls for Biden to Drop Out

• Claim: “A month ago they [Joe Biden and Donald Trump] held the first public debate of their 2024 rematch. Many believed it demonstrated Biden’s total mental enfeeblement, leading to widespread calls by leading Democratic Party financial donors and media pundits that Biden abandon the race at this very late stage.”
  Analysis: This refers to a June 27, 2024 televised debate between Biden and Trump, unusual for occurring so early. In reality, such an event did take place and Biden’s performance was widely panned. President Biden struggled during that debate, fueling concerns about his mental acuity. Subsequently, prominent voices indeed urged him to withdraw. Notably, The New York Times’ editorial board published a piece urging Biden to step aside, and major Democratic donors voiced alarm. For example, POLITICO reported that “a prominent Democratic donor” said after the debate: “I don’t see how he continues. It’s stunning.” politico.com. Biden spent the following days reassuring nervous donors and even acknowledged he “didn’t have a great night” politico.com. Protesters at a Biden fundraiser held signs like “Please drop out for U.S.” and “Step down for democracy” politico.com. These reactions confirm that leading donors and pundits openly discussed replacing Biden. The New York Times editorial (June 28, 2024) calling on Biden not to run was a particularly high-profile example politico.com. Therefore, the article accurately captures the situation: Biden’s poor debate performance did trigger widespread calls from influential Democrats and media figures for him to drop out. The phrase “total mental enfeeblement” is harsh, but observers did describe Biden as looking confused and aged during the debate. Verdict: Accurate. (Sources: POLITICO politico.com politico.com, NYT via POLITICO politico.com)
• Claim: “In fairness I watched the full 90-minute debate… it entirely confirmed those claims of [Biden’s] serious mental impairment. Trump…was fully alert, but Biden came across as elderly and befuddled, more like a nursing home patient than a plausible chief executive. Many of his remarks recalled his repeated claims to have seen explicit photographic evidence of the 40 Israeli babies beheaded by Hamas – although that alleged incident was merely a ridiculous propaganda hoax.”
  Analysis: The first part is the author’s opinion of Biden’s debate demeanor, so not a factual claim we must fact-check. The **factual element here is Biden’s “repeated claims” about seeing photos of 40 beheaded Israeli babies, and the assertion that this incident was a propaganda hoax. This refers to statements Biden made during the Israel–Hamas war (October 2023). Indeed, President Biden repeatedly claimed that Hamas fighters had beheaded children and that he had seen photos of it. On October 11, 2023, Biden said he had seen “confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children” en.wikipedia.org. The White House the next day walked back this claim, admitting Biden had not actually viewed such images en.wikipedia.org. Shockingly, Biden reiterated the beheaded babies story in subsequent months. He brought it up in November 2023 at a press conference, and again on December 12, 2023 en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. News organizations like The Intercept and Washington Post noted that Biden kept repeating this false atrocity tale en.wikipedia.org. As for the underlying story: early in the Gaza war, Israeli sources had alleged Hamas massacred and even beheaded 40 babies at Kibbutz Kfar Aza, but investigations found this was untrue. It’s now widely characterized as the “Hamas baby beheading hoax” en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. Israeli officials themselves quietly admitted no evidence for beheaded infants en.wikipedia.org. In summary, Biden did claim to have seen photos of atrocities that didn’t actually occur, reflecting confusion or credulity on his part. Calling the incident a “ridiculous propaganda-hoax” is strong wording, but essentially correct – the story was false yet had been amplified as war propaganda en.wikipedia.org. Verdict: Accurate. Biden did repeatedly describe seeing horrific images that never existed en.wikipedia.org, and the “40 beheaded babies” narrative has been debunked as misinformation en.wikipedia.org. (Sources: Wikipedia on the hoax en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org, Biden claims per Intercept/WaPo via Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org.)
• Claim: “Biden’s severe impairment also helps explain why he had carefully avoided any direct conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping.”
  Analysis: This implies that due to cognitive weakness, Biden never personally engaged with Putin or Xi. The truth is mixed. Regarding Putin: After Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Biden pointedly did not meet or speak with Vladimir Putin. U.S. officials even took steps to avoid any encounter at the November 2022 G-20 summit politico.com politico.com. The last known direct communication was a phone call in February 2022, just before the war, and the two leaders have not met since the June 2021 Geneva summit politico.com. So Biden did avoid direct talks with Putin during the war – but that was a deliberate policy choice, framing Putin as a “war criminal” not worth meeting politico.com, rather than simply Biden’s personal inability. As for Xi Jinping: The claim that Biden avoided Xi is incorrect. President Biden has engaged directly with China’s leader multiple times. They held a virtual summit in November 2021, a lengthy in-person meeting at the G-20 in Bali in November 2022 politico.com, and another high-profile summit in San Francisco in November 2023 (around the APEC conference) – all during Biden’s term. Therefore it’s false to say Biden “carefully avoided any direct conversations” with Xi. In fact, in late 2022 the White House was actively arranging a meeting with Xi even as Biden avoided Putin politico.com. The article’s blanket statement ignores these significant meetings. In summary, Biden did shun Putin (for strategic reasons), but did not shun Xi – he met and spoke with Xi multiple times. Assigning the avoidance solely to “severe impairment” is speculative; geopolitical factors offer a more plausible explanation. Verdict: Partially Accurate (more wrong than right). Biden indeed had no direct talks with Putin after 2022 politico.com, but he did meet with Xi Jinping in person and by phone, so it’s false that he “avoided any” interaction with China’s leader. (Sources: Politico on avoiding Putin politico.com politico.com; Reuters timeline of Xi–Biden talks shows multiple meetings pbs.org.)

2. Historical Parallels – Reagan in 1984 and Soviet Gerontocrats

• Claim: “During the presidential debates of 1984, the hostile liberal media claimed President Ronald Reagan showed similar signs of elderly befuddlement and should be rejected by voters. Although there may have been a brief example or two of that, Reagan’s mental status seemed nothing like Biden’s – unsurprising since Reagan was in his early 70s while Biden is now 81.”
  Analysis: It’s true that Reagan’s age and mental acuity became an issue in 1984. After a poor performance in the first 1984 debate against Walter Mondale, Reagan appeared confused and rambling, alarming observers smithsonianmag.com smithsonianmag.com. Media commentary at the time did question if Reagan (73 years old then) was too old or “mentally slow” for a second term smithsonianmag.com. For instance, The Atlantic and New York Times ran pieces on Reagan’s age/fitness smithsonianmag.com, and even Reagan’s own aides were concerned. So the article is correct that Reagan briefly faced accusations of “befuddlement” in debates. Reagan, however, famously recovered in the second debate with a quip (“I will not make age an issue. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”), which largely defused the age issue. The claim that Reagan’s mental state was “absolutely nothing like Biden’s” is a subjective opinion. Factually, Reagan at 73 was younger than Biden at 81 – that is correct. Biden in 2024 is the oldest U.S. president ever, whereas Reagan was, at that time, the oldest to be re-elected, but still 8 years younger than Biden. Verdict: Largely Accurate. The media did raise concerns about Reagan’s mental sharpness in 1984 smithsonianmag.com, though Reagan’s issues were far milder than what many perceive in Biden. The age comparison is factual (Reagan 73 vs Biden 81) unz.com unz.com. No significant distortion here – just some editorializing that Reagan was fine by comparison.
• Claim: “A much better analogy for Biden was the last three leaders of the decaying Soviet Empire in the 1980s, who nominally led the superpower while senile or even comatose… Three Soviet leaders – Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko – all elderly and infirm… Western media widely ridiculed them as decrepit or senile. Brezhnev died at 75 (1982), Andropov took power at 68 and died 15 months later, Chernenko was 72 and survived one year. So all those Soviet leaders we scorned as old would be youthful figures compared to President Joe Biden, now 80, or his rival Donald Trump, 77.”
  Analysis: The historical facts given are accurate. Leonid Brezhnev was 75 when he died in November 1982 unz.com. Yuri Andropov was 68 when he became General Secretary in 1982, and he died in early 1984 (about 15 months in office) unz.com. Konstantin Chernenko was around 72 when he succeeded Andropov in February 1984 and he died in March 1985 unz.com. These ages match exactly with the article’s statement (the article cites Wikipedia as well). By contrast, Joe Biden was 80–81 during 2023–24 (born 1942), and Donald Trump was 77–78 (born 1946). Indeed, Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko – symbols of geriatric Soviet rule – were all younger than the two U.S. presidential contenders in 2024 unz.com. The article’s point about Western media mocking those Soviet leaders as feeble is also correct; in the 1980s, Americans joked about the Soviet Union being run by “old men.” (Reagan himself quipped that Soviet premiers kept dying too fast for him to negotiate with them unz.com.) So the analogy is factually well-founded: Biden in his 80s is older than the USSR’s famously aged late leaders unz.com unz.com. Whether Biden is similarly incapable is subjective, but the ages and context are right. Verdict: Accurate. (Source: Article’s reference to Wikipedia data unz.com confirms the ages; historical records concur.)
• Claim (related context from article’s blockquote): “During his entire career, Biden had been notorious for merely reading scripts and speeches written for him by others, and even in his 40s he sometimes seemed completely unaware of the falsehoods and absurdities he was spouting.”
  Analysis: This is a general statement about Biden’s propensity for gaffes and using others’ words. There is a kernel of truth: Joe Biden has a long record of verbal missteps and even plagiarism. The most glaring example was his 1987 plagiarism scandal during his first presidential campaign. At age 44, Biden lifted lines from British politician Neil Kinnock’s speech without attribution, and also exaggerated his academic record. In one instance, Biden falsely claimed he graduated in the “top half” of his law school class, when in fact he ranked 76th out of 85 (near the bottom) apnews.com. He also boasted of having “three degrees” in college when he earned one (with a double major) politifact.com. These “falsehoods and absurdities” were widely publicized and forced Biden to withdraw from the 1988 race washingtonpost.com. Biden later admitted his claims were inaccurate. So indeed, even in his 40s, Biden showed either dishonesty or a lack of awareness about what he was saying. The article suggests he just read whatever was written for him; while that’s an exaggeration, it is true that Biden is a scripted politician known for going off-script with blunders. In the 1980s incident, for example, he may well have been parroting speeches staffers helped with (or in Kinnock’s case, one he memorized and adapted too closely). Overall, describing Biden as notorious for gaffes and using prepared scripts is fair. Even President Obama once reportedly said, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f— things up,” reflecting Biden’s gaffe-prone nature. Verdict: Largely Accurate. Biden’s 1987 misstatements – e.g. about his law school rank – show he has indeed spouted falsehoods unaware, or at least without checking facts apnews.com. The charge of relying on scripts written by others is a subjective critique, but it’s true Biden has often relied on prepared remarks (as do many politicians) and can stumble when improvising. (Source: AP News report on Biden’s false academic claims apnews.com.)
• Claim: “Lately [Biden] has begun confusing our official positions on crucial policy matters, requiring his aides to quickly ‘clarify’ them. I’m sure Brezhnev or Chernenko would have done the same if they’d been put in that position.”
  Analysis: This refers to instances when President Biden misstated or reversed U.S. policy in speeches/interviews, and White House staff had to issue corrections. Such instances have occurred multiple times. A prominent example is Biden’s repeated assertions that the U.S. would defend Taiwan militarily if China invaded – comments made in 2021, 2022, and 2023 that appeared to contradict the longstanding U.S. “strategic ambiguity” policy. Each time, Biden’s aides walked back the remarks. For instance, in a September 2022 60 Minutes interview, Biden was asked if U.S. forces would defend Taiwan and he replied “Yes,” explicitly saying Americans would fight if Taiwan were attacked reuters.com reuters.com. Within hours, the White House stated that official policy had not changed and that the U.S. was not making any formal security commitment reuters.com. This happened again earlier in May 2022, requiring similar clarifications reuters.com reuters.com. Another example: in March 2022, Biden ad-libbed in a speech that Putin “cannot remain in power,” which sounded like a call for regime change. The White House quickly clarified that the U.S. was not seeking to topple Putin san.com. Additionally, Biden once implied U.S. troops were going to Ukraine (in March 2022, telling U.S. soldiers “you’ll see when you’re there,” which was corrected as not indicating any deployment). These incidents back up the article’s claim – Biden has confused official policy lines and forced his staff into damage-control mode reuters.com. This is not something one expects from a fully sharp leader, hence the comparison to enfeebled Soviet premiers (though that’s a jab). Verdict: Accurate. There are documented cases of Biden’s statements on Taiwan, Russia, etc., being corrected by his aides shortly after reuters.com reuters.com. (Sources: Reuters on Biden’s Taiwan remark and WH clarification reuters.com; numerous press reports on the “Putin cannot remain in power” quote, etc.)

3. Biden vs. Brezhnev on Corruption and Media Cover-ups

• Claim: “Brezhnev, though Communist leader, indulged in a large collection of luxury automobiles – Maseratis, Rolls Royces, Jaguars – widely promoted by the Western media as proof of Soviet hypocrisy. But in contrast, evidence from Hunter Biden’s laptop revealed that Joe Biden and his family took many millions of dollars in secret payoffs from foreigners. Our mainstream media has hidden that reality, so much of the public probably remains unaware of it.”
  Analysis: This claim juxtaposes Brezhnev’s well-known car hobby with the Biden family’s alleged influence-peddling profits, and accuses mainstream U.S. media of a cover-up. Let’s break it down:
  • Brezhnev’s luxury car collection: True. Leonid Brezhnev was famously a car enthusiast. He received many luxury cars as gifts from world leaders and had a personal fleet that included brands like Rolls-Royce, Cadillac, Mercedes, and indeed a Maserati and a Jaguar. For example, in June 1973, U.S. President Nixon gifted Brezhnev a new Lincoln Continental; Brezhnev added it to a collection that already included a Rolls-Royce, a Citroën Maserati, a Mercedes 450SL, and others blog.nixonfoundation.org blog.nixonfoundation.org. Western media in the Cold War did highlight Brezhnev’s lavish tastes (fancy cars, luxurious dacha life) to underscore Communist hypocrisy. That part is accurate.
  • Hunter Biden’s laptop evidence of millions in foreign payoffs to the Biden family: This refers to the Hunter Biden saga involving emails and financial records found on a laptop in 2020. It is true that Hunter and associates made millions from foreign business deals – with Ukrainian, Chinese, and other entities – and that some of these funds were distributed to Biden family members. A May 2023 House Oversight Committee report (run by Republicans) documented over $10 million in payments from foreign companies to accounts linked to Hunter Biden, Jim Biden (Joe’s brother), and other Biden relatives cbsnews.com cbsnews.com. Notably, these payments occurred during and after Joe Biden’s vice presidency cbsnews.com. However, direct evidence implicating Joe Biden himself receiving money is lacking. The committee said they had not found a specific payment to Joe Biden cbsnews.com, and Democrats and fact-checkers note no proof of policy favors done by Joe in exchange cbsnews.com. So “secret payoffs from foreigners” to Joe Biden is not a confirmed fact – it’s an allegation. It’s more accurate to say Hunter Biden and relatives profited in ways that raise conflict-of-interest concerns. Joe Biden’s involvement remains unproven as of this writing cbsnews.com.
  • Mainstream media hiding that reality: There is some truth that major media was initially cautious on the Hunter laptop story (in late 2020 it was even suppressed on social media as potential misinformation). However, by 2022–2023, outlets like The New York Times and CBS News verified the laptop’s authenticity and reported on ongoing investigations. That said, it’s arguable that coverage on certain networks has been muted compared to conservative media. For example, a columnist in The Hill wrote that the media “blackout on Biden corruption” was stunning thehill.com. Mainstream news has reported key developments (e.g. Hunter’s plea deal, the appointment of a special counsel), but often without the sensational tone of partisan sources. As a result, polls do show a portion of the public isn’t fully aware of the allegations’ extent. So calling it “hidden” is exaggerated but not entirely baseless – it reflects the author’s view that media gave Biden the benefit of the doubt.

On balance, Hunter Biden did rake in millions from foreign partners, and multiple Biden family members (up to nine, according to House investigators) received some of these funds cbsnews.com. Those are documented facts. Whether Joe Biden was personally on the take (“secret payoffs”) is unproven, so the article overstates that. The media did eventually cover the story, though arguably with less zeal than it would if the situation were reversed (this enters opinion). Verdict: Partially Accurate.

Brezhnev’s car indulgence and Western media’s highlighting of it – accurate blog.nixonfoundation.org. The Biden family’s foreign-derived millions – accurate in terms of Hunter & co.’s earnings cbsnews.com, but no confirmed proof Joe Biden himself took bribes (the article’s phrasing implies he did). The claim that mainstream media “has hidden” the story is overstated; while early coverage was scant, by 2023 mainstream outlets did report on the investigations (albeit less prominently than conservative media would like). (Sources: Nixon Foundation on Brezhnev’s cars blog.nixonfoundation.org; CBS News on House Oversight findings cbsnews.com cbsnews.com.)

4. The Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump (July 2024)

• Claim: “The American political landscape was suddenly transformed by a nearly successful assassination attempt against Donald Trump. In a bizarre and suspicious incident, Trump’s Secret Service detail inexplicably allowed a 20-year-old to position himself on a nearby rooftop with a rifle and fire several shots – the first of which slightly wounded the candidate and, according to media reports, came within an inch or two of killing him.”
  Analysis: Astonishing as this sounds, it really happened in July 2024. On July 13, 2024, during an open-air rally at the Butler Farm Show Grounds in Pennsylvania, a gunman opened fire on Donald Trump. The shooter, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, had managed to bypass outer security, climb onto the roof of a building ~200 yards from the stage, and armed with an AR-15–style rifle, he fired a barrage of shots politico.com politico.com. One bullet grazed Trump’s head, inflicting a superficial wound to his ear en.wikipedia.org. In fact, Trump was photographed afterward with blood on his ear and cheek, but thankfully alert en.wikipedia.org. Another shot killed a spectator in the crowd and two others were seriously hurt en.wikipedia.org. The scene ended after about 12 seconds when law enforcement and Secret Service shot and killed the gunman en.wikipedia.org. Multiple sources noted just how close this came to a disaster: Trump’s slight movement at the moment of firing may have prevented a fatal headshot. Politico wrote that the country “came within millimeters of a political catastrophe” politico.com. In other words, a shift by inches could have meant Trump’s assassination. The article’s description aligns with news reports: it was an “extremely strange lapse” in Secret Service security – commentators called it a “massive security breach” that a rooftop sniper spot was left unguarded politico.com politico.com. The shooter was indeed 20 years old and had no obvious political background (he was a local nursing home worker) – adding to the mystery. Verdict: Accurate. All key details – the rooftop, the age of the shooter, Trump’s ear wound, and the near-miss nature of the shot – are confirmed by credible sources en.wikipedia.org politico.com. (Sources: Wikipedia summary en.wikipedia.org; Politico on security failure politico.com politico.com.)
• Claim: “Although enormously hated and feared by most of the American political establishment, Trump was ahead in the polls and widely regarded as the odds-on favorite to regain the White House when this lapse in security nearly led to his death.”
  Analysis: This statement has two parts: (a) the establishment’s hatred of Trump, and (b) Trump’s status in polls at that moment.(a) Establishment hostility toward Trump: This is a general characterization, not a specific fact to prove or disprove, but it’s no secret that much of the Washington political class (both Democrats and some Republicans) strongly oppose Trump. The article later cites how “for more than eight years, most American elites have expressed a seething hatred of Trump” – indeed, Trump’s populist, anti-establishment style and attempts to overturn the 2020 election made him persona non grata in many elite circles. While “most of the establishment” is a broad brush, there’s evidence of bipartisan elite concern about Trump. For instance, numerous GOP senior figures, ex-military leaders, and virtually all Democrats are on record criticizing or “fearing” a Trump resurgence. So this is broadly true as a sentiment (though not quantifiable).(b) Trump ahead in polls and favored to win in mid-2024: Around the time of Biden’s debate debacle and the assassination attempt (late June to mid-July 2024), polls did show Trump gaining an edge over Biden. For example, an Emerson College national survey (late June 2024) had Trump 46% to Biden’s 43% emersoncollegepolling.com. A Pew Research survey in July found Trump leading slightly and voters doubting Biden’s mental fitness pewresearch.org. FiveThirtyEight’s average in mid-July showed roughly a tie or a slight Trump lead – notable for a challenger against an incumbent. Betting odds also shifted in Trump’s favor by July 2024 (online markets gave Trump around a 60% chance at one point, reflecting momentum). Newsweek reported in early July that Biden’s odds of beating Trump had hit a “new low” and online bettors favored Trump newsweek.com. Additionally, after Biden’s stumbles, political analysts openly discussed the likelihood of a Trump victory barring changes. So yes, by that point many considered Trump the de facto front-runner for 2024.

Putting these together: Trump was broadly seen as the favorite as of mid-2024, given Biden’s troubles politico.com. The “enormously hated by the establishment” part is rhetoric but not without basis (one could cite the unprecedented fact of a former president facing 91 felony indictments at the time – arguably an attempt by the establishment to sideline him, as the article suggests). Verdict: Mostly Accurate. Trump indeed held a polling lead against Biden in mid-2024 emersoncollegepolling.com, and many commentators believed he was on track to win if nothing changed. The establishment’s antipathy toward Trump is a subjective generalization but one supported by observable political conflict over the years. (Sources: Emerson poll June ’24 emersoncollegepolling.com; POLITICO noting donors panicking over Biden and Trump’s improved odds politico.com.)

• Claim: “Soon after the incident, I noted in an article the troubling questions it raised… Having failed at every step to block Trump’s rise, his enemies were left with few options. Tucker Carlson publicly speculated they would conclude that orchestrating Trump’s assassination was their best chance… Did Trump’s enemies conspire to have him killed by an assassin’s bullet, as happened to JFK and RFK? If so, a 20-year-old like Crooks is hardly a logical choice – more likely a patsy or decoy, drawing attention while a professional sniper did the real job (exactly the role Sirhan Sirhan played in RFK’s 1968 killing)… Claims have circulated that a second gunman was spotted, and acoustic evidence of multiple shooters, proving a conspiracy to kill Trump.”
  Analysis: This is where the article shifts from verified fact to conspiracy speculation. The factual parts to check: Did Tucker Carlson suggest the establishment might try to assassinate Trump? Yes. On an interview show in August 2023, Carlson mused that after impeachments and indictments failed, “They will assassinate Trump” if he looks likely to win. This remark was widely reported (The Hill: “Tucker Carlson suggests Trump may be assassinated” unz.com). It’s an opinion, not evidence – but Carlson did voice that scenario unz.com.

The article’s theory of a second shooter at the rally echoes claims that emerged on social media in the shooting’s aftermath. There were indeed unverified claims by some rally attendees that another suspicious individual was present. However, official investigations and credible news reports have not confirmed any second gunman. The FBI and local law enforcement have not reported evidence of a second shooter. Conspiracy theorists drew parallels to JFK and RFK assassinations (where second-shooter theories abound). Unz himself ultimately concedes that there’s heavy dispute about this evidence and that he leans against a conspiracy, noting that if a professional sniper had also been firing, it’s unlikely Trump would have escaped with just a minor wound unz.com. Indeed, all known facts indicate Crooks acted alone, albeit benefiting from lapses in security. No mainstream source has validated the acoustic or eyewitness “evidence” of multiple shooters; those remain fringe assertions.

In summary, the article’s conjecture about a plot isn’t backed by concrete evidence – it’s presented as a hypothesis. Unz concludes that he “still leans against” the idea that it was an inside-job conspiracy, because Trump survived relatively unscathed unz.com. So, the only factual element here to verify is Carlson’s speculation (true, he said that) and that some unnamed people “circulated claims” of a second gunman (also true in the rumor sense, but unproven). It’s important to clarify that no credible confirmation of a second shooter exists. Verdict: Largely Unsupported (speculative). Tucker Carlson did predict someone might try to assassinate Trump unz.com, and some people online did claim a second shooter at the rally, but no hard evidence supports an orchestrated plot with multiple gunmen. The article’s musings in this section remain conjecture, not fact. (Source: The Hill on Carlson’s assassination comments unz.com; PBS and other reports a year later found security failures but no conspiracy proven pbs.org.)

• Claim: “Whether or not it was a conspiracy, this shooting was the most serious domestic assassination attempt in decades – the worst since John Hinckley shot and nearly killed President Reagan in 1981 (almost 43 years ago). The Reagan incident had ended a 17-year span (1963–1980) of frequent assassinations/attempts: JFK in ’63, RFK in ’68, Gov. George Wallace paralyzed in ’72, two attempts on President Ford in ’75. Those years also saw other high-profile killings: Malcolm X (1965), George Lincoln Rockwell (1967), Martin Luther King Jr. (1968), John Lennon (1980).”
  Analysis: Factually, the Trump shooting of 2024 was the most severe assassination attempt on a major U.S. political figure since the Reagan shooting in March 1981. In the intervening years (1981–2024), there were few comparable incidents. (The 2017 congressional baseball practice shooting targeting Rep. Steve Scalise and others was an assassination attempt on lawmakers, but not a presidential candidate or president.) So the claim is fair. The historical timeline is accurate: From 1963 to 1980, America experienced a shocking number of assassinations and attempts:
  • John F. Kennedy – assassinated Nov 1963.
  • Malcolm X – assassinated Feb 1965 (a prominent activist, albeit not a government official) unz.com.
  • Martin Luther King Jr. – assassinated April 1968 unz.com.
  • Robert F. Kennedy – assassinated June 1968 during his presidential campaign.
  • George Lincoln Rockwell (American Nazi Party leader) – assassinated Aug 1967 unz.com.
  • George Wallace – segregationist Alabama governor, shot and paralyzed in May 1972 while running for president.
  • Gerald Ford – two separate attempts in September 1975 (by Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Sara Jane Moore; Ford was not hit).
  • John Lennon – ex-Beatle, murdered Dec 1980 (included in Unz’s list perhaps as a cultural assassination) unz.com.
  • Ronald Reagan – shot March 1981 by John Hinckley Jr., nearly died from a lung injury.

After Reagan’s 1981 incident, indeed there was a long lull with no major assassination of a national political leader (until the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords and then the 2017 Scalise incident, but those, while serious, were not at the presidential level). The article is correct that the attempt on Trump is the closest call since Reagan’s. It’s a stark observation that the U.S. had a violent era in the ’60s–’70s which seemingly had ended; 2024 broke that pattern.

All the examples he gave are historically accurate with their dates and outcomes. For instance, Wallace was shot in ’72 and left wheelchair-bound for life, Ford had two close calls in ’75, etc. unz.com. Verdict: Accurate. The historical pattern and significance of the Trump attempt are stated correctly. (No sources needed for well-documented assassinations, but a quick cross-check: Wikipedia and history texts confirm all listed events occurred in those years.)

5. Biden’s Withdrawal and Kamala Harris’s Nomination (July 2024)

• Claim: “Despite the obvious evidence of Biden’s incapacity, his aides and allies resisted calls for him to exit. However, after the above developments, Biden did finally withdraw from the race – yet instead of announcing it in a live address, his staff merely released a letter on Twitter, with some noting the signature didn’t match Biden’s usual one, leading cynics to wonder if our mentally-challenged chief executive was even involved in the decision.”
  Analysis: This refers to the events of July 21, 2024. Astonishingly, President Joe Biden did announce he was ending his reelection campaign on that date – a decision that upended the race. The claim correctly describes how it was announced: Biden’s team posted a letter (image) on his official Twitter (X) account instead of Biden delivering a speech immediately. Reuters reported: “President Joe Biden ended his reelection campaign… He announced his decision in a letter posted on social media…” reuters.com. Biden’s tweet at 5:46 pm on July 21, 2024 contained an image of a letter titled “My Fellow Americans” in which he said he would not seek the nomination and endorsed Kamala Harris reuters.com reuters.com. So yes, it was a somewhat abrupt and impersonal announcement – just a written statement online.

Now, the signature controversy: The letter was signed “JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.” in a slightly stylized script. Very quickly, some observers on social platforms and certain media noted that this signature didn’t resemble Biden’s typical signatures on official documents. This led to speculation that an autopen or someone else signed it. For example, journalist Jordan Schachtel tweeted about it, and The Daily Dot reported on “conspiracy theorists” questioning the signature’s authenticity inshorts.com dailydot.com. There was also a Heritage Foundation analysis noting that Biden’s other official documents all used a certain autopen style, except the withdrawal letter which had a different look facebook.com. The White House never suggested Biden wasn’t aware – it’s more likely staff handled the logistics, and Biden spoke to the nation a few days later to elaborate (as promised in the letter reuters.com reuters.com). Regardless, it’s true the signature disparity became a talking point in some circles inshorts.com.

So the article captures both the unusual method of the announcement and the fringe speculation it triggered. It is factual that the letter’s signature looked different and people noticed – though there’s no evidence Biden wasn’t involved; it’s just an insinuation. Verdict: Accurate (with a note of speculative interpretation). Biden’s withdrawal was indeed via a posted letter rather than a live address reuters.com, and commentary about the signature did occur inshorts.com, albeit from conspiracy-minded quarters. (Sources: Reuters piece with the full letter text reuters.com reuters.com; media coverage of the signature theories inshorts.com.)

• Claim: “Biden’s departure quickly elevated Vice President Kamala Harris as the likely replacement on the ballot, and within a few days she attracted enough pledged delegates to confirm her nomination. Yet the main reason for Biden’s removal had been his weakness against Trump – and polls throughout 2024 showed that Harris was just as unpopular as Biden.”
  Analysis: Upon Biden’s exit, it was widely presumed that Kamala Harris would become the Democratic nominee for 2024. As sitting VP, she was the natural successor and Biden explicitly endorsed her in his withdrawal letter (“I offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year” reuters.com). Procedurally, since Biden had already won most primary delegates, those delegates were free or could be reallocated. The Democratic National Committee and party leaders coalesced around Harris very quickly. Indeed, within days Harris gained public endorsements and effectively secured the delegate count. By the time of the Democratic convention (scheduled for August 2024), Harris was unanimously chosen as the nominee (in reality, no other serious contender challenged her once Biden bowed out). So the article’s scenario is accurate: Harris swiftly became the presumptive nominee, despite not having run in a single 2024 primary.

Now, the polls of Harris vs. Trump: It’s true that Harris’s favorability ratings were very low, similar to or even worse than Biden’s. A POLITICO/Morning Consult poll from June 2024 found Harris’s favorability at 42% and unfavorability at 52%, virtually identical to Biden’s 43% favorable vs 54% unfavorable politico.com. The poll also showed only one-third of voters thought Harris could win if she were the nominee politico.com. Harris consistently polled poorly nationally; some polls showed her even less popular than Biden, who at least had the incumbency. This was a concern for Democrats, noted in many articles (e.g., “Voters have real doubts about Kamala Harris as potential president” politico.com politico.com). Thus the claim that Harris was “just as unpopular as Biden” in 2024 is well-supported by survey data politico.com. This undercut the rationale for replacing Biden purely on electability grounds – a point Unz highlights.

In summary, Harris became the nominee by default and had known popularity issues comparable to Biden’s. Verdict: Accurate. Harris quickly secured the Democratic nomination after Biden withdrew, and polls indeed indicated she was not any more popular than Biden politico.com (arguably a critical vulnerability). (Sources: Reuters on Biden endorsing Harris reuters.com reuters.com; Politico poll showing Harris/Biden favorables politico.com.)

• Claim: “Harris checks every diversity box (moderate, establishmentarian, woman of Black/South Asian ancestry, Jewish husband) and was heralded as a top prospect for 2020. She entered the 2020 primaries with big donor support – raising more money early on than any candidate except Bernie Sanders unz.com. But Harris proved remarkably unpopular with actual voters: she quit the 2020 race in December 2019 after just 10 months, before any votes were cast, due to dismal polling unz.com. She spent $43 million and won zero delegates, making her perhaps the least successful presidential contender in U.S. history. (John Connally’s infamous 1980 campaign spent $11 million to win 1 delegate – Harris broke that record by spending much more for 0 delegates.)”
  Analysis: These statements about Harris’s background and 2020 campaign record are factually correct:
  • Diversity credentials: Harris is indeed a female, Black and South Asian (Indian) American, considered a moderate establishment Democrat. She is married to Doug Emhoff, who is Jewish. This was often noted as giving her a unique profile appealing to many wings of the Democratic coalition. There’s no numerical fact here, just a description, which is accurate.
  • Top prospect with donor support: When Harris launched her presidential bid in January 2019, she was hyped as a front-runner. She had a strong debut (20,000 people rally in Oakland) and big donor enthusiasm. By the end of the first quarter of 2019, Harris raised $13.2 million, second only to Bernie Sanders’s $18 million, outpacing even Biden (who hadn’t declared yet in Q1) and others unz.com. A New York Times piece from that period confirms Harris was a fundraising leader behind Sanders unz.com. So yes, she quickly marshaled elite support and money.
  • Failure in 2020 primaries: Harris’s campaign famously fizzled. Polling and debates revealed weaknesses (e.g. Tulsi Gabbard’s attack on her record hurt her). By November 2019, Harris was polling in single digits even in her home state. On Dec 3, 2019, Harris suspended her campaign, citing lack of funds. This was before the Iowa caucus (Feb 2020) – meaning she exited before any votes or delegates. Thus she won 0 delegates in 2020. The claim about spending $43 million comes from her campaign finance filings: indeed Harris’s campaign spent roughly $40+ million. A report in the Detroit Free Press (July 2024) and FEC data indicate Harris raised around $39 million and had additional PAC support, totaling about $43 million spent unz.com. Unz contrasts this with John Connally in 1980: Connally spent about $11 million (a huge sum then) and infamously secured only 1 delegate at the 1980 GOP convention unz.com. That was the gold standard of campaign flop until Harris’s 2020 run arguably beat it. By spending four times as much money and withdrawing before any delegate selections, Harris’s campaign could be deemed historically unsuccessful relative to expectations.

It’s somewhat hyperbolic to call her the least successful ever – there have been candidates who got zero delegates (many, in fact, who drop out early). But given her high profile and money, the gap between investment and result was enormous. Political analysts indeed remarked on how poorly Harris’s campaign turned out despite strong advantages.

Verdict: Accurate. Harris did tick all the “diversity” and establishment boxes, did raise the second-most money early in 2019 unz.com, and ended 2019 with no delegates to show for her $40+ million campaign, dropping out before voting began unz.com. These facts are well-documented. (Sources: NYT on Harris’s fundraising lead unz.com; CNN report on her dropping out in Dec 2019 unz.com; historical accounts of Connally 1980 spending – confirmed by FEC data.)

• Claim: “Despite her monumental failure with voters, the same Democratic elites resurrected Harris by persuading the elderly Biden to put her on his 2020 ticket, leading to her election as VP after the sharply disputed 2020 result. Now, a similar clique of party billionaires and operatives has removed Biden (despite his 14 million primary votes) and installed Harris (who won zero votes in 2024). Even the most corrupt party bosses a century ago might not have dared such a cynical maneuver. It blatantly belies the name ‘Democratic’ Party.”
  Analysis: This is partly factual and partly opinionated commentary. The factual elements:
  • Harris chosen as VP by Biden under donor pressure: In summer 2020, Biden’s VP selection process did feature strong advocacy for Harris from influential Democrats and donors. Biden himself had pledged to pick a woman of color, and Harris was the most prominent fit despite the lackluster primary. Reports indicate some in Biden’s circle were lukewarm on Harris (because she attacked Biden in a debate), but powerful donors and Obama-era figures supported her. Ultimately, Biden did choose Harris in August 2020. Whether one says “persuaded the elderly Biden” or Biden chose her of his own volition is semantic; he was 77 and certainly involved in the decision. It’s true that Harris became VP without winning a single delegate in the primaries, which is unusual. But VP picks are not typically based on delegate count; still, it underscores that she hadn’t proven voter appeal.
  • “Sharply disputed 2020 result”: The 2020 election results (Biden/Harris defeating Trump) were certified and verified, but Trump and his supporters disputed them, making baseless claims of fraud. Over 60 court cases found no evidence of outcome-changing fraud. So calling the 2020 result “sharply disputed” is a nod to the controversy stirred by Trump, not an indication the result was actually in doubt. It’s factual that the result was contested (in the sense of the January 6 objections, etc.), but not factual that the result was illegitimate. Unz is subtly implying it was disputed with reason; that is misleading, as all credible audits upheld Biden’s win. We flag that as the author’s viewpoint not substantiated by evidence of fraud.
  • Biden got ~14 million primary votes in 2024 vs Harris 0 votes: This figure sounds reasonable. As an incumbent effectively running unopposed (aside from token challengers like Marianne Williamson or RFK Jr., who didn’t get far), Biden won the Democratic primaries in spring 2024. Roughly 18 million votes were cast in Democratic primaries in 2020 (when it was competitive). In 2024, turnout was lower with a mostly uncontested race – but 14 million is a plausible ballpark for votes Biden received across all states (we couldn’t find an official total easily, but it’s credible given turnout). Meanwhile, Harris indeed was not on any primary ballot in 2024 (she wasn’t running while Biden was in, and after Biden left the primaries were essentially over). So she had 0 primary votes toward 2024. This stark comparison is correct and was noted by commentators critical of the process. The article is right that this swap occurred after all the voting was done, which is an extraordinary override of primary voters’ input. Usually, if a frontrunner quits early (like in 1968 LBJ), the party holds new contests or a convention fight. Here, Biden quit after the primaries, and the party simply anointed Harris.
  • “Most corrupt bosses wouldn’t dare” & anti-democratic nature: This is obviously an opinion. But even some Democrats were uneasy at the optics. Normally, a nominee winning primaries then being replaced by someone who the voters never chose is highly undemocratic. The article’s language is hyperbolic but not entirely off-mark historically – one might compare it to 1912 when party bosses denied the nomination to the popular vote winner (Teddy Roosevelt) in favor of Taft, causing a party split. In 2024, no such revolt happened, but the process did feel top-down. It’s an ethical/political judgment rather than a factual claim, so we won’t “verify” it except to note it as the author’s interpretation.

To sum up: Verdict: Mostly Accurate. Harris’s elevation to VP despite primary failure is true; Biden’s 2020 victory being “sharply disputed” references the election challenge (factually, it was disputed by Trump but without merit) unz.com. Biden won millions of primary votes in 2024 whereas Harris won none – true unz.com unz.com. The characterization of the process as anti-democratic is an opinion but grounded in the fact that the nominee changed with no voter say. (Sources: Reuters on Harris pick in 2020; primary vote counts from FEC; article text on the party swap unz.com unz.com.)

• Claim: “Democratic insiders surely knew of Biden’s incapacity long ago, yet they waited until after he’d won all the primaries to replace him. A strange, undemocratic strategy – but possibly their least bad option. Why? Because if Biden had bowed out earlier, Harris and others would have run in an open primary, and one or more might have been tempted to cater to the party’s activist base by taking a contrary position on the Middle East – given that a large portion of Democratic voters were outraged by Israel’s ongoing massacre of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and the U.S. government’s unwavering support of that. Such a candidate might have done very well in the primaries (appealing to grassroots sentiment) and upset the party’s wealthy donors. So Biden was kept as a placeholder through the primaries, ensuring no internal debate on Israel/Palestine, and only afterward removed, leaving the voters with no say.”
  Analysis: This is an explanatory hypothesis rather than a proven fact, but it cites factual context:
  • Democratic voter anger over Israel-Gaza war: In late 2023 and into 2024, Israel’s war in Gaza (after the Hamas terror attacks of Oct 7, 2023) caused significant rifts in the Democratic coalition. Many progressive Democrats and younger voters were horrified by the scale of Palestinian civilian casualties and felt the Biden administration was too aligned with Israel. The article mentions “tens of thousands of helpless Palestinian civilians” massacred by Israel – while figures are debated, by July 2024 credible sources reported over 20,000 Palestinians killed (the UN reported about 15,000 by end of 2023, not including potential uncounted deaths). In fact, a July 2024 study in The Lancet estimated that through infrastructure destruction and humanitarian collapse, the true death toll in Gaza could reach ~186,000 when indirect deaths are included aljazeera.com arabcenterdc.org. So “tens of thousands” is sadly in line with some estimates theguardian.com. This absolutely galvanized the progressive base – campus protests, dissent within state Democratic parties, etc. Biden’s staunch support for Israel was increasingly unpopular on the left. Polls in early 2024 showed a majority of Democratic voters wanted a ceasefire in Gaza, conflicting with Biden’s policy. So it’s plausible that if Biden had bowed out earlier, candidates like Rep. Pramila Jayapal or others might have launched campaigns championing a more pro-Palestinian stance, gaining traction among activists.
  • Party donors’ stance: Many of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors are pro-Israel (or at least strongly against allowing open criticism of Israel). The article specifically later references Josh Shapiro – a pro-Israel Democratic governor – and the University of Pennsylvania donor controversy. Indeed, in December 2023, donor backlash (including Pennsylvania’s governor Shapiro and billionaire donors) forced the resignation of Penn’s president over handling of a Palestinian literary festival on campus unz.com. This exemplified how powerful figures were punishing perceived anti-Israel tolerance. So the party elite likely did not want a primary where Israel policy was litigated on stage. By keeping Biden as the only viable candidate through June, they avoided that debate.
  • Timing of Biden’s withdrawal: It’s true that the timing was strange. If leaders were worried about Biden’s age and unpopularity, ordinarily they’d nudge him out before primaries so voters could choose a new nominee. Instead, they let him run unopposed, then effectively swapped in Harris after voters were locked out. The article’s suggestion that this was to prevent a divisive primary fight (especially on Israel-Palestine) has not been openly confirmed by those insiders – it’s speculative but plausible. Journalists and commentators did note that an open primary could have empowered anti-establishment voices on foreign policy, which the DNC avoided. Essentially, the party ran a “inside game” to choose the nominee (Harris) without the uncertainty of voter input. That interpretation is supported by the abrupt way things played out.

So while we cannot prove this was the motive, the factual underpinnings check out: Democratic activists were (and are) broadly upset with Biden’s Israel policy unz.com, and an open contest might have spotlighted that schism. The article is drawing a reasoned inference. It’s a bit conspiratorial to assert that’s explicitly why they did what they did, but not far-fetched. Verdict: Plausible Interpretation (no definitive evidence, but consistent with facts). We classify it as neither clearly true nor false, but an analytic claim. The facts about Democratic base sentiment and the potential primary dynamics are accurate unz.com unz.com, lending credence to this theory. (Sources: Politico on Democratic voter attitudes – e.g., many Democrats disapproved of Biden on Gaza by 2024; Lancet letter on Gaza deaths aljazeera.com.)

• Claim: “Harris now needs to choose a running mate. One leading contender is Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro unz.com. This choice might spark controversy. Pro-Trump conspiracy activists note that much of the local security that failed to protect Trump was Pennsylvania state police unz.com – and Shapiro is essentially in charge of them – so they would be outraged if Shapiro is rewarded after what they see as negligence (or worse) by his subordinates. Meanwhile, Shapiro is a zealous Jewish partisan of Israel, and late last year he played a key role in forcing the resignation of Penn’s president Liz Magill and board chairman for not cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests at Penn. This sparked a purge of administrators at elite colleges and unprecedented crackdowns on student speech critical of Israel.”
  Analysis: There are multiple factual points here:
  • Josh Shapiro as a leading VP contender: As of mid-late 2024, Gov. Josh Shapiro (PA) was indeed often mentioned in political chatter as a strong Democratic talent with a high profile. When Harris became nominee, speculation about her VP pick included Shapiro. The article cites The New York Times as source unz.com, likely an NYT piece that Shapiro was being considered. So yes, it’s factual that Shapiro was in the mix of VP possibilities (others mentioned were Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, etc., but Shapiro’s swing-state appeal made him a logical choice).
  • Pennsylvania state police role in Trump rally security: The July 2024 Trump rally in Butler Co., PA had a security plan involving multiple agencies. According to official reports, the outer perimeter and area security was indeed assisted by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) unz.com. The Politico article on the shooting notes that state police were patrolling outer areas and one of the local officers (Butler County ESU) first engaged the shooter en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. It’s not that PSP “allowed” the shooter on the roof – but the implication is state/local law enforcement missed him in their sweep. As governor, Shapiro oversees the PSP. Conspiracy-minded Trump supporters did jump on the detail that a Pennsylvania state trooper reportedly had seen the shooter beforehand and perhaps didn’t act (this was mentioned in some initial reports), although investigations are ongoing as of 2025. So the claim that pro-Trump activists would cry foul if Shapiro were picked as VP – tying it to the assassination attempt – is speculative but grounded in that coincidence. We did see some far-right forums suggesting the incident was an inside job implicating state authorities. This remains a fringe view; there’s zero evidence Shapiro or PSP deliberately stood down. But the article is not endorsing it, just noting “conspiratorially-minded activists” have that perspective. That’s fair phrasing.
  • Shapiro’s role in Penn President Magill’s resignation over Israel issue: This is documented. In fall 2023, at Univ. of Pennsylvania, there was a controversial Palestinian literary festival accused by some of featuring antisemitic speakers. Donors and politicians (including Gov. Josh Shapiro and Senator John Fetterman) put heavy pressure on Penn’s leadership. In early December 2023, after internal debates, Penn President Liz Magill resigned, as did the board of trustees chair, under intense public criticism for not acting more aggressively against campus protests and antisemitism. Gov. Shapiro publicly criticized Penn and essentially helped precipitate this leadership change unz.com. This indeed led to what the article calls a “purge or intimidation” of other university administrators: around the same time, major donors demanded lists of students who signed pro-Palestinian letters at Harvard, Columbia’s president made changes, etc. The result was a chilling effect on campus free speech regarding Israel-Palestine, widely covered in the media. So describing Shapiro as a “zealous partisan of Israel” who helped force out Penn’s president is accurate unz.com. He was vocal in that saga, aligning with donor anger.
  • Crackdown on campus free speech: Sadly true. After the donor backlash at Penn (and similar at Harvard after a student letter), many universities moved to discipline students or staff involved in pro-Palestinian protests. For example, as noted, Penn’s leadership upheaval was followed by several other colleges taking action. This is a qualitative statement but backed by events; The Daily Pennsylvanian (campus paper) and national outlets documented it.

Summing up: All factual components are correct – Shapiro is a VP contender unz.com, PSP were part of the Trump rally security unz.com, Shapiro did play a role in ousting Penn’s president over Israel issues unz.com, and that spurred broader crackdowns. The notion that pro-Trump conspiracy theorists would howl if Shapiro became VP is speculative but plausible given the intersection of his state’s involvement in the Trump attack. Verdict: Accurate (the facts) and Speculative (the reaction). (Sources: Politico on rally security and PSP politico.com politico.com, Daily Pennsylvanian on Magill resignation, public statements by Shapiro in Dec 2023.)

• Claim: “Colleges are out for summer and campus anti-Israel protests have faded from headlines, but Israel’s horrific war crimes in Gaza continue for those paying attention. Just a couple weeks ago, The Lancet, one of the oldest medical journals, published a piece concluding Israel’s attacks on Gaza and destruction of infrastructure may be responsible for nearly 200,000 civilian deaths – a figure many times higher than any previous media estimate unz.com. (See: Body Counts and Blood Libels in the Israel/Gaza Conflict, Unz Review, July 15, 2024).”
  Analysis: The reference is to a Lancet letter (not a full peer-reviewed study, but a letter by public health experts) published in mid-July 2024. According to Al Jazeera and The Guardian, that Lancet piece estimated that by accounting for indirect effects (like water shortages, infectious disease, lack of medical care, etc.), the true toll of the Gaza war could reach approximately 188,000 Palestinians if the war continued or even as a cumulative result of the assault aljazeera.com arabcenterdc.org. The Lancet authors (Khatib, McKee, Yusuf) used historical data on “excess deaths” from infrastructure devastation. This number is “many times larger” than official direct death counts. At the time, official sources were reporting around 20–25k killed directly. So 186k (nearly 200k) is an order of magnitude higher. The claim is phrased carefully (“may be responsible for nearly 200k”), reflecting it was a projection/estimate, not a confirmed count. The Lancet is indeed one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, lending credibility. Thus, the article accurately conveys that such an estimate exists and that it dwarfs earlier numbers arabcenterdc.org.

The term “war crimes” is used – whether something is a war crime is a legal judgment, but attacks causing mass civilian death and targeting infrastructure can meet that definition under international law, so it’s a defensible statement (the UN and NGOs have accused Israel of disproportionate attacks on civilians, potentially war crimes).

Verdict: Accurate. A Lancet letter did estimate ~186,000 total potential deaths in Gaza due to the war’s direct and indirect effects aljazeera.com, much higher than mainstream media had reported at that time. (Sources: Al Jazeera headline “Gaza toll could exceed 186,000, Lancet study says” aljazeera.com; The Guardian “Why researchers fear Gaza death toll could reach 186,000” theguardian.com.)

• Claim: “Politico, a mainstream outlet, 10 days ago published a very lengthy account by two American surgeons who visited Gaza to provide aid and were utterly horrified. According to Dr. Mark Perlmutter, in just weeks he saw more carnage inflicted on civilians than in his previous 30 years of humanitarian war-zone work combined. Notably, it was obvious that Israeli snipers were deliberately shooting young Palestinian children and toddlers, aiming precision shots at their hearts and heads unz.com unz.com.”
  Analysis: The article cites a Politico Magazine piece (July 19, 2024) titled “We Volunteered at a Gaza Hospital. What We Saw Was Unspeakable.” This was written by Dr. Mark Pearlmutter (note slight spelling difference; Unz says Perlmutter) and Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, who indeed are American surgeons that volunteered in Gaza in Spring 2024 politico.com. Their account describes appalling scenes of injured children, massive civilian casualties, and the doctors’ shock despite having worked in many war zones politico.com politico.com. Specifically, they recount treating numerous children with gunshot wounds to the head. In the Politico piece, the surgeons write: “None of that prepared us for what we saw in Gaza… We had preteens admitted with gunshot wounds to the head… Gunshot wounds to the head are an entirely different matter.” politico.com politico.com They note these children would come in, many would die, and then be replaced by new victims with the same wounds politico.com. They say families reported the children were just playing, either inside or outside, when Israeli forces shot them politico.com. The implication is these were deliberate sniper shots (headshots on children at distance). They even included a photo of a 10-year-old boy with a post-surgery head wound politico.com.

While the Politico article doesn’t use the word “sniper” explicitly, it strongly infers that IDF soldiers targeted kids. The Unz article adds “aiming at their hearts and heads.” The Politico surgeons mention head wounds; they don’t explicitly mention shots to the heart, but since they worked in a hospital, likely they saw chest wounds too. Other sources have indeed documented sniper shootings of medics and children during conflicts. Given the precision and pattern (multiple children shot in head), it does suggest deliberate targeting. So Unz’s summary is essentially reflecting the Politico piece’s content and the surgeons’ conclusion that these were not stray bullets – they were intentional shots at children politico.com politico.com.

The claim about the surgeon seeing more carnage in Gaza in weeks than in 30 years elsewhere is a direct paraphrase from the Politico piece’s introduction (he said he’d never seen this level of carnage and despair despite decades of missions) unz.com. Yes, Dr. Pearlmutter and Dr. Sidhwa express exactly that sentiment in their article (they describe Gaza as uniquely horrific among all crises they’ve responded to).

Verdict: Accurate. The Politico account does detail unprecedented civilian carnage and presents first-hand evidence that Israeli forces shot children in the head, consistent with deliberate sniper targeting politico.com. Unz accurately relays the surgeons’ testimony (with the slight addition of “hearts,” but given the context, that’s a reasonable extrapolation since the point is they were shot deliberately in lethal areas). (Source: Politico Magazine article politico.com politico.com.)

• Claim: “Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and other top Israeli leaders have publicly identified the Palestinians with the biblical tribe of Amalek, whom the Hebrew God commanded must be exterminated down to the youngest newborn baby unz.com. Such atrocities may be shocking but hardly surprising given that rhetoric.”
  Analysis: This references Netanyahu’s invocation of “Amalek”. On October 28, 2023, as Israel’s ground invasion of Gaza began, Netanyahu gave a speech where he said “We are the people of the light, they are the people of darkness…We remember Amalek.” In the Bible, Amalekites were enemies of Israel marked for total destruction (see 1 Samuel 15:3). Netanyahu’s use of that term was widely interpreted as framing the Gaza war in Biblical, existential terms – essentially implying Hamas (and by extension Gaza Palestinians) are a modern Amalek. This drew criticism, including from Jewish groups, because it can be read as justifying genocide. Mother Jones and other outlets reported on Netanyahu’s Amalek reference youtube.com. American Jewish peace organizations blasted it as incitement to genocide. Additionally, other Israeli figures made extreme statements: e.g., Israeli President Herzog said “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”, and a Knesset deputy called Palestinians “children of darkness”. The article’s phrasing “down to the youngest newborn” refers to the biblical command to wipe out Amalek including women, children, infants (it’s true that in scripture, God orders Amalek’s complete annihilation – hence the shock when modern leaders allude to it).

So yes, Netanyahu did identify the Gaza enemy with Amalek youtube.com, and other officials and rabbis echoed genocidal language (Defense Minister Gallant calling Palestinians “human animals,” etc.). This has been cited by groups like the International Court of Justice petition from South Africa, highlighting Netanyahu’s Amalek comment as evidence of genocidal intent aa.com.tr. Therefore, the article’s claim is correct: top Israeli leaders invoked a narrative that effectively dehumanizes Palestinians as a foe to be utterly destroyed, which in context implies even babies are not spared. The “Hebrew God’s command” refers to the Old Testament story – an accurate summary of that story.

Verdict: Accurate. Netanyahu explicitly referenced Amalek in relation to the Palestinians youtube.com, which indeed carries the connotation of extermination. The article correctly connects that rhetoric to the commission of atrocities (if leaders speak in genocide terms, soldiers committing atrocities is “hardly surprising”). (Sources: Anadolu Agency on ICJ case citing Netanyahu’s Amalek rhetoric aa.com.tr; Jewish Currents article “Facing Amalek” about Netanyahu’s speech.)

Source Representation Analysis

Quality and Use of Sources: Ron Unz’s article cites a mix of sources – some mainstream (NBC News, CNN, Smithsonian Magazine, Politico, The Hill, NYT, etc.) and some alternative (Moon of Alabama blog, his own prior columns). In general, the factual claims we checked were supported by credible evidence, and Unz often did accurately summarize the source or prevailing fact:

• When citing NBC News (for Biden’s false Hamas baby claim) and Wikipedia on the Hamas “beheaded babies” hoax, he correctly represented that Biden made such claims and that they were false en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. The NBC source itself wasn’t accessible in our browsing, but cross-checking showed Biden’s claims and the White House walk-back did occur, which Unz conveyed truly.
• The Smithsonian Magazine reference on Reagan in 1984 was used to recall media concerns about Reagan’s age. Unz’s summary – that some media said Reagan was showing signs of confusion – is backed by the Smithsonian article’s content (which described Reagan’s bad first debate and questions about his acuity) smithsonianmag.com smithsonianmag.com. No misrepresentation there.
• References to Wikipedia for Soviet leaders’ ages and John Connally’s delegate count were straightforward factual uses, and our check found them accurate unz.com unz.com.
• The CNN and Reuters sources for Biden’s policy gaffes (Taiwan remark, etc.) were well-reflected in Unz’s text – he said Biden confused positions, aides clarified, which is exactly what happened reuters.com.
• Unz cites a The Hill opinion piece about media blackout on Biden corruption thehill.com. He used it to bolster the claim that mainstream media ignored the Hunter Biden story. While The Hill is reputable, this particular content is opinion. Still, the underlying facts (that there was a media reluctance initially) are true. He did not claim The Hill piece was hard news; he integrated it as commentary, which is fine.
• For the Trump assassination attempt, Unz largely relied on his own commentary and presumably mainstream reporting (Politico, ABC, PBS) as evidenced by details matching those reports politico.com. He also cited Tucker Carlson’s speculation via a The Hill piece unz.com. He presented Carlson’s view as Carlson’s speculation, not as fact, which is an appropriate contextual use (even though the idea is provocative). Similarly, when discussing second shooter claims, Unz clearly labeled them as circulating “claims” and heavily disputed, and he gave his own skeptical take. This shows a measure of balance – he didn’t fully endorse an unproven theory; he acknowledged lack of solid evidence unz.com.
• When discussing Biden’s withdrawal letter, he cited Moon of Alabama, a blog known for contrarian takes, likely to highlight the signature issue unz.com. He correctly noted what the blog observers said (signature mismatch). While Moon of Alabama is not a mainstream source, the fact in question was verifiable (we did verify it via other sources: many online observers mentioned the signature). So even using a fringe source, he referenced it for a minor detail without overstating it.
• Politico Magazine (the Gaza surgeons story) and Mother Jones (Netanyahu’s Amalek) were cited and represented faithfully unz.com unz.com. He didn’t distort what the Politico surgeons wrote – if anything, he condensed their harrowing account accurately (child sniper victims, unprecedented carnage) politico.com. For the Mother Jones/Netanyahu item, he captured the essence: that Israeli leaders used exterminationist rhetoric youtube.com.
• Unz’s own previous articles are cited a few times (American Pravda series, etc.) mainly to provide his extended analysis or additional context (e.g., his September 2023 column on BRICS, his January 2021 election column) unz.com unz.com. Citing oneself can be circular, but he generally used those to elaborate his point rather than to “prove” a fact. The one factual claim reliant on his own prior piece is the assertion that the 2020 election was stolen by a media/intel cabal unz.com – he cites only himself for that. That is a highly disputable claim which he sources to his earlier writing. Ethically, using oneself as sole source for a controversial “fact” is weak. Indeed, the consensus of evidence is that the 2020 election was not stolen; by sourcing himself, Unz avoids confronting contrary evidence. This is one area where his sourcing is dubious and one-sided (effectively laundered conspiracy theory as if it’s established).
• Overall, the ethical context of source usage: Most factual claims were tied to verifiable sources, and we found them accurate, meaning Unz did not generally invent facts. However, bias shows in emphasis and interpretation. For example, while he cites legitimate sources about Biden’s decline or Harris’s failures, he does not cite any counter-evidence. For instance, when calling the 2020 results “sharply disputed,” he doesn’t acknowledge courts rejected the disputes – he only cites his own article alleging election theft unz.com. That’s a selective use of sources to fit a narrative. Similarly, in highlighting Israeli atrocities (Lancet, Politico, etc.), he cites strong sources – Lancet, surgeons – but of course doesn’t cite Israeli sources or more conservative estimates. That’s within his right as a columnist, but it shows a slant in selection (focusing on sources that support the view of a tottering U.S. empire and moral bankruptcy).
• Accessibility and transparency: The sources he references (Politico, Reuters, CNN, etc.) are mainstream and accessible; nothing indicates he used a fake or satirical source. We verified most of them directly. Where his reference was an archive or his own site, we cross-checked with external reporting (e.g., the Lancet letter was real as confirmed by Guardian/Al Jazeera). This indicates Unz did base his facts on real reports.

In conclusion, most sources are represented accurately and in context. There are a few instances of one-sided sourcing (citing only his prior claims on the election fraud issue, for example) which are ethically questionable because they assert a contested “fact” without outside corroboration. But for the majority of factual claims, Unz used reputable information and did not distort what those sources said. If anything, he leaned on mainstream reports to give weight to his otherwise contrarian narrative.

Conclusion

Overall Accuracy: The article “Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and the Tottering American Empire” is a blend of well-founded factual reporting and provocative interpretation. On a factual level, most claims check out as accurate: President Biden did perform embarrassingly in a June 2024 debate, prompting calls for his withdrawal politico.com politico.com; Biden repeatedly made false remarks (e.g. about “beheaded babies”) that raised doubts about his awareness en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org; an assassination attempt on Donald Trump in July 2024 very nearly succeeded, constituting the worst such incident since 1981 politico.com; and Biden ultimately bowed out of the race via a letter, leading to Kamala Harris’s nomination despite her own past electoral failures reuters.com politico.com. These events are documented and the article recounts them correctly. The piece also accurately highlights contextual truths often underplayed elsewhere – such as Harris’s dismal 2020 primary campaign (zero delegates after $40M spent) unz.com, the deep unpopularity of both Biden and Harris as reflected in polls politico.com, and the extraordinary nature of swapping nominees without voter input unz.com unz.com.

In areas where we expected potential exaggeration, we found the core facts to be valid. For instance, Unz’s claim that Biden’s team posted a withdrawal letter with a possibly auto-penned signature sounds conspiratorial, but indeed the letter was posted on social media (not via speech) reuters.com and the signature sparked online discussion about its authenticity inshorts.com. The article’s recounting of Israeli actions in Gaza – citing a Lancet estimate of ~200,000 potential deaths aljazeera.com and eyewitness reports of children shot by snipers politico.com – is firmly grounded in reputable sources and aligns with independent reports. Furthermore, historical references (Reagan’s 1984 debate issues smithsonianmag.com, Soviet leaders’ ages unz.com, the 1960s–70s assassination spree unz.com) are all correct.

Partially Accurate or Misleading Points: There are a few areas of overreach or lacking context. The statement that Biden “avoided any direct conversations” with Xi Jinping was misleading, since Biden met Xi multiple times as President politico.com – Unz omits that, presumably to strengthen the analogy of Biden hiding from world leaders (though Biden did avoid talks with Putin, which is true politico.com). The characterization of Joe Biden and family taking “many millions in secret payoffs” from foreigners is partially accurate: Hunter Biden and family did receive millions from foreign deals cbsnews.com, but direct bribery to Joe Biden is unproven cbsnews.com. Unz presents it as established fact and asserts the media hid it – a claim of media complicity that, while arguable in degree, is not wholly fair (major outlets did eventually report on the investigations, albeit cautiously). Similarly, calling the 2020 election “stolen” or “sharply disputed” is unsupported by evidence – it reflects a conspiracy theory that the author himself promulgated unz.com. This is a significant factual distortion by omission of the overwhelming evidence that the election was legitimate unz.com. That said, he phrases it as “disputed” which is technically true (Trump disputed it), but without clarifying the disputes were baseless, which misleads the reader.

The article’s interpretive leap that Democrats timed Biden’s exit to avoid an Israel-policy challenger in the primaries is intriguing and consistent with known donor priorities, but it remains a hypothesis – we have no leaked DNC plan confirming this strategy. It is presented as speculation (“as various individuals have suggested” unz.com) rather than hard fact, so it’s an analytically plausible point rather than a verifiable fact. We should treat it as an informed conjecture.

Use of Sources: Generally, Unz uses sources ethically when citing specific facts. We did not find instances where he outright distorted a source’s words or presented a satirical source as real. He tends to cite strong evidence for the factual claims that underpin his narrative, lending credibility to his argument even if the argument itself is debatable. For example, he buttresses the claim of Harris’s unpopularity by citing a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll with exact favorability numbers politico.com – that’s precise and honest use of data. When raising the Lancet figure of 186k Gaza deaths, he references the prestige of the journal and gives the number, which checks out arabcenterdc.org. This responsible citation allows readers (and fact-checkers) to verify key points.

A slight concern is that in a couple of instances he cites only his own prior writings for contentious claims (2020 election “steal”), which is circular and not a neutral corroboration. Also, while he accurately relays what sources like Politico’s Gaza piece said, those sources are presenting very grim accounts – Unz then frames them as “horrific war crimes” by Israel, a conclusion the reader can indeed draw, but that specific phrasing (war crimes) is his. It’s within reason given international law reports, though not a term Politico itself used. This falls under contextual interpretation – he is not falsifying anything, but emphasizing certain words (like comparing Palestinians to Amalek meaning kill even babies – which is the implication of that biblical reference oasiscenter.eu, though Israeli officials didn’t explicitly say “kill babies,” the subtext was there).

Necessary Corrections: The factual inaccuracies or misrepresentations are relatively few, but noteworthy:

1. Biden’s talks with Xi: A reader might be misled to think Biden never engaged Xi due to incapacity. In truth, Biden met Xi in person in 2022 and 2023. A clarifying note would be that Biden did avoid contact with Putin post-Ukraine invasion, but he maintained dialogue with Xi Jinping (meeting at the G-20 and APEC in 2022–23) politico.com politico.com, so the claim of avoiding Xi is incorrect. This nuance would temper the narrative that Biden was completely shielded from foreign leaders.
2. “Secret payoffs” to Joe Biden: It should be clarified that while Hunter Biden’s ventures (Burisma, CEFC China, etc.) earned millions and even distributed money to Biden relatives cbsnews.com cbsnews.com, no verified evidence shows Joe Biden personally received foreign bribes. Investigations are ongoing, but as of 2024 Republicans had not proven Joe benefited financially cbsnews.com. The mainstream media did cover Hunter’s legal troubles and the GOP allegations, though often with skepticism. So a correction might read: Evidence from Hunter Biden’s laptop and bank records confirms the Biden family (via Hunter and others) took in millions from foreign sources cbsnews.com. However, it has not been proven that Joe Biden himself received these funds, and media outlets have reported on the investigations (albeit not always prominently), rather than outright “hidden” them. This adds proper context.
3. 2020 election “steal”: The article’s insinuation that the 2020 election was stolen by a media/intel conspiracy is unsubstantiated and contradicted by certified results and court rulings. A fact-check note: There is no credible evidence that the 2020 election was stolen; Joe Biden’s victory was confirmed by election officials and upheld in court unz.com. The claims referenced come from the author’s own prior argument, not from documented proof. This correction is crucial given the gravity of that allegation.

Apart from these, most other factual statements are correct and require no correction – rather, they shine light on under-reported truths (e.g., Harris’s primary flop, the sheer scale of Gaza’s human tragedy, etc.).

Summary: The article as a whole is largely factually accurate in its narrative of events in mid-2024. It knits these facts into a perspective (America as an empire in decline, elites behaving desperately) that one may or may not agree with, but the factual building blocks are mostly solid. The few inaccuracies (Xi conversation, overstating proof of Biden bribery, 2020 election claims) are areas to be wary of, as noted above. After careful analysis, we find the piece’s major historical and current-event assertions to be correct in substance politico.com en.wikipedia.org reuters.com politico.com, with only minor exceptions and a tendency to interpret facts in the most cynical light.

Overall, the article’s depiction of reality is broadly accurate – though colored by the author’s conspiratorial lens – and should be read with awareness of which parts are proven fact and which are speculative extrapolation.

Responses

• Selected Remarks and Responses