The Left freaks out telling us that Dementia Joe does not wander aimlessly on many occasions.
Never mind that it was captured from differing angles at the LA fundraiser.
Biden spokesperson explains Dementia Joe’s wandering away from the other G7 Leaders as “disinformation.”
Townhall lets the Left paint itself into a corner by telling us we must trust them and not our lying eyes.
During a parachute event at the G7 Summit in Italy, President Joe Biden wandered away from other world leaders and was ultimately pulled back into the scene by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
(Read at Townhall about the activities later that day)
Joe had been told that there would be a photo. There was no reason to go talk to a parachutist gathering his equipment.
Own it, Democrats. Joe is senile.
…
The fraud perpetrated by the leaders of BLM comes out again
BLM’s leaders used charitable funds to enrich themselves and their families
The Daily Caller outlines how the leaders of the Black Lives Matter organization enriched themselves and their families with contrabutions from those who thought they were helping the plight of Black people across America.
Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) has paid out millions in contracts to insiders, newly released tax documents show.
The nation’s largest BLM organization approved lucrative contracts to firms owned by members of the organization’s leadership and their family members between July 2022 and June 2023, tax filings show. The shuffling of charitable funds to private companies owned by interested parties raises considerable ethical concerns given the lack of oversight and the possible conflicts of interest, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Whether a person loves this charity’s mission or hates it, they should be angry that significant amounts of charitable dollars are being channeled to interested parties without adequate oversight in place,” Charity Watch Executive Director Laurie Styron told the DCNF. “Charities are expected to avoid both real and perceived conflicts of interest to maintain public trust. This charity is doing the opposite. The optics here are really, really bad.”
BLMGNF “has no independent oversight” as the charity’s board is too small to effectively guard against the misuse of funds from those in charge of the organization, Styron said.
The organization paid the consulting firm BOWERS* nearly $2.6 million during the time frame for “staffing and management services,” according to tax filings. Shalomyah Bowers, the secretary of the charity’s board, owns at least 35% of that firm.
(Read more at the Daily Caller)
Second verse, same as the first
As this site blogged in 2021 — BLM has translated more accurately as Building Large Mansions than it has stood for Black Lives Matter. Therefore, those who live conservatively and once might have contributed to this cause might be among those who have begun to at least pull away from the Democrat party.
Nonetheless, this constitutes a situation where many will refuse to be fooled again by this group. As the saying goes: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
…
Professor Jed Rubenfeld explains key issues violated by the Left in the persecution of President Trump
Issues with the Trump verdict
With at least one more Constitutional professor showing where lawfare fails, maybe America will wake
These are the “serious constitutional problems” isolated in the case that Alvin Bragg brought against President Trump (as identified by Yale Constitutional Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld):
- Alvin Bragg (the prosecution) did not reveal what the felony charge had been made against President Trump (something that violates the 6th Amendment Rights of President Trump)
- The jury was instructed that it did not have to be unanimous in its voting on which violation had been made
- State and federal felony prosecution in almost all cases must be unanimous
- This prosecution was a politically-motivated vendetta
Selective Prosecution and Jury Unanimity
Does the fact that Bragg ran on prosecuting President Trump show the unconstitutionality of this trial?
Do the following events suggest that President Trump might get the Bragg case thrown out due to the actions of Alvin Bragg and his team:
- Alvin Bragg campaigned by saying “I am the best candidate to ‘go after Trump’.” (In this case, we have to focus on the fact that the primary motivator of Bragg’s prosecution was political differences and not criminal history.)
- The above instance would be a case of selective prosecution. However, to prove that, we need a comparator (like the case of Hillary Clinton — where she made payments to a lawyer that were actually for the payment of British spy Steele [for the Steele dossier] and Alvin Bragg knew of these payments and did not prosecute even though they occurred in his district).
- Bragg repeatedly denounced Trump’s policies.
- Once in office, Bragg looked for crimes he could use to prosecute President Trump.
…
Street art against Biden comes to the fore again
Sabo displays street art that Joe would not like
…
Mark 1:1 