By Victor Nieves Jun. 1, 2024
It looks like the Soviet show trial is blowing up in the faces of the Democrat party as Donald Trump gets a massive wind in his sails following the guilty verdict.
The Gateway Pundit reported,
Trump’s approval rating has gone up following his sham guilty verdict in New York, according to a new poll.
It just goes to show that the vast majority of Americans know what the trial was all about and disapprove of the Democrats’ fascist tactics.
More backfire is coming, but this is a good start.
Townhall reports: “If the Democratic Party thought convicting former President Donald Trump was going to make his millions of supporters abandon him, they better think twice.
In fact, he got a six-point jump in approval after being found guilty of 34 counts for falsifying business records.”
Donald Trump also raised over $50m in just 24 hours following the conviction. The American people can see through this Soviet style show trial.
How a Faith-Based Company is Changing the Way Americans Protect Their Retirement
Despite the apparent beliefs of the Democrat party, Americans are not stupid. No one believes that Trump was given due process or a fair trial. This, like every other attempt to beat Trump into submission, has spectacularly blown up in the faces of the bewildered Democrats.
“Wrong! You Don’t Know What You’re Talking About!” – Megyn Kelly Schools a Triggered Dan Abrams on His Own Show During Explosive Debate Over Trump Guilty Verdict (VIDEO)
By Cullen Linebarger Jun. 1, 2024
Liberal Newsnation anchor Dan Abrams got completely owned by former Fox News host Megyn Kelly while debating her on the disgraceful Trump guilty verdict Thursday night.
As the Gateway Pundit reported, the rigged New York City jury convicted President Trump on ALL 34 COUNTS in Alvin Bragg and corrupt Judge Juan Merchan’s lawfare case Thursday afternoon.
A giddy Merchan saluted the jury members for their “dedication and hard work” after one of American history’s greatest travesties of justice. The next step is the sentencing phase on July 11, where Merchan will have a chance to throw Trump behind bars.
Abrams invited Kelly onto his eponymous show, Dan Abrams Live, to allow her to weigh in on this despicable assault on America. The conversation soon blew up Abrams’s face when he decided to assert Trump was guilty of “wrongdoing” for paying $130,000 to Stormy Daniels to protect his 2016 Presidential campaign even if what Trump supposedly did was not technically illegal.
Pathological liar Michael Cohen was the person who paid off Daniels. Moreover, there is no evidence Trump actually ordered him to do so or even had an affair with her to begin with.
Kelly fired back by saying she did not know what kind of marriage Donald and Melania Trump have while citing Bill and Hillary’s open marriage in comparison. They continued sparring over whether paying off Daniels was an example of wrongdoing and immorality.
However, things went off the rails for Abrams when he asked Kelly whether Trump falsified business records. Kelly replied, “There’s nothing wrong” with paying hush money to protect an NDA.
Abrams argued that this would be different if campaign finance laws were involved, and he became enraged when Kelly pointed out that he was wrong and had no clue what he was talking about. She explained paying hush money “does not amount to a campaign contribution if it is the kind of payment that could ever be made outside of the campaign context.”
An ignorant Abrams, unaware he had just been schooled, closed by claiming the standard is sustainability (which it’s not).
WATCH (exchange begins at roughly the 2:50 mark):
ABRAMS: Okay, let me back up. You don’t think he falsified business records either?
KELLY: I don’t know that he did.
ABRAMS: What does that mean?! We just had a whole trial! We heard every detail of this! How can you not know?
KELLY: I don’t think he wrote down hush money payments to Stormy Daniels… I think someone at the Trump Organization wrote down legal expenses, and that made as much sense as anything else because hush money wasn’t an option.
He (Trump) was paying his lawyer who made the payment to Stormy Daniels and was I believe reimbursing him (Cohen) though he (Cohen) denied that on the stand. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. You paid your lawyer because they outlay money for you…You can easily classify that as a legal expense.
ABRAMS (scoffing): No matter what it’s for? Even if it’s illegal conduct?
KELLY: This wasn’t illegal. There’s nothing illegal about paying hush money for an NDA.
ABRAMS: There’s not, but when you’re doing it to protect your campaign, it is. That’s the difference.
KELLY: What law are you citing, Dan?
ABRAMS: Campaign finance laws!
KELLY: Wrong! You don’t know what you’re talking about! You’re wrong!
ABRAMS: Explain to me then. Tell me what I’m getting wrong.
KELLY: It does not amount to a campaign contribution if it is the kind of payment that could ever be made outside of the campaign context.
ABRAMS: That’s not the standard. The standard is substantiality!
KELLY: It’s not.
ABRAMS: It is!
Kelly is right. As Gateway Pundit readers know, the prosecution completely failed to clearly define the so-called “criminal” act or any wrongdoing committed by Trump.
But the court convicted him anyway out of pure hatred.
Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr Discuss New York Guilty Verdict and Potential Assassination Efforts by FBI
June 1, 2024 | Sundance
When people talk about normalizing things that were previously extreme and radical, they sometimes use the metaphor of the Overton Window. Within this conversation between Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr, the Overton Window doesn’t shift, it jumps. The potential killing of President Trump is mentioned casually against the backdrop of a weaponized justice system.
More frequently than any other political pundit or political voice, Tucker Carlson mentions the likely killing of President Donald John Trump. I’m not sure why he does it, but I have heard the assassination theme from him in more than a dozen public statements.
Don Trump Jr notes the most recent occurrence of Tucker talking about “them” killing Trump after the NYC guilty verdict. Don Jr agrees with the possibility, then talks about his new perspective on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The very disconcerting issue that circles the killing of Donald Trump is raised by Tucker Carlson at four separate points within this interview. WATCH:
caution strong language
Judicial Watch: Biden Justice Department Admits Special Counsel Transcript of Biden Interviews Is Inaccurate
Judicial Watch Filed New FOIA Request Today on Disturbing Development
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that the White House admitted in a federal court that the transcript of President Joe Biden’s testimony to Special Counsel Robert Hur is not accurate and is missing “filler words (such as ‘um’ or ‘uh’)” and words that “may have been repeated when spoken (such as ‘I, I’ or ‘and, and’)” which were sometimes “only listed a single time in the transcripts.” In its new filing the Biden Justice Department makes the extraordinary assertions of executive privilege and privacy to hide the Biden audio. The agency makes the unprecedented assertion that because “AI” could be used to alter Biden’s words the material should be kept secret.
The Justice Department filing, filed around 11:00 p.m. last night (Friday), reads in part:
13. After the interview, SCO [Special Counsel Office] created written transcripts of the audio recording with the assistance of a trained professional court reporter – one transcript for each day of the interview. I have read the entirety of the written transcripts of the interview. As I listened to the audio recording, I compared it to the transcripts of the audio recording and specifically listened for differences between the transcripts and audio recording. In a few instances, the transcripts indicate that some words from the audio recording are indiscernible. In listening to the audio recording and reviewing the transcripts, I agree that in those instances the words are indiscernible.
14. The interview transcripts are accurate transcriptions of the words of the interview contained in the audio recording, except for minor instances such as the use of filler words (such as “um” or “uh”) when speaking that are not always reflected on the transcripts, or when words may have been repeated when spoken (such as “I, I” or “and, and”) but sometimes was only listed a single time in the transcripts. Besides these exceedingly minor differences, based on my simultaneous review of the transcripts while listening to the audio recording, the transcripts accurately capture the words spoken during the interview on the audio recording with no material differences between the audio recording and transcripts. None of the minor differences include any audible substantive exchanges – that is, based on my review, there is no material omission of words be tween the audio recording and transcripts. Special Counsel Hur and FBI personnel who attended the interview and compared the audio recording to the transcripts also informed me of their determination that the transcripts accurately reflect the words spoken on the audio recording aside from the minor instances I described above. Special Counsel Hur emphasized to me that it was important for purposes of his investigation that the interview transcripts be accurate.
“Wow. Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit forced the Biden team to admit what everyone suspected – that the transcript is not accurate and was changed in a way to help Biden,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “There is nothing ordinary about this, and the transcript inaccuracy issues seem to help Biden’s political campaign needs. We today initiated a new FOIA request on this Biden’s Nixonian tape scandal.”
On March 11, 2024, Judicial Watch filed its FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Department of Justice failed to respond to a February 2024 FOIA request for records of all Special Counsel interviews of President Biden (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:24-cv-00700)). A redacted transcript of the Biden interview was released on April 15.
In April, the Justice Department told the court that it would not disclose the audio recordings of special counsel interviews with President Joe Biden in order to protect Biden’s “privacy” interests.
On February 5, 2024, Hur issued the “Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and Disclosure of Classified Documents Discovered at Locations Including the Penn Biden Center and the Delaware Private Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.”
In the report, Hur called Biden a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and declined to charge Biden with a “serious felony:”
We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.
Prior to the finalization of the report, the White House issued a letter to the Special Counsel’s office attacking the report’s “treatment of President Biden’s memory,” and added “there is ample evidence from your interview that the President did well in answering your questions …”
The Heritage Foundation and a CNN-led media coalition have recently been joined with Judicial Watch’s lawsuit.
Judicial Watch has several ongoing FOIA lawsuits about Biden’s document scandals and the related unprecedented partisan prosecutorial and judicial abuses of former President Donald J. Trump.
DON, SET, HUT! Watch Trump Make $1M Throw for Charity in 1992
Related
[
NarrowPathMinistries 
