Showing posts with label election interference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election interference. Show all posts

Saturday, July 18, 2026

CNN Refuses To Air Trump's Election Speech After Producers Mistake Journalism For Vampire Rules


“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” --Mark Twain

ABC, NBC, and CNN all decided America simply could not survive the horror of hearing President Trump speak without a panel of nervous commentators interrupting every eight seconds. Apparently, allowing viewers to hear the president's election interference address unfiltered would trigger an extinction level event for democracy . . . or perhaps their own credibility.

The speech covered something that Washington has insisted everyone ignore. America's election systems remain vulnerable. Massive voter databases have been compromised. China allegedly gained access to information on at least 220 million Americans. Beijing also reportedly financed propaganda efforts through American journalists during Trump's first term.

Naturally, CNN concluded the real national security threat was letting Americans hear about any of it.

Instead, the network sprinted away from the speech like it was carrying a subpoena. This is, of course, the same network that spent years enthusiastically promoting the Russia collusion fantasy, a story that consumed the better part of Trump's first presidency before collapsing under the weight of its own fiction.

Remember when election interference was the greatest threat to civilization? Back then, every Facebook meme was apparently a Kremlin special forces operation. Fast forward ten years and election interference has magically become a conspiracy theory because Trump is talking about it. Funny how that works.

The Compromised News Network's Brian "Mr. Potato Head" Stelter accidentally summarized the entire media business model in one remarkable quote.

"Some network executives felt it would be dangerous to just air Trump's speech live, in full, unedited without knowing what he was going to say ahead of time. That's where we are in America."

Dangerous? What the heck is he talking about and how did he conclude that nonsense?

Since when did hearing a speech without a newsroom translator become hazardous? Americans somehow survive congressional hearings, award shows, and college commencement speeches every year. Surely they could endure twenty minutes of President Trump without requiring CNN to hold their hand.

The obvious answer is that viewers might actually make up their own minds. That possibility terrifies corporate media more than any foreign hacker ever could.

Mr. Potato Head continued.

"Trump's election lies led to violence."


That talking point conveniently skips over the inconvenient fact that Trump explicitly urged supporters to act peacefully and later called for the unrest on January 6 to stop. Those details rarely survive the CNN editing room because they interfere with the preferred narrative.

Curiously, none of this concern about "dangerous" speech existed while networks breathlessly reported Russia collusion claims, anonymous intelligence leaks that evaporated under scrutiny, or countless other Trump stories that proved spectacularly wrong. Apparently misinformation is perfectly safe, provided it comes with professionally lit studio cameras.

What CNN and the rest of the legacy media are really saying is simple. You are not qualified to hear information directly. You need licensed television experts to explain what you should think before your brain accidentally forms an independent opinion.

Then they insist there is no coordinated effort to shape public perception while ABC, NBC, and CNN simultaneously arrive at the exact same decision to keep viewers from hearing the President of the United States.

Quite a coincidence.

Nobody remembers these networks treating Joe Biden's speeches as too dangerous for public consumption, despite his remarkable ability to invent stories, confuse world leaders, or wander into verbal cul de sacs that left aides diving for the mute button.

In the end, America was reminded of several timeless truths. The permanent bureaucracy never really left. Questions about the 2020 election remain forbidden territory in polite media circles. The corporate press remains about as objective as a campaign commercial. Our election infrastructure still deserves scrutiny.

Yet these are the same people who assured us with straight faces that the 2020 election was the "most secure ever."

And they wonder why nobody believes them anymore.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.


Wednesday, September 4, 2024

Jim Jordan opens inquiry into Jack Smith's "Latest sham indictment"









As summer came to an unofficial end on Labor Day, and the November presidential election looms large, the left is freaking out over their fear that Democrat candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris is a garbage candidate and will somehow blow the election [no pun intended]. 

Last week Special Counsel Jack Smith filed yet a new indictment against former and possibly future President Trump regarding the Nancy Pelosi-botched January 6th clusterfrack [sic]. Several days after the filing, House Judiciary Committee Jim Jordan (R-OH) fired off a letter to the pencil-neck Attorney General Merrick Garland. Jordan was rightfully angry over the "latest sham indictment" and called Smith's move "Election interference." [H/T  Daily Wire]

If not that, then what is it?

As Jordan began by reminding, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered the Trump v. United States decision on July 1. The ruling established that the office of the president is immune from criminal prosecution. The Court's opinion explained the scope of presidential immunity and criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith for violating this Constitutional principle in his political prosecution of President Donald J. Trump, as Jordan noted.

Referring to Smith's updated indictment from August 27, Jordan expressed concerns that "Special Counsel Smith seems to have breached longstanding Department policy designed to safeguard our democratic processes. Consequently, the Committee needs to know whether you endorsed Special Counsel Smith’s indictment beforehand or if he is continuing to act with prosecutorial authority without your 'meaningful direction or supervision,'" his letter stated, once more referencing the Trump v. United States decision.

Jordan's letter specifically mentions a 60-day rule that advises against filing indictments immediately before a primary or general election. "Even though it isn't formally written into law, there is a broad consensus that the 60-day rule is essential for preserving the integrity of the electoral process," Jordan wrote, citing an op-ed from The Washington Post by Barack Obama's wingman, former Attorney General Eric Holder.

"Special Counsel Smith obtained the superseding indictment against President Trump just 10 days before early voting begins in some states," Jordan's letter continued, going on to comment on how this could affect the upcoming presidential election. "There can be little question that the superseding indictment has some effect on the election, especially coming after the Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity cast significant doubt on Special Counsel Smith’s ability to prosecute the initial indictment."

The letter further criticizes the timing in relation to the Trump v. United States decision. Jordan continued. "In light of the Court’s opinion, Smith’s superseding indictment amounts to the initiation of a prosecutorial action by the Biden-Harris Administration against its opponent in the upcoming election. There is no persuasive argument why Special Counsel Smith could not wait until after the election to file this superseding indictment. It is therefore difficult to believe that the superseding indictment was filed now for any purpose other than to affect the outcome of the election," Jordan continued.

Jordan's letter asks for the following information and documents by September 13, going back from January 1, 2024 to the present:
1. All documents and communications between Main Justice, including but not limited to the Office of the Attorney General, and Special Counsel Smith’s office referring or relating to the superseding indictment filed against President Trump on August 27, 2024.

2. Did you personally approve the superseding indictment filed against President Trump on August 27, 2024? If so, please provide documentation sufficient to reflect your approval.

3. Did you evaluate the superseding indictment against President Trump in the context of the Department’s longstanding policy counseling against prosecutorial action so near an election? If so, please provide documentation sufficient to reflect your evaluation of these issues.

Jordan's letter also mentioned Judge Aileen Cannon, who in July tossed out Smith's classified documents case against Trump. Also last week, just the day before filing the superseding indictment, Smith appealed Cannon's move to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. [H/T Townhall.com]

There does not seem to be any doubt that Smith's move is desperate and politically motivated to prevent Donald Trump from seeking reelection. Allowing this to happen and by extension, jailing the former president, is nothing more than a banana republic type of move and the nation cannot allow this to happen.

Thursday, February 22, 2024

Judge McAfee to rule in Fani Willis--Trump Georgia case


Final arguments are being prepared in the Trump election interference case as to whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified due to her intimate relationship with the special prosecutor Nathan Wade. 

Willis hired Wade rather than using the lawyers in her own office, and it is alleged that Wade was romantically schtupping her since 2019. She is paying Wade over $650,000 which is more than any of her lawyers are paid, and the kicker is that Wade has relatively no experience in RICO cases as this one happens to be. 

It is also alleged that Willis personally benefitted from what she paid to Wade having taken elaborate and frequent vacation cruises with him, which may account for her rather full figure because it's always "all you can eat" on cruises. She claimed to have paid Wade back for her part of the expenses, but doesn't have a shred of evidence to prove that, claiming she always paid cash because she's black and you just don't understand.

After an excruciating drama-filled two-day hearing on the motion to disqualify Willis, we now await for the next steps.

There will now be an on-camera hearing with Judge Scott McAfee and the defense's "star witness" Terrence Bradley, the former divorce lawyer for Nathan Wade. This hearing is set for Monday February 26, according to Fox News.

On Friday, when Bradley testified, every question he received was immediately followed by an objection by the state and even his own lawyer.


The arguments centered on whether Bradley’s testimony would violate attorney-client privilege, since he was Wade’s divorce lawyer for a time. It's probable that not all the questions would violate that issue because Bradley was also Wade's friend and not everything is privileged outside of court when it doesn't directly involve Wade's divorce case.

Despite that, what is said on-camera, behind closed doors, could open things up in Bradley's testimony. Judge McAfee will determine how much of Bradley's testimony would violate attorney-client privilege and how much weight should be given the testimony that is admissible.

The next step expected would be a final hearing. The state and defense would sum up their evidence and give final arguments. That should be scheduled for next week if the source is correct. The exact date is to be determined.

Even if there is no conflict of interest in this case, which I suspect there is, just the appearance of such a conflict is enough to get Willis thrown off the case on her substantial duff. But it will be up to McAfee to decide what to do with what he hears.

It it was up to me, I'd throw her off the case, indict her for misuse of campaign funds [which she unintentionally revealed via her motor-mouth] and throw out the case overall. It's obviously a witch hunt, but it's the witch who's doing the hunting in this case.


Thursday, April 6, 2023

ABC accused of "election interference" over edit during Trump speech



ABC News has been accused of election interference because the network blurred out information about former President Trump's campaign on his podium as he delivered a speech on Tuesday evening at his Mar-a-Lago Club in West Palm Beach, Florida.

In case you were beamed up by Scotty to the planet Ross 128 for the last several months, you might not realize that Trump has been charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to "hush money" payments to a porn actress and another woman prior to the 2016 election. He pleaded not guilty to each trumped up count and claimed he never had any extramarital affairs, if you can believe that, but who cares?

The former President spoke for 27 minutes and tore into Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, a guy who lets murderers walk but people making bookkeeping errors  get indicted, especially if they're made by Trump or his bookkeeper.

Anyway, ABC News was among a number of networks that aired the speech, but the woke Disney-owned network blurred out a text number that could have been used by people interested in donating to his 2024 presidential campaign. 

That text number is 88022. ABC blurred it out as they covered the speech, so you couldn't see: "TEXT TRUMP to 88022."

One podium doesn't look like the other

So ABC was quickly hit with accusations of election interference because they manipulated the news, as is their wont. But some people, like Charlie Kirk, saw what they had done and responded accordingly on Twitter:
ABC News blurs out “TEXT TRUMP to 88022” in its coverage of Trump’s post-arraignment speech as reports suggest the Trump campaign has raised over $10 million since his indictment. pic.twitter.com/nCrE3XzSS5

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 5, 2023

It wasn't as if ABC blurs out campaign information as a rule. When brain-addled Joe Biden was a candidate in 2020, his podium was shown during to have that type of contact/donation information at campaign events.
This is election interference by ABC pic.twitter.com/mjO61jFrV5

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 5, 2023
Is this Election interference from your mothership, @abc15?

— Kari Lake War Room (@KariLakeWarRoom) April 5, 2023

Looks like election interference to me.

— David Giglio (@DavidGiglioCA) April 5, 2023
So, while Biden has his donation information clearly depicted by ABC, Donald Trump's "TEXT TRUMP to 88022" was not shown and viewers of the network never got to see "TEXT TRUMP to 88022."

ABC News has not commented on the decision to prevent its viewers from seeing Trump’s campaign contact information and deciding for themselves whether or not they were interested in donating to him.

Meanwhile, Trump hauled in millions of dollars in donations prior to his Mar-a-Lago speech in spite of viewers of the Democrat network failing to show "TEXT TRUMP to 88022" to their viewers.


Trump’s New Press Secretary Lasted Days Before Her Credentials Became the Story

The White House press secretary ’s job is to defend the president, handle hostile questions from the press, and explain the administration’s...