Trump Drops the Hammer on JPMorgan: Lawsuit Incoming, Dimon Edition

Look, the man never sleeps, never backs down, and apparently never forgets a grudge. President Trump just announced he's gearing up to sue JPMorgan Chase for what he calls the bank's "incorrect and inappropriate" de-banking of him in the wake of the January 6, 2021, Capitol protest. 

Because nothing says "welcome back to the Oval Office" like reminding the biggest bank on the block that actions have consequences.

It all kicked off with Trump torching a Wall Street Journal report claiming he dangled the Federal Reserve Chairman position in front of JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon. In a Truth Social post Saturday, the president shot that down faster than a bad tweet.

"A front page Article in The Fake News Wall Street Journal states, without any verification, that I offered Jamie Dimon, of JPMorgan Chase, the job of Fed Chairman. This statement is totally untrue, there was never such an offer," he wrote.

Then came the haymaker: "In fact, I'll be suing JPMorgan Chase over the next two weeks for incorrectly and inappropriately DEBANKING me after the January 6th Protest, a protest that turned out to be correct for those doing the protesting — The Election was RIGGED!"

Quick recap for the memory-challenged: On January 6, 2021, Trump told his supporters to protest peacefully while Congress certified the 2020 results. Things went sideways, tear gas flew, barricades vanished, and the media turned it into the next Reichstag fire. 

Trump told the crowd to "go home in peace" on video and Twitter. Meanwhile, leaked footage has Nancy "Hands-a-Fire" Pelosi owning the lack of National Guard prep. But sure, let's pretend it was all Trump's master plan. 

As for Dimon? The JPMorgan boss has admitted the bank de-banks people, just not for politics or religion, he insists.

"We do not de-bank people because of religious or political affiliations," Dimon said.  "We de-bank people who are Democrats, we de-bank people who are Republicans, we de-bank different religious folks. Never was that for that reason.”

Trump, of course, isn't buying it. Back in August he signed an executive order cracking down on financial institutions that discriminate based on politics or faith, basically telling banks to stop playing woke hall monitor or face the music. At the time, he didn't mince words: "The banks discriminate against conservatives, they discriminate against religion, because they're afraid of the radical left, I suspect," 

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, and check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free.

Trump said in a White House statement. "We're going to get them. Nobody knows the banking industry better than me, and I’m not going to let them take advantage of you any longer."

So buckle up, folks. The president who turned "you're fired" into a national catchphrase is now aiming it at Wall Street's biggest player. Should be a fun couple of weeks.

Tweet

AOC's attack on Trump should get her sued into oblivion

Florida’s top law dog, Attorney General James Uthmeier, unloaded both barrels on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, [aka Alexandria Obviously-Comatose, aka Sandy from da Bronx] the Bronx’s favorite communist, for cheering on ICE protests aimed at derailing Trump’s mass deportation plans. AOC, never one to shy from a fight because she's too dumb to know that she will lose, stepped in it big time, tossing around the word "rapist" like it’s confetti at a parade, slamming Trump on X over the Jeffrey Epstein clusterfrack.

The far-left Latina, who’s been trading haymakers with Trump since she swapped bartending for congressional hearings, couldn’t resist stirring the pot on the Epstein case. The disgraced financier, who took the coward’s way out in a New York cell in 2019, left a trail of slime that still has politicos pointing fingers. 

Sandy, never missing a chance to grandstand, fired off this gem on X: "Wow who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?" She was poking at the 2023 E. Jean Carroll civil trial, where a jury pinned Trump for sexual assault but stopped short of rape, so the fact is, it isn't rape.

Her critics pounced, screaming defamation faster than you can say "hey buddy, got a dollar?"

The Trump DOJ, meanwhile, insists there’s no secret Epstein client list, but that didn’t stop AOC from dropping the “R” bomb. Trump’s loyalists and legal eagles smelled blood. "The President should sue AOC into bankruptcy. I realize she’s trying to raise her profile but this is way way too far," legal analyst Phil Holloway, one of my favorite lawyers said on X.

Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee, not exactly a shrinking violet, also piled on: "Even under the ridiculously lenient standards of NY Times v. Sullivan, you’ve managed to incur defamation liability Wow." 

Oklahoma’s Sen. Markwayne Mullin took a different jab, snarking, "Why didn’t you guys release the Epstein files over the last 4 years? Maybe you were too busy covering for Joe Biden… or, could it have something to do with another former Democrat President?"

The X peanut gallery wasn’t done. Bill Mitchell, host of YourVoice America, laid into her: "Well we have grounds for a huge defamation suit here you idiot because Donald Trump has never been indicted for rape much less convicted." 

Another X user chimed in, "You realize your X account doesn't carry the same protections to defame people that you enjoy during congressional proceedings?"

The "rapist" jab hit a nerve, especially after ABC coughed up $15 million to Trump for George Stephanopoulos’ loose lips last year. Stephanopoulos, in a March 2024 cage match with another GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, he kept hammering that Trump was “liable for rape” in the Carroll case. "You’ve endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape," Stephanopoulos said.

Stephanopoulos, a former Senior Advisor to President Bill Clinton for Policy and Strategy and Communications Director, used that term ten times, per Fox Digital. 

Trump, who’s always denied knowing Carroll, called her a liar chasing book sales. ABC and Stephanopoulos later ate crow, settling for $15 million and a public "regret" note: 

"Editor's Note: ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC’s This Week on March 10, 2024."

AOC’s low-information defenders on X argued she didn’t name Trump directly, so good luck with that defamation suit. But Trump ally Laura Loomer wasn’t buying it: "Donald Trump has not been criminally convicted of being a rapist. This is defamatory. And I hope you are sued by Trump for this the same way George Stephanopoulos was sued and forced to pay Trump $15 million dollars. I hope you have millions ready for Trump, Porky. @AOC."

Townhall’s Rachel Alexander cackled, "This is gonna be fun. AOC is so dumb she just called Trump a rapist, after ABC was forced to fork over $16 million in a settlement with Trump after George Stephanopoulos called him a rapist."

White House comms chief Steven Cheung threw the final punch: "AOC likes to play pretend like she’s from the block, but in reality she’s just a sad, miserable blockhead who is trying to over-compensate for her lack of self-confidence that has followed her for her entire life." 

Fox News Digital had reached out to AOC’s office Sunday for a response but got crickets, similar to the sound you can hear if you put your ear next to AOC's

So here we are, watching AOC swing for the fences and maybe whiffing into a legal buzzsaw. She’s got the lefty faithful cheering, but the Trump train’s ready to roll her into court. Just another day in the circus.

Gosh, I hope he goes through with a lawsuit and takes her to the cleaners.

Hey amazing readers! If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Trial begins for UCLA Prof. who refused to "exercise compassion" with race-based grading

The trial of UCLA accounting professor Gordon Klein is underway in Santa Monica, and it’s a doozy. Klein’s suing the university for $22 million after they suspended him in 2020 for refusing to go along with a student demand to grade Black students more leniently following thug George Floyd’s death. 

Talk about a case that cuts right to the heart of campus insanity.

Back in June 2020, with the nation reeling from Floyd’s death, a group of Klein’s students emailed him, demanding a “no-harm” final exam that could only boost their grades, with shorter tests and extended deadlines. Their reasoned that they were too traumatized to focus on finals because, as they put it, “we have been placed in a position where we much (sic) choose between actively supporting our Black classmates or focusing on finishing up our spring quarter.” They added, “We believe that remaining neutral in times of injustice brings power to the oppressor and therefore staying silent is not an option.”

They insisted this wasn’t about canceling finals for non-Black students but about asking Klein to “exercise compassion and leniency with black students in our major.” Sounds like a not-so-subtle call for race-based grading, doesn’t it?

Klein wasn’t having it. His response was a masterclass in sarcasm that landed him in hot water. “Thanks for your suggestion in your email below that I give Black students special treatment, given the tragedy in Minnesota,” he fired back. Then he went for the jugular: “Do you know the names of the classmates that are Black? How can I identify them since we’ve been having online classes only?” He didn’t stop there, asking about students of “mixed parentage, such as half Black-half Asian? What do you suggest I do with respect to them? A full concession or just half?”

Klein even pointed out that “a White student from [Minneapolis] might be possibly even more devastated by this, especially because some might think that they’re racist even if they are not.” He capped it off with MLK’s iconic line about judging people by character, not skin color. You’d think that’d be a slam dunk, but no, students screenshotted his email, posted it online, and the outrage, virtue-signaling mob descended.

UCLA's cowards caved fast, suspending Klein in June 2020. 

Anderson School Dean Antonio Bernardo tut-tutted in a campus message, saying, “Conduct that demonstrates a disregard for our core principles, including an abuse of power, is not acceptable.” He added, “I deeply regret the increased pain and anger that our community has experienced at this very difficult time.” 

The university reinstated him by September, but the damage was done. Klein’s lawsuit claims UCLA torched his lucrative expert witness practice, where he pulled in about $1 million a year on cases like Michael Jackson’s wrongful death suit. “By this moment, as a direct and immediate result of [his] public suspension and excoriation, Professor Klein’s expert witness practice had been permanently destroyed,” the suit states. 

UCLA’s defense? 

They’re arguing Klein got the boot for his “tone and manner.” Because apparently, it’s not about principle, it’s about hurt feelings. The trial’s expected to wrap up next week, and you can bet it’ll be a circus until then.

This case is a glaring example of how universities bend over backward to avoid being called racist, even when it means punishing a professor for refusing to treat students differently based on race, which by definition, is itself racist. 

Klein’s standing his ground, and win or lose, he’s exposing the absurdity of it all. 

Hey amazing readers! If you love the content you find here please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Tweet

GOP AG Sues Starbucks over DEI hiring practices resulting in "more female and less white employees"

Andrew Bailey, the Republican Attorney General of Missouri, alleges that Starbucks, the king of burnt-tasting coffee, is operating on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) race-and-sex-based hiring practices. Of course, this results in "more female and less white" employees and this is a new federal lawsuit, according to The Hill.

The suit was filed on Feb. 11, in which AG Bailey claims Starbucks violated federal and state anti-discrimination laws that unlawfully segregated employees and provided specific training benefits to select groups, pushing the narrative that the company prioritized DEI practices, which are actually unconstitutional.

Bailey cited data between 2020 and 2024, and accused the coffee chain of using quotas to iron out its workforce and board of directors, saying such hiring practices place other employees at a disadvantage. So it isn't only a racist problem, it's also a sexist one.

“With Starbucks’ discriminatory patterns, practices, and policies, Missouri’s consumers are required to pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services that could be provided for less had Starbucks employed the most qualified workers, regardless of their race, color, sex, or national origin,” Bailey said.

The lawsuit also included a 2021 memo showing that the company aimed to meet specific inclusion and diversity targets. They wanted about 30% of corporate employees to be BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) and 40% in retail and manufacturing by 2025.

Bailey's lawsuit follows after public criticism sparked by President Donald Trump's executive order which banned DEI programs in federal agencies. This led to many big companies reducing their own DEI efforts. Additionally, President Donald Trump told U.S. attorneys general to "encourage the private sector to stop illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI."

Even with the lawsuit ongoing, the coffee company has promised to start mentorship programs for BIPOC workers and offer training for career growth for these groups. But, the Missouri AG believes these efforts by the Seattle-based company might break anti-discrimination laws, suggesting they favor certain racial or ethnic groups. "Starbucks' policies harm the many Missourians who work, or would like to work, at Starbucks but have been, are being, or will be discriminated against as future victims on the basis of their race, sex, or inclusion in other protected groups," the complaint claims, according to CBS News.

However, Starbucks disagrees. In their response, the company said, "We disagree with the attorney general, and these allegations are inaccurate. We are deeply committed to creating opportunities for every single one of our partners (employees). Our programs and benefits are open to everyone and lawful."

"Our hiring practices are inclusive, fair, and competitive and designed to ensure the strongest candidate for every job every time."

Tweet

Cretin News Network worried over defamation suit's outcome as trial heats up

Alright, buckle up, because CNN's in for a wild ride, or should I say, a defamation lawsuit rollercoaster! Here's the scoop from Fox News, and trust me, it's juicier than a five-pound burger at a vegan conference.

CNN's bigwigs are sweating bullets over this defamation case that's hotter than a summer day in Phoenix. They're not just worried about losing their reputation; they're terrified of another massive payout that could make their already dismal ratings look like the good old days. [I refer to the Nick Sandmann case where CNN paid a bundle to the smiling teen.]

Now, while the network's bottom feeders are dealing with sinking viewership and whispers of layoffs, they're also staring down this lawsuit from Navy vet Zach Young. This guy says CNN smeared him worse than a tabloid does to a Hollywood starlet, claiming he was some kind of black market profiteer during the chaotic Afghanistan pullout under Biden.

"It's a big concern of upper management," an insider squealed to Fox News Digital. "All the damning stuff, text messages, etc., has already been published. So I don't think there's concern in terms of exposure. But I think there's definitely concern about the outcome. It seems very likely that CNN is going to have an enormous payout at the end of this."

Young didn't just sit back; he warned CNN's reporter, Alex Marquardt, that he'd see them in court if they aired what he considered a load of bull. He claims CNN "destroyed his reputation and business" by painting him as the bad guy exploiting "desperate Afghans" in a segment aired on "The Lead with Jake Tapper."

The discovery process? Oh, it's like Christmas for lawyers, with internal CNN chats showing editors had doubts but went with the story anyway. And let's not forget the charming language used by CNN staff to describe Young in private.

But, here's the kicker: while this lawsuit is brewing like a witch's potion, the everyday CNN grunt isn't losing sleep over it. They've got other fish to fry, like their own jobs and ratings that are lower than a limbo stick at a beach party.

Another insider spilled, "I don't know if that pans out. But for some reason it hasn't permeated the org at all. And that is probably because the org is in toxic shock daily and crisis at its situation, so there are bigger morale fish to fry." They added, "Ratings, cuts, confusion on strategy, all of the above. Which isn't unique to CNN but is acute at CNN."

CNN, trying to put on a brave face, says, "When all the facts come to light, we are confident we will have a verdict in our favor." Sure, they're as confident as a cat at a dog show.

New CEO Mark Thompson, who's been cleaning up since Licht's departure, isn't denying the pink slips are coming. They're pivoting to digital, but with ratings that would make a ghost town look lively, it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

And let's not forget, CNN's ratings have hit rock bottom, with numbers so low you'd need a microscope to count them. They're losing to the Food Network, for crying out loud!

So, while Thompson's got his game face on, the industry's like a sinking ship with everyone bailing water, from the Washington Post to HuffPost.

"I think people still feel right now it's a very uncertain time in the business overall, so I think that there's still a feeling of, 'what's going to happen to CNN,' and that people don't really know about that," said the insider.

In the end, it's a mess at CNN, and this defamation suit might just be the cherry on top of a very sour sundae. Stay tuned, folks!

Tweet

Daniel Penny may sue Alvin Bragg for malicious prosecution

Now that Daniel Penny has been acquitted of criminally negligent homicide in the death of homeless "subway rider" Jordan Neely, many people have suggested that Penny should sue his prosecutors. It appears that might actually happen.

Just days after his acquittal for the chokehold death of Jordan Neely, Daniel Penny's lawyers are considering filing a malicious prosecution lawsuit against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Bragg had managed to get an indictment against Penny shortly after the police released him, but he couldn't convince the jury that Penny had committed a crime.

"It was clear that there was a fear that if an arrest wasn't made – and made very quickly – that there might be rioting in the streets, and that that may ultimately look very bad for District Attorney Alvin Bragg," said attorney Steven Raiser. "And if that in fact happened, that could affect his re-election."

Raiser also mentioned that the lawsuit might not only target Bragg but could also include Dr. Jason Graham, New York City's chief medical examiner. Graham had concluded that Neely's death was a homicide by strangulation before the toxicology results were available.

Alvin Bragg is one of the most corrupt lawyers, on par with Letitia James, both of whom have used lawfare against president-elect Donald Trump, and now with Bragg maliciously going after a white man because of the racial differences between Penny and Neely.

Bragg's case against Penny was a travesty and a politically motivated witch-hunt and hopefully Penny will take Bragg to the proverbial cleaners.

Tweet

NYC Mayor Adams may be in huge trouble over allegations

"Say whaaat?"

New York City Mayor Eric "Sanctuary City" Adams may be in deep pooh as a new lawsuit has been filed alleging that when he was on the police force in the 1990s, he demanded sexual favors from a colleague in exchange for help with a job situation.

Lorna Beach-Mathura, the mayor's accuser, said she was always passed over for promotions and experienced  "resistance all-too-frequently faced by Black and female NYPD … employees in that era." Adams was at the time a leader in the Transit NYPD Guardians division, so she sought him out for his help.

The lawsuit states, "Instead of helping Plaintiff get fair treatment at the Defendant Transit Bureau, Defendant Adams preyed on her perceived vulnerability, demanding a quid pro quo sexual favor and sexually assaulting Plaintiff, revealing himself not to be the 'Guardian' he purported to be, but a predator." 

A lawyer for the New York City Corporation Counsel, Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, called the allegations "ludicrous," after rap artist Ludacris.

"While we review the complaint, the mayor fully denies these outrageous allegations and the events described here; we expect full vindication in court. Additionally, in 1993, Eric Adams was one of the most prominent public opponents of the racism within the NYPD, which is why the suit’s allegations that he had any sway over promotions of civilian employees is ludicrous," she asserted, in spite of her not actually being sure whether the allegations are true or not.

According to the lawsuit, Beach-Mathura discovered in the fall of 2023 that New York passed a law allowing survivors of sexual assault to come forward years after an attack and thus felt compelled to bring Adams' "behavior to light." And maybe make a few bucks in the deal.

She alleges that Adams said he would help her with an employment problem but instead drove her alone to a vacant lot and requested she perform fellatio on him, which she rejected. Afterward, he continued to sexually assault her, according to the suit.

When Adams ran for mayor, Beach-Mathura said she found his comments on the campaign trail "hypocritical and sanctimonious."

Beach-Mathura alleged in the lawsuit that Adams initially was going to pick her up and give her a ride home to Coney Island to talk. Once in the car, she realized instead that he was headed to an area near the Hudson River, which made her "nervous and scared."

"Plaintiff was frightened not only due to Defendant Adams’ appalling conduct, but also because she knew that he, as a police officer, had at least one loaded gun in the car," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit alleges Adams showed her his wee wee and begged her to perform oral sex. He then placed her hand on his junk. When she refused, he began "celebrating Palm Sunday" in front of her, per the lawsuit, which used a different term.

Beach-Mathura also says Adams told her he needed to get back to work, drove her to a subway station in Manhattan and dropped her off there. He didn't even take her home.

She alleges Adams never helped her with the employment issue and that she eventually left city government in 1994. She now lives in Florida, where she has worked as a public school teacher.

Tweet

Jewish students file discrimination suit against Harvard for "enabling anti-Semitism"

A group of Jewish Harvard students have filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the DEI-centric, anti-Semitic school. The suit claims university officials employ a "double standard" where other groups are protected from harassment and discrimination, but they do not do this when it comes to Jewish students who are targeted.

[H/T The NY Post.]

The suit was filed Wednesday night and alleges that Harvard has allowed students and faculty who have been accused of anti-Semitic act to remain on campus, adding that one time even gave a mob of pro-Palestinian demonstrators with "burritos and candy."

“Harvard’s anti-Semitism cancer — as a past Harvard president termed it — manifests itself as a double standard invidious to Jews,” the lawsuit reads, which was filed in Boston federal court.

“Harvard selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish students’ pleas for protection.”

The lawsuit argues that the university “permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, the murder of Jews, and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world.

“Meanwhile, Harvard requires students to take a training class that warns that they will be disciplined if they engage in ‘sizeism,’ ‘fatphobia,’ ‘racism,’ ‘transphobia’ or other disfavored behavior.”

In addition, and very importantly, the suit said that Harvard officials have  “been aware of its anti-Semitism for years, but its response has been, to say the least, clearly unreasonable and totally unacceptable in not just tolerating, but enabling anti-Semitism.”

The suit goes on to say that even prior to the October 7 attack by the Hamassholes on Israeli citizens, the group Harvard Out of Palestine “led a relentless campaign against retired Israeli Major Gen. Amos Yadlin, a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School of Government” in which students marched through campus in April 2022, banging on drums and using a megaphone to accuse Yadlin of being personally responsible for “genocide.”

Obviously, not only do Harvard students and most other college students in the U.S., not understand what genocide is, they are ignorant, willfully and otherwise, to what Hamas pledges against Israel and Jews in the diaspora. 

Wednesday’s suit comes amid a Congressional investigation into the reports of anti-Semitism on Harvard's campus. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce has demanded Harvard hand over all documents related to Jewish students and anti-Semitism on campus.

It is giving the university just two weeks to comply.

Tweet

Nation of Islam's head anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan sues ADL for $4.8 billion

Notorious Jew-hater and Nation of Islam's leader Louis Farrakhan is suing the Anti-Defamation League, a former civil rights group than now acts on behalf of the Democratic Party for $4,800,000,000. He filed the lawsuit in Manhattan Federal Court and it alleges defamation for calling him out as an anti-Semite. 

"This lawsuit is to ensure that the abuse, misuse, and false use of the terms 'anti-Semite,' 'anti-Semitic,' and 'antisemitism,' as falsely charged by the [ADL] is permanently barred from being a tool to defame [Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam] and stifle the exercise of constitutional rights," the lawsuit read, the New York Post reported Saturday.

The lawsuit "has no merit," according to ADL Director Jonathan Greenblatt.

"Louis Farrakhan is an antisemite," Greenblatt told the Post. "One need look no further than his own words and statements to come away with the same conclusion." Now he can join the ranks of the anti-Semites of Harvard, Yale, Brown, and so on. 

Farrakhan who has been correctly compared to human excrement, has had an oft-criticized and detailed modus operandi of making statements against the nation of Israel and Jews. The POS has even called Adolf Hitler a "great man."

Here's Farrakhan with Obama

However, Farrakhan alleges in his lawsuit that correctly labels him as antisemitic is a "false narrative" pushed by the ADL, according to the report. 

But let's not forget that he referred to Jews as termites: "So when they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you know what they do: Call me an antisemite; stop it. I'm anti-termite," Farrakhan infamously stated, referring to a common pest that is treated by exterminators.

The lawsuit argues Farrakhan "has never harmed a hair on the head of any Jewish person or even advocated for such." BECAUSE HE'S A COWARD AND NOW HE'S 90 YEARS OLD!

Farrakhan called out the "battle of Biblical proportions" against the ADL in the lawsuit filing, which included 787 pages, arguing against his being deemed anti-Semitic, according to the Post.

In another speech from 1998, the Nation of Islam lunatic said, "The Jews have been so bad at politics they lost half their population in the Holocaust."

More recently the Minister of Hate said in 2018, "Jews are responsible for all this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out."

Anti-Semitism has become acceptable in some circles and fashionable in others. It's disgusting and shameful.

Tweet

American Eagle sues San Francisco mall for letting the city "deteriorate into disarray" and crime to run rampant

While octogenarian Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) plans to run again to represent the Democrat-run, crime ridden city of San Francisco when she will be 84 -years-decrepit, many companies are leaving due to the enormous rise in crime, homelessness, lack of law enforcement and human feces on the streets.

The American Eagle Company, one of the largest remaining tenants in the huge Westfield Mall, is suing the shopping center for allowing it to “deteriorate into disarray” and allowing crime to run amok. Not so ironically, the only person who appears to be safe from crime is Nancy Pelosi, but not so much her husband who was attacked not long ago in his own gated home.

American Eagle operates an enormous space in the mall, and the company accused mall management of neglecting its security and management responsibilities delineated in its lease, according to the lawsuit, 

obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle.

The company alleges that between May 2020 and May 2023, the store was the scene of over 100 "significant security incidents" that includes customers flashing guns and verbally assaulting its employees.

As a result, the staff were left “to suffer and respond to gun violence, physical assaults, burglaries, and robberies,” American Eagle says. [H/T New York Post]

The guns declined to respond to the accusation.

If you think the ice cream is expensive, you should see her freezer

In June, Westfield and co-owner Brookfield Properties said they would default on its $558 million loan for the complex and blamed the San Francisco's government for surging crime that slashed sales and unarmed foot traffic. 

Still, American Eagle believes Westfield is also at fault.

“Westfield cannot walk away from the harm that it has caused without consequence,” states the lawsuit filed Monday in San Francisco Superior Court. “It must be held accountable for the damages caused by its failures and broken promises.”

Westfield said earlier this year that foot traffic in the mall decreased to 5.6 million visits last year — down significantly from 9.7 million in 201 and, a 43% drop at a time when its US Flagship portfolio saw a 98% recovery. People are afraid of the violence they see all over the city and don't want to put their lives in their hands just for an Auntie Ann's Pretzel.

Sales declined to $298 million in December 2022 from $455 million in 2019, the company said.

Westfield management has declined to comment because the company has not yet been served the lawsuit, according to The Chronicle.

American Eagle is demanding “all actual and compensatory monetary damages” for breach of contract regarding mall security and maintenance outlined in the lease, which runs through 2028.

The suit comes as a number of major businesses in San Francisco have shuttered their doors, including Nordstrom in San Francisco Centre and a number of other stores at the mall.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi enjoys her $12 ice cream from her $24,000 freezer as she hears the latest insider trading information to pay for it all.

Tweet

Girl sues hospital for cutting off her breasts at age 13

Gender mutilation has zero evidence it saves lives, but it sounds good

A California female, Layla Jane, is suing the hospital that was caught up in the transgender ideology and cut off her breasts when she was just 13-years-old.

It appeared to begin two years prior to the bilateral mastectomy when Jane was showing symptoms of mental and emotional problems and was convinced that she was a boy "in the wrong body." When she turned 13, she had been coaxed fully into "transition" which led to her breast removal. She is now 18 and she is suing all of the doctors involved, as well as the hospital, for mutilating her body and failing to provide the real help she needed, which would have been mental health intervention.

The doctors and hospital involved carried out “ideological and profit driven medical abuse” by prescribing puberty blockers [drugs often used on sex offenders as 'chemical castration' drugs] along with hormones and finally a bilateral mastectomy.

Jane said that as a young girl she was influenced by people online when she was 11, and told her parents that she was a boy, which pushed them to seek "professional" guidance from doctors.

Jane's parents took her to see three doctors who all told the family that they wouldn't prescribe hormones or puberty blockers for Layla because of her age and emotional issues, and recommended psychotherapy instead.

But then the child was taken to trans-friendly doctors who immediately prescribed hormones and puberty blockers after a single, 75-minute session with a psychiatrist named Susanne Watson. She then had a half-hour appointment with a plastic surgeon, Dr. Winnie Tong who approved Layla for a double mastectomy and by age 13, her breasts had been cut off.

It is now, at age 18, that Jane is undergoing long-term emotional and mental health therapy, but it's too late for her now--she could have used it before this all took place. 

While the defense will attempt to convince the court that she willingly went along with the proposed "treatment," and even requested it herself, she was eleven and her parents are not doctors and were obviously gullible to the self-serving crap they were being told by medical personnel who stood to make a lot of money over the long term.

There is no question that Layla's life will never be the same as the little confused girl who was vulnerable to the lies she was being told online and by supposedly professional "experts." Hopefully, telling her story will open the eyes of other parents and children who are caught up in the newest bizarre craze.

One cannot change their gender by cutting away its reminders. 

Tweet

BREAKING: Tucker Carlson's firing may now be known

Although the precise reason Tucker Carlson was fired from his highly successful cable show on the Fox News Network has not been officially confirmed, it may now be known. The "decider" was apparently Rupert Murdoch. 

Sources have told various outlets that there were several factors involved with Fox's decision. The Los Angeles Times was told that Murdoch was worried about Carlson's coverage of the January 6, 2021 attack on Capitol Hill whereby Carlson downplayed the scene as "mostly peaceful chaos" and said the attack was provoked by government agents.

Carlson was criticized by many people for his opinions, including some Republican senators. “The American people saw what happened on Jan. 6,” Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) explained to reporters. “They’ve seen the people that got injured, they saw the damage to the building. You can’t hide the truth by selectively picking a few minutes out of tapes and saying this is what went on. It’s so absurd. It’s nonsense.”

Another decision to fire Carlson was likely inspired by accusations his ex-producer Abby Grossberg made according to the L.A. Times. She had been moved from Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo to Tucker Carlson Tonight where she claimed she was bullied and a target of anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Grossberg filed a lawsuit against Fox last month, accusing Fox lawyers of coercing her into giving misleading testimony in the legal battle with Dominion Voting Systems, the New York Times wrote.

Axios also cited Grossberg as a factor in Carlson’s exit. The news outlet pointed to Carlson’s attempt to get Fox’s White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, the Fox White House correspondent, fired for fact-checking a tweet from former president Donald Trump.

According to a representative from Dominion Voting Systems, which settled with the outlet for $787.5 million, Carlson's firing was not related to the lawsuit, which accused Fox of defamation for allowing hosts and guests to make false claims about the company regarding election-fraud.

The Dominion discovery process revealed negative comments Carlson made about the company and others, including Trump, who the anchor said he hates passionately.

“Do the executives understand how much credibility and trust we’ve lost with our audience?,” Carlson wrote a day after Fox called the election for Joe Biden, the Washington Post reported. Carlson expressed the same sentiment in another message, using an expletive: “Those f**kers are destroying our credibility,” he wrote.

More information implicating Carlson and legally damaging for Fox News could be out there as the company faces the possibility of additional defamation suits.

Tweet

Alec Baldwin files lawsuit in "Rust" shooting: he's the real victim

No one in their right mind would have Alec Baldwin serve as the starter of a race using a starter's gun after he shot and killed Halyna Hutchins on the set of the movie "Rust." Sure, it was apparently an accident when he took a loaded gun that was supposed to be firing blanks, aimed it at Hutchins and pulled the trigger [which he denies, but the gun was tested and he was lying].

On Friday, the actor filed a lawsuit against the armorer and three others in the "Rust" crew for being responsible for Baldwin not checking to ensure it was loaded with blanks, rather than live rounds. It isn't known how the live round(s) got into the weapon, but somehow it did and Baldwin went on a denial tour in which he did everything except directly blame former President Donald Trump.

The suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court as a cross complaint stemming from a previous suit in which a different member of the crew named Baldwin and the others as defendants.

* * *

Hey folks, consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Critical Race Theory, ignorance, The New York Times, and bovine flatulence. You also help me and the orphans. Thanks.

* * *

The new suit is one of a number of others stemming from the tragedy that happened on October 21, 2021 as the case remains under criminal investigation and could result in New Mexico filing charges and Alec Baldwin getting convicted of a crime rather than simple stupidity and total lack of gun safety knowledge.

Baldwin’s cross complaint names armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, first assistant director Dave Halls, prop supplier Seth Kenney, and prop master Sarah Zachry. Attorneys for Gutierrez-Reed, Halls and Kenney did not immediately respond to requests for statements in their clients’ defense. Reuters could not locate an attorney for Zachry and Darrell Brooks was unavailable to represent him as he is serving his own sentence for mass murder at the Waukesha Christmas Parade last November.

Tweet

Female pilot suing Southwest Airline for retaliating about reporting another pilot for stripping in cockpit

Southwest Airlines pilot Christine Janning is suing the company, her union and a former colleague who pleaded guilty in 2021 for locking the cockpit door during a flight and changing into his birthday suit in front of her.

Janning report Michael Haak to Southwest and the FBI, but the company kept Haak on despite his alleged history of sexual misconduct, and the company managers denigrated her in memos.

She also alleges that the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association conspired with the airline and refused to support her. She is suing Haak for sexual assault, and he pleaded guilty last year to a federal misdemeanor charge of committing a lewd, indecent or obscene act, to which he was sentence to probation.

Haak's lawyer, Michael Salnick, said Wednesday that his client got naked only because Janning encouraged him to do so and said he never did anything else [such as wave 'Mister Doodles' at he or touch her inappropriately]. Salnick also mentioned that there had been no prior incidents by Haak.

Southwest said it supported Janning and that it would "vigorously defend" itself against the lawsuit. The union did not respond to a phone call seeking comment. Although the media generally doesn't publicize the names of sex crime victims, Janning, through her attorney, agreed to use her name.

The lawsuit, filed last week in Orange County, Florida states that Janning had not met Haak before August 2020, when she was his first officer on a flight from Philadelphia to Orlando. She claims Haak, a 27-year veteran of Southwest, had used his seniority right the previous day to bump another pilot who was scheduled to captain the flight, but she believes he did so because he saw that his first officer was a woman.

Janning said that when they reached cruising altitude, Haak told her this was his final flight and there was something he wanted to do before retirement. So he allegedly bolted the cockpit door, put the aircraft on autopilot, stripped off his clothes and began watching pornography on his laptop. Then he apparently began cuffing the carrot for a half hour while taking photos and videos of himself.

Haak's shyster lawyer, Salnick, claimed that it was Janning who asked Haak if there was anything he wanted to do before retiring, implying, of course, that she was making him a sexual offer. He said Haak rejected those and also denied Haak ever went into manual override.

But think about it--she didn't know him, was his subordinate, and also has no history of sexual improprieties. So the probability of her making advances on him seem rather remote.

At his sentencing hearing last year, Haak called the incident "a consensual prank" that got out of hand [no pun intended].

Of course, Janning's attorney, Frank Podesta, denied she encouraged Haak or made any advances.

Janning said in the lawsuit that she was "horrified," but she kept flying the plane while taking photos "to create a record." The plane landed safely.

And that wasn’t Haak’s final flight — he flew for three more weeks.

Unfortunately, Janning didn’t report the incident to a Southwest employee relations investigator until three months later. She said she waited because her boss had previously disparaged her to a male colleague. She said she asked the investigator not to inform her boss, but she did.

Janning said she was soon told that because Haak had retired, the airline's investigation was closed. She decided to go to the FBI and Haak was charged. Janning claims the company had sent Haak to a sexual harassment counseling center in Montreal after an incident in 2008 involving a flight attendant, but Salnick claims the incident never happened and his client was never sent for counseling.

"This person will do and say whatever is necessary to obtain a financial windfall. I feel sorry for her," Salnick, who doesn't like money, said.

Janning said as retaliation for the FBI report, she was grounded for more than three months, costing her part of her salary. She was then required to take "unnecessary" flight simulator training before she could work again. Personally, I believe that the company requiring her to take the simulator training after being grounded for that period of time was actually a good idea.

She also said that on the day she was grounded, the airline stranded her in Denver and the FBI had to book her a United Airlines flight so she could return home to Florida. She said a Southwest manager sent a memo to more than 25 employees "that made baseless allegations" about her flying competency.

* * *

Hey folks, consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Critical Race Theory, ignorance, The New York Times, and bovine flatulence. You also help me. Thanks.

* * *

Southwest denied Janning's allegations, saying "we immediately supported (Janning) by cooperating with the appropriate outside agencies as they investigated."

"Our corporate Culture is built upon treating others with mutual respect and dignity, and the events alleged in this situation are inconsistent with the behavior that we require of our Employees," the statement read.

No hearings have been scheduled to date.

Tweet

Grad student sues her college after receiving "no contact" orders

A Christian graduate student at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville allegedly issued three no-contact orders against her for expressing her conservative political opinions. [H/T Fox News]

She is suing the school administration and staff in the art therapy program.

“I was alarmed when I had received three no-contact orders that prevented me from having direct or indirect communication with these three students,” Art therapy student Maggie Dejong said Friday on “Fox & Friends First.”

“Essentially, they were restraining orders that applied to on and off-campus,” Dejong explained, and if true, seems to go beyond the purview of the institution.

No-contact orders and no-communication orders are the way the University restricts students by preventing them to even attempt communicating with other students either directly or indirectly. You might say it's a violation of the First Amendment, but then they would have to kill you, or something.

These restrictions are designed to be used in Title IX cases involving sexual harassment or misconduct. In Dejong's case, it's apparently being abused, as is she.

Near the end of last year of her three-year graduate degree program, the University's director for Equal Opportunity, Access and Title IX Coordination, Jamie Ball, imposed three no-contact orders after three snowflakes were upset with Dejong's political convictions. They evidently felt scared to walk outside their safe areas where people with different opinions, backed up with facts and logic, make them feel threatened and in danger of losing their opinions based on their deeply entrenched feelings.

Ball informed Dejong about the orders’ issuances in a series of emails on February 10, according to a copy of the original lawsuit shared on conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom’s website. You need to read the legal complaint--it's clear and beautifully written. It even points out that two of the students who somehow felt harmed by Dejong, are practicing witches.

The no-contact orders were rescinded on February 28 after Dejong sent an attorney letter to the school, but they were once again imposed the following month.

The Title IX coordination director, Jamie Ball, warned Dejong that she was ordered to have “no contact” or no “indirect communications” with the three students and that if she disregarded the no-contact orders, she could face repercussions, the lawsuit stated.

Ashley Strohmier, Dejong’s lawyer and ADF senior counsel Tyson Langhoffer told Fox News that the University issued the orders even though she “never violated any university policy.” This is also included in the complaint.

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

“Yet the university issued no-contact orders against her, prohibiting her from fully participating in classes, including discussions about race relations and the police, simply because they deemed her or her beliefs as unwelcome,” Langhoffer said.

“Universities can’t issue no-contact orders and tell students they can’t speak with other students simply for expressing their views,” Langhoffer added,

I hope Dejong wins and wins bigly.

Tweet

Texas sues Facebook bigly: says FB was 'secretly capturing' users' "highly sensitive information"

The great state of Texas is suing Facebook's parent company, Meta Platforms Inc., alleging they violated the state's privacy protections, as the media giant faces more legal battles.

The lawsuit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. It states that Facebook unlawfully collected facial recognition data without user consent, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Meta has discontinued their facial recognition technology, which was often used for “tag suggestions” to encourage users to link photos to a friend’s profile, which would add to the data collection.

The Texas lawsuit alleges that Facebook should be responsible for billions of dollars in damages. Paxton said that the company violated the privacy laws of Texas by using the biometric data of millions throughout the state, both those who used Facebook and those who did not.

“In this action, the State alleges that Facebook unlawfully captured the biometric identifiers of Texans for a commercial purpose without their informed consent, disclosed those identifiers to others and failed to destroy collected identifiers within a reasonable time, all in violation of the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act,” the lawsuit states.

Paxton also released a statement alleging the company captured facial geometry in photos that users uploaded from 2010 to last year — when Facebook discontinued their facial recognition. This resulted in “tens of million of violations” of Texas law.

“Facebook has been secretly harvesting Texans’ most personal information — photos and videos — for its own corporate profit,” Paxton said, the WSJ reported.

“Texas law has prohibited such harvesting without informed consent for over 20 years. While ordinary Texans have been using Facebook to innocently share photos of loved ones with friends and family, we now know that Facebook has been brazenly ignoring Texas law for the last decade,” he added.

“‘Facebook was secretly capturing, disclosing, unlawfully retaining — and profiting off of — Texans’ most personal and highly sensitive information,” the complaint reads, according to the WSJ.

Texas law makes it unlawful to capture people’s biometric identifiers without consent. The state’s laws also prohibit sharing any identifier information. 

The Texas law provides a $25,000 fine per violation and with millions of Texans using the platform, the lawsuit is estimated to run billions of dollars in damages, the WSJ wrote.

Paxton condemned “Big Tech” in general for illegal practices like this, and said that Facebook must stop taking advantage of its users in this way.

“Facebook will no longer take advantage of people and their children with the intent to turn a profit at the expense of one’s safety and well-being. This is yet another example of Big Tech’s deceitful business practices, and it must stop. I will continue to fight for Texans’ privacy and security,” Paxton said in a statement.

While this lawsuit is quite significant because it's coming from a state, other similar lawsuits have been levied against the company.

Last year Facebook settled a class action suit that users brought against it. The suit said that user data has been used without consent. Facebook settled for $650 million, NPR, a taxpayer-funded, left wing outlet reported.

In addition to class action suits, the Federal Trade Commission and other state attorney generals have filed suits against Meta, like the one in 2019, when the company agreed to create more oversight in a privacy settlement with the FTC and also had to pay a $5 billion fine.

* * *

For more hard-hitting content, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against global warming and COVID-19.

* * *

“The FTC and nearly every state attorney general are also seeking to break up Meta for allegedly squashing competition to maintain its dominance in social networking,” The Times reported.

Meta has been vocal about defending itself in these suits, however.

“These claims are without merit, and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” a spokesperson for Meta said, The Times reported.

Hopefully, the Texas lawsuit will succeed and Facebook will get what it deserves.

Tweet

Texas ENT Doctor accused of spreading 'misinformation' and suspended, sues the hospital

Houston, Texas ear, nose and throat specialist Dr. Mary Bowden, runs a private practice and announced Monday that she is suiting Houston Methodist Hospital after they accused her of spreading "misinformation" about COVID-19, FOX 26 Houston reported.

Who does she think she is anyway--Anthony Fauci or the CDC?

Her lawsuit seeks data from the hospital detailing the effects of the vaccines and financial reports.

Dr. Bowden held provisional privileges at Houston Methodist prior to she resigned in mid-November of last year after a public dispute with the hospital.

Houston Methodist Hospital posted a series of tweets in November that Bowden had been using her social media to express political opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments, the FOX 26 reports. The hospital powers that be accused her of "spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based in science" [aka Dr. Fauci].

Bowden said, "Vaccine mandates are wrong" and highlighted her attempts to prescribe patients Ivermectin, a controversial drug hailed as a coronavirus treatment option by some, but apparently shows some efficacy as witnessed by Joe Rogan's recovery and perhaps those of myriad Indians.

Methodist hospital said Bowden had never admitted a patient at the hospital.

Bowden held a press conference in November and said the way Methodist hospital handled the situation led to her name being "vilified" and people calling her "the sister of the devil." She said her focus was on treating the unvaccinated and she wanted to "eliminate the mandates" and let "people have a choice."

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

How horrible is that--people actually having a choice as if it's their body and choice and not Big Pharma's.

Don't be surprised gentle reader, to discover, perhaps years from now, that those who touted the vaccines and boosters, and more boosters, had lined their pockets with incredible wealth of insatiable proportion.

Tweet

CNN's Jeff Zucker just said this about Chris Cuomo

The Creative News Network (CNN) is ready to kick butt and take dog tags when it comes to Chris "Fredo" Cuomo who was fired for helping his large nostrilled brother, Andrew "Handy Andy" Cuomo fight the myriad sexual harassment allegations made against him when he was the Covid killer Democratic Gov. of New York. And Fredo was also hit with his own sexual misconduct allegations and besides, he is a really crappy reporter, but the women like his buffed bod.

"Based on the report we received regarding Chris's conduct with his brother's defense, we had cause to terminate. When new allegations came to us this week, we took them seriously, and saw no reason to delay taking immediate action," CNN said in a statement.

At a virtual town hall with employees, CNN President Jeff Zucker said that he had "reprimanded" Chris in May 2021, and advised him that he shouldn't get involved in his brother's scandal. And if you believe that you might also be persuaded into buying a lovely bridge I have for sale.

Fredo, however, claims that Zucker was fully aware that he was helping Andrew fight the claims, [albeit in an unethical manner as he tried to smear one of the women who was handy to Andy at the time]. CNN has denied knowing about this claim.

"He has made a number of accusations that are patently false," the failing network said in a statement (per Daily Mail). "This reinforces why he was terminated for violating our standards and practices, as well as his lack of candor."

Besides being booted from CNN, Fredo has also stepped down from his radio show on SiriusXM.  To add insult to unethical behavior,  his book, "Deep Denial," which was scheduled to come out in fall 2022, has been scrapped by the publisher.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

The clincher of this entire story is that CNN refuses to give Fredo severance pay, which Zucker revealed at a virtual town hall with employees. This withholding of severance is due to the fact that Fredo was not forthcoming about his involvement with Andrew's defense, Zucker explained. "Chris had gone further than he had told me and told other members of our senior executive team," he reportedly said, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Fredo is ready to fight back, and remember, he lifts weights and is an Italian stallion. He is hiring lawyers to sue the network for more than $18 million, the amount left on his four-year contract. But CNN has "no intention of paying [Chris] Cuomo a penny. If he gets a settlement, there would be uproar," adding that "CNN has a standard morality clause in their contract that says if the employee does anything of disrepute, they can be immediately fired."

CNN is now looking for a replacement for Fredo's primetime slot and Brian Stelter is chomping at the bit and chomping on cheesecake for the job. 

Tweet

Trump accuser drops her lawsuit for defamation

Summer Zervos is a former contestant on "The Apprentice" and was suing former President Donald Trump for defamation on Friday.  

She dropped her defamation lawsuit  that was filed in Manhattan Supreme Court that said the case was dismissed and discontinued without prejudice. This means that she cannot file the same claim in the future in state court.

The case had been in litigation for four years and the ruling now is that both parties are responsible for their own costs.

Zervos had accused Trump of groping and kissing her against her will in 2007 in a hotel in Beverly Hills while she was a contestant on his show. The accusation came nine years after the alleged incident, coincidentally right in time for Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign. 

Zervos sued the then-president in 2017, saying that he had defamed her when he publicly called her a “liar” and said her accusations were “totally made up stuff” and “fake news.” Actually, it seems like Trump was being kind to her by simply calling her a liar--she seems to be more of a political whore.

Her attorneys, Beth Wilkinson and Moira Penza, said that “after five years, Ms. Zervos no longer wishes to litigate against the defendant and has secured the right to speak freely about her experience.”

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

She'll probably go for a book deal because that's what political whores do when they want to get paid for their allegations. Look at Andrew Cuomo, for example.

“Zervos stands by the allegations in her complaint and has accepted no compensation,” they said in a statement. 

Until her book deal.

Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, said in a statement that Zervos ". . . had no choice but to do so as the facts unearthed in this matter made it abundantly clear that our client did nothing wrong,”

“It is so sad when things like this can happen, but so incredibly important to fight for the truth and justice. Only victory can restore one’s reputation!” Trump said in his own statement.

But will Trump run again in 2024?

Tweet

Judge allows Dershowitz's $300M lawsuit against CNN to proceed.

Professor Alan Dershowitz, the famous civil liberties attorney, will be allowed to go forward in his $300 million lawsuit against the Compromised News Network (CNN) and move to depositions.

The shysters for CNN--excluding Jeffrey Toobin who was not on hand and thus unavailable--filed a motion to dismiss in November but a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida didn't agree with their argument and said Dershowitz can proceed. 

The lawsuit states that CNN unfairly edited comments from Dershowitz about whether former President Trump could have been impeached if he committed an illegal act that he believed was in the public interest.

Dershowitz says in the lawsuit that garbage network repeated played that clip over and over in order to make him appear as if he "had lost his mind." 

Following the airing of that clip over and over again, the hosts, together with their panel guests, including CNN employees and paid commentators, exploded into a one-sided and false narrative that Professor Dershowitz believes and argued that as long as the President believes his reelection is in the public interest, that he could do anything at all – including illegal acts – and be immune from impeachment. The very notion of that was preposterous and foolish on its face, and that was the point: to falsely paint Professor Dershowitz as a constitutional scholar and intellectual who had lost his mind.

CNN's attorneys argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed based on the fair reporting privilege of the press.

Dershowitz explained on Newsmax that the fair reporting privilege didn't extend to CNN's actions exactly because they unfairly misrepresented what he said. 

"They took out the words 'lawful and illegal' in order, deliberately, to convey the impression that I thought the president could engage in illegal and unlawful conduct and still not be impeached, exactly the opposite of what I said," said Dershowitz.

In an email to Law & Crime, Dershowitz [who had to be smiling when he wrote it] said he was looking forward to "deposing the commentators and heads of CNN and of the truth coming out."

If you have any stock in that network, it's time to sell.

 (@HeatherCherone) May 18, 2021

Lightfoot’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Wire or Fox News.

Australian political commentator Rita Panahi responded to the allegations by writing on Twitter: “More ‘anti-racist’ racism. Almost amusing how regressive race-obsession is celebrated among the Left.”


More "anti-racist" racism. Almost amusing how regressive race-obsession is celebrated among the Left. https://t.co/VtzpQyfklg

— Rita Panahi (@RitaPanahi) May 19, 2021

“Racism in the name of wokeism is still racism,” another commentator said. Another added, “So wouldn’t that make her a racist?”

Progressive writer Zaid Jilani wrote: “Is she going to do some kinda DNA test to assure she upholds this rule?”


Is she going to do some kinda DNA test to assure she upholds this rule? https://t.co/9d7rXZTnCV

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) May 19, 2021

“It is unclear when such a practice was enacted and if it only applies to local reporters, particularly after her MSNBC appearance with Stephanie Ruhle on Monday,” Fox News reported. “During her MSNBC interview, Lightfoot told Ruhle she would ‘encourage’ Chicago residents to continue wearing masks despite the new CDC guidance allowing those with the coronavirus vaccine to go without them.”

“I know for me personally, I’m going to continue to wear a mask in public and I’m going to encourage others to do so,” Lightfoot told Ruhle. “We’ve got to make sure that people are continuing to follow the public health guidance that has gotten us this far, and masks, I think, are a big and important part of that.”

Lightfoot said on Tuesday afternoon that her decision to continue to encourage people to wear masks was not based on distrust of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“But I think their guidance last week regarding masks has people confused…We need clarification,” Lightfoot said. “We still have a long way to go to hit the critical mass (of vaccinations) or herd immunity. I don’t want people to have false confidence.”

“To say, ‘If you’re vaccinated, you don’t have to wear a mask,’ that’s great. But what about all of the other people who are out there that aren’t vaccinated?” Lightfoot added. “There’s no way to know that. So I think for the time being, most people are gonna continue to wear masks outside of their homes.”

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Determines Who Interviews Her Based On Race, Local Reporters Claim

Please consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against the China virus.

Tweet