Since Trump was almost assassinated, many Americans have been calling for severe scrutiny into the Secret Service. But no one was prepared for what they would find.

And now, a shocking new recording from the assassination attempt has revealed major Secret Service failures.

The aftermath of the Butler, Pennsylvania rally in July has revealed a startling lapse in security that nearly resulted in tragedy.

Recently released body camera footage from local police has exposed a shocking conversation in which a frustrated officer lambasted the Secret Service for failing to secure a crucial area where an assailant, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was able to fire multiple shots at former President Donald Trump.

The footage, first reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, has raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of the Secret Service and the coordination between federal and local law enforcement.

In the body camera footage, an officer is heard expressing his frustration with the Secret Service’s handling of security at the rally. The officer, whose identity has not been disclosed, recounted a conversation he had with the Secret Service just days before the event.

“I fcking told them that they needed to post guys fcking over here…I told them that f*cking Tuesday,” the officer said, referring to the building where Crooks ultimately positioned himself to take his shots.

The officer further explained that he had warned the Secret Service about the potential threat and was assured that agents would be stationed at the location. “I talked to the Secret Service guys. They’re like, ‘Yeah, no problem. We’re going to post guys over here,’” he said.

Despite these assurances, Crooks was able to reach the building and fire off eight shots before being neutralized by a counter-sniper who was positioned closer to the stage where Trump was delivering his speech.

The body camera footage also captured a disturbing exchange between officers in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. One officer, arriving at the warehouse where Crooks had been stationed, expressed his confusion and dismay, saying, “I thought you guys were on the roof. I thought it was you. I thought it was you.”

When the other officer responded with a simple “No,” it became clear that no one had been assigned to secure the roof, despite the officer’s earlier warnings.

This breakdown in communication between local police and the Secret Service is deeply troubling, especially given the high-profile nature of the event and the obvious security risks.

The fact that Crooks was able to get into position and fire off eight shots before being stopped is a testament to the gravity of the security lapse.

The revelations from the body camera footage have cast a harsh light on the leadership of the Secret Service. Former Director Kimberly Cheatle, who has since resigned, and Acting Director Ronald Rowe are both facing intense scrutiny over the incident.

Both leaders have claimed that local police were supposed to be securing the building from which Crooks launched his attack.

However, the body cam footage suggests that this was not the case, and that the Secret Service may have failed to adequately communicate or follow through on security plans.

Critics argue that the Secret Service’s failure to properly secure the rally site is indicative of a broader issue within the agency. This incident is not the first time the Secret Service has faced criticism for lapses in security.

Over the years, there have been numerous incidents where the agency’s preparedness and execution have been called into question.

The Butler rally shooting is just the latest in a series of missteps that have raised doubts about the agency’s ability to protect high-profile figures.

The events in Butler serve as a stark reminder of the dangers of complacency in security operations. Despite the officer’s warnings and the clear risks associated with a rally of this magnitude, the necessary precautions were not taken. This failure nearly resulted in a catastrophic event that could have had far-reaching consequences.

The officer’s frustration, as captured on the body camera footage, is palpable and justified. He was doing his job, identifying potential risks and communicating them to the appropriate authorities.

The fact that his warnings were not heeded speaks volumes about the breakdown in security protocols and the need for a thorough review of the Secret Service’s operations.

In the wake of this incident, there have been growing calls for accountability within the Secret Service. The American people deserve to know why this lapse in security occurred and what steps are being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.

It is not enough for the agency to simply move on from this event without a thorough investigation and a commitment to addressing the underlying issues that allowed it to happen.

The Secret Service is tasked with one of the most important responsibilities in the country: protecting the nation’s leaders.

When they fail in that mission, the consequences can be dire. The Butler rally shooting should serve as a wake-up call for the agency and a reminder that there is no room for error when it comes to the safety and security of the country’s highest officials.

As the investigation into the Butler rally shooting continues, it is crucial that all aspects of the incident are thoroughly examined. This includes not only the actions of the Secret Service but also the communication and coordination between federal and local law enforcement.

The failure to secure the building from which Crooks fired his shots was not just a minor oversight; it was a fundamental breakdown in the security process that nearly cost lives.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for all of your news needs.

Ever since Joe Biden dropped out of the race, people have been wondering when Harris and Trump will debate. But it seems Harris is scared.

And Kamala Harris has stunned the nation with her newest debate promises.

In a political landscape where transparency and public engagement are paramount, Vice President Kamala Harris’s decision to commit to only one of the three proposed debates with former President Donald Trump has raised eyebrows and questions about her willingness to engage with the American people.

The move, which came after Trump announced his agreement to three debates, has sparked criticism and fueled speculation about Harris’s readiness to lead.

On Thursday, Trump confirmed that he had agreed to three debates: one on September 4th with Fox News, another on September 10th with ABC, and a final one on September 25th with NBC. These debates were set to provide voters with a clear comparison between the two candidates on a national stage, yet Harris has only committed to the September 10th debate.

When pressed by reporters about whether she would participate in all three debates, Harris responded vaguely, “I am looking forward to it,” before quickly pivoting to confirm her attendance at only one debate.

Kamala says she is “looking forward to debating Donald Trump” on September 10, but doesn’t respond when asked about the other two debates.

pic.twitter.com/y7Uy6PHXAr

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 8, 2024

This non-committal stance from Harris is not just puzzling; it’s a disservice to the American electorate. In a time when voters are seeking clarity and direct answers from those who wish to lead the nation, Harris’s reluctance to fully engage in these debates signals a concerning avoidance of public scrutiny.

Debates are not merely political theater—they are an essential component of the democratic process, providing a platform for candidates to present their visions, challenge their opponents, and answer the tough questions that the American people deserve to have answered.

Harris’s hesitation to commit to all three debates fits into a broader pattern of avoidance that has marked her campaign since she became the Democratic nominee for president.

In the nearly 20 days since her elevation to the top of the ticket, Harris has failed to hold a single press conference. This is a striking departure from the norm, particularly for a candidate who is now vying for the highest office in the land.

Moreover, Harris has largely avoided engaging with the press, taking only a handful of questions from reporters and refusing to give any interviews. Instead, she has relied on carefully crafted stump speeches, delivered repeatedly without the challenge of follow-up questions or unscripted moments.

This controlled approach may be designed to keep her on message, but it also raises serious concerns about her willingness to engage with the media and, by extension, the American people.

Reports indicate that Harris has provided off-the-record briefings to the reporters traveling with her, but these behind-the-scenes interactions are no substitute for the transparency and accountability that come with public press conferences and interviews.

The American people deserve to hear directly from their candidates, to see them challenged on their policies, and to judge their responses in real-time. By avoiding these opportunities, Harris is denying voters the chance to fully assess her fitness for office.

Harris’s reluctance to engage in multiple debates is particularly troubling given the circumstances surrounding her ascension to the Democratic ticket. The September 10th debate was originally agreed upon by Trump and Joe Biden, who was then the Democratic presidential candidate.

However, with Biden’s abrupt removal from the ticket and Harris’s subsequent elevation, the dynamics of the race have fundamentally changed. Despite this significant shift, Harris has insisted that Trump stick to the debate schedule originally set for Biden.

This insistence on maintaining the previous debate schedule, while simultaneously refusing to commit to the other two debates, suggests a lack of confidence in her ability to face Trump on an equal footing.

If Harris truly believes in the strength of her policies and her ability to lead, she should welcome the opportunity to engage in multiple debates, where she can present her case to the American people and directly contrast her vision with Trump’s.

Harris’s reluctance to engage in more than one debate and her avoidance of the press beg the question: What is she hiding? Is she concerned that her policies will not stand up to the scrutiny of a national audience? Or is she simply unwilling to face the tough questions that inevitably come with a rigorous campaign?

Whatever the reason, Harris’s strategy of avoidance does not inspire confidence. The American people are looking for a leader who is willing to engage openly and honestly, who is not afraid to face challenges head-on, and who is prepared to answer the difficult questions that come with the territory of being president.

By refusing to fully engage in the debate process and by avoiding the press, Harris is sending the opposite message.

Debates are a cornerstone of the democratic process. They offer voters a unique opportunity to see candidates interact with one another, respond to criticisms, and clarify their positions on critical issues.

For many voters, debates are a key factor in deciding which candidate to support. By participating in debates, candidates demonstrate their commitment to transparency, accountability, and the democratic process.

Harris’s decision to sidestep two of the three proposed debates undermines this process. It deprives voters of the chance to see her challenged on her policies and to witness how she handles direct confrontation.

In a race as consequential as the 2024 presidential election, the American people deserve more than carefully scripted speeches and limited engagement. They deserve a candidate who is willing to stand up, face the opposition, and make the case for why they are the best choice to lead the nation.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left is doing everything they can to push their agenda on America. But people are fighting back.

And now, a Republican Governor has dealt a massive blow to the Left’s Radical Agenda.

This week, Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia made a decisive move to bolster the state’s election security, removing more than 6,300 non-citizens from the voter rolls. This action is part of a broader effort led by Youngkin to ensure the integrity of Virginia’s elections—a move that has sparked both praise and controversy.

On Wednesday, Youngkin signed an executive order directing the Virginia Department of Elections to remove non-citizens who may have either intentionally or inadvertently registered to vote.

This effort didn’t stop there; the state also identified and removed 79,867 deceased voters from the rolls and flagged voters who had moved out of state.

Youngkin’s message was clear: Virginia is taking election security seriously, and every legal vote must be counted without being diluted by illegal or ineligible votes.

Youngkin’s approach to election security is being framed as a bipartisan issue—one that transcends party lines and focuses on the fundamental principle of American democracy: fair and accurate elections.

“The Virginia model for Election Security works. This isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue, it’s an American and Virginian issue,” Youngkin stated, emphasizing that the integrity of elections should be a concern for all citizens, regardless of political affiliation.

However, the issue is far from nonpartisan. Critics argue that these measures may disproportionately affect minority communities and could be part of a larger strategy to suppress voter turnout among groups more likely to vote Democrat.

Proponents, on the other hand, see these actions as necessary steps to protect the sanctity of the ballot box in an era where trust in the electoral process has been eroded.

The removal of non-citizens from the voter rolls was accomplished by cross-referencing data from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with information from the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration.

This effort was part of a comprehensive data-sharing agreement that Virginia entered into with seven states, allowing for a broader sweep of voter rolls and ensuring that only eligible voters are registered.

Interestingly, Virginia is one of only three states that require those registering to vote to provide their full nine-digit Social Security number, a measure that undoubtedly facilitated this extensive review. This requirement is something that other states might struggle to replicate, given varying voter registration laws and the pushback against what some see as overly intrusive requirements.

Youngkin’s election security measures come on the heels of significant changes to Virginia’s voting procedures, implemented by a Democrat-controlled legislature. These changes included extended early voting periods and expanded mail-in voting, measures that Republicans have criticized as opening the door to potential voter fraud.

Youngkin, while acknowledging the reality of these voting methods, has insisted on increased security measures, including 24/7 monitoring of drop boxes and stricter controls on absentee ballots.

For example, under the new executive order, absentee ballots in Virginia can only be counted if the last four digits of a voter’s Social Security number and their year of birth match the voter’s record in the statewide voter registration system.

Additionally, absentee ballots can only be mailed out upon a voter’s request—a move aimed at curbing unsolicited mail-in ballots, which some Republicans argue are prone to abuse.

The implications of these actions extend beyond Virginia. With election security a hot-button issue across the country, other states may look to Virginia’s model as a blueprint for their own efforts to secure the vote. However, the success of such measures will likely depend on the political landscape of each state and the specific legal frameworks in place.

The use of paper ballots, as mandated by Youngkin’s executive order, is another significant aspect of Virginia’s election security plan.

The shift away from electronic voting systems provides a tangible, verifiable record of votes cast, addressing concerns about potential vulnerabilities in electronic voting machines.

The order also gives Virginia’s Attorney General full authority to enforce election laws, a provision that could lead to increased legal action against individuals or organizations deemed to be in violation of election regulations.

Governor Youngkin’s actions in Virginia reflect a growing trend among Republican-led states to tighten election security in response to concerns about voter fraud and election integrity.

Many Americans argue that these actions are necessary to restore confidence in the electoral process, particularly in a time when distrust in government institutions is at an all-time high.

Secure elections are the cornerstone of democracy and ensuring only eligible voters participate is a non-negotiable part of that security.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Typically the media takes the side of the Radical Left. So you know things are really bad when even the media sides against them.

And now, Democrats have suffered a massive loss after the media betrays them and exposes their dark secrets.

Just over two weeks after Vice President Kamala Harris ascended to the top of the Democratic Party’s 2024 ticket, the media has reluctantly started to turn its attention to the pressing questions surrounding her newly-selected running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

The move comes amid growing concerns about the authenticity of Walz’s self-described military career, raising significant doubts about his credibility.

During a recent segment, CNN tackled the controversy head-on, shedding light on allegations that Walz had embellished his 24-year service in the Minnesota National Guard.

For years, Walz has carefully crafted an image of a seasoned military man, a narrative that has played well in the political arena. But now, as the stakes rise with his elevation to the national stage, those claims are coming under scrutiny.

One of the most damning allegations against Walz is the accusation of “stolen valor,” a term used to describe individuals who falsely claim military service or exaggerate their experiences to gain respect or advantages.

The accusation stems from comments Walz has made over the years, where he suggested that he had been in combat situations—claims that are not backed by evidence.

In one instance, Walz reportedly told a group that he had carried weapons in a fighting situation. As anyone familiar with the military knows, there is a stark difference between serving during a time of war and actually engaging in combat where lives are on the line. The evidence, or rather the lack thereof, strongly suggests that Walz has never been in such a position.

The controversy gained further traction when a video clip, posted by Kamala Harris’ campaign, began to circulate on social media.

In the clip, Walz attempts to leverage his military background to advocate for an assault weapons ban and stricter gun control measures.

The problem? Walz seemed to imply that he had personally carried such weapons in an active war zone—a statement that raised more than a few eyebrows.

“I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt,” Walz proclaimed at a campaign event. “I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can do CDC … We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are carried.”

The assertion that Walz carried “weapons of war” into battle was quickly debunked. Jim LaPorta, a respected journalist with a deep understanding of military affairs, offered a swift fact-check.

“Quick fact check: No, Gov. Walz did not spend 25 years in the Army, it’s 24 years, 1 month and 9 days. No, he did not carry a weapon of war in war. In 2003, he deployed to Italy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom,” LaPorta clarified.

While the media has finally started to ask some questions about Walz, the broader landscape of legacy media remains conspicuously silent on the deeper implications of his exaggerations.

Even more concerning is the lack of scrutiny directed at Kamala Harris herself, the presidential candidate who, despite rising to the top of the Democratic ticket, has yet to face a single hard question or give a meaningful interview since her promotion.

Harris’ selection of Walz as her running mate appears to be more about optics than substance. After all, how could a candidate who has yet to prove her own electability in a primary setting choose someone with a track record of embellishing the truth?

This raises serious concerns about the Democratic ticket’s commitment to honesty and transparency—qualities that should be paramount in any administration.

This isn’t the first time Walz has been caught bending the truth. Throughout his political career, he has repeatedly tried to paint himself as something he’s not—a battle-hardened warrior who has seen the horrors of war firsthand.

The truth, however, is far less glamorous. Walz served honorably in the Minnesota National Guard, but there is no evidence to suggest that he ever found himself in a combat situation or that he carried the kind of “weapons of war” he now wants to ban.

Walz’s misleading statements are more than just harmless exaggerations; they represent a pattern of deception that should concern every voter. If he’s willing to stretch the truth about his military service to score political points, what else is he willing to lie about? His past comments suggest a politician who is more interested in crafting a narrative than in telling the truth.

The decision by Kamala Harris to choose Walz as her running mate calls into question her judgment as well. If Harris is willing to align herself with someone who has a questionable relationship with the truth, what does that say about her own values? More importantly, what does it say about the direction in which she plans to take the country?

The Democratic Party has long been criticized for its embrace of political correctness and its tendency to put style over substance. Walz’s selection as Harris’ running mate only serves to reinforce those criticisms.

Rather than choosing a running mate based on merit and integrity, Harris seems to have opted for someone who fits a particular narrative, even if that narrative is built on shaky ground.

While the media’s newfound interest in Walz is a step in the right direction, it’s clear that much more needs to be done. Both Walz and Harris should be held accountable for their actions and their words. The American people deserve nothing less.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Ever since harris picked Tim Walz as her VP candidate, many people have been speaking out against him. And some of the accusations are horrific.

But now, Harris’ VP pick has been blasted by a representative from his own state, and people are shocked about why.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has been thrust into the national spotlight, as the vice-presidential pick for Kamala Harris. But rather than being a symbol of leadership or competence, Walz represents the far-left extremism that has come to define the modern Democratic Party.

His possible rise to the national stage should concern every American who values common sense, economic stability, and the preservation of our nation’s core principles.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) didn’t mince words during a recent appearance on Breitbart News Daily, where he described Walz as a “progressive nut bag” and a “gym teacher activist.”

These harsh but accurate characterizations point to the stark contrast between Walz’s radical agenda and the needs of everyday Americans.

Walz, who has governed Minnesota like a liberal ideologue, is far removed from the moderate image he sometimes tries to project. Emmer correctly pointed out that this VP pick is a victory for the most extreme elements of the Democratic Party, specifically the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing that has been pushing the party further and further to the left.

The idea of a Harris-Walz ticket should send shivers down the spine of every American concerned about the future of our country. Both Harris and Walz are ardent supporters of policies that have proven disastrous for working families, small businesses, and the energy sector.

For starters, neither Harris nor Walz have taken a firm stance against the Biden administration’s disastrous handling of the southern border. The unchecked flow of illegal immigration has strained our resources, threatened national security, and exacerbated the fentanyl crisis.

Yet, Walz has remained conspicuously silent, seemingly more concerned with placating his progressive base than protecting the citizens of Minnesota and the rest of the country.

On the economy, Walz is in lockstep with Harris and the Democrats who pushed through the reckless spending spree at the start of the Biden administration. This spending has directly contributed to the highest inflation rates in decades, hurting Americans at the gas pump, the grocery store, and when paying their energy bills.

Walz’s support for these policies shows just how out of touch he is with the economic realities facing American families.

One of the most alarming aspects of a potential Harris-Walz administration is their shared commitment to dismantling America’s energy sector. Both politicians have supported policies that attack fossil fuels, driving up energy costs and making the U.S. more dependent on foreign energy sources.

Walz’s track record in Minnesota includes championing “green” initiatives that are more about virtue signaling than practical energy solutions, leading to higher costs for consumers without any significant environmental benefits.

This radical agenda is not just bad policy; it’s dangerous. America needs leaders who will prioritize energy independence, support domestic production, and recognize the role of all energy sources—including oil, gas, and coal—in ensuring our nation’s prosperity and security.

Instead, Harris and Walz would rather kowtow to the far-left environmental lobby, even if it means sacrificing American jobs and economic stability.

Tom Emmer hit the nail on the head when he described Walz as a “political activist” rather than a true leader. During his time as governor, Walz has repeatedly chosen activism over governance, prioritizing protests and political stunts over the needs of Minnesotans.

His decision to protest the Republican National Convention rather than fulfill his duties as governor is just one example of his preference for partisan posturing over responsible leadership.

This pattern of behavior raises serious questions about Walz’s ability to serve as vice president, a role that requires more than just ideological zeal. It requires the ability to lead, to govern effectively, and to represent all Americans—not just the radical fringe of the Democratic Party.

The selection of Tim Walz as Kamala Harris’s running mate exposes a significant problem for the Democratic Party. By embracing figures like Walz, the party is alienating moderate voters and driving away those who are tired of the endless lurch to the left.

Americans are increasingly rejecting the radical policies of the far-left and are looking for leaders who will prioritize their needs over the demands of special interest groups and ideological extremists.

As Tom Emmer rightly pointed out, a Harris-Walz ticket would be a gift to Republicans. It would make the choice in 2024 crystal clear: a vote for Harris and Walz is a vote for more inflation, higher energy costs, open borders, and a government that prioritizes radical activism over responsible governance.

As the 2024 election approaches, Americans will have a clear choice: continue down the path of economic instability and radical social policies with Harris and Walz, or return to the America-first principles that made our country great under Republican leadership.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left is always willing to stoop to new lows. But this incident highlights just how low.

Because Harris’ VP pick opens their rally with horrific comments aimed at Vance, and Americans are infuriated.

In a recent rally in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, now Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate, shocked many with a crude and tasteless joke aimed at his political rival, Senator JD Vance.

Walz’s attempt at humor not only displayed poor taste but also leaned on misinformation, raising serious questions about the Democrats’ campaign tactics and their commitment to truth and decency.

Governor Walz, addressing a cheering crowd, remarked, “I can’t wait to debate the guy,” referring to Senator Vance. He then added, “That is, if he’s willing to get off the couch and show up,” prompting roars of laughter from the audience. Walz, evidently pleased with his quip, continued, “You see what I did there?”

The joke referenced a crude meme that falsely claims JD Vance had s*x with a couch, supposedly citing his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. This meme, widely circulated among progressives, was part of a smear campaign against Vance, exploiting baseless and absurd allegations.

The author of the original hoax revealed to Business Insider that the meme’s widespread acceptance reflected poorly on the critical-thinking skills of the electorate. The ease with which this fake citation was believed and shared highlights a disturbing trend:

The willingness of some individuals and groups to accept and spread misinformation without verification, as long as it aligns with their biases.

Tim Walz’s decision to use such a crude and unfounded joke as part of his campaign rhetoric is deeply troubling. Walz, who is supposed to embody the values of Midwest decency, has instead chosen to descend into the gutter, launching his campaign with a joke that is not only in poor taste but also based on a deliberate lie.

This move is not just a reflection of his own character but also indicative of the broader strategy employed by the Democratic Party.

This incident is not an isolated one. It is part of a broader pattern of behavior from the Democratic Party, which has increasingly relied on misinformation and smear tactics to attack their opponents.

Vice President Kamala Harris, now running with Walz, has herself been involved in several controversies regarding truthfulness and integrity.

The Biden-Harris administration has been criticized for its handling of various issues, from the economy to foreign policy, often opting to deflect blame rather than address problems head-on.

The Democratic Party, under the leadership of figures like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and now Tim Walz, has consistently demonstrated a lack of respect for truth and decency.

The economy is struggling, inflation is rampant, and foreign policy missteps have weakened America’s standing on the global stage.

Instead of addressing these critical issues, the Democrats seem more focused on personal attacks and spreading misinformation about their opponents.

In contrast, the Republican Party, led by figures like Donald Trump and JD Vance, is focused on addressing the real issues facing Americans.

Trump’s America First policies aimed to bring jobs back to the United States, secure the borders, and strengthen the economy. These policies resonated with millions of Americans who felt left behind by the Democratic Party’s elitist and out-of-touch agenda.

Governor Tim Walz’s crude joke at the Philadelphia rally is a stark reminder of the depths to which the Democratic Party is willing to sink in its quest for power.

By relying on misinformation and smear tactics, Democrats are betraying the trust of the American people and undermining the very foundation of our democratic process.

It is crucial for voters to see through these tactics and demand better from their leaders.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for all of your news needs.

Joe Biden has been notably silent since he decided not to accept the Democrat nomination. But no one was expecting this discovery.

And new Joe Biden rumors have many Americans wondering what’s really going on.

In a surprising revelation, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted on CNN’s “OutFront” that she has not spoken to President Joe Biden since he decided to step aside from the presidential race.

This lack of communication between two prominent figures in the Democratic Party raises serious questions about the party’s unity and leadership during a critical time for the nation.

During an interview with guest host Dana Bash, Pelosi was asked about her communication with Biden following his decision to pass the torch. When asked if she had spoken with the President, Pelosi’s response was a stark, “No, I have not.” This admission was followed by an almost dismissive comment about the busy schedules of both leaders.

Bash pressed further, asking if Pelosi hoped to speak with Biden soon. Pelosi’s reply, “Yes, I hope to. We’re all busy,” did little to reassure those concerned about the apparent rift. When asked about the state of her relationship with Biden, Pelosi suggested that Bash should ask Biden, adding, “But I hope so.”

This lack of communication is not just a minor oversight; it’s a glaring issue that reflects poorly on both Pelosi and Biden. For a former Speaker and a sitting President to have no dialogue during such a pivotal moment in the party’s history is not only concerning but also ridiculous.

It suggests a level of disorganization and disconnect that should alarm every American who expects competent and cohesive leadership from their elected officials.

Pelosi’s allies, including Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, and Zoe Lofgren, have publicly stated their belief that it was time for Biden to step aside.

Despite Pelosi’s claims of having “hundreds of allies in Congress” and her insistence that these figures made their own judgments, the lack of communication with Biden casts doubt on her influence and the cohesiveness of the party’s leadership.

This situation is just another example of President Biden’s troubling leadership style. From the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan to the ongoing crisis at the southern border, Biden’s presidency has been marred by missteps and a lack of clear direction.

The fact that he hasn’t reached out to Pelosi, one of the most influential Democrats in recent history, is indicative of a broader problem: Biden’s inability to foster unity and communicate effectively within his own party.

Biden’s decision to step aside from the presidential race was itself a controversial move. Many saw it as a tacit admission of his dwindling support and inability to effectively lead the nation.

For Pelosi, a key figure in the Democratic establishment, to be left out of the loop on such a critical decision is not only disrespectful but also strategically unsound.

Nancy Pelosi, despite stepping down as Speaker, remains a powerful and influential figure within the Democratic Party. Her experience and political acumen are invaluable within her own party, yet Biden’s disregard for her input is baffling.

Pelosi’s public admission of not having spoken to Biden not only diminishes her stature but also raises questions about her effectiveness and relevance in the current political landscape.

Pelosi’s handling of this situation has also been less than impressive. By admitting she has not spoken to Biden and offering no substantial explanation, she appears out of touch and sidelined.

This is a stark contrast to the Pelosi of the past, who was known for her strategic acumen and ability to navigate complex political landscapes.

The Democratic Party is facing numerous challenges, both domestically and internationally. In such times, unity and strong leadership are paramount.

The lack of communication between Biden and Pelosi is a glaring example of the disarray within the party’s upper echelons. It’s time for both leaders to put aside their differences and prioritize the nation’s well-being.

For Biden, this means reaching out to key figures like Pelosi and ensuring that there is a cohesive strategy moving forward.

For Pelosi, it means asserting her influence and demanding a seat at the table in critical discussions.

The American people deserve leaders who can communicate, collaborate, and lead effectively.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical left knows that a Trump election is inevitable. But they are terrified at the prospect.

And now, a top Democrat leader has been caught on camera plotting to overthrow Trump.

In a recently resurfaced video from a February 2024 panel discussion, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) speculated that Congress might have to invalidate a potential election victory by former President Donald Trump, even at the risk of inciting “civil war.”

Raskin’s comments have raised serious concerns among Trump supporters, Americans, and advocates of democratic fairness, highlighting a disturbing trend of political maneuvering aimed at undermining Trump’s candidacy.

The video, recorded at the Politics and Prose bookstore in Washington, D.C., captures Raskin predicting that the Supreme Court would block efforts by Democrats to exclude Trump from the ballot in several states using Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This section was originally adopted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from holding federal office. Radicals have tried to argue that Trump’s actions constituted “insurrection” under this section, barring him from running for president again.

In March, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against these exclusion attempts, stating that it is Congress, not the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This ruling prompted Raskin to suggest that Congress would need to act if Trump won the election, a notion that raises the specter of “civil war conditions” due to potential backlash from Trump supporters.

Raskin’s history of political opposition to Trump is well-documented. He led the House impeachment managers during Trump’s second impeachment trial and served on the January 6 Committee.

Yet, Raskin himself objected to the 2017 election results, showcasing a blatant double standard. His willingness to entertain the idea of invalidating an election result if Trump wins is deeply troubling and suggests a disregard for democratic principles.

In his remarks, Raskin criticized the Supreme Court for what he perceived as its failure to support progressive causes. He pointed to historical decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson to argue that the Court has often been on the wrong side of justice.

However, his comments ignore the Court’s crucial role in upholding the Constitution and providing checks and balances within the government.

Raskin’s suggestion that the Supreme Court justices are shirking their duties is both misleading and dangerous. His reference to the justices having “great protection” is particularly disingenuous, given the assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022 and the continued protests outside his home.

The Department of Justice’s refusal to enforce laws prohibiting protests outside justices’ residences only adds to the concerning climate of intimidation against the judiciary.

Raskin’s comments reveal a broader strategy among some Democrats to use every possible tactic to prevent Trump from returning to office. By invoking the threat of “civil war” and suggesting that Congress might need to invalidate an election result, Raskin is undermining the democratic process and the rule of law. This approach is not only reckless but also a direct assault on the fundamental principles of American democracy.

Trump supporters see these moves as a desperate attempt to silence a candidate who has consistently challenged the political establishment.

The attempts to bar Trump from the ballot and the discussions of invalidating his potential victory are viewed as transparent efforts to rig the 2024 election. Instead of engaging in a fair electoral contest, some Democrats are resorting to underhanded tactics that threaten the integrity of the democratic process.

In response to Raskin’s alarming comments, it is crucial for Americans to stand up for the principles of democracy and ensure that every candidate has a fair chance to run for office.

This means rejecting efforts to exclude candidates from the ballot based on politically motivated interpretations of the law and standing against any moves to invalidate election results.

The American people deserve a transparent and fair electoral process, free from interference and manipulation. It is vital that Congress respects the Supreme Court’s rulings and upholds the Constitution, rather than succumbing to partisan pressures.

Raskin’s remarks are a stark reminder of the lengths to which some will go to undermine Trump and disrupt the democratic process.

As the 2024 election approaches, it is essential to remain vigilant and defend the principles of democracy. Trump supporters and advocates for electoral fairness must continue to demand justice and ensure that the American people can participate in a free and fair election.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has their hand in the media, and many people are concerned by that fact. Especially because recent discoveries have made fears a reality.

And a liberal tech giant has been caught violating the Constitution in an attempt to push a Radical agenda.

The controversy surrounding Google’s manipulation of search results to censor information about former President Donald Trump has raised serious concerns about the role of big tech companies in influencing public opinion and political outcomes. Recent revelations suggest that Google’s actions are part of a broader trend of big tech companies pushing a radical agenda while suppressing conservative viewpoints.

House Republicans, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), have taken Google to task over what they perceive as deliberate interference in the 2024 presidential election. The House Judiciary Committee has launched an investigation into why Google’s search engine failed to auto-complete searches related to Donald Trump, even returning results about Vice President Kamala Harris instead.

Google attributed these discrepancies to various “bugs” in their system. The company claimed that these bugs prevented information about Trump from appearing in auto-complete suggestions and that searches for Trump generated articles about Harris due to outdated protections against political violence. While Google has assured that these issues have been fixed, the timing and nature of these “errors” have left many skeptical.

The issue at hand is not just a technical glitch but part of a worrying pattern of behavior by Google and other big tech companies.

This latest incident comes on the heels of numerous reports and accusations that tech giants are systematically silencing conservative voices while amplifying liberal ones.

Rep. Jordan has rightfully questioned the credibility of Google’s explanations, labeling them as “vague excuses” and demanding more specific answers.

Jordan’s concerns are echoed by many who fear that big tech companies like Google are actively working to influence political discourse.

The fact that manual searches for Trump frequently returned results about Kamala Harris suggests a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from Trump and towards a preferred candidate. This kind of manipulation is not just an issue of technical failure but raises serious ethical and legal questions.

The potential consequences of such actions by Google are far-reaching. Search engines play a crucial role in shaping public perception and access to information.

When a company as powerful as Google manipulates search results, it can significantly impact voter behavior and election outcomes.

By prioritizing liberal news outlets and suppressing conservative viewpoints, Google is effectively skewing the democratic process in favor of one political party.

Rep. Jordan’s investigation into Google’s practices is a crucial step in holding big tech accountable. The Judiciary Committee’s letter to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai demands transparency and accountability, seeking to ensure that such issues do not occur again.

The committee’s ongoing investigation into political bias among big tech companies and digital advertisers highlights the need for stricter regulations and oversight to prevent further manipulation.

The actions of Google and other tech giants reflect a broader agenda that extends beyond mere search result manipulation. These companies have consistently shown a bias towards liberal viewpoints, often under the guise of combating misinformation or hate speech.

However, the selective enforcement of these policies disproportionately affects conservative voices, leading to accusations of censorship and political bias.

The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an advertising association, has also come under scrutiny for allegedly violating anti-trust laws by discouraging companies from advertising with conservative media sources.

By purporting to speak with one voice on behalf of advertisers, GARM has leveraged changes in tech platforms that favor Democrats. This kind of collusion further exacerbates the problem of media bias and the suppression of conservative viewpoints.

The suppression of conservative voices by big tech companies is a direct attack on free speech and the democratic process. It is imperative that lawmakers and regulators take action to ensure that these companies are held accountable for their actions.

The need for transparency, fairness, and accountability in how information is disseminated cannot be overstated.

Former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party have consistently championed “America First” policies that prioritize the interests of American citizens. In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration and its allies in big tech seem more focused on pushing a radical agenda that undermines the principles of free speech and fair play.

It is time for Americans to demand better and hold these powerful entities accountable for their actions.

The investigation led by Rep. Jim Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee is a crucial step in addressing this issue and ensuring that the democratic process is not undermined by the bias and manipulation of powerful tech giants.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Donald Trump has been battling the Radical Left for years. And they seem bent on locking him up.

And now, the Supreme Court has handed Donald Trump a massive trial loss that will change everything.

In a move that has stirred controversy and disbelief, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an effort to delay the sentencing of 2024 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump in a case that many see as a blatant attempt to sabotage his campaign.

The decision, stemming from a case brought forth by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, is seen by Trump supporters as yet another example of the political persecution he has faced.

In a brief and somewhat dismissive order, the court stated, “Missouri’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied, and its motion for preliminary relief or a stay is dismissed as moot.”

Justices Thomas and Alito showed some dissent, indicating they would have allowed the motion to proceed but stopped short of granting other relief.

This ruling follows a Manhattan jury’s May decision to find Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsified business records, a case spearheaded by District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump’s sentencing is set for September, a timing many believe is deliberately chosen to disrupt his presidential campaign.

On July 3, Attorney General Bailey filed a lawsuit against New York, accusing the state of violating the First Amendment rights of Missouri residents.

The lawsuit argued that the prosecution, gag order, and impending sentencing of Trump hinder his ability to communicate with voters, thus infringing on their right to an informed vote.

Bailey’s lawsuit called on the Supreme Court to declare New York’s actions unlawful, arguing that they constitute blatant election interference. The lawsuit demanded the removal of any gag orders on Trump and a delay of his sentencing until after the 2024 election.

“Right now, Missouri has a huge problem with New York. Instead of letting presidential candidates campaign on their own merit, radical progressives in New York are trying to rig the 2024 election by waging a direct attack on our democratic process,” Bailey declared.

The charges against Trump, brought by Alvin Bragg, a known progressive and backed by George Soros, are seen by many as a farce. The allegations of falsified business records are, at best, minor infractions that are being blown out of proportion to discredit Trump.

This is not about justice; it’s about stopping a political opponent who represents a threat to the liberal agenda.

Bailey pointed out the absurdity of the situation: “I will not sit idly by while Soros-backed prosecutors hold Missouri voters hostage in this presidential election. I am filing suit to ensure every Missourian can exercise their right to hear from and vote for their preferred presidential candidate.”

The term “lawfare” has become increasingly relevant in the context of Trump’s legal battles. This tactic, which involves using legal systems and principles to achieve political ends, is dangerous and corrosive to the foundations of American democracy.

Bailey’s remarks echo a sentiment shared by many: “This lawfare is poisonous to American democracy. The American people ought to be able to participate in a presidential election free from New York’s interference. Any gag order and sentence should be stayed until after the election.”

What’s truly at stake here is the right of the American people to hear from all presidential candidates and make an informed choice.

The timing of Trump’s trial and sentencing is no coincidence. It’s a calculated move to silence one of the most influential political figures in modern history, a man who has consistently challenged the status quo and given voice to millions of Americans who feel ignored by the political elite.

The progressive left’s efforts to sideline Trump through these legal maneuvers are transparent and desperate. Instead of engaging in a fair electoral battle, they are resorting to underhanded tactics that undermine the very principles of democracy they claim to uphold.

Trump supporters and advocates for democratic fairness must remain vigilant and vocal in their opposition to this blatant misuse of the legal system.

The fight is not just about one man; it’s about preserving the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that every American has the right to hear from and vote for their chosen candidate without undue interference.

The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the delay in Trump’s sentencing is a disappointing yet telling indication of the lengths to which his opponents will go to stifle his influence.

As Trump faces these unprecedented challenges, his supporters must rally around him, demand justice, and insist on a fair and transparent electoral process.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Ever since the attempt on Trump’s life, the Secret Service has come under mass scrutiny. But no one could have been prepared for what was discovered.

Because a horrific secret has been revealed about the former Secret Service head’s past.

it has been revealed that former US Secret Service (USSS) head Kimberly Cheatle, along with other top officials in the Biden administration, sought to destroy a bag of cocaine found in the White House during President Joe Biden’s third year in office.

This information comes from a new report following Cheatle’s resignation after security failures led to an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.

Three sources within the Secret Service community told Real Clear Politics that Cheatle and other top agency officials wanted to get rid of the cocaine when it was discovered.

However, members of the USSS Forensics and Uniformed Divisions resisted these efforts, refusing to participate in the destruction of the illicit drugs.

The bag of cocaine was found on a Sunday in early July 2023, while President Joe Biden and his family were at Camp David. Multiple disagreements reportedly took place over how to handle the discovery.

When a Uniformed Division officer, who was assigned to the case, attempted to treat it with crime scene protocol, he informed his supervisors, including Cheatle and now-acting USSS Director Ron Rowe. Subsequently, he was removed from the assignment.

While neither Joe Biden nor his son Hunter were at the White House when the cocaine was found, the incident followed a period during which Hunter Biden, known for his long-standing struggle with cocaine addiction, had been staying at the White House.

This connection prompted many Americans to speculate that the bag of cocaine might belong to Hunter.

Cheatle was reportedly concerned about the media storm that the discovery would create around the Biden administration. The USSS issued a press statement at the time, claiming, “There was no surveillance video footage found that provided investigative leads or any other means for investigators to identify who may have deposited the found substance in this area.”

An official stated that it would be nearly impossible to determine the original owner of the drugs, given the high traffic in the area where they were found—the West Exec basement entryway of the West Wing.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre disclosed during a briefing that the cocaine had been found in a heavily trafficked area frequented by politicians, their families, staff, and tourists alike.

The lack of accountability and transparency in this incident raises serious concerns about the integrity and priorities of the Biden administration.

The attempts by Cheatle and others to cover up the discovery of cocaine in the White House reflect a troubling pattern of behavior that seems aimed at protecting the Biden family’s image rather than upholding the rule of law.

Cheatle’s resignation, following the security failures that led to an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, adds another layer of concern.

The former president’s safety was compromised, and the ensuing attempt to cover up a drug scandal within the Biden White House further erodes public trust in the Secret Service and the current administration.

For many, this incident is a glaring example of the double standards that seem to favor the Bidens. If a similar scandal had occurred during the Trump administration, the media and political opponents would have likely called for immediate investigations and accountability.

The attempts to brush this incident under the rug are viewed as an effort to shield the Biden family from scrutiny and maintain a facade of propriety.

The American people deserve transparency and accountability from their leaders and the institutions that serve them. The Secret Service’s integrity has been called into question, and the Biden administration’s attempts to cover up the cocaine discovery cannot be ignored.

It is essential to demand a thorough investigation into this incident to ensure that those in power are held accountable for their actions.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.