Everyone knows that Joe Biden’s DOJ has been weaponized against anyone who disagrees with him. But now the proof has shown an even darker truth.

And Biden’s DOJ has recently been caught redhanded, and Americans are outraged.

America First Legal (AFL) has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) for failing to release records pertaining to former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

This legal action highlights AFL’s ongoing battle to uncover potential partisan motives behind the DOJ’s involvement in the Trump investigation.

The records in question involve Matthew Colangelo, who was recruited by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in December 2022.

The lawsuit alleges that Colangelo was hired to help “jump-start” the investigation into Trump, a move that AFL claims was driven by Colangelo’s “history of taking on Donald J. Trump and his family business.”

The AFL’s lawsuit, filed on Monday, detailed Colangelo’s positions at both the DOJ and the New York Attorney General’s office, noting that both institutions had “competing investigations” related to Trump.

Colangelo transitioned from his senior role at the DOJ to join Bragg’s team shortly before Trump was indicted.

“It is not every day that the number three ranking DOJ official — the Acting Associate Attorney General — leaves his post to join a district attorney’s office. Yet, that is exactly what Mr. Colangelo did,” AFL claimed in a statement. “This calculated move reeks of partisanship.”

According to Fox News, AFL Executive Director Gene Hamilton explained that AFL initially filed a FOIA request in 2023 to obtain Colangelo’s calendars and records discussing Trump, aiming to uncover the reasons behind his switch from the DOJ to the Manhattan DA’s office.

The DOJ responded to the FOIA request, acknowledging it but requesting an additional 10 days to process it due to “unusual circumstances.”

AFL then agreed to “exclude publicly available news article compilations, provided they were not commented on by department personnel.” However, according to the lawsuit, the DOJ failed to release any documents.

“We’re going to get those records, and we are going to obtain everything from his calendar entries to communications, for everything in between, to show and to help shed a light on this coordinated effort to get Donald Trump, that is unprecedented and has never been done before,” Hamilton said to Fox News.

“Because none of these records are public, and because this is a key central figure involved in the political persecution of Donald Trump, we think it’s vital and critical that we get records.”

In a parallel effort, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan sent a letter last month to New York Attorney General Letitia James, demanding documents related to Colangelo.

“Mr. Colangelo’s recent employment history demonstrates his obsession with investigating a person rather than prosecuting a crime,” Jordan said in his letter.

Jordan’s inquiry underscores the broader concerns among many Americans about potential political motivations behind the investigations targeting Trump.

The legal and political implications of Colangelo’s transition from a high-ranking DOJ official to a key player in the Manhattan DA’s office are significant.

It raises questions about the impartiality of the justice system and the potential use of legal institutions for partisan purposes.

The AFL lawsuit argues that the public has a right to know the details surrounding Colangelo’s move and his involvement in the Trump investigation.

It seeks to shed light on whether there was a coordinated effort to target Trump for political reasons, an allegation that, if proven, would have serious ramifications for the integrity of the justice system.

This case is emblematic of the broader struggle over transparency and accountability in government. The use of FOIA requests and subsequent lawsuits to compel the release of information is a critical tool for ensuring that government actions are subject to public scrutiny.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left hates Trump, and they will stop at nothing to oppose him. And now they have crossed serious lines.

And new evidence shows just how far Democrats are willing to go to stop Trump.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) unleashed a scathing critique of the Democratic Party during a recent interview, accusing them of being willing to dismantle the U.S. justice system to secure electoral victories and maintain their grip on power.

Cruz’s remarks came during his “Verdict” podcast with co-host Ben Ferguson, where he discussed the guilty verdict handed down by a Manhattan jury in District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s criminal trial against former President Donald Trump.

Cruz did not mince words as he drew stark comparisons between the United States and banana republics, highlighting the fundamental difference being the rule of law.

“If you contrast America to banana republics, the difference is you have the rule of law,” Cruz stated emphatically.

“The difference is you don’t do this. And these Democrats, they hate Trump so much they don’t care. They’re willing to destroy it all.”

Cruz reserved particularly harsh criticism for Alvin Bragg, whom he accused of having a political agenda. “Alvin Bragg, mind you, he is suddenly tough on crime,” Cruz said with evident sarcasm.

“Yeah, this is a guy who, if you murder people, if you rape people, you walk down the street and you punch a little old lady in the face, Alvin Bragg will let you go.” Cruz’s implication was clear: Bragg’s prosecutorial focus on Trump was politically motivated rather than a genuine effort to uphold justice.

The Texas senator asserted that Bragg’s true objective in prosecuting Trump was to bolster Joe Biden’s chances of re-election. “He’s trying to re-elect Joe Biden,” Cruz declared. “He’s trying to stay in power.”

Cruz’s assessment is that the legal maneuvers against Trump are part of a broader strategy to undermine the former president and tarnish his reputation in the eyes of voters.

Cruz also took aim at Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial, criticizing the jury instructions given during the proceedings.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has long made clear in order to convict someone of a crime, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime and the jury must find unanimously that you are guilty, you have committed every element of the crime,” Cruz explained.

He contended that Judge Merchan’s instructions allowed the jury too much leeway, likening it to a “choose your own adventure” scenario that undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

The senator expressed confidence that the conviction would be overturned on appeal, suggesting that Democrats were aware of this likelihood but were more interested in the short-term political damage a conviction could inflict on Trump.

“The purpose is what Alex Soros said, the purpose is what Joe Biden said. The purpose is all the Democrats, and all the media get to call him a felon over and over and over again, between now and Election Day,” Cruz argued. “This is a five-month battle. It’s not a five-year battle, the purpose is not to put Donald Trump in jail. They know that’s not going to happen; they are trying to win.”

Cruz’s analysis posits that the Democratic Party is leveraging the justice system as a political tool, prioritizing electoral gains over the integrity of legal processes.

“This is about keeping Joe Biden, the Democrats in power because it’s all they care about. And they’re willing to burn the justice system to the ground to keep the Democrats in power,” he concluded.

Many Americans view the legal actions against Trump as a weaponization of the justice system to target a political opponent, while Democrats argue that no one is above the law and that Trump’s actions warrant prosecution.

As Trump’s legal team prepares for the appeals process, the political ramifications of the trial continue to reverberate.

Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the trial has set a precedent that will be scrutinized for years to come, highlighting the delicate balance between justice and politics in a deeply divided nation. Cruz’s commentary underscores the high stakes involved and the profound implications for the future of American democracy.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The House Judiciary Committee is not rolling over and letting the Radical Left push them around. And they are doing everything they can to ensure real justice is brought to the Biden family.

And AG Garland’s shocking refusal has set the stage for a major move by Conservative lawmakers.

During a contentious House Judiciary hearing on Tuesday, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland faced tough questions from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) about details in Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report regarding President Joe Biden’s cognitive state.

The line of questioning centered on Hur’s decision not to prosecute Biden, with a key factor being Biden’s portrayal as a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”

Biggs began his questioning with a direct quote from Hur’s report, emphasizing the sympathetic view Hur had taken of Biden.

“[Hur] basically says here he found Mr. Biden to be sympathetic and … ‘a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.’ So he made a prosecutorial decision that he wasn’t going to prosecute. Are you going to dispute that? You’re not disputing that, are you?”

Rep. Andy Biggs tells AG Garland: "Mr Hur was pretty conclusive … that [Biden] had poor memory. [Biden] was not able to answer all the questions substantively…" pic.twitter.com/tGM5c7Q11F

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 4, 2024

Garland, seemingly prepared for a grilling, responded cautiously, not providing a direct answer.

This prompted Biggs to accuse him of being “non-responsive,” as he sought to clarify the rationale behind the decision not to prosecute Biden.

“Mr. Biden has not been prosecuted, correct?” Biggs pressed. Garland affirmed this fact but offered little else in terms of detailed explanation.

The exchange grew tenser as Biggs continued to probe. He highlighted that the rationale for not prosecuting Biden included his depiction as a sympathetic elderly man with memory issues.

Garland conceded that this characterization was part of a broader list of reasons for the decision but hesitated to delve into specifics.

“Give me one more reason,” Biggs demanded, seeking further clarity on why Biden was not prosecuted.

Garland responded that Biden’s cooperation with the investigation was another factor, though he avoided elaborating further on the contents of Hur’s report or the decision-making process behind it.

The Special Counsel’s interview with Biden, and the subsequent transcript, became a focal point of the hearing.

The transcript, released after Hur’s decision not to prosecute, detailed Biden’s interactions during the investigation.

Hur noted, “We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Hur’s report elaborated on the challenges of securing a conviction, stating, “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

This part of the report has fueled claims that Biden received preferential treatment due to his status and perceived cognitive decline.

During the hearing, Biggs emphasized this point, arguing that the decision not to prosecute Biden based on his memory and age sets a concerning precedent.

Adding to the controversy, Biden has claimed executive privilege over the audio tapes from his interview with Hur.

Reports indicate that the transcript was edited to remove repeated words and filler content from Biden’s testimony, raising further questions about transparency and fairness in the investigation.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for updates on this developing story and more.

With the Left doing everything they can to cover up for the Biden family, Americans are worried about the corrupt family walking free. But prosecutors highlight just how bad things are.

And a massive new development in the Biden case could see Hunter behind bars.

In a significant turn of events, the federal firearms trial of Hunter Biden commenced on Tuesday in Delaware.

Prosecutors did not waste any time presenting evidence, with one of the most controversial pieces being the infamous laptop belonging to President Joe Biden’s son.

The laptop, which has been the center of numerous controversies and extensive media coverage, became a focal point as prosecutors used its contents to build their case.

During the opening statements, prosecutors introduced text messages and images from the laptop’s hard drive, aiming to establish that Hunter Biden was actively involved in drug use around the time he allegedly lied on his FBI background check form.

This form was filled out in connection with the purchase of a firearm.

The evidence presented included text messages between Hunter Biden and a contact, discussing the purchase of “10 grams” of a substance in the summer of 2018.

Prosecutors also showed images purportedly depicting cocaine, which were recovered from the laptop.

These pieces of evidence were intended to support the allegation that Biden was indeed using drugs at the time he purchased the firearm, contradicting his declaration on the ATF form.

Further bolstering their case, prosecutors presented invoices from a rehabilitation facility in Los Angeles, dated just one month before the gun purchase.

This evidence was used to paint a picture of Biden’s ongoing struggles with substance abuse, directly challenging his claims of being drug-free at the time of the firearm acquisition.

Hunter Biden faces several serious charges in this case. In 2023, he was accused of lying on an FBI background check form when he purchased a Colt Cobra 38SPL revolver on October 12, 2018.

Specifically, he claimed that he was not a drug user, despite later admissions in his memoir, “Beautiful Things,” that he was indeed struggling with addiction at the time.

The charges against him include making false statements while purchasing a firearm, making false statements regarding information kept by federal firearms licensed dealers, and unlawful possession of a firearm. If convicted on all counts, Biden could face up to 25 years in prison.

This trial is not just a legal battle; it carries substantial political implications. As the son of the sitting president, Hunter Biden’s legal troubles are inevitably tied to the political fortunes of his father, President Joe Biden.

The introduction of the laptop into evidence revives numerous allegations that have been leveraged against the Biden family by political opponents.

Critics of the Biden administration have seized upon this trial as evidence of corruption and misconduct within the First Family.

The case has already fueled partisan debates, with Republicans arguing that Hunter Biden’s actions reflect poorly on his father’s judgment and leadership.

As the trial continues, all eyes will be on Delaware, with both the prosecution and defense preparing to call witnesses and present further evidence.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences, not only for Hunter Biden but also for the broader political landscape as the country approaches the next election cycle.

The courtroom battle over Hunter Biden’s alleged false statements on his firearm purchase forms is set to be a major legal and political story in the coming weeks.

Whether the evidence from the laptop will be the decisive factor in this case remains to be seen, but its introduction has certainly set the stage for a contentious and closely watched trial.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left thinks they have won because of Trump’s recent guilty verdict. However, things are not shaping up how they planned.

And Trump prosecutors have been hit with a massive delay that could change everything.

A Georgia appeals court has scheduled an October hearing to decide whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can remain on the high-profile RICO case she brought against President Donald Trump and 18 other co-defendants.

The case, which alleges that Trump and his associates conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election, has been shrouded in controversy due to personal and financial misconduct allegations against Willis.

The tentative date for the hearing is set for October 4, according to ABC News. The court notice indicates that a final calendar confirming the exact date of the oral argument will be sent to the counsel of record.

The appeals court agreed to hear the case last month after Trump and his co-defendants appealed a lower court ruling by Judge Scott McAfee, which allowed either Willis or her former lover, Nathan Wade, to stay on the case while the other had to recuse themselves.

The controversy stems from revelations that Willis had an affair with Wade, an attorney she brought onto the Trump case.

Additional allegations of financial impropriety have also surfaced, casting further doubt on her ability to impartially prosecute the case.

Wade, who was not the lead prosecutor, chose to recuse himself in March, leaving Willis to continue prosecuting the former president.

In his resignation letter, Wade wrote, “I hereby offer my resignation, effective immediately, as Special Prosecutor for the Fulton County District Attorney’s office.”

This move was intended to mitigate the appearance of a conflict of interest, but questions remain about Willis’ conduct and her ability to proceed without bias.

When the appeals court agreed to take up the case, Trump attorney Steve Sadow issued a statement saying, “President Trump looks forward to presenting interlocutory arguments to the Georgia Court of Appeals as to why the case should be dismissed and Fulton County DA Willis should be disqualified for her misconduct in this unjustified, unwarranted political persecution.”

The appeals court ruling stated, “Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED.”

This development sets the stage for a critical legal battle that could significantly impact the ongoing case against Trump and his co-defendants.

Trump has consistently blasted the case as politically motivated, arguing that it is part of a broader effort by Democrats to undermine his political career.

The former president’s claims have found resonance among his supporters, who see the case as another example of the so-called “witch hunt” against him.

The allegations of misconduct against Willis are particularly troubling. Reports have surfaced that Wade was compensated more than other special prosecutors in the state, raising suspicions about financial favoritism.

Additionally, Wade allegedly purchased plane tickets to vacation destinations under Willis’ name, further complicating the ethical landscape of the case.

The outcome of the October hearing could have far-reaching implications for the case and for Willis’ career.

If the appeals court rules against her, it could lead to her disqualification and potentially the dismissal of the charges against Trump and his associates.

Such a decision would be a significant victory for Trump, who has maintained his innocence and portrayed himself as a victim of partisan attacks.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

With Donald Trump’s recent guilty verdict, the Left thought they had things in the bag. But their whole plan backfired.

And new Trump trial data has the Radical left completely terrified.

Donald Trump is leading incumbent President Joe Biden among independent voters in a new poll released after his guilty verdict on Thursday.

The results come after millions in donations came pouring in after he was convicted, in what many saw as a politically motivated court decision.

According to a recent poll from Issues and Insights/TIPP, Trump has made significant gains against Biden in the court of public opinion despite being found guilty in the NYC falsified documents case.

Among independent voters, Trump leads Biden with a striking 38 to 26 percent margin heading into June. The national poll was conducted between May 29 and 31, surveying 1,675 registered voters with a margin of error of 2.5 percent. Remarkably, the May 30 verdict has not weakened Trump’s support.

In the previous poll conducted by Issues and Insights, Trump was trailing Biden 40 to 42 points overall. This gap has now closed, resulting in a 41 to 41 tie between the two candidates.

When broken down by party affiliation, independent voters show a pronounced preference for Trump over Biden. Specifically, 38 percent of independents support Trump, while only 26 percent back Biden.

Additionally, 22 percent of independent voters are opting for a third-party candidate, and 15 percent remain undecided.

In May, Trump’s lead among independent voters was only 33 percent compared to Biden’s 25 percent, indicating a notable five-point increase in support for Trump within this demographic.

This shift suggests that independent voters are increasingly disillusioned with Biden’s performance and are turning towards Trump as a viable alternative.

Other recent polls have also shown stronger support for Trump among independent voters, reflecting a broader trend of dissatisfaction with the current administration.

The overall numbers in the I&I/TIPP poll are tied at 38 percent for both Biden and Trump when third-party candidates are included. This parity underscores the competitive nature of the upcoming election and the pivotal role independent voters will play in determining its outcome.

The poll also reveals that in terms of voter enthusiasm, Trump has a slight edge over Biden. Among Trump’s supporters, 65 percent “strongly” support him, compared to 60 percent of Biden’s backers who “strongly” support the incumbent president.

This intensity of support could prove crucial in mobilizing voters and ensuring high turnout on election day.

The increase in support for Trump among independents and the overall tie with Biden come despite the legal challenges Trump faces.

The NYC falsified documents case, which resulted in a guilty verdict, has not dampened his base’s enthusiasm or belief in his ability to lead the country.

In fact, many of Trump’s supporters view the legal proceedings as politically motivated attacks designed to undermine his re-election campaign.

Trump’s ability to maintain and even grow his support base amid legal battles speaks to his enduring appeal among voters who feel disillusioned with the political establishment.

His message of challenging the status quo and advocating for “America First” resonates with a significant portion of the electorate, particularly those who feel left behind by the current administration’s policies.

Biden, on the other hand, faces a growing challenge in galvanizing his base and addressing the concerns of independent voters.

His administration has been criticized for its handling of various issues, including the economy, immigration, and foreign policy.

The lack of progress on these fronts has contributed to declining support among key demographics.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for updates on this developing story and more.

The Biden family is surrounded by corruption and scandal. And the Radical Left wants nothing more than for America to forget about them.

But the Biden family’s scandals are heating up, and Democrats are scrambling to cover up new evidence.

Bestselling author of “Breaking Biden” and Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow declared on Newsmax TV’s “Sunday Agenda” that Hunter Biden’s upcoming trial on felony gun charges is an “open and shut” case.

Marlow’s comments come as scrutiny intensifies over the legal woes of President Joe Biden’s son, potentially posing further political challenges for the Biden administration.

During the broadcast, host Lidia Curanaj brought up the role of Haley Biden, the widow of Joe Biden’s late son Beau, who allegedly disposed of Hunter Biden’s firearm in a dumpster.

Curanaj questioned how critical Haley’s testimony might be and mentioned President Joe Biden’s visit to her, seeking Marlow’s perspective on these developments.

“You see why the Democrats were so enthusiastic to call Donald Trump a convicted felon and to get that talking point, because they know this is a problem for them,” Marlow responded.

Marlow emphasized the clarity of the case against Hunter Biden. “He clearly lied, Haley was a part of it. He’s had, of course, a long history of drug use, which is well known. It’s why he had to leave the military. And the weapon did end up in a dumpster and it appears pretty clear that Haley was involved with that. So this should be an open and shut case.”

The gun charge against Hunter Biden stems from allegations that he lied on a federal background check form when purchasing a firearm in 2018.

Hunter Biden, who was discharged from the Navy Reserve in 2014 after testing positive for cocaine, reportedly failed to disclose his drug use on the purchase form.

The weapon was later found in a dumpster near a school, raising significant safety concerns.

Marlow also highlighted the political implications of the case, noting the eagerness of Democrats to label former President Donald Trump a convicted felon, potentially to deflect attention from Hunter Biden’s legal troubles.

“But I’ll tell you one thing here, which is a bit of a trap,” Marlow cautioned. “I spent a year and a half researching the Bidens, I put out a New York Times best selling book called ‘Breaking Biden’ about the Bidens. I only spent a couple of paragraphs on this case, and I’ll tell you why, it’s because this seems to be the only one that doesn’t directly implicate Joe.”

While acknowledging the seriousness of the gun charge, Marlow suggested that this case might serve as a distraction from other allegations of corruption involving Hunter Biden.

“There was some reports that were pretty vague that perhaps the government intervened, intervened on Hunter’s behalf at one point. But there’s a bit of a trap here because this is of all the corruption Hunter’s engaged in over his lifetime this is one that just seems mostly isolated to him.”

Hunter Biden has faced a series of legal challenges and allegations over the years, including questionable business dealings in Ukraine and China.

These controversies have dogged his father’s presidency, leading to ongoing investigations by congressional Republicans.

Marlow’s comments underscore the potential for the gun charge case to divert attention from broader issues of alleged corruption involving Hunter Biden and possible connections to President Joe Biden.

In the wake of these developments, the Biden administration has maintained that Hunter Biden’s legal issues are a personal matter and have distanced themselves from the proceedings.

However, the case remains a significant point of contention in the political arena, with Republicans arguing that it exemplifies broader issues of integrity and accountability within the Biden family.

As Hunter Biden’s trial approaches, the political and legal implications of the case will continue to be a focal point of discussion.

For many Americans, the case represents not only a clear legal issue but also a broader narrative of accountability and the rule of law that they argue has been unevenly applied.

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

After Trump’s recent guilty verdict, Radical Leftists across the nation were hoping for a response. But none of them were expecting this.

And the newest calls from Trump have liberals terrified.

Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump called on voters to stay calm and channel their frustrations through the electoral process following the recent guilty verdict against former President Donald Trump in his hush money trial. Her message was clear: protest at the ballot box.

Lara Trump appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” with guest host Kasie Hunt on Sunday, addressing the fallout from the verdict delivered by a Democrat-led prosecution in Manhattan last week.

When asked by Hunt what Trump supporters should do if the former president is sentenced to jail, Trump emphasized the importance of a peaceful and democratic response.

“They’re going to do what they have done from the beginning, which is remain calm and protest at the ballot box on November 5,” she stated.

“There’s nothing to do, other than make your voices heard loud and clear and speak out against this, because this is not the United States of America. This is the kind of thing you would expect to see in the communist USSR. So they shouldn’t do anything until voting starts, and then they’re going to come out in droves. And I believe Donald Trump will be re-elected as the 47th president.”

Her remarks come at a critical time, as her husband, Eric Trump, revealed during a Fox News interview that the former president’s campaign had raised over $200 million since the verdict.

This surge in donations underscores the strong support Trump continues to command among his base, even in the face of legal challenges.

Lara Trump highlighted the impact of the verdict on the campaign, noting a significant uptick in polling numbers.

“We’ve seen a roughly six-point jump in the polls since the conviction,” she said. “What’s even more telling is that 30% of the small-dollar donors who have given to Trump’s campaign have been first-time donors. This indicates a broadening of his support base, fueled by a sense of injustice and frustration with the current administration.”

Despite the legal troubles, Trump supporters appear undeterred, galvanized by what they perceive as an unfair prosecution.

Lara Trump argued that the issues most important to voters extend far beyond the courtroom drama. “What matters to people right now isn’t Donald Trump in downtown Manhattan in a case that everybody can see was weighed against him, that never should have seen the light of day,” she said.

“They care about their lives. They care about the fact that they can’t make ends meet right now, that it’s harder to put food on the table for their families, that they can’t fill their gas tank up in the same way that they’re worried about the future of the world because we have a war in Europe, we have a war in the Middle East.”

Lara Trump’s call for calm and for focusing efforts on the upcoming election highlights a strategy to harness the widespread discontent among Trump supporters into a powerful electoral force.

By encouraging voters to use their ballots as a form of protest, she aims to transform frustration into political momentum, securing a path for Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

The conviction has undeniably energized Trump’s base, and the significant fundraising figures suggest that many Americans see the legal battles as politically motivated.

This sentiment is likely to drive high voter turnout among Trump supporters, who view the 2024 election as a referendum not just on Biden’s presidency, but on the integrity of the justice system itself.

The context of Lara Trump’s comments also reflects a broader conservative perspective that views recent legal actions against Trump as part of a continued effort by Democrats to undermine his political career.

This narrative is being reinforced through various conservative media outlets, which have consistently questioned the motivations behind the prosecution and highlighted perceived inconsistencies and biases in the legal process.

The upcoming months will be crucial in shaping the political landscape ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

As Trump continues to campaign and galvanize his supporters, the response to these legal challenges and the overall political climate will play a significant role in determining the outcome.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Many people feel as if the Radical policies of the Left are designed to harm Americans. And it seems that they were right.

Because now, a liberal leader has admitted that policies are made up simply to infringe on rights.

In a startling admission, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), revealed that the widely implemented Covid-era rules of maintaining six feet of “social distancing” and requiring children to wear medical face masks in schools were not based on solid scientific evidence.

This revelation came to light from the transcripts of Dr. Fauci’s closed-door interview with the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in January.

During the interview, Fauci was questioned about the origins of the six-foot social distancing guideline, a measure that significantly impacted businesses, schools, and everyday life across the country.

His inability to pinpoint the source of this recommendation has raised serious questions about the decision-making process during the pandemic.

“It just sort of appeared,” Fauci admitted. “I don’t recall, like, a discussion of whether it should be 5 or 6 or whatever.”

He further acknowledged that he had not seen a scientific study supporting this exact measurement, conceding that proving such a specific distance would be “very difficult.”

This admission underscores a significant flaw in the public health policies that governed much of the pandemic response.

The six-foot rule was enforced with strict adherence in various settings, leading to widespread disruptions and economic impacts.

The arbitrary nature of this guideline has now been laid bare, revealing a lack of scientific rigor behind one of the most pervasive public health directives.

Regarding the recommendation to mask children, Fauci stated that the science behind this practice was still “up in the air.”

When asked if he had reviewed any studies or data supporting the masking of children, Fauci responded, “You know, I might have,” but admitted he did not “recall specifically” doing so.

The transcript revealed that the Majority Counsel pressed Fauci about studies addressing learning loss and speech development issues in young children associated with mask-wearing.

The inability of children to see their teachers’ facial expressions and lip movements, which are crucial for language development, has been a significant concern for parents and educators.

“There have been significant studies on kind of like the learning loss and speech and development issues that have been associated with particularly young children wearing masks while they’re growing up. They can’t see their teacher talk and can’t learn how to form words. Have you followed any of those studies?” the counsel asked.

Fauci’s response was noncommittal: “No. But I believe that there are a lot of conflicting studies too, that there are those that say, yes, there is an impact, and there are those that say there’s not. I still think that’s up in the air.”

This admission is particularly troubling given the widespread implementation of mask mandates for children in schools, a policy that has likely had significant developmental impacts.

The fact that these measures were enforced without robust scientific backing calls into question the overall approach to pandemic management.

Fauci also addressed the issue of vaccine mandates, acknowledging that the enforced vaccination during the pandemic, regardless of natural immunity status, might have contributed to increased vaccine hesitancy.

The admissions by Dr. Fauci raise significant concerns about the foundations of some of the most stringent Covid-19 policies.

The lack of concrete scientific evidence supporting social distancing and masking children, combined with the potential negative impact of vaccine mandates, suggests that many public health directives were implemented without adequate consideration of their broader implications.

The consequences of these decisions will likely be analyzed for years to come, with a focus on ensuring that future responses are based on solid evidence and a thorough understanding of the potential impacts on society.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

NYC has been the center of attention for days now. But no one was expecting this kind of response.

And NYC’s shocking response has completely betrayed its own liberal policies.

In a major shift in New York City’s approach to immigration enforcement, council members are set to introduce a nonpartisan bill aimed at repealing the city’s sanctuary city laws.

This legislative move would empower local law enforcement agencies to collaborate with federal immigration authorities, marking a departure from the policies instituted under former Democrat Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration.

The proposed bill comes as New York City grapples with an unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants, driven by what many describe as President Joe Biden’s lax border policies.

The situation has escalated into a crisis that city officials are struggling to manage, prompting calls for substantial policy changes.

The legislation, slated for introduction on Thursday, is being spearheaded by Council members Joe Borelli (R-Staten Island) and Robert Holden (D-Queens).

The bipartisan nature of this initiative underscores the urgency and broad-based support for addressing the city’s immigration challenges.

“Sanctuary city laws put all New Yorkers, both immigrants and longtime residents, in danger by preventing the NYPD and DOC from working with ICE,” Holden told the New York Post. “We do not need to import criminals, and only 23 years since 9/11, we have forgotten the deadly consequences of poor interagency communication. We must repeal these laws immediately.”

Holden highlighted the tragic case of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student allegedly murdered by illegal immigrant Jose Ibarra. Ibarra, a Venezuelan national, had been arrested in NYC on child endangerment charges six months before the murder but was released due to sanctuary city policies, which prevented his transfer to federal immigration authorities.

Under current NYC laws, local authorities can only assist federal immigration efforts if the individual in question is suspected of posing a serious public safety risk or is involved in terrorist activities. Critics argue that these restrictions hinder effective law enforcement and public safety efforts.

Mayor Eric Adams has been vocal about the detrimental impact of the city’s sanctuary laws amid the ongoing border crisis.

The influx of illegal immigrants has overwhelmed city resources, with hotels, schools, public parks, and streets being used as makeshift shelters.

Many of these individuals have been implicated in violent crimes, exacerbating the strain on the city’s infrastructure and law enforcement capabilities.

In February, Mayor Adams called for the revocation of sanctuary city laws to allow the NYPD to hand over illegal immigrants suspected of serious crimes to ICE.

Council member Borelli emphasized the necessity of bipartisan cooperation to address what he termed a “public safety crisis.”

He argued that enabling local law enforcement to work more closely with federal agencies is essential for maintaining order and protecting residents.

This legislative effort in New York City could signal a broader trend among other jurisdictions grappling with the consequences of sanctuary policies.

As cities across the nation face similar challenges, the outcomes of New York’s policy shift could influence national discourse on immigration enforcement and public safety.

These “sanctuary city” policies create safe havens for criminals and undermine the rule of law.

The proposed repeal of New York City’s sanctuary city laws represents a significant policy shift with far-reaching implications.

As the city council prepares to debate the bill, the outcome will be closely watched by both proponents and critics of sanctuary policies nationwide.

The decision will not only impact the city’s approach to immigration enforcement but also contribute to the ongoing national conversation about balancing public safety and immigrant rights.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Mayorkas has completely failed at his job of protecting this nation. He has also allowed the worst illegal immigration crisis this nation has ever seen.

But now, Mayorkas has made an alarming announcement on TV that no one saw coming.

During a recent interview with CBS News Immigration and Politics Reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made bold claims about the Biden administration’s handling of the ongoing migration crisis at the southern border.

Despite record numbers of illegal crossings and widespread criticism from both sides of the political aisle, Mayorkas asserted that the administration has “done an extraordinary job” in managing what he described as an “unprecedented level of migration.”

Mayorkas was quick to shift the blame for the border crisis away from the administration’s policies. “If we take a look at migration, not just at our southern border, but in context, the level of migration throughout the hemisphere is unprecedented,” he stated.

He cited global factors such as poverty, violence, extreme weather events, corruption, and suppression by authoritarian regimes as the primary drivers behind the mass exodus towards the United States.

However, critics argue that the Biden administration’s lax border policies and mixed messaging have acted as a magnet, encouraging more people to attempt the perilous journey.

Under President Biden, policies such as the reversal of the “Remain in Mexico” policy, the halt of border wall construction, and the promise of more lenient treatment of illegal immigrants have been seen as inviting illegal crossings.

In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Mayorkas maintained that the administration’s efforts have been nothing short of exemplary. “We have done an extraordinary job to deal with an unprecedented level of migration,” he insisted.

Yet, the numbers tell a different story. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), there were more than 2 million encounters at the southern border in fiscal year 2021, a record high.

Republicans have been vocal in their criticism. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called Mayorkas’ remarks “delusional,” stating that “the Biden administration has created the worst border crisis in U.S. history, and now they want to pat themselves on the back for it.”

Mayorkas also touched upon the recent failure of bipartisan legislation that he claimed would have provided the administration with “more tools to deal with those individuals who seek to game the system.”

The bill, which aimed to enhance border security measures and streamline the asylum process, was shot down in the Senate.

“The reality is that some people do, indeed, try to game the system. … And we deal with it accordingly,” Mayorkas said, without specifying what measures are in place to prevent such abuses. Critics argue that the administration’s approach has been reactive rather than proactive, with insufficient measures to prevent illegal crossings and address the root causes of the crisis.

While Mayorkas praised the administration’s efforts, border states continue to bear the brunt of the crisis.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly called for more federal support, deploying state resources to address the influx of illegal immigrants.

In Arizona, Governor Doug Ducey has taken similar measures, criticizing the federal government for its lack of action.

Local law enforcement agencies and border communities have been overwhelmed by the surge. The increase in illegal crossings has strained resources, from healthcare services to schools, and has led to a rise in crime in some areas.

Border Patrol agents, tasked with managing the unprecedented influx, have expressed frustration with the lack of support and clear policy direction from Washington.

The ongoing border crisis has significant implications for the Biden administration as it heads into the 2024 election cycle.

Immigration remains a top concern for many voters, particularly in swing states. The administration’s handling of the crisis could prove to be a significant liability.

Despite DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ assertions that the Biden administration has done an “extraordinary job” in handling the migration crisis, the facts on the ground paint a starkly different picture.

Record numbers of illegal crossings, strained local resources, and the failure of bipartisan legislative efforts highlight a situation that is far from under control.

As the 2024 election approaches, the administration’s handling of the border crisis is likely to remain a focal point of political contention and public concern.

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

Joe Biden and the Left do not care if the American people know the full story of things. All they seem to care about is getting people to vote for Biden.

But now, Biden has repeated shocking lies about Trump in an effort to push his Radical propaganda on the public.

President Joe Biden has once again reiterated a debunked narrative that former President Donald Trump ordered the tear-gassing of peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square to facilitate a photo-op with a Bible at St. John’s Church.

This claim, which has been consistently refuted, continues to be a talking point for Democrats seeking to criticize Trump’s actions during the height of the 2020 protests.

During a recent campaign event in Philadelphia, Biden questioned what Trump would have done if black Americans had stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

He used this hypothetical scenario to revisit the Lafayette Square incident, stating, “What do you think he would have done on January 6 if black Americans had stormed the…think about this. What do you think would have happened if black Americans had stormed the Capitol? I don’t think he’d be talking about pardons. This is the same guy who wanted to tear gas you as you peacefully protested George Floyd’s murder.”

Biden’s remarks come despite a June 2021 report from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Inspector General, which exonerated Trump from the accusation that he had used tear gas to clear peaceful protesters.

The report confirmed that the clearing of Lafayette Park was pre-planned to install anti-scale fencing and was not intended to facilitate Trump’s walk to the church.

The Inspector General’s report provided a detailed timeline and rationale for the actions taken by law enforcement on June 1, 2020. It stated:

“Protests began in and around Lafayette Park on May 29, 2020. On May 30, the USPP [U.S. Park Police] and U.S. Secret Service established a unified command to coordinate the law enforcement response to the protests. From May 30 to 31, at least 49 USPP officers were injured while policing the protests, and Federal and private property was vandalized.

On the morning of June 1, the Secret Service procured anti-scale fencing to establish a more secure perimeter around Lafayette Park that was to be delivered and installed that same day. The USPP, in coordination with the Secret Service, determined that it was necessary to clear protesters from the area in and around the park to enable the contractor’s employees to safely install the fence. The USPP planned to implement the operation as soon as the fencing materials and sufficient law enforcement officers arrived at the park. Six other law enforcement agencies assisted the USPP and the Secret Service in the operation to clear and secure areas near the park.

The operation began at 6:23 p.m. and was completed by 6:50 p.m. Shortly thereafter, at 7:01 p.m., President Trump walked from the White House through Lafayette Park to St. John’s Church. At 7:30 p.m., the contractor began assembling and installing the anti-scale fence and completed the work by approximately 12:30 a.m. on June 2.”

The report concluded, “We did not obtain evidence suggesting that the USPP cleared Lafayette Park so the President could visit St. John’s Church.”

Despite these findings, the claim that Trump ordered tear gas against peaceful protesters has persisted in media narratives and statements from prominent Democrats.

For instance, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and several media outlets perpetuated the falsehood, framing the event as an example of Trump’s authoritarian tendencies.

These statements have not been retracted, even in light of the Inspector General’s findings.

The U.S. Park Police (USPP) clarified in a statement that smoke canisters and pepper balls were used to disperse the protesters, not tear gas.

The USPP emphasized that protesters were given multiple warnings to vacate the area and that their response was to escalate violence from the crowd, which included projectiles being thrown at officers.

Interestingly, the use of tear gas in the vicinity was attributed to the Metropolitan Police Department under Washington, D.C.’s Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser.

The Inspector General’s report mentioned that the D.C. police used tear gas, not the federal agencies involved in clearing the park.

Biden’s reiteration of this debunked claim appears to be a strategic move to galvanize his base by invoking the specter of Trump’s alleged misdeeds.

However, it raises questions about the integrity of the discourse surrounding these events.

The persistence of these falsehoods underscores a broader issue in political rhetoric where verified facts are often overshadowed by persistent narratives that serve partisan goals.

The Left will continue to prioritize turning voters away from Trump over the actual truth.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.