While countless Americans have been worried that Trump’s criminal charges are politically motivated, the Left has denied it. But all of that has changed.

And now the White House has accidentally admitted to Trump’s trials being politically motivated.

The ongoing trial of former President Donald Trump in New York, which has captivated national attention, was characterized by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre as “related to the 2024 elections.”

This statement has ignited accusations of political motivations behind the trial, especially from conservatives and Republican figures, including House Speaker Mike Johnson.

These developments come amid a tense pre-election climate, raising questions about the fairness and timing of the judicial processes involved.

During a press briefing on Tuesday, Jean-Pierre was asked about the appropriateness of Speaker Johnson’s presence at Trump’s trial.

Her response highlighted the political underpinnings of the trial, noting that it was connected to the upcoming 2024 presidential elections, thereby implying a strategic motive rather than a purely judicial one.

Reporter: "Was it appropriate for Speaker Johnson to show up at the trial of the former president?

WH press sec: "I think the contrast between what we do here and what … Republicans in Congress do … couldn't be more stark." pic.twitter.com/1z1Xwe72VB

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 14, 2024

This acknowledgment has reinforced longstanding concerns among Republicans that the charges against Trump, pursued by both Biden’s Department of Justice and Democrat District Attorneys in Georgia and New York, are intended to disrupt his potential candidacy.

Trump and his allies have consistently labeled the legal actions against him as forms of election interference.

This perspective gained further validation when the White House press secretary linked the trial to the electoral process, thereby suggesting that the trial could be part of a broader strategy to diminish Trump’s political influence ahead of the next presidential race.

“The trials represent election interference,” Trump has declared, a sentiment echoed by numerous Republican leaders, pundits, lawmakers, and Americans.

Jean-Pierre’s recent comments at the press briefing have done little to dispel these assertions, instead providing fodder for those who view the prosecution as a calculated move by the Biden administration to sideline a major political opponent.

The trial, which has now entered its fifth week, centers on allegations made by New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office regarding falsified business records within the Trump Organization.

These records pertain to payments made to attorney Michael Cohen, which Bragg’s office contends were misclassified.

The prosecution has yet to clarify how these actions constitute a felony or prove the intent behind the payments as claimed.

This judicial endeavor occurs against a backdrop where Biden himself was under investigation for possessing classified documents, a charge from which he was absolved, citing his age and sympathetic public persona.

In contrast, Trump faces continued legal challenges, including a separate federal case involving classified documents, highlighting what some perceive as a double standard in legal accountability.

The unfolding of Trump’s trial and the explicit admission by the White House that it is tied to the electoral ambitions of 2024 paints a concerning picture of the use of judicial mechanisms as tools of political competition.

Such developments are likely to fuel further debate about the integrity of the U.S. legal system and its vulnerability to political influence, especially as the nation approaches another presidential election.

The scenario sets a precarious precedent for legal fairness and electoral integrity, prompting calls from across the political spectrum for a reassessment of how legal challenges are used in political warfare.

As the trial continues, it remains a pivotal element of the broader narrative of political rivalry and legal scrutiny that defines today’s political landscape in the United States.

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

The Radical Left activists in this nation have been pushing DEI on everyone for years. But not everyone is ready to give in that easily.

And a major college campus has made an astonishing DEI decision that has liberals worried for the future.

In a move that underscores a growing trend across American universities, the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill’s board of trustees has voted unanimously to significantly reduce the budget of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) department.

The $2.3 million previously allocated to DEI initiatives will now bolster campus police funding, a decision prompted by recent security concerns, including anti-Israel demonstrations.

The decision to redirect funds was made during a special meeting focused on the university’s fiscal management and priorities.

This reallocation could effectively dismantle the existing diversity office, shifting the focus toward enhancing campus safety and addressing immediate security needs.

UNC Chapel Hill is the flagship institution of North Carolina’s public university system, known for its rigorous academic standards and diverse student body.

However, recent weeks have seen the campus become a hotspot for anti-Israel protests, which have escalated to property damage and disruptions, culminating in several arrests.

Marty Kotis, the vice chairman of the budget committee, expressed concerns over the current direction of DEI programs, labeling them as sources of “divisiveness, exclusion, and indoctrination.”

He advocated for “more unity and togetherness, more dialogue, more diversity of thought,” rather than what he perceives as a singular focus on identity politics that might not serve the broader student body.

“It’s important to consider the needs of all 30,000 students, not just the 100 or so that may want to disrupt the university’s operations,” Kotis added, highlighting the need for resource allocation that benefits the entire campus community.

Board Chairman David Boliek echoed these sentiments in comments to the Raleigh News & Observer, criticizing what he described as “administrative bloat” within the university.

Boliek emphasized the importance of reallocating funds toward “rubber-meets-the-road efforts like public safety and teaching.”

The tension on campus reached a peak last month during a pro-Palestinian encampment at which participants removed the American flag and replaced it with a Palestinian flag.

This act and the subsequent need to secure and repair property contributed to the decision to enhance funding for law enforcement capabilities on campus.

The funding shift at UNC Chapel Hill is part of a broader reevaluation of DEI initiatives within the UNC system, especially following the Supreme Court’s June decision against affirmative action policies at UNC and Harvard.

This ruling has prompted educational institutions nationwide to reassess their approaches to diversity and admissions policies.

The upcoming vote by North Carolina’s public university system to potentially overturn a 2019 DEI regulation could lead to further significant changes.

If the new policy is enacted, it would take immediate effect, likely resulting in the elimination of numerous DEI positions across the system’s 17 schools.

This pivotal shift at UNC Chapel Hill reflects a broader national conversation about the role of universities in promoting “diversity” and forcing a liberal agenda on students versus ensuring campus safety and free expression of thought.

As the debate continues, the outcomes at UNC Chapel Hill may serve as a guide for other institutions grappling with similar challenges.

The university’s decision to prioritize campus security over DEI programs marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding the idea of pushing a Radical agenda instead of fostering an academic environment and maintaining order and safety on campus.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has completely neglected the nation’s security, and they have tried to cover it up. But now they have nowhere to hide.

And a shocking new report has detailed just how bad our national security really is.

Under the administration of President Joe Biden, the United States has witnessed a historic surge in its foreign-born population, with numbers reaching an unprecedented 51.6 million, which constitutes 15.6% of the total U.S. population.

This significant demographic shift, marked by the largest two-year increase ever recorded, has intensified the ongoing debate over immigration policies and border control.

Recent data from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has revealed a sharp increase in the foreign-born population, growing by 5.1 million since March 2022.

This growth is not only the largest observed in a two-year span but also matches the demographic expansion seen over the nine years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since President Biden assumed office, approximately 6.6 million foreign-born individuals have added to this figure, translating to nearly 170,000 immigrants arriving each month.

The dramatic increase in immigration, particularly illegal immigration, which accounts for about 58% of the growth, comes as Biden’s policies continue to face scrutiny.

The administration’s handling of border security and immigration reform has become a focal point of criticism, especially given that only 46% of the recent arrivals are employed.

This situation poses challenges not only to the labor market but also to social services and integration efforts.

The current state of U.S. immigration policy has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters.

Analysts at CIS warn that if current trends persist, the foreign-born population could escalate to over 82 million by 2040, further straining public resources and social cohesion.

Critics argue that the Biden administration’s lenient policies have encouraged this influx, leading to unsustainable population growth and security concerns.

The political implications of this demographic shift are profound.

President Biden has found himself increasingly at odds with public opinion on immigration, with polls indicating a significant preference for former President Donald Trump’s approach.

According to a recent New York Times poll, Trump leads Biden by 35 points on immigration, with substantial leads in crucial swing states.

The record-high numbers of foreign-born residents under Biden’s presidency highlight a critical juncture for U.S. immigration policy.

As the nation continues to struggle with these challenges because of Biden, the debate continues to polarize the nation.

With upcoming investigations by the House GOP into spikes in illegal immigration from specific countries like China, the issue remains at the forefront of national discourse.

The need for an effective immigration strategy is more pressing than ever, as the U.S. strives to reconcile the ideals of openness with the imperatives of national security and economic stability.

This escalating demographic trend underscores the urgent need for a reassessment of immigration policies to ensure they serve the nation’s interests while maintaining its global humanitarian commitments.

As the situation develops, it will undoubtedly remain a pivotal issue in the upcoming electoral cycles, shaping political debates and potentially redefining the landscape of American politics and society.

The Radical Left has made it clear that they care more about foreigners and illegal immigrants than they do about American citizens. We must demand reform for our border security.

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

The Left is doing everything they can to attack Donald Trump. But they have found that America is rallying behind the former President.

And now, a top political leader has delivered a strong Trump trial message that has Democrats scared.

In a strong message outside the New York City courtroom, Senator JD Vance voiced his support for former President Donald Trump while criticizing the credibility of the prosecution’s “star witness,” Michael Cohen, in the ongoing trial concerning falsified business records.

Vance’s remarks underscored a broader critique of what many Americans see as a politically motivated legal process.

J. D. Vance speaks outside Trump Trial: "This is a disgrace and I wanted to be here to show some support" pic.twitter.com/ABHqWwlhDt

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 13, 2024

During a press briefing on Monday, Senator Vance expressed doubts about the reliability of Michael Cohen, who once served as Trump’s lawyer and now is a convicted felon.

Cohen’s history of legal troubles, including his admission of recording conversations with Trump, has cast a shadow on his credibility.

Vance openly questioned the integrity of Cohen’s testimony, suggesting that it would ultimately undermine the prosecution’s case.

“Does any reasonable, sensible person believe anything that Michael Cohen says? I don’t think that they should. And I actually think that his testimony is going to hurt with any reasonable juror, and hopefully, we have a few of those,” Vance stated emphatically.

The trial, overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, has attracted significant media attention, not least because of the controversial gag order imposed on Trump.

Vance highlighted this order as part of what he described as a broader pattern of prosecutorial misconduct aimed at sidelining a prominent political figure rather than engaging in a fair legal process.

Vance did not mince words when he spoke about the political implications of the trial.

He pointed to connections between Judge Merchan’s family and Democratic political activities, as well as the involvement of figures he described as aligned with Democratic interests, including New York DA Alvin Bragg, who Vance noted was funded by George Soros.

“The judge inside, his daughter is making millions of dollars running against Donald Trump, raising money for Donald Trump’s political opponents. The number three person in the Department of Justice, Biden’s Department of Justice, left to become a local prosecutor to go after Donald Trump. And of course, there’s Alvin Bragg, a Soros-funded prosecutor who promised to go after Donald Trump and now is doing exactly that,” Vance charged.

The implications of the trial extend beyond the courtroom, according to Vance, who argued that the proceedings reflect a misuse of the judicial system for partisan ends.

This, he argued, poses a threat to the democratic principles that underpin the American political system.

“Now look, whether you love Donald Trump, whether you like Donald Trump, or whether you’re a Democrat or don’t care about politics, what’s going on inside that courtroom is a threat to American democracy, ladies and gentlemen. We cannot have a country where you get to prosecute your political opponents instead of persuading voters,” Vance declared.

As the trial continues, Vance’s presence and remarks have catalyzed a discussion about the role of the judiciary and the potential for political interference.

His defense of Trump serves as a rallying cry for those who view the prosecution as overreach by a politicized judiciary.

Amidst inflation and international conflict, Vance suggests, this trial serves as a distraction rather than a legitimate legal proceeding, a theme likely to persist as the case unfolds.

Vance’s appearance at the courthouse, alongside other notable Republican figures such as Senator Tommy Tuberville and Representative Nicole Malliotakis, highlights the depth of support Trump retains within significant segments of the GOP.

It also emphasizes the divisive nature of this trial, not only within the context of New York politics but across the broader national landscape, shaping public discourse around justice, accountability, and political rivalry in America.

As long as the Radical Left continues to weaponize the justice system to prosecute their political rivals, our freedoms as Americans are not safe.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left all across the world hates the truth. And they have proven that they will do whatever it takes in order to push their narratives on the world.

And now, a major global group has been caught lying about reports in order to push a Radical agenda.

The United Nations has significantly revised its earlier estimates regarding the number of Palestinian children killed in Gaza, dramatically reducing the figures and highlighting discrepancies in the data used by various international entities to criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The initial figures provided by the UN suggested an extraordinarily high number of casualties among women and children, which played a central role in international reactions and condemnation of Israel’s military operations.

Initially, the UN reported that out of 34,735 casualties, over 14,500 were children.

This figure was later revised to 7,797 children, a reduction by almost 50%. Similarly, the reported number of women killed was halved from over 9,500 to 4,959.

These revisions raise substantial concerns about the accuracy of data provided during conflict situations, often referred to as the “fog of war.”

David Adesnik, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, commented on the implications of such discrepancies, suggesting that if the UN is now acknowledging these errors, it should openly lose confidence in the sources that provided the initial figures, which have been affiliated with Hamas, the governing body in Gaza recognized as a terrorist organization.

The method of collecting casualty data in conflict zones is fraught with challenges.

The UN typically gathers numbers from various sources on the ground and attempts to cross-verify them.

According to Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, the process of updating casualty figures is ongoing and subject to revision as more accurate information becomes available.

This scenario underscores the difficulties in obtaining reliable data in wartime conditions.

Israeli government spokesperson Avi Hyman provided a counter-perspective, emphasizing Israel’s estimate of the casualties which includes a distinction between terrorist combatants and civilians, claiming about 14,000 terrorists and 16,000 civilians were killed.

Hyman reiterated Israel’s commitment to adhering to international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict, stating Israel’s military efforts are specifically targeted at Hamas and not the civilian population of Gaza.

Israel asserts that it takes extensive measures to avoid civilian casualties while targeting Hamas, which it views as a legitimate military threat.

The controversy over casualty figures is further complicated by remarks from U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who suggested that Israel may have acted in ways inconsistent with international humanitarian law in certain instances.

This statement was based on a State Department report which itself struggled to reach conclusive findings on individual incidents.

The report noted that claims of violations were deemed “reasonable” given the extensive use of U.S.-made weapons by Israel, linking the potential for violations to the reliance on these arms.

This complex situation illustrates the broader challenge of assessing conduct in military conflicts, where the sources of casualty data can be as contentious as the actions on the ground.

The integrity and neutrality of data in conflict situations are crucial for fair international response and policy-making.

As the situation develops, the international community continues to watch closely, underscoring the need for all parties involved to strive for accuracy and transparency in reporting and conducting operations within the bounds of international law.

We must ensure that the truth is reported and that groups like the UN cannot lie about data in order to push a harmful and Radical agenda.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has had the media squarely in their pocket for many years now. But all of that could be changing.

And a CNN host has done the unthinkable on air and the Radical Left is terrified.

CNN host Fareed Zakaria expressed significant doubts about the impartiality and motivation behind the legal actions against former President Donald Trump, specifically referring to the hush-money case in New York.

On his show, “GPS,” Zakaria discussed the broader implications of these charges, suggesting they might not have been pursued against any other individual.

Zakaria noted a palpable consolidation of support for Trump as he navigates through numerous legal challenges while campaigning for another term.

He observed that any internal opposition Trump might have faced within his party has dissipated, bolstering his position.

According to Zakaria, the continuous legal battles keep Trump in the public eye, potentially galvanizing his base and even earning him a degree of sympathy from the general populace, who may perceive the prosecutions as politically driven.

“I doubt the New York indictment would have been brought against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump,” Zakaria asserted.

🚨CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Trump’s NY Criminal Trial:

“I doubt the New York trial would have been brought against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump.”

pic.twitter.com/hesN52odkU

— Andy Hidalgo (@RealAndyHidalgo) May 12, 2024

This statement reflects a growing skepticism among the American public regarding the fairness of Trump’s trial—a sentiment backed by a CNN poll indicating a majority harbor doubts about the trial’s impartiality.

The case against Trump, led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, involves 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

These charges are connected to alleged payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and others, purportedly to suppress damaging information during the 2016 election campaign.

This “catch-and-kill” tactic, according to prosecutors, was intended to sway the election’s outcome in Trump’s favor.

Trump has consistently denied all allegations, decrying them as part of a broader “political persecution” against him.

His legal battles aren’t confined to this case; he’s concurrently facing other criminal charges on both state and federal levels as he pursues re-election, maintaining his innocence across all fronts.

The legal foundations of Bragg’s case have been questioned by several legal experts.

Even CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig pointed out that the case employs a contentious legal strategy that elevates misdemeanor charges to the felony level, which he argued would stand little chance of leading to a conviction in a more politically balanced jurisdiction.

This analysis underscores the concerns that the charges against Trump are politically motivated rather than grounded in a pursuit of justice.

The situation encapsulates the ongoing debate about whether the legal challenges Trump faces are a rightful pursuit of justice for alleged wrongdoings or whether they are politically motivated actions designed to tarnish his image and hinder his political career.

Such circumstances demand a closer examination of the legal and ethical standards at play within the U.S. judicial system, particularly concerning high-profile figures involved in politics.

The implications are far-reaching, potentially affecting public trust in both the legal system and the political landscape.

As Trump’s trials continue, they are more than mere legal proceedings; they are a litmus test for the integrity of American legal and political institutions.

The outcomes of these cases could profoundly impact public perceptions and trust, shaping the political narrative in the lead-up to the next presidential election.

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

If Joe Biden wants to win in November, he has to receive the support of all on the Radical Left. But it appears that will not happen.

And a former Clinton advisor has dealt a major blow to the Biden campaign, and Democrats are scrambling.

Mark Penn, chairman of the Harris Poll and former advisor to the Clintons, has delivered a scathing critique of President Joe Biden’s re-election strategy, spotlighting a fundamental misalignment with the pivotal centrist voters essential for victory in 2024.

In a New York Times op-ed, Penn warns that Biden’s unwavering commitment to a leftist agenda is not just a tactical misstep but a significant political blunder that may ensure his defeat.

Penn describes a troubling scenario where Biden, consumed by the demands of the Radical wing of his party, is neglecting the moderate swing voters who are crucial in swing states.

His current strategy is characterized by radical policies that include a dramatic shift on Israel, an exorbitant $7 trillion budget proposal, substantial tax increases, and a failure to address core issues like inflation, immigration, and energy security effectively.

This Radical drift is particularly pronounced in Biden’s handling of foreign affairs.

His decision to withhold congressionally approved military aid to Israel to appease progressive activists has sparked outrage not only among conservatives but also among many Democrats who view Israel as a vital ally.

This move, along with his administration’s weakness in foreign policy, paints a picture of a presidency out of step with America’s strategic interests and values.

Penn points out that Biden’s progressive policies are alienating, not just on foreign policy but across a spectrum of issues.

From the economy to public safety, Biden’s administration seems more interested in pushing progressive narratives than in solving real-world problems that affect everyday Americans.

The economic downturn, characterized by rampant inflation and stagnant growth under Biden’s watch, contrasts sharply with the relative stability and prosperity during the Trump administration, making Trump’s policies appear more effective in retrospect.

Moreover, Trump’s straightforward approaches to immigration and energy independence resonate with voters who yearn for decisive and effective leadership, unlike Biden’s policies, which seem to favor ideological purity over practical outcomes.

Penn suggests that Biden’s refusal to genuinely address these issues, coupled with his inclination to appease the far-left elements of his party, is disconnecting him from the American mainstream.

Penn advises Biden to pivot towards the center, embracing a pragmatic approach that could appeal to the broad middle of American politics, including disenchanted moderates who once leaned Democrat but now find themselves aligning more with conservative principles due to the Democrats’ leftward lurch.

In essence, Penn’s critique is a dire warning to Biden: continue down the current path of progressive extremism, and face electoral oblivion.

The suggestion is that Biden could learn from the Republican playbook, which focuses on strong leadership, fiscal responsibility, and a robust national defense—qualities that resonate with the majority of Americans.

The implications of Biden’s failure to adapt are stark for the Democrat party.

Penn’s analysis paints a picture of a potential political landscape where Trump’s return to power is not just possible but likely, driven by widespread dissatisfaction with Biden’s administration.

This scenario would not only be a dramatic political comeback for Trump but also a damning indictment of Biden’s presidency, defined by missed opportunities and misguided priorities.

If Biden is to avoid this fate, Penn argues, he must urgently realign his administration with the values and concerns of the average American voter, rather than catering to the ideological fringes.

The choice Biden faces is clear: adapt and survive politically, or remain rigid and face the consequences at the ballot box.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has allowed our great nation to fall far from what it once was. And now they have allowed the unspeakable to happen.

And a Supreme Court justice has issued a chilling warning regarding nationwide attacks.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in a powerful commencement speech at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, issued a stark warning about the erosion of fundamental American liberties, particularly highlighting the grave threats to freedom of speech and religious freedom on college campuses across the nation.

Alito described a disturbing trend on these campuses, once the bedrock of free expression and reasoned debate, which now increasingly serve as echo chambers of ideological and Radical conformity.

He noted, “Troubled waters are slamming against some of our most fundamental principles,” underscoring the perilous decline of support for core constitutional values in the very institutions meant to champion them.

“Support for freedom of speech is declining dangerously, especially where it should find deepest acceptance,” Alito lamented, pointing to the irony of institutions of higher learning becoming less tolerant of diverse viewpoints.

The Justice highlighted recent events, such as the widespread anti-Israel protests on campuses, which have not only stifled free speech but also aggressively suppressed any dissenting voices.

These movements, according to Alito, threaten not just the academic integrity of these institutions but also the broader democratic fabric of American society, which relies on open and free discourse to thrive.

Furthermore, Alito expressed deep concern over the state of religious freedom in America, a foundation stone of American identity and liberty.

Addressing the graduates, many of whom hold strong religious convictions, Alito cautioned, “When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job or a community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm.”

This warning resonates in a culture where religious individuals increasingly find themselves marginalized for their beliefs, especially when those beliefs clash with prevailing secular norms.

Alito criticized the labeling of traditional religious adherents as “bigots,” a tactic that not only silences but also demonizes vital religious perspectives.

He pointed to the societal trend of aggressive secularism that seeks to push religious life to the margins of public discourse, effectively chilling the free exercise of religion through social and sometimes legal pressures.

Justice Alito’s speech at Franciscan University was not merely ceremonial but a clarion call to action for all who value the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

His remarks serve as a reminder of the vigilance required to safeguard these liberties against encroaching forces that seek to reshape the foundational principles of American life.

The graduates were left with a solemn charge: to be defenders of freedom, standing courageously against a tide of intolerance and suppression that threatens to undermine the very principles that define and distinguish the United States.

In an era marked by contentious political and cultural battles, Alito’s words underscore the essential role of informed and principled citizens in preserving the liberties we hold dear.

His poignant reflections on the state of the nation’s cherished freedoms are a reminder that the battle for the heart and soul of America continues unabated, requiring each generation to rise to the defense of our constitutional rights.

We must continue fighting for our freedoms even while the Radical Left tries to take them away.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Biden and the Left know that they have to win in November. And they need all of the support that they can get if they hope to beat Trump.

But now, Biden has suffered a devastating betrayal that could change his election chances.

CNN host Erin Burnett recently conducted an interview with President Joe Biden, probing him on his administration’s handling of the economy.

The interview, striking in its directness, comes at a critical time, just months before the 2024 presidential election, where Biden’s economic track record has become a central issue.

Burnett opened the interview by laying out the stark realities facing American voters, noting that the economy remains their top concern.

She cited significant economic indicators that paint a grim picture of Biden’s tenure:

“The cost of buying a home in the United States is double what it was, when you look at your monthly costs, from before the pandemic. Real income, when you account for inflation, is actually down since you took office, economic growth last week far short of expectations,” Burnett said.

Additionally, she pointed out that consumer confidence is hovering near a two-year low, questioning Biden on whether he is concerned about his diminishing time to enact meaningful change before voters head to the polls.

CNN's Erin Burnett: It's also true right now, Mr. President, that voters by a wide margin, trust Trump more on the economy. They say that in polls and part of the reason for that may be the numbers and – and you're aware of many of these, of course, the cost of buying a home in… pic.twitter.com/nQr2ds4lKb

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024

President Biden’s response was a false claim of success, asserting that he had already turned the situation around, despite the worsening conditions in the areas Burnett highlighted.

This assertion seemed to disconnect from the economic realities many Americans are currently experiencing, including increased financial strain and a lack of new, sustainable job opportunities post-pandemic.

Significantly, Burnett brought up the Biden administration’s American Rescue Plan, highlighting its role in triggering the highest inflation spike in four decades—a critical point that Biden did not directly address during the interview.

This inflation has profoundly impacted American families and businesses, squeezing budgets and diminishing purchasing power.

During the interview, Burnett also pressed Biden on the disappointing GDP growth, a point which Biden contested.

However, he did not address the concern that many of the jobs counted in his administration’s success stats were not new opportunities but rather positions that people returned to as pandemic restrictions eased.

The conversation turned tense when discussing the sharp rise in grocery prices under Biden’s watch, which has translated into real day-to-day pain for average Americans.

Biden attributed these price hikes to “corporate greed,” a stance he reiterated as the cause of economic distress.

“That’s corporate greed. That’s corporate greed,” Biden repeated. “And we have got to deal with it. And that’s what I’m working on.”

This explanation does not satisfy voters who are experiencing daily financial pressures and looking for immediate and effective relief that extends beyond regulatory measures.

Erin Burnett’s pointed questions during the CNN interview brought to the forefront the critical challenges and discrepancies in the Biden administration’s economic policies.

The discussion highlighted a significant gap between the administration’s assessment of the economic situation and the palpable realities faced by the electorate.

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the economy is set to be a battleground issue.

Biden’s assertions of success in the face of widespread economic discontent may play a crucial role in shaping voter perceptions and confidence in his leadership.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has many secrets that they try to keep from the American people. But this might just be one of the worst.

And a new report has detailed a chilling FBI secret.

A recent report spearheaded by former assistant FBI director Mark Morgan and attorney Sean Kennedy reveals significant discrepancies in the FBI’s reporting of violent crime statistics for the year 2023, suggesting a potential crisis in public safety and flaws in the criminal justice system in the United States.

Titled “Assessing America’s Crime Crises: Trends, Causes, and Consequences,” the report argues that crime in the US has not only risen but is considerably worse than official statistics suggest.

According to the findings, despite preliminary data from the FBI indicating a decrease in crime over the past few years, the reality is starkly different.

The authors of the report use a compelling metaphor to describe the misleading nature of current crime statistics:

“To say crime is down is like descending from a tall peak and standing on a high bluff, saying you are closer to the ground – a true but misleading statement.”

This underreporting of crime figures has major implications for public perception and policy.

A Gallup poll from March 2024 underscores the severity of public concern, showing that nearly 80 percent of Americans worry about crime and violence to a significant extent, placing it on par with other major concerns like inflation and immigration.

Kennedy, in an interview with Fox News Digital, pointed out critical issues with the FBI’s data collection methods, particularly following the George Floyd protests in 2020.

Many police departments, he noted, began reclassifying certain violent crimes, effectively reducing the reported rates of serious offenses.

“If you classify something as an aggravated assault, it’s a violent crime or a felony, but if you classify it as a simple assault, it’s then a misdemeanor and a non-violent crime,” Kennedy explained.

This change in classification significantly impacts how crime data is perceived by the public and portrayed in the media.

Furthermore, the report highlights a growing reluctance among businesses and individuals to report criminal activities.

Many believe that police response times are too slow to justify the effort of reporting, leading to an even greater underestimation of true crime rates.

Kennedy criticized the uncritical acceptance of FBI crime data, which often comes with numerous caveats that are not adequately communicated to the public.

“FBI data is taken as gospel truth when the FBI itself puts a series of footnotes all over their own data,” he stated.

The report also blames the rise in crime on “soft-on-crime” policies implemented in many Democrat-led cities.

These initiatives, according to the report, have contributed to a deterioration of law and order, prompting calls from the public for enhanced law enforcement and stricter criminal penalties.

The researchers point out that these policy failures not only exacerbate the crime situation but also erode public trust in the ability of local governments and law enforcement agencies to protect their citizens.

The “Assessing America’s Crime Crises” report serves as a critical examination of the current state of crime and public safety in the United States.

It calls for a reassessment of how crime data is collected, reported, and understood by policymakers and the public.

As the 2024 election approaches, the findings of this report could play a significant role in shaping discussions around national security and criminal justice reforms, potentially influencing voter sentiment and public policy at both the state and federal levels.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left will use anything they can to prosecute Trump even if it is bogus. But now something is happening that has Democrats worried.

Because a new discovery in the Stormy Daniels case could completely change the outcome.

Michael Avenatti, the former attorney for adult film actress Stormy Daniels, has made serious allegations against Daniels, accusing her of falsifying business records and engaging in fraud.

Avenatti’s allegations center on Daniels’ efforts to evade paying legal fees owed to former President Donald Trump, following a court ruling.

These claims raise questions about potential legal action by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who is currently prosecuting Trump in a high-profile case.

In a detailed statement posted on social media platform X, Avenatti claimed that Daniels colluded with documentary producers to obscure payments she received for her participation in a film that he described as a “puff piece” aimed to disparage both him and Trump.

Here is my statement regarding the testimony of Stormy Daniels. Will DA Bragg pursue charges against her for falsification of business records, fraud, etc. pic.twitter.com/ELPNzfMsIC

— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) May 7, 2024

Avenatti stated, “Will DA Bragg pursue charges against her for falsification of business records, fraud, etc.?”

Avenatti recounted an interaction with Sarah Gibson, a producer for the documentary, alleging that Gibson openly admitted to devising a payment scheme to help Daniels avoid making court-ordered payments to Trump.

“To say that I was shocked when I was told this would be an understatement,” Avenatti expressed, recounting his surprise upon learning that the producers and Daniels had allegedly engaged in criminal acts including wire fraud and fraudulent transfers, purportedly to defraud Trump and dodge legal financial obligations.

The backdrop to these accusations includes a 2023 court order requiring Daniels to pay $120,000 in legal fees to Trump following an unsuccessful defamation suit she filed against him.

Daniels publicly stated she would rather face jail than comply with the payment order, highlighting her defiance and the contentious nature of her legal battles with Trump.

Currently, Daniels is involved in another legal drama as she testifies in New York City in a case initiated by DA Bragg.

The case concerns payments made by Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, which were allegedly intended to prevent Daniels from disclosing details of an affair with Trump—a claim she has previously denied but has now, according to her testimony, rehearsed for the trial.

Avenatti’s call for Bragg to prosecute Daniels for similar crimes to those alleged against Trump points to potential inconsistencies in legal accountability.

This situation raises broader questions about the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process, particularly in high-profile cases entangled with political implications.

The allegations by Avenatti suggest a misuse of legal and financial maneuvers to sidestep judicial rulings, which could undermine public trust in the legal system if not addressed.

The implication that documentary producers might also be involved in these schemes adds another layer of complexity, suggesting that the manipulation of business records could be part of a broader strategy to influence public perception and legal outcomes.

The direct call out to DA Bragg to pursue charges underscores the polarized nature of these legal entanglements and the high stakes for all parties involved.

Will the Radical Left justice system pursue charges against Stormy Daniels the same way they are prosecuting Trump?

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

While the Radical Left has been doing everything they can to attack Trump, America has been fighting back. And now, things are not going so well for the Left.

And a Republican AG has made a shocking demand of the Biden administration that has Democrats scared.

In a shocking move highlighting concerns about potential political motivations behind the legal challenges facing former President Donald Trump, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has taken a significant step toward scrutinizing the involvement of the Biden Administration’s Justice Department.

On Thursday, Bailey filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request aimed at uncovering any communications that might suggest coordination between the Biden DOJ and the prosecutors who have brought charges against Trump.

This FOIA request specifically targets correspondence related to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

These figures have been central in various legal actions against Trump, actions that many people argue reflect a broader strategy of politically motivated prosecution rather than a pursuit of justice based on evidence.

Andrew Bailey’s initiative stems from mounting evidence suggesting that these prosecutions could be part of a coordinated effort led by the Biden Administration to sideline Trump, particularly poignant given Trump’s active campaign for a return to the presidency in 2024.

Bailey articulated these concerns in a series of posts on X, stating, “Thanks to evidence that has come to light, my office has reason to believe Biden’s corrupt Department of Justice is the headquarters of the illicit prosecutions against President Trump.”

Biden's corrupt Department of Justice is the headquarters deploying personnel in the illicit witch-hunt prosecutions against President Trump. pic.twitter.com/KGH0P9zj86

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) May 9, 2024

One of the most striking examples Bailey cited is the transition of Matthew Colangelo, the third-highest-ranking member of the Department of Justice, to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in December 2022.

This move is seen by many as a direct effort to bolster legal actions against Trump, leveraging federal experience and authority in a local prosecutorial role.

Bailey pointed out, “During his campaign, Bragg promised ‘if elected, [he] would go after Trump.’ Once elected, he pledged ‘to personally focus on the high-profile probe into former President Donald Trump’s business practices.'”

These statements, according to Bailey, suggest a preconceived plan to target Trump, irrespective of the underlying legal merits.

The Missouri Attorney General’s request includes a broad spectrum of documents: emails, calendar entries, meeting notes, and other communications that could shed light on the extent of coordination between the DOJ and the offices of the aforementioned prosecutors.

This information is crucial for assessing whether the legal actions against Trump are being driven by legitimate legal concerns or are a manifestation of political bias and targeting.

Bailey’s pursuit of this information is not merely a bureaucratic exercise; it speaks to the heart of American principles of justice and the need for transparency in actions taken by governmental authorities, especially when such actions have deep political and personal implications.

The timing of the charges against Trump, their nature, and the potential impact on his presidential campaign raise questions about the fairness and independence of the prosecutorial process.

The implications of Bailey’s FOIA request are profound.

Should evidence of undue coordination or political motivations behind the prosecutions come to light, it could significantly impact public trust in the impartiality of the Justice Department and the integrity of the legal processes at play.

Moreover, it could provide crucial ammunition for Trump’s defense, potentially influencing the outcomes of his legal battles and his political future.

As this situation unfolds, the responses to the FOIA request and any resulting disclosures will be closely watched by politicians, legal experts, and the general public.

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