Democrats are constantly doing whatever they can to get the edge in elections. But this newest development is shocking.

And the Democrats’ newest election moves sees them elect a dead man.

In an unusual turn of events, a deceased Democrat has won his primary bid to retain his congressional seat in New Jersey after running uncontested.

Ronald Payne Jr., the long-serving congressman for New Jersey’s 10th district, passed away in April at the age of 65 from a heart attack.

Despite his death, Payne’s name remained on the ballot due to the filing deadline for the primary being in March, well before his untimely demise.

Payne, a respected member of the Congressional Black Caucus, held his seat since 2012, following in the footsteps of his father who served the district for 20 years until his own death while in office.

This tragic yet bizarre situation highlights a significant gap in the electoral process, where procedural timelines can result in posthumous victories.

A special election has been scheduled for July 16 to fill Payne’s seat. The Democratic field is already crowded with about a dozen candidates vying for the position.

New Jersey’s 10th district, encompassing Newark, Hudson, Union, and Essex counties, has been a Democratic stronghold since 1947. In contrast, the GOP candidate Carmen Bucco emerged victorious in the primary, ready to contest the special election.

Across the state of New Jersey, former President Donald Trump ran uncontested in the GOP presidential primary, solidifying his position as the Republican frontrunner.

On the Democratic side, incumbent President Joe Biden secured his party’s nomination, although a notable 41,461 ballots were cast for “uncommitted.”

This significant number reflects a growing dissent among Democrats, particularly those opposed to Biden’s support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

These “uncommitted” votes highlight an internal struggle within the Democratic Party, driven by a faction that vehemently opposes Israel’s defensive actions against Hamas and other militant groups.

This development could signal potential challenges for Biden as he seeks re-election, especially from voters who feel disenfranchised by his foreign policy decisions.

In addition to the congressional race, the New Jersey primary saw Andy Kim winning the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat.

Kim, who has served as the representative for New Jersey’s 3rd congressional district since 2019, is known for his moderate stance and focus on bipartisan solutions. His win sets the stage for a competitive Senate race.

Curtis Bashaw secured the Republican nomination for the Senate seat. Bashaw, a businessman with a background in real estate and hospitality, has positioned himself as a strong conservative voice, emphasizing economic growth, national security, and traditional values.

The upcoming Senate race will likely be a key battleground, reflecting broader national issues and voter sentiments.

The bizarre primary victory of a deceased congressman underscores the need for electoral reforms to address such anomalies.

It raises questions about the efficiency and responsiveness of the electoral process in adapting to unforeseen circumstances.

Meanwhile, the significant “uncommitted” vote in the Democratic presidential primary serves as a stark reminder of the internal divisions within the party.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Many Americans have grown increasingly concerned about the possibility of noncitizens voting. And Radical Leftists have been trying to cover up the truth.

But now, the fear has become a reality because of this shocking Leftist move.

Washington, DC, saw a significant shift in its voting demographic on Tuesday as over 500 noncitizens registered to vote in the district’s local elections.

This change came after the implementation of the Local Resident Voting Rights Act, allowing noncitizens to participate in local elections for the first time.

The Act, which took effect this week, permits noncitizens to vote in local elections provided they have been residents of the jurisdiction for at least 30 days, meet age and competency requirements, and have not registered to vote elsewhere in the United States.

It is important to note that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 continues to prohibit noncitizens from voting in state and federal elections.

The DC Board of Elections facilitated the registration process for noncitizens by allowing them to prove their residency through various documents.

As reported by the Washington Post, as of Tuesday, over 500 noncitizens had taken advantage of this new law and registered to vote in the nation’s capital.

The breakdown of party affiliation among these new voters is telling: 310 registered as Democrats, 169 as independents, and a mere 28 as Republicans. An additional 16 registered with the Green Party.

The local elections saw a total of six City Council seats up for grabs, including Ward 2, Ward 4, Ward 7, Ward 8, and two At-large seats.

These were the only races in which noncitizens were permitted to vote. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens also had the opportunity to vote in a number of primary elections, including those for the U.S. House non-voting delegate, U.S. Senate shadow senator, and U.S. House shadow representative.

DC’s decision to extend voting rights to noncitizens in municipal elections has not been without controversy.

In May, the House of Representatives voted to block the law, but it still needs to pass the Senate before it can be nullified.

This has not stopped a number of politicians at both the state and federal levels from voicing their concerns.

One of the most vocal critics has been Texas Representative Chip Roy, who expressed his disapproval in an interview with the Daily Mail.

“The radical progressive Democrats in the DC city government couldn’t be prouder of the fact that they’re going to have illegal aliens voting in their elections,” Roy said.

“Yet, they want us to believe that it’s going to stop there, and that none of them are going to try — or be encouraged — to illegally vote in federal elections? Give me a break.”

The sentiment shared by Roy is echoed by many Americans who see this move as a slippery slope that could undermine the integrity of U.S. elections.

They argue that allowing noncitizens to vote in any capacity could lead to potential abuses and illegal voting in federal elections.

The fear is that once noncitizens are given a foothold in local elections, it might only be a matter of time before the same logic is applied to state and federal elections.

The fact remains that the majority of noncitizens registered to vote in DC have aligned themselves with the Democratic Party.

This aligns with the broader trend seen in urban areas where progressive policies are more widely accepted.

The disparity in party affiliation among noncitizen voters has further fueled concerns among many that this move is politically motivated to bolster Democratic support in local elections.

The local elections in DC will serve as a litmus test for how this new voting demographic will influence future elections.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Election interference has been a major concern for many Americans. And the Radical Left’s recent moves have made people more worried.

And now, Biden’s shocking election interference admission has stunned the world.

In a revealing interview with Time Magazine, incumbent President Joe Biden made a striking admission about China’s alleged meddling in U.S. elections.

When pressed on the issue, Biden acknowledged, “There, there, there, there is evidence that meddling is going on.”

This statement comes amid ongoing debates about foreign interference in American democracy and the implications for the upcoming 2024 election, which pits Biden against former President Donald Trump in a highly anticipated rematch.

During the interview, the Time reporter inquired specifically about China’s involvement in the electoral process, asking if there was evidence of meddling through artificial intelligence or other means.

Biden’s response was cautious but clear, “I’m not going to get into, I don’t think I should from an intelligence standpoint, there…”

When the interviewer pressed further, Biden elaborated, “I think China would have an interest—let me put it like this—would have an interest in meddling. Everybody, all the bad guys are rooting for Trump, man. Not a joke. Think about it.”

Biden’s comments echo concerns raised during the 2020 election cycle, where Trump, along with then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and Attorney General Bill Barr, asserted that China had worked to further Biden’s chances.

These claims were later countered by the intelligence community, which stated that China had no preference in the election’s outcome.

In a related context, French President Emmanuel Macron’s 2019 statement about NATO experiencing “brain death” under Trump’s administration was also mentioned by Biden.

Macron had criticized the lack of U.S. leadership and Trump’s insistence that NATO members pay their fair share for defense, a move that, while unpopular among European leaders, led to increased contributions from several NATO countries.

The issue of foreign interference in U.S. elections is not new. In 2016, then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused Trump of colluding with Russia to interfere in the election.

These allegations were widely reported by media outlets and led to significant political fallout.

Clinton’s campaign was later fined for misreporting payments to an opposition research firm as legal fees, which were used to make false claims against Trump.

In April, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a threat warning highlighting Beijing’s covert influence efforts.

The warning stated, “Beijing is expanding its global covert influence posture to better support the CCP’s goals. The PRC aims to sow doubts about US leadership, undermine democracy, and extend Beijing’s influence.”

Trump had previously claimed that China helped Biden win the 2020 election. In August 2021, DNI John Ratcliffe supported this view, stating, “China is using a massive and sophisticated influence campaign that dwarfs anything that any other country is doing.”

Attorney General Bill Barr also confirmed having seen the intelligence. However, a subsequent report from the National Intelligence Council contradicted these claims, stating, “We assess that China did not deploy interference efforts and considered but did not deploy influence efforts intended to change the outcome of the US Presidential election. We have high confidence in this judgment.”

The report further noted, “China … did not view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk getting caught meddling.”

Despite these findings, concerns about China’s intentions remain, with allegations that Beijing seeks to undermine American democracy by inflaming political divisions.

The Council on Foreign Relations suggested that Beijing’s goal might be to weaken American democracy and its global coherence by exacerbating political divisions.

As the 2024 election approaches, the issue of foreign interference remains a critical concern.

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

The Radical Left is losing ground in almost every state after Trump’s recent conviction. But this new report underscores just how significant things are.

And a new bombshell report out of a major swing states has the potential to change everything.

In a significant development for the 2024 presidential race, a new poll by Mitchell Research & Communications indicates that former President Donald Trump holds a lead over incumbent President Joe Biden among Michigan voters.

According to the poll, Trump commands 48.2 percent of the vote in a head-to-head matchup, slightly ahead of Biden’s 47.6 percent. Notably, 4.2 percent of voters remain undecided.

When third-party candidates are factored in, Trump’s lead extends marginally. The poll reveals Trump with 46.3 percent of the vote, while Biden trails with 45.1 percent.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., running as a third-party candidate, garners 3.3 percent support. The poll, conducted on June 3, surveyed 697 likely voters and carries a margin of error of 6.9 percent.

This data reflects a tightening race since the last poll conducted on May 20-21, 2024, which showed Trump with a wider lead of 2 percent.

The recent poll, taken after Trump’s conviction, suggests that Biden has slightly improved his standing among Democrats, securing 95 percent of their support compared to Trump’s 93 percent among Republicans.

Trump’s support among Democrats has decreased from 9 percent to 4 percent, while Biden’s backing among Republicans has risen from 4 percent to 5 percent. Among Independent voters, Trump now leads with 47 percent to Biden’s 40 percent.

Steve Mitchell, president of Mitchell Research & Communications, highlighted the implications of these findings, noting how Trump’s recent conviction might have influenced voter sentiment.

“Trump’s lead has narrowed from two percent to point six percent since our last survey conducted May 20-21, 2024, before Trump’s conviction. In the May 2024 survey, Trump had solidified his base better than Biden but post-conviction, Biden is doing slightly better with Democrats (95 percent) than Trump has with Republicans (93 percent),” Mitchell observed.

Michigan’s pivotal role in the upcoming election cannot be overstated. As a key swing state, it has the potential to significantly impact the outcome of the 2024 presidential race.

According to Real Clear Politics polling averages, Trump currently leads outside the margin of error in other crucial swing states such as Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and Florida.

Trump also has a notable lead in Nevada, a state that has not voted Republican since 2004 when voters re-elected George W. Bush.

To secure an electoral victory, Trump would need to win only one of the three critical states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin—assuming he also prevails in the aforementioned swing states.

Currently, Trump holds a slight edge over Biden in all three of these states, although the results are within the margin of error in most polls. Trump carried these states in 2016 but lost them in 2020.

The post-conviction polling data underscores the resilience of Trump’s support base despite legal challenges.

His ability to maintain, and in some cases, increase support among key voter groups reflects a deep-rooted dissatisfaction with the current administration.

Many Trump supporters view the legal actions against him as politically motivated, which has galvanized his base and fueled campaign donations.

Reports indicate that Trump raised more than $200 million following his conviction, suggesting strong financial backing and grassroots support.

For President Biden, the narrowing gap in Michigan and other battleground states signals the need for a robust campaign strategy to regain lost ground.

His administration’s policies, particularly on the economy, inflation, and immigration, will be under intense scrutiny as voters weigh their options.

The upcoming election promises to be fiercely contested, with both candidates vying for the support of Independents and swing state voters.

Trump’s appeal to these groups, as reflected in the Mitchell Research poll, could be a decisive factor.

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

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.