CNN Anchor Suggests Joe Biden Had Advanced Knowledge Of Debate Questions
CNN anchor Erin Burnett told viewers watching Thursday night’s post-debate coverage of the Donald Trump and Joe Biden faceoff that Sleepy Joe knew every question he was going to be asked.
While the CNN panel basically slammed Biden’s pisspoor performance, Burnett noted Biden went through more than a week of preparation for the debate and still flopped.
NEW: CNN’s Erin Burnett says Biden knew “every one of these questions is coming” leading many to suggest that Biden was fed debate questions beforehand.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 28, 2024
CNN, you have some explaining to do.
Burnett: “He goes through six days of preparation, a camp day, more than that. And they… pic.twitter.com/cPdOmgAXx4
Continuing to vent about the Biden campaign’s debate debacle, Burnett said, “They knew the rules. He practices with the mics. He knows every one of these questions is coming and yet he couldn’t fill the time.”
The video clip is going viral online with many internet users questioning whether Biden was given the debate questions ahead of time, similar to the 2016 scandal where former Democratic National Committee interim chair Donna Brazile gave CNN Town Hall questions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Biden failed miserably despite the entire establishment trying to stack the deck in his favor and now the entire nation is talking about replacing the senile puppet.
The Court Green-Lights Censorship
In 1919, the Supreme Court used the pretext of crisis to overhaul the First Amendment as it jailed critics of the Great War. Over a century later, the Court has again fallen victim to the Beltway’s prevailing zeitgeist in today’s regrettable decision in Murthy v. Missouri.
The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, rejects the lower court’s injunction against many government agencies to stop leaning on social media companies to curate content, and does so on grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing.
The opinion rests on omitted facts, skewed perceptions, and absurd conclusory statements. The dissent, issued by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, masterfully recounts the facts of the case and the inconsistency of the majority.
Justice Barrett’s opinion completely ignored the Court’s decision last week in National Rifle Association v. Vullo. In that case, the Court held that New York officials violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights by launching a campaign to coerce private actors to “punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion activities.”
Justice Sotomayor issued the opinion for a unanimous Court, writing, “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”
In Murthy,the majority did not even attempt to differentiate the case from its clear precedent in Vullo. Justice Alito, however, explained the ominous message the Court sent through the two opinions.
What the officials did in this case was more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in Vullo, but it was no less coercive. And because of the perpetrators’ high positions, it was even more dangerous. It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so. Officials who read today’s decision together with Vullo will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by.
Further, the majority opinion is bereft of references to the perpetrators, their “high positions,” or their statements of coercion. Justice Barrett does not mention Rob Flaherty or Andy Slavitt – the two main henchmen behind the Biden Administration’s censorship efforts – a single time in her holding. The dissent, however, devotes pages to recounting the White House’s ongoing censorship campaign.
Justice Alito used the framework outlined in Vullo (which the majority likewise ignored), which analyzed four factors in determining whether government communications violate the First Amendment: “(1) word choice and tone; (2) the existence of regulatory authority; (3) whether the speech was perceived as a threat; and, perhaps most importantly, (4) whether the speech refers to adverse consequences.”
Last week, Brownstone addressed how those four factors clearly demonstrate that the Government violated the First Amendment in Murthy. Today’s dissent used the same framework and similar arguments.
Alito cited how “the White House’s emails were phrased virtually as orders and the officials’ frequent follow-ups ensured that they were understood as such.” Justice Barrett’s majority opinion relied on the presumption that social media companies already support censorship, so she could not find that the government’s speech was the cause of the injury. This, however, deliberately strayed from the precedent that the Court set just last week in Vullo.
Second, Alito explained that social media companies are “far more vulnerable to Government pressure than other news sources.” He wrote: “If a President dislikes a particular newspaper, he (fortunately) lacks the ability to put the paper out of business. But for Facebook and many other social media platforms, the situation is fundamentally different. They are critically dependent on the protection provided by §230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U. S. C. §230, which shields them from civil liability for content they spread.”
He then cited Mark Zuckerberg, who said the threat of antitrust lawsuits was an “existential” threat to his company.
This creates an all-encompassing regulatory authority that demands subservience from social media companies. The majority, however, only mentions this “existential” threat in passing, noting that Jen Psaki “spoke generally about §230 and antitrust reform” in July 2021 amid White House pressure to promote vaccine censorship. But evidently, Barrett and the rest of the majority did not feel inclined to address the issues that Justice Alito raised in dissent.
Justice Alito, citing the facts that the majority ignored, explained:
For these and other reasons, internet platforms have a powerful incentive to please important federal officials, and the record in this case shows that high-ranking officials skillfully exploited Facebook’s vulnerability. When Facebook did not heed their requests as quickly or as fully as the officials wanted, the platform was publicly accused of “killing people” and subtly threatened with retaliation.
Third, Alito noted that executives’ responses “to persistent inquiries, criticisms, and threats show that the platform perceived the statements as something more than mere recommendations.” Like Brownstone’s analysis from last week, Justice Alito cited reports from the House Judiciary Committee that reveal that Facebook officials kowtowed to Flaherty and Slavitt within hours of their demands.
Perhaps most absurdly, the Court ruled that there was no “substantial risk of future injury” because the Government has winded down its “frequent, intense communications” with the platforms. The majority wrote that there “is no more than conjecture” that plaintiffs will be subject to censorship in the future.
But as we enter another election year, can Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Barrett, or Justice Kavanaugh honestly think that these agencies – like CISA, the CIA, the FBI, and DHS – will temper their censorship efforts now that the Court has absolved them?
Will they allow dissent to flourish over the conflict in Ukraine, vaccine mandates, the rise of bird flu, or corruption allegations after they successfully stifled dissidents in the last cycle?
The glorious achievement of the Internet was to give everyone a voice. Social media made that operational. As time has gone on, government found a way in, via direct intimidation and third-party services plus revolving doors with agencies. The majority opinion here has found a way to codify this new form of censorship that threatens the whole idea of free speech itself.
The case now returns to the lower court for further examination, which will lead to more discovery and more evidence of government control of speech. Meanwhile, the range of views available to influence the public mind will grow ever more narrow over time, and the First Amendment could become a dead letter.
MUST WATCH: Dr. David Martin Interview — U.S. Gov. Is Coordinating A Depopulation Program Against The World
“There’s Time For That” Biden Tells Anti-Trump Crowd Chanting “Lock Him Up”
During his post-debate rally in North Carolina Friday, Sleepy Joe Biden’s crowd chanted, “Lock him up,” in reference to Donald Trump.
“Well, there’s time for that,” Biden responded to the pleas to put the leading presidential candidate in prison.
BREAKING: BIDEN JUST CONFIRMED HE WANTS TRUMP LOCKED UP
— Jack Poso ?? (@JackPosobiec) June 28, 2024
“THERE’S TIME FOR THAT!”
pic.twitter.com/bgRUntGUw2
Continuing his divisive rhetoric, Biden posted to X on Friday, writing, “Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation. He’s a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy. He’s literally a threat to everything America stands for.”
Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation.
He’s a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy. He’s literally a threat to everything America stands for.— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) June 28, 2024
The Democrat Party’s main 2024 election narrative is that Trump is a “threat to democracy” who will seek revenge against his political opponents, yet the Biden administration is openly doing just that.
Voters can see right through the establishment propaganda being shoved down their throats, which is why Trump is making strides with young voters, black voters and other demographics.
Trump Live From Virginia: First Rally Since Debate Victory
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is in Chesapeake, Virginia, for his first political rally following the historic trouncing of Sleepy Joe Biden in Thursday night’s presidential debate.
Also, watch “The Alex Jones Show” live below:
Epic: Border Patrol Union Goes Viral with Biden Endorsement Denial
The National Border Patrol Council refuted Joe Biden’s claims the agency endorsed him with a denial which went viral during Thursday night’s debate.
During a catastrophic response addressing America’s wide open southern border, Biden mumbled he had the support of Border Patrol agents who “endorsed my position.”
BREAKING: The Border Patrol Union responds after President Joe Biden says the Border Patrol supports him.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 28, 2024
Biden: “By the way the border patrol endorsed me, endorsed my position. In addition to that, we found ourselves in a situation…”
Border Patrol Union: “To be clear, we… pic.twitter.com/KnTBEawB4A
However, within moments of the claim, the National Border Patrol Council, representing over 18,000 members, delivered an epic takedown of Biden flat-out denying his comments.
“To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden,” the NBPC wrote in an X post that amassed over 122K reposts, 409K likes, and over 27.7 million views.
To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden.
— Border Patrol Union – NBPC (@BPUnion) June 28, 2024
The embarrassing real-time fact-check was just one of a myriad of issues plaguing Biden during the debate, including numerous faux pas and verbal stumbles.
Trump’s First Slam Dunk and Biden’s First Fumble in the debate. pic.twitter.com/Fo28QT6AIh
— Darrin McBreen (@MediaRival) June 28, 2024
…I can’t believe that just happened. pic.twitter.com/qbbQDnjkDP
— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) June 28, 2024
Biden’s abysmal performance was so problematic, Democrats immediately urged for him to be replaced on the party ticket.
Female Illegals Arrested for Stealing Thousands in Merchandise as ‘Organized Theft Ring’ Hits Florida
A pair of female illegal aliens were arrested in Florida for stealing thousands of dollars of merchandise from stores across the state in what authorities believe are the activities of an “organized retail theft ring.”
Just before 3 p.m. on Tuesday afternoon, the Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) was called by an employee at a Burlington Store in Port Charlotte where “two Hispanic females” were “in the act of committing theft,” CCSO explained in a press release.
CCSO deputies arrived and detained the women, who were observed loading around $400 of stolen goods into a 2024 Hyundai Tucson with California plates.
Deputies discovered large quantities of clothing and other merchandise from stores such as Marshall’s and Ross inside the vehicle.
CCSO estimated the total value of the booty at more than $6,250.
“The suspects were in possession of tools used to remove anti-theft devices from retail merchandise,” CCSO says.
“Both females were transported to the CCSO District 2 Office to be interviewed, where they each provided full confessions.”
They were identified as Carla Stephany Soto Araneda, 23, and Genesi Michael Flores Reyes, 22.
Both are illegally present in the U.S. but other details remain limited.
The women were being held in Charlotte County Jail as of Wednesday.
Charlotte County, FL: Two illegal aliens, Carla Stephany Soto Araneda and Genesi Michael Flores Reyes, were arrested for their part in a retail theft ring. pic.twitter.com/NV4mVIAMcc
— Illegal Alien Crimes (@ImmigrantCrimes) June 28, 2024
Investigators believe the suspects traveled to Florida from California and carried out thefts all across the state prior to their arrest.
“I’m not sure why the message isn’t getting through to these out-of-towners that think they are going to come into Charlotte County, commit crimes, and get away with it. We have proven, multiple times, that it won’t fly here,” Charlotte County Sheriff Bill Prummel warned in a statement.
“Although I try not to make a habit of giving criminals advice, I do want to suggest that if they are passing through my county, just pass right on through. Don’t even stop… don’t try your nonsense here.”
InfoWars has been documenting the surge of crime fueled by the ongoing Biden border invasion.
Nick Fuentes Talks Trump Assassination, Civil War, and WWIII With Alex Jones