Watch: Turley Says Bragg’s Case Against Trump Is ‘Collapsing’
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump in the “hush money” trial is “collapsing”, according to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
Turley explained Friday on Fox News’ “Outnumbered” that the prosecution’s key witness in the case, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, actually benefitted Trump’s defense during cross-examination.
“It’s a breakdown in the courtroom. They have a witness that is disassembling in front of them,” Turley said. “The prosecution never revealed to the jury in the direct that Pecker had actually killed stories for other celebrities, that he had been working on stories two decades before the election with Trump that he was suppressing.”
“And now it’s only getting worse. Yesterday was really bad in terms of the cross-examination for the prosecution. Today is much worse. I mean, here Pecker is saying that Trump didn’t want to purchase the story. Yesterday when he asked him about reimbursing Cohen, he said he didn’t know anything about that.”
Pecker testified about former Trump attorney Michael Cohen and the former president allegedly purchasing former playboy model Karen McDougal’s story of an alleged affair from the National Inquirer.
“I think the defense is doing a very good job, but I have to say that this is collapsing on its own weight. You just have to stand back and let it fall,” Turley said.
“Just asking simple questions that the jury would want to know has left serious damage for the prosecution.”
“These are not strange tangential questions, these are questions you would’ve expected the prosecution to ask as just the completion of their line of questioning. Like was Donald Trump the only one you did this for, when did you start to do this?” he added.
Trump faces 34 felony counts of allegedly falsifying business records in relation to a $130,000 payment to ex-porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.
Biden Voter Brags: ‘Illegals Are Coming Here, They’re Gonna Vote Democrat, And We’re Gonna Win!’
A Biden supporter said the quiet part out loud during a discussion hosted by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
While debating Kirk at the University of Utah, the soy boy Biden supporter bragged that the open southern border will allow untold numbers of illegal aliens to vote Democrat in the 2024 election and propel Joe Biden to victory.
“How many illegals are crossing the border every day?” Kirk asked him.
“A lot,” the Biden supporter replied. “And they’re all going to vote Dem!”
I’ll give this University of Utah student some credit. Unlike most “progressives” he wasn’t afraid to say exactly what Biden’s open border is really all about. I was so surprised he admitted it, I asked him to repeat himself.
WATCH: pic.twitter.com/QACOxE8XQv— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 27, 2024
Kirk was so stunned by the liberal’s response that he asked him to repeat his statement.
“The illegals, well ‘illegals’,” the Biden supporter said as he held up air quotes, “Yeah, they’re coming here, they’re going to vote Democrat and we’re going to win.”
Kirk responded, “So you are admitting the border is a political tactic by the Democrat Party. Joe Biden is opening the floodgates of this country because he wants to hold on to political power. We’ve been saying this for a long time.”
“Proof!” the soy boy shot back.
“Proof? You just admitted it,” Kirk said. “What is he doing to secure the border when you have 15,000 people a day coming across your southern border?”
The Biden supporter even rejected the concept of national borders and pledged his allegiance to a “One World Government.”
“Do you believe in borders?” Kirk asked.
“Ehhh, as like a…I believe that…,” he struggled to answer before saying, “Eh, nah. No borders. No. One World Government.”
Kirk then summarized the soy boy’s “final pitch” for Biden: “No borders, lots of war, more spying and bankrupt the country.”
“He is still going to win,” the Biden supporter insisted.
As we reported, some illegal aliens who’ve entered the U.S. have openly admitted their intent to illegally vote for Joe Biden in the 2024 election.
And thanks to little-known loopholes in states like Wisconsin, illegal aliens can obtain a free ID for voting without providing proof of any sort of identifying documentation.
Bombshell: Sharyl Attkisson Confirms Congress Controlled by Feds
Ever wonder why our supposed Representatives never actually represent us?
Veteran journalist Sharyl Atkisson shares what she’s been told about how members of Congress are bribed and blackmailed by federal agents, the same kind of people who plotted to put kiddie porn on her husband’s computer when they were threatened by her reporting.
Also learn how cures for diseases have long been suppressed to prop up Big Pharma.
‘Fake News!’: MSNBC’s Morning Joe Melts Down After Reporter Heckled
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” received a healthy dose of reality Thursday during its coverage of former President Donald Trump’s immunity case.
NBC News correspondent Ken Dilanian was explaining the latest developments of Trump’s presidential immunity case in the front of the Supreme Court when a heckler disrupted the segment by repeatedly shouting, “fake news!”
Watching Morning Joe melt down while an MSNBC reporter gets “Fake News” screamed at him is entertaining ? pic.twitter.com/jTbDuZvhq9
— ALX ?? (@alx) April 26, 2024
As Dilanian continued his report about the complexities of the legal proceedings, the heckler continued to persistently cry out “fake news.”
Co-host Mika Brzezinski said, “Just making sure you’re okay. Do you need…is everything okay? We hear someone yelling.”
“It’s fine. We have a heckler here outside this morning,” Dilanian remarked.
Host Joe Scarborough put his signature political spin on the incident, claiming the heckler was actually shouting about Trump’s “lies” about Hillary Clinton and “all of his opponents.”
“We want to make sure you’re okay, but also we want everybody watching to know that that person screaming ‘fake news’ is obviously talking about all the lies that Donald Trump perpetrated about Hillary Clinton and all of his opponents in 2020. Go ahead,” Scarborough concluded, directing Dilanian to continue his coverage.
Talk about proving the heckler’s point!
The internet lauded the “Fake News guy” for calling out the dishonest corporate media.
Fake News guy is awesome! We need everyone to do this anytime you see these talking heads.
— Andrew Mullican (@MullicanDesigns) April 26, 2024
Lol ?, Joe Scarborough is totally screeching because someone has the balls to call MSNBC out for who they really are.
— Asseylum Justin Villamor ?? (@AsseylumJustin) April 26, 2024
The MSM deserves all that’s coming to them.
— Stella X (@GreenEy3sOpen) April 26, 2024
We ?? are ?? here ?? for ?? it ??
Bahahahaha.
— AJH (@1_2_question) April 26, 2024
Literally no one believes MSM anymore ??
More people need to do this! ??♀️?
— TSNikkieDickie (@nikkie_dickie) April 26, 2024
Bombshell: 1-in-5 2020 Mail-in Ballots Were Fraudulent, Survey Shows
About 20% of mail-in ballots in the 2020 election were fraudulent, which effectively handed the presidency to Joe Biden, Tucker Carlson reported Friday.
Carlson broke down a survey conducted by the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen which found that approximately 1 in 5 of those polled admitted they committed some form of election fraud in the 2020 election.
About one in five mail-in ballots in the last election was fraudulent, handing Biden the presidency. We know this because the people who committed the fraud have admitted it in a new poll. pic.twitter.com/fxHL9hT4sw
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 26, 2024
The Heartland Institute’s Justin Haskins broke down the survey which asked voters in a roundabout way whether they committed some form of voter fraud.
“We asked people a series of questions, one of the first questions was ‘did you vote in the 2020, and did you vote with an absentee ballot?’ And if they answered yes to both of those questions, then we asked a bunch of questions related to voter fraud. We didn’t tell them that we were asking, ‘did you commit voter fraud?’ We just asked them about various behaviors,” Haskins explained.
“For example, we asked people, ‘did you vote in a state where you’re no longer a legal resident?’ That’s a pretty straightforward question. If you’re not a permanent resident of a state, you can’t vote there. 17% of people, nearly one in five, said yes they did do that.”
“We asked people, ‘did you fill out a ballot for someone else on their behalf?’ That’s also illegal,” he continued. “You’re not allowed to fill out someone else’s ballot. 21% of people said yes to that question.”
“We asked if people forged the signature of a friend or family member on their behalf with or without their permission. We actually put that in the poll question. And 17% of people said yes to that.”
“So all told, it’s at least — and I say at least — 1 in 5 mail-in ballots involved some sort of fraudulent activity,” Haskins added.
To top it off, 10% of those surveyed said they personally know somebody who admitted they committed one of these forms of voter fraud.
Over 43% of 2020 voters cast ballots by mail, the highest percentage in U.S. history, according to election data, and the majority of mail-in ballot voters supported Biden.
Without mail-in ballot fraud, the Heartland Institute concluded Trump would have won 311 electoral votes to Biden’s 227.
When It Comes To Being Overweight, Bullying Works
So there’s a new study and it shows that, when it comes to being overweight, bullying works. Sort of.
What the new study shows is that “internalised weight stigma”—read: being told by others that you’re a fattie—stays with you throughout life. Here’s how the term is described in a press release for the study.
“Internalized” weight stigma, is when people apply negative obesity-related stereotypes to themselves, such as thinking they are less attractive, less competent, or less valuable as a person because of their weight.
Using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, otherwise known as Bristol’s “Children of the 90s” study, the researchers behind the new research looked at differences in “internalised weight stigma” among over 4,000 31 year olds. They considered a wide variety of factors in their analysis, including sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, sexuality and other social influences in childhood and adolescence.
The researchers found that “feeling pressure from family to lose weight, weight-related teasing by family members, and feeling pressure from the media to lose weight as a teenager” were all linked to greater levels of “internalised weight stigma” at the age of 31. This was not necessarily linked to differences in body mass index (BMI).
Particular groups were also identified as being at high risk of “internalised weight stigma”: women and non-heterosexuals, especially. Young people who spent a portion of their 20s as NEETs (not in education, employment or training) and children of mothers with lower educational levels were other high-risk groups.
Of course, the study doesn’t really prove that bullying—I mean, “internalised weight stigma”—really works. To do that you’d have to demonstrate that people subjected to it end up being healthier on average than people who aren’t. The study just shows that you’re likely to remember being told you’re overweight during your childhood and adolescence.
Frankly you’d never get away with a study that went further and tried to show whether this kind of prodding works, and when and how it might become counterproductive. The frame has to be that any expression of disapproval about someone’s weight—so-called “fat-shaming” or “fatphobia”—is, by its very nature a bad thing. That’s exactly how this particular study is framed.
Here’s how the lead researcher, Dr Amanda Hughes, described the study’s importance, again in the press release.
“We have an opportunity to reduce weight stigma and its consequences by changing how we discuss weight in the media, in public spaces and in families, and how we respond to bullying in schools, workplaces, and other settings.
“This is crucial considering how common pressure to lose weight and weight-related bullying, stigma and discrimination are in many cultures around the world.”
I wasn’t surprised to see a detailed exposé in the Washington Post a week or so ago about Big Food’s new strategy to sell more of its processed products. The headline: “Big Food and dietitians push ‘anti-diet’ advice.”
Of course they do.
If you manufacturer sugar-laden snacks and microwave pizza, there’s no money in telling people not to eat those products. Try explaining that to the shareholders. Goodbye, high-paying job!
The Post article reveals, at length, how companies like General Mills are teaming up with so-called dietitians and using social media to promote “anti-diet” messaging. You can eat whatever you want. In fact, you should eat whatever you want. You can be healthy at any size, any weight.
Eat that second bowl of our delicious new cereal. I know it’s 1pm, but you deserve it. And if you want another bowl after that, that’s fine too.
From the Post article:
Amy Cohn, General Mills’ senior manager for nutrition and external affairs, promoted the cereal company’s anti-diet messaging to a room of registered dietitians at a national food conference this past fall. Cohn denounced the media for “pointing the finger at processed foods” and making consumers feel ashamed of their choices.
“You can help derail the cycle of shame,” Cohn told the dietitians.
During the session, Kathryn Lawson, a registered dietitian and director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the food giant Nestlé, tweeted: “People need to feel heard and seen to help break the cycle of shame when it comes to losing weight and eating.”
This is becoming the norm now.
It’s not just conference speeches and social-media messaging. Companies like General Mills are also funding scientific studies to show that, for example, children who eat cereal, regardless of its sugar content, are healthier than children who eat a different breakfast or skip the meal altogether.
This is exactly what’s happening with Ozempic and other weight-loss “miracle drugs”, for precisely the same reason. People are being told that there’s no shame in being overweight, because there’s nothing they can do about it. Diets don’t work. It’s your genes. It’s the environment. It’s hyperpalatable processed food that’s designed to be irresistible so you just can’t stop eating it.
So ditch that “internalised weight stigma.” Why should you feel ashamed of something that’s totally outside your control?
Being overweight is fast being stripped of all moral content. It’s no different to having foot fungus. There’s no moral value to having foot fungus. Foot fungus simply is. You get it sometimes. And when you get it, you reach for a tube of cream and get some powder for your shoes. That’s it. No bad feelings—although maybe you’re a little embarrassed about the smell…
Of course, there’s a tension here, because Big Food is trying to say you can eat what you want all the time, whereas Big Pharma—companies like Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly—still want you to want to be thinner. But both sides are essentially engaged in the same enterprise: weaponising obesity for profit by stripping it of its traditional negative moral labels.
The title of this essay is probably a bit glib. I don’t think that people should be bullied without remorse, especially not for suffering with obesity, which is a complicated phenomenon. People overeat, but they do so for a variety of reasons, and have the odds stacked against them in a variety of different ways.
Hell, there are compounds—so-called “obesogens”—that literally make you put on weight if you come into contact with them, and they’re everywhere. The ubiquitous chemical bisphenol A (BPA), for example, reliably makes zebrafish gorge when they’re not hungry. It probably does the same to people too. There’s a lot of reasons behind why we’re the fattest we’ve ever been.
Having said all that, I do believe, of course, in the maintenance of positive ideals of beauty and competence that people should be encouraged to strive towards, even if they don’t ever achieve them fully. And that’s precisely what we’re abandoning today. It’s only natural, as far as I can see, that we should ask why, and consider who benefits the most from this.
I think I’ve already given you the answers to both of those questions.
BREAKING: American Reporter Who Infiltrated Epstein Island Exposes The NWO Master Plan — MUST WATCH