🔴 LIVE: President Trump is sitting at the head of a roundtable discussion with Gulf nations
At this point, I've lost count of the amount of events today the legacy media has REFUSED to cover.
But this ANOTHER one that you likely wouldn't see without X https://t.co/9ddRWJSssz
She was killed by a black guy. All of these “lynchings” are either suicides or murders committed by other black people. Literally all of them. There hasn’t been a racially motivated lynching of a black person in this country in my lifetime. That’s a fact. But it doesn’t stop them from pushing this fantasy narrative anyway.
I’ll tell ya we were happier with little news about world affairs. We were more involved with our community rather than the world. That’s how it should be. Get back to your community. They need you.
Dear @FoxNews you suspend your coverage of @POTUS we suspend our viewership of you. GO SCREW YOURSELVES!!!
Michael Murdock, US Navy Veteran, AZ https://t.co/gInwcnbuSt
I'm not a fan of any president limiting media outlets at the White House. But let’s not pretend what Trump is doing to CNN is unprecedented. Especially you, Barack.
Over the weekend, Obama claimed he could "never imagine" shutting out a network like Fox News. Really? Because I don't have to imagine it… I HAVE THE TAPE!
Back in 2009, the Obama White House literally tried to ban Fox News from a joint pool interview and declared they weren't a "real" news organization. But when Trump calls CNN "fake news" the Left erupts in an uproar? Spare us all the faux outrage.
🚨 NOW: President Trump boards Air Force One en route to NYC for the United Nations and his meeting with Zohran Mamdani
The legacy media networks REFUSED to provide a camera feed in solidarity with CNN, so @RealAmVoice stepped in with THEIR cameras
Thanks @JackPosobiec and RAV!
🚨 NOW: Legacy media outlets are REFUSING to cover President Trump for the American people, in solidarity with CNN
They're saying independent media CANNOT replace them, claiming "we don't have the resources"
I'm willing to put up my own money to cover the President wherever he goes.
And I'm sure others will do the same. What do you say, @JackPosobiec, @bennyjohnson, @RealAmVoice, @OANN, @AndrewKolvet, @TPUSA (& more)?
We'll create our own pool. We don't need CNN's "resources"
We CANNOT and WILL NOT be bulled by these declining fake news outlets.
TIME TO TAKE CONTROL!
🔥 LMAO! President Trump just SHOT BACK at the Fake News reporters whining about being banned from the White House
"Look at the way you treated Biden. He went a YEAR AND A HALF without having a press conference. A year and a half!"
"And what was the question you asked him most? 'What is your favorite flavored ice cream?'"
"I heard that question so many times!" 😂
These juror interviews are extraordinary. They are admitting openly that they disregarded the law entirely for the sake of letting Clancy off the hook. There’s no other way to read it.
One juror says she originally wanted to vote guilty but changed her mind so that “Lindsay could get the help she needs.” That is a clear violation of the law. They were supposed to make a determination solely about guilt or innocence. They were not there to make sure anyone “gets help.”
Another juror says she voted not guilty because the prosecution never produced “character witnesses” proving Clancy was a “bad mother.” The problem is that A) killing your children IS definitive evidence that you’re a bad mother, and B) the prosecution would not have been allowed to call those kinds of witnesses. A witness solely testifying that Clancy was a bad mother would have been purely prejudicial. So this juror acquitted because the prosecution failed to provide evidence that they weren’t allowed to provide and which would have been irrelevant anyway. Extraordinary. This same juror even admitted that it was a “fact” that Clancy “viciously killed her children.” The word vicious literally means “done maliciously and with intent.” So if that’s a fact then they were obligated to vote guilty. But they didn’t.
Meanwhile another juror swooned over the defense attorney’s “entertaining” demeanor. And another one said that all of the facts of the case — “everything,” her words — “proved” that Clancy “loved her children.” Apparently strangling your children to death, in this juror’s mind, does not at all call your love for them into question.
Just a collection of the most morally obtuse idiots ever assembled. Amazing.
I’ve watched this probably 100 times at this point.
This one quote by this one juror is radicalizing me in ways I didn’t know were even possible:
“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously k*lled her children…”
I don’t know where we go from here…
@JeffWil86279956@nicksortor Yep. Desensitization of our society through liberal mentalities. They can’t even distinguish between a man and a woman. Collapse of a moral society. Lines are deeply being drawn. Stay awake, God IS watching the side we take.
@TherealDarolyn@hbdelb@BrianEntin He talked to the juror, got his answer and declared a mistrial. Sorry you don’t like the outcome. There were alternates, but the judge didn’t find grounds.