We filed a complaint with the FEC against Bragg and the Biden Campaign for illegal coordination under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Evidence reveals Bragg’s political prosecution aimed to assist the re-election of Joe Biden.
Read on…
/2 In December 2022, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg reportedly hired Matthew B. Colangelo to “jump-start” his office’s investigation of President Trump due to Mr. Colangelo’s “history of taking on Donald J. Trump and his family business.”
/3 Colangelo left his post as the number three in the DOJ to join the district attorney’s office – a move that reeks of partisanship.
/4 In fact, this career shift is so abnormal that we sued the DOJ last week to obtain Colangelo’s government records discussing President Trump before leaving his post…
/5 Beyond his position at DOJ, Colangelo also previously held a senior position at the New York Attorney General’s Office.
Both of these entities had competing investigations related to President Trump.
/6 Notably, before joining the Biden DOJ, Colangelo contributed several times to Bragg's District Attorney campaign.
/7 The available information indicates that Bragg’s hush money prosecution was “coordinated” with President Biden, i.e., it was made “in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of” Biden.
/8 Effectively, Bragg acted “in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request of” Biden to influence the 2024 presidential election.
/9 Without denying the existence of communications between the Biden DOJ and Bragg’s District Attorney’s Office, Attorney General Merrick Garland refused during a congressional hearing to commit to turning over communications between the DOJ and Bragg’s Office.
/10 The overall record in these matters — including Colangelo’s “jump-starting” of the case, Garland’s refusal to disclose communications between his Department and Bragg’s office, and the Biden campaign’s press event and statement immediately after the trial and conviction — indicates that Bragg’s hush money prosecution was made to harm President Trump’s 2024 candidacy and would not have been made absent President Trump’s status as a presidential candidate.
/11 Because the available information supports a conclusion that Bragg’s prosecution of President Trump was coordinated with President Biden and made to influence the 2024 presidential election, it is a “coordinated expenditure” under the Act resulting in an in-kind contribution by Bragg to Biden and the Biden Campaign.
/12 Under the Federal Election Campaign Act and FEC regulations, Bragg contributed in excess of the $3,300 per-election individual contribution limit, which the Biden Campaign knowingly accepted.
/13 The outlined information indicates that the Biden Campaign violated its disclosure obligations under the Federal Election Campaign Act when they failed to publicly disclose required contribution information in connection with the Bragg prosecution as a “coordinated expenditure.”
/14 A coordinated expenditure must be reported as both a contribution received by and an expenditure made by the authorized committees of the candidate with whom the expenditure was coordinated.
/15 Because the Bragg prosecution was a coordinated expenditure, the Biden Campaign had to report it as a receipt from Bragg, including the date, amount, and purpose of the in-kind contribution.
/1🚨BREAKING: AFL SUES MARICOPA COUNTY TO STOP ILLEGAL ELECTION POWER GRAB🚨
Maricopa County is trying to unlawfully seize control of election operations in Arizona.
AFL just filed a lawsuit to stop this illegal election interference.
🧵👇
/2 AFL filed the lawsuit against the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on behalf of Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap.
The board is attempting to unlawfully seize control of election operations by refusing to give Recorder Heap the resources he needs to fulfill his statutory duty to administer elections.
/3 Arizona law requires the board to fully fund the recorder’s necessary expenses.
Despite this, the board recently passed a budget that permanently transfers the recorder’s key statutory duties to itself and underfunds the recorder’s office.
/1🚨BREAKING — AFL just sent a letter to DOJ exposing how the University of Virginia is disguising its discriminatory DEI infrastructure under a new lexicon of euphemisms to evade federal law.
The law is clear — and UVA is on notice.
DOJ is watching — and so are we.
đź§µTHREAD:
/2 On April 28, DOJ formally directed UVA to certify — “with precision and particularity” — that it had dismantled its discriminatory DEI programs to comply with federal civil rights law and President Trump’s Executive Orders.
UVA didn’t comply.
Instead, it formed a working group to “promote open inquiry” and build a “truly inclusive and welcoming community.”
/3 UVA has rebranded its discriminatory policies under new labels, using euphemisms like “Inclusive Excellence,” “Community Engagement,” and “Viewpoint Diversity.”
The names changed — but the substance didn’t.
“Inclusive Excellence” is the framework universities now use to disguise DEI — embedding unlawful preferences based on race, sex, national origin, and other protected traits into operations under the illusion of equity and belonging.
/1🚨BREAKING — AFL just moved to intervene in a major lawsuit to overturn an unlawful, decades-old, and race-based consent decree — and restore merit-based hiring in the federal government.
/2 For 44 years, a race-based consent decree has prohibited the federal government from using a standardized, merit-based exam to hire civil servants.
This is unconstitutional — and it must be overturned.
/3 In 1981, during the final days of the Carter Administration, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) entered into the Luevano consent decree, ending the use of a standardized written aptitude test in federal hiring.
Since then, OPM has failed to identify any test that satisfies the decree’s race-based requirements.
🔥 Unelected judges with apparent political agendas are blocking President Trump’s policies with “nationwide injunctions.”
These activist judges are abusing the judicial power and usurping the will of the people to sabotage the President’s America First mandate.
Here’s how 🧵
President Trump faced over 64 injunctions in his first term — more than any president in history.
Now, it’s happening again.Â
This isn’t a normal judicial process — it’s a full-scale judicial power grab to thwart the results of a valid election.
Less than 4 months into the second Trump Administration, the judiciary has already issued over 200 orders to halt the President’s agenda — including nearly 40 nationwide injunctions.
/3 Judge McConnell is presiding over New York v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by 21 states and D.C. challenging President Trump’s temporary freeze on federal funding.
In February, he ordered taxpayer money to continue flowing to the states, including to Crossroads Rhode Island, where he served as a board member and board chairman over a span of nearly 20 years.