WATCH LIVE: President Trump Speaks at Moms For Liberty National Summit in DC – Begins 8 PM ET

President Trump will speak at the Moms for Liberty National Summit in DC on Friday evening.

Trump is expected to take the stage at 8 pm ET.

Watch live via RSBN:

President Trump spent Friday afternoon in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania.

Trump held a massive rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania on Friday with just two months until Election Day.

The line at Trump’s rally in Johnstown, PA stretched so far that it went into the Appalachian forest.

The line at Trump’s rally in Johnstown, PA stretched so far that it went into the Appalachian forest.

This is insane. MAGA literally took over this once bustling steel town pic.twitter.com/Fbi5fA7TnE

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) August 30, 2024

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden spent Friday hiding from the public.

The post WATCH LIVE: President Trump Speaks at Moms For Liberty National Summit in DC – Begins 8 PM ET appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

‘Star Wars’ Actress Amandla Stenberg Blames ‘Bigotry’ of Conservatives For Cancellation of ‘The Acolyte’

One of the lead actresses in Disney’s Star Wars: The Acolyte has blamed the “bigotry” of conservatives for the cancellation of the woke spin-off series.

Amandla Stlenberg, who played twin sisters Verosha “Osha” and Mae-ho “Mae” Anisey, took to Instagram to express her views on why the show was cancelled after just one season.

Star Wars, The Acolyte episode 4

Pronouns in a Galaxy Far Far Away.

pic.twitter.com/SoKGCK1ohi

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) June 19, 2024

She explained:

It’s not a huge shock for me. Of course, I live in the bubble of my own reality, but for those who aren’t aware there has been a rampage of vitriol that we have faced since the show was even announced. When it was still just a concept and no one had even seen it.

That’s when we started experiencing a rampage of, I would say, hyper-conservative bigotry and vitriol, prejudice, hatred, and hateful language toward us.

And you know this really affected me when I first got the job because it’s just not something, even though I anticipated it happening, it’s not something you can fully understand what it feels like until it’s happening to you.

Yet while Stenberg, who has previously admitted she makes films with the hope that white people will cry, may seek to shift the blame onto conservatives for turning their nose up at a show that featured lesbian space witches, the simple fact of the matter was that audiences hated it.

LESBIAN SPACE WITCHES? Newest Star Wars Series Gets Panned After Taking Woke to a Whole New Level (VIDEO)

Despite receiving largely positive reviews from left-wing critics, the show had a Rotten Tomatoes audience score of 28 percent, meaning the overwhelming majority did not feel the same way.

Disney Star Wars: The Acolyte is the lowest-rated Disney #RIPStarWars TV Show https://t.co/t9SpfcAsk2 pic.twitter.com/sVHb5SQbkN

— Nerdrotic (@Nerdrotics) June 7, 2024

Will Disney, which paid a staggering $4 billion for the rights to the iconic Star Wars franchise back in 2012, ever learn its lesson? If past performance is anything to go by, the answer is almost certainly no.

The post ‘Star Wars’ Actress Amandla Stenberg Blames ‘Bigotry’ of Conservatives For Cancellation of ‘The Acolyte’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

JUST IN: Crowd Cheers as Protester Manhandled and Tossed From Trump Johnstown Rally (VIDEO)

Protestor tossed from Trump Johnstown, Pennsylvania rally

President Trump is holding a massive rally in western Pennsylvania at 1st Summit Arena on Napoleon Street in Johnstown.

The line to see Trump in Johnstown wrapped around the highway!

WATCH:

FIVE HOURS before President Trump takes the stage in Johnstown, PA and the line is wrapped around the highway!

PENNSYLVANIA is TRUMP COUNTRY!! pic.twitter.com/9qmQb89qFD

— Alex Meyer (@AlMeyer19) August 30, 2024

This is President Trump’s first rally in western Pennsylvania since the attempted assassination in Butler on July 13.

A man tried to disrupt Trump’s rally and he promptly learned his lesson.

A protestor who managed to climb into the media pen was immediately tackled by law enforcement and escorted out of the arena.

Local police, sheriff’s deputies, troopers and security manhandled the protestor and led him away.

WATCH:

Thought he’d try a little something

Trump Rally Johnstown PA@Timcast @ScottPresler @Brick_Suit pic.twitter.com/E3IUN0ObHa

— American Woman (@massimo_dane) August 30, 2024

Law enforcement also led away another man who disrupted the rally.

WATCH:

pic.twitter.com/GohxvEo6yr

— American Woman (@massimo_dane) August 30, 2024

TGP’s Kristinn Taylor captured a different view of the protestor who disrupted the Trump rally:

Another view of man in dark sunglasses who disrupted Trump rally in Johnstown, PA being led away. pic.twitter.com/1VofUCY65n

— Kristinn Taylor (@KristinnFR) August 30, 2024

The post JUST IN: Crowd Cheers as Protester Manhandled and Tossed From Trump Johnstown Rally (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Kamala Harris’ McDonald’s Story Called Into Question as Details Don’t Seem to Add Up

Like a burger without the meat, the well-told tale of Vice President Kamala Harris working at McDonald’s appears to be missing something: some proof.

The Washington Free Beacon sought to find a shred of evidence that the tale was real and reported that it came up empty.

Harris has been banking on the tale to connect with voters, according to The New York Times.

According to one Harris ad she was “the daughter of a working mom” and “worked at McDonald’s while she got her degree.”

For the record, Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan was a cancer researcher at UC Berkeley working at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, People noted.

Although a report in The New York Times said Harris worked at a McDonald’s in Alameda, a city near Oakland, the Free Beacon said it could find no proof.

Kamala lying about working at McDonald’s would be the dumbest thing possible to lie about. But there doesn’t appear to be any record she ever worked there. https://t.co/1ZPwrWwZTI

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) August 29, 2024

The outlet, which said it has tried to find verification from McDonald’s but not received replies, noted that the lack of any mention of the job in any documents it reviewed does not mean Harris did not work where she now says she did, only that it can’t be proven as yet.

The Free Beacon report said its review of comments Harris made about the job found that the first public mention of working for McDonald’s was in 2019 when she was launching her failed campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

The job goes unmentioned in both of her memoirs, published in July 2010 and January 2019. Two biographies also do not mention the job.

Dan Morain, who wrote “Kamala’s Way: An American Life,” said he was unaware of the McDonald’s job.

NEW: The Harris campaign has given shifting accounts of her “summer job” at McDonald’s.

So we looked for evidence of it. She doesn’t mention it in her memoirs, & did not list it on a 1987 job application we obtained. more w/ @SaysSimonson @AndrewKerrNC https://t.co/GAWRaQ2s3O pic.twitter.com/EyUP8bfj33

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) August 29, 2024

The Free Beason said Harris’s October 1987 job application for a job at the Alameda County district attorney’s office also does not have a whiff of the Golden Arches.

Instructed to list every job held in the past 10 years, Harris — who was in law school at the time — noted a one-month clerical job but never mentioned McDonald’s.

The fact-checking site Snopes would not call the claim fraud, but reported that it was “researching” the claim.

“Harris has made this claim repeatedly over the years, and multiple reputable news outlets have reported on the story. But, aside from Harris’ testimony itself, there is no evidence (such as a photo, employment record, or confirmation from a friend or family member) to independently verify the claim,” it wrote.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Kamala Harris’ McDonald’s Story Called Into Question as Details Don’t Seem to Add Up appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

NEW: Jim Jordan Investigates Jack Smith’s Superseding Indictment of Trump

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan is investigating Jack Smith’s superseding indictment of President Trump.

“On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in Trump v. United States, explaining the parameters of presidential immunity and rebuking Special Counsel Jack Smith for violating this Constitutional principle in his political prosecution of President Donald J. Trump. On August 27, 2024, Special Counsel Smith obtained a superseding indictment against President Trump in an attempt to fix the constitutional defects inherent in his initial indictment,” Jim Jordan wrote in the letter to US Attorney General Merrick Garland.

“In doing so, however, Special Counsel Smith appears to have violated longstanding Department policy intended to protect our democratic processes. The Committee must therefore understand whether you approved Special Counsel Smith’s indictment in advance or whether Special Counsel Smith continues to exercise prosecutorial authority without your ‘meaningful direction or supervision,” Chairman Jordan said.

Jack Smith. Election interference. pic.twitter.com/rFBGy8PChD

— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) August 30, 2024

Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted President Trump AGAIN in DC on Tuesday following the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.

Jack Smith’s prosecutors presented evidence to a new grand jury in order to recalibrate the case after the Supreme Court ruled Trump is immune from prosecution for ‘official acts’ as president.

The grand jury indicted Trump on the same four charges that were unveiled last August: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

“The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions,” wrote Smith’s team in the 36-page indictment.

Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.

In Jack Smith’s indictment last August, prosecutors asserted that President Trump sought to use the DOJ to help him overturn the results of the 2020 election.

In the new indictment, Jack Smith’s prosecutors claim Trump’s actions were not ‘official acts’ because his rally was privately funded and “privately organized.”

Federal prosecutors also argued that Trump used his X/Twitter account for “personal purposes.”

A status report to Judge Tanya Chutkan is due by Friday, August 30 (today) and the status conference is continued until September 5.

The post NEW: Jim Jordan Investigates Jack Smith’s Superseding Indictment of Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Bud Light’s Move to Tap Shane Gillis: A Strategic Shift in Marketing

Bud Light has taken a significant step in its ongoing effort to rebuild its brand by featuring comedian Shane Gillis in its latest ad campaign. This decision marks a clear pivot from the company’s recent controversies and signals a broader trend of brands reassessing their marketing strategies post-DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) backlash.

Gillis, known for his edgy and politically incorrect humor, was once a controversial figure himself, having been fired from “Saturday Night Live” in 2019 after past comments surfaced. However, his recent collaboration with Bud Light suggests that the beer giant is attempting to reconnect with its core customer base—blue-collar, middle-America consumers who may feel alienated by recent corporate trends toward DEI initiatives.

https://x.com/noahsfriedman/status/1828538168771321917

Bud Light’s brand has struggled ever since its disastrous partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney earlier this year. The collaboration, aimed at promoting inclusivity, instead sparked a massive backlash among the brand’s traditional customer base. Sales plummeted, and the brand became a cultural flashpoint in the ongoing debate over corporate America’s shift toward progressive social values. In response, Bud Light has been scrambling to win back its core audience.

The move to feature Gillis seems to be part of a broader effort to return to Bud Light’s roots, focusing on humor and everyday American experiences rather than engaging in divisive social issues. The ad campaign portrays Gillis in a lighthearted setting, enjoying a cold Bud Light with friends, devoid of any overt political messaging. It’s a stark contrast to the tone-deaf campaigns of the past year and reflects a growing recognition within the company that it needs to rebuild trust with its base.

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1753169157947036048

Bud Light is not alone in this recalibration. Other brands that have faced backlash for embracing DEI initiatives are also rethinking their strategies. Companies like Target and Disney have similarly experienced consumer pushback after engaging in politically charged campaigns, leading them to quietly dial back some of their more controversial efforts. This trend reflects a broader cultural shift, as many Americans grow weary of what they perceive as corporate virtue signaling.

Critics of DEI initiatives argue that these efforts often alienate more customers than they attract, particularly in industries like beer and retail, where the customer base tends to be less receptive to progressive messaging. The backlash against Bud Light’s previous campaign is a case in point, with many consumers feeling that the brand had abandoned them in favor of pandering to a small, vocal minority.

Bud Light’s choice of Gillis as a spokesperson is likely to resonate with those consumers who felt betrayed by the brand’s earlier decisions. Gillis’ brand of humor, which often pokes fun at the absurdities of modern life, appeals to a demographic that values authenticity over political correctness. By aligning with Gillis, Bud Light is signaling that it wants to move away from the polarizing politics of the past and focus on what made the brand successful in the first place—good times with good friends over a cold beer.

This latest campaign is a gamble for Bud Light, but it’s a calculated one. The brand is betting that by returning to its roots and distancing itself from the controversies of the past, it can regain the trust of its core consumers. If successful, this strategy could serve as a blueprint for other brands looking to navigate the increasingly treacherous waters of modern marketing.

The post Bud Light’s Move to Tap Shane Gillis: A Strategic Shift in Marketing appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Judge Rules Against Media Matters in Legal Battle with X, Allowing Lawsuit to Proceed

A federal judge in Texas has ruled against Media Matters for America in its legal battle with X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. The ruling denies Media Matters’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by X, which accuses the progressive watchdog group of intentionally misleading advertisers through manipulated data reports. This decision marks a significant step forward for X in a high-stakes case that could have far-reaching implications for the media and tech industries.

The lawsuit centers on allegations that Media Matters fabricated reports to damage the company’s reputation and undermine its advertising revenue. X contends that Media Matters, a well-known critic of conservative media and organizations, engaged in a deliberate campaign to create the false impression that X’s advertisements were consistently placed next to extremist and harmful content. According to X, these reports were designed to scare off advertisers and inflict financial harm on the company.

https://x.com/big_cases/status/1829283781519282370

Elon Musk, the CEO of X, has been outspoken in his criticism of Media Matters, accusing the organization of acting with malicious intent to discredit the platform and drive away business. In its legal complaint, X argues that Media Matters’ actions have resulted in the loss of millions of dollars in advertising revenue, as several high-profile brands pulled their campaigns from the platform following the publication of the reports.

In response, Media Matters filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that their reports were protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and press. The organization claimed that its work was part of its mission to hold powerful entities accountable and that the reports were based on legitimate research and data analysis. Media Matters maintained that any harm suffered by X was a consequence of the company’s own practices and not the result of any deliberate deception on their part.

https://x.com/LegInsurrection/status/1829622875298333074

However, the Texas judge rejected Media Matters’ argument, stating that the lawsuit presented by X had sufficient merit to proceed. In his ruling, the judge emphasized that while Media Matters has the right to report on matters of public interest, this right does not extend to publishing information that is knowingly false or misleading with the intent to cause harm. The judge’s decision to allow the case to move forward indicates that the court believes there is a plausible basis for X’s claims and that further examination of the evidence is warranted.

The ruling is a significant victory for X and could set a precedent for how companies can challenge media organizations that publish critical or damaging content about them. Legal experts have noted that if X is successful, it could open the door for other corporations to pursue similar lawsuits against media outlets, potentially chilling investigative journalism and critical reporting. The case highlights the increasingly contentious relationship between social media platforms and the media, with both sides accusing each other of bias and misinformation.

For Media Matters, the lawsuit poses a serious threat to its credibility and operations. The organization has built its reputation on exposing what it views as dangerous rhetoric and misinformation in conservative media. However, the allegations made by X could undermine the trust that supporters and donors have placed in the organization. If the court finds that Media Matters acted with malice or intent to deceive, the consequences could be severe, including substantial financial penalties and a tarnished reputation.

The case will now enter the discovery phase, where both sides will gather evidence to support their claims. This phase is expected to be particularly contentious, as X seeks to prove that Media Matters manipulated data and acted with the intent to harm the company, while Media Matters will likely continue to argue that its reports were based on legitimate concerns about the content appearing on X’s platform.

The post Judge Rules Against Media Matters in Legal Battle with X, Allowing Lawsuit to Proceed appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

The Weaponization of Our Government and of Our Justice System: An Update on Whistleblower and J6 Political Prisoner Jeremy Brown

Many new events have taken place since the August 9th email shared in the most recent article on MSG (Ret) Jeremy Brown was written.

Per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 43(b)2, it is Jeremy Brown’s right to elect to hold his misdemeanor hearing either absent his presence at all or by video (Zoom) if he did not wish to appear in person. 

The U.S. Government sought to oppose Brown’s right to elect not to appear in person, and the reasons which were given were largely focused upon the importance of an in-person assessment of Brown’s demeanor being necessary–despite Rule 43(b)2 expressly stating that for misdemeanor offenses punishable by one year or less, that a person has the right to choose not to even appear at all. 

The motion to grant Brown a trial by Zoom was denied by Judge Mehta, even though the September 4th trial is a bench trial and not a jury trial.

In a decision which flies in the face of judicial economy, Mehta ordered Brown to be moved from the Citrus County Detention Facility in Florida to the DC gulag, where Brown is now being held with the general population and NOT in protective custody with the other J6ers.

I have spoken with Brown and he has emphasized that the conditions where he is being held are “filthy and like a dungeon.” 

Why did Judge Mehta believe it was worth the use of government resources to bring whistleblower Jeremy Brown to DC so that he could stand trial and have his demeanor assessed only by Mehta himself for two misdemeanors?

The transcript of the hearing in which this decision was made by Mehta is not yet available, but it is reported that Mehta indicated that it was important for HIM to be able to assess Brown’s demeanor in person and that he wanted to see his face

(And, for what it’s worth, Ray Epps WAS allowed to attend his sentencing by a DC judge for his plea deal via Zoom.)

Why did Judge Mehta, prior to denying Brown’s right to elect not to appear in person per Rule 43(b)2, ALSO deny Brown’s motion to stay the misdemeanor trial while there is still a pending appeal of the verdict for which Brown is currently serving time, and for which the validity of the search warrant is called into question? That same search warrant in question is pertinent to the misdemeanor trial, and so the stay should have been granted until the conclusion of the appeal. 

Why has the U.S. Government insisted on bringing Brown to DC for a trial that they only weeks ago tried to make go away through the offer of a plea deal? Brown believes that he has been moved to DC unnecessarily with the intent to deliberately place him in harm’s way.

Why would the government go through the trouble, the time, and the expense of ensuring that Brown is in DC for a trial that they have already indicated that they would rather see go away?  

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60621652/78/united-states-v-brown/

How is this (above) not an abuse of our justice system? Why is the U.S. government responding in this way to two MISDEMEANOR charges that they, only weeks ago, were offering this whistleblower a plea deal for? 

Former Green Beret Jeremy Brown was told that if he rejected the plea deal that the government would consider adding on ADDITIONAL charges. 

It now looks like they are gearing up to tack on charges of seditious conspiracy or some other felony charges which would ensure a continued process of punishment for Brown.

What do “hundreds of messages on various Oath Keepers Signal chats” have to do with proving beyond any reasonable doubt the alleged misdemeanors? Where is this coming from?

Why would the government, 3 1/2 years after January 6, and after Brown had already spent over 1000 days behind bars, offer a plea deal on a trespassing charge that came with an implied threat of additional charges if the deal was not accepted?

Despite having labeled Brown an unindicted co-conspirator alongside other Oath Keepers who were charged with felonies, Brown was only charged with two misdemeanors.

Yet, it is clear that the U.S. Government is seeking to abuse the judicial process with attempts to try Brown for charges other than the misdemeanors he is set to stand trial for on September 4th.

As Jeremy Brown often cites, “The process is the punishment.”

The U.S. Government appears to be using whatever they can find in their arsenal to keep Brown from speaking on the record at trial.

Why? Because, unlike other J6 political prisoners, Brown is also a whistleblower who released a recording of his conversation with the two FBI JTTF agents who tried to recruit him to be a confidential human source in the days leading up to January 6, 2021.

The recording is available for the public to hear, which has given the Government motive to target Brown for blowing the whistle.

The audio recording of the JTTF agents is evidence that points to the involvement of federal agents with regard to the events of January 6th, and to allow that evidence to be put on the record in a court of law would undermine the U.S. Government’s argument that those who have been and who continue to be charged, tortured, and punished at the hands of our own government are “insurrectionists.” 

The recording was not permitted to be heard by the jury when Brown was tried and sentenced for weapons charges resulting from the unconstitutional raid of his home, during which grenades were “found” in exactly the same way that the pipe bombs were “found” on January 6th.

They were “found” exactly where they were planted as part of a set up. Forensic analysis supports Brown’s claims that the grenades that were “found” are not his; but the DNA of two males IS on those grenades. WHOSE DNA IS IT? It isn’t Brown’s.

The U.S. Government doesn’t ask questions when they don’t want the answers made known.

That is why, despite Brown’s home raid having been labeled a domestic terrorism investigation, and despite Brown being labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in the Oath Keeper’s trial (to which they unsuccessfully tried to join his misdemeanor case), MSG (Ret.) Jeremy Brown has never ONCE been interrogated by a member of law enforcement. 

Jeremy Brown is NOT suicidal.  

Brown reportedly intends to represent himself pro se on September 4th before Judge Mehta.

As the government continues to try to make an argument that this retired 20-year decorated combat veteran is a domestic terrorist threat, it should be kept in mind that the FBI reported in mid-January 2021 that Brown was no threat, even noting that he did not ever enter the Capitol.  (See below)

The post The Weaponization of Our Government and of Our Justice System: An Update on Whistleblower and J6 Political Prisoner Jeremy Brown appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

96-Year-Old Faces Eviction in California, Given 3-Day Notice in Despite ‘Lifetime Care’ Contract – ‘Morally Unthinkable’

A 96-year-old woman is fighting back against the senior living housing project that wants to boot her out of the unit where she has lived for 22 years.

Years ago, she signed a deal with Pacific Grove Senior Living in Pacific Grove, California, that she could live in the complex until her death, according to KSBW.

Then came Aug. 16. The complex manager delivered what Jean Jacques called a “nasty letter,” telling her to pay what the complex decided she owed in three days or be evicted, according to Monterey Now.

“I’d be on the street. I wouldn’t even have a tent,” Jacques said. “I’d be in a bad way.”

The letter claimed she owed almost $110,000, according to KSBW.

“I’m not going. They’ll have to bury me because I have no place to go,” Jacques said. “They have all my money.”

Jacques made her deal with California-Nevada Methodist Homes, which sold the complex to Pacifica Senior Living in 2022.

SENIOR LIVING EVICITON | As Jean Jacques celebrated her 96th birthday in July, she never considered that just one month later, she would be advocating for the roof over her head.https://t.co/w8pE4MYENK pic.twitter.com/OGK6pXdL50

— KSBW Action News 8 (@ksbw) August 27, 2024

Existing contracts were grandfathered in, but not the previous owner’s policies.

Bob Sadler, president of the Pacific Grove Senior Living’s Residents’ Association, said “lifetime care” contracts were unconditional under the former owner, even if they outlived the savings given the complex. He said the facility balanced what it lost on residents who outlived their savings with what it gained from those who died before using up their savings.

The eviction notice is under scrutiny from Elizabeth Campos, ombudsman project manager at the Alliance for Aging. She said the notice did not have required approvals and also failed to explain how it can be appealed.

“You do get angry knowing that it’s an elderly person,” Campos said. “Where is this person going to go?”

“She’s devoted all of her savings and money to this place,” Sadler said. “I don’t care what the legal ramifications are here. This is morally unthinkable.”

The complex has not responded to media inquiries, nor has Jacques heard from it since the eviction notice was delivered.

Patricia McGinnis, founder of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, told Monterey Now that the notice is not in compliance with the rules.

“To do that to a 96-year-old woman … they should be ashamed of themselves,” McGinnis said.

As her allies work to wage a legal fight on her behalf, Jacques said her plan is to defy the notice.

“They’ll have to drag me out of here screaming and hollering,” she said.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post 96-Year-Old Faces Eviction in California, Given 3-Day Notice in Despite ‘Lifetime Care’ Contract – ‘Morally Unthinkable’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Texas Judge Overseeing Elon Musk and X’s Defamation Case Against Smear Website Media Matters DENIES Their Motion to Dismiss

Texas Judge Reed O’Connor who oversees Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the smear website Media Matters for America denied their motion to dismiss the case on Thursday.

Media Matters submitted its dismissal request in early March on the grounds that X’s case lacked “personal jurisdiction,” an “improper venue” and the “failure to state a claim.” O’Connor dismissed all of those claims, according to court records.

Judge Reed O’Conner dismissed all three complaints by Media Matters for America (MMFA).

Engadget reported:

The lawsuit filed last year in federal court seeks damages from the media watchdog group over “maliciously manufactured” images reporting that X’s platform placed Neo-Nazi and white-nationlist content next to advertisers’ images causing advertisers to flee the site. The images Media Matters used weren’t manufactured but X’s claim is that its dogged pursuit of ads’ placement with racist content by using certain accounts to bypass ad filters caused irreparable harm to the social media giant.

X owner Elon Musk’s other companies are located in Texas but aren’t directly connected to the Media Matters lawsuit. X closed its San Francisco offices earlier this month and owner Elon Musk announced in July that X’s headquarters will move to Austin. Tesla moved its headquarters from California to the Lone Star State in 2021 and SpaceX from Delaware earlier this year when a judge threw out a $56 billion pay package from the state.

However, in dismissing the personal jurisdiction argument, O’Connor noted that two of X’s “blue-chip” advertisers like AT&T and Oracle included in Media Matters’ coverage are based in Texas. He cited the landmark 2002 Internet defamation case Revell v. Lidov quoting the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ assertion that “if you are going to pick a fight in Texas, it is reasonable to expect that it be settled there.”

Elon Musk cheered the news, responding to George Behizy’s tweet on X “LFG!” … or Let’s F**king Go!

LFG!! https://t.co/FRDdOfvbYn

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2024

This comes after news last week that far left Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee out of Washington DC, ordered Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey to halt his investigation into Media Matters for America.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey sent The Gateway Pundit a response to the ruling.

“Make no mistake: Media Matters ran to a DC Court in order to get out of complying with our investigation. The DC Court’s order effectively shuts down Missouri courts. We will be appealing the decision, and look forward to resuming our investigation on behalf of all affected Missourians.”

As we reported earlier, Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama donor, is famous for his persecution of Trump supporters.

The post Texas Judge Overseeing Elon Musk and X’s Defamation Case Against Smear Website Media Matters DENIES Their Motion to Dismiss appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.