Connect with us

Politics

Biden Admin uses Tom Hanks for ‘credibility’ in new video, just like ‘The Simpsons Movie’

Published

on

Joe Biden

The famous pop-culture cartoon “The Simpsons” is playing out in real life in American politics. In a 2007 episode, the Simpsons predicted “that government would become so inept they’d need to enlist the help of actor Tom Hanks to gain back credibility, and the Biden administration appears to be doing just that” writes the Daily Caller News Foundation.

President Biden has enlisted the actor, Tom Hanks, to narrate a video wholly focused on promoting his first year in office. Axios exclusively reported on the upcoming video which will be using average Americans telling stories of hope, all in the name of “commemorating” Biden’s first year.

We wonder if the Americans in the video will be hired actors, taking a page out of vice president Kamala Harris’ video talking to children about space. Harris released a bizarre video having a ‘fireside chat’ conversation with hired child actors.

The Biden-Harris Presidential Inaugural Committee reportedly said of the video, “In recognition of the President’s first year in office, the Biden-Harris Presidential Inaugural Committee believed it was important to celebrate the strength and perseverance of the American people in the face of extraordinary adversity, just as we did a year ago today.”

In the 2007 “The Simpsons Movie” actor Tom Hanks made an appearance in a government-sponsored TV ad for the Grand Canyon. The actor’s great line is: “Hello. I’m Tom Hanks. The US Government has lost its credibility, so it’s borrowing some of mine.”

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Keith Guise

    January 22, 2022 at 2:00 pm

    The fact that Tom Hanks is speaking for Biden precludes his credibility already. He should stick to being the fine actor that he is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Elections

BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading

Trending