Democrats spread Fake News about President Trump Stealing USPS Mailboxes

Left-wing conspiracy theorists are heading to the front lines of media claiming that President Trump is stealing mailboxes so lower-income communities will not be able to vote.

Even Joe Biden had the mental capacity to weigh in on the subject:

“I wonder if you’re outside trying to hold down your mailboxes. They’re going around literally with tractor trailers picking up mailboxes. You oughta go online and check out what they’re doing in Oregon. I mean, it’s bizarre!” 

He may have been reading from a script, but Joe Biden said all of those words in order and we should be happy for that.

Nonetheless, Breitbart said it best“Democrats have spent several days flogging the false “mailbox conspiracy” theory that President Donald Trump is deliberately crippling the U.S. Postal Service so that it cannot handle votes by mail in November — even forcing it to remove mailboxes.”

The Fact of the matter is that the US Post Office does regular maintenance on every facet of it’s infrastructure – yes, that includes mailboxes. We feel embarassed that we should also mention that the blue mailboxes seen around the country (all 142,000 of them) are made of steel and painted blue. When left out in the elements for decades at a time, eventually, they begin to rust and must be replaced.

One of the two pictures that went viral over the weekend showed a locking cover over the openings of a bank of mailboxes (above) with the caption “A disgrace and immediate threat to American democracy. Shame on them. Shame on the GOP.” These locks are common in high-crime areas to reduce theft.

With the shipping industry booming the way it has for the last decade, the USPS is slowly downsizing and becoming obsolete. The agency will also be removing hundred of mail-sorting machines – some to be scrapped, others to be sent for routine maintenance. This will not affect mail-in voting as the US Post Office has already explained in detail that it will not be able to handle the volume of “universal mail-in ballots”.

To add some truth to the wild leftist claims, Breitbart’s Joel Pollak writes,

The U.S. Postal Service has been a problem for years, constantly losing money.

In 2009, the postmaster general proposed moving to five-day-per-week mail delivery to cut costs. President Barack Obama criticized the service that year for failing to keep up with private sector competitors. The Obama-Biden administration considered closing nearly 3,700 post office locations, and proposed cutting 12,000 postal jobs.

President Trump tried a different tack, demanding in 2018 that Amazon lower the prices it charged the U.S. Postal Service for delivering its packages to consumers.

One aspect of ongoing cost management is the removal of mailbox from areas where few people deposit mail.

Considering that mail-in voting is supposed to be the 2nd option alternative to in-person voting, democrats and now celebrity virtue-signalers seems suspiciously concerned about the allocation of USPS resources.

Keep in mind that dozens of cases of confirmed mail-in voter fraud have been found throughout the United States in a number of different elections – resulting in hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes. We’ve seen it time and time again where democrats accuse republicans of the very thing they themselves are guilty of.

Finally, The Daily Caller was able to touch base with representatives from the USPS, indicating,

A USPS spokesperson said last week that collections boxes were being removed due to declining mail volume, thanks in part to the coronavirus pandemic. The postal service said on Friday that it would stop collecting the boxes in 16 Western states because of the allegations that the removals were related to mail-in voting.

The USPS inspector general noted in a blog post on Sept. 21, 2016, during the Obama-Biden administration, that 12,000 underused mailboxes had been removed over the previous five years.

“As part of its efforts to keep its collection infrastructure proportionate to customers’ needs at a reasonable cost, the Postal Service has eliminated underused collection boxes that on average receive fewer than 25 pieces a day; it has also added collection boxes where they are convenient for customers,” the blog post said.

Here at Trending Politics, we support the right for all American citizens to vote how they see fit and that every vote counts.


Twitter allowed the conspiracy theory that Post Office mailboxes are being “locked” to prevent Americans mailing in their ballots to spread unchecked on the platform, despite intensifying censorship of conservatives, including President Donald Trump, on dubious grounds of “misinformation” over the past few months.1

On August 21st, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy testified in a Senate hearing on the supposed USPS operational changes made during Covid. For the previous few weeks the Democrats, with help from their stenographers in the media spread wild conspiracy theories about the post office and Louis DeJoy. Protesters even showed up to DeJoy’s DC home and harassed him with a “noise demonstration.”2

“There has been no changes in any policies with regards to election mail for the 2020 election,” DeJoy said.

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy on the retirement of blue postal boxes and postal sorting machines:

“It’s a data-driven method…This is a normal process that’s been around for 50 years…

“This has been going on in every election year and every year for that matter.”

See also:

National File Hosts the ‘Emergency Save the First Amendment Summit’ Sponsored by Infowars

National File hosted the Emergency Save the First Amendment Summit on February 26, 2020 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Speakers included:

  • Alex Jones, who was infamously banned from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube
  • Gavin McInnes, founder of, who was famously banned from Facebook and Twitter
  • Patrick Howley, formerly of Breitbart and The Daily Caller, one of the most influential reporters in 2016
  • Owen Shroyer, known for viral videos confronting the left and exposing Drag Queen Story Time

The Emergency First Amendment Summit featured a Q&A session for the audience to engage with speakers, and was live streamed on social media.

The Emergency Save the First Amendment Summit was free to the public, and was ticketed through

All media was invited to attend.

The free speech of conservative Americans is under attack,” said National File editor-in-chief Tom Pappert. “Alex Jones was banned because Americans wanted to hear his message. Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, Gavin McInnes, and Milo Yiannopoulos were all banned for the same reason.

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube all claim that they’re unbiased platforms, yet their employees almost exclusively donate to Democrats.


  •  Tom Pappert
  •  Nick Fuentes
  • Patrick Howley
  • Millie Weaver
  • Peter D’Abrosca
  • DeAnna Lorraine
  • Enrique Tarrio
  • Owen Shroyer
  • Gavin McInnes
  • Alex Jones
  • Michael Flynn (son of General Mike Flynn)
  • Q&A

Trump Campaign Sues New York Times For Libel Over Garbage Russia Article

The article named in the lawsuit was authored by Max Frankel on March 27, 2019 titled, “The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo” which claimed the Trump campaign had an “overarching deal” with Russian President Vladimir Putin — “the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy.”

The lawsuit states The Times had no proof of its claims of a “quid pro quo” or a “deal” with Russia.

Trump’s campaign is seeking millions of dollars in damages and asserted “The Times knowingly published false and defamatory statements of and concerning plaintiff Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the “Campaign”), claiming it had an “overarching deal” with “Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy” to “help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton” in exchange for “a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration’s burdensome economic sanctions.”

The lawsuit accused The Times of engaging in a systematic pattern of bias against the Trump campaign “designed to maliciously interfere with and damage its reputation…”

“The Times was well aware when it published these statements that they were not true. The Times’ own previous reporting had confirmed the falsity of these statements,” the lawsuit stated. “But The Times published these statements anyway, knowing them to be false, and knowing it would misinform and mislead its own readers, because of The Times’ extreme bias against and animosity toward the Campaign, and The Times’ exuberance to improperly influence the presidential election in November 2020.”

The lawsuit claimed that “the falsity of the story has been confirmed” by Robert Mueller’s April 2019 report.

“But The Times published these statements anyway, knowing them to be false, and knowing it would misinform and mislead its own readers, because of The Times’ extreme bias against and animosity toward the Campaign, and The Times’ exuberance to improperly influence the presidential election in November 2020.”

The Trump campaign is seeking “compensatory damages in the millions,” and costs of suit among other damages.

Source: TGP

Appeals Court: Trump Can Withhold Funding from Sanctuary Cities

A federal appellate court on Wednesday ruled that President Trump’s administration can, in fact, withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that insist on shielding criminal illegal aliens from arrest and deportation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the Trump administration has the authority to withhold federal grant money from sanctuary jurisdictions due to their failure to meet federal requirements that include abiding by federal immigration law.

The Second Circuit Appellate Court wrote in their introduction:

The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whether the federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States.

In question was the Trump administration’s withholding 2017 Byrne Program Criminal Justice Assistance grants from the states of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia for their failure to meet federal immigration requirements due to their sanctuary policies.

The Second Circuit Appellate Court found that the Justice Department was not “arbitrary and capricious” in mandating that states and localities abide by federal immigration law when allocating Byrne grant money.

In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions imposed new requirements that localities and states would have to follow — which included cooperating with federal immigration officials — in order to receive certain federal funds like Byrne grants.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Source: Breitbart

DOJ Blocks FBI Investigation of Clinton Foundation’s Swindle of Gates Foundation Cash

When FBI agents working the Clinton Foundation investigation developed intelligence that tech pioneer and philanthropist Bill Gates was beyond angry at Bill and Hillary Clinton for duping his charitable foundation out of as much as $200 million, FBI brass wanted to arrange a sit down with the Microsoft mogul.

Gates, after all, is the second wealthiest man in the United States, running a close second behind Amazon king Jeff Bezos. That is the kind of fact witness FBI agents dream about. Would Gates flip on the Clinton’s and spill the beans on the millions he forked over to their sham foundation? Bad blood between Gates and the Clinton’s would certainly help fortify a criminal case against the Clinton Foundation. But as Thomas Paine revealed on his Moore Paine Show on Patreon Tuesday night as well as the Thomas Paine Podcast on Wednesday — FBI agents never got the chance to pick Gates’ brain. The Justice Department blocked access to Mr. Gates. (Listen to podcast below)

Just how much of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s charity cash did the Clinton’s squander for personal use and luxuries instead of charitable causes? That’s a number the FBI was never truly allowed to develop. The criminal case has since been spiked by Attorney General William Barr. It appears Barr’s Justice Department too was responsible for blocking the FBI from allowing Gates to talk about his reported problems with the Clinton charities. Gates — both directly through his charity foundation and through other charitable proxies he is linked to — provided the Clinton’s with well over $200 million, perhaps much more.

The Clinton Foundation’s financials detail the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated “greater” than $25 million to the Clinton’s charity, though no exact figure was provided. The Clinton Foundation lists contributors by money tiers and “Greater than $25 Million” is the top category where the Gates charity is listed. However, another top-tier contributor is Unitaid — a charity where the Gates’ have pumped over $150 million into which then turned around and donated “greater” than $25 million back to the Clinton Foundation. Similar arrangements tied to the Clinton’s with other global Gates-backed charities likewise exist, netting untold millions in revenue for the Clinton’s. Officially, at least as far as the Clinton’s IRS filings detail, Gates directly donated at least $200 million to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Health Access Initiative through 31 Dec 2018.

Were the Gates’ duped by the Clinton’s? Or does this story go deeper and perhaps the Justice Department doesn’t want folks to know the sordid underbelly of the Gates and Clinton foundations and details of illicit financial practices? But if Bill and Melinda Gates were willing to share their frustration and financials with FBI agents about their soured patronage and experiences with the crooked Clinton foundation — why were they not allowed to speak to the Feds? With $200 million plus on the table, interviewing the benefactors would seem rather elementary. If the second-wealthiest man in the United States can’t get help from the FBI against the Clinton Cartel — then who can? (Listen below)

More details in the below podcast — Warning — the podcast uses some explicit language.