Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🚨 BREAKING: Sánchez Came Prepared. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed ongoing litigation prevented him from answering questions about Trump's audit status. Then Rep. Linda Sánchez pulled out a court order and cited Supreme Court precedent saying ongoing litigation does not automatically bar testimony before Congress. 🔥 That's when the...

95,657 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

▶️ #WATCH | CJP spokesperson Saurav Das Saurav Das talked about a public interest litigation (PIL) in Delhi High court against CJP. He addressed the gathering and said: ➡️ Early this morning, we received news that some person in the Delhi High Court, someone random, just any random person, some BJP or RSS worker has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It states that there should be an NIA investigation against the Cockroach Janta Party and these andolanjeevis (protesters). Friends, Exactly, loser. ➡️ Friends, This is not a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This is a Bharatiya Janata Party interest litigation. This is a Modi interest litigation. This is an Amit Shah interest litigation. ➡️ So, we would like to request the Delhi High Court with full respect. Our only plea is that you should not entertain such people. Do not let yourself be used as a political weapon. Listen to the people. Do not listen to such people who bring such petitions for their own agendas or for government work and call it a Public Interest Litigation. ➡️ Our High Court, our Supreme Court, are very important institutions; justice should happen there. But if a person comes to them who wants to give this issue a political color, who wants to get an order in favor of the government. ➡️ You might know that when our Sonam Wangchuk ji was picked up, what did the Delhi Police say? They said it was a Delhi High Court order, which is why they were taking him away. Watch on HNP NEWS 👇🏻 #CJP #NEET #NEETPaperLeak #SauravDas #Cockroach #Cockroaches #CockroachJantaParty #CJPProtest #CJPMovement #Students #StudentsProtest #GenZ #EducationMinister #DharmendraPradhan #NarendraModi #Modi #PMModi #Resignation #Resign #AbhijeetDipke #SonamWangchuk #Protest #HungerStrike #DelhiPolice #JantarMantar #Delhi

HNP NEWS

800,774 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

That’s when CNN tried to push back—with a question about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a known MS-13 gangbanger who was deported by the Trump administration. They claimed it was a “mistake.” 🔥 Trump handed it over to Stephen Miller—and Miller dismantled the narrative. “There's an illegal alien from El Salvador. So with respect to you, he's a citizen of El Salvador. So it's very arrogant, even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens.” He laid out the legal facts: “Two immigration courts found that he was a member of MS-13. When President Trump declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization, that meant that he was no longer eligible under federal law... He had a deportation order that was valid.” Then came the jaw-dropping legal twist: “A district court judge tried to tell the administration they had to kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and fly him back here.” But the Supreme Court slapped that down: “The Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful... unanimously stating clearly that neither Secretary of State nor the president could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador... a member of MS-13.” Trump turned to Miller: “What was the ruling the Supreme Court, Steve? Was it nine to nothing?” Miller confirmed: “Yes, it was a 9-0, in our favor.” Then he delivered the knockout punch: “That is the president of El Salvador. Your questions about, per the court, can only be directed to him.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

623,946 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

A school district in Chatham, New Jersey, maintains a policy allowing schools to “socially transition” children without their parents’ consent, in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta. After attorneys demanded that the district rescind the policy, school board president Ann Ciccarelli read a statement asserting that the Supreme Court’s opinion is “NOT binding on public school districts in New Jersey.” While it is technically true that Mirabelli was not a final decision on the merits, the Court’s opinion communicated its clear position that such policies likely violate parents’ constitutional rights. Ciccarelli nevertheless argued that state law and guidance from the department of education require the district to maintain its policy and that changing it could embroil the district in “costly litigation.” I’ve noticed that elected officials suddenly become deeply concerned about the cost of potential litigation when they’re asked to abandon a policy they support, while showing no concern about the potentially far greater costs of defending that same policy in court. Ciccarelli’s professed concern about litigation costs is particularly comical here. The district had already received a formal demand from attorneys insisting that it rescind its unconstitutional policy. And the demand came from the very law firm that took Mirabelli all the way to the Supreme Court and secured an award of $4.8 million, and counting, in attorneys’ fees. Did she think they were bluffing? Now the district is being sued. And it will lose.

Laura Powell

28,104 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat