Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Fuc Yeahhhhh 💨I couldn’t stop 🛑MOANING smothering 👿niggas🦀Booty with Long Dick under the pillow🔥after nigga finished Sucking my Dick🍆….#bigdick #Top #blackdick #longdick
22,351 просмотров • 2 дней назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
Похожие видео
![[Bonnie is telling us the morning after the party🤣🤣] 🐰I have something funny to tell, but first I want to say sorry to P’Emi and her mommies (fans) , please don’t scold me! 🐰When I woke up, I was so comfy and warm under the blanket. After I got out of bed and was about to brush my teeth, I turned to look at P’Mi and she was using a towel to cover herself! 😂 🐰The reason is… I accidentally slept on top of the blanket. Honestly, I need to explain , when I’m at home, I love sleeping with lots of pillows and blankets. But at the hotel, there weren’t enough. We were two people in one room, and we only had one pillow each and one blanket. So I rolled myself up in the blanket like a worm, and poor Emi couldn’t pull it out because I was lying on top of it. 🐰She had no choice but to use a towel to cover herself. But the towel was too small to cover her whole body. 😭😂 🐰I’m so sorry, P’Mi! MAKEOVER WITH EMIBONNIE #InfinityMedicalClinicxEmiBonnie #emiamily #beonnnie #emibonnie](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1959607414396985813/amplify_video_thumb/1959606966747287552/img/HTayYt9Pw1YEk2kc.jpg)
1:04
Sensitive content
Mia Malkova reveals the smallest dick size she’s ever worked with was when she went to Japan 🇯🇵 and she laughed so hard that the man felt ashamed “I had something small… and I hated it, if I’m being honest.” “Please say under six.” She holds up four fingers. “You hated it, you didn’t even feel it.” “No, I hated it. It was weird.” “Ironically though, like one guy that was like this, I felt that ’cause it was so hard.” “When I was working in Japan, so I didn’t really choose, and this was like at the beginning of my career.” “I was like, unfortunately laughing at him. I couldn’t stop laughing… and I’m like, it’s so tiny.” “Nobody spoke English, and they’re like, ‘Oh, she loves it.’ He must know it was tiny. That’s my defense.”
Riddler
154,391 просмотров • 15 дней назад
![Paul Schrader's 'Blue Collar' (1978) was a very tense shoot, because Richard Pryor, Yaphet Kotto, and Harvey Keitel argued constantly. There were fights, verbal abuse, walk-offs, and Mexican stand-offs. According to Paul Schrader, Pryor hit Kotto with a chair on camera during filming. Here is Schrader explaining the tense atmosphere & the reason why he cried during the filming of 'Blue Collar' (1978): "Schrader: [Richard Pryor was never meant to be the star of the movie]. A lot of the difficulties on the film came out of the fact that | had approached Richard and Harvey Keitel and Yaphet Kotto separately and led each of them to believe that they were the star of the movie, because that’s what it took to get them involved. You were basically introducing three bulls into a china shop and asking them to get along, and you can’t really blame the bulls when things start getting wrecked. Very early on, by the second or third day of production, Richard became convinced that he was playing the black sidekick to Harvey’s Terry Molloy, and Harvey became convinced that he was playing Ed McMann to Richard’s Johnny Carson, and Yaphet was convinced that they were both trying to ace him out, and things got very heavy. We were shooting in auto plants in Detroit and Kalamazoo in middle of a heatwave and pretty much what was happening on-screen started happening off-screen. Not a day went by without some sort of confrontation. Right after you said ‘Cut’, a fight would start. After about three weeks in, I was in the middle of the set and all of a sudden I started crying and I just couldn’t stop, something I'd never done before. The AD grabbed me and took me outside and walked me around the block and I said, ‘This is not working. The movie is never going to get finished and I'm never going to work again.” But he calmed me down and walked me back in and I guess everyone realized I wasn’t as much the iron man as | had been appearing. Richard looked at me and said, ‘You pu**y —are you gonna be a man or not on this movie?’, and I said, ‘OK, Richard, I’m sorry. It won’t happen again.’ Interviewer: Did things improve from that point on? Schrader: Part of the problem was to do with Richard’s style of acting. Being primarily versed in stand-up comedy he had a creative life of between three and four takes. The first one would be good, the second would be real good, the third would be terrific and the fourth would probably start to fall off. Whereas Harvey, with his theatrical training, very self-analytical, would work on the meaning of the scene in the early takes and then after ten takes he’d be terrific. Well, there’s virtually no way you can film those two men together, so you’d have to rehearse Harvey with a stand-in and then bring Richard in without any rehearsal. The other thing that Richard would do when he felt his performance going flat was to improvise and change the dialogue just like he would have done in front of a live audience, and he would never tell me or anyone what he was going to do. In one case I had a two-shot of Richard and Harvey where Richard just started flying, and of course Harvey tried to top him, and as soon as that happened Richard just sort of took off and became brilliant. Harvey broke a take once because he felt himself being knocked out of shot. I had to grab Harvey and get him down on the floor and yell at him, ‘Don’t you ever break shot!’, because Richard was right behind me trying to get at him. So the shooting strategy became very limited: ‘I know I may only have one take with these actors, so what’s the best one?’, and you’d work out the minimum coverage you needed and that’s all you got. Sometimes if they were in a good mood you could actually try something a little different, but by the time we shot the last scene, the one with all three of them on the sofa after the party, they hadn’t been talking to each other for a long time, and I had fallen into a prolonged pattern of script negotiations which usually began the night before and went on into the morning of shooting, talking to each of them until they were all happy with the others’ improvisations. Now the day before the sofa scene Richard had hit Yaphet with a chair on-camera, so I knew it was going to be tough. We lit the scene with extras, put their names on the sofa with pieces of tape, and the crew were all warned. The three of them came into the room in silence, there was no discussion, I said ‘Action’ and we did the first take, which ran to about four or five minutes — much too long. So I said, ‘OK, that’s very good, but it’s too long for us. We’re going to go right again. No one move, no one talk, let’s just do it a little faster. Action.’ We did that take on the same reel of film and that was two and a half minutes. I said, ‘Cut’, and Richard got up, went downstairs, got in his car and drove home. End of movie. Interviewer: All this must have given you a completely different perspective on the job of being a director than the one you’d envisaged when you were a critic. Schrader: It did. I said afterwards that if this was what movie-making was like I didn’t want to do this any more. On that film, I very quickly learned to confine myself to talent management, to making sure the actors stayed in character and the storyline remained coherent. I handed over shot selection and lighting and blocking essentially to my crew. I didn’t have time to explore those areas." ('Schrader on Schrader & other writings', edited by Kevin Jackson, 1990) [P.S: On this day, 48 years ago, 'Blue Collar' was released in the USA]](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2021297692551545243/amplify_video_thumb/2021297597466742784/img/dP53fVp__XvD14Pk.jpg)
![The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014084863523991988/amplify_video_thumb/2014081102336438272/img/PO6AC1MzPmGnWRpm.jpg)
![🤯Whitney Webb pitches mind-blowing theory on Joe Kent's real narrative purpose: engineer "anti-semitic, right-leaning domestic terrorists" to feed to the "pre-crime" machine: "[Kent's] an intelligence officer and top CIA guy." "Be careful in trusting 'former spooks' who come out of nowhere and are saying what you want to hear right away." "Basically, the first Trump administration defined the rising domestic terror threat because after 9/11 they've been building all this infrastructure for a war on domestic terror. Every administration has advanced it, Democrat and Republican. So who are they saying the domestic terrorists are? Anti-Semitic Right-leaning populists." "I worry when people from that exact nexus that existed in [Trump's first administration] come out and are trying to get Right-leaning populists in particular to do things that the Trump administration itself—even if no one else agrees with the definition—would define as anti-Semitic." This clip of Webb (Whitney Webb), author of One Nation Under Blackmail and contributing editor of unlimitedhangout(.)com, is taken from an interview with Jimmy Dore (Jimmy Dore) posted to Rumble on March 26, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Dore: "What do you make of Joe Kent?" Webb: "Yeah, so with Joe Kent, he's a intelligence officer and top CIA guy. I think a lot of stuff is going on right now, and I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it. But I think people should be careful in trusting former, quote–unquote, former spooks who come out of nowhere and are saying what you want to hear right away. Because a lot of times what happens is that these figures will do that to build up trust with the public and then they'll misdirect you somewhere else if you're not careful. "So I would advise vigilance and critical thinking, which is often in short supply, but should not be, about, that figure in, in particular. But I think— Dore: "So you think there's like, there might be some kind of a long-game plan with Joe Kent?" Webb: "Oh, yeah. So you saw—" Dore: "So, so I've heard this argument and, and that you know, don't take him as face value, that they're just setting him up to be the next Trump or JD Vance or something and then he's going to do all the horrible thing. So that's—" Webb: "They could. It's very possible, but I don't know how it'll go. But let me give you an example of why I'm really skeptical of him. "So when Trump was, I encourage people to go back and look at the first iteration of the Trump administration to understand what's happening now. And since my career in journalism began during Trump's first term, I thankfully remember a good amount of it. "So, about a year before the January Six event, there was this DHS official and this is the Trump administration, Elizabeth Neuman, I think her name was. She was basically saying, there's going to be a domestic terror event. We can see it building, but we can't quite stop it. It's another 9/11. Oh no. If only we had more surveillance powers and whatever, we could maybe stop this other imminent 9/11, whatever. "And so basically in that hearing, it was a hearing where she was testifying. Top officials from DHS and, and other intelligence agencies were basically painting who is the up-and-coming domestic terrorist profile in the United States, what Americans are domestic terrorists. "And so basically, the— I, I really wish I could remember the specific name of the hearing to direct people to that because it is on C-SPAN, still. But basically, the profile they gave were anti-Semitic Trump supporters or anti-Semitic Right-leaning populists. So I worry when people from that exact nexus that existed in Trump One come out and are trying to get Right-leaning populists in particular to do things that the Trump administration itself, even if it, no one else agrees with the definition, would define as anti-Semitic." Dore: "So, so what I— explain that again to me because you lost me a little bit right at the end. So you're saying that—" Webb: "Okay, so basically the first Trump administration defined the rising domestic terror threat because after 9/11 they've been building all this infrastructure for a war on domestic terror. Every administration has advanced it, Democrat and Republican. So who are they saying the domestic terrorists are? Anti-Semitic Right-leaning populists." Dore: "And so do you think Joe Kent is, is one of those?" Webb: "So before this era they had the domestic terror threat they were trying to put in front of you were obviously these groups of like Feds, like Patriot Front and the Proud Boys. And all of that. Okay, so how, if you, if, if you can't fake the demographic, how do you engineer the demographic?... "So basically if you have Trump officials that are part of this apparatus claiming right-leaning anti- Semites are domestic terrorists that need to be targeted by this infrastructure and the surveillance infrastructure, in pre-crime and all of that, that's been a part of this buildup of the war on domestic terror. And then you have people coming out and being like we're going to blame, you know, you know, saying what people want to hear because obviously Israel absolutely is intimately involved with getting us involved in the Iran war. "But the other side of it is you create— you, you signal boost that with people like Joe Kent potentially. And then you have people sort of muddy the waters between Israel and all Jewish people, which is not fair. And then you can have the Trump administration swoop in and you know, look at Alexis Wilkins. Foreign government operators are driving these narratives. "It's, it's like reverse Russiagate. And well, I mean I probably should have thought this theory a little bit more before explaining it on your show, but basically I worry that someone like Joe Kent is coming out of, out of nowhere to try and sort of engineer this problem that the US Government has had is we can't make domestic terrorists appear that fit our profile. "So now we want people to create a class of right- leaning populists who basically fit our definition. If we just define anti-Semites as people who are critical of Israel and then we can target these people with our domestic terror infrastructure. So I worry that could be happening."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2037354939635442113/amplify_video_thumb/2037350889284071424/img/h0fAF1sNQM8NIvCW.jpg)
!["We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her." ~Tim Gallaudet This is way too long but I hope you enjoy it. As far as Steven Greenstreet 🐷's posts about the Gallaudets, hauntings and psychics? First off, Tim Gallaudet's wife, "was also a Naval Academy graduate and a master’s recipient from Scripps, having earned her degree in 2001." Source: We know the resume of retired Rear Admiral and oceanographer, Tim Gallaudet, but what about his wife, Caren? She's a big part of this story, so any journalist covering it would want you to know a little something about her. But not Greenstreet, who is, as I said, not a journalist. He leaves out any detail that doesn't fit his debunker, mocking narrative. And he just blocked me. Good. Trash. More... “(My wife Caren) is an inspiration to me, first because she was a Navy diver, and you don’t need to say more. And second, she was a Navy diver as a female during a time when it was not easy. In the late 1980s/early 1990s there was a lot of sexual harassment in the Navy.” ~RDML Tim Gallaudet ~~~ This episode of "The Dead Files," S6E8 ("You Will Be Mine") aired May 20th, 2016. Caren: "People think I'm crazy but it's hard to do battle with an enemy you don't understand. There are things moving around the house. We're hearing voices. We've all had nightmares. We've seen full apparitions. Now things are getting physical." (I would liked to have heard more about full apparitions and exactly who saw them. Having multiple witnesses to alleged phenomena is important. And yes, people will think you're crazy but screw 'em. People have been experiencing this type of phenomena all over the world. At the time this was shot (2015 or 2016), their oldest of three daughters, Laurel, was 14, Aspen was 8, and the youngest, Cedar, was 6.) Caren: "My husband works for the Department of Defense and he travels a lot, so he's rarely here." (They bought the property in 2007 but the odd activity in the house didn't start until Cedar turned 3.) Caren: "Cedar has drawn pictures. This is the man with the brown arms. He lives in her room in her closet. This one she saw in my bathroom, it was a man covered with blood. And I have a book with over 40 drawings. She has become anxious and depressed." (Why didn't the family bring her to a psychiatrist or psychologist first before immediately seeking out a medium? What? They did? Why didn't hack Greenstreet tell us that? Because his goal is to make anybody connected to UFO disclosure look bad.) Caren: "We've seen psychiatrists, psychologists. They all say she's a normal little girl. But she says things that 5 and 6 year old children should not be saying. I love her with all my heart but, at times, I don't know who she is." How is Caren handling it? Caren: "Not very well. When I'm alone, I do a lot of crying. I feel isolated, I feel exhausted." (The kids fight and the older sisters blame Cedar for what's going on. That fighting may be related to the phenomena. Watch the video clip I included below for context. ~~~ Caren: "We're wiling to do whatever it takes. We're ready." (My take: It's obvious they were desperate for help in a situation where nobody else was offering up anything to fix the problem. So they turned to an alleged medium, Amy Allan, and former NYPD homicide investigator, Steve DiSchiavi, who were part of a TV show, "The Dead Files." I am NOT a fan of those types of shows and I would tell people to avoid them if they had a problem like what the Gallaudet's described. But I wasn't in their shoes so who knows what I might have done to get help for the people I love? Luckily, I've never had to deal with a situation like that.) Caren: "I was in the kitchen, and I opened the cupboard. And before doing anything, all the dishes and the bowls fell on top of me." (Sounds like poltergeist activity. And when I say poltergeist, I don't necessarily mean a ghost, spirit, etc. If you read Dr. Barry Taff's book, "Aliens Above, Ghosts Below," he talks about something called Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis, or RSPK. The term was coined by parapsychologist, the late Dr. William Roll. The theory is that the paranormal activity taking place is originating from one of the people in the house. Usually, a young, adolescent boy or girl. "After receiving a report of poltergeist-like activities, two investigators from the Rhine visited a site and observed disturbances that were classified as Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis or RSPK. RSPK is the modern interpretation of what was previously called poltergeist activity. It occurs when an individual – in this case an adolescent boy – is present in every case where a poltergeist-like effect is observed. The activity is interpreted as the result of unconscious psychokinesis activities coming from the individual who is called the PK-Agent." Source: ~ Here's a transcription of the video clip I included below: Parapsychologist Dr. Barry Taff: "The original belief, regarding poltergeist, was that they were, basically, mischievous, prank-playing ghosts. That's what the German word means. The modern theorist in parapsychology consider a quite different type of belief system is operating here, or phenomena is operating. They believe that there are young children present, pubescent, adolescent children, and the research tends to support this belief. These young children are present with a lot of emotional animosities, belligerence, a lot of very intense interactions. And this emotional interaction will produce an emission of unconscious energy from these children, which will affect matter, objects around them. Make them move, affect electrical appliances, make them turn on and off. Make things speed up and slow down, affect televisions, affect radios. Dishes may explode, furniture may move across the room, cameras may go off by themselves, light bulbs may explode suddenly." ~ "A person-focused poltergeist tends to (but not always) involve a female adolescent who is suffering from emotional turmoil when the activity begins. That said however, not all so called 'focal agents' are teenagers. Indeed, William G. Roll, a pioneer in poltergeist research, found the age of people reporting experiences of poltergeist activity ranged from eight to 78 years." Source: ~~~ (That may explain what went on in the Gallaudet home but it's still not accepted by mainstream science as a valid theory. Unfortunately, Allan (the alleged medium) didn't offer up any alternative explanations for the paranormal activity in the home and focused solely on the alleged spirts of dead people as the answer. She thought Cedar was a physical medium who could cause that type of activity to occur, but again, 100% related it to the spirits of dead people, without offering any other explanation. IMO, it's possible one of the girls (or Caren) is a PK-Agent and this had nothing to do with spirits. Then again, maybe it IS connected to non-physical entities? Spirits of the dead? Keel's ultraterrestrials, who he believed impersonated the dead? A mix? Something different? Impossible to prove, either way. So, I don't know. But I DO believe SOMETHING anomalous was going on. If you want an example of how an alleged haunting, ghost or poltergeist case should be investigated, watch this. The clip I attached at the end is from this video. If these folks were still doing investigations, I'd refer anybody who was dealing with this type of situation to them.) "We don't consider our pictures proof of anything, we consider them part of the struggle to gather evidence to try to understand this phenomena." ~Kerry Gaynor Watch it... 👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼 ~~~ Caren: Also, "my daughter, Laurel, and I were right here having a conversation. And all of a sudden she screamed. She said, 'Someone just touched me on my back.' And there was no one else in the room." The bedroom... Caren: "I was woken by a noise. Immediately, I looked to the door and saw a giant, black shadow coming at me from the door. It came over the bed and came straight over top of me. I was scared to death. I've never been that scared in my life." (This is very similar to what happened to people who visited Skinwalker Ranch (and other locations) and reported taking "something" home with them. Also known as the hitchhiker effect. ) Caren: "I was asleep and I felt a hand grab my hair and yank me up. It was a very aggressive pull. I screamed, and I did not go back to sleep after that. There was no one around. Tim wasn't here. It was not a nightmare. I don't sleep most nights, but I'm glad that I had the experience because I understand what Cedar's going through. If I saw that every night, I think I'd act like her, too." Caren's mother, Jan: "Something's going on with Cedar. She's changed dramatically in the last year, year and a half. To do this to my grandchildren makes me angry. My husband and I were babysitting here and we heard Cedar cry out, yelling and screaming, 'Stop it, stop it. Leave me alone!' So I rubbed her back and she went back into her sleep. And then I heard a low voice (that sounded male) say, 'It's gonna be alright. It's alright.'" (From the investigation, Jan wants, "peace among the girls. They don't tend to get along. It's more than just sibling rivalry. It's something else." She thinks the girls are in physical danger. As Taff noted, intense interactions among people in the house could be the cause of all of this. Why did it take a few years for the activity in the house to start? Did anything change in the family dynamic? Cedar is interviewed and she tells the investigator what she's experienced, which includes a scary dream with blood on the floor and dead people. She says she sees the man with brown arms and brown skin who yells at her, "Get out of here, this is not your room. This is my room." Later on, the medium says that this man was there to protect Cedar. Based on what he allegedly said, that makes zero sense. I'm not a fan of this medium (Allan), to put it mildly. Aspen, eight years old, says she sees a shadow man in her room who sits near her dresser. She also saw a little girl who was wet. "I felt a thumb press on my neck really hard." During the nighttime walkthrough of the house, the medium says that one of the spirits looks wet. Is this confirmation or was the medium fed information about what the children experienced? Impossible to know as it's an edited TV show.) Caren says Cedar has seen over a hundred spirits. "It's every night." Medium Allan says this one spirit is tormenting the kids because she's jealous of them and wants Caren to be her mother.) Amy Allan: "The only way (this spirit) could be with you is if you were to kill yourself, then you guys would spend entirety together, and you would forever be her mother, alone." (I'm sorry but without any evidence to back that up, it's an irresponsible thing to say and, IMO, a bunch of sensational bs.) You can watch the entire episode if you log in with your cable subscription. Or watch it at Greensteet's post... ~~~ Tim Gallaudet was on with “Jay Anderson” a few years ago and spoke about the phenomenon and what his family has experienced. Tim Gallaudet (TG): "You see a sort of grouping of UAP and paranormal and how does it intersect. And the answer is: I don't know." TG: "We were all grown up in traditional, kind of, religion. But at some point in our lives, my youngest daughter had real serious behavior issues. And to sum it all up, she is like many of these mediums that you see. She could see spirits, she saw them all the time. A lot of listeners might just think this is just a joke or made up." (I definitely don't think it's a joke, but if she still has these abilities when she gets older, try to take her to get tested at Windbridge Research. Some people (who call themselves mediums) claim they can acquire information via something other than their five senses and have shown the ability to do so under controlled conditions. Are they speaking to the dead or is it something else? I don't know. And FYI, a medium claims they can speak to the dead and also provides alleged psychic readings to people about their lives and sometimes the future. Nine times out of ten, a psychic does not claim to speak with the dead.) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it. It was real and...real to us." (They're allegedly able to see the spirits of the dead and can acquire information they have no way of knowing via their five senses. To me, the part about them acquiring information they have no way of knowing through means other than their five senses has been proven. Maybe there's some storehouse of information that they're accessing, like an Akashic Records type of thing? Or, maybe they're really communicating with the dead or some other entities? Again, I don't know where the information is coming from. As TG said, there are lots of ways to explain it.) TG: "She had real experiences, it was affecting her. And through a lot of therapy, we were able to basically have her - now she's thirteen - she became adjusted and has kind of dealt with that. She's sort of suppressed it, actually, which is okay. I mean, she's only thirteen. We can take a pause and help her develop as a person and human before coming to groups with that incredible ability." (TG and his wife did everything they could to help their daughter. When traditional methods failed, they sought help in other ways. Why anybody would have a problem with that is beyond me.) TG: "My wife and I, through this experience, to just be able to help her, we came to meet several mediums who are incredibly gifted." One of them was the Long Island medium, Theresa Caputo. (I like to see Caputo tested in a lab. If you'd like to see what that looks like, watch this HBO documentary on Life After Death and mediums. You'll have to search for the other parts. Part 1 of Life Afterlife ) ~~~ TG said he and his wife had a camera in Cedar's room when this activity was taking place and, "there was orbs flying all around this video. It was so active." (I'd like to see this video and see if those were orbs or particles of dust.) TG: "We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her. And so, through just meeting people, doing a lot of reading about people, these experiences, it became real to us and it opened our minds. I don't have all the answers but I know what we experienced, I know what she saw. We contacted [the show] because we thought she could help her and she ultimately did help my daughter." (That's really all that matters! TG says he has some family history with this type of thing but doesn't have any details as people were less willing to talk about it back then.) TG "She was not the Devil, she was seeing real things (laughs), and that's it. We were not gonna brand her or blame her. And I ultimately know, it was that love that we shared - my wife and I - for her, that opened our minds and create the right outcome. For being well-adjusted, having that in our history, and not being afraid of it or ashamed of it. And being aware and open now to a lot of other things that happen in life and maybe seeing their meaning." (Well said. After learning about this, my respect for Tim and his family has only increased.) ~~~ Last and definitely least...Greenstreet's comments. SG: "In an interview with TheProjectUnity, former Navy Admiral Tim Gallaudet claims his young daughter is a 'medium' who sees spirits and can communicate with them." (He said that but also added this...) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it." SG: "Gallaudet's wife claims their house is haunted by violent poltergeists." (His wife explained what the family was experiencing. I don't recall anyone involved mentioning poltergeists or that the house was haunted. This are buzzwords SG uses to disparage people. Just like his "monsters" garbage. ) SG: "Their youngest daughter, 6, thinks ghost monsters are hiding in her room and both the TV show stars and her parents validate her fantasies as real." (His wife and daughters were having experiences they couldn't explain. They took the youngest to a psychiatrist and psychologist and they couldn't help. So they sought out the show. You left out the part about them seeking professional help first. Why? Because you're a piece of trash who will do anything to disparage anybody involved in this. I think YOU should seek help.) SG: "Gallaudet says he's taken his young daughter to multiple psychics to try to 'help her.'" (Nope. Mediums. For a so-called journalist, you should know the difference. And again, this was AFTER they sought out traditional help.) SG: "It should be noted that Gallaudet is "close friends" with Jay Stratton, another retired Navy official who claims his house was/is also haunted by violent poltergeists who attacked his children." (Talk to Stratton and you'll see he doesn't define what happened to his family. Oh, that's right, he won't talk to you because you're an azzhole. And it makes sense that those two would bond since their families experienced similar things. I hope Tim shares more details about what's currently going on with his family and what he experienced himself.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1797112304313717240/ext_tw_video_thumb/1796974769256165377/pu/img/oZCZv2Y6XPpcVPwJ.jpg)
![CLAIM: Kamala HQ says Donald Trump called Neo-Nazis “very fine people.” REALITY: This claim has been debunked by left-wing Snopes and rated “false.” See Trump’s full quote below: “You had some very bad people in that group [the Neo-Nazi group], but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.” In his statement Donald Trump goes on to disavow and condemn the Neo-Nazi group and any other group inciting violence in Charlottesville. For full context, consider reading those quotes and Trump’s remarks in the full transcript below: Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?" Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long." Reporter: "Forty-eight hours." Trump: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement. "So I don’t want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts. If you go back to -- Reporter: "So you had to (inaudible) white supremacists?" Trump: "I brought it. I brought it. I brought it." Reporter: "Was it terrorism, in your opinion, what happened?" Trump: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And then it went on from there. Now, here’s the thing --" *inaudible* Trump: "Excuse me. Excuse me. Take it nice and easy. Here’s the thing: When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened. In fact, a lot of the event didn’t even happen yet, as we were speaking. This event just happened. "Before I make a statement, I need the facts. So I don’t want to rush into a statement. So making the statement when I made it was excellent. In fact, the young woman, who I hear was a fantastic young woman, and it was on NBC -- her mother wrote me and said through, I guess, Twitter, social media, the nicest things. And I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine -- really, actually, an incredible young woman. But her mother, on Twitter, thanked me for what I said. "And honestly, if the press were not fake, and if it was honest, the press would have said what I said was very nice. But unlike you, and unlike -- excuse me, unlike you and unlike the media, before I make a statement, I like to know the facts." Reporter: "The CEO of Walmart said you missed a critical opportunity to help bring the country together. Did you?" Trump: "Not at all. I think the country -- look, you take a look. I’ve created over a million jobs since I’m President. The country is booming. The stock market is setting records. We have the highest employment numbers we’ve ever had in the history of our country. We’re doing record business. We have the highest levels of enthusiasm. So the head of Walmart, who I know -- who’s a very nice guy -- was making a political statement. I mean -- I’d do it the same way. And you know why? Because I want to make sure, when I make a statement, that the statement is correct. And there was no way -- there was no way of making a correct statement that early. I had to see the facts, unlike a lot of reporters. Unlike a lot of reporters -- Reporter: "Nazis were there." Reporter: "David Duke was there." Trump: "I didn’t know David Duke was there. I wanted to see the facts. And the facts, as they started coming out, were very well stated. In fact, everybody said, ‘His statement was beautiful. If he would have made it sooner, that would have been good.’ I couldn’t have made it sooner because I didn’t know all of the facts. Frankly, people still don’t know all of the facts. "It was very important -- excuse me, excuse me -- it was very important to me to get the facts out and correctly. Because if I would have made a fast statement -- and the first statement was made without knowing much, other than what we were seeing. The second statement was made after, with knowledge, with great knowledge. There are still things -- excuse me -- there are still things that people don’t know. I want to make a statement with knowledge. I wanted to know the facts." Reporter: "Two questions. Was this terrorism? And can you tell us how you’re feeling about your chief strategist, Stephen Bannon?" Trump: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. Reporter: "Can you tell us broadly what your -- do you still have confidence in Steve?" Trump: "Well, we’ll see. Look, look -- I like Mr. Bannon. He’s a friend of mine. But Mr. Bannon came on very late. You know that. I went through 17 senators, governors, and I won all the primaries. Mr. Bannon came on very much later than that. And I like him, he’s a good man. He is not a racist, I can tell you that. He’s a good person. He actually gets very unfair press in that regard. But we’ll see what happens with Mr. Bannon. But he’s a good person, and I think the press treats him, frankly, very unfairly." Reporter: "Sen. (John) McCain said that the alt-right is behind these attacks, and he linked that same group to those who perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville." Trump: "Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he’s talking about. But when you say the alt-right, define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead." Reporter: "Well, I’m saying, as Senator --" Trump: "No, define it for me. Come on, let’s go. Define it for me." Reporter: "Senator McCain defined them as the same group --" Trump: "Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at -- excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? "Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day. Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day -- " I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent." Reporter: "Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?" Trump: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee." Reporter: "Should that statue be taken down?" Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. "So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop? "But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead." Reporter: "Should the statues of Robert E. Lee stay up?" Trump: "I would say that’s up to a local town, community, or the federal government, depending on where it is located." Reporter: "How concerned are you about race relations in America? And do you think things have gotten worse or better since you took office?" Trump: "I think they’ve gotten better or the same. Look, they’ve been frayed for a long time. And you can ask President Obama about that, because he’d make speeches about it. But I believe that the fact that I brought in -- it will be soon -- millions of jobs -- you see where companies are moving back into our country -- I think that’s going to have a tremendous, positive impact on race relations. "We have companies coming back into our country. We have two car companies that just announced. We have Foxconn in Wisconsin just announced. We have many companies, I say, pouring back into the country. I think that’s going to have a huge, positive impact on race relations. You know why? It’s jobs. What people want now, they want jobs. They want great jobs with good pay, and when they have that, you watch how race relations will be. "And I’ll tell you, we’re spending a lot of money on the inner cities. We’re fixing the inner cities. We’re doing far more than anybody has done with respect to the inner cities. It’s a priority for me, and it’s very important." Reporter: "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?" Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. "But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is. Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --" Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say." Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --" Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same." Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?" Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson." Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? "So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. "Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group." Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying." Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. "But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country. "Does anybody have a final -- Reporter: "What makes you think you can get an infrastructure bill? You didn’t get health care -- Trump: "Well, you know, I’ll tell you. We came very close with health care. Unfortunately, John McCain decided to vote against it at the last minute. You’ll have to ask John McCain why he did that. But we came very close to health care. We will end up getting health care. But we’ll get the infrastructure. And actually, infrastructure is something that I think we’ll have bipartisan support on. I actually think Democrats will go along with the infrastructure." Reporter: "Mr. President, have you spoken to the family of the victim of the car attack?" Trump: "No, I’ll be reaching out. I’ll be reaching out." Reporter: "When will you be reaching out?" Trump: "I thought that the statement put out -- the mother’s statement I thought was a beautiful statement. I will tell you, it was something that I really appreciated. I thought it was terrific. And, really, under the kind of stress that she’s under and the heartache that she’s under, I thought putting out that statement, to me, was really something. I won’t forget it. "Thank you, all, very much. Thank you. Thank you." -- END OF TRANSCRIPT --](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1823032682730946863/ext_tw_video_thumb/1823032443038994432/pu/img/9AYuKrCdHdMAI4Hx.jpg)