Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

JD Vance really just said this: "What I would propose is something very simple, that if you are willing to turn the page on Joe Biden's law fair, why don't we prosecute people? Very simple principle. Why don't we prosecute people who violate the law? Let's not prosecute people...

EdKrassen's profile picture

Ed Krassenstein

1,097,589 subscribers

373,308 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ЮморНовости и политикаОбразование
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

🚨 JD VANCE JUST NAILED IT: "I'd encourage everybody — Democratic, Republican, Independent — let's turn the page on this thing that we did under the last administration where we tried to throw people in prison because they had the wrong politics!" "Let's throw people in prison who broke the law. I think this fund is a good part of getting justice for the people who are wrongly treated." 💯🇺🇸
0:24

🚨 JD VANCE JUST NAILED IT: "I'd encourage everybody — Democratic, Republican, Independent — let's turn the page on this thing that we did under the last administration where we tried to throw people in prison because they had the wrong politics!" "Let's throw people in prison who broke the law. I think this fund is a good part of getting justice for the people who are wrongly treated." 💯🇺🇸

Eric Daugherty

18,958 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

ABC’s Jonathan Karl: “I want to ask you about that $1.8 billion fund set up — weaponization fund it’s being called. Why should taxpayers be paying to settle a $10 billion lawsuit that was brought by the President of the United States? And should people that attacked the Capitol building and assaulted police officers, should they be eligible? Should they receive money? Should they receive money from this fund?” Vice President JD Vance JD Vance: “Well, let me say a couple things about that. First, Jon, I think, in some ways, the media has misrepresented what this is actually about. This is about compensating Americans for the lawfare that we saw under the last administration. And by the way, anybody can apply for it. Republicans can apply for it. Democrats can apply for it. As you know, the President of the United States has pardoned a number of Democrats who he felt were actually subject to this lawfare. I mean, if Hunter Biden wants to apply for this particular fund, he is welcome to. It’s going to go through a normal process where we vet everything, where we try to identify whether people’s claims are actually legitimate. But — but — but here’s the question. You say, why should taxpayers fund this? Whenever the United States government incurs legal expenses, it pays out those legal expenses. When it — it’s settling a lawsuit, it pays out money to settle that lawsuit. And the question is, is a dollar of this money going to the Trump administration? No. Is a dollar of this money going to Donald Trump personally? No. Is a dollar of this money going to Donald Trump’s family? No. The people that would get the money are people, some of whom have been prosecuted completely disproportionate to any crime they’ve ever committed. Like, let’s just take a couple of examples. Tina Peters is this woman who is about to get out of prison, thanks in large part to the President’s good work in Colorado. This is a woman who, at worst, if you believe everything that the prosecutor said about her committed misdemeanor trespassing and somebody threw the book at her, this innocent grandmother was going to spend ten years in prison, completely disproportionate to any misdemeanor trespassing that I’ve ever seen. Was that fair? No. Is it reasonable for her to get some compensation for the fact that she was treated unfairly? I think the answer is yes. And I think that what we’re going to see, hopefully, is the entire country led by this Department of Justice, turning the page on the lawfare. What I would like to propose, and I think the Democrats, you know, hopefully they’re willing to meet us halfway here. I won’t hold my breath. But what I would propose is something very simple that if you are willing to turn the page on Joe Biden’s lawfare, why don’t we prosecute people — very simple principle — why don’t we prosecute people who violate the law? Let’s not prosecute people because they said the wrong thing, or because they had the wrong political candidate, or because they had the wrong viewpoint. And I think part of that — part of turning the page on that is to actually ensure the real victims of that lawfare receive some compensation. That’s what this fund is going to be targeted at. And again, there’s going to be a process to ensure that that money is only given to people who have actually, I hate to say, earned it, but the people who actually were really mistreated by the previous administration and Department of Justice.”
3:06

ABC’s Jonathan Karl: “I want to ask you about that $1.8 billion fund set up — weaponization fund it’s being called. Why should taxpayers be paying to settle a $10 billion lawsuit that was brought by the President of the United States? And should people that attacked the Capitol building and assaulted police officers, should they be eligible? Should they receive money? Should they receive money from this fund?” Vice President JD Vance JD Vance: “Well, let me say a couple things about that. First, Jon, I think, in some ways, the media has misrepresented what this is actually about. This is about compensating Americans for the lawfare that we saw under the last administration. And by the way, anybody can apply for it. Republicans can apply for it. Democrats can apply for it. As you know, the President of the United States has pardoned a number of Democrats who he felt were actually subject to this lawfare. I mean, if Hunter Biden wants to apply for this particular fund, he is welcome to. It’s going to go through a normal process where we vet everything, where we try to identify whether people’s claims are actually legitimate. But — but — but here’s the question. You say, why should taxpayers fund this? Whenever the United States government incurs legal expenses, it pays out those legal expenses. When it — it’s settling a lawsuit, it pays out money to settle that lawsuit. And the question is, is a dollar of this money going to the Trump administration? No. Is a dollar of this money going to Donald Trump personally? No. Is a dollar of this money going to Donald Trump’s family? No. The people that would get the money are people, some of whom have been prosecuted completely disproportionate to any crime they’ve ever committed. Like, let’s just take a couple of examples. Tina Peters is this woman who is about to get out of prison, thanks in large part to the President’s good work in Colorado. This is a woman who, at worst, if you believe everything that the prosecutor said about her committed misdemeanor trespassing and somebody threw the book at her, this innocent grandmother was going to spend ten years in prison, completely disproportionate to any misdemeanor trespassing that I’ve ever seen. Was that fair? No. Is it reasonable for her to get some compensation for the fact that she was treated unfairly? I think the answer is yes. And I think that what we’re going to see, hopefully, is the entire country led by this Department of Justice, turning the page on the lawfare. What I would like to propose, and I think the Democrats, you know, hopefully they’re willing to meet us halfway here. I won’t hold my breath. But what I would propose is something very simple that if you are willing to turn the page on Joe Biden’s lawfare, why don’t we prosecute people — very simple principle — why don’t we prosecute people who violate the law? Let’s not prosecute people because they said the wrong thing, or because they had the wrong political candidate, or because they had the wrong viewpoint. And I think part of that — part of turning the page on that is to actually ensure the real victims of that lawfare receive some compensation. That’s what this fund is going to be targeted at. And again, there’s going to be a process to ensure that that money is only given to people who have actually, I hate to say, earned it, but the people who actually were really mistreated by the previous administration and Department of Justice.”

Curtis Houck

13,935 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Fraud Czar JD Vance CONFIRMS they are looking into CRIMINAL liability of Gavin Newsom and Tim Walz if they were knowingly complicit in fraud "Gavin Newsom in California or Tim Walz in Minnesota, getting these reports that there were fraudulent activities happening in their states and they're looking the other way!" "Whether that rises to the level of criminal conduct, I don't know, but we're certainly looking into it because as much as we care about protecting these programs, we also care about ensuring that federal and state officers aren't violating the law." "And if they are violating the law, then of course we have to PROSECUTE them!" "That's an important part of equal justice under law. So we're looking into this stuff, but I can't commit to it because unlike the last administration, we tend to only prosecute people when they've actually violated the law, not just because they have the wrong political affiliation."
0:51

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Fraud Czar JD Vance CONFIRMS they are looking into CRIMINAL liability of Gavin Newsom and Tim Walz if they were knowingly complicit in fraud "Gavin Newsom in California or Tim Walz in Minnesota, getting these reports that there were fraudulent activities happening in their states and they're looking the other way!" "Whether that rises to the level of criminal conduct, I don't know, but we're certainly looking into it because as much as we care about protecting these programs, we also care about ensuring that federal and state officers aren't violating the law." "And if they are violating the law, then of course we have to PROSECUTE them!" "That's an important part of equal justice under law. So we're looking into this stuff, but I can't commit to it because unlike the last administration, we tend to only prosecute people when they've actually violated the law, not just because they have the wrong political affiliation."

Eric Daugherty

18,221 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🇺🇸 Vance: "I'd encourage everybody: Democratic, Republican, Independent; let's turn the page on this thing that we did under the last admin, where we tried to throw people in prison because they had the wrong politics! Let's throw people in prison who broke the law. I think this fund is a good part of getting justice for the people who are wrongly treated." The distinction matters. Prosecuting criminals is one thing. Prosecuting enemies is another. And after four years of watching the DOJ weaponized against political opponents, a lot of Americans know exactly which one they got.
0:24

🇺🇸 Vance: "I'd encourage everybody: Democratic, Republican, Independent; let's turn the page on this thing that we did under the last admin, where we tried to throw people in prison because they had the wrong politics! Let's throw people in prison who broke the law. I think this fund is a good part of getting justice for the people who are wrongly treated." The distinction matters. Prosecuting criminals is one thing. Prosecuting enemies is another. And after four years of watching the DOJ weaponized against political opponents, a lot of Americans know exactly which one they got.

Mario Nawfal

97,182 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

JD Vance: "I've always been creeped out by this story, because Epstein knew a lot of rich and powerful people and seemed to run in these circles while he was doing some very disgusting things with young girls, but we can't just prosecute people because we think something is wrong. You can only prosecute people if you have the evidence to prove their wrongdoing."
0:52

JD Vance: "I've always been creeped out by this story, because Epstein knew a lot of rich and powerful people and seemed to run in these circles while he was doing some very disgusting things with young girls, but we can't just prosecute people because we think something is wrong. You can only prosecute people if you have the evidence to prove their wrongdoing."

Aaron Rupar

128,105 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I don't think that the people of Texas believe there are six sexes. What I would like to ask James Talarico is since you said that, why don't you explain to the people of Texas who exactly are these other four genders?
0:30

I don't think that the people of Texas believe there are six sexes. What I would like to ask James Talarico is since you said that, why don't you explain to the people of Texas who exactly are these other four genders?

Brandon Gill

79,270 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨 The new Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Epstein files contained CP, death, and physical abuse and then said they don't have people to prosecute "Any depiction of child pornography was excluded. Anything that depicts death, physical abuse, or injury, also is not produced." "If we had information about men that abused women we would prosecute them."
1:44

Sensitive content

🚨 The new Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Epstein files contained CP, death, and physical abuse and then said they don't have people to prosecute "Any depiction of child pornography was excluded. Anything that depicts death, physical abuse, or injury, also is not produced." "If we had information about men that abused women we would prosecute them."

Red Panda Koala

62,400 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Welker: Is DOJ acting on orders from the president to prosecute his political opponents? Vance: No, we’re driven by the law and the facts of the case— if you look at the fact that James Comey obviously lied under oath, Letitia James obviously committed mortgage fraud…. You know who we haven't prosecuted? Joe Biden or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Unlike Biden's Department of Justice, which actually went after Donald Trump in the midst of an election, we are not doing that The president is allowed to have opinions about the law enforcement of the federal government
1:51

Welker: Is DOJ acting on orders from the president to prosecute his political opponents? Vance: No, we’re driven by the law and the facts of the case— if you look at the fact that James Comey obviously lied under oath, Letitia James obviously committed mortgage fraud…. You know who we haven't prosecuted? Joe Biden or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Unlike Biden's Department of Justice, which actually went after Donald Trump in the midst of an election, we are not doing that The president is allowed to have opinions about the law enforcement of the federal government

Acyn

401,200 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Are Flock Cameras Actually Good? Andrew Bustamante: "I understand why people don't like flock cameras, but I am a fan of this type of public surveillance. Because we don't have a right to privacy. We think we do, but it's not actually listed out anywhere. The term right to privacy doesn't exist, but we do have the public expectation of security from our police and from our law enforcement agencies." "So this creates a deterrent to keep right people doing the right thing, and wrong people getting caught. But it also creates a trail of evidence... that can be brought to the table to prosecute people who are charged with breaking the law. If you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from these things. It's only if you are speeding, crossing at the red light, robbing somebody, if you're doing something that you don't want to get caught... that's when you don't like it." Sarah Adams: "A lot of people think when there's something like this, someone is sitting and watching it all day, and you really only go into this data when you're looking for a piece of info... I know cops are using it to track their exes, and I said, fire them. So I like it because the more data you have to solve a crime, better."
4:23

Are Flock Cameras Actually Good? Andrew Bustamante: "I understand why people don't like flock cameras, but I am a fan of this type of public surveillance. Because we don't have a right to privacy. We think we do, but it's not actually listed out anywhere. The term right to privacy doesn't exist, but we do have the public expectation of security from our police and from our law enforcement agencies." "So this creates a deterrent to keep right people doing the right thing, and wrong people getting caught. But it also creates a trail of evidence... that can be brought to the table to prosecute people who are charged with breaking the law. If you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from these things. It's only if you are speeding, crossing at the red light, robbing somebody, if you're doing something that you don't want to get caught... that's when you don't like it." Sarah Adams: "A lot of people think when there's something like this, someone is sitting and watching it all day, and you really only go into this data when you're looking for a piece of info... I know cops are using it to track their exes, and I said, fire them. So I like it because the more data you have to solve a crime, better."

PBD Podcast

67,773 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Luna: There is no reason why we need to be taking in people that don't want to assimilate and I don't think that they can contribute much to the current society that we have because they may not actually be skilled in whatever they are trying to come here for. And so I it's unfortunate what happened because had the proper vetting been done, I don't believe this individual would have been able to come to this country.
1:16

Luna: There is no reason why we need to be taking in people that don't want to assimilate and I don't think that they can contribute much to the current society that we have because they may not actually be skilled in whatever they are trying to come here for. And so I it's unfortunate what happened because had the proper vetting been done, I don't believe this individual would have been able to come to this country.

Acyn

60,963 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Phillip: Let me just read to you a list of people that Trump and his top cabinet secretaries have said are going to be the subject of investigations. Jack Smith, Comey, Brennan, Schiff, Letitia James, Obama Ferguson: They put themselves on the list because they weaponized government
1:04

Phillip: Let me just read to you a list of people that Trump and his top cabinet secretaries have said are going to be the subject of investigations. Jack Smith, Comey, Brennan, Schiff, Letitia James, Obama Ferguson: They put themselves on the list because they weaponized government

Acyn

66,825 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

"I think that the very survival of white people necessitates that they project genetic inferiority on People of Color because it is they, who really are aware that they are genetic recessive and perhaps genetically inferior to People of Color."
0:56

"I think that the very survival of white people necessitates that they project genetic inferiority on People of Color because it is they, who really are aware that they are genetic recessive and perhaps genetically inferior to People of Color."

Kentah Gwanjez

21,190 просмотров • 1 год назад

"One of the things I learned from CBA negations is: They aren't smarter than us...I think we sometimes are victims of having this belief that because these people have made it to the top of their profession that they are as good at what they do as we are at what we do. They aren't....It's a mistake to think that whatever is holding back the union is understanding some complex theories of business or law. That ain't it." – Domonique goes deep on what changes need to be made within the NFLPA.
2:01

"One of the things I learned from CBA negations is: They aren't smarter than us...I think we sometimes are victims of having this belief that because these people have made it to the top of their profession that they are as good at what they do as we are at what we do. They aren't....It's a mistake to think that whatever is holding back the union is understanding some complex theories of business or law. That ain't it." – Domonique goes deep on what changes need to be made within the NFLPA.

The Domonique Foxworth Show

159,108 просмотров • 1 год назад

CA Democrat Governor Candidate Xavier Becerra just smeared ICE as “Donald Trump’s masked mercenary force” and said they should be prosecuted “all the way to the top.” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins: “Do you also support prosecuting the leadership of ICE?” Becerra: “I think we should police Donald Trump's masked mercenary force that they call ICE. I think we should prosecute any of the forces that that violate the law, and I think we should jail anyone who has violated the law. That goes all the way to the top.”
0:39

CA Democrat Governor Candidate Xavier Becerra just smeared ICE as “Donald Trump’s masked mercenary force” and said they should be prosecuted “all the way to the top.” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins: “Do you also support prosecuting the leadership of ICE?” Becerra: “I think we should police Donald Trump's masked mercenary force that they call ICE. I think we should prosecute any of the forces that that violate the law, and I think we should jail anyone who has violated the law. That goes all the way to the top.”

Steve Guest

21,125 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

People like Adam Schiff are about to learn that no one —not even you, Senator— is above the law. You broke the law in your Russian Collusion Hoax They fear that as AG, Matt Gaetz will come after Brennan, Comey, and Schiff, who broke the law No statute of limitations on TREASON
1:59

People like Adam Schiff are about to learn that no one —not even you, Senator— is above the law. You broke the law in your Russian Collusion Hoax They fear that as AG, Matt Gaetz will come after Brennan, Comey, and Schiff, who broke the law No statute of limitations on TREASON

Roger Stone

1,480,519 просмотров • 1 год назад

Mark Kelly: “We were concerned. We said something very simple and basic: Follow the law. And Donald Trump says kill them. He’s trying to silence us. He didn’t like what I said. He wants me to shut up. But he picked the wrong guy to go after because that ain’t happening”
1:25

Mark Kelly: “We were concerned. We said something very simple and basic: Follow the law. And Donald Trump says kill them. He’s trying to silence us. He didn’t like what I said. He wants me to shut up. But he picked the wrong guy to go after because that ain’t happening”

Marco Foster

51,803 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Joe Rogan: “There's a lot of people that don't speak their mind.” “Do you know how many artists like musicians/comedians that thanked me for endorsing Trump because they can't do it.” “They said they want to, but they don't wanna be attacked. They can't say it. They think the country is going in the wrong direction.” “Trump has vowed to have free speech become a very important part of what he's standing for and that this censoring of information needs to stop and that we need to stop all government influence in what people have to say.”
1:20

Joe Rogan: “There's a lot of people that don't speak their mind.” “Do you know how many artists like musicians/comedians that thanked me for endorsing Trump because they can't do it.” “They said they want to, but they don't wanna be attacked. They can't say it. They think the country is going in the wrong direction.” “Trump has vowed to have free speech become a very important part of what he's standing for and that this censoring of information needs to stop and that we need to stop all government influence in what people have to say.”

End Tribalism in Politics

14,467,385 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 JUST NOW: JD Vance goes HARD against Democrats as the PARTY OF FRAUD "They are so focused on FRAUD, because so many of their friends get RICH from fraud, that they forgot to look after YOU!" 🔥 "When the President of the United States asked the entire Congress to stand for the simple principle that the people's government ought to fight for the American people first, what did we see? We said, we saw every single congressional Democrat sit on their hands. They didn't care about YOU!" "They didn't care about the people of this district. They didn't care about the farmers, or the factory workers, or the people who actually make this country run." "Because now we have, in Washington, DC, a Democrat party that is so focused on illegal immigration, that is so focused on people who don't have the legal right to be here!"
1:34

🚨 JUST NOW: JD Vance goes HARD against Democrats as the PARTY OF FRAUD "They are so focused on FRAUD, because so many of their friends get RICH from fraud, that they forgot to look after YOU!" 🔥 "When the President of the United States asked the entire Congress to stand for the simple principle that the people's government ought to fight for the American people first, what did we see? We said, we saw every single congressional Democrat sit on their hands. They didn't care about YOU!" "They didn't care about the people of this district. They didn't care about the farmers, or the factory workers, or the people who actually make this country run." "Because now we have, in Washington, DC, a Democrat party that is so focused on illegal immigration, that is so focused on people who don't have the legal right to be here!"

Eric Daugherty

23,084 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад