Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Jonathan Turley DECIMATES Jack Smith, saying his record speaks for itself. "The problem with Smith is that his own record is the case against him. For example, when the hearing began someone asked him to respond to my criticism that he was stretching the law beyond the breaking point...

devorydarkins's profile picture

DeVory Darkins

70,995 subscribers

117,069 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Jack Smith is under FIRE as Trump's FBI EXPOSES Biden-led investigations TRACKING Trump's employees. JONATHAN TURLEY: "Every week we seem to stumble over another shocking secret order issued through the Smith investigation. We previously saw that he had issued secret orders to acquire the records of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, leading Republican members of Congress, including members who were investigating the Department of Justice and questioning his own investigations as special counsel. There's no reason to believe that this is all there is. It's also particularly the case because this is really the signature of Jack Smith. His appetite has always been his undoing. He does not recognize limits. He has had cases collapse in spectacular fashion because he pushes the law past the breaking point."
1:17

Jack Smith is under FIRE as Trump's FBI EXPOSES Biden-led investigations TRACKING Trump's employees. JONATHAN TURLEY: "Every week we seem to stumble over another shocking secret order issued through the Smith investigation. We previously saw that he had issued secret orders to acquire the records of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, leading Republican members of Congress, including members who were investigating the Department of Justice and questioning his own investigations as special counsel. There's no reason to believe that this is all there is. It's also particularly the case because this is really the signature of Jack Smith. His appetite has always been his undoing. He does not recognize limits. He has had cases collapse in spectacular fashion because he pushes the law past the breaking point."

DeVory Darkins

43,775 views • 7 months ago

Jack Smith says it’s “absolutely ludicrous” to think politics played a role in his cases against Trump. Great. If that’s the case, he should have no problem complying with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena.
0:26

Jack Smith says it’s “absolutely ludicrous” to think politics played a role in his cases against Trump. Great. If that’s the case, he should have no problem complying with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena.

Lance Gooden

107,732 views • 10 months ago

“LeBron wouldn’t talk to him, that was the problem… and Michael Jordan texts with him. That’s the whole thing” nick wright reacts to Stephen A. Smith saying he never liked LeBron, after years of saying that wasn’t the case
0:58

“LeBron wouldn’t talk to him, that was the problem… and Michael Jordan texts with him. That’s the whole thing” nick wright reacts to Stephen A. Smith saying he never liked LeBron, after years of saying that wasn’t the case

What’s Wright? with Nick Wright

859,177 views • 1 year ago

Jack Smith reminds John Cornyn that he dismissed the Florida case because of policy not the case itself. He also takes a shot at Judge Aileen Cannon for her decision.
3:18

Jack Smith reminds John Cornyn that he dismissed the Florida case because of policy not the case itself. He also takes a shot at Judge Aileen Cannon for her decision.

Donk Media ♻️™

267,447 views • 4 days ago

IN HIS OWN WORDS] Teffo was offered R45 Million to Withdraw from Senzo Meyiwa Case, he withdrew then perhaps maybe he didn't receive the money he decided to come back to court and join the case again. CIC calls him out for disrespecting the Court of Law and making the Senzo case about himself. Today he's blaming CIC for his arrest. What kind of nonsense is that?
3:58

IN HIS OWN WORDS] Teffo was offered R45 Million to Withdraw from Senzo Meyiwa Case, he withdrew then perhaps maybe he didn't receive the money he decided to come back to court and join the case again. CIC calls him out for disrespecting the Court of Law and making the Senzo case about himself. Today he's blaming CIC for his arrest. What kind of nonsense is that?

Battalion 54

60,841 views • 1 year ago

Jack Smith breaks silence, reveals he had "tons of evidence" in the criminal case against Trump that Aileen Cannon dismissed: “Both cases involved classified documents; the difference is the facts. In my particular case, we had tons of evidence of willfulness and obstructive evidence: publicly saying ‘these are my documents’ or things like that, and ‘I can keep them,’” Smith said. “The government even tried to get them back before there was a criminal investigation, and then after the investigation started, [Trump] still [refused] to give them back, and then [tried] to obstruct the investigation. That sort of evidence didn’t exist in the other case.” Smith did not investigate Biden’s classified documents case, but explained that there was no "willful retention of national defense information,” on Biden’s part or obstruction of the federal government’s attempts to retrieve documents for which Trump was indicted. “Both cases involved classified documents; the difference is the facts,” Smith said. “The rule of law allows for different outcomes when the facts are different. One of the major differences between the two cases is the obstructive conduct in the case that I investigated.”
2:34

Jack Smith breaks silence, reveals he had "tons of evidence" in the criminal case against Trump that Aileen Cannon dismissed: “Both cases involved classified documents; the difference is the facts. In my particular case, we had tons of evidence of willfulness and obstructive evidence: publicly saying ‘these are my documents’ or things like that, and ‘I can keep them,’” Smith said. “The government even tried to get them back before there was a criminal investigation, and then after the investigation started, [Trump] still [refused] to give them back, and then [tried] to obstruct the investigation. That sort of evidence didn’t exist in the other case.” Smith did not investigate Biden’s classified documents case, but explained that there was no "willful retention of national defense information,” on Biden’s part or obstruction of the federal government’s attempts to retrieve documents for which Trump was indicted. “Both cases involved classified documents; the difference is the facts,” Smith said. “The rule of law allows for different outcomes when the facts are different. One of the major differences between the two cases is the obstructive conduct in the case that I investigated.”

Bryan Dawson🇺🇸

621,662 views • 11 months ago

Nnamdi Kanu is trending because his trial has been adjourned indefinitely. Barely 48hrs after he said no one should beg Tinubu, on his behalf. Because agitating Biafra is not a crime. He rejected the adjournment by Justice Binta Nyako. Lectured the court, alleged Nyako wants to exchange his head. September 24th, 2024, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu rejected and openly accused Justice Binta Nyako of being an unprofessional, bias Justice who actively disobeys the rule of law. Then asked her to remove herself from his trial. She admitted and transferred his case file to Justice Tosho. Justice Tosho rejected it and sent it back to Justice Nyako. MNK insisted he isn’t confident in Justice Nyako handling his case. That, if there is no one willing to handle his case in Abuja. Then, his trial should be moved to the South East. Since his alleged offense of “Treason” affects the South East, not the North. Then, they should be well equipped to handle the trial accordingly. Today in court, Justice Nyako appeared again and was ready to proceed with the case at the Federal High Court Abuja. As prosecution was looking to begin, MNK’s lawyer opposed, saying they are not here for trial. Justice Nyako then said, she initially recused herself from the case, but she was assigned back by the Chief Judge. That, they’d need to file a reassignment motion. As Kanu’s lawyers and the prosecution were arguing the need for such. Nnamdi Kanu demanded to speak. He said, he’s only in court out of respect. That, Nyako no longer has jurisdiction over his case. And he doesn’t understand why they always turn the law upside down when it comes to his case. He argued that, since Nyako had officially recused herself from his case. Then, the Chief Judge can’t impose, instead appeal. Kanu insisted Nyako is unprofessional and bias. Kanu said “If the Chief Judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision. You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case. You are biased. Tell the Chief Judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so. This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice and i will not subject myself to it”. After his submission, the prosecutor still wanted the court to go ahead with trial. MNK interrupted saying “Because of money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil. The rule of law says you should go on appeal. The same Chief Judge, writing this stupid memo, I have recused him before. He sat on appeal, I took him to NJC and recused him. Why is he insisting on this one? He wants to embarrass your lordship by asking her to sit on this case.” Then Justice Nyako, decided Adjourn the case indefinitely due to the situation of things. Kanu again; “You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever. You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the Chief Judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you” Kanu insists they deliberately ignore the law due to their bias against him. That him agitating for Biafra is his right, that somehow they’ve changed his charge from treason to terrorism. He remains defiant, against Justice Nyako handling his trial. He alleged that Justice Nyako has reached some sort of agreement to give his head in exchange for the freedom of her husband and son, who are facing a criminal case. Hinting that Nyako never truely left the case. Basically, he just wants the court to obey the Nigerian constitution. He has been in detention since 2021. But Nigerians fear it has become political and he may need to be submissive, otherwise his pride will keep him incarcerated indefinitely. • Pay for what you use. Get detailed analytics on your energy consumption • water, electricity & gas. Inquire now: Vendr Utilities || iOS • Web • Android || info@vendr.ng ||
9:20

Nnamdi Kanu is trending because his trial has been adjourned indefinitely. Barely 48hrs after he said no one should beg Tinubu, on his behalf. Because agitating Biafra is not a crime. He rejected the adjournment by Justice Binta Nyako. Lectured the court, alleged Nyako wants to exchange his head. September 24th, 2024, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu rejected and openly accused Justice Binta Nyako of being an unprofessional, bias Justice who actively disobeys the rule of law. Then asked her to remove herself from his trial. She admitted and transferred his case file to Justice Tosho. Justice Tosho rejected it and sent it back to Justice Nyako. MNK insisted he isn’t confident in Justice Nyako handling his case. That, if there is no one willing to handle his case in Abuja. Then, his trial should be moved to the South East. Since his alleged offense of “Treason” affects the South East, not the North. Then, they should be well equipped to handle the trial accordingly. Today in court, Justice Nyako appeared again and was ready to proceed with the case at the Federal High Court Abuja. As prosecution was looking to begin, MNK’s lawyer opposed, saying they are not here for trial. Justice Nyako then said, she initially recused herself from the case, but she was assigned back by the Chief Judge. That, they’d need to file a reassignment motion. As Kanu’s lawyers and the prosecution were arguing the need for such. Nnamdi Kanu demanded to speak. He said, he’s only in court out of respect. That, Nyako no longer has jurisdiction over his case. And he doesn’t understand why they always turn the law upside down when it comes to his case. He argued that, since Nyako had officially recused herself from his case. Then, the Chief Judge can’t impose, instead appeal. Kanu insisted Nyako is unprofessional and bias. Kanu said “If the Chief Judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision. You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case. You are biased. Tell the Chief Judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so. This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice and i will not subject myself to it”. After his submission, the prosecutor still wanted the court to go ahead with trial. MNK interrupted saying “Because of money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil. The rule of law says you should go on appeal. The same Chief Judge, writing this stupid memo, I have recused him before. He sat on appeal, I took him to NJC and recused him. Why is he insisting on this one? He wants to embarrass your lordship by asking her to sit on this case.” Then Justice Nyako, decided Adjourn the case indefinitely due to the situation of things. Kanu again; “You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever. You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the Chief Judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you” Kanu insists they deliberately ignore the law due to their bias against him. That him agitating for Biafra is his right, that somehow they’ve changed his charge from treason to terrorism. He remains defiant, against Justice Nyako handling his trial. He alleged that Justice Nyako has reached some sort of agreement to give his head in exchange for the freedom of her husband and son, who are facing a criminal case. Hinting that Nyako never truely left the case. Basically, he just wants the court to obey the Nigerian constitution. He has been in detention since 2021. But Nigerians fear it has become political and he may need to be submissive, otherwise his pride will keep him incarcerated indefinitely. • Pay for what you use. Get detailed analytics on your energy consumption • water, electricity & gas. Inquire now: Vendr Utilities || iOS • Web • Android || [email protected] ||

Trending Explained

103,318 views • 1 year ago

JACK SMITH BELONGS IN PRISON. He weaponized the Justice Department against a former president and the leading candidate to beat Joe Biden. He went after the phone records of sitting members of Congress through Arctic Frost. Both of his cases against Trump fell apart before they ever reached a jury. Today he finally has to face the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath. Democrats say they want him to tell his side of the story. I want him to explain why he spied on lawmakers and tried to jail his boss's political opponent. Lawfare has consequences, and it's time Jack Smith faced them.
2:06

JACK SMITH BELONGS IN PRISON. He weaponized the Justice Department against a former president and the leading candidate to beat Joe Biden. He went after the phone records of sitting members of Congress through Arctic Frost. Both of his cases against Trump fell apart before they ever reached a jury. Today he finally has to face the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath. Democrats say they want him to tell his side of the story. I want him to explain why he spied on lawmakers and tried to jail his boss's political opponent. Lawfare has consequences, and it's time Jack Smith faced them.

Gunther Eagleman™

43,706 views • 4 days ago

Moynihan: I think a lot of Republicans feel triggered because that was essentially the case that Jack Smith had against Trump—going after him because Trump said that it wasn't a fair election Sellers: You had phone calls in places like Georgia where he would try to pressure people, and he'd say, go find me 11,000 votes, Jack Smith's case was about the fact that he had classified documents in his bathroom so Jack Smith's case was a little bit more robust.
2:14

Moynihan: I think a lot of Republicans feel triggered because that was essentially the case that Jack Smith had against Trump—going after him because Trump said that it wasn't a fair election Sellers: You had phone calls in places like Georgia where he would try to pressure people, and he'd say, go find me 11,000 votes, Jack Smith's case was about the fact that he had classified documents in his bathroom so Jack Smith's case was a little bit more robust.

Acyn

80,392 views • 7 months ago

Even CNN is now turning on Jack Smith after his House Judiciary testimony. CNN legal analyst Elie Honig zeroed in on the moment Republicans cornered Smith over rushing the Trump case right before the 2024 election — and Smith had no answer. HONIG: “To your question, Brianna, the last Congressman we saw brought up the fact that jack Smith demanded a trial date four months out, five months out in a case involving 13 MILLION pages of documents.” “There is no defense lawyer in the country who can constitutionally prepare for trial and defend his client on that short of time frame.” “The implication was you were rushing to get this in before the 2024 election.” “Jack Smith did not defend himself, by the way. He didn’t say a word about that, which I found, I found striking.” “And Jack Smith has always maintained this veneer that he never thought about the election…of course he did!” “Why would would you demand such a quick trial date?”
0:37

Even CNN is now turning on Jack Smith after his House Judiciary testimony. CNN legal analyst Elie Honig zeroed in on the moment Republicans cornered Smith over rushing the Trump case right before the 2024 election — and Smith had no answer. HONIG: “To your question, Brianna, the last Congressman we saw brought up the fact that jack Smith demanded a trial date four months out, five months out in a case involving 13 MILLION pages of documents.” “There is no defense lawyer in the country who can constitutionally prepare for trial and defend his client on that short of time frame.” “The implication was you were rushing to get this in before the 2024 election.” “Jack Smith did not defend himself, by the way. He didn’t say a word about that, which I found, I found striking.” “And Jack Smith has always maintained this veneer that he never thought about the election…of course he did!” “Why would would you demand such a quick trial date?”

Overton

397,286 views • 8 months ago

Former special counsel Jack Smith said Tuesday that he stands by his decision to bring charges against President Donald Trump over his mishandling of classified documents and role in the Jan. 6 attack. “Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation,” Smith said during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Smith, who in 2022 led investigations into Trump and secured two indictments, said he made decisions in the case "without regard” for Trump’s “political association activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.” “If asked whether to prosecute a former president today, based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat,” he said. Republicans and the president have accused Smith of pursuing a politically motivated case against the president. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, referred Smith to the Justice Department for possible prosecution, alleging that Smith made false statements during an hourslong closed-door meeting with lawmakers in December. Smith has denied accusations of bias, saying he had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of what his investigations laid out. “I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives, and I will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution,” he told the committee.
2:02

Former special counsel Jack Smith said Tuesday that he stands by his decision to bring charges against President Donald Trump over his mishandling of classified documents and role in the Jan. 6 attack. “Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation,” Smith said during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Smith, who in 2022 led investigations into Trump and secured two indictments, said he made decisions in the case "without regard” for Trump’s “political association activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.” “If asked whether to prosecute a former president today, based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat,” he said. Republicans and the president have accused Smith of pursuing a politically motivated case against the president. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, referred Smith to the Justice Department for possible prosecution, alleging that Smith made false statements during an hourslong closed-door meeting with lawmakers in December. Smith has denied accusations of bias, saying he had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of what his investigations laid out. “I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives, and I will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution,” he told the committee.

PBS News

33,973 views • 4 days ago

January, 2026. Jamie Raskin gives an opening statement during a hearing with Jack Smith and lets everyone know that Smith never obtained content from any of the device records that he subpoenaed. Under oath, Jack Smith confirms what Raskin had said. Today Smith is playing dumb about how his office obtained all the content that they did. It's all BS. Bottom line is that Smith ran the case assuming that a Democrat would be President right now and that he would never have to explain his methods.
0:46

January, 2026. Jamie Raskin gives an opening statement during a hearing with Jack Smith and lets everyone know that Smith never obtained content from any of the device records that he subpoenaed. Under oath, Jack Smith confirms what Raskin had said. Today Smith is playing dumb about how his office obtained all the content that they did. It's all BS. Bottom line is that Smith ran the case assuming that a Democrat would be President right now and that he would never have to explain his methods.

MAZE

82,573 views • 4 days ago

Former special counsel Jack Smith told a House committee Thursday that he fears Americans now take the idea of “rule of law” for granted, and that its execution depends on "collective commitment." In a hearing focused on Smith’s investigations into President Donald Trump’s mishandling of classified documents and role in the Jan. 6 attack, Smith said as a public servant in international settings, he has “seen how the rule of law can erode,” adding that many Americans may now take it for granted in the U.S. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs,” Smith said. The hearing is an opportunity for the career prosecutor to publicly offer his inside perspective on the investigations, which both led to unprecedented indictments. Both were scuttled once it was clear that Trump would return to the Oval Office; Department of Justice policy prevents prosecution of a sitting president. Republicans and the president have accused Smith of pursuing a politically motivated case against the president. Trump has denied wrongdoing while attacking Smith, calling him a "criminal" who ought to be investigated and "put in prison." Smith defended his investigations in an hourslong closed-door meeting with lawmakers in December, saying he said he had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of what his investigations laid out. He’s denied accusations of bias.
1:17

Former special counsel Jack Smith told a House committee Thursday that he fears Americans now take the idea of “rule of law” for granted, and that its execution depends on "collective commitment." In a hearing focused on Smith’s investigations into President Donald Trump’s mishandling of classified documents and role in the Jan. 6 attack, Smith said as a public servant in international settings, he has “seen how the rule of law can erode,” adding that many Americans may now take it for granted in the U.S. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs,” Smith said. The hearing is an opportunity for the career prosecutor to publicly offer his inside perspective on the investigations, which both led to unprecedented indictments. Both were scuttled once it was clear that Trump would return to the Oval Office; Department of Justice policy prevents prosecution of a sitting president. Republicans and the president have accused Smith of pursuing a politically motivated case against the president. Trump has denied wrongdoing while attacking Smith, calling him a "criminal" who ought to be investigated and "put in prison." Smith defended his investigations in an hourslong closed-door meeting with lawmakers in December, saying he said he had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of what his investigations laid out. He’s denied accusations of bias.

PBS News

18,557 views • 8 months ago

Former special counsel Jack Smith told a House committee Thursday that he stands by the decisions he made in that role, "including the decision to bring charges against President Trump." In a hearing focused on Smith's investigations into President Donald Trump's mishandling of classified documents and role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Smith said his investigation developed proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump had engaged in criminal activity. "If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or Republican," Smith said. "No one should be above the law in this country," he added. The hearing is an opportunity for the career prosecutor to publicly offer his inside perspective on the investigations, which both led to unprecedented indictments. Both were scuttled once it was clear that Trump would return to the Oval Office; Department of Justice policy prevents prosecution of a sitting president. Republicans and the president have accused Smith of pursuing a politically motivated case against the president. Trump has denied wrongdoing while attacking Smith, calling him a "criminal" who ought to be investigated and "put in prison." Smith defended his investigations in an hourslong closed-door meeting with lawmakers in December, saying he said he had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of what his investigations laid out. He's denied accusations of bias.
1:24

Former special counsel Jack Smith told a House committee Thursday that he stands by the decisions he made in that role, "including the decision to bring charges against President Trump." In a hearing focused on Smith's investigations into President Donald Trump's mishandling of classified documents and role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Smith said his investigation developed proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump had engaged in criminal activity. "If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or Republican," Smith said. "No one should be above the law in this country," he added. The hearing is an opportunity for the career prosecutor to publicly offer his inside perspective on the investigations, which both led to unprecedented indictments. Both were scuttled once it was clear that Trump would return to the Oval Office; Department of Justice policy prevents prosecution of a sitting president. Republicans and the president have accused Smith of pursuing a politically motivated case against the president. Trump has denied wrongdoing while attacking Smith, calling him a "criminal" who ought to be investigated and "put in prison." Smith defended his investigations in an hourslong closed-door meeting with lawmakers in December, saying he said he had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of what his investigations laid out. He's denied accusations of bias.

PBS News

13,488 views • 8 months ago

"I thought for a minute that Starmer was going to challenge Burnham. He was making the case for why he was so brilliant!" Sir Iain Duncan Smith mocks Starmer for attempting to defend his record in his resignation speech and says we need to look at policy not personality with Andy Burnham. Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green | Julia Hartley-Brewer
2:05

"I thought for a minute that Starmer was going to challenge Burnham. He was making the case for why he was so brilliant!" Sir Iain Duncan Smith mocks Starmer for attempting to defend his record in his resignation speech and says we need to look at policy not personality with Andy Burnham. Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green | Julia Hartley-Brewer

Talk

26,396 views • 3 months ago

"It's a problem breaking my record, that's the first thing I said to him" 😆 Ruud van Nistelrooy says he mentioned Jamie Vardy breaking his goal record when he met him for the first time ⚽
0:50

"It's a problem breaking my record, that's the first thing I said to him" 😆 Ruud van Nistelrooy says he mentioned Jamie Vardy breaking his goal record when he met him for the first time ⚽

Sky Sports News

669,403 views • 1 year ago

THE EVIL RAPHESU WAS SUBJECTED TO UNDER ANDREA JOHNSON Cedric Nkabinde is such a traitor, a weak man who has allowed himself to be used by people to destroy other Black people's lives. He sold General Mkhwanazi to Minister Mchunu by recording his calls with him while he called Mkhwanazi "a close friend". Today we hear he sold out Mantsha Raphesu to Andrea Johnson and her cronies. 😭 Raphesu is so strong and determined to have him arrested. He claimed Raphesu called him to tell him that he was being investigated by IDAC, and the Investigator in the case was Brian Padayachee. There was no such a thing. There was not even an investigation against him. Then Mantsha was called by Johnson to her Office and told the allegations, and asked to hand over everything regarding the cases he was working on. They would institute a disciplinary case against him. Raphesu obviously denied ever calling Nkabinde. He offered to do a Polygraph test, offered to hand over his cellphone to be checked to show he never called Nkabinde. They did not do as he proposed. They took from February to October not saying anything to him about the disciplinary case, meanwhile sidelining him in the office. He wrote to them in October and enquired what was happening with the case. He has been told Nkabinde has written an Affidavit probably to withdraw his allegations. Raphesu has requested the Commission to assist him with an Investigator to make sure his matter doesn't land in wrong hands as he put it. He is going to open a criminal case against him. As he should. Currently he says he was removed from any cases relating to the Security Cluster. He is allocated cases from the Zondo Commission, Transnet etc. He says he just sits in his corner in that office. Andrea Johnson and all the people who schemed with her to destroy people's lives must pay a heavy price. This young man must fight for his rights. #MadlangaCommission
3:23

THE EVIL RAPHESU WAS SUBJECTED TO UNDER ANDREA JOHNSON Cedric Nkabinde is such a traitor, a weak man who has allowed himself to be used by people to destroy other Black people's lives. He sold General Mkhwanazi to Minister Mchunu by recording his calls with him while he called Mkhwanazi "a close friend". Today we hear he sold out Mantsha Raphesu to Andrea Johnson and her cronies. 😭 Raphesu is so strong and determined to have him arrested. He claimed Raphesu called him to tell him that he was being investigated by IDAC, and the Investigator in the case was Brian Padayachee. There was no such a thing. There was not even an investigation against him. Then Mantsha was called by Johnson to her Office and told the allegations, and asked to hand over everything regarding the cases he was working on. They would institute a disciplinary case against him. Raphesu obviously denied ever calling Nkabinde. He offered to do a Polygraph test, offered to hand over his cellphone to be checked to show he never called Nkabinde. They did not do as he proposed. They took from February to October not saying anything to him about the disciplinary case, meanwhile sidelining him in the office. He wrote to them in October and enquired what was happening with the case. He has been told Nkabinde has written an Affidavit probably to withdraw his allegations. Raphesu has requested the Commission to assist him with an Investigator to make sure his matter doesn't land in wrong hands as he put it. He is going to open a criminal case against him. As he should. Currently he says he was removed from any cases relating to the Security Cluster. He is allocated cases from the Zondo Commission, Transnet etc. He says he just sits in his corner in that office. Andrea Johnson and all the people who schemed with her to destroy people's lives must pay a heavy price. This young man must fight for his rights. #MadlangaCommission

Tau e Tshehadi

53,011 views • 2 months ago

Delusional Gavin Newsom "will use his final State of the State address today to make the case that his California record is a national model worth exporting." WTF is he talking about? WORST record of any governor. It's not his model we should be "exporting" - it's him!!
0:59

Delusional Gavin Newsom "will use his final State of the State address today to make the case that his California record is a national model worth exporting." WTF is he talking about? WORST record of any governor. It's not his model we should be "exporting" - it's him!!

steve hilton

37,931 views • 8 months ago