Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Patriot Ivan Raiklin masterfully trolls disgraced Michael Fanone on Thursday during a break in Jack Smith’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Fanone totally loses it, curses and tries to instigate violence. He’s then removed by law enforcement. Democrat politicians applaud after Fanone’s disgraceful display. Very telling. (cspanofficial on TT)

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

382,090 subscribers

28,228 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

POLITICAL VIOLENCE: Disgraced J6 cop Michael Fanone tried to start a fight during a House Judiciary hearing on Jack Smith’s Trump probe. Democrats are resorting to violence in churches and in the Capitol. h/t johnny maga

POLITICAL VIOLENCE: Disgraced J6 cop Michael Fanone tried to start a fight during a House Judiciary hearing on Jack Smith’s Trump probe. Democrats are resorting to violence in churches and in the Capitol. h/t johnny maga

@amuse

28,461 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

🚨 JUST NOW: Chaos explodes during Jack Smith’s hearing as former J6 Capitol Police officer Michael Fanone completely loses it on Ivan Raiklin and an altercation breaks out in the room.

🚨 JUST NOW: Chaos explodes during Jack Smith’s hearing as former J6 Capitol Police officer Michael Fanone completely loses it on Ivan Raiklin and an altercation breaks out in the room.

Real America's Voice (RAV)

54,226 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Here it is: In Judicial Watch v. District of Columbia: Judge Veronica Sanchez, a Biden appointee, ruled that J6 actor—police officer Michael Fanone’s body cam footage must be released to the public. Fanone has threatened the President of the United States, called for shooting ICE officers, and physically confronted Nancy Mace on Capitol grounds. And here he is—having to be restrained by his fellow cop actors from assaulting Ivan Raiklin.

Here it is: In Judicial Watch v. District of Columbia: Judge Veronica Sanchez, a Biden appointee, ruled that J6 actor—police officer Michael Fanone’s body cam footage must be released to the public. Fanone has threatened the President of the United States, called for shooting ICE officers, and physically confronted Nancy Mace on Capitol grounds. And here he is—having to be restrained by his fellow cop actors from assaulting Ivan Raiklin.

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

77,830 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🚨 WATCH: J6 Officer Michael Fanone Explodes When Confronted by Reporter 🚨 LindellTV reporter, Cara Castronuova, went viral after confronting J6 officer Michael Fanone about his own body-camera footage during a heated exchange tied to the Jack Smith hearing. Cara asked a direct question: “Is it true you turned off your body cam on January 6?” Fanone appeared stunned. “I saw the footage. You turned it off. You were playing dead, sir.” When pressed with what the footage shows, Fanone responded with anger and personal insults: “You’re a right-wing conspiracy theorist.” Cara fired back: “What am I?” According to Cara, Fanone became visibly enraged after being confronted with the footage - footage that, she says, few people have seen in full. The exchange was followed by multiple outbursts inside the Jack Smith hearing, where Fanone reportedly had to be restrained after yelling profanities and reacting aggressively toward other journalists. This is the same officer repeatedly elevated as a central figure in the January 6 narrative. This is not the behavior of a reliable witness or victim and it shows.

🚨 WATCH: J6 Officer Michael Fanone Explodes When Confronted by Reporter 🚨 LindellTV reporter, Cara Castronuova, went viral after confronting J6 officer Michael Fanone about his own body-camera footage during a heated exchange tied to the Jack Smith hearing. Cara asked a direct question: “Is it true you turned off your body cam on January 6?” Fanone appeared stunned. “I saw the footage. You turned it off. You were playing dead, sir.” When pressed with what the footage shows, Fanone responded with anger and personal insults: “You’re a right-wing conspiracy theorist.” Cara fired back: “What am I?” According to Cara, Fanone became visibly enraged after being confronted with the footage - footage that, she says, few people have seen in full. The exchange was followed by multiple outbursts inside the Jack Smith hearing, where Fanone reportedly had to be restrained after yelling profanities and reacting aggressively toward other journalists. This is the same officer repeatedly elevated as a central figure in the January 6 narrative. This is not the behavior of a reliable witness or victim and it shows.

LindellTV

20,224 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

#BREAKING: Alex Witt: “…House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan…on Wednesday, referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. He alleges Smith knowingly made false statements during testimony about his team’s access to lawmakers phone records during the January 6th investigation…top Judiciary Democrat Jamie Raskin said if the referral is ever brought before a judge, it will get laughed out of court. Is Raskin right?” Rep Lieu: “Well, let me first say that gas prices are up, grocery prices are up, inflation is up and House Republicans are focused on going after the president’s perceived enemies. That’s actually what is happening, and in this case, it is an absurd attack because under the law, there is no obligation for a witness to volunteer information. And in this case, Jack Smith simply didn’t volunteer some information, but the House Republicans can’t point to a single statement that Jack Smith made that was false. And so Jamie Raskin, who is an amazing leader of our House Judiciary Committee is absolutely correct, this is gonna be laughed out of court.” 😳

#BREAKING: Alex Witt: “…House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan…on Wednesday, referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. He alleges Smith knowingly made false statements during testimony about his team’s access to lawmakers phone records during the January 6th investigation…top Judiciary Democrat Jamie Raskin said if the referral is ever brought before a judge, it will get laughed out of court. Is Raskin right?” Rep Lieu: “Well, let me first say that gas prices are up, grocery prices are up, inflation is up and House Republicans are focused on going after the president’s perceived enemies. That’s actually what is happening, and in this case, it is an absurd attack because under the law, there is no obligation for a witness to volunteer information. And in this case, Jack Smith simply didn’t volunteer some information, but the House Republicans can’t point to a single statement that Jack Smith made that was false. And so Jamie Raskin, who is an amazing leader of our House Judiciary Committee is absolutely correct, this is gonna be laughed out of court.” 😳

Emoluments Clause

25,860 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🔥🔥 HOLY SMOKES!! 🔥🔥 🚨 UNHINGED J6 COP TRIGGERED BY FEMALE REPORTER!! 🚨 J6 Officer Michael Fanone exploded at our reporter Cara Castronuova when asked about turning off his own police body camera on J6! “Is it true you turned off your body cam on January 6?” Fanone was shell shocked. But his J6 body camera footage doesn’t lie. 🔥 “I saw the footage. You turned it off. You were playing dead, sir.” 🔥🔥 Fanone’s response when confronted with the truth? Personal insults and rage at a female reporter: “Your a F-ing uhhhhh…… Cara Castronuova: “What am I?” “You’re a right-wing conspiracy theorist.” 🔥 🔥 This is the temperament of J6 police that instigated The People on J6. 🔥 Officer Fanone was one of the Academy Award winning J6 cryin’ cops that testified under the January 6 UnSelect committee. 🔥🔥 After multiple outburst inside the Jack Smith hearing today (were the other fraudulent J6 Capitol police had to hold him back from attacking another reporter Ivan Raiklan) it’s no wonder why January 6th happened. 🔥🔥🔥 POLICE PROVOCATION & FEDSURECTION! 🔥🔥🔥

🔥🔥 HOLY SMOKES!! 🔥🔥 🚨 UNHINGED J6 COP TRIGGERED BY FEMALE REPORTER!! 🚨 J6 Officer Michael Fanone exploded at our reporter Cara Castronuova when asked about turning off his own police body camera on J6! “Is it true you turned off your body cam on January 6?” Fanone was shell shocked. But his J6 body camera footage doesn’t lie. 🔥 “I saw the footage. You turned it off. You were playing dead, sir.” 🔥🔥 Fanone’s response when confronted with the truth? Personal insults and rage at a female reporter: “Your a F-ing uhhhhh…… Cara Castronuova: “What am I?” “You’re a right-wing conspiracy theorist.” 🔥 🔥 This is the temperament of J6 police that instigated The People on J6. 🔥 Officer Fanone was one of the Academy Award winning J6 cryin’ cops that testified under the January 6 UnSelect committee. 🔥🔥 After multiple outburst inside the Jack Smith hearing today (were the other fraudulent J6 Capitol police had to hold him back from attacking another reporter Ivan Raiklan) it’s no wonder why January 6th happened. 🔥🔥🔥 POLICE PROVOCATION & FEDSURECTION! 🔥🔥🔥

LindellTV

1,346,292 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Constitutional Amendment Bill (N0.3) unanimously passes to committee stage The contentious Constitutional Amendment Bill (N0.3) unanimously passed to the committee stage in the National Assembly earlier in the afternoon after the opposition neglected or failed to call for a critical division of the house for MPs opposed to the legislative changes to vote against it. About 30 MPs were opposed to the bill in its entirety after a record-breaking fierce debate. The failure by the opposition to call for division of the house let the bill, which has far-reaching political implications, pass to the committee stage unanimously, without formal opposition. In terms of process, the presiding officer first judges the will of the house using a voice vote ("Ayes" vs. "Nays"). If an MP challenges the presiding officer's ruling, they then can call for a division of the house. Bells are rung to summon all lawmakers to the chamber, the doors are locked, and MPs must physically move to opposite sides of the house (or have their names recorded) to provide an exact, verified tally of votes. A minimum simple majority was required to pass the bill to the committee stage. The committee stage of the bill is the third step in the legislative process. It is a detailed, clause-by-clause examination of the proposals that takes place after the second reading and general debate. During the committee stage, the house resolves into a committee of the whole house rather than meeting as the standard legislative body, allowing for more conversational and repeated speaking opportunities. Members meticulously scrutinise each section or clause of the bill. The committee goes through the bill clause-by-clause sequentially, voting on each clause or block of clauses. MPs and ministers can propose specific alterations, additions, or removals to individual clauses. Any proposed amendment is debated, and the committee votes on whether to accept or reject the change. Once the committee finishes reviewing all clauses and finalising amendments, the bill moves to the report stage, where the committee officially reports its work back to the house for final confirmation before the third reading. Because it is where the exact wording of the proposed law or amendment is finalised, this phase is often heavily debated. For example, this bill required intense, late-night debate in the National Assembly last night before advancing to the committee stage. After the amendments have been adopted, another vote is called in the house to pass the bill by a two-thirds majority before the same process is repeated in the upper house, senate. If senate makes some changes to the bill, it then goes back to the lower house, National Assembly, for voting before being to sent to the President for assent.

Constitutional Amendment Bill (N0.3) unanimously passes to committee stage The contentious Constitutional Amendment Bill (N0.3) unanimously passed to the committee stage in the National Assembly earlier in the afternoon after the opposition neglected or failed to call for a critical division of the house for MPs opposed to the legislative changes to vote against it. About 30 MPs were opposed to the bill in its entirety after a record-breaking fierce debate. The failure by the opposition to call for division of the house let the bill, which has far-reaching political implications, pass to the committee stage unanimously, without formal opposition. In terms of process, the presiding officer first judges the will of the house using a voice vote ("Ayes" vs. "Nays"). If an MP challenges the presiding officer's ruling, they then can call for a division of the house. Bells are rung to summon all lawmakers to the chamber, the doors are locked, and MPs must physically move to opposite sides of the house (or have their names recorded) to provide an exact, verified tally of votes. A minimum simple majority was required to pass the bill to the committee stage. The committee stage of the bill is the third step in the legislative process. It is a detailed, clause-by-clause examination of the proposals that takes place after the second reading and general debate. During the committee stage, the house resolves into a committee of the whole house rather than meeting as the standard legislative body, allowing for more conversational and repeated speaking opportunities. Members meticulously scrutinise each section or clause of the bill. The committee goes through the bill clause-by-clause sequentially, voting on each clause or block of clauses. MPs and ministers can propose specific alterations, additions, or removals to individual clauses. Any proposed amendment is debated, and the committee votes on whether to accept or reject the change. Once the committee finishes reviewing all clauses and finalising amendments, the bill moves to the report stage, where the committee officially reports its work back to the house for final confirmation before the third reading. Because it is where the exact wording of the proposed law or amendment is finalised, this phase is often heavily debated. For example, this bill required intense, late-night debate in the National Assembly last night before advancing to the committee stage. After the amendments have been adopted, another vote is called in the house to pass the bill by a two-thirds majority before the same process is repeated in the upper house, senate. If senate makes some changes to the bill, it then goes back to the lower house, National Assembly, for voting before being to sent to the President for assent.

TheNewsHawks

17,671 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 NANCY GUTHRIE CASE TAKES STRANGE TURN AS “NEIGHBOR” INSERTS HIMSELF ON CAMERA Watch this clip closely. "Jason" suddenly steps in front of the camera near Nancy Guthrie's house and immediately starts controlling the narrative. He opens by comparing the case to bombings and other major crimes. Then pivots to blasting law enforcement for being at a basketball game. Then confidently says his gut knows what happened - before stumbling over who he’s even referring to. He brings up photos. Calls it “very suspicious.” Then casually admits he doesn’t actually live there - he’s 15 minutes away. That’s a lot of certainty. A lot of detail. A lot of urgency. For someone who wasn’t asked - and didn’t need to say any of this. Does something feel off here?

🚨 NANCY GUTHRIE CASE TAKES STRANGE TURN AS “NEIGHBOR” INSERTS HIMSELF ON CAMERA Watch this clip closely. "Jason" suddenly steps in front of the camera near Nancy Guthrie's house and immediately starts controlling the narrative. He opens by comparing the case to bombings and other major crimes. Then pivots to blasting law enforcement for being at a basketball game. Then confidently says his gut knows what happened - before stumbling over who he’s even referring to. He brings up photos. Calls it “very suspicious.” Then casually admits he doesn’t actually live there - he’s 15 minutes away. That’s a lot of certainty. A lot of detail. A lot of urgency. For someone who wasn’t asked - and didn’t need to say any of this. Does something feel off here?

HustleBitch

28,839 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

NEW: Charges dropped against a man who was punched in the head by a Daytona Beach(FL) police officer during an arrest last month Prosecutors dropped the charge of battery on a law enforcement officer, filing an “Announcement of No Information.” Bodycam shows the officer confronting David Anderson over an open container and telling him to pour it out or face arrest Anderson handed the drink to the officer and tossed the cork at him before being taken to the ground After being handcuffed, the officer took him to the ground again during another struggle The officer is then seen striking Anderson multiple times The department’s internal affairs unit is now reviewing the incident

NEW: Charges dropped against a man who was punched in the head by a Daytona Beach(FL) police officer during an arrest last month Prosecutors dropped the charge of battery on a law enforcement officer, filing an “Announcement of No Information.” Bodycam shows the officer confronting David Anderson over an open container and telling him to pour it out or face arrest Anderson handed the drink to the officer and tossed the cork at him before being taken to the ground After being handcuffed, the officer took him to the ground again during another struggle The officer is then seen striking Anderson multiple times The department’s internal affairs unit is now reviewing the incident

Unlimited L's

26,584 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Y’all remember that famous photo of officers standing their ground at a barricaded door on the House floor guns drawn? …here is newly released video of a conversation between them and the mob of Trump supporters on the other side. This video clip confirms what every Democrat and Republican has said about January 6th. …It was a failed insurrection gaslit by Donald Trump after losing the 2020 election. Those weren’t FBI agents screaming for politicians heads. That’s not Antifa giving orders to others to find another way in why they distracted law enforcement. That’s MAGA, and it’s how they do business. That’s why Ashli Babbitt died. #TrumpForPrison2024 #January6

Y’all remember that famous photo of officers standing their ground at a barricaded door on the House floor guns drawn? …here is newly released video of a conversation between them and the mob of Trump supporters on the other side. This video clip confirms what every Democrat and Republican has said about January 6th. …It was a failed insurrection gaslit by Donald Trump after losing the 2020 election. Those weren’t FBI agents screaming for politicians heads. That’s not Antifa giving orders to others to find another way in why they distracted law enforcement. That’s MAGA, and it’s how they do business. That’s why Ashli Babbitt died. #TrumpForPrison2024 #January6

Ryan Shead

2,463,784 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Here is: The Special Prostitute Jack Smith—who let a sitting congressman go free after admitting to having slept with a Chinese spy, accepting her bribes, and allowing her to plant even more spies in his office, all while the leaker was serving on Nancy Pelosi’s House Intelligence Committee and attempting to overthrow the United States government. 📝 By the way: The disruption of the official proceedings on Jan. 6 was staged by the FBI five months before it even happened. It included embedded informants—274 undercover FBI agents—and even planned “mass prosecutions,” including for minor offenses, using the very same tactics later used against Jan. 6 defendants, as he describes below. 👇

Here is: The Special Prostitute Jack Smith—who let a sitting congressman go free after admitting to having slept with a Chinese spy, accepting her bribes, and allowing her to plant even more spies in his office, all while the leaker was serving on Nancy Pelosi’s House Intelligence Committee and attempting to overthrow the United States government. 📝 By the way: The disruption of the official proceedings on Jan. 6 was staged by the FBI five months before it even happened. It included embedded informants—274 undercover FBI agents—and even planned “mass prosecutions,” including for minor offenses, using the very same tactics later used against Jan. 6 defendants, as he describes below. 👇

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

35,794 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

Reuters’s Nandita Bose: “On the agent, is he still on duty or has he been placed on leave on administrative leave? And what really was the target of the operation on Wednesday — of the ICE operation on Wednesday?” Vice President JD Vance JD Vance: “Well, first of all, it was a legitimate law enforcement operation. We were going door to door to try to find criminal, illegal aliens and deport them from the United States of America, because if you come to our country illegally and in violation of our immigration laws, then we have the mandate. And in fact, we have the legal duty to enforce those immigration laws, whether he’s been placed on administrative leave. I don’t know the answer to that question. I’d refer it to the Department of Homeland Security, and they can follow up. I will say, look, I would appreciate everybody saying a prayer for that. That agent. Look, in the past six months, he has been hit twice by a motor vehicle. One time — the first time, it led to over 30 stitches and very serious injuries to his legs. This is a guy who has actually done a very, very important job for the United States of America. He’s been assaulted, he’s been attacked. He’s been injured because of it. He deserves a debt of gratitude. And I think the media pre-judging and talking about this guy as if he’s a murderer, is one of the most disgraceful things I’ve ever seen from the American media.”

Reuters’s Nandita Bose: “On the agent, is he still on duty or has he been placed on leave on administrative leave? And what really was the target of the operation on Wednesday — of the ICE operation on Wednesday?” Vice President JD Vance JD Vance: “Well, first of all, it was a legitimate law enforcement operation. We were going door to door to try to find criminal, illegal aliens and deport them from the United States of America, because if you come to our country illegally and in violation of our immigration laws, then we have the mandate. And in fact, we have the legal duty to enforce those immigration laws, whether he’s been placed on administrative leave. I don’t know the answer to that question. I’d refer it to the Department of Homeland Security, and they can follow up. I will say, look, I would appreciate everybody saying a prayer for that. That agent. Look, in the past six months, he has been hit twice by a motor vehicle. One time — the first time, it led to over 30 stitches and very serious injuries to his legs. This is a guy who has actually done a very, very important job for the United States of America. He’s been assaulted, he’s been attacked. He’s been injured because of it. He deserves a debt of gratitude. And I think the media pre-judging and talking about this guy as if he’s a murderer, is one of the most disgraceful things I’ve ever seen from the American media.”

Curtis Houck

122,857 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Oh good. We’re just casually rewriting major moments in a homicide case now. Totally normal. In Trial 1, Kerry gives a highly detailed account of Karen’s taillight comment at 1 Meadows complete with quotes, emotion, and timing. But then after video is shown? “Oh… it must’ve been later.” Trial 2? Different location. Different wording. Now it happened at Jen’s house on County Way. Sure. Why not. Then there’s the grand jury testimony where she painted a “very, very detailed picture” of Karen asking to Google hypothermia who was there, where she was standing, what everyone was doing. Under oath at trial? “I did not hear her ask that. I was told she was asked that.” So the “very detailed picture” was based on… secondhand information. Under penalty of perjury. No big deal. And now, post-trial interviews,with the house defendant youtube 4some she says she had John’s phone, Karen’s phone, was calling multiple family members, handing phones around except we have video of her passing John’s phone off at 6:31 AM before she leaves the first time. But sure. Memory just “evolves.” Different locations. Different wording. Admitted non-firsthand testimony. Confusion over who had which phone and when. In a case built on minute-by-minute timelines. Timelines that during trial Kerry accidentally includes Denise Galvin into the mix, Totally insignificant. Nothing to see here.

Oh good. We’re just casually rewriting major moments in a homicide case now. Totally normal. In Trial 1, Kerry gives a highly detailed account of Karen’s taillight comment at 1 Meadows complete with quotes, emotion, and timing. But then after video is shown? “Oh… it must’ve been later.” Trial 2? Different location. Different wording. Now it happened at Jen’s house on County Way. Sure. Why not. Then there’s the grand jury testimony where she painted a “very, very detailed picture” of Karen asking to Google hypothermia who was there, where she was standing, what everyone was doing. Under oath at trial? “I did not hear her ask that. I was told she was asked that.” So the “very detailed picture” was based on… secondhand information. Under penalty of perjury. No big deal. And now, post-trial interviews,with the house defendant youtube 4some she says she had John’s phone, Karen’s phone, was calling multiple family members, handing phones around except we have video of her passing John’s phone off at 6:31 AM before she leaves the first time. But sure. Memory just “evolves.” Different locations. Different wording. Admitted non-firsthand testimony. Confusion over who had which phone and when. In a case built on minute-by-minute timelines. Timelines that during trial Kerry accidentally includes Denise Galvin into the mix, Totally insignificant. Nothing to see here.

Dixie Normus

39,395 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

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.

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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

The FBI says it stopped a multi-phase attack targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event on the White House South Lawn before it could happen. The plan, according to law enforcement sources, was horrifying: Explosive-laden drones would hit buildings near the event to create chaos and force a mass evacuation. The crowd would then be funneled toward a sniper team. A second wave would try to storm a White House gate. Five people were taken into custody. Investigators identified 23 others in a broader network. At least 12 FBI field offices were involved in the rapid multi-state operation. And the motive, according to one suspect’s statements, was targeting “capitalist elites,” billionaires, and politicians tied to AIPAC donations. So here’s the question for Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and everyone else who keeps pointing people toward Israel every time political violence comes up: Are you going to condemn this? Are you going to condemn a plot to kill Americans on American soil? Or does the outrage only kick in when the story can be bent back toward Israel? Because there was no Israeli drone team. No Israeli sniper team. No Mossad operation at the White House gate. This was a domestic attack plan targeting politicians, billionaires, and people tied to AIPAC and it was stopped before it became a massacre. If you actually care about truth, evidence, and American lives, this should be very easy to condemn.

The FBI says it stopped a multi-phase attack targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event on the White House South Lawn before it could happen. The plan, according to law enforcement sources, was horrifying: Explosive-laden drones would hit buildings near the event to create chaos and force a mass evacuation. The crowd would then be funneled toward a sniper team. A second wave would try to storm a White House gate. Five people were taken into custody. Investigators identified 23 others in a broader network. At least 12 FBI field offices were involved in the rapid multi-state operation. And the motive, according to one suspect’s statements, was targeting “capitalist elites,” billionaires, and politicians tied to AIPAC donations. So here’s the question for Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and everyone else who keeps pointing people toward Israel every time political violence comes up: Are you going to condemn this? Are you going to condemn a plot to kill Americans on American soil? Or does the outrage only kick in when the story can be bent back toward Israel? Because there was no Israeli drone team. No Israeli sniper team. No Mossad operation at the White House gate. This was a domestic attack plan targeting politicians, billionaires, and people tied to AIPAC and it was stopped before it became a massacre. If you actually care about truth, evidence, and American lives, this should be very easy to condemn.

Jammles

101,329 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🔥🚨 BREAKING: Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) totally RIPS Jack Smith during House Judiciary Committee. ROY: "Let me ask you this. Am I on this list? Did you target my records and subpoena my phone toll records?" SMITH: "My understanding is your records were subpoenaed by prosecutors before I became special counsel." ROY: "We called AT&T, and we have learned they were given to the Department of Justice, as this email indicates, because I'd been in communication with Scott Perry. It's far more concerning you are clearly targeting American citizens for merely being conservative or supporting the president." SMITH: "I'm sorry." ROY: "A federal judge has stated a prosecutor who continues to sign his name in court filings after a disqualification order should face discipline or disbarment."

🔥🚨 BREAKING: Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) totally RIPS Jack Smith during House Judiciary Committee. ROY: "Let me ask you this. Am I on this list? Did you target my records and subpoena my phone toll records?" SMITH: "My understanding is your records were subpoenaed by prosecutors before I became special counsel." ROY: "We called AT&T, and we have learned they were given to the Department of Justice, as this email indicates, because I'd been in communication with Scott Perry. It's far more concerning you are clearly targeting American citizens for merely being conservative or supporting the president." SMITH: "I'm sorry." ROY: "A federal judge has stated a prosecutor who continues to sign his name in court filings after a disqualification order should face discipline or disbarment."

The Patriot Oasis™

672,504 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

What I saw was an ICE vehicle attempting to leave an area that was in a near riot condition, a civilian vehicle then suddenly moved in front of it to block its departure. I then saw an ICE officer approach that vehicle and issue a lawful order to the driver to get out of the car. Instead of complying with that order, the driver backed up, pointed the car in the direction of another officer, and then shifted into drive, stepping on the gas while an officer had his hand on the door then accelerated in the direction of the other ICE officer at the moment he fired into the vehicle. That’s what the video shows, and we all have eyes and we all can see it. There are a lot of questions that it raises, starting with the perspective of the officer who fired at this approaching vehicle. Was the car indeed pointed directly at him when he fired? It certainly appeared that way to me from the video we’ve seen. I assume the officer was wearing a body camera and we’ll get a better idea of his perspective in the course of the investigation. There’s the question of why the driver attempted to block the ICE vehicle as it was leaving, why the driver felt motivated to obstruct clearly uniformed federal law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties, why she willfully refused to comply with a lawful order by those officers, and why she pointed her vehicle toward another officer while hitting the gas. I suspect that a great deal of motivation was exactly from the kind of incendiary rhetoric we hear everyday from our radical democratic colleagues. It is a direct attack on the rule of law. Our ICE officers are enforcing federal law as the Congress wrote it. The Democrats here don’t like that law, they object to its enforcement, and they are actively encouraging citizens to obstruct its enforcement. In a nation of laws, the answer is not to obstruct the law, but to change it. We’re sitting in the very institution that writes these laws. If they believe the laws that enforce our nations sovereignty are wrong? Then they should make the case to change them. And Ms. Ross, I point out that when the Democrats had the majority and our nation was suffering through the worst illegal mass migration in its history, the immigration subcommittee under Democratic control held not a single hearing on that crisis as it unfolded, not one. I suspect their encouragement of disobedience to the law had a large role to play in the mind of the driver and in the minds of the increasingly violent mobs that our colleagues are deliberately inciting. As Lincoln said to their predecessors, “There is no grievance is a fit object for redress by mob law.” How sad the same words need to be repeated here. Before the House Judiciary Committee that’s supposed to be dedicated to the rule of law.

What I saw was an ICE vehicle attempting to leave an area that was in a near riot condition, a civilian vehicle then suddenly moved in front of it to block its departure. I then saw an ICE officer approach that vehicle and issue a lawful order to the driver to get out of the car. Instead of complying with that order, the driver backed up, pointed the car in the direction of another officer, and then shifted into drive, stepping on the gas while an officer had his hand on the door then accelerated in the direction of the other ICE officer at the moment he fired into the vehicle. That’s what the video shows, and we all have eyes and we all can see it. There are a lot of questions that it raises, starting with the perspective of the officer who fired at this approaching vehicle. Was the car indeed pointed directly at him when he fired? It certainly appeared that way to me from the video we’ve seen. I assume the officer was wearing a body camera and we’ll get a better idea of his perspective in the course of the investigation. There’s the question of why the driver attempted to block the ICE vehicle as it was leaving, why the driver felt motivated to obstruct clearly uniformed federal law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties, why she willfully refused to comply with a lawful order by those officers, and why she pointed her vehicle toward another officer while hitting the gas. I suspect that a great deal of motivation was exactly from the kind of incendiary rhetoric we hear everyday from our radical democratic colleagues. It is a direct attack on the rule of law. Our ICE officers are enforcing federal law as the Congress wrote it. The Democrats here don’t like that law, they object to its enforcement, and they are actively encouraging citizens to obstruct its enforcement. In a nation of laws, the answer is not to obstruct the law, but to change it. We’re sitting in the very institution that writes these laws. If they believe the laws that enforce our nations sovereignty are wrong? Then they should make the case to change them. And Ms. Ross, I point out that when the Democrats had the majority and our nation was suffering through the worst illegal mass migration in its history, the immigration subcommittee under Democratic control held not a single hearing on that crisis as it unfolded, not one. I suspect their encouragement of disobedience to the law had a large role to play in the mind of the driver and in the minds of the increasingly violent mobs that our colleagues are deliberately inciting. As Lincoln said to their predecessors, “There is no grievance is a fit object for redress by mob law.” How sad the same words need to be repeated here. Before the House Judiciary Committee that’s supposed to be dedicated to the rule of law.

Tom McClintock

354,708 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

It must come on record that despite widespread protests & repeated demand from Opposition to send #TransgenderBill to a #Parliament Committee, Govt insisted on pushing it through by making unsubstantiated claims! See video👇 First, it's rare that debate on one Bill is stopped to take up another Bill. The debate on #Finance Bill was going on and Transgender Bill was listed AFTER it, but Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju asked for the Transgender Bill to be taken up & 'passed' today and for Finance Minister to reply to debate on Finance Bill tomorrow. It is only when a Minister is not available to respond to debate on a Bill, that it is postponed, but Finance Minister is sitting right there! What is the rush to pass #TransBill in #LokSabha today itself? Second, as Rijiju seeks sense of the House, several MPs from the Opposition, in fact, oppose and categorically demand that Bill be sent to a Select Committee to consult with stakeholders from Trans community. They even say that they raised this demand in Business Advisory Committee meeting as well and Rijiju concedes to this. Rijiju himself says that Congress, SP, AITC and NCP(SP) made a request for Bill to be sent to Committee. And then Rijiju makes several unsubstantiated claims: 1. It's not a major amendment Bill - amendments to exclude self-identification are not major? 2. Extensive debate have already happened on Bill - When? The Bill was never placed in public domain as Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy 2014 mandates. Where has this debate happened? Who participated in it? 3. The amendment has come after a year long debate in Standing Committee - When? Which Committee? In the last 1 year, the Standing Committee on Social Justice & Empowerment has not produced any specific report on any topic related to #Transgender persons. Even the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Bill doesn't mention any recommendation from a Standing Committee report. 4. We are not going against any community - why are people from trans community protesting the Bill then? So, if the Bill is very good, very important, for the welfare of people from Transgender community, then why is the Govt not willing to send the Bill to a Committee? Rijiju keeps saying - Bill has to be passed today, let's not delay. An MP can be heard in the background asking - "itni jaldi kya hai"? Indeed, why the rush? Why does Govt keep taking short cuts for law making and avoid public consultations?

It must come on record that despite widespread protests & repeated demand from Opposition to send #TransgenderBill to a #Parliament Committee, Govt insisted on pushing it through by making unsubstantiated claims! See video👇 First, it's rare that debate on one Bill is stopped to take up another Bill. The debate on #Finance Bill was going on and Transgender Bill was listed AFTER it, but Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju asked for the Transgender Bill to be taken up & 'passed' today and for Finance Minister to reply to debate on Finance Bill tomorrow. It is only when a Minister is not available to respond to debate on a Bill, that it is postponed, but Finance Minister is sitting right there! What is the rush to pass #TransBill in #LokSabha today itself? Second, as Rijiju seeks sense of the House, several MPs from the Opposition, in fact, oppose and categorically demand that Bill be sent to a Select Committee to consult with stakeholders from Trans community. They even say that they raised this demand in Business Advisory Committee meeting as well and Rijiju concedes to this. Rijiju himself says that Congress, SP, AITC and NCP(SP) made a request for Bill to be sent to Committee. And then Rijiju makes several unsubstantiated claims: 1. It's not a major amendment Bill - amendments to exclude self-identification are not major? 2. Extensive debate have already happened on Bill - When? The Bill was never placed in public domain as Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy 2014 mandates. Where has this debate happened? Who participated in it? 3. The amendment has come after a year long debate in Standing Committee - When? Which Committee? In the last 1 year, the Standing Committee on Social Justice & Empowerment has not produced any specific report on any topic related to #Transgender persons. Even the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Bill doesn't mention any recommendation from a Standing Committee report. 4. We are not going against any community - why are people from trans community protesting the Bill then? So, if the Bill is very good, very important, for the welfare of people from Transgender community, then why is the Govt not willing to send the Bill to a Committee? Rijiju keeps saying - Bill has to be passed today, let's not delay. An MP can be heard in the background asking - "itni jaldi kya hai"? Indeed, why the rush? Why does Govt keep taking short cuts for law making and avoid public consultations?

Maadhyam

31,352 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten