正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

The further exchanges between Attorney Kapunan and Attorney Ferrer only make the earlier confrontation more revealing. What initially appeared to be a disagreement over documentary evidence increasingly exposes what can only be described as a questionable approach by the defense. Instead of working with the prosecution to identify and... utilise common documents, the defense is determined to argue over the most superficial aspect of the evidence—the covering page— rather than deal with the substance contained in the documents themselves. And this raises an obvious question: if these are the defense’s own documents, why are they seemingly so reluctant to agree to their use? The prosecution’s position appears simple: use the same documents, stipulate where possible, avoid needless duplication and move the trial forward. Kapunan even indicated that the prosecution was prepared to use the defense’s own documents simply to break the impasse. Yet the defence continues to resist. That is where the conduct becomes curious. Is there something in those documents the defense does not want examined? Are they attempting to avoid having the documents formally admitted because their contents may become more damaging once stripped of procedural distractions? Or is this simply another delaying tactic designed to prolong a trial that should be dealing with the substance of the allegations? Are they defending the case— or defending the delay? In litigation, when the evidence is favourable, you normally want it before the court. When the evidence is not favourable, you find reasons to keep talking about everything except the evidence. And that, ultimately, is what makes this exchange so telling.show more

The King

4,061 subscribers

24,697 次观看 • 11 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

'WE DON’T EVEN NEED TO COMPARE THE EXHIBITS' Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer told the impeachment court that there is no need for the prosecution and defense to compare the exhibits to expedite the proceedings. Ferrer argued that the authenticity of the acknowledgment receipts is ultimately for the court to determine after the prosecution submits its offer of evidence. She also said the defense could not stipulate on the competence of a witness to identify the exhibits, noting that the witness had assumed the work of another individual and that the extent of her examination of the documents was unknown. Ferrer said the defense would not object to the prosecution’s use of Rule 130, Section 7, including the presentation of a summary of documents, subject to cross-examination. #ImpeachmentWatch #VPSaraOnTrial #BNCImpeachmentCoverage WATCH LIVE HERE:

'WE DON’T EVEN NEED TO COMPARE THE EXHIBITS' Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer told the impeachment court that there is no need for the prosecution and defense to compare the exhibits to expedite the proceedings. Ferrer argued that the authenticity of the acknowledgment receipts is ultimately for the court to determine after the prosecution submits its offer of evidence. She also said the defense could not stipulate on the competence of a witness to identify the exhibits, noting that the witness had assumed the work of another individual and that the extent of her examination of the documents was unknown. Ferrer said the defense would not object to the prosecution’s use of Rule 130, Section 7, including the presentation of a summary of documents, subject to cross-examination. #ImpeachmentWatch #VPSaraOnTrial #BNCImpeachmentCoverage WATCH LIVE HERE:

Bilyonaryo News Channel

45,715 次观看 • 16 天前

And this is where Candace loses: If the defense could adduce evidence of fabricated documents, conspiracy, fake messages… they would not do it at the preliminary hearing for probable cause, but would wait until the trial? That the defense was precluded from adducing such evidence at the preliminary hearing? Absolute nonsense. True, it is not the trial. But there is no realm of the universe in which the defense would not attempt to adduce evidence - to the extent that you could, either through cross or direct - of fabricated / falsified text messages, manufactured documents and/or conspiracy to frame. They were not prevented from doing so at the preliminary hearing. They simply did not present anything to suggest the messages were fabricated, that a bullet did not kill Charlie, and other elements that, if remotely demonstratable, would easily be an obstacle for even the lower threshold of probable cause. And that is exactly why they could not deny them in their latest filing.

And this is where Candace loses: If the defense could adduce evidence of fabricated documents, conspiracy, fake messages… they would not do it at the preliminary hearing for probable cause, but would wait until the trial? That the defense was precluded from adducing such evidence at the preliminary hearing? Absolute nonsense. True, it is not the trial. But there is no realm of the universe in which the defense would not attempt to adduce evidence - to the extent that you could, either through cross or direct - of fabricated / falsified text messages, manufactured documents and/or conspiracy to frame. They were not prevented from doing so at the preliminary hearing. They simply did not present anything to suggest the messages were fabricated, that a bullet did not kill Charlie, and other elements that, if remotely demonstratable, would easily be an obstacle for even the lower threshold of probable cause. And that is exactly why they could not deny them in their latest filing.

Viva Frei

60,350 次观看 • 12 天前

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.”

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 次观看 • 10 个月前

Today I questioned the Solicitor General about the Attorney General’s role in the collapse of the China spy prosecution. Throughout this saga there have been conflicting accounts about who did what, and why decisions were taken. The rules are clear, the Attorney General must be consulted on politically sensitive matters. That doesn’t compromise their independence, it ensures they are informed at the time. We understand from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Attorney General must have been told there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. If that’s the case, the Attorney General’s duty was to warn the Government that unless they provided more evidence, the case would collapse. So my question: Did the Attorney General say to the Government, “You are not providing enough evidence to secure a prosecution. It is over to you to do as you have been asked by the DPP”? We deserve to know whether that warning was given, and if it was given, why it was ignored.

Today I questioned the Solicitor General about the Attorney General’s role in the collapse of the China spy prosecution. Throughout this saga there have been conflicting accounts about who did what, and why decisions were taken. The rules are clear, the Attorney General must be consulted on politically sensitive matters. That doesn’t compromise their independence, it ensures they are informed at the time. We understand from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Attorney General must have been told there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. If that’s the case, the Attorney General’s duty was to warn the Government that unless they provided more evidence, the case would collapse. So my question: Did the Attorney General say to the Government, “You are not providing enough evidence to secure a prosecution. It is over to you to do as you have been asked by the DPP”? We deserve to know whether that warning was given, and if it was given, why it was ignored.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

26,897 次观看 • 10 个月前

Q: Is the Trump Justice Department complying with your law? Rep. Khanna: No, they're not. By their own admission, there are millions of documents that they have not released. These documents include the witnesses' own statements to the FBI where they named the rich and powerful men who abused them. That's what people want to see.

Q: Is the Trump Justice Department complying with your law? Rep. Khanna: No, they're not. By their own admission, there are millions of documents that they have not released. These documents include the witnesses' own statements to the FBI where they named the rich and powerful men who abused them. That's what people want to see.

The Lincoln Project

75,017 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨BREAKING: Read the Official Court Filing in the Tyler Robinson Case—Just Released😳 The establishment is trying to bury the details of the newest court filing in the Tyler Robinson case, but the actual documents prove the entire official narrative is collapsing in real-time. The state does not have an open-and-shut case. They have a massive, compromised mess, and they are scrambling. Here is exactly what the defense's new motion reveals: The prosecution's entire timeline relies on the rifle found at the scene. But the filing officially confirms that the ATF’s firearm analysis on the bullet recovered during the autopsy was "inconclusive." They cannot forensically match the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk to the weapon they claim Tyler Robinson used. The defense is literally planning to use the state's own ATF ballistics report as exculpatory evidence to clear Tyler's name. They told the public this was a lone gunman. Yet, the FBI and ATF DNA reports indicate that multiple different DNA profiles (a DNA mixture) were found on the evidence, including the rifle. The crime scene was contaminated, the weapon was handled by multiple people, and the Feds are desperately trying to sort through the mess. How is the state responding to their lack of forensic evidence? By burying the defense. The filing reveals the prosecution just dumped 20,000 electronic audio files and written documents onto Tyler’s lawyers. It is a classic stall tactic. Because the Feds' testing is so convoluted and full of mixed DNA, the defense is demanding a 6-month delay so they can bring in independent forensic biologists, genetic systems engineers, and statisticians to verify if the FBI and ATF even applied correct scientific procedures. Tyler Robinson is a scapegoat, and the physical evidence proves it. 🇺🇸⚓️

🚨BREAKING: Read the Official Court Filing in the Tyler Robinson Case—Just Released😳 The establishment is trying to bury the details of the newest court filing in the Tyler Robinson case, but the actual documents prove the entire official narrative is collapsing in real-time. The state does not have an open-and-shut case. They have a massive, compromised mess, and they are scrambling. Here is exactly what the defense's new motion reveals: The prosecution's entire timeline relies on the rifle found at the scene. But the filing officially confirms that the ATF’s firearm analysis on the bullet recovered during the autopsy was "inconclusive." They cannot forensically match the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk to the weapon they claim Tyler Robinson used. The defense is literally planning to use the state's own ATF ballistics report as exculpatory evidence to clear Tyler's name. They told the public this was a lone gunman. Yet, the FBI and ATF DNA reports indicate that multiple different DNA profiles (a DNA mixture) were found on the evidence, including the rifle. The crime scene was contaminated, the weapon was handled by multiple people, and the Feds are desperately trying to sort through the mess. How is the state responding to their lack of forensic evidence? By burying the defense. The filing reveals the prosecution just dumped 20,000 electronic audio files and written documents onto Tyler’s lawyers. It is a classic stall tactic. Because the Feds' testing is so convoluted and full of mixed DNA, the defense is demanding a 6-month delay so they can bring in independent forensic biologists, genetic systems engineers, and statisticians to verify if the FBI and ATF even applied correct scientific procedures. Tyler Robinson is a scapegoat, and the physical evidence proves it. 🇺🇸⚓️

Project Constitution

67,807 次观看 • 4 个月前

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton tells me official FBI documents reveal that Thomas Matthew Crooks got into a confrontation with Trump supporters right before he tried to assassinate the President: "He climbs up on the roof [after that] and evidently, there was no security anywhere that paid attention to that or noticed it. There's some evidence that there was talk of a potential bomb device attached to a car linked to him. I don't know the detail of that. This is the sort of thing that's like, well, tell us. Give us the documents. And the documents are what they are. If we're misinterpreting them because of something you hid from us, unhide it and we'll fix the record, which is what we're trying to do."

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton tells me official FBI documents reveal that Thomas Matthew Crooks got into a confrontation with Trump supporters right before he tried to assassinate the President: "He climbs up on the roof [after that] and evidently, there was no security anywhere that paid attention to that or noticed it. There's some evidence that there was talk of a potential bomb device attached to a car linked to him. I don't know the detail of that. This is the sort of thing that's like, well, tell us. Give us the documents. And the documents are what they are. If we're misinterpreting them because of something you hid from us, unhide it and we'll fix the record, which is what we're trying to do."

Glenn Beck

153,433 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨 TRIAL UPDATE: The biggest battle today wasn't about whether the judge would hear Lance Twiggs' testimony. The judge is going to review it either way. The fight was over whether the public should be allowed to hear it too. The defense argued that releasing parts of the interview could affect Tyler Robinson's right to a fair trial, while the prosecution pushed to make more of the evidence public. From my perspective inside the courtroom, much of the day was spent on repeated objections and procedural arguments, which meant very little new evidence was presented publicly. Even so, the evidence the judge is reviewing still appears to be pointing toward a finding of probable cause. I'll keep covering what actually happens in court so people can follow the evidence instead of the rumors.

🚨 TRIAL UPDATE: The biggest battle today wasn't about whether the judge would hear Lance Twiggs' testimony. The judge is going to review it either way. The fight was over whether the public should be allowed to hear it too. The defense argued that releasing parts of the interview could affect Tyler Robinson's right to a fair trial, while the prosecution pushed to make more of the evidence public. From my perspective inside the courtroom, much of the day was spent on repeated objections and procedural arguments, which meant very little new evidence was presented publicly. Even so, the evidence the judge is reviewing still appears to be pointing toward a finding of probable cause. I'll keep covering what actually happens in court so people can follow the evidence instead of the rumors.

Brandon Tatum

49,160 次观看 • 1 个月前

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein

The DarkHorse Podcast

696,713 次观看 • 2 个月前

The TGA are so arrogant with their lies. Watch as the TGA squirm over the lack of testing they did in regard to the Covid vaccine. The idea, as one of the staff says, that there is a large body of evidence proving the vaccines are safe is wrong. There is next to no evidence the jabs are safe or effective. It now appears that there is a risk that the vaccine might enter the nucleus as well. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. #auspol

The TGA are so arrogant with their lies. Watch as the TGA squirm over the lack of testing they did in regard to the Covid vaccine. The idea, as one of the staff says, that there is a large body of evidence proving the vaccines are safe is wrong. There is next to no evidence the jabs are safe or effective. It now appears that there is a risk that the vaccine might enter the nucleus as well. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. #auspol

Gerard Rennick

71,234 次观看 • 1 年前

The Behavioural Economics Team (BETA) embedded in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet stated their role is to ensure that they are “improving the lives of Australians with evidence-based policy development and program delivery.” But what does that mean and how was it used during the COVID period? You can read the documents here:

The Behavioural Economics Team (BETA) embedded in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet stated their role is to ensure that they are “improving the lives of Australians with evidence-based policy development and program delivery.” But what does that mean and how was it used during the COVID period? You can read the documents here:

Senator Alex Antic

12,193 次观看 • 4 个月前

It's been almost three years since August of 2022, but I don't think anyone realizes what David Yannetti accomplished with the Karen Read defense. Yes, Alan, Aidan, Eliza Little, the Boston DOJ and others put in work, but do not forget that real power moves in humble silence. TRANSCRIPT: **David Yannetti:** Today was my client's first appearance after her Superior Court arraignment. And as you would expect, we are now starting the discovery process in Superior Court. The history of this case was such that while the case was pending for months in the district court, we had a lot of difficulty getting cooperation from the prosecution in turning over the information that they had. We had more than one court date where there was a big fight in court where we were pushing to get the information that we needed. And [the prosecution team] were essentially giving us the stiff arm in district court. Now that the case has been indicted, I'm pleased to say that the spigot has started to open up a little bit. We got some further material today, which we are going to review, cross-reference against what we have. And I think the theme for the day, really the theme for the past several months, is that with each new piece of evidence that comes in, we're more and more convinced of my client's innocence. Each new piece of evidence appears to corroborate that, and we're doggedly investigating this case to exonerate her, which we're confident she will be if this case ever goes to trial. **Court TV Interviewer:** What do you say if? What could stop it at this point? **David Yannetti:** The only thing that could stop this case from going to trial is if the prosecution becomes convinced of my client's innocence as we are. So, you know, if the question was, "Will there be a plea deal in this case?" That's off the table. I have an innocent client who looks forward to going to trial on this case, but I believe there may come a point where the prosecution sees the evidence that we have, and maybe they realize that they were wrong from the start. **Court TV Interviewer:** What can you tell us about what you have, the picture, the starting time, the image of what you're gathering? **David Yannetti:** So, I'm not prepared to reveal the evidence in our possession, mainly because we're using that evidence as a springboard to get further evidence. And, you know, before I begin revealing, you know, material of that nature, I need to complete my investigation. So, there's not, you know, a rush to reveal our defense. We're preparing our defense, but the truth will come out in time.

It's been almost three years since August of 2022, but I don't think anyone realizes what David Yannetti accomplished with the Karen Read defense. Yes, Alan, Aidan, Eliza Little, the Boston DOJ and others put in work, but do not forget that real power moves in humble silence. TRANSCRIPT: David Yannetti: Today was my client's first appearance after her Superior Court arraignment. And as you would expect, we are now starting the discovery process in Superior Court. The history of this case was such that while the case was pending for months in the district court, we had a lot of difficulty getting cooperation from the prosecution in turning over the information that they had. We had more than one court date where there was a big fight in court where we were pushing to get the information that we needed. And [the prosecution team] were essentially giving us the stiff arm in district court. Now that the case has been indicted, I'm pleased to say that the spigot has started to open up a little bit. We got some further material today, which we are going to review, cross-reference against what we have. And I think the theme for the day, really the theme for the past several months, is that with each new piece of evidence that comes in, we're more and more convinced of my client's innocence. Each new piece of evidence appears to corroborate that, and we're doggedly investigating this case to exonerate her, which we're confident she will be if this case ever goes to trial. Court TV Interviewer: What do you say if? What could stop it at this point? David Yannetti: The only thing that could stop this case from going to trial is if the prosecution becomes convinced of my client's innocence as we are. So, you know, if the question was, "Will there be a plea deal in this case?" That's off the table. I have an innocent client who looks forward to going to trial on this case, but I believe there may come a point where the prosecution sees the evidence that we have, and maybe they realize that they were wrong from the start. Court TV Interviewer: What can you tell us about what you have, the picture, the starting time, the image of what you're gathering? David Yannetti: So, I'm not prepared to reveal the evidence in our possession, mainly because we're using that evidence as a springboard to get further evidence. And, you know, before I begin revealing, you know, material of that nature, I need to complete my investigation. So, there's not, you know, a rush to reveal our defense. We're preparing our defense, but the truth will come out in time.

Grant Smith Ellis

31,789 次观看 • 8 个月前

Kash Patel says the U.S. government still doesn’t have the full picture on the Jeffrey Epstein case because most of the evidence is controlled by the Epstein estate, which is refusing to turn it over. Patel says they are coordinating with their DOJ partners to release only what qualifies as “lawfully legal documents.” He adds that they will work to keep redactions to a minimum while protecting victims.

Kash Patel says the U.S. government still doesn’t have the full picture on the Jeffrey Epstein case because most of the evidence is controlled by the Epstein estate, which is refusing to turn it over. Patel says they are coordinating with their DOJ partners to release only what qualifies as “lawfully legal documents.” He adds that they will work to keep redactions to a minimum while protecting victims.

Shadow of Ezra

446,556 次观看 • 9 个月前

Welker: Why didn't the justice department meet that Friday deadline? Blanche: The statute requires us to protect victims, and so the reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply that, to protect victims. So the same individuals that are out there complaining about the lack of documents are the same individuals that don't want us to protect victims.

Welker: Why didn't the justice department meet that Friday deadline? Blanche: The statute requires us to protect victims, and so the reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply that, to protect victims. So the same individuals that are out there complaining about the lack of documents are the same individuals that don't want us to protect victims.

Acyn

281,719 次观看 • 8 个月前

A collection of documents where Ukraine is called Rus, the parliament of Ukraine is Rus'ka Rada, the territories of Ukraine are Rus'ka Zemlya, and there is a separate state of Muscovy with Muscovite citizenship on the territory of Russia. The documents also use the word katsap in relation to Russians. Ukrainian is spoken everywhere. And there is even a book that explains that Russians are not Rusyns, but Muscovites.

A collection of documents where Ukraine is called Rus, the parliament of Ukraine is Rus'ka Rada, the territories of Ukraine are Rus'ka Zemlya, and there is a separate state of Muscovy with Muscovite citizenship on the territory of Russia. The documents also use the word katsap in relation to Russians. Ukrainian is spoken everywhere. And there is even a book that explains that Russians are not Rusyns, but Muscovites.

Devana 🇺🇦

13,791 次观看 • 3 个月前

"It is the greatest crime against humanity in recorded history." Dr. Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer documents: "I wanted and wanted to believe for the longest time that it wasn't a depopulation agenda, but ultimately the evidence persuaded me, within the Pfizer documents, that that's exactly what it is." "In one section of the Pfizer documents, there's an over 80% spontaneous abortion or miscarriage rate." "They knew that it was damaging the hearts of minors." "Freedom of Information Act documents from the White House [show] a scramble, in April of 2021, to cover this up. But they just kept going that summer and into the next year, propagandising parents to vaccinate their minors, knowing they were injuring or killing them." Credit: Dr. Naomi Wolf. 8 NYT Bestsellers. DPhil, Poetry. Gezond Verstand Magazine

"It is the greatest crime against humanity in recorded history." Dr. Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer documents: "I wanted and wanted to believe for the longest time that it wasn't a depopulation agenda, but ultimately the evidence persuaded me, within the Pfizer documents, that that's exactly what it is." "In one section of the Pfizer documents, there's an over 80% spontaneous abortion or miscarriage rate." "They knew that it was damaging the hearts of minors." "Freedom of Information Act documents from the White House [show] a scramble, in April of 2021, to cover this up. But they just kept going that summer and into the next year, propagandising parents to vaccinate their minors, knowing they were injuring or killing them." Credit: Dr. Naomi Wolf. 8 NYT Bestsellers. DPhil, Poetry. Gezond Verstand Magazine

Wide Awake Media

471,955 次观看 • 1 年前